A Reply...
I sent this to a group email sent to me asking me to sign an anti-road pricing petition. Comments welcome...
Before anyone adds their voices to those against road tax, they should look at all the facts; it's understandable that paying for something that was free seems unfair, but there are a number of different ways that such a scheme could be implemented, and the devil, as always, is in the details. Such a scheme 'could' harm rural users and those on low incomes... true. It also 'could' not. Many variations of the scheme propose to tax different roads based on their levels of congestion - anyone using a high-use (mainly urban) road would pay more, those using low-use (mainly rural) roads would pay less. Many experts believe that a number of permutations of the proposed scheme would see rural drivers better off at the expense of urban ones.
As with any such scheme, rumours abound as to the details before anything has been announced, but each road user having to pay £200 for their tracking system is highly unlikely - a similar German scheme had a unit price of £40, and that cost was borne by the government. As this government realises that this could be an unpopular measure, it's unlikely that they will force users to bear this cost. Quotes of projected costs for different road users are also pretty meaningless at this point, as nobody knows what charges will be levied - such estimates are based on a 'best guess', in this case by a journalist, who are usually about as trustworthy as politicians. Depending what variables are set, estimates could be spot on, or over-estimates, or under-estimates, very easily. Besidea, they are fairly meaningless even if spot on without comparing them to current road tax, fuel tax, etc expenditure, which the road use tax is supposed to replace (some have doubted whether it will in fact replace such current road charges, but again, it is very difficult to see how this would be anything but political suicide if it did not). The rumour about use for speeding prosecutions is also not part of the government's plans and not part of the scheme's use in other countries it has been introduced in - the technology needed for this would exponentially increase the cost to the government, and is not part of current plans.
The fact is that it's easy to criticise new schemes, but what is the alternative? Traffic has grown 77% since 1980, and congestion is forecast to increase by 45% in the next 25 years. The reality of climate change is now accepted by scientists worldwide, and yet transport's massive contribution to it is going up and up. Some are waiting for a technical fix - an 'emissionless car' or airplane, but it's not going to happen, or not soon enough (and anyway, would do nothing to combat other issues such as congestion and land take for roads eating more and more of our green areas). If your initial reaction is to be against road use taxation, think carefully about what alternative you believe there is. People have to be convinced to change their behaviour, and stop using cars so much. How else but by making them pay for what they use, rather than pay a flat rate and then be able to use roads as much as they want? The same principle, when applied to city car clubs, has seen car use plummet among users. Whether such a scheme 'promotes sustainable transport solutions' depends entirely again on the details. The congestion charge scheme in London has done wonders for London's public transport system.
I'm no fan of the current government, and I trust Blair about as far as I could spit out the proverbial rat. I too am wary about the privacy implications (although you should note that, in effect, if you have a mobile phone you can already be tracked almost as effectively). But I think that, if implemented properly, this is the right move. To me, environmental issues are so far above the other issues we are facing today that this kind of scheme is necessary. If I have to pay by the mile in order to help drive down current unsustainable and ridiculous levels of car use, count me in. Especially if the huge trucks clogging our roads will have to pay too (did you know that even Royal Mail have stopped using trains for deliveries now as it makes no economic sense for them? Nobody cares about environmental sense when economics dictates otherwise). What, in fact, blanket, uninformed opposition to it is likely to do is to result in implementation of a watered-down cosmetic version which actually has little impact and just makes the government seem to be taking a stand on green issues. What we need is road pricing with teeth, which makes road users, particularly those in congested, polluted areas, think twice about journeys they will make, and if they are necessary, fine, but if not, to take an alternative, or not make the journey. We also need a scheme which will divert funds to public transport improvements, as the London scheme has done. If you want to stand up and speak out on this issue, have a look at the facts, and make your voice heard by writing to your MP with your specific view which show that you are aware of the difficult web of interlinked issues, rather than signing a net petition which will likely be seen as a list of people who have seen the headlines and had a knee jerk negative reaction. If you don't like it, say why not, and what you think the alternative is. And remember, news agancies, even our beloved BBC, have a vested interest in reporting a story whichever way sounds most sensational. 'Government considers new tax scheme which could help the environment and result in fairer charging' just doesn't have the same ring to it...
Before anyone adds their voices to those against road tax, they should look at all the facts; it's understandable that paying for something that was free seems unfair, but there are a number of different ways that such a scheme could be implemented, and the devil, as always, is in the details. Such a scheme 'could' harm rural users and those on low incomes... true. It also 'could' not. Many variations of the scheme propose to tax different roads based on their levels of congestion - anyone using a high-use (mainly urban) road would pay more, those using low-use (mainly rural) roads would pay less. Many experts believe that a number of permutations of the proposed scheme would see rural drivers better off at the expense of urban ones.
As with any such scheme, rumours abound as to the details before anything has been announced, but each road user having to pay £200 for their tracking system is highly unlikely - a similar German scheme had a unit price of £40, and that cost was borne by the government. As this government realises that this could be an unpopular measure, it's unlikely that they will force users to bear this cost. Quotes of projected costs for different road users are also pretty meaningless at this point, as nobody knows what charges will be levied - such estimates are based on a 'best guess', in this case by a journalist, who are usually about as trustworthy as politicians. Depending what variables are set, estimates could be spot on, or over-estimates, or under-estimates, very easily. Besidea, they are fairly meaningless even if spot on without comparing them to current road tax, fuel tax, etc expenditure, which the road use tax is supposed to replace (some have doubted whether it will in fact replace such current road charges, but again, it is very difficult to see how this would be anything but political suicide if it did not). The rumour about use for speeding prosecutions is also not part of the government's plans and not part of the scheme's use in other countries it has been introduced in - the technology needed for this would exponentially increase the cost to the government, and is not part of current plans.
The fact is that it's easy to criticise new schemes, but what is the alternative? Traffic has grown 77% since 1980, and congestion is forecast to increase by 45% in the next 25 years. The reality of climate change is now accepted by scientists worldwide, and yet transport's massive contribution to it is going up and up. Some are waiting for a technical fix - an 'emissionless car' or airplane, but it's not going to happen, or not soon enough (and anyway, would do nothing to combat other issues such as congestion and land take for roads eating more and more of our green areas). If your initial reaction is to be against road use taxation, think carefully about what alternative you believe there is. People have to be convinced to change their behaviour, and stop using cars so much. How else but by making them pay for what they use, rather than pay a flat rate and then be able to use roads as much as they want? The same principle, when applied to city car clubs, has seen car use plummet among users. Whether such a scheme 'promotes sustainable transport solutions' depends entirely again on the details. The congestion charge scheme in London has done wonders for London's public transport system.
I'm no fan of the current government, and I trust Blair about as far as I could spit out the proverbial rat. I too am wary about the privacy implications (although you should note that, in effect, if you have a mobile phone you can already be tracked almost as effectively). But I think that, if implemented properly, this is the right move. To me, environmental issues are so far above the other issues we are facing today that this kind of scheme is necessary. If I have to pay by the mile in order to help drive down current unsustainable and ridiculous levels of car use, count me in. Especially if the huge trucks clogging our roads will have to pay too (did you know that even Royal Mail have stopped using trains for deliveries now as it makes no economic sense for them? Nobody cares about environmental sense when economics dictates otherwise). What, in fact, blanket, uninformed opposition to it is likely to do is to result in implementation of a watered-down cosmetic version which actually has little impact and just makes the government seem to be taking a stand on green issues. What we need is road pricing with teeth, which makes road users, particularly those in congested, polluted areas, think twice about journeys they will make, and if they are necessary, fine, but if not, to take an alternative, or not make the journey. We also need a scheme which will divert funds to public transport improvements, as the London scheme has done. If you want to stand up and speak out on this issue, have a look at the facts, and make your voice heard by writing to your MP with your specific view which show that you are aware of the difficult web of interlinked issues, rather than signing a net petition which will likely be seen as a list of people who have seen the headlines and had a knee jerk negative reaction. If you don't like it, say why not, and what you think the alternative is. And remember, news agancies, even our beloved BBC, have a vested interest in reporting a story whichever way sounds most sensational. 'Government considers new tax scheme which could help the environment and result in fairer charging' just doesn't have the same ring to it...