Quote:
Originally Posted by numble
What improvements would you make in the example I gave? Add more lights? Take Beijing for instance. With a population of nearly 20 million. The gas tax is extremely high and the roads are very well-maintained. You are only allowed to drive your car 4/5 days per workweek, non-Beijing cars are banned or have to pay a high toll, and you need to enter a lottery just to get the right to buy a car, requiring a waiting period of around 5 years. They have already double-decked the major expressways. The roads are still extremely congested. Congestion pricing probably can solve the congestion problem, getting rid of traffic and increasing the average speeds on the road. How would you spend the congestion pricing revenue, and why? What improvements would you make to the roads if congestion pricing has solved the congestion and average speed problem, and the gas tax and other revenue has already kept the roads well-maintained?
|
My improvements are to maintain a simple system that keeps monies paid by the users of a system in that system. So any money that drivers pay goes towards roads and freeways. I'm not against money from sales and property taxes being shared between mass transit and freeways, nor do I believe that any such system should be designed to post a profit. If there is a way to make it profitable without imposing and unreasonable burden on its users, than I'm all for it.
If we implement congestion pricing, then these things need to happen; gas tax removed. No fees for a drivers license or registration and no taxes on vehicles. Furthermore, 100 percent of any collected revenue from congestion pricing should go to roads and freeways adding however many lanes are needed to ensure traffic moves at a reasonable targeted speed at any given time. This would be coordinated in a cap of how high tolls could go. Pricing out traffic on a road that is only 4 lanes allowing tolls to climb with no limits is not reasonable. Very small chance that, that happens even if congestion pricing is implemented.
Some capital projects I'd like to see is a re-imagined Midtown Expressway built similar to the elevated tollways in Tokyo. I would not be opposed to toll lanes so as long as 2 GP free lanes are built for any proposed HO/T lane along an interstate corridor. Bring back many canceled freeway routes like 101 tunnel under SF, building out the proposed LA freeway network as tunnels(which would include moving the Santa Monica pier as part of my plans to extend I-10 to Ventura), etc... Too many projects to list.
For anyone's heads(not naming names, BusyBee) who about to explode, trust me, I am not naive. In this current political climate(too many variables working against my freeway expansion desires to list) there is zero change this happens. Unless things change, I'd be surprised if Metro's(Los Angeles) freeway expansions funded by Measure M happen as proposed. I do believe the tide will favor freeways and cars again. The question is when.
This all can be done in conjunction with mass transit expansion and if the pro mass transit crowd were smart, they'd support expanding freeways as well to keep the pro car crowd happy that accounts for the majority of commuters.
The myths that induced demand should be reason not to expand freeways and that mass transit solves congestion need to be put to rest. It's disingenuous and leaves many variables unaccounted for.
I'm all for mass transit expansion as a daily cyclist and transit user myself. That's a personal decision I make.
Beijing is a great city and China's investment of freeways should be noted. China is also not a comparable model for the US to use. Completely different lifestyle.
Of course congestion pricing could solve traffic congestion. No one is debating that. That is like the same sort of logic as saying we could end man made climate change if we eliminated humans. Extremities in anything can be used as examples. Critical thinking is something that should trump idealistic thinking. Congestion will move to the street unless a major shift in demand or lifestyle changes are imposed on the country. Charging congestion pricing will only price out the poor and/or burden the middle class(usually in cities that suffer from the amount of congestion where congestion pricing is being considered the middle class is already on the brink of poverty) and not change demand. A person needing to go from point a to point b will still exist. You aren't considering the fact most people still live in the suburbs and serving low density housing with mass transit is a non starter.
Again, this is much more than just congestion pricing reducing congestion and the crowd that supports this needs to admit it. For anyone that wants to bring the induced demand argument trying to say the success of freeways is the reason they are a failure(as absurd as that is to begin with)-- I can easily argue that the real issue is latent demand.