London Congestion

Congestion pricing is working out great in London. Let me add my voice to the chorus pointing out that distributive concerns are a canard in this context. At the moment, the only jurisdictions contemplating congestion pricing are those that already feature fairly extensive public transit networks. In places like that, lower-income people are disproportionate users of public transit. Measures that tax drivers and use the funds to boost transit service help folks at the bottom.

One might note that congestion pricing is also good for people who really really like to drive. It's not, after all, just a fee in exchange for which drivers get nothing. Rather, the fee is the price you pay for less crowded roads. To some people, that'll be a price that's not worth paying and they won't drive (hence the reduced crowding) but to others it'll be a price that is worth paying and those people should be understood as beneficiaries of the policy, even though they're literally the ones paying the price.

Comments

Measures that tax drivers and use the funds to boost transit service help folks at the bottom.

I don't see this as a priori true. You have more tax money for transit but more users, and there's no guarantee the two will balance, let alone result in a net benefit for those using transit. In fact, the more people that are driven to use transit the less the benefit, as there are fewer congestion taxpayers and more transit users.

If D is the number of current drivers, Dt the number of drivers who switch to transit at tax rate T, P the number of current transit users, and B the current transit budget, those at the bottom only come out better off if:

((D-Dt)T + B)/(P + Dt) > B/P

Posted by Scott P. | April 12, 2008 10:32 AM

Actually, I've sometimes thought a slightly related innovation would have a huge positive impact on our freeway contestion, especially in the Western States.

The nature of freeway congestion is that probably something like a 15-20% reduction in rush hour traffic would allow a 50-100% increase in speed, saving a gigantic amount of wasted time, gasoline, etc.

A major contributing factor to rush hour traffic is having people get on the freeway to drive very short distances, say 2-5 miles, thereby harming those using the freeways as intended, namely for driving 5-40 miles. If most of those short-trippers used surface streets instead, everyone else would greatly benefit, and they really would lose much time.

Therefore, if we just turned all our freeways into toll-roads, but with only one-price unlimited-distance "entrance fees" of (say) $1, this would only deter the short-trippers who shouldn't be using the freeways in the first place, while benefiting the long-tripers, who'd pay just $1 to save (maybe) 30 minutes of commute-time.

And if the toll-booths or whatever were just located on the on-ramps---where traffic is anyway at a restricted crawl during rush-hour---there wouldn't be any wasted time paying those tolls. And toll-collecting would provide huge numbers of additional (productive) working-class jobs, and maybe even generate a little net cash for the government.

Almost everyone wins, almost nobody loses. What's the catch?

Posted by RKU | April 12, 2008 10:33 AM

Measures that tax drivers and use the funds to boost transit service help folks at the bottom.

I don't see this as a priori true. You have more tax money for transit but more users, and there's no guarantee the two will balance, let alone result in a net benefit for those using transit. In fact, the more people that are driven to use transit the less the benefit, as there are fewer congestion taxpayers and more transit users.

If D is the number of current drivers, Dt the number of drivers who switch to transit at tax rate T, P the number of current transit users, and B the current transit budget, those at the bottom only come out better off if:

((D-Dt)T + B)/(P + Dt) > B/P

Posted by Scott P. | April 12, 2008 10:34 AM

The Westpark tollway in Houston experimented with congestion pricing but had to stop because of a public outcry. In this case, there really was no alternative for most drivers--there is neither a freeway that goes to the same spot nor is there public transportation for the entire route.

The current Katy freeway expansion plan includes a novel addition--a HOV/transit/toll lane in the middle of the freeway. The idea is that the toll-lane will be congestion priced. This seems OK because there are three obvious alternatives--you can carpool (high occupancy vehicles won't pay the toll), you can take the bus (which will use the same lane), or you can take the freeway lanes (and suffer through the traffic). Indeed, this may help convince Houstonians of the benefits of congestions pricing--as folks on the freeway sit in stop-and-go see the speeding traffic on the congestion-priced lanes right next to them, they may reflect on the benefits of congestion pricing.

