When a freeway is congested, good old-fashioned Supply & Demand says it's because the price is below market equilibrium. That's easy to fix, and as a bonus it provides a revenue source to pay for freeways that's less regressive than the sales tax.
On a 5.5 inch smartphone, 4K is only about 800 pixels per inch, while laser printers are often 1200 or more dots per inch and nobody seems to think that's "rediculous".
Water you use is unusable by me. Sure there's lots of water (if you don't live in California..) but its still a rivalrous good.
But it is not a public good. That's why we set a price on it.
But besides roads, can you think of another rivalrous good that's unpriced?
Most roads are empty most of the time
And that makes them very inefficient at moving traffic and a poor use of land. Let's work on fixing that.
Even the most congested, most complained about road in my area moves only about 30% of its daily capacity. Part of the reason is because it has so many traffic lights and at-grade intersections, and part is because people all tend to be on the road at the same time. Restaurants flatten demand by setting different lunch and dinner prices. Managed freeway lanes with variable pricing do the same thing.
It is rather obvious that charging more than most people can/will pay will encompass people who are cheap/ don't care/ or would like to, but they cannot afford it. First two are fine - the third, not as much.
That reminds me of the clockmaker who synchronized his clocks to the church bell and the bellringer who synchronized his watch to the clockmaker's clocks.
No, this is not about charging "anything they want". This is about charging the market equilibrium price to eliminate traffic congestion. Please try to stay on topic.
The issue is that roads are a shared public good...
No, they are not a public good. Public goods by definition are non-rivalrous, which means one person's use of it does not prevent another person from using it. Traffic prevents people from using the roads; therefore, roads are rivalrous and therefore are not public goods.
...not something that should be priced to allow the wealthy an advantage.
Even if the revenue is spent on services for the poor?
In other words, if anybody is going to be stuck in traffic, everybody should be stuck in traffic.
Good plan. Let's price all the roads at market equilibrium so nobody is stuck in traffic!
[ Paying a fee to use the passing lanes on highways is] actually a really good idea, if the fee is set just high enough to eliminate congestion in that lane...
If the tolls are not kept high, the toll lane will become just as congested as the regular lanes.
Correct, if the fee isn't set high enough to eliminate congestion, there will be congestion. So what's the issue?
Is bypassing traffic if your son is sick a luxury?
I think it's cheaper to drive him and pay a toll than to call an ambulance and pay the copay. Not to mention paying less in taxes because the managed lane never gets congested (because it's always priced right at market equilibrium) and so the freeway never again needs to be widened at taxpayer expense just to relieve congestion.
maybe we'll end up with people paying a fee to use the passing lanes on highways.
That's actually a really good idea, if the fee is set just high enough to eliminate congestion in that lane, but no higher, so that nobody is ever gouged and so that the managed lane isn't responsible for causing congestion in the anarchy lanes. Then if my son is sick and I have to get him to the doctor, I can pay the fee and bypass traffic. This would give me an option that I didn't have before. Options and competition are good things, right?
Did you know that before we started massively subsidizing (socializing) the trucking industry, grocery stores used to have their own railroad spurs? True story. So capitalism can work perfectly well when we allow it to.
"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher
And considering that Iowa is where much food for Manhattan, LA, and San Francisco comes from, roads and bridges there should be of some interest to urban Americans.
Sure, we will maintain the roads and bridges on our side of the state line, but if Iowa wants to sell us food, isn't that sufficient economic incentive for them to maintain the roads and bridges in their state?
Let Washington give them enough money to do so but give it to them unconditionally so we can see whether maintaining ALL of their existing roads and bridges is really the best use of that money. Without strings attached, I suspect Iowa might close down some lesser-used bridges to motor traffic so they no longer need to be maintained, and they might expand their rail lines to get some long haul trucks off the road so they cause less traffic congestion and road wear.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? How much are you willing to bet that I cannot name a city with more people but fewer cars than yours? Ha ha!
So how is it that the traffic congestion was not caused by putting more cars on the road? That's...counterintuitive.
And so are the cars, correct?
Then take one that does, and let your ex-employer figure out how he's going to get his toilets cleaned if nobody can afford to work for him.
Perhaps, but the fact that people fill up an unpriced freeway with cars is no more a sign of need than people grabbing all the burgers on free burger day.
More than Waze already does?
If they can't afford to get to work, their employers will have to pay more if they want their toilets cleaned and their grass cut.
The root problem is too many cars, not overpopulation.
When a freeway is congested, good old-fashioned Supply & Demand says it's because the price is below market equilibrium. That's easy to fix, and as a bonus it provides a revenue source to pay for freeways that's less regressive than the sales tax.
And road signs, too!
When I'm in an area with a lot of signs and other visual clutter, I slow down to give my brain more time to process everything. It's the law.
That sounds like a computer science problem, not a software engineering problem.
Is Net Neutrality a good substitute for competition, or is it more of a consolation prize? Why should we be satisfied with that?
On a 5.5 inch smartphone, 4K is only about 800 pixels per inch, while laser printers are often 1200 or more dots per inch and nobody seems to think that's "rediculous".
But it is not a public good. That's why we set a price on it.
But besides roads, can you think of another rivalrous good that's unpriced?
And that makes them very inefficient at moving traffic and a poor use of land. Let's work on fixing that.
Even the most congested, most complained about road in my area moves only about 30% of its daily capacity. Part of the reason is because it has so many traffic lights and at-grade intersections, and part is because people all tend to be on the road at the same time. Restaurants flatten demand by setting different lunch and dinner prices. Managed freeway lanes with variable pricing do the same thing.
That's a good point. It's why all lanes on a freeway ought to be managed lanes.
The wealthy are perfectly willing to pay into the road fund to use those lanes, and the poor are only too happy to let them. "Support [for toll lanes] is high across all income groups, with the lowest income group expressing stronger support than the highest income group (80% vs. 70%)." So what's wrong with giving everyone what they want?
That reminds me of the clockmaker who synchronized his clocks to the church bell and the bellringer who synchronized his watch to the clockmaker's clocks.
No, this is not about charging "anything they want". This is about charging the market equilibrium price to eliminate traffic congestion. Please try to stay on topic.
No, they are not a public good. Public goods by definition are non-rivalrous, which means one person's use of it does not prevent another person from using it. Traffic prevents people from using the roads; therefore, roads are rivalrous and therefore are not public goods.
Even if the revenue is spent on services for the poor?
Good plan. Let's price all the roads at market equilibrium so nobody is stuck in traffic!
Or, do you actually like traffic?
Correct, if the fee isn't set high enough to eliminate congestion, there will be congestion. So what's the issue?
I think it's cheaper to drive him and pay a toll than to call an ambulance and pay the copay. Not to mention paying less in taxes because the managed lane never gets congested (because it's always priced right at market equilibrium) and so the freeway never again needs to be widened at taxpayer expense just to relieve congestion.
That's actually a really good idea, if the fee is set just high enough to eliminate congestion in that lane, but no higher, so that nobody is ever gouged and so that the managed lane isn't responsible for causing congestion in the anarchy lanes. Then if my son is sick and I have to get him to the doctor, I can pay the fee and bypass traffic. This would give me an option that I didn't have before. Options and competition are good things, right?
Did you know that before we started massively subsidizing (socializing) the trucking industry, grocery stores used to have their own railroad spurs? True story. So capitalism can work perfectly well when we allow it to.
"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher
So if road users paid 100% of the cost of the roads, we wouldn't have roads?
I think you need to think about that one a little more.
Sure, we will maintain the roads and bridges on our side of the state line, but if Iowa wants to sell us food, isn't that sufficient economic incentive for them to maintain the roads and bridges in their state?
Let Washington give them enough money to do so but give it to them unconditionally so we can see whether maintaining ALL of their existing roads and bridges is really the best use of that money. Without strings attached, I suspect Iowa might close down some lesser-used bridges to motor traffic so they no longer need to be maintained, and they might expand their rail lines to get some long haul trucks off the road so they cause less traffic congestion and road wear.
False. "Concentrations of uranium [in coal] fall in the range from slightly below 1 to 4 parts per million (ppm)... Thorium concentrations in coal fall within a similar 1–4 ppm range"
[citation needed]