'Pay-as-you-go' road charge plan

[T_i_B]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4610755.stm

Drivers could pay up to £1.34 a mile in "pay-as-you go" road charges under new government plans.

The charges, aimed at cutting congestion, would replace road tax and petrol duty, Alistair Darling has said.

The transport secretary told newspapers the change was essential if Britain was to avoid "LA-style gridlock".

Every vehicle would have a black box to allow a satellite system to track their journey, with prices starting from as little as 2p per mile in rural areas.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1499619,00.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/story.jsp?story=644303

[RC]

1. That is steep!

£1 = $1.81189
If implemented here it would cost me approx $525.50 per trip to visit my dad.

http://www.x-rates.com/calculator.html

[sweetheart]

7. Its not like that

The scheme charges sliding rates depending on the road, and the "time",
so that when you are taking premium road-space/time, you're charged
more than off-peak... to very little on off time/roads.

It has proven under tests, to cause persons who don't need to be in a
traffic jam to not be there, and this creates less traffic jams...
not a bad idea at all.

some of us in very rural areas, would not be paying much at all, as
we do not contribute to road congestion at all... fairs fair... and
this combines with cutting the annual car licenseing fee which is
currently 180 pound per year plus a MOT cerification cost of at least
50 pound for smog/safety certiifcation per year, and 500+ pound for
insurance... and 45 pound per tank of petrol... driving a car is
expensive in britain, and that is why the cars are smaller, and why
it is often cheaper to fly or take the train.

[Donkeyboy75]

2. I imagine this will go over like a lead balloon.

Creepy having a satellite to track your journey, anyway. :scared:

[Deja Q]

3. That is an example of big government being dumb.

It'll cut congestion. It'll cut everything.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

4. I think this plan will eventually be buried

It's a ludicrous and unworkable idea. People are not going to let the government put a black box in their car.

[sweetheart]

8. I'd wager the direct opposite

Traffic congestion on the M1, M25, M6 and M4 are the death of the
southeast, and its only getting worse and worse. THe funds arn't there
to build up the roads... and even 2 lanes wider won't solve the real
problem, which is deterring drivers from taking up popular traffic
slots/times... so what better way, than has been working a charm in
central london, a congestion charge. Central london traffic is much
better thanks to that... and given that all new cars will surely have
GPS systems by 2010, it is easy to implement.

The new black box will simply replace the road-tax disk... not so
far fetched. I always used to wonder whilst boxed in for an hour
between 12oclock and 9oclock on the M25, whether ALL the cars really
needed to be there, or whether some of those buzillion lorries could
pick a less troublesome time slot outside the morning commute... and
why the heck not. A train ticket from the home counties should, in an
ideal world, be competetive commuting with driving, as as much as we
can wish for a green transport world, it'll never work if its not
economic.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

9. If they grant exemptions for electric, natural gas or hybrid vehicles

then that could be a great incentive to go green.

[T_i_B]

11. Or just improve public transport?

I for one would love to be able to catch the bus to work in the morning but sadly, thanks to price hikes and service cuts to the bus services that is no longer feasible for me. :-(

[fedsron2us]

5. Gridlock in twenty years.

It is already here in southern Britain.

The problem with this scheme is that it will be expensive to introduce and difficult to sell to the public. In addition, like ID cards, it is another Big Brother operation for monitoring the movement of the public. Fuel duty on petrol and diesel may be a blunt instrument but it has no civil liberties implications and the mechanism for collecting the levy are already in place. It makes me deeply suspicious of the proposal. There are many simpler steps which the government could take to reduce the load on major congestion points such as motorways. For example, the M25 was designed as a London orbital route to facilitate the long distance movement of goods around the outskirts of the capital. When it was built far too many entrance and exit points to the road were built. As a consequence it rapidly became filled with drivers on short haul commutes to work. They now form the bulk of the traffic at certain times These individuals could easily be removed from the system during peak hours by the simply expedient of blocking access to the M25 everywhere apart from the major junctions. It would mean slightly longer routes for hauliers but they would benefit from faster journey times. Congestion charging makes most sense when introduced by urban councils with the support of their local communities.

[D-Notice]

6. "Another Big Brother operation"

My thoughts exactly... Are they trying to "convince" us to accept ID cards as a way to reduce congestion?

I'm just wondering how much it'll cost to stick a box in everyone's car...

[Briar]

10. Huh?

Last week the story was that they would quintuple the price of a road tax disk for 4WD and other gas-guzzling cars. Something they can do within a year, if they really want to: the mechanism is already in place to put it into practice. Now this week its some SF extravanganza utilising satellites and technology which can't be made practicable for years? Can we say - kicking into the long grass?

What is it with Bliar and his passion for gadgets and gizmos, anyway? Show him a hi-tech weapon or some GM seeds, and he's your for life!

[sweetheart]

12. It makes good sense

THe fuel tax is a regressive tax on rural persons who have no
alternative but the car when it comes to getting anywhere. So many
parts of britain with poor public transport, pay for the public
transport through even higher fuel prices and using more fuel to get
about basic life. These cars are NOT on the "M<x>" blocking traffic,
they're on the single lane passing places at the villiage year you.

The scheme very effectively puts the cost of traffic congestion and road
usage on the USERS of those roads. It is not that "fancy". In-car
GPS units are bog standard these days, and these are integral to future
road-traffic plans such as speed governance around schools and some
traffic spots, that the car will modify its speed automatically for
some areas, that speed cameras and all the political heat of them can
be eliminated as well. ... it is very pro-active to make traffic
planning tied directly with economics, and not re-active with angry
voters bitching about the hours they spend in traffic without any
rational alternatives.

When you fly a plane, you have a transponder and are monitored on radar,
so why should that be different with a car? In this policy, labour
can defeat future "fuel protests", road congestion protests, road
safety protests, gas guzzler politics and all that in one policy..
it is actually quite brilliant given that it is JUST a peice of
technology.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. It's incredibly fancy and technologically optimistic

GPS systems may appear on more expensive new cars now (at a cost of a few hundred quid), but that's only part of the system. This system needs to be integral to the car (so that people don't just leave it at home), it needs to keep a full record of where it's been, for whatever period you choose before you go to some government station where you pay your fee. It needs to be completely reliable too - it has to write a permanent record of the route, while withstanding rough roads. You also need to be able to fit it to old cars as well as new ones. And you need a method of reliable updates to the system - if your in-car GPS doesn't get an update, that's just a navigation problem for you. In this case, there's monetary gain (your's or the governments) at stake.

The motive behind it is highly dubious, too. The idea at the moment is to discourage the use of fuel - whether it's burnt sitting in a traffic jam, or driving through the countryside. That's why a fuel tax is a good idea. If someone drive 3 miles in a city, they do less damage than someone driving 10 miles in the countryside. Those who live in the countryside need to realise that.

You're right that rural public transport needs improving. But that's no excuse for decreasing fuel tax - which would also decrease the incentive to get a fuel-efficient car.

[sweetheart]

16. You must see the irony

That your technology comment is made on a computer server in the USA
posted by yourself in britain on a computer that likely did not exist
in your household 10 years ago, with other britain residents who did
not have computers then either. Likely it would have been similarly
inconceivable that DU would exist as not just a nerd-thing in 1995.

My old GPS used to keep a full track of all the courses i took whilst
it was on. The computer memory thingie works rather well for this, so
it is not mysterious or untried. This data would simply be downloaded
annually on a USB key at the post office to pay the license fee.

I presume that in practice, cars with lower efficiencies will pay a
gradated tax, and high mileage cars, low tax. Combined with that, the
GPS unit can hold the speed limits of all roads in the UK, that, if
wanted, speeding can be eliminated entirely through goverors on the car
when its a concern.

