Congestion Charging, is this really the only way?
Discussion
Am I alone in thinking that CC is just another tax on the motorist?
If congestion is really as bad as theyre saying, why on earth dont they make the roads free flowing once again?
If i was the mayor, id immediately scrap bus only lanes for a start.
Rephasing of traffic signals to give the optimum flowrates could easily be acheived.
Reversal of road build outs and pinch points is another part of the equation.
Also, if road contractors had to work to a pre-agreed schedule, and were fined if they didnt meet the targets, im sure theyd get the work done a whole lot faster.
One way streets could be scrapped also, as could all the roads that have been closed off to traffic.
Removal of traffic calming and pedestrianisation schemes is also in there.
Am i really alone in thinking that these proposed solutions would work, rather than further taxing motorists which i dont think will work?
If congestion is really as bad as theyre saying, why on earth dont they make the roads free flowing once again?
If i was the mayor, id immediately scrap bus only lanes for a start.
Rephasing of traffic signals to give the optimum flowrates could easily be acheived.
Reversal of road build outs and pinch points is another part of the equation.
Also, if road contractors had to work to a pre-agreed schedule, and were fined if they didnt meet the targets, im sure theyd get the work done a whole lot faster.
One way streets could be scrapped also, as could all the roads that have been closed off to traffic.
Removal of traffic calming and pedestrianisation schemes is also in there.
Am i really alone in thinking that these proposed solutions would work, rather than further taxing motorists which i dont think will work?
Congestion ois caused by too many people wishing to use the available road space at the same time. Deltaf's suggestion is to increase the available roadspace, but I think his ideas are perhaps a bit too optimistic for real life. Those behind the congestion charging hope that charging will mean that only those who really need to use the road space will use it, while those that have a choice will not, thus reducing congestion. How else can you seperate those who really need something from those who think they might as well have something because it is free and they can't think of a better alternative, other than by charging? How long would the queue for the London Eye be if riding on it was free?
John
John
johnelliott said: Congestion ois caused by too many people wishing to use the available road space at the same time. Deltaf's suggestion is to increase the available roadspace, but I think his ideas are perhaps a bit too optimistic for real life. Those behind the congestion charging hope that charging will mean that only those who really need to use the road space will use it, while those that have a choice will not, thus reducing congestion. How else can you seperate those who really need something from those who think they might as well have something because it is free and they can't think of a better alternative, other than by charging? How long would the queue for the London Eye be if riding on it was free?
John
That's OK if you don't penalise people who have no choice but to use it, which in many cases it does.
Measures to reduce our freedom are inevitable because of a fundamental flaw in our economies. That is that growth is mistaken for developement.
They are actually opposites. Growth is the increase in quantity while developement is the improvement of quality.
Governments talk of the need for 'economic growth' that is driven by increased demand for goods and services. And that increase is most easily accomodated by increasing the population.
Not only is such an economy unsustainable but it is inevitable that the freedom and quality of life for most of the population will be reduced.
The only winners are the extreme top end of town. Who can pay the tolls? Yet even they end up with reduced quality of life as they must insulate themselves from the world they have created.
End sermon but check out this site I found last night.
www.civitas.org.uk/hwu/prcs23.php
They are actually opposites. Growth is the increase in quantity while developement is the improvement of quality.
Governments talk of the need for 'economic growth' that is driven by increased demand for goods and services. And that increase is most easily accomodated by increasing the population.
Not only is such an economy unsustainable but it is inevitable that the freedom and quality of life for most of the population will be reduced.
The only winners are the extreme top end of town. Who can pay the tolls? Yet even they end up with reduced quality of life as they must insulate themselves from the world they have created.
End sermon but check out this site I found last night.
www.civitas.org.uk/hwu/prcs23.php
I was in Singapore last week, and they already have congestion charging there. Every car has an electronic device that receives signals from senders in the gantries- similar deal to the DART card for going over the Dartford Crossing. They have a sliding scale of charges for different routes/times.
Concensus of the drivers I spoke to was that it had marginally improved traffic flow, and there was very little congestion on their roads that I saw. They also make it very expensive to own a car, essentially doubling it's purchase price. Though they have a few speed cameras, everyone knows where they are and they are clearly signed. Singapore is a small island with 4 million people on it, so they actively and unashamedly try to ration car ownership
Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I'm in favour of CC, I'm not- just relaying recent and indirect experience of it in another country. Like a lot of people I doubt that it'll work, unless someone reprograms the traffic lights at the same time to make it look like it does, and I object to paying for something crap.
