Congestion Pricing Is a Force Multiplier for Transit

[phantom power]

Writing up a cool paper on the positive externalities of mass transit, Paul Krugman describes transit investment as a kind of useful second-best policy: "the right answer is to get the incentives right, and charge large fees for driving in congestion."

That's correct, but I also think it's important for transit fans to see that congestion fees are a kind of force multiplier for transit. After all, in some big American cities the peak congestion charge would have to get quite hefty at some times of the day. Some folks will respond to that by paying the fee, some by time-shifting their driving to a less-crowded hour, and some by riding transit. A bus, after all, is a great mechanism for spreading the cost of road access across a large number of people. And while with highways the quality of the service provided declines with the number of users (traffic jams), with well-designed transit it goes the other way. The more people who want to travel on a particular transit route, the more financially viable it is to provide high-frequency service. And high-frequency service is the key to real-world transit useability.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/15/congestion_pricing_and_mass_transit_two_great_tastes_that_taste_great_together.html

[mopinko]

1. chicagoans hate the parking meter deal, but

the whole point was to be able to hike up the downtown parking fees. the meters were at their capacity to take coins and the deal meant kiosks that took credit cards instead. mayor daley wanted desperately to curb downtown traffic, and increase transit use. that was the whole damn point.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. um what? The whole deal was to do a one time bail out of the City

by selling off a public asset. That deal was corrupt and stupid and corrupt and stupid. The cost of upgrading the meters could have been done without giving away the entire business.

[mopinko]

3. exhibit a