Congestion Charge

"Tony W" <[email hidden]> wrote:

|| "JNugent" <[email hidden]> wrote:

||| That's all very well for the disabled (and a good amelioration of a very bad policy), but what
||| about the rest of those for whom PT is not suitable?

|| examples please. Becks & Posh can afford the fiver.

People themselves decide - in the light of all their circumstances (including, I suggest, the size,
age and vulnerability of their family) whether PT is suitable for them. Clearly many people take the
view that it is not. They are not wrong just because people like you disagree, are they?

||| If you do not have the liberty to travel, your liberty has been divided.

|| Nothing here has reduced your liberty to travel. Its just focusing minds on the best options.

Now that is a bit of a blow...

...because I was rather hoping that you would make some comment on this exchange you have snipped:

JN:
||| Up to £25 a week straight out of the budgets of many families with nothing to show for it.
TW:
|| It will encourage them to adopt alternative solutions.
JN: Perhaps they can get a good deal on a job lot of cake?

But no such luck...

Anyway...

|| Nothing here has reduced your liberty to travel. Its just focusing minds on the best options.

"Best" in whose opinion?

And does no-one else's opinion matter, or something?

|||||| Less safety and security.

||||| Now your being silly.

||| I am certainly not. One is relatively safe from street crime in a motor vehicle with lockable
||| doors and an escape route. Not so on foot or on PT.

|| Tell that to the 2500+ K and the thousands of SI victims of the motor car each year.

I'm not sure what you are talking about there (clearly, it must be some sort of hobby-horse you
ride), but whoever those people are, I am sure they are already aware that one is relatively
safe from street crime in a motor vehicle with lockable doors and an escape route, but not on
foot or on PT.

So there is no need to tell it to them.

|||||| Are you seriously suggesting that charging people an extra £25 a week to go to work is
|||||| trivial?

||||| No.

||| So why make light of it in such classic Bourbon style?

|| Because solutions will be found. The number of people who will really suffer will be small and
|| the social, economic and environmental advantages will make London -- and soon after many other
|| cities -- much more pleasant places. Once the system has been operating for a few weeks most of
|| the supposed problems will be shown to have just been organised, special interest whinging and
|| REAL problems can be addressed (e.g. nurses etc. can be given exemptions or partial exemptions).

Thank you, Marie-Antoinette.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (grisoft.comgrisoft.comOpen ↗).
Version: 6.0.445 / Virus Database: 250 - Release Date: 21/01/03

"Stephen Gower" <[email hidden]> wrote:

|| JNugent <[email hidden]> wrote:

||| If you do not have the liberty to travel, your liberty has been divided.

|| On our current salaries, my wife and I can't afford to buy, insure, maintain and run cars. Are
|| you suggesting that cars should be made available free to everyone, and that no-one should have
|| to pay for any running costs, otherwise their liberty has been divided?

No.

Why do you ask?

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (grisoft.comgrisoft.comOpen ↗).
Version: 6.0.445 / Virus Database: 250 - Release Date: 21/01/03

JNugent said:

Why do you ask?

You seemed to be saying that, by increasing the cost of driving a car through the CC zone,
people's liberty was being infringed. I was wondering how this cost was different to any of the
other costs involved in purchasing and running a car.
--
Selah

Tim S Kemp said:

Quoted message said:

When I were a lad we regularly used to drive from St Albans to Stanmore, park up and hop on the
tube. Cheaper, quicker and more reliable than trying to park in London, we found.

Here's the problem though. I often carry heavy, cumbersome and valuable equipment and tools. If I'm
going to central london, the Tube is not an option.

£5 per day isn't going to make much difference to the £50/day parking that London is rapidly
approaching, a mere 10% increase in my costs of going into London, and I used to often get parking
tickets as well

If the government really wanted to reduce costs it needs to find some other way of incentivising
the use of public transport by commuters, not charge them a pittence (5 quid) compared to the costs
they're stumping already. It's a money manking scam and nothing more.

They would have to charge AT LEAST 50 quid to reduce congestion.

