Congestion Charge

[Footie]

It looks like the idea to make extra money out of the poor motorist has taken another step forward with Greater Manchester accepting a congestion charge.

City congestion charge plans backed - Yahoo! News UK

Amazing what a £2.8 billion sweetener will do.

It's got to be good news for electric bikes but I sense the moped raising its ugly head above the humble electric bike when the chips are down

I must look at the world differently: because to me, another tax (that's all the congestion charge is) will do little for the less well off, simply drive them off the road onto the pathetic UK public transport system.
And the well off, they will just pay a little more.
It's a percentage game - it only hurts those at the middle or lower end.

That’s my view - what's yours?
Congestion charge good or bad?
.

 

[coops]

According to BBC News in London congestion is down 21%, bus use up 23% and cycling up 83%, though I don't know how they got those figures.

It was said in a news item on growing congestion in India that "cars cannot meet the transport needs of the majority of the (urban?) population", and I think that should have been known here and tackled more effectively a long time ago. Ironic that roadbuilding and improvement has increased road use by cars etc. which government now want to reduce by charging.

They're supposed to be improving public transport before the charge can be introduced, but I don't see how that will take the strain and increased bus numbers may reduce some congestion but will increase air pollution, very bad for cycling and city dwellers' health.

A local news item reported taking 40mins to go 3.5 miles on the M60, thats 5.25mph.

Still, its an opportunity for electric bike rental from the M60 (outer zone boundary) or A6010 (inner zone boundary)... on fair weather days at least .

Stuart.

 

[flecc]

Those figures on the London improvements are undoubtedly genuine and are an annual progression. The change in cycling levels as I see them is astonishing, and any disbelief I have is that 83% seems too low.

I'm 100% in favour of congestion charging and as an owner of two e-bikes and two cars, I regard it as a big success.

As well as the advances Stuart mentions, there's a real move towards smaller lower powered cars, a number of electric cars have been sold, and hybrid sales of cars like the Prius have been buoyant. Mopeds have gained, but to nothing like the extent of cycling.

Public transport had grown considerably and struggles to keep pace with the demand, but at least there's thousands of new and better buses, (the maligned "bendy" being only a minute part of the fleet). New trains and tube trains are arriving currently, and the Oyster card fare scheme is a real success and has spread to include buses, tube and some mainline now, with more to follow.

Nearly all young people and all old people travel free, and though a few youngsters have abused the privilege at first, transport police are getting to grips with that and all such changes settle down with time.

Much of this has been financed by the congestion charging of course, and it makes a change to see what is a tax come back to us in such a tangible form instead of being spent on armed attacks on other countries.

There is a downside, many smaller businesses were hit, but the overall London economy has continued to grow in strength and remains a major subsidiser of other parts of the country.
.

 

[john]

Can't wait to see some electric car suppliers set-up in Manchester

 

[flecc]

Can't wait to see some electric car suppliers set-up in Manchester

This supplier is the main one John, but many Mancunians might be too amply proportioned to fit in.

That's what comes of thinking chips are fruit towards the "five a day".

Incidentally, I love the "free sat nav" offer at the left on that web page. It's range is 40 miles at best!
.

 

[coops]

I really didn't mean it to sound like I doubted those BBC figures for London, which it might have done, just that I really don't know how they were measured .

I hope Manchester does invest in some more new & cleaner buses: much of the existing fleets seem very polluting. There has been a north/south regional operator divide (largely between Firstbus & stagecoach) since deregulation of the bus service many years ago and some newer, seemingly cleaner buses (some bendy) operate mostly on 'frequent service' northern routes, but both north & south still having many small operators running older stock, especially on local routes, in the scrummage to run Manchester buses... I've heard it said that lorries and buses are usually the biggest source of pollution on city roads.

Extending the tram network may help, but it will never be as extensive as the London rail network and many of our local rail routes are long disused by trains, such as the local 'fallowfield loop' now an offroad cycle & footway many miles in length! I think most people are extremely cynical that public transport can be improved enough to provide a fast, regular and extensive service, though they'd probably hate to have to use it on principle - its not as accessible or widely accepted as, say, the London tube network.

Re electric cars in Manchester, I remember keeping up with what looked like a G-wiz once on the Torq, though it was at nighttime!

Stuart.

 

[carpetbagger]

i am all for reducing traffic and improving public transport to improve the envir oment but....how much money will be spent on designated cycle lanes to improve safety for cyclists.....not very much if any at all is the answer. I also feel that any congestion charge should be earnings related,,it will drive poorer people off the roads and improve travelling times for those who can afford it,,,after all whats a few quid to somebody who can afford to drive mercs bmws and range rovers..
We pay tax on our wages,tax on a new car,special tax on a new car,road tax,petrol tax...parking fees......all these taxes were supposed to improve our existing public transport network.Where is the money going ???
Only the wealthy will be able to drive soon...i good move for those involved.

 

[flecc]

I really didn't mean it to sound like I doubted those BBC figures for London, which it might have done, just that I really don't know how they were measured .

I hope Manchester does invest in some more new & cleaner buses: much of the existing fleets seem very polluting. There has been a north/south regional operator divide (largely between Firstbus & stagecoach) since deregulation of the bus service many years ago and some newer, seemingly cleaner buses (some bendy) operate mostly on 'frequent service' northern routes, but both north & south still having many small operators running older stock, especially on local routes, in the scrummage to run Manchester buses... I've heard it said that lorries and buses are usually the biggest source of pollution on city roads.

Extending the tram network may help, but it will never be as extensive as the London rail network and many of our local rail routes are long disused by trains, such as the local 'fallowfield loop' now an offroad cycle & footway many miles in length! I think most people are extremely cynical that public transport can be improved enough to provide a fast, regular and extensive service, though they'd probably hate to have to use it on principle - its not as accessible or widely accepted as, say, the London tube network.

Re electric cars in Manchester, I remember keeping up with what looked like a G-wiz once on the Torq, though it was at nighttime!

Stuart.

I realised that you weren't casting aspersions on the figures Stuart, but since there's so many examples of dodgy statistics these days, I was just illustrating that these for once did have substance. There were exhaustive surveys before introducing the congestion charge of course, it being the first anywhere, so the "before" facts were all recorded accurately. The "after" is easy of course, with all entry points permanently camera and sensor monitored.

You will get the new buses I'm sure, and we've had no trouble there. The first new batch we had on our tram feeder route weren't ideal being a bit noisy for 5am to 1 am operation in a residential area and we complained, thinking little chance of anything done. Very quickly they were replaced with Enviro buses, much quieter and cleaner, not bad on a single complaint. They've also added bus shelters at every stop. We do have the advantage of a blanket transport organisation though, TFL (Transport for London) covering all buses, trams, tubes, cycle routes, maps and facilities, the main roads and even with some main line control now.

Carpetbagger's comment on cycle routes should be looked after as the provision is being written into the Manchester scheme as it was with London, and cycling is crucial to the success of congestion charging. Those administering it won't miss that point, so I think you'll see many improvements.

The most important thing is to have the right person driving it forward, and we've been lucky to have Ken Livingstone behind ours from the start since he is absolutely committed to cycling. Although Boris has now replaced him, once again he's very pro bike and a daily cyclist and only today has launched an attack on local council provision of road humps, partly for their environmental ill effects, but as he says, because they are so awkward for cyclists. He wants to do as one of our North London borough councils has done and get rid of all of them.

In summary, if Manchester gets just half the benefits we've gained, you'll be well pleased.

Of course we still moan, it's the Englishman's right.
.

 

[HarryB]

Sorry to make a contrary note as a Londoner but these are my experiences. I have cycled in into London on and off since 1990 and can say that the congestion charge has had little benefit for the cyclists. There are some parts of London now where the congestion is horrendous and is made up, in the majority by buses and black cabs. Of course this is a nightmare for the cyclist - at least with cars you can get around them but with buses you are stuck behind them together with the black fumes. Horrible! They are mostly empty even at peak hours (I kid you not). I counted five in the space of 1 mile towards Holborn, with a handful of people in each one. As a cyclist I have nothing good to say about the bendy bus and it would be better to have smaller buses as they would be better utilised on some routes (and less dangerous).

