Recent Blog Posts
-
The Times' Rorshach Geithner Story
Apr 27 20099:04am EDT -
Sinking Animal Spirits
Apr 27 20098:04am EDT -
Counter-cyclical Urban Policy
Apr 26 200910:04am EDT -
Be Your Own Counterfeiter
Apr 26 20099:04am EDT -
Being Tim Geithner
Apr 25 200912:04pm EDT -
Notes From a Press Conference Naif
Apr 25 20099:04am EDT -
What Good is the News?
Apr 25 20098:04am EDT -
Stressful Enough
Apr 24 20092:04pm EDT -
Not Regretting the Pound
Apr 24 20091:04pm EDT -
Introducing the New Ford Squeeze
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
Non-Economic Questions of the Day
Apr 24 20099:04am EDT -
The Stress Test Blind Alley
Apr 24 20098:04am EDT -
Happy Hour
Apr 23 20099:04pm EDT -
Recovery Without Rebalancing
Apr 23 20096:04pm EDT -
The Shape of Your Recession
Apr 23 20095:04pm EDT
Links
- Felix Salmon

- DealBreaker

- Ryan Avent: The Bellows

- The Epicurean Dealmaker

- Chris Anderson

- Ultimi Barbarorum

- MarketBeat

- Michelle Leder

- John Quiggin

- The Panelist

- Andrew Leonard

- Streetsblog

- Brad Setser

- Michael Mandel

- Financial Crookery

- Kash Mansori

- Dean Baker

- Calculated Risk

- Free Exchange

- Curbed

- Lance Knobel

- Econospeak

- Carbon Tax Center

- Overcoming Bias

- Mark Thoma

- Naked Capitalism

- Alphaville

- Barry Ritholtz

- Alexander Campbell

- The Bayesian Heresy

- Brad DeLong

- DealBook

- Greg Mankiw

- Deal Journal

- FP Passport

- Carl Bialik

- Marginal Revolution

- A Fistful of Euros

- Dan Gross

Two Views of Congestion Pricing
Gumby Fresh has an interesting twist on congestion pricing today, riffing off a NYT article about subway congestion. The question: Does subway congestion make congestion pricing more problematic, or does it, on the other hand, make congestion pricing more necessary?
The first view is encapsulated in the article, and it basically boils down to this:
Congestion pricing involves moving the public from cars and onto public transport.
But the subway system is already running at capacity.
Therefore, congestion pricing has big problems.
That's not how Gumby sees it, however. In fact, he says,
Congestion pricing, as it developed in London, though less so in Singapore, starts with the assumption that large and mature cities have very little room to expand their subway/rail/light rail systems.
Congestion pricing, on this view, is an attempt to get people out of the subway, and onto buses. But no one is going to take the bus if the roads are ridiculously congested. So you need to clear up space on the roads, by charging cars to enter the congested zones. Think of it like this:
The subway system is running at capacity.
To reduce the strain on the subways, bus ridership will have to go up.
But buses are dreadful, because of congestion.
So we have to implement congestion pricing to reduce congestion and increase bus ridership.
It has worked in London, but I have to admit that it's going to be harder to make it work in New York. One important reason why is that New York sets the fare for a bus ride at exactly the same as the fare for a subway ride. That gives no incentive at all to move from the subways to the buses: either bus fares need to come down, or subway fares need to go up. And then, of course, the number of buses on any given route has to increase substantially, so that buses arrive at least as frequently as subways.
All you need then is a good network of bus lanes, a substantial reduction in Manhattan traffic, and a wholesale change in public attitudes towards riding the bus. Easy!






