Guest pelmetman Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Robinhood - 2014-08-17 4:56 PM pelmetman - 2014-08-17 4:36 PM Robinhood - 2014-08-17 4:06 PM http://assets.highways.gov.uk/our-road-network/the-dartford-thurrock-river-crossing/S120518%20Dartford%20Crossing%20Account%202011-12%20web%20version.pdf Did you really read all that Robin? :-S...................On a Sunday 8-)........... ........................before breakfast! ;-) Think I'll stick to Chatterbox :D..................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 pelmetman - 2014-08-17 5:17 PM Robinhood - 2014-08-17 4:56 PM pelmetman - 2014-08-17 4:36 PM Robinhood - 2014-08-17 4:06 PM http://assets.highways.gov.uk/our-road-network/the-dartford-thurrock-river-crossing/S120518%20Dartford%20Crossing%20Account%202011-12%20web%20version.pdf Did you really read all that Robin? :-S...................On a Sunday 8-)........... ........................before breakfast! ;-) Think I'll stick to Chatterbox :D..................... ......if only....... :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Robinhood - 2014-08-17 5:20 PM pelmetman - 2014-08-17 5:17 PM Robinhood - 2014-08-17 4:56 PM pelmetman - 2014-08-17 4:36 PM Robinhood - 2014-08-17 4:06 PM http://assets.highways.gov.uk/our-road-network/the-dartford-thurrock-river-crossing/S120518%20Dartford%20Crossing%20Account%202011-12%20web%20version.pdf Did you really read all that Robin? :-S...................On a Sunday 8-)........... ........................before breakfast! ;-) Think I'll stick to Chatterbox :D..................... ......if only....... :-S Aaaw don't say that Robin :'(................I know my mate Frank would miss me :D........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted August 17, 2014 Share Posted August 17, 2014 Robinhood - 2014-08-17 4:06 PM Had Enough - 2014-08-17 3:38 PM Brian Kirby - 2014-08-17 11:46 AM Apologies for this, Frank, lifted from Wiki: No need to apologise. Clearly I was wrong. I knew that the bridge was a PFI and lazily assumed that it all was. Thanks for putting me right. ....actually, neither of you are correct, though there is an element of truth in both camps. (You really shouldn't believe Wiki, Brian ;-) ). Arrangements are, and have been, considerably more convoluted than this, and the following Government document gives a good overview of the history: http://assets.highways.gov.uk/our-road-network/the-dartford-thurrock-river-crossing/S120518%20Dartford%20Crossing%20Account%202011-12%20web%20version.pdf I'm glad I apologised for the Wiki snip after reading all that! :-) My turn to stand corrected! So, in short we are both kind of wrong, while being kind of right. What a mare's nest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 The best way to collect road tax is on the price of fuel. Cheap to collect, and those who own bigger vehicles or drive the furthest automatically pay more. Only problem is the Government is already taxing fuel as much as it can get away with. Our foreign competitors are already bringing all their own diesel in with them. So the Government is constantly looking for more stealth taxes like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 Brian Kirby - 2014-08-17 11:01 PM Robinhood - 2014-08-17 4:06 PM Had Enough - 2014-08-17 3:38 PM Brian Kirby - 2014-08-17 11:46 AM Apologies for this, Frank, lifted from Wiki: No need to apologise. Clearly I was wrong. I knew that the bridge was a PFI and lazily assumed that it all was. Thanks for putting me right. ....actually, neither of you are correct, though there is an element of truth in both camps. (You really shouldn't believe Wiki, Brian ;-) ). Arrangements are, and have been, considerably more convoluted than this, and the following Government document gives a good overview of the history: http://assets.highways.gov.uk/our-road-network/the-dartford-thurrock-river-crossing/S120518%20Dartford%20Crossing%20Account%202011-12%20web%20version.pdf I'm glad I apologised for the Wiki snip after reading all that! :-) My turn to stand corrected! So, in short we are both kind of wrong, while being kind of right. What a mare's nest! Oh Dear! Now replying to myself! :-| But, on second thoughts, it is the history that confuses, with the present situation not being quite so complex as I at first thought (always assuming I have, actually, understood! :-)). So, if I've got the story right, broadly, the original PFI and the two tunnel agreements expired, and were morphed into a DBOF contract with a special purpose entity that now maintains the M25, and 250 miles (undefined in the document) of connecting motorway under a contract with the DfT. Within that contract, they acquire responsibility for maintaining the two Dartford tunnels and the bridge, and for collecting the tolls, which are set by the DfT. They return to treasury the (£30 odd million, but variable) surplus from the tolls (to be used by DfT only for "Transport" purposes) after operating and maintenance costs on the bridge and tunnels is deducted. With the number of vehicle movements annually over the crossing, eradicating that surplus would not much diminish the charge, but it would then risk the figure going negative from time to time, with no vehicle for recovering the deficit other than increasing charges again. So, the status quo is probably better, with a relatively small surplus being generated on each toll charged, than having larger, and unpredictable, annual price fluctuations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 So, if I've got the story right, broadly, the original PFI and the two tunnel agreements expired, and were morphed into a DBOF contract with a special purpose entity that now maintains the M25, and 250 miles (undefined in the document) of connecting motorway under a contract with the DfT. Within that contract, they acquire responsibility for maintaining the two Dartford tunnels and the bridge, and for collecting the tolls, which are set by the DfT. They return to treasury the (£30 odd million, but variable) surplus from the tolls (to be used by DfT only for "Transport" purposes) after operating and maintenance costs on the bridge and tunnels is deducted. ....with the caveat that one should use a level of "suspension of belief" in reading Government papers (much like Wiki, but for different reasons ;-) ), I still don't think you're quite there (though only in respect of the financial mechanics). As I read it, the DBFO contract is essentially a "fixed price" (in so far as these arrangements ever really are), with a monthly sum being paid by the DFT