Transport Manifestos
The London Mayor's race is "hotting up" (not heating up, as in American English). Each of the candidates, current mayor Ken Livingston (labour) and Boris Johnson (conservative) have issued "transport manifestos".
While Ken Livingstone may now be somewhat well-known to Americans interested in congestion pricing, Boris Johnson is himself a celebrity of sorts in the UK, a British version of a young William F. Buckley perhaps? He manages to attract publicity for whatever he does.
An article on Ken Livingstone's campaign and manifesto are linked to from here:
London: Mayor & More: Livingstone's Transport Policy Launch
Boris Johnson's Manifesto can be found here:
Transport : Back Boris for Mayor of London
One of the major issues is "Bendy Buses" (Articulated Buses), which have in recent years been introduced to London's streets, and are not terribly popular, especially with cyclists.
Johnson has also called for reconsideration of the western extension of the congestion charging region implement in 2007.
Comments
Livingstone has recently suggested changing the congestion charge to an even higher GHG emissions charge, which as the article states potential increase congestion in the central city. This would make NYC's $8 a day look like pocket change to SUV drivers.
Posted by: Brendon Slotterback | April 7, 2008 01:27 PM
Here's hoping none of this nonsense comes to pass.
The GHG charge, as currently structured, would be a poor instrument for reducing emissions. A fixed charge, levied unevenly across users (some polluters are exempt) does not approximate well the damage costs of users.
Emissions result from the consumption of fuel, not the act of owning a car. Furthermore, less fuel-efficienct vehicles already pay more in fuel taxes than vehicles of merely average fuel economy.
Which raises another point. If Britain's fuel already costs $8 per gallon, why is an additional charge needed? Ian Parry and Ken Small have already shown that UK fuel taxes are higher than optimal for an externality tax. They internalize the costs of pollution, GHGs and uninsured crashes, with some room to spare.
Finally, this proposal violates the Tinbergen Rule. The cordon toll was meant to reduce congestion in Central London (something it does crudely). Using a charge similar to the toll will only reduce traffic levels in the tolled area throughout the day. Since the emissions of greenhouse gases are basically invariant to source location, the result will probably be the same amount of emissions (and damage)arising from a greater multitude of locations.
Posted by: Mike | April 10, 2008 12:25 AM
is London's approach the most comprehensive, or just the most expensive?
Posted by: Erik Ferguson | April 12, 2008 01:32 PM
In response to ETF: "is London's approach the most comprehensive, or just the most expensive?"
I think the answer is it is both the most comprehensive and most expensive.
Posted by: dml | April 12, 2008 02:37 PM