"J. Chisholm" wrote in message
...
Dan Holdsworth wrote:


Another golden oldie from Captain Clueless himself!

So, you price the car drivers off the road. Then the ex-car drivers get
stung
a second time because the busses and trains can't cope, and the
operators cannot
raise the millions needed to build more tracks.

Guess who cops the blame?

You probably didn't guess correctly, but the answer is: the politicians
who
implemented the hare-brained plan in the first place.

Think before posting, please; you might shed the reputation as a
bumbling
nitwit if you did.

I think you need some lessons in GCSE Economics

I totally agree

In a true market people pay the cost of the goods they use, including
the cost of environmental damage. I'm sure no body would dispute that,
for example, open cast mining should pay the cost of restoring the
landscape and not leave the mess that some 19th century stuff did.

Yes - to those in the know, "internalising the externality"

Congestion is an environmental cost of too many cars, as is noise, and
air pollution.

Drivers should pay this cost. As an example, in Cambridge the DfT
estimate that the congestion cost of each extra 'across Cambridge' trip
in the morning peak is TEN POUNDS (so a 'Ken' charge would be cheap)

Indeed. The external cost of a car driving into central London was estimated
to be between £5-£8, so really Londoners are lucky it was set at the lower
bound.

In London the 'congestion charge' has resulted in a 16% reduction in
trips, but a 30% reduction in congestion. I'd expect most 'White Van'
men who value their time would have saved much more than the 'congestion
charge' in a single day.

Yes this is right, and highlights and important subtlety - when roads are
made stationary by heavy traffic, their efficiency in cars/minute plummets.
Also, because people spend more time on their journeys, they are
contributing to congestion longer.

Just a small reduction in traffic can greatly improve journey times as road
capacity is improved, and people spend less time on their journeys.

Buses and Taxis are also be much more efficient.

If you realy want to understand the issues 'Travel in Towns: Jam
Yesterday, Jam Today, and Jam Tomorrow', a book written in 1990 is what
you need.
see:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...095893-7558213

Those people who still think we should 'invest' in roads rather than
'subsidies' public transport should be aware that at least in Urban
Areas every pound invested in Public Transport reduces car congestion
more than the same money invested in building new roads. How much
reduction in congestion did the one Billion Pounds spent on the roads
from the M11 into London save?
The increase in ability to move people quickly and safely with Public
Transport, is huge compared with demolishing houses and concreting green
spaces as required for roads. Create better quicker public transport and
many will desert their cars leaving much more space for the Jeremy
Clarksons of this world

We have to be careful about investment in public transport too. It is not on
unshakable environmental grounds. Many people assume that a journey by
public transport reprents a car off the road. But this is hardly ever true,
only about 10% of people would have used their car if the public transport
service was unavailable. I suspect, in the long term, that would actually be
0%. If there were no East Coast Mainline, how many people living in
Peterborough would be driving into London for work? Because they can do it
on the train in 45 minutes, Peterborough is a commuter town, despite being
75 miles out of London. This is not environmentally beneficial.

Public transport does need investment, but it should mainly come from fares,
rather than public money.

Jim Chisholm