Thread: Article: Satellite toll plan to make drivers pay by the mile

What about privacy? Thats is basically against the law isnt it?

Originally Posted by markbuts3

Well that's a nice economic view of things.

Another thing you're not taking one thing into consideration is that once the goverment starts charging for things then it ain't ever going to come down in price. It will only get more expensive and repeated in other areas to increase revenue...

It is.

First, I agree wholeheartedly with the view that you should never trust the government with any sort of revenue stream. The congestion toll has all the markings of "free money for politicians" written all over it. That should be a major concern for you. Now, separate your well-placed mistrust of politicians from the actual idea for a moment.

First, economics isn't about money, it's about incentives. In the case of allocating scarce road capacity, unless one believes that it is "fair and equitable" to allow people who value their time very little to impose delay on people who value their time very much, then the only way to do that is to force them to internalize the externality. Since neither you, nor I, nor the government have any idea whether any given driver on any given day values their time more than any other car, money is the only common way to force that internalization.

Second, if the charge exists but the congestion hasn't gone down then the charge isn't high enough to cause drivers to internalize the externality. This is commonly caused by price caps. Effectively, the price is held artificially low and the quanitity (a slot on the road) is overconsumed. If that's the case in London, then they aren't charging enough.

Third, if the price doesn't vary (i.e. the politicians set it high and leave it there), then there's something wrong with the way the system is set up. The point of the charge is to reduce congestion to some generally acceptable level. You do that by varying price. If they aren't varying price, then they're artificially taxing the system to force a reduction in consumption. I would call THAT an attack on motorists because it taxes them even in the absence of congestion.

Fourth, while I agree that there's a chicken and egg situation with the public infrastructure, motorists don't have to completely abandon their cars. Much like the Washington Metro area where I live, the emergence of "slug" lines where riders pull over and pick up passengers headed to similar destinations so they can use the high occupancy lanes, motorists would likely carpool in the absence of adequate transportation alternatives. In addition, our Metro system subsidizes frequent riders to reduce their cost of riding. They don't have the money to do this, of course, because they're broke. But if we charged a congestion toll, some of that money could be used to PAY people who value their time less to take alternative transportation.

Again, I'm really not that interested in charging fees to motorists, particularly in the U.K. where it's damn expensive to own and operate a vehicle in the first place. But I am pointing out that an effective congestion toll system yields benefits that cannot achieve any other way.

And of course, just because all of these wonderful benefits may be realized, it wouldn't make me any 'happier' to pay such a charge. But I'm certain it would alter my behavior in the same way that I'd LIKE for Xenarc screens to be cheaper, but I still bought one because I valued it's properties for my project. I wasn't HAPPY to pay the money, but in the end I did.

As I mentioned, I live in the Washington metro area, the third worst area in the U.S. for traffic. The average commute time is just under an hour. Yesterday, I overslept and was late for the beginning of an important meeting. If I'd been able to pay $$ to hit the lanes that would have shaved 15 minutes off my commute, I'd have done so willingly. But I can't, so I sat in traffic with all the other people who valued their time less than I did that day. It would have been nice to have the option.

Well I agree that it will work if the cost is felt to be too high by some people and they aren't willing to pay it. But as you point out, we (the motorists in the UK) are already taxed very highly. There are already congestion charges in effect in the inner city so that is obviously not working, I don't know if this will work in the long run either. We'll see won't we.

Also saying you'd pay $$ for quicker lanes, well that won't be the case in London either, you'll just be paying for the privilege of driving on the road like everyone else will be. Only the buses can use the bus lane, if you could pay to use that

Do the "slug" lanes work ?? I can't see people in the UK stopping and picking up total strangers. Maybe if it allowed them to use the bus lanes....

Basically the roads in the UK are too narrow so there is no way to allocate a lane without some major roadworks. The buses have pushed other motorists into less road space to allow them to complete their journeys quicker.

It doesn't matter what the government say about this, it will always be seen as another tax on the motorist. I can actually see the benefits if it works, but I can also see the government using that fact to implement it in areas that it is not really needed...

I don't live in the U.K. and I'm not subject to a congestion tax, so after I have this final say I'll shut up. I'm just enjoying having a reasonable exchange with folks about it.

I found the following link that says the congestion charges are in fact working. Notably, the lower income citizens, whom it was said would be priced out of access to the inner city are actually benefitting because few of them owned automobile anyhow and generally rode the bus, which, because of reduced congestion, now gets them to work quicker.

Interesting also, that the exemption of motorcycles has caused an increase in the number of such vehicles in those areas subject to the charge and an increase in pedestrian/motorcycle accidents. You recall that incentives matter and this exemption reduces the effective price of operating a two wheeled vehicle in congestion zones, thus the increase in the number of vehicles. This means that the charge DOES matter, even if it isn't high enough yet.

http://www.transport2000.org.uk/acti...onCharging.htm

Since I am American, I am ignorant of English politics and am lucky to be able not to confuse it with Ireland on a map. Therefore, the link could be to a rabidly pro-congestion organization.

I did find this web site, which is clearly against congestion charges and advises civil disobedience as a method to defeat the charges. It also acknowledges that London traffic was quite bad and agrees that congestion is less than before the charge but attributes that to retiming of the traffic lights and holidays. It will be hard to disprove the holiday claim because if true, those on holiday will return and add to the population paying the charge. Traffic will get worse in spite of the charge UNLESS the charge varies with the level of congestion, which I don't think that it does, as far as I can tell.

http://www.londoncongestioncharges.c..._working_.html

My final word (really!) on this topic is that the alternatives are less appealing. As traffic increases and gridlock becomes more common, historically, solutions are either unavailable (sort of razing buildings and laying pavement, FAR too expensive) or overly onerous. Usually in the form of increased taxation or dedicated lanes for "special" constituencies like taxis and buses, rather than motorists.

A congestion charges hits us at our core - the freedom to move about at will. But on second thought, you are STILL free to move about at will -as long as it is worth it to pay the charge. With a city in gridlock, NOBODY moves and everyone loses (a situation commonly referred to as the "Tragedy of the Commons").

This would take the work out of CSI: London

never have to place the suspect at the crime scene, you can just check the backlog of his GPS locations...

They tried this kinda GPS tracking for snowplowers in new england, it didnt work. They dont want people (especially the boss) knowing that 5 trucks are all parked at a strip joint instead of being on 5th and main or whatever.

Im all for less congestion, but charging people money to drive (regardless of continent) is ridiculous. People work and drive at set times everyday, you would now disrupt that by charging people money to drive during rush hours, when they must and do everyday... for those who couldnt afford another $5 a day to drive to/from work, where does that leave the job force?

Ladies and Gentalmen....Welcome to the New World Order

I've been following this topic for at least 6 months now. Legistlation is going in place in Texas, California and a number of other states. I also recall something about the use of RFID tags on your registration sticker. The proposed tax is 25-75 cents per mile, which would cost me thousands per year (100 miles a day). Definitely needs to be voted down. There are tons of articles linked over at www.infowars.com

I said I'd shut up about this and I have. Just a link for Markbuts3 who asked about whether slug lines work or not: http://www.slug-lines.com/Index.htm

The joke is, I pay £160GBP (is) on road tax to allow me to use my car. Plus I pay VAT on fuel, fuel duty on fuel+VAT, and VAT on fuel duty (so tax on duty+tax). They are talking about removing road tax, and reducing fuel duty. With the Guestimated £1.34 per mile at peak time on the most currently congested roads, even with fuel duty reduced to Zero, and Road tax abolished, I would be paying £12000 per year PAYD (Pay as you drive) tax. I only earn £17000. Out of that, I would need to pay the mortgage, have a lifestyle, buy clothes, and buy fuel to get to work, as well as maintain my car.

Or to put it into easier to understand terms. To use a high rated motorway at peak time, if the charge works, congestion is removed and you can drive at the limit, to drive for one hour at 70MPH would cost you more than £90 an hour.