Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Transit fares and congestion charging: cross subsidy synergy?

Expand Messages
  • Stefan Langeveld
    Some thoughts about transit and fares. I ll let the congestion/carbondioxide charge off the hook for now. The transit system is generally considered a public
    Message 1 of 22 , Nov 16, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Some thoughts about transit and fares. I'll let the
      congestion/carbondioxide charge off the hook for now.

      The transit system is generally considered a public good, but it is
      a matter for debate.
      Should the government provide a certain basic level of accessibility
      to all people at all times ?
      Should the government provide a certain basic level of food to all
      people at all times ? Shelter? Education? Internet access? Your
      votes, please.

      The government now provides basic bus stop to bus stop transport for
      all, and limited door to door transport for the disabled (various
      groups).
      The total costs per trip are higher that any other mode, of which
      most is paid through taxation.
      Or: everyone pays a lot for a poor quality service, which most
      people don't use.
      (In Nederland , PT companies are gradually privatised, and must
      compete for areas, but still receive half of their costs from
      subsidies)

      In one part of Amsterdam, there are many unofficial taxis (PT is
      inconvenient for shopping trips and regular taxis are way too dear).
      They provide a good service for a very fair price, even at night.
      Not a euro of subsidy wasted here. Locals drive locals, quite like
      ride-sharing.
      The local government does not support or even tolerate this service,
      but wants to clamp down on these drivers , but so far do not know
      how.

      Stefan Langeveld
    • Chris Bradshaw
      From: Ian Wingrove ... I had understood that cars registered to people living _inside_ the CC zone do not have to pay the charge. It seems to me that these
      Message 2 of 22 , Nov 16, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        From: Ian Wingrove

        > As for second cars - in all of inner London and much of outer London, they
        > would have to pay residents parking charges, on top of all the other car
        > owning charges.

        I had understood that cars registered to people living _inside_ the CC zone
        do not have to pay the charge. It seems to me that these are the very
        people who should not need a car in the first place, and who should be
        setting an example for the people living outside the zone, but needing to
        sometimes drive into it.

        Now, I see your statement above, which distinguishes between first and
        second cars. And it mentions other charges for all car owners.

        Could you elaborate?

        Also, where are the CC, parking, and other charges spent and by whom? Green
        taxes should be spent to ameliorate what "evil" the charged activity
        supposedly causes. Donald Shoup, in his 2005 book, _The High Cost of Free
        Parking_ suggests that parking revenues go local amalgams of
        residents/merchants to spend on local public right-of-way
        maintenance/improvements.

        BTW, I agree with the statement that no cars should be exempted from the
        charge, including carsharing vehicles.

        Chris Bradshaw
        Ottawa
      • Eric Bruun
        Ian But there is still no way that giving low emissions cars free entry can possibly reduce congestion and the demand for parking. At best traffic will stay
        Message 3 of 22 , Nov 16, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Ian
           
          But there is still no way that giving low emissions cars free entry can possibly reduce congestion and
          the demand for parking. At best traffic will stay the same, at worst it increase the traffic.
           
          I also think that "zero" emissions private autos is a misguided goal. Unless a country is
          100 percent without fossil fuels for generating electricity, even electric cars still use petroleum or coal
          (or maybe even nuclear power) to charge their batteries. Furthermore, batteries are themselves an eco-problem.
           
          If your current fuel prices aren't already enough to deter SUV use, then UK's problem is that a lot of people
          are so darned rich that price doesn't matter to them. These are the same people who will no doubt be the first
          to be buying hybrids or zero emission vehicles, since access is important and price is not. They will also no doubt
          continue to use their SUVs or luxury cars for their remaining trips.
           
          Finally, I want to point out the experience from the Virginia burb's of Wash DC and in California. Hybrids
          were allowed to use the HOV lanes and they wrecked the transit services that operate on them due to
          high congestion. End result - lots of cars sales (a windfall to auto manufacturers) an increase in public transport operating costs, and a 
          reduction in public transport use.
           
          Eric Bruun


          -----Original Message-----
          From: Ian Wingrove
          Sent: Nov 16, 2006 5:40 AM
          To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

          We are certainly practical greens who want to see people shift from badly polluting vehicles to less polluting vehicles as a result of this relatively short term measure. We are keen to help create a market for zero emission vehicles and price diffentials have been very successful in doing this. If we can stop the UK from adopting the SUV culture of the US, then that will be a useful achievement.
           
          As for second cars - in all of inner London and much of outer London, they would have to pay residents parking charges, on top of all the other car owning charges.
           
          Nor is this CC policy a one off. All of the London initiatives have to be seen within the context of increased public transport provision, a growing momentum behind using 'soft measures' to reduce the demand for travel and a tightening up of car parking standards in the planning policy (by no means perfect). Despite London's rapidly growing population, we have still managed a slight decrease in traffic since 2000 across the whole of the city - at a time when it has grown by 5% in the rest of the country.
           
           
          -----Original Message-----
          From: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:NewMobility Cafe@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of Eric Bruun
          Sent: 15 November 2006 20:16
          To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
          Subject: Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

          I think it is typical that "environmental" groups would advocate zero charge for less
          polluting vehicles. I oppose it. The congestion charge isn't just about emissions, it
          is about space and energy consumption as well. We can expect to see the wealthy
          buy additional cars (maybe not even selling their old ones) and increase in traffic.
           
          Eric Bruun


          -----Original Message-----
          From: Ian Wingrove
          Sent: Nov 15, 2006 7:21 AM
          To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
          Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

          Press release from London Mayor, yesterday. Big change is abolition of the residents discount for highest polluting vehicles. Greens on the London Assembly have been pushing Mayor to do this for last six years, so very happy. Big differential between group F and G sends out a clear signal to car owners.

          IW

          Mayor backs plans for emissions-based congestion charging

          The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, today announced that he will take forward the policy of reducing London’s C02 emissions by introducing emissions-based charging to the existing congestion charge scheme.

          The proposals, to be consulted upon, could see the most polluting cars pay £25 to enter the congestion charging zone, and lower polluting vehicles qualifying for a 100 per cent discount.

          Under the emissions-based Congestion Charging proposals, the following charges would apply:

          Vehicle Excise Duty Band

          Charge

          A and B (less than 120g CO2 per km) which meet Euro IV standard

          £0 (100 per cent discount)

          C, D, E, F

          £8 (as now)

          G (above 225g CO2 per km)

          £25

           

          Subject to consultation, it is proposed that the 100 per cent discount for the least polluting vehicles will be introduced in 2008. The surcharge for band G vehicles that emit the most C02 is expected to be possible from 2009/10, although the Mayor has asked Transport for London to examine the possibility of an earlier start date.

          The 90 per cent resident's discount currently enjoyed by those living within the congestion charging zone, will be withdrawn for vehicles in band G.

          Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said:

          "Londoners are becoming increasingly aware of the need to tackle climate change and reduce C02 emissions. Most vehicles that will be charged £25, in Vehicle Excise Duty Band G, are high priced models. Those who buy them can afford to choose from pretty much the whole of the mainstream car market but have chosen to buy one of the most polluting vehicles. By making these changes to the congestion charging scheme we are encouraging people to take into account the impact of their choice of new car on the environment and the planet.

          "We are already cleaning up London’s fleet of public vehicles through measures like the introduction of Hybrid buses. These new proposals will tackle pollution from private vehicles, and ensure that London is leading the way in the fight against catastrophic climate change."

