Subsidising motorists

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

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby Cunobelin » 20 Jan 2011, 6:45pm

Would it be churlish to point out that Maths is not the Sun's strongest point?

9.1 bn on road building

Now take off the 5Bn of the M25 cost, the 2.9Bn on the M6, the 5Bn of the M1, and the
maths already don't add up, we haven't even got to the main ring road projects, road repairs or other costs!

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

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby hubgearfreak » 20 Jan 2011, 6:51pm

Steady rider wrote:Purchasing the vehicles, depreciation does this enter the considerations?


no, why would it?

however. if we were to include a value for the externalised costs of car production.....

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

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby Steady rider » 20 Jan 2011, 7:03pm

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/advocacy/autocost.htm

mentions depreciation as a high cost of running a car.

Imported cars cost the nation on the big balance sheet I suppose.

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

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby hubgearfreak » 20 Jan 2011, 7:17pm

Steady rider wrote:mentions depreciation as a high cost of running a car.


yes. but that cost is internalised. in that the motorist has to pay for it, rather than the taxpayer

irc
Posts: 4831
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby irc » 20 Jan 2011, 7:17pm

snibgo wrote: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


I'd argue the cost of roads is not a subsidy to motorists. Cyclists and buses also use the road system. Everyone benefits from having a good road network for distribution of food etc. I can't think of anyone that doesn't use the roads. If not as a car driver then as a cyclist or a bus/taxi passenger or as a customer of shops supplied via the road system.

Other so called costs are debatable as well. Noise? Where is money spent to any great extent to alleviate noise. I see plenty new housing developments built right beside motorways or other busy roads. Noise can't be that great a problem.

The cost of CO2 Emissions? Where is this money spent?
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?

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

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby hubgearfreak » 20 Jan 2011, 7:24pm

irc wrote: Noise? Where is money spent to any great extent to alleviate noise.

The cost of CO2 Emissions? Where is this money spent?


it's not about spending money, but as to giving it a value. we could measure the value in apples, but £s is a more handy unit.

here's an example.

there's two house for sale in the lakes. they're identical, except for the fact that one's front room has a wonderful view over ullswater, the other's view from the front room window is over a pubcarpark & bin area. you'd expect the first to be considerably more expensive (let's say £10000), because of the view. that's not money that's been spent on the lake, but helps economists to assign a value to the lake.

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

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby snibgo » 20 Jan 2011, 7:41pm

Cunobelin wrote:Would it be churlish to point out that Maths is not the Sun's strongest point?

To be fair to the Sun (not something I thought I'd ever say), they got the numbers from the report by The TaxPayers’ Alliance (EDIT: http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/excess ... gtaxes.pdf). The report argues that the costs of accidents etc shouldn't be included, even though the cost of emissions is. I'm not convinced by that.

hubgearfreak wrote: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

Certainly. For example, "Surface Transport Costs Report" cited by thirdcrank lists congestion costs at between 0 and 188 pence per vehicle-kilometre, depending on location.

That report also puts a cost on the capital value of the infrastructure, £3.6b to £7.2b in 1998, which I haven't included in my back-of-the-envelope above.

irc wrote:I'd argue the cost of roads is not a subsidy to motorists.

I wouldn't call it a subsidy to the motorist but a cost to society. We all pay this cost, in human lives and NHS bills and so on.

Yes, even non-motorists benefit from roads. But we need to be honest about the cost of roads and motoring, and decide who is going to pay that cost. I believe that if motorists paid the full cost of motoring (which would increase the cost of bus travel, and posting a parcel or getting a new microwave delivered), we would all live a better life.

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

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby Steady rider » 20 Jan 2011, 8:13pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_so ... nt_balance

I was wondering if the level of cycling and the balance of payments are anyway connected.

probably a bit off topic.

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

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby hubgearfreak » 20 Jan 2011, 8:14pm

snibgo wrote:That report also puts a cost on the capital value of the infrastructure, £3.6b to £7.2b in 1998, which I haven't included in my back-of-the-envelope above.


you ought to - that's 12.5p/mile

irc
Posts: 4831
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby irc » 20 Jan 2011, 8:19pm

hubgearfreak wrote:
irc wrote: Noise? Where is money spent to any great extent to alleviate noise.

