Road pricing's OK, say half of us
Survey finds support for road charging
Will it cost us to drive here?
The results, from a MORI survey for Detica, will be encouraging for the Government as it looks to gain public acceptance for the principle of a ‘pay as you go’ scheme for motorists. The Foundation believes that the key challenge for the Government’s ambitious road pricing plan lies not with the technology to implement such a scheme, but with gaining public trust.
Under the new scheme, all vehicles would be fitted with a black box for tracking their progress using satellite technology. Charges would vary according to the time, type of road and location. The busiest roads would be the most expensive to drive on, and motorists could be charged up to £1.34 a mile for journeys through city centres and motorways at peak times. For those people who drive largely on remote rural roads they could find their journeys are free or possibly charged at 2p a mile. Fuel duty would either be significantly reduced or scrapped altogether, meaning that motorists in rural areas may find themselves paying much less for motoring than they do currently.
The Foundation said that "with congestion costing the economy some £20 billion a year, and with traffic speeds falling at all times of the day, and on all types of road it has become clear that urgent action needs to be taken to solve the congestion crisis."
The Foundation gave a cautious welcome to the principle of a road pricing scheme, and welcomed the opportunity to debate the idea.
No new taxes
However, the Foundation said it would not support road pricing if it were simply a way of introducing yet another tax on the motorist. Motorists already pay some £42 billion in motoring taxes a year, and yet only £6 billion is spent on roads. Reducing or scrapping fuel duty would go some way to reducing public unease about a road pricing scheme, however this alone would not be sufficient. Any scheme would have to be introduced as part of a package of measures to combat congestion, to include significant investment in the road network, and much improved public transport. The public will demand this.
The RAC Foundation believes that in order to gain public trust on such a fundamental policy, the Government should announce that an independent regulator will oversee and monitor the scheme and put a proper appeals system in place. This would ensure that any charges set are fair and transparent, and are not motivated by raising revenue but by cutting congestion.
Road pricing should not be used to price people out of owning or using cars. They are essential for daily life, and will continue to be the most important means of transport. Pricing should be targeted to influence the timing and routes of particular journeys, by reflecting the cost which bringing an additional vehicle on to an already crowded road can impose on others. The Foundation’s ‘Motoring towards 2050’ study said road pricing should apply to no more than 10 per cent of network, at certain times of the day.
Edmund King, Executive Director of the RAC Foundation said, "Last year people travelled 5.2 billion miles more on the roads than in 2003. Traffic growth cannot be sustained on this level. Road pricing will not be an easy option to implement, but could work in conjunction with better roads and public transport and reductions in fuel duty.
"While 47 per cent of people supporting the principle of a road pricing scheme is encouraging, the government now needs to make sure they come up with a proposal that will be acceptable to motorists.
"Motorists must be protected against excessive charges set by governments, central and local, to raise money. So charges must be fair and transparent, and overseen by an independent regulator. This is the only way to ensure trust and public acceptance of this important development."
The goal of road charging is to DISCOURAGE drivers, it won't do this unless it's more expensive than the current system for most people. This government, and previous governments over the last 20 years or so (regardless of political bent), have been seeking to maximise revenue from the motorist - why would this scheme be any different?
Which is a bit different from Darling's proposal.
Don't you just love survey's and statistics? Ask a question in the right way and with the right caveat, then quote the statistic without the caveat: Hey presto, one widely-accepted piece-of-sh!t policy!
New Labour: Just add spin!
They must be mad to invest in technology to solve this. I work in the industry and don't trust the dam things. It will cost billions and won't work. It will be a white elephant bigger that the millenium dome. Darling wants shooting for even suggesting that throwing billions of pound on systems development will dig them out.
SPEND THE MONEY ON TRANSPORT for f's sake
Road Tax £190.00ish a year
Petrol Cost say £12000.00 a year ( i do 60000 miles a year.)
Total £12,190.00 a year.
Under the covernment plans, I would pay around £76000 a year to carry out my job!!!! That is just crazy. What is this contry coming too? How can they justify this?
Bunch of Red tape loving, tree hugging muppets!
Jef!
Now where did I put my bicycle clips...
For this to work it would need one hell of a sophisticated software system, and you only have to look at the government record on sophisticated software systems.
Whether its a new 999 answering system, air traffic control, computerised MOT system, or whatever, it's always a monumental balls-up. More often than not the plug is pulled completely.
It's never gonna happen...
I think the whole area of road finances needs overhauling. Money from petrol and road taxation is not just going on roads, its also paying for other benefits like nurses, teachers etc. What I would like to see is itemised taxation. If the government truely want a fair "You use, you pay" taxation method. Then wouldn't the economic way would be to put it on fuel instead of fitting every vehicle with GPS? (let me go with this...) If the annual road budget was provided solely from the fuel tax, wouldn't it drop and cease being a stealth tax?
If the government are committed to congestion, why have public transport charges gone up? If the government are committed to emissions, why aren't they supporting and encouraging alternative fuels, instead of flagshipping, back-slapping oil companies?
I sick of pretentious, naive, spin written by twenty-two twenty-two years olds. Its like they want us to suffer.
Humbug.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff