Congestion Charge

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Gonzalez, Feb 14, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mrbitsy

    Mrbitsy Guest

    "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Dave Plowman" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > || JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    <snip>
    >
    > A turn of phrase. Perhaps you ought to read more widely. It's interesting that you don't address
    > the point, isn't it?
    >
    Less congestion. More money to public transport. Busses running more to time. Companies will be able
    to do more so saving money offsetting the charge.

    What negatives?

    RayK
     


  2. Conor Turton

    Conor Turton Guest

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

    > 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.
    >
    True. Everything negative is based in London from the corrupt Govt to overpricing financial
    institutions. Whereas Oxford has institutions which contribute to the UK such as Oxford University.

    You could nuke London tomorrow for me and I wouldn't shed a single tear. It'd be worth the ensuing
    12 month upheaval to end up with something much much better.

    --
    _________________________
    Conor Turton [email protected]
    ICQ:31909763
    _________________________
     
  3. Bagpuss

    Bagpuss Guest

    On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:53:59 -0000, Conor Turton <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    >
    >> 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.
    >>
    >True. Everything negative is based in London from the corrupt Govt to overpricing financial
    >institutions. Whereas Oxford has institutions which contribute to the UK such as Oxford University.
    >
    >You could nuke London tomorrow for me and I wouldn't shed a single tear. It'd be worth the ensuing
    >12 month upheaval to end up with something much much better.

    And Oxford have nice orange gatsos too :)
    --
    This post does not reflect the opinions of all saggy cloth cats be the a bit loose at the seams
    or not GSX600F - Matilda the one eared teapot, complete with white gaffer tape, though no
    rectal chainsaw
     
  4. Tony W

    Tony W Guest

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

    > Less congestion. More money to public transport. Busses running more to time. Companies will be
    > able to do more so saving money offsetting the charge.
    >
    > What negatives?

    Like the lottery its primarily a tax on stupidity. The intelligent get better facilities for no
    additional cost -- now that is an offer you don't see often!!

    T
     
  5. Dave Plowman

    Dave Plowman Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
    > It's interesting that you don't address the point, isn't it?

    When people like you talk about 'Madlad' etc there's absolutely no point. It ceases to be a
    discussion.

    --
    *(on a baby-size shirt) "Party -- my crib -- two a.m

    Dave Plowman [email protected] London SW 12 RIP Acorn
     
  6. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:30:30 -0000, "MrBitsy" <[email protected]> wrote:

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

    >Less congestion. More money to public transport. Busses running more to time. Companies will be
    >able to do more so saving money offsetting the charge.

    >What negatives?

    The biggest negative is the overhead, The costs might be spread thinly, but it's already cost 250
    million - equivalent to 5 pounds for each UK resident - and will continue to cost every single day
    until it's scrapped. There's also the hidden overhead of the time, trouble and incidental expense
    that charge payers must endure every time they pay for access.

    The second biggest negative is the effect on the surrounding area. Obviously plenty of traffic will
    skirt the zone and congestion will increase.

    Third is the waiting effect where traffic wishing to enter at the end of the charge time will block
    the streets waiting for the magic second.

    Fourthly, it's completely pointless since time is money for most folk and as congestion increases so
    traffic is automatically discouraged - entirely without the need for charging and fining
    infrastructure.
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
    speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving
     
  7. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:14:01 -0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Paul Smith wrote:
    >
    >> Less congestion.
    >>> More money to public transport. Busses running more to time. Companies will be able to do more
    >>> so saving money offsetting the charge. What negatives?

    >> The biggest negative is the overhead, The costs might be spread thinly, but it's already cost 250
    >> million - equivalent to 5 pounds for each UK resident - and will continue to cost every single
    >> day until it's scrapped.

    >You mistyped there, Paul, since you obviously meant "won't recoup the cost if it is scrapped."

    No, I meant to refer to the ongoing operating costs. 150 million pounds per year I think was the
    initial estimate. So let's call it 300 million. 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.

    >> There's also the hidden overhead of the time, trouble and incidental expense that charge payers
    >> must endure every time they pay for access.

