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

[Reinier Bakels]

>    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.

I think I mixed up different things here. Starting point should be that the 
authorities crate an infrastructure with a sufficient capacity. Obviously, 
peak load is decisive for the required capacity. So it has a purpose to 
spread the peak: it saves asphalt, which is good for the taxpayer AND the 
environment. especially in densely populated areas. How do you incent people 
not to go on the road all at the same time? The present method is *not* to 
privide sufficient peak capacity. Still, practice shows that it is not a 
sufficient solution. Some people will avoid peak hours. But the very 
existence of traffic jams shows that this "mechanism" does not work very 
well: it apparently does not deter many people still to take the car during 
rush hour. The effect is that there are loud complaints about losses due to 
traffic jams. And there is political pressure on the government which is 
apparently unable to solve the traffic congestion problem. In sum, this 
method is politically unattractive.

BTW I solved the problem myself by using the train as much as possible. But 
I live close to a railway station. And I am aware that trains are *very* 
expensive for taxpayers. That is why there are so few trains in the US.

reinier