• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Road pricing back on the agenda to replace loss of fuel and vehicle excise duty due to electric vehicles?

Status
Not open for further replies.

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Those externalities are far less than current, so logically the amount paid in compensation for them should be less.
But do current charges cover them? People say motoring taxes roughly balance the roads budget but what about the other things?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,164
Location
UK
The suggestion that vehicular use cost externalities should be captured by taxing the energy that they use at the point of supply would be appropriate if the use is attributable to that externality

Why would 1KWh used for charging a car be any worse than 1kWh used for charging a phone? The externality of producing that 1kWh is the same.

Road usage can be accounted for today by miles driven, there is no need to charge more in cities - we don't do it now.

Local councils could decide to levy some form of "congestion charge" if they wanted, but that doesn't require exact road tracking, just cameras on the edge of the zone.

England has a land value of about £33 trillion. A 2% land value tax would raise the entire government budget. Cheshire East has 2,700km of roads, which at 25 feet across is about 2,000 hectares, with Cheshire East land values of 1.3 million per hectare. That would require £52m a year if all taxes were raised by LVT (i.e. get rid of income tax etc). That would be £135 per person. About 50% are drivers, so that would cost £270 per driver, for an average 7,000 miles a year, or a road charge of about 3.5-4p per mile, so the land use cost for that 100 yard trip to the store would be 0.5p return.

To raise just Cheshire East's £300m budget (and thus replace council tax and business rates) would mean a road contribution of

£300m * 2000 hectares / 11 660 000ha = £51k.

About 30p per driver per year.

(A typical housing estate is built about a density of 20-30 per hectare, so land price would be about £52k, or £1000 per house per year for all taxes, or £1 a year for Cheshire East's budget. Local aristocrats in their 340 hectare estate would have to pay a fair whack though)

A tyre in its lifetime sheds around 2-3kg (20cm * 18 inch * 6mm * 400kg/m^3). Landfill tax is about £100 a ton, or 10p per kg, so the cost of the tyre wear is currently about 30p per tyre, which lasts about 20,000 miles. Better to add the tax upfront, but it would work out at well under 0.02p per mile.

But do current charges cover them? People say motoring taxes roughly balance the roads budget but what about the other things?

I'm not sure who says that, but motoring taxes (VED and petrol tax) raise about 35b a year (depending if you include VAT on new cars or not, I don't).

Road budget is about 11b a year, half local, half national.
 
Last edited:

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
So you want to dictate how I use my kWhs. Mass centralised control of a population?

I'm all for having "polluter pays", and the place to do that is on purchase of the tyre/fuel/electricity.

I'm all for having road users pay for the land they, and the way to do that is with a fair consistent land value tax, so a golf course using 100 acres of Surrey Countryside would pay the same LVT as road users using about 30 miles of road in Surrey Countryside (at 24 feet wide)

Land wise,
UK: 60 million acres

Road: about 500,000 acres
Rail: about 22,000 acres
Car Parks: about 22,000 acres

Clearly land is more valuable in towns and especially cities, local councils would decide how to fund the charges that roads use (and apportion to users - including cars, buses, cyclists and pedestrians) - Charge for street-garaging for example.

None of this changes the fact that driving 100 yards to the shop in an electric car has fewer externalities than driving 1 mile in a petrol car. Road usage driving 100 yards to a shop 32 times is the same as driving 2 miles once, so should cost the same.

However the issue is that driving 2 miles along a country lane with no other traffic causes no one else any other issues, driving 100 yards to the shops and then parking can mean that fewer people can use those shops (meaning that those shops may end up closing). It also means that the car is likely to be going through a junction in an urban area which is more likely to cause delay to other traffic, it also means that there's more traffic which makes it less attractive for pedestrians and cyclists and so now people drive (and so on).

With regards to why charging more for congested roads is not done now is that it's not possible to do. That doesn't mean that it's not something which shouldn't be done.

What should happen with road charging is that there's an element of our used to improve public transport. In doing so, then it becomes more viable to use public transport by more people.

If anyone has driven during a time when there's been much reduced traffic you'll have seen why you want as many other people to use public transport as possible.
 

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,164
Location
UK
However the issue is that driving 2 miles along a country lane with no other traffic causes no one else any other issues, driving 100 yards to the shops and then parking can mean that fewer people can use those shops (meaning that those shops may end up closing). It also means that the car is likely to be going through a junction in an urban area which is more likely to cause delay to other traffic, it also means that there's more traffic which makes it less attractive for pedestrians and cyclists and so now people drive (and so on).

Doesn't matter if it's a car driving 100 yards or 100 miles. I'm all for closing roads and making them pedestiranised areas.

With regards to why charging more for congested roads is not done now is that it's not possible to do.

London charges and has done for nearly 2 decades. Manchester had the option. When you drive over the Runcorn-Widnes or the Dartford bridge you are charged. None of that requires 30 million GPS trackers.

What should happen with road charging is that there's an element of our used to improve public transport. In doing so, then it becomes more viable to use public transport by more people.

It is. Public transport receives £5b in subsidies, with those with the highest incomes benefiting disproportionately.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
It is. Public transport receives £5b in subsidies, with those with the highest incomes benefiting disproportionately

Only because there's quite a bit of rail travel is linked to very high paid London jobs and longer commuting distances (average rail commutes are 20 miles, whilst car commuting is 10 miles).

Whilst commuting isn't the only reason to travel by train it accounts for 2/3rds of journeys.

Very few on low pay are going to be traveling 10+ miles and so the numbers are going to be skewed.
 

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,164
Location
UK
Only because

Doesn't really matter, public transport is a transfer of income from the by definition average taxpayer to the above average income rail user.

Remove rail subsidies and put the entire fund into bus subsidies and you'll get a more progressive system.

Unless rail travel recovers massively post covid, the network is pretty much dead. As a country we can't afford to £100 per journey subsidies (https://www.theguardian.com/busines...sting-uk-taxpayer-100-per-journey-in-lockdown), no matter how many people "like playing with trainsets" -- as seen in this Overground advert https://cdn.londonreconnections.com/2013/trainset.png
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Remove rail subsidies and put the entire fund into bus subsidies and you'll get a more progressive system.
More subsidy for buses and trams is likely to be essential to create the sort of integrated transport network that provides a good alternative for many journeys, as in Germany etc. However they can't provide an efficient service if all the roads are clogged with cars - and creating bus/tram priority without reducing capacity for other traffic will involve demolishing swathes of our cities to provide more roadspace.

Rail travel does skew towards the higher paid, but many workers in lower-paid but essential jobs also commute long distances into London (in particular) because property in the city is unaffordable. Without rail commuting the fat cats would still get to work in chauffered limousines or helicopters, but the cities that generate much of whatever prosperity we have would be unable to function.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,532
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Unless rail travel recovers massively post covid

Leisure travel, particularly to London, is very likely to recover near-fully and very quickly, at least. If the marketing is got right, it might even see a mini-boom because of all the trips people haven't made in 2020.

Commuting is likely to be replaced by more middle-distance business travel (i.e. one day a week in the office from further away). Long-distance business travel had already gone to online where viable to a very large extent.

Given how expensive providing massive capacity for London commuters is, and given how a day of travel on an annual season is usually somewhere around the cheapest (super)-off-peak return ticket for the same journey, the railway may not long-term do badly out of this. In the short term you are paying people to cart around fresh air, but if you didn't you'd be paying them furlough to sit at home, so they might as well be doing something.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
Doesn't really matter, public transport is a transfer of income from the by definition average taxpayer to the above average income rail user.

Remove rail subsidies and put the entire fund into bus subsidies and you'll get a more progressive system.

Unless rail travel recovers massively post covid, the network is pretty much dead. As a country we can't afford to £100 per journey subsidies (https://www.theguardian.com/busines...sting-uk-taxpayer-100-per-journey-in-lockdown), no matter how many people "like playing with trainsets" -- as seen in this Overground advert https://cdn.londonreconnections.com/2013/trainset.png

It's true that we can't afford £100 of subsidy per rail journey, however that level of subsidy was fairly short lived.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,532
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It's true that we can't afford £100 of subsidy per rail journey, however that level of subsidy was fairly short lived.

It's likely to be back again for a bit, but as vaccines roll out it will go again.

