[sustran] Pico y placa Bogotá- the evolution and further comments

Carlos F. Pardo carlos.pardo at sutp.org
Wed Nov 23 01:58:55 JST 2005


The pico y placa in Bogotá is a good idea as long as it is properly managed.
The complete evolution of the idea and its consequences is the following:

 

General rule: Cars will be banned from peak hour traffic depending on the
day of the week and the last number of their license plate.

1.	First exercise: cars are banned from 7:00- 9:00 am and 5:00-7:00 pm
from Monday through Friday, according to the following rule:

a.	Monday: license plates that end in 1-2-3-4
b.	Tuesday: license plates that end in 5-6-7-8
c.	Wednesday: license plates that end in 9-0-1-2
d.	Thursday: license plates that end in 3-4-5-6
e.	Friday: license plates that end in 7-8-9-0

 

Consequences of the first exercise:

i.                     Car volumes are redistributed  throughout the hours
adjacent to peak hours, balancing all-day traffic (this is why they made it
on peak hours only)

ii.                   Illegal vendors would sell black stickers to turn 3’s
into 8’s, 1’s into 4,s ,etc (those were quickly taken out of the street) 

iii.                  When citizens would buy a car, they would negotiate
with the car dealer to get a license plate that would not end in 7-8-9-0
(Friday, partytime). 

 

2.	First reformulation of the exercise: some minor changes:

a.	License plate numbers are not negotiable for new cars.
b.	Numbers for each day are shifted two spots (e.g. Monday is 3-4-5-6,
Tuesday 7-8-9-0, etc), and the rule changes every certain time (I’m not
sure, I think it changes every month or two). People with their
Friday-I-can-ride license plates are angry.
c.	Since a significant number of cars in Bogotá are registered outside
of the city (e.g. taxes are given to suburbs instead of the city where they
are being used), cars registered outside of Bogotá are banned from 6:30-
9:00 am and 4:30- 7:00 pm (this results in a rapid increase of vehicles
registered in Bogotá).

 

3.	Second reformulation of the exercise:

a.	The banning is expanded to vehicles one hour more (e.g.
Bogotá-registered vehicles are banned 6:00-9:00 am, others from 5:30!!). 

 

I guess few people have known this evolution. In my opinion, most ideas were
great and regulation of the activity has been properly made, EXCEPT in the
last change (banning from 6 am, 5:30 am). This hour shift was ridiculously
excessive and did not redistribute the car volumes to “earlier than the peak
hour”, but all to “later than peak hour” doubling the volumes and actually
shifting the peak hour to after 9am (all this is better explained through a
graph of daily volumes).

 

Also, another problem with the pico y placa was the perverse effect:
congestion -> pico y placa -> less congestion -> more cars were bought ->
congestion WITH pico y placa -> what to do? What I mean with this is that
the pico y placa was merely implemented since the beginning as an economic
instrument but never explained to the public properly. People still feel
that the idea behind traffic management is to move faster in any mode,
instead of restricting unsustainable modes’ circulation and shifting people
towards other modes of transport. For example, if the pico y placa would
have been well explained, the expansion of the ban to 6:00 am would have
moved car users to TransMilenio or bicycles (which it didn’t).

 

I hope all this is clear, as this is a great idea that needs some
refinement. Best regards,

 

 

Carlos F. Pardo

Coordinador de Proyecto

GTZ- Proyecto de Transporte Urbano Sostenible para América Latina y el
Caribe- SUTP LAC 
Cr. 14 # 94A-24 of. 409
Bogotá D.C., Colombia
Tel:  +57 (1) 635 9048

Fax: +57 (1) 236 2309 
Mobile: +57 (3) 15 296 0662
e-mail:  <mailto:carlos.pardo at sutp.org> carlos.pardo at sutp.org 
Página:  <http://www.sutp.org/> www.sutp.org

- Visite nuestra nueva sección de Latinoamérica y el Caribe en
<http://www.sutp.org/esp/espindex.htm> http://www.sutp.org/esp/espindex.htm 

- Únase al grupo de discusión de Transporte Sostenible en Latinoamérica en
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sutp-lac/join

Web site novo em português  <http://www.sutp.org/PT/PTindex.htm>
http://www.sutp.org/PT/PTindex.htm

 

  _____  

De: sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org at list.jca.apc.org
[mailto:sustran-discuss-bounces+carlos.pardo=sutp.org at list.jca.apc.org] En
nombre de Eric Britton
Enviado el: Martes, 22 de Noviembre de 2005 11:30 a.m.
Para: Sustran-discuss at jca.apc.org
Asunto: [sustran] Talking New Moblity

 

Dear Wonderful Sustran Friends,

 

In truth I fret about sending on to you all – busy as you are – too much
information and too many messages from the lively café of our New Mobility
Agenda ( <http://www.newmobility.org/> http://www.newmobility.org).  Of
course they tend to be less focused in geographic terms, with all that
implies, than the concerns of our Sustran Network, but it’s my position that
the two work rather well together.  (In fact if you go to the Agenda, and
click the Talking New Moblity link on the left menu (toward the top), and
from thence to More Great Discussions, you will see that we have Sustran in
a position of honor right up top.  In this way, we are trying to make sure
that the people who come and spend some time with us, also have access to
your good messages and information.)

 

That said, I would like to encourage those of you who have not already done
so to check into the Café and to consider signing in. You will note that
there is an email option whereby you do not have to get all the individual
messages, but rather the Daily Digest.  This is quite handy and for me at
least saves time. I check it out daily when it comes in, just because it is
very often just so very interesting and useful.

 

There you have it. A few of you have already jumped on board, and if those
of you who have tried it have anything to share with the others about it,
well that would be most welcome. We do want to be useful.

 

*     *     *

 

By the way, we have just received a message in the café from a young Dutch
transportation organizer/activist Stefan Langeveld putting forth in a very
few words what I for one think is a brilliant bit of conceptual problem
solving. He builds on an on-going discussion of Congestion Charging, prop
and con, (you’ll see some of the latest on that after his note) and proposes
a solution which I find at the very least worth having your views on.  He
honors in passing Bogotá’s Pico y Placa (have a look at
http://ecoplan.org/carfreeday/bogota/pico.htm for some background on how
that works)—and then goes on to propose for our consideration. . . .

 

Well let me get out of the way here and turn the stage over to Stefan and
the “Langeveld Option”.

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Stefan Langeveld 
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 3:12 PM
To: NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [NewMobilityCafe] will congestion charge solve anything ?

 

At peak hours,  city roads cannot accommodate bikes, cars and buses and
trams. 

 

Either you try to squeeze out the (less well off) car drivers by CC, or you
look for an effective approach. 

 

The governors of Bogota have solved the problem, in theory. Their Peak Time
Ban for Private Cars passed the referendum (51 % in favour , 34 against ,
oct '00). 

 

Here's my interpretation :

 

Ban car use during the peak period (30 - 45 or 60 mins.)

 

Exceptions: emergencies, bus, EV, and maybe any car with 4 or more people. 

Additional measure : traffic lights off. 

 

Let's have an experiment with this before considering a congestion charge.
In comparison, the PTB is far easier to implement (thus cheaper) and far
more effective.

 

Stefan Langeveld 

 

 

 

 

  _____  

From: NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:NewMobilityCafe at yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Simon Norton
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 9:56 PM
To: newmobilitycafe at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] will congestion charge solve anything ?

Of course congestion charging in Stockholm or any other city isn't a magic
wand
which will solve all problems. However the fact that something won't solve
all
problems isn't a case for not doing it, as is implied in the article by
James
Savage, and even more in Gabriel Roth's comment.

London's congestion charge is too limited both in space and time. Within the
last week I experienced near gridlock on a road in an area that is fairly
central, but outside not only the existing congestion charging zone but the
planned western extension. Then yesterday, a Sunday when the charge doesn't
operate, I experienced further holdups in Central London and nearly missed a
key
connection as a result, which would have delayed me a whole hour.

As far as pollution issues are concerned, buying clean cars does NOT reduce
pollution. What reduces pollution is scrapping dirty cars.

And all cars of whatever type contribute to the degradation of the urban 
environment that discourages walking and cycling. This brings me to
Alexandra
Hamilton's question.

I think that a useful rule of thumb is that it is reasonable to expect
people to
walk up to 2 miles or to cycle up to 5 miles. But, as others have said, this
depends on conditions.

However, as far as I'm concerned, cycling in traffic-infested roads is akin
to
walking through a safari park. That's my personal view, but I suspect that
it is
shared by more people than cycling advocates think, and the latter will
never
succeed in promoting cycling until they realise that many people don't want
to
cycle in heavy traffic and it isn't reasonable to expect them to.

