Slow Down. Yield. Stop. Some Transportation Economics
Allen R. Sanderson
By
Congestion,
2 a.m.
car alarms, paying at the pump, finding a parking spot, getting a
ticket, TSA friskers, turf battles between motorists and cyclists,
Chicago Parking Meters LLC, plus RTA, CTA, and Metra headlines. These
are but a few of our local transportation headaches and embarrassments.
Nationally, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) produces our most
frequently cited measure of inflation, the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
As part of that monthly exercise, the BLS utilizes a market basket of
goods and services purchased by typical U.S. consumers. The proportion
associated with housing costs—the price of homes and rent, utilities,
upkeep, furnishings—is 41 percent. But the second heaviest weight—17
percent—is for transportation, including the prices of new and used
vehicles, motor fuel, repairs, public transportation, parking and
insurance.
Thus transportation is an important and costly component in our daily
lives. In Chicago we also have to contend with snow, crowded
expressways, accidents, trains and buses that may be running late —or
not at all, and getting to O’Hare or Midway. With regard to this last
item...
The Quite Safe Skies
The July 2013 crash of Asiana flight #214 in San Francisco spawned
several articles pertaining to where one should sit on a plane; that is,
which are the safest seats?
First of all, for the most part airplanes don’t crash. Over the last
four and one-half years there have been a total of three deaths —all
associated with that one landing accident—from flying on commercial
carriers within the United States; over that same period our motor
vehicle fatalities total more than 130,000. (In Illinois traffic deaths
average three per day!) For someone who lives in a Chicago
neighborhood, traverses the city via bike or auto, and uses our
expressways, dying on an airplane should be of minimal concern.
Second, by nabbing that alleged safest seat you are implicitly
increasing the risk for everyone else on that flight. Selfish?
Can’t We All Get Along?
Interstate highways restrict the type of vehicles, limit access, and
set minimum and maximum speed limits. Thus— unlike the danger and chaos
on roadways in Egypt and India—no pedestrians, bikes or animals. Why? To
reduce the variation (or, in statistical jargon, the variance) in speed
and mode to create a more uniform traffic flow.
Within urban areas, segmenting groups is far more challenging.
Pedestrians (are supposed to) walk on sidewalks not in the street,
though nowadays they are also laden with electronic distractions. On
lakefront paths we encounter bikers, joggers, dogs, strollers and
in-line skaters from pre-teens to Social Security recipients. And bike
lanes embedded in our downtown streets create confusion and pit
rear-view mirrors against handlebars. There is no easy solution because
these moving populations are far more heterogeneous, and fuses seem to
be shorter and skins thinner in denser corridors.
Our Four-Wheeled Friends
As hard as it may be to fathom, gasoline prices—yes, even in
Chicago—are too low to offset the congestion, environmental, and
accident-related costs associated with automobile traffic. (European
pump prices are equally inefficient: they are set artificially—and
vindictively—high for political reasons and to augment governmental
revenues.)
The economist’s solution—higher fuel taxes—is politically
unacceptable because of the fear that voters would punish the courageous
politician who proposed it. Thus office holders resort to grandstanding
and inferior alternatives such as increasing CAFE (Corporate Average
Fuel Economy) requirements, which shift the blame to auto makers as well
as exempt 90 percent of the cars on the road because these standards
only apply to new vehicles.
On the brighter side, technology, including GPS devices and
transponders, will soon enable us to ration road use by assessing
congestion (or “peak-load”) charges by time of day as is done in London
and Singapore.
It’s not about the money. Yeah, right!
When a professional athlete tests free-agency waters and remarks that
“It’s not about the money,” you can be sure of one thing: It’s about
the money. When Rahm Emanuel asserts with regard to the installation of
red-light and speed cameras that it’s about public safety, you can be
sure of one thing: It’s mainly about revenue for city-hall coffers. To
remove money from where his mouth is, there is a simple solution: Let
the mayor name 10 Chicago-area charities that will each be given 1/10th
of net revenues collected from these moving violations. That way he has
no skin in the game and can proclaim loudly and appropriately that it is
only about public safety.
Published: December 07, 2013
Issue: 2013 Philanthropy Guide