Hi all.
Just considering the proposed congestion charge for motorists. I for one 
will think twice about coming up to the Lake District - a round trip of 
about 350miles on the A1 and similar trunk roads - if the charge comes into 
law. At 1.35 a mile it would make a holiday in the Lakes out of the 
question.
 I'm sure some of you locals will be pleased to see less holidaymakers but 
the local economy relies almost completely on visitors.  It may also kerb 
the plethora of second homes and bring down the house prices - that would be 
welcome, I'm sure. What do you all think?

Rex.

"Norcot"  wrote in message
news:a4Xpe.12085$cN2.8053@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...

> Hi all.
> Just considering the proposed congestion charge for motorists. I for one
> will think twice about coming up to the Lake District - a round trip of
> about 350miles on the A1 and similar trunk roads - if the charge comes
into
> law. At 1.35 a mile it would make a holiday in the Lakes out of the
> question.
>  I'm sure some of you locals will be pleased to see less holidaymakers but
> the local economy relies almost completely on visitors.  It may also kerb
> the plethora of second homes and bring down the house prices - that would
be
> welcome, I'm sure. What do you all think?
>
> Rex.


Hello Rex,

Welcome home and welcome back to you both.Hope you had a nice
time.?????????????????????????

What I think is that these politicians are learning their conniving scheming
little tricks from each other and no boundaries or languages are getting in
the way, squeezing every penny they can get out of their people to fund
their wars and the human rights that our ancestors fought so desperately
for, are being taken gradually away from us, a little at a time, in all
categories and in the sneakiest ways. Their camouflage isn't working.

WE CAN SEE THROUGH IT.

Edith awakened by the fire engines today and police cars driving by, full
sirens ablast and has had people working on the V, grinding it back down to
basic with heavy machines, noisily, to start from scratch again. It'll be
right in the end, it will, my veran-oops-sorry Al. What a dramatic week. It
never rains but what it shines.Wonder what tomorrow will bring.I dread to
think.

On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 13:00:54 GMT, Norcot wrote:


> At £1.35 a mile it would make a holiday in the Lakes out of the 
> question.


Not enough information in the stories I've read, but I would hope the 
maximum of £1.34/mile would be for non through route inner city roads and the like not long distance. TBH I can't really see it taking off 
with GPS, far to easy to block the GPS signal which doesn't work 
particulary well under trees or between tall buildings anyway...

Much easier to have number plate cameras, that technology exists and 
works. But you have the problem of people avoiding "expensive" roads 
and fouling up "cheaper" ones. If you aren't careful people would not 
use town bypasses as the "minor roads" through the town would be 
priced less...

-- 
Cheers                                              new5pam@howhill.com
Dave.                                             pam is missing e-mail

"Norcot"  wrote in message 
news:a4Xpe.12085$cN2.8053@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...

> Hi all.
> Just considering the proposed congestion charge for motorists. I for one 
> will think twice about coming up to the Lake District - a round trip of 
> about 350miles on the A1 and similar trunk roads - if the charge comes 
> into law. At 1.35 a mile it would make a holiday in the Lakes out of the 
> question.
> I'm sure some of you locals will be pleased to see less holidaymakers but 
> the local economy relies almost completely on visitors.  It may also kerb 
> the plethora of second homes and bring down the house prices - that would 
> be welcome, I'm sure. What do you all think?
>

I've somehow managed to miss the details of this entirely. Surely they're 
not suggesting we pay 1.35 for every mile we drive? Practically nobody 
could afford to use their cars at all at this rate. It'd cost me more than 
20 just to go to Cockermouth and back. Belfagan would disappear overnight 
and so would most other activities. We'd all be stuck in our own little 
villages again and I'm afraid I'd have to return to Edinburgh, where you can 
live quite happily without a car, in order to regain a social life.

I've obviously misunderstood. I shall now go and search for the details....

ally

"a l l y"  wrote in message 
news:3gs08fFdvh10U1@individual.net...

>
> I've obviously misunderstood. I shall now go and search for the 
> details....
>

Ah. I see. The charge would vary depending on how busy the road was. That 
makes more sense. I wonder if they mean to remove the tax on fuel then, and 
collect the revenue through road charging instead?

So our quiet little lanes around NW Cumbria would still be quite cheap, but 
I'd have to think twice about visiting my son in Edinburgh. Hmm. As a 
tree-hugging greeny I should be in favour of this, but I'm left feeling a 
bit uneasy for some reason.

ally

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:04:47 퍝, a l l y wrote:


> I've obviously misunderstood. I shall now go and search for the 
> details....


News & Star has the story and the BBC. The £1.35 rate will only be on 0.5% of traffic, minimum is 2p/mile. It's a long way will be difficult 
to impliment, ergo this is a smoke screen so when they do bring 
something in it will be "better".

-- 
Cheers                                              new5pam@howhill.com
Dave.                                             pam is missing e-mail

"Dave Liquorice" <> I've obviously misunderstood. I shall now go and search 
for the

> details....


News & Star has the story and the BBC. The 1.35 rate will only be on
0.5% of traffic, minimum is 2p/mile. It's a long way will be difficult
to impliment, ergo this is a smoke screen so when they do bring
something in it will be "better".

I think that goes without saying, Dave. It's the oldest ploy in the 
parliamentary book! I can see the sense in what they want to do and I 
wouldn't object to a 2p a mile local charge as long as fuel tax and road tax 
go, but occasionally, like holiday times, we do use the motorways and we 
prefer not to set out in the middle of the night! We shall see what the 
motorist will bear this time.

Rex.
PS So the kids in Norway use their bikes on the path. Big deal! They do it 
all the time here. Between the bikes and the pensioners on their buggies 
it's less dangerous to walk down the middle of the road.

"Norcot"  wrote in message
news:D6aqe.12213$8m5.5223@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...

> Rex.
> PS So the kids in Norway use their bikes on the path. Big deal! They do it
> all the time here. Between the bikes and the pensioners on their buggies
> it's less dangerous to walk down the middle of the road.


I bike around a lot and I was absolutely against this one but after a while
we all got used to it. The best law we have in traffic is that when a
pedestrian stands by a zebra crossing, all traffic must stop for them. It's
wonderful. No need for traffic lights or anything. I feel like a queen when
the traffic stops for me to cross safely. I'm very grateful.

Edith.

"Dave Liquorice"  wrote in message
news:nyyfbegfubjuvyypbz.ihui9h2.pminews@news.howhill.com...
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 13:00:54 GMT, Norcot wrote:


> At 1.35 a mile it would make a holiday in the Lakes out of the
> question.


Not enough information in the stories I've read, but I would hope the
maximum of 1.34/mile would be for non through route inner city roads
and the like not long distance. TBH I can't really see it taking off
with GPS, far to easy to block the GPS signal which doesn't work
particulary well under trees or between tall buildings anyway...

Much easier to have number plate cameras, that technology exists and
works. But you have the problem of people avoiding "expensive" roads
and fouling up "cheaper" ones. If you aren't careful people would not
use town bypasses as the "minor roads" through the town would be
priced less...

--
Cheers                                              new5pam@howhill.com
Dave.                                             pam is missing e-mail

That's what Orly does at the moment. Otherwise he would have to fish out 6
daily on a 1 hour journey-balls-to-toll bars-expensive road taxes and rotten
thieves.

Edith

Edith.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 06:07:31 GMT, Norcot wrote:


> I can see the sense in what they want to do 


I can't, at least not with the very limited information currently 
easily available. If you aren't careful it goes against any "green" 
policy and they have already said it's not about getting people out of 
their cars and onto public transport. So what is it there for? Waste 
billions of a techological solution to a  problem that isn't there? 
They wibble on about gridlock, in that case get people out of their 
cars onto public transport...

