Posted on 08/31/2019 2:20:13 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Gridlock on America’s roadways is increasing, according to the 2019 Urban Mobility Report published by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute – in part due to job growth that is “exacerbating” the nation’s traffic woes.
As a result, over that 26-year period from 1982 to 2018:
Traffic has also increased in many cities due to widespread ride-hailing. Once Uber and others roll out autonomous vehicle fleets, calling a car will be cheaper, more competitive and a potential burden on our streets. Exploring congestion pricing may become more important as we move toward a future where both electric and self-driving vehicles are taking up space on city streets. A car is a car, whether self-driving or people driven — taking up a great deal more space than buses, streetcars or trains.
Due to changes in driving patterns, the costs of traffic congestion and maintenance backlogs are ever-growing and current funding models are not keeping pace with city needs. According to the National League of Cities, congestion pricing could help to solve the growing infrastructure crisis in American cities. By piloting new technologies like congestion collection systems, local leaders have the opportunity to find ways to sustainably improve conditions on and around America’s roads.
(Excerpt) Read more at forconstructionpros.com ...
The reality around here is otherwise. What taxes, exactly, are you paying, and are you certain it’s anything more than paying for ongoing maintenance of existing infrastructure?
Let’s try it out on Florida this weekend.
Raise the tolls on people fleeing the hurricane.
/Evil Mode off.
>>Why should I have to pay more.
The reality of electrical generation capacity planning and construction means that a kWH generated at time of peak demand costs / is worth a lot more than an off-peak one. It’s basic economics, that’s why.
Before AC Tucson wasn’t like this. The Sonoran desert used to end 100 miles south. We had water in the rivers.
But it’s not really the truckers that decide when to pick up their loads. Businesses decide when to hand over their loads. Now of course if the truckers are having to pay more they pass that onto the customer. But there was probably a solution that didn’t involve fattening Long Beach coffers. But try getting those past the city council.
Only because they charge more for it. Their cost of producing doesn’t go up. And in general they don’t actually vary production much because throttling isn’t good on machines. But because it’s when people need to have it they get to charge more. It’s a captive audience. Which is basic economics. It’s also sleazy.
Bump
Get rid of all the illegal aliens and the traffic problem nearly disappears. The illegals went on strike here for a day to show their impact. Except everything got better. Less traffic. More parking. Less accidents. And the food was better.
You are hugely incorrect. There are significant capital costs for installing generating capacity to produce additional on-peak power. This cost has to be reflected in pricing somehow, or you get Venezuela’s electric utility.
I am glad you are no where near capacity planning for a utility I have to depend upon.
Well, since tax dollars go to gov employees with lavish benefits (even if the paycheck is low), I guess there’s no other choice.
No need for insults. Meanwhile my point stands. Sure there are costs, but those costs don’t exist solely during peak. Peak pricing is still, and always will be, taking advantage of a captive audience. Because there’s nothing we can do to NOT have our usage go up, and they know it, so they charge more. That’s the truth. And you know it.
OK, Democrats and mushy middle people, here’s a lesson in economics with government intervention.
That’s called creating perverse incentive, a profit motive.
Let’s assume you accept “congestion pricing.” You’ll be told that the money will be used for “infrastructure,” purportedly to improve the congestion.
Do you really believe that? If so, why?
It’ll be used to create an entire “congestion” bureaucracy filled with protected class unproductive employees and you’ll never get rid of them.
And the roads will just get more and more congested, because you’re rewarding the government for creating them.
Sounds simple enough to me to grasp this reality. But, Democrats and independents fall for it every time.
Even a few Republicans do.
I prefer the old fashioned way of using tax money properly.
Installing additional capacity to make peak demand has a cost,
plain and simple. Pretty much every utility in the US has demand pricing for commercial rates, and some for residential. This reflects real world costs, and blowing that off as “greedy utilities” or similar is absurd at best.
You don’t have to like it. But the reality is as I’ve laid it out.
Now you’re repeating yourself. And repeating something that is besides the point. They make the cost up on equipment with ALL the pricing. The equipment doesn’t become unavailable off peak. That “extra” equipment allows them to maintain capacity and do off maintenance.
Yes, much like all the movie theaters charge 5 times as much as they should for a candy bar. Captive market pricing is captive market pricing. It’s not better when it’s a utility than something else.
You just made my point for me. Your cavalier attitude is exactly like there’s. It’s straight out of Goodfellas “#$%^ you pay me”. NOTHING about the cost of making the capacity excuses peak pricing. Peak pricing is simply the chance of charge more when you want. The “reality” you’ve laid out does not excuse it. It just shows you like getting buggered by the electric company.
Do you have any idea what it would cost to build "lane capacity" to meet an unconstrained demand? They actually tried that in Los Angeles. See what that place looks like now.
There are very, very few areas of life where it makes any sense to design something for a peak operating condition that occurs relatively infrequently. A typical city will have peak rush-hour traffic for maybe 4-6 hours in a day. Why would you ever design it for a condition that occurs maybe 16% to 25% of the time, especially considering the enormous cost of adding that one additional lane every time you think you need it?
This isn't unique to transportation infrastructure, either. It's the same rationale that is used in sports. The Yankees could probably sell 200,000 tickets for any game they play against the Red Sox, but it makes no sense for them to build a 200,000-seat stadium when they would draw an average of maybe 40,000-45,000 fans for almost any other game.
The reality is you’ve confirmed my earlier assessment and that you’ve never done serious engineering economy-type financial analysis past maybe a house mortgage.
The reality is they don’t pay more for the electricity then (ask any of your friend who have solar) so charging more is simply taking advantage. There’s no reason why they couldn’t put the cost of the extra capacity into ALL the pricing. In fact you know full well it is. Peak pricing is PROFIT time. You know it. I know it. They know it. Stop putzing about.
Actually, they DID NOT try it in Southern California. Jerry Brown effectively killed it when it was half completed. That’s why there’s a nice green strip through Beverly Hills and Orange County got stuck with a bunch of useless toll roads, among a large number of other aborted builds, too numerous to name here.
But what the hell, turn highways into playgrounds for the RICH, why the hell not!!!
...and by the way, you don’t have to TALK DOWN to me, I’m not as dumb as you think. I didn’t say to add lanes until congestion cleared, I said to add capacity as population grew - which actually did happen in much of the country. Take a look at the New Jersey Turnpike some day. I realize there will have to be some congestion to get anywhere close to optimum efficiency out of highways - I just don’t like the idea of PUNISHING people for stuff that many, perhaps most, don’t have control over - like what their work hours are or what their class hours are.
I’m also not into the government cutting CRONY DEALS, as has been the case time and time again with these schemes...although, I guess others are into that.
“How do you propose to pay for it?”
Not by chasing people and businesses that transact and create taxable revenue away from your city.
Governments can’t help themselves. They will chase their cash cows out of town because they think they can make effortless dollars from tolls and electronic tracking tags.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.