1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182 
Charges won't cut congestion
Page 20
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I READ WITH INTEREST the letter from Billy Allen regarding the proposed road pricing scheme (CM 1 March). I'm vehemently opposed to a road-pricing scheme because it won't provide the solution they say it will, and because it is morally and socially wrong due to the punitive affects it will have on those who can least afford it. But sticking to the comment in hand,! thought! should dispel a couple of myths about its consequences.
The cost per mile? it makes no difference if the government charges a truck a penny or £1,000 per mile, the cost will be the same for all hauliers and will have to be passed on to their customers.The price per mile charged will dictate the inflationary effect on the product and the economy.
Reducing congestion? No, it won't reduce CV volumes at all. We all work in a supplyand-demand industry; while the demand exists, someone will supply it, irrespective of direct cost.
Let's also not forget that LGVs only make up approximately 5% of all vehicles on the road, so we are not the problem.
So,is this scheme really about solving congestion and saving the environment? Of course not. Undisputed evidence exists to show that the wealthier someone is, the higher their carbon footprint. So a road-pricing scheme may reduce domestic car volumes in certain areas, but those who can most afford it (generally those with bigger, more polluting vehicles) will travel with impunity because the relative cost to them is minimal. So, per vehicle-kilometre travelled,pollution would increase, not decrease.
If this government was serious about reducing congestion and pollution, there are many things it could do — such as changing traffic light phasing during peak periods, removing many of those ridiculous traffic lights on roundabouts,removing the tolls at the Dartford and Seven Crossings and removing the toll on the `M6 Toll'.The government could also upgrade many junctions.
It should also bring back the restriction on slow-moving vehicles during peak times; introduce full trials of 25m, 60-tonne trucks; and lift many of the time and weight restrictions on LGVs, so operators can vary their delivery times, rather than arriving en masse because of some anti-truck councils.
This government has been in office for 10 years now and has presided over sustained economic growth of approximately 3% per year, so we should have seen proportional growth in the road transport infrastructure to accommodate this. But we've had no new toll-free motorways and very little upgrading of existing motorways or road& It is the failure of a sustained road maintenance and construction policy by this government that has resulted in the congestion we see today.
A sympathetic road pricing scheme could be 'sold' to the public, but it would need to charge by the size and efficiency of the vehicle rather than just time of day and distance travelled.
Kevin Buck Leigh-on-Sea, Essex