Traffic Curfew period
Comments
-
roger merriman wrote:at the end of the day public transport is takes one from where you didn't really want to be , to where you didn't really want to get to, which is why personal transport aka cars/bikes are so popular.
I think this is part of the problem with the whole "car curfew" idea. It removes one option of transport regardless of the fact if that is the most effective way for someone to get to work.
Most of the places I work at in London are within walking distance of a main line railway station, all of which I can get to directly from either of my two local train stations. In fact one was directly above Victoria train station which is only 25 minutes on the train from the nearer of the two stations yet I still prefer to ride in (can't SCR on the train ;-))
There was one site that I don't need to attend anymore that I used to drive to in central London, until I realized I could get one of those lovely "express" X bus services there from the bottom of my road, but even with the non-stop run from Norwood to Elephant and Castle it still took about 20-30 minutes longer door to door.0 -
Bassjunkieuk wrote:roger merriman wrote:at the end of the day public transport is takes one from where you didn't really want to be , to where you didn't really want to get to, which is why personal transport aka cars/bikes are so popular.
I think this is part of the problem with the whole "car curfew" idea. It removes one option of transport regardless of the fact if that is the most effective way for someone to get to work.
Most of the places I work at in London are within walking distance of a main line railway station, all of which I can get to directly from either of my two local train stations. In fact one was directly above Victoria train station which is only 25 minutes on the train from the nearer of the two stations yet I still prefer to ride in (can't SCR on the train ;-))
There was one site that I don't need to attend anymore that I used to drive to in central London, until I realized I could get one of those lovely "express" X bus services there from the bottom of my road, but even with the non-stop run from Norwood to Elephant and Castle it still took about 20-30 minutes longer door to door.
not to mention the areas out of the M25 where public transport is either poor or simply doesn't exist.0 -
ChrisInBicester wrote:What a nuts idea. The economy works becasue we have a free-flowing system of transport and like it or not most of us go to work in the morning and come home in the evening.
+1 for the guy who takes his toddler to creche. I take my youngest to school 3 days a week so have to drive to get to the office in a reasonable time. No way could I wait for the school to allow kids in at 8:30 then bike 21 miles to be at work. 2 days a week I get to do my 21 mile time trial to the office. I'd love it to be 3, 4, 5 even. But then I never have a near miss.
Ah, that capitalist utopia with free flowing traffic and an economy that works. I'm assuming you're not talking about the UK or the USA.
Wouldn’t you be better off with local schools and work-places? There’s also remote working. It isn't rocket science, It just requires an open mind!0 -
very few people are lucky enought to have a good job within cycle distance away most will find that you will either need to get a lower paid less intresting job or travel further. my wife is lucky in that she has a nice potter though a royal park, deer etc and a intresting job at the end of it, which is why she's worked there for 20 years. but for most life gets in the way be that dropping kids off, or what not. and if you don't live in a city unless you have a car you may well be totally knobbled.0
-
What is obvious is that there is not one simple solution. Congestion charging and badging of cars have both been mentioned. One scheme here in Leeds has been multiple occupancy lanes to try and encourage car pooling. I don't know how effective any of these measures have been in isolation but it seems fairly obvious to me that a combined approach is what is needed.GarethPJ wrote:Road pricing penalises all the wrong people, it prices the poor off the roads no matter how much they need their cars while the affluent can afford it. Indeed those who can afford accountants will no doubt find a way of making it tax deductable and end up getting it free. You could end up with an elitist system where only the rich can afford to use cars and everybody else has to use public transport.
I know our current PM wouldn't agree, but people must have a choice you can't simply dictate to them.
The biggest joke of such a system would be that it would cost so much to set up a nationwide road charging system that it would take years to pay for itself. Furthermore it would be farmed out to a private company to operate and this company will expect to make a hefty profit. So it would take even longer before the nation saw any benefit from the scheme.
I don't think it would necesarily cost that much to implement, if you were to simply base the road fund license on a cars annual mileage, with a weighting for class/emmissions. Mileage is already recorded as part of a vehicles MOT, and an anual milage check could be made compulsory for all vehicles under three years old. I don't think this would be too onourous for the DVLA to calculate. There would certainly be no need for any kind of nationwide infrastructure to measure road usage.
As for pricing the poor off the road, this argument just doesn't hold water for me. The more affluent will always be able to better afford travel, whether by road, rail or air, and able to employ "good" creative accountants to minimise the net amount of tax they pay. It is up to governmet to close tax loopholes and HMRC to investigate fraudulent accounting practises.
Could closing certain routes to all traffic other than public transport and cycles be one answer? Maybe with park and ride facilities at one end? I can think of one arterial route into Leeds that this may work on.0 -
This idea also seems to be based on the assumption that most people actually want to cycle and are just holding back because it's too dangerous. I'm sure the government is glad to see the revenue from taxation but I think it's a bit lazy to blame that for maintaining the car-centric status quo. Opposition to this sort of thing would come mainly from the public, most of whom would have to have their car keys prised from their fingers before they'd even think about getting on a bike.
It might be easy to forget it on here but cyclists are still a very small minority. Like it or not, the last 50-60 years have been spent setting everything up to revolve around driving and you simply can't just pull the rug out and tell people they can't do it anymore.0 -
downwardslide wrote:I don't think it would necesarily cost that much to implement, if you were to simply base the road fund license on a cars annual mileage, with a weighting for class/emmissions. Mileage is already recorded as part of a vehicles MOT, and an anual milage check could be made compulsory for all vehicles under three years old. I don't think this would be too onourous for the DVLA to calculate. There would certainly be no need for any kind of nationwide infrastructure to measure road usage.
If it were simply based on milage then the simplest solution would be a tax on fuel, oh hang on that's already in place. I don't think you understand what is generally meant by road pricing. It isn't about milage covered, it's about where and when people drive. The point being to discourage people from driving on certain roads at certain times. To do that you are going to need to track every vehicle in the country.
Three main technical solutions have been considered; One is ANPR which would mean a massive investment in cameras and infrastructure as you would need cameras at every entry and exit point to every charged road; Another is a variation on the ANPR solution in that an RF transponder would be fitted to every vehicle and roadside detectors used instead of cameras; the other is a GPS tracking device in every car which would "phone home" regularly to upload it's tracking logs.
All of these would cost a fortune to implement nationwide. As congestion charging has shown the first solution is open to abuse by those who simply fit bogus number plates. The other two would be abused even more widely, all sorts of "jamming" devices would be available within days of the system being launched. However you wouldn't even need a jamming device, the RF tags could easilly be broken by a quick blast from a degausser and the GPS boxes blown with a sudden overvoltage. "I'm sorry officer, I didn't realise my transponder/tracker device wasn't working, it must have broken again."
Another potential showstopper for such a scheme is that it could increase congestion on uncharged roads many of which would probably become rat runs overnight.
However the real killer in all this is the public reaction to such a scheme. We brits are very keen on our privacy, as Google have found out since they introduced streetview to the UK. How do you think the average tax payer would react to the government wanting to track their car wherever it goes?0 -
downwardslide wrote:I don't think it would necesarily cost that much to implement, if you were to simply base the road fund license on a cars annual mileage, with a weighting for class/emmissions. Mileage is already recorded as part of a vehicles MOT, and an anual milage check could be made compulsory for all vehicles under three years old. I don't think this would be too onourous for the DVLA to calculate. There would certainly be no need for any kind of nationwide infrastructure to measure road usage.
It's not as simple as checking the car's mileage, have you never heard of clocking?, if they introduced this system my car would simply do about 10 miles per year...which must be right as that's what the car's mileage would say it did.
'Hello to Jason Isaacs'0 -
lothian wrote:ChrisInBicester wrote:What a nuts idea. The economy works becasue we have a free-flowing system of transport and like it or not most of us go to work in the morning and come home in the evening.
+1 for the guy who takes his toddler to creche. I take my youngest to school 3 days a week so have to drive to get to the office in a reasonable time. No way could I wait for the school to allow kids in at 8:30 then bike 21 miles to be at work. 2 days a week I get to do my 21 mile time trial to the office. I'd love it to be 3, 4, 5 even. But then I never have a near miss.
Wouldn’t you be better off with local schools and work-places? There’s also remote working. It isn't rocket science, It just requires an open mind!
School is ¾ of a mile away - we cycle, but they don't open the doors until 8:30 and I can't cycle 21 miles in 30 minutes, try though I might. 59:58 is my best so far but I'll keep trying and let you know if I can get it under the half-hour. Remote working is a good plan but my job involves being the guy who fixes things, applies solutions, deals with users, issues etc, real problems that require a physical presence so working from home is difficult, esp as we also have a tightly locked down network that isn't readily accessible. Open mind? Yeah I have thanks. But the pragmatic view is that to do my job, I really need to be here most days.0 -
The “Car Curfew” idea is based on the assumption that a balance can be obtained between those who choose to cycle, those who choose to use public transport and those millionaires and high society people that will be forced to spend their dosh on Black Cabs instead of driving into the city at 15mph in their Ferarris during this period of the day, besides It would only be for 2.5 hrs during rush hour peaks. After that traffic would revert to normal. Not every one will jump on their bikes for various reasons . . health, laziness, convenience, distance, Costs , work obligations. I can imagine that the majority will take to the trains and busses. It would therefore be expected that more of these will need to be introduced. The proposed “Cross Rail” scheme which is now going ahead will greatly increase the train capacity from one end of the city to the other and in less time. I agree no single solution is convenient for everyone but there again adaptation and flexibility is the order of the day, which is why Britain persevered during WW2.
The problem with society today is that we have lost the ability to adapt. We are all too cosy and comfortable. 6 inches of snow in February brought London to a standstill.
If you introduce car badges people will go out and buy a second car. . . .it has certainly happened before elsewhere. No one likes the congestion charge but at the end of the day we still got slapped with it. . . . .Does it really work? Deliveries are not usually made during rush hour peaks and HGV’s can adapt their schedule and get around outside these hours. . . Wahay!! . . .More jobs for those willing to do early or late hours. The proposal does not limit free movement or trade (except if you limit yourself), It does however forces one to re-think method especially if it involves driving during these hours. I disagree that driving to work “during rush hour period” is the most effective or efficient method, except if you have no consideration for the future of the planet.
No one can doubt the gradually increasing popularity of cycling over the last few years. . . . and . . . the increasing number of deaths. Which is why having a “Car Curfew” is a good way of reducing the incidents as well as solving al lot of other problems in the process. The whole scheme will require a large amount of coordination and organisation to implement. Maybe that’s where the government should invest the £111,000,000.00 it plans to spend on improving and promoting cycling in the capital. The majority will remain unaffected especially if they continue using public transport as normal. Suitable shuttle schemes can be introduced for Kid deliveries and collections. I really like the comment about trialling the Car Curfew one day a month so that people can work out alternatives. Though no doubt chaos will ensue in the first few months and it will generally resort to being a public holiday instead. So, maybe a one-off one month trial period would be better .0 -
ChrisInBicester wrote:lothian wrote:ChrisInBicester wrote:What a nuts idea. The economy works becasue we have a free-flowing system of transport and like it or not most of us go to work in the morning and come home in the evening.
+1 for the guy who takes his toddler to creche. I take my youngest to school 3 days a week so have to drive to get to the office in a reasonable time. No way could I wait for the school to allow kids in at 8:30 then bike 21 miles to be at work. 2 days a week I get to do my 21 mile time trial to the office. I'd love it to be 3, 4, 5 even. But then I never have a near miss.
Wouldn’t you be better off with local schools and work-places? There’s also remote working. It isn't rocket science, It just requires an open mind!
School is ¾ of a mile away - we cycle, but they don't open the doors until 8:30 and I can't cycle 21 miles in 30 minutes, try though I might. 59:58 is my best so far but I'll keep trying and let you know if I can get it under the half-hour. Remote working is a good plan but my job involves being the guy who fixes things, applies solutions, deals with users, issues etc, real problems that require a physical presence so working from home is difficult, esp as we also have a tightly locked down network that isn't readily accessible. Open mind? Yeah I have thanks. But the pragmatic view is that to do my job, I really need to be here most days.
This is the tricky bit isn't it? Distinguishing between people who could do things differently if they could be bothered, and those who really can't. 'Need' is very subjective, and I think what a lot of people mean when they say they need a car is that otherwise they might actually have to make a tiny bit of physical effort or leave the house 15 minutes earlier.
On the other hand there are people who would genuinely struggle without a car, and just saying "why don't you live closer to where you work/your kids go to school" isn't particualry helpful.
How you fairly figure it out and disincentivise the right people is a tricky one for sure.0 -
whyamihere wrote:The banning of all motorised vehicles is a stupid idea. Banning, for example, HGVs from urban areas at those times might be workable though.
We were heading that way (banning HGVs) in central London with Ken's LEZ that was supposed to come into force, but the car drivers Mayor, Bozo Johnson has kyboshed thatDo not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
snooks wrote:Why not charge drivers to use the town centres at that time...Oh...hang on, that didn't work either
But it does! The congestion charge in London makes millions which, if not levied on motorists would probably have to come out of Londoners council tax (cue hikes in council tax). Quite frankly I prefer to have polluting motorists pay than me!Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
To consider banning motorists from city centres and to steadily wean ourselves off motor transport would basically take a return to a local rather than global style of economy. Currently we take it for granted that we can jump in the car and go to the supermarket several miles out of town, load up for the week and then head home. Or head to Ikea over the weekend to pick up a few bits and pieces, or to that big B&Q for garden stuff etc etc.
To ban cars would mean the services these types of out of town superstore shops provide would have to become local. We would need a return to local shopping parades, pubs, schools (rather than the current mega-academy style places) etc, which would allow people to get to and from without motor transport (except public transport).
The car has changed our attitudes to distance and therefore the very structure of our towns and cities. Reversing globalisation would also help reduce environment impact/carbon footprints of course, but is it actually likely to happen? Probably not.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
Jydeda, you clearly have a rather utopian mindset. Until massive improvements are made in public transport, which crossrail will contribute to but not remedy, this curfew is simply unrealistic.
People do not view cycling as an option above their car or PT, it will not result in 'a novelty daily marathon'. Don't harp on about 'the future of the planet', for many people for whatever reason a car IS the best way. Massive improvements in PT could remedy this in the distant future, until then your proposal is, frankly, pretty much a pipedream.
Why, by the way? College project?0 -
Nope . . . .just a thought I've had running around my head for a while. Needed to get it out of my system and into the ether. . . .People said the same thing about the introduction of electricity. 8)0
-
utopian mindset . . . . so thats why I feel so weird all the time . . .0
-
Jydeda wrote:Nope . . . .just a thought I've had running around my head for a while. Needed to get it out of my system and into the ether. . . .People said the same thing about the introduction of electricity. 8)
Brave thinking and in my view this is the sort of thing we should be aiming for if we intend to preserve life as we know it on our planet over the next few hundred years but it's going to take some seriously brave politicians to push this sort of thing through and most of them are not thinking much beyond the next general election in a few years. This is precisely why major, costly public transport initiatives like rail don't get pushed through by politicians, because they know full well that when these projects are completed in a decade or so, today's politicians won't get recognition for it, it'll be the party in power at that time.
Look at what's now happening in London. Bozo has taken credit for many of Ken Livingstone's public transport policies which are only now being completed. Those that he hasn't sh*t all over like the LEZ, western extension to the congestion charge etc.Do not write below this line. Office use only.0 -
I think if you really wanted a solution to your problem it would be to increase road capacity so that cyclists had all the room they wanted on nice wide hard shoulder areas, and could therefore ride whereever they wanted a lot further away from the nasty lorries.
But to do so, particularly on more congested routes, would require resumption of considerable quantities of land for the purpose, and cause considerable problems, not least because many existing roads were put in place but the buildings alongside them were constructed when horse + carriage were the dominant form of private transport.
A targeted parallel network might work though, if there was enough space available, so that what are currently busy, dangerous roads (from a cycling perspective) could have capacity introduced. Alternatively minor roads could be improved and better connected to provide an alternative cycle network, so getting from A to B did not mean having to decide whether to risk a major A Road or go 10 miles out of you way to get safely to your destination.'Twas Mulga Bill, from Eaglehawk, that caught the cycling craze....0 -
chuckcork wrote:I think if you really wanted a solution to your problem it would be to increase road capacity so that cyclists had all the room they wanted on nice wide hard shoulder areas, and could therefore ride whereever they wanted a lot further away from the nasty lorries.
But to do so, particularly on more congested routes, would require resumption of considerable quantities of land for the purpose, and cause considerable problems, not least because many existing roads were put in place but the buildings alongside them were constructed when horse + carriage were the dominant form of private transport.
A targeted parallel network might work though, if there was enough space available, so that what are currently busy, dangerous roads (from a cycling perspective) could have capacity introduced. Alternatively minor roads could be improved and better connected to provide an alternative cycle network, so getting from A to B did not mean having to decide whether to risk a major A Road or go 10 miles out of you way to get safely to your destination.
I actually mentioned something similar to this to the wife the other day when we where discussing this very thread :-) I'd love to see how these promised "cycle highways" will work once they are implemented. The idea of a cycle only road that would allow for effectively a cycle specific version of a motorway is really appealing for me.
Take for example my commute that I could in theory complete from Croydon to Woking. At present I'd need to either chance my life on the A3 or pick out a route across the many towns in between. As I'm quite frankly not brave enough to risk the A3 and I don't have sufficient knowledge of the areas between I use my car for this one commute.
If however I had a road similar to the A3 i.e a dual carriageway with entry and exit ways, for bikes I'd happily ride the 15 - 25 miles or so on there! Heck I might even consider getting some aero bars for some serious SCR action :-D
Unfortunately I think a nationwide scheme of such roads is about as likely as this traffic curfew scheme seeing the light of day and I'll have to wait until BoJo and his cronies complete the "cycle highways" before I can comment on whether they are any help :-)0 -
Thanks for all your comments guys . . . . An MP ( I wont say which one) has picked up on the topic and thinks its a bloody good idea. He seems to feel that it may have already found its way into the back row seats of parliament. . . . No wonder everybody felt so threatened.0
-
not threaten, ideas are cheap, workable solutions are not. the curfew idea in the absence of anything to back it up is the first. there have been loads of "brilliant ideas" but you need to show how it would work.0
-
It's a good idea, but for the reasons already aired it won't be acceptable to the Politicians, or the Public. The lack of longterm thinking means that ideas like this which would be a small amount of pain in the short term get shelved for the much greater pain that will hit us in the longterm. Same old story really.
Call me a cynic, but the only way we're ever going to move away from the car-centric society we've created over the past thirty years is to hit people hard where it counts. In their wallets. No Government will willing do this (it's political suicide), so the only other option is to exhaust all the cheap resources we currently have access to until it gets to the stage where fuel is £2, £3, £4 or £5/litre, then behaviour change will follow.
Hold on, it'll be a bumpy ride!0 -
I think like most ideas it wouldn’t be accepted in its raw state. . . . And like most policies issued by the government it would be subject to permutation, scaling down, appeasement strategies and concessions, It would require a planning committee to coordinate and implement. It would also require the cooperation of several government and private agencies. The publicity campaign alone would cost millions.0
-
Bassjunkieuk wrote:At present I'd need to either chance my life on the A3 or pick out a route across the many towns in between. As I'm quite frankly not brave enough to risk the A3 and I don't have sufficient knowledge of the areas between I use my car for this one commute.
Send an email to Surrey CC and ask for their set of Cycle Maps for the county. I've done so and they're very clear and readable.'Twas Mulga Bill, from Eaglehawk, that caught the cycling craze....0 -
Its hard to imagine people giving up the freedom of personal transport... I think a more realistic approach is to try and reduce the impact of that personal transport and make sure people are only using it when they really *need* to. Also encourage them to use more appropriate personal transport for the task at hand.
You need to get people into the mindset of thinking about their car usage as a limited commodity, to be used when necessary and not just jumping into the car because its there and its a no brainer (easy). The main issue in the UK is that cars have become so much more than just a way of getting from AtoB. They are status symbols, consumer items, expressions of individuality.
Until people change the way they look at car usage *in cities* during times of *peak congestion* then no progress is going to be made on this.
The unpleasant truth lurking under the surface is that car usage in its current form is just not sustainable, but no one wants to give it up, and no government is going to make them because its political suicide.
Sadly most people will only change their behaviour when forced to do so either with financial penalties or incentives. The trick is having a long term plan and balancing those two things to try and move people towards your goal.
I think there is a lot of mileage (pardon the pun), in affordable car share / car club type schemes in larger cities. Its starting to gain a big following in London, and if you are willing to wean yourself off car ownership it offers an affordable and workable alternative to the problem of getting access to the right type of personal transport when you need it.
Just my tuppenceworth, which is not sadly worth as much as it used to be in these recessionary times 0
