Poll:
Are you in favour of motor vehicle owners being charged per mile driven rather than per motor vehicle owned (the road pricing plans)?
I'm interested to know what CTC forum members think about this proposed policy.
You need to log on so you can vote.
Road Pricing, Poll
-
reohn2
They're already charged per mile everytime they buy petrol.
If we want to increase petrol prices we had better start wearing tin hats,they won't stand for it whether it be right or wrong.
If we want to reduce pollution and I'm thinking thats whats supposed to be behind extra road charges( though I have my doubts if thats really the case) then we need an integrated, fair,PUBLIC, transport system not the cut throat passenger comes second one that we now have.
If we want to increase petrol prices we had better start wearing tin hats,they won't stand for it whether it be right or wrong.
If we want to reduce pollution and I'm thinking thats whats supposed to be behind extra road charges( though I have my doubts if thats really the case) then we need an integrated, fair,PUBLIC, transport system not the cut throat passenger comes second one that we now have.
-
Lusting my Pinnarello
- Posts: 266
- Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 4:53pm
- Location: Rotherham, South Yorkshire
I am totally in faviour of road tolls. They do it in the USA, its a great tax revinue collection 
Seriously, I am in faviour IF the money is going DIRECTLY to helping prevent THIS COUNTRIES energy crisis. THE PROBLEM IS, do we trust those who would be selected to be charge:?:
The money needs to be spent on renuable energy, Bigger discounts for poeple fitting solar panels on their roofs and wind turbins (the small ones)
The money can be put towards paying for the big wind turbins (out at sea etc)
If people are so frightened of Nuclear power - why not stick em all in the middle of knowhere - like the remote places of africa, or canada
Unfortunately charging tolls on roads will not work in reducing peoples car emission (well not what is needed) as people will get used the extra charge, cut back on few things, and then they get used to it.
only the minority will not be-able to afford the toll, then they wont be able to get to cornwall, or wales. or scotland, and enjoy those lovely places.
Mind you...... They could always do a e2e-e2e!!!!
Seriously, I am in faviour IF the money is going DIRECTLY to helping prevent THIS COUNTRIES energy crisis. THE PROBLEM IS, do we trust those who would be selected to be charge:?:
The money needs to be spent on renuable energy, Bigger discounts for poeple fitting solar panels on their roofs and wind turbins (the small ones)
The money can be put towards paying for the big wind turbins (out at sea etc)
If people are so frightened of Nuclear power - why not stick em all in the middle of knowhere - like the remote places of africa, or canada
Unfortunately charging tolls on roads will not work in reducing peoples car emission (well not what is needed) as people will get used the extra charge, cut back on few things, and then they get used to it.
only the minority will not be-able to afford the toll, then they wont be able to get to cornwall, or wales. or scotland, and enjoy those lovely places.
Mind you...... They could always do a e2e-e2e!!!!
As motoring has got cheaper relative to incomes since the 70's it is not surprising that more people are driving. If the trend is to be reversed then it has to be made more expensive and for me the fairest way is road pricing. Petrol taxes are less fair because they penalise people in rural areas and incentivise those in urban areas. Road pricing could allow someone driving through central Manchester at 5pm to pay say £2 a mile and someone driving in rural Scotland at 2 am to pay say 2p a mile. At present it costs the same and doesn't reflect the proper price for using the road. The result is rationing by queuing (traffic jam). Rationing by price is fairer.
I cannot see any case for routinely subsidising any type of transport, including public transport. Subsidies put another way is giving people money to travel. I read the other day for every passenger using the superfast SNCF train between Paris and Marseilles, the French Govt pays about £60. Surely this is nonsense. I think if driving really reflected the true costs it would be unneccessary as public transport would be able to compete. It is in most cases much more efficient in it's use of fuel and space.
Over time people would feel the financial penalties of living 30miles away from their work and driving great distances to shop. It would make local shops and business more competitive and might even result in the small shops that used to serve our villages and small towns reviving again. And it would cut pollution and probably help revive utility cycling.
I cannot see any case for routinely subsidising any type of transport, including public transport. Subsidies put another way is giving people money to travel. I read the other day for every passenger using the superfast SNCF train between Paris and Marseilles, the French Govt pays about £60. Surely this is nonsense. I think if driving really reflected the true costs it would be unneccessary as public transport would be able to compete. It is in most cases much more efficient in it's use of fuel and space.
Over time people would feel the financial penalties of living 30miles away from their work and driving great distances to shop. It would make local shops and business more competitive and might even result in the small shops that used to serve our villages and small towns reviving again. And it would cut pollution and probably help revive utility cycling.
-
Terry T
-
Terry T
The proposal is for all roads to be priced, in rural and city areas and with prices varying according to the time of day and over time how busy they are. The BBC summarised it a while back. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4610755.stm)
This will be more effective at controlling pollution than fuel taxes. This is because the most environmentally damaging type of driving is stop-start urban driving. These roads could be priced highest. A fuel tax offers little disincentive to city driving as distances are so short and offers only a partial solution to the environmental problem. Also as cars get more efficient, or start to run on hydrogen or batteries or whatever, fuel taxes may be avoided. But the other harms from driving: obesity, injuries and deaths, perceived and real danger, reduced mobility for non vehicle users, electricity(therefore pollution) for making alternative fuels or batteries, environmental costs of manufacturing cars, run off pollution, noise, consumption of valuable space, visual pollution etc all remain.
At present increased fuel taxes seem politically unacceptable. Road pricing if done sensitively might work.
This will be more effective at controlling pollution than fuel taxes. This is because the most environmentally damaging type of driving is stop-start urban driving. These roads could be priced highest. A fuel tax offers little disincentive to city driving as distances are so short and offers only a partial solution to the environmental problem. Also as cars get more efficient, or start to run on hydrogen or batteries or whatever, fuel taxes may be avoided. But the other harms from driving: obesity, injuries and deaths, perceived and real danger, reduced mobility for non vehicle users, electricity(therefore pollution) for making alternative fuels or batteries, environmental costs of manufacturing cars, run off pollution, noise, consumption of valuable space, visual pollution etc all remain.
At present increased fuel taxes seem politically unacceptable. Road pricing if done sensitively might work.
-
Dave B
NO, NO, NO!
Are we not taxed enough in this country already? In any case, think about how they will check your movements, a GPS in your vehicle. Every trip we make will be logged somewhere. Why?
If we have to pay as we drive, get rid of foad tax and put a couple of pence on petrol. Them who drive most pay most but without Tony Blair, whoops, I mean Big Brother, tracking our every move.
Are we not taxed enough in this country already? In any case, think about how they will check your movements, a GPS in your vehicle. Every trip we make will be logged somewhere. Why?
If we have to pay as we drive, get rid of foad tax and put a couple of pence on petrol. Them who drive most pay most but without Tony Blair, whoops, I mean Big Brother, tracking our every move.
-
Coventarian
The monitoring of every vehicle is sinister and must go. Vehicles don’t need to be tracked, there are other ways of implementing road pricing. Drivers could uses cards loaded with credits into equipment in their cars which removed the credits as the car travelled along the roads. The kit would be connected to the car anti-theft system to prevent the car being started when there's no credit left. The same system might well be able to keep the car below the speed limit as well (get rid of speed bumps hooray)!
Congestion charging isn't about cutting CO2 or other emissions (although it will probably help). What it is about is removing the need for road building.
Road pricing or road building - which do you prefer?
Congestion charging isn't about cutting CO2 or other emissions (although it will probably help). What it is about is removing the need for road building.
Road pricing or road building - which do you prefer?
-
keepontriking
- Posts: 472
- Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 9:40pm
- Location: Hampshire
- Contact:
-
keepontriking
- Posts: 472
- Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 9:40pm
- Location: Hampshire
- Contact:
-
Coventarian
Monitoring adds to the unpopularity of the idea. It isn't necessary.
Note the London Congestion Charge uses monitoring as do speed cameras. The result has been a massive rise in the number of false number plates (and as you can't get insurance with false number plates) un-insured drivers.
Control freakery mustn't be allowed to mess up a good idea.
Note the London Congestion Charge uses monitoring as do speed cameras. The result has been a massive rise in the number of false number plates (and as you can't get insurance with false number plates) un-insured drivers.
Control freakery mustn't be allowed to mess up a good idea.