Road pricing 'won't end congestion problems'

[Satch]

What a surprise.

Road pricing 'won't end congestion problems'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/15/nroads15.xml

The case for road pricing as the key solution to the country's congestion problems received a further blow yesterday from the influential all-party Transport Select Committee at Westminster.

In a withering condemnation of the Department for Transport's performance, it said that pay-as-you-drive charges were not the panacea that ministers had claimed.

The MPs also warned the DfT against putting pressure on councils to sign up to road pricing. Their broadside came within weeks of Stephen Ladyman, the roads minister, rejecting a bid from Leeds for Whitehall cash because the proposals did not contain plans for "demand management".

Gwyneth Dunwoody, the Labour chairman of the committee, echoed the complaints of some of her own backbenchers that road pricing was being treated as the only solution on the table.

Even though she backed plans to run pilot studies, Mrs Dunwoody warned ministers: "Road pricing will not solve all the problems of the road network, and other measures, including better and affordable public transport, must also be taken forward." Overall the report painted a dismal picture of the DfT, which spent £13.5billion of taxpayers' money in 2005-6.

The MPs found that it was on track to meet only two of the seven targets it set itself: Rail punctuality and road safety.

Even the latter goal has been undermined recently with the latest quarterly figures — showing a small rise in deaths on the country's roads.

Mrs Dunwoody said: "This is a terrible picture of failure. The department's only successes are against road safety and rail punctuality targets.

"And I imagine that most rail users would be surprised to hear their experiences described as the pinnacle of the department's annual achievements, whilst success against the road casualty targets is subdued by the daily toll of death and injury."

The committee chairman also rounded on the introduction of cheap bus fares for the elderly, an initiative which had been marked by disputes between councils administering the scheme and bus companies.

The department was also failing to crack down on unsafe heavy goods vehicles, especially ones from overseas.

Mrs Dunwoody also criticised the DfT's environmental performance. To date, transport has not been pulling its weight in the UK's efforts to avert climate change." She added: "The department continues to neglect its responsibility to improve air quality. As a result people die in large numbers each year. It must make air quality a priority."

The DfT defended its record and welcomed what it described as the committee's support for its "measured approach to the issue of road pricing". The department added that it had met the target for rail punctuality six months early and that progress was being made on air quality.

Do not forget to sign the petition! Hovering at just under 1.5 million signatures ATM

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax/

 

[Alfie]

What a surprise.

Road pricing 'won't end congestion problems'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/15/nroads15.xml

The case for road pricing as the key solution to the country's congestion problems received a further blow yesterday from the influential all-party Transport Select Committee at Westminster.

In a withering condemnation of the Department for Transport's performance, it said that pay-as-you-drive charges were not the panacea that ministers had claimed.

The MPs also warned the DfT against putting pressure on councils to sign up to road pricing. Their broadside came within weeks of Stephen Ladyman, the roads minister, rejecting a bid from Leeds for Whitehall cash because the proposals did not contain plans for "demand management".

Gwyneth Dunwoody, the Labour chairman of the committee, echoed the complaints of some of her own backbenchers that road pricing was being treated as the only solution on the table.

Even though she backed plans to run pilot studies, Mrs Dunwoody warned ministers: "Road pricing will not solve all the problems of the road network, and other measures, including better and affordable public transport, must also be taken forward." Overall the report painted a dismal picture of the DfT, which spent £13.5billion of taxpayers' money in 2005-6.

The MPs found that it was on track to meet only two of the seven targets it set itself: Rail punctuality and road safety.

Even the latter goal has been undermined recently with the latest quarterly figures — showing a small rise in deaths on the country's roads.

Mrs Dunwoody said: "This is a terrible picture of failure. The department's only successes are against road safety and rail punctuality targets.

"And I imagine that most rail users would be surprised to hear their experiences described as the pinnacle of the department's annual achievements, whilst success against the road casualty targets is subdued by the daily toll of death and injury."

The committee chairman also rounded on the introduction of cheap bus fares for the elderly, an initiative which had been marked by disputes between councils administering the scheme and bus companies.

The department was also failing to crack down on unsafe heavy goods vehicles, especially ones from overseas.

Mrs Dunwoody also criticised the DfT's environmental performance. To date, transport has not been pulling its weight in the UK's efforts to avert climate change." She added: "The department continues to neglect its responsibility to improve air quality. As a result people die in large numbers each year. It must make air quality a priority."

The DfT defended its record and welcomed what it described as the committee's support for its "measured approach to the issue of road pricing". The department added that it had met the target for rail punctuality six months early and that progress was being made on air quality.

Do not forget to sign the petition! Hovering at just under 1.5 million signatures ATM

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/traveltax/

As with Green 'policies' it has nothing whatsoever to do with easing congestion/pollution. Its all about raising revenue.

An interesting set of statistics came out this week.

We have the highest taxation for 25 years. 1 in 3 families rely on benefits. We are the worst country out of the richest 25 nations for children to grow up in. Ask yourself, is this government working - NO.

If every person in this country was carbon neutral it would affect the climate by less than 1% as we represent just about 1% of the population. All this massive effort on every persons behalf will be wiped out in a single two week period by the combined efforts of the USA, India and China. So why bother?Why put ourselves through the expense and effort of bothering. Its not worth it. Does anyone actually think that when the government says its 'levying a green tax' that anything will go towards 'green' issues? It wont. Its just another way of raising taxation.

Road pricing is just the latest avenue of exploiting revenue from the middle classes. It has bu66er all to do with green issues or public transport.

Apologies for the rant but the national media and government misguiding the populous is wrong.

 

[MainMan]

Yes, it's just a revenue raising exercise. It must be obvious even to the meanest intelligence that people don't willingly drive in congested conditions. They do so because they have no alternative. They have no alternative because because interfering politicians (of various political persuasions) have wrecked the public transport in this country. You cannot privatise a monopoly.

If they really want to do something about congestion they should

a) Get the 5% who don't have insurance or tax off the road - this should be easy with the technology available
b) Get the morons who drive around pouring out black smoke off the road - what happened to roadside emissions testing
c) Sort out the obvious bottlenecks - by coordinating traffic lights, etc

Of course they won't do this because it involves spending money and not just collecting it.

One more thing - and if you're from the PC brigade you can skip this. I have lost count of the number of times I've seen people who are obviously immigrants performing stupid/dangerous manouevres and blocking traffic. It occurred to me that the reason for this is that the government allows visitors/immigrants to drive on licences from their country of origin. This is obviously a necessary convenience for various reasons. However, it's pretty well known that you can buy a driving licence in most parts of Africa for small change and that the tests are very easy anyway. We need police patrols back on the road to sort these people out - cameras are useless.

 

[LeighW]

As with Green 'policies' it has nothing whatsoever to do with easing congestion/pollution. Its all about raising revenue.

Nail hit on head.

 

[gary350]

One answer is to double the road tax on second cars in a household, triple on third etc, and have free travel (rail or bus) within 30 miles for everyone, or is Brown more concerned with raising revenues than green issues.

gary

 

[MainMan]

One answer is to double the road tax on second cars in a household, triple on third etc, and have free travel (rail or bus) within 30 miles for everyone, or is Brown more concerned with raising revenues than green issues.
gary

I'm more in favour of the carrot than the stick. Some households need more than one car so why should they be penalised.

Some years ago I used to live in Holland. I had a flat in Amsterdam and worked in Utrecht - a journey that involved a tram to Central Station, a train to Utrecht and then a bus journey. This kind of journey would be a nightmare in England but in Holland it was easy. The fares are cheap and everything runs on time, even the buses.

The reasons why things work in Holland and not here are deap-seated. The whole country has a different attitude. It's a true socialist country, so the guy driving the bus is likely to be intelligent, well-educated and very polite. They don't regard the job of bus driving as being low status and it is paid a reasonable wage - quite rightly. In this country jobs like this are regarded as menial and paid as little as they can get away with. Meanwhile the "managers" pocket huge salaries and do nothing.

 

[Alfie]

..................................................................................In this country jobs like this are regarded as menial and paid as little as they can get away with. Meanwhile the "managers" pocket huge salaries and do nothing.

Not sure thats true. Of course it depends on what you consider a good salary. I can tell you that most tube/train drivers are on over 40K a year! And of course they 'bargain' for above average wage rises and then hold the country to ransom with strikes when they think they wont get it or one of their 'members' is caught playing squash just after a knee op when was supposed to be off sick..........

I agree though that it is a cultural thing. We in the Uk seem to shy away from public transport whereas in Europe where a good service is provided, it is embraced.

 

[gary350]

I'm more in favour of the carrot than the stick. Some households need more than one car so why should they be penalised.

You are not getting the issue, when the UK is a 500 lane motorway with a 2ft grass verge on each side its too late, the options are simple with too many cars on the road, we could:-

1. Everyone with birthdays on an odd year (1971 etc) can use the roads only mon/wed/fri, those wth even birth years tues/thur/sat, leave sun to clear the carbon monoxide away.
2. Allow drivers only between the age of 30 and 40 (male only + Pammy).
3. Only little little electric cars allowed.
4. Bring back horses and the ability to walk long distances like 5 miles.
5. Restrict households to 1 car each.
6. Free public transport.
7. Top Gear will be a programme about the most expensive and fastest buses.

gary (a three car household owner)

 

[MainMan]

Not sure thats true. Of course it depends on what you consider a good salary. I can tell you that most tube/train drivers are on over 40K a year!

That's probably true, but that's what you have to pay to get the number of drivers that they need. Contrast that with what they paid Bob Kylie to (not) sort out London Transport - several million pounds a year. Also contrast it to what the Rail Franchise "executives" are paid - again in the millions. England is getting more like America where the CEOs are paid in the millions and the people who actually do the work are paid the minimum possible - and they even begrudge this money and "out-source" the work to India if they possibly can. This is not an environment in which public services will ever work properly.

 

[richard]

One answer is to double the road tax on second cars in a household, triple on third etc, and have free travel (rail or bus) within 30 miles for everyone, or is Brown more concerned with raising revenues than green issues.

gary

Why ? That doesnt stack up - Even if I have 50 cars, I'm still going to do exactly the same mileage every year - i.e i'm exactly the same green-ness - In fact, by having 2 cars that I personally use I create less polution, because if I was forced to have only one, i'd have my SL55 and do 16k miles per annum in it. At the moment I do most (13k) of my mileage in the A180CDI, much less poluting. By owning more that one car you are already paying for more than one lot of depreciation, and of course that money is supporting the car industry and the millions of related jobs. And if you do own 2/3 cars, of course just selling one of them would probably pay for your bus travel within 30 miles. (i.e. its choice, free bus travel or 2nd car).

Also, i'd like the option of bus travel, free or not. It doesnt exist where I live in Ascot. I have to drive to the station to take the train. - walking works in the summer, but dark nights walking through the woods is not my idea of fun/sensible. Also out of the rush hour all these huge empty diesel busses are running around - much more efficient to put the passengers in a transit van instead !

I still maintain the answer is £10/gallon petrol and scrap road fund licence. That is proper pay as you go motoring, and congestion management as you get many more MPG driving in uncongested times than in congested times. It also may make road travel more expenisve that rail travel. And saves 500 million (or whatever) of tax payers money in developing road pricing technology that works, is reliable etc.

Back to my 2nd paragraph, once you own a car (and are paying the depreciation) then you are going to use it because its incrementally cheaper than train travel. Everyone who lives out of town is likely to own a car because of the sorry state of public transport.

As soon as someone in government realises that we need both carrot and stick, not just constant sticks then we may all be happier.

R

 

[Spinal]

You are not getting the issue, when the UK is a 500 lane motorway with a 2ft grass verge on each side its too late, the options are simple with too many cars on the road, we could:-

1. Everyone with birthdays on an odd year (1971 etc) can use the roads only mon/wed/fri, those wth even birth years tues/thur/sat, leave sun to clear the carbon monoxide away.
2. Allow drivers only between the age of 30 and 40 (male only + Pammy).
3. Only little little electric cars allowed.
4. Bring back horses and the ability to walk long distances like 5 miles.
5. Restrict households to 1 car each.
6. Free public transport.
7. Top Gear will be a programme about the most expensive and fastest buses.

gary (a three car household owner)

Actually... in major cities in Italy when the CO levels get too high, they restrict traffic until the pollution levels are tollerable. The way its done is on certain days of the week "even" plates can't circulate and on others "odd" plates can't circulate. (Take the last digit of your licence plate, if its even (0,2,4,6,8) you have an even plate; if its odd (1,3,5,7,9) you have an odd plate).

This effectively sounds crazy, but in reality works wonders. You find people starting to carpool more (you start looking for people with the "other" plate, so one day you drive then swap).

