On 14/05/2016 01:22, wrote:

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 13:06:58 on Fri, 13 May
2016, d remarked:

I doubt roads pay their way either even after road and fuel tax have been
taken into account. The M25 widening alone is costing over £100 million
a year.

Fuel Duty alone is 28 billion, and that doesn't include the 5.6bn VAT
on duty. VED is another (roughly) £6bn.

Road costs far exceed that. you are overlooking policing and health costs
for a start.

Oh dear... here come the made-up figures again...

Incidentally, is there a cost associated with ambulances not being able
to get injured people to hospital because of obstruction, etc?

On 14/05/2016 08:51, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:22:50
on Fri, 13 May 2016, remarked:

I doubt roads pay their way either even after road and fuel tax have
been
taken into account. The M25 widening alone is costing over £100 million
a year.

Fuel Duty alone is 28 billion, and that doesn't include the 5.6bn VAT
on duty. VED is another (roughly) £6bn.

Road costs far exceed that. you are overlooking policing and health costs
for a start.

Roads also allow the police to get to burglaries, and for ambulances to
get to patients and hospitals.

Oops!

Well, most of the time...

Do you have any numbers for your "costs" above? Apparently the Highways
Agency spends £1.5bn a year, and councils £3.1bn on road maintenance.

On 14/05/2016 09:19, Robin9 wrote:

;155709 Wrote:
In article , (Roland
Perry)
wrote:
-
In message , at 13:06:58 on Fri, 13 May
2016, d remarked:
-
I doubt roads pay their way either even after road and fuel tax have
been
taken into account. The M25 widening alone is costing over £100 million

a year.-

Fuel Duty alone is 28 billion, and that doesn't include the 5.6bn VAT
on duty. VED is another (roughly) £6bn.-

Road costs far exceed that. you are overlooking policing and health
costs
for a start.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

You'e in danger here of putting out the same red herrings
the anti-motor car brigade is so fond of.

Very rarely does anyone quantify the full road costs, but
on the few occasions anyone was so rash, their figures
were quickly disproved. The revenue raised from motorists
goes to the Treasury but local roads are the responsibility
of local councils who have their own revenue streams.
So when the total cost of all roads is calculated, the input
from local authorities should not be ignored. It should also
be remembered that much of the expenditure today on roads
has nothing to do with motor vehicles, e.g the cycle super
highways or the disgraceful "mini-Holland" schemes now
blighting The London Borough Of Waltham Forest, and
therefore that expenditure should not be set against the
revenue from motorists.

Similarly, the policing and health decoy should be taken with
a very large pinch of salt. First, motorists do not only pay
motor related taxes. They also pay the same taxes other
people pay, and that combined tax revenue pays for police
and health services. Second, if money were not spent on roads,
police and health costs would go up, not down. Third, the health
consequences of motoring are far higher than necessary because
of decisions by anti-motor car politicians. (I note with great
optimism that the new Mayor seems to have noticed this)

Most important of all, spending money on roads is far cheaper
than financing a hopelessly inadequate public transport alternative.

Burn the heretic!

His remarks are totally unsupportive of The Project and have no place in
a closed-mind world like that of public transport and local politics.

In message , at 10:19:00 on Sat, 14
May 2016, Robin9 remarked:

Very rarely does anyone quantify the full road costs, but
on the few occasions anyone was so rash, their figures
were quickly disproved. The revenue raised from motorists
goes to the Treasury but local roads are the responsibility
of local councils who have their own revenue streams.

And their revenue stream for Highway maintenance (and even vanity
projects like Busways, new bypasses and new railway stations) comes
mainly from the government.

In Cambridgeshire where Colin and I live, the County's overall funding
comes 46% from council tax payers (£255m) and 54% from government grants
(£294m).

It's difficult to unpick the "roads" budget because - perhaps special to
Cambs - a big chunk is dedicated to cycleways[1] - however the car
related component is around £40m a year; which this year includes about
£10m for the Ely bypass whose main beneficiary is the railways, and is
as far as I can tell almost completely grant-funded, the county's
exposure being limited to the cost of building the business case.

[1] Which as far as I can see go largely un-used, so it's a waste.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:33:29 on Sat, 14
May 2016, JNugent remarked:

Incidentally, is there a cost associated with ambulances not being able
to get injured people to hospital because of obstruction, etc?

If only there was a way to fit them with devices to warn of their
approach and allow other vehicles to give way, and for them to ignore
traffic lights, speed limits and other artificially introduced
obstructions.
--
Roland Perry

On 14/05/2016 12:55, Roland Perry wrote:

JNugent remarked:

Incidentally, is there a cost associated with ambulances not being
able to get injured people to hospital because of obstruction, etc?

If only there was a way to fit them with devices to warn of their
approach and allow other vehicles to give way, and for them to ignore
traffic lights, speed limits and other artificially introduced
obstructions...

....and in particular, to be able to send out a magic ray which opens
padlocked gates.

In message , at 15:56:37 on Sat, 14
May 2016, JNugent remarked:
Incidentally, is there a cost associated with ambulances not being
able to get injured people to hospital because of obstruction, etc?

If only there was a way to fit them with devices to warn of their
approach and allow other vehicles to give way, and for them to ignore
traffic lights, speed limits and other artificially introduced
obstructions...

...and in particular, to be able to send out a magic ray which opens
padlocked gates.

Best to stick to the vast majority of roads that don't have them.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 14/05/2016 08:51, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:22:50
on Fri, 13 May 2016, remarked:

I doubt roads pay their way either even after road and fuel tax have
been taken into account. The M25 widening alone is costing over £100
million a year.

Fuel Duty alone is 28 billion, and that doesn't include the 5.6bn VAT
on duty. VED is another (roughly) £6bn.

Road costs far exceed that. you are overlooking policing and health
costs for a start.

Roads also allow the police to get to burglaries, and for ambulances to
get to patients and hospitals.

Oops!

Well, most of the time...

ALL the time. You're believing the Daily Telegraph again.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 14/05/2016 19:18, wrote:
In article ,
(JNugent) wrote:

On 14/05/2016 08:51, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:22:50
on Fri, 13 May 2016, remarked:

I doubt roads pay their way either even after road and fuel tax have
been taken into account. The M25 widening alone is costing over £100
million a year.

Fuel Duty alone is 28 billion, and that doesn't include the 5.6bn VAT
on duty. VED is another (roughly) £6bn.

Road costs far exceed that. you are overlooking policing and health
costs for a start.

Roads also allow the police to get to burglaries, and for ambulances to
get to patients and hospitals.

Oops!

Well, most of the time...

ALL the time. You're believing the Daily Telegraph again.

Really?

Are you sure?

Would you like me to cite an occasion when an ambulance was prevented
from getting to the hospital in the oddest of circumstances?

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 10:19:00 on Sat,
14 May 2016, Robin9 remarked:

Very rarely does anyone quantify the full road costs, but
on the few occasions anyone was so rash, their figures
were quickly disproved. The revenue raised from motorists
goes to the Treasury but local roads are the responsibility
of local councils who have their own revenue streams.

And their revenue stream for Highway maintenance (and even vanity
projects like Busways, new bypasses and new railway stations) comes
mainly from the government.

In Cambridgeshire where Colin and I live, the County's overall
funding comes 46% from council tax payers (£255m) and 54% from
government grants (£294m).

It's difficult to unpick the "roads" budget because - perhaps special
to Cambs - a big chunk is dedicated to cycleways[1] - however the car
related component is around £40m a year; which this year includes
about £10m for the Ely bypass whose main beneficiary is the railways,
and is as far as I can tell almost completely grant-funded, the
county's exposure being limited to the cost of building the business
case.

[1] Which as far as I can see go largely un-used, so it's a waste.

That's a very stupid remark. That cycleways are well used is obvious if you
look at the proportion of cycle commuters to Cambridge, by far the highest
in the UK.

--
Colin Rosenstiel