E-ZPass Saves Lives
We find that reductions in traffic congestion generated by E-ZPass reduced the incidence of prematurity and low birth weight among mothers within 2km of a toll plaza by 6.7-9.1% and 8.5-11.3% respectively, with larger effects for African-Americans, smokers, and those very close to toll plazas. There were no immediate changes in the characteristics of mothers or in housing prices in the vicinity of toll plazas that could explain these changes, and the results are robust to many changes in specification.
HT to Matt Yglesias. (The above is due to reduced air pollution.)
I find the results hard to believe, but this is interesting nonetheless.
Economists (all of them? probably) believe in tolls. It’s a no brainer. But many (most? maybe) noneconomists do not.
The issue isn’t toll versus no toll. It’s EZ Pass, which I assume means that you pay the toll without slowing down, versus a conventional toll booth.
Amy Finkelstein did some analysis of toll roads that switched to electronic toll collection, or E-ZPass. On roads that had recently adopted E-ZPass, tolls rose by 20% to 40% compared to when people paid cash. She attributes the higher tolls to “decreased tax salience” or the fact an electronic debit (like income withholding) is felt less than handing over cash. Could it also be that electronic toll collection increases convenience and people are willing to pay for the added convenience?
I vote for the EZ Pass.
Yet another (ahem) ‘study’ citing a weak statistical correlation between two things, juggling some other random variables that do not affect the original correlation and leaping to a conclusion of causality (quite likely wrongly). This is simply junk “research”. Add a grossly overstated headline that doesn’t even address the content of the study and “voila”, an eye-catching article!!
“The results are robust to many changes in specification” Now there’s a great-sounding (but ultimately meaningless) statement!!
There have been a bunch of these air pollution studies coming out of the same shop. Let’s just say that they don’t do much, as Seamus Muldoon points out, that they aren’t especially good at correcting for socio-economic variables that might a) impact health and b) cause one to be more likely to have an apartment near a (high air pollution) highway.
This reminds me of the “cancer cluster” study that found an association between living near high-voltage power lines and a greater incidence of cancer. To find such an association, you analyze the population living within various distances from the powerlines (or toll plazas) and use the definition that yields a significant result. If you get to choose the study population, you can find support for almost any claim.