Just been sent this...would never have thought about it otherwise, so thought I'd pass it on.
Bellybabe
************************************************************
Transport Edinburgh Referendum:
MAKE SURE YOU ARE REGISTERED TO VOTE!
************************************************************
Next February, the City of Edinburgh Council will be holding a
referendum on a proposed package of transport measures, which will
include congestion charging.
The city council can only send ballot papers to those who are on the
Edited Register - and not the full electoral roll used for normal
elections. Many people are not on the Edited Register, as this can be
bought by companies for junk mail.
If you have ticked the box on the electoral registration form opting
out of the Edited Register, you can still take part in the referendum
by completing a form, and returning this to the Council. Copies of
the form are available at:
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/transported ... /form.html
(If you *are* registered to vote and *have not* opted out of the Edited
Register you need not worry about this.)
If you do not know whether you are on the Edited Register or have any
questions, please contact the council helpline on 0131 529 4877 or
email <elections@edinburgh.gov.uk>
************************************************************
Every vote will count in February - make sure you can vote!
More information on the referendum is available at:
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/transported ... Index.html
For Friends of the Earth's views on congestion charging, see:
http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/cutcongestion
************************************************************
Congestion charge referendum - can you vote?
Congestion charge referendum - can you vote?
All I really need is love, but a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt!
-Lucy Van Pelt (in Peanuts, by Charles M. Schulz)
-Lucy Van Pelt (in Peanuts, by Charles M. Schulz)
-
mr magnolia
- Posts: 972
- Joined: 11 Jul 2004, 22:07
- Location: close to the edge
- Contact:
Just to add my thanks for this info. It means that Homer and I will actually be able to vote in the forthcoming referendum - we were two of the, not insignificant, number of voters who had ticked the 'no junk mail' option on the Electoral Register.
We telephoned after getting no joy from using the e-mail option, though why it was even given as an option by the Council beats me, as all we were told in the reply we received was to use the telephone number
We telephoned after getting no joy from using the e-mail option, though why it was even given as an option by the Council beats me, as all we were told in the reply we received was to use the telephone number
www.porty.org.uk
http://www.no-congestion-charge.com/
Have to weigh up both sides of the argument - this site gives the oppositions arguments
The jury is out!
Have to weigh up both sides of the argument - this site gives the oppositions arguments
The jury is out!
Had a look through the proposed plan - thankfully the charges won't affect me on the way to my work (Macmerry) as only incoming traffic are going to be hit however if you were going to Fort Kinaird one morning and came back by jumping on the A1 then you would be charged (between 7 and 10am). Also of note - if you worked at the Gyle - financially it would be better for you to go through Edinburgh than on the bypass because as soon as you come off the bypass and head into town you will be charged. If it does affect you and you work full time then you could be forking out over £300 per year. Perhaps is some money was spent putting conductors on rush hour buses then people might be more inclined to go by public transport as a lot of time is spent waiting on the driver taking people's fares.
Ifstar, a wild guess, you're not David Begg, are you?ifstar wrote:Had a look through the proposed plan - thankfully the charges won't affect me on the way to my work (Macmerry) as only incoming traffic are going to be hit however if you were going to Fort Kinaird one morning and came back by jumping on the A1 then you would be charged (between 7 and 10am). Also of note - if you worked at the Gyle - financially it would be better for you to go through Edinburgh than on the bypass because as soon as you come off the bypass and head into town you will be charged. If it does affect you and you work full time then you could be forking out over £300 per year. Perhaps is some money was spent putting conductors on rush hour buses then people might be more inclined to go by public transport as a lot of time is spent waiting on the driver taking people's fares.
Hear the Rap and Make Driving Fun Again!
Hey Everyone,
Congestion Charge Referendum begins on 7th Feb! Exciting because it affects everyone in Porty, Edinburgh and (eventually) the world; and everyone in Edinburgh can make their view count.
Here's my selection of briefest and best sources of information to help decide whether to vote No or Yes.
The most fun is a rap version at:
http://www.fifty-nine.com/yestoedinburg ... tion2.html
The best summary for Yes is a Students' one at:
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/news/story.cfm?article=244
And if you want to see a more balanced summary from a business perspective and with a hard look at both sides of the case, go to:
http://www.now-business.com/FORUM/momen ... index_html
Finally here's my two quickest persuasive arguments for voting Yes for those car-users amongst you who can't bear other transport, and who're thinking you'll vote No.
