Another London transport topic that has made its way across the Atlantic, The Canadian Press (via Breitbart) reports: London suburb to charge drivers parking fees based on emissions. Richmond upon Thames, a Borough of London, wants to charge £300 for cars to park in front of their houses if the cars are of models that are classified as big polluters (the local term: Chelsea Tractors).
The irony is that they are charging the cars when they are not polluting (i.e. when they are parked) rather than when they are.
Again, the technology could relatively easily be assembled to charge cars based on how much they pollute, that would be in the long run both more fair and more efficient. Robert Harley was doing tests on the measurements of this more than 10 years ago at Berkeley, see this paper for an example. That would just need to be tied to transponders or license plate matches (a la electronic toll collection or the London Congestion Charging scheme) and a price developed.
The continued use of second (or third) best solutions when much better ones are available is unnecessary.
From today’s Strib: Legislators told to act fast to slow global warming
“Legislators told to act fast to slow global warming
Science, morality and politics came together in a rare, bicameral session. Minnesota could be a much hotter and probably drier place in the next 70 to 90 years, with an altered or dwindling forest, Kansas-like summers and Illinois-like winters. But that’s if Minnesotans don’t seize opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now, three scientists and explorer Will Steger told a rare assembly of legislators Tuesday. More than 90 senators and representatives from committees on the environment, energy and transportation — nearly half the elected body — gathered in the House chamber for an informational session on global warming that included state Catholic and Lutheran leaders casting the issue as a moral and ethical challenge.”
The point that is being missed is that even if Minnesotans seize every opportunity, no measurable change could possibly come of it unless most of the rest of the world does as well. That is why it is called *global* warming. Further, if Minnesota missed every opportunity, but the rest of the world didn’t, Minnesota could free ride its way to the supposed benefits of avoiding global warming while skirting the costs.
[Frankly, I don't want religious leaders explaining science (or the ethics of science) to the state legislature, it reminds me too much of Kansas .]
(Leaving aside whether a warmer Minnesota, if that were the outcome, is actually a bad thing for Minnesotans).
Despite the feel-good nature of such convocations, the requirement of local media and local politicians to have a local spin on stories (“Global warming, can it happen here?”) and the “think global act local” ethic, a set of incentives for good behavior, and a contract (constitution) enforcing them, are necessary to obtain the desired outcome. People behave in the community interest not out of personal good will but out of incentives, otherwise we wouldn’t need constitutions and laws and jails. Advocates should read James M. Buchanan’s: The Calculus of Consent on the matter.
Great Britain doesn’t have an Americans with Disabilities Act. Now, you may say, why would Britain care about Americans with Disabilities. What I mean by this are that conditions for those with disabilities in Britain seem much harsher than in the US. In particular, I will note the public transport system, especially the rail system.
To be clear, Britain does have a
Disability Discrimination Act of 1995. It is just that the requirements that are made of extant systems are much more modest than the US.
The reason I note this is not, fortunately, because anyone in my household is physically disabled, rather because as I and my wife take our 2 year old son out in a stroller, we notice problems that just don’t appear in the US. In part this is because we don’t use public transport much in the US, but if we were to use rail transport, there would be an elevator to get to the platform at every station. Even where it would not be difficult to provide a ramp, a short staircase is often the only alternative. Sometimes, a long staircase is required, leading to the stroller carry (which is easier than unbuckling and rebuckling, especially if our son is sleeping).
A quick review of the TfL Underground map shows the extent of the problem, only stations with the wheelchair have lifts or are level with the ground.
One could argue this is about economic efficiency, retrofitting hundreds of stations would be expensive. But the relevant value here is not efficiency but equity and inclusion, if economic efficiency were the criteria, one would make almost no accomodations for the disabled.
This is one more case where the buses beat the trains. Buses are a short enough step that manipulating a stroller is not too difficult. They also have better accomodation for wheelchairs than trains, though in four months here, I have only seen one wheelchair on a bus.
“Barely hospitable” is the phrase my wife uses to describe London. Many Underground patrons are quite helpful in lifting one end of the stroller while one of us has the other, it is the infrastructure that is not designed for anyone who who is not fully mobile.
Most of the sidewalks do have curb cuts, though the rough surfaces make wheeling along them less than optimal, but not impossible.
Finally, one must ask about the omnipresent urban slogan: “Mind the Gap”. Why can’t trains and platforms be level? London has had over a century to get this right on even the deep-tube lines. I understand that the trains in the deep-tubes (e.g. Bakerloo, Piccadilly, Northern) differ from those on the older (e.g. Metropolitan, District, Hamersmith & City) lines, but how hard could it be to make the stations level with the trains they do serve, to minimize if not eliminate the gap. For all of the human energy devoted to installing Mind the Gap signs and making the everpresent announcements, rectifying the original problem would have been warranted, and probably less expensive.
The Transportation Research Board , a unit of the National Academies, hosts an annual conference in Washington, DC every January. This year attendance exceeded 11,000 (both professionals and academics), so I was told when attending last week. It overflows three of the largest hotels in the city, and so must from some respects be seen as a success.
One trouble that TRB has is quality control. The organization is divided into committees. Some committees have strong leadership and a high volume of paper submission (with a scarce number of slots), and so are able to exert quality control on the papers that are presented at the conference and ultimately published in the Transportation Research Record. Other committees don’t, dragging down the average quality, and discouraging some from submitting research to TRB.
A second, related problem that TRB has is its low citation rate compared to other journals. Few papers published in other journals cite articles published in TRB.
An advantage that TRB’s publications have is their open-ness, I retain full copyright on anything published there, and TRB doesn’t make the same claims on my intellectual content that some for-profit publishers do.
However, TRB has yet to make its publications freely available online, continuing to produce paper copies and charge for electronic copies (except to those participating in the conference).
There is no faster way of increasing availability of content, and making it useful, citable, and thus cited, then making it freely available online. The physics community has learned this with arXiv.org, a e-print archive, described here. TRB would be a perfect host for a similar institution in transportation research, if it could only find the imagination to host a free, publicly-accessible pre-print archive (basically the conference submissions, but other papers as well), that was properly indexed. The physics journals accept papers that are hosted on arXiv , so later publication is not a problem.
The journal Transportation Research Record is a separate problem. Credibility is established through history. It is not that most TRR papers are wrong, just that they are not given credit because TRR does not act as an effective enough filter against the mundane. In part this is because TRR tries to be all things to all transportation, each committee gets its slots. Other journals within transportation tend to specialize, while TRR’s sister publication Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is much more selective, though relatively general within the sciences.
It should be noted that PNAS “is notable for its policy of making research articles freely available online to everyone 6 months after publication”, which helps increase readership and citations.
TRB staff seems to be compaining of recent budget cuts. Without discussing other aspects of the organization, but focusing on TRR and the conference if the organization cannot obtain value from the research that thousands of volunteers produce (for free) and review (for free), and could be distributed for free (minus some server and bandwidth costs), while charging over $200 per head for a conference attended by over 11,000 people, something is wrong in its management structure.
According to an article from 5 years ago, BBC NEWS | UK | Prison overcrowding ‘at crisis point’. Apparently it still is: BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Jail system in ‘serious crisis’.
This “perpetual crisis” is simply a queueing problem: There is an arrival rate of prisoners (how many people we jail), there is a departure rate (how many people we release), and there is a storage capacity (how many we keep behind bars). To relieve this perpetual crisis, we can
1) reduce arrivals
2) increase departures
3) increase storage, either by adding capacity or making better use of the space through double or triple bedding.
The various strategies have been tried, reducing arrivals most notably last week when the beleagured Home Secretary (Attorney General/Secretary of Homeland Security more or less for US readers) was chastised by a judge who refused to jail a paedophile because of a memo from the Home Office about prison crowding.
Capacity will take some time to expand, especially given the inaction to date.
We could increase departures, but then prisoners would not serve their full sentences (and we know that prisoners who are safe to release after 7 years must somehow remain very dangerous after 6 years and 364 days).
The problem in thinking about this is the implicit (and wrong) assumption of inelasticity of demand, if we changed the cost, we would get just as many prisoners.
So how about pricing? Charging prisoners for their stay would probably not work, most can’t afford it, and we would have to send them to debtor’s prison.
Maybe we could charge someone else.
Prison cells are a scarce commodity, valuable to the communities seeking to send more of their own into the slammer. Each community (via their judges) would administer a “prison budget”. The judges could bid on cells in an auction (envision eBay), perhaps a Dutch auction, for each of their potential prisoners, the highest N bidders get to imprison their least favorite baddies. There would of course be different classes of prison cells, and a certain number enter the market each week (e.g. 5 cells of maximum security with a 6 year stay, 19 cells of medium security for a 3 year stay). We might even get an options market, and trading between communities if the match didn’t work. Prisons could transform security levels to better match market demand. It shouldn’t take too long for a new equilibrium to emerge.
This might open up the option for new suppliers to enter the market, driving down costs. I don’t know the legal nicities of this over here in the UK, but in the US many states have private prisons, and one could easily see the least dangerous baddies condemned to an underperforming Motel 6 instead of prison.
Communities would reveal through this process which crimes they really dislike based on how much they are willing to pay to imprison different people who committed different crimes.
Just a thought.
A nice blog post (via The Transport Blog): The Oyster Gotcha – Software Reality on some of the other problems with London’s Oyster card system. As wonderful as it is, it is a user interface problem par excellance.
According to an article in SFGATE: Woman escapes carpool carjacker / Man said he had a bomb, then hit her and stole her car.
The title basically summarizes the article. Casual carpooling has been quite successful for several decades enabling people to use the HOV lane by getting non-drivers to ride as passengers, with very few if any reported violent acts.
It is used in Washington along the Shirley Highway, as well as San Francisco, where it is called Slugging.
