General Cycling Discussion - London to charge toll on private motorcars !!!

I just saw this on the news...

Traffic has gotten so bad in London that the city has decided to impose a toll charge on driving. The city will use cameras to take photographs of the liscense plate and then mail a bill for $8 to the owner.

Other cities, including NewYork, are watching to see if the plan is sucessful.

There have been quite a few posts on this in the past. Many from me. The congestion charging will be an interesting concept. There are people who are going to activly try and fight it. I thank Ken Livingston (who I think is carless) for having the balls to step up with this. There are always people who claim that they need a car. But really the public transportation is really good and can be used instead. Some people are just too attached to their cars where they are not needed, like inside a large city.

It takes effect tomorrow. So watch for reports Monday night or tuesday morning.

We receive a French channel on our satellite. We saw this story tonight.. Think the charge was like 8 pounds for entering a certain zone... I remarked about this last fall after returing from Singapore. To enter the Central Zone, you have to pay like $5 just to drive within the zone.. There it is monitored by a transponder... Automatically goes on a charge card. In effect during prime traffic times.
I predict this will be the wave of the future everywhere.. Several Londoners were interviewed stating there is bike commuting in their futures..
I like the way the Mayor Of Paris, France handled it. He just eliminated traffic lanes for automobiles and only allowed bicycles within those lanes that had formerly been earmarked for cars..

OK, Here's the lowdown, along with some of my mumblings...

Actually the scheme is slightly more complex. The cameras are there to check number (licence) plates for driver that have not paid. You must pay the £5 in advance each day or in multiples. If you're caught without paying you are liable to a fine of £80!

What's more, someone at the control centre pressed "the button" too early and several fines were posted out before the scheme started. I don't know whether to laugh or cry, but I'm glad I don't need to drive anywhere nere London....

Of course the authorities chose the first day of our school half term holiday to launch the scheme, so it makes the rush hour traffic problem look much better than normal - and so we're all supposed to think that charging works!

Of course real statistics for the effectiveness of this plan will be much swathed in political spin. Not least because on the TV and radio this morning it was stated that other UK cities are looking at making similar charges for car access. Of course, if it really worked to reduce traffic, as opposed to being a cash cow I would be right behind such a scheme. However, I suspect it has been carefully priced to ensure a healthy number of car drivers do not change their habbits. We'll see.

Ok, I agree- there has to be a way to control traffic. But to spy on people and impose on their privacy by using videocameras seems a bit creepy....

I saw a news report earlier this year about an ex-cop who developed a clear spray that you could spray on your license plates. It would cause create a glaze that would cause a glare if the cameras took pictures of your license plates. It was pure genius...

I'll be bringing my bike, but if I decide to rent a car in London, I'm bringing the spray!

Koffee

I had to rent a car to move some stuff out of town. The only rental place I could find that day was right in the centre; collecting and returning the car was a nightmare. The idea of driving in London is sheer madness.
80% of commuters, rich and poor, use public transport. Of the other 20%, some are disabled, some need to carry stuff, but most simply cannot concieve of any other mode of transort. Ken is forcing them to think outside the box.

The media response is surprising. Some of the right-wing press is in favour of charging (capitalist market pricing instead of communist rationing and queing). The mid-market press is rabidly anti-charging, and looking for failure any way they can.

This sounds to be a broader attempt at what we already have in CA. A section of toll lanes between Octy/LActy and Riverside Cty, had been constructed by a pvt concern with state support some years ago. The idea was, if a driver elected to pay for a faster commute he could choose the toll lanes with rates as high as $4 one way.

What the bright ones didn't evaluate was those living in Riverside Cty, do so because they can't afford housing in Octy or Lacty. Consequently, they can't afford a commute cost of $8rt during rush hour and as low as 1.50rt during non-rush hour.

Cal Trans just purchased the state sponsored toll road from the pvt concern, because it wasn't profitable. Now, the state which is in the hole to the tune of 35B is trying to figure out what they can do with it.

We also have a few toll road where one can pay before entering through a toll booth. Or, as I did, buy a transponder and a camera takes a picture of my vehicle as I entering the lanes. Each time I enter the toll roads, my toll bank of $60 is debited a charge and automatically replenishes itself by charging my CC
I'll be interested to learn how it works.

I can't imagine anywhere having more toll roads than OK. It works pretty well actually, we can buy a "pikepass" which is a tiny little radio transmitter that you carry in your car. You keep a balance in your account, and every time you drive a toll road it duns your account for the fee, which is usually less than the cash price if you go through the gates. We end up with better roads, a 75 MPH speed limit, and the construction is MUCH faster than on a normal highway. There are always alternate routes that are free, but way more traffic and less maintenance. It's choice- the American way...

