# Manchester congestion charge



## chio (Jan 24, 2007)

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/234/234066_up_to_6_a_day_road_charge_due.html?rss=yes

Not content with slavishly following London in every other way, the bright sparks down at Manchester town hall are now proposing we pay around six pounds a day to drive into town on one of "15 heavily-used corridors". Now, I'm all for the scheme down in London - it's a much bigger place, with a far more efficient public transport system - unlike Manchester which has packed-out trams (to Altrincham rather than anywhere remotely useful) and knackered, hideously expensive buses. 

With the recent demise of UK North buses (banned for health and safety reasons), the introduction of evening and weekend parking meters in the city centre and this congestion charge proposal, one does start to wonder if someone in the GMPTE has a vested interest in getting people onto Evil Brian Souter's Stagecoach buses...


----------



## ELO (Jan 24, 2007)

This is a weird scheme all round. Unlike London's aera based scheme, this uses 'corridors'. Will it lead to people using side-roads to avoid the tolled sections?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 24, 2007)

well who coludn't see this coming soon it'll be all town cetre and then all roads will be toll roads...

welcome to freedom of movement restrictions which i have been saying since before the ccharge in london...


----------



## Fez909 (Jan 26, 2007)

I'm sorry but you're full of shit when you say Manchester has poor public transport. It's bad enough when Londoners complain they have it bad without Mancs doing it too.

For a start, you have the most frequent buses in Europe going from town to Didsbury/Withington averaging one every 20 seconds in university term times. This is a double bonus when you consider that you can get a weekly ticket for £2. Two fucking quid! (It's probably gone up since the last time I used that route, but I bet it's still one of the best bargains to be had in the city.)

OK, OK, I know what you're thinking: "only for those fucken' students." Well let's take another example: Chorlton. You have a bus which is probably every ten minutes or less and you can get a weekly ticket for £6 if you're only using that route. And the buses run until 3am, if I'm not mistaken! The only other place I know the travel details of is Levenshulme, and even they have night buses running until about 4am, and you can probably buy a weekly pass for well under a tenner for this very regular bus service. 

Not to mention the train station which costs practically nothing to get to and takes only eight minutes from Piccadilly - and I bet you could get away with not paying most days, if you were that way inclined.

To say that Manchester has shit, over-priced public transport is ridiculous when you consider what the rest of the country has to put up with. No wonder GMPTE copies TfL when the residents have the same oblivious attitude toward the rest of the country.

<tongue in cheek!>You've never had it so good!  </cheek and rant>


----------



## ELO (Jan 26, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> well who coludn't see this coming soon it'll be all town cetre and then all roads will be toll roads...



I have to agree. They are even proposing them for Derby now! Derby FFS, it's hardly a bloody metropolis is it??

Actually, though I don't think many people *did* see it coming in the sense they thought the London congestion charge was just that - a *London* charge.

I think a lot of peoples line of thought went something like "It's only in London, things are different down there, it's a much bigger city and they've got the tube" or "Well I never drive in London, it won't affect me"

We were treated to several surveys telling us how Londoners wanted the charge, wanted something to be done...... small minority of people who insisted on using a car jamming up the roads........ etc so I think few motorists outside London felt inclined to join in anti charge protests.

That was certainly the way I felt-"I generally go by train so why should I campaign against it". Selfish, but I bet I wasn't the only one.

Thank gawd I won't need a car for 4 years while I'm at uni, goodness knows how much they will cost by the time I need one again............


----------



## Part 2 (Jan 26, 2007)

This would kill me at work, regardless of the commute I drive up and down those routes all day long. Are any allowances made in London for statutory services working with vulnerable people?

Anyway thanks for the heads up. If I might point out, leaving comments on stories in the MEN is great fun, there's some crackers with that story.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 26, 2007)

Part2 said:
			
		

> This would kill me at work, regardless of the commute I drive up and down those routes all day long. Are any allowances made in London for statutory services working with vulnerable people?
> 
> Anyway thanks for the heads up. If I might point out, leaving comments on stories in the MEN is great fun, there's some crackers with that story.


yes


indeed many services get discounts or free passes... inc helpers of vunerables if you qualify though some do and some don't i think it's summit like doctors do nurses don't... or some such...


----------



## DUMBO.66 (Jan 26, 2007)

chio said:
			
		

> http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/234/234066_up_to_6_a_day_road_charge_due.html?rss=yes
> packed mets
> (to Altrincham rather than anywhere remotely useful) .



why would you go anywhere _but_ alti!!


----------



## moose (Jan 26, 2007)

Fez909 said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but you're full of shit when you say Manchester has poor public transport.


My problem is getting into Manchester. I live 22 miles away, but the train is always cancelled /diverted/replaced with a bus, and the scheduled bus journey can take up to 2.5 hours. It makes no sense at all to leave the car at home.


----------



## Errol's son (Jan 26, 2007)

moose said:
			
		

> My problem is getting into Manchester. I live 22 miles away, but the train is always cancelled /diverted/replaced with a bus, and the scheduled bus journey can take up to 2.5 hours. It makes no sense at all to leave the car at home.



I live 40 mins drive from Manchester. 10 years ago the train went from my local station every hour and only took 40 mins. Now it takes over an hour (sometimes an hour and a half) with a change at Crewe and the trains are now only once every two hours. The train to Crewe is hell; it is one carriage only and it stinks. And they charge close to £20 return to Manchester unless you prebook. I can drive to Manchester and back three times for £20 in half the time on each journey. Public transport in Manchester is fine though in my recent experiences.


----------



## futha (Jan 27, 2007)

the weekly ticket is 4 quid now fez. and you need a student card now i think for the smart rider.


----------



## chio (Jan 27, 2007)

moose said:
			
		

> My problem is getting into Manchester. I live 22 miles away, but the train is always cancelled /diverted/replaced with a bus, and the scheduled bus journey can take up to 2.5 hours. It makes no sense at all to leave the car at home.



How can you live 22 miles away when I do?


----------



## citydreams (Jan 27, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> it'll be all town cetre and then all roads will be toll roads...



tosh.

I'm glad the Manx are bringing some sense to their woefully inadequate transport system.  I look forward to seeing the money raised spent on investing in public transport, where people like Garf can travel anonymously.

Then in a couple of years time we can all rejoice in the wonders of traffic&technology living harmoniously hand in hand.


----------



## citydreams (Jan 27, 2007)

Fez909 said:
			
		

> I'm sorry but you're full of shit when you say Manchester has poor public transport.



Manx has the largest simulated network model in the world afaik.  

Without some form of market readjustment your roads are clogged to the hilt come the end of this decade.  It only takes one bus to be broken down for the entire centre to gridlock at the moment.


----------



## Jambooboo (Jan 27, 2007)

Fez909 said:
			
		

> For a start, you have the most frequent buses in Europe going from town to Didsbury/Withington averaging one every 20 seconds in university term times. This is a double bonus when you consider that you can get a weekly ticket for £2. Two fucking quid! (It's probably gone up since the last time I used that route, but I bet it's still one of the best bargains to be had in the city.)



Which is all well and good when you live on the Oxford/Wilmslow Rd route, but not so good if you don't.

Besides the '20 seconds' thing is a myth in my experience. I've been waiting ages for a bus on Oxford Road for a bus, and inevitably the one that does turn up is the one that you don't have a pass for (but you'll begrudgingly pay because it's wet and cold and there's somewhere you were meant to be ten minutes ago).

Public transport in Manchester is much more a chore than a pleasure. I'll be a happy man when I get my motorbike license and never have cause to use it again (apart from when the weather is _really_ shitty).


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 28, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> tosh.
> 
> I'm glad the Manx are bringing some sense to their woefully inadequate transport system.  I look forward to seeing the money raised spent on investing in public transport, where people like Garf can travel anonymously.
> 
> Then in a couple of years time we can all rejoice in the wonders of traffic&technology living harmoniously hand in hand.


aside from your continued attempt to make this personal if oyu think that we aren't going down a full toll road system not just for london but for the wholeof the uk then you need to brush up your reading skills this is constantly being touted by diffrent think tanks with in westminster as being the 'only solution' to the problem of congestion... but hey it's much easier to debase people as parnoid or moronic that to address the concerns isn't it..

if it's tosh as you state then point out what considerations and white papers would refute this, because their alternatives are being consdiered... 

nation wide road tolls - The Road Haulage Association



> The Road Haulage Association was dismayed at the announcement in the Queen's Speech that in an effort to cut congestion, Government is set to go ahead with plans to introduce trial road-pricing schemes across England.



dti white paper



> Planning ahead. We cannot build our way out of the problems we face. *Government will lead the debate on road pricing, working with stakeholders to establish and explain how and when pricing might provide the reliability and standards road users want*. We are also committed to sharing decision-making with regional and local stakeholders to ensure that transport decisions are taken alongside those for housing and economic growth.



road tolls increase congestion



> Britain's first toll motorway is failing to cut congestion and generated many extra car trips, a Highways Agency study discloses.



but hey it's utter tosh right...

perhaps you need to gen up on current thinking a tad and stop dismissing people who object to the mendious lies which ae being spread about road pricing as an attempt to steam roller further cash out of all public and as a means to control freedom of movement.

now if ken isn't thinking about introducing it london wide via tfl (which i'm sur he is as he'll be after a slice of that revenue) then the govt are.  as this isn't another thread where you need to defend TFL or it's apologist stance of which you are a main proponent perhaps you'd like to get of your high horse and drink yer milk... k


----------



## citydreams (Jan 28, 2007)

Garf, there's a difference between road tolls, and charging every road in England.  

If you want to take a paranoid perspective on this you're more than welcome to do so, but imo you're diluting the real issue which is how to cope with the increased demand for road space.

There is no policy to make everyone have a 'tag'.  Far from it.  I'm just as concerned as you with freedom of movement.  If there was an agenda I would be the first to admit it.


----------



## citydreams (Jan 28, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> stop dismissing people who object to the mendious lies which ae being spread about road pricing



What lies are you talking about Garf?  That's quite some claim you're making.


----------



## moose (Jan 29, 2007)

chio said:
			
		

> How can you live 22 miles away when I do?


Dunno, but when I used to drive to Old Trafford every day, that's how far it was. 

Ahhh, from your train station to Piccadilly is 25.7 miles, from my train station to Old Trafford is 22.1 miles, but only 18 to Piccadilly, according to the AA.


----------



## chio (Jan 29, 2007)

moose said:
			
		

> Dunno, but when I used to drive to Old Trafford every day, that's how far it was.
> 
> Ahhh, from your train station to Piccadilly is 25.7 miles, from my train station to Old Trafford is 22.1 miles, but only 18 to Piccadilly, according to the AA.



I was thinking of that bizarre sign at the end of Upper Brook Street:



> *A34*
> Congleton 22



Very incongruous. Who drives down Upper Brook Street, sees the sign and thinks "oh goody, only 22 miles till I get to, erm, Congleton"?


----------



## moose (Jan 29, 2007)

The people who have a seat with their name on it, in the Government shelter in Congleton, in the case of attack.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 29, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> What lies are you talking about Garf?  That's quite some claim you're making.


no claim it's the truth...

lets' look at history recent hsitory shall we 

if electeced i will not increase the congestion charge for at least 5 years... two years later increases congestion charge... there will be no irse in fuel duty in the buget (after fuel bockade) prices went up on jan 1st... and so on and so on each and every time the power of the electorate and of the motoring part of the electorate as been pandered to near point of election and ingored at all other times or brow beaten into submission... and has been lied to ... time in time out... 

serious claims you apologist...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 29, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> Garf, there's a difference between road tolls, and charging every road in England.


i shall not put up the congestion charge for 5 years ... big difference my arse there's a thuing call manifauturing consent you know... 




			
				citydreams said:
			
		

> If you want to take a paranoid perspective on this you're more than welcome to do so, but imo you're diluting the real issue which is how to cope with the increased demand for road space.



Step one creat an issue or problem
Step two manifacutre asituation to highlight and gain public attention for the problem
Step three advise a radical or extreme measure to takle the problem those who obejct tothese polices will be villified demonised and descibed as nutcases or paranoid to discredit them this has the added advantage of prevent opposition by spreading the concept that there can be no logical opposition to the idea to which parliment are providing the solution... 

well done... they have learned you so well ... 




			
				citydreams said:
			
		

> There is no policy to make everyone have a 'tag'.  Far from it.  I'm just as concerned as you with freedom of movement.  If there was an agenda I would be the first to admit it.



there is a plan to montior each and every journey taken with in a car and tax the user accoridingly i have highlighted it above ... ffs ... if this isn't taggin geach and every car which can be and will be monitored where ever it goes then what is... 

your protestations in light of the overwhelming eviedence to contray is remarkable...

so no id on't think you are concerned about freedom of movement you can't see what's under your very nose let alone whats coming along a little way ahead... 

I have no doubt if oyu beleived that the bad men were doing somehting then you'd say, i have little doubt the bad men won't be including you in their discussions in the first place....


----------



## citydreams (Jan 29, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> no claim it's the truth...
> 
> lets' look at history recent hsitory shall we
> 
> ...



So on the basis of a rise in the cost of congestion charge / fuel duty you're making assumptions about an attack on the privacy of the public? 

If you are driving  a vehicle then you need a licence and your vehicle needs to be registered.  There are good reasons for this as I'm sure you agree.  Were you to be driving in an inappropriate manner then it is only proper that you should be brought infront of a court of your peers, or that some means of enforcement should be acted upon you.

Why is it so different for the instance of your cost to society of having a car in the first place?

I do not mean to say that every mile you drive should be allocated a marginal cost - the analysis of pay-per-mile road charges shows an approximation of what can be achieved given a set of policies, but the calcuations of marginal cost are infeasible.

Policy is leant towards providing road tolls on strategic routes, and area charges around town centres.  For this to happen there does need to be ANPR software.  Were you to require to be anonymous for a particular purpose (of which you mention organising and attending a protest) you could a) hire a coach for the day on the day b) hire a vehicle c) buy a vehicle - all of which you can do using cash and bypassing any central intelligence on the day of your action.  So please, tell me, what exactly is it that you find so offensive?


----------



## citydreams (Jan 29, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> there is a plan to montior each and every journey taken with in a car and tax the user accoridingly i have highlighted it above ...



You highlighted some analysis of road user charging that shows the benefits of measuring, and optimising the pricing of distance-based charging.  You haven't shown that there is a plan to implement it.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 29, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> You highlighted some analysis of road user charging that shows the benefits of measuring, and optimising the pricing of distance-based charging.  You haven't shown that there is a plan to implement it.


is this isn't flip flopping i don't know what is ...

there is no plan you're paranoid
there is a plan it's not actioned 
floowed shortly by 
the plan has been actioned 
the plan has been in place for a number of months now it's too late to do anything about it.


----------



## citydreams (Jan 29, 2007)

you talk some real bollox Garf. 

Enjoy your delusions.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 29, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> So on the basis of a rise in the cost of congestion charge / fuel duty you're making assumptions about an attack on the privacy of the public?



no but hey if you'd like to change what i have said to fit your world view go a head... 

you asked fo revidence of mendious lying citing it was a serious chrge i have provided such evidence... if you wish to use a false dicotomy to extend that evidence to beign the reason against a wider issue then that's your flawed logic no one else can really help you out there... 

as stated previously the issue is that there si a white paper being read at the moment and, as you should well know that as the isse was included with in the queens speech (the borad outline of what will happen in this term of parliment) that this will need to be put into place this year meaning that the trail will undoubtbly be hailed as a success regardless of concern and then enacted by the end of the year as either a further white paper to make it pass into legislation or as full scale legislation to be implamented come Jan 1st 2008... meaning as well you know that this is going ahead, with out much needed public consulation 

this is designed to crack down on peoples freedom to move by beign able to track them that in itself is curtailing freedom of movement regardless of there beign no physical barrier to movement with in itself.  If it was 30 years ago it'd be the case of having to go to your local police station to notify them of each an evey journey... now this can be done electronically either way you wouldn't have put p with havign to tell the police before you set off then you shouldn't have to tell a totally unaccountable group where you plan to go now... 




			
				citydreams said:
			
		

> If you are driving  a vehicle then you need a licence and your vehicle needs to be registered.



held in one place not centrally accesabble instantly by all insundary... 




			
				citydreams said:
			
		

> There are good reasons for this as I'm sure you agree.
> 
> this is not any form of excuse for a centralised database which all comers can access..
> 
> ...


----------



## ELO (Jan 29, 2007)

Don't mean to gang up on you Citydreams, but the simple fact of the matter is there is no demand for this type of thing outside London.

It really is a different world.


----------



## ELO (Jan 29, 2007)

chio said:
			
		

> Who drives down Upper Brook Street, sees the sign and thinks "oh goody, only 22 miles till I get to, erm, Congleton"?



*Anorak on* It's standard signposting on primary (green on a map) routes. Presumably Congleton is the next primary route destination (town names highlighted in green on a road map) down the A34 from Manchester.

Therefore it gets a sign. Simple.


----------



## citydreams (Jan 29, 2007)

Garf said:
			
		

> but hey i guess no of these things bother you ...


What bothers me is you wingeing about the control of the state and then criticising them for not doing enough.

It also bothers me that the only *facts* you use in your arguments are uncorrelated, insubstansive and media biased.

You don't attempt to face reality, prefering to hide behind fears of big brotheresque intrusion.

Neither do you display any understanding of the realities of policy making.

All of this is best demonstrated by your inistence that road pricing "doesn't work".    You seem to be the only anarchist in the village that hasn't seen an improvement in London.


----------



## citydreams (Jan 29, 2007)

ELO said:
			
		

> Don't mean to gang up on you Citydreams, but the simple fact of the matter is there is no demand for this type of thing outside London.
> 
> It really is a different world.



Where do you get that idea from ELO?  



> Congestion So Bad 9 Out of 10 UK Businesses Support Road Pricing


http://www.enworks.com/news.asp?news_id=1068



> The report, for seven authorities including the Birmingham, Wolverhampton and Coventry city councils, cites widespread public concern over congestion levels and illustrates a problem that already costs businesses about £2.2bn a year. It is estimated that the region will lose 40,000 new jobs to other parts of Britain if the problem is not addressed - the equivalent of closing seven Longbridge car manufacturing plants.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/congestion/story/0,,1878594,00.html



> ippr’s report, published ahead of the Eddington Transport Study set up by the Chancellor Gordon Brown and due to report next month, is based on an online poll of 1150 people, six focus groups and three day long deliberative workshops. The research shows that while more than 90 per cent of people see congestion as a serious problem....
> 
> ...The research also highlights evidence from both London and Stockholm shows that once schemes have been introduced public attitudes have become more positive. For example, in London the net percentage in support of the congestion charge went from -5 in the month before it was introduced to +35 three months after.


http://www.ippr.org.uk/pressreleases/?id=2461


----------



## ELO (Jan 29, 2007)

Couldn't help noticing this bit in the Granuaid article CityDreams linked to 


> Cities around the country are considering road pricing schemes, including Manchester, Bristol and Tyne & Wear. Along with the West Midlands, they will be vying for a share of the government's transport innovation fund, which is offering up to £2.5bn a year to local authorities in England with inventive ideas for tackling congestion.



2.5 billion. FFS no wonder the public finances are in a state. 

BTW I don't see much support in those articles from Joe Public, as opposed to 'think tanks' and business.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 29, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> What bothers me is you wingeing about the control of the state and then criticising them for not doing enough.



appropreate legislation which is enacted woudlr esolv ea lot of issue not legislation thrown togethe rto fit a manufactured problem... 




			
				citydreams said:
			
		

> It also bothers me that the only *facts* you use in your arguments are uncorrelated, insubstansive and media biased.



apart fromt he dti white paper you are ignoring or the dept of transport report ctied with in the observer which highlights the following...



> Britain's first toll motorway is *failing to cut congestion and generated many extra car trips*, a Highways Agency study discloses.


 bit in bold for you hard of reading... 




			
				citydreams said:
			
		

> You don't attempt to face reality, prefering to hide behind fears of big brotheresque intrusion.



sorry that i fidn the concept of road toll more survellence cameras with number plate recognition and the potential to introduce car chipping to be a little big brotheresque... and that you see no issue with this constant survellence culture we are in goodie for you... thankfully most people don't hold this party toing line which seems to have more to do with your won poltical asperations and divorces you from any reality other than the blinkered nope we are always right attitdue.. but off you toddle if that suits yers some people will be saying acutally cock off we don't want any more govermental interferrence in things unless it's going to make a real genuine impact... 




			
				citydreams said:
			
		

> Neither do you display any understanding of the realities of policy making.



so you deny it' was in the queens speech and deny that it will reach assention or go for furthe rreading before the end of this siting of parliment???

is that what you are saying... that suddenly inexplicably the rules of mandiated government are changed becuase of your say so... do me a favour... 




			
				citydreams said:
			
		

> All of this is best demonstrated by your inistence that road pricing "doesn't work".    You seem to be the only anarchist in the village that hasn't seen an improvement in London.



again you are failing to take account of what has been said...

