Jump to content

Recommended Posts

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Maybe the price increase will encourage just a few

> people to give up a car. Or the second or third

> car? Job done

>

> Or maybe as with everything else prices go up. See

> also public transport price increases.


Sean, whilst I agree with you regarding 2nd and 3rd cars, for some a 1st or only car is a necessity.


This is revenue raising excerise and nothing more.


If the council were really interested in people giving up their additional vehicles then they would / should introduce a higher charge for the +1, +2 and so on.


p.s. I don't own a car.

ermmm... note what?


file.php?20,file=2927


Note that the council currently spends close to 10m on traffic issues, and motorists only deliver 1m in revenue?


Note that every council tax payer who DOESN'T drive, is paying for motorists?


Note that motorists are so vain that they think driving is a right?

Huguenot... we've had a similar discussion before. "Traffic Transport and Planning" covers more than just "services for motorists".


Plus, add in the fact that everyone needs roads for buses, taxis, post. Shops and businesses need the roads. And motorists of course pay additional taxes in the form of road tax, fuel, and sometimes congestion charge. So your stats - while relevant - are nowhere near detailed enough to draw the conclusions you have come to.

For sure, and I haven't mentioned the 'hidden' costs of motoring that aren't in my maths either. They seem to cost the planet, not a measly administration fee ;-)


I understand that [email protected] is responsible for communicating transport planning.


I think we should ask him!


I, of course, just have, and anticipate his detailed budget breakdown!

I would think everyone on here is pretty much aware of the environmental impact of motoring. That's not the point I'm making here though, I was only challenging your assumption that motorists are financially subsidised. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think it's possible that it may be the other way round. Certainly when considered at a national level, rather than just the local council. I'm sure you will gleefully post the councillor's response - as if it somehow supports your conclusions - nonetheless!


It also seems rather simplistic to suggest that motorists are selfishly killing the planet. Not everyone lives in an area with extensive public transport such as London or Singapore (even better). Plenty of people live in areas where there are few other ways of getting around - and these are the people who rack up serious miles in their cars. What's being to provide alternatives and incentives for these people?

I agree with you, motoring is critical for some.


(As it happens I just don't think the same thing applies to ED, and I don't think it applies to most motorists. Apparently there are 60,000+ cars registered in Southwark and 37,000 cars come in each day with commuters. I reckon 'essential' would be lucky to cover 10,000 of them. The rest of them, well, you know.... easy innit. Just imagine what a beautiful, beautiful place Southwark would be if 9 in 10 cars simply didn't exist.)


The budget issue was addressing early posts in this thread that suggested that parking fee was profiteering, or racketeering. It would be a very poor racket that derives only 10% of outlay. I'd sack the Spiv.

I agree that too many people use their cars in London. I am very surprised that over 50% of Southwark's car owners use their car for daily commuting. I support the congestion charge, but am frustrated at years of under investment in public transport. If you want to get specific to ED : there is arguably a bit of spare capacity in the local train network, but not much. And instead of having services increased, they are actually being reduced. Not much of an incentive to ditch the car, is it?


Councils possibly could make a profit from parking fees (and fines) - but having some insight into the way local councils are ran, I seriously doubt they do!

Sorry Jeremy, my mistake.


The 37,000 cars are incoming to the borough from outside. They're additional to the 60,000 registered locally, and the God knows how many untaxed and unlicensed vehicles. When the rozzers did Oakhurst Grove a couple of years back they must have clamped a third of the cars.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Depends on what the Barista says doesnt it? There was no physical confrontation with the driver, OP thinks she is being targetted when she isnt. These guys work min wage under strict schedules so give them a break unless they damage your stuff
    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
    • I do hope NOT, wouldn't trust Farage as far as I could throw him, Starmer & co.  He's backed by GB News which focus's predominantly on immigration while the BBC focus predominantly on the Israel - Gazza conflict.   
    • Everyone gets the point that Corbynites try to make with the "total number of votes cast" statistic, it's just a specious one.  In 2017, Corbyn's Labour got fewer votes than May's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes). In 2019, Corbyn's Labour fewer votes than Johnson's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes); and he managed to drop 2.7 million votes or 6.9% of vote share between the two elections. I repeat, he got trounced by Boris F***ing Johnson and the Tories after the Brexit omnishambles. It is not true that a "fairer" electoral system would have seen Labour beat the Tories: Labour simply got fewer votes than the Tories. Corbyn lost twice. There is no metric by which he won the general election. His failure to win was a disaster for the UK, and let Johnson and Truss and Sunak into office. Corbynites have to let go of this delusion that Corbyn but really won somehow if you squint in a certain way. It is completely irrelevant that Labour under Corbyn got more votes than Labour under Starmer. It is like saying Hull City was more successful in its 2014 FA Cup Final than Chelsea was in its 2018 FA Cup Final, because Hull scored 2 goals when Chelsea only scored 1. But guess what - Chelsea won its game and Hull City lost. Corbyn's fans turned out to vote for him - but an even larger group of people who found him repellant were motivated enough to show up and vote Tory.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...