Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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: