Subsidising motorists

User avatar
Phil_Lee
Posts: 726
Joined: 13 Jul 2008, 3:41am
Location: Cambs

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby Phil_Lee » 22 Jan 2011, 12:42am

Last time I added all the costs up, I came up with income from motorists covering approximately 1/3 of the costs to society imposed by motoring.

To put the situation into equilibrium, fuel would have to be increased to about £3.70 per litre.

I got some of the figures from here, but I can't remember the other sources I used. It all came from figures used by departments of government.

irc
Posts: 4828
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby irc » 22 Jan 2011, 1:33am

snibgo wrote:
irc wrote:Since 75% of households have access to a car there is little of the costs of driving not paid by the majority of car users. Anyone that chooses not to use a car saves the direct costs so they pay less. Seems fair as whether they use a car or not they benefit from the road system. They use services like police, fire, and ambulance which arrive by road for example.

So the 25% of households without a car (who will tend to be poorer than those with) "subsidise" the 75% of household with a car.


If they are poor they are not paying much tax and so are not subsidising anyone. In fact poor non car owning households will be subsidised by the 75% majority of car owning taxpayers.
No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 18663
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby Vorpal » 22 Jan 2011, 9:13am

How can you exclude the costs of physical inactivity? Or say that motorists pay for it themselves? And when they develop health problems as a result of inactivity?

Taxpayers pay through the services offered by the NHS. While it would be difficult to quantify in terms of the portion due solely to driving (rather than desk-bound jobs, watching telly for entertainment...), the cost must be significant. DfT say 25% of children travel to school by car http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/_doc/5172/ ... 0guide.pdf Concerted efforts by schools and local authorities can reduce that number by 50% according to the same guide. The school run must be a small percentage of unneccessary car journeys.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10798
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby Cunobelin » 22 Jan 2011, 9:17am

irc wrote:
snibgo wrote:
irc wrote:Since 75% of households have access to a car there is little of the costs of driving not paid by the majority of car users. Anyone that chooses not to use a car saves the direct costs so they pay less. Seems fair as whether they use a car or not they benefit from the road system. They use services like police, fire, and ambulance which arrive by road for example.

So the 25% of households without a car (who will tend to be poorer than those with) "subsidise" the 75% of household with a car.


If they are poor they are not paying much tax and so are not subsidising anyone. In fact poor non car owning households will be subsidised by the 75% majority of car owning taxpayers.



The 75% is a very selective figure and an exception to the rule.

In many City areas this is in fact less than 50%, with inner city London actually having a 60% of families with no access to a car,

In rural areas the figures are more difficult as the single car ownership is about 47% of families in the South West.

Now factor in to the equation the fact that In many cases this vehicle is being as a commuting resource and the rest of the family is without access for most of the time.

Finally there is the fact that the elderly and disabled feature even lower in the figures of car ownership. It is (IIRC) about 30% in the elderly and less than 20% in the disabled community!

The myth of car ownership being something open to everyone is exactly that a myth?

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 18663
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby Vorpal » 22 Jan 2011, 10:42am

[quote="CunobelinThe myth of car ownership being something open to everyone is exactly that a myth?[/quote]

http://cars.uk.msn.com/forum/thread.asp ... 0000000000

According to the readers of MSN, car ownership is right! :shock:
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

irc
Posts: 4828
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby irc » 22 Jan 2011, 11:10am

Cunobelin wrote:The 75% is a very selective figure and an exception to the rule.

In many City areas this is in fact less than 50%, with inner city London actually having a 60% of families with no access to a car,

In rural areas the figures are more difficult as the single car ownership is about 47% of families in the South West.

Now factor in to the equation the fact that In many cases this vehicle is being as a commuting resource and the rest of the family is without access for most of the time.

Finally there is the fact that the elderly and disabled feature even lower in the figures of car ownership. It is (IIRC) about 30% in the elderly and less than 20% in the disabled community!

The myth of car ownership being something open to everyone is exactly that a myth?


Selective? I quote a national figure covering the whole population. You then quote figures for various subsets (without references) yet say I'm being selective!

As for the myth of car ownership being open to everyone? What myth is that? How is claiming based on govt stats that 75% of the population have access to a car claiming it is open to everyone. I've had longer car free periods in my life for various reasons than the times I've owned a car so I recognise not everyone can.
No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?

irc
Posts: 4828
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby irc » 22 Jan 2011, 12:10pm

George Riches wrote:Much of the subsidy to public transport operators should be included as the main reason to subsidise public transport is that it's a cheaper way of keeping congestion in check than building new roads.


You think so. Rail subsidy is 5 billion a year yet rail accounts for only a trivial proption of journeys and passenger miles. journeys.

"1. The last Government’s Ten Year plan envisaged that congestion could be greatly reduced by increasing rail use by 50% and bus use by 10%. Consequently vast sums have been spent on public transport.

2. However, the policy was, at its inception, deeply flawed. Firstly, it was always obvious that, since rail accounted for only 2% of motorised journeys and since rail and bus each carried only 6% of passenger-miles, large increases in those percentages could have only a trivial effect on car journeys."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... y/te11.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 735663.ece
No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?

George Riches
Posts: 782
Joined: 23 May 2007, 9:01am
Location: Coventry
Contact:

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby George Riches » 22 Jan 2011, 12:54pm

George Riches wrote:Much of the subsidy to public transport operators should be included as the main reason to subsidise public transport is that it's a cheaper way of keeping congestion in check than building new roads.

irc wrote:You think so. Rail subsidy is 5 billion a year yet rail accounts for only a trivial proption of journeys and passenger miles. journeys.

Don't the majority of commuters into London travel by train to get there and don't those services get the bulk of the subsidy?

Even the pro-road lobbying group "Transport Watch" from the link you supplied had to admit:
"the train is used by people reaching the hearts of our largest cities because there is, for those people, no other practical way of reaching the destinations"

Would shifting the £5 billion a year from rail to road building decrease the time those people take to get to/from work? What impact would it have on those people who currently use cars to commute to the hearts of our largest cities?

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10798
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby Cunobelin » 22 Jan 2011, 4:06pm

irc wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:The 75% is a very selective figure and an exception to the rule.

In many City areas this is in fact less than 50%, with inner city London actually having a 60% of families with no access to a car,

In rural areas the figures are more difficult as the single car ownership is about 47% of families in the South West.

Now factor in to the equation the fact that In many cases this vehicle is being as a commuting resource and the rest of the family is without access for most of the time.

Finally there is the fact that the elderly and disabled feature even lower in the figures of car ownership. It is (IIRC) about 30% in the elderly and less than 20% in the disabled community!

The myth of car ownership being something open to everyone is exactly that a myth?


Selective? I quote a national figure covering the whole population. You then quote figures for various subsets (without references) yet say I'm being selective!

As for the myth of car ownership being open to everyone? What myth is that? How is claiming based on govt stats that 75% of the population have access to a car claiming it is open to everyone. I've had longer car free periods in my life for various reasons than the times I've owned a car so I recognise not everyone can.


These are figures from the Office for National Statistics.My point is that everyone ""can" if they really need to, and if they "can't" we need to address the reasons why, not pander to a lifestyle choice.

Lets take the example of some old family friends, who I worked for in the arly 70's. A farming family who have owned their house (and their parent's house for several generations.

Now they are elderly things have changed. The village is full of holiday homes and dormitory accommodation.

As the use of the bus service and other services declined they were withdrawn, so "car use is essential".

He no longer drives and now they are forced with a dilemma - abandon the home they have held for generations or provide the ability for them to continue living there?

Instead of subsidising the motorists, lets subsidise the public transport?

Steady rider
Posts: 2280
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby Steady rider » 22 Jan 2011, 4:58pm

Bit of a shot in the dark here, assuming trying to make bus and coach travel free - out of the envelope thinking.

Buses and coaches travel 5200 million km in 2008.
say 30km/hr = about 173 million hours, say £10/hr drivers cost
£1730 million per year, say double to include other costs, £3460 million per year.
Suppose double number of buses to cater for a better service, including bike racks, say £7000 million.

Assume 10 people per bus at all times and saving on private car use.
total distance 5200 x 2 x 10 = 104000 million km per year.
cost of motoring 1 km say, £0.1
saving made £10400 million

saving ratio 1.48 ; 1

If the figures are about right, it appears that it could be worth considering.
Savings, less congestion, pollution, possible savings for the country, attractive for visitors with free transport and frequent service. Bike racks on buses could increase cycling - riding to bus stops both ends.

For 60 million people the average cost would be about £120 per year or per houseehold about £350 per year.
ps
the AA
http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/advic ... _table.jsp
Last edited by Steady rider on 22 Jan 2011, 10:12pm, edited 1 time in total.

