-----Original Message----- From Stefan Langeveld
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2006
Subject: Voter commentary

Undesirable as Charged: The Case against City Circulation Charging (CCC)

The Dull Knife. A tool or measure must be more than effective. In this case: reducing the road use by cars. It should be efficient, palatable, equitable, in concert with other measures and policies. Due to the putative success of the Congestion Charge (CC) in London, many city governors and lobby groups are studying this type of policy with renewed vigour. In Edinburgh, the proposal was rejected in a referendum, and in Stockholm there is a demonstration in progress, with a referendum in September.

Here I present the case against the various forms of charging for driving in or entering city centres.

1. The Dull Knife. A tool or measure must be more than effective. In this case: reducing the road use by cars. It should be efficient, palatable, equitable, in concert with other measures and policies.

2. There are /no/ alternatives. People look hopefully at the dull knife, when they see no other way to achieve their aims. They see no other ways, because they stare at the usual policies and blissfully ignore or reject alternative solutions.
   • Reduction of traffic intensity. Increased vehicle occupancy by ride sharing and xTransit remains an underestimated way forward.
   • Promotion of cleaner vehicles. For 1 and 2 I propose a system of permits. Every car owner receives a total of points related to the eco-impact of the car and to it's purpose. The total translates into a level of permits for driving and parking in certain areas. This way the government can steer towards clean and purposeful car use far more directly. Road use and parking are in one system.
   • Beat congestion. Redesign intersections and roads, and remove traffic lights (cf. H. Monderman and 'Langzaam rijden gaat sneller'). Less traffic (1.) helps too.

3. Charge! Levies and charges remain popular with governments in the 21st century. If road tax, parking charges, fuel tax and wealth tax* don't work, we'll create another. 'The polluters pay' is a good principle, but they already do.

4. Not in concert. In the case of CCC, the new charge is planned without taking into account the existing parking charges. It is an instance of blatant overlapping. This shows that governments rarely see the bigger picture.
   • In Amsterdam the parking charges (€ 3,40 or 4,40 /hr in the centre) are a definite deterrent, they have reduced the traffic level. A majority now feels that the current rates are enough. Nevertheless, some parties propose a CCC for the area within the ring road.
   • Perhaps the only advantage of the CCC is closing this loophole: those who can park the car in private garages (at work for instance) are unaffected by parking charges. But this advantage is never mentioned.

5. Fine-tuning. There will always be a tug of war about the optimum rates. Fixed or variable, high or low? There is a clear parallel with speed humps (another dull knife) : in order to be effective, the level must be high, and then the disadvantages become crippling.
   • The main disadvantage of a high charge is the socio-economic effect. Low-income people and marginal organisations/companies will be driven out first. One British paper headlined an article on the CC with The Rich Motorists' Dream, and i've readily used that on Baluw.nl .
   • One answer to this is: the poor don't drive cars, they're not effected, so it's a tax for the non-poor. And the money goes to public transport, which benefits the poor as well. Well, that's one way of looking at it. Such a macro-view blends out the workers who spend an hour or so extra each day in public transport (compared to a car trip), the small firms that depend on car use, and others. The proponents of CCC effectively usher the lower incomes into PT, while the higher incomes still have a choice. This could only be allowed if PT is affordable, swift and comfortable. If it is a good as car use, under all circumstances, including peak hours. This is not the case in European cities, and it's doubtful whether allocating more money to PT will accomplish the condition i set.
   • Note: it's not merely income that counts, but also the opportunity to pass the CCC unto employers and clientèle. I wonder whether this effect has been studied in London.