Safe Speed Forums

Someone's still obsessing about road pricing. I was one of the signatories of that BIG petition against it.

Britain's transport infrastructure is "not fit for purpose", with the cost of congestion likely to soon exceed the current figure of £20 billion a year, a report from a centre-right think tank said.

Britain had the most crowded and congested roads, the fewest motorways and "some of the worst public transport" among leading industrialised countries, the report from Policy Exchange said.

Congestion was now endemic, affecting not just large cities but also motorways and small towns, added the report, which was produced in co-operation with task management company Serco and law firm Bevan Brittan LLP.

"Relatively small" road charging schemes on congestion hotspots would soon pay for improvements, the report said.

For example, a six-hour peak time weekday charge of 10p per kilometre (10p/km) on a six-lane motorway priced to run close to capacity could in a year raise around £1.5 million per km - sufficient to pay for widening to eight lanes or, to construct a brand new six-lane motorway in parallel, the report said.

A charge of 5p/km for cars and light vans and 10p/km for goods vehicles on all roads could, in a year, raise over £25 billion - enough to pay for the construction of 1,200 miles of six-lane motorway.

In context, this would mean that a doubling in the size of the current motorway network could be paid for in under two years.

Policy Exchange chief economist Dr Oliver Hartwich said: "Britain's transport infrastructure is, quite simply, not fit for purpose and unable to meet the needs of a modern country. Transport infrastructure investment has become detached from consumer demand."

Policy Exchange said the deficiencies of UK transport infrastructure were not reflected in a shortage of tax revenues from transport. In 2006 private road users paid around £32 billion in transport-related taxes. Of this, just £8 billion was spent on the road network.

Policy Exchange added that of this £8 billion - which is enough in theory to construct at least 400 miles of six-lane motorway - a large proportion was spent on repairing damage to the roads and another significant portion on anti-traffic and safety measures.

So a significant portion was spent on anti-traffic measures! Pray tell, would these measures CAUSE road congestion? What do you think? I suppose all the flip-chart and Power Point gurus in that think-tank missed that completely.

_________________
Anyone who tells you that nothing is impossible has never bathed in a saucer of water.

Seems to me they get enough money out of motoring already and have only chosen to spend a small fraction of it on infrastructure and change for many decades. Say no to road charging.

Perhaps if everything had 'nt been privatised they could have run them like real business and put the profit back in rather than giving it to shareholders, large companies etc or keeping private business going with huge grants. If I remember rightly they are only just now saying that the rail companies must make a profit and reducing grants, how many years have we been subsidising the train companies now?

They may have bought new trains but have they actually paid for them?

To be against road pricing is to be on a hiding to nothing, its going to happens, its got to, we can't go on the way we're going.

Just like we can't go on filling up landfill sites, and will absolutely have to charge people to dump non recyclable rubbish, (despite the loud voices of the dissenters), we're going to have to introduce road pricing.

weepej - please can you:

- explain why Mr Bliar thought it 'unfair for taxpayers to subsidise motorists' when only a very small proportion of taxation raised from motorists and road transport is actually spent on roads - and, therefore, why it is fair for those groups to subsidise the exchequer?

- explain to us simpletons WHY you consider road pricing to be inevitable?

Anti-car nonsense. It won't help, it won't stop the need to make the journeys we're already making, it will just make drivers poorer. And that of course is the intention. No-one seriously thinks that this car-hating government is actually trying to help motorists with road pricing, do they?

We need to remove the myriad of congestion-causing measures and build more roadspace, using part of the huge amount of tax that the motorist already pays. And no, extra roadspace does not automatically get filled up with traffic. That's more debunked malicious anti-car nonsense.

I'm fed up with liars talking about road pricing as if it's the only option. They can only have a hidden agenda otherwise they would consider everything properly on its merits. I find it hard to believe that anyone with any intelligence genuinely thinks that road pricing will solve congestion or benefit motorists in the slightest.

Thank goodness for the Edinburgh vote, and thank goodness that Manchester is going the same way. People, and even some councils, are treating road pricing with the contempt it deserves.


Recycling (other than drinks cans) is another load of unnecessary claptrap. For a start, the stuff about "filling up landfill sites" is alarmist eco-nonsense. If the whole of the US carried on producing rubbish at the current rate and it all went into the same landfill site for the next 50,000 years, what would the diameter of the landfill site need to be?

A whole 35 miles. "Can't go on filling up landfill sites" my foot. But as ever, as with cameras, climate change, road pricing and all the other barmy ideas that are inflicted on us, those with hidden agendas don't let awkward facts or numbers get in the way of their selfish self-promoting self-righteousness. Never have we had so many people knowingly trying to hold back humanity for their own benefit. It's appalling and they clearly have no shame.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

It is already happening, in the sense that we pay tax on fuel. Why introduce a whole separate level of taxation that is far harder to administer, when a 'pay per mile system' already exists?

People don't sit in jams because they want to, congestion is its own tax.

How long for?

Risky to build a whole nother layer on top of this when the revenue required could disappear practically overnight.

*cough M25*




Hmmm, how deep would it be?

The LGA warned that an area of 109 square miles was already used as landfill in the UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7089963.stm

There aren't that many places in the UK that are suitable for landfill waste.

...and how deep would that be??

mb

Provided it was set at about 2-3p per mile, I'd be happy for CC to be brought in because it would be roughly revenue neutral to an average motorist by scrapping road tax. It seems fair that if you use more then you pay more. And no, fuel duty doesn't do that, because you can just buy a little diesel that does 60mpg and pay half the tax of someone else despite taking up just as much road space.

The system probably can't be made to work at the figures I suggest, because of overheads, but in principle, it would be good idea. Although yes, I don't trust this Government not to use it as a revenue raising tool. But just because this Government can't be trusted doesn't mean that CC in itself is a bad idea.

In an ideal world, insurance should also be paid per mile, which would encourage people to think if their journey was required, and congestion would decrease.

I don't believe at all that EVERY journey is essential. With a bit of thought and planning it's easy to cut down milage.

_________________
In a former life I was Capri2.8

I also don't think many people actually think about how much it actually costs to move a car from one place to another.

If at the end of the journey your car told you how much it'd just cost I'm sure people would start to think a bit more about it, and possible alternatives.

Its the same with electricity meters, they sit their spinning round with their weird dials that you can't work out how to read, but if they simply stated how much money per minute you were currently spending in big red letters I'm sure many would be motivated to keep it low as they could.

I said "automatically". Where extra roadspace does fill up with traffic, it's because of suppressed demand that's only there because there were inadequate roads in the first place.

As PeterE said on another thread, new towns have lots of roads, and they haven't filled up.

It's clearly nonsense to say that extra roadspace automatically fills up. There is only a finite number of cars and drivers.

I expect I won't get a reply to this since once again I've just destroyed your argument. (A "You're right" would be nice in such situations.)


I don't know and I don't care.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

It costs me 15.5p per mile.
All current legislatively required costs, plus service costs, plus fuel costs.
Since there is **N O** chance of TAX being reduced and NO chance of FUEL TAX being reduced if "road pricing" comes you can add that onto the 15.5 p.

Before you ask, if translated to public transport (not possible, since pt does not allow carriage of tools or goods)(except trains, and that means leaving the van in a carpark...carrying tools etc to the station...and on...and on..) the cost per annum would be in excess of £15000.

As for my electric meter....it reads in KWH. Which is what I'm charged for. So the charge would be KWH X Cost per KWH. At the end of the week/month/quarter you read the full cost KHW, read the off-peak KWH.
Do the sums:
300 KWH X 7.5 p per KWH.
100 KWH X 4.0 p per KWH.
Not hard.

It's being changed next month for one that gives you the cost total, and the unit use.

Rocket science it isn't.

Same as cars, they will always be more convenient than PT, for some the time and distance of travel will be more important than the convenience. Some also get an annual allowance for travel from their company, some get the fare paid in full, and some get reserved seats. Some pay the cost themselves.

For the government the congestion problem is not an issue, the money they can extract is the issue. Government is inefficient, costly and wasteful. It's one big advantage over every other biz is that it does not have to be either efficient, cost-effective or economical. It just taxes us more to make up for its problems.
Since 1997 we have enlisted (we pay for) more than three quarters of a million more public servants. As well as the funding for many thousands of non-government organisations and many thousands of professional advisors. All this has to be paid for. We pay for it. On top of my £3100 travel costs I have to find £5200 for money that the government takes from me directly. On top of that is another £2500 (approx...yet) for non-earning related taxes.

That is £9500.00 from me, to the gov, every year.

And what do I get for it ?

I get a health service that trys to kill me when I'm ill, a dental service that I pay for but have to pay for again. And my paid employeees lie to me, cheat taxes and don't declare cash they've been bribed with to represent various companies and give them contracts to operate camera systems to spy on me.
In short, government is comprised of crooks and conmen.
They do a bad job, do it slowly and do it expensively.

Although it's a somewhat pedantic point, it won't be 15.5p for every mile. The first few miles will be more when the engine is cold, the later one less when it's warmed up. Different roads will also give different figures. Theres more wear and tear at cold temperatures.

Of course the idea weepej is not really possible to take everything into account, but it's an interesting point. Perhaps congestion would be cut if some people realised how much it cost per mile with a cold engine just to nip somewhere that could be done on foot or at another time?

_________________
In a former life I was Capri2.8

Yet.



More than could fit on ours roads if everybody decided to go out for a drive at the same time.



Nice, but wrong.



Do you know that'd it'd be 35 miles wide as well?

The 15.5p per mile is the TOTAL cost, not the FUEL cost alone. Welcome to the world of the average cost, where I cost things over a period of time.
It is difficult for me to go on a short trip, since I live 3 miles from the nearest shop. Congestion would hardly be cut just by people not driving to the shop. The main cause of congestion is people going to work, usually at the same times. Since most people do not work in the road, or in many cases the TOWN where they live, asking them to increase the time they spend getting to work (in many cases quite considerably) just to save nothing is a bit irritating.
Public transport is also the CAUSE of large amounts of pollution. A 20 year old bus burning 1 gallon of [high sulphur] diesel every 3 miles is hardly going to save the planet. Similarly for "london black cabs", a vehicle that would not be allowed into the low emission area if it was not for exemption.

Sorry everyone for the hjeg2-style interleaving.


Some "new" towns have been around for several decades (e.g. Milton Keynes) and their roads are still relatively uncongested. Can you provide an example of a new town with a decent road system which has "filled up"?

Presumably you also subscribe to the idea that when roadspace is deliberately removed, traffic just melts away?


I don't think that's strictly true. But even if it was, if you built enough roads, it wouldn't be. Therefore it is nonsense to say that new roadspace will automatically fill up no matter what and no matter how much you build. Agreed? (I'll take silence as a "yes".)


It's happened countless other times, and not just with me. When you're beaten, or you're asked a difficult question, you slink off and sulk, only to make the same incorrect assertions again later on in other threads. If I hadn't said the above then I don't think you would have replied.

If you disagree, then if you want I'll start a thread with some previously unanswered questions that I'd like you to answer. If you'd like to do the same with me then feel free (not that I purposely avoid answering difficult questions).


Yes, it wasn't some kind of trick. I can't remember whether it was circular or square, but 35 miles was the maximum width/length anywhere. I saw it on the "Environmental Hysteria" episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, which is an excellent programme where they are very good at debunking, well, bullshit. They do their research thoroughly and they don't lie, so I believe the 35 mile thing.

That particular episode is one of the very best IMHO. At one point they interviewed the organiser of some large "environmental" convention, and it was glaringly, squirmingly obvious just how little she actually knew. Unlike so many politicians she unfortunately didn't even have the knack of sounding like she was talking sense. Even the most hardline "environmentalist" would have to admit that she didn't have a clue.

They also got people at the convention to sign a petition to ban DHMO (water). A large percentage of those asked just signed it without looking into the matter at all. The whole programme made it incredibly obvious that most "environmentalists" are either thinly-veiled communists, or people who just want to be seen to be "green" and don't do any of their own research. I recommend it to anyone here. The whole 23-minute episode is on Youtube in three parts here, here and here. Well worth it, I promise.

They haven't done a speed camera episode yet, presumably because the wretched devices aren't yet a national problem in the US. The Rush may be fed up where he is, but at least he can move if it gets too bad. I suppose we could all move to North Yorkshire and Durham, but that may change their unspoilt character somewhat.

_________________
Paul Smith: a legend.

"The freedom provided by the motor vehicle is not universally applauded, however: there are those who resent the loss of state control over individual choice that the car represents. Such people rarely admit their prejudices openly; instead, they make false or exaggerated claims about the adverse effects of road transport in order to justify calls for higher taxation or restrictions on mobility." (Conservative Way Forward: Stop The War Against Drivers)

I never said it wasn't the total cost. What I'm saying is you can't take that figure for every single mile because some will be more and some will be less. Weepej's point was to have a total cost displayed after every journey. Ignoring the techical aspects of the suggestion for now, it would be interesting and may make people think again about taking short journies, because the cost per mile is higher. Since you live 3 miles from a shop, I'm sure you can appriciate the importance of trying not to forget things, because I'm sure it is a drag to have to make a 6 mile round trip for a pint of milk.

I never commented on pollution so I don't why you bring that into it, we're talking about congestion and the cost of running a car. To be honest, 15.5p is cheap, I would be delighted if my car only cost 15.5p a mile to run!

My point was, and still is, if you make an effort it's quite easy to cut down on the amount of miles you drive, saving money and congestion. If don't want to, that's fine, it's a free country. I just don't support the building of more roads in general, other than a few specific by-passes when congestion is throughout the day.

If you do support more roads to cut congestion, or any other means, that's fine, we're all entitled to our opinions.

_________________
In a former life I was Capri2.8