The Times of London is reporting that there will be no parking at the 2012 Olympic Games in that city:
The team organising the London Olympics in 2012 is adopting the most aggressive anticar policy ever applied to a major event in an attempt to deliver a permanent shift in people’s travel habits.
The eight million spectators will be banned from travelling by car and forced to take public transport, walk or cycle. Only a small number of disabled people will be allowed to park anywhere near the car exclusion zones planned for the main venues in London, Birmingham, Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow, Cardiff, and Weymouth and Portland in Dorset.
This isn’t London’s first foray into changing commuters’ behavior. In 2003, they instituted what they call a “congestion charge” of £8 ($16.38) per day for driving downtown. It worked. According to the Times, “London is the only major city in the world that has had a decline in car use and an increase in bus and rail travel.”
Ironically, the fittest people at the Olympics — the athletes — will be able to drive in ahead of time.
Environmental impact aside, I think it is very scary when a government body tells their citizens what they can and can’t use as a method of transportation. It is ironic that an ally of the United States, which beat back socialism and communism during 1940’s through the 1990’s, now embraces the very thing they sought to destroy. The scariest prospect is that the United States is probably not that far behind!
OnLooker-
Have you been to London? Why would anyone want to drive a car in London? Most people don’t drive because it is a royal hassle. People walk, use mass transit, take taxicabs, or have private drivers because of limited parking space and gas is expensive. Land in London (and in most well planned cities) is just too valuable to dedicate to parking space. This isn’t some vast conspiracy- it is just common sense and good planning.
Please visit London and rent a car. I bet you come back and tell us the trip would have been better without having to drive yourself around town. It is the same in most well planned cities- people don’t need cars.
On the other hand, Peoria’s city planners have made it necessary for everyone to own a car. When you place this much value on cars then plenty of space is reserved to park those cars. This policy has created lower land value throughout our city. Lower land value yields low revenue. With limited revenue we get fewer policeman, fireman, and important infrastructure such as sidewalks etc. We also can not afford adequate mass transit.
We in Peoria face the real loss of freedom when you need to own or have access to a car to be independent. And what happens when Peorians can’t afford a car or are too old or young to drive and must walk? In the newer parts of town it is just too dangerous to walk because the roads have been designed only for automobiles. In some newer parts of town the sidewalks do not connect so eventually you get dumped in the road. In the older neighborhoods many of the sidewalks are in bad shape. To make matters worse some people won’t leave their homes and walk because crime is out of control. All in all -walking is just too risky in Peoria.
Just think about it… who really has less free will?
And oh, please — the UK has BEEN socialist since 1945. Throwing out random scary buzzwords from the 1980s without understanding what they MEAN isn’t actually a legitimate form of argument, no matter what cable news pundits would have you believe.
Eyebrows your right; European countries have been on a slide since the 1940’s reconstruction towards Socialism. However, there have been times in resent English history where that has not been the case. My example would be Margret Thatcher. She and Reagan worked to defeat the USSR during the 80’s and they succeeded. However, just because the Soviet Union does not exist any longer, does not mean we still do not face a threat from Communists or Socialists. Yes I know what these terms are, and I understand how insidious these political movements can be. I think they are alive and well, and have reincarnated themselves into the radical environmental movement and other social movements. They mean to limit progress and change behavior through government power. The example that C.J. provided is a great one. This law is “anti-car” according to the Times of London. This law was not instituted to protect people from injustices; it was instituted to change behavior towards a particular political view. The government in London is telling people how to think. Their idea here is not to stop traffic from invading downtown London as George suggests, it is to make people do something different then they would normally do. They want to force them to be green whether they believe that global warming exists or not. If it is really true that it is inconvenient, a hassle, and just plain a bad idea to drive through London then why make a law that states you can’t drive to the Olympics? People are smart and would choose not to drive anyway. Now they do not have a choice, and that is my point.
Having been to London, their no car plan for the Olympics is right on target. London would grind to a halt with all the thousands of fans chunneling their way over.
The government here spends billions on roads for cars pushing people to use cars more and public transport less. Tell me OnLooker why this is so wonderfull free market, free people, anti-socialist?