We have invited them to debate with us but no response so far.
Readers of the Cambridge Evening News have voted 73% against the scheme.
Have you read the recent article in the Cambridge Evening News?
To join the group email rpag-subscribe@groups.google.com with subject "subscribe".
The RPAG exists to collate and disseminate information on Road Pricing schemes in the UK. We are made up largely of IT professionals based in the Cambridge area.
We take a sceptical view and generally regard road pricing schemes as too much technology with too many drawbacks trying to solve a relatively simple problem.
The obvious exception is a simple toll to pay for a new road, such as the Dartford River Crossing (although that was supposed to be free after a certain number of years, and it now looks as if the toll will be in place forever). Interestingly although the Skye Bridge toll was supposed to run for a number of years it has been decided that the toll will be abolished and the bridge paid for from central funds.
If the requirement is to...
Needless to say there were all sorts of problems with this scheme, not least of which was the perverse incentive for drivers to keep moving when confronted with pedestrian crossings and red lights! It also turned out that an individual responsible for transport policy had his name on the patent for the smartcard equipment and could have obtained royalties from the system after retirement.
Since then London have of course introduced their scheme, which is similar to the scheme originally proposed for Cambridge except without the smartcard meters, so drivers simply pay a fixed toll or get fined. This has undoubtedly reduced congesion in the city, but the substantial proceeds which were forecast and were supposed to be spent subsidising public transport failed to appear as the cost of running the system was much higher than forecast.
We understand the need for traffic reduction in cities but would urge those responsible for planning to produce a complete transport policy instead of seizing on individual "wheezes" and implementing them without a coherent overall strategy.
Traffic levels in cities such as Cambridge are falling anyway, partly because of the closure of central streets to through traffic. It seems obvious to us that planning should begin by asking what exactly is the need for people to move in and out of cities (work, shopping, deliveries) and how these journeys can best be made with the minimum impact on the environment, maximum health benefits (reduced pollution, exercise and so on) and minimum cost so that whatever money is raised through transport taxes (petrol duty and so on) can be spent on improving infrastructure instead of being spent on technology.
By this yardstick schemes such as the Guided Bus and Congestion Charging are quickly found wanting.
The Guided Bus is a technological solution to a non existent problem; it's very impressive making buses that run along a guideway, but as experience is proving elsewhere the equipment is troublesome and in any case it's clear that the scheme provides no benefits over more conventional solutions such as rail or even a conventional bus running on an ordinary road.
Congestion Charging likewise implies a certain amount of technology - at the very least you need a complex billing system capable of dealing with a substantial proportion of the local population, issuing and chasing fines and so on, together with a very reliable numberplate recognition system, a customer service operation to deal with inevitable failures such as fines issued incorrectly and a legal department to deal with prosecution of those who do not pay.
Although we have a very good understanding of the technology involved we fail to see the point of it. Applying the principles stated earlier it seems to us that to reduce congestion in cities we need to firstly provide people with high quality alternatives such as first class public transport, cycle facilities to the highest standards such as in Holland, innovative schemes to reduce journeys by enabling goods to be delivered to the door instead of collected from the shop and so on. Only once these have been tried and found to reduce congestion by less than the desired amount should motorists find themselves paying more to use their cars, and this should be done in the least complicated way possible to ensure compliance and save money.
A number of very simple schemes have been proposed, some of which are set out below:
It should be borne in mind that any scheme which increases the cost of motoring affects the poor much more than the rich, effectively pricing them off the roads. This needs careful consideration although it must be remembered that making a journey by car is (and should be) more expensive than alternatives such as cycling. Spiralling house prices in cities are pushing the less well off further away from their places of work. It is already difficult to see how, for example, nurses and other relatively low paid workers can afford both the cost of their accommodation and the cost of travelling long distances into large hospitals such as Addenbrooke's which tend to be located in areas of high housing costs. The idea of introducing a further charge for these people without providing a suitable alternative means of transport is bizarre. There has been talk for many years about providing a railway station at the hospital but this is still as far away as ever. Even simple measures such as a free bus for hospital staff were tried but have been cut to save money.