I pass by HM on the way into work every morning as I work in DC but live in VA. DC keeps bringing up the the idea of having commuters who work in the city pay DC state income tax but it hasn't gotten off the ground. I'm employed by a VA business so it wouldn't affect me either way but I'm not very fond of the idea for obvious reasons. My objections used to be pretty clear cut back when the Federal governmet was making a Federal Payment to DC every year but I don't think they do that anymore so its difficult to determine how fair or equitable it is or isn't.

In any event, VA doesn't charge DC residents to work in our state or drive on our streets but the underlying economics may not be as clear cut as that makes it sound.

DC is in a hard place, financially. A huge amount of real estate is owned by the Federal Government and embassies, and a huge number of DC employees pay their income tax to Virginia and Maryland. Anything they may try to do to offset this can be vetoed by Congress.

That would be overkill, and probably have no chance of passing Congress, but a commuter tax of some sort would be reasonable.

Trying to control pollution levels in individual cities by micromanaging people's driving habits is futile. You're simply not going to be able to pry people out of their cars -- not in America, anyway.

That said, I would love to commute to work on a train, and the Front Range is long overdue for a line that runs from Denver to points north and south. I'd save thousands of dollars in gasoline every year. I've considered the bus, but the schedule and routes are weird, particularly between towns. If public transportation was efficient, clean, and convenient, I'd be all over it. Not in its current state, though. Spending 2 hours on 5 busses to travel 20 miles sucks.

Especially when you think that 20 miles in two hours is a good bicycle pace, and a distance you could likely cover in a single hour. But you don't get any reading done.

The congestion charge isn't really intended to address pollution, although that is an obvious benefit. Its designed to reduce the amount of cars entering Central London.

Additional information regarding the issue (from CNN)
"A U.S. Embassy spokeswoman said the embassy had only stopped paying the fee from July 1, when it was increased from £5 ($8.73) to £8 ($13.96)."

Which surely answers the question when is a charge a tax? When you don't want to pay it any more.........

We Americans have some prior history with you guys. Extra charges on Tea or something like that?

So the US Embassy needs to move itself (after somehow finding a way to locate a building large enough and secure enough within London..if that's even possible) to a "no toll/road tax/service fee" area. It needs to spend literally, millions of dollars (and pounds) to do this, just to avoid a "fee" that was imposed AFTER they had been in that location...how many years?

I could see your point if they chose to move there after the fee was imposed, but they didn't ASK for this fee, so as was earlier pointed out, it's involuntary, they are diplomats and CANNOT take PT, so therefore it's a tax.

I think it's great that traffic has improved. I think it's great that City of London is raking in potentially $110m pounds per year. If the residents get 90% off, it's obvious that they aren't expected to move, as you're suggesting the Embassy does.

This is a tax for all those who were in the area prior to the imposition of the fee. (Therefore they have diplomatic immunity). It's a charge for all those who weren't.

Years ago I used to drive to the centre of London and park for free (I'm talking mid 60's) - you could actually do it then. Driving in London was an art form. You had to be a Londoner to do it really, because you either knew the 'code' (routes and rules of engagement) or you didn't and non-Londoners were classed in the 'non-prisoners' league (real sink or swim stuff).

In the early 80's I drove to the city area of London via what we call 'back-doubles' side and residential roads off the main route. Started off because there was a massive transport strike, and I had to get in - I knew some routes that I thought would work, strung them together and added a bit here and there to avoid obvious bottlenecks, and it went like a dream (much to my surprise). I made the 20 mile trip to my office in about 45 minutes, and could do so using 'the route' irrespective of the time of day (I still use it sometimes these days although it has changed quite a bit and is only worthwhile doing at relatively quieter times of day - see below).

In the 90's the government started messing big time with the through access via these side roads, blocking off or making no entry/one way. At peak traffic times, journey time lengthened to well over 1 hr and could stretch to 2 hours as a result cars being forced to use the same main roads as everyone else.

At the end of the 90's I was working very close to Marble Arch (north end of Hyde Park). The train commute (that I had been using for most of the 90's because of the previous paragraph) took as long as driving because Marble Arch is just so arseholesworth inaccessible (two changes of train or underground whatever way I tried). Resorted instead to driving half way by car to a place I could still reach quickly and also park in the road there free of charge, then completed the last 5-6 miles by bike - reducing overall time to just over the hour again. Changed jobs after about a year removing need for further commuting, but vis-a-vis the congestion charge I would go for this alternative every time. I still really cannot believe the number of people I would see in cars day-in and day-out sitting in the same line of traffic that was hardly moving and for whom it would clearly take an hour to travel 1 maybe 2 miles.

Today the congestion charge keeps me away from going to the centre by car. I have driven a few times aiming to arrive just after 6.30 pm when the charge stops. Result? - the roads have been jammed every time - seems everyone wants to drive and miss the charge. I began wondering how long it will take for the shops and businesses to cotton on and revise their trading times, so that what they lose during the day they make up for in the evening. I can see it happening.

The big play on the congestion charge from the mayor and government was that public transport would improve to cater for the extra passengers that it would create. Haven't noticed anything to suggest that public transport has improved - more that it has become less efficient.

IMO its another tax by stealth, a device which this government seems to have a love affair with - a bit like making you pay to use the hospital car park AND on top of that wonderfull levy, fining you when you overrun your stay (they couldn't care a shit that you overran because the department you were visiting was so inefficiently run it couldn't see you at your appointed time (even though it insisted that you had to turn up at the appointed hour).

I'm all for improving the centre of our cities, I just think that when this is given as the reason why it has been imposed, our lords and masters are just spouting their usual unsupported and uncorroborated rhetoric.