It's not "green" as it removes the incentive to buy a more economic 
vehicle if your motoring is on "cheap" roads.


> I wouldn't object to a 2p a mile local charge as long as fuel tax 
> and road tax go,


Fuel tax would go, not sure about vehicle tax. With an averag MPG of 
the upper 20's the fuel duty element of my 14p/mile fuel costs is 
about 8p/mile ) I think duty is about 60% it might be higher...). I 
would suggest that most roads would be around that figure.


> we do use the motorways and we prefer not to set out in the middle 
> of the night!


Not seen that the charge is going to be time of day based. That would 
be really bad, you'd not know the cost of a journey until you'd done 
it. Would the cost vary by fixed times or traffic levels or a 
combination of both? Fixed times you'd have people parking up on cheap 
roads waiting for the time to change before going onto the expensive 
one. Traffic levels, what happens if there is an accident that causes 
a tail back do you get charged more because the vehicles/unit time is 
high as the tail back clears?

-- 
Cheers                                              new5pam@howhill.com
Dave.                                             pam is missing e-mail

"Dave Liquorice"  wrote in message
news:nyyfbegfubjuvyypbz.ihvftn1.pminews@news.howhill.com...

> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 06:07:31 GMT, Norcot wrote:
> Not seen that the charge is going to be time of day based. That would
> be really bad, you'd not know the cost of a journey until you'd done
> it. Would the cost vary by fixed times or traffic levels or a
> combination of both? Fixed times you'd have people parking up on cheap
> roads waiting for the time to change before going onto the expensive
> one. Traffic levels, what happens if there is an accident that causes
> a tail back do you get charged more because the vehicles/unit time is
> high as the tail back clears?
>
> --
> Cheers                                              new5pam@howhill.com
> Dave.                                             pam is missing e-mail


huh! I'm glad I have a push bike.

Edith.

"Dave Liquorice"  wrote in message >

Not seen that the charge is going to be time of day based.

I read somewhere that the charge would vary with the road used and the time 
of day ie more expensive at peak times. Many protestors have pointed out 
that most of us can't choose the hours we work and thus the time we commute.

Rex.

"Norcot"  wrote in message 
news:D6aqe.12213$8m5.5223@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...

>
> I think that goes without saying, Dave. It's the oldest ploy in the 
> parliamentary book! I can see the sense in what they want to do and I 
> wouldn't object to a 2p a mile local charge as long as fuel tax and road 
> tax go, but occasionally, like holiday times, we do use the motorways and 
> we prefer not to set out in the middle of the night! We shall see what the 
> motorist will bear this time.
>

If the motorways become the expensive option, people will just start 
clogging up the minor roads instead, especially if they're not in too much 
of a hurry.

ally

"Norcot"  wrote in message 
news:WGdqe.7229$m4.198@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...

>
> "Dave Liquorice"  wrote in message >
>
> Not seen that the charge is going to be time of day based.
>
> I read somewhere that the charge would vary with the road used and the 
> time of day ie more expensive at peak times. Many protestors have pointed 
> out that most of us can't choose the hours we work and thus the time we 
> commute.
>

Yeah, but it's the commuters who are the cause of much of the problem. Get 
the commuters on to public transport and what's left of the traffic would 
flow a lot more freely. A lot of cars are used very inefficiently. They 
drive through a traffic jam morning and night, and spend all day parked 
somewhere, filling up space in the city centre and costing their owners for 
the privilege. Most people who work in cities, who do the same journey each 
day, do not need to use cars to get there and back.

ally

a l l y wrote:

> "Norcot"  wrote in message 
> news:a4Xpe.12085$cN2.8053@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> 
>>Hi all.
>>Just considering the proposed congestion charge for motorists. I for one 
>>will think twice about coming up to the Lake District - a round trip of 
>>about 350miles on the A1 and similar trunk roads - if the charge comes 
>>into law. At 1.35 a mile it would make a holiday in the Lakes out of the 
>>question.
>>I'm sure some of you locals will be pleased to see less holidaymakers but 
>>the local economy relies almost completely on visitors.  It may also kerb 
>>the plethora of second homes and bring down the house prices - that would 
>>be welcome, I'm sure. What do you all think?
>>
> 
> I've somehow managed to miss the details of this entirely. Surely they're 
> not suggesting we pay 1.35 for every mile we drive? Practically nobody 
> could afford to use their cars at all at this rate. It'd cost me more than 
> 20 just to go to Cockermouth and back. Belfagan would disappear overnight 
> and so would most other activities. We'd all be stuck in our own little 
> villages again and I'm afraid I'd have to return to Edinburgh, where you can 
> live quite happily without a car, in order to regain a social life.
> 
> I've obviously misunderstood. I shall now go and search for the details....
> 
> ally 
> 
> 

I agree with you, Ally. I anticipate your findings with interest.

  As for living without a car, we did so for a while when we lived in 
London, and we have British friends in lower Manhattan who haven't had a 
car for 5 years. But in the Lakes, they don't have a tube or a subway or 
buses turning up every 10 minutes, or lifts and escalators to move you 
about several hundred feet vertically.(I'm not seriously suggesting that 
there should be an escalator up the side of Skiddaw, but heck, it's not 
such a daft idea!)

The public transport alternatives in the Lakes have been pathetic for 
decades, and when I last arrived by train (It was 1987) I had to have 
someone come and pick me up from Penrith station because the buses 
didn't coordinate with the train times. If you use public transport 
outside the cities, be prepared for a big disappointment.

The whole idea of a congestion charge isn't so absurd, but why on earth 
make it so steep? That's a punitive rate! Are the rules being made by 
people who don't have to worry about the cost of living?

I would be prepared to pay, say, five quid a day as a no-longer-resident 
on holiday but this amount  tells me that they'd rather the tourists 
just stayed away.

Jp

Dave Liquorice wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 00:04:47 +0100, a l l y wrote:
> 
> 
>>I've obviously misunderstood. I shall now go and search for the 
>>details....
> 
> 
> News & Star has the story and the BBC. The 1.35 rate will only be on 
> 0.5% of traffic, minimum is 2p/mile. It's a long way will be difficult 
> to impliment, ergo this is a smoke screen so when they do bring 
> something in it will be "better".
> 

That would make more sense!!

Jp

"a l l y"  wrote in message
news:3gtc3eFe5djnU1@individual.net...

> Yeah, but it's the commuters who are the cause of much of the problem. Get
> the commuters on to public transport and what's left of the traffic would
> flow a lot more freely. A lot of cars are used very inefficiently. They
> drive through a traffic jam morning and night, and spend all day parked
> somewhere, filling up space in the city centre and costing their owners
for
> the privilege. Most people who work in cities, who do the same journey
each
> day, do not need to use cars to get there and back.
>
> ally


Here you see bikes wrapped around bus stops. Thats them theer what teks
t'bus tuh wook then cums yam und 'as tuh bike it 10 miles in tut cuntry tuh
git yam, tuckered oot. aye a dunno what t'woorld's cummin' to.

Edith.

"The Traveller"  wrote in message 
news:9Imqe.54214$Fe7.165911@news000.worldonline.dk...

> Here you see bikes wrapped around bus stops. Thats them theer what teks
> t'bus tuh wook then cums yam und 'as tuh bike it 10 miles in tut cuntry 
> tuh
> git yam, tuckered oot. aye a dunno what t'woorld's cummin' to.
>

That sounds very sensible, actually. You get the best of both worlds then. 
Why should they be tuckered out? I think a nice 10-mile cycle ride after a 
hard day working in the city would be just what you'd need to get the wind 
in your sails again.

ally

"a l l y"  wrote in message
news:3gueinFdn94vU1@individual.net...

>
> "The Traveller"  wrote in message
> news:9Imqe.54214$Fe7.165911@news000.worldonline.dk...
> > Here you see bikes wrapped around bus stops. Thats them theer what teks
> > t'bus tuh wook then cums yam und 'as tuh bike it 10 miles in tut cuntry
> > tuh
> > git yam, tuckered oot. aye a dunno what t'woorld's cummin' to.
> >
> That sounds very sensible, actually. You get the best of both worlds then.
> Why should they be tuckered out? I think a nice 10-mile cycle ride after a
> hard day working in the city would be just what you'd need to get the wind
> in your sails again.
>
> ally


gasp!

Edith

"a l l y"  wrote in message >>

> That sounds very sensible, actually. You get the best of both worlds then. 
> Why should they be tuckered out? I think a nice 10-mile cycle ride after a 
> hard day working in the city would be just what you'd need to get the wind 
> in your sails again.
>



Or the wind up your shorts! Especially large green shorts

Rex.

a l l y wrote:


> "The Traveller"  wrote in message 
> news:9Imqe.54214$Fe7.165911@news000.worldonline.dk...
> 
>>Here you see bikes wrapped around bus stops. Thats them theer what teks
>>t'bus tuh wook then cums yam und 'as tuh bike it 10 miles in tut cuntry 
>>tuh
>>git yam, tuckered oot. aye a dunno what t'woorld's cummin' to.
>>
> 
> That sounds very sensible, actually. You get the best of both worlds then. 
> Why should they be tuckered out? I think a nice 10-mile cycle ride after a 
> hard day working in the city would be just what you'd need to get the wind 
> in your sails again.
> 
> ally 


Mr P used to take his bike and chain it up at the bus stop.

Now I understand a little bit more, what bothers me about a congestion 
charge is, does a Nissan Micra pay the same charge as a Range Rover? I 
hope the chip would carry data that rewarded smaller, less greedy cars.

Jp

"Jpinny"  wrote in message >

> Now I understand a little bit more, what bothers me about a congestion 
> charge is, does a Nissan Micra pay the same charge as a Range Rover? I 
> hope the chip would carry data that rewarded smaller, less greedy cars.
>

 That is a good question. This is merely an idea for the future, at present, 
but if it comes into law they must fine tune it to take account of the 
effects on the environment of large, petrol guzzling engines. It's obvious 
the people who can afford such large cars will not flinch at paying per 
mile. The less well off, with smaller vehicles, may well not use them as 
much.

Rex.

"a l l y"  wrote in message
news:3gtbq4Fea9o3U1@individual.net...

>
> "Norcot"  wrote in message
> news:D6aqe.12213$8m5.5223@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> >
> > I think that goes without saying, Dave. It's the oldest ploy in the
> > parliamentary book! I can see the sense in what they want to do and I
> > wouldn't object to a 2p a mile local charge as long as fuel tax and road
> > tax go, but occasionally, like holiday times, we do use the motorways
and
> > we prefer not to set out in the middle of the night! We shall see what
the
> > motorist will bear this time.
> >
> If the motorways become the expensive option, people will just start
> clogging up the minor roads instead, especially if they're not in too much
> of a hurry.
>
> ally


The only way to boicot their prices is to do that. How else can one get them
to listen.

We don't drive through bar tolls.

Edith

"The Traveller"  wrote in message 
news:ygUqe.54442$Fe7.167054@news000.worldonline.dk...

>
> The only way to boicot their prices is to do that. How else can one get 
> them
> to listen.
>
> We don't drive through bar tolls.
>

I use the Midlands Expressway when I go down south. It costs 3 but  it is 
so worth it. Takes hours of sitting in stationery traffic off your journey.

ally

"Norcot"  wrote in message 
news:9NQqe.21016$iy2.11911@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...

>
> "Jpinny"  wrote in message >
>> Now I understand a little bit more, what bothers me about a congestion 
>> charge is, does a Nissan Micra pay the same charge as a Range Rover? I 
>> hope the chip would carry data that rewarded smaller, less greedy cars.
>>
> That is a good question. This is merely an idea for the future, at 
> present, but if it comes into law they must fine tune it to take account 
> of the effects on the environment of large, petrol guzzling engines. It's 
> obvious the people who can afford such large cars will not flinch at 
> paying per mile. The less well off, with smaller vehicles, may well not 
> use them as much.
>

Yes, once again it's the poor people living in rural areas who'll suffer.

ally

"a l l y"  wrote in message
news:3h2r46Ff09hnU1@individual.net...

>
> "The Traveller"  wrote in message
> news:ygUqe.54442$Fe7.167054@news000.worldonline.dk...
> >
> > The only way to boicot their prices is to do that. How else can one get
> > them
> > to listen.
> >
> > We don't drive through bar tolls.
> >
> I use the Midlands Expressway when I go down south. It costs 3 but  it is
> so worth it. Takes hours of sitting in stationery traffic off your
journey.
>
> ally


I tried using the train to Kongsberg. Never again. A 1 hour jouney just
dabbling along on nice country roads enjoying the views by car, is much
better than a 3 hour journey by train-having to change in Drammen and then
sit there for ages with no explanations - jesus, with all the money this
country say they have (30 billion in oil money) + % they sure know how to
improve things (not) (won't)

Edith

"a l l y"  wrote in message
news:3h2r69Feunh5U1@individual.net...

>
> "Norcot"  wrote in message
> news:9NQqe.21016$iy2.11911@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
> >
> > "Jpinny"  wrote in message >
> >> Now I understand a little bit more, what bothers me about a congestion
> >> charge is, does a Nissan Micra pay the same charge as a Range Rover? I
> >> hope the chip would carry data that rewarded smaller, less greedy cars.
> >>
> > That is a good question. This is merely an idea for the future, at
> > present, but if it comes into law they must fine tune it to take account
> > of the effects on the environment of large, petrol guzzling engines.
It's
> > obvious the people who can afford such large cars will not flinch at
> > paying per mile. The less well off, with smaller vehicles, may well not
> > use them as much.
> >
> Yes, once again it's the poor people living in rural areas who'll suffer.
>
> ally


Typical. They'll prbably give them a discount ticket for a train that
doesn't go.

Edith always lets one car in on the roundabout, called platting.

"Norcot"  wrote in message
news:9NQqe.21016$iy2.11911@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...

>
> "Jpinny"  wrote in message >
> > Now I understand a little bit more, what bothers me about a congestion
> > charge is, does a Nissan Micra pay the same charge as a Range Rover? I
> > hope the chip would carry data that rewarded smaller, less greedy cars.
> >
>  That is a good question. This is merely an idea for the future, at
present,
> but if it comes into law they must fine tune it to take account of the
> effects on the environment of large, petrol guzzling engines. It's obvious
> the people who can afford such large cars will not flinch at paying per
> mile. The less well off, with smaller vehicles, may well not use them as
> much.
>
> Rex.


and for those who must have large cars whether they want to or
not-vans-lorries-cargo-gear.

Edith.

"a l l y"  wrote in message
news:3h2r46Ff09hnU1@individual.net...

>
> "The Traveller"  wrote in message
> news:ygUqe.54442$Fe7.167054@news000.worldonline.dk...
> >
> > The only way to boicot their prices is to do that. How else can one get
> > them
> > to listen.
> >
> > We don't drive through bar tolls.
> >
> I use the Midlands Expressway when I go down south. It costs 3 but  it is
> so worth it. Takes hours of sitting in stationery traffic off your
journey.
>
> ally


If Orly drove thro' the toll bars it would be 100 off his monthly wage. Who
can afford that.

Edith.

"The Traveller"  wrote in message 
news:iw9re.55092$Fe7.168005@news000.worldonline.dk...

>
> If Orly drove thro' the toll bars it would be 100 off his monthly wage. 
> Who
> can afford that.
>

It's only worth it for occasional journeys, or where time wasted in traffic 
jams costs you money.

ally