Photo by Wootang01.

Freaky congestion pricing

Transport for London studied the economic costs and benefits of congestion pricing and found that even drivers end up with a net economic surplus, while bus riders get an even bigger one. But congestion pricing is still politically unpopular, even in London. Eric Morris wonders whether that’s because people can’t see all the time they’re saving. If so, perhaps roads with some free and some pay lanes are the better way to go than all-toll. (Freakonomics, jconway)  (Tip: jconway)  

Pricing’s defenders

Plenty of urbanist economists rebutted last week’s WSJ op-ed by David Owen arguing that it’s better to let congestion be really bad than try to fix it with congestion pricing. Charles Komanoff notes that it really has worked in London, not induced more traffic as Owen argued. Ryan Avent points out the atrocious optics of even suggesting making people more unhappy (even if it were the right answer, which it’s not). And Daniel Nairn categorizes the approaches to congestion very succinctly: build supply, manage demand by queueing, and manage demand by pricing. (Streetsblog, The Bellows, Discovering Urbanism)  

E-ZPass is good for babies

A recent study found that parents with E-ZPass had healthier babies. No, the transponders don’t have magical healing powers. But not spending so much time in traffic amid tailpipe emissions is healthier, and the researchers used parents with and without E-ZPass as a way to get at the effect of exposing babies to less congestion. (How We Drive)  

Drunk walking the real scourge?

The upcoming Freakonomics sequel comes to the bizarre conclusion that drunk walking is more dangerous than drunk driving. Really? It doesn’t really look that way. They conclude that more drunk pedestrians are killed per mile than drivers, though that artificially inflates the rate because the pedestrians travel so much less. Also, we have little data about how much drunken moving takes place, and if a pedestrian gets hit while drunk even if alcohol is not a factor, it gets coded as a drunk pedestrian. (How We Drive)  

Waste our money on parking or we won’t lend it to you

What’s the biggest obstacle to more transit-oriented development? Banks and their outdated lending practices, argues a Salt Lake Tribune article. Lenders demand lots of parking in projects they fund, even if the developer doesn’t think it’s necessary. Of course, zoning codes and unwilling developers have something to do with it, too. (Via City Block)  

Driving phone ban is working

DC’s bad on handheld phones while driving is probably making driving safer, even if plenty of drivers ignore the law. The almost 13,000 tickets DC writes a year have driven the rate down: it declined 41% when the ban too effect and stayed 43% lower than the level researchers estimate had there been no ban. (Post, Cavan)  (Tip: Cavan)  

And…

Fairfax has approved the special tax district necessary to build the second phase of the Silver Line (Post, Cavan, Joey) … Most cities are not prepared for the Census, which will likely mean big undercounts (Pew Charitable Trusts, Lynda) … An upcoming building in College Park has abandoned a planned atrium that would cool the building, because it’s too expensive. Rethink College Park wishes they could have saved money on the parking instead.  (Tip: Cavan)