Charge to use Blackwall Tunnel

buckshee said:

Let’s have this right. It’s not the Silvertown Tunnel that’s reduced the queues it’s the fact that the tunnel is now a toll one. 

Let have this right. Obviously a second tunnel helps reduce congestion.

Radostanradical said:

golfaddick said:

stoneroses19 said:

golfaddick said:

fenlandaddick said:

Still can't believe there is a charge, bit of a scandal really considering the long history of the tunnel.

I don't mind paying a fee......we've been paying one on the Dartford crossing ever since it was built.

What I do mind is paying more for my journey than someone going in the opposite direction. In some parts of the world that is called secreterianlism and people have fought wars over it. 

You’ve peaked at complete nonsense here. 

Way over the top reaction comparing a difference in tunnel journey charges to sectarianism and war. You try too hard to get attention sometimes (and yes it’s worked as people have had to reply to your ridiculous analogy). 

So what is it then ?  What makes it right that I have to pay more at 9am to travel from Bromley to East Ham than a person in East Ham does to travel to Bromley ?

And it has nothing to do with "peak fares that commuters have always paid" as I'm not travelling into Central London.....merely travelling from South London to East London. 

Sometimes I winder if you are so dense light bends around you. It is to do with congestion and peak times, it doesnt have to be Central London. Can you not understand that peak times refers to when the volume of cars is at its greatest in a particular direction? What has central london got to do with anything? 😂

Where are all these vehicles going to from South of the river ?  With the Congestion Zone they cant all be going into Central London  ?  Are they all going through the Tunnel, along the A13 & stopping around Whitechapel  ?  And do people North of the river not travel through the Tunnel and along the A2 to Elephant & Castle ?

Perhaps there should be a charge for using the A13 & A2 that go into London, rather than a charge to simply get you across the river.  

redman said:

cantersaddick said:

Yes those impacts are assessed in the various studies. The people who do this are world leaders in post implementation evaluation. They arent going to miss impacts like that. Again majority of costs carried by upper middle class households. That's not to say it doesn't matter but it does affect the affordability argument. 

And it's clear that this is the most economically and socially efficient way to achieve a reduction in pollutants as it leaves people to make an economic choice. Change behaviour to find alternatives where possible and reduce driving into the zone whilst those who can afford to can upgrade vehicle. Of course it doesn't always need to be an upgrade. My 18 year old car is still running perfectly and compliant. Plenty of second hand petrol cars out there that are perfectly fine.

As for the "we would have got there anyway with natural churn" argument. Actually it's found we achieved the air quality target 185 years earlier than previously expected. 

https://www.london.gov.uk/london-meets-legal-limits-toxic-no2-pollution-first-time-almost-200-years-earlier-predicted

BBC News - Ulez: Cleaner air for Londoners after expansion, study finds - BBC News

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgq9nnj274xo?app-referrer=deep-link#:~:text="Indeed, the air in outer,this year, 185 years early.

No doubt these "world leaders" are the same or similar to those who were telling everybody 10 years ago that diesel cars were cleaner than petrol. Convinced governments, which is why car tax is much lower on diesel cars. 
It's the heavy handed way that most people didn't like, and without fully considering unintended consequences. 
eg I know of at least 2 NW kent businesses, 1 who wont quote for business in London and the other who does much less through choice. Still, this will only affect your despised middle class. 
The point golfie makes on congestion charge is valid. Most tolls etc do at least have a pretence of fairness. This is just about revenue maximisation 

They are world leaders in post implementation evaluation. That'd nothing to do with what you are talking about. Maybe try reading one of the reports I linked to and you'll see the level of detail they go into. 

Funny you mention the previous advice about diesel cars. You try and paint this as a negative but it just shows up your complete lack of understanding of the scientific method. Science changing its view/advice on something isn't a weakness. It's a strength. When new evidence comes to light that is assessed against previous hypothesis and new conclusions are drawn. The fact that it is constantly learning from new data and information is what makes it so powerful. 

