Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
AIA

Transport secretary launches road pricing debate

by
6th Jun 2005
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

Traffic jam - Photo Central Audiovisual Library, European CommissionThe Government is to propose a national road-pricing scheme that will require motorists to pay up to £1.34 a mile to drive on Britain's busiest roads.

Transport secretary Alistair Darling will outline the plan to tackle congestion when he addresses the Social Market Foundation on Thursday.

He told the Observer that it was critical to start "building a political consensus" while winning the acceptance of the UK's 28m motorists on the merits of a scheme.

A global positioning system would track every journey. Road tax and petrol duty would be reduced, and prices would start from two pence a mile in rural areas.

Darling said change was needed if the UK was to avoid the possibility of "LA-style gridlock" within 20 years.

The BBC news website quoted Darling as saying: "The advantage is that you would free up capacity on the roads, you would reduce the congestion that we would otherwise face and you would avoid the gridlock that you see in many American cities today.

"This is a prize well worth going for. We've got to ask ourselves: would it work. Could it bring the benefits that I believe it could bring, because it would make a real change to the way we drive in this country."

He added: "We have got to do everything we can during the course of this parliament to decide whether or not we go with road pricing."

The Observer reported that a government feasibility study completed last year mapped out a road-pricing scheme under which motorists would be charged variable fees according to the distance travelled, the time of day and the amount of congestion on a particular road.

The paper said: "The highest fee, of about £1.30 a mile, would only affect 0.5 per cent of motorists, those driving during the rush hour on very congested routes, the study said. The likely cost of an 8am journey from the outskirts of London to the city centre would be about £10."

It quoted Kevin Delaney, spokesman for the RAC Foundation, as welcoming Darling's move to put road-pricing on the national agenda. "It is important to get it right - and to sell it to the public," he said.

Andrew Goodall
Editor, TaxZone

Related links

  • AccountingWEB's Company Car Zone
  • Tags:

    Replies (26)

    Please login or register to join the discussion.

    avatar
    By AnonymousUser
    08th Jun 2005 12:12

    Oh Dear!
    I agree with the proposed measures. The reason? Not because it is a brilliant idea, but because it may set us on the road to challenging the potential blighting of our country. We all mock interferring, arrogant, nannying politicians, but it is all of us who have created gridlock UK.

    We refuse to self regulate and be grown up. If I travel to my office by car, I pass hundreds of large German made cars, all occupied by one small person. Why, because we all value our own personal space. The atomisation and fragmentation of our society has propelled us to this position. We all want the freedom to do what we want to do, how dare anybody else try?

    Marketing has changed the car. It is now a means of (slow) transport, an expensive accessory. Why does a mother have to drive a seven year old child to school in an offroad vehicle with tyres twice as high as the child? Well, because she wants to! She feels safe.

    I have friends who moan that you can drive from Paris to Nice in ten minutes, Ostend to Frankfurt in one hour, and Manchester to Birmingham in four days. If you live in Norwich and visit friends in West Wales, you need to book a week's leave.

    A glance at the map of Europe reveals a number of things. France, Spain, Germany are nice shaped countries, accommodating and kind to infrastructures such as roads. UK on the other hand, looks like an overbaked and slightly twisted croissant. Should we build a huge multi lane viaduct over Birmingham and London? That would be cruel because inhabitants would get no light and become depressed? UK plc and large road construction are not happy bunnies.

    My own chosen cars are at least getting smaller and smaller, and they are not German. I am now down to a 2 seater with a hood. It is just a bit bigger than a pram, and looks like a pram.

    In the far east they now build micro cars that carry twenty people and consume half a litre of diesel a week. Here, we want big fat cars, for engineering, safety, space and yes most importantly, recognition and status. Let's at least be honest about it?

    I like UK plc (at times), and I do not want it to be turned into a huge supermarket car park. I do not want it to be a slab of asphalt. I like my red motorised pram, but I can walk, and I actually like walking. Balance, UK needs balance, but it isn't getting any because every English son and daughter want their own cars as quickly as possible.

