Taxing road users by mile

[The Ham]

Rather than base taxes on vauge NHS externalities which for modern cars which are much safer, the NHS should get better at chasing insurance for RTC costs, so careful drivers in safe cars don't end up getting punished the same as someone who chooses a Hummer and has a history of crashes

Whist safer, there's still a significant cost to the country from collisions, according to:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68d421cc275fc9339a248c8e/ras4001.ods

The impact on the economy of all collisions equates to £54.7bn.

If this were to be able to be reduced by 1p%, that's £5bn.

Likewise, obesity is said to cost the country over £100bn and the NHS £9bn:

Obesity Healthcare Goals

www.gov.uk

Again even 10% of that would bring the savings to around £8bn, even if only 1/2 of that relates to government savings and extra taxes that's around 1/2 of the cost of the Defence Investment Plan, without needing to make any cuts.

That's before we consider the savings from lower traffic congestion and the personal savings from lower travel costs.

 

[renegademaster]

Whist safer, there's still a significant cost to the country from collisions, according to:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68d421cc275fc9339a248c8e/ras4001.ods

The impact on the economy of all collisions equates to £54.7bn.

If this were to be able to be reduced by 1p%, that's £5bn.

Likewise, obesity is said to cost the country over £100bn and the NHS £9bn:

Obesity Healthcare Goals

www.gov.uk

Again even 10% of that would bring the savings to around £8bn, even if only 1/2 of that relates to government savings and extra taxes that's around 1/2 of the cost of the Defence Investment Plan, without needing to make any cuts.

That's before we consider the savings from lower traffic congestion and the personal savings from lower travel costs.

To get obesity down it's shorter trips you need to disincentivize people from, not charging someone £100 to drive to lake District

 

[35B]

Whist safer, there's still a significant cost to the country from collisions, according to:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68d421cc275fc9339a248c8e/ras4001.ods

The impact on the economy of all collisions equates to £54.7bn.

If this were to be able to be reduced by 1p%, that's £5bn.

Likewise, obesity is said to cost the country over £100bn and the NHS £9bn:

Obesity Healthcare Goals

www.gov.uk

Again even 10% of that would bring the savings to around £8bn, even if only 1/2 of that relates to government savings and extra taxes that's around 1/2 of the cost of the Defence Investment Plan, without needing to make any cuts.

That's before we consider the savings from lower traffic congestion and the personal savings from lower travel costs.

A financial cost that is carried by the productive economy that is also partly enabled and fuelled by those vehicles. The outcomes you mention are desirable, but are also associated with the mobility that road vehicles provide.

"The economy" is not a thing, but an outcome of a whole range of activities. If in reducing the impact of activities, you also reduce the aggregate level of activity, you don't free up money for other good things, be they healthcare, defence or anything else.

When setting the levels of tax motorists pay as we shift from ICE to EV, the objective should be kept simple and pragmatic. I'd suggest that it should a) look to provide the same income to the Treasury as the present VED plus Fuel Duty regime, and b) be able to operate in a politically uncontentious way. That means applying the principles of KISS*. So don't rely on complex electronic monitoring or time based tolls, as they will create errors and anomalies that will really annoy the individuals who are impacted by them, not to mention being wrong at times (for example, my car regularly tells me of a 30mph restriction as I approach the Tolworth roundabout on the (40mph) A3, because it detects the restriction on the side road).

So by all means put cars in bands and apply a mileage based charge based on that band. But fix the band for the life of the car, and just vary the rate per mile. Then make it possible for people to self-declare their mileage as suits them, but check through MOTs and provide a way to spread the payments - just as ICE users do so today for fuel duty, when we pay per litre. Hey, public charging stations could even have the option to enter the mileage when charging (as I see people using company fuel cards do), and then collect the tax due as part of the payment.

It won't be perfect, and some will pay more, others less than they "should" under a "completely fair" system. Exactly as happens today with fuel duty.

* KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid

 

[martin butler]

What is the reasoning behind taxing road users by the mile? is it to make people think twice about using the car for short trips? or to replace the lost fuel duty from petrol, and diesel cars, when the balance shifts away towards electric vehicles?

There will be many, though, for whom electric has too many draw backs, mostly to do with charging, and range, not everyone can be sure to park next to a charging point each time, some have no designated parking at home, and not every workspace will provide charging facilities, some won't even have parking, not all supermarkets, will have charging points either, until this changes, they will stick to ICE engined cars.

 

[Harpers Tate]

@martin butler Range is decreasingly an issue. My new car has a nominal range of ~350 miles and I very likely will get more in real-life use. And will add something like 200 miles to that in ~20 minutes at a high powered DC charging station. That trend will, I suspect, become more the "norm" as time passes. And the purpose of a significant extra levy on fuel-burners is to try and persuade those about whom you speak to consider making greater effort to make an EV work for them. The fact is they can and do work for pretty much any kind of user; it is mainly resistance to change in behaviour that gets translated into the sort of "drawback" you mention. Changes such as covering the extra 15-20 minutes time refuelling by going and buying the milk and bananas while it's happening. "But I don't want to....." isn't a reason; it's a non-issue, unless you insist on making it one. Long trip? Those extra 200 miles you just added will take you over 3 hours constant driving along a motorway, by which time most will need another 20 minutes off - for a leak, eats or drinks, etc. "No, I want to stop at a remote layby..." isn't a reason either.

 

[martin butler]

@martin butler Range is decreasingly an issue. My new car has a nominal range of ~350 miles and I very likely will get more in real-life use. And will add something like 200 miles to that in ~20 minutes at a high powered DC charging station. That trend will, I suspect, become more the "norm" as time passes. And the purpose of a significant extra levy on fuel-burners is to try and persuade those about whom you speak to consider making greater effort to make an EV work for them. The fact is they can and do work for pretty much any kind of user; it is mainly resistance to change in behaviour that gets translated into the sort of "drawback" you mention. Changes such as covering the extra 15-20 minutes time refuelling by going and buying the milk and bananas while it's happening. "But I don't want to....." isn't a reason; it's a non-issue, unless you insist on making it one. Long trip? Those extra 200 miles you just added will take you over 3 hours constant driving along a motorway, by which time most will need another 20 minutes off - for a leak, eats or drinks, etc. "No, I want to stop at a remote layby..." isn't a reason either.

Not everyone will have the spare money to buy an EV, it won't affect me, because I don't expect to still be driving in 5 years' time, because i will be 75 then, and i will stick with my polluting MG ( Actually, its cleaner than some modern cars, its ULEZ friendly as its the 1.6, not the 1.8

 

[The Ham]

To get obesity down it's shorter trips you need to disincentivize people from, not charging someone £100 to drive to lake District

Indeed, which why I've said that a low per mile paired with a congestion charge for urban area (or other congested area).

In doing so a long distance drive (for holidays, or other one off trips) wouldn't be cost prohibitive.

A financial cost that is carried by the productive economy that is also partly enabled and fuelled by those vehicles. The outcomes you mention are desirable, but are also associated with the mobility that road vehicles provide.

"The economy" is not a thing, but an outcome of a whole range of activities. If in reducing the impact of activities, you also reduce the aggregate level of activity, you don't free up money for other good things, be they healthcare, defence or anything else.

Indeed, which is why I was talking about 10%, in that still allows a significant amount of road travel.

A lot of short distance travel doesn't add to the economy more than walking or cycling.

Whilst there's the extra spending on fuel, however, that spending is fairly limited and a significant amount of that is to buy the oil or tax and so of limited value.

Having said that, if that spending was to be shifted to other things that's likely to benefit the economy in other ways.

To get to 2% fewer miles that's an average of 3 miles a week for an average car usage. For a lot of people that's two or three return journeys a week.

It's very much the under 2 mile trips which is where the larger reduction in collisions are likely to be found. As:
- motorways are generally safer than other roads
- around 1 in 3 collisionsare within 1 mile of people's homes, the majority of collisions happen within 5 miles of someone's home, rising to the vast majority within 15 miles

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S092575351730783X

It is a widely accepted truism that drivers are more likely to crash on roads close to home. Insurance industry reports have stated that 99% of crashes occur within 50 miles (approx. 80 km) of home (CalculateMe, 2015); 77% of crashes take place within 15 miles (24 km) of home (Driving Today, 2015); and that one third of crashes happen within one mile (1.6 km) of home (Telegraph, 2015).

Not everyone will have the spare money to buy an EV, it won't affect me, because I don't expect to still be driving in 5 years' time, because i will be 75 then, and i will stick with my polluting MG ( Actually, its cleaner than some modern cars, its ULEZ friendly as its the 1.6, not the 1.8

It's no longer a significant cost to buy a second hand EV with at least 3 years of battery warranty (see my previous post giving details of Corsas costing around £8,000 with sub 70,000 miles).

However, that doesn't account for the reduced fuel costs. Which for someone doing 8,000 miles a year over 3 years saving 9p a mile over petrol/diesel (which is achievable for people charging at home) is around £2,000.

 

[edwin_m]

What is the reasoning behind taxing road users by the mile? is it to make people think twice about using the car for short trips? or to replace the lost fuel duty from petrol, and diesel cars, when the balance shifts away towards electric vehicles?

Both of the above, and discouraging longer car trips too.

Owning a car has significant costs, such as depreciation, VED, insurance and servicing, that don't depend much on the distance travelled each year. Once you have a car the marginal cost of using it for one extra trip (instead of active travel or public transport) is small. But the undesirable externalities of cars for wider society (pollution, accidents, noise, congestion, road maintenance costs) mostly arise from using them, not from owning them. Hence anything that rebalances the cost from ownership to distance travelled is likely to be a benefit to society. Some of these externalities are also worse for a larger vehicle, hence varying tax rates by weight or some other measure might be a good idea. And some externalities are worse in urban areas, supporting the case for higher per-mile rates in those areas.

 

[Sonic1234]

A problem with per mile charging is that the absolute shortest route often involves rat running along residential roads (in urban areas) or minor country lanes (in rural areas), this will incentivise using these sorts of roads.

 

[35B]

A problem with per mile charging is that the absolute shortest route often involves rat running along residential roads (in urban areas) or minor country lanes (in rural areas), this will incentivise using these sorts of roads.

Unlikely - when driving I’m already effectively paying per mile. Journey time, ease of navigation and comfort all come in higher when planning a route.

 

[renegademaster]

Unlikely - when driving I’m already effectively paying per mile. Journey time, ease of navigation and comfort all come in higher when planning a route.

For petrol cars motorway driving is more fuel efficient even if it's the less direct route

 

[35B]

For petrol cars motorway driving is more fuel efficient even if it's the less direct route

And how many people cost their travel per mile rather than considering the number of tanks they will need?

I use a motorway because it’s faster and easier than the alternative, not because it’s cheaper.

The mode of analysis is wrong, because we’re ascribing fare paying behaviours to a mode of travel that doesn’t have fares. And that’s why explicit payments per mile will always be politically difficult.

 

[Sonic1234]

Unlikely - when driving I’m already effectively paying per mile. Journey time, ease of navigation and comfort all come in higher when planning a route.

For the majority yes. It depends on how explicit the mileage charge is, if it's hidden like it is today then no one is going down a single track road for the fun of it. If everyone is hyper conscious of "each mile costs you x", there will be a shift. Not from the majority, but a small amount of the Money Saving Expert crowd would causing chaos on these roads.

You get people who will sit through a video for 10 Nectar points, they're just the type to do some odd route to save 20p in mileage charges.

 

[martin butler]

For the majority yes. It depends on how explicit the mileage charge is, if it's hidden like it is today then no one is going down a single track road for the fun of it. If everyone is hyper conscious of "each mile costs you x", there will be a shift. Not from the majority, but a small amount of the Money Saving Expert crowd would causing chaos on these roads.

You get people who will sit through a video for 10 Nectar points, they're just the type to do some odd route to save 20p in mileage charges.

Well i will admit, I hate motorways, especially the M25, And M4, miles of mind-numbing concrete,

i used to go down to Swindon twice a year, and always preferred what I call the scenic route, which as a mixture of A and B roads, a far more interesting drive, and the milage, exactly the same, as if I used the motorway, its slower, but I enjoyed the drive along country roads far more, especially if it was a nice warm summers day, Soft top down, listening to the exhaust note bouncing off the surrounding countryside.

If you haven't already worked it out, I'm a bit of a petrol head, you can't get that with an EV,

 

[Lucan]

Should larger heavier cars be charged more than say my lightweight MGTF, because heavier cars do more damage to the roads, especially EV's

Damage to roads from even the heaviest cars is negligible compared with that from HGVs, by a factor of some thousands. I have heard a figure that damage is proportional to the cube of the axle load, although Wikipedia says the fourth power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law

Perhaps occupied road space should be a factor, not the actual area of the car but the area the driver thinks it is. Yesterday I was behind a small car in stop-start traffic and the driver was leaving nearly a whole length in front of him at each halt. I generally leave about a yard gap. Similarly, whether a car goes though a gap seems almost inversely related to the width of the vehicle - perhaps some people choose small cars because they are terrified of going through gaps. There are frequent unnecessary log-jams in my town due to some drivers vastly over-estimating the size of their car - not proceding through a gap or adding to a tailback into a junction behind them. I have sometimes ended up with my back end on a yellow box because the car in front suddenly stopped well short of the car before them - yes I know I'm technically in the wrong for making the assumption that the driver in front was competent.

 

[The Ham]

Damage to roads from even the heaviest cars is negligible compared with that from HGVs, by a factor of some thousands. I have heard a figure that damage is proportional to the cube of the axle load, although Wikipedia says the fourth power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law

Cars do damage to the surface course, and so a larger car will mean resurfacing is more frequent.

However, a lot of the recent increase in traffic is all the extra delivery vans, these are significantly heavier than any car, and so are causing more surface damage.

When it comes to the main "structure" of the road (everything beyond the top 20mm of bound material), the design life of this is wholly dependent on the number of buses and lorries which use it.

Although, surface damage, if not maintained, can lead to damage to the structure which is why potholes happen.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Cars do damage to the surface course, and so a larger car will mean resurfacing is more frequent.

However, a lot of the recent increase in traffic is all the extra delivery vans, these are significantly heavier than any car, and so are causing more surface damage.

When it comes to the main "structure" of the road (everything beyond the top 20mm of bound material), the design life of this is wholly dependent on the number of buses and lorries which use it.

Although, surface damage, if not maintained, can lead to damage to the structure which is why potholes happen.

I have noticed in Croydon that since the advent of electric buses the road surface at bus stops is getting alarmingly distorted. These newer electric busses are obviously significantly heaver and sway differently when you are on the top deck - it is more of a jolt and lurch. At East Croydon some parts of the bus station canopies went missing and I had noticed there are deep ruts where the wheels go at many bus stops (this is before the recent hot weather). It looks like the busses are managing to hit the canopy as they approach the stop on a bend.

So I think weight is important particularly with battery electric vehicles. So money will need to be raised to cover that.

In the case of busses it is clear the suspension is a lot harder - my back jarrs every time the suspension bottoms out and I now have to make sure my posture is straight (no leaning over to hold a handrail). So I don't just have to cope with horizontal forces but more seriously now vertical forces. This must be having a significant impact (sorry) on the road surface.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have noticed in Croydon that since the advent of electric buses the road surface at bus stops is getting alarmingly distorted.

This is nothing new and has been visible at bus stops for years whether served by electric or diesel buses. What does worsen it is very hot weather, of which we've had lots of late, as it melts the surface. Very hot countries tend to have concrete roads to avoid the issue, we don't here as the big downside of them is really bad noise, but we may need to switch if we are to become a hot country.

 

[35B]

I have noticed in Croydon that since the advent of electric buses the road surface at bus stops is getting alarmingly distorted. These newer electric busses are obviously significantly heaver and sway differently when you are on the top deck - it is more of a jolt and lurch. At East Croydon some parts of the bus station canopies went missing and I had noticed there are deep ruts where the wheels go at many bus stops (this is before the recent hot weather). It looks like the busses are managing to hit the canopy as they approach the stop on a bend.

So I think weight is important particularly with battery electric vehicles. So money will need to be raised to cover that.

In the case of busses it is clear the suspension is a lot harder - my back jarrs every time the suspension bottoms out and I now have to make sure my posture is straight (no leaning over to hold a handrail). So I don't just have to cope with horizontal forces but more seriously now vertical forces. This must be having a significant impact (sorry) on the road surface.

That presumes that the roads are being built to the same standard as other countries - when I suspect the answer is that many of our roads are not being built to a high standard, and are then not being maintained adequately.

It won't help in places like Croydon that the local authority is bankrupt, so has limited ability to do preventive maintenance in the first place.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That presumes that the roads are being built to the same standard as other countries - when I suspect the answer is that many of our roads are not being built to a high standard, and are then not being maintained adequately.

Anyone who's ever driven on a Belgian motorway will realise it's not just us...

 

[SWT_USER]

Pay per mile was going to have to be introduced eventually... but it absolutely stinks that a new tax is being introduced for EV's when fuel duty has been frozen for years, and that I'll have to pay £200 VED and pay per mile while there are still diesels on the road that pay £20 VED for the whole year.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Pay per mile was going to have to be introduced eventually... but it absolutely stinks that a new tax is being introduced for EV's when fuel duty has been frozen for years, and that I'll have to pay £200 VED and pay per mile while there are still diesels on the road that pay £20 VED for the whole year.

It's primarily to replace fuel duty. You've been having a free ride in your EV for years.

 

[SWT_USER]

It's primarily to replace fuel duty. You've been having a free ride in your EV for years.

And drivers of ICE vehicles have been heavily subsidised for 15 years too. If anything they should be charged a more punitive rate per mile to encourage them to switch.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And drivers of ICE vehicles have been heavily subsidised for 15 years too. If anything they should be charged a more punitive rate per mile to encourage them to switch.

It wouldn't be an utterly terrible idea to apply the 3p/mile to them as well, so they would be paying that AND fuel duty.

 

[35B]

And drivers of ICE vehicles have been heavily subsidised for 15 years too. If anything they should be charged a more punitive rate per mile to encourage them to switch.

Erm, I must be imagining the high levels of duty that I've been paying on my ICE car - even if they've not been increased in line with inflation indices. Not taxing something as much as the government claims it would have is not a subsidy.

This ICE driver will switch (quite possibly in a couple of years when I next change car) when the purchase price is at the right level and I can reliably use the car for the trips that I make. That tipping point is getting closer all the time.

 

[Bikeman78]

And drivers of ICE vehicles have been heavily subsidised for 15 years too. If anything they should be charged a more punitive rate per mile to encourage them to switch.

What's the obsession with getting people to switch? It will happen naturally anyway over the next decade. My car is in good working order with around 70,000 miles on the clock. If I sell it, it's unlikely to go for scrap. Someone will still be driving it, so it might as well be me until it becomes unreliable.

 

[martin butler]

What's the obsession with getting people to switch? It will happen naturally anyway over the next decade. My car is in good working order with around 70,000 miles on the clock. If I sell it, it's unlikely to go for scrap. Someone will still be driving it, so it might as well be me until it becomes unreliable.

And not everyone, can afford to go electric, I certainly can't, I don't expect to still be driving by the time I'm 75, in 5 years' time, so it's likely my current car will be my last, its maintained very well, in very good order, and reliable, it does not make sense to change it.

 

[35B]

What's the obsession with getting people to switch? It will happen naturally anyway over the next decade. My car is in good working order with around 70,000 miles on the clock. If I sell it, it's unlikely to go for scrap. Someone will still be driving it, so it might as well be me until it becomes unreliable.

Not to mention that switching itself involves environmental costs

 

[Peter Sarf]

And not everyone, can afford to go electric, I certainly can't, I don't expect to still be driving by the time I'm 75, in 5 years' time, so it's likely my current car will be my last, its maintained very well, in very good order, and reliable, it does not make sense to change it.

That is my view as I am in the bangernomics area. BUT the big change for many would be if a tax by the mile was slapped on top of the fuel duty. For me my mileage is low enough that it would be road tax that turned me off ICE but not necessarily onto EV. Road tax is a tax on having a car available but not necessarly used which I think is more unfair than some of the tax by mile options discussed in this thread.

I do think tax by mileage has to come. And to be fair it should replace fuel duty (but the government will not dare lose a source of income though) with different tiers for size/weight and emissions.

Otherwise it gets very unfair on light users of a car. It might upset heavy users - probably most of those have already switched to EV. But for those of us keeping a car but using it as little as possible the road tax (Road Fund Licence) is a ridiculously blunt instrument if used on its own. It could lead to a "them and us" situation with a lot of lower use drivers hanging on to old ICEs on one side and the better off with new ICEs on the other side.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is my view as I am in the bangernomics area. BUT the big change for many would be if a tax by the mile was slapped on top of the fuel duty. For me my mileage is low enough that it would be road tax that turned me off ICE but not necessarily onto EV. Road tax is a tax on having a car available but not necessarly used which I think is more unfair than some of the tax by mile options discussed in this thread.

Road tax I see as undesirable as it penalises, as you say, having a car available. It would be better to encourage the ownership of a small runaround as well as a large family car so the right tool is used for each job rather than e.g. a Range Rover being used for local urban journeys with one person, but it discourages that. For a long time I've therefore favoured moving it onto fuel, but with EVs that's not feasible so we move onto a per mile or road pricing.