Posted by RWB | April 12, 2008 10:38 AM

Let me add my voice to the chorus pointing out that distributive concerns are a canard in this context.

You need to come up with a better argument. This plan was struck down in NYC because it was wildly unpopular with low-income people.

Like everything not scaled, this is a regressive tax. It hurts poor people more than rich people. In a time of economic downturn, poor people can't afford to lose another $200 a month on transit.

You just assume that poor people *like* the trade of money for time. Frankly, as a poor person, I'd rather sit in traffic for cheap.

Posted by glasnost | April 12, 2008 10:39 AM

I believe I-394, which goes east/west to/from Minneapolis about 20 miles, has two lanes which reverse direction from morning to afternoon, for high occupancy vehicles, bus traffic, and those willing to pay a significant toll, collected via credit/debit and a small radio transmitter. I also think I heard something about such a design being built for the busiest freeway in that metropolitan area, I-35W, on the segment north/south to/from Minneapolis about 30 miles, so perhaps it has been considered a success.

Posted by Will Allen | April 12, 2008 10:50 AM

"Like everything not scaled, this is a regressive tax. It hurts poor people more than rich people."

This isn't a concern for trust fund scumbags like Matthew Yglesias with more (parental) money than time.

They think that middle and low income folks are just "bitter", and thus don't deserve universal healthcare or automobile access to the parts of town where the trust fund scumbags live.

Posted by Petey | April 12, 2008 10:56 AM

COngestion pricing is great because it deters poor people from using their cars. They can take public transportation, and, as an added bonus, if they have to carry stuff, it'll strengthen their muscles. Rich people, on the other hand, will suffer the ignomy of having to put heavy merchandise in the trunk of their cars.

Also, for poor people with kids, what could be better than having a two or three year old riding with you on public transportation? It's much safer and cleaner than being in an automobile.

Kudos to Matt for sticking up for the lower class!

Posted by Quiddity | April 12, 2008 11:01 AM

"Like everything not scaled, this is a regressive tax. It hurts poor people more than rich people."

I believe Matthew's position is that the folks from Queens and Brooklyn who are opposed to congestion pricing are racists.

Posted by Petey | April 12, 2008 11:02 AM

You all should come sit out on Marylebone High Street some day and see all the high-priced supercars that now patrol the streets of London.

Then, when you buy your high-priced tube ticket to go home, you can wonder if it really is working as intended.

Posted by KathyF | April 12, 2008 11:13 AM

They think that middle and low income folks are just "bitter", and thus don't deserve universal healthcare or automobile access to the parts of town where the trust fund scumbags live

I like how everyone you don't like is automatically rich. As someone who lives in NYC, congestion pricing would undoubtedly make our lives better. 90% of people in NYC never drive. It's not worth the costs of gas and parking in the city. My set is under 40, and all make less than $50G. And none of us have cars. I work with disadvantaged people, who also don't have cars. Yet it takes 30-40 minutes to cross town (5 miles) on a bus. Why? because there aren't enough buses and there are too many cars. Congestion pricing would alleviate both problems by paying for more buses and limiting traffic. Not to mention this would only be in effect at limited times of day. This would also make it safer for those of us who ride bikes.

Posted by Andrew | April 12, 2008 11:15 AM

Scott P: Your formula assumes that the benefit of transit is proportional to the amount of money spent per person. That's not necessarily true. If I'm on a bus line which runs every 30 minutes with buses about half full, and the ridership triples while they double the bus frequency, now the buses are running every 15 minutes and the buses are 3/4 full.

The bus line only has to spend twice as much (or even less, if there are fixed costs) but is carrying 3 times the people. Since it doesn't really matter how full the bus is until it gets too full to sit, the increased frequency benefits everyone on the line greatly with only minimal inconvenience, but the spending per rider has actually gone down.

On other words, economies of scale.

Of course, not all lines have excess capacity, but it's more likely that they do in the car-oriented areas where CP would drive more people not to drive.

glasnost: CP was not necessarily unpopular with low-income people. Polls showed that about 60% of people opposed the plan, but when told that the money would go toward transit improvements (it would), then about 60% supported it. In other words, we know that the apparent opposition was largely based on misinformation and a failure of pro-pricing forces to educate the public.

In Queens, the least transit-oriented borough, only about 5% of commuters drive into Manhattan for work, and those that do are much wealthier than those that don't. Funding the MTA's capital plan including BRT for Eastern Queens and other improvements would have helped the other 95%.

Posted by David Alpert | April 12, 2008 11:16 AM

The complaints about tolls and congestion pricing I hear always tend to come from upper-income people who haven't ridden a bus in 30 years or are unable to put 2+2 together regarding the possibility of parking above the congestion zone and walking or taking the subway to their final destination.

Yes, there might be some situations where paying a congestion fee is unavoidable, but that can be accounted for by simply not paying it in all the situations where you can find a way to do so, until that last possible situation where you can't avoid it, and even then, where it's unavoidable it could be passed on to the client using the services of the person who has to pay the fee. Which is precisely the point.

But the rehabilitation of Robert Moses into a progressive hero here in the comment section with his mass building of traffic-clogged but free highways through new york is truly hilarious to behold.

Posted by Tyro | April 12, 2008 11:19 AM

Petey!! Welcome back! I figured you were off the reservation for good when there was no crowing about the powder blues the other night.

Maybe you've noticed we now use "trust fund scumbags" as satire, and everyone knows what's going on. Not everyone can penetrate the cyber lexicon that way. Congrats.

Posted by nolaboyd | April 12, 2008 11:19 AM

"I like how everyone you don't like is automatically rich."

But Matthew really is "automatically" rich. That's what being a trust funder means.

You don't have to work for your money. You inherit it.

And then you tell the 50%+ of the Democratic electorate that is voting their interests by voting for Clinton and universal healthcare that they're racists. That's what turns a trust funder into a trust fund scumbag.

Posted by Petey | April 12, 2008 11:22 AM

Like everything not scaled, this is a regressive tax. It hurts poor people more than rich people.

'Like everything not scaled'? Oh, don't be daft. Come back and rail against the regressive tax of parking meters, cinema tickets and pints of milk.

Then, when you buy your high-priced tube ticket to go home, you can wonder if it really is working as intended.

And if you're not a tourist, KathyF, and still buying single tube tickets, you're a fool. The price structure is deliberately skewed.

(And Petey: you really have become a parody of a parody of a cunt.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 12, 2008 11:23 AM

One of the problems with Bloomberg's plan is how Manhattan-centric it felt in concept and execution. He failed to present congestion pricing as a serious policy issue but rather as something that was inherently "true" and "visionary" and "progressive" -- very Al Gore, very Novel Prize -- and then tried to ram it down the throats of outer-borough folks who believe that it would unduly penalize working people. This became even more evident when his Transportation commissioner was tapped to go to Albany to make the case to the state Assembly (which she did in a widely reported haughty display of hubris). En route to Albany she was pulled over for speeding, and using police sirens and lights to get there.

Needless to say, this kind of attitude didn't help the mayor, whatever one thinks about Albany's disfunction.

Regarding congestion pricing, I recently found myself caught in a debate between two NYC wonks: my wife, with extensive experience in city government, all of it Manhattan-based; and an old grad school friend of hers who now works for a Brooklyn economic development organization. My wife was zealously pro the mayor's plan while her friend was adamantly anti -- and the contrast between the two women's world views couldn't have been more stark. My wife comes from a background not unlike Matt Yglesias': upper-middle-class Jewish, academic family, best schools, etc., while her friend comes from a blue-collar Buffalo background. Despite being soundly thrashed in the argument, my wife simply couldn't fathom the concerns of a working-class, outer-borough constituency -- and I suspect something similar is going on with Matt's reflexive pro-congestion pricing position.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | April 12, 2008 11:25 AM

BryklynLibrul, it's generally my experience that the typical car-owner in NYC (and here I'm going by family-and-friends) is someone in the middle class who lives and works in an outer borough. Why is it that they're so hung up about congestion pricing, which would apply only to Manhattan below 80th Street and only during business hours, Mon-Fri?

The experience with your friend coming from Buffalo seems to tip me off to the dynamic, and it's never nice to harsh on the middle classes, who need "buy in" for these ideas to pass but here you go: for those outer-borough middle classes who resent the congestion pricing, it's because they see owning a car as a sign they've "made it" and their ability to drive wherever and whenever they want for "free" as their right, now that they can afford a place in an outer borough and a car. Being told they have to pay to drive into lower manhattan during business hours is a slap in the face, as if telling them that they haven't yet "earned" the right that their car ownership status was supposed to have bestowed and that people with more money than they can now afford something they they can't -- something that was supposed to be a "great equalizer" that they felt put them on the same level with those who had more money. Meanwhile, your wife has none of the class-issues surrounding car ownership and driving, and likely regards driving as a minor annoyance and regards congestion with an attitude of "who are these people who keep driving into my neighborhood and clogging up the streets when they could have taken the bus or subway?"

In short: there's a cultural disconnect between someone who comes from Buffalo or lives in an outer borough or a suburb and believes "cars = freedom to go where I want, when I want" and people for whom cars (even their own) are considered a minor annoyance that they'll avoid using if they can get away with it.

My family lives in NJ, and during the times that I visit NYC on a weekday, I generally go through the holland tunnel and find street parking downtown. I would have assumed that more people would support congestion pricing because they would want me to pay an additional fee and/or stay out of the congestion zone. Is no one interested supporting congestion pricing to spite people like me? I'm surprised.

Posted by Tyro | April 12, 2008 11:42 AM

Petey, have you always defined everything via a Hillary/Barack continuum, or is this a recent thing? Congestion pricing has little to do with either of them, yet you interject them as if it makes your point more salient.
no flame war here, but you automatically assume that the only people for this are trust-fund scumbags. I'm most likely a lot poorer than you. If you understood the entirety of proposal and if you really want to stand up for poor people, then you would obviously be for this. heck Even my Republican friends are for it.
It would only be in effect during certain hours and only lower than 60th st. So if you live in Queens or BK or even way uptown, guess what? They have stores there to drive to and shop at if you need to make a large purchase, and a lot of stores have free shipping in the city for large items anyway.

If you don't bring a car into Manhattan lower than 60th, this isn't a regressive tax, because it taxes something you don't do, and therefor you are not taxed. It's more like a tax on cigarettes if you don't smoke.
The benefit: better, cleaner, more frequent public trans., especially buses. Since it didn't pass, I'm looking forward to the Subway and bus fare increases next year, which really ARE regressive taxes, since, rich or poor, we all use the subway.

Posted by Andrew | April 12, 2008 11:45 AM

Tyro:

Just to clarify: my wonk friend from Buffalo friend supports congestion pricing for commuters but wants exemptions for services transportation, delivery trucks, and the like . . . congestion pricing, in her view, would seriously hurt small business and services that cater to working-class and middle-class people in the outer boroughs. The mayor's plan failed to take those economic concerns into account, largely because he's so focused on his legacy, much of which depends on his green initiatives, as well as his political future.

For the record, I strongly supported the plan, like my wife. I've found, though, in numerous conversations with NYC government types that they are often blind to the issues that confront folks vastly different in income and education level, even when presented with policy-rich arguments from serious people like my friend from Buffalo. But hey, that's the larger class disconnect Obama will face as he struggles to unite the party behind his candidacy.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | April 12, 2008 11:54 AM

Just to clarify: my wonk friend from Buffalo friend supports congestion pricing for commuters but wants exemptions for services transportation, delivery trucks, and the like . . . congestion pricing, in her view, would seriously hurt small business and services that cater to working-class and middle-class people in the outer boroughs.

Thanks for clarifying that. I assume your friend means small businesses and services in the outer boroughs that need to make deliveries to clients in Manhattan, right?

Posted by Tyro | April 12, 2008 11:58 AM

distributive concerns are a canard in this context. (...) In places like that, lower-income people are disproportionate users of public transit.

