Have electric vehicles been "oversold" to the detriment of public transport, walking and cycling?

[HSTEd]

That doesn't allow for the "where you drive matters" element: there's no way of knowing whether you've driven 10 000 miles on B-roads or through central London.

Assuming the device can download a list of charges, then it can still do this.

It can change the increment based on what kind of road you are on using its database.
Indeed it doesn't even need to be over the air broadcast, the database could be updated during the MOT.

I think a flat fee per mile is a better solution though myself.

 

[ABB125]

Assuming the device can download a list of charges, then it can still do this.

It can change the increment based on what kind of road you are on using its database.
Indeed it doesn't even need to be over the air broadcast, the database could be updated during the MOT.

I think a flat fee per mile is a better solution though myself.

I suppose that would work, although you'd still need to use GPS, which is one of the main problems with road pricing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suppose that would work, although you'd still need to use GPS, which is one of the main problems with road pricing.

One way to do this is to read the odometer at each MoT and send a bill based on that, which could be paid over 12 months at a supplement if preferred. You'd need to improve odometer security, I suppose (maybe even have it report automatically each month), but GPS definitely isn't required.

 

[ABB125]

One way to do this is to read the odometer at each MoT and send a bill based on that, which could be paid over 12 months at a supplement if preferred. You'd need to improve odometer security, I suppose (maybe even have it report automatically each month), but GPS definitely isn't required.

How does it know what road you're using then? (Assuming you're referring to the downloaded list of charges mentioned my HSTEd.)

If it's simply a flat mileage fee, then I agree.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How does it know what road you're using then? (Assuming you're referring to the downloaded list of charges mentioned my HSTEd.)

If it's simply a flat mileage fee, then I agree.

I was reading his last line (flat mileage fee).

 

[Domh245]

I think a flat fee per mile is a better solution though myself.

Flat fee makes no sense when there's naff-all public transport in rural areas, and massive congestion in cities. Charging both situations at the same rate makes no sense

As for downloading the data from the blackbox annually, I'd be concerned with the tendency for this to generate scary large bills once a year. Probably quite good at helping people realise the "true cost" of motoring, but a monthly system (with cars remotely reporting) would be far more practical I'd think

 

[ABB125]

I was reading his last line (flat mileage fee).

Ah right, yes I agree with you, and think it's the best solution myself.

(However, we do appear to be slightly off-topic, apologies for continuing the digression!)

 

[HSTEd]

Flat fee makes no sense when there's naff-all public transport in rural areas, and massive congestion in cities. Charging both situations at the same rate makes no sense

Its no different to the current situation which is apparently acceptable?

We don't subsidise petroleum fuels in rural areas?

 

[ABB125]

Its no different to the current situation which is apparently acceptable?

We don't subsidise petroleum fuels in rural areas?

Red diesel?

(Obviously I wouldn't advocate anyone to use it for anything other than its intended purpose. However, it is a subsidy which is predominantly used in rural areas.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Red diesel?

(Obviously I wouldn't advocate anyone to use it for anything other than its intended purpose. However, it is a subsidy which is predominantly used in rural areas.)

And similarly there would be scope to offer different rates to rural users, such as a discounted or free first N miles per annum to cover the fact that they need to drive to their nearest town or railhead for basic services (e.g. food shopping) because public transport is not provided, say.

 

[ABB125]

And similarly there would be scope to offer different rates to rural users, such as a discounted or free first N miles to cover the fact that they need to drive to their nearest town or railhead for basic services because public transport is not provided, say.

I'd be happy with that, but how do you define a "rural area", and decide who's entitled to such a discount?
For example, I grew up in a small village in what I'd describe as a "semi-rural" area on the edge of the Cotswolds (ie: it's the countryside, but you're never more than 5 miles from the nearest town). There's an hourly bus between two of the nearby towns, which goes from the larger part of the village (it's basically two separate villages half a mile apart). Is this eligible for the "rural discount"? (Genuine question; I'd like to think that it would be eligible.) What about places only two miles from the nearest town? etc etc

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd be happy with that, but how do you define a "rural area", and decide who's entitled to such a discount?
For example, I grew up in a small village in what I'd describe as a "semi-rural" area on the edge of the Cotswolds (ie: it's the countryside, but you're never more than 5 miles from the nearest town). There's an hourly bus between two of the nearby towns, which goes from the larger part of the village (it's basically two separate villages half a mile apart). Is this eligible for the "rural discount"? (Genuine question; I'd like to think that it would be eligible.) What about places only two miles from the nearest town? etc etc

You'd have to define some criteria. I don't overly have a strong view on what they might be, but the usual expectation is that a home should be within 500m of a public transport service for it to be useful to them.

