I hate Labour politicians. A lot. They make my life a misery. They cost me money. Not content with Ken Livingstone charging me £8 a day to drive into work (I don't have a choice. I finish work at midnight most days and can't get home on the train), Greenwich Council are now seriously contemplating introducing a charge to use the Blackwall Tunnel, as well as a wide area of Greenwich itself. Madness. Total madness. If they do it by a coin machine like on the Dartford Bridge it will mean even more congestion and cars belching out fumes. I wouldn't mind if the tunnel was actually functioning properly every night (well, I would, but you know what I mean). Many is the night when they have closed off one of the tunnels or lanes and it takes about half an hour to get through. Or, you have the alternative of driving down the A13 and over the Dartford Bridge - a mere 25 mile detour. Very environmentally friendly. Not. Greenwich Watch puts it thus...Anyone who's seen the Tunnel Approach in the morning on both sides will know that such a scheme would make an absolute fortune every day. Considering Blackwall is the only viable river crossing in the Borough (the Woolwich Ferry is a nightmare) it's outrageous that there should even be a proposal to charge for it. The nearest other options are Dartford (miles away), Rotherhithe (single lane), or even worse Tower Bridge (inside the main Congestion Zone).
Anyway, Greenwich Council are carrying out a rather confidential consultation exercise on a possible Congestion Charge at the moment. They are employing a Bristol based market research agency called Accent to conduct face to face interviews with Greenwich residents. However, the good burghers of Greenwich are not being asked whether they think Congestion Charging is a good idea or not. All they are being asked is their views on two alternative strategies - one which includes the Blackwall Tunnel and one which does not. Needless to say, such a scheme was not in Labour's manifesto last year and when the local newspaper did a poll in November 73% of local residents opposed Congestion Charging.
The survey, a copy of which has come into my possession, lays out different charging options and uses emotive language like "clean cars" and "dirty cars". It gives charging options ranging from £2 per trip through the tunnel up to £6 to drive into the zone. So at its cheapest, those who have to use the tunnel every weekday will be charged a minimum of £1000 a year. Nice little stealth tax, eh?
Of course the effect will be to push more traffic onto the A20 and into Lewisham, so Greenwich can say its zone works and "bugger Lewisham". That's what Labour calls "joined up government", I guess.
I hope Greenwich Conservatives will be opposing it with all their might.
I think you should be exempt from the Congestion Charge, so long as you have to pay £ 10 for every post that contains the phrase 'joined-up government' and £ 5 for every facile non-sequitur specious argument which makes out that only Labour have pro environment policies, or that only Tory politicians are willing to take a stand against Europe..
ReplyDeleteI think one should be exempt from the charge, excepting for every time you post a puerile little post under the nomme de guerre "anonymous".
ReplyDeleteIain, I think you have the makings of a great bumper sticker (I don't know why, but I just know it's a goer) with BUGGER LEWISHAM.
Iain, You whinge about congestion charging, yet I bet you also whinge about charging by mileage to get to the Devon countryside.
ReplyDeleteDo you want to :-
A-Charge people per mile travelled, by loading up petrol tax, thus hitting people in the country who have no alternative transport, or
B- Charge people who travel at the most congested times despite the fact that they have a public transport alternative.
It is A or B - Option C, which is to have massive congestion, queues, pollution and gridlock but the 'freedom' to drive but allowing you to whinge to your hearts content is not, I'm afraid available.
I had epilepsy 10 years ago, and had to give up my driving licence.
Do you think I sat on my arse at home not going anywhere because that TINA [There Is No Alternative] argument is so bloody convenient?
No, and you wouldn't either if you 'thought outside the box' a little more, instead of being constrained by outmoded, outdated & narrow minded 'petrol-head' thinking.
If cars aren't supposed to be using the tunnel, who is?
ReplyDeleteMaybe there will be a charge on all the bridges across the Thames, and maybe a passport check-point as well?
