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

Times Article on Congestion Charging in NYC

Expand Messages
  • Matthew Sholler
    New York Times November 11, 2005 Driving in Manhattan? You Pay, Under One Idea By SEWELL CHAN It is an idea that has been successful in London, and is now
    Message 1 of 11 , Nov 11, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      New York Times
      November 11, 2005

      Driving in Manhattan? You Pay, Under One Idea

      By SEWELL CHAN

      It is an idea that has been successful in London, and is now being whispered
      in the ears of City Hall officials after months of behind-the-scenes work by
      the Partnership for New York City, the city's major business association:
      congestion pricing.

      The idea is to charge drivers for entering the most heavily trafficked parts
      of Manhattan at the busiest times of the day. By creating a financial
      incentive to carpool or use mass transit, congestion pricing could smooth
      the flow of traffic, reduce delays, improve air quality and raise the speed
      of crawling buses.

      To be sure, it is far from being a reality, or even a complete proposal -
      when pressed, the mayor's spokesman said it was not on his second-term
      agenda. Yet the Partnership's work suggests a plan that, if carried out,
      could profoundly alter the way New Yorkers and those visiting the city use
      their cars.

      Congestion pricing is the focus of a nine-month study by the Partnership, a
      group with great influence at City Hall, and participants have provided the
      first rough outlines of how such a plan might work.

      The 840,000 cars that enter Manhattan south of 60th Street on an average
      weekday could be subject to a $7 charge during peak hours. Vehicles starting
      and ending their trips within that zone might pay a $4 charge. Several
      roadways would remain free, like the West Side Highway and the Franklin D.
      Roosevelt Drive on the East Side, according to people with knowledge of the
      study.

      Drivers could be required to prepay traffic fees, either online or at
      street-level vending machines. Video cameras would capture license plates of
      vehicles in the payment zones, and allow the city to match cars to accounts,
      people familiar with the study said. Failure to pay would result in a fine.
      No toll barriers would be involved.

      Raising money would not be the main goal - although millions of dollars
      could be collected and funneled into subways, buses, commuter trains and
      bridges. The video cameras would be at street intersections, and tolls would
      not be charged on the East River bridges - a prospect that doomed previous
      proposals, including one Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg advanced in 2002.

      City officials acknowledged that Mr. Bloomberg had always been interested in
      some type of congestion-pricing model, but had said that he considered tolls
      on the East River bridges politically daunting. And while officials said
      some sort of business-district traffic charges could conceivably be
      workable, they would have to seriously consider what sort of political fight
      that would bring. They stressed that congestion pricing was a battle Mr.
      Bloomberg would not wage if it distracted from his other priorities, like
      education and crime reduction.

      "Although we're always open to ideas from the business community, this isn't
      on the mayor's second-term agenda," said Edward Skyler, a spokesman for the
      mayor.

      Even so, several administration officials have discussed the plan with the
      partnership, and Michael Primeggia, the deputy commissioner for traffic at
      the city's Transportation Department, has said publicly that congestion
      pricing should be considered. The Partnership intends to complete its study
      by the end of the year and to present it to the administration, which the
      business group hopes will do its own study.

      In London, where congestion pricing began in February 2003 after a year of
      planning, traffic has been reduced by a third and some bus lines are moving
      twice as fast. Officials are so satisfied that they intend to nearly double
      the size of the congestion-pricing zone in 2007. One thing seems certain:
      New York would not charge nearly as much as the $14 it takes to drive into
      London's financial district during the day.

      "Is there an opportunity to create a congestion-relief zone that would help
      this global city?" asked Ernest Tollerson, a senior vice president at the
      Partnership. "This is a city that wants to add tens of thousands of jobs,
      but we can't continue to build streets and roads. For the long-term growth
      of the city, we need demand-management tools."

      Mr. Tollerson oversees a working group that includes five engineering and
      construction firms, Parsons Brinckerhoff, STV Group, Washington Group
      International, Siemens and D M J M Harris; a consulting firm, Booz Allen &
      Hamilton; and two prominent advocacy groups, Environmental Defense and the
      Natural Resources Defense Council.

      The team has met about once a month since April, and technical analysts have
      been going through reams of authoritative traffic data from the New York
      Metropolitan Transportation Council, an intergovernmental body that measures
      traffic for air-quality and planning purposes.

      Andrew H. Darrell, the New York regional director at Environmental Defense,
      said that 80 percent of the cancer-causing substances inhaled by New York
      City residents comes from tailpipe emissions. "Most people think of traffic
      congestion in the same way they think about lousy weather - it's too bad but
      you can't do much about it," he said. "There is no other tool out there as
      effective as congestion pricing for cutting traffic congestion in a big city
      like New York."

      In London, he said, congestion pricing led to a 20 percent reduction in
      carbon dioxide emissions and a 12 percent cut in emissions of harmful
      particulates and nitrogen oxides, the main components in smog.

      Walter B. Hook, executive director of the Institute for Transportation and
      Development Policy, which works to reduce automobile dependence worldwide,
      said congestion pricing was still a fairly new idea. "For a long time people
      thought it was political suicide to implement congestion charging," he said.
      Singapore, Oslo and Riga, the capital of Latvia, have all experimented with
      charging for driving in town.

      The most extensive congestion pricing plan, in London, was pushed by an
      activist (and populist) mayor, Ken Livingstone, and overseen by a transport
      commissioner, Robert R. Kiley, who happens to be a former president of the
      Partnership for New York City and a former chairman of the Metropolitan
      Transportation Authority. Mr. Kiley has urged other cities to consider the
      London model.

      Under the plan, drivers are charged a daylong flat fee of £8 ($14) to enter
      the so-called congestion zone, an eight-square-mile area around London's
      financial district.

      Officials ruled out using "smart cards," similar to the E-ZPass toll-payment
      devices used on many bridges and tunnels on the East Coast, as cumbersome.
      Instead, 700 video cameras capture multiple images of license plates of cars
      that drive through the zone between 7 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., except on weekends
      and holidays. Computers process the images, matching the license plates
      photographed against a database of drivers who have paid their congestion
      fees.

      Drivers pay in advance, online, over the telephone or at machines at stores
      across London. Failure to pay by 10 p.m. on the day of the trip results in
      higher fees or fines up to £150 ($261). Disabled drivers and residents of
      the congestion zone are exempt, as are cars that have 9 or more seats or run
      on electricity or natural gas.

      The Federal Highway Administration is spending $59 million through 2009 to
      study congestion pricing. San Francisco is exploring how a plan like
      London's could be adopted. "The focus would be on where we have the most
      serious and chronic congestion," said Tilly Chang, deputy director for
      planning at the San Francisco Country Transportation Authority.

      She, too, said the program might rely on easy-to-install cameras rather than
      transponders, the term for toll-payment devices like E-ZPass or FasTrak,
      which is used on the Bay Bridge. "The benefit of using cameras is that they
      can roll out quickly," she said. "You don't need transponders."

      There is some precedent locally for congestion pricing. In January 2001, the
      Port Authority of New York and New Jersey authorized higher tolls during
      peak hours on its Hudson River crossings, including the George Washington
      Bridge and the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels.

      Congestion pricing in New York City would probably require approval of the
      City Council and the State Legislature, and skeptics are already grumbling.

      "What's good for London is not necessarily good for New York City," said
      Councilman David I. Weprin, a Queens Democrat who led opposition to tolls on
      East River bridges. But he said he would keep an open mind to a
      Manhattan-centered plan that did not unfairly burden residents of the other
      boroughs. "I'd have to look at it, but my gut reaction is it would be a
      nuisance tax," he said.

      Carolyn Marshall and Jim Rutenberg contributed reporting for this article.


      Matthew Sholler
      Director of Development and Communications
      Institute for Transportation and Development Policy
      127 West 26th Street, Suite 1002
      New York, NY 10001 USA
      Tel. (212) 629-8001
      Fax (212) 629-8033

      Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation worldwide

      Visit http://www.itdp.org
    • On Behalf Of Brendan Finn
      On Behalf Of Brendan Finn Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 9:22 AM I have been working in the domain of rural transport and demand-responsive transport for the
      Message 2 of 11 , Nov 11, 2005
      • 0 Attachment

        On Behalf Of Brendan Finn
        Sent:
        Friday, November 11, 2005 9:22 AM

        I have been working in the domain of rural transport and demand-responsive transport for the last 10 years, in a mix of collaborative EU research and demonstration projects, and in local projects in Ireland. Over that period of time we have built up a certain store of knowledge about the users, challenges, needs, solutions, organisational structures, technologies etc. This covers rural, periurban and urban environments, and takes into account also users with special needs.

         

        I don't presume that either the challenges or the solutions in European rural areas are directly transferable to African or Asian environments. I don't presume either that they have nothing in common. After all, we are usually dealing with target people who do not have access to a personal car, have limited or no passenger transport services available, and face many economic, social and personal factors which impact on their quality of life.

         

        Either through this forum or off-line, I would be interested to exchange some knowledge on users, the challenges they face, their needs, and barriers to implementation of solutions which have visible potential. This would allow us to see the extent of convergence or divergence among the rural communities in Europe, Africa and Asia. When that is established, we could see whether there are environments where existing solutions and experience are transferable.

         

        For information, one of the European projects called CONNECT has a Knowledge Library dealing with Flexible Transport, with either access to or reviews of about 250 reference works. You will find it at www.flexibletransport.com   If anyone wants to add documents or reviews to the Library, please let me know.

         

        With best wishes,

         

         

        Brendan Finn.

        _____________________________________________________________________________________
        From Brendan Finn, ETTS Ltd.   e-mail : etts@...   tel : +353.87.2530286

        ----- Original Message -----

        Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 8:52 AM

        Subject: [sustran] Re: Bamako Transport meeting

         

        Dear Geoff

         

        IFRTD has done some work on Rural Transport Services. I’m copying this to Peter Njenga , who would be in a position to provide you with some information.

         

        Regards.

         

        Ranjith

         

        -----Original Message-----
        From: sustran-discuss-bounces+ranjithsd=sltnet.lk@... [mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+ranjithsd=sltnet.lk@...] On Behalf Of Eric Britton
        Sent:
        Wednesday, November 09, 2005 9:42 PM
        To: Sustran-discuss@...
        Cc: edmondsg@...
        Subject: [sustran] Bamako Transport meeting

         

        -----Original Message-----
        From: Geoff Edmonds [mailto:Edmondsg@...]
        Sent:
        Tuesday, November 08, 2005 6:15 PM
        To: Gender and Transport
        Cc: Chris Donnges
        Subject: [gatnet] Re: Bamako Transport meeting

         

        Dear Paul,

         

        Like you I have been a silent participant.

         

        What you have been doing on rural tranpsort services would be very interesting for us especially in relation to the part of our programme dealing with local level planning and the application of the Integrated Rural Acessibility Planning tool.

         

        Whilst rural transport services are not necessarily a major problem in the Asian region there is still a prevailing attitude that if a rural access is provided the transport services will automatically follow and this is clearly not the case. As part of our work in Nepal with a World Bank rural access and infrastructure project we will be conducting a study of rural transport services. There is also some work recently completed work in Vietnam by the ADB on the same subject.

         

        If it is available, we would appreciate seeing a copy of your study report.

         

        Best regards,

         

        Geoff 

         

         

         

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

         

        Geoff Edmonds

        Programme Coordinator

        ILO/ASIST-Asia Pacific

        P.O. Box 2-349

        Bangkok 10200

        Thailand

        Tel: (66 2) 288 2303

        Fax: (66 2) 288 1062

        email: edmondsg@...

         

        >>> paulstarkey@... 08/11/2005 21:24:56 >>>

        Dear Mamoeketsi, Mary and GATNET colleagues

         

        I have been following GATNET discussions since they

        first started, although I am generally a silent participant.

         

        People have been talking about the forthcoming SSATP

        meeting in Bamako . At this, I will be presenting, with members

        of a small team contracted to ITC, the results of an

        SSATP-commissioned study to develop and test a methodology

        for rapidly assessing rural transport services in an a rural area

        (region or province). In the participative methodology we have

        developed, we have tried to ensure that gender and transport issues

        are assessed in relation to existing and potential motorised and

        non-motorised transport services. The methodology includes gathering

        the views of a wide range of transport users (women and men),

        operators and regulatory authorities. The methodology has been

        based on the observed a hierarchies of hub-and-spoke transport

        systems (village, market town and regional hubs) with survey sampling

        related to the remoteness of towns and villages. In all user categories,

        at least two out of five informants should be women (with women

        transport operators interviewed where this is appropriate).

         

        Testing the methodology in selected regions of Burkina Faso ,

        Cameroon , Tanzania and Zambia has yielded some fascinating

        new insights relating to existing rural transport services, and has

        highlighted some important gender-related transport issues.

         

        I hope that GATNET members who are participating in the Bamako

        meeting will be free to come to the presentation on Rural Transport

        Services (on Tuesday 15 Nov, I believe) and contribute to the discussions.

         

        I look forward to seeing people there.

        With good wishes to all

        Paul

         

          Paul Starkey

          Team Leader, Rural Transport Services Study

          Mail: Oxgate, 64 Northcourt Avenue, Reading RG2 7HQ , UK

          Tel:  0118-987 2152          Fax: + 44 (0)118-931 4525

          Email: p.h.starkey@... or paulstarkey@...

          Website: http://www.animaltraction.com

         

         

      • ann_hackett
        Could the desired effects of congestion pricing be achieved through shared taxis, eliminated on-street parking and dedicated bicycle lanes? Ann Hackett ...
        Message 3 of 11 , Nov 13, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Could the desired effects of congestion pricing be achieved through
          shared taxis, eliminated on-street parking and dedicated bicycle
          lanes?

