Drive The Poor Of The Road?

Tout Seul

Tout Seul

Senior Jockey
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
2,628
Last evening I began putting together a post expressing my anger at the Government's consideration of road charges.This morning I read the following article
in the Times by Martin Samuel which relects my views far more effectively.

He does however miss the civil liberties aspects of the proposals. My God, this supposedly Socialist Government is creating a nightmare society for those they should support.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,21...1643593,00.html
 
I'm sure I must have misheard some of the proposals. I was sure I heard a mention of £1.30 per mile for motorway users, less for minor roads.

I do 33,000 miles a year :o :o

I'd be as well on the dole.
 
Mr Samuel should do his research. There is a lot of kite-flying going on and no definite proposals have been made, but the first thing that he ought to know is that the scheme is not a contested one politically as all three major parties are in favour in principle. He should also ask himself why all the motoring and freight transport organisations, quite rightly never slow to defend their members' rights, are in favour of the scheme.

Secondly, the figure of £1.30 which has been much headlined would apply to about 0.5% of motorists. There would be sliding scales depending on which roads were used and at which time of day. As you might expect, the hone counties would be the hardest hit.

But Mr Samuel seems to have missed a very important factor from his piece in the Times - "road pricing", which technologically would not be possible for another ten years at least, would replace the road fund licence and fuel tax. There is a lot to be said for an equitable scheme whereby those who are high users of the road network pay more than those who have low mileage.

Another fact that Mr Samuel seems to have overlooked is the environmental and economic costs of rising car use. Continuing as we are at present will not work. Anyone who has driven, or attempted to do so, in the Los Angeles area between 7.00 am and 9.00 am will know where inaction on congestion can lead.

While no exact figures have been attempted by any interested body at this stage, it is assessed that if congestion on our roads could be reduced by 40% there would be a saving of £10 billion in the economic cost of road congestion.

My own personal view is that government needs to accept that to transfer drivers from their cars to public transport - another environmental must for the future - then the public transport system needs to be efficient and economically priced. There would be a great deal of work to be done there then!

Martin Samuel's article, which I suspect was intended to be humourous anyway, is a poor piece of polemic as he has chosen to omit any compensating reduction in cost to the motorist, has ignored the fact that all political parties and relevant organisations are in favour and he has made no mention of environmental considerations.
 
I can't see much advantage in this over fuel tax. It is undoubtedly a more efficient way to collect tax and has the added advantage of penalising those with petrol guzzling vehicles.
 
Labour kept this up their sleeve didn't they. This proposal hasn't just been dreamt up. I cannot believe that if this had slipped out during the election build up , Labour would be where they are now. As a Labour supporter myself, there is no way I would have voted for them.
 
Telling people they have to pay more tax is never popular. Doing nothing is worse.

I was pissed off when they had a draconian culling of parking spaces here in Dublin, aligned with about a 3/400% increase in the cost of what little parking was left.

I now have 1 car instead of 2. Pay €300 a year less car tax, €700 a year less insurance, €2500 a year less car maintenance (including the cost of the vehicle), €250 a year less parking, €700 a year less fuel and I save about 40 mins a day in travelling time. I pay about €750 for public transport. I am lucky to be on a good public transport route. Using the above as an example, it is hard to see how increasing the costs of motoring by whatever means is likely to fund public transport improvements.
 
Down by the Montrose Hotel - regularly seen at 8.20am at the bus stop at the flyover by UCD having the first fag of the day.
 
Originally posted by Diminuendo@Jun 7 2005, 10:54 AM
Labour kept this up their sleeve didn't they. This proposal hasn't just been dreamt up. I cannot believe that if this had slipped out during the election build up , Labour would be where they are now. As a Labour supporter myself, there is no way I would have voted for them.
Click to expand...
I repeat, it's not a party political issue. Neither would it have been in any party's manifesto as it is at the very minimum ten years away. Road pricing is the expected recommendation from an independent strategic review which is underway. It is supported by Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberals asd well as by the AA and the RAC.

Articles such as the one by Martin Samuel are very misleading but they show, as does the reaction on here, that government, of whatever party, has the task of educating the public in what will be a major issue over the next twenty years.
 
I don't know why road tax (and maybe even 3rd party insurance) is not done away with and added to fuel tax.
 
I don't know why the government (in all it's various guises) manages to take 50% of all money earned in this country in tax, but still fails to provide a decent level of services in, well, just about everything. I can't think of a single government provided service which operates as effectively and efficiently as it should.
 
I'm certainly in favour of the heavier users paying more than lighter users and I am usually happier to consider the greater good rather than myself when it comes to tax and public services. However, it will have an impact on someone like me who, due to lack of opportunity, had to look much further afield for a promotion than I'd have liked.

Compared with my last job, my annual mileage has trebled, but there was nothing else for me closer to home. I'd love to be able to use public transport to get to work but it's no use. I'd have to leave home at least another half-hour earlier than I do now and would arrive a half-hour later than I do, plus it would cost more than the £12 per day I spend on diesel.

Until public transport serves the greater public at a price that makes it an attractive alternative, we're stuck with our present system, which I dislike. I travelled to Glasgow last weekend by train and it was very relaxing.

Travelling across Lanarkshire as I do every day, it really bugs me when I see two disused railway levees which used to carry lines connecting my town to Hamilton, Glasgow and Kilmarnock. More than ever, we need these lines rebuilt, instead of the expansion of the motorways, which simply have to cost so much more when you see all the plant and workforce involved.
 
Flat-rate fuel and mileage taxes would penalise rural road users disproportionately, and would therefore be perverse because these users drive in the least congested areas.

What is required is road pricing. Some roads could remain free while the rest would be priced at various levels depending on the degree of congestion and availability of alternative routes and modes of transport. Road tax should be retained because all car users should pay a minimum contribution regardless of where they live.

In the longer term the spread of suburbs and dormitory settlements in places without adequate public transport must be stopped. Long distance commuting on congested roads is bad for quality of life and for the environment and is economically inefficient. Hand in hand with road pricing, the supply of affordable housing in towns and cities has to be increased.
 
Originally posted by Grey@Jun 7 2005, 12:59 PM
What is required is road pricing.
Click to expand...
Which is precisely what is being proposed. It's a long way off but by the time it arrives it will find favour with road users. I just hope that the proceeds will be used to fund a much improved public transport system.
 
Flat-rate fuel and mileage taxes would penalise rural road users disproportionately, and would therefore be perverse because these users drive in the least congested areas.
Click to expand...

The cost per user is also far more expensive to build and maintain rural roads. Are you suggesting that Urban dwellers should subsidise the cost of roads for their country cousins?

Of course there are good reasons for city slickers to subsidise the country bumkins - mainly to stop them moving to the cities - but it is not all cut and dried.
 
The cost per user is also far more expensive to build and maintain rural roads.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that. Land acquisition costs are much lower in rural areas, as is wear and tear, and expensive junctions and traffic lights are not needed. Nor is there the same need for road works to be done at off-peak times at expensive rates of pay.

Are you suggesting that Urban dwellers should subsidise the cost of roads for their country cousins?
Click to expand...

No. Rural dwellers should continue to pay the road tax.
 
Back
Top