          Ends

           
           
           
           
          -----Original Message-----
          From: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:NewMobility Cafe@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of Zvi Leve
          Sent: 14 November 2006 15:09
          To: NewMobilityCafe
          Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] Re: Stockholm - Congestion charging back next year

          Dear all,

          I understood from a colleague in Stockholm that the referendum victory was not so clear-cut as it might appear. Basically people in the core areas (ie within the congestion cordon) voted in favor of the charge, whereas those outside voted against it. Nothing too surprising there I suppose.

          Whenever there is a vote on an issue there will always be winners and losers - that is what happens in a democracy! Ideally we (the government, the authorities, society, etc) would then be able to come up with some sort of solution which will respect the choice of the majority without excessively hurting the minorities - a compromise. Typically a compromise results in something which is less than ideal, but does not generate extreme negative reactions either.

          For the near-term, I think that any successful implementation of congestion charging will need to be able to find such compromises to make them politically tractable (ie charge drivers but give them -the drivers- something in return). In the longer term, of course one would hope that these revenues would be used for more sustainable transportation options.

          Best regards,

          Zvi


           

          GREATER LOND ON AUTHORITY

          EMAIL NOTICE:
          The information in this email may contain confidential or privileged materials. Please read the full email notice at  http://www.london. gov.uk/email- notice.jsp


           

          GREATERLONDONAUTHORITY

          EMAIL NOTICE:
          The information in this email may contain confidential or privileged materials. Please read the full email notice at  http://www.london. gov.uk/email- notice.jsp

        • Ian Wingrove
          Eric You are of course right that having a 100% zero emission vehicles is not the solution to all problems, even if it solves air pollution problems at the
          Message 4 of 22 , Nov 17, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Message
            Eric
             
            You are of course right that having a 100% zero emission vehicles is not the solution to all problems, even if it solves air pollution problems at the point of use - air quality still being a major problem in London.
             
            Again, it is the context of doing this within a framework of other successful policies. For example, zero emissions will do nothing to stop road deaths. Since 2000 when the GLA was established, London's road casualty rate has fallen faster than any other urban centre in the UK and we have tougher targets for casualty reduction than anywhere else in the UK. My boss has been the Mayor's Road Safety Ambassador during this time and has argued for higher investment in the things we know work and research into the next generation of ideas. The London road safety budget has more than doubled and we are piloting technological solutions such as speed limiters. 
             
            We have just started pushing forward on decentralised energy and local renewables in London. I can't claim any success as it is early days and we are so far behind other European cities. But the aim surely is to have an integrated system, where people produce enough energy locally to meet many of their energy needs - including charging up vehicles. For example, a recent report for the Mayor showed that they could power the entire bus fleet from energy produced from waste.
             
            Cheers
             
            IW
             
             
             
            -----Original Message-----
            From: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Eric Bruun
            Sent: 16 November 2006 19:52
            To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

            Ian
             
            But there is still no way that giving low emissions cars free entry can possibly reduce congestion and
            the demand for parking. At best traffic will stay the same, at worst it increase the traffic.
             
            I also think that "zero" emissions private autos is a misguided goal. Unless a country is
            100 percent without fossil fuels for generating electricity, even electric cars still use petroleum or coal
            (or maybe even nuclear power) to charge their batteries. Furthermore, batteries are themselves an eco-problem.
             
            If your current fuel prices aren't already enough to deter SUV use, then UK's problem is that a lot of people
            are so darned rich that price doesn't matter to them. These are the same people who will no doubt be the first
            to be buying hybrids or zero emission vehicles, since access is important and price is not. They will also no doubt
            continue to use their SUVs or luxury cars for their remaining trips.
             
            Finally, I want to point out the experience from the Virginia burb's of Wash DC and in California. Hybrids
            were allowed to use the HOV lanes and they wrecked the transit services that operate on them due to
            high congestion. End result - lots of cars sales (a windfall to auto manufacturers) an increase in public transport operating costs, and a 
            reduction in public transport use.
             
            Eric Bruun


            -----Original Message-----
            From: Ian Wingrove
            Sent: Nov 16, 2006 5:40 AM
            To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
            Subject: RE: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

            We are certainly practical greens who want to see people shift from badly polluting vehicles to less polluting vehicles as a result of this relatively short term measure. We are keen to help create a market for zero emission vehicles and price diffentials have been very successful in doing this. If we can stop the UK from adopting the SUV culture of the US, then that will be a useful achievement.
            As for second cars - in all of inner London and much of outer London, they would have to pay residents parking charges, on top of all the other car owning charges.
            Nor is this CC policy a one off. All of the London initiatives have to be seen within the context of increased public transport provision, a growing momentum behind using 'soft measures' to reduce the demand for travel and a tightening up of car parking standards in the planning policy (by no means perfect). Despite London's rapidly growing population, we have still managed a slight decrease in traffic since 2000 across the whole of the city - at a time when it has grown by 5% in the rest of the country.
             
             
            -----Original Message-----
            From: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:NewMobility Cafe@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of Eric Bruun
            Sent: 15 November 2006 20:16
            To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
            Subject: Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

            I think it is typical that "environmental" groups would advocate zero charge for less
            polluting vehicles. I oppose it. The congestion charge isn't just about emissions, it
            is about space and energy consumption as well. We can expect to see the wealthy
            buy additional cars (maybe not even selling their old ones) and increase in traffic.
             
            Eric Bruun


            -----Original Message-----
            From: Ian Wingrove
            Sent: Nov 15, 2006 7:21 AM
            To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
            Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

            Press release from London Mayor, yesterday. Big change is abolition of the residents discount for highest polluting vehicles. Greens on the London Assembly have been pushing Mayor to do this for last six years, so very happy. Big differential between group F and G sends out a clear signal to car owners.

            IW

            Mayor backs plans for emissions-based congestion charging

            The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, today announced that he will take forward the policy of reducing London’s C02 emissions by introducing emissions-based charging to the existing congestion charge scheme.

            The proposals, to be consulted upon, could see the most polluting cars pay £25 to enter the congestion charging zone, and lower polluting vehicles qualifying for a 100 per cent discount.

            Under the emissions-based Congestion Charging proposals, the following charges would apply:

            Vehicle Excise Duty Band

            Charge

            A and B (less than 120g CO2 per km) which meet Euro IV standard

            £0 (100 per cent discount)

            C, D, E, F

            £8 (as now)

            G (above 225g CO2 per km)

            £25

             

            Subject to consultation, it is proposed that the 100 per cent discount for the least polluting vehicles will be introduced in 2008. The surcharge for band G vehicles that emit the most C02 is expected to be possible from 2009/10, although the Mayor has asked Transport for London to examine the possibility of an earlier start date.

            The 90 per cent resident's discount currently enjoyed by those living within the congestion charging zone, will be withdrawn for vehicles in band G.

            Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said:

            "Londoners are becoming increasingly aware of the need to tackle climate change and reduce C02 emissions. Most vehicles that will be charged £25, in Vehicle Excise Duty Band G, are high priced models. Those who buy them can afford to choose from pretty much the whole of the mainstream car market but have chosen to buy one of the most polluting vehicles. By making these changes to the congestion charging scheme we are encouraging people to take into account the impact of their choice of new car on the environment and the planet.

            "We are already cleaning up London’s fleet of public vehicles through measures like the introduction of Hybrid buses. These new proposals will tackle pollution from private vehicles, and ensure that London is leading the way in the fight against catastrophic climate change."

            Ends

             
             
             
             
            -----Original Message-----
            From: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:NewMobility Cafe@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of Zvi Leve
            Sent: 14 November 2006 15:09
            To: NewMobilityCafe
            Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] Re: Stockholm - Congestion charging back next year

            Dear all,

            I understood from a colleague in Stockholm that the referendum victory was not so clear-cut as it might appear. Basically people in the core areas (ie within the congestion cordon) voted in favor of the charge, whereas those outside voted against it. Nothing too surprising there I suppose.

            Whenever there is a vote on an issue there will always be winners and losers - that is what happens in a democracy! Ideally we (the government, the authorities, society, etc) would then be able to come up with some sort of solution which will respect the choice of the majority without excessively hurting the minorities - a compromise. Typically a compromise results in something which is less than ideal, but does not generate extreme negative reactions either.

            For the near-term, I think that any successful implementation of congestion charging will need to be able to find such compromises to make them politically tractable (ie charge drivers but give them -the drivers- something in return). In the longer term, of course one would hope that these revenues would be used for more sustainable transportation options.

            Best regards,

            Zvi


             

            GREATER LOND ON AUTHORITY

            EMAIL NOTICE:
            The information in this email may contain confidential or privileged materials. Please read the full email notice at  http://www.london. gov.uk/email- notice.jsp


             

            GREATER LOND ON AUTHORITY

            EMAIL NOTICE:
            The information in this email may contain confidential or privileged materials. Please read the full email notice at  http://www.london. gov.uk/email- notice.jsp

            GLA approved disclaimer
             

            GREATERLONDONAUTHORITY

            EMAIL NOTICE:
            The information in this email may contain confidential or privileged materials. Please read the full email notice at  http://www.london.gov.uk/email-notice.jsp
          • Ian Wingrove
            Chris The London mayor and Transport for London take the Congestion Charge revenues, whilst the local authorities take the money from residents and on street
            Message 5 of 22 , Nov 17, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Message
              Chris
               
              The London mayor and Transport for London take the Congestion Charge revenues, whilst the local authorities take the money from residents and on street parking fees. Both sources of revenue can only be used for transport schemes, although some local authorities are rumoured to do some creative accounting to get round this. It is therefore upto the local authority to charge more or less for residents parking and second cars.
               
              Many local authorities have started to introduce exemptions for parking charges for zero emission vehicles and one has stated it will charge more for heavy polluters - other councils are likely to follow. We welcome this.
               
              As I said, the congestion charge is just one policy amongst many others. The reallocation of road space from cars/lorries to buses/cyclists is a more significant policy in other parts of London. Although this will change when we hopefully get road pricing across the capital.
               
              Cheers
               
              Ian
               
               
               
              -----Original Message-----
              From: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Chris Bradshaw
              Sent: 16 November 2006 19:36
              To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

              From: Ian Wingrove

              > As for second cars - in all of inner London and much of outer London, they
              > would have to pay residents parking charges, on top of all the other car
              > owning charges.

              I had understood that cars registered to people living _inside_ the CC zone
              do not have to pay the charge. It seems to me that these are the very
              people who should not need a car in the first place, and who should be
              setting an example for the people living outside the zone, but needing to
              sometimes drive into it.

              Now, I see your statement above, which distinguishes between first and
              second cars. And it mentions other charges for all car owners.

              Could you elaborate?

              Also, where are the CC, parking, and other charges spent and by whom? Green
              taxes should be spent to ameliorate what "evil" the charged activity
              supposedly causes. Donald Shoup, in his 2005 book, _The High Cost of Free
              Parking_ suggests that parking revenues go local amalgams of
              residents/merchants to spend on local public right-of-way
              maintenance/ improvements.

              BTW, I agree with the statement that no cars should be exempted from the
              charge, including carsharing vehicles.

              Chris Bradshaw
              Ottawa

              GLA approved disclaimer
               

              GREATERLONDONAUTHORITY

              EMAIL NOTICE:
              The information in this email may contain confidential or privileged materials. Please read the full email notice at  http://www.london.gov.uk/email-notice.jsp
            • Martin Cassini
              Good to see that Ian Wingrove et al are doubling taxpayer spend on technological road safety measures such as speed limiters. To quote Kenneth Todd, as if
              Message 6 of 22 , Nov 17, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Message
                Good to see that Ian Wingrove et al are doubling taxpayer spend on technological road "safety" measures such as speed limiters. To quote Kenneth Todd, "as if computerising misconceptions were the answer".
                 
                Roads are dangerous because the experts made them dangerous. How? By imposing main road priority nearly 80 years ago. It conferred superior rights on main road users at the expense of minor road traffic and pedestrians. To interrupt the new dominant traffic streams and enable other road-users to enter or cross, police on point duty appeared, then lights. Lights are nothing more than a solution to self-inflicted problems. So what does the control industry do? Generate more lucrative work for itself and more delay and aggravation for everyone else by installing ever more sets of electricity-guzzling, time-wasting, fuel-burning, hostility-causing, danger-enhancing, global-warming lights. The TRL says "lights make matters worse". De Wilde writes: "Evidence from before-after comparisons and cross-sectional studies does not support the idea that traffic controls have a beneficial effect on safety. Drivers behave differently but there is no change in risk." Even the DfT in its Road Safety Good Practice Guide advises against their use.
                 
                Martin
                 
                 -----Original Message-----
                From: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ian Wingrove
                Sent: 17 November 2006 10:33
                To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

                Eric
                 
                You are of course right that having a 100% zero emission vehicles is not the solution to all problems, even if it solves air pollution problems at the point of use - air quality still being a major problem in London.
                 
                Again, it is the context of doing this within a framework of other successful policies. For example, zero emissions will do nothing to stop road deaths. Since 2000 when the GLA was established, London's road casualty rate has fallen faster than any other urban centre in the UK and we have tougher targets for casualty reduction than anywhere else in the UK. My boss has been the Mayor's Road Safety Ambassador during this time and has argued for higher investment in the things we know work and research into the next generation of ideas. The London road safety budget has more than doubled and we are piloting technological solutions such as speed limiters. 
                 
                We have just started pushing forward on decentralised energy and local renewables in London. I can't claim any success as it is early days and we are so far behind other European cities. But the aim surely is to have an integrated system, where people produce enough energy locally to meet many of their energy needs - including charging up vehicles. For example, a recent report for the Mayor showed that they could power the entire bus fleet from energy produced from waste.
                 
                Cheers
                 
                IW
                 
                 
                 
                -----Original Message-----
                From: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:NewMobility Cafe@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of Eric Bruun
                Sent: 16 November 2006 19:52
                To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
                Subject: RE: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

                Ian
                 
                But there is still no way that giving low emissions cars free entry can possibly reduce congestion and
                the demand for parking. At best traffic will stay the same, at worst it increase the traffic.
                 
                I also think that "zero" emissions private autos is a misguided goal. Unless a country is
                100 percent without fossil fuels for generating electricity, even electric cars still use petroleum or coal
                (or maybe even nuclear power) to charge their batteries. Furthermore, batteries are themselves an eco-problem.
                 
                If your current fuel prices aren't already enough to deter SUV use, then UK's problem is that a lot of people
                are so darned rich that price doesn't matter to them. These are the same people who will no doubt be the first
                to be buying hybrids or zero emission vehicles, since access is important and price is not. They will also no doubt
                continue to use their SUVs or luxury cars for their remaining trips.
                 
                Finally, I want to point out the experience from the Virginia burb's of Wash DC and in California. Hybrids
                were allowed to use the HOV lanes and they wrecked the transit services that operate on them due to
                high congestion. End result - lots of cars sales (a windfall to auto manufacturers) an increase in public transport operating costs, and a 
                reduction in public transport use.
                 
                Eric Bruun


                -----Original Message-----
                From: Ian Wingrove
                Sent: Nov 16, 2006 5:40 AM
                To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
                Subject: RE: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

                We are certainly practical greens who want to see people shift from badly polluting vehicles to less polluting vehicles as a result of this relatively short term measure. We are keen to help create a market for zero emission vehicles and price diffentials have been very successful in doing this. If we can stop the UK from adopting the SUV culture of the US, then that will be a useful achievement.
                As for second cars - in all of inner London and much of outer London, they would have to pay residents parking charges, on top of all the other car owning charges.
                Nor is this CC policy a one off. All of the London initiatives have to be seen within the context of increased public transport provision, a growing momentum behind using 'soft measures' to reduce the demand for travel and a tightening up of car parking standards in the planning policy (by no means perfect). Despite London's rapidly growing population, we have still managed a slight decrease in traffic since 2000 across the whole of the city - at a time when it has grown by 5% in the rest of the country.
                 
                 
                -----Original Message-----
                From: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:NewMobility Cafe@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of Eric Bruun
                Sent: 15 November 2006 20:16
                To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
                Subject: Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

                I think it is typical that "environmental" groups would advocate zero charge for less
                polluting vehicles. I oppose it. The congestion charge isn't just about emissions, it
                is about space and energy consumption as well. We can expect to see the wealthy
                buy additional cars (maybe not even selling their old ones) and increase in traffic.
                 
                Eric Bruun


                -----Original Message-----
                From: Ian Wingrove
                Sent: Nov 15, 2006 7:21 AM
                To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
                Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

                Press release from London Mayor, yesterday. Big change is abolition of the residents discount for highest polluting vehicles. Greens on the London Assembly have been pushing Mayor to do this for last six years, so very happy. Big differential between group F and G sends out a clear signal to car owners.

                IW

                Mayor backs plans for emissions-based congestion charging

                The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, today announced that he will take forward the policy of reducing London’s C02 emissions by introducing emissions-based charging to the existing congestion charge scheme.

                The proposals, to be consulted upon, could see the most polluting cars pay £25 to enter the congestion charging zone, and lower polluting vehicles qualifying for a 100 per cent discount.

                Under the emissions-based Congestion Charging proposals, the following charges would apply:

                Vehicle Excise Duty Band

                Charge

                A and B (less than 120g CO2 per km) which meet Euro IV standard

                £0 (100 per cent discount)

                C, D, E, F

                £8 (as now)

                G (above 225g CO2 per km)

                £25

                 

                Subject to consultation, it is proposed that the 100 per cent discount for the least polluting vehicles will be introduced in 2008. The surcharge for band G vehicles that emit the most C02 is expected to be possible from 2009/10, although the Mayor has asked Transport for London to examine the possibility of an earlier start date.

                The 90 per cent resident's discount currently enjoyed by those living within the congestion charging zone, will be withdrawn for vehicles in band G.

                Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said:

                "Londoners are becoming increasingly aware of the need to tackle climate change and reduce C02 emissions. Most vehicles that will be charged £25, in Vehicle Excise Duty Band G, are high priced models. Those who buy them can afford to choose from pretty much the whole of the mainstream car market but have chosen to buy one of the most polluting vehicles. By making these changes to the congestion charging scheme we are encouraging people to take into account the impact of their choice of new car on the environment and the planet.

                "We are already cleaning up London’s fleet of public vehicles through measures like the introduction of Hybrid buses. These new proposals will tackle pollution from private vehicles, and ensure that London is leading the way in the fight against catastrophic climate change."

                Ends

                 
                 
                 
                 
                -----Original Message-----
                From: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:NewMobility Cafe@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of Zvi Leve
                Sent: 14 November 2006 15:09
                To: NewMobilityCafe
                Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] Re: Stockholm - Congestion charging back next year

                Dear all,

                I understood from a colleague in Stockholm that the referendum victory was not so clear-cut as it might appear. Basically people in the core areas (ie within the congestion cordon) voted in favor of the charge, whereas those outside voted against it. Nothing too surprising there I suppose.

                Whenever there is a vote on an issue there will always be winners and losers - that is what happens in a democracy! Ideally we (the government, the authorities, society, etc) would then be able to come up with some sort of solution which will respect the choice of the majority without excessively hurting the minorities - a compromise. Typically a compromise results in something which is less than ideal, but does not generate extreme negative reactions either.

                For the near-term, I think that any successful implementation of congestion charging will need to be able to find such compromises to make them politically tractable (ie charge drivers but give them -the drivers- something in return). In the longer term, of course one would hope that these revenues would be used for more sustainable transportation options.

                Best regards,

                Zvi


                 

                GREATER LOND ON AUTHORITY

                EMAIL NOTICE:
                The information in this email may contain confidential or privileged materials. Please read the full email notice at  http://www.london. gov.uk/email- notice.jsp


                 

                GREATER LOND ON AUTHORITY

                EMAIL NOTICE:
                The information in this email may contain confidential or privileged materials. Please read the full email notice at  http://www.london. gov.uk/email- notice.jsp


                 

                GREATERLONDONAUTHORITY

                EMAIL NOTICE:
                The information in this email may contain confidential or privileged materials. Please read the full email notice at  http://www.london. gov.uk/email- notice.jsp

              • Eric Bruun
                Ian You are probably already aware, but Stockholm has been making ethanol for central city buses from municipal waste for years. If you don t have a contact
                Message 7 of 22 , Nov 17, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Ian
                   
                  You are probably already aware, but Stockholm has been making ethanol for central city buses from
                  municipal waste for years. If you don't have a contact there, I can probably find one for you.
                   
                  Thanks for taking the time to explain London's program.
                   
                  Eric


                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Ian Wingrove
                  Sent: Nov 17, 2006 5:33 AM
                  To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: RE: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

                  Eric
                   
                  You are of course right that having a 100% zero emission vehicles is not the solution to all problems, even if it solves air pollution problems at the point of use - air quality still being a major problem in London.
                   
                  Again, it is the context of doing this within a framework of other successful policies. For example, zero emissions will do nothing to stop road deaths. Since 2000 when the GLA was established, London's road casualty rate has fallen faster than any other urban centre in the UK and we have tougher targets for casualty reduction than anywhere else in the UK. My boss has been the Mayor's Road Safety Ambassador during this time and has argued for higher investment in the things we know work and research into the next generation of ideas. The London road safety budget has more than doubled and we are piloting technological solutions such as speed limiters. 
                   
                  We have just started pushing forward on decentralised energy and local renewables in London. I can't claim any success as it is early days and we are so far behind other European cities. But the aim surely is to have an integrated system, where people produce enough energy locally to meet many of their energy needs - including charging up vehicles. For example, a recent report for the Mayor showed that they could power the entire bus fleet from energy produced from waste.
                   
                  Cheers
                   
                  IW
                   
                   
                   
                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:NewMobility Cafe@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of Eric Bruun
                  Sent: 16 November 2006 19:52
                  To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
                  Subject: RE: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

                  Ian
                   
                  But there is still no way that giving low emissions cars free entry can possibly reduce congestion and
                  the demand for parking. At best traffic will stay the same, at worst it increase the traffic.
                   
                  I also think that "zero" emissions private autos is a misguided goal. Unless a country is
                  100 percent without fossil fuels for generating electricity, even electric cars still use petroleum or coal
                  (or maybe even nuclear power) to charge their batteries. Furthermore, batteries are themselves an eco-problem.
                   
                  If your current fuel prices aren't already enough to deter SUV use, then UK's problem is that a lot of people
                  are so darned rich that price doesn't matter to them. These are the same people who will no doubt be the first
                  to be buying hybrids or zero emission vehicles, since access is important and price is not. They will also no doubt
                  continue to use their SUVs or luxury cars for their remaining trips.
                   
                  Finally, I want to point out the experience from the Virginia burb's of Wash DC and in California. Hybrids
                  were allowed to use the HOV lanes and they wrecked the transit services that operate on them due to
                  high congestion. End result - lots of cars sales (a windfall to auto manufacturers) an increase in public transport operating costs, and a 
                  reduction in public transport use.
                   
                  Eric Bruun


                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Ian Wingrove
                  Sent: Nov 16, 2006 5:40 AM
                  To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
                  Subject: RE: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

                  We are certainly practical greens who want to see people shift from badly polluting vehicles to less polluting vehicles as a result of this relatively short term measure. We are keen to help create a market for zero emission vehicles and price diffentials have been very successful in doing this. If we can stop the UK from adopting the SUV culture of the US, then that will be a useful achievement.
                  As for second cars - in all of inner London and much of outer London, they would have to pay residents parking charges, on top of all the other car owning charges.
                  Nor is this CC policy a one off. All of the London initiatives have to be seen within the context of increased public transport provision, a growing momentum behind using 'soft measures' to reduce the demand for travel and a tightening up of car parking standards in the planning policy (by no means perfect). Despite London's rapidly growing population, we have still managed a slight decrease in traffic since 2000 across the whole of the city - at a time when it has grown by 5% in the rest of the country.
                   
                   
                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:NewMobility Cafe@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of Eric Bruun
                  Sent: 15 November 2006 20:16
                  To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
                  Subject: Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

                  I think it is typical that "environmental" groups would advocate zero charge for less
                  polluting vehicles. I oppose it. The congestion charge isn't just about emissions, it
                  is about space and energy consumption as well. We can expect to see the wealthy
                  buy additional cars (maybe not even selling their old ones) and increase in traffic.
                   
                  Eric Bruun


                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Ian Wingrove
                  Sent: Nov 15, 2006 7:21 AM
                  To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
                  Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

                  Press release from London Mayor, yesterday. Big change is abolition of the residents discount for highest polluting vehicles. Greens on the London Assembly have been pushing Mayor to do this for last six years, so very happy. Big differential between group F and G sends out a clear signal to car owners.

                  IW

                  Mayor backs plans for emissions-based congestion charging

                  The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, today announced that he will take forward the policy of reducing London’s C02 emissions by introducing emissions-based charging to the existing congestion charge scheme.

                  The proposals, to be consulted upon, could see the most polluting cars pay £25 to enter the congestion charging zone, and lower polluting vehicles qualifying for a 100 per cent discount.

                  Under the emissions-based Congestion Charging proposals, the following charges would apply:

                  Vehicle Excise Duty Band

                  Charge

                  A and B (less than 120g CO2 per km) which meet Euro IV standard

                  £0 (100 per cent discount)

                  C, D, E, F

                  £8 (as now)

                  G (above 225g CO2 per km)

                  £25

                   

                  Subject to consultation, it is proposed that the 100 per cent discount for the least polluting vehicles will be introduced in 2008. The surcharge for band G vehicles that emit the most C02 is expected to be possible from 2009/10, although the Mayor has asked Transport for London to examine the possibility of an earlier start date.

                  The 90 per cent resident's discount currently enjoyed by those living within the congestion charging zone, will be withdrawn for vehicles in band G.

                  Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said:

                  "Londoners are becoming increasingly aware of the need to tackle climate change and reduce C02 emissions. Most vehicles that will be charged £25, in Vehicle Excise Duty Band G, are high priced models. Those who buy them can afford to choose from pretty much the whole of the mainstream car market but have chosen to buy one of the most polluting vehicles. By making these changes to the congestion charging scheme we are encouraging people to take into account the impact of their choice of new car on the environment and the planet.

                  "We are already cleaning up London’s fleet of public vehicles through measures like the introduction of Hybrid buses. These new proposals will tackle pollution from private vehicles, and ensure that London is leading the way in the fight against catastrophic climate change."

                  Ends

                   
                   
                   
                   
                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:NewMobility Cafe@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of Zvi Leve
                  Sent: 14 November 2006 15:09
                  To: NewMobilityCafe
                  Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] Re: Stockholm - Congestion charging back next year

                  Dear all,

                  I understood from a colleague in Stockholm that the referendum victory was not so clear-cut as it might appear. Basically people in the core areas (ie within the congestion cordon) voted in favor of the charge, whereas those outside voted against it. Nothing too surprising there I suppose.

                  Whenever there is a vote on an issue there will always be winners and losers - that is what happens in a democracy! Ideally we (the government, the authorities, society, etc) would then be able to come up with some sort of solution which will respect the choice of the majority without excessively hurting the minorities - a compromise. Typically a compromise results in something which is less than ideal, but does not generate extreme negative reactions either.

                  For the near-term, I think that any successful implementation of congestion charging will need to be able to find such compromises to make them politically tractable (ie charge drivers but give them -the drivers- something in return). In the longer term, of course one would hope that these revenues would be used for more sustainable transportation options.

                  Best regards,

                  Zvi


                   

                  GREATER LOND ON AUTHORITY

                  EMAIL NOTICE:
                  The information in this email may contain confidential or privileged materials. Please read the full email notice at  http://www.london. gov.uk/email- notice.jsp


                   

                  GREATER LOND ON AUTHORITY

                  EMAIL NOTICE:
                  The information in this email may contain confidential or privileged materials. Please read the full email notice at  http://www.london. gov.uk/email- notice.jsp


                   

                  GREATERLONDONAUTHORITY

                  EMAIL NOTICE:
                  The information in this email may contain confidential or privileged materials. Please read the full email notice at  http://www.london. gov.uk/email- notice.jsp

                • Kerry Wood
                  Definitely interesting. A couple of comments: 1 Working with insurance costs omits the fear factor : a range of externalities from pedestrians taking a detour
                  Message 8 of 22 , Nov 17, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Definitely interesting. A couple of comments:

                    1 Working with insurance costs omits the 'fear factor': a range of
                    externalities from pedestrians taking a detour to a safer crossing
                    point, to would-be cyclists or transit users giving up and buying a
                    car. My guess is that the fear factor is probably bigger than insurance
                    costs but almost certainly harder to quantify.

