Bad news for the low paid and carers

[crimsone]

They should take a leaf out of the private sector's book where such a high importance is attached to service quality, the reason being customers simply take their money elsewhere.

You mean like the private companies running the train service in this country that are pricing people out of the market to deal with overcrowding rather than put on more carriages?

...and as for not knowing how to run a proper public transport system being a worse problem under labour - not that I'm a labour supporter (or a tory one for that matter) - how did National Rail get in such a state that denationalisation became the only affordable option?

...Another thing worth considering in "the social cost of motoring" is the social cost of not motoring for many people.

Remember National Rail Enquiry under BR? You had one helluva job getting through to anyone. And that's just one example. It was precisely for these reasons the idea of privatisation was first mooted in the late 80s.

The result being that it's easy enough to find out when a train is running, but actually affording to pay a fare to use it is quite another matter - and a seat for the journey is just asking waaay too much.

Edited May 26, 2007 by crimsone

[Nick H]

You mean like the private companies running the train service in this country that are pricing people out of the market to deal with overcrowding rather than put on more carriages?

In many ways, rail privatisation has been a victim of its own success. Passenger numbers have increased by 70% since the mid-1990s. Yet people demand more. And overcrowding existed way before privatisation. Re why privatisation became the only realistic option: the demands on the rail network, particularly aggravated by the economic boom in the late 1980s, were becoming intolerable. Renewal was needed.

Edited May 26, 2007 by Nick H

[The PIT]

Well I applaud you for at least trying to start a reasoned debate rather than the wild and unfounded assertions you have been posting recently.

Now it's me who is wondering how old you are.

Do you seriously think British Rail was great? Come on, take those rose-tinted glasses off. BR was a 3rd rate institution with no service culture. Remember National Rail Enquiries under BR? You had a devil of a job getting through to anyone. And that's just one example. It was precisely for these reasons the idea of privatisation was first mooted in the late 80s.

By me.

You great shifting your feet in way old great Ali would be proud off.

British rail was run down by the tory government in the aim to sell it off.

Now you're really showing your age. I'm guessing your under really under thirty.

I'm suggesting something completly different and you know it.

In many ways, rail privatisation has been a victim of its own success. Passenger numbers have increased by 70% since the mid-1990s. Yet people demand more. And overcrowding existed way before privatisation. Re why privatisation became the only realistic option: the demands on the rail network, particularly aggravated by the economic boom in the late 1980s, were becoming intolerable. Renewal was needed.

Yes but don't you want them off the road???? In a way your correct but you missed the profit only problem where services would be cut becuase demand fell below a certain marker forcing people back into there cars.

Edited May 26, 2007 by The PIT

[crimsone]

Being a victim of your own success while running a vital public service, in business terms, I believe is known as screwing up - if that is in fact what's happened - it depends on what the raw statistics really are. While, apparently passenger numbers have increased by 70%, it seems a little more than coincidental that the length of an average train seems to have reduced by a similar amount.

Edited May 26, 2007 by crimsone

[HighPressure]

Rather than doing a Nick H, I will actually put an argument forward:

We cannot reverse our social or economic situation, there is no going back to a time that has gone before. I remember factories in my town that the locals worked at and walked or cycled too, where are they now? China that's where. So what are we going to do put all the factories back so people don't have to drive anymore, but wouldn't that actually cause more damage than the cars? So you have to accept you cannot put the work place back into our towns and also accept that it is just as implausible to get everyone living close to their work place. Now then I think all will agree that motoring is an environmentally damaging thing, but surely would have to also accept that putting the cost up achieves absolutely nothing except a higher rate of inflation. In the end you have to face the fact that people have to be mobile and deal with it, the obvious answer is better public transport. Now as established 19% of all money raised via indirect taxation comes from fuel, we should have the best public transport system in the world with gold knobs on, but its dire. I live in Sevenoaks 50 mins to drive to Brighton any time of the day, it takes 4hrs by train because I am on wrong line and cost me 4 time as much and I may not even get a seat.

We are not going to get a fully integrated cost effective user friendly public transport system in the next 50yrs, so car driving its going to be. With that realistic message, I suggest that engine technology is where the answer will arrive from and it is that some of my already 19% or government purse should be spent on.

There is no reason why our government cannot start to reduce the size of engines allowed on our roads over a number of yrs. This will make car manufacturers produced vehicles for the available market, very simple but allows us to move forward and become less polluting as well.

Edited May 26, 2007 by HighPressure

[crimsone]

It might help to get as much freight as possible off of the roads and onto the rails too!

[The PIT]

Rather than doing a Nick H, I will actually put an argument forward:

We cannot reverse our social or economic situation, there is no going back to a time that has gone before. I remember factories in my town that the locals worked at and walked or cycled too, where are they now? China that's where. So what are we going to do put all the factories back so people don't have to drive anymore, but wouldn't that actually cause more damage than the cars? So you have to accept you cannot put the work place back into our towns and also accept that it is just as implausible to get everyone living close to their work place. Now then I think all will agree that motoring is an environmentally damaging thing, but surely would have to also accept that putting the cost up achieves absolutely nothing except a higher rate of inflation. In the end you have to face the fact that people have to be mobile and deal with it, the obvious answer is better public transport. Now as established 19% of all money raised via indirect taxation comes from fuel, we should have the best public transport system in the world with gold knobs on, but its dire. I live in Sevenoaks 50 mins to drive to Brighton any time of the day, it takes 4hrs by train because I am on wrong line and cost me 4 time as much and I may not even get a seat.

We are not going to get a fully integrated cost effective user friendly public transport system in the next 50yrs, so car driving its going to be. With that realistic message, I suggest that engine technology is where the answer will arrive from and it is that some of my already 19% or government purse should be spent on.

There is no reason why our government cannot start to reduce the size of engines allowed on our roads over a number of yrs. This will make car manufacturers produced vehicles for the available market, very simple but allows us to move forward and become less polluting as well.

Agree with most of that.

I work for a University and I'm pretty sure theres people working in Leeds University doing the same job as those in Sheffield. And some in Sheffield live in Leeds and vice versa. Why can't they do a job swap????

Not getting the proper public transport system. I disagree it can be done if theres a will theres a way. Sadly they'll be no taxes so the Government hasn't the will.

Edited May 26, 2007 by The PIT

[Nick H]

The fact is, virtually every respected academic thinker on the subject of transport policy believes some form of road pricing is not only inevitable but absolutely necessary. We just cannot sit in our cars with the roads getting more and more congested by the year. And the truth is, road pricing works. In every place it has been tried, traffic has fallen. In London, the money has been put into buses and the funding of Oyster cards: great.

There seems to be a chicken and egg problem here, with people saying, "I don't agree with road pricing because public transport is so poor." Wrong way round: you've got to charge the motorist first, then put the money into the buses and trains.

Good to see people have stopped arguing that the cost of motoring has risen: presumably they've admitted defeat on that one and acknowledged that everything they said on it was wrong. Because now that has been accepted, it is a short step to suggest that a signifcant way to cut traffic might be to increase that cost. We are getting somewhere...

Edited May 26, 2007 by Nick H

[The PIT]

.

Edited May 26, 2007 by The PIT

[The PIT]

The fact is, virtually every respected academic thinker on the subject of transport policy believes some form of road pricing is not only inevitable but absolutely necessary. We just cannot sit in our cars with the roads getting more and more congested by the year. And the truth is, road pricing works. In every place it has been tried, traffic has fallen. In London, the money has been put into buses for public transport: great.

There seems to be a chicken and egg problem here, with people saying, "I'll only agree to the idea of road pricing if there's a commensurate improvement in public transport." Wrong way round: you've got to charge the motorist first, then put the money into the buses and trains.

A Blinkered view.

You quote London a place that doesn't have privatised buses for example.

Road pricing does work but at the exspense of local Business and High streets.

If your comapny trying to recruit within the toll pricing you've got to offer wages to cover it.

For it to work properly again you've got to get a proper public transport system working. If it isn't there what the hell do you do. You got it the wrong way round.

[HighPressure]

The fact is, virtually every respected academic thinker on the subject of transport policy believes some form of road pricing is not only inevitable but absolutely necessary. We just cannot sit in our cars with the roads getting more and more congested by the year. And the truth is, road pricing works. In every place it has been tried, traffic has fallen. In London, the money has been put into buses for public transport: great.

