Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
23rd February 2007, 05:43 PM
Posted by Beamo: Quote:quote:Road pricing is aimed at reducing congestion rather than overall car usage, and therefore will not have a great effect on emissions, although there could be benefits in the pricing of goods if journey times are reduced. Essentially the argument is that there is sufficient capacity in the current road network if only usage could be more spread-out rather than concentrated into peak times.
Of course, vehicles moving in congested traffic burn fuel far less efficiently than in free-moving traffic, so even if the overall number of vehicle miles does not come down, emissions would.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
23rd February 2007, 06:56 PM
But not significantly enough to make a real difference.
Beamo
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
23rd February 2007, 08:40 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by 1man1desk
It's true that they are considering that - but they are also considering other options, including targeted schemes, and as far as I understand it they have not got a preferred option yet. A lot of the opposition appears to be based on 'worst-case scenario' assumptions.
My source close to the ministry tells me that they claim to be looking at all the options, but, as with any government initiative, road pricing with individual vehicle tracking is their baby and what they will push through. Oh yes, and my source is normally reliable for this sort of thing.
Quote:quote:Vulpes wrote: Ooh, unexpected benefit - might encourage supermarkets to source more produce locally.
Mine already does and it charges a massive premium for it. I bet yours will too. Anyway, if you are that bothered about local produce you should be shopping at the local farmers' market, farm shop or in local shops, and not in the supermarket. The produce is there for the buying if you care to look hard enough.
Quote:quote:Vulpes also scribed: Do caravans cause congestion?
Yes they do. Traffic moving at different rates causes traffic jams due to the concertina effect, which occurs when faster moving traffic has to brake for slower traffic and which can cause those at the back of the queue to slow to a crawl. If all traffic could be persuaded to travel at the same speed, there would be fewer traffic jams.
Cheers,
Eggbasket
Gentleman Adventurer and Antique
"A great victory for rangers and hamsters everywhere. Right, Boo?" - Minsc
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
24th February 2007, 03:21 PM
Slow/crawling traffic - yes it's less efficient but the total emission/consumption is less - the engine is at tickover as opposed to 2000-4000 revs. There again there is the matter of vehicles per unit time over a given spot - again it is not a simple catchphrase answer.
The supermarket thing is a separate issue, more to do with, well, supermarkets, than traffic congestion etc. Walk round a French supermarket (or indeed a French motorway services) and you will see a world of difference. Local and regional produce, cheaper than here.
How about getting freight off the roads and back onto trains? Re-opening small stations on existing lines like Hipperholme and Lightcliffe? Maybe building new lines if and where necessary. To do this requires an increase in income tax - help with the NHS and education too - which of course then relates to the ability to pay, unlike flat rate punitve taxes. If you can afford an BMW or Rangie a congestion charge probably won't bother you.
Staggered working days are an intriguing idea but I wonder how much effect they could have? The rush "hour" is more or less 7.30 to 9.30 I suppose, perhaps more condensed in city centres where most are office workers.
If they implemented policies along these lines I would be more convinced the government was genuine in its intentions.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
26th February 2007, 09:40 AM
How about getting the 2 million untaxed, uninsured and unlicenced vehicles off the road? That would make a resonable dent in the problem.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
26th February 2007, 02:29 PM
Lots of stuff in Emjem's post that is nothing to do with the topic. Its not good enough to say 'this is a Labour government idea and we dislike lots of other, unrelated things that this government has done - so this must be bad too'. We need to look at the idea on its merits.
The idea that road pricing will hurt people in the countryside most does not really stack up. I think that most rural roads are quite likely to remain un-priced. Pricing will almost certainly focus on the congested trunk roads, motorways and urban roads.
No-one 'needs' a big gas-guzzling 4X4 to drive on surfaced roads - rural or urban. If you really 'need' such a vehicle, it is for driving on un-surfaced tracks (and then generally only in poor weather) or off-road - so road pricing won't be an issue. Even then, you only really 'need' it if your job requires you to use your own vehicle for these trips.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
26th February 2007, 02:55 PM
I only have two questions on what apears to be the preferred road pricing model:
1 - Why do we need to use GPS tracking (unless there is another reason why HMG and everyone they'll sell the data too needs to know where I am 24/7); and
2 - Are they going to manufacture a 12v DC version compatible with my tax exempt Morris Minor or will it cost me even more than the £600 that is being bandied about?
D. Vader
Senior Consultant
Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants
WSIs do not concern me, Curator. I want that site, not excuses
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
27th February 2007, 12:06 PM
Not all 4x4s are big and/or gas guzzling (it would be far too pedantic to note that many guzzle no "gas" at all, being diesel).
Many other vehicles with other means of transmission are big and gas guzzling, however. BMWs, Mercs, Jags, etc. These contribute more to congestion than 4x4s, being longer.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
27th February 2007, 02:00 PM
Perfectly true, Mr Invisible, and I really don't believe that people need those vehicles either. My reference to 4x4s arose from responding to someone else's post which mentioned them.
In relation specifically to 4x4s, I understand that they are (on average) less fuel-efficient than other vehicles of equivalent weight and engine size. I stand to be corrected though.
The main general point here is that we all ought to use vehicles that are as fuel-efficient as possible while meeting our real needs. When it comes to personal transport, I would quite like to see all engines above 2 litres banned.
Going wider still, the overall debate is about three separate but related problems - congestion, local air pollution and global warming. The first two are serious, but we can choose as a society to live with them. Global warming, however, has genuine potential to cause global disaster.
If we are going to avoid that disaster, we are going to have to make quite large lifestyle changes, and that is going to have to include making many fewer journeys in single-occupancy private cars. These changes will hurt - there's no denying that - but, once made we could adjust to them within less than a generation. The consequences of not making them are far worse.
So, although I don't like or trust this government any more than many other BAJRites, I back any proposal that could contribute to changing our wasteful habits. I also advocate sudden change rather than incremental change, because the shock would change behaviour more. And I think that action on road transport is only one of many areas where change is required.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
28th February 2007, 01:51 PM
Correct, four wheel drive is technically less efficient than two, but the difference is dwarfed by the other factors.
I forgot to mention people carriers.... 
I hesitate on the "need" issue because, who decides? What about Transit vans - should we decide if the business they are going about is "worthy"? I agree that "needless" journeys are the big issue - school runs, trips of 1/4 mile to Tesco for a litre of milk etc. I suspect that these are a major contributor to all the ill effects you describe (engines are of course less efficient when cold). Consider Brighton council's decision to (partially) allocate school places by lottery.
I knew we'd get to common ground eventually  - I completely agree with your observation about engine size - a favourite rant of mine, in fact, as my intended will attest. I would go further, I'd say 1.5 litres at most. (Perfectly feasible, I used to have a 1.6 Passatt that was very nearly as comfortable as my (then) boss's 5 series BMW). This should apply to all new (or importe) vehicles, it would be counter-productive madness to scrap existing vehicles. This would convince me that government (small g) is serious rather than just spotting a way of hiking taxes without losing votes.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
|
