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 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.