Motorists face new charges as number of toll roads to double

antoobrien

niloc1951 wrote: »

Not alone do you save tolls, you also save on fuel cost, it takes a lot more fuel to push a vehicle through the air at 120 KmPH than at 100KmPH.
If you have plenty of time and little money it's a no-brainer.
A journey is also less boring off motorway.

Also, any vehicle >3,500 Kg GVW is subject to a speed limit of 80Kmph on both M and N routes

The no brainer is the fact that you're wrong.

Having to slow down then speed up the whole time for villages, local access, vechiles that should have their speed restricted (i.e. the ones you've pointed out, plenty of whom ignore this restriction) or slow muppets (>20km/h less than the posted speed limit) is what really eats fuel. The MPG difference between 100 and 120 is not massive (I've calculated it at less than a 10% difference in my car). The road to Galway is 10KM shorter on the Motorway than the R446. That makes the toll a break even at 120km/h).

Then we get into the increase costs of wear and tear etc from having to use the brakes, gearbox etc. It really fascinates me how people can delude themselves into think the kind of rubbish you're spouting.

Bruthal

niloc1951 wrote: »

Not alone do you save tolls, you also save on fuel cost, it takes a lot more fuel to push a vehicle through the air at 120 KmPH than at 100KmPH.
If you have plenty of time and little money it's a no-brainer.

Well you might be using slightly more fuel at 120kph than at 100kph, but you will be driving for a shorter time. So it wont be as much of a difference as you think. There will be a certain speed which is most efficient, probably below 120kph. But a constant 120kph will be better than having to slow right down at times and stop too as aotoobrien said.

niloc1951

antoobrien wrote: »

The no brainer is the fact that you're wrong.

Having to slow down then speed up the whole time for villages, local access, vechiles that should have their speed restricted (i.e. the ones you've pointed out, plenty of whom ignore this restriction) or slow muppets (>20km/h less than the posted speed limit) is what really eats fuel. The MPG difference between 100 and 120 is not massive (I've calculated it at less than a 10% difference in my car). The road to Galway is 10KM shorter on the Motorway than the R446. That makes the toll a break even at 120km/h).

Then we get into the increase costs of wear and tear etc from having to use the brakes, gearbox etc. It really fascinates me how people can delude themselves into think the kind of rubbish you're spouting.

:eek::eek::eek::eek: wouldn't want to meet you, especially as you're sooooo tolerant of others when you have a different opinion, not.

Remember, what one considers to be FACT may be the result of unreliable information or untested assumptions, it's not unknown for such a FACT's to bite where it hurts, one learns this with maturity.

BTW, MY experience (tested) is that leisurely progress on non-motorway roads does use less fuel than lashing along at 120Kmph on a motorway, but hey, everyone to his own, it's a free country (still).

LostGirly

cjpm wrote: »

By Paul Melia

The Government's Smarter Travel policy wants an extra 500,000 people to use public transport, walk or cycle to work by 2020, to help reduce car commuting. It also calls for the number of car trips per year not to increase beyond current levels up to 2020.

No problem what so ever! I'll catch the Luas that passes my house every morning here in Ballygobackwards, get it into the nearest town, catch the bus then to the next village and get the train to the town I work in shall I?? :rolleyes:

niloc1951

robbie7730 wrote: »

Well you might be using slightly more fuel at 120kph than at 100kph, but you will be driving for a shorter time. So it wont be as much of a difference as you think. There will be a certain speed which is most efficient, probably below 120kph. But a constant 120kph will be better than having to slow right down at times and stop too as aotoobrien said.

Read again
Fuel consumption is measured over distance, time does not come into the equation, unless one is referring to a marine engine or plant.

See HERE for a reality check.

Bruthal

niloc1951 wrote: »

Read again
Fuel consumption is measured over distance, time does not come into the equation, unless one is referring to a marine engine or plant.

See HERE for a reality check.

Well this one would suggest that if you drive at 10mph for 12 hours would be far worse than driving at 60mph for 2 hours. Or driving 120 miles if you prefer.

Bruthal

Anyway its on a 1 way trip to €2 a litre, so either they will be raking in the taxes or no one will be driving anywhere.

invinciblePRSTV

No point dilly-dallying, the present national network cost a fortune to build, so let's make some money out of it. So to that end I'm supportive of road-pricing.

But instead of such ad hoc tolling measures like the pre-existing tolls and the mooted ones, it would be far more practical to develop an overarching solution covering all charges for use of the main M&N roads so that the "unfairness" in the spread of tolling locations would be eliminated.

Bruthal

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

No point dilly-dallying, the present national network cost a fortune to build, so let's make some money out of it. So to that end I'm supportive of road-pricing.

But instead of such ad hoc tolling measures like the pre-existing tolls and the mooted ones, it would be far more practical to develop an overarching solution covering all charges for use of the main M&N roads so that the "unfairness" in the spread of tolling locations would be eliminated.

Maybe they could call it motor tax.

invinciblePRSTV

robbie7730 wrote: »

Maybe they could call it motor tax.

Look the motor tax lament of the Irish motorist is a misconception. Motor Tax in Ireland is primarily utilised for local authority funding, not the construction and maintenance of Motorways. Private capital, public money and the EU paid for the very lovely motorway network around Ireland. Now its time to make some money out of it.

charlemont

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

No point dilly-dallying, the present national network cost a fortune to build, so let's make some money out of it. So to that end I'm supportive of road-pricing.

But instead of such ad hoc tolling measures like the pre-existing tolls and the mooted ones, it would be far more practical to develop an overarching solution covering all charges for use of the main M&N roads so that the "unfairness" in the spread of tolling locations would be eliminated.

Whats Road Tax ??
So many people in this country seem to love rules, regulations and taxes..

Cool Mo D

robbie7730 wrote: »

Well this one would suggest that if you drive at 10mph for 12 hours would be far worse than driving at 60mph for 2 hours. Or driving 120 miles if you prefer.

10 mph is hardly realistic for long distance driving though.

If you drive 100 miles at 40 mph in a VW Golf, you will use about 2/3the amount of petrol as driving 100 miles at 80 mph. That is a big difference.

antoobrien

niloc1951 wrote: »

Remember, what one considers to be FACT may be the result of unreliable information or untested assumptions, it's not unknown for such a FACT's to bite where it hurts, one learns this with maturity.

BTW, MY experience (tested) is that leisurely progress on non-motorway roads does use less fuel than lashing along at 120Kmph on a motorway, but hey, everyone to his own, it's a free country (still).

Facts
Trip Galway to Dublin & back, with some small urban runs - shops etc, fill averaging 45L.

Jan 2008 with Single Carriage way from Galway to Kilbeggan (except Athlone DC), DC/Mway to Dublin. 1 fill gets 550 km - or 12.22mkm/l. Time approx 3h 15m

April 2011 Motorway/DC to Dublin. 1 fill gets 610KM or 13.56km/l. Time 2h 10m.

So the motorways have saved me 1 hour of my life (very important to me), a lot of aggravation from not having to stay behind drivers that are incapable of doing more than 70km and won't move over to let people past (my house to the motorway at Beagh in Ballinasloe 67km, it often took >1h) and gained 60KM per trip in fuel economy.

At current prices (€1.507) and the fuel economy listed that's a saving of 4.42L = €6.66 - The 3 tolls cost 1.8 + 2.7 + 2=6.5

The high prices might be what makes the toll break even but
1) I save 1 hour of my life
2) I'm driving on roads that are considerably safer than the R446
3) the surfaces are considerably better than the R446
4) I don't have to stay behind drivers that shouldn't are inconsiderate sods
5) Less wear and tear on my tyres & brakes

royal flush can't be beaten in poker, wins this argument too.

I've also had to drive from Dublin to Cork to Rosslare last year in 1 day. I can't describe you how much of a pain in the ass the N25 (3rd leg) was, especially @ New Ross. While I don't agree with tolled bypasses because it discourages regular users to avoid it, I was very happy to use that lovely DC bypassing Waterford on this occasion because I don't know Waterford and had no business there.

niloc1951 wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek::eek: wouldn't want to meet you, especially as you're sooooo tolerant of others when you have a different opinion, not.

Slightly O.T., but you're right I'm intolerant of people whose opinions have no basis in fact, mainly because it saves my blood pressure for things that are worthy of my ire and contempt, but don't take it personally - I've responded here only so that other people won't fall into the same delusion.

Chris_5339762

My car does 35mpg at 120 and 48 at 100kmh. Its an old Toyota Yaris. Working numbers out in my head says that if I drive at 100 instead of 120 then I get my tolls free.

Slowing down and speeding up in a car is the worst thing you can do though.

antoobrien

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

My car does 35mpg at 120 and 48 at 100kmh. Its an old Toyota Yaris. Working numbers out in my head says that if I drive at 100 instead of 120 then I get my tolls free.

Slowing down and speeding up in a car is the worst thing you can do though.

Not for your benefit Chris, but it should be pointed out that doing 100km/h is often not possible where there is no motorway/dc alternative (e.g. N17/18 in Galway, N20 in Cork, N25 between Cork & Rosslare.

Bettystown runner

the idea of tolling a ring road is totally mad just look at the mess they made of Drogheda ,anybody with an sense would have put the toll in a rural area past Dunleer but no they jam up drogheda and you could have a game of football down at the toll plaza most days.

Bruthal

Cool Mo D wrote: »

10 mph is hardly realistic for long distance driving though.

If you drive 100 miles at 40 mph in a VW Golf, you will use about 2/3the amount of petrol as driving 100 miles at 80 mph. That is a big difference.

A car that uses double the petrol for a given distance when at a speed that uses twice as much petrol for the journey( say 120mph v 60mph as example), is actually burning it at 4 times the rate in reality.

kwalshe

Maybe someone can let me know when this thread gets back on topic instead all the rabble about fuel comsumption...

Bruthal

Anyway, they open the motorway to navan, put a toll on it, then reduce the limit on the old 100kph road to 80kph, in reality as a second toll road with their camera van on it.

antoobrien

kwalshe wrote: »

Maybe someone can let me know when this thread gets back on topic instead all the rabble about fuel comsumption...

Unfortunately this is what always happens when tolls are suggested.

The people that don't want to pay for anything and want to make excuses for not paying for motorways while still griping about the state of the N roads always bring this up as a (laughing while typing this) "viable" alternative to using the motorways.

IMO they need to be smacked down because they don't realize that without the motorways - no matter how they're paid for in direct tax, tolls or whatever - their figures fall apart because they can't travel at a fuel efficient speed (yes going slow is inefficient).

Anybody who has traveled along old N6 to Galway or the old N8 to Cork will remember the mayhem that was Abbeyleix (N8) and Moate (N6). Any time I had to travel through either it took a lot longer than it should have to even when traffic was good. When traffic was bad, pull a u-turn and find some side roads, you'll save 20 minutes and your petrol (which means money).

I don't mind paying tolls on the M8 because of both what I getting in terms of the road itself, and what it's saving me in terms of time not sent sitting still at Abbeyleix. The same applies for the M6, the road between Ballinasloe & Loughrea was terrible in parts.

This is going O.T. but I'm in favor of a 2 part road tax system that would mean a flat rate registration fee replacing the annual road tax, e.g. €100 per vehicle per year, with the rest going on petrol. It' designed to be revenue neutral (I don't have figures sorry), so abolish excise duty and carbon tax on petrol and diesel. Take the annual driving distance (AA roadwatch have it at 12,000 miles) and use average fuel consumption rates to calculate the amount that should be put into the "road users tax", which will be added to the cost of the petrol. This means that people that use the roads more will pay more - and tolls are a natural extension of this system. I'm not opposed to tolls on national routes, just on bypasses.

KevR

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Look the motor tax lament of the Irish motorist is a misconception. Motor Tax in Ireland is primarily utilised for local authority funding, not the construction and maintenance of Motorways. Private capital, public money and the EU paid for the very lovely motorway network around Ireland. Now its time to make some money out of it.

Sounds like you are saying we should make some money out of it. We won't be making any money out of it if we are paying for it ourselves!

invinciblePRSTV

KevR wrote: »

Sounds like you are saying we should make some money out of it. We won't be making any money out of it if we are paying for it ourselves!

Let me clarify: Its we as in us the Irish citizenry, and its representative in the form of the bankrupt, cash desperate Irish state, which possessess a practically brand new motorway network ripe for a tolling solution not based on tolls located at random points, but on a system based on usage. Much like the Swiss model or indeed like the M50 model. The money made will, like everything else, go back to paying the ROIs lawful debts.

The rest of ye can crib like little girls all ye like about Motor tax, it doesn't pay for roads and it doesn't come near to covering the costs of their construction, if you ever genuinely believed this to be so, then cop on.

KevR

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Let me clarify: Its we as in us the Irish citizenry, and its representative in the form of the bankrupt, cash desperate Irish state, which possessess a practically brand new motorway network ripe for a tolling solution not based on tolls located at random points, but on a system based on usage. Much like the Swiss model or indeed like the M50 model. The money made will, like everything else, go back to paying the ROIs lawful debts.

The rest of ye can crib like little girls all ye like about Motor tax, it doesn't pay for roads and it doesn't come near to covering the costs of their construction, if you ever genuinely believed this to be so, then cop on.

There could be a massive discussion about the bit in bold. I don't have the time or the energy for it here and now..

Motor tax alone might not pay for roads but what about the billions collected from duty on fuel? VRT also?

invinciblePRSTV

KevR wrote: »

Motor tax alone might not pay for roads but what about the billions collected from duty on fuel? VRT also?

These all go towards general expenditure and are considered part of the 'old reliables' to raise money from, like tobacco, alcohol and VAT. Let's consider that the calls for cuts in fuel duties will have to be matched from cuts in public expenditure elsewhere, where would you cut?

KevR

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

These all go towards general expenditure and are considered part of the 'old reliables' to raise money from, like tobacco, alcohol and VAT. Let's consider that the calls for cuts in fuel duties will have to be matched from cuts in public expenditure elsewhere, where would you cut?

Exactly!! The money collected from motor tax, fuel duty and VRT is more than enough to cover road spending; there has always been a big surplus which geoes to general expenditure. Why should motorists have to pay even more?

It's simply wrong to say motorists don't cover the cost of roads and that they should have to pay more*


*apart from the couple of additional tolls that I mentioned earlier in the thread.

invinciblePRSTV

KevR wrote: »

Exactly!! The money collected from motor tax, fuel duty and VRT is more than enough to cover road spending; there has always been a big surplus which geoes to general expenditure.

Again i stress the point, there is no mechanism which dictates that income collected by state in fuel taxes, motor tax etc. is for roads spending. Everything spent on customs and excise, fuel taxes and the like goes back into general expenditure which can then be allocated on road construction and maintenance. In times when more income is needed, the gov needs to find more money, as such motorists can expect to pay more. To that end i've proposed the Swiss model or variants of it.

KevR wrote: »

Why should motorists have to pay even more?

It's simply wrong to say motorists don't cover the cost of roads and that they should have to pay more*


*apart from the couple of additional tolls that I mentioned earlier in the thread.

I believe you are incorrect here. Now, In 2011, it's possible to spin a line that the motorist covers the cost of roads in the shape of the small budget allocation to maintenance of non-national routes and a few big ticket projects.

But what about all throughout the 2000s and late 1990s? The interurbans programmes, bypasses and the like all came from public expenditure, private capital and European money. To attempt to claim that the motorist has payed for them on their own i believe doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Feel free to prove me wrong.

yermanoffthetv

KevR wrote: »

Exactly!! The money collected from motor tax, fuel duty and VRT is more than enough to cover road spending; there has always been a big surplus which geoes to general expenditure. Why should motorists have to pay even more?

