PDA

View Full Version : Congestion Mileage Tax & Road Tax Scams


modtinbasher
27th Nov 2006, 11:33
Tinbashette reports that someone on Radio 2 this am said that "any congestion charge really had got to be high for it to have any effect"

Again, I ask the question, what will happen to the monies collected? Will MPs racing between their constituencies be exempt? Will Tesco (and the like) haulage vehicles be exempt?

Assuming that we see the end of New Labour somewhen, do you think that Dave's babes will carry on with all this twaddle?

Beetlejuice
27th Nov 2006, 11:56
Of course they will! It's the law somewhere that Opposition Parties can say what they like but if they get into Government, then it all changes and they cannot change anything because that's the way the previous lot made sure it would happen. They then blame it on the previous Government for the next 15 years! Just look at the railways!

ORAC
27th Nov 2006, 12:02
Don´t be silly. Those with the money will just go out and buy a Lexus RX400h, hybrid SUV or something similar. (3300cc V6, 20mpg in town)

Of course, as soon as Ken increases the size of the congestion zone to catch more commuters, everyone living in Chelsea, Knightsbridge, Belgravia and Kensington will get a 90% discount anyway. So they probably won´t care... :hmm:

Windy Militant
27th Nov 2006, 13:21
I was amused to hear the comment sent in to Terry Wogan this morning which ran on th lines of "The money that they make charging us will go into building new roads that we can't afford to go on! is it me......" :ugh:

Gouabafla
27th Nov 2006, 15:46
We live in Southampton, and our parents live in Yorkshire and the North East. Over the last twenty years we've seen the roads improved greatly. The whole route is now dual carriageway or motorway and the M1 has been extended northwards. However, despite these improvements the congestion has grown so much that journey times are now longer than they were when we were first married in the early eighties (just as well we are not driving the leaky rusty machine that we had back in those days). The only way to get a good trip is to drive through the night - though I note that more and more people are now doing that.

We have to face up to it, we have a huge problem and there is no simple answer. However, whenever anyone suggests a solution (other than tarmac-ing over the whole of the country) it is shouted down. I would love to hear some serious alternative solutions along with suggestions of who is going to pay for them. Either that, or I'd like to get a satellite dish on my car so that I can sit and Prune while stuck in the eternal traffic jam that is going to develop somewhere in the Midlands if we don't do something soon.

yakker
27th Nov 2006, 16:18
Gouabafla, a 3G broadband data card and your laptop is what you need. My son travelled from Southampton to Northampton as a car passenger and maintained a connection all the way.

I agree about the 80's, I drove some 40K miles every year and could average 80mph on many journeys. Now with all the new roads lucky if I manage to average 40, around the M25 30.

Part of the problem is women, they are on the road as well now, doubling the car traffic. Plus we have all the foriegn trucks clogging the roads. The Government could at least charge the trucks visiting the UK a daily rate. Log them in at the docks, charge them before they leave on the basis of the number of days spent here.

Another answer is to stop building roads, stop charging (that will upset Ken), we will then reach log jam. Alternative travel methods will then be found without legislation.

747-436
27th Nov 2006, 16:44
Part of the problem round some parts of the M25 is where the nice new bit from the M3 up to the M40 goes from 6 lanes to 3 or 4 lanes, obviously this is going to create queues, which it does. They should widen the whole lot to 6 lanes.

Traffic is even bad quite early in the morning these days as everyone is leaving earlier and earlier to beat the traffic.

A per mile congestion charge as is being suggested won't cut congestion, it will merly shift it elsewhere. If it is expensive to drive on main roads people will drive down side roads.
If it is expensive to drive at peak times, ie 0800 in the morining people will just leave for work earlier, ie 0630 rather than paying £1 a mile.

Krystal n chips
27th Nov 2006, 17:00
Part of the problem is women, they are on the road as well now, doubling the car traffic. .

:confused:Erm, to the best of my knowledge, members of the opposite sex ( they also have the vote in case you missed the announcement ) were happily driving around the UK in the dark ages of the --80's----unless I had made a very grave error of perception when I was being carted around Warks in her ladyship's 220sl--the square box type 2 seat sports one ( in case I have the wrong numbers ) ---and she also drove alone as I recall.


Did you by any chance, write those Harry Enfield sketches "Women, know your place " ?----if so, I claim my £10 :E

BlooMoo
27th Nov 2006, 17:10
Part of the problem is women, they are on the road as well now

Let's get 'em off the road then. Time for a 'woman driver' tax surely - they can't drive proper anyway (eg roundabouts:rolleyes: , parking:} ).

They're pretty handy for driving men back from the pub though so the right balance would be a scheme similar to the congestion charge i.e. between 7am and 7pm women must pay a toll of £50 (say) to drive on the road, any road.

BM:)

High Wing Drifter
27th Nov 2006, 18:43
However, whenever anyone suggests a solution (other than tarmac-ing over the whole of the country) it is shouted down.Simple, we need more regional airports and routes! I suspect this solution will be shouted down too.

Gouabafla
27th Nov 2006, 19:04
Simple, we need more regional airports and routes! I suspect this solution will be shouted down too.

It's part of the solution. I already fly if I'm travelling from Southampton to see my mam in Sunderland, but if Mrs G and the kids are coming with me (not to mention the dog) flying is too expensive. A better rail system coupled with cheap car rentals near to the stations would be a good way forward, too.

lexxity
27th Nov 2006, 19:05
How about an integrated public transport system?

Or is that just too wacky an idea?

brain fade
27th Nov 2006, 19:12
Lexxity

You're correct. Trouble is.... it will cost loads of money.

This (and all other) governments prefer YOU to give THEM money, not the other way around.

By and large folks only use the roads-and put up with all the aggro involved because, guess what?

THERE IS NO FUGGING ALTERNATIVE!:mad:

Public tpt is not joined up, too slow and too bloody expensive! Also it starts too late in the morning and it finishes too early at night.

Oooooh. Makes me mad!:*

Gertrude the Wombat
27th Nov 2006, 19:36
Again, I ask the question, what will happen to the monies collected?
They will replace other taxes. Some people think that the more voluntary tax paid and the less compulsory tax paid the better. This is what speed cameras do really rather well: numpties who choose to pay do pay, and everybody else gets services they haven't paid for.

419
27th Nov 2006, 20:20
How about an integrated public transport system
As long as it's not like the one that is now running around gatwick and Crawley.
http://www.fastway.info/all_about/home.htm
Originally estimated to cost £27 million, and at the last count was £8 million over budget (£35 million), and no one is willing to state what the final figure will be.
£35,000,000 + for a friggin bus service:mad:

BlooMoo
27th Nov 2006, 23:47
Some people think that the more voluntary tax paid and the less compulsory tax paid the better. This is what speed cameras do really rather well: numpties who choose to pay do pay

...all of which would have sounded jolly logical - if - you hadn't sandwiched the sentiment between :

They will replace other taxes.

...and...

and everybody else gets services they haven't paid for.

You're trying to fool all the people all the time, aren't you Gertrude?

BM:rolleyes:

High Wing Drifter
28th Nov 2006, 09:06
How about an integrated public transport system?It can't work without the most incredible sums being spent. We have far too much legacy. Also, commerce has become competative through flexibility. Many many people don't work near where they live and change jobs frequently to other parts of the country without moving house. An integrated public transport system is something that might have worked when people just wanted to commute to the cities, but now the mobile workforce is here to stay and their disperate needs cannot be met by busses and trains.

Flying Lawyer
28th Nov 2006, 12:50
Of course, as soon as Ken increases the size of the congestion zone to catch more commuters, everyone living in Chelsea, Knightsbridge, Belgravia and Kensington will get a 90% discount anyway. So they probably won´t care... The extension to the Zone won't make any difference to the overwhelming majority of residents of those boroughs because they use public transport to get to work, as they did so before the CC was introduced.
I suppose a small number (I'm not one) try to minimise their driving because of concern for the environment and/or congestion, but others don’t drive to work partly because they prefer to struggle with over-crowded tubes and buses than struggle through traffic jams and partly because most would have nowhere to park (except at astronomic cost) if they did drive. eg There are 34 houses in my street and a fairly high percentage of the residents work in the City: Only two of us drive in regularly; the others didn't even before the original tax was introduced.

I didn't respond to the so-called 'consultation' about the extension to the Zone. That was partly because it was a sham (the odious Livingstone was going to do what he wanted to do regardless) and partly because I was torn between principle (strongly opposed to the Congestion Charge) and the fact that, personally, I'd benefit significantly from the extended zone.
Original Zone: Up to £40 per week to drive from Chelsea to work (@ £8 per day) and the occasional draconian penalty when I forgot.
Extended Zone: An annual fee equivalent to £4 per week - and no risk of forgetting to pay.
A welcome improvement, but I still resent being forced to pay it in order to drive.

I can see an argument for charging people who don't live in the area, but charging residents to drive in their local area is outrageous and unfair. People who live in those boroughs make only a minute contribution to the congestion. If anyone should be made to pay, it should be those who don't live in the area and choose to drive in or through it. It's home to us.

Livingstone claims to be concerned about traffic congestion, but the fact is he's deliberately exacerbated existing problems and artificially created new ones, all to further his political objectives and prejudices. His ridiculous changes at Trafalgar Square, a crucial hub in central London, caused immediate chaos and continue to do so. Traffic was always heavy there, but at least it kept moving. Now, even with the CC Zone, it's dreadful.

A man who doesn't drive in charge of transport?
Great. :rolleyes:
Makes as much sense as putting King Herod in charge of babies' health and welfare.


"more regional airports and routes!" The Green lobby won't like that. :eek:


FL

Flying Lawyer
28th Nov 2006, 21:39
Typical Livingstone -

Feb 2003:
"I can't conceive of any circumstances in the foreseeable future where we would want to change the charge, although perhaps 10 years down the line it may be necessary."

Nov 2004:
"I have always said that during this term (of office) it will go up to at least £6."

April 2005:
Livingstone announces the charge will be increased to £8.

May 2006:
Livingstone supports increase to £10 by 2008. (Live tv debate)


The Mayoral Palace
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v146/FlyingLawyer/CityHalllondon.jpg

What they actually do there to need so many people and such an enormous building is a mystery to most of us. At the moment, the 'Mayor of London' has very little power - thankfully.



Why the increases in the poll tax on wheels, and the plans for yet more?

Unfortunately, the CC has given Livingstone some ring-fenced revenue - and with it power. As one of his supporters, and supporter of the CC, conceded in a newspaper article, 'For Ken Livingstone, more than for most people, that is an aphrodisiac.'
And worrying.
Even more worrying, with his £136,677 salary + allegedly about half as much again for 'expenses' + public funds used to finance Livingstone's extravagant 'Mayor of London PR campaigns', he may be there for some time yet.


FL

B Fraser
28th Nov 2006, 21:53
Politicians....... even their building is bent.

BlooMoo
28th Nov 2006, 22:29
believe it or not, but the 'carbon footprint' of that building is but a fraction of that of the trees on the bottom left.

It therefore makes more sense to increase the size of the State. Unless that is we wealth creating taxpayers want to burn in hell for being the sole cause of all human suffering...

BM:yuk:

Flying Lawyer
28th Nov 2006, 23:07
BlooMoo

Do you happen to know how much the building cost?

I remember it was some enormous sum - as to be expected for a Foster creation - but have forgotten what it was.


FL

BlooMoo
29th Nov 2006, 00:34
FL - as far as I'm aware it was free.

BM

Krystal n chips
29th Nov 2006, 05:48
Just curious here. Does our Ken have an official vehicle ( no wishful responses alluding to tumbril's and boats heading for Traitors Gate please :E )
for conveying his many and er, "eclectic" guests around---can't see him actually subjecting them to the vagaries of the Northern Line after all--strangely enough---and if so, what is it ? .

If it's any consolation, the Cromwellian Republic of Manchester are now "actively considering" congestion charging as well---which is rather ironic given their capacity to build office blocks / condo's on every available inch of land. not to mention designing a traffic flow system that induces grid lock as a matter of course.

eal401
29th Nov 2006, 07:06
Cromwellian Republic of Manchester are now "actively considering" congestion charging as well
Are they? have you got some more information on that?

We like visiting Manchester, would be a shame to have to stop.

BlooMoo
29th Nov 2006, 10:35
FL - I'm mistaken, apologies. City Hall apparently wasn't free...

Costed at : GBP20m

Built for : GBP65m

That's really not bad performance - not much more than just a 300% cost overrun. I think Foster&Co must feel lucky to have got away with the shirts on their backs - these State Sector folks are just razor sharp, time and time again we see it from them, TOTAL competence, professionals to the core.

BM

419
29th Nov 2006, 10:58
City hall did cost about £65 million, but this wasn't paid for by the Government. They had to pay to have it fitted out, and it is leased from the developers.
the Greater London Authority has a 25-year lease on City Hall and will pay an annual rent of £36.50 per square foot (£393 per square metre). This is frozen until 2007. The developer will meet the cost of construction and the Government will meet the cost of fitting out the building. The developers expect that overall construction costs for City Hall and related infrastructure will be £65m.

Flying Lawyer
29th Nov 2006, 12:59
Thanks BlooMoo & 419. :ok:


One of Livingstone's latest plans is to instal solar panels at the Mayoral Palace - at an estimated cost of no less than £560,000.
It's estimated they will reduce energy bills by £10,000 per year, so: Spending £560,000 will save us £210,000 in the 21 years the lease has left to run. :rolleyes:


Krystal n chips
I don't think he has an official car - bad for his image. Instead, a car & chauffeur are hired as required and he rides around in taxis the rest of the time - except when holding press 'photo calls' showing him travelling on a bus or the tube.



It's not surprising he's increased the Congestion Charge and wants to increase it further, and extended the Zone and wants to extend it further - for environmental reasons, of course ;). It's guaranteed revenue over which he has control - and gives him more power which, to Livingstone, is like oxygen to others.

The self-proclaimed man of the people described his recent junket to Cuba and Venezuela, which cost us at least £36,000, as "modest".
(That's a preliminary estimate made public after calls by members of the London Assembly - the mayor's office said it had yet to calculate the costs of "other facilities" used by Livingstone and his entourage.)

Livingstone and his flunkeys stopped in Cuba, where he spoke in praise of Fidel Castro.
His plan was to go on to Venezuala but that fell through when President Chavez, whom he descibes as a friend, said he was too busy to see him.

Livingstone:
"Given that Cuba plays a central role in the international Olympic and sporting movement, particularly in fields like boxing, the costs of my visit to Cuba are modest and in line with the costs incurred on other mayoral trips.
"Similarly, the costs of the advance trip by key staff to Venezuela to prepare for the visit were also modest."


Another 'modest mayoral trip' was to China in April. That junket cost us about £40,000.
Asked what he felt about being at the site of the Tiananmen Square massacre, Red Ken dismissed it as comparable to protests at Trafalgar Square.
When it was pointed out the Metropolitan Police had not shot or killed anyone during the poll tax riot in London in 1990, he said "If you go back to some of the early instances you will find many cases where innocent protesters were hacked to pieces with sabres (in Britain). There is no such thing as one country with a perfect record."
An estimated 3,000 protesters were killed by troops and tanks in the Tiananmen Square massacre.



FL

Wedge
29th Nov 2006, 13:22
A man who doesn't drive in charge of transport?
Great.

Makes as much sense as putting King Herod in charge of babies' health and welfare.

What the line of thinking behind that point FL? I can't see what possible difference it makes that he doesn't drive. What makes a motorist any more qualified to do the job? Unless you're saying he has a natural prejudice against motorists, not being one of them himself. Even then, it's irrelevant: there are far too many cars on London's roads, and the more people who use public transport, and the more revenue that can be raised for improving it (and the Congestion Charge does both those things), the better.

Speaking as a motorist myself, I think the Congestion Charge has been excellent for London. It certainly deters me from taking my car in, and in such an overpopulated city those that drive to work are acting selfishly, and it's right that they pay extra for the privilege.

I suspect you hold certain 'prejudices' about Mr Livingstone. ;)

To his credit, he commutes by Tube himself. I know that because I've seen him on the train.

ORAC
29th Nov 2006, 13:28
It's not surprising he's increased the Congestion Charge and wants to increase it further, and extended the Zone and wants to extend it further - for environmental reasons, of course . It's guaranteed revenue over which he has control If I recall correctly, the collection costs and fees associated with Capita´s contract absorb the entire charge.

A pair of French economists did a study of the charge (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-19355533-details/French+experts+brand+C-charge+a+%27failure%27/article.do;jsessionid=Wj2sFtKXY4HkhvdhTs1PrZXz4njW7Gr0CkRcSn yGl4kq0XT3f14W!-1059238085)and reckon that, after taking everything else into account, it costs London about 50 million a year to run.

Wedge
29th Nov 2006, 14:18
A pair of French economists did a study of the charge and reckon that, after taking everything else into account, it costs London about 50 million a year to run.

I wonder if this study was some sort of French practical joke, ORAC.

In the last financial year the charge made £89million profit to reinvest in public transport. However the economists did not include this surplus in their sums, saying it was a "tax" that prevented investment in other causes.

Ah, I see. They are saying the Charge cost £50 million, if you don't count the £89 million it made. :hmm:

Flying Lawyer
29th Nov 2006, 15:10
Wedge

What the line of thinking behind that point FL?
IMHO, someone who both drives and uses public transport is more likely to have a balanced view. (Although not necessarily if they are motivated by another over-riding agenda.)
I'm an enthusiastic driver (in more senses than one), but I also enthusiastically support improving public transport (both local and national) even though I don't often use it. I have no objection to paying my share towards that as a taxpayer. However, I resent someone who chooses not to drive forcing me to pay even more than that for the "privilege" (your word) of choosing to use my car rather than public transport. I already pay more for the "privilege" in the extremely high taxation on fuel.

Unless you're saying he has a natural prejudice against motorists
I am; he has.

Even then, it's irrelevant
Not IMHO.

there are far too many cars on London's roads
IMHO, an entirely reasonable number given the size/nature of the city.

the more people who use public transport, and the more revenue that can be raised for improving it, ................ the better.
I'm all in favour of revenue from fares being used to improve public transport. I also believe a significant contribution from central government funds is justified given that London is the capital/a major international city with a high volume of visitors from both this country and abroad.
However, I'm less than enthusiastic about people who don't use public transport having to pay more than those who do.

and the Congestion Charge does both those things
Does it?
Is the profit from the CC all used on improving public transport? I don't think it is.
Or is part of it used to finance his other ventures?

Speaking as a motorist myself, I think the Congestion Charge has been excellent for London.
As a fellow motorist, I don't.
I've driven almost daily in London for 31 years and cycled for about 3 years before that as a student. I know London traffic extremely well and have no hesitation in saying that although the CC has reduced the volume of traffic, that is largely off-set by Livingstone's concurrent measures in the Zone - and more than off-set in some areas.
eg Changing traffic lights sequence, and the Trafalgar Square absurdity where he's not only changed the lights sequence but removed the one-way 'roundabout' system which worked well. As a result, there are now long tailbacks in every road entering the Square - a key location for East-West traffic. Typically devious, he changed the sequence before the CC which caused chaos, then eased them a little when it was introduced and claimed it was evidence that the CC was working. Before he came to power, there wasn't a problem. ie Greater volume, but moving more efficiently. The tailbacks were no worse than at any other major cross-roads, and not as bad as at some. The congestion is far worse as a direct result of his actions.

it certainly deters me from taking my car in
Good for you. I'm all in favour of other people choosing not to use their cars.
I suspect we'd disagree about many issues re interfering with freedom of choice. I know your argument re freedom to drive/freedom to pay for (what you see as) the privilege. I disagree with it.
How often did you take it in before the CC - during the day, into what is now the CC Zone?
Where would you park if you took your car?
Are you saying you'd pay £3-4 per hour to park, but are deterred by the £8 per day CC?

in such an overpopulated city those that drive to work are acting selfishly, and it's right that they pay extra for the privilege.
As I'm sure you realise, I totally disagree with both those propositions.
Selfish?
It's interesting that, in areas relating to interfering with freedom of choice, those who wish to impose their own views on others aren't content simply to disagree, but often claim some sort of moral high ground. ;)

To his credit, he commutes by Tube himself.
To his credit? He'd be a fool if he didn't, and I'd never accuse him of that. Far from it; he's cunning and devious, and good at it.
Of course, his taxi and chauffered-car bills for other journeys are paid for by us in 'mayoral expenses',

I suspect you hold certain 'prejudices' about Mr Livingstone.
No, none at all.
I have contempt for him as a person, and disagree with his policies and most of his opinions. (I strongly agree with some opinions, none related to London.) My views about him are based upon a consideration of the things he's said and done over many years (since the days when he got control of the old GLC), and continues to say and do; they are not founded in prejudice.
In contrast, by way of illustration, I've disagreed with most (not all) of Tony Benn's views over many years, but I respect him. The same applies to Dennis Skinner.


Orac
You may be right.
I remember reading that the original £5 charge produced about half the revenue estimated so he increased it to £8. He'll keep increasing the charge and extending the zone until he gets the revenue he wants for his personal ambitions.



FL

High Wing Drifter
29th Nov 2006, 15:29
There is something altogeher cyinical about charging road users to fund transport improvements. It implies that they expect road use to continue, because if it didn't then the money for the public system would dry up...unless they increase fares, putting more people in cars...and so the wheel of tax continues.

Krystal n chips
29th Nov 2006, 17:12
Are they? have you got some more information on that?
We like visiting Manchester, would be a shame to have to stop.

This is one of many links on the topic. Please note the irony of the comment re the buses :rolleyes: --this from a city that embraced bus de-regulation with the same passion as troops returning from a stint somewhere hot and dusty ( not the best analogy but I'm sure you get the idea) to their loved one's. Not mentioned in this link though, is the, er little matter of expanding the pride and joy--the Metro-Link----or rather the cash needed to expand the system. The Metro-Link is another topic again. Not quite the success it is promoted as being re Public Transport as users would confirm--along with those who live near the various stations on the routes. Sadly, when the stations were built c 18 whenever, nobody had the foresight to realise that one day people would wish to park their cars in the narrow streets adjacent to many--or indeed that houses would also be built in these streets---not to mention trying to pay for your journey--bit like the lottery re the ticket machines. There are also a few other "little glitches" that occur from time to time, but the Metro-Link always takes pride of place of course.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/content/articles/2006/07/12/120706_congestion_feature.shtml


Thanks for the info FL. I should have surmised as much given that had he been running a gas guzzler for official business, the fact would have been spread all over the media by now. As for his largesse---or junkets to be more precise---seems to be a common trait amongst those in municipal authority---I really must stop reading "Rotten Boroughs" in such detail I suppose. :D

Wedge
29th Nov 2006, 19:12
As I'm sure you realise, I totally disagree with both those propositions.
Selfish?
It's interesting that, in areas relating to interfering with freedom of choice, those who wish to impose their own views on others aren't content simply to disagree, but so often claim to hold the moral high ground.

Freedoms are not indivisible, and this is a very good example of the principle. I'm certainly content to disagree with your view that it is wrong that you should pay for the privilege of driving your car into the zone. I don't see how defining it as 'selfish' however is a matter of opinion. What do you think would happen if everybody who works in London took their car to work? I think that if that were the case, London's roads would become simply impassable at peak times. I'm not going to quote statistics and estimates (I don't know if there are any), but given that the roads are already very congested, and working on the assumption that a far larger number of people don't take their car to work, it would seem to me that those who do, for reasons of comfort and convenience, are doing something that if everyone did, London's transport system would be untenable. That would appear to me to fall well within a reasonable definition of "selfish", eg "devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others."

I'm not trying to take the moral high ground, or appear a 'martyr' to my cause by not taking the car into London, you are right that parking is expensive and I'd certainly not use the car regularly on a route where I'd have to pay high parking charges, so I'd be deterred by those even without the charge. But the charge is an added disincentive. You could argue that parking charges are an equally unreasonable and unjust imposition on the 'freedom' of the motorist and that if you regard the right to take your car onto the roads as absolute, then your right to park it wherever you like free of charge, no matter what congestion you may be contributing to, should be equally absolute. Of course I don't agree that either are absolute rights, but then I don't have a nice empty parking space waiting for me in the Inns of Court every morning. ;)

I suspect we'd disagree about many issues re interfering with freedom of choice. I know your argument re freedom to drive/freedom to pay for (what you see as) the privilege. I disagree with it.

If you take the 'unjust imposition on freedoms' argument to its natural conclusion, you note that driving your car on public roads is not an absolute right, it is a 'privilege' we have always had to pay a high price for, whether in specific road taxes, income taxes or indirect taxes on fuel.

Without that tax revenue, there'd be no money to build and maintain roads. You'd be 'free' to own your own car, but you'd not be able to take it anywhere.

All the Congestion Charge does is provide a necessary further disincentive to commuters who might otherwise take the selfish decision to take their car into London and contribute further to London's considerable congestion and pollution.

Those who can afford to pay it, grudgingly or not, can choose to do so if they wish to drive to work in central London.

Flying Lawyer
30th Nov 2006, 10:30
Wedge

I’m surprised you begin with the proposition that describing an action as ‘selfish’ is not an expression of opinion. There’s a clue to the fallacy of that proposition later in your post where you say ‘That would appear to me to fall well within a reasonable definition of "selfish".’ The clue is in ‘appear to me’.

What do you think would happen if everybody who works in London took their car to work?
That’s the sort of response the jobsworths of this world often give when refusing to allow an exception to some rule.
‘What if everybody wanted to?’
'But they don't.'
''Err, well you can't anyway.'

However, I entirely agree: If everybody who works in London took their car to work it would be utter chaos.
Just as it would be if everybody who works in London decided to travel by bus.
Or if everybody who works in London decided to travel by underground.
Or if everybody who lives in Greater London/the suburbs decided to travel by commuter train.
But none of those things will ever happen because not everybody wants to do the same thing and/or at the same time.

Selfish ?
The overwhelming majority of my neighbours prefer to use public transport because they find it more convenient than driving in, and are not prepared to pay for parking. I prefer to drive in because I find it more convenient and am prepared to pay for parking because, for me, the convenience outweighs the cost. They do what suits them best and I do what suits me best yet, in your view, I'm being selfish. :confused:

given that the roads are already very congested
Agreed. (So is the public transport system.)
and working on the assumption that a far larger number of people don't take their car to work
Agreed.
it would seem to me that those who do, for reasons of comfort and convenience, are doing something that if everyone did, London's transport system would be untenable.
Agreed. (I assume you mean London's road system.)
Just as the bus or the tube or the commuter train system would be if everybody chose the same means of travel.

I'm not trying to take the moral high ground ………. by not taking the car into London
That isn’t what prompted my comment. (I suggested you wouldn’t drive in anyway, regardless of the Congestion Charge/environmental considerations, and you’ve come close to conceding that.) It was prompted by your assertion that those who don’t share your views on this issue are selfish. IMHO, in areas relating to restricting or removing freedom of choice, those who seek to impose their own views on others frequently claim to do so for some high moral reason.

‘a nice empty parking space waiting in the Inns of Court'
Yes, because I pay for it. The Inns are private property and, just like any other land-owner, are entitled to charge for use of their property. Seems reasonable to me.
Actually, there isn’t an empty space waiting for me; I hope there will be a space. The Inns sell more parking permits than there are places. Why? Because they know from experience (as I’ve suggested above) that not everyone wants to do the same thing at the same time. The system works. I’ve failed to get a space only about 2-3 times in 30 years. For about 10 minutes, I feel it’s outrageous that they sell more permits than there are places; then I come back to reality.

‘a privilege’.
I disagree. We must comply with various safety requirements relating to drivers and vehicles, and contribute to the cost of road building and maintenance, but I don’t regard driving on public roads as a privilege any more than I regard obtaining other goods/services for which we pay as a privilege.

All the Congestion Charge does is …… etc
Your opinion, not mine.
I don't think the CC is "necessary."
As for "selfish decision", if you believe commuters who choose not to use their cars make that choice out of concern not to contribute further to London's congestion and pollution, then IMHO you're deluding yourself. A tiny minority may, but the overwhelming majority choose the means of transport cheapest/most convenient for them.

Those who can afford to pay it (the CC), grudgingly or not, can choose to do so if they wish to drive to work in central London.
We are forced to pay it, grudgingly or not, if we wish to drive to work in central London.

FL

yakker
30th Nov 2006, 11:34
Looking at all the ground loop aerials being inserted in the national road system, charging for driving anywhere in the UK is nearer than we think.

green granite
30th Nov 2006, 11:35
The first thing to do is, as on the Continent, confine lorries to the inside lane on all dual carriageways and motorways.

Wedge
30th Nov 2006, 14:17
I must say I thought it was axiomatic that it was a more selfish mode of transport to drive than to take public transport, and I didn't think you'd take issue with that. Perhaps you are reading pejorative connotations into 'selfish' that aren't intended: we're all selfish, I certainly would drive to work rather than take public transport if it weren't so expensive and if I had a place to park at the other end.

The reasons, for the avoidance of doubt, I say driving it is a more selfish form of transport:

1. It's far more comfortable to drive, you are transported in comfortable and warm conditions from door to door, and there's no waiting around on train platforms on cold mornings for trains that won't come, and no being packed in like a cattle truck when the train does arrive. See the dictionary definition of 'selfish': "concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others" ;)

2. It's hugely uneconomic in terms of fuel consumption (and therefore more polluting) than using the bus/train to fuel a car.

3. It's therefore more damaging to the environment, and a waste of fossil fuel in comparison to the bus/train, modes of transport which achieve much lower average fuel consumption per passeneger.

4. In most cars (yours included I'd imagine) there are at least three empty seats every morning that could very well be used by other commuters wishing to make the same journey. So your car takes up a much greater proportion of road space per passenger than the bus. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me whatsoever that you should therefore pay more, as you are one person using far more road space, and contributing to more congestion, than you would if you took the decision to take the bus. FWIW for these reasons I don't accept for a moment that the roads would be equally chaotic if everyone took the bus, as they would be if everyone took their car.

I'd imagine all of those people (myself included) who are regularly subjected to the poor conditions on public transport would take the 'selfish' decision drive to work if it weren't so expensive, and that's my point. The congestion charge deters them from taking the selfish option, and in turn raises revenue to improve the conditions on public transport for commuters who are regularly subjected to the poor conditions referred to. It's a form of dual coercion to deter people from being 'selfish': the 'carrot' is better public transport, the 'stick' is the charge itself.

It makes sense to me.

Flying Lawyer
30th Nov 2006, 18:51
Wedge

Selfish
I don’t see any room for misunderstanding about my position.
You (post #29): “those that drive to work are acting selfishly”
Me (post #32): “I totally disagree”
”more selfish”
You now introduce a comparative. Given that I totally reject your basic premise (“those that drive to work are acting selfishly”), as between us, comparatives don’t arise. However, for the purpose of discussion: More selfish than whom? Are you saying those who use a bus or train are to some extent being selfish in doing so?
Perhaps you are reading pejorative connotations into 'selfish' that aren't intended.
I don’t know of any connotations of ‘selfish’ that aren’t pejorative.
OED: ‘concerned chiefly with one’s own personal profit or pleasure at the expense of consideration for others’ - much the same as your "devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others."

