 |
|
Do I hear $500? How about $600?
Access to carpool lanes is a valuable resource. So let’s make people pay.Here’s a fun one: California state legislator Jim Battin has submitted a bill that would allow purchasers of carbon offsets to ride in the carpool lane. No environmentalist, Battin just wants to be able to drive his Lincoln Aviator (14 mpg) “guilt-free in the empty diamond lane.” Meanwhile, Desmog Blog grumbles over Washington State’s proposal for new road tolls. The tolls are needed because vehicle fuel efficiency gains have slowed the growth of gas tax revenue. Desmog Blog argues (strangely) that the new tolls would unfairly punish drivers who bought cleaner cars. TerraPass to the rescue! We have long advocated the enviro-econo-nerd’s favorite road revenue scheme: auction off permits to drive in the carpool lane and use the revenue to fund greenhouse gas reductions elsewhere. Everyone wins: Battin can pay the going rate to drive his tank in the fast lane; do-gooder hybrid owners avoid a surcharge; and environmentalists can fund programs that reduce emissions far more effectively than car pool lanes ever could. This will never happen, presumably, due to populist outrage when carpool lane permits hit $1,000 a pop. Too bad — that much green could buy a lot of clean energy. Image by Flickr user nicholas_t. Tags: Carpool lanes, congestion, HOV lanes, traffic
Further reading
Like this article? Get weekly updates by email!
Comments2.
Comment by Boudica
@ Mar 5, 2008 7 AM
 So what you’re saying is that carpool lanes should become a tool for the rich people who can afford to pay $500 and upward for such access, instead of a way to reward people that make more environmentally-sound choices? Don’t the people who can afford to buy access to the carpool lane already have enough advantages at the expense of everyone else? 
Ah, excellent! As predicted — populist outrage will sink this like a rock. Let’s work through this a bit: Garry — your tax money already funds roads. So a proposal like this could lower your tax bill by pushing the cost onto those who actually use the roads and are most willing to pay for access to low-congestion driving. Boudica — that’s exactly what I’m suggesting (because I’m not a politician, and therefore can get away with such things). Rewarding people for making environmentally sound choices is grand if it works, but carpool lanes don’t appear to work very well. The money raised could be much better spent on, say, public transportation, which would benefit the general public and the environment more than carpool lanes seem to. If anyone is interested in the theory behind this, Google HOT lanes. You’ll turn up a ton of good stuff, including this lengthy but readable guide from the Federal Highway Administration. A HOT lane isn’t quite the same as auctioned permits, but it’s in the same general direction.
4.
Comment by steve
@ Mar 5, 2008 8 AM
car pool lanes are not an answer. what is an answer is mass transit. can’t find space for a rail system, how about the roads? close a lane of every major road and make it a bus only lane. cities already have bus systems that adjust light timing so busses do not have to stop, and if they are the only ones useing a lane, no congestion to worrry about. call it a “road train” and publish reliable usable schedules. people will use it if they can rely on it. can’t rely on public transit and you end up relying on yourself to get around in your own car. 5.
Comment by Lori
@ Mar 5, 2008 9 AM
I agree totally with Steve. Carpool lanes are not the answer. Besides carpool lanes never start early enough, and always stop and end up merging at the worst possible time with the rest of the backup traffic. Reliable mass transit, bus lanes, telecommuting, or dont approve new construction BEFORE you worked out the traffic implications. 6.
Comment by Aaron A.
@ Mar 5, 2008 10 AM
It’s an interesting idea, assuming you trust the government to not reapportion that money toward building more roads or toward politicians’ pet projects. Obviously, it’ll come off as another concession to The Rich, but I could easily see upper-middle-class folks paying $1,000 per year to knock an hour off of their daily commute. Perhaps we could integrate Steve’s suggestion and use the money to build more bike trails or commuter trains. Also, it seems that enforcement would be difficult; how is a traffic cop supposed to see a little tiny permit as the car whizzes by? RF tags, perhaps? (We have virtually no highways here in the Last Frontier, and thus no HOV lanes, so I’m pretty much in the dark. What would they do for, say, a Camry hybrid, which looks very similar to a regular Camry?) More to the point, though, this just makes single-occupancy driving more attractive. If I wanted to avoid a long aggravating smog-producing commute, I could share a ride with friends, catch a bus, ride a bike, telecommute… or I could buy a permit and be done. That sounds a lot like the “indulgence” argument that has plagued offset providers from the beginning: “don’t bother doing anything to reduce pollution; you can just buy your way to a Green Life™.” — A. 7.
Comment by Eric N.
@ Mar 5, 2008 10 AM
Boudica & Adam- What if these permits simply exempted drivers from the occupancy requirements of carpool lanes? I think that Mr. Battin and all the other fat cats should be able to shell out their $1,000 a pop to drive “guilt free in the empty diamond lane”, but those who make the the environmentally sound decisions to drive hybrids or actually carpool should still have access to these lanes for free. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.
