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

[The Ham]

No, it doesn't. In a typical 2 car family that use both for commuting, there may be a newer car and an older car. During the week both are used, during the weekend only one is likely to be used, and that will be the newer one. For what it's worth I went down the road today and saw about 75% of cars were older than 12 plates, so depends on the area you live in.

If a 10 year old nissan leaf is £6k, there's no way the bottom-end of the market is going to be buying electric any time soon. A 2011 Nissan Micra is in the £1-2k range.

A new Nissan micra will cost £15k, and last 10 years at 5,000 miles a year without major expense for about £500 a year in petrol (£1.20/mile, 50mpg), £150 in VED. You might need 2 sets of brake pads in that time, so £30 a year. Total cost about £22k

A leaf will cost you £27k upfront (including subsidy) plus £150 a year in electric (based on 15kWh/100km and 12p/unit). Tyres will cost at least as much as the micra. Lets assume no brake issues. You're talking over £28k.

So you're saving £5k with the petrol version, and getting far more usability (the ability to do occasional cross-country journeys for example)

Electric cars will certainly come to dominate the £40k style range, I'd far rather have a Tesla than an Audi if I were into fancy cars, but for your typical small car used for a commute, there has to be a major collapse at the small end of the market. Trouble is that that will lead the demand for some form of road charging (even if it's a flat price per mile) to offset the money lost from not selling petrol for those cars, and that will further tip the balance away from small electric cars.




If we can't do an automated railway we're not going to be seeing automated taxis in the next 20 years. If we did, say goodbye to many rail stations. Your idea that public transport will be of any use for the 8,000 people living in the 3 council wards near me with a combined 12 bus services a day shows a lack of understanding of 'rural areas'. Villages with 2,000 people are not completely rural. Some might even have a regular bus service to one town or another.

Take Tarporley for example, 2500 people live in the village, but the surrounding council ward bumps that to 5,000. There's an hourly bus to Chester and one to Nantwich and Crewe. How does someone living in Tarporley get to Winsford, 10 miles away, for work? Northwich?


Elecritc cars will be great, but there are still two issues
1) At 15kwh for 100km, 330b km a year will take 50 TWh per year, requiring a 15% increase in electricity production. Not as bad as I thought, but still a significant amount of extra capacity.
2) 25% of cars are normally parked on the street (or often on the pavement), that's 8 million. How will they charge?




VED from cars raises about £5b a year.

Councils spend about £1b a year on road maintenence - https://www.driving.co.uk/news/councils-spent-2bn-road-repairs-since-2017/

Highways agency spends a similar amount - https://assets.publishing.service.g...ds/attachment_data/file/374676/FOI_712722.pdf

Capital improvements have been costing about £3b a year centrally (councils don't have enough money build new roads outside of s106 agreements), but this is doubling to £6b for the next 5 years.

So for the last 5 years VED alone has covered all road spending, including capital.

Other road related taxes aside from petrol and vat on petrol includes VAT on new cars (3 million cars at say 20k a year = 12b). If everyone walked, where would the money to fill that hole come from?

A 15% rose in energy use isn't that big of a problem, given that we've seen a 15% fall in energy demand since the peak.

However we'd still end up with lower energy use than the peak. If we used 100 units at peak that takes us to 85 units now, but 115% of 85 units is 97.8 units not 100 and so we only have to reprovide what we had before, just using a different energy mix.

However that assumes that there's no further energy savings to be had, although to be fair it also doesn't allow for increases in energy use due to the removal of gas networks. However both of which aren't going to be start to be mainstream until at least 2025 and still fairly limited in scope in 2030.

I'd also highlight that few but brand new cars to only use them for 5,000 miles a year (just work travel that's 11 miles each way), it doesn't take much of an increase to tip the balance back towards EV's. The other factor you omit is that of resale value, as you assume at the end of the calculation that there's a zero value in each of the vehicles, that's rarely the case.

However, your calculation does show that (excluding insurance and annual maintenance costs -where EV's could also see a reduction in costs) that either option is likely to be about £2,500 a year when averaged over the 10 years (or about 50p/mile). However that's excluding insurance and servicing, so it's likely to add a further £500 (depending on insurance and servicing cost) putting the cost per mile at circa 60p.

