
$40 road tolls offer insight into commuter psychology - duck
https://ggwash.org/view/65796/the-new-i-66-tolls-offer-great-insight-into-commuter-psychology
======
maxxxxx
My main concern is that with tolls that high that only people with a lot of
money can afford them (I make six figures but I doubt I would ever pay $40 for
a toll. I would need much more money). These are also often the most
influential people so they may think that everything is OK because they can
afford the toll and never suffer in traffic. I think the same is happening
with health care. Most people in Congress have enough money and get a nice
insurance plan so they don't even understand how bad the US health system is
for people in the lower incomes. They think it's perfectly fine and no need to
change anything.

It's very problematic when in a society the people at the top never experience
life the same way regular citizens do.

~~~
rayiner
Road capacity is a scarce resource, and it should be allocated with a market
mechanism like every other resource. You can then take the economic gain
created by the increased efficiency and tax it to provide more public transit
services.

~~~
kbutler
I'm a really market-oriented guy, but I have concerns about wealth's
distorting effect on markets. That is, the "cost" of an item is much less to a
wealthy person than to a non-wealthy person.

Billionaire Bob can spend $100,000 on a whim, but Pauper Paul can't scrounge
$10,000 for life-critical health-care. Or after a natural disaster, market
theory says equilibrium prices rise to balance demand, but prices cannot rise
enough so that Bob hesitates to buy all the ice for his drinks, pricing Paul
out of buying ice to keep his insulin cold.

It almost feels like there needs to be some fixed currency that everyone gets
equal amounts of per day and that can be exchanged for the really important
things. But then some people will accumulate that currency, and we're back to
wealth distortions.

~~~
ForHackernews
Some interesting ideas on this front:

1) Using markets to allocate resources without real money:
[http://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2016/article/why-
fa...](http://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2016/article/why-fake-money-
better-real-money-feeding-hungry)

2) Finland charges road fines on a "day-rate" that varies depending on the
offender's income:
[https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/finland-
home-of-the-103000-speeding-ticket/387484/)

~~~
maxxxxx
Making fees and fines dependent on income is a good way to get incentives
right. In Germany for example health insurance is based on your income, not a
fixed amount like here.

~~~
todd8
I believe that health care in the US is subsidized to some degree by people
with higher income.

—- Medicare payroll taxes are proportional to salary.

—- Low income people that use hospitals _generally_ don’t end up paying for
their surgery and care which is passed on to people that do pay their bills.

—- Big pharma offers heavy discounts to low income patients for expensive
drugs resulting in higher costs for the rest of us.

—- Under the current Afforadable Care Act free/low cost insurance is provided
by raising taxes on the upper income people.

I don’t know what’s the best way to improve the system; I just wish the costs,
who was paying for it, and where the money was going was more transparent. It
appears that it is intentionally designed to be inscrutable.

------
sageabilly
I live in Northern Virginia, and the statement "People who were totally banned
from a road now could now use it at its busiest time" is false. People were
already driving on I-66 solo during HOV-only hours, they were just counting on
super lax enforcement and the law of probability falling in their favor for
not getting caught. When riding in the metro in the mornings (which runs
parallel to I-66 into DC for a time) you saw lots and lots and LOTS of solo
commuters during HOV times.

I imagine now people are just switching their EZPass (toll transponder) to
"HOV" and still driving solo, which I imagine is even harder to enforce.

Traffic into and out of DC to and from Northern Virginia SUCKS, it's always
sucked, and it will continue to suck probably indefinitely. There need to be
more roads and more bridges across the Potomac river but there's no
logistically possible way to do so.

~~~
jonstewart
Have you ever heard of induced demand? More roads and bridges are not the
answer, especially since the associated capital costs could go a long ways
towards fixing Metro and thereby provide greater utility.

Northern Virginia has some of the absolute dumbest land use policies and
traffic planning of anywhere in the nation. It's reaping what it's sown with
traffic congestion. This is a big step in the right direction. (I live in DC,
because I can't stand Virginia.)

~~~
xtreme
I never understood this argument against more roads/bridges. Even if there is
no improvement in latency (travel times), isn't the increase in throughput
(number of people traveling) and the associated economic benefit worth it?

~~~
jonstewart
In addition to the counterintuitive traffic congestion stuff, you also have to
consider cost. Bridges ain't cheap. Metro isn't either... but you could make a
lot of improvements to Metro for the price of a bridge.

The 7000 series has fortunately been a godsend for Metro. Now it just needs a
miracle for each of: power supply, rail insulators, water leaks, automated
control, and the union contract/pension.

------
bambax
> _Which would you prefer in general: Being forbidden from doing something at
> all, or allowed to do it at high cost? Under standard economic theory, the
> latter should always be better. In the first scenario, you have one option:
> don 't do it. In the second, you have two options, including the same option
> as before._

This is not how the human mind works.

One part is obvious: would you rather starve, with no options, or starve in
front of a beautiful cheesecake, just out of reach? Or worse, in front of a
cake out of reach to you, but with other people feasting on it? This is not
just "envy", it's loss, in the second case we're losing out and we're
extremely loss adverse.

The other part is less obvious but no less real: we average the cost of
options. A set of 11 plates with one of them broken is worth _less_ to buyers
than a set of 10 good plates, because the average value of 1 plate in the
first case is less than in the second one. This has been demonstrated many
times.

When you go from one option at no cost (slow lane) to one free option + one
paying option, then the perceived value/cost of the "free" option isn't free
anymore, it goes _up_ because people average the cost.

(That said, tolls are probably the best possible solution; but the transition
is always going to be painful).

~~~
im3w1l
Even fully rational people can prefer less options. According to game theory
you're better off without a steering wheel in "chicken".

And while credible threats may be uncommon, removing the possibility of
defection for a group of people seems like a very common potential for gain.

~~~
eru
Another interesting example of pre-committing to less options: sending an
agent to negotiate for you.

Eg the company service rep you are talking over the phone can play the 'good
cop' all day long and be nice and polite; but to make any decisions they have
to call their manager, who can play the 'bad cop' or defer to 'company
policy'.

(Not very relevant to the road charging example here, though.)

------
olympus
I don't think people are being unreasonable by being unhappy with a $40 toll.
The way the article words it, solo drivers all of a sudden saw a $40 toll
where they previously had no permission to drive at all.

What actually happened was that people were expecting to see a $6 toll be put
in place and instead saw a $40. Imagine going to McDonald's where your friend
told you that you could get a Filet o' Fish for $1 but when you get there you
find out that McDonald's was charging $5. You'd be mad. You still have the
option to not buy the sandwich, but it went contrary to your expectations.

So the article is correct, but I don't think they fully accounted for the fact
that people had already been told to expect something else. The article
mentioned it, but then goes and talks like people are being unreasonably
frustrated for tolls that were completely unexpected.

~~~
AndrewKemendo
_where they previously had no permission to drive at all._

I think this is where it's getting hung up. The signage and all other road
markings on I-66 did not give a solo driver the overwhelming impression that
they did not have "permission" to drive on those roads. Compounding this is
that it was/is only during certain portions of the day.

As an example, if I go onto the Dulles or Loudoun county toll roads, it's
explicitly clear with toll booths etc... that YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ON
THIS ROAD WITHOUT PAYING. Similar around the country on other toll roads.

If all access is just as easy as any other road and there is no enforcement
mechanism (save the odd example of someone you know getting a ticket) or
overbearing signage (like on the 495 EZPass lanes) then naturally people would
assume it's just like any other "free" highway.

I think DC has a unique driving culture around this and slugging that unless
you are just a total stickler for the rules is largely a grab bag game.

~~~
olympus
Definitely unique. I've never lived in DC but visited a few times for work and
was flabbergasted when I heard about slug lines (I still am). It's a bad
driving situation when you'll voluntarily get into a stranger's car, and
drivers will just let random strangers in their car. That doesn't happen in
any of the cities I've lived in.

~~~
cobbzilla
They do this in the SF Bay area, it's called casual carpool. Very popular in
the East Bay. I used to do it for many years, both as a driver and passenger.
It's all about getting past the Bay Bridge toll plaza, and the carpool lane
goes way faster than the (sometimes horribly) backed up traffic. The FastTrac
lanes aren't any good when it gets so backed up.

Yes there are myriad unspoken rules, and hilarious stories about when they are
flagrantly violated. But over the years I've had some great rides, met some
wonderful people, discovered some new music, and generally enjoyed the
experience of intermixing with fellow humanity in a random but mutually
beneficial way.