Firstly, even rating your time at only £10 per hour, you are NOW paying MORE for the time sitting in your car in a traffic jam than you will be when you take half the time and pay the £2 Congestion Charge that keeps the roads clear for you. You don't pay anything at un-congested hours. So vote Yes and save money.
Secondly, Edinburgh without congestion charging, as for all cities will in due course be obliged to block off roads to achieve UK legally required lower pollution levels. No one but no one has come up with any alternative ways to do it. So vote Yes to keep using your car in future!
And tere's a chance to influence the local press. Because the issue is wider than the city. If Edinburgh votes for it, then other smaller (than London) cities will follow suit, and a key climate changing factor will be modified to provide a safer world for our children and grandchildren. In fact, if we don't take steps, what will we tell our grandchildren about the world we line up for them and they ask "And what did you do in the Referendum then?"?!
So vote in the Scotsman Newspaper's online poll on congestion
charging at:
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=477
Registration is required, but this takes less than 2 minutes
Nick
Congestion Charge Referendum begins on 7th Feb! Exciting because it affects everyone in Porty, Edinburgh and (eventually) the world; and everyone in Edinburgh can make their view count.
Here's my selection of briefest and best sources of information to help decide whether to vote No or Yes.
The most fun is a rap version at:
http://www.fifty-nine.com/yestoedinburg ... tion2.html
The best summary for Yes is a Students' one at:
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/news/story.cfm?article=244
And if you want to see a more balanced summary from a business perspective and with a hard look at both sides of the case, go to:
http://www.now-business.com/FORUM/momen ... index_html
Finally here's my two quickest persuasive arguments for voting Yes for those car-users amongst you who can't bear other transport, and who're thinking you'll vote No.
Firstly, even rating your time at only £10 per hour, you are NOW paying MORE for the time sitting in your car in a traffic jam than you will be when you take half the time and pay the £2 Congestion Charge that keeps the roads clear for you. You don't pay anything at un-congested hours. So vote Yes and save money.
Secondly, Edinburgh without congestion charging, as for all cities will in due course be obliged to block off roads to achieve UK legally required lower pollution levels. No one but no one has come up with any alternative ways to do it. So vote Yes to keep using your car in future!
And tere's a chance to influence the local press. Because the issue is wider than the city. If Edinburgh votes for it, then other smaller (than London) cities will follow suit, and a key climate changing factor will be modified to provide a safer world for our children and grandchildren. In fact, if we don't take steps, what will we tell our grandchildren about the world we line up for them and they ask "And what did you do in the Referendum then?"?!
So vote in the Scotsman Newspaper's online poll on congestion
charging at:
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=477
Registration is required, but this takes less than 2 minutes
Nick
Re: Hear the Rap and Make Driving Fun Again!
Kind of misleading as the traffic during the day is nowhere near as bad as it is at peak periods but the inner cordon is in force all day, so even when there is less traffic you will be getting stung. If both were in force only at peak periods then i would consider voting yes and i hope a lot of people feel the same. Perhaps if they managed to put a decent bus service on with conductors (during the peak times) then people might consider switching to public transport and we wouldn't need to be having a referendum on it.Nick Child wrote: You don't pay anything at un-congested hours
The whole thing has been poorly (or deviously) organised in that tons of people have been excluded as they didnt want junk mail (surely they knew this wouldn't be viewed as junk mail) and that anyone outside Edinburgh have been excluded even though it can have a direct effect on them too (ie someone living in East/West lothian that has to travel into Edinburgh).
Re: Hear the Rap and Make Driving Fun Again!
But that's why. The traffic in the centre does remain bad all day, so the inner cordon is to address that, while the outer one sticks to the times when that is worse. London is considering a two cordon approach too.the traffic during the day is nowhere near as bad as it is at peak periods but the inner cordon is in force all day, so even when there is less traffic you will be getting stung. If both were in force only at peak periods then i would consider voting yes
I hope people will see the big picture and issues even if there might be one or two points they don't think are perfect - the best should not be allowed to be the enemy of the good. There won't be another chance for years to do this, and certainly not under proportional representation. Speaking of which, not one other worked through proposal has been proposed to tackle all this - not even by the Liberal Democrats whose manifesto is to support congestion charging but who, as usual, locally want more time to think (though the student Liberals are more in line with their party and actively supporting the Yes campaign). Again the good that is really possible now by voting Yes will be destroyed by the unrealisable best.I hope a lot of people feel the same.
Edinburgh has improved its bus service already. It is unique amongst cities in attracting a million more bus rides than before. I take this as evidence that the plans to put in all the extra buses a week before congestion charging starts can be relied on.Perhaps if they managed to put a decent bus service . . . people might consider switching to public transport
It is not the Council that controls the electoral register or the legalities around it. The Council managed to get them to take a lower profile in the forms we filled in last time. The Council have had leaflets and info everywhere possible and twice through everyone's front door over the last six months. There is little more they could honestly have done within the law to get us to fill the form.The whole thing has been poorly (or deviously) organised in that tons of people have been excluded as they didnt want junk mail (surely they knew this wouldn't be viewed as junk mail)
The outlying Councils have shortsightedly excluded themselves from working something out with Edinburgh. Just as you say some of them might be miffed by Edinburgh making a decision to charge them for entry, just imagine what a furore Edinburgh folk would make if outlying populations were to decide for us what we're to pay for their benefit! But it's only Edinburgh people as a whole - including the 40% who don't have a car - who face the overall situation. The surrounding areas are going to get a big slice of the money Edinburgh takes in to improve their own transport too. They'll be happier bunnies when it happens!anyone outside Edinburgh have been excluded even though it can have a direct effect on them too (ie someone living in East/West lothian that has to travel into Edinburgh).
I believe there is a need to cut down on the level of congestion on the roads worldwide but.....
We have Toll systems and roads here.... they are very, very busy, in bad condition and the prices keep going up.....and up....and up.... Its almost as if they only want the rich to drive in the city...Hmmmm!
It all sounds good, but it has to be managed properly....and well, lets face it.... that probably won't happen.... they couldn't even get the voting system for this right!
Londoners are not too happy about the change, and I hope if it does go through in Edinburgh, that a decent Public Transport system is set up for peak hours. Its all well and good saying they have improved service (it wasn't that good before), what should be said is that the service exceeds public needs.
We have Toll systems and roads here.... they are very, very busy, in bad condition and the prices keep going up.....and up....and up.... Its almost as if they only want the rich to drive in the city...Hmmmm!
It all sounds good, but it has to be managed properly....and well, lets face it.... that probably won't happen.... they couldn't even get the voting system for this right!
Londoners are not too happy about the change, and I hope if it does go through in Edinburgh, that a decent Public Transport system is set up for peak hours. Its all well and good saying they have improved service (it wasn't that good before), what should be said is that the service exceeds public needs.
On something as important as this, it should be perfect. Enough money has gone into paying people to come up with the plan.I hope people will see the big picture and issues even if there might be one or two points they don't think are perfect
Is Man The Dream Of The Dolphin??
The charge is designed to improve all that. At that moment everyone is paying through delays, risk, ill health. This is a charge like any other that will be cheaper than your time spent in traffic jams is now. You save money by voting yes. As well as any measure can ever be expected to, every one will win as has been shown by other cities. However, if you really like the present system on the roads, it will be very effective indeed! Roads will be closed down to ensure pollution is controlled by UK legal requirement... they are very, very busy, in bad condition and the prices keep going up.....and up....and up.... Its almost as if they only want the rich to drive in the city...Hmmmm!
I thought you preferred the present mismanaged system! Make up your mind.It all sounds good, but it has to be managed properly....and well, lets face it.... that probably won't happen..
It's not in the Council's power to change other organisations and national laws... they couldn't even get the voting system for this right!
On the whole, they certainly are.Londoners are not too happy about the change
Read the details and you come up with a more perfect plan that is do-able. You can't sit on the fence over a simple decision like your vote next week - "if it goes through" sounds like you're sitting watching - and then complain about something that has taken a million times more complexity to decide on! [/quote]On something as important as this, it should be perfect. Enough money has gone into paying people to come up with the plan.
Is it to be believed that the congestion charge will stay at £2 for any length of time ? At that level it's hard to imagine that many people will be dissuaded from driving through the cordon. A two way bus fare from Portobello to the City centre currently costs £1.60 and parking charges should already provided a powerful disincentive to driving into a city-centre workplace. Or is the intention to maintain the current level of congestion and raise revenue ? I also think there are many avenues that could have been explored before considering congestion charges:restrictions on company parking spaces within the cordon:better policing of bus lanes:tighter scheduling and increased staffing on buses to name a few.
Anyway I'm not persuaded to vote 'yes', even as a cyclist.
Anyway I'm not persuaded to vote 'yes', even as a cyclist.
If you can keep your head when all around are losing theirs, it probably means you've underestimated the gravity of the situation.
Homer wrote:.............and increased staffing on buses to name a few.
Where does this desire to bring back bus conductors come from from?? I keep seeing it quoted in letters to the press.
Anyone using the buses regularly will know that the average delay at bus stops from having the driver collect fares must be something like 10-15 seconds (outside of the stops on Princes Street during the peak period) ie it has a marginal effect on total journey times or average bus speeds.
Cars clogging up the roads cause far more delay to buses than buses do to cars. Its a silly argument and is symptomatic of just how desperate drivers are to hang on to their cars.
And Homer is a cyclist who still can't be persuaded of the benefits of a congestion charge. Jeeeeeeez!!!!!!!
And Catz - whadda you know about bus travel?? I don't remember you queuing up at MBH waiting on the 26 back to Porty. Didn't you have your car parked in the carpark?
And I'm a cyclist too... And "wasn't bothered" to mess around with all the hassle to even get a vote. If I had a vote I'd probably vote no just because I see it all as a massive cockup by the council.
I mean - 2 cordons?!? A bundle of exceptions? Double standards on sticking up "Vote Yes" signs! And a pittiful £2 charge - less than the bus costs...
And I don't how this will help matters for myself. Where are detailed plans of what is going to be done? Nothing more than bullet-point info:
Locally Portobello HS has chronic congestion in the mornings - what's going to be done about that? If I take the bus it takes me upto 55 minues (that was this morning) door-to-door (Joppa Rd to Powderhall), while I can cycle it in 15-20 minutes. Although I wouldn't recommend that to anyone.
Ohhh, I wonder if we'll get anymore of those wonderfull cycle lanes on the side of the road, you know the ones that aren't mandatory... Just bloody carparks. I mean what idiots come up with this - only worried about filling a quote, not about making cyclists journey any better!
I mean - 2 cordons?!? A bundle of exceptions? Double standards on sticking up "Vote Yes" signs! And a pittiful £2 charge - less than the bus costs...
And I don't how this will help matters for myself. Where are detailed plans of what is going to be done? Nothing more than bullet-point info:
and I note the Labour "vote yes" that came in through the door snuck in an "open Portobello railway station" in there too - where has that appeared from?more frequent bus services and more routes, beginning the week before congestion charging begins
tram to Royal Infirmary and Newcraighall
new bus lanes and priority measures
bus and tram interchanges and more new bus shelters
more Park & Ride sites
substantial increase in road and pavement maintenance spending
new city centre car parking
20 mph zones in all residential areas
more pedestrian-friendly city centre
more cycle routes
better transport links between the city and surrounding areas
Locally Portobello HS has chronic congestion in the mornings - what's going to be done about that? If I take the bus it takes me upto 55 minues (that was this morning) door-to-door (Joppa Rd to Powderhall), while I can cycle it in 15-20 minutes. Although I wouldn't recommend that to anyone.
Ohhh, I wonder if we'll get anymore of those wonderfull cycle lanes on the side of the road, you know the ones that aren't mandatory... Just bloody carparks. I mean what idiots come up with this - only worried about filling a quote, not about making cyclists journey any better!
I think bus-conductors might also make some bus users feel more secure and perhaps more inspectors might help tighter adherence to schedules ?
From the start of the consultation process the argument seems to have been if you are against traffic congestion then you must be in favour of congestion charging. It seems to me to be a complex and expensive option
to try before other simpler and cheaper alternatives have been tried out.
I notice that we are now being told it might be withdrawn if it is not deemed successful, but as the instigators of the scheme will also be determining the criteria for success, that'll be unlikely. Maybe if they offered a further referendum in 2 years time as to whether it was a success ?
Anyway the rationing of road-use on the basis of ability to pay seems a strange policy for a socialist council !
From the start of the consultation process the argument seems to have been if you are against traffic congestion then you must be in favour of congestion charging. It seems to me to be a complex and expensive option
to try before other simpler and cheaper alternatives have been tried out.
I notice that we are now being told it might be withdrawn if it is not deemed successful, but as the instigators of the scheme will also be determining the criteria for success, that'll be unlikely. Maybe if they offered a further referendum in 2 years time as to whether it was a success ?
Anyway the rationing of road-use on the basis of ability to pay seems a strange policy for a socialist council !
If you can keep your head when all around are losing theirs, it probably means you've underestimated the gravity of the situation.
