In message , Steve
writes
Yes, that was the point of the charge, i.e. to increase the movement of
transport in the zone. To argue that because the road was clear you should
not pay is nonsensical.

I'm arguing that it's inequitable for me to pay the whole charge to
drive a very short distance (on a road that pre-congestion-charge was
just as empty) as someone who is using the central roads all day.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 22:24:38 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , Steve
writes
Yes, that was the point of the charge, i.e. to increase the movement of
transport in the zone. To argue that because the road was clear you should
not pay is nonsensical.

I'm arguing that it's inequitable for me to pay the whole charge to
drive a very short distance (on a road that pre-congestion-charge was
just as empty) as someone who is using the central roads all day.

It is inequitable. The Congestion Charge at present is pretty crude.

Maybe the technology and move towards a metered approach?


Rob.
--
rob at robertwoolley dot co dot uk

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:30:32 +0000, Robert Woolley
wrote:

It is inequitable. The Congestion Charge at present is pretty crude.

Maybe the technology and move towards a metered approach?

Why? The charge is arguably more aimed at preventing avoidable
journeys, of which many are short.

If someone has a need to drive around *all day* within the Zone, and
are willing to pay all the other charges associated with this (parking
etc), they probably have a genuine need for their vehicle.

This is the reason, incidentally, why there is no season ticket/block
booking facility (other than for residents). It is supposed to be as
inconvenient/expensive as possible - not to be made easy.

Neil

--
Neil Williams
is a valid email address, but is sent to /dev/null.
Try my first name at the above domain instead if you want to e-mail me.

Neil Williams wrote:
wrote:

It is inequitable. The Congestion Charge at present is pretty crude.

Maybe the technology and move towards a metered approach?

Why? The charge is arguably more aimed at preventing avoidable
journeys, of which many are short.

If someone has a need to drive around *all day* within the Zone, and
are willing to pay all the other charges associated with this (parking
etc), they probably have a genuine need for their vehicle.

This is the reason, incidentally, why there is no season ticket/block
booking facility (other than for residents). It is supposed to be as
inconvenient/expensive as possible - not to be made easy.

And that's bad policy! Making it expensive is OK, because at least TfL
get the money - but making it inconvenient is just stupid - businesses
lose much of the benefit that the congestion charge would have brought,
and TfL get nothing.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , Steve
writes
Yes, that was the point of the charge, i.e. to increase the movement of
transport in the zone. To argue that because the road was clear you
should
not pay is nonsensical.

I'm arguing that it's inequitable for me to pay the whole charge to
drive a very short distance (on a road that pre-congestion-charge was
just as empty) as someone who is using the central roads all day.
--

If leeway was given to people going a hundred yards inside the zone then the
people going two hundred yards would whinge. If the rules were relaxed to
allow them to get away with it that means that the zone is reduced in size.
The people a hundred yards inside that boundary would also whinge and the
boundary gets moved again and eventually we end up with the original
situation.

All such measures are inequitable to some. However in order to resolve a
problem a line has to be drawn somewhere, that line was drawn at a given
point on the ground and made obvious to all. You crossed it knowingly.

In message , Cast_Iron
writes
that line was drawn at a given
point on the ground and made obvious to all. You crossed it knowingly.

sigh Yes, London is full GO AWAY. (And I have).
--
Roland Perry