If for any reason the vaccination programme fails, i.e. we don't get to at least where we were in summer by about Easter or thereabouts, a lot of things will need re-evaluating, not just the railway.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
Why would 1KWh used for charging a car be any worse than 1kWh used for charging a phone? The externality of producing that 1kWh is the same.
A typical daily EV charge would be, say 20kWh and give around 100 miles. That same amount of energy would give around 5 years of daily charges of a contemporary smartphone, so it is a pointless comparison.

Road usage can be accounted for today by miles driven, there is no need to charge more in cities - we don't do it now.

Local councils could decide to levy some form of "congestion charge" if they wanted, but that doesn't require exact road tracking, just cameras on the edge of the zone.

England has a land value of about £33 trillion. A 2% land value tax would raise the entire government budget. Cheshire East has 2,700km of roads, which at 25 feet across is about 2,000 hectares, with Cheshire East land values of 1.3 million per hectare. That would require £52m a year if all taxes were raised by LVT (i.e. get rid of income tax etc). That would be £135 per person. About 50% are drivers, so that would cost £270 per driver, for an average 7,000 miles a year, or a road charge of about 3.5-4p per mile, so the land use cost for that 100 yard trip to the store would be 0.5p return.

To raise just Cheshire East's £300m budget (and thus replace council tax and business rates) would mean a road contribution of

£300m * 2000 hectares / 11 660 000ha = £51k.

About 30p per driver per year.

(A typical housing estate is built about a density of 20-30 per hectare, so land price would be about £52k, or £1000 per house per year for all taxes, or £1 a year for Cheshire East's budget. Local aristocrats in their 340 hectare estate would have to pay a fair whack though)

A tyre in its lifetime sheds around 2-3kg (20cm * 18 inch * 6mm * 400kg/m^3). Landfill tax is about £100 a ton, or 10p per kg, so the cost of the tyre wear is currently about 30p per tyre, which lasts about 20,000 miles. Better to add the tax upfront, but it would work out at well under 0.02p per mile.



I'm not sure who says that, but motoring taxes (VED and petrol tax) raise about 35b a year (depending if you include VAT on new cars or not, I don't).

Road budget is about 11b a year, half local, half national.[/QUOTE]
All those calculations above suggest that you don't feel that need to change anything with regards to private transport. I firmly believe that the rapidly advancing climate crisis changes everything.
Rest assured that the need to change the travel habits of the public will be addressed by differential charges, i.e. there will be costs incurred by those who needlessly contribute to congestion and pollution that more considerate users of private vehicles avoid. The current cost of loading hydrocarbon fuel with costs that loosely represent the distance travelled is clearly inadequate, as congestion in towns and on busy routes where there is adequate public transport provision demonstrates. The move to sustainable energy in vehicles together with data gathering on individual use will present a solution that is fairer to all.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
Roads are just another resource provided for the benefit of the nation. Therefore, there is every justification in manipulating charges for their use to the benefit of the population as a whole rather than a few. If appropriate, that manipulation could extend to prohibition by quantity of use or even absolute prohibition of certain usage if it were seen as a benefit to the majority.

The roads benefit the majority, as cars make up a significant proportion of all journeys taken.
The vast majority of households in the UK have a car
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
They are paid for through taxes.
Pricing people off the roads and into bikes isn't going to pay for them.
There's a case for some support for the local road network via general taxes, considering that it supports essential functions such as refuse collection, buses and emergency services, which people need whether they have a car or not. But the level of spending would be less if that's all it did.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
They are paid for through taxes.
Pricing people off the roads and into bikes isn't going to pay for them.

However a bike takes up a lot less road space (so fewer roads need building) and cause less damage (so less maintenance), combined it would significantly reduce the costs.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
There's a case for some support for the local road network via general taxes, considering that it supports essential functions such as refuse collection, buses and emergency services, which people need whether they have a car or not. But the level of spending would be less if that's all it did.

As has been said before, roads make a profit. Ie the taxes that cars and motoring raise is larger than the annual roads budget.
Also don't forget the VAT paid on services like MoTs and Car Parts and all of the taxes these businesses pay.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
As has been said before, roads make a profit. Ie the taxes that cars and motoring raise is larger than the annual roads budget.
Also don't forget the VAT paid on services like MoTs and Car Parts and all of the taxes these businesses pay.
As has also been said before, have you factored in the externalities, including the need for subsidy of public transport?

EVs are likely to need less maintenance so the size of that part of the economy will reduce gradually as IC vehicles disappear. Short of crippling EVs or imposing unnecessarily rigorous regulation there's nothing the government can do about that. Another reason why the government needs to raise more revenue - which is where we came in on this thread.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,282
As has been said before, roads make a profit. Ie the taxes that cars and motoring raise is larger than the annual roads budget.
Also don't forget the VAT paid on services like MoTs and Car Parts and all of the taxes these businesses pay.

Two things, firstly rail does the same when you count rail and rail supply businesses and the taxes that they pay.

However on the cost of roads side of the equation you've got the costs of policing the roads and all the other costs associated with accidents on the roads. This includes the significant human cost of the loss of ~1,600 lives a year lost on the roads. Even including suicides that's 5 years of rail deaths, however if you exclude suicides then over the last decade we've seen about 3 months of road deaths.
 

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,164
Location
UK
All those calculations above suggest that you don't feel that need to change anything with regards to private transport. I firmly believe that the rapidly advancing climate crisis changes everything.

Certainly does, but the removal of of petrol from the equation massively changes it. You then have a rattly old diesel bus or DMU with 2 or 3 people on vs a car charged from 80% renewable electricity, tips the environmental balance further away from public transport.

This includes the significant human cost of the loss of ~1,600 lives a year lost on the roads
Mostly borne by car users. Car and motorbike users pay £35b a year for roads and 1230 lives, pedestrians and cyclists 555 lives.

Those deaths won't reduce by differential charging at a road level. Pedestrianisation in town centres, converting roads to one-way with wide cycle lanes and good crossings would.

Another reason why the government needs to raise more revenue - which is where we came in on this thread.

Quite, which means that the government needs to raise a fair amount more tax than the £35b, and replace jobs. If I do £1138 worth of overtime to fix my car, the government takes £138 from my employer, leaving me with £1000. They then take £400 in income tax, £20 in NI, £180 in child tax, £90 in student loans, leaving me with £310. I pay this for a diagnostic on some banging my car's engine is making, and £51 goes in VAT, the remaining £259 goes to the trainee servicing it, of which £32 is employer NI, £27 employee NI, £52 in income tax, leaving £148.

If an electric car doesn't need that diagnostic (because the banging was caused by the fuel line or something), that's £1000 of tax they're missing out on.

However replacing the direct taxes seems the most apt comparrision, and that would simply need a 7p/mile road usage tax. Environment benefits (less pollution from fuel even without a greener grid), treasury remains full, car drivers remain subsidising non car drivers via the tax system. That charge could come in tomorrow (although would attract a lot of criticism), or taper in from say 2025, increasing 1p/mile each year upto the 7p limit. Odomoter readings at MOT would be fine, if you did want to avoid the tax when going abroad you could submit your reading before and after, with spot checks at ferry/tunnel ports.

Northern Ireland is a different case as cars drive across the border a lot, but it's such a small part of the treasury it makes sense to tie into what's being done in the RoI.

More subsidy for buses and trams is likely to be essential to create the sort of integrated transport network that provides a good alternative for many journeys, as in Germany etc. However they can't provide an efficient service if all the roads are clogged with cars - and creating bus/tram priority without reducing capacity for other traffic will involve demolishing swathes of our cities to provide more roadspace.

Or simply dedicating existing road lanes to bus+cycles (not taxis/chauffer driven cars).

In the busiest cities a congestion charge like in London could be brought in where appropriate

Currently congestion costs are progressive - a 12 minute jam costs a £500/hour banker in a Bentley £100, it costs a £15 an hour teacher in a micra £3.

Add in a congestion charge of £10, and that 12 minute jam vanishes, the £500/hour banker saves £90 in lost time, the teacher has to pay £7 extra.
 
Last edited:

JamesRowden

Established Member
Joined
31 Aug 2011
Messages
1,709
Location
Ilfracombe
Certainly does, but the removal of of petrol from the equation massively changes it. You then have a rattly old diesel bus or DMU with 2 or 3 people on vs a car charged from 80% renewable electricity, tips the environmental balance further away from public transport.
Actually you need to compare:
  • 6 buses per hour with 20 people travelling on each
  • 1 bus an hour with 10 people travelling on it plus 75 electric vehicles per hour
And the more buses you have the more it will worth in investing in a more environmentally fleet since a bigger order will result in getting the better buses for cheaper.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
Certainly does, but the removal of of petrol from the equation massively changes it. You then have a rattly old diesel bus or DMU with 2 or 3 people on vs a car charged from 80% renewable electricity, tips the environmental balance further away from public transport.
Just because energy might be largely renewable, profligate use of it means that all essential users either pay more, - or in some cases can't even get what is needed.

Mostly borne by car users. Car and motorbike users pay £35b a year for roads and 1230 lives, pedestrians and cyclists 555 lives.

Those deaths won't reduce by differential charging at a road level. Pedestrianisation in town centres, converting roads to one-way with wide cycle lanes and good crossings would.

So your assertion that drivers pay more in their fellow motorists' deaths (and presumably injuries and other losses) than pedestrians, justifies their continuance. That has to be the most bizarre pro-motorist justification for the human and environmental damage caused by their proclivities I've ever seen suggested. Wow!
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Mostly borne by car users. Car and motorbike users pay £35b a year for roads and 1230 lives, pedestrians and cyclists 555 lives.

Those deaths won't reduce by differential charging at a road level. Pedestrianisation in town centres, converting roads to one-way with wide cycle lanes and good crossings would.
The costs associated with those fatalities and the many more seriously injured are attributable to use of powered road vehicles. A few cyclists or pedestrians will seriously injure themselves or others without any other vehicle involved, but most of the cyclist and pedestrian figures are also attributable to powered vehicles.

Differential charging will reduce those numbers and costs if it succeeds in the objective of discouraging driving, particularly on the sorts of road that have the most accidents. More pedestrian and cyclist safety measures will do the same but will cost money which has to be found. If car use reduces then some of those measures might not be so necessary and others will be cheaper, such as zebras instead of pelicans and reallocating a traffic lane to cyclists instead of widening the road to keep the existing number of traffic lanes.

Quite, which means that the government needs to raise a fair amount more tax than the £35b, and replace jobs. If I do £1138 worth of overtime to fix my car, the government takes £138 from my employer, leaving me with £1000. They then take £400 in income tax, £20 in NI, £180 in child tax, £90 in student loans, leaving me with £310. I pay this for a diagnostic on some banging my car's engine is making, and £51 goes in VAT, the remaining £259 goes to the trainee servicing it, of which £32 is employer NI, £27 employee NI, £52 in income tax, leaving £148.
I don't think anybody is disagreeing with the economic activity being generated. But as technology advances, some activities are no longer necessary and the money tends to be spent on something else, and so far that sort of progress has paid off. So now we have computers instead of typing pools, and the stable lads who were put out of work by the advent of the car generally found alternative employment. There have been transitional effects but so far the best course of action has been to go with the flow rather than trying to stop progress. There will be a similar transition in the near future for many of those who work on internal combustion engines.

But the point here is that this will happen regardless of how the replacement EVs are taxed, unless a government chooses to reduce the country's competitiveness and environmental performance by punitive taxing of EVs to encourage people to continue using IC vehicles. The transitional costs are yet another thing the government will have to pay for, preferably in re-training people but otherwise in unemployment benefit.
However replacing the direct taxes seems the most apt comparrision, and that would simply need a 7p/mile road usage tax. Environment benefits (less pollution from fuel even without a greener grid), treasury remains full, car drivers remain subsidising non car drivers via the tax system. That charge could come in tomorrow (although would attract a lot of criticism), or taper in from say 2025, increasing 1p/mile each year upto the 7p limit. Odomoter readings at MOT would be fine, if you did want to avoid the tax when going abroad you could submit your reading before and after, with spot checks at ferry/tunnel ports.
That's a simpler option which on its own would achieve some of the benefits, and which I think I favoured at the start of this discussion but have changed my mind since. The reason is the people in rural areas who have little public transport available and tend to have to drive longer distances - but on roads where they do less harm. It seems to me to be right to reflect that in the level of charging, and to provide park and ride facilities on the edges of towns so those rural drivers don't need to pay more for use of urban roads where the downsides are greater. That also costs public money of course.
In the busiest cities a congestion charge like in London could be brought in where appropriate

Currently congestion costs are progressive - a 12 minute jam costs a £500/hour banker in a Bentley £100, it costs a £15 an hour teacher in a micra £3.

Add in a congestion charge of £10, and that 12 minute jam vanishes, the £500/hour banker saves £90 in lost time, the teacher has to pay £7 extra.
If we go for a mileage-only charge then I believe something like this is also necessary to discourage car use in places where it is more damaging. It essentially comes down to whether an annual mileage tax plus congestion charges with camera (or whatever) enforcement is more efficient than a nationwide charging scheme implemented by some kind of black box in each vehicle. Either of course has to be paid for. However I think your use of "progressive" is incorrect. A progressive tax is one that affects richer people more, and what you describe is the opposite, a regressive tax.

It's difficult to see how any sort of road user charging on its own could address the sort or problem you describe. But if the city in question also has a good public transport network (as it should if it imposes a congestion charge) then either the banker or the teacher should have an option to make their journey at a lower cost even if it takes a bit longer. The teacher, with a lower value of time, is more likely to do this, and if the banker chooses to save a bit of time by driving then they will pay the congestion (or road user) charge to recompense for the greater impact they are making. The charging rates could also be adjusted so a heavier vehicle pays more to account for the extra wear and tear on the roads.

There is a common theme running through these responses - public money needs to be spent, and spending more of it will have a better outcome. The fundamental question is how is that money to be raised. Is it through general taxation, so everyone subsidises the motorist however much or little they drive, or is it by finding some means of continuing to tax motoring in proportion to the costs is imposes on everyone else?
 

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,164
Location
UK
The reason is the people in rural areas who have little public transport available and tend to have to drive longer distances - but on roads where they do less harm

They pay that amount now, we're told by the anti car lobby that the costs of owning a car are far higher than the costs of petrol

The governments goal here is to replace the tax revenue it gets from petrol tax and VED, nothing more, nothing less.

This is trivial to accomplish via a mileage tax collected at MOT time (along with vehicle confiscation and fines for people who don't pay it). A flat level of about 7p per mile seems like it would work.

Tacking any perceived issues with congestion, safety, land use etc are all valuable, but are completely separate from the principle of replacing petrol tax without creating massive winners and losers.

Tacking perceived problems with using 100kWh of electrical power is also separate, no matter whether it powers my car, my heating, or my TV.

A progressive tax is one that affects richer people more, and what you describe is the opposite, a regressive tax.

Congestion itself is progressive -- it costs the banker 30 times more than the teacher (this is assuming the banker doesn't pay for a chauffer, or "taxi", to skip the queues)

Congestion charges and road tolls (like seen in London, M6 Toll, Dartford, Runcorn) are regressive. Save half an hour due to it and the banker makes £250, the teacher £7.50.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
They pay that amount now, we're told by the anti car lobby that the costs of owning a car are far higher than the costs of petrol
And will continue to pay fixed costs with EVs - maybe less for servicing but similar amounts for depreciation, insurance etc. So this isn't relevant to the discussion.
They pay that amount now, we're told by the anti car lobby that the costs of owning a car are far higher than the costs of petrol

The governments goal here is to replace the tax revenue it gets from petrol tax and VED, nothing more, nothing less.

This is trivial to accomplish via a mileage tax collected at MOT time (along with vehicle confiscation and fines for people who don't pay it). A flat level of about 7p per mile seems like it would work.

Tacking any perceived issues with congestion, safety, land use etc are all valuable, but are completely separate from the principle of replacing petrol tax without creating massive winners and losers.
The government doesn't appear to have a goal here. As far as I'm aware nobody "official" is talking about how to remedy the hole in revenues that will appear over the next decade or so. With the attitude of the current lot I imagine they'll just ignore it and leave the problem to their successors. There's also the question about what happens with vehicles too young for a MOT, and indeed whether the MOT itself is still needed at annually from year 3 for EVs. There may also be issues with someone being unable to afford a big annual mileage bill on top of the MOT fee and fixing any faults found - would this encourage skipping the MOT?

