Selling Congestion Pricing
CIS is thinking about how to message congestion pricing to road warriors. All the ideas he puts forward are intersting jujitsu moves -- designed to use free-marketers own strengths against them.
Let me suggest another, that might be even simpler: congestion pricing is a use tax. Conservatives like use taxes. Many, for example, expect bus tickets to cover 100% of the cost of the bus (ignoring the fact that bus service has positive externalities that justify the taxpayer subsity). The common refrain I often hear is, "I'm never going to ride the bus, so why should I pay for it?"
Well, that argument cuts both ways. Congestion pricing simply lines up the supply and the demand to make you pay for what you use, as I've written before.
- Frank's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Tags
User fee might make things go down more smoothly when the less dogmatic read it, though.
But yes, much simpler than my messages to conservative pols. :-)
True, congestion pricing is an elegant solution to the problem of paying for road building and maintenance; currently, the cost of driving is not proportional to the cost road use; congestion pricing is a no-brainer.
However, we still have the fundamental problem of pricing externalities, for example, the global warming cost of Prop 1.
According to the best estimates from the Puget Sound Regional Council, the end result of Prop 1 -- at extraordinary public expense -- will be a 45% increase in driving by 2030. Meanwhile, we know that we need to decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. You can see how this does not work.
If we are serious about not flunking the C02 test, then we must figure out how to not subsidize C02 emissions. Voting NO on Prop 1 -- which gets an F on that subject -- is a first step towards reality.