Road to ruin
Posted by Paul Horrell at 4:30PM on Wednesday 21 February, 2007 21 Comments
So almost 1.8 million people signed up to the road-pricing petition. That's an awful lot - more than can be accounted for by a few bulb-eyed maniacs signing up multiple times under the names of their spouses, kids, and goldfish. It's a real popular outcry.
Clearly it has got the Government rattled, so Blair himself has posted a remarkably conciliatory reply (read it here).
It reminds me of the way the Government behaved when they were new, in the late-1990s. They were all gung-ho about clamping down on 'the motorist', forgetting that 'the motorist' is a synonym for 'the electorate'.
Then when the fuel protests bit, and car production ended at Luton and Dagenham and later Longbridge, they were forced to admit that Britain relies far more on cars than they assumed, both for transport and for jobs.
But that doesn't mean the anti-pricing lobby has won. More important, it doesn't mean the anti-pricing lobby is right.
The uncomfortable facts are these. Traffic will increase because road transport demands a smaller slice of our income, year by year. Twenty years ago a BMW 328i with Wormwood Scrubs equipment levels was £24,000. Now a faster, comfier 325i SE is £26,000 - a decrease really because average earnings have gone up by 50 per cent in that time.
Although fuel prices have gone up slightly in real terms, that's offset by the fact that cars have gotten more economical. Unless we choose to buy a bigger car - which on average we do, because we're on average more prosperous.
Congestion will increase because of changes in society, too. For a thousand reasons, people are commuting greater and greater distances to work, school, shops and recreations. It's true that a certain amount of telecommuting goes on (I'm writing this from my spare room not the Top Gear office), but studies show this won't be enough. And with greater prosperity and greater demand for consumer choice, also come greater truck mileages.
Is road pricing the answer? Some quick thoughts:
1. Road building isn't an alternative to road pricing, not by itself anyway. You can't just knock down swathes of suburbs to build motorways into cities. Besides, if you're going to allow more vehicles into the city centres, they'll cause gridlock when they arrive. But the M6 Toll and the Second Severn Crossing, roads that supplement existing motorways, seem to have worked. They are, you'll notice, priced roads.
2. If people factored in their time properly they'd realise how costly it is to sit in a jam - a self-administered form of road pricing. They sit in jams daily because they feel they have no alternative.
3. Don't worry about the Police using road-pricing trackers to see where we've been and at what speed. The Data Protection Act is surprisingly effective. And anyway, the technology already exists to stop us speeding on motorways, but the authorities don't bother to use it.
4. Road pricing can never be 'revenue neutral'. In London, Ken Livingstone admits the cost of installing the equipment and running the C-Charge scheme pretty much consumes the revenue it generates. On a countrywide scheme there probably would be some cash generated, but not enough to provide a significant cut in fuel prices. Anyway, there's a political-environmental component in fuel duty that means it'll never be cut.
5. Traffic in London is now almost back to where it was before the £8-a-day charge was introduced. Hmmm...
So there are endless complex arguments about road pricing, for and against, and how and why.
The point to remember is congestion is getting worse and will get worse again. Is that OK with us? If not, is road pricing OK with us? If not, what is our answer? Let's all enter the debate. It's not good enough just to object to the solution that's on the table, unless we come up with something better.
Advertiser links
21 Comments for "Road to ruin"
POST A COMMENT USING THE FORM BELOW
Comments are now closed for the blog archives.
I'm really worried about this whole 'pay as you go' thing. I hope there is an alternative, like a decent public transport system that runs on time. Wouldn't that be better? Then we wouldn't need our cars to get to work.
The motorist already pays enough tax on the roads already, the tax on fuel which will always increase, then there is the road tax.
I'm only 18 and have been driving for the last four months. I've only got a 106 and the insurance was £1,600! I wouldn't be able to pay the road-pricing scheme, road tax and petrol.
I can see the point in road pricing but because 1.8 million people have objected to it, the government can't just sweep it under the carpet and ignore it.
I don't think that a congestion charge is any form of solution apart from a short-term fix. The proper way is an education campaign aimed at making people realise that it may just be more convenient to use the bus/train/tube instead of the car, and an overhaul of public transport to make sure it really is worthwhile.
Finally, closing certain historic city centres to traffic and utilising a park and ride system linked with huge suburban parking complexes. But such programmes will take time to achieve results, and politicians don't like that.
I can see the point in road pricing but because 1.8 million people have objected to it, the government can't just sweep it under the carpet and ignore it.
How many families have 2/3 cars? How many people driving make journeys they don't really need? There is or could be a simple solution if people really wanted it - to buy fewer (but better) cars and drive when they have to. Unfortunately it is mags like Top Gear and people like Clarkson who say cars are great and to hell with congestion, pollution, climate change...
The problem is road pricing doesn't present any solution to the problem of traffic congestion or inefficient road use. It does succeed in solving the DVLA's multiple database integration issues by eliminating clerical data gathering and relying on GPS to do the work.
With a carbon guilt tax on petrol and road tax to pay for road maintenance - does anyone want a road-pricing scheme that exists solely to pay for bureaucratic laziness?
How about spending the money needed to introduce the road-pricing scheme on public transport?
I'd love to be able to work from home instead of having to commute every day, but what incentive is there to my company to make this happen? Until the government can do something to remove the need to be on the roads at 9am and 5 pm, there will continue to be congestion whether there is a charge or not.
There is no alternative because no one will try to integrate our appalling transport system. Virgin Trains to Manchester prove that the train really can beat the car from A to B, but what about when you get to the other end? You're stuck with cabs or dirty buses...
How about introducing multiple-occupancy car lanes like they do in the States, whereby lanes are reserved for cars with more than one person in? Would encourage more people to car-share for their commutes...
Why not cut out road tax and not bother with the 'road pricing scheme' and increase fuel duty instead?
James May made a strong point on last season's TG - we don't all clog up the roads at 8am for fun, it's because we all have to be somewhere at the same time! Our economy depends on affordable road transport.
Build more roads, allow cars to use bus lanes at certain times, and ban all politicians from driving with immediate effect!
'The Data Protection Act is surprisingly effective...' I thought that the police were exempt from the Data Protection Act?
At last a sensible article on road pricing.
I rely on people using their cars in order to earn a living and have been a petrolhead all my life, but I realise something has to be done to reduce congestion.
Whilst 1.8 million people is a lot, the last time I looked there were over 50 million people in the UK - 1.8 doesn't look like a majority (or even much of a mandate) when you look at the figures that way!
We are going to have to pay for our reliance on personal transport one way or another. If nothing else this has brought the debate to the front of the public's mind, but I think the last paragraph says it all - you can't just whinge, come up with some viable alternatives.
How about promoting the use of scooters and motorcycles? That is an easy, immediate way to reduce road congestion, since a two-wheeler's road-space (in between lanes) is otherwise unused.
Granted, there is a physical risk in riding a two-wheeler in heavy traffic, but in London, for example, it is possible to use the bus lanes.
Then you have the parking: you can easily fit three to four motorbikes or scooters on a single car parking space.
So what do you get: assume 15 per cent of commuters started using two wheels instead of four. Then traffic would be much lighter, parking easier for everyone, and journey times would decrease dramatically. All this at the cost of... nothing, since running a scooter or motorbike is not more expensive than running a car. In London, factor in the £8 per day saving, and the thing probably pays for itself!
All the above tells you is nothing will change except the money out of our pockets.
Road pricing will not generate money and we will continue to use cars because there is no alternative, so what is the point in road pricing?
The government has to put the horse before the cart. We need an economical public transport infrastructure. Then we may consider stopping using our cars.
I'd gladly abandon my car for my commute - driving is no fun when you're stuck in traffic. But there isn't an alternative.
Cheap, effective and reliable public transport would do far more to cut traffic than road pricing - and would be cheaper than road building in the long run. It's been said a thousand times before, but if countries as notoriously disorganised as Italy can have effective public transport, then why can't we?
1.8 million people object to road pricing because it's seen as just another tax with no discernable benefit; and I think they're right.
Difficult one this. I do agree that the problem is getting worse and we do need to do something. It'll be interesting to see how the car-pooling pilot schemes work out - it seems to have gone a bit quiet on that front.
I'd just like to say before this point that I'm really not paranoid, but if we all have trackers, the security services (especially with the criminal justice system at the mo) don't have to ask.
You want your own transport? Cheap? Parking no problem? Then get yourself a scooter or motorcycle. No C-Charge to pay. No high roadtax or high fuel costs.
Next time you are stuck in a jam, look at the cars, notice that there is only one person in each car choking up the roads.
The government needs to integrate its policies better. My previous employer's were given vast subsidies to relocate on a new business park, out of the town centre and away from reliable public transport, so I had no option to stop using public transport and start driving.
If the government really wants people to stop using their cars they should ensure that cheap, reliable public transport is available before encouraging employers to locate (or relocate) to any remote locations.One measure implemented in France considerably reduced congestion in town centre: Give a 125cc bike license to people with a car license and a few years' experience. A lot of people switched to bikes or scooters.