European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

LQD: Don't stand so close to me....another approach to road pricing

by ChrisCook
Tue Jun 8th, 2010 at 06:15:58 AM EST

I just came across this interesting bit of lateral thinking from a maverick engineer I know.

Road Pricing via sateliites etc is fundementally stupid.
A much better way IMHOP is:

Mandate all vehicles to permanently be required to be a minimum distance behind the vehicle in front - the faster you go, the greater the distance - your radio devices could automatically measure the proximity and fine / charge users when they get too close- this would automatically ration road space without hte need for satellite tech and apply to any congested area automatically.

Mandate a minimum average speed (with no banking of over speeding) again your devices would automatically charge people for travelling too slowly - this would deter people from travelling in congestion unless they had to (and no, it wouldn't encourage people to speed - they would get charged for that as well of course). and again it would apply to any congested area automatically.

What are the views of the ET think tank?

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. ET Editorial Guidelines
. Search
. Search (Google)

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

LQD: Don't stand so close to me....another approach to road pricing | 15 comments (15 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: another approach to road pricing (4.00 / 3)

Roads are a public good, why should there be road pricing at all?

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jun 8th, 2010 at 07:13:30 AM EST

Re: another approach to road pricing (4.00 / 4)

The best way to charge road users without the need for any "big brother" and perhaps fallible technology is to put more tax on diesel/petrol. It has zero implementation costs; Differentially charges faster/bigger/more inefficient vehicles more; encourages less individualised transport; and incentivises innovation to improve fuel efficiency and reduce global warming.

Frank's Home Page and Diary Index

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Tue Jun 8th, 2010 at 07:44:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: another approach to road pricing (none / 1)

But in terms of congestion, it's a blunt instrument: If you want to use gas taxes to resolve congestion issues in the urban centres, you'll over-tax gasoline in the countryside where congestion isn't a problem (because gasoline is sufficiently easy to arbitrage between urban and rural areas).

Eventually, of course, we'll have to move entirely off a gasoline-based infrastructure, but in the interim there are valid uses of personal automobiles in rural areas (whereas I am having an increasingly hard time seeing the valid uses for personal automobiles at all in areas where three-story and taller buildings predominate).

You need some form of road-pricing in the urban areas. Congestion charges á la London and Stockholm are one way. Parking fees are another (used in Copenhagen). Simply restricting the available parking space is a third (used in Paris).

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Jun 8th, 2010 at 11:04:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: another approach to road pricing (4.00 / 2)

Raising the cost of fuel dramatically will have a significant effect on the overall volume of traffic and differentially effect more inefficient (individualised) modes of transport. If some areas remain congested - even after an overall volume reduction - then that is probably a local design issue or perhaps a case for some local congestion/parking fees as well.

I'm not suggesting increased fuel taxes solve all problems, but it is the most efficient way of rebalancing the transportation system as a whole.

Frank's Home Page and Diary Index

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Tue Jun 8th, 2010 at 12:15:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: another approach to road pricing (none / 1)

Roads are a public good, but cars come with externalities beyond the need to keep roads. They are noisy, they take up space, they pollute and they kill people.

The noise can be solved by intelligent city planning, the pollution can be solved with gas taxes, death-by-auto can be solved by speed limits (albeit rather more draconian ones than we have at present), but the congestion can really only be adequately resolved if you make people pay either for roads or for parking (or for both).

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Jun 8th, 2010 at 10:58:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LQD: Don't stand so close to me (none / 1)

Definitely no to 2.
If you could charge people for travelling in congestion you may end up paying the operator for mismanaging traffic flow. Also people usually try to avoid congestions on their own. How much would the situation change if people tried harder?

Now 1 has more merit, but I doubt fines would prove to be superior to obnoxious warning sounds.

Wait this is important. Someone is wrong on the Internet.

by generic on Tue Jun 8th, 2010 at 07:33:56 AM EST

another approach to road pricing (none / 1)

Even if it was technologically feasible, politically possible and economically cost-effective I still don't think it's workable because you'd require a far higher degree of compliance than is currently achievable with the population we have.

For a start everybody'd have to buy a box to be fitted to the car. I wouldn't know where to end with likely societal problems that would tumble out of there.

For a system to work, the people who are inconvenienced by it have to have a buy-in over their current arrangement. That's simple psychology, yet from my experience, techies ignore the human dimension almost entirely.

But it's all neither here nor there, give it 5 years and I'm none too convinced there will anything like as much driving as there is now. Average wages are falling, cost of petrol is rising. something's gotta break.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Jun 8th, 2010 at 07:38:57 AM EST

Re: another approach to road pricing (none / 0)

Automobile production and distribution is centralised.

Mandate the system in all new automobiles. Problem solved.

- Jake

"Terraforming your own planet to make it uninhabitable hardly counts as epic win." - ThatBritGuy

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Jun 8th, 2010 at 11:08:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Brilliant! (4.00 / 5)

Reward the Government and road planners for maximising congestion? Brilliant. Dig up loads more roads. Create traffic jams at every opportunity. Our financial black hole is re-filled! The only trouble is the country will have ground to a halt as well...

Frank's Home Page and Diary Index

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Tue Jun 8th, 2010 at 07:39:45 AM EST

Re: Brilliant! (none / 0)

Actually, removing lanes is one of the best ways to reduce congestion. Narrowing streets might be even better :)

by njh on Sun Jun 13th, 2010 at 05:40:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Brilliant! (none / 1)

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot dotty communists) on Tue Jun 8th, 2010 at 07:40:16 AM EST

Re: Brilliant! (4.00 / 3)

why not make the black box do more?

example warn you if the driver in front has several DUIs, or if he's suddenly putting on the brakes.

i do think driving should become more automated, so drivers could get in the electromagnetic line and read the paper while driving. long way off yet...

tax the f** out petrol, it's the only way people will realise its true cost to the environment. heck, tax all carbon costs.

"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do." Jim Hightower

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Tue Jun 8th, 2010 at 08:16:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Brilliant! (4.00 / 4)

You could add a hot date feature - instant bio of the driver in front.

Or not.

Actually this is a good example of why engineers shouldn't do policy. It would be a perfect solution if cars were black boxes managed by microprocessors, but keeping a fixed minimum distance by hand would make driving incredibly tiring and stressful, and would probably lead to more accidents.

You could also be fined if the driver in front does an emergency stop, which doesn't seem like a good thing.

And it would have to be context dependent - otherwise you'd be keeping the spaces in traffic light queues as you would on the open road.

And wouldn't the optimal distance vary by road type?

Etc.

Fail.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Tue Jun 8th, 2010 at 11:09:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Brilliant! (4.00 / 2)

Comment responses

And wouldn't the optimal distance vary by road type?

factor in tyre viability, weather and speed.

ThatBritGuy:

You could add a hot date feature - instant bio of the driver in front.
Or not.

i wuz snarking, shoulda said so...

ThatBritGuy:

Fail.

haha, yes probably...

"Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do." Jim Hightower

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Tue Jun 8th, 2010 at 11:36:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I have a philosophical objection (4.00 / 2)

to black boxes which know and report my position (yeah I suppose I should get rid of my cell phone in that case...)

On the other hand, black boxes for all trade/commercial vehicles, with charges per km and per ton of all goods transported, would be a major policy lever. Would probably not do much for congestion, but a huge amount for road maintenance costs (cars don't kill roads. Trucks kill roads.)

by eurogreen on Tue Jun 8th, 2010 at 09:19:10 AM EST

LQD: Don't stand so close to me....another approach to road pricing | 15 comments (15 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]