news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7198652.stm
Looks like the Welsh Government may be applying a common sense approach to road pricing. It certainly wouldn't worry me if the UK as a whole took this approach rather than the one size fits all suggestions around at the moment.
Edited by Pugugly {P} on 20/01/2008 at 18:53
|
I can't help thinking this would only be the thin edge of the wedge, rather like speed cameras were only to catch "The real loons doing 60 in a 40".
Once the money started rolling in the temptation to further boost the coffers would be hard for politicians to resist.
|
"There's no prospect whatsoever of introducing charges on the existing network."
That's the bit that entices me.
|
"There's no prospect whatsoever of introducing charges on the existing network."
That's the bit that alarms me - I fear that sentence may be missing a concluding "at present". Or am I just too cynical about those in authority?
There's also the small matter of the fact that the motorist pays something like 40 billion pounds in tax, of which 7 billion is spent on motoring related schemes... from which it follows that we, the motorist, already are paying for our roads, many times over...
|
>>hat we, the motorist, already are paying for our roads, many times over...>>
Well said!
I agree with G45, the pricing only on new roads will also mean investment only on new roads, cynical ploy !
|
Never believe a single word that spews forth from the liars that govern us.
|
|
|
What's wrong with the concept of fuel tax?
The more you use the more you pay - thirstier or heavier vehicles pay more - economical, light vehicles pay less - simple and cheap to collect the tax revenue.
Every new scheme dreamt up by civil servants has a huge cost to implement which either puts the road pricing charges up or comes out of central taxation.
We need to get politicians and civil servants to take their heads out of their backsides and get to grips with reality.
|
Fuel tax is easy to implement and everyone would pay for the mileage they do, I think it would be fair. However......loads of jobs would go at Swansea as we would not need road tax. Traffic wardens would not be able to do us for not displaying a disc etc etc. The idea is as old as the hills and will never be implemented.
|
So are there real people working at Swansea? I never get to speak to anyone when I phone. Its all automated menus and button pressing. I bet there are two computer geeks in the whole building, looking after "HAL".
As for road pricing, I think the Downing Street web site petition last year was proof enough among motorists, that the whole scheme is a no brainer.
|
|
|
|
Fuel tax is a poor way of tackling congestion because a) it makes no distinction between a driver in the rush hour who has a range of options open to him for getting to his destination and someone driving in the middle of the afternoon along a country road who is neither contributing to congestion nor able to switch to another mode of transport b) we motorists seem not to mind the cost of petrol increasing - or at least we do no more than grumble about it and seem unable to make the connection between paying a tax on consumption and changing our behaviour c) the ignoble history of successive governments taking about 4 times more from motoring taxes than they traditionally spend on road transport has created a kind of cynicism cum fatalism about motoring taxes ie nothing matters so I'll carry on regardless and I won't believe it if they tell me that transport improvements are on the way.
Edited by Nsar on 20/01/2008 at 19:10
|
|
I agree. Living in the Country would become unaffordable if fuel became taxed. I would also suggest that there would be a huge increase in fuel theft.
|
|
PU - it is already!
|
My local paper has carried quite a few reports of fuel theft since the price passed the £1 a litre barrier. So far it is mainly from transport depots, but if the price gets hiked anymore private vehicles may well become targets.
BTW, can anyone tell me why they think high mileage drivers should be more heavily taxed than everyone else? 99% of people who do high mileages do so for essential business reasons, not because they are joy-riding. Maybe it is casual low mileage drivers who should be targeted for clogging up the roads un-nessceseraly. (I'm sure I haven't spelt that long word correctly).
|
|
And central heating tanks. Cost me 450 quid for a 1000 litres the other day. Lot of money to be left standing in a plastic can in your back garden.
|
I have made the following points before, I make no appolgy for repeating them:
With (Road User Charging) RUC there is no link to the length of journey, people travelling through an RUC area may well be travelling a shorter distance than those who are not so they have a lower environmental impact, why should they have to pay more?
Yes improved public transport is vital though the answer is not to restrict travel, to the contrary, the answer is to improve the roads so congestion is lessened, so average speeds are raised and vehicles are not sitting inefficiently at idle, rather they are efficiently transporting their occupants to and from work, so journey times are reduced improving wellbeing via better work-life balance, so people are less stressed and more productive.
Taking 10% of the vehicles off the road by taxation is penalising people, demoralising them, making them less productive, less conducive to hard work and less conducive to making a worthwhile contribution to society.
On the other hand improving the roads to the extent that average speeds are raised by 10% (I am not even talking about raising limits, on many roads the average speed at some times of day is currently less than half of the speed limit!) reduces the journey times by 10%, reduces congestion by 10%, and reduces emissions by at least 10% because vehicle engines are running for 10% less time and are running more efficiently while doing so.
Edited by cheddar on 20/01/2008 at 20:00
|
BTW, can anyone tell me why they think high mileage drivers should be more heavily taxed than everyone else? 99% of people who do high mileages do so for essential business reasons, not because they are joy-riding. Maybe it is casual low mileage drivers who should be targeted for clogging up the roads un-nessceseraly. (I'm sure I haven't spelt that long word correctly).
This is really the key to effective road pricing. The removal of tax duties (on fuel and road tax) and replace them with road pricing. The high milage driver, mainly using motorways and generally at light usage time actually gains under a decent scheme. The users that are hit are the short haul, peak time user that do really have other options (school run brigade for example) Road pricing, cleverly done does provide a way foward, although I do accept with govenment's record that does require a huge 'leap of faith' on behalf of the motorist.
|
High mileage business drivers cause wear and tear to the roads and cause pollution - why should they pay less per mile than anyone else, particularly as their costs should be covered by their business.
In fact if 50% of "business users" would get rid of their car and use modern communications like phones and internet our congestion and pollution could be resolved at a stroke.
|
No costs are covered by businesses. They are passed back on to the consumer in the form of higher prices.
And high mileage drivers already pay more in fuel taxes than others.
|
Not sure about the disproportionality argument, i.e. country dwellers would 'suffer' more than than urban /city dwellers from road pricing or higher fuel taxes. A litre gets you further in the lightly used, higher speed limit roads in the sticks than on congested city/urban roads.
Also, many, many people choose to live in remote(r) areas - those tied to the land is a tiny proportion of those living there - that choice has advantages & disadvantages - the supermarket shop or discretionary 'retail therapy' shopping expedition may be more expensive, but you have more direct access to country leissure areas/ outdoor pursuits etc.
Commuting vast distances is also discretionary - people make lifestyle or career choices. Perhpas it's just not reasonable anymore to expect whatever choice we make to be funded & made possible by cheap fuel & ever increasing road building & infrastructure extension.
I agree about alot of the commercial/business travel that's undertaken - is it really necessary for plastic duck salesmen to pound the motorways or business 'exectives' to hold countless meetings on a whim, funded by tax-free expense accounts & business hospitality tax exemptions? Incidentally, I run a consultancy type business & see (or rather hear of - my business travel last year was about 2K miles/pa) the gratuitous jollies that are apparently essential to do business.
Edited by woodbines on 21/01/2008 at 00:47
|
|
|
|
What's wrong with the concept of fuel tax?
When cars run on electricity or other alternative fuels there'll be no easy way for the government to tax them on fuel usage, which is probably why they're so desperate to go to road pricing. Also call me paranoid, but fuel taxes don't allow the government to track vehicles like road pricing does.
|
We have had, for a number of years, a system where non-petrol-propelled vehicles are charged by distance and weight. It was designed to make the heavy transport industry pay for actual road damage caused by their behemoths, but, because all non-petrol vehicles are considered trucks, diesel cars are rare here. The road user charges makes them uneconomic unless they are doing outrageously high mileages. Diesel fuel here is tax-free.
Non-petrol commercial vehicles are required to purchase distance in advance and display the receipt on the windscreen adjacent to the tax. In an attempt to discourage cheating on distance run, commercial vehicles are required to have a separate certified hub-odometer in plain view for the plods.
A few months ago, the Powers Who Think They Be floated the idea that all vehicles should be subject to road user charges. At leat they were open in saying that they were worried about the reduction in petrol tax grab because of the move to more efficient engines and smaller cars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