Concensus of the drivers I spoke to was that it had marginally improved traffic flow, and there was very little congestion on their roads that I saw. They also make it very expensive to own a car, essentially doubling it's purchase price. Though they have a few speed cameras, everyone knows where they are and they are clearly signed. Singapore is a small island with 4 million people on it, so they actively and unashamedly try to ration car ownership
Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I'm in favour of CC, I'm not- just relaying recent and indirect experience of it in another country. Like a lot of people I doubt that it'll work, unless someone reprograms the traffic lights at the same time to make it look like it does, and I object to paying for something crap.
I was in Toronto, Canada last year and the congestion was horrible. The only motorway that was clear of traffic was the Toll motorway.
So even though the chance to bypass congestion was there, noone would pay for it. So the result is an expensive motorway that is just about completely empty and all the 8 lane (each way) motorways are jam packed.
The moral of this? Well basically people won't pay the charge unless the have no choice or by accident. So what will happen in London? I would guess that the CC area will be claimed a success because anyone that can avoid it will, even if it means longer queues in the areas immediately around the CC.
So even though the chance to bypass congestion was there, noone would pay for it. So the result is an expensive motorway that is just about completely empty and all the 8 lane (each way) motorways are jam packed.
The moral of this? Well basically people won't pay the charge unless the have no choice or by accident. So what will happen in London? I would guess that the CC area will be claimed a success because anyone that can avoid it will, even if it means longer queues in the areas immediately around the CC.
OK, I'm not a Londoner, but I have had the pleasure of driving into the centre a number of times in a previous life. It seemed to me that the majority of traffic between 8 and 6 were not people going to and from work, but people driving in connection with their businesses. This charge is meant to tax businesses not reduce traffic congestion. Have we any surveys to show the amount of "unneccessary" road use in London? I doubt it is a very high percentage of the total.
This is much the same as claiming increased fuel tax has any effect on polution. The vast majority of road use is not recreational and is therefore neccessary. The bulk of any of these forms of tax is a guaranteed income for the govt.
The only sure-fire way to reduce London's congestion is to re-locate businesses away from the centre, either by subsidy or planning constraints. But I can't see the govt giving up another nice little earner.
Andy
This is much the same as claiming increased fuel tax has any effect on polution. The vast majority of road use is not recreational and is therefore neccessary. The bulk of any of these forms of tax is a guaranteed income for the govt.
The only sure-fire way to reduce London's congestion is to re-locate businesses away from the centre, either by subsidy or planning constraints. But I can't see the govt giving up another nice little earner.
Andy
'Encourage employers to have their staff work from home' is my favourite and quite an obvious solution ( It would also improve the housing situation ).
I have never seen Ken or any politicians mention this though. Their answer is always charge money.
This isnt rationing of a resource its just making motoring for the rich.
It wouldn't be so bad if there was a viable public transport alternative but there isn't.
Ken is also penalising the Key workers who are already leaving London because its too expensive.
The worst thing about it is , even if its a total disaster they'll claim its a success, give the statistics a fiddle and every town city will start implementing it.
>> Edited by mdh on Monday 20th January 15:42
>> Edited by mdh on Monday 20th January 15:43
I have never seen Ken or any politicians mention this though. Their answer is always charge money.
This isnt rationing of a resource its just making motoring for the rich.
It wouldn't be so bad if there was a viable public transport alternative but there isn't.
Ken is also penalising the Key workers who are already leaving London because its too expensive.
The worst thing about it is , even if its a total disaster they'll claim its a success, give the statistics a fiddle and every town city will start implementing it.
>> Edited by mdh on Monday 20th January 15:42
>> Edited by mdh on Monday 20th January 15:43
Given that most of the people I know will do almost anything rather than drive into the centre of London all their journeys are necessary already so it'll just raise money rather reduce congestion if my friends are anything to go by.
I live in the Republic of Yorkshire with lots of nice clear roads though
I live in the Republic of Yorkshire with lots of nice clear roads though
andyf007 said: The vast majority of road use is not recreational and is therefore neccessary.
I don't agree with that conclusion, just because mileage isn't recreational doesn't mean it is necessary.
Take for instance the decisions people make about where they will work and where they will live. Lots and lots of people look for houses further away from where they work, or take jobs further away from where they live based on the ease, cost and time taken of the journeys that will then become 'necessary'.
