Economics = less emissions (Peter Gordon* will be so proud)

The best English-language science magazine, New Scientist, reports this week that London's congestion pricing -- 5 pounds to drive into downtown -- lowered emissions last year. The story's not online yet (next week it'll be in the archive at New Scientist.com) but I've thoughtfully copied out the salient bits:

...nitrogen oxides and particulates fell by 16 per cent. A fall in the number of cars and an increase in speed of 4 kilometres an hour were responsible for three-quarters of this fall, with greener technology in cars making up the rest. Carbon dioxide emissions fell by 19 per cent. Even an increase in the number of buses, whose diesel engines are among the worst polluters, could not offset the drop, partly because modern buses are fitted with particulate traps.

NS reports that other cities are thinking of passing their own downtown tolls, with Edinburgh next on the list. I'm all for it; it's true that the de facto congestion charge I have to pay to drive into San Francisco from the East bay -- $3 on the Bay Bridge and $10 to park -- is exactly what keeps me from driving more than once or twice a week.



Critically, though, cities have to make sure that there's enough public transit to keep people coming into town. My biggest complaint with the transbay bus I take to work isn't the bus itself, which is quite comfy, or the long-ass walk from the Transbay Terminal to my office, but the fact that there's really only one convenient bus in the morning and two in the evening. That restricts when I can come to work and when I can leave, restricts my ability to, oh, say, shop downtown before going home, and makes me cranky in general. Grr.



*Peter Gordon is a USC planning professor, outspoken free marketeer, and a teacher of one of my fellow bloggers who shall remain nameless (but his initials are Chris Steins).