Dutch drivers to pay tax on road time, not on car

[CPBO]

AMSTERDAM (AP) -- Dutch drivers will pay less to buy a car but will be charged tax for every mike on the road, a system the government says will reduce traffic jams, fatal accidents and carbon emissions.

 

The Cabinet approved a bill Friday calling for drivers of an average passenger car to pay a base rate of euro0.03 per 1 kilometer (7 US cents per mile), beginning in 2012. Drivers of heavier, more polluting vehicles will pay more, and the cost will go up for driving in peak hours.

 

GPS will track the time, hour and place each car moves and send the data to a billing agency.

 

But the annual road tax and purchase tax for new cars will be abolished, reducing the price of a new car 25 percent, the Transport Ministry said.

 

Nearly 6 out of 10 drivers will benefit under the system, the ministry said, but government revenue would remain the same. Public transportation, including taxis, will be exempt.

 

The kilometer tax has been debated for several years, amid concerns that it would unjustly raise the cost of car travel and intrude on privacy.

 

The ministry said, however, the travel information would be protected, and the data would not be accessible to the government for other purposes.

 

The ministry calculated that overall traffic will drop about 15 percent, peak-hour congestion will be halved, traffic deaths will fall 7 percent and carbon emissions from road travel will be cut by 10 percent.

 

The tax will increase every year until 2018 and could be adjusted if it fails to change traffic patterns.

 

© 2009 The Associated Press

 

 

For me this is goverment going to far.......

[metsfan]

They got busses trains trams streetcars trollies out the wazoo there, they really only need to drive for specific stuff that just doesn't work with transit.

 

Their rail map:

 

 

They are doing the right thing, soon they will not depend at all on fossil fuels.

 

Our pitiful map:

 

 

What it could be (what it was):

 

 

- A

[CPBO]

They got busses trains trams streetcars trollies out the wazoo there, they really only need to drive for specific stuff that just doesn't work with transit.

 

Their rail map:

 

 

They are doing the right thing, soon they will not depend at all on fossil fuels.

 

Our pitiful map:

 

 

What it could be (what it was):

 

 

- A

 

I just came back from over there.....I don't remember seeing so many trains.....now trolly's forget about it......but come on the cars they drive are like a toyota yaris.......they are not into big suv's like we are.......this law is like making it only for the rich to be able to drive....this will hit the middle class and lower class hard.......I don't think it is a good idea......this is a way for the goverment to keep a steady streem of cash for them to burn thru......:tdown:

[MAA89]

I don't see anything wrong with this. Taxing people on a pay-as-you-use basis certainly seems fairer than imposing one on a yearly basis regardless of income considerations and how frequently a person uses the car. This system should ensure that revenues will be proportional to traffic volume and thus road maintenance/improvement funds can be allocated based on usage data.

 

@Metsfan: Your first US rail map shows the proposed US high-speed rail network, not an existing network. The $8 billion dollars Obama has promised for developing high speed rail is a pittance and will do nothing to reduce dependence on cars. In any case, what good is a high-speed rail network that doesn't link cities like NYC and Chicago directly, let alone far-flung ones. (To get to Chicago, one would still need to transfer from the NEC to the Keystone Corridor to Pittsburgh, then take regular rail or automobile before entering the Chicago hub's network for the remaining part of the journey. Most people would prefer to avoid the multiple transfers and fly instead).

 

I don't understand why the high-speed rail network is so limited in scope. The French TGV would cover the distance between LA and Chicago (about 1740 miles) in just over 10 hours (compared to 42 hours today), making it practical to link these directly. Why does USA's high speed rail have to be regional and not national in scope?

[lilbluefoxie]

What may work in Europe wont necisarily work here, The Nederlands has a very large mass transit system, as does most of europe, the only city that could come close to european service levels is New York City, not counting the suburbs.

 

Lets wait till theres actually a viable, reliable, efficient alternative before trying to take away American's automobiles

[metsfan]

I don't see anything wrong with this. Taxing people on a pay-as-you-use basis certainly seems fairer than imposing one on a yearly basis regardless of income considerations and how frequently a person uses the car. This system should ensure that revenues will be proportional to traffic volume and thus road maintenance/improvement funds can be allocated based on usage data.

 

@Metsfan: Your first US rail map shows the proposed US high-speed rail network, not an existing network. The $8 billion dollars Obama has promised for developing high speed rail is a pittance and will do nothing to reduce dependence on cars. In any case, what good is a high-speed rail network that doesn't link cities like NYC and Chicago directly, let alone far-flung ones. (To get to Chicago, one would still need to transfer from the NEC to the Keystone Corridor to Pittsburgh, then take regular rail or automobile before entering the Chicago hub's network for the remaining part of the journey. Most people would prefer to avoid the multiple transfers and fly instead).

 

I don't understand why the high-speed rail network is so limited in scope. The French TGV would cover the distance between LA and Chicago (about 1740 miles) in just over 10 hours (compared to 42 hours today), making it practical to link these directly. Why does USA's high speed rail have to be regional and not national in scope?

 

The rail network that i posted is the one used by amtrak, with high speed corridors identified within using differing colors. Sure transit uses a bit more, but for the most part these are the passenger rail lines of the country.

 

Another example:

 

What it used to be:

 

What we have to work with currently:

 

From 1915 to around 1983 we lost about 75,000 track miles. You know that huge gap between the great northern/empire builder and the next trans-continental route south of it? It's supposed to have the Milwaukee Road. Gone.

 

- A

[MAA89]

@Metsfan: The following image:

 

 

is identical to one you posted earlier and clearly shows there are only 10 designated high-speed corridors (in bold red), centered on major cities. The rest of the lines (grey) are all low-speed and will not improve the rail infrastructure in any way.

 

It surprises me that a high-speed rail network is being planned without a single transcontinental high-speed line. Common sense would dictate that any early system would at least link the California network to Chicago in order to provide coast-to-coast access.

 

I understand the idea is to take cars off the road for intrastate/regional travel, but in order to make a significant environmental contribution (I don't much care about the environment, but I like the theory anyway) would compete with middle to long-distance air travel (3 to 5 hour flights) as it does in Europe. Chicago to LA seems like one flight (about 4 hours) that could be competed with, even though the train may take 10 hours, it would avoid long lines and run-ins with airport security.

 

I often wonder what would happen to the Interstate Highway System if high-speed rail were to be successful. Assuming it would then be used chiefly to transport freight (trucking), that would still not "take vehicles off the road". As much as I am a proponent of train travel, I would hate to see the largest public works project in history become a relic of history.

 

Sorry about taking the thread off-topic; I'll start a new one if you like.

[metsfan]

There are ideas, proposals plans etc, some are really worth looking at even, that would replace 26% of interstate automobile lanes with tracks & trains that would run specifically between cities as in a rapid shuttle type service, combined with the existing rail network being upgraded & electrified AGV type stuff. Then there are still others that want to put a rail track on every lane of automobile road. Fantastic, but not practical unless 90% of it was streetcars.

 

As for the empire line & these ideas, maybe broadway/9 should get an inter-urban.

 

Edit: That's the first time i ever put boradway & 9 together like that and it just hit me, the was such because it ran partly on broadway.... :eek:

 

- A

[Citaro]

High Speed Rail map of Europe

 

French rail map, 1920

 

German rail map, 1910