# Tags To Tackle Congestion



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

This is very depressing







Talk about "Big Brother"









Report from the Times 25th January

_DRIVERS could face tolls on all congested roads in Greater London under plans to make the capital the testing ground for a new form of congestion charging. _

The charges would apply only during peak hours, but drivers unable to find an alternative route or switch to public transport could face bills of Â£30 or more per week.

Trials of the technology, which uses roadside beacons to detect tags in the windscreens of passing cars, have proved successful and more extensive trials will begin shortly in South London. Other cities are closely watching the London trials and could copy the scheme.

Drivers would be encouraged to set up a direct debit, and charges would be automatically deducted as they passed beacons. They would receive regular bills showing which routes they had used and the charges they had incurred.

The charges could be levied on busy routes such as the North Circular and in congested town centres such as Hammersmith and Bromley. But unlike the existing charging zone, there would be no flat-rate daily fee for an area, but a charge varying by the time of day and the route chosen.

The rates have yet to be decided, but drivers who used the busiest routes would be likely to pay at least as much as those entering the existing zone, where the daily charge is due to rise to Â£8 in July.

The scheme could be introduced within four years in one or two boroughs and then, if it proved successful, be extended to cover congestion hotspots across the capital the following year.

Bob Kiley, the Commissioner of Transport for London, wants the scheme to begin as soon as possible because he is concerned that the existing zone-based charging system covers only a fraction of the cityâ€™s congested roads.

In an interview with The Times, Mr Kiley said: â€œLondon could be the test-bed for the rest of the country.

â€œI want a surgical approach, aiming at the pinch points. The tag and beacon system would give drivers real choices: they could switch to an improved bus service or drive another route. If we were really aggressive about it we could have demonstration projects in four to seven years. If it was incredibly successful you could extend it within six months.â€

Mr Kiley, whose proposal has the full backing of Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, accepted the scheme would be fiercely resisted by some borough councils.

â€œIâ€™m not saying the boroughs are going to jump up and down and say, â€˜Hallelujah, salvation is at handâ€™. But the problem that we are facing is so overwhelming and daunting that I believe we should just go for it and learn from it as we go along.â€

Mr Kiley said the tag and beacon technology was far more practical than the satellite-based charging system being considered by the Government.

â€œThe satellite system is 10-15 years away because the satellites it needs havenâ€™t even been launched yet. Iâ€™m a big believer in tackling congestion right away with simpler technology.â€

While Mr Livingstone already has the powers to introduce charging across London, the Government would have to approve the on-board tags.

Ministers are keen to ensure that the same tag could be used in any city which decided to follow Londonâ€™s lead.

Mr Kiley said: â€œIf you are a travelling salesman visiting six cities you donâ€™t want to have six different cards in your windscreen.

â€œWe also donâ€™t want to be so unique and precious about what we do in London that we are making it difficult for other cities to follow suit. We should do something they are comfortable with.â€

TfL realises that charging on congested routes will encourage drivers to find toll-free rat runs. It plans to tackle this by introducing more traffic calming, including road humps and chicanes.

London First, the business lobby group, cautiously welcomed Mr Kileyâ€™s proposal but said it should not be seen as an alternative to building underpasses or remodelling junctions at the worst pinch points.

Irving Yass, the groupâ€™s director of policy, said: â€œRoad pricing is part of the solution but it is not a panacea and there is still a need for road improvements in some places.

â€œBut this is a step in the right direction towards a more general distance-based charging system.â€

Tag and beacon systems are already in operation for regular users of the Dartford crossing and the M6 Toll. Singaporeâ€™s electronic road pricing system also uses the technology to levy charges according to the congestion.

The tags would cost between Â£5 and Â£50 depending on the level of sophistication chosen after trials. The more expensive tag would allow drivers to see how much they had been charged and how much credit they had left.

Drivers would either be given the tags or be asked to pay a fee which would be reimbursed through credits for using the roads.

The beacons would be installed inside gantries similar to lampposts, with cameras on top to catch evaders.

Initial trials have been successfully conducted on Old Kent Road and Commercial Street. Further trials involving 200 volunteer vehicles will begin shortly at 20 sites in South London. Transport for London said that the initial trials showed â€œit was highly likely that the technology would workâ€


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

Use the tube


----------



## Nin (Jul 16, 2004)

Damn good idea.

The costs of mobility should be borne by the users, not the general tax payer - and that's what congestion charging is all about. And it works. For example air quality in the congestion charge zone has improved. I'd like to see the accident stats too.

But they shouldn't stop there. With simple technology costing about Â£250 per vehicle it is possible to ensure vehicles stick to the speed limit - a simple GPS to ignition black box link will do it. That would save significant numbers of child pedestrian deaths and injuries.

And another one - simply fitting enforecment cameras in the front and back windows of buses that photograph and automatically issue fixed penalty fines for any unauthorised vehicle parking in or using a bus lane will help make the public transport system work smoothly, and raise revenue.

And why do we need these measures? Because so called responsible intelligent drivers can't be trusted to regulate themselves. We've got big brother because we behave like little brother.

FWIW, rant over.


----------



## MarkF (Jul 5, 2003)

Nin said:


> That would save significant numbers of child pedestrian deaths and injuries.
> 
> 
> 
> ...










Bloody hell, a lot more things there for the innocent motorist to worry about. I think we will soon be doing nothing but concentrating so hard on looking for signs and cameras and warnings that looking out for pedestrians will be way down on the list of priorities









Why not fit kerbs with sensors and make each kid wear a proximity switch, maybe have it microchipped in their skulls, that'll soon give you some cracking safety statistics


----------



## Nin (Jul 16, 2004)

> Bloody hell, a lot more things there for the innocent motorist to worry about. I think we will soon be doing nothing but concentrating so hard on looking for signs and cameras and warnings that looking out for pedestrians will be way down on the list of priorities


Not at all Mark. You don't have to worry about the speed, cos you can't exceed it, so no need for cameras. You know not to drive in a bus lane, so all you have to worry about is the child/pedestrian/cyclist or any other vulnerable road users. Let alone those folk already in their cars - 10 of them die each day. Though of course for innocent drivers that's not a problem is it? Trouble is there are enough "not innocent" drivers who can't be trusted to regulate their behaviour

And anyway, it's us folk who drive cars/vans/trucks that kill pedestrians, not them who hurl themselves in our paths. These are real, feasible, cost effective solutions that would save public & private money and can be adopted now, not some futuristic nonsense.

But then again, if folk can't drive safely and legally, they shouldn't be allowed to drive at all.


----------



## MarkF (Jul 5, 2003)

Nin said:


> > Bloody hell, a lot more things there for the innocent motorist to worry about. I think we will soon be doing nothing but concentrating so hard on looking for signs and cameras and warnings that looking out for pedestrians will be way down on the list of priorities
> 
> 
> Not at all Mark. You don't have to worry about the speed, cos you can't exceed it, so no need for cameras. You know not to drive in a bus lane, so all you have to worry about is the child/pedestrian/cyclist or any other vulnerable road users. Let alone those folk already in their cars - 10 of them die each day. Though of course for innocent drivers that's not a problem is it? Trouble is there are enough "not innocent" drivers who can't be trusted to regulate their behaviour
> ...


Way off Johns post









I firmly believe the opposite, I would give more freedom and responsibilty back to the driver with harsher penalties should the driver behave in a dangerous manner. If a driver only has one thing to concentrate on, as you suggest, you can bet that he won't concentrate on it!

Here is an interesting article, I read it a few weeks back and it strick me as entirely sensible the key paragraph for me is:-

"The engineer was Hans Monderman and the solution was to get rid of the lights and erase the white lines. â€œIf you treat drivers like zombies, theyâ€™ll behave like zombies,â€ explains Monderman. In other words, if motorists are taught to blindly follow instructions, they stop thinking for themselves, and accidents follow.

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/article/0...1225348,00.html


----------



## Nin (Jul 16, 2004)

We're nearly on topic!

Tis a good article that one - homezones are great and really make the motorist feel that they really don't belong there. They work well for residential streets. But bung a bus lane in loads of folk will use it or park in it or speed down it.

Trouble is the carrot/stick approach that relies on some form of active enforcement leads to more cameras/policemen and patchy coverage. The technical solutions like tags and what I was on about works everywhere. You could still get medieval on their asses when they break the law.

Alternatively, everyone should ride a bike (motor or pedal).


----------



## Griff (Feb 23, 2003)

Or tube.............or Metro as in Manchester


----------



## chrisb (Feb 26, 2003)

It would be much better if you kept the cars on the road, and the pedestrians on the footpath.

Not as many peds killed on the footpaths


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

> It would be much better if you kept the cars on the road, and the pedestrians on the footpath.
> 
> Exactly....
> 
> ...


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

> Use the tube


What tube? Relatively little of the tube network is in South London









I tried the bus for 10 or 15 years and still use it occasionally - it's crap









No, it's the car for me. And if they continue to put more speed bumps in, sod 'em, I'll just buy a 4x4; that'll please Ken no doubt


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

rhaythorne said:


> No, it's the car for me. And if they continue to put more speed bumps in, sod 'em, I'll just buy a 4x4; that'll please Ken no doubt
> 
> 
> 
> ...










"South London 4x4 Collective" where do I join ?







Why should it just be the pimps and dealers that have all the fun









I agree about the buses .... they are dire ... and at night







.... thing that I don't like is that the routes have all been shortened ,,, so instead of one bus you now might have to catch 2 or 3.



Nin said:


> And anyway, it's us folk who drive cars/vans/trucks that kill pedestrians, not them who hurl themselves in our paths.


I would beg to differ


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

> And anyway, it's us folk who drive cars/vans/trucks that kill pedestrians, not them who hurl themselves in *our* paths


I see what the problem is now Nin..

Its paths for pedestrians....

Its roads for cars....

Repeat 1000 times....


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

I've found it's almost impossible to go a whole week using the bus without there being some kind of incident to ruin my journey. Either the bus breaks down, or a driver doesn't show up, or there's a fare dispute, a fight, or someone's throwing up all over the place. I used to be a bus driver in a former life - it's one of the worst jobs in the world I think. Sometimes the bus is already full up and I can't get on it anyway (assuming it stops at all) Also, I don't fancy lugging my laptop and tools around with me on a bus, especially at night!

There are no tube stations anywhere near me, as I mentioned. The nearest train station is about a 15 minute walk, but it's in completely the opposite direction I need to travel in order to get to work.

For me it has to be the car - which already cost me several thousand pounds more than I could probably have bought it for from anywhere else in the world, for which I've already had to pay "new car" Tax, VAT, Road Tax, Insurance, Insurance Tax, Congestion Charges, Fuel Tax!!! And now they want me to pay more because they obviously feel that they haven't stitched me up enough already









Actually, I'm not going to buy a 4x4, I'm going to take Kenny Everett's advice and buy a Sherman Tank - "you know it makes sense!"


----------



## Nin (Jul 16, 2004)

> I see what the problem is now Nin..
> 
> Its paths for pedestrians....
> 
> ...


Flip. flip. flip. Wondered what I was doing wrong.









Wasn't it Thatcher who said "... show me a man in his thirties on a bus and I'll show you a failure..." ??


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

> Wasn't it Thatcher who said "... show me a man in his thirties on a bus and I'll show you a failure..." ??


Yep, and she was right


----------



## Mrcrowley (Apr 23, 2003)

rhaythorne said:


> > Wasn't it Thatcher who said "... show me a man in his thirties on a bus and I'll show you a failure..." ??
> 
> 
> Yep, and she was right
> ...


Cheeky cow.

I have to use buses - and bloody taxis


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

> and bloody taxis


They don't go South of the river either


----------



## jasonm (Nov 22, 2003)

Dont blame them


----------



## JoT (Aug 12, 2003)

rhaythorne said:


> They don't go South of the river either
> 
> 
> 
> ...












I will quote a cabbie at "Lucy" (London City Airport) last month:

"fack orf .... I havn't got me bleedin passport wif me"


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

From the book of the TV Series "Grumpy Old Men":



> *Black Cabs - The River Thames*
> 
> It's a river. It has bridges over it. It is populated on each side, both sides being equally Londonish. It is not a nuclear wasteland or a dense impenetrable forest where black cabs cannot penetrate. "Sorry mate, I don't go south of the river," really means "Sorry mate, I'm a bone idle Cockney git too exhausted from talking bollocks all day to drive over a bridge."


----------

