25 quid congestion charge coming in 2009
- Thread starter ELO
- Start date
London has been notorious for congestion since time immemorial. In the 60s it was reckoned that traffic speeds were lower than they had been in the days of the horse-drawn bus, and that's before bus lanes and the like were even thought of.
Is it really so difficult to accept that a lot of vehicles in a small space leads to congestion? Seems like pretty basic logic to me!
Is it really so difficult to accept that a lot of vehicles in a small space leads to congestion? Seems like pretty basic logic to me!
Loki said:Really? Well that's crap all round then! If you've got a link I'd be interested but no worries if not...
btw I just found this site which I think sums up most peoples' feelings on this(click the badge)
ThisisLondon story.
I was wrong to say 'extremely' expensive - although I did read it somewhere - but they're about £30k more to buy than a conventional bus.
I can't help wondering how much revenue they actually earn compared with a standard double-decker too, given how many people dodge the fares on them.
citydreams
on the road again
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
well that's the simplistic version text book definitnion however when where things last that black and white?Roadkill said:So congestion has nothing whatever to do with a lot of vehicles trying to use limited roadspace?
you know as well as anyone that poor road planning all over the UK but particularlly in cities and exceptionally in London is atrocious largely done by theoreitcal drivers (ie ones who have never driven the roads they alter) and sadly always done by commitee with little intergration between local council DoT highways agency TfL let alone comparible working practices systems polices practices or anything else.
Alot of it they can't do because of funding sources, having to bid for different pots of cash. alot due to the fact that a good idea on paper isn't necessarly a good idea in reality. Bus lanes, bendy buses, one way systems, road calming, poor signage, badly timed out of synch traffic lights being examples.
If we levelled the wole of the UK and started again then most of these things would work perfectly but we can't do this so we end up with a hotch potch of disjoineted initiatives which end up all adding to slower moving traffic and therefore higer congestion.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
except that before the congestion charge came in car levels had fallen to the projected levels they expected to get after 1 year of the congestion charge...Roadkill said:
traffic had been falling entering london any way...
not to mention the things already posted which contribute to that poor traffic planing isn't a new phenominom we've had inadiquate traffic planning for nearly the enitire history of the internal combustion engine...
and this is the problem that TfL face, even if they come up with working intitatives they are then going to be faced with an up hill battle to change the levels of utterly inappropreate traffic planning in all other areas ultmatley i cannot see how they wil ever progress with out sezing hold of all aspects of traffic planning in london....
citydreams
on the road again
GarfieldLeChat said:
yet again you show how little you know of Transport Planning.
I don't take issue with most of that Garf, and I can think of several places even in the part of London I live in where better traffic light sequencing would make some difference to traffic flow.
The fact that these days so many different people are authorised to dig roads up, with precious little supervision and central co-ordination, doesn't help.
BUT it still remains an underlying truth that more cars on the roads means congested roads. More of anything trying to move through any confined space leads to it moving more slowly. It's just basic arithmetic, and it amuses me that so many strongly pro-car folk seem determined to ignore it.
Better traffic light management, better-designed junctions and the like will make a difference, but in the end they're just palliatives. Relying on them to solve the underlying problem is papering over the cracks.
The fact that these days so many different people are authorised to dig roads up, with precious little supervision and central co-ordination, doesn't help.
BUT it still remains an underlying truth that more cars on the roads means congested roads. More of anything trying to move through any confined space leads to it moving more slowly. It's just basic arithmetic, and it amuses me that so many strongly pro-car folk seem determined to ignore it.
Better traffic light management, better-designed junctions and the like will make a difference, but in the end they're just palliatives. Relying on them to solve the underlying problem is papering over the cracks.
citydreams
on the road again
GarfieldLeChat said:
link please.
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
fwiw, I have doubts about whether the emissions of 4x4 vs. various other infernal combustion engines merits such a disproportionate charge, but Ken knows a vote winner when he sees one - and he has a sense of humour.
In fact, I don't even care about the relative merits, tax the consumption addicts off the bloody road !
yeah, I think it's an emotional issue for Ken's constituency, and one he'd have trouble losing core support over.
In fact, I don't even care about the relative merits, tax the consumption addicts off the bloody road !
yeah, I think it's an emotional issue for Ken's constituency, and one he'd have trouble losing core support over.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
ok ...citydreams said:
how many of the tfl plans are decided not by commitee but by one person?
how many of those plans have to be alatered to incorperate a number of differnet agenceis be it highways local council in order to secure funding needed... ?
how much control does TfL have say over islington coucils speed bump poilcy or westminster councils sign posting policy?
how many of the people in a meeting which deicides x about a particular road in area y will hae driven that road daliy, or even for that matter got a drivig licence?
