Since the congestion charge was introduced, most of the cars on London's roads during the working day are very late £30k+ cars clearly driven by people who can and would pay £50 a day to drive them into town. I work in the West End, and lose count of the number of Range Rover Sports, X5's, Bentleys, Porsches and top end BMW's, Mercs and Audis I see. In other words, the roads are now almost exclusively used by the type of people who won't be deterred by a financial penalty, and wouldn't use public transport if it were free.
It's Mr and Mrs Average who are suffering. An odd attitude from a man who claims to be a socialist.
|
An odd attitude from a man who claims to be a socialist
Not at all, Ken is turning the congestion charge into a Wealth Tax, a perfectly valid, nay core, socialist value
screw the poor hard, and screw the rich harder until they leave, so the poor get screwed harder still to make up for the lost revenue,
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
What about everyone in the middle?
|
There is no middle in socialism. or top. or bottom. Everyone is an equal brother.
Is just that some of your equal brothers need to steal from you to give your money to those of your equal brothers who are too lazy to climb out of bed.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
|
|
Until someone comes up with a better form of rationing, rationing by price is not a bad arrangement.
Those wealthy people are no paying for improvements to public transport system. Seems reasonably socialist to me. But the system could be improved further, by this idea of higher charges for gas guzzlers.
|
Those wealthy people are no paying for improvements to public transport system. Seems reasonably socialist to me. But the system could be improved further, by this idea of higher charges for gas guzzlers.
All well and good in theory, but public transport is not improving as fast and to the same extent as the driving conditions that the rich are now enjoying.
Don't forget too that this is a man who has openly declared his hatred for the private car on many occasions previously, and a man who is known for his emotions getting in the way of rational and logical argument.
|
>It's Mr and Mrs Average who are suffering.
Since when did the Averages ever drive into central London on a daily basis, other than as builders/service engineers etc. who need the van's contents to complete their work? I lived and worked in the centre for twelve years, and the only people I knew who drove in were the plump felines with company-owned parking spaces. Even so, God knows why they wanted to drive in given the traffic, when the public transport was, in the main, quite fast and moderately reliable.
|
Since when did the Averages ever drive into central London on a daily basis, other than as builders/service engineers etc. who need the van's contents to complete their work?
Agreed. Before the CC I never drove in central London because it was near enough impossible. Now I don't drive in central London because I can't afford to. The only way it changed my life was by forcing a few more people onto an already packed tube network - but a group of idiots on July 7th last year sorted that one out.
If someone is prepared to pay the congestion charge then let 'em. It's 8 quid that I don't have to pay in tax.
|
|
|
|
All well and good in theory, but public transport is not improving as fast and to the same extent as the driving conditions that the rich are now enjoying.
All the more reason to tax 'em more, build more bus lanes, and improve public transport more quickly. :)
Don't forget too that this is a man who has openly declared his hatred for the private car on many occasions previously,
Most notably before elections. The London voters like it, or at least enough of them like it to get him re-elected.
and a man who is known for his emotions getting in the way of rational and logical argument.
Don't underestimate him. Apart from the daft spat with the Jewish journalist, those "emotional" pronouncements are carefully calculated to boost his image as a "cheeky chappie" who says the things that other politicians don't dare say.
|
|
Right about some things NW, a stupid thug about the private car and traffic calming (I know this won't be your view), but not very sympathetic really if you look at him objectively... I used to be an admirer but no longer am.
|
Right about some things NW, a stupid thug about the private car and traffic calming (I know this won't be your view), but not very sympathetic really if you look at him objectively... I used to be an admirer but no longer am.
As you guessed, I think we'd better agree to differ about the merits of his stance on road traffic :)
But the thing that amazes me about Ken is his ability to get away with things like his support for huge, high-density blocks of flats. I suspect that he hopes that being outspoken on transport will swing enough of the green vote his way that he can get away with it,
|
NW wrote:
>>But the thing that amazes me about Ken is his ability to get away with things like his support for huge, high-density blocks of flats. I suspect that he hopes that >>being outspoken on transport will swing enough of the green vote his way that he can get away with it,
I believe he is exploiting the politics of envy and resentment rather than the green vote, which can't even get the greens elected, especially with his calculated attack on "Chelsea Tractors" and his carefully crafted reference to their owners as "idiots". Very sinister, and potentially he thin end of a very big wedge that will reduce everyone's control over their own lives.
Like Lud, I have admired Ken in the past for not being a typical politician and for his apparently sincerely held beliefs; but in cynically manipulating the feeble minded he is now peerless.
|
|
|
|
Don't underestimate him. Apart from the daft spat with the Jewish journalist, those "emotional" pronouncements are carefully calculated to boost his image as a "cheeky chappie" who says the things that other politicians don't dare say.
I know he's not stupid, and although I strongly disagree with most of his political views and many of his policies, I do have quite a lot of respect for him as a person. Unlike most politicians he seems to speak and act with genuine conviction, and at least he actually uses public transport while telling us to get out of our cars. He's certainly not a hypocrite, and I am convinced he genuinely believes what he is doing is right. There aren't many other politicians who could claim that.
