|
 Here's another of those pay-to-play schemes intended to provide superior services for the rich and to do so based entirely upon pricing lower income persons from of the market. Whether or not this scheme provides environmental benefits is yet another matter. The issue I raise here has only to do with the mechanism, and not the intended results.
When this pricing scheme is applied to roads and traffic, it is called "congestion pricing". When applied to National Parks and crowing, it is called "value pricing" or "differential pricing." In both instances the concept is to reduce the level of use by increasing prices until the marginal user is booted from the system. In this free-market approach, the fate of the displaced users is of no interest and of no consequence. In this plutocratic approach, the right of citizenship is discounted to zero.
Have a look at a the sampling of comments I've provided below and you'll recognize many of them as having been said about the every unpopular Recreation Access Tax and our own government's handling of that controversial issue
Scott
--- begin quoted ---
February 17, 2007
UK Telegraph
Where the streets are paved with gold
On Monday the London congestion-charge zone will double in size, while
on Tuesday an anti-road-pricing petition of more than 1.5 million
signatures will close on the Number 10 website. Dr Leon Mannings
considers the connection
This week, on the same Government website where more than 1.5 million
people have demanded that the idea be scrapped, several e-petitions in
support of road pricing have attracted fewer than 3,000 signatures. It
is clear we have reached a turning point in the 40-year debate about
road tolls. But more is at stake than the future of a new type of tax.
Until now, the Government was buoyed by Ken Livingstone's proof, in the
form of the central London congestion charge, that road pricing is
possible at a local level. The goal of developing a nationwide system
looked achievable and remains a mainstay of plans to make UK transport
"better for everyone", as promised a decade ago.
But the Government keeps failing or refusing to recognize the
fundamental truth that road pricing has always been unpopular. Whenever
public opinion has been tested, the idea has failed to gain majority
support.
Desperate politicians now claim that the people who have expressed
their opposition on the Downing Street petition have been misled by
"myths", even though vehicle tracking is obviously a necessity of road
pricing and Sir Rod Eddington's recent report did suggest a price of
£1.28 a mile at peak times. We are told that the innocent have nothing
to fear from surveillance, that all who oppose road pricing are wrong,
and that "doing nothing is not an option". Yet the Government does not
even have a measurable definition of congestion, which rather
undermines predictions that it is set to rise by a precise percentage
or indeed that road pricing will reduce it by a precise percentage,
with a precise benefit to the growing economy that generates the
increased movement of people and goods in the first place. Even the
connection between congestion and the number of cars on the road is
simplistic; supporting its contention that urban congestion was set to
"soar" by 25 per cent by 2015, The Independent this week pointed out
that there were 33 million cars in the UK, a rise of seven million in
10 years. Yet the number of people with full driving licences remains
relatively stable at 34.7 million, a rise of just 2.4 million since
1997.
For those who regard hard evidence as a useful guide, there is plenty
more proof of public opposition to road pricing. Two years ago in
Edinburgh, 290,000 residents were invited to support a scheme similar
to the London charge. A majority of more than 74 per cent rejected the
plan. Equally significant was the 62 per cent turnout for the postal
ballot. The then council leader, Donald Anderson, was quoted by BBC
news as saying: "The idea is now dead and buried for Edinburgh."
This Scottish burial wasn't the first. Road pricing was previously
buried in 1964 by Earnest Marples, the Tory transport minister, who had
commissioned Reuben Smeed of the Road Research Laboratory to examine
the idea. Then, 10 years later, the Tory leader of the Greater London
Council, Horace Cutler, saw it vigorously rejected in a public enquiry.
Last week, a furore erupted in Manchester about plans for road pricing
in the city. Debate reached a crescendo as Graham Stringer, a prominent
local MP and transport select committee member, raised concerns that
the Government was "bullying" Manchester into proposing a scheme. The
crux of this claim is that councils are being offered substantial
injections of additional cash from a £200 million pool for transport
development. The money is ring-fenced as a "Transport Innovation Fund"
but is only available for plans that feature "demand management" by
road pricing.
Here lies the rub for the Government. All local authorities need more
cash to improve the movement of people and goods. Better transport is
an essential element in social and economic development, and no senior
politician is likely to suggest that the way to deal with congestion,
let alone climate change, is to reverse economic growth. But when
access to extra transport funding depends on imposing an extra charge
for private vehicle use, the idea is roundly rejected by the travelling
public. Why? Well, for a start, 85 per cent of all UK passenger
transport is by private vehicle.
Nevertheless public rejection of road pricing only matters if our
planners and leaders listen. When policymakers find ways to ignore
majority opinion, public influence on what happens next is limited.
Thus the idea of road pricing presents both the Government and the
people with a dilemma.
Though rarely examined, evidence against road pricing has been piling
up for 40 years. It shows that when the public are able to register
their opinion, the concept is rejected on a massive scale. There is but
one beacon of hope for the pricing brigade, namely Ken Livingstone's
London, and this alone guides the Treasury onwards.
But there never was a public vote on road pricing in London. Before the
city's first mayoral election, Livingstone said he would introduce
congestion charging after due consultation, but avoided saying what
that would involve. Once elected, there was no referendum, no public
inquiry and no judicial review of the decision.
Indeed the first real test of public opinion occurred when Livingstone
proposed an extension to the scheme and Transport for London asked
citizens whether they thought the zone should be doubled in size. More
than 100,000 responded, with 62 per cent of the public and 72 per cent
of businesses saying no. Yet the sort of opposition that has blocked
road pricing everywhere else was not listened to in London. Bullish
about defying democracy and doubtless with one eye on the questionable
financial basis of the existing scheme, Livingstone approved the
extension.
What can we learn from all this? Simply that if public opposition
persists beyond the closure of the Downing Street petition, plans for
nationwide road pricing are doomed - unless the Government extends
Livingstone's Way and builds a bypass around democracy. The roads
minister Stephen Ladyman's breathakingly arrogant declaration that
"Road pricing is inevitable" should be a warning to us all.
Comments
Its just another way to raise TAXES. No more than that.
Posted by MICHAEL LAYZELL on February 19, 2007 4:56 PM
At what point of time does the present Government take notice of what
the public think about situations that effect the whole nation of Great
Britain. I do object to this Road Pricing Tax - enough is enough .
Posted by Bill Munro on February 19, 2007 4:26 PM
We are absolutely against road pricing at any price. With adult
children and their families scattered all over this country, we would
be unable to afford the cost of going to see them.
Posted by PJ & A Gardiner on February 19, 2007 4:02 PM
If there has to be road-pricing, why not do what happens in Jersey. No
Road Fund Licence and the tax/charge is put on the cost of fuel. The
motorist then only pays for the amount he uses the roads. There is no
additional cost to the motorist and the cost of setting-up and
collection by government is minimal.
Posted by Roy Davies on February 19, 2007 3:31 PM
When they've priced everyone off the roads and things are quieter they
will then be able to tax our homes more for living in a more peaceful
area!! Win Win for the government I think!
Posted by S Todd on February 19, 2007 3:27 PM
I live in an area of high uemployment; as a result I travel miles to
have a job - with what they are proposing they would be charging me
half my day's wage to get to and from work. What am I supposed to do?
Go on the dole. I am sure that would suit this government who seem to
want us all to become prisoners in our homes and not be able to travel
beyond the next village! That is purely one aspect from someone who was
brought up to believe in hard graft and if finding it increasingly
harder to do so.
Posted by Janet on February 19, 2007 3:25 PM
The time has come for British people to stand up against this
governments over taxing us on everything. Are we going to sit back on
road taxing as we do everything else?
Posted by n nye on February 19, 2007 3:22 PM
While road pricing is bad enough,do not lose sight of the loss of
freedom and privacy that vehicle tracking will bring. Together with ID
cards, 1984 is almost here.
Posted by Roger Symonds on February 19, 2007 2:04 PM
Before they even dream of this latest theft, they have to get rid of car tax. I say no to road charging.
Posted by Alan P Steer on February 19, 2007 1:45 PM
Hope is at hand! My name is Chris Prior and I'm running for Mayor in
2008. I will give Londoners a straight choice they have never had, the
Stop Congestion Charging Party will abolish the charge. When it goes in
London, it will be politically impossible to introduce elsewhere.
Posted by Chris Prior on February 19, 2007 1:42 PM
Blanket road pricing will make life easier for the well off and stop
most pensioners from enjoying a day out. For that reason alone, this is
a very bad idea.
Exempt pensioners and other deserving groups and I am all for it!
Posted by Wladyslaw Cichorz on February 19, 2007 1:38 PM
Yet another excuse for yet another tax aimed at the long suffering
motorist. It isn't remotely green despite what Brown says and it's time
that the voice of the people was listened too. Road pricing is NOT
acceptable.
Posted by STEPHEN STEWARD on February 19, 2007 1:24 PM
How can the government possibly consider this a fair idea. By
definition it is going to have a more negative effect on those from low
incomes, those living in rural areas and those that need to travel for
their jobs. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that with this
government I and my family would be much better off if I didn't work.
Don't you dare Tony Blair -this is one step too far!
Posted by Sharon Barker on February 19, 2007 1:12 PM
This idea has Poll tax and CSA written all over it.
There is always going to be congestion no matter what.
Another BIG money generating exercise.
I have no doubt that the poor will receive some sort of benefit to compensate them!
Posted by chris on February 19, 2007 12:41 PM
I foresee that those of us living in the rural areas will find
juggernauts belting down roads never designed for them - the casualty
level will sky rocket, roads will break up and bridges will be almost
permanently under repair.
Posted by Robert J Crawfurd on February 19, 2007 12:17 PM
I am against congestion charge & Road pricing.
What's next? Charge people for walking on the street?
