Categories
State

Doug Wright – Stuck on the Freeway


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I rarely listen to the Doug Wright show. When I do, I generally wonder afterwards how I am any better off than if I had simply listened to the fuzz between stations. Today I happened to hear Doug when I turned on the radio and he was speaking on a subject I care about – tolling in Utah. It did not take long to conclude that Doug must have been stuck on the freeway when the discussions of tolling were starting – because he’s behind the times on the debate. Doug talks as if the tolling were going to happen only on the Mountain View Corridor and that planners were suggesting that it would only last until the bonds were paid off. I think it’s time that Doug caught up to what’s really being discussed more recently.

First, nobody is pretending that tolling is a temporary measure, so Doug is right that once that door is opened it won’t be closed again. Doug also fails to recognize that we already have a toll lane on I-15 with the possibility of other lanes starting to be tolled in the future so the door has already been opened to tolling in Utah.

Second, as cars get better fuel efficiency the government (State and Federal) receives fewer tax dollars per vehicle mile traveled to maintain roads. Regardless of how innovative our ancestors were, we have to find more revenue to maintain that transportation infrastructure. Perhaps Doug would like us to raise the gas tax – as if that would not disproportionally hit the poorest people (the same complaint he makes against tolling). That option fails to address the possibility of a future with other fuel alternatives and the fact that we must find a way to generate revenue in a way that is fair according to use regardless of other factors such as what fuel one person’s vehicle uses or how efficient the vehicle is. Fair revenue would be based on usage (miles traveled being the best measure of usage in my mind).

Third, Doug is referencing revenue projections on toll roads that were built for the purpose of generating revenue. The Mountain View Corridor needs to be built regardless of what revenue it might generate. Any revenue it generates is better than not generating any revenue. Also, lower revenue is an indication of lower usage which results in lower maintenance costs. For a road that is already necessary the risk of low revenue is minimal and tolling a necessary road is a totally different situation than adding new road capacity in order to generate revenue.

Let’s review what’s really being discussed.

    • Simple tolling is being less talked about than congestion pricing – which is even more fair because the cost is adjusted based on the usage levels when the driving is happening and it means that people can plan most of their trips at low-toll or no-toll times.
    • Calls to include similar tolling options on I-15 and the Mountain View Corridor are increasing. There is no reason that tolling should favor one area over another.
    • Electronic tolling would prevent the sitting in line using up gas that Doug complains about. Anyone who was using a toll road regularly would be getting an electronic monitor. Only those who are passing through or who use the roads infrequently would ever have to be stopped at a toll booth.

There are arguments against tolling that deserve consideration, but Doug missed any of those. My conclusion is – if we get congestion pricing as I envision it and I had to listen to Doug Wright I can promise that I would pay the highest toll rates to get off the road as fast as possible in order to minimize my listening time.

Categories
culture State

Don’t Toss the Tolling Option


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Herriman is hardly alone in opposing freeway tolls. The most prominent reason they give is wholly predictable – and it is reasonable:

The two-page Herriman statement said the council supports the corridor project, but believes tolls would create a financial burden for residents.

I would love to read the full statement from the city council, but I know that we need to quit thinking of tolling as an all-or-nothing proposition.

We already have a single carpool/toll lane on I-15 and I think the lane next to it should become a congestion pricing lane as well – that would leave at least two and in most places 3 free lanes on the road and would allow people to discover the value of congestion pricing.

That is also an idea that could be implemented and begin generating revenue while the Mountain View Corridor is still being built. I believe that if we created a congestion pricing lane on I-15 while the MVC was being built we would see little opposition to having one or two of the leftmost lanes on the MVC as congestion pricing lanes. This would allow residents on the east and the west to share the cost of the improved transportation infrastructure which will benefit both sides.

Categories
State

An Informed View of Congestion-Pricing


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

I always like to see when someone with lots more information and better credentials than me comes to the same conclusion on an issue that I have come to. In this case it is Michael R. Brown stating that Congestion-pricing positives outweigh negatives. Mr. Brown is a Certified Transportation Planner and he has been participating in a study on the issue of implementing congestion pricing along the Wasatch Front. One thing he does that I have never thought about is to define the fundamental difference between standard tolls and congestion pricing:

The purpose of tolls is to provide revenue to pay off construction bonds. You pay even when there is no congestion. It amounts to unfair taxation. The purpose of congestion pricing is primarily to ensure the freeways do not fall below 60 mph. At times or places where that wouldn’t be an issue, then the price can be free. (emphasis added)

Secondly he provides his personal top 10 list for the advantages of using congestion-pricing:

  • (10) More use of off-peak capacity
  • (9) Increased transit usage
  • (8) Increased capacity
  • (7) Reduction of side-street spill-over
  • (6) Point A becomes closer to point B
  • (5) Fuel is saved, air quality improved and carbon dioxide reduced
  • (4) Economic competitiveness
  • (3) “Tragedy of commons” is avoided
  • (2) Generates revenue.
  • (1) More productivity

I like the list he presents except that  #6 seems a bit ethereal to me. (This comment seems to be a good clarification of #6.) If you don’t like his list I would recommend reading his version (which includes some explanations) before settling on an opinion.

Categories
State

Congestion Tolls


Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

The Deseret News is recommending congestion tolls to help pay for our transportation needs. I have previously stated my generic approval of tolling while recognizing that there are issues of fairness to be addressed. (Toll roads on the west side, but not the east side is not fair.) One comment on the editorial suggested a possible approach to the fairness issue and also the issue of leaving the roads free for those who can’t pay a toll:

. . . one possible solution is only impose congestion pricing in certain lanes, leaving other lanes open to general use. We could eliminate the current HOT lane on I-15 and do two lanes of congestion priced expressway instead. Do a lane or two congestion priced on I-215 as well. And do a lane or two congestion priced on the MVC while leaving a lane or two open for general use.

(unfortunately you have to scroll down for the comment – they should provide anchors to individual comments)

The suggestion of congestion pricing on some lanes but not all is illustrated in a Reason.tv video by Drew Carey that discusses traffic congestion. (The video showing congestion pricing is between 4 and 5 minutes into the video.) I think that idea deserves to be explored.