'pay-as-you-go' Road Charge Plan

[+Cave Troll and Eeyore]

If THIS goes ahead I think we'll end up doing all caches at night !

[+Haggis Hunter]

This is also another case of Big Brother watching you, they will know exactly were you are, sometimes before you do. They will also know when you are speeding, which I think it wouldn't take them long to introduce instant fines, and they will know exactly who was at fault at an accident. So there is more than what it will cost for each individual.

[+Pengy&Tigger]

It'll never happen. Can you imagine the cost of setting up this scheme?

 

- 1 black box for every car in the country

- Hardware for tracking such a system

- Software development costs (The government doesn't have a great track record for these things - see CSA, Inland Revenue etc.)

 

If the government can't afford to build hospitals and schools themselves, presumably it will need private companies to invest in such a thing. It will have to bring in enough money to cover the lost road tax and fuel duty, as well as providing a return for the investors.

 

T

[+Pharisee]

By the time any system like that comes into force, we'll have so many caches placed in this country that you won't need to drive to them, there'll be half a dozen in your front garden

[+derrylynne]

Rather scary isn't it. All us geocachers that drive or travel around for our work must have thought 'Bet our boss would like this linked to their computers.' The government would know your every move, where you were, for how long, your speed, what time, your altitude, a whole lot of information. Big brother for sure. And of course with road charging, would we be so keen to drive far for a cache. Yes very scary. I am sure most the public do not realise just how much information can be derived from a black box linked with a satelitte. GPS in other words. Before it can happen, it will be up to us that know to educate the public that do not, that way hopefully public opinion will be so against the idea it will never happen....

[Alan White]

I'm amazed (or perhaps not, given the records of governments of all flavours) that they can't see the flaws in this scheme.

 

We all know that it's currently impossible to maintain signal in some areas, under trees particularly. Galileo may improve things, but that's a long way off.

 

We also know that even in good reception conditions the captured track can move about wildly. You can be on one road one second, the next be a few hundred away, then be back on the original road.

 

All country (or perhaps I should say cheap) roads will become rat-runs. Why pay £1.34 on a congested motorway when you can pay 2p to drive a leafy lane?

 

And talking of congested motorways, what happens when a motorway becomes congested because of roadworks or accident? I can hear the complaints now: "I paid £1.34 to travel this road: I want compensation!"

 

It will become impossible to budget for the cost of car usage. How on earth will anyone know in advance the cost of a particular journey, with its likely mix of motorways, rural A roads, and residential streets?

 

This idea has a long way to go yet. So long that I doubt I'll still be driving when it comes in.

[+webscouter.]

If public reaction is favourable, as the government expects,

 

Just an American observer. Seems the public reaction isn't as favourable as the government expects. From this post looks like it is five against, nought for.

[Alan White]

Seems the public reaction isn't as favourable as the government expects

As usual, the public will believe what it wants based on the perceived impact on themselves. A further problem with this scheme is that there'll be a few winners (in financial terms), lots of losers, and a few with little change. It's this that will influence the public's thinking, and the response will depend on which camp you fall into.

 

Some quick sums...

 

Average annual mileage is reckoned to be 12,000.

Average mpg 32

So average mileage requires 375 gallons

Tax on that is roughly £1147

Plus road tax itself gives £1312 total costs

 

So the average cost per mile of a road charging scheme has to be less than 11p. Since this looks unlikely based on the 2p-£1.34 range then everyone will end up paying more for their vehicle usage. Even the average private user will pay a lot more: business usage will be priced out of the market.

 

So I can't this ever going ahead, not at those prices. Political suicide.

 

I don't see the spy-in-the-sky question as being a big issue with the public. Most people are very happy with the ID card idea, and we're already tracked everywhere by traffic cameras and credit card payments.

[Remote Part]

If public reaction is favourable, as the government expects,

Just an American observer. Seems the public reaction isn't as favourable as the government expects. From this post looks like it is five against, nought for.

I don't think this forum, with a number of long distance car drivers, is particlarly representative of public opinion.

 

I am favour of this plan.

Something has to be done to reduce congestion, at least in certain areas.

 

The system seems fair to be me, as you will pay less in rural areas where there is little alternative to travelling by car, and you will pay more in cities / on motorways, where plenty alternatives are available.

That's much fairer than the current system where the costs are the other way round.

 

As for the technical aspects of such a system, I doubt it will be completely satelite based. It would probably use local transmitters (i.e. mobile phone masts) within cities for more reliable positioning.

As for the 'big brother' comments, if you don't want to be tracked the simple solution is not to drive. The current number plate recognition systems can do a good job of tracking cars anyway.

 

Though I'm not sure what all this has to do with gecaching anyway...

[Lactodorum]

Though I'm not sure what all this has to do with gecaching anyway...

I'll keep my own views to myself, but just to reassure you that as this topic is "satellite based" I'm happy it should be discussed here.

[+kewfriend]

Just think of all the new Virtual Caches and EarthCaches we could have:

 

Exit 4A on the M3

the Severn Crossing ( both )

The Snake Pass (Top)

Tomintoul in Mid-Winter

The Channel Tunnel entrance ummmmmmm

middle of Tower Bridge ( when open )

 

....... get the drift ?

[+Brenin Tegeingl]

Rather scary isn't it. All us geocachers that drive or travel around for our work must have thought 'Bet our boss would like this linked to their computers.' The government would know your every move, where you were, for how long, your speed, what time, your altitude, a whole lot of information. Big brother for sure. And of course with road charging, would we be so keen to drive far for a cache. Yes very scary. I am sure most the public do not realise just how much information can be derived from a black box linked with a satelitte. GPS in other words. Before it can happen, it will be up to us that know to educate the public that do not, that way hopefully public opinion will be so against the idea it will never happen....

Companys like Sainsburys already use a GPS/RADIO system to keep track of their delivery vehicles and have done so for several years, so some of the technology already exists. And the idea of PAYG Road charging is not new, previous suggestions have included a black box which ID's its self to sensors set into the road connected to a central computer network.

 

Just add it to the other idiotic ideas over road usage such as charging £900 RFL for vehicles with large engines (and yes this is a current suggestion) and would cover most 4x4's and large MPV'S as well as Large luxury cars.

 

Dave

[+Renegade Knight]

The State of Oregon is in the process of implemetning a similar tax using volunteers. The big brother concerns are the same as are the green car users thinking they should pay less tax and SUV's more on general principal. Meanwhile SUV users are saying small cars should pay their share and not get any breaks since everone who uses the roads contributes to their wear and tear.

 

The big difference I can see is that the UK is looking to make driving so expensve that congestion goes away.

[markandlynn]

The technology is very well proven vehicle telematics My company was involved in trials for the governement on this stuff.

Accuracy is a moot point as they know where the roads are.

It will be introduced for HGV, LGV in the next few years and is supposedly revenue neutral (until you get a speeding fine that is) insurance companies are also using this technologyto tailor insurance to driving habits.

My guess is after that it will be vans, then company cars and then the rest .

The classic and kit car industries will as ever be exempt

[+Kitty Hawk]

They can pretty much track cars now anyway, there is a bar code on your tax disc. They scan the barcode as you drive past and know if the vehicle is stolen, taxed and insured and who the owner is.

[+*bingoboy*]

if this came in I would drive more under tree cover

they would never know where the hell you are

[+Wadders]

Came across this on the web today, typical that the goverment want to start using the technology now we are getting down to this kind of accuracy

Just done 1200 miles in france with about 12 caches done and charged 40 euros, good value i'd say in light of the proposed charges.

 

My Webpage

 

My Webpage

 

wadders

[+Learned Gerbil]

As they can read car registrations digitally for speed camera and congestion charging purposes, the bar code adds nothing. They know if you are taxed - and you can now tax on-line as there is now a national MOT and insurrance database. So, if a computer can read your number plate (which they can do with current equipment that is out there on the roads) they can also check immediatly if you are taxed, insurred and MOTed. Road pricing is unnecessary for any of that - they are probably doing it now.

 

Anyone who has used the Channel Tunnel will bn o doubt have noticed the corner in both directions where you are forced to slow down just by a camera immediatly before security - that means they even know which cars are going in and out of the country.

[+klaus23]

If Governments spent more time and money thinking about how to improve public transport to the point of being preferable and less costly to private transport (although it's not always possible, it can be done to a degree), then bureaucrat pipedreams such as this one would be consigned to the cloudcookooland they really do belong in.

[nobby.nobbs]

how much do you want to bet this ends up wit hroad tax being increased?

 

seems the norm for this government to release ideas that are very contraversial then when the outcry dies down they change it to something that would also cause outcry but isn't as extreme as the original idea.....waters down the reaction and the sheep don't realise they've been had.

 

[+Kitty Hawk]

As they can read car registrations digitally for speed camera and congestion charging purposes, the bar code adds nothing. They know if you are taxed - and you can now tax on-line as there is now a national MOT and insurrance database. So, if a computer can read your number plate (which they can do with current equipment that is out there on the roads) they can also check immediatly if you are taxed, insurred and MOTed. Road pricing is unnecessary for any of that - they are probably doing it now.

 

Anyone who has used the Channel Tunnel will bn o doubt have noticed the corner in both directions where you are forced to slow down just by a camera immediatly before security - that means they even know which cars are going in and out of the country.

I disagree slightly. The bar code provides an second route to the information from a more reliable starting point that is harder (though not impossible) to fake - a number plate can be knocked up by anyone in seconds, a tax disc is trickier.

 

Number plate cloning is a real big issue already.

 

Take a look at this - a mate of mine in the Police has bought this web site to my attention

 

see for yourself.....

 

Username; tiger

Password; parrot

 

police camera database

 

I bought my tax on line last week, great system.

Edited June 6, 2005 by Kitty Hawk

[+Learned Gerbil]

I agree the onlinme system is fantastic - but a pain that you can't use it until just before your tax runs out meaning you risk the disc being delayed in the post.

 

As for bar codes - once you have a valid bar code copied it can't be that difficult to knock out fake discs on a PC in seconds. I agree that stealing numbers is a big problem, that why when you get stopped at customs the first thing they want is documentary proof the vehicle is the one the plates say it is.

[+sTeamTraen]

About 10 years ago the Tory government announced a similar scheme, just for motorways. It was going to be live within 3 years. The usual suspects (Racal, Marconi, EDS) were going to build it.

 

Of course, it got quitely abandoned once the people who might have to make it work in practice (police, Treasury, etc) applied cooler heads to it.

 

Politicians don't understand very much about technology. Scaling up the London congestion charge idea to the whole country is just unworkable. And given the number of people who don't pay their tax disc, or are prepared to run their (diesel) cars on vegetable oil or red diesel, how many more would have "mysteriously not working" GPS transponderes ?

 

Fuel excise duty already provides a fair way for people who drive more, in bigger cars, to pay more. Or is the Government thinking ahead to a time when you recharge your car by plugging into a 13-amp socket ?

 

Of course, in one sense, I'm all for this scheme. When I visit the UK in my French-registered car, I'd love to pay no fuel duty, and have my share of road wear-and-tear paid for by British drivers. And I'm sure the same applies to non-UK road haulage businesses, too. Currently they can only slightly out-compete UK firms on the differential price of diesel between Britain and France, and that's within the radius of a single tankful. But with this scheme, the sky's the limit. Oh what, every lorry coming into the UK must acquire a GPS box ? Uh-uh... free movement of goods within the EU... the European court will (quite rightly) strike that one down in a nanosecond.

 

At least congestion is something which affects people equally. Hmm, including Government ministers in a hurry. Want to be that they won't be exempt, including in their personal vehicles at weekends ?

Edited June 6, 2005 by sTeamTraen

[+-Phoenix-]

If Governments spent more time and money thinking about how to improve public transport to the point of being preferable and less costly to private transport (although it's not always possible, it can be done to a degree), then bureaucrat pipedreams such as this one would be consigned to the cloudcookooland they really do belong in.

Improving public transport is just not good enough, the problem is cultral and the only way to get the public transport to work is to improve the demand for it, once you do this then the finances are much easier to justify.

 

The only way to encourage people to use Public transport is to make the car so expensive to use in areas where there is already a good public transport system, that its just not worth it, however, there is no fair way of doing this without also hitting those in less well covered areas and those with a legitimate reason to use a vehicle, or hitting goods vehicle operators.

 

£1.34 per mile may sound a lot, but if they set that as the rate to drive through inner cities then great, especially if they set rural roads to 0.04p per mile, and scrap the other forms of Tax, which would reduce the costs of caching to 0.05p per mile.

 

This isnt a dumb idea, its actually a very good one that needs a lot of work, and probably needs to wait for technology to catch up, but it does suggest a solution to the problem.

[Team 'James W']

Take a look at this - a mate of mine in the Police has bought this web site to my attention

 

see for yourself.....

 

Username; tiger

Password; parrot

 

police camera database

Cheers for giving me a heart attack!

 

[+The Hole-in-the-wall Gang]

As previously mentioned, there are a number of technologies that can be used together to provide location information;

 

GPS Satellite based positioning.

Pro's: Very accurate. Country wide coverage.

Con's: Suffers from satellite loss in built-up areas or under foliage.

Galileo will help but not eliminate this entirely.

 

EOTD utilises signals from mobile phone base stations to provide positioning.

Pro's: Good signal penetration where GPS might fail.

Con's: Less accurate than GPS and variable coverage.

 

Accelerometers measure movement in all 3 axis using tiny movement sensors

Pro's: No need to receive any radio signals.

Con's: Accuracy degrades over distance travelled and so they need to be corrected by GPS.

 

If you put all 3 of these technologies in a black box then you have a fairly robust system that can cope with a number of scenarios where one technology fails, another will provide covereage. The integration of these systems into relatively small/cheap IC's is making this a very feasible option.

 

If Pay-per-mile charges are introduced then I believe that you can expect that a lot of people will take to the back roads instead of using the motorways and so there will be an increase in accidents in rural areas

 

However, it seems that the regular use of cars has become part of our lifestyles so I think that if the system could be made to reduce unecessary travel or encourage use of public transport then it is a good thing.

Edited June 6, 2005 by The Hole-in-the-wall Gang

[+davy boy]

My partner has sat nav insurance already and was offered a 25% discount whilst on a 3yr scheme and if it worked out more expensive whilst on the scheme she can revert back to paying yearly.

It makes you wonder if this is the ins companys baby or a pilot scheme by the good old British gov?

[Harry_Bristol_UK]

encourage use of public transport then it is a good thing. 

We need public transport that works in the first place! I live in a major town on the outskirts of Bristol. If I want to get into the City Centre I will have to walk nearly a mile (up hill!) to the roads where the busses run, then I'd have to endure a 50 minute journey on a dirty, smelly, hot, sweaty & uncomfortable bus - Or I can jump in the car and be there in 15 minutes. Which option am I likely to keep using? It's all very well talking about introducing a system which is likely to restrict most peoples movements (the poorest members of society / the working class?), but I can't see it happening. Remember the Poll Tax? Governments make mistakes and this would be a blinder!

 

I agree with others thoughts that it is more likely the Government are scaring people now so that in a years time they can do us a "favour" by only doubling road tax / fuel duty.

 

edit - Also meant to add that as most "public transport" is now privatised and run for the benefit of the shareholders, just how "public" is it exactly?

Edited June 6, 2005 by Harry_Bristol_UK

[+Skippy and Pingu]

I'm all in favour for trying to reduce conjestion but they need to improve public transport 1st. I live 25 miles from Liverpool. If I went to work the environmentally friendly way I would cycle to the closest station (2 miles). Take a train for 15 mins. Get of and wait for 40 mins before getting on another train which take 55 mins. This means it takes me over 2 hours to go 25 miles to one of our major cities. Its little wonder why I drive and am even prepared to pay £2.60 a day on tunnel fees. Being charged in excess of £1 per mile (I drive the whole way on motorways) would mean I have the option of it costing me over £50 a day to commute or taking me 2 hours each way. Not much of a choice.

 

I don't remember anything about this being mentioned in the recent campaigning for the general election.

