Uk Road Charging

[welshred]

What are the government going to do next? First x ray cameras in streetlamps now charging people for driving.

[Whitten]

They encourages enviromentalism and deter unnecessary use of major roads. Toll roads has succeeded in defeating congestion in France.

[BobKKKindle$]

The government is trying to internalise negative externalities that arise from driving. An externality is a cost that arises from the production and/or consumption of a particular commodity that falls upon a party not directly enagaged in the economic transaction, and so in this case the government is trying to ensure that consumers are subject to the environmental damage of driving a car. It remains to be seen whether the environment can be protected to the extent desired within the framework of the existing political and economic system.

[CheRev]

They encourages enviromentalism and deter unnecessary use of major roads. Toll roads has succeeded in defeating congestion in France.

They may decrease congestion but it's only the rich that can afford to use them. Totally regressive, like all taxes of this nature.

[xule]

wow, the uk is actually doing something to ease congestion, and -*shock!*- they might even be doing something about global warning! :o
this would be great if they were also implementing improvements to public transport...if they're anything like ireland they haven't...in fact they'll probably increase bus charges because "too many people are using public transport"
*slaps forehead* <_<
edited because its oh-so-smart author doesnt know her geography :blush:

[MarxistFuture]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 08:55 pm
They encourages enviromentalism and deter unnecessary use of major roads. Toll roads has succeeded in defeating congestion in France.
This is a ridiculous idea.

Who is this going to effect? The people who earn six figures sitting on their fat arse in an office all day? Hardly.

As usual, the system takes advantage of the common man.

[Janus]

They may decrease congestion but it&#39;s only the rich that can afford to use them.
Not really, if someone can afford to drive and fuel a car, then they can definitely afford to pay a minor toll road tax.

I don&#39;t know about the situation in the UK, but in the US, toll roads are privately owned and thus exist for the sole purpose of turning a profit for their original builders who are usually given contracts because the government isn&#39;t really interested in building more major roads. They are also a source of congestion at entrances and inefficient as skilled drivers can simply evade them by going around.

[welshred]

Fair enough if it is for environmental reasons, but what will the money be used for? Not for environmental reasons, probably the military or somthing.

[Vanguard1917]

The government takes about £45 billion per year in taxes from drivers and only spends around £7 billion of it on roads.

The reality is that there is a shortage of roads in Britain, and there is a serious need for more investment in road-building.


wow, the uk is actually doing something to ease congestion, and -*shock&#33;*- they might even be doing something about global warning&#33;

The way to confront natural threats like global warming is to step up industrial development. History shows us that the more developed we are industrially, the better equiped we are in dealing with natural threats. For example, global warming is a bigger threat in African than it is in the West precisely because Africa is largely an extremely underdeveloped continent, far too dependent on agricultural production.

Modern, dynamic industrial societies require an advanced, modern infrastructure. Roads are key to this infrastructure.

By the way, around 1.8 million people in Britain have signed a petition against the road charges. These people have been dismissed as &#39;irresponsible idiots&#39; by the middle class elite, especially by its Green elements. The truth is that middle class opposition to road-building is based on a disgust of ordinary working class people. &#39;Who the hell do these people think they are driving cars in the first place&#39; - that&#39;s the real sentiment on which this opposition to progress (and more roads = progress) is really based.

[Hate Is Art]

Build more roads? Why? So we destroy the last bits of some of the beautiful countryside in the world? Why not improve public transport so we don&#39;t have to use roads as much and can cut down carbon emissions and road congestion.

[Vanguard1917]

Build more roads? Why? So we destroy the last bits of some of the beautiful countryside in the world?

So you&#39;re proposing a kind of conservationism. Something which Prince Charles is a big fan of - preserving the oh-so-beautiful British countryside. And Lord Melchett too, the aristocratic former leader of Greenpeace.

Conservationism is reactionary, and it was traditionally always associated with the less progressive sections of society, particularly the landed aristocracy.

The uneven development of the countryside is one of the key problems associated with capitalism. The creation of divisions between town and country is a result of this. A more even development is needed in order to solve this problem, as progressive thinkers like Marx and Trotsky recognised.

Progressives have nothing in common with conservationism, and they are the most enthusiastic supporters of industrialisation, because industrial development has greatly improved and continues to improve humanity&#39;s existence on earth.

[Hate Is Art]

So you&#39;re proposing a kind of conservationism. Something which Prince Charles is a big fan of - preserving the oh-so-beautiful British countryside. And Lord Melchett too, the aristocratic former leader of Greenpeace.

Riiighhtt, I am proposing conservationism, because destroying the countryside isn&#39;t nesessary. How is this bad? Sorry, I just like beautiful things.


Conservationism is reactionary, and it was traditionally always associated with the less progressive sections of society, particularly the landed aristocracy.

So you&#39;re anti-conservationism, but are interested in the continuation of a tradition that says that leftist&#39;s can&#39;t be for the countryside?


The uneven development of the countryside is one of the key problems associated with capitalism. The creation of divisions between town and country is a result of this. A more even development is needed in order to solve this problem, as progressive thinkers like Marx and Trotsky recognised.

Would an uneven development be the building of more roads when they aren&#39;t needed?


Progressives have nothing in common with conservationism, and they are the most enthusiastic supporters of industrialisation, because industrial development has greatly improved and continues to improve humanity&#39;s existence on earth.

Countryside also has a lot of benefit to humanity, cities can be very ugly places, everyone needs a bit of the sublime.

[Okocim]

Originally posted by Janus+February 24, 2007 05:09 am--> (Janus &#064; February 24, 2007 05:09 am)
They may decrease congestion but it&#39;s only the rich that can afford to use them.
Not really, if someone can afford to drive and fuel a car, then they can definitely afford to pay a minor toll road tax.[/b]

There was recently a program on ITV (I think it may have been last monday) showing the costs involved to various people if this road charging scheme was introduced. Out of 4 people only one saved any money, the others, none of whom were wealthy business types, all found an increase in the amount of money they&#39;d have to spend on their cars.

I think this road charging will only disadvantage the poorer sections of society, what do the rich care if their bills go up a bit? it&#39;s only a tiny tiny percentage of their salary. All that&#39;ll happen is that some people will be priced out of owning a car (having to resort to our appalling public transport instead), whilst others will use their car just as much as ever because they can afford it.


[email protected] 24, 2007 10:35 pm
The government takes about £45 billion per year in taxes from drivers and only spends around £7 billion of it on roads.

The reality is that there is a shortage of roads in Britain, and there is a serious need for more investment in road-building.
no, there should be serious investment in public services. The railways should be renationalised and, along with buses, should be providing people with cheap, convenient transport. Cycling should be encouraged by laying aside more space for actual cycle lanes (not just a tiny portion of a busy bus lane). There would be no need for many people to own a car if there was decent public transport in this country. Alongside this, increasing tax on low-millage/gallon cars would hopefully convince people who really do need a car to shift to more environmentally friendly ones.

[Janus]

I think this road charging will only disadvantage the poorer sections of society, what do the rich care if their bills go up a bit?
A road mileage tax would certainly affect the poorer drivers of course but a simple road toll won&#39;t as it will only affect more habitual drivers.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...2015804,00.html (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2015804,00.html)
Based on this article, there are plans to implement a national road price tax and at the same time, the first road tolls are being implemented. This topic doesn&#39;t specify between these two.