thought this was an interesting article from the 70s:the trouble with cars

I think the problem lies in the fact that although some people squander fuel (and the greener of us like to use these examples as reasons to keep fuel costs high) many people do not squander fuel and are still crippled by the cost of it. I can afford fuel for whatever I choose to do, but I don't think the prices are sane. Sure high costs mean fewer people waste it, but that's not very fair for those who DONT waste it, and since the fuel cost increases are currently dictated primarily by the oil companies selling them, not taxation, it's the fuel companies we should be more angry at. I'm quite greenie at heart, I grow a lot of my own food, I buy goods with less packaging from local sources even though it's a pain to do, I cycle to work where practical, I own a dog slow high mpg car but it still costs me £70 for me and the other half to visit my family and go for a ride with my brother. But it would cost me considerably more to do the same if I wanted to use public transport to do the same journey, and I'd struggle to get bikes and all my bags onto a train to do it, plus I'd have to get a taxi to the train station in the first place.

Fuel costs here have risen 15% in 12 months. Public transport is a more expensive and less convenient solution currently, so what's happening is we're being squeezed between the need to be green, the fuel company profits and the train/bus company profits. Down this path be dragons, non shall fair well in this, not even the green movement.

The cost of housing in the city near jobs forced people out of the city, people then needed cars to commute (in general it can be accepted that 10+ miles a day, rain or shine is a big ask for even STWers), cities declined so housing in cities has become either very expensive OR very poor and crime ridden, so people no longer want to live near cities so rural towns flourish, supermarkets etc set up and people find it easier to live away from the city but businesses rarely can afford to be out of cities (especially large institutions with existing assets). So the general public is stuck with the choice of live in a hovel in the city surrounded by crime and pollution, but not have to drive to work (but if you want to do anything else you'll get stung by public transport costs, and if you want to do things that require equipment you're going to need a car to transport them so owning a car becomes practically essential). Or the public can live miles away where house prices are cheaper, commuting by car is still cheaper than public transport and more convenient, and they don't have to live with crime and ugliness of city dwelling, but fuel costs continually increase.

IF you want people to drive less either decrease public transport costs and increase frequency, build cheap, QUALITY, well sized homes nearer to the city and police the areas correctly instead of letting them become gang warfare areas, and/or provide adequate solutions to allow people to work from home where possible, or make it easier for businesses to move out of the city.

None of the above things win votes because they cost a vast amount, and it's easier to just lump the costs onto the drivers than it is to say "as a government we need to do this".

The only fair way to stop people driving AND allow for the fact that some people need to drive and should be able to afford it is… ROAD PRICING!

It solves literally all of the problems with the blunt tool of fuel duty. The theory was developed some time in the 50's i think, but there wasn't the technology to implement it. There were several key things that were to key to making it work, like total transparency and a lack of 'jumps' in the cost (must be gradual incremental increases in driving cost). i've forgetten most of the details.

unfortunately, 99% of the public hate it and the government would probably balls it up like most the other high-tech projects they try and implement.

cont…TBH as soon as you take 2 people in a car, or a bulky piece of kit, it becomes cheaper to use a car. Even with 2x the fuel costs on many routes. So increasing fuel taxation or cost doesn't really deter people until train fares become a viiable option. The for example my weekends journey:

Booked weeks in advance the ticket costs required (time-wise) were going to be £85 return, x2 for the two of us, £170. The journey would have been about 30 minutes faster, but required a taxi at each end, costing £12 each side, both days, so thats plus £48. That's without taking into account the fact that I needed to take a piece of equipment that weighed 20kg and was too large to fit into a train carriage easily. The car cost me £70 return and allowed me to do an intermediate trip of 70 miles with another family member as a "treat" day out for someone who rarely leaves the village. So for me the choice was obvious, and these are the sorts of trips I normally do in my car. So you could increase my fuel costs 3x to reach the price of the public transport route to try to put me off using the car, but that is a false-hope because all you're doing is playing into the hands of the fuel companies and train companies. The more you up (or allow them to up) the fuel costs the more the train company can up it's prices (and has to to some extent due to fuel costs), and the fewer choices people have. The stick is not an option, people have put themselves in a position where long distance travel is often required (living miles from family and work) due to that being where the jobs are and needing to earn the cash to keep afloat. To then increase costs like that is to punish them for trying to look after themselves and find work and a house. Privatising public transport was a cockup to start with, but possibly with good intention. Many people DO try hard to reduce fuel use, I know loads of people who car share, who ride when they can etc, but all feel like they're being beaten time after time despite them making the effort. This wins no favours and simply turns people against the greater good.

Ok, Ok, someone has to say it…

… Thatch is to blame.

There,

Done.

(incidentally I tend to be more on the conservative side, so that wasn't a thatcher stabbing, but I believe that all(?) of the best public transport systems are state owned and state run, and work very well for the majority of journeys.

I don't regard myself as politically left or right leaning – political dogma from either side hacks me off…

… But, as someone who left school in 1983 I have rather bitter memories of the job prospects etc from that time. The social fabric that had prevailed was largely dismantled in the early 80s. I was discussing this with some friends recently. Our school year was the first where going on to the major local engineering employer (Navy Dockyard) or into the Armed Forces, was in the minority. Of the school years above mine, most boys ended up working locally or in the services. Many girls still chose to get married and have families etc. Only a very few went on to further eductaion etc. In 83 we didn't have those choices. Apprenticeships in the Dockyard were suddenly very rare – services, dole, FE or HE were the main options…

Poverty of ambition? – perhaps: but prior to the early 80s, people from all over the UK had the ability to live and work locally. Normo Tebbs told my generation to get on our bikes. I have done so (well my mtb…)not through choice, but through necessity. like many, I now live and work away from the countryside where I was brought up (and which is still strongly my spiritual home), away from my parents – so no support for childcare emergencies etc, and in a place where both me and my wife need to travel to work.

Should I move closer to work? – well where is work?? The required flexibility in the job market means that jobs aren't fixed at one geographical location anymore. In the last 12 months my wife has worked on short term contracts in Bridgend, Caerphilly and Newport – Should we move house each time??? Or should we fix our home address and expect to be able to afford to commute to work?

Ok, firstly lets dispel the theory that oil companies are pushing up the cost of fuel. They are not. Profits from petrol retailing are generally small and there is a great deal of competition. Yes oil companies make large profits from oil extraction but it is not legal to use this side of the business to subsidise another (as this distorts competition). The large profits generated by extraction also provide the funds for further exploration and the development of new technology.

The high cost of fuel relative to other countries is from taxation. The actual cost of fuel pre-taxation is actually smaller than most other counties.

I would agree with previous comments that road pricing per mile would be the fairest way of taxing road use and this could also prove an effective tool against congestion. This would also encourage people to take jobs close to where they live. As for the suggestion that city housing is more expensive than rural …piffle! Its more a case that the desirable areas in a city are more expensive than others …no change there then.

There are great public transport schemes out there. Where I live I can get a GMPTE subsidised rail ticket which makes taking the train far more economical than driving (and avoiding the congestion). Unfortunately this does not extend to where my new job will be (Warrington), making it far more convenient and cheaper to drive.

Personally I'm in favor of road pricing providing that the revenue is fed back into public transport.

Montrose to Carnoustie £10 return; "return" train at 5.12pm or 7.12pm.Trains frequently cancelled,even a week pass is £42. Car share with a fellow teacher,£12/18 a week depending on who does the third journey.It was not the price of the fare that eventualy made me buy a second car,it was the crap service.

The high cost of fuel relative to other countries is from taxation. The actual cost of fuel pre-taxation is actually smaller than most other counties.

Explain to me what taxation has risen 10%+ in the last 12 months then (to produce a pump-price increase of 10%)?

This would also encourage people to take jobs close to where they live.

How, I'm trained in a particular job, I'm a specialist in that area, I don't have too many places that I can work? If I were to stack shelves or be a brickie then fine, but I'm not, and the country needs both types of work.

As for the suggestion that city housing is more expensive than rural …piffle!

Good quality housing of equivalent size, in a place not crime-ridden IS more expensive, trust me I'm looking for a house as we speak, I've been to literally dozens from city centre flats to houses in the hills. Go to any area with equivelent quality of life and "desirability" (read as lack of knifings and crime, and some level of greenery) and houses out of town are cheaper, WAY cheaper. Sure there are cheaper houses available in cities, but they're shoeboxes in a block of flats.

[/quote]Explain to me what taxation has risen 10%+ in the last 12 months then (to produce a pump-price increase of 10%)?

Wholesale prices, driven by supply/demand/speculation.

How, I'm trained in a particular job, I'm a specialist in that area, I don't have too many places that I can work? If I were to stack shelves or be a brickie then fine, but I'm not, and the country needs both types of work.

Your right, it does not work for everyone.

Good quality housing of equivalent size, in a place not crime-ridden IS more expensive, trust me I'm looking for a house as we speak, I've been to literally dozens from city center flats to houses in the hills. Go to any area with equivalent quality of life …

So there is housing but your not prepared to live in certain areas? Welcome to the real world. I think you will find that rural housing is just as expensive. Although since you work in the city would expect there to be ample public transport arrangements should I be wrong.

Normo Tebbs told my generation to get on our bikes.

He didn't. He said that his father's generation had done that.

wholesale prices

That's not taxation, as I said, wholesale prices are set by the oil companies/opec etc.

So there is housing but your not prepared to live in certain areas? Welcome to the real world. I think you will find that rural housing is just as expensive. Although since you work in the city would expect there to be ample public transport arrangements should I be wrong.

I'm not prepared to put my family at that risk, no. I think you will find that rural housing is NOT as expensive, even taking car use into account. Trust me I've run countless spreadsheets on it and tried several different ways. And there's 1 bus per hour at the times I need to get to work, it's sometimes quite late or doesnt arrive at all, and now that my other half lives with me we'd require 2 bus tickets, so car sharing becomes by far the more viable option.

I'm not sure how road pricing would help, can someone elaborate?

When it doesnt work in all cases, it's not very good to make those cases "average" people. I'm joe blogs, I do a specific job I'm trained in and don't want to live in crimesville. I'm 90% of the public.

I'm not sure how road pricing would help, can someone elaborate?

The country road that you have to drive along would be free. The town roads that people choose to drive along would not be.

That way, the choice is taxed, not the need.

I'm joe blogs, I do a specific job I'm trained in and don't want to live in crimesville. I'm 90% of the public.

Most people do pretty generic jobs. I bet there are lots of 'widget turners' doing mirror image commutes.

correct me if im wrong but it seems from most posts that cars are great for convenience

but only really cost effective when you have more than 1 person in them when compared to public transport

well that sounds good to me, more car sharing and car pool lanes like you have in america?

correct me if im wrong but it seems from most posts that cars are great for convenience

but only really cost effective when you have more than 1 person in them when compared to public transport

well that sounds good to me, more car sharing and car pool lanes like you have in america?

Yes but its only cheaper on the train for me as GMPTE subsidise the rail cost (ok I do get free parking at work). So what we really need is more schemes like these!!

Normo Tebbs told my generation to get on our bikes.

He didn't. He said that his father's generation had done that.

With the clear implication that we should do the same….. and the bike merely being a metaphor for us to get off our @rse and move to find work…

But my rather long winded rant still boils down to the facts that:

a) Labour market flexibility makes it much more difficult to live / work in the same area – job changes are potentially just too frequent to move homes to suit each job change…

b) Employment (ie in significant numbers and for many of the specialist skill areas / disciplines) is now highly concentrated in urban centres.

c) There are chronic shortages of good quality affordable housing – both in cities and in rural locations.

Personally speaking – as a young couple with no kids we enjoyed city living. Friends, bars, amenities and work all within walking distance etc. Small house suited us perfectly.

