New Plan for Drivers to Pay £1.30 a Mile (£1.30 = $2.43 at current rates)

The Sunday Times ^ | June 4, 2005 | Dipesh Gadher

[quidnunc]

The government plans to replace fuel tax with a new road charge on motorists based on the distance and time of day they travel.

Alistair Darling, the transport secretary, this weekend indicated that fuel duty will have to be scrapped in order to pave the way for a new road pricing scheme. This would dramatically cut the price of petrol — duty currently accounts for 47p per litre — but motorists would face a new charge of up to £1.34 a mile. Journeys at peak times and on the busiest roads would cost most.

In his first interview since the election, Darling said the changes were necessary to prevent roads reaching “complete gridlock”. He wants a pilot project to be approved during Labour’s third term.

The move, which is also likely to see road tax scrapped, would mark the biggest shake-up in motoring taxation since fuel duty was introduced in 1909.

“The idea of distance[-based] charging is that instead of paying the present form of taxation, you’d be charged on the distance you go,” Darling said.

“You are certainly not talking about a charge on top of another charge. You can’t have both. This would be a completely different concept, a completely different way of doing things.”

Fuel duty on petrol and diesel provides the Treasury with about £22 billion a year. A further £4.6 billion is raised annually through road tax.

Darling is confident that the technology will be in place within the next 10-15 years for a nationwide scheme. A satellite tracking system would monitor black boxes inside every car. “Top-of-the-range cars have got satellite navigation kits fitted almost as standard now,” Darling said.

-snip-

[ReformedBeckite]

Hey if they've got the time to watch you, hey you might also get them to help you too.

[listenhillary]

Flying Cars Ready To Take Off

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/15/60minutes/main688454.shtml

Myself? I want a floating house. No property taxes, dump on the liberals houses and gardens. It's compost OK? Chill out.

Go where the (warm) breezes take me, tie down for storms.

[Mike Darancette]

How much for driving from Cesspool to Barfing on Slag?

[Glyndwr4Cymru]

Up here in Snowdonia I guess we'd fall into the 2 pence a mile category. The roads are quiet and public transport is practically non-existent. Seems alright, and a massive saving if fuel tax is scrapped.

But ... I've got friends Aberdeen, whom I visit occasionally, and the journey is motorway almost all the way. With fuel tax it currently works out just under £100 to get there and back. Under this scheme we would be talking about £600! That may be feasible on a Member of Parliament's wage, but it ain't on mine. This would seriously limit freedom of movement for millions of people.

[StACase]

Hmmmm. Government does need to come up with the cash to build and maintain public roads, and so far they've been doing just fine at it. They're scared because they foresee that using the amount of energy used to push cars and trucks down the road won't accurately reflect actual road use in the future. So the solution is to track the movements of every man woman and child in the country.

Yeah! That’s the ticket. Nothing wrong with a little bit of overkill now and then especially when it comes to government. Why go for the simple solution when a big complicated system with lots of options to do other "neat stuff" can be jammed down the citizen's throats.

[MikeGranby]

> I really don't have any problem with the government
> tracking where I'm at at any given time because I'm
> not up to any thing illegal

The innocent have nothing to fear?

[metalurgist]

It's kind of hard to revolt and take up arms against your political masters when you've allowed the masters to take your arms. I wonder how the British "SUBJECTS" like living in the liberal wet dream of complete control of their lives?

[wildbill]

Obviously this is a plan to stop motorists from using their cars in favor of other modes of transportation such as horses, skates, bicycles, etc.

I assume public transportation would be exempt and so cheap comparatively that almost everyone would use it--creating a crisis in the seating capacity available in public transportation.

I suppose only the elites--and 'critical professions' such as professor--would get seats allocated to them.

[SAJ]

Perhaps. One would tend to think it might be difficult under such conditions.

The UK is, however, rapidly becoming less stable year on year, courtesy of vast overimmigration, equally vast underassimilation, and rigidly enforced multiculturalism at the council level. Sort of a mini-Balkanisation, if you like. This tendency is not only not going to reverse itself, but will in fact accelerate in years to come.

The social fabric is irreparably torn, and in about a decade's time, maybe less, one good hard push, presumably an exogenous one (but who knows, eh?), and you'll see some flavour of serious civil unrest in that island.

Conceivably even a full-blown revolution is a plausible occurrence, although I consider it very unlikely right this minute. Doubtless our British colleagues here will have several thoughts on this topic.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Ok flame away but I actually think this is a good idea. It is a much smarter way of managing traffic than mass transit which most people don't use anyway.

I guess you failed to fathom that this measure is intended to economically induce MORE usage of mass transit, which is far, far more extensive over there. Reread the passage where he talks about the measure is needed to prevent gridlock. The only way to do that is to increase road capacity or suppress demand, and he's not talking about more road construction.

[Canard]

"Doubtless our British colleagues here will have several thoughts on this topic."

With the substantially higher levels of immigrants in the US, doubtless you'll get there first, let us know how it pans out...

[SAJ]

Higher numbers, yes. MUCH lower percentage of total population than the UK, though, and therein lies the difference.

Not to mention roughly 300 million privately owned weapons. Have a happy trip to the vindaloo shop, comrade.

[Canard]

Not sure where you got that idea. Last figures I saw, 8% of the UK population were born outside the country compared to 12% in the US. I prefer tikka marsala to vindaloo btw, and it's an authentic British creation!

[SAJ]

The trend today is what matters. Compare net immigration over the past, say, 5 and 10 years, US vs. UK. Nothing to argue over; the numbers are what they are.

To cite the % of native-born at any given time T is to incorporate into the discussion a sizeable portion of demographic data that is 30, 40, 50 years old and more, and is assuredly not of any particular predictive value today. Further, in terms of immigration and this discussion of UK vs US, one should adjust for % of Anglo-Saxon immigration and % of effective assimilation. The latter number is what's nailing the UK (and might at some point nail the US, if we don't get our politicians' thumbs out and clamp down on the Mexicans and the reconquista arseholes...but that's a different topic).