Road Pricing (again)...

[OmniCognateNeutronRangler]

I know this one will run and run, but here is another article on road pricing, including some interesting numbers e.g. The government claim there are 10 million more cars in Britain than there were a decade ago, and yet they fail to mention there are only 2.4 million more people with driving licenses, so those 7.6 million other cars are not producing any conjestion at all as they are on people's drives, or just in someone's imagination.

http://cars.uk.msn.com/News/car_news_article.aspx?cp-documentid=3226370

 

[Hibbo]

Road pricing - I think it's great!

I'm all for it me, but ONLY if it is done fairly and correctly.

The fact is that there are too many cars trying to use the same roads at the same time. The capitalist world we live in self-regulates by means of supply and demand. It is only logical that this should be applied to our roads.

At present our roads are funded by Vehicle Excise Duty and Fuel Duty. (Where the money actually goes is a different debate...) VED is based on how polluting your vehicle is. This is clearly good, just and fair. Fuel Duty also means that those who drive less economical cars pay more. However the issue with high fuel duty is that people/businesses that by virtue have to operate fuel-hungry vehicles (ie hauliers) are at a massive disadvantage, especially when compared to European companies.

How I would do it would be to remove fuel duty, which currently stands at 49.1pence per litre on diesel. VAT would inevitably remain. This would reduce the incentive to drive a more economical vehicle, so I would increase the VED differential between more polluting and less polluting vehicles (yes, I am making the assumption that more polluting=less efficient and vice versa).

I would then charge based on time of day, location and size of vehicle. I would leave the prices to self-regulate within reason - some roads would have to be held artificially low as everyone NEEDS (not would like) to use them.
This would obviously result in the situation that if you want to drive through central London at half 8 on a monday morning - you are going to pay for it. If you want to blast across the Jock highlands on a Thursday evening - crack on!

The current system is extremely antiquated, not to mention unfair. I am of course putting full faith in the Government acting completely fairly and not just using it to raise yet more revenue.:smile:

 

[BarryG]

Or on SORNs bet they have included them too.

 

[ceejay]

"It is only logical that this should be applied to our roads."

Why?

The argument for Congestion Charge was to reduce congestion. It failed to generate enough revenue as it kept traffic out - because folks switched to other means (including motorcycles) - so they put it up.

It made a ring just outside almost impossible to drive in.

So they expand it.

And now, to generate revenus form those who reduced congestion by travelling on motorcycles they plan to put parking charges on them.

Congestion charge to reduce congestion? It is SIMPLY another way to get taxes in.

At what point do we stop paying tax? When we have 50% of our money to the government? 60% ? 70% ?

Truth is we are already paying 70% in direct and indirect tax.

And this is used for good causes you say.

Like making those with their noses in the trough richer. In government they are spectacularly isolated from market forces. They have a broken computer - someone brings another. No thought for how much or how they will pay for it. They dont have to worry about congestion charge - cos we all pay for them. Same as their travelling expenses.

Do you honestly believe that the government would or could implement this scheme sensibly.......... No way.

It is to Line the pockets of those who legally con us out of our money.

(gets of cynical soap box......)

 

[television]

By the time that this all comes in,I will be to old to drive my SL500 so I will have to be contant with road pricing and a CL600, ah well.:cry:



Malcolm

 

[jon_harley]

The government claim there are 10 million more cars in Britain than there were a decade ago, and yet they fail to mention there are only 2.4 million more people with driving licenses, so those 7.6 million other cars are not producing any conjestion at all as they are on people's drives, or just in someone's imagination.

That would only be correct if you assume that BOTH (1) the number of people who have a driving license, but did not own a car, has stayed exactly the same; AND (2) everyone who did have a car is using it exactly the same amount of the time (hence leaving it on the drive just as much) nowadays. I doubt either of those is true.

 

[OmniCognateNeutronRangler]

I still say giving employers tax insentives to let their employees work at home (and tax penalties for firms who dont), and changing the school times, is a much better way of getting cars off the road. I know not everyone can work from home, it's a bit difficult if you're a bricky for instance, but enough could to make a serious impact on road usage. The same is true of large lorries, they should be banned at certain times of the day.

All easy to introduce, would generally be popular (except maybe with truck drivers and brickies) and are just common sense. Sadly none of them mean multi-billion pound contracts and thousands of new jobs for teh civil service so I suspect they wont get a look in.

 

[OmniCognateNeutronRangler]

That would only be correct if you assume that BOTH (1) the number of people who have a driving license, but did not own a car, has stayed exactly the same; AND (2) everyone who did have a car is using it exactly the same amount of the time (hence leaving it on the drive just as much) nowadays. I doubt either of those is true.

thats irrelivant. The government are using the figures of 10 million extra cars, they are not mentioning how much more or less they are being used. That is not part of their arguement. If there are only 2 odd million extra licenses then only 2 million odd extra people can be driving. I seriously doubt that 7 1/2 million people had licenses and didn't drive and then all of a sudden thought, lets all go and start driving.

 

[Hibbo]

Sadly none of them mean multi-billion pound contracts and thousands of new jobs for teh civil service so I suspect they wont get a look in.

Unfortunately, that's a very good point

I seriously doubt that 7 1/2 million people had licenses and didn't drive and then all of a sudden thought, lets all go and start driving.

I don't doubt it that much - it was quite common for a married couple to have a car between them, whereas now it's common for them to have a car each (and maybe one for their 17 year old kid).

I am NOT in favour of the government milking the cash-cow motorist even more, I am just as peed off as everyone with their militant campaign of speeding tickets and parking fines.

I am also not so naive that I think that they would fairly and cheaply introduce it (I have worked in a government organisation for the last 8 years and I am STAGGERED by some of the appalling contracts the sign - just look at the stupid ****** Scottish parliament)

"It is only logical that this should be applied to our roads."

Why?

Why?

Because at the moment you pay the same to use nice quiet empty roads and quiet times as someone elsewhere pays to use extremely overcrowded roads at rush hour.

If we paid for houses in the same way, then can you imagine how the market would be? You couldn't get into the estate agents' because they would be chocked full of people fighting over the £100,000 6-bed detached houses in Kensington, whilst the £100,000 bedsits in some grim Northern (north of Watford) town.

You could apply this to anything under consumer demand, just as our roads undoubtedly are.

 

[jon_harley]

If there are only 2 odd million extra licenses then only 2 million odd extra people can be driving. I seriously doubt that 7 1/2 million people had licenses and didn't drive and then all of a sudden thought, lets all go and start driving.

I bet they did. Cars are getting cheaper and cheaper relative to disposable income all the time.