Your Friend Is Giddy About Their New Commute Strategy Says

1 Your Friend Is Giddy About Their New Commute Strategy He Says That

1. Your friend is enthusiastic about his new commute strategy, believing that leaving 30 minutes earlier allows him to avoid heavy traffic and halve his travel time. However, from an economic perspective, this may still be inefficient. The economist's argument is based on the concept of opportunity cost and marginal analysis; even if his travel time decreases, the time and resources spent on the additional early departure could outweigh the benefits unless the value of saved time exceeds these costs. Additionally, if the early departure leads to increased congestion elsewhere or shifts congestion to other times or routes, the actual benefit might be less significant or even negative. Therefore, while his commute appears improved, the economist posits that his overall costs—time, effort, or other resources—may not have diminished proportionally, meaning he is still incurring a net cost (Mankiw, 2020).

Paper For Above instruction

When examining the efficiency of individual commute strategies, it is crucial to consider the broader economic implications beyond mere travel time reduction. The initial perception of benefit—halving commute time by departing earlier—might seem favorable on the surface, but the economist’s critique hinges on the principles of marginal utility and opportunity costs. If the displaced time could have been used for other productive activities or leisure, then even a shorter commute might not necessarily lead to a net benefit. Moreover, the concept of induced demand plays a vital role; as more drivers leave earlier, traffic patterns may shift, leading to congestion at different times or routes, thereby diminishing the initial perceived benefit (Small & Verhoef, 2007). Consequently, whether an individual's new commute strategy results in economic efficiency depends on a comprehensive assessment of all associated costs and benefits, including externalities and induced demand effects.

Studies consistently find that the net benefits of bus transportation are often less than those of private cars, primarily due to factors such as higher operational costs per passenger, lower flexibility, and often lower occupancy rates. Buses require significant public investment in infrastructure, maintenance, and subsidies, which might not be justified by their usage levels (Noland & Lem, 2002). Additionally, buses are susceptible to delays caused by traffic congestion, reducing their reliability and making private vehicles more attractive despite the higher per-trip costs associated with car ownership. Furthermore, buses often serve less direct routes, reducing efficiency relative to personalized car travel. While buses are environmentally and socially beneficial in reducing congestion and emissions on a per-passenger basis, their net economic benefit is often less than that of personal vehicles in many contexts due to these operational and infrastructural limitations (Hensher & Mulley, 2015).

Expanding highways through adding lanes under a "come as you please" system—also known as unconstrained or open-access highway systems—does not typically result in a long-term reduction in congestion. This is explained by the phenomenon of induced demand, where increased road capacity initially relieves congestion but eventually encourages more people to drive or travel during peak times, restoring the original congestion levels or making it worse (Lester & Pretorius, 2014). As additional lanes make driving more attractive or easier, peripheral effects include increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT), higher emissions, and greater urban sprawl. Therefore, rather than providing a permanent solution, highway expansion under unregulated access often leads to a paradoxical increase in congestion over time, making alternative approaches such as congestion pricing or transit investments more effective for sustainable congestion management (Schrank, Eisele, & Lomax, 2019).

References

• Hensher, D. A., & Mulley, C. (2015). Understanding the value of buses in an uncertain future. Transport Policy, 43, 1-11.
• Lester, T. W., & Pretorius, G. (2014). Induced demand and the effects of highway capacity increases. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 48(2), 229-243.
• Mankiw, N. G. (2020). Principles of Economics (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.
• Noland, R. B., & Lem, L. L. (2002). A review of the evidence for induced vehicle travel and land use growth. Journal of Planning Literature, 16(4), 379-395.
• Schrank, D., Eisele, B., & Lomax, T. (2019). 2019 Urban Mobility Report. Texas A&M Transportation Institute.
• Small, K. A., & Verhoef, E. T. (2007). The Economics of Urban Transportation. Routledge.