Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with having to keep track of each chargeable road that I use and promptly log into a different portal to pay. Not much of an issue at the moment as I am unlikely to want, for example, to drive into inner London and use the Dartford Crossing in one journey but it will get worse as these schemes proliferate.
The prerequisite should be a single account billed like a credit card to the registered keeper regardless of which authority benefited from the charge.
I definitely think something should be done to limit car size and weight, or encourage people into smaller cars (preferential treatment), as resources are at a premium, and you can pack more small cars into the same area (reducing traffic).
I'm just not sure this particular idea is the right way to do that or not though.
I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with having to keep track of each chargeable road that I use and promptly log into a different portal to pay. Not much of an issue at the moment as I am unlikely to want, for example, to drive into inner London and use the Dartford Crossing in one journey but it will get worse as these schemes proliferate.
The prerequisite should be a single account billed like a credit card to the registered keeper regardless of which authority benefited from the charge.
Yes it's a pain, but there is of course an argument, that if road charging is supposed to discourage car usage it should not be too convenient? OTOH if it was fully automatic, it would be possible to do real-time location-based Uber style road pricing to manage congestion hotspots.
Rather than 'punishing' motorists, the main goal IMO should be to make car travel costs as incremental and as visible as possible, to level the playing field for car users to sometimes choose public transport (where available) instead as a financially favorable option. Car owners (rightly) consider fixed costs of ownership as sunk, so per-mile insurance policies would help here too; as would car clubs or other usage based ownership models. All this potentially gives a range of options for travelers to reduce their overall costs, and makes travel choices easier, using whatever mode makes most sense for a particular journey, and needs to be sold and made visible to the public as such.
It's often said that the difficulty in encouraging modal shift is breaking though the deeply embedded car-ownership mindset that has been psychologically induced on our society by automotive/hydrocarbon industry promotion & lobbying for decades. But while there is a little truth in this I think it can be overstated because it's also fair to say the large majority of people do see the problems with road traffic, climate change etc. and will change their habits happily if they can see that alternatives can be better for them.
I'm not sure how sensible this is, given that small cars still cause congestion (the need to leave a gap between them dwarfs the actual length) and other than for street parking take up the same amount of parking space because bays are a standard size. It might also necessitate people having two cars when otherwise one would have done - and if a household has only one car, there will pretty much by definition be less driving.
Cars should be narrower to reduce congestion. So much congestion is caused by large cars being unable to pass parked large cars.
Seats should be tandem rather than side by side. Stability issues could be addressed with gyoscopes.
Cars should be narrower to reduce congestion. So much congestion is caused by large cars being unable to pass parked large cars.
Seats should be tandem rather than side by side. Stability issues could be addressed with gyoscopes.
Cars should be narrower to reduce congestion. So much congestion is caused by large cars being unable to pass parked large cars.
Seats should be tandem rather than side by side. Stability issues could be addressed with gyoscopes.
Side impact protection is the reason why cars are wider than they were (which is why cars you'd expect to be wide sometimes aren't, e.g. a classic Land Rover fits 3 seats across but is quite narrow because there is no side impact protection whatsoever). On balance, this is preferable to not having it as it has saved many, many lives.
If parking is an issue in a given location it simply needs to be banned there.
Cars should be narrower to reduce congestion. So much congestion is caused by large cars being unable to pass parked large cars.
Seats should be tandem rather than side by side. Stability issues could be addressed with gyoscopes.
Busses stopping and large vehicles will still impede progress. Large wide roads have been reduced to single lanes by cycle lanes, parking bays, bus lanes etc. That's causing congestion, reducing available road width.
Yes it's a pain, but there is of course an argument, that if road charging is supposed to discourage car usage it should not be too convenient? OTOH if it was fully automatic, it would be possible to do real-time location-based Uber style road pricing to manage congestion hotspots.
Rather than 'punishing' motorists, the main goal IMO should be to make car travel costs as incremental and as visible as possible, to level the playing field for car users to sometimes choose public transport (where available) instead as a financially favorable option. Car owners (rightly) consider fixed costs of ownership as sunk, so per-mile insurance policies would help here too; as would car clubs or other usage based ownership models. All this potentially gives a range of options for travelers to reduce their overall costs, and makes travel choices easier, using whatever mode makes most sense for a particular journey, and needs to be sold and made visible to the public as such.
It's often said that the difficulty in encouraging modal shift is breaking though the deeply embedded car-ownership mindset that has been psychologically induced on our society by automotive/hydrocarbon industry promotion & lobbying for decades. But while there is a little truth in this I think it can be overstated because it's also fair to say the large majority of people do see the problems with road traffic, climate change etc. and will change their habits happily if they can see that alternatives can be better for them.
However outside London public transport is a joke frankly. It is expensive and inconvenient, that's why car usage is so high.
Even now with the fuel price situation, the bus is finally cheaper than the car (just about) but it's still so inconvenient and slow. And extremely cold in the winter, it's still worth using the car for a better experience.
People will use public transport if it is good, see London etc.
The solution isn't penalising car drivers, as that will just reduce social mobility. It is improving public transport to be genuine competition
What's best for the individual is not always best for the group. It's a tragedy of the commons where a lot of the problems are pushed onto outsiders, such as pedestrians.
In Australia EVs and hybrids are taxed per Km traveled. The mileage (or whatever metric countries call it) is recorded during annual service and the tax bill sent. It does mean in Australia EV/hybrid car owners actually pay more tax than ICE car owners. A move which is criticized by environmentalists and pro-EV groups.
Current rates are 2.5 cents per KM for all electric cars and 2 cents for hybrid
In most states EV/hybrid car owners are also required to display a warning sign on their EV to warn emergency service workers and members of the public.
I suppose a tax based on the mileage is a fairer system. Why should an old person who only uses their car to go to the local supermarket one a week pay the same as someone who drives up and down the country regularly and uses their car every day.
I suppose a tax based on the mileage is a fairer system. Why should an old person who only uses their car to go to the local supermarket one a week pay the same as someone who drives up and down the country regularly and uses their car every day.
Better still is a system based on harm, which because cars do most harm in urban areas could be covered easily by a combination of congestion charging and the total abolition of on and off-street free parking including on all business premises, though it'd probably be too complex to charge it on off road parking at home as it's normally not clear what constitutes a space. This would mean people in rural areas paying very little if anything, compensating for the lack of other viable options, but when they did drive to a city they'd be motivated to use park and ride of some kind.
Obviously ICE cars would pay both this and fuel tax, encouraging people to switch.
I mileage based tax system has always been considered a red flag option which is why in Australia it has received so much challenge beyond the basic unfairness of it being against the EV use versus ICE car.
If you drive into a city like London, your should expect charges based on access, parking and space taken as a car damages its surroundings, takes space and is not essential at all.
If you drive in rural areas, distances are much greater, damage & space take is minimal and you have no other option.
This mileage tax option results in a rural driver going 30 miles to work on empty roads more costly than a peak school run of 1 mile in London. That is why it fails on principal as it targets the wrong car usage.
How to turn city centres into ghost towns .... things will simply locate to just outside the area. City centres are dying as it is .... they don't need more help.
How to turn city centres into ghost towns .... things will simply locate to just outside the area. City centres are dying as it is .... they don't need more help.
It's small towns that suffer more than big cities. Big cities are a destination in themselves and generally have good public transport, whereas if you consider somewhere like Ormskirk or Bletchley the town centre footfall is reliant on people driving there to supermarket shop then having a wander round other stuff, and people, however much the cyclists shout, will not switch to cycling for their weekly large shop, it's just not a good use-case for it.
Bletchley town centre I believe has suffered from no longer having a supermarket in its centre. Ormskirk is just about OK as the large Morrisons was built (to howls of protest) immediately adjacent to the centre. In towns where that didn't happen and the supermarket is out of town, the centres suffer massively.
It's small towns that suffer more than big cities. Big cities are a destination in themselves and generally have good public transport, whereas if you consider somewhere like Ormskirk or Bletchley the town centre footfall is reliant on people driving there to supermarket shop then having a wander round other stuff, and people, however much the cyclists shout, will not switch to cycling for their weekly large shop, it's just not a good use-case for it.
Bletchley town centre I believe has suffered from no longer having a supermarket in its centre. Ormskirk is just about OK as the large Morrisons was built (to howls of protest) immediately adjacent to the centre. In towns where that didn't happen and the supermarket is out of town, the centres suffer massively.
Small town France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal seem not to have an issue with car free centres and a town in Croatia with the largest car free zone is booming. I think that LTNs / car free areas have to be a combined package with suitable transport opportunities in place be they out of town park & ride, buses, trams, railway, cycling & walking with accessible amenities.
It's small towns that suffer more than big cities. Big cities are a destination in themselves and generally have good public transport, whereas if you consider somewhere like Ormskirk or Bletchley the town centre footfall is reliant on people driving there to supermarket shop then having a wander round other stuff, and people, however much the cyclists shout, will not switch to cycling for their weekly large shop, it's just not a good use-case for it.
Bletchley town centre I believe has suffered from no longer having a supermarket in its centre. Ormskirk is just about OK as the large Morrisons was built (to howls of protest) immediately adjacent to the centre. In towns where that didn't happen and the supermarket is out of town, the centres suffer massively.
There needs to be joined up thinking. Personally I feel we need to think carefully about whether any new out of town supermarkets or retail parks should be built. Drive thrus should certainly be banned.
Small town France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal seem not to have an issue with car free centres and a town in Croatia with the largest car free zone is booming. I think that LTNs / car free areas have to be a combined package with suitable transport opportunities in place be they out of town park & ride, buses, trams, railway, cycling & walking with accessible amenities.
It depends what you mean "car free centres". Most UK town centres have a pedestrianised area. The key is providing plentiful free or very cheap parking a short walk from that area.
If you want to see what happens if you neither do that nor provide quality public transport with a late finish (until midnight, say), then look at most UK small town centres and how run-down and half-empty they are.
To use another example I reckon you might just manage to make a fairly large chunk of Lancaster city centre car-free (I mean no parking, not just the present pedestrianised area which is nice enough) if you built an A6 bypass on the west side to the Bay Gateway (currently some places can only be reached via the centre, including a large industrial estate) and ran a tram along the current A6, but you'll never do it with a half-job bus service. (The M6 does provide a bypass, but it's far too often closed or heavily congested and that pushes traffic via the only other sensible route, via the centre).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
There needs to be joined up thinking. Personally I feel we need to think carefully about whether any new out of town supermarkets or retail parks should be built.
I see no reason why they should provided they are positioned to serve those who would be in cars anyway, i.e. on main roads.
Takeaways will not thrive without road access except in areas of very high density housing where those within about 100-200m will provide enough custom, which is only really the case in our largest cities. You'll note that those pedestrianised areas don't contain many takeaways unless they do primarily lunchtime business when people are in the centre anyway. If you look at Ormskirk the pedestrianised area is near enough all retail and coffee places/sit in cafes, with some pubs on the fringe, and almost all takeaways and evening type restaurants are in areas with direct road access to the frontage.
Vehicle movements are already tracked on a very large scale, - in towns and cities, on urban routes, on motorways and in almost every car park. There's no point complaining about that because it is already working as we speak. This anonymity of drivers thing is a myth. If the authorities want to track somebody, it is becoming easier every year without installing anything in their vehicles.
However outside London public transport is a joke frankly. It is expensive and inconvenient, that's why car usage is so high.
Even now with the fuel price situation, the bus is finally cheaper than the car (just about) but it's still so inconvenient and slow. And extremely cold in the winter, it's still worth using the car for a better experience.
People will use public transport if it is good, see London etc.
The solution isn't penalising car drivers, as that will just reduce social mobility. It is improving public transport to be genuine competition
That's not a barrier to using the detection of the vehicle's movements to charge fopr road usage. It would also alert the police to the possibility of that number being cloned.
There needs to be joined up thinking. Personally I feel we need to think carefully about whether any new out of town supermarkets or retail parks should be built. Drive thrus should certainly be banned.
Try doing Christmas shopping in bricks and mortar establishments by public transport with young kids in tow. Bulky parcels, pushchairs, crush loaded shuttle buses to nearest railway station... Much easier to drive, one parent pop to the car at periodic intervals to stow purchases so far, carry on shopping. Want to cut out unnecessary travel? Fine, sod the whole thing and I'll order everything on Amazon and never mind the local cafes and restaurants. Let's not let tunnel vision about transport matters be the tail that wags the dog of wider quality of life considerations
Try doing Christmas shopping in bricks and mortar establishments by public transport with young kids in tow. Bulky parcels, pushchairs, crush loaded shuttle buses to nearest railway station... Much easier to drive, one parent pop to the car at periodic intervals to stow purchases so far, carry on shopping. Want to cut out unnecessary travel? Fine, sod the whole thing and I'll order everything on Amazon and never mind the local cafes and restaurants. Let's not let tunnel vision about transport matters be the tail that wags the dog of wider quality of life considerations