TFLcofirmed that the increased congestion charge zone will increase congestion true or false... 
the articule linked to from the DoT white paper highlioghts that the M6 Toll road is failing to releive congesiton and is creating more problems/increased car usuage true or false... 

have you even bothered to read the refferences pulled up??

eh?

no cos it' safer inside the closeted place where you can sneer at geninue concernes and people becuase you are right... so keep up the ad hominens off you go ... water of a ducks back... it's not really strengthening your ailing case however to keep wriggling and responding to what you'd like to have debated rather than what is beign debated...


----------



## citydreams (Jan 29, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> now one could argue that the socio economic factors at work here do not aurrcrately relfect the true cost of the useage in terms of enviromental damage bu this is easliy taken car of and needs no new system in place to do so...



as it happens, the leading expert in the field of transport economics, Professor Goodwin, has been suggesting that the envirnomental costs of motor vehicles should be accounted for in fuel price duties (I bet you knew that already though didn't you Garf )


----------



## ELO (Jan 29, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> All of this is best demonstrated by your inistence that road pricing "doesn't work".    You seem to be the only anarchist in the village that hasn't seen an improvement in London.



Road speeds are slower, and it now costs 8 quid to drive into town. 

Some improvement.

(Yes I do accept it has raised some money, although not very efficiently)


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 29, 2007)

ELO said:
			
		

> 2.5 billion. FFS no wonder the public finances are in a state.



which is the real reason that most local councils are taking up or consdiering congestion charging .... 




			
				ELO said:
			
		

> BTW I don't see much support in those articles from Joe Public, as opposed to 'think tanks' and business.



there doesn't need to be it will be forced upon them like or not as i'm sure citydreams will inform us it's the 'only' answer....


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 29, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> as it happens, the leading expert in the field of transport economics, Professor Goodwin, has been suggesting that the envirnomental costs of motor vehicles should be accounted for in fuel price duties (I bet you knew that already though didn't you Garf )


yup i'm all for it... scrap the vat on fuel it's not a luxery and there's no good reason for the treasurey to be copping more on top of fuel duty increase fuel duty significantly along with automatic restes as stated evey 10 years.... also force the petrollium companies to carbon offset for each million liters sold the equiverlent, this should see and end to the ridiculious million pund aminute oil companies profits... and bring about a more sufficent cahnge in behaviours but it's still punitive... i don't want to see a situation where people introduce a petrol credits exchange system... or that petrol becomes a black market commodity either ... do you...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 29, 2007)

ELO said:
			
		

> Road speeds are slower, and it now costs 8 quid to drive into town.
> 
> Some improvement.
> 
> (Yes I do accept it has raised some money, although not very efficiently)


i don't think that when a full cost anaylisis is done on this we'll find it has raised as much as people expect it has or say it has... don't forget the hughe subsidy that london council tax payer smade to the scheme or continue to via their council tax...


----------



## citydreams (Jan 29, 2007)

ELO said:
			
		

> Couldn't help noticing this bit in the Granuaid article CityDreams linked to
> 2.5 billion. FFS no wonder the public finances are in a state.



Slightly sloppy journalism.. the Transport Innovation Fund is for all type of transport innovation.  Only £200m is available for road user charging..  

Cost of congestion to the UK, reckoned to be around £20billion a year!!


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 29, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> Slightly sloppy journalism.. the Transport Innovation Fund is for all type of transport innovation.  Only £200m is available for road user charging..
> 
> Cost of congestion to the UK, reckoned to be around £20billion a year!!


even so... there is money for old rope going spare...


----------



## citydreams (Jan 29, 2007)

ELO said:
			
		

> Road speeds are slower, and it now costs 8 quid to drive into town.
> 
> Some improvement.
> 
> (Yes I do accept it has raised some money, although not very efficiently)



You don't live in London do you..   

There are substantially less cars driving through the charging zone.
There have been less accidents
The quality of air is better.
Nearly £1billion has been raised and put into public transport.

I agree, it's not very efficient... for every person that pays the charge, £2 goes towards admin costs (i.e the private sector).  This is due to change though as we modernise the London Congestion Charge.


----------



## citydreams (Jan 29, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> even so... there is money for old rope going spare...



once again, showing you know f'all about how policy making works.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 29, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> You don't live in London do you..
> 
> There are substantially less cars driving through the charging zone.
> There have been less accidents
> ...


and put proces up....

how much exactly is the moderniseation of a scheme which has only been implamented and running for such a shor tspace of time going to cost ...

why is the TFL raising revue to fund private companies indirectly as well as directly via the c charge... 

(ie the bus companies...) 

the ccharge is a private comapnies subsidy and the xcuse livingstone neede as he was denioed tax raising powers becuase he fell out with labour... that being the case no he's back in with labour isn't i abotu time we modrnised the role of the lord mayor first... and gave it taxation powers thus negating the need ofr any congestion charging at all..


----------



## citydreams (Jan 29, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> TFLcofirmed that the increased congestion charge zone will increase congestion true or false...




This is what I mean by you don't see how policy making works..  you don't see the bigger picture.


----------



## ELO (Jan 29, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> You don't live in London do you..


No I don't, if you read post #5 you will see my point,-basically what you have started the rest of us look set to get. Therefore I think it is time those of us outside London took a closer look at this scheme as it could be heading our way.



> There are substantially less cars driving through the charging zone.



'Substantially' .........hmm....now there is a nice, vague, politicians word. The figures I have seen are a reduction of 15-20%....hardly 'substantial'. Basically 80% plus are still driving and having to pay for congestion that used to be free.



> This is due to change though as we modernise the London Congestion Charge.



Gawd help us all.


----------



## citydreams (Jan 29, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> how much exactly is the moderniseation of a scheme which has only been implamented and running for such a shor tspace of time going to cost ...



the contract with Capita runs out in 2009..  are you suggesting that we should scap the CC all together? 





> why is the TFL raising revue to fund private companies indirectly as well as directly via the c charge...



That is the way government works in the 21st century..  it's a tough fact of life.  I don't like it.  We get paid to the thinking, we then outsource the management.    However, if the CC had failed (as oh so many said it would), then at least it would be companies like Capita that would have had to foot the bill


----------



## citydreams (Jan 29, 2007)

ELO said:
			
		

> No I don't, if you read post #5 you will see my point,-basically what you have started the rest of us look set to get. Therefore I think it is time those of us outside London took a closer look at this scheme as it could be heading our way.



http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/pdfdocs/congestion_charging/monitoring/first-annual-report-congestion.pdf
www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/cclondon/pdfs/FourthAnnualReportFinal.pdf

Enjoy 

Let me know what you think.


----------



## ELO (Jan 29, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/pdfdocs/congestion_charging/monitoring/first-annual-report-congestion.pdf
> www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/cclondon/pdfs/FourthAnnualReportFinal.pdf
> 
> Enjoy
> ...



LOL quite a bit there. I'll get back to you


----------



## citydreams (Jan 29, 2007)

ELO said:
			
		

> Basically 80% plus are still driving and having to pay for congestion that used to be free.



nope..  look forward to your analysis on reading the f'in manual


----------



## ELO (Jan 29, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> nope..  look forward to your analysis on reading the f'in manual



Don't expect it any time soon..........there is 215 bleedin pages worth here.


----------



## citydreams (Jan 29, 2007)

you're getting off lightly.. my first job was to read the 1400 page report to the Mayor on the Western Extension


----------



## Fez909 (Jan 29, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> ippr’s report, published ahead of the Eddington Transport Study set up by the Chancellor Gordon Brown and due to report next month, is based on an online poll of 1150 people, six focus groups and three day long deliberative workshops. The research shows that while more than 90 per cent of people see congestion as a serious problem....



Nice bit of selective quoting there. In trying to prove that there is support for this type of scheme, you use a quote that suggests otherwise but just snip the relevent bit off? Shameful tactics, those.

Here's the full quote:




			
				ippr said:
			
		

> ippr’s report, published ahead of the Eddington Transport Study set up by the Chancellor Gordon Brown and due to report next month, is based on an online poll of 1150 people, six focus groups and three day long deliberative workshops. The research shows that while more than 90 per cent of people see congestion as a serious problem less than 40 per cent said they supported road pricing as a solution.


----------



## citydreams (Jan 29, 2007)

Not at all.. the quote was to highlight that congestion is seen as a problem, not whether there is support for road pricing. (hence, adding the .... at the end of the quote)


----------



## Fez909 (Jan 29, 2007)

ELO said:
			
		

> Don't mean to gang up on you Citydreams, but the simple fact of the matter is there is no demand for this type of thing outside London.
> 
> It really is a different world.



Followed by:




			
				citydreams said:
			
		

> Where do you get that idea from ELO?
> 
> [insert selective quoting here]



I don't really know much about this issue, but I know selective quoting followed by backtracking/lying when I see it. Nobody has claimed that congestion isn't a problem. The "no demand for this type of thing" was clearly a reference to road pricing schemes, _not_ a denial of the existence of congestion problems.

Just pointing it out so that others know what you're doing.


----------



## citydreams (Jan 29, 2007)

It's not hard to see that there is deep distrust of road user charging - and I haven't got anything to gain from defending it.

My response was to the "it really is another world".  Urban sprawl and congested roads go hand in hand the country over.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 30, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> the contract with Capita runs out in 2009..  are you suggesting that we should scap the CC all together?


alright if it's such a success the proof is int he puddling why not suspend it for 18 months to collect relevant data with a 6 month break clause in that suspension and a 3 week inital take back so that if it means that people are gridlocked through out the C charge zone it can be switched back on if it's so successful as tfl have said then it will be and the point will be proved if however as has been shown previously that traffic into central london was falling anyways even before the c charge then it's make no odds... I mean ken could always organse a massive road improvement and calming scheme coupulled with unworkable contraflows and massive amounts of road words to justify the funding (like last time) manifacutring congestion where there was very limited pockets... then claim vilification of the whole thing...

either way as you can tell this wasn't what i was intially suggesting again you refuse to engauge on any level but the terms you dictate the debate isn't coached in your terms 

it is as it is...

try discussing within that frame work... 

besides the point being made was that a scheme this new shouldn't need modernising it should already be modern.  It's a sign of very very very poor planning and developement of any organiseation or implamentation of practice that it will need entirely revamping after such a short space of time... not only that is that but how mcuh more money is going into the private hands and pockets of 'consultants' to revamp this scheme and who foots the bill?

well it won't be in the charge will it cos if it works as you claim then there'll be fewer cars less charge no extra cash so that'll come from londoners pockets like the intial charge did and the consulation prior to the charge....

so in effect you are saying don't stopt he band waggon we don't wanna get off... 




			
				citydreams said:
			
		

> That is the way government works in the 21st century..  it's a tough fact of life.  I don't like it.  We get paid to the thinking, we then outsource the management.    However, if the CC had failed (as oh so many said it would), then at least it would be companies like Capita that would have had to foot the bill


not talking abotu that love i fully understasnd the proess of priavatistation to capita and why that happened i'm pointing out that we are subsidising companies like first and arriva and nataional etc etc and that a large perecentage of the C charge revenue raised has gone to pay for new fleets for these profit making companies and to increase their subisdised they are paid for runnign the routes... 

now we can arguee all day abotut he benifits of a privatised public access transportation scheme however the simple fact remains each of the bus opperators made and returned a profit to their share hodlers each and every year and this is money which has come directly from the public purse in terms of direct and indirect funding now if you are telling me that is a good way to spend the capital made from the c charge taxation because it provides a small number of increases in buses on lodnons roads and a few more bus lanes then i'd say yes you do need to scrap this expensive subsidy on private companies which we should nto be supporting...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 30, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> It's not hard to see that there is deep distrust of road user charging - and I haven't got anything to gain from defending it.



yeah you do as i have explained you are on the band waggon if you don't defend it and do so with your very core you and all that work inside of TFL will lose your employment.... 




			
				citydreams said:
			
		

> My response was to the "it really is another world".  Urban sprawl and congested roads go hand in hand the country over.


according to you however the country over is feed up of being told what to do by groups which do not know the intracies of the local sitaution and are like you apologists for the privatisation whole sale of pulbic services and the abdicatuion of public culpablity and responsiblities for those services....


----------



## ELO (Jan 30, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> My response was to the "it really is another world".  Urban sprawl and congested roads go hand in hand the country over.



Are you suggesting you can make a serious comparison between the problems of Central London and other smaller cities?


----------



## citydreams (Jan 30, 2007)

ELO said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting you can make a serious comparison between the problems of Central London and other smaller cities?



Yes.. Why shouldn't you? Because of the scale factor? I agree that each city needs to be looked at for it's own issues individually, but the concepts are the same - road assigment according to a Waldrop Equilibrium using utility functions i.e. in layman's terms, traffic goes the quickest/cheapest route possible to get to its destination.  

The most important difference between London and the provinces is, imo, a matter of affordability - Londoner's have a different value of time than elsewhere, however these are factors that can be estimated.

You haven't stated your opinion of the problem ELO. Do you agree that there are too many cars on the road?


----------



## citydreams (Jan 30, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> as i have explained you are on the band waggon if you don't defend it and do so with your very core you and all that work inside of TFL will lose your employment....



Doesn't bother me!!..  I have learned loads since I've been here, and am keen to apply myself to other areas.  




> according to you however the country over is feed up of being told what to do by groups which do not know the intracies of the local sitaution and are like you apologists for the privatisation whole sale of pulbic services and the abdicatuion of public culpablity and responsiblities for those services....



sounds like you're trying to blame me for a lack of local democracy..   
In your estimation, should anyone involved with the privatisation of public sectors walk out on strike in disgust of 21st century politics?  No, of course not, we do what we can to make the best of a bas situation.  How does that make us apologists?


