By Tony Hallett, 9 August 2006 15:35
COMMENT
I want to get my teeth into the subject of road charging but first, I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't herald the launch of silicon.com's latest vertical-specific section. In fact, adding to our successes over the past 12 months with Public Sector and Financial Services, the new Retail & Leisure section actually tackles two closely related sectors.
Our business editor Steve Ranger is behind this launch and we hope it allows us to better serve CIOs and others in these areas. For everyone else, the radical changes we see in this space should be instructive.
But, as I indicated, the start to this week was a bit of a humdinger, what with an update on government proposals to change the way we are taxed to use the UK's roads. The news itself wasn't a huge update - it was based around a 'leaked' document seen by The Times - but the reaction from our readers really got me thinking. (This week I've been moderating our Reader Comments and you can see all of them for this story here.)
The mix of comments is pretty rich, which is great. I won't try to cover every angle. The best ones grasp the concept that any proposals aren't just about a 'black box' that tracks a vehicle's movements using GPS. They're about charging according to the route that is taken and what time a journey is made.
Forget about all the TV news reports you saw talking about making every road a toll road (an interesting image). This subject is interesting because it is all about efficient networks and because it promises to affect almost all of us.
Assuming you are not overly paranoid about being tracked - as if your vehicles can't be tracked anyway now - then this is a solution to some congestion woes. Staggering journey times, where possible, and routes, where possible, are good ideas. (Note, the 'where possible'.) Making all this 'revenue neutral', as they say, to our tax-raising authorities is also key.
In fact, the starting point for intelligent debate seems to be about scrapping fuel levies (the UK has some of the highest in the world) and annual road tax, and doing everything based around mileage, route and time.
But what might happen? If you are someone who will benefit greatly - maybe you travel infrequently, on rural roads, at off-peak hours - there will be someone else who has no choice but to hit busy rush hour roads, many times per week. The latter group will be the ones who protest loudly.
The fudge will then be to keep a tax on fuel, maybe even annual road taxes. That will all be costly, confusing - and risk not being 'revenue neutral'.
Wasn't one of Adam Smith's tenets about taxation that it's simple? On that count, levies on a litre of fuel are the simplest solution. Problem is, we already protest about the price of fuel. And another tenet of his was that taxation is also fair.
Ah, who'd be an economist? Or a road planner.
Comments
There are 27 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous too
I see a flaw in their cunning plan- which of us can choose what time we go to work? Yes, as I thought. The outcome of this black box is that we all get charged a premium for going to\ from work at a time we have no control over. The result would the same as now, the traffic jams at the busiest times, just as we have now. The only benefactor would be the Treasury, who would no doubt rake it in.
A simple idea: Gov passes a law to include flexible "shift hours" of say 7am-3pm, 8am-4pm, 9am-5pm, 10am-6pm, 11am-7pm etc with workers choosing the shift that works best for them. The purpose of the Gov law is to MAKE companies stripe their work force (company of 50+ workers) across those hours. The effect should be that less vehicles hitting the same bottlenecks at the same time.
2. anonymous
And what about the millions of foreign vehicles that enter the UK? Currently, as soon as they buy fuel in the UK they contribute to the cost of maintaining our roads. Will they be required to install a Black Box before they're allowed onto British soil? What if they don't have one? Will they be forced to turn around and return to where they came or will they have to suffer hours of delay at the port of entry whilst one is fitted, and at what cost?
Just how long will it be before Cost Neutral turns into just another source of additional revenue? And how long will it be before the Black Box is used to continually monitor every vehicle to check if it's driving within the speed limit?
What makes you think that this really hasn't been thought out at all or else it has but just not on the published agenda?
3. anonymous
Scrap road tax, increase fuel duty, insurance companies to produce disc for windscreen mounting to prove vehicle is insured, same with MOT certificate. This will ensure those that use the road the most pay the most, it will be far more difficult to get away with insurance or MOT evasion. It will reduce the number of goverment employees at the DVLA reducing costs.
