Dash
- Posted by ryan on April 1st, 2008 filed in In the News
Common Tragedies’ Daniel Hall writes:
Don’t get me wrong, this congestion pricing plan from NYC is a good idea, and should be implemented. It’s appropriate that we as a society start realizing more clearly that driving has external costs, and become more accustomed to paying for them. But the ultimate model we should be looking at involves a persistent marginal charge for every mile we drive. This could be implemented fairly easily alongside pay-as-you-drive insurance. (Maybe we could even have a meter in the car — ala taxicabs — that constantly displayed the charges we were racking up? Something for the behavioral economists to think about.)
It’s not a future that’s very likely in the near-term, but it’s where we should be headed.
I’m much more sanguine about the prospects for this kind of thing. How many automobiles currently have either a GPS system or an EZ-Pass device? I don’t think we’re far away from the point at which every new car will come with equipment that would allow systems to count miles traveled and price that travel accordingly.
The hold up, in my mind, isn’t technological but political. But, as you see congestion pricing and tolling spread around the country, political feasibility may begin to increase.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Oregon tried to do this in 2006 — it failed miserably over privacy concerns.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:59 pm
This says that the final report on the pilot program in Portland determined that the user fee system was “feasible.” It looks like legislation is being drafted to enact something broader.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Well, technically, cold fusion is “feasible” but I ain’t holding my breath. Not only would you have to run the no-new-taxes gauntlet, you’d also have to deal with the potential privacy concerns. The same folks that hate on red light/neighborhood crime cameras would definitely see this as one of the signs of the apocalypse.
When GPS is as ubiquitous as airbags (and just as mandatory) that might change. If and when this comes to DC, you can bet I’ll be the first to beta test a GPS hack so that I can get a tax “refund.”
April 1st, 2008 at 10:37 pm
The hold up, in my mind, isn’t technological but political.
Yes, absolutely, yes. I’m not sure which part of me thinking that it “could be implemented fairly easily” but it was “not very likely” created an impression that the technology was the hold up, but file this under ‘manufactured disagreements’.
I am curious what being more sanguine entails. When I said “not very likely in the near-term” I was thinking perhaps p = 0.1 by 2020 (and that is for major urban centers only).
Meanwhile, monkey:
Well, technically, cold fusion is “feasible” but I ain’t holding my breath.
Worst. Analogy. Ever.
Cold fusion has (so far) proved to be technically infeasible. All the concerns you raise are political.
I tend to agree that this kind of thing is politically unlikely, including for some of the reasons you mention but how many protesters do you see lining the toll booths along the eastern seaboard protesting EZ-Passes?
And GPS will be as ubiquitous as airbags — probably quite soon — and not because of regulators but because the market will demand it. It will be all kinds of value-added to drivers.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:06 am
Not seeing how GPS is going to become ubiquitous. Seatbelts, airbags, antilock brakes, pollution controls, etc., have all been implemented for safety or environmental reasons. How does GPS fit in as a “necessity?” Seems like it’s more of an OnStar-style convenience, that’s actually a trojan horse to charge the user a monthly fee.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:10 am
No, I don’t think we’re really disagreeing. I was mainly just noting that the technology to do this is often already in automobiles–that we needn’t think a government issued meter system would be necessary.
And monkey, lots of other stuff that isn’t safety oriented is ubiquitous. If it’s something that’s universally seen as nice to have, carmakers will provide it (A/C, stereo, power windows, etc.).
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:37 am
Carmakers will offer it because it is in their interest. Think of the car as a computer; they will want to collect real-time data on how it works and why it fails.
I predict that cars equipped with GPS and real-time data links to OnStar-type systems will be just as cheap and may even come with incentives to purchase, for example through the warranty. Cars will be designed so they can be “repaired” (or optimized) on the fly, remotely, and this will be advantageous to carmakers because it will mean less need for “bricks-and-mortar” maintenance.
You might still have the option to buy a car without it but it will either be more expensive or have a worse warranty. You could disconnect it but that will void some portion of the warranty.
Just my predictions.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:43 am
Ryan, oh, yeah, that throw-away comment about having a meter in the car should have read something like, “Maybe I could have a meter in the car that could remind me how much I am spending.” I wasn’t trying to imply the government should mandate that.
I think about this sometimes when I drive around, because buying a tank of gas sucks but then once I have the gas I tend to treat it like a sunk cost and don’t really think much at the margin about what my driving costs. Would a meter in my car that told me exactly what this trip was costing me help me make better decisions at the margin? I wonder.
Oh, and you didn’t clarify what being “more sanguine” meant.
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:54 am
Reading your comments, I’m probably not that much more sanguine than you. I suspect we’ll see a growing number of programs approximating a per mile driving fee, potentially coalescing into something more uniform and rational in a decade or two.