I've said nothing about congestion charge. I've only discussed ULEZ. Which as explained in the reports the the most socially and economically efficient way to achieve an improvement in air quality because it allows choice. Allowing for behavioural responses to either upgrade vehicle, change mode, reduce travel or pay a fee results in individuals making the best decision for them based on their circumstances and so the reduction is achieved in the most efficient way. 

sam3110 said:

golfaddick said:

stoneroses19 said:

golfaddick said:

fenlandaddick said:

Still can't believe there is a charge, bit of a scandal really considering the long history of the tunnel.

I don't mind paying a fee......we've been paying one on the Dartford crossing ever since it was built.

What I do mind is paying more for my journey than someone going in the opposite direction. In some parts of the world that is called secreterianlism and people have fought wars over it. 

You’ve peaked at complete nonsense here. 

Way over the top reaction comparing a difference in tunnel journey charges to sectarianism and war. You try too hard to get attention sometimes (and yes it’s worked as people have had to reply to your ridiculous analogy). 

Point being, in other parts of the country/ world it wouldn't be stood for and people would be up in arms.

But in cosy SE London / Kent we just sigh & let the politicians get away with it.

No I'm fairly sure there isn't a congestion charge in Devon because there's fuck all congestion, not because of the temperament of the locals

Wait till you get stuck behind a tractor 🚜 

rananegra said:

Radostanradical said:

golfaddick said:

stoneroses19 said:

golfaddick said:

fenlandaddick said:

Still can't believe there is a charge, bit of a scandal really considering the long history of the tunnel.

I don't mind paying a fee......we've been paying one on the Dartford crossing ever since it was built.

What I do mind is paying more for my journey than someone going in the opposite direction. In some parts of the world that is called secreterianlism and people have fought wars over it. 

You’ve peaked at complete nonsense here. 

Way over the top reaction comparing a difference in tunnel journey charges to sectarianism and war. You try too hard to get attention sometimes (and yes it’s worked as people have had to reply to your ridiculous analogy). 

So what is it then ?  What makes it right that I have to pay more at 9am to travel from Bromley to East Ham than a person in East Ham does to travel to Bromley ?

And it has nothing to do with "peak fares that commuters have always paid" as I'm not travelling into Central London.....merely travelling from South London to East London. 

Sometimes I winder if you are so dense light bends around you. It is to do with congestion and peak times, it doesnt have to be Central London. Can you not understand that peak times refers to when the volume of cars is at its greatest in a particular direction? What has central london got to do with anything? 😂

There's a wider point here though, why are there more vehicles going from SE to NE London in the morning and vice versa? Could it be the historic underfunding and underdevelopment of public transport links in SE London/NW Kent compared to the wrong side of the River? I accept that the congestion charge is designed to put people off casual journeys, especially if commuting from SE London to north of the River, but that doesn't get away from the discrimination based on where you live and you're already discriminated against on that basis in other transport matters. There are 6 boroughs without a tube station, 3 of which are in SE London (Bromley, Bexley, Lewisham) and none of which are north of the RIver. There are only 6 tube stops in Southwark, all in Zone 1 or just outside in Bermondsey, and 1 in Greenwich, plus the 2 Elizabeth Line stops. As a comparison, there are 15 tube stations in the significantly smaller borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, and it is free to cross the River on any bridge there that is still open.  If we were French we wouldn't put up with it, so Golfie's point is fair enough. 

North London was handed the lion's share, with more than 250 stations north of the River Thames and just 29 to the south.

golfaddick said:

rananegra said:

Radostanradical said:

golfaddick said:

stoneroses19 said:

golfaddick said:

fenlandaddick said:

Still can't believe there is a charge, bit of a scandal really considering the long history of the tunnel.

I don't mind paying a fee......we've been paying one on the Dartford crossing ever since it was built.

What I do mind is paying more for my journey than someone going in the opposite direction. In some parts of the world that is called secreterianlism and people have fought wars over it. 

You’ve peaked at complete nonsense here. 

Way over the top reaction comparing a difference in tunnel journey charges to sectarianism and war. You try too hard to get attention sometimes (and yes it’s worked as people have had to reply to your ridiculous analogy). 

So what is it then ?  What makes it right that I have to pay more at 9am to travel from Bromley to East Ham than a person in East Ham does to travel to Bromley ?

And it has nothing to do with "peak fares that commuters have always paid" as I'm not travelling into Central London.....merely travelling from South London to East London. 

Sometimes I winder if you are so dense light bends around you. It is to do with congestion and peak times, it doesnt have to be Central London. Can you not understand that peak times refers to when the volume of cars is at its greatest in a particular direction? What has central london got to do with anything? 😂

There's a wider point here though, why are there more vehicles going from SE to NE London in the morning and vice versa? Could it be the historic underfunding and underdevelopment of public transport links in SE London/NW Kent compared to the wrong side of the River? I accept that the congestion charge is designed to put people off casual journeys, especially if commuting from SE London to north of the River, but that doesn't get away from the discrimination based on where you live and you're already discriminated against on that basis in other transport matters. There are 6 boroughs without a tube station, 3 of which are in SE London (Bromley, Bexley, Lewisham) and none of which are north of the RIver. There are only 6 tube stops in Southwark, all in Zone 1 or just outside in Bermondsey, and 1 in Greenwich, plus the 2 Elizabeth Line stops. As a comparison, there are 15 tube stations in the significantly smaller borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, and it is free to cross the River on any bridge there that is still open.  If we were French we wouldn't put up with it, so Golfie's point is fair enough. 

Thank you. And said more eloquently than I ever could.

Don’t put yourself down, you’d have said it equolopently enough….

Getting the orange order to pay for a typist and then sacking them could be secretarianism. Sectarianism would be more anti-sect

stoneroses19 said:

golfaddick said:

fenlandaddick said:

Still can't believe there is a charge, bit of a scandal really considering the long history of the tunnel.

I don't mind paying a fee......we've been paying one on the Dartford crossing ever since it was built.

What I do mind is paying more for my journey than someone going in the opposite direction. In some parts of the world that is called secreterianlism and people have fought wars over it. 

You’ve peaked at complete nonsense here. 

Way over the top reaction comparing a difference in tunnel journey charges to sectarianism and war. You try too hard to get attention sometimes (and yes it’s worked as people have had to reply to your ridiculous analogy). 

Were the pen wars as a result of secreterianlism?

This subject rarely effects me these days but it does make sense to increase the toll during times of peak useage. if it deters a small percentage of vehicles into slightly earlier or later journey times then it decreases the potential for slower or even static traffic which obviously increases the level of emissions. You can argue as much as you like about it being all about maximising revenue but there is science and data to support it. With regard to it costing more to travel in a northwards direction rather than south, then I think it’s easy to see why golfie is annoyed but there’s a logical reason for that too. More vehicles travel in a northerly direction than travel southwards. Northerly journeys, as a whole create more emissions. The bottom line is that as canters points out, is that the data regarding benefits to health cannot be ignored and it’s all our responsibility to give that aspect of ULEZ and tolls maximum priority. 

ShootersHillGuru said:

golfaddick said:

Radostanradical said:

golfaddick said:

stoneroses19 said:

golfaddick said:

fenlandaddick said:

Still can't believe there is a charge, bit of a scandal really considering the long history of the tunnel.

I don't mind paying a fee......we've been paying one on the Dartford crossing ever since it was built.

What I do mind is paying more for my journey than someone going in the opposite direction. In some parts of the world that is called secreterianlism and people have fought wars over it. 

You’ve peaked at complete nonsense here. 

Way over the top reaction comparing a difference in tunnel journey charges to sectarianism and war. You try too hard to get attention sometimes (and yes it’s worked as people have had to reply to your ridiculous analogy). 

So what is it then ?  What makes it right that I have to pay more at 9am to travel from Bromley to East Ham than a person in East Ham does to travel to Bromley ?

And it has nothing to do with "peak fares that commuters have always paid" as I'm not travelling into Central London.....merely travelling from South London to East London. 

Sometimes I winder if you are so dense light bends around you. It is to do with congestion and peak times, it doesnt have to be Central London. Can you not understand that peak times refers to when the volume of cars is at its greatest in a particular direction? What has central london got to do with anything? 😂

Where are all these vehicles going to from South of the river ?  With the Congestion Zone they cant all be going into Central London  ?  Are they all going through the Tunnel, along the A13 & stopping around Whitechapel  ?  And do people North of the river not travel through the Tunnel and along the A2 to Elephant & Castle ?

Perhaps there should be a charge for using the A13 & A2 that go into London, rather than a charge to simply get you across the river.  

From south of the river the Blackwall Tunnel is effectively the gateway to the north and east of the country. My journey northward from SE London takes me through the tunnel, up the A12 and onto the M11 from where I join the A14 and ultimately the M1(M) and on through the midlands to the north. It’s a primary route servicing the whole of the country. There’s more to the north of The Thames than south of it. It’s access all areas including central London.

Conversely you could say the Blackwall Tunnell is the gateway to the South and South East. A2 to Dover, A20/M20 to Folkestone, or A21/ M25 to everywhere else. 

usetobunkin said:

All this talk about emissions does make me chuckle. First  we had VW and others playing fast and loose with emissions. Then when I worked for the DVSA we were tasked with finding Emulators, (Devices that overrode 
Emission warning lamps ) and engine remapping. 
We found loads, most fitted to FORS compliant trucks. It was embarrassing for the the Mayor of London /TFL and all the garbage spoken about air quality. (Some of the Monitoring Systems didn't record 24/7, some failed and the readings estimated, and the unit at Blackwall was fitted facing away from the traffic)
DVSA had a meeting with TFL at Palastra in Waterloo, and we were told to issue warning letters and desist from the detection of emissions cheats as it would  "Not be in the public interest to proceed" with Public Inquires and 
O Licence revocation. 

We say air quality has improved, I don't think so, when I look across London from my bedroom window I can see the blanket of pollution still hanging over London.

Lies, damn lies and statistics!

Yeah the bit in bold is just idiotic anti-intellectualism and shows a complete lack of basic understanding of research and the scientific method. 

To say nothing more than I don't believe multiple studies from world leading academic organisations like Imperial and King's or research bodies like the National Institute for Heath Research without actually looking into any detail is laughable. 

Visible haze isn't a reliable proxy for air quality though, and that's kind of the point. What you're seeing from a window is often weather-dependent (humidity, temperature inversions, light angle) and isn't the same thing as pollutant concentration. The improvements regulators track - PM2.5, NO2, etc - come from continuous monitoring stations measuring actual particle and gas levels, not visual impressions on a particular day.

Dismissing that data as "lies, damn lies and statistics" without engaging with the methodology is a classic move, but it's not actually a counterargument, it's a way of avoiding one. If you think the stats are wrong, the productive question is: which stations, which years, which pollutants, and what's the alternative explanation for the trend? Otherwise you're just substituting "what I can see today" for measurement, which is exactly the kind of anti-intellectual reflex that makes it harder to have honest conversations about real, remaining pollution problems (because London does still have them, particularly NO2 near major roads).

The quote "Lies, damned lies & statistics" is increasingly being used in this way by anti-intellectual arguments. Of course it again shows their ignorants as its a flagrant misuse. The quote is about the manipulation of statistics to tell a story. It is not a reason to write off the overwhelming body of scientific evidence if it doesn't agree with someone's worldview. It does not entitle someone to their own alternative "facts".

golfaddick said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

golfaddick said:

Radostanradical said:

golfaddick said:

stoneroses19 said:

golfaddick said:

fenlandaddick said:

Still can't believe there is a charge, bit of a scandal really considering the long history of the tunnel.

I don't mind paying a fee......we've been paying one on the Dartford crossing ever since it was built.

What I do mind is paying more for my journey than someone going in the opposite direction. In some parts of the world that is called secreterianlism and people have fought wars over it. 

You’ve peaked at complete nonsense here. 

Way over the top reaction comparing a difference in tunnel journey charges to sectarianism and war. You try too hard to get attention sometimes (and yes it’s worked as people have had to reply to your ridiculous analogy). 

So what is it then ?  What makes it right that I have to pay more at 9am to travel from Bromley to East Ham than a person in East Ham does to travel to Bromley ?

And it has nothing to do with "peak fares that commuters have always paid" as I'm not travelling into Central London.....merely travelling from South London to East London. 

Sometimes I winder if you are so dense light bends around you. It is to do with congestion and peak times, it doesnt have to be Central London. Can you not understand that peak times refers to when the volume of cars is at its greatest in a particular direction? What has central london got to do with anything? 😂

Where are all these vehicles going to from South of the river ?  With the Congestion Zone they cant all be going into Central London  ?  Are they all going through the Tunnel, along the A13 & stopping around Whitechapel  ?  And do people North of the river not travel through the Tunnel and along the A2 to Elephant & Castle ?

Perhaps there should be a charge for using the A13 & A2 that go into London, rather than a charge to simply get you across the river.  

From south of the river the Blackwall Tunnel is effectively the gateway to the north and east of the country. My journey northward from SE London takes me through the tunnel, up the A12 and onto the M11 from where I join the A14 and ultimately the M1(M) and on through the midlands to the north. It’s a primary route servicing the whole of the country. There’s more to the north of The Thames than south of it. It’s access all areas including central London.

Conversely you could say the Blackwall Tunnell is the gateway to the South and South East. A2 to Dover, A20/M20 to Folkestone, or A21/ M25 to everywhere else. 

Well you might but I’d assume that the majority of trucks heading north from the south coast ports are heading north of London. The majority of distribution hubs for the nation are sensibly located in the centre of the country. Yes they of course do the return journey but does the return journey imply “gateway” ? It doesn’t to me. 

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

usetobunkin said:

All this talk about emissions does make me chuckle. First  we had VW and others playing fast and loose with emissions. Then when I worked for the DVSA we were tasked with finding Emulators, (Devices that overrode 
Emission warning lamps ) and engine remapping. 
We found loads, most fitted to FORS compliant trucks. It was embarrassing for the the Mayor of London /TFL and all the garbage spoken about air quality. (Some of the Monitoring Systems didn't record 24/7, some failed and the readings estimated, and the unit at Blackwall was fitted facing away from the traffic)
DVSA had a meeting with TFL at Palastra in Waterloo, and we were told to issue warning letters and desist from the detection of emissions cheats as it would  "Not be in the public interest to proceed" with Public Inquires and 
O Licence revocation. 

We say air quality has improved, I don't think so, when I look across London from my bedroom window I can see the blanket of pollution still hanging over London.

Lies, damn lies and statistics!

Yeah the bit in bold is just idiotic anti-intellectualism and shows a complete lack of basic understanding of research and the scientific method. 

To say nothing more than I don't believe multiple studies from world leading academic organisations like Imperial and King's or research bodies like the National Institute for Heath Research without actually looking into any detail is laughable. 

Visible haze isn't a reliable proxy for air quality though, and that's kind of the point. What you're seeing from a window is often weather-dependent (humidity, temperature inversions, light angle) and isn't the same thing as pollutant concentration. The improvements regulators track - PM2.5, NO2, etc - come from continuous monitoring stations measuring actual particle and gas levels, not visual impressions on a particular day.

Dismissing that data as "lies, damn lies and statistics" without engaging with the methodology is a classic move, but it's not actually a counterargument, it's a way of avoiding one. If you think the stats are wrong, the productive question is: which stations, which years, which pollutants, and what's the alternative explanation for the trend? Otherwise you're just substituting "what I can see today" for measurement, which is exactly the kind of anti-intellectual reflex that makes it harder to have honest conversations about real, remaining pollution problems (because London does still have them, particularly NO2 near major roads).

The quote "Lies, damned lies & statistics" is increasingly being used in this way by anti-intellectual arguments. Of course it again shows their ignorants as its a flagrant misuse. The quote is about the manipulation of statistics to tell a story. It is not a reason to write off the overwhelming body of scientific evidence if it doesn't agree with someone's worldview. It does not entitle someone to their own alternative "facts".