This will increase the cost for the haulage industry, but it will force foriegn vehicles to pay for the cost of our roads.
4. Amy
Why doesnt the government do more to encourage home working and flexible working hours. I hate sitting in traffic every day by the M25 but have no choice but to travel when everyone else does as there is no incentive for my boss not to demand that I work the same hours as everyone else in the UK.
5. David Bowler
Taxing fuel is almost the perfect solution; it is extremely simple, doesn't involve yet another government IT project to go wrong, doesn't involve yet more surveillance, and is fair. You pay more for long distance, for high speed, for big cars, and bad manners (aggressive driving, excessive acceleration and braking). You also pay more for being stuck in traffic jams, but you make your own choice about how to avoid them. Lorry drivers may not like it, but many of them could knock 20% off their fuel bills right now, by obeying the speed limits and by driving quietly in built up areas.
6. Jim Hughes
The best idea is to scrap the road tax, increase the fuel tax, and stop this stupid idea of charging for road use.
As soon as you rely on something installed in a car, there will be people who will find a way to disable/remove/clone that device. You also have to take into account all the foreign vehicles that visit the UK every day. And also the thousands of cars that only get driven once a week or month (older and vintage cars).
An increase to fuel tax is the only way to make sure everyone pays up. You can’t avoid buying fuel. There is no need for costly projects or new equipment. No need for an outsourcing company to also make profits of the generated revenue.
Why can’t the government go for the most simple ideas!?
7. anonymous
So our fuel tax is the highest in the world and yet it still hasn't reduced car usage.
So if your objective is tax people off the road you must make it a luxury option that only the wealthy can afford.
The only trouble with that is many of us don't live in areas with integrated transport options available.
8. anonymous
Tax fuel.
As other readers have commented, it is the simplest & fairest way forward.
And before the haulage industry cries that they will be paying more tax than anybody else, let's point out that they SHOULD pay more to the maintainance of the road network.
Lorries cause more damage to roads than private cars: they do more miles & they are heavier = more damage.
The more fuel you use, the more you are polluting = you should be taxed more.
Common sense!
9. anonymous
First the good news: The Government is going to remove all speed cameras and get rid of traffic wardens!
Now the bad news. The "Black Box" for tracking won't just charge you for using the roads. It will effectively place a speed camera on every piece of road in the country.
The parking wardens will be redundant because the same system will be able to tell if you've parked on double yellows or overstayed your meter time.
That is, of course, if it works. The only hope that we have is that the Goverment is so poor at big IT that £30 billion or so down the road it might end up on the scrapheap.
10. godric beresford-jones
Basic Problem... too many people.
Yes I know it's not PC, but the name of the game is population density. Build, build, build... no dentists or doctors, no water and now no tarmac. Any electrician will tell you that if you plug too much in the fuse blows!
Fix the big item first.
11. David \manford
I totally agree with Mr Bowler,
What could be simpler & fairer than taxing travel by the amount of fuel used? After all that's what produces the CO2.
Why do we also get taxed on the potential to produce CO2 as in the new Car Tax rates? After all someone with a big car which sits in the garage all year is much less of a problem than someone with a smaller car which is always on the road.
Obviously much too simple.....
12. anonymous
Why is it that apart from a few forums the UK is not outraged at the recent suggestions for yet more charging. No mention of why all the money raised already doesn't find its way back into infrastructure improvements, better and modern public transport, or more importantly on what the new Taxes would provide. The Congestion charge has proved that after a short while the volumes return and loads of money is generated. Adding costs to an everyday need will further price business away from the UK, and jobs will be lost. Where is the "forward" thinking eh ? Scrap a couple million jobs and then rush hour will be much better ! Cut all the pain out inbetween?
Or somewhat better encourage Tax breaks for home working, advocate and invest in technology that assists in keeping people in one place. Not supporting to the tune of 10M the companies generating the Technologies to charge (tax) us all.
