 |
 |
In message <[log in to unmask]>, Gerard Mildner <[log in to unmask]> writes > >John-- >Two questions >(1) Have local planners looked into using congestion pricing to limit the >volume of peak-hour traffic on the M-25? Of course they have! And rejected any (or all) rational conclusions as 'Politically Incorrect' or, at least, politically unacceptable. To quote an old axiom: 'those who would live by the sword, die by the sword'. The West European, North American, and several other economies ALL have an inherent and critical dependence on the manufacture, marketing, maintenance, use of, and ultimately, disposal of wheeled vehicles and most particularly private cars. It is unlikely that any measures that would reduce that dependence could do so without causing at least a slowdown in growth of GDP. So do not expect any effective measures anytime soon. :=( Yes, there have been 'road-pricing' experiments, the technology is (more or less) ready and the M25 would be a prime candidate for congestion pricing. But introducing such a measure is a POLITICAL and ECONOMIC decision, not a technical one. None of the current crop of politicians (anywhere?) have the courage to introduce measures which explicitly shrink their economy and taxation base. And what about increased congestion on parallel routes in residential areas? To be acceptable, road-pricing has to be across a large area (eg. London all the way out to the M25), not imposed on a single route. >(2) Many goods have high capital costs and low operating costs. Why is that a >special problem for transportation? Couldn't transit agencies employ a monthly >pass with low or near zero per trip costs? Are you serious???!! Do you actually mean 'introduce a SUBSIDY mechanism alongside road pricing to ENCOURAGE certain classes of long-haul transport at the expense of others'? Surely the key strategic objective is to REDUCE the total passenger-miles, not increase them? The fact that individual's aspirations to travel long distances (for whatever reason) have been raised by the growth of private car use, promotion of tourism, lower building costs and taxation outside urban areas, etc., is NOT a justification for increasing still further the rate of depletion of natural resources by encouraging additional travel of any kind. Just because we CAN does not mean we SHOULD! -- John Brooks %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%