Do Americans Embrace Smart Growth And Tolls?

Smart Growth America has released the results of an opinion poll assessing the public's attitudes concerning some land use and transportation issues. The national survey of 1,000 adults has a 3.7% margin of error. Some of the results are interesting.

The study found relatively strong support for public transportation. In response to the question "which of the following proposals is the best long-term solution to reducing traffic in your areas" the results were as follows:

• Improve public transportation (49%)

• Develop communities where people do not have to drive as much (26%)

• Build new roads (21%)

Do you think these results will send a chill through road builders associations, or do they know that when the public says it favors public transportation it really means public transportation that the other guy has to take?

The respondents clearly favored improved fuel efficiency over increased taxes as a way to reduce energy use. When asked if they strongly approved of the following solutions to climate and energy problems, they responded:

• Regulate the car industry to make vehicles more efficient (74% strongly approve/90% total approve)

• Provide improved public transportation (62%/88%)

• Require homes and other buildings to be more energy efficient (62%/88%)

• Build communities where people can walk places so that people can use their cars less (49%/83%)

• Increase taxes on gasoline to discourage driving (8%/16%)

Clearly, the public values existing levels of mobility.

When is comes to land use, 81% said they preferred that new housing and commercial development be placed in already developed areas rather than continuing to build suburbs on the edge of existing suburbs (14%). When it comes to more specifics, 61% favored limits on new home construction in outlying areas and investment in very urban areas, 57% said they favor building businesses and homes closer together, within walking distance (57%) and to shorten commutes (55%).

Respondents strongly opposed (72%) privatization of existing public roads and using toll concessions to private companies to build new roads (52%). Total oppose percentages were 84% and 66%, respectively.

Interestingly, the percentage of respondents who strongly approved charging tolls on more roads if the result was better roads and reduced traffic congestion (26%) almost matched the percentage of people of who strongly disapproved (33%). In all, 55% approved of tolling and 44% disapproved. In the Great Lake states, the approval rate was 58% and the disapproval rate only 41%.

What to make of these numbers? The percentage of people strongly approving of tolls (26%) was over three times as high as those who strongly approved of an increase in the gas tax (8%). Some of all of the difference might be how the questions were phrased. People were asked if they supported a gas tax to reduce driving or tolls to improve highways and reduce congestion. Perhaps the approval rate would be higher for the gas tax if respondents had been asked if they supported such a tax if it resulted in better roads and reduced congestion.

Nevertheless, the results suggest more public support for--or at least tolerance of--tolling than for gas taxes. This is too bad in at least one respect. It is much cheaper to collect gas taxes than it is to collect tolls.

Another interesting finding is the relatively strong public support for using toll revenue on transportation uses other than the toll highway on which the tolls are collected. When asked whether they approved of spending toll revenue on the following uses, the respondents responded as follows:

• Toll money would be spent on maintaining all roads (48% strongly approve/77% total approve)

• Toll money would be spent on public transportation as well as roads (41%/70%)

• Toll money would be spent only on building and maintaining the toll roads (26%/47%).

Perhaps the respondents didn't realize that higher tolls will result if toll money is "diverted" from the toll roads to other uses. But perhaps the public recognizes that some roads add sufficient value that relatively high tolls are appropriate and can be used in part to subsidize other parts of the transportation network. Maybe this suggests that it is politically possible to increase the tolling of roads so long as the the proceeds are used to fund public transit and improvements in arterial roads.

Despite some significant support for tolling, the respondents were less enthusiastic about congestion pricing. When asked if they supported charging tolls to reduce congestion during rush hour 47% strongly opposed the idea and only 20% strongly supported the idea. In all only 37% supported the idea and 61% opposed the idea. When asked if they favored congestion pricing if the money were spent on transportation alternatives to the highway, the strongly opposed percentage dropped from 47% to 35% and the strongly support percentage went from 20% to 26%. The public was evenly split--49% to 49% on whether they approved or disapproved of congestion pricing if proceeds were used to support travel alternatives.

For me the most surprising result was the level of support for (a) concentrating investment in existing built-up areas and restricting greenfield sprawl and (b) higher fuel economy limits. The level of support for tolling and "diverting" toll revenue from toll roads to other uses was also surprising, especially in light of the reluctance to embrace congestion pricing.

