Road Pricing Tax
Road Pricing Tax.
The recent announcement by the transport secretary - A. Darling to the effect that he wants an open discussion on the re- aligning of the current vehicle road tax to road tax pricing should raise much concern. The intention is to trail new technology using gps to track and charge road users by the mile, at a cost of 2p to £1.30+ per mile, with the aim of reducing traffic congestion.
The unappealing aspects of this idea are that it provides the state again with too much uncontrolled power of information on the movement people and a distinct lack of confidence in the trust and ability of the government to develop a fair delivery mechanism. The presumption that it will reduce traffic congestion is a ridicules idea. That it will be revenue neutral is risible and it behoves people to have a healthy distrust of the governments professed desires.
The form of the current social mobility stricture and what is possible for the foreseeable future, does not suggest that people will want to travel any less than now; or indeed will people be able to substitute for more economically accessible mobile transport to their place of employment or social activities. It has been commented on before, that in order to reduce traffic on the road and to make it less attractive to use the roads yet cater for people and goods movement, other forms of mass transport has to be developed and current ones substantially improved. That the various governments have not really tackled this situation means that the cost has seen to be always been too high, contributing to the current public transport shortfall.
I have the inclination that the desire to reduce traffic flows by the use of a mileage charge has nothing to do with the need to switch traffic from the road to other forms of transport and reduce congestion BUT has more to do with the long term strategy of increasing AND securing the revenues taken from transports private and commercial users.
It is very likely that in looking at the next 20 years the volume of road transport will change due to the cost of fuel that will cause a slight reduction in private vehicle use. This is what the government would currently want however there is a counter balance in that it is unlikely that social and work demand will change to allow people to reduce their travel requirement and this means that those that can economically afford to have their own private transport will continue to do so while squeezing out others. As the population is forecasted to expand, in the medium term, there will be more vehicle movement on the road not less. However in the drawing up of the proposal for ‘road charging’ it is decidedly likely that the strategist will have factored in the one inescapable issue, that oil and its derivative will be reducing and the current form of tax revenue stream will have to be switched.
Although duel fuel vehicle (petrol/gas) are still in the development acceptable phase, it is dubious that these will form the bases of a mass transport shift. Hydrogen fuel cells are also unlikely to make a great leap forward in the short term but if either of these did, the access to the fuel consumed can be controlled and so taxed as now. Unfortunately the power unit that could make the popular running is electrical and as it stands a recharge can be done via a domestic supply with the subsequent revenue flowing to the a private supplier and not controlled for a revenue stream by the UK treasury.
It is this lack of future control over the ability to raise revenue from petroleum usage for vehicles that is driving the governments “discussion” for road pricing and not the need to assist the reduction of traffic congestion.
The suggestion that the road pricing will be revenue neutral must be considered a complete fallacy. Leaving aside the technicality of actually monitoring the proposed different road cost structure imposed on different types of roads, the mechanics of collecting the revenue from 30+million vehicles users and a simple calculation will show the preposterous nature of the argument that the scheme will be revenue neutral.
Take an average driver doing 12k miles pa (with most vehicles in the urban city areas there are not many doing less than this) assume that the vehicle achieves 30 mpg, over the period of a year it will cost at £0.85ppl some £1,545 to fuel. Assume that the tax take with vat and fuel duty is 73%c of this sum and add in the road tax of £170 means that the revenue paid is £1,298 pa.
This equates to a mileage cost of 0.108 pence per mile. Now if as is indicated that the initial mileage charge will be £0.02p to £1.30, the minimum charge may therefore have to be £0.10p to recouped the revenue cost (revenue neutral) or alternatively if half of the mileage is on motorways, the travel tax bill is likely to be 6000miles x £1.30 + 6000miles x £0.10p = total £8,400.
Play with the figure anyway you like but the essential pressure is that the least financial able will be priced of the roads. If just 10% of road users drop out, this will cause a large fall in tax revenue that will have to be extracted elsewhere.
With the initial proposed road pricing on any vehicle, the treasury gain a lot of revenue and the revenue stream is secured no matter what form of power motivator is used, size or type of vehicle. It is not in the government interest to force too many vehicles off the roads too quickly for fear of the lost of fuel revenue but it does see as essential to safeguard the revenue stream when there is an eventually natural decline in the petroleum usage.
If the government were serious in their intent to reduce traffic pollution and congestion there are a number of ways to achieve it but each has a central and political cost implication that no government would want to take on board. Why not: -
Abolish road tax for two wheeled motorised vehicles.
All private electric cars & bikes to be free of all tax.
Substantially reduce road tax for cars of –1000cc and length of 6ft.
Encourage a shift in the working peak start and finish times.
Develop electric / hydrogen monorail network over or adjacent to motorways.
Have a variable fuel tax based on the size on engine linked to an annual MOT verification of mile-odometer reading. (A much simpler and quicker way to achieve the changed revenue stream)
HGV’s to be given incentives to transport goods only overnight.
Stop HGV’s from using middle lanes on hills.
Have a varied slower or faster speed limit
Open up the motorways ‘hard shoulder’ to light traffic use.
But then the idea is not to solve congestion or pollution, it is all about keeping traffic moving on the roads and making it pay. To make this scheme effective it will affect ALL roads.
Finally: why should northern counties pay for the affluent overheated south? Can any one really believe that a government will give up all road tax and fuel revenue in favour of a solely road price structure?
To use a pun, vote with your feet and say NO!
P. FIED 7.6.05
The recent announcement by the transport secretary - A. Darling to the effect that he wants an open discussion on the re- aligning of the current vehicle road tax to road tax pricing should raise much concern. The intention is to trail new technology using gps to track and charge road users by the mile, at a cost of 2p to £1.30+ per mile, with the aim of reducing traffic congestion.
The unappealing aspects of this idea are that it provides the state again with too much uncontrolled power of information on the movement people and a distinct lack of confidence in the trust and ability of the government to develop a fair delivery mechanism. The presumption that it will reduce traffic congestion is a ridicules idea. That it will be revenue neutral is risible and it behoves people to have a healthy distrust of the governments professed desires.
The form of the current social mobility stricture and what is possible for the foreseeable future, does not suggest that people will want to travel any less than now; or indeed will people be able to substitute for more economically accessible mobile transport to their place of employment or social activities. It has been commented on before, that in order to reduce traffic on the road and to make it less attractive to use the roads yet cater for people and goods movement, other forms of mass transport has to be developed and current ones substantially improved. That the various governments have not really tackled this situation means that the cost has seen to be always been too high, contributing to the current public transport shortfall.
I have the inclination that the desire to reduce traffic flows by the use of a mileage charge has nothing to do with the need to switch traffic from the road to other forms of transport and reduce congestion BUT has more to do with the long term strategy of increasing AND securing the revenues taken from transports private and commercial users.
It is very likely that in looking at the next 20 years the volume of road transport will change due to the cost of fuel that will cause a slight reduction in private vehicle use. This is what the government would currently want however there is a counter balance in that it is unlikely that social and work demand will change to allow people to reduce their travel requirement and this means that those that can economically afford to have their own private transport will continue to do so while squeezing out others. As the population is forecasted to expand, in the medium term, there will be more vehicle movement on the road not less. However in the drawing up of the proposal for ‘road charging’ it is decidedly likely that the strategist will have factored in the one inescapable issue, that oil and its derivative will be reducing and the current form of tax revenue stream will have to be switched.
Although duel fuel vehicle (petrol/gas) are still in the development acceptable phase, it is dubious that these will form the bases of a mass transport shift. Hydrogen fuel cells are also unlikely to make a great leap forward in the short term but if either of these did, the access to the fuel consumed can be controlled and so taxed as now. Unfortunately the power unit that could make the popular running is electrical and as it stands a recharge can be done via a domestic supply with the subsequent revenue flowing to the a private supplier and not controlled for a revenue stream by the UK treasury.
It is this lack of future control over the ability to raise revenue from petroleum usage for vehicles that is driving the governments “discussion” for road pricing and not the need to assist the reduction of traffic congestion.
The suggestion that the road pricing will be revenue neutral must be considered a complete fallacy. Leaving aside the technicality of actually monitoring the proposed different road cost structure imposed on different types of roads, the mechanics of collecting the revenue from 30+million vehicles users and a simple calculation will show the preposterous nature of the argument that the scheme will be revenue neutral.
Take an average driver doing 12k miles pa (with most vehicles in the urban city areas there are not many doing less than this) assume that the vehicle achieves 30 mpg, over the period of a year it will cost at £0.85ppl some £1,545 to fuel. Assume that the tax take with vat and fuel duty is 73%c of this sum and add in the road tax of £170 means that the revenue paid is £1,298 pa.
This equates to a mileage cost of 0.108 pence per mile. Now if as is indicated that the initial mileage charge will be £0.02p to £1.30, the minimum charge may therefore have to be £0.10p to recouped the revenue cost (revenue neutral) or alternatively if half of the mileage is on motorways, the travel tax bill is likely to be 6000miles x £1.30 + 6000miles x £0.10p = total £8,400.
Play with the figure anyway you like but the essential pressure is that the least financial able will be priced of the roads. If just 10% of road users drop out, this will cause a large fall in tax revenue that will have to be extracted elsewhere.
With the initial proposed road pricing on any vehicle, the treasury gain a lot of revenue and the revenue stream is secured no matter what form of power motivator is used, size or type of vehicle. It is not in the government interest to force too many vehicles off the roads too quickly for fear of the lost of fuel revenue but it does see as essential to safeguard the revenue stream when there is an eventually natural decline in the petroleum usage.
If the government were serious in their intent to reduce traffic pollution and congestion there are a number of ways to achieve it but each has a central and political cost implication that no government would want to take on board. Why not: -
Abolish road tax for two wheeled motorised vehicles.
All private electric cars & bikes to be free of all tax.
Substantially reduce road tax for cars of –1000cc and length of 6ft.
Encourage a shift in the working peak start and finish times.
Develop electric / hydrogen monorail network over or adjacent to motorways.
Have a variable fuel tax based on the size on engine linked to an annual MOT verification of mile-odometer reading. (A much simpler and quicker way to achieve the changed revenue stream)
HGV’s to be given incentives to transport goods only overnight.
Stop HGV’s from using middle lanes on hills.
Have a varied slower or faster speed limit
Open up the motorways ‘hard shoulder’ to light traffic use.
But then the idea is not to solve congestion or pollution, it is all about keeping traffic moving on the roads and making it pay. To make this scheme effective it will affect ALL roads.
Finally: why should northern counties pay for the affluent overheated south? Can any one really believe that a government will give up all road tax and fuel revenue in favour of a solely road price structure?
To use a pun, vote with your feet and say NO!
P. FIED 7.6.05
posted by Renot at 5:28 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home