I'm sure the answers will be we try to consult as much as possible however we all know what TfL's consulation means even your propaganda piece posted asked only 614 people if they thought bendy bueses were ok, such a small unrepresenative sample as to be utterly meaningless in a city of 2 million + people... not only that but the levels of consultation and opposition to things such as the congestion charge extention zone which was levelled and livingstones own well i don't have to listen to you lot anyway comments... go to show what a farce TfL's consulation really is...
and rather re-enforces my point...
traffic levels decreasing half boroughs from this year, although the articule i'm looking for which say's preciesly waht i ahev said is from 2002 i'm still looking for it...
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20060314/ai_n16217614
congestion charge failed to cut congestion
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20050704/ai_n14682901
not ot of course mention ken's little lie about not increasing the charge for 10 years...
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20030225/ai_n12032948
traffic levels already falling in congestion charge extention zone pre congestion charge....
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20050725/ai_n14800227
here we go
levels falling in london since 1982
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4153/is_20021015/ai_n12022428
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
London_Calling said:
The proposed charge isn't actually specific to 4x4s.
citydreams
on the road again
No, that says: "car use has declined." It doesn't say that there are more cars on the road or that there are more drivers driving further. You're basing your argument on pros written by the Evening Stanard rather than reading the facts yourself.
From the DfT: total motor traffic volume in London (billion vehicle-kilometers)
1993 30.7
1997 31.7
2000 32.6
2003 32.8
2004 32.7
Er, these are figures for 2004 - post Congestion Charge.
Er, says a car lobby group..
But also in the article:
"The Green Party group at the London Assembly, which supports the toll, insisted the levy was a success. Zero growth in car use was an achievement given that that the number of cars registered in London had grown by 15 per cent in the last seven years. "
citydreams
on the road again
One. Congestion Charging. Which was mandated by election.
so you're saying there is co-operation. I don't get your point.
again, this is showing co-operation. what's your point caller?
Nearly 100%.
I suggest you pay a visit to TfL. We're very open and we try to accomodate everyone. Particularly you should go and see the Network Assurance team, the Road Network Development team, the Street Management team, the Borough Partnership team, the Suface Transport team, Urban Traffic Control &c &c.
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
citydreams said:
But those are the figures for Greater London as a whole.
Break them down into inner and outer London and a different story is told.
Source: LB Sutton Local Transport Context PDF.
The modest* growth in traffic volumes across Greater London was confined to the outer boroughs. Inner London vehicle kilometres fell for four years in a row from 1999 to 2002, prior to the introduction of the Congestion Charge zone.
In the same period, London Buses vehicle mileage rose by over 10% [TfL London Travel Report, 2002] contributing an additional 34 million km, or 36% of the additional 96 million vehicle km for Greater London between 1999 and 2002.
Incidentally, bus passenger km increased by nearly 19% in the same period, indicating that buses were already successfully attracting more passengers per operated km prior to the introduction of the CC zone.
Furthermore, from the fact that car use was increasing as a proportion of journeys in outer London, it may be implied that the transfer of journeys from car to bus was even more marked in central and inner London than these figures would indicate. The increase in operated km by buses was actually masking an even greater decline in the use of cars in inner London than the DfT totals for all vehicle types in that area would indicate.
*Even TfL concede that traffic volumes in London as a whole were flat before 2003
London Travel Report 2004, Key Findings
London_Calling
Pleasant and unpatronising
I have no way of verifying this opinion, but it certainly felt to me like parking restirctions in central London have been increasing for over a decade; whether it's Residents Permits, greater yellow line restrictions around stations, the privatisation of Traffic Wardens . . . disincentives have surely been increasing for quite some while now.
citydreams
on the road again
cybertect said:
The story in Inner London is one of reduced network capacity from the introduction of bus lanes. Congestion levels weren't falling with reduced flows. As you've shown, the car traffic shifted to other parts of the network.
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
Roadkill said:
It seems common sense.
Paradoxically, however, it does not seem to be the case that fewer cars on the roads results in a reduction of congestion, at least prior to the introduction of the CC zone.
Source: TfL London Travel Report 2004 (the 2005 report contains exactly the same chart with the same data)
Looking at the Inner Area (the Red Line) there appears to be a slight drop in traffic speeds between the late 90s and 2003, even though the volumes of traffic was already falling at that point.
In the meantime, Central Area speeds conveniently uptick to 2003 to match with the introduction of the CC zone. While TfL do claim in the accompanying text that "the introduction of congestion charging has resulted in an increase in average speeds in the central area" it is unclear whether or not the 2003 data line is supposed to represent the beginning of 2003, when the charge was not in force. Can we really tell whether Central London traffic speeds were already improving before the CC zone existed? I don't know.
