Op Ed: Portland is ripe for congestion pricing
Earlier this year, several news outlets featured a newly released report from a company in Kirkland Washington, saying what no Portlanders were surprised to hear-- that in 2017 Portland traffic got worse (Njus, 2018, Pittman, 2018). Bad enough to make Portland traffic the 12th worst in the nation, resulting in delays that annually cost $3.9 billion in fuel, lost time and freight delays. That means metro residents are individually paying about $1,648 a year in congestion costs (Njus 2018). Considering these substantial costs to drivers, I believe that our city needs to seriously consider congestion pricing for our roads, and that a re-framing of the issue may be needed for it to become politically palatable.
Despite many scholars, activists, and politicians advocating for congestion pricing, the idea is still hard to digest for the American public (Manville 2017, Manville and Goldman, 2018). Common concerns range from the fear of taxes/tolls of any kind by Americans, to equity concerns that the regressive nature of congestion pricing will be an undue burden on the poor. However scholars suggest that NOT charging road users is also inequitable. Manville and Goldman (2018) argue that allowing the the wealthy and the poor to both use the roads at no cost can burdening the poor who tend to live nearer to freeways and thus are impacted more heavily by vehicle pollution from congestion, while not exacting any fee from the rich who also use the roads but are not as impacted by road pollution. This holds true for Portland, where many of our major highways and freeways (I-205, I-84, I-5) run through lower income neighborhoods. Manville and Goldman also say that a relatively small amount of poor drivers would be burdened by peak hour tolls, because low wage workers are more likely to be commuting during off hours when tolls would not be exacted. They recommend that some of the revenue generated by peak hour tolls be used to compensate low income residents who are impacted by the policy (Manville and Goldman, 2018). The group Riders Alliance, in a recent study, suggests that decreasing congestion through congestion pricing could also significantly increase bus system efficiency, which could be an added benefit for the poor, who ride the bus in larger numbers than the wealthy (Walker, 2018, Manville and Goldman, 2018). This all leads to the conclusion that congestion pricing may actually have a positive impact on the poor, especially those who live near congested roads (Manville and Goldman, 2018).
So assuming that the equity concern can be addressed, we must then focus on the significant task of convincing Portlanders that we should charge ourselves to use our own roads. And yes, I say “our own roads” with a certain possessiveness that can only come from an American who considers road use in a single occupancy vehicle to be her god given birthright, who has hardly had to pay a tax or a toll to use a road a day in her life. There is a reason they call it the “open road”, right? Sorry, I get caught up playing devil's advocate, but I hope the point is well taken that the proposal for a road charge will require a change in perspective for many Portlanders that is not insignificant. However, I think that the level of frustration in the average Portlander over our growing congestion problem might actually be enough of a catalyst to bring about that change. So the question becomes, how do we reframe congestion pricing in a way that is palatable to voters? Is there a way we can just charge California transplants for using the roads? I think we could get a majority of Portland natives behind that policy, but they might already be outnumbered by the Californians anyway. Joking aside, I do believe that this is an issue of framing, and that there is potential to garner support for congestion pricing exists in Portland. Perhaps we re-frame by moving away from talking about congestion pricing as a road tax or toll, and instead framing it as a price you would pay to avoid being stuck in traffic.
Congestion in Portland is burdening a large portion of our population who use the roads to commute during peak hours. It has many costs, including wasted time, wasted fuel, and increased air pollution. Studies are emerging that suggest that congestion pricing can not only relieve traffic at peak hours, but also might benefit low income communities, especially those living near congested roads, as many do in Portland. If so many indicators are pointing to congestion pricing and a viable solution to our traffic problem, why have we not rallied behind this policy? I believe that Americans have a fundamental problem with taxes, especially taxes relating to cars and roads, which to us symbolize freedom, and personal liberty. Luckily, Portland is two things: 1) a relatively progressive city that does not have a particularly car-centric culture and 2) absolutely fed up with rush hour traffic. We may be in a unique position to attempt congestion pricing at this moment in time. However, in order to get buy-in, we may need to re-frame congestion pricing in a way that focuses less on the charge for the use of the road, but rather as a tool to change driving behavior and solve our congestion problems, which at this point is something a lot of drivers would be happy to throw some money at.
Manville, M. and Goldman, E. (2018). Would Congestion Pricing Harm the Poor? Do Free Roads Help the Poor?. Journal of Planning Education and Research. Vol. 38(3) 329-344.