Seems to have got off to an exellent start, first day in.
Listening to interviewers on the radio stopping people in the steets and asking there opinion and reaction to the event .
Most seemed delighted with comments such as "is`nt it great to breath in the air and walk along without cars everwhere".
Up till now statistics point towards a 30% reduction in vehicles entering the zone.
Way to go! now lets up a simarlar system everywhere.

I live in London, and work in the City.

The total lack of traffic in the center of London had to be seen to be believed today. Not being a regular car commuter (maybe 2-3 times a year) I'm mostly in favour of the congestion charging.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out, as an earlier post said other cities are watching the London toll to see how it works.

To give the Americans an idea, it would mean sealing off the whole of Manhattan island and then charging every car and delivery van US$ 8.50 to enter.

On top of this you will need to pay $5.00 for a gallon of fuel,
$18-30 to park for the day, road tax is $200 a year and insurance well over $1,000 a year even for a basic model, it becomes very expensive to drive a car in a European city

Te good news is all the money raised by the toll will be put back into public transport and improving things like cycle lanes across london

I applaud Mayor Livingston's brains and chutzpah in trying this, and hope it spreads to the US. If people want privacy, let 'em walk, ride bikes, or take the bus.

Originally posted by Ed Holland
Of course the authorities chose the first day of our school half term holiday to launch the scheme, so it makes the rush hour traffic problem look much better than normal - and so we're all supposed to think that charging works!


Ken Livingston actually pointed this out on LDN BBC One news and said that it would be at least mid-March before any real numbers could be compiled to see if the scheme was a success or not. There was no attempt at decption for using the first day of the school holiday.

Like's been mentioned already, the cost of 5 GBP is not so steep that it will act as a complete deterrent as people will find it an acceptable amount and over time, they'll grudgingly, but will resign themselves to paying it. The big penalties involved should stimulate a regular income and I hope KL and Bob Kylie will stand good to their word and use it to benefit public transport.

London is an awful place to drive in. Even going by train and tube I find it unpleasant if you get the time wrong, but compared to the car, public transport despite its warts and all, does work quite well most of the time.

Other cities/towns are looking at it with interest but I'm not convinced that it's motivated because of congestion but somewhere in the mind of a council/municipal accountant is a cash cow waiting to be milked.

Other cities/towns are looking at it with interest but I'm not convinced that it's motivated because of congestion but somewhere in the mind of a council/municipal accountant is a cash cow waiting to be milked.

well, yes and no... cities do spend outrageous amounts of money for auto services: roads, traffic cops, emergency services, street cleaning, etc... and while a lot of the money may come from state or federal funds (i don't know much about London's finanacing) but if it is at all like the US, then city funds that are paid by local residents also pay a large share of services that suburban commuters get basically for free when they drive from their community into the city. up until now the only way for cities to recover some of these costs were through tolls and parking, but then only some roads are toll so the distribution is uneven and parking... well, again, some people find a way around it and it encourages illegal parking (plus ticketing enforcement is a major effort)

i think the congestion charging is a great idea b/c
1) it makes a more direct link between those using and those paying for the costs
2) it makes these expenditures more visibile to the taxpayers
3) as long as there is an effort to improve other services and provide opportunities for those who cannot afford the high costs (i.e. improving public transit or disabled-transit services), it should lead to an overall improvement in the quality of life by reducing pollution and congestion and encouraging walking and cycling and creating a safer, quieter, more pleasant city (rather than a traffic-ridden crawling parking lot of honking cars)

i do think sme type of transponder system tied to a pre-paid account would be much more efficient... but mabye they'll offer that in the future.

i do think that congestion pricing is something that we will see more of in the future... people want to drive and do more and more, there are ever-increasing associated costs to be paid, and traffic is an ever-increasing problem... there has to be some way to limit the number of cars and congestion pricing is in general better than some kind of quota or permit system. that it adversely affects the less wealthy is a side-effect that must be handled.

It will be interesting to follow how buses and the Tube in London can handle the increased number of people. I've visited London a couple of times a year for the last 7 years or so and to me it seems public transportation has been going downhill all that time (no pun intended).

As a tourist I don't mind so much if my estimated travel time varies hugely. But I really don't know how the locals cope with all the delays. Hopefully the new system reduces traffic enough to enable the above-ground public transportation to run again. You can always hop off the bus if the traffic is bad, but I do hate being stuck in the Tube.