I must admit to being a little disconcerted by the impression that the discrete data points selected are apparently different for different years indifferent areas of London. Outer London apparently has data points in 1996, 2000 and 2002, the Central Area has data points in 1997, 2000 and 2003 and Inner London 1995, 1998 2001 and 2004.
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
citydreams said:
So you're actually admitting that the rising levels of congestion in central London that were the primary argument in favour of the creation of the CC zone were actually engineered into existence by TfL's reductions in road capacity for non-bus users after 1999?
citydreams
on the road again
cybertect said:So you're actually admitting that the rising levels of congestion in central London that were the primary argument in favour of the creation of the CC zone were actually engineered into existence by TfL's reductions in road capacity for non-bus users after 1999?
No.. I think that would be far too sinister. Bus lanes came about because of a need to improve their service. Congestion Charging came out of the Smead Report 1964, "Road Pricing and the technical possibilites" (HMSO) which was picked up by Government Office for London in ROCOL (Road Charging Options for London) - a technical report, 2000.
cybertect
It's grim up north (London)
Oh, I wasn't necessarily suggesting that it was done with deliberate intent to create a will amongst the population of London that 'something must be done'. I'm usually in favour of cock-up over conspiracy as an explanation for things.
However, you must concede it's a bit of a surprising admission, considering the debate around the CC zone were almost entirely set in terms of rising car usage - it was car drivers that would be bearing the brunt of the Charge when it came in.
I argued in favour of the CC zone at the time and even I'm somewhat confounded to discover that traffic levels in Central London were actually falling before it came in and that it was reduced road capacity that was why congestion was continuing to rise.
I swear I can hear Cobbles chortling with glee from here - Buses cause congestion!
However, you must concede it's a bit of a surprising admission, considering the debate around the CC zone were almost entirely set in terms of rising car usage - it was car drivers that would be bearing the brunt of the Charge when it came in.
I argued in favour of the CC zone at the time and even I'm somewhat confounded to discover that traffic levels in Central London were actually falling before it came in and that it was reduced road capacity that was why congestion was continuing to rise.
I swear I can hear Cobbles chortling with glee from here - Buses cause congestion!
It was necessary to give buses more priority in order to make buses run quicker and to time, which in turn was needed if more people were to be persuaded to start using buses regularly.
That said, there are some things that have been done that do make me wonder .... like the "re-phasing" of traffic signals a few years back to allow longer "stop" times, which added to congestion.
And the whole Routemaster / Bendy-bus thing stinks as well.
Be wary when politicians hide behind either "elf and safety" or any kind of "rights" legislation as an excuse - its a good way of stifling criticism or debate, by saying "nothing we can do, its the law".
Giles..
That said, there are some things that have been done that do make me wonder .... like the "re-phasing" of traffic signals a few years back to allow longer "stop" times, which added to congestion.
And the whole Routemaster / Bendy-bus thing stinks as well.
Be wary when politicians hide behind either "elf and safety" or any kind of "rights" legislation as an excuse - its a good way of stifling criticism or debate, by saying "nothing we can do, its the law".
Giles..
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
£25 is far too lenient. I'd go for £50. Ken's gone soft.
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
citydreams said:
So you are conceding that differnet people will have different agendas dependant on bugetry requirements and the amount of cash they have available, see desgine by committee constrained by budgetary requirements is not a good way of getting the best solution
citydreams said:
as above really interdeparmental and external departments can only work along side each other in certain areas others will fall outside the resepective bodies remits and therefore have to sink to the lowest commen denominator being a jack of all trades and a master of none.
erm that not an answer to that question is it ???citydreams said:
the question was to show that TfL have no control over local councils road planning policies and that all though there is co-operation as you suggest this again will be limited by different agendas... It's too disjointed a policy over all which means that the transportation policy as a whole falls down...
cybertect said:
I don't think a 'slight drop' in speeds in central London over a few years proves very much at all.
Various things can influence traffic speeds in an area that, by any standards, is crowded: the presence or otherwise of extensive roadworks, the way traffic is controlled through junctions, the number and duration of stops made by buses.
Meanwhile, the evidence that more traffic = lower speeds is everywhere around, and it's counterintuitive to argue otherwise. At peak time my bus from Charlton to Greenwich takes 35-40 minutes, most of it spent sitting in queues (I walk these days - it's usually nearly as quick); in the evening it takes more like 10-15 minutes. Virtually every major urban road in the country will tell the same story.
Similar threads