          Ann Hackett



          --- In NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew Sholler"
          <msholler@i...> wrote:
          >
          > New York Times
          > November 11, 2005
          >
          > Driving in Manhattan? You Pay, Under One Idea
          >
          > By SEWELL CHAN
          >
          > It is an idea that has been successful in London, and is now being
          whispered
          > in the ears of City Hall officials after months of behind-the-
          scenes work by
          > the Partnership for New York City, the city's major business
          association:
          > congestion pricing.
          >
          > The idea is to charge drivers for entering the most heavily
          trafficked parts
          > of Manhattan at the busiest times of the day. By creating a
          financial
          > incentive to carpool or use mass transit, congestion pricing could
          smooth
          > the flow of traffic, reduce delays, improve air quality and raise
          the speed
          > of crawling buses.
          >
          > To be sure, it is far from being a reality, or even a complete
          proposal -
          > when pressed, the mayor's spokesman said it was not on his second-
          term
          > agenda. Yet the Partnership's work suggests a plan that, if carried
          out,
          > could profoundly alter the way New Yorkers and those visiting the
          city use
          > their cars.
          >
          > Congestion pricing is the focus of a nine-month study by the
          Partnership, a
          > group with great influence at City Hall, and participants have
          provided the
          > first rough outlines of how such a plan might work.
          >
          > The 840,000 cars that enter Manhattan south of 60th Street on an
          average
          > weekday could be subject to a $7 charge during peak hours. Vehicles
          starting
          > and ending their trips within that zone might pay a $4 charge.
          Several
          > roadways would remain free, like the West Side Highway and the
          Franklin D.
          > Roosevelt Drive on the East Side, according to people with
          knowledge of the
          > study.
          >
          > Drivers could be required to prepay traffic fees, either online or
          at
          > street-level vending machines. Video cameras would capture license
          plates of
          > vehicles in the payment zones, and allow the city to match cars to
          accounts,
          > people familiar with the study said. Failure to pay would result in
          a fine.
          > No toll barriers would be involved.
          >
          > Raising money would not be the main goal - although millions of
          dollars
          > could be collected and funneled into subways, buses, commuter
          trains and
          > bridges. The video cameras would be at street intersections, and
          tolls would
          > not be charged on the East River bridges - a prospect that doomed
          previous
          > proposals, including one Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg advanced in
          2002.
          >
          > City officials acknowledged that Mr. Bloomberg had always been
          interested in
          > some type of congestion-pricing model, but had said that he
          considered tolls
          > on the East River bridges politically daunting. And while officials
          said
          > some sort of business-district traffic charges could conceivably be
          > workable, they would have to seriously consider what sort of
          political fight
          > that would bring. They stressed that congestion pricing was a
          battle Mr.
          > Bloomberg would not wage if it distracted from his other
          priorities, like
          > education and crime reduction.
          >
          > "Although we're always open to ideas from the business community,
          this isn't
          > on the mayor's second-term agenda," said Edward Skyler, a spokesman
          for the
          > mayor.
          >
          > Even so, several administration officials have discussed the plan
          with the
          > partnership, and Michael Primeggia, the deputy commissioner for
          traffic at
          > the city's Transportation Department, has said publicly that
          congestion
          > pricing should be considered. The Partnership intends to complete
          its study
          > by the end of the year and to present it to the administration,
          which the
          > business group hopes will do its own study.
          >
          > In London, where congestion pricing began in February 2003 after a
          year of
          > planning, traffic has been reduced by a third and some bus lines
          are moving
          > twice as fast. Officials are so satisfied that they intend to
          nearly double
          > the size of the congestion-pricing zone in 2007. One thing seems
          certain:
          > New York would not charge nearly as much as the $14 it takes to
          drive into
          > London's financial district during the day.
          >
          > "Is there an opportunity to create a congestion-relief zone that
          would help
          > this global city?" asked Ernest Tollerson, a senior vice president
          at the
          > Partnership. "This is a city that wants to add tens of thousands of
          jobs,
          > but we can't continue to build streets and roads. For the long-term
          growth
          > of the city, we need demand-management tools."
          >
          > Mr. Tollerson oversees a working group that includes five
          engineering and
          > construction firms, Parsons Brinckerhoff, STV Group, Washington
          Group
          > International, Siemens and D M J M Harris; a consulting firm, Booz
          Allen &
          > Hamilton; and two prominent advocacy groups, Environmental Defense
          and the
          > Natural Resources Defense Council.
          >
          > The team has met about once a month since April, and technical
          analysts have
          > been going through reams of authoritative traffic data from the New
          York
          > Metropolitan Transportation Council, an intergovernmental body that
          measures
          > traffic for air-quality and planning purposes.
          >
          > Andrew H. Darrell, the New York regional director at Environmental
          Defense,
          > said that 80 percent of the cancer-causing substances inhaled by
          New York
          > City residents comes from tailpipe emissions. "Most people think of
          traffic
          > congestion in the same way they think about lousy weather - it's
          too bad but
          > you can't do much about it," he said. "There is no other tool out
          there as
          > effective as congestion pricing for cutting traffic congestion in a
          big city
          > like New York."
          >
          > In London, he said, congestion pricing led to a 20 percent
          reduction in
          > carbon dioxide emissions and a 12 percent cut in emissions of
          harmful
          > particulates and nitrogen oxides, the main components in smog.
          >
          > Walter B. Hook, executive director of the Institute for
          Transportation and
          > Development Policy, which works to reduce automobile dependence
          worldwide,
          > said congestion pricing was still a fairly new idea. "For a long
          time people
          > thought it was political suicide to implement congestion charging,"
          he said.
          > Singapore, Oslo and Riga, the capital of Latvia, have all
          experimented with
          > charging for driving in town.
          >
          > The most extensive congestion pricing plan, in London, was pushed
          by an
          > activist (and populist) mayor, Ken Livingstone, and overseen by a
          transport
          > commissioner, Robert R. Kiley, who happens to be a former president
          of the
          > Partnership for New York City and a former chairman of the
          Metropolitan
          > Transportation Authority. Mr. Kiley has urged other cities to
          consider the
          > London model.
          >
          > Under the plan, drivers are charged a daylong flat fee of £8 ($14)
          to enter
          > the so-called congestion zone, an eight-square-mile area around
          London's
          > financial district.
          >
          > Officials ruled out using "smart cards," similar to the E-ZPass
          toll-payment
          > devices used on many bridges and tunnels on the East Coast, as
          cumbersome.
          > Instead, 700 video cameras capture multiple images of license
          plates of cars
          > that drive through the zone between 7 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., except on
          weekends
          > and holidays. Computers process the images, matching the license
          plates
          > photographed against a database of drivers who have paid their
          congestion
          > fees.
          >
          > Drivers pay in advance, online, over the telephone or at machines
          at stores
          > across London. Failure to pay by 10 p.m. on the day of the trip
          results in
          > higher fees or fines up to £150 ($261). Disabled drivers and
          residents of
          > the congestion zone are exempt, as are cars that have 9 or more
          seats or run
          > on electricity or natural gas.
          >
          > The Federal Highway Administration is spending $59 million through
          2009 to
          > study congestion pricing. San Francisco is exploring how a plan like
          > London's could be adopted. "The focus would be on where we have the
          most
          > serious and chronic congestion," said Tilly Chang, deputy director
          for
          > planning at the San Francisco Country Transportation Authority.
          >
          > She, too, said the program might rely on easy-to-install cameras
          rather than
          > transponders, the term for toll-payment devices like E-ZPass or
          FasTrak,
          > which is used on the Bay Bridge. "The benefit of using cameras is
          that they
          > can roll out quickly," she said. "You don't need transponders."
          >
          > There is some precedent locally for congestion pricing. In January
          2001, the
          > Port Authority of New York and New Jersey authorized higher tolls
          during
          > peak hours on its Hudson River crossings, including the George
          Washington
          > Bridge and the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels.
          >
          > Congestion pricing in New York City would probably require approval
          of the
          > City Council and the State Legislature, and skeptics are already
          grumbling.
          >
          > "What's good for London is not necessarily good for New York City,"
          said
          > Councilman David I. Weprin, a Queens Democrat who led opposition to
          tolls on
          > East River bridges. But he said he would keep an open mind to a
          > Manhattan-centered plan that did not unfairly burden residents of
          the other
          > boroughs. "I'd have to look at it, but my gut reaction is it would
          be a
          > nuisance tax," he said.
          >
          > Carolyn Marshall and Jim Rutenberg contributed reporting for this
          article.
          >
          >
          > Matthew Sholler
          > Director of Development and Communications
          > Institute for Transportation and Development Policy
          > 127 West 26th Street, Suite 1002
          > New York, NY 10001 USA
          > Tel. (212) 629-8001
          > Fax (212) 629-8033
          >
          > Promoting environmentally sustainable and equitable transportation
          worldwide
          >
          > Visit http://www.itdp.org
          >
        • Anzir Boodoo
          Ann, ... It would be interesting to see if that would work. My own feeling is that eliminating on street or public parking is a major deterrent to car use, and
          Message 4 of 11 , Nov 14, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Ann,
            On 13 Nov 2005, at 23:31, ann_hackett wrote:

            > Could the desired effects of congestion pricing be achieved through
            > shared taxis, eliminated on-street parking and dedicated bicycle
            > lanes?

            It would be interesting to see if that would work. My own feeling is
            that eliminating on street or public parking is a major deterrent to
            car use, and there is evidence that people choose not to drive
            because they cannot park.

            However, this policy would do nothing to stop people driving in and
            parking in private car parks (including office and workplace car parks).

            What do we know about shared taxis in Europe/North America?

            --
            Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
            transcience, Leeds Innovation Centre, 103 Clarendon Road, LEEDS LS2 9DF
          • Wetzel Dave
            The Labour Govt in the UK has given local authorities powers to tax workplace car parking spaces, but to date no Council has used this power. Dave Dave Wetzel;
            Message 5 of 11 , Nov 14, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              The Labour Govt in the UK has given local authorities powers to tax
              workplace car parking spaces, but to date no Council has used this power.


              Dave
              Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London.



              -----Original Message-----
              From: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
              [mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Anzir Boodoo
              Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 10:27 AM
              To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Re: Times Article on Congestion Charging in
              NYC



              Ann,
              On 13 Nov 2005, at 23:31, ann_hackett wrote:

              > Could the desired effects of congestion pricing be achieved through
              > shared taxis, eliminated on-street parking and dedicated bicycle
              > lanes?

              It would be interesting to see if that would work. My own feeling is
              that eliminating on street or public parking is a major deterrent to
              car use, and there is evidence that people choose not to drive
              because they cannot park.

              However, this policy would do nothing to stop people driving in and
              parking in private car parks (including office and workplace car parks).

              What do we know about shared taxis in Europe/North America?

              --
              Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
              transcience, Leeds Innovation Centre, 103 Clarendon Road, LEEDS LS2 9DF




              _____
            • Anzir Boodoo
              Dave, ... I think taxing spaces might have less of a deterrent effect than removing them completely, but again, this only works when a sufficient proportion of
              Message 6 of 11 , Nov 14, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Dave,
                On 14 Nov 2005, at 10:38, Wetzel Dave wrote:

                > The Labour Govt in the UK has given local authorities powers to tax
                > workplace car parking spaces, but to date no Council has used this
                > power.

                I think taxing spaces might have less of a deterrent effect than
                removing them completely, but again, this only works when a
                sufficient proportion of the spaces are in local authority control.

                Personally, I think removing on street spaces is good as an idea, but
                flawed, certainly in the UK, where in town & city centres there is
                far more parking off street. Also all workplace parking is private
                and as I understand it from what I've seen, companies are just as
                likely to pass the tax straight on to their employees as they are to
                reduce workplace parking.

                Did Nottingham decide not to implement workplace parking charges
                then? I thought they were going to be used to fund the tram.

                --
                Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
                transcience, Leeds Innovation Centre, 103 Clarendon Road, LEEDS LS2 9DF
              • Wetzel Dave
                I agree - but taxing gives developers, employees and employers a choice. Developers could make more money by avoiding car parking in new developments and add
                Message 7 of 11 , Nov 14, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  I agree - but taxing gives developers, employees and employers a choice.



                  Developers could make more money by avoiding car parking in new developments
                  and add to useable building space or leisure gardens etc.





                  Dave
                  Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London.



                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
                  [mailto:NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Anzir Boodoo
                  Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 4:12 PM
                  To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
                  Subject: Re: [NewMobilityCafe] Re: Times Article on Congestion Charging in
                  NYC



                  Dave,
                  On 14 Nov 2005, at 10:38, Wetzel Dave wrote:

                  > The Labour Govt in the UK has given local authorities powers to tax
                  > workplace car parking spaces, but to date no Council has used this
                  > power.

                  I think taxing spaces might have less of a deterrent effect than
                  removing them completely, but again, this only works when a
                  sufficient proportion of the spaces are in local authority control.

                  Personally, I think removing on street spaces is good as an idea, but
                  flawed, certainly in the UK, where in town & city centres there is
                  far more parking off street. Also all workplace parking is private
                  and as I understand it from what I've seen, companies are just as
                  likely to pass the tax straight on to their employees as they are to
                  reduce workplace parking.

                  Did Nottingham decide not to implement workplace parking charges
                  then? I thought they were going to be used to fund the tram.

                  --
                  Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
                  transcience, Leeds Innovation Centre, 103 Clarendon Road, LEEDS LS2 9DF
                • Stephen Plowden
                  It is important to remove (not merely tax) off-street parking, for which powers do not now exist in Britain. This was suggested by the Dept of Transport in
                  Message 8 of 11 , Nov 14, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    It is important to remove (not merely tax) off-street parking, for
                    which powers do not now exist in Britain. This was suggested by the Dept
                    of Transport in the late 1970s but at that time local authories were not
                    interested. But removing parking in central areas by itself cd make the
                    problems worse as the freed road space fills up again with traffic that
                    does not need to park. Parking combined with other measures (e.g.
                    reallocation of road space and lower speeds) is a very powerful and
                    unduly neglected restraint measure.

                    Anzir Boodoo wrote:

                    > Dave,
                    > On 14 Nov 2005, at 10:38, Wetzel Dave wrote:
                    >
                    > > The Labour Govt in the UK has given local authorities powers to tax
                    > > workplace car parking spaces, but to date no Council has used this
                    > > power.
                    >
                    > I think taxing spaces might have less of a deterrent effect than
                    > removing them completely, but again, this only works when a
                    > sufficient proportion of the spaces are in local authority control.
                    >
                    > Personally, I think removing on street spaces is good as an idea, but
                    > flawed, certainly in the UK, where in town & city centres there is
                    > far more parking off street. Also all workplace parking is private
                    > and as I understand it from what I've seen, companies are just as
                    > likely to pass the tax straight on to their employees as they are to
                    > reduce workplace parking.
                    >
                    > Did Nottingham decide not to implement workplace parking charges
                    > then? I thought they were going to be used to fund the tram.
                    >
                    > --
                    > Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
                    > transcience, Leeds Innovation Centre, 103 Clarendon Road, LEEDS LS2 9DF
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > The New Mobility Agenda is permanently at http://NewMobility.org
                    > To post messages to list: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
                    > To unsubscribe: NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    > Free group video/voice-conferencing via http://newmobilitypartners.org
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                    >
                    > * Visit your group "NewMobilityCafe
                    > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewMobilityCafe>" on the web.
                    >
                    > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                    > NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                    > <mailto:NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                    >
                    > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                    > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    >
                  • Anzir Boodoo
                    Stephen, ... I don t see how off street parking which is not local authority controlled could be removed. In most towns and cities, there is at least as much
                    Message 9 of 11 , Nov 14, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Stephen,
                      On 14 Nov 2005, at 18:16, Stephen Plowden wrote:

                      > It is important to remove (not merely tax) off-street parking, for
                      > which powers do not now exist in Britain. This was suggested by the
                      > Dept
                      > of Transport in the late 1970s but at that time local authories
                      > were not
                      > interested. But removing parking in central areas by itself cd make
                      > the
                      > problems worse as the freed road space fills up again with traffic
                      > that
                      > does not need to park. Parking combined with other measures (e.g.
                      > reallocation of road space and lower speeds) is a very powerful and
                      > unduly neglected restraint measure.

                      I don't see how off street parking which is not local authority
                      controlled could be removed. In most towns and cities, there is at
                      least as much private off street parking (eg shopping centres, retail
                      parks) as local authority controlled.

                      Once parking has been removed, and people know they cannot park, does
                      demand for central area roadspace reduce? Or do people take their
                      chances as they do in many towns and cities, and use residential
                      spaces or park on street where they can?

                      As you say, there needs to be a package of measures of which parking
                      is a part.

                      Sorry to have more questions than answers (as usual).
                      --
                      Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
                      transcience, Leeds Innovation Centre, 103 Clarendon Road, LEEDS LS2 9DF
                    • Eric Bruun
                      Stephen Not always. On-street parking can be good as a buffer between pedestrians and traffic when done right. Also, for short-term parking and pickup and
                      Message 10 of 11 , Nov 14, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Stephen

                        Not always. On-street parking can be good as a buffer between pedestrians and traffic when done right.
                        Also, for short-term parking and pickup and delivery, on-street is better. If you make it too inconvenient
                        to park for only a little while, then people will go shop in the suburbs instead.

                        Eric Bruun

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: Stephen Plowden <stephenplowden@...>
                        Sent: Nov 14, 2005 1:16 PM
                        To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] Times Article on Congestion Charging in NYC - Comment 6

                        It is important to remove (not merely tax) off-street parking, for
                        which powers do not now exist in Britain. This was suggested by the Dept
                        of Transport in the late 1970s but at that time local authories were not
                        interested. But removing parking in central areas by itself cd make the
                        problems worse as the freed road space fills up again with traffic that
                        does not need to park. Parking combined with other measures (e.g.
                        reallocation of road space and lower speeds) is a very powerful and
                        unduly neglected restraint measure.

                        Anzir Boodoo wrote:

                        > Dave,
                        > On 14 Nov 2005, at 10:38, Wetzel Dave wrote:
                        >
                        > > The Labour Govt in the UK has given local authorities powers to tax
                        > > workplace car parking spaces, but to date no Council has used this
                        > > power.
                        >
                        > I think taxing spaces might have less of a deterrent effect than
                        > removing them completely, but again, this only works when a
                        > sufficient proportion of the spaces are in local authority control.
                        >
                        > Personally, I think removing on street spaces is good as an idea, but
                        > flawed, certainly in the UK, where in town & city centres there is
                        > far more parking off street. Also all workplace parking is private
                        > and as I understand it from what I've seen, companies are just as
                        > likely to pass the tax straight on to their employees as they are to
                        > reduce workplace parking.
                        >
                        > Did Nottingham decide not to implement workplace parking charges
                        > then? I thought they were going to be used to fund the tram.
                        >
                        > --
                        > Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
                        > transcience, Leeds Innovation Centre, 103 Clarendon Road, LEEDS LS2 9DF
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > The New Mobility Agenda is permanently at http://NewMobility.org
                        > To post messages to list: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
                        > To unsubscribe: NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        > Free group video/voice-conferencing via http://newmobilitypartners.org
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                        >
                        > * Visit your group "NewMobilityCafe
                        > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewMobilityCafe>" on the web.
                        >
                        > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        > <mailto:NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                        >
                        > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                        > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
                        >
                        >
                        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        >





                        The New Mobility Agenda is permanently at http://NewMobility.org
                        To post messages to list: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
                        To unsubscribe: NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                        Free group video/voice-conferencing via http://newmobilitypartners.org



                        Yahoo! Groups Links
                      • Stephen Plowden
                        Eric I think we are in agreement. Off-street parking is often only available to restricted classes of people, whose access to it is usually unrelated to any
                        Message 11 of 11 , Nov 14, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Eric

                          I think we are in agreement. Off-street parking is often only available
                          to restricted classes of people, whose access to it is usually
                          unrelated to any transport need and is often free. In my view, certainly
                          here in London, the priority shd be to it get rid of it rather than to
                          get rid of on-street parking, although in the course of time, depending
                          on how things go, it might be desirable to make further cuts in
                          on-street parking too. (A lot of on-street parking was cut in the
                          1970s but in the absence of accompanying measures such as bus or cycle
                          lanes the reduction in centre-bound traffic was compensated by an
                          increase in through traffic..)

