What might be the effects of the rapidly increasing motor vehicle fuel costs?

[Mick F]

^^^^
+1

[Tangled Metal]

Personally I agree with a lot of people over the core results or aims of such fuel price increases would be about achieving I just disagree with the way you propose to achieve those goals.

I want to see less car use especially for short trips where other options exist or could / should exist. I do want to see improved public transport (actually any public transport in some places).

I just differ in the method. Increasing fuel price is a very blunt tool that has wider economic problems with it. If, as a society, we are unable to think of any better way of achieving the goals I think we all want (see above) then we're doomed and it's better we just poison ourselves quicker and die out as a species. The planet will recover the geological era we've moved into as a result of our species impact on the world once we've died out.

Public transport needs improving but the nationalised or privatised debate is purely a political matter. Both systems are capable of achieving the goal of better public transport. It just needs better management of it from the top down whichever political based option chosen on. I don't care which side wins that if they deliver. If a good transport system is delivered then those delivering it deserve any reward they get. Whether it's shareholders or stakeholders. It's the end result that matters, a good transport system that's affordable, efficient, practical and with reduced emissions.

As I said, the rest is just politics.

[thirdcrank]

... Increasing fuel price is a very blunt tool that has wider economic problems with it. ...

On the contrary, I think it's a very targeted way of turning back the tide of increased motor vehicle use, not least because it affects the most profligate users of fuel the most. The problems are largely caused by that turning tide. Anybody with a big car, heavy right foot and a long commute will feel the pinch, assuming they pay for their own driving.

As what is only a side effect, it begins to prepare society for the inevitable move from fossil fuel.

[Vorpal]

Among the wider economic impacts, higher fuel prices may help to shift some goods, especially large consumer items, such as cars, white goods, etc. back onto sea freight and trains, which are a far more environmentally friendly means of moving goods. Trains use a little less than half the fuel that lorries do to move the same goods. In terms of emissions (CO2, NOX, and particulates), it is slightly more than half because the emissions standards are different. Sea freight produces about 1/4th the emissions that lorries do to move the same goods.

Higher fuel prices also reduce emissions, including particulate pollution, which saves money on public health, even if you do not include any savings for more people walking and cycling.

[horizon]

And our edge-of-town Tesco is only four miles and two sets of traffic lights away, so we can get to it using less fuel than many city dwellers would use on their weekly grocery shop.

And our edge-of-town Tesco is only four miles and two sets of traffic lights away, so we can get to it using our bicycles like many city dwellers would use on their weekly grocery shop.

FTFY

[horizon]

It must hit people who live and work in rural areas hard.

Not if they live and work in a rural area - most don't: they live in the rural area and work in the town.

[reohn2]

TC,Vorpal
IMO two things would reduce motor traffic by a large margin,a decent co-ordinated,cheap,clean,regular public transport system and a Total ban(with few exceptions)on private motors in towns and cities.
With such bans and public transport systems in place goods would move far more freely and efficiently.

TM.
Public transport if run properly can be run far cheaper to the user if it's run as a non profit making service rather than a run for profit business

[thirdcrank]

Among the wider economic impacts, higher fuel prices may help to shift some goods, especially large consumer items, such as cars, white goods, etc. back onto sea freight and trains, which are a far more environmentally friendly means of moving goods. Trains use a little less than half the fuel that lorries do to move the same goods. In terms of emissions (CO2, NOX, and particulates), it is slightly more than half because the emissions standards are different. Sea freight produces abotu 1/4th the emissions that lorries do to move the same goods.

Higher fuel prices also reduce emissions, including particulate pollution, which saves money on public health, even if you do not include any savings for more people walking and cycling.

They might also reduce the distances some goods are shifted, although that would involve including aviation fuel to be really effective.

[Tangled Metal]

It's not just car users who use that fuel. Trucks do too. Increase logistics costs you increase costs across pretty much everything. So that you've got inflation. And so on. The consequences aren't just applied to car users.

Or am I missing some aspect of this? Are you proposing a more sophisticated system? Targeted increases? Cars get charged more trucks less, more polluting cars more than less polluting cars for example. Without that I can't see how it is anything but a blunt tool to get what we should be working towards by other means.

[pwa]

It must hit people who live and work in rural areas hard.

Not if they live and work in a rural area - most don't: they live in the rural area and work in the town.

If you live, as I do, in a rural area but not far from towns, access via car to edge of town shopping is probably easier and cheaper than for some people who live within towns. I can get to those facilities in a car without passing through urban congestion. If you live really out in the sticks that is a different matter. What I'm saying is that not all rural locations are the same for the purposes of this discussion. I don't feel fuel price rises affect me any more than they do most urban dwellers.

[thirdcrank]

It's not just car users who use that fuel. Trucks do too. Increase logistics costs you increase costs across pretty much everything. So that you've got inflation. And so on. The consequences aren't just applied to car users.

Or am I missing some aspect of this? Are you proposing a more sophisticated system? Targeted increases? Cars get charged more trucks less, more polluting cars more than less polluting cars for example. Without that I can't see how it is anything but a blunt tool to get what we should be working towards by other means.
(My emphasis.

It looks that way to me.

[Vorpal]

TC,Vorpal
IMO two things would reduce motor traffic by a large margin,a decent co-ordinated,cheap,clean,regular public transport system and a Total ban(with few exceptions)on private motors in towns and cities.
With such bans and public transport systems in place goods would move far more freely and efficiently.

I'm not sure it always has be a total ban on private cars. If parking is very expensive or unavailable, people will think twice about using their cars.

One of the suburbs of Oslo has a council that has been taken over by a coalition of leftist parties, and they are in the process of replacing all of the public parking with green housing developments. A project manager from the design firm presented at the cycling conference I was at earlier in the week. He said something that stuck with me (translated) 'Nydalen is no longer going to provide public parking. If you bought a new refrigerator, woulf you expect the government to provide you with a place to put it? The same should apply to cars.' Their experience with this is that only 50% of new residents have cars. They have added stations on the tram system, and buses and bus routes to enable the new residents to get to work, and cycling and walking infrastructure. I don't know the deatils of those. The point of the presentation was their development strategy to enable cycling. I was honestly stunned that any council had the political will to completely eliminate public parking.

I don't think that could happen in the city where I live. The local council recently caved to objections to a bus/cycle lane conversion on one of the main roads. So we continue to have ever increasing traffic 50 metres from our house. On top of it, they cut down all of the hedges, so we hear it all the time, when it used to be fairly quiet

[horizon]

One of the suburbs of Oslo has a council that has been taken over by a coalition of leftist parties,

Well, at least some good news today.

More seriously though:

and they are in the process of replacing all of the public parking with green housing developments.

I recently looked at a Google image of central Plymouth. I roughly calculated that roads and parking take up about a quarter of the space, possibly more.

https://goo.gl/maps/zY9kkheqKNq

This is dead space, unproductive, dull, usused, not contributing to Plymouth in any way. At night, it's empty. Economically it is a disaster. Plymouth is a dead city and you can see why.

[reohn2]

Vorpal
Not providing parking IMO equates to a ban :- https://vimeo.com/76207227 Utopia may not be a possiblity,but steps toward that goal are .

[pete75]

It must hit people who live and work in rural areas hard.

Not if they live and work in a rural area - most don't: they live in the rural area and work in the town.

Eh? A lot of people who live and work in rural areas travel some distance to work. Many agricultural workers these days are self employed and work on frams all over the place. There are also many food processing factories in rural areas and these draw their workforce from a wide area.