Is it time to raise motor fuel duty?

[yorkie]

I thought his point was quite obvious. He would like all car drivers to use train and other public transport for a week to see how it is not fit for purpose for a great number of people.

I think people are talking at cross purposes here.

The idea that people could suddenly and instantly switch to public transport for a week would not work because the capacity would be there.

But if capacity was increased, that would be a rather different matter.

 

[jon0844]

Another issue is that over the last 10-20 years, probably a lot of people have moved out of cities to enjoy a better quality of living - from more internal space in a home to a garden etc. Work/Life balance is very much an important part of life, and if you're not well paid then city living can be a real drain financially and emotionally (think too about bringing up a family etc).

They could move because of the freedom afforded to them by a car. Some may commute by train once they've moved, but likely have to drive to a station as in many cases buses don't exist, did exist and were cut in the last 10 years, or have had hours of operation slashed. You might have a bus if you work very strict hours, but vary those and you'll either be too early for the first bus, or too late for the last. If one bus isn't available, you'll drive.

New build estates may be a lot further from a station than you could cycle (especially if it involves narrow NSL country roads), while some buses may be funded from S106 money for a certain period and disappear thereafter never to be seen again.

If one day we ever considered public transport to be essential and were willing to subsidise loss-leading services 'for the greater good' then we could potentially provide transportation that suits more people, but let's be honest - that's not likely to happen anytime soon, if ever. Another idea might be to surface public footpaths to make them usable for cycling, as there are a myriad of paths around me that I can walk or cycle for leisure - but once it rains, some are impassable without traipsing through mud and water - ruling out these shortcuts away from heavy vehicles.

So some people will always need a car, even if for not a lot of the time. They could potentially be the ideal customers for those sub-mini style EVs that companies from China can sell you for £4 or £5k (let's ignore for now crash safety etc- many are little more than an e-bike with a protective shell) and perhaps this is the ideal solution for some.. but we're not there yet.

 

[GB]

I think people are talking at cross purposes here.

The idea that people could suddenly and instantly switch to public transport for a week would not work because the capacity would be there.

But if capacity was increased, that would be a rather different matter.

How would you increase the capacity to the point that would be needed? Even if you could if the train still takes double the time to do the journey in a car then car ownership wont be going anywhere.

 

[squizzler]

I’m not sure that pricing is the mechanism that should be used. Better to ration petrol (or mileage). That is what they did in the 1939-45 national emergency, why not with the climate emergency?

Much fairer if you can’t buy more entitlement.

 

[deltic]

It was impossible to run trains or buses before mass car ownership, because the bus and train drivers couldn't get to work. That's why passenger railways started to be constructed in the 1960s

Like!!


Taking account of inflation petrol prices have been considerably higher in the past and the world didnt fall apart. Since 2005 there have been 81 months where the price of petrol was higher than in October this year (latest comparable data available from Office for National Statistics).

Its clear fuel prices are too low and one of the reasons why emissions from road transport are virtually unchanged over the last few decades.

 

[dakta]

I don't think increased rail capacity will make a massive difference as I think the issue will be that trains don't go to where people work, the ones that do will do it slow and if you need a bus to a train station, you'll likely add a bus to the place of work at other end.

Used to do it at college, if you had 3 hours of your life to spare you could do it in 2 buses (one into town and then a really long one that went to where you live via everywhere else first), but if you wanted to be home in about 2 and a half? - you could do bus then train then bus. In a car I got it down to 40 mins.

it's not just about having to take multiple buses though, it can also be the overheads added by the waiting in-between and that can be significant part of ones day.

Fuel is a significant expense and I don't think it should go any higher, I think the only reason it's tolerated is because it looks great value compared to trains. I'd actually fall into the bracket of people who would use trains more if the price fell, but likely only for leisure as we've now come the loop of trains not going near where I need to be, and the alternatives being ridiculously unfeasible.

Another thing is, if you look at it in terms of duty increases being frozen you might come up with a (mathematically accurate?) idea that motorists have had it too good, but i'd rather look at it from the other side. Do people have the money to pay it? Let's face it PT is not going to be cheaper (not in any future I can foresee anyway) so i think the more likely outcome is people just get priced out of jobs.

 

[Meole]

Country badly need the taxation revenue which car users can generally afford ?

 

[dakta]

If you're insistent on motorists making up some of the shortfall can't we tax electric vehicles or something, whilst they might be better for the environment and warrant some discount I'll only be confident they are not emitting anything when you don't have to hook it up to Drax, and the batteries melt into something useful

Nothing against discounts but if money's tight lets start with cutting the freebies?

 

[Starmill]

I thought his point was quite obvious. He would like all car drivers to use train and other public transport for a week to see how it is not fit for purpose for a great number of people.

But that is by definition meaningless. Nobody is proposing a switch in the space of a week. And indeed as others have said if that many extra people were going to be using public transport in the future it would be economic to do the upgrades now.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Dec 2021 ==

If you're insistent on motorists making up some of the shortfall can't we tax electric vehicles or something, whilst they might be better for the environment and warrant some discount I'll only be confident they are not emitting anything when you don't have to hook it up to Drax, and the batteries melt into something useful

Nothing against discounts but if money's tight lets start with cutting the freebies?