SilverBadge
Posts: 577
Joined: 12 May 2009, 11:28pm

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby SilverBadge » 22 Jan 2011, 8:44pm

George Riches wrote:Even the pro-road lobbying group "Transport Watch" from the link you supplied had to admit:
"the train is used by people reaching the hearts of our largest cities because there is, for those people, no other practical way of reaching the destinations"


Just had a squint at Transport Watch - who state their objective is "to become the non-governmental point of reference for factual data dealing with Transport generally and road and rail in particular." In reality they appear up there with Migration Watch and the Taxpayers Alliance - gems such as [on speeding and cameras] "Additionally, in excess of 13 million motorists were fined, most of whom were driving as well as could reasonably be expected." It all looks very establishment on the Parliament website but "Memorandum from . . . " means here's a letter we received, which we have to publish in the interests of balance.
Their take on subsidies is the predictable £50billion tax revenues from motorists, £9billion spent (presumably no provision made for accident and health costs, amongst others). In contrast, £5billion annually spent on railways has no benefit other than cheaper tickets for rail users (let's ignore that cities would grind to a halt, the reduced casualty costs etc).
One small ray of light - "We welcome contributions from any person provided the contributions give references to sources and, as far as is possible, the source numbers and calculations upon which conclusions may be based."

User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8210
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby hubgearfreak » 22 Jan 2011, 8:52pm

it's disgraceful, isn't iut SB? :shock:

SilverBadge wrote:Their take on subsidies is


sadly, the same as the sun's. at least the sun don't have the audacity to claim to be a non-governmental point of reference for factual data dealing with Transport generally :roll:

factual data, my harris

Edwards
Posts: 5981
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 10:09pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby Edwards » 23 Jan 2011, 7:01am

hubgearfreak wrote:factual data, my harris


Hubbers there has been a lot of the back of a fag packet and estimation earlier on.

It would appear to me that the answer just is not known. This is because the real data just is not known and can not be found.
There have been guesses at the cost of the impact on peoples lives also the environment in which people live.
Some of the data that has been accepted goes back to the last century.

I think the real cost can never be worked out as I can not see how it is possible to work out the real cost to society of road vehicles that are necessary to keep people alive.

Trucks and buses do the most damage to the road surface yet this extra cost was not allowed for in any calculations.

I certainly would not want to get into a discussion based on the evidence shown so far. Especially as if asked for references to the data I would have to reply "A Bloke on the Internet did an estimation". I think even Sun readers would have a good laugh justifiably so.

I do not feel the case to claim a subsidy to motorists has been shown so far and I think to claim any sort of an amount would just make cycle campaigning a laughing stock.

I think I will have to agrea with CJ
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar

Steady rider
Posts: 2280
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby Steady rider » 23 Jan 2011, 12:27pm

Would it be worthwhile and fair to say;

Sun reported ‘Pumped dry’ 23 January 2011
Tax paid by drivers,
£24.6 billion fuel duty
£5.6 billion road tax
Total tax £30.2 billion

Tax spent on drivers
Road building £9.1 billion
Emissions £3.2 billion
Total £12.3 billion

Tax siphoned off drivers £17.9 billion.

It omitted other costs such as the total value of prevention of all road accidents in 2009 was estimated at £15.8 billion.
(http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/2 ... gb2009.pdf)

Tim Yeo, Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee said:
The health costs of pollution are estimated at between £8.5bn and £20.2bn each year, with the report also warning that the UK risks "substantial" fines for its failure to meet EU regulations on limiting pollutants.
( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8578952.stm )

Reportedly in real terms the cost of motoring has reduced, from 1997 to 2009 by 13%.
( http://www.pacts.org.uk/westminster-hal ... .php?id=25 )

At a time when the government needs to pay off debt, motoring taxes is probably the least objectionable and environmentally sound.

snibgo
Posts: 4604
Joined: 29 Jun 2010, 4:45am

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby snibgo » 23 Jan 2011, 2:10pm

Edwards wrote:It would appear to me that the answer just is not known. This is because the real data just is not known and can not be found.

There is quite a lot of data, but questions over what data applies to the question.

If I got into a discussion with a devoted Sun reader, I would ask why they included the cost of emissions but not the (far greater) cost of RTAs. The Sun reader would reply that he had never personally caused an accident, and shouldn't pay for other people's accidents through his motoring bills.

He might add that any political party that proposed doubling (or trebling) motoring taxes would be quickly shown the door.