    >Poor dears. Thay have no way to avoid that. Other than switching to a more sustainable form of
    >transport, obviously.

    It all adds up.

    >> The second biggest negative is the effect on the surrounding area. Obviously plenty of traffic
    >> will skirt the zone and congestion will increase.

    >Widen the zone. Next.

    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?

    >> Fourthly, it's completely pointless since time is money for most folk and as congestion increases
    >> so traffic is automatically discouraged - entirely without the need for charging and fining
    >> infrastructure.

    >Yes, that works so well that the average speed of traffic in London is now slower than in the days
    >of the horse and cart.

    Mostly because of stupid traffic frustrating schemes.

    >They are driving under the influence of Jeremy Clarkson. Anybody on public transport is "smelly" so
    >they must bring their treasured personal space into the capital to avoid contact with the great
    >unwashed from whom, in the main, they make their living. Let 'em pay for the privilegeand use the
    >cash to provide a real boost for public transport. I await with interest Bob Kiley's next move.

    Let's hope it fails as spectacularly as it deserves to. It's just burning money.

    I'm also rather concerned about the regressive nature of the congestion charge tax. The rich don't
    care and the poor suffer. That's not very nice is it?
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
    speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving
     
  8. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    Paul Smith wrote:

    > Less congestion.
    >> More money to public transport. Busses running more to time. Companies will be able to do more so
    >> saving money offsetting the charge. What negatives?

    > The biggest negative is the overhead, The costs might be spread thinly, but it's already cost 250
    > million - equivalent to 5 pounds for each UK resident - and will continue to cost every single day
    > until it's scrapped.

    You mistyped there, Paul, since you obviously meant "won't recoup the cost if it is scrapped."

    > There's also the hidden overhead of the time, trouble and incidental expense that charge payers
    > must endure every time they pay for access.

    Poor dears. Thay have no way to avoid that. Other than switching to a more sustainable form of
    transport, obviously.

    > The second biggest negative is the effect on the surrounding area. Obviously plenty of traffic
    > will skirt the zone and congestion will increase.

    Widen the zone. Next.

    > Fourthly, it's completely pointless since time is money for most folk and as congestion increases
    > so traffic is automatically discouraged - entirely without the need for charging and fining
    > infrastructure.

    Yes, that works so well that the average speed of traffic in London is now slower than in the days
    of the horse and cart.

    They are driving under the influence of Jeremy Clarkson. Anybody on public transport is "smelly" so
    they must bring their treasured personal space into the capital to avoid contact with the great
    unwashed from whom, in the main, they make their living. Let 'em pay for the privilegeand use the
    cash to provide a real boost for public transport. I await with interest Bob Kiley's next move.

    --
    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
     
  9. Arthur Clune

    Arthur Clune Guest

    In uk.rec.cycling Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

    : No, I meant to refer to the ongoing operating costs. 150 million

    It's forecast to make rather a lot of money per year. The estimates are for payback of the install
    costs within three years. That's a good ROI.

    : I'm also rather concerned about the regressive nature of the congestion charge tax. The rich don't
    : care and the poor suffer. That's not very nice is it?

    The nice thing about this is that it's actually pretty progressive. In London most poor families
    don't have cars.

    Arthur

    --
    Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org Power is delightful. Absolute power is absolutely delightful -
    Lord Lester
     
  10. Dave

    Dave Guest

    "PeterE" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:b2o7b8

    <snip>

    > "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)
    >
    ....Wanna bet ?
     
  11. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On 17 Feb 2003 15:12:45 GMT, "Arthur Clune" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >In uk.rec.cycling Paul Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

    >: No, I meant to refer to the ongoing operating costs. 150 million

    >It's forecast to make rather a lot of money per year. The estimates are for payback of the install
    >costs within three years. That's a good ROI.

    That's such rubbish. It doesn't MAKE money. It's pure administration. It costs money to administer.
    Lots of money. They will charge money and their receipts will be substantial. But half of that money
    might as well be burnt... it just goes to pay overheads.

    ROI? This isn't a business. It doesn't make money. This is taxation, and the collection costs
    are sky high.

    >: I'm also rather concerned about the regressive nature of the congestion charge tax. The rich
    >: don't care and the poor suffer. That's not very nice is it?

    >The nice thing about this is that it's actually pretty progressive. In London most poor families
    >don't have cars.

    What a crap generalisation. And everyone will be poorer.
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
    speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving
     
  12. Jnugent

    Jnugent Guest

    "MrBitsy" <[email protected]> wrote:

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

    ||| "Dave Plowman" <[email protected]> wrote:

    ||||| JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

    || <snip>

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

    || Less congestion. More money to public transport. Busses running more to time. Companies will be
    || able to do more so saving money offsetting the charge. What negatives?

    Fewer people able to control their own journeys.

    Fewer people able to travel (especially those for whom PT is not suitable).

    Up to £25 a week straight out of the budgets of many families with nothing to show for it.

    Less liberty.

    Less safety and security.

    That's as many negatives as you managed to think of "positives".

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

    ---
    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
     
  13. Paul Smith

    Paul Smith Guest

    On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 03:47:59 -0000, "Tony W" <[email protected]> wrote:

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

    >> The biggest negative is the overhead, The costs might be spread thinly, but it's already cost 250
    >> million - equivalent to 5 pounds for each UK resident - and will continue to cost every single
    >> day until it's scrapped. There's also the hidden overhead of the time, trouble and incidental
    >> expense that charge payers must endure every time they pay for access.

    >Firstly, the capital investment is spent -- though if the system is working I guess the cameras &
    >computers can be sold to an enlightened city where Shagger Norris is not the mayor :)

    >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.

    >> The second biggest negative is the effect on the surrounding area. Obviously plenty of traffic
    >> will skirt the zone and congestion will increase.

    >Though that is a danger the evidence from today does not bear it out. Obviously today is atypical
    >so we need to wait & see what happens in reality. Of course the Euston Road etc. is London's first
    >ring road -- so was designed to divert traffic (then horse & cart) round the central area.

    >Equally obviously the zone can be supplemented by lower cost, outer zones to help spread
    >this effect.

    >> Third is the waiting effect where traffic wishing to enter at the end of the charge time will
    >> block the streets waiting for the magic second.

    >Nail the bastards with a parking ticket :)

    >> Fourthly, it's completely pointless since time is money for most folk and as congestion increases
    >> so traffic is automatically discouraged - entirely without the need for charging and fining
    >> infrastructure.

    >Relying on congestion to reduce congestion has, quite clearly, failed.

    I don't believe that. I think the failure has been in the anti-vehicle, anti-parking schemes which
    have purported to make people seek alternatives, but in reality have just reduced efficiency.

    The congestion charge will also impact economic efficiency, by having sky high overheads which
    everyone will pay for.

    >It is a very expensive solution (one advantage of a successful congestion charging system is that
    >it should reduce the costs to people (and particularly companies) who have to take/send vehicles
    >into the zone. They may pay 5 quid but should get that and more back through less wasted time).

    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.
    --
    Paul Smith Scotland, UK http://www.safespeed.org.uk please remove "XYZ" to reply by email Let's make
    speed cameras as unacceptable as drink driving
     
  14. Tony W

    Tony W Guest

    "Paul Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:tdp15v0b9v[email protected]...
    >
    > The biggest negative is the overhead, The costs might be spread thinly, but it's already cost 250
    > million - equivalent to 5 pounds for each UK resident - and will continue to cost every single day
    > until it's scrapped. There's also the hidden overhead of the time, trouble and incidental expense
    > that charge payers must endure every time they pay for access.

    Firstly, the capital investment is spent -- though if the system is working I guess the cameras &
    computers can be sold to an enlightened city where Shagger Norris is not the mayor :)

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

    > The second biggest negative is the effect on the surrounding area. Obviously plenty of traffic
    > will skirt the zone and congestion will increase.

    Though that is a danger the evidence from today does not bear it out. Obviously today is atypical so
    we need to wait & see what happens in reality. Of course the Euston Road etc. is London's first ring
    road -- so was designed to divert traffic (then horse & cart) round the central area.

    Equally obviously the zone can be supplemented by lower cost, outer zones to help spread
    this effect.

    > Third is the waiting effect where traffic wishing to enter at the end of the charge time will
    > block the streets waiting for the magic second.

    Nail the bastards with a parking ticket :)

    > Fourthly, it's completely pointless since time is money for most folk and as congestion increases
    > so traffic is automatically discouraged - entirely without the need for charging and fining
    > infrastructure.

    Relying on congestion to reduce congestion has, quite clearly, failed. It is a very expensive
    solution (one advantage of a successful congestion charging system is that it should reduce the
    costs to people (and particularly companies) who have to take/send vehicles into the zone. They may
    pay 5 quid but should get that and more back through less wasted time).

    T
     
  15. Jnugent

    Jnugent Guest

    "Dave Plowman" <[email protected]> wrote:

    || JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:

    ||| It's interesting that you don't address the point, isn't it?

    || When people like you talk about 'Madlad' etc there's absolutely no point. It ceases to be a
    || discussion.

    I don't know that anyone else has used the expresion of him.

    The term is in normal everday use in Liverpool to denote someone whose behaviour is mercurial and
    adolescent. It could have been coined for Livingstone.

    As a term, it is, of course, exceptionally mild by the standards of some of the uncultured abuse
    aimed at (for instance) the last Prime Minister but one, so I don't think I'll be taking any lessons
    on verbal etiquette, thanks all the same.

    Meanwhile, it is still interesting that you don't address the point, isn't it?

    And I shall re-state it - it was made in response to someone (you, perhaps) who had unaccountable
    and quite unjustifiably claimed that the "congestion" charge was nothing to do with the current
    government (who merely passed the legislation enabling it to be imposed - Madlad couldn't have done
    it without the help of Blair and the Buffoon, could he?). 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
     
  16. Jnugent

    Jnugent Guest

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

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

    ||| Fewer people able to control their own journeys.

    || How much control do you have when stuck in a jam? I can control my journies well by selecting the
    || best mode of transport for the situation. That can be car, bicycle, bus, train or walk.

    ||| Fewer people able to travel (especially those for whom PT is not suitable).

    || Blue/orange badge holders are exempt and will therefore benefit from reduced congestion.

    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?

    ||| Up to £25 a week straight out of the budgets of many families with nothing to show for it.

    || It will encourage them to adopt alternative solutions.

    Perhaps they can get a good deal on a job lot of cake?

    ||| Less liberty.

    || Only if you consider liberty requires an infernal combustion engine. Clearly it does not.

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

    ||| 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.

    Perhaps you don't think that matters.

    ||| That's as many negatives as you managed to think of "positives".

    ||| 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?

    ---
    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
     
  17. Tony W

    Tony W Guest

    "JNugent" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > Fewer people able to control their own journeys.

    How much control do you have when stuck in a jam? I can control my journies well by selecting the
    best mode of transport for the situation. That can be car, bicycle, bus, train or walk.
    >
    > Fewer people able to travel (especially those for whom PT is not
    suitable).

    Blue/orange badge holders are exempt and will therefore benefit from reduced congestion.

    > Up to £25 a week straight out of the budgets of many families with nothing to show for it.

    It will encourage them to adopt alternative solutions.

    > Less liberty.

    Only if you consider liberty requires an infernal combustion engine. Clearly it does not.

    > Less safety and security.

    Now your being silly.

    > That's as many negatives as you managed to think of "positives".
    >
    > Are you seriously suggesting that charging people an extra £25 a week to
    go
    > to work is trivial?

    No.

    T
     
  18. JNugent <[email protected]> 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?
    --
    Selah
     
  19. Paul - XXX

    Paul - XXX Guest

    Paul Smith deftly scribbled:

    > 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?

    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 !

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

    --
    ...................................Paul-xxx Seti 1424 wu in 10361 hours
    http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ http://graffiti.virgin.net/ar.sole/Index.htm
     
  20. Tony W

    Tony W Guest

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

    >
    > 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.
    >
    > ||| 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.

    >
    > ||| 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).

    T
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...