6 ms·

> I disagree, and wish it had happened, but regardless, the biggest problem is they failed to invest in a plan B. For example, the options for folks outside of

> I disagree, and wish it had happened, but regardless, the biggest problem is they failed to invest in a plan B. For example, the options for folks outside of London wanting to get in are dire and could have been solved with several large car parks next to fast mass transit encouraging more cars into the center is explicitly an anti-goal, so not sure why you wish these projects had been built? yes there should be more park and ride on the outskirts, but Stratford isn't really outskirts anymore, and wasting lots of land for parking in Stratford or White City instead of homes also seems a silly waste of their good connectedness. > I have a trip to London planned later this year and it's still a toss up between parking at Westfield Stratford or just driving into the city centre and paying the congestion charge.. whereas really it should be an easy choice by now. I guess that indicates the congestion charge could be higher.

Silhouette 5y ago
I guess that indicates the congestion charge could be higher. The trouble with public transport advocacy is that it so often relies on the stick rather than the carrot as the main incentive. The better solution is almost always to provide attractive public transport options. If you can do that then people will use them anyway. If you don't do that then people will do what you don't want instead unless you totally prohibit it. And if you prohibit it then maybe they won't come at all. The catch is that providing good public transport is a challenge even in densely populated areas and for long distance travel. Our biggest cities also tend to be very old and that means layouts that are far from ideal for running an efficient public transport network. The other catch is that good public transport is never going to be cost-effective in smaller towns and rural areas. So doing it would require a massive commitment from both local and wider government and in the UK we don't have that. Politicians tend to be very good at talking about grand ideas but no-one is willing to say "We need to put your taxes up 5% to subsidise loss-making transport infrastructure so there's a sensible alternative to cars for everyone who doesn't live in one of the biggest cities." This is why I'm not sure emphasizing public transport is the right long term policy here. Better infrastructure to support small-scale private transport seems a more promising direction to look -- bikes, e-scooters, future electric vehicles designed for one or two passengers and light baggage, etc.
- dharma1 5y ago
  Public transport into/in London is pretty good. Crowded but not unbearable, especially if you can avoid rush hours. I have a car in London but almost never drive into central London (just in my area and out of London) - getting in and around Central London is much better with public transport.
- bananapub 5y ago
  > The trouble with public transport advocacy is that it so often relies on the stick rather than the carrot as the main incentive I...don't understand what your comment is about? London has excellent public transport that runs all the way into the non-London bits around it. it's mostly made of carrots. there are also a small number of sticks.
  - Silhouette 5y ago
    London has good public transport internally. For people coming in from outside the picture is far more variable.
    - adwww 5y ago
      I can travel to central London from my home 100 miles to the West in 70 minutes by public transport. In any case, that's a fault of poor public transport in the shires, not London.
      - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
        I used to know people who would commute by train to London from Bath and Bristol. Every day. And others who would drive from central Wiltshire to London and back. Every day. Work from home should have highlighted the insanity of those kinds of work patterns. Trains are greener than cars, but no commuting at all is greener still. Unfortunately it's looking more like we'll be heading back to pre-Covid normal, with very limited mixed-mode working offered as a bonus to those who qualify for it.
gadders 5y ago
The thing with raising congestion charges, higher taxes on airfares etc is that you then limit these options to the financially well off, which doesn't seem very progressive.
- 7952 5y ago
  And people who can afford it just feel a sense of entitlement because they have purchased something. And it is a resource we all own and have already paid for. We should have a basic right to access that resource. The problem is when people take more than their fair share. In the centre of London that could be driving 1 mile a day. We should give a free tier and then ramp up prices exponentially after that. The more you use the resource the more it costs per mile.
- rexpress 5y ago
  It certainly seems progressive to me. Charging private vehicles to access the roads reduces demand, which allows other modes such as buses, trams and bikes to move more people more quickly. I don't see what's progressive about letting private cars clog the roads up and slowing down London's vast and comprehensive bus network.
  - cjrp 5y ago
    I guess the point is that it's not related to the person's income. For someone on minimum wage, the £15 congestion charge prevents them using the car. For a high-earned, it's just a fee to pay as you continue to drive in London.
    - rexpress 5y ago
      But food at the supermarket, clothes, even water from the tap are all priced without regard to individual income. Why would road usage be any different? The wealthy are always able to buy the nicest things, and addressing income inequality is a very valid goal. But what realistic alternative is there to the price mechanism that still allows for a level of individual choice, and permits vehicle journeys that are economically necessary (e.g. tradespeople) while discouraging car journeys that could me made by other means. As for the minimum wage earner, they are the least likely to be able to afford to keep a car. The current roads free-for-all means their bus journeys are far slower due to the traffic, and more expensive due to the larger number of buses required to maintain frequency on congested roads. A possible solution to reduce inequality from road charging while still maintaining the benefits of the price mechanism would be to return the proceeds (after maintenance costs) to the residents of the city in the form of transport credits. These credits would be able to be spent on road access, public transport, or cycling as the individual preferred.
petercooper 5y ago
I guess that indicates the congestion charge could be higher. Economically, I agree, but in practice, I think it misses a point. I go to London once every year or three. So I can justify spending a lot more for a single day's convenience than, say, someone who goes a few times a month. As a rare visitor, I contribute less to London's congestion and problems, but on the other, I contribute less to its economy too, so is raising the congestion charge fair? All that said, this conversation has encouraged me to at least try some other options and broaden my approach, so I might park at Ebbsfleet and get HS1 in (19 minutes). It costs £19.10 each way though and about £25 for the parking, but I'm up £30 in congestion charges and painful traffic.. encouraging more cars into the center is explicitly an anti-goal, so not sure why you wish these projects had been built? I'm too young to have been around when they worked on the project, but my personal preferences are oriented around different goals than they had. I would be quite happy with a Angelesation of London, but I'm one of those weirdos who likes Milton Keynes as well..
- pmyteh 5y ago
  You might be able to do better than £19.10 each way, depending on what time you're travelling. An unlimited all-day travelcard from Ebbsfleet to London[0], including tube/bus/train in zones 1-6 is only £24.40 off-peak (no arrival before 10am Mon-Fri). It's £45.00 peak, though. [0]: https://www.brfares.com/!expert?orig=EBD&dest=1072 https://www.brfares.com/!expert?orig=EBD&dest=1072
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  Not quite sure what you mean by "Angelesation", but if it is a reference to Los Angeles, that was never going to happen. The reasons the projects described in TFA didn't happen was reflective of a city that has been in that location for centuries. Nobody was ever going to convert London into anything remotely like LA.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  London’s economy is doing better than the rest of the UK even with the charge that it’s worth taking the hit rather than paying for all the health and pollution externalities of one additional marginal car, which is more than just the fuel burned.

Silhouette 5y ago

I guess that indicates the congestion charge could be higher. The trouble with public transport advocacy is that it so often relies on the stick rather than the carrot as the main incentive. The better solution is almost always to provide attractive public transport options. If you can do that then people will use them anyway. If you don't do that then people will do what you don't want instead unless you totally prohibit it. And if you prohibit it then maybe they won't come at all. The catch is that providing good public transport is a challenge even in densely populated areas and for long distance travel. Our biggest cities also tend to be very old and that means layouts that are far from ideal for running an efficient public transport network. The other catch is that good public transport is never going to be cost-effective in smaller towns and rural areas. So doing it would require a massive commitment from both local and wider government and in the UK we don't have that. Politicians tend to be very good at talking about grand ideas but no-one is willing to say "We need to put your taxes up 5% to subsidise loss-making transport infrastructure so there's a sensible alternative to cars for everyone who doesn't live in one of the biggest cities." This is why I'm not sure emphasizing public transport is the right long term policy here. Better infrastructure to support small-scale private transport seems a more promising direction to look -- bikes, e-scooters, future electric vehicles designed for one or two passengers and light baggage, etc.

dharma1 5y ago
Public transport into/in London is pretty good. Crowded but not unbearable, especially if you can avoid rush hours. I have a car in London but almost never drive into central London (just in my area and out of London) - getting in and around Central London is much better with public transport.
bananapub 5y ago
> The trouble with public transport advocacy is that it so often relies on the stick rather than the carrot as the main incentive I...don't understand what your comment is about? London has excellent public transport that runs all the way into the non-London bits around it. it's mostly made of carrots. there are also a small number of sticks.
- Silhouette 5y ago
  London has good public transport internally. For people coming in from outside the picture is far more variable.
  - adwww 5y ago
    I can travel to central London from my home 100 miles to the West in 70 minutes by public transport. In any case, that's a fault of poor public transport in the shires, not London.
    - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
      I used to know people who would commute by train to London from Bath and Bristol. Every day. And others who would drive from central Wiltshire to London and back. Every day. Work from home should have highlighted the insanity of those kinds of work patterns. Trains are greener than cars, but no commuting at all is greener still. Unfortunately it's looking more like we'll be heading back to pre-Covid normal, with very limited mixed-mode working offered as a bonus to those who qualify for it.

gadders 5y ago

The thing with raising congestion charges, higher taxes on airfares etc is that you then limit these options to the financially well off, which doesn't seem very progressive.

7952 5y ago
And people who can afford it just feel a sense of entitlement because they have purchased something. And it is a resource we all own and have already paid for. We should have a basic right to access that resource. The problem is when people take more than their fair share. In the centre of London that could be driving 1 mile a day. We should give a free tier and then ramp up prices exponentially after that. The more you use the resource the more it costs per mile.
rexpress 5y ago
It certainly seems progressive to me. Charging private vehicles to access the roads reduces demand, which allows other modes such as buses, trams and bikes to move more people more quickly. I don't see what's progressive about letting private cars clog the roads up and slowing down London's vast and comprehensive bus network.
- cjrp 5y ago
  I guess the point is that it's not related to the person's income. For someone on minimum wage, the £15 congestion charge prevents them using the car. For a high-earned, it's just a fee to pay as you continue to drive in London.
  - rexpress 5y ago
    But food at the supermarket, clothes, even water from the tap are all priced without regard to individual income. Why would road usage be any different? The wealthy are always able to buy the nicest things, and addressing income inequality is a very valid goal. But what realistic alternative is there to the price mechanism that still allows for a level of individual choice, and permits vehicle journeys that are economically necessary (e.g. tradespeople) while discouraging car journeys that could me made by other means. As for the minimum wage earner, they are the least likely to be able to afford to keep a car. The current roads free-for-all means their bus journeys are far slower due to the traffic, and more expensive due to the larger number of buses required to maintain frequency on congested roads. A possible solution to reduce inequality from road charging while still maintaining the benefits of the price mechanism would be to return the proceeds (after maintenance costs) to the residents of the city in the form of transport credits. These credits would be able to be spent on road access, public transport, or cycling as the individual preferred.

petercooper 5y ago

I guess that indicates the congestion charge could be higher. Economically, I agree, but in practice, I think it misses a point. I go to London once every year or three. So I can justify spending a lot more for a single day's convenience than, say, someone who goes a few times a month. As a rare visitor, I contribute less to London's congestion and problems, but on the other, I contribute less to its economy too, so is raising the congestion charge fair? All that said, this conversation has encouraged me to at least try some other options and broaden my approach, so I might park at Ebbsfleet and get HS1 in (19 minutes). It costs £19.10 each way though and about £25 for the parking, but I'm up £30 in congestion charges and painful traffic.. encouraging more cars into the center is explicitly an anti-goal, so not sure why you wish these projects had been built? I'm too young to have been around when they worked on the project, but my personal preferences are oriented around different goals than they had. I would be quite happy with a Angelesation of London, but I'm one of those weirdos who likes Milton Keynes as well..

pmyteh 5y ago
You might be able to do better than £19.10 each way, depending on what time you're travelling. An unlimited all-day travelcard from Ebbsfleet to London[0], including tube/bus/train in zones 1-6 is only £24.40 off-peak (no arrival before 10am Mon-Fri). It's £45.00 peak, though. [0]: https://www.brfares.com/!expert?orig=EBD&dest=1072 https://www.brfares.com/!expert?orig=EBD&dest=1072
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
Not quite sure what you mean by "Angelesation", but if it is a reference to Los Angeles, that was never going to happen. The reasons the projects described in TFA didn't happen was reflective of a city that has been in that location for centuries. Nobody was ever going to convert London into anything remotely like LA.
bobthepanda 5y ago
London’s economy is doing better than the rest of the UK even with the charge that it’s worth taking the hit rather than paying for all the health and pollution externalities of one additional marginal car, which is more than just the fuel burned.