I actually thought that Labour is/was a Socialist Party, was it not from the Working Classes that they obtained their Landslide vote in 1997 - only to turn into Neo-tories/or whatever else you wish to call them subsequently?
The Labour Party was the Party of the Masses - ie the working classes - what the hell happened?
The Labour Party was the Party of the Masses - ie the working classes - what the hell happened?
The working classes woke up, embraced capitalism and would no longer settle for socialist standards, thereby eroding support for socialism. The mass are no longer "working class" in the traditional or literal sense.Gemini wrote:The Labour Party was the Party of the Masses - ie the working classes - what the hell happened?
Socialism is in decline if not terminally ill, all over the planet. Surely you must have noticed?
Voting labour is no voting for Socialism, however it was quite a good red herring from whomever it was that mentioned it above?
-
Bob Jefferson
- Posts: 6212
- Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
- Location: Planet Porty
- Contact:
I'm voting YES. I agree with Lawrence, Nick and others that while this scheme is far from perfect it is a huge step in the right direction. Inevitably there has been a good deal of horse-trading to get it off the ground but that is not a valid reason to vote against it.
We can all see for ourselves that the current situation is unsustainable and only going to get worse as we try to fit an increasing number of cars onto streets built for horse and carriage. Car culture is now so deeply ingrained that we have become blind to the madness around us. Have you seen the people who sit in rush hour traffic every day, inching forward in grim desperation? Many would be quicker walking.
I agree with Homer that the charge may not be high enough to encourage people to switch to public transport, but the reality is that many more people would be inclined to vote NO if the charge was set higher.
People will vote NO for a whole variety of reasons. I'm afraid that many of these people will simply be unwilling to pay, whatever the benefits to society, that many people actually don't give a jot about the environment as long as they can get from A to B in their little bubble, that many cannot see (or do not want to see) the larger picture. By voting NO you will be aligning yourself with this mind-set. It worries me that people who are pro-cycling, concerned about the environment etc are talking about voting against the scheme because I really can't see an alternative. Better enforcement of the bus lanes etc is called for, and will happen, but tinkering with the system will only produce marginal benefits and does not begin to address the real issue.
Let's vote YES for a scheme that will enable us to invest millions of pounds in public transport, that puts people before cars, that begins to restore sanity to our transport arrangements and we can argue about the details later.
We can all see for ourselves that the current situation is unsustainable and only going to get worse as we try to fit an increasing number of cars onto streets built for horse and carriage. Car culture is now so deeply ingrained that we have become blind to the madness around us. Have you seen the people who sit in rush hour traffic every day, inching forward in grim desperation? Many would be quicker walking.
I agree with Homer that the charge may not be high enough to encourage people to switch to public transport, but the reality is that many more people would be inclined to vote NO if the charge was set higher.
People will vote NO for a whole variety of reasons. I'm afraid that many of these people will simply be unwilling to pay, whatever the benefits to society, that many people actually don't give a jot about the environment as long as they can get from A to B in their little bubble, that many cannot see (or do not want to see) the larger picture. By voting NO you will be aligning yourself with this mind-set. It worries me that people who are pro-cycling, concerned about the environment etc are talking about voting against the scheme because I really can't see an alternative. Better enforcement of the bus lanes etc is called for, and will happen, but tinkering with the system will only produce marginal benefits and does not begin to address the real issue.
Let's vote YES for a scheme that will enable us to invest millions of pounds in public transport, that puts people before cars, that begins to restore sanity to our transport arrangements and we can argue about the details later.
Last edited by Bob Jefferson on 03 Feb 2005, 19:43, edited 2 times in total.
In the times that i have had to endure a morning bus trip to Princess Street i have found that the bus usually sits at each stop for at least half a minute per stop or if there are quite a few people getting on then it is longer. From the Porty High St to Princess St there must be about 20 or more potential stops so if they were able to cut down the waiting time (all it takes is one person fiddling with their changes to slow down each stop) then the bus could arrive realistically 10 mins sooner. When i was working through at Glasgow i used to get the bus in but the time it took was silly - well over 30 mins - now i would rather jump in the car and head to Big W or the Newcraighall park and ride and get the train in to Waverley. If the buses did this then they would run faster and more people would be inclined to take them as opposed to their cars.ali wrote:
Where does this desire to bring back bus conductors come from from?? I keep seeing it quoted in letters to the press.
I would vote yes if i thought they would try and sort the problem by trying ideas like this before congestion charging, but unfortunately it seems like they are just going to try and take the easy way out first.
London congestion charges are a lot higher than here so i don't think people will mind as much as expected, and i don't think there will be a very noticeable drop. (Not that i am advocating that we charge more though!!!)
A valid point from a Scotsman Reader:
Admission charge
What Edinburgh council proposes is not a congestion charge but an admission charge. The London congestion charge is a true congestion charge - if you are physically in the congested area during hours of operation, you are charged, no matter where your journey originated or whether you only entered that day. If you are causing the congestion you are charged for it.
A councillor has pointed out the Edinburgh system will allow residents to drive within the congested area, adding to congestion all day if they wish, without being charged. No incentive to reduce congestion there. The outer cordon proposal is purely an admission charge to enter the area controlled by the council, designed to take as much money as possible from residents of other areas for the benefit of Edinburgh, while not charging their own residents who wish to leave the Edinburgh area using services provided by those neighbouring councils. A true congestion charge would catch drivers in both directions. Only the inner cordon surrounds a congested area - the suburbs are not congested.
NEIL McDONALD
East Lothian (but an Edinburgh Council business rates payer).
Admission charge
What Edinburgh council proposes is not a congestion charge but an admission charge. The London congestion charge is a true congestion charge - if you are physically in the congested area during hours of operation, you are charged, no matter where your journey originated or whether you only entered that day. If you are causing the congestion you are charged for it.
A councillor has pointed out the Edinburgh system will allow residents to drive within the congested area, adding to congestion all day if they wish, without being charged. No incentive to reduce congestion there. The outer cordon proposal is purely an admission charge to enter the area controlled by the council, designed to take as much money as possible from residents of other areas for the benefit of Edinburgh, while not charging their own residents who wish to leave the Edinburgh area using services provided by those neighbouring councils. A true congestion charge would catch drivers in both directions. Only the inner cordon surrounds a congested area - the suburbs are not congested.
NEIL McDONALD
East Lothian (but an Edinburgh Council business rates payer).
THE CONGESTION CHARGING SCENARIO HAS BEEN RESOLVED
Ladies and Gentlemen.......meet.......
CONGESTION MAN
CAMPAIGNERS battling for a "yes" vote in the city’s road tolls referendum today unveiled their secret weapon against the scheme’s critics - Congestion Man.
The muscular superhero is the star of a road-toll "rap" in which he goes to the rescue of a motorist stuck in a traffic jam in a cartoon.
Leaders of the Yes to Edinburgh drive say Congestion Man is aimed at helping dispel the myths about congestion charging in Edinburgh.
Ladies and Gentlemen.......meet.......
CONGESTION MAN
CAMPAIGNERS battling for a "yes" vote in the city’s road tolls referendum today unveiled their secret weapon against the scheme’s critics - Congestion Man.
The muscular superhero is the star of a road-toll "rap" in which he goes to the rescue of a motorist stuck in a traffic jam in a cartoon.
Leaders of the Yes to Edinburgh drive say Congestion Man is aimed at helping dispel the myths about congestion charging in Edinburgh.
Matters arising
Message boards like this attract those more interested in details - though sometimes I wonder about even that! Congestion Man arose because feedback showed how most people prefer their prejudiced views than even the minimal information that has been poured out about Congestion Charging, voting etc. Lots of people thought that they'd be triggering payment like Edinburgh was a pin-ball machine, rather than mostly paying nothing and never more than £2 per day.
Some people seem to think that the scheme has been taken out of the air and sketched out on the back of an envelope! It's been massively researched and approved by external scrutiny. The £2 choice has been worked out, as far as can be worked out, as the level that will work best.
Two cordons are needed. One reason will be to reduce the traffic in Porty too. The outer early cordon will reduce cars coming in to work, so there'll be less to go back out in the evening too. It is there to encourage the City By-Pass to be used for that purpose.
The money collected is tightly ring-fenced and committed to the improved public transport, roads etc. And, a fair proportion will be returned to the outlying councils for their transport improvements too.
I reckon an "admission charge" is indeed quite a good way of describing it! Admission charges work very well to manage other valued commodities like theatres and cinemas and clubs!
The Labour council has to work within what the nation's choice is at national elections. UK people are just not prepared to pay the taxes that many other civilised countries do, hence the not very leftist Labour government. I'd love it to be different, but if you want to be in power at all, you have to be realistic. There are other parties to join if you must pursue your ideals rather than really influence things.
Yet many of us expect Nanny to produce a perfect Mary Poppins like service! The Congestion Charge, though, could hardly be more socialist - a system for improving and equalising opportunity and health and travel for all, and (short of means testing car drivers!) charging those who have more for the benefit of those with less. 40% of us do not own a car. Car owners can forget that they aren't the only people on the road. But Congestion Charging is actually going to return happy driving for cars, and (I've argued before) you are paying MORE NOW in terms of the time you sit in congested traffic than you will with the Congestion Charge added in on clearer roads!
I too cannot understand cyclists who plan to vote No! Certainly Spokes is actively supportive.
The occasional slow bus-boarder is a minor factor in the speed of buses across town. Our local buses and Council bus lanes must be getting something right if there's massive increases in the numbers of people using them.
Remember, however flawed you may think this plan, we're most unlikely to have a chance to vote Yes for any other plan in future. Only the sketchiest of ideas have been thrown in the air as an alternative by any of the No campaign.
Otherwise, well said, Bob. Just one thing - isn't this topic a Porty Matter too, not just a general Forum one?!
Nick
Some people seem to think that the scheme has been taken out of the air and sketched out on the back of an envelope! It's been massively researched and approved by external scrutiny. The £2 choice has been worked out, as far as can be worked out, as the level that will work best.
Two cordons are needed. One reason will be to reduce the traffic in Porty too. The outer early cordon will reduce cars coming in to work, so there'll be less to go back out in the evening too. It is there to encourage the City By-Pass to be used for that purpose.
The money collected is tightly ring-fenced and committed to the improved public transport, roads etc. And, a fair proportion will be returned to the outlying councils for their transport improvements too.
I reckon an "admission charge" is indeed quite a good way of describing it! Admission charges work very well to manage other valued commodities like theatres and cinemas and clubs!
The Labour council has to work within what the nation's choice is at national elections. UK people are just not prepared to pay the taxes that many other civilised countries do, hence the not very leftist Labour government. I'd love it to be different, but if you want to be in power at all, you have to be realistic. There are other parties to join if you must pursue your ideals rather than really influence things.
Yet many of us expect Nanny to produce a perfect Mary Poppins like service! The Congestion Charge, though, could hardly be more socialist - a system for improving and equalising opportunity and health and travel for all, and (short of means testing car drivers!) charging those who have more for the benefit of those with less. 40% of us do not own a car. Car owners can forget that they aren't the only people on the road. But Congestion Charging is actually going to return happy driving for cars, and (I've argued before) you are paying MORE NOW in terms of the time you sit in congested traffic than you will with the Congestion Charge added in on clearer roads!
I too cannot understand cyclists who plan to vote No! Certainly Spokes is actively supportive.
The occasional slow bus-boarder is a minor factor in the speed of buses across town. Our local buses and Council bus lanes must be getting something right if there's massive increases in the numbers of people using them.
Remember, however flawed you may think this plan, we're most unlikely to have a chance to vote Yes for any other plan in future. Only the sketchiest of ideas have been thrown in the air as an alternative by any of the No campaign.
Otherwise, well said, Bob. Just one thing - isn't this topic a Porty Matter too, not just a general Forum one?!
Nick
The administrators felt that congestion charging is an Edinburgh- wide issue Nick and not just a local, Portobello specific one. It was also a topic already being discussed on its own thread on the Portobello Online board.isn't this topic a Porty Matter too, not just a general Forum one?!
www.porty.org.uk
I may be a "cyclist", but I'm also an individual. I can make up my own mind on yes/no given the (limited) information. Do you seriously think folk should vote yes simply because they are a cyclist / Spokes say so or they vote Labour?!
Too little has been done prior to this to improve public transport. Here are a few points:
<ol><li>Affordable thru-ticketing and with different operators. £2.50 is not a realistic amount for a day ticket, given it is 2.5X the cost of a normal single ticket. And why can't I buy a day-ticket and use any bus?
<li>Longer, in-direct, journeys take longer, and cost more! If you go 4 miles to place A on bus X then it costs you £1; but if you want to go 4 miles to place B which doesn't have a direct bus then you'll pay £2 (for bus Y and bus Z). Solution here is a better priced day-ticket, or £1 tickets being valid for 1 hour (as widely done on the continent).
<li>Buses spend ages at bus stops - yes they do. Try going along Princes St at peak times and see how long it takes - most of that is sitting doing SFA. Two solutions/reasons for this:
<ol><li>Too many bus stops - bus stops are far too frequent. Reducing to 2/3 of the current number (or even 1/2) needs to be considered. Certainly Princes St should only have 2 sets of stops.
<li>Have all tickets bought before boarding the bus.
</ol>
<li>The buses - the vast majority of the First buses are mobile wrecks. While Lothian do have a large proportion of modern buses a lot of the fleet isn't...
<li>And they're diesel monsters! - Lets enforce clean engines...
<li>And even the new buses leave a bit to be desired - poor lighting (harsh flouro, rather than warmer flouro lights), poor seating configuration, very poor veltilation (just try getting on a bus on a wet winter day and getting off without catching the cold), blasting out heat when hot...
<li>Not enough enforcement of bus lanes / green ways.
<li>Lack of communication: When's the next bus (really, not timetable)? What's the next stop? Proper route maps on shelters...</ol>
So there's certainly a lot that can.should be done first. Ok, and from a cyling POV:
<ol><li>Just what is the point of all these non-mandatory cycle lanes? Thank you very much!
<li>Advance start lanes, useless because cars 70% of the time are sitting in them so when you advance to occupy you end up putting yourself into an even more dangerous position. Likewise never enforced.
<li>And now the council is wanting to stop painting them red, making them even less visible to motorists and even more likely to be blocked by cars and making cycling more dangerous.
<li>Trams will take a big chuck of the path on the north Edinburgh network of paths - not sure how i feel about this.
</ol>
Give the folk detailed information, let them make a detailed choice. Likewise the council should play a fair game - i.e. all these bloody yellow signs and ignoring the consulation objection to the exemptions.
I think I'll leave it there just now! Oh, and Nick I think folk are posting here because this is where it started off, your thread on P'Matters is a dupe...
Too little has been done prior to this to improve public transport. Here are a few points:
<ol><li>Affordable thru-ticketing and with different operators. £2.50 is not a realistic amount for a day ticket, given it is 2.5X the cost of a normal single ticket. And why can't I buy a day-ticket and use any bus?
<li>Longer, in-direct, journeys take longer, and cost more! If you go 4 miles to place A on bus X then it costs you £1; but if you want to go 4 miles to place B which doesn't have a direct bus then you'll pay £2 (for bus Y and bus Z). Solution here is a better priced day-ticket, or £1 tickets being valid for 1 hour (as widely done on the continent).
<li>Buses spend ages at bus stops - yes they do. Try going along Princes St at peak times and see how long it takes - most of that is sitting doing SFA. Two solutions/reasons for this:
<ol><li>Too many bus stops - bus stops are far too frequent. Reducing to 2/3 of the current number (or even 1/2) needs to be considered. Certainly Princes St should only have 2 sets of stops.
<li>Have all tickets bought before boarding the bus.
</ol>
<li>The buses - the vast majority of the First buses are mobile wrecks. While Lothian do have a large proportion of modern buses a lot of the fleet isn't...
<li>And they're diesel monsters! - Lets enforce clean engines...
<li>And even the new buses leave a bit to be desired - poor lighting (harsh flouro, rather than warmer flouro lights), poor seating configuration, very poor veltilation (just try getting on a bus on a wet winter day and getting off without catching the cold), blasting out heat when hot...
<li>Not enough enforcement of bus lanes / green ways.
<li>Lack of communication: When's the next bus (really, not timetable)? What's the next stop? Proper route maps on shelters...</ol>
So there's certainly a lot that can.should be done first. Ok, and from a cyling POV:
<ol><li>Just what is the point of all these non-mandatory cycle lanes? Thank you very much!
<li>Advance start lanes, useless because cars 70% of the time are sitting in them so when you advance to occupy you end up putting yourself into an even more dangerous position. Likewise never enforced.
<li>And now the council is wanting to stop painting them red, making them even less visible to motorists and even more likely to be blocked by cars and making cycling more dangerous.
<li>Trams will take a big chuck of the path on the north Edinburgh network of paths - not sure how i feel about this.
</ol>
Give the folk detailed information, let them make a detailed choice. Likewise the council should play a fair game - i.e. all these bloody yellow signs and ignoring the consulation objection to the exemptions.
I think I'll leave it there just now! Oh, and Nick I think folk are posting here because this is where it started off, your thread on P'Matters is a dupe...
Last edited by wangi on 04 Feb 2005, 13:45, edited 1 time in total.