TFL to extend Congestion Charge Zone...?!

[C70R]

Misanthrope said:

C70R said:

Misanthrope said:

Yes, we know the reasons for the congestion. Narrowing roads to add cycle lanes, converting roundabouts and one-way systems to stupid two way junctions with hundreds of traffic lights, closing back roads to force everyone into the bottlenecks they have created.
The whole thing is a huge piss take. They cause the problem then want to charge us for it. It's like a cop punching you in the face then nicking you for assaulting a police officer on the basis that you head-butted his fist.

But we had congestion in London before any of this was implemented. They might have made an existing issue worse, but your memory is short if you think they are the root cause.

I didn't say there was no congestion before this stuff came in. But it has made it much worse. Previously, provided you drove outside peak times, you wouldn't encounter too much congestion. Now you get it most of the time. OK, if you drive at midnight it's mostly OK (except for Brixton - there's always a jam there), but even then you get forced to stop at all the extra traffic lights they've put in, which seem to be arranged to maximise the delays they cause.

For an example, try driving along the A20 in either direction through this monstrosity:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4637999,-0.01241...

It seems to have been designed to maximise traffic jams. If you don't know the area, it used to be a roundabout, and the traffic flowed much better.

I've been living and driving in London for more than a decade, through my share of mayors/road-planning, and I don't recognise the bit in bold. When are you referring to?

That thing in Lewisham is a shambles (let's ignore the fact that it's outside the proposed ULEZ/CCZ extension for now), but it's not the root cause of congestion.

[NomduJour]

There’s no question that it happened under Livingstone’s reign - an avowed car-hating communist who doesn’t even drive - “modal hierarchy”, bus lanes everywhere, traffic light “rephasing”, bendy buses blocking roads and junctions, “congestion” charge etc. He wanted to finish what the GLC couldn’t.

[C70R]

NomduJour said:

There’s no question that it happened under Livingstone’s reign - an avowed car-hating communist who doesn’t even drive - “modal hierarchy”, bus lanes everywhere, traffic light “rephasing”, bendy buses blocking roads and junctions, “congestion” charge etc. He wanted to finish what the GLC couldn’t.

And it continued, unabated, through Johnson's reign too.

I think we're looking at the inevitable outcome of living in an old city where the majority of those in the Inner areas don't own or use a car.

If you were the Mayor, looking for support, why would you court it from a minority?

[NomduJour]

C70R said:

I think we're looking at the inevitable outcome of living in an old city where the majority of those in the Inner areas don't own or use a car.

If you were the Mayor, looking for support, why would you court it from a minority?

So the inevitable outcome of private car journeys and usage falling is increased pollution and congestion, therefore private cars must be punished?

The Mayor isn’t only responsible for the bit in the very middle, and choosing not to own a car is hardly relevant.

[C70R]

NomduJour said:

C70R said:

I think we're looking at the inevitable outcome of living in an old city where the majority of those in the Inner areas don't own or use a car.

If you were the Mayor, looking for support, why would you court it from a minority?

So the inevitable outcome of private car journeys and usage falling is increased pollution and congestion, therefore private cars must be punished?

The Mayor isn’t only responsible for the bit in the very middle, and choosing not to own a car is hardly relevant.

Two points, to add a reality check to your victim complex.
1. Private cars aren't the only 'targets' of the ULEZ, as you repeatedly suggest. It 'targets' taxis, buses, LGVs and HGVs too.
2. Pursuant to the above, private car journeys falling isn't really an indicator of any single thing other than private car journeys falling (there are myriad factors in there).

[NomduJour]

“Victim complex”. Right. The real victims are those who willingly prostrate themselves to this nonsense.

Target the problem.

[C70R]

NomduJour said:

“Victim complex”. Right. The real victims are those who willingly prostrate themselves to this nonsense.

Target the problem.

I want to ask you what "the problem" is, but I suspect you're going to cite that one study from 5 years ago that looked at emissions on a handful of bus routes.

Then I'll remind you that since then TfL has committed to (and actioned) a major overhaul of its bus fleet, and currently has the greenest fleet in Europe.

Then you'll start talking about injustice and 'victimisation' of the motorist.

Then I'll remind you that the majority of people living inside the ULEZ expansion area don't own a car.

Then we'll go back around in circles again.

Shall we just give it a miss this time?

[NomduJour]

This is about the CC extension, but...

Ban every single private car tomorrow and any improvement in pollution would be negligible. Forcing people out of their own car almost certainly puts a greater proportion into other cars in the form of private hire and cabs, anyway.

If the entire bus fleet now only emits snowdrops and rainbows, great, that’s the major vehicle concern completely addressed.

If a lot of people decide not to own a car, good for them, give them a little medal to wear on the bus or something.

People need - and want (imagine!) - to move around - using a car is often part of that. Targeting private cars when there are easier, more effective and far more equitable solutions to the “problem” is regressive.

[BrundanBianchi]

NomduJour said:

This is about the CC extension, but...

Ban every single private car tomorrow and any improvement in pollution would be negligible. Forcing people out of their own car almost certainly puts a greater proportion into other cars in the form of private hire and cabs, anyway.

If the entire bus fleet now only emits snowdrops and rainbows, great, that’s the major vehicle concern completely addressed.

If a lot of people decide not to own a car, good for them, give them a little medal to wear on the bus or something.

People need - and want (imagine!) - to move around - using a car is often part of that. Targeting private cars when there are easier, more effective and far more equitable solutions to the “problem” is regressive.

Have you seen what happens to pollution levels when you ban pretty much all private cars from central London, and any route where private cars are banned?

https://cyclingindustry.news/air-quality-sees-dras...

[NomduJour]

BrundanBianchi said:

Have you seen what happens to pollution levels when you ban pretty much all private cars from central London, and any route where private cars are banned?

https://cyclingindustry.news/air-quality-sees-dras...

Ah, Putney High Street - that will be the one where NOx emissions fell by over 90% under the low emissions bus trial, yes? Or were the buses mixing it with the bikes on that day?

On your bike.

[NomduJour]

BrundanBianchi said:

pollution levels

Lockdown - virtually no traffic at all; not just private cars, but big polluters like buses, cabs, commercial vehicles of all kinds - NOx lower at roadside testing stations (but certainly not eliminated - up to about half at the worst locations), but PM2.5 pollution considerably higher.

What does the cycle lobby propose to do about that? Stop people cooking, change the way the wind blows, or just whine about cars?

[bristolracer]

Good luck getting a plumber or a sparky when the zone gets bigger. If they do take the job who do you think pays the charge? (Plus vat obviously)

It will not stop the rich getting about, but for those essential car users, shift workers etc it's going to be another unwanted bill.

[C70R]

bristolracer said:

Good luck getting a plumber or a sparky when the zone gets bigger. If they do take the job who do you think pays the charge? (Plus vat obviously)

It will not stop the rich getting about, but for those essential car users, shift workers etc it's going to be another unwanted bill.

Given what those guys are charging, a tenner a day or so will be a drop in the ocean for them. They'd have to light their cigars with twenties rather than fifties...

[valiant]

NomduJour said:

BrundanBianchi said:

pollution levels

Lockdown - virtually no traffic at all; not just private cars, but big polluters like buses, cabs, commercial vehicles of all kinds - NOx lower at roadside testing stations (but certainly not eliminated - up to about half at the worst locations), but PM2.5 pollution considerably higher.

What does the cycle lobby propose to do about that? Stop people cooking, change the way the wind blows, or just whine about cars?

Think this is more suited to the ULEZ thread to be honest.

[NomduJour]

It will just be added the call-out fee.

[Ian Geary]

Interesting to read today that the Welsh government is renationalised Welsh rail from Feb 2021.

The private operator seemingly can't cope with lack of revenue.

I wonder who will pay for that? I can't think where the Welsh government can conjure up that sort of cash, or whether the Welsh will be happy that only Welsh tax payers find it?

Although the Welsh population is less than half on London, there are parallels about how to run public transport when it's not commercially viable.

I don't think it's fair car drivers inside the circulars should be expected to pay more than any other user of tfl services to prop them up. But given tfl do roads too, a scenario where all users of "transport" pay more is fairer. He'll, why not just stick it into the GLA precept? (Though that would cause the council tax payers alliances types to have a complete meltdown, and wouldn't cover those travelling into London from outside of it). Perhaps a home counties levy then? Or do we go full circle back to charging on a usage basis?

I also continue to believe trying to pin tfl financial problems on khan is just political opportunism at its worse, matched only by the Tory govt trying to make khan the fall guy for this CC extension.

It clearly seems to have been swallowed by some though

Plus, anecdotally, I heard the earlier increase in vehicle charges by tfl over summer was a requirement of the previous government bail out. But if it was, it didn't seem to get much exposure.

Which is a shame, as I think transparency and accountability have to go together.

[Condi]

Ian Geary said:

Interesting to read today that the Welsh government is renationalised Welsh rail from Feb 2021.

The private operator seemingly can't cope with lack of revenue.

I wonder who will pay for that? I can't think where the Welsh government can conjure up that sort of cash, or whether the Welsh will be happy that only Welsh tax payers find it?

The government are taking the losses from the rail network right across England/the UK.

It's why the conditions attached to the TFL bailout are so wrong, because other rail franchises are being "bailed out" without any conditions at all.

Since the pandemic started, rail operators (South Western, Thameslink etc) are basically getting paid a fee to run the trains. This is working okay at the moment, but there is little incentive for rail operators to renew their franchises when they end unless passenger numbers pick up. The Government will end up running the whole network, and it will be nationalised by accident.

[whytheory]

Condi said:

It's why the conditions attached to the TFL bailout are so wrong, because other rail franchises are being "bailed out" without any conditions at all.

Yep, just seems like political point scoring to me. I thought they were thinking about a new national franchise system based on how TfL run the Overground anyway.

Condi said:

The Government will end up running the whole network, and it will be nationalised by accident.

Maybe not such a bad thing.

[Ian Geary]

Condi said:

The government are taking the losses from the rail network right across England/the UK.

It's why the conditions attached to the TFL bailout are so wrong, because other rail franchises are being "bailed out" without any conditions at all.

Since the pandemic started, rail operators (South Western, Thameslink etc) are basically getting paid a fee to run the trains. This is working okay at the moment, but there is little incentive for rail operators to renew their franchises when they end unless passenger numbers pick up. The Government will end up running the whole network, and it will be nationalised by accident.

Thanks, useful info.

[Ian Geary]

Update from an industry magazine

Local Government Chronicle said:

The government is demanding an extention of the £15 congestion charge to the North and South Circular, as well as a rise in tube and bus fares and a new public transport council tax precept charge on the capital.

So, a range of new charges - not solely on motorists

Local Government Chronicle said:

The prime minister yesterday claimed the mayor had “effectively bankrupted” TfL, while Mr Khan hit back that Mr Johnson had “lied to the House of Commons”, and that before Covid he had been "fixing [Boris Johnson's] mess at TfL, reducing the deficit by 71% since 2016".

The government really don't help themselves with nonsense like this imho.