I got the reply from blair about road pricing

[teuchter]

after a couple of days of intense reading through the email, cobbles has discovered a sinister passage in the text.

It's nice of Mr. Blair to confirm that it will simply be yet another stealth tax:

shock horror!

"Clearly if we decided to move towards a system of national road pricing, there could be a case for moving away from the current system of motoring taxation."

yes, this statement certainly leaves no room for doubt - Mr Blair has absolutely confirmed, by stating that there could be a case for reducing other taxes, that the option for reducing other taxes has been entirely ruled out.

 

[Cobbles]

This kind of sums up why these petitions are a bit of a waste of time. It's all too easy to click on a few links from a dodgy spam email to add your name to a long list of others who have done the same, without being "bothered" to check out the facts about what is actually being proposed, and look carefully at all sides of a complex argument.

I agree - it's far too easy for people simply to turn up at their polling station and put a cross in a box without having bothered to check out all sides of a complex multi faceted argument.

All voters should be subjected to an in-depth and searching test (minimum 5,000 words) to ensure that they have fully researched and reviewed the opinions and policies of all the parties involved before they are allowed to proceed to vote.

Anyone who offers responses along the lines of "They seem to do a good job" or "it just seems like the right thing to do" should be taken round the back for full and lengthy re-education.

 

[teuchter]

I agree - it's far too easy for people simply to turn up at their polling station and put a cross in a box without having bothered to check out all sides of a complex multi faceted argument.

All voters should be subjected to an in-depth and searching test (minimum 5,000 words) to ensure that they have fully researched and reviewed the opinions and policies of all the parties involved before they are allowed to proceed to vote.

Anyone who offers responses along the lines of "They seem to do a good job" or "it just seems like the right thing to do" should be taken round the back for full and lengthy re-education.

Yup, the democratic voting system is far from perfect.

But it's different from a spam email vote in that you at least have to get out of your house and go to the polling station, and when you get there you have several options to choose from.

I'd suggest the e-petition system could be improved as follows:

Once you arrive at the website, you could be given the following options:

"I support this petition"
"I do not support this petition"
"I feel that insufficiently detailed or accurate information has been presented in order for me to come to an informed opinion".

Then at least the number of signatories could be compared against the number of people who chose the other two options.

Ideally there would be a requirement for links to relevant information and space for those with an opposing viewpoint to present their argument, to be made available for viewing on a page that you would have to click through before registering your support. But I accept that this would be difficult to administer.

 

[J77]

People should drive less.

Making people pay seems to be one way of doing this.

However, making everyone pay - including those in commerce seems a bit harsh.

 

[Cobbles]

People should drive less.

Then they wouldn't be able to get to work and the economy would collapse.

If that happened, then there'd be no tax to pay Government Agencies to monitor each other's equality policies and we'd be in a real pickle.

Making people pay seems to be one way of doing this.

Um, "they" do pay, it's called VED, without it, petrol would cost about 35P/litre. The more you drive, the more the bits in your engine go round and the more you pay.

However, making everyone pay - including those in commerce seems a bit harsh.

I agree, they should just make some people pay. How about having a lottery and every so often one driver would be picked at random to pay the whole year's costs for everyone.

 

[J77]

Then they wouldn't be able to get to work and the economy would collapse.

If they can't walk or cycle, is public transport really that hard to use?

 

[Cobbles]

If they can't walk or cycle, is public transport really that hard to use?

If you live in a village 25 miles from the Industrial Estate/Office Campus where you work and the buses run once an hour, don't start until 08:45 and would necessitate 3 changes and generate a 2 hour commute that could otherwise be accomplished by car in 45 minutes then it's simply not an option. welcome to the real world of "public" transport.

If you live 100 yards away from a tube station and your office is 10 stops away, similarly 100 yards from the station then woo-hoo lucky you - you're one of a tiny minority.

 

[teuchter]

If you live in a village 25 miles from the Industrial Estate/Office Campus where you work and the buses run once an hour, don't start until 08:45 and would necessitate 3 changes and generate a 2 hour commute that could otherwise be accomplished by car in 45 minutes then it's simply not an option. welcome to the real world of "public" transport.

If you live 100 yards away from a tube station and your office is 10 stops away, similarly 100 yards from the station then woo-hoo lucky you - you're one of a tiny minority.

As we've been through before on other threads, the road pricing scheme can be designed so that the people who really don't have the option of using public transport pay the least. Potentially, less than now.