Given that something has to be done, I think it's an interesting discussion to consider whether it should be a simple mileage charge as you suggest and I thought initially, or the opportunity should be taken to achieve wider objectives. As with most discussion on this forum, it's no more than speculation which will almost certainly go nowhere...
Tacking perceived problems with using 100kWh of electrical power is also separate, no matter whether it powers my car, my heating, or my TV.
I agree power for EVs can't be taxed in the same way as fuel for IC vehicles, unless all electricity is taxed at the same rate. Anyone with a 13A socket could avoid such a charge with almost zero risk of being found out.
Congestion itself is progressive -- it costs the banker 30 times more than the teacher (this is assuming the banker doesn't pay for a chauffer, or "taxi", to skip the queues)

Congestion charges and road tolls (like seen in London, M6 Toll, Dartford, Runcorn) are regressive. Save half an hour due to it and the banker makes £250, the teacher £7.50.
I think as long as there is a good public transport network so most people have an alternative to driving, a system that allows the wealthy to skip the queue by making a contribution to public funds is justifiable in this case. Most places in the UK don't have that adequate alternative, but London showed what might be possible by beefing up the bus service using some of the income from the charge. Unfortunately it's rather fallen by the wayside due to the number of exemptions and the boom in van deliveries and app-based private hire vehicles, so the congestion has come back and the buses have slowed down, become less useful and have been cut back.

If I ruled the world I'd also impose some sort of mileage charge on taxis and delivery vans. A daily congestion charge would be ineffective as most would drive within the zone multiple times on different journeys.
 

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,164
Location
UK
I agree power for EVs can't be taxed in the same way as fuel for IC vehicles, unless all electricity is taxed at the same rate. Anyone with a 13A socket could avoid such a charge with almost zero risk of being found out.

Taht's the point, it should be charged at the same rate, based on the cost of providing it, and the externalities it produces.

a system that allows the wealthy to skip the queue by making a contribution to public funds is justifiable in this case

Ahh, make a contribution to the police christmas party and they'll respond to your crime report.

If I ruled the world I'd also impose some sort of mileage charge on taxis and delivery vans.

Stop taxis from using bus lanes, which should be for busses, emergency vehicles, and cycles.

Congestion carries a cost - if it means a delivery van can delvier 10 things in an hour rather than 20, that doubled the cost of delivery, so the more congestion, the more they pay already. not a problem.
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,746
Location
University of Birmingham
I agree that bus lanes should be for buses. They aren't taxi lanes! Why are they allowed at the moment anyway?

Although no doubt London would grind to a halt as all the taxi drivers protest...
 

miami

Established Member
Joined
3 Oct 2015
Messages
3,164
Location
UK
Although no doubt London would grind to a halt as all the taxi drivers protest...

Taxi drivers (especially the legacy ones) always moan. This year would have been a great time to implement - most would not have noticed. Any taxi driver in a bus lane could have their car crushed.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Taht's the point, it should be charged at the same rate, based on the cost of providing it, and the externalities it produces.
I think we're agreeing here. If generated by renewables or nuclear the externalities of providing electricity are effectively zero. However the externalities of using that electricity to power a car are much more than nearly any other possible use. As it's impossible to put extra tax on electricity depending how it's used, that needs to be addressed by some sort of tax on the use of the vehicle.
Ahh, make a contribution to the police christmas party and they'll respond to your crime report.
No, not really. Like first class rail travel, I think it's reasonable to provide an option for those who want to pay more to get a better service, as long as there's still a reasonable option (public transport) available to everyone else. You seem to be suggesting the deliberate use of congestion to choke off demand for road travel, which just delays and aggravates everyone.
I agree that bus lanes should be for buses. They aren't taxi lanes! Why are they allowed at the moment anyway?
Ostensibly because taxis need to pick up and set down at the kerb I believe. Although I don't think this really stacks up, considering that it's legal to enter a bus lane to stop unless some other restriction applies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top