RE: Pay as you drive inevitable: report
Friday 1st December 2006
Congestion charging goes nationwide?We'll pay more to drive was the uncompromising message that came from a Government-commissioned report today.
Pay as you drive inevitable: report
Road charging starts to look more likely than ever after new report's release
Congestion charging goes nationwide?
It's part of the Government's long march towards getting the motorist to accept the notion of road charging in this, the most crowded and congested nation in Europe.
BA's erstwhile boss Rod Eddington was asked to examine options for relieving congestion and modernising the UK's creaking transport system. His recommendation was that we should pay to drive, with the charges depending on the type of road and time driven. And the benefits could amount to £28 billion for rail and bus users, with big projects like high-speed rail links being less important to the nation's well-being than making better use of existing resources, said the report.
'We can't do nothing'
Doing nothing isn't an option, finds the report, saying that: "If left unchecked, the rising cost of congestion will waste an extra £22 billion worth of time in England alone by 2025. By then 13 per cent of traffic will be subject to stop-start travel conditions. Commuter rail lines are forecast to see further increases in overcrowding, and intercity rail services will see many trains at or beyond seating capacity on the approaches to cities."
The report doesn't detail the how and when, but aims more to set out strategic options for future governments. And neither of the two main parties has ruled out road charging as an option for the future, so in some form or other, road pricing looks likely to be implemented in some form or other. Indeed the Government has already announced that it's planning to start a pilot scheme.
A matter of trust
However the problem is that, as one contributor to BBC Radio's Today programme this morning pointed out, surveys have found that most people don't trust the government. He pointed to the increase in London's congestion charge as an example of why this is the case. The charge was originally intended to be fixed in geography and in price for 10 years, yet has already gone up from £5 to £8 a day, and its range is to be extended. similarly, the M6 Toll road's price is to go up 30 per cent to £4 per car from January.
They also don't trust where the money would go -- into a general pot or back into improvements in the road network -- and they don't trust the Government not to increase the overall tax take, making motoring even more expensive.
Road safety campaign Safe Speed pointed out that, if the poorest drivers are priced off the road, immediately the roads are clearer and journeys are quicker. What happens then is that "wealthier people who were time-constrained from using the roads soon take advantage of the improved conditions and congestion is restored to previous levels", said the campaign.
Founder Paul Smith said: "Road pricing is a tax on the poor -- technically a regressive tax- - it may alter the average wealth of those stuck in traffic but will never ease congestion. It is also massively complex and expensive. It would burn massive amounts of money and deliver no significant benefit.
"Congestion in London has been self-regulated for 30 years with just about zero traffic growth. Ken Livingstone's congestion charge has not reduced journey times or reduced the number of vehicle movements, although you do have to read Transport for London's self-congratulatory reports very carefully to find out."
As an indication of what seems likely to happen in future, and especially as both a softening-up exercise and a lesson in the futility of opposition, the report does a good job.
Discussion
It's disheartening to see that the crux of the plan to reduce congestion at present seems to be simply to make private motoring prohibitively expensive. Unfortunately, it's fundamentally flawed.
People don't crawl to work along congested routes because they enjoy it, they simply don't have an alternative. Public Transport is so woefully poor, infrequent and unreliable that it's just not viable as a means of getting to work for most people. If I could take the bus or a train to work in less than two hours I would.
People don't crawl to work along congested routes because they enjoy it, they simply don't have an alternative. Public Transport is so woefully poor, infrequent and unreliable that it's just not viable as a means of getting to work for most people. If I could take the bus or a train to work in less than two hours I would.
I reckon it'll be the usual government response to everything - commission horror story of report to crush opposition, then release 'milder' form of policy that on the surface seems more 'acceptable' but in reality isn't.
I have it on good authority, as a result of my own research into this, that this system couldn't be started on until 2010 and wouldn't be operational by 2015 - by which time we could have had two changes of government.
I think this is a classic example of a party realising they're on their last legs, trying to put as many obstacles in the way of whoever succeeds them, like a downed fighter pilot ditching all their chaff in the direction of their pursuer.
Basically, they want their 'influence' to be felt from beyond the grave. This sort of policy is a sure-fire way of doing it.
I have it on good authority, as a result of my own research into this, that this system couldn't be started on until 2010 and wouldn't be operational by 2015 - by which time we could have had two changes of government.
I think this is a classic example of a party realising they're on their last legs, trying to put as many obstacles in the way of whoever succeeds them, like a downed fighter pilot ditching all their chaff in the direction of their pursuer.
Basically, they want their 'influence' to be felt from beyond the grave. This sort of policy is a sure-fire way of doing it.
I dont personally think we will ever (at least not in any time frame that I can be bothered to think about, im thinking at least a century) see public transport network capable of delivering what people need. Is there ever going to be a bus/train station to all your destinations? No.
Is there ever going to be services to all destinations at all times of they day? No.
Are you ever going to be able to bring more than 1 bag of shopping onto a bus/train? No.
In fact the only thing I can guarantee is taht you will have to sit next to the bottom of the barrel scum that unfortunately muck up our world, and thats reason enough not to ever use public transport.
Is there ever going to be services to all destinations at all times of they day? No.
Are you ever going to be able to bring more than 1 bag of shopping onto a bus/train? No.
In fact the only thing I can guarantee is taht you will have to sit next to the bottom of the barrel scum that unfortunately muck up our world, and thats reason enough not to ever use public transport.
Edited by SN on Friday 1st December 10:43
Wont it also have an effect on housing in areas with good public transport links and close to areas of work.
Surely the demand for housing in town/city centres will increase and London link areas will become even more expencive, so the people who cant afford to live in these areas or the town itself but do key jobs are a bit stuck??
Also yes congestion is bad, but like it says no one sits in a traffic jam for the fun of it, there is no other option for most. And business costs will escalate due to transport costs or paying expenses for client/customers etc.
If it was off set against no road tax and lower fuel duty then it may not be so bad, but the rumours of £1 a mile in some cases is horrific.
Surely the demand for housing in town/city centres will increase and London link areas will become even more expencive, so the people who cant afford to live in these areas or the town itself but do key jobs are a bit stuck??
Also yes congestion is bad, but like it says no one sits in a traffic jam for the fun of it, there is no other option for most. And business costs will escalate due to transport costs or paying expenses for client/customers etc.
If it was off set against no road tax and lower fuel duty then it may not be so bad, but the rumours of £1 a mile in some cases is horrific.
Following succesive Goverments shortsighted policies we have lost our railway and tramway network. Why do we not trust Goverments 
Another concern is what is to stop us great unwashed using cheaper rat runs through the inadequate 'B' and unclassified roads, ruining what countryside is left?
Another concern is what is to stop us great unwashed using cheaper rat runs through the inadequate 'B' and unclassified roads, ruining what countryside is left?
If you think this is a blow in the face, just think of what belgians pay per year in road tax ... the system is based upon engine capacity and gets more expensive the bigger the engine gets - some examples ; a 4.0 liter engine will set you back £ 1.100 every year, for a 5.0 (like in a Griff 500) you owe the state £ 1.400 per YEAR ... Not to mention the silly law that obliges you to pay a tax based on power ... it increases from 'acceptable' rates for average cars to a maximum tax once you go over 205 BHP - you have to pay a one off premium of € 4.500 (approx. £ 3.100) to get the car registered ! If you then sell the car after, say, two years, the next owner wil have to pay £ 3.100 minus (2 x 5%) £310 = £ 2.790 ... (this tax only goes down with 5% every full year !!!) Not to forget that Belgium still has 21% VAT on everything, including cars ... Who says that driving in the UK is expensive ? Think again ...
Keep things safe !!
Regards
Keep things safe !!
Regards
mille said:
If you think this is a blow in the face, just think of what belgians pay per year in road tax ... the system is based upon engine capacity and gets more expensive the bigger the engine gets - some examples ; a 4.0 liter engine will set you back £ 1.100 every year, for a 5.0 (like in a Griff 500) you owe the state £ 1.400 per YEAR ... Not to mention the silly law that obliges you to pay a tax based on power ... it increases from 'acceptable' rates for average cars to a maximum tax once you go over 205 BHP - you have to pay a one off premium of € 4.500 (approx. £ 3.100) to get the car registered ! If you then sell the car after, say, two years, the next owner wil have to pay £ 3.100 minus (2 x 5%) £310 = £ 2.790 ... (this tax only goes down with 5% every full year !!!) Not to forget that Belgium still has 21% VAT on everything, including cars ... Who says that driving in the UK is expensive ? Think again ...