----------



## citydreams (Jan 30, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> alright if it's such a success the proof is int he puddling why not suspend it for 18 months to collect relevant data with a 6 month break clause in that suspension and a 3 week inital take back so that if it means that people are gridlocked through out the C charge zone it can be switched back on if it's so successful



Garf,  you do realise that Road User Charging in London has been analysed and remonstrated over for more than 40 years (see the Smeed Report, ROCOL &c..)  There already is enough data to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that congestion charging works.   For example Congestion Charging has had a full judicial review over the charge, the area, our forecast models because Kensington and Chelsea took them to court (at a cost to the tax payer of millions of pounds).  Additionally, the public is in favour of the CC.

Your suggestion, no matter how noble, is laughable.  Traffic isn't something you can switch on and off.  It has to be managed gradually.




> ken could always organse a massive road improvement and calming scheme coupulled with unworkable contraflows and massive amounts of road words to justify the funding



More paranoid bollox Garf.. Ken couldn't do any such thing.  Nor would he.. He was given a mandate by the electorate to introduce CC.  He did it..  You're the only one that's still complaining.




> either way as you can tell this wasn't what i was intially suggesting again you refuse to engauge on any level but the terms you dictate the debate isn't coached in your terms
> 
> it is as it is...
> 
> try discussing within that frame work...



I'm still trying to see what your argument is ffs!




> besides the point being made was that a scheme this new shouldn't need modernising it should already be modern.  It's a sign of very very very poor planning and developement of any organiseation or implamentation of practice that it will need entirely revamping after such a short space of time...




Again, showing you know nothing about transport planning, the bigger picture, or how contracts are drawn up on something as complicated as this.

I suggest you find something else to rattle your cage at, cause you're wasting your time here Garf.  You're making yourself look stupid.






> not only that is that but how mcuh more money is going into the private hands and pockets of 'consultants' to revamp this scheme and who foots the bill?
> 
> well it won't be in the charge will it cos if it works as you claim then there'll be fewer cars less charge no extra cash so that'll come from londoners pockets like the intial charge did and the consulation prior to the charge....



the money comes from businesses mostly..   besides which, economically it is very easy to show that the CC raises money for London..  Ever stop to think about that??!!


----------



## citydreams (Jan 30, 2007)

Garf: If you want to rile against Ken and TfL, start complaining about how Siemens are wrangling out of their contract to deliver iBus!!


----------



## ELO (Jan 30, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> Yes.. Why shouldn't you? Because of the scale factor? (the difference between London and other cities)



No, not just that. Two reasons.....

1)  Can I be permitted a computing analogy? In the early days the computer companies were looking for a 'killer application, something so good people would buy a computer just to run it. It turned out to be spreadsheets. (exciting aren't they  ) 

Now London has several 'killer apps'. People will always make the effort to get to central London, because it has several things you don't find elsewhere in Britain, even the world. I'm talking about Oxford Street, the City, the Legal quarter etc etc etc. A city law firm  won't give up it's prestigous W1 address to move to an industrial estate near Slough, nor will shoppers swap Regent Street chic for the Tesco extra at Beckton, nor will doctors want to lose the prestige that goes with a Harley Street surgery. People will either cough up or switch to public transport.

Other cities just aren't like that. They *need* to attract people in. I happen to like my city centre, but I could buy everthing I can there in Asda, Currys and Homebase if needs be. Too much employment is already based around the outer ring road and beyond, in public transport UNfriendly locations. How will congestion charging help to reverse this trend, please????

2) Car ownership in the rest of the UK is much more spread across the social groups. I looked at the cars on the way into uni this morning (walking I might add!!). At a guess over half of them were over three years old. Most were small to medium sized. Car ownership isn't a rich mans luxury up here. You should see the number of newspaper adverts 'Own transport essential due to location....Pay? (six quid a hour if you are lucky)

please listen to us........YOU ARE NOT GETTING A TRUE PICTURE LIVING IN LONDON. 



> You haven't stated your opinion of the problem ELO. Do you agree that there are too many cars on the road?



Depends what you mean by too many. The vast majority of car drivers don't own a car to look cool. Some do, to be sure, but they give the rest of us a bad name. But in general PEOPLE OWN CARS BECAUSE THEY NEED THEM,AND THEY USE THEM BECAUSE THEY NEED TO. 

It follows then, the only way to reduce car usage (I personally don't see anything wrong with people *owning* a car as long as they only use it when they need to) is to reduce the NEED to use a car.

In short, it means town planning with the reduction of car usage in mind. And it means young couples thinking about where they live *before* they walk down the aisle.


----------



## citydreams (Jan 30, 2007)

good post ELO, thankyou    Will repsond when I get a chance.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 30, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> This is what I mean by you don't see how policy making works..  you don't see the bigger picture.


hmmm let's thinkt he bigger pciture widening the congestion charge into a congested area where people are already using their cars and there for allowing them a wide range ont heir cars and a substantial discount to do so i better for:

A) congestion free movment
b) the enviroment
c) Re-enforcing the credibility of the congestion charge scheme
d) none of the above...

If this is how polcy making works with in TFL then some one needs to be fired very very quickley more ove prolly a whole team of people need to be fired... 

this is not how to introdyuce or maintain greater congestion limits with in london by allowing more cars into the congestion cars zone to have some level of dispensation, more cars doesn't and can never equal congestion reduction... 

I notice you still have failed to answer the question as posed would you do that now please...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 30, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> Doesn't bother me!!..  I have learned loads since I've been here, and am keen to apply myself to other areas.



good for you ...





			
				citydreams said:
			
		

> sounds like you're trying to blame me for a lack of local democracy..
> In your estimation, should anyone involved with the privatisation of public sectors walk out on strike in disgust of 21st century politics?  No, of course not, we do what we can to make the best of a bas situation.  How does that make us apologists?



nope i'm pointing you you and the organistation you work for a symptomatic of a wider problem, however you try and twist this into a perosnal spat it's not happening, i have no intrest in that what so ever...


----------



## citydreams (Jan 30, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> hmmm let's thinkt he bigger pciture widening the congestion charge into a congested area where people are already using their cars and there for allowing them a wide range ont heir cars and a substantial discount to do so i better for:
> 
> A) congestion free movment
> b) the enviroment
> ...




For once in your life Garf, take your head out of your arse, stop pointing fingers and ask a straightforward question, like: Why did TfL increase the CC to the Western area?  You might get a better response that your constant attempt at shit spreading..  ffs, are you tourettes? no.  so try to behave rationally.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 30, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> Garf,  you do realise that Road User Charging in London has been analysed and remonstrated over for more than 40 years (see the Smeed Report, ROCOL &c..)  There already is enough data to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that congestion charging works.   For example Congestion Charging has had a full judicial review over the charge, the area, our forecast models because Kensington and Chelsea took them to court (at a cost to the tax payer of millions of pounds).


so why is it that in the qutoed articule above from the obsever it's proviing the opposite, judical review means bugger all unless you can phrase the terms it was reviewed under.  hence the hutton report, and i think that we know exactly what that means... you are merely spouting pr press office rhetoric with out understand what it means ... do us a favour lay off the propoganda sauce eh...




			
				citydreams said:
			
		

> Additionally, the public is in favour of the CC.


jesus christ it done'st matter how many times you repeat a lie it doesn't make it any more vaild if people are soooo in favour of it all but me do tell me why there was nearl total opposition to the extension which was then ignored... 




			
				citydreams said:
			
		

> Your suggestion, no matter how noble, is laughable.  Traffic isn't something you can switch on and off.  It has to be managed gradually.


no but if the 'cure' to the problem is congestion charging and not that the fallign levels of traffic which have been happening from before the congestion charge not being forced down more and more encolse restrictive routes and artieral road becoming narrower and narrower then the proof is in the pudding... suspend it for a period see if congestion goes up... 

external stuides are meaningless until they are applied and have some level of control group which will highlight the flaws or fringe benifits of any system there has been none of this with in london... 

regardless of your condasending and patronising tone and attempts to brow beat people into submission... 





			
				citydreams said:
			
		

> More paranoid bollox Garf.. Ken couldn't do any such thing.  Nor would he.. He was given a mandate by the electorate to introduce CC.  He did it..  You're the only one that's still complaining.



yes the road works which were resolved after the congestion charge was brought in were obiviously all in my head...  

and i think you'll find that if you are this blind to the obvious flaws in the concept that you would be even blinder to those who were against your idea.  that's the real problem of surronding yourself with 'yesmen' 





			
				citydreams said:
			
		

> I'm still trying to see what your argument is ffs!



I doubt you ever will, you are apprently blind to any reason...





			
				citydreams said:
			
		

> Again, showing you know nothing about transport planning, the bigger picture, or how contracts are drawn up on something as complicated as this.



bugger how contracts are drawn up they should have been done in a favourable circumstance it's not like it wasn't a buyers market.... 

I suggest you find something else to rattle your cage at, cause you're wasting your time here Garf.  You're making yourself look stupid.[/QUOTE]

yawn do stop this nonsense everythime you refuse to answer a question when you don't have an answer then attempt to state that the person you are debating with knows nothing... 

it's the textural equvierlent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying ner ner ner nah ner ner.... ok can we grow up a tad here.. you think perhaps???





			
				citydreams said:
			
		

> the money comes from businesses mostly..   besides which, economically it is very easy to show that the CC raises money for London..  Ever stop to think about that??!!



really for london or for private firms subsidised with in london... a clean cut difference... 

but me no i'm way to stupid to think about things after all i'm a raving nutter me.. oh yes...  pure 1000% emotional being chap...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 30, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> For once in your life Garf, take your head out of your arse, stop pointing fingers and ask a straightforward question, like: Why did TfL increase the CC to the Western area?  You might get a better response that your constant attempt at shit spreading..  ffs, are you tourettes? no.  so try to behave rationally.


firstly ....intresting comment about anyone. to use a disablity as a form of attack i hope this registers with every person who may have read this discussion thus far, this is the candour of a member of TFL representing the congestion charge on these boards....

we digress...

i'm not asking that question nor am i preparred to coach the discussion in terms you find acceptable.  

Again one wonders if this philiosphy pervades the whole of TFL as it seems one can call for discussion and debate as to the need for an extentsion ro the C Charge and then say that the views as were repsented are meanignless and it's going ahead regardless, and there was no need to consult with anyone as this is what TFL have decided. 

They can campaign promising not to increase the CCharge and then less than a month after reelection put it up... 

again ingorning anyone who might state they are unhappy or in dissagreement with them.


----------



## citydreams (Jan 30, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> so why is it that in the qutoed articule above from the obsever it's proviing the opposite



quote the question and I'll have a look





> judical review means bugger all unless you can phrase the terms it was reviewed under



read the review then have you? no, of course you haven't




> yes the road works which were resolved after the congestion charge was brought in were obiviously all in my head...



road works weren't allowed to be done during the introduction of the CC for very obvious reasons.  the same is happening for the western extension, again, for very obvious reasons.




> bugger how contracts are drawn up they should have been done in a favourable circumstance it's not like it wasn't a buyers market....



O Rly?!  You're experienced with billion pound contracts then are you?


----------



## citydreams (Jan 30, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> firstly ....intresting comment about anyone. to use a disablity as a form of attack i hope this registers with every person who may have read this discussion thus far, this is the candour of a member of TFL representing the congestion charge on these boards....



Oh do fuck off Garf.. 

I really can't be bothered with your stupid games.

I don't represent TfL.. I'm here as me.. as someone who lives and works and commutes in London.  So stop your sanctimonious shit, OK?

Else do some real questioning and ask TfL directly.  Otherwise piss off with your attitude.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 30, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> Garf: If you want to rile against Ken and TfL, start complaining about how Siemens are wrangling out of their contract to deliver iBus!!


no how about i complain rather that tfl have reintroduced london buses aren't building the thing themselves but instead award the contrac tto a copany reknowed through out the industry and particularlly within whitehall as utterly failing to deleiver any project on time or in budget.... hmm why were they choosen... then who foots the bill for this...

you simply don't get it do you...

civil servants and public sector workers are accountable to the public... it's not your own money you are spending... it's ours... if we start to say oi no then you need to listen to us rather than patting us on the head and sayign there there we know best... becuase it has been proven time after time after time... you fuckign don't... you fuck up and it lands us with problems down the line as we pick upthe bill after you have flown to another orgnaistaiton after learnign many new things ...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 30, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> Oh do fuck off Garf..
> 
> I really can't be bothered with your stupid games.
> 
> ...


erm no 

i think you'll find the correct response here is actually: you are right that comment was well out of order i'll edit it and would you please do the same in your post...


----------



## citydreams (Jan 30, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> civil servants and public sector workers are accountable to the public... it's not your own money you are spending... it's ours... if we start to say oi no then you need to listen to us rather than patting us on the head and sayign there there we know best... becuase it has been proven time after time after time... you fuckign don't... you fuck up and it lands us with problems down the line as we pick upthe bill after you have flown to another orgnaistaiton after learnign many new things ...



I totally agree.. but try having a conversation, rather than a wobbly and you're going to get a better response.  It's nice that you're passionate, but you need to learn to have a conversation rather than an argument.  Comprende?



> no how about i complain rather that tfl have reintroduced london buses aren't building the thing themselves but instead award the contrac tto a copany reknowed through out the industry and particularlly within whitehall as utterly failing to deleiver any project on time or in budget.... hmm why were they choosen... then who foots the bill for this...



Who are you talking about?  I have friends in London buses so I could enquire.

You're saying that TfL should be building buses itself right?  Why not go to a bus building specialist?