At the end of the day, I don't live in London so what Ken does or doesn't do or whether he gets re-elected or not is irrelevant to me. Yes, I work in London, but that's my own choice, and I would use public transport to get in and out regardless of the Congestion Charge anyway, so it's neither here or there. At the moment though we have a situation where the peasants get to sweat it out on overcrowded and unreliable (despite the supposed "improvements") public transport while the rich have a free hand to swan about on less crowded roads in their gas guzzling cars. Ken didn't create this problem, but his congestion charging policies are making it worse.
Cheers
DP
|
I recently visited central London on a weekday for the first time since the introduction of the CC.
I was stunned by the extent of the success of the CC, and how few private cars now use these roads. DP is quite right, though. The private cars which were around were disproportionately expensive, prestige models accessible only to the rich.
They must love Ken. He has cleared all the ghastly plebs out of their way and has created "Club Class" roads for the rich man's use.
£8 a day? Cheap a twice the price.
|
|
|
|
|
All well and good in theory, but public transport is not improving as fast and to the same extent as the driving conditions that the rich are now enjoying.
I have to say that I travel into the city of London from out east. I can count on one hand the number of times I have been seriously inconvenienced by transport problems, and probably on two hands the number of minor inconveniences. It is rare I don't get a seat on the way in, and I always get a seat on way home. I can read my book or the paper or even shut my eyes for a doze. Now and again I have to put up with the behaviour of Mr or Mrs socially inadequate. Even if I could afford it, I wouldn't want to drive into the city. One guy quoted in the Standard tonight (and who drives a 5litre Jeep into town) said "Why should I pay £25 to sub' transport when I never use it"? Well, I think he should pay £100 each time just for that quote. Of course, everyone has a right to choose how they get into work, but that choice does not always necessarily come cheap. I can choose to live in Hampstead, but the price of my 4 bed house out east would only get me a studio flat in Hampstead. I accept that and choose to stay in my larger house.
I don't particularly like the term Chelsea Tractor, it badly dresses a reasonable argument and raises hackles. I quite like the idea of saying to someone....."If you pollute more than the guy next to you, then you will pay more than the guy next to you" I believe that as me, my wife and daughter are more of a burden to the local council, (putting out 4 bags of rubbish per week) we should pay more council tax than a single person who is less of a burden.
Trouble is, lines are drawn, entrenched positions are taken, emotion trules. We are an "I want" society (self included) but it doesn't hurt to receive a slap in the chops from time to time to make you pinch yourself and think how lucky you are.
|
|
|
|
Those wealthy people are no paying for improvements to public transport system. Seems reasonably socialist to me. But the system could be improved further, by this idea of higher charges for gas guzzlers.
I would imagine that in the vast majority of cases the charges on the higher end cars are being paid by companies, not by the individual's.
|
or claimed as a business expense, and offset against tax
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
Although there are alot of the high end cars being driven around there are also quite a few other ordinary cars - I suspect these are either disabled drivers (or at least those with access to such a badge - not necessarily the same thing eg people using their partner's disability as a means to get a badge and driving around solo avoiding the paying the charge) and also residents within the zone.
You'd be amazed how many people I know who live in the zone who drive everywhere. I never understood why residents qualified for such a massive discount. If residents leave their car parked all day they don't incur the charge but by giving such a large discount it encourages daytime car use eg to drive out to supermarkets with car parks. The residents are still creating congestion by the use of their car and have even less justification for their car use by dint of living even closer into town than those outside the zone.
|
I never understood why residents qualified for such a massive discount. If residents leave their car parked all day they don't incur the charge but by giving such a large discount it encourages daytime car use eg to drive out to supermarkets with car parks.
Otherwise all the fleets registered within the zone would sue the heck out the city and mayor and without a doubt expose legal loophole for this tax. Think of all the estate agents, rentals, van fleets, servicing, energy and power fleets, every BT engineer, security patrol, armoured collection, every council service, postman and bodyguard chauffair that would have to pay £8...
--------------------
[Nissan 2.2 dCi are NOT Renault engines. Grrr...]
|
It's not the blue badge that exempts you from the congestion charge, it's the road tax exemption that we full time wheelchair users get with the high rate mobility component of the disability living allowance.
In other words you have to be totally knackered to get it.
|
Timaru, are you sure?
I ask because I know someone in London who has a car insured for use by a disabled neighbour, who regularly uses it. As a result, I'm told, the car is exempt from the congestion charge for all drivers ... although it's not registered in the disabled driver's name, and the disabled driver is not a wheelchair user.
I have just checked he guiadnce on it, at www.cclondon.com/downloads/DisabledPeople.pdf -- that says if depends on blue badge, but that the charge must be paid if the car is not being used "to assist the Blue Badge holder". I suspect that the latter rule is regularly broken ... and I wonder how many disabled people have the permitted two vehicles registered for disabled use under the CC :(
I can see a lot of scope for abuse here.
|
Please except my apologies I've never read any further than this:
Please note that all vehicles used by disabled persons which are exempt from Vehicle Excise Duty are fully exempt from the congestion charge - no registration necessary for this exemption.
I can see your point re. abuse.
|
The attractions of a Polish registered car seem to be increasing daily.
Not like there even an unusual sight these days.
|
The attractions of a Polish registered car seem to be increasing daily.
Heh, you'll be surprised, since that glitch with US Embassy Congestion Charge fines are actually sent to Poland and private car owners in all other EC countries...
--------------------
[Nissan 2.2 dCi are NOT Renault engines. Grrr...]
|
If they want to send a penalty notice to my mail box address in Krakow that is their business but even if it is a real address the is no way to enforce these penalties in the courts of other EU countries. An issue they are fully area of.
www.alg.gov.uk/upload/public/attachments/715/Track...0
Overseas%20Evaders.pdf.pdf
Seems the most persistant offenders are French so maybe Paris is a better idea...
|
I don't live or work in London, however I do sometimes attend meetings there.
Since the CC was introduced it seems a notably more pleasant place - seems to be less air pollution?
I always travel into London by train and then take the tube. It seems pretty fast and efficient to me and over 20+ years of occassional visits I can't remember many problems. The only downside is the high cost of mainline railways - public transport in central London seems reasonably priced though.
Don't know much about Ken Livingstone, but he was democratically elected as mayor - so I guess there is the chance to throw him out next time if Londoners don't like his policies.
Anyone who thinks Congestion Charging is a 'socialist' policy must either be very young or have a short memory. Mrs Thatcher was a great proponent of all types of road pricing. Indeed, one of her favoured schemes was to make the outer ("fast") lane of motorways a toll lane. The theory being that thrusting execs who were short of time could zip past all the slower cars in the inner two lanes by using a sparsely-populated 'express' lane. TRRL were tasked to come up with some way of implementing this batty idea. Thankfully it never got off the ground.
|
I always travel into London by train and then take the tube. It seems pretty fast and efficient to me and over 20+ years of occassional visits
As a daily user of the tube, I beg to differ. The following is a piece I wrote for another web-site about the underground itself. Whilst I admit it may contain some exaggerations, in my defence I wrote it on one of the three days a week that my journey to work gets crippled by the crushing ineptitude of TfL and their light rail network:
The London Underground is colloquially known as the "Tube" due to the shape of the tunnels and the trains that travel within them - how imaginative. A throwback from days when Queen Victoria was on the throne it pre-dates the Titanic, both world wars and comes from a time when the good townsfolk of Londinium (all 300 of them) thought that electricity was witchcraft and vehicles that moved without the help of a mule were the work of Satan.
The Underground system itself is in fact a narrow-gauge railway which travels under and sometimes over the streets of London at speeds of up to seven miles per hour on long straight sections. Contrary to popular belief it is not powered by electricity, but by a series of rubber bands which are wound by the driver when the train is in the station. The "electrified rail" is a myth that was invented by London Transport as an attempt to keep people off the track, preventing irrepairable damage to the trains, should one strike a passenger.
The concept of the London Underground was originally the brainchild of a sadist by the name of Vladimir b****** in 1792 as a way to move cattle from one area of London to another whilst allowing it to stand still and fatten up at the same time. It was used for this purpose until 1844 when it was superceded by road-going wagons laden with veal-crates as they were deemed to be less cruel than the underground railway. At around this time London was rapidly expanding and a novel way of moving the proles from the slums to the workhouses was required. The more affluent Victorian paupers could afford to walk to work but those that couldn't were herded onto the now obsolete underground railway.
In September 1861 a section of the tunnel underneath St John's Wood collapsed with the rockfall clipping the very back end of a train, crushing the rear half of the tail carriage. Seventeen thousand Londoners were killed on that one train, and a further quarter million were injured. The authorities were grateful that the accident occurred out of the rush hour when the death toll could have been a magnitude worse.
Every night the Underground closes for several hours of "maintenance" when workers emerge onto the tracks to hack away at wiring and bash the rails with sledgehammers, ensuring that by the following morning's rush-hour a whole new set of delays have been added to the multitude of ongoing problems. At any one time on the network there are two hundred and twenty trains running but only a hundred and forty drivers. The remainder of the trains simply sit in stations not moving, or roll freely down inclines.
Travelling on the Underground is marginally more comfortable than fire-walking to your destination but considerably slower. Your chances of being sat next to a tramp are slightly higher than one in three. Temperatures in the tunnels range from a cool 34 celsius in winter to a balmy 215 celsius in the height of summer when it isn't unknown for trains to melt and small children to spontaneously burst into flames. By the time they die the average Londoner will have spent over six years stood on a stationary train in a tunnel.
The longest tube journey to ever take place was made by Mrs Beatrice Langden of Tooting who set off from Oxford Circus in October 1938 and arrived back at her home in July 1949 to find her children had left home, she had become a grandmother, her husband had married another woman believing her dead and world war II had taken place in the meantime. The excuse given by London Transport was "a signal failure at London Bridge".
|
The longest tube journey to ever take place was made by Mrs Beatrice Langden of Tooting who set off from Oxford Circus in October 1938 and arrived back at her home in July 1949 to find her children had left home, she had become a grandmother, her husband had married another woman believing her dead and world war II had taken place in the meantime. The excuse given by London Transport was "a signal failure at London Bridge".
PSML!!! That is brilliant.
The Tube is, based on my experience of using it from Zone 6 to Zone 1 (Metropolitan Line) twice a day five days a week, and charitably ingoring delays of up to 15 minutes, about 90% reliable. Not too bad compared to the average antediluvian public transport system in the UK, but would we accept a car that failed on every tenth journey? Would the Germans accept it on their transport network? I seriously doubt it.
The line I use also has NO spare capacity between 8 am and 9 am. I board a couple of stops from the terminus, so I get a seat, but the seats are gone three stops later, and the remaining standing room two stops after that. By the time gets to Wembley Park, people are usually turned away and have to wait for the next train, which I also sometimes catch if I'm running late, and is just as full.
If 1 in 20 of the people sitting in their cars queueing on the A40 through Hanger Lane underpass decided to pull off and catch the Tube at Wembley Park, the system simply would not have the capacity to cater for them. In my view the congestion charge is a tax and nothing more.
Cheers
DP
|
Don't know much about Ken Livingstone, but he was democratically elected as mayor - so I guess there is the chance to throw him out next time if Londoners don't like his policies.
Actually he was re-elected by 36.7% minority of 35.9% turnout, so effectively only one in 10 Londoners voted for Ken but due to bizarre "first choice/second choice" voting regulations it was enough for Ken to become despotic ruler of the capital for the second time, without a single proper watchdog to tame his fascist tentencies.
--------------------
[Nissan 2.2 dCi are NOT Renault engines. Grrr...]
|
Actually he was re-elected by 36.7% minority of 35.9% turnout, so effectively only one in 10 Londoners voted for Ken but due to bizarre "first choice/second choice" voting regulations it was enough for Ken to become despotic ruler of the capital for the second time, without a single proper watchdog to tame his fascist tentencies.
If people don't exercise their right to vote that's their problem, not Ken's. Presumably they don't care who is mayor.
Interesting to see that one minute he's a socialist and the next a fascist!
|
I constant have to explain to Americans that Ken is not a real 'Mayor'. The Mayor of New York for example effectively runs the city.
When the mayoralty of London was set up it was deliberately made toothless and Ken's only tax raising ability is the congestion change which is why it will increase expotentially over the years.
I suspect this was done by a Labour government who knew Ken would win and therefore tried to limit the damage he could do.
It is in effect a big soapbox on which he can stand and shout.
This is why no 'serious' politician has ever challenged for the job and whilst the Conservative put up the likes of Jeffery Archer and Steve Norris the voters who can be beothered to turn out will probably still vote for our Ken.
|
I love fast cars and bikes - I own a large engined car and I ride a Suzuki GSX-R 1000. At the same time, I also voted for Ken and I support this CC policy. Central London is simply too crowded to allow free reign to cars, and those people who use gigantic 4x4s to take children to school are an anti social menace. Do you really need to drive the kids to school? It would be safer for older kids, who could cycle to school, if there weren?t so many huge 4x4s on congested streets.
I am not anti 4x4 per se - they are perfect if you live on a farm or a ski slope. But using them in central London?
This discussion is about the very crowded centre of London, but the issue is wider than that. Road space in the south of England is always going to be limited compared to the number of vehicles that could potentially want to use that available road space (unless we concrete over everything south of Cambridge). Backroomers might like to think radical. Encourage much better public transport so that everyone who isn?t really enthused about cars and bikes will have a real option to leave their vehicle at home - and leave the existing roads clearer for those of us who do enjoy driving.
|
rcspeirs I'd vote for you. ;o)
|
>>Encourage much better public transport so that everyone who isn?t really enthused about cars and bikes will have a real option to leave their vehicle at home
I'd vote for that. If the village I live in had its railway station/line reinstated then my car would rarely get switched on, and virtually never at weekends. And 90% of my driving is work-related, so is no joy anyway.
|
|
If it really *was* a congestion charge then the fee would reflect a vehicle's footprint - ie the amount of road it takes up. So £1 for a motorbike. £5 for a supermini. £10 for a larger car or an SUV. £15 for a LWB van. £50 for an articulated truck.
|
If it really *was* a congestion charge then the fee would reflect a vehicle's footprint - ie the amount of road it takes up.
If it was about CONGESTION he wouldn't replace fleet of double decker buses with two and a half times the length bendy buses.
Incidentally if it was about ENVIRONMENT and EMISSIONS he wouldn't do that either as double deckers were cleaner (please note average number of passengers per bus didn't change):
Volvo B7TL Double Decker
release of co2/km total 1,406g
release of NOx/km total 12.3g
average fuel consumption 54.03 l/100km (approx 5.2 mpg)
Mercedes Citaro Artic (so called bendy bus)
release of co2/km total 1585.7
release of NOx/km total 13.61
average fuel consumption 59.82 l/100km (approx 4.7 mpg)
I'm sure contractors sourcing bendy buses and those who paint new bus lanes around the city to make sure 18 metre monstrocities can negotiate turns are happy...
--------------------
[Nissan 2.2 dCi are NOT Renault engines. Grrr...]
|
If it was about CONGESTION he wouldn't replace fleet of double decker buses with two and a half times the length bendy buses.
Getting people out of cars and onto buses or trains is the only way to reduce congestion. As a regular passenger on the London buses, I know I'm not the only one who finds them a vastly better form of transport than the double-deckers. Have you ever tried climbing the stairs on a moving double-decker while carrying shopping bags?
