Re: transport planning favours cars

Jon has moved ! wrote:
On 14 Aug, 16:19, Matt B <"matt.bourke"@nospam.london.com> wrote:

Because history tells us that personal private, and generally motorised,
transport is the preferred option of those for whom it is a viable
proposition. If that is the case, and if (as you seem to above) we
agree that free choice, as opposed to "pressurised" choice, is
desirable, then we should do everything possible to make it a "viable
proposition" for as many individuals as possible. And given the proviso
"safely, efficiently, and unobtrusively", then providing an adequate
motorway network is a very necessary step in achieving that goal.

The point I was making is that as the motor car has become an option
(and increasingly a favourable one), it has done so at the expense of
public transport. The two are hardly comparable.

The car had so much going for it, even before it had: SatNav, CD, radio, heating, leg room, comfort, ..., in comparison to PT, that PT withered in its presence. It was not economical for PT to compete.

Subsidised by motorists, as everything else paid for out of the central
pot is now, or paid for entirely from rail fares?

I seem to recall that the "motorists pay for everything" argument had
no factual basis, but do feel free to enlighten me.

The CBAs put forward by the anti-car lobby, that purport to show that the cost to society of cars is greater than the revenue derived from them, not only grossly exaggerate the cost of cars, and understate the tax revenue gathered, but also conveniently forget to include /any/ of the other benefits that cars bring to society.

I suggested quite
clearly that subsidy should be proportional, or equal.

Yes, but I am saying that whilst PT is a heavy drain on the public purse, private cars are a heavy contributor, so to bring PT subsidy into line with that of private cars, the current subsidy would have to be abolished, and a heavy tax put in its place.

Be that by
increasing the amount spent on rail (Simply put, re-nationalise it and
take the shareholders out of the equation), or by decreasing the level
of public funding that pays for the cost of motoring (NB: this is not
simply the cost of building roads!)

Motoring isn't a public cost, its a public revenue generator, and as rail most definitely /is/ a public cost, it is therefore subsidised by motorists.

If PT's subsidy was abolished, and passengers were charged
proportionately for their share of the cost of provision of the system,
and then they were called upon to subsidise the health, education, and
social security system, and every other national expense, to the tune of
10% on top of that, as is the case for private motorists, how do you
think they would react to that, given the less-than-cost fares that they
currently enjoy?

They currently pay less-than-cost to use their cars.

Only if you exagerate the cost, forget much of the revenue, and ignore all the societal benefits (put another way: the costs society would have to bear if motoring and motor vehicles were uninvented).

The point of
taxation is that you pay to be provided with nationalised services.

Yes. Put as it stands, those who choose to provide their own motorised transport are heavily subsidising those who don't. Tax should be raised by ability to pay, not for using one particular service in favour of another.

With private transport it is far harder (although not impossible) to
move to a pay-on-usage scheme.

For motor transport we already have pay-as-you-go (and some) through fuel duty, and its VAT, "congestion" charging and tolls, and pay-whilst-not-going through parking fees, and pay-whether-you-go-or-not through VED, insurance taxes, MOT fees, licence fees, etc. All those, of course, are pure taxes, and exclude the actual cost of providing, running, fuelling, and maintaining the vehicle itself. If we were to reduce the tax burden on motoring to just that necessary to cover the cost to society of accommodating that mode, then other taxes would have to be increased significantly.

Conversations with various people over
the years have demonstrated how incapable the average person is of
pricing the cost of a journey (to themselves) by various methods of
transport. The costs of motoring are largely hidden in annual
payments.

And taxes.

So we should nobble the success of the private car to give PT a chance
to claw-back some popularity? Why?

Why did you even think that was what I was suggesting.

I thought you were proposing that PT should be subsidised even more, and that motoring should be taxed even more.

Increased
legroom, occasional servicing and better design (The designs already
exist by the way) could improve PT no end.

But, like we saw early in the last century, cars were favoured even when they offered /no/ comfort advantages.

All that you have
demonstrated is that you lack the ability to think about more than one
solution to a given problem.

Quite the contrary. I'm defending the place of private motoring in the mix, whilst all around me appear to be condemning it ;-)

Would you prefer to have your own bed, and bedroom, or have to "hotbed" in a public dormitory? Why should our levels of expectation for transport be any different?

So you'd support giving all options a level playing field? Which taxes
would you increase to make up the 10% loss from motor taxation? Who
would pay for the free city centre car parking facilities required?
Would you welcome your council offering free driving training and free
driving tests to all school children? Should we have train-free and
bike-free days? Should we have car-only lanes on main routes into, and
around, our towns and cities?

The bike training will only serve to improve driving standards (If
done well).

Driver training would do that.

Car-free days are an attempt to get people thinking about
more than one solution to the problem,

Not at all. They are a cynical attempt to "dis" the car.

and what's left of British Rail
and the Underground demonstrate the reality of train-free days on a
regular basis.

:-)

We have (effectively) car-only lanes already. They're
next to the bus-only ones.

What is there to stop buses and bikes from using them.

I have no idea where you are getting the
free parking facilities from, trains don't need them, and proper bike
ones are extremely rare. As previously mentioned,

Trains, buses, and bicycles have lavish facilities laid-on for them in every town centre, with no specific charge for the users.

the 10% is a red
herring.

The 10% is a reality. Close to £50 billion is raised through taxes resulting directly, and purely, from the act of "motoring". Check the annual revenue total - you'll see where the 10% figure comes from.

It is an ideal which I believe is theoretically achievable - though
unlikely to ever happen. Spin, junk science, and misinformation, not to
mention prejudice and even bigotry, has pervaded the whole transport
debate, helped on its way by political "icing on the cake" of also
providing a bottomless-pit-source of tax revenue, and scapegoat all
rolled into one. Thus, despite the lack of any evidence to support the
assertions behind it, it has become "fact" - and so is now "set in
stone" and largely beyond question.

I'm not sure where the science comes into it.

Apart from from the "climate change" industry?

From a purely empirical
point of view, private cars are demonstrably inefficient.

Given our preference for them then, the objective should be to make them more efficient.

See the
comparisons of time spent working to pay for vs. time spent using.

Obviously considerd to be worth making huge sacrifices for.

Your last sentence appears to aptly describe your attitude to new
ideas as accurately as it describes opposition to them.

Ha ha. I am challenging ideas set in stone, by attempting (poorly it would seem :-( ) to expose the myths and prejudices that much of the anti-car lobby propaganda relies upon.

One of the problems with transport is that people often blindly grab
the first option without thinking it through.

Human nature - would you have it changed?

Hence the chap
complaining in the local press about how long it took him to drive the
1/4 mile to the newsagents to pick up his paper.

His choice. Should he be expected to tolerate congestion without comment? I moan if I have to wait in a queue at the supermarket check-out.

Offer the choice,

Without the playing-field tilted markedly against private motoring???

but
make it a fair choice and explain all the options.

Another point on which we agree - we're doing well today :-) I'd add, "and don't subsidise or promote any of the choices".

Your choice of
transport should be influenced by the journey you intend to make, not
by the ton and a half of steel that's parked in the driveway.

No. You should be free to, and encouraged to, choose your transport mode, based on your own criteria, and on a level field, with no mode subsidised or politically favoured or promoted over any of the others.

--
Matt B
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: WVM again
    ... motorists rather a cost to motorists caused by "society" not providing ... journeys than simply the direct tax raised by the use of motor vehicles. ... move to motorised transport is occurring regardless are in a hell of a mess. ... the subsidy to date will have to be picked up some time soon. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: no increase in tax?
    ... deliveries, make sales, etc., and keeping the costs of motoring ... more than doubling the price of fuel (at today's prices, ... Escalator by the Tory government of the day? ... The deal was that the Crossing was going to be free (at no cost to the ...
    (uk.rec.driving)
  • Re: no increase in tax?
    ... deliveries, make sales, etc., and keeping the costs of motoring so ... more than doubling the price of fuel (at today's prices, ... The deal was that the Crossing was going to be free (at no cost to the taxpayer) - just like the Skye Bridge *has* been made free - at tremendous cost to the British taxpayer. ... the route to the West Midlands, ...
    (uk.rec.driving)
  • Re: boat transport
    ... I have to transport my boat, from southampton in west ... needed, is a simple matter, the specialist shifting company ... 'Specialist shifting companies' are not cheap road transport. ... motoring if headed then it's only three days ...
    (uk.rec.sailing)
  • Betty Marsden, HLOS and M6
    ... that the cost of Crossrail is causing the Treasury to suck their ... the rest of its transport policy remains contradictory. ... The M6 widening - at £1,000 ... Construction work on a 51-mile stretch of road will cost an estimated ...
    (uk.railway)
Loading