In message , at 09:09:50 on
Sun, 3 Jul 2011, Basil Jet remarked:

I didn't realise the "toll" period at Dartford was over. I remember when
it was owned by the two county councils, and the money they took didn't
even pay off the interest for building the tunnels. Maybe it should have
been a bridge from the beginning if it's taken that much money so quickly!

But that's provided a useful definition, and as the Congestion Charge is
for roads which were built and paid for in some cases generations ago,
it seems to take it out of the "toll" category. Indeed, as the money is
supposed to go towards public transport, they aren't even claiming it's
to pay for the roads. (Yes, I know some public transport uses the roads).

When you consider what the traffic jams are like when the tube is on
strike, spending the congestion charge on public transport is every bit
as logical as spending the Dartford toll money on paying off the debt
from building the crossing.

It's logical, but it's not spending *on* the roads themselves.

Maybe the M6 Toll is a more contemporary example of a road where the
money collected is going towards the provision of the road itself.

In Nottingham they are beginning to take registrations for the workplace
parking levy (~£250/yr/space). The money there is going towards the new
tram line, not roads, and especially not more parking spaces in the
City! So perhaps it's a pure "parking space tax". Discuss.
--
Roland Perry

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 22:22:41 +0100, "D A Stocks"
wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message 01cc34f6$316c92e0$LocalHost@default, at 18:30:08 on Mon, 27
Jun 2011, Michael R N Dolbear remarked:
The US embassy is relying on the statement made by Ken Livingston that
the congestion charge was a tax - he was so excited that he let mouth
run away when the tax was first introduced

Interesting.

Has anyone produced a reasoned argument about the difference between a
tax and a toll ?

Tolls are rarely charged on routes you *have* to use, there's normally a
"long way round". Which doesn't exist for the US Embassy, being inside
the
zone. So it's a lot more like car tax, than say the Dartford Toll.
Wouldn't they get a 90% residents' discount anyway?

I believe that a toll is money collected to pay for the construction and
upkeep of the asset being used.

The Dartford Toll, and the PFI concession under which the Queen Elizabeth
II
Bridge was built, ended on 31 March 2002 because enough money had been
collected to pay off the construction debts for bridge and tunnels and to
accumulate a suitable maintenance fund. The existing Dartford River
Crossing
Ltd company was liquidated and a new company took control of the crossing
on
behalf of the Highways Agancy and they collect a crossing *charge* which
goes to the government in full for redistribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartford_crossing

So at Dartford it's definitely not a toll, and may well be a tax ...

I refer the honourable newsnaut to the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act
1988 which contains multiple references to the relevant "tolls".


Schedule 6 of The Act defines the period for which said tolls can be
collected, which ended as described above.

--
DAS

On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 09:56:05 +0100, "D A Stocks"
wrote:

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 22:22:41 +0100, "D A Stocks"
wrote:

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message 01cc34f6$316c92e0$LocalHost@default, at 18:30:08 on Mon, 27
Jun 2011, Michael R N Dolbear remarked:
The US embassy is relying on the statement made by Ken Livingston that
the congestion charge was a tax - he was so excited that he let mouth
run away when the tax was first introduced

Interesting.

Has anyone produced a reasoned argument about the difference between a
tax and a toll ?

Tolls are rarely charged on routes you *have* to use, there's normally a
"long way round". Which doesn't exist for the US Embassy, being inside
the
zone. So it's a lot more like car tax, than say the Dartford Toll.
Wouldn't they get a 90% residents' discount anyway?

I believe that a toll is money collected to pay for the construction and
upkeep of the asset being used.

The Dartford Toll, and the PFI concession under which the Queen Elizabeth
II
Bridge was built, ended on 31 March 2002 because enough money had been
collected to pay off the construction debts for bridge and tunnels and to
accumulate a suitable maintenance fund. The existing Dartford River
Crossing
Ltd company was liquidated and a new company took control of the crossing
on
behalf of the Highways Agancy and they collect a crossing *charge* which
goes to the government in full for redistribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dartford_crossing

So at Dartford it's definitely not a toll, and may well be a tax ...

I refer the honourable newsnaut to the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act
1988 which contains multiple references to the relevant "tolls".


Schedule 6 of The Act defines the period for which said tolls can be
collected, which ended as described above.

In which case you might be looking at an official "charge" (in reality
still a toll for using a bridge or a tunnel) not a tax :-
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2...chedule/2/made
[The A282 Trunk Road (Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Charging Scheme)
Order 2008]