~~~
JetSpiegel
Can't you have that experience every day using BART?

~~~
cobbzilla
Walking to the nearest casual carpool pickup spot is closer & faster to city
for most people vs walk/walk+bus to BART.

Regarding the mixing with humanity point, I think you'd agree sharing a car is
a tad more intimate than sharing a sardine-packed train car.

------
Someone1234
Ignoring the morals for a second, with tolls that high and difficulty
identifying which vehicles qualify for a HOV exemption, I wonder how many days
of tolls a single ticket is and likelihood of being caught?

Let's say a ticket is $150. If the toll is $6 then you're likely better off
paying the toll as you're likely to be caught at least once every 25 days. At
$40 they'd need to catch you at least once a week for you to lose money. The
$150 amount is fictional, I don't know what the ticket would cost, more just a
thought experiment.

In any regard, when tolls are this high, you have to consider issues like
this. What works for a $4-6 toll doesn't scale to $40 unless the tickets also
scale.

~~~
ACow_Adonis
Do they not have e-tags, cameras and registrations in this part of the world?

I genuinely ask, since my assumption when using toll roads here is that the
fine would find you pretty much as soon as you use the road...marginal errors
and bugs aside.

~~~
donatj
Do you need a tag to carpool where you are? Here in MN you do not, so it makes
the HOV difficult to enforce, particularly because our Supreme Court decided
you cannot be ticketed by camera. You basically have to have a cop car come up
beside you.

~~~
rdtsc
You're supposed to have it now to get on this highway. Before there was no
toll on it but it was all HOV-only during certain times of day. Now it is HOV
or single drivers can pay apparently up to $40 use it too. Other roads in the
area have manned toll plazas which accept cash.

------
iaw
> "The real reason there's sticker shock is that the real cost of road
> transportation is hidden from most voters. Gas tax money goes to states and
> the US Department of Transportation which flows back as what seems like free
> federal money to build a lot of roads. Meanwhile, every transit project has
> to scrimp for funds..." "...estimated that tolls would have to be at least
> $41 to pay off the costs of construction."

A lot of people take for granted the Eisenhower interstate infrastructure.

~~~
kalleboo
An interesting contrast is Japan, where the highway system was totally
privatized, and to get almost anywhere you have to pay tolls. A 300 km (280
mi) drive can cost you 6000 yen ($50) in tolls.

Of course in Japan there are usually alternatives. Not always any cheaper
though. The bullet train for the same route as above costs 9000 yen, but is 3x
faster than driving.

~~~
megablast
This is fantastic, and as it should be everywhere.

------
JauntyHatAngle
I mean, one of the problems with tolls is that it is another form of taxing
that has a bigger impact the lower income you have.

Without getting into an ideological discussion, having surge pricing on tolls
would contribute to a minor divide in class.

In Australia this is a current topic, as (in Sydney specifically) there was a
recent controversial highway widening which has been funded by tolls and
constructed by a private company, which will own the road and tolls for the
next 100 years or so. This highway leads to/from the CBD as a work commute for
everyone coming from the west part of the city (the poorer part usually..) and
so has direct influence on people's pockets in an already high expenses city
on people choosing to live further away in a cheaper part of the city.

This perhaps does not directly apply to this specific instance, but I do think
it illustrates that this is slightly more of a complex issue and has more
implications than the simplification of the issue the article author wrote -
if you introduce a toll but allow people to use it, that does have an impact
on overall equality in society, even if you can debate the merits & size of
the impact.

~~~
divanvisagie
Ive seen multiple sources say that widening roads only makes the problem worse
yet in this article and in your comment it seems like the "solution" people
are going for. That leaves me wondering; Are these sources not sound or are
the people in charge of transport morons?

~~~
bsder
Define "makes the problem worse".

More lanes, in networking terms, improves throughput but doesn't improve
latency.

More lanes moves more cars. That's fairly straightforward.

More lanes doesn't improve the time of an individual commute on the road or
cut down on congestion of the road.

People have a fixed annoyance level, and congestion will increase until that
annoyance level equilibrium is reached again.

The only time more lanes genuinely improves things is when the extra lanes
suddenly means that the road now has more capacity than required to carry the
traffic level it sees.

Normally, the cost required to add that many lanes is sufficiently prohibitive
that such a situation almost never occurs.

~~~
adrianN
More lanes also induce more demand. Plus there is this
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox)

------
thisisit
> To many drivers' surprise, though, the tolls during rush hour were high,
> hitting $34.50 Monday morning and reaching $40 Tuesday.

Is this like "surge pricing" on tolls?

I thought most of the tolls are fixed to allow people know in advance what
they must pay. If it increases based on demand, I think people will get mad.

I think the psychology, if any, need not go towards the two choices. But
rather what people thought the "dynamic pricing" will be and that was $5-$6 on
average.

People get mad at ride sharing companies for their "surge pricing" so this
seems in the same mold.

