Dartford Crossing - Free Flow Charging

[Haydn1971]

I've a better idea... Simply remove the tolls and reduce the need for a third crossing ! Simples !

[ScottB5411]

I've a better idea... Simply remove the tolls and reduce the need for a third crossing ! Simples !

This

[exiled]

I've a better idea... Simply remove the tolls and reduce the need for a third crossing ! Simples !

You'd need to pay out the concession holders contract. The Forth, Tay and Erskine Bridges were state owned, the Skye Bridge was under concession and cost the Scottish Government a pretty penny to de-toll.

How about give every light vehicle (cars, motorbikes, car derived vans) two free round trips per year. By using the bridge you consent to a pay by plate account, and bills be sent out at regular periods to UK registered vehicles which have used the bridge in the preceding period. And for non-UK vehicles this feed in real time or as much as possible and then they are charged at the ferry terminal/tunnel when they check in.

[Fenlander]

How about give every light vehicle (cars, motorbikes, car derived vans) two free round trips per year.

I like that idea.

[Benny]

All those overpaid footballers have about 8 cars each? So they'd get 16 free trips!

[Comstock]

Going the other way round? For some that will be fine, but surely for most that is going to cost more in fuel than the toll. For example, if I want to go from Kent and head North am I going to go the long way round (more fuel) or through London (unpredictable traffic and slower roads) or spend the cost of the toll? It should be free but, with regret, I have to hand them the toll.

Tony

You don't *have* to do anything . If everyone boycotted the crossing it would be free within a month.

That isn't a swipe at you more general frustration at how passive and compliant people in general have become.......

[SteveA30]

Quite agree. If only Brits had a collective sense of responsibility, instead of thinking only of their own situation in isolation.
Withhold rip-off utility bills...reduced in a month.
Mass change to minor banks... major banks capitulate, etc.
Clog up Gloucester bypass... free Severn Bridges.

Some of us do take a stand, on 38Degrees.

www.38degrees.org.uk

[Brenley Corner]

It would be easier than that, nobody need boycott the crossing. Instead of everybody altering their lives around to boycott it for a month, they could alter their lives around and only use it between 10pm and 6am when it is free anyway.

There is no such thing a a free ride. If the tolls were to be removed then maintenance and running costs of the two tunnels and the bridge (most especially the tunnels) would have to come from general taxation. In basic principles, surely it it is better to pass the costs of a specific crossing onto the users who actually cause the wear and tear rather than make everyone pay for it even if they are highly unlikely ever to use it. Surely this seems fairer?

The French and Italians have used tolls on their motorway network for decades and have a far better motorway network than ours as a result. I'm really not sure why the British psyche is so against tolls and constantly whines for their removal; perhaps there is some expectation that the 'state' should always cough up not realising that the state has no money of its own and all money spent comes through taxation - i.e you'll pay for it one way or another.

In the end, there is no obligation to use toll roads and toll crossings if you object to paying for their use - and there is always an alternative.

[si404]

You'd need to pay out the concession holders contract.

The concession ended - the toll's continued existence was spun on it being a congestion charge with the profit going to local (Thames Gateway) infrastructure improvement, IIRC.

The French and Italians have used tolls on their motorway network for decades and have a far better motorway network than ours as a result.

More that they have more extensive motorway network - mostly for other reasons (geography, different philosophy in sorting out bottlenecks, etc). Quality is less good - especially in Italy where the motorways are less of a rip-off.

The non-motorway roads that run parallel to the motorways, however, are generally in much better condition than their British counterparts.

[Truvelo]

Is it not the case that toll motorways in Italy and France are funded solely by tolls and not general taxation as well? I know American tollways are. The problem is when you've paid for them through taxes and then have to pay again through tolls

[exiled]

Is it not the case that toll motorways in Italy and France are funded solely by tolls and not general taxation as well? I know American tollways are. The problem is when you've paid for them through taxes and then have to pay again through tolls

I believe in France they are. Also in France the system was designed to complement the routes nationales rather than replace them, ours was integrated fully into the main network. When they had a car tax, this was paid to the departements rather than the central government.

[Phil]

I've a better idea... Simply remove the tolls and reduce the need for a third crossing ! Simples !

You'd need to pay out the concession holders contract. The Forth, Tay and Erskine Bridges were state owned, the Skye Bridge was under concession and cost the Scottish Government a pretty penny to de-toll.

The new bridge at Dartford was constructed as a private PFI job just the same as the Skye bridge, the only difference being that thanks to the volume of traffic any debt associated with building it (plus any outstanding debt from the construction of the tunnels which the wining consortium took on too) was eliminated back in the late 90s, upon which the concession would expire and the infrastructure (minus tolls) would revert to Highways Agency control. However thanks to the monies it was generating the Government result rushed through some legislation to keep them in place as otherwise continuing to charge would be illegal as the original acts authorising the tolls were designed to recoup construction costs (plus a small premium for the consortium owners of course).

By contrast traffic volumes across the Skye bridge were such that the high tolls would have needed to be continued for two decades at least to recoup the construction costs and the original PFI contract was of a duration to suit. Thus when the Scottish Government wanted to remove the tolls they had to buy out the concession, which was not foreseen when the contract was let so the eventual price paid was very high. If you had tried to buy out the Dartford concession say 6 months after the bridge opened and the concession still had a number of years to run then it wouldn't have come cheap either.

[Stevie D]

There is no such thing a a free ride. If the tolls were to be removed then maintenance and running costs of the two tunnels and the bridge (most especially the tunnels) would have to come from general taxation. In basic principles, surely it it is better to pass the costs of a specific crossing onto the users who actually cause the wear and tear rather than make everyone pay for it even if they are highly unlikely ever to use it. Surely this seems fairer?

It's a question of parity.

At the moment, in theory, we all pay tax – through VED, fuel duty and all sorts of other mechanisms – and this goes into providing all sorts of state-funded services, such as schools, hospitals and roads. For most drivers, the roads they use are all covered by state funding. I drive ~10k miles a year, which might involve crossing Dartford once on average, and generally no other toll roads. So I get more or less the full benefit of my driving being on free roads. But why should someone who lives in Bishop's Stortford, let's say, and frequently travels to Kent and to Peterborough have to pay again to cross at Dartford and to use the new A14*, when it's just an accident of where they drive that it happens to be on roads that are chargeable? How is it fair that people who drive on some roads have to pay for them while everyone else drives on roads for free?

* Yes, I know that's (probably) not happening now, but it's an illustrative point.

[Mark Hewitt]

I believe in France they are. Also in France the system was designed to complement the routes nationales rather than replace them, ours was integrated fully into the main network. When they had a car tax, this was paid to the departements rather than the central government.

Similar in parts of Spain too. So South of Barcelona you have a toll motorway, and alongside it is a non-toll motorway, albeit with a few more junctions.

[Vierwielen]

I received a road tax reminded and also a notice that as from October 2014, payment for the Dartford tunnel would be done remotely. So far the info only says "selected retail outlets". Does anybody have more details? Can I expect to be able to pay at the next services that I visit (or any services with the country for that matter?)

[A303Chris]

Yep there is a whole thread on this here

[PeterA5145]

Yep there is a whole thread on this here

Into which I have now merged it - thanks for locating the thread

[J6onM27]

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/dartford/ne ... ing-19757/

[sotonsteve]

Most of the western world has a more expansive motorway network than us, tolls or not. The USA may have toll roads, but they also have pretty impressive non-toll roads. The Netherlands has some impressive motorways. And in Belgium, whilst their motorway network needs a bit of investment in places, again it is expansive. So is Germany's.

[Comstock]

So when is the this latest barmy idea happening? I want to knock the black wall tunnel and the bridge off my bucket list while I've got chance. I certainly won't be using them after that.