                          To answer Anzir's point, the control of off-street parking not owned by
                          the local authority will require more powers, and that will require
                          legislation. There are two main kinds of off-street parking.. The first
                          is odd scraps of land which were never originally intended for parking
                          but are now used for it. The present rule in England is that if such
                          land has been used for this purpose for more than 10 years it escapes
                          the requirement of planning permission. That needs to be changed.. The
                          other is purpose-built spaces, e.g under office blocks. In London until
                          about 1970 developers were forced to provide these spaces because
                          planners naively believed that it wd reduce the demand for on-street
                          parking. Everyone agrees that this was a mistake, and it is a mistake
                          that has has profoundly affected travel patterns for the worse, but
                          nevertheless no one has tried to correct it (except in sofar as when
                          those buildings are pulled down their replacements are not allowed the
                          same amount of parking.) Local authorities should have powers to insist
                          that the land be put to other uses. Compensation would have to be paid,
                          but perhaps not much as one might think, because this is valuable space
                          which might earn a lot in other uses. We need a study to see what the
                          other uses might be and what the costs of conversion wd be (Dave Wetzel,
                          please note)



                          Eric Bruun wrote:

                          > Stephen
                          >
                          > Not always. On-street parking can be good as a buffer between
                          > pedestrians and traffic when done right.
                          > Also, for short-term parking and pickup and delivery, on-street is
                          > better. If you make it too inconvenient
                          > to park for only a little while, then people will go shop in the
                          > suburbs instead.
                          >
                          > Eric Bruun
                          >
                          > -----Original Message-----
                          > From: Stephen Plowden <stephenplowden@...>
                          > Sent: Nov 14, 2005 1:16 PM
                          > To: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
                          > Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] Times Article on Congestion Charging in NYC
                          > - Comment 6
                          >
                          > It is important to remove (not merely tax) off-street parking, for
                          > which powers do not now exist in Britain. This was suggested by the Dept
                          > of Transport in the late 1970s but at that time local authories were not
                          > interested. But removing parking in central areas by itself cd make the
                          > problems worse as the freed road space fills up again with traffic that
                          > does not need to park. Parking combined with other measures (e.g.
                          > reallocation of road space and lower speeds) is a very powerful and
                          > unduly neglected restraint measure.
                          >
                          > Anzir Boodoo wrote:
                          >
                          > > Dave,
                          > > On 14 Nov 2005, at 10:38, Wetzel Dave wrote:
                          > >
                          > > > The Labour Govt in the UK has given local authorities powers to tax
                          > > > workplace car parking spaces, but to date no Council has used this
                          > > > power.
                          > >
                          > > I think taxing spaces might have less of a deterrent effect than
                          > > removing them completely, but again, this only works when a
                          > > sufficient proportion of the spaces are in local authority control.
                          > >
                          > > Personally, I think removing on street spaces is good as an idea, but
                          > > flawed, certainly in the UK, where in town & city centres there is
                          > > far more parking off street. Also all workplace parking is private
                          > > and as I understand it from what I've seen, companies are just as
                          > > likely to pass the tax straight on to their employees as they are to
                          > > reduce workplace parking.
                          > >
                          > > Did Nottingham decide not to implement workplace parking charges
                          > > then? I thought they were going to be used to fund the tram.
                          > >
                          > > --
                          > > Anzir Boodoo MRes MILT Aff. IRO
                          > > transcience, Leeds Innovation Centre, 103 Clarendon Road, LEEDS LS2 9DF
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > The New Mobility Agenda is permanently at http://NewMobility.org
                          > > To post messages to list: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
                          > > To unsubscribe: NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > > Free group video/voice-conferencing via http://newmobilitypartners.org
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                          > >
                          > > * Visit your group "NewMobilityCafe
                          > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewMobilityCafe>" on the web.
                          > >
                          > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          > > NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > >
                          > <mailto:NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                          > >
                          > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                          > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          > >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > The New Mobility Agenda is permanently at http://NewMobility.org
                          > To post messages to list: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
                          > To unsubscribe: NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > Free group video/voice-conferencing via http://newmobilitypartners.org
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > The New Mobility Agenda is permanently at http://NewMobility.org
                          > To post messages to list: NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com
                          > To unsubscribe: NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > Free group video/voice-conferencing via http://newmobilitypartners.org
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                          >
                          > * Visit your group "NewMobilityCafe
                          > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewMobilityCafe>" on the web.
                          >
                          > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          > NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > <mailto:NewMobilityCafe-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                          >
                          > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                          > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
                          >
                          >
                          > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          >
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.