----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Stott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:13 AM Subject: [canals-list] Re: Proposed new car tax (OT) ON Line Petitions
>>> >>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? Which part of that didn't you understand? What does the phrase "unsocial hours" mean to you? > >>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? OK, to be specific. You live in a house which has shit threatening to flood up through the floor. Want me to fix that now, or would you like to wait till outside congestion hours? Which will also cost you more, because like most people I prefer to work normal 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 one of the key reasons. And it's not incompetence. It is cold, deliberate, artificial creation of exactly the percieved problem that charging is the solution for. > >>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. >>> >> >>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. Or: >>> 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. Pick one. > > Also, if the traffic on the (previously) un-tolled road became > congested, then a toll would be put on it, of course. Indeed. Revenue neutral? > > "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. It's not good medicine unless it tastes bad? Come on. > > 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. Service and delivery vehicles OTOH, *do* despite the fact that the system won't function without them. > >>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? Ah, the evil capitalist. How dare he make a living? Tell me, at any stage did anyone pay you for your labours? > > > 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. So why are they hugely subsidised? -- Niall
