Massive Inconsistency in Tax. I despair....
Discussion
From BBC news...
Aviation fuel is not taxed. Planes spew out their noxious fumes high in the atmosphere...where their environmental impact on global warming is at its highest.
So we, in Britain, are going to build more airports.
Cars, of course, are far more fuel efficient. Don't spew fumes high in the atmosphere, leave when you want, go where you need etc etc etc.
So we, in Britain, put in traffic calming and squeeze the population with *car* fuel tax until they squeak.
Yes I know it would be bad for business if flights got more expensive. Yes I know that the millions who want to get to the Costa Del Sol quickly an efficiently every year would be annoyed. But there's a lot less of them than there are motorists.
So what the hell is going on.
Trains 'should replace planes'
The price of air travel should rise in order to limit climate change, an influential UK thinktank says.
Aviation fuel is not taxed. Planes spew out their noxious fumes high in the atmosphere...where their environmental impact on global warming is at its highest.
So we, in Britain, are going to build more airports.
Cars, of course, are far more fuel efficient. Don't spew fumes high in the atmosphere, leave when you want, go where you need etc etc etc.
So we, in Britain, put in traffic calming and squeeze the population with *car* fuel tax until they squeak.
Yes I know it would be bad for business if flights got more expensive. Yes I know that the millions who want to get to the Costa Del Sol quickly an efficiently every year would be annoyed. But there's a lot less of them than there are motorists.
So what the hell is going on.
Well, I'm no expert so I don't know what the answer is but we sure as hell can't go on increasing the number of cars in this country because there isn't any more room for them. And more cars means less room for people like us.
So what would you suggest we do? Building more roads increases traffic until they're as crowded as before (this is demonstrable) and, what's more, we're running out of room for roads. Like most people, I personally don't want a big dual carriageway running through the bit of Sussex where I live: it would be even noisier than the current single carriageway and would ruin my enjoyment of the countryside.
Increasing taxes has a marginal effect but squeezes out the poor and those who really need a car (ie those who don't live in big conurbations -- although even there...
).
What other mechanisms are there apart from the obviously correct way forward of either testing people every ten years and enforcing checks?
It seems to me there are plenty of people here ready to rant but few willing to put together solutions that are a) workable and b) acceptable to a majority of people.
Let's get real.
So what would you suggest we do? Building more roads increases traffic until they're as crowded as before (this is demonstrable) and, what's more, we're running out of room for roads. Like most people, I personally don't want a big dual carriageway running through the bit of Sussex where I live: it would be even noisier than the current single carriageway and would ruin my enjoyment of the countryside.
Increasing taxes has a marginal effect but squeezes out the poor and those who really need a car (ie those who don't live in big conurbations -- although even there...
). What other mechanisms are there apart from the obviously correct way forward of either testing people every ten years and enforcing checks?
It seems to me there are plenty of people here ready to rant but few willing to put together solutions that are a) workable and b) acceptable to a majority of people.
Let's get real.
We use our cars so much because our public transport is crap. Congestion on our roads is mainly due to workers commuting in cars. Improving the road system encourages indivduals to accept jobs greater distances away, as a longer road commute becomes viable.
So, to improve driving conditions we must make public transport more attractive. i.e. more affordable, more timely, faster and more comfortable. Therefore more will choose public transport and less will drive cars.
Public transport has got to compete with what are now very comfortable, efficient and reliable cars. I would much rather sit in a traffic jam on the M25, in my own clean comfortable personal space, than stand in line in Waterloo tube station waiting for the next filthy train to arrive.
And what is the most successful, confortable and best value for money public transport? Answer - Aircraft.
You can be whisked up to Edinburgh for £60 return, in 1 1/2 hours. Cheaper faster and more comfortable than the train. (& you get a meal).
So keep tax off aviation fuel. Keep air travel as cost effective as possible. Build more runways and lets travel more by air.
(Then when no-one's looking, I'll blast up to Edinburgh in my luvly TVR on the nice empty roads).
Utopia - never happens.
So, to improve driving conditions we must make public transport more attractive. i.e. more affordable, more timely, faster and more comfortable. Therefore more will choose public transport and less will drive cars.
Public transport has got to compete with what are now very comfortable, efficient and reliable cars. I would much rather sit in a traffic jam on the M25, in my own clean comfortable personal space, than stand in line in Waterloo tube station waiting for the next filthy train to arrive.
And what is the most successful, confortable and best value for money public transport? Answer - Aircraft.
You can be whisked up to Edinburgh for £60 return, in 1 1/2 hours. Cheaper faster and more comfortable than the train. (& you get a meal).