I think we have absolutely no choice but to go down this route of road pricing eventually. I also think that free parking and free congestion charge for EVs should be withdrawn.

 

[dakta]

I was surprised (I understand it's not the case any longer) that initially at least charging cars at certain points was free. Not cheap, not priced to incentivise people to use them, but literally - free. Same with tax.

Anyone reasonable, even if not with me in the rest of my views surely has to realise how daft and unviable this is, wind is doing much more than it ever has done and that's fab but electric cars (especially if they increase in numbers) are going to be significantly powered by gas, and if they rise too sharply then it might even fall back on coal depending on how well the infrastructure can cope.

*I concede that it's more efficient to make a fixed amount of power in a turbine hall than under the bonnet of a hatchback, but that does not make you emission free

Ignoring all the above, the other unintended effect of this is that people who can afford new electric vehicles to start with, get heavily discounted motoring and is another, if unintentional impact of giving poorer people a harder time in the same stroke is making life easier for the wealthier. It's easy for some to take a viewpoint that the fuel-consuming motorist can take a bit extra hit when they're not burdened with pulling their own weight.

The world would have to change significantly in terms of infrastructure and even society for a mass reduction in personal transport to be viable. IMO

 

[jon0844]

Are any totally free, or just deals done with car makers to give a certain level of free charging (often at a lower speed) and thus not free to all?

I expect supermarkets and other places could choose to take the hit themselves to appear green, but I can't see that lasting either. At most a discount for shoppers, like a Clubcard bonus for Tesco etc.

Definitely the many benefits for EVs or low emission vehicles will eventually go. I don't think people want EVs to be free, but just to have them become more affordable (they are), better for local pollution (bar tyre and brake dust) and cheaper to maintain over time.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Fuel is a significant expense and I don't think it should go any higher, I think the only reason it's tolerated is because it looks great value compared to trains. I'd actually fall into the bracket of people who would use trains more if the price fell, but likely only for leisure as we've now come the loop of trains not going near where I need to be, and the alternatives being ridiculously unfeasible.

The problem is that, you have to set that expense of fuel with the huge amount of damage that motoring does to other people and to the wider community. From pollution to congestion to the associated lack of exercise putting pressure on the health service to the cost of maintaining roads to the space taken up by parked cars everywhere to the accidents to the general feeling of being unsafe and loss of quality of life that people suffer from cars driving through their neighbourhoods to the noise etc. etc. There's a very good argument that, when you add up those costs and compare with the revenue from fuel duties, it turns out that motorists are actually being subsidised to drive (by virtue of not having to pay the full costs to the community of their driving). Throw in that, the more people drive, the less viable public transport is, which harms all those who can't drive, and you have a very good argument for making driving a bit more expensive, so that the motorist pays the actual cost of driving and is free to decide whether each journey is worth that actual cost (rather than - as now - motorists deciding whether each journey is worth the implicitly subsidised cost).

The key however is that it has to be done gradually, so that people have time to adjust lifestyles and for public transport to improve. And with an expectation that, although this will eventually cause some modal shift to public transport, there will still be many journeys where the car remains best (Despite a few heated remarks on this thread, I don't actually think anyone is disputing that there are many journeys that wil always need to be made by cars).

 

[dakta]

Free do still exist as I understand it but they have reduced a lot (also depends what you have). Tax I beleive is still free.

Reduced cost I can go with but free was barmy.

Complete tangent but as a youth I was surprised to see a picture of a tram going into Batley on the wall of a local eatery, if you know Batley it's just not what you expect at all (trams for me is what you go to blackpool or sheffield for)

apparently it was quite common even in smaller towns and a business case must have existed as well as loads and I mean loads of railway lines that don't exist today, I know the subject has done to death but these clearly existed for a reason so if we're not careful with the cost of things, we don't have this to fall back on. I appreciate this isn't a comprehensive point, more an observation that perhaps without cars, transport life required things to be very significantly developed elsewhere. I'm not sure if we could easily get back to that

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Dec 2021 ==

Are any totally free, or just deals done with car makers to give a certain level of free charging (often at a lower speed) and thus not free to all?

I expect supermarkets and other places could choose to take the hit themselves to appear green, but I can't see that lasting either. At most a discount for shoppers, like a Clubcard bonus for Tesco etc.

Definitely the many benefits for EVs or low emission vehicles will eventually go. I don't think people want EVs to be free, but just to have them become more affordable (they are), better for local pollution (bar tyre and brake dust) and cheaper to maintain over time.

I know where you're coming from, but a lot of motorists are undoubtedly from the JAM bracket (just about managing) so I don't think it would be particularly constructive. Exec in a flashy BMW probably can take the hit but the spectrum of road user is broad.

 

[Butts]

Even in Luxembourg where Public Transport if Free, the roads are still clogged with Cars.

I wonder if they raised motoring taxes when it was introduced as it would have been the perfect opportunity ?

If not then it would indicate to do so is political suicide to do so even when a free alternative is available.