In message , at 14:33:09 on
Mon, 10 Dec 2018, Recliner remarked:

Going back to one of your earlier suggestions, it might be more
tolerable if the system was smart enough to allow a small number of
free visits by any vehicle to the zone (say, two per month), and only
imposed a charge after that was exceeded. It would ensure that people
regularly driving in the zone invested in clean vehicles, but rare
visitors weren't impeded.

The authorities seem wedded to the idea of nickel-and-diming everyone
whenever they can. It'd also be great to get half a dozen free trips at
the Dartford Crossing a year, or maybe half a dozen peak-time rail fares
at the off-peak rate.

Neither would have any measurable impact on the volume of 'traffic', and
are simply a stealth tax on distress purchases.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 14:57:35 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:33:09 on
Mon, 10 Dec 2018, Billy No Mates Billy No remarked:

Going back to one of your earlier suggestions, it might be more
tolerable if the system was smart enough to allow a small number of
free visits by any vehicle to the zone (say, two per month), and only
imposed a charge after that was exceeded. It would ensure that people
regularly driving in the zone invested in clean vehicles, but rare
visitors weren't impeded.

The authorities seem wedded to the idea of nickel-and-diming everyone
whenever they can. It'd also be great to get half a dozen free trips at
the Dartford Crossing a year, or maybe half a dozen peak-time rail fares
at the off-peak rate.

The new dart charge was designed to make it a PITA to pay in order to extract
fines from those who don't. Usually the only time I go over that bridge is
when I'm heading to Dover to go to France and once on the continent paying
that sodding charge is the last thing on my mind. It was a damn site easier
just to hand over a couple of quid and forget all about it.

Neither would have any measurable impact on the volume of 'traffic', and
are simply a stealth tax on distress purchases.

From when I've been through, removing the barriers has made little difference
to the southbound and almost no difference to the northbound which still backs
back to the A20 on a w/e.

wrote in message
news
On Sun, 9 Dec 2018 17:15:08 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:35:56 on Sun, 9 Dec 2018,
Billy Bum Bandit No Mates remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:23:54 on Sun, 9 Dec
2018,
Billy Bum Bandit No Mates remarked:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/u...don-pollution-
charge-may-be-mayor-sadiq-khans-poll-tax-moment-kf8h2z5hm?shareToken=50
fd0db33f7e78ede69332bfd5bf9172

"the charge, levied on older and more polluting vehicles...
applies to nearly all diesel cars and vans licensed before
September 2015"

In other words, not just "older" ones, but almost all that aren't
effectively brand new. And of course the ones which escape the charge
are precisely the generation where some manufacturers were recently
caught fiddling the testing.

If they were genuinely wanting this charge to persuade people to
buy/use
less-polluting vehicles, it should have been set for diesels at the
previous 2009 Euro-5 standard, because not everyone can afford to scrap
their three year old car.

Yes, this is turning into a hefty stealth tax, affecting far more
vehicles
and their owners than was previously recognised. As you say, other than
the
newest models, practically all diesels would incur the daily tax.

Although I don't drive inside the M25 very much (mainly rat-runs around
accident blockages on the M25) I might have not so willingly recently
bought a Euro-4 diesel car if a Euro-5 one would have been OK according
to the mayor.

All the mayors idiotic tax will achieve is sending perfectly good cars to
the scrapheap too early which - if they're replaced - will released a
whole
lot more pollution into the atmosphere. That and a huge rise in the number
of
cloned and foreign plates being used inside the zone which coupled with
the
total lack of traffic police these days will just lead to people taking
the
****.

All this because of his dogmatic attachment to his no rise in fares policy
and the screwup that is crossrail.

People inside the cordon would not have very often passed the cordon
[outbound] in their normal lives, and hence would rarely have had to
pay.

Unlike with the congestion charge zone, this new zone won't have just an
in/out
line you can avoid.

CCZ doesn't have an in/out line that can be avoided

They (is it still Crapitia?) have (in theory) roving vehicles recording reg
numbers of cars that start and finish their journey wholly within the zone
and of cars parked up in bays that don't qualify for exemption (I think
that's all on street bays except residents bays, BICBW).

tim

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 09:56:31 on Mon, 10 Dec
2018, remarked:
On Sun, 9 Dec 2018 17:15:08 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:35:56 on Sun, 9 Dec 2018,
Billy Bum Bandit No Mates remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:23:54 on Sun, 9 Dec
2018,
Billy Bum Bandit No Mates remarked:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/u...don-pollution-
charge-may-be-mayor-sadiq-khans-poll-tax-moment-kf8h2z5hm?shareToken=50
fd0db33f7e78ede69332bfd5bf9172

"the charge, levied on older and more polluting vehicles...
applies to nearly all diesel cars and vans licensed before
September 2015"

In other words, not just "older" ones, but almost all that aren't
effectively brand new. And of course the ones which escape the charge
are precisely the generation where some manufacturers were recently
caught fiddling the testing.

If they were genuinely wanting this charge to persuade people to
buy/use
less-polluting vehicles, it should have been set for diesels at the
previous 2009 Euro-5 standard, because not everyone can afford to
scrap
their three year old car.

Yes, this is turning into a hefty stealth tax, affecting far more
vehicles
and their owners than was previously recognised. As you say, other than
the
newest models, practically all diesels would incur the daily tax.

Although I don't drive inside the M25 very much (mainly rat-runs around
accident blockages on the M25) I might have not so willingly recently
bought a Euro-4 diesel car if a Euro-5 one would have been OK according
to the mayor.

All the mayors idiotic tax will achieve is sending perfectly good cars to
the scrapheap too early

I really don't think anyone is going to scrap a 2013 car because of this
tax.

which - if they're replaced - will released a whole
lot more pollution into the atmosphere. That and a huge rise in the number
of
cloned and foreign plates being used inside the zone which coupled with
the
total lack of traffic police these days will just lead to people taking
the
****.

All this because of his dogmatic attachment to his no rise in fares policy
and the screwup that is crossrail.

People inside the cordon would not have very often passed the cordon
[outbound] in their normal lives, and hence would rarely have had to
pay.

Unlike with the congestion charge zone, this new zone won't have just an
in/out
line you can avoid.

And I was describing the Cambridge congestion charge, not London's

Even if you start your journey in the zone and never leave it you'll still
apparently be caught by ANPR (presumably yet to be installed) and
charged/fined.

I was mainly addressing Recliner's comment that his car dealership was
just inside the [London] cordon. Which suggests he's starting just
outside.

While there does have to be some line drawn on the map, it's
disproportionate that someone whose errands takes them as little as
perhaps a mile inside on an irregular basis should be charged as much as
someone driving for hours inside.

Accidental experiments, in Cambridge again, appear to show that people
will go to considerable lengths to avoid paying quite small fees for
parking (or petrol at 1p/litre cheaper).

I drove out of my way for petrol that I thought was going to be 1ppl cheaper

and when I got there it was 6ppl Kerr-Ching.

tim

wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 14:57:35 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:33:09 on
Mon, 10 Dec 2018, Billy No Mates Billy No
remarked:

Going back to one of your earlier suggestions, it might be more
tolerable if the system was smart enough to allow a small number of
free visits by any vehicle to the zone (say, two per month), and only
imposed a charge after that was exceeded. It would ensure that people
regularly driving in the zone invested in clean vehicles, but rare
visitors weren't impeded.

The authorities seem wedded to the idea of nickel-and-diming everyone
whenever they can. It'd also be great to get half a dozen free trips at
the Dartford Crossing a year, or maybe half a dozen peak-time rail fares
at the off-peak rate.

The new dart charge was designed to make it a PITA to pay in order to
extract
fines from those who don't.

ITYF that's Cock-up, not Conspiracy

tim

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 13:13:53 -0000
"tim..." wrote:
wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 14:57:35 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:33:09 on
Mon, 10 Dec 2018, Billy No Mates Billy No
remarked:

Going back to one of your earlier suggestions, it might be more
tolerable if the system was smart enough to allow a small number of
free visits by any vehicle to the zone (say, two per month), and only
imposed a charge after that was exceeded. It would ensure that people
regularly driving in the zone invested in clean vehicles, but rare
visitors weren't impeded.

The authorities seem wedded to the idea of nickel-and-diming everyone
whenever they can. It'd also be great to get half a dozen free trips at
the Dartford Crossing a year, or maybe half a dozen peak-time rail fares
at the off-peak rate.

The new dart charge was designed to make it a PITA to pay in order to
extract
fines from those who don't.

ITYF that's Cock-up, not Conspiracy

I'm not sure it is in this case. A significant proportion of the traffic
will be ad hoc trips of cars trucks and vans just passing through or heading to
the ports who they know will probably forget (regular users will simply have an
account). There was no reason not to retain a few pay by cash or contactless
kiosks and its not as it its made a huge difference to the queues anyway
especially on the northbound through the tunnel which is is the real bottleneck.

One can only hope that now sense has finally prevailed on the Severn crossing
and the charge is to be removed, the same can be done at Dartford.

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 13:11:58 -0000
"tim..." wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
Accidental experiments, in Cambridge again, appear to show that people
will go to considerable lengths to avoid paying quite small fees for
parking (or petrol at 1p/litre cheaper).

I drove out of my way for petrol that I thought was going to be 1ppl cheaper

Assuming you put in 10 gallons of fuel (which is more than most people) that
would have saved you a mere 45p. Its highly likely you would have used more
than than in fuel going more than a few miles out of your way in traffic. So
whats the point?

wrote in message
news
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 13:13:53 -0000
"tim..." wrote:
wrote in message
news
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 14:57:35 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:33:09 on
Mon, 10 Dec 2018, Billy No Mates Billy No
remarked:

Going back to one of your earlier suggestions, it might be more
tolerable if the system was smart enough to allow a small number of
free visits by any vehicle to the zone (say, two per month), and only
imposed a charge after that was exceeded. It would ensure that people
regularly driving in the zone invested in clean vehicles, but rare
visitors weren't impeded.

