Should All Cars be Banned from London?
by Matthew Sparkes, London, UK on 09.17.07
The Greater London Authority (GLA) has pledged to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in London 60% by 2025. It’s a massive goal, and one which many believe is unreachable using current methods. A new study shows that some radical moves might be needed in order to achieve it, such as banning all cars from London. The report was written by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and the Transport Studies Unit of the Oxford University Centre for the Environment, and explains that London will only make a 10-23% reduction at its current rate, but that their plan could achieve a 72% drop by 2030.
After reading the report, Auto Blog Green explain that, “Much of the reason that London's emissions are too high to begin with is that very few people walk, ride their bicycle or take public transportation.”
I think that this is far from true, as all trains and buses in London are packed to bursting at rush hour, and there are a lot of cyclists waiting at every red light. Yes, too many people drive, but the main problem is that public transport in London is old-fashioned and straining under the weight of far more traffic than it was designed for.
Not that many people actually drive to work in Central London, compared to the number that take public transport, but it doesn’t take very much traffic to clog up it’s ancient streets. Although it seems very unlikely that cars would ever be banned from London, especially outer London, it does look as though the congestion charge will be raised, and its area increased.
Every time this happens the amount of traffic in the city will decrease, and it will be more comfortable for cyclists and pedestrians. Some pedestrian-only streets wouldn’t hurt either, but we’ll see if the next mayor shares Ken’s congestion-charge ideals. ::Scientific Blogging via ::Auto Blog Green ::Picture Source
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Geoengineering Redux: Fertilizing Trees with Nitrogen to Fight Climate Change
- 16 Kyoto Protocol Nations On Track to Meet Emissions Reductions, Through No Fault of Their Own
- Make Cars Green: Too Little Too Late?
- China's Coal Fires Burn 20 Million Tons of Coal Per Year
I wonder at what point will this cost London business. I would think that at some point It would make sence to move your company to the suburbs to escape the increase in cost and regulation.
Would this not encourage Urban Sprall?
In answer to the title, yes. As well as every other city.
Yes. And its easily doable.
One of the problems with getting people out of their cars is the huge inconvenience of the alternatives. In Edmonton Canada, I took a bus to work each day for years. But eventually the rock hard seats, little leg room and general rage that ensued forced me to buy a Prius. Basically, people who take buses are treated like cattle and 2nd class citizens by those who take cars. Penalties, taxes, and fines are the stick, but there has to be carrots too. I imagine cyclists (and their co-workers) would like showers available at work when they arrive. These extra things are really needed to make the alternatives to car not suck. And I never hear of those things addressed.
Here is an idea. Double wide buses that take up 2 lanes but include lots of comforts for riders.
Raising the congestion charge won't decrease traffic in my opinion. The streets are just as congested as they've ever been according to the taxi drivers I've spoken to. True, roadworks have been to blame partly but if you're not put off by £8 a day then will £10 or £15 in a few years time?
I do agree that London's public transport system is creaking but by getting rid of cars from London's streets you could have wide bus lanes, extensive padestrian precincts, an amazing bus service, plenty of room for a fast, clean PRT system to back up the tube and you could have electric taxis mopping up the rest.
And while I deeply respect the knowledge of taxi drivers in London they are wrong about the levels of congestion.
The reduction in congestion has averaged 26% each year the congestion charge has been in effect.
The new changes to the pricing probably won't affect the levels of congestion much (because the majority of cars would continue to pay £8) but they should significantly influence car buying habits in the South East of England and with luck put a massive dent in the new and used markets for G band cars (which would pay £25) while boosting sales of sub 120g/km A and B band cars (which would pay nothing).
More information on the effects of the LCC can be found here:
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/FourthAnnualReportFinal.pdf
Insanely radical. Would cause riots IMHO. But it could be made extremely expensive to use your car in London or big cities. Such as toll booths to enter the city area, high parking costs, lowering the amount of parking spaces, higher gas taxes within the city, condemning lanes for buses thus making heavier traffic and making people use the buses instead, giving tax incentives to using the buses or subway, etc.
Guide the herd, don't anger it.
There is no reason to lower the CO2 production rate in London. I could see why London would want to lower toxic gas emission in London, but attempting to lower CO2 emissions will do nothing but strain the people of London.
I think this is an issue most large cities are going to run up against in the coming years. With fast-paced city life, not many people will be willing to spend what they believe to be more time commuting, even if it is better for everyone.
A possible solution is to penalize the purchases of vehicles that are not in the extremely efficient range (60+mpg), and offering tax incentives to people who use public transit.
Ban all cars? It would be worse, because trucks get worse gas mileage.
Very similar problems (and solutions) plague New York where I live. After our Major announced similar ideas based on punishment and restrictions I have sent him following short study on my car usage and reasons for it (I post here the minimal version);
-To come to the city from the suburb where I live it is 40 mile drive. Despite road congestion I typically can make it from the home to the destination in between 45min and 1hr 15min. With the average gas mileage of my car I use 1.5gal at 3$ per galon. Total roundtrip cost 9$ and 45min to 1 hr 15 min time one way.
-To come to the city using the train: 15 min to go to the train station, 15 min to wait for the train (poor on-time record) 1hr 30 min to get to NYC train station 15-30 min to get by subway to the destination. Total cost 10.50$ per one way train ticket 2.50$ per one way subway: 26$ roundtrip cost and 2hrs 15min to 2hrs 30min of time spent one way.
Even with just one passanger I can "brake even" paying 17$ for parking. Put just TWO passangers in the car and the public transport becomes absolutely inefficient both in terms of time, convinience and money. City would need to start "tolls"of 30$ at least for the "punishment method" to work.
Solution I'd like is thinking of totaly restructuring public transport of large cities, including the whole surrounding regions. Huge investment, but we are at the point where the old system is failing. Completely new concept is needed. Some type of "mass transit individual pods" operated atutomatically and allowing point-to-point personal transport at high speed, low cost (removal of the human element), pollution free. Junking both cars and more importantly 19th century public transport remnants as trains, subways and busses....
The assertion made in the article that "there are a lot of cyclists waiting at every red light" fails to reveal the full extent of the number of cyclists in London, since the majority I see pay no attention red lights and sail through as if they aren't there.
I don't think that you can remove the public transport system without ruining the image of london - many public transport services are now switching to biofuels anyway - all we have to do is to higher the amount of vehicles fueled by biofuel and discourage normal driving. Maybe make the bus system faster and more efficient.
Even better, lets ban people form the city. That'll really get rid of the pollution.
Guys - first of all - DO NOT talk about carbon emissions when talking about a car ban. That's not what it's about. STOP DOING IT. You will only make yourself look stupid and reduce the likely hood of helping both causes. (Sure some street level emission would be reduced, but it's about the unpleasantness and unhelathyness of exhaust in general, not CO2)
The reason we should ban cars in *central* London and other places like Manhattan is about livability. Why in the world are cars allowed on most Manhattan streets? I don't care if they are gas, hybrids, electric or powered by rainbows, the damn thing do not belong in a pedestrian scale neighborhood. DO you see the problem here?
Finally - let's be honest about the congestion charge - it costs BILLIONS to run. Granted, it pays for itself with the charges, but it's specious to assume that slapping on a charge is going to pay for better transit etc... all it does is employ a lot of people to work for the congestion charge agency. An outright ban on cars would not make any money or employ people.
I'm not sure I care about it either way, but recognize that is a huge force in why the CC exists - especially under a socialist mayor!
I agree with Mancini... you are doing environmentalism a HUGE disservice when you post drivel like this.