I find myself rather bemused when people who like using private cars in London complain about congestion caused by buses. A bus passenger uses a fraction of the roadspace of a car driver (even if the car has two or three occupants, which most do not), and carrying passengers on a less space-efficient bus is still a much more efficient use of roadspace than having them in cars.
In any case, I'm unpersuaded that the bendy buses are less space-efficient. They load and unload much more quickly, so they don't remain stopped for as long (which reduces congestion). And there is a further gain by tempting passengers out of cars.
(please note average number of passengers per bus didn't change)
Have you got a source for that? A comparison of bendy buses versus the double deckers they replaced, on the same routes? Bus usage overall is up by a third (see page 58 of www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/cclondon/pdfs/FourthAnnualRepor...f )
|
"Getting people out of cars and onto buses or trains is the only way to reduce congestion."
Or how about just preventing the ownership of cars by sections of the population.
Much dissension, politically difficult, endless discussion about who exactly - but it would achieve less congestion if nobody could own a car under the age of 25, for example.
|
Really NW, it's one thing to approve of public transport (I'm sure we all do) but quite another to see articulated buses as anything other than stupid space-guzzling monstrosities. As a driver yourself I'm surprised you haven't noticed that.
The other utterly ridiculous thing is the abolition of the bus conductor. No doubt they will soon make a comeback in the form of heavily-armed security guards.
|
Really NW, it's one thing to approve of public transport (I'm sure we all do) but quite another to see articulated buses as anything other than stupid space-guzzling monstrosities. As a driver yourself I'm surprised you haven't noticed that.
I have been a passenger on those buses, and I have driven near them. The space-guzzling monstrosity is my car, not the bus: it uses many times more roadspace per passenger. I'm surprised that you haven't noticed that.
The stupid, space-guzzling way of arranging transport in a city is to have lots of individual metal boxes on the roads, rather than much fewer bigger ones.
|
NW: your car is quite a tidy little four-seat package. Would you be willing to explain why a cumbersome articulated bus twice as long as a double-decker for the same number of passengers, and one that takes up a lot of lateral space too when turning even slightly, is no more stupid than a double decker?
Don't give me all that stuff about struggling up the stairs laden with carrier bags. You can't smoke up there anyway, so what's the point?
'Plenty more room inside.' Or for really big carrier-bag loads, what about a taxi?
|
I'm not a fan of the bendy busses, but I can see the logic.
The sectors of the population using them tend to be the old, the disadvantaged and the young.
By having all on one level, you make access easier, and you avoid the tendency to have the young, loud and intimidating turning the upper deck into a no-go area. You also avoid nasty falls from the elderly navigating the stairs. And wheelchairs and buggies can get on and off.
Plus the loading benefits already mentioned by having multiple entry and exit points.
IMHO, anyone that drives in London is mad. I lived in Bromley for two years, and I only used the car if I was absolutely forced to. Public transport is fantastic around town, and much quicker than driving.
|
NW: your car is quite a tidy little four-seat package.
Like most cars, it spends most of its time being occupied by only one person, and it only seats two abreast. Even if the car is full, the vehicle itself takes up a greater length of road per passenger than a half-full bendy bus.
But it's not just a matter of the size of the vehicle itself. Any vehicle on the roads needs a safe stopping distance in front of itself when moving: even at 20mph, the gap needed is several car lengths, for 1-4 passengers. However, a bus needs only a slightly bigger gap ahead of it, for up to 70m passengers. Try the maths.
Would you be willing to explain why a cumbersome articulated bus twice as long as a double-decker for the same number of passengers, and one that takes up a lot of lateral space too when turning even slightly, is no more stupid than a double decker?
* because it loads and unloads more quickly, thereby reducing the congestion when a bus stops, and reducing journey times (which encourages more people onto buses and out of cars)
* because it provides a much safer and more comfortable journey for its passengers, thereby encouraging bus use and reducing the number of cars on the road;
* because it's better for disabled passengers (try carrying your wheelchair up the stairs)
* because being a single-decker, it is much more usable by people with luggage;
* because the space required when turning only applies when the bus is turning, not when it's stationary or travelling in a straightish line, as it is most of the time.
Don't give me all that stuff about struggling up the stairs laden with carrier bags. You can't smoke up there anyway, so what's the point?
Can't smoke anywhere on the bus (thank goodness). But sometimes there are only seats upstairs. I have twice been thrown down the stairs on a double-decker.
'Plenty more room inside.' Or for really big carrier-bag loads, what about a taxi?
You are being silly now. Why should bus users have to pay for a taxi just because you think that the users of the most space-efficient form of urban motorised road transport should be squeezed into a less usable vehicle?
The thing that strikes me most about reading your posts is that you clearly don't use the London buses much: if you did, you'd be singing their praises. And if you prefer using a car in London, it's rather hypocritical (and silly) to complain about the space taken by buses.
|
Slap on wrist there, not entirely undeserved I must admit.
No, I don't use buses much. But my wife does, and she says very emphatically that a lot of the drivers these days are utterly carp. One reason perhaps why you have been thrown down the stairs twice (I assume by violent driver manoeuvres, not other passengers taking exception to yr. abusive behaviour on top deck).
I know standing room is provided on buses, but I didn't know they could carry 'up to 70m passengers'. A Livingstonian miracle indeed.
|
And another thing: I think people call articulated buses 'bendy buses' because it sounds cosy and cuddly. I agree if they were really bendy they would only take up twice the road space of a double-decker. But they aren't. They're articulated in the middle and are as a result exceptionally cumbersome. I believe they've taken out quite a few cyclists.
'Bendy' indeed! Tchah!
|
Getting people out of cars and onto buses or trains is the only way to reduce congestion.
That is simply not true. You cannot fill up something that's already full, and if you use tube or buses in peak hours you know exactly what I mean. You also have to stop thinking that all these people sit in traffic for hours for some sort of masochistic pleasure. It's not fun for anyone and we would all prefer to be in the city faster, easier and in more flexible way. But it isn't always possible. Not only because some of us must be always above ground and always on the move. Not only because train transport from towns 30 miles outside London at nearly £300 a month is simply financial insanity but also because not all of us in London do desk jobs. I'm not going to take a rack full of servers into bendy bus, barristers are not going to plonk about with their togas, wigs and suitcases full of data protected documents around tube stations, cash transits are not going to load their armoured cases onto the back of a taxi and so on, so forth.
As a regular passenger on the London buses, I know I'm not the only one who finds them a vastly better form of transport than the double-deckers. Have you ever tried climbing the stairs on a moving double-decker while carrying shopping bags?
I'm all for your shopping bags, but you know you just as easily do with twice smaller single decker shuttle bus twice as often. Cities have buses designed for their road capacity and 18 metre snake game wrapped around street corners is simply pushing it in wrong direction.
I find myself rather bemused when people who like using private cars in London complain about congestion caused by buses. A bus passenger uses a fraction of the roadspace of a car driver (even if the car has two or three occupants, which most do not), and carrying passengers on a less space-efficient bus is still a much more efficient use of roadspace than having them in cars
That's where you are wrong, stand next to a bus lane for half an hour, and count how many cars pass you by between buses. Then take average number of passengers on the bus and you will see who's majority and who's inconvenience to whom. Please don't tell me that someone's inability to control shopping bags on a smaller double decker bus is more important than business of all the rest of the people on the road. Why is bus users time keeping more important than that of a car driver? Does evertBus lanes and longer buses is yet another "in order to save kitten stuck on a tree we cut down entire forest" plan. Look at the graphs in that doc you posted - except Christmas and holidays for the past 2 years there is almost constant flow of over 120,000 vehicles a day entering zone between 7:00 and 6:30 and being charged £8. In the same time number of bus passengers between 7 am and 10 pm is less than 110,000 a day for the past two years? What's that all about? Why is majority being penalsed?
Bus usage overall is up by a third (see page 58 of www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/cclondon/pdfs/FourthAnnualRepor...f )
According to graphs in that document numbers didn't really change between 2004 and 2005, so it's neither bendy buses nor £8 rise that did it. Quite clearly rise in bus usage (which is still lower than car usage in the zone as I pointed out) is not just effect of people suddenly being fans of bendy buses, but CC itelf, and as such would rise just as well in single deckers or double deckers. Both are cleaner, smaller and faster. So would tackle congestion as well as emissions, don't you agree?
Nick Ferrari for Mayor 2008 please
--------------------
[Nissan 2.2 dCi are NOT Renault engines. Grrr...]
|
>> Getting people out of cars and onto buses or trains is the only way to reduce congestion. That is simply not true. You cannot fill up something that's already full, and if you use tube or buses in peak hours you know exactly what I mean.
I do use them in peak hours.
The unchangeable factor in London is roadspace. Buses use less of it per passenger than cars, so if you want to reduce congestion, the name of the game is getting people out of cars. That's a given of urban planning in every city around the world.
If the buses are full, the answer is to provide more buses, just as London is doing. Put those extra passengers inbto cars, and there will be gridlock.
not all of us in London do desk jobs. I'm not going to take a rack full of servers into bendy bus,
There will always be some trades which have a genuine need for a car. But most of those making car journeys in London could do them on public transport.
barristers are not going to plonk about with their togas, wigs and suitcases full of data protected documents around tube stations,
most of the barristers I know in London do use public transport, just like senior civil seravnts and others
I'm all for your shopping bags, but you know you just as easily do with twice smaller single decker shuttle bus twice as often.
Not so: it doubles the cost of drivers, and is less space-efficient. The bendy buses are also much more comfortable for passengers.
Why is bus users time keeping more important than that of a car driver?
Because the bus is a much more efficient use of the severely limited roadspace. Prioritising the space-efficient mode of transport is the only antidote to congestion.
rise in bus usage (which is still lower than car usage in the zone as I pointed out) is not just effect of people suddenly being fans of bendy buses, but CC itelf, and as such would rise just as well in single deckers or double deckers. Both are cleaner, smaller and faster. So would tackle congestion as well as emissions, don't you agree?
Again, do the maths on roadspace. And there is no inherent reason why bendy buses should have higher emissions per passenger than ordinary single deckers: if correct, that's just an argument for putting better engines in the bendy buses.
|
NowWheels - you still repeat the same side of the story. Understand it - 120,000 drivers a day drive into the city - not for pleasure. Not for fun. Not because they have £8 spare. Not because they hate Ken. But because they must. I must commute by car. I hate it, I hate paying through my nose for parking, I hate Blackwall Tunnel, and bus lanes and wish there was other way. But I am not going to spend most of my day on trains, tubes and buses at hundreds and hundreds a month. If I'm outpriced out of the road I simply won't be able to work. Public transport must be:
- cheap
- reliable
- run more often
Making it BIGGER doesn't solve anything. 15 people on single decker bus or 15 people on bendy bus is just taking more space than it would otherwise. Who said smaller buses can't be disabled friendly, airconditioned and comfy? They are all over the world and they can be here, without stuffing Merc pockets with millions just so they can load off not fit for purpose airport buses to London.
--------------------
[Nissan 2.2 dCi are NOT Renault engines. Grrr...]
|
NowWheels - you still repeat the same side of the story.
And you are still repeating your side of the story.
Understand it - 120,000 drivers a day drive into the city - not for pleasure. Not for fun. Not because they have £8 spare. Not because they hate Ken. But because they must.
v0n, I have never seen any research which tries to analyse why people drive into London, though I'm sure there must be something on it. But there's no way I'll believe that all those 120,000 drive because they must: I know plenty who drive but could do their work just as well by public transport. As others have pointed out, plenty of those 120,00 cars are on the road because their drivers have the £8 to spare.
Sure, there are people who have to carry tools or supplies etc, who have a real need for a car. But if you are frustrated by it all, don't blame the buses -- blame the people who don't need to drive on those roads, but do so and clog it for those who need to.
Most London commutes use some form of public transport. For far too long, the small minority of commuters who drive into London have clogged the place up for everyone else.
Now there is a combination of congestion charging to clear the roads, bus lanes to speed progress, and nice new buses to make the journey easier. The result is that the buses are becoming an attractive form of transport rather than a penance.
Making it BIGGER doesn't solve anything.
I've never seen an economic analysis, but I'd have thought that a bigger bus cheaper per passenger. There's still only one engine to maintain, one driver to pay, and so on.
15 people on single decker bus or 15 people on bendy bus is just taking more space than it would otherwise.
Where does this figure of 15 come from? In central London, I've never been on a bendy bus that empty, at any hour of the day. At peak hours, they are usually heading nearer their capacity of 130, which is nearly twice that of a double-decker.
I think you must be taking a figure based on averages which include evening services in the outer suburbs.
Who said smaller buses can't be disabled friendly, airconditioned and comfy?
Sure, they can be airconditioned. But the bigger buses are much easier for disabled people than any single-decker I've seen, and the bendy buses have a much more gentle motion. Because they have a bug central door and a low floor, they are much easier to get on and off.
I haven't been on one of the rigid versions of the Mercedes Citaro, so I don't know how they compare in comfort. But I can't imagine that they can provide such easy access.
If you tried the bendy buses as a passenger, v0n, and tried the alternatives, you wouldn't be so quick to condemn them. I find the bendy buses so much better than the others that I'll often wait longer at a bus-stop until I catch a bendy bus, letting the inferior old sort go past.
|
Most London commutes use some form of public transport. For far too long, the small minority of commuters who drive into London have clogged the place up for everyone else.
Few posts up there I pointed out the numbers from official report - Over 120,000 drivers a day are inconvenienced and penalised just so less than 110,000 (and that's between 7am and 10pm, so it's not even 110,000 people in CC hours, but all day long) can have their typical 10 minute journey cut by 1.8 minutes. Surely even you, Ken's faithful follower can see insanity of this. It's small minority of commuters. It's the majority of road users. Road users that are taxed, and taxed, and taxed again and still are forced not to use their car. The majority pays you comfort, for the shopping bags that don't fall down the stairs and 18 metre monstrocities who are so wheelchair friendly you see rivers of disabled people on bus stops in rush hours. Oh wait, no, they use cars, because they're exempt from CC and have their special parking spots. Rightfully too.
Congestion can be reduced in many ways - city could stop deliveries and vans coming in in certain hours, they could offer large council tax discounts for offices who would consider changing from 9-5 routine. Start at 6 finish at 2, or 7 to 3 have a day for yourself, go shopping, enjoy afternoon with kids. City could limit number of cabs operating in area, so there is no situation like now - you can't find cab in Hammersmith in the morning but it will be impossible for you to get through empty cabs circling like vultures around Bank area. We could start creating green waves, we have technology that will find registration number from 100 metres but still can't stop switching green lights for empty streets? How about special discounts for workplaces that offer their own transport? Or even better - TFL could sub-license private companies to run minibuses on normal bus routes. Instead of rush hour nr. 38 bendy bus every 10 minutes you would have 4 comfy, airconditioned 20 seaters, let's call them P38, every 2 minutes and one short single decker with disabled access every 15 minutes. The small minibuses would be regulated like taxi companies - they could be quicker, more agile, they would stop when called or waved at just like normal bus and accept Oyster cards etc, but focus on commuters, not mums with prams, not wheelchairs, just normal seats. Mums are not in rush, they can wait few minutes for easy access bus.
Where does this figure of 15 come from? In central London, I've never been on a bendy bus that empty, at any hour of the day. At peak hours, they are usually heading nearer their capacity of 130, which is nearly twice that of a double-decker.
Actually the last official figure I ever saw released was early 2005's 8 passengers per kilometre. It was during question time to mayor IIRC. It might seem like the buses are always full, because you use them in certain hours, but they do run most of their routes almost empty most of the time, and so unless someone finds a different, newer figure - it's 8 passengers per km.
I think you must be taking a figure based on averages which include evening services in the outer suburbs.
Well, car drivers don't start and finish within CC zone either, so what's the point?
If you tried the bendy buses as a passenger, v0n, and tried the alternatives, you wouldn't be so quick to condemn them. I find the bendy buses so much better than the others that I'll often wait longer at a bus-stop until I catch a bendy bus, letting the inferior old sort go past.
Beside the whole strange vibe of - how far do you actually go by bus that you need it to be extra large, extra long and have wallowy motions....
Of course I tried bendy buses, and believe me, you will find other buses that are smaller, greener and just as comfy. It's not like London got the only modern bus in the world.
--------------------
[Nissan 2.2 dCi are NOT Renault engines. Grrr...]
|
v0n said: "train transport from towns 30 miles outside London at nearly £300 a month is simply financial insanity"
v0n, assuming 20 working days in a month, that's £15 a day for a 60 mile round trip - 25p per mile. I suspect in rush hour traffic you're not doing more than about 25mpg, so you're at around 17ppm in fuel alone. Add a couple of pence per mile for servicing, perhaps another 1p for oil on top, 1p for tyres, and you're at 21ppm. Add in parking fees and congestion charge and the train suddenly looks remarkably cheap. My figures are roughly based upon my costs, but I'm sure I'm not hugely out of line.
Not really "financial insanity".
V
|
Vin said: "assuming 20 working days in a month, that's £15 a day for a 60 mile round trip - 25p per mile"
My experience of train travel is that the actual ticket cost was only part of it. I had to drive to and from Twyford station, pay to park at Twyford (surprisingly expensive) and take the tube between the office and Ealing Broadway. The £2000 that my season ticket cost me (back in 1999 - it'll have gone up some since then) was probably only about half my year's commuting cost.
|
I had to drive to and from Twyford station, pay to park at Twyford (surprisingly expensive) and take the tube between the office and Ealing Broadway. The £2000 that my season ticket cost me (back in 1999 - it'll have gone up some since then) was probably only about half my year's commuting cost.
And this is why people think the car is cheaper: the cost is up front for public transport. They forget that if you made the journey by car you'd have to drive to/from the motorway/main road (rather than the station) and from the motorway to the office (rather than taking the tube from the mainline station). And you have to park the car somewhere whatever you do. At the station, or in central London.
|
If people don't exercise their right to vote that's their problem, not Ken's. Presumably they don't care who is mayor. Interesting to see that one minute he's a socialist and the next a fascist!
He would be socialist if he served those who elected him and followed their agenda in order to improve everybody's life to equal level for the greater good of his people
He would be communist if he served those who elected him and followed his party agenda in order to make everybody's life equally miserable for the greater good of his party
But since he follows his own agenda in order to make everybody's life equally miserable for no good at all I think he derves to be called fascist.
- Mr Mayor, Kensington don't want the extension
- I'm sure they want it
- Not according to letters sir, they don't want it
- I'm sure they want it they just don't know they want it, Chelsea want it, right?
- Actually, sir, no - Chelsea also came around to say they don't want it
- I'm sure most of them must want it, we shall organize referendum, and you'll see they want it
- OK
- What's the outcome Baldrick?
- Referendum shows they most definitely don't want it sir
- But I want them to want it!
- But they don't want it, Mr Mayor
- Oh nonsense, I want it and I want them to want it, that ought to be enough for them to want it, so they will want it or else
- Yes sir, I understand sir...
- We shall go ahead with extension as planned
--------------------
[Nissan 2.2 dCi are NOT Renault engines. Grrr...]
|
Interesting to see that one minute he's a socialist and the next a fascist!
Very much a fascist (in the original meaning of the word)
Fascism is where politics is steered by whichever business pays the most to the government rather than by voting by an electorate.
Transport for London, BN13 1XZ etc....
|
Interesting to see that one minute he's a socialist and the next a fascist! Very much a fascist (in the original meaning of the word) Fascism is where politics is steered by whichever business pays the most to the government rather than by voting by an electorate. Transport for London, BN13 1XZ etc....
Why don't people vote him out then? For that matter, why don't people vote? It reminds me of my student days where most students didn't go to NUS meetings and then moaned when the Socialist Workers Party or some other bunch of left-wingers got in. When I suggested that perhaps they should attend and vote, and if there was no candidate they liked then stand themselves the answer was always 'can't be bothered', 'too busy' or 'who cares anyway?'.
The people get the government they deserve.
|
|
VED exempt cars do not, as you say,have to register as do Blue Badge holders. However, as it is nigh on impossible to find parking spaces once in the zone it becomes a pointless exercise, unless just crossing central London. Normal parking rules for the disabled are not applicable in London!
|
|
|
|
|
