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

RE: [WorldTransport Forum] necessary traffic

Expand Messages
  • Wetzel Dave
    Why speculate re essential traffic ? Of course, congestion chargeallows the individual driver or freight operator to determine whether their journey is
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 21, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Why speculate re "essential traffic"?

      Of course, congestion chargeallows the individual driver or freight operator
      to determine whether their journey is necessary.
      The higher the charge the more motorists will find that their journey is not
      necessary.

      Before congestion charging was introduced last year, the planners thought
      the London congestion charge would reduce traffic by 10-15%.
      In fact vehicles entering the zone have been reduced by 18% and traffic
      delays have been reduced by 30%.

      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: Simon Norton [mailto:s.norton@...]
      Sent: 21 April 2004 14:06
      To: worldtransport@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [WorldTransport Forum] necessary traffic


      Todd Litman suggested that there is no particular level of traffic which is
      "necessary". In pure supply/demand terms this may be true, but one must
      remember
      that a city, or a rural area for that matter, is an economy which depends on
      transport for its functioning. However, it is certainly not true that the
      functioning of such areas has improved as their traffic levels have risen.
      So
      let me rephrase my question as follows: what proportion of existing traffic
      levels in a typical city or rural area is essential to the functioning of
      that
      area ? When I say "essential" I wish to exclude traffic which could transfer
      to
      other modes if appropriate provision was made, assuming that this provision
      led
      to a reduction in traffic and a reduction in overall transport costs
      (including
      environmental costs currently externalised).

      As I said, I think that a study leading to such a figure should be a basic
      tool
      in assessing how to deal with the traffic problems of an area. At present it
      is
      all too common for pundits to ask what level of public transport provision
      is
      essential to satisfy the needs of rural residents without cars (with "needs"
      often interpreted fairly narrowly and the requirements of visitors to such
      rural
      areas ignored completely), so why can't we ask what level of provision for
      cars
      is necessary ?

      Simon Norton





      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.
      ***********************************************************************************
    • john.holtzclaw@sfsierra.sierraclub.org
      Todd is right. The level of traffic necessary is dependent on the internal convenience of the neighborhoods in the city and their convenience to the job
      Message 2 of 2 , Apr 21, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Todd is right. The level of traffic "necessary" is dependent on the
        internal convenience of the neighborhoods in the city and their convenience
        to the job centers, parks, etc. Convent neighborhoods have high density;
        abundant local shopping, schools and parks; safe walking conditions; and
        great public transit, and require little driving. Take Paris as an example:
        over half its households don't own a car, 54% of trips are walked, 29% are
        on public transit, and only 13% are by private car! Driving (VKT) is
        decreasing by 3% annually. So there is no reason to assume that more than
        13% of trips are necessarily driven in a well-designed city. Perhaps, even
        less.

        John Holtzclaw
        415-977-5534
        John.Holtzclaw@...
        sprawl and transportation action -- http://www.SierraClub.org/sprawl
        This View of Density -- www.sflcv.org/density


        Simon Norton <s.norton@...>

        04/21/2004 06:05 AM

        Todd Litman suggested that there is no particular level of traffic which is
        "necessary". In pure supply/demand terms this may be true, but one must
        remember
        that a city, or a rural area for that matter, is an economy which depends
        on
        transport for its functioning. However, it is certainly not true that the
        functioning of such areas has improved as their traffic levels have risen.
        So
        let me rephrase my question as follows: what proportion of existing traffic
        levels in a typical city or rural area is essential to the functioning of
        that
        area ? When I say "essential" I wish to exclude traffic which could
        transfer to
        other modes if appropriate provision was made, assuming that this provision
        led
        to a reduction in traffic and a reduction in overall transport costs
        (including
        environmental costs currently externalised).

        As I said, I think that a study leading to such a figure should be a basic
        tool
        in assessing how to deal with the traffic problems of an area. At present
        it is
        all too common for pundits to ask what level of public transport provision
        is
        essential to satisfy the needs of rural residents without cars (with
        "needs"
        often interpreted fairly narrowly and the requirements of visitors to such
        rural
        areas ignored completely), so why can't we ask what level of provision for
        cars
        is necessary ?

        Simon Norton

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