Congestion charge in Brighton & Hove

[Herr Tubthumper]

The modern tram systems in Croydump and Manchester (mostly) run on former railway lines so don't get stuck in traffic. No such former railway lines exist here so they'd have to share the roads with all the other traffic.

A lot of european tram systems run on tracks they stick down the middle of the roads. This could easily be done along the seafront if there was a will.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

There is absolutely no case whatsoever for exempting residents of Brighton and Hove from a congestion charge in the city centre. Most of the traffic congestion is caused by residents of the city, quite a lot of whom travel in and out on a daily basis.

They are the people who need to switch to public transport alternatives. And before anyone starts whinging that "it costs £3.60 to travel in on a bus", go look at the price of bus travel for people who have made a genuine commitment to use buses for most of their trips around the conurbation.

The price of one month's unlimited travel on B&H buses (including journeys as far afield as Tunbridge Wells and Eastbourne) is £53. That's about £1.75 a day.

 

[GNF on Tour]

There is absolutely no case whatsoever for exempting residents of Brighton and Hove from a congestion charge in the city centre. Most of the traffic congestion is caused by residents of the city, quite a lot of whom travel in and out on a daily basis.

They are the people who need to switch to public transport alternatives. And before anyone starts whinging that "it costs £3.60 to travel in on a bus", go look at the price of bus travel for people who have made a genuine commitment to use buses for most of their trips around the conurbation.

The price of one month's unlimited travel on B&H buses (including journeys as far afield as Tunbridge Wells and Eastbourne) is £53. That's about £1.75 a day.

Exactly. And I bet it costs a damn site more than 1.75 a day to keep and run a car (or a second or third car per household).

THE ONLY WAY ANYONE EVER IS GOING TO EFFECT A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR IS THROUGH PRICING.

Bring it on.

 

[8ace]

A lot of european tram systems run on tracks they stick down the middle of the roads. This could easily be done along the seafront if there was a will.

You certainly could but the seafont road is the exception rather than the rule unfortuneatly. Not had much experience of European tram systems but none of the trams/trolletbuses in San Francisco are that quick and they have to stop at red lights too.
In Sheffield I've taken the tram from the town centre to Hillsborough but that never seemed that quick either.

 

[GNF on Tour]

Trams are always more effective at getting motorists out of their cars than buses. You only have to look at Manchester and Nottingham to see that. Large numbers of people who commute from Altrincham to Manchester used to drive in, and the same applies in Nottingham, where there is a huge park and ride at Phoenix Park next to the M1. Whatever we think of the place, Croydon's Tramlink also works a dream. For some reason, buses are seen as a D/E form of transport, i.e. for lower earners. This does not seem to apply in London, however. I think nothing of going back from my church running group on the Northern Line from Moorgate, or Seagulls over London from London Bridge, to Clapham Common, then catching a 35 or 37 back to my flat in Battersea, and my fellow passengers include a fair proportion of those one would call middle class. Outside London, it seems you only use a bus if you don't have a car.

The trouble with trams is they cost a fortune to deliver. Politicians love them because they are seen as shiny, new and innovative AND ARE NOT BUSES. Trouble is, buses can carry just as many punters, if not more, are a damn site more flexible in there routing and cost a massive amount less.

Rapid Transit is great, but it does not have to be trams. There are dozens of examples worldwide of bus rapid transit, delivered a a fraction of the cost of a Croydon Tramlink or similar.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Yep f*** democracy, you sound like a future European Commissioner.

I bet you hate facsism though, just as long as its the wrong kind.........................Nazi scum off our streets......etc.etc.

He's got a point though. Many a good idea has been stifled by people with too much time on their hands.

 

[cunning fergus]

He's got a point though. Many a good idea has been stifled by people with too much time on their hands.

What one? The one about weak integrated transport in Machester or the one about democracy not being ideal in certain situations?

Not sure if you have noticed but we have a PM who was not voted in by the electorate, his second in command is also unelected, the UK is largely governed by a group of people who are not accountable to the voters in these islands and even our own representative to this elite group of decision makers has never been elcted to public office.

It is manifectly obvious that we only get democracy when our 'leaders' want it, and when they think it 'sucks' we dont (Lisbon Treaty anyone). In fact even when we have democracy these days its ignored or given another go.

Fact is democracy does not 'suck' at all if we accept the will of the people, which is exactly what a mature country should do, unfortunately all to often we have a sort of quasi fascism that means some people think the end justifies the means they dont. Get over it...................as we are often told these days.

 

[Beach Hut]

Working in London there are now twice as many buses as there were (well seems like that to me) so still traffic jams as many cars.

I assume the end charge is past onto the consumer who buys whatever is charged extra for delivery.

 

[The Large One]

What one? The one about weak integrated transport in Machester or the one about democracy not being ideal in certain situations?

Not sure if you have noticed but we have a PM who was not voted in by the electorate, his second in command is also unelected, the UK is largely governed by a group of people who are not accountable to the voters in these islands and even our own representative to this elite group of decision makers has never been elcted to public office.

It is manifectly obvious that we only get democracy when our 'leaders' want it, and when they think it 'sucks' we dont (Lisbon Treaty anyone). In fact even when we have democracy these days its ignored or given another go.

Fact is democracy does not 'suck' at all if we accept the will of the people, which is exactly what a mature country should do, unfortunately all to often we have a sort of quasi fascism that means some people think the end justifies the means they dont. Get over it...................as we are often told these days.

We've never had a PM who was voted in by the electorate. Nor a No.2 for that matter.

 

[sten_super]

What one? The one about weak integrated transport in Machester or the one about democracy not being ideal in certain situations?

Not sure if you have noticed but we have a PM who was not voted in by the electorate, his second in command is also unelected, the UK is largely governed by a group of people who are not accountable to the voters in these islands and even our own representative to this elite group of decision makers has never been elcted to public office.

It is manifectly obvious that we only get democracy when our 'leaders' want it, and when they think it 'sucks' we dont (Lisbon Treaty anyone). In fact even when we have democracy these days its ignored or given another go.

Fact is democracy does not 'suck' at all if we accept the will of the people, which is exactly what a mature country should do, unfortunately all to often we have a sort of quasi fascism that means some people think the end justifies the means they dont. Get over it...................as we are often told these days.

That is complete nonsense. Countries have governments so that we don't have to have a referendum on every single issue. The general public can not hope to know the intricate details and nuances of every decision that has to be made, so we employ people to do the relevant work and research and make informed decisions.

Can you name me one 'mature' country that acceeds to the will of the people all of the time?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Not sure if you have noticed but we have a PM who was not voted in by the electorate

I don't recall ANY Prime Minister of the UK who was "voted in by the electorate".

 

[Carrot Cruncher]

What one? The one about weak integrated transport in Machester or the one about democracy not being ideal in certain situations?

Not sure if you have noticed but we have a PM who was not voted in by the electorate, his second in command is also unelected, the UK is largely governed by a group of people who are not accountable to the voters in these islands and even our own representative to this elite group of decision makers has never been elcted to public office.

It is manifectly obvious that we only get democracy when our 'leaders' want it, and when they think it 'sucks' we dont (Lisbon Treaty anyone). In fact even when we have democracy these days its ignored or given another go.

Fact is democracy does not 'suck' at all if we accept the will of the people, which is exactly what a mature country should do, unfortunately all to often we have a sort of quasi fascism that means some people think the end justifies the means they dont. Get over it...................as we are often told these days.

Whilst I do agree with some of what you say, your last paragraph is flawed and possibly niaive, as the vast majority of this country is as thick as pigshit and I wouldn't want voting in my name!

Take John Catt. Yes he's mental, but sadly people like him tend to represent the majority which can than massively hinder progess and/or major issues.

 

[cunning fergus]

That is complete nonsense. Countries have governments so that we don't have to have a referendum on every single issue. The general public can not hope to know the intricate details and nuances of every decision that has to be made, so we employ people to do the relevant work and research and make informed decisions.

Can you name me one 'mature' country that acceeds to the will of the people all of the time?

Oh I get in now..........presumably that's why political parties set out their policies so us numbskulls can understand what they stand for and what they are planning to do. So which prospective political party made the following statement to the electorate in 2005 on the Lisbon Treaty:

"We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole heartedly for a ‘Yes’ vote to keep Britain a leading nation in Europe."

Not an expert on any other countries, any ideas why the Govt never committed to the above; maybe they just thought democracy sucks?

 

[cunning fergus]

We've never had a PM who was voted in by the electorate. Nor a No.2 for that matter.

Semantics and you know it, if the Government had any moral integrity they would have called an election when they knifed Blair; just because the parlimentary system allows what's happened doesn't mean its right.

Then again maybe he also thinks the vast majority of people in this country as being as think as pigshit.

Nice.

 

[sten_super]

Oh I get in now..........presumably that's why political parties set out their policies so us numbskulls can understand what they stand for and what they are planning to do. So which prospective political party made the following statement to the electorate in 2005 on the Lisbon Treaty:

"We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole heartedly for a ‘Yes’ vote to keep Britain a leading nation in Europe."

Not an expert on any other countries, any ideas why the Govt never committed to the above; maybe they just thought democracy sucks?

I'm not denying that the Labour Party went back on their promise to give a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Clearly they did.

At the same time, I can tell you exactly why. They knew that if it went to a referendum, they'd lose. This country is suffers from Euro-phobia. They also knew that if we didn't sign the treaty, and the rest of Europe did, it would have potentially severe ramifications for our trade and diplomatic relationships with the rest of Europe. So they went ahead and signed without putting it to the people. It wasn't right, but I personally think it was necessary, and back them for the decision they made. And I'm far from a Labour supporter.

 

[GNF on Tour]

Semantics and you know it, if the Government had any moral integrity they would have called an election when they knifed Blair; just because the parlimentary system allows what's happened doesn't mean its right.

Then again maybe he also thinks the vast majority of people in this country as being as think as pigshit.

Nice.

Blair was hardly knifed and what planet are you living on if you think ANY government would hold an election when a PM steps down, why would they bother.

The Political Parties vote for their leaders, the leaders become PM's. We vote for MP's. The only thing that could be wrong with that is if you are not a fan of First Past the Post. Living in New Zealand with the PR system in place the government is consistently weak, curtailing to parties only a tiny fraction of the population has voted for (to gain a minority) and it clearly does not work.

 

[The Large One]

Blair was hardly knifed and what planet are you living on if you think ANY government would hold an election when a PM steps down, why would they bother.

The Political Parties vote for their leaders, the leaders become PM's. We vote for MP's. The only thing that could be wrong with that is if you are not a fan of First Past the Post. Living in New Zealand with the PR system in place the government is consistently weak, curtailing to parties only a tiny fraction of the population has voted for (to gain a minority) and it clearly does not work.

The last time a Prime Minister came into office 'mid-term' and called an immediate election was 1955.

The mid-term change has happened four times since then - twice under Labour, twice under the Conservative - and neither called an election.

 

[cunning fergus]

I'm not denying that the Labour Party went back on their promise to give a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Clearly they did.

At the same time, I can tell you exactly why. They knew that if it went to a referendum, they'd lose. This country is suffers from Euro-phobia. They also knew that if we didn't sign the treaty, and the rest of Europe did, it would have potentially severe ramifications for our trade and diplomatic relationships with the rest of Europe. So they went ahead and signed without putting it to the people. It wasn't right, but I personally think it was necessary, and back them for the decision they made. And I'm far from a Labour supporter.

Thanks for enlightening me with your insight it would appear that you understand only too well that we have a Gov't willing to ignore their own stated policies and the will of the people because they (and people like you) know better. So not nonsense after all.

This thread was about the congestion charge and the enforcement of a policy without consent of Brighton and Hove's electorate. I now know where you stand on the argument.

 

[The Large One]

Thanks for enlightening me with your insight it would appear that you understand only too well that we have a Gov't willing to ignore their own stated policies and the will of the people because they (and people like you) know better. So not nonsense after all.

This thread was about the congestion charge and the enforcement of a policy without consent of Brighton and Hove's electorate. I now know where you stand on the argument.

You're making out that the people of Brighton & Hove won't have a say in this. Where did you get this little titbit from? As far as I can make out, it looks like we will.

Whether we're listened to is another matter, but we will get a say.

 

[cunning fergus]

Blair was hardly knifed and what planet are you living on if you think ANY government would hold an election when a PM steps down, why would they bother.

The Political Parties vote for their leaders, the leaders become PM's. We vote for MP's. The only thing that could be wrong with that is if you are not a fan of First Past the Post. Living in New Zealand with the PR system in place the government is consistently weak, curtailing to parties only a tiny fraction of the population has voted for (to gain a minority) and it clearly does not work.

Wow, I am sure I can recall Blair stating he would serve a full term, and its not like he's had to retire through ill health is it? Look at the fucker now..............he's almost as fit as Al Magrahi.

Brown did nothing to indicate he was not going to hold an election and it was not ruled out till things started to go wrong; which was not long as the impact of the 10p tax rate blew up 3 weeks after it was announced.

I must be on the same planet as Jack Straw, as he was orchestrating the election preparations and said only thios month in the New Statesman that we should have had an election.

What planet you on?