Your points:
1. You overlook the disadvantages of driving in – which deter many people. (See below.)
2. Agreed.
3. 'more damaging to the environment' – Agreed. 'a waste of fossil fuel' – Not in my opinion.
4. 'most cars ...... at least three empty seats ..... could very well be used by other commuters .....'
One in my case (unless a couple of toddlers need a lift to the City ;) ), but I accept your point. The American ‘Car Pool’ system offers incentives to drivers by allowing multi-occupant cars priority at entrances to busy freeways during peak times and to use 'Car Pool only' lanes. It’s even spawned internet services for commuters wishing to share. eg e-ride share (http://www.erideshare.com/carpool.php?city=Los%20Angeles)
I wouldn’t be against that here – but it might not be as effective because motorways stop well outside London (unfortunately, IMHO). Would you be happy to allow multi-occupant cars to use bus/taxi lanes?

I didn’t say the roads would be equally chaotic if everyone took the bus. I’m sorry if it was ambiguous. I meant there would be chaos in the bus system if everyone took the bus - just as your (accurate) assertion that there would be chaos on the roads if everyone drove in. But, not everybody wants to do the same thing and/or at the same time so the theoretical chaos will never arise.

I'd imagine all of those people who are regularly subjected to the poor conditions on public transport would take the 'selfish' decision drive to work if it weren't so expensive, and that's my point.
I know, and we disagree on that fundamental point. I don’t think they would.
You've said those who drive to work are acting selfishly, and referred to “…. commuters (on public transport) who might otherwise take the selfish decision to take their car ….” The only reasonable, implication is that you consider those who use public transport take an unselfish decision not to use their cars. IMHO, with the exception of a tiny minority, they choose the mode of transport which suits them best – in most cases public transport.
ie They don’t selflessly think ‘I’ll forego my “comfortable and warm car” because I don’t want to add to congestion and pollution’; they say ‘I couldn’t bear being stuck in all that traffic’ or, ‘Driving (for example) between Croydon to Blackfriars at peak periods would take me at least an hour and probably more whereas the Thames Link gets me there in 24 minutes and there’s a very frequent service.’

(The Congestion Charge) is a form of coercion
Agreed. :ok:
‘Coerce’ – to persuade an unwilling person to do something by using force or threats.
But, until now -
You: All the Congestion Charge does is provide a ….. disincentive ….. (People) can choose to (pay it) if they wish to drive etc.
Me: We are forced to pay it .…. if we wish to drive etc.
Which of those propositions fits the definition of coercion? ;)

All good fun.

FL

BlooMoo
30th Nov 2006, 20:31
I must say I thought it was axiomatic that it was a more selfish mode of transport to drive than to take public transport

You think wrong Wedge. By your own words...

Without that tax revenue, there'd be no money to build and maintain roads

To therefore avoid paying said tax, as you admit you do, you are making a selfish decision at the expense of those who wish or indeed need to drive. Surely, to avoid being selfish, all those who can drive, should - that way the tax revenue is maximised which means more good stuff for all - that's Marx mate. Somehow I feel you have a 'but there are degrees of selfishness' speech coming up...

Axiomatic - adj 1: evident without proof or argument; "an axiomatic truth"; "we hold these truths to be self-evident"

BM:rolleyes:

Wedge
30th Nov 2006, 21:37
you are making a selfish decision at the expense of those who wish or indeed need to drive.

Nonsense, I pay my taxes as does everybody else, and I'm a motorist. My taxes go on, among other things, the upkeep of the roads. All I have argued, if you care to go back and check, is that the Congestion Charge is an effective means of deterring me from paying even more tax.

FL, all good fun indeed, a full and frank exchange of views and i think we've reached the point where we fully understand each other's views, and where we disagree. You argue your case very well as always. :)

BlooMoo
30th Nov 2006, 22:12
means of deterring me

Or to put it more succinctly :

me

My point, and those of others (including yourself), is about what constitutes a selfish act. You said it was axiomatic that those who drive are being selfish whereas those that don't are not (selfish).

I disagree, by making a choice that benefits yourself in your own circumstance then you are making a decision that is de-facto selfish. i.e. executed in your own self-interest. You personally balance the gain/loss equation and choose to avoid paying CC tax. In effect you tune your personal activity within your own personal constraints to minimise your outlay on tax.

I would be the first to say that imposing tax on activity changes it's market value (although that is in my opinion a long way from the most effective way), but, you take the position that only some of us act selfishly. That is the problem I have with your argument.

By choosing to avoid paying CC tax, by virtue of of your own circumstance that allows you to make that choice easily, you are being selfish in making a choice that suits you but maybe not others.

Nonsense, I pay my taxes as does everybody else

BM

PS Correct me if I'm wrong but Adam Smith got here centuries ago didn't he?

ZFT
1st Dec 2006, 08:11
“Motorists should be asked to pay to drive on the nation's road network, a report commissioned by the government is set to recommend.
Former British Airways chief Sir Rod Eddington has examined options for modernising the UK transport network.
He is expected to report that road tolls could bring £28bn a year of benefits to bus and rail users.”

I thought UK motorists already do pay a massive premium. If not, WTF does Road Tax and fuel duty go on?

Mr Lexx
1st Dec 2006, 08:16
We do pay a stupid amount of tax already. I can also guarantee that, out of that £28bn, only about £500m will actually reach the roads. The rest will go on subsidising the new EU states and paying to provide housing, food and benefits for the constant stream of illegal immigrants coming here, who seem to have more rights in this flipping country than I do. :mad:

airborne_artist
1st Dec 2006, 08:39
Bring it on - although I do about 10k miles a year, and so does Mrs AA, we don't drive long distances on A road or motorways in rush hour. I reckon I might pay almost nothing under a new system.

747-436
1st Dec 2006, 08:43
As Jeremy Clarkson said ages ago about the road tax, if there is a way to hack the system and get out of paying then he will be doing it. I think I might join him in that as well.

Drivers already pay enough tax, this isn't going to cut congestion as people still have to drive to work and public transport is a waste of time if you need to go from A to B via C and D !!!!!

