Study finds congestion pricing doesn't hurt the poor

One of the long-held arguments against congestion pricing or toll lanes is that they're not fair to low-income users. The tolls are the same for everybody and low-income earners get hit the hardest, so goes that line of thinking.

In fact, pretty much every politician I spoke to in the San Gabriel Valley has raised that point when talking about the proposal to convert the carpool lane on the 10 and possibly the 210 freeways into toll lanes.

Two local academics have concluded otherwise: tolls are a pretty fair way of raising money to build road capacity. In fact, they say, it's fairer than most other funding schemes.

The study comes from Lisa Schweitzer, an assistant professor of policy, planning and development at USC, and Brian Taylor, a professor of urban planning who heads up UCLA's Transportation Studies center. Taylor, in particular, has long been a vocal advocate of congestion pricing. The study has been published online in Transportation, an academic journal.

Their study is based on the toll lanes on the 91 freeway in Orange County. The two authors found that medium- and high-income earners tend to use the lanes the most -- and therefore are the ones paying for the debt service on the lanes.

They also looked at a scenario in which sales taxes collected from across the OC would be used to pay for the toll lanes. In that case, they concluded, low-income earners would be paying millions of dollars in taxes for something they don't use. Here's the key passage from their paper:

"Using sales taxes to fund roadways creates substantial savings to drivers by shifting some of the costs of driving from drivers to consumers at large, and in the process disproportionately favors the more affluent at the expense of the impoverished."

I spoke to Schweitzer earlier today and she made it clear that she doesn't buy the congestion pricing-hurts-the-poor scenario. In her view, congestion pricing is a way to ration a resource often in short supply -- space on the road. She likes it because those who use it pay for it and that puts a direct cost on driving, instead of indirect costs such as at-large sales taxes.

"I think the equity issue is a magic bullet," she said. "Food prices go up, housing prices have gone up since Jesus was a carpenter, but no one" -- politicians, that is -- "ever brings that up."

I'm guessing some readers do not agree with the ivory tower on this one. Please direct your thoughts to the comment board.

-- Steve Hymon

Photo credit: Christine Cotter / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Allan]

I love it when people debate transportation initiaives from the perspective that if we add a HOT/toll lane we force folks onto other routes. The reality is that congestion is already passed a crisis point in much of SoCal. What's also amazing to me is that the public puts up with it. Right now roads are generally an amazingly cheap proposition for users. Assuming 18 miles to the gallon for a driver who drives 10,000 miles per year and a California gas tax of 64 cents per gallon (highest in the nation). The average driver only pays less than $30 a month to use the roads. Compare that to your cable bill, your electric bill or your monthly car payment. For many folks it's a steal. Sure there are those at the lower economic scale who are horribly impacted by transportation costs. But if we raised the cost to a more sustainable level (ie truly fund transportation) than we would could put money into better transit in addition to maintaining a world class road system. Congestion pricing (and the cost of gas) also has a role in getting folks to think twice about getting in their car. I am concerned that it might reduce economic activity but a even a modest decrease in recreational/optional driving can have a big impact on reducing congestion. The bottom line is that we have a crisis that no one seems to want to holistically address. If we are reduced to a piecemeal solutions than HOT lanes are one of the better answers if properly managed - i.e. priced to allow free flowing traffic (which increases overall through put) and the "excess" funds are reinvested into transportation infrastructure. Oh and that tired issue of OCTA being forced to buy back SR91. OCTA has won a huge bonanza out of that deal. Their biggest problem is that the covenants governing the deal restrict how they can spend all the money the project generates. They are limited to corridor improvements rather than allowing the "excess" funds to help other OCTA transportation initiatives.

[mat]

Do we want roads or not? Do we want people to USE roads or not? The more people who use them, the more it will cost. The more it costs to use them, the less people will use them. The less people use them, the less revenue to maintain them. Less use, less revenue, greater per use cost to maintain, ergo less use, less revenue, greater per use cost to maintain, ad nauseum. Private company with the lease goes bankrupt, taxpayer bailout. Someone, if not many, is sunning at their villa under a golden parachute. Suck it up, society costs.

[Ken Orski]

The Schweitzer-Taylor study conclusion that "medium- and high-income earners tend to use the lanes the most" contradicts the popular rhetoric that HOT lanes are used by people "of all income groups.' The study plays into the hands of critics that HOT lanes are "for the rich"

[milan]

What kind of study completely ignores the practical results of the methods analyzed?

Toll roads are, by design, through-fares engineered to expedite a minority at the casualty of a majority. Common roads are, by design, through-fares engineered to accommodate the entire populace as efficiently as resources allow. Two distinctly different efforts. Where is the section of the study that poses the FAR MORE IMPORTANT QUESTION: What is the net effect on quality of life?

Saying that toll roads are cheaper for poor people is like living in a world where condoms cost $5,000 a piece and the alternative form of birth control is abstinence.

Stupid.

