Motoring taxes need to triple to cover externalities

From: Local Transport Today : Issue 604 31 Aug 2012

Motoring taxes need to triple to cover externalities, says IPPR

MOTORING TAXES cover at most a third of the costs imposed on society by car travel at, according to an analysis by the Institute for Public Policy Research. The IPPR says that the 5.7p/km motorists pay in fuel duty and VAT only partly accounts for the externalities of car travel, which the think-tank identifies as 15.5p/km, although it adds that even this could be an underestimate. The analysis was conducted for a report that scrutinises and rejects the claim that there is a “war on the motorist”.

The report highlights that the total costs of traffic due to excess delays, accidents, poor air quality, physical inactivity, noise impacts and greenhouse gas emissions are estimated to be £43-56bn a year. Moreover, this does not include “many costs that are difficult to estimate including severance of communities, degradation of landscape and the opportunity cost of land,” it says, urging the Government to update its accounts of the external costs.

Given these external costs, the IPPR urges the Government to “make every effort to avoid further delays in fuel duty increases,” which will cost the exchequer £13.9bn in total over the five years from 2011/12.

The think-tank acknowledges that motoring taxes are high and that fuel duty has increased in real terms by 4% since 2001 if VAT is included. However, it also points out that the proportion of the pump price that is tax has fallen from 75% to 60% in the last ten years and overall motoring costs have fallen by 5% since 1997 if the cost of buying cars, insurance and repair costs are factored in.

The IPPR rejects the AA’s “grossly misleading” claim of earlier this year that an average family spends more on petrol per week (£71.24) than on food (£70), as this assumes above average mileage or significantly below average car fuel efficiency. “Based on typical mileage and car fuel efficiency figures, the average family car requires 13.4 litres per week at a cost of £19,” it says. It also finds that motoring taxes are “broadly progressive,” although with a “higher impact on the poorest 10% of car owners”.

The report also highlights that two-thirds of the poorest ten per cent of households have no car and rely on public transport and bus fares have risen by 69% since 2001, compared to the 5% real terms decrease in motoring costs since 1997. The IPPR calls for the costs of bus travel to be brought down in order to both help these households and to continue to reduce the level of traffic following the recent downward trend.

IPPR finds “little evidence” that public transport programmes are sufficient to reduce traffic levels year-on-year and “considerable scope” for further action, given that every local authority applied for the £1bn Local Sustainable Transport Fund and that only one bid was allowed per area.


==

http://www.ippr.org/publication/55/9542/the-war-on-motorists-myth-or-reality

Sustrans on line mapping

www.sustrans.org.uk/map

Sustrans have their own mapping utility. You can draw a route on as with bikely - I found that quite easy to use.

Bikely uses the same base maps as Google maps, which seem to have been getting a lot more accurate lately. Paradoxically Sustrans worked with Google to produce the new facility on Google maps to calculate cycling routes, but the base maps used on their site are OS ones and one of the first things I noticed was that the footbridges over the railway lines near me aren't shown.

The Sustrans maps do show National Cycle Network routes which is useful. Sustrans tell me that they are crowd sourcing info for the maps (not just user added routes). Thus we have yet another apping utility seeking out inormation and competing with all the others.

They also use the term "train station" instead of the usual British English "railway station".

Bike "M" Checks

http://www.sustrans.org.uk/assets/files/free%20range%20kids/families/frk_bikemcheck.pdf

The basic ABC check of a bike  is often suggested ride organisers for quick checks of participants bike.

The M check is a more extended check regime devised by Sustrans.

Cyclists don't pay to use roads

My reply to a letter published in the London Evening Standard on Wednesday 15 August:

On Wednesday’s letters page (15 August), Elizabeth Wren opines that cyclists should not make “demands” as they do not “pay an equivalent amount to motorists to use the roads”. The idea of paying an equivalent amount sounds fair, but what does it actually mean? I assume Ms Wren was not referring to Vehicle Excise Duty, commonly but inaccurately called road tax, because VED is not a payment for using the roads. Churchill abolished Road Tax in 1937 precisely because he feared its payers would try to assert their right to use the roads over those of non-payers. Roads are (barring toll roads) paid for through general taxation, not by motorists specifically. So general tax-paying cyclists are as entitled to make “demands” as general tax-paying motorists. (Incidentally, I would be in favour of abolishing VED, which incentivises car use, and introducing a ‘polluter pays’ tax on fuel to cover the revenue shortfall.)

Perhaps Ms Wren  is tacitly suggesting including pedal cycles in VED. Given that VED for the lowest CO2-emitting band is zero,  it wouldn’t raise any money as pedal cycles emit no CO2. It would, though, cost money to introduce, enforce and operate.

Ms Wren may be hinting at some kind of usage related charges. I agree that that could be fair in theory, but it would have to account for the amount of wear and tear inflicted on the road  by the vehicle over time, and possibly also the amount of road space used by the vehicle over time.  Either way, this would result in motorists paying more and cyclists paying less – and so by Ms Wren’s argument, being entitled to make more “demands”.