Whats nicer is this doesn't apply to LPG or electric cars... (and is enforced by camera's at times - but not always)

Michele

 

[Benzowner]

One answer is to double the road tax on second cars in a household, triple on third etc, and have free travel (rail or bus) within 30 miles for everyone, or is Brown more concerned with raising revenues than green issues.

gary

Problem, in my household, who gives up their car, my son, daughter,wife or me. I agree with the free rail and bus travel, but who pays for it? When the Tories privatised the public transport, they forced the profits to be paid to shareholders not reinvesting it in the infrastructure of the companies. Basically, all the political parties are as bad as one another, but I guess its nornmal to slag off the current incumbents

 

[BonzoDog]

I'm more in favour of the carrot than the stick. Some households need more than one car so why should they be penalised.

Some years ago I used to live in Holland. I had a flat in Amsterdam and worked in Utrecht - a journey that involved a tram to Central Station, a train to Utrecht and then a bus journey. This kind of journey would be a nightmare in England but in Holland it was easy. The fares are cheap and everything runs on time, even the buses.

The reasons why things work in Holland and not here are deap-seated. The whole country has a different attitude. It's a true socialist country, so the guy driving the bus is likely to be intelligent, well-educated and very polite. They don't regard the job of bus driving as being low status and it is paid a reasonable wage - quite rightly. In this country jobs like this are regarded as menial and paid as little as they can get away with. Meanwhile the "managers" pocket huge salaries and do nothing.

Same here in Luxembourg. The bus, which I often use, usualy has a bus driver who can speak four, sometimes five, langaugaes. In Frankfurt, where I have also lived, a superb integrtaed transport system.

 

[Flatflr]

Actually... in major cities in Italy when the CO levels get too high, they restrict traffic until the pollution levels are tollerable. The way its done is on certain days of the week "even" plates can't circulate and on others "odd" plates can't circulate. (Take the last digit of your licence plate, if its even (0,2,4,6,8) you have an even plate; if its odd (1,3,5,7,9) you have an odd plate).

This effectively sounds crazy, but in reality works wonders. You find people starting to carpool more (you start looking for people with the "other" plate, so one day you drive then swap).

Whats nicer is this doesn't apply to LPG or electric cars... (and is enforced by camera's at times - but not always)

Michele

Easy way round that one. Just have two cars making sure that one had even and one had odd plates..

 

[Alfie]

That's probably true, but that's what you have to pay to get the number of drivers that they need. Contrast that with what they paid Bob Kylie to (not) sort out London Transport - several million pounds a year. Also contrast it to what the Rail Franchise "executives" are paid - again in the millions. England is getting more like America where the CEOs are paid in the millions and the people who actually do the work are paid the minimum possible - and they even begrudge this money and "out-source" the work to India if they possibly can. This is not an environment in which public services will ever work properly.

There is no way a train driver/tube driver job is worth almost double the national average wage. The sad fact is that this one area of the economy which is still in the grip of the unions.

As with any organisation the highest overhead is the salary bill. If the salary bill for the railways was more realistic then there would be more money for re-investment. Ditto if those who used the railways actually paid the true cost of their travel plus a bit for profit, instead of being propped up by the tax payer, then the rail infrastructure would be in far better shape.

As ever, the motorist props up those who use public transport. Where is the fairness in that? Do the rail users subsidise my travel to work? No. Do I subsidise theirs - yes.

Edit; Just to add to this debate I intend to buy a 5.5litre car as I can and it will make bu66er all differance to the planet or the amount of money I give to the government except for a slight increase in fuel consumption. Thank you Mercedes for making a 5.5litre car that is more environmentally friendly than a 2 litre peugeot or mondeo?

 

[nickg]

Actually... (Take the last digit of your licence plate, if its even (0,2,4,6,8) you have an even plate; if its odd (1,3,5,7,9) you have an odd plate).


Michele

thanks for reminding us of those odd and even numbers

Seriously though, where are we at on government policy and general "green" concern.
A while ago I thought the big problem was that we were going to run out of oil within 50 years.
Then it was congestion on the roads used as an excuse for livingstone's car ownership tax.
Now its all about CO2 levels being dangerously and critically high - so we're all going to drown within 50 years.

So which one should we worry about most?

Seems to me that we should run out of oil at around the same time that there are so many cars on the road that we won't be able to move anyway.
But that desn't matter because all the roads will be 10 metres under the sea anyway.

 

[DieselE]

Same here in Luxembourg. The bus, which I often use, usualy has a bus driver who can speak four, sometimes five, langaugaes. In Frankfurt, where I have also lived, a superb integrtaed transport system.

The bus drivers in this country speak many languages as well. Trouble is that English is not always one of them.

 

[maxg]

New stat came up recently show that the London congestion charge (old size) is just braking even.This includes the 30% extra they get in late penalties. So were the **** is the money going to come from for better (free) transport.........
Hang Ken its better for everyone.

 

[shadowninja]

Thank you Mercedes for making a 5.5litre car that is more environmentally friendly than a 2 litre peugeot or mondeo?

WHAT???


55 AMG for sale..

 

[GRAV888]

Anyone else receive the following email?

Thank you for taking the time to register your views about road pricing on the Downing Street website.

This petition was posted shortly before we published the Eddington Study, an independent review of Britain's transport network. This study set out long-term challenges and options for our transport network.

It made clear that congestion is a major problem to which there is no easy answer. One aspect of the study was highlighting how road pricing could provide a solution to these problems and that advances in technology put these plans within our reach. Of course it would be ten years or more before any national scheme was technologically, never mind politically, feasible.

That is the backdrop to this issue. As my response makes clear, this is not about imposing "stealth taxes" or introducing "Big Brother" surveillance. This is a complex subject, which cannot be resolved without a thorough investigation of all the options, combined with a full and frank debate about the choices we face at a local and national level. That's why I hope this detailed response will address your concerns and set out how we intend to take this issue forward. I see this email as the beginning, not the end of the debate, and the links below provide an opportunity for you to take it further.

But let me be clear straight away: we have not made any decision about national road pricing. Indeed we are simply not yet in a position to do so. We are, for now, working with some local authorities that are interested in establishing local schemes to help address local congestion problems. Pricing is not being forced on any area, but any schemes would teach us more about how road pricing would work and inform decisions on a national scheme. And funds raised from these local schemes will be used to improve transport in those areas.

One thing I suspect we can all agree is that congestion is bad. It's bad for business because it disrupts the delivery of goods and services. It affects people's quality of life. And it is bad for the environment. That is why tackling congestion is a key priority for any Government.

Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. This is being driven by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue.

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.

But all the evidence shows that improving public transport and tackling traffic bottlenecks will not by themselves prevent congestion getting worse. So we have a difficult choice to make about how we tackle the expected increase in congestion. This is a challenge that all political leaders have to face up to, and not just in the UK. For example, road pricing schemes are already in operation in Italy, Norway and Singapore, and others, such as the Netherlands, are developing schemes. Towns and cities across the world are looking at road pricing as a means of addressing congestion.

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.

A second option would be to try to build our way out of congestion. We could, of course, add new lanes to our motorways, widen roads in our congested city centres, and build new routes across the countryside. Certainly in some places new capacity will be part of the story. That is why we are widening the M25, M1 and M62. But I think people agree that we cannot simply build more and more roads, particularly when the evidence suggests that traffic quickly grows to fill any new capacity.

Tackling congestion in this way would also be extremely costly, requiring substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and health, or increases in taxes. If I tell you that one mile of new motorway costs as much as £30m, you'll have an idea of the sums this approach would entail.

That is why I believe that at least we need to explore the contribution road pricing can make to tackling congestion. It would not be in anyone's interests, especially those of motorists, to slam the door shut on road pricing without exploring it further.

It has been calculated that a national scheme - as part of a wider package of measures - could cut congestion significantly through small changes in our overall travel patterns. But any technology used would have to give definite guarantees about privacy being protected - as it should be. Existing technologies, such as mobile phones and pay-as-you-drive insurance schemes, may well be able to play a role here, by ensuring that the Government doesn't hold information about where vehicles have been. But there may also be opportunities presented by developments in new technology. Just as new medical technology is changing the NHS, so there will be changes in the transport sector. Our aim is to relieve traffic jams, not create a "Big Brother" society.

I know many people's biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a "stealth tax" on motorists. It won't. Road pricing is about tackling congestion.

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. Those who travel longer distances at peak times and in more congested areas would pay more. But those are decisions for the future. At this stage, when no firm decision has been taken as to whether we will move towards a national scheme, stories about possible costs are simply not credible, since they depend on so many variables yet to be investigated, never mind decided.

Before we take any decisions about a national pricing scheme, we know that we have to have a system that works. A system that respects our privacy as individuals. A system that is fair. I fully accept that we don't have all the answers yet. That is why we are not rushing headlong into a national road pricing scheme. Before we take any decisions there would be further consultations. The public will, of course, have their say, as will Parliament.

We want to continue this debate, so that we can build a consensus around the best way to reduce congestion, protect the environment and support our businesses. If you want to find out more, please visit the attached links to more detailed information, and which also give opportunities to engage in further debate.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Blair