How would you clear congestion [1]..?

Given the frothing, and quite frankly rather hilarious, responses to the
proposals to charge for roads:

How would you: reduce congestion; limit CO2 emissions; raise the /same/
levels of revenue; continue the same program of expenditure and all
within the limitations of the current infrastructure framework without
penalising someone who lives without the benefit of public transport?

The whole project being essentially cost neutral and/or allow you to
indulge in more liberalisation?


[1] "dirst class returd du dottingham"

 

I've been keeping out of the argument cos I simply don't know enough (as I'm
about to prove) but watching with interest.

It seems to me that the problem of congestion is brought about by the
physical distribution of people's work places. People *expect* to be able
to live further away from their place of work, and travel to it.

It ocurrs to me that if we could get this attitude of 'have to have business
located in the South East, or other major urban centres' we could spread
the congestion across more of the country, thereby reducing the levels
IYSWIM.

Tunes......

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
Alfa 116 Giulietta 3.0l (Really) Sprint 1.7 75 TS 156 TS S2
Triumph Speed Triple: Black with extra black bits
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

Catman scribbled on the back of a napkin:

Well, it may have something to do with the fact that even when indebted
up to your eyeballs with mortgage debt, it just isn't that easy to find
something close to work if you say, work in Central London...

Well, but only if you relocate to places where there isn't any
congestion or at least hardly any. Unfortunately these tend to be
places that are a bit short of infrastructure as well...

 

Abolish road tax and shift the burden onto fuel duty. The advantages
are that it means you pay per mile and you pay extra if you have a gas
guzzler, so there is an incentive to travel less and to use a more
efficient vehicle. The disadvantage is that there wouldn't be a
get-out for bikes.

 

A plague, or a big war would thin things out a bit... on a more serious
note though, changing peoples needs or what they want for would be the
way forwards. Going at things from the other way round is always going
to be a loosing battle, rather like the computer anti virus industry.

I don't see this happening any time soon, so we're stuck with noise
pollution and ever more ways of paying for it.

 

- Raise fuel taxes significantly and then give rebates based on
geography and income. (making it non regressive and less an impost on
those who don't have access to public transport)

- Reinvest the revenue into public transport (fuel tax increase above
should be legislation that ties the money DIRECTLY to public transport
investment so it can't be hived off elsewhere, with a catch to stop them
reducing other levels of investment in public transport to defacto
re-route the money)

These two should be setup so the overall change is cost neutral. Ie the
gov't doesnt make any money out of it.

- Invest in more bicycle paths (works in NL) - with the additional plus
of reducing obesity (and hence health costs) and means there's more fit
birds to perve at

- Reduce costs associated with 2 wheeled vehicles by both subsidy and
reduction in taxes. Make bicycles and mopeds VAT free. Remove MOT on
motorcycles (hope I got the terminology right) in a sliding scale by cc
(ie make big bikes pay full wicket - they're just a big a fuel guzzlers
as cars)

That'd be a bloody good start. Won't fix it (nothing short of culling
half the population will) but would have an impact.

JL

 

If you work in central london you'd have to be *mad* to use a private
car to get to it, surely.

 

sweller wrote

Why does it have to be cost neutral? What is wrong with taxing vehicle
use as a tax pure and simple?

 

I suspect Simon specified cost neutral to spike the guns of "the
bloody government is milking us dry" tendency.

 

Champ wrote

Well that is just daft then. If it is cost neutral why waste all that
money changing it for no benefit?

 

You senile old twit. The point is to change the system to (quoting
from the OP) "reduce congestion; limit CO2 emissions".

hth

 

Champ wrote

Yebbut the *only* way they are going to make us stop poisoning the
planet is to make it expensive beyond reason. A new cost neutral tax is
pointless.

 

Yes, absolutely

Vicious circle innit? But let's be honest, places like Peterborough are
fairly well sorted for infrastructure, and IME (extensive) have very little
in the way of congestion issues.

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
Alfa 116 Giulietta 3.0l (Really) Sprint 1.7 75 TS 156 TS S2
Triumph Speed Triple: Black with extra black bits
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

unless you're a) rich, b) have a secure underground parking space at
work and c) start early and finish late.

A couple of people here fill all three of the above criteria.

 

M J Carley said...

You don't see a contradiction between the last line of what you quoted
and this suggestion?

 

MattG scribbled:

Does public transport not pay road tax?

 

frag said...

<sigh>

Sweller said "without penalising someone who lives without the
benefit of public transport?"

MJ said "Abolish road tax and shift the burden onto fuel duty."

Do you not think that MJ's suggestion would penalise those without
access to public transport?

 

In

Where I live in Liverpool the public transport is truly, truly hopeless.
<insert piss taking of Northerners, etc here>

For me to get to work using buses would take me well over an hour (+ walking
for 10 mins), two buses, and cost £2.40 each way.

It's 5 miles. In the car, it takes 10 minutes normally, 15 in rush hour.and
costs less than £2.

To use the train would be insanity. It takes 30 minutes to get to the
nearest train station (by bus), and then I'd have to get to town, change
train etc. It'd take over an hour again. (+ 10 minutes walking) and it'd
still cost more than going to work in a Porsche 911.

Irritating when there was a train line that goes pretty much directly to
work from near to my house, but was closed in the late 50's / early 60's and
is now used by cyclists / walkers / kids bunking off school.. Even more
irritating is that most of my drive to work is on dual carriageways on which
increasingly the left hand lane is becoming a "bus lane" when there's no
reasonable way for me to actually get the bus.

Also, my job involves going to / from work at random times, sometimes doing
the journey 3 or 4 times a day at all hours. Buses / trains etc don't run
when I need 'em.

Ban buses, that's my answer

</ rant over>

--
Pete M

Mercedes 260E, Porsche 911 Carrera 3.2
Ford Capri (ressurection started)
VW Golf Clipper Cabriolet

COSOC #5
Scouse Git extraordinaire. Liverpool, Great Britain

 

I think you mean Vehicle Exise Duty.

A lot of it doesn't even end up on roads IMO

 

One of the reasons we have a high fuel duty was to achieve just that,
along with the less VED for smaller engines and motorbikes. So effectivly
it is just that already.

And guess what, it doesn't work !
People still see a need for the car and , if like me, you need it for work
and it gets expenesed then you still use it. If its not expensed people
then try and get a wage rise, or fall back to the cheaper car alternative.
So no reduction in trafic.

Why so ? maybe its time for the manufacturers to wise up and cut down fuel
consumption. One of the reasons I use to give for riding a bike was
reduced cost. But the fuel consumption on the XJR is slaughgtered by my
wifes M reg 1.4 Clio (petrol). then you add tyres and it gets laughable.

On an Mway run even my Pug 406 (2.0 petrol) can out do the XJR !
(37-39mpg), and tyres last 40k.

One reason I love the XJ900 is that it may not be the pretiest bike or
hanlde the best but it returns 50+mpg yet still has decent power etc.