A-Charge people per mile travelled, by loading up petrol tax, thus hitting people in the country who have no alternative transport
ReplyDeleteThe fuel tax already does exactly what you ask of congestion charging, because people in the country don't suffer from congestion and therefore use less fuel. On highly congested roads more fuels is used, so the drivers pay a congestion charge.
Anonymous (there's a surprise), yes I do bloody whinge. I whinge about the crippling taxes this Labour Government imposes on me for scant little reward. I whinge at having to pay £8 a day to the Mayor of London for the privilege of driving on roads which I have already paid for through general taxation. As I patiently explained in my post I have to drive in because there are no trains to Kent after midnight, so I don;t have any choice.
ReplyDeleteAnd for the record I am not wholly against road pricing as long as it doesn't add to the general burden which the motorist already labours under. I agree with the user pays principle. But you could also argue that the user already pays through petrol duty.
I don't suppose most of the residents of Greenwich are even aware of the existence of the Blackwall Tunnel since the A102(M) is isolated from local traffic; it's also a motorway - are local authorities allowed to interfere with motorways?
ReplyDeleteAs to asking residents of Greenwich there preferences - maybe the first question should be, "Are you legally in this country?".
Trying to stand back and take a wider view: All of this is just a precursor to the much talked about "roadpricing" in the future. Lots of cities in the UK are talking about introducing congestion charges.
ReplyDeleteThe government should intervene and work out what should be done on a wider scale. All road pricing should be abandoned until then INCLUDING the congestion charge. We're only a little island. It's a ridiculous concept that we're going to have all these little islands of congestion charges.
I live in Surrey Docks and would be sandwiched in between the congestion charge zone and the proposed Greenwich Zone! yet I would qualify for a discount for neither!
This is one for you Iain , Does the tide reach or go over the tunnel if so they can charge , welcome to what we have every day only £1.30 each way Liverpool to Wallasey and it's the M53 motorway
ReplyDeleteroute ,your friend maggie put that one in ,it's part of a tidal estuary ,our nearest free bridge is Runcorn about 20miles away and you don't want to go near that
If they push them onto the A20 and the like, then Ken already has a bill for parliament so he can charge em more.
ReplyDeleteI would suggest you chaps type 'supplementary tolls provision' into google and read the bill that is already before parliament.
Transport for Lefties has put this up so Ken Leninspart can toll individual roads to the edge of Greater London eg the A40, A1, A3 etc.
It would give him power to 'grab' the road from local council control and nail up his hideous camera towers anywhere he likes (including Crown land).
Even better, the bill will give TFL powers to enter your vehicle to check - and even remove - the toll-paying kit (which is a charge card mounted in the windscreen).
If you obstruct the official the maximum penalty will be up to six months in jail. It's the same for avoiding the toll and obscuring your numberplate.
The new 'tag and beacon' system will kick off in early 2009 and you can be sure Kenny is signing the contract this year so if he loses next May it will be too expensive for his sucessor to remove (whch is what he did with the current C-Charge).
You also know, of course, that the C-Charge numberplate cameras on 24 hours per day and used by the Old Bill. Ever wondered how they nicked the scumbags associated with the shooting of the female PC in Bradford? C-Charge cameras tracked the car back through London.
The councils that make up Greater Manchester have just voted for a similar system that tolls 15 arterial roads as far out as Wigan.
As the future Greater London scheme will be based on Co2 emissions, any car shoving out more than 225g/km will be charged £25 per day. The clever thing is that many of the cars coming in will be from outside London and so the drivers can't vote against been fleeced by TFL.
Still, any car shoving out less than 120gkm will be able to drive in for free from 2008.
Funnily enough, Ken spent £18,000 on a Toyota Prius last year (104gkm). He doesn't drive. But his Missus Emma Beal does. She also has two children and a high powered job at the GLA. You don't suppose Kenny boy has bought the Prius so Emms can drive to work for free do you?
Let them swipe Oyster Cards, eh Ken?
PS In 1998 the London bus network made £100,000 surplus. This year it will need a £1.1 billion subsidy.
The C-Charge, which broke even last Autumn, makes £110m per year, tops. Subsidising London's buses will, between now and 2012, cost more than the Olympics.
Christ, what is it about anonymous commenters that they have to abandon spelling, punctuation and grammar in their half-baked, drivelling posts?
ReplyDeletePlease, for the love of all that's sacred, use a full-stop now and again- Labour hasn't started taxing the use of them yet!
You'll find that most socialist commenters take pride in modelling their literacy skills on those of John Prescott. It's all part of their 'chip on shoulder' class warfare thing. "Eeee baaah ecky-thump lad, these tories think like how them lot is better than us working class comrades, with all their full stops and grammar and whatnot and anyway its full employment, the hospitals are clean, it's the longest period of growth for two thousand years and eee bah ferret, we've abolished grammar schools so why do we need grammar at all its a tory bourgeoise attack on t'working classes and anyway we've got the best ever exam results ever so lets keep the red flag flying comrades, ecky-thump lads, we'll show them fox-hunting toffs who's in charge, not long now eh and oh b****r can I do that bit again, oh drat we're live on air, bring me a member of the electorate cos I need to punch someone...."
ReplyDeleteWell I'm 'working class', by their consideration, but I taught myself to read and write to the best of my abilities- fortunately, I wouldn't allow my comprehensive schooling to drag me up (being 'brought up' by a comprehensive education was not an option available to me).
ReplyDeleteYou're right about the 'chip on the shoulder' thing, though. Mawkish sentimentality is the description I like best- some people just can't let go.
Chaps, I put this Guido yesterday, but it I think you might be interested...
ReplyDeleteI've been following road charging as a hack since 2000. I would suggest you chaps type 'supplementary tolls provision' into google and read the bill that is already before parliament.
Transport for Lefties has put this up so Ken Leninspart can toll individual roads to the edge of Greater London eg the A40, A1, A3 etc.
It would give him power to 'grab' the road from local council control and nail up his hideous camera towers anywhere he likes (including Crown land).
Even better, the bill will give TFL powers to enter your vehicle to check - and even remove - the toll-paying kit (which is a charge card mounted in the windscreen).
If you obstruct the official the maximum penalty will be up to six months in jail. It's the same for avoiding the toll and obscuring your numberplate.
The new 'tag and beacon' system will kick off in early 2009 and you can be sure Kenny is signing the contract this year so if he loses next May it will be too expensive for his sucessor to remove (whch is what he did with the current C-Charge).
You also know, of course, that the C-Charge numberplate cameras on 24 hours per day and used by the Old Bill. Ever wondered how they nicked the scumbags associated with the shooting of the female PC in Bradford? C-Charge cameras tracked the car back through London.
The councils that make up Greater Manchester have just voted for a similar system that tolls 15 arterial roads as far out as Wigan.
As the future Greater London scheme will be based on Co2 emissions, any car shoving out more than 225g/km will be charged £25 per day. The clever thing is that many of the cars coming in will be from outside London and so the drivers can't vote against been fleeced by TFL.
Still, any car shoving out less than 120gkm will be able to drive in for free from 2008.
Funnily enough, Ken spent £18,000 on a Toyota Prius last year (104gkm). He doesn't drive. But his Missus Emma Beal does. She also has two children and a high powered job at the GLA. You don't suppose Kenny boy has bought the Prius so Emms can drive to work for free do you?
Let them swipe Oyster Cards, eh Ken?
PS In 1998 the London bus network made £100,000 surplus. This year it will need a £1.1 billion subsidy.
The C-Charge, which broke even last Autumn, makes £110m per year, tops. Subsidising London's buses will, between now and 2012, cost more than the Olympics.
apologies - it's already been posted across!
ReplyDeleteI might add something to this, having re-read the story. When Labour councils talk about 'clean' and 'dirty' they mean theoretical CO2 emissions.
ReplyDeleteThe trouble is that this is nonsense. Chelsea school run mum in her 15mpg Porsche who does 10 miles per day, is putting out less CO2 than Mr Mondeo who does 40 miles per day and gets 24mpg in heavy traffic. But under the future CC scheme, she pays £25 and he pays £8.
