[sustran] Most Pallatable Transport Management Strategies

[Todd Litman]

At 12:13 PM 1/12/99 +0100, Eric Britton wrote:
>
>Hank Ditmar (Hello Hank) says in his opening remarks: >> I have proposed an
>approach that seeks (A)  to expand transportation and (B) community choices
>and (C) educate folks about the (D) negative impacts of our current lack of
>choice and the options that can be made available to them.  An alternate
>approach is to attempt to (E) raise the cost of driving to capture its full
>environmental and social costs, but each attempt to do so has been met with
>intense political opposition.  

Although I agree that motorists should be charged the full environmental
and social costs they impose, this is a hard sell. We may make some
marginal gains, particularly if we emphasize revenue neutral tax shifts
(such as inceasing vehicle charges but using the revenue to reduce more
economically harmful taxes, such as income taxes, see the report "Road
Relief; Tax and Pricing Shifts for a Fairer, Cleaner, and Less Congested
Transportation System in Washington State" at www.eoc.org for an example),
and if we wait for situations in which a government needs to raise taxes in
any case (such as using a parking tax to raise funds for community economic
development). But I don't foresee increasing taxes anywhere near the true
external costs any time soon.

Note that simply charging for external costs may do little to reduce such
costs if they are not related to how much a particular vehicle imposes. For
example, increasing vehicle registration fees would do little to reduce
vehicle use or externalities, and would be inequitable because it would
primarily burden low income households. The objective is not simply "cost
recovery", much more important is marginal pricing. Thus, motorists pay as
closely as possible for the costs they impose, and therefore have the
greatest incentive to minimize such costs.

I believe that there are equal potential benefits from changing fixed
vehicle charges into variable charges. Currently about 80% of total vehicle
expenses are percieved as fixed: motorists pay basically the same amount
regardless of how much they drive each year. Insurance and registration
fees are particularly suitable for making distance-based.

In addition, there are a number of market distortions and failures that can
be overcome, including cashing-out free parking (allowing non-drivers who
are offered free parking to recieve the cash equivalent of the money that
would be spent on their parking), location-efficient mortgages (residental
lenders recognizing the financial costs of automobile dependency, thus
making homes in transportation efficient locations  easier for lower-income
households to purchase), least-cost planning (removing institutional biases
that currently tend to favor highways over other public investments), and a
various other strategies. These are all justified for the sake of equity
AND they increase economic efficiency. Individually, none of these would
"solve" our transportation problems, but together they could make
significant contributions.

In total these are what we call "Win-Win" transportation management
strategies. I suggest that this approach has the greatest chance of making
a positive difference in our transportation systems. Let me know if you are
interested in finding out more about these strategies.

Sincerely,

Todd Litman, Director
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
1250 Rudlin Street
Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560
E-mail:  litman at islandnet.com
Website: www.islandnet.com/~litman