I am surprised not to see a reference to 
<http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/roadusers/congestioncharging/westernextension/
default.aspx>

I find it interesting that the census questions do not distinguish 
drivers and non-drivers. They also redundantly ask for a respondent's 
post code and whether the respondent lives in the western extension 
zone.

It looks as if the result will be to modify the implementation.
I go for that. Although I think the western extension was a bad idea, I 
think scrapping the hardware would be unconscionable.
-- 
Walter Briscoe

On Sep 2, 7:44 am, Walter Briscoe  wrote:
> I am surprised not to see a reference to
> <http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/roadusers/congestioncharging/westernextension/
> default.aspx>
>
> I find it interesting that the census questions do not distinguish
> drivers and non-drivers. They also redundantly ask for a respondent's
> post code and whether the respondent lives in the western extension
> zone.
>
> It looks as if the result will be to modify the implementation.
> I go for that. Although I think the western extension was a bad idea, I
> think scrapping the hardware would be unconscionable.
> --
> Walter Briscoe


This is interesting:

Despite the endless problems that have plagued Boris’s administration
so far, today he found time to deliver one of his rare concrete
manifesto promises: a consultation on the Congestion Charge Western
Extension.

Now, it may be good that he’s delivering a pledge, but whether it’s a
worthwhile pledge is another matter entirely.

The previous Mayor also consulted before introducing the Extension,
and while a majority of respondents in the proposed zone were opposed
to the change, the Mayor’s opinion polling apparently showed that a
majority of Londoners as a whole were not. Those in the zone
complained that their voices were ignored, but in truth of course a
strategic, London-wide Mayor determines strategy in one area based on
the needs of London as a whole, so it wasn’t as simple as that. The
point of a London-wide strategic authority is to address ‘nimbyism’
and push through things which may be unpopular in a particular area
but popular overall, so it could be argued – and certainly was by Mr.
Livingstone during May’s election – that that was what was happening
here.

Anyway, what we’re most likely in for now is a repeat of that
consultation, which doesn’t sound to me like a particularly good use
of money, but then what with shovelling money into the Venezuelan
state oil company, pouring cash down the drain into an unnecessary
(and seemingly poorly responded-to) bus competition, lavishing dosh on
Porsche, and so forth, it’s not exactly out of line with the rest of
Boris’s ‘value for money’ administration.

Interestingly, in typical Boris “I don’t want to fall out with anyone”
fashion, a third option – beyond the obvious “Keep the extension as it
is” and “Get rid of the extension” – has appeared in the consultation:
“Change the extension”. The full description of this reads:

Change the way the scheme operates by introducing account based
payment, by introducing a charge free period in the middle of the day
in the Western Extension, or by increasing the residents’ discount to
100%.

Account-based payment was a key, but separate, pledge of Boris’s
during the election, for the Congestion Charge as a whole, so it seems
disingenuous to bundle it in with this consultation, particularly when
the paragraph immediately below the options reads:

With all these options, unless it is explicitly stated otherwise, the
original central London Congestion Charging zone will continue to
operate as it does at present.

This suggests that particular election pledge has been kicked into the
long grass, even while he fulfils this other, arguably less important
pledge.

It’s pretty clear, though, that some sort of ‘third way’ option is the
one favoured by Boris, after he’s heard from people on both sides of
the argument and been unable to reconcile their equally passionate
opinions in favour of and against the Extension.

Tonight’s BBC London also showed Boris unable to maintain his
impartial front as he launched the consultation with a walkabout in
the zone, giving a triumphant miniature fist-pump in response to one
woman plumping for the third option, which he’d presented in a pretty
leading way anyway – something like


 “D’you want to keep it, get rid of it, or change it and make it work
better and be easier to pay and cheaper and brilliant and fantastic
and marvellous?” (I may have exaggerated somewhat but I’m not sure at
what point I strayed from what he actually said to his underlying
implication…)




Anyway, what are you waiting for? There are five weeks to respond to
the consultation (it closes on 5 October), so I would strongly
encourage all Londoners to do so, whatever your views. Every reply
counts in this consultation and there will be a lot of focus on what
the results are and what Boris does in response: the mere launching of
the thing was the second-from-top story on BBC London this evening.

http://www.boriswatch.co.uk/

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 05:12:55 -0700 (PDT), solomonsky@googlemail.com
wrote:

>shovelling money into the Venezuelan state oil company

Um, that was a Livingstone policy.

