Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

comments on congestion charging

Expand Messages
  • Simon Norton
    The impression I got from the comments is that they started out by being strongly adverse but became more balanced later on. Maybe the abusive people got fed
    Message 1 of 2 , May 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      The impression I got from the comments is that they started out by being
      strongly adverse but became more balanced later on. Maybe the abusive people got
      fed up.

      It always irks me that some people describe traffic management schemes as "just
      to raise revenue" as if that was sufficient to condemn them. Surely if
      governments at whatever level raise money by one means it implies that they can
      either spend more on areas which need it or reduce taxes elsewhere -- and given
      the political pressures one can be sure that they will take advantage of this
      opportunity.

      As with the London congestion charge, the scope of the proposed New York scheme
      seems likely to be so restricted that hardly anyone will need to pay it. Surely
      this answers the comments that it is "regressive". Of course those who object to
      using public transport because it isn't good enough for them will have to pay --
      that's the point.

      Someone referred to carbon offsets, ignoring the fact that climate change is not
      the only externality of motoring, as well as the large question marks over the
      workings of the offsetting mechanism.

      As for Mr Vickrey's principles, most of them look sound, but he doesn't seem to
      have included the need for a transparent pricing system. This also applies to
      public transport pricing -- which in the UK is far from transparent, especially
      on main line trains. These also violate his principle 2, and also restrictions
      on peak travel are so broad as to price casual travellers off main trains that
      are far from overcrowded.

      Simon Norton
    • stephenplowden
      ... schemes as just ... that they can ... -- and given ... advantage of this ... The problem with using congestion charging (or taxes on any other social
      Message 2 of 2 , May 3, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In NewMobilityCafe@yahoogroups.com, Simon Norton <S.Norton@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        >
        > It always irks me that some people describe traffic management
        schemes as "just
        > to raise revenue" as if that was sufficient to condemn them. Surely if
        > governments at whatever level raise money by one means it implies
        that they can
        > either spend more on areas which need it or reduce taxes elsewhere
        -- and given
        > the political pressures one can be sure that they will take
        advantage of this
        > opportunity.

        >
        > Simon Norton

        The problem with using congestion charging (or taxes on any other
        social nuisance) as a source of general revenue is that the
        revenue-raising authority becomes dependent on the continuance of the
        congestion/nuisance. >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.