• Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

stokiescum

congestion charges

Recommended Posts

its obviese other citys will look on enviously how much londinistan rakes in from this tax how long till others want a slice of this pie,and will they try and sneak it onto the moterways that pass through there outskirts for maximun taxy taxy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, whitevanman said:

Birmingham is introducing a clean air zone next year, £12 a day for pre '06 petrol and pre '15 diesel cars.

that i didnt know how big is the zone and im betting its expanded within 3 years to nail spageti junction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apart from subsidising council executives' wages and pensions it's like they're working hand in glove with Mike Ashley who seems to be buying up retail outlets by the handful at rock bottom prices. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, stokiescum said:

that i didnt know how big is the zone and im betting its expanded within 3 years to nail spageti junction

image.png.0bc8a8fa198ee9ddb47eddb47f9b3f0d.png

Not very big, but includes their tourist attactions and the Mosqie but I suspect most of its visitors will park their old Toyotas the other side of the ring road.

Didn't know that Birmingham has an officially gay village between the Chinese quarter and the Mosqie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I approve of congestion charges. It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to ration access to a scare resource, in this instance road space during peak travel hours, if the alternative is near gridlock every day, with the knock-on effects on air quality from vehicles idling for extended periods going nowhere. If I actually needed to drive into a city centre for work, paying a tenner or so to save a lot of time seems a perfectly reasonable exchange.

If the revenue raised from the charge was ring-fenced for improvements to public transport, and/or to improve road capacity to further reduce congestion, I don't see that there are any reasonable objections. Of course I doubt it will be, but if more people responded to public consultations with "fine, as long as you ring-rence the revenue" then it would surely be more likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Chewing Grass said:

image.png.0bc8a8fa198ee9ddb47eddb47f9b3f0d.png

Not very big, but includes their tourist attactions and the Mosqie but I suspect most of its visitors will park their old Toyotas the other side of the ring road.

Didn't know that Birmingham has an officially gay village between the Chinese quarter and the Mosqie.

bet the ropers will love that ,ive never heard of a gay village in brum either bet they are thinking we can get some of manchesters canal street action or just want to apear inclusive and made it up and hope no one notices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rave said:

I approve of congestion charges. It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to ration access to a scare resource, in this instance road space during peak travel hours, if the alternative is near gridlock every day, with the knock-on effects on air quality from vehicles idling for extended periods going nowhere. If I actually needed to drive into a city centre for work, paying a tenner or so to save a lot of time seems a perfectly reasonable exchange.

If the revenue raised from the charge was ring-fenced for improvements to public transport, and/or to improve road capacity to further reduce congestion, I don't see that there are any reasonable objections. Of course I doubt it will be, but if more people responded to public consultations with "fine, as long as you ring-rence the revenue" then it would surely be more likely.

you might not say that if you had a minimum wage job but needed to drive in 12 miles to do it and the alternative was 2 hours useing 4 different buses to get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, stokiescum said:

you might not say that if you had a minimum wage job but needed to drive in 12 miles to do it and the alternative was 2 hours useing 4 different buses to get there.

No, I might well not, but as I already suggested, I'd probably be less unhappy about it if the money raised was spend subsidising buses and trains so that I could get a direct bus, use a park-and-ride, get a train/tram, or whatever. If the congestion is bad enough that a congestion charge is justified, then I'd argue that people driving through town to get to a minimum wage job are clearly affecting the productivity of people (like tradesmen, delivery drivers etc.) who have no choice but to drive into the centre. The alternative is presumably to let the congestion get so bad that it takes everyone 2 hours to get to and from work...would that be sensible?

There are always winners and losers from any change to taxation policy. BTL Landlords aren't very happy about Section 24, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only a matter of time in Belfast, new bus lanes everywhere have massively increased congestion, to which the only possible solution will be charges 

But it’s definately the Internet that’s killing retail 😀😀😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Bedrag Justesen said:

Motorcycles exempt unlike London.

It's an odd choice to charge motorcyclists for congestion.

They're not being charged for congestion, they're being charged for emissions. Bikes only need to be Euro 3, which is post 2005 as far as I can tell. Again it seems quite reasonable, carbed bikes chuck out loads of unburnt hydrocarbons, and you can buy a bike that complies for not very much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rave said:

No, I might well not, but as I already suggested, I'd probably be less unhappy about it if the money raised was spend subsidising buses and trains so that I could get a direct bus, use a park-and-ride, get a train/tram, or whatever. If the congestion is bad enough that a congestion charge is justified, then I'd argue that people driving through town to get to a minimum wage job are clearly affecting the productivity of people (like tradesmen, delivery drivers etc.) who have no choice but to drive into the centre. The alternative is presumably to let the congestion get so bad that it takes everyone 2 hours to get to and from work...would that be sensible?

There are always winners and losers from any change to taxation policy. BTL Landlords aren't very happy about Section 24, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good policy.

a good retort but its only going to expand,im betting london has at least 25,000 comunity carers that are geting nailed by this daily.all it does is up sevral taxes indirectly ie council tax to pay for it all.then those that have to actualy pay for it pay even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stokiescum said:

its obviese other citys will look on enviously how much londinistan rakes in from this tax how long till others want a slice of this pie,and will they try and sneak it onto the moterways that pass through there outskirts for maximun taxy taxy.

 

1 hour ago, whitevanman said:

Birmingham is introducing a clean air zone next year, £12 a day for pre '06 petrol and pre '15 diesel cars.

Shithole indicator.

If there is a congestion charge - AVOID - simples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stokiescum said:

a good retort but its only going to expand,im betting london has at least 25,000 comunity carers that are geting nailed by this daily.all it does is up sevral taxes indirectly ie council tax to pay for it all.then those that have to actualy pay for it pay even more.

