Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [New Mobility/WorldTransport Forum] RE: [NewMobilityCafe] road user charges

Expand Messages
  • Peter Markusson
    Hi Dave and all, Just a short comment: In Sweden, Congestion Charge have been deemed a tax. There is a vicious political fight over it just now, but the
    Message 1 of 2 , Jul 12, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Dave and all,

      Just a short comment: In Sweden, Congestion Charge have been deemed a
      tax. There is a vicious political fight over it just now, but the
      Riksdag (Swedish Parliment) majority have decided to test it in
      Stockholm. The most environmentally un-friendly party in the Riksdag,
      Moderaterna, have promised to fight it in all possible ways. In a
      recent questionnaire from the Green Motorists in Sweden, Moderaterna
      was against almost all important measures trying to reduce the
      environmental/health impact of motorised transport (read: private cars).

      And the gas price is slowly crawling over Euro 1,10/liter. All to cheap!

      Have a nice summer, all who have one!


      måndagen den 12 juli 2004 kl 08.10 skrev Wetzel Dave:

      > We do not use Congestion Charge net income specifically to reduce
      > fares.
      >
      > The Mayor has decided that all net income to be used to encourage and
      > help
      > cyclists, pedestrians and improved pax safety on buses (CCTV etc).
      >
      > However, remember Congestion Charge is not a tax - it is pricing for
      > vehicular use of a scarce resource - road space in central London.
      > It has succeeded all expectations in this objective. Except when
      > Formula One
      > racing cars hit Regent Street last week, London's central London
      > streets are
      > much quieter. (Both in terms of traffic and noise).
      >
      > TfL has a budget of almost £5bn pa.
      > The £90m from Congestion Charge is welcome but not crucial. (The
      > difference
      > between buying something in a shop for £50 or £50.90p). The difference
      > is
      > noticable but not crucial.
      > £90m would not make much dent in fares.
      > However, over the past 4 years the Mayor has kept tube fares in line
      > with
      > inflation and the cost of bus passes was cut from £12.50 to £9.50 per
      > week
      > with children under 11 now travelling free (previously children under 5
      > years old). The 70p outer London bus fare was increased to £1 to enable
      > faster boarding (no change from the driver) and encourage off-bus
      > sales of
      > cheaper tickets from newsagents and tube stations.
      >
      > We await todays spending announcement from the Government which will
      > determine our Government Grant for the next four years.
      >
      > If you really want to release money for cheaper fares, then a Land
      > Value Tax
      > would be much more efficient. It is cheap to collect unlike Congestion
      > Charge (you don't need 700 cameras, a call centre, hundreds of retail
      > outlets etc) and impossible to avoid unlike the 2 million who are
      > failing to
      > pay congestion charge each year and have to be chased up with
      > penalties.
      >
      >
      > CONCLUSION: Congestion Charge is a Congestion Buster - not an
      > efficient tax
      > to pay for lower fares!
      >
      >
      > Dave
      >
      > Dave Wetzel
      > Vice-chair,
      > Transport for London
      > Windsor House, 42-50 Victoria Street.
      > London. SW1H 0TL. UK.
      > Tel 020 7941 4200
      >
      > Close to New Scotland Yard.
      > Buses 11,24,148,211,N11 pass the door.
      > Nearest Underground - St James's Park tube station.
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: Simon Norton [mailto:S.Norton@...]
      > Sent: 11 July 2004 23:38
      > To: newmobilitycafe@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [NewMobilityCafe] road user charges
      >
      >
      > Why were most of the recommended links from the Observer article to
      > groups
      > involved in one way or another with the motor industry and none to
      > environmental groups ?
      >
      > As far as I am concerned there is one over-riding priority for use of
      > funds
      > generated by road user charging -- the reduction of public transport
      > fares.
      > No
      > doubt Dave Wetzel can confirm to what extent this has happened in
      > London. As
      > an
      > example of the level of "congestion charge" that can currently be
      > inflicted
      > on
      > rail users, the difference between the full fare and saver returns from
      > London
      > to Manchester is, I believe, about 150 pounds, or 25p per kilometre.
      > For
      > many
      > destinations, especially in the more rural areas, a day trip is only
      > possible
      > by public transport using trains subject to these peak restrictions --
      > and
      > many
      > of them are only designated as such because the relevant train operator
      > wants to
      > extract as much money from passengers as possible and doesn't care if
      > they
      > go by
      > car instead and congest the motorways. And then the Government plays
      > into
      > their
      > hands by proposing to widen the motorways...
      >
      > Of course, money from road user charging also needs to be used to fill
      > in
      > the
      > missing links in the system so that it does offer an alternative for
      > almost
      > all
      > journeys. I'd say that this has happened in London.
      >
      > Simon Norton


      Regards,
      Peter Markusson,
      Ekokompaniet

      Hemsidor/homepages:
      http://www.bildelning.nu/
      http://www.ekokompaniet.se/

      Tel. +46 (0)31-12 71 64
      Mob. +46 (0)705-12 71 60

      Adress:
      Långedragsvägen 61 C
      S-426 71 Västra Frölunda
      SWEDEN
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.