Changes in transport costs.

[mjr]

The idea of a poor struggling motorist might be misused but there is also reality to it. Certainly I know of poor people who wouldn’t be able to reach their workplace without a car and wouldn’t be able to support other family members without a car.

They probably exist, but in nowhere near the numbers that lobbyists like to give the impression of. Alternative transport would need to be provided to them, but as you agreed, there's a touch of chicken-and-egg to it, as it's difficult to provide it before it's wanted and endure the bleating about subsidised buses running around near-empty.

I would question motoring being a subsidised activity. The last time I filled up with fuel I paid a large chunk of tax, my insurance premiums have tax on them, replacement parts for my car have tax on them, service costs (labour) for my car have tax on them and then there’s what was once called road fund.

Motorists often do question it, pointing to the tax paid while ignoring that public transport users are paying more VAT per mile and trying to pretend that the health costs of inactivity and pollution are nothing to do with motoring.

Your point about chicken and egg is well received but we should also remember that even in the ‘golden days’ of public transport there were many places that were still isolated from that service. More can be done to get people out if their cars and onto buses but the way to do that is not by ‘bashing’ motorists.

Why should motorists get only carrots and no bashing? There's more than enough bashing of cyclists goes on every day, verbally and online. Is it so wrong that some fight fire with fire?

[Carlton green]

The idea of a poor struggling motorist might be misused but there is also reality to it. Certainly I know of poor people who wouldn’t be able to reach their workplace without a car and wouldn’t be able to support other family members without a car.

They probably exist, but in nowhere near the numbers that lobbyists like to give the impression of. Alternative transport would need to be provided to them, but as you agreed, there's a touch of chicken-and-egg to it, as it's difficult to provide it before it's wanted and endure the bleating about subsidised buses running around near-empty.

I would question motoring being a subsidised activity. The last time I filled up with fuel I paid a large chunk of tax, my insurance premiums have tax on them, replacement parts for my car have tax on them, service costs (labour) for my car have tax on them and then there’s what was once called road fund.

Motorists often do question it, pointing to the tax paid while ignoring that public transport users are paying more VAT per mile and trying to pretend that the health costs of inactivity and pollution are nothing to do with motoring.

Your point about chicken and egg is well received but we should also remember that even in the ‘golden days’ of public transport there were many places that were still isolated from that service. More can be done to get people out if their cars and onto buses but the way to do that is not by ‘bashing’ motorists.

Why should motorists get only carrots and no bashing? There's more than enough bashing of cyclists goes on every day, verbally and online. Is it so wrong that some fight fire with fire?

All lobby groups will paint a picture but for it to stick at all there has to be some truth in it. I can assure you that in my own community many people struggle and public transport - certainly in its current form - would never become available to help them meet their commitments. I believe that it is a pipe dream to think otherwise.

Your point about VAT per mile on Public Transport is interesting however if the service was structured more efficiently then ticket costs and VAT charges would reduce. It really is not reasonable to blame high public transport costs on motorists, those costs are determined via customers (who vote with their feet for good services and against poor ones) and the Bus Companies who fail to deliver a commercially viable product. The Government could, of course, consider its position with regard to Public Transport and VAT. The health costs of inactivity are surely similar whether you’re sitting on a bus or sitting in a car, however public transport has additional health costs. Waiting for buses is sedentary, waiting in the cold and/or the rain is likely to result in sickness, traveling in buses can result in infection transmission and of course there are personal safety concerns too.

Abuse of Cyclists is an entirely different topic and not something for this thread, certainly for another thread though. Motorists get few carrots - certainly none that they don’t seem to have paid for - and plenty of knocks as they just try to go about their personal business. By all means show people better ways to do things and facilitate changes for the better. I’ve already suggested several ways that motoring could have less impact yet still allow people to go about their daily business.

[[XAP]Bob]

Motorists get few carrots???

We are so massively subsidised it’s ridiculous

[Ron]

Why should motorists get only carrots and no bashing?

Who would you get to do the 'bashing'?
Any politician threatening to have motorists pay the true costs of their private motoring would be out on their necks at the next election.

[Zulu Eleven]

Motorists get few carrots???

We are so massively subsidised it’s ridiculous

Would you like to show your working please?

[Mike Sales]

Motorists get few carrots???

We are so massively subsidised it’s ridiculous

Would you like to show your working please?

Here you are, from the Dresden Technical University.

https://stopclimatechange.net/fileadmin ... ars_EN.pdf

Here is the Guardian's summary.

The perennial complaint from drivers that they are excessively taxed has been challenged by a study which concludes that road accidents, pollution and noise connected to cars costs every EU citizen more than £600 a year.

