Comments on: Cambridge Congestion Charge - The Liberal Democrat View as of Thursday 19th March

By: David Hollingsbee

David Hollingsbee — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 16:06:01 +0000

It looks like your Disney World analogy is set to become a reality, if today’s Cambridge News is to be believed:
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=468127

By: Tim Joslin

Tim Joslin — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:39:25 +0000

Richard, Thanks for writing this up. I was also at the meeting and was too shell-shocked to take everything in (I don’t go to many of these things!).

A couple of points:

1. It is crazy for Cambridge City Council to have “reducing carbon emissions” as a number 1 priority. It’s the wrong level of Government. We might all be driving electric cars by the time the transport system is sorted out.

2. A lot of congestion of Cambridge city centre could be relieved by better design of the transport system, i.e. more one-way routes, and reducing the number of buses (and taxis) using the centre.

3. There’s a certain lack of logic to the idea of a congestion charge zone. Wouldn’t it be easier to sell the idea of a charge for the use of individual roads at busy times and in the busy direction, perhaps with a daily cap?

The councils need to keep things simple and focus on providing better transport facilities and reducing congestion at all times (i.e. at weekends as well as during the week). If we do need a congestion charge, letting selected groups off paying it defeats the object.

I’ve commented in more detail on my blog, here.

By: paul canning

paul canning — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:56:27 +0000

Loving the ‘academic disney world’ analogy.

The distaste for buses strikes me an another expression of their elitism. when the drummer street improvements were proposed I was on a bus committee and all the libdems were interested in was cycle parking.

there have been numerous opportunities to improve the bus station, most recently by putting it under the grand arcade. all missed.

not everyone can or wants to cycle. to not promote bus use is nothing but elitism.

By: Espen

Espen — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:40:28 +0000

The Stockholm scheme is also a cordon charge, so is this merely a contorted way of trying to say that travels entirely within the charging zone are ‘free’ in those examples? Describing that as a “resident’s discount of 100%” seems quite odd, as they still have to pay to get in and out of the zone.

By: Richard

Richard — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 22:43:33 +0000

Brian Briscoe put the other discounts to the councillors. London does have a 90% residents’ discount and as Manchester was to be a cordon based scheme residents would be free to travel inside the zone.

By: Espen

Espen — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:12:34 +0000

I’m curious who provided the information about residents’ discounts in other schemes. Apart from the London scheme residents’ discounts are not the norm, and the claim that the Stockholm one is 100% is completely wrong: there is no blanket exemption for residents in that scheme.

By: Jim Downing

Jim Downing — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:57:52 +0000

I share your disquiet at this idea of a “dream lifestyle” where everybody must work within 3 miles of home (and presumably must stop working when they’re unable to cycle). On several levels it’s as offensive as it is unrealistic.

Keep up the good reporting. The summary was particularly useful, by the way, since I can rarely afford the time to read your full posts!

By: Oliver Stanton

Oliver Stanton — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:08:07 +0000

Just about right. As was put to the politicians - it’s going to be a political decision, whatever the modelling or consultants report a decision is in the hands of the politicians. Their job is not to sit on the fence but lead - taking the electorate with them, putting the best case forward, not hiding behind research. Disappointing, but expected.