Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Technology

London to Introduce Traffic Congestion Charge 643

Vivek writes "BBC is reporting that Londoners will have to pay a 5 pound "Congestion Charge" starting Feb 17. According to this Times of India article, an Indian software firm called Mastek developed the .NET based software to implement the plan. In the absence of toll booths, it reportedly uses character recognition from 700 surveillance cameras to identify defaulting license plates." See our previous story for background.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

London to Introduce Traffic Congestion Charge

Comments Filter:
  • Re:.NET? (Score:4, Informative)

    by kalidasa ( 577403 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @12:59PM (#5288349) Journal

    I thought it was being called Windows Server 2003 now...

    In case this isn't a troll: .NET Server is being called Server 2003. The .NET technology is still called .NET; when you see .NET translate to "MS's analog to Java."

  • by Rik Sweeney ( 471717 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @01:00PM (#5288355) Homepage
    What would be even better is if they fix the problems with the Central Line. It's not going to be up and running in any state until the end of March.
  • Website link (Score:5, Informative)

    by djkitsch ( 576853 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @01:00PM (#5288362)
    Oh, and here's the website:
    http://www.cclondon.com/ [cclondon.com]
  • by Rik Sweeney ( 471717 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @01:04PM (#5288416) Homepage
    Since people won't be able to drive around the centre of London much less park there they will go and park immediately outside the Congestion Zone which will cause havoc. Fortunately some car parks have already taken note of this and are charging a daily rate of £4.60
  • by mumblestheclown ( 569987 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @01:06PM (#5288437)
    (sigh--who modded such tripe up?)

    Yes, the tube is less than ideal. The traffic situation is even worse than less than ideal. The congestion charge, however, is not levied on BUSES.

    Read the article next time.

    Yes, the congestion charge will have some bad externalities--for example, the rich who live inside the affected circle's land values will go up further while they pay only 10% of the fees that others pay. Nevertheless, it's a step towards public transport in a big city--it's a good thing.

  • by horza ( 87255 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @01:08PM (#5288460) Homepage
    Have you any idea how expensive property in London is? 1/2 millions dollars will only get you a modest 2 bedroom flat in a reasonable area. There is no upper limit on the price of flats in the centre. Trust me, this is not feasable on any scale.

    Phillip.
  • by op00to ( 219949 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @01:09PM (#5288466)
    You picked the wrong time to say that...:) I'm an Urban Planning student. Building more roads is actually worse for your transportation infrastructure because if a road is not congested, more people will use it, and if the road is widened, traffic usually gets WORSE within 1 year than better. (Eg a 10 minute trip with old roads now takes 13-15 minutes). I was recently in london, and there is NO PLACE to build a new road where it is needed most. Also, it is against certain zoning regulations to change the current roads. Also, emminent domain "fair market" is BS for the homeowner. They gov't will never give you as much as it's really worth, because you have no bargaining poisition. If you don't accept their offer, they'll just condemn your house, and you don't get anything! Fun! More roads is NOT the answer -- smart driving, use of public transit, and better services outside the city core would be a more effective way of eliminating congestion in the center than just building more roads, which means more pollution anyhow.
  • by EnglishTim ( 9662 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @01:09PM (#5288472)
    Accoring to a page on the Transport for London website [cclondon.com], about 1.1 million people currently use the tube during the morning peak period. They estimate that this will only increase by about 1% when congestion charging starts. We'll see on Monday.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @01:10PM (#5288482)
    >Why in the world don't they just make the roads bigger?

    (I live in London and work in the city center, so I speak from first-hand experience.)

    Because London is incredibly crowded and there is absolutely no place for them to put more roads without knocking down houses and buildings.

    >Sure, I'm all for high tech, but we're talking about roads
    >and traffic. People might be displaced, but they would
    >get fair market for their houses, if the system is the same
    >as it is here in the US.

    And where would they get the money for paying people "fair market value" for their houses? This is London - my small two bedroom flat (in a semi-sleazy part of town) cost over 130,000 *pounds* (over $214,000 at the current exchange rate). Terraced houses easily cross 200,000 pounts in this area of town, and easily over 300,000 pounds in nicer areas. A terraced house is *maybe* 50 feet wide - tops - and is flush up against another terraced house on the other side. You do the math and figure out how much it will cost to put in a *single mile* of new road if you have to knock down a mile of terraced houses to do it. And that's *before* you factor in construction cost.

    And don't forget, by the time you get near the city center, you're not talking about knocking down houses, but big, old 5-story stone and brick buildings worth millions of pounds
  • by aallan ( 68633 ) <alasdair@@@babilim...co...uk> on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @01:11PM (#5288492) Homepage

    For those of you not too familiar with London, a map of central London with the congestion charging zone can be found here [cclondon.com] on the Transport for London [cclondon.com] website.

    In brief, you're being charged 5 pounds per day inside to drive inside the congestion charging zone, which covers most of central London. The charge applies from 7.00am till 6.30pm Mondays to Fridays excluding Public Holidays (of which we get alot fewer than you 'merkins), the charge doesn't apply at weekends, and there exemptions and discounts available if you actually live within the zone or are disabled.

    Considering how heavy the traffic in central London actually is, anything that might actually provide a bit of relief is welcome.

    Al.
  • by EnglishTim ( 9662 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @01:14PM (#5288517)
    These aren't the same cameras as the police ones.

    How would you suggest handling London's congestion problems?
  • by aallan ( 68633 ) <alasdair@@@babilim...co...uk> on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @01:16PM (#5288541) Homepage

    I really had expected the tube to function at least as well as the L in chicago, seeing as how they've had the tube around for so long, but it is in need of a serious reworking..

    Thats sort of the problem, most of the system was constructed by the Victorians, and originally carried steam trains.

    ...not to mention a deep cleaning!

    Humpf! You haven't seen the Paris Metro, is a heck of a lot worse.

    Al.
  • Re:Good thing... (Score:5, Informative)

    by actiondan ( 445169 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @01:21PM (#5288584)
    Not just James Bond...

    I saw a TV programme the other day that showed some of the responses to the congestion charge. One of them was a number plate system that has an liquid crystal layer so the plate can be darkened as you pass the cameras, thus defeating the number plate recognition system...

  • by Mr. White ( 22990 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @01:25PM (#5288618) Homepage Journal

    As a motorcycle rider, I would like to note that this doesn't apply to two-wheeled vehicles.

    As a privacy advocate, I would like everyone to note how full of BS the guys who put up these cameras were when they said the CC cameras would only be used to prevent crime.

    Witold
    www.witold.org [witold.org]

  • by Mobster75 ( 234793 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @01:26PM (#5288627) Homepage
    Damn... So, at the current rates that would be about $7.44 to park all day long in London.

    That is CRAZY cheap compared to parking all day here in Boston (Somehere around $20-$25)...

    - Mobster75
  • by wideBlueSkies ( 618979 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @01:28PM (#5288644) Journal
    >>...not to mention a deep cleaning!

    >>Humpf! You haven't seen the Paris Metro, is a heck of a lot worse.

    I've seen neither the London or Paris subways, but I've been told that they're still much cleaner than the New York City subway.

    Wanna talk about filth? Pick any station at random, and you can almost see the garbage moving. And I don't mean the rats either. The stuff is alive. Even the rats & roaches fear it(sometimes).

    Take a good look at the tunnels too. 80 to 100 years of crap are just caked on those columns and support beams. In London & Paris, at least you know it's from coal smoke or whatever. But in the NYC tunnels... you just don't know what it is.

    Thank god I can take the bus most of the time.

  • by aallan ( 68633 ) <alasdair@@@babilim...co...uk> on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @01:32PM (#5288679) Homepage

    Wouldn't it then make sense to use the money to increase the tube's capacity (make it run more often, drill more tunnels, ...)

    Pretty hard to do, constructing more tunnels under London is a hard thing to do, as the recent land collapse [smh.com.au] while building the new Channel Tunnel link probably proves.

    To put whole new underground lines in you'd more or less have to go under the existing system, and if you haven't been on the London underground, the deep stations are really a long way down, much deeper than most of the newer subway systems in the States, which are usually built by digging a big trench and then roofing it over.

    Al.
  • by fiddlesticks ( 457600 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @01:36PM (#5288706) Homepage
    >Shouldn't they increase the capacity of public transit before they force people to use it

    they are, loads more buses paid for out of the congestion charge.

    They tried for years to do this (decrease Central London traffic) voluntarily and it didn't work

    cclondon.com [cclondon.com]
  • by jd678 ( 577145 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @01:38PM (#5288728)
    £4.60 to park just outside the charging zone? Let us know where it is then - this is the sort of rate for about 10 miles out of London, and a 40 minute tube ride to the centre.

    Car Parks just outside the charging zone have been, and AFAIK, still are, charging about £20 a day for parking.

  • Re:The problem is... (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @01:43PM (#5288776)
    Motorcycles are not included in the scheme:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/congestion/ex empt.shtm l [bbc.co.uk]

    The re-registration process for vehicles has been changed so that the current owner is responsible for the re-registration:
    http://www.dvla.gov.uk/vehicles/ regveh.htm [dvla.gov.uk]
  • LPG (Score:4, Informative)

    by msgmonkey ( 599753 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @01:45PM (#5288787)
    If your car has been converted to use liquid petrolium gas you dont have to pay. An LPG conversion costs around £1000 so it may or may not be worth it depending on your usage.
  • by Mr_Silver ( 213637 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @01:47PM (#5288803)
    Since people won't be able to drive around the centre of London much less park there they will go and park immediately outside the Congestion Zone which will cause havoc. Fortunately some car parks have already taken note of this and are charging a daily rate of £4.60

    Pffft. When was the last time you tried parking in London? 1964? :o)

    I don't know where you heard about places charging £4.60 but thats rubbish.

    Just because you pay a fiver doesn't mean you're guaranteed a parking space inside the zone. Places outside of the zone are hiking their prices because of the increased demand to park in that area (so capturing the "i'll drive as close as I can and then tube it" group of people).

    You can't find a daily rate of less than £20 in the area at the moment. Next week it'll probably hit £25.

  • by shippo ( 166521 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @01:54PM (#5288876)
    The plates on the front and back of UK cars are, and have always been, called 'Number Plates'.

    Even the BBC has been known to get this wrong.
  • by jhoffoss ( 73895 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @01:57PM (#5288906) Journal
    Radar detectors aren't illegal though (in most states, at least), but there are restrictions placed on usage. In Minnesota, any vehicle over a specific gross vehicle weight can be fined heavily if caught using a radar detector. The laser diffusing license plate covers available here are also legal in some states, I think. Not in Minnesota though (sorry, that's all I know firsthand...)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @01:58PM (#5288927)
    i really had expected the tube to function at least as well as the L in chicago, seeing as how they've had the tube around for so long, but it is in need of a serious reworking, (not to mention a deep cleaning!)

    The problem is exactly that. The london underground system is the oldest in the world at around 140 years, one of the largest, and certainly one of the busiest. Adding to the problem is that London itself is a very old city, and people have been tunneling under it for over a thousand years. Adding the quantity of new tunnels that would be required to upgrade the system to the point that cars could be mostly supplanted would not only cost an astronomical amount, but is almost impossible anyway. There is almost nowhere to actually put the new tunnels.

    There's so much stuff both under the ground and above it, much of it centuries old, that drilling the tunnels is a technically very difficult job. Add to that the fact that the ground is quite unstable, being an old flood plain, and the task rapidly gets beyond the bounds of practicality.

    Overall the system does in fact function remarkably well, considering it's age and the enormous number of people who use it every day.
  • Re:LPG (Score:2, Informative)

    by StressedEd ( 308123 ) <ej.graceNO@SPAMimperial.ac.uk> on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @02:17PM (#5289090) Homepage
    There are also government grants available for typically 50% of the cost bringing the typical cost of conversion down to ~£500. (What one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away)

    When you also realise that the cost of the fuel is almost half that of petrol for the same distance it seems silly not to convert. (~40p/litre vs ~80p/litre)

    I'm just amazed that this isn't being advertised much!

    For more info see the powershift website [powershift.org.uk].

