<[email protected]> wrote:
    > [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>> Imposing a charge to enter a city is somewhat different. (You can't buy the
    >>> "commodity" over the internet.) But, the fact remains, they will EITHER raise
    >>> revenue, or, cut down on traffic. Those expecting to accomplish both goals will
    >>> be disappointed.
    >>
    >> There is currently no charge. They can't cut revenue below zero. It can
    >> only go up.
    >
    > My only point is that one tax/levy/surcharge [whatever] will not accomplish
    > both goals.

You keep saying that, but it makes no mathematical sense.

Levying a car fee increases revenue because there was no revenue before. This is
unavoidable. All positive numbers are greater than zero.

Levying a car fee decreases the amount of traffic because some people are
price-sensitive and nobody would be drawn by the chance to finally pay such a fee.
This is pretty much common sense, and you can keep increasing the charge until it
becomes unavoidable.

    > If it turns out that I am wrong, then Bravo for the city of London.

Bravo for the city of London.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu New mini
photo-feature: Life in DC: http://travel.u.nu/dc/

In article <VN4%[email protected]>, [email protected] (Miguel
Cruz) writes:

    |> Levying a car fee increases revenue because there was no revenue before.

Only if the cost of collecting the fee is less than the fee itself.

--
Philip Hazel University Computing Service, Cambridge, England.

Miguel Cruz wrote:
    >
    > Levying a car fee decreases the amount of traffic because some people are
    > price-sensitive

I never drive into central London, preferring to travel in by train (about 25 minutes
from where I live).

However, I am not enthusiastic about the £5 levy for precisely the reason that Miguel
thinks it will work. Those drivers for whom the £5 will be "price-sensitive" are the
poor. So we have the allegedly left-wing Mayor of London imposing what is in fact an
extremely regressive form of taxation.

The scope of the area in which the charge will be levied is also controversial. It
includes the Elephant and Castle but not the area of Knightsbridge around Harrods.
(Class rears its ugly head again!) Furthermore, the charge is opposed not only by
residents within the charging area (who I believe will pay some sort of reduced flat
fee) but those just outside, who fear that their strets will be used by drivers
seeking to avoid the £5 charge, either by using them as "rat runs" or parking there
and walking to destinations just inside the charging zone.

Alan Harrison

In message <[email protected]>, Philip Hazel
<[email protected]> writes
    >In article <VN4%[email protected]>, [email protected] (Miguel
    >Cruz) writes:
    >
    >|> Levying a car fee increases revenue because there was no revenue before.
    >
    >Only if the cost of collecting the fee is less than the fee itself.
    >

Since apparently if you don't pay the £5 fee by the end of the day in which you incur
it, you'll be hit with an £85 fine, I should think it'll be quite profitable.

--
Arwel Parry http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/

On 23 Jul 2002 08:33:32 GMT, [email protected] (Philip Hazel) wrote:

    >In article <VN4%[email protected]>, [email protected] (Miguel
    >Cruz) writes:
    >
    >|> Levying a car fee increases revenue because there was no revenue before.
    >
    >Only if the cost of collecting the fee is less than the fee itself.
    >
    >--
    >Philip Hazel University Computing Service, Cambridge, England.

Somebody should have pointed that out to the state of New Jersey before they
contracted with Worldcom to install EZPass.

On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 04:17:57 GMT, [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:

    ><[email protected]> wrote:
    >> [email protected] (Miguel Cruz) wrote:
    >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>> Imposing a charge to enter a city is somewhat different. (You can't buy the
    >>>> "commodity" over the internet.) But, the fact remains, they will EITHER raise
    >>>> revenue, or, cut down on traffic. Those expecting to accomplish both goals will
    >>>> be disappointed.
    >>>
    >>> There is currently no charge. They can't cut revenue below zero. It can only
    >>> go up.
    >>
    >> My only point is that one tax/levy/surcharge [whatever] will not accomplish
    >> both goals.
    >
    >You keep saying that, but it makes no mathematical sense.
    >
    >Levying a car fee increases revenue because there was no revenue before. This is
    >unavoidable. All positive numbers are greater than zero.
    >
    >Levying a car fee decreases the amount of traffic because some people are
    >price-sensitive and nobody would be drawn by the chance to finally pay such a fee.
    >This is pretty much common sense, and you can keep increasing the charge until it
    >becomes unavoidable.
    >
    >> If it turns out that I am wrong, then Bravo for the city of London.
    >
    >Bravo for the city of London.
    >
    >miguel
    >--
    >Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu New mini
    >photo-feature: Life in DC: http://travel.u.nu/dc/

You assume that those who currently drive into London will continue to go there once
this fee is imposed--only then they will take public transportation. This is not
necessarily the case. They may decide to go elsewhere, or to stay home. This would
cause a revenue loss to the mercants and whoever owns the car park (is it the
city?). In addition, the cost of enforcement may make the whole thing more costly
than it is worth.

The point I am trying to make is that there are a lot more factors to consider than
just traffic and imposing a fee. What you call "common sense" may turn out to be
anything but.

History is replete with instances where simplistic solutions were imposed to solve
complex problems, or, at the very least, you wound up with unexpexcted--and
unintended--consequences. When the US Congress passed thr RICO statute they
intended to go after the mafia. No one envisioned that it would be used for civil
suits against the FBI, American Express and the Catholic Church. But, that is what
has happened.

Similarly, Congress once tried to raise revenue and "soak the rich" by imposing a
luxury tax on yachts, expensive cars, etc. One of the first unintended consequences
of this law was that vans with wheelchair lifts were deemed "luxuries" and subjected
to the tax. Even worse was the decision by the rich to avoid being soaked. They
stopped buying yachts. Thousands of middle class people--the ones who manufactured,
sold and serviced yachts--lost their jobs. The American yacht building industry
almost went down the tubes. The tax was finally repealed after it was found that it
caused a net loss to the US treasury.

You say, " All positive numbers are greater than zero." This is obviously true when
dealing with mathematics. But, experience shows us that when you are dealing with
statutes--especially tax statutes--there are a lot more variables involved. Arguments
to the effect that it is "just common sense" aren't enough. If you fail to recognize
one, or more, of those variables, or if you fail to consider them, they will rise up
and bite you in the ass. Guaranteed.

So, getting back to London's proposed automobile tax, it might work. Then again, it
might not. I don't know all the variables. The people running the city of London
might not know, or recognize, all the variables. Hopefully, they will take a long
look at them before impsing this fee.

If this fee is imposed, and it is shown to be effective for a few years, then I will
say "Bravo." Until then, it is premature.

[email protected] wrote, in response to Miguel Cruz:

    > You assume that those who currently drive into London will continue to go there
    > once this fee is imposed--only then they will take public transportation.

I thought Sr. Cruz had made it pretty plain that he does not assume this.

The question also arises of just what you mean by "London". The area to which the
proposed charge would apply is a relatively small central area. Many visitors from
outside gretaer London may already leave their cars at peripheral car parks (e.g.
that at Hillingdon Underground station near the London end of the M40) in order to
avoid the hassle of driving into London and the central car park charges which far
outweigh the cost of parking at Hillingdon and a one-day travelcard. If the charge is
introduced, it will remain a much smaller disincentive to driving into central London
than the exorbitant cost of parking.

Complaints about the charge are coming not from occasional visitors to London but
mainly from people who live in or near the area where the charge will be levied.

Alan Harrison

On Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:37:11 +0100, Alan Thomas Harrison
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Miguel Cruz wrote:
    >>
    >> Levying a car fee decreases the amount of traffic because some people are
    >> price-sensitive
    >
    >I never drive into central London, preferring to travel in by train (about 25
    >minutes from where I live).
    >
    >However, I am not enthusiastic about the £5 levy for precisely the reason that
    >Miguel thinks it will work. Those drivers for whom the £5 will be "price-sensitive"
    >are the poor. So we have the allegedly left-wing Mayor of London imposing what is in
    >fact an extremely regressive form of taxation.

How many of "The poor" drive in to London, and where to they find the money to pay
for parking?

Jim.

Jim Ley wrote:
    >
    > How many of "The poor" drive in to London, and where to they find the money to pay
    > for parking?

The poor most likely to be adversely affected by this are not those "driving into
London" but people who live in low-income areas in the area covered by the charges
(e.g. Elephant and Castle) or just outside
(e.g. Kennington - not to be confused with Kensington!). One effect of the proposed
charge will be to make the shortest route between two points prohibitively
expensive by including some intermediate point in the area covered by the
proposed charge.

Because of the iniquitous price of housing in London, the city relies for many
essential services on employees who cannot afford to live there and must commute. The
problem with the charge extends beyond the most obviouly poor people. Fifty quid a
week is a substantial portion of a teacher's take-home pay, for example.

Lest there appear to be an internal contradiction - the poor who manage to live in
E & C and Kennington are those who have lived there for some time (in council
houses, controlled private tenancies, or as owner occupiers who bought their homes
when prices were relatively low). Those trying to get a foot on the property ladder
now find it much harder. Even in a town so far from London as Reading, prices have
risen to the extent that the local fire brigade has firefighters commuting from
South Wales.

Alan Harrison