<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: High-Emission Vehicles to Pay £200 ($400!) to Enter London</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/05/10/high-emission-vehicles-to-pay-to-enter-london/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/05/10/high-emission-vehicles-to-pay-to-enter-london/</link>
	<description>Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:07:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alex</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/05/10/high-emission-vehicles-to-pay-to-enter-london/comment-page-1/#comment-33396</link>
		<dc:creator>Alex</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2007 10:08:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/05/10/high-emission-vehicles-to-pay-%c2%a3200-to-enter-london/#comment-33396</guid>
		<description>I think fixed taxes based on Co2 Emissions and horsepower for example are discrimating against choice of vehcile vs usage. Consider my case. I own a vehilce with 483 horsepower which I only use once or twice a month. I otherwise always use puplic transport. Why should I pay a higher tax when I do not even use it? The fairest solution to this is to increase the taxes on petrol so it hurts the user with the highest usage - a proportional tax. These high users will then find alternative means of tranportation or more efficient means of transportation. Why is this not done?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think fixed taxes based on Co2 Emissions and horsepower for example are discrimating against choice of vehcile vs usage. Consider my case. I own a vehilce with 483 horsepower which I only use once or twice a month. I otherwise always use puplic transport. Why should I pay a higher tax when I do not even use it? The fairest solution to this is to increase the taxes on petrol so it hurts the user with the highest usage &#8211; a proportional tax. These high users will then find alternative means of tranportation or more efficient means of transportation. Why is this not done?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Angus Grieve-Smith</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/05/10/high-emission-vehicles-to-pay-to-enter-london/comment-page-1/#comment-31569</link>
		<dc:creator>Angus Grieve-Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2007 22:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/05/10/high-emission-vehicles-to-pay-%c2%a3200-to-enter-london/#comment-31569</guid>
		<description>A carbon tax isn&#039;t enough.  I want there to be a &quot;deadly&quot; tax, maybe per pound per horsepower.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A carbon tax isn&#8217;t enough.  I want there to be a &#8220;deadly&#8221; tax, maybe per pound per horsepower.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: v</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/05/10/high-emission-vehicles-to-pay-to-enter-london/comment-page-1/#comment-31567</link>
		<dc:creator>v</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2007 21:10:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/05/10/high-emission-vehicles-to-pay-%c2%a3200-to-enter-london/#comment-31567</guid>
		<description>more for &quot;the most polluting vehicles&quot;? does that mean &quot;the taurus i inherited from grandma&quot; or trucks?

this is one spot where congestion pricing gets all wonky...switch to carbon tax and polluting vehicles will pay more...wherever they are.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>more for &#8220;the most polluting vehicles&#8221;? does that mean &#8220;the taurus i inherited from grandma&#8221; or trucks?</p>
<p>this is one spot where congestion pricing gets all wonky&#8230;switch to carbon tax and polluting vehicles will pay more&#8230;wherever they are.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mitch</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/05/10/high-emission-vehicles-to-pay-to-enter-london/comment-page-1/#comment-31551</link>
		<dc:creator>Mitch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2007 16:09:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/05/10/high-emission-vehicles-to-pay-%c2%a3200-to-enter-london/#comment-31551</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_05_06_archive.html#1468655261007694384&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Atrios&lt;/a&gt; has a nice, elegant justification of congestion pricing from an economist&#039;s point of view:

&quot;It&#039;s important to note that the thinking behind a congestion tax isn&#039;t simply about &quot;charging people to drive,&quot; it&#039;s about the fact that driving on crowded roads involves an unpriced negative externality. That is, there&#039;s the private cost of driving which you take into account when you drive down the road and then there&#039;s the external cost which is due to the fact that the presence of your car slows things down a bit for everybody else. So what happens is that there&#039;s too much traffic, relative to what there would be if the full social cost of driving were taken into account when people made the decision to drive to work.

&quot;In other words, it&#039;s a tax/toll even economists can love.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://atrios.blogspot.com/2007_05_06_archive.html#1468655261007694384" rel="nofollow">Atrios</a> has a nice, elegant justification of congestion pricing from an economist&#8217;s point of view:</p>
<p>&#8220;It&#8217;s important to note that the thinking behind a congestion tax isn&#8217;t simply about &#8220;charging people to drive,&#8221; it&#8217;s about the fact that driving on crowded roads involves an unpriced negative externality. That is, there&#8217;s the private cost of driving which you take into account when you drive down the road and then there&#8217;s the external cost which is due to the fact that the presence of your car slows things down a bit for everybody else. So what happens is that there&#8217;s too much traffic, relative to what there would be if the full social cost of driving were taken into account when people made the decision to drive to work.</p>
<p>&#8220;In other words, it&#8217;s a tax/toll even economists can love.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

