[pp.int.general] Big Brother in NL?

[Reinier Bakels]

>    1. It does not just "penalizes people for burning petroleum", it is 
> also a
>    measure of road usage. Building and maintaining roads is expensive.
>    Maintenace requirements directly depend on usage.
>
> It is easy to measure traffic on a road without tracking anyone.  But
> there's no need to measure traffic merely for the sake of maintaining
> roads.  You can simply resurface each road when it needs resurfacing.
I was not clear, apparently. A traveling salesman driving 100000 miles/year 
causes a lot more wear and tear to a road than an old widow driving just 
1000 miles per year. So wouldn't it be just to let the salesman pay more 
than the poor old widow?
I must admit that in the newspaper over the past days in this country the 
argument was made that tome people have to drive many miles because they are 
in a disfavourable position (e.g. simply people working in offices travel 
more than pensioners). Wouldnt' it be a matter of justice to let the above 
widow subsidise the workers? (My opinion is that any subsidies should be 
paid directly - which is better directed: the salesman could pay more than 
somone comuting to a hospital far away because a family member is there).
>
>    2. Unlike fuel taxes, road pricing allows people to incent for not 
> using
>    roads during rush hour.
>
> Avoiding congestion is plenty of incentive to travel at another time.
> Rather than trying to push people harder to travel at other times, it
> is more effective to look at what factors lead them to travel when it
> is so congested, and try to reduce those factors.  For instance, do
> lots of employers demand that their employees come to work at 9am?  If
> so, maybe push the employers to change that policy.

You are right. There is actually a risk of dishonesty. Some years ago our 
national railway company suggested to increase the price in urban area's - 
instead of rural area's. The response was: don't you make most money in 
urban area's, and dont you make less profit in more densely populated areas? 
But the proposal was actually very sound from an "amoral" economic 
perspective: any price increase provokes a volume decrease, so the net 
effect on the profit is limited and may even be negative. The effect is less 
though if "elasticity" is low. Which is in congested urban area's! If the 
price is increased in rural area's, people have an alternative, without 
traffic jams. Incidentally, the railway company never materialised the plan.

reinier