💯 agree “Sir John Armitt… said it was time for a “proper public debate” about the future funding of the road network and other critical projects” Gov should announce a cross party commission to explore future of motoring taxation, supported by a citizens’ jury. This should be done ASAP - ThreadSky

sfrost.bsky.social • 144 days ago

💯 agree

“Sir John Armitt… said it was time for a “proper public debate” about the future funding of the road network and other critical projects”

Gov should announce a cross party commission to explore future of motoring taxation, supported by a citizens’ jury. This should be done ASAP

Comments

sfrost.bsky.social•144 days ago

Decision on future of fuel duty / motoring taxation should not sit in the hands of HMT. It has implications across gov departments, devolved nations and local gov. It will also impact on many ppls lives. Let’s get this transition right and ensure reforms deliver +ve social & environmental benefits

sfrost.bsky.social•144 days ago

Positive to see straightforward write up of the same comments in the Telegraph (also features on their front page tomorrow). Follows a few articles from them that have been fairly neutral on the shift to pay per mile. I think/hope that bodes well for public debate

ianwalker.bsky.social•144 days ago

The opportunity that really interests me is the chance to make the first two miles much more expensive than subsequent miles, and so have a way to disincentivise short-distance car travel for once (also, like power supplies, there probably ought to be a "standing charge" to fund infrastructure)

thesolarking.bsky.social•144 days ago

As I've commented elsewhere this exactly the kind of thing not to do. It must be kept simple to be acceptable & equitable. Think of fuel duty as an analogy ( which it will replace). Everyone & their dog chasing different agendas is a recipe for disaster. Stick to the major objective, raising tax.

ejoftheweb.bsky.social•143 days ago

It has to be graduated rather than just per mile. A mile in a densely-populated suburb should be way dearer than a mile in the Highlands where everything is much further apart and alternatives are non-existent.

thesolarking.bsky.social•143 days ago

That is not the case at present. The only mitigation is the road fuel subsidy in very rural Highland areas to give near parity with urban areas. The current position, doesn't precedent for this. You get better consumption in a rural area due to low traffic density, a compensation in itself.

thesolarking.bsky.social•143 days ago

I also added elsewhere there needs to be a wide, well informed discussion. At the moment many seem more intent on pushing their own agendas rather than focusing on the real objective: replacing lost fuel duty. revenue.

oldtrotter.bsky.social•144 days ago

As recommended by Eddington in *checks notes* 2008. Principle is spot on but not sure how this would work. Requires an awful lot of technology. Looking forward to everyone using country lanes.

gwickenden.bsky.social•144 days ago

If you charged by observing within settlements with a standard charge to travel between two confirmed settlements (regardless of the route taken) then there would be no/limited advantage to driving in the back roads

gwickenden.bsky.social•144 days ago

For example if the charge was £5 for a car observed in Oxford and Southampton on the same day, then there's no advantage in driving on roads with no cameras be those with lots as you'd get charged the same amount

gwickenden.bsky.social•144 days ago

However, you could have a peak hour charge applied it is likely you were traveling at a certain time, which would encourage the use of the fastest route to reduce the risk of being charged that, likewise you could have discounts for going a specific route

thesolarking.bsky.social•144 days ago

Currently we effectively pay a cost per mile based on consumption. Many road users have to drive during peak times as it is the only way to get to or from work. Peak time charging would penalise road users who have no alternative. Anything other than a flat rate penalises the least well off users.

gwickenden.bsky.social•144 days ago

Peak time fuel use is higher for many road users due to congestion
Also, I didn't give an example of what the peak charge would be if it was +50% or more you'd have a point, however if was +15% or less then it would add about 1p per mile

ernie68.bsky.social•143 days ago

We do this in Norway on most if not all motorways/highways.

Not the 'different cost for different time of day' part, but that wouldn't be problematic.

If this is part of a general car tax instead if paying for a stretch of road, no reason not to tax the same way on country lanes.

goakl.bsky.social•143 days ago

There’s no need for a debate on this. There’s so much evidence already and it all points to making cars expensive to drive in urban spaces (trams, bikes, walking) and over long distances (trains). Surely a transport economist can come up with a subsidy/tax model that does it?

sfrost.bsky.social•143 days ago

I’m not sure you’ll get to anything close to that without a public debate. Default position will likely be a flat per mile charge that broadly keeps income from motoring at current levels for HMT. Anything that makes motoring more expensive will need debate to be acceptable to MPs & public

sfrost.bsky.social•143 days ago

Road pricing is seen to be inevitable but not everyone agrees. For example, New Automotive argue for an entirely diff approach to taxation. Politicians will struggle to make this call without political cover & reassurance the proposed scheme is (and is seen to be) fair

goakl.bsky.social•143 days ago

I think the examples of Paris and London show that people ARE ready for these changes. It takes courageous leadership (and a thick political skin) and the diversion of funds from road to active/public transit. The social/health costs alone make it worthwhile. The accounting needs to catch up.

sfrost.bsky.social•143 days ago

Agree on courageous leadership (any habit breaking transport scheme requires that) and the end goal being worthwhile. The read across from London to Norfolk and areas with less public transport isn’t straightforward though. Don’t think we get good policy without opening up decision making beyond HMT

goakl.bsky.social•143 days ago

Yes. Rural areas are less problematic (pop density and absolute numbers) but the larger market towns - I live in one - are being strangled and choked by the car. Most are designated for even more housing (correctly) but they desperately need a new transport approach.

ejoftheweb.bsky.social•143 days ago

I'm increasingly convinced that ebikes are a big part of the solution. Just got one for our place in rural France. It opens up the practical range of everyday active travel to >10km even for the moderately-unfit.

goakl.bsky.social•143 days ago

Do we need more consultation? It’s been 18 months since we voted locally to throw out Tories and bring in Greens/LD and we’ve been “planning” “consulting” “declaring climate emergency” but no ACTION. By the time it’s all in the place it’ll be election time again. (Old man, time running out!)

goakl.bsky.social•143 days ago

Can kicking.

ernie68.bsky.social•143 days ago

This really isn't about funding though.

It is about reducing the amount of money in circulation. Infrastucture isn't 'funded' by taxes.

There are many ways of reducing money in circulation, does not have to tax cars at all.

Unless it is to control behaviour, that is

dazwright.com•144 days ago

We've just come back from Portugal, and I really liked the electronic charge that just beeps as you drive along. We should definitely do that

amanfromuncle.bsky.social•144 days ago

This sounds like a tax on poor people.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply