London Congestion Charge Possible Expansion

[KeithW]

Following you off on this tangent, what CoVid has shown is what many of us have suggested - virtual meetings are MUCH LESS EFFICIENT than face-to-face. Especially where discussion as opposed to mere presentations are required. And virtual meetings are shown to be problematic for non-English speakers (when typically, English is the "International" language).

At least when people are in a meeting room, away from the office, they are focussed on the meeting, and not at the beck and call of other distractions.

And that is before taking into account problems with time-zones. eg suggestions please as to the best time of day (UTC) to hold a meeting involving UK (UTC/UTC+1), Japan (UTC+9) and California (UTC-8/UTC-7) ???

Well as someone who has been involved in international meetings for years I have to disagree.

I had two on Friday

The first was a weekly ISO 15926 working group meeting with attendees from the Netherlands, Norway , USA, Germany, Sweden and Finland. This has been running for several years and there is no way on earth this could be done face to face.

The second was with an oil and gas consortium based in the USA, this really is a globe spanner as we do have a attendees from every continent except Antarctica. The organiser is in the USA, technical support comes from the University of Western Australia and other working groups in Pune India, Brazil, Alberta, New Orleans, Quebec, South Africa and Pennsylvania. The worst of this one is we vary the times to share the pain and yes it does sometimes mean a 2 AM meeting. That said its better than the jet lag from flying to Calgary for a 3 hour meeting. I would hate to think how many cities I visited and hardly saw more of than the airport, hotel and office. Then there were the long road trips to Oxford, Warrington, London etc. I do miss the Eurostar trips to Paris and the little hotel in Les Halles.

Face to face meetings are full of distractions not to mention little huddles forming passing notes to each other. What is said has to be face to face. Better yet when questions are asked anyone can take over as lead and share their desktop.

Now there are things better done face to face in small groups, specifically training. I did make long trips to hold one or two week training courses but thats the exception. My last employer before I retired was a Pennsylvania based software company where virtual meeting where the norm as 50% of employees including the CEO worked from home, my boss worked in Marlyland and the group I managed was split between Pakistan, India, Canada and the UK.

Working from home does have potential distraction but that is all about setting expectations , usually along the lines of 'when daddy is in his office with the door closed let him alone. Admittedly one colleague had to put his office in a shed in the corner of the garden but most of us hacked it OK.

Caveat - the company I worked for DID recognise the issues and provided office furniture, a top end laptop, large screen monitor, printer and paid for a professional internet connection. That said they were happy with the deal as it meant they could close the Cambridge Office and save a bundle. Of the people nominally working from Cambridge one actually lived in Aberystwyth.

[Chris5156]

Of course we can look at a wider point, which I have raised before in that should TfL even be controlling strategic roads in London which have little benefit to them. Not being revenue generating instead being a cost burden it would make sense for DfT to take over as unlike public transport like the Tube, roads in London have a larger benefit to the to those outside of the capital.

That's fine, but it spectacularly misses the point that the expansion of congestion charging to the North and South Circulars is being pushed on TfL by the Department for Transport. You included that yourself in the OP. So handing London's roads to the DfT is not going to change that policy.

[Micro The Maniac]

Well as someone who has been involved in international meetings for years I have to disagree.
...
The first was a weekly ISO 15926 working group meeting with attendees from the Netherlands, Norway , USA, Germany, Sweden and Finland. This has been running for several years and there is no way on earth this could be done face to face.

We will have to agree to disagree Especially as someone else involved with several ISO WGs (do we know each other?!)

I'm looking forward (not!) to a week of 5am-9am followed by a week of 4am-8am, rather than a three day face-to-face meeting.

[qwertyK]

This would honestly be a nightmare and p*sstake for people like me and most people who travel around east and northeast London, or indeed, most of London, given that most people live in the area that would be subject to this charge.

[avtur]

Following you off on this tangent, what CoVid has shown is what many of us have suggested - virtual meetings are MUCH LESS EFFICIENT than face-to-face. Especially where discussion as opposed to mere presentations are required. And virtual meetings are shown to be problematic for non-English speakers (when typically, English is the "International" language).

At least when people are in a meeting room, away from the office, they are focussed on the meeting, and not at the beck and call of other distractions.

And that is before taking into account problems with time-zones. eg suggestions please as to the best time of day (UTC) to hold a meeting involving UK (UTC/UTC+1), Japan (UTC+9) and California (UTC-8/UTC-7) ???

Well as someone who has been involved in international meetings for years I have to disagree.

I would also disagree, I've been involved in three international virtual meetings in the last month. These meetings would normally have involved delegates attending from all over the world, so it was a compromise that we attended a virtual meeting, however, I know that notwithstandings the limitations of the "virtual" format all delegates were pleased that even some sort of meeting had been arranged. My industry, commercial aviation fuelling, is facing some significant challenges that are not related to the covid situation, these virtual meetings have helped enormously, although they can't replace the value of face to face meetings and site visits.