Every time a new road is built then the roads fills not just with people who would otherwise have made an identical journey on the old road, but with others who are taking advantage of the new road to extend their daily mileage for one reason or another
John
johnelliott said:
andyf007 said: The vast majority of road use is not recreational and is therefore neccessary.
I don't agree with that conclusion, just because mileage isn't recreational doesn't mean it is necessary.
Take for instance the decisions people make about where they will work and where they will live. Lots and lots of people look for houses further away from where they work, or take jobs further away from where they live based on the ease, cost and time taken of the journeys that will then become 'necessary'.
Sometimes this is due to the cost of housing being too high near their place of work (take London for example), schools etc and of course good old freedom of choice. Their journeys therefore become neccessary.
Every time a new road is built then the roads fills not just with people who would otherwise have made an identical journey on the old road, but with others who are taking advantage of the new road to extend their daily mileage for one reason or another.
If they extend their journey then that mileage is recreational and unneccessary and deserves charging. But my point was that very few journeys in a working day are people travelling to and from their fixed place of work, by what ever route. They are actually working. For these to be considered unneccessary would imply that firms are sending people in vans, lorries and cars, around the country for no reason at all.
Almost every service or commodity we buy or use in this country has used the roads at some point and therefore has been additionally taxed by the govt over and above the rate of VAT. Basically, any kind of taxation for what ever reason is paid for by Joe Public at the end of the day.
Andy
andyf007 said:
Sometimes this is due to the cost of housing being too high near their place of work (take London for example), schools etc and of course good old freedom of choice. Their journeys therefore become neccessary.
The necessary journeys that you refer to above didn't start out being necessary. They became necessary when the person making the journey decided to take job a and live in house b. He made this decision based on the factors you mention above, plus the availability of roadspace, cost of petrol, and the likely time spent in traffic queues. As more and more people make the same decisions, so the roadspace available to each of them decreases, and the traffic delays increase.
Eventually something has to be done to assist people in making decisions which will reduce the traffic congestion, and the nearest to 'fair' system is charging people extra to use the most congested roads
John
I think in the main that people do tend to try and live a reasonable distance from their place of work, but more often than not jobs change faster than houses. Also spouses and children who work in other directions need to be factored into the equation. To put it another way, you are saying that if I work inside a congestion zone, then so should my family and I should also live inside the zone, because to choose to do otherwise is "unnecessary" and therefore chargeable? The zone in question is central London, how many of it's workers could afford to live inside the zone? Should they be penalised for this?
My main point is still this - the charge should not apply to business vehicles, because we pick up the tab and these journeys will still have to happen. The charge will not reduce the number of business vehicles in central London, so if it's to affect congestion as they claim then it can only apply to those vehicles that are driving through there unnecessarily. Anything else is a tax on us all.
Andy
My main point is still this - the charge should not apply to business vehicles, because we pick up the tab and these journeys will still have to happen. The charge will not reduce the number of business vehicles in central London, so if it's to affect congestion as they claim then it can only apply to those vehicles that are driving through there unnecessarily. Anything else is a tax on us all.
Andy
andyf007 said:
To put it another way, you are saying that if I work inside a congestion zone, then so should my family and I should also live inside the zone, because to choose to do otherwise is "unnecessary" and therefore chargeable?
Avoid putting what I say in any other way because you will then not be saying what I said. If you want to know what I said then go back and read it.
The congestion charging scheme is not a taxation scheme, it is a congestion charging scheme. The basic idea is that you and anyone else who wants to use the roads in question will weigh up the value of making the journey with its cost. The authorities can't do anything about the value of the journey, buit they can do something about its cost. Naurally some people will find the cost too high, and leave the road that much clearer for those who are prepared to pay the extra. I really can't see why business vehicles should be exempt,if they are contributing to the congestion then they should be charged like everybody else
John
johnelliott said: Congestion ois caused by too many people wishing to use the available road space at the same time. Deltaf's suggestion is to increase the available roadspace, but I think his ideas are perhaps a bit too optimistic for real life. Those behind the congestion charging hope that charging will mean that only those who really need to use the road space will use it, while those that have a choice will not, thus reducing congestion. How else can you seperate those who really need something from those who think they might as well have something because it is free and they can't think of a better alternative, other than by charging? How long would the queue for the London Eye be if riding on it was free?
