TED Community » Jonny Axelsson

Comments

• TEDCred score: +1.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A reply on Talk: Jonas Eliasson: How to solve traffic jams

  Dec 3 2012: I have not driven in Jakarta, but I have spent years in Beijing with notorious traffic conditions. Beijing is interesting for having a very rapidly expanding metro network, an old and very extensive bus network (a small part through dedicated lanes BRT style), and massive congestion problems, do an image search on "beijing traffic" https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=beijing%20traffic&oe=utf-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=ibC8UNnQBYbBtAaWn4DoAg&biw=1145&bih=512&sei=jrC8UKPFCojssgbz7IGYBA
  
  If you want to go from one part of Beijing to another in predictable time you have to use the metro, if you drive or take a taxi you will have to allow to time being stuck in traffic. Metro is also practically free for those for whom taxi or owning a car is an option. A ticket cost 2RMB (1/4 euro or 1/3 dollar). So why do people drive when a cheaper, sometimes faster option is available? The metro system doesn't cover all of Beijing (yet), driving is more convenient and comfortable, owning and driving a car gives more status, and the metro system is filled to the brink and beyond.
  
  Buying a car is such an expensive investment so road pricing will not prevent traffic (unless the amounts were draconian), but could redirect some of it to other routes or other times. If those times and routes are overfilled as well little is gained.
  
  For Beijing I think counterintuitively dramatically increasing the metro prices to e.g. Shanghai levels (up to 9 RMB based on distance) could reduce car traffic. Far fewer would ride the metro, which would make it a more attractive option for drivers, that might even get a seat. Less cars would mean that the buses would get through faster, carrying more passengers that no longer can afford the metro. But this would have a more significant negative social impact than congestion taxes has for Stockholm car owners.

• A reply on Talk: Jonas Eliasson: How to solve traffic jams

  Dec 2 2012: There is a similar system at work in Beijing, with only odd licence plate cars are allowed some work days, and even licence plate cars in others. It does have an effect, noticeable on days when cars with any licence plate can drive. It also has some side effects, like an incentive to have two cars, one with odd and another with even plates, or for others to make ad hoc plate numbers, having a paper "1" covering the final "0" digit, say.

• A reply on Talk: Jonas Eliasson: How to solve traffic jams

  Dec 2 2012: I intend to use this video as an example how not to do a talk for this very reason (and also that it is desirable to have two or more views to mix, both the talk/display and the speaker from one or more angles; optionally also the audience).
  
  Nice Popcorn video, but there are many other examples to take from, including TED. TED does translations, subtitles, and transcripts better than most anyone else.

• A comment on Talk: Jonas Eliasson: How to solve traffic jams

  Dec 2 2012: To me the interesting aspect of this is that a low fee (especially compared to total cost of ownership of a car in the Stockholm area) is a much stronger disincentive to travel through the congested area during rush hours than the congestion itself is.
  
  Seemingly congestion should be much more costly to the drivers (in time and petrol) than the fee itself, so why doesn't congestion in itself work as a deterrent while a small amount of money is? My guess is that it is a combination of psychology and incomplete information. We all are loss-aversive to a fault, losing even a small amount of money causes emotional distress, something losing a more substantial amount of time doesn't necessarily. You also know exactly how much money you will lose while travelling during rush hours, but you don't quite know how much time you will lose stuck in traffic while doing so.
  
  Also for some being stuck in traffic is not so bad, they enjoy staying in their car even when the car is not moving. These days cars can be quite comfortable. Others may be more traffic averse, they would be the winners of a congestion charge.
  
  All these speculations are testable. I would be interested to know if they have been tested for.

• A reply on Talk: Jonas Eliasson: How to solve traffic jams

  Dec 2 2012: This was covered in the talk, though not in detail. This is a congestion charge, based on time of day you either pay 0 (outside rush hours) or 10/15/20 SEK (depending on time). The 20% reduction I assume was during the rush hours, the roads are able to handle the traffic at other hours.
  
  The links given by the speaker above might answer your other questions.

• A reply on Talk: Jonas Eliasson: How to solve traffic jams

  Dec 2 2012: That the roads are overloaded during rush hours and "under-utilized" (could handle more traffic) is the point, otherwise there would be little meaning in having a congestion charge "nudging" people into travelling at different hours (or by a different route or mean, or not to travel at all).
  
  The non-linearity also matter, relatively small reductions in traffic have dramatic effect on congestion.

• A reply on Talk: Jonas Eliasson: How to solve traffic jams

  Nov 27 2012: The question isn't if the drivers can "afford" it. Anyone who can afford a car in the Stockholm area with all the associated costs can afford the 10-20 SEK fee, the question is if it is worth it.
  
  Traffic is likely to remain an issue. Stockholm has a fairly decent transport system, public transports, cars, bikes, boats, but some parts will remain at a premium at least parts of the day.

• A reply on Talk: Jonas Eliasson: How to solve traffic jams

  Nov 27 2012: Where the infrastructure is overcrowded part of the time and below capacity at other parts, congestion charge and differential pricing on public transport makes sense. It will not be *the* solution, but it will be part of it.
  
  Stockholm is a nice example, as the geography, basically a collection of islands puts severe constraints to the infrastructure. There is a limit to the number of tunnels you can afford to build.
  
  Sure, traffic is a dynamic system. If you change the conditions one place it will have consequences, good and bad, elsewhere. But if the stress were too big one place, you could have more "nudges".

• A reply on Talk: Jonas Eliasson: How to solve traffic jams

  Nov 27 2012: If we can travel at higher density at higher speed without congestion that will have a great impact on throughput. I would think that existing technologies, like real-time traffic information have had an impact as well (leading the drivers to use the existing network better). Dynamic pricing (like in Stockholm) and topology (like lanes changing direction depending on traffic flow) also has promise.

• A comment on Talk: Jonas Eliasson: How to solve traffic jams

  Nov 27 2012: The socio-economic cost of a congestion charge is likely to be vastly lower than the socio-economic costs of congestion to the extent that the former prevents the latter, basically because the cost of congestion is so high.
  
  Like the speaker said, transport networks operating close to theoretical capacity are not behaving linearly any more. A road used at 20% of capacity would be twice as efficient as one at 10% of capacity (twice as many cars being transported in a given interval), and about half as efficient as one at 40%, but one at 95% of capacity might be much less efficient than one at 80% because of congestion. If you can time-shift some of the 95% traffic to a time where the traffic would otherwise be only 50% say, that could lead to a dramatic improvement in the overall efficiency, travel time, and pollution. In the Stockholm case a very modest amount of money (relative to the total cost of ownership and use) has led to a substantial change in travel patterns.
  
  The 80% that are travelling at rush hour are paying a tax to do so, but for an unknown percentage of them the benefits of less congestion outweighs the charge, while there will be another group where the benefit of travelling at rush hour is marginally higher than the charge and not offset by the benefit of less congestion.
  
  What I would like to know is: How many would now travel to Stockholm centre in the rush hour that would not do so earlier because of the congestion?