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

VanMan69 · 06-05-2005, 11:43 AM

For our (unfortunate) friends across the pond:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/tra...p?story=644303

Satellite toll plan to make drivers pay by the mile
Darling orders nationwide road pricing. Charge of £1.34 a mile on busiest roads
By Francis Elliott, Deputy Political Editor

05 June 2005

British motorists face paying a new charge for every mile they drive in a revolutionary scheme to be introduced within two years.

Drivers will pay according to when and how far they travel throughout the country's road network under proposals being developed by the Government.

Alistair Darling, the Secretary of State for Transport, revealed that pilot areas will be selected in just 24 months' time as he made clear his determination to press ahead with a national road pricing scheme.

Each of Britain's 24 million vehicles would be tracked by satellite if a variable "pay-as-you-drive" charge replaces the current road tax.

In an interview with The Independent on Sunday, Mr Darling warned that unless action is taken now, the country "could face gridlock" within two decades.

Official research suggests national road pricing could increase the capacity of Britain's network by as much as 40 per cent at a stroke, he said.

The rapid uptake of satellite navigational technology in cars is helping to usher in the new "pay-as-you-drive" charge much sooner than had been expected. Figures contained in a government feasibility study have suggested motorists could pay up to £1.34 for each mile they travel during peak hours on the most congested roads.

Although a fully operational national scheme is still considered to be a decade away, Mr Darling said local schemes could be up and running within five years. Manchester is considered a front-runner, with local authorities in the Midlands and London also pressing to be considered for a £2.5bn central fund to introduce the change.

Most of the necessary technology already exists. Lorries will be tracked by satellite and charged accordingly from 2007. The main obstacle to constructing a scheme to track Britain's 24 million private vehicles is public opinion, and Mr Darling is determined to start making the case now.

"You could dance around this for years but every year the problem is getting worse," he said.

"We have got to do everything we can during the course of this Parliament to decide whether or not we go with road pricing. Something of this magnitude will span several parliaments and you need 'buy-in' not just from political parties but also from the general public.

"Drivers have got to see that they benefit," he said, adding that one of the "weaknesses" of the congestion charging scheme introduced in the capital by the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, was that it delivered a "general benefit not a particular benefit". Motorists could feel they are paying a penalty to support buses they do not use.

The national road-pricing scheme, by contrast, has got to work so there's "something in it for me", said Mr Darling in advance of a keynote speech on the issue this Thursday.

Despite his insistence that the scheme would lead to no overall increase in the level of taxation as road taxes and fuel duties are reduced or abolished, it is bound to prompt fresh claims that Labour is waging a "war on motorists".

Some campaigners, meanwhile, are pressing Mr Darling to introduce new levies on individual roads immediately, using existing microwave technology or tolls. But that would force traffic on to quieter roads while entrenching opposition to a national scheme, ministers believe.

However, new and expanded roads are likely to see innovations such as car-sharing lanes, available to single drivers only if they pay a premium.

toadster123 · 06-05-2005, 12:09 PM

from what it sounds like... each car would need a little gps type satellite receiver/transmitter on it ..right??

so if that is the case, i dont see how that would ever work or be fault proof... you could just cover the satellite receiver with some metal or material that blocks the signal...

hortimech · 06-05-2005, 02:16 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by toadster123

so if that is the case, i dont see how that would ever work or be fault proof... you could just cover the satellite receiver with some metal or material that blocks the signal...

The way the do-gooders are going, if you do cover it up or there is a fault, they will probably throw you in prison for life.
Anyway, there is probably going to be another election between now and when they finally get it to work, it would have to be a pretty stupid political party that put something like this in their manifesto

-zip- · 06-05-2005, 02:29 PM

I hope our brothers on the other side of the pond use the power of the vote to make it clear this will not be tolerated.

judoGTI · 06-06-2005, 09:56 AM

We already pay by the mile with the gasoline tax!!! IF they do that they will be double taxing us in the USA!

madmartigan · 06-06-2005, 12:35 PM

Good or bad, it is another example of big brother seizing control.

markbuts3 · 06-06-2005, 12:43 PM

It's stupid. Out of £1200 I paid for Petrol last year, £900 of that was tax. Don't they get enough from us already..

We're also taxed on our insurance premiums.

They are basically trying to make it financially undesirable to own and run a car...

MaleBuffy · 06-06-2005, 12:44 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by -zip-

I hope our brothers on the other side of the pond use the power of the vote to make it clear this will not be tolerated.

Didnt they have elections like one month ago?

hortimech · 06-06-2005, 02:34 PM

Quote: Originally Posted by MaleBuffy

Didnt they have elections like one month ago?

yes we did but none of this was mentioned then, strange how they have thought this up in a month

Bugbyte · 06-06-2005, 10:59 PM

Before I say this, I'm not defending some kind of big brother tracking system but you should give some consideration to what the basic idea is behind congestion pricing on the roads.

First, there is no current method of allocating a scarce resource - road space, during times of congestion. Actually, there is. It's called delay. The problem is that each driver who tries to use the roadway imposes an externality in the form of more delay on all other drivers.

There's no way to allocate the space because each driver doesn't internalize (that is, personally realize) the externality. The point of congestion pricing is to do that using money.

Most people focus on the fact that they pay more money to drive. What they DON'T focus on is the benefit of the pricing. Re-read the article and you'll see that London traffic congestion is reduced by 30%. That's huge! Now, consider that you woke up late for work and need to get downtown for your job. You're willing to pay the charge and in exchange you get a road with LESS TRAFFIC on it. Without a congestion charge, you just get *****ed by all of the other people on the road who value their time less than yours on this particular day.

There's also funding to improve the road system or fund alternative transportation that is derived from the fees collected. And the information derived from the fees is invaluable. If the charges get very high, you have a clear signal of WHERE to invest those fees collected. Unless you collect charges, you'll be clueless about whether building another lane on the motorway is worth more than some kind of intercity connector.

Nobody likes to pay for access and vehicle traffic certainly seems much more personal but we don't blink when price is used to allocate concert tickets or airplane seats or automobiles. While it's a shame that it comes to charging a fee for access to congested parts of the city during certain times of day, it's not necessarily a static situation. If money can make access to the city better or easier, then the price will come down. If it can't then at least those who value it can get access more easily by paying for it.

markbuts3 · 06-07-2005, 09:50 AM

Quote: Originally Posted by Bugbyte

Before I say this, I'm not defending some kind of big brother tracking system but you should give some consideration to what the basic idea is behind congestion pricing on the roads.

First, there is no current method of allocating a scarce resource - road space, during times of congestion. Actually, there is. It's called delay. The problem is that each driver who tries to use the roadway imposes an externality in the form of more delay on all other drivers.

There's no way to allocate the space because each driver doesn't internalize (that is, personally realize) the externality. The point of congestion pricing is to do that using money.

Most people focus on the fact that they pay more money to drive. What they DON'T focus on is the benefit of the pricing. Re-read the article and you'll see that London traffic congestion is reduced by 30%. That's huge! Now, consider that you woke up late for work and need to get downtown for your job. You're willing to pay the charge and in exchange you get a road with LESS TRAFFIC on it. Without a congestion charge, you just get *****ed by all of the other people on the road who value their time less than yours on this particular day.

There's also funding to improve the road system or fund alternative transportation that is derived from the fees collected. And the information derived from the fees is invaluable. If the charges get very high, you have a clear signal of WHERE to invest those fees collected. Unless you collect charges, you'll be clueless about whether building another lane on the motorway is worth more than some kind of intercity connector.

Nobody likes to pay for access and vehicle traffic certainly seems much more personal but we don't blink when price is used to allocate concert tickets or airplane seats or automobiles. While it's a shame that it comes to charging a fee for access to congested parts of the city during certain times of day, it's not necessarily a static situation. If money can make access to the city better or easier, then the price will come down. If it can't then at least those who value it can get access more easily by paying for it.

Well that's a nice economic view of things.

But the 30% reduction is an estimate of what they expect to happen, what happens if the people who are currently using the roads continue to do so but pay the tax ?? It could and probably will happen as most probably need to use the roads to get to work etc.

Maybe it will contribute towards a decent public transport system, but I think that should come first not as a result of the tax. How can they expect people to suddenly stop using their cars if the public transport infrastucture isn't already sorted ??

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...

For an example of this just look at the speed camera situation. They were originally only supposed to be placed in accident blackspots. Now they are everywhere as they make a FORTUNE out of them...£68.8 million in 2002-03 and more each year since.

http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/187.htm

http://www.pistonheads.com/speed/def...?storyId=10505

MaleBuffy · 06-07-2005, 10:28 AM

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

Bugbyte · 06-07-2005, 10:33 AM

Quote: 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.

markbuts3 · 06-07-2005, 11:23 AM

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...

Bugbyte · 06-07-2005, 12:23 PM

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").

User Name		Remember Me?
Password