The report by transport academics at the Dresden Technical University in Germany calculated that even with drivers' insurance contributions discounted these factors amounted to an annual total of €373bn (£303bn) across the 27 EU member states, or around 3% of the bloc's entire yearly GDP. This breaks down as €750 per man, woman and child.

The report recommends that such so-called externalities be factored into the cost of driving, noting that even the €373bn tally does not include costs from congestion or ill health caused by lack of exercise.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/ ... cidents-eu

[Carlton green]

To my mind the term ‘subsidise’ has been misused and the costs negated are ‘externalities’ from the motorist. The motorist may well have no concept of and would question their individual degree of responsibility for the externalities and also question the costing of them. That the actions of each of us impact on others and theirs on us is a fact of life. However I would agree that the identification of adverse impacts and their reduction is certainly worthwhile and would support it.

Thank you for posting your reference data.

[Mike Sales]

We all suffer the problems mass motoring imposes on our society: only some of us enjoy the advantages.
Look around you, next time you are out. Our environment has been transformed to facilitate car use, to the disadvantage of pedestrians and cyclists.
Large sections of this forum are about the danger we suffer from motors.
Our Government was harried in the European Court because traffic emissions make the air in our cities are above limits, and in London charges on polluting vehicles have had to be imposed in the Ultra Low Emission Zone..Elsewhere they are free to pollute!

Here is a report from the Dresden Technical University on the external costs of motoring.

https://stopclimatechange.net/fileadmin ... ars_EN.pdf

Summarised in the Guardian.

"The perennial complaint from drivers that they are excessively taxed has been challenged by a study which concludes that road accidents, pollution and noise connected to cars costs every EU citizen more than £600 a year.

The report by transport academics at the Dresden Technical University in Germany calculated that even with drivers' insurance contributions discounted these factors amounted to an annual total of €373bn (£303bn) across the 27 EU member states, or around 3% of the bloc's entire yearly GDP. This breaks down as €750 per man, woman and child.

The report recommends that such so-called externalities be factored into the cost of driving, noting that even the €373bn tally does not include costs from congestion or ill health caused by lack of exercise.

The idea that drivers are "the cash cows of our society" is wrong, the authors write: "On the contrary, it must be stated that car traffic in the EU is highly subsidised by other people and other regions and will be by future generations: residents along an arterial road, taxpayers, elderly people who do not own cars, neighbouring countries, and children, grandchildren and all future generations subsidise today's traffic."

The study, The True Costs of Automobility, accepts that such calculations necessarily have an element of approximation but give an important overall picture. In a national breakdown it says UK drivers accounted for £48bn of costs, second only to Germany, or about £815 per person per year.

[Mike Sales]

To my mind the term ‘subsidise’ has been misused and the costs negated are ‘externalities’ from the motorist that he or she may well have no concept of and would question their individual degree of responsibility for them and the costing of them. That the actions of each of us impact on others and theirs on us is a fact of life. However I would agree that the identification of adverse impacts and their reduction is certainly worthwhile and would support it.

Thank you for posting your reference data.

The point about uncharged external costs is that they distort the market, leading to adverse results.
In the original post we were looking at the relative costs of motoring and of public transport, and their changes over time.
Many of the external costs of public transport are much less than those of motoring. This is precisely why many advocate subsidising it.
The choice made by a customer does not reflect this, distorting the market and favouring motoring, to the ultimate disadvantage of the whole population, in the ways with which you are familiar.
Charging for these costs would transform road transport.
This market distortion amounts to a subsidy, whether or not the average motorist is aware of it.
The concrete results of this failure to allot the costs correctly results, amongst other big problems like air pollution, in roads which are dangerous for vulnerable road users. Large sections of this forum are about the dangers imposed by drivers.

[Mike Sales]

Here is an interesting discussion on assessing the external costs of motor vehicles from Bob Davis.

Essentially, the adverse effects of motorisation are monetised – which means that you have to put a money value on these adverse effects: pollution – noise, noxious and greenhouse gas emissions, “accidents” etc. This involves asking people (which people – ones with a lot of or a little money?) how much they would be willing to pay for people (which people – their loved ones or strangers?) not to be hurt in road crashes, poisoned by pollution etc.

There is another point. That is that the arbitrary values ascribed to various adverse effects (“external costs”) seem to be less than the benefits in a typical CBA, which is then used to justify pursuing policies supporting the policy status quo. While many academics and campaigners have faith that a properly carried out CBA will lead to more civilised policies being implemented, many of us are not so sure.

https://rdrf.org.uk/2012/12/31/the-true ... s-of-cars/

One point is that there is a standard Cost Benefit Analysis used to justify new road building. This puts values on the costs and benefits of externals, but funnily enough usually justifies building the road.
Davis and Adams take issue with this process.
Take a look at the link if you want to understand more.

