News   Apr 25, 2024
 357     0 
News   Apr 25, 2024
 1K     4 
News   Apr 25, 2024
 1K     0 

An Alternative to Congestion Pricing: Roadway Traffic Restraint

M II A II R II K

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,944
Reaction score
1,061
An Alternative to Congestion Pricing: Roadway Traffic Restraint


October 6th, 2010

By Yonah Freemark

New-Logo.jpg


Read More: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/...congestion-pricing-roadway-traffic-restraint/

When it comes to transportation economists, there’s pretty much one answer to every problem: Equate pricing of all modes with their greater societal impacts. In general, this means that we (in the U.S.) ought to be charging drivers more to make up for the negative effects they have on the environment and the roadway infrastructure, and that we ought to be increasing subsidies to encourage people to take transit.

- This approach could be implemented in a variety of ways depending on location, but one model that has been particularly appealing to planners interested in reducing the perceived negative economic and social effects of traffic has been that of London, which in 2003 implemented a congestion charge on drivers entering its central business district. Revenues from the program went to increasing transit service. The method, unsurprisingly, has been a major success in terms of reducing traffic: Between 2002 and 2007, overall car movements in the district decreased by 39%. Meanwhile, travel on public transportation increased correspondingly over the same time period: By 24% on commuter railways, 16% on the Underground, and 18% on buses.

- But what if congestion charging is just too much of a hot topic for even progressive American cities to handle? The effort to instate a similar system in New York City in 2008 was so thoroughly brought to its feet that it is hard to imagine wanting to repeat the fight.

- The administration of Mayor Bertrand Delanoë has since 2001 prioritized the creation of bicycle, bus, and tramway infrastructure along with the reduction of vehicle lanes along both major boulevards and side streets. Huge sections of the city have been designated 30 km/h zones and biking is now allowed in both directions on most streets, even those that are one-way for automobiles. Free parking has been mostly eliminated. This spring, the city reinforced its efforts to commit far more street space to biking and expand that mode’s travel share.

- Looking back, the results have been astonishing: Even with no direct financial reason to abandon driving, the city saw a 17% decrease in driving between 2002 and 2007, a trend that is continuing (according to the most recent information, it may now be 24%). In the same time period, travel on the regional rail network increased by 16%, by 8% on the Metro, and by 2% on buses in the city. Weekend traffic has seen the most significant gains. This has reduced further the already extremely low share of overall commutes made by car or motorcycle in the city: Just 16.3% in 2008.

- Moreover, these statistics fly in the face of the commonly-cited idea that “congestion pricing is the best way, and perhaps the only way, to reduce traffic congestion,†to quote transportation policy experts David King, Michael Manville, and Donald Shoup. For cities truly concerned about finding ways to limit the number of cars traveling down the street, whatever the purpose, this example demonstrates that a concerted effort to get cars off the street by limiting the space available to them can be an effective technique.




Bus-in-Paris.png
 
For North America, increased parking fees seem to be the best course of action imo. Most are already used to paying for parking in high demand areas, thus it is less controversial to increase a fee rather than to create a new one. Since most businesses have a delivery area, delivery drivers simply dropping off goods would not be penalized as they would be with a catch-all congestion charge. Finally, it's proven: Cities in Canada and around the world have seen major increases in transit ridership in part due to high parking prices.

On a personal level, I could drive to school, but I'd rather pay for transit over parking.
 
But in Toronto there'd be the issue of whether the existing transit could handle much of an increase during peak periods.
 
But in Toronto there'd be the issue of whether the existing transit could handle much of an increase during peak periods.

That is a good point, and one which isn't brought up enough in the 'teh cars are teh evilz' discussions here. We want to reduce traffic congestion, yet our transit systems are at and beyond peak capacity as well. I'll agree we need to improve our transit systems significantly as or before we create further disincentives to drive into and around dense areas.
 

Back
Top