Congestion Charge



Status
Not open for further replies.
> 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.

I've generally kept out of this discussion as I live in Scotland, but for me PT has two distinct
advantages.

1. I can drink, then get home ****** (the major one :) )

or

2. I can read.

I did live in London for a year (c. 1997) and hated it, hated the tube (Archway to Tower Bridge) and
just about everything else, so I got out.

PT is not nirvana and I love driving, but IF you happen to live somewhere where there are 40+ buses
per hour leaving a 1 minute walk from your door to 1 minute from your place of work (via the hot
roll shop) then it's great :) There's even still 4 buses per hour home when the pubs kick out
(although I'm usually too ****** to last that long).

Regards

Stephen Cragg Edinburgh, Scotland.
 
On 16 Feb 2003 14:41:23 GMT, [email protected] (Huge) wrote:

>Lying ****.

Back in the killfile then, you foul-mouthed cretin.

*plonk*

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.
 
"Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "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.

Wow. Kids that play with footballs. If only I could park somewhere that nice and leafy.
 
"PeterE" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> You have picked a route where there is a particularly convenient train service and congested
> roads, especially on a Friday evening.

Well euh yeah, this congestion charge stuff is relevant to that.

> My second most recent commute could reliably be accomplished by car within 40 minutes for 27
> miles, even in the rush hour.

So whats up with your most recent commute?

> By public transport? God knows. 600 yard walk to bus stop. Bus. Train. Another train. Bus.
> Half-mile walk from bus stop. Whether any of these services actually connect with each other I
> haven't a clue. Likely time -
> 2.5 to 3 hours.

So, Stockport to a Runcorn out of town estate is a shitty journey by PT - its also rather an odd
one. PT works best when getting lots of people to a tight area. Exactly the places where cars will
become stuck in gridlock unless you have NM's fantasy of 10 storey underground car parks and
motorways in tunnels. What about where you live to the centre of manchester by train?

> >I don't believe that a rush hour car commute can be more reliable than a train commute.
>
> ROTFLMOL!
>
> Even in London it probably usually is.

For me, _well_ away from london more reliable and faster on train than in a car. I have tried. There
was one time when flash flooding buggered the trains, but the roads were in a bit of a state too.

>Within the rush hour, many commuting journeys will reliably be free of congestion.

Been there, done that, but unless you are going the opposite direction to most, it wont be.
 
>I recently needed to get to London from rural Hampshire.

I recently gave my parents a lift to Heathrow Airport.

12.30 left home

13.45 Arrived at parents' home

14.55 Lunch with parents

15.30 Left parents home (Greenwich)

16.30 Arrived Heathrow ('twas lucky they'd estimated 1.5 hrs to cross London and 2.5 hrs check in
time or they'd've missed their flight to Shanghai)

3 hours to cross London (Greenwich to Heathrow). It would've been quicker for 'em to use London's
excellent public transport system.
--
remove remove to reply
 
>You have picked a route where there is a particularly convenient train service and congested roads,
>especially on a Friday evening. Fancy having a go at, say, Cardiff to Aberystwyth?

There are plenty of examples where driving is the simplest solution. Indeed, I drive up to the Lake
District several times a year and am planning to motor up to Aviemore on Wednesday. But I do keep my
eye open for public transport alternatives.

And your congested road theory doesn't really work as I was modelling a drive under ideal
conditions.

>My second most recent commute could reliably be accomplished by car within 40 minutes for 27 miles,
>even in the rush hour.
>
>By public transport? God knows. 600 yard walk to bus stop. Bus. Train. Another train. Bus.
>Half-mile walk from bus stop. Whether any of these services actually connect with each other I
>haven't a clue. Likely time -
>2.5 to 3 hours. And what would be the odds of at least one bus or train being cancelled?

Forget the walk. Forget the bus. Think bike.

>>I don't believe that a rush hour car commute can be more reliable than a train commute.
>
>ROTFLMOL!
>
>Even in London it probably usually is. Within the rush hour, many commuting journeys will reliably
>be free of congestion.

How long do you think it'd take you to drive from Marble Arch to Tottenham Court Road in the
Rush Hour?
--
remove remove to reply
 
"Dave Plowman" <[email protected]> wrote:

|| JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

||| 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.

|| So you don't believe in democracy, then? Livingstone had rather a larger percentage majority
|| than most recent governments. And it seems that the majority of Londoners agree with the
|| congestion charge. But I doubt you live in London anyway.

I am glad to say that I don't live there. Yet in UK terms, London manages to wield influence over
many (in fact, most) peoples' lives - including mine, and I do occasionally have to do the odd bit
of work there.

As to democracy... yes, I do believe in democracy - which is one of the reasons why *all* of those
likely to be adversely affected by the London "congestion" charge should have been given a say on
it. But we weren't given a say on it. Not exactly democratic, that, was it?

Anyway, this topic was about whether the government could be blamed for the "congestion" charge,
something they seem eager to distance themselves from, even though they passed the legislation which
enables Madlad to victimise travellers with it. As an analogy, anyone who had handed a loaded
service revolver to a nine-year-old with an attitude problem would also be seeking to show that the
resultant carnage was not really their fault.

---
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
 
"Gonzalez" <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

|| How long do you think it'd take you to drive from Marble Arch to Tottenham Court Road in the
|| Rush Hour?

Are you counting Oxford Street as available?

---
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
 
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 20:40:13 +0000 (UTC), "W K" <[email protected]> wrote:

>What was it then , a ford explorer or a Jaguar? Even _I_ would say that a BMW is better suited to
>city roads.

Only if it's the two-wheeled variety - the other ones have drivers which are known to be
incompatible will all known traffic regulations
:)

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.
 
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 20:38:32 +0000 (UTC), "W K" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Wow. Kids that play with footballs. If only I could park somewhere that nice and leafy.

Park outside my house and you'll have Marjorie over the road banging on your window and asking you
to push off - but yes, the kids can play footie in the road quite safely :)

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.
 
I get it.

You are John Prescott I claim my 5 pounds. Did you watch Panorama ;-)
 
In article <[email protected]>, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
> || So you don't believe in democracy, then? Livingstone had rather a larger percentage majority
> || than most recent governments. And it seems that the majority of Londoners agree with the
> || congestion charge. But I doubt you live in London anyway.

> I am glad to say that I don't live there. Yet in UK terms, London manages to wield influence over
> many (in fact, most) peoples' lives - including mine, and I do occasionally have to do the odd bit
> of work there.

I couldn't drive through the centre of Oxford last time I worked there. Do you object to their
traffic planning too?

> As to democracy... yes, I do believe in democracy - which is one of the reasons why *all* of those
> likely to be adversely affected by the London "congestion" charge should have been given a say on
> it. But we weren't given a say on it. Not exactly democratic, that, was it?

Can I have a say in the local matters of your town then?

> Anyway, this topic was about whether the government could be blamed for the "congestion" charge,
> something they seem eager to distance themselves from, even though they passed the legislation
> which enables Madlad to victimise travellers with it.

Victimise travellers? You don't travel through the centre of London unless you're mad. It's
commuters that Livingstone is after - and hopefully cutting the numbers of these using cars will
make life better for others who have to live in London.

> As an analogy, anyone who had handed a loaded service revolver to a nine-year-old with an attitude
> problem would also be seeking to show that the resultant carnage was not really their fault.

A service revolver? I know you're out of date, but...

--
*I'm already visualizing the duct tape over your mouth

Dave Plowman [email protected] London SW 12 RIP Acorn
 
On 16/2/03 21:21, in article [email protected], "Gonzalez"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> I recently needed to get to London from rural Hampshire.
>
> I recently gave my parents a lift to Heathrow Airport.
>
> 12.30 left home
>
> 12.45 Arrived at parents' home
>
> 12.55 Lunch with parents
>
> 13.30 Left parents home (Greenwich)
>
> 16.30 Arrived Heathrow ('twas lucky they'd estimated 1.5 hrs to cross London and 2.5 hrs check in
> time or they'd've missed their flight to Shanghai)
>
> 3 hours to cross London (Greenwich to Heathrow). It would've been quicker for 'em to use London's
> excellent public transport system.
> --
> remove remove to reply
Would have been quicker to drive to Shanghai!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 16:19:59 +0000, [email protected] (Steve Firth) wrote:
>
> >Night shift?
>
> Rarely.

Then I envy your posession of rose-coloured spectacles. Though even the railways at their drunk and
vomit infested worst has to be an improvement on Reading, I suppose.

--
end.
 
"Dave Plowman" <[email protected]> wrote:

|| JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

||||| So you don't believe in democracy, then? Livingstone had rather a larger percentage majority
||||| than most recent governments. And it seems that the majority of Londoners agree with the
||||| congestion charge. But I doubt you live in London anyway.

||| I am glad to say that I don't live there. Yet in UK terms, London manages to wield influence
||| over many (in fact, most) peoples' lives
||| - including mine, and I do occasionally have to do the odd bit of work there.

|| I couldn't drive through the centre of Oxford last time I worked there. Do you object to their
|| traffic planning too?

AAMOF, I do - but at least Oxford does not influence lives in the way that London does to all of us.
For that reason, very few of us ever feel the need to go to Oxford. Not so with London.

||| As to democracy... yes, I do believe in democracy - which is one of the reasons why *all* of
||| those likely to be adversely affected by the London "congestion" charge should have been given a
||| say on it. But we weren't given a say on it. Not exactly democratic, that, was it?

|| Can I have a say in the local matters of your town then?

If it influenced your life like London does everyone else's. If the seat of governmemt and
Parliament were there and if the HQ of virtually every national organisation and company were there
(meaning that you had at least to consider working - if not living there) - yes, of source you ought
to be consulted.

||| Anyway, this topic was about whether the government could be blamed for the "congestion" charge,
||| something they seem eager to distance themselves from, even though they passed the legislation
||| which enables Madlad to victimise travellers with it.

|| Victimise travellers? You don't travel through the centre of London unless you're mad. It's
|| commuters that Livingstone is after - and hopefully cutting the numbers of these using cars will
|| make life better for others who have to live in London.

Well, either mad or in a situation where one finds it necessary. That says nothing against the fact
that Madlad is victimising people.

||| As an analogy, anyone who had handed a loaded service revolver to a nine-year-old with an
||| attitude problem would also be seeking to show that the resultant carnage was not really their
||| fault.

|| A service revolver? I know you're out of date, but...

A turn of phrase. Perhaps you ought to read more widely. It's interesting that you don't address the
point, isn't it?

---
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
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 20:38:32 +0000 (UTC), "W K" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Wow. Kids that play with footballs. If only I could park somewhere that
nice
> >and leafy.
>
> Park outside my house and you'll have Marjorie over the road banging on your window and asking you
> to push off - but yes, the kids can play footie in the road quite safely :)

Hmmm. European city of car crime 1985-present or Reading .... tough choice.
 
Steve Firth wrote:

>>> Night shift?
> Rarely.

> Then I envy your posession of rose-coloured spectacles.

I have none. In particular, I have lost particular pair which is issued with the driving licence and
leads people to believe that ars are a great way to travel round towns, when all the evidence is to
the contrary :)

> Though even the railways at their drunk and vomit infested worst has to be an improvement on
> Reading, I suppose.

Indeed. But Swindon is more boring and Slough is nastier.

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104
 
Status
Not open for further replies.