Forum menu
flying abroad would be prohibitively expensive.
Is aviation fuel taxed at the same rate as car fuel ? I am asking as most of what I put in my engine is tax rather than cost of production, so not necessarily linked to cost of flying. Bizarrely putting up car costs may driv e people abroad instead of keeping them at home to spend their money.
By the way I am in the put petrol up lobby, BUT this need to be accompanied by a massive investment in public transport infrastructure to enable us to still get round.
For all of us complaining there are no jobs in the country, what do you think will happen to all the companies in big towns who suddenly can't get staff anymore ? Would they not look to relocate ?
Imagine if all those £££ spent on flights to Malaga were actually spent on the drive to Margate? It'd be a huge boost to the tourism industry (although it would bankrupt the airports, but they're not British owned so less of a blow).
Tourists come to Britain too. I've no idea how much of a difference it would actually make.
Other than less traffic at airports.
By the way I am in the put petrol up lobby, BUT this need to be accompanied by a massive investment in public transport infrastructure to enable us to still get round.
I'm in the public transport should be run as a service, and not for profit lobby. I'd be happy to pay for it via taxation.
If I believed that taxation was both affordable to all, and efficiently spent on the right things.
Does anybody have a breakdown of public spending going into public transport, and how much of that spending is subsidising private operators trying to turn a profit?
Tell that to those commuting into London from Bristol.
see? you can commute to work three or four cities away. Now that's a lifestyle choice.
piemonster - Member
Does anybody have a breakdown of public spending going into public transport, and how much of that spending is subsidising private operators trying to turn a profit?
£6Billion a year on Trains subsidy apparently.
bigrich - Member
see? you can commute to work three or four cities away. Now that's a lifestyle choice.
How can you possibly know what choices are available? just making presumptions.
Well the rising price and lower wages seems to have changed things around here, loads more people commuting via bike, there's barely enough room for all the bikes in the office I work at.
If you live in the country, miles away from everything and have trouble affording petrol, tough. Move closer to work like everyone else does.
Keep zooming up in price as far as I'm concerned, it's a limited supply and the price reflects this. Truffles don't cost so much because the dogs are on £100k salaries.
If you live in the country, miles away from everything and have trouble affording petrol, tough. Move closer to work like everyone else does.
Troll, ignorant or stupid?
It is a choice for lots of people though. I'm considering moving house at the moment. I can choose to live in the city centre, walking distance to everything. I can choose to live a small distance away, with viable public transport. Or I could be dependent on the car. Each of these choices means compromises.
I'm not sure that the ability to commute thousands of miles a year is a good thing overall, either for the individual or society
How can you possibly know what choices are available? just making presumptions.
There's always Swindon?
My point is the UK is so small, and travel is so cheap, you get to choose to live a long way from work.
If travel was expensive, and you had no choice but to have your family in Bristol, then you would have to take lodgings in the city where you worked; like people did before the advent of oil exploitation.
mudshark - MemberTroll, ignorant or stupid?
Seems liked a fair point to me.
Um...if someone's struggling to pay for fuel do they really have the money to pay for a move and the likely higher property prices of being close to work? Most people have to compromise between property prices, commuting times and travel costs - I've known people who thought it sensible to live in Norfolk and Herefordshire in order to get a reasonable standard of living and put up with the commute.
Anyway, I'm one of TJ's rich elite so probably shouldn't care....
If fuel is expensive and encouragement is made to travel by alternative transport then it should available and reasonably priced. At the moment it isn't. Where I live a bus ride of 1 mile each way costs 5 pounds. 5 pounds for 2 miles!!!!! I don't use the bus as I can walk to work but some people have no choice.
It's getting to a point where people become confined to their local area because they can't afford to travel due to high fuel prices and no reasonable alternative.
Yup stop the biggest industry in rural areas, tourism, by driving up the cost then whilst there's no more coming into area and transport cost have increased watch the prices of goods in rural areas soar, jobs lost and people move out of the area. Great do it straight away.
Arguably it's the fact that transport is too cheap that has meant that foreign goods (to that area) are cheaper than locally produced and have put all the local industries out of business, so rural areas are only have tourism as a viable business....
I agree there is no argument there.
Hmm, call me daft if you like.
But I'm pretty sure the biggest industry in most rural areas by some margin is agriculture.
But I'm pretty sure the biggest industry in most rural areas by some margin is agriculture.
How many people does an average farm employ Vs lets say a small hotel?
Couldn't say, goes googling.
Not many hotels round my folks place in Norfolk. Plenty of farms though.
Are you including small market towns etc in your thinking?
Are you including small market towns etc in your thinking?
Yup.
Parts of Cumbria, Northumberland and other counties rely very much on tourists of course there's agriculture too but that would also be effected by rising fuel costs.
http://www.nfus.org.uk/farming-facts
Well, quite a few in Scotland according to this.
Around 65,000 people are directly employed in agriculture in Scotland – this represents around 8% of the rural workforce and means that agriculture is the third largest employer in rural Scotland after the service and public sectors. It is estimated that a further 250,000 jobs (1 in 10 of all Scottish jobs) are dependent on agriculture.
The tourism sector is of vital importance to the Scottish economy - worth £4.3bn in direct expenditure from overnight visitors (2012) and providing employment to 185,900 within the tourism growth sector (2011).
😀
I was just getting to that
http://www.visitscotland.org/what_we_do/deliveringforscotland.aspx
Tourism already pays the wages of 200,000 people working in Scotland. Increased investment will increase jobs.
The problem is, how many of those tourists are in rural areas. To be honest, I'm talking genuinely rural.
How much of that money goes into Edinburgh?
No doubt golf is a big earner in rural areas.
Edit
However, we also know that in the Highlands employment in the tourist sector accounts for as much as 20%, with some areas entirely dependent on it.
http://www.ruralcommission.org/consultation/rural-tourism/
Toasty - Member
Well the rising price and lower wages seems to have changed things around here, loads more people commuting via bike, there's barely enough room for all the bikes in the office I work at.[b]If you live in the country, miles away from everything and have trouble affording petrol, tough. Move closer to work like everyone else does.[/b]
Says someone who clearly works in a town or city, and can easily commute by bike. If you live in a largely rural county like Wiltshire, there are fewer options, do you seriously advocate someone selling up and moving to a town miles away before they've found a job, just to be close, or finding a job, then having to drive miles commuting, trying to sell a house and finding one that is actually affordable, in a place where affordable housing is likely to be in short supply, due to it being where the jobs are?
mudshark - Member
Um...if someone's struggling to pay for fuel do they really have the money to pay for a move and the likely higher property prices of being close to work? Most people have to compromise between property prices, commuting times and travel costs - I've known people who thought it sensible to live in Norfolk and Herefordshire in order to get a reasonable standard of living and put up with the commute.
Exactly my point.
For all of us complaining there are no jobs in the country, what do you think will happen to all the companies in big towns who suddenly can't get staff anymore ? Would they not look to relocate ?
Don't be daft! Where would they locate to? And the staff would still have to travel, for the simple reason that rural communities are by definition small and widely spread apart. And what about kids and school? Once, most villages had their own small school, but they've all closed, because there aren't enough children in each village to make them viable, so there is often just one school serving villages as much as six or seven miles away, in all directions, along very narrow, winding lanes. And no coaches serving them, because the coach companies don't make enough money.
The kids going to high school in Chippenham come from villages covering a huge area of North Wiltshire, in a radius of maybe ten-twelve miles, how else can they get to school, when there are no coaches?
I'm guessing your talking about secondary schools?
If you live in a largely rural county like Wiltshire
I would love to, but can't as there's no work for me there.
do you seriously advocate someone selling up and moving to a town miles away before they've found a job, just to be close, or finding a job, then having to drive miles commuting, trying to sell a house and finding one that is actually affordable, in a place where affordable housing is likely to be in short supply, due to it being where the jobs are?
yes, if you have to.
it's happened before during the industrial revolution, and it's happening right now in developing countries like China.
If you can't work to sustain your bucolic idyll, what choice is there? Can't magic more oil out of thin air.
Over the last 30 years many people have gotten used to cheap fuel (is still cheaper in real terms than pretty much any time previously), and have changed their lifestyle to accommodate that financial cost. However, that percentage cost of transport relative to income has changed, and its now becoming more expensive relative to income to commute large distances. Personally I don't think this is a bad thing but it will require a systematic reevaluation of people's lifestyles and a change to our expectations.
Real term price of petrol:
[img] 
[/img]
Im going to use my best friends situation as a real world example & would love to hear the thoughts of all those saying raise petrol prices & live closer to work...
4-5 years ago he bought his first home with his partner, a real fixer upper, put his heart & soul into it doing as much as he could, did a brilliant job, it stretched him some what, but was all affordable.
3.5 Years ago, find out first baby on the way, happy families
3 Years ago get made redundant from Job in Liverpool, (approx 8 miles from home)
Spends approx 6 months unemployed, looking for a another Job/career, Baby arrives & things start to become tighter.
2.5 Years ago he finally gets back onto the ladder, all be it on a lower wage, problem is the job is in Manchester, 100 Mile a day commute, has a 50+mpg car, drives sensibly to save cash etc...
Since then his partner has gone back to work part time at her Job in Southport, Both Parents who look after kid are close to home making work possible.
Before anyone states the obvious, of course he has looked for work closer to home...
So please explain to me what he should be doing in your eyes? & explain to me how putting people who are already under financial pressure under even more is fair / right? this is a common situation up & down the country, if you think it isn't, your out of touch, if you think tough, we'll id rather not hear your thought's.
timc
At last someone with a real world example of how it it is for many people.
I also work in Liverpool but there is no way I'm moving near to work (Toxteth) until recently my wife worked in Chester so we live roughly 1/2 way between.
Sadly due to her MS we have had the house adapted at our cost. Should we junk all that just so I can save about £2000 a year on traveling?
Even if I rode my bike every day it would still cost close on £1000 a year.
So please explain to me what he should be doing in your eyes?
http://www.carpooling.co.uk/carshare/Liverpool/Manchester.html
He doesn't live in central liverpool or work in central manchester, has to be at his desk for 8am, occasionally needs to travel with work to site, even without travelling to site a city centre to city centre share wouldn't really work with commuting costs & time at each end.
It's always possible construct or quote an extreme example to argue a point.
Your friends circumstances appear unfortunate. If its his only option for the moment he should of course do what he has to, but for his sanity and long term work life balance look to reduce his travel.
Its costing time and money that would otherwise be spent with and on his family.
That some one is willing to do a 100 mile commute is an example that petrol is cheap IMO. If they will not consider a car share that just adds to it. Sounds like they are in a tough situation but the current cheap price of fuel is helping them out.
I'm all for reduced car usage, it's massively important, but simply ramping up the price right now would have devastating consequences. Most people would rather not do it with the current price of fuel, so we need alternatives.
Only a long term government strategy can do this.
It's always possible construct or quote an extreme example to argue a point.
It's not that extreme.
Molgrips plus one.
The fact that so many car journeys ae less than five miles means that there are alternatives already that aren't being taken! Ramp up the cost of fuel and folk will start to make more sensible choices. Instead of driving 200m to the shop to pick up the weekend papers, they will save their fuel for the daily commute.
I really struggle to understand how some people can be so hard up yet still make such irresponsible choices when it comes to transport and lifestyle. It's not as if this propblem hasn't been foreseen and deliberately taking a job with such a long commute as some of those mentioned seems foolhardy and short sighted.
Just wait for the time when petrol reaches the price of beer!
Regardless of the short-term problems, ultimately fuel will approach being prohibitively expensive, and lifestyles will change. And that, is the end of it.
Public transport may already be subsidised monetarily, but that's nothing like the subsidy (above and beyond the oil itself) the environment puts into the world's car habit, and one day that subsidy will run out. Sadly, it will probably run out for those least deserving of the ensuing catastrophe first.