[calwatch]

The problem is that the HOV restrictions are going to have to go up on the 10 and 210 anyway. At current 3 passenger conditions, the 10 freeway carpool lane is maybe 15 or 20 mph better than the regular lanes, and the 210 carpool lane is totally worthless... it is often faster to just use the regular lanes since you can go around slow cars when the freeway breaks open. And, if you went to one of the HOT lane presentations (the next one is Saturday morning at the Monterey Park library), you would know that they are looking at building an additional lane for the HOT lane. There is enough pavement on the 10 freeway to squeeze an additional lane in the zone between the current Busway and the regular lanes, if they narrow the #1 and #2 regular lanes to 11 feet. With that, a lot of the opposition goes away since you are adding capacity. There is no talk of upping the carpool lane limit on the 110 to three passengers.

One of the ideas that the money would go towards would be for bus service, and fare reduction. Imagine paying $1.25 to get from El Monte to Downtown in half an hour, instead of the $2.50 now. They are going to look at dropping express zone charges for buses along the 110 and 10, which saves bus riders at least $36 a month. Or, bus riders that use their TAP card might get free toll credits, which would alleviate equity concerns, although I find that the equity concerns are bogus anyway.

The US is not a socialist country. We accept that rich people buy designer bags, that you can cut in line at Universal Studios for more money and get better seating at restaurants by bribing the host, and that the rich will get to sit in the front at the stadium and arena. We accept that phone calls during the day cost more than on the weekend. The Democrats in Congress who are opposed to this are just against this because they hate the rich, when they're the ones that give people jobs and invest in the economy. If, by allowing them to pay $6, they can employ ten people, or make a $10,000 sale, I'm all for it. Opposition to congestion pricing by using arguments straight from Marx is not a winner in my book.

[Anonymous]

The study compares toll lanes, funded by tolls, to toll lanes, funded by tax dollars to find determine the impact of toll lanes on the poor. That method is fundamentally flawed and disingenuous in the context of trying to build support for the 10/110/210 conversion to HOV to HOT lanes.

Converting existing HOV lanes to HOT lanes in order to reduce the amount of cars using those existing lanes will push the priced out cars into the free lanes, and will push shorter trip drivers from the free lanes to the streets. Congestion will rise hurting everyone except those who choose to pay for the HOT lanes, rich or poor. The report does not compare this conversion, and Steve, you misleadingly began your post by mentioning a HOT lane conversion.

[BOB2]

An unbiased appraisal of toll lanes from UCLA's Brian Taylor, is about as useful as an unbiased appraisal of Maglev from Mark Pisano? Or an unbiased review of the Bush Administration from Karl Rove? It's been long noted that true believers tend to prove their beliefs are true? Thanks for having the objectivity in at least pointing this bias out with Brian.

As Brian and Lisa both know, the 91 was an "add-a-lane" project, not the proposed "take the carpool lane" fiasco that is being proposed for the 210-10 and 110? So since there was “new” capacity funded by the user, not the sales tax payer, there is no equity problem, true enough. What are the time loss and income effects on those priced off of the lane they already paid for, and now made to sit in traffic, while the wealthy get a fast ride on the proposed routes?

This comparison is frivolous and proves very little with regard to the current congestion pricing proposals. Only people who flunked introductory economics would think that a sales tax is an equitable way to fund roads (like the MTA Board majority?). So this dubious comparison proves what again? Some people believe that it is better to be shot than hung? Most would prefer neither?

Work published in the 90's raised very serious equity questions about "universal" congestion pricing schemes in this region. It turned out the "poor" (the other 90% not in the top 10% income brackets), actually drive quite a lot, and that the percent of income diverted to congestion pricing would seriously impact per cent of income distribution for those with "lower" incomes (below the 90th percentile).

It also turns out that the wealthier drivers, while they tend to drive somewhat more total miles, also tend to live somewhat closer to work and have more access to goods and services. It may be news to Brian Taylor, who believes we make systematically inefficient decisions about travel, but we've always had "congestion pricing", reflected in land/location costs. He should read Von Thunen?

Traveling at rush hour is a “full information” rationale “economic” decision. Nobody knowingly gets on the 405 "expecting" to do 70 at rush hour? They make the decision knowing it is a slow trip because it is worth it to have a job, or get to the doctor, or even school?

Yes, using price to forcibly ration road space will reduce congestion, London did prove that. It also will change the economic activities that such access supports. This study, based upon a rather shoddy comparison, does nothing to justify or to identify the impacts for the current projects being proposed?

[Damon]

The problem with building toll roads in OC has been that the rest of us taxpayers who cannot afford to use the toll roads end up shelling out our own tax dollars for it anyway. The tolls roads have received government funding for studies and supplemental work.

Oh, and let's not forget that OCTA had to pay over $200 million to purchase the 91 Express lanes from the TCA to extinguish the non-compete clause that prevented any new improvements to the 91.

If they at least allow 3+ passenger vehicles to still ride free, like on the 91, then I think the plan would be a bit more fair. Better yet, make one of the all access lanes into another carpool lane in addition to the toll lane!