Arse: according to Ken LIvingstone my car is so unGreen I'll have to pay £25 congestion charge

[TheDullWitch]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6146442.stm

It's only a blardy Volvo estate, not a 4X4 and actually I'm Mrs Public Transport and must have only driven it into the congestion zone 3 times since charges started.(And we re getting rid of it anyway in two months.)

But that ruling will just lead to lots of richer families buying a second, runabout car which doesn t have to pay the charge. Which is hardly Green. Whilst lots of poorer families will never be able to use the one big family car they need.

Oh I completely agree with you - I'm just saying that Ken can only play with the toys he'e given (ie the environment tax, as it's now called).

I've read that the private train companies are deliberately increasing prices to price people off the trains, because the rail infrastructure is knackered and is running at full capacity in the south-east - more people want to use it than they can handle, so they are increasing fares to deal with overcrowding.

You can blame successive British national governments for that almighty mess.

I don't want to blame someone. I want them to work together an do something productive. So, regardless of whether or not it's in his remit, Ken could take the congestion charge and hand it over to the rail network. This would be a good thing for the environment, for reducing congestion, to help reduce drinking and driving.

And this is why I think the congestion charge is about revenue generqation and not the environment.

Er, the congestion charge is being used to improve public transport in London. The way to improve the rail network would be to charge the drivers in a particular rail area and then put the money into cheaper fares and better stock. You really can't expect the drivers in London to subsidise all the rail network in Britain, surely?

There has been a huge amount of investment in London Transport. What more proof do people need that the C-Charge money is being used for the correct purpose?

How do you all feel about the third runway at Heathrow?

Redadmiral, I was thinking more along the lines of the people who commute into Londo. If their money went to trains in say the burbs, it would helpp get them onto the train and out of their car. I didn't mean to suggest all of Britain.

Heathrow, I'm not all that bothered. It's going to go somewhere.

I think the governments should start taxing the bejeesus out of aircraft fuel - it's incredibly dirty (much more so than car exhaust IIRC) and currently isn't taxed anything like heavily enough.

Once cheap air travel becomes a thing of the past, this craze for building new runways would subside.

Why do we need another runway? Oh, I should start another thread, I guess.

Oh, and agree redadmiral re. eleusis's post - you're thinking outside of the box there eleusis, which is fair enough, but asking the London electorate to hand tax revenue over to private rail companies is a bit too radical for me.

Then, how can you expect people to think globally and all join together to tackle environmental issues. Why should China care what Britons want when the londo mayor can't even look out to his his own boroughs.

Really, you can't expect taxpayers to subsidise private train companies. (Although actually the taxpayer has subsidised private train companies heavily in the past, but that doesn't make it OK.)

Ken can't sort out the almighty balls-up that is the British rail system, not with the rather minute set of powers he has.

And, as I said below, the problem with the commuter services is infrastructure and capacity. There simply aren't enough seats on the trains to cope with the demand, so the train companies are increasing prices to keep people off the trains. They don't want Ken's money, they want fewer people on the trains.

We need to completely re-model the infrastructure, which would take decades and billions. The proceeds of the environment tax would be a drop in the ocean. It's one of those tasks that can only be achieved by national governments.

Ken's only interested in east London.

the railways should be renationalised and sorted out. Which would take a guvmint with more balls than this one. Looks like they are going to leave it till the bloody oil runs out! Thing is, congestion cos the economy money and its in everyone's interests to have a decent rail system that gets goods and people where they need to be. The other Europeans manage it, why can't we?
Ken's remit is London and he's doing a good job with the buses which is practically all the power he has.
As for Heathrow. Totally opposed to the 3rd runway and all these stupidly cheap flights so brits can go get drunk abroad and embaress us. I never fly and was planning a trip to Venice by train (my sister was going to treat me as a birthday pressie but she has now lost her job) and its easy peasy to get anywhere in Europe by train is is cheaper to travel to Italy than go to the north of the UK!
Bristol is considering a conegstion charge but there's a Catch 22. The private bus company First, is so bad and so expensive that no-one wants to use it (well, not strictly true, the buses are always full) - no car driver wants to use it. The buses are over priced and always late. First claims its the terrible congestion (Bristol is the 2nd most congested city in the country) that delays the buses so that needs to be tackled but until they build more Park and Ride and add more bus lanes it just isn't going to work.
I can always beat a car driver into town (its about 5 or 6 miles) and I'm disabled so cycle slowly and I generally beat the bus.
London was a joy to cycle in, mainly cos its flat (Bristol has so many durn hills).

Thats always the case Sprogger. The early railways served the rich cities (bristol to London with Isambard Brunel) and the wealthy London suburbs.
Poor people shouldn't go anywhere was the thought I imagine and still is.

I thought the boroughs were also part of Ken's remit. In fact, I thought one of the common criticisms of Ken is how he has ignored his obligation to the boroughs. I could be worng. And, if so, please feel free to enlighten me.

And, if the boroughs, are not part of his remit, how can he be installing the emission charging out in them. Where is that money going to go? To East London.

A nation trying to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to pull himself up by the handles. (Winston Chruchill)

Probably why it's not called the Prosperity Charge, don't you think.

Your posts on this are becoming rather hard to follow, Eleusis. Do you have an idea of what should be done to address the problems of emissions and congestion? Or were you happy with the status quo pre-Congestion Charge?

I think that if such huge sums of money are to be taken in the form of yet another tax (we are taxed to Hell and back in this country), then the very least they can do is use the money for useful purpose that contributes to the reason for which they claim to be taxing us. So, if the congestion charge is guininely for the purpose of reducing pollution and congestion, then they should use it to provide another viable form of transportation for the people from whom they are collecting the tax.

So, if I live in Richmond (which I don't) and work in the city (which I don't) and Ken wants me to take the train/tube into the city every day rather than drive my car, it goes to reason that he should take the congestion charge and put it toward getting me onto the train/tube. Whether that is by improving the rail network, the tube network, or the buses...

So, I think the congestion charge has more to do with generating revenue than it does with improving our air quality.

Now, whether this is Ken's remit or Gordon's is a fair point. Perhaps Gordon should be getting some of the congestion charge and Ken some of the congestion charge. But the point is the profits of the charge should be put toward green initiatives.

I personally think peak oil theory is bunch of histeria. I don't think we'll run out of oil in my life time or my kids, or even my grandkids. But, I'm all for cleaner air just because I like to lead a healfthful lifestyle. And, I'm all for economical living. So I think public transport is fine thing for the majority of the population.

Do you think that climate change is not a good reason to stop using cars? I think personally that counts a lot higher than clean air or being economical. There are many deaths in Africa which are attributable to climate change through lack of water or crop failure.

The congestion charge is a toll not a tax. Don't drive your car in the zone and you won't have to pay it. It's very simple.

The revenue from the charge does go back into transport. It has to by law. What makes you think otherwise? There have been very noticeable improvements to the bus network.

Regarding oil reserves, we may well be about to find more oil under the melting permafrost. I would say that climate change is the more serious problem. Do you think this is hysteria too?

No, IorekByrnison. If you live in the zone you have no choice, even if you live in the zone and have to drive OUT of it, you have to pay. I have a friend who just inside the extended zone but works outside of it and needs to drive. So, it's not exactly a choice you make--- the zone was extended much later than the congestion charge was first introduced.

If you so much as move your car during the weekday, you are charged.

We have indeed found oil under the north pole. Russia planted their flag on it about a year ago. The irony is that the warmer the Earth beocmes the easier it will be to extract this oil. And, do you think Russia is for or against global warming? You guessed it, Russia would actually be quite happy for the earth to warm up. There permafrost would become fertile land and they could get their greedy hands on yet more oil through which they can increase their power over the West (and the East).

I think the most pressing need to reduce our dependance on hydrocarbons is far more political than it is environmental. I think it's very "in" to be green for the purpose of the enviroment. I generally support the green initiatives because I'm bloody scared of Putin and his cronies.

I'm not really convinced of the sense of urgency in reducing our emissions, but it certainly won't hurt any. So I'm happy to support green policies, so long as they are not merely an excuse to take more of my hard earned money.

I have heard that Ken spend some of the congestion charge on buses, but that a lot of it goes elsewhere. But, I don't remember where I heard this, so perhaps it's not credible. If anyone can point me to a credible source where I could learn exactly where all of the congestion charge goes, I'd be more than happy to be corrected.

God knows, if it's just an 'in' thing to be green I'll go for being 'out'. It's bloody difficult to try to be green. However, I'm also fairly scientific by nature, and I don't think the fact that hundreds of scientists are petioning governments about environmental disasters is because they want to be in with the in crowd!

I really hope you're right, and we are all worrying about nothing with global warming, but as most of the people who now claim this are either heavily linked to gas and oil firms or just plain determined to carry on as normal I don't think I'll be staking my children's and grandchildren's future on their reassurances.

I didn't say you were worrying about nothing. I just said I wasn't convinced on the sense of urgency. It's a good thing to be green. I'm happy to recycle, get on public transport, etc. I just get upset when I am taxed (or tolled) in the name of being green when in fact it is merely an excuse to collect more taxes.

Another example... our rubbish is not collected only every two weeks. This results in DH or me driving to and from the dump in our own cars, and that must add to pollution, not decrease it. What has the council achieved by reducing the rubbish collection, if not simply an excuse to reduce their running costs? Where is my reduction in council tax? Now, I'm happy to do the recycling. Sure, by all means, I can put recylcables in one bin and rubbish in the other. That's a good thing.

Stickytape, your friend in the example you give is driving within the zone. And presumably she gets a considerable resident's discount.

Eleusis, it would truly be a wonderful thing if you were right and the consensus of the entire worldwide scientific community were wrong on global warming. Anything you can say to convince us?

I'm still finding your arguments on the congestion charge somewhat circular - "merely an excuse to collect more taxes" - how would you suggest paying for the improvements in public transport that you acknowledge are desirable?

I think there are plenty of credible scientists on both sides of the debate. I don't really have time to go into it now.

But, again, I'm not saying we shouldn't reduce out emission, I just don't think it's quite as urgent as you do.

My point is the tax is okay IF it is used to solve the problem it is collected for. So, if they want to upgrade public transport, then I could accept the congestion charge. And only if.