--J

Originally posted by Brains
Te good news is all the money raised by the toll will be put back into public transport and improving things like cycle lanes across london

Heard that sort of thing before. That'll work as long as they use it in addition to, rather than instead of, the existing funding. (A US analogy is lottery money for education.)

I think it's a good idea, but I wonder it it'll really reduce traffic that much, once people get over the initial shock. What about people who live in the core area? Do they get any special consideration?

Originally posted by roadbuzz
What about people who live in the core area? Do they get any special consideration?

I seem to remember they get a 90% discount. Correct me if I'm wrong.

--J

yes 90% reduction is correct. there is also some provision for the disabled, i think.


Hopefully the new system reduces traffic enough to enable the above-ground public transportation to run again. You can always hop off the bus if the traffic is bad, but I do hate being stuck in the Tube.

i read that 200 police have been stationed for the sole task of ensuring that busses run freely (stalled/parked cars, etc)

It will be very interesting to learn how all the business' fair from this. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a slow down in downtown business and resulting lay offs.

Those interested..... The system cost 205 £million to setup.
Will cost £65 million to finance yearly.
Expected revenew estimated at £139 million per year.
All the subsequent profits have been passed by law, to be ploughed back into financing future upgrading and planning public transport.
After approx 6 months the system will be assesed for viability.
If it has proved worthwhile, other cities in the U.K. May propose similar congestion charges.

Originally posted by Garbear
It will be very interesting to learn how all the business' fair from this. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a slow down in downtown business and resulting lay offs.

Already businesses have responded. One kitchenware company is now offering to pay the congestion charge if you spend at least £50 in the shop.

Originally posted by Bokkie
Already businesses have responded. One kitchenware company is now offering to pay the congestion charge if you spend at least £50 in the shop.

Bokkie... that's what I expect and I predict more fallout of business' within the 8mi zone, even business' moving. Walk-in shops will dig deep to offer incentives attempting to get people from outside of the 8mi radius to shop. It's going to destroy the patronage of the casual shopper. My guess is those living outside the 8mi zone will seek alternative shops outside the 8mi zone or cut back their shopping trips. I suspect this will only hurt the low to middle income folks.

I've also been doing some reading about this radical mayor... His reputation precedes him. I suspect he's hoping this expensive venture revitalizes his career. Otherwise, he's history in the near future.

Originally posted by Garbear
It will be very interesting to learn how all the business' fair from this. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a slow down in downtown business and resulting lay offs.

Why would there be a slow down? Why would there be layoffs. Already the vast vast majority of people who come into the city center of london take transport. Even with the charge, most people who wont come will just take the tube. Yet another doomsayer about lowering our reliance on the car. Some people just want drive-thru everything.

Originally posted by Garbear
It will be very interesting to learn how all the business' fair from this. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a slow down in downtown business and resulting lay offs.

yes, i also don't see this: for the reasons that Spire gave - i think less than 5% of the people going into downtown currently do so by auto... and because this will likely free up more space for more PEOPLE...

Munich for instance changed their downtown some time back in the late 70s (that' a rough guess) so that cars were serverly restricted and the center is pedestrian (and bike) only and businesses complained that they would loose business... in actuality business in downtown INCREASED greatly as there was a higher concentration of people - now of course property rates went up too so maybe some businesses got hurt by that, but overall sales and customers went UP. central Munich is now a very strong shopping area visited by hundreds of thousands of people daily.

i actually read an article yesterday about the London system and this very issue was addressed - their assessment was also that a net INCREASE in business was likely as moe people will be out walking b/c less space will be tied up in traffic.

now obviously certain businesses will be adversely affected as with any change - say drive-thru businesses (if there even are any in central London) or auto-oriented places like car washes or oil change or mechanics... but with any change there will be winners and losers...

anyway, i would be very surprized if the overall business opportunities, sales, customer visits and property values did not increase from the congestion pricing.

Originally posted by Spire
Why would there be a slow down? Why would there be layoffs. Already the vast vast majority of people who come into the city center of london take transport. Even with the charge, most people who wont come will just take the tube. Yet another doomsayer about lowering our reliance on the car. Some people just want drive-thru everything.

Come on spire........ This plan wasn't implemented because of petroleum consumption, nor autos. It was implemented because of "congestion" in the inner city. All you blabber on about is oil, autos and a field of idealist dreams. There are much bigger issues at stake. No doubt many hope a project of this nature is successful at some level, including me.

