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

PRIORITIES - paying your way

Expand Messages
  • Eric Bruun
    Dave I applaud the improvements since the Mayor was elected 5 years ago. But I think that fairness requires that one of the reasons for the very high bus usage
    Message 1 of 7 , May 16, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Dave

      I applaud the improvements since the Mayor was elected 5 years ago. But I think that fairness requires that one of the reasons for the very high bus usage is the state of the Underground. There is serious overcrowding as well as close to the world's highest fares.

      Eric Bruun

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Wetzel Dave <davewetzel@...>
      Sent: May 16, 2005 10:05 AM

      Erel,

      The effect on poor travellers was a major consideration before we introduced the congestion charge in London.

      With the exception of a few examples (high-lighted in the press) - most "poor" travellers in London were walking, cycling or using buses.

      The Mayor has helped all families by providing free bus travel to children up to the age of 11 years (16 from September this year). The congestion charge is one of over 30 new policies that the Mayor has
      introduced to improve bus travel.

      Hence, "poor" travellers (and increasingly city suites) now enjoy a more reliable bus service with much-improved information, shorter journey times, improved frequencies, extended operating hours and they travel on newer more accessible buses.

      We have achieved a 4% modal shift from car and bus trips are up 40% since the Mayor was elected 5 years ago!

      Dave
      Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London.
    • Todd Litman
      Horizontal equity (i.e., concern for disadvantaged people) is often raised as an objection to road pricing, higher fuel taxes and other vehicle user fees, but
      Message 2 of 7 , May 16, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Horizontal equity (i.e., concern for disadvantaged people) is often raised
        as an objection to road pricing, higher fuel taxes and other vehicle user
        fees, but its a false argument, since lower income people tend to drive
        less than higher income people, particularly on congested urban highways,
        so higher income people capture the vast majority of benefits. Vertical
        equity should be concerned primarily with how revenues are used: if they
        are used to provide services used by lower income people (such as transit
        improvements) or to offset other equally regressive taxes, they can be
        progressive overall, even if the fee is directly regressive.

        Improving transit services on busy corridors benefits both the people who
        use transit, and motorists, who experience less congestion. The better the
        transit service, the lower the toll needed to reduce automobile travel
        demand to optimal volumes.

        Legitimate vertical equity concerns can easily be addressed by insuring
        good travel options and providing targeted discounts and exemptions for
        disadvantaged groups. For example, each resident could receive a limited
        number of free road use credits each year that they can use for essential
        trips or sell to others.

        For more discussion see my paper "Using Road Pricing Revenue: Economic
        Efficiency and Equity Considerations" (http://www.vtpi.org/revenue.pdf) and
        other analyses of road pricing requity.


        Best wishes,
        -Todd Litman


        At 03:05 PM 5/16/2005 +0100, Wetzel Dave wrote:
        >Erel,
        >The effect on poor travellers was a major consideration before we
        introduced
        >the congestion charge in London.
        >
        >With the exception of a few examples (high-lighted in the press) - most
        >"poor" travellers in London were walking, cycling or using buses.
        >
        >The Mayor has helped all families by providing free bus travel to children
        >up to the age of 11 years (16 from September this year).
        >The congestion charge is one of over 30 new policies that the Mayor has
        >introduced to improve bus travel.
        >Hence, "poor" travellers (and increasingly city suites) now enjoy a more
        >reliable bus service with much-improved information, shorter journey times,
        >improved frequencies, extended operating hours and they travel on newer
        more
        >accessible buses.
        >
        >We have achieved a 4% modal shift from car and bus trips are up 40% since
        >the Mayor was elected 5 years ago!
        >
        >Dave
        >Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London.
        >
        >
        >-----Original Message-----
        >From: Erel.Avineri@... [mailto:Erel.Avineri@...]
        >Sent: 13 May 2005 15:24
        >To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
        >Cc: Erel.Avineri@...
        >Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] PRIORITIES - paying your way
        >
        >
        >
        >Road pricing has its disadvantages as well, and may not be applied
        >everywhere. For example, one of the issues that should not be neglected
        >is to base policy of road pricing on equity grounds. Travellers with low
        >income may not be able to afford the same travel lifestyles that are
        >afforded by the rich, and this may lead (as it already had many times
        >before) to social exclusion.
        >
        >Dr Erel Avineri
        >Lecturer in Integrated Transport
        >Centre for Transport & Society
        >Faculty of the Built Environment
        >University of the West of England
        >Frenchay Campus
      • Wetzel Dave
        Eric Thanks for this posting. It is true that the Underground railway services continue to suffer disruptions from the old equipment not replaced because of
        Message 3 of 7 , May 17, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Eric
          Thanks for this posting.

          It is true that the Underground railway services continue to suffer
          disruptions from the old equipment not replaced because of the lack of
          adequate investment since WW2.

          In addition, now that the current Labour Government are providing £2bn pa
          investment in new and refurbished infrastructure, extra delays and
          inconvenience occur as the system is renewed. (eg weekend closures for
          engineering work; some stations are being closed completely for several
          months whilst refurbishment takes place; some platforms are taken out of use
          and passengers have to alight at the next station and return on the opposite
          side; some morning services are delayed because of late access for the
          trains when the PPP engineers over-run their overnight track-laying etc).

          However, despite the problems above, and increased fare levels, the
          Underground has improved its performance and is enjoying unprecedented
          passenger growth. (Last years figures show Underground use at its highest
          level ever - 6m more than our previous best in 2001 - see press release
          below).

          Underground tends to cater for different types of journeys than buses.
          (Longer Underground trips and many bus routes act as feeders to the
          Underground and National Rail stations).

          Given these facts, it is actually unlikely that there has been much transfer
          from Underground to bus.

          Dave
          Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London.
        • Stefan Langeveld
          Erel Avineri raised an important point. Road pricing etc. pushes lower incomes off the roads, to make way for higher incomes. As Valerie Grove wrote in The
          Message 4 of 7 , May 19, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Erel Avineri raised an important point.
            Road pricing etc. pushes lower incomes off the roads, to make way for
            higher incomes. As Valerie Grove wrote in The Times: <And I will love
            it even more if it continues to make motoring easier than before.>

            There are a few ways to block or restrict car use.
            Most popular nowadays is [1] the ability to pay (and willingness,
            which is related to ability). This mechanism applies to 95% of goods
            and services, but that does not make it equitable. Avoid this if
            possible.
            I'm not convinced by "lower income people tend to drive less than
            higher income people ()" or " () most "poor" travellers in London
            were
            walking, cycling or using buses." This resembles a segregation in
            travel modes, based on income, which should not be chosen. Car use
            should not be a priviledge. Mass transit will never be a merit good.

            "If they (the charges) are used to provide services used by lower
            income people (such as transit improvements) or to offset other
            equally regressive taxes, they can be progressive overall, even if
            the
            fee is directly regressive." Beware of these: the product, levy or
            measure may be slightly wrong, but the money goes to charity!

            Another [2] is first come first served. This is how parking permits
            for residents and businesses are/were issued in many cities. Every
            household with a car can get one, no questions asked. Waiting lists
            are inevitable; about four years in Amsterdam City. An entrepeneur
            who
            needs car use can't get a license (and 'can' pay hundreds of euros
            per
            month for on street parking), while her neighbour has a permit, and
            uses his car once a month.

            The best way to reduce trafic (parked and driving)is to optimize it,
            by sharing cars, parking space and rides. Try this first; i think it
            will work wonders.
            To regulate, charge or restrict car use is second best. If you want
            to
            do that, use criteria such as necessity (business, disability),
            shared
            use and environmental impact, to allow certain vehicles into city
            centres.

            Stefan Langeveld

            http://si.a2000.nl:8055/index.php?id=51 charging-page (dutch)


            --- In NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com, Todd Litman wrote:
            > Horizontal equity (i.e., concern for disadvantaged people) is often
            raised
            > as an objection to road pricing, higher fuel taxes and other
            vehicle user
            > fees, but its a false argument, since lower income people tend to
            drive
            > less than higher income people, particularly on congested urban
            highways,
            > so higher income people capture the vast majority of benefits.
            Vertical
            > equity should be concerned primarily with how revenues are used: if
            they
            > are used to provide services used by lower income people (such as
            transit
            > improvements) or to offset other equally regressive taxes, they can
            be
            > progressive overall, even if the fee is directly regressive.
            >
            > Improving transit services on busy corridors benefits both the
            people who
            > use transit, and motorists, who experience less congestion. The
            better the
            > transit service, the lower the toll needed to reduce automobile
            travel
            > demand to optimal volumes.
            >
            > Legitimate vertical equity concerns can easily be addressed by
            insuring
            > good travel options and providing targeted discounts and exemptions
            for
            > disadvantaged groups. For example, each resident could receive a
            limited
            > number of free road use credits each year that they can use for
            essential
            > trips or sell to others.
            >
            > For more discussion see my paper "Using Road Pricing Revenue:
            Economic
            > Efficiency and Equity Considerations" (http://www.vtpi.org/revenue.
            pdf) and
            > other analyses of road pricing requity.
            >
            >
            > Best wishes,
            > -Todd Litman
            >
            >
            > At 03:05 PM 5/16/2005 +0100, Wetzel Dave wrote:
            > >Erel,
            > >The effect on poor travellers was a major consideration before we
            > introduced
            > >the congestion charge in London.
            > >
            > >With the exception of a few examples (high-lighted in the press) -
            most
            > >"poor" travellers in London were walking, cycling or using buses.
            > >
            > >The Mayor has helped all families by providing free bus travel to
            children
            > >up to the age of 11 years (16 from September this year).
            > >The congestion charge is one of over 30 new policies that the
            Mayor
            has
            > >introduced to improve bus travel.
            > >Hence, "poor" travellers (and increasingly city suites) now enjoy
            a
            more
            > >reliable bus service with much-improved information, shorter
            journey times,
            > >improved frequencies, extended operating hours and they travel on
            newer
            > more
            > >accessible buses.
            > >
            > >We have achieved a 4% modal shift from car and bus trips are up
            40%
            since
            > >the Mayor was elected 5 years ago!
            > >
            > >Dave
            > >Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London.
            > >
            > >
            > >-----Original Message-----
            > >From: Erel.Avineri@u... [mailto:Erel.Avineri@u...]
            > >Sent: 13 May 2005 15:24
            > >To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
            > >Cc: Erel.Avineri@u...
            > >Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] PRIORITIES - paying your way
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >Road pricing has its disadvantages as well, and may not be applied
            > >everywhere. For example, one of the issues that should not be
            neglected
            > >is to base policy of road pricing on equity grounds. Travellers
            with low
            > >income may not be able to afford the same travel lifestyles that
            are
            > >afforded by the rich, and this may lead (as it already had many
            times
            > >before) to social exclusion.
            > >
            > >Dr Erel Avineri
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.