Radio NZ reports: Traffic in Manhattan’s central business district fell by 7.5 percent last week and 273,000 fewer cars entered the borough’s central business district after the first congestion pricing fee in the US took effect on 5 January, New York City transit officials said on Monday. The fee was designed to reduce traffic and raise billions […]
Congestion charges work
Congestion charges work
19 Jan 2025 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, politics - USA, transport economics Tags: congestion charging, road pricing
One early report on congestion pricing in NYC
16 Jan 2025 1 Comment
in applied price theory, applied welfare economics, comparative institutional analysis, market efficiency, politics - USA, public economics, transport economics, urban economics Tags: road pricing
That is my latest Bloomberg column, here is one bit: The core version of the plan stipulates a $9 toll for drivers entering Manhattan below and including 60th Street. Implementation is by E-Z Pass, and the tolls can vary in complex ways. But if you don’t cross the line, you don’t pay. So residents below 60th Street are exempt, […]
One early report on congestion pricing in NYC
How London is fighting its nightmare traffic
04 May 2019 Leave a comment
in transport economics, urban economics Tags: congestion charges, road pricing
Desperately seeking to agree with @JulieAnneGenter on transport investment quality
11 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in applied price theory, applied welfare economics, economics of bureaucracy, environmental economics, politics - New Zealand, Public Choice, transport economics, urban economics Tags: cost benefit analysis, KiwiRail, New Zealand Green Party, road pricing
I just wrote an op-ed for National Business Review online (pay-walled) agreeing with an op-ed last week by Green MP Julie Anne Genter on transport investment. My op-ed started
The Taxpayers’ Union welcomes the commitment of the Green Party yesterday to evaluating transport investments without any bias or favouritism to one transport mode over another.
The Taxpayers’ Union could not agree more with Julie Anne Genter when she said that the question ministers should always ask is “what is the best investment we can make?”
This op-ed was my rejoinder to her reply to my op-ed criticising a recent Green Party on national freight policy. That policy called for 25% of all freight by kilometres travelled to each go by rail and road. That would near double their freight market share from 30% currently to 50% when measured by kilometre.
For my troubles I got nothing but criticism and accusations in the comments section in National Business Review Online. A tweet by Genter was far more gracious.
There was no praise in the comment section at the National Business Review online for agreeing with the Green policy. In the first comment I was told I did not understand economics and that
When the policy default is “cut taxes and spending and let me selfishly keep my money” they miss out on the much larger benefit to everyone, including themselves, by nudging or economy to spend more on intrinsically more efficient transport – like rail – and less on alternatives.
No thanks at all for agreeing that transport investments should be the best we can make. After saying that in their recent freight policy, the Greens set targets were specific transport technologies they favour, which are rail and sea freight.
You cannot argue that transport investments should be the best we can make then declare a preference for a particular technology or mode of transport. But let us not quibble over that glaring contradiction.
The broader principle was agreed which is transport investments should be driven by cost benefit analysis and value for money. It should be technology neutral and transport mode neutral. That, of course, means the Greens cannot declare targets for the market shares of particular modes of freight shipment if they want to follow their own policy about value for money.
#MorganFoundation wants frontal attack on NIMBYs
03 Jun 2016 Leave a comment
in economics, economics of bureaucracy, economics of regulation, income redistribution, law and economics, property rights, Public Choice, public economics, rentseeking Tags: congestion charges, housing affordability, land supply, NIMBYs, RMA, road pricing, zoning
Morgan Foundation wants the National party-led government to take on NIMBYs not only with more high-rises and urban intensification but congestion charges too! There is only so much courage you can expect in one term of government. Relaxing the Auckland urban limit, which will hopefully cause housing prices to stop rising in Auckland was not enough.
No softly softly catchy monkey here. No concept of winning the battles you can win.
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments