Subsidising motorists

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

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby snibgo » 20 Jan 2011, 12:59pm

It's on page 31.

Since 1993, the valuation of both fatal and non-fatal casualties has been based on a consistent willingness to pay (WTP) approach. This approach encompasses all aspects of the valuation of casualties, including the human costs, which reflect pain, grief, suffering; the direct economic costs of lost output and the medical costs associated with road accident injuries.


User avatar
CJ
Posts: 3112
Joined: 15 Jan 2007, 9:55pm

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby CJ » 20 Jan 2011, 1:50pm

Here's a couple of reports
http://www.igreens.org.uk/great_road_tr ... ubsidy.htm
http://www.transport.intelynx.net/Cost% ... sport.html
both rather old and lacking the authority of a national organisation such as the ETA, or FoE or Greenpeace or Living Streets or someone.

I'm sure I've seen something more "official" and more recent that pulled up all the various government figures for tax take versus health costs, policing, accidents, fire service, maintenance, asset value ... but I can't remember where I saw it. I think the best you can do, in the face of all the stuff produced by those with a vested personal interest in motoring (i.e. just about everyone in any position of authority!), is to point out that they have overlooked all these external costs, and that they add up to way more than the total raised in motoring taxes.

However we do really need some other organisation, one that's less obviously partial than CTC, to maintain an annually updated summary of the full cost of road transport, that we can trot out whenever there's the usual bleating from motorists about how much tax they pay!
Chris Juden
One lady owner, never raced or jumped.


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

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby Edwards » 20 Jan 2011, 2:32pm

I have been pondering this while trying to fit blinds to the porch.

The Sun could be way out underestimating the amount.

I the link I gave they give the amount as £300 million a day, but this is just for the increase in 2010.
If we estimate the increase as 20p for that year. Then that gives a very rough figure of £150 million a day for every 10p in the cost of fuel. With the cost of petrol nearing £1.30 per litre. That is an awful lot of money beyond my comprehension.

Now wonder the commons has such a good restaurant and well stocked wine cellar.
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar

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

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby snibgo » 20 Jan 2011, 2:42pm

Edwards: you are misquoting £300 million a month as £300 million a day.

User avatar
CJ
Posts: 3112
Joined: 15 Jan 2007, 9:55pm

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby CJ » 20 Jan 2011, 3:24pm

hubgearfreak wrote:this may be worth reading

http://www.its.leeds.ac.uk/projects/STC ... Report.pdf

Yes, it might. I've also just found a link to that report in the FAQs on the website of the Campaign for Better Transport. And I did try to read it. :? But try as I might, I could not find the place where it shows that:
driving costs us between two and three times what it brings in in taxation

... like CBT say, in their FAQ. And the link to a Cabinet Report that might also back up that answer, is broken.
Chris Juden
One lady owner, never raced or jumped.

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

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby snibgo » 20 Jan 2011, 4:05pm

"Surface Transport Costs Report" is certainly worth reading, but it is very detailed. The headline "driving costs us between two and three times what it brings in in taxation" probably comes from the marginal cost tables in chapter 7.

For example, table 7.4 on page 49 shows that cars cost society 10.1 pence per vehicle-kilometre, and bring in a revenue of 4.5 pence.

But I think this is a misreading of the report, as it separates "marginal cost" from "fully allocated cost". The report is also old, using data from 1998.

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

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby snibgo » 20 Jan 2011, 4:15pm

The broken link to a cabinet report possibly refers to this useful report:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/poli ... transport/

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

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby snibgo » 20 Jan 2011, 4:24pm

I thought I had pulled out some quotes from "The Future of Urban Transport" (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/regional/poli ... transport/), but I can't find where I put them, so here they are again.

Although difficult to calculate, it is estimated that the total cost of excess delays in urban areas is of the order of £10.9 billion a year.

It is estimated that the cost to the community of urban road accidents is about £8.7 billion each year.

Physical inactivity is conservatively estimated to cost the economy £9.8 billion per annum. This does not include the cost of obesity, which also represents a significant cost to the economy. Greater use of active travel modes such as walking and cycling could potentially reduce these costs substantially.

Studies based on the relationships between road traffic noise levels and house prices suggest that the annoyance costs associated with noise are worth around at least £3 – 5 billion in England, most of which will occur in urban areas.

Carbon emissions from transport in the largest cities and conurbations are estimated at 25% of the total emitted from road transport, with an economic cost of between £1.2 billion and £3.7 billion per annum in 2009.

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

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby snibgo » 20 Jan 2011, 5:21pm

We can do a back-of-the-envelope calculation:

Expenditure:
- roads £21.86b (tsgb0115.xls) (The Sun includes this, as £9.1b)
- accidents £15.8b - £30b
- congestion (urban only) £10.9
- physical inactivity (I won't include this, but the point is arguable) zero
- road traffic noise £3b - £5b
- carbon emissions (urban only) £1.2b - £3.7b (The Sun includes this, as £3.1b)
- Total: £52.76b - £71.46b

Income (http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/da ... ions/tsgb/, and confirmed by The Sun):
- VED £5.4b
- Fuel tax £24.6b
- Total: £30.0b

So motorists cost the country roughly double what they pay.

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

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby Edwards » 20 Jan 2011, 5:40pm

snibgo wrote:Edwards: you are misquoting £300 million a month as £300 million a day.


That is one big oops sorry :oops: . My excuse was I have been rushing about to get this porch sorted.
Keith Edwards
I do not care about spelling and grammar

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

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby hubgearfreak » 20 Jan 2011, 6:27pm

snibgo wrote:Expenditure:- Total: £52.76b - £71.46b


if we take a mean of these, £62.11, then subtract the income;

snibgo wrote:Income- Total: £30.0b


we have £32.11

the total KMs done is 488bn/1.6 = 305bn miles

it's 10.5p/mile subsidy, ignoring health costs due to inactivity

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

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby hubgearfreak » 20 Jan 2011, 6:36pm

hubgearfreak wrote:it's 10.5p/mile subsidy, ignoring health costs due to inactivity


but as you say, they're back of the envelop calcs. those driving in urban areas at school and work start or finish times are causing far more external costs than someone delivering milk in the early hours in rural locations. easily 21p subsidy or even more per mile

Steady rider
Posts: 2284
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby Steady rider » 20 Jan 2011, 6:43pm

Purchasing the vehicles, depreciation does this enter the considerations?