To economists, road pricing, such as was recently implemented in London) is
perfectly sensible. In fact, there is virtually the only effective way of
reducing urban traffic congestion. When people reject road pricing they are
essentially choosing traffic congestion. London's experience has been a
validation of what economists predict: once the system was in place most
residents found themselves better off overall, and as a result the mayor
who introduced the program was reelected (for more discussion see my paper
http://www.vtpi.org/london.pdf and the London Congestion Charging Website
(www.cclondon.com). For press releases see
www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/press_cc_news_latest.shtml. For a six-month status
report see
www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/downloads/pdf/congestion-charging/cc-6monthson.pdf. For
information on the monitoring and evaluation program see
www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/cc_monitoring.shtml.
With efficient pricing innovative solutions, such as underground transport
can find their place, because individual consumers have an incentive to use
the most efficient option. For example, without pricing buses and carpools
are stuck in traffic the same as cars, so there is little incentive for
most travelers to use alternatives. With optimal pricing, travelers have an
incentive to shift mode when they can, and transit/carpool vehicles are no
longer delayed by congestion. In other words, when potential demand exceeds
system capacity something must ration road space, either congestion delay
or pricing. Delay is economically inefficient. Pricing is efficient because
it gives travelers more options to choose from (drive and pay, travel
faster on alternative modes), and creates a revenue stream that can provide
additional benefits.
The only way to know whether an alternative (such as underground travel) is
economically efficient is to price alternatives (driving) efficiently and
see what consumers choose. Otherwise we would simply be building expensive
but underused infrastructure.
Best wishes,
-Todd Litman
At 05:51 PM 11/26/2004 +0000, Sanjay Rana wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I like many others who live in London (and perhaps any major city on the
>planet), find increasingly that the agenda of urban life is being hijacked
>by all-things transport. There is a congestion charging scheme being
>operated by London Government to discourage non-essential car journeys. I
>just saw in the news that the transport secretary wishes to introduce some
>more similar schemes.
>
>I am not a transport planner but I do (rather forced to) wonder about
>whether roads will ultimately suffocate and strangulate the cities.
>
>It may seem silly and perhaps even a scene from a sci-fi movie but I wonder
>if it would be an idea to start to move personal and commercial vehicular
>transport (except non-polutting ones) in big cities underground? It does
>mean having to drive in miles of high speed tunnels (which could be made
>entertaining with some nice sponsored lighting effects), some considerable
>investment, and engineering innovation but in my simple logic this would mean:
>
>- end of the charm in driving, which I reckon is one of the main culprits of
>the driving culture,
>
>- reduction in traffic-related deaths,
>
>- reclaimation of the land for new purposes e.g public transports like trams
>or perhaps just patches of trees and parks,
>
>- reduction in pollution(?)
>
>- above all, having the freedom to walk freely on the land :-)
>
>The nearest example of this one that comes to my mind is that of Seattle,
>which has several tunnelled parts in the city centre area.
>
>S.
Sincerely,
Todd Litman, Director
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
"Efficiency - Equity - Clarity"
1250 Rudlin Street
Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, Canada
Phone & Fax: 250-360-1560
Email: [log in to unmask]
Website: http://www.vtpi.org
|