hedgehog

For those interested the Transport Committee report "Road Pricing: The Next Steps" is available here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmtran.htm

Those who are given to reading my posts may find the following, taken from the report, of interest:

"Given the reported success of the small-scale satellite-based insurance system introduced by Norwich Union, the Department for Transport should research whether an “early adopter” scheme could be used as a route to introducing distance-based road charging across the road network."

Vegescoob

You try your best hedgehog, it'll come, under any Government, the sheep will just go to the slaughter.

Adrian F

I think the attitude that any Government will bring it in is the attitude they want hence no public compliants until it is to late.

Jap2Scrap

Real isn't it.

Isn't it about time the public at large heard about these plans? It's just going to sneak in under the radar so to speak.

Clarebabes

Oh bloody hell. It's real isn't it and not some nightmare.

P.s. got a postcard from the House of Commons today which said they'd received my letter and it was receiving attention.... Yeah right!

warrenm2

yeah me too. "I was interested in your point about the shortcomings of ISA systems. As far as I know, there are no plans to make fitting this technology compulsory. At this stage, these systems are to be made available to drivers who choose to fit them to their vehicles - parents of newly qualified drivers for instance, could decide to fit them to the family car. Given the number of tragedies involving speeding by young drivers, I would find it hard to oppose such a development, although I would not be in favour of seeing such devices fitted as a matter of course, for the very reasons you suggest.

I will forward your comments to the Secetary of State for Transport, and ask for his comments on the points you have raised" (TRL323, better driver education, retests every 10 years)

GCollier

I've read through some of the document and whether you like the idea of road pricing or not, it's good to see thought it being put into tackling the problem of congestion which is getting worse year on year.

But isn't this a fairer way to charge for a contested resource such as the road network anyway, i.e. what you pay is in proportion to what you consume and depends on the level of demand at the time you want to consume it?

For people who are against it, what are the alternatives? Keep building roads until everywhere is concreted over?

Gary.

Vegescoob

There is no need to cover everywhere but, for instance, Professor Alan Evans of Reading University has argued that allowing another 1/1.5% of land to be used for infrastructure, would go a long way to solving this country's housing and transport problems.

GC8

Surely; if countering congestion were the real motive; the government would prevent the designing in of congestion to junctions and traffic lights and they wouldnt prevent the funding of transport schemes which will have a significant impact on duty revenue (ie. decrease congestion by moving people to public transport).

There arent too many cars; theres too much congestion, not one in the same thing.

Simon

Adrian F

Congestion is being created all over London and Essex by the redesigning of the roads network. If you see work men at the road side and come back a few weeks later you frequently see a new traffic island reducing road width or a junction narrowed or another set of Traffic lights or another round about (Harlow is about to get another 6-7 roundabouts in one area alone) all these measures are to create congestion to "persuade" people to not drive but use public transport much of the congestion is caused by this deliberate planning from the Local authorities and if you talk to people in these departments they will admit this. The same with bus lanes many sit empty but reduce road capacity at a critical bottle neck creating congestion for the motorist with the additional benefit of revenue from the fines from motorists frustrated by the empty bus lane.

As to the Motorway network that has been under invested in for 10+ years so of course it is crowded. I watched News Night BBC2 before Christmas and there was a Professor on there who had calculated that if you doubled road building and built at this level for another 100 years then 0.1% of the UK would be roads! So this concrete over every thing is just Spin from the Government who take 40 Billion a year in road related Taxes and invest about 7 Billion back!

The country as a whole lives a different life now built round the car we have mobility of labour etc. if the people in charge of transport want to remove congestion then force people to work with in walking distance of where they live and ban all out of town shopping centres/ super markets e.g. drag us back 50 years. If you closed Heathrow you would remove the congestion on the M25 at that point in one easy move! Roads don’t create congestion places like Lakeside and Heathrow create it, encouraging people to commute to work rather than making employers have different offices and factories spread across the country to be near where labour is available creates congestion. Many places in the UK have lots of roads that are not congested this obviously proves that building roads doesn’t create congestion.

hedgehog

There are several issues with the horror story of "increasing numbers of vehicles" but the fundamental one is that a driver can only drive one vehicle at a time. So, if I own 2 cars and a company I happen to work for adds 30 new vehicles to their fleet this doesn't mean that I will be driving 32 cars at any given time. Nor do the 30 new company cars mean 30 extra cars on the roads as the people driving them can't also be driving their private vehicle. So, the issue isn't how many vehicles there are in the country but how many are on the roads at any given time.

The assertion that if we create more roads then we will also create more traffic is one that works well for the anti-motoring lobby as many new roads get a lot of traffic, but then that is what they are designed for, if they were empty then this would also be used as a reason not to build new roads. However we must consider that the number of people with licenses is a limiting factor. We must also consider that if this argument were applied to hospitals (if we create more hospitals then more people will just get sick to fill them) or to schools (if we build more schools more children will just want educated) then it doesn't make sense and this is also the case when applied to roads and motorists. The vast majority of people in a hospital are not there for a laugh and so it is with the motorist: the vast majority of motorists on our roads are there because they are going about their business and, in many cases, making an important contribution to society and the economy.

As Adrian says there has been, for some time, considerable encouragement from council and government for road planners to design congestion into the road network. This can then be used as a big stick with which to beat the motorist with demands for more cash to be allowed to use the road, for which we have all paid many times over, and a drive to get us out of our cars and return the country to the stone age.

It must be remembered that many of the people forcing us out of our private cars make Red Ken look like a sensible and balanced individual. They are nutters with a political agenda of control and Stalinism which hides behind a politically correct green or social issues front. Road pricing is merely another tool that they are putting in place to use against us.

Clarebabes

Again, I say, what are we going to do about it? I have written to my MP, but what's next?

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Contacting the ABD is probably a good idea. I understand they're going to be running an article on ISA soon too.

How it is they've still not worked out that nobody queues in traffic out of choice, is beyond me. Change employment law giving me the statutory right to work 10-6.30 instead of 9-5.30 and I'll travel off peak and never contribute to congestion. Beating me up with more and more taxes, doesn't change the time at which I need to be at work, nor does it give me some other magic way of getting to the cattle farm in the middle of nowhere at which my office is based.

Clarebabes

I am a member of the ABD, but what power do they really have? It seems other anti-car organisations have more clout! I could kill that flipping BRAKE woman. Always hear her on TV/radio, never hear the other side of the story!

Freak

If that were to happen then yes it is fair to say it probably may be fairer in some respects.... but you can bet your *** they will charge for this in ADDITION to road tax....not instead of.

I think its shocking personally, how the majority of people in this counrty will bend over and be shafted.

GCollier

Hedgehog, do you seriously think that if we doubled the width of each motorway there would be any lasting impact on congestion? Because I don't - we've seen it before, all that happens is that within a relatively short space of time the number of journeys taken increases to fill the road space available.

I also disagree with your assertion Andy that people don't queue in traffic out of choice. I appreciate the need for a mobile and flexible work force, but a lot of people are making a conscious lifestyle choice to live in locations which necessitate large amounts of travel. Drive around the M6/M42 or M1/M25 on a Sunday evening and tell me all the journeys being made and the hellish level of congestion are actually essential and aren't being made out of choice...

Now I'm not adovocating no road building - I'd like to see more of it - but I seriously don't believe that on its own that's the answer. Personally I'd welcome the choice of paying more to make a journey at a popular time on a subsequently less congested road, or paying less to make that journey 'off-peak'. There are a number of regular journeys I used to make which I've ended up time-shifting or avoiding making altogether because of the increasing level of congestion on the roads. So I'm actually glad to see radical ideas such as road pricing being considered.

I can understand that one concern about road pricing is that most people would think they'd inevitably end up paying more tax. But I really would like to see someone dispute the basic principle of why paying in proportion for the amount you use a resource and the time that you use it at is intrinsically wrong; we're familiar with this concept when we use other forms of transportation, when we use household utilities, when we use our phones etc. It's a tried and tested method of dealing with demand for something which is finite. What makes roads so different?

Gary.

Vegescoob

Well if it is properly enforced, I can afford it, and if it keeps the plebes off the road ok then GCollier I'll buy it.

unclebuck

Be afraid. You are now probably on their list as a potential terrorist, or potential subject of a 'control order'.

unclebuck

Mind you when this becomes law we will *all* be the subject of Government control.

Still, it sounds like the loyal New Labour foot soldiers from the "You've Never Has It So Good" brigade are all for it. No surprises there then.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Gary,

We already do pay for roads by the amount we use them and by the amount of pollution we produce in doing so - that's what fuel tax achieves, without the need for any complex technology and with absolutely no privacy issues. That's the problem, for me at least, with the new proposals - I'm not prepared to have any organisation routinely log my movements as I go about my lawful business.


I'm sure you can think of circumstances under which having a bill land on the doormat of a car's registered keeper, itemising that car's movements, could be a really bad thing. Imagine you have a company car for starters, and your fleet manager is the one seeing all that information.

The other problem is the total failure of any of the proposals to explain what people are supposed to do instead of driving at the times they currently do. My job isn't going to move, there's no railway station magically going to appear anywhere near my office, and my working hours aren't going to change unless prompted by legislation.

You're also missing the point about where people live and the transport this means they require. My wife and I work in different places, we can't live in both, so at least one of us will always need to commute. Are you seriously suggesting that everyone should move house whenever they change jobs, that every place of work is surrounded by adequate and appropriate housing for employees, or that every place of work is adequately served by public transport? (At risk of sounding patronising, look up 'slum' in any GCSE Geography book).

GCollier

Unclebuck, let me guess. You logon to scoobynet from a computer covered in tin-foil to stop the government monitoring you, and wear ear-plugs to block out the sound of the dogs barking in morse code outside...

unclebuck

Enjoy your little jape but, when you've finished finding out about demographics as Andy advises take a delve into some GCSE History books and look up Joseph Stalin and 'dictatorship'. It might be a good idea to put the novel 1984 on your reading list as well.

UB

Clarebabes

You tell him UB. This is real. This is going to happen.

I am truly scared above all. We will have no control, they will have it all.

GCollier

Andy,

Fuel tax is a crude measure. It takes no account at all of the time at which you drive, no account at all of the location, and the distance travelled can vary by many multiples between vehicles.

Personally I don't have a problem with an itemised bill of my road useage landing on my door mat. I've got nothing at all to hide, and if someone wants to get off on counting how many trips to sainsburys I made last month, well I couldn't care less. Carry a mobile phone, and your movements can already be tracked, albeit to a lower level of granularity.

I know that public transport doesn't always offer an alternative or that it's always possible to live close to a place of work, especially when the needs of both husband/wife are to be considered. But I do believe that many people have made conscious decisions to take on board long commutes...and build more roads and all that will happen is they'll fill with cars until an equilibirum is reached until they're as congested again as everyone is prepared to put up with.

I'm also not suggesting that car useage is banned at certain times or that it's made impossible to get to work - that would be madness. I just think that it's a fairer way of dealing with supply and demand for the road network that would actually go some way to dealing with some of its problems, and that if people actually had to stop and think of the cost of each car journey it would be no bad thing.

Gary.

GCollier

I can understand why road pricing is being considered. I can see some benefits to it and I can see why some people may be concerned that it would mean paying more tax.

But I can't see why that is inextricably linked to a dictatorship, secret police and gulags apart from in the minds of the paranoid. A water meter, economy 7 heating, paying more to use my phone at peak time or buying a business class air ticket hasn't yet resulted in a 'knock at the door' as far as I know.

Gary.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

We'll have to agree to disagree on how important it is to vary charges by time and location, then. I simply put it to you that most of the journeys I need to undertake are dictated by the demands of my work, so increasing the cost of those journeys simply costs me more money - it doesn't make me less likely to actually occupy road space at those times. Without the flexibility to choose when we travel - which many of us don't have - a time varying price won't do anything to reduce traffic at peak times.

I believe that what's needed instead, are measures which give people greater flexibility to choose when they travel - then the option to avoid travel at peak times actually becomes available, rather than simply being a less expensive but unavailable option.

Take the regular train service into London as an example. Why do you think commuters into London every day don't just wait until they can buy a cheap one-day Travelcard every day? It's a LOT cheaper than a standard return fare, the trains are less crowded... but despite the major financial incentive, they still travel on overcrowded trains at peak times, because there's no choice. (Those same trains, by the way, simply don't have the capacity to take on displaced motorists, but that's perhaps a separate issue).

As for the distance travelled per unit fuel varying, surely you wouldn't oppose a system that rewards fuel efficient vehicles in direct proportion to how efficient they actually are, would you? Burn half as much non-renewable fuel, produce half the CO2, therefore pay half as much - sounds unusually fair to me.

You may not object to having a bill for your road usage arrive on your doormat. But imagine, for example, that:

- your partner or children use your car, and have lawful journeys that they don't want you to know about (seeing, for example, doctors, relatives, other potential partners...)

- your boss might well be interested to know that you've been visiting competitors or attending job interviews

- someone with dishonourable intentions finds a way to determine where your car is using the system, leaving you to come back to the smashed remains of the black box in the space where you last left your car

Give people alternatives and they won't need to queue - and if they do, it'll be their choice (and, dare I say it, their right). Change employment law to grant every employee the right to choose their own working hours, and those who can work different times to avoid the traffic will get that option - and have no reason not to take it up. Right now I live next door to a school, which clogs up the roads around my house for half an hour every morning - and I have no choice but to add to that congestion because of when my working day starts. But, there's no good reason why I shouldn't start work at 10, leave at 6.30 and miss both morning and evening rush hours - my boss just needs a prod in the right direction.

It's peak capacity, not total capacity, that's the problem. Spread the load and we can all get where we need to be at a time we can accommodate.

Adrian F

Hedgehog says that the Council's and Government have encouraged the redesign of roads to create congestion actually I think you will find it is policy certainly inside the TFL region. And soon will be in Essex from what a council employee was saying at a Public consultation.

As to being tracked and a bill for your movements being lodged with your boss (I drive a company vehicle) I don’t want my Boss knowing what I do outside works hours. I want some Privacy and increasingly that seems to be difficult to achieve.

I think that this seems to affect two basic rights privacy and freedom of movement. If you include the cost of time at the average wage and remove tax and subsides you would probably prove that the car is the most cost effective form of personal transport for us. Therefore to tax or restrict it restricts our rights to freedom of movement. And why should the individual lose his/her right to privacy to satisfy a political minority’s idea of acceptable transport system. Yes mobile’s track movements but at least that information isn’t available to your Boss, work colleagues and family members with out your approval.

As to this continuing idea that building roads leads to traffic. Most people don’t drive on roads without a destination be it work, shopping or leisure. As I said if you remove the destinations then you remove the need to use the roads for most people do we want to remove places like Heathrow? These places cause the congestion.

As to this idea that Public transport is the future if you look back to the 50's with a good bus network and a much more extensive train network than now and most people not commuting the distances of now days and most families only having one person working. People still then spent a greater proportion of their disposable income on buying and running a car than they do now so how will the majority ever go back to public transport. It will never be as good as it was then when all the people decided to leave it!

hedgehog

It has been interesting, this week, to observe how things are coming together in this area. As some have been aware for a while now it will not be a simple matter to just disable your vehicle tracking system because several methods will be used to track your car. The ANPR cameras will be used to take note of where your number plate is at any given time and this will be cross referenced with your ISA/tracking system. It is likely that your number plate will also have a chip embeded in it which will be read by roadside beacons. In the initial stages of the system, where road charging is not universal, this simple system will be used to enforce road charging. However it will also allow cross referencing against your ISA system to determine not only your position but also how fast you are going. This will ensure that you have not "tweaked" your ISA system to allow you to exceed the limits set by the administration.

All told a fairly comprehensive package and clearly, when they go to such effort, there must be big money in this for someone.

Clarebabes

Yeah, I heard about the national network of ANPR cameras this week. And even I thought, oh, that sounds like a good idea! WTF??? OK, so when my car got stolen last year, it would have been tracked by the cameras so that the police would at least know what area it was in. Good eh?

Shows how the PR machine is slowly drip feeding information to us to ensure we think it's a good idea.... Just as well I am interested in these issues otherwise I wouldn't know the truth. Just think what the general public, non-car fanatic communities will think. Good idea eh?

Brit_in_Japan

I have a very good mate who's a transportation planning professional. Road pricing is undoubtedly seen as the future and I've had some interesting discussions with him about it.

The biggest objection I sense from the postings are the issue of privacy. But privacy fears might be based on a perceived method of implementation where vehicle positions are remotely reported to some centralised billing facility. But such a system is not the only way to achieve road pricing.

Consider a GPS satellite navigation system. The satellites send out signals and the receivers identify the location based on those signals. No signals get sent back from the vehicle to the satellite. So consider a road pricing system where the GPS based road price "calculator" is local to the car only. The payment method could be a card, prepaid or monthly account, which simply debits itself based on what the sat nav says. Each road has a "tarriff" based on time of day or average speed, data stored on DVD or similar.


The big problem is that there has been a fundamental shift in the structure of living in the last 20 - 30 years. Then, many fewer people drove large distances to work. The average distance from home to work was much less, people shopped locally more often and didn't travel to large out of town supermarkets. Kids walked and cycled to schools. These are big changes to the way we live our lives which largely depend on the motor car.

As a fairly small nation with limited land and a planning system which gives great opportunities for people to veto over building of new roads, railway lines etc, congestion is the inevitable result. Very few people would give up using their car through choice, even if it costs more and journey times are longer. People will sit in traffic jams in preference to taking public transport. Building lots of new roads would only offer a short term relief from congestion at the cost of concreting over increasing amounts of our countryside. Improving public transport will only only achieve so much, a large percentage of people simply wouldn't make the switch for a variety of reasons, some much less valid than others. In short there is no easy solution, but at least road pricing puts the bill for congestion at the feet of those which cause it.