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.
Whacking the price of fuel up penalises the poor
How? Poor people can't afford a car in the first place.
The cost of the fuel/energy is less than 10%...
So how exactly has the cost of fuel "allowed the end cost of public transport to escalate beyond all reason"? Based on your figures, if they got the fuel for free then the trip would still cost 4 times as much as it does in Germany.
Oh, and of course that's all without getting into the point that train companies don't pay £6.30 a gallon!
BTW, are the rolly eyes because you don't understand the point that increasing the cost of road fuel would actually make PT relatively cheaper compared to driving given the different cost bases? I certainly can't see anything in what I wrote which deserved them.
Peyote - Quoting is fine. Quoting every scentence in a post individually is annoying and hard to follow and for me to respond to every point would require me to quote your quotes and then we would all be ****ed.
I haven't seen anyone arguing that fuel should be subsidised. Just that paying for the impact of motoring via general taxation is preferable than purchase tax since general taxation is progressive whereas purchase tax is regressive and that making car ownership less affordable is a bad thing.
Fundamentally the argument can be boiled down to
a) people who thinks personal motorised transport is fundamentally bad and its side effects can only be reduced by reducing access to it via financial penalties
vs
b) people who think personal motorised transport is good for quaility of life and its not the cars that should be reduced but the impact of these cars
