New plan for drivers to pay £1.30 a mile
Discussion
New plan for drivers to pay £1.30 a mile
Dipesh Gadher , Transport correspondent
THE government plans to replace fuel tax with a new road charge on motorists based on the distance and time of day they travel.
Alistair Darling, the transport secretary, this weekend indicated that fuel duty will have to be scrapped in order to pave the way for a new road pricing scheme. This would dramatically cut the price of petrol — duty currently accounts for 47p per litre — but motorists would face a new charge of up to £1.34 a mile. Journeys at peak times and on the busiest roads would cost most.
In his first interview since the election, Darling said the changes were necessary to prevent roads reaching “complete gridlock”. He wants a pilot project to be approved during Labour’s third term.
The move, which is also likely to see road tax scrapped, would mark the biggest shake-up in motoring taxation since fuel duty was introduced in 1909.
“The idea of distance[-based] charging is that instead of paying the present form of taxation, you’d be charged on the distance you go,” Darling said.
“You are certainly not talking about a charge on top of another charge. You can’t have both. This would be a completely different concept, a completely different way of doing things.”
Fuel duty on petrol and diesel provides the Treasury with about £22 billion a year. A further £4.6 billion is raised annually through road tax.
Darling is confident that the technology will be in place within the next 10-15 years for a nationwide scheme. A satellite tracking system would monitor black boxes inside every car. “Top-of-the-range cars have got satellite navigation kits fitted almost as standard now,” Darling said.
“In another 10 years I expect every car will be fitted with this equipment. So it makes sense to see whether or not you can’t use that to good advantage and give drivers a better deal.”
Darling will outline government plans to take road pricing forward at a lecture this week organised by the Social Market Foundation think tank.
Although a nationwide scheme would not be introduced for a decade at the earliest, Darling plans to present a bill in the current parliament to set up a pilot project in a large conurbation, such as the West Midlands or Greater Manchester, within “five or six years”.
He says a decision on road pricing will have to be taken “during the course of this parliament”, providing political consensus can be reached across the parties.
“If we don’t do anything it’s pretty clear to me, when you look at all the trends, we would face complete gridlock,” he said.
“More and more cars will grind to a halt and the generations to come will curse those people of my generation who didn’t do anything about it.”
Scrapping fuel duty and road tax is likely to make road pricing more acceptable to motorists. “We’ve got to take the British people with us,” said Darling.
Last year a government- commissioned feasibility study on road pricing concluded that distance-based charges could cut congestion by half.
Drivers would be charged different rates depending on the time of day, their location and the distance travelled.
Charges would start at 2p a mile for rural roads, while journeys on the busiest urban routes would cost up to £1.34 a mile at peak times, according to the study.
The report claimed that about half of drivers would pay less in road charges than they currently do in fuel duty.
“If fuel duty were removed completely . . . [rural drivers] would be paying much less and the other side of the coin is that city dwellers would pay much more,” said Stephen Glaister, professor of transport and infrastructure at Imperial College, London.
Environmental groups fear that replacing existing taxes with distance-based charges would discourage drivers from switching to greener cars. Large gas guzzlers that are less fuel efficient than small vehicles would cost less to run if fuel duty were scrapped.
“If the government scrapped fuel tax and road tax, this would remove incentives for people to buy greener cars and climate change emissions could rise,” said Tony Bosworth of Friends of the Earth.
Last year the number of cars on Britain’s roads was 25.8m. This is set to rise to 31.9m by 2015, according to the Commission for Integrated Transport, which advises the government.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1641476,00.html
Dipesh Gadher , Transport correspondent
THE government plans to replace fuel tax with a new road charge on motorists based on the distance and time of day they travel.
Alistair Darling, the transport secretary, this weekend indicated that fuel duty will have to be scrapped in order to pave the way for a new road pricing scheme. This would dramatically cut the price of petrol — duty currently accounts for 47p per litre — but motorists would face a new charge of up to £1.34 a mile. Journeys at peak times and on the busiest roads would cost most.
In his first interview since the election, Darling said the changes were necessary to prevent roads reaching “complete gridlock”. He wants a pilot project to be approved during Labour’s third term.
The move, which is also likely to see road tax scrapped, would mark the biggest shake-up in motoring taxation since fuel duty was introduced in 1909.
“The idea of distance[-based] charging is that instead of paying the present form of taxation, you’d be charged on the distance you go,” Darling said.
“You are certainly not talking about a charge on top of another charge. You can’t have both. This would be a completely different concept, a completely different way of doing things.”
Fuel duty on petrol and diesel provides the Treasury with about £22 billion a year. A further £4.6 billion is raised annually through road tax.
Darling is confident that the technology will be in place within the next 10-15 years for a nationwide scheme. A satellite tracking system would monitor black boxes inside every car. “Top-of-the-range cars have got satellite navigation kits fitted almost as standard now,” Darling said.
“In another 10 years I expect every car will be fitted with this equipment. So it makes sense to see whether or not you can’t use that to good advantage and give drivers a better deal.”
Darling will outline government plans to take road pricing forward at a lecture this week organised by the Social Market Foundation think tank.
Although a nationwide scheme would not be introduced for a decade at the earliest, Darling plans to present a bill in the current parliament to set up a pilot project in a large conurbation, such as the West Midlands or Greater Manchester, within “five or six years”.
He says a decision on road pricing will have to be taken “during the course of this parliament”, providing political consensus can be reached across the parties.
“If we don’t do anything it’s pretty clear to me, when you look at all the trends, we would face complete gridlock,” he said.
“More and more cars will grind to a halt and the generations to come will curse those people of my generation who didn’t do anything about it.”
Scrapping fuel duty and road tax is likely to make road pricing more acceptable to motorists. “We’ve got to take the British people with us,” said Darling.
Last year a government- commissioned feasibility study on road pricing concluded that distance-based charges could cut congestion by half.
Drivers would be charged different rates depending on the time of day, their location and the distance travelled.
Charges would start at 2p a mile for rural roads, while journeys on the busiest urban routes would cost up to £1.34 a mile at peak times, according to the study.
The report claimed that about half of drivers would pay less in road charges than they currently do in fuel duty.
“If fuel duty were removed completely . . . [rural drivers] would be paying much less and the other side of the coin is that city dwellers would pay much more,” said Stephen Glaister, professor of transport and infrastructure at Imperial College, London.
Environmental groups fear that replacing existing taxes with distance-based charges would discourage drivers from switching to greener cars. Large gas guzzlers that are less fuel efficient than small vehicles would cost less to run if fuel duty were scrapped.
“If the government scrapped fuel tax and road tax, this would remove incentives for people to buy greener cars and climate change emissions could rise,” said Tony Bosworth of Friends of the Earth.
Last year the number of cars on Britain’s roads was 25.8m. This is set to rise to 31.9m by 2015, according to the Commission for Integrated Transport, which advises the government.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1641476,00.html
Even the lentillists are unsure about this policy as they point out that removing the duty on fuel would remove any incentive to drive a 'green' car as opposed to a smokey old Land Rover.
The idea of encouraging people not to drive AT PEAK TIMES ONLY is not in itself bad.
The current concept of paying tax to use fuel is a sensible one in terms of limiting overall car usage but it cannot determine what time of day you drive - whichis where the congestion problem arises.
I don't know what the ideal solution is, but I do know that a little black box will only be entering my car over my dead body!
The idea of encouraging people not to drive AT PEAK TIMES ONLY is not in itself bad.
The current concept of paying tax to use fuel is a sensible one in terms of limiting overall car usage but it cannot determine what time of day you drive - whichis where the congestion problem arises.
I don't know what the ideal solution is, but I do know that a little black box will only be entering my car over my dead body!
groomi said:
I don't know what the ideal solution is, but I do know that a little black box will only be entering my car over my dead body!
If the system does come into effect you and I will have the box, all the gov have to do is make it part of the MOT,no MOT no valid insurance
>> Edited by Pies on Sunday 5th June 09:07
Another point to ponder:
If there is a scale of charges where drivers on rural roads pay less per mile than on motorways, then why would anybody with half a brain stay on the motorway if it's busy? No, they'll use other (cheaper) routes, through towns and villages, that the motorways were originally built to relieve. Where is the safety / environmental / any other benefit in that? How stupid do they think drivers are? As stupid as them?
Of course! "We'll put up charges on those parallel routes as well so that people thinking about diverting off the motorway would save nothing" - well that's just tickety-boo then, isn't it, for the rural residents along those routes who are currently contributing nothing to overall congestion, but would then be penalised for it anyway. Fandabby.
Example: I live 37 miles from my work, whether I take the motorway or the alternative wee route that goes through 10 towns or villages along the way (not counting the one I live in and the one I work in).
Motorway at quiet times: about 35 to 40 minutes (it's not a single motorway, there are a few intersections to negotiate).
Motorway at busy times: anything from an hour to an hour and a half (the extra mainly spent at those intersections).
Non-motorway route - about 55 minutes, 50 if it's quiet. I usually travel this way because it's a more pleasant drive, and there are very few delays to progress.
Now if there was a charge for using the motorway, how long would it be before this road was choked too? And if the charge was extended to this road to prevent that, why should the people in those 10 settlelemnts pay the same per mile as me, a passer-through?
They couldn't join up their thinking with a box of staples and a tub of UHU. If they sniffed the UHU, their hallucinations would make more sense than their policies. Oh b****r, I've probably just given them an idea...
