|
|
There
can be little doubt that tolls are an important
tool to use in an effort aimed at addressing
congestion. But as I've noted elsewhere, tolls are
not a silver bullet that will magically and
permanently slay our transportation demons. And
finally, it looks like someone in the press is
beginning to at least grasp that point.
In
a recent column on “the inevitability of road
pricing,” Washington Post editorial page
editor Fred Hiatt wrote, in part:
The
reality is that road pricing is inevitable. It
won't be a panacea, and the administration has
unfairly burdened a good idea by supporting it
while refusing to increase other revenue sources
for transportation. The D.C. study showed that
road pricing doesn't necessarily solve the revenue
problem. Tolls on Maryland's intercounty connector
(ICC), for example, should keep traffic flowing,
but they won't come close to covering construction
costs.
Of
course, if all one wants to do is shovel more
money into a transportation system -- without
first setting measurable goals, creating a list of
congestion-easing priorities, let alone
determining where current funds are being spent --
it's little wonder there might not be anything
left for maintenance.
Details,
details...
Hiatt
also notes that there are political difficulties
to overcome with tolls. While he attributes a
red-blue political twist to the qualms, which
grossly oversimplifies matters, there is still
truth to the idea that on well-established
“free” routes, drivers assume that the roads
have already been paid for. And because of that,
many users believe it is unfair to make them pay a
second or third time for the same road. While they
may not have paid for all the external costs of
those roads (and making them do so would require
raising the gas tax to roughly $2 per gallon…s o
don’t count on that), convincing these people
that they haven’t paid for the long-existing
blacktop under their wheels with every fill-up
will be a very hard sell.
That’s
made even harder because where tolls do exist, the
monies aren’t always used to benefit the drivers
who pay the fees. Hiatt shows how this happens,
but probably not in the way he intended. He quotes
Arlington County Board member Chris Zimmerman
(who, presumably with a straight face, calls
himself an economist) as saying:
"I
personally don't agree that the roads should be
free," he added. "We should be
subsidizing mass transit, which has all kinds of
benefits, as opposed to roads, which have all
kinds of costs."
There's
a reason why Arlington has often been compared to
a People's Republic. In part, it’s because it
elects “economists” to political office who
can’t see the taxes for the subsidies.
Taxpayers
already provide enormous subsidies to mass transit
systems, sometimes to the tune of tens of
thousands of dollars per rider. Ought we to pour
even more money into such schemes? Zimmerman
believes so. It makes me wonder if he's aware that
gas tax money -- which is supposed to be used to
maintain and build roads -- is poured into such
subsidies. Perhaps he does (after all, he is a
member of that galaxy-sized black hole called
Metro).
Unlimited
or ill-considering tolling would only increase
these wealth transfers… thus further undermining
the case for pricing.
However,
as the Reason Foundation’s Robert Poole, notes,
the hurdles pricing faces aren’t prohibitive, at
least for new road construction. Citing poll data
from the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program of the Transportation Research Board,
Poole summarized the main findings thusly:
-
The
public wants to see value -- such as a new
bridge or express lane they themselves can use
for a better trip. The public prefers tangible
and specific rationales, and responds well to
pricing that creates a new choice, rather than
one that's seen as trying to manipulate their
behavior.
-
The
public cares about the use of toll revenues --
and clearly prefers them to be spent on
improved transportation.
-
The
public learns from experience -- support for
priced projects increases over time, as people
see that they work.
-
The
public uses knowledge and information in
forming their opinions -- hence, better
explanations lead to increased support.
-
The
public believes in equity and fairness -- but
this is more complex than it might first
appear.
-
The
public wants simplicity -- which poses
problems for complex schemes with rebates and
other complications.
-
The
public favors tolls (by about two to one) over
the alternative of a tax increase. In other
words, if you want to charge tolls, do so on a
road I haven’t “paid for” already, keep
the scheme simple, explain it clearly, and do
not divert the money to some other program.
And
while we’re talking about how to ease congestion
and pay for more blacktop, let us not forget
something important about the cars themselves:
They are also one of the most important inventions
of the last century, increasing mobility, incomes,
prosperity and freedom for uncounted millions of
people. Oh, and they’ve also enhanced safety,
increased recreation and… believe it or not…
have produced “significant land-use benefits.”
Heck,
it might be worth two bits here and there to keep
that record of achievement intact.
--
April 21, 2008
|
