Congestion Charging – An Alternative View
Discussion
I’ve thought long and hard about posting this on Pistonheads, but as this forum is about being informed and being a driving enthusiast (rather than just being another one of the 30 million plus motorists in this country), I think the following points at least warrant some debate. This concerns the road pricing proposals and the subsequent public uproar.
The tracking of public vehicles. There is surely an element of scare mongering here. Firstly, do you really think that the government are actually interested or have the resources to track the whereabouts of every single British citizen? If you think they do, then you’re either very paranoid, believe you’re more important than you actually are, a criminal or have a very limited understanding of government / police resources.
The information that I’ve seen clearly states that the data won’t be used to monitor vehicle speeds. If it was, then every single motorist in the country would receive a speeding ticket offence every day (I challenge anyone to suggest that they never exceed a speed limit). No government would allow this to happen, and not withstanding your views of the current incumbents, they’re not that stupid! Did you know that masses of “TRACKER” data (from private vehicles) is already being used by the government to review speeds and journey times? How much harm has that done?
Why are the government and every other (significant) political party promoting congestion charging? Do you really think that they aren’t aware of the potential impact and probable lose of votes?? Hence they’re all going with the softly softly approach. Ignoring the climate change debate, if you look at the detail in terms of traffic growth and road capacity there isn’t a realistic alternative. Anyone who continues to play the “we need to increase road capacity” card needs to look no further than the Tory government dumping their own road building policy in about 1993. A mere 15 years ago, so it’s old news. Even John Major understood that we couldn’t build our way out of this problem. Increasing capacity alone merely encourages more car trips, it’s not a long term solution and trying to promote the need for widespread extra capacity will only discredit any serious campaign. There is no point in suggesting that more people should travel by public transport as it actually has very little impact on reducing car trips and there’s simply no spare capacity anyway (at peak times).
The issue of the poor. About 25% of households have no car, and sizeable chunk of these people are the poorest within the UK. Another 50% of households only have one car. The vast majority of the poor have no access to a car, and majority of those that do, do not travel long commuting distances (anyone care to delve into the Census data?). Yes of course there will be winners and losers but I bet I know which class are really winning due to cheap motoring costs at the moment…
Does a petition represent democracy? It actually represents a strong feeling on a specific issue (which could be based on fact or fiction). Serious debate and the votes of 40 million people represent democracy.
The next few years is going to be very interesting and I haven’t fully made up my mind on the issue, but simply disregarding a change in the vehicle taxation system before considering the wider / long term implications, and having a full and frank debate is just stupid in my book.
As a car enthusiast, I can’t wait to go motoring for free on country roads at the weekend! The rest of my life style will have to change, but travelling less and being delayed less every day will be most welcome. We’re certainly in a hole, but if there’s a REALISTIC alternative to our transport problems, then I’d like to know about it. I’m about to take a big duck..
The tracking of public vehicles. There is surely an element of scare mongering here. Firstly, do you really think that the government are actually interested or have the resources to track the whereabouts of every single British citizen? If you think they do, then you’re either very paranoid, believe you’re more important than you actually are, a criminal or have a very limited understanding of government / police resources.
The information that I’ve seen clearly states that the data won’t be used to monitor vehicle speeds. If it was, then every single motorist in the country would receive a speeding ticket offence every day (I challenge anyone to suggest that they never exceed a speed limit). No government would allow this to happen, and not withstanding your views of the current incumbents, they’re not that stupid! Did you know that masses of “TRACKER” data (from private vehicles) is already being used by the government to review speeds and journey times? How much harm has that done?
Why are the government and every other (significant) political party promoting congestion charging? Do you really think that they aren’t aware of the potential impact and probable lose of votes?? Hence they’re all going with the softly softly approach. Ignoring the climate change debate, if you look at the detail in terms of traffic growth and road capacity there isn’t a realistic alternative. Anyone who continues to play the “we need to increase road capacity” card needs to look no further than the Tory government dumping their own road building policy in about 1993. A mere 15 years ago, so it’s old news. Even John Major understood that we couldn’t build our way out of this problem. Increasing capacity alone merely encourages more car trips, it’s not a long term solution and trying to promote the need for widespread extra capacity will only discredit any serious campaign. There is no point in suggesting that more people should travel by public transport as it actually has very little impact on reducing car trips and there’s simply no spare capacity anyway (at peak times).
