London Congestion Charge Possible Expansion

The study of British and Irish roads - their construction, numbering, history, mapping, past and future official roads proposals and general roads musings.

There is a separate forum for Street Furniture (traffic lights, street lights, road signs etc).

Registered users get access to other forums including discussions about other forms of transport, driving, fantasy roads and wishlists, and roads quizzes.

Moderator: Site Management Team

Post Reply
User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 11156
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: London Congestion Charge Possible Expansion

Post by c2R »

Bryn666 wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:14
Piatkow wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 11:08
c2R wrote: Wed Oct 21, 2020 12:49
I disagree that al of TfL's network is strategic in nature - while I would count some of the additional high quality arterial routes as strategic, e.g. sections of the A2, A13, A40, and A1 - why should DfT be responsible for Upper Street in Isington, or the Victoria Embankment - these are locally important roads to London, granted, but are not of national importance.
The trouble is that the TfL network is supposedly strategic for the conurbation as a whole. If you strip out the "nationally" important routes what do you do with the rest that are of regional importance. Maintain a smaller TfL road network or hand them over to parochial control by the boroughs?
The French have got round this by introducing "Metropolitan Roads" which are a step between the nationally maintained N roads, and the departmental maintained D roads and Commune maintained C roads. Some of the most notable examples are the M6 and M7 in Lyon, which used to be nationally maintained motorways but are now under the control of Lyon.

I agree that there are regionally important routes which should be considered as such, and that the local authorities may be too small - expensive bridges between authorities such as Hammersmith Bridge are obviously an example of this, as are roads like the north circular; but also some of the main roads network as is, roads such as the A140. I also think that some were unnecessarily detrunked, so for example the A17.

I think therefore that these "main" roads should sit with sub-national regional bodies which still have regional accountability; I wouldn't particularly want to see a separate classification system like France has, but certainly preventing uncontrolled development and bad things like the A40 roundabouts to serve more car dependent development, and being able to provide an adequate funding level that isn't in competition with all the other things that a local authority has to provide would be a great benefit.
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35716
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: London Congestion Charge Possible Expansion

Post by Bryn666 »

Yes, I think we are on a similar page - there needs to be a 'sub-trunk' category of strategic roads that aren't of national significance but an area would be stuffed without.

That means exactly roads like the A17, A140, A59 etc. Roads that should be protected from local authority developmentalism and managed by regional bodies. This would have been an ideal fit for the English Regions that everyone voted against :shock:
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
RichardA35
Committee Member
Posts: 5691
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2002 18:58
Location: Dorset

Re: London Congestion Charge Possible Expansion

Post by RichardA35 »

Bryn666 wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 13:46 Yes, I think we are on a similar page - there needs to be a 'sub-trunk' category of strategic roads that aren't of national significance but an area would be stuffed without.

That means exactly roads like the A17, A140, A59 etc. Roads that should be protected from local authority developmentalism and managed by regional bodies. This would have been an ideal fit for the English Regions that everyone voted against :shock:
Although for Major Roads purposes the sub national transport bodies are effectively regional planning bodies deciding the major road priorities. However their remit seems currently to be support housing and development (rather than what is suggested above of transport corridors for their own sake) but then what is a transport corridor but a conduit to support the economy and development? It is just that "strategic" and "major" are rather loose definitions - e.g. A35 in the SW is "strategic" but is rather regional/local in character and function.
SNTB.jpg
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35716
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: London Congestion Charge Possible Expansion

Post by Bryn666 »

RichardA35 wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 14:52
Bryn666 wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 13:46 Yes, I think we are on a similar page - there needs to be a 'sub-trunk' category of strategic roads that aren't of national significance but an area would be stuffed without.

That means exactly roads like the A17, A140, A59 etc. Roads that should be protected from local authority developmentalism and managed by regional bodies. This would have been an ideal fit for the English Regions that everyone voted against :shock:
Although for Major Roads purposes the sub national transport bodies are effectively regional planning bodies deciding the major road priorities. However their remit seems currently to be support housing and development (rather than what is suggested above of transport corridors for their own sake) but then what is a transport corridor but a conduit to support the economy and development? It is just that "strategic" and "major" are rather loose definitions - e.g. A35 in the SW is "strategic" but is rather regional/local in character and function.SNTB.jpg
Well, as you know from previous rantings of mine, we should still be building roads and improving corridors for safety purposes - improved alignments which are safer reduce network unreliability, improve journey times, and if built with active travel as a priority consideration, should enable modal shift too. That helps economic growth by reducing the cost of road travel to society in terms of fewer deaths and improved air quality.

The planning bodies need to move away from "development" and "cars" being inextricably linked but that's a separate thread entirely :D
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
User avatar
Chris5156
Deputy Treasurer
Posts: 16896
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2001 21:50
Location: Hampshire
Contact:

Re: London Congestion Charge Possible Expansion

Post by Chris5156 »

c2R wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 12:35I agree that there are regionally important routes which should be considered as such, and that the local authorities may be too small - expensive bridges between authorities such as Hammersmith Bridge are obviously an example of this, as are roads like the north circular; but also some of the main roads network as is, roads such as the A140. I also think that some were unnecessarily detrunked, so for example the A17.

I think therefore that these "main" roads should sit with sub-national regional bodies which still have regional accountability; I wouldn't particularly want to see a separate classification system like France has, but certainly preventing uncontrolled development and bad things like the A40 roundabouts to serve more car dependent development, and being able to provide an adequate funding level that isn't in competition with all the other things that a local authority has to provide would be a great benefit.
Sounds a lot like the Major Road Network concept - important roads that sit a tier below trunk roads, maintained by local authorities, but with access to extra funding for improvements.
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: London Congestion Charge Possible Expansion

Post by Micro The Maniac »

Bryn666 wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 13:46 Yes, I think we are on a similar page - there needs to be a 'sub-trunk' category of strategic roads that aren't of national significance but an area would be stuffed without.
At a risk of agreeing with Bryn, which would never do :shock:, if only we had a hierarchy of road designation/numbering. For example:
  • Ax/Axx for the strategic roads (SRN?)
  • Axxx/Axxxx for regional roads (MRN?)
  • Bxxxx for local main roads
  • Cxxxx for local "distributor" roads, and
  • Uxxxx for residential roads
  • etc
I'm sure there is a system for deciding what number a road gets (other than "nothing better was available") but I do hold the view that a roads number should reflect its importance. Otherwise, what is the point in having the different conventions?
User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 11156
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: London Congestion Charge Possible Expansion

Post by c2R »

I'd suggest that mass renumbering based on ownership is entering the realms of fantasy... While it's true that over the years countries have introduced additional designations, and occasionally in recent years a country has embarked on such wholescale numbering (Spain), the cost of doing so is absolutely astronomical, not only with replacing signs on the ground, but also in all the IT systems that use the numbers - both public facing and back office.
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
Micro The Maniac
Member
Posts: 1167
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 13:14
Location: Gone

Re: London Congestion Charge Possible Expansion

Post by Micro The Maniac »

c2R wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 08:57 I'd suggest that mass renumbering based on ownership is entering the realms of fantasy...
I'm not, for one moment, suggesting a mass-renumbering. We are where we are.

But if we were to start afresh, we wouldn't start from where we are!
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19179
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: London Congestion Charge Possible Expansion

Post by KeithW »

Micro The Maniac wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 06:51
At a risk of agreeing with Bryn, which would never do :shock:, if only we had a hierarchy of road designation/numbering. For example:
  • Ax/Axx for the strategic roads (SRN?)
  • Axxx/Axxxx for regional roads (MRN?)
  • Bxxxx for local main roads
  • Cxxxx for local "distributor" roads, and
  • Uxxxx for residential roads
  • etc
I'm sure there is a system for deciding what number a road gets (other than "nothing better was available") but I do hold the view that a roads number should reflect its importance. Otherwise, what is the point in having the different conventions?

The problem is nothing is static, what may be a trunk road today may not be in 10 years time. In 1970 the A19 from Dishforth to Jarrow was a relatively minor regional road, today it carries more traffic than the A1(M) and is largely a better quality route. To take another example driving the A66 from Scotch Corner to Penrith was something of an adventure and rather slow. If heading for western Scotland i would usually head up Teesdale through Alston to the A69 and head for Carlisle that way.

On the converse some sections of the long neglected A6 have , especially in the Midlands risen to major importance, the Luton to Kettering and Leicester section comes to mind.

In the same period the A1032 and A1085 were roads or major importance while the A174 was a minor road meandering along country lanes from Stainton to Marske, Saltburn through east Cleveland to Whitby. Its now a strategic road and HQDC between the A19 and Wilton site.

In 1980 heading from the NE to Kent the primary route was the M1, A1, A501 through the Blackwall Tunnel and down the A2 switching to the M20/A20 at Bluebell Hill for West Kent/East Sussex. The Dartford crossing was a single tunnel and the A13 to it was a drag.

Then there were the varied routes for getting to the West Country of which the most important was the A38.

I see no benefit in numbering roads of lesser status than of local importance.

In my humble opinion assigning numbers because the route is of major importance is a pointless exercise beyond the basic 6 numbers for regional assignment.
User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 11156
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: London Congestion Charge Possible Expansion

Post by c2R »

KeithW wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:45
I see no benefit in numbering roads of lesser status than of local importance.
For navigation purposes, I'd agree - some of the tracks that the Republic of Ireland has signposted in its lowest tier is a particular exercise in pointlessness. However, for administrative purposes, assigning numbers to sections of road is useful, as it allows them to be uniquely identified in mantenance databases, for example.
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
Glenn A
Member
Posts: 9751
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 19:31
Location: Cumbria

Re: London Congestion Charge Possible Expansion

Post by Glenn A »

The A66 used to end in Penrith and what is now the A66 from Penrith to Workington was a series of non trunk Axxx roads that had barely improved since the dawn of the car. The recommended route from the south to Workington until the seventies was the A591 through the Lakes, which in summer was becoming horribly congested. Renaming these Axxx roads the A66 and massively improving the A66 in the seventies, as well as a weight limit being introduced on the A591 in 1977, saw a large increase in traffic.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19179
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: London Congestion Charge Possible Expansion

Post by KeithW »

Bryn666 wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 15:12
Well, as you know from previous rantings of mine, we should still be building roads and improving corridors for safety purposes - improved alignments which are safer reduce network unreliability, improve journey times, and if built with active travel as a priority consideration, should enable modal shift too. That helps economic growth by reducing the cost of road travel to society in terms of fewer deaths and improved air quality.

The planning bodies need to move away from "development" and "cars" being inextricably linked but that's a separate thread entirely :D
Regional priorities vary. In this part of the North East high road priorities are the Darlington Northern Bypass and a third Tees crossing. Both will reduce network unreliability, improve journey times and safety by separating through traffic from local traffic. At present both strategic and local traffic use the Tees Viaduct and that road is barred to NMU traffic for safety reasons while traffic heading north to the A1(M) from the A66 ploughs through here.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.5456, ... 312!8i6656

Also a high priority for the TVCA is the improvement of rail links and public transport. Part of their plan for East Cleveland is to reopen the Middlesbrough to Guisborough Branch line and open a multimodal transport hub to get cars off the road. Fortunately the track route is mostly still available.
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/ ... isborough/

Another part of the plan is to add 2 new platforms at Darlington for local rail traffic.
https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2020/06/ne ... -east.html

As for Middlesbrough local government the current policy is to discourage greenfield development and encourage regeneration of brownfield sites in town. The first tranche has now been given the go ahead.
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19179
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: London Congestion Charge Possible Expansion

Post by KeithW »

c2R wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 13:31
KeithW wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:45
I see no benefit in numbering roads of lesser status than of local importance.
For navigation purposes, I'd agree - some of the tracks that the Republic of Ireland has signposted in its lowest tier is a particular exercise in pointlessness. However, for administrative purposes, assigning numbers to sections of road is useful, as it allows them to be uniquely identified in mantenance databases, for example.
None of which requires changing road numbering, indeed there are already such identifiers , they need not be human readable, for admin its better to assign a Globally Unique Identifier of this form. ddec3cf0-0638-4726-b210-7b739a7f4831

They are useful as unique keys in a database which may also contain the GPS location. The advantage of using a GUID is that you can handle two roads that include the same location, at a junction for example.
User avatar
Bryn666
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 35716
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 20:54
Contact:

Re: London Congestion Charge Possible Expansion

Post by Bryn666 »

KeithW wrote: Sat Oct 24, 2020 17:50
Bryn666 wrote: Thu Oct 22, 2020 15:12
Well, as you know from previous rantings of mine, we should still be building roads and improving corridors for safety purposes - improved alignments which are safer reduce network unreliability, improve journey times, and if built with active travel as a priority consideration, should enable modal shift too. That helps economic growth by reducing the cost of road travel to society in terms of fewer deaths and improved air quality.

The planning bodies need to move away from "development" and "cars" being inextricably linked but that's a separate thread entirely :D
Regional priorities vary. In this part of the North East high road priorities are the Darlington Northern Bypass and a third Tees crossing. Both will reduce network unreliability, improve journey times and safety by separating through traffic from local traffic. At present both strategic and local traffic use the Tees Viaduct and that road is barred to NMU traffic for safety reasons while traffic heading north to the A1(M) from the A66 ploughs through here.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.5456, ... 312!8i6656

Also a high priority for the TVCA is the improvement of rail links and public transport. Part of their plan for East Cleveland is to reopen the Middlesbrough to Guisborough Branch line and open a multimodal transport hub to get cars off the road. Fortunately the track route is mostly still available.
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/ ... isborough/

Another part of the plan is to add 2 new platforms at Darlington for local rail traffic.
https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2020/06/ne ... -east.html

As for Middlesbrough local government the current policy is to discourage greenfield development and encourage regeneration of brownfield sites in town. The first tranche has now been given the go ahead.
Yes, I don't believe roads are in of themselves a bad thing to construct, after all, roads have existed for thousands of years and will continue to do so. I just don't like them being designed in such a way that we have to come back later and re-do everything at great expense because of initial short-termism. Those planners arguing for a simplistic "travel less" have ignored the real fact that humans are natural explorers and even if you achieved the (unrealistic) 100% car-free world they want, you still will need to build thousands of miles of rail, tram, bus, and cycleways.
Bryn
Terminally cynical, unimpressed, and nearly Middle Age already.
She said life was like a motorway; dull, grey, and long.

Blog - https://showmeasign.online/
X - https://twitter.com/ShowMeASignBryn
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@BrynBuck
Glenn A
Member
Posts: 9751
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 19:31
Location: Cumbria

Re: London Congestion Charge Possible Expansion

Post by Glenn A »

By passes make sense as they remove traffic from built up areas and improve the quality of life for residents. I never hear anyone where I live thinking the by pass that opened in 1991 was a bad thing and one notorious stretch of road is now a cul de sac where residents can park at will.
Scratchwood
Member
Posts: 514
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 21:44
Location: London

Re: London Congestion Charge Possible Expansion

Post by Scratchwood »

https://twitter.com/BBCTomEdwards/statu ... 1714035713

The Mayor is threatening to introduce a £3.50 charge to drive into London for all non residents unless TfL is allowed to keep the £500m of VED paid by Londoners

An interesting anomaly that TfL has to maintain roads in London effectively out of public transport fares as it doesn't get the VED income.
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1594
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: London Congestion Charge Possible Expansion

Post by jervi »

I don't see a problem with this.
I presume that the people who will have an issue with this is those who live/work over the border of Greater London.

Also implementation of this sounds very, very expensive. How many roads go across the Greater London Border? Surely it's over a thousand, and all it takes to avoid it is for one camera to be covered.
User avatar
c2R
SABRE Wiki admin
Posts: 11156
Joined: Fri Jul 05, 2002 11:01

Re: London Congestion Charge Possible Expansion

Post by c2R »

Only if Londoners pay an additional charge for using roads outside the M25 - each Highway Authority keeping its own residents VED is a bit of a slippery slope....
Is there a road improvement project going on near you? Help us to document it on the SABRE Wiki - help is available in the Digest forum.
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Get involved! - see our guide to scanning and stitching maps
User avatar
jackal
Member
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 23:33
Location: M6

Re: London Congestion Charge Possible Expansion

Post by jackal »

London keeps most of its business rates, raising billions per year. If that is instead sent to the Treasury, as is the case for other regions, they can keep their VED.
User avatar
ChrisH
Elected Committee Member
Posts: 3973
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 11:29

Re: London Congestion Charge Possible Expansion

Post by ChrisH »

The main dozen roads crossing the GLA boundary - the motorways and HE A-roads - only cover about a third of the cross-boundary car trips, so there will be a very substantial job to do of erecting cameras, and a pretty complex look-up to DVLA or other databases to show whether a motorist has registered their car in London or not.

I remember a few years ago a corridor study for the A40 in London suggested a set of traffic signals at the GLA boundary to throttle inbound traffic and give more roadspace to Londoners. Quite a slippery slope, this...
Post Reply