[+Learned Gerbil]

I suggest you read pages 24 and 25 of the Labour Manifesto - there is a clear commitment to tackle congestion by moving away from the current road tax system.

[markandlynn]

Last week Lynn had to travel to Newport (a 6mile trip) with two of children after checking the bus times and charges it soon became clear that a taxi was £1 cheaper.

As said above the technology does exist an LGV vehicle telematics system cost in the region of £1000 per vehicle and this includes engine and driver monitoring ie MPG driver style, engine abuse / use over revving and if know speeding issues, harsh braking etc etc so it should be cheaper to make more basic models.

The back office software is sl more expensive but i know that a company Vemis handles all Asda trucks so scope and size is no issue.

As said above my guess is that it will all be scaled down to 4x4 owners and the odd truck and van.

The other coverage system available is the one used to monitor and ring fence the routes used by securicor vehicles. This system shuts down the engine if the vehicle moves off its pre determined route . This is done by a roadside system developed by Siemens.

Imagine having to pre book your caching trips online !!

[+Pharisee]

As said above my guess is that it will all be scaled down to 4x4 owners

Wouldn't it be nice if the 'system' immediately quadrupled (at least) the charge for any 4x4 that it detects 'on-road'. Motorbikes should, of course, be exempt from any charges.

[+Us 4 and Jess]

omg, we dont agree with that

[+Cave Troll and Eeyore]

Wouldn't it be nice if the 'system' immediately quadrupled (at least) the charge for any 4x4 that it detects 'on-road'. Motorbikes should, of course, be exempt from any charges.

Great , what better excuse for me to dust off my full motorbike licence and get a two wheeled mean machine

[Harry_Bristol_UK]

I suggest you read pages 24 and 25 of the Labour Manifesto - there is a clear commitment to tackle congestion by moving away from the current road tax system.

I seem to remember a certain Mr. Bliar also making a clear commitment to "listen to the people". Just another Labour lie

 

Here's a nice, although somewhat biased, summary of the nonsense proposals: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/roadpricing.html

[+Pengy&Tigger]

The back office software is sl more expensive but i know that a company Vemis handles all Asda trucks so scope and size is no issue.

Don't forget we're not just talking tracking software here. The billing system is not going to be cheap. Somehow all that data has to be translated into bills for us all.

 

If the gas and electricity suppliers can't get it right from a simple meter, there's going to be all sorts of complications, never mind getting people to pay up. I've been waiting 18 months for an electricity bill - Officially my meter doesn't exist - A case of 'computer say's no'. (Sorry, OT)

 

T

[+Learned Gerbil]

I have a cunning plan!

 

One way of road pricing, whilst hitting the most enviromentally damaging users the most is to tax fuel!

 

Maybe that doesn't work because price is not a brake on road use as long as culture and fashion dictate driving a Chelsea Tractor to the shops 300 yards away to buy a pack of fags is acceptable (I have seen it done).

 

If so it won't work if you road price either, whichever method is used.

 

However, I guess the real concern is that by 2030 which is the point they are aiming for, they will no longer be able to tax fuel if it does not come out of the pumps but is either reused food oil, solar panels on the roof, or comes out of a 13 amp socket. Congestion may be the alleged problem, but the real one is how yo ucontinue ot charge for road use when cars no longer use easily measured quantities of stuff that comes out of the ground, and is dangerous enough to be easily controlled and monitored.

[+Brenin Tegeingl]

owever, I guess the real concern is that by 2030 which is the point they are aiming for, they will no longer be able to tax fuel if it does not come out of the pumps but is either reused food oil,

 

Biodesel is a taxable fuel product already and as far as the UK government proposals are concerned regarding used vegtable oils, you will have to have a specialist Waste disposal licence to transport it, at a cost of several thousand pounds! More information can be found Here.

 

Dave

Edited June 6, 2005 by Mancunian Pyrocacher

[+Learned Gerbil]

True - but you miss the point - once something has multiple uses it gets difficult to control unless you tax them all the same - this is already a major issue with diesel - once most diesel can be cooked with things become much more complex. "Excuse me sir, what happened to all that oil you imported?" "I and my 23 stone family ate it!".

 

Serously, petrol is the easiest thing to tax becasue 99% of it is used as fuel on the roads and there are no other uses that are not worth taxing. No doubt there will be attempts to dye food oils when they are taxed, but you can't dye the amps that come out of your socket at home.

 

One day they will give up and get the money from somewhere else - look what happened with betting tax. When the Government realised that the tax was driving betting abroad where it could not be taxed they dropped the tax very fast. Once untaxable fuel sources become available they will want to tax something else instead.

Edited June 6, 2005 by Learned Gerbil

[nobby.nobbs]

cause if it's in the manefesto then that's it is it?? no student charges.....well until we change out minds.

 

i prefer science fiction to complete fantasy literature!!

 

a has been said, they're looking to what going to replace petrol tax when no petrol left.....god that's going to be a shock for the world economy and tourism....can you fly a jumbo on veg oil?

[+sTeamTraen]

a has been said, they're looking to what going to replace petrol tax when no petrol left.....god that's going to be a shock for the world economy and tourism....can you fly a jumbo on veg oil?

 

"Dino" oil will never run out - by the time it gets too expensive, it will be replaced by something else, like everything other commodity in history. If oil was $100 a barrel, the US and Canada would suddenly have 4,000 years of proven reserves in shale oil. It's all there, but they don't count it because it's currently too expensive to get at.

 

Also, yes, you probably could "run a jumbo on vegetable oil", at least to the extent that kerosene can be synthesised like biodiesel. Currently there's little demand because biodiesel is mainly "driven" (sorry) by green consumers pushing governments to give them a break on the duty; airline executives have no incentive because kerosene isn't taxed enough and they don't score any points with their customers by putting up fares to be eco-friendly.

Edited June 7, 2005 by sTeamTraen

[+dunos]

Lets face it, this isn't about congestion it is about raising more tax money. Putting tax on smokers isn't about helping people to quit. Those who are most addicted just end up paying more.

 

I don't think this will affect geocaching since most caches I do involve lots of country lanes that are generally uncongested. This sort of scheme is to catch the commuters and school-run mums.

 

This sort of scheme is likely to use GPS since GPS is accurate enough for tracking how far you have travelled and what roads you are on. Even in a built up area a navigation system like tomtom is pretty good at fixing you to a road based on your speed and direction (vector?). In cities with lots of high-rise blocks close to the road this could be augmented with number plate reading cameras such as in London.

 

Will this sort of scheme be introduced? Probably at some point. I don't see it happening for a while, not for the next ten years or so. To start with you have to get all new cars fitted with a black box. Retro-fitting to old cars would be possible but it wouldn't be accepted by the public on a compulsary scheme, especially as these things cost in the region of £300 (more for the ones that do engine monitoring, track which gear you are in, if the boot is open, etc...). So then you have to wait 10 to 20 years for the majority of people to buy one of these 'new' cars as they filter down into the used car market.

 

Then you have the issue of another massive government database. It is bound to fail initially and everyone will be charged incorrectly. This is where having your own GPS with logging will be a good idea to prove where you have been.

 

I imagine that if the black box can't get a GPS signal for a while it will do one of several things:-

- Alert the police

- Fine you a fixed amount

- Tell you to go to a garage to get it fixed

- Revert to a default road charge till you get it fixed

 

If this was really about getting people to use public transport then they would improve public transport. I agree with congestion charging in London since there is some fantastic transport there. Londoners don't realise it. 5 minutes between busses and tube trains? OMG THE WORLD WILL END IF THERE ISN'T A BUS EVERY SECOND! Try living in a country town or even any other city where it is a bus every half hour if you are lucky. If you are lucky then it probably doesn't go where you want anyway.

 

Dan

[Balistor]

As I live in a rual area I would probably not be as effected as others. With reference to the 'Spy in the Sky' comments, I think this is a smoke screen. Most people these days have a mobile phone and the system is able to track the phone to a few hundred feet or less. One way or another we are tracked everyday by many agencies.

 

"I think geocaching is worth paying a little extra if that is what it takes for me to continue my hobby"

 

Pete

Edited June 7, 2005 by Balistor

[+Happy Humphrey]

I suspect Learned Gerbil is close to the truth with this. If there's more development of electric cars and alternative fuels the petrol duty revenue will reduce significantly, so the Government needs to be ready with another way of collecting tax from motorists.

 

It wouldn't make sense as a measure to reduce congestion, as fuel duty is already a mileage charge in effect. We already pay more to drive slowly on congested roads as it takes more fuel per mile to do this than on clear country roads. It has a built-in reward for using fuel-efficient engines as well.

 

The technology would be interesting, but probably a simple GPS system would be adequate. The one I use in the car almost never loses lock - if you were in such a long canyon or tunnel that you lost all view of satellites, surely the software would just draw a straight line between the position where lock was lost and the position where it was gained again, so you would be charged the minimum for that short section?

[+sTeamTraen]

Lets face it, this isn't about congestion it is about raising more tax money. Putting tax on smokers isn't about helping people to quit. Those who are most addicted just end up paying more.

You would be amazed. Every time the Chancellor puts 3p on fags, a certain number of people give up. Everyone has their threshold beyond which they won't go, and they form a continuum.

 

I've seen studies from the US which showed how putting 25¢ on a bottle of beer in some state or other resulted in a 15% drop in teenagers getting chlamydia.

 

So sorry, but this aspect of the story would work: if you make it more expensive, yes, people will drive less. Cf Ken's congestion charge.

 

Now, as to whether this is desirable, or technically feasible, or even necessary, those are a whole nother debate. But the drop in numbers will be immediate, and have a direct relationship to the price charged.

[+Learned Gerbil]

The same applies to all forms of transport - 18 months ago the price of my season ticket for my commute to central London overtook the price of a brand new motorscooter. Instead of buying the ticket I bought the bike, and with the cost of petrol, maintenance, clothjing etc I reach the break even point next week.

 

Not only have I saved money, I have a lot more free time as my travel time is now over an hour a day less, I travel in more compfort (even the worst weather is no problem if you buy the right quipment), and resultant lifestyle changes connected with no longer spending much of the day in dusty tunnels, lunches in pubs etc, means my asthma is much better and I have lost five stone in weight. (Some of the weightloss may be due to caching as I started this about the same time).

 

All becasue of the Government's policy of pushing public transport costs well above inflation.

[+Stuey]

I live in a rural town with county council subsidised bus links to Exeter where I work. I have a bus stop 2 minutes from my front door, and another one 1 minute from the office. It is just £12 per week but takes about 2.5 hours to do the 50 mile round trip.

 

I drive. It costs me about a fiver more per week and is an hour and a half quicker per day. The other reason I drive? Flexibility. I can leave home/work when I like when I drive, but when I am on the bus I am a slave to the clock.

 

I also don't lift share, as this removes flexibility too. I used the bus for 5 years, but in the end got fed up with adding an extra 7 hours travelling time to my week. I don't know at what financial point I would be forced back on to the bus, but my car expenses would probably have to triple for me to go back to public transport.

[+Sue and Bernie]

Lovely little article about this subject on the Times Comments page today (P19 by Martin Samuel), I paraphrase:

 

How many company/goverment/rich owners do you think were priced out of the London Congestion Charge zone? A nice exact answer - none at all!

 

All the other ordinary joes like us end up footing the bill.

 

It is just another Orwellian move by the "Socialists" to price the riff-raff off the road.

 

Just like when Blair, Harriet Harman and Diane Abbott all found reasons for their kiddies to be sent to selected schools when their offspring were facing going to their ordinary local schools - no comprehensive for their children.

 

...and now it is roads...

 

...just get out of the way peasants!!! Take the bus!!!

 

...and I think it is all pie in the sky too, the well argued points above will not be considered - until of course they hit them smack in the face!

[nobby.nobbs]

don't forget the m4 bus (and labour politician) lane.

 

god that's a cynical, if rather accurate, view. i wonder if it'd be better to emigrate to europe. lots of advantages and they just ignore the laws passed by brussels unless they improve their way of life....less caches though.

[Harry_Bristol_UK]

....less caches though.

Plenty of good hiding places though. So much open space - some with fantastic views!

 

The move abroad option becomes more tempting by the year, I must admit!