About ten months ago, I briefly chronicled the San Francisco area's strategies for battling congestion. Under the category of congestion pricing, tolls for area bridges and roadways went up when use went up. While many people look at roadway capacity as a supply-and-demand function, they don't like to think of those same economic forces are applied to roadways, if they actually have to pay for it. Which in that essence is why it actually relieves congestion.
The San Francisco Chronicle reported on a study that followed up on the strategy, and it appears to be working. While carpooling (a dubious attempt at congestion reduction) has decreased, so has main lane use. Transit ridership is up, vehicle miles traveled are down and travel time savings is up, tremendously in some cases. The extreme example is I-880, which saw its average travel times reduced by half!
The main problem with congestion pricing implementation on a wide scale is the lack of available case studies. However, of the ones that are out there, it appears that adding a market approach actually reduces congestion, more so than any other attempt that has been tried before.
Showing posts with label tolls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tolls. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Surveys
My mother-in-law gave me a link to an online survey offered by the NTTA. This is a great example of why survey results need to be taken with a grain of salt.
http://legacy.rsgsurvey.com/northtexas/CGP
I was asked when was the last weekday day, not date, that I had been in a car. That would have been for my sons one-year birthday dinner, three weeks ago. That time should make a big difference in the travel patterns this survey is trying to find.
It then asked many questions related to that trip, however, that was only part of the survey, the other, I presume, is more of a policy guide. Which route would you take: One with no tolls and a lot of time, one with a small amount of tolls and a medium amount of time or one with a lot of tolls and a shorter amount of time. It also used a time frame in there, between 5:30 and 6:30 or outside, showing a bias towards work commute patterns, when that is roughly only a quarter of all metropolitan travel. I also have a fourth option not included, a transit route.
After they asked about the preferences of the respondent, the questions migrated towards the general do you prefer tolls for a faster commute?, how should our roads be paid for? and other toll-related items. This is what I think they really are doing the survey. This seems to have more use as an opinion survey presented to decision makers and legislators than as a trip survey.
A brief decision of how modeling actually works proves that. A metropolitan area is divided into hundreds of zones (In graduate school, the example we worked with was small, at 500 zones). Within these zones, attractions and housing are determined. As an example, downtown with its many jobs, is considered a high attraction (though in reality it is a few zones) while the suburban zones generally have lower housing amounts, there are many of them. Routes are than drawn, based on the regions roads between the zones. Many mathmatical formulas exist to determine the amount of trips on the roads between zones. Many use different things, like number of jobs, houses, retail, recreational activities, density depending on the model used. Then real world measurements are taken of actual traffic counts at these locations. Once those are obtained, the model is calibrated using adjustments and run again until all the numbers are close to the observed totals. Finaly, the calibrated model is run for X number of years in advance using projections into the future of where growth, stagnation and decline are expected to occur.
Obviously, this is much more complicated than asking where your last trip was. That makes me believe this is a device being used to push an agenda. I would hate for this to be put out there that this is being used for a road building agenda. I hope this is purely being used as a road financing tool. Instead, if its being used for the generic term of transportation, then its is skewed and not worth the paper it is printed on, and since it is an internet survey, that is saying something.
http://legacy.rsgsurvey.com/northtexas/CGP
I was asked when was the last weekday day, not date, that I had been in a car. That would have been for my sons one-year birthday dinner, three weeks ago. That time should make a big difference in the travel patterns this survey is trying to find.
It then asked many questions related to that trip, however, that was only part of the survey, the other, I presume, is more of a policy guide. Which route would you take: One with no tolls and a lot of time, one with a small amount of tolls and a medium amount of time or one with a lot of tolls and a shorter amount of time. It also used a time frame in there, between 5:30 and 6:30 or outside, showing a bias towards work commute patterns, when that is roughly only a quarter of all metropolitan travel. I also have a fourth option not included, a transit route.
After they asked about the preferences of the respondent, the questions migrated towards the general do you prefer tolls for a faster commute?, how should our roads be paid for? and other toll-related items. This is what I think they really are doing the survey. This seems to have more use as an opinion survey presented to decision makers and legislators than as a trip survey.
A brief decision of how modeling actually works proves that. A metropolitan area is divided into hundreds of zones (In graduate school, the example we worked with was small, at 500 zones). Within these zones, attractions and housing are determined. As an example, downtown with its many jobs, is considered a high attraction (though in reality it is a few zones) while the suburban zones generally have lower housing amounts, there are many of them. Routes are than drawn, based on the regions roads between the zones. Many mathmatical formulas exist to determine the amount of trips on the roads between zones. Many use different things, like number of jobs, houses, retail, recreational activities, density depending on the model used. Then real world measurements are taken of actual traffic counts at these locations. Once those are obtained, the model is calibrated using adjustments and run again until all the numbers are close to the observed totals. Finaly, the calibrated model is run for X number of years in advance using projections into the future of where growth, stagnation and decline are expected to occur.
Obviously, this is much more complicated than asking where your last trip was. That makes me believe this is a device being used to push an agenda. I would hate for this to be put out there that this is being used for a road building agenda. I hope this is purely being used as a road financing tool. Instead, if its being used for the generic term of transportation, then its is skewed and not worth the paper it is printed on, and since it is an internet survey, that is saying something.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Benefits of Paying to Drive
To the chagrin of many, transportation planners in recent years have been advocating policies, other policies and different policies that revoke hidden subsidies to the car. While many of the ideas have been idling in neutral, some have stuck, notably toll roads. However, one of planners top ideas of reducing congestion and increasing the attractiveness of other options is congestion pricing.
In essence, congestion pricing charges drivers to access a certain area, usually congested business districts. The underlying assumption here is that market forces, when applied to auto use, will reduce congestion. Since roads are now free, or bare minimum underpriced, people consume the service (roads) at a rate greater than its worth. An easy comparison, if bread (roads) was no longer priced at current levels, but instead was free or .50 cents, then more bread (roads) would need to be made (new or expansions) or there would be shortages (congestion).
Since there is a lack of congestion pricing case studies here in the states, it is hard to quantify the benefits. New York City passed a congestion pricing plan for parts of Manhattan, but the State shot it down. California has implemented some aspects, but it is predominantly toll roads with variable pricing, more expensive at peak times than non-peak hours and lacks other aspects.
San Francisco passed the most comprehensive plan and enacted it in 2010. The central element is the Bay Bridge, which was tolled at the same rate and carpools could use it for free. Now, prices are higher from 5 a.m. to 10 and from 3 p.m. to 7. Carpoolers now pay a discounted rate.
Market rate parking, which I touched on near the end of this post, is another part of San Fran's congestion plan.
The results have been close to what was predicted. From the Silicon Valley, travel times have been reduced traveling into San Francisco and transit trips have seen a 4,000 commuter increase. The only downside has been a reduction in carpool trips, which as I will explain, doesn't concern me.
I believe this is a positive first step. While true congestion pricing doesn't exist on this continent, the preliminary results from this myopic case study are positive. As expected, introducing the market forces into transportation resulted in a supply and demand relationship according to the price. Since San Fran has adequate transit service, it can compete well. And as expected, saw a sizable increase in ridership. Now imagine4,000 new riders for every freeway/bridge that adopted the same policy as well as major downtown entrances. If this was a city policy only, there would be an increase in the tens of thousands. If it was increased regionally, on every freeway/bridge, there would be a sizable increase.
As with any project or plan that reduces priority for the automobile, the naysayers where out. Business would suffer, people won't come into _______and go elsewhere or the externalities will be pushed to the just outside the edge of the congestion zone, in this case Oakland. As is usual, none of the against arguments have materialized. Business activity is consistent in San Francisco, downtown is still an attractive place and people are coming and congestion and increased parking in Oakland is not at a significant level.
The decrease in carpooling doesn't concern me as much. The idea of trying to get people out of one person per car has been an abject failure. It was a nice idea in theory, but it hasn't worked in reality. The reason is that we still favor single-use autos through myriad policies and regulations. Until we see wholesale changes in transportation and land use, which outside of San Francisco is similar to every Sun Belt metro, thn carpooling will be another underutilized aspect, just like transit. The idea of if you build it, they will come applies here. It simply isnt convenient to carpool.
Now Texas is trying the HOT, High Occupancy / Toll Lanes. These may work and reduce congestion/speed up commutes, but they will if only because they introduce market forces, not because they encourage people to ride together. I am optimistic here.
Would congestion pricing work everywhere? As far as I am concerned, that is still up in the air. I tend to lean toward yes on these types of questions. Everywhere that downtown living was non-existent before a recent proposal to bring them in has happened, people said no one from this place (whether it be a big city like Dallas or a smaller city like Aberdeen, South Dakota) will want to live downtown. Sure enough, people did and near everywhere, developers can't keep up with demand.
