----- Original Message ----- From: "Adrian Stott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 4:18 PM Subject: [canals-list] Re: Proposed new car tax (OT) ON Line Petitions
> "Niall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >>Which part of that didn't you understand? What does the phrase "unsocial >>hours" mean to you? > > What I didn't understand was why you had not realised that what people > want depends on what it costs. Make it much less expensive for (e.g.) > the plumber to visit in the evening, I would bet a *lot* of people > would want him to visit in the evening. So the poor sod not only gets to work unsocial hours, he gets paid straight time, too. I think not everyone in your utopia might think themselves better off. Or is that just what you get for not wanting to work in a office pushing paper? > >>> 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. > > Have you had your panoids looked at lately? Presumably you didn't read all the stuff you casually snipped. It's so easy just to casually dismiss inconvenient facts as "incompetence", "paranoia". Ever had a quiet, off the record chat with the people who are responsible for these things? Especially if they might have somehow formed the belief that the person they are talking to is sympathetic to their beliefs? > >>> 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. > > Naw - I'll have both. You can't. It's either true or it isn't. >> >>Service and delivery vehicles OTOH, *do* despite the fact that the system >>won't function without them. > > So those who benefit from their services will be willing to pay more > to the organisations that operate them. Or will insist that > organisations operate more efficiently. Or both. That's the one I'm looking for. Everybody clear on this one? *This proposal will mean that everything costs you more* So you can forget about "congestion charging means your boat's diesel will be cheaper", because you won't be able to afford the *boat*, never mind get to it. >>> >>>>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? > > "We mustn't stop people robbing banks. Think of all the bank robbers > we would put out of work." Sorry if that's an analogy, it's, frankly, crap. > >>> 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? > > Because we have a socialist government? > Maybe, but on a level playing field the private car is going to be way cheaper. (Blah blah, hypothecation, incidental costs, pollution, sky falling etc etc.) -- Niall