I hope the people who are planning this for 'Environmental Reasons' will reaise that the price of most things will go up as well if it comes in by Lorry. The costs are just going to get past to the customer!!

potkettleblack
1st Dec 2006, 08:57
Where does it all stop? I can see us paying 80% tax in the not to distant future. Just think if you are in the 40% bracket and then add on all of the various indirect taxes you pay at the moment, it is getting close without this further charge.

Now if they actually had a coherent plan and said right folks we want to raise x amount for y years and this will be put into a trust account(safely away from Gordon to get his hands on it) then I might sit up and listen. This would need to be backed up with a coherent plan made not by scheming politicians but by engineers and run over tooth and comb by a top firm of accountants. Will this happen - not a chance! The sad thing is that this type of scheme runs succcessfully in other countries and has the buy in of the public as they know its a means to an end.

High Wing Drifter
1st Dec 2006, 09:06
Interesting, given 33m vehicles and £28bn expected revenue, accounting for commerical traffic, I would guesstimate that road taxing will cost the average private person about £30/month extra.

This appears to be carefully calculated to get more money from people in an affordable way, becuase I suspect that most people who commute by car, do so becuase PT is virtually unusable for their type of journey and that people would rather spend and additional £30 (avg)/month rather than add another 2 hours of travelling by PT per day.

Where this will have virtually zero impact, is using the car to pop to the shops and for local trips which could more conceivably be converted a short bus journey.

So nothing to do with being green then?

747-436
1st Dec 2006, 11:21
Half of the money raised is going to have to pay for the hundreds of people and the infrastructure it is going to take to run the system!!! :ugh:

tony draper
1st Dec 2006, 11:28
Gonna finish up with the guvmint having all the money and the rest of us walking around with our arses hanging out of our kecks without a receptical to urinate in.
:uhoh:

Mr Lexx
1st Dec 2006, 11:59
In a trial, a mother that took her kids to school (5 miles) and did the shopping and visited a few friends a week, it ended up costing her £70 a month extra.

Don't be too complacent airbourne_artist, with 2 cars, that is an extra £140. Don't think for a second that this new charge will lower fuel duty or the RFL.

Gouabafla
1st Dec 2006, 12:06
Nick Robinson (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2006/12/independent_rep.html) has some interesting comments on this. Not the least that Sir Rod now lives in Oz!

ZFT
1st Dec 2006, 12:32
Here in S E Asia where road tolls are a fact of life (no Road Tax and realistic fuel prices though so not such an issue providing you earn a reasonable salary) road tolls have done wonders for traffic congestion – NOT. Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, Taipei are prime examples.

At least here they make no BS excuses for toll collections.

High Wing Drifter
1st Dec 2006, 12:52
I suspect, the Gov't will use the old management trick of suggesting they are going to go for something completely outrageous, knowing full well that when they appear to compromise they'll get the support they need but wouldn't have got if they were transparent about their intentions in the first place.

Flying Lawyer
1st Dec 2006, 13:45
Wonderful headling to this story on the BBC website:

Motorists 'must pay for road use'

Err, we don't at the moment??

Apart from road tax, how much of each pound we have to pay for petrol in this country is for the petrol, and how much is tax?

Mikeyb59
1st Dec 2006, 14:45
I seem to recall that more than 75% of the cost of petrol is tax. And what is worse is that VAT is charged after fuel duty.

Its a tax on tax. Robbing :mad: :mad: !

Greek God
1st Dec 2006, 16:35
As usual the Governments answer to a problem is to throw a charge on it and expect the problem to go away while frittering away the extra revenue on whatever misguided initiative that takes their fancy. Why is more effort not going into practical and not particularly expensive ideas such as:
Confining 35tonners to the inside lane during busy hours al la Germany
Allowing feed left on red at traffic lights al la the States
Banning abnormal loads between 07 to 19 hrs
Having straight through lanes in busy areas.
Car pooling - allow full cars to use bus lanes etc
Enforcing lane discipline
Oh and not building massive retail parks with insufficient access - eg Batley(Leeds), Metro centre(Ncl), Kingston Park (Ncl) Middlebrook (Bolton) Teeside Park all of which cause massive disruption to the area as most only have one main access route:\
London or other city congestion charges I personally don't have a problem with as there is the infrastructure for alternatives; however, outside the cities there is not and consequently, no alternative.
2010 tax return form -
1. State your income
2. Send it
Grrrrrrr:ugh:

Out Of Trim
1st Dec 2006, 20:42
I just cannot, for the life of me; see Road Pricing work in the way the government hopes. On the face of it, we all just see this as extra government taxation revenue but, it's much more than that.

It could change our entire way of life and work. It could, actually devastate our economy and create chaos in all the bureaucracy such a complex scheme would cause. :ugh: :ugh:

I fully agree with the views on Safe Speed on this

See here:- http://www.safespeed.org.uk/roadpricing.html

green granite
1st Dec 2006, 22:22
It is basically also yet more taxation on people who live in the country who cannot use public transport to get to work because the buses don't go in the right direction. The majority of people who live in the smaller towns can get to work by bus or bike so they won't pay more. What about disabled people who in a lot of cases can't use public transport. It was mainly due to government policy back in the days of Dr Beeching (sp) that started the need for people to be self reliant on the car to get about, now they are knee deep mire of their own making.
If of course they remove the tax on petrol and then charge for road use that might be a different matter..............There again pigs might fly

TheDesertFerret
1st Dec 2006, 22:29
This is a DfT initiative not a Treasury initiative.

The charging schemes DfT want to see promoted are those that penalise driving in congested time and locations. So worry ye not country dwellers (unless a particularly large heifer jack-knifes on a nasty bend and causes a tailback of tractors). Choose to drive off peak you won't be penalised.

The Highlander
1st Dec 2006, 22:31
this will cause extremeley high unemployment. i work in Hersham but live in Luton. 53 miles each way. at least 106 pounds a day. Times that by 20 shifts a month and my mortgage isnt getting paid. so what next,dole office here i come. join the back of another queue.mind you will have to drive there to so dole might go up. does the govt honestly believe that the public transport (in private hands now) will think of commuters or will the shareholders take presidence in setting profits oops soory i meant fares at reasonable levels. i think not. the people that voted labour need their heads looking at if they didint see this coming. only new labour face is TB and we have all had enough of him JP second in command at mo. GB the chancelor dictator in waiting will it get better. wake up no it wont. i have paid for the roads since i got my driving licence and first car i for one dont want to pay a penny more to this bunch of wasters. usual labour policy pay more get less what is new about that.

rant over

DG101
1st Dec 2006, 23:21
Don't stop paying the mortgage just yet. I'm sure public transport could do the job for a lot less than £106 per day.

mccdatabase
1st Dec 2006, 23:45
This is a DfT initiative not a Treasury initiative
This report was comissioned by none other than Robber Brown !!


Don't stop paying the mortgage just yet. I'm sure public transport could do the job for a lot less than £106 per day

PT does not run 24 hrs a day ,it never did and never will!, people are travelling at a time they need to for their jobs, the jobs do not revolve around what time they can get there!! PT is an alternative for a few people in a few bigger cities and nothing more, yet drivers are going to be made to subsidise it even more than they do now if this idiotic idea ever gets off the ground.

It is time to take a stand against the anti car cancer that is spreading in political circles before these dogmas get too entrenched

TheDesertFerret
2nd Dec 2006, 02:23
fair point mcdatabase

The Eddington report was commissioned by the Treasury. The road user charging precedes this report on the agenda by at least two years and was set by DfT. No road user charging scheme would be politically acceptable if generated revenues were not predicated for re-investment on transport.

If the schemes, as desired by DfT, penalise only congestion then drivers during the night will not be charged. So country dwellers and those who choose to drive during the night will not be affected.

Next please.

df

Krystal n chips
2nd Dec 2006, 08:45
As usual the Governments answer to a problem is to throw a charge on it and expect the problem to go away while frittering away the extra revenue on whatever misguided initiative that takes their fancy. Why is more effort not going into practical and not particularly expensive ideas such as:
Confining 35tonners to the inside lane during busy hours al la Germany
Allowing feed left on red at traffic lights al la the States
Banning abnormal loads between 07 to 19 hrs
Having straight through lanes in busy areas.
Car pooling - allow full cars to use bus lanes etc
Enforcing lane discipline
Oh and not building massive retail parks with insufficient access - eg Batley(Leeds), Metro centre(Ncl), Kingston Park (Ncl) Middlebrook (Bolton) Teeside Park all of which cause massive disruption to the area as most only have one main access route:\
London or other city congestion charges I personally don't have a problem with as there is the infrastructure for alternatives; however, outside the cities there is not and consequently, no alternative.
2010 tax return form -
1. State your income
2. Send it
Grrrrrrr:ugh:

I take it that, with your logical approach, you were not an advisor to the Eddington report then ? :)
The topic was discussed on the Jeremy Vine show yesterday and included a talking head who had patently never been on a Motorway in his life. He was extolling the virtues of the Highways Agency and the matrix signs---amongst other wishful dreams--and how theu had helped reduce congestion by advance warning---which was interesting as I was on the M6 heading for Coventry at the time--the matrix after Keele saying "Jnc 11-9 Long delays" then it was "10-9 congestion" -----it's been like this for ages due to the roadworks at the M5 slip so nothing new--then the best one "Time to Jnct 8--18mins--this near Jnct 12 btw----I do not trust the capability of the operators of these signs--so I took the M6Toll---and the Beeb duly reported M6 was closed in both directions but now open again--:ugh: ---the point being there was an alternative route available---had the info been correctly displayed.

Some of the other suggestions were, frankly, ludicrous. The suggestion that everybody varies their start / finish times at work to drive "off peak" is never going to happen as it would require a fundamental change in working practices. Driver education would be a far better option however. How many times have I seen a queue in the middle lane---only to see cars sat behind an HGV and not bothering / being capable of er, overtaking in the outside lane---too many. The return trip--at around 1700 was a case in point. Got in the inside lane after Hilton Park and sat there until Jnct 19---moving all the time at between an indicated 55-60mph which isn't bad for the M6 on a Friday night---meanwhile--in lanes 2 and 3---cars sat stationary or barely moving. Why?.

And for urban congestion----is the school run really that essential---no.

747-436
2nd Dec 2006, 08:55
I have just read the Safespeed.org's take on it all, very interetsing points about how the system will be very hard to administer.

One way to improve congestion would be to sort out stupid traffic light phasing! Lights near where I am stay green for about 5 seconds at rush hour, what is the point in that? Sometime only one car can get through, if they were properly set you could get more cars though and not have big queues behind.

As the website says, people will defeat the system, I and most people on here probably intend to be able to do that!!!

ORAC
2nd Dec 2006, 10:18
The trouble with these proposals is that they are all for regressive taxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax). Paradoxically this Labour government seems to prefer these type of taxes, due to ease of collection, rather than their espoused egalitarian principles.

If everyone had a carbon allowance and peak-time travel allowance to spend on motor mileage and air mileage, with a rapidly escalating cost beyond that, the poor would pay less and the frequent traveller would pay more. Progressive taxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax)are much more difficult to plan and control. But the result would be to inflict the pain on the problem, excessive usage, rather than the baseline travel nobody can avoid. And a free market can develop.

That is what David Miliband (http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1823853,00.html)would like, but what chance does he have against Gordon?

MReyn24050
2nd Dec 2006, 12:21
The trouble with this government, and I am sure that the Tories (if they ever get in) will be no different, is that there is no co-ordinated thinking. We have a NHS service in dire trouble leading to hospital and ward closures, only this week we learn of 29 more A&E departments closing. Post Offices face losing the card account which will mean the closure of more out of town Post Offices. Expanding catchment areas for schools, more and more out of town shopping malls; increased fares for rail travel. All of which mean more reliance on the motor car. We have a government that has no control on immigration allowing more and more people into the country they will also have to have a car because public transport cannot be relied upon. Presumably charging will start by the introduction of charging on the motorways which will lead to more congestion on the A roads as drivers avoid motorways e.g. By using the A38 or A429 instead of the M5 or A4 instead of the M4. I thought the reason for a Cabinet of Ministers was to govern the country and plan for the future in a sensible and co-ordinated manner all we get from this government is a series of knee jerks and u-turns. "Pxxx-up and Brewery" come to mind.
Sorry rant over.

The Highlander
2nd Dec 2006, 14:34
DG101 good point but sadly not at the times i need to be there by they need the public trnsport structr in place before this comes in force.

Highlander