We all know the care system is chronically broken and probably going to get worse, and on the face of it it would be another kick in the teeth for them.

But in their specific case, if the congestion charge has the effect of actually reducing congestion (which is a big if, admittedly) then carers will be able to do more visits and/or spend longer with their charges if they're spending less time stuck in traffic. Fewer carers should be able to service the same number of clients, which would make it cost effective to either pay them more, or just have their employer pay the charge for them.

Or it might have the effect of forcing people who need care to move out of central areas, freeing up homes there for people who work locally, thus further reducing congestion caused by commuters. And yes, I realize that forcing the elderly and infirm to move house isn't nice for them, but as I say, there are always winners and losers. Do nothing, and the losers are those doing productive jobs, and people whose neighbourhoods are blighted by traffic and pollution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rave said:

We all know the care system is chronically broken and probably going to get worse, and on the face of it it would be another kick in the teeth for them.

But in their specific case, if the congestion charge has the effect of actually reducing congestion (which is a big if, admittedly) then carers will be able to do more visits and/or spend longer with their charges if they're spending less time stuck in traffic. Fewer carers should be able to service the same number of clients, which would make it cost effective to either pay them more, or just have their employer pay the charge for them.

Or it might have the effect of forcing people who need care to move out of central areas, freeing up homes there for people who work locally, thus further reducing congestion caused by commuters. And yes, I realize that forcing the elderly and infirm to move house isn't nice for them, but as I say, there are always winners and losers. Do nothing, and the losers are those doing productive jobs, and people whose neighbourhoods are blighted by traffic and pollution.

xD  they will charge carers out of their measly wages. 

Im not cynical thought. o.O 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rave said:

They're not being charged for congestion, they're being charged for emissions. Bikes only need to be Euro 3, which is post 2005 as far as I can tell. Again it seems quite reasonable, carbed bikes chuck out loads of unburnt hydrocarbons, and you can buy a bike that complies for not very much.

Clean air, congestion, noise, whatever they want to call it whenever it suits them on The One Show.

I don't agree with the charge because it's bollocks.

The same people will make the same journeys in the same cars and stuff and either swallow the cost or pass it on.

Over time people may update their old diesels to something newer, or switch to electric, but then they'll move on from saying it's about clean air, to saying it's about congestion. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, stokiescum said:

bet the ropers will love that ,ive never heard of a gay village in brum either bet they are thinking we can get some of manchesters canal street action or just want to apear inclusive and made it up and hope no one notices.

It's near a good few gig venues but unlike Manchester it doesn't have a particularly in your face ambience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, One percent said:

xD  they will charge carers out of their measly wages. 

Im not cynical thought. o.O 

I don't know why carers seemingly put up with their current conditions. Sooner or later the situation will deteriorate to the point where employers will have to pay them more or face chronic shortages of people willing to do the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rave said:

I don't know why carers seemingly put up with their current conditions. Sooner or later the situation will deteriorate to the point where employers will have to pay them more or face chronic shortages of people willing to do the job.

In rural areas, desperation. Needing a job. In places like London, god only knows. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rave said:

We all know the care system is chronically broken and probably going to get worse, and on the face of it it would be another kick in the teeth for them.

But in their specific case, if the congestion charge has the effect of actually reducing congestion (which is a big if, admittedly) then carers will be able to do more visits and/or spend longer with their charges if they're spending less time stuck in traffic. Fewer carers should be able to service the same number of clients, which would make it cost effective to either pay them more, or just have their employer pay the charge for them.

Or it might have the effect of forcing people who need care to move out of central areas, freeing up homes there for people who work locally, thus further reducing congestion caused by commuters. And yes, I realize that forcing the elderly and infirm to move house isn't nice for them, but as I say, there are always winners and losers. Do nothing, and the losers are those doing productive jobs, and people whose neighbourhoods are blighted by traffic and pollution.

em,thats thinking out of the box.and your talking to someone who thinks single pensioners should be relocated out of 3 bed semis that the state pays pension credits ie council houses and a family put in them.those that argue that its their house they have been here 50 years its wrong i normaly point out to its not actualy there house.however we both know that people will still caugh up and pay and thus have less cash to spend to keep our economy afloat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Bedrag Justesen said:

Clean air, congestion, noise, whatever they want to call it whenever it suits them on The One Show.

I don't agree with the charge because it's bollocks.

The same people will make the same journeys in the same cars and stuff and either swallow the cost or pass it on.

Over time people may update their old diesels to something newer, or switch to electric, but then they'll move on from saying it's about clean air, to saying it's about congestion. 

 

Yes. It’s gouging. A stealth tax. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rave said:

I don't know why carers seemingly put up with their current conditions. Sooner or later the situation will deteriorate to the point where employers will have to pay them more or face chronic shortages of people willing to do the job.

its aready here,the only thing keeping it going is working tax credits very few work doing it full time.they will be forced to up the wages by a lot to recruit within the next 3-4 years.many from abroad cant even drive never mind afoard car insurence has a new driver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bedrag Justesen said:

I don't agree with the charge because it's bollocks.

The same people will make the same journeys in the same cars and stuff and either swallow the cost or pass it on.

That doesn't make it bollocks. If, as you say, the same people make the same journeys in the same vehicles*, you're still collecting a load of tax revenue which you can deploy to treat people who are made ill by the pollution, or build more houses/schools outside the grot zone, or dramatically improve public transport etc. etc. It's a Pigovian tax.

*which I actually very much doubt, as £12 a day is £60 per 5-day working week, £240 a month, which is a significant enough amount of money that I think a lot of people will find other ways of travelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.