The Guardian posts an article: Bribe your way to the front of the queue in Britain and India
Apparently first class passengers in the UK get undeserved perks from their government much like those in the US. See previous post. In this case it is queue-jumping the immigration line rather than queue jumping the security line. I don’t know which is worse. Both are appallingly inequitable and should not be supported by government.
The other thing to note is that this is quite un-British, where the people (or at least the non-elites) are taught how to queue. Queueing is something the British excel at due to their extensive practice in the matter, it would be a shame to see them lose their competitive advantage in this arena.
We were returning from Harrogate to London last night on the Great North Eastern Railway (GNER) after attending the well-run and interesting UTSG conference.
The trip from Harrogate to Leeds was uneventful. On the trip from Leeds to Kings Cross in London, we were interrupted by what I believe the announcer said was a Code 3 on Coach M. (We were on a different coach so at the time didn’t know what that was), though we did not stop there.
Later the announcer told us that there had been vandalism, a rock through a window, which needed to be repaired before we proceeded.
The coach was held at Peterborough for about 15 minutes while repairs were made to the broken window, and we arrived 15 minutes late. When we arrived, I could not locate the vandalism, so it must have been cleaned up fairly well.
Three observations spring to mind …
(1) If this had happened on a plane it would be called terrorism.
(2) If this had happened on a plane, the delay would be considerably more than 15 minutes.
(3) This doesn’t seem to happen on planes.
This does seem to happen a lot on trains. In fact on 100% of my trips (both of them) from northern England or Scotland to Kings Cross, my journey has been delayed by rocks thrown through windows. The precise statistics on train vandalism (by rocks through windows) I have not been able to find, but it must be common, and there are websites discussing vandalism. It is and has long been so common that it features in a Thomas the Tank Engine season one episode
My previous trip from Edinburgh to Kings Cross on August 30, 2003 was eventful for several reasons.
My notes on the day
“Depart Edinburgh. Check out of Globetrotter, take hotel shuttle to train station, catch next train to London (on the half hour).
Train: operated by GNER
1st conductor upset we are on wrong train, but eventually allows us to stay
2nd train stops at Grantham Station and engineer announces we are stopped because the train ahead was involved in a fatality on the tracks. this involves a 1 hour delay (death = 1 hour)
3rd, train stops south of Stevanage when someone pulls the emergency stop. It seems a window was broken on the car, the glass was inside, suggesting perhaps a rock was thrown?
Arrives a King’s Cross.
Transfer to King’s Cross/Thameslink station, which is not at the King’s Cross Train Station, nor at the King’s Cross underground station, but 2 blocks away. Surely these could have been connected somehow.
Take Thameslink to Gatwick. The train passes through some really poor areas of London.
At Gatwick catch hotel shuttle to Renaissance Hotel Gatwick. Everything operates smoothly.”
So there was what I have later learned has come to be termed a “person under a train”. This too seems fairly common. Several weeks ago I vistited Stevanage New Town, as part of my visits to a number of the New Towns in London (I am from Columbia, Maryland after all). While my train did not hit anyone, another train was cancelled for this reason and the system was delayed. The announcer at the station apologized several times for the train cancellation due to a person being hit by a train. This is a very British thing, saying sorry but somehow blaming events beyond their control. If the person was hit accidentally, I suspect he deserves a much more significant apology than the delayed customers, however that might not have been the case.
These “suicide by trains” are potentially as dangerous as other suicide bombers that we normally call terrorism. But this is rail, not air, so we don’t make an issue of it. The number of people who have been killed by train derailments caused by vandalism and by suicide does not make the news.
Now why are people so disgruntled they feel like destroying? Are the causes political (I don’t like trains because they destroy the environment, or community, or lead to industrialization … the vandals are merely illiterate or uneducated Ted Kasczynskis in the making), or merely for the entertainment of the vandals (It is amusing to see things destroyed)?
Not being a vandal myself, I don’t understand the psychology.
I am not the only one disappointed in GNER service, there is a blog devoted to the issue.
At any rate, I could say the trains are decrepit, but it would be much more polite to say the British make excellent use of their capital investments and don’t waste money on maintenance.
The Guardian (and other papers) report on the increase in cash fares for public transport in London Most expensive in the world: London’s fares rise again .
The key issue is driving passengers toward electronic payment (Oyster-based smartcard prices have been frozen simultaneous with the cash increase). This is essentially the same as the model I developed a few years ago for toll roads with electronic toll collection, though in that case I suggested pushing travelers to electronic payment through delay reduction and ETC discounts, suggesting that it would be better overall to move travelers toward electronic payment sooner rather than later.
The more relevant point is that the Oyster fare is still more expensive than smartcard fares in other cities. Is that because London is recovering a higher share of its costs directly from passengers (rather than having a larger subsidy from general revenue), or because its costs are higher. The first would be a good reason for higher fares (why should bus users subsidize rail users, or bicyclists subsidize either?), the latter might suggest management problems, especially since there is no notable higher quality of service on the underground than on other large city metros. The network is more extensive, and more as a result more widely used, but on the other hand, it is far less reliable than any other city’s system I have used.
The increase in National Rail fares is another issue entirely …