Just what is road pricing, isn't the same as adding more tax on fuel if the environment is what you want to help? If you tax for use of the road itself you are just taxing for taxing sake to raise revenue your interest on environmental issues goes right out the window. If I get my car to run on tomato juice producing zero emissions you still want to charge me, that is not moving us forward??

[The PIT]

Now if I've got a car that gives zero emmisons. Does it really matter if it's going no where????

[Nick H]

Just what is road pricing, isn't the same as adding more tax on fuel if the environment is what you want to help? If you tax for use of the road itself you are just taxing for taxing sake to raise revenue your interest on environmental issues goes right out the window. If I get my car to run on tomato juice producing zero emissions you still want to charge me, that is not moving us forward??

I think you're being silly here. If you did get your car to run on tomato juice then no, it's not sensible to charge. I've always said that the private cost must equal the social cost, clearly the social cost of a car run on tomato juice is less than that run on petrol. And I've also said that charging should be based on the relative congestion experienced in the locality: hence high prices in central London; little or no charging in the Scottish Highlands.

For it to work properly again you've got to get a proper public transport system working. If it isn't there what the hell do you do. You got it the wrong way round.

But how do you get it working? With money? Where do you get that money from? Presumably the motorist. And I think the effect on High Street and businesses has been overplayed. How many have hit the wall in London since the c-charge was introduced? Maybe a handful, and a few more have experienced decreased margins, but London's economy has still grown strongly since then.

Edited May 27, 2007 by Nick H

[The PIT]

I think you're being silly here. If you did get your car to run on tomato juice then no, it's not sensible to charge. I've always said that the private cost must equal the social cost, clearly the social cost of a car run on tomato juice is less than that run on petrol. And I've also said that charging should be based on the relative congestion experienced in the locality: hence high prices in central London; little or no charging in the Scottish Highlands.

But how do you get it working? With money? Where do you get that money from? Presumably the motorist. And I think the effect on High Street and businesses has been overplayed. How many have hit the wall in London since the c-charge was introduced? Maybe a handful, and a few more have experienced decreased margins, but London's economy has still grown strongly since then.

How do you get it working well the Governement can pour loads of money into keeping troops in Iraq and don't say tell us thats not cheap.

No it's going to cost us all a bit. However we used to do it in sheffield and we didn't mind as we had a service and it worked. As soon as it was srapped we quite a bit minded car usage went up by 50%.

I think you're being silly here. If you did get your car to run on tomato juice then no, it's not sensible to charge. I've always said that the private cost must equal the social cost, clearly the social cost of a car run on tomato juice is less than that run on petrol. And I've also said that charging should be based on the relative congestion experienced in the locality: hence high prices in central London; little or no charging in the Scottish Highlands.

But how do you get it working? With money? Where do you get that money from? Presumably the motorist. And I think the effect on High Street and businesses has been overplayed. How many have hit the wall in London since the c-charge was introduced? Maybe a handful, and a few more have experienced decreased margins, but London's economy has still grown strongly since then.

Interesting you keep going on about social cost. So the social cost is losing jobs do you think thats right????

Edited May 27, 2007 by The PIT

[HighPressure]

I think you're being silly here. If you did get your car to run on tomato juice then no, it's not sensible to charge. I've always said that the private cost must equal the social cost, clearly the social cost of a car run on tomato juice is less than that run on petrol. And I've also said that charging should be based on the relative congestion experienced in the locality: hence high prices in central London; little or no charging in the Scottish Highlands.

My last post of the night, but simply congestion is only an environmental issue due to emissions, you say yourself that the social cost should equal the actual cost. So if we all have zero emission cars we are left with the same congested roads only without pollution, so one can workout that road pricing is a traffic management tool and not an environmental measure. This is key because it's being sold on the environmental ticket which is not actually true and the reason why the experts working on the subject have put it forward is that if cars do become more effecient there will be a need to fill the revenue gap.

[Nick H]

Interesting you keep going on about social cost. So the social cost is losing jobs do you think thats right????

