Skip to main content

Highways Are Not (Economic) Public Goods

I was recently having a discussion about transportation policy with a respectable economics professor of mine. I asked whether he considers highways to be examples of public goods, he did; but his case was weak, in my opinion. Below is my case that highways are not public goods and should not be treated as such in economic analyses.

(from flickr user Nitro101)


Before I proceed, I should probably define a public good. From Wikipedia:

In economics, a public good is a good that is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. This means that consumption of the good by one individual does not reduce availability of the good for consumption by others; and that no one can be effectively excluded from using the good. In the real world, there may be no such thing as an absolutely non-rivaled and non-excludable good; but economists think that some goods approximate the concept closely enough for the analysis to be economically useful.
I've heard two examples which I think best illustrate the nature of a public good. The first is an Independence Day fireworks display. It's nearly impossible to sell tickets to a fireworks display because the show can be seen by anyone within a reasonable distance from the source; and my watching the fireworks display does not make the show any less enjoyable for the person standing next to me. The second example is a lighthouse. After being constructed, any boat passing by will benefit from the existence of the lighthouse, but it's very difficult to attach a price-tag to this privilege or exclude a boater from taking advantage of it.

So the argument extended to highways is that they are (1) non-rival because whether there is one car on the road or two, both will get to where they want to go, and (2) highways are non-excludable because anyone who wants to use them can just go ahead and use them. Both points are misleading and arguably incorrect.

Highways are non-rival only in the sense that anyone who wants to enter a traffic jam is theoretically able to do so. They fail the non-rival condition for this reason: my use of a highway reduces the ability of someone else to efficiently use that highway. Or think of it like this, in an ideal world, you could drive 20 miles on a highway in 20 minutes, but in reality, the more people who use the highway, the longer that trip takes, and in many cities, traffic jams are the rule, not the exception. In fact, to plot the relationship between number of cars on a highway and trip time would look more like a power-function than a linear-function. Only in an ideal world are highways non-rival, and the ideal world is not synonymous with reality.

Highways are only non-excludable because the dollar-and-cents price is artificially fixed at zero. This ignores the fact that not everyone owns cars or that pedestrians and cyclists are typically banned from highways. Nevertheless, once any toll is attached to a highway, it becomes excludable on the basis that people can be priced out. A fireworks display is nearly impossible to sell tickets to because no single person or organization has jurisdiction over enough area to prevent people from moving someplace else and watching the display. Highways have specific entry and exit points where toll-booths (or electronic tolling zones) can easily be established.

Ultimately, my argument is that highways are private goods that are priced incorrectly. Economic theory typically argues that taxes are an appropriate means to fund public goods because it's too difficult to get users to pay; but when applied to highways, highway operators don't want to (or are politically motivated not to) charge tolls, not because they can't practically do it. It may be true that local roads are public goods, but limited access highways are a completely different beast. It's not correct to lump anything a car might drive on into one category and simply call them "roads" or "streets" because they serve very different purposes and have very different implications for urban design.

Comments

neroden@gmail said…
"In the real world, there may be no such thing as an absolutely non-rivaled and non-excludable good; "

There is. Information. Text. Pictures. Data. This blog. :-)

This is why copyrights and patents are so pernicious. They attempt to convert a 100% non-rival, non-excludable good into a rival, excludable good. It hurts everyone.
Anonymous said…
Public goods are not literally "non-rivalrous," as pointed out. Air and water can still be polluted, lakes can be overfished, etc. Otherwise there would be no such thing as a "free rider problem."

Popular posts from this blog

In Praise of Southwest's 'C' Boarding Group

A few weeks ago I saw a tweet from someone complaining that their Southwest Airlines boarding pass had been assigned A20 (meaning they would be at least one of the first twenty passengers to board the plane). Apparently this person though they should have been assigned a higher number, less their flight experience be considerably spoiled.

Despite the complaints, Southwest has resisted demands to assign seats on its flights, a decision which I personally applaud. I'll admit that I was skeptical when they rolled out the newest boarding procedure, assigning both boarding groups and a line number; but in hindsight it seems like one of the best operational decisions they've ever made. If nothing else, it effectively eliminated the infamous "cattle call" whereby fliers were getting to airports hours in advance and sitting in line on the floor as if they were waiting for the midnight showing of the new Star Wars movie.

When I was an intern at Southwest Airlines last winter, I…

So You Want to be a Southwest Airlines Intern?

My personal website must have pretty decent SEO - because in the past year, I've received about two dozen emails from aspiring Southwest Airlines interns looking to draw on my experience in search of their own dream internship. In the past two weeks alone a few new emails have already started rolling in...

(from flickr user San Diego Shooter)

If you've found your way here, you might be hoping for the silver bullet; a secret tip that will propel you above the competition. Unfortunately, I do not know any inside secrets. I can only share my experience as an internship candidate about two years ago and, rather than responding individually to future emails I anticipate to receive, I hope that potential interns will find the information posted here valuable.

Understand: Southwest Airlines is a very unique company. The corporate culture at Southwest is truly unlike that of nearly every other company. But you probably already knew that, since it now seems mandatory for every management,…

Good Advertising

The blogosphere seems to be one fire over Microsoft's new "Lauren" TV commercial. Frankly, I don't see what the commotion is about.



If the critics are correct, then "Lauren" is actually Lauren De Long, a Screen Actors Guild eligible actress; and apparently, if you look close enough, she never even enters the Apple store.

Even if all of that is true, it doesn't refute the fact that Apple's laptops are significantly more expensive than most PCs. It isn't a lie that Apple doesn't sell any 17-inch laptops for less than a grand. The advertisement doesn't make any reference to the quality of the machines (or contest any of the claims made in Apple's "I'm a PC" commercials) or provide any good reason to buy one other than price.

As far as I can tell, after years of horrible commercials and a series of flops, Microsoft seems to finally have hired an ad agency that put together a decent advertisement. It's not likely to persuad…