[someone]

Following on from the "negotiations" in Manchester, the Financial Times are reporting that the government is also threatening to take control of TfL if Khan does not accept their demands in return for a financial rescue package. This, as already known, does include the extension of the congestion charge to the two Circulars at a single rate.

The story is summarized in this Twitter thread by the F.T.'s political correspondent:

https://twitter.com/PickardJE/status/13 ... 7196237827

Interestingly it includes a quote from Shuan Bailey, the Tory mayoral candidate, saying that "under no circumstances would I back an extension of the congestion charge zone."

[Chris5156]

Interestingly it includes a quote from Shuan Bailey, the Tory mayoral candidate, saying that "under no circumstances would I back an extension of the congestion charge zone."

Shaun Bailey has a reliable sideline in making bold statements against his own party's decisions.

[Bryn666]

Interestingly it includes a quote from Shuan Bailey, the Tory mayoral candidate, saying that "under no circumstances would I back an extension of the congestion charge zone."

Shaun Bailey has a reliable sideline in making bold statements against his own party's decisions.

They're reliant on the thick "anti-Khan" vote not putting 2+2 together that Bailey is from the same party as central government imposing diktats; by making these broad brush nonsense statements it helps sow the belief that Bailey is somehow different.

[thatapanydude]

Interestingly it includes a quote from Shuan Bailey, the Tory mayoral candidate, saying that "under no circumstances would I back an extension of the congestion charge zone."

Shaun Bailey has a reliable sideline in making bold statements against his own party's decisions.

He might do but the likes of Ian Duncan Smith (IDS) and fellow Tory's in suburbia London (especially N and W London) one would expect are against the idea as its the kind of scheme which would draw significant resident ire and most significantly "vote loser" tbh. Take IDS seat in Woodford, he only just held on last year and schemes like this would be a massive turn-off for voters. Also at the London election, would Bailey and Khan be wanting to keep a scheme like this in place - of course not !!!

[thatapanydude]

Of course we can look at a wider point, which I have raised before in that should TfL even be controlling strategic roads in London which have little benefit to them. Not being revenue generating instead being a cost burden it would make sense for DfT to take over as unlike public transport like the Tube, roads in London have a larger benefit to the to those outside of the capital.

That's fine, but it spectacularly misses the point that the expansion of congestion charging to the North and South Circulars is being pushed on TfL by the Department for Transport. You included that yourself in the OP. So handing London's roads to the DfT is not going to change that policy.

Slightly so but the point if TfL just focus on public transport and leave roads (strategic) which for TfL are a nuisance to the DfT it would be an ideal solution. I mention above that I would be more "receptive" (not supportive) to a scheme like this if for example it lead to the finishing of the A406 etc and if the DfT only controlled strategic roads in London then rather funding the deficit from trains they could focus on using the pot of money for real improvements to the network !

[thatapanydude]

I live in the same part of the world you describe, I think people forget that it's a different world from central London, it's 7 or 8 miles out, that's M60 distance from central Manchester.

To give another mundane example of boring but essential cross "border" journeys, the Barnet council recycling depot is in Finchley, just outside of the A406, whereas I live just inside the A406.

Absolutely seconded all of your points !!

It is an utter vote loser for Finchley and Golders Green, Barnet and to be honest every Tory suburbia consistency in London and the kind of policy which would keep people indoors on polling day - I see this as political play as any scheme can't come in by at least Oct 2021 and will Bailey or Khan go into the election on the promise "oh we want to tax 4 million Londoners on a charge if you want to go from Chingford to the Woodford Green or from Perivale to Westfield (A40)" of course not.

[Piatkow]

Interestingly it includes a quote from Shuan Bailey, the Tory mayoral candidate, saying that "under no circumstances would I back an extension of the congestion charge zone."

Shaun Bailey has a reliable sideline in making bold statements against his own party's decisions.

He knows that come election time it will all be spun as Khan's doing.

[c2R]

Of course we can look at a wider point, which I have raised before in that should TfL even be controlling strategic roads in London which have little benefit to them. Not being revenue generating instead being a cost burden it would make sense for DfT to take over as unlike public transport like the Tube, roads in London have a larger benefit to the to those outside of the capital.

That's fine, but it spectacularly misses the point that the expansion of congestion charging to the North and South Circulars is being pushed on TfL by the Department for Transport. You included that yourself in the OP. So handing London's roads to the DfT is not going to change that policy.

Slightly so but the point if TfL just focus on public transport and leave roads (strategic) which for TfL are a nuisance to the DfT it would be an ideal solution. I mention above that I would be more "receptive" (not supportive) to a scheme like this if for example it lead to the finishing of the A406 etc and if the DfT only controlled strategic roads in London then rather funding the deficit from trains they could focus on using the pot of money for real improvements to the network !

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.

[someone]

Interestingly it includes a quote from Shuan Bailey, the Tory mayoral candidate, saying that "under no circumstances would I back an extension of the congestion charge zone."

Shaun Bailey has a reliable sideline in making bold statements against his own party's decisions.

Only where he can blame Khan for those decisions and ignore the government's own involvement.

So if Khan were to accept the deal Bailey would just say it is all the fault of Khan's mismanagement and ignore the source of the actual policy. But he would not be able to do that if the government takes control and imposes them itself.

Latest polling released today (field work from Thursday to Saturday last week (so just as this proposal was first revealed) puts Khan on 50% and Bailey on 28%. The Green and Lib Dem candidates are both tied on 10%.

So there is really no need for the government to try and protect Bailey or pander to Tory voters. And a general election is, or should be, far in the distance to need to worry about protecting parliamentary seats. Other than pension reform (even though it is something for which TfL are not responsible) and possibly concessionary fare reductions, there will be near unanimous support against the proposed demands from supporters and politicians of all the main parties.

This is not going to be a party political issue if Bailey is going to actively oppose the government rather than just passively accepting what they do whilst attacking Khan for it.

[avtur]

Interestingly it includes a quote from Shuan Bailey, the Tory mayoral candidate, saying that "under no circumstances would I back an extension of the congestion charge zone."

Shaun Bailey has a reliable sideline in making bold statements against his own party's decisions.

He knows that come election time it will all be spun as Khan's doing.

TfL's finances figured highly in today's PMQ's with Johnson laying the blame for all TfL's financial ills at the current Mayor's door. As a result of this coverage the matter was further discussed on BBC 2's Politics Live, during the program they tracked down the origin of the idea for the extension to the congestion charge zone to a letter written by Grant Shapps and sent to the Mayor.

[Micro The Maniac]

TfL's finances figured highly in today's PMQ's with Johnson laying the blame for all TfL's financial ills at the current Mayor's door. As a result of this coverage the matter was further discussed on BBC 2's Politics Live, during the program they tracked down the origin of the idea for the extension to the congestion charge zone to a letter written by Grant Shapps and sent to the Mayor.

The extension of the Congestion Charge zone is one thing... but the creation of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) coincident with the current CCZ, and the ULEZ expansion to the circulars is most definitely Khan's doing.

It is curious that ULEZ good, CC bad?

[Bryn666]

TfL's finances figured highly in today's PMQ's with Johnson laying the blame for all TfL's financial ills at the current Mayor's door. As a result of this coverage the matter was further discussed on BBC 2's Politics Live, during the program they tracked down the origin of the idea for the extension to the congestion charge zone to a letter written by Grant Shapps and sent to the Mayor.

The extension of the Congestion Charge zone is one thing... but the creation of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) coincident with the current CCZ, and the ULEZ expansion to the circulars is most definitely Khan's doing.

It is curious that ULEZ good, CC bad?

Nothing curious at all, air pollution is a bigger problem than congestion. The CCZ was to reduce traffic volumes in Zone 1 and the LEZ/ULEZ is to reduce air pollution as far as the GLA boundary/Circulars as appropriate.

Two totally different systems.

[someone]

The extension of the Congestion Charge zone is one thing... but the creation of the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) coincident with the current CCZ, and the ULEZ expansion to the circulars is most definitely Khan's doing.

It is curious that ULEZ good, CC bad?

Who is defining either of those things as good or bad, other than yourself on dubious political grounds?

The creation of the ULEZ congruent with the inner congestion charging zone was proposed by Mayor Johnson, was in Zac Goldsmith's manifesto, and had cross party support that it would have happened no matter who was elected. Same as Mayor Livingstone first proposing what became "Boris bikes."

Goldsmith also proposed consultations on where else in London the ULEZ should apply, so in that sense Khan's position was no different as he also put the extension of the zone to a consultation. It had 74% support to 21% opposed to it, which included support from Conservative councils like Westminster, whilst other Conservative councils like Wandsworth felt he extension did not go far enough.

I am therefore not sure whether you are trying to say it is "most definitely Khan's doing" as some ill-informed way to attack him, or an equally ill-informed way of giving him credit for something that had cross-party support and would have happened anyway had Goldsmith been mayor.

It is also a charge which most people do not even think about as they do not have to pay anything, in exchange for better air quality whether they live in the zone or are working in it or just visiting.

This you contrast with a congestion charge extension that would be imposed without consultation, has cross-party opposition (well, I have not see anything from the Greens but they may support it), and that most people within or entering the zone would have to pay.

But no, I do not find anything curious about that. Do you?

[Piatkow]

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?

[Bryn666]

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.