....So what your saying is that the money generated from motorists should be used to pay for the roads?


Hmmm, That sounds like a logical idea :mad:

KevR

yermanoffthetv wrote: »

....So what your saying is that the money generated from motorists should be used to pay for the roads?


Hmmm, That sounds like a logical idea :mad:

That's not what I am saying.

Someone said that motorists should pay more tolls because motor tax doesn't cover the cost of our roads. I argued that motor tax + fuel duty + VRT does cover the cost of roads and that there is actually a surplus. In my opinion, motorists should not have to pay anymore than they currently do and a reasonable level of spending on roads should always be maintained (the benefits being economic, improved safety, better bus services).

I don't think that money from motorists should be totally ring-fenced. Motorists already pay their fair share and should not have to pay anymore.

KevR

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Again i stress the point, there is no mechanism which dictates that income collected by state in fuel taxes, motor tax etc. is for roads spending. Everything spent on customs and excise, fuel taxes and the like goes back into general expenditure which can then be allocated on road construction and maintenance. In times when more income is needed, the gov needs to find more money, as such motorists can expect to pay more. To that end i've proposed the Swiss model or variants of it.



I believe you are incorrect here. Now, In 2011, it's possible to spin a line that the motorist covers the cost of roads in the shape of the small budget allocation to maintenance of non-national routes and a few big ticket projects.

But what about all throughout the 2000s and late 1990s? The interurbans programmes, bypasses and the like all came from public expenditure, private capital and European money. To attempt to claim that the motorist has payed for them on their own i believe doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Regarding the bit in bold - I am aware of that thanks, there is no need to stress it or make the point more than once.

Regarding the underlined bit - we are paying more already. Fuel duty has increased and we are paying more VAT on fuel because the price of oil has jumped. In my opinion, only someone who is hardcore anti-car/road would be strongly in favour of more fuel duty increases and more tolls at the present time.

The red bit: Feel free to prove yourself right. Are you saying motor tax + fuel duty + fuel VAT + VRT does not generate billions annually? I can't ever recall road spending exceeding roughly €1.6/1.7 billion in a year (please correct me if I'm wrong).

invinciblePRSTV

KevR wrote: »

Regarding the bit in bold - I am aware of that thanks, there is no need to stress it or make the point more than once.

I'm repeatedly stressing the point because you seem to consider (see below quote) that taxes and charges incurred by motorists as money which is collected by the state to spend on roads. This isn't the case.

KevR in reply to yermanoffthetv wrote: »

I argued that motor tax + fuel duty + VRT does cover the cost of roads and that there is actually a surplus.

KevR wrote: »

Regarding the underlined bit - we are paying more already. Fuel duty has increased and we are paying more VAT on fuel because the price of oil has jumped.

And the Irish motorist will have to pay more. Again my solution would be on an equitable basis, whereby irrespective of where you live you will incur expenses for using motorways and national primaries, not through a randomized lottery of placing tolls at certain locations or junctions.

KevR wrote: »

The red bit: Feel free to prove yourself right. Are you saying motor tax + fuel duty + fuel VAT + VRT does not generate billions annually? I can't ever recall road spending exceeding roughly €1.6/1.7 billion in a year (please correct me if I'm wrong).

I genuinely can't be bothered right now to go trawling department documents adding up construction costs versus charges incurred by motorists, feel free to do it for me.

Nonetheless, it's still swings and roundabouts. You're maintaining a contradictory position of accepting that taxes and charges on motorists are not collected for the purpose of roads expenditure, but then attempt to contrast their collection with roads expenditure by the state to promulgate an argument that the Irish motorist shouldn't pay anymore? which is it then?.

Whatever it is, we're still in a position whereby a comprehensive tolling system of the new motorway network is the way forward in order to fulfil the state's spending commitments.