That's why we have official statistics regulated by a national statistics body, a national statistician, peer review processes and it’s why data professionals get paid what they do, understanding and communicating data is a skill. 

To our exchange above and the wider point on explaining data…

Are we really saying ULEZ improved air quality 185 years sooner than otherwise would have happened?

I can’t rationally accept (the number) that logic as all ULEZ did was bring forward the speed with which drivers switched to cleaner cars. 

What am I missing or misunderstanding? 

I've explained a number of times. Feel free to open one of the links I posted and have a read. 

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

usetobunkin said:

All this talk about emissions does make me chuckle. First  we had VW and others playing fast and loose with emissions. Then when I worked for the DVSA we were tasked with finding Emulators, (Devices that overrode 
Emission warning lamps ) and engine remapping. 
We found loads, most fitted to FORS compliant trucks. It was embarrassing for the the Mayor of London /TFL and all the garbage spoken about air quality. (Some of the Monitoring Systems didn't record 24/7, some failed and the readings estimated, and the unit at Blackwall was fitted facing away from the traffic)
DVSA had a meeting with TFL at Palastra in Waterloo, and we were told to issue warning letters and desist from the detection of emissions cheats as it would  "Not be in the public interest to proceed" with Public Inquires and 
O Licence revocation. 

We say air quality has improved, I don't think so, when I look across London from my bedroom window I can see the blanket of pollution still hanging over London.

Lies, damn lies and statistics!

Yeah the bit in bold is just idiotic anti-intellectualism and shows a complete lack of basic understanding of research and the scientific method. 

To say nothing more than I don't believe multiple studies from world leading academic organisations like Imperial and King's or research bodies like the National Institute for Heath Research without actually looking into any detail is laughable. 

Visible haze isn't a reliable proxy for air quality though, and that's kind of the point. What you're seeing from a window is often weather-dependent (humidity, temperature inversions, light angle) and isn't the same thing as pollutant concentration. The improvements regulators track - PM2.5, NO2, etc - come from continuous monitoring stations measuring actual particle and gas levels, not visual impressions on a particular day.

Dismissing that data as "lies, damn lies and statistics" without engaging with the methodology is a classic move, but it's not actually a counterargument, it's a way of avoiding one. If you think the stats are wrong, the productive question is: which stations, which years, which pollutants, and what's the alternative explanation for the trend? Otherwise you're just substituting "what I can see today" for measurement, which is exactly the kind of anti-intellectual reflex that makes it harder to have honest conversations about real, remaining pollution problems (because London does still have them, particularly NO2 near major roads).

The quote "Lies, damned lies & statistics" is increasingly being used in this way by anti-intellectual arguments. Of course it again shows their ignorants as its a flagrant misuse. The quote is about the manipulation of statistics to tell a story. It is not a reason to write off the overwhelming body of scientific evidence if it doesn't agree with someone's worldview. It does not entitle someone to their own alternative "facts".

That's why we have official statistics regulated by a national statistics body, a national statistician, peer review processes and it’s why data professionals get paid what they do, understanding and communicating data is a skill. 

To our exchange above and the wider point on explaining data…

Are we really saying ULEZ improved air quality 185 years sooner than otherwise would have happened?

I can’t rationally accept (the number) that logic as all ULEZ did was bring forward the speed with which drivers switched to cleaner cars. 

What am I missing or misunderstanding? 

I've explained a number of times. Feel free to open one of the links I posted and have a read. 

I’m seeking a simple summary / explanation (to your point above on communication skills). 

As a sanity check I can’t immediately see how ULEZ bringing forward the natural churn of cars can be as vast as 185 years. If you said 20 years I might think that’s fair / plausible as the time some non compliant cars stayed in use for. But 185 feels out of bounds. 

It must have assumed no improvements in emission levels from compliant cars and evolution of EVs and therefore only partly assisted by ULEZ / Congestion Charge notwithstanding it has very many benefits. 

 

And I'll leave it to the experts in this area to communicate it (which was my point). There are 4 independent reports, 1 City of London commissioned report and a BBC article referenced and linked on the previous page. I'm sure they can put their methodology across clearly.