Pay as You go Road charge plans

adamskibx · Post by **adamskibx** » 06 Jun 2005, 06:05

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4610755.stm
What do you think of this. Personally I think its a terreble idea as it wont make any difference if you drive a small car or a Range Rover-Just found out abnout this as im revising for an exam tomorrow which is all about environmental management etc, argghhh im tired but im going on till 4 AM!!!!

Homer · Post by **Homer** » 06 Jun 2005, 07:23

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"The advantage is that you would free up capacity on the roads, <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
How would it? People have to go places, often with no viable alternative. Hiking fuel prices year on year didn't drive people out of their cars why should road pricing?
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"This is a prize well worth going for. We've got to ask ourselves: would it work.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Could it bring the benefits that I believe it could bring,<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A satellite tracking system would be used to enforce the toll, with prices varying from 2p per mile for driving on a quiet road out of the rush hour to £1.34 for motorways at peak times.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Current satellite technology is not accurate enough to distinguish between a busy motorway and a quiet road running alongside it. Satnav systems have to have an inbuilt "dead reckoning" system to cope with city driving where tracking is often lost.
Oh and there is the whole "big brother" can of worms.
And who will pay for the equipment? The same mugs they expect to pay for ID cards I suspect.[:(!]

madasafish · Post by **madasafish** » 06 Jun 2005, 13:55

As it will be a MAJOR IT project to make it work (DVLA x several), it will be (another) Gov't huge cost overrun and it will not work!#
(I did not travel 3,500,123 miles in June 2007 all along M6 to Glasgow 200 times a day costing £2500.. I was in France at the time... sort of problems).

oilyspanner · Post by **oilyspanner** » 06 Jun 2005, 14:10

Lets face it guys it will be another government IT overspend fiasco designed to get us all going to work on the tube, once again forgetting that we dont all live in cities or commute at the same time to the same place, I would like to see some more car sharing initiatives, surely with the recent improvements in communications technology like mobile phones and the web many of the problems could be surmounted. when we are in heavy traffic its still normal to see mostly single occupancy vehicles.
Stewart

Kowalski · Post by **Kowalski** » 06 Jun 2005, 15:18

The whole premise of reducing congestion is that congestion is bad and unpleasant.
So the government wants to reduce this unpleasantness by making it MORE unpleasant via taxation. The end result will be that the elite rich enjoy the new congestion free rush hour and everybody else can naff off.
The government taxes fuel, so I drive a diesel car. The congestion is bad 8-9 and 5-6, so I come into work a little later and avoid the worst of the traffic. I have no choice in the route I drive, and I'm already doing my bit to reduce rush hour congestion. This legislation is going to punish people who have no alternative but to drive to work. Its not going to punish fuel inefficient cars, it'll do nothing about the current trend in 4x4s. When this legislation comes into force, I'm buying a V6.....
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Current satellite technology is not accurate enough to distinguish between a busy motorway and a quiet road running alongside it. Satnav systems have to have an inbuilt "dead reckoning" system to cope with city driving where tracking is often lost.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
There is surveying equipment available using GPS which will give a position down to 10mm (in ideal conditions). These are expensive systems but it gives you an idea of what will be possible cheaply in the future. The "ideal conditions" is the critical bit here, I have no idea what their worst case resolution is but at a guess, it'll be pretty bad once you get enough scatter and bounce going from tall buildings and you could confuse it even more by moving too.
Lets say the government says that every car must have a tracking box fitted, whats to stop me from leaving it at home? Or wrapping it in tinfoil so it doesn't know where it is? How about unplugging it too?

howiedean · Post by **howiedean** » 06 Jun 2005, 15:37

Hopefully I'll win the lottery and enjoy congestion free motorways while everyone one else sits in traffic jams on the A and B roads[:o)]
I think they need to do some homework with his one. Sounds like another stealth tax to me!!!

gjb02 · Post by **gjb02** » 06 Jun 2005, 17:59

Not forgetting the ability to track your average speed!!
Wiltshire at 0840 - Oxfordshire 0900 - Norfolk 1100 ....average speed 85 mph. Instant speeding ticket!!
Big Brother is watching you![:(!]
I'd rather pay £160 for tax and 90p / litre for my fuel.

born2die · Post by **born2die** » 06 Jun 2005, 19:07

load of rubish this idea. I have no real alternative but to drive 20 minuits into work (it takes 1hr+ on a bus) and after a few quick calculations if I drive on a 2p per mile road for 4 miles and a 20p per mile road for the remaining 5 miles then the return trip at the same rates + about 50 miles a week running around etc at an average of 10p per mile this equates to 158 miles per week average 8500 per year + other bits and pieces at an average of 15p per mile so say 11500 per year at the above rates
Average commute £7.96 per week
£34.49 per month
£413.92 Per year
But when the extra 3000 miles is taken into account (Only an extra 50 miles per week)eg holidays taxi service for the other half kids dnace lessons etc then this rises to a dramatic
£863.92 total per year ********************************
where do I go to emigrate to warmer cheaper climate.
I estimate that at 30 mpg and duty on fuel at 50p per litre + road tax at the moment it costs me about £400 per year in stealth taxes so I cant see how I would be better off unless they want to throw insurance in for the same pence per mile system eg 2p per mile including fuel tax road tax and insurance. (well we can all dream)

bikeboyz · Post by **bikeboyz** » 06 Jun 2005, 19:51

What complete clap trap - suggestions of black boxes. If you can get a mobile phone unlocked for a few quid it wont take long to get a black box decoded too. Yeah pay as you go if a fair way of arguing for taxes, but not in this way. Why not abolish road tax, and adjust the fuel tax. Use more, pay more. Drivers of gas guzzling cars pay more for it, and ulta economy vehicles pay a lot less for the same miles. It might upset the classic car owners, but then again for many its only a case of a couple thousand a year, and a lot of classics like my 504 still pay full wack tax anyway. It might cause a hoo-haa at DVLA with jobs etc but vehicles will still need registering. The extra tax collected from all the current un-taxed vehicles running around will pay fairly too. Perhaps some of that revenue can go to sending us MOT reminders - odd they soon tell you if you havent payed tax, but not if your vehicle MOT is expired and could be unsafe (joe bloggs wouldn't know a perished brake pipe from a good one). Rant over!

Kowalski · Post by **Kowalski** » 06 Jun 2005, 19:53

I can't see this scheme being accepted really.
If the government is going to penalise people for driving on certain roads at certain times, they had better be absolutely clear and free from traffic. No doubt it will be the next government that gets the blame for this scheme, along with a load of other things the our mate Tony has introduced.

Oscar Too · Post by **Oscar Too** » 06 Jun 2005, 19:54

Follow the money.
There are scads of big IT companies and consultancies paying huge sums to lobbying companies to convince the Govt. that another big IT project is the magic bullet. ID cards will stop terrorists AND identity theft, and probably anti-social behaviour and teenage pregnancies too, depending on the tabloid headline of the week. Satnav will instantly free up all our roads, turning Britain into a free-flowing drivers' paradise. Well, none of those things will happen, but some shareholders and managers will get very wealthy from big publicly funded IT projects, that's for sure.
The fact is that the measures to combat congestion are actually low intervention, low-tech and decidedly unsexy. They also won't involve huge procurement projects. Things like: joining the railways back up again, reducing fares and improving service. Making towns safe and pleasant to cycle in. Designing our cities so that we don't depend on the car to move from our sleeping place to our workplace. Encouraging car-sharing schemes. Allowing buses to work better and making them attractive to users. I remember ten years ago in London - a bunch of suits got on a number 25 bus in the City, laughing and sniggering about how they were slumming it. Now, there are suits all over the buses. Why? Because they are clean(er), fast(er) and cheap and easy to use - therefore a much more rational choice.
People make rational choices based on preference. I recently went to Edinburgh by car. I would have preferred to take the train, but it was 2x as expensive and less certain that we would arrive, plus booking is a nightmare, and the thought of being stuck on a line somewhere while Richard Branson welds up the last pieces of track.... so I drove.
By the way, Britain is the only country I have lived in where public transport is as derided, shabby, and unreliable as it is here.
End of Rant

Kowalski · Post by **Kowalski** » 06 Jun 2005, 20:17

Generally I'd agree with you that public transport isn't good BUT...
London is 300 miles away from Newcastle, that's 3 hours on the train (+/- 10 mins depending on which train) or a minimum of 4 hours in the car plus traffic and stops. The only time I use the train so to go down to London, its faster than the car and compares well on cost too, unless you've got more than 1 person to transport.

born2die · Post by **born2die** » 06 Jun 2005, 20:39

I really would use buses but for the fact that at a minimum it costs me £4 per day return or a pass for 1 week at £20 I dont use this in fuel or car tax and using the car means that I get to see my wife and newish born for approx 6 hours extra per week maybee somedays this isnt a good thing but hey ho. + I dont know if its me but every time i get on a bus I always attract the strange person that is inevitably on there.
I have and still do use buses to go into town etc as its cheaper than in the car and I dont struggle to park get baby out etc and can saftly say that I do prefer the car as I can choose my company music and a comfortable ambient temprature.
I think that until the goverment do something about the public transport system there will be an ever increasing ammount of cars on our roads which in turn generates more income for the goverment so I cant see them wanting to deter motorists. Its the same as the chancelor is taxing cigarets to death but when everyne has had enough and quits hopefull all at once then there is a billion £ black hole to fill (more taxes me thinks) so the same could apply to cars and when nobody but the elite rich can afford to smoke drink and drive (not all at once I hope) then the country will be bankrupt food queus everywhere and its our mate tonys fault or whoever is in power on the day
Sounds like 1980s russia this.

Oscar Too · Post by **Oscar Too** » 06 Jun 2005, 20:51

That strange person on the bus - that's me!! [:)]
But that's exactly my point - people will choose cars over public transport for as long as public transport is unreliable, expensive and dirty/unpleasant. Making it better will cost money. And the car lobby is a lot more powerful than the public transport lobby. And as for the cycle lobby ever getting a look in - don't make me laugh.
Public transport is a public good. It pays for itself by getting millions of people to work and back every day, enabling an economy to run. Bringing market solutions to a public good is perverse. And we've seen the results - prices soar, train companies keep shareholders happy and stuff the passengers, unreliability increases. If only Tony had had the balls in 1997 - 98 to reverse the priviatisation. Now it will only ever get from bad to worse.
I live in kent and take the train to London every day. Under Connex South East, the trains were a disgrace - late 40% of the time, no seats, no credibility. But the shareholders were happy - Connex were taking vast public subsidy, wiping it once around the books and giving it out as dividends and bonuses, and ridiculously inflated charges for maintanence work that never got done.
Connex lost their franchise and a non-profit operating company was formed. No shareholders to keep happy. Trains became cleaner, more reliable, better run, happier staff. Now the Govt want to sell that franchise again to another profit-making company!!!!! And they won't admit that a non-profit can run the business better than a profit-making company!!!!!!! So the New Labour project finally disappears up its own fundament.
I'm off for a lie-down in a darkened room.....

yangreen · Post by **yangreen** » 06 Jun 2005, 22:37

As a car enthusiast with a long drive to work (25 miles) and no public transport option unless I fancy sleeping under my desk all week, I'm appalled at this idea. It won't make me use public transport. It will make me leave the country!
Already my hobby costs me a fortune (as my girlfriend likes to remind me!). And what is peak travelling time? Work which we all have to do. Holidays which we all like to do. It's shocking and makes me even more angry that democracy just isn't working in this country. The government have no realistic opposition so they can do what they want. This is more like dictatorship.
Sorry but it upsets me!