Comments on: Porsche Points to Study: Congestion Charging Increases CO2

By: nichjs

nichjs — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:17:08 +0000

1. congestion charge removes local pollution, and puts it where there are arguably fewer pedestrians. shaky case, but arguable.

2. Less traffic in the city centre = faster public transport routes = good. The centre is the fastest way through, so make space for the double deckers, which often have standing room only. As I said on the last CC blog, public transport rules over cars in London. This is antithesis to most US cities, especially Detroit.

By: Martin Schwoerer

Martin Schwoerer — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:04:41 +0000

Is Porsche desperate or what? What kind of an argument are they using here? That people should traverse London to save CO2? Instead of doing what people do anyway — circumnavigate the center?

On the one hand, Porsche likes to imply that CO2 is not the most important issue (and I agree). On the other hand, Porsche is saying that saving CO2 is more important than noise and particulate emissions when it comes to London. Lousy PR.

By: Matthew Potena

Matthew Potena — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:38:17 +0000

This whole “congestion charge” nonsense should be stamped out before it spreads. If Red Ken really wants to be rid of cars, then be a man and ban them. Unfortunately for His Honor, he knows that this will fly as well as pigs with wings, so he is slowly making the automobile unattractive to Londoners. I believe there is an election shortly, and it would not surprise me if Mr. Livingstone is removed. Good riddance!

By: Johnster

Johnster — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:30:06 +0000

It’s not clear to me that Porsche has a point.

If someone actually drove around London (using the bypass to avoid the congestion charge), although they might be driving a greater distance than if they drove straight through, wouldn’t they also be avoiding the congestion of London and all the time sitting mired in traffic, idling at traffic lights or slowly driving along at 5 mph or so, all the while wasting petrol.

I would think that many motorists would get better gas mileage (and emit less CO2), and maybe even save some time by driving around London, even if it means driving more miles.

Of course it does increase the traffic on the bypass and throught the bypass suburbs.

By: David Holzman

David Holzman — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 23:44:29 +0000

Lumbergh,

the correct economics jargon is “maximize their utility.” As in, often, when I drive somewhere, I maximize my utility by taking the longer but twistier route. Or, Homo economicus always seeks to maximize his utility.

By: driving course

driving course — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:05:47 +0000

The bypass is the M25 and it’s quite big – 120 miles in circumference, approximately 30 miles across the centre.
I think Porsche probably have a good point many people probably drive a little further every day to avoid the congestion zone.
I’m more inclined to believe Porsche than Livingstone (aka Red Ken) when it comes to facts about the congestion zone.

By: Facebook User

Facebook User — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:31:49 +0000

And, the higher the charge the more likely people are to take the longer route. It’s simple economics. People take the information given to them and try to maximize their pleasure or minimze their pain. As long as a driver perceives that the extra time and the extra gallon of gasoline to drive around the congestion tax zone is cheaper than the tax, he/she will drive around.

Duh.

By: Donal Fagan

Donal Fagan — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:31:58 +0000

I don’t know London, but why would anyone ever drive through a city if there was a bypass?