Reply to: Congestion Charging

Re: trains

if it aint fecking congested then dont charge

I entirely agree. The charge should only be where (and when) there is congestion, and only just high enough to reduce congestion to target level.

Fuel tax should remain to charge cars for environmental impact of burning fuel, and it is this that should discriminate between vehicle types. (Some people are suggesting congestion charge should vary by vehicle type - this is wrong - they all take up roughly the same amount of space. Fuel tax does a much better job of targeting gas-guzzlers then some list maintained by a bureaucrat will ever do.)

trains

> If congestions charging comes in, think how much more
> houses that are close to decent rail networks will be?

Trains have very limited capacity -- they use high price to cut people off from travelling. Trains won't be a solution, driving off peak might be -- aka flexible working hours.

Re: solution

House prices.

If congestions charging comes in, think how much more houses that are close to decent rail networks will be?

Why pay hundreds of pounds a week to drive into major towns and cities when you can jump on the train right next door to where you live?

Or will the train operators massively increase train fares? They wouldn't, would they? :\

Re: solution

I that makes some sense AtW, except that the problem will just migrate to the lesser roads as people get off the major roads 1 or 2 junctions early.

solution

They should have just charged money for known top 1% roads known for fact to be congested, all other roads are free -- if it aint fecking congested then dont charge.

Re: The problem with fuel tax

But how is this new tax supposed to be better at controlling congestion than increasing fuel duty?

Well, on the fraction of 1% of roads where the congestion charge is currently envisioned to be £1.34 per mile, the congestion charge will make travel several times as expensive as the highest possible fuel charge you could practically implement. (We have already reached the politically practical upper limit for fuel charges.) As I said in another post, even if you could raise fuel tax to charge this much per mile, the result would be to make motoring 10 times more expensive on all other roads as well, causing enormous damage to the economy. On the other roads the fuel tax would be many times higher than needed to control congestion.

The point of congestion charge is that the rate can change according to location (every few metres along the same stretch of road in the unlikely event you need to be that precise) and the rate at a particular point can vary with the time of day. Fuel tax can't do that.

A congestion charge should be set just high enough to lower traffic levels so that traffic maintains a reasonable speed. It can be fine-tuned and altered from day-to-day and hour to hour across the whole country. For example, I imagine it will shoot up on bank holidays on roads leading to the coast.

Re: The problem with fuel tax

I've noticed you've got a bit of a bee in your bonnet regarding crapita.... Care to enlighten us

They seem to be flavour of the month for govt contracts spod. I am afraid that there is nothing more to it.

Re: The problem with fuel tax

And govt will have to find another excuse for implementing big brother boxes into our cars (which it surely will)

The "War on Driving"!!!!

BTW Dodgy, I've noticed you've got a bit of a bee in your bonnet regarding crapita.... Care to enlighten us?

The problem with fuel tax

Is that it is too simple and does not create extra work for cronies. It does not give govt ministers and departments opportunities to build empires. It also makes it very difficult for NL to reward companies like Capita for their directors "gifts" to the labour party.

And govt will have to find another excuse for implementing big brother boxes into our cars (which it surely will)

Re: Why don't they just increase the fuel tax.

IR35 Avoider: But how is this new tax supposed to be better at controlling congestion than increasing fuel duty?

You are not under the delusion that the 2p a mile for rural roads will be at any time except very early on a deep winter Sunday morning somewhere in a valley only discovered by global imaging?

Re: Why don't they just increase the fuel tax.

Oh dear, so if it was an increase in fuel tax it would be too expensive, but if they invent a new tax it is not too much?

Yes.

My point (not sure if you understood it) was that an increase in fuel tax would have to raise several times as much as the new congestion charge to achieve the same effect.

I do believe congestion charging is the only thing the government can do to significantly mitigate the nightmare that is travel within Britain. If you think there isn't a problem that may be where we disagree.

Re: Why don't they just increase the fuel tax.

If they get this in place, the next requirement will be for you to pre-pay your congestion charge, otherwise you get a hefty fine, then one day, they stop accepting your card ...........

Re: Why don't they just increase the fuel tax.

IR35 Avoider: Oh dear, so if it was an increase in fuel tax it would be too expensive, but if they invent a new tax it is not too much? Suspect you've fallen fare square into the stealth tax modus operandi...

Re: Why don't they just increase the fuel tax.

Cars in rural areas do more mpg than cars in heavily congested areas. The more you drive in congested areas the more fuel you use. Simple

Too simple I'm afraid and completely misses what they're trying to achieve. They want more money from travel, they want to use a black box to calculate your speed and automatically send you speeding fines and most of all they want to know everywhere you've been.

This is another facet of the mistakeless society the socalist/liberal scum in power are creating to penalise those that aren't too hard to catch. Inadvertantly do 31 in a 30 its not dangerous but its an opportunity to charge so they will. The litter police will be worse, they are creating a society that no one will want to live in except those above the law i.e. police, politicians, criminals (is there much difference between these? I suspect just a matter of degree) etc.

It always makes me laugh on crimewatch when they show the stolen car busting through speed cameras do you think the driver will pay his fine ;-) ? How is it that cameras are better than the old bill, whats even sicker is when they show the abducter driving off presumeably with his victim in the car?

If anyone thinks cameras make roads safer they are insane!!!!

Re: Why don't they just increase the fuel tax.

Cars in rural areas do more mpg than cars in heavily congested areas. The more you drive in congested areas the more fuel you use. Simple

I've no doubt that raising fuel tax to (my guess) £8 a litre to sort out the most congested roads would decongest all other roads as well (!!!) And I agree it is simpler than congestion charging. But wouldn't there also be massive damage to the economy from journeys now no longer viable on the 99% of less congested roads? I didn't have you pegged as a green who wants to ban the majority of vehicle journeys...

I did a quick calc of what you're proposal would mean for me - the fuel costs for a weeks commuting to work 30 miles across London would rise from about £33 to £330. I would give up the client I've worked at since 1992, so your proposal would certainly force me off the roads.

People here are complaining about the cost of congestion charging as currently proposed - and you are proposing something much more extreme?

I'm all the more surprised because I thought you believed in market forces - application of these would imply we should have a fuel tax set at an appropriate level to reflect the costs ("externalities") motorists impose on society per litre of fuel burnt, and a separate congestion charge to reflect the congestion cost they impose as a result of where and when drive. (Motorists are imposing two kinds of burdens on others, so two kinds of taxes are needed to regulate them.)

Surely I've misunderstood your point of view?