"Chris Jones" wrote in message
...
The thing is, if you build the M6 bypass from general taxation, then you
are effectively subsidising those who use it. You might argue that
motorists
at large will pay for it, and motorists at large will benefit from it,
but
in
reality it is only a small group of people who will benefit from it, yet
if
it were paid for through general taxation, a large group of people would
be paying for it.

That's the whole point of the state paying for things. The point is that
overall everyone gains equally. The BNRR in the Midlands, M25 widening in
London, M74 in Scotland, etc.

Clearly Europeans believe something different, that constructing motorways
is rather like handing dollops of money over to a select few. This is
considered unnacceptable, and hence their roads are tolled.

Our motorways weren't tolled from the start as it was believed that if you
have a road, you may as well let as many people use it as they want, as
there is (was) zero marginal cost of extra cars. This isn't really the case
anymore due to congestion.

The Government should not be subsidising things that bring a high
benefit (and have a high cost) to a small number of people.

In that case we should adopt the American model of very low taxes but
nothing provided by the state. Why should I be subsidising the NHS when I
haven't used it in 10 years? Same argument.
The answer being that I might need to use the NHS tomorrow, and you might
need to use the M6 Toll tomorrow.
It benefits everybody and the economy as a whole. If a lorry carrying
goods
from Felixstowe to Manchester gets stuck in M6 traffic jams for hours,
businesses in Manchester lose out. It has a national impact.

The thing is it is about choices. Individuals choose whether or not to
drive, whether or not to use the M6toll or the old M6. With things like
healthcare, there is no choice involved, you either need it or you don't. If
you are ill you do want to consume healthcare - this is almost universal. So
if the Government subsidises healthcare like mad, it isn't actually causing
any market distortion.

This is the heart of the problem, any Government subsidy or tax effectively
takes choice away from individuals, and distorts the market. In most cases
this leads to a sub-optimal allocation of resources.

Besides, if it weren't going to be a toll road, it would fill up with
traffic and be no better than the normal M6, and we would be back
to square one despite having spent £900 million.

It would fill up as-is, yes. What they should have done would be to build
it
with no local junctions - just access from the M6 and M42 at either end.
That way, only long-distance traffic uses it, there are no new business
parks or shopping centres built next to it, and it serves its purpose as a
long-distance strategic route.


And this is an interesting notion - long distance traffic is more important
than local traffic? The nice thing about tolls is that it automatically
takes account of this, if the people making their local journeys consider
their journey "unimportant" they will be unwilling to pay £2-3. If they long
distance traffic considers its journey important then they will pay for it.

Everyone considers their journey to be "important" or even "essential". But
the proof of the pudding is whether they are prepared to pay for it.

In message , Chris Jones
writes
It's like giving up on the NHS and telling everyone to get private
health care.
Don't most of the government already have private health care?
--
Clive