No, I'm not saying the price increase is reducing capacity. I'm saying the trucks are reducing capacity (i.e. supply) and so the price is rising in response.

> I'm saying the trucks are reducing capacity (i.e. supply)

Source?

The comment I was originally replying to?

>> the company (said) two salt and plow trucks were working on the southbound Express Lanes on I-495 and I-95, causing traffic to slow

Now, I go back to my original question : Why is $30 the price that will do so? It could be $5 or $100.

Well I don't know exactly how their algorithm works, but I'd guess they keep track of average travel times by scanning licence plates, and then raise prices when they go below the target speed, and lower them again when speeds increase?

Unfortunately, "guesses" and "algorithms" built by humans are not good enough. The larger point is again the same - you can post hoc rationalize ANY price with that argument.

Well, we can measure efficacy here by seeing how far average speeds differ from the target speed over time. If they match closely, then I think it's reasonable to say it is "good enough".

This is not ONLY about speed. There are two variables here - speed and price. You've got to tell me the point at which you get the best speed at the best price.

>You've got to tell me the point at which you get the best speed at the best price.

What does that even mean?

People value speed differently, and so are being charged differently. If people value speed highly enough, they can pay for the express lane, and if they don't they can take a presumably slower non-express lane. Making this distinction allows everyone to get closer to their own individual "best speed at the best price".

It means that $30 may or may not be the optimal price. People may value the same facility at $1 or $100. The onus is on the entity who justifies the price to prove that $30 is indeed the best price point. At this moment, I've seen no justification for the $30 price point.

Optimal in what sense?