Having got held up for 40 minutes a couple of weeks back, just to get through the toll booths, I wrote to the Highways agency to ask how they justify the delay that the tolls cause (thousands of man-hours lost, extra pollution from standing traffic, etc.) Here is their reply:
"I refer to your email of 20 October to the Highways Agency about charging at the Dartford River Crossing. Your email has been passed to me to reply.
The powers to charge a toll at the crossing expired on 31 March 2003. However, prior to the expiry of these powers, the Government commissioned consultants to investigate the effect that removing charging at the crossing would have on traffic levels. This research, published in August 2001, suggested that use of the crossing would grow more rapidly if there were no charge to use the crossing, which could have an adverse impact on the local community and users of the crossing. The increased use at the crossing could result in longer journey times and discomfort for users while also possibly adding to air pollution. These factors could have a detrimental effect on health, the economy and the environment.
As such, in summer 2001 the Highways Agency carried out a public consultation on the proposal to introduce a charging scheme under the Transport Act 2000 (the 2000 Act). The consultation included seeking views on the proposed charging structure. Following this consultation it was decided to implement the charging scheme. The charging scheme came into force on 1 April 2003.
Paying to use the crossing is not the limiting factor on traffic at the crossing, but rather the capacity of the crossing itself particularly the tunnels. The layout of the toll plaza is not designed for free flow conditions, and the toll plazas perform an important safety role in controlling the demand and speed of vehicles both through the tunnels and away from the bridge. For instance, southbound there are three closely spaced junctions, and much of the carriageway for through traffic is restricted to two lanes. To allow a free flow of traffic through the plaza area would increase the possibility of accidents occurring, thus leading to more delays.
Every effort is made to get traffic through the crossing area as quickly as possible. I do appreciate the frustration that can be caused from sitting in a queue, but it is necessary to balance this against the safety of those who travel on our roads."
So the justification is traffic control: why not just cone off a couple of lanes permanently?
|
It might not be true, nor address the destination of the money, but you do have to admit its kinda clever.
|
|
Their reply about the safety toll plazas is a bit of a misnomer, because it they removed the tolls the four lane M25 would just go straight into the 4lanes across the 2 tunnels. The hold ups are because traffic from a dozen or so toll booths struggle to fit into four lanes. Perhaps at peak hours it might be quicker for everyone is they reduced the number of booths rather than increased the number....
|
>>might be quicker for everyone if they reduced the number of booths rather than increased the number....
What. And lose all that cash.Besides it only takes a crash through there and Tailback gets a lot worse
--
Steve
|
|
|
|
I suspect that the consultants were given the required answer and told to justify it.
The impact on the local community of the tolls is that the delay makes travel between Essex and Kent something that you do only do as a last resort.
The public consultation came out against the continuation of tolls, but was ignored.
The safety argument is total rubbish, a reduced speed limit for a short stretch southbound would sort that out.
Going south, you have to start from a standstill at the bottom of a climb, not ideal for a truck or when towing a caravan etc. This incline tends to restrict the speed of vehicles in any case, thus demolishing the argument for needing to slow traffic before the junctions.
And how having hundreds of vehicles stuck in a jam for hours can reduce air pollution, I fail to understand.
Overseas visitors coming through Dover or on the Shuttle must get a very poor impression of the UK transport system vey soon after entering the Country!
Maybe a motoring correspondent could publicise the case for the removal of the tolls?
|
I remember reading about a road toll somewhere on the continent where they suddenly decided to charge motorcyclists, who had previously been allowed through free. A well publicised and supported campaign went something as follows;
1. Stop at toll and switch off engine.
2. Dismount from bike.
3. Remove gloves.
4. Undo various layers of clothing to get to wallet.
5. Hand large dnomination note to cashier.
6. Count change carefully.
7. Put change back in wallet....
And reverse the procedure till you were back on the bike and away. The charge was dropped.
Perhaps if we all adopted similar tactics at tolls in this country the resulting chaos would force a U turn on the idea, similar to the fuel protest of a few years ago.
|
|
My brother, when he was a law student, objected to having to pay the 2 shillings and 6 pence (12.5p in modern money) to use the tunnel after the first tunnel opened. To aid his quick start from the booths he always taped the two coins together. The attendants always complained, but there was nothing they could do. In a way its a shame you cannot do that with the auto booths today!
|
|
|
|
I really believe that the authorities and "experts" have got this one wrong.
How about an e-mail campaign to bombard the Highways Agency and MPs putting the case for its removal?
|
|
|
|
