DaGaffer
Down With That Sorta Thing
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 18,409
Great news. Common sense from the good people of Edinburgh.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4287145.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4287145.stm
Big G said:Yes, good news... for just now. Here in West Lothian, we had our own vote to which i voted "no".
However...
Something has to be done about the traffic in Edinburgh, inside and on approach. Some days, it's taken me over an hour to get from my house to the outskirts of Edinburgh (10 miles or so) because the M8 motorway is absolutely solid. The traffic situation is a disgrace.
This time round, I voted against it, but i definitely think it's something worth doing down the line but only when the public transport / trains / park & ride situation has improved drasticly and to the point that public transport is a viable alternative to the car.
Right now; the trains are smelly, you can't get a seat, they're unreliable, they're expensive, they're not frequent enough and their car parks are too small to hold passengers at the moment. If the congestion charging went ahead, the already oversubscribed buses/trains wouldn't cope with the extra people and we'd be in an even worse situation than before.
I also know a lot of people who say they would still drive and pay the charge, so it's not reducing congestion at all in the cases of these people - i suspect it's to line the pockets of the council, another stealth tax and nothing else.
DaGaffer said:Interesting fact 1. Fare dodging in London accounts for more lost revenue than the Congestion charge raises! Especially now Uncle Ken's introduced rubbish bendy buses with three doors and no conductor.
Teedles,TdC said:that's strange. holland's been using those "rubbish" busses for ages and we don't have any known problems. perhaps because our public transport actually works reasonably well?
I can imagine that if the thought that the quality will be crap anyway was ingrained deep enough that people won't really be willing to pay.
TdC said:that's strange. holland's been using those "rubbish" busses for ages and we don't have any known problems. perhaps because our public transport actually works reasonably well?
I can imagine that if the thought that the quality will be crap anyway was ingrained deep enough that people won't really be willing to pay.
DaGaffer said:One of the many differences between Holland and London is that most London streets were designed hundreds of years ago with tight corners suitable for a horse and cart, not a 40m long bus, whereas large parts of Holland were rebuilt after the war and didn't have to face such issues. There was a reason why the Routemaster double-decker bus was designed the way it was, specifically with London in mind (and why London taxis are unique, with their tight turning-circle requirement), but Ken sees these bendy things on the continent and thinks they'll make us more European. Dickhead.
As for reason why people don't pay, its a. largely because they can get away with it, and b. because the cost of public transport in London is rising much faster than inflation, because they got their sums so badly wrong about the congestion charge (it was supposed to subsidise public transport, but now it looks like it will need to go up and be extended just to cover its own operating costs. Genius )
That's probably a big part of the reason, especially as with increasing numbers not only does the number of busses/trains etc go up but the complexity of managing them efficiently.TdC said:well, the couple of times I've been over recently (the barrybeers and such) the quality of the transport was nasty in comparison. perhaps it's just the volume. I believe that the dutch trains move about a million people per day (not verified), and there are "only" 15 or 16 million Dutch. iirc London alone holds over 15 million people?
Tom said:The problem with the traffic/transport debate is that in England, its focused almost entirely on the South East (the most heavily populated area of Britain).
Up here in Manchester, congestion charging would probably work quite well. There are many many lines from the outlying areas into Manchester (including one that runs right behind my house, with the station 100 yards away). The buses are the usual shite, but I find it laughable that people complain about 'noxious polluting cars' when buses use 30 year old engine designs. Also, you know when you see those 'out of service' signs on buses? Thats not because they're being driven for a service, or between depots. Its because there isn't room to park it, so it gets driven around all day.
Black cabs emit more pollution than a 4.5 Range Rover.
Its quite simple to my mind. Stop treating the car as though its some kind of terrible affliction on society (when really its the best invention of the last 500 years), and have a sensible debate, with real facts (not green fiction), about how best to improve matters. Its not so simple as 'tax y' and 'eliminate z', it takes a concentrated effort across many areas. Thats why Holland's transport system works - because they redesigned the whole transport infrastructure, and not one bit at a time.
They also didn't have the burden of supporting an Empire in post-war times, or maintaining a stupidly large army and navy presence (why do we need 4 nuclear submarines?). France and Germany were ruined countries after WW2. Now they boast the finest public transport systems in Europe. Says alot.
DaGaffer said:France spend about the same percentage of GDP on defence as we do (actually slightly more last year), and actually isn't a very good transport example (although still better than us). The French tend to spend transport money on 'prestige projects' like fancy bridges and the TGV, their local bus and rail services aren't that hot (try getting the train from CDG into town for an example, the Heathrow Express makes it look like a rickshaw), and the French are just running into the same problems of public sector industries they can no longer afford (even with higher direct taxes than us) as we had in the eighties.
The problem is, the UK has unique problems that can't be solved by just looking at other countries and saying "oh, we'll do that"; we've got the oldest industrialised transport infrastructure in the world, we didn't get completely knocked flat in WWII, we've got a very high population density but we're also a relatively large country (unlike say, Singapore or Holland), and we have a very American attitude towards direct taxation (as in no political party dare raise taxes). So we're fucked basically.
rynnor said:Tbh I think the answer to a lot of UK congestion problems is to encourage companies to let staff work from home - there are tons of jobs where this is practical and both the environmental and financial savings could be huge!
rynnor said:Actually the Italian train service is very good - costs a fraction of UK prices and basically runs an effecient service that covers a large portion of the country.
I guess they probably pay more money into the system than us.
Tbh I think the answer to a lot of UK congestion problems is to encourage companies to let staff work from home - there are tons of jobs where this is practical and both the environmental and financial savings could be huge!