Your email program has the same bug as your newsgroup program. That's strange.
Adrian Stott wrote: > Nick <[email protected]> wrote: > >> OK. Let's start with each of these: >> a) I walk to post a letter > > <snip> > > One problem with arguments based on a generalisation from a sample of > one is that that one is likely to be atypical. > >> Oddly, some of us actually have thought about it, and tried to do it. > > Some = <10%? > >> You live near London. If I had my way no-one who lived within 50 miles >> of London would be allowed any say in transport matters, as they have no >> idea of the reality of life for the remaining 90% of the population. > > I live outside London, have never yet paid the congestion charge, and > find it quicker, more pleasant, and less expensive to go to the > supermarket or the town centre by bicycle than by car. See below. > "Ian Cardinal" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Most of the evidence points to the fact that a good, cheap and reliable >> Public Transport system is what changes people's behaviour, not penal >> payment. > > Not quite. What would make people change mode is a better > alternative. I.e. an alternative to the car that gives them a better > balance of cost, convenience, and quality. At present, the balance is > hugely in favour of the car in most cases. But in the bit of my post that you snipped, I pointed out that to use the bus that goes door to door will take me a good hour a day more than driving does, and costs more than the actual marginal costs of motoring. That's for a 5 mile journey each way. I earn a tad under 25 pounds an hour, so call that 12 pounds after tax and deductions. Are you suggesting a charge of more than 1.20 a mile? Because if not, it's /still/ more economical for me to drive, and then work the time rather than spend it sitting on a ghastly bus with ghastly people. > In fact, the way we pay for road tax and car insurance tends to make > the per-journey cost by car cheaper than most transit. Hence one of > my reasons for supporting road charging (to replace road tax and fuel > duty), which would transfer that cost from the vehicle to the trip. Fuel duty already does just this. And we did see some reduced car use when fuel prices soared. People do tend not to notice it, because it happens when they fill up. But the same would apply to any road tolls argument that didn't involve actually pulling up at barriers and handing over the hard cash. > By increasing the cost of car journeys (i.e. making the user pay the > real cost of the congestion they cause by driving I don't follow that "ie" at all. The amount of congestion I, and I alone, cause is almost none, so costs almost nothing. What you mean is "by making the cost prohibitive". Nothing wrong with that, but claiming it's something to do with a nebulous "cost of congestion" is - presumably - a way you can claim that this is still a "market", because we know how much you love the markets. Actually you're proposing a swinging tax to change behaviour. Again, nothing wrong with it, but it's the antithesis of a free market. > , as well as for the > roads), transit fares could be raised, which would support > improvements in transit quality. > >> we really can't have quality public services for no tax > > Why not? Transit was originally a profitable business. It's > government intervention that has made it the mess it is today. So you are proposing a big pile of government intervention to sort it out. [third stray post snipped]