13. Tom
Alas, this is a complex issue & not merley as simple as just increasing fuel costs. I heartily agree that flexible working hours would be the best way to ease congestion as peak hours, but simply increasing the price of fuel is not (imho) the best way forward.
Where I live, I can not get a bus to work, I have to use my car. In rural communities, not only has the govt. reduced the public transport options (via privitisation), but the amount of rural jobs are now becoming fewer & fewer. If one lives in the countryside (unless one is some kind of executive), it is unlikely that one has the means to pay even more getting to work.
Turning some roads into Toll roads & not others will actually cause more congestion. Rural routes will become busier & busier. Perhaps we should have a complete rethink & approach this from a completely different angle. If public transport was clean, fairly priced, available & reliable; then I suspect more people would use it.
Or why not do more to encourage car sharing? I work for Orange & we have a Car sharing site on our intranet, so that we can find people who live near us & work in the same offices.
I know this isn't practical for everyone, but it would be a start.
I know this is fanciful thinking, why should this govt stop persecuting those who live in the countryside? We obviously desrve to pay more for living in areas with massive un-employment, surrounded by people who are buying 2nd houses, so that we can't afford to carry on living here & have to move to the city... Here endeth my 1st rant of the day.
14. anonymous
The current situation where fuel is taxed heavily penalises the rural communities. The fuel in rural areas costs more (due to distribution costs) and with large retailers offering reduced grocery prices to urban communities the rural folk either have to travel to shop (with limited public transport) or pay higher prices locally. At a time when we have a housing (and water) shortage in South-East England anything that can be done to encourage the UK to disperse some of its industry would be helpful. This isn't just a fuel issue, it's about our whole economy.
15. Anthony Page
The problem we have on the roads is being compounded by successive governments being fixated on asking for solutions from academics. By defination, they are theory people and normally not PRACTICAL, hence they measure engine size, speed, journey times etc. etc. or call for the launch of satellites for tracking with "black boxes" all expensive and long winded solutions.
So I'm a pragmatist lets start a thread.
Every time a car is sold it has to have a new bicycle in the boot as part of the sale. When you sell your current car, you have to buy a bike and put it in the boot before a sale can take place.
RESULT 1,200,000 new bikes every year..new factory making them, hundreds of new jobs. Less polution.
Next, take the "stop on demand" buttons off traffic lights. The driver has to sit in a queue and wait so can the pedestrian stand and wait until the light cycles through, normally.
Motorway accidents; if no one is hurt, just push the cars to the hard shoulder, (write them off) and the government pays for new ones! Motorway open in 10 minutes rather than 3 hours whilst the police measure every mark on the road. Twenty thousand cars sitting stationery, engines running make at lot of pollution
Over to you..
16. Lesley Payne
We all know there is a problem with the Transport system but why is every solution to monitor us. ID Cards, Black boxes. Why don't we just have chips inserted at birth and have done with it.
I am law abiding and have nothing to hide BUT i don't want to have my every move watched, logged. How soon before the technology will stop where we go and what we do. Who will choose what is good for us?
17. Gary Davis
Keep the fuel levy, increase it and abolish RFL, charge the very busiest routes scaled to their very busiest times, charge for entering into City Centre's scaled to rush hours etc.
People that live in rural areas "could" be given a tax credit to make it easier to run a car where there is little or no Public Transport.
Give me the £10m set aside for designing the "road charging scheme".
Job done!
18. anonymous
The point of doing this is so that we all stop using our cars and the money raised will be ploughed into public transport.
The same way as the money raised by that newt loving twit in the GLA is being ploughed back into our lovely transport system. As all commuters now know the trains (under and overground) are really clean, run on time, seats are always available and they go where we want them too.
The problem is we the British will happily sit back and allow these changes without a murmur, because over the next few years we will all get brainwashed into believing the propoganda about "good for the environment etc"
Final comment we are already being charged by usage it is called petrol duty.
19. anonymous
Only the intellectually challenged among us would think road charging was a good idea. As other readers have commented, fuel duty is the perfect solution and there are many, many flaws with the implementation of road charging. If easing congestion is the aim, how about not building thousands of new homes in the already overcrowded south. Instead we could do what other sensible, developed nations do and encourage business (and therefore jobs and people) to areas of the country where fewer people live.
20. John Lewis
The latest stupid idea from this government hat has not been thought through. It will only divert traffic onto minot country roads that are not designed for heavy traffic
21. Alan Ainsworth
Jersey has now scrapped its equivalent of the Road Fund Licence and requires the display of an insurance certificate on the front screen. To compensate, a fuel tax has been introduced that raises prices to (almost) UK levels.
Switzerland operates an uncontroversial scheme whereby anyone driving into the country has to pay 40 CHF (about £18.50) for a "vignette" and display it on their screens. It lasts for a year so repeat visitors are not penalised.
France operates (some) toll-based autoroutes.
None of these requires advanced technology to achieve their objective. None of these requires vehicle tracking. None of these introduces the possibility of another monumental Government IT cock-up.
The first two are cheap, easily introduced solutions that are difficult to avoid by both foreign and domestic users of our roads. Neither, as far as I can tell, would have an adverse imnpact on car drivers without an adequate public transport alternative.
And, who knows, there might be cost savings at the DVLA! Reduced Government! There's an ambition to strive for.
22. Colin
Tax isn't fair, it just is. The test is whether it achieves its objective, which is normally to raise revenue. There seems to be another objective here, but what is it? To reduce travelling, or CO2 emissions, or roadbuilding, or congestion, or journey times? Without some clarity, the only thing it will do is raise revenue. Besides, it can only be part if a package of measures to achieve any of the other onjectives.
23. Cory
I've not heard the full reasoning behind this proposed new tax scheme, but it strikes me that we're all focusing on the wrong issue.
I've read a few posts here claiming we're paying the highest fuel duty in Europe already. And we all know that any new taxation scheme will only increase the amount collected.
So, my question is this: What happens to all this money?
How come other countries have transport infrastructure that costs less per road user to maintain than ours does?
There's plenty of legislation and rules surrounding the collection of transport taxes already, I think tighter control and focus is needed on where that money is invested.
Once that's acheived, then fuel tax is the easiest and fairest levy. The goverment has a poor track record in large scale technology projects anyway. Think: Air traffic control, CSA, NHS etc.
24. Terry Gee
You all gone mad? or what? why increase duty when its the highest in the world????? You go back to your horse and cart if you want to....but not me!
As the UK only cause 2% of all this pollution,when the rest of the world does the same as the uk,then,and only then, will I agree with you lot of do gooders!!!
But that will be the same day that pigs fly.....in other words never!! Get off of the British motorists backs!!
25. Nigel Rogers
Had'nt anyone taken into consideration the lost revenue in the tobacco industry. The Government has to make up the missing pennies from its coffers after all those people who have given up smoking (like myself). Mind you I have sacrificed the Jag for a Mondeo.
26. Terry Gee
Scrap fuel duty,for all UK vehicles.but charge foreign vehicles $500 a time to enter this country!
You all gone mad? or what? why increase duty when its the highest in the world????? You go back to your horse and cart if you want to....but not me!
As the UK only cause 2% of all this pollution,when the rest of the world does the same as the uk,then,and only then, will I agree with you lot of do gooders!!!
But that will be the same day that pigs fly.....in other words never!! Get off of the British motorists backs!!
27. Terry Gee
You all gone mad? or what? why increase duty when its the highest in the world????? You go back to your horse and cart if you want to....but not me!
As the UK only cause 2% of all this pollution,when the rest of the world does the same as the uk,then,and only then, will I agree with you lot of do gooders!!!
But that will be the same day that pigs fly.....in other words never!! Get off of the British motorists backs!!