In addition to the explicit imprecision, in a significant range, demand will be inelastic and simply result in higher tolls without commensurate reduction in traffic and will end up hurting those of lesser means.
Charging only those people who possess the means to drive, AND those people who choose to drive, sounds like it could reduce the harms to those of lesser means.
Right now, if I cannot afford to own a car and use my bicycle to get around town, I pay for someone else to use roads, because my taxes subsidize those roads.
So, if we paid for roads not out of general taxes, but out of tolls, it seems like it could be cheaper for those who don't drive.
Also, for what reasons do you suppose that demand is inelastic? I'm not sure what mechanism you're assuming is not sensitive to price.
> Charging only those people who possess the means to drive, AND those people who choose to drive, sounds like it could reduce the harms to those of lesser means.
> Right now, if I cannot afford to own a car and use my bicycle to get around town, I pay for someone else to use roads, because my taxes subsidize those roads.
> So, if we paid for roads not out of general taxes, but out of tolls, it seems like it could be cheaper for those who don't drive.
> Also, for what reasons do you suppose that demand is inelastic? I'm not sure what mechanism you're assuming is not sensitive to price.
Most people would be hard pressed to up and leave their jobs if tomorrow the cost of their commute doubled.
By narrowing the focus to people who have to drive on the roads and doing it in a flat way using tolls will hurt poor people the most if they have to drive to work. Having to drive to and from a job at a certain time is relatively inelastic especially for lower paying service jobs.
With tolls the same money will be spread over fewer people in a flatter way.
Not in all jurisdictions. Sales taxes and gas taxes and license fees are not tiered by income. Property taxes are vaguely tiered by income.
No, everyone doesn't. Even leaving aside toll roads, which exist and are becoming more common, roads are often paid for out of license fees (vehicle and driver) and gas taxes, which are all related to road use.
And if they were paid purely out of general taxes, well, every doesn't pay the same for those, either, though tax payments probably aren't closely correlated with road use. Though, almost certainly they are positively correlated with total, including induced, road use, since total consumption is positively correlated with income, and more consumption is linked to more direct (e.g., travel) and induced (e.g., for shipping goods) road use.
Or maybe just build better public transportation.
To use an Americentric, and worse, SV-centric example, consider when SF's BART was built. They trenched Market Street through almost all of downtown! Building transit even in dense urban areas is clearly doable with enough political will.
Maybe I'm doing the typical HN thing and assuming that lots of people are like me, but I've been moving around the SF bay area, and being close to transit is a massive consideration.