But using CO2 emissions (which are stored on a DVLA database and cross-referenced with all car numberplates issued since 2001) has allowed the class warriors (who will re-appear as Blair goes) to tax particular types of vehicles off the road.
What's not widely appreciated is that London is one of the 'dirtiest' cities in Europe. By dirty I mean pollutants harmful to health. Most nasties come from diesel engines, especially those in older, badly maintained, hard-driven and heavy commerical vehicles.
Of 21,000 black cabs, 16,000 don't even meet Euro 2 emission standards from 1996. And high mileage worn engines have made them moving smog machines.
A petrol-powered modern car burns fuel so cleanly, you can no longer gas yourself.
Indeed, Nitrogen Oxide and tiny particulate levels easily exceed the EU annual limits. Camden has even laid titanium dioxide coated paving stones to try and break down smog-causing NOx in the summer sunshine.
New York, Hong Kong, Dehli, Tokyo have all forced public transport to switch to ultra-clean gas power. The atmosphere in these cities is so much better than in London.
So, don't let the mad lefties tell your car is dirty. If all 21,000 black cabs were replaced by petrol powered Land Rover Discoveries, the atmosphere would be hugely cleaner. Fact.
And Iain - don't you find the bogus statistics schtick of the Labour lot so utterly, utterly depressing?
Livingstone had to go to Buckinghamshire to find a majority who thought the West London tram was a good idea!
Sorry, sorry, I know...
ReplyDeleteAn earlier poster asked the very sharp question about local councils taking over responsibility for a motorway.
Well, over the last few years Prescott has been quietly 'de-trunking' the national road network.
This means that roads regarded as part of a 'national network' have been handed over to local councils and the much-loved 'city region' collections of local councils.
The M5 running unto Bristol from the north has been handed over, along with the roads coming out of the east coast ports. There are many others.
Which all means that local councils can act locally and affect national and international traffic. Good eh?
Sinister.
ReplyDeletehttp://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/blog/_archives/2007/1/31/2697661.html#838760
Go to this and you'll find the uncovering of a bizzarre Smith Institute meeting in 2003. It was between the usual suspects and bunch of German government types.
Scroll down to 'Policy input produced by this group includes' and download
'PLP Transport Cmtee and LFIG Submission: Towards a new Labour Transport Strategy '
In the download, I found this on the philosophy of the future on road charging.
'Engaging public support
3.15 The central messages to the voter of the strategic approach described above are simple:
(a) You will increasingly have to pay for road space each time you take your car out; but
(b) Traffic will not grow as fast, so there will be less congestion when you need to use roads;
(c) The money will be put back into transport, so there will be real improvements in roads and public transport alternatives;
(d) More of the money will be under local control, so you will have more say on how it is spent.
3.16 This is a tough and unfamiliar message...
3.17 Two key elements will be understanding, first, where public opinion stands and second, how far it can be moved forward through discussion and understanding. Two processes will help in this:
(a) Opinion research (b) Public participation'
and get this - mind games....
3.18 Because these techniques use a sample (ideally representative, but sometimes self-chosen), they only show what people can be persuaded of. Any actual persuasion applies only to those involved – the rest of the population will still hold their original views. Rolling out the conclusions is a task for public relations and political leadership.
Incidently, two Smith Institute people were there along with Ed Balls, KPMG, the TUC etc. Meet the real establishment...
Mach, true in one way:
ReplyDelete"Please, for the love of all that's sacred, use a full-stop now and again- Labour hasn't started taxing the use of them yet"
The "way" that says who gives a sweet FA about the use of!
English grammar has not been taught for the last ten years or there-abouts.
Tom Tyler - Funny! By 'eck, lad, yo'r a proper star, yo are.
ReplyDeleteMoroccan Roll: Chaps, I put this Guido yesterday, but it I think you might be interested....
No.
Nor the endless explicatory follow-ups.
As Labour have already lost the south-east they're just casting around for ways to tax you so they can throw more money into marginals further north.
