I really liked the format of the paper, but what I liked best was the Bad News Department!
Just as you have talked about the attempts to detract the success of the Velib in Paris, so also Mayor Boris Johnson’s scrapping of the westward extension of the London Congestion Tax is being used in Mumbai by the car lobby to state that “The Congestion Tax is a failure in London, and therefore it cannot be used in Mumbai”. That it cannot be applied in the format that has been used in London is because of various other reasons, not because the concept per se is bad and therefore doomed to failure. (This was in a lot of newspapers, and my views on the same were also published, but I unfortunately did not make copies!)
Mumbai desperately needs some form of congestion reduction techniques: whether it is fiscal or policy measures, it will have to be tailored to meet our socio- cultural issues, as well as the unique geography that Mumbai has. However, the scrapping of the extension of the congestion tax in London has set back any progress we were making in that direction.
I wonder if any other city has had a similar experience?
Bina C. Balakrishnan
Consultant- Transportation Planning & Engineering
Mumbai, India
Monday, March 2, 2009
Bad News Dept: Scrapping London Congestion Tax
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
There are other contributors to this list who will have more knowledge of the London western extension, but the most important thing about it was that it was really all about politics, not about better transport outcomes. (No substantive evidence informed the decision, as I recall).
ReplyDeleteThe western extension area ran across two conservative councils, who didn't like it because it was introduced by the Labour mayor. It was also opposed by motorists for the usual self-interested reasons. Johnson put it into his manifesto as a way of pleasing his conservative supporters.
There's not much logic behind the decision either; although one of the western area councils, Kensington and Chelsea, is very affluent, it has a fairly low rate of car ownership because it is close to the city centre, so the decision to reverse the congestion charge really only increases the use of the borough as a commuter route. The council had some concerns that the western extenstion of the C-charge had reduced takings in stores in their big retail areas (Kings Road, Kensington High Street). I'd heard reports that the some of the Kensington and Chelsea councillors had come to the conclusion that the best outcome for them might be a 'rush hour congestion charge', which reduced the amount of traffic coming through the borough at peak periods, but didn't discourage shoppers who drove in the middle of the day. On current technology this may have been a bit complicated (or confusing) to administer.
Andrew
Figures show a majority support Congestion Charging in London.
ReplyDeleteThe pending scrapping of the Western Congestion Charge Zone in London should not deter other cities from looking at such schemes.
Underneath the headlines there are figures that show that the Congestion Charge is popular and accepted. TRB research found that the public supported Congestion Charging: http://thecityfix.com/the-public-supports-road-pricing/
Further. The consultation for the removal of the Congestion zone extension was flawed. The road lobby simply sent sacks full of letters to the major and when he counted them, they outnumbered the letters of support for the status quo (not the pop band).
The hard reality is that the Congestion Charge has strong support, but the fact that people like myself have been fined means that many of us would like to see changes in how is is administrated...
Cast aside the postal surveys and letters and look only at the telephone interviews conducted by TfL where respondents were randomly telephoned and not influenced by lobbyist and there is a different result.
The reality is that:
30% of Londoners want to keep the Western Extension Zone of the London Congestion Charge as it is.
14% want to change the way the scheme operates (easier payment methods and longer to pay)
Added together you have 45% supporting the continuation of the Charge.
Those wanting the Western Extension of the Congestion Charge Zone scrapped were only 40% (and how many of them would have had a different opinion if they had not received fines like me due to the difficulties and time limits available to pay, particularly when the scheme first started)
Page iii of iv (pdf page 5)
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/roadusers/congestioncharging/westernextension/pdf/Annex-2-Report-on-the-attitudinal-survey-of-Londoners.pdf
Ian