It’s about time to tax the petro-car culture

Washington Post ran this article yesterday about the DOT’s effort to levy congestion tolls — tolls that rise with the level of traffic. The concept is intended to discourage drivers from commuting during peak hours. There is also a fringe benefit that is slightly less obvious.

Suppose you commute to and from work daily in LA. If there was congestion pricing in effect, somewhere along the way you would have to pay $5 (round-trip, example) for the privilege of sitting in traffic for 2 hours. Exorbitant gas prices plus $25 in weekly tolls would encourage a lot of commuters to seek alternative forms of transportation.

I must admit, LA is a poor example since it lacks a comprehensive public transportation system. Its Metro and bus system operate in only a fraction of the region’s commute range. In other words, someone commuting from LA’s fringe communities cannot reach LA proper by public transport.

Still, places like the Bay Area have BART and an efficient bus system. The Bay Area already has tolls to cross its local bridges, the problem is that they are economical. Congestion tolls would be additional to these these usage tolls, meaning that if it costs $3.75 to cross the Bay Bridge, there would be a surcharge of $5 for crossing it during peak commute, bringing the daily total to $8.75. Thus congestion tolls would make driving in the Bay Area during rush hour un-economical, forcing drivers to take advantage of available and feasible alternatives.

Considering this, I don’t understand the complaints made by advocates for public transport:

The focus on toll roads alarmed the transit industry, which argues that public transportation is the best way to fight gridlock in cities. Industry leaders say the DOT has made it increasingly difficult for expensive rail projects to qualify for federal dollars. The number of major new rail and bus projects on track for federal funding dropped from 48 in 2001 to 17 in 2007, even as transit ridership hit a 50-year high last year and demand for new service is soaring.

While public transport is the best way to fight gridlock, congestion tolls and public transportation are not necessarily locked into a zero sum game over funding. Congestion tolls could be used to fund expansions of public transportation. That’s why, despite the lack of immediate alternatives, I support congestion tolls in LA. The tolls could fund the construction of a more thorough public transportation system there.

Work trucks should get a reprieve since a tax on them would end up being passed onto the consumer.

Hybrids, vehicles running on alternative energy, buses, and vehicles that get over 60 miles-per-gallon shouldn’t have to pay these tolls either. This would create a market for fuel efficient vehicles, a market that Detroit deems non-existent today.

I don’t support congestion tolls going into effect now, potentially in 8-10 years, once hybrids and high mile-per-gallon vehicles are more widespread and available. Also, to give regions enough time to buff up their public transportation systems through bonds and promised to be paid-off with future toll funds.

The purpose of congestion tolls — in my mind — is to change behavior. To encourage the expansion and use of public transportation or the purchase of a fuel efficient vehicle.

+ Footnote: This web site displays nation-wide gas prices on a temperature map. Clearly, the West Coast has the most expensive (red) prices in the country. With this in mind, West Coast states should not wait for the Federal Government to take action in attacking fuel consumption since they are most likely to suffer the ill-affects of petroleum dependence before any other part of the country.

A good example of the “congestion tax is London, UK.
I may have been the first, not sure. When I speak to friends who live or work in London I get the follwing feedback: Traffic and parking is still awful and they can’t feel any improvement. They see it as a convenient way for the city to add some tax revenue and they complain that effectively lowers their wages. When people do speak favorably about it, the best they can come up with is that it keeps the really poor people out of their way. ouch

That may be the case, but my vision is to use congestion tolls as a pretense to deter fuel consumption, buff up public transportation, and create a market for non-petro automobiles (who wouldn’t have to pay). I don’t care about fighting congestion for the sake of reducing congestion, I care about fighting congestion to keep people from being so dependent on petroleum. At the very least, their addiction would come at a higher price, which would be used to fund alternatives that are far more sustainable in a geopolitical and environmental sense.

[...] It’s about time to tax the petro-car culture [...]