In order for New York City to examine its transportation in the view of sustainability, it must view its work in the global framework. New York City must be able to learn from other cities that have taken steps to address sustainability, while serving as model for those cities that have not done much.
London:
London has made a tremendous commitment to sustainability. The pilot feature coming out of London’s efforts to deal with traffic congestion is the congestion pricing program.
The London congestion charge is a fee for motorists travelling within the Congestion Charge Zone (CCZ), a traffic area in London. The charge aims to reduce congestion, and raise investment funds for London’s transport system. The zone was introduced in Central London on 17 February 2003, and extended into parts of West London on 19 February 2007. Though not the first scheme of its kind in the United Kingdom, it was the largest when introduced, and it remains one of the largest in the world. Several cities around the world have referenced London’s congestion charge when considering their own schemes.
A payment of 8 pounds is required each day for each vehicle which travels within the zone between 7am and 6pm (Monday-Friday only); a fine of between £60 and £180 is levied for non-payment. Transport for London (TfL) administers the charge; private companies have taken it over since. The system is mostly run on an automatic basis using an automatic number plate system.
Failure to pay results in a huge fine.
The effects of the program are excellent. On the fist day of its introduction, traffic decreased 25% in central London. Traffic patterns have been permanently altered by the traffic congestion fee. On the first day 190,000 vehicles moved into or within the zone during charging hours, a decrease of around 25% on normal traffic levels, partly due to it also being the half-term school holiday. A report from the Bow Group stated that historically, London congestion is at its worst during the morning rush hour, and that the early days of congestion charging had little impact on that critical time, the main effect occurring after 11 am. Just over 100,000 motorists paid the charge personally, 15–20,000 were fleet vehicles paying under fleet arrangements, and it was believed around 10,000 liable motorists did not pay the due charge.
On 23 October 2003 Transport for London published a report reviewing the first six months of the charge. The report’s main findings were that the average number of cars and delivery vehicles entering the central zone was 60,000 fewer than the previous year. Around 50–60% of this reduction was attributed to transfers to public transport, 20–30% to journeys avoiding the zone, 15-25% switching to car share, and the remainder to reduced number of journeys, more traveling outside the hours of operation, and increased use of motorbikes and bicycles. Journey times were found to have been reduced by 14%. Variation in journey time for a particular route repeated on many occasions also decreased. The report also claimed that although the charge was responsible for about 4,000 fewer people visiting the zone daily, that the charge was responsible for only a small fraction of the 7% drop in retail sales reported. The report also stated that around 100,000 penalty fines were issued each month, of which about 2,000 were contested.
TfL’s report in June 2007 found that the level of traffic of all vehicle types entering the central Congestion Charge Zone was now consistently 16% lower in 2006 than the pre-charge levels in 2002. Breaking down that figure showed the number of chargeable vehicles entering the zone had reduced by 30% (primarily cars and minicabs, although vans and lorries had decreased by 13%), while there were overall increases in the numbers of taxis, buses, and especially bicycles. The daily profile of traffic flows had changed, with less traffic after 9:30 am and a peak immediately before and after the end of the charging period. The level of traffic entering the zone during the morning peak had not reduced as much as at other times. They had noted a small but pervasive long term trend of less traffic entering the zone, expected to be a result of people changing their location and lifestyle, perhaps influenced by the charge. Once within the charging zone car and delivery traffic remained unchanged, suggesting that the journeys made by residents and businesses within the zone were broadly unaffected. Changes to the road network over the years has made direct comparisons difficult, but TfL suspect that certain routes used heavily by taxis and buses within the zone have seen substantially increased traffic. On some of the boundary roads traffic numbers had increased slightly but congestion and delays were largely unchanged from 2002 levels. Year on year, counts of inbound traffic approaching the zone had also seen a distinct and significant 5–7% decline in the number of chargeable vehicles, which was unexplained.
From the perspective of safety, the London congestion pricing program has been phenomenal. Safety has increased tremendously in London. Fewer accidents have occurred in central London after the introduction of this revolutionary program.
Surface transport accounts for 22% of London’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The reduction of airbone emissions wasn’t listed as one of the reasons for introducing the congestion charge. The pre-commencement report from TfL noted that the scheme wasn’t expected to significantly affect air qulaity, but that offering a discount to encourage the use of greener fuels would be a positive measure. However, TfL has reported changes in air quality within and alongside the Inner Ring Road boundary of the zone. Levels of two greenhouse gases fell, nitrous oxide (N2O), by 13.4% between 2002 & 2003, and carbon dioxide, as well as particulates. In 2007, the Fifth Annual Monitoring Report by TfL stated that between 2003 and 2006, N2O emissions fell by 17%, PM10 by 24% and CO2 by 3%, with some being attributed to the effects of reduced levels of traffic flowing better, with the majority being as a result of improved vehicle technology. In total, the rate of fall in CO2 has been 20%. The TfL report makes it clear that only a one-off reduction of emissions could be expected from the introduction of the charge, whilst further reductions are unlikely to be as a result of the charge.
India’s Cities: New Delhi and Mumbai
The above graph shows petroleum usage and urban population densities. As it can be noted from the graph, cities from the developing world are not even on the graph, suggesting that petroleum usage is not heavy based on the per capita basis. This is the crux of the argument provided by the Indian environmental ministry, led by Minister Jairam Ramesh.
Indian cities have provided a mixed message. To provide greater transportation, the Delhi government has started a massive metro system. This has allowed for mass movement. The Delhi government plans to double the metro lines in the next few years.
