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.
Tubes already crowded (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tubes already crowded (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Tubes already crowded (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Tubes already crowded (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Humpf! You haven't seen the Paris Metro, is a heck of a lot worse.
Al.Re:Tubes already crowded (Score:3, Informative)
>>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.
Re:Tubes already crowded (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Tubes already crowded (Score:3, Funny)
Of course, the more likely explanation is that I am ingesting it all, and am now slowly dying
Re:Tubes already crowded (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Tubes already crowded (Score:3, Funny)
Well, Luke, use your blaster to target them womp-rats! They're not much bigger than 2 meters!
Re:Tubes already crowded (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Tubes already crowded (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Tubes already crowded (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, it always made me wonder why anybody would actually want to drive in the centre of London. Too slow, and too much stress from all the other vehicles and pedestrians.
Re:Tubes already crowded (Score:5, Informative)
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.
You have absolutely no idea, do you? (Score:3, Informative)
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:Tubes already crowded (Score:3, Funny)
the things you learn eh?
Re:Tubes already crowded (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Tubes already crowded (Score:3, Insightful)
And impossible. The tube already runs at maximum capacity at rush hour (longer platforms might just possibly cost too much to implement), so that leaves the buses. How exactly do you get buses to travel faster before you reduce the traffic they are caught up in? Get real.
Everybody whines about the charges but they never have a better idea to offer
TWW
Re:Tubes already crowded (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tubes already crowded (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Tubes already crowded (Score:5, Insightful)
The London tube has a significant disadvantage compared to say the New York subway or Paris metro - London is built on clay. Being built on clay means that for the most part, the tube has to be buried very deep underground. In New York or Paris, the system runs mostly just below the surface. Being deep underground makes engineering work much more expensive, not to mention the fact that they constantly have to pump water out of the system to prevent it from flooding.
Unless people are prepared to pay, and pay big, the tube is not getting any better.
Re:Tubes already crowded (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Tubes already crowded (Score:3, Informative)
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]
Re:Tubes already crowded (Score:4, Interesting)
Good thing... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good thing... (Score:5, Funny)
James Bond works for MI6 - who are based at Vauxhall Cross, on the South bank of the Thames.
Happily this is just outside the congestion charging zone, so no five-pounds-a-day for Mr.Bond.
The map is here (pdf) [cclondon.com]
Re:Good thing... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good thing... (Score:5, Informative)
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...
Re:Good thing... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Are you nuts? (Score:3, Interesting)
Wouldn't it be possible to damage the camera? Yes it goes back and forth, but it still seems to me that a group of people could take these things out.
Call the group a "well armed militia"
Re:Good thing... (Score:4, Funny)
That fucker is gonna get £80 fines for the rest of his days!!!
A bit late... (Score:5, Insightful)
Another exclusive scoop by Slashdot?
Hmm.
Re:A bit late... (Score:3, Funny)
More like another elusive scoop.
Charge? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, as a highly paid engineer god, I would support a minor usage fee for freeway access during rush hour to clear out some of the riffraff. :-) A few years back our local highway department ran a survey and found aout that almost half the people on the freeway in the afternoon rush really didn't *need* to be there.
Need? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Need" gets to be very, sticky, sticky issue subject to political interpretaion.
And of course the shopping areas *need* needless costomers, or their "needed" employees have no "need" to be there in the first place.
Of course what you really have on the road is a *right* of way.
On your mule I guess, because the only ones who could cogently state a viable reason for the *need* to have motor vehicles in the city are police and emergency services in the first place. So the logical thing to do would be to simply close the city to all nonofficial motor traffic.
Works for me, I'm bicycle mechanic and frame builder. I could use the business, and you could use the exercise.
KFG
Re:Need? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Honestly? (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:Charge? (Score:3, Interesting)
And if you look at how much they collect per month on the GGB compared to what it costs to maintain it, you'll see that they collect much more than they need. So why don't they lower the toll? They aren't supposed to be making a profit. But that extra money is already being spent and they don't want to stop now.
Well, you are completly misinformed, and just plain wrong. The budget for the Golden Gate Bridge, Highway
and Transportation District is available in
47% ($82 million) of the budget comes from GGB tolls
34% ($60 million) comes from government grants
The rest comes from transit fares and other sources.
