Comments on: Transport http://www.citiesmanifesto.org Manifesto for prosperous cities Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:09:20 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Alan Wenban-Smith http://www.citiesmanifesto.org/transport/#comment-36 Alan Wenban-Smith Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:05:18 +0000 http://www.citiesmanifesto.org/?page_id=7#comment-36 The trouble about trying to cure congestion by improving roads is that unless you 'lock in' the improvements by charging, the generated traffic washes away all your efforts (the 'free ice-cream on a hot day effect'). If, however you charge according to congestion caused, people and businesses will relocate to avoid your charges by moving out of congested areas (ie cities and towns). This has the perverse effect of creating even more congestion as more travel demand is generated, and less of it is capable of being served by public transport. It also undermines the capacity of cities to offer agglomeration benefits. There is no solution to this conundrum within the field of transport alone: the main driver of increasing transport demand is locational choice, and transport is only one component of this. If you are really bothered about congestion, urban regeneration allied to radical public transport improvement is likely to be more effective than the kinds of road improvements advocated by Eddington (and Dermot Finch) and supported by current appraisal methodologies. The money needed to finance this, to act as a restraint on traffic growth, to tackle carbon emissions and to deliver a local income source could be raised by a supplementary 'Green' tax on fuel (much easier and cheaper to collect than congestion charge, and less politically explosive than a conventional fuel tax increase). If this was earmarked for relevant local uses it could finance the kind of joined-up action needed and give the rhetoric about devolution a much-needed element of reality. The rate could be set nationally, to avoid border-hopping, or regionally to reflect different problems and needs - eg a higher rate in the SE, reflecting its greater needs and ability to pay (and perhaps influencing future locational choices) The trouble about trying to cure congestion by improving roads is that unless you ‘lock in’ the improvements by charging, the generated traffic washes away all your efforts (the ‘free ice-cream on a hot day effect’). If, however you charge according to congestion caused, people and businesses will relocate to avoid your charges by moving out of congested areas (ie cities and towns). This has the perverse effect of creating even more congestion as more travel demand is generated, and less of it is capable of being served by public transport. It also undermines the capacity of cities to offer agglomeration benefits.

There is no solution to this conundrum within the field of transport alone: the main driver of increasing transport demand is locational choice, and transport is only one component of this. If you are really bothered about congestion, urban regeneration allied to radical public transport improvement is likely to be more effective than the kinds of road improvements advocated by Eddington (and Dermot Finch) and supported by current appraisal methodologies.

The money needed to finance this, to act as a restraint on traffic growth, to tackle carbon emissions and to deliver a local income source could be raised by a supplementary ‘Green’ tax on fuel (much easier and cheaper to collect than congestion charge, and less politically explosive than a conventional fuel tax increase). If this was earmarked for relevant local uses it could finance the kind of joined-up action needed and give the rhetoric about devolution a much-needed element of reality.

The rate could be set nationally, to avoid border-hopping, or regionally to reflect different problems and needs – eg a higher rate in the SE, reflecting its greater needs and ability to pay (and perhaps influencing future locational choices)

]]> By: Martina Juvara http://www.citiesmanifesto.org/transport/#comment-30 Martina Juvara Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:50:42 +0000 http://www.citiesmanifesto.org/?page_id=7#comment-30 I feel that congestion charging and road pricing as your main policy is a bit lame. Puts all the focus on cars and managing cars. We know that such scheme have limited long term effect and not sufficient revenues to really make a difference. They cost a lot upfront. In recession-hit urban Britain there is a great opportunity to really promote Travel Choice / sustainable travel, i.e. a fresh approach to bus-based public transport with adoption of carbon and pollution efficient vehicles, reconfiguration of routing, new ticketing systems (in Paris 50% of a travel card is a mandatory benefit, which is not compensated by cash equivalent if you do not take it up – this makes an enormous difference). Moreover, your manifesto should promote investment in engendering a culture of walking and cycling. I agree that under a broader agenda of supporting cities and towns during recession large scale, capital hungry schemes should not be centre stage. However, think at the time lag between when Crossrail was first conceived and the day the first passenger will board. Strategic high volume public transport should be investigated now and firmly associated with the growth/ regeneration agenda. I feel that congestion charging and road pricing as your main policy is a bit lame. Puts all the focus on cars and managing cars. We know that such scheme have limited long term effect and not sufficient revenues to really make a difference. They cost a lot upfront. In recession-hit urban Britain there is a great opportunity to really promote Travel Choice / sustainable travel, i.e. a fresh approach to bus-based public transport with adoption of carbon and pollution efficient vehicles, reconfiguration of routing, new ticketing systems (in Paris 50% of a travel card is a mandatory benefit, which is not compensated by cash equivalent if you do not take it up – this makes an enormous difference). Moreover, your manifesto should promote investment in engendering a culture of walking and cycling.

I agree that under a broader agenda of supporting cities and towns during recession large scale, capital hungry schemes should not be centre stage. However, think at the time lag between when Crossrail was first conceived and the day the first passenger will board. Strategic high volume public transport should be investigated now and firmly associated with the growth/ regeneration agenda.

]]> By: Dr Jim Ford http://www.citiesmanifesto.org/transport/#comment-9 Dr Jim Ford Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:40:06 +0000 http://www.citiesmanifesto.org/?page_id=7#comment-9 Northern Rail is the largest franchise, and covers all of the northern conurbations yet has received no new diesel trains and not a single mile of new track or electrification since 1997, indeed we have had our trains swapped for the boneshaking and unsafe Pacers which were built for rural lines in Wales and the west. Things were little better before 1997 so a return to Conservative government can be hardly likley to signify change. This means in practice that standing on trains is less of a concern as we cannot even get on them leaving Manchester and Salford. So we are forced to pay 65p a mile to drive to work (AA) when people in London have entirely new, safe and comfortable trains and lines which cost a fraction of this to use. Is it any surprise that the northern economies lag so much behind London? You are right to cite Oxford Road, which is a disgrace, with many superannuated, polluting buses thundering along in competion with each other, when the traffic could be so much better handled by a high capacity continental style tramway. Northern Rail is the largest franchise, and covers all of the northern conurbations yet has received no new diesel trains and not a single mile of new track or electrification since 1997, indeed we have had our trains swapped for the boneshaking and unsafe Pacers which were built for rural lines in Wales and the west. Things were little better before 1997 so a return to Conservative government can be hardly likley to signify change. This means in practice that standing on trains is less of a concern as we cannot even get on them leaving Manchester and Salford. So we are forced to pay 65p a mile to drive to work (AA) when people in London have entirely new, safe and comfortable trains and lines which cost a fraction of this to use. Is it any surprise that the northern economies lag so much behind London? You are right to cite Oxford Road, which is a disgrace, with many superannuated, polluting buses thundering along in competion with each other, when the traffic could be so much better handled by a high capacity continental style tramway.

]]> By: Centre for Cities http://www.citiesmanifesto.org/transport/#comment-4 Centre for Cities Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:37:14 +0000 http://www.citiesmanifesto.org/?page_id=7#comment-4 Join us at party conferences to debate our policy recommendations. We'll be part of the Urban Hub at Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem conferences, including a series of fringe panel events on City Transport - further details at www.urban-hub.org Join us at party conferences to debate our policy recommendations. We’ll be part of the Urban Hub at Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem conferences, including a series of fringe panel events on City Transport – further details at http://www.urban-hub.org

]]>