The issue of the poor. About 25% of households have no car, and sizeable chunk of these people are the poorest within the UK. Another 50% of households only have one car. The vast majority of the poor have no access to a car, and majority of those that do, do not travel long commuting distances (anyone care to delve into the Census data?). Yes of course there will be winners and losers but I bet I know which class are really winning due to cheap motoring costs at the moment…
Does a petition represent democracy? It actually represents a strong feeling on a specific issue (which could be based on fact or fiction). Serious debate and the votes of 40 million people represent democracy.
The next few years is going to be very interesting and I haven’t fully made up my mind on the issue, but simply disregarding a change in the vehicle taxation system before considering the wider / long term implications, and having a full and frank debate is just stupid in my book.
As a car enthusiast, I can’t wait to go motoring for free on country roads at the weekend! The rest of my life style will have to change, but travelling less and being delayed less every day will be most welcome. We’re certainly in a hole, but if there’s a REALISTIC alternative to our transport problems, then I’d like to know about it. I’m about to take a big duck..
Dan Friel said:
...but if there’s a REALISTIC alternative to our transport problems, then I’d like to know about it.
Corporate tax break on home working and simplified health and safety guidelines for working from home.
The important point is to give the employer (instead of the employee) the incentive to offer home working.
Dan Friel said:
if there’s a REALISTIC alternative to our transport problems, then I’d like to know about it.
Do we have a problem? I believe in personal freedom and choice. Traffic congestion is, in my opinion, self regulating. If a place is so bad people will avoid it. Personally I won't drive into Oxford, hate driving into Reading and very rarely drive into London. It's my choice and one less car on those roads. I once worked in Mayfair and the only reason I took the job was because I had a private underground parking space, that was in the early 90's and since then I have steadfastly refused to work in London. The congestion WILL cause more home-working etc. It's all a matter of balance and in time things balance out. Taxation and charging is a cynical way for government to exploit teh situation to their own advatage! Edited by richb on Thursday 11th January 12:14
Do we not already have a Per mile taxation charge/congestion charge anyway?
Tax on petrol.
People who drive long distances or spend lots of time in congestion will use more fuel, thus paying a higher level of taxation. Similarly the people who choose to drive large 4x4s and 'gas guzzlers' will use more fuel than people running 'eco' friendly hybrids in comparative journey lengths. Same with the Road Taxation bandings.
If they are to bring in this per mile driven scheme will the government remove tax on fuel?
I very much doubt that to be the case.
Tax on petrol.
People who drive long distances or spend lots of time in congestion will use more fuel, thus paying a higher level of taxation. Similarly the people who choose to drive large 4x4s and 'gas guzzlers' will use more fuel than people running 'eco' friendly hybrids in comparative journey lengths. Same with the Road Taxation bandings.
If they are to bring in this per mile driven scheme will the government remove tax on fuel?
I very much doubt that to be the case.
Dan Friel said:
Increasing capacity alone merely encourages more car trips, it’s not a long term solution and trying to promote the need for widespread extra capacity will only discredit any serious campaign.
Where did you get that idea? The BRAKE website?!? Increasing capacity WON'T encourage more trips, as you've said yourself people don't CHOOSE to take public transport, and 99% of people don't go out for a drive for the fun of it - they go because they need to.
So that's either a very misinformed or, worse, a very disingenous comment there. Which can only make us question the quality and/or the motives behind the rest of your article.
Dan Friel said:
About 25% of households have no car, and sizeable chunk of these people are the poorest within the UK. Another 50% of households only have one car.
Every household in my (working class) street has at least one car. Most have 2 or more. I would be very surprised if those figures are accurate and not just more 'blather' like your comment above, although I suspect London will skew the figures slightly.
Also, out of EVERYONE I know, the only households with no cars are my two 80-something Grans...even the Grans-in-law have cars!!!
So once again your credibility has taken a nose-dive. Don't give up the day-job, eh?
My comments regarding increasing road space aren’t an” idea”, it’s fact. Hence why every political party has given up on the widespread road building line (you go ask them the question if you don’t believe me!). Transport is simply like any commodity, if you make it cheaper and easier, then people will use it more. That’s the situation that we’re in, and growth will continue because the cost of motoring will continue to fall (in real terms). Over the last 100 years we’ve made it so easy for people to travel, and we’ve grasped the opportunity with both hands. It’s exactly the same with cheap flights from local airports.
I haven’t come across “BRAKE”, is that some sort of extreme group who intend to misinform?
Tax on petrol is too blunt a method to limit the use of the car, it’s an unfair system that hits those that really need to use the car the most. Any new charging scheme would have to result in a complete change in petrol tax, and the proposals I’ve seen have suggested a complete removal of this tax. Will that actually happen???
Car ownership. Have a dip into the census 2001 data to see where the stats came from. I didn’t believe them the first time I saw them.
My intention for posting was to present some “facts” in the face of many comments that I’ve seen which simply don’t add up, and to have a positive debate about some realistic ideas. We do have a problem as traffic will continue to grow and it’ll continue to cost the UK industry billions per year. We need a solution. I’m interested in the tax breaks for home working, and it’s something that I haven’t come across before. How would that work?
I haven’t come across “BRAKE”, is that some sort of extreme group who intend to misinform?
Tax on petrol is too blunt a method to limit the use of the car, it’s an unfair system that hits those that really need to use the car the most. Any new charging scheme would have to result in a complete change in petrol tax, and the proposals I’ve seen have suggested a complete removal of this tax. Will that actually happen???
Car ownership. Have a dip into the census 2001 data to see where the stats came from. I didn’t believe them the first time I saw them.
My intention for posting was to present some “facts” in the face of many comments that I’ve seen which simply don’t add up, and to have a positive debate about some realistic ideas. We do have a problem as traffic will continue to grow and it’ll continue to cost the UK industry billions per year. We need a solution. I’m interested in the tax breaks for home working, and it’s something that I haven’t come across before. How would that work?
Because the cost per mile will vary depending on the road / location / time of day. Someone in a remote area (where there's no real alternative) may not pay anything at all. Whereas someone driving up the M3 towards London at 0830 on a Monday will get nailed.
The problem. Unchecked, traffic is predicted to grow by between 25% and 40%. The latest stats from the Tories suggest that the cost to the UK economy will double. And then there's the emmissions...
The problem. Unchecked, traffic is predicted to grow by between 25% and 40%. The latest stats from the Tories suggest that the cost to the UK economy will double. And then there's the emmissions...
Edited by Dan Friel on Thursday 11th January 13:54
Dan Friel said:
Because the cost per mile will vary depending on the road / location / time of day. Someone in a remote area (where there's no real alternative) may not pay anything at all. .
And fish live in trees and eat pencils.
You know and I know this will be on top of fuel tax.
There will be no free roads, think of the environment!!!
Dan Friel said:
Because the cost per mile will vary depending on the road / location / time of day. Someone in a remote area (where there's no real alternative) may not pay anything at all. Whereas someone driving up the M3 towards London at 0830 on a Monday will get nailed.
The problem. Unchecked, traffic is predicted to grow by between 25% and 40%. The latest stats from the Tories suggest that the cost to the UK economy will double. And then there's the emmissions...
The problem. Unchecked, traffic is predicted to grow by between 25% and 40%. The latest stats from the Tories suggest that the cost to the UK economy will double. And then there's the emmissions...
And that's fair as well?
I'm sorry, but whilst your original post had credibility, this one has none whatsoever.
The current method of pay as you go IS the fairest means available - as, especially nowadays, the cost of fuel in relation to where you live and how far you travel daily/weekly/monthly is factored into the majority of people's decision making process about which car they shall buy. Diesel v petrol, saloon/estate v hatch, big v small engine, VED band.
What the proposed method does is hit everyone harder, and more so those on lower incomes further out from the town/city.
As for emissions, I hope and pray your NOT referring to CO2 but rather some of the other gasses which are more damaging to our lungs.
We all know the whole CO2 crap is just that.......another guise for another of this Government's agendas.
Edited by pjskel on Thursday 11th January 14:09
The main problem is that congestion occurs because people have to travel and have no realistic alternative.
Charging them to do so won't actually reduce congestion long term, it'll just cost people more.
If a route is heavily congested at certain times, what makes you think that people won't already be avoiding that route / time combination unless they have no alternative?
As has been pointed out, congestion is self-regulating up to a point. When that point has been reached and the roads grind to a halt at certain times because there's no other option, what good is charging the poor schmucks still stuck in the jam going to do?
Charging them to do so won't actually reduce congestion long term, it'll just cost people more.
If a route is heavily congested at certain times, what makes you think that people won't already be avoiding that route / time combination unless they have no alternative?
As has been pointed out, congestion is self-regulating up to a point. When that point has been reached and the roads grind to a halt at certain times because there's no other option, what good is charging the poor schmucks still stuck in the jam going to do?
Dan Friel said:
The problem. Unchecked, traffic is predicted to grow by between 25% and 40%. The latest stats from the Tories suggest that the cost to the UK economy will double. And then there's the emmissions...
OK so you reject my argument that it will become self balancing and people will simply not drive because of the traffic? pdV6 said:
Charging them to do so won't actually reduce congestion long term, it'll just cost people more.
I guess we could look at it slightly differently, In the long term it 'could' reduce congestion on the popular routes because people 'could' be completely priced out of being able to travel to and from work. This 'could' also force people to leave their jobs, in turn 'could' increase unemployment which in turn could cause more people on the social.
I feel the taxation on fuel is by far the most appropriate way to facilitate this 'pay as you go' taxation, and as stated above, there is already a essence of tiering which people often consider when choosing new cars.
OK, calmer, friendlier and more detailed answer.
Not convinced. Gov'ts have given up because they see that any effects are so long-term (like privatisations) that any under-investment will come home to roost during someone else's tenure, and they're short-termist selfish
s. So under their logic why SHOULD they spend money?!? Defence is the same, trains are the same, NHS works on a shorter but still not insubstantial timescale.
As for comparing it to a commodity - sort of. The decade-on-decade reduction in the cost of travel has permitted far freer movement of people than ever before. This has led to a number of things, amongst which is the diaspora of young people to the other end of the country from their family, whether to study, work, or just be out of earshot of a nagging parent!
And on a related vein, the increase in commuting distances (arguably primarily caused by unrestrained house-price inflation pushing people away from London initially and the big corporate centres thereafter).
To increase the cost of travel now will be to impact on the lives and livelihoods of the people who have taken such opportunities, and will as a result have negative social and economic consequences.
I would argue that a better way to reduce congestion is to change the habits of employers (who sadly have far more clout than individuals, so it won't happen):-
- How many jobs are 'stuck' in the big cities because the companies/practices concerned WANT to be based there? And where is the most congestion? On the way into/out of big cities. I would never work in London, and am reluctant to take another job in B'ham (despite the fact that there are lots of fantastic opportunities for me paying a fair whack more in both cities)...and all because of travel time/grief/cost already - road charging won't change my attitude there!
- How many people COULD telecommute at least part of the time? Yet how many employers offer it as an option? None that I know of around here...
- How many people COULD car-share if they didn't have to do the masses of unpaid overtime that is required by UK industry?
You are falling into the current trap that every problem has a tax/price-related solution. Sometimes they don't...sometimes carrot is better than stick!!!
Dan Friel said:
Hence why every political party has given up on the widespread road building line (you go ask them the question if you don’t believe me!). Transport is simply like any commodity, if you make it cheaper and easier, then people will use it more.
Not convinced. Gov'ts have given up because they see that any effects are so long-term (like privatisations) that any under-investment will come home to roost during someone else's tenure, and they're short-termist selfish
s. So under their logic why SHOULD they spend money?!? Defence is the same, trains are the same, NHS works on a shorter but still not insubstantial timescale. As for comparing it to a commodity - sort of. The decade-on-decade reduction in the cost of travel has permitted far freer movement of people than ever before. This has led to a number of things, amongst which is the diaspora of young people to the other end of the country from their family, whether to study, work, or just be out of earshot of a nagging parent!
And on a related vein, the increase in commuting distances (arguably primarily caused by unrestrained house-price inflation pushing people away from London initially and the big corporate centres thereafter). To increase the cost of travel now will be to impact on the lives and livelihoods of the people who have taken such opportunities, and will as a result have negative social and economic consequences.
I would argue that a better way to reduce congestion is to change the habits of employers (who sadly have far more clout than individuals, so it won't happen):-
- How many jobs are 'stuck' in the big cities because the companies/practices concerned WANT to be based there? And where is the most congestion? On the way into/out of big cities. I would never work in London, and am reluctant to take another job in B'ham (despite the fact that there are lots of fantastic opportunities for me paying a fair whack more in both cities)...and all because of travel time/grief/cost already - road charging won't change my attitude there!
- How many people COULD telecommute at least part of the time? Yet how many employers offer it as an option? None that I know of around here...
- How many people COULD car-share if they didn't have to do the masses of unpaid overtime that is required by UK industry?
You are falling into the current trap that every problem has a tax/price-related solution. Sometimes they don't...sometimes carrot is better than stick!!!
havoc said:
You are falling into the current trap that every problem has a tax/price-related solution. Sometimes they don't...sometimes carrot is better than stick!!!
Quite clearly taxation is a crude instrument that only benefits the incumbent government. Anyone except a government economist can see that increasing tax on private transport will have zero affect on car use. Remember how we all bleated when petrol went up to one pound a gallon! And no one will ever pay over two pounds a gallon, and the car industry will be dead if it ever creeps above four pounds a gallon! What are we paying now? £5.00 / gallon and yet you tell us car use is set to increase by 25%-40% 
Clearly people find the money from somewhere...
Especially when there's no realistic alternative. Congestion charging.
Its pointless. At its heart is the assumption that people aren't rational. Unsurprisingly I take the opposite view.
Congestion will not increase by 40%...or even the lower 25%!
So why not?
Because people are rational. If a regular car journey becomes slower to the point where it becomes useless people will seek alternatives. They will use public transport if its quicker and priced so that it is a genuine alternative. Millions of London commuters make this choice already. Travellers will actively seek out alternative routes/times/modes of transport if they are available and faster. Congestion will fix itself.
Similarly if a regular commute becomes too long travellers may choose simply not to make the journey. They will do this by moving home. They will do this by telecommuting. All in the name of personal convenience. Congestion will fix itself if allowed to do so.
The problem is that governments find it very hard to remove taxes and very easy to introduce new ones and they appear to believe that people will only do rational things of they are told/forced to do so.
People are rational. Cost of a journey matters as well as time. So if you want people to decide rationally between flying from London to Edinburgh or driving a Prius up there you need to tax aviation fuel and petrol at the same rate - like that will ever happen - but all the same.
Personally I see "congestion" charging as an invasive insidious tax on freedom. That a Labour government are considering it I find astonishing! After all. If you are wealthy you will well able to afford to pay a congestion charge that the proles cannot. Nice. If you're wealthy the roads will be free of congestion as the poor are forced out of their cars. Government ministers will charge about on practically empty roads...
What really boils my piss about this is that their journey is more important than mine. So they, by paying, get an unfair share of the road. And there I was thinking that these days there were no "classes" and that we were all equal. Apparently some are more equal than others...
Its pointless. At its heart is the assumption that people aren't rational. Unsurprisingly I take the opposite view.
Congestion will not increase by 40%...or even the lower 25%!
So why not?
Because people are rational. If a regular car journey becomes slower to the point where it becomes useless people will seek alternatives. They will use public transport if its quicker and priced so that it is a genuine alternative. Millions of London commuters make this choice already. Travellers will actively seek out alternative routes/times/modes of transport if they are available and faster. Congestion will fix itself.
Similarly if a regular commute becomes too long travellers may choose simply not to make the journey. They will do this by moving home. They will do this by telecommuting. All in the name of personal convenience. Congestion will fix itself if allowed to do so.
The problem is that governments find it very hard to remove taxes and very easy to introduce new ones and they appear to believe that people will only do rational things of they are told/forced to do so.
People are rational. Cost of a journey matters as well as time. So if you want people to decide rationally between flying from London to Edinburgh or driving a Prius up there you need to tax aviation fuel and petrol at the same rate - like that will ever happen - but all the same.
Personally I see "congestion" charging as an invasive insidious tax on freedom. That a Labour government are considering it I find astonishing! After all. If you are wealthy you will well able to afford to pay a congestion charge that the proles cannot. Nice. If you're wealthy the roads will be free of congestion as the poor are forced out of their cars. Government ministers will charge about on practically empty roads...
What really boils my piss about this is that their journey is more important than mine. So they, by paying, get an unfair share of the road. And there I was thinking that these days there were no "classes" and that we were all equal. Apparently some are more equal than others...
Now, this I find really rather odd - I mean have any of the people who like to claim that the poor have no access to cars actually MET anyone poorer than Lower middle class?
In my experience many of the genuinely Working Class families are those most dependent on a car.
If you have a half a million pound house in a City Centre and Working in an office in the same City centre, do you need a car more, or less than someone who lives in a Council Suburb and works on an Industrial Estate, or a fashionably non-central NHS Hospital, or is a Self-Employed tradesman, or has two jobs just make ends meet?
If you can afford a babysitter, do you need a car to, say, get to a supermarket more or less than someone whose meagre income comes from Babysitting?
If you can afford Ocado or Sainsbury's do you need a car more or less than someone who can only afford Netto?
In my experience many of the genuinely Working Class families are those most dependent on a car.
If you have a half a million pound house in a City Centre and Working in an office in the same City centre, do you need a car more, or less than someone who lives in a Council Suburb and works on an Industrial Estate, or a fashionably non-central NHS Hospital, or is a Self-Employed tradesman, or has two jobs just make ends meet?
If you can afford a babysitter, do you need a car to, say, get to a supermarket more or less than someone whose meagre income comes from Babysitting?
If you can afford Ocado or Sainsbury's do you need a car more or less than someone who can only afford Netto?
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff