Manchester congestion charge

[citydreams]

as i have explained you are on the band waggon if you don't defend it and do so with your very core you and all that work inside of TFL will lose your employment....

Doesn't bother me!!.. I have learned loads since I've been here, and am keen to apply myself to other areas.

according to you however the country over is feed up of being told what to do by groups which do not know the intracies of the local sitaution and are like you apologists for the privatisation whole sale of pulbic services and the abdicatuion of public culpablity and responsiblities for those services....

sounds like you're trying to blame me for a lack of local democracy..
In your estimation, should anyone involved with the privatisation of public sectors walk out on strike in disgust of 21st century politics? No, of course not, we do what we can to make the best of a bas situation. How does that make us apologists?

 

[citydreams]

alright if it's such a success the proof is int he puddling why not suspend it for 18 months to collect relevant data with a 6 month break clause in that suspension and a 3 week inital take back so that if it means that people are gridlocked through out the C charge zone it can be switched back on if it's so successful

Garf, you do realise that Road User Charging in London has been analysed and remonstrated over for more than 40 years (see the Smeed Report, ROCOL &c..) There already is enough data to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that congestion charging works. For example Congestion Charging has had a full judicial review over the charge, the area, our forecast models because Kensington and Chelsea took them to court (at a cost to the tax payer of millions of pounds). Additionally, the public is in favour of the CC.

Your suggestion, no matter how noble, is laughable. Traffic isn't something you can switch on and off. It has to be managed gradually.

ken could always organse a massive road improvement and calming scheme coupulled with unworkable contraflows and massive amounts of road words to justify the funding

More paranoid bollox Garf.. Ken couldn't do any such thing. Nor would he.. He was given a mandate by the electorate to introduce CC. He did it.. You're the only one that's still complaining.

either way as you can tell this wasn't what i was intially suggesting again you refuse to engauge on any level but the terms you dictate the debate isn't coached in your terms

it is as it is...

try discussing within that frame work...

I'm still trying to see what your argument is ffs!

besides the point being made was that a scheme this new shouldn't need modernising it should already be modern. It's a sign of very very very poor planning and developement of any organiseation or implamentation of practice that it will need entirely revamping after such a short space of time...

Again, showing you know nothing about transport planning, the bigger picture, or how contracts are drawn up on something as complicated as this.

I suggest you find something else to rattle your cage at, cause you're wasting your time here Garf. You're making yourself look stupid.

not only that is that but how mcuh more money is going into the private hands and pockets of 'consultants' to revamp this scheme and who foots the bill?

well it won't be in the charge will it cos if it works as you claim then there'll be fewer cars less charge no extra cash so that'll come from londoners pockets like the intial charge did and the consulation prior to the charge....

the money comes from businesses mostly.. besides which, economically it is very easy to show that the CC raises money for London.. Ever stop to think about that??!!

 

[citydreams]

Garf: If you want to rile against Ken and TfL, start complaining about how Siemens are wrangling out of their contract to deliver iBus!!

 

[ELO]

Yes.. Why shouldn't you? Because of the scale factor? (the difference between London and other cities)

No, not just that. Two reasons.....

1) Can I be permitted a computing analogy? In the early days the computer companies were looking for a 'killer application, something so good people would buy a computer just to run it. It turned out to be spreadsheets. (exciting aren't they )

Now London has several 'killer apps'. People will always make the effort to get to central London, because it has several things you don't find elsewhere in Britain, even the world. I'm talking about Oxford Street, the City, the Legal quarter etc etc etc. A city law firm won't give up it's prestigous W1 address to move to an industrial estate near Slough, nor will shoppers swap Regent Street chic for the Tesco extra at Beckton, nor will doctors want to lose the prestige that goes with a Harley Street surgery. People will either cough up or switch to public transport.

Other cities just aren't like that. They *need* to attract people in. I happen to like my city centre, but I could buy everthing I can there in Asda, Currys and Homebase if needs be. Too much employment is already based around the outer ring road and beyond, in public transport UNfriendly locations. How will congestion charging help to reverse this trend, please????

2) Car ownership in the rest of the UK is much more spread across the social groups. I looked at the cars on the way into uni this morning (walking I might add!!). At a guess over half of them were over three years old. Most were small to medium sized. Car ownership isn't a rich mans luxury up here. You should see the number of newspaper adverts 'Own transport essential due to location....Pay? (six quid a hour if you are lucky)

please listen to us........YOU ARE NOT GETTING A TRUE PICTURE LIVING IN LONDON.

You haven't stated your opinion of the problem ELO. Do you agree that there are too many cars on the road?

Depends what you mean by too many. The vast majority of car drivers don't own a car to look cool. Some do, to be sure, but they give the rest of us a bad name. But in general PEOPLE OWN CARS BECAUSE THEY NEED THEM,AND THEY USE THEM BECAUSE THEY NEED TO.

It follows then, the only way to reduce car usage (I personally don't see anything wrong with people *owning* a car as long as they only use it when they need to) is to reduce the NEED to use a car.

In short, it means town planning with the reduction of car usage in mind. And it means young couples thinking about where they live *before* they walk down the aisle.

 

[citydreams]

good post ELO, thankyou Will repsond when I get a chance.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

This is what I mean by you don't see how policy making works.. you don't see the bigger picture.

hmmm let's thinkt he bigger pciture widening the congestion charge into a congested area where people are already using their cars and there for allowing them a wide range ont heir cars and a substantial discount to do so i better for:

A) congestion free movment
b) the enviroment
c) Re-enforcing the credibility of the congestion charge scheme
d) none of the above...

If this is how polcy making works with in TFL then some one needs to be fired very very quickley more ove prolly a whole team of people need to be fired...

this is not how to introdyuce or maintain greater congestion limits with in london by allowing more cars into the congestion cars zone to have some level of dispensation, more cars doesn't and can never equal congestion reduction...

I notice you still have failed to answer the question as posed would you do that now please...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Doesn't bother me!!.. I have learned loads since I've been here, and am keen to apply myself to other areas.

good for you ...

sounds like you're trying to blame me for a lack of local democracy..
In your estimation, should anyone involved with the privatisation of public sectors walk out on strike in disgust of 21st century politics? No, of course not, we do what we can to make the best of a bas situation. How does that make us apologists?

nope i'm pointing you you and the organistation you work for a symptomatic of a wider problem, however you try and twist this into a perosnal spat it's not happening, i have no intrest in that what so ever...

 

[citydreams]

hmmm let's thinkt he bigger pciture widening the congestion charge into a congested area where people are already using their cars and there for allowing them a wide range ont heir cars and a substantial discount to do so i better for:

A) congestion free movment
b) the enviroment
c) Re-enforcing the credibility of the congestion charge scheme
d) none of the above...

If this is how polcy making works with in TFL then some one needs to be fired

For once in your life Garf, take your head out of your arse, stop pointing fingers and ask a straightforward question, like: Why did TfL increase the CC to the Western area? You might get a better response that your constant attempt at shit spreading.. ffs, are you tourettes? no. so try to behave rationally.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Garf, you do realise that Road User Charging in London has been analysed and remonstrated over for more than 40 years (see the Smeed Report, ROCOL &c..) There already is enough data to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that congestion charging works. For example Congestion Charging has had a full judicial review over the charge, the area, our forecast models because Kensington and Chelsea took them to court (at a cost to the tax payer of millions of pounds).

so why is it that in the qutoed articule above from the obsever it's proviing the opposite, judical review means bugger all unless you can phrase the terms it was reviewed under. hence the hutton report, and i think that we know exactly what that means... you are merely spouting pr press office rhetoric with out understand what it means ... do us a favour lay off the propoganda sauce eh...

Additionally, the public is in favour of the CC.

jesus christ it done'st matter how many times you repeat a lie it doesn't make it any more vaild if people are soooo in favour of it all but me do tell me why there was nearl total opposition to the extension which was then ignored...

Your suggestion, no matter how noble, is laughable. Traffic isn't something you can switch on and off. It has to be managed gradually.

no but if the 'cure' to the problem is congestion charging and not that the fallign levels of traffic which have been happening from before the congestion charge not being forced down more and more encolse restrictive routes and artieral road becoming narrower and narrower then the proof is in the pudding... suspend it for a period see if congestion goes up...

external stuides are meaningless until they are applied and have some level of control group which will highlight the flaws or fringe benifits of any system there has been none of this with in london...

regardless of your condasending and patronising tone and attempts to brow beat people into submission...

More paranoid bollox Garf.. Ken couldn't do any such thing. Nor would he.. He was given a mandate by the electorate to introduce CC. He did it.. You're the only one that's still complaining.

yes the road works which were resolved after the congestion charge was brought in were obiviously all in my head...

and i think you'll find that if you are this blind to the obvious flaws in the concept that you would be even blinder to those who were against your idea. that's the real problem of surronding yourself with 'yesmen'

I'm still trying to see what your argument is ffs!

I doubt you ever will, you are apprently blind to any reason...

Again, showing you know nothing about transport planning, the bigger picture, or how contracts are drawn up on something as complicated as this.

bugger how contracts are drawn up they should have been done in a favourable circumstance it's not like it wasn't a buyers market....

I suggest you find something else to rattle your cage at, cause you're wasting your time here Garf. You're making yourself look stupid.[/QUOTE]

yawn do stop this nonsense everythime you refuse to answer a question when you don't have an answer then attempt to state that the person you are debating with knows nothing...

it's the textural equvierlent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying ner ner ner nah ner ner.... ok can we grow up a tad here.. you think perhaps???

the money comes from businesses mostly.. besides which, economically it is very easy to show that the CC raises money for London.. Ever stop to think about that??!!

really for london or for private firms subsidised with in london... a clean cut difference...

but me no i'm way to stupid to think about things after all i'm a raving nutter me.. oh yes... pure 1000% emotional being chap...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

For once in your life Garf, take your head out of your arse, stop pointing fingers and ask a straightforward question, like: Why did TfL increase the CC to the Western area? You might get a better response that your constant attempt at shit spreading.. ffs, are you tourettes? no. so try to behave rationally.

firstly ....intresting comment about anyone. to use a disablity as a form of attack i hope this registers with every person who may have read this discussion thus far, this is the candour of a member of TFL representing the congestion charge on these boards....

we digress...

i'm not asking that question nor am i preparred to coach the discussion in terms you find acceptable.

Again one wonders if this philiosphy pervades the whole of TFL as it seems one can call for discussion and debate as to the need for an extentsion ro the C Charge and then say that the views as were repsented are meanignless and it's going ahead regardless, and there was no need to consult with anyone as this is what TFL have decided.

They can campaign promising not to increase the CCharge and then less than a month after reelection put it up...

again ingorning anyone who might state they are unhappy or in dissagreement with them.

 

[citydreams]

so why is it that in the qutoed articule above from the obsever it's proviing the opposite

quote the question and I'll have a look

judical review means bugger all unless you can phrase the terms it was reviewed under

read the review then have you? no, of course you haven't

yes the road works which were resolved after the congestion charge was brought in were obiviously all in my head...

road works weren't allowed to be done during the introduction of the CC for very obvious reasons. the same is happening for the western extension, again, for very obvious reasons.

bugger how contracts are drawn up they should have been done in a favourable circumstance it's not like it wasn't a buyers market....

O Rly?! You're experienced with billion pound contracts then are you?

 

[citydreams]

firstly ....intresting comment about anyone. to use a disablity as a form of attack i hope this registers with every person who may have read this discussion thus far, this is the candour of a member of TFL representing the congestion charge on these boards....

Oh do fuck off Garf..

I really can't be bothered with your stupid games.

I don't represent TfL.. I'm here as me.. as someone who lives and works and commutes in London. So stop your sanctimonious shit, OK?

Else do some real questioning and ask TfL directly. Otherwise piss off with your attitude.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Garf: If you want to rile against Ken and TfL, start complaining about how Siemens are wrangling out of their contract to deliver iBus!!

no how about i complain rather that tfl have reintroduced london buses aren't building the thing themselves but instead award the contrac tto a copany reknowed through out the industry and particularlly within whitehall as utterly failing to deleiver any project on time or in budget.... hmm why were they choosen... then who foots the bill for this...

you simply don't get it do you...

civil servants and public sector workers are accountable to the public... it's not your own money you are spending... it's ours... if we start to say oi no then you need to listen to us rather than patting us on the head and sayign there there we know best... becuase it has been proven time after time after time... you fuckign don't... you fuck up and it lands us with problems down the line as we pick upthe bill after you have flown to another orgnaistaiton after learnign many new things ...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Oh do fuck off Garf..

I really can't be bothered with your stupid games.

I don't represent TfL.. I'm here as me.. as someone who lives and works and commutes in London. So stop your sanctimonious shit, OK?

Else do some real questioning and ask TfL directly. Otherwise piss off with your attitude.

erm no

i think you'll find the correct response here is actually: you are right that comment was well out of order i'll edit it and would you please do the same in your post...

 

[citydreams]

civil servants and public sector workers are accountable to the public... it's not your own money you are spending... it's ours... if we start to say oi no then you need to listen to us rather than patting us on the head and sayign there there we know best... becuase it has been proven time after time after time... you fuckign don't... you fuck up and it lands us with problems down the line as we pick upthe bill after you have flown to another orgnaistaiton after learnign many new things ...

I totally agree.. but try having a conversation, rather than a wobbly and you're going to get a better response. It's nice that you're passionate, but you need to learn to have a conversation rather than an argument. Comprende?

no how about i complain rather that tfl have reintroduced london buses aren't building the thing themselves but instead award the contrac tto a copany reknowed through out the industry and particularlly within whitehall as utterly failing to deleiver any project on time or in budget.... hmm why were they choosen... then who foots the bill for this...

Who are you talking about? I have friends in London buses so I could enquire.

You're saying that TfL should be building buses itself right? Why not go to a bus building specialist?

 

[citydreams]

erm no

i think you'll find the correct response here is actually: you are right that comment was well out of order i'll edit it and would you please do the same in your post...

or I could just tell you to fuck off you sanctimonious twat.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

or I could just tell you to fuck off you sanctimonious twat.

hmm no you are still not getting it are you, through out this entire discussion you have been attempting ot personalise the debate you then do so to an extent where it's no longer possible to ingore your comments as they are derogitory towards a specific group if you think ti wuld have been acceptable to say what are you a nigger then please come back and tell me to fuck off again otherwise edit your post and i'll do like wise...

you have no grounds with which to be outraged any footing you may have had fell with your comment. period...

no look at it objectively and do the decent thing...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I totally agree.. but try having a conversation, rather than a wobbly and you're going to get a better response. It's nice that you're passionate, but you need to learn to have a conversation rather than an argument. Comprende?

i have never said it's anything other than a debate you seem to wish to make it confrontational with personal remarks adhomine attacks and then derogitory comments... perhaps you need to learn how to converse and debate like an adult ... a number of people have pointed out on this thread why they are dissagreeing with you and why you continued wriggling and fronting it out when ever anyone asks you a question you find difficult appears isn't helpful to the debate... you are in a minority of one on your stance in this respect. this neither means that people are ganging up or for that matter bullying you purely becuae they disagree fundamentally with what you are saying.

try dealing with that... ok...

Who are you talking about? I have friends in London buses so I could enquire.

You're saying that TfL should be building buses itself right? Why not go to a bus building specialist?

tell me again are arriva and national and first private companies subsidised by public money or are they infact just the old london bus companies with funky new names... which are in a profit making model???

yes london should build it's own buses it used to and it used to be the speacilists besides wicvh you'd be goign to manfacturers and specifiying the desgin just as they do... what you say in this comment is really why should there be any accountablity in public transport to the public...

 

[citydreams]

Garf,

I've tried to talk with you but we're not connecting. I don't know, maybe I just don't get your positing style. Anyway.. I've had enough of it. Good luck with your campaign &c.

 

[citydreams]

No, not just that. Two reasons.....

1) Can I be permitted a computing analogy? In the early days the computer companies were looking for a 'killer application, something so good people would buy a computer just to run it. It turned out to be spreadsheets. (exciting aren't they )

Now London has several 'killer apps'. People will always make the effort to get to central London, because it has several things you don't find elsewhere in Britain, even the world. I'm talking about Oxford Street, the City, the Legal quarter etc etc etc. A city law firm won't give up it's prestigous W1 address to move to an industrial estate near Slough, nor will shoppers swap Regent Street chic for the Tesco extra at Beckton, nor will doctors want to lose the prestige that goes with a Harley Street surgery. People will either cough up or switch to public transport.

Other cities just aren't like that. They *need* to attract people in. I happen to like my city centre, but I could buy everthing I can there in Asda, Currys and Homebase if needs be. Too much employment is already based around the outer ring road and beyond, in public transport UNfriendly locations. How will congestion charging help to reverse this trend, please????

2) Car ownership in the rest of the UK is much more spread across the social groups. I looked at the cars on the way into uni this morning (walking I might add!!). At a guess over half of them were over three years old. Most were small to medium sized. Car ownership isn't a rich mans luxury up here. You should see the number of newspaper adverts 'Own transport essential due to location....Pay? (six quid a hour if you are lucky)

please listen to us........YOU ARE NOT GETTING A TRUE PICTURE LIVING IN LONDON.



Depends what you mean by too many. The vast majority of car drivers don't own a car to look cool. Some do, to be sure, but they give the rest of us a bad name. But in general PEOPLE OWN CARS BECAUSE THEY NEED THEM,AND THEY USE THEM BECAUSE THEY NEED TO.

It follows then, the only way to reduce car usage (I personally don't see anything wrong with people *owning* a car as long as they only use it when they need to) is to reduce the NEED to use a car.

In short, it means town planning with the reduction of car usage in mind. And it means young couples thinking about where they live *before* they walk down the aisle.

Sorry ELO, will answer shortly...

 

[citydreams]

It follows then, the only way to reduce car usage (I personally don't see anything wrong with people *owning* a car as long as they only use it when they need to) is to reduce the NEED to use a car.

I agree, I think there should be no need for a car. But how long is it going to take to shift town planning around? Some may argue it is already too late and that you have to let business centres grow organically &c.

What is needed is a relaible and efficient transport system to induce people out of their cars. This takes money, that just isn't available. Sad fact of life, but nothing that can be done about it.

To give you an idea of the scale of the problem, London needs and extra £6 billion a year on top of the £6 billion it already spends. And to counter any "you're wasting it all on consultants" bollox, the subsidy on buses alone in London is £1billion.

If there is a possibility of raising revenue then your council would be acting irresponsibly not to investigate the idea.

I don't know much about Derby..
It looks like the council have only just finished spending £40million on the connecting Derby project. Has it made any difference?

Looks like this is the reason why Derby is considering CC

A new high-tech driverless train system is also being considered. But it will only receive government funding if a congestion charge is brought in.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/5154906.stm

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Garf,

I've tried to talk with you but we're not connecting. I don't know, maybe I just don't get your positing style. Anyway.. I've had enough of it. Good luck with your campaign &c.

sadly you have tried to aviod answering any point os substance period.

I fidn it very sad that you still cannot remove you comment however, i thought you were better than that...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

To give you an idea of the scale of the problem, London needs and extra £6 billion a year on top of the £6 billion it already spends. And to counter any "you're wasting it all on consultants" bollox, the subsidy on buses alone in London is £1billion.

again i'm still wondering why any one is subsidising a private profit making company let alone to the tune of 1 billion... that's scandleous and it wouldn't happen in any other indusrty...

 

[citydreams]

If they weren't subsidised the fares would need to go up. The money covers OAP, students &c, but even without them prices would still need to be higher than they are. TfL does this because it believes in public transport. Not all London buses are private companies by the way.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

If they weren't subsidised the fares would need to go up. The money covers OAP, students &c, but even without them prices would still need to be higher than they are. TfL does this because it believes in public transport. Not all London buses are private companies by the way.

why would fairs need to be higher these companies are turnign in a profit each year.

this sounds like the same argument as train companies make well we have to put up fairs to imporve things but in reality they are still turning in a profit regardless.

The point surely is that none of this should be in private hands period.

public transport cannot cand should not be run for profit.

 

[citydreams]

The point surely is that none of this should be in private hands period.

public transport cannot and should not be run for profit.

I do agree with you Garf!!

why would fairs need to be higher these companies are turnign in a profit each year.

Because the profit they make is nowhere near to the subsidy that TfL injects into the system. Not even close. OK, the fact that Stagecoach were making almost £20million a year (pre-tax) profit on London buses (and made another £60million selling them on to Macquarie) is revolting. But what do you expect? The bus market was deregulated. It's going to take a major change in policy to put it right again.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

so make the change already...


i believe if london sorted out its trasnportation without penalising the public the this model would be exercised else where in the uk...

so bring it all back in house....

 

[citydreams]

I left my magic wand at home

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I left my magic wand at home

yes because it's entierly down to you isn't it... one can't make and abstract point... after all...

 

[citydreams]

so make the change already...

who's that aimed at?