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

Re: [NewMobilityCafe] RE: South Street

Expand Messages
  • Larry Shaeffer
    the front loading garages will have a definite impact on our plans. Tough to put a mid-blk ped crossing at mid-blk if there are garages there. One way we ll be
    Message 1 of 7 , Jul 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      the front loading garages will have a definite impact on our plans. Tough to put a mid-blk ped crossing at mid-blk if there are garages there. One way we'll be attempting to address this issue, at least in a limited way, is we'll be proposing to offer the garage owners a financial incentive to convert their garages to living space (eliminating need for curb cut). I think it will be an unique program, as far as I know, not tried anywhere.

      I was thinking something similar to the grant programs for business facade improvements. The program would provide a modest amount to maybe pay for architect services, windows, doors etc. maybe in the range of $4-8K to get rid of the garage, driveway and convert it back to living rm etc.

      I've found that many of the owners of these garage front homes really crave living space over interior accommodations for their automobile. In my observation the market is confirming this trend. Just on my blk alone there's three garage units that have been on the mkt for more than 16mths and similar situation in surrounding blks. The garage to living space incentive program is a logical extension of our walkability plan as eliminating curb cuts promotes better sidewalk conditions.

      maybe San Francisco with all their garage fronts can copy our program.

       BTW: lately there's been fierce resistance to front-loading garage development proposals at our neighborhood zoning mtgs.
      Larry Shaeffer

      On 6/29/07, Eric Bruun <ericbruun@...> wrote:

      Larry
       
      Yes, all well and good. As your fellow Philadelphian I welcome it. However, the trend towards
      reconstruction and new construction that puts parking garages on the first floor of rowhouses
      might undo it. As you know, but for the benefit of other readers, when the parking garages are
      added, then parking along the street is banned. Hence, the street traffic speeds up again due to the wider right-of-way and lack of friction with parked cars. But maybe the safety problem will solve itself. When the street is blighted by all of the garages, the "no parking" signs on these garages, and the sidewalks get blocked by these homeowners who decide it is OK for them to park there for a few hours, there won't be any pedestrians hanging out  or walkind down the streets any more.  

      Eric Bruun
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Larry Shaeffer
      Sent: Jun 27, 2007 11:45 AM
      To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Reinventing transport in cities: "Eyes on the street"

      Hi Richard,
      caught the Philly South St reference and thought you might be interested to know that the South of South Neighborhhood Assoc (SOSNA) is just starting a walkability plan ($100K fed. TCDI) that will be promoting traffic calming thruout the neighborhood. SOSNA formed a traffic calming comm. after media reports several yrs ago of over 90 children being struck by vehicles in school safety zones that year. Three of those ped/car incidents were in our neighborhood. There will be proposals to change the design speed for all the neighborhood streets down to 20mph. That's the critical threshold for increased ped. injury/fatality. We feel that the 85%tile speed calculation is of limited value in neighborhood situations because it throws out the high outlier speeds which are the most dangerous. Those are the speeders our residents want protection from. Proposed street design changes will be accomplished with vertical and horizontal deflection. Many of these proposed treatments (mod. rndbts, raised mid-blk crosswalks etc.) have not been tried anywhere in the city or region. Everyone involved is excited and sees the plan as a possible template for the rest of the city and as a tool for revitalization-see West Palm Beach.

      The grant application outlined a wide array of goals including, moving the spine of the neighborhood down from South St to Christian St (2-way), combining traffic calming with stormwater measures (including curb extensions w/rain gardens-see Portlandonline) and greening up the barren wall to wall asphalt school campuses.

      If you'd like to hear more about the process we've started email me back or call: 215-606-8544
      Larry Shaeffer

      On 6/26/07, Richard Layman <rlaymandc@... > wrote:

      One of the things that I write a lot about is how roads are engineered.  Concrete and asphalt allow for very high speeds.  Cars are also engineered to go very fast.  Narrow streets with lots of activities slow the driver.  South Street in Philadelphia is a perfect example.  People drive below the speed limit, which is 25 mph.
       
      In other places, wide roads in good condition mean that drivers drive fast, far beyond the posted limits, because the materials allow them to do so.
       
      It's why I suggest Belgian Block -- granted it's expensive.  But it's one of the only ways to change the pavement in a way that reduces speed without degrading the quality of the materials.
       
      Richard Layman, DC

      "Eric Britton (Fr)" <eric.britton@free.fr > wrote:
      I am working to complete a major presentation that tries to take a useful whack at the challenges of "Reinventing transport in cities", energized as a result of the great increase in awareness of the need for changes in the face of the ongoing environmental catastrophe. And in this context one of the plates I am working on tries to outline in a few words some the challenges that we face on the streets when moving from old to new mobility environments. That is to say into a world of many more different types of street uses
      Here is what I have summarized and that I am pleased to share with you for your eventual use and if possibly your comments. These I will incorporate into the final piece which will be available to you all within the week.
      1. New mobility environments call for new skills and attitudes for all
      2. Sharing the street with may different kinds, sizes, types and speeds of users brings a new set of challenges to all concerned
      3. The significant environmental changes are going to bring with them risks and inevitably accidents due in large part to the unfamiliarity of users
      4. The difficulty of our ability to deal these new challenges must not be underrated
      5. Everyone is concerned – Car drivers, cyclists, walkers and public transport
      6. And others: playing children, handicapped people, conversing adults, street traders
      7. Persistent attention to an ever-changing flux of small details requires high visual acuity, considerable motor skills, calmness of mind, great respect for others
      8. These are not the dominant attitudes of drivers in a hurry on a car-only road
      9. These considerable risks need to be anticipated and provided for in advance
      10. This underlines the importance of the education and communications components of the new programs
      As I work on all this and try it out with experts and general pubic audiences, what strikes me most is how very different things are for those of us who wish to bring about change in these matters. The windows are open, the air is flowing, the needs are clearly there and we have a world that is ready for change.. Let's get together and make this thing work.
      Eric Britton





    • Lee Schipper
      (Kind thanks to Lee Schipper for the heads-up) Op-Ed Contributor Clear Up the Congestion-Pricing Gridlock *By KEN LIVINGSTONE Published: July 2, 2007 THE New
      Message 2 of 7 , Jul 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        (Kind thanks to Lee Schipper for the heads-up)
        Op-Ed Contributor
        Clear Up the Congestion-Pricing Gridlock

        *By KEN LIVINGSTONE
        Published: July 2, 2007

        THE New York State Assembly ended its session on June 22 without
        reaching a consensus on Manhattan's congestion pricing proposal - a
        delay that may cost New York City some $500 million in federal
        transportation money. Assembly members have voiced concerns about the
        economic impact of the program, the effect on traffic outside Manhattan
        and even the effectiveness of the idea itself.

        Four years ago, London was engaged in a very similar debate. We now
        have the luxury of hindsight. While the two cities' situations are not
        identical, they certainly have analogies and therefore, perhaps, the
        success of London's program can shed light on the current debate in
        New York.

        At that time, London's business district was undergoing rapid growth,
        but it was at capacity in terms of traffic. Efforts to channel more cars
        into the city center simply led to ever lower traffic speeds, which in
        turn led to business losses and a decrease in quality of life.
        Simultaneously, carbon emissions were mounting because of the
        inefficiency of engine use.

        In 2003, London put in place a £5 (about $9) a day congestion charge
        for all cars that entered the center city (the charge is now £8). This
        led to an immediate drop of 70,000 cars a day in the affected zone.
        Traffic congestion fell by almost 20 percent. Emissions of the
        greenhouse gas carbon dioxide were cut by more than 15 percent.

        The negative side effects predicted by opponents never materialized.
        The retail sector in the zone has seen increases in sales that have
        significantly exceeded the national average. London's theater
        district, which largely falls within the zone, has been enjoying record
        audiences. People are still flocking to London - they're simply
        doing so in more efficient and less polluting ways.

        There has been a marked shift away from cars and into public transport
        and environmentally friendly modes of travel. There has been a 4 percent
        modal shift into use of public transport from private cars since 2000.
        Simultaneously, the number of bicycle journeys on London's major roads
        has risen by 83 percent, to almost half a million a day. Cycling has
        become something of a boom industry in London, with improvement in
        health for those involved and substantial benefit for the environment.

        This success had preconditions. In London, as will be the case in New
        York or any other city, an enhanced public transportation system was
        critical. To ensure readiness, we made significant upgrades to public
        transport. Our investment focused on enhancing London's bus system,
        rather than the subway, because we needed to increase capacity in the
        quickest, most cost-effective way.

        Specifications for a modern, more comfortable fleet were introduced,
        bus lanes were added, and more inspectors were put on to ensure buses
        ran at regular intervals. With London's buses a more attractive
        alternative, the number of bus trips a day has risen to six million, an
        increase of two million from 2000 - with ridership growing most
        rapidly among the highest-paid social groups. In turn, this helped
        relieve pressure on the subway, ensuring it continued to run smoothly.
        Investment in public transport continues to this day, aided by the
        revenue from the congestion charge - the equivalent of some $200
        million annually.

        Like New York's plan, London's congestion program initially met
        with some skepticism. Before the program began, polls showed that public
        opinion was divided almost exactly evenly. Since then, opinion has
        shifted to 2-to-1 in favor.

        The results have led us to expand the initial program. In February the
        existing congestion charging zone was extended westward, doubling its
        size. Traffic in the extended zone fell by 13 percent.

        The next stage of congestion charging in London will be a move to
        emissions-based charging. This will be aimed at deterring vehicles with
        the highest carbon emissions, like sports utility vehicles, from
        entering the city center. The new program will impose a payment of £25
        per day for such vehicles, as well as abolish the 90-percent exemption
        that their owners would receive if they were residents of the congestion
        charging zone. Incidentally, this charge for S.U.V.'s enjoys 3-to-1
        popular support.

        Is London's success a guarantee that congestion charging will work in
        New York? Of course not. But it is an indicator that properly executed
        congestion pricing works, and works well. Singapore and Stockholm
        already operate such programs and other cities are examining them. Given
        the success of congestion charging in London, this is not surprising.

        Ken Livingstone is the mayor of London.


        Lee Schipper
        Director of Research
        EMBARQ, the WRI Center
        for Sustainable Transport
        10 G St. NE
        Washington DC, 20002
        +1202 729 7735
        FAX +1202 7297775
        www.embarq.wri.org
      • Stefan Langeveld
        The LCC had originally 2 stated objectives: cut congestion and provide funding for public transport. But even at the start, there were exemptions and
        Message 3 of 7 , Jul 10, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          The LCC had originally 2 stated objectives: cut congestion and provide
          funding for public transport.
          But even at the start, there were exemptions and discounts.
          1. Residents living within the congestion charging zone and in a few
          neighbouring streets receive a discount of 90%. This is unfair. Are
          the zone residents more entitled to car use? They profit from less car
          traffic (although the benefit is hard to measure) and pay the least.
          It is true that they are captives: they can´t avoid the zone. But very
          few Londoners drive for pleasure, or have hours left to waste in
          traffic. They all somehow, sometimes need car use. Non-zone residents
          who must enter the zone are unfairly penalized.
          2. The third and hidden objective was to favour alternative fuel
          vehicles. The categories electric, H2, LPG, CNG and hybrids are exempt
          (not biofuels). So any large car with LPG gets a discount of 100%.
          Small petrol cars get no discount.
          3. NHS staff, patients (who are assessed as being too ill to travel on
          public transport) and fire-fighters may claim a reimbursement of the
          Congestion Charge. Nice for them, but the limitation to these groups
          is arbitrary.

          It is impossible to put charges on car use, without running into
          severe problems of equity.
          Already it is a mixed congestion/ emissions charge.

          Now the London government will make it more an emissions charge than a
          congestion charge.
          Charging will be based on the Vehicle Excise Duty Bands, which simply
          measures CO2/kilometer.
          A and B (less than 120g CO2 per km) which meet Euro IV standard £ 0
          C, D, E, F £ 8 (as now)
          G (above 225g CO2 per km) £ 25 without resident exemption.

          This will make SUVs, Jaguars, Porsches and Ferraris (or the world´s
          least efficient cars) even less attainable, more a symbol of status.
          Well at least it is still legal to drive them. Or is that the next step ?
          The charge-change and abolishing the resident exemption for G only are
          superb examples of an adolescent mindset. The life-span of combatting
          congestion appears about four years, now emissions are the new wave.
          The mayor and his team have taxing the rich as their main aim.
          This is about power, showing who is boss, and it is far away from
          decisionmaking for the common good.

          At least CO2/kilometer is better than fuel types. It makes output the
          criterium instead of an arbitrary list of types. It means no more
          fashionable favouring of hybrids, for example.

          Stefan Langeveld
          Amsterdam
          CC-page (English) http://baluw.nl/index.php?id=142


          > Op-Ed Contributor
          > Clear Up the Congestion-Pricing Gridlock
          >
          > *By KEN LIVINGSTONE
          > Published: July 2, 2007
          >
          > THE New York State Assembly ended its session on June 22 without
          > reaching a consensus on Manhattan's congestion pricing proposal - a
          > delay that may cost New York City some $500 million in federal
          > transportation money. Assembly members have voiced concerns about the
          > economic impact of the program, the effect on traffic outside Manhattan
          > and even the effectiveness of the idea itself.
          >
          > Four years ago, London was engaged in a very similar debate. We now
          > have the luxury of hindsight. While the two cities' situations are not
          > identical, they certainly have analogies and therefore, perhaps, the
          > success of London's program can shed light on the current debate in
          > New York.
          >
          > At that time, London's business district was undergoing rapid growth,
          > but it was at capacity in terms of traffic. Efforts to channel more cars
          > into the city center simply led to ever lower traffic speeds, which in
          > turn led to business losses and a decrease in quality of life.
          > Simultaneously, carbon emissions were mounting because of the
          > inefficiency of engine use.
          >
          > In 2003, London put in place a £5 (about $9) a day congestion charge
          > for all cars that entered the center city (the charge is now £8). This
          > led to an immediate drop of 70,000 cars a day in the affected zone.
          > Traffic congestion fell by almost 20 percent. Emissions of the
          > greenhouse gas carbon dioxide were cut by more than 15 percent.
          >
          > The negative side effects predicted by opponents never materialized.
          > The retail sector in the zone has seen increases in sales that have
          > significantly exceeded the national average. London's theater
          > district, which largely falls within the zone, has been enjoying record
          > audiences. People are still flocking to London - they're simply
          > doing so in more efficient and less polluting ways.
          >
          > There has been a marked shift away from cars and into public transport
          > and environmentally friendly modes of travel. There has been a 4 percent
          > modal shift into use of public transport from private cars since 2000.
          > Simultaneously, the number of bicycle journeys on London's major roads
          > has risen by 83 percent, to almost half a million a day. Cycling has
          > become something of a boom industry in London, with improvement in
          > health for those involved and substantial benefit for the environment.
          >
          > This success had preconditions. In London, as will be the case in New
          > York or any other city, an enhanced public transportation system was
          > critical. To ensure readiness, we made significant upgrades to public
          > transport. Our investment focused on enhancing London's bus system,
          > rather than the subway, because we needed to increase capacity in the
          > quickest, most cost-effective way.
          >
          > Specifications for a modern, more comfortable fleet were introduced,
          > bus lanes were added, and more inspectors were put on to ensure buses
          > ran at regular intervals. With London's buses a more attractive
          > alternative, the number of bus trips a day has risen to six million, an
          > increase of two million from 2000 - with ridership growing most
          > rapidly among the highest-paid social groups. In turn, this helped
          > relieve pressure on the subway, ensuring it continued to run smoothly.
          > Investment in public transport continues to this day, aided by the
          > revenue from the congestion charge - the equivalent of some $200
          > million annually.
          >
          > Like New York's plan, London's congestion program initially met
          > with some skepticism. Before the program began, polls showed that public
          > opinion was divided almost exactly evenly. Since then, opinion has
          > shifted to 2-to-1 in favor.
          >
          > The results have led us to expand the initial program. In February the
          > existing congestion charging zone was extended westward, doubling its
          > size. Traffic in the extended zone fell by 13 percent.
          >
          > The next stage of congestion charging in London will be a move to
          > emissions-based charging. This will be aimed at deterring vehicles with
          > the highest carbon emissions, like sports utility vehicles, from
          > entering the city center. The new program will impose a payment of £25
          > per day for such vehicles, as well as abolish the 90-percent exemption
          > that their owners would receive if they were residents of the congestion
          > charging zone. Incidentally, this charge for S.U.V.'s enjoys 3-to-1
          > popular support.
          >
          > Is London's success a guarantee that congestion charging will work in
          > New York? Of course not. But it is an indicator that properly executed
          > congestion pricing works, and works well. Singapore and Stockholm
          > already operate such programs and other cities are examining them. Given
          > the success of congestion charging in London, this is not surprising.
          >
          > Ken Livingstone is the mayor of London.
          >
          >
          > Lee Schipper
          > Director of Research
          > EMBARQ, the WRI Center
          > for Sustainable Transport
          > 10 G St. NE
          > Washington DC, 20002
          > +1202 729 7735
          > FAX +1202 7297775
          > www.embarq.wri.org
          >
        • Ian Wingrove
          1) Giving residents a CC discount was a political decision to make the CC more acceptable and some of us opposed this compromise - discounts for NHS staff were
          Message 4 of 7 , Jul 11, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            Message
             
            1) Giving residents a CC discount was a political decision to make the CC more acceptable and some of us opposed this compromise - discounts for NHS staff were resisted by the Mayor, despite considerable pressure.
             
            2) Many Londoners don't have a car, but still manage to live successful and happy lives. Most people who enter the CC area every day don't pay the charge as they don't drive and have no desire to.
             
            3) Sales of SUVs have started to fall in the last five months. They are down 5% nationally and 7% in London. This is after several years of rapid growth. It is too early to be certain, but we suspect it is because of the Government's decision to increase the differential in car tax for more polluting vehicles and decisions in London to apply the polluter pays principle to CC and also )by a third of London councils) to residents parking. The policy appears to be working, which is good news for the climate.
             
            Ian Wingrove
             
             
             
             
            -----Original Message-----
            From: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Stefan Langeveld
            Sent: 10 July 2007 21:39
            To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] A major change after only five years? Re: Livingstone on Congestion-Pricing

            The LCC had originally 2 stated objectives: cut congestion and provide
            funding for public transport.
            But even at the start, there were exemptions and discounts.
            1. Residents living within the congestion charging zone and in a few
            neighbouring streets receive a discount of 90%. This is unfair. Are
            the zone residents more entitled to car use? They profit from less car
            traffic (although the benefit is hard to measure) and pay the least.
            It is true that they are captives: they can´t avoid the zone. But very
            few Londoners drive for pleasure, or have hours left to waste in
            traffic. They all somehow, sometimes need car use. Non-zone residents
            who must enter the zone are unfairly penalized.
            2. The third and hidden objective was to favour alternative fuel
            vehicles. The categories electric, H2, LPG, CNG and hybrids are exempt
            (not biofuels). So any large car with LPG gets a discount of 100%.
            Small petrol cars get no discount.
            3. NHS staff, patients (who are assessed as being too ill to travel on
            public transport) and fire-fighters may claim a reimbursement of the
            Congestion Charge. Nice for them, but the limitation to these groups
            is arbitrary.

            It is impossible to put charges on car use, without running into
            severe problems of equity.
            Already it is a mixed congestion/ emissions charge.

            Now the London government will make it more an emissions charge than a
            congestion charge.
            Charging will be based on the Vehicle Excise Duty Bands, which simply
            measures CO2/kilometer.
            A and B (less than 120g CO2 per km) which meet Euro IV standard £ 0
            C, D, E, F £ 8 (as now)
            G (above 225g CO2 per km) £ 25 without resident exemption.

            This will make SUVs, Jaguars, Porsches and Ferraris (or the world´s
            least efficient cars) even less attainable, more a symbol of status.
            Well at least it is still legal to drive them. Or is that the next step ?
            The charge-change and abolishing the resident exemption for G only are
            superb examples of an adolescent mindset. The life-span of combatting
            congestion appears about four years, now emissions are the new wave.
            The mayor and his team have taxing the rich as their main aim.
            This is about power, showing who is boss, and it is far away from
            decisionmaking for the common good.

            At least CO2/kilometer is better than fuel types. It makes output the
            criterium instead of an arbitrary list of types. It means no more
            fashionable favouring of hybrids, for example.

            Stefan Langeveld
            Amsterdam
            CC-page (English) http://baluw. nl/index. php?id=142

            > Op-Ed Contributor
            > Clear Up the Congestion-Pricing Gridlock
            >
            > *By KEN LIVINGSTONE
            > Published: July 2, 2007
            >
            > THE New York State Assembly ended its session on June 22 without
            > reaching a consensus on Manhattan's congestion pricing proposal - a
            > delay that may cost New York City some $500 million in federal
            > transportation money. Assembly members have voiced concerns about the
            > economic impact of the program, the effect on traffic outside Manhattan
            > and even the effectiveness of the idea itself.
            >
            > Four years ago, London was engaged in a very similar debate. We now
            > have the luxury of hindsight. While the two cities' situations are not
            > identical, they certainly have analogies and therefore, perhaps, the
            > success of London's program can shed light on the current debate in
            > New York.
            >
            > At that time, London's business district was undergoing rapid growth,
            > but it was at capacity in terms of traffic. Efforts to channel more cars
            > into the city center simply led to ever lower traffic speeds, which in
            > turn led to business losses and a decrease in quality of life.
            > Simultaneously, carbon emissions were mounting because of the
            > inefficiency of engine use.
            >
            > In 2003, London put in place a £5 (about $9) a day congestion charge
            > for all cars that entered the center city (the charge is now £8). This
            > led to an immediate drop of 70,000 cars a day in the affected zone.
            > Traffic congestion fell by almost 20 percent. Emissions of the
            > greenhouse gas carbon dioxide were cut by more than 15 percent.
            >
            > The negative side effects predicted by opponents never materialized.
            > The retail sector in the zone has seen increases in sales that have
            > significantly exceeded the national average. London's theater
            > district, which largely falls within the zone, has been enjoying record
            > audiences. People are still flocking to London - they're simply
            > doing so in more efficient and less polluting ways.
            >
            > There has been a marked shift away from cars and into public transport
            > and environmentally friendly modes of travel. There has been a 4 percent
            > modal shift into use of public transport from private cars since 2000.
            > Simultaneously, the number of bicycle journeys on London's major roads
            > has risen by 83 percent, to almost half a million a day. Cycling has
            > become something of a boom industry in London, with improvement in
            > health for those involved and substantial benefit for the environment.
            >
            > This success had preconditions. In London, as will be the case in New
            > York or any other city, an enhanced public transportation system was
            > critical. To ensure readiness, we made significant upgrades to public
            > transport. Our investment focused on enhancing London's bus system,
            > rather than the subway, because we needed to increase capacity in the
            > quickest, most cost-effective way.
            >
            > Specifications for a modern, more comfortable fleet were introduced,
            > bus lanes were added, and more inspectors were put on to ensure buses
            > ran at regular intervals. With London's buses a more attractive
            > alternative, the number of bus trips a day has risen to six million, an
            > increase of two million from 2000 - with ridership growing most
            > rapidly among the highest-paid social groups. In turn, this helped
            > relieve pressure on the subway, ensuring it continued to run smoothly.
            > Investment in public transport continues to this day, aided by the
            > revenue from the congestion charge - the equivalent of some $200
            > million annually.
            >
            > Like New York's plan, London's congestion program initially met
            > with some skepticism. Before the program began, polls showed that public
            > opinion was divided almost exactly evenly. Since then, opinion has
            > shifted to 2-to-1 in favor.
            >
            > The results have led us to expand the initial program. In February the
            > existing congestion charging zone was extended westward, doubling its
            > size. Traffic in the extended zone fell by 13 percent.
            >
            > The next stage of congestion charging in London will be a move to
            > emissions-based charging. This will be aimed at deterring vehicles with
            > the highest carbon emissions, like sports utility vehicles, from
            > entering the city center. The new program will impose a payment of £25
            > per day for such vehicles, as well as abolish the 90-percent exemption
            > that their owners would receive if they were residents of the congestion
            > charging zone. Incidentally, this charge for S.U.V.'s enjoys 3-to-1
            > popular support.
            >
            > Is London's success a guarantee that congestion charging will work in
            > New York? Of course not. But it is an indicator that properly executed
            > congestion pricing works, and works well. Singapore and Stockholm
            > already operate such programs and other cities are examining them. Given
            > the success of congestion charging in London, this is not surprising.
            >
            > Ken Livingstone is the mayor of London.
            >
            >
            > Lee Schipper
            > Director of Research
            > EMBARQ, the WRI Center
            > for Sustainable Transport
            > 10 G St. NE
            > Washington DC, 20002
            > +1202 729 7735
            > FAX +1202 7297775
            > www.embarq.wri. org
            >

            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
          • Richard Layman
            what would be a good source of information on the change in parking policies in London? (1) in 2001 in the first neighborhood planning exercise in DC (my
            Message 5 of 7 , Jul 11, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              what would be a good source of information on the change in parking policies in London?  (1) in 2001 in the first neighborhood planning exercise in DC (my neighborhood) it was suggested that larger cars pay more for the residential parking permit and that households with more cars pay rising rates for each additional car.  (2) it still hasn't happened, and some watered down proposals along these lines died about 18 months ago after political outcry.
               
              Thanks.

              Ian Wingrove <ian.wingrove@...> wrote:
               
              1) Giving residents a CC discount was a political decision to make the CC more acceptable and some of us opposed this compromise - discounts for NHS staff were resisted by the Mayor, despite considerable pressure.
               
              2) Many Londoners don't have a car, but still manage to live successful and happy lives. Most people who enter the CC area every day don't pay the charge as they don't drive and have no desire to.
               
              3) Sales of SUVs have started to fall in the last five months. They are down 5% nationally and 7% in London. This is after several years of rapid growth. It is too early to be certain, but we suspect it is because of the Government's decision to increase the differential in car tax for more polluting vehicles and decisions in London to apply the polluter pays principle to CC and also )by a third of London councils) to residents parking. The policy appears to be working, which is good news for the climate.
               
              Ian Wingrove
               
               
               
               
              -----Original Message-----
              From: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:NewMobility Cafe@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of Stefan Langeveld
              Sent: 10 July 2007 21:39
              To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
              Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] A major change after only five years? Re: Livingstone on Congestion-Pricing

              The LCC had originally 2 stated objectives: cut congestion and provide
              funding for public transport.
              But even at the start, there were exemptions and discounts.
              1. Residents living within the congestion charging zone and in a few
              neighbouring streets receive a discount of 90%. This is unfair. Are
              the zone residents more entitled to car use? They profit from less car
              traffic (although the benefit is hard to measure) and pay the least.
              It is true that they are captives: they can´t avoid the zone. But very
              few Londoners drive for pleasure, or have hours left to waste in
              traffic. They all somehow, sometimes need car use. Non-zone residents
              who must enter the zone are unfairly penalized.
              2. The third and hidden objective was to favour alternative fuel
              vehicles. The categories electric, H2, LPG, CNG and hybrids are exempt
              (not biofuels). So any large car with LPG gets a discount of 100%.
              Small petrol cars get no discount.
              3. NHS staff, patients (who are assessed as being too ill to travel on
              public transport) and fire-fighters may claim a reimbursement of the
              Congestion Charge. Nice for them, but the limitation to these groups
              is arbitrary.

              It is impossible to put charges on car use, without running into
              severe problems of equity.
              Already it is a mixed congestion/ emissions charge.

              Now the London government will make it more an emissions charge than a
              congestion charge.
              Charging will be based on the Vehicle Excise Duty Bands, which simply
              measures CO2/kilometer.
              A and B (less than 120g CO2 per km) which meet Euro IV standard £ 0
              C, D, E, F £ 8 (as now)
              G (above 225g CO2 per km) £ 25 without resident exemption.

              This will make SUVs, Jaguars, Porsches and Ferraris (or the world´s
              least efficient cars) even less attainable, more a symbol of status.
              Well at least it is still legal to drive them. Or is that the next step ?
              The charge-change and abolishing the resident exemption for G only are
              superb examples of an adolescent mindset. The life-span of combatting
              congestion appears about four years, now emissions are the new wave.
              The mayor and his team have taxing the rich as their main aim.
              This is about power, showing who is boss, and it is far away from
              decisionmaking for the common good.

              At least CO2/kilometer is better than fuel types. It makes output the
              criterium instead of an arbitrary list of types. It means no more
              fashionable favouring of hybrids, for example.

              Stefan Langeveld
              Amsterdam
              CC-page (English) http://baluw. nl/index. php?id=142

              > Op-Ed Contributor
              > Clear Up the Congestion-Pricing Gridlock
              >
              > *By KEN LIVINGSTONE
              > Published: July 2, 2007
              >
              > THE New York State Assembly ended its session on June 22 without
              > reaching a consensus on Manhattan's congestion pricing proposal - a
              > delay that may cost New York City some $500 million in federal
              > transportation money. Assembly members have voiced concerns about the
              > economic impact of the program, the effect on traffic outside Manhattan
              > and even the effectiveness of the idea itself.
              >
              > Four years ago, London was engaged in a very similar debate. We now
              > have the luxury of hindsight. While the two cities' situations are not
              > identical, they certainly have analogies and therefore, perhaps, the
              > success of London's program can shed light on the current debate in
              > New York.
              >
              > At that time, London's business district was undergoing rapid growth,
              > but it was at capacity in terms of traffic. Efforts to channel more cars
              > into the city center simply led to ever lower traffic speeds, which in
              > turn led to business losses and a decrease in quality of life.
              > Simultaneously, carbon emissions were mounting because of the
              > inefficiency of engine use.
              >
              > In 2003, London put in place a £5 (about $9) a day congestion charge
              > for all cars that entered the center city (the charge is now £8). This
              > led to an immediate drop of 70,000 cars a day in the affected zone.
              > Traffic congestion fell by almost 20 percent. Emissions of the
              > greenhouse gas carbon dioxide were cut by more than 15 percent.
              >
              > The negative side effects predicted by opponents never materialized.
              > The retail sector in the zone has seen increases in sales that have
              > significantly exceeded the national average. London's theater
              > district, which largely falls within the zone, has been enjoying record
              > audiences. People are still flocking to London - they're simply
              > doing so in more efficient and less polluting ways.
              >
              > There has been a marked shift away from cars and into public transport
              > and environmentally friendly modes of travel. There has been a 4 percent
              > modal shift into use of public transport from private cars since 2000.
              > Simultaneously, the number of bicycle journeys on London's major roads
              > has risen by 83 percent, to almost half a million a day. Cycling has
              > become something of a boom industry in London, with improvement in
              > health for those involved and substantial benefit for the environment.
              >
              > This success had preconditions. In London, as will be the case in New
              > York or any other city, an enhanced public transportation system was
              > critical. To ensure readiness, we made significant upgrades to public
              > transport. Our investment focused on enhancing London's bus system,
              > rather than the subway, because we needed to increase capacity in the
              > quickest, most cost-effective way.
              >
              > Specifications for a modern, more comfortable fleet were introduced,
              > bus lanes were added, and more inspectors were put on to ensure buses
              > ran at regular intervals. With London's buses a more attractive
              > alternative, the number of bus trips a day has risen to six million, an
              > increase of two million from 2000 - with ridership growing most
              > rapidly among the highest-paid social groups. In turn, this helped
              > relieve pressure on the subway, ensuring it continued to run smoothly.
              > Investment in public transport continues to this day, aided by the
              > revenue from the congestion charge - the equivalent of some $200
              > million annually.
              >
              > Like New York's plan, London's congestion program initially met
              > with some skepticism. Before the program began, polls showed that public
              > opinion was divided almost exactly evenly. Since then, opinion has
              > shifted to 2-to-1 in favor.
              >
              > The results have led us to expand the initial program. In February the
              > existing congestion charging zone was extended westward, doubling its
              > size. Traffic in the extended zone fell by 13 percent.
              >
              > The next stage of congestion charging in London will be a move to
              > emissions-based charging. This will be aimed at deterring vehicles with
              > the highest carbon emissions, like sports utility vehicles, from
              > entering the city center. The new program will impose a payment of £25
              > per day for such vehicles, as well as abolish the 90-percent exemption
              > that their owners would receive if they were residents of the congestion
              > charging zone. Incidentally, this charge for S.U.V.'s enjoys 3-to-1
              > popular support.
              >
              > Is London's success a guarantee that congestion charging will work in
              > New York? Of course not. But it is an indicator that properly executed
              > congestion pricing works, and works well. Singapore and Stockholm
              > already operate such programs and other cities are examining them. Given
              > the success of congestion charging in London, this is not surprising.
              >
              > Ken Livingstone is the mayor of London.
              >
              >
              > Lee Schipper
              > Director of Research
              > EMBARQ, the WRI Center
              > for Sustainable Transport
              > 10 G St. NE
              > Washington DC, 20002
              > +1202 729 7735
              > FAX +1202 7297775
              > www.embarq.wri. org
              >


               
              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
              The local authority websites might carry the details. Richmond and Islington both held referendums on the issue - and won. Other councils have just got on with
              Message 6 of 7 , Jul 11, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Message
                 
                The local authority websites might carry the details. Richmond and Islington both held referendums on the issue - and won. Other councils have just got on with it.
                 
                 
                Following Richmond council’s decision earlier this year to adopt differential parking rates based on vehicle emissions a third of London’s boroughs have been looking into similar schemes. These are now underway in Haringey, Hackney, Islington and Camden and have been proposed by councils in Tower Hamlets, Lambeth, Kensington and Chelsea, Barking and Dagenham and Southwark
                 
                 
                -----Original Message-----
                From: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Layman
                Sent: 11 July 2007 12:35
                To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [NewMobilityCafe] A major change after only five years? Re: Livingstone on Congestion-Pricing

                what would be a good source of information on the change in parking policies in London?  (1) in 2001 in the first neighborhood planning exercise in DC (my neighborhood) it was suggested that larger cars pay more for the residential parking permit and that households with more cars pay rising rates for each additional car.  (2) it still hasn't happened, and some watered down proposals along these lines died about 18 months ago after political outcry.
                 
                Thanks.

                Ian Wingrove <ian.wingrove@ london.gov. uk> wrote:
                 
                1) Giving residents a CC discount was a political decis! ion to make the CC more acceptable and some of us opposed this compromise - discounts for NHS staff were resisted by the Mayor, despite considerable pressure.
                2) Many Londoners don't have a car, but still manage to live successful and happy lives. Most people who enter the CC area every day don't pay the charge as they don't drive and have no desire to.
                3) Sales of SUVs have started to fall in the last five months. They are down 5% nationally and 7% in London. This! is after several years of rapid growth. It is too early to be certain , but we suspect it is because of the Government's decision to increase the differential in car tax for more polluting vehicles and decisions in London to apply the polluter pays principle to CC and also )by a third of London councils) to residents parking. The policy appears to be working, which is good news for the climate.
                Ian Wingrove
                -----Original Message-----
                From: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:NewMobility Cafe@yahoogroups .com] On Behalf Of Stefan Langeveld
                Sent: 10 July 2007 21:39
                To: NewMobilityCafe@ yahoogroups. com
                Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] A major change after only five years? Re: Livingstone on Congestion! -Pricing

                The LCC had originally 2 stated objectives: cut congestion and provide
                funding for public transport.
                But even at the start, there were exemptions and discounts.
                1. Residents living within the congestion charging zone and in a few
                neighbouring streets receive a discount of 90%. This is unfair. Are
                the zone residents more entitled to car use? They profit from less car
                traffic (although the benefit is hard to measure) and pay the least.
                It is true that they are captives: they can´t avoid the zone. But very
                few Londoners drive for pleasure, or have hours left to waste in
                traffic. They all somehow, sometimes need car use. Non-zone residents
                who must enter the zone are unfairly penalized.
                2. The third and hidden objective was to favour alternative fuel
                vehicles. The categories electric, H2, LPG, CNG and hybrids are exempt
                (not biofuels). So any large car with LPG gets a discount of 100%.
                Small petrol cars get no discount.
                3. NHS staff, patients (who are assessed as being too ill to travel on
                public transport) and fire-fighters may claim a reimbursement of the
                Congestion Charge. Nice for them, but the limitation to these groups
                is arbitrary.

                It is impossible to put charges on car use, without running into
                severe problems of equity.
                Already it is a mixed congestion/ emissions charge.

                Now the London government will make it more an emissions charge than a
                congestion charge.
                Charging will be based on the Vehicle Excise Duty Bands, which simply
                measures CO2/kilometer.
                A and B (less than 120g CO2 per km) which meet Euro IV standard £ 0
                C, D, E, F £ 8 (as now)
                G (above 225g CO2 per km) £ 25 without resident exemption.

                This will make SUVs, Jaguars, Porsches and Ferraris (or the world´s
                least efficient cars) even less attainable, more a symbol of status.
                Well at least it is still legal to drive them. Or is that the next step ?
                The charge-change and abolishing the resident exemption for G only are
                superb examples of an adolescent mindset. The life-span of combatting
                congestion appears about four years, now emissions are the new wave.
                The mayor and his team have taxing the rich as their main aim.
                This is about power, showing who is boss, and it is far away from
                decisionmaking for the common good.

                At least CO2/kilometer is better than fuel types. It makes output the
                criterium instead of an arbitrary list of types. It means no more
                fashionable favouring of hybrids, for example.

                Stefan Langeveld
                Amsterdam
                CC-page (English) http://baluw. nl/index. php?id=142

                > Op-Ed Contributor
                > Clear Up the Congestion-Pricing Gridlock
                >
                > *By KEN LIVINGSTONE
                > Published: July 2, 2007
                >
                > THE New York State Assembly ended its session on June 22 without
                > reaching a consensus on Manhattan's congestion pricing proposal - a
                > delay that may cos! t New York City some $500 million in federal
                > transportation money. Assembly members have voiced concerns about the
                > economic impact of the program, the effect on traffic outside Manhattan
                > and even the effectiveness of the idea itself.
                >
                > Four years ago, London was engaged in a very similar debate. We now
                > have the luxury of hindsight. While the two cities' situations are not
                > identical, they certainly have analogies and therefore, perhaps, the
                > success of London's program can shed light on the current debate in
                > New York.
                >
                > At that time, London's business district was undergoing rapid growth,
                > but it was at capacity in terms of traffic. Efforts to channel more cars
                > into the city center simply led to ever lower traffic speeds, which in
                > turn led to business losses and a decrease in quality of life.
                > Simultaneously, carbon emissions were mounting because of the
                > inefficiency of engine use.
                >
                > In 2003, London put in place a £5 (about $9) a day congestion charge
                > for all cars that entered the center city (the charge is now £8). This
                > led to an immediate drop of 70,000 cars a day in the affected zone.
                > Traffic congestion fell by almost 20 percent. Emissions of the
                > greenhouse gas carbon dioxide were cut by more than 15 percent.
                >
                > The negative side effects predicted by opponents never materialized.
                > The retail sector in the zone has seen increases in sales that have
                > significantly exceeded the national average. London's theater
                > district, which largely falls within the zone, has been enjoying record
                > audiences. People are still flocking to London - they're simply
                > doing so in more efficient and less polluting ways.
                >
                > There has been a marked shift away from cars and into public transport
                > and environmentally friendly modes of travel. There has been a 4 percent
                > modal shift into use of public transport from private cars since 2000.
                > Simultaneously, the number of bicycle journeys on London's major roads
                > has risen by 83 percent, to almost half a million a day. Cycling has
                > become something of a boom industry in London, with improvement in
                > health for those involved and substantial benefit for the environment.
                >
                > This success had preconditions. In London, as will be the case in New
                > York or any other city, an enhanced public transportation system was
                > critical. To ensure readiness, we made significant upgrades to public
                > transport. Our investment focused on enhancing London's bus system,
                > rather than the subway, because we needed to increase capacity in the
                > quickest, most cost-effective way.
                >
                > Specifications for a modern, more comfortable fleet were introduced,
                > bus lanes were added, and more inspectors were put on to ensure buses
                > ran at regular intervals. With London's buses a more attractive
                > alternative, the number of bus trips a day has risen to six million, an
                > increase of two million from 2000 - with ridership growing most
                > rapidly among the highest-paid social groups. In turn, this helped
                > relieve pressure on the subway, ensuring it continued to run smoothly.
                > Investment in public transport continues to this day, aided by the
                > revenue from the congestion charge - the equivalent of some $200
                > million annually.
                >
                > Like New York's plan, London's congestion program initially met
                > with some skepticism. Before the program began, polls showed that public
                > opinion was divided almost exactly evenly. Since then, opinion has
                > shifted to 2-to-1 in favor.
                >
                > The results have led us to expand the initial program. In February the
                > existing congestion charging zone was extended westward, doubling its
                > size. Traffic in the extended zone fell by 13 percent.
                >
                > The next stage of congestion charging in London will be a move to
                > emissions-based charging. This will be aimed at deterring vehicles with
                > the highest carbon emissions, like sports utility vehicles, from
                > entering the city center. The new program will impose a payment of £25
                > per day for such vehicles, as well as abolish the 90-percent exemption
                > that their owners would receive if they were residents of the congestion
                > charging zone. Incidentally, this charge for S.U.V.'s enjoys 3-to-1
                > popular support.
                >
                > Is London's success a guarantee that congestion charging will work in
                > New York? Of course not. But it is an indicator that properly executed
                > congestion pricing works, and works well. Singapore and Stockholm
                > already operate such programs and other cities are examining them. Given
                > the success of congestion charging in London, this is not surprising.
                >
                > Ken Livingstone is the mayor of London.
                >
                >
                > Lee Schipper
                > Director of Research
                > EMBARQ, the WRI Center
                > for Sustainable Transport
                > 10 G St. NE
                > Washington DC, 20002
                > +1202 729 7735
                > FAX +1202 7297775
                > www.embarq.wri. org
                >


                 
                GREATER LOND ON AUTHORITY
                EMAIL N! OTICE:
                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
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.