<html> <body> The economic theory is easy enough, the problem is political: how to convince citizens to support fees for something they are accustomed to getting for free (<a href="http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm35.htm" eudora="autourl"> http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm35.htm </a>). The demand curve for automobile travel has a very long tail, meaning that if the price is low enough consumers will continue to increase their vehicle mileage and demand more road capacity, although the net benefits to consumers are small, and negative when all costs (including externalities) are considered. Automobile travel demand is actually quite price sensitive, although most of the costs are fixed and so individual fees (fuel taxes, road tolls, etc.) seem relatively inelastic. In other words, motorists demand more road capacity as long as somebody else subsidizes their facilities, but when charged the full marginal costs of constructing new roadways (including, as you point out overhead costs such as maintenance and fee collection) the demand disappears. It would be more efficient overall to price existing roads to limit demand, and only build roads where, after this is done the increased capacity would be funded through user fees. However, it is politically difficult to impose fees on currently unpriced roads, although it is possible if voters receive some indirect benefit, such as reduced general taxes or improved transit service (<a href="http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm70.htm" eudora="autourl"> http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm70.htm </a>). Toll proponents claim, correctly, that it is more fair and efficient to price new roadway capacity than to continue to give it away, as  is generally done. However, they often oppose the truly efficient strategy, which is to price existing roadways as a way to test consumers willingness-to-pay for existing demand. The challenge we face is to find ways to begin pricing existing road capacity. Any equity issues are easily addressed, based on how revenues are used (see <a href="http://www.vtpi.org/revenue.pdf" eudora="autourl"> http://www.vtpi.org/revenue.pdf</a> ). Best wishes, -Todd Litman At 11:49 PM 12/12/2005, Eric Britton wrote: <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> 1.         TOLL ROADS   Somebody help me here on the first one of these, because my take on it is so terribly simple that I must be missing something important.   Which of the following statements is sufficiently wrong that what we have to do is give up and let them build their new roads anywhere and as they wish?   <ol> <li>In a modern democratic society with many charges to assure well-being and social justice, it is only “fair” to put “full cost” prices on all scarce goods, including those which are funded through taxpayer contributions such as roads – covering all of the well known externalities.  No argument this side of the religious right and maddog left, okay? <li>(As a nuance, the price should also cover the cost of collection, which can lead to more subtle distinctions but that we can handle case by case.) <li>Given the information and analytic tools we now have at our disposal it is pretty easy to distinguish situations in which new roads are really needed and justified -- but in places like the Northeast of the States, or many parts of Europe, this justification on a level playing field is going to be pretty hard to find. <li>So, the only remaining question is where and how to collect. <li>This is a classic ‘politics of transportation’ challenge (but that’s what we are supposed to be doing here anyway). <li>And what about this as a possible wrinkle to be considered? <li>In addition to NOT using “toll justifications for unnecessary additional investments”, including by private entities charged with the whole lot, we rather introduce something along the order of orderly “escalator charges” when we bring the tolls in on existing roads.  These would start at a low level, maybe just enough to cover the costs of collection in a first instance. But then proceed over our set period, let’s take a ten year period as an example to argue, to bring the rates up to the level (very high it usually turns out) so that the users will in good time be paying full costs. <li>This gives all the players plenty of time to adjust their habits – and at the same time for the responsible public sector to bring in new more environmental and “space efficient” (that phrase keeps coming up) transportation alternatives. <li>Note: In an ideal world, that escalator will be set by law (and popular support) so that some later group of politicos cannot come in and sweep it away because they now have their hands in the cookie jar. </ol>    B.        The new mobility surrogate for Bob Moses:   I have been thinking about Robert Moses, who one pretty good reference (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses"> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses</a>) characterizes as “master builder .. and shaper of a modern city”.  Moses was, as many of you know, not only a great road guy, but also a master of political manipulation to make sure that his agenda got done ("if the ends don't justify the means, what does?").  Other times, other heroes, but that’s not the point here.   My late night thinking just concluded was suggesting that “what we need” today is a Robert Moses – someone who can make the New Mobility Agenda (call it what you will) happen.    Hmm. And hmm again.   The trick of course is that Moses performance was made possible by the fact that he was distributing great gobs of contracts and money, which fed in this case not so much into his personal bank account (he was on to other forms of satisfaction) but into those of his political backers. This made for a very powerful industrial/political machine indeed.   Now back to new mobility, which unlike old mobility is characterized by its general parsimoniousness.  Indeed, to a good extent that‘s what it’s all about.   So where and how do we get the new mobility surrogate for Bob Moses?   Item for discussion?   Eric Britton               ================================================================ SUSTRAN-DISCUSS is a forum devoted to discussion of people-centred, equitable and sustainable transport with a focus on developing countries (the 'Global South'). Because of the history of the list, the main focus is on urban transport policy in Asia.</blockquote> <x-sigsep></x-sigsep> Sincerely, Todd Alexander Litman Victoria Transport Policy Institute (<a href="http://www.vtpi.org" eudora="autourl">www.vtpi.org</a>) litman@vtpi.org Phone & Fax 250-360-1560 1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA “Efficiency - Equity - Clarity”   </body> </html>