Over the near term, people will slowly realize the added weekly costs of pvt driving habits into certain zones. What they do then will be the deciding factor, success or failure. My feeling is they will quit driving to certain zones. As for Public transport, in some areas it has slowed to a crawl. I read where one segment is all but shut down due to terrorist related issues and isn't expected to reopen, causing further transportation strain. Storefronts will simultaneously realize fewer customers of sorts visiting the inner zone, later the corporate sector will evaluate the change in their foot-traffic, location and employee affects. Who's going to feel it the most and quickest...low to middle income families and they won't opt for public transport if their not really close.

Public transportation portion of infrastructure is key for all cities and communities and it needs constant review. I've read many articles and attended seminars on this and related issues over the years. I've been involved in my surrounding community's leadership and understand our City Counsels dilemma regarding traffic flow and how that impacts business and development.

Based on what I've read, the vast majority of people visiting the inner 8mi zone are not on public transportation, but pvt transportation, which caused congestion and that's why such a costly investment gamble has been attempted. They've already experienced a few serious tremors and expect many more. They just don't know how big the obstacles will be.

Re-think your statement and it's practicality.

Originally posted by nathank
yes, i also don't see this: for the reasons that Spire gave - i think less than 5% of the people going into downtown currently do so by auto... and because this will likely free up more space for more PEOPLE...

Munich for instance changed their downtown some time back in the late 70s (that' a rough guess) so that cars were serverly restricted and the center is pedestrian (and bike) only and businesses complained that they would loose business... in actuality business in downtown INCREASED greatly as there was a higher concentration of people - now of course property rates went up too so maybe some businesses got hurt by that, but overall sales and customers went UP. central Munich is now a very strong shopping area visited by hundreds of thousands of people daily.

There not attempting to make a gigantic mall out of the inner zone with this program. It's to slow congestion caused by pvt autos.



i actually read an article yesterday about the London system and this very issue was addressed - their assessment was also that a net INCREASE in business was likely as moe people will be out walking b/c less space will be tied up in traffic.

That is nothing more then conjecture. I read multiple articles in the last few weeks to the contrary. Drive thru is the least affected, mostly because there are fewer of them. First, retail storefronts are the most volatile sector and quickly affected, then comes employment issues, due to changing traffic patterns, long term development commitments, taxation and actual operational expenses.



now obviously certain businesses will be adversely affected as with any change - say drive-thru businesses (if there even are any in central London) or auto-oriented places like car washes or oil change or mechanics... but with any change there will be winners and losers...

anyway, i would be very surprized if the overall business opportunities, sales, customer visits and property values did not increase from the congestion pricing.

Why is it that those making such socio-economical statements never are vested in the outcome...

The problem is that people like Garbear only see the over-consumptionistic, American standpoint. The idea of using public transit is unheard of. The state with the largest commuter population that use public Transit is New York is at about 25% and that is far higher than any other state. Garbear simply wishes to drive his huge, unnecessarily polluting vehicule everywhere. Perhaps he has not witnessed a European city, only the 12-16lane super highways that are commonplace in the United States.

When you compare the amount of people that can be transported per minute is FAR FAR FAR higher by rail or in a bus lane than in a regular traffic lane. Be that rail underground or above. But I wouldn't expect you to realise this because you are obviously overconsumed with driver and are blind to any other alternative. The number of people that can be transported into London by car (at 1 driver per car) is far fewer than the number that could come in by bus or train. So, obviosuly, what you have read, is wrong, or biased, or lying.

It is most likely that there will be little or no difference in the amount of people that visit central london stores. I doubt you can provide any creidble evidence otherwise.

In Europe, public transit is the standard and not a level down like in the United States. They are not overly dependant on the car and have alternatives.

By the way, they don't even sell the Escalade in England.

Originally posted by Spire
The problem is that people like Garbear only see the over-consumptionistic, American standpoint. The idea of using public transit is unheard of. The state with the largest commuter population that use public Transit is New York is at about 25% and that is far higher than any other state. Garbear simply wishes to drive his huge, unnecessarily polluting vehicule everywhere. Perhaps he has not witnessed a European city, only the 12-16lane super highways that are commonplace in the United States.

When you compare the amount of people that can be transported per minute is FAR FAR FAR higher by rail or in a bus lane than in a regular traffic lane. Be that rail underground or above. But I wouldn't expect you to realise this because you are obviously overconsumed with driver and are blind to any other alternative. The number of people that can be transported into London by car (at 1 driver per car) is far fewer than the number that could come in by bus or train. So, obviosuly, what you have read, is wrong, or biased, or lying.

