Just announced: Boris Johnson is to scrap the Congestion Charge for parts of west London according to the BBC Lunchtime TV News
That brings up two thoughts, one serious:- shame he didn't do it six months ago and then we could use the results to help judge the effect of the charge.
Second more flippant, vote for TIF and then elect Boris as Mayor of Manchester in about 2013 so he can cancel the CC element of TIF.
Ballot paper has arrived - on the horns of a dilemma
My ballot paper has arrived. In response to the question: Do you agree with the Transport Innovation Fund Proposals? there are two boxes: YES, I vote for the proposals and NO, I vote against the proposals.
I feel I am in a genuine dilemma.
For the past 30 years I have been going on about how we need a better public transport system, like they have in Germany and Holland etc etc.
And now after waiting all that time, I have the opportunity to help bring about an improvement.
But if I answer the question honestly, I have to say no I don't agree, because I believe the charging element has been badly thought out, and hits a small number of people hard. Also it only targets some of the congestion across the Greater Manchester conurbation.
If the charge were spread more evenly, so that instead of an unlucky 10th of road users paying a max of 1200 a year, maybe half of the road users could pay a max of 240 a year.
Isn't the fact that the proposals are so controversial and has aroused so much anger proof that they have not been thought out properly?
But if I vote NO, I am confident that there will not be another opportunity for an improvement in public transport for many years to come.
A YES decision would be exciting for me, as there would be loads of projects for me to document in photographs. I wouldn't be affected by the charge as I intend to be using public transport a lot more from next year onwards, and would never need to commute in and out by car.
How would Tony Wilson have voted? I miss his contribution to the debate. I know for certain he would be voting YES.
These are my thoughts as I consider how I am going to vote.
What seems to be generally overlooked is that part of the loan will be paid back out of revenue from public transport so it isn't actually the motorist who is alone responsible for the repayment.
Yes, good point. As I have just read in the booklet accompanying the ballot paper:
"In addition to the Government funding, $1.2 billion would be borrowed, which would be paid back through a mix of congestion charging and public transport revenues."
How many people are like me, both a motorist and a public transport user? I drive the car a lot - too much - but I use public transport whenever I can. On some journeys, the car is cheaper and takes a fraction of the time. On others, the bus or train is better.
There is a split between what you might call the eco-idealists, like Manchester city council leader Sir Richard Leese, who often cycles to work and what you might call the petro-realists, those people who rely on their car and burn gallons of petrol on journeys around town.
I am in both camps. Maybe that's why I'm finding it difficult to decide!
For years I lived in a town where the public transport was almost none existent. It was along the lines of a bus out at 10.30 on Tuesday morning and a return at 4.30 on Thursday afternoon.
Consequently, the common belief was that it was impossible to live there without a car.
Following a major breakdown in both my car and my bank account, I was deprived of my car.
Suddenly, I started to consider if I really needed to make that journey or what.
I found that many of the trips I made could be abandoned with no adverse affect on my life.
Those trips that could not be avoided were made either by taxi, by slipping a handy pensioner a tenner and a double scotch or hiring a car.
I remember one night being heckled in the local pub for my rashness and stupidity in not running a car.
This debate was overheard by my accountant, who also kept the accounts for my main heckler.
He took great pleasure in announcing who he considered the mug with more money than sense, and it wasn't the person with no car.
It's true that superficially cars appear to make journeys quicker, but then if you are making more journeys than you need to. . .
Then there is the ignored time spent taking the car for service, filling with petrol, cleaning, filling in forms, earning the money to pay for it and on and on.
Hm, 800KG! if the vehicle stayed in Manchester for the whole day, the charge would amount to 6.25p per Kg. Of course many couriers would not catch both the inbound and out bound charge.
You are missing the point. Any increase in the cost of delivery of goods has a ripple effect. Apart from the actual monetary cost, there are administrative costs which are out of proportion to the amounts involved - which the transport companies have to bear.
If increased charges are accepted by the recipients of the goods, prices to the end users go up. What is seen as a simple £5 charge eventually adds pennies to the cost of goods and services per item or transaction and the original extra cost to the immediate user is multiplied many times by the time the goods have reached their final destination or the services the goods have been involved in providing have been used.