Posted by Munna on February 19, 2007 12:01 PM
I believe we all drive too much, we use our vehicles often when
unnecessary and without thought for the damage this does the entire
environment: driving in the South East these days is misery. HOWEVER,
road pricing is a crackpot idea. Why deploy even more technology at
huge cost when the simple solution is to increase existing road fuel
tax to a level where 'just nipping down the shops' means walking - like
we used to. Some people drive 4x4s because they actually need their
versatilty. Provided they drive economically, they will be able to
continue.Road Pricing does not differentiate between someone getting
40mpg and someone making their ostentatious fashion statement in a 4.7
litre 'child delivery system'getting 16 mpg. Make them pay the true
price for their arrogance. The rest of us will have the option to drive
economically in a nice sensible 1.3
Posted by mike barclay on February 19, 2007 11:57 AM
If the Government think they can push this through when there is
obviously massive support against it, it will demonstrate their utter
contempt for the people they are supposed to be serving. I think it is
time the good people of this land stand up and be counted and refuse to
pay for Blair's ludicrous folly. How many times does he want us to pay
for our roads which, incidentally, are appalling. This road pricing
isn't for improvement of our highways or to alleviate congestion, it is
yet another way for Blair to afford his Nanny State and fight in two
wars we should never have been involved in.
Posted by Iain Harper on February 19, 2007 11:37 AM
Congestion is a problem. There is more than one way of addressing the
problem. We could offer incentives to move long distance freight off
the roads and onto the railways. Lorries could travel off peak, e.g. at
night. Public transport should be vastly improved and made cheaper.
Working and school hours could be staggered. Reduce development in
congested areas. These things need to be done in a coordinated fashion.
I despair of this government. Road deaths injuries; one dimensional
response, speed cameras. Congestion; one dimensional response,
congestion charging.
Posted by David on February 19, 2007 8:05 AM
Nothing will change and the Government will have obtained 2 million e-mail details.
Posted by Alec Hodgkinson on February 19, 2007 7:32 AM
I strongly oppose to road pricing it is another form of stealth tax on the over burdened population.
Posted by DR.M.M.ABBAS on February 19, 2007 6:37 AM
As an expatriate living aborad, I have watched with utter dismay as my
country becomes the most expensive country in Europe to live in. Taxes
abound and stealth taxes are the order of the day. We have a PM who is
oblivious to publc opinion, who doesn't listen to his closest advisors
and hangs on to power. The tax on driving as I call it is the final
straw. The only thing that angers me more is the apathy of the citizens
of The U.K. I remember watching the "Can't Pay, Won't Pay" Poll tax
riots and whilst they frightened me I could understand the raw and
naked anger of the citizens. This latest tax raises ones anger to a new
zenith and whilst it is 'only being spoken about' we all now the 2nd
gulf war was only 'being spoken about'as we watched our troops sent to
Iraq for the 2nd time. No, the tax on driving will be swept through
parliament and this will be the legacy of Tony Blair as his position
will be untenable after this bill is passed.
Posted by Julian Hutchings on February 19, 2007 5:08 AM
This government has consistently offered consultation and then refused
to listen to the results. As is usual, they have decided what they will
do and are paying only lip-service to the democratic process. I never
expected anything more from a Labour government. I had to live/work the
last time the Labour party ruled this country. Best advice? NEVER vote
for them, they don't change.
Posted by Nick W on February 19, 2007 1:13 AM
There are always other alternatives. Is britain becoming a place where
only the rich can afford to live? Everyone else seems to have moved to
spain or australia. In central london, only the super rich can afford
to live. Progress, at what cost, I ask?
Posted by azhar waheed on February 19, 2007 12:46 AM
It would appear that the government makes a decision based upon an
analysis which consists of any bird-brained thought and no
consultation. The only important matter is that the idea generates
income for the Exchequer to assist in stabilising an economy that has
been allowed to fall by the wayside. The government then ignores
popular comment, thought and wishes. This is not democracy.
Posted by Francis Glazer on February 18, 2007 1:21 PM
The fairest way to charge for use of roads is by tax on fuel used -
which we already pay. Only a minor proportion of the taxes variously
paid by motorist is returned for the benefit of transportation systems.
Posted by Hugh Linnell on February 18, 2007 12:44 AM
I am totaly opposed to road pricing and congestion charges. Proper
consultation must be carried out with a broad cross section of the
population before any implementation. We must avoid Red Ken's 'Soviet'
style "I'll do it anyway" approach. Like all matters when the treasury
is involved these policies are mere cash collecting excercises to
subsidise the massive costs of this government's beauracracy and
general waste.
Posted by Bernard tOMINEY on February 17, 2007 9:56 AM
As many people have written. Democracy in this country is dead, as
proven by the people running London. Forced through in England, as we
have no devolved government, and the devolved governments of Wales,
Northern Ireland and Scotland refusing to go down the line of road
pricing as they know it will lead to loss of office. City councils in
England look set to forced into accepting a road pricing structure if
they want to improve transport infrastructure. Unfortunately it will
come unless the current government is voted out of office, an incoming
government rethinks the policy or mass civil unrest.
Posted by mike butcher on February 17, 2007 2:42 AM
I believe this Charge to be a total breach of civil liberties. We
already pay road tax for a poor,delapidating, road network. This is so
dishonest! May all perpetrators of this type of scheme rot in hell.
Posted by M Wood on February 17, 2007 2:31 AM
|
- Privatization 