There have been very little provisions made for cyclist bar advanced stop lines, but I am told there are some cycle routes in South London. We still have road planners who seem to think putting a large island in the middle of the road will benefit traffic flow. I would like them to sketch on an envelop what happens to a cyclist when they are overtaken at such a pinch point (or any pinch point for that matter).

The solution to a lot of the congestion is obvious - get rid of the vast majority of traffic lights. The vast majority that are left should be used for the benefit of pedestrians. I have lost count of the number of times in London when the traffic lights are out of action and the congestion just vanishes. We could even be radical and get rid of road markings and road furniture to slow the traffic down. High vehicle occupancy lanes rather than bus lanes. I am sure there are solutions out there but I am afraid we will get more of the same.

Londoner's have turned to cycling not because of the congestion charge but because public transport is horrible - tubes packed, trains expensive and buses too slow. Of course the 7/7 bombings gave a big helping hand. So best of luck for Manchester but if you are a cyclist don't hold your breath.

 

[flecc]

Harry is right that South London where I am has benefited far more, and our cycling facilities range from improved to really excellent. I'm not surprised that Central London conditions are quite bad in some ways, but those I know who cycle in from the South are not anything like as negative, so possibly the conditions on the trip in are a major influence in the view, which I can well understand. Although it's regrown a bit, I understand the total traffic volume in the congestion zone is still 16% down on pre-zone levels though.

I benefit from a complete new tram system, new bus routes and mostly brand new buses, and some amazingly good roofed over cycle parking facilities. Cycleways are very variable, ranging from lines at the edge of the road through joint use pedestrian/cyclist routes to completely separated dedicated cycleways, some well separated from motor vehicle traffic.

I don't know what happens in North London at the weekends, but on fine weekends in South London bike use is at very high levels for social and domestic purposes, so conditions must be far better than Harry describes or people wouldn't cycle. Two of my South London friends who don't cycle commute have nonetheless bought bikes for personal purposes in the last couple of years and use them all the time for getting around now.

I think most of the difference must be due to population density and lack of North London space, since we did have more space for facilities in many areas, but I'd be surprised if things were quite as gloomy in the outer North London boroughs where there have more space, but I stand to be corrected.

There have been many gains and I still feel they far outweigh the negatives, and I certainly wouldn't want things back as they were.
.

 

[coops]

I totally agree Harry!

 

[flecc]

I totally agree with you Harry!

Well, if everybody in Manchester including those running the scheme is as negative as the other contributors in this thread, it will fail of course.

It seems to be the old story of the glass half empty/half full.

Like Hal, I see buses on my feeder route almost empty most of the time. That's because three of them serve a loop route which one could just about serve. The reason for that is the benefit, not having to wait a long time for the next bus, and that's the difference with me, a willingness to acknowledge the benefit as much as the downside.

When cycling to my nearest shopping centre the main route is congested with fast traffic and the narrow cycle lane at the edge of the road has road island pinch points. But I don't have to use that, there's another cycle route running parallel on very quiet suburban roads which drops me just short of the supermarket, avoiding all traffic lights, that route found with the free cycle route maps, another benefit paid for by the congestion charge.
.

 

[HarryB]

I think most of the difference must be due to population density and lack of North London space, since we did have more space for facilities in many areas, but I'd be surprised if things were quite as gloomy in the outer North London boroughs where there have more space, but I stand to be corrected.

There have been many gains and I still feel they far outweigh the negatives, and I certainly wouldn't want things back as they were.
.

What is odd is that cycling is worse in the outer reaches of North London. I do blame driver attitude for this. At least in inner London there is a grudging acceptance that we are here to stay. But if I appear angry it is because I am angry. I am not making a political point, my local council is Tory and they for example, have refused to implement 20 mph zones in our residential area. Why? Because there are no schools in the area. But they are wrong, there are three. Why can't get that right? Anyway I regularly get charged at by drivers going more than 30 or 40 mph down narrow residential roads. No wonder there are so few cyclists around here.

