Proposal for funding infrastructure

realitykeeper

When a motorway is built in this country, the government has to guarantee its private partners a certain amount of income via the toll points. If the traffic is inadequate, the government has to top up the private companies payments to the level which was guaranteed.

This seems very wasteful, especially when the new motorways are underused and the old roads remain congested because drivers are trying to avoid paying the toll.

My suggestion is that cars should also have to pay a toll directly to the government for using the small local roads (which bypass motorway toll points) at least until the guaranteed payments period to the private toll operators expires.

To charge traffic which is using the small road would not require any special infrastructure, just a garda with a device for recording the number plates. Those who dont pay would have their vehicle seized and sold at auction.

This would:
a) Encourage motorists to use the motorway thereby reducing the amount the motorists on the small roads would have to pay.

b) De congest the small roads.

c) Spare the tax payer from picking up the cost of the shortfall

d) Ensure the motorway gets used which is intuitively desirable and it ensures the state gets value for money for its part of the investment.

e) Penalizes penny pinching motorists for their stinginess.

f) improves overall traffic flow

Cookie_Monster

realitykeeper wrote: »

When a motorway is built in this country, the government has to guarantee its private partners a certain amount of income via the toll points.

simply not true. for a start only 7 of 12 motorways are even tolled and some of the newer sections are not tolled.

If the traffic is inadequate, the government has to top up the private companies payments to the level which was guaranteed.

some contracts, not all.

This seems very wasteful, especially when the new motorways are underused and the old roads remain congested because drivers are trying to avoid paying the toll.

got stats for that?
anyway it's a false economy most of the time. The extra time taken is more valuable than the cost of a toll. Most people don't seem to value thier time though...

My suggestion is that cars should also have to pay a toll directly to the government for using the small local roads at least until the guaranteed payments period to the private toll operators expires.

so a toll regardless of which road you use. Why not simply charge a car usage tax, possibly based on what type of motor a car has. And call it motor tax and measure it on emissions... oh wait!

To charge traffic which is using the small road would not require any special infrastructure, just a garda with a device for recording the number plates.

no special infastructure, just a massive waste of garda time and resources. How far can you drive on these local roads before being charged, how do locals get from A to B, maybe only a couple of km apart without getting charged the same as those travelling 100's of kms while avoiding the motorway network

Those who don't pay would have their vehicle seized and sold at auction.

massively disproportionate punishment compared to the crime, lets be realistic.

Paulzx

realitykeeper wrote: »

.

e) Penalizes penny pinching motorists for their stinginess.

You can hardly describe anyone with a car on the road as stingy considering the amount of taxes and charges associated with car ownership.


Aside from that, I certainly don't agree that toll roads are avoided by motorists. The idea of having a Guard standing at the side of a national road taking registrations in order to impose a toll is laughable. The whole point of still having the local routes is to allow people make local journeys (which they may use numerous times a day). To expect people to be charged for going for a pint of milk or checking in on elderly relatives is ridiculous.

Rightwing

Paulzx wrote: »

You can hardly describe anyone with a car on the road as stingy considering the amount of taxes and charges associated with car ownership.


Aside from that, I certainly don't agree that toll roads are avoided by motorists. The idea of having a Guard standing at the side of a national road taking registrations in order to impose a toll is laughable. The whole point of still having the local routes is to allow people make local journeys (which they may use numerous times a day). To expect people to be charged for going for a pint of milk or checking in on elderly relatives is ridiculous.

They are, and rightly so. Motorists in this country are ripped off to a scandalous extent.

ardmacha

Rightwing wrote: »

They are, and rightly so. Motorists in this country are ripped off to a scandalous extent.

Right, so tolls are a rip off and you are proposing more of them?

Godge

Rightwing wrote: »

They are, and rightly so. Motorists in this country are ripped off to a scandalous extent.

Yes, they have the highest road density in Europe, they have the most modern, least congested motorways, the petrol and diesel is cheaper than their nearest neighbours, tolls are relatively modest and infrequent compared to the rest of Europe, yup, hard done by, they are.

creedp

Godge wrote: »

Yes, they have the highest road density in Europe, they have the most modern, least congested motorways, the petrol and diesel is cheaper than their nearest neighbours, tolls are relatively modest and infrequent compared to the rest of Europe, yup, hard done by, they are.

You forgot about the VRT and road tax - A minor quibble I know. The problem with tolls in the inconsistent nature of them. Why do I have to pay a toll to do to Drogheda but not to Kildare, ... Portlaoise? Why does it cost me €2.50 to get off at the N4 exit but nothing at the N3 exit? Probably because someone thought it was a good idea 20 years ago and 'good' decisions are very rarely re-appraised in Ireland

Rightwing

ardmacha wrote: »

Right, so tolls are a rip off and you are proposing more of them?

I am proposing the avoidance of tolls. Don't we pay enough with car tax & taxes on fuels. Anyone driving a 07 bangor or older is really being exploited, and they probably don't even know it.

realitykeeper

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

so a toll regardless of which road you use. Why not simply charge a car usage tax, possibly based on what type of motor a car has. And call it motor tax and measure it on emissions... oh wait!

Sometimes a targeted tax/charge is needed in order to change peoples behavior. This would be one such tax.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

no special infastructure, just a massive waste of garda time and resources. How far can you drive on these local roads before being charged, how do locals get from A to B, maybe only a couple of km apart without getting charged the same as those travelling 100's of kms while avoiding the motorway network

Fine so, a strategically placed recording machine mounted on a bridge or some such ought do the job without a garda being there to hold it up and the locals could be exempt.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

massively disproportionate punishment compared to the crime, lets be realistic.

Splendid! An effective deterrent. That should work nicely.

Cookie_Monster

cherry picking the easier bits to reply to? what about the rest of the post?

realitykeeper wrote: »

Sometimes a targeted tax/charge is needed in order to change peoples behavior. This would be one such tax.

a targeted tax like the taxes on fuel or motor taxes which are higher for more polluting motors...

Fine so, a strategically placed recording machine mounted on a bridge or some such ought do the job without a garda being there to hold it up and the locals could be exempt.

how local exactly, where do you draw the line, 2km, 10km, more than 10km from the nearest motorway? what about companies who need to come off the motorways to access local stores, or bus companies serving the local area. What about leaner drivers who aren't allowed use motorways (or any other class of vehicle in the same boat for that matter). how do you determine who is using local raods as a shortcut and who is using them 'validly' to get to their destination. Or do we just punish everyone regardless?

Splendid! An effective deterrent. That should work nicely.

it's not an effective deterrent, its a ridiculous proposal, like pretty much every other thread you post here. you seem to want to turn this country into one massive police state where anybody doing anything you don't like is locked away forever.

Sheldons Brain

This thread is complete nonsense, even by boards standards. The EU require an untolled route, so the whole thread is based on a false premise.

Godge

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

This thread is complete nonsense, even by boards standards. The EU require an untolled route, so the whole thread is based on a false premise.

I agree completely, the thread is complete nonsense far from keeping with reality.

creedp

Godge wrote: »

I agree completely, the thread is complete nonsense far from keeping with reality.

I would agree with the view that people should not be charged a toll to try and incentivise people not to avoid a toll .. am I getting that right!

However, while many people might think charging people on a per km basis for using the public roads is unrreasonable, it was not so long ago that proposals were mooted that all road users should be charged on a rate per km basis for using the public road system- effectively a metered road charging system. Given the massive support from certain quarters for a metered water charge presumably the same support would be forthcoming for metered road use charges. Presumably also people who argue 'but we're already paying for the roads through our taxes' would be equally scorned .. 'what about the €7bn we're borrowing'? I'm from Dublin .. why should I pay for the upkeep of Roscommon roads .. etc .. etc.

antoobrien

creedp wrote: »

I'm from Dublin .. why should I pay for the upkeep of Roscommon roads .. etc .. etc.

Bearing in mind that motor tax is a Local Authority receipt and not a general government receipt that argument is extremely disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.

The Roscommon motorist might be better wondering why the Co Co is only allowed spend up to 1/3 of the motor tax collected on maintaining roads.

creedp

antoobrien wrote: »

Bearing in mind that motor tax is a Local Authority receipt and not a general government receipt that argument is extremely disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst.

The Roscommon motorist might be better wondering why the Co Co is only allowed spend up to 1/3 of the motor tax collected on maintaining roads.

I wasn't talking specifically about motor tax but certainly I agree that such an argument would be pretty disingenous across a whole range of public charges/taxes.

realitykeeper

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

cherry picking the easier bits to reply to? what about the rest of the post?



how local exactly, where do you draw the line, 2km, 10km, more than 10km from the nearest motorway? what about companies who need to come off the motorways to access local stores, or bus companies serving the local area. What about leaner drivers who aren't allowed use motorways (or any other class of vehicle in the same boat for that matter). how do you determine who is using local raods as a shortcut and who is using them 'validly' to get to their destination. Or do we just punish everyone regardless?

Regarding the former paragraph, I say this: It was not addressed because it was not relevant to the substance of the post.

Regarding the second paragraph, I say this: It would be silly to elaborate on such vicissitudes. Next you will be asking me what colour socks people should wear as if they cannot do anything without first getting the hows, whys and wherefores from myself.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

it's not an effective deterrent, its a ridiculous proposal ...

Now, now. Temper tantrums and such savagery are unbecoming. A gentleman ought to remain calm, reasoned and civil at all times. First you say its disproportionate, yet then you say it would not be effective. Quite the contradiction don`t you think?

Cookie_Monster

realitykeeper wrote: »

Regarding the former paragraph, I say this: It was not addressed because it was not relevant to the substance of the post.

I corrected your obvious lie in the opening post and you deem it irrelevant?

Regarding the second paragraph, I say this: It would be silly to elaborate on such vicissitudes. Next you will be asking me what colour socks people should wear as if they cannot do anything without first getting the hows, whys and wherefores from myself.

so you admit you've no stats to back up the ridiculous claim them?

Now, now. Temper tantrums and such savagery are unbecoming. A gentleman ought to remain calm, reasoned and civil at all times.

I'm not angry in the slightest, not sure how you managed to pick that up from the post at all.
Though it seems to be something you accuse posters of frequently when they point out the gaping holes in your arguments

First you say its disproportionate, yet then you say it would not be effective. Quite the contradiction don`t you think?

Of course it is disproportionate, how is seizing and selling a vehicle (potentially worth 10's of thousand) a justifiable punishment for not paying a fine of a few euro on time? It would never get passed into law and never be held in a court and hence it could never be effective. Laws and punishments have to be fair and proportional, your suggestion is neither. You advocate similar way over the top punishments for other things too, like criminalising alcohol sales for no other reason than you dislike it and attempting to tax foreign retailers out of existence in Ireland.

realitykeeper

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Of course it is disproportionate, how is seizing and selling a vehicle (potentially worth 10's of thousand) a justifiable punishment for not paying a fine of a few euro on time? It would never get passed into law and never be held in a court and hence it could never be effective. Laws and punishments have to be fair and proportional, your suggestion is neither. You advocate similar way over the top punishments for other things too, like criminalising alcohol sales for no other reason than you dislike it and attempting to tax foreign retailers out of existence in Ireland.

If people choose not to pay a charge then they would choose by default to have their vehicle seized. Therefore, in that scenario, the state would not be punishing them at all, it would be obliging them.

barneystinson

realitykeeper wrote: »

If people choose not to pay a charge then they would choose by default to have their vehicle seized. Therefore, in that scenario, the state would not be punishing them at all, it would be obliging them.

You like to come on here flying kites, pretending to be some kind of intellectual giant, but when the best defence of your position you can come up with is lame duck nonsense like that, you look more like a gnat. (Well, either that or a secondary school student.)

You don't have any sense of proportion in your suggested policies, for example, even if it was technically feasible to mount cameras all over the countryside (1984 anyone?), given what we've seen when they tried to introduce water charges, how do you think that policy implementation would fly with the general public? No doubt you'll suggest summary executions or mandatory life sentences or some such... :rolleyes:

Your username really is one of the most ironic on Boards though, so kudos for that. You clearly don't live in the real world of having to work and pay taxes though, some kind of student I'd wager? I'd also wager when you get a dose of reality, you'll change your views, or at least have less time to fly kites on here.

chopper6

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

This thread is complete nonsense, even by boards standards. The EU require an untolled route, so the whole thread is based on a false premise.

Have you seen his other "proposals"?

That Cork and limerick should become independent from the rest of the country for starters.

Cookie_Monster

realitykeeper wrote: »

If people choose not to pay a charge then they would choose by default to have their vehicle seized. Therefore, in that scenario, the state would not be punishing them at all, it would be obliging them.

again, you're cherry picking the most irrelevant parts of the discussion to continue while ignoring challenges to your initial point.

It's been pointed out to you already that under EU rules a non tolled alternative must be provided so any talk of punishment is moot as it can never be enacted. The only choice on payment is whether or not you want to pay the motorway toll and save some time.