Road Pricing

But the A9 is equally "valuable" to those that need to get from Perth
to Dunkeld as the M4 is to someone who needs to get from Swindon to
Windsor - so making the M4 twice as expensive to drive on as the A9 is
artificial or at least arbitrary.

Whereas I admit my main objection to road pricing is the civil liberty
aspects, I am also quite certain road pricing or even fuel pricing
won't sort the problem in more than a limited or transitory way.
Taxes are a very blunt instrument and have never promoted long term
change. The congestion problem is systemic. We've seen this with the
congestion charge in London - it doesn't reduce car use, it just moves
it somewhere else and blocks that up as well.

 

Value to each individual is not the same as the value of the road
itself. In the event that we accepted charging, the M4 users would be
prepared to pay a hell of a lot more than would those on the A9.

No, it's just a case of supply and demand - the higher the demand, the
higher price can be put on supply. Plus the actual costs of a road,
including construction, maintenance, policing, etc. etc. are clearly
related to the amount of use it gets.

Absolutely - as I've said elsewhere, anyone who believes that
increasing the cost of motoring will reduce long-term road usage and
congestion is living in cloud-cuckoo land.

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3 (slightly broken, currently missing)
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`

 

Or alternatively, everyone would divert onto the other roads
thereabouts and clog them up too. The enhanced value in a road would
only come from it being some sort of "premium" brand, maybe? You'd
pay more if you thought you could be guaranteed that there'd be no
hold ups? Or if there was no alternative.

Fair points.

Quite.

 

Absoutely, but value responds to more than just those two factors,
otherwise we wouldn't have market corrections, such as the housing
price crash of the 90s. Demand for housing didn't stop - no-one
stopped living in houses or buying them, but the valuation was subject
to a massive correction. The M4 is in demand now but by applying an
artificial valuation to it you distort the "market" which will then
correct itself.

The same has happened in the Congestion Zone. An arbitrary value was
applied to certain roads, so traffic diverted to free roads unless
there was no alternative. This drove down the demand forcing price
upwards. Meanwhile congestion in the surrounding free areas is much
worse. If the aim is simply to clear certain roads, road pricing
works. If you're looking to substantially reduce overall use, it
doesn't.

 

That dear old chap, TOG tugged on his pipefull of old shag and said:

<waves>

 

It was either that or <passes coathanger>

 

In a free market that's true- but I don't think the administration and
pricing of the congestion charge is a particularly good example of a
classic free market in action.

 

In a normal market economy, indeed it does. However road pricing
driven by political dogma is an not a normal "market" and so doesn't
necessarily respond to normal market pressures.

 

Quite the opposite if this is to be believed:

Capital paid heavy price for congestion charge
13/02/2007

Motorists in London have paid more than £677 million since the
introduction of the congestion charge in 2003 - but only a fraction of
this has been invested in other transport projects.

And with Ken Livingstone, the capital's mayor, planning to extend the
zone west into Kensington and Chelsea, opposition politicians claim
much of the revenue has been swallowed up in the cost of running the
scheme.

According to the Greater London Authority's own figures, the bill for
the congestion charge is rising above the rate of inflation, from
£120.8 million two years ago to £143.5 million last year.

However, setting up the scheme cost an estimated £161.7 million and it
is now believed that motorists will have to help find the £103 million
to extend it to the West.

The London experience will in crease public doubts concerning road
pricing. To add to the controversy it has emerged that a large slice
of the income made by Transport for London comes not from motorists
who pay the charge, but from fines on those who don't.

According to the latest publicly available figures, covering 2005,
motorists paid £120 million in congestion charges and a further £70
million in penalty charges.

"In many cases these were not deliberate non-payers. They just didn't
understand the scheme and as a result were landed with £100 fines,"
said a spokesman for AA Public Affairs.

"This could be potentially much bigger with national road pricing.
There is the risk of deliberate as well as accidental non-payment."

Meanwhile the plans to extend to scheme has incensed Westminster
council, which claims that many of its local low-income residents will
be badly hit by the new larger zone when it comes into force on
Monday.

Martin Low, the director of transportation at Westminster, said: "The
City Council previously urged the Mayor of London to abandon the
western extension in light of the overwhelming public opposition to
the scheme.

"But we have been working with Transport for London for the last year
to try to ensure that the scheme is implemented with as few adverse
effects on Westminster's residents, businesses and visitors as
possible.

"However, the City Council still considers that all of its residents
should receive the 90 per cent discount because there are so many
local amenities inside the extended zone, which need to be visited by
all of our residents."



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/13/nroads113..xml

 

Yet the government has a proposed road pricing bill to introduce pilot
projects and Steven Ladyman has said "Road pricing is inevitable".
It's beyond talking about what they are considering.

 

OK, no problem.

 

I'd just turn all the motorways into toll roads and tell the whingers
to have a go at car sharing to share the cost.

Introduce widespread congestion charges but halve the cost if more
than one person is in the vehicle. I'd find it hard to believe that
there isn't technology (all those cctv cameras) to monitor the number
of people in a vehicle.

Increase the cost of weekday parking in city centres by about 300%
but drop the price of park and ride schemes and subsidise parking at
railway stations and you're well on the way.

Want any other radical ideas that won't affect me because I drive a
company vehicle and we'll just pass the cost on to customers?

 

If you think I'm going to hang up my leathers...

 

Don't do that. I have to go up there to work and I don't want all of
Londons dregs fucking up my evenings.

 

Morons who think criminal damage is cool.

Hmm I know what you're saying but that's not really true. Plenty of
households have people in them who do need to use pavements and who need
the benefit of streetlights. I know some people would drive their car
to the house next door if they could but they're just unthinkingly
stupid.

You need to see if you can find a cycling "mentor" or buddy who can help
you get over your fear and help build your confidence on local roads.

Yes it has - the effect was startling when it launched. Despite the
price rising there has been an increase in congestion within the charge
zone over the few years it has been operating. There is controversy as
to the cause of this - partly because the zone gets extended westwards
next Monday and everyone is having their say at the moment. There is a
constant droning that business has been affected by the charge - John
Lewis used to moan all the time. Unfortunately for them their moaning
was somewhat contradicted by more people coming to the Oxford St shop,
their turnover and profits rising and them then deciding that they'd
spend £100m plus on revamping their Oxford St store. There may be some
businesses which were highly reliant on car borne passing trade but I've
yet to notice Oxford St shutting down or the Marylebone area imploding.

Apart from reducing the number of cars there are three other noticeable
benefits - buses move faster because there are fewer jams, there are
more cycles because there is more roadspace for them and generally it's
nicer to walk around - less noise and fewer fumes.

I guess so. I'm currently pursuing my "buy less in supermarkets"
campaign which is quite an interesting exercise in resisting all of
their carefully placed temptations and also learning to look at the
lower shelves to find goods that are broadly equivalent but much cheaper
than those at eye level.

Approximately 8 million people but obviously that swells with people
travelling in to work / visit each day. Note that I said passenger
journeys and not passengers as the former measure will trap multiple
journeys.

Yes but I have to say I don't use them very much at all so my mobility
is provided by public transport and my legs.

 

I think something can be done in rural areas but I accept it will not be
a complete solution. Northern Ireland is fortunate in that it has
escaped (so far) many of the nonsenses visited upon the mainland. While
Citybus and Ulsterbus have been modernised into Translink the network
remains pretty comprehensive IIRC.

Ireland also seems to be doing sensible things with its buses and rail
system in terms of expansion.

Well LU is currently about 10% ahead of its usage forecasts which is
posing real issues. I travel early in the morning and the shift in usage
patterns is very noticeable. It is now getting difficult to get a seat
on the Piccadilly Line when six months ago it was a breeze. I have not
travelled at the very height of the peak for a long time - I dread to
think how awful it is for people. The rail network is under the same
pressure - not helped by stupid franchise deals that reduce the number
of trains and seats.

 

There was no price increase inside the zone in real time and neither was
there a price effect outside the zone. This is because there is not a
market in the conventional sense for road space. There is an overall
market for travel but that's a different issue. I think you might be
saying that there was an indirect cost in that people attempting to
circumvent the zone opted to use boundary roads thus increasing
congestion on these roads at certain times. This switching effect has
indirect time, fuel and environmental costs to motorists *and* non
motorists.

That was my reaction.

It isn't but that is simply because roads outside the zone are free at
the point of use so there is no direct financial cost for people to
divert. It's an all or nothing choice in terms of £ notes which will not
deliver economically rational decisions. I accept there may be time
factors, some marginal fuel cost considerations and issues relating to
journey importance vs costs vs alternative modes but they all exist for
all trips.

[snip quote]

I accept there are two sides to every argument and TfL and the Mayor are
not without their own press machine but I'm afraid an article in the
Telegraph that quotes the AA and Westminster City Council is hardly
likely to be objective.

 

60% price increase from £5 to £8, despite assurances of a ten year
term before price increases would be needed when the Charge was
instigated. I'm not sure what you mean by "in real time". The
economic arguements on overall cost to the economy are based on some
very large asumptions and tend to mislead.

Note it also quotes the GLA. Sure all journalism is going to be
biased, but I'm seeing much more "anti" press than "pro. And any
political leader that ignores his own public consultation, business
leaders and the council most directly affected in the extension really
does lay himself open to chargs of dogma over reality, especially when
the evidence that ""it works" is so debateable.

 

What, London?

--
platypus

"Merely corroborative detail, intended to
give artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise
bald and unconvincing narrative.”

 

Yes London. Notting Hill to Brentford. Tubes and trains were quite pleasant
back then.