Download SEED for Road Congestion Argument

SEED for Road Congestion Argument
Main Argument: Legislation on the number of passengers in cars is the best alternative to
reducing road congestion.
Statement #1: : Legislation on carpooling does not disadvantage the consumer because
demand can be decreased by providing the producer with incentives, which has been
effective in the past.
Evidence:


Washington D.C. – The Pool Rewards Project by Commuter Connections
o
Participants earn $2 per day ($1 each way) for each day of carpooling
o
Decrease in 298 daily auto trips
o
93 percent of participants continued after campaign ended
Provides incentive to consumer:
o
Carpooling parking areas & lanes (Colorado Carpool Here)
o
Saves 1.1billion dollars with gasoline based on report by American
Automobile Association
o
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- 30$ incentive bi-weekly
o
US built 2500 miles of carpool lanes
o
"dynamic ridesharing"- automatic one-to-one matching
Explanation:
o
Road congestion is one real-life example of the tragedy of the commons. The
tragedy of the commons describes the overuse and eventual depletion of
shared resources. Acting in self-interest for the greatest short-term personal
gain, people often decide that public roads are the best way to meet their
needs. Considering only their own traveling needs and without having to pay
to use the common resource, people contribute to traffic congestion, which
results in slowing down for everyone. Of course, one way to reduce
congestion is by decreasing demand. A supply and demand diagram can
illustrate how this would work. If the demand is alternated, it can be shifted
to the left, which would mean that the quantity consumed would be less. One
way of reducing demand is through legislation: carpooling, or regulating the
amount of people that should be within each vehicle in traffic. One option
would be to incentivize the common use of one car, which would cut back on
demand. For instance, this was done with the The Pool Rewards Project by
Commuter Connections in Washinton D.C, whereby participants could earn
$2 per day ($1 each way) for each day of carpooling
Diagram:
Statement #2: Carpooling is an effective solution to this example of tragedy of the
commons, since it will alleviate the negative externalities associated with the market failure
and will also decrease pollution.
Evidence:

30% of the greenhouse gases released in the United States come from
transportation

Each gallon of gasoline burned by an automobile engine leads to the release of 19.4
pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere

100 carpooling people can prevent 1,320 pounds of carbon monoxide and 2,376,000
pounds of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere in a single year,
as reported by Colorado Pollution Prevention

“The US could save 33 million gallons of gas-each day-if the average commuting
vehicle carried one additional person,” according to Rideshare.com
Explanation:
Carpooling provides significant social and economic advantages. Since one of the
assumptions of economics is that individuals are self-interested. Based on this information,
it is especially significant to note the benefits of carpooling legislation because it benefits
the consumer, meaning that consumers will be more willing and able to participate in it.
This would, therefore, indicate that this type of intervention is more likely to lead to
positive results for the entirety of the population because it has better effects on the
stakeholders involved. Of course, this can be the in the form of pollution reduction, time
saving and more. All of this is grouped under the idea of road congestion as a concept. The
standard MSC = MSB diagram, showing congestion as an external cost of consumption be
used to illustrate said effects, and can illustrate how that cost is lessened by carpooling.
Statement #3: An increase in road space is a poor solution to traffic congestion because it
will not have the intended effects on road congestion.
Evidence:

Induced demand: Los Angeles
o
Increasing supply for something increases the demand for it
o
Study between 1980 and 2000 in U.S. states by Matthew turned (university
of Toronto) and Gilles Duranton (UPenn) comparing the increase in road
space and the amount of congestion: 1 to 1 ratio

Law of congestion: new roads = new drivers = same amount of
congestion

Counter-examples: Road congestion not changed or decreased by smaller roads
o
Paris: reduction policy (2014)
o
Seoul, South Korea replaced road accommodating: 168,000 cars per day
(traffic remained same; decrease in pollution)
Explanation:
Although one policy for targeting traffic congestion is an increase in road space. That is not
a very beneficial option, considering that it creates induced demand. Induced demand
refers to when increasing supply for something increases the damnd for that good or
service. In this case, increasing road space will increase the amount of road space
demanded. A study was completed between 1980 and 2000 in the various states in the
United States by Matthew turned (university of Toronto) and Gilles Duranton (UPenn)
comparing the increase in road space and the amount of congestion. They found a 1 to 1
ratio. As can be seen with a basic supply and demand diagram, the quantity of road space
will increase, which would normally reduce congestion; however, the shift of supply also
increases the quantity demanded. As a result, this solution will not be effective.
Diagram: