A. EFFICACY OF CONGESTION PRICING
--- Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote:
> Wojtek writes:
>
> > In order to overcome that effect it is necessary
> to
> > make driving less attractive, even if attractive
> > alterantives are available.
>
> Says you. Or rather: says Wikipedia. Oh, and also
> says Max: "We must
> have congestion pricing!" ... I think the
> term-of-art for that is a
> 'failure of imagination' ...
>
[WS:] You do not really make any arguments why congestion pricing is bad for behavior modification - you just keep ridiculing the notions and repeating that you are against it.
I think that such an argument can be made, albeit I do not think it would be politically kosher to some. But let me try.
Congestion pricing will likely not work as expected, because it is based on the asumption that utlity maximization is the main consideration in people's decisions which mode transportation to use. However, that assumption is false. In reality, that decisions are based for a large part of non-utilitarian cosiderations.
Some of these non-utilitarian considerations behind car use include: (a) fear of public places and intermingling with people different than one is used to; (b) displays of social status (e.g. "car pride," "king of the road") or sexual prowess; (c) better fit for impulse decision making about daily activities (reliance on transit makes more diffciult because it needs more planning ahead) (d) emotional gratification coming from feellings of "freedom" or "being in control" often associated with cars in popular culture; (e) social pressure to fit in, "keep up with the Jonses" or not stand out from the accepted norms in most US communities
These non-utilitarian uses and gratifications of the automobile are not very responsive to price mechanisms. People can absorb significant cost to buy social status, peace of mind or sense of security, maintain thier life styles, or obtain emotional gratification. They are likely to absorb congestion charges without changing their behavior, unless these charges reach confiscatory level, which is not feasible to implement.
As I said before, this argument is effective against user fees but not kosher for many opponents of "internalizing" the automobile cost, because it leads to a broader policy question - why shoul dwe publicly subsidize people's prejudices, emotional desires and life style choices?
BTW, I think that much of the discussion on transportation is grounded in preferences and dislikes for certain life styles associated with different modes of transportation. Those who find the 'Amerikan Dream' attractive also tend to support the automobile that enables that 'dream' and disregard its social and envionmental cost. Those who find the 'Amerikan Dream' repulsive and opt for an urban or 'bohemian' life-style (I am in this group) tend to oppose the automobile and support public transit that enables the life style of thier preference.
Since this discussion involves value judgments it is unlikely that any rational consensus will be reached. Since most Amerikans love thier 'Amerikan Dream' - they will oppose any effort to dethrone the car and replace it with public transit. As a result, the autmobile-based status quo will continue until the bottom falls out of the 'Amerikan Dream' e.g. energy prices will make it unaffordable to most (which I hope to see during my life time.)
B. GENERAL TAX VS. USER FEE FUNDING
My second observation pertains to your comments you claim that general tax is more efficient way of funding projects (including transit) than user fee. I said that I agree. However, I must qualify that that efficiency considerations are rarely the main reason behind the choice of the funding method.
By and large, such choice is made on political or even racist considerations. Cars are subsidized by general taxes because they enjoy support by the powers that be (car industry) and the majority of the white population. However, funding public transit from the same source draws significant oppositin from the same quarters (this is an instance of the failure of public financing, which has been theorized by Burton Weisbrod - check his refs for details).
Consequently, the mode of transit that serves mostly the minorities (either ethnic, such as Blacks or Hispanics, or political such as environmentalists or urbanites)is unlikely to receive any significan financing cfrom general tax, and must instead rely on user fees. This has nothing to do with economics, utlity maximization, and efficiency, and everytghing to do with the Amerikan politics in its ugliest form. I coinded the term "trasnportation apartheid" to describe it.
If I were allowed to name only one instance of institutional racism in Amerika, I would most likely mention transportation funding. It not only reflects diffrential political power held by the white majority and ethnic minorities, but also is th emajor factor that reproduces de facto racial segregation of Amerikan communities. This powerful factor is even more insidious because it is mostly hidden from public scrutiny under supposedly "utlitarian" considerations.
As I said earlier, howver, transportation modes carry mor than utilitarian concerns - and those non-utilitarian one are have strong racist overtones. Example - a common joke in Baltimore suburbs is calling the light rail line, the street car line serving Baltimore dowtown, the "dark rail" (ha, ha, ha). But the sad truth is that one seldom sees white faces on Baltimore light rail, metro or buses. DC is slightly better, but not much.
I think that the detriment of trasnportation apartheid is far greater than that of another instance of institutional racism - subprime lending. Subprime lending actually enables minority access to the middle class life style - it only extorts higher price for that access than it does from whites. Transit apartheid, by contrast, not only reproduces segregation but sometimes it bars that access (e.g. by restricting access to jobs in suburban locations.)
Wojtek
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com