I see that the RAC Foundation are reviving the road pricing debate.
tinyurl.com/384a7ry
I thought we already had a version, called fuel tax.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 5 Jul 10 at 15:31
|
Why is it that I find this bit hard to believe, based on recent governments' attitude to motoring taxation:
".......He added that any such system would need to come alongside a cut in the cost of fuel duty and road tax.
Meanwhile, a guaranteed proportion of revenue collected from drivers would be invested back in to roads, overseen by a governing body with a long-term vision for the network."
I foresee a whole black market industry forming involved in disabling / hacking / cloning GPS transponders if this goes ahead.
I agree, ON, fuel duty is a perfect system. Self collecting, self policing (red diesel issue aside), and automatically hits big polluters harder than small ones. Why mess with it?
|
Governments like to complicate things and solve problems that they create to justify their own existence. Road pricing would create loads of non jobs so it is appealing.
Fuel theft and use of biofuels is the biggest threat to fuel revenue. If you have zero emission or 'green' fuels you cannot justify doing over the motorist like they do at present. They've used the greenwash argument to justify obscene fuel taxes so if you're using bio fuels that are being made from waste materials with little energy input then they shouldn't be taxed like fossil fuels but you can bet they will be.
It's really quite simple. Every single person in the country uses the roads. Everyone should pay. It should be a national resource that is paid for out of normal taxation. Business pays massive rates to councils that should be using some for road maintenance. Even the die hard lentil eaters use the roads as they have to cycle on something and their supermarket deliveries from ocado arrive by road.
Fuel taxation is a perfect usage and habit level tax. Only complication is from the significant rise in fuel theft. This could be stopped in its tracks by using pay at pump as the only method of fuel purchase.
|
Governmnets quite like the idea because it could be net raiser of revenue. NOt usre about he non jobs bit.
The real advocates are the companies that could sell/license etc the technology.
|
|
When the technology is cracked (not if, when!), the honest punters have to pay the shortfall.
|
Trouble with fuel duty is that many people are paying increasingly less, they've bought small and fuel efficient cars as they were told to do so fuel tax revenue is down per mile covered.
Road pricing will come have no doubt, useful by product of which is total monitoring.
|
The main reason why road-pricing won't come in is that the cost of running the scheme will almost be the same as the revenue raised by it, like the Congestion Charge. Therfore there won't be any reduction in other driving taxes as promised, or the government would be out of pocket. And that's before you factor in the mass avoidance that would be inevitable (like with insurance now, but worse). The amount of avoidance from fuel duty is minimal, and the more you drive, the more you pay. Like others say, what could be simpler or fairer or easier or cheaper to collect?
Yes, as people switch to more fuel efficient cars, the government can be expected to jack up other taxes to make up the shortfall.
It's a shame the RAC Foundation can't see the wood for the trees!
|
>> Fuel taxation is a perfect usage and habit level tax. Only complication is from the
>> significant rise in fuel theft. This could be stopped in its tracks by using pay
>> at pump as the only method of fuel purchase.
Well up to point Lord Copper. Fuel taxation is perfect for pricing emissions but it barely touches congestion.
Is the value of a mile on the M25 the same as a mile on the A859?
|
>> >> Fuel taxation is a perfect usage and habit level tax. Only complication is from
>> the
>> >> significant rise in fuel theft. This could be stopped in its tracks by using
>> pay
>> >> at pump as the only method of fuel purchase.
>>
>> Well up to point Lord Copper. Fuel taxation is perfect for pricing emissions but it
>> barely touches congestion.
>>
>> Is the value of a mile on the M25 the same as a mile on
>> the A859?
>>
That anomally comes in because cars are too fuel efficient at low speed. There needs to be a self-correcting mechanism that would communicate the social consequences of congestion to the driver's pocket. At present the only cost to a driver sitting in a traffic queue is his own time.
Road pricing doesn't address this problem either, because if the traffic isn't moving it won't be paying.
If congestion-reduction is the real objective then the pricing mechanism needs to respond directly to current traffic conditions, in a way that is instantly recognisable to the driver. Join this queue and your taximeter will start whirring at the penalty rate.
|
There is a self correcting mechanism. Time wasted in congestion costs the driver time with their family or actual money if they're self employed. It is entirely self regulating when governments don't start interfering. People have their limits on how long they will sit in traffic. At some point they will not travel, find another route or travel at another time.
If you want to reduce congestion then start doing something about school start times and force employers to have flexible working hours so everyone isn't piling in at 9am!
|
>> People have their limits on how long they will sit in
>> traffic. >>
I doubt that. 3-hour commutes are now commonplace, and I'd bet the average journey time is increasing, either through congestion or longer journey mileages. Very few people actually value their time enough to do anything about it.
It would be interesting to do an experiment keeping people locked in a traffic queue and plotting the time before each of them handed in his employment notice to secure release.
|
Road pricing. - DP