That changed with the arrival of kids – we simply could not afford to buy a larger house in the city we then lived and worked in. Career progresion was certainly one driver, but the main reason we moved "onwards and upwards" (if you can call it that) was the need to finance a larger house suitable for a family – and that necessitated living out of town and commuting to work. Precious little choice to be honest.

Most people do pretty generic jobs. I bet there are lots of 'widget turners' doing mirror image commutes.

Possible I suppose. Maybe I'm more unusual than I think. But then maybe I should be being paid more! 🙂 But I'm not sure most people do do generic jobs anymore. My other half is temping (trying while trying to find less generic work) and is finding that even with generic admin jobs they're very selective of your experience.

well that sounds good to me, more car sharing and car pool lanes like you have in america?

That's fine, but if you assume people don't already and are just moaning. We do already and still find it pricey. But compared to public transport, it is still cheaper. No reason to accept it rising though.

The country road that you have to drive along would be free. The town roads that people choose to drive along would not be.

"choose"?

Precious little choice to be honest.

While I agree with your statements on the whole and don't want it to sem like I dont agree with them, I have to say you chose to have a kid which you quote as the main reason to move? I'm wholely for that choice and would agree that a larger house and out of the city is nicer for having kids, but it's still your choice at the end of the day.

Adding fuel to the fire, isn't another tax increase due imminently?

Explain to me what taxation has risen 10%+ in the last 12 months then (to produce a pump-price increase of 10%)?

You're quite right that there hasn't been a 10% increase in taxation in the last 12 months. There has however been a 100% increase in the price of crude oil.

Clicky for the BBC site

So if we assume that the 10% increase in fuel is solely due to the 100% rise in crude oil prices (it's not but this does make the thought process a bit easier) it goes to show just how much tax there must be for such a large increase oil price to have such a small effect on petrol prices.

The oil price is not set by oil companies and OPEC it is set by the market, something that opec have been spectacularly bad at influencing beyond minor short term shifts.

good point gonefishin, good point. But my overall point, going back to my first post, was that it's the oil companies upping the prices, not the taxation. I'm no so sure about the "helplessness" of oil companies and opec. Are we currently sending out dozens more drilling rigs to find more oil, hence the increase in cost per barrel, or is the fact that lots want it meaning that the oil companies can up the price and no-one will complain?

2007 price breakdown

On the positive side, its a good time for me in other ways! coffee prices

As far as I understand it oil has recently been at a very low price and many oil companies aren't carrying out further exploration because its not worth it at this level. Oil companies don't set the oil price – that's done by the market (you know the capitalism bit that you all love?) and so the price you pay for fuel is affected by that.
Fuel is still too cheap judging by the numbers of people on here who can run big engined cars and boast about "ragging" them.

oil exploration is always going on 365 days a year

the rigs going down to argentina while very expensive are a 'drop in the ocean' and being undertaken by a small british company and a very high risk venture, ie no one has ever turned up oil in the falklands and have been looking for years

oil price has gone up because of ongoing issues in nigeria, tension with iran etc etc and a falling dollar (oil is priced in dollars)

Fuel is still too cheap judging by the numbers of people on here who can run big engined cars and boast about "ragging" them.

Significantly fewer than the number who choose to have kids and need to house them, heat those houses etc. Or those who choose to fly on holiday instead of stay in the country.

oil exploration is always going on 365 days a year

Of course, what I was asking was are there loads of new rigs going out (hence increased costs) or are we just shifting the existing ones about? Or, of course, is someone just being greedy because people need fuel?

I'll declare an interest here and say that I work in the oil industry, that way you can decide how much notice you want to take of what I say next.

was that it's the oil companies upping the prices

Nope, it's the market that decides that not the oil companies. Trust me you are giving them WAYYYYY too much credit for being able achieve anything so dastardly. Think government conspiracies and IT projects and you'll be closer to the mark.

Are we currently sending out dozens more drilling rigs to find more oil, hence the increase in cost per barrel, or is the fact that lots want it meaning that the oil companies can up the price and no-one will complain?

The oil industry is a bit like a oil tanker (quite a useful analogy that one) in that it takes a long time to get it going and up to speed. We are starting more drilling a developments, partially spurred on by the higher price but this doesn't affect the oil price rather it is affected by it. The higher oil price will be driven by a number of factors like the fact that the world is recovering from the financial crisis and the fact that quite a bit of the US has had a harsh winter which will mean lots of oil being burned. Doubtless there will be other factors as well but I'm an engineer not an analyst.

The other point is the length of time it takes to start producing from a new field. I'm working on a few developments right now that have been getting looked at for a couple of years. If all things go well will be producing in about 2012. These are relatively small jobs in the scheme of things so you get an idea of just how long it can take. Major, and I'm talking about the really big stuff here, can take a decade from the initial tentative exploration to production.

Don't get me wrong though, the oil companies would much prefer selling for $80 rather than $40 (as does our government) but what they really want above all is stability in the prices. The price spike of a couple of years ago was speculator driven, not oil company driven.

Oil is traded. That means that stripy shirt barrow boys in the City somewhere are shouting sell, buy, etc making money for themselves by either driving up or pushing down the cost of oil. Oil companies don't do this.
Admittedly some countries might have tried it every now and then, oh, and the good ole' US of A isn't helping a great deal by warmongering over Iran.

Petrol companies make virtually no profit from forecourt sales. Which is why pay-at-pump is not popular here except at supermarkets. They make you go into the shop so they can entice you to buy extra stuff, which is how they make money. Supermarkets don't care because petrol for them is just an additional part of the customer experience, whcih is why you get pay at pump.

. That means that stripy shirt barrow boys in the City somewhere are shouting sell, buy, etc making money for themselves by either driving up or pushing down the cost of oil. Oil companies don't do this

So what does OPEC do then? Don't they regulate supply, thereby dictating prices indirectly?

So what does OPEC do then? Don't they regulate supply, thereby dictating prices indirectly?

Well they try. Generally speaking though they fail. They are more successful at stabilising prices rather than controlling them.

I know someon'e gonna say 'well theyr'e oil company's, they have to show a return on their investment/exploration etc, but they do show a profit, massive at that.

Rubbish

If they made 1 barrle of crude ($50/£35, 385 ish litres) into more usefull stuff, say on average I could sell the products at about 30c/20p a litre, that's about $100/£77 a barrel. So youve made arround 50% margin. Which is comparable to most other indutries total profit margin.

Now have you seen the size of refineries? You'r talking $10billion+ just to build one. That needs re-couping. Also it's very energy intensive (a refinery typicaly has its own small power station, and a lot of the oil goes into the fired heaters to provide the energy for refining, whioch is one of the reasons diesel is actualy less efficient than petrol in terms of CO2 output.

Take all that into account and the industries profit is actualy tiny. If they ran the whole industry at cost it would drop prices by a couple of pence at the most!

If you want the govermnment to do something about fuel prices, go live in Venezuela, its the only county i can think of that does keep them artificialy low.

Yes but its only cheaper on the train for me as GMPTE subsidise the rail cost (ok I do get free parking at work). So what we really need is more schemes like these!!

And who pays the subsidy?

The District Council in each of these areas contributes finance from local taxes and appoints local councillors to the Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority to represent their district. The Authority decides on public transport policy for the county and provides the funds for GMPTE to carry out these policies. GMPTE is the trading name of the county's Passenger Transport Executive whose role is to carry out these policies.

You and everyone else – so its not really cheap is it?

We work with some of the big oil industry clients. The "downstream" end of the business (refining, distribution, retail sales)is very low margin and costs are very tightly controlled.

Oil companies make their large profits in the "upstream" operations, exploration, development and production. Cash is made through crude production, and exploration might be seen purely as a cost – but if you pay attention to their annual statements, a large basis of the companies values are based on their stated reserves, and that's down to exploration.