Road Fare>Congestion Pricing?

Congestion pricing sounds like something to avoid since neither term is something you want. Eric Jaffe held a contest for replacement terms. Decongestion pricing is one possibility since it at least hints at the idea that the pricing gets rid of congestion.

Tom Vanderbilt (author of Traffic) liked the phrase premium access — something to suggest “you pay for ‘peak perks.’ ..transport scholar David Levinson, suggests road fees for general road pricing (and peak road fees for road pricing aimed at heavy congestion), and urban planner Laurence Lui, recommends road fares. What’s nice about road fare is that it parallels mass transit, has an intuitive purpose, and offers flexibility. You can alter it to suit a specific situation — peak road fare, midtown road fare, etc. — without obscuring the basic meaning.

Road fare is quite good as it also suggests fair[ness] and can be used in an academic or commercial context. For a more commercial term I liked another suggestion, Pay2Go which has the great virtue of explaining what you get for your money.

Do note that death insurance didn’t sell well until it was given the less accurate but more affable name, life insurance.

Hat tip: Brandon Fuller.

Comments

FDR knew he couldn't win the 1940 election (54%) and 1944 election(53%) without the South.

Comments for this post are closed

How about "Decongestion Road Fare"? It's long, but just saying "Road Fare", which I agree suggests fairness, just sounds like another fee or tax. I think you want the name to have some indication of the positive benefits of the fare.

And "premium access" sounds like something that only people in BMW's can afford. You want to avoid the gripe that just the wealthy will not get to benefit from the pricing.

'You want to avoid the gripe that just the wealthy will not get to benefit from the pricing.'

While ensuring that is the practical result, of course.

So do you think it's not costless for the poor to sit around in traffic for an extra hour every day? A more efficient allocation of traffic on the roads benefits everyone, even if the fares are quite high at peak traffic hours. If you have to get to point A to point B in a hurry (e.g. a trip to the ER), having to pay even $50 to shave off 30 minutes of the drive might be well worth it and is certainly much more affordable than paying infinity, which is the current cost of getting from point A to point B in a hurry during high traffic times.

So do you think it’s not costless for the poor to sit around in traffic for an extra hour every day? A more efficient allocation of traffic on the roads benefits everyone, even if the fares are quite high at peak traffic hours.

Nonsense. Congestion fees will likely push poorer drivers on to mass transit. If mass transit were a better deal for them, they'd already be using it instead of driving. Despite road congestion, commutes by mass transit take twice as long on average as commutes by car. In addition to this time penalty, mass transit has other costs -- inconvenience, inflexibility, discomfort. That's why it's so unpopular, even at peak times of road congestion.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

It's much harder to argue that the poor will be negatively impacted. The unemployed aren't on the roads at rush hour, and loads of poor currently take public transportation.

So you've already knocked out a couple bottom rung groups that your compassionate heart dwells on.

Well off people who drive would benefit, or at least we'd be assigning the cost of externalities better.

In a nutshell, the politics of spite.

Yes. Giving libertarians what they want is pretty spiteful.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

How 'bout "Not So Freeway"

Comments for this post are closed

How do they call it in Singapore?

ERP

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

Obamafare

The Affordable Car Act- to ensure access to affordable travel we need to mandate a fine for free riders.

Comments for this post are closed

Thread winner!

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

It sound like a lot better idea than it is in places with a high level of congestion like London. What keeps a lot of people from driving is traffic congestion and although charging for driving will keep some low income people off the roads almost as many people with more money takes their place.

In London, the pricing only exists downtown, where cheap bus routes abound and parking is very expensive. To the extent that low income people are actually driving there, there are many better alternatives.

In fact, due to the fact that the congestion pricing was increasing bus ridership (and hence reducing average per-person bus transit costs), they were able to cut bus fares, making this alternative even more reasonable.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

As they said on South Park, "The Simpsons already did it."

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/great-tax-moment-simpsons-history

Comments for this post are closed

"Win a ride with Snoop Dog" Lotto

Comments for this post are closed

Speed Tip.

Express Cash.

Comments for this post are closed

A Tribute to the Open Road

Comments for this post are closed

"Robber Barons"?

Comments for this post are closed

A tribute to the wisdom and benevolence of our political and technocratic leaders!

Comments for this post are closed

My suggestion is "decongestion premium".

Comments for this post are closed

Pay2Pee

Comments for this post are closed

Premium Access? Has Vanderbuilt not flown in a plane since Pan Am disapeared? It's hard to think of a word that conjures up more bile than 'premium'. To avoid an excess of bile in road users and the possibility of being first up against the wall when the revolution comes, I suggest just using the words 'Decongestion Pricing'.

Comments for this post are closed

How about government subsidy to IT companies?

Sorry to bring the message to all fans of privatication with regressive side effects, roads will stay public goods for the time being because even a simple payment system that does not discriminate according to traffic levels will cost at least 40% of the fees charged.

Comments for this post are closed

Phil? Is that you Phil? It's me, Ned Ryerson! You remember me, don'cha?

(Sorry, you said "affable" and "life insurance", so...)

Bing!

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

The Cadillac Plan

Comments for this post are closed

Road fare sounds like a Hillbilly dinner.

Comments for this post are closed

I'd be in favor of 'road fares' in a different political environment, but given the folks in charge of transportation in the U.S. (locally and nationally), what I'd expect is that the fares would not be use as a way to manage congestion and maintain and improve roadways, but rather as a way to try to 'nudge' people out of their cars and and onto mass transit (as with current fuel taxes, I expect a portion of the 'road fares' would be siphoned off to subsidize mass transit and other things).

Comments for this post are closed

Zip Pass? Speed Pass (hat tip, Disney)?

Comments for this post are closed

"I’d expect is that the fares would not be use as a way to manage congestion and maintain and improve roadways"

+1

Comments for this post are closed

Decongestion???

Really ???

Virtually all road pricing scheme I see proposed to nothing to actually reduce congestion.

All they do is shift it from one place or road to another.

If the imposition of tolls does nothing to create better, or at least different, transportation
alternatives -- like London did --it does not create any net decongestion.

Decongestion on the roads you are paying that premium for.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

If the imposition of tolls does nothing to create better, or at least different, transportation
alternatives — like London did –it does not create any net decongestion.

Assuming "transportation alternatives" means different modes of transportation (e.g., mass transit), congestion fees can obviously reduce congestion in a number of ways that do not involve such alternatives:

- By providing revenues that can be used to increase the capacity of congested routes.

- By providing an incentive for drivers to use alternative, uncongested routes.

- By providing an incentive for drivers to travel at alternative, uncongested times.

- By cutting down marginal trips

-Carpooling

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed

There is a phrase which has been used for generations: road tolls.

Comments for this post are closed

How about you stop pretending that changing the name will be enough to make the policy acceptable. It's delusional and condescending.

Comments for this post are closed

lump sum tax everybody and then subsidize people who do not use congestible roads at peak times. Same efficiency outcome regarding congestion and government revenue, but now you can call it a "decongestion subsidy."

Comments for this post are closed

Road fare sounds like something served at the road-kill restaurant – not a place i'd want to eat.

Comments for this post are closed

Comments for this post are closed