My route into London has been made worse by what I think is excessive traffic lights and bad phasing or at the very least exceptional incompetence in the phasing. If anybody cared it would be sorted out as the phasing wasn't like that 3 months ago. I could give you the example of Whitehall where a right hand turn is now banned - why haven't the lights been changed to reflect this? Instead we all wait while nobody moves, THEN the pedestrian cycle starts before we are all let through on a filter. Why is it that the road planners are never called to account?

Sorry to be negative but I see very little improvement and the only good thing has come about because there are more of us. But there are more of us in spite of the changes rather than because of the changes so the politicians can take no credit for the increase.

By the way I think Labour is committing electoral suicide by implementing the Manchester congestion charge. Let's hope there is proper consultation first.

PS I now realise I have been cycling in to London on and off since 1978 (as a young lad off to Sixth form college).

 

[HarryB]

Well, if everybody in Manchester including those running the scheme is as negative as the other contributors in this thread, it will fail of course.

It seems to be the old story of the glass half empty/half full....

When cycling to my nearest shopping centre the main route is congested with fast traffic and the narrow cycle lane at the edge of the road has road island pinch points. But I don't have to use that, there's another cycle route running parallel on very quiet suburban roads which drops me just short of the supermarket, avoiding all traffic lights, that route found with the free cycle route maps, another benefit paid for by the congestion charge.
.

It is not to do with half full glasses - there doesn't need to be a congestion charge to get more people on their bikes (if that is what we want to do). The roads just need to be designed with us in mind and at the moment that is not happening and all the congestion charging in the world is not going to change that. Less traffic travelling faster on the roads or many more buses work against us as I have found in London. As I say I am sorry to be negative but that is the way I see it.

By the way I have tried to use the cycle routes but they are hopelessly difficult to follow and add an extra 10 minutes each way onto the journey. Some of them require you to go the wrong way up a one way street so you can imagine what I think of them and those that planned them!

Like Hal, I see buses on my feeder route almost empty most of the time. That's because three of them serve a loop route which one could just about serve. The reason for that is the benefit, not having to wait a long time for the next bus, and that's the difference with me, a willingness to acknowledge the benefit as much as the downside..

But you would expect more frequent buses to be smaller and fuller, rather than larger and emptier. I could start a whole new thread about why the bus system works so badly...

 

[flecc]

I agree about the negatives Hal, but there are the many positives, though it seems you don't have any where you cycle. I just see that someone is trying to make things better after half a century of no-one doing anything, and so I'm prepared to be open minded about that.

Central London is a bit of a hopeless case of course, the roads are locked into the buildings and very little can be changed without blitzing it, so I'm at a loss to understand how cycling there could be improved without a congestion charge. Of course Ken had a plan for cycle through-routes, but the voters have stopped any chance of that by voting him out which has to be stupid, given that a chance of improvement is better than no chance at all.

As said, I would hate for things to go back to how they were in all the areas I use, the lack of cycle facilities, the belligerence of car drivers against the previous tiny minority of cyclists, the battered old buses and lousy eratic service, and the large numbers of buses on our primary east/west routes before the trams replaced many of them.

I'd like to see congestion charging in my zone to cut the traffic, the sooner the better.
.

 

[HarryB]

I should of course apologise for being quite so bad tempered about my cycle ride - there are of course some good points to the policy even if it is let down in the detail. In mitigation I have just come back from Belgium (near the boarder with Holland). What a joy it was being a cyclist there. Cycle lanes on almost every road and a good attitude towards the cyclist. What was telling was that almost no one wore I helmet. I saw two old boys on serious racers with helmets but that was it - nobody else. That says something about how safe they feel riding around. In fact I took my two 4 year-olds on the road to their friend's school (admittedly one on stabilisers) and they loved it - very proud of themselves too being proper cyclists. If I could get a job out there I would leave in an instant - a much better, healthier way of life.

 

[flecc]

Couldn't agree more there Hal, much of Northern Europe is infinitely more cycle friendly. I'm at a loss to understand for certain why, for in the 1940s and 1950s we were a cycling nation, car ownership being vanishingly small and the roads swarming with bikes at commuting times, providing a healthy living for an extensive trade.

