Nobody is suggesting that scaffolders get a bike. Modal shift towards cycling and walking needs to happen - so that all those people who don't NEED to make their journeys by car but WANT to do so are moved off the road to make way for people who DO need to make their journeys by car or van (trades, delivery etc) are able to do so.
But recent moves are suggesting just that. Not so much scaffolders per se. The last recent increase of the congestion charge has hit trades persons hard. Many offices in London are serviced by all sorts of trades after hours. Many start at around 6,7pm and work through to the early hours. There is f**k all congestion in the city of London at these times. 10pm you must be joking.
These schemes are mainly set up by snotty nosed twonks who live a 15 minute cylcle ride away from the centre of London. Something like 70% of people who work in London live over 30 mile's away from the city centre. That's not too practical on a bloody Boris bike!
I commuted by bike from Reigate and Woking to Oxford Street for two years. It's perfectly possible to live further than 15 minutes ride away from Central London and commute by bike - if the infrastructure was there, more people would do it - relieving pressure on the roads. The space taken up by 16 cars on the road (the vast majority of which are single occupancy) is equivalent to 96 bikes - if you take just half those cars off the road, look how much more space you'll create (8 cyclists, the equivalent to just over 1 car) for trades and delivery vehicles - who are the real victims of our incessant demand to prioritise private car use above all other modes of transport.
The congestion charge zone increase is a bullshit ploy by the tories to try and claw back some money and blame Khan for it. There is, however, some extremely flawed logic behind it. Most of the traffic issues in suburban areas - at least in the morning - are caused by the school run. Charging people 75 quid a week to drop their kids off when the vast majority of them can walk or get public transport to school (the catchment system ensures almost every pupil in London lives within walking or a bus ride distance away from school) should deter that. But, of course, the people living within the zone will get a discount so it won't be the deterrent it should be. What might make more sense would be to introduce it between the hours of 7 and 9:30 with no discount - but, again, that isn't as straightforward as it sounds because delivery and trade vehicles would still have to pay it. Maybe some way of ensuring ONLY private vehicles have to pay, whilst delivery and trade vehicles are exempt?
It's not a simple issue. The government outsourcing responsibility for solving it to Khan, whilst hamstringing him financially (and flat-out lying about him being the cause of TFL's financial woes into the bargain) is disingenuous at best - outright disgraceful at worst. But what can you expect from a bunch of spud faced chancers?
These changes will effect me having just moved from SW london and trying to buy somewhere in the borough of Greenwich. I have spend hundreds of hours on the south circular.
My view on the whole thing.
ULEZ and the congestion zone are different things and have different aims. The original plans to extend the ULEZ to the SC I understood. The reasoning being to try and incentivise the use of more fuel efficient and cleaner vehicles to impact on air quality. It does slightly miss the point that if the road was fit for purpose then cars would move rather than sit still which would be more fuel efficient and improve air quality. Plenty of warning was given (roughly 2 years) I felt the introduction could have been more phased both in pricing and in terms of what cars are accepted and which arent. But overall I understood the principle. The point being (this is the economist in me speaking) that it incentivised those on the margin to make the move to a more efficient car sooner and those not on the margin will simply pay a price for their emissions. Logic is there. It's market forces giving people choices in the same way emissions permits for polluting factories work (you either cut pollution or buy permits for your pollution) you end up with the most economically efficient outcome (in theory at least).
Congestion charge however is a completely different ballgame. At it's current boundaries it works. The aim is to disincentivise car use in areas with high congestion. The key point being there is alternative in those places. You can get pretty much anywhere by public transport. Extending this to the SC does not work. There is no real alternative for people living there than the car. You simply cannot live in a lot of these areas and not be totally dependant on a car. It's not possible. Some parts of SW London (Clapham, Balham, Tooting, Brixton Stockwell etc.) May be less impacted due to being better served with public transport and the makeup of the population. A much higher proportion of the population of those areas are young people without cars. For much of SE London it is simply not possible to live without a car so this then becomes a decision that is either purely political or purely revenue raising.
TFL were in a bit if a financial pickle even before COVID bmwith annual revenue falling for a few years but it has been made a hundred times worse by COVID as youd expect.
Transport for London (TfL) has secured a £1.8bn government bailout, to keep Tube and bus services running until March 2021. Amendments to the Congestion Charge introduced in June as part of a previous bailout - a 30% increase in the fee and longer operating hours - will remain in place due to the new deal. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-54768723
Comments
The congestion charge zone increase is a bullshit ploy by the tories to try and claw back some money and blame Khan for it. There is, however, some extremely flawed logic behind it. Most of the traffic issues in suburban areas - at least in the morning - are caused by the school run. Charging people 75 quid a week to drop their kids off when the vast majority of them can walk or get public transport to school (the catchment system ensures almost every pupil in London lives within walking or a bus ride distance away from school) should deter that. But, of course, the people living within the zone will get a discount so it won't be the deterrent it should be. What might make more sense would be to introduce it between the hours of 7 and 9:30 with no discount - but, again, that isn't as straightforward as it sounds because delivery and trade vehicles would still have to pay it. Maybe some way of ensuring ONLY private vehicles have to pay, whilst delivery and trade vehicles are exempt?
It's not a simple issue. The government outsourcing responsibility for solving it to Khan, whilst hamstringing him financially (and flat-out lying about him being the cause of TFL's financial woes into the bargain) is disingenuous at best - outright disgraceful at worst. But what can you expect from a bunch of spud faced chancers?
My view on the whole thing.
ULEZ and the congestion zone are different things and have different aims. The original plans to extend the ULEZ to the SC I understood. The reasoning being to try and incentivise the use of more fuel efficient and cleaner vehicles to impact on air quality. It does slightly miss the point that if the road was fit for purpose then cars would move rather than sit still which would be more fuel efficient and improve air quality. Plenty of warning was given (roughly 2 years) I felt the introduction could have been more phased both in pricing and in terms of what cars are accepted and which arent. But overall I understood the principle. The point being (this is the economist in me speaking) that it incentivised those on the margin to make the move to a more efficient car sooner and those not on the margin will simply pay a price for their emissions. Logic is there. It's market forces giving people choices in the same way emissions permits for polluting factories work (you either cut pollution or buy permits for your pollution) you end up with the most economically efficient outcome (in theory at least).
Congestion charge however is a completely different ballgame. At it's current boundaries it works. The aim is to disincentivise car use in areas with high congestion. The key point being there is alternative in those places. You can get pretty much anywhere by public transport. Extending this to the SC does not work. There is no real alternative for people living there than the car. You simply cannot live in a lot of these areas and not be totally dependant on a car. It's not possible. Some parts of SW London (Clapham, Balham, Tooting, Brixton Stockwell etc.) May be less impacted due to being better served with public transport and the makeup of the population. A much higher proportion of the population of those areas are young people without cars. For much of SE London it is simply not possible to live without a car so this then becomes a decision that is either purely political or purely revenue raising.
Amendments to the Congestion Charge introduced in June as part of a previous bailout - a 30% increase in the fee and longer operating hours - will remain in place due to the new deal.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-54768723
A 30% increase in the daily congestion charge for driving into central London will be made permanent under Transport for London (TfL) plans.
TfL had said the rise - from £11.50 to £15 a day - was a temporary measure when it was introduced in June 2020.
It now wants to keep the higher price but reverse the increase in the scheme's hours.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-58000749
What by raising the charge & banning you driving in on a Sunday or Bank holiday.
Yeah, thats really going to get people flocking back to Central London.