It is most likely that there will be little or no difference in the amount of people that visit central london stores. I doubt you can provide any creidble evidence otherwise.

In Europe, public transit is the standard and not a level down like in the United States. They are not overly dependant on the car and have alternatives.

By the way, they don't even sell the Escalade in England.

Spire... as bright as you are... your statements are often times nothing short of student dribble. You didn't even read my post :mad:

Originally posted by Garbear
Spire... as bright as you are... your statements are often times nothing short of student dribble. You didn't even read my post :mad:

I didn't think you could refute any of it.

As usually you have brought this thread down to a childish level. If you choose to continue rationally, I'd be happy to discuss, otherwise I will ignore other posts like this one.

Originally posted by Bokkie
Already businesses have responded. One kitchenware company is now offering to pay the congestion charge if you spend at least £50 in the shop.

£50 might just buy you a wooden spoon in a central London boutique :)

Originally posted by Garbear
It's going to destroy the patronage of the casual shopper.
Well, I don' t know about London, but in pretty much any US city, the demise of the casual downtown shopper occured years ago. There are lots of reasons, but congestion is certainly one of them. How long are you willing to circle the block looking for parking. Or pay for a space in a parking garage and hoof it to whatever shops you want to visit. And then, too, you've fought traffic and lights to get there, and again to leave... gawd. It's worse than a trip to Wal-Mart! :eek:

I have been to Central London and Central Singapore.. Singapore has a similiar plan as London. No shortage of people in Singapore in the daytime.. If anything, Singapore's Riverwalk is more desirable because traffic is not choking pedesterian traffic. There is so much to offer in London or Singapore and so much commerce- restricing automobiles would have no impact.. Having to add the ugly parking structures, I would think, would take away from the best use of land..

Originally posted by Garbear
Based on what I've read, the vast majority of people visiting the inner 8mi zone are not on public transportation, but pvt transportation, which caused congestion and that's why such a costly investment gamble has been attempted. They've already experienced a few serious tremors and expect many more. They just don't know how big the obstacles will be.

Re-think your statement and it's practicality.

I don't think that's true Garbear. Congestion has been so bad in London for years now thatmost people who go there on a regular timetable (to the office etc) take the tube or bus, and even those outwith commute to the nearest train station and train in.
The M25 motorway was erected to bypass traffic going through the centre, but even now it is often at a standstill.

They created red and green zones to prevent private cars parking and blocking the thouroughfare for public transport, this is a further extension.

Although Londoners complain about their transport system, it is probably the most integrated in the country. The difficulty we have is that people think it is their right to use their car. The fastes way to travel in London has for a long time been the bike, but congestion made that also the most dangerous. (a cycle courier in london has a useful life about as long as a sapper in the Somme in WW1 :))

It's also sheer volume. London has a population greater than the whole of Scotland, and a lot of that population works in the centre.

I don't think businesses will suffer too much, as most Londoners in the suburbs shop etc in the suburbs. Those within the zone don't travel outwith it. My brother lived in camden for 4 years and had never been to Harrods, down Oxford street etc. No need to. London is like a huge collection of little villages, I imagine like many large US cities.

The centre of London is a huge draw for tourists and has many specialist shops, but those people don't tend to drive there anyway.

one thing I think it will promote is cycling, especially in summer when the air quality won't be as bad as it used to be

London is not like other cities. The "downtown" area is NOT used by Londoners to do regular shopping. The West End retail part of central London has fashion, jewellery, boutiques and high class chain stores. Most of the shoppers are tourists, and if they want to transport stuff, they use taxis.
Design shops which sell larger items like furnature have always offered free delivery within London. The main shopping street of Oxford Street has been closed to private cars for about 10 years, but still the shoppers come.
I used to live in central London, and when I wanted to buy anything mundane, like clothes pegs, I had to travel to a shop outside of the central area.

I worked in a photographic shop near Trafalger Square for a year, and very few (<1%)of our customers arrived by car. There is simply nowhere to park.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by chewa
(a cycle courier in london has a useful life about as long as a sapper in the Somme in WW1 :))

What!!!! they are machine gunned or bayoneted. :D

Seriously though....... We should applaud Ken Livingstone for having the b**ls to put his head on the block and coming up with this initiative.
Its galling to hear politicians distance themselves from any responsibility as to the outcome of this scheme.
If it proves to be a great succsess, my guess is they will jump on the bandwagon, claiming their part in making it so.

Also interesting to hear that 10,000 motorists refused or somehow thought they could evade the £5 charge on the first day. An £80 fine is in the post. :D and 3/4 £million extra into the kitty to pay for aternative transport :) Keep up the good work guys......

By the way, Taxis are exempt from the £5 charge.

As are long wheel based landrovers ! - Apperently they are classed as a 'bus' as in theory they can take upto 12 people - I have a long wheel based landrover, and whilst you might squeeze in 11 kids or even 11 very close mates for a quick visit to the local pub, no way can it be classed a a bus or a vehicle capable of taking more than 5 people in any sort of comfort. But I live in London, so I will be regestering my 'bus' for a one off £10 fee !.

Someone is going to get wise to this loophole very soon I suspect, either that or knackered old landrovers will suddenly become very expensive cars, as they potentially will save the regular London commuter £4,000 (US$6,000) a year

(By the way, I usually cycle in - use the car maybe 3 times a year)

Are politicians driving to the seat of goverment, liable to this charge?.

I suspect not!. These people always get away with anything like this.

If they do pay..... Perhaps we will see "the right honarable" Mr Prescott swapping his two Jags, for a "clapped out" old 12 seater Landrover. LOL.

Or, see some rich Brits and politicians start cycling and make vintage UK-built lightweights into the new status symbols--perhaps there'll be a news shot of Tony Blair riding into work on his '51 taper-tube Gillot, or '68 Hetchins Hellenic!

I can't see the US Foriegn Minister, the Right Honourable member for Texas North, the Prime minister Tony Blair, travelling the 200 yards from 10 Downing St to the Houses of parliment in anything other than his usual fleet of blacked out Jags

In reply to an earlier message, yes politicians will also be liable to pay the charge, however as most of them will have official residences within the extended zone they will be lable for a 90% discount.

The politician that introduced the charge, the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, who has no official car and does not even own a car.

Because of the widespread use of diesels in the UK another hoped for benefit is to make the air breathable. Last time I was in London the air was like a blue fog in the middle of the afternoon. Maintenance of the underground has been underfunded for years, one line has been shut since Jan because of motors falling off the bottom of the cars. Last weekend my son-in-law had to wait 1.5 hrs for a bus home after he left his gym. Frequency of service is more critical to success of a public transport system than low cost or comfort.

One thing not taken into account by some posters is the economic value of time. Although traffic in London is not as bad as, say Bangkok, where peak-hour traffic (having been to Bangkok, I think that's all day) proceeds at the leisurely pace of two miles an hour (I think I can crawl faster than that), it's pretty bad. You have to compute in the costs of time and frustration when figuring this out. By limiting the number of cars in London, you make those left move faster, allowing them a more efficent and economical use of time. And by putting others on public transport, you make their trip faster. And those on bikes are faster still. The net result is a saving in time, which can then be used for other purposes. In fact, I doubt many of the people going into London in their cars are going to shop, but more likely to work. So I suspect the economic impact of this may be small or none or even a slight improvment in the fate of small shopkeepers in central London. Also factor in that it costs far more to park in London than this fee, so if you're driving in, you're quite ready to fork over enormous amounts of cash anyhoo.
I expect US cities to start doing this soon. The most likely canidate is New York city, because a majority of city residents now do not own cars, making it more politically palatable, and there is a mass transit system in place. You need viable transport options for such an idea to work-- preferably more than one. It won't happen in L.A., because there's no viable mass transit-- and as a result, the length (in time, assuming the distance stays the same) of the average L.A. commute is projected to double in the next ten years. Enjoy sitting in your cars, guys-- you could be doing something economically (shopping, raising your kids, working in a non-profit, I dunno) worthwhile in that time, instead of sitting there pumping pollution into the air and stewing into socially unacceptable levels of road rage. Which I would argue is a non-productive use of that valuable resource, time.
Look, I live in a smallish American city with minimal public transport. Even here, the traffic is bad enough and the parking problematic enough so that if I have to go the three to four miles to downtown, it's far, far, far quicker to hop on the bike and cruise downtown on it. I park and lock up right where I'm going (or take the bike in if I'm riding a better one) and usually move faster than the auto traffic. I work at an art center four miles from the house or a University the same distance, and the commute is always quicker on the bike. It's also cheaper (no parking fees, no gas, etc, etc.) in addition to the time saving, and it doesn't pollute and I get exersize. This is what is know as a win-win-win-win situation, where driving a car on the same trip would be a lose-lose-lose-lose situation.
Incidentally, although this idea has been instituted by the infamous "Red" Ken, it's also been championed by the right for quite some time. The most recent issue of the Economist, certainly no Bolshievek rag, cheers the implementation (although they favour a more technological method of charging and worry the present system is poorly designed. That's the technology that's poorly designed, not the idea, folks) of this fee. I guess good ideas know no political boundaries.

I am just wondering- what happens if the mass transit in London doesn't work efficiently enough to handle the sudden increase in pedestrian traffic? It just seemed from what people in London were saying, the mass transit system wasn't that hot now, so what are they doing to improve on the mass transit when this law goes into effect?

Koffee

The bus service has been expanded, but with the current numbers of public transport commuters, a few extra drivers will not make much difference. The numbers really are pretty small, maybe 10,00 drivers amongst 1000,000 P/T commuters.
The other radical step which Our Ken wants to take is to finance the entire underground netweork through bonds. The central government has opposed this and wants to split up the infrastructure(tracks and stations) from the service providers (train operators), and wants private companies to bid for the system. Its been tried and failed on normal rail services. All we know is that the current underground service is badly financed and badly operated.

super post Poguemahone!!! my thoughts exactly!

Koffee... London is doing a lot to improve the transit. i read that there are now 200 police on full duty to ensure that the busses are not interrupted with illegal parkers and accidents and whatnot.

they are earmarking most or all of the money raised from the auto congestion fee program for public transit.

i read an interview with Ken a few days ago in a German businees publication and sounds like he's really got his stuff down... i was really impressed.

my only major concern is that that Poguemahone stated the Economist said (haven't seen the Economist article) that the system is kind of fuzzy. something more hi-tech with a chip transponder or something would be much more efficient and less trouble. i hope this technology flaw doesn't mess it up.

Poguemahone: and yes, i too have heard much from the right free-market types about this... that we need to charge for congestion in order to allow efficiency and good use b/c the road system is becoming virtually useless b/c of so many cars and the only way to reduce it is through fees (the right is obviously against quota or basic fair-use regulations). of course these types also tend to support REALLY high fees so no one but the rich can afford it so the rich are able to drive on virtually traffic-free streets. i think that is going too far (say $100+/day)...

yes, i too think the US will in the not to distant future also implement some type of congestion pricing. i also think it makes sense. and yes, it will adversely affect the poor, but the fact is traffic is getting outrageous and no one wants to voluntarily give up his car (except maybe us rare bike commuters), so charging is about the only way to do it. of course in cities without a good public transit infrastructure the future is going to be UGLY as traffic grows and there is no alternative as whole cities like LA or Atlanta or Houston are car-centric and car-dependent!

Well, half term is over and the traffic in London is as light as ever. The naysayers claimed that it would breeak down after the half-term break ended.

I'm so happy that this is turning into a success. Hopefully some US cities will follow suit, particulary like those sprawl cities like Atlanta. It seems to me that LA would probably be the first. $10 to drive into the city, that should definitly have an effect. It would definity get public transit going.

In New York, the pecentage of communters that don't drive is already VERY high at about 1/4 and there effectivly already is a congeston charge because many of the bridges and tunnels have tolls (at least as I understand it, I could be wrong, I have paid the toll on the George Washington a few times).

Not likely-

Anyone that's ever been to LA will know that the traffic problem is NOT trying to get into downtown... traffic in ALL of LA is BAD.... they would have to virtually eliminate all traffic in every part of LA and force everyone onto public transportation. It is the worst. Getting from San Diego to Culver City takes like 40 minutes... why is that? Everyone's driving. Why is everyone driving? Partly because public transportation cannot possibly accomodate the urban sprawl. I took the bus from downtown LA to Redondo Beach one time- it took three and a half hours! By car, it maybe would have taken 45 minutes, tops.

After that, every time I go to LA, I rent a car. There's absolutely NO WAY I'll ever pay for inefficient public transportation.

When I was living in LA, public transportation was a means for the poor and homeless to get from point A to point B. They were often overcrowded, dirty, and always slow. I'd be waiting at the bus stop for 15- 30 minutes for a late bus trying to get to work on time. In order for me to make it to work on time, I would have to get up 3 hours early and catch a bus with 2 hours to go. I'd take the bus down Venice Ave. to La Cienega, which would take 45 minutes. Then I'd wait for the connecting bus (15 minutes or so), and take that bus up La Cienega to Wilshire. The entire process took almost 2 hours. And this is so I could make my early morning shift (7AM)! Every commute by bus takes at least 45 minutes... a trip from UCLA to Santa Monica- 45 minutes to an hour! What else are you supposed to do but get an auto and fight the traffic? I didn't see any way out of it, and I eventually got myself a nice little motorbike to rip through traffic. Suddenly, my two hour trip was reduced to 35 minutes (45 minutes on a bad day), and Koffee got 2 hours of sleep tacked onto her day that she didn't have from the 4 hour commute (to work and back).

