Minnesota Transportation Funding (General)

[mattaudio]

Why not just toll all lanes then? Such as 62, 169, 36.

[RailBaronYarr]

Yeah I'm confused why only having 2 lanes in each direction makes tolling one or both of them inefficient? Seems to work just fine in European metro areas. Even during low-demand times, a charge of $0.25 to hop on and drive 3-4 miles (or whatever) makes a difference. People start realizing the amount they're spending over time (just like turning on the AC) and make decisions on which roads/streets/modes to take.

[MNdible]

Why not? Maybe because there's no political interest in such a plan whatsoever. From anybody. Except you guys.

[RailBaronYarr]

Why not? Maybe because there's no political interest in such a plan whatsoever. From anybody. Except you guys.

Thanks for the slap back to reality, I was blissfully unaware of the conversations and political realities going on in St Paul and Washington.

To be clear, my question was a technical one. What would make tolling one lane of two so inefficient? From a more political/system-wide perspective how is this more 'inefficient' than a pool of money paid by car owners regardless of if they drive 100 miles a year or 20,000, or on bumpkin dirt roads vs freeways?

It's really great that liberal politicians listen to economists and scientists publishing papers re: climate change effects, impacts to people of poverty by things like minimum wage/etc, and any number of other topics. Wouldn't it be great if they did the same for road pricing mechanisms?

[EOst]

I can't speak to the technical aspects of pricing all lanes on a road, but it's worth noting that such a charge would be quite regressive. Between lower job mobility, lower housing mobility, and how decentralized our employment centers are, it would probably have a disproportionate effect on those forced to commute long distances.

[mattaudio]

We can compensate through that with plenty of mechanisms in the short term, from a progressive consumption tax to a direct subsidy. And, in the long term, the outcomes would be HIGHLY progressive. Less sprawl, less environmental degradation, less segregation, etc. We can counteract any short term pain points, and do so with justification due to how insanely progressive the outcomes would be.

And it's not like our current transportation and land use regime is anything but regressive and morally depraved.

[EOst]

What is "the long term"? Our cities aren't going to completely recreate themselves overnight (or in ten years, or fifty).

[mattaudio]

They did over the last 50 years.

[Rich]

We can compensate through that with plenty of mechanisms in the short term, from a progressive consumption tax to a direct subsidy.

Could you identify the progressive consumption tax you have in mind? Also, who would you directly subsidize and how? Not trying to be glib. These are the kinds of questions people will ask.

[mplsjaromir]

Refund the congestion charge to those under a certain income level??

[mattaudio]

Or use surpluses from congestion charge (remember, just like parking, the charge should be dynamic to ensure a guaranteed level of service) to invest in transportation and land uses that are beneficial to disadvantaged communities.

The Progressive Consumption Tax I mentioned is a much more radical reimagining of how our federal tax code works. Probably discussion for a different topic, but since someone was curious about it... http://www.slate.com/articles/business/ ... lity_.html

[EOst]

They did over the last 50 years.

Replacing one perpetual subsidy with another perpetual subsidy...

[RailBaronYarr]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNawNU5waQE
http://nexus.umn.edu/Papers/TransportEq ... wPaper.pdf

and http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fh ... p08040.pdf

Any change in the way charges are made for road use will benefit some individuals more than others. Those who have higher incomes will tend to use congestion-priced facilities more often, which leads to a perception that wealthy people are favored; however, income-related equity concerns may not be entirely warranted. Although data from priced lanes that are operated in the United States show that high-income motorists do use the lanes more often, the lanes are used by all income groups, serving drivers’ needs when they absolutely have to get to their destinations on time (e.g., getting to a daycare center before late fees kick in). Moreover, approval ratings are equally high for all income groups, in the 60–80 percent range, because all income groups value the “insurance” of a reliable trip time when they absolutely need it.

Low-income travelers who take transit more frequently will benefit from transit-service improvements that generally accompany congestion pricing. Toll revenues can be used to compensate those who might otherwise consider themselves “losers” as a result of congestion pricing. Low-income transit riders can benefit significantly from toll-financed
transit improvements, which are generally included in any pricing package. In cases in which effects on low-income drivers are perceived to be particularly severe, such drivers could be provided with toll exemptions, rebates, or other forms of monetary compensation, such as tax rebates or income supplements. Pricing schemes may include protections for
low-income individuals, such as toll credits.

[David Greene]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNawNU5waQE
http://nexus.umn.edu/Papers/TransportEq ... wPaper.pdf

and http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fh ... p08040.pdf

Yeah, I used to be against "Lexus Lanes" but later came to realize that for the truly poor it doesn't matter since they rely on transit anyway, which benefits just as much from HOT lanes. If surplus revenues went to transit it could certainly be a win for equity.

[David Greene]

They did over the last 50 years.

Replacing one perpetual subsidy with another perpetual subsidy...

Well, one has to actively undo the damage that's been done. Simply cutting off all subsidies will perpetuate the status quo, though at greater cost to some users. It's exactly the same reason Affirmative Action is still necessary. Sometimes you do actually have to favor groups to get what's needed.

[EOst]

Well, one has to actively undo the damage that's been done. Simply cutting off all subsidies will perpetuate the status quo, though at greater cost to some users. It's exactly the same reason Affirmative Action is still necessary. Sometimes you do actually have to favor groups to get what's needed.

Sure, but it's the kind of solution that only works on a forum. The subsidy alone would be politically unfeasible; combined with the road-pricing scheme, it's fantasy talk.

[mattaudio]

Fantasy is thinking the status quo is feasible, let alone equitable. The dollars say otherwise. Get into reality.

[EOst]

Fantasy is thinking the status quo is feasible, let alone equitable. The dollars say otherwise. Get into reality.

As always, you're confusing opposition to your unrealistic plans with complacence with the status quo. I hate the status quo, but I want to actually change it, instead of masturbating to my fantasy world. If you ever had a real suggestion for how to actually get things passed or to win over general popular support, I'd be right there behind you.

[FISHMANPET]

Status quo is the only reasonably possible outcome going forward, so wouldn't anything be masturbatory at that point?

And for what it's worth, outlandish proposal > crapping all over it without an alternative.

[xandrex]

^I dunno. Duval had an outlandish proposal for the Nicollet Hotel site and all that did was set many up for disappointment when we saw what was actually possible.