The problem is that public transport pricing, at least in London, isn't regressive: the further out you live, the more you pay and, generally speaking, the further out you live, the less money you have.

Also, KathyF is right about the Chelsea Tractors on Marylebone High and elsewhere.

Posted by novakant | April 12, 2008 12:01 PM

make that progressive

Posted by novakant | April 12, 2008 12:09 PM

What Mr. Yglesias refers to as congestion pricing is generally labeled road pricing in the transportation community. The only way such a system can be implemented is through the use of transponders on the cars. However, when a motorist mounts a transponder on his/her car, he/she is also allowing the government to track the movements of that vehicle. I personally don't particular care to have the government tracking my travels and thus far have refused to mount such a device which currently implements automatic toll collection bypass lanes on toll bridges.

Posted by SLC | April 12, 2008 12:11 PM

Is this snark?

The congestion charge has done nothing for congestion. And so now the Mayor is attempting to morph it into a green tax. Which is OK if you're upfront about what it is. Unfortunately this is just another stealth tax. And worse a tax aimed at the poor by a supposedly Labour Mayor.

Posted by Doug | April 12, 2008 12:11 PM

Tyro:

Yes, exactly. For all that Brooklyn holds its unique place in New York history and culture, it's incredibly dependent on Manhattan in some crucial, under-the radar ways.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | April 12, 2008 12:13 PM

You pay with time or you pay with money. At least paying with money generates a little revenue, and saves a few lives with lower pollution. This is an easy trade-off to make.

So, Sheldon Silver has blood on his hands.

Posted by chris | April 12, 2008 12:48 PM

pseudonymous: I didn't wish to go into the economics of Oyster cards (or travel cards), which are by no means cheap. Britain has the most expensive public transport in Europe, regardless of how you buy it.

Posted by KathyF | April 12, 2008 2:18 PM

The only way such a system can be implemented is through the use of transponders on the cars.

Really? Funny how that doesn't apply in London. (Of course, you'd be happy for subdermal transponders on dirty filthy Ay-rabs, but that's another matter.)

I didn't wish to go into the economics of Oyster cards (or travel cards), which are by no means cheap.

Point taken, though London's not a cheap city. And you can't discount the expansion of bus routes and simplification of maps/fares -- usually serving the poorer areas of London.

There are gaps in progressivity -- the annual or monthly Travelcard remains a boon to those with the money (or employers) to pay for it up front -- but the cash single is basically a tourist tax.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 12, 2008 3:03 PM

It worked for a few months but despite the increase to £8, London is jamming up again. With a further rise to £25 per day from October for some surprisingly ungrand vehicles (if Ken gets back in), I think Londoners are becoming pretty jaded by the whole thing. One additional point: international relations would be somewhat enhanced if the US Embassy stopped refusing to pay the damn charge.

Posted by JP | April 12, 2008 3:10 PM

The problem is that public transport pricing, at least in London, isn't regressive: the further out you live, the more you pay and, generally speaking, the further out you live, the less money you have.

Does that apply ot the U.S., though, where generally the suburbs are usually wealthier than the urbs?

Posted by Glaivester | April 12, 2008 3:58 PM

Matt you have an uncommon ability to express these arguments clearly and concisely.

Posted by Chris Dornan | April 12, 2008 5:39 PM

90% of people in NYC never drive.

No, 90% of people in Manhattan never drive. New York City is not, however, limited to Manhattan, and the number of drivers goes up significantly when you add in the outer boroughs, and even higher than that when you add in the number of people who live around but not in NYC (New Jersey, CT, Westchester, Nassau and Suffolk Counties, etc.) but who drive to Manhattan regularly for work and/or other reasons.

Posted by Stefan | April 13, 2008 2:28 AM

Stefan: Probably more than 10% of New Yorkers have driven a car from time to time. But over 90% of people in NYC commute to work without driving into Manhattan below 60th - they either take transit, walk or bike, or drive to jobs outside the zone. Therefore, the number of people affected by the charge on a regular basis would have been in the single digits.

Posted by David Alpert | April 13, 2008 8:42 AM