Is there a common theme in these results? If I had to pick one it is that policies or rhetoric that appear designed to reduce use of roads (e.g., gas taxes and to lesser extent congestion pricing) are disfavored while policies that do not seem intended to restrict freedom but may nonetheless raise the cost of driving (e.g., road tolling, increased fuel economy standards) are more heavily supported.

Governor Blocking Congestion Pricing In Illinois?

Ed. Note: By now congestion pricing is hardly a new thing, in transportation or in other areas. The basic notion is that you use price to efficiently allocate a high-demand resource. It costs more, for example, to attend a Chicago Symphony Orchestra concert than it does your local school's band concert (unless Frances Parker is your local school!). Utilities price their product higher during peak demand period. You pay more for parking during special events than during off hours.

When demand for highway space exceeds supply, price can serve such an allocative function. Pricing can be set dynamically to maximize traffic throughput and travel time reliability. These benefits are not limited to just the private auto. The service offered by public transit buses using the priced route improves significantly because travel times are both faster and more certain on the route.

The federal Department of Transportation has embraced congestion pricing. (FHWA Congestion Pricing Primer here.) The five recent winners of Urban Partnership Program grants, ranging from from $63 million to $355 million each, all promised prompt implementation of congestion pricing programs. In contrast, this region's application didn't even make it out of the first round of the Urban Partnership Program competition because it lacked any credible congestion pricing plan.

Posted in below is a slightly edited report about the recent Lipinski Symposium from someone who currently works in Springfield. Note the bolded discussion indicating that the Governor opposes congestion pricing. If this opposition holds, then over the next few years congestion pricing efforts on major congested State roads and interstates in the State appear doomed to failure. The State can forget about tapping into future federal programs like the UPP designed to encourage implementation of perhaps the most effective way to counter traffic congestion, namely, congestion pricing.

But who needs a few hundred million dollars of federal money and a steady revenue source for transportation purposes anyway?

* * *
LIPINSKI SYMPOSIUM REPORT

Representatives Coulson, and Nekritz attended part of the Symposium. However, there was not much outreach to the legislators for the Symposium. Peter Skosey from MPC was pleased with the nearly 200 people who attended. Many were transportation policy experts. IDOT sent their chief of staff and their planning director. The service boards were represented, along with rail union and rail government liaisons. Planning agencies were in attendance as were lobbyists. The right people needed to be there.

The political environment in Springfield was somewhat of a sore spot throughout the symposium, with presenters taking gentle jabs at the topic throughout the day, until the last panel. [The last panel included several elected officials.]

It was productive in the sense that programs throughout the United States and even Stockholm, Sweden (congestion pricing through referendum) was discussed. There are some viable options out there if only our leaders would simply step back and consider these noteworthy options to save the crippling infrastructure in the State of Illinois.

I felt that William Lipinski along with Chairman Obsterstar were almost pleading with the audience to make things work in Illinois, for state officials to come together. Millions of dollars are out there in earmarks for the taking only, and only if, the State of Illinois gets its act together and come together on this issue.

I've asked the Chief of Staff at IDOT about congestion pricing in the past. I was told that the Governor does not support congestion pricing.

There was also some discussion to the need for raising the federal motor fuel tax by a minimum of 10 cents, not 5 cents (and this was mentioned in at least 3 of the 4 panels). Obsterstar even supported raising the motor fuel tax by a minimum of 10 cents.

I wouldn't say it was a waste of time necessarily. These ideas needed to be discussed.

However, with transit being held hostage in our current political environment, the Chicago region remains doomed.

The only thing I didn't want to hear was Lake County Chairman [Suzi Schmidt] stating the system needed to shut down. I've heard this in Springfield. If I was on the other side I would definitely start protesting the mass transit crisis facing the region. Say, shut down the system one morning to show everyone the effect of fewer buses on the street, etc.; and not wait until November 4th for the first doomsday and January 6th for the second doomsday.

Here are some links to check out:

http://mobility.tamu.edu
www.brookings.edu/metro - Brookings Institute Metropolitan Policy Program
www.atri-online.org - A May 2007 report regarding motor fuel tax
www.vtpi.org - Victoria Transport Policy Institute