It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congestion Charges part 2

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   
If the Goverment is really concerned about road congestion and pollution why is it allowing a fixed system that does not encourage road users to change their vehicles.

Example: The congestion charges that are planned for Manchester do not take account of a persons ability to pay and does not encourage the road user to go for a smaller less polluting vehicle. So a car owner with a 1.0 litre engine will pay the same as some on who drives a 4ltr vehicle.

The charges should be banded so those who wish to drive around in large gas guslers pay the most whilst those who make the effort to drive smaller less pollutiing vehicles pay less.

This will provide an incentive for people to change their vehicles for the smaller less polluting cars and those who want to drive larger engined vehicles can pay for the pleasure of it and pay plenty.

Hey smink I drove an electric car last week, it does not go very fast but it will do 50 miles on one charge, we should have more of these vehicles.




posted on Sep, 1 2007 @ 08:13 PM
link   
I think the Gov looks on this as something that is to happen gradually and to be revised as it beds in.
I wouldn't take the starting position as the final one.

I'm sure the Gov would point to the expansion and graduation of road tax banding as an example where the biggest gas-guzzlers pay more compared to the most fuel efficient cars and also road hauliers pay a far high tax to cover the greater damage they do to the road infrastructure.

Nice to hear you've given the electric car a go.

I'm sure they are no substitute in every circumstance for the current petrol car (but hopefully the hybrid will lift the 'regular' car's efficiency as they become more common) but for town and city use (bearing in mind how most journeys are short ones) they have got to be more help to clean up the environment we all have to live with.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 08:24 AM
link   
Why do we have to accept a confestion charge at all. We all pay taxes and community charge so why should I have to pay twice to use roads that we have already funded with my taxes.

If the congestion charge was linked to a massive investment increase in public transport, then I could see an advantage.



posted on Sep, 2 2007 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
Why do we have to accept a confestion charge at all. We all pay taxes and community charge so why should I have to pay twice to use roads that we have already funded with my taxes.


- Because the realities of the national economy are a far wider consideration to your own narrow definition of having "paid".

You have not "paid" for the roads.

You have merely paid the various due road taxes.

We do not have hypothecated taxes here in the UK.


Originally posted by Freedom ERP
If the congestion charge was linked to a massive investment increase in public transport, then I could see an advantage.


- You'd have to be pretty willful to refuse to see the increased investment in transport that is currently going on.

From new rail investment to new roads to new light railways and tram systems there are umteen new projects going on all over the UK.

You can't be serious that there's nothing going on?



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I fully accept sminkeypinkey that we do not have hypothecated taxes but just like every other UK tax payer I have paid for the roads, just like every tax payer have paid for the health service, the police service, and on and on.

The London congestion have nothing to do with the realities of the national economy.

The increased in transport investment is very bias to the South East. What about the rest of the country?



posted on Sep, 3 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom ERP
I fully accept sminkeypinkey that we do not have hypothecated taxes but just like every other UK tax payer I have paid for the roads


- I think it might be more useful to look on it as 'paying towards the roads' as oposed to imagining you have 'paid' as if that were some kind of settled bill.


Originally posted by Freedom ERP
The London congestion have nothing to do with the realities of the national economy.


- I don't see how you can separate them.
Similarly when conjestion charges spread across the country (and no matter who is in power you can be certain that they will eventually) it will be because of the need to price those in the least need of using the roads off of them and it will be done in the interests of the national economy.


Originally posted by Freedom ERP
The increased in transport investment is very bias to the South East.


- Well of course, that is where the majority of the population is concentrated.
How could it be otherwise?


Originally posted by Freedom ERP
What about the rest of the country?


- Well I know Manchester has had new public transportation (see here), here in Northern Ireland we have just had sleek brand new trains (seehere)and some useful mid-sized buses (see here).

I know there are improvements being made to rail infrastructure (thinks like platforms) up and down the country (google rail platform improvements, there are too many to list).

There's a £4billion contract about to be awarded for new intercity trains (see here)
Edinburgh's getting new trams (see here )
Nottingham has trams too
(see here)

I'm not claiming everything is sweetness and light but to imply little or nothing is going on is just IMO a clear denial of the facts.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   
If it is cash out of my pocket, then I have paid for it. I think we will have to agree to disagree on wording here, sminkeypinkey.

I can not find any evidence that the London congestion charge have improved the net worth of the national economy. If there is road pricing, congestion charging, call it what you will, the costs will just be passed on to the end consumer and we will end up paying more so a few people who live in a big city can get around easier.

Fully accept that there is a large part of the population in the South East, but would disagree that a majority if the UK population live in the South East (At least 30 million??) but why should they benefit from major investment in public transport out of balance with the rest of the country. I have to use the roads for my job as public transport would take 2 hours long that travelling by road and based in Inland Revenue figures for the mileage cost, travelling by public transport would cost be an extra £30 pounds a day.

The South East already has a significant public transport network, what about the rest of us, you do not want to live in the South East. Why can't I have a high speed rail link from the South West to London.

And again, I accept that there is investment in new public transport, but they are all based in major cities and not in the countyside. We just have accept that not living in a big city, will mean worst or little public transport and having to pay for travelling on roads that have been paid for by all our taxes.



posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 11:58 AM
link   
My main concern in congestion charges is the unfairness of it and the fact that the majority of the money will disapear in company profits and taxes to the Goverment with a very small amount actually invested on improving the infastructure.

Succesive Goverments have run and robbed our PT system into the ground now they want us to pay for it, well I have one suggestion how about stop fighting foreign wars and killing our fellow man, we spend billions doing that dont we, so its about time we got our priorities right.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join