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

Re: [WorldTransport Forum] environment award

Expand Messages
  • Jan Gehl
    DEAR K TSOURLAKIS PLEASE BE INFORMED THAT AS PART OF THE LONDON CONGESTION CHARGE PROJECT, THE 20 % REDUCTION IN TRAFFIC VOLUME ACHIEVED IS GOING TO BE USED TO
    Message 1 of 9 , Mar 30, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      DEAR K TSOURLAKIS
      PLEASE BE INFORMED THAT AS PART OF THE LONDON CONGESTION CHARGE
      PROJECT, THE 20 % REDUCTION IN TRAFFIC VOLUME ACHIEVED IS GOING TO BE
      USED TO IMPROVE CONDITIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS IN
      LONDON.(WHO ARE PRESENTLY BEING REALLY BADLY TREATED)
      THE IMPROVEMENT PLAN "TOWARDS A FINE CITY FOR PEOPLE" MADE BY
      GEHL-ARCHITECTS-URBAN QUALITY CONSULTANTS IN COPENHAGEN WILL BE
      LAUNCHED JUST AFTER THE MAYORAL ELECTION 10 JUNE 2004.
      Warm greetings from
      sincerely yours

      Jan Gehl
      Professor of Urban Design
      Copenhagen
      Denmark


      Den 29/3-2004, kl. 23.18, skrev K Tsourlakis:

      > The justification for the charge (at least according to its name) is
      > not
      > that cars pollute, embarrass and kill pedestrians, and destroy the
      > city,
      > but that they congest, i.e. they embarrass other cars and deter them
      > to run
      > faster. This must also be the reason why, as far as I know,
      > motorcycles are
      > exempted from the charge. So, the message sent to the public opinion
      > seems
      > to be "pay in order to drive better and faster" and not "do not
      > drive". It
      > would be much better if its name were "pollution charge" or (even more
      > accurately) "motorised traffic damage charge" and this reason were
      > used to
      > justify it to the public opinion. High technology is not so important
      > for
      > the control of the motorised traffic, as is the determination to
      > withstand
      > pressures from organised interests and the proper informing and
      > education
      > of the general public, which will facilitate this determination. For
      > instance, bus lanes or parking restrictions could equally well (or even
      > better in some cases) serve the purpose of limiting motorised traffic.
      > I
      > think "congestion charge" is not promoted in the best way to educate
      > the
      > general public for the damages provoked by motorised traffic and the
      > huge
      > (though mostly hidden) subsidies connected with it. Finally note that
      > I am
      > not among "the two dissenters" but, although I consider it as a
      > positive
      > initiative, I am very sceptical about its importance and in any case I
      > consider it overrated.
      >
      >
      > At 02:12 ìì 26/3/2004 +0000, you wrote:
      >
      >> Replying to the two dissenters to the proposal to nominate
      >> Ken Livingstone (let's be sure to spell his name right !)
      >> et al for I agree that the Thames Gateway bridge scheme is
      >> >undesirable,
      > but I don't think the fact that we don't like
      >> everything he's doing should stop us from asking for official
      >> recognition of a step which, even if relatively small by
      >> itself, will show the way to a future where it is taken for
      >> granted that motorists don't have the automatic right to
      >> block and pollute our streets. And can the person who said
      >> that he had a better idea pass it on to this group so we can
      >> judge for ourselves ? As far as I am concerned, it's enough
      >> at this stage that he's moved where our government feared to
      >> tread and shown that the scheme can work.
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > ---------------------~-->
      > KnowledgeStorm has over 22,000 B2B technology solutions. The most
      > comprehensive
      > IT buyers' information available. Research, compare, decide.
      > E-Commerce | Application Dev | Accounting-Finance | Healthcare |
      > Project Mgt |
      > Sales-Marketing | More
      > http://us.click.yahoo.com/IMai8D/UYQGAA/cIoLAA/2GfwlB/TM
      > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      > ~->
      >
      > The Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice
      > Consult at: http://wTransport.org
      > To post message to group: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
      > To subscribe: WorldTransport-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > To unsubscribe: WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      Jan Gehl, Arkitekt.m.a.a., Professor, Dr.Litt.,
      Damstien 27
      Dk 2720, Vanløse
      Denmark

      Home: +45 38 71 31 12
      Office: +45 32 950 951
      www.gehlarchitects.dk
    • Wetzel Dave
      Congestion is not an embarrassment as much as a real cost to residents, visitors and business alike. We did not want London to come to a standstill - already
      Message 2 of 9 , Mar 30, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Congestion is not an "embarrassment" as much as a real cost to residents,
        visitors and business alike.
        We did not want London to come to a standstill - already speeds were often
        lower than Queen Victoria could travel in a horse-drawn carriage.
        The Mayor did exempt "clean" cars on the PowerShift register. (Electric,
        hybrid, gas etc).
        Motorcycles have no front number plate in the UK and so could not be
        enforced by our cameras - hence the exemption.

        My suggestion for sceptics is to come and see for yourself. I couldn't
        believe the difference myself when my bus started to run to time, I could
        safely cross the road and it was much easier to cycle.

        Not perfect, but for London, congestion charge has been a giant step in the
        right direction.

        The lessons learnt are 1. Strong political leadership (Nobody but Ken
        Livingstone would have been able to face the press and media barrage and
        still introduce it in London), 2. A local scheme to meet local needs. Other
        cities considering this need to develop their own answers to their own
        unique problems and not just dust down the London Scheme and try to
        implement it out of context. Listen and learn from our successes and our
        mistakes but develop your own scheme. 3. A huge expansion in public
        transport, (our Mayor put over 1,000 new buses on the roads); 4. Strong
        Project management; 5. Consultation - real consultation and a readiness to
        change the scheme in the light of representations.

        Best wishes

        Dave

        Dave Wetzel
        Vice-chair,
        Transport for London
        Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street.
        London. SW1H 0TL. UK.
        Tel 020 7941 4200

        Close to New Scotland Yard.
        Buses 11,24,148,211,N11 pass the door.
        Nearest Underground - St James's Park tube station.



        -----Original Message-----
        From: K Tsourlakis [mailto:ktsou@...]
        Sent: 29 March 2004 22:19
        To: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [WorldTransport Forum] environment award


        The justification for the charge (at least according to its name) is not
        that cars pollute, embarrass and kill pedestrians, and destroy the city,
        but that they congest, i.e. they embarrass other cars and deter them to run faster. This must also be the reason why, as far as I know, motorcycles are
        exempted from the charge. So, the message sent to the public opinion seems to be "pay in order to drive better and faster" and not "do not drive". It would be much better if its name were "pollution charge" or (even more
        accurately) "motorised traffic damage charge" and this reason were used to justify it to the public opinion. High technology is not so important for the control of the motorised traffic, as is the determination to withstand pressures from organised interests and the proper informing and education of the general public, which will facilitate this determination. For
        instance, bus lanes or parking restrictions could equally well (or even
        better in some cases) serve the purpose of limiting motorised traffic. I
        think "congestion charge" is not promoted in the best way to educate the
        general public for the damages provoked by motorised traffic and the huge (though mostly hidden) subsidies connected with it. Finally note that I am not among "the two dissenters" but, although I consider it as a positive initiative, I am very sceptical about its importance and in any case I
        consider it overrated.


        At 02:12 ìì 26/3/2004 +0000, you wrote:

        >Replying to the two dissenters to the proposal to nominate
        >Ken Livingstone (let's be sure to spell his name right !)
        >et al for I agree that the Thames Gateway bridge scheme is >undesirable, but I don't think the fact that we don't like
        >everything he's doing should stop us from asking for official
        >recognition of a step which, even if relatively small by
        >itself, will show the way to a future where it is taken for
        >granted that motorists don't have the automatic right to
        >block and pollute our streets. And can the person who said
        >that he had a better idea pass it on to this group so we can
        >judge for ourselves ? As far as I am concerned, it's enough
        >at this stage that he's moved where our government feared to
        >tread and shown that the scheme can work.





        The Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice
        Consult at: http://wTransport.org
        To post message to group: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
        To subscribe: WorldTransport-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
        To unsubscribe: WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        Yahoo! Groups Links






        ***********************************************************************************
        The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.

        If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@....