ReplyDeleteThe border round Greenwich in the picture looks like a thumbs-up sign. Stick the word TAXED in it, and the slogan 'Tax: Labour loves it' or similar underneath and that is my contribution to the 18Doughty Street anti-tax campaign.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry. I won't give up my day job.
This is labour true to form. You see I remember the 60s I was a labour supporter then. They brought the country to its knees by their crack pot ideas, and they are slowly doing it again. Labour governments will always end up destroying what they set up to build as they believe in spending our money for us. They just keep interfearing until the whole thing collapses. Whole generations have to learn about them the hard way again.
ReplyDeleteBut Greenwich is drowning in traffic, as our all the boroughs that lie on the main "inner routes" like K & C, Lambeth, Southwark, Islington, etc. Historically this goes to the decision in the 70s to drop the very controversial Inner London Motorways scheme that would have connected all these roads up on elevated motorways. This was a good decision from the point of view of the people living on those routes, but has left key points like the BT and Greenwich in hopeless gridlock. The only possible answer in London is more public transport and higher congestion charging, but the public transport needs to be real and convincing now, and consist of new light rail, underground and monorail projects and not Ken's half-arsed "more buses good" programme which just stuffs the roads even more. The sad fact is Iain that you driving in to work via Greenwich is a Foolish Act.
ReplyDeleteForthurst - the A102M is unusual in that whilst it is superficially a motorway, it does not come under the jurisdiction of the Highways Agency, but instead local authorities. This is a key aspect of the problem - if it was HA, it would long ago have been made 6 lanes and the approach motorways to the South put into tunnels and made wider. It would also however have been made a toll road long ago.
ReplyDeletePraguetory - Greenwich has the second highest pollution monitor readings from vehicle exhausts in the country - only sluggish central north Birmingham is worse. I used to live in Greenwich and can't agree that it's a bad idea to try to do something drastic about the traffic levels there - the central area of Greenwich is basically unmoving between 7am and 10am and between 3pm and 7pm every work day. One big factor is people trying to approach the tunnel through Greenwich itself rather than around.
ReplyDeleteThe Lib Dems recently tried something like this in Cardiff. Once again outside consultants produced "evidence" of public support based on a loaded consultation excercise.
ReplyDeleteUsing the little-known and underused provisions for forcing referenda a local option poll secured and against the wishes of Lib Dems Lavour and the Tories secured a 92% no on a 30%+ turnout. Maybe yous should try it Iain?
http://www.no2cpz.co.uk/
Iain Dale 11:48 - you're not against road pricing, just when you have to pay for it. I think you just defined classic Toryism in a nutshell. Pathetic. I bet you have shares in Bernard Matthews as well.
ReplyDeleteNew York, a similar city to London in that much of it is by water, uses "riverside" expressways, much of them in tunnels, to move traffic alongshore, London only has the embankment roads which have many breaks and roundabouts in them and are over-congested. However, NY and all other big cities with key bridge and tunnel connections experience massive congestion at these pinch points. There is no answer to it other than trying to restrict traffic somehow, which is why every big city is considering congestion charging. Like it or not, the ConC is here to stay and will get bigger. Driving is a case of underpriced resource, since the roads are provided by the taxpayer, driving is subsidised. The true economonic cost per mile in a big city is about 7 times what a typical driver actually pays.
ReplyDeleteI can't see why your whinging about taxes Iain! As you come from a family of subsidy junkies (farmers) who live off our taxes, why are you moaning. You hate Labour politicians not as much as I hate those bloody parasites.
ReplyDeleteIf you are stupid enough to live so far from where you work you rather deserve to be fleeced.
ReplyDelete"I hope Greenwich Conservatives will be opposing it with all their might."
ReplyDeleteIain, do you know any Conservatives in Greenwich? If so, you'd know that opposing it with all their might is tantamount to doing naff all. A press release is the best you can hope for. Still, they might mention it in a leaflet for the 2010 elections.
I love how labour keep crowing about "balanced budgets" while they are utter spendaholics! These stelth taxes are the way they feed their habit.
ReplyDeleteIain, I would be very interested to know Steve Norris' views on this.
ReplyDeleteI would have thought he hates the fact that people doing high mileages outside cities, and outside 'rush hours' are loaded up with fuel tax.
I thought the whole point with road pricing was that is was meant to be revenue neutral. Again I would have thought Mr Norris would want a solution to city centres being a total gridlock during the rush hour so that a congestion charge would be attractive ?
Isn't the point here that instead of charging a flat £ 8, more should be charged during 'choke points', say from 4 to 6, and less very early and very late.
Which brings up another question. I thought that the congestion charge wasn't levied from midnight to 7am?
Anyway, the central zone isn't very big, so can't you park on the edge and take the tube the rest of the way ? You also say that you aren't getting anything in return for the green taxes. One could also point out that in the view of the Stern report we aren't paying anything like the cost of damage to the environment which we're causing.
Tower Bridge isn't in the congestion charge zone.
ReplyDeleteAnd don't blame the railways for not providing a service that helps you. Blame the market. There clearly isn't the demand or the mighty market would have provided a service.
Of course, you could nationalise public services for the greater good, rather than profit. But what kind of tory would you be then?
morrocanroll - 'I don't believe it..!!!' I had absolutely no bloody idea that Bristol City Council had taken on 'responsibility' for the M5.
ReplyDeleteHas this country taken leave of its senses ? This is like leaving a fox in charge of a hen-house. Or Bernie Matthews in charge of a turkey farm.
BCC couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery - ask them when their 'supertram' [sic] between the City Centre and 'North Bristol' is being delivered. Oh, what's that you say ?
It has gone pear shaped because they couldn't agree on anything with South Gloucestershire coucil.
And when are they delivering the 10,000 seater concert venue which has been promised for a decade ? Oh, they haven't been able to agree on a plan with their 'partners' who are developing the area around the Temple Meads station.
Oh, and when are they finishing the road 'works' [sic] around their new Broadmead shopping complex, which, 'co-incidentally' they own ? ?
Of course, the fact that Cribbs Causeway, location of the giant John Lewis and Marks & Sparks is in 'South Glos' and near the 'M5' is a total co-incidence.
I have a cunning plan...
I can see it now. If they started to put loads of roadworks on the M5,slow traffic down, people might get so annoyed at the delay to their journey to M&S, they might end up thinking it would be quicker to drive into the centre of Bristol, or catch the train to Temple Meads, and spend their dosh in Broadmead which the council own....
Oh hang on....what are all those cones I see on the motorway...
I hope you'll all support the new Thames Gateway Bridge then, which will relieve a huge amount of the traffic in the Blackwall tunnel as well as the (unmentioned in your article) Rotherhithe tunnel and Tower Bridge.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/thames-gateway/tgw-bridge/
Just a way of getting at West Ham fans who live in Kent who don't support their local team? Note the Valley is just outside the area.
ReplyDeleteIn the last 20 years Norway has built 730 kilometres of tunnels at a cost of between £3.5 & £11 million a kilometre.
ReplyDeletePerhaps it would not be beyond the capacity of the UK to build another couple of lanes to the Blackwell tunnel.
I give this proposal to anybody who wants to stand for London mayor.
Don't forget to add the proposed road pricing charges that Tony loves so much And is introducin despite over 600,000 people signing the petition against it.
ReplyDeleteHave you been sending packages to Capita again Dale?
ReplyDeleteThe "Bristol running the M5" story is bollocks. The M5 is run by the Highways Agency as are all of Britain's motorways except for some short sections running into city centres; these are the A102M in London (Blackwall Tunnel), the A38M into Birmingham (Aston Expressway) and a few bits and bobs in the North. The full responsibilities map is on the HA website at HA roads map page. The story probably is a confusion on the contracting out of road maintenance, but the M5 road management and maintenance is contracted out as usual to someone like Amey or Serco - anyway, nothing at all to do with Bristol. There are consultative bodies on which Bristol CC will sit but that's it.
ReplyDeleteBristol council and the M5
ReplyDeleteis it bollocks?
from the HA website
'We have a policy of returning the control of non-core roads to local highway authorities. This is called de-trunking. Due to this, the length of the network for which we are responsible has been reducing in recent years'.
This also allows local congestion charging to be brought in which the Government is pushing local authorities to do and Bristol is currently developing a scheme.
And an other thing...
ReplyDeleteOne of the arguments against the London C`-Charge is that it costs £8 regardless of time or congestion.
Stockholm ran a highly successful experiment last year, when the whole city was road tolled with a 'tag and beacon system'
Unlike the over-hyped, non-automatic London system (which is the only toll system in the world to use number-plate cameras and hundreds of humans staring at screens) Stockholm used an automatic graduated charging system.
http://www.stockholmsforsoket.se/templates/page.aspx?id=2432 and you can download a superb booklet on the scheme.
Meanwhile, Stockholm charged in 30min bands, starting at 10 Krona 79p from 6.30 to 6.59, rising to 20 krona at the peak 7.30 - 8.29. It drifted down to 10 Krona again between 09.00 and 15.29. and then rose again in steps for the evening peak. the maximum daily payment was 60 Krona.
Of course, you got 14 days to pay and your own internet account that was updated at 7.00am the following day. Payment by windscreen-mounted charge card was used by most drivers.
If you hadn't paid after four weeks, only then was a stiff fine in order of £38.
Of course, Stockholm built 2000 extra park and ride space on the edge of the city. Traffic fell by 22 percent. In last autumn's referendum the moderate opposition to the scheme was overturned into a moderate yes vote. It coped with more vehicles than London, too.
Compare and contrast with TFL's, out of date, clunking, aggressive, non-progressive and soon-to-be dropped ANPR camera C-Charge.
Yes, London will be folowing Stockholm's lead to the tag and beacon system, but without the sensible, graded charges and fines.
UK lefties are currently telling themselves they are social democrats. Really? Study Stockholm's approach and you'll see that TFL is still locked in the class war of the early 1970s, garnished with the incompetence that marked the decade.
A big chunk of the A20 is in Greenwich and already badly congested. Any proposal to relocate through traffic from one part of the Borough to another would be iniquitous and be resisted.
ReplyDeletemorrocanroll - thanks for your M5 further update. The only thing I will say is that Bristol City Council have been in a state of 'currently considering/developing a congestion charge for over a decade'. Like many things here, it allows loads of talk, meetings, consultation etc. - all at public expense with very little to show for it.
ReplyDeleteThere used to be an old joke about 'elephants making love'. Well, they do make a lot of noise, but there is often something to show for it within two years. Bristol Council couldn't agree which day it was within 2 years. A little footbridge over the harbour was at least 5 yrs in the gestation. If that concert venue opens end 2009 I will eat my Tilley hat live on 18DS !!
@ forthurst I don't suppose most of the residents of Greenwich are even aware of the existence of the Blackwall Tunnel since the A102(M) is isolated from local traffic;
ReplyDeleteWell, you suppose wrong. Twittish thing to say. You can hear and smell the A102(M) even when you can't see it; it runs behind people's houses; and when there is an accident in the Tunnel (as happened one day last week), the traffic can be backed up for miles (that day last week it was stalled as far back as Falconwood, which is in Kent). Traffic reports on local radio often include the Blackwall Tunnel. That's how "unaware of its existence" we are.
There is a bus route (108) through the Tunnel to Stratford, which is the journey you have to make if you want to catch a train to East Anglia without going into central London/Liverpool Street. We are aware of the Tunnel, alright.
Moroccan: De-Trunking applies, as the name suggests, to Trunk roads - the core A-road network. There is a map of them on the HA website. It does not include Motorways.
ReplyDeleteM5 - mmm OK. I may take it that taking over maintenance is not then fully de-trunked.
ReplyDeleteStill, I may be a mad man but when I see de-trunking anywhere, I see another step in cornering the motorist with more road charges.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete