|
U-Know! Forum » Congestion Charging |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Lord Lucan 2702 posts |
Feb 18, 2003, 14:14
|
||
Cost to me of getting to work by public transport by weekly travelcard £1201.20 p.a., ie: £1.20 more than paying congestion charge for a year. Concessionary rates for low-paid workers who use the public transport system to get to work? None!
|
|||
necropolist 1689 posts |
Feb 18, 2003, 15:21
|
||
|
which is why i said the important thing to do would be to establish FREE public transport! :)
|
|||
Vybik Jon 7717 posts |
Feb 18, 2003, 15:27
|
||
|
Apparently the AA fear that the new scheme may harm the capital's economy. What's it got to do with them? The Fourth Emergency service? Bollocks! A private company with a vested interest in keeping cars on the roads? I think so!
|
|||
|
Lord Lucan 2702 posts |
Feb 18, 2003, 15:44
|
||
OK. but paying for it how? If the government pays for it we're all paying for it, including those that don't use it.
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Feb 18, 2003, 15:53
|
||
|
All makes sense if you consider it a "right" to squander essential resources, pollute the atmosphere, and make life on the streets hellish for the 20% of us who are so low paid we don't have access to a car in the first place. If, however, you consider car use an obscene example of human greed, filth and our wanton destruction of the planet we live on, then the higher people have to pay to drive, the better. If you were to calculate the "true value" of car use. The effects on the environment, public health (accident & emergency stuff as well as lung ailments) and the ultimate consequences of resource wastage then i think you'd find only the rich could afford to drive anyways. As it is; conscious non-car users like me have to pay (in taxation) for the destruction caused by selfish car use. Tell me *that* ain't regressive taxation. Oh, and those who NEED to travel by car in London? Who the fuck are they? I've lived here (on and off) for 10 years and never needed one. In that time i've been a commuter and i've been unemployed and i've been self-employed and i've been a student. What category are these people who NEED to use a car here? Medical staff? Sure, i get that - they should be exempt. Who else?
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Feb 18, 2003, 16:02
|
||
|
"true value" should be "true cost" of course. Silly me.
|
|||
Joanna 658 posts |
Feb 18, 2003, 16:55
|
||
don't start on the 'I don't use it I'm not paying for it'. That's thatcherism m8. Wot about the collective good etc etc. Otherwise you'll be making students pay for their schools and unis....
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Feb 18, 2003, 17:04
|
||
|
> > yeah make the rich pay > Here's my thing. When you use a car, you are burning an unsustainable and essential resource (and producing toxic fumes in the process, but let's ignore that just now). Most people agree that the reason we may soon be murdering Iraqis is to get our hands on more of this stuff. So this is a global issue. And on any global standard; if you are a car owner living in or around London then you are one of "the rich". Certainly the folks trying to eke out a living near Baghdad would be a little shocked to hear of these "poor commuters" in London. I'm one of "the rich" on that scale - and i don't even own a car. So let's not kid ourselves about this congestion charge hitting "the poor". If it slows down our rampant exploitation and devestation of oil producing areas, then this is helping the truly poor. To say otherwise is (in my opinion) to show a dangerous lack of perspective and misunderstanding of consequences. > > Theres road tax & fuel tax for starters. > Both of which are ridiculously low. Insanely low. By any measure except for the short-sighted, short-termism of unthinking "right to drive my car" folks. If you could somehow calculate the important of any essential non-renewable resource in monetary terms, does anyone really think it'd be measured in *pence* per litre? > > Their is also the question of how the charge > will affect other areas. > Yup. That is an inherent problem with the scheme. It's unavaoidable i suspect - though my solution would be to make the zone larger. If people can drive to Hackney, park up, and then get a short bus ride down to Liverpool Street they might do that. If the charge started further out though, there'd be more incentive to make the whole trip on public transport. But yeah, ultimately there will always be an area on the edge of the zone that sees some negative impact. If, however, the total number of cars can be reduced significantly, over time, by congestion charging then (i believe) the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. > > Putting the money back into public transport > is great, but it should have been done well > BEFORE the charges started, not after. > Just where's that cash coming from BEFORE the charge goes into effect? Ken's hands are tied regarding bond-issues and public borrowing. His council tax increases have been about as high as he can get away with (i'd pay more personally, but that's cos i believe in public services). His spare funds have been going into the infrastructure of the congestion charge (a big up-front cost) and his legal challenge to PPP (which he sadly lost, but the people of London elected him to fight that battle; and he did his best in my opinion). > > As it is it does discriminate against the > worst off in society > As i say; i just can't see that. If you're driving a car into London every day, and still "the worst off" in society then this planet is clearly not in half as bad a state as i once believed.
|
|||
|
Lord Lucan 2702 posts |
Feb 18, 2003, 17:14
|
||
|
Well, the point I was trying to make is that it has to be paid for somehow. The enormous drop in revenue caused by no more ticket charging would have to be covered by government subsidy. Personally I think it'd be a great idea, but as a way of tackling congestion on the roads there'd be a lot more protest at putting up taxes to cover that cost than has happened with the congestion charge. Also, how do you make sure none of this extra cost is passed on to the low-paid? Means-testing I suppose, but that'd cost a lot. So, no I wasn't taking a Thatcherite point-of-view, just wondering what exactly necropolist's proposal (which I love the sound of) would entail. Unfortunately the restricted powers which the mayor now has means we cannot have a return to the 'Fares Fair' policy of the former GLC, at which time Ken introduced a fair of 10p for buses! Now THAT's fair.
|
|||
|
necropolist 1689 posts |
Feb 19, 2003, 10:21
|
||
|
how did the fares fair thing actually work? ie where did they get the subsidy from? i cant remember at all. what taxation can ken charge? it's london businesses that make he most out of the tube (in the overall picture), so they should bloody well pay for it thru higher taxes. a higher general taxation would be fair enough - tho in the medium to long-term would be less necessary due to the savings in health expenditure etc in the short-term obviously free fares are impossible, but some things are - mass non-payment. organising days when people just don't pay - tricky but easier than introducing a congestion charge! the most practical thing would probably be to make interest free loans available for a season ticket. many employers already do this, they recognise the practicality of it. they should be forced to. & for those not in such employment, the banks or the council should should provide such a service. and lets not forget - that a season ticket means you can travel ANYWHERE on the tube at ANYTIME. not just within an 8 square mile area like with the CC. (just pointing that out to make clear how poor LL's comparison of £1200 for a years tube v £1200 for a years CC is). Ultimately of course they need to be renationalised & made vastly cheaper/free. And that is true all over the country, not just London, 35 other cities are considering CC's, so it wouldnt just be subsidysing the bloody south again
|
| Pages: 7 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
