Road pricing bill before Commons

[VectraMan]

1 - an absolute sh!t load of investment gets carried out to increase the capacity and quality.

And it's not just the money, it's the level of disruption whilst all the work was being carried out as well. The rail network would have to get worse for a number of years before it starts to get better, and for that reason it won't happen.

Our train network is running at near 100% capacity and people are being priced off at high demand times. So if you price them off where do they go? Back into their cars. If they are priced out of these then where do they go then?

To the dole queue presumably.

The only way out of this I can see is to encourage large numbers of people to work at home. But the government don't get any revenue that way, so it's not likely to happen.

[IR35 Avoider]

From BBC HYS: This has nothing whatsoever to do with congestion. There will be no reduction in traffic because 99.9% of people will still need to drive a car. They'll simply just pay more for it, and NuLabour are very aware of this because they have done nothing to improve or introduce any alternatives.

The principal aims of this absolute travesty are:

1. Increase revenue
2. Track movement of the law obiding populace
3. Create more admin jobs
4. £billions Contracts for their friends' companies

CivilWar I'mWithBorisJohnson

Spot on.

Economic theory, published statistics relating to the London congestion charge and my daily commuting experience through central London since 1992 all confirm that charging people for using the roads will reduce the number of cars. So you and the person you quote saying there will be no reduction in traffic are simply wrong.

[IR35 Avoider]

I said I wouldn't mind paying if there was less congestion, its called a 'congestion charge' is it not? So if I have to pay it I would expect to see less congestion but I won’t because the local public transport is not up to the job. That is my logic.

You will see less congestion. Some people who earn less than you and for whom the charge is to expensive will probably do one of the following.

• Share cars
• Take bus/coach, which might be a new service catering for the market created by the charge
• move closer to work
• get a job closer to home
• etc.

I commute daily through London congestion charge zone. Although I won't say the charge has made a huge difference to the typical time a journey takes, it has made a huge improvement to how consistent the times are from one day to the next. Before the congestion charge, a single incident could turn a one hour journey into hours of gridlock, that hardly ever happens any more.

The charge needs to be raised a lot more though, to de-congest the roads to the point where buses are completely reliable. And all exemptions should be eliminated; not even buses and taxis should be exempt. (In London you do get traffic jams consisting entirely of queues of buses and/or taxis disappearing into the distance.) Also, especially to be effective on buses and taxis, the charge has to be per mile rather than per day, i.e. proper road charging as opposed to the crude system we have now.

[IR35 Avoider]

Public transport is not an alternative for everybody - we all know this dispite what dang might say.

A while ago I had a role on the south side of manchester. I have just done a route plan on the aa website and it's a total of 24.8 miles and that is going around the M60 (around the outskirts of manchester rather than the shorter straight line which public transport would use. (i.e. into the middle and out again) Total travel time was estimated to be 38mins by car - I found it to be less than this as I started early to avoid traffic.

There is NO WAY AT ALL that I could work at this location AND go by public transport AND fit 8 hours in the office. There was also no way I could get to the office for 9. Below is the earliest I could get there.

It was not possible to get a route from home to the site for a 9 am start

Below is what I would need to do to get there for 10

Bus Depart: 7:59 Scarfield Drive Service Number: 461
Provider: Rossendale Transport
Arrive: 8:30 Bury Interchange HAYMARKET ST
Walk Depart: 8:30* Bury Interchange HAYMARKET ST
Arrive: 8:31* BURY INTERCHANGE (Metrolink), BURY (TOWN CENTRE), Bury
Metro Depart: 8:42 BURY INTERCHANGE (Metrolink), BURY (TOWN CENTRE), Bury Provider: Metrolink
Arrive: 9:19 STRETFORD (Metrolink), STRETFORD (METROLINK), Trafford
Walk Depart: 9:19* STRETFORD (Metrolink), STRETFORD (METROLINK), Trafford
Arrive: 9:22* Edge Ln/Stretford Tram Stop (stop K)
Bus Depart: 9:31* Edge Ln/Stretford Tram Stop (stop K) Service Number: 23
Provider: Stagecoach Manchester
Arrive: 9:41* Barlow Moor Road/Barlow Hall Road
Walk Arrive: 9:42*


So just a little under 2 hours to get to work. However, the latest I could set off for home was 16:13.

Depart: 16:13* Walk to: Princess Rd/Barlow Moor Rd (stop E)
Bus Depart: 16:24 Princess Rd/Barlow Moor Rd (stop E) Service Number: 101
Provider: Stagecoach Manchester
Arrive: 16:45 Piccadilly Gardens (stop N)
Walk Depart: 16:45* Piccadilly Gardens (stop N)
Arrive: 16:46* PICCADILLY GARDENS (Metrolink), MANCHESTER PICCADILLY GA, Manchester
Metro Depart: 16:52 PICCADILLY GARDENS (Metrolink), MANCHESTER PICCADILLY GA, Manchester Provider: Metrolink
Arrive: 16:57 MANCHESTER VICTORIA, MANCHESTER VICTORIA STAT, Manchester
Walk Depart: 16:57* MANCHESTER VICTORIA, MANCHESTER VICTORIA STAT, Manchester
Arrive: 16:58* MANCHESTER VICTORIA (rail)
Rail Depart: 17:03 MANCHESTER VICTORIA (rail) Provider: Northern Rail
Arrive: 17:25 ROCHDALE (rail)
Walk Depart: 17:25* ROCHDALE (rail)
Arrive: 17:27* Maclure Rd/Rochdale Rail Stn (stop D)
Bus Depart: 17:41* Maclure Rd/Rochdale Rail Stn (stop D) Service Number: 471
Provider: First
Arrive: 17:45 Rochdale Bus Station SMITH ST
Bus Depart: 17:53 Rochdale Bus Station SMITH ST Service Number: 461
Provider: Rossendale Transport
Arrive: 18:04 Scarfield Drive
Walk Arrive: 18:11*

So It would take another 2 hour commute to get home. And this is providing that everything runs to time. So 38mins each way or 4 hours commuting allowing only 7.5 hours in the office. OK where I live is a smallish village 2-3 miles from Rochdale (and 12 from Manchester city centre), but I'm hardly in the back of beyond. My destination was just off Princess Parkway - one of the major routes in and out of Manchester.

All timings come from the GMPTE journey planner.

I fully agree with all the people who say that for (insert relevant journey example) a car is the only option. What they (wrongly) won't accept is that not making the journey at all is a valid option.

It's no more valid to assume that society should pay for the road space you use than it would be to assume they should pay for the cost of petrol, train tickets, bus tickets or taxi fares associated with a journey you want to make.

The point of congestion charging is to make you pay for the cost you impose on society by making that journey. If the car is the only practical option for that journey and the road-pricing cost makes the journey non-viable, then (if it's a commute) you have to either work somewhere different or live somewhere different. If the charge did force these kinds of choices on some people, it wouldn't achieve it's objective of reducing congestion.

By correctly pricing road-space, congestion-charging improves economic efficiency. More productive people (= higher earners) can travel further, less productive people (= lower earners) are forced out of their way. More productive people are more efficiently distributed among available jobs, less productive not, but overall there is a net gain.

[The Lone Gunman]

By correctly pricing road-space, congestion-charging improves economic efficiency. More productive people (= higher earners) can travel further, less productive people (= lower earners) are forced out of their way. More productive people are more efficiently distributed among available jobs, less productive not, but overall there is a net gain.

Maybe, but that is not how it works is it.
Current policy does not look at the whole picture.
The majority of commuters entering the congestion charge area live outside the area because the particular area where they work is beyond their means for living.
If these commuters stopped commuting then London would grind to a halt. The high earners you speak of live in London, they can afford to. The low earners are forced out and have to commute.
An alternative solution would be to make it illegal for anyone earning more than 30K to live in greater London. Force the high earners out and let them commute. Bring house prices within the reach of Nurses, teachers and road sweepers.

