4 ms·

> “London has resolved its traffic problem by replacing trams with buses, and Sydney should do the same,” he advised. Interestingly enough, London has not seen

> “London has resolved its traffic problem by replacing trams with buses, and Sydney should do the same,” he advised. Interestingly enough, London has not seen it fit to reinstall trams, instead choosing to continually expand the Underground (subway) network and apply congestion charges to the inner-city traffic. And as it happens, one of the more valid criticisms levied against Sydney's new line is that its capacity will be insufficient from Day 1, and it really should have been built as heavy rail instead.

jimmaswell 7y ago
Banning poor from the roads really seems like no solution at all to me. Like one of those misguided solutions an AI comes up with like pausing Tetris forever to avoid the score going down. You alleviated congestion for a few without solving the real problem. Improve transit and traffic engineering instead.
- sjwright 7y ago
  A congestion charge isn't "banning poor from the roads" any more than other significant costs like vehicle and fuel taxes or inner-city parking. And in the absence of the congestion charge, London's roads would be utterly unusable for everyone, including "poor" people who need an emergency ambulance provided by the free Government healthcare. If the congestion charge was eliminated, daily commuting to central London by car would still be a non-starter for even the most aspirational middle-class office worker—let alone the poor. If you've ever been to London you'd notice that the mass transit system—particularly the tube—is dominated by smart-looking, professionally dressed people navigating the city. It's a great system, it's almost always better than driving, and its use spans a broad socio-economic group.
- cletus 7y ago
  I hate this argument because it seems altruistic and empathetic but most of the time it's entirely self-serving. People wheel it out when something that would inconvenience them, specifically, is proposed. Example: in Manhattan we still have free street parking. It's insane. Yet any attempts to remove it get this same argument of "what about the poor who need to drive?" To anyone who says this or thinks this I challenge you to walk several blocks of pretty much any street below 110th street and look at the cars parked there. On some I see Maseratis, Teslas, BMWs and so on. It's not poor people who own these cars. It's just another giveaway to incumbents and the wealthy for no good reason. I lived in London when congestion pricing was first rolled out. The difference in traffic in the West End was night and day, overnight. It was unbelievable, so much so that Ken Livingstone (then Mayor of London) worried they wouldn't hit revenue targets. The problem with London's congestion pricing is there's an exemption for those who live in Zone 1, basically (technically, it's a subset of Zone 1). Why? These are the people who have the least need for private vehicles (by virtue of good public transportation) and are probably significantly wealthier than the average Londoner. This is also the problem I have with what NYC is doing. They're also flirting with congestion pricing. So far all they've done is make Ubers stupidly expensive (there are rides that 5 years ago would cost me <$15 that now cost $35), which is again completely wrong. Uber and Lyft make efficient use of vehicles. They're not driven once a week and otherwise block the street cleaners in their free parking. Private vehicle ownership for Manhattan residents needs to be punitively taxed and street parking should require an expensive permit. There should also be a lot less of it.
  - jimmaswell 7y ago
    I'd be fine with a means based program to avoid congestion pricing then. I've never driven in Manhattan myself.
    - jurip 7y ago
      A problem with means based charges is that it gives no incentive to people covered by the system to alter their behavior. I think a better way would be to have the charges apply to everyone and add a system that directs (some of) the collected money to people less well off. That way, if they need to, they can still afford to drive in the city, but if they can avoid it, it benefits them.
  - wastedhours 7y ago
    > The problem with London's congestion pricing is there's an exemption for those who live in Zone 1, basically (technically, it's a subset of Zone 1). Why? These are the people who have the least need for private vehicles (by virtue of good public transportation) and are probably significantly wealthier than the average Londoner. I lived within the Congestion Zone, even with a 90% reduction on the charge per day (so you still have the cognitive load of having to pay) and having a parking space included with my flat (a damned luxury in London), still didn't feel the need to have a car. As a Zone 1 resident I found driving in central more agro than it was worth. Granted, there are leafier areas that are still caught within it, but around where I was, and most of the places I've been inside it, the mix of 20mph zones, speed bumps, yellow boxes, bus lane cameras, cyclists, angry Uber drivers, and trying to find somewhere to park at the end... it's not worth it. Now living in Zone 2, I have a car that I use exclusively for getting out of the city. I still struggle to understand why anyone would willingly drive in London on a daily basis (unless they're paid to drive).
    - friendlybus 7y ago
      Driving at night in London is more pleasant.
      - 7y ago
666lumberjack 7y ago
>London has not seen fit to reinstall trams That's not strictly true[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tramlink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tramlink

jimmaswell 7y ago

Banning poor from the roads really seems like no solution at all to me. Like one of those misguided solutions an AI comes up with like pausing Tetris forever to avoid the score going down. You alleviated congestion for a few without solving the real problem. Improve transit and traffic engineering instead.

sjwright 7y ago
A congestion charge isn't "banning poor from the roads" any more than other significant costs like vehicle and fuel taxes or inner-city parking. And in the absence of the congestion charge, London's roads would be utterly unusable for everyone, including "poor" people who need an emergency ambulance provided by the free Government healthcare. If the congestion charge was eliminated, daily commuting to central London by car would still be a non-starter for even the most aspirational middle-class office worker—let alone the poor. If you've ever been to London you'd notice that the mass transit system—particularly the tube—is dominated by smart-looking, professionally dressed people navigating the city. It's a great system, it's almost always better than driving, and its use spans a broad socio-economic group.
cletus 7y ago
I hate this argument because it seems altruistic and empathetic but most of the time it's entirely self-serving. People wheel it out when something that would inconvenience them, specifically, is proposed. Example: in Manhattan we still have free street parking. It's insane. Yet any attempts to remove it get this same argument of "what about the poor who need to drive?" To anyone who says this or thinks this I challenge you to walk several blocks of pretty much any street below 110th street and look at the cars parked there. On some I see Maseratis, Teslas, BMWs and so on. It's not poor people who own these cars. It's just another giveaway to incumbents and the wealthy for no good reason. I lived in London when congestion pricing was first rolled out. The difference in traffic in the West End was night and day, overnight. It was unbelievable, so much so that Ken Livingstone (then Mayor of London) worried they wouldn't hit revenue targets. The problem with London's congestion pricing is there's an exemption for those who live in Zone 1, basically (technically, it's a subset of Zone 1). Why? These are the people who have the least need for private vehicles (by virtue of good public transportation) and are probably significantly wealthier than the average Londoner. This is also the problem I have with what NYC is doing. They're also flirting with congestion pricing. So far all they've done is make Ubers stupidly expensive (there are rides that 5 years ago would cost me <$15 that now cost $35), which is again completely wrong. Uber and Lyft make efficient use of vehicles. They're not driven once a week and otherwise block the street cleaners in their free parking. Private vehicle ownership for Manhattan residents needs to be punitively taxed and street parking should require an expensive permit. There should also be a lot less of it.
- jimmaswell 7y ago
  I'd be fine with a means based program to avoid congestion pricing then. I've never driven in Manhattan myself.
  - jurip 7y ago
    A problem with means based charges is that it gives no incentive to people covered by the system to alter their behavior. I think a better way would be to have the charges apply to everyone and add a system that directs (some of) the collected money to people less well off. That way, if they need to, they can still afford to drive in the city, but if they can avoid it, it benefits them.
- wastedhours 7y ago
  > The problem with London's congestion pricing is there's an exemption for those who live in Zone 1, basically (technically, it's a subset of Zone 1). Why? These are the people who have the least need for private vehicles (by virtue of good public transportation) and are probably significantly wealthier than the average Londoner. I lived within the Congestion Zone, even with a 90% reduction on the charge per day (so you still have the cognitive load of having to pay) and having a parking space included with my flat (a damned luxury in London), still didn't feel the need to have a car. As a Zone 1 resident I found driving in central more agro than it was worth. Granted, there are leafier areas that are still caught within it, but around where I was, and most of the places I've been inside it, the mix of 20mph zones, speed bumps, yellow boxes, bus lane cameras, cyclists, angry Uber drivers, and trying to find somewhere to park at the end... it's not worth it. Now living in Zone 2, I have a car that I use exclusively for getting out of the city. I still struggle to understand why anyone would willingly drive in London on a daily basis (unless they're paid to drive).
  - friendlybus 7y ago
    Driving at night in London is more pleasant.
    - 7y ago

666lumberjack 7y ago

>London has not seen fit to reinstall trams That's not strictly true[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tramlink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tramlink