Now congestion pricing is a bit different than urban living, but, I think there has to be two factors in existence for any congestion plan to be successful, the area in question has to be a vibrant, attractive place and there has to be at least adequate transit service. These two things preclude any meaningful congestion pricing zone in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. Downtown Dallas is not at the critical mass for attractiveness and downtown Fort Worth doesn't have adequate transit service. Either way, it is a mute point, as this type of program would never be implemented here politically in the near future.
In essence, congestion pricing charges drivers to access a certain area, usually congested business districts. The underlying assumption here is that market forces, when applied to auto use, will reduce congestion. Since roads are now free, or bare minimum underpriced, people consume the service (roads) at a rate greater than its worth. An easy comparison, if bread (roads) was no longer priced at current levels, but instead was free or .50 cents, then more bread (roads) would need to be made (new or expansions) or there would be shortages (congestion).
Since there is a lack of congestion pricing case studies here in the states, it is hard to quantify the benefits. New York City passed a congestion pricing plan for parts of Manhattan, but the State shot it down. California has implemented some aspects, but it is predominantly toll roads with variable pricing, more expensive at peak times than non-peak hours and lacks other aspects.
San Francisco passed the most comprehensive plan and enacted it in 2010. The central element is the Bay Bridge, which was tolled at the same rate and carpools could use it for free. Now, prices are higher from 5 a.m. to 10 and from 3 p.m. to 7. Carpoolers now pay a discounted rate.
Market rate parking, which I touched on near the end of this post, is another part of San Fran's congestion plan.
The results have been close to what was predicted. From the Silicon Valley, travel times have been reduced traveling into San Francisco and transit trips have seen a 4,000 commuter increase. The only downside has been a reduction in carpool trips, which as I will explain, doesn't concern me.
I believe this is a positive first step. While true congestion pricing doesn't exist on this continent, the preliminary results from this myopic case study are positive. As expected, introducing the market forces into transportation resulted in a supply and demand relationship according to the price. Since San Fran has adequate transit service, it can compete well. And as expected, saw a sizable increase in ridership. Now imagine4,000 new riders for every freeway/bridge that adopted the same policy as well as major downtown entrances. If this was a city policy only, there would be an increase in the tens of thousands. If it was increased regionally, on every freeway/bridge, there would be a sizable increase.
As with any project or plan that reduces priority for the automobile, the naysayers where out. Business would suffer, people won't come into _______and go elsewhere or the externalities will be pushed to the just outside the edge of the congestion zone, in this case Oakland. As is usual, none of the against arguments have materialized. Business activity is consistent in San Francisco, downtown is still an attractive place and people are coming and congestion and increased parking in Oakland is not at a significant level.
The decrease in carpooling doesn't concern me as much. The idea of trying to get people out of one person per car has been an abject failure. It was a nice idea in theory, but it hasn't worked in reality. The reason is that we still favor single-use autos through myriad policies and regulations. Until we see wholesale changes in transportation and land use, which outside of San Francisco is similar to every Sun Belt metro, thn carpooling will be another underutilized aspect, just like transit. The idea of if you build it, they will come applies here. It simply isnt convenient to carpool.
Now Texas is trying the HOT, High Occupancy / Toll Lanes. These may work and reduce congestion/speed up commutes, but they will if only because they introduce market forces, not because they encourage people to ride together. I am optimistic here.
Would congestion pricing work everywhere? As far as I am concerned, that is still up in the air. I tend to lean toward yes on these types of questions. Everywhere that downtown living was non-existent before a recent proposal to bring them in has happened, people said no one from this place (whether it be a big city like Dallas or a smaller city like Aberdeen, South Dakota) will want to live downtown. Sure enough, people did and near everywhere, developers can't keep up with demand.
Now congestion pricing is a bit different than urban living, but, I think there has to be two factors in existence for any congestion plan to be successful, the area in question has to be a vibrant, attractive place and there has to be at least adequate transit service. These two things preclude any meaningful congestion pricing zone in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. Downtown Dallas is not at the critical mass for attractiveness and downtown Fort Worth doesn't have adequate transit service. Either way, it is a mute point, as this type of program would never be implemented here politically in the near future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)