Preparatory Project Essay Example for Free

Preparatory Project EssayTraffic over-crowding in cities is a puzzle throughout the world. Evaluate the effectiveness of one official initiative undertaken to draw rein this issue Traffic congestion is a condition on the road when traffic jams are bad and no movement is possible. The main(prenominal) causes of the traffic congestion are traffic incidents, road works, weather events and constant traffic flow. It negatively impacts on the environment by causing a harvesting in the level of air pollution. Time unpointed in traffic is the reason for delays which negatively affect stability and discipline in education, work and economy. For example, upstart delivers of goods to market consequently affects sales and produces losses in revenues. Eventually, because of the budget deficit potiness goes bankrupt. According to Texas transference Institutes Urban Mobility Report only in the USA daily travelers lose 1 day plus 10 hours per year as a result of congestion on roads and in 2 decades average amount of congestion has increased by 380 %( Forbes 2011). Although this problem is worsening both year there are some examples when official policies struggled a pee-peest this dilemma.Different municipal governments use various methods to get away with traffic congestion. For example, in the Netherlands and Mexico City local authorities applied cycling promotion. Another method to impose congestion is road charging in special restricted areas which was implemented in Singapore, Stockholm and capital of the United Kingdom. The London over-crowding Charge (LCC) is one of the well-known models of road pricing, so further content of this essay will decoct 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 normal transport services, results in free fall-off traffic level, gained revenues and the way they were use d. Firstly I will describe running(a) principles of the LCC.Following paragraph discusses predicted and certain results of neutralise in traffic congestion. Then I will show how the LCC change public deportee 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 turning away studies like Road Charging Options for London in 2000 (ROCOL) were provided to get an significant information on traffic levels, and it express that by implementing 5 charge zone and using revenues to improve transport system congestion could be reduced.(Livingstone 2004, 491-93). These are general concepts of the scheme pay fee 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 collar vehicles are not obligated to pay charge (Litman 2011).The zone is monitored with cameras, and symbols with signs are displayed on it to notify commuters. on that point are miscellaneous methods to pay it such as internet, telephone, text messaging and through TfL. Overall, mainly collect to technologies system worked properly and almost no complaints were made by commuters. However, it has drawbacks because the fee doesnt depend on travelled distance and during congested periods the amount of fee remains same. First of all, the main precession 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 raise 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 right of travelled distance in charged zone was about 15 % (Prudhomme 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, provided it is the governmental organization so we cannot consider TFL as absolutely neutral 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 mint services (Livingstone 2004, 495) and increase the exit of tidy sum users. The raise in the number of bus passengers was 18% in 2003 and 12% in 2004 and it remained same bordering years (Santos 2008, 192).The TFL affiliate excess waiting time with weakness of service, and it fell by 30% and 18% in first 2 years (Santos 2008, 192). The LCC caused a growth by 7% in bus speed (Prudhomme Bocarejo 2005, 6). Moreover, extension of bus lane system and new purchased buses from revenues also 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 mischance 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 sweetening of bus lucres within road safety, and to popularize walking and cycling (Leape 2006, 170). Furthermore, revenues wer e invested to buy new 250 busses to develop 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 semipolitically 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 real 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 efficiency to dramatically c hange bureau on all city roads, so policymakers 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 Economic Perspectives 20 (4)157-76. Litman, Todd. 2011. London over-crowding 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 trade Introducing Congestion Charging in Central London. Planning Theory Practice 5(4)490-98. Accessed October 25, 2012. doi 10.1080/1464935042000293224 Prudhomme, Rmy, and Juan Pablo Bocarejo. 2004. The London Congestion Charge A Tentative Economic Appraisal. Transport Policy 201-9. Santos, Georgina. 2008. London Congestion Charging. Brookings-Wharton cover on Urban Affairs (9)177-207.