TFL andCTC repsonse

[navigator]

in this weeks e mail
CTC supports ‘Chelsea tractor’ super-charge

Transport for London have been consulting on changing London’s congestion charge to £25 for drivers of the largest cars and offer no exemption for residents. This will affect 14% of the cars in central London. Given the extra danger to vulnerable road users posed by larger vehicles and the importance of reducing carbon emissions the change seems sensible, however we would prefer the base rate for normal cars – currently £8 - to rise as soon as possible as well. It seems likely the £25 charge will come into force in October 2008. Download our response

Well i did download it and i have to say i disagree with it. CTC quote that they have 70000 members and imply all agree with there response.
WELL COUNT Me OUT CTC.
I am completely opposed to congestion charging of any sort its just an excuse for extra taxation and lack of infra structure investment. In fact its even worse than that as its a tax on the less well off. do you really think the City/ CEO's/Kensington tractor owners will worry about £25. NO.
Will it add extra safe cycling routes, remove bendy buses, reduce polluting taxi's etc of course it wont.
====================
YEs before you ask i am pro bike...i ride one every day, but i object to this short sighted TFL view of life that cars = Congestion = global warming and we all must pay.
I am dismayed CTC agree with it.

ps brother Ken travels everywhere by taxi andall londers pay for it.

[glueman]

London can cope with a congestion charge. It has a tube system, night buses and we're told a near critical mass of cyclists, something other towns and cities don't enjoy.
Parking is near impossible anyway. If ever a place could be said to have a transport infrastructure worth the name, it's London Town.

[yaxu]

It's not a tax on the less well off. If you can't afford to pay the congestion charge then you have healthier, more sustainable, cheaper options. If you still want to drive your car then fine, but you have to make your congestion charge contribution, which aides wider transport investment.

You can't build more road infrastructure in central London - there isn't room. However other forms of transport are being invested in heavily with clear results.

Large numbers of cars do equal congestion, which means air pollution and therefore a dirty, sick city. Why do you want that?

[yaxu]

"ps brother Ken travels everywhere by taxi andall londers pay for it."

I am pretty sure he travels to work by tube, but I'd be interested in a citation.

[keepontriking]

in this weeks e mail

... i object to this short sighted TFL view of life that cars = Congestion = global warming and we all must pay.

We don't all pay - only those who choose to drive, pollute, and cause congestion.

Its not compulsory.

[2Tubs]

Sorry navigator I'm guessing you're in a minority of CTC members.

All motorists moan about congestion yet few are willing to admit that many of the journeys they chose to take by car are unnecessary.

If pricing them off the road works then so be it. Couldn't care less. No bone to pick

Gazza

[Cunobelin]

"ps brother Ken travels everywhere by taxi and all londers pay for it."

Whereas the option of a mayoral car with driver and the recurring costs for repair , maintenance, tax and all the other charges would be borne by someone else?

The issue here is surely whether any politician should be able to claim these charges surely - not what the charges are?

[Peter Rowell]

Never mind London, why shouldn't we have a congestion charge for people coming out of the cities (to go to the rural authorities). If we have to pay to go into the towns, why shouldn't town residents have to pay to go into the country. It might give our bus services more finance. Not everyone can ride a bike or ride the distances required to visit dentists etc. when you live out of town. My wife has difficulty walking, to visit our doctors surgery, I have to drive her four miles each way (the only bus service is two services which travel about 10-11 miles each way). Come on Londoners, you've never had it so good.

[yaxu]

That's what the tax on fuel is for Peter. It doesn't make sense to call it a congestion charge where there isn't congestion though.

[PW]

Anything which reduces the number of motor vehicles on the road has to be a good idea.

[Peter Rowell]

It doesn't make sense to call it a congestion charge where there isn't congestion though.

You obviously haven't seen the A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon and the approach roads to Cambridge.

[yaxu]

Well if there's congestion there then maybe a congestion charge is appropriate.

I'm not clear on your argument here really. I'm in favour of using taxation (including the cc) to reduce the use of cars and therefore congestion, air pollution and noise pollution while generating revenue to improve public transport. The result is improved quality of life for both rich and poor.

[ianr1950]

What about the car parking levy that is almost certain to be introduced in Nottingham?

[navigator]

glueman spot on. london does have the ifra structure to cope. the rest of the country doesnt. Thats what gets my goat...london congestion charging is being riolled out.
Yaxu... air pollution is mainly driven by desiel engines so some trains,all airplanes,all taxis all lorries etc. they are also noisy as are motor buikes
my argument was two fold.
one against the CTC for assuming i agreed with it and secondly against congestion charging.
Motorists and there are loads in the CTC already pay to use roads...road tax, petrol tax and of course pollution tax for CO2 generation as a sub set of road tax. so my argument is that the congestion charge is just another tax on top of road users huge tax bill.
what it exemplifies to me is that in order to be "green" you need to play hard ball and thats where our politicans wilt here !
If we all got out our cars today pubilic transport AND THE ECONOMY couldn't cope..trains already cant !
We need a grand plan and i suspect no goverment will yet do it..They will tinker and call it green or envoironmental a but its tinkering and fooling us or trying to .
here are some ideas.
A) tax people who live more than 10 miles from where they work.The further they live the more they pay.
B) limit where companies can build new sheds..sorry i mean distribution centres and factories. Make it local. build near population centres
c) Invest in Buses forget trains They are for freight only (gets many lorries off the road).forget airports they are so yesterday.
C) stop immigration now the infrastruture cant take it
d) build proper traffic free cycle routes.
e) scrap road tax and congestion charging just put extra tax on fuel. the more you drive the more you pay.simple.
i could go on but you get the idea.

[yaxu]

CTC is specifically supporting the CC extension to Chelsea in London. You appear to agree with congestion charging in London because it has the infrastructure to cope. If I read you correctly you agree with the CTC's position, but are worried about a 'slippery slope' where similar schemes get implemented in inappropriate places.

According to this research, congestion charging in London *does* reduce air pollution:
http://www.londonair.org.uk/london/asp/ ... rtType=All

I would expect that fewer motor vehicles would reduce noise pollution a little too but cannot find any stats.

Ken was extremely brave bringing the CC in, and now no serious mayoral candidate proposes getting rid of it.