Front cover of the Standard family today. Bob Kiley spoke to The Times
about his desire to introduce tag-based road user charging across the
whole of London within 4-7 years, way before any nationwide system comes
to fruition.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...3877_1,00.html

However, the Standard takes this as gospel; on the other hand, I imagine
Ken is quietly furious. He said Kiley was "talking about his own views"
and that the scheme would not be possible for some time as it requires
primary legislation.

http://www.epolitix.com/EN/News/2005...ab8d965586.htm

Meanwhile, opposing political figures are going to have a field day over
the disagreement.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Can't see how its physically possible anyway. What would they do, force
all cars to have
transceivers put in them? Who will pay? And what if people just tell
them to get lost? Put
cameras literally everywhere to catch them? IMO all it will do is
increase the already vast number
of unregistered cars (or registered to the wrong address) on the
roads.

B2003

In article . com,
Boltar wrote:
Can't see how its physically possible anyway. What would they
do, force all cars to have transceivers put in them? Who will
pay? And what if people just tell them to get lost? Put
cameras literally everywhere to catch them? IMO all it will do
is increase the already vast number of unregistered cars (or
registered to the wrong address) on the roads.

It's done in Melbourne already:

"City Link users are required to register with the Link operator,
CityLink Melbourne, either by opening a toll account or by buying
a DayPass. Those who open an account will receive a small wireless
device known as an e-TAG to install on the vehicle's windscreen.

Each e-TAG has a unique number stored in its electronic memory.
The e-TAG does not contain the vehicle's licence plate number, the
driver's name and address or other personal details.

When a vehicle carrying an e-TAG passes through a toll zone, the
e-TAG is detected by a scanner mounted on a gantry above the
roadway and the identifying number is recorded. This number is
linked to the driver's toll account in the central tolling
computer system located in South Melbourne.

When a driver's e-TAG is recorded passing under a gantry, the
tolling computer deducts the toll for that toll zone from the
driver's toll account. This process represents a single
'transaction'. Each transaction is similar to a withdrawal from a
bank account and is entered into the records of the driver's toll
account."

http://www.roadtraffic-technology.co...urne_citylink/

--
Tony Bryer

Tony Bryer wrote:
In article . com,
Boltar wrote:

Can't see how its physically possible anyway. What would they
do, force all cars to have transceivers put in them? Who will
pay? And what if people just tell them to get lost? Put
cameras literally everywhere to catch them? IMO all it will do
is increase the already vast number of unregistered cars (or
registered to the wrong address) on the roads.


It's done in Melbourne already:
(snip)

You can opt not to use a toll road - but if you really need to drive
into London, you can't opt not to. The current congestion charge
requires no car-based infrastructure so it's not a problem - but in a
tag-based congestion charge, you can't just turn away cars without
transceivers. There has to be an alternative somehow, perhaps one which
incentivises you to get a tag. Maybe cameras will charge you a tenner if
you don't have a tag, but if you have a tag, your variable charge will
not exceed a tenner.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

You can opt not to use a toll road - but if you really
need to drive into London, you can't opt not to.
The current congestion charge requires no car-based
infrastructure so it's not a problem - but in a tag-based
congestion charge, you can't just turn away cars without
transceivers. There has to be an alternative somehow,
perhaps one which incentivises you to get a tag. Maybe
cameras will charge you a tenner if you don't have a tag,
but if you have a tag, your variable charge will
not exceed a tenner.

Why not just use cameras? I don't know what the road network is like in
Melbourne, but in suburban London the overground railways, rivers, parks and
segregated dual carriageways carve the suburban road network into a large
number of small sectors with relatively few links between them, and the
railways reach approximately to the existing central congestion charge area,
so you wouldn't need as many cameras as people might think. If all of the
cameras acted as a SPECS network as well, all of the speed humps and GATSOs
could be abolished.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

John Rowland wrote:
Why not just use cameras? I don't know what the road network is like
in
Melbourne, but in suburban London the overground railways, rivers,
parks and
segregated dual carriageways carve the suburban road network into a
large
number of small sectors with relatively few links between them, and
the

You are joking? Londons roads are a rats nest of backstreets , with
dozens
of different routes from any A to B. Even large roads like the north
circ
have numerous crossings , overpasses, underpasses and so forth. You
could
put cameras everywhere but as I said in another post , all this will do
is increase unregistered car numbers , plus cause huge resentment among
motorists who are already getting fleeced left right and centre by the
govn.

If you want to reduce traffic first stop the school run perhaps by
banning
parking outside schools to anyone except nearby residents and have a
tow
truck on standby in case someone takes a chance, and once you've done
that
you'll find rush hour traffic drop precipitously. Ask anyone whos
driven to
work during the school holidays.

B2003

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Front cover of the Standard family today. Bob Kiley spoke to The Times
about his desire to introduce tag-based road user charging across the
whole of London within 4-7 years, way before any nationwide system comes
to fruition.

...

That would surely lead to a revolt in the outer suburbs, particularly from
local businesses and the councils. And how would it work for people outside
Greater London driving inside the area? Take Bexley and its retail centre
in Bexleyheath - it would take a massive commercial hit if all the retail
spend from Sevenoaks/Dartford/Gravesend were deterred by road charging to
reach it. If I remember rightly, about 20% of retail spend in Bexleyheath
is generated by visitors from the Kent County Council area. The situation
in Bromley must be similar.

To introduce congestion charging for Greater London in isolation, and not
the surrounding area, would be amazingly bad news.

And, I'm tempted say, another example of those who dwell in central London
having responsibility for the entire Greater London area, but seemingly
little understanding of the nature and character of the outer boroughs.

Rich Mallard wrote:
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Front cover of the Standard family today. Bob Kiley spoke to The
Times
about his desire to introduce tag-based road user charging across
the
whole of London within 4-7 years, way before any nationwide system
comes
to fruition.

...

That would surely lead to a revolt in the outer suburbs, particularly
from
local businesses and the councils. And how would it work for people
outside
Greater London driving inside the area? Take Bexley and its retail
centre
in Bexleyheath - it would take a massive commercial hit if all the
retail
spend from Sevenoaks/Dartford/Gravesend were deterred by road
charging to
reach it. If I remember rightly, about 20% of retail spend in
Bexleyheath
is generated by visitors from the Kent County Council area. The
situation
in Bromley must be similar.

Kiley said "London", so Bromley (which is in Kent - right?) wouldn't be
included.

*ducks and runs*

--
Larry Lard
Replies to group please

"Larry Lard" wrote in message
oups.com...

Rich Mallard wrote:
"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Front cover of the Standard family today. Bob Kiley spoke to The
Times
about his desire to introduce tag-based road user charging across
the
whole of London within 4-7 years, way before any nationwide system
comes
to fruition.

...

That would surely lead to a revolt in the outer suburbs, particularly
from
local businesses and the councils. And how would it work for people
outside
Greater London driving inside the area? Take Bexley and its retail
centre
in Bexleyheath - it would take a massive commercial hit if all the
retail
spend from Sevenoaks/Dartford/Gravesend were deterred by road
charging to
reach it. If I remember rightly, about 20% of retail spend in
Bexleyheath
is generated by visitors from the Kent County Council area. The
situation
in Bromley must be similar.

Kiley said "London", so Bromley (which is in Kent - right?) wouldn't be
included.

*ducks and runs*

Well yes, I wouldn't describe myself as living "in London" if someone asked
where Bexley is, as you can gather from the other threads around here ;-) I
suppose if I was talking to someone who was a local government/politics
freak, then I might say "in Greater London".

But, in terms of people like Kiley, Ken Livingstone and others, they appear
to be extraordinarily reluctant to use the term "Greater London", instead
just referring to everything under their control as London (and perhaps they
have an even bigger definition of London than even the GL area). Hence my
comments.

Larry Lard ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Kiley said "London", so Bromley (which is in Kent - right?) wouldn't be
included.

It's not the Kent Borough of Bromley, is it?