More to the point, though, this just makes single-occupancy driving more attractive…you can just buy your way to a Green Life. There nothing green about buying a permit like this — you wouldn’t do it for environmental bragging rights. Right now, driving is massively subsidized. We all pay a lot of money in taxes for roads that most of us don’t use. This scheme just introduces some price discrimination so that the burden of paying for roads is more fairly distributed. (It also makes driving more costly, so I don’t really see how single-occupancy driving becomes more attractive in this situation.) There should be environmental side benefits to such a program, because it reduces the free rider problem: right now, I may as well drive as much as possible, because the roads are already paid for.
Eric N. — not a bad idea, but you’d have to make the cutoff much more stringent than just allowing hybrids in the lanes. There are too many hybrids out there (and not all of them get great mileage). But in principle this is a cool idea that could act as a sort of feebate for super-efficient vehicles. 10.
Comment by Will. M
@ Mar 5, 2008 11 AM
Why not do what Japan and other countries do: make the cost of annually licensing your vehicle commensurate with its MPG? Draft a law that lets the small, somewhat less polluting high mileage vehicle be the cheapest to register annually, and charge the guzzlers the most? In CA, our gas prices already reflect a good portion of the taxes added to a gallon of gas, and yet we still don’t pay what Japan and other nations pay per gallon. And add text to the law which requires that the revenue be spent on public transportation solutions and NOT highway building or maintainence. 11.
Comment by Aaron A.
@ Mar 5, 2008 12 PM
Adam Stein said: You combined the beginning of one statement with the end of another, to suggest that I said these permits were similar to offsets. What I said was that they share the perception that [least favorite political party] manufactured a problem for the rest of us, then developed a loophole so they can buy themselves an exemption. Offset critics are fond of saying that we buy offsets to avoid making any personal changes in their lives; permits would be seen in a similar light (see comment #2). [Paying to use the HOV lane] also makes driving more costly, so I don’t really see how single-occupancy driving becomes more attractive in this situation. In economic terms, you’re certainly correct. However, we humans tend to resist change in ways that Homo economicus would not. As gas prices have risen over the last few years, there’s been some consideration of how to conserve gasoline, but that usually revolves around squeaking out an extra MPG or two or artificially lowering the price of gas, sometimes by means of hokey schemes like pumping at a certain time of day or participating in “gas-outs.” Few suggest meaningful change, like carpooling or driving less. When I said that permits make single-occupancy driving more attractive, I mean that they allow a way to keep doing what we’ve always done. This is why I suggested using at least part of the permit proceeds to improve infrastructure for low-carbon forms of transportation, developing and publicizing alternatives to the eternal commute. This is not to say, however, that I hate the idea. Considering how much we as a nation spend to have somebody else cook for us, I could see annual prices going well beyond $1,000 (a mere $4 per weekday), depending on the particular stretch of road and potential time saved. Those who don’t pay would still benefit from reduced congestion. Reducing congestion could also discourage additional highway construction, because we’d get better use out of what we already have. Permits aren’t a terrible idea, but I think there are a lot of angles to consider, and they’re sure to be misrepresented by politicians, activists, and media moguls with an axe to grind. — A. 12.
Comment by Anonymous
@ Mar 5, 2008 6 PM
Will M.- I love the idea! In fact, I proposed the idea in another message board where I came up with the following, proposed formula based on engine displacement (although you could tweak it to fit other criteria): $registration = $25+liters^5 1.0 liters = $26 registration 13.
Comment by Chad
@ Mar 6, 2008 8 AM
“$registration = $25+liters^5 “ Just slap on a gas tax. It is simpler and fairer. Someone who drives an SUV 5000 miles each year is every bit as “green” as somone who drives a Prious 20,000 miles a year. Why are you treating them differently? 14.
Comment by Eric N.
@ Mar 6, 2008 9 AM
I see your point, but I’m not sure I’d say they’re “every bit as green”, because they’ll always be less efficient (at least until someone brings us a 1.5L SUV). Surely, the equation could be made much more complex, but it the purpose was simply to demonstrate an example. 15.
Comment by garry gibbs
@ Mar 13, 2008 6 AM
Polution, carbon build up is the least of the problems.You will be glad to be even able to get the fuels here shortly, at any cost.So we need alternatives, like drilling where ever we can to get what we need until the tech. is available to make a real diff.Short of that they are out for your wallet, no matter how package it. 16.
Comment by dr2chase
@ Mar 20, 2008 8 AM
It’s not just the inefficiency of the SUV. Big cars have a second-order effect of intimidating other people into buying bigger cars, or not driving their little cars, or not biking (a Smart Car can pass a bike with room to spare without crossing the center line — not so for the larger SUVs). Post a comment |
|
another tax, way to go, that is so creative …try politics next.