                    2 I have always assumed that death and injury risks went down in heavy
                    traffic, simply because traffic was slower. So either:

                    -- My assumption is wrong, or at least wrong for insurance costs, or

                    -- Eldin and Mandic have missed something. Their figures show
                    continuously rising insurance costs up to about 900 000 vehicle miles
                    travelled per lane mile (presumably per year), or only about 2500
                    vehicles/day in each lane. Some roads are an order of magnitude busier
                    than this so it looks as if either there is something wrong with the
                    units or averaging has been taken too far - it is apparently at State
                    level.

                    k

                    Kerry Wood
                    Wellington
                    New Zealand

                    On 2006 Nov, 16, at 9:54 PM, Lee@/etc/mailname, Schipper@/etc/mailname
                    wrote:

                    > From: Lee Schipper   Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 7:33 AM
                    >
                    > This is interesting...The Accident Externality from Driving
                    >
                    > http://works.bepress.com/aaron_edlin/21/
                    >
                    >
                    > Abstract
                    >
                    > We estimate auto ac

                    (snipped)
                  • Ian Wingrove
                    Thanks again. Mayor s office went to visit Stockholm a few months ago and very interested. I bumped into a Swedish Green last weekend and chatted about this. I
                    Message 9 of 22 , Nov 20, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Message
                       
                      Thanks again.
                       
                      Mayor's office went to visit Stockholm a few months ago and very interested. I bumped into a Swedish Green last weekend and chatted about this. I will be pressing them on using sewage as well.
                       
                      Cheers
                       
                      IW
                       
                       
                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Eric Bruun
                      Sent: 17 November 2006 19:27
                      To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: RE: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

                      Ian
                       
                      You are probably already aware, but Stockholm has been making ethanol for central city buses from
                      municipal waste for years. If you don't have a contact there, I can probably find one for you.
                       
                      Thanks for taking the time to explain London's program.
                       
                      Eric


                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Ian Wingrove
                      Sent: Nov 17, 2006 5:33 AM
                      To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
                      Subject: RE: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

                      Eric
                      You are of course right that having a 100% zero emission vehicles is not the solution to all problems, even if it solves air pollution problems at the point of use - air quality still being a major problem in London.
                      Again, it is the context of doing this within a framework of other successful policies. For example, zero emissions will do nothing to stop road deaths. Since 2000 when the GLA was established, London's road casualty rate has fallen faster than any other urban centre in the UK and we have tougher targets for casualty reduction than anywhere else in the UK. My boss has been the Mayor's Road Safety Ambassador during this time and has argued for higher investment in the things we know work and research into the next generation of ideas. The London road safety budget has more than doubled and we are piloting technological solutions such as speed limiters. 
                      We have just started pushing forward on decentralised energy and local renewables in London. I can't claim any success as it is early days and we are so far behind other European cities. But the aim surely is to have an integrated system, where people produce enough energy locally to meet many of their energy needs - including charging up vehicles. For example, a recent report for the Mayor showed that they could power the entire bus fleet from energy produced from waste.
                      Cheers
                      IW
                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:NewMobility Cafe@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of Eric Bruun
                      Sent: 16 November 2006 19:52
                      To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
                      Subject: RE: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

                      Ian
                       
                      But there is still no way that giving low emissions cars free entry can possibly reduce congestion and
                      the demand for parking. At best traffic will stay the same, at worst it increase the traffic.
                       
                      I also think that "zero" emissions private autos is a misguided goal. Unless a country is
                      100 percent without fossil fuels for generating electricity, even electric cars still use petroleum or coal
                      (or maybe even nuclear power) to charge their batteries. Furthermore, batteries are themselves an eco-problem.
                       
                      If your current fuel prices aren't already enough to deter SUV use, then UK's problem is that a lot of people
                      are so darned rich that price doesn't matter to them. These are the same people who will no doubt be the first
                      to be buying hybrids or zero emission vehicles, since access is important and price is not. They will also no doubt
                      continue to use their SUVs or luxury cars for their remaining trips.
                       
                      Finally, I want to point out the experience from the Virginia burb's of Wash DC and in California. Hybrids
                      were allowed to use the HOV lanes and they wrecked the transit services that operate on them due to
                      high congestion. End result - lots of cars sales (a windfall to auto manufacturers) an increase in public transport operating costs, and a 
                      reduction in public transport use.
                       
                      Eric Bruun


                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Ian Wingrove
                      Sent: Nov 16, 2006 5:40 AM
                      To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
                      Subject: RE: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

                      We are certainly practical greens who want to see people shift from badly polluting vehicles to less polluting vehicles as a result of this relatively short term measure. We are keen to help create a market for zero emission vehicles and price diffentials have been very successful in doing this. If we can stop the UK from adopting the SUV culture of the US, then that will be a useful achievement.
                      As for second cars - in all of inner London and much of outer London, they would have to pay residents parking charges, on top of all the other car owning charges.
                      Nor is this CC policy a one off. All of the London initiatives have to be seen within the context of increased public transport provision, a growing momentum behind using 'soft measures' to reduce the demand for travel and a tightening up of car parking standards in the planning policy (by no means perfect). Despite London's rapidly growing population, we have still managed a slight decrease in traffic since 2000 across the whole of the city - at a time when it has grown by 5% in the rest of the country.
                       
                       
                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:NewMobility Cafe@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of Eric Bruun
                      Sent: 15 November 2006 20:16
                      To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
                      Subject: Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

                      I think it is typical that "environmental" groups would advocate zero charge for less
                      polluting vehicles. I oppose it. The congestion charge isn't just about emissions, it
                      is about space and energy consumption as well. We can expect to see the wealthy
                      buy additional cars (maybe not even selling their old ones) and increase in traffic.
                       
                      Eric Bruun


                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Ian Wingrove
                      Sent: Nov 15, 2006 7:21 AM
                      To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
                      Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

                      Press release from London Mayor, yesterday. Big change is abolition of the residents discount for highest polluting vehicles. Greens on the London Assembly have been pushing Mayor to do this for last six years, so very happy. Big differential between group F and G sends out a clear signal to car owners.

                      IW

                      Mayor backs plans for emissions-based congestion charging

                      The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, today announced that he will take forward the policy of reducing London’s C02 emissions by introducing emissions-based charging to the existing congestion charge scheme.

                      The proposals, to be consulted upon, could see the most polluting cars pay £25 to enter the congestion charging zone, and lower polluting vehicles qualifying for a 100 per cent discount.

                      Under the emissions-based Congestion Charging proposals, the following charges would apply:

                      Vehicle Excise Duty Band

                      Charge

                      A and B (less than 120g CO2 per km) which meet Euro IV standard

                      £0 (100 per cent discount)

                      C, D, E, F

                      £8 (as now)

                      G (above 225g CO2 per km)

                      £25

                       

                      Subject to consultation, it is proposed that the 100 per cent discount for the least polluting vehicles will be introduced in 2008. The surcharge for band G vehicles that emit the most C02 is expected to be possible from 2009/10, although the Mayor has asked Transport for London to examine the possibility of an earlier start date.

                      The 90 per cent resident's discount currently enjoyed by those living within the congestion charging zone, will be withdrawn for vehicles in band G.

                      Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said:

                      "Londoners are becoming increasingly aware of the need to tackle climate change and reduce C02 emissions. Most vehicles that will be charged £25, in Vehicle Excise Duty Band G, are high priced models. Those who buy them can afford to choose from pretty much the whole of the mainstream car market but have chosen to buy one of the most polluting vehicles. By making these changes to the congestion charging scheme we are encouraging people to take into account the impact of their choice of new car on the environment and the planet.

