5 ms·

The goal of the congestion charge is not to make money off cars in London - it's an attempt to reduce the number of cars in London. The number of cabs is limite

The goal of the congestion charge is not to make money off cars in London - it's an attempt to reduce the number of cars in London. The number of cabs is limited largely by the complexity of The Knowledge, while the number of minicabs is rather less limited, so in conspiracy theory land, TfL have motive to ban minicab operators wherever possible. In any case, it's very unlikely that this is an ulterior motive - there's no reason why the problems aren't exactly what was listed, i.e. mostly administrative failures on Uber's part where other minicab companies are more cooperative with the license requirements.

tomp 9y ago
> it's an attempt to reduce the number of cars in London Not sure if that's true. I think it's mainly to reduce the polution in central London. Otherwise, electric/hybrid cars wouldn't be exempt but charged the same amount!
- vertex-four 9y ago
  Ah, true. I do think we'll see a congestion charge on electric cars as they become more popular, though - London plain and simple doesn't have enough space for personal road traffic. Edit: Hmm. London's own stuff claims that it was originally largely intended to reduce use of personal vehicles, and then in 2008 the Mayor implemented the current system of charging based on pollution. Again, I suspect it'll go back to charging for electric vehicles once people actually own electric vehicles.
  - misnome 9y ago
    I'm not sure the two aims are in conflict. I'm pretty sure that consumer electric cars were pretty much nonexistent when the congestion charge was first implemented.
- Nursie 9y ago
  >> I think it's mainly to reduce the polution in central London. I lived in London when it was launched, it was also to do with making the city centre flow again, so that those who actually needed to be there could travel in a reasonable amount of time.
  - konschubert 9y ago
    You mean, the ones who have money to pay the congestion charge. :)
    - Nursie 9y ago
      Well yeah, but as with all things in life, taxes and capitalism - money and motivation get used interchangeably because government has no imagination!
    - _h_o_d_ 9y ago
      Correct. Until we have a better economic system, this is how authorities often make incentives.
- barrkel 9y ago
  That's not a contradiction. There's also a separate scheme to reduce London pollution (LEZ), and there's an extension of it currently starting up (ULEZ). They have overlapping aims. For example, bus lanes were made for busses, despite cyclists and motorcycles (on most red routes) being able to enter them.
- Brakenshire 9y ago
  > Otherwise, electric/hybrid cars wouldn't be exempt but charged the same amount! That's an anomaly I'd say. The congestion charge was introduced in 2003, at that point electric cars were a curiosity, a fraction of a fraction of the market. I'd expect within 10-15 years the exemption will be removed. The purpose was partly to reduce pollution, but as a secondary effect of the primary aim to reduce traffic: https://londontransportdata.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/inner-and-outer-london-traffic-trend.png https://londontransportdata.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/inne...
- _h_o_d_ 9y ago
  It is reasonable to believe that these goals are both in mind! Edit: there's a new Diesel charge coming in soon, to reduce the extra pollution from these vehicles entering central london, for cars as well as lorries. In all the communications emanating from politicians and TFL it seems that numbers and pollution are both problems to be solved. Note also the new 'Boris' buses were designed as hybrids to improve air quality, even though in practice they don't work well and run on diesel mostly.
lhnz 9y ago
> mostly administrative failures on Uber's part where > other minicab companies are more cooperative with > the license requirements. But TfL inspectors gave Uber the green light ten times [0] including recently before suddenly deciding to ban them. There doesn't seem to be a history of repeated administrative failures here. [0] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tfl-inspectors-gave-uber-green-light-10-times-flbp7tqxs https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tfl-inspectors-gave-uber-...
- gsnedders 9y ago
  Then why did they only get a four month extension four months ago instead of the five-year one applied for?
- notahacker 9y ago
  I'm sure that had they used the opportunity to shut down Uber years ago over a paperwork issue, rather than waiting for the Metropolitan Police to write to them expressing concern that Uber's policies of refusing to report crimes and obstructionist approach towards police investigations may have lead directly to people being sexually assaulted, the people still arguing on here that Uber's conduct is above criticism would have been even more outspoken in condemning authorities. The ten times Uber got the green light in numerous other inspections and fact it wasn't halted early in operations over paperwork (unlike, say Taxify) is far better evidence in support of arguments that the regulators have been extraordinarily flexible and tolerant towards Uber than evidence for the insinuations they're more bothered about hurting Uber than Uber hurting its customers.
  - lhnz 9y ago
    > rather than waiting for the Metropolitan Police to write > to them expressing concern that Uber's policies of refusing > to report crimes and obstructionist approach towards > police investigations may have lead directly to people > being sexually assaulted Uber responded by saying that they have a "dedicated unit [...] tackling any incidents [...] run by former Met officers". [0] This easily verifiable so I think it is extremely dishonest to say that they have a "policy of refusing to report crimes" or 'obstructionism'. This would only be the case if Uber was in some way incentivizing this team to fudge numbers. I also know many people that feel much safer knowing that their friends and family are able to see where they are on a trip, and like the fact that they can retroactively determine the name and number plate of a driver the next day. If you are assaulted by a black cab driver and they speed off, you have no way of gathering information about your driver. This lack of transparency makes being driven in a black cab much more dangerous. > The ten times Uber got the green light [...] > evidence in support of arguments that the regulators > have been extraordinarily flexible and tolerant > towards Uber If Uber was not given the green light then you see it as proof that they are not playing by regulations, but if they are given the green light you see it as proof that they received tolerance and flexibility yet were not following regulations. What information would change your mind? [0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/13/uber-sex-scandal-police-accuse-taxi-firm-failing-report-sex/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/13/uber-sex-scandal-...
rahimnathwani 9y ago
"The goal of the congestion charge is not to make money off cars in London - it's an attempt to reduce the number of cars in London." Surely the goal of the congestion charge is to, you know, reduce congestion. One way would be to reduce the number of cars simultaneously on the road during periods of congestion. Excluding black cabs from this incentive structure does a disservice to Londoners.
- SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
  Not a priori, as a decrease in cab utilization from higher fees might lead to more cars and in fact make congestion worse. This would be something you had to measure the effect of, due to (possible) non-trivial feedback.
- fasteddie 9y ago
  Cabs/Ubers have very different marginal driving decisions than "regular" drivers, and a congestion fee is not an effective policy to target them. If London feels like the cabs are the real opportunity to reduce congestion, which doesn't make much sense to me, the way to do so would be in how they implement their medallion system.
efsavage 9y ago
> The goal of the congestion charge is not to make money off cars in London - it's an attempt to reduce the number of cars in London. Initially, yes. But it's now a revenue stream, and it's really hard for governments of any philosophy to gracefully accept a loss of revenue. There is also the Shirky Principle: "Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution"