In addition, the way you have averaged the charge doesn't bear any relationship to reality. An 800 kg round could be anything between 5 and 15 drops. Some drops may be be as little as 1 Kg. Apportioning the charge becomes a nightmare, so the "easy way" is for transport companies to either carry the cost for as long as they can or generally increase prices - neither of which benefits company or its customers.
Quote:
And of course irrespective of how or even if they use the road
I'm sorry but that is a truly ridiculous remark. Please find me a taxpayer who doesn't use a road. Even if you never left the house you would use the road by proxy by consuming food and using articles all delivered by road. In the real world, even someone who has never ridden a bike or driven a powered vehicle has walked down and across a road.
Presumably if you don't have children, you don't believe in paying for education; if you never visit the doctor, dentist or have never been in hospital and expect to die before pension age, you don't think you should pay National Insurance.
Quote:
whilst motorists see buses as congestion causing, they do not see parked cars in the same way.
That's a terrible generalisation.
Quote:
if my chosen time is at peak times when everybody else wants to travel, I expect to pay more than I would at periods of lesser demand. Pricing is a very common way of controling demand and democratic or not, it is here to stay.
You are making major mistake in believing that peak pricing for peak time travel is there to control demand rather than to extract maximum profit from people who have no choice but to travel. Premium pricing at peak times and off peak discounts are an economic nonsense which slowly crept into transport in the UK sometime after WW1. As late as the early 1960s bus and rail passengers travelling at rush hour could avail of "workmen's fares" which were significantly cheaper than the standard fare.
Quote:
I would go even further and restrict any driver from driving high performance cars without at least several years experience, and a retest.
I wouldn't. There is a great deal of difference between years of driving experience and ability. There are plenty of people who have been driving for many years who would be lethal in a performance car. On the other hand a certain Mr Hamilton, with just two years of Formula 1 experience, is world champion. The key is ability linked to proper training - not how long someone has been driving.
Quote:
if you are making more journeys than you need to. . .
I'm concerned by your repeated reference to the need to make journeys. It is entirely up to each individual to decide on if and when they want to travel.
One man's need is another's extravagance and the need to travel is no-one's business other than that of the individual. If society as a whole decides to tax travel that is fine as long as there has been informed debate and a referendum involving ALL concerned before taxes are levied.
Apart from the disenfranchisement of a vast number of people who will be charged extra to reach their employment the basic idea that the public should pay for enhancements to public transport, which is in the hands of profit making operations with no reponsibilities other than to shareholders, is a very odd concept - one which I haven't yet seen debated.
You are missing the point. Any increase in the cost of delivery of goods has a ripple effect. Apart from the actual monetary cost, there are administrative costs which are out of proportion to the amounts involved - which the transport companies have to bear. .
First of all, being an old ludite, just as to me, logistics still means the movement, lodging and supply of troops, (imagine the amusement I get from the likes of 'Harvey Nichols Logistics, all those troops in stappy sandles laying into the enemy with their handbags whist nibbling on sushi snacks) Couriers are still hairy assed bikers in full racing leathers and sudden death mode and not parcel delivery drivers.
Ok, sorted that. Why is accounting for a congestion charge any more work intensive that accounting for fuel purchase, especially as fuel prices can vary on a daily basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
John,I'm sorry but that is a truly ridiculous remark. Please find me a taxpayer who doesn't use a road. Even if you never left the house you would use the road by proxy by consuming food and using articles all delivered by road. In the real world, even someone who has never ridden a bike or driven a powered vehicle has walked down and across a road..
The cost of delivering food is included in the purchase of the food and by funding roads out of general taxation my ability to influence road use by buying as much locally produced food as possible is removed. Nobody offered me a vote on that.
As a pedestrian I get little benefit out of integrated traffic lights, real time traffic information, park and ride etc etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
John,Presumably if you don't have children, you don't believe in paying for education; if you never visit the doctor, dentist or have never been in hospital and expect to die before pension age, you don't think you should pay National Insurance...
That is ridiculus. Everybody gains from a well educated and healthy populace whether they have need of the services or not. Driving a car is a purely personal thing, only the driver and occasional passenger benefits from using a private car, many others suffer from that use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
John,You are making major mistake in believing that peak pricing for peak time travel is there to control demand rather than to extract maximum profit from people who have no choice but to travel. Premium pricing at peak times and off peak discounts are an economic nonsense which slowly crept into transport in the UK sometime after WW1...
Then I'm in good company as many major companies believe in using pricing to control demand. And again, who are these people who have no choice but to travel (by implication, by private car).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
John,As late as the early 1960s bus and rail passengers travelling at rush hour could avail of "workmen's fares" which were significantly cheaper than the standard fare. ...
Yes, we seem to have lost sight of the need and sense in ensuring that the workforce can reach their workplace cheaply and quickly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
I wouldn't. There is a great deal of difference between years of driving experience and ability. There are plenty of people who have been driving for many years who would be lethal in a performance car. On the other hand a certain Mr Hamilton, with just two years of Formula 1 experience, is world champion. The key is ability linked to proper training - not how long someone has been driving....
To an extent yes, but then with young men especially, the belief in natural skill and immortality tends to decline as the teenage years recede.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
I'm concerned by your repeated reference to the need to make journeys. It is entirely up to each individual to decide on if and when they want to travel.
One man's need is another's extravagance and the need to travel is no-one's business other than that of the individual. If society as a whole decides to tax travel that is fine as long as there has been informed debate and a referendum involving ALL concerned before taxes are levied.
I wonder why nobody refers to parking fees as a tax?
My repeated reference to the need to make journeys refers to those who insist that their journey can only be achieved by private transport when so often this is not the case.
You could as eaisily say that it is up to each individual to decide that they want to play loud music at three in the morning. Not many do that but plenty of people use their cars in a totally anti social way.
Travel isn't being taxed, it is proposed that in return for transport improvements (which will also benefit motorists at all times of the day) some journies will attract an additional charge. The vast majority of drivers can choose not to pay it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
Apart from the disenfranchisement of a vast number of people who will be charged extra to reach their employment the basic idea that the public should pay for enhancements to public transport, which is in the hands of profit making operations with no reponsibilities other than to shareholders, is a very odd concept - one which I haven't yet seen debated.
My local council didn't ask me how I felt about them planting some trees, have I been disenfranchised?
The question of public money sponsering privately owned public transport is certainly worthy of some hefty debate, (rail subsidies equalling dividends paid to shareholders!) but perhaps not combined with the question of whether GM should or should not receive nearly £3 billion when we apper to be heading into a recession.
Why is accounting for a congestion charge any more work intensive that accounting for fuel purchase, especially as fuel prices can vary on a daily basis.
It's an EXTRA operation which has to be paid for and, as mentioned before, on a multi-drop round is difficult to apportion.
Quote:
The cost of delivering food is included in the purchase of the food and by funding roads out of general taxation my ability to influence road use by buying as much locally produced food as possible is removed.
I think you might just find that even locally produced food has to be moved from the point of growth/production to a processing/packaging plant and then to a retail point and from there to the point of use. Even if the product is produced, processed/packed and sold on one site, it has to be transported to the point of use and some form of made road is necessary for that movement in a modern society.
I suggest you get in touch with the RHA to find out just how much they are concerned by this and why they are putting so much effort into having the charge eliminated for goods transport.
Quote:
As a pedestrian I get little benefit out of integrated traffic lights, real time traffic information, park and ride etc etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
John,Presumably if you don't have children, you don't believe in paying for education; if you never visit the doctor, dentist or have never been in hospital and expect to die before pension age, you don't think you should pay National Insurance...
That is ridiculus. Everybody gains from a well educated and healthy populace whether they have need of the services or not.
So you and your fellow Luddites, and the population as a whole benefit from health and education, but not from the roads? You would be happy to see the country back in the state it was 200 years ago when few travelled outside their immediate area, there was no such thing as leisure travel and few were able to broaden their horizons by travel.
By the way, the cities stank of horse urine and manure deposited on unmade roads by, amongst others, carters who had to deliver produce from the country.
I've sat for hours in traffic jams in many cities around the world and cursed, but at least I've been in the comfort of a modern vehicle, sheltered from the elements, on a reasonably made road, without the all pervading smell of sweaty, defecating horses.
If you want a flavour of how bad it was, visit Killarney on a wet summer's day.
Quote:
Driving a car is a purely personal thing, only the driver and occasional passenger benefits from using a private car,
Oh dear! Car drivers pay tax when purchasing the car, road tax, tax and VAT on fuel, VAT on servicing and extras, parking charges and an increasing number of tolls - none of which, of course, benefit anyone but the driver In addition the importance of the motor industry to a country's economy should be obvious - even to a Luddite. Have a look at the state of GM and Ford vis a vis the US economy at present.
Quote:
many major companies believe in using pricing to control demand
Please name one. Before you do, look closely at just when they apply loaded prices and fares - at the time everyone wants to buy or travel.
Why? to make the most profit. If there was truth in the argument that high prices are put in place to control demand, why, for instance, have bus companies for decades held reserve fleets of elderly vehicles that only hit the road at rush hour. If they wanted to control demand, they would limit the availability of buses, not meet the need.
The same goes for goods. Companies don't put a premium price on an item in demand to stop people buying. There is an argument, well researched over many years, that pricing at a given level above the competition can be percieved as an indicator of quality and actually increases desirability and demand. A good example is trainers.
Nike and Adidas aren't necessarily more expensive to make than a lessser known brand and may not have any real advantage for the wearer, but they create demand by their marketing and charge top dollar because of their perceived status.
Quote:
who are these people who have no choice but to travel
People who have to reach their place of work.
Quote:
Yes, we seem to have lost sight of the need and sense in ensuring that the workforce can reach their workplace cheaply and quickly.
At last!...and for many people the quickest and cheapest way is by car, which is also more convenient than queing in all weathers for buses/trams/trains which are often overcrowded, dirty, don't run to time and subject their passengers to other inconveniences.
I'm all in favour of integrated, efficient, value for money public transport. I don't see any guarantees that this will be in place before the introduction of the congestion charge or, if the targets are met, will be maintained after an initial honeymoon period. The history of public transport is strewn with broken and unattainable promises.
Quote:
I wonder why nobody refers to parking fees as a tax?
You obviously don't read the motoring press or talk to many motorists.
Quote:
plenty of people use their cars in a totally anti social way.
A small proportion, e.g. those who use cars for criminal activity or drive in a manner to cause noise nuisance or public alarm. The car has been a major force in providing social and economic mobility and provided far more income for governments to spend than has been used on providing roads and their attendant infrastructure.
Quote:
My local council didn't ask me how I felt about them planting some trees, have I been disenfranchised?
Were you asked to pay an extra daily fee to look at them or enjoy the benefit to the environment?
Quote:
the question of whether GM should or should not receive nearly £3 billion when we apper to be heading into a recession
Why shouldn't it receive the money anyway? If an area needs the money to advance to the benefit of all its citizens, a government that wishes to create work, which can find billions to fight foreign wars and bail out banks without any real sanction on most of those who have taken massive bonuses for running schemes - which even a drop of common sense would show would end in disaster - can well afford the money.
It's an EXTRA operation which has to be paid for and, as mentioned before, on a multi-drop round is difficult to apportion. .
How do they apportion fuel costs then? Or don't they just include that in their on-costs as they would a CC? And as bank statements have to be reconciled any way, an extra line to check is hardly likely to bring any company to its knees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
I think you might just find that even locally produced food has to be moved from the point of growth/production to a processing/packaging plant and then to a retail point and from there to the point of use. Even if the product is produced, processed/packed and sold on one site, it has to be transported to the point of use and some form of made road is necessary for that movement in a modern society. .
Indeed, but locally produced food does not require three lane motorways for delivery. And of course if you don't buy processed food....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
So you and your fellow Luddites, and the population as a whole benefit from health and education, but not from the roads? You would be happy to see the country back in the state it was 200 years ago when few travelled outside their immediate area, there was no such thing as leisure travel and few were able to broaden their horizons by travel..
OK, tell me how I benefit from a road that is so congested that a 24 minute bus trip takes 45 minutes. I'm all ears.
Most people don't broaden their minds by a daily commute into Manchester at a speed no higher than it would have been on horse back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
By the way, the cities stank of horse urine and manure deposited on unmade roads by, amongst others, carters who had to deliver produce from the country.
Have you ever smelled and I really mean smelled unleaded petrol, burning brake lining, hot rubber? Not for a moment or two when you open your car window but when you've inhaled the smell for a long period?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
I've sat for hours in traffic jams in many cities around the world and cursed, but at least I've been in the comfort of a modern vehicle, sheltered from the elements, on a reasonably made road, without the all pervading smell of sweaty, defecating horses..
But it's OK for us plebs to suffer!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
Oh dear! Car drivers pay tax when purchasing the car, road tax, tax and VAT on fuel, VAT on servicing and extras, parking charges and an increasing number of tolls - none of which, of course, benefit anyone but the driver In addition the importance of the motor industry to a country's economy should be obvious - even to a Luddite. Have a look at the state of GM and Ford vis a vis the US economy at present.
I enjoy a pint of beer or a bottle of wine, both heavily taxed, does any of that money go to building new and better pubs and wine bars?
We don't have a motor industry anymore, some foriegn companies have assembly plants here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
Please name one. Before you do, look closely at just when they apply loaded prices and fares - at the time everyone wants to buy or travel.
Disneyland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
Why? to make the most profit. If there was truth in the argument that high prices are put in place to control demand, why, for instance, have bus companies for decades held reserve fleets of elderly vehicles that only hit the road at rush hour. If they wanted to control demand, they would limit the availability of buses, not meet the need.
Bus companies aquire reseve fleets by utilising stock that is past its best, occasionally, like Stage Coach, buying old stock from Hong Kong. The do that because it suits their business model and is worthwhile, if they were faced with buying new stock that was not justified buy the demand then they would no doubt raise prices to reduce demand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
The same goes for goods. Companies don't put a premium price on an item in demand to stop people buying. There is an argument, well researched over many years, that pricing at a given level above the competition can be percieved as an indicator of quality and actually increases desirability and demand. A good example is trainers.
Yes, the same goes for goods, if an item has a high demand that can only be met by increased production and that production can only be increased by capital expenditure then the price goes up to cut demand. It is a common tool, I am suprised that you have a problem with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
At last!...and for many people the quickest and cheapest way is by car, which is also more convenient than queing in all weathers for buses/trams/trains which are often overcrowded, dirty, don't run to time and subject their passengers to other inconveniences..
But then that choice makes public transport overcrowed and unable to run to time. A very high price inflicted on those who use public transport by those who seem to have a good helping of an 'I'm alright Jack' attitude.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
I'm all in favour of integrated, efficient, value for money public transport. I don't see any guarantees that this will be in place before the introduction of the congestion charge or, if the targets are met, will be maintained after an initial honeymoon period. The history of public transport is strewn with broken and unattainable promises.
I see, it might all go pear shaped so we won't bother with any improvements to transport (and remember, the money isn't just being spent on public transport). Will they, do you think, really send the new trams back after six months? Will they rip up the new track as well?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
You obviously don't read the motoring press or talk to many motorists..
I have heard many insist that they should be able to park where they want without charge, but rarely, if ever, refer to parking fees as a tax.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
A small proportion, e.g. those who use cars for criminal activity or drive in a manner to cause noise nuisance or public alarm. The car has been a major force in providing social and economic mobility and provided far more income for governments to spend than has been used on providing roads and their attendant infrastructure...
No Phil, a very large proportion use their cars in an anti-social manner. they block and break up pavements, they block junctions, they drive at excessive speed, they deliberately impeded buses and so on.
Maybe the car has been a major force, but times change and we have to start facing up to the fact that there is not an infanite amount of either fuel or road space
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Blinkhorn
Why shouldn't it receive the money anyway? If an area needs the money to advance to the benefit of all its citizens, a government that wishes to create work, which can find billions to fight foreign wars and bail out banks without any real sanction on most of those who have taken massive bonuses for running schemes - which even a drop of common sense would show would end in disaster - can well afford the money.
It should receive the money anyway, but that is very unlikely to happen, surely better to get the money and then get the likes of Boris to undo the CC, the present stance is cutting off nose to spite face.
A quick one to ponder Phil whilst you worry about highly taxed motorist.
In the 1980's I worked as a tree thinner. My weekly fuel bill for my car was around five pounds, for my chain saw, twenty five pounds.
28/11/08, 03:53 PM
In addition the importance of the motor industry to a country's economy should be obvious - even to a Luddite. Have a look at the state of GM and Ford vis a vis the US economy at present.
Linear Mode
