"I'm not sure what difference a £5 charge is supposed to make." Well you tell us, compared to your journeys thro central London pre CC, how was this this one? less traffic? More? easier? harder?
Maybe Mark just wants the charge raised :)
|
The charge needs to be closer to £50 , and there should also be a £25 charge for the privilege of driving within the M25. Then the roads would be free for us wealthy people to use, and plebs without any Dosh would have to stick to the farm tracks that are found outside the M25.
I think that's a brilliant idea, and would happily pay £50 for the privilege of no traffic on the roads.
|
|
Sounds good to me. Where do I sign?
|
|
|
Spot on mapmaker! Well said, old chap!
It's funny - I always thought a left-wing government would make life harder for the rich and easier for the poor.
Mind you, I always thought Labour was left-wing.
|
Problem is, with other people like Patently & ND around, I might have to put the price up a bit.
A fiver hasn't been enough to make much of a difference (although getting rid of roadworks did make a big difference - well done Ken).
|
(I am of course very happy to share my empty roads with my dear friends NoDosh & Patently; it's the rest of 'em I worry about.)
ND: time for a new thread I think: 'Road pricing is wonderful.'
|
|
Well done! You probably need to change the title as well...
|
|
|
|
In my opinion driving in London is absolutely no difference between now and before the congestion charge.
It takes me no longer or shorter to get anywhere, traffic jams are no larger or smaller, and parking is no easier or more difficult.
As for why the charge is £5 - I should think that would be quite obvious. - any lower and the revenue would have been less, any higher and it might actually have stopped people in which case the revenue would have been less.
I shouldn't think one single commuter between the hours of 7am and 9am has been stopped by the charge. People only commute by car if there is not a viable alternative. And if trains were nto viable fo rme, whether by convenience or cost, then £5 isn't going to make the difference.
Shift workers and the like who were not the problem in the first place are the ones who have been hit. But there wasn't enough of them to materially affect the likely revenue.
Surely if you don't want cars in London, you ban them. Surely if you don't want to bant them but you want to cut traffic you make the charge £1000 per day. If you want some people to come in and others not you use a licencing system.
Surely if you make the charge £5 then you keep a few annoying poor people off the streets but generate revenue to the tune of £5 for every commuter and politically and financially make a name for yourself.
The CC is one of the most cynical, and one of the cleverest, things I have seen in a long time.
And as for all the bumph about the reduction in travel times, it is exactly that. Travel times into and out of London have not changed. e.g. Going in from the West the problem is coming past the museums and then Harrods. The problem has always been there. And the congestion charge doesn't apply there.
Travel across London once you are in appears to be no better than it was.
|
>I shouldn't think one single commuter between the hours of 7am and 9am has been stopped by the charge.
Actually that's not true. We have free parking here at work & sometimes I might drive in if I'm going somewhere afterwards, or have something to pick up from the office. As I have to pay my congestion charge, I don't drive in.
Actually, it might be true. As the parking would not be free (or at least be available for use) without the CC. So pre-CC I would never have driven in.
So the CC has increased the likelihood of my driving in to work. Ha!!
>>The CC is one of the most cynical, and one of the cleverest, things I have seen in a long time.
Quite so.
|
|
|
"Going in from the West the problem is coming past the museums and then Harrods. The problem has always been there. And the congestion charge doesn't apply there."
AHA now ken has been re-elected - watch this space as they say.
|
|
|
The CC is quite understandable to a cynic.
Under the guise of making things easier for everyone, make it harder for those of limited means whilst extracting the maximum revenue. Pass it off as an egalitarian openign of the roads for all who need it and bingo - new revenue stream!
It's like taxing 4x4s in cities because they're "unsafe". If they're not safe, ban them.
|
Under the guise of making things easier for everyone, make it harder for those of limited means whilst extracting the maximum revenue.
Those of limited means have little access to a car in London anyway: even if they can afford to run one, they can't afford to park it in the congestion-charging zone.
With a very few exceptions, improvements to public transport are what benefits them, and the CC frees up the roads for buses while funding improvements (tho the charge was set too low, and hasn't raised as much revenue as is needed).
A few poor people lose out under the CC system, but far far more of them benefit from it.
|
NW: 'and the CC frees up the roads for buses while funding improvements'
No, the cc has made virtually no impact on traffic in central London - as viewed by vehicle drivers.
NW: 'tho the charge was set too low, and hasn't raised as much revenue as is needed'
No, the charge hasn't raised as much revenue as is needed as it managed to reduce traffic just enough to make the CC non-economic, but not by enough to make any noticeable impact on congestion.
If the charge were set higher, many fewer people would drive into LondON and so revenue raised would be lower.
I suspect that it is probably at a level at which revenue generated = (cars driven) x (daily charge) is at a maximum.
|
NW: 'and the CC frees up the roads for buses while funding improvements' No, the cc has made virtually no impact on traffic in central London - as viewed by vehicle drivers.
Individual perceptions are possibly a poor measure of that.
If the charge were set higher, many fewer people would drive into LondON and so revenue raised would be lower.
From what I read, it may not be long before your theory is tested!
|
Individual perceptions are possibly a poor measure of that.
The only other thing we have is official statistics, and we know all about them...
From Yes Minister, when Hacker was asking why Sir Humphrey wished to punish a local council for not sending the statutory data returns to the DAA for inclusion in the official statistics:
Hacker - "But everyone knows government statistics are a nonsense!"
Bernard - "I think Sir Humphrey wishes to ensure that they are a complete nonsense, Minister"
|
|
|
>>Individual perceptions are possibly a poor measure of that.
I wonder if you would say that if the common perception was that they were effective ? I suspect not.
|
|
|
|
|
Any (slight) advantage gained by the congestion charge in the central area is more than offset by delays caused by the extra bus lanes outside the CC zone.
|
|
|
|
The charge needs to be closer to £50 , and there should also be a £25 charge for the privilege of driving within the M25. Then the roads would be free for us wealthy people to use, and plebs without any Dosh would have to stick to the farm tracks that are found outside the M25.
Ah, but what if these uppity plebs decided to starve their children in order to pay for the privelige of bringing their cars to town?
The only surefire way of keeping the roads safe exclusively for the rich is to do it the other way around, by controlling supply:
Select a desired level of traffic, and then auction the limited number permits to the highest bidder. If the resultant mix of raod-users still includes too many ordinary folk for the continued enjoyment of the wealthy, then reduce the number of permits until the poor can be reliably outbid.
(Those not inclined to favour priveliges for the wealthy may be attracted to this system. It can be combined with massive reductions in available roadspace for the successful bidders, so that their desire to pay through the nose doesn't impede road use by other modes of transport!)
|
"and plebs without any Dosh would have to stick to the farm tracks that are found outside the M25"
And perhaps us plebs who live outside the M25 should apply the charges the other way round. Charge you rich so-and-sos who live within the M25 £50 to come onto our farm tracks. We would then have nice quiet M1,2,3,4,5,6, etc and you wouldn't come and clog up our wonderful countryside, National Parks etc. Stay in the smoke you lot!!
Phil TIC W
|
|
Phil, that was a tongue in cheek dig at me, with No Dosh and an Alfa Tractor. No need to get jumpy :o)
|
Ah but ND, how would we distinguish you in your Alfa tractor from a pleb and his little Fergie?? You'd probably get in free!!
TIC and fellow diesel driver,
Phil(Northern Pleb)W
|
A grateful Government is "honouring" me with a state pension of about £107 per week! It follows, therefore, that it would cost me around 4.7% of my weekly pension to drive into the capital city of my country just once!
Roger in Spain
|
Can't wait to get mine...I have a similar figure forecasted for next year by a nice lady at the Inland Revenue, although I had to have the Geordie translated into English before I could understand it. T
That equates at today's rate to 28,000 Pesos, enough for the monthly repayments on another Ford F-150! What better way to get back at the nannies than take their well (mine actually) money and use it on a gas guzzler? Woo-hoo!
|
Should be 48,000 before someone picks that up.
|
|
|
|