Far from making a profit, the tolls barely pay for the operating costs of the bridge and transit. Most of the funds used for capital improvement come from other sources.
Firstly, different system, different country (Score:3, Insightful)
PS Burien is a cool place, some LAN party friends live there, and we meet a couple of times a year for Frag Fests.
Circumvention (Score:3, Interesting)
If the government is that strapped for revenue, then they should just raise taxes on the wealthy.
Re:Circumvention (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Circumvention (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, that could be a good thing for revenues. I imagine the fine for obscuring one's license plates to avoid identification is a heckuva a lot higher that 5 pounds, or whatever the US equivalent may be.
My point being that civil disobedience won't cut it. Also, the point here is also to try to effect a beneficial change, not mere revenue.
Website link (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.cclondon.com/ [cclondon.com]
Won't work. (Score:5, Funny)
The cameras will be focused on the wrong side of the roads. All they'll get are pictures of the car hoods.
Re:Won't work. (Score:3, Insightful)
--dan
The centre will be clearer. The outskirts won't be (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The centre will be clearer. The outskirts won't (Score:5, Informative)
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.
But for years it's been £4.00 per _hour_ (Score:3, Informative)
What about anti-photographic measures? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What about anti-photographic measures? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not clear that the 'tax' will have much effect, since most estimate that it would take about 16 pounds to have any real effect.
They also reported that the people hardest hit are likely to be the small shops in London which do deliveries. Most residents already walk or take the tube.
Visiting my brother in London, I was struck by the difference in scale between London and any other large US city. In the US, when you shop you fill up a large cart, stuff your minivan, and fill your fridge. In London, you take enough to fit into a shopping bag, carry it home, and put it in your small fridge in your modest kitchen (all things being relative, of course).
Still, the proposal is a start on a real problem of traffic that's not unique to London, and a number of large US cities are watching it closely.
Re:What about anti-photographic measures? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What about anti-photographic measures? (Score:3, Informative)
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...
Probable are illegal, but this isn't: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.nofiver.com/freelondon.html
5 pounds (Score:5, Funny)
Attack of Papadom servers (Score:2)
Getting Around It (Score:3, Interesting)
There was some cartoon, ages ago, where a girl always seemed to fix car problems with a can of hair spray. That cartoon was visionary.
Just to be absolutely clear.. (Score:5, Interesting)
What is sad is that, while everyone agrees Something Must Be Done About Traffic, it is seen as a huge political gamble for Ken Livingstone, the London Mayor, whom all the political parties hate (he was even kicked out of the Labour Party and stood as an independent candidate). He's got the nerve to at least try and sort out the problem, and whatever his politics, I admire him for that.
Re:Just to be absolutely clear.. (Score:4, Informative)
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.Satch? (Score:3, Funny)
then Satch proceeded into a hot and blistering 3 minute jazz solo and closed with "What a wonderful world".
Boundary of the Charging Zone (Score:5, Informative)
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.Facial Recognition (Score:3, Insightful)
In theory, just those covering a small section of London (the financial district) - but I have no doubts this will be extended to cover the whole city in time (after all, it's touted as "automatically identifying suspects or known criminals" so what government in the world would turn down the chance).
I find this far more disturbing - paying to try and alleviate congestion is fine (London is very crowded, and a similar scheme did help alleviate the traffic problems in Singapore when congestion charges were introduced there), paying for the privilege of being treated as a potential criminal is more than a little scary...
.NET - ha (Score:5, Interesting)
The
The web operation is supposed to be a front end to everything, tbh the diagrams we were shown were a right spaghetti.
I can't remember what questions I asked but they were answered with blank stares and shrugs.
I'm glad they found some contractors. I really didn't want to do it [I'd danced with the Devil back in IIS4 days and have burnt toes].
The charging wont really help congestion on it's own. London is the worst place in the UK to drive round. 1mph is not much fun on a daily basis. Yet London has the best mass transport system in the UK but then again it doesn't have much competition.
The root cause of Uk traffic problems are the insistence that the rail network should be open to competition so we have 8 rail operators competing by running trains to different destinations. How trains in the SE compete with trains in the NW is unclear to me. Instead of decent travel we have bare bones operations where cut corners cost lives.
The road freight operators and subsidised by other road users whereas the railways have to pay in full for their tracks.
A forward sighted govt. would realise that inter-city rail travel should be invested in for the benefit of the people but hey profits not people is the rally cry of the capitalists.
Rail travel should be the mode of choice over 50 miles. Instead it is cheaper to travel by car.
I can drive the family from here to the capital and back [about 150 miles] for about £25. Take the train and we're looking at £120 for the four of us.
And then they wonder why the place of chock full of cars !
Re:.NET - ha (Score:3, Interesting)
They're like local monopolies aren't they? I guess it means that poor operators can be replaced by different companies. The competition comes about during contracting bidding, which of course encourages cost cutting up front.
LCD shutters for license plates (Score:5, Interesting)
A spinning fan in front of the plate would also do the trick, but might take off someone's fingers.
Here's a googled automatic license plate reader. [pipstechnology.com]
Why not pass a law? (Score:3, Funny)
For every problem there is a law that can solve it!
Next?
interesting "alternative use" (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Add in a real problem in the UK with second hand cars still being registered to their previous owners (the new owner is responsible for re-registration, and many don't because it means parking and speeding fines don't reach them) and you have One Hell of a Problem.
I expect civil disobedience.
The technology may be ever so good (though I somehow doubt even that) but it'll be the human element that'll scupper it...
A possible solution to the problem in the article (Score:3, Interesting)
That might, of course, bother people who un-luckily got charged more than they felt was right. Still you could get the same effect from charging in graduated increments, 10% toll in an outer perimiter, 50% in the middle and 100% in the peak area, so that drivers avoiding the toll will be spread out according to who wants to avoid how much of a toll.
Exemption for using the correct type of fuel (Score:3, Interesting)
LPG (Score:4, Informative)
Doesn't apply to bikes (Score:3, Informative)
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]
Why such a clumsy system? (Score:5, Interesting)
In Singapore, they have a system where every car is fitted with a card reader for a cash card. Every time you enter a zone where they want to keep congestion down (I only saw one while I was there) it automatically deducts $1 off of your cash card. Taxis and busses entering the area charge more, too. (Busses are also done on with an electronic card system. You wave your magnetic cash card in front of the reader when you get on, and when you get off. Prices are based on how long you've been on the bus.)
700 cameras and a lot of
It's not clumsy at all (Score:4, Insightful)
That system seems a bit clumsy. It sounds fairly expensive, too.
Not really. Most of the cameras were already in place for traffic-flow monitoring, all it required was a few more to patch up the gaps in coverage and some new software to interpret the images. A smart card system would have required every driver - even those who only drove into London once in ten years - to buy an expensive smart card reader/transmitter. Maybe you can get away with that in Singapore, but forking out money so that you get charged for the privilege? Not in London.
OK so the London government could buy the smartcard reader/transponders but then you're spending far far more on infrastructure than you are on a few hundred cameras, plus you have to work out a way to distribute them. Also it would have been susceptible to tampering - look at the dismal failure that most satellite TV smart card systems are. You could easily have a PC sitting in your car pretending to be a smartcard but failing to deduct any money. Also how do you enforce a smart card system? What happens when a car enters the charging zone without a smart card? You can't have barriers to stop these cars, the whole point of the system is to improve traffic flow, not slow it down, same reason you can't have toll booths. Only way is to have... enforcement cameras everywhere. Real cost saving eh?
Your choice: enforcement cameras plus some relatively cheap software, all centrally controlled and essentially tamper-proof... or enforcement cameras plus several million expensive hardware smartcards and transponders, only limited central control, and prone to tampering.
Smart card/transponder systems work on public transport because there are barriers in the way to stop you if you don't have one or it's run out of money - as a matter of fact London is getting just such a system this year. But for a road system they're simply the wrong technology.
Exemptions (Score:5, Funny)
Tax Parking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Admittedly it's a low-tech solution. Am I missing something here?
I know that would keep ME out (I already take the commuter train and two metros to get to work, because parking is just TOO expensive for me (in Montreal -- not London)).
S
Re:Tax Parking? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really. There's practically nowhere to park in central London. The parking that does exist can be very expensive (anything up to £20 per day).
A lot of the time it's people going from one side of London to the other, or just passing through. Hence the wish to "discorage" them.
The charging formula itself is flawed. (Score:3, Interesting)
Number Plates NOT License Plates (Score:3, Informative)
Even the BBC has been known to get this wrong.
Microsoft, eh? (Score:5, Funny)
So if you see people walking around London with big signs, something along the lines ofyou'll know what they're trying to do.
Good News For Telecommuting (Score:5, Interesting)
(ANSWER: because you are our little IT bitch! you have to work 50 hours min every week on salary)
As time goes on, something is going to have to give. More cities, more spread out, new transit systems that do not exist today, or something.
I would take a 10% - 20% pay cut to telecommute, and I mean REAL telecommuting with a Cisco 1750, VWIC, DS1, IP Phone, everything.
Re:Not addressed in the article (Score:2)
Re:Not addressed in the article (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not addressed in the article (Score:2)
Re:Not addressed in the article (Score:5, Insightful)
Why in the world don't they just make the roads bigger? Doesn't that seem to be the logical route, rather than rely on high technology?
Too damned expensive to take all that real estate by eminent domain, would increase parking requirements requiring even more real estate to be taken, some of it isn't houses, it's office towers, and even then it wouldn't solve the air quality issue. Singapore has AFAIK been doing pretty much the same thing for a while.
Re:Not addressed in the article (Score:2)
Deeply impractical (Score:2)
The area the system overs is only the central area of the City, and the buildings in question would either be company headquarters, protected buildings (of historical value etc) or just plain too big to completely remove.
Re:Deeply impractical (Score:2)
Re:Not addressed in the article (Score:5, Insightful)
The charge will encourage people to use public transportation.
Have you ever been to London? (Score:4, Interesting)
The cost of widening roads in central London would be astronomical - not to mention the fact that there are a lot of very old buildings that you can't just knock a bit off from.
Re:Not addressed in the article (Score:2)
Besides, displacing people would be difficult. Displacing Harrods? Not a hope in hell - however much you pay them.
Re:Not addressed in the article (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Not addressed in the article (Score:3, Insightful)
This is central London; it's an old city, with really expensive real estate, stuffed full of heritage sites. We're only talking about an area of a few square miles.
Re:Not addressed in the article (Score:4, Interesting)
We're talking central London. very Central London. This is all office blocks, shops, and clubhouses. Property here is really expensive, and real estate is at a premium. Widening the roads would either require rebuilding practically the whole of the area or removing pedestrian walkways. Neither is practical.
The point of the congestion charge is however to move traffic onto the public transport systems instead. Of which both the bus and tube networks are overcrowded anyway, especially the Tube. The Govn't claims the Tube isn't overcrowded, but the Underground regularly closes stations due to overcrowding and is jam-packed* for a very broad definition of 'Rush Hour'.
At the moment, of course, a couple of the arterial underground lines are closed due to a derailment that happened a couple of weeks ago. This has made it oh so much worse...
*Disclaimer: not as full as systems like the Tokyo tube, obviously, but London isn't nearly as dense and could be vastly improved.
Re:Not addressed in the article (Score:4, Informative)
Phillip.
Re:Not addressed in the article (Score:4, Interesting)
Somehow that reminds me of the infamous Marie Antoinette quote "Let them eat cake". The whole problem is that there is *no* space left in london to make roads bigger and wider. As for sprawl, commuters already live as far as 1-2 hours train car/train journey away. I think anywhere short of tearing down the whole city and rebuilding it US style (and I have to say I much prefer the crowded London over the endless sprawl of LA) the only solution is to get people on public transport.
Charging a fee for a rare good (space on roads in this case) is something that should be very natural to capitatlists around the world, yet many countries such as the US or Germany (or Britain in fact) see the free use of roads as a divine right no-one should interfere with (while at the same time complaining about large governments and tax..).
Re:Not addressed in the article (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not addressed in the article (Score:4, Informative)
(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
Re:.NET? (Score:4, Informative)
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."
Oh Yeah? (Score:2)
Mod me up, proles!
These are not the same cameras. (Score:3, Informative)
How would you suggest handling London's congestion problems?
Re:Time to..... (Score:5, Funny)