The cost of CO2 Emissions? Where is this money spent?


it's not about spending money, but as to giving it a value. we could measure the value in apples, but £s is a more handy unit.

here's an example.

there's two house for sale in the lakes. they're identical, except for the fact that one's front room has a wonderful view over ullswater, the other's view from the front room window is over a pubcarpark & bin area. you'd expect the first to be considerably more expensive (let's say £10000), because of the view. that's not money that's been spent on the lake, but helps economists to assign a value to the lake.


Yes but neither is subsidising the other.
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: 4831
Joined: 3 Dec 2008, 2:22pm
Location: glasgow

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby irc » 20 Jan 2011, 8:28pm

snibgo wrote:I wouldn't call it a subsidy to the motorist but a cost to society. We all pay this cost, in human lives and NHS bills and so on.

Yes, even non-motorists benefit from roads. But we need to be honest about the cost of roads and motoring, and decide who is going to pay that cost. I believe that if motorists paid the full cost of motoring (which would increase the cost of bus travel, and posting a parcel or getting a new microwave delivered), we would all live a better life.


Costs v benefits. Roads are part of being a modern society. Pre-industrial societies have no road deaths. Everyone benefits from having a road system and everyone pays for it one way or another. What's the problem? Motorists who use the ststem more than non motorists pay more as they pay direct costs as well as any other costs paid out of general taxation.
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?

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

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby SilverBadge » 20 Jan 2011, 8:34pm

The most famous work in this area is David Pearce, CSERGE. IIRC he concluded that by the time you include the costs of death, injury, pollution as a burden to society as a whole you get a figure of motorist subsidy to the tune of over £1000/annum. The calculation that gets most airing is total motoring tax take (quite possibly ignoring tax subsidies) compared to the sums directly spent on road repairs/upkeep/expansion and by this narrow and IMO completely wrong definition the motorist is milked.

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

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby snibgo » 20 Jan 2011, 8:48pm

SilverBadge wrote:IIRC he concluded that by the time you include the costs of death, injury, pollution as a burden to society as a whole you get a figure of motorist subsidy to the tune of over £1000/annum.

Yes, that's the same ballpark as we are getting, £0.10/mile for an average 10,000 miles

I mentioned the microwave because I had the choice of cycling with my trailer the 40 mile round trip to Currys, or opting for free delivery. If Currys had to pay the full cost of motoring, and would pass that on to me, I might have chosen to cycle.

I should probably also have included other pollutants, which are 0.25 to 2.5 pence per vehicle-kilometre (Surface Transport Costs Report, 1998). The same report attributes 0.25 p/v-km to "climate change".


irc wrote:Everyone benefits from having a road system and everyone pays for it one way or another. What's the problem? Motorists who use the ststem more than non motorists pay more as they pay direct costs as well as any other costs paid out of general taxation.

The problem is that general taxpayers (income tax, council tax) pay more than they need to, in order that motorists can pay less than they need to. This creates incentives to drive kids a mile to school or a couple of miles to do the shopping, because motoring is artificially cheap. If motorists paid the full costs of motoring, there would be less motoring. We would move away from the car-centric society.

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby meic » 20 Jan 2011, 8:51pm

Cunobelin wrote:Would it be churlish to point out that Maths is not the Sun's strongest point?

9.1 bn on road building

Now take off the 5Bn of the M25 cost, the 2.9Bn on the M6, the 5Bn of the M1, and the
maths already don't add up, we haven't even got to the main ring road projects, road repairs or other costs!



The Sun's figures were for annual costs. Are these annual costs or project costs over many years?
Yma o Hyd

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

Re: Subsidising motorists

Postby Cunobelin » 20 Jan 2011, 9:26pm

meic wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:Would it be churlish to point out that Maths is not the Sun's strongest point?

9.1 bn on road building

Now take off the 5Bn of the M25 cost, the 2.9Bn on the M6, the 5Bn of the M1, and the
maths already don't add up, we haven't even got to the main ring road projects, road repairs or other costs!



The Sun's figures were for annual costs. Are these annual costs or project costs over many years?


2 - 5 years, but I only selected three random projects, missing out on all the others balances this out. At the moment there are over 40 major road schemes in progress, all with an average estimated cost of £21m per mile