Slashdot Mirror


London to Introduce Traffic Congestion Charge

Vivek writes "BBC is reporting that Londoners will have to pay a 5 pound "Congestion Charge" starting Feb 17. According to this Times of India article, an Indian software firm called Mastek developed the .NET based software to implement the plan. In the absence of toll booths, it reportedly uses character recognition from 700 surveillance cameras to identify defaulting license plates." See our previous story for background.

14 of 551 comments (clear)

  1. Tubes already crowded by Neil+Watson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought the tubes (subway) were already over crowded in London? Shouldn't they increase the capacity of public transit before they force people to use it?

    1. Re:Tubes already crowded by turgid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The root cause of the problem is that the southeast of England is over crowded. Businesses need to be moved out of the M25 area to redistribute the load.

    2. Re:Tubes already crowded by tc · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Not impossible, but certainly stupendouly expensive.

      The London tube has a significant disadvantage compared to say the New York subway or Paris metro - London is built on clay. Being built on clay means that for the most part, the tube has to be buried very deep underground. In New York or Paris, the system runs mostly just below the surface. Being deep underground makes engineering work much more expensive, not to mention the fact that they constantly have to pump water out of the system to prevent it from flooding.

      Unless people are prepared to pay, and pay big, the tube is not getting any better.

    3. Re:Tubes already crowded by timeOday · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One of my favorite (favourite?) memories from London was hopping on a bus just as a jogger went by. I thought nothing of it until I noticed him catch up to us at the next intersection. Then again at the next. And so it continued for several miles through London - each time it seemed we had left him behind, we hit more traffic and he would jog by once again. How long would we remain neck and neck? Only until Piccadilly Circus, as it turned out, where as traffic ground to a halt, I watched the jogger recede into the distance, leaving us behind.

  2. A bit late... by djkitsch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is true, but the plans, adverts and cameras have been in place for about 6 months by now...

    Another exclusive scoop by Slashdot?
    Hmm.

    --
    sig:- (wit >= sarcasm)
  3. Re:Not addressed in the article by kalidasa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why in the world don't they just make the roads bigger? Doesn't that seem to be the logical route, rather than rely on high technology?

    Too damned expensive to take all that real estate by eminent domain, would increase parking requirements requiring even more real estate to be taken, some of it isn't houses, it's office towers, and even then it wouldn't solve the air quality issue. Singapore has AFAIK been doing pretty much the same thing for a while.

  4. Re:Not addressed in the article by mshomphe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As someone here on Slashdot eloquently said, building bigger roads to deal with a traffic problem is like using a bigger belt to deal with a weight problem.

    The charge will encourage people to use public transportation.

    --
    She sat at the window watching the evening invade the avenue.
  5. Facial Recognition by Lynn+Benfield · · Score: 3, Insightful

    By far the scariest aspect (curiously un-mentioned by the Mayor) is that these cameras will be hooked up to facial recognition software.

    In theory, just those covering a small section of London (the financial district) - but I have no doubts this will be extended to cover the whole city in time (after all, it's touted as "automatically identifying suspects or known criminals" so what government in the world would turn down the chance).

    I find this far more disturbing - paying to try and alleviate congestion is fine (London is very crowded, and a similar scheme did help alleviate the traffic problems in Singapore when congestion charges were introduced there), paying for the privilege of being treated as a potential criminal is more than a little scary...

  6. interesting "alternative use" by firehousefive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Disregarding the various arguments for and against the "congestion zone" and its implementation for the purposes of decreasing traffic... there's an interesting alternate purpose, apparently. This weekend's Observer describes the dual-use, not only to reduce congestion but also apparently to "protect the city from terrorist attack". Seems to me such a system generates way too much information to be able to "protect" in anything close to real-time.

  7. The problem is... by girl_geek_antinomy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's a *known* failure in the system whereby it can't recogise special font plates (only in the process of being made illegal), small motorcycle number plates (even though they're included in the scheme) and it's more than likely that mud, or salt, or cunningly placed black bolts, can make the system mis-fire and log a different number plate to the one you're carrying. There's no real system for ambiguous plates to be checked by hand.

    Add in a real problem in the UK with second hand cars still being registered to their previous owners (the new owner is responsible for re-registration, and many don't because it means parking and speeding fines don't reach them) and you have One Hell of a Problem.

    I expect civil disobedience.

    The technology may be ever so good (though I somehow doubt even that) but it'll be the human element that'll scupper it...

  8. Tax Parking? by TheTomcat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wouldn't it be much more effective, and much easier to tax central-london parking lots/spaces?

    Admittedly it's a low-tech solution. Am I missing something here?

    I know that would keep ME out (I already take the commuter train and two metros to get to work, because parking is just TOO expensive for me (in Montreal -- not London)).

    S

    1. Re:Tax Parking? by StressedEd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wouldn't it be much more effective, and much easier to tax central-london parking lots/spaces?

      Not really. There's practically nowhere to park in central London. The parking that does exist can be very expensive (anything up to £20 per day).

      A lot of the time it's people going from one side of London to the other, or just passing through. Hence the wish to "discorage" them.

      --
      Be nice to people on the way up. You will meet them again on your way down!
  9. Need? by kfg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    NEED!? What the hell is "need" anyway? You need to get to your job? Maybe what you "need" is a job closer to home?

    "Need" gets to be very, sticky, sticky issue subject to political interpretaion.

    And of course the shopping areas *need* needless costomers, or their "needed" employees have no "need" to be there in the first place.

    Of course what you really have on the road is a *right* of way.

    On your mule I guess, because the only ones who could cogently state a viable reason for the *need* to have motor vehicles in the city are police and emergency services in the first place. So the logical thing to do would be to simply close the city to all nonofficial motor traffic.

    Works for me, I'm bicycle mechanic and frame builder. I could use the business, and you could use the exercise.

    KFG

  10. It's not clumsy at all by marm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That system seems a bit clumsy. It sounds fairly expensive, too.

    Not really. Most of the cameras were already in place for traffic-flow monitoring, all it required was a few more to patch up the gaps in coverage and some new software to interpret the images. A smart card system would have required every driver - even those who only drove into London once in ten years - to buy an expensive smart card reader/transmitter. Maybe you can get away with that in Singapore, but forking out money so that you get charged for the privilege? Not in London.

    OK so the London government could buy the smartcard reader/transponders but then you're spending far far more on infrastructure than you are on a few hundred cameras, plus you have to work out a way to distribute them. Also it would have been susceptible to tampering - look at the dismal failure that most satellite TV smart card systems are. You could easily have a PC sitting in your car pretending to be a smartcard but failing to deduct any money. Also how do you enforce a smart card system? What happens when a car enters the charging zone without a smart card? You can't have barriers to stop these cars, the whole point of the system is to improve traffic flow, not slow it down, same reason you can't have toll booths. Only way is to have... enforcement cameras everywhere. Real cost saving eh?

    Your choice: enforcement cameras plus some relatively cheap software, all centrally controlled and essentially tamper-proof... or enforcement cameras plus several million expensive hardware smartcards and transponders, only limited central control, and prone to tampering.

    Smart card/transponder systems work on public transport because there are barriers in the way to stop you if you don't have one or it's run out of money - as a matter of fact London is getting just such a system this year. But for a road system they're simply the wrong technology.