Mind-boggling sums indeed. Up to £48 billion went into the Bounce Back Loan Scheme since March. Made available overnight, with full self-certification, no questions asked, many likely never to be seen again. “Taxpayers’ money” is a fallacy, the state owns the currency and can print as it pleases (for now).
I think the word bailout implies poor management necessitated some kind of rescue (I’m not even sure who used the term first). It should be evident that TfL revenues have dropped due to a global pandemic. Right now tube/transport usage is way down because of mandated ‘stay at home’ messages so TfL revenue is way down. It clearly makes sense to keep the transport network running for keyworkers and so this should be seen as emergency funding in the same way there are furloughed worker schemes. Let’s keep the politics out of it. Keeping TfL running the transport network is a good thing, and extending the CC is not the answer to cover the cost of it.
7 Likes
I fear if I tried that line of reasoning with HMRC they would not agree.
Assuming they understand the basic principles behind their existence, they would probably tell you that, contrary to popular wisdom, paying for government services as such isn’t one of the core purposes of collecting taxes.
Can we park the politics please. At least keep it to London ‘local politics’. This thread is about how the congestion charge could affect SE23 not about HMRC. Thanks.
2 Likes
Apologies, my response was intended to be purely about economics rather than politics, but admittedly off-topic in any case. So attempting to bridge that gap again, the extension of the congestion charge would have unlike taxes been indeed a vehicle to pay for TfL costs, and it looks like this scenario has thankfully been averted for the time being.
1 Like
Fair point. Perhaps mildly off topic. I was just trying to prevent things going that way! I wasn’t singling you out either. Just a general caution. We’re all not always 
2 Likes
This story is coming back, with a slight revision
If it happens I would bet on them using the cameras to be installed for the extension of the extended ULEZ
1 Like
I doubt this would reduce congestion - it would just increase prices of tradesmen / taxis / deliveries / etc that London residents rely on, adding to the “London premium” cost of living.
1 Like
You’re probably right but I suspect it would be less about congestion and more about a new secure income stream to TfL.
It would come with the extra sweetener of not directly affecting much of the voting public, although they’d probably have to weather the odd headline involving impact on key workers etc.
It could possibly even be an attempted “cheeky” response to the fact that car tax paid by Londoners is being exclusively spent on the upkeep of non-London roads.
All just games for now IMHO.
3 Likes
Yep, definitely games, but there is a serious income shortfall that needs addressing in one way or another.
Unfortunately cutting services may make it even harder for other businesses to recover - particularly the hospitality and ents sectors.
1 Like
Cuts will also encourage use of private transport.
1 Like
Well that would be good for them if we all have to pay CC and some will also have to pay ULEZ charge! Much better to get £15 from me for going into Forest Hill than to get £8.40 or whatever it now is for me to get the train into the office!!
The story is back today, but perhaps just a slow news day for the Telegraph
More detail in the Evening Standard, including potential changes at Canada Water
1 Like
Apart from it seeming like a fair measure, I can certainly see our local area benefitting from this road entry charge in that it would likely reduce traffic on the South Circular and the A20. Maybe we’d even see less rat-running as a result.
On the flip side, putting Canada Water into Zone 1 would likely affect many of us.
As for the Telegraph creating their own news story, I would think that many of those affected fall into their readership. It’s also the election year.
Do not worry about this road charge though, it will never be allowed by the powers that be.
1 Like
Actually I would welcome it. It seems pretty clear that Lewisham Council has no plan to reduce commuter traffic through the residential streets of Forest Hill (except for favoured enclaves), so the C charge may be the only thing that might reduce volume of traffic in the near-term.
1 Like
A lot of people drive into areas like ours, park and commute into town. It seems reasonable to charge them for doing this.
1 Like
I’m not sure this is good for local business. if I can’t drive from my side of the A205 into forest hill without paying the charge I shall shop elsewhere. It’s not always practical to walk if there’s a lot to carry.
I have to say that bringing the c charge all the way out to the 205 feels like it could be a problem for lots of local businesses, either because it may affect people going to them or because they’ll have to pay it to deliver in the zone.
2 Likes
The suggestion of a GLA boundary charge is at least a little more sensible than the south circular congestion charge zone boundary proposed last year by central government.
The GLA boundary is likely to be less divisive on high streets than a main road through London suburbs and the proposal would not charge London residents every time they used their cars.
I’m not convinced it is a good idea, but worth considering and better than the south circular congestion zone.
The other idea mentioned of bringing Canary Wharf into zone one makes good sense if the revenue from commuters would outweigh the loss of revenue from travel between central London and Docklands being in different zones.
For us it would be an utter nightmare as we are just off the South Circular so if we even wanted to park in Sainsburys car park for a big shop we’d have to pay.
likewise to get a lift home from the gym at night (which I do because of muggings in that area) will cost money.
it will adversely affect businesses both in forest hill and east dulwich.
I feel all these extra ‘taxes’ on residents AND businesses are killing London and its unique villages within the city.