LA has a lot of problems- simply generalizing that charging money to go into downtown will solve the problem is not the answer. In all the time I lived in LA, I only went downtown 2 times. People do not fight to get downtown- they fight to get anywhere. LA traffic is incredible, and it extends as far away as Long Beach. To clear up the traffic problems of LA is going to take A LOT MORE than simply charging a fee.

Anyone that hasn't been to LA should go over at least once and take public transportation for a week- after a week of dealing with that nightmare, they'll be BEGGING for a car. That's why I will always rent a car when I go to LA. I also think it would be unfair at this point for the powers that be in Los Angeles to arbitrarily charge some fee without truly studying the real source of the problem. After a few years of living in LA, I admit, I still wouldn't know how to solve it. LA is MASSIVE... it extends so far and includes so many cities that I couldn't possibly see how they could enforce a fee. Everywhere you go, there's traffic problems. They would probably be more effective at charging a sliding scale tax for everyone based on how much driving vs. public transportation you actually used. But then, you'd have to keep track of how many times you took public transportation, how many times you drove, how many miles you put in, where you went, etc. It would be insane to try it.

What may work for one city may not work for another. I live in downtown Chicago- I certainly wouldn't mind them imposing a fee for all those yee-haws that roll in here from out of town and drive 2 miles an hour and keep their blinking light on because they can't figure out where 2 North LaSalle is, or because they are so overwhelmed by the architecture of the city that they use their cars as a sightseeing vehicle instead of the means to get from point A to point B. Too many Cletus, the Slackjaw Yokels in cars means downtown Chicago traffic is tied up a little too much. Fortunately, we have a great public transport system. The unfortunate part about out great public transit is that it cannot accomodate for the rapid rise in population growth. Anyone trying to travel to downtown Chicago in rush hour traffic will see buses and trains packed to the point where you have to wait for 3 trains before you can even force your way into the car of the train, and then when you're in the train, you are literally shoved up against the next person. In the summertime, when the air conditioning shut down, and especially when the train goes underground (pray there's not a delay while you're underground either, or you will lose your damn mind suffocating in a dark tunnel with no air in the car to cool it down), it is oppressive. One of the last times I got on the train was September 12, 2001. I got on the red line and we got underground, and of course, it was crowded... and the train ahead suddenly stopped. Then our train got stopped. And when we looked behind us, the next train had stopped- no one knew what the problem was, but the train was crowded and the lights went out, and after about a minute, the conductor said that they were experiencing problems on the track and we'd be stuck there for several more minutes. In the meantime, people were coming down the stairs and the train had gotten so full I started feeling clausterphobic- and after several minutes, we hadn't moved, and people started getting pretty upset, and other people were shoving to get on the train- I jumped off and ran upstairs and jumped a taxi. If they decide to impose a fee for folks to drive in, they'd better be ready with alternative transportation. As much as I love our public transit, and as great as I think it is, it is a long way from being efficient enough to accomodate an even greater increase of commuters. It would be a nightmare. I wouldn't even be surprised if it led to a population decrease as people and businesses fled the city and moved into the suburbs, where public transportation would be less of a problem, commutes would be more convenient, and real estate is more abundant and cheaper than downtown. Of course, this would lead to a substantial loss of income for Chicago, so as this is the worst case scenario, they will probably figure something out. I moved downtown a few years ago because I couldn't stand the commute, but if my jobs moved back to the suburbs, I'd certainly follow my jobs back out to the suburbs, buy a nice house with lots of land, and enjoy getting my extra sleep back that I'd lost from commuting back and forth. I mostly bike now anyway, but the cycling distance from Chicago to the south suburbs (for instance) wouldn't work for me...


Koffee


Koffee

The irony is that LA once had the best public transit system in the USA.

Yes, maybe back in the 1920s.

I remember when I was at UCLA, when we studied about how the automobile industry basically hijacked the public transit system in order to promote automobile useage and weaken the public transit. It was fascinating.

It worked.


Koffee

That's why you take all the profits from the sceme and put it into public transit!