I agree that anything that cities, particularly the centers of large
cities, benefit from anything that reduces motor vehicle traffic volumes.
There are several possible ways of doing this. At one extreme are
automobile advocates who propose networks of underground or overhead
highways, such as the urban component of the U.S. interstate (see for
example, Wendell Cox, "A Common Sense Approach to Transportation In the
Atlanta Region," Georgia Public Policy Foundation, www.gppf.org, 2000), but
these are extremely costly (both in money and in environmental impacts) and
create a whole new set of problems. For example, where will all those
additional vehicles dumped into the city park? At the other extreme are
those who propose regulations that prohibit driving in city centers, but
that has the problem of reducing flexibility and shifting vehicle travel to
other locations - it is a token solution because it only applies in a small
portion of the city.
There are many reasons to believe that the best overall solution involves a
number of pricing reforms, including increased road and parking pricing and
insurance pricing reforms, matched with improvements in transit and freight
distribution systems to reduce total vehicle traffic volumes, and land use
policy reforms to create more accessible land use patterns (see the
"Comprehensive Market Reforms" chapter of our Online TDM Encyclopedia
http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm29.htm). That is the best approach from an
economic efficiency perspective, and therefore an economic development
perspective (that is, maximizing productivity and income). Even small
steps, such as congestion pricing of city centers
(http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm35.htm), Pay-As-You-Drive vehicle insurance
(http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm79.htm) and increased parking pricing
(http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm26.htm) can significantly reduce specific
transportation problems.
Best wishes,
-Todd Litman
At 09:05 AM 11/27/2004 +0000, Sanjay Rana wrote:
>Hello again,
>
>I get the overwhelming feeling that in any new transport plans, cost and
>inconvenience will be a big factor in old (and expensive) cities like
>London, which in my humble opinion even to this day, are trying to arrange
>21st century transport systems (& demography) in Roman and Victorian city
>plans. Sadly, I can neither fully appreciate the Roman or Victorian
>architecture nor the modern day transport systems completely as the streets
>are crowded with people and traffic. I think that the amount of people on
>the narrow Oxford Street (London) pedestrian paths and entrance/exits at
>underground tube stations on a weekend during a holiday season is a health
>and safety risk.
>
>Some years ago, in another old city Delhi (India), on certain days
>(weekend?) the main city centre (Connaught Place - inner circle) was
>off-limits to vehicles. It was such a delight to be able to walk freely and
>enjoy Lutyens Greek/Roman architectural styles. People either used to take
>the public buses that dropped them off just outside the city centre or leave
>the car in the car park.
>
>At a certain level, transport networks planning especially if it affects the
>vehicle usage seems a rather devious issue as potentially it also influences
>the earnings of many other important players e.g. automobile industry, road
>construction industry, government revenues, travel industry and so on.
>
>S.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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
|