Preparatory Project Essay Example for Free

Preparatory Project EssayTraffic congestion in cities is a problem throughout the world. evaluate the effectiveness of ane official initiative undertaken to tackle this issue Traffic congestion is a condition on the road when calling jams are spoiled and no movement is possible. The main causes of the traffic congestion are traffic incidents, road works, weather events and constant traffic flow. It negatively impacts on the environment by ca utilize a growth in the level of air pollution. Time wasted in traffic is the reason for delays which negatively affect stability and correction in education, work and economy. For example, late delivers of goods to market consequently affects sales and produces losses in revenues. Eventually, because of the budget deficit business goes bankrupt. According to Texas Transportation Institutes urban Mobility Report only in the USA daily travelers lose 1 day plus 10 hours per year as a aftermath of congestion on roads and in 2 decades avera ge amount of congestion has increased by 380 %( Forbes 2011). Although this problem is worsening every year on that point are some examples when official policies struggled against this dilemma.Different municipal governments use various methods to deal with traffic congestion. For example, in the Netherlands and Mexico City local politics applied cycle promotion. Another method to drop congestion is road charging in special restricted areas which was implemented in Singapore, Stockholm and capital of the United Kingdom. The capital of the United Kingdom Congestion Charge (LCC) is one of the well-known models of road pricing, so further content of this essay will focus on it. This essay will evaluate effectiveness of the LCC program which was undertaken by municipal government of London to tackle traffic congestion using identified criteria the improvement of public transport services, results in reducing traffic level, gained revenues and the centering they were used. Firstly I will describe working principles of the LCC.Following paragraph discusses predicted and actual results of drop in traffic congestion. Then I will convey how the LCC affected public transportation system. Finally, the use of gained revenues to improve public transport will be evaluated. The LCC was officially introduced on 17th February 2003 by Transport for London (TfL) under direction of Mayor Ken Livingstone (Li et al. 2012, 366). Before the official launch of this scheme studies like Road Charging Options for London in 2000 (ROCOL) were provided to get an important cultivation on traffic levels, and it said that by implementing 5 ride zone and using revenues to improve transport system congestion could be reduced.(Livingstone 2004, 491-93). These are world(a) concepts of the scheme pay tap is 10 it operates from 7.00 am to 6.00 pm in working days and mostly covers area known as Central London. Buses, motorcycles, licensed taxis, alternative fuel, invalid-designed and emer gency vehicles are not obligated to pay rosiness (Litman 2011).The zone is monitored with cameras, and symbols with signs are displayed on it to notify commuters. There are motley methods to pay it such as internet, telephone, text messaging and through TfL. Overall, mainly due to technologies system worked properly and almost no complaints were made by commuters. However, it has drawbacks because the fee doesnt depend on travelled standoffishness and during congested periods the amount of fee remains same. First of all, the main priority of the congestion charge was to reduce traffic level. ROCOL predicted that after implementation there will be average decrease by 10-15 % in travelled miles. Reduction in miles thought to tin average speed from 9.9 to 11.2 mph, and drop in private car trips expected to be by 20 %.(ROCOL 2000 quoted in Leape 2006, 164 ). Overall, results were positive and met expectations. The decline of travelled distance in superaerated zone was about 15 % (P rudhomme Bocarejo 2005, 1).There was a growth by 37% in average traffic speed (Litman 2011). The reduction of potentially chargeable vehicles in charged area was 27% (Leape 2006, 165). From the information below it is clear that there is a significant drop in traffic level. On the other hand, mostly all information on traffic levels comes from TFL reports, but it is the governmental organization so we cannot consider TFL as absolutely sluggish institution. In addition the LCC affected congestion just inside the charged zone but not in whole London. Secondly, the priority of the congestion charge was to make radical improvements in bus services (Livingstone 2004, 495) and increase the number of bus users. The raise in the number of bus passengers was 18% in 2003 and 12% in 2004 and it remained same next years (Santos 2008, 192).The TFL affiliate excess waiting time with weakness of service, and it fell by 30% and 18% in firstborn 2 years (Santos 2008, 192). The LCC caused a growt h by 7% in bus speed (Prudhomme Bocarejo 2005, 6). Moreover, extension of bus lane system and saucy purchased buses from revenues too improved service. It can be concluded that the development of service and reallocation of road space to busses effectively switched people to use public transport more. Thirdly, municipal government of London planned to use gained revenues to improve public transport system. The TFL predicted to gain revenues between 130-150 million (Leape 2006, 169).In fact, results showed that expectations were too exaggerated net revenues brought less than 50% of predicted sum.The key factor for failure to get more profit was that congestion charge provoked unexpected reduction in number of potentially charged vehicles. However, as it was planned, maintained money from the charge was spent on enhancement of bus networks within road safety, and to popularize walking and cycling (Leape 2006, 170). Furthermore, revenues were invested to buy new 250 busses to devel op bus network system (Prudhomme Bocarejo 2005, 7). It is obvious that incomes were used to develop transport system as it was projected. Additionally it was politically important to use money in that way to maintain support for the LCC from citizens. To sum up, in spite of political debates on implementation of the LCC, the action taken by local authorities of London generally accepted as a political and technical success.There is a significant reduction of traffic congestion in charged zone. On the other side, a decrease of traffic in this area couldnt impact completely on congestion in all London. Revenues gained from charge were spent on enhancement of public transport which caused a popularization of the scheme. The idea of road pricing in London was politically implemented and positively accepted by public, even it is not a popular method to tackle congestion. However, there is a still big question in its ability to dramatically change situation on all city roads, so policym akers must think how to enhance system to reduce congestion drastically in the city.Reference listForbes.2011. Escape the Cost and Lost Time of Traffic Congestion. Accessed October 30, 2012. http//www.forbes.com/sites/tombarlow/2011/10/22/escape-the-cost-and-lost-time-of-traffic-congestion/ Leape, Jonathan. 2006. The London Congestion Charge. Journal of scotch Perspectives 20 (4)157-76. Litman, Todd. 2011. London Congestion Charging. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. http//www.vtpi.org/london.pdf Li, Haojie, Daniel J. Graham, and Arnab Majumdar. 2012. The effects of congestion charging on road traffic casualties A causal analysis using difference-in-difference estimation. Accident Analysis Prevention 49 366-377. Livingstone, Ken.2004. The Challenge of Driving Through Change Introducing Congestion Charging in Central London. Planning Theory Practice 5(4)490-98. Accessed October 25, 2012. inside 10.1080/1464935042000293224 Prudhomme, Rmy, and Juan Pablo Bocarejo. 2004. The Londo n Congestion Charge A Tentative Economic Appraisal. Transport Policy 201-9. Santos, Georgina. 2008. London Congestion Charging. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs (9)177-207.