That's exactly the point though, isn't it? It's worth £5 for you to drive every day -- presumably
because it's essential to your business. Others, however, will find that it's not worth it to drive.
It only takes a 10% reduction in the number of vehicles to create a 50% reduction in travel delays.
--
Steven O'Neill [email hidden] www.bridgetolls.org

Paul - censored said:

Paul Smith deftly scribbled:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Until the whole country is covered... we have a several billion pound per year infrastructure to
deal with it and then realise we could have collected the same cash on petrol tax with a similar
effect, but no overhead?

Quoted message said:

But this wouldn't achieve the same aims, and would cost _every_ petrol driven product to have that
extra burden. CC isn't about revenue collection, it's about a reduction of congestion in he
capital, hence it's name .. Doh !

Oh, I agree, but if it creeps it becomes more and more like petrol tax with every creep.

But then since congestion already costs it's participants (time is money after all), why is the
congestion charge different from a little bit more congestion? If they are going to be discouraged
by the charge, they might as well be discouraged by the congestion.

Quoted message said:

Don't see why my lawnmower, Trials bike etc etc has to pay for some scrote driving into London ...

No. You'll pay for the congestion charge infrastructure on your banking, insurance etc instead.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK safespeed.org.uksafespeed.org.ukOpen ↗ please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving

On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:37:35 +0000, Paul Smith scrawled: ) It's like asking everyone in the country
to burn a fiver. Or ) maybe the folk around London to burn 25 quid. Just for fun.

From what I hear, London was tremendous fun for most non-drivers today (and many of the drivers who
experienced much less congestion and quicker travel times, some of them not actually going near the
CC area, but enjoying the knock-on effect further out). Being able to breathe and move around takes
years off you. So, yes, fun is definitely the word.

J-P
--
When talk with friends goes "Captain Corelli... Captain Corelli... Cyeptyin Cyerelleeh!" and though
you may be soft through years of smacky booze, and though you cannot speak, nor raise a single
synapse, still you know for sure that they are [censored]....

"Stephen Gower" <[email hidden]> wrote:

|| JNugent <[email hidden]> wrote:

||| Why do you ask?

|| You seemed to be saying that, by increasing the cost of driving a car through the CC zone,
|| people's liberty was being infringed. I was wondering how this cost was different to any of the
|| other costs involved in purchasing and running a car.

The cost is unchanged; it is the price which has been artificially inflated.

Come back and complain when pedestrians are charged, or when tax is added to PT fares.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (grisoft.comgrisoft.comOpen ↗).
Version: 6.0.445 / Virus Database: 250 - Release Date: 21/01/03

JNugent said:

"Stephen Gower" <[email hidden]> wrote:

|| JNugent <[email hidden]> wrote:

||| Why do you ask?

|| You seemed to be saying that, by increasing the cost of driving a car through the CC zone,
|| people's liberty was being infringed. I was wondering how this cost was different to any of
|| the other costs involved in purchasing and running a car.

The cost is unchanged; it is the price which has been artificially inflated.

Come back and complain when pedestrians are charged, or when tax is added to PT fares.

I think that's a "don't know" then.

Colin

Tony W said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Firstly, the capital investment is spent -- though if the system is

working

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I guess the cameras & computers can be sold to an enlightened city where Shagger Norris is not
the mayor 🙂

Quoted message said:

Running costs will, doubtless, be very well covered by those who elect to pay this
Stupidity Tax.

In large part, they will be passed on to everyone.

Quoted message said:

If the scheme is phenomenally successful 100,000 cars per day will enter the zone (about half the
current rate). =1/2 million quid per day or 125 million per year. Are you seriously suggesting the
running costs are higher? Do you have evidence as to what the running costs will be? How many more
miles of linear parking lot (aka road) could be built for the money?

One news item had the annual income as 250 million, with 130 million to public transport and 120
million to operate the damn scheme.

That's the highest cost of collection of any tax I've ever heard about. Better to have a bonfire
with the 120 million and keep some homeless folk warm. 🙂

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For a month or two until the traffic returns to normal inside the zone, and until next week when
the traffic on the edge of the zone suffers.

Let's wait & see.

Sure. We'll have to.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK safespeed.org.uksafespeed.org.ukOpen ↗ please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

On our current salaries, my wife and I can't afford to buy, insure, maintain and run cars.

Are you on the dole? Christ, I think you need to look for a different job.

--
_________________________
Conor Turton [email hidden]
ICQ:31909763
_________________________

"Steven M. O'Neill" <[email hidden]> wrote:

[snip]

||| They would have to charge AT LEAST 50 quid to reduce congestion.

|| That's exactly the point though, isn't it? It's worth £5 for you to drive every day --
|| presumably because it's essential to your business. Others, however, will find that it's not
|| worth it to drive

...or that they can't afford £25 a week.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (grisoft.comgrisoft.comOpen ↗).
Version: 6.0.445 / Virus Database: 250 - Release Date: 21/01/03

Paul - censored said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Until the whole country is covered... we have a several billion pound per year infrastructure
> to deal with it and then realise we could have collected the same cash on petrol tax with a
> similar effect, but no overhead?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But this wouldn't achieve the same aims, and would cost _every_ petrol driven product to have
that extra burden. CC isn't about revenue collection, it's about a reduction of congestion in he
capital, hence it's name .. Doh !

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Oh, I agree, but if it creeps it becomes more and more like petrol tax with every creep.

Quoted message said:

I hope it's introduced widely, judging by the response to the first day .. though I'm still
reserving full judgement on cc for a few months yet .. In essence I think it's a great way to
de-congest our city centres.

Yeah. We have to reserve judgement.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But then since congestion already costs it's participants (time is money after all), why is the
congestion charge different from a little bit more congestion? If they are going to be
discouraged by the charge, they might as well be discouraged by the congestion.

Quoted message said:

Bollocks. What about the fumes from congestion ? Reducing congestion will have far more positive
effects than keeping it.

You are thinking about this aren't you?

Congestion = money. Self regulates. Just the same as congestion + congestion charge = money. Self
regulates.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Don't see why my lawnmower, Trials bike etc etc has to pay for some scrote driving into
London ...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

No. You'll pay for the congestion charge infrastructure on your banking, insurance etc instead.

Quoted message said:

Nope, I don't agree. CC, it seems to me, is largely self-financing after a while, so why would it
impinge on anything Iuse ?

I tell you what. Go and look at that call centre. The computer suite. The control room. All the
expensive staff. 700 connected cameras. 120 million pounds each year of operating costs. Who pays
for all that [censored] at the end of the day? I'll give you a clue: everyone does. Businesses just
pass it on.
--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK safespeed.org.uksafespeed.org.ukOpen ↗ please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving

"Steven M. O'Neill" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

That's exactly the point though, isn't it? It's worth £5 for you to drive every day -- presumably
because it's essential to your business. Others, however, will find that it's not worth it to
drive. It only takes a 10% reduction in the number of vehicles to create a 50% reduction in
travel delays.

For God's sake -- don't confuse them with logic. 🙂

Tony W said:

Quoted message said:

One news item had the annual income as 250 million, with 130 million to public transport and 120
million to operate the damn scheme.

Quoted message said:

250M is consistent with current traffic entering the zone but seems to neglect the concessions (as
I did in my last post) which will reduce the nuber of fivers collected per day by a good 20-30%

Quoted message said:

It would be very interesting to see how they got to 120M pa to run. If that is true (and its seems
most unlikely) then I can think of better ways to keep the homeless warm but I take your point.

I'm re quoting figures from a TV news report. In another forum I've asked if anyone knows where
detailed and authoritative figures might be found. No replies yet.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That's the highest cost of collection of any tax I've ever heard about. Better to have a bonfire
with the 120 million and keep some homeless folk warm. 🙂

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> For a month or two until the traffic returns to normal inside the zone, and until next week
> when the traffic on the edge of the zone suffers.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Let's wait & see.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sure. We'll have to.

Quoted message said:

Yep

--
Paul Smith Scotland, UK safespeed.org.uksafespeed.org.ukOpen ↗ please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving

"Paul Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

One news item had the annual income as 250 million, with 130 million to public transport and 120
million to operate the damn scheme.

250M is consistent with current traffic entering the zone but seems to neglect the concessions (as I
did in my last post) which will reduce the nuber of fivers collected per day by a good 20-30%

It would be very interesting to see how they got to 120M pa to run. If that is true (and its seems
most unlikely) then I can think of better ways to keep the homeless warm but I take your point.

Quoted message said:

That's the highest cost of collection of any tax I've ever heard about. Better to have a bonfire
with the 120 million and keep some homeless folk warm. 🙂

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For a month or two until the traffic returns to normal inside the zone, and until next week
when the traffic on the edge of the zone suffers.

Let's wait & see.

Sure. We'll have to.

Yep

Paul Smith deftly scribbled:

Quoted message said:

Paul - censored said:

Paul Smith deftly scribbled:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Until the whole country is covered... we have a several billion pound per year infrastructure to
deal with it and then realise we could have collected the same cash on petrol tax with a similar
effect, but no overhead?

Quoted message said:

But this wouldn't achieve the same aims, and would cost _every_ petrol driven product to have
that extra burden. CC isn't about revenue collection, it's about a reduction of congestion in he
capital, hence it's name .. Doh !

Oh, I agree, but if it creeps it becomes more and more like petrol tax with every creep.

I hope it's introduced widely, judging by the response to the first day .. though I'm still
reserving full judgement on cc for a few months yet .. In essence I think it's a great way to
de-congest our city centres.

Quoted message said:

But then since congestion already costs it's participants (time is money after all), why is the
congestion charge different from a little bit more congestion? If they are going to be discouraged
by the charge, they might as well be discouraged by the congestion.

Bollocks. What about the fumes from congestion ? Reducing congestion will have far more positive
effects than keeping it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Don't see why my lawnmower, Trials bike etc etc has to pay for some scrote driving into
London ...

No. You'll pay for the congestion charge infrastructure on your banking, insurance etc instead.

Nope, I don't agree. CC, it seems to me, is largely self-financing after a while, so why would it
impinge on anything Iuse ?

--
...................................Paul-[censored] Seti 1424 wu in 10361 hours
setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edusetiathome.ssl.berkeley.eduOpen ↗ graffiti.virgin.netIndex.htmOpen ↗

Paul Smith deftly scribbled:

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 17:32:17 -0000, "Paul - [censored]" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Oh, I agree, but if it creeps it becomes more and more like petrol tax with every creep.

Quoted message said:

I hope it's introduced widely, judging by the response to the first day .. though I'm still
reserving full judgement on cc for a few months yet .. In essence I think it's a great way to
de-congest our city centres.

Yeah. We have to reserve judgement.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But then since congestion already costs it's participants (time is money after all), why is the
congestion charge different from a little bit more congestion? If they are going to be
discouraged by the charge, they might as well be discouraged by the congestion.

Quoted message said:

Bollocks. What about the fumes from congestion ? Reducing congestion will have far more positive
effects than keeping it.

You are thinking about this aren't you?

Congestion = money. Self regulates.

So you think congestion is a good thing ? Is that what you're saying ?

If you don't, and as you're also against cc, what's your alternative ?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nope, I don't agree. CC, it seems to me, is largely self-financing after a while, so why would it
impinge on anything Iuse ?

I tell you what. Go and look at that call centre. The computer suite. The control room. All the
expensive staff. 700 connected cameras. 120 million pounds each year of operating costs. Who pays
for all that [censored] at the end of the day? I'll give you a clue: everyone does. Businesses just
pass it on.

[censored]. I don't pay squat for it.

What businesses pass what on ? It's a London borough, how can it be passed on to me ?

--
...................................Paul-[censored] Seti 1424 wu in 10361 hours
setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edusetiathome.ssl.berkeley.eduOpen ↗ graffiti.virgin.netIndex.htmOpen ↗

"Paul Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

No. You'll pay for the congestion charge infrastructure on your banking, insurance etc instead.

Are all insurance companies and banks in the CC zone?

Paul - [censored] wrote in message ...

Quoted message said:

Paul Smith deftly scribbled:

Quoted message said:

I tell you what. Go and look at that call centre. The computer suite. The control room. All the
expensive staff. 700 connected cameras. 120 million pounds each year of operating costs. Who pays
for all that [censored] at the end of the day? I'll give you a clue: everyone does. Businesses just
pass it on.

[censored]. I don't pay squat for it.

What businesses pass what on ? It's a London borough, how can it be passed on to me ?

You deal with many businesses that have headquarters or operations within the charging zone.

Make no mistake, those costs will be passed on to you.

--
speedlimit.org.ukspeedlimit.org.ukOpen ↗ "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and
degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."
(John Stuart Mill)

"JNugent" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Tony W" <[email hidden]> wrote:

|| "JNugent" <[email hidden]> wrote:

||| That's all very well for the disabled (and a good amelioration of a very bad policy), but what
||| about the rest of those for whom PT is not suitable?

|| examples please. Becks & Posh can afford the fiver.

People themselves decide - in the light of all their circumstances (including, I suggest, the
size, age and vulnerability of their family) whether PT is suitable for them. Clearly many people
take the view that it is not. They are not wrong just because people like you disagree, are

they?

A large family may well decide that a car is the best option and it is easy to understand why and to
agree with their choice -- PT should look at pricing structures to encourage family travel.

But, in my Marie-Antoinette mode, let them decide with the added benefit of knowing in advance that
crossing the Euston Road cost a fiver. FFS we have not excluded much of the country by this measure.

Quoted message said:

||| If you do not have the liberty to travel, your liberty has been divided.

|| Nothing here has reduced your liberty to travel. Its just focusing minds on the best options.

Now that is a bit of a blow...

...because I was rather hoping that you would make some comment on this exchange you have snipped:

Off with his head -- whoops, sorry, wrong Queen.

Quoted message said:

JN:
||| Up to £25 a week straight out of the budgets of many families with nothing to show for it.
TW:
|| It will encourage them to adopt alternative solutions.
JN: Perhaps they can get a good deal on a job lot of cake?

But no such luck...

Anyway...

|| Nothing here has reduced your liberty to travel. Its just focusing minds on the best options.

"Best" in whose opinion?

And does no-one else's opinion matter, or something?

|||||| Less safety and security.

||||| Now your being silly.

||| I am certainly not. One is relatively safe from street crime in a motor vehicle with lockable
||| doors and an escape route. Not so on foot or on PT.

|| Tell that to the 2500+ K and the thousands of SI victims of the motor car each year.

I'm not sure what you are talking about there (clearly, it must be some sort of hobby-horse you
ride), but whoever those people are, I am sure

they

Quoted message said:

are already aware that one is relatively safe from street crime in a motor vehicle with lockable
doors and an escape route, but not on foot or on PT.

Its not hard. Motor vehicles kill about 2500 pa. By not using cars their chances of street crime may
increase slightly but their chances of survival will increase (also slightly)

Quoted message said:

So there is no need to tell it to them.

|||||| Are you seriously suggesting that charging people an extra £25 a week to go to work is
|||||| trivial?

||||| No.

||| So why make light of it in such classic Bourbon style?

|| Because solutions will be found. The number of people who will really suffer will be small and
|| the social, economic and environmental advantages will make London -- and soon after many other
|| cities -- much more pleasant places. Once the system has been operating for a few weeks most of
|| the supposed problems will be shown to have just been organised, special interest whinging and
|| REAL problems can be addressed (e.g. nurses etc. can be given exemptions or partial
|| exemptions).

Thank you, Marie-Antoinette.

About the only good thing that came from the French Revolution was the end of the bourbons and their
transformation into choccy biscuits.

T