“Getting the most out of a given input” or “achieving an objective for the lowest cost” are simple definitions for the goal of efficiency. But, as Aaron Wildavsky observed, technical efficiency does not tell you where to go, only that you should arrive there with the least possible effort (Stone). I am certain that it is the obligation of the state to keep the interests of citizens paramount to a goal of efficiency. With this in mind, I have decided to veto this bill. If passed, this bill would contribute to long term social and political outcomes that furthers class interest and perpetuates the sorting mechanism.
First, by deregulating carpool lanes, traffic will increase, which will undo its economic benefits. For example, carpool lanes in Southern California’s dwindling freeway system have been “the main tool for increasing road capacity to keep up with growing population and demand” so much so, that a single carpool lane carries double the number of people in a regular lane (Groves and Stevens). The boost in state revenue that some would argue is worth the switch- means a surge in road congestion and lost economic and environmental benefits. In fact, the investment value of a carpool lane in Los Angeles County is around 10 to 1 over an estimated 20-year span, where 1 to 1 is considered a profitable investment (MTA). Given such a high cost effectiveness, 82% of Los Angeles County residents support the use of sales taxes to improve carpool highway lanes (MTA). However, this also means increased costs for road maintenance, higher probability of car accidents and a much less environmentally conscious policy than if the carpool lanes had remained intact.
The reality is that congested roads affect low- and middle- income commuters much more drastically and passing this bill would directly target them. Studies have shown that people who commute more often in heavy traffic are more likely to experience high blood pressure and more serious illnesses (Frank). Since 1980, while incomes at the top 1 percent have doubled, correspondingly, growth for the median family has accrued less than 10 percent (Frank). Should this bill be passed, traffic jams will worsen and those service workers forced to commute with salaries remaining stagnant– teachers, firemen and policemen– all necessities to a city, would be squeezed even more limiting social mobility in the form of public transportation as well. If efficiency wins out, it would mean that workers unable to afford the sticker would spend more time in traffic. If workers run late, there is the added stress of being let go as more and more labor positions are substituted for temporary work. “The supply of temporary workers keeps Amazon’s warehouse fully staffed without the expense of a permanent workforce” (Soper 3). Correspondingly, higher rates of illness and a widening income gap push lower and middle income workers further into the “island” perpetuating the rungs of the sorting mechanism.
Lastly, if the bill is passed, then the government will have favored efficiency over public interest. In example, economist Deborah Stone argues, “all social values—liberty and opportunity, income and wealth and the bases of self-respect—are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any, or all, of these values is to everyone’s advantage” (Stone 60). Unfortunately, the bill at hand does not distribute to everyone’s advantage, on the contrary, it successfully excludes minimum wage earners from access to what was a social primary good and now serves as another exclusionary measure separating classes. If the government does not fulfill its role as a “regulator,” for social imperatives, a range of public goods are destabilized. Evidence shows that more riders does not just mean more revenue. The government backing carpool lanes establishes riders as part of a government-driven strategy “for pursuing a range of public goods: less need for roads, less need to expand airports, fewer accidental deaths, more compact cities, and lower carbon emissions” (Walker 4). Critics would argue that privatization “boosts efficiency and quality of remaining government activities and reduc[es] taxes” (Goodman 2). However, the flip side of privatized management over public goods is that private sector managers will not have incentive to “adopt profit making strategies or corporate practices that make essential services unaffordable or unavailable to large segments of the population” (Walker 3). This unfair distribution of resources is a greater degree of segregation by income which favors those who have the income to purchase a sticker every year. Whereas high-ridership transit services are almost always a result of “aggressive government investment and policies…a democratic government must care not just about the bottom line of the transit but also about the quality of the community it serves” (Walker 3). The role of governmental process in this decision is crucial to combat the growing distrust that is manifesting in popular opinion.
Ultimately, this bill should not be passed because it will hinder the ability for certain classes of people to have access to a public service which results in stagnating social mobility, the reestablishment of structural racism and a perpetuation of the sorting mechanism on a grander scale. The government has the authority, power and duty to maintain the security and equal distribution of goods for citizens as well as ensure economic infrastructure remains intact.
Comments