[sustran] Re: [sustran] FW: TfL Press release - Congestion Charge Scheme (CCS)

[Alan Patrick Howes]

IANAE (I Am Not An Economist), so I will pass on the second para below - anyway, Todd has covered it very well. But it is worth noting that London's scheme has reduced traffic levels by 20% - it is not just a case of carry on driving but pay for it. And the revenue will be used to improve public transport, which could lead to further reductions in motor traffic in future, both within and outwith of the charged area.

On the political side, I have lived in a command economy (of sorts) for the last five years, and not only that but the history of the 20th Century convinces me that such systems are inherently, fatally, flawed. The market is imperfect too, but it's the best way we have of apportioning scarce goods. Why should transport be exempt from the same economic laws that govern the distribution of bread - or caviar? It's the distribution of wealth that is the problem, rather than the way that wealth is spent.

[Opinions are definitely my own!]

-- 
Alan P Howes, Special Transport Advisor, 
     Dubai Municipality Public Transport Department
aphowes at dm.gov.ae
http://vgn.dm.gov.ae/DMEGOV/dm-mp-transportation
Tel:    +971 4 286 1616 ext 214
Mobile: +971 50 5989661


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ktsourl at mailbox.gr [mailto:ktsourl at mailbox.gr]
> Sent: Wed, 26 March, 2003 00:30
> To: sustran-discuss at jca.ax.apc.org
> Subject: [sustran] [sustran] FW: TfL Press release - 
> Congestion Charge Scheme (CCS)
> 
> 
> 
> I am very skeptical about the TfL regulation. On the one 
> side, this is obviously a positive project, since it is one 
> of the few cases that the huge external (but real) cost of 
> car use is externalized. Thus, private car users are taught 
> that this way of transportation has negative consequences to 
> others which (at least) should be compensated. However, from 
> all the negative externalities the private car creates (and 
> there are many of them), only the congestion is considered. 
> So, it seems that the message to the drivers is "do drive, 
> but pay, so that driving remains a feasible activity" instead 
> of "don't drive, but use transit, bike or your feet, because 
> this is healthier, environmental friendlier and more sustainable".
> 
> BTW I would be grateful if anybody could clarify to me the so 
> called "congestion cost". By "external cost" I understand a 
> cost induced by an activity beneficial for someone at the 
> expense of another person, without pricing it and compensate 
> the infliction. That is, put simply, somebody is benefited 
> from an activity and somebody else is undergoing the negative 
> consequences of this activity, without full or partial 
> compensation. But in the case of the "congestion cost" the 
> persons who induce it, are exactly those who bear the 
> consequences. A person who use a car in a congested road 
> deters other drivers from using unimpeded the road, but these 
> other drivers cause exactly the same to him. So, both "costs" 
> are compensated. This is not the case at all, concerning 
> other external costs, like the noise from motorized traffic, 
> the air pollution over a city, the hardships inflicted to 
> pedestrians, the greenhouse effect etc
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> http://www.mailbox.gr ÁðïêôÞóôå äùñåÜí ôï ìïíáäéêü óáò e-mail.
> http://www.thesuperweb.gr ÁðïêôÞóôå ôï äéêü óáò web site ìüíï 
> ìå 6 Euro!
> 
>