In message , The Rifleman
writes


you maroon.

How dare you! Most of us here are green or blue!

Ian


Jonny is pink.


Cobalt actually!
--
Jonathan Bratt

Mark Fry wrote:
"Take a Walk" wrote...
Diversity Isn't A Codeword For Anti-White wrote:

I totally agree! on TalkRadio this morning there was a debate about
this new toll road and most callers supported it! I thought you bunch
of morons! Only a small amount of the road tax we pay gets spent on
the roads, the rest is stolen and wasted by other government
departments. There lies the ****ing problem! why on earth anybody
thinks we should have to pay an extra tax to use a new road that
should ALREADY be funded by our road tax I do not know.

Despite the rate of tax being high by international standards, there is
still no agreement on whether or not it covers the full cost
(environmental and social as well as direct) of roads. Three of these
were included in the uk.transport FAQ last time I looked.

FWIW I support the toll in principle, but am unhappy about the deal that
the company that built it got (considering the amount of commercial
freedom they got, the government should've insisted on a better deal)
and am opposed to the exorbitant rate that vans get charged (surely they
don't cause that much more congestion than cars?)


Plenty of people are happy (well- 'uncomplaining' might be a better word)
about the dozens of prior examples of similar 'pay to drive' facilities:

Severn Bridge x2
Humber Bridge
Dartford crossings
Mersey crossings
etc

None of which would have been built by the Government in power at the
times, if private funding had not been around to build them.

Quite right about the private funding bit of building bridges, however I
seem to remember that when the Dartford Crossing was built the toll was
eventually meant to be phased out. That was 2 years ago.
Funny that at the time the gov. done a survey and said that if the tolls
were phased out, more people would use the crossing thereby causing more
hold-ups! I don't suppose for an instant it the fact that the crossing
generates approx. 50 million per annum. And they've obviously never been
there most mornings from 6-8 or afternoons between 2.30-6.
As for complaining, I think everybody has complained at one time or another
regarding the fact that a toll crossing exists in the middle of one of
Britain's busiest motorways.

ITYF it's AT THE END of one of Britain's biggest motorways, rather than
in the middle! Well, both ends actually...

So why should we the general public pay to use
a road that has already paid for from taxes of one kind or another?

The problem is that the Dartford Crossing is no longer enough. More
crossing capacity is needed. IMO retaining the tunnel and hypothecating
the revenue to fund more Thames Estuary bridges, tunnels and ferries is
the best solution.

After all if my costs increase to move goods from AtoB, who do you think I
pass that cost on to?

Probably the buyer, but it depends on other factors (like whether your
competitors have had a similar rise in their costs). However, time is
(usually) money, and often an uncongested road is worth the cost.

"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message
...
FWIW I support the toll in principle, but am unhappy about the deal that
the company that built it got (considering the amount of commercial
freedom they got, the government should've insisted on a better deal)
and am opposed to the exorbitant rate that vans get charged (surely they
don't cause that much more congestion than cars?)

Vans are charged the same rate as cars UNLESS their height at the front axle
is over 1.3m. So all small vans (Escort/Combo etc) are charged at £3/£2/£1
(Class 2). I suspect that Merc Vitos and VW Transporters MAY also just
squeeze under the 1.3m and be in Class 2, I've not checked yet though. What
is being described as the 'van' rate is actually Class 4 and covers any
vehicle with 2 axles that is over 1.3m at the front axle. It includes all
Transits, 7.5 tonners, some larger trucks and many coaches.

Andy

In article ,
says...
In message , Conor
writes
Conor

A whack off a day keeps the Viagra at bay.
Hey Conor, that's a new tag line, better than the old repetition, keep
it up;-)

I plan on a change once a week or so. Decided that the old one was not
on. Just wish I'd have decided a little bit earlier.


--
Conor

A whack off a day keeps the Viagra at bay.

In article ,
says...
In article ,
says...
Diversity Isn't A Codeword For Anti-White wrote:
I totally agree! on TalkRadio this morning there was a debate about
this new toll road and most callers supported it! I thought you bunch
of morons! Only a small amount of the road tax we pay gets spent on
the roads, the rest is stolen and wasted by other government
departments. There lies the ****ing problem! why on earth anybody
thinks we should have to pay an extra tax to use a new road that
should ALREADY be funded by our road tax I do not know.


I suppose you advocate everyone ****ting in the garden because the local
water authority isn't spending enough on the sewers?


Bad example.

The local authority aren't spending enough on the sewers, _even though_
we're paying through the nose for it, and it's not working, causing the
toilets to block up.

THe sewers are the domain of the Water company.



--
Conor

A whack off a day keeps the Viagra at bay.

Diversity Isn't A Codeword For Anti-White wrote:

snip

you maroon.

Is that a fruit or are you talking about Robinson Crusoe?
--
MrBitsy

"Clive" wrote in message
...
In message , Mark Fry
writes
After all if my costs increase to move goods from AtoB, who do you
think I pass that cost on to?
Try the railways.
--
Clive

When was the last time you had a parcel delivered to your door by
rail.....unless of course you live in a railway goods yard / station. Which
I think the vast majority of people don't.

In article ,
says...
In article ,
says...
In article ,
says...
Diversity Isn't A Codeword For Anti-White wrote:
I totally agree! on TalkRadio this morning there was a debate about
this new toll road and most callers supported it! I thought you bunch
of morons! Only a small amount of the road tax we pay gets spent on
the roads, the rest is stolen and wasted by other government
departments. There lies the ****ing problem! why on earth anybody
thinks we should have to pay an extra tax to use a new road that
should ALREADY be funded by our road tax I do not know.


I suppose you advocate everyone ****ting in the garden because the local
water authority isn't spending enough on the sewers?


Bad example.

The local authority aren't spending enough on the sewers, _even though_
we're paying through the nose for it, and it's not working, causing the
toilets to block up.

THe sewers are the domain of the Water company.

OK. Post as above, but replace "Local Authority" with "Water Company".

Pete.

--
NOTE! Email address is spamtrapped. Any email will be bounced to you
Remove the news and underscore from my address to reply by mail

In article , says...
In message , Pete Smith
writes
IMO, anyone who willingly goes into any form of politics - local
council up to the Government, and possibly even the UN (complete with
its reptilian shadow government!) do it because they are control
freaks. They like to control people.

And maybe you are projecting.

I don't think so (could be wrong though!) I have no desire to control
people. OTOH, I have no desire to be controlled by others.

Pete.

--
NOTE! Email address is spamtrapped. Any email will be bounced to you
Remove the news and underscore from my address to reply by mail

"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message
...
Mark Fry wrote:
"Take a Walk" wrote...
Diversity Isn't A Codeword For Anti-White wrote:

I totally agree! on TalkRadio this morning there was a debate about
this new toll road and most callers supported it! I thought you
bunch
of morons! Only a small amount of the road tax we pay gets spent on
the roads, the rest is stolen and wasted by other government
departments. There lies the ****ing problem! why on earth anybody
thinks we should have to pay an extra tax to use a new road that
should ALREADY be funded by our road tax I do not know.

Despite the rate of tax being high by international standards, there is
still no agreement on whether or not it covers the full cost
(environmental and social as well as direct) of roads. Three of these
were included in the uk.transport FAQ last time I looked.

FWIW I support the toll in principle, but am unhappy about the deal that
the company that built it got (considering the amount of commercial
freedom they got, the government should've insisted on a better deal)
and am opposed to the exorbitant rate that vans get charged (surely they
don't cause that much more congestion than cars?)


Plenty of people are happy (well- 'uncomplaining' might be a better
word)
about the dozens of prior examples of similar 'pay to drive'
facilities:

Severn Bridge x2
Humber Bridge
Dartford crossings
Mersey crossings
etc

None of which would have been built by the Government in power at the
times, if private funding had not been around to build them.

Quite right about the private funding bit of building bridges, however I
seem to remember that when the Dartford Crossing was built the toll was
eventually meant to be phased out. That was 2 years ago.
Funny that at the time the gov. done a survey and said that if the tolls
were phased out, more people would use the crossing thereby causing more
hold-ups! I don't suppose for an instant it the fact that the crossing
generates approx. 50 million per annum. And they've obviously never
been
there most mornings from 6-8 or afternoons between 2.30-6.
As for complaining, I think everybody has complained at one time or
another
regarding the fact that a toll crossing exists in the middle of one of
Britain's busiest motorways.

ITYF it's AT THE END of one of Britain's biggest motorways, rather than
in the middle! Well, both ends actually...

You are right it is at the end, but to go from North to South or visa versa
you have to pay, they've got you by the cods.

So why should we the general public pay to use
a road that has already paid for from taxes of one kind or another?

The problem is that the Dartford Crossing is no longer enough. More
crossing capacity is needed. IMO retaining the tunnel and hypothecating
the revenue to fund more Thames Estuary bridges, tunnels and ferries is
the best solution.

After all if my costs increase to move goods from AtoB, who do you think
I
pass that cost on to?

Probably the buyer, but it depends on other factors (like whether your
competitors have had a similar rise in their costs). However, time is
(usually) money, and often an uncongested road is worth the cost.


I don't agree the Dartford Crossing is plenty, if they just done away with
the toll booths. I watched this happen on more than one occasion, the car
arrives at the booth gives the crossing officer £5.00, simple, cars cost
£1.00 so should be £4.00 change, easy. Not so, the half wit in the booth
then checks the five pound note out under a U.V light, fair enough, then
he/she proceeds to count out £4.00 about 4 times, just to make sure that
they haven't paid too much change.....By which time there's quite a queue at
this booth and this isn't unique, it happens at all of them......


Regarding funding, that would be true if the funding from the crossing went
to pay for more crossings, but this isn't the case. When the bridge was
constructed it a joint venture involving a company called Trafalgar House,
amongst others. Not too long ago the company controlling the crossing has
become a French company called Le Crossing, so do you think the revenue
generated by Le crossing will be funding more Le Crossings? I doubt it.

And if my costs do increase, I pass them on to the distributor / shipper,
who in turn passes them on to the consumer, which is you!
We are already paying enough taxes, why should we have to pay more.