The authorities seem wedded to the idea of nickel-and-diming everyone
whenever they can. It'd also be great to get half a dozen free trips at
the Dartford Crossing a year, or maybe half a dozen peak-time rail fares
at the off-peak rate.

The new dart charge was designed to make it a PITA to pay in order to
extract
fines from those who don't.

ITYF that's Cock-up, not Conspiracy

I'm not sure it is in this case. A significant proportion of the traffic
will be ad hoc trips of cars trucks and vans just passing through or
heading to
the ports who they know will probably forget (regular users will simply
have an
account). There was no reason not to retain a few pay by cash or
contactless
kiosks and its not as it its made a huge difference to the queues anyway
especially on the northbound through the tunnel which is is the real
bottleneck.

I think you underestimate the chaos which "a few kiosks" would cause.

Northbound there's enough zig-zagging of traffic trying to get into the
correct lane of a tunnel already, plus the problem of the junction joining
only a few 100 yards before the tunnel

I agree that something along the lines of pay stations at service areas on
the M2/20/25 would be a useful feature.

One can only hope that now sense has finally prevailed on the Severn
crossing
and the charge is to be removed, the same can be done at Dartford.

the politics are different

plus the small matter of having to fund the third crossing

tim

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 16:10:59 -0000
"tim..." wrote:
wrote in message
news
will be ad hoc trips of cars trucks and vans just passing through or
heading to
the ports who they know will probably forget (regular users will simply
have an
account). There was no reason not to retain a few pay by cash or
contactless
kiosks and its not as it its made a huge difference to the queues anyway
especially on the northbound through the tunnel which is is the real
bottleneck.

I think you underestimate the chaos which "a few kiosks" would cause.

There'd be a bit more queuing , but I doubt it would make a huge amount of
difference. The regular users would still sail through the non toll sections.

Northbound there's enough zig-zagging of traffic trying to get into the
correct lane of a tunnel already, plus the problem of the junction joining
only a few 100 yards before the tunnel

Northbound is a cluster**** anyway. Putting a few toll booths back won't
make much difference.

I agree that something along the lines of pay stations at service areas on
the M2/20/25 would be a useful feature.

Thats certainly an idea.

One can only hope that now sense has finally prevailed on the Severn
crossing
and the charge is to be removed, the same can be done at Dartford.

the politics are different

Not really. Both are simply a case of "bridge needs to be paid for" turning
into "we've got a nice little earner here".

plus the small matter of having to fund the third crossing

Widening and straightening the west bore of the Blackwall tunnel and replacing
some of the traffics lights on the A12 with under/overpasses would probably
cost a fraction of the price and significantly improve the northbound flow
across the river.

On 14/12/2018 16:10, tim... wrote:


wrote in message
news
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 13:13:53 -0000
"tim..." wrote:
wrote in message
news On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 14:57:35 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at
14:33:09 on
Mon, 10 Dec 2018, Billy No Mates Billy No
remarked:

Going back to one of your earlier suggestions, it might be more
tolerable if the system was smart enough to allow a small number of
free visits by any vehicle to the zone (say, two per month), and only
imposed a charge after that was exceeded. It would ensure that people
regularly driving in the zone invested in clean vehicles, but rare
visitors weren't impeded.

The authorities seem wedded to the idea of nickel-and-diming everyone
whenever they can. It'd also be great to get half a dozen free
trips at
the Dartford Crossing a year, or maybe half a dozen peak-time rail
fares
at the off-peak rate.

The new dart charge was designed to make it a PITA to pay in order to
extract
fines from those who don't.

ITYF that's Cock-up, not Conspiracy

I'm not sure it is in this case. A significant proportion of the traffic
will be ad hoc trips of cars trucks and vans just passing through or
heading to
the ports who they know will probably forget (regular users will
simply have an
account). There was no reason not to retain a few pay by cash or
contactless
kiosks and its not as it its made a huge difference to the queues anyway
especially on the northbound through the tunnel which is is the real
bottleneck.

I think you underestimate the chaos which "a few kiosks" would cause.

Northbound there's enough zig-zagging of traffic trying to get into the
correct lane of a tunnel already, plus the problem of the junction
joining only a few 100 yards before the tunnel

I agree that something along the lines of pay stations at service areas
on the M2/20/25 would be a useful feature.

You can pay by phone so would this be for those who don't have a mobile
phone or those who want to pay in cash?

One can only hope that now sense has finally prevailed on the Severn
crossing
and the charge is to be removed, the same can be done at Dartford.

the politics are different

plus the small matter of having to fund the third crossing

tim





--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid