Economics-based decision making
Jun. 7th, 2018 07:22 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dennisgorelikIt is fun to watch how smart people make choices against their own interest -- simply because they do not have clear understanding of basic micro-economics principles (such as Law of Supply and Demand).
Here is an example:
Population of Bay Area has been struggling with traffic congestions for decades.
So in 2018 they launched Regional Measure 3
"Regional Measure 3" is clearly in the interest of most of Bay Area residents, but many, driven by stinginess, still complain.
======
https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/advocate-lead/regional-measure-3
To help solve the Bay Area's growing congestion problems, MTC worked with the state Legislature to authorize a new ballot measure that would finance a comprehensive suite of highway and transit improvements through an increase tolls on the region's seven state-owned toll bridges.
======
So, the overall intent is right: Bay Area has traffic congestion problems that need to be fixed.
======
toll revenues would be used to finance a $4.45 billion slate of highway and transit improvements in the toll bridge corridors and their approach routes.
======
1) Tolls would decrease number of cars on the roads, which would decrease traffic congestions.
2) Highway improvements would allow more cars to pass faster.
However stingy residents do not like to pay ($3 per single passing) and forget that the alternative is to spend a lot of their valuable time in traffic jams.
======
Major projects in the RM 3 expenditure plan include new BART cars to accommodate growing ridership
======
juan_gandhi considers this measure unfair ("why should tall payments from car drivers - go to improve BART?").
That is a reasonable objection, however there are 2 strong reasons why that "BART financing from cars toll system" is an important part of "Regional Measure 3":
Reason #1: Without sponsoring BART it will be hard to make "Regional Measure 3" to pass (poor people are not going to vote for toll payments increase).
Reason #2: Sponsoring BART is likely to be a relatively small expense (relative to the spendings that would go to the improvement of the highway system).
So, overall, that "Regional Measure 3" campaign was designed quite well. It is a quite reasonable way to reduce traffic jams that Bay Area has.
It makes sense that largest employers (Google, Facebook, ...) supported "Regional Measure 3".
It is good for Bay Area residents (and business) that "Regional Measure 3" passed.
Here is an example:
Population of Bay Area has been struggling with traffic congestions for decades.
So in 2018 they launched Regional Measure 3
"Regional Measure 3" is clearly in the interest of most of Bay Area residents, but many, driven by stinginess, still complain.
======
https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/advocate-lead/regional-measure-3
To help solve the Bay Area's growing congestion problems, MTC worked with the state Legislature to authorize a new ballot measure that would finance a comprehensive suite of highway and transit improvements through an increase tolls on the region's seven state-owned toll bridges.
======
So, the overall intent is right: Bay Area has traffic congestion problems that need to be fixed.
======
toll revenues would be used to finance a $4.45 billion slate of highway and transit improvements in the toll bridge corridors and their approach routes.
======
1) Tolls would decrease number of cars on the roads, which would decrease traffic congestions.
2) Highway improvements would allow more cars to pass faster.
However stingy residents do not like to pay ($3 per single passing) and forget that the alternative is to spend a lot of their valuable time in traffic jams.
======
Major projects in the RM 3 expenditure plan include new BART cars to accommodate growing ridership
======
juan_gandhi considers this measure unfair ("why should tall payments from car drivers - go to improve BART?").That is a reasonable objection, however there are 2 strong reasons why that "BART financing from cars toll system" is an important part of "Regional Measure 3":
Reason #1: Without sponsoring BART it will be hard to make "Regional Measure 3" to pass (poor people are not going to vote for toll payments increase).
Reason #2: Sponsoring BART is likely to be a relatively small expense (relative to the spendings that would go to the improvement of the highway system).
So, overall, that "Regional Measure 3" campaign was designed quite well. It is a quite reasonable way to reduce traffic jams that Bay Area has.
It makes sense that largest employers (Google, Facebook, ...) supported "Regional Measure 3".
It is good for Bay Area residents (and business) that "Regional Measure 3" passed.
no subject
Date: 2018-06-08 12:23 am (UTC)Road improvements won't trickle out of this extra money. The money will be spent on all kinds of nonsense. "raising awareness", building the HSR, "libraries" (that is, raising management salaries from current $200k/y to $250k/y), and the like.
There's another law that demands that money collected for roads improvements should be spent on roads improvements. Let's see if it works.
no subject
Date: 2018-06-08 12:41 am (UTC)I am local enough to be aware that Bay Area politicians have problems with socialism and general waste of tax-payers money.
Still, that specific toll-road measure would result in a positive change.
> Road improvements won't trickle out of this extra money.
None at all? Zero?
> The money will be spent on all kinds of nonsense.
I agree that in addition to spending money on highway improvement money would go to some nonsense items.
Government is inefficient.
> raising management salaries from current $200k/y to $250k/y
... will increase competition for these management positions, so smarter people would be working on these projects, which is beneficial to you.
no subject
Date: 2018-06-08 01:25 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-06-08 02:04 am (UTC)How is it obvious?
"Regional Measure 3" clearly states "finance a comprehensive suite of highway and transit improvements through an increase tolls".
> They try to increase the use of trains.
That too.
> But nobody in the right mind needs their effing trains.
Not even heavily discounted?
It looks like BART is popular among poor people (majority of voters).
> I wouldn't ride a train even if they pay me for it.
Right. Because your time and comfort is more expensive.
For drivers like you "Regional Measure 3" delivers better car driving experience (less traffic jams).
> I don't want trains anywhere near me
The optimal solution in Seattle area could be a little bit different and does not have to include trains.
But SF Bay Area has higher density, less available land and stricter environmentalists. So that trains tradeoff is inevitable if you want to improve your driving experience.
no subject
Date: 2018-06-08 06:15 pm (UTC)No, it's not. The only way to improve the driving experience is to build more roads and to decrease the population density (i.e. spread wider, and again build more roads).
no subject
Date: 2018-06-08 06:42 pm (UTC)You are too restricted in your thinking.
If you want to improve your driving experience, you may drive at night.
Or ask traffic control to create a green wave for you.
Or heavily tax cars usage.
There are many other ways. Not all of them are good choices, of course.
> spread wider, and again build more roads
That is my default choice of solving traffic problems.
But it goes contrary to the goal of working close to each other (which is important to many people).
no subject
Date: 2018-06-08 08:32 pm (UTC)I want to improve MY driving experience, not SOMEBODY ELSE's driving experience. And no, taxes don't improve the driving experience, they make it worse.
The whole premise of the train, HOV lanes etc. is "let's pay someone to bear suffering and tax everyone else to pay for it". So all it does is redistributes suffering to different forms, some bear it in the "natural" way for money, the rest suffer by paying money. It doesn't do anything to REDUCE suffering.
no subject
Date: 2018-06-08 09:21 pm (UTC)If half of drivers would disappear from the roads due to high taxes (talls or gas) - the remaining drivers would have better driving experience due to smaller traffic jam.
So you are wrong. Taxes may improve driving experience.
> redistributes suffering to different forms
This could be a positive effect by itself.
If your time is more valuable - you pay for it with your money.
For other people - their money is more valuable than time, so they pay with their time (riding a train/bus instead of driving their own car).
> It doesn't do anything to REDUCE suffering.
You are wrong again.
Your suffering from loosing $2K/year on extra tolls -- are much lower than suffering [from loosing the same $2k/year] of a senior citizen who lives on $1300/mo pension.
The same goes in reverse: that senior citizen does not suffer than much from waiting for the bus and wasting extra 2 hours per day -- as you do [from wasting 2 hours per day].
The redistribution, actually, reduces suffering.
But redistribution - is not the only positive effect.
Collected taxes allow to build more roads.
no subject
Date: 2018-06-09 12:11 am (UTC)No, they don't. If I pay more for driving, that makes my driving experience worse.
> The same goes in reverse: that senior citizen does not suffer than much from waiting for the bus and wasting extra 2 hours per day -- as you do [from wasting 2 hours per day].
No, it doesn't. The biggest problem with the bus is not that it's slow but that it's extremely unpleasant to use.
> Collected taxes allow to build more roads.
If they were spent on the roads. The problem is that they aren't. What I'm arguing for is that the right way is to collect the taxes and use them to build more roads, not diverting them towards "alternative means of transportation". To build the alternative means of transportation, tax or better yet, whenever possible charge per-use the users of these alternative means. Spending the road taxes on the "alternative means" is a 100% waste.
no subject
Date: 2018-06-09 02:05 am (UTC)Yes. But reducing traffic congestion makes your driving experience better.
Is it hard for you to consider that raising taxes has more than a single outcome?
> extremely unpleasant to use
Are you sure about "extremely"?
I used bus multiple times -- it was not as convenient as a personal car, but not extremely unpleasant.
In any case, poor person would not be willing to pay as much as you do for the convenience of using personal car.
> The problem is that they aren't.
Why do you think that none of taxes that are collected with the main promise to spend it on road improvements -- will not be spent on road improvements?
> What I'm arguing for is that the right way is to collect the taxes and use them to build more roads, not diverting them towards "alternative means of transportation".
That would be possible in the world where votes that elect municipal politicians are proportional to tax contribution.
Unfortunately for you, that voting power is proportional to number of registered adults (no matter what income they have).
So handouts to convince poorer people to support that legislation are inevitable.
The next best alternative is suffer from traffic jams.
no subject
Date: 2018-06-08 02:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-06-08 02:43 am (UTC)Even $0.01 would influence traffic.
But if 3 dollar influence would be not enough -- they would raise the prices.
I forecast $15 after few years (still cheaper than waste half an hour in traffic).
> toll plaza will make it worse
It is possible, but not likely overall.
It is also better to stuck in traffic before entering highway than in the middle of it when there is no escape.