At 10:56 AM 11/29/2004 +0000, Sanjay Rana wrote:
>How does the congestion charging model incorporate the increased flow of
>traffic in future - perhaps by increasing the congestion charge or adding
>some other form of charge?
One of the best features of pricing is that rates can be adjusted to
reflect changes in demand and planning objectives. To manage congestion,
rates should be higher during peak periods and lower during off-peak
periods, and can increase over time as demand grows, or if a city wants to
reduce road or parking supply, for example, by converting some traffic
lanes to pedestrian space.
>Are there any research on the type of traffic that have
>disappeared/migrated? Was it the cross-london traffic or just some one from
>Kensington avoiding to go to shopping to oxford street?
The London congestion pricing evaluation program is looking carefully at
the travel changes that have resulted
(www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/cc_monitoring.shtml), and yes, much of the reduced
traffic is from avoided cross-town trips, rather than trips to the center
area, and some are reduced shopping trips. Some businesses have complained
of substantial reductions in traffic, although I suspect they are
exaggerating the impacts.
>Another (and perhaps impractical) idea - How about setting up a website
>where all vehicle owners i.e. households and companies can submit,
>anonymously, the following information to a national survey:
>For each car or a set of cars owned:
>
>- postcodes of starting point and end point of journey
>- journeys per week
>- time of each journey (i.e. AM,PM etc.)
>
>This could be a small project, advertised on relevant websites such as AA,
>banks, DVLA, etc. in UK and similar ones elsewhere and also perhaps via
>postal ballot.
This is called "Ridesharing" (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm34.htm), and such
websites are implemented in many cities. Most are intended for predictable
commute trips, others are dynamic, that is, they are intended for
individual trips.
The challenge we face is not a lack of travel alternatives, it is a lack of
incentives to use those alternatives. Ridesharing, public transit, cycling,
walking, telework (using telecommunications to substitute for physical
travel) and flextime (allowing employees greater flexibility in when they
work) are all transportation options that can substantially reduce private
automobile travel. Most travelers could shift mode for some trips without
too much effort, but they lack an incentive to do so. Most vehicle costs
are fixed: motorists pay thousands of dollars/euros annually to own a car
regardless of how much it is used. The marginal cost of driving seems low.
Vehicles owners feel that they need to maximize their driving in order to
get a fair return on their fixed costs (particularly since automobiles are
status goods, so many consumers spend more than they really need to), and
public transit/rideshare vehicles are generally stuck in traffic as well as
private cars. As a result, the current transportation market gives
travelers little incentive to shift mode when possible (for example, for a
commuter to use public transit when they don't need their car for errands
after work, or to cycle during good weather).
Note, by the way, that physically and economically disadvantaged people
tend to benefit most from pricing incentives, particularly if revenues are
used to improve travel options such as public transit and nonmotorized
travel conditions, because many already use alternative modes and they
value the opportunity to save money, for example, by Parking Cash Out
(commuters are given a choice between receiving free parking or the cash
equivalent). The claim that pricing is always harmful to the poor is simply
inaccurate.
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
|