To quote the no. 10 letter:

"Clearly if we decided to move towards a system of national road pricing, there could be a case for moving away from the current system of motoring taxation. This could mean that those who use their car less, or can travel at less congested times, in less congested areas, for example in rural areas, would benefit from lower motoring costs overall."

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Part of the solution is to improve public transport, and to make the most of the existing road network. We have more than doubled investment since 1997, spending £2.5 billion this year on buses and over £4 billion on trains - helping to explain why more people are using them than for decades. And we're committed to sustaining this investment, with over £140 billion of investment planned between now and 2015. We're also putting a great deal of effort into improving traffic flows - for example, over 1000 Highways Agency Traffic Officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving.

One option would be to allow congestion to grow unchecked. Given the forecast growth in traffic, doing nothing would mean that journeys within and between cities would take longer, and be less reliable. I think that would be bad for businesses, individuals and the environment. And the costs on us all will be real - congestion could cost an extra £22 billion in wasted time in England by 2025, of which £10-12 billion would be the direct cost on businesses.

so doing nothign actually saves us £118 billion by my maths anyone one want to comment?

 

[J77]

If you live in a village 25 miles from the Industrial Estate/Office Campus where you work and the buses run once an hour, don't start until 08:45 and would necessitate 3 changes and generate a 2 hour commute that could otherwise be accomplished by car in 45 minutes then it's simply not an option. welcome to the real world of "public" transport.

I'm really tempted to say that you should live closer to your work, or work closer to where you live...

...or, wouldn't the issue of road pricing create the bus connections that people need - even if they have to walk/cycle to get to a "hub" stop.

...or, can only people who live within certain distances of large towns - with the transport links - be charged?

 

[teuchter]

so doing nothign actually saves us £118 billion by my maths anyone one want to comment?

I would comment that your maths is dodgy.

If we don't spend the £140 billion sustaining public transport, the public transport system will fall apart, the congestion will get even worse than it is now and therefore presumably it will cost us even more than £22 billion.

Will it cost us more than £140 billion, you say?

I don't know but I reckon that if the trains, tubes and buses stopped working, then our major cities would be pretty badly screwed up.

 

[Cobbles]

I'm really tempted to say that you should live closer to your work, or work closer to where you live

EEEEEE...it were reet grand when t' mill owner used ter provide t' slums hunnert' yards from t' mill.

What do you propose, publicly owned workers barracks on the outskirts of every industrial park in the land? Maybe that's what Tone's planning for his 140 Billion worth of congestion busting investment, as opposed to just slipping Capita a few large brown envelopes for R&D as a thanks for the last set of donations.

 

[J77]

What do you propose, publicly owned workers barracks on the outskirts of every industrial park in the land?

That's what I was tempted to say, but then remembered that I grew up in the sticks

My other suggestions were more serious.

 

[cybertect]

so doing nothign actually saves us £118 billion by my maths anyone one want to comment?

I imagine he's adding up the DfT and Local Government projected spending on various bits of transport (roads, public transport, maybe airports, etc.) over the next ten years or so to make the £140 billion figure, though how much of that is real 'investment' is anybody's guess.

The claim that more people are using buses and trains than for decades is something of a half-truth. True for the railways as we're back to 1960 levels for mainline passenger km (N.B. the Beeching cuts sliced a third of the railway system out by 1970 and in 2006 there's half the length of railways in the UK that there were in 1960) but not true for bus use outside London (passenger journeys by bus have dropped consistently every year since at least 1995 [DfT Transport Statistics Great Britain 2006]).

A chunk of this will have be associated with regular growth in the economy and population, though (more economic activity and more people -> more journeys).

 

[teuchter]

Instead of engaging with the valid point that there is an element of choice in where you work and live, and how distant they are from one another, you try to divert the argument with irrelevant comparisons:

EEEEEE...it were reet grand when t' mill owner used ter provide t' slums hunnert' yards from t' mill.

Irrelevant suggestions:

What do you propose, publicly owned workers barracks on the outskirts of every industrial park in the land?

(how about people living in normal houses near to transport routes instead??)

and spurious corruption/conspiracy allegations which, even if true, aren't relevant to the issue of whether or not the principle of road pricing is a good one:

Maybe that's what Tone's planning for his 140 Billion worth of congestion busting investment, as opposed to just slipping Capita a few large brown envelopes for R&D as a thanks for the last set of donations.

 

[cybertect]

One other point of information on the growth of railway use from the 2006 Transport Statistics, which may account for some of it

Break in series. From 1986/87 figures include an element of double counting, as a journey involving more than one operator is scored against each operator.

This contrasts with former British Rail data for which a through ticket journey was counted only once.

 

[teuchter]

One other point of information on the growth of railway use from the 2006 Transport Statistics, which may account for some of it

surely railway use ought to be measured in passenger miles, rather than number of journeys, anyway?

 

[cybertect]

The appears as footnote 4 to table 6.1 and applies to both the number of journeys and passenger km.

There's another series-break in the figures in 1999/00 following a "change in methodology".

 

[Cobbles]

the issue of whether or not the principle of road pricing is a good one:

We already have road pricing thanks to the ridiculous level of fuel duty (it's a lot cheaper in India, for example) so why do we need another layer?

In any event, the government should attempt to use the money it currently gouges out of the ever expanding tax system more efficiently rather than asking for more to be squandered on maladministration and toys like metro systems and guided busways.

 

[teuchter]

We already have road pricing thanks to the ridiculous level of fuel duty (it's a lot cheaper in India, for example) so why do we need another layer?

1. Road pricing isn't necessarily an extra layer. Fuel duty can be reduced in combination with the introduction of road pricing.

2. Road pricing can be related to geographical locations to tackle localised congestion, fuel duty can't.

3. As you like to point out, those in rural areas have less alternatives in terms of public transport. Road pricing can be adjusted so that people in these areas pay less. Fuel duty can't.

Yes, fuel duty is lower in other countries. The US, for example, home of smog-bound car-dependant cities like LA (have you been there? Would you like our cities to be 90% motorway and 10% city?) and inefficient gas-guzzling vehicles spewing out CO2 like there's no tomorrow.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

how about people living in normal houses near to transport routes instead??

so you are of course proposing tha tthe country side bein gonly for the rich and well off and that all those on meger wages shoudl relocate to the towns? a modern enclouses act is need n'espas

 

[teuchter]

so you are of course proposing tha tthe country side bein gonly for the rich and well off and that all those on meger wages shoudl relocate to the towns? a modern enclouses act is need n'espas

No, just that those living in the countryside should accept that there are advantages and disadvantages to living there, and the disadvantages include higher transport costs. And road pricing would actually help to offset these somewhat.


Anyway, haven't we been through all this already on the other thread?

My views on this are here:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5644688&postcount=203

and here:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5642326&postcount=162

 

[Cobbles]

1. Road pricing isn't necessarily an extra layer. Fuel duty can be reduced in combination with the introduction of road pricing.

Until such time as any bampot who wants to introduce something like road pricing actually has the guts and integrity to state what level of reduction in fuel duty they are going to introduce, then we can just presume that weasel words like "could" mean "no".

It's just a stealth tax that'll cost a fortune to implement and will end up being spent on consultants setting up inner city transport focus outreach programmes or some such slush.

Would you like our cities to be 90% motorway and 10% city

It has been said that if a nuclear explosion were to flatten the centre of one of our ex-manufacturing centres like Manchester,it would cause billions of pounds worth of property improvement...........

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I would comment that your maths is dodgy.

If we don't spend the £140 billion sustaining public transport, the public transport system will fall apart, the congestion will get even worse than it is now and therefore presumably it will cost us even more than £22 billion.

Will it cost us more than £140 billion, you say?

I don't know but I reckon that if the trains, tubes and buses stopped working, then our major cities would be pretty badly screwed up.

i'd say you are talking out of your hat then i'm using the the figues quoted from the letter from the arrogant knob what is in power...

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

No, just that those living in the countryside should accept that there are advantages and disadvantages to living there, and the disadvantages include higher transport costs. And road pricing would actually help to offset these somewhat.


Anyway, haven't we been through all this already on the other thread?

My views on this are here:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5644688&postcount=203

and here:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=5642326&postcount=162

no WE haven't you may have explained YOUR VIEWS before WE have never discusses it however...

regardless you come accross as some arrogant dismissive who doesn't take into accoutn the genuine cases of rual poverty which exist, also you are basically saying if you don't earn a big fat wedge then you should move away from the countryside so if you're born there and fail to land that big old cash incentive job move to the city you are proposing a modern form of enclousers act where instead of increasing rents and throwing people out of landlords accomidation you simply prevent them from any form of mobility thus reducing their potential to earn or support themselves...

you clearly havent' thought this through

 

[teuchter]

Did you actually read those links, then?
If you could respond to my points in a clear and reasoned way instead of stream-of-consciousness style ramblings then it would be easier to discuss this.
And as I keep trying to say, in my arrogantly dismissive way, the whole point of the road pricing idea is that it can be adjusted geographically (and for type of car) so the rural poor pay the least.