People are frustrated and think that governments are not doing enough to improve transportation, according to a new report by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments and the Brookings Institution entitled “What Do People Think of Congestion Pricing?”
The unexpected finding in the study is that support for raising gas taxes increased from 21 percent to 57 percent – nearly a threefold jump – once they learned how transportation is funded and that gas taxes have not been raised in roughly two decades (Federal 19 years, Maryland 20 years, and Virginia 27 years).
This is good news for the many leaders who are looking for ways to solve the transportation-funding dilemma. It suggests that, when presented with clear and compelling information, even about such an emotional issue as taxes, people may respond favorably to increasing investment in transportation.
The study included more than 300 randomly selected participants from Washington D.C., Virginia, and Maryland who participated in four-and-a-half hours of discussions on congestion and three potential congestion-pricing scenarios:
- Priced Lane Networks – variably priced lanes (essentially flexible tolls, such as high-occupancy/toll lanes) on all freeways and certain major roadways in the region. Approximately 60 percent of people supported this concept as long as there were still free options in regular lanes.
- Priced Zones – drivers pay a fee to enter or drive within certain congested areas. This approach has worked well in London and Stockholm. Fifty percent of participants supported this type of approach, but people were not very interested because they felt it would do little to solve regional congestion problems.
- Pricing on All Roads and Streets – variable pay-per-road-mile pricing using GPS systems in vehicles, replacing gas taxes to fund transportation. Only 10 percent of participants supported this approach, citing complexity, skepticism that is would work, and invasion of privacy.
The participants’ strong opposition to the mileage-based fee of Scenario 3, even after in-depth discussion, is not good news for some transportation-industry leaders who have been promoting a mileage fee as an alternative to declining gas-tax revenues. As vehicle fuel-economy improves, the tax-revenue generated has declined. And even worse, the taxes are not indexed to inflation, so the purchasing power of the federal and state transportation trust funds is eroding drastically.
Other findings include:
- People are skeptical of pricing as a general solution, but may support specific proposals that they perceive as delivering benefits to them and preserves their control.
- Many people lack confidence in government to use funds well, and oppose solutions perceived as overreaching, unclear, or invasive of privacy.
- People are more likely to support familiar or simpler solutions – such as raising gas taxes – than more complex proposals.
- People want confidence that any pricing proposal is part of a more comprehensive solution that improves transit, roads, the region, and their own lives.
People appear willing to support “common-sense solutions such as better coordination of construction schedules or improvements to the Metro system.” Public-information campaigns on how transportation is funded and specifically how new transportation revenues would be used are critical.
With increasing frustration over congestion and the lack of increased funding to deal with it over the past two decades, it is encouraging that people want to see a comprehensive strategy – in which selected congestion-pricing projects might play a part – and that they might support a simple mechanism such as an increase in the gas tax.
Photo by goldberg