Danish streets do seem to be much clearer, even in areas that have similar road conditions and population density to UK cities.
I think we need to be more radical and apply zones across the whole of the city and apply restrictions 24/7. Discounts for a zone would apply if resident, no off road parking, and city car (no diesel/small).
Commuters would only be allowed permits if city car. Nottingham also brought in Workplace parking permits.
Cities have the infrastructure in place (good public transport combined with park and ride) to encourage people to leave their cars at the edge of cities. Residents within cities should not be driving to work within the city. Neither should parents be dropping kids off by car.
Naturally there are always people that need cars. Even Copenhagen cannot get below 9% car usage despite 62% of people cycling.
And yet, the tax is not specifically on the pollution. You could argue that this might be difficult to do in practice, but in any case such a pollution tax ought to also apply to other products like computers and TV's, which it doesn't.
The problem with a flat tax, is that it doesn't discourage anything other than buying a nice car. In general, an expensive car is not worse for the environment (including parking etc), than a cheap car. A large, bulky car might be that, but that's not what we're taxing here.
No different from making any other object - you might as well tax e.g. TVs if that's the rationale.
> - Cost of parking, especially in cities:
Agreed, but better solved by disallowing street parking and taxing land ownership. Again, tax the parts that introduce the negative externalities as directly as possible, otherwise you create perverse incentives.
- Polution created by making a car.
- Cost of parking, especially in cities:
Even in suburban areas having the streets full of parked cars has negative effects like reducing the space available for children to play.