Nick <[email protected]> wrote: >OK. Let's start with each of these: >a) I walk to post a letter
<snip> One problem with arguments based on a generalisation from a sample of one is that that one is likely to be atypical. >Oddly, some of us actually have thought about it, and tried to do it. Some = <10%? >You live near London. If I had my way no-one who lived within 50 miles >of London would be allowed any say in transport matters, as they have no >idea of the reality of life for the remaining 90% of the population. I live outside London, have never yet paid the congestion charge, and find it quicker, more pleasant, and less expensive to go to the supermarket or the town centre by bicycle than by car. "Ian Cardinal" <[email protected]> wrote: >Most of the evidence points to the fact that a good, cheap and reliable >Public Transport system is what changes people's behaviour, not penal >payment. Not quite. What would make people change mode is a better alternative. I.e. an alternative to the car that gives them a better balance of cost, convenience, and quality. At present, the balance is hugely in favour of the car in most cases. In fact, the way we pay for road tax and car insurance tends to make the per-journey cost by car cheaper than most transit. Hence one of my reasons for supporting road charging (to replace road tax and fuel duty), which would transfer that cost from the vehicle to the trip. By increasing the cost of car journeys (i.e. making the user pay the real cost of the congestion they cause by driving, as well as for the roads), transit fares could be raised, which would support improvements in transit quality. >we really can't have quality public services for no tax Why not? Transit was originally a profitable business. It's government intervention that has made it the mess it is today. Martin Clark <[email protected]> wrote: >Neil Arlidge wrote: >> Adrian Stott wrote: >>> Almost everybody. Just look at all those clowns driving their kids to >>> school, for example. >> >> Certainly around this part of West London, the clowns driving their kids to >> school, is beacuse of the "choice" given to parents and is therefore part of >> government policy. > >And not because some parents choose to send their children to fee-paying >schools further afield to avoid them having to be educated alongside chavs? The real reason is that the cost to them of driving is too low. One of the big flaws in the congestion charge is the huge discount given to those who live within the charge zone. If they had to pay more to drive, they would be much more interested in paying sensible fares for school buses to carry the little darlings. Or distance learning. Adrian Adrian Stott 07956-299966
