http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/pay-as-you-drive-the-future-for-scottish-roads-1-3162730
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
"“Pay-as-you-drive” the future for Scottish roads"
(11 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
Does road pricing have the potential to really damage cycling?
If the quiet roads used by cycle commuters (and casual riders) became significantly cheaper than the congested trunk routes nearby, would it encourage a mass migration onto the minor road network?
I'm also left wondering whether our quiet street would remain as quiet if it became a cut-price cut through...
Posted 11 years ago # -
But city transport convener Lesley Hinds said the Capital’s own parking charges already took into account the size of vehicles and how polluting they were. ... which has absolutley no bearing on congestion and how much their drivers use the road.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I agree, Dave.
Surely it would be better to charge more for the use of quieter/residential roads, rather than less.
What they seem to be proposing is: use main roads = bad, rat runs = good.
Posted 11 years ago # -
If trunk/main roads are priced correctly according to demand, they will not be congested and therefore much more desirable to drive along (despite there being a fee).
I doubt that significant traffic will divert to minor roads. Any reduction in congestion on the main roads will come about by modification of peoples' habits e.g. choosing not to live so far from work/shops, or the train becoming more attractive, or not making the journey during peak hours, etc.
In fact, traffic that was already rat-running on the minor roads may instead choose to use the main road now that it is 'uncongested'.
Of course the price needs to be based on demand e.g. be more expensive during rush hour(s).
Posted 11 years ago # -
Again, I am against tolls as a method of doing this. There is already a low tech means of doing this, scrap VED, and put up fuel prices greatly - the more you drive, the more you pay.
Or high tech, technology already in most new cars. Scrap VED, and fuel duty and use a GPS 'black box' to monitor what roads and when you are using, and 'tax' on that. Also use the system to stop speeding, which in turn would also sort out some of the 'bunching' congestion.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I concur with @Baldcyclist on both points...fuel is a perfectly straightforward way of taxing mileage.
If motorised vehicles do go down the 'black box' route, then there are a bunch of problems you can solve all at once, but it has to be offset against the 'big brother' privacy question. Some people will mind, some won't.
It won't use GPS though, the signal is very easy to spoof and even easier to jam given 20 quid and a couple of hours with a soldering iron. Possibly Galileo will be more resilient for these types of application when it comes onstream around 2019.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Road pricing is on the face of it the most 'efficient' route to go down as it should redistribute vehicles to less congested roads and/or times of day - although good points made about the impact on other road users. It also seems fairer to drivers in remote rural areas (i.e. not those near to large towns and cities) where there aren't alternatives and fuel is already more expensive.
But the other side of the efficiency coin is the cost of setting up the system; installing the necessary tech in vehicles; collecting the money and also providng information on what each road costs and when. Drivers would also need to trade-off road price, fuel cost and journey time to figure out the 'best' route.
Fuel duty seems like the best approximation of an efficient pay-as-you charge as its easy to collect and hard to dodge(remote rural drivers could be subsidised if needed through lower duty). VED probably has marginal effect on driver behaviour but it is handy for ensuring cars are insured and MOT'd - and its a handy stick for the uninformed to beat cyclists with!
Posted 11 years ago # -
It's maybe true that congestion charging works* on public transport - but even then people just moan and pay up rather than hang about Queen St or Waverley.
Some beat ScotRail charging by going on the bus. Some car share. Some buy a low powered scooter or cycle.
The car is often considered the least worst option of these as it's dry, warm and comfortable even if it's made slow or expensive.
As has been often said the cost of motoring would have to be doubled to make it less attractive. Plus you pay for it when it stays at home, so unless you get free public transport for not using it getting modal shift is tricky.
Train users have not been discouraged either by the high cost of travel either as the expensive rush hour trains are still busy (and often too small).The idea seemed to be to make motoring cheaper in rural Scotland and make urban areas pay more? In Copenhagen the cost of parking is used to make sure people just don't want to take cars into town. Smaller rural town often have cheaper parking so that re-balances.
* Makes money for FirstGroup!
Posted 11 years ago # -
Reading this thread, it appears to me that there are far too many variables. Scrap VED and Fuel Tax, and just have one single tax based on what road you drive and at what time of day? Councils pay for the up keep of non trunk roads, so are we going to reduce Council Tax, and then spread the charge out to councils according to where people choose to drive their vehicles? I think not. Then there is (as touched on) the cost of setting up, maintaining and running this 'infrastructure' (not to mention ensuring its not open to abuse).
This'll never happen!
Posted 11 years ago # -
Why "pay" by sitting in traffic when road-pricing would encourage more efficient use of roads?
Sadly, what could have been a good article is spoiled by: "Lycra-clad commuters that have reduced the road space for cars"
Posted 7 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