So keep tax off aviation fuel. Keep air travel as cost effective as possible. Build more runways and lets travel more by air.
(Then when no-one's looking, I'll blast up to Edinburgh in my luvly TVR on the nice empty roads).
Utopia - never happens.
do you not think that this very thinking is at the core of their speed camera strategy?
PetrolTed said: The only way is to reduce the number of car drivers. If licences were valued more greatly then people would take more care. If more people couldn't drive then the economic pressures and market forces would force alternative transport systems you know, thing....
Consider a 5 year period, starting Jan 2000.
If they are starting to ticket 1 million or more every year for speeding and plan on continually ramping that up, well the maths is beyond me (having spent my A Level stats lessons smoking pot at a mate's house... ) but just suppose, taking a conservatively low recidivism rate, that'll yield an extra 50,000 totting up bans a year after 4 years and an extra 100,000 28 day bans.
Suppose that the ramping up in the first 4 years incurs 20,000 6 month totting up bans and 50,000 28 day bans.
Over 5 years, you've got 150,000 drivers who've had to find alternative transport for a month and another 70,000 who've had to do it medium term. Everyone knows someone who's been banned. Every road warrior has seen a fellow road warrior lose his job because of a ban.
So people start to slow down. Or do they? Human nature is a bitch to change and politicians rarely succeed at this in times of peace. So annually, more and more people are availed of the wonders of public transport.
Bingo.
I need a drink.
>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Friday 29th November 17:53
PetrolTed said: The only way is to reduce the number of car drivers. If licences were valued more greatly then people would take more care.
Couldn't agree more. It's quite scary that they seem to be handing out licences to just anybody these days. Okay, so they take 'em back again at the slightest excuse ("106 mph, sir? Tut tut...") but why do they allow people to redo their test 20, 30 times before passing, for example? Driving is like anything in life - some people can do it, and some people are hopeless at it and should know when to give up.
In this country people see driving licences as a right, not a privilege. And that's wrong IMHO.
martinh said: Why not a multi-tier licence where if you pass an advanced test you are allowed to go faster. Just need a different licence plate which you can only buy if you present your high speed licence - personally I would love a bit more elitism on the road...........M
Nice idea -- doesn't elitism already exist (BMW drivers and the rest?
) ...and more seriously, would it help clear the roads?
So what would you suggest we do? Building more roads increases traffic until they're as crowded as before (this is demonstrable)
I would love to live in a version of the UK where there
are more roads. I'm happy that my taxes go up for that.
Of course, road use will always follow new roads:
that's simply economic development. I don't
want to live in the Dark Ages.
and, what's more, we're running out of room for roads.
Nonsense. Have a look at the numbers sometime.
www.abd.org.uk has data on how UK has far fewer
trunk roads than most countries in Europe.
Like most people, I personally don't want a big dual carriageway running through the bit of Sussex where I live: it would be even noisier than the current single carriageway and would ruin my enjoyment of the countryside.
Aww diddums.
How about a motorway from Southampton to Dover ?
How about a motorway from M25 to Eastbourne,
replacing the completely crap A21 ?
Another mway from M25 to Worthing, replacing the
only slightly less crap A24 ?
How about M25 six lanes each way ?
How about upgrading the A272 to mway ?
Makes a lot of economic sense.
Because a motorway would convey people more effectively and efficiently.
manek said: How about thinking about the quality of life of people who live nearby? And why ruin perfectly good driving roads -- which the A272 and A21 are -- and turn them into dull old motorways, anyway?
As sad as it might be, you surely realise that the value of a 'good driving road' is zero in a cost-benefit analysis. Besides which this positively loathe the idea of us having enjoyable driving.
Economic factors really are the only thing that will drive the road building programme forward, are they not?
On an emotive and driving enthusiast level I agree, Manek, but we have to face realities - escecially if we espouse the concept of running the country in a businessline manner.
Anyway, if some of these trunk roads were made more heavy duty and upgraded, think of the number of smaller roads which would suddently become available for fun & games.
I live less than a mile from the M3 and yet anyone who's been here will agree with me that it's perhaps the quietest place you could possibly live - you cannot hear anything most of the time - certainly not motorway traffic. Solutions to quality of life issues can be engineered into new motorways the same as they have on the M3 and elsewhere (in some cases retrospectively).
Personally, I'm of the opinion that the M27 should be extended to reach from Bournemouth to Dover, but there we are. Probably not such a popular idea, I expect, for anyone who cares to indulge in a litle NIMBYism.
As to the argument that traffic infinitely expands to fill available capacity. Well, does that happen in France or Germany? Or Spain even? It generally doesn't even though heroic exceptions like the surrounds of the capital city of each country do exist. I dare say the M25 and the Periphique will be forever over-populated. Nonetheless, getting from Oxford to Lancaster (or god forbid Newcastle) is a damned sight more of an ordeal than getting from Calais to Orléans. That's because enough roads to accomodate the number of motorist have been built. Once we achieve that amount of roadspace, we'll get aheqad of the problem.
Unless we fail to keep a lid on unplanned procreation and unwarranted immigration and the population of the country doubles in the next 50 years. In which case we're fuc*ed irrespective of transport issues.
>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Saturday 30th November 14:54
I think the point I was trying to make has been missed.
The fact is that TRANSPORT has changed our society for ever. The more transport available to a person the greater their "freedom" to enjoy leisure and business.
So why tax some forms of transport more than others.
All transport use should be taxed fairly and equitably. Now..I understand there are (possibly even good) reasons for taxing environmentally unfriendly forms of transport more than friendly ones.
So why should aviation get off so light when motorists are under a heavy tax regime? Seems like bollox to me...
1.6% of Britain is covered with roads. Even if it got to 2% (a MASSIVE increase in road building) its hardly significant.
And as to there being too many cars? Well. Only cars being driven by licensed drivers can be on the road at any time. So unless the number of licensed drivers increases out of all proportion we must have pretty well maxed out on car traffic by now. If you predict that traffic will increase at the rates thyat seem to be being bandied about you'd need to population explosion to support it....
My point is - my preferred and most efficient (for me) form of transport is taxed very differently than other forms I might use...and with no apparent eveidence that it is being done for sound environmental reasons. All transport pollutes these days (one day the Hydrogen V8 may change that) but why hammer cars...?
Because its PC to do so.
The fact is that TRANSPORT has changed our society for ever. The more transport available to a person the greater their "freedom" to enjoy leisure and business.
So why tax some forms of transport more than others.
All transport use should be taxed fairly and equitably. Now..I understand there are (possibly even good) reasons for taxing environmentally unfriendly forms of transport more than friendly ones.
So why should aviation get off so light when motorists are under a heavy tax regime? Seems like bollox to me...
1.6% of Britain is covered with roads. Even if it got to 2% (a MASSIVE increase in road building) its hardly significant.
And as to there being too many cars? Well. Only cars being driven by licensed drivers can be on the road at any time. So unless the number of licensed drivers increases out of all proportion we must have pretty well maxed out on car traffic by now. If you predict that traffic will increase at the rates thyat seem to be being bandied about you'd need to population explosion to support it....
My point is - my preferred and most efficient (for me) form of transport is taxed very differently than other forms I might use...and with no apparent eveidence that it is being done for sound environmental reasons. All transport pollutes these days (one day the Hydrogen V8 may change that) but why hammer cars...?
Because its PC to do so.
I heard that there's enough fuel in a Jumbo jet to get a car round the world.
If a plane uses that much fuel per flight (and given that the average 747 doesn't have a catalytic converter) they must do a vast amount of environmental damage.
So how come they pay for fuel with small change and sweet wrappers whereas I need a mortgage to refil my motor?
If a plane uses that much fuel per flight (and given that the average 747 doesn't have a catalytic converter) they must do a vast amount of environmental damage.
So how come they pay for fuel with small change and sweet wrappers whereas I need a mortgage to refil my motor?
The real answer is quite simple.
Motorists will comlain if you screw them but ultimatley there is nothing they can do.
Airlines on the other hand will simply turn round and say "OK, F**k you, we'll carry out operations else where". A classic example of this would be if the aviation fuel tax was increased in europe then all the airlines could simply say "if you do that then we will simply order all our new planes from Beoing." So don't you dare touch the aviation fuel tax.
Never underestimate the clout a big business/industry can bring to bear. Especially one that could easily move loads and loads of non essential operations overseas. (the oil industry for example has just been hammered with a big tax increase but there is nothing they can do as they HAVE to operate where the oil is).
Its all politics
Andy
Motorists will comlain if you screw them but ultimatley there is nothing they can do.
Airlines on the other hand will simply turn round and say "OK, F**k you, we'll carry out operations else where". A classic example of this would be if the aviation fuel tax was increased in europe then all the airlines could simply say "if you do that then we will simply order all our new planes from Beoing." So don't you dare touch the aviation fuel tax.
Never underestimate the clout a big business/industry can bring to bear. Especially one that could easily move loads and loads of non essential operations overseas. (the oil industry for example has just been hammered with a big tax increase but there is nothing they can do as they HAVE to operate where the oil is).
Its all politics
Andy
I don't have a problem with better roads -- we could choose to spend the money on quieter tarmac or tunnels in sensitive areas for example. Alas, we don't whic means motorways remain noisy eyesores.
As for why this happens here not elsewhere, this island is, on average, more densly populated than most conparable countries. And in the SE UK, the density is even higher than that average.
This brings more people within earshot of motorways, hence the sensitivity of the issue.
Also, I and loads of others like to walk on and in the scenery, enjoying the scenery, wildlife, and peace and quiet (when I'm not belting about in the car!). Would a nearby motorway enhance the quality of that enjoyment of the countryside, which is a mile or two from where I live (and is why, incidentally, I choose to live here)? Nope.
Maybe I am guilty of NIMBYism -- but then, who isn't? Few are in favour of major changes in their local environment, whether or not they might bring unguaranteed and unquantified benefits to those who want to traverse the area asap. After all, the people a motorway benefits are primarily those on it, not those who live nearby.
As for cost-benefit analysis, if allowed to include criteria such as the quality of life of those nearby, it wouldn't automatically favour motorways. Trouble is in this country it doesn't, as the railway lobby has been pointing out for decades, since railway lines are constrained by far stricter cost-benefit analysis criteria than motorways. But I digress.
I agree re aviation though: if people had to pay the true cost of flying, it would balance the books a bit...
The answer? Blowed if I know, although the technology is there, as you point out, CarZee, to make them much less intrusive. But I remain convinced solutions are more complex than just saying we need more motorways.
As for why this happens here not elsewhere, this island is, on average, more densly populated than most conparable countries. And in the SE UK, the density is even higher than that average.
This brings more people within earshot of motorways, hence the sensitivity of the issue.
Also, I and loads of others like to walk on and in the scenery, enjoying the scenery, wildlife, and peace and quiet (when I'm not belting about in the car!). Would a nearby motorway enhance the quality of that enjoyment of the countryside, which is a mile or two from where I live (and is why, incidentally, I choose to live here)? Nope.
Maybe I am guilty of NIMBYism -- but then, who isn't? Few are in favour of major changes in their local environment, whether or not they might bring unguaranteed and unquantified benefits to those who want to traverse the area asap. After all, the people a motorway benefits are primarily those on it, not those who live nearby.
As for cost-benefit analysis, if allowed to include criteria such as the quality of life of those nearby, it wouldn't automatically favour motorways. Trouble is in this country it doesn't, as the railway lobby has been pointing out for decades, since railway lines are constrained by far stricter cost-benefit analysis criteria than motorways. But I digress.
I agree re aviation though: if people had to pay the true cost of flying, it would balance the books a bit...
The answer? Blowed if I know, although the technology is there, as you point out, CarZee, to make them much less intrusive. But I remain convinced solutions are more complex than just saying we need more motorways.
There's also enough fuel in a Jumbo jet (747-400) to get a Jumbo Jet 1/3 of the way around the world, carrying up to 568 passengers (normal configs carry 420 passengers) 8,300 miles. (Circumference of the earth = 24,892 miles)
The fuel capacity of a 747-400 is 210,000 litres.
So, with a little calculation here, a plane filled with passengers in a typical config of 420 passengers flying 8,300 miles = (210,000/8,300)/420 = 0.06024 litres of fuel per person mile.
Or put another way 16.6 miles per litre per person (75.46MPG per person)
So, flying by Jumbo jet is about as economical as motorway driving in a car with 2 people in it - with a fully loaded car, it is about 1/2 as economical.
The points you make about environmental damage to the Stratosphere are valid though, as emissions up there are far more damaging than emissions on the earth's surface.
For a possible future of air transport, check out Ekranoplans
The fuel capacity of a 747-400 is 210,000 litres.
So, with a little calculation here, a plane filled with passengers in a typical config of 420 passengers flying 8,300 miles = (210,000/8,300)/420 = 0.06024 litres of fuel per person mile.
Or put another way 16.6 miles per litre per person (75.46MPG per person)
So, flying by Jumbo jet is about as economical as motorway driving in a car with 2 people in it - with a fully loaded car, it is about 1/2 as economical.
The points you make about environmental damage to the Stratosphere are valid though, as emissions up there are far more damaging than emissions on the earth's surface.
For a possible future of air transport, check out Ekranoplans
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff