Automobile Congestion Tax for Metro DC?

[jsteele]

The National Capital Region Transportation Board is joining together with the Brooking Institution to seek funding for a project to study various schemes of charging for road usage. Justified by the high levels of traffic congestion in the region, the study is aimed at determining the public acceptability of various road taxes. The study will cost $400,000.

Scenarios that will be considered include road tolls that are charged for driving on a specific road or in a specific lane; tolls charged for passing through a specific point (e.g. a bridge); tolls for driving within a specific area (e.g. Central London's congestion tax); and what's called "Comprehensive pricing" in which all roads are tolled, possibly including distances-based charges.

The proposal for the study is available here:

http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committee-documents/b15aXlpc20091022153246.pdf

Personally, I am not sure why $400,000 is required to determine that nobody who drives would like any of these choices. Also, since the goal of such programs is to reduce congestion by causing people to stop driving, the most effective method would be the one that people hate the most. In that case, rather than studying "public acceptability", they should study "unacceptability".

Cynical as I am, I assume the real goal of this program is to put cash into the pockets of Brookings experts and private consultants. The report won't be read by anyone, and politicians will do what's politically expedient. But, it's a shame to see that kind of money wasted. Incidentally, rather than all these fancy schemes that require expensive studies, the government could simply raise the gas tax. That would have much the same affect, but of course wouldn't be politically expedient since it would cost some politicians their jobs.

[Anonymous]

What a waste of time and money -- I agree whole-heartedly about the study Jeff. Of course people aren't going to like the idea!

I think it's ridiculous whenever the suggestion is made that residents should carry the burden of maintaining the capital region.

Tax away on gas -- fine by me. We need to get serious about alternative fuel sources anyhow.

[Anonymous]

I don't know that it's worth 400 thou, but I figured the point was to come up with possible approaches and compare their relative acceptability rather than to decide whether the public would like a new tax.

The problem for DC is that our roads are used to an unusual extent by people who do not contribute to their maintenance. A raise in gas taxes could, I suppose, be channeled so as to rectify this, but I don't think that is likely to be a priority for two houses of Congress in which we don't have a vote.

[Anonymous]

The economic and environmental cost of traffic is so significant, I think this is a reasonable investment.

I do agree that none of these measures will be popular. However, the roads are pretty much as wide as they are going to get in our metro area. The only way to encourage people to either move jobs to less congested areas, or to adopt more responsible commuting methods, is to put a cost on driving one person in one car from point to point.

That could be done through gas taxes, but it would be very untargeted. The other methods put a cost on the specific routes that are problematic. In other words, a gas tax is great for reducing emissions and generally encouraging public transportation, but it does not address a specific congestion problem.

I am in full agreement that no one will like any one of the options, but sometimes we have to take the medicine even if it tastes awful.

[Anonymous]

As a DC resident, I'm all for any/all/some combination of these measures that would (a) reduce congestion and make the streets safer for cars, pedestrians and others, and (b) act as a proxy, albeit an imperfect one, for a commuter tax.