 

[ABB125]

You'd have to define some criteria. I don't overly have a strong view on what they might be, but the usual expectation is that a home should be within 500m of a public transport service for it to be useful to them.

Whilst I agree with the principle of that, it's inevitable that such a rule would leave situations whereby residents of one house will be eligible for the discount, but their next-door neighbour won't be. Clearly, that situation would be nonsense, and could (amongst other things) significantly reduce some house prices, for no reason other than being a few metres closer to a bus stop.

 

[DustyBin]

This is a nasty issue. Time and again, it is demonstrated that fewer cars means higher footfall means higher sales, plus also some delivery service sales for large goods for people who do not want to drive to collect using one of the retained loading bays, because in reality despite what some say, people do not spend as much time shopping in streets that are effectivly treated as long thin car parks. So the quickest way to kill the high street shops is to keep using the street as a car park instead of a town street for people to walk, cycle, chat with friends, sit down and eat at cafes and bars, basically linger and shop, but the perception pushed by both motorists and shopkeepers is the opposite! Why?

I think you've misunderstood my point. I'm not talking about using shopping streets as car parks, they're better pedestrianised I agree. However, many (if not all) town/city centres have car parks close to the retail areas which are used by shoppers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whilst I agree with the principle of that, it's inevitable that such a rule would leave situations whereby residents of one house will be eligible for the discount, but their next-door neighbour won't be. Clearly, that situation would be nonsense, and could (amongst other things) significantly reduce some house prices, for no reason other than being a few metres closer to a bus stop.

Just like free school transport, then, and many other things. There will always be such situations.

 

[ABB125]

Just like free school transport, then, and many other things. There will always be such situations.

I suppose so! Though of course such situations should be avoided whenever possible.

 

[Domh245]

Its no different to the current situation which is apparently acceptable?

We don't subsidise petroleum fuels in rural areas?

I suppose it depends how the fees are set up, but I've always seen mileage based charging as a "stick", with anyone using a car "inappropriately" being charged more - by default I've assumed that the flat fee would be set at a higher rate to dissuade car use generally, which is rather unfair on rural areas for whom the car is a lifeline who would suddenly see an increase in their cost of living through no fault of their own.

It isn't that we should be subsidising those in rural areas, so much as punishing those people who are sitting in a car in a traffic jam in a big city when they could have been on public transport.

 

[HSTEd]

I suppose it depends how the fees are set up, but I've always seen mileage based charging as a "stick", with anyone using a car "inappropriately" being charged more - by default I've assumed that the flat fee would be set at a higher rate to dissuade car use generally, which is rather unfair on rural areas for whom the car is a lifeline who would suddenly see an increase in their cost of living through no fault of their own.

It isn't that we should be subsidising those in rural areas, so much as punishing those people who are sitting in a car in a traffic jam in a big city when they could have been on public transport.

I'm solely interested in road pricing as a way to escape the upcoming fuel duty crunch.
It's just a way of raising revenue, nothing more.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm solely interested in road pricing as a way to escape the upcoming fuel duty crunch.
It's just a way of raising revenue, nothing more.

That is certainly one way to do it, but another is to try and get some more benefit from it (on a revenue neutral basis) by targetting it more at avoidable car use.

 

[biko]

And similarly there would be scope to offer different rates to rural users, such as a discounted or free first N miles per annum to cover the fact that they need to drive to their nearest town or railhead for basic services (e.g. food shopping) because public transport is not provided, say.

I'd be happy with that, but how do you define a "rural area", and decide who's entitled to such a discount?
For example, I grew up in a small village in what I'd describe as a "semi-rural" area on the edge of the Cotswolds (ie: it's the countryside, but you're never more than 5 miles from the nearest town). There's an hourly bus between two of the nearby towns, which goes from the larger part of the village (it's basically two separate villages half a mile apart). Is this eligible for the "rural discount"? (Genuine question; I'd like to think that it would be eligible.) What about places only two miles from the nearest town? etc etc

In my opinion the best way of implementing road pricing without infringing privacy too much is the following:

- Flat fee per mile for everybody based on odometer or black box
- Time-dependent cordon tolls around cities and large towns that have congestion problems and public transport as alternative
- Possibly tolls on main long-distance roads (also time-dependent charging)

No need to define a rural area, but urban areas are defined. The Cotswolds wouldn't have additional cordons, but Oxford would have one. This gives also the option to invest the money raised by a particular cordon in public transport in the same area.

And of course, pricing should vary based on the emissions and/or weight of a car and discounts could be given to disabled people.

 

[liam456]

Why not just x pence per kWh from charge points not owned by residential households? (Don't really know why earlier I said only high speed chargers!)

 

[biko]

Why not just x pence per kWh from charge points not owned by residential households? (Don't really know why earlier I said only high speed chargers!)

Because you then make electric vehicles more expensive for people without the possibility to have their own charging point and cheaper for those with large driveways.

 

[liam456]

Because you then make electric vehicles more expensive for people without the possibility to have their own charging point and cheaper for those with large driveways.

That's true, the question is which system is the least unequal then, right?

 

[biko]

That's true, the question is which system is the least unequal then, right?

I would say it is fairest to let everybody pay the same price per mile independent of where you charge or what kind of fuel you use. The fuel/electricity price is then added which is an incentive to use the cheapest and cleanest fuel.

 

[Ediswan]

One way to do this is to read the odometer at each MoT and send a bill based on that, which could be paid over 12 months at a supplement if preferred. You'd need to improve odometer security, I suppose (maybe even have it report automatically each month), but GPS definitely isn't required.

Odometers are not anywhere near secure. I once had a faulty battery on a car with a digital odometer. The dashboard would light up, but as soon as the starter motor joined in, everything died. This could be repeated. Once the AA had supplied a new battery, the odometer had reset to zero. I called DVLA/VOSA to ask if this would be a problem. Their answer was that so long as I was honest about the true mileage when selling, no problem at all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

- Flat fee per mile for everybody based on odometer or black box
- Time-dependent cordon tolls around cities and large towns that have congestion problems and public transport as alternative
- Possibly tolls on main long-distance roads (also time-dependent charging)

The problem with cordon tolls is that those who live inside them can drive with impunity, whereas those may be the best placed people to use public transport or cycle instead. MK is a good example of that situation, at least pre-EWR.

For what it's worth, there's also the outlier which is to put the lost revenue on general taxation. I worked it out as requiring an increase in VAT from 20 to 25% if you wanted to put it on that, it's more complex to work out for income tax because of allowances and bands. That of course doesn't discourage driving at all, though.

 

[biko]

The problem with cordon tolls is that those who live inside them can drive with impunity, whereas those may be the best placed people to use public transport or cycle instead. MK is a good example of that situation, at least pre-EWR.

For what it's worth, there's also the outlier which is to put the lost revenue on general taxation. I worked it out as requiring an increase in VAT from 20 to 25% if you wanted to put it on that, it's more complex to work out for income tax because of allowances and bands. That of course doesn't discourage driving at all, though.

Changing it to a zonal scheme has practically the same effect to visitors, but does mean inhabitants pay. I didn't include it as it leads to some other disadvantages, but I presume this could be different from city to city. So some cities have a cordon, others a zone.

Why would it lead to so much lost revenue? It's about replacing one type of taxation (fuel duty, road tax) with another (pay for use of the road). By strategically setting the prices, it could easily be revenue-neutral.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why would it lead to so much lost revenue? It's about replacing one type of taxation (fuel duty, road tax) with another (pay for use of the road). By strategically setting the prices, it could easily be revenue-neutral.

Sorry, that was me suggesting a further option of not replacing it on the roads but instead moving it to general taxation, on which VAT is a reasonably easy (approximate) calculation to make. I don't support that, but included it as an option.

All models of road pricing can be made revenue neutral, you just need to set the price(s) accordingly.

 

[biko]

Sorry, that was me suggesting a further option of not replacing it on the roads but instead moving it to general taxation, on which VAT is a reasonably easy (approximate) calculation to make. I don't support that, but included it as an option.

All models of road pricing can be made revenue neutral, you just need to set the price(s) accordingly.

Oh, in that case I agree . I think I read it a bit too quickly. Moving to general taxation and having the same amount of revenue is nearly impossible. And I don't want to think about the congestion and car usage it would promote...

 

[DustyBin]

Believe it or not I'm tentatively considering an EV for my next everyday car. My infrastructure anxiety (more so than range anxiety) needs to be quelled somewhat first, but I'm thinking about it. What really doesn't help however is the choice of vehicles available; they're nearly all SUV/crossover shaped which instantly puts me off. On that basis I'm left with the Tesla Model 3, and.... well that's it really! There is the upcoming BMW i4 which looks promising but there isn't much else. I really want to like the Ford Mustang Mach-E and apparently it's decent to drive for an EV, but I can't get past the crossover shape (how they can call it a Mustang is beyond me!). I may as well go for an Audi e-tron Estate and have a proper tank-like SUV. Hopefully manufacturers follow Tesla and start producing sensibly sized saloons and hatchbacks that don't weigh over 2000kg and don't have the aerodynamics of a Class 66! It may even help them drive better and go further (that Audi's range is abysmal, presumably due to it's weight).

I'll be keeping a close eye on the infrastructure rollout over the next six months, as well as any new offerings from car manufacturers....