~~~
sliverstorm
Ride sharing surge pricing gets nasty when it's a national disaster or other
major unpredicted event and the rates are sexdecoupling, because it begins to
look like profiteering off human misery. But moderate surge pricing is already
a fact of life on ride sharing services.

~~~
eru
Alas, in exactly those unpredicted disaster events the surge pricing would be
useful.

~~~
sliverstorm
How do you figure? Everybody needs to be evacuated, not just the wealthy.

~~~
eru
Wishful thinking doesn't increase the resources available.

If there's more demand than supply, some kind of rationing will kick in. Luck
of the draw, queues, higher prices, ..

Surge pricing encourages more supply (ie drivers), too.

------
philsnow
> Last week, only people in carpools with two people or more, drivers with an
> exempt hybrid vehicle, [...] during peak times.

> This week, [...]. Hybrid folks and Dulles users also lost their privileges,
> [...]

If I bought a home on the far end of this road thinking I could buy a hybrid
or electric car and use it on the toll road, and then suddenly they take that
away and start charging $30 each way, I'd be really upset.

Whether the expectation that this road would remain open to hybrid cars is a
_reasonable_ one is an interesting question. I'm not aware of similar changes
(hybrids losing their exemption) in other road systems, but I don't exactly
read transit-hawk blogs.

~~~
sliverstorm
California was the same way, hybrids were only supposed to get HOV access for
a little while. It was written into the original law. (Don't know if that ever
changed)

~~~
ddinh
It's supposed to expire at the end of 2018:
[https://arb.ca.gov/msprog/carpool/carpool.htm](https://arb.ca.gov/msprog/carpool/carpool.htm)

Whether or not it will be extended again is an open question.

------
syphilis2
"The government could theoretically go back to the 20th century model of
taxing more and building more free transportation, but voters haven't shown
much appetite for raising their taxes."

This is the author weaseling out of addressing the reality that most Americans
want higher taxes on the rich. Not taxes raised on everyone, not funds raised
through purchasable perks.

[http://news.gallup.com/poll/208685/majority-say-wealthy-
amer...](http://news.gallup.com/poll/208685/majority-say-wealthy-americans-
corporations-taxed-little.aspx)

"A significant majority of Americans believe that upper-income people and
corporations pay too little in taxes, supporting other research showing that
well less than half of Americans -- 38% -- agree with a proposal to cut
corporate income taxes, and that the majority favor heavier taxes on the
rich."

~~~
simonh
Which would make voting in a president that openly campaigned in a platform to
massively cut taxes on corporations and the rich unthinkable, right?

You can often predict reasonably well what individual segments of the voting
public will vote for, but they overlap with each other so divining the will of
the voters as a whole is really hard. Unless you just promise everyone the
earth without any regard to the cost. That can work.

------
drelihan
Let's assume that overall, this does not make the road any more or less
efficient ( i.e. the same # of product, i.e. people and goods, still pass
through the highway stretch per hour ).

For those whose $time_saved_in_traffic > $40, they now have a more economical
option.

Imagine a business that bills out labor at $100/hr and offers to pay the $40
toll + $10 extra per day if the employee can and is willing to bill another 30
minutes. Employee is better off ( they effectively spend the same amount of
time "at work" plus and extra $10 and likely slightly less gas money ).
Employer bills out an extra $50, assuming 20% of that is markup over labor
cost, this is an extra $10 in their pocket. The government gets an extra $40
(minus whatever the base toll is) to reinvest elsewhere.

The downside is that the remaining lanes ( those who cannot justify the cost
of the fastlane ), will end up paying more in slightly longer commute times if
the remaining lanes are now more congested.

What society should be paying attention to is how the efficiency of the road
overall improves.

If there is open ( i.e. wasted ) capacity in the HOV lane, opening HOV lane to
more traffic will improve efficiency in the road overall.

If the additional revenue can be reinvested to improve efficiency, this should
improve things for everyone overall.

If there are no ( or negative ) efficiency gains, then those forced to ride in
the mainstream lanes will bear the net cost.

tl;dr; Focus on improving the overall efficiency of the road.

------
mariojv
I wonder if this will increase demand for "ride sharing." Anyone who takes an
Uber/Lyft will automatically have at least two people in the car, allowing
them to use this highway for free. I suppose this probably depends on how long
the commute is and whether the ride would be <$40 (or <$40 + gas + car
depreciation).

------
ravar
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe_theory)
I believe in the context of these road discussions its important to understand
the math behind the usage of roads. Roads become less efficient, in terms of
people per hour, the more people use them. While restricting access may be
unfair it also creates value by getting cars off the road faster than what
would have happened otherwise.

------
sharpercoder
We have the best road system in the world with high quality roads over the
_whole_ country. Most roads are "rain-resistant", meaning heavy rainfall does
not affect road conditions negatively. We don't have any toll roads.

We do pay a relatively high tax for it though. The article is spot on that
tolls are the consequence of public not willing to increase their taxes.

~~~
beobab
Where are you?

~~~
sharpercoder
The Netherlands.

~~~
PhantomGremlin
It's OK to be proud of "the best road system in the world". As you point out,
you pay taxes to support it.

However, it's easier to solve certain types of transportation problems when
your population density is as high as it is in The Netherlands.

Consider that 41 out of 50 US states have a larger land area than The
Netherlands. Consider that only 4 out of 50 US states have a larger population
than The Netherlands.

We in the USA need to build and maintain a lot of roads. And our lower
population density means that mass transit isn't nearly as viable, except in
the largest metropolitan areas, as it is in most of Europe.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_area)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population)

------
balabaster
Even for the honest ones, I would wager you'll find that most people fit into
one of three categories:

1\. The ones that won't pay at any cost for whatever reason.

2\. The ones who will pay only if it's an emergency or they're in a rush and
it's the difference between being on-time or late.

3\. The ones who will pay just so they don't have to sit in traffic. Either
the money is meaningless to them or they'd rather be happy than rich.

I'm reasonably frugal, generally speaking, but I'm still category 3. My sanity
is worth more to me than the $40. Even if it costs me some percentage of my
daily pay. I'd rather spend _all_ my money on things that remove friction from
my life so I have more time for fun than spend my time dealing with one
frustration after another. My happiness is worth _way_ more to me than money.
I would say that a fair portion of my time and pay cheque every month is spent
on removing friction from my life.

What would be interesting is _if_ (as I predict) the majority of people fall
into categories 1 and 2. If too many fall into category 3, I'm going to need
to rethink my strategy.

------
fuzzfactor
Seems like toll roads are always simply rent-seeking or exclusivity-seeking
behavior by entities having greater-than-average resources compared to
ordinary individuals.

On private property, toll regulation according to a market seems fair enough
under a free-enterprise system.

On public property, toll roads are always unfair unless the toll rate is
virtually insignificant to all potential users. Any other explanation does
appear deceptive, whether intentional or not.

Therefore it is usually just destructively extractive for the average users to
fund roads on public property exclusively by tolls alone.

When the public tolling entity is under the jurisdiction of electable
officials in a working democracy, the proper response is for a disruptive
candidate to campaign on a platform of eliminating toll roads altogether. With
public support this could include public purchase of private toll roads
according to eminent domain if a price affordable to the citizens can not be
negotiated.

Other things being equal, this type candidate should be able to prevail in
cases where toll rates are particularly significant to the citizens in
general.

Assuming of course free enough enterprise and democracy working well enough .
. .

------
AndrewKemendo
I guess I'm at a loss here because I've lived in DC almost 6 years now and it
never occurred to me that I-66 was HOV only during certain portions of the
day. I know I am not alone in this because I see similar conversations
happening elsewhere.

Additionally, many comments say that single traveler HOV use is _forbidden_
however I frequently see single drivers in the HOV lanes on 66 and elsewhere
un-restricted. As a computer vision engineer, I know that DC doesn't have the
capability to build camera systems that can infer a single/multi passenger
drivers and the number of police that are 1. available and 2. can discern as
much are simply not there. Are they now mailing toll charges to everyone who
does not have the EZPass system?

What they effectively did was permit free use of I-66 virtually unimpeded,
through lack of enforcement of the intended laws, for years and then rapidly
and expensively enforce the system.

So the question I have is, how is it that they can go from a minimally (at
best) enforced HOV policy to a high toll rate system effectively overnight,
and expect that driver behavior will change without outrage?

It seems like it will certainly decrease the road users, IF one of two things
happen: they can identify and charge (or overcharge) drivers based on
occupancy (I argue they technologically can't) OR rely on self-policing of
behavior from drivers.

~~~
pwg
> guess I'm at a loss here because I've lived in DC almost 6 years now and it
> never occurred to me that I-66 was HOV only during certain portions of the
> day.