Many could but a bend new E-bike every couple of years and do the limited longer distance travel by train and still be much better off.

Rural areas are likely to still be more reliant on cars, however that's still going to be the minority as there's at least 85% of people (those that live in urban areas, plus those in the larger "rural" areas with the potential for half decent public transport) who could use walking, cycling and public transport a lot more.

 

[miami]

Rural areas are likely to still be more reliant on cars, however that's still going to be the minority as there's at least 85% of people (those that live in urban areas, plus those in the larger "rural" areas with the potential for half decent public transport) who could use walking, cycling and public transport a lot more.

It's not practical for say a teacher at a school in winsford or a nurse at Leighton hospital who lives in Alsager or Tarporley to commute down dark country lanes in winter weather by e-bike. The first bus from Alsager to Leighton arrives 08:35 and the last bus leaves 17:15. From a random address in Alsager to a random school in Winsford means a near 2 hour commute.

Increasing the costs for these people (by introducing road pricing on top of petrol tax) would be politically terrible.

I'd also highlight that few but brand new cars to only use them for 5,000 miles a year (just work travel that's 11 miles each way),

That's the point, for key workers who have to travel, but not into city centre offices, and not for a 9-5 day, public transport it fairly meaningless outside of the largest cities, as are fancy £40k cars. They'll continue to be driving 10 year old micra-sized cars which cost £1-2k, far less than the reported cost of a 10 year old Leaf. Those are going to be petrol until long after the majority of the high milage audi drivers have moved to electric. This will mean that a method of replacing the lost funding from petrol duty will have to be found, but in a way that doesn't increase the burden on the lowest paid who will still be driving petrol.

Perhaps the money could be found by eliminating the £100 a journey subsidy the railway gets and instead fullelling those billions into a petrol scrappage scheme to replace with leafs, or perhaps starting now with large subsidies for small electric cars to bring them down to cheaper than small petrol cars now (so that there are fewer small petrol cars available by 2035)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Increasing the costs for these people (by introducing road pricing on top of petrol tax) would be politically terrible.

Yet that's precisely where road pricing would work well if done the "complex" way - a user whose journey is not possible by public transport could receive a discount. Fuel tax is a blunt instrument. And like anyone else, anyone who commutes daily by car should be encouraged to go electric.

 

[HSTEd]

If it was simply "MOT man reports mileage to Treasury every year" I would probably think this was entirely reasonable.

But I am rather uncomfortable with the idea of the government tracking all cars, all the time, in real time.

 

[ainsworth74]

If it was simply "MOT man reports mileage to Treasury every year" I would probably think this was entirely reasonable.

But I am rather uncomfortable with the idea of the government tracking all cars, all the time, in real time.

Perhaps the solution here is take something of a carrot and stick approach? If you have a box doing the tracking then you benefit from the possibility of cheaper tariffs for travelling off-peak, or avoiding congested routes, etc etc meaning that your annual bill will be less. You could also "pay as you go" or have other wider ranging payment options (monthly direct debt for instance). On the other hand if it's just reported at MOT time then you don't have to be tracked but it's charged a flat rate which will mean you won't get the advantage of cheaper tariffs and the payment options might be lump sum or twelve payments of £x due before your next MOT.

I mean the details above are open to tweaking and change I'm just trying to illustrate my thought that there is no reason not to have both. The black box for those that aren't fussed and would rather have cheaper rates and the "MOT man reports and a bill is issued" method for those that don't want a black box but accept that they'll possibly be overpaying as a result. That pretty much puts in the same category as water meter versus water rates (where the overwhelming majority will be better off with a meter).

 

[Bald Rick]

Perhaps the solution here is take something of a carrot and stick approach? If you have a box doing the tracking then you benefit from the possibility of cheaper tariffs for travelling off-peak, or avoiding congested routes, etc etc meaning that your annual bill will be less. You could also "pay as you go" or have other wider ranging payment options (monthly direct debt for instance). On the other hand if it's just reported at MOT time then you don't have to be tracked but it's charged a flat rate which will mean you won't get the advantage of cheaper tariffs and the payment options might be lump sum or twelve payments of £x due before your next MOT.

I mean the details above are open to tweaking and change I'm just trying to illustrate my thought that there is no reason not to have both. The black box for those that aren't fussed and would rather have cheaper rates and the "MOT man reports and a bill is issued" method for those that don't want a black box but accept that they'll possibly be overpaying as a result. That pretty much puts in the same category as water meter versus water rates (where the overwhelming majority will be better off with a meter).

I think that’s a quite likely approach. Not dissimilar to how there are various different approaches for paying for your electricity.

 

[ABB125]

I think that’s a quite likely approach. Not dissimilar to how there are various different approaches for paying for your electricity.

I'm not sure that the electricity supplier can tell exactly what appliance your using though, which would appear to be analogous with location tracking.

 

[The Ham]

It's not practical for say a teacher at a school in winsford or a nurse at Leighton hospital who lives in Alsager or Tarporley to commute down dark country lanes in winter weather by e-bike. The first bus from Alsager to Leighton arrives 08:35 and the last bus leaves 17:15. From a random address in Alsager to a random school in Winsford means a near 2 hour commute.

Increasing the costs for these people (by introducing road pricing on top of petrol tax) would be politically terrible.



That's the point, for key workers who have to travel, but not into city centre offices, and not for a 9-5 day, public transport it fairly meaningless outside of the largest cities, as are fancy £40k cars. They'll continue to be driving 10 year old micra-sized cars which cost £1-2k, far less than the reported cost of a 10 year old Leaf. Those are going to be petrol until long after the majority of the high milage audi drivers have moved to electric. This will mean that a method of replacing the lost funding from petrol duty will have to be found, but in a way that doesn't increase the burden on the lowest paid who will still be driving petrol.

Perhaps the money could be found by eliminating the £100 a journey subsidy the railway gets and instead fullelling those billions into a petrol scrappage scheme to replace with leafs, or perhaps starting now with large subsidies for small electric cars to bring them down to cheaper than small petrol cars now (so that there are fewer small petrol cars available by 2035)

Which is why, if you look back a few of my posts I was suggesting that whilst there would be a per mile charge that there would be discounts applied to rural users. Including that it may well be free for the last mile (which may actually be a few miles) when traveling from a rural area.

It would also likely apply a fairly cheap charge for those traveling in areas where congestion wasn't an issue.

I do have to question as to where the figure of £100 per rail journey of subsidy comes from? As in 2018/19 there were 1.8 billion railway journeys, even if you exclude all income from the railways you only get to around £10 per journey to cover the costs.

Even for 2020 where there's about 20% (latest figures around 30%, during September getting up to 40%, so 20% is probably low for the whole year) the passenger numbers in 2019 (360 million passengers) and a total cost of £20bn and zero income you only get to £55. OK that's only in one direction, so a return ticket could be £100, but then only in a year where there's 2 significant lockdowns which is hardly a regular event and even then maybe actually only during the first lockdown.

 

[miami]

As a driver, the idea situation for me would be to have a car and running costs available as as a predictable one of

1) A standing charge of £x per day for having access to the car 24/7
2) A charge of £y per mile for traveling

Including the capital cost, insurance, taxes, maintenance, etc.

This would make the cost of a car perfectly predictable and transparent.

I do have to question as to where the figure of £100 per rail journey of subsidy comes from?

Rail subsidies costing UK taxpayer £100 per journey in lockdown

Experts question how long government will continue to fund running of empty trains

www.theguardian.com

We've seen this year that the railway is staff heavy and struggles to scale. While airlines have cut services, mothballed planes, and laid off staff, that hasn't happened to the railway.

It will take most of the decade for rail to recover to its 2018/19 level, where the railway "only" required £7.1b in subsidies - or 10p per mile. That's on top of what is considered rip off fares.

With the removal of the "tax is there to save the environment" argument, something is going to have to give, because people will rightly question why they are paying money to drive their electric car (from an increasingly green grid), which goes to subsidising 40 year old empty diesel trains rattling around northern branchlines.

 

[AM9]

As a driver, the idea situation for me would be to have a car and running costs available as as a predictable one of

1) A standing charge of £x per day for having access to the car 24/7
2) A charge of £y per mile for traveling

Including the capital cost, insurance, taxes, maintenance, etc.

This would make the cost of a car perfectly predictable and transparent. ...

