Glasgow LEZ

[ChipChop]

Used to be urban regeneration schemes were all the rage. Nowadays the green low emissions lunatics running cities seem more intent on urban destruction with enforcement of arbitary rules as a bonus revenue scheme.

 

[rf065]

So what would you have done then? Knock down rows of houses on both sides of the road and widen the street...? Obviously, you either put up with the congestion and pollution, or you ban cars, or you put a price on travelling on that stretch of road - I don't really see a forth alternative.

Not sure what you're point is, Hope Street is already a wide, one way street. The buses and taxis that sit outside the station are still there with engines running all day, it is still gridlocked, banning cars has made no difference at all.

 

[markjay]

You’re forgetting a very important point that the powers that be also ignore. The vast majority of van, trucks, HGV etc drivers are entering city centres because they HAVE to in order to earn a living. Taxing them more (which is what the charges basically do) is wrong on all fronts

But without the additional charge, the vans, trucks, and HGVs, are all stuck in traffic and the people who drive them are far less productive. So how do you ensure that vans, trucks, and HGVs, are able to go around town quickly and efficiently and do their jobs?

Also, with regard to the cost to consumers, we should not be singling-out traffic charges. In Western countries, the cost to the consumer is much higher than in other places, because of the cost of regulation and legislation etc, which are all part and parcel of having a civilised society . Mandatory workplace pensions and minimum wages increase the cost of goods and services to the consumer. Gas engineers and electricians are regulated professions, and the regulation increases the cost to the consumer. Landlords are required to have the homes they let certified for safety, increasing the cost to renters. VED on commercial vehicles, and fuel duty, increase the cost of tradesmen labour. Etc etc.

And, with regard to the people's livelihoods, as I have said before, it's all about having a level playing field. If everyone has the same costs - Congestion Charge, VED, professional certification, etc - then your competitors will all have the same costs as you - and your livelihood should not be any better or worse, instead it's the consumer who has to incur re increased costs.

 

[markjay]

Not sure what you're point is, Hope Street is already a wide, one way street. The buses and taxis that sit outside the station are still there with engines running all day, it is still gridlocked, banning cars has made no difference at all.

If a street is already gridlocked with buses and taxis, how also allowing private cars into the street is going to make things any better? It would take the buses and taxis twice as long to get through it. Unless you widen the road (which is obviously not an option), you want fewer vehicles going through it, not more.

 

[Dryce]

But without the additional charge, the vans, trucks, and HGVs, are all stuck in traffic and the people who drive them are far less productive. So how do you ensure that vans, trucks, and HGVs, are able to go around town quickly and efficiently and do their jobs?

The problem is the 'additional charge' becomes a revenue earner - or is justified by dogma.

Glasgow is an example because the access to the city centre is actually good - the centre is not large - and it is being actively disrupted and made worse by dogmatic punitive policy. If I drive in Glasgow then it's typically not the volume of traffic that is the sole problem - it is the management of the traffic that is forced t circumvent some odd traffic light policies, bus lanes, bus gates, and choke points. This is what happens when you have 20 years of policy focused on torturing the traffic flow - and it's a bit ripe when the finger is pointed on emissions and completely ignores that a good chink of it is caused by policy and public transport.

Edinburgh is a bit more complicated because of geography and the A1 and A9 joined right in the centre - but suffered neglect from the 80s as problems mounted.

 

[colinallcars]

The problem is the 'additional charge' becomes a revenue earner - or is justified by dogma.

Glasgow is an example because the access to the city centre is actually good - the centre is not large - and it is being actively disrupted and made worse by dogmatic punitive policy. If I drive in Glasgow then it's typically not the volume of traffic that is the sole problem - it is the management of the traffic that is forced t circumvent some odd traffic light policies, bus lanes, bus gates, and choke points. This is what happens when you have 20 years of policy focused on torturing the traffic flow - and it's a bit ripe when the finger is pointed on emissions and completely ignores that a good chink of it is caused by policy and public transport.

Edinburgh is a bit more complicated because of geography and the A1 and A9 joined right in the centre - but suffered neglect from the 80s as problems mounted.

I think your assessment of the Glasgow situation is spot on but with another aspect coming into play. Big, important cities have low emissions zones therefore one is needed to maintain status. So a 100 metre section of Hope Street is used to justify a much grander scheme. As pointed out above, the impact may ultimately be negligible as the state of the city centre may be more off putting to visitors and shoppers but there seems to be little political drive to address this, easier to add to the problem.

 

[LTD]

It’s not just the city centre of Glasgow that’s a mess

The cycle lane on London Rd is a disastrous waste of public funds to appease the Greens

 

[markjay]

The cycle lane on London Rd is a disastrous waste of public funds to appease the Greens

I agree, however I do have a (highly controversial) point to add.

One positive side-effect of the choking of private cars traffic on London's roads via bus lanes, cycle lanes, and various traffic restrictions, is that hopefully eventually driving through London will become so slow that those who don't really need to use their private cars, will (finally) revert to using public transport.

The other way of achieving this, is by road charging schemes (and we already have the London Congestion Charge).

Neither are particularly appealing to motorists. However, our streets and roads have limited capacity... we simply must make drivers understand that driving through town isn't the most convenient or cheapest option.

(I did say my view is controversial)

 

[KennyN]

.we simply must make drivers understand that driving through town isn't the most convenient or cheapest option.

But it maybe the only option due to the woeful public transport network in some cities , outside the M25.

We have a newly qualified technician who is going on the shift rota , sooner than expected , and when we finish nightshift at 04:00 he will have to wait in work for up to three hours to get the first of many buses home.

He is sitting his driving test but thanks to the C19 backlog it will not be until April.

K

 

[Dryce]

. However, our streets and roads have limited capacity...

London is a different problem. London's north/south circular or M25 routes are much more distant by comparison - leaving traffic with being routed through the edges of a much larger central urban area.

Arguably Glasgow's city centre streets only have limited capacity because of the way they have been messed with. The city has a motorway that curves around the west and north of the centre - and another that draws traffic to the south.

 

[Harrythedog]

But without the additional charge, the vans, trucks, and HGVs, are all stuck in traffic and the people who drive them are far less productive. So how do you ensure that vans, trucks, and HGVs, are able to go around town quickly and efficiently and do their jobs?

Also, with regard to the cost to consumers, we should not be singling-out traffic charges. In Western countries, the cost to the consumer is much higher than in other places, because of the cost of regulation and legislation etc, which are all part and parcel of having a civilised society . Mandatory workplace pensions and minimum wages increase the cost of goods and services to the consumer. Gas engineers and electricians are regulated professions, and the regulation increases the cost to the consumer. Landlords are required to have the homes they let certified for safety, increasing the cost to renters. VED on commercial vehicles, and fuel duty, increase the cost of tradesmen labour. Etc etc.

And, with regard to the people's livelihoods, as I have said before, it's all about having a level playing field. If everyone has the same costs - Congestion Charge, VED, professional certification, etc - then your competitors will all have the same costs as you - and your livelihood should not be any better or worse, instead it's the consumer who has to incur re increased costs.

As regards your first point, being stuck in trafic is part and parcel of the “game”. We get around it by starting early in the morning though that little avenue of pleasure has been stopping by CG.
In reply to your last point it’s like saying make all businesses pay £10k for a license to trade, “if everyone has the same costs” etc.
The lower your fixed costs are the better it is for your business. It’s quite daunting to realise that on a Monday morning you have earn £x amount just to cover your costs.

 

[markjay]

The idea to build new roads in congested areas to accommodate higher traffic volume isn't new, BTW:

West Cross Route

Desperately-needed but never built, this was one of the only London urban motorway plans that were ever progressed to the construction stage.

www.roads.org.uk

"The GLC began the legal and administrative processes to start construction on the West Cross Route, and in 1970 it expected that Phase I works would begin on site in 1972. The GLDP Inquiry caused the start of work to be postponed, much to the GLC's irritation, until 1973 local elections when the incoming Labour administration cancelled it and every other motorway plan."

I believe that Labour's concern at the time was the potential impact of the compulsory purchases of the houses that needed to be demolished in order to build the motorway, given that these were predominantly working class residential areas which were generally regarded as Labour strongholds.

 

[Fastcar155]

Hi , If buses , all commercial vehicles and trains had turn of their engines when stationary it would be a start to reduce emissions levels.

 

[Dryce]

I believe that Labour's concern at the time was the potential impact of the compulsory purchases of the houses that needed to be demolished in order to build the motorway, given that these were predominantly working class residential areas which were generally regarded as Labour strongholds.

I think the concerns in London are more valid. It has an extended urban area.

However. I think that a sense of proportion has been missing. The amounts spent on Crossrail suggest that major urban road infrastructure could have been an option. So it's OK to overspend on a railway line but not on a replacement for the Blackwall tunnel or some specific congestion alleviation schemes (possibly toll'ed). It's also the case that such infrastructure doesn't just benefit cars but also goods vehicles and buses/coaches.

 

[Harrythedog]

The idea to build new roads in congested areas to accommodate higher traffic volume isn't new, BTW:

West Cross Route

Desperately-needed but never built, this was one of the only London urban motorway plans that were ever progressed to the construction stage.

www.roads.org.uk

"The GLC began the legal and administrative processes to start construction on the West Cross Route, and in 1970 it expected that Phase I works would begin on site in 1972. The GLDP Inquiry caused the start of work to be postponed, much to the GLC's irritation, until 1973 local elections when the incoming Labour administration cancelled it and every other motorway plan."

I believe that Labour's concern at the time was the potential impact of the compulsory purchases of the houses that needed to be demolished in order to build the motorway, given that these were predominantly working class residential areas which were generally regarded as Labour strongholds.

I don’t think anyone would agree that building more roads would be the answer.
I think London’s problem is that it’s too big yet despite that businesses are still encouraged to set up there. Perhaps if Citizen Khan acted on that situation it may be a better solution. How about putting a charge on companies in central London instead of hitting the public? After all he can’t stretch his money grabbing hands past the M25 so what’s he going to do when his current plans are proved pointless ?

 

[markjay]

As regards your first point, being stuck in trafic is part and parcel of the “game”. We get around it by starting early in the morning though that little avenue of pleasure has been stopping by CG.
In reply to your last point it’s like saying make all businesses pay £10k for a license to trade, “if everyone has the same costs” etc.
The lower your fixed costs are the better it is for your business. It’s quite daunting to realise that on a Monday morning you have earn £x amount just to cover your costs.

This is the Atmospheric Pressure syndrome... because we live in it, and are used to it, we don't notice it.

We are already paying £££££££ above what the product actually costs to make, and consumers are still buying.

£20% VAT didn't kill shopping and retail, and 12% to 20% IPT didn't kill the insurance industry. The economy didn't come to a screeching halt when the mandatory paid holiday allowance was increased from 20 days to 28 days, or when employers became obliged to pay 3% of wages into their employees' workplace pension funds, in spite of the labour costs increase to manufacturers. Etc etc.

I am not ignoring your point that low prices invigorate the economy (and indeed during the 2008 financial crisis Brown and Darling reduced the VAT to 15% in order to achieve just that). However, the fact remains that as long as the costs are the same for everyone, no single traders are disadvantaged compared to their competitors.

(Furthermore, I would argue that the cost of any road congestion pricing will be easily recouped by preventing the loss of productivity when siting idle in traffic, i.e. a plumber might simply be able to get more jobs done in one day, or a delivery driver might make more deliveries, etc - but of course this will only work IF the congestion charge is significant enough to deter drivers who are able to use other means of transport, and clear-up the roads and significantly shorten the journey time for tradesmen etc).

 

[Dryce]

This is the Atmospheric Pressure syndrome... because we live in it, and are used to it, we don't notice it.

We are already paying £££££££ above what the product actually costs to make, and consumers are still buying.

£20% VAT didn't kill shopping and retail, and 12% to 20% IPT didn't kill the insurance industry. The economy didn't come to a screeching halt when the mandatory paid holiday allowance was increased from 20 days to 28 days, or when employers became obliged to pay 3% of wages into their employees' workplace pension funds, in spite of the labour costs increase to manufacturers. Etc etc.

Arguably we got the benefit of benefits that were being introduced while globalisation provided cheap goods from regions where there were lesser benefits.

VAT goes into central taxation pool. The costs of doing business in London appear to tax London but as so much of our national wealth and management is routed one way or another through London then arguably it is a tax on the rest of the UK as well as London - but unlike VAT or national taxes it is ultimately paid to London. With the ULEZ it was notable that London ended up sending notices UK-wide to vehicle owners living hundreds of miles away.

(I would argue that the costs of doing business in Edinburgh have a similar if less pronounced effect on the rest of Scotland).

 

[markjay]

I think the concerns in London are more valid. It has an extended urban area.

However. I think that a sense of proportion has been missing. The amounts spent on Crossrail suggest that major urban road infrastructure could have been an option. So it's OK to overspend on a railway line but not on a replacement for the Blackwall tunnel or some specific congestion alleviation schemes (possibly toll'ed). It's also the case that such infrastructure doesn't just benefit cars but also goods vehicles and buses/coaches.

My personal view regarding investment in railways, is that there should be no limit - yes, you heard it right

When the London Underground started operating in 1863, the cost was massive and no one could have calculated at the time the increases in population and traffic (albeit horse-drawn carriages at the time) over the next 150 years.

 

[rf065]

One positive side-effect of the choking of private cars traffic on London's roads via bus lanes, cycle lanes, and various traffic restrictions, is that hopefully eventually driving through London will become so slow that those who don't really need to use their private cars, will (finally) revert to using public transport.

Part of the problem is politicians look at what might work in London and advise the rest of the UK it will work for them to. But it never does. Sunak had the opportunity use public transport last week when he visited Blackpool and the North of England and experience it for himself. Instead, he flew there and back, a practise he seems well versed in, what does that tell you.

 

[pioneercollector]

All i can add i steer clear of Bath! Even the free parking on single yellow lines on a Sunday have miraculously vanished, hideous and dangerous E Scooters everywhere, narrow streets now even narrower with the addition of scooter / cycle lanes, 20 MPH stretches that turn into 30MPH stretches...and then suddenly back to 20MPH.... Bus gates and many more ideas to turn the city onto a ghost town, the only thing that seems to have increased is the amount of smashed shop fronts on a Saturday night....