If there is a scale of charges where drivers on rural roads pay less per mile than on motorways, then why would anybody with half a brain stay on the motorway if it's busy? No, they'll use other (cheaper) routes, through towns and villages, that the motorways were originally built to relieve. Where is the safety / environmental / any other benefit in that? How stupid do they think drivers are? As stupid as them?
Of course! "We'll put up charges on those parallel routes as well so that people thinking about diverting off the motorway would save nothing" - well that's just tickety-boo then, isn't it, for the rural residents along those routes who are currently contributing nothing to overall congestion, but would then be penalised for it anyway. Fandabby.
Example: I live 37 miles from my work, whether I take the motorway or the alternative wee route that goes through 10 towns or villages along the way (not counting the one I live in and the one I work in).
Motorway at quiet times: about 35 to 40 minutes (it's not a single motorway, there are a few intersections to negotiate).
Motorway at busy times: anything from an hour to an hour and a half (the extra mainly spent at those intersections).
Non-motorway route - about 55 minutes, 50 if it's quiet. I usually travel this way because it's a more pleasant drive, and there are very few delays to progress.
Now if there was a charge for using the motorway, how long would it be before this road was choked too? And if the charge was extended to this road to prevent that, why should the people in those 10 settlelemnts pay the same per mile as me, a passer-through?
They couldn't join up their thinking with a box of staples and a tub of UHU. If they sniffed the UHU, their hallucinations would make more sense than their policies. Oh b****r, I've probably just given them an idea...
This penarse will have us all mooching in rags behind heavy horse + cart by 2010.
Like all lefties, this gimp is a hopeless idealist, weighed down with a half-baked, student spec cogniscence of all things beyond his own sphere of anal irrelevance.
Traffic is a nightmare so let's entirely bugger up the eceonomy.
Inspirational.
What an obscene f@ckwit.
Like all lefties, this gimp is a hopeless idealist, weighed down with a half-baked, student spec cogniscence of all things beyond his own sphere of anal irrelevance.
Traffic is a nightmare so let's entirely bugger up the eceonomy.
Inspirational.
What an obscene f@ckwit.
Pies said:
I don't know what the ideal solution is, but I do know that a little black box will only be entering my car over my dead body!
If the system does come into effect you and I will have the box al the gov have to do is make it part of the MOT,no MOT no valid insurance
No MOT/Insurance because Nanny State want to put a black box in my car - No Groomi residing in the UK.
The principle is acceptable, the sad reality of Big Brother controlling us (and we're not naive enough to believe that these black boxes will only be used to charge us for our mileage) is most DEFINATELY NOT.
What a load of balls.
A lot of people have to get to work for certain times, hence peak times! The government would have to change the whole working day so people didn't have to travel at such times.
What about people who have to travel for their work, would their company have to pay this new tax or would it be up to the driver to pick the cheapest time and roads to travel?
Can just see a new problem...country lane congestion!
What a load of wa
rs
A lot of people have to get to work for certain times, hence peak times! The government would have to change the whole working day so people didn't have to travel at such times.
What about people who have to travel for their work, would their company have to pay this new tax or would it be up to the driver to pick the cheapest time and roads to travel?
Can just see a new problem...country lane congestion!
What a load of wa
rsPies said:
If the system does come into effect you and I will have the box, all the gov have to do is make it part of the MOT,no MOT no valid insurance
Unfortunately, the wiring on my TVR has never been that reliable. Bad earths, I think, very intermittent readings from instruments etc. I've been trying for ages to fix it but I might never track it down.
Edited to add - oops wrong topic, not relevant here at all...
>> Edited by tvrgit on Sunday 5th June 09:12
tvrgit said:
If the system does come into effect you and I will have the box, all the gov have to do is make it part of the MOT,no MOT no valid insurance
Unfortunately, the wiring on my TVR has never been that reliable. Bad earths, I think, very intermittent readings from instruments etc. I've been trying for ages to fix it but I might never track it down.
Playing devils advocate here,but will you be driving your TVR in 20 years time,lets be realistic here if the gov says 10-15 years you could realistically double it
Jaglover said:
The idea of encouraging people not to drive AT PEAK TIMES ONLY is not in itself bad.
No-one enjoys sitting in a traffic jam, they do so in order to get to and from work. There will not be an alternative for most people, so it will simply be a tax they cannot avoid.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Unfortunately, the numbskulls in charge don't think there is a problem with Public Transport. We should all put aside our predjudices and get on a bus/train to go to work.
So nothing will improve there, and your suggested scenario will be spot-on.
Yet if the Govenment actually improved public transport, many people WOULD use it to get to and from work, thus negating any requirement for a Nanny State black box in our cars.
WAKE UP DARLING AND TACKLE THE PROBLEM AT SOURCE, NOT EFFECT!tvrgit said:
Colin, if I'm still breathing in 20 years time I'll be happy.
You want to be breathing in 20 years time...
...there will be a new 'right to breathe tax' payable via a microchip fitted into the back of your neck. If you can't afford to pay it then an electronic actuator will close your windpipe until such time as you can afford it.
So a socialist goverment will make motoring the preserve of the rich, and the poorer (ie those who have seen the tax take grow year on year to pay for these lunatic ideas) will now have to get on public transport which cannot cope.
If they seriously want to tackle congestion first step is to renationalise the railways and buses, then make them cheap and efficent and people will use them to get to the places where congestion is a problem.
Then tear up some of the land we now pay farmers to leave alone and build some key roads on them. We have the m25 which is an orbital road which has had so many motorways fed into it that it cannot cope, so build roads to where people want to go, one big loop to Dover north and east of london and another loop west and south to get to Dover.
It isn't rocket science to get it right, however we seem to employ numskulls whos only answer is to punish us for their failings.
If they seriously want to tackle congestion first step is to renationalise the railways and buses, then make them cheap and efficent and people will use them to get to the places where congestion is a problem.
Then tear up some of the land we now pay farmers to leave alone and build some key roads on them. We have the m25 which is an orbital road which has had so many motorways fed into it that it cannot cope, so build roads to where people want to go, one big loop to Dover north and east of london and another loop west and south to get to Dover.
It isn't rocket science to get it right, however we seem to employ numskulls whos only answer is to punish us for their failings.
This idea , if it becomes a bill will never get through.
£1.30 is just a figure being thrown around by the govt so that if they even try to bring it in ,a lesser figure will "soften the blow"...
But the main reason is that I honestly believe it would create a protest even bigger and more devastating than the fuel protests.
And I dont think the already reduced majority in the Commons would back it lest alone the Lords.
£1.30 is just a figure being thrown around by the govt so that if they even try to bring it in ,a lesser figure will "soften the blow"...
But the main reason is that I honestly believe it would create a protest even bigger and more devastating than the fuel protests.
And I dont think the already reduced majority in the Commons would back it lest alone the Lords.
surely this new taxation system is going to kill off every business that relies on transport (eg all lorry transporting companies and taxis etc).
even if they are going to be reducing fuel costs significantly, this will mean that lorries will be paying tens of thousands every year (plus the cost of fuel). unless ofcourse the government gives certain businesses allowances. but where do you stop?
do you give allowances to chauffers(sp?)?
do you give allowances to taxi drivers? (who surely must account for a fairly large amount of congestion in big cities!!??)
basically, all i am trying to say is: it will never work!
even if they are going to be reducing fuel costs significantly, this will mean that lorries will be paying tens of thousands every year (plus the cost of fuel). unless ofcourse the government gives certain businesses allowances. but where do you stop?
do you give allowances to chauffers(sp?)?
do you give allowances to taxi drivers? (who surely must account for a fairly large amount of congestion in big cities!!??)
basically, all i am trying to say is: it will never work!
Nothing is ever as 'simple' as it initially seems. There are other considerations which need to be factored in.
For instance, there is a considerable drive to identify alternative fuels to power our cars - electricity for one. If fossil fuels become obsolete for our vehicles then the tax take becomes zero and alternative taxes will need to be generated. This type of system therefore becomes a necessity for Government to ensure a continued tax flow.
Of course, they will develop all sorts of tax 'bolt-on's' to steadily increase the take........... your car was monitored visiting a Burger King take-away - you have therefore been charged an additional £5.60 this quarter for buying unhealthy food.
Big Brother ............... gawd help us all.
For instance, there is a considerable drive to identify alternative fuels to power our cars - electricity for one. If fossil fuels become obsolete for our vehicles then the tax take becomes zero and alternative taxes will need to be generated. This type of system therefore becomes a necessity for Government to ensure a continued tax flow.
Of course, they will develop all sorts of tax 'bolt-on's' to steadily increase the take........... your car was monitored visiting a Burger King take-away - you have therefore been charged an additional £5.60 this quarter for buying unhealthy food.
Big Brother ............... gawd help us all.
speedychrissie said:
where do you stop?
do you give allowances to chauffers(sp?)?
do you give allowances to taxi drivers? (who surely must account for a fairly large amount of congestion in big cities!!??)
basically, all i am trying to say is: it will never work!
And smelly old buses they are driven all day in the most congested areas. If they aren't allowed much cheaper rates or no rates at all they will either go out of business or charge much more to cover the increased costs. In one it's a very good thing to get them off the road but in another for the Greens very bad as they think buses save lives, lower pollutants, make fresh air etc.....which they don't of course.
Another poorly thought out hairbrained scheme from the Badger.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff