UKH

Went past Sainsburys yesterday, petrol was £0.99/l. Is this the point at which we should increase fuel duty?

In reply to Andy Hardy:


it would a reasonable start to all those promises in Paris.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

It would hurt us and contribute the square root of sod all globally.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Duty as a discouragement only hurts those least able to pay and sends the message that the rich can cause as much damage as they are willing to pay for, which is exactly what countries like China and India accuse us of on a larger scale. Far better would be to make a real encouragement to use public transport for long journeys, discourage trivial journeys and limit engine size and emissions without recourse to "pay to pollute".

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Disagree. It would hurt those who treat fuel like water (which we should arguably treat with more respect too, but that's another argument...) without doing to much damage to those of us who use it responsibly. We didn't return to the dark ages when it was £1.20 a litre, so it could easily be pegged to that price as a minimum with the treasury (and in turn us, as receivers of government services) benefiting. I'd personally like to see pollution taxes such as this ringfenced for subsidising clean power production and providing incentives to use it.

However, this would win precisely zero votes.

n.b. I do drive and own a car, however live close enough that I walk to my office everyday.

In reply to Clarence:


Or instead of regressing our lifestyle by several decades we could encourage the adoption of electric cars and low carbon electricity generation.

Most public transport around my way is busses that outside of the rush hours are largely empty and belch filthy exhausts as they travel round being a menace to cyclists. "public transport" isn't automatically the answer.

Despite the negativity to electric cars because of their range of 60 miles to 350 miles, the average UK journey is about 5 miles.

In reply to Clarence:


Meanwhile - everyone who needs petrol (i.e. most ordinary folk) just buy what they need and pay what they have to. I know demand has slumped as a result of high prices and people cutting their usage but you can only cut so much. We keep saying that public transport is the future yet have you noticed that most public transport at peak times is full?

In reply to wintertree:

I look forward to electric cars improving, and I'm sure they will, but when you're using the lights, wipers and heater for the entire journey (as you'd have to do today) what sort of range would you really get?

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

That's a very selfish view

In reply to Clarence:




Trivial journeys would of course include travelling to climbing crags.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:


not if the money actually went on improving rail networks, cycle routes etc. but sadly it wouldn't.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

We already are, the price has come down much more than this.

The proportion that we pay in tax is increasing as the price falls.

In reply to krikoman:

I didn't know this!

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Yes, I think the fuel tax should increase as the VAT goes down so that the government take remains fairly static, but that's a hard one to explain to the public, and might be a bit tricky to implement.

I actually think the solution is not electric cars, but electric personal transport and safe places to use them. If you're travelling 3 or 4 miles to work, you don't need a car, you just need an electric scooter (or hoverboard, or Segway or push scooter or bicycle)

In reply to stevieb:


if you live that close and there are safe paths or cycleways do you need electric anything? It's hardly sustainable to build devices with electronics, motors and batteries, that need charging etc.., when we have legs that for 99% of us are quite able to carry us that distance in a relatively short timescale.

In reply to summo:

4 miles is a brisk one hour walk. I'm not sure I want to spend 2 hours a day walking in the p*ssing rain!

In reply to summo:


There are many rural areas where you just aren't going to benefit from rail networks. Why should the people who live in those areas be taxed on essential journeys for the benefit of those who live in more urban areas?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Wipers and LED headlights - no measurable effect. They use a piddling amount of power compared to the traction motors - I mean seriously, moving a windscreen wiper at a few miles an hour across a smooth surface vs moving more than a tonne of car across asphalt at 70mph?

Heaters - the Leaf for example uses a heat pump, not a heater. 2kW would be a reasonable estimate for maximal power draw, and it's about 0.25kW per mile, giving you a reduction in range of 8 miles per hour of use. For commute speeds that works out as a 17% reduction in range. Sounds bad, but then your average round trip commute is 10% of the Leaf's range, so you could live with 5x the cold weather overhead and still make it.

In reply to stevieb:


It would be easier to explain if the fuel tax also went down as the oil price and VAT take went up

In reply to wintertree:

Not practical for me to run two cars, one for short commutes and one I can rely on, at the moment. I'll give it a few years.

In reply to ByEek:

Just add my view from rural Cornwall:
What little public transport (buses) that we had, has now been slashed. The less economic (low usage) routes have had local authority subsidies removed and have therefore become non-viable and have ceased.
The upshot is that car/van transport is essential for many. Add the fact that there are few local jobs, so many of us have to commute (I do - by car share + folding bike). My wife works for the NHS, and until recently, due to changes forced upon her, had to commute 50 miles each way every day. On top of that, Cornwall is recognised (in UK and EU) as one of the most economically depressed areas of the UK. The Cornish have good reason for their 'careful with money' reputation.
Therefore reduced fuel costs are very welcome down here, since running a vehicle is increasingly an essential part of life, not a luxury.
N

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Yeah, let's screw all us poor people with more tax.

In reply to timjones:

Yes, I suppose I didn't explain it fully, but that is exactly what I was suggesting

In reply to summo:

Have you seen the shape of some people? We need a solution for everyone.
Walking in towns will always be a fairly slow method of transport, but with good infrastructure bikes, scooters or electric scooters can travel at almost the same speed as urban car driving door to door.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Tax it and they will come.

D

In reply to Lusk:


What else is going make us burn less fossil fuel?

In reply to Andy Hardy:

More renewables?

In reply to Andy Hardy:
Designing our cities for cycling? Providing public transport that is *actually* good?

The tram schemes are popular, for instance - build it (without managerial incompetence like Edinburgh) and they will come.

One option that might work (would it be legal), FWIW, would be a minimum fossil fuel price? It is said to work for alcohol...

In reply to ianstevens:


That seems a very self righteous attitude

I have 100 mile round trip to work, my son drives 12 miles round trip to school as the school bus is £500 a year and rural buses are woeful.

I also like going climbing summer and winter.

Are we treating fuel like water? Am I irresponsible? I hope not.

I don't know anyone who thinks "lets drive a few more miles because its 99p a litre".

In reply to Babika:


No, but it might make a difference between driving and train/coach - and high fuel prices have certainly slowed people down and driven them towards the purchase of more efficient cars.

In reply to XXXX:

In 2014, carbon dioxide emissions from the transport sector, at 116.9 Mt, accounted for just over a quarter of all carbon dioxide emissions. (from http://tinyurl.com/nccd5gk)

How will increasing renewables reduce CO2 from transport?

In reply to Babika:






Can I stick my head above the parapet and suggest that a 50 mile commute doesn't sound very environmentally responsible

In reply to Andy Hardy:



More renewables means more low-carbon electricity, so electric powered transport reduces CO2 transport emissions. Electric powered transport is suitable for a whole host of applications, particularly in urban environments where there are further benefits with cleaner air.

One of the problems, illustrated very well in this thread, is that people get fixed on one solution, and one set of problems with that solution, and then decide it's all too hard and nothing can be done. The truth is that there need to be numerous solutions available, so better low-carbon public transport meets the needs of some part of the population, better low-carbon private transport works for others, reducing the need to travel (100 mile commutes, for example, are stupid wastes of time and energy).

Simply saying 'yes but' doesn't achieve anything. Understanding that one person's solution isn't the right thing for another person might be a decent place to start.

In reply to Neil Williams:


And that sounds very laudable where people have the choice, but is it right to penalise people in areas where we don't provide those options?

In reply to cousin nick:


I remember having a similar conversation with a taxi driver in rural Northampton. He was telling me about the meeting of outraged villagers who attended the consultation meeting for the scrapping of local bus services. The hall was packed. Yet the following morning, the local bus departed from the village with no passengers.

We keep harping on about local buses in rural areas, but the simple truth is that not enough people want to use them to make them viable. You can't run a 10 minute service with only 5 passengers per hour.

I don't think rural services / traffic is the problem. I accept that the car is the only way forward in rural areas. It is people who could choose to travel by bus, train or tram yet still decide to drive. They are certainly the low hanging fruit in the equation.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

As already said by a couple of others this would be totally unfair on rural areas. Why should we be taxed in order to subsides public transports in other areas of the country.

Surely if that is what the money will be spent on, there should be more cities with congestion charges, so that you tax the people who could and should be using the alternative transport, and they subsides themselves.

A few years ago I had to do a journey from my old house to the area I now live, to pick up a second hand car I had bought, which in the car takes one hour. It took me over 3 hours by public transport (bus, walk, train, walk, bus, walk), and cost far more than driving would have done!!! Public transport is not an option for every area, so why should we pay for the areas where it is.

In reply to SAF:

As far as I'm aware fuel duty isn't hypothecated for public transport projects, although I feel your pain when I see Boris Johnson on the TV telling me that the money spent on crossrail will be good for the UK as a whole (for example).

In reply to timjones:

Yes to an extent. Where you live is not immutable. If it is financially and environmentally unsound to live in a particular location, such as a rural one when working in a town or city, move. If you choose not to move, you choose to pay the costs of your choice, both in terms of direct financial cost and in terms of environmental taxes and inconvenience.

There are those who live in the countryside to serve the countryside, of course, but those aren't going to be the ones doing long journeys daily to the same extent.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Hypothecated taxes are pointless, because you can just adjust the non-hypothecated component accordingly.

In reply to Neil Williams:



How would you handle the fact that I would be taxed heavily for the essential journey that I made to deliver my produce this morning?

It would make far more sense to look at a form of charging similar to congestion charging based on areas where good alternatives exist. Fuel tax is a crude measure that does not differentiate between different areas or journey types.

In reply to timjones:


That's a cost to your business, you either absorb it or put your prices up.


Fuel tax has its downsides, but it's also cheap and easy to administer.

In reply to timjones:

An increase to farming subsidies (basically a money go round) would be a way to handle it for these essential users. Another option would be to allow the use of red diesel for farming vehicles engaged in farming activities, or a bus/coach style fuel duty rebate. Another is that we (as consumers) simply have the cost passed onto us, as we, by consuming, are the ones causing it to be incurred. There are many options.


The problem if it's too complex is that it gets costly to implement or avoidable. Though road pricing may well provide a solution here - low congestion rural roads = free or cheap, busy city roads = £2/mile, say.

Edit: Thinking on, that has another benefit - if it costs 1p per mile to drive on rural roads to the edge of the nearest town, but £2 per mile to continue the 5 miles to the town centre, there is encouragement there to use park and ride. Though that effect could be achieved in a simpler way by banning free parking within towns entirely (this is not all that far fetched - in Switzerland it is usual for even supermarket car parks to be chargeable) - and the farmer's market could perhaps be exempted from that.

In reply to krikoman:



No.

Fuel duty has remained constant (in fact it fell slightly in March 2011 and has been constant since then). It is fixed until 2016. http://www.nextgreencar.com/car-tax/fuel-duty/

However, because it's a set amount rather than a percentage, the proportion of what you pay that is duty, has increased.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Believe me I would put my prices up tomorrow if it was possible, but that is an entirely different debate!


With cheap taxes you have to accept compromises in the name of fairness. If we want to increase the use of taxes in order to control human behaviour we are going to have to accept the need to use more complex methods of calculating peoples liabilities.

In reply to Neil Williams:


I would doubt that many farmers would want to see an increase in subsidies to cover increased taxes. I know which I think would be the first to be cut!


Red diesel won't work for many as our vehicles are dual purpose, our tow vehicle does the school run most days of the week. A rebate might work but isn't in line with the current very welcome drive to cut red tape.


Passing costs on has to be a long term solution for many reasons beyond the need to offset any crude attempts at taxing peoples behaviours. Let me know if you can work out how to achieve this


If the aim is to modify behaviour then we don't need to worry about cost as long as it is cost neutral at the ADMIN level for both government and businesses.

In reply to wintertree:

What are you prosing to use in the winter. When batteries are cold, they have a lower electrical capacity, which limits the duration in which they can pump power. Electric cars can have their range effectively reduced by 50+% by cold weather.

In reply to timjones:

With regard to passing on costs, it is difficult if that happens to one farmer given how supermarkets squeeze costs, but if all farmers put their prices up supermarkets would have little choice but to pay.

In reply to starbug:

Electric cars are all very well, but they don't really reduce pollution unless powered by nuclear or renewables. They are good for reducing pollution at the point of use where that is a problem, i.e. towns and cities, but that can of course be done using hybrid cars with smaller batteries which can recharge on petrol/diesel while doing motorway miles, or at home daily if used mainly for city use.

In reply to Neil Williams:


There is a small issue with competition law on that front

In reply to timjones:

There would be if farmers colluded to do that. But if all farmers are hit by an increase in costs, and as such all farmers independently increase their prices, there isn't. Just like, for instance, when the cost of crude oil goes up all petrol stations increase their prices, or when Cadbury's puts up the price of Dairy Milk shops selling it put that price up too. Or, when landlords lose tax relief on mortgage payments, they'll put the rent up. None of that is collusion, and thus none of it is illegal.

But maybe one farmer will find a way to use greater efficiencies not to have to put their prices up quite as much - and if they do that's business - you'll have to find them as well.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Lots of people are mentioning lack of public transport in rural areas, but surely the bigger problem is cars within towns. Both from a pollution point of view and a public health point of view. I am capable and motivated to not use my car for journeys within town, I get togged up in waterproofs and get on my bike, but how many folks are willing to do that? Within our town, there are hardly any buses (and I'm not even convinced they are all that green anyway!), so those that do need to use transport to get around have little choice but to use a car. Maybe we need to come up with greener town solutions. Pedestrianise town centres? Some sort of energy efficient vehicles to extend the bus network (presumably they don't need to be as big as most buses in general), a better network of cycle paths, big nationwide push to try to get folks walking or cycling? I'm sure we could make many changes to sort the environment and our nation's health at the same time

In reply to Neil Williams:

The polluter should pay for the true cost of using that pollutant. If people are unwilling to pay more duty on the fuel, then we need to introduce other forms of taxation to reduce urban car use. congestion charging in towns and cities, more expensive parking, ultra low emissions zones effectively banning diesel cars from area's of highest urban air pollution.

The Paris climate targets will only be met if we implement mechanism to reduce emissions and change behaviour, it can't just be from reducing fossil fuel use in energy production, but has to focus on reducing transport emissions, redcuce farming emissions (tax on meat?) And ultimately a tax on General carbon consumption (TV , I phones etc).

A move to mass electronic car use is unlikely to make any reduction to CO2 emissions in short term as its difficult enough to decarbonise of energy production without the added renewables required for us all to drive electric vehicles. So a move towards public transport around towns in cities is needed of we are to reduce transport emissions.

In reply to Neil Williams:

I think this would be simple if it was just a UK market. However you have to remember these farmers are up against it world wide, not just the UK. If it is too expensive for the supermarkets here they will just import their dairy/meat/veg from somewhere else

In reply to girlymonkey:
I personally would *love* to see a version of Milton Keynes designed for public transport rather than the car (but with the same, or further improved, utility[1] cycling provision). Perhaps it could have a light rail system from day one, but would have either no parking in the town centre at all except for disabled, or parking provided but at a very high cost for occasional use, say if buying something big and heavy.

[1] The Redways are often criticised but I find them very good for day to day utility cycling. They are less good for fast road cyclists, but I'm not convinced that fast road cyclists are all that important in terms of town design, because it's more of a hobby than a mode of transport for most such cyclists, and they would probably rather cycle in the countryside anyway and are mostly using the town road network to get out of the town.

In reply to Babika:





Being at the income-deprived end of life, I know at least one person who thinks like that (spoiler: it's me) and it can and does influence the number of miles I drive. Needless to say I also like climbing, which is actually the reason I still own a car as getting to and from the crag is its main use. To reduce my impact, I'll car share (if I can't fill 4 seats I generally don't go) and use a mix of bio-diesel and straight vegetable oil in addition to fossil-fuel derived pump diesel*. Whilst the first two aren't completely net zero carbon emissions, they're about as close as you can get without an electric vehicle using wind or solar, which I can't afford as I don't have a spare £20k. Furthermore, the appalling energy mix we use in the UK for electricity generation means that electricity is far from low-emission.

*Additionally, I should add that I keep track of my use of non-conventional fuels and would pay tax if I used enough (>2500 litres/annum).

Dare I ask the reason you choose to live 50 miles away from your place of work?

So yes, in my view, that's irresponsible. I don't care if you think I'm self-righteous, but I for one would quite like to live on a planet in 50 years time that isn't half desert and half flooded. Clearly not everyone is prepared to act to prevent this, and the only thing average Joe really seems to care about is the thickness of their wallet; hence I feel that economic "motivation" is the best way of reducing anthropogenic climate change.

In reply to wintertree:

I live in a street where we park on one side (if we can) - the opposite to my house by the way - and drive down the other. It is therefore unusual to be able to park opposite my house as there's normally someone else's car there. In fact I regularly park 1 or 2 streets away.
In this I am in no way alone.
How do you think we can all recharge our supposed electric cars - cables across pavements, cables down the road, and so forth.
The safety aspects are appalling.
Unless and until batteries can be recharged quickly - by this I mean in a similar period to filling up a tank with petrol/diesel - then electric cars will be a curious novelty, as the round trip of a journey must be within the vehicles range, allowing for lights, heating etc..
You also have to take into account that an awful lot more electricity would have to be generated compared to now - how do you expect that to occur at the same time as closing down the current main sources of electricity - coal-fired, gas-fired and nuclear - that the eco warriors are proposing.

In reply to starbug:



Did you miss the part where I noted range is far more than 2x the typical round trip commute? Evidence from eg Norway suggests the problem isn't nearly as large as you are suggesting as well?

In reply to ianstevens:


Blimey. So you actually admit to wantonly using more fuel because its cheaper now?
I wouldn't rush to admit that myself - seems awfully un-environmental.

Why do I live 50 miles from work?

I was made redundant 18 months ago - applied for lots of jobs didn't get them. Did get this one.
I'm a single mum with two kids. Why should I uproot my family, sell and buy another house (at huge cost) and move when I might be made redundant again? The job term is 3 years renewable so I might be doing it all again in another 18 months.

It's so smug for folk with easy lives to say "why don't you....?" but just occasionally think that we make rational decisions for our families and our emotional well being rather than the planet.

By the way - I agree with fuel tax. I think its one of the most perfect taxes as its linked to usage and unavoidable even by companies and individuals that like to avoid tax. I don't think it should be a cash cow though.
I also use my hour on the motorway each way productively, listening to interesting, thought provoking programmes and occasionally talking to friends hands free. Not time wasted, I'm not unhappy with it.

What I don't like is being preached to by people who have chosen to arrange their lives differently, but use the services of people doing jobs involving a long commute!

In reply to ianstevens:


I used to drive 100 miles a day to work, because that's where the work I could get was. (contract, so short term)
What would you propose, I move house and live within walking distance? Then my wife would have a 100 mile daily commute!!!!
Some of us have no choice.

In reply to fred99:

You get charging pints installed on the street. Trailing cables everywhere is not an acceptable solution:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-funding-for-residenti...

It's something I'm considering at the moment. The above solution doesn't seem ideal but I'd like to move to an electric car for my commute.

In reply to fred99:


Which eco warriors are these and what exactly are they proposing? Do you mean the ones proposing new and varied energy sources to replace those old power stations that are well past their sell by date and are due to close? Is that such a bad idea?

In reply to wintertree:


Bingo. No reason why that can't be helped along by a chunk more tax on petrol (diesel being slightly trickier since long-haul lorries aren't going electric in the foreseeable future and our rail-freight system is dysfunctional).

We do also need to improve public transport (utility and cleanliness).
jk

In reply to fred99:


So, they're not going to work for you. It doesn't mean they won't work for other people, or that other people can't make the change.


Only, it could work for you. Slow charing points at work, slow charging points at supermarket carparks, fast charging units just like petrol stations. There is no technical barrier to any of these existing, now.


So rather than cutting back journeys, we should be tackling the safety aspects of electric car charging for on-street parking terrace dwellers, that was me for a long time. Some examples that would have worked would have included (1) dedicated EV charging points in marked bays of on-road parking, with charging points placed to prevent long trailing cables and parking enforcement. Many areas with terraces already have parking enforcement and bays, after all and (2) charging at work.


They're not a curious novelty any longer. I'm seeing several a day and rising on my short commute. As I've already noted, lights and heating are not a major factor on range despite common misconception.


Jeez, I never thought about that. Nor did anyone of the people working to deliver electric motoring. We have enough plant *right now* for significantly more electric motoring - it just gets significantly underused at night due to the diurnal cycle of our usage, presenting a perfect opportunity to increase the use of capital heavy plant at night by charging cars.

Building new coal fired power plants for electric cars would allow significantly lower emission (CO2) and cleaner (nasty oxides, particulates) electric motoring than the internal combustion engine.


How? I don't because energy policy in the UK is a mess, largely thanks to the voice given to eco warriors with no real plan beyond regression our lifestyle in the name of the environment.

Stepping back from your points, I find EV discussion on UKC very frustrating. My position here was we could encourage the adoption of electric cars and low carbon electricity generation. Rather than any discussion of this we have the usual, and ill researched, points bought out against EVs along with a smattering of "well it won't work for me" cases. Further evidence that we as a society that, as I said in my first post, we should be encouraging the adoption.

In terms of encouraging - more investment in infrastructure, more tax breaks for manufacture and purchase, more disincentives on fossil fuel internal combustion motoring.

Ultimately, would you rather have less convenient electric private motoring, or no private motoring?

In reply to Babika:

[...]



[...]

I think this (job insecurity) is the root cause of a lot of commuting. When I was growing up my dad changed jobs a few times and we moved house. Unthinkable now. An ex-neighbour used to work for Heinz in Kitt Green, commuting from Stockport - nearly the same journey my dad would have had 40 years earlier, only starting from Sale.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Do you want to give the government even more money for perverse altruistic reasons or insanity?

Of course if it's for environmental reasons, then maybe you can lead by example and start travelling to the crags on a pushbike in future.

Personally speaking, I'll be driving down to Courmayeur tomorrow in a supercharged V8 Range Rover loaded with 4 adults, skiing and climbing equipment, at an average fuel consumption of about 12mpg.

So if you can hold off on raising fuel duty till I get back in March, it would be appreciated.

In reply to Babika:

This is what is scary, that you think a teenager driving 6 miles to a school cool is normal. Get him on a bike, he doesn't need a car to get to school. My parents would have laughed if I'd suggested driving when I was at school. Nowt wrong with your legs...

In reply to wintertree:


Electric/alternatively powered cars wouldn't do anything to help reduce traffic snarl ups and congestion though. Well integrated (and frequent) tram systems could do a lot more towards being greener, and reducing congestion too, the electricity could come from low carbon energy sources.

We just need to be willing to pay for them, with the long term benefits in mind.

In reply to Oceanrower:

you can ride a bike, that would less the time taken considerably.

In reply to Orgsm:

You missed the point.

I'm not saying anything is "better" than anything else.

I'm saying that we should respect the fact that people organise their own lives/families/daily commute for what suits them economically, practically, socially, safely....bla bla and make rational decisions. Environmental considerations unfortunately come a little way down the list.

Sure, in the Jurassic period I made different decisions about how to get to school, there were different options, less cars around, less homework carted back and forth - we had a desk to keep books in and a sports locker - doesn't exist now so it all has to be carried.

Why don't you cycle when you go on holiday - it would save fuel and I used to

In reply to stevieb:


A perfect solution is a bit more time on their feet.


I agree, but remove the electric bit, otherwise it defeats the point.

In reply to Orgsm:

Fortunately my son is two but if he was eleven he'd need to travel about six miles to school. This would entail an eleven year old boy cycling 6 miles along high speed, single carriageway a roads, one of which is part of a safety scheme because so many people are dieing. They would also need to cross a dual carriage way a road.

Some people have no choice but to drive. Even as an adult I wouldn't contemplate cycling.

In reply to summo:


It doesn't; a "powered two wheeler" (as Councils like to call them) of any kind is smaller and lighter than a 5-person car and as such uses far less fuel (or electric equivalent), takes up slightly less road space and emits less pollution (assuming a modern engine or electric motor rather than a 2-stroke).

In reply to Timmd:


So? In terms of environmental damage through carbon emissions these are only problems because fossil fuel cars generate emmisions when not moving. EVs do not.


As well as adding more menace to the roads for cyclists. I think that in the medium term autonomous cars will significantly increase the non-congested capacity of roads, as much congestion arises from having hundreds of autonomous, non communicating meatbags at the wheel.

In reply to XXXX:
No back-road alternatives?

More seriously I'd sort of agree with your point, though unless you're in a single house in the middle of nowhere agreeing a car-share with 4 other parents would make much better use of road space than each driving their child to the same school daily.

Perhaps it would be a good thing if schools actually got involved in co-ordinating this, even though it would require DBS checks and insurance/licence checks to be carried out?

Full cars are not necessarily to be discouraged - it's cars with one or two people in them that present the real issue.

In reply to Neil Williams:


It's all well and good saying put your price's up but it's not that simple.
Farms put their prices up so supermarkets have to pay more so all the supermarkets put their prices up so not only is the man on the street paying more for his fuel he is also paying more for food.
On top of farming costs going up there are other costs in food, delivery costs would go up, my business looks after machinery in both food and packaging factories so my prices have to go up so that = more cost to the man on the street buying his food.
Eventually it gets so bad that the minimum wage has to go up with a jump but this pushes prices of goods and services up even more and this cancels out the wage rises so people are still struggling so along comes more mandatory wage rises.
This increases until the minimum wage is £200 per hour but a 1kg bag of spuds costs £100 in tescos.

In reply to Oceanrower:


Then get a bike and a coat!

In reply to Babika:


I've read your later posts and understand why you need to travel 100 miles to work.

However, it's very difficult for bus operators to price their services attractively when people compare the cost of the bus to the fuel cost for the journey by car and don't take account of the other costs of running a car such as depreciation, insurance, servicing etc.

Assuming around 200 journeys per year, your son would need to run his car at less than 20p per mile for the car to be cheaper than the bus. I'm not sure that's possible, especially with a young person's insurance rate.

The car's much more attractive if he car-shares of course?

Martin

In reply to jkarran:

I have a number of friends who have leased electric cars, in every case the electric car is the second car in a two car household. we on the other hand just ditched the second car and accepted the occasional requirement to walk, cycle or use public transport.

In reply to Martin Hore:

But unless giving up your car entirely is a likely choice, or unless you are talking very long commutes, some of those figures are not relevant.

The ones that are relevant are:
- tyre wear
- brake lining wear
- other wear and tear not based on time of ownership (these are minimal in modern cars)
- fuel
- insurance (to a very limited level - changing annual mileage doesn't make *that* much difference)

The ones that are less relevant are:
- purchase price (this is a lifestyle choice, basically taking the form of a one off or monthly cost)
- depreciation (unless you do a huge mileage this will simply be by age)
- servicing (with long service intervals these days this is simply annual for most drivers)
- insurance (base rate - it is put up slightly by changing mileage but not hugely unless you get very high)

For most people, giving up the family car is not an option, so you might as well forget including the lower 4 in comparisons with bus fares, because they are simply not relevant - they will be paid regardless of whether a journey is done by bus or car. They are paid, effectively at a flat rate, for the lifestyle choice of owning the car.

For a younger person, giving up their car may, of course, be much more viable, which changes things significantly.

In reply to wintertree:

So (presumably) trams would be a more efficient use of electricity when it comes to the amount used per person, when moving lots around at the same time compared to individuals driving around in their own cars.


How much of a menace they are depends on how well 'the cityscape' is designed. In the first place, congestion arises because of the number of cars on the road.

In reply to Martin Hore:

FWIW, this kind of thing *does* make a difference to the father's 100 mile round trip, because when you get into that kind of mileage (20,000 miles PA assuming 200 days) you *do* get heavily increased depreciation, higher insurance, burn through lots of tyres/brake linings/discs, need to service more than annually (with some cars) etc.

But for shorter journeys (of the kind being made on commercial local bus services) they are all dwarfed by fuel, except the annual "lifestyle choice" costs not dependent on mileage. Indeed, the argument works the other way for short journeys - you've paid for the lifestyle cost, so why not get the most out of it by driving more, not less, on short journeys?

In reply to Timmd:

Yes they would - though so would car-sharing.

I note Uber Pool has launched in London despite the fact that I believe (and I talked through this in some detail with a transport professional I know) there is no legal framework in the UK under which a service of that kind can operate[1] - so I expect legal challenges galore. But could that kind of arranged car (electric, possibly automatically driven) sharing be the future of public transport?

[1] A registered local bus service has to have a fixed route and timetable which requires 56 days notice to change and requires additional permissions if you want to do it in London, which are almost never granted. A taxi or private hire car may only charge a fare for the vehicle, not per passenger. Demand-responsive registered bus services must have fairly tightly specified areas of operation. There seems to be no legal case for "jitney"/"matatu" type shared vehicle operation even by way of an app - possibly because nobody really thought it would make sense. But perhaps now it does.

In reply to ianstevens:


You do realise global warming is a global issue? 140 million Russians heat their houses from minus 30 to plus 30 for about 5 months a year, Americans drive 5 litre pick-up trucks, the Chinese fill the air full of all sorts of shit. Penalising us is a pointless gesture, one that I can't afford.

In reply to ianstevens:

Some of us have no choice.


Another one for you to ponder over, I travel 60 miles a day in the back of a Black cab, spewing out its filth, escorting my daughter to her special Epilepsy school near Alderley Edge. Next year, when Motability insurance will let me drive the vehicle we have for her, I can take her myself in the dodgy emissions spouting VW that it is.
Receiving the mighty sum of £62 a week 'Carers Allowance', the price of fuel is significant.
Or should I sell up and buy a shoebox in the heart of Cheshire?!

In reply to Timmd:


Doesn't matter. Trams only make sense in dense urban areas. The difference (or even total) amount of energy used to move people about in either EVs or trams in urban areas is not important in terms of the nations energy usage.

Moving past this, a full tram or a full car likely represent a similar use of energy per person per mile in slow urban traffic. Most of the time you will find neither tram nor car anywhere near their respective capacities, but at least a car is never used below 1/5th of its capacity, where-as trams and busses are often used at 1/50th of their capacity...


No. It arises as a function of the number of cars on the road, the landscape they navigate and the quality of their control systems - both intrinsic (meatbags at the wheel) and extrinsic (traffic lights etc.). Optimise any one of these factors and congestion decreases.

In reply to wintertree:

Important to note that traffic lights don't just exist for congestion removal - they are quite inefficient in that regard because there are periods of time in which no traffic is moving. Their primary purpose is safety at the *expense* of congestion.

In reply to Neil Williams:


Indeed. You are quite right that the primary driver of many light systems is safety, I could have been clearer. There are some great safety lights that also reduce congestion though, for example the "paced entry" lights they set up on busy on-ramps on US interstates to control traffic flow into the pattern (using the word very loosely...)

It's notable how much smarter lights got around here in the last 10 years, both with sensor input and time-of-day coded behaviour. I think much of the "cars not in the loop" smartness has already been exploited, so that's one safety valve that's going to fail soon...

In reply to wintertree:



Dense urban environments is where I'm thinking about, with the average journey being 5 miles. Don't forget that each individual car has to have a battery in it as well, which will have a finite lifespan, as well as requiring resources to create it.

In reply to Neil Williams:


Their primary purpose is the control and regulation of motorised traffic flow. It is not about safety.

In reply to Andy Hardy:


No. It is the government's job to try and extract as much tax out of me as possible and it is my job to keep as much of my wages as possible for me and my family. I don't volunteer to pay any more than I already do. Those of you that think fuel duty should be increased are more than welcome to send their cheques to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suspect that No.11 Downing Street's postman hasn't been unduly bothered by people doing so.

In reply to Timmd:


Where as all the alternatives are made from pixie dust and unicorn poop? The batteries have a decent lifespan, are highly recyclable and their production is not limited by natural resource limits (proven resources, yes, but if someone believes that to be a hard limit they do not understand much about what the word proven means.)

The batteries can also likely do double-use as grid balancing batteries in-situ to the cars, which makes them effectively 'free' for one use or the other.

I think the urban solution is in large fleets of self driving cars covering 1-seat to many-seat cases, with centralised dense storage/charging/maintenance depots, and using a variety of form factors down to inline 2-wheel CMG balancing 1- and 2- seaters. Almost every aspect of such a solution is emerging currently into markets around the world. The business model would be somewhere between that of taxis and shared ownership pools.

Shared private transport door to door without any of the crapfest that is almost any public transport system, ever, and with the capital ownership costs spread equitably over anyone sensible enough to overcome the inherently punishing capital ownership regime of private motor cars.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

No, it doesn't work. Just look at how expensive fuel has been and cigarettes are yet people still buy them.
You'd have to treble or quadruple the cost of fuel to make it financially viable for me to take the bus to work, and I'd probably still take the car (if the cycling option it not feasible that day) because the buses are so crap it takes well over an hour to do a journey that takes 25 min in rush hour traffic.
The buses were the worst part when I broke my wrist, worse than not being able to scratch those itches you get under the cast but can't reach.

In reply to Martin Hore:




Yes of course he does - everywhere. And I keep trying to persuade him to charge mileage rather than just petrol costs to reflect the real cost!

But people, young or old, are very reluctant to do so and non-car drivers just keep cadging lifts (and probably polish their halos of green-ness at the same time)

In reply to Orgsm:


Normally, the reason for controlling that flow is safety, though sometimes they are used to equalise flows (the effect of not doing so can be seen on a few roundabouts in MK, where in the rush hour there is such a large directional flow that those approaching from certain directions find it very hard to join the roundabout at all).

In reply to Andy Hardy:

I hope the petrol prices fall as it costs me £200 a month to get to work as it is. I also have to have a car for work (nhs) and our offer of employment is based on having a car to do the job.

I'm not sure increasing tax on fuel is either fair or useful as the money raised will not be used to improve public transport or increase cycle lanes etc.

Yes - this was partly my point. The marginal additional cost per mile of driving a car you already own is not much more than the fuel cost. (I think you should add a share of service costs which are likely to be mileage based rather than period based unless you drive less than 12000 miles per year, but the other costs - depreciation and insurance - are less mileage related).

The problem is that this makes it very difficult for public transport to compete on price unless it is highly state-subsidised. If we want public transport that is better used - and therefore more frequent and with more routes - we have to interfere with the market to a greater extent than is currently politically acceptable in this country.

Martin

In reply to Neil Williams:


I think you'll find it was the mother's 100 mile round trip.

Doesn't alter your point though, which I'm largely in agreement with.

In reply to wintertree:

Should one of those be kWh, not kW?

In reply to Andy Hardy:

I wouldn't mind if the price went up and the cash got spent on alternatives, I do 500 miles a week commuting and at the moment if fuel prices doubled it would still be cheaper than getting on public transport. Given that investment in infrastructure seems to be more about electrifying road signs than sorting out the railway I don't think I will be changing my commute any time soon.

In reply to DaveN:


Yes. 0.25kWh per mile.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

I think fuel should go up for environmental reasons, but I do not trust the State not to waste the money.

In reply to Martin Hore:


Many cars' service intervals are now 20,000 miles/1 year or more. (Some are even 2 years, but one is perhaps ill advised not to still do annually for longevity).

An average mileage is about 13,000 I think, so even then the extra mileage will bring your service to 11 rather than 12 months, which will add one £300ish service (on an average car at a main dealer) to a 5 year period of ownership. Divided by the mileage it's insignificant.

In reply to wintertree:

My problem is that the great and the good will be able to use electric vehicles, and will then ignore the problems of the vast majority whilst pushing through vehicle tax/legality changes which will potentially ruin the lives of the ordinary people.

Many pavements in inner-city streets are quite narrow and charging posts will reduce the width of pavements to a point where wheelchairs/prams cannot get past.
Where I live the private school mothers believe the pavements are for their use whilst driving - so said posts would soon get flattened.

I agree that the current power stations are reaching the end of their life - people I climbed with over 10 years who worked in both the nuclear and gas-powered industries were saying that then - but governments have been scared to implement new power stations that WILL provide the amount we need - preferring instead to look green and pass the buck to the next lot - and that's why we are where we are now.

Whatever you say, we cannot provide enough power for our current needs on wind, hydro etc. alone - we are going to have to have coal or gas or nuclear or a combination, and that's if we could rely on a CONSTANT power supply from renewables, which we can't.
When half the population goes and makes a cup of tea during the adverts when a soap is on, the power stations wind up the power level - it's a fact of life (and I don't watch soaps).

Furthermore I do actually "do my bit" for being green (or is it being tight);
I walk when it's possible, I ride a bicycle for slightly longer journeys, I have a (small) motorcycle to commute to work (cycling along unlit roads between towns in winter is suicide !), and only use my car for trips that involve carrying a load of kit or multiple persons.

I'd also like to know why all the wind turbines have to be in our most beautiful parts of the countryside, when the power from them is mainly used in the major cities - why not have turbines at every motorway or town roundabout, or smaller ones on top of every government building - it may not necessarily be as windy there, but wouldn't involve miles of extra service roads being built, and there's no great length of cable along which to lose the power.

In reply to fred99:


That was true in the days of Ever Ready lighting, but these days a bicycle can easily carry LED lights that are as bright as car or motorcycle head and tail lights, and as such I'm not convinced that is quite as true as it was.

In reply to fred99:


That's why I want us to build more fission plants. Many more. Preferably having started 10 years ago. I've never said that renewables will be a working solution. They won't. They could be a bit player in a solution, but then why bother?

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Had a look at the thread yesterday, but refrained from commenting as some of the arsehole attitudes on display here made me much too angry to safely comment.

How dare people apparently close to or after their retirement age deliberately f*ck up the planet my children will have to live on? But apparently reducing consumption even by a little is too much to ask of people who will not be around anymore when the majority of the climate change shit hits the fan.

If our governments were in any way serious about their pledges made in Paris, fuel prices would have to go up. Hitting the consumer in the pocket is the only way to influence consumption. This has been proven to work in different countries for smoking, sugary soft drinks, and also petrol consumption. CO2 emissions dropped significantly all over Europe the last time petrol prices peaked, but our overall living standard did not suffer correspondingly, and our economy did not collapse.

And as a disclaimer, I do own a diesel car, which remains parked most days, as we do almost all our commuting and shopping by bike. We will downscale next summer, when our two older children will have left for uni, and are looking at the options for electrical cars, ideally a plugin hybrid with a range extender, e.g. an Opel / Vauxhall Ampera.

CB

In reply to wintertree:
I'm with you on that one. A significant nuclear fission building programme coupled with blanket electrification of the rail network and a move to electric buses[1], together with additional tram systems, is in my view the way to go. Electric cars can also play a part, as can electric bikes etc.

I don't OTOH think that we should disregard renewables and the "reduce" concept in the "3 Rs" totally. They do have some roles - for instance home lighting through LEDs heavily reduces the required power (my entire house requires about 160W at 230V to light with all the lights on), and so could be run from local PV cells and 12 volt batteries with no impact on the grid at all. New-build houses need Swiss standards of insulation, with more use of heat pumps for hot water and heating (which will be necessary to a vastly reduced level if we insulate properly). Crikey, even home ovens are outrageously wasteful - have you seen the heat that comes out of your oven when it's on?

[1] These are viable now - various forms of them are running in Milton Keynes and London to name but two.

In reply to Andy Hardy:
We already do increase fuel duty, only we increase it in the country side and let the city dwellers have it at 0.99p. It's over £1.10 in the largest portion of the country and more the further North you go. As others have said people in rural areas need cars more than people living in towns so perhaps we should reverse the excess rural petrol charge and move it into the cities. It's already rubbish not being able to have a glass of wine with a meal out or have a pint after work with collleagues before driving home (instead of jumping on the tram or brilliant inner city public transport we all pay for), I don't see why we should have to pay excess in fuel costs for the privalege.

My car was in the garage for about 10 days recently and I had two options, either the bus(meaning get up at silly o'clock to get into work 1.5 hours early or get in 40 minutes late) or cycle. It's a 30 odd mile round trip so fine for me although a little chilly but not everyone's in the position to make that choice. My girlfriend quit her job recently as cycling 24 miles throughout the winter was just taking too much of her energy and time, the bus goes from A (home) to B to C (work) but unfortunately C leaves 3 minutes before B gets in. Either pay for empty busses to run or reduce the cost of fuel to people who need it to do their jobs. Not driving in a rural area severely limits your choice of jobs.

For those complaining that people should move to where they work instead of "choosing" to work miles away. I work in just as rural an area as where I live, i.e. don't commute to the city. Jobs are hard to come by, you can't move house 30minutes up the road every time you get a new job and yet the reality is that even if there is a bus route a 30 minute drive could equate to one or two hours on and waiting for busses. It's a big deal to move house, moving away from friends, relatives, child care, changing kids schools, the massive expense etc. etc. Not everyone is in the position to jolly about the country in pursuit of a payrise and yes, a lot of people choose to have a car but it doesn't make it a privalidged choice.

In reply to Sharp:


Dare I suggest that it might make sense for us to consider following the German model and becoming a renting culture, with investment in property as a separate thing? If we did, it would make precisely that a lot more feasible.

In reply to SAF:


Sadly, living in the countryside isn't very efficient, carbon emissions wise. City's are far more efficient... if we're going to do something about global warming, we probably need taxes to reflect this. And, over all, urban dwellers subsidise the countryside tax wise.

So, nothing unfair about it really.

In reply to Sharp:

See above.. sorry, but you're spoilt already

In reply to Donald82:
You do realise that people use the country side and the services it provides? Who works in the pubs, hotels and campsites when you come to visit, who farms, manages the forests, concerves the wild life people like to see, runs the hydro electric schemes and the wind farms. Who creates the "local" produce you enjoy to eat? So people can enjoy how environmentally friendly they're being buying British. Who works in the shops where these people lives, who works in the garage that men their eco destroying cars? Who works in this entire economy surrounding the work that goes on outside of London. Who works in the hospitals and essential public service that you expect to find? Our do we just close the countryside, go there at your own risk. "The ambulance will be 6 hours sir, it's coming from London" "Sorry your power is down, some issue in Yorkshire wee think, no-one lives there anymore though so it'll be another few hours till someone's out to have a look"

The rural population is tiny, old and dwindling and the cities are over crowded. I'm not sure everyone moving to the city is a viable solution. If it's money and efficiency you're worried about then take all of the non London residents and create London2, these two efficiency hubs will create more wealth than all of the UK put together...but then I guess you don't live in London so you wouldn't want your life impacted for efficiency. there's a reason were not doing that, because everyone would kill themselves.

In reply to Sharp:

London is overcrowded. Other cities, for instance Liverpool, remain very low density and far below capacity.

That is of course because there is little work there - but if we could solve that?

Even London, though, is very low density compared with most European cities. The Scottish style of tenement housing is much more efficient, and can lead to much more effective local services and transport networks. It's no coincidence, for instance, that Edinburgh has a very high quality bus network - one reason it can support this is the very high density of housing in 5+ storey tenement form.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Cities, very low density.... Ha ha ha ha

In reply to Neil Williams: I don#t think that moving to a renting culture makes much difference to be honest. You still need the same place to live, schools, family, life in general. Just because you don't own the property doesn't make moving any more convenient.

Rather than adjusting tax on fuel stick an exonpential increase in road and purchase tax on any car over 2litres, or less. Make it very expensive. Also, encourage use of public transport in urban areas with harsh congestion charges, with reduced rates for electric vehicles.

Reading thro' this you wonder what has happened to the proud British reputation for engineering. Electric vehicle are sooooo difficult apparently to implement. Well other countries seem to manage. Not enough range? For many people it's totally adequate. Charging stations cluttering up the pavement so mothers with prams can't get past - it's like a moden Monty Python. Britain should be leading the way in making money from energy technology instead of lurking at the back muttering about the good old days.