Keep things safe !!
Regards
Keep things safe !!
Regards
At least those larger taxes are on relatively large engines.
Over here, they class everything above 1.9 litres as 'big'
They are currently "improving" the Luton Eastern Corridor (the road from the motorway to the airport); as a result the footpath from the station to Capability Green will be closed for 2 years. Making a fairly reasonable 15 minute walk from the station more like an hour. So even if I could use a train to get to work (which I can't as I don't live on the route to London) my journey would be unreasonably long.
If I want to catch a bus it'd take me almost 2 hours to get to work, but if I drive it can take me 15 minutes; unless someone is going to pay for my time I think I'll keep driving.
If I want to catch a bus it'd take me almost 2 hours to get to work, but if I drive it can take me 15 minutes; unless someone is going to pay for my time I think I'll keep driving.
I can see this being New Labour's "poll tax". Too many poor and/or young people affected.
Worst-case scenario:
Firstly, you've got all the people living in rural areas who have to use their cars. Actually, forget "rural", I live within striking distance of the M25 and even I can't get to work (or plenty of other local places, for that matter) on public transport without a 600% increase in journey time and/or a lot of walking.
And speaking of public transport, it's having capacity problems already. So if you were thinking of moving to a nice house in the commuter belt, forget that - the train will be crammed dangerously full before it even reaches your station.
Basically, the only people able to afford to live more than cycling distance from a workplace will be the very rich.
As a consequence, small and medium properties in "commuter dormitories" will see their values come crashing to the floor, it being impossible to get to work by either public or private transport. Knock-on effect to the economy; it won't matter that you can't get to work, as you won't have a job to go to.
A large number of highly skilled people will probably be streaming out of the country at this point; further delaying or even removing the possibility of economic recovery. By this point, the tax take will be dropping off at tremendous rate and the government will have to start cutting back on civil servants and benefits.
As benefits drop, crime spirals out of control. The country dives into a slump that makes the late 1970s look like a tea party.
I'll end the far-fetched horror story there.
Likely scenario:
I'm agreeing with the view that it's a classic Labour "bait and switch" type of move - they keep our eyes on the nasty GPS-tracking Big Brother proposal while introducing a tag-and-beacon scheme for the motorway network. Unpleasant rather than crippling stealth tax in place, a few hundred more civil servants employed, a nice backhander for certain consultancy firms to screw up the implementation and finally a few speeches from Tony* telling us all how great he's been to get a nice, gentle compromise solution in place.
The EU might like the idea of a GPS system, but given our track record with large-scale IT systems, I can't see it getting off the ground, at least not in a form that doesn't crash every single day and charge random people for journeys to Lands End and back.
Worst-case scenario:
Firstly, you've got all the people living in rural areas who have to use their cars. Actually, forget "rural", I live within striking distance of the M25 and even I can't get to work (or plenty of other local places, for that matter) on public transport without a 600% increase in journey time and/or a lot of walking.
And speaking of public transport, it's having capacity problems already. So if you were thinking of moving to a nice house in the commuter belt, forget that - the train will be crammed dangerously full before it even reaches your station.
Basically, the only people able to afford to live more than cycling distance from a workplace will be the very rich.
As a consequence, small and medium properties in "commuter dormitories" will see their values come crashing to the floor, it being impossible to get to work by either public or private transport. Knock-on effect to the economy; it won't matter that you can't get to work, as you won't have a job to go to.
A large number of highly skilled people will probably be streaming out of the country at this point; further delaying or even removing the possibility of economic recovery. By this point, the tax take will be dropping off at tremendous rate and the government will have to start cutting back on civil servants and benefits.
As benefits drop, crime spirals out of control. The country dives into a slump that makes the late 1970s look like a tea party.
I'll end the far-fetched horror story there.
