Congestion Charge

[Iarocu]

"Toby Sleigh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>> > Find a suburban street and park the car there. Somewhere leafy and park
> it
> > somewhere 50 yards away so people don't see a pattern.
> >
> >
> Bollocks. I get fed up with bloody commuters cluttering up our street. Toby - Ealing

Public street. Anyone can park there.

 

[Gonzalez]

>THis does not count. You try it now. This week. A normal day. Not when half the London population
>is not at work.

I've checked the dates. It was 6th December 2002.

>You're going in the OTHER direction. Try going FROM Charing Cross.

I went from Charing Cross to Paddington.

>Again, you've ignored what I said - the concept is good - the conditions that those using it have
>to endure every day are not.

There's very little which is perfect all the time.

>You travel *every* working day on London public transport and I simply cannot believe you will stay
>so happy about it all.

I have done. I used to commute daily from Lewisham to Putney, and later from Lewisham to Gloucester
Road, although sometimes I cycled to Gloucester Road (then catching the bus meant slip streaming the
36b from Lewisham to Victoria).
--
remove remove to reply

 

[Gonzalez]

>And what about powered two wheelers, or are they not fit to appear in your grand plan?

I have no problem with "powered two wheelers". It's just we're becoming a nation of fatties, so a
little encouragement to take regular exercise can only help. Cycling is an excellent from of
exercise which serves a useful purpose if used to commute.
--
remove remove to reply

 

[Andrew Richards]

On 15 Feb 2003 16:27:22 GMT, [email protected] (Huge) wrote:

>My journey to work has been delayed every day this week. Both directions. 100% failure rate. Well
>done, "Transport" for London and Thames"link".

Perhaps it's time you got a job that doesn't involve this journey?

--

Andrew Richardson Eastbourne, East Sussex, UK

 

[Tim S Kemp]

> 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.

 

[W K]

"iarocu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Toby Sleigh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> >> > Find a suburban street and park the car there. Somewhere leafy and
park
> > it
> > > somewhere 50 yards away so people don't see a pattern.
> > >
> > >
> > Bollocks. I get fed up with bloody commuters cluttering up our street. Toby - Ealing
>
> Public street. Anyone can park there.

Nahhh its "his street" he's paid for a tax disc. Ah, but so has the cyclist in this case.

Hows this work? All cyclists are bastards, all car drivers wonderful. The car was parked by a
car driver, but when lying around cluttering up "your!!!" street it belongs to a cyclist without
a tax disc.

I think this means you have full rights to smash the windows.

 

[Stephen \]

"Tim S Kemp" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > 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.
>
Unfortunately the government has nothing to do with it. They are happy to see the status quo and
want private companies to run the tube (and we all know where that got the railways - except
Blair/Prescott it seems). Many Labour ministers are opposed to the charge. It is only Ken
Livingstone and a few others in this country who have identified the need to cut car usage in cities
and publicly fund public transport. I agree the £5 charge is probably too low and Ken has stated it
will go up if it fails to cut congestion. Why people drive in to the city is beyond me anyway due to
the other costs and hassles as you point out. But then again - people smoke! If it doesn't cut
congestion there will be more money for the tube. If it does then there'll be more money for the
tube and the air will be better. It's a win-win as far as I am concerned.

 

[Frank]

"W K" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> > Public street. Anyone can park there.
>
> Nahhh its "his street" he's paid for a tax disc. Ah, but so has the cyclist in this case.
>
> Hows this work? All cyclists are bastards, all car drivers wonderful. The car was parked by a car
> driver, but when lying around cluttering up "your!!!" street it belongs to a cyclist without a
> tax disc.
>
> I think this means you have full rights to smash the windows.
>
It is a bit anti-social, no need to smash windows, just let the kids play football with a
muddy ball.

 

[Jnugent]

"Stephen (aka steford)" <steford.usenetR_e_M_o_V_e@S_p_A_Mntlworld.com> wrote:

|| "Tim S Kemp" <[email protected]> wrote:

||| ...It's a money making scam and nothing more. They would have to charge AT LEAST 50 quid to
||| reduce congestion.

|| Unfortunately the government has nothing to do with it.

Wrong.

Madlad wouldn't be able to do it without the legislation that enabled him to do it - steered
through Parliament by the Buffoon before Blair realised he was too much of a public wind-up and
took him off "roads".

To say that the government have nothing to do with it is as wrong as a statement can possibly be. If
they had not forseen the possibility that a local government nutter like Madlad Livingstone would
seize the opportunity to do such vindictive damage, they have no business being in government. But
*of course* they forsaw it - the Buffoon *said* he wanted to see "congestion" charging - otherwise,
what would have been the point in this crazy legislation?

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

 

[J-P.S]

On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:07:03 +0000 (UTC), W K scrawled: ) Bikes fit inside most cars you know!

Surely the more likely a bike is to fit in a car, the less environmentally or cyclist friendly the
car is likely to be? Unless your bike wheels are both fitted with handy Stele-me-Kwik release
levers. Even then I wouldn't want to share a Mini with a hulking touring bike.

J-P
--
Hans on my course thought it was inconsistent of me to call my shoes "trainers" when I don't do any
fitness training. But somehow it's OK to say "sneakers", when the last thing a loud American is ever
going to do is sneak anywhere.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:35:28 +0000, [email protected] (Steve Firth) wrote:

>> Yes, I was on a train that was delayed once.
>One presumes in that case you have only ever used a train once or twice.

You presume incorrectly

>I use the train whenever I travel to work in London.

As do I.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Petere]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote in message ...
>From the depths of outer darkness, [email protected] (Huge) gave forth this verbal flatulence:
>
>>>>Try getting the train everyday, try waiting for an hour outside London Bridge without an
>>>>explanation, try dirty smelly over crowded late
trains.
>>>>Try waiting on the platform only to be told your train has been
cancelled.
>
>>>Yes, I was on a train that was delayed once.
>
>>Lying ****.
>
>No, honest, I was - it can happen. Not too often, far less often than cars are delayed, but it
>can happen

In my experience of train travel, significant delays have occured far more often than in my
experience of car travel. For example, on the most recent train journey I made, the train was
cancelled, the following one half an hour later was twenty minutes late and grossly overcrowded.

Perhaps I'm unlucky, and the general experience of train travellers is one of impressive reliability
and punctuality. But the number of horror stories related on this NG seems to suggest otherwise.

Also in a car you may have the option of finding an alternative route, which is not available on a
train stuck between stations.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk "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)

 

[Just Zis Guy]

From the depths of outer darkness, [email protected] (Huge) gave forth this verbal flatulence:

>>>Try getting the train everyday, try waiting for an hour outside London Bridge without an
>>>explanation, try dirty smelly over crowded late trains. Try waiting on the platform only to be
>>>told your train has been cancelled.

>>Yes, I was on a train that was delayed once.

>Lying ****.

No, honest, I was - it can happen. Not too often, far less often than cars are delayed, but it
can happen

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 16:58:39 -0000, "Frank" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Try commuting, at least once a week everything will be totally messed up, no explanation, no help
>apparently nothing done to help you get home.

It depends where you live. For some reason probably not unconnected with the fact that Connex
couldn't find their arses with both hands and a map, thier service seems to be immeasurably worse.

I live in Reading: there's a fast train to London every twelve minutes or less throughout peak
hours, and it takes about 40ish minutes into Paddington - rarely longer. Going home, I turn up at
Paddington any time before about 10pm and get the first Inter City going - I've never had to wait
more than half an hour for a return service even after 9pm.

Driving from Reading to London is a major **** pain, and life is simply too short to do it every
day. It's a choice between standing on the train and the tube reading a book for an hour, or sitting
in the car getting stressed for at least two hours. Not a hard choice.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:42:16 +0000 (UTC), "j-p.s" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Surely the more likely a bike is to fit in a car, the less environmentally or cyclist friendly the
>car is likely to be?

Bear in mind that at least 90% of the problem is the drivcer - and having a bike in the back does
improve the chances of the driver being a cyclist.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Huge]

"PeterE" <[email protected]> writes:
>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote in message ...
>>From the depths of outer darkness, [email protected] (Huge) gave forth this verbal flatulence:
>>
>>>>>Try getting the train everyday, try waiting for an hour outside London Bridge without an
>>>>>explanation, try dirty smelly over crowded late
>trains.
>>>>>Try waiting on the platform only to be told your train has been
>cancelled.
>>
>>>>Yes, I was on a train that was delayed once.
>>
>>>Lying ****.
>>
>>No, honest, I was - it can happen. Not too often, far less often than cars are delayed,

Lying ****.

> but it can happen

It happens all the time. All 10 journeys last week, late. All of them.

>In my experience of train travel, significant delays have occured far more often than in my
>experience of car travel.

That's likely because your experience of train travel happened on a train, and not in your
imagination, like some.

--
"The road to Paradise is through Intercourse." The uk.transport FAQ;
http://www.huge.org.uk/transport/FAQ.html [email me at huge [at] huge [dot] org [dot] uk]

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 14:31:01 -0000, "PeterE" <[email protected]> wrote:

>In my experience of train travel, significant delays have occured far more often than in my
>experience of car travel.

I think it depends on your definition of delay. It reliably takes over two hours to get to central
London from Reading by car, and only about an hour by train and tube. Therefore I count every
journey as significantly delayed" by car because if you drive the same journey in the middle of
Sunday morning (as I have done) it takes no longer than the train.

>Perhaps I'm unlucky, and the general experience of train travellers is one of impressive
>reliability and punctuality. But the number of horror stories related on this NG seems to suggest
>otherwise.

I think that depends on which line you live on. But it's also important to remember that people who
drive daily into central London have their brains working overtime to come up with a compelling
reason why they should do that, because it is a ghastly experience and it would be all too easy to
conclude that continuing to do it is mad.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

[Grant Mason]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 14:31:01 -0000, "PeterE" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In my experience of train travel, significant delays have occured far more often than in my
>> experience of car travel.
>
> I think it depends on your definition of delay. It reliably takes over two hours to get to central
> London from Reading by car, and only about an hour by train and tube. Therefore I count every
> journey as significantly delayed" by car because if you drive the same journey in the middle of
> Sunday morning (as I have done) it takes no longer than the train.

But not everyone lives on platform 5 of Reading Station.

My personal experiences of commuting to London from home which was 5 miles from the station went
something like this:

10 minutes waiting for bus, 35 minutes on the bus, 10 minutes waiting for the train, 40 minutes
standing on the train, 20 minutes standing on the tube, 15 minute walk. 2 hours 10 minutes. Cost
~35 quid. I could usually knock 15 to 20 minutes off by driving to the station and paying 12
quid to park.

Driving usually took 90 minutes. Sometimes it did take 2 hours, on a couple of occasions 3. During
the school holidays, 75 minutes was not unusual. Parking was 10 quid.

If I was working anywhere west of Kings Cross that wasn't right on top of Paddington, it was the car
every time.

 

[Gonzalez]

>In my experience of train travel, significant delays have occured far more often than in my
>experience of car travel. For example, on the most recent train journey I made, the train was
>cancelled, the following one half an hour later was twenty minutes late and grossly overcrowded.

Try this little experiment.

Set a start time for your journey by car.

Calculate the distance travelled in town, on B roads, on A roads, on trunk A roads and on
the motorway.

Estimate the average speed in town at 25 MPH, on B roads at 40 MPH, on A roads at 50 MPH on trunk A
roads at 60 MPH and on the motorway at 70 MPH, and from that calculate your arrival time.

Then see how often your journey by car is delayed.

About 4 or 5 times a year I venture to the Lake District from South East London with my
mountaineering club. The time taken for a one way journey can vary between 4.5 hours and 8 hours.
Timing the journey to within 5 minutes is almost impossible, but that is what is expected on the
trains! And if just 20% of the time trains do arrive within 5 minutes of schedule, they are doing
far better than a car ever could.
--
remove remove to reply

 

[Petere]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote in message <[email protected]>...
>On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 14:31:01 -0000, "PeterE" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In my experience of train travel, significant delays have occured far more often than in my
>>experience of car travel.
>
>I think it depends on your definition of delay. It reliably takes over two hours to get to central
>London from Reading by car, and only about an hour by train and tube. Therefore I count every
>journey as significantly delayed" by car because if you drive the same journey in the middle of
>Sunday morning (as I have done) it takes no longer than the train.

It has to depend on whether the actual time exceeds the reasonably expected time. If you know the
14.22 is virtually always 10 minutes late, then you factor that into your plans.

On my drive to work, the first 4 miles take 15 minutes, when they would take 7 minutes in clear
conditions. That isn't a delay, because I know that and factor it in. If it takes 30 minutes, then
it is a delay.

In commuting 27 and then 33 miles by car over the past thirteen months, mostly on motorway, I have
been significantly delayed by traffic congestion (caused by accidents) twice, and by adverse weather
conditions once. I'd be amazed if *any* train commuter has been as lucky.

>>Perhaps I'm unlucky, and the general experience of train travellers is one of impressive
>>reliability and punctuality. But the number of horror
stories
>>related on this NG seems to suggest otherwise.
>
>I think that depends on which line you live on. But it's also important to remember that people who
>drive daily into central London have their brains working overtime to come up with a compelling
>reason why they should do that, because it is a ghastly experience and it would be all too easy to
>conclude that continuing to do it is mad.

I don't commute by train, but I do use it from time to time for leisure trips to various
destinations, mostly at weekends. From my experience the number of journeys that start and arrive
within 10 minutes of the booked time, and are not overcrowded, is under 50%.

In theory, I quite like trains. In practice, I am so often disappointed by them.

--
http://www.speedlimit.org.uk "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)