Perhaps the writer just wanted to use three US cities, or perhaps it's de rigueur to compare Toronto to New York. But New York's environmental policies are so weak, that the article cites Mayor Bloomberg's proposals, none of which exist yet - and many of which, knowing New York, may never exist. I wrote this.
If Toronto wants to emulate New York City's successes, it shouldn't look at proposals for programs that don't exist, and may never, like Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposed vehicle congestion tax.
Where New York should and can be imitated is its massive public transportation infrastructure. Driving into Manhattan's business district is an unnecessary luxury. Owning a car at all in New York is a luxury, not a necessity. Can Toronto say that?
I think a vehicle congestion charge is an important and necessary idea. I'm sure you know that Ken Livingstone, the forward-thinking mayor of London, pioneered its use. Its success led Livingstone to push on, introducing a pilot program to one area of London, in which drivers pay tolls based on vehicle emissions.
I'd like to see New York City ban private vehicles from downtown and midtown Manhattan altogether. Buses and cabs only. I've been saying this for years.
But London and New York City both have an incredible amount of public transit. How can Toronto reduce vehicular use in the city without offering enough alternatives? Toronto needs more subways, and the suburbs need more trains.
And if you want to make a green city, don't look to New York as your model.
4 comments:
Toronto's subway system is embarrassingly anemic. If you're feeling really generous, you can say we have three subway lines -- compared to seven radiating from downtown in Boston, nine in Washington DC, or some uncountable number in NYC.
Vehicle congestion charges are good ideas in concept, but problematic to implement. London's scheme involves some rather obtrusive surveillance -- though that's not uncommon in the UK these days anyway.
London's scheme involves some rather obtrusive surveillance -- though that's not uncommon in the UK these days anyway.
It's the most common thing in the world in the UK - not just in London, but in small and medium-sized cities, too. A windfall boondoggle for the surveillance industry, and little more. It's being used increasingly in Toronto, too.
But that aside, I think it's possible to use vehicle congestion charges without surveillance, or to try to keep the surveillance at a minimum, with licenses, stickers and such. There are various ideas circulating about it. From what I read, it's improved air quality and mobility in London tremendously.
But that aside, I think it's possible to use vehicle congestion charges without surveillance, or to try to keep the surveillance at a minimum, with licenses, stickers and such. There are various ideas circulating about it. From what I read, it's improved air quality and mobility in London tremendously.
I have no doubts about the benefits! The town of Zermatt, in Switzerland (the one with the famous view of the Matterhorn), has banned almost all internal combustion engines, to great effect.
I have no doubts about the benefits!
I know, I got that. I do think they could be implemented without much civil liberties violations, although that would remain to be seen.
The town of Zermatt, in Switzerland (the one with the famous view of the Matterhorn), has banned almost all internal combustion engines, to great effect.
Views of the Grand Canyon were badly obscured by smog for many years. Tougher emissions standards in L.A. and in the southwest US made a huge difference. It was thought to be the first time that clean air standards were used for a specific purpose like that in the US, and it worked.
Post a Comment