It's about a cost-benefit analysis. Yes there are benefits and yes there are costs. But the social costs outweigh the benefits, and in many studies by a large margin. Many of those losing their jobs can find another job: the labour market is relatively buoyant; the only issue is are the immigrants from Eastern Europe more hard working and do they have a better work ethic than the working class natives (answer: yes).

So if we all have zero emission cars we are left with the same congested roads only without pollution, so one can workout that road pricing is a traffic management tool and not an environmental measure. This is key because it's being sold on the environmental ticket which is not actually true and the reason why the experts working on the subject have put it forward is that if cars do become more effecient there will be a need to fill the revenue gap.

Silly again. The technology is way off, and even if we had it now it would not necessarily happen overnight, it would be prohibitively expensive for most. It is the meantime that we are concerned about, not 50 years ahead, and the short-term solution is to cut traffic through road pricing.

This debate tonight has summed up the two problems this country faces re. transport policy perfectly. Firstly, there is a horrible ignorance by many uneducated people on basic facts like the cost of motoring and the sources of government revenue. Secondly, there is an extremely powerful motoring lobby in this country who are both short-termist and reluctant to reduce activity of what is overall unquestionably a bad in return for the long term good. When you combine these two, it is easy to see why nothing is going to happen and why people will continue to sit in their cars undertaking longer and longer journey times.

Edited May 27, 2007 by Nick H

[The PIT]

My last post of the night, but simply congestion is only an environmental issue due to emissions, you say yourself that the social cost should equal the actual cost. So if we all have zero emission cars we are left with the same congested roads only without pollution, so one can workout that road pricing is a traffic management tool and not an environmental measure. This is key because it's being sold on the environmental ticket which is not actually true and the reason why the experts working on the subject have put it forward is that if cars do become more effecient there will be a need to fill the revenue gap.

Fairly correct but theres still the issue of transport costs for Industry. Even if the car was completly emmison free that still would be a problem.

The simple solutions don't take into account of the low paid or people who live in areas that are not served by the present system. Until the ignornat and uneducated people like Nick H take this onboard it's going to be a hot issue.

[Gray-Wolf]

Fairly correct but theres still the issue of transport costs for Industry. Even if the car was completly emmison free that still would be a problem.

The simple solutions don't take into account of the low paid or people who live in areas that are not served by the present system. Until the ignornat and uneducated people like Nick H take this onboard it's going to be a hot issue.

There's no point in becoming insulting my little Sheffieldian pal. Whilst Maggie went hell bent smashing the Passenger Executives her oppo, Tebbit, gave you all his take on how to propel yourself to work.

In this ever free-er market place surely Von Thunens view of industrial location will begin to drive things soon enough?

[Nick H]

Fairly correct but theres still the issue of transport costs for Industry. Even if the car was completly emmison free that still would be a problem.

The simple solutions don't take into account of the low paid or people who live in areas that are not served by the present system. Until the ignornat and uneducated people like Nick H take this onboard it's going to be a hot issue.

You keep banging on about the economic costs, failing to appreciate that without taking measures which might damage in even the slightest way the prospects of future economic growth, then we store up even more problems in the future. Yours is a short-termist view. I guess (though haven't looked) you are also either the person who a) disputes AGW and/or b fails to accept the policy implications this entails.

And I can now see why you are barred from Serious Discussion. Do you still believe the cost of motoring has risen? Although I'm not sure with you because at one stage you say you haven't driven for 30 years, then later say your insurance has stayed the same (i.e. fallen when inflation is ignored).

Edited May 27, 2007 by Nick H

[Thundery wintry showers]

I tend to think of cars as being positive in moderation, but negative to excess- it's over-simplistic to say that cars are bad end of story, just as it is over-simplistic to say that cars are great for society end of story. You can usually have too much of a good thing, and that's what we see with car usage, e.g. congestion problems and pollution.

I agree with the view that society would be better off if cars weren't used as much (particularly in congested areas), but I don't see road pricing as the optimal solution. I have offered plenty of alternative suggestions in an earlier post. My main criticisms are the costs of administration, and the fact that moving away from taxing consumption reduces the incentives to cut emissions, potentially slowing the rate at which vehicle emissions decline in the next 50 years.

