London congestion charge reintroduced

[C8RKH 6,220]

I'd agree with that @PAR

[PAR 267]

2 hours ago, Chillidoggy said:

Oh, please. The rest of the UK shouldn't have to pay for Londoners to get to work. No-one pays for me to do so.

Obviously that is not true as roads are paid for by the state (unless you go to work walking through the woods and fields?)

1 hour ago, KAS-118 said:

Not saying other areas shouldn't also receive assistance - but it should also be recognised that London has an a lot of non-London-resident workers 

Already happened, private trains operators got shored up to keep operating trains outside London. Bus companies received funding in cities outside London. 

[C8RKH 6,220]

The congestion charge is not about funding roads and to my knowledge @PAR it is not used to maintain roads in London. It's aim is solely to reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality and raise money for the improvement of public transport facilities across London (by law, congestion charging fees raised must be added to the expenditure on public transport in London if my understanding is correct).

You could argue that TFL was facing a double whammy - reduced revenue through reduced passenger journeys and lack of income from the congestion charge. Something had to give but this is an issue for London and needs to be paid for by those who live and work in London.

Roads (upkeep) are paid for from Local Authority budgets although they do get devolved funding as part of their "overall" LA budget. I recall that only Motorways and main arterial roads are funded centrally.

All of the UK major cities, not just London, are heavily reliant upon workers commuting to the city for work. This is not just a "London" issue and London is not a special case imvho.

Bus companies receive some funding outside of London, but again, if I understand correctly, it is funded by Local Authorities. These LA's have in the main be slashing their funding support for Buses for years to the extent where almost 40% of routes have been suspended/abandoned causing a huge issue for workers and others who don't have cars etc.

For me, this is just a local issue for London. Shock horror, people who live/work in London are expected to pay for the services that are provided to them in London. It's no news for me. Yes, I can see people being pissed off having to pay it, but it is not as if it is new policy is it?

 

[KAS-118 229]

3 hours ago, Bibs said:

It would be ace to see party politics put aside and the House of Commons actually be a place for constructive work rather than childish arguments for the sake of arguments.

I certainly agree with the sentiment - it would be nice that if at all times 'debate' was inquisitorial rather than adversarial.

But in reality, that's probably going to remain utopian aspiration.

Unfortunately the world is inhabited by too many people trying to make personal gain, even if that's to satisfy an egotistical need only. 

You only have to look at the way that some people spread false information and/or deliberately mislead - seeming to get some perverse gratification in being disruptive.

As you say, it's all rather puerile and rather sad - and you would have thought that perhaps we could have risen above these more 'Neandertalistic' traits - we can but hope for future improvement. 

[Barrykearley 6,834]

2 hours ago, C8RKH said:

Roads (upkeep) are paid for from Local Authority budgets although they do get devolved funding as part of their "overall" LA budget.

Which is why they should simply whack up the council tax on all the properties in London to fund the roads. 

[pete 1,787]

and don`t give councils the option to reduce council tax on second homes make it a compulsory double

[KAS-118 229]

3 hours ago, PAR said:

Obviously that is not true as roads are paid for by the state (unless you go to work walking through the woods and fields?)

Already happened, private trains operators got shored up to keep operating trains outside London. Bus companies received funding in cities outside London. 

Yeah, thats a good point. Major Roads on the strategic road network are funded by central government. Even Local Roads, which are the responsibility of the Local Authority do receive at least some of their funding from Government Grants. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/infrastructure-funding/englandandwales.php

[C8RKH 6,220]

30 minutes ago, pete said:

and don`t give councils the option to reduce council tax on second homes make it a compulsory double

I agree - second homes or "empty" homes should not get any sort of discount for council tax. Not sure you should double it, but it should be paid in full.

[Chillidoggy 4,340]

3 hours ago, PAR said:

Obviously that is not true as roads are paid for by the state (unless you go to work walking through the woods and fields?)

My apologies. I should have said that no-one pays for me to go to work because I’m retired.

[pete 1,787]

No pension then

[Bazza 907 1,056]

Second homes don't get a discount on council tax.

[KAS-118 229]

@Bazza 907I believe it might be discretionary by the individual Council https://www.gov.uk/council-tax/second-homes-and-empty-properties

[Chillidoggy 4,340]

37 minutes ago, pete said:

No pension then

Not from the government, no!

