Interesting article

Honest John Back Room » The Back Room Archive
What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks
View Threaded
Fri 3 May 2002 14:47
Interesting article - CM
Saw the below on AutoExpresses www.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Drivers Should Pay More For Car Use

Drivers should have to pay to use motorways or busy city roads, according to Government advisers. A team of traffic experts has claimed that charging motorists would be the best way to get them to ditch their cars in favour of public transport.

But the recommendation aimed at cutting congestion has received stark criticism from motoring organisations. The RAC Foundation's executive director Edmund King said he believed the plans would severely affect poorer drivers who rely on their cars for work.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Strange - I thought us motorists already were charged (a) Road Fund Licence (b) duty/VAT on petrol (c) MOTs (d)general tax (e) etc. etc..

Sometimes I think that I am really naive.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 3 May 2002 15:00
Re: Interesting article - Brian
One of the problems with road charging is that it does not help to keep motorways moving since it is not going to keep local traffic, paying perhaps 40p to do 4 miles, from delaying long distance traffic.
If local traffic is going to have to pay the same to use an A road as a motorway, they are going to opt for the motorway.
What is needed is for motorways to have fewer access points so that they cater exclusively for long distance traffic and local traffic stays on local roads.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 3 May 2002 15:02
Re: Interesting article - Dave
Double decker motorways!

YKIMS!
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 3 May 2002 15:19
Re: Interesting article - CM
Get the Japanese over then. The Tokyo-Yokohama Express is quite impressive. It is a raised road, which I think has other roads/railway underneath, that stretches for about 40 miles (wending its way through towerblocks.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 3 May 2002 16:58
What is needed... - Kev
... is intergrated transport.
Please note. Intergrated, not intergrated except from cars.

We the public should be free to choose the best, quickest, cheapest and easiest way to get somewhere.
Albeit, i cannot drive at mo, but when I can, if I was to go to the middle of Dartmoor with my family, I would choose the car, as it would otherwise cost a furtune and would there be a bus in Dartmoor when I want one.
Likewise, if I goto London on my own, I would choose public transport, as Londons an arse and the tube is great, and the train line from Donny is fine.....

This is what the government should be promoting, make both forms as cheep as possible and let us decide.

Kev
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 3 May 2002 17:49
Re: Interesting article - Pat
Hope it's earthquake proof! At least that's one problem we don't have in this country.

Pat
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 3 May 2002 17:16
Re: What is needed... - Bill
i think thats what the government is doing Kev, making cars so damned expensive that it is cheaper by public transport.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 3 May 2002 17:45
Re: What is needed... - Pete
Brian, there was a proposal, some years ago to close many of the exits from the M25. Access would be OK but you could ony get off at very major inter-changes. The idea, I think, was to stop people getting on for 1 or 2 junctions ie the school run and keep it as the London Orbital Motorway or whatever it was built as.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 3 May 2002 17:55
Re: Interesting article - Alwyn
CM,

No, you are not naive: politicians are mendacious, dubious idiots. We already pay £38 billion in motoring taxes in one form or another and yet just £6 billion is spent on roads.

To charge us more to reduce congestion, much of which is caused by crazy traffic calming schemes bus and cycle lanesetc., would make as much sense as trebling the price of train fares because the trains are overcrowded.

Wow, that would make us stop travelling by train and ease congestion on the railways. Why didn't I think of that?
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 3 May 2002 17:56
Re: Interesting article - Brian
Precisely, Pete
All we get are damned proposals, no action.
So long as Ministers can get in their official limos and drive down the bus-lane to Heathrow they are happy.
The only solution the government comes up with is more tax.
Bleating B Liar talks about tough choices and then makes none, too afraid of upsetting anybody and losing a few votes.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 3 May 2002 18:01
Re: Interesting article - Brian
If they want to cut congestion then the solution is to remove parking from city centres, then there is no point in using a car to go there if you cannot stop.
Trouble is, councils like Westminster and Camden make millions per year from parking meters, they would be MOST upset.
I wonder how much NCP gives to Labour funds?
Do as you tell others, shut the House of Commons car park!
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 3 May 2002 19:37
Brasses me off no end. - Cat Alyst
All this talk about motorist 'having to pay for.....' better public transport, less congestion, better roads etc does my head in. We mustn't allow the government of the day to get away with this.

Soon, all the mugs out there will believe they should have to pay more for these things which should be funded out of the vast amounts of money obtained from motorist.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link
Fri 3 May 2002 22:43
Re: Brasses me off no end. - Richard Turpin
At the last general election the was a one off pressure group chappie standing in my constituency on a Pro motorist platform. Nobody voted for him. Old habits die hard.
Reply | Report as offensive | Link

A guide to how much VED you will need to pay on your car.

Road Tax Bands and Rates