A Levels Essay
This document consists of 8 printed pages.
Answer ALL questions.
Question 1
Car population and pollution
Extract 1: Road pricing makes good economic sense. But voters hate it
Britain’s sclerotic roads learned that the recent global financial catastrophe had slightly improved their lives: traffic volume has fallen by about 3% since the start of the recession. But the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), warned drivers that it would not last: traffic has risen remorselessly and a return to growth seems inevitable as the economy recovers. Congestion does more than irritate drivers. It makes employees and deliveries late, it snarls up modern “just-in-time” supply chains and it clogs up labour markets by making commuting difficult. The cost of all this is almost impossible to measure. But a big review of transport put the cost between £7 billion and £8 billion a year.
To fix the problem, the CBI offers a couple of ideas. First, it wants to see more flexible working, with employees staying at home or staggering their hours, spreading the traffic load over more hours in the day. Second, it wants to see more money spent on building new roads and widening existing ones. Third, it wants to encourage better use of existing roads. All these will help, but at best they merely chip at the edges of the problem. The CBI’s big idea is to match supply with demand using a system of nationwide road tolling. To economists the case for road charging is simple. The problem is not a lack of capacity, but a failure to allocate it properly. A system of charges would be fairer than the current means of paying for roads from a mixture of fuel duties and general tax revenue. For the politicians, though, road charging is lethal. The public’s first suspicion is that pricing would be just another tax, an interpretation that would seem plausible with today’s eye-watering budget deficits.
Source: The Economist, 15 March 2010
[pic]
Source: Land Transport Authority,
Answer ALL questions.
Question 1
Car population and pollution
Extract 1: Road pricing makes good economic sense. But voters hate it
Britain’s sclerotic roads learned that the recent global financial catastrophe had slightly improved their lives: traffic volume has fallen by about 3% since the start of the recession. But the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), warned drivers that it would not last: traffic has risen remorselessly and a return to growth seems inevitable as the economy recovers. Congestion does more than irritate drivers. It makes employees and deliveries late, it snarls up modern “just-in-time” supply chains and it clogs up labour markets by making commuting difficult. The cost of all this is almost impossible to measure. But a big review of transport put the cost between £7 billion and £8 billion a year.
To fix the problem, the CBI offers a couple of ideas. First, it wants to see more flexible working, with employees staying at home or staggering their hours, spreading the traffic load over more hours in the day. Second, it wants to see more money spent on building new roads and widening existing ones. Third, it wants to encourage better use of existing roads. All these will help, but at best they merely chip at the edges of the problem. The CBI’s big idea is to match supply with demand using a system of nationwide road tolling. To economists the case for road charging is simple. The problem is not a lack of capacity, but a failure to allocate it properly. A system of charges would be fairer than the current means of paying for roads from a mixture of fuel duties and general tax revenue. For the politicians, though, road charging is lethal. The public’s first suspicion is that pricing would be just another tax, an interpretation that would seem plausible with today’s eye-watering budget deficits.
Source: The Economist, 15 March 2010
[pic]
Source: Land Transport Authority,