"TREVOR BURRIDGE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I bet you complained about the Poll Tax Adrian !
Actually, I didn't, because: (a) I was not living in UK at the time, and (b) The Poll Tax is actually a good idea. Everyone should pay for what he consumes. It failed because its implementation was disastrously incompetent. "Niall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >From: "Adrian Stott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Only if you refuse to arrange your life so you don't. A key purpose >> of road pricing is to encourage you to make such changes. >> >Oh of course, because we all have a totally free choice of when and where we >travel, because we're just doing it for a laugh and to kill some trees. >Or just choose a proportion of the workforce and force them to work unsocial >hours. Never mind that people usually don't want work done in unsocial hours >any more than the workers want to do it. Huh? >I find myself in a queue, I know it's not there at certain times, but the >stuff I'm going to fix didn't choose to break down then. There appears to be no logic in that comment. Why can't you get the thing fixed outside peak hours? > There is an >uncongested alternative, but I forgot that if you follow the road signs in >this instance they take you right to the congestion for some reason. Municipal incompetence is not a valid argument against road pricing. >It's not about pollution, it's about getting rid of cars because they allow >far to much individual freedom for some people's liking. >> >> Actually, they will probably balance out, as the more congested the >> untolled road gets, the more people will be willing to pay to use the >> tolled one. > >If that was the case, why would the original road need tolls? Surely the >congestion would do the job? Congestion is an extremely inefficient way of controlling demand. If you allocate even a small value to the extra time required of all the drivers in the jams, it turns out to sum to a greater total than the tolls would. Also, if the traffic on the (previously) un-tolled road became congested, then a toll would be put on it, of course. "dave hearnden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Regarding the congestion charge in London, yes it has made the roads >clearer, but I hear so many people who live in or near it, complain >bitterly, why do people who live in the area have to pay for it? Everyone always complains about paying for things. Or about having to change their habits/baehaviour. If they didn't complain, you could be sure that the policy was proving to be ineffective. Also, the people who live in the London Congestion Charge area *don't* pay the CC (or, actually, do pay a much reduced one). This is one of the serious flaws in the CC, as those local people make up a very significant proportion of the traffic. Other flaws are that you pay to drive *into* London, not *in* London (i.e. the charge does not vary with the distance you drive in the CC zone), and "public service" vehicles (which includes not only buses but also taxis) don't pay, even though they contribute a great deal to congestion. >I hear business are complaining because lack of business cause there is no >through traffic? Have you ever come across any businessman who does *not* complain that some bad people are reducing his business? Anyway, why should a business have a right to be more profitable at the expense of the streets being clogged up for everyone else? >Also people are avoiding going up town again for shows etc because of the >said charge, (yes it stops in the evening but starts again next morning) so >you can't drive in have a nice meal and few beers etc and see a show, book >into a hotel etc because on your way home you will get the added cost! Yes. The purpose of the CC is to reduce the traffic in London. That includes people driving into London. Tht includes people driving in to see shows. So, from what you say, it is working, eh? >What is the purpose of this new tax? I suppose they will argue to make >people travel by public transport, fine why is it in London then are putting >fares up because of the overcowding on trains and the stations? makes a lot >of sense to me (NOT). In fact, we are travelling far too much now, because travel has become much too cheap. If you reduce the price for anything, the demand for it goes up. Since the tubes, trains, buses etc. are priced very much below the market level, and well below what is needed to produce enough revenue to support them, it is clear they are under-priced. Road pricing, with market-priced transit, would reduce travel and reduce congestion. It would also, in London's case, save a fortune in taxpayer subsidies and allow other cities to get a fairer share of the development London can hog as a result of those subsidies. >My mum, lives in the Village of Outwell, Cambridgeshire. most people have >heard of it because of the middle levels and the IWA National being held at >St Ives. Don't try and get a bus from the village I think they get once a >week to go to Kings Lynn, decent size shoppinng, or I beleive one every hour >during the day to Wisbech, which has almost nothing. Did anyone hold a gun to her head and force her to live in Outwell? >I for one need my car for my job, Im a Fraud/Visiting Officer for a London >Council, I have to drive around and knock on peoples doors and upset them. >My car can be the escape route from a bad scene! > >So who will foot the bill while I drive around the Borough? The Residents >will in the council tax and the business rates etc. Who will be paying for >Mr fix the plumber who comes to repair a leaky tap? the cost will be past on >to the customer. So inflation will go up. Not inflation. But the cost of living in London. Which it should. Why should the rest of the country pay taxes to subsidise transport in London, so people living in London can have a lower cost of living? A higher cost of living in London would encourage people to move out, which would encourage businesses to set up outside of London, which would provide more jobs outside London. Which is exactly what we need IMHO. > I travelled 90 miles each way every working day for 18 months Any government policy that makes that feasible looks highly suspect to me. If it became infeasible, businesses would have to locate nearer their workers, or vice versa. "TREVOR BURRIDGE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The "Personal Choice" Brigade sound like Mrs Thatcher's children and that's >got this country no where apart from greedy! Hmm. How about removing strangling union rules, encouragement of personal initiative, reduction in regulations ... Thatcher had to go in the end, because she had stopped doing good (she never did get around to reducing public sector employment). However, her policies set the foundation for today's UK economic health. Of course, Prudence keeps taking credit for it ... Gordon lives (Gecko, that is). Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
