Not only does it work, it works very well.
« The Terrible Bulls | Main | Defense Spending »
Congestion Pricing: It Works
01 Dec 2007 12:04 pm
Comments (20)
The London congestion charge is not a congestion charge. It is an access charge. Stop repeating this incorrect terminology which implies it is a congestion charge. (It is akin to repeating the Bush lie that the illegal invasion of Iraq had something to do with "freedom".)
In the next ten years or so the UK government will introduce a national scheme which will be more (but not exactly) related to congestion.
And that glorious article you link to does not mention the cost of running this scheme. It is an extremely inefficient way of taxing people to drive, because the scheme costs so much to run. (Hopefully the UK-wide scheme will be more efficient, but don't count on it.) So it is not clear if the net "benefit" to the country is positive or negative. (One can imagine that Singapore does a better job of it because, well, Singapore is run by technocrats and England is run by management consultants.)
And I wouldn't trust any report "proving" its benefit is positive because these reports are all written by people who are pro-charge. Economists are well know to want to tax anything and everything. And transport planners in the UK mostly hate car drivers so are extremely biased in the matter.
(And do we really need an economist to tell us that if the cost of something goes up then the demand will go down. That's Economics 101.)
And has anyone bothered to ask all the drivers who switched to buses whether they think their lives are better or worse as a result of the switch? It would be interesting to know the answer to this because it is quite likely the answer is "worse", so the claim it is not a regressive tax rings rather hollow.
Note that taxi drivers don't pay towards the charge so this means rich businessmen rushing about the City do not pay a penny. And buses also do not pay any charge either, although a typical bus causes a lot more congestion than a typical car because it is much bigger and, more importantly, stops a lot.
If the government wants to implement a proper, cheap-to-collect, congestion tax then at least make it so that the tax is proportional to the congestion charged. Which means buses should pay (a lot), not just cars.
And it should be mentioned that since the government controls the supplies of road space, the government has every incentive to make congestion worse, so it can charge more for this tax. Although this sounds fanciful, in fact many people believe that the mayor of London purposefully made congestion worse in London before introducing the tax, so as to soften people up for it.
And in Cambridge, where we are about to get a similar scheme, the city has definitely purposefully made congestion worse the last few years in quite a few ways (closing roads down, closing lanes down, etc.). Then we get the crocodile tears about how bad congestion is, so as to justify the need to "do something" about it.
There is a mechanism already in place that would be better used than imposing a congestion (or "access") charge, with its incumbent costs and bureaucracy: municipal parking rates.
Prof. Donald Shoup's book, The High Cost of Free Parking, rather convincingly demonstrates that municipal (ie. curbside) parking is vastly underpriced, and constitutes a huge, destructive, and undeserved subsidy for drivers.
Think about it this way: I live in Toronto, where you can park curbside for $1.50/hr [N.B. with the new parity of the Canadian dollar, there's no need to do conversion anymore - and no more Northern Peso jokes...]. An off-street lot typically costs $5-20. Little wonder, then, that drivers spend considerable time circling looking for curbside parking; after all, it's cheaper and more convenient. In other words, it's underpriced. For the convenience of parking curbside, drivers should be paying much *more*, not much less. As a result, Prof. Shoup hypothesizes that up to 1/3 of congestion in downtown cores is created simply by cars circling looking for convenient and cheap curbside parking.
If municipal parking rates were raised to reflect their true value - and true economic and social costs - (for instance, instead of $1.50/hr, they were $10/hr), most drivers would do one of 2 things. Either they'd head straight to an off-street lot, or they'd opt for public transit. Either option eliminates the circling that is a major contribution to downtown congestion. [as an aside, from other recent related discussions, it is little secret I favour tools that discourage driving and encourage transit; a higher gas tax is one way to change behaviour. But, in addition, parking should be appropriately costed so as to eliminate the subsidy to drivers - which is another effective way to alter the driving culture]
In short, the mechanism to achieve the same result that congestion tolls strive for, is already in place. Dramatically increasing municipal parking rates would accomplish several goals: among other things, it would reflect its true economic and social cost, and it would cut down on congestion. Since the infrastructure is already in place, it's obviously much easier to simply raise parking rates than to impose a whole new charge.
And buses also do not pay any charge either, although a typical bus causes a lot more congestion than a typical car because it is much bigger and, more importantly, stops a lot.
The right comparison would be with the the 20-plus cars that would be on the road if all of the bus riders drove instead, not with "a typical car".
a typical bus causes a lot more congestion than a typical car...
Except, of course, one bus removes at least what, twenty cars from the road? So net congestion is less.
Woah, kth, that's spooky.
And buses also do not pay any charge either, although a typical bus causes a lot more congestion than a typical car because it is much bigger and, more importantly, stops a lot.
This is one of the more silly, or at least thoughtless, comments I've read in a while.
I suppose one bus may well cause more congestion than one car. But that should hardly be the measuring stick, since one bus takes the place of many cars. The appropriate comparison isn't a bus vs. a car, but a bus vs. the 30+ cars that the bus eliminates.
For a visual, check out this photo:
http://maubrowncow.com/index.php/2007/11/04/same-number-of-commuters-different-methods/
I think that brings the point home rather nicely.
Re: I live in Toronto, where you can park curbside for $1.50/hr
The problem is parking meters on curbisde parking. Even with Canadian dollar and two dollar coins it's impractical to charge $10 or $5 an hour at meter. Most people do not carry that many coins and the parking meter would soon fill up if they did. Lots and garages by contrast are attended and the attedants take bills and make change. And higher tech meters that accept credit cards wiould cost vastly more (they'd have to behave electric and data connections) and become a favorite tool of card theives much as gas stations are now. Moreover I think there's a case tyo bemade for cheap curbside partking: if you limit it to just one hour that means the parking is limited to people who just need to make a quick stop at a local business, not leave their car there all day whiel they are at work. Charging a person $10 to park for a fifteen minute stop is, I think, a form of price gouging.
yeah, i won't claim pwnage since the posts were practically simultaneous. I'm not sure I'm understanding McKingford: is he arguing that the status quo (pre-congestion tax) is the right way to manage the scarce supply of London roadways? Or does he simply want England to build as many roads as it takes so that motorists are inconveninced as little as possible by congestion?
Whoa - sorry kth and Matt S; I guess we are on the same wavelength, though.
I should also point out that the photo I linked to underemphasizes the congestion caused by cars, since it shows them parked closely together. When actually moving, of course, the buffer space required between cars means they take up much more space than the picture shows.
sorry, above not addressed at McKingford, actually, but to the other long post, by wab.
The London experiment was also accompanied by a good supply of alternative public transportation so that drivers had a reasonable alternative to paying the congestion charge.
But in the US I see all kinds of talk about how well it worked without any reference to the alternatives provided drivers.
If you were to impose congestion charges in D.C. what alternatives would drivers have to paying the charge -- at least D.C. does have a working subway system that makes it better then most other US cities?
JonF:
My point of reference is Toronto; I can't comment on most other cities. But Toronto has collective pay and display meters (solar powered!), rather than individual meters, and these meters already accommodate credit card payments. I would guess that most drivers in TO pay by credit card rather than coins. This being the case, changing the pricing is a sinch. So, at least for Toronto, raising parking rates is much easier and more desirable than imposing a congestion toll to accomplish the same thing.
As for your justification for cheap parking, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The problem with your scenario (ie. time limiting curbside parking) is several fold. It encourages (and indeed, subsidizes) driving over other means of transport. It also *causes* congestion, since it encourages the very circling that is a major factor in downtown traffic. In fact, I didn't point this out in my original post, but Prof. Shoup (who, btw, basis his hypotheses on actual study) demonstrates that in addition to circling, the very act of parking and unparking causes congestion, since all cars have to slow to allow a driver to parallel park or manoeuver back into traffic. Since your scenario would actually encourage turnover, there would be even slower traffic than if cars were parked for longer.
Speaking from my own experience as an example, I live an 18 minute walk to my office. It takes about 4-5 minutes to drive. But I realized that with the time it takes me to find a parking spot, I'm better off walking.