For some reason our population seemed to be desperate to get motorised, first with cyclemotors, then scooters and finally cars, while the low countries, Germany and Denmark were quite content to continue using bikes even when they later owned cars.

I've only seen two influential differences. In many cases they had more space to create cycle facilities, where in our old and confined towns and cities and in much of our small island there was little space to do anything.

The other difference is a totally different attitude to new facilities. Propose a new airport or motorway here and the protesters are out on the streets. Propose them in many European countries and cities compete to get the facility with the enthusiastic backing of the local population.

Sorry to highlight it, but the response in this thread to the Manchester proposal is typical of that British attitude of course. It's why we still have such a rubbish railway system and main road network and why we are now running short of generating capacity, areas where those other countries make us look silly while having their cycling as well.
.

 

[carpetbagger]

If this government or the next is really serious about going green and improving transport then we have to have more designated cycling lanes not the painted jokes where you ride in and hit 3 parked cars forcing you out into the road..I think a lot of people would now be interested in ebikes given the price of fuel,but then take one look at the dangers of the road and scrap the idea. How many of us have had near misses recently ? If we want to get our children on their bikes we have to make it safe for them to do so.
My son is 17 and my wife argued about him using my powabyke to go to his girlfriends.Our road is a race track,as are lots of others and we need segregation from them.If we have congestion charges some of that money must be invested in cycleways.

 

[HarryB]

Sorry to highlight it, but the response in this thread to the Manchester proposal is typical of that British attitude of course. It's why we still have such a rubbish railway system and main road network and why we are now running short of generating capacity, areas where those other countries make us look silly while having their cycling as well.
.

It is not that I oppose change I am definitely up for it but I cannot see how the congestion charge has helped. It has certainly hardened up attitudes here in London. I object on the fairness level. When it first started my rather rich friend said how wonderful it was jumping into a taxi (congestion charge free!) and wizzing across London. I pointed out the great number of proles that were either excluded from driving however great their need or having to pay £5 just so that she could have a quick journey. As a good socialist I think she saw the point I was making.

London's implementation is very poor. I don't even think it has even reduced congestion - I think it has moved congestion to other parts. One good thing with the Manchester scheme, to show they are learning, is that it will be in two parts, inner and outer. It is also aimed at rush hour commuting - another positive improvement.

I think Ken lost the plot by bringing in the western extension thus giving a 90% discount for those in it, so they could drive in the inner zone. Result -increased congestion in the inner zone.

At the risk of repeating myself I think if roads can be designed with cyclist in mind then we will encourage cycling. If you ask why people why they don't cycle they respond that it is too dangerous - and they are right. We are still designing stupid roads for cyclists (well here in North London anyway).

Boris has already got things moving here in London as now there is a trial is going ahead allowing cyclists up the one way roads - so they don't have to cycle round the houses as it were. One of the benefit of this was that cycling was discussed on the news for a whole day, mostly positively as well (it mostly showed up the motorists and their organisations as being mean spirited).

 

[HarryB]

If this government or the next is really serious about going green and improving transport then we have to have more designated cycling lanes not the painted jokes where you ride in and hit 3 parked cars forcing you out into the road..I think a lot of people would now be interested in ebikes given the price of fuel,but then take one look at the dangers of the road and scrap the idea. How many of us have had near misses recently ? If we want to get our children on their bikes we have to make it safe for them to do so.
My son is 17 and my wife argued about him using my powabyke to go to his girlfriends.Our road is a race track,as are lots of others and we need segregation from them.If we have congestion charges some of that money must be invested in cycleways.

I have an issues with segregated paths. It keeps us away from drivers - out of sight out of mind. So when we inevitably appear on the roads we get the "get out of my way, you have no right to be on the road" attitude that is holding back cycling. Far better to integrate us into the traffic with dedicated lanes which is possible on the vast majority of roads. The same fine as a you would get using a bus lane lane would help too. That this doesn't happen shows the lack of commitment to cycling - even with our supposedly cycle friendly Mayor(s) in London!

I completely agree with you about roads being used as a race track but the Police have a very poor attitude to road safety and we need to change that (but are probably unwilling to pay for it).