Michael Askin wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Nick <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. > > Actually the cost of congestion is probably a fair amount thanks to > most goods going by road, and therefore taking longer to get to their > destination. This impacts on the labour costs - usually the largest > part of most things we buy these days I would guess (and to bring it > back on topic, one of the reasons canal transport struggles unless > scales of economy come into it).
The total cost of congestion it, without doubt, high. But Adrian was claiming that charging was about making each of us pay /our/ cost of congestion. Each individual contribution is minute. Hence that "I and I alone" in my post.
