Fuel duty freeze - a saving grace

[SS4]

I suspect the railway has bought futures in fuel anyway so this won't affect them until some time in the future if at all

 

[edwin_m]

This tax doesn't apply to fuel for trains, so there is no significant effect on the railway. There will be a small saving as railway road vehicles won't have to pay the increase, but a small extra cost to the railway if the extra demand for fuel forces up prices (but this is likely to be imperceptible compared with the normal price fluctuation).

 

[HowardGWR]

This tax doesn't apply to fuel for trains, so there is no significant effect on the railway. There will be a small saving as railway road vehicles won't have to pay the increase, but a small extra cost to the railway if the extra demand for fuel forces up prices (but this is likely to be imperceptible compared with the normal price fluctuation).

The issue here (I don't seem to be making my point very well) is that it has been stated that the stagnant level of motor traffic, the last few years, has been due to the substantial increase in motoring fuel costs. Thus one would expect that if those costs, relative to the cost of rail travel, were to be more favourable, one would expect a reverse modal shift from rail to car.

I am wondering if two factors, the abandonment of pretence to green transport policy, and the present overcrowding on rail, may have led to the freeze on fuel duty increases.

 

[Moonshot]

The issue here (I don't seem to be making my point very well) is that it has been stated that the stagnant level of motor traffic, the last few years, has been due to the substantial increase in motoring fuel costs. Thus one would expect that if those costs, relative to the cost of rail travel, were to be more favourable, one would expect a reverse modal shift from rail to car.

I am wondering if two factors, the abandonment of pretence to green transport policy, and the present overcrowding on rail, may have led to the freeze on fuel duty increases.

imo - no. I rather think its more to do with disposable income, which has been declining for the last few years. Also taking out some of the green levies from fuel bills does the same. I can t see government wanting to suddenly encourage modal shift when you consider how much grant it gives the industry....would make a mockery of the HS2 investment as well which is controversial

 

[HowardGWR]

imo - no. I rather think its more to do with disposable income, which has been declining for the last few years. Also taking out some of the green levies from fuel bills does the same. I can t see government wanting to suddenly encourage modal shift when you consider how much grant it gives the industry....would make a mockery of the HS2 investment as well which is controversial

The first point, exactly, that was my point. With the election getting closer, they have abandoned green measures and are only interested in trying to make motoring (and yes, home energy) costs less painful.

I don't understand the reference to HS2 at all. Nor do I understand the reference to rail industry grant. It sounds as though you don't think the highways industry receives massive grants, unless you think that that fuel VAT and excise duty are raised to pay for roads. I am sure you haven't accepted that spurious argument.

 

[edwin_m]

The issue here (I don't seem to be making my point very well) is that it has been stated that the stagnant level of motor traffic, the last few years, has been due to the substantial increase in motoring fuel costs. Thus one would expect that if those costs, relative to the cost of rail travel, were to be more favourable, one would expect a reverse modal shift from rail to car.

I am wondering if two factors, the abandonment of pretence to green transport policy, and the present overcrowding on rail, may have led to the freeze on fuel duty increases.

I've lost count of how many times fuel duty rises have been cancelled. The "fuel duty escalator" hasn't existed for several years now but it probably suits the Chancellor to pretend it does, so he can get some kudos every year from announcing the cancellation of the increase. But none of this seems to have had any effect on road traffic levels.

I understand your argument but I don't agree with it. For one thing the increase in rail fares has also been reduced, which if anything means more people on trains rather than fewer. I see both as a pure political giveaway rather than reflecting any deeper strategy.

 

[jon0844]

As our population increases, we'll still need to expand road building. Fuel costs might make motoring more expensive, but you can counter some of that by purchasing a much more fuel efficient car - so I am not sure that people will ever give up their car, they might just have to accept not being able to buy something with a huge engine.

So we'll probably still have more and more people fighting to use the roads in the coming years, and we all know that they won't all be able to use trains as they too are already too busy in the peaks in some areas.

 

[HowardGWR]

I've lost count of how many times fuel duty rises have been cancelled. The "fuel duty escalator" hasn't existed for several years now but it probably suits the Chancellor to pretend it does, so he can get some kudos every year from announcing the cancellation of the increase. But none of this seems to have had any effect on road traffic levels.

I understand your argument but I don't agree with it. For one thing the increase in rail fares has also been reduced, which if anything means more people on trains rather than fewer. I see both as a pure political giveaway rather than reflecting any deeper strategy.

I agree even though it seems you are determined to think we disagree.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As our population increases, we'll still need to expand road building. Fuel costs might make motoring more expensive, but you can counter some of that by purchasing a much more fuel efficient car - so I am not sure that people will ever give up their car, they might just have to accept not being able to buy something with a huge engine.

So we'll probably still have more and more people fighting to use the roads in the coming years, and we all know that they won't all be able to use trains as they too are already too busy in the peaks in some areas.

I agree!

But the road building bit is not yet certain. The strategic schemes in progress are not very many and the urban congestion is incapable of a road building solution, unless one is willing to knock down the houses that cause it in the first place.

 

[jon0844]

At the very least, we shouldn't be allowing loads of new houses (and especially flats) to be built in areas where the roads are already struggling, as well as other issues such a utilities, water drainage etc.

We're packing people in tightly and nothing will cope - and that includes the people living there.

 

[Moonshot]

At the very least, we shouldn't be allowing loads of new houses (and especially flats) to be built in areas where the roads are already struggling, as well as other issues such a utilities, water drainage etc.

We're packing people in tightly and nothing will cope - and that includes the people living there.

All the development in manchester that I see is on brownfield land.....

 

[fowler9]

At the very least, we shouldn't be allowing loads of new houses (and especially flats) to be built in areas where the roads are already struggling, as well as other issues such a utilities, water drainage etc.

We're packing people in tightly and nothing will cope - and that includes the people living there.

I totally agree. So we should stop making proposals for new airports and runway expansions in the south east along with high speed rail to get more people to the south east. Pile the money in to the north and use the extra capacity that is available in the airports up here.

 

[jon0844]

All the development in manchester that I see is on brownfield land.....

That's fine as long as the infrastructure around it is upgraded too.

 

[Moonshot]

That's fine as long as the infrastructure around it is upgraded too.

As far as transport goes , it has......the Metrolink!!

 

[HSTEd]

I have to say, given the cuts are still going on, a marriage tax allowance (given couples already enjoy certain economies of scale) and free school meals for families that can pay for them, seem like a lousy way to squander taxpayers money.

At least the train fares are only going up by rpi.

Giving all children school meals does however remove the need for the particular bureaucracy used to determine who gets them.

 

[Butts]

Giving all children school meals does however remove the need for the particular bureaucracy used to determine who gets them.

Bring back MIRAS as well while were at it