for the overall provision of services. All income received from the arrangement (essentially the toll money) is passed gross to the DFT, and the surplus from the two transactions is currently around the £40m pa mark. It's not a bad (financial) arrangement (if all the appropriate controls are in place), but I suspect it has much to do with the expressed avoidance of hypothecation, whereby the surplus goes into general transport funds, not simply works associated with (however loosely) the DBFO infrastructure. I also note that, hidden somewhere in the document, it is flagging the expectation of an increased Toll Charge from the date of introduction of the automated collection. :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 Robinhood - 2014-08-18 11:45 AM.................All income received from the arrangement (essentially the toll money) is passed gross to the DFT, and the surplus from the two transactions is currently around the £40m pa mark...................... I'm sure you're right, and my oversimplified explanation was backside foremost. No one could allow the contractor to take the gross and hand over what was left after expenses on a public contract. They'd get lynched! I agree that there are a lot of potential caveats, and several somewhat "delphic" glossings of possibly awkward details, especially around the definition of "transport purposes" New car for the Director? Well, it is for transport! :-) But, in principle, though complicated, reasonable. But, I'd love to know whether the total tolls raised yield more than the true combined costs to both contractor and DfT staff of administering the tolling scheme, including their various recording, accountancy and audit costs, electronic or otherwise. Somehow, it just seems to me that for the globally small sums involved, it might be cheaper to dump the tolls, and with them all the staff and admin work they bring in their wake. That would surely be far simpler than part time tolls, with all the attendant provisions for collecting the revenue and arguing the toss with dissatisfied motorists who get caught out. One building contractor, some years back, was particularly notorious for their aggression in pursuing contractual claims. They acquired such a bad reputation that they begain to realise it was damaging their business, and they carried out a review of their claims practises. They employed a large team of surveyors to pursue the claims who, inevitably, lost as well as won, including in court - when legal costs added to the bills. Also, of those that went to court, few were settled 100% in their favour, with costs often apportioned, or awarded against. Taking account of the reputational damage, they decided to drastically reduce the size of their claims department as they could see that it was doing them more harm than good, and was mainly just paying the costs of maintaining itself, with little financial benefit to the firm overall. Dartford crossing tolls just seem to me a bit similar! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spadge Posted August 18, 2014 Share Posted August 18, 2014 I must be one of the lucky one's. Having always used the Dartford Crossing there and back. From the change date when I arrive at the M1 / M25 junc on the way to the continent I will turn right for Heathrow & Dover instead of left for the Dartford crossing. Only an extra 15 mile ' ish' and won't have to worry at all about paying. Nice !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 This "road" is part of an important road network. With all the taxes road users pay it still amazes me that people have not protested more to have these tolls and the tolls on all bridges in England and Wales removed I notice there has never been any toll on the "bridge " on the M6 over the Manchester to Liverpool canal. Not to get involved in the Scottish Referendum, tolls in Scotland were scrapped a number of years as the bridge crossings were deemed to be part of the transport links. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted August 19, 2014 Share Posted August 19, 2014 Mikey - 2014-08-19 7:44 AM This "road" is part of an important road network. With all the taxes road users pay it still amazes me that people have not protested more to have these tolls and the tolls on all bridges in England and Wales removed I notice there has never been any toll on the "bridge " on the M6 over the Manchester to Liverpool canal. Not to get involved in the Scottish Referendum, tolls in Scotland were scrapped a number of years as the bridge crossings were deemed to be part of the transport links. It's not as simple as that surely? It could be argued that people who never use motorways should not have part of their motoring taxes contributing to expensive tunnels and bridges so that some rich Londoners can travel more quickly. When the railways were nationalised you may well have argued that all train travel should be free, but again, this means that those who never use trains are subsidising those who do. If anything, the fairest system is that in use in France for example, where those who wish to use expensively-constructed motorways pay for them as they use them. How is this any different from having to buy a train ticket? I accept that some countries with larger land masses lend themselves to tolling and, even in France, tolls are often abandoned in large urban conurbations. Possibly though that's only because it's not economical having toll booths on the large number of junctions necessary in big cities and perhaps to ensure that city roads aren't clogged by those with an aversion to paying for anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted August 20, 2014 Share Posted August 20, 2014 Had Enough - 2014-08-19 8:19 AM..............If anything, the fairest system is that in use in France for example, where those who wish to use expensively-constructed motorways pay for them as they use them. How is this any different from having to buy a train ticket?............... But even then it's not quite that simple, as the French pay no equivalent of VED for access to their road network. Also, the toll autoroutes were built by, and are maintained by, private entities, whose costs are reimbursed via the tolls, much like the pre-nationalisation railways. Truth to tell, state provision of any form of transport infrastructure is going to please some (mostly those who get good use of it) and displease others (mostly those who don't). But then, is this not equally true for all state provision? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.