Walking is less of a problem because one's segregated from the traffic most
of
the time. For an attractive off-road route I'd be willing to do more than 2
miles. But even 2 miles is too long
(a) When one has to stop frequently at intersections where motor traffic has
overall priority, or
(b) When one's tired.

(a) applies in many parts of London, though not in my home city (Cambridge),
where I live about 2 miles from the railway station. Normally I walk there
from
my home -- partly because the bus link, though fairly frequent in the
daytime,
is too slow to offer much advantage. But, because of (b), I strongly resent
those times when I have to walk back late at night because the evening buses
are
so poor (last one is at 23.05, and before that they are only every half an
hour).

>From the station to my office is over 2 miles, and there isn't a direct bus.
During Monday to Friday until about 19.30 there's a bus which involves 13 
minutes walk at one end and 4 at the other. At other times the journey is
sufficiently tedious that I avoid it. There used to be a nice route through
the
Botanic Gardens and college grounds, but nowadays it is blocked by locked
gates.

If we managed to secure significant (50% is the target I like to quote)
reductions in traffic levels through congestion charging, or by any other
means,
I am sure that many more people would start walking and cycling --
particularly
if some of the released roadspace was taken from motorists and reallocated
to
these people.

Incidentally, the guidelines for schoolchildren in the UK are that they are
entitled to transport when the nearest school which has a place for them is
over 2 miles away, for younger children, and over 3 miles away for older
ones (I
think that the critical age is 8).

Simon Norton

----

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Britton [mailto:eric.britton at ecoplan.org] 
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2005 1:16 PM
 Subject: Congestion charge will solve nothing

Published: 18th November 2005 -
http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=2521&date=20051118


Congestion charge will solve nothing


Driving a car into central Stockholm is about to get expensive, and people
aren’t happy. Polls show that the majority of voters are against the trial
of congestion charging that starts in January, but there is surely a case
for encouraging people to use their cars less. Question is – why single out
Stockholmers?

There are plenty of reasons for introducing road tolls – reduced traffic on
the roads gives cleaner air, a more pleasant environment and makes it easier
to get around. 

But on a political level, they are being introduced in Stockholm because the
Green Party made it a condition for supporting the Sweden’s Social Democrat
government after the 2002 election.

Many here have compared the introduction of congestion charging in Stockholm
to the road tolls introduced in London in 2001. Mayor Annika Billström said
she wanted to learn from London’s experiences when starting to charge
motorists in the Swedish capital.

I moved to Stockholm from London just after congestion charges were
introduced there, and it’s worth pointing out two obvious but crucial
differences between the two cities. 

In Stockholm, rush hour is still what it says on the box – commuters face
delays for brief periods (and over short distances) in the morning and the
evening; in pre-toll central London, rush ‘hour’ seemed to last all day,
with lines of slow moving traffic continuing for mile after mile. 

Another difference is that Stockholm already has relatively efficient public
transport; London’s transport system was creaking at the seams.

But there is no doubt that less traffic is good for the environment, both at
a local and at a global level. We may like using our cars – indeed, many
people depend on them – but we need to drastically reduce their impact on
the environment, not least by reducing the amount of carbon dioxide they
release into the atmosphere.

This is not going to be tackled by singling out motorists in big cities – it
is something that needs to take in the bigger picture. 

Indeed, in some ways Sweden is ahead of the field in the way it deals with
this. At a recent European conference on clean fuels held in Stockholm,
experts said Sweden was at the cutting edge – 20,000
environmentally-friendly cars are expected to be sold here next year, more
per capita than any other European country.

But perhaps if Sweden is really going to make its contribution to reducing
the impact of cars on the environment, it should look at another idea being
floated in the UK at the moment: road pricing across the country.

This idea, to tax people depending on how much they drive, could really make
people think about alternatives such as car sharing, and lead to increased
pressure for improved public transport. Greenpeace has suggested that
drivers of ‘clean cars’ should get a reduction on the tax, while drivers of
gas guzzling 4x4s (and Green Party activists in their 1970s Volkswagens)
could pay extra.

So instead of slamming taxes on motorists in Stockholm, why not make
everyone pay for the real damage done to the environment?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.jca.apc.org/manage/private/sustran-discuss/attachments/20051122/f814a478/attachment.html


More information about the Sustran-discuss mailing list