Road pricing Pro/Con balance sheet...

[SafeSpeed]

I want to develop a comprehensive Pro/Con balance sheet for the whole road pricing idea. I'll start the ball rolling...

Pro

- Claimed to reduce congestion. (I don't believe it for a second, actually)

Con

- Invades privacy
- Very expensive to develop and install
- Very expensive to operate
- Invites evasion and frauds (so requires considerable Policing)
- Highly regressive (charges the poor proportionately more)
- No good as a carbon tax (while fuel duty is perfect as a carbon tax)
- Minor roads get more traffic (= reduction in safety, because smaller roads are generally riskier roads)
- Hard to know in advance what the charge for a journey will be (especially at very early stages of journey planning, such as deciding where to live or where to work.)
- Complex, so people will drive, pay and moan, without ever bothering to discover when and where they incurred the higher charges
- Invites refuseniks (I'm one already!)
- Invites mindless and pointless automated enforcement (e.g. speeding fines)
- No one believes that it would be 'tax neutral'.
- Used as justification for massive costs of Galileo (Euro-GPS)

With all this, one wonders at the true motivations... Money for suppliers? Trojan for ISA? Trojan for anti-car?

Safe Speed provided written evidence on the proposal to the House of Commons Transport Committee in November 2004.

Any more Pros, Cons or anything else?

[Dixie]

Pro, they say it can also be used for surveillance tracking (crime/terrorism) though I doubt that also.

[Dixie]

They showed a test on TV last week where they tracked 4 car users and one thing that was highlighted was that one car was tracked every minute and registered on a computer screen in the form of a data base. Imagine what will be needed to monitor 30 million cars. The presenter said he couldn’t see it working, it all looked to complex. I can see it turning into another multi million computer cock up by the government .

[teabelly]

If EDS get the contract for implementation it won't work! They are the ones that screwed up every other contract they got. Funny how one of their board members used to work at Deloitte n Touche which are the labour party's accountants and who also gave them money....

Having the full cost of road usage on fuel would be a much better way to go. The only downside with that is that there are biofuels available which really don't pollute like a fossil fuel does so they should be charged at a lower rate and if the rate was too low no-one would choose fossil fuels and GB would have a bigger black hole in his finances.

The biggest con is public transport. It is total crap. My mother remembers the days of when there were buses all the time, most of which were back to back. Only the well off had cars. Unless you are going to have back to back bus services (largly moving air around) it isn't going to be acceptable. The bottom line is that a car going when you want and where you want with no driving around aimlessly at either end is the most efficient form of transport. Buses are inefficient and so are trains unless the occupation level is very high.

I personally think easy by the hour car hire, much cheaper taxis and moving freight onto rail is a much better way of dealing with transport problems. Car sharing in a high quality taxi would appeal to a lot more people as it means none of them was responsible for driving but they could all share in the costs. Improving taxis image so it becomes more of a chauffered service rather than a white knuckle ride with a nutter might be a good place to start....

I also think choices of schools should be removed from parents and everyone would have to attend the nearest school regardless. That would cut down on a lot of needless ferrying around of school kids. Perhaps road charging should only be implemented for those people with kids?! After all it is the breeders which are creating pollution for the future - all those nappies, plastic toys etc must be quite a contributer

What happens if road charging is so successful everyone refuses to travel any more? That's the ultimate threat. I'm sure GB would be really chuffed if everyone got rid of their car, packed in their jobs and went to claim the dole...

[Graeme]

Pros - From a Government point of view the control and spying potential is great.


Cons -

- The cost - whatever's said the cost will be massive, both initial and ongoing. It will be paid for by the motorist. Even claims of "tax neutral" will be "after running costs". It's all wasted money that will go into the pockets of contractors.

- Privacy - completely blows away any claims that we are free to come and go as we like. There is no way on earth that this data will not eventually be used for other means.

- Won't have any effect on the number of miles travelled - it may cause more traffic in villages & less on the motorway, which is not very desirable

- There's no viable alternative to travel by car

- How does it work for foreigners who cross the channel for a visit (or foreign lorries)

[malcolmw]

How does it work for foreigners who cross the channel for a visit (or foreign lorries)

Just like the foreign registered car I will be driving if this goes ahead.

[teabelly]

Pro - it makes a direct link between car usage and cost depending on time of travel like public transport does. One can't pre-book a car journey in advance like on PT which seems rather unfair so it is only half a pro...

Con: If it doesn't apply to foreign vehicles then I wonder when the first enterprising soul will set up a foreign registry of vehicles so we can all travel around for free and incognito thus rendering their system a total waste of time and money. If enough people do this then they cannot enforce things as there are only a minority of policemen.

Con: How is the charging scheme going to work when your vehicle is left in someone else's care? Who will arbitrate between parties when some garage has gone out for a spin during the £1.34 a mile time?

Con:

How are you going to stop those that don't pay their bills from driving? It can't be done now with all those getting banned so how would it be enforced against many thousand more who say stick your bill?

Possible effects:

Will companies in expensive zones lose custom as people to choose to shop in cheaper places? Will towns which charge less per mile see in a influx of visitors and prosper while expensive ones become deserted? As towns are more congested will it not just make people choose to shop out of town as it is cheaper? Will delivery companies start charging more to people who live in the expensive areas thus creating a bigger divide between those in cheap areas and those in expensive ones? Will house prices plummet in expensive areas and thus leave people in negative equity, unable to sell the house and unable to commute to work as it would be too expensive? Will those on the minimum wage abandon work as it no longer pays them to bother?

To solve the problem of journey cost it would be fairly simple to add the details into the navigation systems that are around at the moment. You could then put in your journey, time of day and it should give you a reasonable idea. Only snag is if you are caught in congestion and then get delayed into a more expensive time. Also do we trust the authorities that when making a diversion for some reason they won't just send people along the most expensive route to rake in more money?

[ed_m]

Pro - it makes a direct link between car usage and cost depending on time of travel like public transport does. One can't pre-book a car journey in advance like on PT which seems rather unfair so it is only half a pro...

finally someone with a pro !

do fear this pro/con sheet is rather doomed from the outset.

we're assuming the worst in all cases & assuming alot of implementation details.

would it not be better to start off with pros & cons of the concept... which i actually quite like.... and then attribute the cons to their source, mostly distrust of the government, the implementation or the technology.

i think in principle charging minimal less VED & fuel tax and moving that to a per mile driven basis is as good an incentive as we're going to manage to a) reduce car use & b) get flexible school/work hours.

whilst i'd agree with many of the cons on here.. i wonder if we should be deciding what the safespeed utopian system is (apart from empty roads & free petrol obviously)....ok, utopian is the wrong word...realistic perhaps is better and then comparing how the various systems on offer compare to it.

[Dixie]

Just how much is all this going to cost? If a NHS computer has cost in the region of 40B and doesn’t work, it’s very much looks as if this scheme is going to cost Trillions. Can the Government justify this amount of money?

[civil engineer]

Conceptually I can see benefits but I just don't know how it will ever work.

How will it ever be fairly applied?

If we have it though it must be accompanied by scrapping of fuel and VED costs.

[SafeSpeed]

would it not be better to start off with pros & cons of the concept... which i actually quite like.... and then attribute the cons to their source, mostly distrust of the government, the implementation or the technology.

I can't see that... ANY system will invoke the cons in the first post. If you disagree, please specify.

whilst i'd agree with many of the cons on here.. i wonder if we should be deciding what the safespeed utopian system is (apart from empty roads & free petrol obviously)....ok, utopian is the wrong word...realistic perhaps is better and then comparing how the various systems on offer compare to it.

It's up to the government to provide road capacity and up to the market to use it wisely. This system cannot be improved upon.

Congestion is its own regulator. And ALWAYS will be. Adding a marginal charge to a self-regulated system can NEVER do more than shift balances slightly. (Fewer poor folk on the roads and more rich, for example.)

DfT say that congestion costs business £20billion pa. Isn't that a congestion charge? Could that be why there's an 'M4 corridor'? Businesses have ALREADY moved to get better road connections - and will continue to do so if it is economic.

[SafeSpeed]

Pro - it makes a direct link between car usage and cost depending on time of travel like public transport does.

But that link already exists on the basis that time is money. Travelling at a congested time costs more time.

To solve the problem of journey cost it would be fairly simple to add the details into the navigation systems that are around at the moment. You could then put in your journey, time of day and it should give you a reasonable idea. Only snag is if you are caught in congestion and then get delayed into a more expensive time. Also do we trust the authorities that when making a diversion for some reason they won't just send people along the most expensive route to rake in more money?

Yes, but:

- We often make decisions about journeys ten years ahead. Imagine the boss deciding where to locate a business; the worker deciding where to live and so on.

- We may find it relatively easy to find out what a journey will cost when we are ready to leave. But that doesn't mean that we'll easily be able to work out and fit in the same journey at a cheaper time.

- I presume there will be sudden charge jumps. I can just imagine folk racing to clear the area before the higher charge applies.

[ed_m]

would it not be better to start off with pros & cons of the concept... which i actually quite like.... and then attribute the cons to their source, mostly distrust of the government, the implementation or the technology.

I can't see that... ANY system will invoke the cons in the first post. If you disagree, please specify.

- Invades privacy

this assumes the implementation is a positions logging system that post-processes the data.
ideally it needn't store anything but cumulative usage/cost.

[SafeSpeed]

would it not be better to start off with pros & cons of the concept... which i actually quite like.... and then attribute the cons to their source, mostly distrust of the government, the implementation or the technology.

I can't see that... ANY system will invoke the cons in the first post. If you disagree, please specify.

- Invades privacy

this assumes the implementation is a positions logging system that post-processes the data.
ideally it needn't store anything but cumulative usage/cost.

I can't see any possibility that people will be prepared to pay an unverifable bill. Can you? Really? I'd dispute every bill. I PROMISE.

[Ziltro]

this assumes the implementation is a positions logging system that post-processes the data.
ideally it needn't store anything but cumulative usage/cost.

Like those pay-as-you-go mobile phones which did the billing on the handset and most of them got hacked?

I still haven't seen any description of how the proposed system can differentiate between an enclosed garage and a bit of tin foil.

Something I read elsewhere on here: (can't remember who wrote it though )

Pro: Stops people complaining about the already high/vehicle fuel taxes.

[Dixie]

would it not be better to start off with pros & cons of the concept... which i actually quite like.... and then attribute the cons to their source, mostly distrust of the government, the implementation or the technology.

I can't see that... ANY system will invoke the cons in the first post. If you disagree, please specify.

- Invades privacy

this assumes the implementation is a positions logging system that post-processes the data.
ideally it needn't store anything but cumulative usage/cost.

When I watched an example on the TV they not only had a data base logging every minuite of a cars whereabouts but also had a screen with a map on it monitoring a cars every move, it could even zoom in to show you what side of the road you where on, whether your car was stationary or on the move, and your direction of travel. With the present governments record who's to say this information won’t be used at a later date? I certainly don't trust them one iota.

[antera309]

Con: Can we really trust the Government and IT operators to keep the data safe? Detailed logs of individuals' movements could be dangerous if they fall into the wrong hands - such as a potential burglar knowing where you live and exactly what times of day you're not in.

Con: All electronic devices can be circumvented. GPS tranceivers will be no exception. Enforcement of correct use on millions of vehicles will be difficult and hence very costly to the taxpayer (whereas tax on fuel requires no enforcement whatsoever at consumer level)

Con: The desire to evade the new tax will prompt thousands more people to go "under the radar" by driving unregistered, unlicensed and uninsured. We have already seen this with Speed Cameras.

Con: If it is NOT tax neutral and the net cost of road transport rises, this will raise the cost of products & services to the consumer, and hence raise inflation.

Con: There is talk of using road pricing to discourage the use of residential roads as "Rat Runs" whereby residents of that road pay a much lower rate than non-residents. If this becomes practice, every NIMBY idiot in the Country will be writing to the Council asking for higher non-resident pricing on THEIR roads in the hope that resulting lower traffic volumes will increase the value of their property (although they will end up awfully lonely because no-one will be able to afford to visit them!)

Con: People doing U-turns and reversing up Motorway slips to avoid proceeding onto high-price roads will cause congestion chaos and accidents.

Con: Giving drivers something else to worry about will be a further distraction from the task of safe driving (imagine everyone rushing to get off the M25 by 7:30AM, or drivers being distracted by their GPS box beeping to warn of a pricing change)

[dave the nutter]

con: if the bill comes in after you have made the journey what is to stop you ending up with a bill you can't pay? most other expenses are pay in advance

[Zamzara]

Pro: could be fairer for people who do low mileages (this assumes it replaces road tax which is a big assumption)

Con: people could be forced to race home before a high charge period starts, or risk facing a bill they can't afford.

[toltec]

KISS springs to mind.

Otherwise -


- can detect unregistered, and as it would have to be the driver/car combination, uninsured/unlicensed vehicles allowing bollards to be raised at the appropriate moment thus destroying the car. The system is run by computers so the above could never happen by mistake, could it.

- system apparently has no link to how much fuel a vehicle uses so why bother having a green vehicle when fuel without duty will be cheap.

- your insurance company will be able to see exactly how many miles you drive and what type of roads. You will pay a basic fire and theft premium and simply get a monthly bill dependent on risk, extra premiums will be charged for exceeding the speed limit or driving anywhere near other drivers that are known to be a poor risk.

I am stating the ridiculous I hope.