"what is the solution?"
Do all your shopping at the trafford Centre.
|
|
|
Build enough roads to cope with the population we have rather than having the third world efforts we have already. Stop silly congestion creating traffic light phasing and similar schemes. Rip up speed humps from main routes. More joined up thinking from councils to make sure that there is decent public transport going to places people actually want to go when they want to go. Home working and flexible hours should also be encouraged so that everyone isn't on the roads at the same time. Change road haulage so that lorries are encouraged to travel at night rather than during the day. Remove the speed limiter for night time as with fewer other vehicles on the road then there is less for them to hit.... Experiment with removing it in the day time and changing the limit for HGVs on SC roads to 50 to reduce impatient and dangerous over taking by justifiably frustrated car and light van drivers.
We need common sense stuff rather than just the 'how do we price the poor off the roads' and 'how do we make travelling by private car as crap and expensive as PT ' which is the sum total of what they've done so far.
Also change the rules that kids go to their local school and not one miles away. Free school buses for all kids that live more than half a mile away. The ones less than half a mile away can either pay to use the bus or walk. Hopefully there won't be many that need them as everyone will be going to their local school.
Seems easy enough it just no-one actually wants to get off their backside and implement common sense solutions as there is no money in making sure the population get to where they want to go with the minimum of interference. Much better to tax us to death and get in the way of business and industry by strangling them in petty regulation and 'traffic calming'.
teabelly
|
Also change the rules that kids go to their local school and not one miles away.
What would make an immense difference is making people live near work (or work near where they live) - why *do* all those people drive in opposite directions across the M62 every day? !!
Like forcing kids to go to the nearest school though, it's unlikely to happen.
|
Pricing the poor off the roads is a perfectly valid solution. Getting the pricing right should see an easy 30-40% congestion reduction. Older cars (usually driven by the poor) are usually bigger contributers to polution as well so you kill two birds with one stone.
Hey it might not be palatable, but you cant argue its effectiveness.
------
< Ulla>
|
AE - even with the troll filter set to max........you only have to look at London to see that congerstion charging hasn't worked.
|
Yes becuase its not really a congestion charge. Its revenue generation.
To make it work, (to reduce congestion) you have to price it so it forces people out of cars. Your revenue then falls when you do. It needs revenue to operate, so you need to balance and adjust the price to make it revenue neutral. Ken wants money, so its priced and some way below full effectiveness rate.
If you really wanted to prevent congestion in a city centre you would ban all parking.
But generally speaking, you cant argue the facts that congestion, that is lots of cars everywhere, is becuase motoring has become affordable for everyone. It wasnt always the case, but it is now.. the cure is go back 50 years and price motoring accordingly.
------
< Ulla>
|
Up to a point Lord Cropper (a new handle for you there perhaps?) If it didn't cost about 70% of the charge to collect the money in the first place, it might even succeed as a revenue generator.
|
I am really not sure it ever can. It can only be revenue or effective, not both.
Enforcement and collection of such schemes have only recently become possible, and only by the use of hit tech modern equipment. As such this really takes high capital outlay and expertise far beyond local government. Hence such charges will always be high,
There is of course one guaranteed and cheap method. Build a toll gate at each road into your congestion area. This only needs to be very low tech, counterbalanced heavy pole with spikes on. Put a wooden shed by each gate, with a man (and a brazier in this inclement weather). £1 car should be enough. Say an average man can collect money, raise barrier in two minutes, thats a natural choke point of 30 cars an hour. £30 an hour money. Minimum wage is £6 hour, fixed costs £10 a day.
Based on a 12 hour enforcement period per day we have
360 cars allowed through that gate, £218 profit per gate, and unemployment wiped out at a stroke.
Beautiful, elegant and simple.
------
< Ulla>
|
|
Your peerage is surely only a matter of time!
|
blimey you just cant please some people.
------
< Ulla>
|
|
|
A E , you do talk a lot of carp sometimes
|
What carp that your motoring is suddenly going to get very more expensive you mean?
Sorry mate.
Carp that you can bleat as moan as much as you like, but that you will be paying some form of congestion charging sooner or later?
Sorry mate
Dont shoot the messenger.
------
< Ulla>
Edited by Altea Ego on 17/12/2007 at 16:22
|
|
|
|
|
"What would make an immense difference is making people live near work "
So what are you supposed to do when there are 2+ people working in the household who work miles apart?
Getting a job locally is near impossible for many professions, and with the death of "job for life" even if you do find one, it is difficult to hold on to...
Edited by TheOilBurner on 17/12/2007 at 11:27
|
|
|
Bill Payer - it's partly down to the UK's obsession with owning property.
It's cheaper to commute than move (minimum cost to move home is £5000) and whose to say if you do move you won't see a better opportunity in a few months and need to move again.
Over the last 30 years our social mobility has increased as we have accommodated the need to travel to work - the days of factories employing 5,000 in a job for life who all lived at the bottom of the street are long gone - so we need to commute and sitting in trqaffic for 3 hours a day isn't deemed a hardship as we need to do so to pay the millstone which is a mortgage.
Affordable rented housing with a pension system which doesn't rely on owning a property would have made a massive differences to commuting patterns.
|
"Affordable rented housing with a pension system which doesn't rely on owning a property would have made a massive differences to commuting patterns."
Agreed. Also what would have made a difference is women NOT electing to join the workforce en-masse. That event raised household incomes massively and the not effect was just a massive increase in house prices..thus forcing women into work now, whether they like it or not!
Great if you're female and want a career, can afford your house and endure the lengthy commute. Bad if you're not...
I'm all for equality, and believe it's generally good news that women are normally seen as equals and act as such, but there is a price to pay too.
|
|
|
|
People can't always afford to live where they work and employment isn't secure enough to allow this much anyway. What would make a difference is encouraging people to rent so they can move around after jobs more easily. Home ownership is actually quite restrictive to the labour market but most people don't really want the hassle of renting. BTL lenders also don't like long leases which discourages people from renting out to the same people. Personally I'd like to see 2 or 3 year rental contracts being encouraged so both sides had security. Also non payment of rent should become a criminal offence rather than just a breach of contract so that it discourages renters that take the P and withold rent. Landlords have to keep up with lots of regulation but the renters themselves seem to have few obligations. Rent could be directly deductible from wages or benefits and payable directly to the landlord. There could be tax benefits if rent could be deducted from gross wages and would help the hard pressed to find affordable accommodation and offer security for the landlord if the renter were in employment.
I live close to where I work but I could be being made redundant and with no guarantee of finding employment locally so I may be forced to commute or move. With the credit crunch going on moving isn't going to be easy for a start. When it comes down to it people try and do the best the can in the circumstances. I am sure if you asked most people if they wanted a job just down the road from where they lived with similar pay and conditions they'd jump at it.
teabelly
|
|
|
What would make an immense difference is making people live near work (or work near where they live) - why *do* all those people drive in opposite directions across the M62 every day? !!
Unfortunately we don't all have a choice. I moved 200 miles to be near my job and I worked there for 7 years before it closed down and I lost my job. The only decent job I could get was 35 miles away, up the motorway. I couldn't move because I couldn't afford it, plus my children were attending good schools in their local area, which I didn't want them to leave.
So I've ended up commuting the 35 miles to work. I do car share with two colleagues though.
|
The pace at which manufacturing/service jobs are going to China/India, I don't think we need to worry about congestion.
After a few years, most people won't be able to buy/maintain a car anyway. Like most can't afford buying a house nowadays!
|
|
|
|