On Sep 2, 5:24 pm, James Farrar  wrote:
> >shovelling money into the Venezuelan state oil company
>
> Um, that was a Livingstone policy.

No, that was taking money *from* the Venezuelan state oil company.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 09:50:55 -0700 (PDT), John B 
wrote:

>On Sep 2, 5:24 pm, James Farrar  wrote:
>> >shovelling money into the Venezuelan state oil company
>>
>> Um, that was a Livingstone policy.
>
>No, that was taking money *from* the Venezuelan state oil company.

Didn't it involve buying fuel from them at a reduced price? That's
still giving our money to them.

Walter Briscoe wrote:
> I am surprised not to see a reference to 
> <http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/roadusers/congestioncharging/westernextension/
> default.aspx>
> 
> I find it interesting that the census questions do not distinguish 
> drivers and non-drivers. They also redundantly ask for a respondent's 
> post code and whether the respondent lives in the western extension zone.

How did you get it to work? It just says 'invalid email address' when I 
answer the first question (with 2 different browsers).

Colin McKenzie

-- 
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the 
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, James Farrar wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 09:50:55 -0700 (PDT), John B 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 2, 5:24 pm, James Farrar  wrote:
>>>> shovelling money into the Venezuelan state oil company
>>>
>>> Um, that was a Livingstone policy.
>>
>> No, that was taking money *from* the Venezuelan state oil company.
>
> Didn't it involve buying fuel from them at a reduced price? That's still 
> giving our money to them.

What it actually involved was them paying us 20% of what we spent on 
diesel. From any source. No actual oil came from Venezuela - at least, not 
specifically; i imagine some of the diesel we bought was once Venezuelan 
dinosaurs or whatever.

See:

http://www.london.gov.uk/assembly/budgmtgs/2007/mar22/minutes/appendix.pdf

Which is muddled, but functions as a kind of truth ore, from which useful 
knowledge can be extracted.

tom

-- 
Passersby were amazed by the unusually large amounts of blood.

In message <_P2dnb6cetjYCCDVnZ2dnUVZ8tfinZ2d@posted.plusnet> of Tue, 2 
Sep 2008 20:35:28 in uk.transport.london, Colin McKenzie 
 writes
>Walter Briscoe wrote:
>> I am surprised not to see a reference to 
>><http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/roadusers/congestioncharging/westernextensio>>n/
>> default.aspx>
>>  I find it interesting that the census questions do not distinguish 
>>drivers and non-drivers. They also redundantly ask for a respondent's 
>>post code and whether the respondent lives in the western extension zone.
>
>How did you get it to work? It just says 'invalid email address' when I 
>answer the first question (with 2 different browsers).

The first question is "Please enter your email address to begin the 
survey:" I filled in my real address and clicked "Next" in IE7. If I 
filled in a@b or news@proof-read.co.uk, I also got "invalid email 
address" but a@b.com worked as does wbriscoe@nospam.demon.co.uk. 
[nospam.demon.co.uk is a black hole real domain provided as a service by 
a demon user.]

Did you try a real address?
I have yet to get an email to ask me to confirm my response is genuine.
-- 
Walter Briscoe

In uk.transport.london message ,
Wed, 3 Sep 2008 09:22:04, Walter Briscoe 
posted:
>
>Did you try a real address?
>I have yet to get an email to ask me to confirm my response is genuine.

It dislikes dots in the left part, apparently.  There's a site "contact
us" page that you should be able to use.  Continue.

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, near London. *@merlyn.demon.co.uk/?.?.Stockton@physics.org

Walter Briscoe wrote:
> The first question is "Please enter your email address to begin the 
> survey:" I filled in my real address and clicked "Next" in IE7. If I 
> filled in a@b or news@proof-read.co.uk, I also got "invalid email 
> address" but a@b.com worked as does wbriscoe@nospam.demon.co.uk. 
> [nospam.demon.co.uk is a black hole real domain provided as a service by 
> a demon user.]
> 
> Did you try a real address?

That is a real address! Maybe it doesn't like hyphens in the RHS. Will 
experiment with my yahoo address.

Thanks

Colin McKenzie

-- 
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the 
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 07:44:55AM +0100, Walter Briscoe wrote:

> It looks as if the result will be to modify the implementation.
> I go for that. Although I think the western extension was a bad idea, I 
> think scrapping the hardware would be unconscionable.

Why is scrapping the hardware such a bad idea, given that you think the
extension itself is a bad idea?  The hardware is only there because of
the congestion charging area that you want to see got rid of!

In any case, I expect that quite a lot of it is salvageable for re-use
elsewhere or could be sold.

-- 
David Cantrell | Hero of the Information Age

PERL: Politely Expressed Racoon Love

In message  of Thu, 4 
Sep 2008 12:12:46 in uk.transport.london, David Cantrell 
 writes
>On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 07:44:55AM +0100, Walter Briscoe wrote:
>
>> It looks as if the result will be to modify the implementation.
>> I go for that. Although I think the western extension was a bad idea, I
>> think scrapping the hardware would be unconscionable.

I thought it was a bad idea because the last Mayor's case for it seemed 
to be more a question of air quality than congestion. The democratic 
case that there was a majority of Londoners in favour of it although 
those in the area were against it did not impress me.

>
>Why is scrapping the hardware such a bad idea, given that you think the
>extension itself is a bad idea?  The hardware is only there because of
>the congestion charging area that you want to see got rid of!

I thought introducing it was wrong. I do not see continuing it so.

>
>In any case, I expect that quite a lot of it is salvageable for re-use
>elsewhere or could be sold.
>

I think re-use is not likely. Salvage values are likely to be low.

I view the original Congestion Charge area as a successful prototype. 
There is a need for further development before it is fit to be used 
elsewhere - including Manchester.

I think road-metering needs to be supported. It would look at the 
congestion formed mainly by buses and taxis - many empty - in the 
central area. The latter could usefully be encouraged to go elsewhere.
-- 
Walter Briscoe

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 12:39:14 +0100, Walter Briscoe
 wrote:

>In message  of Thu, 4 
>Sep 2008 12:12:46 in uk.transport.london, David Cantrell 
> writes
...
>>> I go for that. Although I think the western extension was a bad idea, I
>>> think scrapping the hardware would be unconscionable.
>
>I thought it was a bad idea because the last Mayor's case for it seemed 
>to be more a question of air quality than congestion. The democratic 
>case that there was a majority of Londoners in favour of it although 
>those in the area were against it did not impress me.

The "air quality" case was a sop to keep the Greens in Ken's camp, as
well as to spin the economic failure of the WEZ. The hardware can go:
plate reading leads to plate cloning, and dodging the fixed cameras
(or their failure rate) can be seen by how often the mobile vans are
parked up right near the entry points.

>I think road-metering needs to be supported. It would look at the 
>congestion formed mainly by buses and taxis - many empty - in the 
>central area. The latter could usefully be encouraged to go elsewhere.
None of the current plans work as you hope. Taxis are expensive in
London partly due to high upfront costs, the payback is the free ride
in the CZs and most bus lanes. None of the plans could fix the bus
bunching or off peak empty state of some routes (for which shared
taxis a la continent could be tried). See the road pricing as a form
of fiscal gouging with a lash of green paint. 

-- 
Old anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke
So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com

In message  of Fri, 5 Sep 
2008 16:35:12 in uk.transport.london, Colum Mylod 
<cmylod@bigfoot.comREMOVE> writes
>On Thu, 4 Sep 2008 12:39:14 +0100, Walter Briscoe
> wrote:
>
>>In message  of Thu, 4
>>Sep 2008 12:12:46 in uk.transport.london, David Cantrell
>> writes

[snip]

>The "air quality" case was a sop to keep the Greens in Ken's camp, as
>well as to spin the economic failure of the WEZ. The hardware can go:

I assumed it was an attempt to inflict something perceived as harmful by 
Ken's natural opponents. The same applies to Chelsea tractors.

Thos 2 issues caused me to swing my vote. So far, I am pleasantly 
surprised I am not yet regretting it.

>plate reading leads to plate cloning, and dodging the fixed cameras

Evidence?

>(or their failure rate) can be seen by how often the mobile vans are
>parked up right near the entry points.
>
>>I think road-metering needs to be supported. It would look at the
>>congestion formed mainly by buses and taxis - many empty - in the
>>central area. The latter could usefully be encouraged to go elsewhere.

>None of the current plans work as you hope. Taxis are expensive in

There is experimental work in Southwark (gantries in Tooley Street) 
which may yet bear fruit.

>London partly due to high upfront costs, the payback is the free ride
>in the CZs and most bus lanes. None of the plans could fix the bus
>bunching or off peak empty state of some routes (for which shared
>taxis a la continent could be tried). See the road pricing as a form

I hope Ibus will lead to better bus control. I regularly travel in buses 
where a PA comes on saying something like "This bus is being held for a 
few minutes to regulate the service". I spoke to a driver and was told 
they get instructions to wait from a controller and CAN then select the 
PA.

>of fiscal gouging with a lash of green paint.
>

I am not yet as cynical as Colum. ;)
-- 
Walter Briscoe

>Thos 2 issues caused me to swing my vote. So far, I am pleasantly
 >surprised I am not yet regretting it.

I'm regretting your vote, particularly after all the fares I commonly 
pay were announced as going up between 7.4 and 11.1%.  However if you're 
happy with the current administration you obviously you like big holes 
in the TfL budget, mendacious spin and press bias, fare rises, 
congestion, the choice of public transport vehicles based on the 
personal whim of someone with no relevant experience, increased 
pollution and the scrapping of major improvement projects like partially 
pedestrianising Parliament Square (Too expensive!  Nasty to motorists!) 
and the Cross River Tram.  Oh, and consultation in some areas but not in 
others, areas that just happen to vote Tory.  Brilliant.

What part of reducing traffic on the roads doesn't improve air quality, 
anyway?

Tom (just come back through the WEZ in a cab, and it was nice and clear).

Tom Barry wrote:
>> Thos 2 issues caused me to swing my vote. So far, I am pleasantly
>> surprised I am not yet regretting it.
>
> I'm regretting your vote, particularly after all the fares I commonly
> pay were announced as going up between 7.4 and 11.1%.  However if
> you're happy with the current administration you obviously you like
> big holes in the TfL budget, mendacious spin and press bias,

Are you claiming that Boris has caused big holes in the TfL budget (as well 
as raising your fares)?  There were reports of big holes that Ken left 
before the election, but perhaps you think that was press bias, which is 
hardly something that has only just appeared.

>, fare rises, congestion,

I seem to remember the previous mayor imposed above-inflation fare rises 
too, and would probably have done so again had he been re-elected. And 
congestion has increased in the original zone since the WEZ was introduced, 
has it not?

> the choice of public transport vehicles based on the personal whim of
> someone with no relevant experience,

Agreed, though we have yet to see this actually happen.  I wonder whether 
TfL will mount a rearguard action to retain the bendies.

> increased pollution

Evidence? Rephasing traffic lights and scrapping the WEZ would arguably 
reduce congestion and therefore pollution in the original charging zone.

> and the scrapping of major improvement projects like
> partially pedestrianising Parliament Square (Too expensive!  Nasty to
> motorists!) and the Cross River Tram.

You're complaining both about big holes in the TfL budget and about cost 
reduction.  You can't have it both ways!

> Oh, and consultation in some areas but not in others, areas that just 
> happen to vote Tory.

Not sure what you're referring to there, but Ken's WLT consultation was a 
farce, so is Boris really worse?

Despite your allegations of spin and press bias, you seem to be engaging in 
those practices yourself.  I didn't vote for Boris and I'm not saying he's 
doing a good job (yet), but, hey, the election's over!
-- 
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 16:11:10 +0100, Walter Briscoe
 wrote:

>In message  of Fri, 5 Sep 
>2008 16:35:12 in uk.transport.london, Colum Mylod 
><cmylod@bigfoot.comREMOVE> writes
...
>>plate reading leads to plate cloning, and dodging the fixed cameras
>
>Evidence?

Hard to come by, I admit. The odd article here and there on Welsh
tractors speeding through 100s of miles from home but no solid numbers
on cloning outside of the speculative "1 plate in 6" seen in a journal
of tabloid dimensions. The numbers of unenforced tickets is probably a
better gauge: 25% or so. I do think a PL or Latvian plate (plus
racial-stereotype moustache?) would work out better than a clone GB
plate as the DVLA is poor value for money...
..
>>None of the current plans work as you hope. Taxis are expensive in
>
>There is experimental work in Southwark (gantries in Tooley Street) 
>which may yet bear fruit.
Interesting. I still think taxis, black cabs, are akin to private
transport owing to the numbers on accounts and the high prices. The
minicab biz has been heavily loaded by Ken with costs as the non-black
cab lot were tarred and feathered by him as a bad lot. Bus trip 90p,
taxi trip - what is it? - GBP8. Contrast with e.g. Barcelona.
..
>>of fiscal gouging with a lash of green paint.
>
>I am not yet as cynical as Colum. ;)

Not yet! The current cabinet, in its rush to race to and over the
cliff end, seem to be in love with add-on taxation in Manchester and
Bristol. Boris might row back the WEZ but the stake's in the ground
for additional taxation, and excessive costs for it: Capita might be
on the way out but IBM don't promise much return on the high income.

-- 
Old anti-spam address cmylod at despammed dot com appears broke
So back to cmylod at bigfoot dot com

In message  of Sun, 7 Sep 
2008 23:26:12 in uk.transport.london, Colum Mylod 
<cmylod@bigfoot.comREMOVE> writes
>On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 16:11:10 +0100, Walter Briscoe
> wrote:
>
>>In message  of Fri, 5 Sep
>>2008 16:35:12 in uk.transport.london, Colum Mylod
>><cmylod@bigfoot.comREMOVE> writes

[snip]

>>>None of the current plans work as you hope. Taxis are expensive in
>>
>>There is experimental work in Southwark (gantries in Tooley Street)
>>which may yet bear fruit.
>Interesting. I still think taxis, black cabs, are akin to private
>transport owing to the numbers on accounts and the high prices. The
>minicab biz has been heavily loaded by Ken with costs as the non-black
>cab lot were tarred and feathered by him as a bad lot. Bus trip 90p,
>taxi trip - what is it? - GBP8. Contrast with e.g. Barcelona.
>..

I rarely take a taxi and never use minicabs, but, when I do, it rarely 
costs less than 12UKP. I think CC gives great benefits to public 
transport and it should pay for them. I would prefer cabs to be 
encouraged to rank rather than cruise empty. OTOH, we need better ranks. 
Liverpool Street, in particular, is a joke since station modernisation.

>>>of fiscal gouging with a lash of green paint.
>>
>>I am not yet as cynical as Colum. ;)
>
>Not yet! The current cabinet, in its rush to race to and over the
>cliff end, seem to be in love with add-on taxation in Manchester and
>Bristol. Boris might row back the WEZ but the stake's in the ground
>for additional taxation, and excessive costs for it: Capita might be
>on the way out but IBM don't promise much return on the high income.
>

What is proposed for Bristol?
Where does IBM intend to put their call centre? I was interested to hear 
Mr Livingstone say that Croydon would have been better than Coventry.
-- 
Walter Briscoe

On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 12:39:14PM +0100, Walter Briscoe wrote:

> I think road-metering needs to be supported. It would look at the 
> congestion formed mainly by buses and taxis - many empty - in the 
> central area. The latter could usefully be encouraged to go elsewhere.

Many empty?  I wish they were, then I'd be able to get a taxi when I
want one!

-- 
David Cantrell | top google result for "topless karaoke murders"

You may now start misinterpreting what I just
wrote, and attacking that misinterpretation.