John
Well I can think of another way it's a tax on fuel so that the more you use the more you pay. Oh wait we already have that don't we. What about a tax to keep your vehicle on the road. Oh wait we already have that as well. Oh well let's have another tax, wich will create another set of bureaucracy to administer and another set of penalties. Also I think you need to examine the credentials of the person introducing it, a man who's most avowed intent is to get people out of their cars because he doesn't like them. If it were being proposed by anyone else then it might be considered a valiant attempt to reduce congestion. As it is I'm afraid it's another tax. You have to see where this is going. Ken has publically said that he wants to extend the congestion charging zone, to include Heathrow. So now when you fly you will have to pay the £5 Ken tax to get there, then the £10 Tony tax on your ticket. Labia don't you just love 'em heh. Unless of course you are the members of this forum in support of the congestion charge who catch the bus to the airport when they fly. And of course I'm sure that the charge will never be increased, so now you can afford it and what a reasonable price it is to drive into Central London, makes no difference really. Who will ever want to stop me driving my car. I think we know the answer to that one. Eventuallly the zone will expand so much that it will cover eveywhere, and we'll all pay it. Isn't that another road tax then, with another army of bureaucrats, and of course that Welsh chap Dickhead Brainstorm and his mob of rent a fascists will be there to automatically read any information you have, to catch the criminals all in the name of your own safety of course.
It's a wedge and the very thin end of one at that. I was there when speed cameras were only going to be in accident blackspots, everyone would be retiring at fifty, and there would never be a third runway at Heathrow. Before my time I'm afraid was when parking meters would be used to build off street car parks. The point is you can't believe what you are told.
Overall I think the current status quo is the best, well actually the pre Ken status quo (traffic light rephasing, traffic calming and bus lanes) at least that way road space is rationed by patience, not by wealth.
Like the Manic Street Preachers said if you tolerate this then your children wil be next, will be next, will be next....
IanReid said: Well I can think of another way it's a tax on fuel so that the more you use the more you pay. Oh wait we already have that don't we. What about a tax to keep your vehicle on the road. Oh wait we already have that as well.
Ah ha, Irony, similar to sarcasm, can't be bothered with it myself, prefer to stick to the point
Talking of sticking to the point, what are your suggestions for easing the congestion in London, Ian?
John
johnelliott said:
andyf007 said:
To put it another way, you are saying that if I work inside a congestion zone, then so should my family and I should also live inside the zone, because to choose to do otherwise is "unnecessary" and therefore chargeable?
Avoid putting what I say in any other way because you will then not be saying what I said. If you want to know what I said then go back and read it.
The congestion charging scheme is not a taxation scheme, it is a congestion charging scheme. The basic idea is that you and anyone else who wants to use the roads in question will weigh up the value of making the journey with its cost. The authorities can't do anything about the value of the journey, buit they can do something about its cost. Naurally some people will find the cost too high, and leave the road that much clearer for those who are prepared to pay the extra. I really can't see why business vehicles should be exempt,if they are contributing to the congestion then they should be charged like everybody else
John
Apologies John, went home.
I didn't mean to take you out of context, I just felt you were saying that, as people were choosing not to live in the middle of London, they should accept charging.
For it to be fair there must be an acceptable and viable alternative for people to take, ie public transport. Then the govt can say to people "well there's a decent alternative and you chose not to take it, so we're charging you". That I will accept is fair.
Do you think that the public transport in London is an acceptable alternative and could it cope?
I do, to some extent, agree with what DeltaF and others are saying with regard to road design and layout. It is the main cause of congestion. All the old cities in this country have these problems, they were built around horse and cart technology. Go to somewhere like Peterborough, where the whole road system and business areas are designed for traffic flow and access, and there is virtually no congestion at all. Congestion has to be designed out of London.
I heard somewhere last night that Ken expects to reduce congestion by 10 - 15% with this charge. Apart from being a fairly small %, it seems he accepts that 85% will not go away. The majority of this will be business transport, it has no alternatives to opt for.
To reduce the 85% further you have to remove the need for business transport to go into central London, ie move the businesses out. This would also reduce the load on public transport, as the work would be where the homes are.
As a final effort to reduce congestion, perhaps they could stop building all the big "tourist attractions" and stadiums etc in London. If reducing congestion is really what it's all about, that is?
Andy :tryingnototarguewithjohncosheseemsanicebloke:
Forums | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff