I agree with Roly93. This was sold to the public as a congestion charge. On that basis, all cars should pay the same given that every car takes up road space, and therefore contributes to congestion. That is the limit of the scope of a congestion charge.
If emissions are brought into the equation, whatever the rights and wrongs of doing so, it becomes more than a simple congestion charge, and to continue to call it one is misleading and inappropriate. This needs a whole new consultation process, not to mention a major rebranding exercise. Livingstone, as far as I am aware, wasn't interested in doing either.
It is also an inevitable consequence of building in exemptions that you will get an increasing number of people taking advantage of them, reducing the effectiveness of the whole thing in the first place. That for me is what politicians lack - the ability to think through the consequences of their actions. Livingstone, to this day, is still blaming everyone else but himself for failure to be re-elected. The man was so out of touch with reality it was untrue, and this is coming from someone who, until fairly recently, actually quite liked the guy.
Boris's decision is simple common sense. Nothing more, nothing less. I would however go further and remove the exemption for hybrid vehicles. The only exemption that has any place in a congestion charge is for motorcycles, given that a major shift to powered two wheelers would actually improve congestion further.
Cheers
DP
Edited by DP on 08/07/2008 at 11:56
|
It is also an inevitable consequence of building in exemptions that you will get an increasing number of people taking advantage of them reducing the effectiveness of the whole thing in the first place.
This is exactly why the congestion problems we have in the UK (or anywhere come to that) can never be solved. Make the roads less busy and it will only encourage people back on to them, whatever the financial costs. I often cycle to work to avoid the heavy cross town traffic where I live, but free up the roads and my bike goes in to mothballs. Then they'll be clogged up again and it's back on the bike.
|
if you make public transport desirable, (cheap, clean, reliable, safe, etc) rather than the curse it is at the moment, then a number of people will use it, thus freeing up the roads for the rest of us who won't get out of our cars
I don't mind paying extra in taxation for that.
Continue to have it expensive, filthy, unreliable and unsafe...and...unsurprisingly there'll be a load of congestion... because the car, even in a jam, seems more the option
|
if you make public transport desirable (cheap clean reliable safe etc) rather than the curse it is at the moment then a number of people will use it thus freeing up the roads for the rest of us who won't get out of our cars
It is cheap, clean, reliable and safe where I live. The roads are still congested to the point of gridlock.
|
|
|
if you make public transport desirable (cheap clean reliable safe etc)
Those might be the most important concerns in London and other large cities (which, I accept, is where a lot of our congestion is). But there is a whole other world of us in not quite so Metropolitan areas for whom the cheapest, cleanest, safest and most reliable public transport will never be able to compete on flexibility. You simply can't have a viable bus network, for example, that provides a service every ten minutes, from all of my and my neighbours' likely starting points to all of our likely journey's end points. You'd have to have a different bus for every person.
Yes, that's an old argument. Yes, this thread is about London. Yes, my life is not as badly blighted by traffic jams as others (though it is still a bit blighted). And yes, you may have only intended you comments to apply to London. But I do find it intensely frustrating when it is suggested that public transport might solve ALL the nation's transport problems (solving all of them is very different to solving a lot of them) and on the off chance that that misconception had appeared again, I felt inclined to nip it in the bud.
|
|
|
if you make public transport desirable (cheap clean reliable safe etc) rather than the curse it is at the moment then a number of people will use it thus freeing up the roads for the rest of us who won't get out of our cars
It is cheap, clean and efficient where I live (a long way from that London hell-hole). Currently I am commuting to work by bus (a 13-mile each-way trip) and its almost 'door to door'. Its taking no longer than about 5 mins more than using the car ('cos the bus uses the bus lane and can avoid the queing traffic). Costs me £12/week for unlimited travel on the route. So I'm doing about 125 miles a week for £12, which is a lot cheaper than using my car. And I can settle down to read the paper each morning rather than getting stressed by sitting in a queue.
Only major downside is that the frequency drops from one bus every ten minutes to one bus every hour after 6pm - so working late is a problem. Solved that one by not working late any more!
A lot depends on the neighbourhood you live in. Most of my fellow passengers are commuters like me. I've noticed there are a lot more of them using it in recent months! If you live in a rough area then, yes, you might want to avoid the buses.
Edited by qxman {p} on 08/07/2008 at 14:31
|
|
|
|
|
|
By the way, anyone know when the exemption to allow motorbikes in bus lanes is going to come into operation: it has been anounced but no timetable so far as I am aware.
|
|
|
|
Livingstone is still jumping up and down in the media saying that Boris didn't ought to do it, what about emissions, etc.
He doesn't seem to have come to terms with the fact that he is no longer Mayor.
I completely agree that a congestion charge should solely be trying to tackle congestion (even though from personal experience it doesn't work), and emissions should be the subject of other specific measures.
Just an aside: "A bus lane is a device to get buses past congestion caused by the bus lane".
|
He doesn't seem to have come to terms with the fact that he is no longer Mayor.
Quite. Or indeed that it's his fault that's the case. He only just stopped short of calling Londoners stupid for electing Boris, and has tried to pin it on most of the members of his team. At no point does he even think it was his failings that put him out.
He's called this a blow against tackling climate change. In the scheme of things it's not even a tap with a feather duster.
Cheers
DP
|
He's called this a blow against tackling climate change. Cheers DP
And he's wrong on that too, according to Kings College. Their studies showed that by letting low emission cars in for free, CO2 in the zone would increase. (Always assuming that you buy into the argument that man-made CO2 contributes to climate change ...)
|
|
|
|
I completely agree that a congestion charge should solely be trying to tackle congestion (even though from personal experience it doesn't work)
As a K&C resident formerly outspokenly (immoderately so on occasion) against the CC, I have come round to it, but only in a selfish and unprincipled way. You sort of get used to the 200 quid or so it costs a resident on top of other standing charges. But I think the 90% discount should be available to small traders who are non-resident in the zone as the cost really can squeeze them.
I must disagree with BrianW. West End traffic is lighter than it was at its worst although often still bad. More to the point, parkers are much easier to find on weekdays albeit at further exorbitant cost. The same applies to the westward extension, traffic somewhat although not spectacularly reduced. Of course K&C residents' discounts apply to the West End as well.
As I said, selfish and unprincipled.
|
It MIGHT be lighter inside the congestion charge zone. I can't judge as I work only 100 yards inside it, by the PO tower.
However, the zone is only a small part of London and it's had no effect in the overall London scene.
It used to take me less than 85 minutes to get to work when I started in the early 1990s. It now takes 95 minutes at best and more usually 100. That did not alter when the charge came in.
The extra bus lanes and altered traffic light sequences are the biggest factors in taking the additional time.
|
I agree, it's often a bit worse round the edges of the zone.
Even apart from jimmying the lights and increasing bus lanes, the Livingstone era saw a lot of deliberate obstruction of routes designed to cause traffic congestion and hamper car traffic. Those are still there. It would be useful now that the cc exists to dismantle some or all of them.
|
|
Indeed BrianW, a huge cycle lane and redundant bit of pavement have taken half the road in a street near where you work, Howland St. perhaps. But that whole area has been purposely and systematically messed up for traffic flow.
|
|
|
Another hold-up factor in London is the advent of the bendy bus.
1. It blocks junctions.
2. At 60ft (18 metres) each, two or three behind each other forms a rolling (or stationary) road block.
3. They are not bendy enough to fit in bus lay-byes, so these have been filled in and all buses stop in the roadway, completely blocking traffic whilst the passengers get on and off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
