Charge drivers and expand the cycle network

In article , Dave wrote:

Currently motorists pay a tax called the "Road Fund Licence" - the amount
collected in this tax is spent by the government on whatever they want
rather than the roads anyway.

Which will be why the governments stopped calling it that in 1936 when the
Road Fund was abolished.

Tony Raven said the following on 01/12/2006 11:19:

The Dutch bus driver would likely have been quite aggressive if they had
cycled on the road rather than the cycle path. The motorists there are
far worse for their "get off my road" attitude.

I haven't been there, so I don't have first-hand experience (my brother
lives there, so he has!) The overall impression I get from many sources
is that the Dutch are a very tolerant race when it comes to cyclists.

Mind you, if they have cycle facilities that do actually work well,
unlike what we have over here, I can partly understand (but not agree
with) the "get off my road" attitude. It's the same attitude we get in
the UK from drivers who see a splash of white paint and try to force us
into it. If the cycle lanes here were actually designed and maintained
instead of splashed and glassed then there would be no need to use the
road. Just to pre-empt the obvious point, I'm not saying that cyclists
shouldn't use the road if they wish, but more along the lines of there
being an easy, useful and pleasant alternative to the road. That'll
never happen here then!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

MJ Ray said the following on 01/12/2006 11:43:

Surprisingly, Nat.Ex service N11 runs between Bristol and the NEC
on Sunday,

Ah - coaches - there's a possibility! I wasn't fussed about the times
being exact, I just wanted a reasonable amount of time there - just
being the same day is an improvement over the train service :-)

I will consider that - thanks for reminding me about coaches. I do need
to find out about parking though because I don't imagine that anywhere
near the bus station will be free on Sunday because of the proximity to
Broadmead.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Dave wrote:

If they want more people to use public transport then it should be public
transport that is well thought out and needs money spending on it. So spend
less on the roads and more on that.


Public transport (buses) uses the roads. We need more roads in some
places.. Outside major urban centres which need different answers the
answer is more road capacity.
There is a myth that new roads anywhere immediately fill up with
traffic. Nonsense. The M6 north of Preston was built 30? years ago and
is still under capacity. The M6 south of Manchester needs another
motorway parallel to take traffic away from it. Like the M6 toll
relief does but extended further south and north..
The motorway network was planned 50 years ago and is still
unfinished. There is no motorway the entire distance between Glasgow
and Edinburgh for example.
The best thing the government could do to encourage business to
locate outside the south east would be to provided adequate motorway
links. Rail works well between major city centres but other than that
can not compete with road transport (private and public)
Politicians talk green but all I have seen over the last few
years in my area anyway is talk. Talking green for votes but failing
to improve public transport for those that wish to use it. There has
been numerous example locally of planners giving permission for new
housing on sites adjacent to train stations which were the only
suitable place for park and ride car parks for example.
Talking green but not doing anything about bus or train companies
which ban bikes - even folders.
Talking green but providing inadequate and dangerous cycle
facilities because doing it properly would either cost money or
inconvenience motorists.
Talking green but not taking simple steps like abolishing VED and
purchase tax on cars and putting the equivilent amount on fuel so that
the standing cost of running a car falls but the cost of driving it
goes up.
Talking green but doing what is popular not what is correct.
Iain

Paul Boyd wrote on 01/12/2006 12:31 +0100:

I haven't been there, so I don't have first-hand experience (my brother
lives there, so he has!) The overall impression I get from many sources
is that the Dutch are a very tolerant race when it comes to cyclists.


Read what our local urc resident has to say
http://www.m-gineering.nl/touringg.htm

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

On 01/12/2006 16:10, Tony Raven said,

Read what our local urc resident has to say
http://www.m-gineering.nl/touringg.htm

That puts a different light on it! Thanks for the link.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

"Matt B" wrote in message
...
Mike the Unimaginative wrote:

I hate to agree with MattB but any charge will probably hit the lower
paid the most, the ones who work the unsociable hours, and the rich will
just shrug their shoulders and carry on as before.

I've not read the 15MB 5 volumes of the report yet, but I wonder if it
considered all the alternative methods of rationing road space. One
interesting idea is to reward less use, rather than to charge for more
use. The same technology can be adapted to work either way. There are
many ways to achieve this. One idea is to reward, via tax rebates, per
mile, those whose annual mileage is below the national annual average.
Another is to reward everyone not in a jam detected to be caused by demand
outstripping supply.


And another is for people to drive in a more considerate manner:

http://www.smartmotorist.com/wav/wav.htm

in message , Mike the
Unimaginative ') wrote:

"POHB" writed in news:1164963630.164687.192850
@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

One of those "is expected to report" news stories:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6160877.stm

"Motorists should be asked to pay to drive on the nation's road
network"...
"Smaller projects, including an expansion of the UK cycle network, are
likely to receive strong backing."

I really haven't made my mind up on this one.
If the plan is to charge the highest for the busiest, most congested
roads, then traffic *will* move onto the quieter, less congested roads -
that is to say the ones most suitable for cycling, and it *will not* (or
at least initially) cause a sea change to flexible working in any
meaningful way; neither will there be any sudden move to getting
businesses away from the major connurbations ('cos that's where people
live!)
I hate to agree with MattB but any charge will probably hit the lower
paid the most, the ones who work the unsociable hours, and the rich will
just shrug their shoulders and carry on as before.

The plan is that the pricing is dynamic - that is, you're not charged a
fixed price for a particular piece of road, you're charged a price
dependent on how congested it was while you were using it. So if people do
try to 'rat run', they'll automatically be clobbered by the charges. So
they won't rat run.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and there was nothing left for us to do
but pick up the pieces.

in message , Dave
') wrote:

Currently motorists pay a tax called the "Road Fund Licence" - the amount
collected in this tax is spent by the government on whatever they want
rather than the roads anyway.

No they don't. The Road Fund Licence was abolished when my father was a
little boy. There are very, very few people left alive who have ever had a
Road Fund Licence.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Just as defying the law of gravity through building aircraft requires
careful design and a lot of effort, so too does defying laws of
economics. It seems to be a deeply ingrained aspect of humanity to
forever strive to improve things, so unquestioning acceptance of a
free market system seems to me to be unnatural. ;; Charles Bryant

in message , wafflycat
') wrote:


"POHB" wrote in message
oups.com...
One of those "is expected to report" news stories:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6160877.stm

"Motorists should be asked to pay to drive on the nation's road
network"...
"Smaller projects, including an expansion of the UK cycle network, are
likely to receive strong backing."


I fundamentally oppose the road-charging bit. All that'll succeed in
doing is increase congestion on narrow, winding roads that simply aren't
designed to take large numbers of motorised vehicles.

No, I don't think it will; that's exactly why it's a good idea. If people
shift to smaller roads and those get congested (which they quickly will)
the charge for using those roads will skyrocket. So you'll pay more for
using a narrow road.

Suppose you're on a major road and it's busy; you're paying, but you're
getting to your destination. You have the option of turning off onto a
minor road, but it's a gamble; if it's clear you'll pay less and get to
your destination a bit more slowly, if everyone else has had the same idea
you'll pay though the nose and probably not get to your destination in
reasonable time. I think people will stick to the main roads.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

' ' ------- this blank intentionally spaced left