 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 2008The Stockholm Solution
http://www.aims.ca/library/Stockholm.pdf There has always been a solution to [traffic congestion], but both politicians and the public simply refuse to accept that tolls are the answer. Politicians are afraid to impose another cost on voters, while most drivers assume that roads should be costless. Yet there is no other viable solution. Forget about new road construction - which is too costly - and car-pooling - which is too marginal - the only real answers are incentives that change driving behaviour. On September 17th, Stockholm residents voted to approve a traffic control system that will see car drivers pay tolls to enter the city. Unlike the City of London that charges a flat fee of around £6 to enter the city, or Rome which simple bans cars from certain parts of the city, Stockholm has conducted one of the most sophisticated traffic-management systems as part of a plan to reduce traffic congestion, pollution and improve quality of life. The system, first theorized by Nobel-prize winning economist William Vickery in the 1950s, is known as congestion pricing in which drivers are charged different amounts depending on the time of day. In other words, the project was a giant behaviour-control experiment to see if driving habits can be changed thereby distributing traffic more efficiently throughout the day. And in the process encourage people to use public transit. What opponents of tolling need to understand is that even small declines in the volume of cars on the road can have a huge impact on the flow of traffic. Take 10 percent of the cars off the road during rush hour, and rush hour gridlock almost vanishes. [...]  Signature"Therefore, you are not worth my time... Have an excellent weekend, Sunshine. Truth be told, I'll be too busy to respond back to you. My fiancée and I will be too busy love-making!" - Carl Rogers, Message-ID: <kekKg.23278$gY6.2474@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> [snip] > What opponents of tolling need to understand is that > even small declines in the volume of cars on the road can > have a huge impact on the flow of traffic. Take 10 percent of > the cars off the road during rush hour, and rush hour gridlock > almost vanishes. But what cities are afraid of is that this 10% reduction will be achieved by a 10% reduction of employment or retail business in the city. Tolls work if all of the employees/shoppers in a city already live within the city. Then, you are discouraging a few commuters or visiting shoppers. But if your city depends on these people to support its businesses AND there are viable options in the surrounding suburbs, tolls kill the city center. SignaturePaul Hovnanian paul@hovnanian.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Procrastinators: The leaders for tomorrow. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Procrastinators: The leaders for tomorrow. There are several options to make traffic in the heart of the city lighter. I grew up on the edge of Boston and, as an adult, usually took my car downtown only if I would go there and back between the two rush-hours. Otherwise, I took the "rattler" (trolley) or Banana (yellow and comes in bunches). In Coventry, I lived only 1/2 mile out of the precint, so often walked. I still do in the residentials areas in and around San Diego. Still under seventy, so probably will for years.) Studemania <midlant@earthlink.net> wrote in news:c539bbdf-7c2d-4c51-990d- 9f076c4ad929@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com: > There are several options to make traffic in the heart > of the city lighter. > I grew up on the edge of Boston and, as an adult, usually took my car > downtown only if I would go there and back between the two rush-hours. > Otherwise, I took the "rattler" (trolley) or Banana (yellow and comes > in bunches). Hey,Stude,I was stationed at Hanscom Field 1971-1974.(Bedford) I've taken the T a few times,drove downtown when the parents came to visit and wanted to see the tourist/historic stuff.(they weren''t big walkers,or I'd have taken us all on the T.) SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >businesses AND there are viable options in the surrounding suburbs, >tolls kill the city center. Congestion is already killing the city center. What difference does it make if people avoid driving downtown because the roads are clogged with traffic or if people avoid driving downtown because the roads cost money to drive on? In either case, what will happen is that some people will decide to travel at non-peak times when the cost (in either money or time) is lower. Which, of course, was the desired goal. Signature"You can all kiss my @ss!" - Carl Rogers, Message-ID: <IE1ej.2353$se5.298@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> >Congestion is already killing the city center. What difference does >it make if people avoid driving downtown because the roads are clogged >with traffic or if people avoid driving downtown because the roads >cost money to drive on? That's like saying of a restaurant: "Nobody eats there any more, because it's too crowded". SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>Congestion is already killing the city center. What difference does >>it make if people avoid driving downtown because the roads are clogged [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >That's like saying of a restaurant: "Nobody eats there any more, >because it's too crowded". Using the same analogy, you don't hear people say "Nobody eats at Wolfgang Puck/Nobu/Chez Paul anymore because it's too expensive." Signature"You can all kiss my @ss!" - Carl Rogers, Message-ID: <IE1ej.2353$se5.298@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> >>>Congestion is already killing the city center. What difference does >>>it make if people avoid driving downtown because the roads are clogged [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Using the same analogy, you don't hear people say "Nobody eats at >Wolfgang Puck/Nobu/Chez Paul anymore because it's too expensive." The restaurants you would hear that about aren't mentioned because they went out of business. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>>>Congestion is already killing the city center. What difference does >>>>it make if people avoid driving downtown because the roads are clogged [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The restaurants you would hear that about aren't mentioned because > they went out of business. The Chez Paul went out of business quite some time ago. Must have too expensive..... "Come on, seriously you guys, the food here is really expensive. The soup is f.cking ten dollars. Come on let's go outside. I'll buy you a cup of coffee." http://www.theybrokemywatch.com/page4_chezpaul.html http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=660+north+ru sh,+chicago&sll=41.89401,-87.625317&sspn=0.001372,0.001851&layer=c&ie=UTF8&ll=41 .894898,-87.625424&spn=0.002743,0.003701&t=h&z=18&om=0&cbll=41.894138,-87.625475 &cbp=1,317.40426232523726,,0,-0.022311686219924347 >http://www.aims.ca/library/Stockholm.pdf > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >the cars off the road during rush hour, and rush hour gridlock >almost vanishes. If it were that easy then why not just add 10% more capacity and problem solved. The fact is, any reduction will shortly be taken up by more people IF it's truly free market, but it never is, it's a tax on some people (the ones in cars) to pay for a better environment for others, the people who own the property by the roads. >>http://www.aims.ca/library/Stockholm.pdf >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >If it were that easy then why not just add 10% more capacity and >problem solved. Not quite. Whenever you increase capacity you have induced traffic to deal with, which quickly erases any gains. The way things are structured now there is no economic disincentive to consume as much road capacity as you can - which is why we have no excess road capacity. The cost of driving has to be commensurate with the impact of that driving on everyone else in order for the system to be able to balance itself. If congestion pricing isn't the best way to do that, then please tell me what is. Signature"You can all kiss my @ss!" - Carl Rogers, Message-ID: <IE1ej.2353$se5.298@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> >>>http://www.aims.ca/library/Stockholm.pdf >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Not quite. Whenever you increase capacity you have induced traffic to >deal with, which quickly erases any gains. No problem, then -- close roads, thus reducing capacity and congestion via the reverse induced traffic effect. >The way things are >structured now there is no economic disincentive to consume as much >road capacity as you can - which is why we have no excess road >capacity. Nonsense. There's only so much road capacity a person can consume, and doing so costs him money and time. We have no excess road capacity largely because the NIMBYs and BANANAs not only prevent and delay road construction, but get "traffic calming" instituted to destroy road capacity. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>>http://www.aims.ca/library/Stockholm.pdf >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >balance itself. If congestion pricing isn't the best way to do that, >then please tell me what is. You miss the point. If ALL you do is something that reduces traffic 10% then by definition you have done exactly the same thing as add another 10% capacity. The LAST time you added 10% capacity what happened? Just as you stated, induced traffic filled it right back up. That's going to happen for this "congestion pricing" thing too. Just as new capacity is nice when it's new and not being used, this "new" capacity will disappear over a short period of further growth. If people were willing to put up with the road at "capacity" then it follows that new people will come along and refill it to capacity no matter what you do to create more capacity or remove SOME drivers. If I'm wrong, tell me where any place that has instituted congestion pricing has seen it "solve" anything for other then a short period of time till more people come along. NONE of these strategies will work as long as you continue to allow further growth of a region. Unless you consider ever higher taxes to support more and more highly subsidized mass transit a solution - that's just a way to trick people into paying taxes indirectly that they would not willing pay directly. >You miss the point. If ALL you do is something that reduces traffic >10% then by definition you have done exactly the same thing as add >another 10% capacity. The LAST time you added 10% capacity what >happened? Just as you stated, induced traffic filled it right back >up. That's going to happen for this "congestion pricing" thing too. LOL!!! So let's recap your theory: Congestion pricing is introduced on a road. 10% of drivers think the price is too steep, so they stop driving on that road. However, because congestion is now reduced on that road, those same drivers who yesterday thought the price was too high suddenly decide the price is just fine and start driving on the road again, bringing congestion right back up to where it was. Does anybody see any flaws in Ashton's theory? Signature"You can all kiss my @ss!" - Carl Rogers, Message-ID: <IE1ej.2353$se5.298@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> >>You miss the point. If ALL you do is something that reduces traffic >>10% then by definition you have done exactly the same thing as add [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Does anybody see any flaws in Ashton's theory? You don't understand what I'm saying. It won't be the *same* drivers. It will be NEW people who move in. There will be, among those NEW people, some of them willing to put up with the congestion just like there was before the extra cost was tacked on. So within a few years a whole new group of drivers will be out there clogging the road. Sure, they will pay a toll, so what, they will still be there clogging up the road OR if they are not there, they will be clogging up alternate routes, either way, you wind up with the same overall congested mess. The only difference is that the average user is now paying higher taxes and you can be sure that after a few years the politicians will be using that tax money for things other then the highways/users they collect it from . Or if it's privatized it will just become huge profits for some private company. Private companies have no incentive to provide extra capacity if it's not economic to do so. Once they own the main arteries in an area where it's very expensive to build more, they won't build more, they will just rape the users of the existing routes since that's where the profit is. That's why these "free market" schemes are a false hope. The only group they are good for are the owners of the road. If any of these schemes made sense for the users the gvt could simply do them themselves and then the public would be the beneficiaries of the "profits". Follow the money. >>>You miss the point. If ALL you do is something that reduces traffic >>>10% then by definition you have done exactly the same thing as add [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >You don't understand what I'm saying. It won't be the *same* drivers. >It will be NEW people who move in. So why would these NEW people be any more likely to pay high prices to drive on the road than the original 10% who bailed because it was too expensive? But OK, let's assume you are correct, and there are a group of people who hate congestion but are willing to pay a fee to drive on this particular road. All you have to do is raise the price some more until your desired goal of a 10% reduction is met. There is GUARANTEED to be a price point where that will occur, and, once reached, that equilibrium can be maintained indefinitely. The same cannot be said for building more roads, as it's not only too expensive but it's physically impossible to widen roads fast enough to keep up with unbridled demand. That's why bridling the demand is the only viable solution. Signature"You can all kiss my @ss!" - Carl Rogers, Message-ID: <IE1ej.2353$se5.298@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> > >>>You miss the point. If ALL you do is something that reduces traffic > >>>10% then by definition you have done exactly the same thing as add [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > - Show quoted text - FWIW, They built a toll-road around a major creep-and-beep motorway in the Birmingham (GB) area. I expect that people in a hurry and freight carriers all use it. I did myself when travelling with the Studebaker Owners Club (UK) - and that was on a Sunday. Smooooooth! >>>>You miss the point. If ALL you do is something that reduces traffic >>>>10% then by definition you have done exactly the same thing as add [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >unbridled demand. That's why bridling the demand is the only viable >solution. That would be a fine solution IF the private companies actually PAID for the road AND were not given a monopoly. Every time someone looks at these "free market" schemes they find that the only "free" part of it is how the state give the lane and existing road FREE to some private company. As to the more limited concept of tolls to force some users to travel "off peak", that is just social engineering. If you find that acceptable then you should be agreeable to the notion that we should charge a HUGE tax on ANY car purchase since it will discourage car ownership and force people to ride the bus. It's no different in outcome, just a different way to screw people who can't afford to pay the arbitrary "toll". And, of course, you would support a high tax rate on suburban homes and a low tax rate on central city slums to encourage people to "live where they work". >>You miss the point. If ALL you do is something that reduces traffic >>10% then by definition you have done exactly the same thing as add [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >just fine and start driving on the road again, bringing congestion >right back up to where it was. No, they're different drivers -- the same drivers who would magically be induced to appear on the road if you increased capacity by 10%. Assuming you believe in induced traffic at all, the theory holds. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>>You miss the point. If ALL you do is something that reduces traffic >>>10% then by definition you have done exactly the same thing as add [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Assuming you believe in induced traffic at all, the theory holds. So this is your capacity for logical thought? You think that induced traffic works the same with a toll road as it does with a "free" one? SignaturePlease don't give financial rewards to trolls - DO NOT CLICK on any URLs containing "calrog.com" >>>>You miss the point. If ALL you do is something that reduces traffic >>>>10% then by definition you have done exactly the same thing as add [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >So this is your capacity for logical thought? You think that induced >traffic works the same with a toll road as it does with a "free" one? Sure. The induced traffic theory says that road capacity is so desirable, that no matter how much you build of it, it will fill up. A piddling little toll is not even going to make a dent in such insatiable desire. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >>>Assuming you believe in induced traffic at all, the theory holds. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Sure. The induced traffic theory says that road capacity is so >desirable, that no matter how much you build of it, it will fill up. That's not the theory I heard. >A piddling little toll is not even going to make a dent in such >insatiable desire. OK, prove it. SignaturePlease don't give financial rewards to trolls - DO NOT CLICK on any URLs containing "calrog.com" >>>>Assuming you believe in induced traffic at all, the theory holds. >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >That's not the theory I heard. It's the theory you've been espousing. "Whenever you increase capacity you have induced traffic to deal with, which quickly erases any gains." >>A piddling little toll is not even going to make a dent in such >>insatiable desire. > >OK, prove it. I already have, if I accept your postulate above. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > Sure. The induced traffic theory says that road capacity is so > desirable, that no matter how much you build of it, it will fill up. > A piddling little toll is not even going to make a dent in such > insatiable desire. That depends on who sets the toll. A sensible private owner, if allowed, will determine by experiment exactly what level of tolls bring in the most money. This level will vary with time and day (as on the 91 Express Lanes) and will be at the point where the number of drivers willing to pay it is just below the number that would produce stop-and-go traffic. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.