tomp 9y ago

> it's an attempt to reduce the number of cars in London Not sure if that's true. I think it's mainly to reduce the polution in central London. Otherwise, electric/hybrid cars wouldn't be exempt but charged the same amount!

vertex-four 9y ago
Ah, true. I do think we'll see a congestion charge on electric cars as they become more popular, though - London plain and simple doesn't have enough space for personal road traffic. Edit: Hmm. London's own stuff claims that it was originally largely intended to reduce use of personal vehicles, and then in 2008 the Mayor implemented the current system of charging based on pollution. Again, I suspect it'll go back to charging for electric vehicles once people actually own electric vehicles.
- misnome 9y ago
  I'm not sure the two aims are in conflict. I'm pretty sure that consumer electric cars were pretty much nonexistent when the congestion charge was first implemented.
Nursie 9y ago
>> I think it's mainly to reduce the polution in central London. I lived in London when it was launched, it was also to do with making the city centre flow again, so that those who actually needed to be there could travel in a reasonable amount of time.
- konschubert 9y ago
  You mean, the ones who have money to pay the congestion charge. :)
  - Nursie 9y ago
    Well yeah, but as with all things in life, taxes and capitalism - money and motivation get used interchangeably because government has no imagination!
  - _h_o_d_ 9y ago
    Correct. Until we have a better economic system, this is how authorities often make incentives.
barrkel 9y ago
That's not a contradiction. There's also a separate scheme to reduce London pollution (LEZ), and there's an extension of it currently starting up (ULEZ). They have overlapping aims. For example, bus lanes were made for busses, despite cyclists and motorcycles (on most red routes) being able to enter them.
Brakenshire 9y ago
> Otherwise, electric/hybrid cars wouldn't be exempt but charged the same amount! That's an anomaly I'd say. The congestion charge was introduced in 2003, at that point electric cars were a curiosity, a fraction of a fraction of the market. I'd expect within 10-15 years the exemption will be removed. The purpose was partly to reduce pollution, but as a secondary effect of the primary aim to reduce traffic: https://londontransportdata.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/inner-and-outer-london-traffic-trend.png https://londontransportdata.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/inne...
_h_o_d_ 9y ago
It is reasonable to believe that these goals are both in mind! Edit: there's a new Diesel charge coming in soon, to reduce the extra pollution from these vehicles entering central london, for cars as well as lorries. In all the communications emanating from politicians and TFL it seems that numbers and pollution are both problems to be solved. Note also the new 'Boris' buses were designed as hybrids to improve air quality, even though in practice they don't work well and run on diesel mostly.

lhnz 9y ago

> mostly administrative failures on Uber's part where > other minicab companies are more cooperative with > the license requirements. But TfL inspectors gave Uber the green light ten times [0] including recently before suddenly deciding to ban them. There doesn't seem to be a history of repeated administrative failures here. [0] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tfl-inspectors-gave-uber-green-light-10-times-flbp7tqxs https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/tfl-inspectors-gave-uber-...

gsnedders 9y ago
Then why did they only get a four month extension four months ago instead of the five-year one applied for?
notahacker 9y ago
I'm sure that had they used the opportunity to shut down Uber years ago over a paperwork issue, rather than waiting for the Metropolitan Police to write to them expressing concern that Uber's policies of refusing to report crimes and obstructionist approach towards police investigations may have lead directly to people being sexually assaulted, the people still arguing on here that Uber's conduct is above criticism would have been even more outspoken in condemning authorities. The ten times Uber got the green light in numerous other inspections and fact it wasn't halted early in operations over paperwork (unlike, say Taxify) is far better evidence in support of arguments that the regulators have been extraordinarily flexible and tolerant towards Uber than evidence for the insinuations they're more bothered about hurting Uber than Uber hurting its customers.
- lhnz 9y ago
  > rather than waiting for the Metropolitan Police to write > to them expressing concern that Uber's policies of refusing > to report crimes and obstructionist approach towards > police investigations may have lead directly to people > being sexually assaulted Uber responded by saying that they have a "dedicated unit [...] tackling any incidents [...] run by former Met officers". [0] This easily verifiable so I think it is extremely dishonest to say that they have a "policy of refusing to report crimes" or 'obstructionism'. This would only be the case if Uber was in some way incentivizing this team to fudge numbers. I also know many people that feel much safer knowing that their friends and family are able to see where they are on a trip, and like the fact that they can retroactively determine the name and number plate of a driver the next day. If you are assaulted by a black cab driver and they speed off, you have no way of gathering information about your driver. This lack of transparency makes being driven in a black cab much more dangerous. > The ten times Uber got the green light [...] > evidence in support of arguments that the regulators > have been extraordinarily flexible and tolerant > towards Uber If Uber was not given the green light then you see it as proof that they are not playing by regulations, but if they are given the green light you see it as proof that they received tolerance and flexibility yet were not following regulations. What information would change your mind? [0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/13/uber-sex-scandal-police-accuse-taxi-firm-failing-report-sex/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/13/uber-sex-scandal-...

rahimnathwani 9y ago

"The goal of the congestion charge is not to make money off cars in London - it's an attempt to reduce the number of cars in London." Surely the goal of the congestion charge is to, you know, reduce congestion. One way would be to reduce the number of cars simultaneously on the road during periods of congestion. Excluding black cabs from this incentive structure does a disservice to Londoners.

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
Not a priori, as a decrease in cab utilization from higher fees might lead to more cars and in fact make congestion worse. This would be something you had to measure the effect of, due to (possible) non-trivial feedback.
fasteddie 9y ago
Cabs/Ubers have very different marginal driving decisions than "regular" drivers, and a congestion fee is not an effective policy to target them. If London feels like the cabs are the real opportunity to reduce congestion, which doesn't make much sense to me, the way to do so would be in how they implement their medallion system.

efsavage 9y ago

> The goal of the congestion charge is not to make money off cars in London - it's an attempt to reduce the number of cars in London. Initially, yes. But it's now a revenue stream, and it's really hard for governments of any philosophy to gracefully accept a loss of revenue. There is also the Shirky Principle: "Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution"