Just as a follow-up to the thread about Richmond residents' "gas guzzlers" facing a large parking charge increase based on CO2 emissions
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=46117&...f
Private Eye has an interesting article this week.
In brief, it points out that
Richmond is not a high CO2 producing borough (25th out of 33 London boroughs)
Emissions from homes, shops and offices make up 78% of the total emissions
Road transport makes up 22% which includes emissions from buses, trucks and also the thousands of vehicles which pass through the borough (A3, South circular etc)
Only one third of housholds are in CPZs, and only one half of those require permits. ("Rich" people who have off street parking will not incur the charge)
The scheme will encourage people to use cars for commuting rather than leave cars at home, use public transport for commuting and hence incur the charge.
Conclusion? Will have virtually no effect on CO2 emissions, may actually increase them! But will, of course increase the amount of money going into council coffers.
ABD also states much the same in its response to these increased charges
www.abd.org.uk/richmond_parking_consultation.htm
--
Phil
|
This is why we should push for congestion taxes, and wonder why petrol taxes are justified on environmental grounds. Domestic fuel is not really taxed but they can somehow justify putting a 70% tax on petrol. Why? To lower CO2 emissions we need to tax all CO2 production. To tackle congestion we need to tax congestion production.
-----------------------------------------------
Torque means nothing without RPM
|
>>This is why we should push for congestion taxes
Come on mk124, you cannot mean that.
Too much of our current congestion has been caused by interference with traffic flow; bus lanes, traffic light delays, speed humps, pinch points, increased parking restrictions, etc. There certainly has been an increase in the number of cars on the road over the past 20 years, but road space has hardly increased at all by comparison causing congestion as roads are now handling more traffic than they were designed for. What we have is a poor investment in our road system that causes congestion, and now you want to tax people for those failings. Do you want to be the next Chancellor? I believe it will become vacant next year.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
There are two sides argument here Artful Dodger. What you are saying is that we should build ourselfs out of congestion with an improved road network, yes? There is always the other side of the story that if we build roads that will create more traffic and therefore congestion remains constant. I am of the later oponion and although I belive there is under investment in transport, I belive under investment in public transport is much the more serrous problem.
What I am saying is that taxes would work better than all the things you mentioned that increase congestion, such as pinch points etc. I agree with the sentiment reflecting that politicans only seek to reduce traffice flow to ease congestion. Being in the U.K we have grown up in a que based culture where we happily sit behind anyone else. That is why we are happy for politicans reduce traffic flow, we are happy sitting in traffic. What we need is a system based on priority, the people who most value the use of the road should be the ones that use it at any given point.
-----------------------------------------------
Torque means nothing without RPM
|
mk124
Further to my earlier post I also forgot to mention an added factor in congestion, government policies. Our planning rules have made made people work and shop further away from where they able to afford to live, therefore adding to road use. Our tax rules now deem that you have to pay a huge amount of money if you wish to sell your home and move closer to where you work, making driving a cheaper option.
Taking the argument further back in time to the early 60's. This is when every youngster wanted to be either a mod or a rocker with their 2 wheel motorised transport. Nowdays most of our youth wants four wheels and rarely considers 2 wheels as a practicable option. Also most households did not have a car, now 2 or more is the norm.
I personally believe that we are now getting close to the maximum number of drivers and/or cars that are freely chosen by them. Considerations include having:
a suitable licence to drive;
the money to buy, tax, insure, fuel, park and maintain a car;
having a suitable place to keep it - both at night and during the day;
unsuitable public transport for regular journeys or lack of taxis;
maybe a company car is provided;
tax on use of company car not worth if for limited private use;
the size of car might depend on needs for carrying children or large loads, rather than status;
etc., etc.
Everyones circumstances are different and some of these considerations might be more important than others. But you are suggesting that "we need is a system based on priority, the people who most value the use of the road should be the ones that use it at any given point". Who is to judge who's priority is greatest. Should it be soley by taxing those off the roads who cannot afford it? Then where will we get the staff to fill the lower paid jobs?
There are plenty of other ways congestion can be reduced, but they do not provide a way to raise extra revenue or have a business pushing for their system to be adopted for their financial gain.
Again in my opinion I feel that many motorists will find road pricing a step too far in the political agenda and any political party or politician will find adopting it a big vote loser. This is because the figures being used at present for road pricing are unrealistically high compared to the current taxes people are paying, let alone paying for the tracking box, and they do not believe all existing taxes will be removed and not making it revenue neutral. In recent years the motorist has been a big target for raising extra tax with increases for most motorists in road fund licence, excise duty, insurance tax, parking charges, parking fines, speeding fines, etc., etc. I feel that most motorists will accept congestion at present levels rather than have to pay even more to use our roads - at any time of day.
What we need is a change in government policy to acknowledge our society is based around private mobility. This is not soley using cars, but includes buses, taxis, lorries, trains and planes. In recent years the importance of the car has been substantially reduced when it should be the prime factor. There are too many reasons why people do not use public transport ranging from personal safety to the inconvenient. It should not be government policy to control what the people can or can't do, we live in a free society not a controlled one. Road pricing is leading us closer to a Big Brother is constantly watching you state. You may be happy with this, but I and many more are very unhappy at this prospect.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
A good and long reply.
I do not follow your reasoning why we should not distribute limited road space to those who wish to have priority over it. We distribute most other essential items such as food and shelter to those willing to pay for them, why not roads? It's the tragity of the commons again.
You do a good job in highlighting why you are against congestion charging, but I don't think you have answered why it's a bad idea. It sounds like the motorists are a soft target and this extra tax will not reduce any other, with agents within the decision making process highjacked by vested interests.
That is, the problem is very diffuse in nature and the tax is seen as the last straw. I only hope politicans get some sense kicked into them at the next elections. It is not that the proposed tax is a bad one, rather the system is rotten. It is a shame that a senible proposal should raise temperatures this much.
-----------------------------------------------
Torque means nothing without RPM
|
I want to know when they moved the A3 into Richmond! that was very sneaky, no one said anything.
Or was there an armed coup and Richmond took over Kingston followed by Wandsworth & Merton?
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
"when they moved the A3 into Richmond! "
Don't know - I was just quoting Private Eye! Perhaps they meant the A316, A305, A205 or perhaps (according to Multimap), it's because the A3 just clips the edge of Richmond as it goes past Richmond Park? Maybe all the CO2 drifts into Richmond??
What do I know, I'm an exiled Yorkshireman living in the Midlands? Isn't Twickenham down that way somewhere? and London?
--
Phil
|
|
|
|
mk124, I hope the following will help you see my point of view better.
>>I do not follow your reasoning why we should not distribute limited road space to those who wish to have priority over it. We distribute most other essential items such as food and shelter to those willing to pay for them, why not roads?
Ah, it seems then that people who drive expensive cars should pay more per mile than someone driving a 10 year old car. This is how your arguement could be developed in future. At present we have a variable level of taxation for the road fund licence, based upon either engine size or emmissions, and you are also taxed on the amount of fuel you use. Any change to the existing system will always cause winners and losers, but so far all the projections have shown everyone will pay more than at present (especially if you include the cost of the data control box). If 50% of motorists could see they would pay less tax then it would probably receive more favourable reviews.
>>It is not that the proposed tax is a bad one, rather the system is rotten. It is a shame that a senible proposal should raise temperatures this much.
The idea of road pricing sounds good, those who use the roads most and at the busiest times will pay the most. Unfortunately it falls foul of the basic rules of taxation, a tax should be simple to apply, difficult to avoid and cost little to administer. If we ignore the big brother is watching you arguement, I do not think we could devise a more complex and difficult tax regime than road pricing (and that's saying something after Child Tax Credits!).
How would drivers know how much they are paying to drive on a particular road? It would change at different times of the day and upon which day of the week. There may be different tarrifs on certain sections of a long road between two major towns or cities. Or would only busy sections be charged and all other roads remain uncharged? If this was the case then new rat runs would be established to avoid expensive roads.
Ultimately road pricing will only work if the technology is 100% accurate and fool proof. At present there are about 5% of all cars uninsured, so if we cannot solve a simple problem of making all cars carry insurance, what hope have we of making road pricing work. How many people have had their number plates cloned? We cannot tackle this problem either. So what hope of all cars carrying a data box? Fraudsters have always been able to crack any technical system in a short space of time, e.g. chip and pin credit cards has allowed new forms of fraud to evolve.
Nothing has been mentioned about how and when you pay. Would you be billed every week or month? Can you dispute any of the charges? Will you be able to pay with cash, debit and credit cards or will you have to have a variable direct debit set up. What if you do not have a bank account? What happens if you do not pay? The cost of administrating this system would be very expensive and a high proprtion of total costs.
A simple form of congestion charging would be toll booths or electronic tags at selected places on busy roads, similar to the Dartford Crossing, unfortunately they do nothing to relieve congestion as they slow traffic down causing yet more delays.
Road pricing is an unworkable system that will never be implemented. It is unneccessarily complex, difficult to understand, not cost effective, and probably some drivers will be able to avoid it,
Discussion on road pricing from civil servants and politicians will continue for years to come, but all that has happened so far is planted the seed in some people's minds that it is the only answer to congestion. Flexible working hours, more home working, more car sharing are all simple cheap ways to reduce congestion. Other changes might be simply a relaxation in planning rules and tax reductions to moving home. Other more creative solutions might still have not been thought of. In the end individuals will make decisions based on factors that affect them, without any interference from government - just as they have done for centuries in the past.
This thread originally started on Richmond Parking Charges, I am sorry I have deviated from this but I thought the comments by mk124 should be answered. Hopefully this will be the last comment off the thread's main theme.
--
Roger
I read frequently, but only post when I have something useful to say.
|
Who will monitor the black boxes?
Should be quite easy to mess up the black box. A decent voltage across it will certainly damage the electronics. Unless of course it's totally inaccessible.
|
|
|
Last point first.
The OP did want to know about parking charges, whatever they are, but indicated they will do nothing to ease congestion or save the environment. Hence my original response. This being a discusive thread it is hard to say when something has wondered off topic. I do agree the present discussion has no relevance to parking charges, however conversation draws upon many ideas when done correctly, thus it is hard to see where one topic ends and another begins. I feel we are both resposible for topic drift. The nature of discussion though?
You don't seem to know what angle you want to disagree with my view point from.
In your first point you were asked to say why you thought charging for road space was bad. You responded in a way I feel is compleately irrelavant to the question. You feel that the road fund licence is unjust since it penalises drivers in expensive cars and cars newer than 10 years old. Why is this relevant to the question, you sought to answer? I support congestion charging, but I also support the view that the road fund licence is unjust.
From a earlier post I thought your opposition to the congestion charge was due to the rottern political system we had. You seem to take dislike my interpretation, but I don't know why. You then go on to discuss the technical problems of the idea of congestion charging, rather than exprapolate the political aurguments.
As for the technical aurgument I think the london congestion charge has answered many questions. It reduces congestion, most people seem to comply and pay therefore. What fraud scams have been developed to defeat this charge? Most people seem to be able to pay the congestion charge without to much problem.
You seem to suggest that charging by sensors would be impossible. Have you ever shop lifted before? I can remember buying a computer game from a well known shop and the person forgot to remove a tag/scan something. The result is that when I went out of the shop an alarm went off!
A new development in companies supply chains is that they are able to produce chips that for less than $1 can be attached to any product. The chips can be used to follow the product through out the production process and on to the consumer. If companies can do these things I don't see why the technicalties of tracing a car insurmountable.
Your argument about variable pricing is good, but it is also at the root of this discussion. How much should we charge a driver for holding up others?
Knowing the best routes is important, you seem to imply that drivers should not pay more because they may face unexpected traffic. However after spending 20 unexpected minutes to travels 2 miles in a car recently I have to ponder why the motorist should be spared unexpected monetary costs if they need to endure unexpected congestion.
I have to agree with you last paragraph. The main mechanisim that politicians have in changing the atractivness of an action is taxation and subsidies. You feel government is all take (taxation) rather than give (subsidies). Why people think to stop people from doing something you need to tax that action prohibitivly is beyond me. Sometimes it would be better to provide subsidised alternatives.
Since I thought your points should be answered, but agree on the need to return to the OP topic I think we should have no further comment. Roll on talk about the Richmond parking charges.
-----------------------------------------------
Torque means nothing without RPM
|
"Does anyone know where they get the energy from?"
This may be of interest
e20cl.uat.boxuk.net/server.php?show=conInformation...3
--
Phil
|
|
|
|
_COLON_no_upscale()/cdn.uk.prod.group-mobility-trader.com/images/cas/6b799171231d534f00077ebb7508f24a/d9e73261f796ca54d95cbd30227d54d9.jpg)
![2021 Toyota GR Yaris 1.6 3dr AWD [Circuit Pack]](http://images.honestjohn.co.uk/imagecache/url/crop/90x60/https/assets.heycar.co.uk/t_default-export/f_auto/application_assets/images/holding.jpg)
_COLON_no_upscale()/cdn.uk.prod.group-mobility-trader.com/images/cas/2a2553369da63edd35f23df2d422697f/3840c2c8f9507d29885770ebe958e8b9.jpg)
