• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Motorists 'must pay for road use'"

Collapse

  • Lucy
    replied
    Originally posted by John Galt
    What makes you think I haven't?

    The quality of your questions and responses.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Galt
    replied
    Originally posted by Lucy
    I really don't know but reading it will help you have an informed debate
    What makes you think I haven't?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mailman
    replied
    Originally posted by Bagpuss
    Where are the tax incentives for companies who transition to home working?

    Ooops no that would work wouldn't it?
    Those tax incentives are called "benefit in kind" taxes

    Mailman

    Leave a comment:


  • Lucy
    replied
    Originally posted by Troll
    But what will you say when 'Peak' is 07:00am - 18:00pm?

    see above Troll

    Leave a comment:


  • Troll
    replied
    Originally posted by Lucy
    With road pricing you'll find:
    - peak times will cost a lot more;
    - off peak will cost a lot less;
    - most people will drive as they do now, but maybe 20% will either switch to public transport, drive another time or not take the trip at all.

    It's hardly rocket science, it's been talked about for 40 years and the technology now exists to do it - it's been used on a more limited scale in many countries around the world.
    But what will you say when 'Peak' is 07:00am - 18:00pm?

    Leave a comment:


  • Lucy
    replied
    Originally posted by John Galt
    And you really think the Government will implement all the recommendations in the Eddington report do you?
    I really don't know but reading it will help you have an informed debate

    Leave a comment:


  • BoredBloke
    replied
    "Foreign lorries are a problem in some of the ways you say"

    Record their milage when they enter and then when they leave and hit them with the top whack pence per mile until they fit the required equipment. Easy!

    Leave a comment:


  • ratewhore
    replied
    Charges for road use will be expensable anyway...

    Leave a comment:


  • wendigo100
    replied
    Underinvestment on the railways? They are putting prices up by above inflation - again - in January, and the taxpayer is subsidising them to the tune of £6 billion a year! How much more investment do they need? What are they doing with this "investment"?

    This car tax hits the poorest people most.

    It will make little difference to congestion because we all need to go to work and public transport is more expensive, takes longer, and that's if it goes where you want it.

    Leave a comment:


  • John Galt
    replied
    Originally posted by Lucy
    If you read the Eddington report, you will see that it talks about reducing fuel duty levels, as have other government documents. I would agree with you if it is an additional tax, but the key is to have this to replace most current road taxes. If the report was about screwing the public it wouldn't also be recommended significant spending on road junction improvements and selective road widening as well. It would help if people agreed that road pricing will help a lot, but that it must be accompanied by significant cuts in other road taxes and all of the revenue from road pricing being dedicated to transport.

    Foreign lorries are a problem in some of the ways you say, but given that lorries comprise a small minority of overall traffic, it wont make a jot to congestion. The government did have a project to tackle the foreign vehicles, but stuffed it up. The Swiss and Germans toll foreign (and their own) lorries quite successfully today - but for some reason Britain wont take what others do and use it, because it thinks if it isn't done in the UK it hasn't been done. Replacing diesel tax with a distance charge for lorries in the UK would fix that problem, it is simple, but then British bureaucracy isn't known for its innovation.
    And you really think the Government will implement all the recommendations in the Eddington report do you?

    Leave a comment:


  • Lucy
    replied
    Originally posted by John Galt
    They are not 'Daily Mail' opinions Lucy, they are our opinions - they just don't coincide with yours. This is another Government stealth tax. The idea is great in theory and would work if they cut fuel duty and road tax but they wont. This has nothing to do with ecology or congestion - it is a way to get more money out of Joe Public. If they were really interested in congestion and polution they would be taxing the hell out of the foreign lorries that are coming over from the continent, running on cheap fuel and pricing our hauliers out of existence.

    If you read the Eddington report, you will see that it talks about reducing fuel duty levels, as have other government documents. I would agree with you if it is an additional tax, but the key is to have this to replace most current road taxes. If the report was about screwing the public it wouldn't also be recommended significant spending on road junction improvements and selective road widening as well. It would help if people agreed that road pricing will help a lot, but that it must be accompanied by significant cuts in other road taxes and all of the revenue from road pricing being dedicated to transport.

    Foreign lorries are a problem in some of the ways you say, but given that lorries comprise a small minority of overall traffic, it wont make a jot to congestion. The government did have a project to tackle the foreign vehicles, but stuffed it up. The Swiss and Germans toll foreign (and their own) lorries quite successfully today - but for some reason Britain wont take what others do and use it, because it thinks if it isn't done in the UK it hasn't been done. Replacing diesel tax with a distance charge for lorries in the UK would fix that problem, it is simple, but then British bureaucracy isn't known for its innovation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paddy
    replied
    "Trouble is we want it on the cheap. We've had the money that should have been spent on maintaining and improving the world's best railway network, and we've spent it (mostly on boosting the price of our house purchases)"

    Ironically it was the introduction of the railways that started the property boom in Victorian times. The rail companies bought land on both sides of the track and the dugout flint and rocks were used to build houses. Everyone wanted to live near the railway station. (Boring myself now so time to stop)

    Leave a comment:


  • Spacecadet
    replied
    Originally posted by tim123
    There's only so much that you can do with the braking system The problems with stopping trains is that there is little adhesion (which is an advantage when wanting them to go). This is not a viable solution.
    So how come it worked else where?

    still after many many years of under investment a huge amount of cash now needs to be pumped into the rail network to get it up to spec. Something that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

    Road charging is not going to be implemented, rail users will continue to suffer. Sorting either of these out takes far longer than a government has patience for ie the chance of loosing votes before gaining them due to success will scare them away

    Leave a comment:


  • tim123
    replied
    Originally posted by expat
    Indeed. Borrow the designs from the APT: it used improved brakes so that it could run fast on the same lines, using the existing signal spacing.
    There's only so much that you can do with the braking system The problems with stopping trains is that there is little adhesion (which is an advantage when wanting them to go). This is not a viable solution.

    Originally posted by expat
    And how is it that other countries can use double-decker trains? Did they all build bigger tunnels in the first place?
    Yep

    Originally posted by expat
    Raise the tunnel if need be. If you can't, lower the track!
    This is mega expensive. Sometimes it is cheaper to build new.

    Originally posted by expat
    The railways in the UK are in a dire state because of 25-30 years of serious underinvestment. Fixes to the railways that don't involve fixes to the underinvestment are unlikely to work.

    Trouble is we want it on the cheap. We've had the money that should have been spent on mainaining and improving the world's best railway network, and we've spent it (mostly on boosting the price of our house purchases).
    agreed

    tim

    Leave a comment:


  • Paddy
    replied
    Previous contract. Time to get to work by cay = 1.5 hours
    Time to get to work by train-bus-taxi = 4.5 hours

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X