From: "tim" <520010973502removethis@t-online.de>
Newsgroups: uk.finance
Subject: Re: Labour Party and Road Tolls
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 13:16:28 +0200


"Tumbleweed"  wrote in message
news:2mdh9sFlhh9nU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "tim" <520010973502removethis@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:cds02p$1k0$06$1@news.t-online.com...

> > I think you will be suprises at the small number of people who
> > need to change from road to train to reduce the congestion
> > by a noticable amount.  Something like 80% of people commute
> > into London by train with 5% by car.  A modal shift of 10% of
> > the cars drivers is a small increase in the train users.
>
> 10% of car drivers wouldnt make much difference would it?

Of course it would.  It's that extra 10% that causes a busy but
flowing motorway to become a, stopped, crawling one.

>OTOH you couldnt
> get more than 1 or 2% more on the trains round here.

This is the point at which the implementation fails the theory.
The UK has a problem in that its rail tracks are used too
intensively and there is no room for extra services without
building a new track (and on some lines into london this
is a long standing item on the wish-list so there's no issue
with logistics).  For it to work, these lines have to be built
first, with the road-charging starting after the extra capacity
is provided and the revenue then paying off the capital cost
of the build.  But , joined-up governmental financial thinking
doesn't work this way in the UK and the charging will have
to start first with the flowing revenue used for "expensed"
improvements, which means thing that can be implemented
tomorrow, so extra buses, which no car driver in they right
mind would switch to.  So, you're right, it'll never work, but
not because the theory is wrong but because UK Gov PLC
will implement it wrongly.

Of course if your motivation all along is simply to cream
more taxes off the populace without they squeeking it'll
have worked.

tim