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

Re: Times Article on Congestion Charging in NYC

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 11 , Nov 13, 2005
      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 2 of 11 , Nov 14, 2005
        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 3 of 11 , Nov 14, 2005
          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 4 of 11 , Nov 14, 2005
            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 5 of 11 , Nov 14, 2005
              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 6 of 11 , Nov 14, 2005
                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 7 of 11 , Nov 14, 2005
                  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 8 of 11 , Nov 14, 2005
                    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 9 of 11 , Nov 14, 2005
                      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.