Charge drivers and expand the cycle network

[Alistair Gunn]

Simon Brooke twisted the electrons to say:
> So if people do try to 'rat run', they'll automatically be clobbered by
> the charges. So they won't rat run.

Well, they will still rat run ... It just won't save them any money.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

 

[Mike Sales]

"Simon Brooke"
wrote in message >
> The plan is that the pricing is dynamic - that is, you're not charged a
> fixed price for a particular piece of road, you're charged a price
> dependent on how congested it was while you were using it. So if people do
> try to 'rat run', they'll automatically be clobbered by the charges. So
> they won't rat run.
This sort of system if fully developed would result in all roads full to
their respective capacity. It is aimed at making fullest use of road
capacity to minimise motor vehicle congestion. Like previous measures to
keep traffic moving ( one way systems, roundabouts, etc.) it will not
improve things for cyclists. Motorists always whinge about these things,
though they are done for their benefit.
Mike Sales

 

[ian henden]

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
> "Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>
>>
>> Currently motorists pay a tax called the "Road Fund Licence" - the amount
>> collected in this tax is spent by the government on whatever they want
>> rather than the roads anyway.
>
> No, in we pay "Vehicle Excise Duty"
>

i.e. the gov now call it by a more honest name...
>
>
>

 

[ian henden]

"POHB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Dave wrote:
>> I totally disagree with this Government's plans to extract more TAX out
>> of people's earnings.
>> snip
>> More does need to be spent on cycle networks and public transport
>
> So you don't want more or higher taxes but you want more public money
> to be spent. I think most people would agree with your goal, but do
> you have a suggestion of how it might be achieved?

Easy.

Don't spend so much in Iraq.

Don't spend so much on MPs pay.

Don't spend so much on MPs allowances.

Don't spend so much on MPs pensions.

Cut down on Town Hall waste of public money. (black gay lesbian support
groups etc)

Cut down on totally unnecessary and expensive beaurocracy.

Spend money on what it is supposed to be spent on - for the GOOD of the
people!!

.... for starters.
>

 

[Paul Boyd]

POHB said the following on 01/12/2006 09:00:
> One of those "is expected to report" news stories:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6160877.stm

If we assume that any revenue raised won't be invested in public
transport, has anyone actually suggested how this proposed new tax will
reduce congestion? I'm making that assumption because we've heard it
all before - when the current mob came to power, for instance. People
still need to get from A to B, and it will take more than tax to change
people's attitudes and perceptions to other ways of getting there.

This bit seems to have been ignored generally: "If road charging was
introduced, the government would be able to examine the option of
whether it could raise enough revenue to replace fuel duty and the car
tax disc." What's the betting the option won't be taken up?

No, what we need is a strong leader/party with real determination to
make changes to people's perceptions of alternative means of transport.
I don't see that in *any* of the current politicians, which is why I
always struggle to decide who to vote for in elections - they're all
wishy-washy! Someone like Thatcher, but with alternative transport
instead of cars, would do. I don't care which party that person is with!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Paul Rudin]

Paul Boyd <usenet.dont.work@plusnet> writes:

> POHB said the following on 01/12/2006 09:00:
>> One of those "is expected to report" news stories:
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6160877.stm
>
> If we assume that any revenue raised won't be invested in public
> transport, has anyone actually suggested how this proposed new tax
> will reduce congestion? I'm making that assumption because we've
> heard it all before - when the current mob came to power, for
> instance. People still need to get from A to B, and it will take more
> than tax to change people's attitudes and perceptions to other ways of
> getting there.

Not really. Money is significant. Of course it depends how much things
cost - but look at the congestion charge: the amount of traffic went
down.


People do modify their behaviour according to the cost of
things. People take into account the costs when deciding where to live
and work. Over the last 30 or so years is that people have become far
more willing to live far from work/school/shops etc. precisely because
the cost of driving to these things has come down in real terms.


Of course in the age if the interweb we have other options to avoid
travelling as well. Order stuff online (o.k. the goods still need to
get to you - but it's typically far more efficient than everyone
driving somewhere to pick up their own stuff). Work from home some of
the time, a lot of work doesn't require people to physically be in the
work place. Pushing up the cost of travel means that people have more
incentive to do these things.


And, of course, since this is u.r.c., there are very many car journeys
that could be made by bike...

 

[Andy Leighton]

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 09:33:14 +0000, Paul Rudin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Paul Boyd <usenet.dont.work@plusnet> writes:
>
>> POHB said the following on 01/12/2006 09:00:
>>> One of those "is expected to report" news stories:
>>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6160877.stm
>>
>> If we assume that any revenue raised won't be invested in public
>> transport, has anyone actually suggested how this proposed new tax
>> will reduce congestion? I'm making that assumption because we've
>> heard it all before - when the current mob came to power, for
>> instance. People still need to get from A to B, and it will take more
>> than tax to change people's attitudes and perceptions to other ways of
>> getting there.
>
> Not really. Money is significant. Of course it depends how much things
> cost - but look at the congestion charge: the amount of traffic went
> down.

Sure but London has pretty good public transport. The same cannot
be said for a quite a bit of the rest of the country. In some places
public transport is a lot more sketchy - both bus and train.

Also the unregulated train fares are going up again by more than
inflation despite overcrowding on many services.

Public transport needs to be comprehensive, cheap enough, and
comfortable. Coupled with higher use of cycles for local journeys.
Then congestion and carbon emissions could fall.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[Paul Rudin]

Andy Leighton <[email protected]> writes:

> On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 09:33:14 +0000, Paul Rudin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Paul Boyd <usenet.dont.work@plusnet> writes:
>>
>>> POHB said the following on 01/12/2006 09:00:
>>>> One of those "is expected to report" news stories:
>>>>
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6160877.stm
>>>
>>> If we assume that any revenue raised won't be invested in public
>>> transport, has anyone actually suggested how this proposed new tax
>>> will reduce congestion? I'm making that assumption because we've
>>> heard it all before - when the current mob came to power, for
>>> instance. People still need to get from A to B, and it will take more
>>> than tax to change people's attitudes and perceptions to other ways of
>>> getting there.
>>
>> Not really. Money is significant. Of course it depends how much things
>> cost - but look at the congestion charge: the amount of traffic went
>> down.
>
> Sure but London has pretty good public transport. The same cannot
> be said for a quite a bit of the rest of the country. In some places
> public transport is a lot more sketchy - both bus and train.
>
> Also the unregulated train fares are going up again by more than
> inflation despite overcrowding on many services.
>
> Public transport needs to be comprehensive, cheap enough, and
> comfortable. Coupled with higher use of cycles for local journeys.
> Then congestion and carbon emissions could fall.

Without wishing to labour the point too much - you're assuming that
the amount that people travel is some god-given constant. If the price
goes up significantly people will adjust their behaviour to travel
less.

 

[wafflycat]

"Paul Rudin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Without wishing to labour the point too much - you're assuming that
> the amount that people travel is some god-given constant. If the price
> goes up significantly people will adjust their behaviour to travel
> less.

Not as easy as some may think. Think of the job market. It can be difficult
to change jobs quickly. Think if property prices and rentals. It can be
difficult to move home quickly to that jo. There has to be significant
investment in public transport: cheap, clean, safe and frequent services
over the entire country, urban and rural and by both bus and rail. This
combined with significant increases in fuel costs for the private motorist,
can provide the carrot & stick to shift transport use away from private cars
clogging up the roads to public transport, cycling & walking. The carrot of
much better public transport has to be in place *first* and let's face it,
the chances of that happening are fat and slim. Then there's the getting rid
of the effect of the pull of the south-east on top of that :-(

 

[Nick Kew]

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 09:16:16 +0000
Paul Boyd <usenet.dont.work@plusnet> wrote:

> POHB said the following on 01/12/2006 09:00:
> > One of those "is expected to report" news stories:
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6160877.stm
>
> If we assume that any revenue raised won't be invested in public
> transport, has anyone actually suggested how this proposed new tax
> will reduce congestion?

Yes, frequently. And not just now, but for the past 20 years.

It's all about incentives, and tipping the balance. Incentives to
reduce outdated and grossly inefficient practices, exemplified by
the sales rep or the school run. Tipping the balance towards making
*local* things economically viable again, when enough people switch
from a weekly to a monthly shop at the distant superstore. And
above all, providing the incentive for the clones who constitute
(as near to 100% as makes no difference of) middle-management
to contemplate moving away from the Dilbertian centralised office
of the 19th and 20th centuries.


I'm making that assumption because we've
> heard it all before - when the current mob came to power, for
> instance. People still need to get from A to B,

Stop right there. No they don't, much of the time. And it only
takes a few of those who don't to choose not to, to make a huge
difference to congestion.

> and it will take
> more than tax to change people's attitudes and perceptions to other
> ways of getting there.

It wants a *much* higher tax. But introducing that all at once would
hurt. That's why John Major's fuel price escalator was such a good
thing.

> No, what we need is a strong leader/party with real determination to
> make changes to people's perceptions of alternative means of
> transport. I don't see that in *any* of the current politicians,

Not quite true. There's this fella called Red Ken, who took on the
motoring establishment in his local area with the only instrument
he had available to him under central government's rules.

> which is why I always struggle to decide who to vote for in elections
> - they're all wishy-washy! Someone like Thatcher, but with
> alternative transport instead of cars, would do. I don't care which
> party that person is with!

Sort-of. But say alternative communication, not alternative transport.
If your work involves sitting in front of a computer, do you really
need to travel to it five days a week?

I commend to you http://bahumbug.wordpress.com/2006/11/03/36/

--
not me guv

 

[Paul Rudin]

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> writes:

> "Paul Rudin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> Without wishing to labour the point too much - you're assuming that
>> the amount that people travel is some god-given constant. If the price
>> goes up significantly people will adjust their behaviour to travel
>> less.
>
> Not as easy as some may think. Think of the job market. It can be
> difficult to change jobs quickly. Think if property prices and
> rentals. It can be difficult to move home quickly to that jo.



I'm not saying things will dramatically change overnight - as you say
moving houses/jobs/schools/etc. is not something you do that
frequently - but when you does happen you take things like transport
costs into account. If tranport costs are high then you have more of
an incentive to hassle your employer to allow you to work at home more
often; it's makes more sense to shop over the web rather than drive to
the super-market etc...

(Now I am repeating myself :\)





> There has to be significant investment in public transport: cheap,
> clean, safe and frequent services over the entire country, urban and
> rural and by both bus and rail. This combined with significant
> increases in fuel costs for the private motorist, can provide the
> carrot & stick to shift transport use away from private cars
> clogging up the roads to public transport, cycling & walking. The
> carrot of much better public transport has to be in place *first*

No, it really doesn't. If you push up transport costs enough people
*will* travel less. You don't need alternative modes of transport for
this to be the case... (I'm not necessarily saying this is desirable -
but it's true).


> and let's face it, the chances of that happening are fat and
> slim. Then there's the getting rid of the effect of the pull of the
> south-east on top of that :-(

 

[MJ Ray]

Paul Rudin <[email protected]> wrote: [...]
> Not really. Money is significant. Of course it depends how much things
> cost - but look at the congestion charge: the amount of traffic went
> down.

Look who it hit hardest. I think Red Ken is on record as saying that
the congestion charge is a terrible, regressive tax, but he's using it
because it's one of the few anti-car tools the mayor can wield.

There's an interesting talk by George Monbiot which covers transport:
http://www.ecoshock.org/2006/11/monbiot-man-for-all-climates.html

[...]
> And, of course, since this is u.r.c., there are very many car journeys
> that could be made by bike...

The incentives from local councils are aimed at encouraging motorist
businesses to start using bikes and mass transport - money to implement
good staff travel plans, competitions for reducing carbon release, and
so on. Those of us who bike already don't qualify for travel plan funds,
can't reduce carbon by a big enough %age to win competitions (because we
already don't burn much petrol), and so on. Businesses should be taxed
according to their performance, not rewarded for being late adopters.

--
MJR/slef
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

 

[Paul Rudin]

MJ Ray <[email protected]> writes:

> Paul Rudin <[email protected]> wrote: [...]
>> Not really. Money is significant. Of course it depends how much things
>> cost - but look at the congestion charge: the amount of traffic went
>> down.
>
> Look who it hit hardest.

Well - 30% of households don't have a car, these are mostly the
poorest households - certainly these people are not hit...

> I think Red Ken is on record as saying that the congestion charge
> is a terrible, regressive tax, but he's using it because it's one of
> the few anti-car tools the mayor can wield.
>

It's a blunt instrument for sure, but the question is whether or not
it's a good thing on balance. Ken obviously thinks so or he wouldn't
have brought it in..

> There's an interesting talk by George Monbiot which covers transport:
> http://www.ecoshock.org/2006/11/monbiot-man-for-all-climates.html
>

Maybe I'll read it, circuliar tuits permitting.

> [...]
>> And, of course, since this is u.r.c., there are very many car journeys
>> that could be made by bike...
>
> The incentives from local councils are aimed at encouraging motorist
> businesses to start using bikes and mass transport - money to implement
> good staff travel plans, competitions for reducing carbon release, and
> so on. Those of us who bike already don't qualify for travel plan funds,
> can't reduce carbon by a big enough %age to win competitions (because we
> already don't burn much petrol), and so on. Businesses should be taxed
> according to their performance, not rewarded for being late adopters.

Maybe, but incentives have nothing, per se, to do with road pricing.

 

[Nick Kew]

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 20:33:47 +0000
Paul Rudin <[email protected]> wrote:

> It's a blunt instrument for sure, but the question is whether or not
> it's a good thing on balance. Ken obviously thinks so or he wouldn't
> have brought it in..

For values of "good" in "least bad within his powers".

--
not me guv

 

[Earl Purple]

Dave Larrington wrote:
> In news:[email protected],
> wafflycat <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to
> tell us:
>
> > I fundamentally oppose the road-charging bit. All that'll succeed in
> > doing is increase congestion on narrow, winding roads that simply
> > aren't designed to take large numbers of motorised vehicles.
>
> William. My commute is largely on a narrow twisty B-road, which turns
> unclassified for no readily-apparent reason halfway through. It's already
> chock-full of motorcars seeking to avoid the congestion on the M11 and A406,
> with a sprinkling of heavy lorries following their sat-navs.

I am puzzled in trying to find such a B-classified road in the vicinity
of the M11 and the A406.

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
Earl Purple <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> Dave Larrington wrote:
>> In news:[email protected],
>> wafflycat <w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com> tweaked the
>> Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>>
>>> I fundamentally oppose the road-charging bit. All that'll succeed in
>>> doing is increase congestion on narrow, winding roads that simply
>>> aren't designed to take large numbers of motorised vehicles.
>>
>> William. My commute is largely on a narrow twisty B-road, which
>> turns unclassified for no readily-apparent reason halfway through.
>> It's already chock-full of motorcars seeking to avoid the congestion
>> on the M11 and A406, with a sprinkling of heavy lorries following
>> their sat-navs.
>
> I am puzzled in trying to find such a B-classified road in the
> vicinity of the M11 and the A406.

Unclassified road from Broadley Common heading SW, turns into the B194 en
route. Pretty heavily used by people heading from the vicinity of Harlow
into London in the mornings, and vice-versa in the eventide.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
My other motto is in Latin.

 

[Earl Purple]

Chris Johns wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, POHB wrote:
>
> > So you don't want more or higher taxes but you want more public money
> > to be spent. I think most people would agree with your goal, but do
> > you have a suggestion of how it might be achieved?
>
> Scrap the ID card farce.

Probably.

> Stop illegal wars.

I agree. But it has to be replaced by a proper International Police
Force who can prevent heads of state from abusing their position by
contravening human rights and bring them to justice if they do.

> Control of immigration (note control, not stop).

I disagree, I would like people to be able to go wherever in the world
they want as long as they agree to obey the laws of the land.

> Reduce the benifits bill (benifits should be to get you buy in hard times,
> not a lifestyle choice where you can afford holidays abroad, sky tv etc).

Nobody should be caught in the poverty trap. Everyone should be able to
earn a living. The problem with the immigrants is that they are denied
the right to find themselves employment even if they are willing to do
it.

 

[Earl Purple]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> Public transport (buses) uses the roads. We need more roads in some
> places.. Outside major urban centres which need different answers the
> answer is more road capacity.

I agree that many of the major roads should be dualled.

> There is a myth that new roads anywhere immediately fill up with traffic.

No, there is a truth in it, but that is because the roads are built
where they are most needed. If you spend a lot of money on a road and
nobody uses it, it means the venture was a waste of money.

It should displace traffic on other roads. That should hopefully make
the other local roads where the traffic has been displaced more
friendly for cyclists.

As a car driver, I am very happy to have a dualled grade-separated road
so I don't have to pass through town centres. As a cyclist, I am very
happy to have the motor traffic displaced onto such a road.

> The best thing the government could do to encourage business to
> locate outside the south east would be to provided adequate motorway
> links. Rail works well between major city centres but other than that
> can not compete with road transport (private and public)

That would encourage more people to drive to work. In fact many of the
business parks are pretty much inaccessible without one. Now if
commuters could put bikes on trains at all times, i.e. including rush
hour, then the journey between business park and station (say 2 miles)
would make use of public transport feasible. How about one carriage on
every train dedicated for cyclists?

> Politicians talk green but all I have seen over the last few
> years in my area anyway is talk. Talking green for votes but failing
> to improve public transport for those that wish to use it. There has
> been numerous example locally of planners giving permission for new
> housing on sites adjacent to train stations which were the only
> suitable place for park and ride car parks for example.

All I have seen is property developers buying up every bit of land to
put private flats. Everything is about selling off to the highest
bidder, and this is under a Labour government.

> Talking green but not doing anything about bus or train companies which ban bikes - even folders.

Because they've all been privatised. How long until they privatise the
road network?

 

[Chris Johns]

On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Earl Purple wrote:

>> Control of immigration (note control, not stop).
> I disagree, I would like people to be able to go wherever in the world
> they want as long as they agree to obey the laws of the land.

Part of the reported (by the media) problem seems to be that we have "the
wrong sort of immigrants", but that could be the more media scaremong...
reporting.

There is also the phyical space issue. What if eveyone already in UK
wanted to live in London? They won't all fit.

> Nobody should be caught in the poverty trap. Everyone should be able to
> earn a living. The problem with the immigrants is that they are denied
> the right to find themselves employment even if they are willing to do
> it.

Earn a living yes. Benfits should keep you out of the poverty trap, but if
you want "luxary" things you should have to work for them.

That comment was aimed more at the indegenous population of the UK more
than immigrants. A lot of immigrants come here wanting to work, which is
more than can be said for a lot of the brits.
--
Chris Johns

 

[Paul Boyd]

Chris Johns said the following on 01/12/2006 10:51:

> Scrap the ID card farce.

Has anyone actually said yet how ID cards will prevent terrorism? (Which
is their stated purpose) Perhaps there's a question on the application
form: "Are you a terrorist? - Yes/No"

I'm not against ID cards per se, but I'm definitely against having to
pay for something under false pretences.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/