-----Original Message-----
From: Rana Roy [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 14 March 2005 17:36
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [UTSG] Slightly OT - New York cuts car ownership & use - the
alternative to C-Charging?
Dave Wetzel wrote:
This policy of high parking charges seems to be working in New York City
But does nobody ask the question:
Why give the high rental values of parking lots to passive landowners and
not to the City authority that creates the value as they have to meet the
cost of providing roads for cars to access the city?
Dave
Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London.
Dave,
A very good question. To which the answer is: we shouldn't give it away.
Some quick points on the article:
1. "Owning a car is not a crime." Of course not! But making use of scarce
space without paying for it - for driving or parking, or whatever you will -
is grossly inefficient.
2. Pricing parking properly is not an alternative to congestion charging.
One should optimise the use of scarce space in each instance.
3. NYC needs to picks up the debate on congestion charging. Large revenue
and welfare gains are available from tolling the East River bridges (as
Charlie Komanoff demonstrated) - and larger gains from applying area-wide
congestion charging to Manhattan (as was demonstrated by Jeff Zupan et al.).
4. We in London and elsewhere in the UK need to pick up the debate on
parking. In the ECMT study of 2003, we estimated that a full correction to
parking pricing in the UK would yield £11 billion per annum in additional
revenues. This is close to the £13 billion per annum revenue gain estimated
from applying road-user pricing, at marginal social cost, across the
country.
5. Whether in London or NYC, and whether in regard to traffic or in regard
to parking, the rent properly belongs to society as a whole.
Rana
-----
Dr. Rana Roy
5 Bryanston Square
London W1H 2DH
United Kingdom
Ph: + 44 (0)207 4026687
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
***********************************************************************************
The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this email in error please notify [log in to unmask]
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
***********************************************************************************
|