That isn't likely as the charge per mile of road will depend on where it is. For instance if your journeys regularly included congested roads through towns, past schools, or local residential roads and other pedestrian heavy locations, you would incur higher charges than if you drove where there was so little demand that there was no public transport and little other traffic. Consider it like a rail ticket, if you wanted to travel on routes during their peak flows, you would have to pay the price of an Anytime ticket. If you could be flexible and travel when and where there is excess capacity, a super off-peak would be valid.

Rail subsidies costing UK taxpayer £100 per journey in lockdown

Experts question how long government will continue to fund running of empty trains

www.theguardian.com

We've seen this year that the railway is staff heavy and struggles to scale. While airlines have cut services, mothballed planes, and laid off staff, that hasn't happened to the railway.

It will take most of the decade for rail to recover to its 2018/19 level, where the railway "only" required £7.1b in subsidies - or 10p per mile. That's on top of what is considered rip off fares.

With the removal of the "tax is there to save the environment" argument, something is going to have to give, because people will rightly question why they are paying money to drive their electric car (from an increasingly green grid), which goes to subsidising 40 year old empty diesel trains rattling around northern branchlines.

Levies on road vehicles with hydrocarbon burning fuel are there to save the environment. EVs will still attract an environmental levy because they create local particuulate pollution from their tyres (much like non-EVs do), and slightly less pollution from brakes (because much braking is performed by regen. modes).

 

[The Ham]

As a driver, the idea situation for me would be to have a car and running costs available as as a predictable one of

1) A standing charge of £x per day for having access to the car 24/7
2) A charge of £y per mile for traveling

Including the capital cost, insurance, taxes, maintenance, etc.

This would make the cost of a car perfectly predictable and transparent.

Rail subsidies costing UK taxpayer £100 per journey in lockdown

Experts question how long government will continue to fund running of empty trains

www.theguardian.com

We've seen this year that the railway is staff heavy and struggles to scale. While airlines have cut services, mothballed planes, and laid off staff, that hasn't happened to the railway.

It will take most of the decade for rail to recover to its 2018/19 level, where the railway "only" required £7.1b in subsidies - or 10p per mile. That's on top of what is considered rip off fares.

With the removal of the "tax is there to save the environment" argument, something is going to have to give, because people will rightly question why they are paying money to drive their electric car (from an increasingly green grid), which goes to subsidising 40 year old empty diesel trains rattling around northern branchlines.

That level of subsidy was fairly short lived, as the passenger numbers are circa 7%, well the latest figures are around 30%.

Whilst there's a level of support to the railways, if we were to close it down then the extra 10% miles being undertaken would cause significant traffic congestion and cost a LOT to resolve. As the majority of that travel would be into/within cities where land costs are very high.

Cars are taxed, but without them being taxed there would be other taxes. Anyway they are amongst the simplest taxes to avoid, much like the "tax" from speed cameras. In that if you reduce the amount that you drive then you reduce the amount that you pay in fuel duty. However many car drivers take the view that they'd rather pay that tax than walk/cycle.

In theory anyone who truly needs their car would love for those in urban areas to be taxed significant for the use of their cars whilst sitting in urban traffic jams. Why? Well because it would reduce the amount of traffic in the way of them making the journeys that they need to make.

Remove VED charges and then add a flat charge per mile (maybe different rates for different fuel types), but with a black box to offer discounts, maybe even to the extent of some free travel for those who live and work in rural areas. To the point that it could be possible for the net cost to actually be cheaper for some.

However for those who drive around a lot in areas where there's good public transport driving a low fuel efficient car then they are likely to find out expensive.

If you circle back to the 1p/mile charge example I suggested previously, if you keep fuel duty but abolish VED then for those previously paying £140 and doing less than 14,000 miles a year then their costs would fall.

If 70% of the milage was done on quiet rural roads (but not traveling between urban areas) and this was (with a black box) reduced to nothing then, even if they'd previously paid £20 in VED then their charges would only increase by £10, or with reduced need to travel (such as going into town to go shopping) may be even less.

Over time those charges would need to increase, however if the rural milage stayed free/very low the costs would increase very slowly.

However what could happen is that although their travel could be free along what's otherwise a key road between two large towns (because they don't often enter either large town) those traveling between the large towns are less inclined to drive. The resulting reduction in traffic would make their settlement much nicer to live in and may make some extra local travel by walking/cycling a lot less risky so more do so, further improving the local roads.

Yes, that may well be very idealistic and it may not provide that level of improvement, but very little that's been done to date has done anything about reducing road congestion, making it so that more people walk/cycle (reducing the cost of running the NHS as well as reading congestion) or the like.

Road charging does have that potential, and I'd agree that there'll have to be carefully consideration to ensure that those in rural locations aren't disproportionately affected (as they currently are). However I would highlight that there's a lot of people who live in rural locations who then drive to their 9-5 job in an urban area just because they want a better quality of life for them and their children. As such any pricing structure would likely need to be balanced so that they didn't overly benefit by moving out of the urban area (as all that does is attract more people to live in the risk areas making it yet harder for young families to be able to stay locally to where the adults in that family grew up).

 

[edwin_m]

There's actually an argument to say that taxes on road vehicles should pay for all subsidies to public transport, because if there were no road vehicles then the extra ridership on the public transport would make it financially viable, and because if the public transport wasn't there then money would have to be spent on more roads. I'm not sure I completely buy this but it's an interesting point of view.

 

[miami]

Cars are taxed, but without them being taxed there would be other taxes. Anyway they are amongst the simplest taxes to avoid, much like the "tax" from speed cameras. In that if you reduce the amount that you drive then you reduce the amount that you pay in fuel duty. However many car drivers take the view that they'd rather pay that tax than walk/cycle.

Such a metropolitan view. Yes you can take a train or bus if you're going to a specific location at a specific time. Very few journeys where I live can be done by public transport, public transport doesn't work for traveling for say this journey

Brindley to Malpas JFC Girls

goo.gl

And that's from a fairly built up location (it has a bus service and everything, just not where people want to go) to a major destination.

Yet the residents have to subsidise those who do benefit from public transport

 

[radamfi]

Such a metropolitan view. Yes you can take a train or bus if you're going to a specific location at a specific time. Very few journeys where I live can be done by public transport, public transport doesn't work for traveling for say this journey

Brindley to Malpas JFC Girls

goo.gl

And that's from a fairly built up location (it has a bus service and everything, just not where people want to go) to a major destination.

Yet the residents have to subsidise those who do benefit from public transport

So should everybody in urban areas move to rural areas and claim transport poverty, and so use cars without guilt? Why should rural people who live an urban lifestyle (working in towns, going to the supermarket, taking advantage of urban leisure facilities etc.) but sleep in rural areas so they don't have to put up with crime etc. be allowed to pollute and cause danger in urban areas?

 

[miami]

working in towns

Malpas is a village with a population of 1,700 people. It gets 5 buses a day to the nearby town. The surrounding housing that isn't in the town centre is another 2000+ people.

Public transport doesn't work for low density living.

be allowed to pollute and cause danger in urban areas

They don't drive in urban areas. They drive from Brindley to Malpas in a £1,000 car and pay 12p per mile, which was never aimed at reducing petrol usage, but instead used to fund normal spending, and thus needs to be extracted from them in the future.

Meanwhile those traveling from town to city on the train are receiving 10p/mile in subsidy even at 2019 transport levels.

Rail users have higher income than non-rail users, have higher wealth, and receive more from the taxpayer.

Removing the massive discounts that daily commuters (which require the extra cost from high peak capacity on railways) would be a good start at levelling up.

 

[radamfi]

Malpas is a village with a population of 1,700 people. It gets 5 buses a day to the nearby town. The surrounding housing that isn't in the town centre is another 2000+ people.

Public transport doesn't work for low density living.




They don't drive in urban areas. They drive from Brindley to Malpas in a £1,000 car and pay 12p per mile, which was never aimed at reducing petrol usage, but instead used to fund normal spending, and thus needs to be extracted from them in the future.

Meanwhile those traveling from town to city on the train are receiving 10p/mile in subsidy even at 2019 transport levels.

Rail users have higher income than non-rail users, have higher wealth, and receive more from the taxpayer.

Removing the massive discounts that daily commuters (which require the extra cost from high peak capacity on railways) would be a good start at levelling up.

You are basically admitting that low density rural living is not sustainable.

A lot of people in rural areas drive to the nearest town for work and other activities, because those facilities are not available in the countryside to anything like the same extent. That includes a lot of people who have moved from town to country for a "better life", and using the excuse that they are now in the countryside as a passport to guilt free driving.

 

[The Ham]

Such a metropolitan view. Yes you can take a train or bus if you're going to a specific location at a specific time. Very few journeys where I live can be done by public transport, public transport doesn't work for traveling for say this journey

Brindley to Malpas JFC Girls

goo.gl

And that's from a fairly built up location (it has a bus service and everything, just not where people want to go) to a major destination.

Yet the residents have to subsidise those who do benefit from public transport

I was thinking more of those up to one mile trips which I make within my large village/small town where walking/cycling would be possible rather than the use of public transport (which isn't viable over such short distances).

Anyway, I did go on to highlight how road charging could actually be fairer by hardly charging for those trips within rural areas (other than possibly those which go into urban areas), whilst based on fuel duty there's no way of giving such a discount.

 

[WestRiding]

All very well this. If there is the public transport running 24/7. And there is the problem. I know personal cases bore people, but there must be more people like me. I work as a Signaller at York. My nearest Station is Fitzwilliam. Shift Change over is at 0630 and 1830. It is impossible for me to get to work for 0630 from Fitzwilliam. I have to get to work early, to get the trains running. So, my other options;

1 Drive to Wakefield Westgate for a fee. Park my car for an extortionate price. Catch the train to York for an extortionate price. All taking at least 3 times as long as the equivalent car journey and costing a damn sight more. (by the time i would have parked at Wakefield, i could be belting down the A64 into York) Making people travel further and slower in the name of green, is far from Green.

2 Carry on driving to York, for a fee, where there is one Electric Charging Point.

I guess i don't mind too much if it doesn't cost more than the current set up, but public transport does not work for the majority of none 9 to 5ers. My current journey takes 40 minutes and £10 per day. Road Tax negligible at 140 quid per year.

I guess I'm saying (and it sounds childish) its not fair to penalise people who have no choice, especially Public Transport workers, who cannot use public transport.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I guess I'm saying (and it sounds childish) its not fair to penalise people who have no choice, especially Public Transport workers, who cannot use public transport.

Would not the argument be that you should, as was traditional before cars, live nearer your place of work, or accept the fee for not doing so?

(Still think Stamp Duty should go in that case, as it's a tax on a relocation of that kind)

 

[miami]

(Still think Stamp Duty should go in that case, as it's a tax on a relocation of that kind)

Replacing stamp duty (and other taxes) with a land value tax would be great, but there's still a lot of cost in selling and buying houses.

40 years ago people tended to have a job for life. Same factory day in day out for decades at a time. Nowadays you tend to change job every 5 years, even if you don't you'll have relocations.

What the road pricing discussion proves is that if nobody drove we'd have a major problem as we'd need to find a way to replace the £40b a year in lost revenue.

It also shows that it was never about reducing petrol use and saving the environment, it was all about maintaining taxes on those that drive (who typically are lower paid than those who travel by train

 

[Bletchleyite]

It also shows that it was never about reducing petrol use and saving the environment, it was all about maintaining taxes on those that drive (who typically are lower paid than those who travel by train

Trains are a red herring here. Most public transport is by bus, and generally those who go by bus outside of London are the poorest segment of society.

 

[radamfi]

The obsession with home ownership doesn't help, meaning it is harder to relocate. Having said that, when looking for somewhere to live in the first place, it would be prudent to find somewhere with good enough public transport, taking into account possible job changes in the future.

 

[kevin_roche]

The obsession with home ownership doesn't help, meaning it is harder to relocate. Having said that, when looking for somewhere to live in the first place, it would be prudent to find somewhere with good enough public transport, taking into account possible job changes in the future.

In my experience, the choices available and the conditions applied to people renting in the UK is much worse than in other countries. I can understand why people want to own their own place.

 

[radamfi]

In my experience, the choices available and the conditions applied to people renting in the UK is much worse than in other countries. I can understand why people want to own their own place.

Yes, renting should be made attractive and a desirable choice, not something that you are forced into doing because you can't afford to buy.

 

[WestRiding]

I have a nice house in Pontefract, I would get a bed-sit in York or even North Yorkshire for the price of my house. Plus, the railway moved my job to York. So no, why shoud I. Plus, like I said, I dont have a problem as such if the infrastructure is in place and car drivers are not charged more than now, overall for the purposes of having a car.

Would not the argument be that you should, as was traditional before cars, live nearer your place of work, or accept the fee for not doing so?

(Still think Stamp Duty should go in that case, as it's a tax on a relocation of that kind)

And as for renting, never. Its an investment for my family when I'm gone. I can do what I want to my property. And, it's cheaper than renting. Why would anyone pay more in rent than an equivalent mortgage for something that will never be theirs. Unless of course, it's someone that cannot get a mortgage for whatever reason.

 

[edwin_m]

All very well this. If there is the public transport running 24/7. And there is the problem. I know personal cases bore people, but there must be more people like me. I work as a Signaller at York. My nearest Station is Fitzwilliam. Shift Change over is at 0630 and 1830. It is impossible for me to get to work for 0630 from Fitzwilliam. I have to get to work early, to get the trains running. So, my other options;

1 Drive to Wakefield Westgate for a fee. Park my car for an extortionate price. Catch the train to York for an extortionate price. All taking at least 3 times as long as the equivalent car journey and costing a damn sight more. (by the time i would have parked at Wakefield, i could be belting down the A64 into York) Making people travel further and slower in the name of green, is far from Green.

2 Carry on driving to York, for a fee, where there is one Electric Charging Point.

I guess i don't mind too much if it doesn't cost more than the current set up, but public transport does not work for the majority of none 9 to 5ers. My current journey takes 40 minutes and £10 per day. Road Tax negligible at 140 quid per year.

I guess I'm saying (and it sounds childish) its not fair to penalise people who have no choice, especially Public Transport workers, who cannot use public transport.

A properly designed road pricing system should allow driving at off-peak hours at low cost to address issues like this. And one result of widespread electric vehicles would be an increasing number of charging points, or you might have enough range to do you return journey on one charge at home.

 

[WestRiding]

A properly designed road pricing system should allow driving at off-peak hours at low cost to address issues like this. And one result of widespread electric vehicles would be an increasing number of charging points, or you might have enough range to do you return journey on one charge at home.

Yeah i suppose. And there's the other problem, these charging points. How does that work if you, for example, park on the road. Is it legal to string a high voltage cable across a public foot path? Shared driveways, blaa blaa. Its not thought out properly. People who live in flats....?

 

[radamfi]

And as for renting, never. Its an investment for my family when I'm gone. I can do what I want to my property. And, it's cheaper than renting. Why would anyone pay more in rent than an equivalent mortgage for something that will never be theirs. Unless of course, it's someone that cannot get a mortgage for whatever reason.

You are saying this *because* renting has been made both economically and culturally unattractive in the UK (although there are probably places in the UK, for example London, where it makes financial sense to rent due to crazy prices and a glut of landlords). In some other countries, renting is the norm with people being perfectly happy to rent for life.

 

[edwin_m]

Yeah i suppose. And there's the other problem, these charging points. How does that work if you, for example, park on the road. Is it legal to string a high voltage cable across a public foot path? Shared driveways, blaa blaa. Its not thought out properly. People who live in flats....?

That's potentially a big issue still to be dealt with. There have been suggestions of charging points in lamp posts, and I read recently it's OK to run a cable across the pavement as long as something is done to prevent a tripping hazard. But there are clearly problems such as someone tripping over (or pretending to) and suing anyway, someone unplugging your cable and plugging it into their own car, what if you can't get a space within a cable length of your house, ...

 

[WestRiding]

You are saying this *because* renting has been made both economically and culturally unattractive in the UK (although there are probably places in the UK, for example London, where it makes financial sense to rent due to crazy prices and a glut of landlords). In some other countries, renting is the norm with people being perfectly happy to rent for life.

Not at all. I am saying this because I do not want to pay, for example, £550 per month for something that I will never own. And, I do not want to be paying rent once I retire and claim my pension, the idea being that I will be mortgage free before I stop working. £550 out of my monthly pension, per month, until I die, no taaa.

That's potentially a big issue still to be dealt with. There have been suggestions of charging points in lamp posts, and I read recently it's OK to run a cable across the pavement as long as something is done to prevent a tripping hazard. But there are clearly problems such as someone tripping over (or pretending to) and suing anyway, someone unplugging your cable and plugging it into their own car, what if you can't get a space within a cable length of your house, ...

And malicious Vandalism.