Was just going to post the same article but you beat me to the punch

Personally I think it is the stupidiest thing ever. We want people to get out of our cars and into public transport. Instead of improving public transport we make it even more expensive and charge people out of trains too.

Of course the train companies are out to make a profit and apparently they don't have enough trains (or long enough trains) and have a problem with overcrouding. So from their point of view I guess it is a logical solution as it solves all their problems (stops overcrowding and their profits probably increase) however I don't think it is a socially acceptable solution as it dumps the problems on one of the weakest parties here (the people that can't afford to live in the city and have to go to work which will also be hit by the road charge)

You cannot have road charges combined with this train charges as that leaves people no alternative. Think government needs to actually regulate something like this as this will have a serious negative impact on the UK economy especially in the South-east.

The government are tackling the wrong problem (as usual). The whole country is London-centric. Everything is based there and, as a result, everything down there is so expensive and busy. They need to take the lead by shifting whole government departments out of the capital.

---

And it would come on top of the above-inflation rises in fares the Government plans to allow to reduce its annual £6.5bn subsidy for railways.

---

I thought that a decent proportion of the revenue that the government get from road users was supposed to be put into public transport? Why are they reducing it?

---

by DJ Billy
The government are tackling the wrong problem (as usual). The whole country is London-centric. Everything is based there and, as a result, everything down there is so expensive and busy. They need to take the lead by shifting whole government departments out of the capital.

---

Err this is happening (or is proposed to happen) all over the country, not just London.

[removed double post]

(Edited by Staff 22/06/2005 11:33)

---

From Sky News

Worst hit would be commuters in the South East

---

Myself and the BF are very impoverished academicky types. House prices (and rent prices) round here are so bad, we have to live 20 miles away. There are no trains. The buses don't run very well (and not at all on a Bank Holiday, when we still have to work). We have to travel (usually, it must be said, by motorbike) - there are lots of days when we have to use the car.

Sometimes we mention this to people. Their first response is "use public transport". When we say how impossible it is for most journeys, we are told to live closer to home. When we say our salaries don't allow that, we are told either to get better jobs or get a job nearer home (not possible). Now it feels as though the government and the rail companies are saying the same thing to us :-(

This would never get approved. The original idea comes from the rail companies rather than the government, and no Parliament would ever give them permission.

They can use green issues as a excuse for hammering motorists, but at the same time they're tryng to encourage the use of public transport. Making commuting more expensive benefits no-one. It's not like you can choose when you go to work - and seeing as poor James pays over £2k a year and *never* gets to sit down on the train to work, I think our local commuter groups would cause way too much trouble if they tried this.

Besides - in case they forgot - they already charge you more to travel at peak times - which personally I think is a damn cheek

---

by Kate
This would never get approved. The original idea comes from the rail companies rather than the government, and no Parliament would ever give them permission.

---

Sadly, I'm not so sure. This is the same government that lets them get away with massive price hikes, whilst paying them millions in subsidies, despite the fact that they're underperforming badly. The subsidies don't give them an incentive to do well, because they're given out to stop them going bust, rather than rewarding them for providing a decent service.
I'm rather afraid it's all going to happen, and more.
Or it's the usual ploy that the govt pull of saying "we will do scary thing X", so that they can look good when they "listen to the people" and downsize it to "relatively less scary thing Y".
Cynical, me?

Oh this is just great. I'm a student who has to go to and from school during rush hour and I can't drive. And I live in the South East. This doesn't sound too good!

If you're trying to cut down carbon emissions, discouraging people from using public transport is not a good idea

I was also very unimpressed when I read this in the Metro the other day -- crammed as I was into a corner on my hour-and-a-half commute into uni.

Particularly underwhelmed since the cost of my journey received a 10% hike only a couple of weeks ago.

And to think, while I was at uni (and when I go back next year or so) the reason for walking over taking the Metro was an even split between exercise and not having to pay anything... especially when I'd already wasted £15 on a uni travel card that I rarely used because I preferred to walk... d'oh! *slaps head*

---

by Bee
(quotes)

Or it's the usual ploy that the govt pull of saying "we will do scary thing X", so that they can look good when they "listen to the people" and downsize it to "relatively less scary thing Y".
Cynical, me?

---

Cynical maybe - but I believe you're right. It's the same thing with the satelite based road congestion charging - it would never come off in a million years, it involves *massive* infringement on peoples civil liberties and the cost would be phenomenol. Really, it's Scary thing X, so that Scary thing Y (ID cards) don't look so bad in comparison. Notice that they are harping on about ID cards again?

(Edited by Funky Monkey 28/06/2005 13:50)