egafd.com

Has anyone got a clue what the London (or any other for that matter) is actually for ?

As far as I know it doesn't make any money - all revenue goes in admin costs. It doesn't reduce traffic at all - which is why it was introduced wasn't it ?

So what is the fuckin point of it ?

And more importantly how do we get rid of it ?

Shoot all the cameras Dave. But I didnt say that right?

Ive been wondering that for years before I realsed that Ken Livingstone had lost the plot on this. I mean if they were spending this money to make a giant fly over in the centre of London I could understand but it all seems to be another tax to penalise the driver for dare owning a car.

How dare you own a car in post Glasnost London. The way they see it, theyb e happy if you drve those little dinky skodas.

Did you know skoda or skud-ah means shit in greek? Says it all really.

Except for the new Skoda I mean.

Its now an emissions charge. Cos thats a trendy cause, so fewer people will whinge about it. So now the authorities will be happy if traffic doubles, but everyone is in a Prius.

A case of changing the question to suit the answer.

The congestion charge does make a profit. The figure for last year was a profit of ?123 million.

The profit is spent on improving public transport.

It has reduced traffic as well. The latest figures show a reduction of 21% in overall traffic since the congestion charge began.

I'm not sure what will happen now with the new emissions rules, but it seems logical that traffic will increase and the congestion charge profit will be less.

Hi Jamesw

Thats all well and good the 21% reduction in traffic but that has also had an impact on business in general in central London too.

So while Westminster council is lining its pockets, all the shops who pay high overheads have to suffer the loss in customers as a result.

The congestion charge is working though. I steadfastly refuse to pay Ken anymore money.

As for improvement in public transport....Where is it? Are you saying Westminster council cubsidised the new trains on the underground? Otherwise i dont see improvement anywhere.

And why should we motorists pay fo rit when we already have to pay exorbitant fuel prices and road tax.

Do you actually work for Westminster council? Do you live in central London? I would seriously like to know where this 122 million of motorists money is going.

While I'm on one....British people myust be the most complacent apathetic lot on the planet for how we put up with administrations imposing extra taxes.

We moan but thats about it. In america they would have had a march on washington and a big media frenzy...I wonder if they have congestion charge over there??? probably not because it is so damn un-democratic.

We know how the americans love to make a big song and dance about their civil liberties but us brits just tend to whinge and put up with it.

..Right time for a cuppa now.

It's like you say, a self perpetuating bureaucracy. More charges collected to hire more staff, to send out more fines, to build more cameras and extend the zones ? so you can put the charges up and hire more staff! Then those friends of the government who run the little quangos can justify paying themselves 200K. The net effect of these schemes is nil, because most people who drive into these areas actually need to be there ? so the costs just get claimed back in higher charges, higher salaries etc. etc. ..... so in the end we all pay more just to keep some arseholes in jobs that don?t need to exist.

If they really wanted to cut down the traffic, why not do something simple, with next to no overheads, like they do in Rome or Athens --- even number cars can only go into the city on alternate days, on other days it?s the turn of the odd numbers. But that would be too simple.

They do have a lot of toll roads and bridges in the east - and some are not that cheap because they're privately operated. The thing about most American cities is the parking is so exorbitantly expensive. You can drive in for free, but parking can cost an arm and a leg in places like New York - although as a tourist you can have a drive around for free, a nice thing to do at a weekend when it's not so crowded with business traffic.

[quote]it all seems to be another tax to penalise the driver for dare owning a car.[/quote]

What's wrong with penalisation? Doesn't a cyclist's, or walker's health get penalised whether he dare, or daren't own a car? Attention motorists: There are other people besides yourself.

Please compare the rates of asthma, and other numerous afflictions in congested areas against sparsely congested areas. Even if you disbelieve the environmentalists about global warming, you can't deny the detrimental health impact mass transport has on the citizens it carries?

Just like with smokers, it amazes me how so many can persuade, or even convince themselves that "it's ok to fuck up another persons health, because I'm paying taxes".

But the cyclist and the walker don't pay for the roads - so they always come second to the motorist on the roads. If we really want cyclist we need to build dedicated cycle lanes for them - and pedestrians shouldn't argue with a car or they'll get hurt, that's the fact. I must admit I find cyclists an absolute menace to themselves and other road users. I'm convinced there's something touched with the brain of an individual who would take a bicycle amongst trucks and buses - nobody wants them to die or be injured, but if they are - well, it's really their own fault.