And please - fission is potentially important, but right now delivers zero. So putting all your research into that is likely to end in calamity. A mixed eneergy supply please, trending to renewables despite what the luddites say

In reply to Neil Williams:


Aye, that and the fact that the parliament's in Edinburgh

In reply to wbo:


I assume you mean fusion and not fission. There is no danger off all our eggs going into the fusion basket. The spend on fusion is an almost infinitesimally small fraction of what it should be, let alone of what is spent on other energy research.

In reply to Orgsm:

They are compared with German cities, for example. Go to one and look. In German cities people mostly live in blocks of flats at least 4 or 5 storeys high. In British ones it's still mostly 2 storey houses. This difference in density makes quality public transport much more viable.

In reply to wbo:


It does for those who don't have kids. Those people being able to move around more flexibly might help those with families to be able to stay where they are by taking jobs in other locations.

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Yes,but just for you.

In reply to JoshOvki:


Exactly. Our local farm gets the princely sum of 17.5p a litre for milk. The supermarkets have massive buying power, and in a global market they'll simply import it if UK farmers put the price up. The supermarkets would even pay more to do so to force the farmers to the verge of bankrupcy to force them to accept even lower prices. It is not a fair market.

In reply to Neil Williams:


It might comes as a surprise to you, but people without children often have strong friendships and family links within the area in which they live, and also want an element of stability in their lives. It is not sole responsibility of the childless to fix the environment for the offspring of people who have chosen to have children, it it the responsibility of parents to limit the number of children they choose to have, in the hope that it will give their child a fighting chance in the future.

In reply to cliff shasby:

OK, I need an excuse to buy another bike...

In reply to SAF:

I think you're possibly taking Neil a bit personally. The plain fact is, people who don't have kids have more options about living and working arrangements than those who do.

In reply to Neil Williams:


It doesn't matter how bright a cyclists lights are, it's also a question of how dim the car drivers brain is.

In reply to fred99:

If the car driver's brain is that dim, they will also collide with another car. The lights I'm talking about are the ones where you genuinely can't tell from a distance if a bike or a motorcycle is approaching (or in front of you).

In reply to Neil Williams:


but the blocks also have much more green space around ( in the nicer places anyway), so perhaps it balances out?

I agree, the uk house strategy is different. But, that's because people have different desires. In the UK the obsession is with ownership, detached is better than semi, which is better than terrace, which is better than flats etc.. But then developers squeeze in as many house as they can into a small space. Micro gardens, micros garage, detached means a wind tunnel for the wheelie bin.

The places you talk of also build shared heating and hot water systems for whole districts, a shared laundry room and bike store in the basements of the blocks. This would not work without a change in the UK 'owning my own castle' mentality.

The public transport is often better because it's used, and funded, but also because it's less cramped, who wants to buy a train ticket for fortune and have to stand for a hour twice a day, when you can sit in your car. Overseas people don't mind walking, biking to work, even if it takes longer, it's cultural. It's also less of problem walking or biking because beyond the UK people are not obsessed with wearing suits etc.. to work (as per other thread).

In reply to Andy Hardy:


I didn't either, it was on the radio the other day, they mentioned the actual figures but I couldn't remember them

In reply to Neil Williams:

If they collide with another car it's a bent piece of metal/plastic.
If they collide with a cyclist it's a potential death - plus they'll probably drive on leaving the poor cyclist on the floor in the dark to get repeatedly run over by the dimwits following.

When I'm on the motorbike I have a much larger set of lights, and running into it would (most likely) cause even the dopiest of drivers to realise that they'd hit something - the main thing though is that I travel at the same speed as the traffic, thus vastly reducing both the likelihood of a collision and the relative closing speed of same from a following vehicle.

In reply to summo:

And my take is that we need to look to change that culture in our cities, not continually pander to it.

In reply to fred99:


As my original post said, you can now easily buy cycle lights which are as powerful as a typical motorcycle's lights. You often can't tell which is approaching until they are almost on top of you.

In reply to Sharp:

Hello

I do realise that people who live in the countryside do useful things. So do people that live in the city.... My point is simply that currently the tax system subsidises people living in the country side. I'm quite happy for it to do this. I'm just pointng out that it's silly to complain about a tax being unfair for country folks.

I don't think everyone should live in a city. Just that if it helps to combat global warming if more people live in cities, then it's probably best for the tax system to reflect this to some extent. As an example, I now live in one city and work in another. Not good for the environment but also pretty expensive.. I'm probably going to move to save on the commute. If the commute was subsidised or taxed less I'd be more likely to keep doing it.

By the by, I'd be for taxng petrol more and usng the money to reduce tax for the less well off. I'd like to live in the countryside, I used to live in London

In reply to Donald82:

Plus very few who live in villages actually work in that village. Most of them commute to a town or city to work.

In reply to stevieb:

You mean cars can sometimes travel at almost the same speed as all those other vehicles in urban areas, right?
:P

In reply to Neil Williams:


It'll be fascinating to see how things pan out in Oslo:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/19/oslo-moves-to-ban-cars-f...

In reply to Donald82:


In what respect are people who live in the country subsidised?

In reply to Trevers:
I think there would be an interesting case for that in London. London has excellent public transport. Nobody needs a car in central London (roughly zone 1) at all, except for those with disabilities and those requiring vans for commercial use.

In reply to Ridge:

on average they pay less tax relative to the cost of providing public services to them

In reply to Donald82:


Do you believe there is the same level of public services provided to a small village in the middle of nowhere when compared with a city?

In reply to Trevers:


It will be fine, they've built some pretty grim tunnels under the city, so there are no through routes. Some streets and areas have had bans on studded winter tyres for years, which pretty much everyone out of town drives on, so folk are accustomed to completing the last part of some journeys without their car already. The tram network always seemed to work for me, when I've been there.

In reply to Donald82:

and they have to travel miles for a library, schools, leisure centres, hospitals, doctors, council tips or recycling centres, their roads are a lower priority for winter gritters etc.. police/fire/ambulance response times are accepted as slower...

anything I've missed that city or large town folk benefit from, for no extra cost? Most of these are funded through council tax and I think that rural people accept the poorer services as pay back for not having to live with grumpy city folk.

Perhaps it's not that you are subsidising rural people, it's rural people who are helping to fund your better services?

In reply to Ridge:


No. The level provided costs more per head though.

In reply to summo:

The public services provided in the country cost more per head than the public services provided in cities.

In reply to Donald82:


thereby the country people are paying for something they aren't using? It really depends on which way you look at things and also how the different services which are lacking are funded. A person in a higher band property living rurally will pay more than someone in a lower band city house, but receive less services for their money. You can argue that city and large town dwellers receive better value for money, but they aren't really subsidising are they?

Following your argument perhaps country people should only pay for the services that they can reasonable access and pay less than city people?

In reply to summo:

Following that argument to its logical end would abolish Council Tax etc and everyone would pay a commercial price for what they used.

I don't think that model would be very good. The present system is a bit more about ability to pay than requirement to use. I would broadly support going further that way and replacing Council Tax with a local income tax (even though that would result in a heavy increase to my liabilities as a person living alone on a good wage).

In reply to Neil Williams:


so, you can argue that whilst refuse collection does cost more rurally, rural folk aren't accessing library and leisure facilities on the same scale. So one funds the other. So city dwellers still aren't subsidising the country people?


I would agree it's a better system and everyone pays a proportional amount of their income, which means everyone will start calling it a Poll Tax again and it'll go no where. It would be like the spare room subsiding becoming the bedroom tax. Either way, councils are struggling and people complain when services are cut, but won't pay more. The current system is pretty old fashioned, where the banding of a house some how dictates the amount of public services you might access.

In reply to summo:


I don't know, I'd have to see the figures. I expect it evens out, otherwise Council Taxes in primarily rural areas would be higher than average, and I'm not aware of that being the case - quite the opposite indeed.


Which of course it isn't. The problem with the Poll Tax was that it was a simple per-head fee with no consideration as to affordability.

There won't be a way to please everyone.

We can focus on many many people making small changes, and/or a few large industries making big changes (power gen/recycling methods etc)

The root problem is too many people, and those people using too many resources. It would be great if we made more renewable energy, but do you think people would use any less of it, or just use more because it's "green"? People are greedy and self-centred in general, unwilling to make sacrifices. If you need a car to get to work, and have looked at closer jobs/car sharing etc and it doesn't work for you then fine, at least you've tried. Now look at other ways to help out, I'm sure you can find something. Don't start any of that bullshit of "it won't make a difference if I do x or y"...

As for incentivising public transport, raising fuel prices won't effect anyone except the poor. Dropping the price of public transport will benefit everyone. Make it cheap enough and people will want to use it.

Congestion charging in every town centre. It won't effect everyone (some can afford it), but it will still make a difference, especially combined with well priced public transport.

Nothing will please everyone, but I think we're almost all agreed now that something has to be done quickly.

In reply to NottsRich:



The First Law of Thermodynamics would make that an issue.

In reply to NottsRich:

I don't agree. People don't use it because it is often very poor. Making it cheaper will only make it worse. If anything it needs making more expensive to up the quality (or needs greater subsidy on the basis of common good - public transport even benefits those who exclusively drive because it takes other cars off the road).

That trains are a bit pricey is not the root of the issue - city public transport, particularly bus, is quite well priced if you use season tickets. Even weeklies are mostly around £2 a day, which is less than you'll pay for parking alone in most towns.

In reply to summo:

regardless of whether you get/can access less public services in the countrysides. it costs more to provide the public services that people in the countryside do get/access, than it does to provide the services people in the city get. that's not an argument or a way of looking at things it's just a fact.

(possibly with the exception of london)

In reply to Donald82:


Ok refuse collecting costs more? What else is disproportionately more expensive rurally? Then balance that against a rebate for a poorer Police, Fire and Ambulance service, the lack of libraries, the distance to the nearest refuse place, or leisure centres etc. etc.. I'd accepted that city folk owe the countryside a few quid?

It's the complete absences of service that country people are paying for that is the problem. Also generally unemployment can be higher in towns and cities, so the actual contribution per capita is not guaranteed to be higher than rural areas, just because a town has more households don't presume all it's inhabitants are paying their way.

In reply to Donald82:



Apart from the bin collection what services do you think we get?

In reply to Donald82:


That's not what you said originally at 16:04 on Tuesday:


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmenvfru/602/602...

Rural communities pay higher council tax bills per dwelling,[8] receive less government grant and have access to fewer public services than their urban counterparts.

The Rural Services Network state that "in 2012/13 Predominantly Rural local authorities received £147.81 in Government formula grant per head or 52% less than their urban counterparts.

Sparsity of population makes it more expensive to provide services in rural areas than urban areas. Yet, despite this, urban areas—as defined by the Government—receive 50% more funding per head than rural areas.

Schools in rural areas where families typically have low incomes receive lower pupil funding than they need to support children from disadvantaged backgrounds. The recent Ofsted Report noted that the most disadvantaged children being let down by the education system are no longer found in inner cities but are in coastal towns and rural, less populous regions of the country.

NHS North Yorkshire and York receives significantly less than PCTs in nearby urban areas: "The trust gets £1,477 per head of population compared with a regional average of £1,690, while the PCT covering Barnsley receives £1,903. In Sheffield, the PCT is awarded £1,701 and in Leeds the figure is £1,552."

If I take my particular county as far as the funding is concerned [...] we get, on average per head, with the change in the formula, we were going to get £221, compared to Leicester City at £566 per head. That was the funding. With damping that came down to £192, and with the settlement it has come below that.

Just who's subsidising who?

In reply to Neil Williams:

>- city public transport, particularly bus, is quite well priced if you use season tickets.

And expensive uncomfortable irregular often non existent and pretty much useless if you're not in a city

In reply to timjones:

Apart from the bin collection what services do you think we get?

A mobile library stocking all the shit that the city folk don't look at?

In reply to summo:

pretty much anything to which economies of scale apply. police, health, post, roads, schools. also utilities - not tax, but still, cities subsidise the countryside.

i entirely understand that services aren't as good and some don't exist at all but, I repeat, the total services people do get cost more per head than the total services people get in cities. they're not even covering the services they do get, so they can't be paying for the services they're not getting

think about it this way, if they abolished the barnett formula and replaced it with a 'needs based formula', scotland would still get more than it's population share. one reason for this is that it's more sparseley populated.

In reply to Ridge:


"And, over all, urban dwellers subsidise the countryside tax wise."

I'll need to get back o you on that report.

In reply to timjones:


roads, schools, police, nhs etc.

In reply to Donald82:


But you just acknowledged rural areas get a poorer service, so you claim the countrysides poor service cost more than the city excellent services and rural folk should keeping paying for what they don't have, ie subsidies for city people?

In reply to Donald82:



Do you have any evidence to back this up or is it just a guess?

In reply to Donald82:


Those tend to be focused in towns. We pay for them and then have to pay for the travel to access them.

Do you have any facts to back this theory of yours up?

In reply to summo:

Ridge's article suggests I might well be wrong here. I've not had a chance to look at it yet.

But what I was saying, is that the not so good services rural people get cost more than the better services city people get. If that is the case rural people would not be paying for these better services that they do not use.

A hypothetical example to hopefully make my point clearer, say rural people get a standard of public services of 5 and city people get a standard of 10 (this includes quality, range and availability of services). Say providing 5 to the country costs an average of £200 per head, but providing 10 to the city costs £180 per head. City people get better services but the cost of providing them is actually less than the cost of providing the less good services to the country. If everyone pays the same tax, then city subsidies country.

As I say, Ridge's article suggests I might be wrong and that the standard in the country is so much below the standard in the city, that even though it costs more to provide the same level of service in the country, less money is spent per person.

In reply to aln:

Southern Vectis on the Isle of Wight is worth a look to see what a viable commercial (and high quality) semi-rural public transport looks like - but you'll pay £25 for a weekly or £10 for a day ticket.

In reply to Donald82:

So in summary your whole argument was void of evidence and ridge blew it out the water?

I suspect most country folk, who have no public transport and use more expensive fuel, traipsing round their county getting to local services knew this already.

Also many rral wages are less than in the city, a double whammy, that fresh country air isn't so free after all!

In reply to Donald82:

In short what you are trying to say is that your statements were based on nothing more than supposition?

In reply to timjones:

well, pretty much, yeah. That said, I'm not sure ridge's article proves much. I shall have a read though

In reply to timjones, ridge, summo:

hi chaps, I've had a look at Ridge's article and a look around at a few other things and I was wrong. Sorry! Don't hate me, as I said at the top I was happy for my imaginary rural subsidy to be in place.

Merry xmas and thanks subsidising me

In reply to Donald82:

The subsidised beers are on you!