Here is a photo of one of the HOV restriction signs:

[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/20...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/2016-01-03_15_04_18_Entrance_to_the_eastbound_Custis_Memorial_Parkway_%28Interstate_66%29_from_northbound_Glebe_Road_%28Virginia_State_Route_120%29_in_Arlington_County%2C_Virginia.jpg/440px-
thumbnail.jpg)

This sign seems perfectly clear, provided of course one has learned the
acronym "HOV".

These signs (and they are large signs, the small no-truck sign in the photo
above it itself about 2 feet by 2 feet) exist at every on-ramp for I-66,
sometimes more than one of them.

~~~
broknbottle
If you're not familiar with HOV lanes then they're not clear. I recently moved
to the Northern Virginia area, coming from Michigan a state without HOV/Toll
Roads, I was not familiar with all this nonsense.

------
dmix
> Which would you prefer in general: Being forbidden from doing something at
> all, or allowed to do it at high cost?

There are plenty of government policies or state run services that prevent or
completely avoid this dynamic in the name of pseudo 'fairness'. When usually
it more often restricts options for more people rather than makes it more
fair.

It's easy to see why from a populist perspective, look at the outrage on
Twitter:

>> I don't have to use it, but it's effing outrageous. Armed robbery. $34.50
for 10 miles? New tolls on I-66 kick off with some high rates.
[https://twitter.com/andreas_adriano/status/93772317073970790...](https://twitter.com/andreas_adriano/status/937723170739707904)

... he admits he never even uses it but he still finds it unfair 'highway
robbery' regardless.

And it's not just a policy helping the wealthy as it would be using the
service to maximal efficacy rather than below capacity. It's a net gain for
average users. As there will never be a high number of people willing to pay
that fee, not slowing down existing traffic. Plus the additional revenue
gained could otherwise be used to improve the operation, go back into the
economy via employee income or spending, etc. It's a net gain.

------
dsfyu404ed
An individual car might not be a mass transit system but a highway is (albeit
inefficient). I think it's just as absurd to use demand pricing for highways
as it would be to use them for subways. (I support HOV lanes though)

The main issue I see with a non-HOV toll option on an HOV road, toll lanes,
etc. is that it gives the wealthy an option that others do not have. If there
isn't enough commuting capacity (regardless of medium) we need to provide
more. The state should not give the rich an option to make their commutes
tolerable because that's easier than solving the problems (because we all know
that when the rich and powerful have problems with how the state is running
things that's when they change).

The wealthy have to wait on the same subway platforms as the poor. The
national parks don't have a "skip the line if you're rich enough to justify
the insane price" option. The wealthy should have to sit in the same traffic
jams as the rest of us. Congress should have the same healthcare options as
the rest of us.

The worst part about toll lanes and the other demand based pricing for
necessities is that they reduce the incentive to increase supply.

If it were independently verifiable that any given implementation of surge
pricing was optimized for bandwidth (people-miles over the time period surge
pricing applies) rather than latency (average speed) or revenue I might feel
differently but considering how pretty much every other traffic control rule
turns into a revenue source of some sort (tolls on I90 in MA were only
supposed to last long enough to recover the construction cost) I quite frankly
don't trust any government to do it that way unless it's 100% in the open.

------
dannyw
Is everyone else missing the fact that this may be a bug in the algorithm?
Read the update to the article, tolls are “surging” despite the road being
almost empty.

------
joeax
> Which would you prefer in general: Being forbidden from doing something at
> all, or allowed to do it at high cost?

This is market economics at its best. If you don't like the $40 toll go back
to alternative routes you were using before they introduced the toll. I also
find it ironic that "free market" Republicans are suddenly stamping their feet
and demanding either price controls at $6 or reverting to the old system.

~~~
rayiner
It’s nuts. Reasonable people can differ about the accuracy of economic
predictions on the large scale, but market mechanisms are great for things
like this (and surge pricing, etc).

------
OliverJones
I'm a guy with a long commute and a dislike of traffic jams. I've shifted my
work hours to get me to work by 6:30 am at the latest. I'll take the toll
route (Boston's Tobin Bridge, $1.50) or the free route (I-93) without
considerating cost because I've taught myself that time is worth more than
money.

But if the Tobin toll abruptly went up to $20, my loss-aversion anxiety would
spike (cf. this year's Nobel Memorial winner Richard Sunstein, for behavioral
economics) and my behavior would change in ways that weren't exactly rational.

This already happened on the Tobin Bridge when the tolls were first
introduced. People from the neighborhoods near the Tobin used alternate routes
and clogged them. The government response was wise: issue special toll tags to
neighbors giving them a discount on the Tobin. The wisdom was that it
countered loss-aversion with a special privilege. It worked. (Of course, this
being Massachusetts, there's a small but thriving black market in those
special toll tags for wiseguys wanting to save a couple of bucks a day. But so
what?)

In a place like the DC area, people react to loss anxiety by attacking public
projects as well as by changing their behavior, so this experiment may not
last too long. I hope they can get some skilfull behavioral economics people
to work with them before the whole thing gets shut down hard by fake-angry
politicians.

If the goal is really to increase vehicle occupancy, the highway needs
stations named for Tom and Ray Magliozzi's Russian chauffeur (Pickup
Andropoff) near the exits. Getting more people into cars has proven very
difficult.

Understanding this kind of peak-load pricing, and how to apply it effectively,
will help all sorts of future projects in our overcrowded metroplexes.

------
pishpash
Tolls change routing decisions. If you can't gauge a toll until you are at the
road because it keeps changing, that's a risk. Dynamic tolling asks people to
take a risk; that will never work unless they do like Uber and fix the price
at the time you leave. It's only fair that the planning risk should fall on
the central traffic manager, as they have the most information and
capabilities.

------
cmurf
The true cost of a trip is masked behind sales taxes, property taxes, income
taxes, various state fees unrelated to roads, insurance, rent/mortgage for the
cost of space for the car, the loan for the car, etc. The technology exists to
toll everyone for the actual cost per mile, with higher fees for higher weight
(trucks wear roads way faster than cars), and congestion. It incentivizes more
investments in cycling and pedestrian lanes, would affect how and where
housing is built, and how much investment is made in public transit and where
it's located.

Congestion fees are used by at least Long Island Rail Road, it's roughly 50%
higher during peak times. So it can be applied to public transit as well. In
fact a chunk of automobile transport is public transit because the biggest
cost in the whole system is the infrastructure which is publicly owned and
maintained, typically without direct user fees that relate to usage. Gasoline
taxes only approximate a person's usage.

------
gm-conspiracy
So, in the article, the author says (as the 2nd of 3 possible options):

 _Add lanes, which Arlington doesn 't want and there's no money for (or would
require high tolls to fund); or_

Does adding lanes alleviate anything?

I have seen multiple studies indicate adding lanes does not help w/ traffic,
and actually makes things worse.

Is it simply assumed that more roads = less traffic?

------
soheil
I find these types of articles massively deceiving, if there is a simple
explanation for something, a complicated explanation isn't required, ie. the
human psychology. Here is one reason why the drivers reaction makes sense,
when previously people were disallowed to use the toll road it wasn't about
money when you charge them $40 it is all of a sudden a question of money.
Previously people were perhaps understanding of congestion problems and it's
natural when you have so many cars on the roads that the government should
disallow some and they understood that otherwise the traffic wouldn't move.
Now when you make it about money, it's no longer arbitrarily decided who gets
to ride in the toll road, it's about who can afford to ride on the toll road.
(or to the extend that it was arbitrary before)

------
johnm1019
Consider that taxpayers fund and build airports. Available seats on an
airplane are priced using demand based pricing.

Taxpayers provide land and (sometimes) fund rail infranstructure. Most long
distance rail uses demand based pricing (the last seat costs more than the
first).

Taxpayers also (sometimes) provide/pay for land and the costs to build roads.
Until now, we haven't seen demand based pricing (the last slot costs more than
the first), but it actually fits well with other modes of taxpayer funded
transportation.

This approach also considers the cost and value of a road network in a
congested area. This could possibly fund other new transport in the area if it
really is such a valuable commodity.

------
rdtsc
I understand the psychology of it as far as the high price goes, I think also
people are appalled that there are others who can afford such obscene prices
too, not just that the prices are so high. And well the two counties funneling
traffic into this road Fairfax and Loudon are the richest counties in US, I
have no doubt they'll be enough people who will pay the $40.

But what most people are upset about is that the hours when the whole highway
becomes HOV-2 only have been expanded. So solo drivers who were getting up
early, could have made it into the city before the restrictions kicked in, now
won't be able to, and will have to funnel to secondary roads.

------
rjmunro
When the price algorithm goes above some unacceptable amount, they should just
change it to "Carpool only", as it was before, and there would then be no
reason for people to complain.

If they made the "Carpool only" have some sort of fine for violations, say
$100, paid the same way as the toll would have been, people could still use it
in real emergencies.

It sounds like the calibration of the toll amount is a bit off, and can
probably be adjusted over time as the systems get experience managing the
demand of the road. If they'd launched with an $8 toll, and ended up with
gridlock on the road, would that have been better?

~~~
nikanj
With a $40 toll and a $100 violation, it pays off to break the rules if you
only get caught every third day(!)

Incidentally, I've NEVER seen anyone get pulled over for driving solo on the
car-pool lane.

------
loudouncodes
There is an important point lost here. People are saying 'people who couldn't
use the road before now have the option to', but they are ignoring that the
restricted hours were increased by 90 minutes in the morning and evening. I
used to have an option to get to work super-early, or work till 7pm then head
home on a road that was no busier than the rest of the regions traffic. Those
options are now off the table. What was legal, fair, free, and without
congestion is now blocked by a toll that is pushing early morning traffic onto
roads not built for commuter traffic.

------
pcurve
If the road was already pretty full during rush hour when no solo driver was
allowed, how is this new rule going to help by adding even more drivers?
Sounds like a major fail to even have that kind of rule in first place.

------
jonstewart
This is a decent follow-up noting that the average toll is well below the peak
toll. Of course, it doesn't talk about the median.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-
gridlock/wp/2017/12/0...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dr-
gridlock/wp/2017/12/08/forget-the-infamous-40-toll-heres-what-the-i-66-tolls-
are-averaging/)

------
zeveb
The article quotes a legislator:

> which is why I called charging the highest toll in the country what it is:
> price gouging.

No, no, _no_ it's not price gouging: it's charging what the privilege of
driving in the fast lane is worth.

The problem in northern Virginia is that there are too many people commuting.
Fortunately, there's the entire rest of the country that they can move to.

'Not located in northern Virginia, New York or California' is a very real
marketing edge for a potential employer.

------
beamatronic
Stuck in traffic, you might as well be stuck in prison. Say your loved ones
are counting on you to be somewhere. When you are stuck , you're letting them
down! Suddenly you have an option when there were no options previously. Now
$40 looks pretty cheap in the face of fighting a spouse, disappointed
children, etc.

~~~
carlmr
If I drove there twice a day I wouldn't need to go to work anymore, because it
would (almost) cancel out my salary. Granted I don't work with an American
salary, but they're not THAT much higher. I don't know if that's what you call
cheap.

------
neves
This is kind of a joke, but imagine this scenario:

If I illegally immigrate to USA, how much I would make just to take a ride
with people?

I believe I could charge US$20 per trip. One trip early morning, go back by
public transportation (it is just 10 miles!), and get another ride. The same
at rush hour in the other direction. It would me about 80 * 22 = $1760 each
month. Nothing bad. Better than a minimum wage of $1,150 per month.

This is a kind of job that exists in a lot of places:
[https://gizmodo.com/10-transportation-related-jobs-that-
only...](https://gizmodo.com/10-transportation-related-jobs-that-only-exist-
in-certa-1565635360)

~~~
moftz
There are plenty of slug line commuter parking lots around the area that you
can find people that will ride for free in your car so everyone can take
advantage of HOV lanes. It's definitely a thing in some places where the
passengers have no real need to be going anywhere in DC, people are just
trying to get to work.

------
ppeetteerr
It's not about the price, it's about expectation.

The shock comes from people thinking, you've just opened a road for the rich,
not for the every man. Roads have not, historically in the US, been excluded
to a certain group of people. Of course people will react harshly.

Some economists need to get their heads out of their asses and live in the
real world for a bit.

------
nwrk
Can it be cheaper if you drive faster ?

ie. 45mph = $40

ie. 80mph = $30

ie. 100mph = $6 (for contrast)

et cetera ? That would make traffic flow and people happy ?

Not US driver, don't know the US speed limits. On oposite side, Germany
doesn't have speed limits on some tolls.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn)

~~~
CodesInChaos
Keep in mind that the safety distance you have to the preceding driver
increases with speed. Additionally the large speed differential between cars
leads to more frequent lane changes, acceleration and breaking, etc. Which
hinders the flow of traffic, reducing throughput.

In Germany it's common to use electronic signs to limit speed when the highway
is (moderately) congested to help traffic flow more smoothly, increasing
throughput (typically to 100 or 120 km/h).

~~~
nwrk
Valid points. Thank you. Was just stupid 'why not' late night thoughts.

------
jlebrech
they should fund public transport proportionally to a tax applied to fuel.

that way more cars also means more buses (or well maintained if people insist
on using cars)

every year crank up the fuel tax and you'll see more people using busses.

