Two items that came in together. First, how London, by costing vehicle congestion, has made an even bigger saving than time – from The Guardian
.
Research to be presented at the Royal Economic Society’s annual conference later this month found that traffic accidents have fallen in the capital by an astonishing 40% since 2003. … The £5 charge was hailed as a triumph of economics that forced those contributing to congestion to pay. The resulting fall in traffic confirmed predictions that the charge – increased to £8, then £11.50 – could change motorists’ behaviour.
With fewer cars on the roads in central London, motorists can go faster. This could have increased the risk of accidents. However, the research team led by Professor Colin Green of the economics department at Lancaster University found that the charge has instead resulted in a substantial reduction in the number of accidents and fewer fatalities.
The team also examined the rate of accidents – the number that occur per million miles driven in the zone. Prior to the charge, this averaged 12.4. After its introduction, that figure fell by 2.6 accidents per million miles.
Strikingly, the study found that the decline in accidents extended beyond the congestion charge boundaries into adjacent areas, as fewer people drove through them to reach the centre.
They also found that accidents and injuries were reduced outside congestion charge hours, and for exempt vehicles such as bicycles, motorcycles, taxis and buses.
There had been concerns that the charge would lead to more people cycling into central London, with a corresponding increase in accidents. The report’s authors found that this was the case initially. Accidents involving cyclists rose at a rate of roughly 1.5 per month until 2005. However, by the end of 2006 this had reversed, and cycling accidents and fatalities fell.
“It could be partly because there was an increase in inexperienced riding in urban zones,” said Green, who suggested that the charge would not have the same effect on accident rates in all cities. Those without good public transport systems, for example, would see little displacement in traffic.
.
Then this came in from the CD Howe Institute:
.
Congestion has being used as the rationalization for the Gateway Program that, among other projects, justified the Port Mann Bridge. And now the Massey Bridge:
“We are keeping our promise to replace the George Massey Tunnel and improve the Highway 99 corridor, starting in 2017,” said Premier Christy Clark. “Congestion at the tunnel is frustrating for families and stalling the economy. A new bridge will improve travel times for transit, commuters and commercial users, and open the corridor up to future rapid transit options.
So will this encourage a Yes vote in the referendum? Unlikely. Will it lead to the Province allowing a congestion charge in Vancouver?
Not a chance.
