What is the logic of proposed per mile road use charging?

magyar

Re: hydrogen vehicles.

These are possibly 20-30 years off. One possible advance is in direct methanol fuel cells (using a liquid fuel means it's not too hard to modify existing petrol stations). But these, whilst very environmentally friendly, are currently years behind hydrogen fuel cells and not very efficient.

Realistically, the prospect of creating hydrogen filling stations around the UK is never going to happen.

IMO the only feasible "low carbon" mass transport is probably electric trains powered by nuclear power, clean coal and renewables.

droopsnout

magyar wrote:

Well, on the "we need nuclear power" issue, your best bet would be the DTI Energy Review.

As to my source for the rest, well I work in Renewables so I do know about wind turbines.

Many thanks for taking the time to reply. We need all the info we can get. And it's good to get it from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

I see we're about to spend billions on a new nuclear sub fleet. Great. Just what we all need for Christmas ..

droopsnout

Murphy_The_Cat wrote:

The Lake District National Park Authority (AKA the Flat Earth Society) isn't an elected council - it's a self serving beauracratic quango. Besides which, I concentrate my energies where I can do some good, not in a do nothing talking shop.

Please read the words I typed. I didn't suggest the NP Authority, as I know that it's not elected. But local councils act as pressure groups, at least.

So please enlighten us: what are the groups in which you do participate and where you can do some good? Perhaps we should join, too, and bring added pressure to bear.

Murphy_The_Cat wrote:

it's still the most canal unfriendly place I can think of !

Again, I did not comment in my last post on the canal issue.

However, since you want to keep it going. There are many places worse for canals than the Lake District. It is quite possible to build canals in hilly areas, like the Pennines (Leeds-Liverpool canal, for instance). [Note: I am not saying that the Pennines are easier/as bad/harder than the Lake District to build canals in. That's an example]. What could be done in the nineteenth century can surely be done again today.

But I didn't mention it before as it is probably unrealistic. Despite Panama.

I still think that for the urban areas (and where canals already exist) some goods can be delivered that way. I don't see that it is outdated. I think there may be issues of security and investment, amongst other things.

Murphy_The_Cat wrote:

They probably are, but it's many, many, years away from providing a credible delivery vehicle

"Probably" ... ! You mean you don't know?!;) I thought it was not too far away, but that the vested interests were trying to repress it.

Murphy_The_Cat wrote:

Whereas I prefer reality to theory

As a businessman, you realise, I'm sure, that theory must come before reality.

The fact is that our roads (not those in the Lake District, for the most part) are horrendously over-used and we can't go on putting more vehicles on them, "clean" or not.

We have to be creative in our solutions, and we have to make the most of systems that we already have, until we come up with something better.


You want to reduce traffic on our roads? Take some off, and send the goods via other means. Goods are easier to divert and delay than people. Goods don't have to be fed and watered. Move goods onto rail and canal wherever possible, within the limits they impose. Don't build more lanes on motorways: lay another track or two of railway line.

Yes, it does involve huge investment. So do nuclear submarines and missiles. And what good do they do, when our enemies are ourselves as consumers, and terrorists?

Whatever we do, it's going to hurt, and it's going to involve big changes.

magyar

droopsnout wrote:

You want to reduce traffic on our roads? Take some off, and send the goods via other means. Goods are easier to divert and delay than people. Goods don't have to be fed and watered. Move goods onto rail and canal wherever possible, within the limits they impose. Don't build more lanes on motorways: lay another track or two of railway line.

I don't agree here (with all due respect, of course!). Goods may not have to be fed (unless they're alive! ) but they may be perishable etc., and modern commerce and it's "just in time" methods just can't work like that. There may be cases where it can, but it's few and far between.

And, more importantly, extra costs would be pushed onto the consumer, i.e. ALL consumers, so it would be effectively levying extra tax on people.

Whereas people, if you give them a workable alternative, can be flexible and it has far less direct impact on the economy.

droopsnout

Yes, I see the argument where perishables and animals, etc., are concerned. But what about container-loads of electricals, plastics, etc., that have come half-way round the world on a ship? I can't see that a few hours, or even days, of transport time would make the slightest bit of difference to that sort of stuff, especially when the transport time would be built in to the order-delivery mechanisms anyway.

Sony announce a certain date next year for the launch of the PS3. Would a couple of days affect anything at all? And I can certainly wait a little longer for my copy of Vista ...

Delaying people from meetings, jobs, appointments, etc., on the other hand, would involve added expenses in accommodation and food, and once again the end costs are passed on to the consumer.

Again, the sad fact is that we HAVE to make changes. All of them will impact on costs, society, ways of life, etc. But since we have to make these changes, surely we should be picking those options which mean (as far as we can tell) that we are not going to damage the planet further.

How does a road toll really help? It may dissuade people from making a few unnecessary journeys, but I think that must be relatively insignificant in global terms. (I'm working, as the ordinary chap does, on my understanding of news items and common sense rather than on real data).

Finally, river and canal transport systems work perfectly well in other countries for certain types of goods. Maybe we will be forced to extend the range of goods carried in that way.

magyar

Yes, I see the argument where perishables and animals, etc., are concerned. But what about container-loads of electricals, plastics, etc., that have come half-way round the world on a ship? I can't see that a few hours, or even days, of transport time would make the slightest bit of difference to that sort of stuff, especially when the transport time would be built in to the order-delivery mechanisms anyway. In theory, yes, but in practice, unworkable. You've just discovered you need to replace a batch of faulty televisions. They'll be with your customers any month now...

Sony announce a certain date next year for the launch of the PS3. Would a couple of days affect anything at all? And I can certainly wait a little longer for my copy of Vista ... Reasonable point here; although in practice it just doesn't work like that. The supply chains of goods around the world are hugely complex and parts of shipments may move from one carrier to another. If you put very slow-moving transport in there then it becomes almost impossible.

Delaying people from meetings, jobs, appointments, etc., on the other hand, would involve added expenses in accommodation and food, and once again the end costs are passed on to the consumer.If you have a decent public transport system, then it shouldn't delay you! All of the comments I keep seeing are based on the current, completely inadequate public transport we currently have. And if you remove those people you CAN from the roads, then the roads are more free for people who still need to use them (I can't see a plumber on a train, for example).

Murphy_The_Cat

droopsnout wrote:

Please read the words I typed. I didn't suggest the NP Authority, as I know that it's not elected. But local councils act as pressure groups, at least.
& achieve naff all, except for creating a lot of hot air and running up large expense claims.

So please enlighten us: what are the groups in which you do participate and where you can do some good? Perhaps we should join, too, and bring added pressure to bear.
I'm glad to enlighten you. I own and run my own business and run my family ! Both areas where I have got a direct 100% involvement and where I can make things happen - not just talk about it



Again, I did not comment in my last post on the canal issue.

However, since you want to keep it going. There are many places worse for canals than the Lake District. It is quite possible to build canals in hilly areas, like the Pennines (Leeds-Liverpool canal, for instance). [Note: I am not saying that the Pennines are easier/as bad/harder than the Lake District to build canals in. That's an example]. What could be done in the nineteenth century can surely be done again today.
Here is an example of canal (re)building in the 20th /21st Century. This particular pipedream is no nearer actually happening than it was 5/10/15 years ago when it was agreed that 'something should be done' - sorry I don't tell the truth, assorted 'organisations', 'consultants', 'planners' and assorted 'people' have all taken plenty of council tax payers coin in pursuit of the 'scheme'. This is the Northern reasches of the Lancaster Canal and the plan to reopen it into Kendal.

But I didn't mention it before as it is probably unrealistic. Despite Panama.

I still think that for the urban areas (and where canals already exist) some goods can be delivered that way. I don't see that it is outdated. I think there may be issues of security and investment, amongst other things.
& the fact that canal transport is verrrrrryyyyyyyyyyyyy ssssssssllllllllllllooooooooowwwwwwwwwww as well

"Probably" ... ! You mean you don't know?!;) I thought it was not too far away, but that the vested interests were trying to repress it.
hmmmmm, Honda have a hydrogen powered car that is reported to be going into production in 3 or 4 years time - but despite me ringing around all of the worlds vehicle manufactureres this morning, I couldn't find ANY suggestion of hydrogen powered dekivery vehicles - but just in case i missed someone, I said probably.:rotfl: & it was carbon free delivery vehicles that you were talking about


As a businessman, you realise, I'm sure, that theory must come before reality.

Nope. Reality comes first each and every time in business. Theory is for BS merchants.
The fact is that our roads (not those in the Lake District, for the most part) are horrendously over-used and we can't go on putting more vehicles on them, "clean" or not.
Why not let the people / market decide for themselves

We have to be creative in our solutions, and we have to make the most of systems that we already have, until we come up with something better.


You want to reduce traffic on our roads? Take some off, and send the goods via other means. Goods are easier to divert and delay than people. Goods don't have to be fed and watered. Move goods onto rail and canal wherever possible, within the limits they impose. Don't build more lanes on motorways: lay another track or two of railway line.
Mabye re open some of the lines closed under Beeching ?, or cheaper still, convert them to roads

MTC

AMO

droopsnout wrote:

That's one of the most disappointingly naive things I've read for a long time.So long as the voting public display attitudes like this, the police state is well on the way.

Do the British not cherish their freedom any more? Or is this the inevitable consequence of living on an island inhabited by far too many people?

Are the only available alternatives really just national road tolls or "gridlock and road rage"? I don't believe it!

Electronic toll systems do indeed work well. It makes passing through French toll barriers, for instance, at least five seconds faster. (Or you could pay cash to a human in the barrier cabins, or a bank card in an automatic barrier). So what?

I don't think that my support for the proposed ways forward is naive. Electronic tolls are the way to accomplish this. The device that is put in the car as far as I am aware simply keeps track of whenever you pass an electronic toll and charges accordingly. If the device does anything other than this, then maybe I am missing the point.

However, regardless of the method, information will be gathered. If you want an efficient system, as opposed to waiting everytime you pass a toll etc, then it has to be automated with a computer system.

Its a fact of life. In what way is my post naive - its not anymore naive than yours is.

This quest for freedom is worrying about a problem that does not exist. Do you walk about with only cash because you're afraid of organisations monitoring your activities via credit/debit card? Yes, the system can be abused, but that is not the intent.

Furthermore, in an age where criminals are using every piece of technology at their disposal to commit crimes, not supporting the government in things such as Id cards just results in ineffectiveness of policing. Store owners cannot ask for an Id card to see if a kid is underage when purchasing alcohol. People stopped by the police cannot be verified and can give the name Luke Skywalker and the police have absolutely no way of verifying otherwise. Where other countries use Id cards to help, the U.K. goes to extreme to view such things as a violation of human rights and privacy serving none other than to help criminal activity because its one more tool that the people of the U.K. are taking away from the police to help.

At the moment, the police use mobile phone tracking to solve crimes and prove criminals locations when using the mobile phone. Loads of people feel violated that this tool is at the disposal of the police and would rather it wasn't and have the criminals run circles around the police just because they've watched the Truman Show or Enemy Of The State and living in paranoia.

Monitoring of vehicle use whilst adding the value of allowing the police have information available for when vehicles are possibly stolen is no bad thing. Only those with criminal intent think otherwise. Freedom has got nothing to do with it. Everyone on MSE uses some kind of cheque/debit/credit card which leaves an audit trail and regardless of their view on human rights and freedoms, just mention convinience and all that is dropped.

It works well in other countries and applies a fair set of rules across the board and makes sure that vehicles on the continent pay equally fairly for our roads.

I am in support of it 100% and if it will assist in cutting crime because a vehicle has a device that communicates its location, then so be it. There is enough crime in the U.K. and injustice because people watch too much TV and get paranoid beyond belief such that the justice and fairness suffers.

AMO

droopsnout

@ Murphy_The_Cat

You can't discuss with someone who refuses to see the obvious!

I think you summed it up in your question, "Why not let the people / market decide for themselves?"

We/They have. We screwed up. It's a mess.

Your dismissal of people who work things out in their heads before putting their great big size 12s in it is also very revealing. Perhaps if our commercial leaders put more thought into their activities before trampling all over the rest of the world, our problems would be less severe.

But, as I said, I don't feel that you accept basic facts, so there is little point in continuing the debate with you. I hope that the goods produced by the people of the Lake District continue to be transported around the world without too many delays. If they do, it won't be because of the leadership that you have shown here. Perhaps you just enjoy winding us up here and are more logical in the workplace.

magyar

Actually I share Murphy's views on public freedom; people should be free to choose their method of transport - my argument is that that should include a decent public transport system.

When it comes to economics, 'people' don't have a brain. You can't put thought into it. You reduce the price of something, people use it. Over the years, the capital price of a car has reduced dramatically whilst the cost of using the car has risen. The cost of public transport has risen even more so and is now crap. Ergo, people look at the one off purchase of a car and say "that will save me money, be more convenient and I don't have to sit with a load of chavs".

Reduce the cost of public transport lower than the equivalent car journey and people use it more. It just boils down to statistics.