    So let the interfering foolish politicians come out with their fooolish schemes. We are not accepting responsibility, so they may as well start the serious debate. Mileage charges, seems fair to me? Funny, I always imagined that technology would lead us all to working from home, less travelling...We need to at least resolve all this before oils stocks are exhausted..

    Thanks (0)
    avatar
    By DavidSwales
    07th Jun 2005 10:07

    Speeding & road pricing
    Has anyone also thought how easy it would be for speeding offences to be picked up by satellite tracking........

    Thanks (0)
    avatar
    By AnonymousUser
    07th Jun 2005 10:26

    Goodbye speed cameras
    So as usual, free-loaders will just deactivate the gps system as get motoring for free.

    With this accuracy of GPS in every car speed cameras will be a thing of the past too. Break the limits, anywhere at anytime, and you can expect a nice fine on its way the same day.

    Thanks (0)
    avatar
    By AnonymousUser
    07th Jun 2005 10:38

    What sort of world do we want to live in?
    What sort of dreams to NL politicos have?

    It looks to me like one where every person is tagged and monitored and every car is tagged and tracked to ensure compliance with the law moment-by-moment.

    I'm not sure what sort of dream this is but both projects imply a huge faith in both IT and government - neither of which I have as an IT Pro.

    What will happen to illegals and tourists - they will be not covered by any of this stuff.

    Will visitors arrive at Dover and then Q to pick up a temporary Id card for themselves and have a smart box fitted to their car? I don't think so.

    When did 1984 become a policy document?

    Thanks (0)
    avatar
    By Lindsay Knight
    06th Jun 2005 13:24

    Who IS going to be better off?
    If mileage charges start at 2p per mile for all of us rural dwellers, and we are the ones who are supposed to benefit from this, then think on this.

    My car averages 42 to the gallon and diesel prices are about £3.95 per gallon at present which includes duty and VAT of about £2.55. That's 9.4p per mile for diesel. So unless there's a fall of at least 2p per mile equivalent in fuel prices, I am no better off. Now with duty plus VAT on duty at £2.55 per gallon, the duty element (£2.18)needs to fall to £1.47 in order to bring diesel down to £3.14 per gallon and leave me no worse off. Sounds simple except that's a 33% reduction in duty. Anyone believe that sort of reduction would happen??

    And another thought. If current fuel duty were by some miracle to be slashed, then I might go out and buy the biggest baddest gas guzzling 4x4 because I can afford to run it now.

    Thanks (0)
    avatar
    By John Savage
    06th Jun 2005 14:53

    Levels of fuel cost
    If we were to see petrol prices brought down to the levels paid in countries like Australia or America (the Aussies cost of petrol is about 1/3 the cost here, and that includes their tax!!) then one might look at this new fangled 'bright idea' with some seriousness.

    However, I'm afraid that my cynicism of this present shower at No 10 lead me to believe, like earlier comments, that this is just another blatant attempt to wrangle yet more monies out of us by way of stealth taxes to pay for this Government's ferocious appetite for wasteful spend spend spend.

    Is it not wonderful how these people dare to blame us for using our cars to get to work, when many of us in rural areas don't have decent public transport or road systems able to cope. As for Prescott and his pals roaring around in their Government supplied Jags, they take the biscuit!!

    Thanks (0)
    avatar
    By Robbas
    06th Jun 2005 14:57

    Pathetic
    So after eight years in power all Labour can do is to set up another enquiry into traffic congestion. UK road are appauling, the public transport system is a joke and the streets are not safe from crime so people use their cars. If children went by free school coach it would solve some of the problem but road pricing would simply put prices and inflation up causing loss of jobs in the UK economy as more went abroad. Why can't Labour understand that people use their cars because they have to. Driving in the UK is not pleasurable its a pain. If we had a decent rail system then freight could be moved off the road which would really make a difference. No doubt we would have to pay more tax to set any system up which would be marred by computer failures and costly over runs. Perhaps all public office officials should travel by public transport and they may see what the real world is like.

    Thanks (0)
    avatar
    By listerramjet
    07th Jun 2005 08:59

    so much for reducing red tape!
    there are lots of soft arguments that the government can bring to play on this stealth tax, and they have already started.

    The fact is that the roads are a mess - too many roundabouts and traffic lights on strategic routes, and not enough underpasses and flyovers - too many reactive roadworks - poor road planning decisions - public transport policy that favours meddling with market forces (example - rural train services that are much underused - or to put it another way, for which there is little demand at any price). And just watch the traffic seize up if someone breaks down or has an accident. All of this typifies the problems that arise when Government meddles.

    Thanks (0)
    avatar
    By 0916576
    07th Jun 2005 09:33

    Do the Maths!
    This is another crazy IT idea.

    If the object is simply to drive cars off the road, then use Fuel Tax. It is a blunt instrument, but avoids the additional overhead of running costs and the risk of a huge "bleeding edge" IT project.

    These additional costs are optional & avoidable. The Fuel Tax route also has the advantage of encouraging fuel efficiency.

    Has anyone estimated the likely costs of the project, taking into account the repeated failures (CSA etc) and the other demands for IT resource (NHS Spine, ID cards, ....)

    Thanks (0)
    avatar
    By ShaunSpalding
    07th Jun 2005 14:13

    Blue Sky thinking
    Use public sector to lead pvte sector into 7-day opening. Employees are required to work any 35/49 hours - alleviates rush hour and the equally problematic weekend shopping traffic.

    Free of charge 'yellow' school bus based gas/hydrogen fuel cell technology. Use compulsory.

    GENUINE investment in train and (fuel cell) bus services, joined up thinking to deliver door to door service as the home to regular-workplace transport mode of choice.

    Let the roads gridlock as encourages public transport use - for every 1 person with real car-use case (eg sales rep) there on average are 3 people with weaker reasons.

    Make air-fare taxes comparable with road + rail fare taxes.

    Force Prescott to lead by example by taking that Prius and walking from hotel to party conference.

    Thanks (0)
    avatar
    By cit
    07th Jun 2005 17:19

    Payment guarantees
    The present fuel tax suffers from its simplicity - you cannot avoid it if you are to fill up your car with petrol. If you cannot afford the petrol you do not set off on a journey.

    There are a lot of questions that need to be considered:

    How is the new scheme supposed to guarantee that payments will be collected for mileage driven?

    If we have smart tokens attached to the black boxes how does one go about trying to top these up in the middle of the night on a country lane where there is no mobile phone reception?

    Does the car stop instantly it reaches a pre-determined point? If so, what if this is in the middle lane of a motorway?

    What's to stop the current uninsured, untaxed element failing to pay this charge too by disconnecting their black box? They cannot avoid petrol tax.

    No doubt the civil servants and petty administrators will be happy to devise convoluted schemes including pre-registrations, daily registrations, fines, discounts etc. that make the whole scheme as clear as mud with the intention of extracting the maximum amount possible out of the poor old motorist.

    I do not disagree with the aim of reducing congestion but I am sure that increasing the price of fuel is the easiest solution and the carrot of improved public transport should be paid for out of general government taxation, not levies on one consumer group.

    Thanks (0)
    avatar
    By k.bonney2
    07th Jun 2005 21:54

    The wily Mr Darling
    Aren't we all falling for that old Whitehall gambit here?

    Had Mr Darling suggested a hike in fuel tax instead, imagine what an outcry that would have caused.

    Instead he sets running a hare (the road pricing debate) and waits for the public react.

    Result? See for yourself from the comments below. The public would really rather appreciate a hike in fuel tax after all.

    Nice one Mr Darling.

    Thanks (0)
    avatar
    By andyhopkins
    06th Jun 2005 11:42

    Road Pricing Proposals
    Two main problems:

    1 A substantial number of people have little or no control over their working hours and would be unable to travel during "cheaper" times;

    2 A large number of people are unable to commute any long distances (especially between two near-city but non-city centre destinations) in any "reasonable" time without use of their own cars.

    People falling into both these categories would be particularly hard hit and unable to avoid this new tax (let's face it the total take will exceed that currently took in petrol & other motoring taxes).

    Maybe if any charge was discounted for long distance travellers (myself included) it may be workable/acceptable?

    Basically, I'm not sure of the answer but this isn't it.

    Thanks (0)
    avatar
    By AnonymousUser
    07th Jun 2005 10:42

    I use the motorway as the 'rural' way to work is too congested... The M4, while a crawl to work, is significantly easier and quicker than stop-starting my way through the school runs.

    One parent I spoke to recently, refuses to let her child walk to/from school as there has recently been a bad rape case of a 13 year old child. The school run will not be stopped by parents who are scared of their child's safety and so I will be charged extra for my necessary journey to work.

    I notice there is no talk of eliminating the London congestion charge in lieu of this tax.

    I'm doing the only thing that I feel is left open to me to leave this crazy country behind. I'm emigrating.

    Thanks (0)
    avatar
    By garybsz
    07th Jun 2005 11:56

    Alternatives?
    May I suggest an alternative approach to our politiciains. The scarce resource is the road capacity, as this cannot be enlarged without a detrimental impact on our small island I suggest we do the following.

    1 Do not let anymore people in, change the tax system so as not to encourage procreation and in a generation or two reduce the population will fall to 40 million and we will all have some space!

    2 Restrict the driving licences by not allowing person under the age of say 21 or 25 drive a car. This has the benefits of
    A Making the roads safer, the young divers are the ones most likely to cause accidents will all of the assocated costs.
    B The young would be forced onto public transport or motorcycles. Both reduce congestion.
    C In the long run this will lead to a change in attitude towards alernatives to the car.
    D An added advangtage is that the young don't vote so there is nothing to lose for a politician?

    Thanks (0)
    avatar
    By User deleted
    07th Jun 2005 12:26

    Perverse incentives
    Whenever we have any government attempting to micro-manage we end up with perverse incentives.

    This truly high-risk, technology dependent suggestion will encourage the purchase of gas-guzzlers, which will then give the government problems with its own "green" initiatives.

    First rule of business life is Keep It Simple. The simple solution here is to remove road tax, average the value over a typical annual fuel consumption and add it on fuel duty. No expensive technology, no Big Brother accusations, no pervserse incentives and no long timescales as it can be done tomorrow.

    Thanks (0)
    avatar
    By AnonymousUser
    07th Jun 2005 13:10

    I foresee an additional problem
    that cars will be "driven" off the high-taxed roads designed for high traffic levels (ie motorways) by market forces in favour of lower-taxed residential routes, increasing the stress of both driver and of local residents.

    One of the supposed benefits of having a road fund licence is the obligation to demonstrate that the car is insured and roadworthy in order to renew the tax disk. Presumably the government now acknowledge that this was an ineffective control.

    Thanks (0)
    avatar
    By User deleted
    08th Jun 2005 11:18

    Just More Oil Thirsty Govt Rhetoric For The Masses
    Yes to, this is just another ploy by Whitehall to raise fuel excise duty and road taxes in the face of no real alternative. What they really should be doing, as pointed out below, is exploring the alternatives to fossil fuel energy. Even the Greens have cooled down on electricity generated from Nuclear power for instance.

    There is vested interest in fossil fuels. The game of reliance on them will be played out until either all global resources are exhausted or the earth is knackered. Whatever comes first. Alternatives to fossil fuel engines must be allowed to compete and enter the automobile market.

    Thanks (0)
    avatar
    By AnonymousUser
    08th Jun 2005 15:56

    It wouldn't work
    The chances of a system being put into place that can monitor and track the movements of every vehicle in the country is a pipe dream.
    I feel that current fuel duties are the best way to limit reliance on the motor car and push the burden onto the highest users. Granted it can't reflect the geographic problematic locations.
    Personally I like freedom and I think it shouldn't be an undervalued part of our lives.
    We all see things we take for granted gradually being erroded day by day. This idea (if it were possible) would go further to limit our freedoms.
    Pesonally I have three vehicles a car and two motorbikes, I can only use oen at a time but have to tax all three.
    when it is warm and sunny I will use a bike. I don't add to your congestion and when you are sat in a jam I am coasting down the middle of the traffic. I may even be whistling.
    There are alternatives
    http://www.theaircar.com/
    A car that runs on fresh air.. perfect for cities?

    Thanks (0)
    avatar
    By AnonymousUser
    08th Jun 2005 09:29

    Really Quick and Effective Policy Making
    I feel that I must congratulate the new Government on the speed they have researched, discussed, revised, drafted and announced this new policy. The complexity of the technology seems vast to a layman like me, the work that must have gone into calculating the pricing structures seems enormous, and the number of interested parties they must have discussed this with seems almost innumerable (road haulage organisations, road users representative groups, public transport companies, rail companies, airlines, airport authorities, etc). All this since the election only a month ago - well it must have all been since the election as they didn't seem to shout about it in the campaign!

    If only they could apply some of this ability to other issues, like the health service, education, law and order, etc.

    Thanks (0)
    avatar
    By Neville Ford
    08th Jun 2005 17:17

    Some thing has to be done.
    I have a few comments to make:

    1. This is not a new idea, it has been around for a couple of years now.

    2. I don't think there is any arguement that something has to be done to improve transport and the quality of journeys and that building more roads is not the answer.

    3. Engine and fuel technology is not the answer, its not just about pollution its about too many cars.

    4. We are over dependent on the car, for some it is vital to them getting about their daily lives. But this is only because the development and growth of car usage has allowed life styles to develop that are dependent on the car. This did not happen overnight and turning the clock back to where people can reduce/elimimate their daily use of the car will take time, years. But we have to make a start or it will never happen.

    5. The world over it has been shown that people will not voluntarily give up their cars and will put up with ridiculous driving conditions. So some form of coersion, coupled with alternatives, is going to be necessary.

    6. You will only get people to think seriously about car usuage when you increase the incremental cost of car usage. Currently if I want to take the family to London it costs £45 in petrol or £75 by train - which do I choose? Until that equation moves the answer will always be the same.

    7. Road usage charging, if practical, is a very effective way of directly linking cost to usage.

    8. The technology to track vehicles exists. It is used in HGVs and not only gives information about location and distance travelled but all sort of telemetry information on engine performance, brakes, etc. There are problems to resolve in respect of data volumes, security & reliability and privacy issues. The government's history of technology projects is not good.

    8. Road usage charging, if it is introduced gradually and carefully with concurrent reduction in other motoring related taxes, may be a way of changing behaviour. But it needs to be piloted carefully. Revenue from motoring is significant and a change such as this may have unforeseen consequences on revenue which could be serious if a big bang approach is taken.

    So it is worth debating, rather than dismissing out of hand, as we have to do some thing or there will be very little of this island left for our grandchildren. The UK will end up a larger version of Manhatten or Hong Kong where getting about takes a long time and the 'countryside' consist of public parks.

    Thanks (0)
    avatar
    By listerramjet
    09th Jun 2005 17:35

    blinkers off
    this debate is fine, but blinkered. Notwithstanding that the worry mongers always get it wrong, mostly the debate is a political device to increase the tax take from motorists, and focussed on a single solution which may actually not deliver the promised benefits (it is not tested!).

    How about debating how to make road use more efficient. Much of our road network is a product of old design, when traffic levels were lower. Most cities seem to be designed to stop rather than improve traffic flow (traffic lights, roundabouts rather than over and under passes), and car parking management leaves a lot to be desired. Add to this the fact that the working day means we still have rush hours (try travelling to work after 10:00 and see the difference, in virtually any major town/city). And then consider how roadworks are allowed to spring up, and how long they seem to take to disappear.

    My particular pet hate is how underutilised the inside lane is on all motorways. Much of this problem is because of the relative speed of slow and faster traffic, coupled with inadequate exits which can mean queuing traffic on the main carriage way - but mostly drivers who think there is something wrong with using the inside lane. If the motorways were expanded to 4 lane highways, in practice only the outside two lanes would be useable.

    If we are going to explore future technologies, then how about technology that allows cars to drive closer to the car in front in larger cities, and technology to regulate car speeds based on volumes of traffic - so that as volumes grow, cars travel at similar speeds.

    Then there is the issue of how to deal with accidents and breakdowns. I can recall many examples of a single car crash or breakdown causing major gridlock - but there must be more efficient ways of dealing with this.

    By all means Darling have a debate, but please take the blinkers of, and loose the focus on taxation.

    Thanks (0)
    avatar
    By Taxi
    09th Jun 2005 23:44

    Thinking laterally on this after looking at the responses:
    If our Gov't really wanted to change our habits they would invest fully in "green" research (as opposed to considering new nuclear power stations) and seek to educate the poplace on the dangers of using up the Earth's natural resources.

    Of course, they have no such desire, we are great buddies with our American "cousins" who have ridden rough shod over the Kyoto Agreement. The Yanks just wanna stay on top. They are re-opening huge coal mines as an alternative to the Middle Eastern oil that they thought they owned, but now in true Vietnam style, they find that they don't. Mr Blair and the Scots mafia are hell bent on staying up with the US (to hell with Europe and all that).

    The only way that change will happen is if people take on the responsibility. We have tried a General Election, but in this strange democracy the party who receives the most votes does not win.

    You can get 100% First Year Allowances by installing energy saving equipment, and there are substantial government and EU grants to be claimed for all sorts of new heating and lighting systems.
    You can give your employees cycles (oh, and should one forget, a tax free breakfast), and allow home working, etc etc.
    Businesses can also do a lot to save our fossil fuels. Get a PV cell on your roof now!

    and conjestion due to the school run? well, back to US type school buses, as I mentioned below.

    Thanks (0)
    avatar
    By Taxi
    08th Jun 2005 10:47

    I visited the Centre for Alternative Technology in N.W. Wales
    at the weekend. It has some very thought provoking information on energy and fossil fuels. We all left with the thoughts that we should avoid excessive journeys wherever possible, and cycle with the kids to school.

    I think a way out of the "LA style gridlock" which you get even in small towns in the morning would be a US style school bus system.
    I am in favour of mileage charges in general, but they are not an alternative to depleting the earths natural reserves, merely prolonging the process.

    Thanks (0)
    avatar
    By AnonymousUser
    07th Jun 2005 14:38

    A better idea.
    All cars use Fuel. Fuels is burnt when travelling and when stationary. Fuel is burnt based on speed/distance and engine size. Why not put a tax on fuel. People who travel lots in big cars will pay more. People who travel less in small cars will pay less.

    Simple and cheap to administer. The tax could be levied on purchase. Brilliant!

    The only issue I see is that setup costs will not be several billion and running costs will not be several billion. Cheap ideas must be bad ideas.

    Thanks (0)
    avatar
    By User deleted
    07th Jun 2005 15:01

    Calling All Cabs; More Spy Junk Pie In The Skies!
    Computer navigation satellite systems in space rigged to receive mileage information from all UK cars for friendly government computers? Seems practical enough....and tamper proof? Annual mileage allowance of 1,984 miles perhaps...?Have the lunatics not just taken over the asylum? Yes!

    Thanks (0)