|
Letters to the Editor
Shirley Way
Croydon
Sir
In our last issue, the Transport Group addressed
the matter of congestion charging. They expressed concern at
the congestion-based road-pricing proposals and suggested that
"mileage-based road pricing would be better." There
is also their suggestion that "charges would increase as
vehicle size increased", "size" in this context
presumably referring to the cubic capacity (or possible the power)
of the engine.
It is commonly agreed that allowing the existence
of congestion to act as our only traffic-flow control is unacceptable.
Those seeking to avoid the endemic traffic congestion in our
towns do so by travelling on other routes (rat-running), by extending
the "rush hour" to the "peak period" or by
simply not living or working in the congested town (which then,
by degrees, dies away). So a positive approach is needed which
would induce people to drive appropriately- sized vehicles (ones
without bull bars, please - but that's another debate ...) and
to drive them appropriately.
A smaller engine - unless overloaded by too
many passengers or too heavy a load - will generally cope with
our town driving conditions as well as a larger one; unless,
of course, it is essential for your macho self-image that you
are, indeed, first away from the lights. Similarly, not worrying
about being first away from the lights, and thus being able to
accelerate smoothly and gently, will reduce one's fuel consumption
and therefore reduce the impact of the driving of the vehicle
on the environment. But all this is pretty routine stuff in the
environmental world - drive a small car gently and you will use
less fuel than a gas-guzzler driven like fury (did you see the
cartoon in the late 1970s of an American gas-guzzler - the car's
name was "The US Thunderbelch").
So, to induce me to drive a small car gently,
"me" in this case being the average British motorist
- or any motorist anywhere in the world (America, are you listening?),
it's no good appealing to my better nature - I don't have one.
So you have to appeal to my sense of poverty, and make not driving
a small car gently an expensive habit. And what do a large car,
and driving furiously, have in common? They both use more fuel!
And so does driving further! So, to induce me to a) drive a small
car, b) drive gently, and c) not drive very far; tax fuel! Heavily!
The more I use, the more it costs me ...
There are those who would respond that this
doesn't penalise the wealthy, who can afford to drive larger
cars (and, in some cases, furiously); but that must not be seen
as an excuse not to tackle the problem in this simplistic way,
a way which already exists and one which has recently been the
focus of public attention with demands for a reduction
(!) in the fuel taxes. The wealthy/less wealthy (I nearly said
"poor" but, compared with some places we have relatively
few of them) debate should be tackled in a different way - in
former years it was done by a differential tax rate, as we have
(currently) 10%, 22% and 40%. Yesteryear saw tiered rates as
high as 95%; the case for reducing these top rates was that indirect
taxation - purchase tax, VAT, fuel and excise duties - would
provide the revenue needed to run the country; and now we want
to cut fuel tax? Another debate for another day ...
But if we want a simple method of inducing
me to drive a small car, gently and not very far, fuel tax is
already there. Let's use it.
Andy Bebington
Editors Note:
Tax & the environment. What did you
think of the Croydon Referendum which saw the good people of
Croydon choosing a lower Council Tax meaning that door to door
recylcing will have to be phased in over a number of years instead
of by the end of 2001?
Car Free day: Croydon is committed in prinicple
to shut a road to cars to demonstrate that we can do without
cars - what road or roads should it be and if successful should
the road be permenantly shut to cars?
Write in, they will go on the Web as well!
Northiam
East Sussex
Dear Editor
I recently received the Autumn edition 2000
of Croydon Focus, together with the Croydon Society Celebrates
25 Years special edition of Croydon Focus.
May I congratulate the Society and those members
involved in publishing such a commendable document. It is well
set out, makes interesting reading and stands as an excellent
testimony to the Society's achievements. It attempts to summarise
so many aspects of the Society's work and yet only those who
undertook the doing over many years will be truly aware of the
tremendous efforts made by the Society, and the real changes
for good that have been brought about as a result of its efforts.
You deserve a Millennium Medal!
Although I am "exiled" in East Sussex,
it remains the position that every week or so I spend two days
in Croydon. and in particular in the north carrying out various
building projects. From the outside, the issue of traffic in
Croydon now appears even worse than when I left a year or so
ago despite Tramlink running. Or is this an illusion seen from
my pastoral setting?
Specifically, the presence of armies of parasitical
and unwanted traffic wardens, tons of red and yellow paint in
various forms with even more tons of unwanted and confusing parking
restriction signs, and the costly and abortive attempts made
to streamline the A23 in its northern section appear to be a
manifest waste of public money. If I am permitted any advice,
I would encourage you all to give stronger focus on transport
and related issues since as I now live in the fields, I can clearly
see that the starkness and over bearing reality of vehicular
detriment to 1/3 million people living in Croydon is something
that I will never miss.
May I wish you all the very best in the future.
Robin Redsull,
Vice President
|