Incidentally I remember Tony Blair's email supporting road pricing against those who signed the infamous petition. His point was clear: either we use road pricing, we build lots more roads, or we do nothing, and he then went on to dismiss the latter two suggestions. It doesn't reflect well on road pricing when a famous person in support of it merely finds the two weakest alternative suggestions, dismisses them, and conveniently ignores any alternative suggestions that might actually be viable.

[Nick H]

I tend to think of cars as being positive in moderation, but negative to excess- it's over-simplistic to say that cars are bad end of story, just as it is over-simplistic to say that cars are great for society end of story. You can usually have too much of a good thing, and that's what we see with car usage, e.g. congestion problems and pollution.

I agree with the view that society would be better off if cars weren't used as much (particularly in congested areas), but I don't see road pricing as the optimal solution. I have offered plenty of alternative suggestions in an earlier post. My main criticisms are the costs of administration, and the fact that moving away from taxing consumption reduces the incentives to cut emissions, potentially slowing the rate at which vehicle emissions decline in the next 50 years.

Incidentally I remember Tony Blair's email supporting road pricing against those who signed the infamous petition. His point was clear: either we use road pricing, we build lots more roads, or we do nothing, and he then went on to dismiss the latter two suggestions. It doesn't reflect well on road pricing when a famous person in support of it merely finds the two weakest alternative suggestions, dismisses them, and conveniently ignores any alternative suggestions that might actually be viable.

Hi TWS,

The trouble is, cars are excess at the moment. We crossed the point of moderation years ago. I hate to agree with Mr. Blair, but don't you accept that road pricing can be "part of the solution"? I don't suggest that the only way to solve our transport problem is through road pricing, though it is an important measure.

All the solutions which you propose in an earlier post, TWS, are fine. But they're going to take time, they're not going to happen overnight. Some of them require change in attitudes which will take years to filter through. Although I have to say, I feel some of them will have a negligible impact, e.g. improving road lay out. School buses are good to but the fact is a lot of parents understandly feel the need to physically drop their child off at school rather than kiss them goodbye onto a public bus. Also, people feel an attachment to their car, more so than in other countries. A car is like a pet to many people. They love it. Try persuading people to move onto public transport, even if it was better than it is now. As peoples incomes rise, the demand for luxuries, including cars, grows. That will always happen. Furthermore, there will always be a certain snobbery about the use of public transport because people see it as having to "mix with the plebs". Similarly, are car-sharing schemes really going to take off? Do people want to sit with a stranger every morning in the privacy of their own car? These attitudes aren't going to change soon.

Let's face it, people who are opposed to road pricing are opposed to it primarily on the grounds they are terrified of it. The reason they are terrified of it is because they know it will work. The biggest advantage of road pricing will be in cutting the number of unnecessary trips. Look at the number of trips made that are less than a mile long, then aggregate them: that's a helluva lot of unnecessary miles. A ridiculous 20 per cent of all car journeys are like this.

A lot of the problem actually stems from a broader issue: this country is too overcrowed. We are one of the most densely populated countries in the world for our wealth.

You say it moves away from taxing consumption: I don't understand this, surely the longer the journey the more you pay? That's why it's so fair. We need to do something now. Road pricing is used on motorways in virtually every European country - why can't we do it? There is no need for VED or fuel duty, just pay per mile.

Edited May 27, 2007 by Nick H

[Thundery wintry showers]

1. Re. carrots and sticks, the problem with bringing in too many sticks too soon is that it involves bringing driving down to a common denominator (making it as annoying as other forms of transport) rather than helping make the alternatives more promising. Yes, 'carrot' policies take time, and have the effect that some people make the changes but others won't, and that's when 'sticks' often become necessary, but I suspect that pay-per-mile will be used as an excuse to use 'all stick and no carrot', with associated lowest-common-denominator transport. I resent the labelling of all motorists with the "selfish snobby attached to their car" label; yes a minority of motorists are like that, but it's wrong to tar all other motorists with the same brush.

1. My suggestion re. consumption is quite simple: in environmental terms, we ideally want people to be consuming less, and thus releasing less CO2, sulphur and nitrogen oxides etc. into the atmosphere. If we bring in road charging and abolish fuel duty, people are penalised per how much they drive, and not necessarily how much fuel they consume and how much they pollute (some cars are more pollutive than others, driving in some areas causes more pollution than in others). Thus, while there is an incentive to cut down driving, there is no reward for choosing a cleaner car; no penalty for driving a gas-guzzler.

It's also worth noting that with fuel duty, the more you drive the more you pay, but with the difference that the amount of consumption is also a major factor in precisely how much you end up paying; thus encouraging people to either use cleaner cars or drive less, in both cases reducing emissions.

3. Road pricing on the Continent is not used in the same way as is being advocated for this country. It uses incremental charges for a given stretch of motorway which are primarily used to fund road maintenance, not to put people off driving. Similarly, congestion charging isn't quite the same as pay-per mile; congestion charges penalises people for driving into highly congested city centres. I am not entirely against small-scale pay-per-drive schemes like congestion charging or toll roads, but rather this extensive 'pay per mile' system as a substitute for fuel duty.

4. What about the pay-per-mile problems of administration cost, and the problem that many drivers may well decide to avoid using the major routes, and plough through low-charge housing estates (in the case of differential charging based on 'utility') at 50mph?

I reckon that we're probably going to have to agree to disagree on this one; trouble is, it's Nick's opinion which will ultimately be imposed on everyone else by our government.

[HighPressure]

The main problem I have with the whole idea of taxation including road pricing is that the better off you are the less you are affected by such measures. Its interesting that the government has chosen to ban smoking in enclosed spaces rather than just charge more for doing so, this is because they actually want it to stop and just charging more would not and have worked. Taxation is a tool for the government to collect revenue from an activity they wish to continue and cash in on, the motorist and smoker have proven to be excellent money earners over the years and whether we all travel by train or bus or cycle the amount of revenue required by the government is not going to drop. Remember this is all being sold to us on the green ticket, that's why people like me are against it, because although we accept that cars pollute we are not stupid and object to being conned. Further evidence of this is quite easy to find, as Mr Blair states he can see no other alternative to road pricing his government continues to subsidise car manufacturers in the UK with tax payers money? Why on earth would you seek to help produce cars and safeguard jobs in the car industry if you really do want to reduce the number of vehicles on the road?

This issue requires a lot more honesty from all politicians, it requires even no car drivers to realise they are as reliant on these as anyone else and benefit from the driving of others or do they only buy goods grown or made in their town or that has travelled by train??

Yes it will cost to make a real environmental difference but it will cost everyone not just the selected few who can be seen as cheap or easy targets.

[Gray-Wolf]

I remember listening to David Bellamy (before he hopped over into the naysayers camp.....and then hopped back shame faced) 15yrs ago saying we either make sweeping changes now or accept it (the end of our current society) and party on 'till the end.

Nothing happened and now I think we're better off partying on as no amount of sacrifice will alter what is now enevitable.

Why make folk miserable if it is their last few years?

[Nick H]

A key problem that I alluded to last night was that Britain's roads are publicly owned. The trouble is, government has no incentive to resolve anything. It just sits on its hands as the roads get more and more clogged up. In the private sector, there is an incentive to remedy things out of self-interest.

There is an uncanny comparison with the Soviet Union here. The most enduring immage of communism is probably the sight of Russians queueing outside the grocery because there were food shortages, poor quality products and they'd become blue in the face with rage. Yet we have our own version of it here. The roads are an unpriced free-for-all, with demand way in excess of supply, leading to queues, shoddy quality of roads and road rage.

Never forget: there are two (and only two) ways of managing demand for a service. You can charge for it, or you can ration it and force people to queue. Current UK transport policy is the latter.

If we had private roads, the roads would be in much better condition. There would be an incentive to repair them, and repair them quickly, because they will want the value of the road to keep up with the initial capital outlay. Failure to do would mean the road becomes empty, resulting in loss of revenue. There is simply no incentive for this in government run sectors. And the safety of roads would improve too, just like it has on the railways, because companies would know that accidents and injuries would tarnish their reputation. Again, no such incentive for the state.