                      "We are already cleaning up London’s fleet of public vehicles through measures like the introduction of Hybrid buses. These new proposals will tackle pollution from private vehicles, and ensure that London is leading the way in the fight against catastrophic climate change."

                      Ends

                       
                       
                       
                       
                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:NewMobility Cafe@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of Zvi Leve
                      Sent: 14 November 2006 15:09
                      To: NewMobilityCafe
                      Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] Re: Stockholm - Congestion charging back next year

                      Dear all,

                      I understood from a colleague in Stockholm that the referendum victory was not so clear-cut as it might appear. Basically people in the core areas (ie within the congestion cordon) voted in favor of the charge, whereas those outside voted against it. Nothing too surprising there I suppose.

                      Whenever there is a vote on an issue there will always be winners and losers - that is what happens in a democracy! Ideally we (the government, the authorities, society, etc) would then be able to come up with some sort of solution which will respect the choice of the majority without excessively hurting the minorities - a compromise. Typically a compromise results in something which is less than ideal, but does not generate extreme negative reactions either.

                      For the near-term, I think that any successful implementation of congestion charging will need to be able to find such compromises to make them politically tractable (ie charge drivers but give them -the drivers- something in return). In the longer term, of course one would hope that these revenues would be used for more sustainable transportation options.

                      Best regards,

                      Zvi


                       

                      GREATER LOND ON AUTHORITY

                      EMAIL NOTICE:
                      The information in this email may contain confidential or privileged materials. Please read the full email notice at  http://www.london. gov.uk/email- notice.jsp


                       

                      GREATER LOND ON AUTHORITY

                      EMAIL NOTICE:
                      The information in this email may contain confidential or privileged materials. Please read the full email notice at  http://www.london. gov.uk/email- notice.jsp


                       

                      GREATER LOND ON AUTHORITY

                      EMAIL NOTICE:
                      The information in this email may contain confidential or privileged materials. Please read the full email notice at  http://www.london. gov.uk/email- notice.jsp

                      GLA approved disclaimer
                       

                      GREATERLONDONAUTHORITY

                      EMAIL NOTICE:
                      The information in this email may contain confidential or privileged materials. Please read the full email notice at  http://www.london.gov.uk/email-notice.jsp
                    • Ian Wingrove
                      I agree that we need to reassess the push towards there being more and more lights - they are certainly questioned by the cycling lobby. But what has this got
                      Message 10 of 22 , Nov 20, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Message
                        I agree that we need to reassess the push towards there being more and more lights - they are certainly questioned by the cycling lobby. But what has this got to do with speed limiters in cars?
                         
                        And we have had a lot less road casualties - the cumulative total since 2000 compared to the average in the 1990s, is around 2,500 people who haven't been killed or seriously injured. Isn't that enough evidence to show that many of these measures work?
                         
                        IW
                         
                         
                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Martin Cassini
                        Sent: 17 November 2006 14:19
                        To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
                        Cc: kennethatodd@...
                        Subject: RE: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

                        Good to see that Ian Wingrove et al are doubling taxpayer spend on technological road "safety" measures such as speed limiters. To quote Kenneth Todd, "as if computerising misconceptions were the answer".
                         
                        Roads are dangerous because the experts made them dangerous. How? By imposing main road priority nearly 80 years ago. It conferred superior rights on main road users at the expense of minor road traffic and pedestrians. To interrupt the new dominant traffic streams and enable other road-users to enter or cross, police on point duty appeared, then lights. Lights are nothing more than a solution to self-inflicted problems. So what does the control industry do? Generate more lucrative work for itself and more delay and aggravation for everyone else by installing ever more sets of electricity- guzzling, time-wasting, fuel-burning, hostility-causing, danger-enhancing, global-warming lights. The TRL says "lights make matters worse". De Wilde writes: "Evidence from before-after comparisons and cross-sectional studies does not support the idea that traffic controls have a beneficial effect on safety. Drivers behave differently but there is no change in risk." Even the DfT in its Road Safety Good Practice Guide advises against their use.
                         
                        Martin
                         
                         -----Original Message-----
                        From: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:NewMobility Cafe@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of Ian Wingrove
                        Sent: 17 November 2006 10:33
                        To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
                        Subject: RE: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

                        Eric
                         
                        You are of course right that having a 100% zero emission vehicles is not the solution to all problems, even if it solves air pollution problems at the point of use - air quality still being a major problem in London.
                         
                        Again, it is the context of doing this within a framework of other successful policies. For example, zero emissions will do nothing to stop road deaths. Since 2000 when the GLA was established, London's road casualty rate has fallen faster than any other urban centre in the UK and we have tougher targets for casualty reduction than anywhere else in the UK. My boss has been the Mayor's Road Safety Ambassador during this time and has argued for higher investment in the things we know work and research into the next generation of ideas. The London road safety budget has more than doubled and we are piloting technological solutions such as speed limiters. 
                         
                        We have just started pushing forward on decentralised energy and local renewables in London. I can't claim any success as it is early days and we are so far behind other European cities. But the aim surely is to have an integrated system, where people produce enough energy locally to meet many of their energy needs - including charging up vehicles. For example, a recent report for the Mayor showed that they could power the entire bus fleet from energy produced from waste.
                         
                        Cheers
                         
                        IW
                         
                         
                         
                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:NewMobility Cafe@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of Eric Bruun
                        Sent: 16 November 2006 19:52
                        To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
                        Subject: RE: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

                        Ian
                         
                        But there is still no way that giving low emissions cars free entry can possibly reduce congestion and
                        the demand for parking. At best traffic will stay the same, at worst it increase the traffic.
                         
                        I also think that "zero" emissions private autos is a misguided goal. Unless a country is
                        100 percent without fossil fuels for generating electricity, even electric cars still use petroleum or coal
                        (or maybe even nuclear power) to charge their batteries. Furthermore, batteries are themselves an eco-problem.
                         
                        If your current fuel prices aren't already enough to deter SUV use, then UK's problem is that a lot of people
                        are so darned rich that price doesn't matter to them. These are the same people who will no doubt be the first
                        to be buying hybrids or zero emission vehicles, since access is important and price is not. They will also no doubt
                        continue to use their SUVs or luxury cars for their remaining trips.
                         
                        Finally, I want to point out the experience from the Virginia burb's of Wash DC and in California. Hybrids
                        were allowed to use the HOV lanes and they wrecked the transit services that operate on them due to
                        high congestion. End result - lots of cars sales (a windfall to auto manufacturers) an increase in public transport operating costs, and a 
                        reduction in public transport use.
                         
                        Eric Bruun


                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Ian Wingrove
                        Sent: Nov 16, 2006 5:40 AM
                        To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
                        Subject: RE: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

                        We are certainly practical greens who want to see people shift from badly polluting vehicles to less polluting vehicles as a result of this relatively short term measure. We are keen to help create a market for zero emission vehicles and price diffentials have been very successful in doing this. If we can stop the UK from adopting the SUV culture of the US, then that will be a useful achievement.
                        As for second cars - in all of inner London and much of outer London, they would have to pay residents parking charges, on top of all the other car owning charges.
                        Nor is this CC policy a one off. All of the London initiatives have to be seen within the context of increased public transport provision, a growing momentum behind using 'soft measures' to reduce the demand for travel and a tightening up of car parking standards in the planning policy (by no means perfect). Despite London's rapidly growing population, we have still managed a slight decrease in traffic since 2000 across the whole of the city - at a time when it has grown by 5% in the rest of the country.
                         
                         
                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:NewMobility Cafe@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of Eric Bruun
                        Sent: 15 November 2006 20:16
                        To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
                        Subject: Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

                        I think it is typical that "environmental" groups would advocate zero charge for less
                        polluting vehicles. I oppose it. The congestion charge isn't just about emissions, it
                        is about space and energy consumption as well. We can expect to see the wealthy
                        buy additional cars (maybe not even selling their old ones) and increase in traffic.
                         
                        Eric Bruun


                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Ian Wingrove
                        Sent: Nov 15, 2006 7:21 AM
                        To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
                        Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

                        Press release from London Mayor, yesterday. Big change is abolition of the residents discount for highest polluting vehicles. Greens on the London Assembly have been pushing Mayor to do this for last six years, so very happy. Big differential between group F and G sends out a clear signal to car owners.

                        IW

                        Mayor backs plans for emissions-based congestion charging

                        The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, today announced that he will take forward the policy of reducing London’s C02 emissions by introducing emissions-based charging to the existing congestion charge scheme.

                        The proposals, to be consulted upon, could see the most polluting cars pay £25 to enter the congestion charging zone, and lower polluting vehicles qualifying for a 100 per cent discount.

                        Under the emissions-based Congestion Charging proposals, the following charges would apply:

                        Vehicle Excise Duty Band

                        Charge

                        A and B (less than 120g CO2 per km) which meet Euro IV standard

                        £0 (100 per cent discount)

                        C, D, E, F

                        £8 (as now)

                        G (above 225g CO2 per km)

                        £25

                         

                        Subject to consultation, it is proposed that the 100 per cent discount for the least polluting vehicles will be introduced in 2008. The surcharge for band G vehicles that emit the most C02 is expected to be possible from 2009/10, although the Mayor has asked Transport for London to examine the possibility of an earlier start date.

                        The 90 per cent resident's discount currently enjoyed by those living within the congestion charging zone, will be withdrawn for vehicles in band G.

                        Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said:

                        "Londoners are becoming increasingly aware of the need to tackle climate change and reduce C02 emissions. Most vehicles that will be charged £25, in Vehicle Excise Duty Band G, are high priced models. Those who buy them can afford to choose from pretty much the whole of the mainstream car market but have chosen to buy one of the most polluting vehicles. By making these changes to the congestion charging scheme we are encouraging people to take into account the impact of their choice of new car on the environment and the planet.

                        "We are already cleaning up London’s fleet of public vehicles through measures like the introduction of Hybrid buses. These new proposals will tackle pollution from private vehicles, and ensure that London is leading the way in the fight against catastrophic climate change."

                        Ends

                         
                         
                         
                         
                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:NewMobility Cafe@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of Zvi Leve
                        Sent: 14 November 2006 15:09
                        To: NewMobilityCafe
                        Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] Re: Stockholm - Congestion charging back next year

                        Dear all,

                        I understood from a colleague in Stockholm that the referendum victory was not so clear-cut as it might appear. Basically people in the core areas (ie within the congestion cordon) voted in favor of the charge, whereas those outside voted against it. Nothing too surprising there I suppose.

                        Whenever there is a vote on an issue there will always be winners and losers - that is what happens in a democracy! Ideally we (the government, the authorities, society, etc) would then be able to come up with some sort of solution which will respect the choice of the majority without excessively hurting the minorities - a compromise. Typically a compromise results in something which is less than ideal, but does not generate extreme negative reactions either.

                        For the near-term, I think that any successful implementation of congestion charging will need to be able to find such compromises to make them politically tractable (ie charge drivers but give them -the drivers- something in return). In the longer term, of course one would hope that these revenues would be used for more sustainable transportation options.

                        Best regards,

                        Zvi


                         

                        GREATER LOND ON AUTHORITY

                        EMAIL NOTICE:
                        The information in this email may contain confidential or privileged materials. Please read the full email notice at  http://www.london. gov.uk/email- notice.jsp


                         

                        GREATER LOND ON AUTHORITY

                        EMAIL NOTICE:
                        The information in this email may contain confidential or privileged materials. Please read the full email notice at  http://www.london. gov.uk/email- notice.jsp


                         

                        GREATERLONDONAUTHORITY

                        EMAIL NOTICE:
                        The information in this email may contain confidential or privileged materials. Please read the full email notice at  http://www.london. gov.uk/email- notice.jsp

                        GLA approved disclaimer
                         

                        GREATERLONDONAUTHORITY

                        EMAIL NOTICE:
                        The information in this email may contain confidential or privileged materials. Please read the full email notice at  http://www.london.gov.uk/email-notice.jsp
                      • Martin Cassini
                        I ve asked the DfT for accident stats that distinguish between junctions with and junctions without signals. Guess what? They don t distinguish. So how do we
                        Message 11 of 22 , Nov 20, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Message
                          I've asked the DfT for accident stats that distinguish between junctions with and junctions without signals. Guess what? They don't distinguish. So how do we know that any claimed reductions in serious injuries are due to signals? We don't. Check Drachten, where serious accidents and congestion are a thing of the past since the lights were removed.
                           
                          What has this got to do with speed limiters? Because limiters are another costly, counterproductive measure whose sole value is in keeping "experts" in highly-paid work at the expense of the rest of us.
                           
                          Martin
                           
                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ian Wingrove
                          Sent: 20 November 2006 10:28
                          To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: RE: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

                          I agree that we need to reassess the push towards there being more and more lights - they are certainly questioned by the cycling lobby. But what has this got to do with speed limiters in cars?
                           
                          And we have had a lot less road casualties - the cumulative total since 2000 compared to the average in the 1990s, is around 2,500 people who haven't been killed or seriously injured. Isn't that enough evidence to show that many of these measures work?
                           
                          IW
                           
                           
                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:NewMobility Cafe@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of Martin Cassini
                          Sent: 17 November 2006 14:19
                          To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
                          Cc: kennethatodd@ aol.com
                          Subject: RE: [NewMobilityCafe] Congestion charging and polluter pays

                          Good to see that Ian Wingrove et al are doubling taxpayer spend on technological road "safety" measures such as speed limiters. To quote Kenneth Todd, "as if computerising misconceptions were the answer".
                           
                          Roads are dangerous because the experts made them dangerous. How? By imposing main road priority nearly 80 years ago. It conferred superior rights on main road users at the expense of minor road traffic and pedestrians. To interrupt the new dominant traffic streams and enable other road-users to enter or cross, police on point duty appeared, then lights. Lights are nothing more than a solution to self-inflicted problems. So what does the control industry do? Generate more lucrative work for itself and more delay and aggravation for everyone else by installing ever more sets of electricity- guzzling, time-wasting, fuel-burning, hostility-causing, danger-enhancing, global-warming lights. The TRL says "lights make matters worse". De Wilde writes: "Evidence from before-after comparisons and cross-sectional studies does not support the idea that traffic controls have a beneficial effect on safety. Drivers behave differently but there is no change in risk." Even the DfT in its Road Safety Good Practice Guide advises against their use.
                           
                          Martin
                          .

                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.