I really struggle to understand how some people can be so hard up yet still make such irresponsible choices when it comes to transport and lifestyle.
Maybe you should ask, instead of (as you appear to be doing) condemning their actions without knowing. I'm sure people have their reasons. No-one wants to spend hours in the car and hundreds of pounds a month on fuel.
Just wait for the time when petrol reaches the price of beer!
Student £1 a pint night in the union = £1.75/l
Motorway services £1.60/l, so not far off!
piemonsterIt's not that extreme.
It is, it's the most extream example anyone on this thread knows of (otherwise they'd be using that example).
Maybe you should ask, instead of (as you appear to be doing) condemning their actions without knowing. I'm sure people have their reasons. No-one wants to spend hours in the car and hundreds of pounds a month on fuel.
Oh I do, it's part of my job! The number of people who do have legitimate reasons for the majority of their vehicle use is so small compared to those who just don't care (or who can afford not to care). The examples on this thread of folk who do need to use the vehicles the way they do are not the norm, unfortunately.
If no one wants to spend hours in their car and hundreds of punds on fuel why do they? Because the alternatives they are offered aren't appealing based on their perception of them? Because they can afford to waste their time and money? Because they have no other choice? The latter is certainly not the majority in my opinion.
Relatively, yes. Absolutely, no. Compared to average UK wages, fuel ain't that expensive. Compared to other countries (Venezuala), it's a rip-off.
People make short journeys by car because the alternatives are not attractive or non existent.
I live about 6 miles from work and drive most days.
The wife and I work near each other so one car covers both journeys
Its quicker and cheaper to travel by car than by any form of public transport
Its a purely financial decision. The added comfort and convenience is a bonus.
When I worked in another part of the city that didn't have free parking I cycled almost everyday as the £5 a day parking made driving less practical.
Its not really a rip off though is it? Just better priced to reflect the true cost of using it. Some, as this thread suggest belive that could be even higher.
Sitting at my desk looking out a ground floor window at cars accelerating up a town centre road 40mph + isnt going to encourage anyone to use alternatives.
Hike the price up to cover the indirect damage, make the alternatives more appealing, all nudges in the right direction.
There will be some pain, but the overall effect will be positive, one person unable to get to a job is a vacancy for someone else.
The fact that so many car journeys ae less than five miles means that there are alternatives already that aren't being taken!
Really? I'd wager that for a significant proportion of journies less than 5 miles a car would be the "best" choice regardless of the price of fuel. Its is where personal motorised transport excels, it is cheap, convienient and efficent.
e.g. I will drive to the local mini-supermarket to get stuff even though it is less than a mile away because if I go on my bike it may get nicked and if I walk it will take me 20 mins and that time is of much more value to me to spend at home than any price that could be inflicted on me by fuel duty.
Penalising people into making a different choice is not the answer, it just builds resentment and anger at "green" policies.
Nobody is going to cycle to the supermarket just beacuase the petrol to get there costs £1 instead of 50p or even £2.
The same is true of their place of work or their kids school. Price is not an factor is their choice of transport for these trips. So we need to accept this and work within the rules of the real world. Two things need to be done...
a) Make personal motorised transport have a much lower impact on the environment through improved technology and alternative fuels without affecting the existing benefits of convienience, cost and effieciency.
b) Offer viable alternatives that have the same hygene factors as driving. This requires huge investments in infastructure. People will get the bus if it is a cheap as driving and doesn't take longer and stops near their house. People will cycle to work if it is is safe away from traffic and there is somewhere safe to park their bike and have a shower and there is a pool car to do work things on if required.
These things are happening already but they should be persued much more agreesively, with much more investment up front.
I'm going to go against the grain here and say no; petrol should not cost anywhere near £6.30 a gallon.
My reason for saying this is that it's allowed the end cost of public transport to escalate beyond all reason.
We need to get a grip on transport costs in this country and we need to do it now. Once we've got the comprehensive and reasonably priced rail network Prescott promised us in 1997, the cost of petrol can double or triple for all I care.
I will drive to the local mini-supermarket to get stuff even though it is less than a mile away because if I go on my bike it may get nicked and if I walk it will take me 20 mins and that time is of much more value to me to spend at home than any price that could be inflicted on me by fuel duty.
Well maybe you're in fine shape but many aren't and for those any exercise will be of use, indeed if they went to a shop a mile away for their shopping three times a week this might be all the exercise they need to get some basic benefit. Oh and when I worked in Sutton it was quicker for me to ride from West London than to drive - bit far for many but I saved money and time by riding.
Says someone who clearly works in a town or city, and can easily commute by bike.
Yep, that's me. I made the choice to live closer to my work so I could cycle, instead of being reliant on the car.
So long as people continue to make unnecessary car journeys in fuel inefficient cars, I can only conclude that fuel is too cheap.
Really? I'd wager that for a significant proportion of journies less than 5 miles a car would be the "best" choice regardless of the price of fuel. Its is where personal motorised transport excels, it is cheap, convienient and efficent.
Best because it is cheap and convenient maybe, not best for all the other reasons social, environmental, health etc. There is also a contradiction here, your "best" is based on it being cheap, but this is regardless of the price of fuel. I'm afraid I don't understand this.
e.g. I will drive to the local mini-supermarket to get stuff even though it is less than a mile away because if I go on my bike it may get nicked and if I walk it will take me 20 mins and that time is of much more value to me to spend at home than any price that could be inflicted on me by fuel duty.
Will, those a pretty spurious reason for me! But then I'm not you and I don't know if your or my opinion can be easily transplated to large segments of the population! If I'm worried about my bike getting nicked, I'll lock it up, if it's 20 mins to walk to the shops I'll do that as I'll get some exercise/fresh air at the same time. we all have reasons for our choices.
Penalising people into making a different choice is not the answer, it just builds resentment and anger at "green" policies.
Except it isn't just a "green" policy, it's a social policy, health policy, a financial policy (congestion costs £billions) and ultimately a fairness-of-society policy what with the majority of the population subsidising the motorist.
Nobody is going to cycle to the supermarket just beacuase the petrol to get there costs £1 instead of 50p or even £2.
Well, that's just an argument to raise the price even further then!
The same is true of their place of work or their kids school. Price is not an factor is their choice of transport for these trips. So we need to accept this and work within the rules of the real world. Two things need to be done...
Price is not a factor again? Well, make it one! Make the motorist pay the full cost of their behaviour.
a) Make personal motorised transport have a much lower impact on the environment through improved technology and alternative fuels without affecting the existing benefits of convienience, cost and effieciency.
Not relevant to much of the intention behind reducing car journeys
b) Offer viable alternatives that have the same hygene factors as driving. This requires huge investments in infastructure. People will get the bus if it is a cheap as driving and doesn't take longer and stops near their house. People will cycle to work if it is is safe away from traffic and there is somewhere safe to park their bike and have a shower and there is a pool car to do work things on if required.
There are too many carrots already in many cases, it's time to start using the sticks more effectively.
This is based on Manhattan, but I'm sure a similar study could be done for big British cities and yield results in the same order of magnitude:
[url= http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/07/03/how-driving-a-car-into-manhattan-costs-160/ ]http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2009/07/03/how-driving-a-car-into-manhattan-costs-160/[/url]
Gives an interesting illustration of the cost of congestion alone. Almost $160 extra economic burden, *per car* in the Manhattan rush hour.
how many of us could go mtb ing without a car?
how many of us could go mtb ing without a car?
:waves:
Yeah - Quote wars!
Peyote - My point; that you have sucessfully disectued into minute detail while seing the wider point fly over your head; is that the price of fuel is not even the tiniest factor in transport method for short and irregular journeys. No ammount of duty is going to change that and the wider economy would be crippled before people stopped using their cars for this type of trip.
So do a) to reduce the impact of these trips rather than pissing into the wind to try to reduce them, embrace the convienence and effiecncy of personalised motorised transport rather than continue to go down the dead end of expanding comunal alternatives such as busses beyond the point they are efficient.
