London £5 "Congestion Fee"

DanS · February 12, 2003, 18:21

Oh, I can see this working in Washington and all other American cities... Not!

That's a huge chuck of change!

Some 250,000 people drive vehicles into central London every weekday. From Monday, under the world's most ambitious traffic control scheme, they will have to pay a daily £5 "congestion fee". If it's a success, grid-locked cities around the world will follow London's example.

That headline's from FT. Here's a story from the AP...

http://www.tribnet.com/news/story/25...-2613163c.html

FrustratedPoet · February 12, 2003, 18:26

£5 a day is a lot of money ... sounds like a silly plan to me.
All you will get is the exact same traffic jams, only everybody will be five quid poorer and a bit more pissed off.

Sarxis · February 12, 2003, 18:27

There's nothing downtown (Detroit) worth going to see for $5, or for even 5 rupees. So tax aaway!

Ming · February 12, 2003, 18:28

In New York, you have to take a bridge or tunnel to drive onto Manhatten. You have to pay a toll to enter, or leave. The traffic is still a joke

Drogue · February 12, 2003, 18:29

Very controvertial, and maybe a little silly, although I happen to like the idea. The amount of traffic in london is horrendous. It makes journeys so slow. Therefore, if you're journey isn't worth £5, you do not make it, if it is, you are compensated by having far fewer cars, and thus a much faster journey. Not to mention the masses less pollution it will cause, which in Central London is especially important

I think congestion charges in general are a great idea, although I have my reservations about this one. The biggest being that our public transport alternatives are appauling. I think we need to spend far more on the railways and buses, get them up to a decent standard, and then introduce extra taxes/charges on using cars.

FrustratedPoet · February 12, 2003, 18:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue
Very controvertial, and maybe a little silly, although I happen to like the idea. The amount of traffic in london is horrendous. It makes journeys so slow. Therefore, if you're journey isn't worth £5, you do not make it, if it is, you are compensated by having far fewer cars, and thus a much faster journey. Not to mention the masses less pollution it will cause, which in Central London is especially important

If it works like that it'll be great .... time will tell, however, and I can't say I'm optimistic about this scheme.

Is this one of Red Ken's ideas?

Dauphin · February 12, 2003, 18:33

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/congesti...map_main.shtml

Also:

Quote:

In general, those entitled to an exemption are:
All two-wheelers, London licenced Taxis, London licensed minicabs, certain operational vehicles used by the emergency services, including HM Coastguard and Port Authorities, and certain operational vehicles used by the eight London Boroughs, either partly or wholly within the congestion charging zone, the armed forces, Royal Parks Agency and breakdown organisations.

FrustratedPoet · February 12, 2003, 18:38

I assume that your £5 buys you a day-pass, and you don't have to pay every time you 'cross the border'?

Drogue · February 12, 2003, 18:38

Quote:

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
Is this one of Red Ken's ideas?

Yep. One of his few unpopular ideas. Usually I find what he says too much appealing to the lowest-common-denominator, very populist and not well thought through. This seems to be the opposite. Personally, anything that gets people out of cars and into public transport is good, although the public transport system needs to be much much better if this is to happen.

FrustratedPoet · February 12, 2003, 18:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue

Yep. One of his few unpopular ideas. Usually I find what he says too much appealing to the lowest-common-denominator, very populist and not well thought through. This seems to be the opposite. Personally, anything that gets people out of cars and into public transport is good, although the public transport system needs to be much much better if this is to happen.

Hopefully all the money raised from this (which could be over a million pounds a day I suppose) will go to improving the public transport system.

DanS · February 12, 2003, 18:44

will go to improving the public transport system

What do you think the chances of that are?

Drogue · February 12, 2003, 18:45

Supposidly it will. I'm guessing it'll go on either less Gov't debt, higher public service wages, or lower council taxes for London though

JohnT · February 12, 2003, 18:45

"Oh, I can see this working in Washington and all other American cities..."

You ever driven into Manhattan? Same principle applies -as a matter of fact, I'm not too sure you can actually enter without paying some government department some money - maybe if you walk or bike across the bridges, I guess.

Dauphin · February 12, 2003, 18:46

Quote:

will go to improving the public transport system

What do you think the chances of that are?

Worse than the chances of Bush being a closet liberal.

FrustratedPoet · February 12, 2003, 18:49

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
will go to improving the public transport system

What do you think the chances of that are?

chances that the money will go there: slim

even if it does, the chances that it will make the tiniest difference: even slimmer

DanS · February 12, 2003, 18:51

You ever driven into Manhattan?

How much do the tolls cost?

even if it does, the chances that it will make the tiniest difference: even slimmer

200 million+ GBP per annum is some real money! That could fund a lot of capital projects.

Caesar the Great · February 12, 2003, 18:56

Jersey ---> Manhattan on the george washington bridge is now $6 i think

Sten Sture · February 12, 2003, 19:03

easy money.

In San Fran it costs $5 to enter the city from the north via the Golden Gate Bridge. They just raised the toll from $3. Traffic is down about 3% from 42.2mm crossings to 40.7mm annually. If this is any indication London can look forward to enjoying 97% of the traffic they usually do!

again if SF is offers any pattern, then all of the money will go to the incompetent mayor so he can buy snazzy hats.

FrustratedPoet · February 12, 2003, 19:04

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
200 million+ GBP per annum is some real money! That could fund a lot of capital projects.

I know you're very knowledgable about economics, but I can tell you don't live in England.

Seriously, far more money than that must have been poured down the bottomless pit of our transport services for years. So far things aren't looking too great.

Buck Birdseed · February 12, 2003, 21:34

Quote:

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
Is this one of Red Ken's ideas?

Actually, in a somewhat ironic turn of events, it was actually Milton Friedman who came up with the idea first, back in the fifties.

Felch · February 12, 2003, 21:37

Snappy is right. This is a libertarian idea.

MOBIUS · February 12, 2003, 22:01

Personally I think it's a great idea being a Londoner - there will be teething problems at first, especially with the Central line currently not running.

Already there are an extra 300 buses on the streets of London and they have also been cracking down of cars driving in bus lanes. Now that we have a mayor again for London, it is great to see all the inertia of a lack of transport planning in London being gradually swept away.

As far as I'm concerned I can't see a reason for travelling into London by car at all - in the thirteen years I've had a licence, I would have only had to pay once or twice under today's new charges. Big deal!

The only people that are going to be hit are those that can afford the already high expense of running a car into the city and parking it - awww, how sad...

Besides, motorcycles are exempt so they can all buy scooters instead.

I'm hoping all the money will be ploughed back - it almost will have to in the beginning as London's already buckling public transport strains at this new burden.

But then given all the taxes we have to pay on running cars in this country, we should have the best transport system in the entire world...

Felch · February 12, 2003, 22:03

The Tube sounds like an excellent system. In DC we've got a metro system that is good for hitting up touristy spots, but it doesn't cover much of the city, and isn't very extensive in the burbs either.

So you should be proud about that at least.

Boris Godunov · February 12, 2003, 22:08

Good idea.

I've long advocated outright banning non-commercial vehicles from Manhattan, as I think it is the only real solution to the constant gridlock. Maybe increasing the cost of entering the city would help in lieu of that.

Lawrence of Arabia · February 12, 2003, 22:13

I hate King Willie.

Urban Ranger · February 12, 2003, 22:15

Singapore has the best traffic control idea.

Even though other countries can't copy the idea directly, they can use it with modifications. Simply put, issue separate licenses to be used for driving in large cities, say, London or New York City. People without the licenses can park their cars outside of the cities and take public transportation.

MOBIUS · February 12, 2003, 22:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Singapore has the best traffic control idea.

Even though other countries can't copy the idea directly, they can use it with modifications. Simply put, issue separate licenses to be used for driving in large cities, say, London or New York City. People without the licenses can park their cars outside of the cities and take public transportation.

Actually transport of all types was an absolute joy in Singapore - everything was just so... efficient!!!

It'll be even better when the new circle line goes in!

Actually the Singapore subway reminds me of the DC one with its similar architecture and mix of underground and raised railway - the one thing I didn't like was that if you buy single tickets, you have to pay an upfront deposit as the tickets are recycleable (good idea), but the card costs more that the price of the fare so they were losing money on lost tickets. This now mean that when you finish your journey you have to queue up again to get your bloody deposit back! A rare lack of foresight from the Singapore govt...

Graag · February 12, 2003, 22:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Felch X
The Tube sounds like an excellent system. In DC we've got a metro system that is good for hitting up touristy spots, but it doesn't cover much of the city, and isn't very extensive in the burbs either.

So you should be proud about that at least.

It's hard to be proud when you've got your face in someone elses armpit, there's no ventilation and the train you're on stops for no reason.

That said, it is does have quite good coverage of the city, when it's running and when there aren't 6 million other londoners on the same train.

I always thought it was madness to drive into london in the first place. It takes at least as long as the tube, costs a fortune or takes forever to park.

It's not a bad idea in principle, but it's just blantantly stupid to implement it at a time when the tube is in such shambles.

Oh, and I wonder how much of that £1m a day will go on administration, advertising and idiots.

Graag · February 12, 2003, 22:48

Sydney - now theres an underground system. Clean, reliable, cheap and spacious.

Caligastia · February 12, 2003, 22:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming
In New York, you have to take a bridge or tunnel to drive onto Manhatten. You have to pay a toll to enter, or leave. The traffic is still a joke

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
"Oh, I can see this working in Washington and all other American cities..."

You ever driven into Manhattan? Same principle applies -as a matter of fact, I'm not too sure you can actually enter without paying some government department some money - maybe if you walk or bike across the bridges, I guess.

Just to set the record straight...there are no toll charges on the Queensborough, Brooklyn or Manhattan bridges. I'm not sure if there is a toll on the queens-midtown tunnel, but I tend to think there isn't.

Don't worry, beaurocrats will have tolls on those bridges soon enough though.