Road pricing bill before Commons

[dang65]

What else? (I can't believe I'm spending time on this. It's basic common sense.) "Lots of things make polution." That's not even in the debate. Of course lots of things make pollution.

Well that was one of your reasons for increasing the amount of tax on cars. Why single out cars why not whack up the tax on everything???

Uh, that's covered in the next bit of my post. The bit you snipped out immediately following that bit you quoted. This bit:

Most of them don't cause hundreds of thousands of casualties every year, block up the roads and stink out the road you're walking down or make it so you can't talk to someone in the street without shouting.

[dang65]

I thought your argument was that motoring was too cheap and had to be increased.

Yes, that's correct. However, a lot of people on here have been arguing that commuting by car is currently a lot cheaper than commuting by public transport. That spreadsheet might at least help to adjust their perception a little, if not persuade them completely (or at all in fact - I'm not trying to fool myself here!)

[Ardesco]

Drunken young males cause hundreds of thousands of casualties (to themselves and others) every year should we increase the tax on them?

Yes i snipped the rest out because it is irrelivant, you were saying that one of the reasons drivers should pay more tax was because cars cause pollution. and as stated by me, if that is ONE of your reasons for increasing the tax burden of car owners why single out cars?

or do only things that hit all the criteria deserve to be singled out for increased taxation?

But i digress, I have already stated that cars do not cause casualties, it is bad driving. It would be better to say we need to increase the driving ability of the populace and make them resit thier test every 2 years. people would probably go for that, it would earn the government more money and ensure that people incapable of driving lost thier license (a good thing IMHO)

[Ardesco]

Yes, that's correct. However, a lot of people on here have been arguing that commuting by car is currently a lot cheaper than commuting by public transport. That spreadsheet might at least help to adjust their perception a little, if not persuade them completely (or at all in fact - I'm not trying to fool myself here!)

You are trying to fool yourself. You currently commute using public transport every day, yet by your own admission you still pay out £1000 a month on your car. if you actually drove your car to work instead of using the train would that figure change significantly ?

[BoredBloke]

Well if car owenership is so expensive, if anything we should be given a tax break for taking ourselves out of the creaking public transport system. Imagine the chaos there would be if everybody did a 'use public transport' day. Nobody would get anywhere.

So now you accept that driving a car is expensive - but people still prefer it to public transport. I wonder why that is? Could that be because my car goes where I want it to, when I want it to and does not allow the local scrotes on to generally @rse about in there and cause trouble.

[fat_chance]

Hi all, long time reader, first time poster.

I am currently ‘on the bench’ so have been reading a lot of discussions on here lately, and as most of my recent work has been within London’s Public Transport sector I couldn’t help but feel obligated to jump into this debate.
I may as well continue with the openness of expression being shown in this forum, and state I am a strong supporter of road pricing. But for reasons slightly different to a lot of those being debated here.
From what I gather, a lot of you that are against road pricing live in areas with poor public transport, which due to Maggie Thatcher is pretty much everywhere outside of London. I for one would be against an additional charge to drive my car to/from if I lived in an area that did not have subsidised public transport. But the government are now trying to re-introduce public subsidy both through the Transport Innovation Fund and through returning powers to local authorities over bus route planning and operation.

But if you take a step back and understand that the main focus of the government is in trying to maintain productivity and economic activity whilst tackling ‘Climate Change’ (not a complete believer of CC but the government are, so what does it matter what we believe) and reduce reliance on foreign sourced energy by forcing people into electrically powered vehicles. To me, all the government are doing is pre-empting a tipping point in economic activity caused by private motor vehicle congestion. Road pricing to me is purely an evolution of a capitalist economy no matter what your political stance may be. All it is attempting to do is grow the economy through increasing productivity which is what governments are always trying to do.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/road...g/debate/facts

With a little research, you will learn that only the most congested roads will be charged at a premium and at pre-set prices. This will mainly be city and town centres, of which, because of their relatively high density populations can sustain very good public transport. So assuming that any scheme introduced is tax revenue neutral (which it probably would be to initially sway drivers) you may actually end up paying less in tax than you are now if for instance you drive on an M road and avoid the city for most of your journey. The subsequent reduced congestion in town centres will allow privately run bus operators to become more economically viable and with the planned new powers to LA’s the buses will become more comfortable, more frequent and safer. The government knows that buses are pretty much the only solution to public transport in the urban environment, new rail projects are just too expensive for both the government and private enterprise.

Basically this system will make living and working in cities easier, as it should be as this is where the highest return on public funds comes from due to the economies of scale of higher density living. It will make commuting between cities/rural areas by motor vehicle easier. But if you live in the country and work in the city with a commute in a private vehicle, you will be stung. (But private enterprise will pick up the slack with Park’n’ride facilities.)

With the evolution of satellite technology the scheme will slowly become more easily adaptable to traffic patterns, so that road ‘prices’ will vary on certain times of the day or during holiday periods, but as every driver will have a tracking device, thus a GPS system, they can be made aware of any changes to road prices before or during a journey.

Effectively it is no different from using an Oyster Card here in London. If you commute more than 5 days a week, it’s cheaper to get a weekly travel card, if commute less than 4 days a week it’s cheaper to use pre-pay. The oyster card has made life a lot easier for commuters in London and encouraged public transport use, but it only became an option due to new technology. Road pricing is exactly the same thing, a more efficient method of managing and monitoring economic activity as a result of new technology.

We should be proud that Britain is leading the world in road pricing, it’s only a matter of time before the rest of the world follow. Of which I think Europe in general is in the prime seat to capitalise on the reduced reliance of fossil fuels. European towns and cities were built pre-automobile, thus the adjustment to the supposed carbon based economy will be a lot easier and faster than those countries, mainly the US who have grown around the automobile.

[Ardesco]

From what I gather, a lot of you that are against road pricing live in areas with poor public transport, which due to Maggie Thatcher is pretty much everywhere outside of London.

Oh please, how many decades since maggie was in power??

Are you really suggesting that Nu Liebour could not have done anything for our public transport system in the last 10 years??

So assuming that any scheme introduced is tax revenue neutral (which it probably would be to initially sway drivers) you may actually end up paying less in tax than you are now if for instance you drive on an M road and avoid the city for most of your journey.

If they removed road tax and took tax off fuel and charged for using the roads instead we wouldn't be so up in arms, the point is that this charge is on top of existing taxation which is why we are all so bl**dy p1ssed off

You may have heard about the scheme planned in Liverpool today. They want people to pay for an electronic tag to be fitted to thier car so that they can charge them extra money in congestion charges. PAY FOR IT!!!

We can assume that any national scheme will follow the same principle where you pay for a tag to be fitted to your car so that they can charge you even more money for driving around and they will not remove any of the existing tax that motorist have to pay.

Well they can sod off as far as i'm concerned. There is not way I am going to pay them so that they can monitor where I drive and charge me for it. If a tag does get forced on me I won't be to blame if it falls off in my garage....

[fat_chance]

Oh please, how many decades since maggie was in power??

Are you really suggesting that Nu Liebour could not have done anything for our public transport system in the last 10 years??

Outside of London, and for bus services, yes I am suggesting this.
In London, where bus services are privatised but are still regulated, there has been an increase in passenger numbers in recent years.
But outside the capital, where services have been privatised and deregulated since 1986, there has been a fall in use. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6678915.stm

Rail may have improved somewhat but only as a result of streamlining the private model. But even now it is near breaking point due to under investment.

This scheme, is the first major public transport shake up since 1986 where Maggie Thatcher infamously declared that "A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure."
Labour haven't done much else other than concessionary fares for 2008 to allow themselves free bus travel when they retire and are now announcing they are passing back bus route planning powers to the LA's. They also have finally realised that the private model doesn't entirely work and in my opinion neither does the London model, bus subsidy alone was over £800m in 04/05 so you would expect an increase in patronage for that investment. Most of it goes on contractors...

If they removed road tax and took tax off fuel and charged for using the roads instead we wouldn't be so up in arms, the point is that this charge is on top of existing taxation which is why we are all so bl**dy p1ssed off

From what I have read, the government is yet to announce whether any road pricing scheme would be revenue or congestion neutral. But I can understand and totally agree with your worries that it will be another income generator. Like I said, I would assume the government would introduce the scheme as revenue neutral (or as close as possible to it) to also offer a carrot to less-frequent drivers. A properly run revenue neutral scheme could do enough to force people to think twice about taking unnecessary journeys in their cars and reduce congestion. But until this is confirmed, the more noise that is made the better. Once an acceptable level is achieved, they would probably start to phase in congestion neutral pricing to further improve public transport.

You may have heard about the scheme planned in Liverpool today. They want people to pay for an electronic tag to be fitted to thier car so that they can charge them extra money in congestion charges. PAY FOR IT!!!

We can assume that any national scheme will follow the same principle where you pay for a tag to be fitted to your car so that they can charge you even more money for driving around and they will not remove any of the existing tax that motorist have to pay.

Well they can sod off as far as i'm concerned. There is not way I am going to pay them so that they can monitor where I drive and charge me for it. If a tag does get forced on me I won't be to blame if it falls off in my garage....

That's a kick in the guts, are they not subsidised? Or is it not a deposit which is refunded when you are eventually forced onto the bus?

The other alternative is to introduce cameras with ANPR throughout the country which double as CCTV as they have in London, funded by a massive chunk of the CC fares due for public transport...

By the time the scheme is rolled out post 2012, all vehicles will be tracked by satellite anyway. Tag and beacon will just be used to get the scheme up and running sooner. Besides, whether you like it or not, you are being tracked already so unless you have something to hide, get used to it.

[OwlHoot]

This scheme, is the first major public transport shake up since 1986 where Maggie Thatcher infamously declared that "A man who, beyond the age of 26, finds himself on a bus can count himself as a failure."

Lefties and public transport fanatics love to claim Maggie said that; but it was actually Loelia, Duchess of Westminster, who was overheard saying it by Winston Churchill in the 1930s, and it was 30 not 26. See quotes

[Ardesco]

From what I have read, the government is yet to announce whether any road pricing scheme would be revenue or congestion neutral. But I can understand and totally agree with your worries that it will be another income generator. Like I said, I would assume the government would introduce the scheme as revenue neutral (or as close as possible to it) to also offer a carrot to less-frequent drivers. A properly run revenue neutral scheme could do enough to force people to think twice about taking unnecessary journeys in their cars and reduce congestion. But until this is confirmed, the more noise that is made the better. Once an acceptable level is achieved, they would probably start to phase in congestion neutral pricing to further improve public transport.

They are alreadyy going to trial the scheme in the midlands, the lucky drivers that get caught up in the trial still have to pay tax on petrol, road tax and all other taxes. As the pilot scheme is expanded more dirvers will be forced to pay the congestion charge, do you really think the government will suddenly remove the current tax burdan drivers have after they have run it alongside the new measures for 10 years odd as the pilot schemes slowly expand accross the country??

If you do you are far too gullible to be a contractor!!

That's a kick in the guts, are they not subsidised? Or is it not a deposit which is refunded when you are eventually forced onto the bus?

The other alternative is to introduce cameras with ANPR throughout the country which double as CCTV as they have in London, funded by a massive chunk of the CC fares due for public transport...

If you are not going to stop using your car the deposit is never going to be paid back to you, so in effect a £100 deposit is the dsame as a £100 charge to have the kit fitted to your car for them to track you.

Suppose after 20 years I finally stop driving, will I be paid interest on the deposit or will it now be worthless?

By the time the scheme is rolled out post 2012, all vehicles will be tracked by satellite anyway. Tag and beacon will just be used to get the scheme up and running sooner. Besides, whether you like it or not, you are being tracked already so unless you have something to hide, get used to it.

So I am going to be tracked constantly by 2012 wheather i like it or not and my privacy right are going to be disregarded eventually anyway so I may as well get used to it now hey.....

I WILL be out of the country before this happens, not because I have anything to hide but because I shouldn't be tracked and treated like a criminal just because the state thinks its a good idea.

Have fun in your police state in 2012 comrade......