|
Congestion charge questions
Evening all,
Firstly, what, if any, effect has the charge had on safety? Are there fewer road casualties in central London now? More? Have they been displaced? Anyone know of any data? Secondly, why is it being extended westward? Why not to the north, where i live, so i can ride to work more easily? Is the west more congested, or more in need of better bus services? Or does Ken just like people in the west more? Or particularly hate western drivers? tom -- The sky above the port was the colour of television, tuned to a dead channel |
Congestion charge questions
Tom Anderson wrote:
Secondly, why is it being extended westward? Why not to the north, where i live, so i can ride to work more easily? Is the west more congested, or more in need of better bus services? Or does Ken just like people in the west more? Or particularly hate western drivers? Would it not be great if it was extended to cover all of Britain, then only drivers of foreign vehicles would have to pay. |
Congestion charge questions
Tom Anderson wrote: Evening all, Firstly, what, if any, effect has the charge had on safety? Are there fewer road casualties in central London now? More? Have they been displaced? Anyone know of any data? Secondly, why is it being extended westward? Why not to the north, where i live, so i can ride to work more easily? Is the west more congested, or more in need of better bus services? Or does Ken just like people in the west more? Or particularly hate western drivers? It does make some sense for an extension Westbound to cover the whole of Travelcard Zone 1 and at least the whole of the Circle Line. Pushing the boundary all the way to Harlesden (near Willesden Junction station) seems a bit extreme (unless they've changed the boundary). And does this all mean that Harrow Road and Scrubs Lane will become primary because neither of them are now. If I were to extend I would have make Sussex Gardens and then Bayswater Road up to Holland Park, possibly Kensington Church Street although the capacity on there is bad enough without making it a boundary road so maybe just follow the A402 to the big roundabout just East of Shepherds Bush Green. Hyde Park itself I would not have inside the zone. If it were to be extended North the only conceivable border I can see is A400 to Camden, A503 Camden Road, A1 Holloway Road and possibly A1200. The problem is that those who live just outside the boundary will not be able to drive to facilities just inside without paying the charge. And therefore those business just inside that rely on customers who drive (and some goods are too heavy to shop without a car) will lose business. For example, I live just outside of the North Circular and if they ever decided to make that road a charging boundary zone, we would have to pay the charge if ever we wanted to shop just inside during the charging hours. |
Congestion charge questions
In article .com, Earl
Purple writes And therefore those business just inside that rely on customers who drive (and some goods are too heavy to shop without a car) will lose business. For example, I live just outside of the North Circular and if they ever decided to make that road a charging boundary zone, we would have to pay the charge if ever we wanted to shop just inside during the charging hours. If you're talking about furniture and appliance stores and the like around that way, of which there are many, I'm sure they could arrange some kind of delivery service. IKEA already does. -- congokid Eating out in London? Read my tips... http://congokid.com |
Congestion charge questions
Tom Anderson wrote: Evening all, Firstly, what, if any, effect has the charge had on safety? Are there fewer road casualties in central London now? More? Have they been displaced? Anyone know of any data? Motorcycle and bicycle casualties are down while numbers are up. It's not obvious whether it's the increased numbers (making them more visible and noticed) or the reduced number of cars that has caused this. Tim. |
Congestion charge questions
On 3 Oct 2006 08:26:38 -0700, "Earl Purple"
wrote: It does make some sense for an extension Westbound to cover the whole of Travelcard Zone 1 and at least the whole of the Circle Line. Pushing the boundary all the way to Harlesden (near Willesden Junction station) seems a bit extreme (unless they've changed the boundary). And does this all mean that Harrow Road and Scrubs Lane will become primary because neither of them are now. The extension will include zone 2 so your fears of an extension too far are well grounded. The west boundary does line up with restricted access (Harrow Road to Ladbroke Gr, Wood Lane onto North Pole Road) so making it easy to monitor with few "5-eyed monsters". A proposed boundary near LadbrokeGr tube station would have been more difficult. Wood/Scrubs Lane to Harrow Road are hell at the moment in the morning peak and will remain uncharged; the purpose here just cannot be "congestion" but Ken has fessed to it being a wallet grab. His evil brain has postulated widening to the Circulars... The problem is that those who live just outside the boundary will not be able to drive to facilities just inside without paying the charge. And therefore those business just inside that rely on customers who drive (and some goods are too heavy to shop without a car) will lose business. Oh don't worry, your local shops will be wiped out but you'll have uncharged access to BrentX and the "Westfield" aka White City complex. So that's all right then. And Oxford Street can decline to cater for tourists, tram or no tram. -- Old anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com |
Congestion charge questions
Colum Mylod wrote: The extension will include zone 2 so your fears of an extension too far are well grounded. The west boundary does line up with restricted access (Harrow Road to Ladbroke Gr, Wood Lane onto North Pole Road) so making it easy to monitor with few "5-eyed monsters". A proposed boundary near LadbrokeGr tube station would have been more difficult. Does the route then follow Barlby Road (not even a classified road) or does it head along the B412 (St Quintin Avenue, St Marks Road and Cambridge Gardens) up to Ladbroke Grove. Most of these are fairly narrow residential streets. Wood/Scrubs Lane to Harrow Road are hell at the moment in the morning peak and will remain uncharged; the purpose here just cannot be "congestion" but Ken has fessed to it being a wallet grab. His evil brain has postulated widening to the Circulars... The thing is that I think many people in London don't object to the congestion charge in the centre so much because there is fairly good public transport to the centre - after all the underground lines do all go to the centre of London. The only sensible way to cure the congestion problem is better pooling schemes. I would also like to see another orbital rail route connecting all the lines in the outer zones. I'm sure such a line would be well used. Oh don't worry, your local shops will be wiped out but you'll have uncharged access to BrentX and the "Westfield" aka White City complex. So that's all right then. And Oxford Street can decline to cater for tourists, tram or no tram. Well it's fine, they can just make every road in London private flats and have no facilities. More and more facilities are being replaced with private flats anyway. Hardly surprising then that to access facilities you can no longer find any in walking distance and have to get into your car... |
Congestion charge questions
On 4 Oct 2006 07:04:01 -0700, "Earl Purple"
wrote: Does the route then follow Barlby Road (not even a classified road) or does it head along the B412 (St Quintin Avenue, St Marks Road and Cambridge Gardens) up to Ladbroke Grove. Most of these are fairly narrow residential streets. The boundary will be formed by the railway line that crosses over North Pole Road so Barlby Road etc will be inside and chargeable (but the cameras are at NPole Rd and at the top of Ladbroke Grove where the roundabout leads to Sainsbury's, allowing free access to the big shop). Oddly the camera before that rbt seems to cover entrance but not exit. The side streets bordering Wood Lane will be uncharged but residents there will have access to the 90% discount. In that neck of the woods almost all of K&C is inside except the bits to the south of the Harrow Road towards Sainsbos. My guess is that the few pinch points were chosen as the edge with Sainos arguing successfully for exemption. The xM41 and Westway will not be covered, which could be interesting if the new shopping centre gains a few new roads into K&C territory. The thing is that I think many people in London don't object to the congestion charge in the centre so much because there is fairly good public transport to the centre - after all the underground lines do all go to the centre of London. Also that zone has few residents, the initial CC affected few ordinary bods. The extended one will scalp more peeps. The buses are better for the investment they've received. The only sensible way to cure the congestion problem is better pooling schemes. I would also like to see another orbital rail route connecting all the lines in the outer zones. I'm sure such a line would be well used. I'd like to mention the system I saw in Madrid: bodies on the ground enforcing local access only for locals and limited deliveries - but there's no profit in that scheme is there? The CC is about money: Capita fill their boots and some sloshes to Ken. It is not a user friendly setup either: no lights to say the zone is active, no easy way to pay automatically after the event, in fact it appears to be designed to make money from non-payment. And an open charter for plate cloning or plain reregistering of the car in Poland or Latvia. Well it's fine, they can just make every road in London private flats and have no facilities. More and more facilities are being replaced with private flats anyway. Hardly surprising then that to access facilities you can no longer find any in walking distance and have to get into your car... London is quite poor for local walkable facilities. I've lived in places with far more on the ground locally (and much safer bike lanes than mere blobs of paint) but London is focused on cars + shopping areas. -- Old anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com |
Congestion charge questions
In message . com, Earl
Purple writes I would also like to see another orbital rail route connecting all the lines in the outer zones. I'm sure such a line would be well used. I certainly is in Moscow. -- Clive. |
Congestion charge questions
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Colum Mylod wrote:
On 3 Oct 2006 08:26:38 -0700, "Earl Purple" wrote: The problem is that those who live just outside the boundary will not be able to drive to facilities just inside without paying the charge. And therefore those business just inside that rely on customers who drive (and some goods are too heavy to shop without a car) will lose business. Oh don't worry, your local shops will be wiped out but you'll have uncharged access to BrentX and the "Westfield" aka White City complex. So that's all right then. And Oxford Street can decline to cater for tourists, tram or no tram. So Colum, how many people get to Oxford Street by car, then? tom -- wit, speed, and dressing well |
Congestion charge questions
|
Congestion charge questions
Colum Mylod wrote: The extension will include zone 2 so your fears of an extension too far are well grounded. Impossible to have an extension too far. IMHO the boundary for the congestion charge should be the M25, with a minimum charge of £50. [Ken's] evil brain has postulated widening to the Circulars... If I had any doubts about voting for Ken next time, those doubts have now been erased. Patrick |
Congestion charge questions
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 21:38:43 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote: On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Colum Mylod wrote: Oh don't worry, your local shops will be wiped out but you'll have uncharged access to BrentX and the "Westfield" aka White City complex. So that's all right then. And Oxford Street can decline to cater for tourists, tram or no tram. So Colum, how many people get to Oxford Street by car, then? No hard numbers but the report (looking for it) favouring the tram and an improvement to Oxford St did state the White City complex would pull the west/north of London big spenders away from the street. No details were given if they were users of car parks nearby or how they got there. -- Old anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com |
Congestion charge questions
|
Congestion charge questions
Colum Mylod wrote: On 4 Oct 2006 07:04:01 -0700, "Earl Purple" wrote: Does the route then follow Barlby Road (not even a classified road) or does it head along the B412 (St Quintin Avenue, St Marks Road and Cambridge Gardens) up to Ladbroke Grove. Most of these are fairly narrow residential streets. The boundary will be formed by the railway line that crosses over North Pole Road so Barlby Road etc will be inside and chargeable (but the cameras are at NPole Rd and at the top of Ladbroke Grove where the roundabout leads to Sainsbury's, allowing free access to the big shop). Oddly the camera before that rbt seems to cover entrance but not exit. The side streets bordering Wood Lane will be uncharged but residents there will have access to the 90% discount. But for how far? What about residents around Du Cane Road etc. that might normally use that Sainsbury's. They would no longer be able to use North Pole Road / Barlby Road but would have to divert all the way around up Scrubs Lane, right onto Harrow Road then right again into Ladbroke Grove. Now won't that cause more congestion rather than reduce it? In that neck of the woods almost all of K&C is inside except the bits to the south of the Harrow Road towards Sainsbos. My guess is that the few pinch points were chosen as the edge with Sainos arguing successfully for exemption. The xM41 and Westway will not be covered, which could be interesting if the new shopping centre gains a few new roads into K&C territory. The thing is that I think many people in London don't object to the congestion charge in the centre so much because there is fairly good public transport to the centre - after all the underground lines do all go to the centre of London. Also that zone has few residents, the initial CC affected few ordinary bods. The extended one will scalp more peeps. The buses are better for the investment they've received. There are quite a few mainly residential areas in the current CC zone: - Most of what is North of Clerkenwell Road. They might have made the CC zone instead go along Kings Cross Road / Farringdon Road up to the junction of Clerkenwell Road then along that road and Old Street instead of Pentonville Road / City Road. - Most of Lambeth. Thus the zone could have gone up Albert Embankment then along Lambeth Road. The issues are not so much with those in the zone but with those just outside who now have to pay the full charge to access what is inside. Perhaps the solution is to have multiple charging zones, give residents totally free access to their own zone and any immediate neighbouring one, thus you have to cross through 2 zone boundaries before you have to pay. An example of a facility across the boundary is the Brunswick Shopping Centre around Marchmont Street, WC1. This is just inside and used to have (don't know if it's still there) a big supermarket. Those who lived in Somers Town would probably have used it. Now those who live in Somers Town would probably go up to the Sainsbury's in Camden or the Morrison's in Chalk Farm instead. I'd like to mention the system I saw in Madrid: bodies on the ground enforcing local access only for locals and limited deliveries - but there's no profit in that scheme is there? Not sure I like the idea either. Taking away people's freedom. Not saying that people shouldn't have to pay to drive in, but it should still be an option. The CC is about money: Capita fill their boots and some sloshes to Ken. It is not a user friendly setup either: no lights to say the zone is active, no easy way to pay automatically after the event, in fact it appears to be designed to make money from non-payment. And an open charter for plate cloning or plain reregistering of the car in Poland or Latvia. For Capita it might be. For the point of view of Tfl, the money is redistributed - Ken does not directly pocket any of it himself. (Whilst I have some reservations about Ken on many issues, I don't think he's a thief). I would rather pay a reasonable amount to have a smooth journey than pay nothing but sit for hours in traffic. After all, time is money. My own solution, albeit probably not too practical, would be to build some more decent by-passes and charge for using them. The toll would not be excessive, but even 50p a day for 60,000 users, say, would raise £30,000 a day. Well it's fine, they can just make every road in London private flats and have no facilities. More and more facilities are being replaced with private flats anyway. Hardly surprising then that to access facilities you can no longer find any in walking distance and have to get into your car... London is quite poor for local walkable facilities. I've lived in places with far more on the ground locally (and much safer bike lanes than mere blobs of paint) but London is focused on cars + shopping areas. It's all based on profit and who will make the highest bid. The big property developers can easily outbid anyone else. Suburban London is a very popular place to live. |
Congestion charge questions
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, Earl Purple wrote:
The issues are not so much with those in the zone but with those just outside who now have to pay the full charge to access what is inside. Perhaps the solution is to have multiple charging zones, give residents totally free access to their own zone and any immediate neighbouring one, thus you have to cross through 2 zone boundaries before you have to pay. Makes sense - although having a you-count-as-residents neutral zone around a charging zone has much the same effect. An example of a facility across the boundary is the Brunswick Shopping Centre around Marchmont Street, WC1. This is just inside and used to have (don't know if it's still there) a big supermarket. There is - it recently reopened as a Waitrose. I bought a couple of bottles of Bordeaux blanc there only this week. Those who lived in Somers Town would probably have used it. Now those who live in Somers Town would probably go up to the Sainsbury's in Camden or the Morrison's in Chalk Farm instead. You're kidding, right? It's a straightforward walk, or a few minutes on a bus. Driving there from Somers Town would be insane, even without the charge. I'd like to mention the system I saw in Madrid: bodies on the ground enforcing local access only for locals and limited deliveries - but there's no profit in that scheme is there? Not sure I like the idea either. Taking away people's freedom. Sigh. Taking away one set of people's freedom to drive their cars wherever they like, and bringing a new freedom to walk to another, larger, set of people. I'd be in favour of that. tom -- see im down wid yo sci fi crew |
Congestion charge questions
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, Colum Mylod wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 01:07:55 -0700, wrote: Colum Mylod wrote: The extension will include zone 2 so your fears of an extension too far are well grounded. Impossible to have an extension too far. IMHO the boundary for the congestion charge should be the M25, with a minimum charge of £50. Offer that one up in a democratic system and see how it flies. I'd vote for it. Although ideally the zone would stop just beyond my house - otherwise it makes it more likely that people from outside will drive in! It could happen but only under a dictator. I love the way that you equate your preferencs with the will of the majority. tom -- see im down wid yo sci fi crew |
Congestion charge questions
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, Colum Mylod wrote:
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 21:38:43 +0100, Tom Anderson wrote: On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Colum Mylod wrote: Oh don't worry, your local shops will be wiped out but you'll have uncharged access to BrentX and the "Westfield" aka White City complex. So that's all right then. And Oxford Street can decline to cater for tourists, tram or no tram. So Colum, how many people get to Oxford Street by car, then? No hard numbers Right. but the report (looking for it) favouring the tram and an improvement to Oxford St did state the White City complex would pull the west/north of London big spenders away from the street. No details were given if they were users of car parks nearby or how they got there. Which has nothing whatsoever to do with car use, then. tom -- see im down wid yo sci fi crew |
Congestion charge questions
Tom Anderson wrote: On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, Earl Purple wrote: The issues are not so much with those in the zone but with those just outside who now have to pay the full charge to access what is inside. Perhaps the solution is to have multiple charging zones, give residents totally free access to their own zone and any immediate neighbouring one, thus you have to cross through 2 zone boundaries before you have to pay. Makes sense - although having a you-count-as-residents neutral zone around a charging zone has much the same effect. Not quite. If a resident "just outside" is given the privelege of going into the whole zone, then they can now start driving right across it, as would be the case for any residents of Notting Hill, who were previously outside of the zone but now having been pulled inside it may be more inclined to use their cars even when going into the old zone. An example of a facility across the boundary is the Brunswick Shopping Centre around Marchmont Street, WC1. This is just inside and used to have (don't know if it's still there) a big supermarket. There is - it recently reopened as a Waitrose. I bought a couple of bottles of Bordeaux blanc there only this week. Those who lived in Somers Town would probably have used it. Now those who live in Somers Town would probably go up to the Sainsbury's in Camden or the Morrison's in Chalk Farm instead. You're kidding, right? It's a straightforward walk, or a few minutes on a bus. Driving there from Somers Town would be insane, even without the charge. Yes but depends on how much you want to buy. For a big shopping trip, it may be a big problem carrying it all home on the bus. Yes, you can get home-delivery if they happen to have everything that they stock listed on the website. I'd like to mention the system I saw in Madrid: bodies on the ground enforcing local access only for locals and limited deliveries - but there's no profit in that scheme is there? Not sure I like the idea either. Taking away people's freedom. Sigh. Taking away one set of people's freedom to drive their cars wherever they like, and bringing a new freedom to walk to another, larger, set of people. I'd be in favour of that. Actually I'd be in favour of having the road in which I live as a through road for the residents only. That means having a gate somewhere blocking through access for most vehicles but given residents a means to open it. Emergency services would also have a device to open such gates. Residents riding in cabs could open it for the cab driver. Delivery vans would generally not have through access unless a resident opened it for them. There could be certain times at which the gate is open anyway and there would be a gap for cyclists at all times. Of course that would also mean I would not be able to use other rat-runs if they put up similar schemes. Some pedestrianised areas have hours during which delivery vehicles are allowed access. |
Congestion charge questions
Tom Anderson wrote: So Colum, how many people get to Oxford Street by car, then? Many did before the congestion charge zone was brought in. There is a car-park at Cavendish Square and meters on many of the side roads. I did notice in February 2003 how much easier it became to find a meter. At that point in time the parking rate was only £3 an hour. If there are 2 people going in and doing a fair amount of shopping it is not a bad option. I still use car to get to Oxford Street to shop on bank holidays when parking is free and there is no congestion charge. |
Congestion charge questions
Tom Anderson wrote:
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, Colum Mylod wrote: On 5 Oct 2006 01:07:55 -0700, wrote: Colum Mylod wrote: The extension will include zone 2 so your fears of an extension too far are well grounded. Impossible to have an extension too far. IMHO the boundary for the congestion charge should be the M25, with a minimum charge of £50. Offer that one up in a democratic system and see how it flies. I'd vote for it. Although ideally the zone would stop just beyond my house - otherwise it makes it more likely that people from outside will drive in! Any further extensions of the current congestion charging scheme in its present guise are highly unlikely, as it would be very expensive to operate as-is on a much larger scale, and there would be a multiplication of the current issues over access to facilities inside the zone for those not far outside. Pan-London congestion charging would probably only be introduced as a proper distance-based road user charging scheme, most likely using either microwave "tag-and-beacon" technology, with charges per kilometre varying by time of day and by road used. -- Dave Arquati www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
Congestion charge questions
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, Earl Purple wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote: So Colum, how many people get to Oxford Street by car, then? Many did before the congestion charge zone was brought in. There is a car-park at Cavendish Square And Marble Arch. and meters on many of the side roads. Still, when you think how many people those carparks and roads would accomodate, and how many people there are on Oxford Street when it's busy, you realise that the vast majority must have got there by public transport - even before the charge. tom -- see im down wid yo sci fi crew |
Congestion charge questions
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 16:58:22 +0100, Tom Anderson
wrote: It could happen but only under a dictator. I love the way that you equate your preferencs with the will of the majority. Ken said his consultancy sessions were to comply with rules but he had already made his mind up beforehand - CC, ShepherdsRd tram, quite a few others too. Is that not being dictatorial? He has the power and feels fully confident in exercising it in a brash manner. It's his personality. Maybe that can be a force for good but the danger is he'll go off the rails (on topic pun) eventually. I wish he was just that bit more "democratic". Usenet, the home of opinions and preferences. Just like yours for having the CC at your front door. -- Old anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com |
Congestion charge questions
On 5 Oct 2006 09:39:51 -0700, "Earl Purple"
wrote: Tom Anderson wrote: So Colum, how many people get to Oxford Street by car, then? Many did before the congestion charge zone was brought in. There is a car-park at Cavendish Square and meters on many of the side roads. I did notice in February 2003 how much easier it became to find a meter. .... I still use car to get to Oxford Street to shop on bank holidays when parking is free and there is no congestion charge. Fully agree. When we go by car (3 of us) parking on single yellows in Westminster was the thing to do on Sundays and you would need to get in 12ish or all spaces were gone. People who drive on Saturdays do use the car parks despite outrageous prices. Much of that shopping market are not price sensitive or they'd be filling the pound shops on the delightful Hounslow High St instead. The Oxford St tram report does have details on fears for a decline in the street's fortunes due to White City. I would expect comparisons with Bluewater to hold up: tons more cars that would otherwise never think of W12 will be piling in. Not the end of the world as we know it but also not promising when the cry is all about global warming etc. -- Old anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com |
Congestion charge questions
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:02:45 +0100, Dave Arquati
wrote: Any further extensions of the current congestion charging scheme in its present guise are highly unlikely, as it would be very expensive to operate as-is on a much larger scale, and there would be a multiplication of the current issues over access to facilities inside the zone for those not far outside. That would not rule out "tweaking" though, would it? Earls Court is crying out for relief, K&C wanted that addressed. -- Old anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com |
Congestion charge questions
Tom Anderson wrote: Evening all, Firstly, what, if any, effect has the charge had on safety? Are there fewer road casualties in central London now? More? Have they been displaced? Anyone know of any data? Secondly, why is it being extended westward? Why not to the north, where i live, so i can ride to work more easily? Is the west more congested, or more in need of better bus services? Or does Ken just like people in the west more? Or particularly hate western drivers? I've worked out a Northern boundary: A5 up to junction A5205 of St John's Wood Road A5205 St John's Wood Road, across the A41 and remain on A5205 Prince Albert Road Left onto Parkway (which is either A503 or A4201, not sure which) A503 Camden Road. In the opposite direction the border goes down Bayham Street then right into Pratt Street which becomes Delancey Street A1 Holloway Road (East) up to Highbury Corner A1199 St Pauls Road leading to A104 Balls Pond Road then A1207 Graham Road A107 Mare Street South until border with A106 then A106 in both directions (it's a split one-way street) up to first junction with A12 then A12 Southbound beyond that. Could go through Blackwall Tunnel or could simply go along A13 or A1261 etc. If Blackwall Tunnel then A2 is boundary on the other side. Where the border is made up of two one-way streets (as with A106) then the roads between them are outside the zone. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk