It is demonstrably the case that 'black' cabs contribute significantly to
congestion within central London.

Therefore, why are they exempt from the congestion charge? I know taxi
drivers have lots of votes in marginal constituencies such as Ilford North,
Eltham and Finchley, but other than this political consideration, were there
any *good* reasons for excluding taxis from the CC?

The cost to taxi drivers could surely have been offset by increasing the
meter rate, which those with expense accounts who form the majority of black
cab clientele would hardly notice or care about.

If economic circumstances are going to force cuts in the bus network, and/or
dramatic fare increases, isn't it time to look at this again?

And talking about generating revenue, are embassies/high commissions paying
the CC and parking fines now, or are they still outrageously flouting the
law? If the latter, is there any good reason why the relevant vehicles are
not clamped and towed away?

Chris

"Chris Read" wrote in message
...


And talking about generating revenue, are embassies/high commissions
paying the CC and parking fines now, or are they still outrageously
flouting the law? If the latter, is there any good reason why the relevant
vehicles are not clamped and towed away?

For the CC: No and they are never going to as it is a tax and they are not
obliged to pay it. The fact that TfL claim that it isn't a tax doesn't
change the fact that it is.

Fines: AIUI most embassies do pay fines. Fines are (pseudo)criminal
sanctions and whilst diplomats can't be subjected to these they can be
excluded from the country. Most embassies recognise that not paying trivial
parking fines will generate more trouble than it is worth

tim

On Jul 4, 9:38*am, "tim...." wrote:

"Chris Read" wrote:

And talking about generating revenue, are embassies/high commissions
paying the CC and parking fines now, or are they still outrageously
flouting the law? If the latter, is there any good reason why the relevant
vehicles are not clamped and towed away?

For the CC: No and they are never going to as it is a tax and they are not
obliged to pay it. *The fact that TfL claim that it isn't a tax doesn't
change the fact that it is.

Why is that apparently a self-evident 'fact'? It's not remotely self-
evident to me.

In message , Chris Read
writes
It is demonstrably the case that 'black' cabs contribute significantly to
congestion within central London.

Is it demonstrable? What facts and figures do you have to support this
statement?

Buses, with their far more frequent stopping and starting cause far more
problems. On the very few occasions that buses have gone on strike the
traffic actually flowed far more freely.

Therefore, why are they exempt from the congestion charge?

The Congestion charge is actually included (albeit at the reduced rate)
in our annual vehicle licence fee. In any case the charge is only levied
once per day - and that only for the times it is operation.

As I work nights and weekends, should I be getting a refund?

I know taxi
drivers have lots of votes in marginal constituencies such as Ilford North,
Eltham and Finchley, but other than this political consideration, were there
any *good* reasons for excluding taxis from the CC?

Vehicles entering and leaving the congestion charge zone, other than
just passing through are often parked, contributing to the congestion.
If the driver is unable to find a parking space they will drive around
looking for one, causing further congestion. With a taxi the driver
stays with the vehicle and when the passenger has completed the journey
the vehicle is then free for the use of another passenger. Without taxis
there would be a larger number of private vehicles in the area. Buses
just don't go to all the directions that some passenger require and
certainly not with one start and stop.

The cost to taxi drivers could surely have been offset by increasing the
meter rate, which those with expense accounts who form the majority of black
cab clientele would hardly notice or care about.

You really don't know the total mix of customers do you? What about the
old age pensioner or the sick and disabled who use taxis as there is no
other easily accessible form of affordable transport? Are you going to
penalise them? Or are you going to increase the number of people getting
the taxicard subsidy and increase the value they are entitled to? What
are you going to do for those in wheelchairs - punish them with an
increase in taxi fares just because they can't get on a bus?

If economic circumstances are going to force cuts in the bus network, and/or
dramatic fare increases, isn't it time to look at this again?

If the bus network is cut you want more taxis to meet any increase in
demand and you certainly don't want to penalise the displaced bus
passengers by adding more to the fare.

In any case, during the daytime it can be cheaper for 4 or 5 passengers
travelling a short distance to take a taxi rather that a bus or tube.


--
Mike Hughes
A Taxi driver licensed for London and Brighton
at home in Tarring, West Sussex, England
Interested in American trains real and model?
Look here http://mikehughes627.fotopic.net/

"Mike Hughes" wrote:

Chris Read writes:

It is demonstrably the case that 'black' cabs contribute significantly to
congestion within central London.

Is it demonstrable? What facts and figures do you have to support this
statement?

It is demonstrable. Bear in mind my comments are restricted to the
congestion charge zone. There are many causes of congestion within this
area, but a journey down Strand in the day time normally reveals that there
are more taxis than any other type of vehicle in the queue in advance of
Trafalgar Square. Mostly either empty or carrying one passenger, I might
add.

Buses, with their far more frequent stopping and starting cause far more
problems.

Buses are public transport, and the volumes of people they move in central
London means they occupy road space more efficiently than taxis or private
cars.

On the very few occasions that buses have gone on strike the traffic
actually flowed far more freely.

Of course, the presence of buses causes delay to taxis and private cars. Are
you suggesting the transport system of central London should be designed
primarily for the benefit of taxis/private cars?

Therefore, why are they exempt from the congestion charge?

The Congestion charge is actually included (albeit at the reduced rate) in
our annual vehicle licence fee. In any case the charge is only levied once
per day - and that only for the times it is operation.

As I work nights and weekends, should I be getting a refund?

If you only worked nights and weekends, you would pay no CC under my
proposal. I would be happy to see the vehicle licence fee reduced
accordingly. This might have the added benefit of encouraging more taxis out
at times when public transport is more sparse - eg overnight, Sunday etc.
For clarity, my belief is that taxis should be liable for the CC at the same
rate, at the same times, and on the same terms as private cars.

I know taxi
drivers have lots of votes in marginal constituencies such as Ilford
North,
Eltham and Finchley, but other than this political consideration, were
there
any *good* reasons for excluding taxis from the CC?

Vehicles entering and leaving the congestion charge zone, other than just
passing through are often parked, contributing to the congestion. If the
driver is unable to find a parking space they will drive around looking
for one, causing further congestion. With a taxi the driver stays with the
vehicle and when the passenger has completed the journey the vehicle is
then free for the use of another passenger. Without taxis there would be a
larger number of private vehicles in the area.

There would be some more private vehicles, although equally some traffic
would switch to buses/Tube. In any event, nowhere did I suggest that taxis
be banned from the CC area, I simply believe they - as business people
driving in central London and creating congestion - should be charged the CC
on the same terms as other business people driving in central London.

Buses just don't go to all the directions that some passenger require and
certainly not with one start and stop.

The bus network is pretty comprehensive, but I agree taxis can be more
convenient if in a hurry or cost is no object. That's why I didn't suggest
taxis be banned from the CC area, just, effectively, made more expensive for
users.

The cost to taxi drivers could surely have been offset by increasing the
meter rate, which those with expense accounts who form the majority of
black
cab clientele would hardly notice or care about.

You really don't know the total mix of customers do you? What about the
old age pensioner or the sick and disabled who use taxis as there is no
other easily accessible form of affordable transport? Are you going to
penalise them? Or are you going to increase the number of people getting
the taxicard subsidy and increase the value they are entitled to? What are
you going to do for those in wheelchairs - punish them with an increase in
taxi fares just because they can't get on a bus?

All London buses are accessible for wheelchair users, in theory if not in
practice. In general, accessibility of public transport for the disabled
(most disabled people are not, of course, wheelcair-bound) has improved
greatly in the last decade. Pensioners will be benefitting, over the years
to come, from higher state pensions - as announced in the Budget - re-linked
to earnings. This at a time when workers are being laid off and pay cut. So
no, I am not troubled with pensioners who use taxis being asked to pay a
little more. There may be a case for looking at those (of any age group) who
have regular hospital appointments for chronic conditions, and cannot use
public transport - these people should be supported in their travel
requirements in the best way possible.

If economic circumstances are going to force cuts in the bus network,
and/or
dramatic fare increases, isn't it time to look at this again?

If the bus network is cut you want more taxis to meet any increase in
demand and you certainly don't want to penalise the displaced bus
passengers by adding more to the fare.

The number of people who can afford - under *existing* fares - to switch
from bus to taxi is miniscule. Many bus users are not on trains/Tube because
the extra pound or so is outside their budget.

In any case, during the daytime it can be cheaper for 4 or 5 passengers
travelling a short distance to take a taxi rather that a bus or tube.

Five Oyster PAYG bus fares are £6. It would have to be a very short journey
to make a taxi cheaper. I do Ludgate Circus - London Bridge occasionally by
taxi - during M-F day rates - and it's rarely less than £10 with a small tip
(which bus drivers don't expect), so I guess £6 might get you to Cannon
Street station/Monument on a good day, which is hardly an epic journey. And
yes, on these occasions, I would generally have been willing to pay £12
rather than £10, either because someone else will be paying the bill, or
because it's a rare luxury for me. In general, those who can afford to pay
£10 a day for taxi travel, out of their own or someone elses pocket, will be
able to find £12.

Chris

On 03/07/2010 22:27, Chris Read wrote:
It is demonstrably the case that 'black' cabs contribute significantly to
congestion within central London.

Therefore, why are they exempt from the congestion charge? I know taxi
drivers have lots of votes in marginal constituencies such as Ilford North,
Eltham and Finchley, but other than this political consideration, were there
any *good* reasons for excluding taxis from the CC?

I am pretty sure that gerrymandering was not the reason.

Taxis are compellable and have controlled fares and controlled routes
(within reason). If you flag a cab in Kilburn Park Road at 5pm and
demand to be taken to Seymour Place, he is legally compelled to take you
and he is legally compelled to charge you about £5.50. If he was a
suburban cab working daytime, this could easily be his only trip into
the CC area during that day. CC was supposed to change driver habits, so
what would be the point of applying it to people who are legally
compelled to drive into the zone?

The real question is why do minicabs get a reduced rate, when they must
be the most congesting vehicles. The boss can organise things so that
the same vehicles go into London repeatedly, thus minimising the
payments, and can charge whatever fares he likes to cover the cost. If
increased minicab costs caused fewer people to use minicabs into Central
London and more people to use taxis which mostly travel empty into
Central London, that would obviously reduce congestion, which is what
the CC was supposed to be about.

I have seen numerous Chelsea Tractors driven by wealthy women with
minicab stickers on, although not so many in the last couple of years,
so maybe they are clamping down on that loophole... or maybe the western
extension dramatically reduced the number of people likely to exploit it
in that sort of vehicle.

On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 09:38:24 +0100, "tim...."
wrote:

For the CC: No and they are never going to as it is a tax and they are not
obliged to pay it. The fact that TfL claim that it isn't a tax doesn't
change the fact that it is.

It is not a tax; it is a road toll. Do the embassies also not pay to,
for instance, cross the Dartford bridge?

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 13:58:30 +0100, "Chris Read"
wrote:

The bus network is pretty comprehensive, but I agree taxis can be more
convenient if in a hurry or cost is no object. That's why I didn't suggest
taxis be banned from the CC area, just, effectively, made more expensive for
users.

They are expensive already compared with other modes of transport,
particularly where an Oyster card or Travelcard is held and the extra
journey is marginal (i.e. free). So a price increase is going to make
little difference.

What I think is required for taxis etc is a bit of an infrastructure
change. It causes serious problems when taxis stop in bus lanes and
on Red Routes to load/unload. I would therefore propose that this is
prohibited, thus requiring the taxis to use appropriate side streets,
and that additional "taxi stop" laybys are built at locations where
there is a large demand for boarding and alighting taxis.

Another option is to go for a German approach to road layout - run the
bus lanes up the middle rather than the sides of the road, and have
bus stops at traffic lights so users can cross to a middle of the road
stop "platform". This would mean that a taxi or private car stopping
will block the general traffic lane, not the bus lane, so the bus
continues to have priority.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

On 04/07/2010 15:44, Neil Williams wrote:

What I think is required for taxis etc is a bit of an infrastructure
change. It causes serious problems when taxis stop in bus lanes and
on Red Routes to load/unload. I would therefore propose that this is
prohibited, thus requiring the taxis to use appropriate side streets,
and that additional "taxi stop" laybys are built at locations where
there is a large demand for boarding and alighting taxis.

Taxis very rarely hold up buses in bus lanes because they are usually
behind them instead of in front of them. They are more likely to hold up
buses by stopping too near to an island on a road which does not have
bus lanes.

In message , Neil Williams
writes

It is not a tax; it is a road toll.

"Toll: A tax or duty paid for the use of a public road ..." (OED)

Do the embassies also not pay to,
for instance, cross the Dartford bridge?

The crossing is free for vehicles exempt from vehicle excise duty, so it
is quite possible that diplomats don't have to pay. However, it is a
rather different issue - there's no compulsion to use the Dartford
crossing, whereas most embassies can't avoid the Congestion Zone in the
course of their work, even if they think they can avoid paying for it.
--
Paul Terry