----------



## citydreams (Jan 30, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> erm no
> 
> i think you'll find the correct response here is actually: you are right that comment was well out of order i'll edit it and would you please do the same in your post...



or I could just tell you to fuck off you sanctimonious twat.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 30, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> or I could just tell you to fuck off you sanctimonious twat.


hmm no you are still not getting it are you, through out this entire discussion you have been attempting ot personalise the debate you then do so to an extent where it's no longer possible to ingore your comments as they are derogitory towards a specific group if you think ti wuld have been acceptable to say what are you a nigger then please come back and tell me to fuck off again otherwise edit your post and i'll do like wise... 

you have no grounds with which to be outraged any footing you may have had fell with your comment.  period... 

no look at it objectively and do the decent thing...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 30, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> I totally agree.. but try having a conversation, rather than a wobbly and you're going to get a better response.  It's nice that you're passionate, but you need to learn to have a conversation rather than an argument.  Comprende?



i have never said it's anything other than a debate you seem to wish to make it confrontational with personal remarks adhomine attacks and then derogitory comments... perhaps you need to learn how to converse and debate like an adult ... a number of people have pointed out on this thread why they are dissagreeing with you and why you continued wriggling and fronting it out when ever anyone asks you a question you find difficult appears isn't helpful to the debate... you are in a minority of one on your stance in this respect.  this neither means that people are ganging up or for that matter bullying you purely becuae they disagree fundamentally with what you are saying. 

try dealing with that... ok...







			
				citydreams said:
			
		

> Who are you talking about?  I have friends in London buses so I could enquire.
> 
> You're saying that TfL should be building buses itself right?  Why not go to a bus building specialist?



tell me again are arriva and national and first private companies subsidised by public money or are they infact just the old london bus companies with funky new names... which are in a profit making model??? 

yes london should build it's own buses it used to and it used to be the speacilists besides wicvh you'd be goign to manfacturers and specifiying the desgin just as they do... what you say in this comment is really why should there be any accountablity in public transport to the public...


----------



## citydreams (Jan 30, 2007)

Garf,

I've tried to talk with you but we're not connecting.  I don't know, maybe I just don't get your positing style.  Anyway.. I've had enough of it.  Good luck with your campaign &c.


----------



## citydreams (Jan 30, 2007)

ELO said:
			
		

> No, not just that. Two reasons.....
> 
> 1)  Can I be permitted a computing analogy? In the early days the computer companies were looking for a 'killer application, something so good people would buy a computer just to run it. It turned out to be spreadsheets. (exciting aren't they  )
> 
> ...



Sorry ELO, will answer shortly...


----------



## citydreams (Jan 30, 2007)

ELO said:
			
		

> It follows then, the only way to reduce car usage (I personally don't see anything wrong with people *owning* a car as long as they only use it when they need to) is to reduce the NEED to use a car.



I agree, I think there should be no need for a car.  But how long is it going to take to shift town planning around?  Some may argue it is already too late and that you have to let business centres grow organically &c.

What is needed is a relaible and efficient transport system to induce people out of their cars.  This takes money, that just isn't available.  Sad fact of life, but nothing that can be done about it.

To give you an idea of the scale of the problem, London needs and extra £6 billion a year on top of the £6 billion it already spends.  And to counter any "you're wasting it all on consultants" bollox, the subsidy on buses alone in London is £1billion.   

If there is a possibility of raising revenue then your council would be acting irresponsibly not to investigate the idea.

I don't know much about Derby.. 
It looks like the council have only just finished spending £40million on the connecting Derby project.  Has it made any difference?

Looks like this is the reason why Derby is considering CC


> A new high-tech driverless train system is also being considered. But it will only receive government funding if a congestion charge is brought in.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/5154906.stm


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 30, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> Garf,
> 
> I've tried to talk with you but we're not connecting.  I don't know, maybe I just don't get your positing style.  Anyway.. I've had enough of it.  Good luck with your campaign &c.


sadly you have tried to aviod answering any point os substance period.

I fidn it very sad that you still cannot remove you comment however, i thought you were better than that...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 30, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> To give you an idea of the scale of the problem, London needs and extra £6 billion a year on top of the £6 billion it already spends.  And to counter any "you're wasting it all on consultants" bollox, the subsidy on buses alone in London is £1billion.



again i'm still wondering why any one is subsidising a private profit making company let alone to the tune of 1 billion... that's scandleous and it wouldn't happen in any other indusrty...


----------



## citydreams (Jan 30, 2007)

If they weren't subsidised the fares would need to go up.  The money covers OAP, students &c, but even without them prices would still need to be higher than they are.  TfL does this because it believes in public transport.  Not all London buses are private companies by the way.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 30, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> If they weren't subsidised the fares would need to go up.  The money covers OAP, students &c, but even without them prices would still need to be higher than they are.  TfL does this because it believes in public transport.  Not all London buses are private companies by the way.


why would fairs need to be higher these companies are turnign in a profit each year.

this sounds like the same argument as train companies make well we have to put up fairs to imporve things but in reality they are still turning in a profit regardless.  

The point surely is that none of this should be in private hands period.

public transport cannot cand should not be run for profit.


----------



## citydreams (Jan 30, 2007)

> The point surely is that none of this should be in private hands period.
> 
> public transport cannot and should not be run for profit.



I do agree with you Garf!!



> why would fairs need to be higher these companies are turnign in a profit each year.



Because the profit they make is nowhere near to the subsidy that TfL injects into the system.  Not even close.  OK, the fact that Stagecoach were making almost £20million a year (pre-tax) profit on London buses (and made another £60million selling them on to Macquarie) is revolting.  But what do you expect? The bus market was deregulated.  It's going to take a major change in policy to put it right again.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 31, 2007)

so make the change already... 


i believe if london sorted out its trasnportation without penalising the public the this model would be exercised else where in the uk...

so bring it all back in house....


----------



## citydreams (Jan 31, 2007)

I left my magic wand at home


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 31, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> I left my magic wand at home


yes because it's entierly down to you isn't it... one can't make and abstract point... after all...


----------



## citydreams (Jan 31, 2007)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> so make the change already...



who's that aimed at?


----------



## citydreams (Jan 31, 2007)

dp


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 31, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> who's that aimed at?


it's a general comment... nothing more...


----------



## citydreams (Jan 31, 2007)

for a moment I thought you were trying to hold local government officers accountable!


----------



## ELO (Jan 31, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> IWhat is needed is a relaible and efficient transport system to induce people out of their cars.



Trouble is the majority of car journeys couldn't be switched to public transport that easily. Hence the need to reduce the *need* to travel.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jan 31, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> for a moment I thought you were trying to hold local government officers accountable!


hell no why the flying fuck should i be the first to do that...


----------



## ELO (Feb 2, 2007)

citydreams said:
			
		

> I
> If there is a possibility of raising revenue then your council would be acting irresponsibly not to investigate the idea.




Hi again CD.

If I was being picky, I could say you haven't really answered my point 1) above 

"1) Can I be permitted a computing analogy? In the early days the computer companies were looking for a 'killer application, something so good people would buy a computer just to run it. It turned out to be spreadsheets. (exciting aren't they  ) 

Now London has several 'killer apps" People will always make the effort to get to central London, because it has several things you don't find elsewhere in Britain, even the world. I'm talking about Oxford Street, the City, the Legal quarter etc etc etc. A city law firm won't give up it's prestigous W1 address to move to an industrial estate near Slough, nor will shoppers swap Regent Street chic for the Tesco extra at Beckton, nor will doctors want to lose the prestige that goes with a Harley Street surgery. People will either cough up or switch to public transport.

Other cities just aren't like that. They *need* to attract people in. I happen to like my city centre, but I could buy everthing I can there in Asda, Currys and Homebase if needs be. Too much employment is already based around the outer ring road and beyond, in public transport UNfriendly locations. How will congestion charging help to reverse this trend, please????"

Ironically I think CC in smaller cities will make us more, not less dependant on cars.


----------