Manville, M. (Aug. 14, 2017). Is Congestion Pricing Fair to the Poor? Medium. Accessed via web: https://medium.com/100-hours/is-congestion-pricing-fair-to-the-poor-62e281924ca3
Njus, E. (Feb. 6, 2018). Portland-area Traffic Congestion is Still Getting Worse, Report Says. The Oregonian. Accessed via web: https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2018/02/portland-area_traffic_congesti.html
Pittman, T. (Feb. 6, 2018). Portland Traffic Congestion Among Worst in U.S., INRIX Reports. KGW8. Accessed via web: https://www.kgw.com/article/traffic/portland-traffic-congestion-among-worst-in-us-inrix-reports/283-515262476
Walker, A. (Oct. 30th, 2018). Congestion Pricing Could Spare Brooklyn, Queens Express Bus Riders Hours on Commutes. Curbed New York. Accessed via web:
https://ny.curbed.com/2018/10/30/18043616/congestion-pricing-nyc-express-bus-brooklyn-queens-time-savings-report
Despite many scholars, activists, and politicians advocating for congestion pricing, the idea is still hard to digest for the American public (Manville 2017, Manville and Goldman, 2018). Common concerns range from the fear of taxes/tolls of any kind by Americans, to equity concerns that the regressive nature of congestion pricing will be an undue burden on the poor. However scholars suggest that NOT charging road users is also inequitable. Manville and Goldman (2018) argue that allowing the the wealthy and the poor to both use the roads at no cost can burdening the poor who tend to live nearer to freeways and thus are impacted more heavily by vehicle pollution from congestion, while not exacting any fee from the rich who also use the roads but are not as impacted by road pollution. This holds true for Portland, where many of our major highways and freeways (I-205, I-84, I-5) run through lower income neighborhoods. Manville and Goldman also say that a relatively small amount of poor drivers would be burdened by peak hour tolls, because low wage workers are more likely to be commuting during off hours when tolls would not be exacted. They recommend that some of the revenue generated by peak hour tolls be used to compensate low income residents who are impacted by the policy (Manville and Goldman, 2018). The group Riders Alliance, in a recent study, suggests that decreasing congestion through congestion pricing could also significantly increase bus system efficiency, which could be an added benefit for the poor, who ride the bus in larger numbers than the wealthy (Walker, 2018, Manville and Goldman, 2018). This all leads to the conclusion that congestion pricing may actually have a positive impact on the poor, especially those who live near congested roads (Manville and Goldman, 2018).
So assuming that the equity concern can be addressed, we must then focus on the significant task of convincing Portlanders that we should charge ourselves to use our own roads. And yes, I say “our own roads” with a certain possessiveness that can only come from an American who considers road use in a single occupancy vehicle to be her god given birthright, who has hardly had to pay a tax or a toll to use a road a day in her life. There is a reason they call it the “open road”, right? Sorry, I get caught up playing devil's advocate, but I hope the point is well taken that the proposal for a road charge will require a change in perspective for many Portlanders that is not insignificant. However, I think that the level of frustration in the average Portlander over our growing congestion problem might actually be enough of a catalyst to bring about that change. So the question becomes, how do we reframe congestion pricing in a way that is palatable to voters? Is there a way we can just charge California transplants for using the roads? I think we could get a majority of Portland natives behind that policy, but they might already be outnumbered by the Californians anyway. Joking aside, I do believe that this is an issue of framing, and that there is potential to garner support for congestion pricing exists in Portland. Perhaps we re-frame by moving away from talking about congestion pricing as a road tax or toll, and instead framing it as a price you would pay to avoid being stuck in traffic.
Congestion in Portland is burdening a large portion of our population who use the roads to commute during peak hours. It has many costs, including wasted time, wasted fuel, and increased air pollution. Studies are emerging that suggest that congestion pricing can not only relieve traffic at peak hours, but also might benefit low income communities, especially those living near congested roads, as many do in Portland. If so many indicators are pointing to congestion pricing and a viable solution to our traffic problem, why have we not rallied behind this policy? I believe that Americans have a fundamental problem with taxes, especially taxes relating to cars and roads, which to us symbolize freedom, and personal liberty. Luckily, Portland is two things: 1) a relatively progressive city that does not have a particularly car-centric culture and 2) absolutely fed up with rush hour traffic. We may be in a unique position to attempt congestion pricing at this moment in time. However, in order to get buy-in, we may need to re-frame congestion pricing in a way that focuses less on the charge for the use of the road, but rather as a tool to change driving behavior and solve our congestion problems, which at this point is something a lot of drivers would be happy to throw some money at.
Manville, M. and Goldman, E. (2018). Would Congestion Pricing Harm the Poor? Do Free Roads Help the Poor?. Journal of Planning Education and Research. Vol. 38(3) 329-344.
Manville, M. (Aug. 14, 2017). Is Congestion Pricing Fair to the Poor? Medium. Accessed via web: https://medium.com/100-hours/is-congestion-pricing-fair-to-the-poor-62e281924ca3
Njus, E. (Feb. 6, 2018). Portland-area Traffic Congestion is Still Getting Worse, Report Says. The Oregonian. Accessed via web: https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/index.ssf/2018/02/portland-area_traffic_congesti.html
Pittman, T. (Feb. 6, 2018). Portland Traffic Congestion Among Worst in U.S., INRIX Reports. KGW8. Accessed via web: https://www.kgw.com/article/traffic/portland-traffic-congestion-among-worst-in-us-inrix-reports/283-515262476
Walker, A. (Oct. 30th, 2018). Congestion Pricing Could Spare Brooklyn, Queens Express Bus Riders Hours on Commutes. Curbed New York. Accessed via web:
https://ny.curbed.com/2018/10/30/18043616/congestion-pricing-nyc-express-bus-brooklyn-queens-time-savings-report
Comments
Post a Comment