Congestion charges are a tax, what is more they are a sign of poor performance of those doing the charging. Had they managed the Country properly we would have a public transport system to be proud of and a diversity of working locations that would not require millions of people to be in one place while the rest of the Country has no work.

[BrilloPad]

Had they managed the Country properly we would have a public transport system to be proud of and a diversity of working locations that would not require millions of people to be in one place while the rest of the Country has no work.

lets move Parliament up to Burnley. current building to be flats.

[The Lone Gunman]

lets move Parliament up to Burnley. current building to be flats.

Not sure about Burnley, how about Birmingham? Central location, good communication routes and an International airport.

Current building should remain as Government building, possibly as a museum/tourist attraction.

I don't want ot remove Londons Capital City status, I am just saying that with better thinking the whole of GB could benefit. It is not just Scotland and Wales that feel they are marginalised by an ever increasing focus on London.
London is suffering because of it. All the infra-structure is collapsing, yet the powers that be seem to want to load even more on.
Why not look at alternatives? Why not make Scotland or the North West into enterprise zones? Pump loads of money into a (deprived) area, give it the best IT capability in GB (possibly the world) and give incentives for IT firms to base there.
Stop subsidising Londons airports and give the others in the UK a chance.

There is so much that could be done and it would have a knock on with congestion and green issues and housing costs and...........

[Troll]

Not sure about Burnley, how about Birmingham? Central location, good communication routes and an International airport.

Current building should remain as Government building, possibly as a museum/tourist attraction.

I don't want ot remove Londons Capital City status, I am just saying that with better thinking the whole of GB could benefit. It is not just Scotland and Wales that feel they are marginalised by an ever increasing focus on London.
London is suffering because of it. All the infra-structure is collapsing, yet the powers that be seem to want to load even more on.
Why not look at alternatives? Why not make Scotland or the North West into enterprise zones? Pump loads of money into a (deprived) area, give it the best IT capability in GB (possibly the world) and give incentives for IT firms to base there.
Stop subsidising Londons airports and give the others in the UK a chance.

There is so much that could be done and it would have a knock on with congestion and green issues and housing costs and...........

that's exactly what they used to do with traditional industries-locate the factories in places like Liverpool or Scotland, but the beauty of IT is that it is easily locatable anywhere for minimal costs so I'm not sure you would have to give incentives.

To solve London's problems you would have to relocate Government, Civil Service and the City of London (already happening to a degree with Canary Wharf) and possibly the Monarchy to get a meaningful population exodus.

The trouble is I can't see Government working properly unless all moved together (FTSE100 companies would also follow & move their head offices) so you would only transplant the problem elsewhere

Also wherever you moved all of those would de facto become the Capital

[BoredBloke]

I think London should be seen as a special case, mainly because it has fairly good public tranport and because there are a lot of large employers who still employ lots of people within its centre. Most cities though are simply shops and businesses to service these shops. The big office blocks have long since moved to out of town developments where public transport is non existant. So as I said before, London works to a point because you are moving people in and out only. Manchester for example would requre the ability to move people around the edges. And it is this around the edges which doesn't work.

[Paddy]

This board must be full of disguised permies. How anyone suggest that a contractor mover nearer to his workplace?

For the next four weeks I need to travel from Hampshire to West Sussex three times a week.

By public transport I would have to leave at 07:00 and I would arrived 11:30 (if the trains and buses were running on time) The latest time to leave before the last connection is 15:10.

By car it takes 1 hour 10 mins.

The journey by public transport is twice the mileage and costs £62.00 on top of that the public transport is subsidized by we the taxpayers to about a third of the cost so the journey costs in real terms about £78 .

By car it costs me £12 including car expenses and diesel. Out of this £12 government or tax-payers receive about £9 so the cost is really about £3 plus tax. There is a difference of £75. This is private enterprise on the make.