On 02/11/2018 14:09, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:33:29 on Fri, 2 Nov
2018, John Williamson remarked:

Set the penalty at a bit more than it would cost to divert round the
restriction.

How do you measure such a cost? Just extra miles (and hence gallons) of
driving polluting people living further out, or does my time have a
value too?

Like all such things, the answer will be a fudge based on wage levels
and fuel costs.

Call it twenty quid a trip as a starter, and if that doesn't put enough
off, then increase it. It's a penalty to discourage people, not a carrot
to entice people to update their transport.

My time as a semi-retired person, is probably worth less than someone
with an urgent appointment in Central London.

If I had an urgent appointment in Central London, I'd either use public
transport or a pushbike, as they are the fastest ways to get round the
City. By about 2030, all buses will be electric, as will most cabs. Uber
and other private hire drivers will have to make up their minds whether
they want to upgrade their cars or refuse trips.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message , at 14:58:25 on Fri, 2 Nov
2018, John Williamson remarked:

Set the penalty at a bit more than it would cost to divert round the
restriction.
How do you measure such a cost? Just extra miles (and hence gallons)
of driving polluting people living further out, or does my time have
a value too?

Like all such things, the answer will be a fudge based on wage levels
and fuel costs.

Normally, the "value" of leisure time comes out at around minimum wage
(but try telling that to someone getting up at 6am on a Sunday instead
of 8am). Fuel cost avoiding Central London depends on whether one's
destination is Central London, or somewhere "across" London.

Maybe they should have built all those extra Ringways, after all.?

Call it twenty quid a trip as a starter, and if that doesn't put enough
off, then increase it. It's a penalty to discourage people, not a
carrot to entice people to update their transport.

I don't do any trips unless I *have* to. So that's a broken theory.

My time as a semi-retired person, is probably worth less than someone
with an urgent appointment in Central London.

If I had an urgent appointment in Central London, I'd either use public
transport or a pushbike, as they are the fastest ways to get round the
City.

I don't have a pushbike, and trains into Central London are often scare
at times like Sunday mornings, when I typically plan to travel into
London avoiding the traffic. You can't get a student's entire effects
onto a train, let alone a bike.

If I didn't need the carrying capacity of a car, I'd have been on a
train in the first place (or the person I was giving a lift to would
be).

Albeit a little way from London, my next non-trivial trip in a car will
be to pick someone up Saturday evening after a work shift, a couple of
hours after the last of the bus-every-3hrs has departed.
--
Roland Perry

John Williamson wrote:
On 02/11/2018 14:09, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:33:29 on Fri, 2 Nov
2018, John Williamson remarked:

Set the penalty at a bit more than it would cost to divert round the
restriction.

How do you measure such a cost? Just extra miles (and hence gallons) of
driving polluting people living further out, or does my time have a
value too?

Like all such things, the answer will be a fudge based on wage levels
and fuel costs.

Call it twenty quid a trip as a starter, and if that doesn't put enough
off, then increase it. It's a penalty to discourage people, not a carrot
to entice people to update their transport.

My time as a semi-retired person, is probably worth less than someone
with an urgent appointment in Central London.

If I had an urgent appointment in Central London, I'd either use public
transport or a pushbike, as they are the fastest ways to get round the
City. By about 2030, all buses will be electric, as will most cabs. Uber
and other private hire drivers will have to make up their minds whether
they want to upgrade their cars or refuse trips.


Uber are raising fares, to provide drivers with the funds to upgrade to
PHEVs.

On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 07:48:24AM -0000, Recliner wrote:

There will obviously be ANPR cameras to monitor all vehicles entering the
zone, and those not on the allowed list will be photographed. If a taxi
enters with no visible passengers or with the For Hire sign illuminated, it
gets the warning notice, and if the offence is repeated, a fine.

It's hard enough reliably seeing whether the For Hire sign is
illuminated using human eyes during daylight hours, never mind using
cheap fixed cameras.

--
David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

Only some sort of ghastly dehumanised moron would want to get
rid of Routemasters
-- Ken Livingstone, four years before he got rid of 'em

On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 05:46:47PM +0000, Graham Harrison wrote:

Probably not BUT where do you set the limit?

I don't have access to the detailed journey data needed to do a sensible
analysis.

In any case, this is
not about raking in money (even though it might do so). It's about
air quality and therefore keeping as many "polluting vehicles" out
is/should be the aim.

Wrong. The aim should be to reduce *pollution*, not to reduce polluting
vehicles. What's worse, a hundred polluting vehicles entering the zone
once a year each, or a single polluting vehicle entering every day?
Obviously the latter.

--
David Cantrell

In message , at 11:03:34
on Mon, 5 Nov 2018, David Cantrell remarked:
Probably not BUT where do you set the limit?

I don't have access to the detailed journey data needed to do a sensible
analysis.

In any case, this is
not about raking in money (even though it might do so). It's about
air quality and therefore keeping as many "polluting vehicles" out
is/should be the aim.

Wrong. The aim should be to reduce *pollution*, not to reduce polluting
vehicles. What's worse, a hundred polluting vehicles entering the zone
once a year each, or a single polluting vehicle entering every day?
Obviously the latter.

Changing it to "reducing the number of polluting *trips*" encompasses
both ideas, but still shows that its the regular commuters/deliveries
rather than people visiting Auntie Flo on her birthday who need to be
discouraged.
--
Roland Perry

On 05/11/2018 11:27, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:03:34
on Mon, 5 Nov 2018, David Cantrell remarked:

Wrong. The aim should be to reduce *pollution*, not to reduce polluting
vehicles. What's worse, a hundred polluting vehicles entering the zone
once a year each, or a single polluting vehicle entering every day?
Obviously the latter.

Changing it to "reducing the number of polluting *trips*" encompasses
both ideas, but still shows that its the regular commuters/deliveries
rather than people visiting Auntie Flo on her birthday who need to be
discouraged.

Something that might help somewhat, and would be virtually free to
implement,would be to make the congestion charge apply 24/7 rather than
just on weekdays.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message , at 11:52:11 on Mon, 5 Nov
2018, John Williamson remarked:
Wrong. The aim should be to reduce *pollution*, not to reduce polluting
vehicles. What's worse, a hundred polluting vehicles entering the zone
once a year each, or a single polluting vehicle entering every day?
Obviously the latter.
Changing it to "reducing the number of polluting *trips*"
encompasses both ideas, but still shows that its the regular
commuters/deliveries rather than people visiting Auntie Flo on her
birthday who need to be discouraged.

Something that might help somewhat, and would be virtually free to
implement,would be to make the congestion charge apply 24/7 rather than
just on weekdays.

No, that's the opposite, and would penalise the Auntie Flo trips while
failing to further penalise the commuters/deliveries.

Although I could support a 24x7 charge if every vehicle had (say) a
dozen free trips a year; you could call it "Aunt Flo's Law".
--
Roland Perry

On 05/11/2018 11:52, John Williamson wrote:
On 05/11/2018 11:27, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
11:03:34 on Mon, 5 Nov 2018, David Cantrell
remarked:

Wrong. The aim should be to reduce *pollution*, not to reduce polluting
vehicles. What's worse, a hundred polluting vehicles entering the zone
once a year each, or a single polluting vehicle entering every day?
Obviously the latter.

Changing it to "reducing the number of polluting *trips*" encompasses
both ideas, but still shows that its the regular commuters/deliveries
rather than people visiting Auntie Flo on her birthday who need to be
discouraged.

Something that might help somewhat, and would be virtually free to
implement,would be to make the congestion charge apply 24/7 rather than
just on weekdays.

No - because that doesn't affect multiple journeys for the same vehicle
on the same day.

Arguably it should be e.g. £5 per journey, £10 for the most polluting
vehicles (and maybe an even higher figure for e.g. certain lorries), and
£2 for those that are emission free at the tailpipe (as they are not
entirely polluting free in general and there still needs to be an aspect
of congestion charging). A journey could be classed as passing through
the congestion charge boundary inbound (with an exception that twice
within a very short time was obviously due to a circuitous journey).
Have an upfront charge to register and prove intent, and then bill in
arrears electronically (probably paying back the registration fee).

I'd also have a punitive fine for vehicles left with their engines
running, whilst parked up, anytime and anywhere in London - ie make it
worth collecting as well as painful to pay.

Personally I'd be more than happy to pay that, and to pay any loading on
occasional big deliveries or similar, ditto for taking taxis (although
I'd look for emission free at the tailpipe versions!).

In message , at 12:02:10 on Mon, 5 Nov
2018, Someone Somewhere remarked:

Arguably it should be e.g. £5 per journey, £10 for the most polluting
vehicles (and maybe an even higher figure for e.g. certain lorries),
and £2 for those that are emission free at the tailpipe (as they are
not entirely polluting free in general and there still needs to be an
aspect of congestion charging). A journey could be classed as passing
through the congestion charge boundary inbound (with an exception that
twice within a very short time was obviously due to a circuitous journey).

Putting aside the policy issue of charging at all for a moment, that
doesn't work on a topological basis. One car could be driving all day
long while staying inside the emissions zone (remember we are talking
about the N/S circular very soon), whereas another which just happened
to 'live' near the boundary could do half a dozen short trips spread
throughout the day, but nevertheless crossing the boundary.

Unless you set your "very short time" at say 12hrs, which isn't at all
what you meant.
--
Roland Perry