[Jdsk]

Thanks, Mike.

The externalities are massive. There's no infringement of rights in allocating their costs to those who incur them.

"Subsidies" are a matter of policy. The first step in improving policy should be as many people as possible knowing as much as possible about the current state and the possible futures.

No single change in transport achieves its maximum possible benefits without an integrated transport policy.

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

Of course personally owned cars are very important to many people in rural areas.

Apart from encouraging walking and cycling what other changes might affect this in the foreseeable future?

Buses could converge with taxis. Unfortunately the (non-rural) East Oxford scheme for calling buses has collapsed:
https://www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/oxford-bu ... me-2997978

Cars could be available but without private ownership: sharing, summoning, summoning with autonomous vehicles...

And voluntary driver schemes could be supported better. In our village this is available for visits to GPs, hospitals and other healthcare anywhere, and for social purposes but only within the village.

Jonathan

[Carlton green]

To my mind the term ‘subsidise’ has been misused and the costs negated are ‘externalities’ from the motorist that he or she may well have no concept of and would question their individual degree of responsibility for them and the costing of them. That the actions of each of us impact on others and theirs on us is a fact of life. However I would agree that the identification of adverse impacts and their reduction is certainly worthwhile and would support it.

Thank you for posting your reference data.

The point about uncharged external costs is that they distort the market, leading to adverse results.
In the original post we were looking at the relative costs of motoring and of public transport, and their changes over time.
Many of the external costs of public transport are much less than those of motoring. This is precisely why many advocate subsidising it.
The choice made by a customer does not reflect this, distorting the market and favouring motoring, to the ultimate disadvantage of the whole population, in the ways with which you are familiar.
Charging for these costs would transform road transport.
This market distortion amounts to a subsidy, whether or not the average motorist is aware of it.
The concrete results of this failure to allot the costs correctly results, amongst other big problems like air pollution, in roads which are dangerous for vulnerable road users. Large sections of this forum are about the dangers imposed by drivers.

Thanks Mike, I find that a helpful response. I still would not accept the use of the term subsidy in relation to motorists costs but some other term might well be appropriate. There are costs to society due to the effects of motoring, but as each motorist is also a member of society they arguably bare some part of the costs too.

One aspect of all of this that has not been discussed is the cost to society of the removal of motorised personal transport, my instinct is that the cost will be massive compared to the cost of keeping it. Of course I argue for ‘green’ transport and the responsible use of resources, but beware and very cautious of making ‘green choices’ that have unintended consequences.

[Jdsk]

That is why I used the term ‘general public’, there will always be those with special needs and reasons that are sufficiently reasonable and justifiable. We currently have driving licences that permit the individual to drive particular classes of vehicle; I believe that restricting ownership of larger vehicles via a separate large vehicle ownership licence is certainly a route worthy of investigation.

In terms of vehicles I think that the Japanese have some ideas to follow up with their K class vehicles : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kei_car

I'm absolutely behind you in terms of graduated licensing. One further advantage is the relative simplicity of downgrading an offender's license, rather than it being an all or nothing affair.

Yes, graduated licensing has its merits. Motorcycles have, for many years, had different classes of licence with restrictions for age, engine power and engine size; I would like to see a similar system for motor cars and would certainly downgrade the licence of someone with many points on it.

And it fits well with moving many aspects of driving from criminal justice into administrative regulation of permissions.

But without a radical improvement in either prevention or detection and enforcement we shouldn't expect great benefits.

Jonathan

[Mike Sales]

Thanks Mike, I find that a helpful response. I still would not accept the use of the term subsidy in relation to motorists costs but some other term might well be appropriate. There are costs to society due to the effects of motoring, but as each motorist is also a member of society they arguably bare some part of the costs too.

One aspect of all of this that has not been discussed is the cost to society of the removal of motorised personal transport, my instinct is that the cost will be massive compared to the cost of keeping it. Of course I argue for ‘green’ transport and the responsible use of resources, but beware and very cautious of making ‘green choices’ that have unintended consequences.

Glad to help.
The effect of ignoring these costs is in effect a subsidy. It affects the money choices in the same way, making driving cheaper than its real costs.
These costs are huge and I would not agree that they are outweighed by the benefits of private cars. If they were charged to the users different choices would be made, and would become available.
Yes, as I said, all members of society bear the external costs but including those who do not benefit from mass motorisation, but in fact, have a larger share of those costs.
If the benefits became available to all, not just present motorists, congestion, which is much complained of by drivers, would become rather worse. It is not in the interests of drivers that more of the population share their privilege.