I also think your comment about price gouging reflects how underappreciated the subsidy for parking actually is. I know many off-street lots in downtown TO that charge a minimum $10 fee, regardless of how long you park. Since an off-street lot (which is also, ahem, private - or market priced) is generally less convenient than curbside parking, why should it be more expensive than curbside parking? I don't think it should be, and to the extent it is, it means that the city is undercharging for a valuable and desired service. Indeed, if parking were priced to reflect its actual costs (I say it is underpriced both economically and socially), people might have different thoughts about the benefits of driving.
spencer, the DC Metro transit system is the second-most-used in the country, after New York's. Unlike New York, it's not a double-track system, but it's one of the few places in the country that could credibly try such a thing.
The London experiment was also accompanied by a good supply of alternative public transportation so that drivers had a reasonable alternative to paying the congestion charge.
I really wouldn't call it "good", it's expensive (£90 a month for central London and up to £250 if you live on the outskirts) overcrowded and plagued by daily disruptions. And if you happen to miss the last tube (between 11.15 and 12.45) you're stuck with a night bus, which can take up to two and a half hours or a taxi, which can cost up to £70 if you're going all the way from east to west.
This is a regressive tax that commoditizes and places for sale a public good. It'd ideologically odious. It appears to work in reducing congestion, for those who can afford to pay it-- but does it make things better when one includes the wellbeing whom it drives off the road?
I'm going to need more data before I'm convinced of its desirability.
Note, also, that London does have a world-class public transportation system (for all its shortcomings-- particularly at night, as novakant mentions), which makes this more viable than it would be in most places in the US.
Re: It encourages (and indeed, subsidizes) driving over other means of transport. It also *causes* congestion, since it encourages the very circling that is a major factor in downtown traffic.
But I see your suggestion as causing traffic congestion and, worse, contributing to sprawl. If it's not practical or economical to shop or dine in the city people will be more likely to drive out to strip malls and box stores on the edge of town. How is that an improvement? And if you live in Toronto then I'm sure you'll agree that your weather is not conducive to long distance walking or biking year round. Nor can you tranpsort significant cargo that way (or by bus or tram either). Face it: there's a need for people to drive in cities. I agree we should limit that as much as possible and certainly we should provide a public transportation alternative for people commuting for work, and create incentives (like pricey day lots) for them to use it. But that doesn't mean you should penalize everyone. By the way how would you accommodate tourists visiting your city (something I did often when I lived up north)? When I used to visit I found a reasonably priced long term lot and left my car there for the whole visit, using the subway as needed, or walking (which was feasible since I spent most of my time doing stuff in "Boy's Town" on Church St). I don't think you want to chase away the tourists either. Maybe a modestly priced lot out by the airport with train service into town? I used an alternative like that when I visited NYC.
Also I think your 18 minute walk to work is just about the ideal walking distance and if I had that for a walk to work I would never drive unless the weather were truly horrendous, or I was ill, or I had to take major cargo with me. That's just about the right "barrier time" for making the daily work-life transition, and walking home provides a good way to burn off stress from the workday too. Alas, most of us are not so lucky.
(And do we really need an economist to tell us that if the cost of something goes up then the demand will go down. That's Economics 101.)
So, Oil is Economics 100?
If you were to impose congestion charges in D.C. what alternatives would drivers have to paying the charge -- at least D.C. does have a working subway system that makes it better then most other US cities?
If congestion pricing is imposed on metro areas without subways or robust public transportation networks, I reckon the three main possibilities are:
1) Carpooling.
2) Telecommuting.
3) Electing people who pledge to push for serious increases in spending on public transport infrastructure.
JonF,
It is simply not the case that people need to drive in cities - and it can be increasingly easy if we start building and planning properly, as well as improving transit.
You say that my plan will contribute to sprawl, etc. But remember the context of the topic of discussion. It was congestion tolls. My point is that *if* you are considering congestion tolls, then the simple way to do it is by increasing the price of parking. So you have to compare my proposal against congestion levies, not nothing.
Comments closed December 15, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
It is however important when copying foreign innovations not to remove the little safety widgets you don't quite see the point of. Example to avoid: California's copy of Maggie Thatcher's successful and now uncontroversial electricity privatisation.
PS; on road congestion charges, Singapore got there first.
Posted by James Wimberley | December 1, 2007 12:51 PM