Road pricing bill before Commons

[Addanc]

I'd actually go for road charging if it meant No Road Tax and No Duty. That is, it replaced all motoring taxes. But you know that it will be in addition to the current taxes.

I believe the Government already takes some 30 billion plus out of motorists; only a small percentage of that goes back into road and transport.

[BoredBloke]

"I don't know what you are trying to say, but I've decided to argue against you anyway."

I've looked at the comment I made and can't see where it mentions road pricing. All I was trying to point out was how public transport fails when you move away from people from the outside of the city going in and out and move towards these same people needing to go around the edges, since many business are located on the outskirts of a city rather than in the centre.

I'm for pricing if it means the other taxes are removed.

Also, there has to be some means of making a choice regarding the price paid. The CC in London is a known amount based on you making the decision to drive in. The pay as you go option revolves around roads being priced depending on their levels of congesstion. So while driving, will I be informed of the pence/pounds per mile before I make the decision to travel down a road or simply hit with a bill afterwards? Will I be informed of prices of other roads so that I can choose to use them. What will happen when these become congessted? Will the direction of travel make a difference? e.g. going into London on the A40 is busy, but it's not busy traveling out - would both sides of the road have the same charge?

[dang65]

You are lucky because you have a means of public transport which suits your role and location. Not everybody is in that position.

I'm not lucky, I'm flexible. Manchester Airport isn't my local train station, but it's a station which has a direct train to near where I work. Public transport may not be convenient for a lot of people, but I reckon it is viable for the vast majority of the population, if they could be bothered.

You've just added 1.5 miles to your journey which you hadn't mentioned before (or I misread your statement about living in a village 3 miles from Rochdale - it's become a house 4.5 miles from Rochdale train station), but 4.5 miles is still only about 15 minutes pootling along on a bike without any particular effort.

I'm not trying to dictate to you here. You're a free citizen and no one's going to stop you using your car, as long as you pay for it. I just think you're in denial. (And I don't mean the one in Egypt.)

[Zorba]

That's right, yes. People will carry on paying whatever it costs to drive, because they can't be bothered to travel less conveniently. I would say that's a pretty good definition of 'luxury' really.

People will carry on buying bars of soap because they can't be bothered to render their own animal fats over a fire for hours on end. Does that make your soap a luxury? Ditto raising your own livestock, or tanning leather. The point is that the actual evaluation of whether the journey via public transport is worthwhile or not has to take place - you conveniently left out my comment about London, and tried to make it sound like a flat assumption that people can [i[never[/i] be bothered to take public transport. This is not the case - however, to tip the balance the public transport option must be made more attractive.

[dang65]

People will carry on buying bars of soap because they can't be bothered to render their own animal fats over a fire for hours on end. Does that make your soap a luxury? Ditto raising your own livestock, or tanning leather.

I wouldn't really include the manufacturing process. That's not really something that individuals have done for several centuries - there would always be a specialist miller or baker or butcher etc etc.

A better analogy would be dishwashers and washing machines, which I'm sure most of us use, simply because we can't be bothered to do it by hand. And why should we when that's such a tiresome chore and these machines can do it more quickly and with less effort. But they are still luxury goods and no one would die if they were suddenly taken away.

I did understand your original post, and it's very true that there is always a tipping point where the hassle of public transport is outweighed by the convenience of a car. But I still maintain that it's convenience and not necessity. What would the pro-car types on here do if they were banned from driving (obviously unjustly and not through any actual fault of their own, just coz of a bent copper or something)? My theory is that it's banned car drivers you see cycling with no lights, weaving about the road, wearing black clothing in the dark and jumping red lights. But that's just a theory.

[Vito]

That's right, yes. People will carry on paying whatever it costs to drive, because they can't be bothered to travel less conveniently. I would say that's a pretty good definition of 'luxury' really.

Its about time...as living creatures with a limited shelf life time is our most precious resource...

I'm currently travelling to London which happens to be quicker (although much more expensive) by train...so I take the train. However, if I travel to see my kids, it is much quicker by car, so I take the car...

Is getting home an hour earlier to see my kids a luxury...maybe...but then isn't everything?

I have a friend who lives in a mobile home quite happily, and doesn't see why I need a house...does that mean that houses are luxuries?

I have a mobile phone...thats a luxury...

I've just had a Dairy Milk...a luxury...

I will go home and watch my TV...a luxury

Most things in all of our daily lives are luxuries...

99% of the adult population have to make a conscious decision how and where to spend our cash, very few of us are able to have everything. As such, we will all buy the luxuries that give us the biggest pay back...to some that might be the comfort of a nice car...to another it might be a 5* holiday every year, and to others it may be spending every night down the pub...

[BoredBloke]

"You've just added 1.5 miles to your journey which you hadn't mentioned before (or I misread your statement about living in a village 3 miles from Rochdale - it's become a house 4.5 miles from Rochdale train station), but 4.5 miles is still only about 15 minutes pootling along on a bike without any particular effort."

Are you trying to be stupid? Imagine if you will a triangle. The Bus stop in our village is point A. It is .5 miles from my house. It is 3 miles to point B, the BUS station. As the BUS station is for busses and I need a train, I have to go onto point C, the TRAIN station. It's a 1 mile walk from the BUS station to the TRAIN. Hang on I'll draw you a map.


Bus Stop Bus Station
A ------------------3m-------------- B
!
!
!
1m
!
!
C
Train Station

Nowhere have I given any indication of the distance between the train station and my house.

However you are focusing in on one aspect of the journey.

So now we are using a bike for the first chunk OK, another mode of transport to add to the list. So I get to the train station. Provided there is somewhere to lock my bike up, I take my clothes and my laptop and get on the train. I then get into Manchester and walk another mile to catch another bus/train/donkey/whatever.

By your estimate it was going to be 1.5 hours commuting. This did not include the above little step, suppose we say a further 20 mins for that journey. After all, if you miss a train by 1 sec, you are not going to be able to make up time on the rest of the journey. But you have failed to include the time taken to get from Alderley edge train station, up to the site. I don't know Alderley Edge that well, but suppose the wait and the journey adds another 5 mins

So my simple maths means that the BEST I can do is leave the house at about 6:38, to catch the 6:58 train. Then 1.5 hours from there and 5 mins at the other end. At the other end I arrive sweaty after the cycling and walking so I have to have a shower - I assume they have facilities onsite, although many companies do not. So 10 mins showering and I should be at my desk at say 8:45. So to do this I'd have to be up at 6.

In the car, if I were up at 6, I'd still be out of the house at 6:38 (for sake of argument), but I would be onsite at 7:38 and would not need the shower. So I'd be available for work at 7:38.

Then on the way home. I'd have to factor in my 2 hours return. I have to do 8 hours, meaning that the earliest I can leave at 16:45. I then have 2hours worth of cycling/bus/train to go meaning the earliest I can be home at is 18:45. But in the car, as I started at 7:38, I can head off earlier at 15:38. I would have another 1 hour jaunt back in the car on un congested roads due to travelling outside of peak hours and be back at home in time to watch Blue Peter.

[Zorba]

But I still maintain that it's convenience and not necessity. What would the pro-car types on here do if they were banned from driving (obviously unjustly and not through any actual fault of their own, just coz of a bent copper or something)?

To return to naff analogies (sorry but I can't think of better ones today), I light candles at home during a power cut. When the power comes back, I put the candles away. The pro-car types (myself, at present, included) would have no choice but to use public transport or cadge a lift. I guess what I'm getting at is, do you assume that everything that is not the most basic option is a luxury, or do luxuries evolve (degrade?) into necessities (or at least lesser luxuries) over time? One could say that chocolate is a luxury but you'd be a hard person to deny people the right to have it in their weekly shop.

My theory is that it's banned car drivers you see cycling with no lights, weaving about the road, wearing black clothing in the dark and jumping red lights. But that's just a theory.

I agree on this one. 'Proper' cyclists don't really hinder other road users. I would have to add seasonal cyclists to this though, who come out about now in an effort to lose weight or get fit for the summer.

[BoredBloke]

"A better analogy would be dishwashers and washing machines, which I'm sure most of us use, simply because we can't be bothered to do it by hand. And why should we when that's such a tiresome chore and these machines can do it more quickly and with less effort. But they are still luxury goods and no one would die if they were suddenly taken away."

I'd hate to live in your world. I could walk to work, but instead I have a machine I use.

You don't need a washer you could give it up and use a laundrette. For you the effort needed to use public tranport is not as much as the effort I would have to use to do the same and to be honest, the chances of my route of various forms of transport actually connecting are somewhere between none and none. So to me, for the route described, I do not have a viable alternative. Simple as that. So to use your analogy, it's either a washing machine or the stream as we don't have a laundrette.

[Churchill]

"A better analogy would be dishwashers and washing machines, which I'm sure most of us use, simply because we can't be bothered to do it by hand. And why should we when that's such a tiresome chore and these machines can do it more quickly and with less effort. But they are still luxury goods and no one would die if they were suddenly taken away."

I'd hate to live in your world. I could walk to work, but instead I have a machine I use.

You don't need a washer you could give it up and use a laundrette. For you the effort needed to use public tranport is not as much as the effort I would have to use to do the same and to be honest, the chances of my route of various forms of transport actually connecting are somewhere between none and none. So to me, for the route described, I do not have a viable alternative. Simple as that. So to use your analogy, it's either a washing machine or the stream as we don't have a laundrette.

Rochdale is full of old washerwomen!