Thomas Power and Adam Smith
- I am surprised that no one has mentioned the POLITICS of road pricing being perhaps the principal barrier to implementation. Once upon a time, the field of Economics was called 'Political Economy' and we are deluding ourselves if we ignore the political aspects of economic decisions.... The UC Transportation Center had a very interesting article on the subject in their Access magazine, issue 31: For Whom the Road Tolls: The Politics of Congestion Pricing (http://www.uctc.net/scripts/access.pl?31/Access%2031%20-%2002%20-%20For%20Whom%20the%20Road%20Tolls.pdf), by David King, Michael Manville, and Donald Shoup. The authors discuss the reasons for insufficient political support and propose a very straight-forward mechanism to potentially resolve this problem. Recommended reading for all!
ZviOn Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Lee Schipper <SCHIPPER@...> wrote:
I appreciate Simon's answer below -- one cannot set a market price and then walk away thinking the problem is solved, just as one cannot solve problems that involve markets for desirable scarce goods (time, space) by regulation or honor alone.
- Do you mind writing a bit more about this:town-or area- based systems of goods distribution (as exist in many German towns) rather than firm- or product-based systemsMostly, these days we don't do either in the U.S., except for freight. But I keep advocating for it in particular situations, as part of transportation demand management. I am on the board of a public market, and the vendors bitch and moan about lack of parking for their customers. I keep suggesting shared delivery service--saying wouldn't you want one truck to make 15 deliveries, rather than have 15 cars come to the market and try to find parking spaces?RL
stephenplowden <stephenplowden@...> wrote:There are many towns and cites which have made a reasonable job of
combating congetion without road pricing. A combination of parking
controls (which can also involve the skilful use of pricing),
reallocation of road space, low and well enforced speed limits, good
public transport, town-or area- based systems of goods distribution
(as exist in many German towns) rather than firm- or product-based
systems, and land-use planning which allows as many journey purposes
as possible to be satisfied by short journeys made on foot, and
ensures that facilities which attract longer journeys are sited
conveniently close to public transport stops, will usually be enough.
The belief that the solution must lie in pricing is like saying in a
commercial context that getting pricing right is always more important
than getting the product right.
--- In NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com, Simon Norton <S.Norton@.. .> wrote:
> In answer to Robert Bartlett and Gabriel Roth, I don't think there
> alternative to a free market approach, but there needs to be careful
> consideration of how it is applied.
> I regard Adam Smith as a progressive economist, and ideas of the UK
> called the Adam Smith Institute as a perversion of his teachings.
> If road pricing was really regarded by the rich as in their
interests, I believe
> it would have happened long ago. In some circles of the rich kudos
is gained by
> eliminating, as far as possible, one's financial contribution to
> to sit in a traffic jam than to pay money which can be used to
> for ordinary people. After all, if their journey is really urgent
> always use a private aircraft.
> One of the perversions of the free market philosophy is free trade
> fundamentalism. Many economists have recognised that the theory of
> advantage breaks down when capital and labour are both mobile. It is
> has pushed many so called "developing" countries into poverty. In
> more relevant to transport planning, it has undermined efforts to
> external costs, either because of regulations introduced to guard
> protectionism in disguise, or because of fears that it would lead to
> of business.
> Transport policy needs to be based on two questions:
> 1. How much roadspace should be allowed for private motoring ?
> 2. How should motoring be regulated to minimise its impact on the
> These questions are not independent, but I believe that any attempt
> transport problems solely through question 2 is doomed to failure.
> months I have several times been told that pedestrians, cyclists and
> must be denied the priorities they need because to provide them
would lead to
> My own answer to question 1 is "as little as possible". I have long
> for a study to establish how much motoring really is essential to the
> functioning of a city. Even before it became apparent that the
> needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 80% to have a hope
> climate change under control, I hoped that the answer would be low
> make walking, cycling and travelling by bus into really attractive
> getting around -- and to eliminate congestion.
> I am not a free market fundamentalist to the point that I believe
> answer to 1 can be implemented through the pricing mechanism alone,
> do I believe that we can afford to ignore it.
> Let us remember, the cost of congestion isn't just drivers sitting
in jams. It's
> the time spent by the people they are supposed to be meeting with
> them to turn up. It's the time people waste allowing for jams which
may or may
> not materialise, whether they are travelling by car or bus. It's the
> spend waiting for the next bus or train having missed the one they
> for. And it's the time pedestrians, cyclists and bus users spend
> gaps in the traffic.
> If it is at all possible to run a city without congestion, let's
adapt one of
> our existing cities (or build a new one) in this way, and when
people flock to
> it in search of a better life let's adapt and build more of them to
> That's the free market, isn't it ?
> Finally, Gabriel is right to say that so called "market pricing" can
be a cover
> for legalised extortion. In the UK peak pricing of rail travel,
> affects trains that run at peak times but are practically empty
> they are running against the direction of flow), is a case in point.
> transport users have to put up with extortion, why should motorists
be spared ?
> Simon Norton