Likely scenario:
I'm agreeing with the view that it's a classic Labour "bait and switch" type of move - they keep our eyes on the nasty GPS-tracking Big Brother proposal while introducing a tag-and-beacon scheme for the motorway network. Unpleasant rather than crippling stealth tax in place, a few hundred more civil servants employed, a nice backhander for certain consultancy firms to screw up the implementation and finally a few speeches from Tony* telling us all how great he's been to get a nice, gentle compromise solution in place.
The EU might like the idea of a GPS system, but given our track record with large-scale IT systems, I can't see it getting off the ground, at least not in a form that doesn't crash every single day and charge random people for journeys to Lands End and back.
* - I will believe about his promised resignation only after he's actually done it. And even then I'll be doubtful.
This I think will be phased.
1) Major cities/conurbations will have charging either at peak times or all the time. Charging will be ANPR based (like London), with time-of-entry and time-of-exit seen as the key points.
Result: People move INTO big cities, while some employers may find themselves forced to move OUT of the cities. Cities become the domains of the wealthy or the poor only, middle classes can't afford to live in them or work in them.
2) Sophisticated GPS or tag-and-beacon system set up to include M-ways as well as big cities.
Result: People start using A-Roads and country roads instead of M-ways for their journey. Accident rates and fatalities increase, government mis-identifies this and uses it to justify introduction of a speed-limiting scheme.
3) National all-road all-time charging scheme implemented via 'black box', which is also tied into a governor to prevent speeding at any time.
Result: Driving in this country CEASES to be enjoyable at any time. We all emigrate somewhere a little more liberal.
1) Major cities/conurbations will have charging either at peak times or all the time. Charging will be ANPR based (like London), with time-of-entry and time-of-exit seen as the key points.
Result: People move INTO big cities, while some employers may find themselves forced to move OUT of the cities. Cities become the domains of the wealthy or the poor only, middle classes can't afford to live in them or work in them.
2) Sophisticated GPS or tag-and-beacon system set up to include M-ways as well as big cities.
Result: People start using A-Roads and country roads instead of M-ways for their journey. Accident rates and fatalities increase, government mis-identifies this and uses it to justify introduction of a speed-limiting scheme.
3) National all-road all-time charging scheme implemented via 'black box', which is also tied into a governor to prevent speeding at any time.
Result: Driving in this country CEASES to be enjoyable at any time. We all emigrate somewhere a little more liberal.
Copied from duplicate thread
widjit said:
Our massive and expensive engineering projects of the past like the sewarage systems, M1, Main Railways etc have been a huge success and still the backbone of this countries aging infrastructure.
No-one seems to learn the lessons from the past - short term goals lead to short term solutions.
We can build over, under or wider.
we can encourage localised growth instead of global expansion which enivitably means more stuff or people moving.
We can use technlogy to make travel redundant for many meetings. I work for a techy company who don't use their own technology to do this because "you are expected to show your face" or "put bums on seats". Buisiness already has the answers they need in many areas.
This is part of a culture shift that is needed, which I suggest is not going to start from a constantly thieving and lying government.
Remember - Nationwide congestion charging IS being introduced starting with Frieght lorries satalite monitoring accross europe - why? so that they can be taxes accross europe.
This is an EU initiative that the UK gov HAS to go along with anyway.
This all adds up to more tax, more spying, less freedom
I thank god that many ordinary people fought and died to protect this countries citizens freedom to ermm.. I can't remember?
No-one seems to learn the lessons from the past - short term goals lead to short term solutions.
We can build over, under or wider.
we can encourage localised growth instead of global expansion which enivitably means more stuff or people moving.
We can use technlogy to make travel redundant for many meetings. I work for a techy company who don't use their own technology to do this because "you are expected to show your face" or "put bums on seats". Buisiness already has the answers they need in many areas.
This is part of a culture shift that is needed, which I suggest is not going to start from a constantly thieving and lying government.
Remember - Nationwide congestion charging IS being introduced starting with Frieght lorries satalite monitoring accross europe - why? so that they can be taxes accross europe.
This is an EU initiative that the UK gov HAS to go along with anyway.
This all adds up to more tax, more spying, less freedom
I thank god that many ordinary people fought and died to protect this countries citizens freedom to ermm.. I can't remember?
Not sure if it has been raised already but there was a nice article in the register yesterday (referring to an article posted on OUT-LAW) pointing out the single biggest flaw in all of the current monitoring (and hence pay-as-you-drive) systems.
The flaw is that covert surveilance is not lawful - it all comes down to that detail that it is illegal to monitor someone without their permission. The article in this case was referring primarily to ANPR systems but the argument extends to any mass-tracking system.
Without ANPR the governmnet have had their teeth pulled in a big way when it comes to congestion charging, scameras, etc. Of course there is no (current) indication that the government will back down on this but it is possibly the start of a heavy weight argument.
The article is here: www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/30/anpr_legality_debate/
The flaw is that covert surveilance is not lawful - it all comes down to that detail that it is illegal to monitor someone without their permission. The article in this case was referring primarily to ANPR systems but the argument extends to any mass-tracking system.
Without ANPR the governmnet have had their teeth pulled in a big way when it comes to congestion charging, scameras, etc. Of course there is no (current) indication that the government will back down on this but it is possibly the start of a heavy weight argument.
The article is here: www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/30/anpr_legality_debate/
Copied from duplicate thread
nicedude1976 said:
Sadly, people in this country still seem naive enough to trust such reports so are likely to back it. It's in fact little to do with envoronment, making life easier and real benefits for the PEOPLE. And most predicted numbers are highly un-scientific and unrieliable. Just wonder whether those authros geuniuenly believe them or have some vested interests.
Apache said:
Is there an alternative? it's no good saying it won't work, it's a tax on the poor, will the last one to leave switch the lights out et etc. Until there is a robust alternative we are stuck with it
JohnnyPanic said:
I suspect it's no coincidence that these two stories are both on the BBC news homepage:
Motorists 'must pay for road use'
England smoke ban to start 1 July
Anyone else see a connection here?
Motorists 'must pay for road use'
England smoke ban to start 1 July
Anyone else see a connection here?
I dont get it. If the concern is enviromental you should just increase taxes on petrol, seems the fairest way - so high drinking cars pay more than the tee-totalers out there.
What is the cost of congestion? If someone wants to spend several hours sitting in a traffic jam then thats their choice, they can always jump on a train/ bus/ cycle whatever. Well we dont, we are happy to sit in the traffic jam for all the good reasons that have been listed above and in many other threads. IIRC I thought the concern was industries that, there is far too much delay etc. I havent quite worked out how pricing us off the roads so individuals arrive at work later due to crap public transport etc, solves this. Similarly if industry is concerned at the cost of delayed lorries etc. well they will simply have higher road taxes now going forward, and actually dont believe this, we have an effective lorry only lane on the motorways anyhow...
Really cant see how anything has been improved at all, just X billions being pissed away. Flawed thinking...
What is the cost of congestion? If someone wants to spend several hours sitting in a traffic jam then thats their choice, they can always jump on a train/ bus/ cycle whatever. Well we dont, we are happy to sit in the traffic jam for all the good reasons that have been listed above and in many other threads. IIRC I thought the concern was industries that, there is far too much delay etc. I havent quite worked out how pricing us off the roads so individuals arrive at work later due to crap public transport etc, solves this. Similarly if industry is concerned at the cost of delayed lorries etc. well they will simply have higher road taxes now going forward, and actually dont believe this, we have an effective lorry only lane on the motorways anyhow...
Really cant see how anything has been improved at all, just X billions being pissed away. Flawed thinking...
The average British commute is 45 minutes and a distance of 8.5 miles, 89% of commuters outside London use their car to commute.
Of those asked, the vast majority cited quicker than public transport, use car at work and public transport is inconvenient. These reasons look pretty reasonable to me, only a minority admitted to 'enjoying driving to work'
So road pricing has got a massive captive audience and will have some major, major impacts. The report priced the roads at 80p per kilometre or £1.30 per mile at rush hour.
The average commute will cost £2,600 a year compared to around £1,300 in fuel duty and VED (on a car that does 30mpg).
So even abolishing fuel duty and VED, it is a doubling of road charges.
Where is the social justice in this? The poorer will be tempted into driving uninsured, how does that help anyone. Or priced off the road altogether. Is that really fair? The wealthier will not pay more and it probably will not deter them one bit.
It will turn our roads, a public good, paid for by taxation of all into something only the wealthier can use.
Public transport is running at peak capacity now, there is no slack to take on commuters who ditch their car. The choice is either leave the job or move closer to work to either keep using the car or take a local bus. Even if people did move, it would involve mass upheaval of families and place strain on local infrastructure - schools, hospitals, roads, shops.
It is arguable that people working in high property value areas could not move closer, those earning less than average wage would be penalised by then having to either use the roads or take hours to get to work.
This chaotic period would certainly create economic instability. Prices would certainly rise for services as the low paid jobs there rely on would have to pay more to attract a workforce
How road pricing will take people off the roads is unrealistic? It is effectively says it will deliver a reduction to 71% of commuters by car and 29% by public transport.
London's congestion charging has not achieved this even with perhaps the best public transport links in the country, people still drive into London.
So, how are they going to cope with the expansion required to public transport, more buses on the roads? Replacing the congestion made by cars with congestion made by buses.
The economy is dependent on the mobility of its workforce, if it cannot get around, the economy cannot function. I remember NINE years ago that Prescott was working to implement an INTEGRATED transport policy.
It Failed.
He Failed.
The Government Failed.
In that time, no major road expansion have been planned, no major capacities been added. This government has been anti-car from Day 1, instead it squandered 100s of BILLIONS of pounds into rail only to create an expensive system with no capacity.
If there was ever a time to protest vehemently and stop this plundering of a soft target (the motorist) and teach this mendacious, vicious government a permanent lesson; it is now.
If only 20% of road commuters used public transport now, the system would collapse.
Of those asked, the vast majority cited quicker than public transport, use car at work and public transport is inconvenient. These reasons look pretty reasonable to me, only a minority admitted to 'enjoying driving to work'
So road pricing has got a massive captive audience and will have some major, major impacts. The report priced the roads at 80p per kilometre or £1.30 per mile at rush hour.
The average commute will cost £2,600 a year compared to around £1,300 in fuel duty and VED (on a car that does 30mpg).
So even abolishing fuel duty and VED, it is a doubling of road charges.
Where is the social justice in this? The poorer will be tempted into driving uninsured, how does that help anyone. Or priced off the road altogether. Is that really fair? The wealthier will not pay more and it probably will not deter them one bit.
It will turn our roads, a public good, paid for by taxation of all into something only the wealthier can use.
Public transport is running at peak capacity now, there is no slack to take on commuters who ditch their car. The choice is either leave the job or move closer to work to either keep using the car or take a local bus. Even if people did move, it would involve mass upheaval of families and place strain on local infrastructure - schools, hospitals, roads, shops.
It is arguable that people working in high property value areas could not move closer, those earning less than average wage would be penalised by then having to either use the roads or take hours to get to work.
This chaotic period would certainly create economic instability. Prices would certainly rise for services as the low paid jobs there rely on would have to pay more to attract a workforce
How road pricing will take people off the roads is unrealistic? It is effectively says it will deliver a reduction to 71% of commuters by car and 29% by public transport.
London's congestion charging has not achieved this even with perhaps the best public transport links in the country, people still drive into London.
So, how are they going to cope with the expansion required to public transport, more buses on the roads? Replacing the congestion made by cars with congestion made by buses.
The economy is dependent on the mobility of its workforce, if it cannot get around, the economy cannot function. I remember NINE years ago that Prescott was working to implement an INTEGRATED transport policy.
It Failed.
He Failed.
The Government Failed.
In that time, no major road expansion have been planned, no major capacities been added. This government has been anti-car from Day 1, instead it squandered 100s of BILLIONS of pounds into rail only to create an expensive system with no capacity.
If there was ever a time to protest vehemently and stop this plundering of a soft target (the motorist) and teach this mendacious, vicious government a permanent lesson; it is now.
If only 20% of road commuters used public transport now, the system would collapse.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff