Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Motorists must pay for road use

29 replies

ClementClarkeMoore · 01/12/2006 12:48

story

Wouldn't this once again, target the less well off?

Would public transport be up to it? The tube can't cope NOW!

Discuss (if you like)

OP posts:
saadia · 01/12/2006 13:02

I do think that something needs to be done as roads won't be able to cope. They really have to improve public transport if they want people to be less reliant on cars.

southeastastra · 01/12/2006 13:04

they should sort out the railways definitely, but why motorists have to pay more is beyond me. the bus links in my town are laughable.

EniDeepMidwinter · 01/12/2006 13:04

yeah cheers thanks

another thing that penalises people who live in rural areas with no public transport at all

zippitippitoes · 01/12/2006 13:04

there is tax on fuel so people do pay for each mile travelled already

it could be increased but it would then be a tax on rural living

these things always fall unreasonably on the poor

joelallie · 01/12/2006 13:07

If it was to replace the road tax I think it's not such a bad idea. I've always thought that we get penalised simply for owning a car even if we don't use it all the time - insurance, MOT etc. Those who produce more pollution and road wear should pay more logically. However I can see that it might be difficult. I could in theory work from home all the time (I already do 2 days a week) but DH is a builder - not something you can do from home! However if it forced those who could to rethink their travel habits it might be good.

Don't like the idea of building more airports though

joelallie · 01/12/2006 13:08

But zippi - everything falls unreasonably on the poor doesn't it?

ilovecaboose · 01/12/2006 13:09

so far motorists pay car tax and fuel tax. Surely that is already paying for road use?

I got a car because the public transport round us is appaling and very expensive (at the moment running a car costs about the same as what I would have to pay on the buses).

If you want people to use cars less improve the public transport system. Simple really, why don;t they get it?

southeastastra · 01/12/2006 13:09

we need more high speed rail links but the railway system got buggered up years ago.

WhizzBangCaligula · 01/12/2006 13:13

Of course this will fall disproportionately on the poor. The rich will benefit because they'll get much better travel - far fewer cars on the road so much better quality of journey in a much faster time, at very little extra cost proportionate to their income, while the poor will simply be less mobile. No-one ever talks of making bus and train fares affordable, or of making public transport accessible and welcoming to young children.

One of the reasons I use a car, is because whenever I go on public transport with my children a) it costs me a fortune b) I spend hours of my life wasting it waiting and c) I am treated like a leper because of being with children. Who actively chooses to go where they're not welcome?

Will the extra tax go towards lowering fares and improving the reliability and safety of public transport? Probably not.

edam · 01/12/2006 13:15

Caboose, you are quite right. There is proof that really good public transport makes a difference but politicians and policy makers seem to have completely forgotten it. South Yorks county in the 80s make buses and trains dirt cheap, frequent and reliable. A proper rigorous analysis, comparing S Yorks with demographically and geographically identical W Yorks showed HUGE savings in lives and money because people only used their cars when they really had to - buses were so cheap it just made no sense to get the car out. I lived there and it was very impressive. We had a good, cheap local train network too. Maggie abolished the county as part of the 'getting rid of the GLC' purge and sadly Sheffield today is as congested as any other big city.

It worked in the UK's sixth biggest city and in small towns and the countryside. WHY on earth they don't just learn from this successful experiment is beyond me. Except that it isn't dick-waving high-tech gimmicky stuff that politicans can spend millions on and show off about. Just plain boring common sense. And our leaders couldn't possibly use carrot rather than stick and do something that benefits poor people, could they? Grrrr.

hulababy · 01/12/2006 13:19

Sheffield city centre is indeed just as congested and jammed as every other city. It's a nightmare at times, and not just rush hour either. Grrr!

ernest · 01/12/2006 13:39

Def improve public transport. The focus seems to be all wrong doesn't it?

To mentionee xpanding airports (even more pollution etc) as more important as public transport is ludicrous. What to the majority of poelpe need on a daily basis?

My in laws live in a village with basically no public transport, so in a house with 3 adults in, they have 3 cars. Crazy. ANd most houses in this village have 2 (or more). Most journeys just to the nearest town. WOuldn't a regular cheap bus servise be better?

PrincessPeaHead · 01/12/2006 13:46

marvellous. so if you are rich, you can do what you like, if you are poor, you get thumped or told to take non-existant public transport.

In my village the only bus stop is a mile walk down a wiggly single track lane with no pavement and a lot of agricultural traffic (tractors, milk lorries, 4x4s and horse/animal trailers) - would be SO dangerous to walk and impossible with a buggy.
Once you get to the bus stop there are buses about every 45 minutes to the local town 3 miles away.
My village has no shop, no school, no pub, no nothing. A pretty church and some houses, that is it.
There is a school bus for secondary school children, but not primary.
A car is completely essential.

it's crap, isn't it.

ChristmasCaroligula · 01/12/2006 14:36

Ah but PPH, it's not essential to live there. Anyone who can't afford to, should just move out and stop making the place look untidy.

Where I live, lots of people commute to London (30 miles away) because a) there are not enough jobs in this area to employ everyone and b) London house prices mean that they cannot afford to live nearer their work. It costs about £3000 p.a. to go on the train. Which is still cheaper than the congestion charge, but it's a massive chunk out of a taxed average income. And apparantly the trains are always late. (I am so glad I don't have to do that anymore.)

flack · 01/12/2006 14:44

You're all missing the point. If this plan came in it would REPLACE fuel tax, and maybe even the car tax disc, too. It would actually be a more progressive tax scheme than as current (most poorer people would end up spending less for motoring than they do now). People living and working in rural areas would pay much less to drive. People who commute from rural to urban areas would pay about the same, people who live in the city and insist on always driving there in peak hours, or who use motorways at peak hours, would be the only ones much worse off.

ChristmasCaroligula · 01/12/2006 14:57

Er, why do people choose to use motorways in peak hours? Because their employers choose to demand that they work at specific times and because the public transport options are not realistic. Not much choice there then - I'm sure most people who are stuck on the M25 at 8.30AM would prefer to travel at a different time, but their employers aren't flexible enough to cope with that idea. Where are the tax breaks for employers who are forward looking and progressive enough to stagger their employees' working hours?

I'd also like to see the data which shows that poorer motorists would be better off than richer ones under this scheme. I'm very sceptical about that

The point, imo, is that the onus is being put on individual drivers, rather than having a joined up approach.

paulaplumpbottom · 01/12/2006 16:29

I agree with caligula, I think companys should stagger start their working hours and maybe schools could do the same.

mummydear · 01/12/2006 17:25

Agree about it if they do abolish fuel tax AND car tax.

Improving public transport goes some way tp along way to resolving cars on road, but it wouldn't go anyway to solve the problem for shift workers.

Also 'paying as you go' so to speak , would increase haulage costs and the impact would be put back on the consumer.

tallulah · 01/12/2006 17:53

Does anyone really believe it will replace fuel duty and road fund licence? It will be as well as. They don't put the money from motoring back into the roads/ public transport now.

My mother recently got a free bus pass for being over 65 and now she goes everywhere on the bus rather than using her car. The same is true of the vast majority of my friend's elderly parents. Does that not tell the Govt something?

hulababy · 01/12/2006 18:12

I don't choose to drive on motorways at rush hour. Does that many people really choose to do so? I have to drive on motorways, sometimes at rush hour, because I have no other way of getting to work! I don't choose what time I start work. I have to drive through a city at this time, as I live at oen side of the city and the motorway link is at the other side. I have no option!

hulababy · 01/12/2006 18:13

tallulah - I agree; very much doubt it would be instead of^

treacletart · 01/12/2006 18:44

In my ideal world noone would be allowed to own a car, but everyone would have access to affordable cabs and almost free very clean, very regular, public transport. You might be allowed to borrow a pool car a certain number of times a year or something. It'd be great - they'd be hardley any cars on the road, no parking problems, fewer accidents, no drunk driving .... (but I'm skint and I hate driving so I'm allowed my fantasy)

edam · 01/12/2006 18:46

Agree with Talullah ? it's like the congestion charge in London that Ken promised would be fixed at £5 for a decade. Two years later it was £8 and now it's going up even more. You can't trust the buggers as far as you can throw them when it comes to new taxes.

Blondilocks · 01/12/2006 18:55

I can't get to work without my car - well I can but it would take about 20 minutes walk then 4 hours by train or bus for one trip that takes 40 mins in the car! & I doubt that I could get a train at 3 in the morning to get to work in time!

It is a good idea in theory but I think it would be very difficult to implement especially with different charges for different roads. We already have staggered working hours - think it would just make the congestion last longer. & companies may feel compelled by staff to change working hours to avoid peak times, thereby creating new peak times.

However if it discouraged people from using the car in areas where they could easily use a bus then it would be good.

Mirage · 01/12/2006 19:29

Oh I can just imagine using the bus to get to work.I'd have to load a toddler,baby,spade,fork,assorted gardening tools onto a bus.Get off the bus at my mums to drop off the girls,wait an hour for the next bus,go to my 1st job,when thats finished wait another hour for a bus with assorted dirty tools,then get a connection to the next village (if there even is one that doesn't involve travelling to the next town & back out again).

I'd give up work-I wouldn't be able to do it.
I think the government assumes that we all do 9-5 office jobs,and live in cities with good access to public transport,shops ect.