Thursday, February 15, 2007

Downing Street petition against Greenwich Congestion Zone

We've just had it brought to our attention that a new petition has appeared on the Downing Street website. In the week that has seen a petition gain over a million signatures on road pricing there is now a petition against the Greenwich Congestion Zone, the propsoals for which we exclusively revealed last week. The petition has been started by someone called Jay Walsh,
We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Stop the proposed Greenwich Congestion Charge from going ahead. London already has a 'congestion' zone that has NOT stopped people from driving into Central London. It is clearly just a money-making excercise that has no affect. We do not want anymore 'stealth taxes'. There are better ways to control the traffic and congestion in Greenwich. Charging people to drive in the area is not one of them!
As part of our public service duty we thought we'd let people know about it. If you feel strongly enough then you can sign it here.

14 Comments:

Anonymous andrew said...

"There are better ways to control the traffic and congestion in Greenwich."

There are? Beyond the dribbling auto-immune response to proposed road-charging, nobody (as yet) has been able to suggest any alternative. Blue cars only on Mondays, red cars on Tuesdays, white cars on Wednesdays, perhaps?

11:35 am  
Blogger Indigo said...

In Lagos, Nigeria, for years they had days when only cars with odd-number licence plates could go on the roads, and days when ditto only cars with even-number licence plates. For all I know, this system is still operating.

We should look at what other countries are doing. Such as Sweden.

5:08 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I dont think this is about reducing Greenwich traffic - its about reducing traffic into central london - Greenwich gets the cash, central London gets reduced traffic so a 'better class of car' can get to work without the poor hoy-poly.
I think its unfair to poor people and I dont want it in Greenwich

11:36 pm  
Anonymous andrew said...

Indigo - They had a similar system in (I think) Rome. It had to be scrapped because people ended up buying two cars and then driving the 'right' one on any particular day. It didn't fix the problem and created a vast number of new ones.

Anonymous - if there are too many cars on the road then you must ration its use. Your 'unfair to poor people' comment suggests that you completely reject using money as the rationing method (although it's frankly the best system we've got and has worked well for centuries). So what will you use?

9:36 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How is a congestion charge a "stealth tax", for heaven's sake? It looks pretty bloody upfront to me.

This sort of no-brain knee-jerk reaction is one of the reasons why Greenwich Council gets away with doing things in secret.

10:07 am  
Blogger Indigo said...

andrew said, They had a similar system in (I think) Rome. It had to be scrapped because people ended up buying two cars and then driving the 'right' one on any particular day. It didn't fix the problem and created a vast number of new ones.

Source, please. This was being considered as a partial solution only two years ago; was then trialled on Thursdays only; during 2005 there were at least two highly popular no-car "Ecological Sundays" in Rome (the mayor of Rome praised the initiative). I doubt that anyone would buy a second car just to be able to be sure of being allowed to drive through the city on Thursdays.

Let us hear from Dario Esposition, the Rome councillor with an environment portfolio.

11:04 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How about doing something outrageous and bring our 18th century roads into the 21st century. You cannot expect roads created for small populations to cope with the massive increase that has been inflicted on this area, as with everything they are quick to build new towns such as Thamesmead and new estates, but nothing is done to increase the supportive ifrastructure such as Hospitals, roads policing etc in fact just the opposite happens, they close roads off, they shut Hospitals, Firestations, Police stations and then try and charge us for the congestion they have caused.

11:54 am  
Blogger CharltonParker said...

Fine if they introduce the congestion charge into Greenwich! What will they do with the money? Will this be used to fund public transport systems? New Road networks? I will be happy for this to happen! But this needs an integral solution and just the congestion charge is just another cash cow! Or will this be used to a pay PFI?

I do not know why people think the traffic is bad, look at Holloway Road, Old kent road. We are a part of London, it happens there are only so many ways to get people around this city and the public transport system does not serve the South East well. Unless they want to go further and restrict people coming into London, well it would be one use for the ID cards anyway ;)

But the sooner people realise its not just a traffic problem in my back yard, but a public transportation problem then the better! Its silly to try and just say we need to charge people because I don't like traffic on my doorstep, since this traffic will just move to other peoples door steps. Congestion Charge is not a solution but pushing the problem around.

11:59 am  
Blogger Inspector Sands said...

Charltonparker is bang on.

The solution to this is bigger than anything a poxy little tinpot London council, or pillocks who can't lift their heads out of their party political arses, should ever allowed anywhere near.

Congestion charging a small area like Greenwich will do nothing except annoy people. A bigger solution is needed.

(Ultimately, mind, the solution is in the hands of those who choose to use their cars day in, day out...)

10:38 am  
Anonymous Fred said...

The congestion charge will have to pay for the Riverfront Transit thing as there is no way that the Govt will pay for it unless they have something in exchange - ie the money from the CC. Still, it's a terrible idea if it goes to the Tunnel Approach.....

10:24 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What Greenwich needs is more wider roads. Most of it is a pretty boring place. You could get a new 4-lane road from Creek Road down to the tunnel only having to demolish 200 houses or so. Or build a new embankment on the riverside and have a proper 6 lane motorway in front of the University. Pavements are too wide and could be done away with in most cases. And all the traffic lights could come out - they could make little tunnels under the road so people crossing don't disturb the traffic. More needs to be done for the cars.

2:09 pm  
Blogger CharltonParker said...

Can someone explain what the catchment area is of the Riverfront transport system? All I know that it will be restricted to 50% of its capacity (its on the riverside, not many fish use the public transport system(lucky them)) Also how many people live along the riverside? From Charlton down to Woolwich the riverside is more industrial with some housing but not much, the Greenwich leg is nothing better with a bit more housing.

How do people think its a good idea?I mean the DLR, could have taken the scenic route along the edge of Island Gardens but it goes straight through the middle!

I'm just dazed and confused!

9:32 pm  
Anonymous inspector sands said...

Greenwich Waterfront Transit's an odd one - a nice idea in theory, but there's only so many people you can dump onto the Jubilee Line at North Greenwich. Effectively, it ain't much more than converting the 472 into a bendy bus and giving it a few more bus lanes. But perhaps the assumption is that the riverside in Greenwich will be dramatically different by the time the thing's built. (I'm always a bit amazed at how much of riverside Charlton is zoned as industrial land, especially since the transport links around Charlton station are actually quite good.)

It's probably worth looking at Fastrack in Dartford - a similar system, and might even be linked up with the transit some day.

If transport in and around Thamesmead's the problem, someone's going to have to bite the bullet some day and put it on a proper rail line (and that'd probably have to come from north of the river).

8:17 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If president Tony, and asylum keeper ken, can have petitions with huge numbers of signatures brushed aside as insignificant, what chance have we lowly Greenwich people got, our council like the two previous bodies believe that the only answer to any problem is to take more money off of us, I wait wi anticipation for my e.mail from Tone telling me that taking more of my hard earned money is good for me. Would the mayors car and council vehicles have to pay to go through the zone, only I note that at times there are some of them parked in the streets all night.

9:18 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home