And do b) to reduce the journeys that can be reduced without having to resort to policies that penalise people. Sitting in a car is penalty enough and people mostly don't pick this option through choice but necessity.
is anyone suggesting getting rid of cars completely? Good public transport and car sharing will give access to most places.how many of us could go mtb ing without a car?
Sorry jfletch, I didn't realise that "quote wars" even existed, let alone it was such a breach of forum etiquette! I will endeavour to avoid such a gross faux pas in the future...
So, this wider point is that fuel duty increases won't impact on short, irregular journeys? I disagree, I think there will come a time when people spedn so much on fuel that they will be forced to think about it and will consider whether a 20 min walk/2min cycle ride is a better option. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point.
Expanding public transport, encouraging walking and cycling etc. are all part of the mix, together with technology, improved communications, transportation systems of goods and similar. Google "travel planning" and you'll see that it is much bigger than just whacking a load more buses on the roads. Just improving vehciles so they run cleaner isn't going to tackle the bigger issues of congestion, social exclusion, sedentary lifestyles and the ilk.
Policies that penalise people are needed, because the policies that encourage alternatives aren't working. Sitting in a car is a choice, it is comfortable, warm, cheap and convenient. Remove one of those and it'll be a lot less attractive.
I'm going to go against the grain here and say no; petrol should not cost anywhere near £6.30 a gallon.My reason for saying this is that it's allowed the end cost of public transport to escalate beyond all reason.
How large a proportion of the cost of public transport do you think the cost of fuel actually is? How do you reckon that compares with the proportion of the marginal cost of running a car?
aye we're in the situation we are in "We can't cope without cars" because of cars and how cheap personal transport has been and still is. It will be tricky to back pedal and get things back to more localised setup but it could be done if enough (of the right) people wanted it. At the moment there don't seem to be many people interested tho.There was a time when motoring was too expensive for most people and there were local shops and good rural public transport.
What a lucky coincidence.
Cars are damn useful but they are the cause of all sorts of problems and basing our society on a massively flawed and temporary* product possibly wasn't the greatest idea.
*finite fuel supply and leccy cars only fix some of the problems.
With all due respect sir, cobblers! Like I said cars are damn useful so many many people own them - fair enough. What happens then is anytime you need to go anywhere, any distance, any reason, there's far too many people who just grab the car keys and have a moan about how many other people are on the road.Sitting in a car is penalty enough and people mostly don't pick this option through choice but necessity.
[s]Good[/s] [i]Expensive and slow[/i] public transport and [s]car sharing[/s][i] not being able to go when you want[/i] will [s]give[/s] [i]prevent[/i] access to most places.
Trying to halt progress is not a sensible policy.
People seem very keen on adding in the "true" cost of a car by adding vairables such as damage to the environment and health impacts to the cost benefit analysis but are forgetting variables such a quality of life and social mobility.
Increasing the cost of motoring will only penalise those of lower means, restricting the ability to go where you want, when you want to the rich.
Progress is subjective though, we can still have a globalised society, a worldwide market and communication over vast distances with the true cost of transport being paid by those who want it.
The "True" cost of transport includes the benefits and costs, traditionally the costs have been ignored and the benefits counted. Recently this has been changing. Have a look at the Dept. for Transports WebTAG documents if you want to see what is normally taken into account for a cost benefit analysis of a potential transport project (it is quite dry though).
If the true cost of transport means only the rich can afford it, then thats the way it will need to be. It doesn't restrict where or when you can go, it just restricts how you can go...
Increasing the cost of motoring will only penalise those of lower means, restricting the ability to go where you want, when you want to the rich.
We already have situations where that is the case right now, granted this might expand the numbers of people to who it would apply but it's certainly nothing new.
nickjb - Member
Good public transport...will give access to most places.
You must have a much better train/bus service that we do here, Nick! I wish that was true.
Peyote - ok, so once we have penalised people through higher petrol prices what happens next? Petrol is a classic example of a good that tends to have inelastic price elasticity of demand which is econ-speak for the fact that demand is relatively unresponsive to changes in price - especially in the US but still also true in Europe. So raising prices may not have the impact that you desire.
Leaving that aside, lets look at the unintended consequences. First raising petrol prices is a regressive measure ie it hurts the less-well off more which goes against the point that zokes made (indirectly above).
Second, raising petrol prices will have a knock-on effect on inflation, prices of other goods, UK competitiveness, interest rates, the exchange rate etc. None of which are likely to help anyone (outside the industry and the exchequer) especially low-income households.
So penalising people may well end up being a lot more penal than expected and a lot less desirable!!
teamhurtmore (I won't quote if that's okay!), you're right about much of the economic impacts, however they are all short term impacts and to be honest I haven't really thought about the timescale side of things!
If [u]all[/u] fuel was priced according to it's true cost then many of the side effects you list wouldn't happen, more goods would be produced closer to their point of consumption. People would live closer to where they work.
The poorer members of society would always be hit hardest (is there truly any tax that doesn't do this?) but what other options are there? We cannot continue living the way we do and it's going to be a lot better to progressively reduce car-addiction than let the markets (health, social and financial) suddenly hit everyone at a later date when it's too late to make the (slightly less radical changes we need to.
If the true cost of transport means only the rich can afford it, then thats the way it will need to be. It doesn't restrict where or when you can go, it just restricts how you can go...
It does restrict where you can go, massivley. And when. Public transport is not a sensible option to develop for lots of places. In towns and citties it is the answer but anywhere else its just not.
So what is wrong with subsidising the cost of personal transport? We subsidise lots of things already that are good for quality of life so why not continue to subsidise this? It doesn't have to be bad for the environment. It just is now but that could be fixed. It is a fairly trivial problem really and we are already orders of magnitude better at it than 20 years ago. More investment and research and we could crack it rather than by default thinking tha car = bad.
Depends what happens to that tax. If we spend the extra revenue on public transport and helping businesses find alternative solutions to moving goods around then we may all be a lot better off. that would take some joined up thinking from the government, though.
Actually, I will disagree on the timescale issue especially with responsiveness of petrol prices and demand. But lets hope that changes, hey!
What is the "true cost of fuel" - strip out taxation and what is the cost of a litre in the UK? Do you really want petrol to priced at its "true" cost?
Taxes can be regressive (eg fuel tax, VAT etc) or progressive (eg income tax). Since one of the purposes of taxation is to re-distribute income, it would be odd if poorer members of society were always hit hardest by taxation.
So while I agree with the sentiments, I think the solution proposed needs a little tweeking!!
jfletch - No it doesn't, unless you can't walk. Theoretically you have access to the entire country, you just need to have the time to travel there. You can go pretty much anywhere. "Resticting your mobility" is an emotional argument used by the motor lobby to try and persuade people that it is a "right" to hown and use a car unrestricted. It is not a right, it is a privelidge, one that needs to be paid for.
Well, the CBA I flagged up earlier indicates that it isn't good for most peoples quality fo life (or society as a whole), and, call me a clairvoyant, but I suspect the list of minuses is going to increase faster than the list of pluses. Forget about this hang up you have on the environment side of things, that's only a small factor, swapping everyones V8 for a G-Whizz isn't going to impact on many of the problems we face.
BTW Car doesn't = bad, stupid use of car = bad.
Whacking the price of fuel up penalises the poor, you get a very unequal society whereby only those with money can travel around....seems bizarre and a great way to deepen the divide between the haves and have-nots, not a policy i'd vote for....fossil fuels will be knocked on the head when somebody can come up with something better for a reasonable price, trying to force the issue simply forces hardship on those who can least afford it.
Focussing on petrol prices misses the point.
We have an economy based upon free movement of goods and people, personal transportation is a big part of this.
This is not going to change. We need to focus on technology to make journeys cheaper and more environmentally friendly.
Ramping up petrol prices won't achieve this and as THM points out its regressive.
thm - true cost as in what it costs to produce and the costs of the impact of it's use minus what it's benefits are.
Okay, fuel tax could be viewed as regressive, if you only look at those who pay fuel tax. If you look at the really poor in society, those who can't afford a car, they are reaping the costs of car-addiction with none of the benefits. They are seeing there homes sidelined, their job options reduced, their health negatively impacted. Reduced car use would reduce these factors, therefore the poorest members of society would benefit. Is that the kind of thing you were thinking of?
You're not wrong about the solution needing tweeking, the amount to charge for fuel, the amalagmation of different motoring taxes, the amounts spent on infrastructure, policing, health care etc... It's a minefield to try and sort out!
But "stupid" is a subjective term
Is this journey stupid use of a car?
Its a realtively short journey to go do some exercise between two places with a good provision of public transport that couldn't reasonably be improved without investing disproportionate amounts of capital.
But the car journey takes an hour making the trip feasible, by public transport it takes 3 hours and you can only go once per hour.
By pricing people off the roads you have made going for some exercise in a nnearby ational park a pastime for the rich. <applause>
Of course it is possible to get to anywhere if you can walk but that is a rediculous statement as a journey is only feasible if it can be done in a time that makes that journey worthwhile.
How large a proportion of the cost of public transport do you think the cost of fuel actually is? How do you reckon that compares with the proportion of the marginal cost of running a car?
🙄
The 20-mile commute into London from Woking cost you £3,268 a year in 2012. Similar-distance journeys in Germany and Spain cost just £705 and £653 respectively.
Almost half the cost of a ticket goes straight to Railtrack, which is currently £20bn in the red. The cost of the fuel/energy is less than 10%...
http://www.watchmywallet.co.uk/travel-leisure/trains/2013/february/why-is-train-travel-so-expensive/
as peyote said get everyone in a electric/hydrogen/solar car won't fix most of the problems.fossil fuels will be knocked on the head when somebody can come up with something better for a reasonable price
Public transport is a bit pants for a lot of people, now do you think it was always shit so people went out and bought a car instead or do you think car ownership rocketed leading to reduced/crap public transport?
IIRC the world and his dog bought a car, less and less people used PT, PT was then privatised and privatisation did not lead to "competition and choice that is good for the consumer" it lead to a few providers having a bit of a price war on the most lucrative markets and everyone else getting screwed over. A lot of countries seem to manage public transport pretty well
IIRC the world and his dog bought a car, less and less people used PT, PT was then privatised and privatisation did not lead to "competition and choice that is good for the consumer" it lead to a few providers having a bit of a price war on the most lucrative markets and everyone else getting screwed over.
^This, absolutely. The thing that makes me so angry is that no-one in politics wants to fix it. They all see transport as a cash-cow, regardless of the environmental impact or otherwise.
Ok, so we are bringing "negative externalities" into the debate (eg the cost of pollution, traffic jams etc) and that is a very valid point in terms if the wider cost (and not what I had in mind originally!). But even here it's about balance. One of the argument for higher fuel taxes is indeed the point. But it has to be balance out against the unintended consequences? This blog sums it all up rather well
http://marytrouble.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/if-we-tax-petrol-this-does-not.html
Stupid is subjective, yes. That journey could be made in other ways, the purpose of that journey could be considered and a closer alternative found. I don't know what the persons ideas were behind that journey, but I'd be happy to suggest alternatives if that information was provided.
By pricing people off the roads you have made going for some exercise in a nnearby ational park a pastime for the rich. <applause>
Sorry for quoting, but couldn't think of a better way of responding. Anyway, what is the specific problem with this (I'm assuming the applause is sarcastic)? Couldn't the same be said for airtravel to for example Barbados? Oh noes, the porr people can't go on holiday there!
It is not anymore ridiculous than saying that cars give people freedom, which was my point.
thm, I'll check the blog out later.
I think focussing on reducing the need for quite so much movement might be better.This is not going to change. We need to focus on technology to make journeys cheaper and more environmentally friendly.