[Bazza 907 1,056]

40 minutes ago, KAS-118 said:

@Bazza 907I believe it might be discretionary by the individual Council https://www.gov.uk/council-tax/second-homes-and-empty-properties

Perhaps in theory but certainly not in my experience.

[pete 1,787]

@Sizonalooks like roads around you are going to banned to cars and vans

[PAR 267]

19 hours ago, KAS-118 said:

Yeah, thats a good point. Major Roads on the strategic road network are funded by central government. Even Local Roads, which are the responsibility of the Local Authority do receive at least some of their funding from Government Grants. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/infrastructure-funding/englandandwales.php

And you are missing that the government has also agreed a government bailout plan for trains and buses. Otherwise there would be no more service to Manchester, Liverpool or Sunderland.

basically, TFL was the last one of the major infrastructure to get a government bail out as it had larger cash reserves (obviously not because of the antagonism between Johnson and Khan).

People in London are asked to contribute through price hikes mostly because they can afford it more than the rest of the country. Some people could feel slightly aggrieved that Londoners taxes get used all the time to prop up the rest of the country’s infrastructures, NHS, unemployed, schools but when a London infrastructure needs help than they have to pay for it. Maybe the London workers should ask for their money back but as they are not voting for that government they should expect it.

Edited May 17, 2020 by PAR

[KAS-118 229]

@PAR - very true - in fact London subsidises the rest of the UK https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/23/uk-budget-deficit-grows-to-more-than-10bn-as-people-spend-less

[C8RKH 6,220]

1 hour ago, PAR said:

People in London are asked to contribute through price hikes mostly because they can afford it more than the rest of the country. Some people could feel slightly aggrieved that Londoners taxes get used all the time to prop up the rest of the country’s infrastructures, NHS, unemployed, schools but when a London infrastructure needs help than they have to pay for it. Maybe the London workers should ask for their money back but as they are not voting for that government they should expect it.

Interesting point @Par. Buses for the rest of the UK got £400m I believe. Struggling to find a figure for the trains but fair to say that London will benefit from that as much as Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds or York.

TFL got £1.9bn. So 15% of the population benefit from a baliout 500% higher than the other 85% got. God it's tough for Londoners!

London like all capital cities benefits immensely from the fact that it is the centre of power - both politically and financially. The people in the capital have always faired better than the people in the outer lying regions. Struggling to find a civilisation or country where this is not the case.

 

[jep 845]

Thanks for the tip-off. ULEZ starts tomorrow also, so Zoom the Excel, which had been in lock-down in SW6 needed to move or pay for the pleasure of travelling 0.4 miles out of the zone. Collected and washed, back in Surrey. 

Elise S1 are thankfully exempt from ULEZ charge (if you ask TfL). 

[KAS-118 229]

@jep - wow, .that does look lovely

[Bazza 907 1,056]

@jep

Justin, how do I go about getting the Elise ULEZ exempt?

Have you done it?

 

 

[Chillidoggy 4,340]

I know London is expensive, but is it cheaper to live within the boundaries of the congestion charging zone? Housing-wise, I mean.

[KAS-118 229]

@Chillidoggy - one Report says that the Congestion Charge narrowed the house price difference between inside and outside https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/4050/1/MPRA_paper_4050.pdf although arguably you'd say that the house prices inside the zone, prior to its implementation, would have been more expensive - hence its adversely affected those.

Another one, by the London School of Economics, says that people are prepared to pay a £30k premium to live within the zone. https://www.cityam.com/londoners-pay-30000-premium-live-congestion-charge-zone/

[jep 845]

@Bazza 907 it is NOx that is the key. The Elise S1 is under the NOx threshold. The TfL website is incorrect if you put in a reg number for an Elise S1 it says you have to pay the charge. Wrong. I had my EEC (EU) Certificate of Conformity for the 340R, so I sent this to TfL via the web portal and they exempted the 340R. I don't have my C of C for the Elise S1 but Andy Graham at Lotus Cars Ltd will supply one for £130 or thereabouts. 

I do wonder if the Elan M100 may qualify, does anyone know the NOx on the M100 Turbo?

@Chillidoggy ULEZ is payable by everyone on vehicles that don't qualify, whether you live in London or not. ULEZ is wider than Congestion Charge zone. ULEZ is out to A406 North Circ and A205 South Circ. Basically, no 80s or 90s cars can come in to that zone now but check NOx rating. CC zone is much smaller.

More here:

Justin

[PAR 267]

Yes, I did the same on my S1 and got it exempt. I had the original papers fortunately.