        This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
        ***********************************************************************************
      • K Tsourlakis
        Yes, I am already aware of it - this has already been widely known and advertised (it would be interesting to be also known the exact schemes and projects
        Message 3 of 9 , Mar 31, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Yes, I am already aware of it - this has already been widely known and
          advertised (it would be interesting to be also known the exact schemes and
          projects financed through these resourses). And this is indeed a very good
          use for the money collected. However good treatment of pedestrians and
          bicyclists (unlike motorised traffic) does not really need large sums of
          money but the determination to slow down (or even better completely remove)
          motorised traffic and dispose the urban space to them. Does London mayor
          intends to limit space allocated for motorised traffic and turn it into
          pedestrian and bicycle space? In what extent (% of urban space)?
          BTW I don't know what you exactly mean by "BEING REALLY BADLY TREATED" but
          if you want to see a really barbarous treatment of pedestrians and
          bicyclists take a look at: http://www.pezh.gr/english/intro_en.htm
          thanks and regards
          K.Tsourlakis



          At 07:50 ìì 30/3/2004 +0200, you wrote:
          >DEAR K TSOURLAKIS
          >PLEASE BE INFORMED THAT AS PART OF THE LONDON CONGESTION CHARGE PROJECT,
          >THE 20 % REDUCTION IN TRAFFIC VOLUME ACHIEVED IS GOING TO BE USED TO
          >IMPROVE CONDITIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS IN LONDON.(WHO ARE
          >PRESENTLY BEING REALLY BADLY TREATED)
          >THE IMPROVEMENT PLAN "TOWARDS A FINE CITY FOR PEOPLE" MADE BY
          >GEHL-ARCHITECTS-URBAN QUALITY CONSULTANTS IN COPENHAGEN WILL BE LAUNCHED
          >JUST AFTER THE MAYORAL ELECTION 10 JUNE 2004.
          >Warm greetings from
          >sincerely yours
          >
          >Jan Gehl
          >Professor of Urban Design
          >Copenhagen
          >Denmark
          >
          >
          >Den 29/3-2004, kl. 23.18, skrev K Tsourlakis:
          >
          >>The justification for the charge (at least according to its name) is not
          >>that cars pollute, embarrass and kill pedestrians, and destroy the city,
          >>but that they congest, i.e. they embarrass other cars and deter them to run
          >>faster. This must also be the reason why, as far as I know, motorcycles are
          >>exempted from the charge. So, the message sent to the public opinion seems
          >>to be "pay in order to drive better and faster" and not "do not drive". It
          >>would be much better if its name were "pollution charge" or (even more
          >>accurately) "motorised traffic damage charge" and this reason were used to
          >>justify it to the public opinion. High technology is not so important for
          >>the control of the motorised traffic, as is the determination to withstand
          >>pressures from organised interests and the proper informing and education
          >>of the general public, which will facilitate this determination. For
          >>instance, bus lanes or parking restrictions could equally well (or even
          >>better in some cases) serve the purpose of limiting motorised traffic. I
          >>think "congestion charge" is not promoted in the best way to educate the
          >>general public for the damages provoked by motorised traffic and the huge
          >>(though mostly hidden) subsidies connected with it. Finally note that I am
          >>not among "the two dissenters" but, although I consider it as a positive
          >>initiative, I am very sceptical about its importance and in any case I
          >>consider it overrated.
        • Michael Yeates
          Thank you to contributors ... Can I suggest that this is a very good example of the HUGE differences in understandings in different parts of the world. Our
          Message 4 of 9 , Mar 31, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Thank you to contributors ...

            Can I suggest that this is a very good example of the HUGE differences in "understandings" in different parts of the world. Our local authority wants similar outcomes ... but believes building more roads is the answer ... and the political situation is even more interesting!

            Here in Brisbane Queensland Australia (pop 800,000), we have a most unusual situation. The Lord Mayor is elected in a separate vote to the Councillors ... a bit like the US President and London?

            However, we have a situation where the "new" Lord Mayor has promised 5 new tunnels across the city ($4b ++) and has promised to REMOVE all "bus lanes" on existing roads ... !

            He also has some good ideas ... but has a "hostile" Council ie the majority of the Councillors are from the other political party.

            This in the home of "billion dollar busways" and freeways and tunnels ... some new buses ... but no constraints on traffic growth, induced or otherwise ...!

            For more info, if interested, you could search the web for the major newspaper - The Courier-Mail

            Michael Yeates

            At 03:59 AM 31/03/2004, Wetzel Dave wrote:
            Congestion is not an "embarrassment" as much as a real cost to residents,
            visitors and business alike.
            We did not want London to come to a standstill - already speeds were often
            lower than Queen Victoria could travel in a horse-drawn carriage.
            The Mayor did exempt "clean" cars on the PowerShift register. (Electric,
            hybrid, gas etc).
            Motorcycles have no front number plate in the UK and so could not be
            enforced by our cameras - hence the exemption.

            My suggestion for sceptics is to come and see for yourself. I couldn't
            believe the difference myself when my bus started to run to time, I could
            safely cross the road and it was much easier to cycle.

            Not perfect, but for London, congestion charge has been a giant step in the
            right direction.

            The lessons learnt are 1. Strong political leadership (Nobody but Ken
            Livingstone would have been able to face the press and media barrage and
            still introduce it in London), 2. A local scheme to meet local needs. Other
            cities considering this need to develop their own answers to their own
            unique problems and not just dust down the London Scheme and try to
            implement it out of context. Listen and learn from our successes and our
            mistakes but develop your own scheme. 3. A huge expansion in public
            transport, (our Mayor put over 1,000 new buses on the roads); 4. Strong
            Project management; 5. Consultation - real consultation and a readiness to
            change the scheme in the light of representations.

            Best wishes

            Dave

            Dave Wetzel
            Vice-chair,
            Transport for London
            Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street.
            London. SW1H 0TL. UK.
            Tel 020 7941 4200

            Close to New Scotland Yard.
            Buses 11,24,148,211,N11 pass the door.
            Nearest Underground - St James's Park tube station.



            -----Original Message-----
            From: K Tsourlakis [mailto:ktsou@...]
            Sent: 29 March 2004 22:19
            To: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: Re: [WorldTransport Forum] environment award


            The justification for the charge (at least according to its name) is not
            that cars pollute, embarrass and kill pedestrians, and destroy the city,
            but that they congest, i.e. they embarrass other cars and deter them to run faster. This must also be the reason why, as far as I know, motorcycles are
            exempted from the charge. So, the message sent to the public opinion seems to be "pay in order to drive better and faster" and not "do not drive". It would be much better if its name were "pollution charge" or (even more
            accurately) "motorised traffic damage charge" and this reason were used to justify it to the public opinion. High technology is not so important for the control of the motorised traffic, as is the determination to withstand pressures from organised interests and the proper informing and education of the general public, which will facilitate this determination. For
            instance, bus lanes or parking restrictions could equally well (or even
            better in some cases) serve the purpose of limiting motorised traffic. I
            think "congestion charge" is not promoted in the best way to educate the
            general public for the damages provoked by motorised traffic and the huge (though mostly hidden) subsidies connected with it. Finally note that I am not among "the two dissenters" but, although I consider it as a positive initiative, I am very sceptical about its importance and in any case I
            consider it overrated.


            At 02:12 ìì 26/3/2004 +0000, you wrote:

             >Replying to the two dissenters to the proposal to nominate
             >Ken Livingstone (let's be sure to spell his name right !)
             >et al for I agree that the Thames Gateway bridge scheme is >undesirable, but I don't think the fact that we don't like
             >everything he's doing should stop us from asking for official
             >recognition of a step which, even if relatively small by
             >itself, will show the way to a future where it is taken for
             >granted that motorists don't have the automatic right to
             >block and pollute our streets. And can the person who said
             >that he had a better idea pass it on to this group so we can
             >judge for ourselves ? As far as I am concerned, it's enough
             >at this stage that he's moved where our government feared to
             >tread and shown that the scheme can work.





            The Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice
            Consult at: http://wTransport.org
            To post message to group: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
            To subscribe:  WorldTransport-subscribe@yahoogroups.com 
            To unsubscribe:  WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 
            Yahoo! Groups Links



             


            ***********************************************************************************
            The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.

            If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@....

            This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
            ***********************************************************************************




            ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
            KnowledgeStorm has over 22,000 B2B technology solutions. The most comprehensive
            IT buyers' information available. Research, compare, decide.
            E-Commerce | Application Dev | Accounting-Finance | Healthcare | Project Mgt |
            Sales-Marketing | More
            http://us.click.yahoo.com/IMai8D/UYQGAA/cIoLAA/2GfwlB/TM
            ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

            The Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice
            Consult at: http://wTransport.org
            To post message to group: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
            To subscribe:  WorldTransport-subscribe@yahoogroups.com 
            To unsubscribe:  WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 
            Yahoo! Groups Links

            <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WorldTransport/

            <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                 WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
             
          • Wetzel Dave
            Like Athens, London has a long way to go before pedestrians are given equal treatment to cars. However, our Mayor, Ken Livingstone, has made a start. More time
            Message 5 of 9 , Apr 1 2:18 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Like Athens, London has a long way to go before pedestrians are given equal
              treatment to cars.
              However, our Mayor, Ken Livingstone, has made a start. More time for
              pedestrians at traffic light controlled crossings and he has pedestrianised the North side of Trafalgar Square close to the National Gallery art
              exhibition. This has controversially reduced traffic capacity by some 20%.
              Currently, there is a delay for buses and taxis but I expect the long term
              effect will be that many vehicles will avoid the Square altogether and use
              alternative routes - thus easing the pinch-point congestion created.

              We saw a similar effect in the 1980s when I was Chair of the Greater London
              Council's Transport Committee and we introduced many new traffic schemes
              which reduced capacity - not least new traffic signals at Hyde Park Corner
              which cut the traffic capacity but also dramatically reduced road accidents.
              The press berated us for weeks but it did eventually settle down and today
              nobody would dare suggest we remove the traffic signals.

              You can find TfL's cycling action plan on:
              http://www.tfl.gov.uk/streets/pdfdocs/cycling/cycling-action-plan.pdf

              and TfL's pedestrian plan on:
              http://www.tfl.gov.uk/streets/downloads/pdf/walking-plan-2004.pdf

              Dave

              "Solvitur Ambulans"
              Dave Wetzel; Vice-Chair; Transport for London.
              Windsor House. 42-50 Victoria Street. London. SW1H 0TL. UK
              Tel: 020 7941 4200
              Windsor House is close to New Scotland Yard. Buses 11, 24, 148, 211 and
              N11 pass the door.
              Nearest Tube: St. James's Park Underground station.
              Nearest mainline stations: Waterloo and Victoria (Both a short walk or
              bus ride).




              -----Original Message-----
              From: K Tsourlakis [mailto:ktsou@...]
              Sent: 31 March 2004 21:25
              To: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [WorldTransport Forum] environment award



              Yes, I am already aware of it - this has already been widely known and
              advertised (it would be interesting to be also known the exact schemes and projects financed through these resourses). And this is indeed a very good use for the money collected. However good treatment of pedestrians and
              bicyclists (unlike motorised traffic) does not really need large sums of
              money but the determination to slow down (or even better completely remove) motorised traffic and dispose the urban space to them. Does London mayor intends to limit space allocated for motorised traffic and turn it into
              pedestrian and bicycle space? In what extent (% of urban space)?
              BTW I don't know what you exactly mean by "BEING REALLY BADLY TREATED" but if you want to see a really barbarous treatment of pedestrians and
              bicyclists take a look at: http://www.pezh.gr/english/intro_en.htm
              thanks and regards
              K.Tsourlakis



              At 07:50 ìì 30/3/2004 +0200, you wrote:
              >DEAR K TSOURLAKIS
              >PLEASE BE INFORMED THAT AS PART OF THE LONDON CONGESTION CHARGE PROJECT, >THE 20 % REDUCTION IN TRAFFIC VOLUME ACHIEVED IS GOING TO BE USED TO
              >IMPROVE CONDITIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS IN LONDON.(WHO ARE
              >PRESENTLY BEING REALLY BADLY TREATED)
              >THE IMPROVEMENT PLAN "TOWARDS A FINE CITY FOR PEOPLE" MADE BY
              >GEHL-ARCHITECTS-URBAN QUALITY CONSULTANTS IN COPENHAGEN WILL BE LAUNCHED >JUST AFTER THE MAYORAL ELECTION 10 JUNE 2004.
              >Warm greetings from
              >sincerely yours
              >
              >Jan Gehl
              >Professor of Urban Design
              >Copenhagen
              >Denmark
              >
              >
              >Den 29/3-2004, kl. 23.18, skrev K Tsourlakis:
              >
              >>The justification for the charge (at least according to its name) is not
              >>that cars pollute, embarrass and kill pedestrians, and destroy the city,
              >>but that they congest, i.e. they embarrass other cars and deter them to
              run
              >>faster. This must also be the reason why, as far as I know, motorcycles
              are
              >>exempted from the charge. So, the message sent to the public opinion seems
              >>to be "pay in order to drive better and faster" and not "do not drive". It
              >>would be much better if its name were "pollution charge" or (even more
              >>accurately) "motorised traffic damage charge" and this reason were used to
              >>justify it to the public opinion. High technology is not so important for
              >>the control of the motorised traffic, as is the determination to withstand
              >>pressures from organised interests and the proper informing and education
              >>of the general public, which will facilitate this determination. For
              >>instance, bus lanes or parking restrictions could equally well (or even
              >>better in some cases) serve the purpose of limiting motorised traffic. I
              >>think "congestion charge" is not promoted in the best way to educate the
              >>general public for the damages provoked by motorised traffic and the huge
              >>(though mostly hidden) subsidies connected with it. Finally note that I am
              >>not among "the two dissenters" but, although I consider it as a positive
              >>initiative, I am very sceptical about its importance and in any case I
              >>consider it overrated.




              The Journal of World Transport Policy and Practice
              Consult at: http://wTransport.org
              To post message to group: WorldTransport@yahoogroups.com
              To subscribe: WorldTransport-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
              To unsubscribe: WorldTransport-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              Yahoo! Groups Links






              ***********************************************************************************
              The contents of the e-mail and any transmitted files are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Transport for London hereby exclude any warranty and any liability as to the quality or accuracy of the contents of this email and any attached transmitted files. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited.

              If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@....

              This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
              ***********************************************************************************
            • K Tsourlakis
              ... Indeed, it is a cost for those who use cars. But the lower the cost, the more driving is encouraged, according to a trivial law of economics. In fact it is
              Message 6 of 9 , Apr 1 1:37 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                At 06:59 ìì 30/3/2004 +0100, you wrote:

                >Congestion is not an "embarrassment" as much as a real cost
                >to residents, visitors and business alike.

                Indeed, it is a cost for those who use cars. But the lower the cost, the
                more driving is encouraged, according to a trivial law of economics. In
                fact it is a cost induced from any driver to the rest of the drivers and
                vice versa, while the other external costs not considered in "congestion
                charge" (pollution, noise, "accidents" etc) are unilaterally induced to
                pedestrians and bicyclists.

                >We did not want London to come to a standstill - already speeds
                >were often lower than Queen Victoria could travel in a horse-drawn
                >carriage.

                I 've never argued this is not a good scheme for those who drive -
                especially for those who are also willing and able to pay. Perhaps it has
                some positive aspects for pedestrians and bicyclists too. But as you imply,
                indeed the convenience of car users is the main concern.

                >The Mayor did exempt "clean" cars on the PowerShift register.
                >(Electric, hybrid, gas etc).

                The term "clean" car (even quoted) is misleading. Electric cars also
                pollute, since almost the totality of electric power is produced by fossil
                fuels or (even worse perhaps) by nuclear power - they just shift the place
                of pollution out of the city. Of course this is somehow better than
                conventional cars, but far from ideal.

                >Motorcycles have no front number plate in the UK and so could not
                >be enforced by our cameras - hence the exemption.

                It seems to be another technological weakness of this system.

                >My suggestion for sceptics is to come and see for yourself. I couldn't
                >believe the difference myself when my bus started to run to time, I
                >could safely cross the road and it was much easier to cycle.

                I think that bus and bicycle lanes is a much better (and easier) solution.
                If the goal is to move people from private cars to public transit (in an
                egalitarian way - not just prohibiting through monetary charges to the less
                privileged to drive), then the difference of the required time between the
                two modes is important, not only the absolute time spent for the trip. And
                obviously roads could be crossed with more safety when they are congested,
                since the speed of cars is lower. Car needs are quite different from
                pedestrian or bicyclists needs (and in most cases conflicting).

                >Not perfect, but for London, congestion charge has been a giant step
                >in the right direction.
                >
                >The lessons learnt are
                >1. Strong political leadership (Nobody but Ken Livingstone would have
                >been able to face the press and media barrage and still introduce it in
                >London),
                >2. A local scheme to meet local needs. Other cities considering this need
                >to develop their own answers to their own unique problems and not just dust
                >down the London Scheme and try to implement it out of context. Listen and
                >learn from our successes and our mistakes but develop your own scheme.
                >3. A huge expansion in public transport, (our Mayor put over 1,000 new buses
                >on the roads);
                >4. Strong Project management;
                >5. Consultation - real consultation and a readiness to change the scheme
                >in the light of representations.

                What is best for London depends on local political balances, and certainly
                is up to the Londoners to decide. However I have the impression that the
                present discussion is about some international prize and the impact this
                scheme has from a global viewpoint.

                >Best wishes
                >
                >Dave
                >
                >Dave Wetzel
                >Vice-chair,
                >Transport for London
                >Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street.
                >London. SW1H 0TL. UK.
                >Tel 020 7941 4200
                >
                >Close to New Scotland Yard.
                >Buses 11,24,148,211,N11 pass the door.
                >Nearest Underground - St James's Park tube station.
                >

                Regards and thanks for your response
                K Tsourlakis
              • Tramsol@aol.com
                ... charge is the rigorous management of the space resource. 1) apply the UK statute that roads are provided SOLELY for the passing and repassing of traffic -
                Message 7 of 9 , Apr 2 1:08 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 02/04/04 20:20:21 GMT Daylight Time, ktsou@... writes:

                  I think that bus and bicycle lanes is a much better (and easier) solution.
                  If the goal is to move people from private cars to public transit (in an
                  egalitarian way - not just prohibiting through monetary charges to the less
                  privileged to drive), then the difference of the required time between the
                  two modes is important, not only the absolute time spent for the trip. And
                  obviously roads could be crossed with more safety when they are congested,
                  since the speed of cars is lower. Car needs are quite different from
                  pedestrian or bicyclists needs (and in most cases conflicting).

                  One method of control, which is perhaps more equitable than a congestion charge is the rigorous management of the space resource.

                  1) apply the UK statute that roads are provided SOLELY for the passing and repassing of traffic - in its widest sense, embracing pedestrians, cyclists, and all powered vehicles.  Use of roads for any other purpose will not be tolerated, save for the grace and favour arrangement of allowing a vehicle to stop momentarily to take on or offload goods or passengers.

                  2) with this pretext the provision of space to park a vehicle becomes a marketable resource, but equally one which can be rationed by land use regulation - and plain commonsense.

                  3) It has been well demonstrated by the Commonwealth Games in Manchester, and various projects to enhance cycle parking at rail stations thet the traffic volume can be significantly affected by the amount of parking available.  Indeed structured parking charges (penalising arrivals at certain times of day, or racking up the rate for long stay parking - famously £440.00 for 24 hours on Glasgow Central and Edinburgh Waverley Stations, but free (at the same locations) for the first 20 minutes).

                  Thus access to all activities is equitably given to any person walking in the door, but the issue then becomes the detail of what they do with their mode of transport.  Pedestrians have the edge here, and cyclists can park their vehicles in very small spaces, for which many accept they may need to pay, bus, train, and taxi users enjoy the fact that their vehicle is taken away by a driver, and indeed car users can have the same facility, at a price, either of a driver, or a paid for space within walking distance.

                  Of course making roads solely for moving traffic greatly simplifies the issue over parking restrictions with signs and painted lines - if its a road then there is no parking - period....Hoare-Beleisha worked that one out... where did we start to go wrong?

                  Dave Holladay
                  Glasgow

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