The political problem has less to do with fuel, and more with road
congestion, this being a political solution, as much as i understand
your concern about fuel, its not well placed. In that sense, there
should be no diesel fuel discount, and the same rates should apply to
heating oil as well... but this is not the case, and "fuel oil" is
not consistently taxed. It would be fair that cars and houses get
energy ratings A--F like appliances, and be taxed on an escalator
by that rating.

By your statements, i suspect you've not had or played with a GPS.
They are really fun things to fiddle around with, and you'll see how
incredibly reliable they are. I used to have a waterproof one until
someone stole in glasgow.

[fedsron2us]

17. Fuel tax may be regressive for rural motorists

but it does take into account the efficiency of the vehicle. Why should the country gentry driving about in their Range Rovers not pay a levy to take account of the amount of excess pollutants they dump in the atmosphere.

With regard to the technicalities I believe the current civilian GPS installed in most cars is not accurate enough for full national road pricing. Certainly, more limited trials run in Germany encountered a fair number of problems.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/06/uk_road_price_plans/

I suspect that the system will be dependent on the proposed European Galileo GPS satellite system getting up and running. This offers tracking at a level currently only enjoyed by the US military. Unfortunately, this very quality makes it a source of strategic tension between Europe and America so there may be some diplomatic friction

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2005/05/24/cngall24.xml&menuId=242&sSheet=/money/2005/05/24/ixcity.html

Many years of working on government IT projects has also made me deeply suspicious of the claims made by companies touting over engineered technological fixes to problems and the gullible ministers who so readily believe them. Often, these solutions run miles over budget and deliver only a fraction of the benefits promised. The taxpayer invariably ends up getting fleeced.

Of course, if you believe all the peak oil theorists, road pricing could end up being irrelevant because fuel will soon be so expensive that even without duty only the very rich will be able to afford to use it. The rest of us will just have to walk.

[sweetheart]

18. well made points

Just because the government has totally buggered up IT projects due
to its incompetent management, and crony contract bidding process,
does not mean the IT projects could not work if the government were not
incompetent. In this regard, perhaps when bliar is gone, there will
be improved ability to manage the public trust responsibly.

The argument about country gentry driving around in range rovers is
disengenuous. I don't know a single person in these parts of the
highlands who drives a range rover. The country folks i know, have
severaly less income than city folks down south. Many are on benefit
and are making due with odd jobs, poor incomes and dreadful public
transport. You're repeating a media myth. The rural counties of
britain are the poorest economically in the country and as much as i
believe the road tax will be charged by a combination of <engine size>
x<road used>x<datetime> the rich gentry will pay more due to the bigger
engines, if that is your concern. The real benefactors are the millions
of rural poor who are taxed out of mobility by the regressive fuel tax.
I realize this is a partisan issue in britain, as most rural areas are
libdem or tory not spoken for by the government in power... which makes
this gesture all that more impressive, one for the people on the bottom of the ladder.

In 10 years time, the bugs you're worried about will be worked out
plum dandy. The GPS has 1 meter accuracy that is weakened when it is
used for civilian purposes otherwise they'd be strapping the buggers
in to cruize missiiles. Any computer program can find a direction
vector, and these are inevitably aligned with roads. As you've been
involved with IT projects, you know about massive vector spaces and
how easily computers can do recognition and matching in such areas,
despite teething problems... **10 years from now!**

Talk about fleecing the taxpayer, just widening roads and making
massive traffic changes that will result in minimal traffic improvements
over the next decade for the billions spent, is irresponsible unless
some economic pressure restricts wanton road use.

I grew up in Los Angeles and by that standard, britain has it
easy "so far"... but with the increased car ownership of the next
decades, there is no way that there will not be intensive gridlock,
something that, really, is against the interests of every single
person in the UK, tory, labour, libdem, green, socialist and bnp.

Peak oil? hmmm... i'm not buying. I don't think you do either.
THe UK will be well on its way towards alternate energy fuels when
this sort of crisis happens, but the one move that is not gonna change
no matter the fuel, is the increased preference for private cars on
the roads... and this traffic thing is a nationwide problem that
really does require something more than a flat tax per litre.
Heck, its not even a flat tax, i pay at least 7 pence per litre more
than you do, as in rural areas, its even higher, to make it more
regressive... and if labour intends to keep the rural areas from
holding fuel protests short on, they better get their act in gear.

[Vladimir]

14. A few problems I have with this straight away

1) Its being touted about as tax-neutral, which in my opinion is not good enough - it may help congestion, but I think long term we will have to bite the bullet and increase tax on personal car use drastically for environmental reasons.

2) There doesn't seem to be any provision for people who drive more environmentally friendly cars to get a discount - its a flat tax in that regard.

3) The privacy angle with these black boxes is non-negligable, IMO, in light of this government's prior record on civil liberties.

On the positive side, it may well help with congestion if it forces people to really rethink making car journeys when they could be using public transport... so I dunno. My gut says this ain't a great idea, but I'd be open to persuasion.

[Guy_Montag]

15. I'm quite keen on this idea,

but then I don't drive much.

There are bound to be problems, there always are, but nothing outrageous.

In terms of the govt. monitoring where you are - how many of you have a mobile phone in your pocket. That allows the phone company to monitor your position to the cell you are in, combined with security cameras, if the govt wants to know where you are they already can.

As for 3 miles in the city being less polluting than 10 miles in the country. Well I guess that depends how long you're sitting in traffic in town.

[Nihil]

19. Not a good comparison

> In terms of the govt. monitoring where you are - how many of you have
> a mobile phone in your pocket.

Whilst I appreciate your meaning, the fact is that I can switch off my
phone (e.g., when driving!) or leave it at home or ...

My mobile phone is very much under my personal control, optional not
mandatory. This makes a big difference.

A closer analogy would be to demand that all banks and financial
institutions put their credit/debit/cash card information into a
single database so that they can monitor every transaction you make
whilst outlawing cash or other "hidden" methods of payment.

[Guy_Montag]

20. I would disagree,

A car is optional not mandatory too.

You do not have to use a car any more than I need to use a mobile phone. I use a mobile because it makes my life easier. However, I do not use a car, I cycle or use public transport. There are times when this is not possible, but they are genuinely very rare.

[Nihil]

21. Crossed lines?

I was not intending to debate whether the car itself was optional or
mandatory any more than debating whether a mobile phone was optional
or mandatory. I was trying to say that the comparison to a mobile was
incorrect with regards to the tracking ability.

A car does not need to be in contact with anything (except the road!)
in order to perform its primary function (transportation).

A mobile phone *does* need to be in contact with at least one base
station in order to perform its primary function (communication).

My objection isn't to paying road tax (amount depends on my vehicle's
exhaust emissions) or a usage-dependent tax (amount depends on my fuel
consumption thus depends upon the combination of miles driven + engine
efficiency).

My objection is to having my position known to within ten metres or so
every minute of the day and night while I am going about my lawful
business.

This extends to not knowing who, when or why I am being monitored but
carries its full weight in setting the groundwork for future abuse of
this ostensibly "innocent" system by unknown, faceless "authorities".

Sorry that I wasn't clear in the earlier post!

PS: FWIW, for anyone outside the London Underground zone (or similar,
smaller zones in a few other cities), a car is not an option in the
way that a mobile phone is. This is a different debate from the OT.

[Pert_UK]

22. Fuck this idea....fuck it right in the ear............

So, Mr Darling, your plan is to charge by the mile but you won't factor in the efficiency of the vehical or its impact on the environmental.....You're a fucking genius, have a banana and a sit down.....

Nothing like making it cheaper for people to drive their Chelsea Tractors on the school run every day, eh? And more expensive for people who drive fuel-efficient cars but for long distances.

There is a total lack of joined-up government here - ok, I concede that some roads can be very crowded but this approach is akin to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Moreover, it's entirely reliant on unproven technology and is bound to be just one more government IT project that goes 4 x over-budger and arrives years late.

I'm sick of the government finding new ways to waste OUR money. I'm in favour of progress, but this just takes the piss.

My solution? Prohibitively high road tax for inefficient / polluting cars and also maintain the fuel tax - after all, that's an excellent way of charging motorists for the amount they drive x the inefficiency of their cars. It does everything you could want, so why throw it away?

You could consider charging motorists to use the most congested roads at the worst times, but that's a lot easier than this stupid approach.

And no, this has NOTHING to do with the fact that I drive 500 miles a week! (1.3L Toyota Starlet, since you asked, using about 50 litres of fuel per week).

:evilgrin:

BTW - did anyone else see Clarkson pointing out the new addition to the Transport department? Apparently there is now a "Mr Ladyman" working under Mr Darling.....genius.

P.

[T_i_B]

24. And I'm almost certain....

....that Jeremy Clarkson will be laying into Ladyman, Darling & co something rotten on the next episode of Top Gear.

[bennywhale]

23. New Labour's unstoppable march towards totalitarian control.

This is technology looking for a purpose mixed with the authoritarian nutters at New Labour. If you want to charge on roads put in toll booths and we can pay with cash. You will not put a tracking device in my fucking car.

Will it be illegal to remove tracking devices from cars?

Will they be government property?

If so whats to stop them putting government property in your home and making it illegal to remove it.

They are crossing boundaries daily and the British public are sleepwalking through it all. As long as inflation stays low most in Britain couldn't give a fuck if Stalin was in power.

[D-Notice]

25. How will it work if

you come into the country for a few days with a foreign car?

[sweetheart]

26. Probably the same with an old car

I'd wager that there will be still a road-tax disk for older vehicles
which won't be fitting the new technology. Likely a tourist vehicle
will have to buy a 1 week or 2 week road-tax disk when they enter
the country.

[eriffle]

27. Seems a little off the wall to me

I was in the UK a few months ago and your fuel prices were insanely high in my opinion, but as Top Gear was mentioned earlier in this thread I will bring up a point they made this week. People are not driving around at 8 in the morning just to be anoying, they're going to work. The only way this will reduce congestion is if they make the pricing so high that it is not economical to drive. Even in a country such as yours that has a better public transportation system than the US, I am sure there are still a very very large number of people who have no other way of getting to work than by their personal vehicles.

[T_i_B]

28. Rail commuters face congestion charging

It gets dafter still!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1662717,00.html

PASSENGERS on the busiest trains will be subject to congestion charging under plans by rail companies to prevent overcrowding from reaching dangerous levels.

The Association of Train Operating Companies unveils plans today for “rail peak pricing”, which will result in passengers on the most popular services paying a premium, The Times can reveal.

Commuters in the South East would be worst hit, with many forced to pay hundreds of pounds extra for their season tickets if they want to continue catching their existing morning and evening services. Electronic smart cards would allow train companies to charge different prices for each train, rather than the current system of charging one rate for the entire peak and a single discounted rate outside the peak.

Peak pricing would come on top of the general above inflation increase in fares that the Government plans to impose to reduce the £6.5 billion annual subsidy for the railways.

[Nihil]

29. April comes around quickly these days!!

This is absolutely f*cking priceless!

> The association said that the pricing system would be needed to cope
> with the introduction of road tolls, which could overwhelm trains by
> encouraging thousands of car drivers to switch to rail.

So WTF are people supposed to do now?

Just sit there with a permanently open wallet?

My ghast has never been so flabbered ...

[Oggy]

30. I'd like to see the proposal

in full. I have no idea how it could work. The majority of people I know have season tickets, apart from the discount scheme how could that work.

If I had a ghast it would live in the attic, and I'd not let it get flabbered, at least not in public.

[fedsron2us]

31. Just another plot to screw a captive public

These proposals will hit the poorest commuters the hardest. It is yet another little burden to place on the backs of the people of this country. The government and all its corporate cronies seem to be spending all their time nowadays trying to devise new scams for extracting ever greater sums from the average punter. The problem is that this well may be starting to run dry. When that happens whoever is in power may find themselves facing the sort of dilemma that confronted the kings of eighteenth century France. No prizes for guessing how that ended.