  • by kyz ( 225372 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @02:42PM (#5289288) Homepage
    anywhere in Westminster Council's territory.
  • Re:Good thing... (Score:3, Informative)

    by tagishsimon ( 175038 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @02:44PM (#5289300) Homepage
    I walk past their offices every day. The entrance to their car park is about 30 yards inside the congestion zone.
  • by marm ( 144733 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @03:26PM (#5289685)

    SF is onlly 7.5 miles across east to west? And it takes more than 10 minutes to get there? Traffic must be awful.

    To give you some idea of how bad London's traffic problems are, if you travelled at the average morning rush-hour traffic speed, a 7.5 mile journey across London would take you 37 and a half minutes.

  • Re:Need? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Moofie ( 22272 ) <lee@ringofsat u r n.com> on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @04:41PM (#5290261) Homepage
    I'm not current on models, but I am an experienced bike mechanic and sales guy. I can make some suggestions you're free to ignore. : )

    At first blush, your budget seems a little on the low side, if you're serious about riding to work several days a week. Upgrading a bicycle is fairly expensive with respect to just buying what you will need in the first place, so shop with your future (2-4 years) needs in mind.

    Having said that, when you catch the bug, nobody's going to be able to stop you buying a new ride. : )

    The first thing you need to think about is user interface. You want to get a bicycle that is not just comfortable for five minutes in the parking lot, but is comfortable for an hour (or so) a day. That means that I would get a good pair of cycling shorts, gloves, and shoes (in that order of importance). Look for a saddle that is wide (or narrow) enough to support the points of your pelvis, your "sit bones". Avoid excess padding, as it tends to chafe. Thin gel or closed-cell foam pads on well-designed nylon shells are my personal preference for saddles.

    Then you need to decide whether you're more comfortable on a bike with drop handlebars or upright, flat handlebars. There are advantages and disadvantages both ways. As a general rule, drop handlebars afford more hand positions, allowing you to move around to avoid hot spots on your hands. They also put more of your weight on your hands, typically 30-40% of your body weight. This is a good idea for longer-distance rides, but many people feel it is awkward at first. You will want to make sure that the bars are about as wide as your shoulders. The ideal position is that your arms remain parallel to one another when you're holding the brake hoods or the dropped sections.

    Lots of people prefer flat handlebars. Especially with a pair of bar-end extensions, the problems with hand fatigue go away. With a wider distance between your hands, the bike feels more stable and controllable. Typically, the position is a bit more upright than with drop bars.

    In either case, you've got a lot of flexibility for setting up your body position by switching out stems and handlebars.

    My experience with inexperienced cyclists is that they feel more comfortable with a lower saddle, and a more upright position, than is actually ideal for long distance riding. Saddle position is easy to adjust, of course. When you have the ball of your foot over the pedal axle, and are seated, you want your leg to be at almost full extension. You should be able to move your knee backwards, dropping your heel and lock your knee, without straining or rising off the saddle. This will probably feel precarious. If you're very uncomfortable, drop the saddle an inch and raise it a little bit every few days until you are where you need to be.

    If you're going to be commuting daily, the first thing you'll want on your bike is a good, sturdy wheelset with narrow(ish) high-pressure tires. Aluminum rims are pretty standard nowadays, and you want to make sure that the bike you pick has good ones. If you select a mountain-style bike, get some high pressure road tires. Commuting on knobbies is noisy and inefficient. For a road bike, get a middle-width to wide tire. Racers use tires 18-23mm. 23-27 will be more appropriate for commuting.

    Make sure you're getting a good frameset. In your price range, you'll certainly be looking at steel frames, with perhaps some aluminum bikes as well. You'll notice that shifter and brake models are stratified by price. Typically, an aluminum bike will have components that are one or two levels "lower" than a steel bike for the same price.

    As far as componentry goes, any bike you buy is probably going to shift and brake really really reallyreally well. More expensive components tend to be lighter and sturdier, but this is not a huge concern for a commuter or recreational cyclist. Spend your money to get a good frame and wheels, and appropriate clothing. I feel that a bike with derailleurs is simpler to maintain than those with internally-geared hubs, although those geared hubs have come a long way from my dad's three-speed.

    If you're going to be carrying groceries, get a rear-mounted rack and a set of panniers or open-top fabric bags. This setup is a lot more comfortable and safer than carrying a big backpack.

    Rules of thumb:

    1) Go to a bike store. Do not buy from a department store. You'll pay more at the bike store than you will (say) buying a bike online, but the experience of the sales staff in helping you evaluate your options will more than pay for itself. If you do not feel the staff is being helpful, go to another bike shop.

    2) Take time to get the bike fitted to yourself. Most good shops will swap out handlebars and stems and (sometimes) saddles, at your request. You might pay a little upcharge if you select a much more expensive part, but the shop should do the labor for free.

    3) Don't neglect clothing. A good pair of gloves and shorts will make more difference to your enjoyment of riding your bicycle than spending an extra $100 to get a bike with shinier parts.

    4) Toe clips are your friend. They position your foot on the pedal, and allow you to lengthen your power stroke. They are, however, scary as heck the first time you use them. See 5.

    5) Shoes and clipless pedals are a very nice upgrade for your bike, and I'd say they're pretty important if you're going to be riding frequently. I feel they're safer than toe clips.

    6) Suspension systems are heavy, and will not dramatically improve your riding on the road. Become accustomed to standing over bumps and rough pavement. If you want to ride more aggressively off-road, front suspension is far more important for control. I would not buy a fully sustpended bike that costs less than $800-1000. And, even at that price range, I'd expect the bike to be several pounds heavier than other bikes that cost
    much less.

    7) Carry tools, and know how to use them. You must be able to replace and inflate a tire on the road. I prefer pumps to the C0-2 inflaters. Carry a spare tube and a tube patch kit.

    8) Rudimentary bicycle maintenance is very easy, and doesn't require a lot in the way of expensive tools. Adjusting your brakes and shifters are not difficult. Have the bike shop give you a run down of how the systems work.
  • by radish ( 98371 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @07:20PM (#5291557) Homepage
    Radar detectors are legal in the UK, things to obscure your license (number) plate are not. There is also a £1000 fine for attempting to get out of paying the congestion charge, as well as the punishment for having an illegal device on your car. Not really worth it.

    As for shopping - yes people do shop on the way home from work, but they tend to be young people with no families working long hours and living in small flats (apartments). Personally I hate carrying shopping home, so I drive to an out of town store at the weekend. A lot of people don't have cars in london of course...
  • Re:Honestly? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Paul Komarek ( 794 ) <komarek.paul@gmail.com> on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @08:14PM (#5291871) Homepage
    You skipped the helmet lecture, so I'll do it for you (no matter how popular).

    I've been hit, from the side, by a motorist ignoring right-of-way at a stop sign (she claimed she didn't see me, gave the police 2 different stories in which she did see me, and gave the court yet another story). I had a minor concusion but no other serious injuries. My bicycle had bent forks, bent frame, bent weels, and bent cranks. Without the helmet, I don't know what would have happened to me.

    Always ride with a helmet. Always ride with lights.

    Note that the least important part of lights is helping you see. The most important part is helping you to *be seen*.

    Don't follow the example of moronic bike police and where all black at night. Especially without a light.

    When you ride, be *predictable*. If you ride in traffic, which is the law and best thing to do in many circumstances, pretend you're a car. Do car like things. You'll probably be relatively slow, but at least the drivers will know what you'll do next.

    If you ride on the sidewalk, act like a pedestrian. Dismount at intersections and walk your bike across the street.

    If you ride in bike lanes in most US cities, be aware that you are a prime target for a right-turning car.

    -Paul Komarek
  • by op00to ( 219949 ) on Wednesday February 12, 2003 @08:51PM (#5292096)
    Linky [state.ny.us]
    Apparently, they've been trying to for ages, but as you can imagine, the MTA (nyc metropolitan transit authority) is huge, and it would cost way more money than anyone actually has. All of Akron's busses could fit in one of the MTA's maintenence boards. I agree that diesel busses suck, and they smell, I have to ride them every day. The problem is that Akron is not New York City. Huge sweeping conversions just don't happen like this. Pity, I guess.

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Working...