To think we need a congestion charge in every major city?

[impossiblecat]

The traffic is getting insane.

It's dangerous and bad for everyone's health.

With the exception of the disabled and people who live within the limits of said congestion zone, obviously.

I'd have all money raised ploughed into public transport.

In part because in England, because there's no such thing as society, everything has to make a profit. So instead of people seeing investment in public transport as a benefit to all of society, you just get a load of in sniping about "why should I pay for them ?"

Millions/billions has been spent on "some" public transport so you simply can't say that. London has benefitted massively and now we're pouring billions into HS2. It's not that the country isn't spending on infrastructure - the spending isn't be fairly spread around - it's all spent on london-centric projects.

You can literally taste the fumes when walking down the street. That has to change

It still is like this is London sadly - walking for the bus in N. London three days ago my eyes were actually stinging from it.

Who is suggesting CC on country lanes?

You're not understanding it. The people who will still need to drive into the cities (due to the lack/non-existence) of public transport are the ones who come into the city along those lanes and who will therefore be penalised for living rurally.

Huge numbers of people live rurally because they can't afford city living - but they need to get to the city for work, the shops, entertainment etc. By introducing the CC for big cities you're penalising low-paid workers who have no choice but to drive in everyday. Until there's decent public transport throughout the country - including across rural communities, a CC is unfair and won't solve anything. These people still need to get to work regardless of a CC - if there's no bus or train, they're going to drive anyway and just pay the fee.

Cyclists don't pollute. They also cause minimal wear on the road and rarely (notice I said rarely, not never) injure other people.

Maybe bikes alone don't cause pollution, but what about when they're going along single track lanes at 10mph, holding up huge queues of traffic that then also has to pootle along at 10mph - therefore being on the road for longer than they would be if the cyclist wasn't there, and causing more pollution.

Though I suspect you're just being a goady fucker at this point.

As far as I am concerned, if there is even one private car in Central London (excluding those with disabilities and who live there) the congestion charge isn't high enough.

That said, the roads are clogged with delivery vans, buses and taxis, so not sure what you can do.

I think York could take a congestion charge, it has good park and ride services and is flat so easy to cycle around, but the centre of the city is still massively congested.

Yeah, objecting to car exhaust fumes causing lung damage makes me a goady fucker... are you Donald Trump?

And said cars will be delayed for a couple of minutes- I cycled round my city for twenty years.

Probably five out of those ten don't need to be on the road anyway- with more homeworking, school buses etc

Cyclists don't pollute. They also cause minimal wear on the road and rarely (notice I said rarely, not never) injure other people. They also save the NHS a fortune in improved health.
*
Motorists should be rinsed, rinsed and rinsed again until they accept that the city centre is no place for them.

Cars pollute, cars give people lung disease, they spew out poison and buggy level every day.

With no consequences.*

What a lovely idea yes but back in the realworld the elederly and infirm, disabled etc need access to hospitals located inside the city centre, which therefore is a place for them.
To suggest otherwise is deluded

Never mind all the shift workers and those on lower incomes who are either ill-served by train schedules or financially restricted when it comes to the extortionate costs of travel cards.

There are a billion things that contribute daily to poor air quality, yes cars are a major factor but lots has been done to restrict emissions and those paying the vast expense to use the roads.

Cyclists have no training, no licence , no insurance and no regard for the safety of others. But why would they? The fact is that in between rushoyr times these superhighways are largely unutilised placing yet more pressure on traffic- the system and framework simply doesn't have space for these and it's clear as day to anybody using these routes regularly

Too many cars with single occupancy trying to get to one place in a sort window of time. A congestion charge would hit those who could least afford it so we as a nation need to invest in cheap, reliable public transport that will entice people off the road. Park and ride schemes are good but lets stop trying to make transport a profit making scheme and turn into something that people can/want to use (similar to what other countries do). If you really think cyclists are holding you up for a few seconds then maybe that's for another thread.

Cyclists have no training, no licence , no insurance and no regard for the safety of others. But why would they?

Bit of a generalisation there re safety since I can assure you the cyclist is equally vulnerable. There is no legal requirement nor is there a mandate for cyclists to have training,insurance and there are a significant number of motorists out there who have no training, no licence , no insurance or regard the Highway Code as something that applies to other drivers/road users/pedestrians. But we digress.

Have any of you anti-cyclists been to the Netherlands? You should.

The elderly and infirm would benefit more than most from cleaner air and less traffic on the roads. I excluded them from this in the OP anyway.

People just don't want to give up the car because it's easier. They've worked hard to buy it, passed the test etc. Understandable that they don't want to give it up.

We still need to get cars off the roads as much as possible. What is the alternative? Population is not going to stop increasing. Do we just keep adding more cars?

Yeah, objecting to car exhaust fumes causing lung damage makes me a goady fucker... are you Donald Trump?

No, your obtuse thinking does. And yes, of course I'm Donald Trump

We still need to get cars off the roads as much as possible

Then focus your energy on improving public transport! A congestion charge will make no difference if you live somewhere where you have no choice but to drive to get to work, school or the shops. People will continue driving and just pay the charge anyway.

People who live rurally, or in small villages/towns with poor transport links will still have to drive, even if they're charged more to do so. For huge parts of the country there is absolutely no other choice because the alternative doesn't exist. What part of that don't you quite understand?

Something does need to be done about the traffic in Manchester. Congestion here is an actual joke, it was the longest traffic delays in the country and the Center of the city isn’t even an easy place to drive around. The public transport getting into the city on the whole is very good, and during rush hour the met is a lot quicker than driving in for sure. I think that needs to be expanded quick with more park and ride avaibility before they can entertain a CC though.

Have any of you anti-cyclists been to the Netherlands? You should.

Yes, but Britain isn't the Netherlands. Geographically for a start.

In Spain, there are hundreds of miles of proper cycle lanes - that is completely separate to the road and the pedestrian walkway. You can cycle for hours and never need to cross a road. But that's Spain, where land is relatively cheap and (more importantly) unbuilt on to start with.

We still need to get cars off the roads as much as possible

Then look at changing whatever it is that means people have to drive (loads of ideas upthread) . Which we've had decades to do, and fuck all has changed.

CC is used to pay for better public transport- that is the point.

It will also serve to remind people that their actions (driving a car) have consequences. The consequence is, exhaust fumes pumped out of that car at the same height as my child's buggy. That is a fact. It isn't going to go away because it upsets people or makes them feel like they're being demonised or whatever- it's simply a fact which people should be reminded of.

Cars pollute. This is a fact. Pollution is bad.

What part of that don't you get?

Too many cars with single occupancy

Which repeated attempts to address have been repeatedly frustrated ...

Part of the OPs problem is a lot of voters drive. Or a lot of drivers vote. Either way, the politicians who are on the OPs side aren't getting elected.

People aren't stupid. They know cars pollute - where has anybody here said the isn't the case?

But you're saying the congestion charge will be used to fund public transport - that will take years! So in the meantime, you're just taxing people who still have no choice but to drive to work, school and the shops. Those people are often people who live in poor rural communities as they can't afford city prices.

Do you want to price people out of getting to work? In London the congestion charge is £11.50 a day. That's £57.50 a week. Over £200 a month on top of the costs of fuel, parking and whatever else. In London, poorer commuters can choose to park outside and tube, train or bus to work.

In smaller cities and towns that's just not an option. So again, you're penalising people who can't afford to live close to their workplaces and have to live in places with non-existent public transport.

Which is why I'm only suggesting it should happen in major cities. I refuse to believe there are loads of people living in poverty and driving into the center of Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds etc from the countryside to work.

I refuse to believe there are loads of people living in poverty and driving into the center of Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds etc from the countryside to work.

Your refusal to believe doesn't actually make it not true ....

I refuse to believe there are loads of people living in poverty and driving into the centre of Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds etc from the countryside to work.

Then you're just plain ignorant, aren't you?

Why would they do that though? Why live in the countryside miles from anything if you're struggling? Make much more sense to live in a cheaper area of a town or city.

By poverty, I mean 16k or less per household.

I've never met anybody doing that and I've lived and worked in most major cities in the UK.

It will be a very small demographic compared to the shit loads of people driving in from the suburbs. There isn't that many people living in the countryside these days to start with. Most poor people are urban and get the bus.

No, but you are rude 😎🤟

Most poor people are urban and get the bus.

Quite aside from the arrogance in that remark, if I've learned one thing in the past 20 years, it's that "poor" has become a complex mesh. If you just take the number of people who - despite having a paying job - need to claim benefits, you never believe the UK is allegedly the 6th biggest economy in the world.

Why would they do that though? Why live in the countryside miles from anything if you're struggling? Make much more sense to live in a cheaper area of a town or city.

BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO. Cheap areas of cities and towns are out of reach for huge numbers of low-income families. We earn almost double your quoted 16k and still couldn't afford to live in our local city!

People here are telling you their reality and you're basically telling them they're stupid for choosing to live somewhere that's affordable to them because it doesn't fit your agenda of poverty being an urban problem.

I live in Copeland. A borough that includes Keswick (rich, tourist town in the National Park) and places like Whitehaven, Maryport and numerous poor seaside towns that are a prime example of rural poverty. We have wards that are amongst the poorest in the country (bottom 3%). It's a huge borough and full of remote villages and towns that just aren't accessible by public transport. We fall outside the national park so the council isn't interested in improving our access to transport, amenities or anything similar. They want to improve things for tourists, not for us.

www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/16743609.child-poverty-crisis-number-of-cumbrian-youngsters-now-living-below-breadline-hits-20000/