London's New Year's Eve fireworks to be ticketed - £10 each

[Xaero]

Do any other countries charge entry to their national (televised around the world) new year fireworks display?

It will throw some tourism off which could have a negative overall effect, why go to London when you can go to Paris for example if the firework display is £50 cheaper for a family of 5?

I can see the price rocketing in the future though. I went in 2010 and was there about 5 hour early to try and get a good spot. Limiting the numbers is definitely a good idea. I didn't mind the crowd when it happened although it did seem to ramp up the hour before it started. The biggest problem I found was getting out after. I didn't get back to my hotel until 5am and I wouldn't want to take a young child through that pain.

I went to the Sydney NYE display in 2008 and they had the transport nailed there, everyone emptied fast and all the buses were free in order to mass get people out and the cleaners in. I was in Tokyo in 2009 (and found out they don't actually display fireworks at all) and they just got away with using their normal efficient public transportation structure but I think it was not the same sort of stress level as London and Sydney goes through on those nights.

[robm3]

I really don't think central London is a great place to see fireworks anyhow, there's no elevation to the land so it kinda sucks.

You need a stonking great viewing area (like a harbour), something massive and symbolic to fire em' off (like a big bridge) and millions of viewspots around it all (like sloping land). A good soundtrack to go with. Plus be nice if you could do it all in 25-28 degree heat.

What you really need is a ticket to Sydney methinks:



(still the best in the world)

[scorp]

KareemK said:

Once again the Tories manage to discriminate against those families who are not so well off - £50 for a husband, wife and 3 kids, brilliant. And at just the time of year when household budgets are reeling anyway.

It's not discrimination FFS, they are just poor and cannot afford it.

[Lincsblokey]

KareemK said:

Once again the Tories manage to discriminate against those families who are not so well off - £50 for a husband, wife and 3 kids, brilliant. And at just the time of year when household budgets are reeling anyway.

No discrimination at all, you just dont pay 10 pp and stand in the free parts, with more folk around you.

Essentially, whats being said is..

'stand in a not so crowded area, with better security and a clear sight of the fireworks, and be able to turn up at a sensible time and not queue for 5 hours first either'

Seems good to me...

[V8 Fettler]

For £10, I would expect a passing jet to be dumping and burning.

[KareemK]

Lincsblokey said:

No discrimination at all, you just dont pay 10 pp and stand in the free parts, with more folk around you.

Essentially, whats being said is..

'stand in a not so crowded area, with better security and a clear sight of the fireworks, and be able to turn up at a sensible time and not queue for 5 hours first either'

Seems good to me...

yeah, so why don't they do that in the other big capitals of the world?

Why London?

Half the people on here saying that £10 pp (£40 for a family of 4) is 'fair' are likely the same ones bemoaning 'rip-off britain'.

It's currently free on a first come first serve basis, why change it?

Those worried about the crowds (I'm not): Why not just cordone off an area and allow the first 100,000 in before closing that section off?

Why the charge?

[KareemK]

iphonedyou said:

Stop bleating, it's odd that this riles you so. And stop talking about cake!

It's odd that it doesn't rile you &

[MarshPhantom]

I never go, I think the crowds of people are just there to make it look good on TV.

[Mr Will]

KareemK said:

Those worried about the crowds (I'm not): Why not just cordone off an area and allow the first 100,000 in before closing that section off?

Because very few people, especially those with children, wants to have to get there at midday and sit around for 12 hours in the cold. It would end up being nobody but drunk students and 20-somethings on an all-day binge.

[skilly1]

KareemK said:

yeah, so why don't they do that in the other big capitals of the world?

Why London?

Half the people on here saying that £10 pp (£40 for a family of 4) is 'fair' are likely the same ones bemoaning 'rip-off britain'.

It's currently free on a first come first serve basis, why change it?

Those worried about the crowds (I'm not): Why not just cordone off an area and allow the first 100,000 in before closing that section off?

Why the charge?

You can still watch it for free, just not in the cordoned off area. Just because you have been lucky enough to have it for free in the past does not mean you are entitled to have it for free in the future.

[iphonedyou]

KareemK said:

yeah, so why don't they do that in the other big capitals of the world?

Why London?

Half the people on here saying that £10 pp (£40 for a family of 4) is 'fair' are likely the same ones bemoaning 'rip-off britain'.

It's currently free on a first come first serve basis, why change it?

Those worried about the crowds (I'm not): Why not just cordone off an area and allow the first 100,000 in before closing that section off?

Why the charge?

Of course it's fair. You're not forced to go! As for 'rip-off Britain'; stop reading tabloids.

You're asking 'why change it', because it's 'currently free on a first come first serve basis'. The problem is half a million people on that basis, and that causes problems. So they want to restrict numbers. You restrict numbers by raising (or introducing) the cost of entry. T'was ever thus.

[KareemK]

iphonedyou said:

The problem is half a million people on that basis, and that causes problems.

Firstly, please stop saying stuff like "stop" - it makes you sound like a control freak.

Secondly, There is no problem with how it currently operates. I've been when its 20 deep at the embankment and not 1 "problem".

Are people dying? Breaking ribs from the crush? Get real.

It's people like you shouting "there are problems" where none actually exist thats giving credance to the introduction of charging.

Like I said, you don't need to charge if crowd problems are your concern, see all of the other cities for details

[anonymous-user]

It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt — Abraham Lincoln

[RemyMartin]

KareemK said:

Waaa waaaa waaaa bleat bleat bleat. Life's so unfair.

And

KareemK said:

Waaa waaaa waaaa bleat bleat bleat. Life's so unfair.

And

KareemK said:

Waaa waaaa waaaa bleat bleat bleat. Life's so unfair.

And

KareemK said:

Waaa waaaa waaaa bleat bleat bleat. Life's so unfair.

This thread condensed down to a skim read.

[Roo]

KareemK said:

Secondly, There is no problem with how it currently operates.

Yes there is. That's why they are having to change it.

KareemK said:

Breaking ribs from the crush? Get real.

Don't know. Do you?

KareemK said:

Like I said, you don't need to charge if crowd problems are your concern, see all of the other cities for details

Have you bothered to read peoples comments about how other cities cope?

[sc0tt]

KareemK said:

Once again the Tories manage to discriminate against those families who are not so well off - £50 for a husband, wife and 3 kids, brilliant. And at just the time of year when household budgets are reeling anyway.

You should have worked harder.

I'm going to buy 5 tickets and not even go.

[glazbagun]

Ticketing it seems like a good idea, having seen it once, but making money out of Londoners who want to look at their own new years celebration is a pretty good example of why I dislike the place so much.

[skilly1]

glazbagun said:

Ticketing it seems like a good idea, having seen it once, but making money out of Londoners who want to look at their own new years celebration is a pretty good example of why I dislike the place so much.

How about they ticket it and don't make any money out of it, probably a loss and also don't put a big curtain up to stop anyone who has not paid seeing the fireworks? Would that make you happier?

[ViperDave]

KareemK said:

Firstly, please stop saying stuff like "stop" - it makes you sound like a control freak.

Secondly, There is no problem with how it currently operates. I've been when its 20 deep at the embankment and not 1 "problem".

Are people dying? Breaking ribs from the crush? Get real.

It's people like you shouting "there are problems" where none actually exist thats giving credance to the introduction of charging.

Like I said, you don't need to charge if crowd problems are your concern, see all of the other cities for details

Its the back streets and those who don't get to see anything where the problems are, not the lucky few on embankment

I was on Whitehall in 2012/13, which for most of it the view is blocked by buildings, (we were by a gap opposite Downing st fortunately), Whitehall was FULL i don't know how many deep that would represent, but its at least 20-40 i would think. OK there weren't any injury's that i know of, but ambulances were around with sirens going and a few were pulled out of the crowd by the police, but that is a hell of a lot of people who saw sod all, Parliament SQ was full, again a lot of people disappointed they didn't see the fireworks.

did we turn up at 11:30, not a chance, we were there probably between 7 or 8, yes we should have been earlier to get on embankment, but 4 hours standing in a spot the size of my shoulders, the only real movement possible was shuffling weight from one foot to the other, to get anything out of my bag at my feet required the cooperation of all around, and going to the toilet, forget it.

So lucky you to get onto embankment which was only 20 deep, you had a good view, but you were probably one of the 100,000 that will now get the same view with a ticket. But what about the 150,000 odd that were in the back streets with limited or no view, ok so it might have been a great party atmosphere, but disappointing to not see what they went for, At lest now, those that pay the £10 get to see what they went for without having to camp out from the middle of the day, the rest can go along for the free party in the back streets, if they get a glimpse of a firework all the better.

As for the other cities that put on displays, Sydney is a massive amphitheater, you can see the bridge from miles around, there are spots though in national parks where a ticket will set you back $500, but they do throw in some food! New york, is just a big party, doubt many go to see the ball drop, if they get to see it they probably think themselves lucky, and as has been said the street system lends itself to accommodating a growing crowd and diverted traffic. Cant really comment on the other city's has i haven't seen them first hand. But i was in Vancouver one NYE and was disappointed that there was sod all by way of celebration.

One of the best was probably Adelaide 2000/01 when they had the race of a thousand years with the last round of the ALMS in the park, Had driven in from coberpedy listening to the race on the radio (when we had a signal), unaware it was on before then, got to see the final couple of hours or so and then the firework display, i think we paid a small amount to get into that!

Edited by ViperDave on Thursday 18th September 13:21

[hornet]

KareemK said:

Those worried about the crowds (I'm not): Why not just cordone off an area and allow the first 100,000 in before closing that section off?

Why the charge?

How do you stop people trying to get in once your free area is full? More importantly, how do you stop those not already at said area from trying to get to it? Free access would be a crowd control nightmare, as you'd end up with surges caused by false information, and that has the potential to end very badly. Far better to limit the people in the area to start with. In that respect, I'd wager the £10 charge is as much designed to discourage visitors as anything else. Sending out the message that you're unlikely to get a good view unless you buy a ticket is likely to stop quite a few people heading into town, which all help with policing, crowd control and managing the transport network. People seem to want to use this as a stick to hit Boris with, but given the concerns of TfL and the police, I don't think it's an unreasonable approach.