More OTT cycling projects floated by Boris

The Mayor of [Greater] London, Boris Johnson, has - presumably as part of his bid to become leader of Britain's Conservative Party, floated the idea of installing cycle paths alongside London Overground rail tracks/routes.

Never mind whether this is technically doable - it is clearly a politicians's attention grabbing stunt, rather than any serious attempt to help cycling.

When I leave my flat to join the main road, I have to neotiate a kerb, up and down. This is because some kind soul has put a fence right across the roadway, with no gap for cycles to get through. At my nearest railway station, the steps up to the bridge where the entrance stands do not have a wheeling ramp. These are just examples from my daily experience. As in recent posts, in my local travels I find a lack of dropped kerbs, shrubs overgrowing cycle paths, blocked off roads, one way streets, no-entry points, steps without ramps and a general lack of permeability in the streets and paths of the area.

If Boris put some money into fixing these numerous glitches in the street/path network of London , he would have done something relatively quick, easy and cheap to help people cycle everywhere. But that wouldn't be bold and daring enough for him.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mayor/stop-pussyfooting-around-cameron-boris-johnson-reveals-his-masterplan-to-boost-britains-economy-8049862.html

Poor permeabilty continues

Going down Fleet Road southbound I notice there are now “no through road except buses” signs before the “no entry except buses” signs are reached at Jenkins Lane. I don’t know whether these are additional to or replacement for the previous no entry signs, but either is bad.  As my thousands of regular readers will know I have bought up the issue of the restriction on cyclists here several times over several years. I don’t know why it persists and regard it as a clear indication of lack of consideration for cycling.

Stibasa - now far more rides

For the first time in years I've added a new page to www.stibasa.org.uk. It is to contain links to websites listing rides of which some are within reach of Barking, but that are not listed by date on stibasa (which will be because they are too numerous/frequent, or I haven't got around to it, or I didn't know). The link is near the top of the rides/events page (not in the menu, sorry).

At the moment, there are only two links, but I will try to add more - and you can help by submitting them to me.

To qualify, either a ride listed must pass near to Barking, or it must pass a point easy to get to from Barking (ie basically on a train line).

As always, if you plan to go on a ride, share the news, so that others can tag along. Make sure you meet the organising group's requirements - and it's probably best to contact the organiser, rather than just showing up.

Cycling Event at Barking and Dagenham College?

I hear rumours of a cycling related event at Barking and Dagenham College in Rush Green on 19 September 2012, but I haven't got any details. If you know anything, please pass it on. Obviously the event is aimed at students and staff at the college, but it may not be exclusively for them. Typically such events would include Doctor Bike, advice about cycling, bike try outs, sign up for training.

I don't know if there's a Bicycle Users' Group (BUG) for staff and/or students. That would be a good idea. Again, please get in touch with any information you may have.

Permeability and the scarcity of the dropped kerb

I devised a little circuit for the ride with Sustrans last Tuesday. Riding round it gave a sample of the types of problems that face cycling in Barking, though I'm sure they're not uinque.

The ride started off on a shared segregated path, segregated just by a white line. Pedestrians walk in the cycle bit all the time, and even when several of us rang our bells the pedestrians then resolutely stayed in the cycling bit. It's not illegal, but why?

Then we turned onto another segregated path to Gascoigne Road and beyond to King Edwards Road. This path is segregated by flowe beds, but the plants and shrubs are in much need of cutting back ob the outside of the cycle section. Oh and of course pedestrians are in need of "cutting back".

At King Edwards Road the path ends, but does not join the carriageway with a dropped kerb, or any attempt to keep parked vehicles clear.

We then crossed the Rover Roding by the barrage. On the west side the towpath is blocked by a 'temporary' fence so people cannot walk/cycle to the Town Quay that way. I believe that the fence was put there by local residents of boats moored on the River, as they do not want passers by. I could be wrong.

So, we proceed along the top edge of Handtrough Creek. Here again the shrubs need cutting back. I reported this via fixmystreet.com, who passed the report on to BD council, who told me (not FixMyStreet) that the problem was in LB Newham (which information is incorrect). I pushed it back to BD council who then said that the riverside path was on private property. All  I can hope is that someone goes down there with their secateurs.

That path ends at Fleet Road (that I called The Road to Nowhere before it was completed and named, again without a dropped kerb. Near this point, to either side, are the 'no entry except buses' signs that either BD or Newham (or both, I have never found out) installed before the road was even complete. Luckily for the Police who have their big station there, the rule doesn't apply to them. And so up Fleet Road, to join Highbridge Road at a dreadful mini roundabout, with a very wide circulation lane and fast traffic joining the A406. I objected to this roundabout, but was told that this road was not intended for use by cyclists, because there would be a leisure route along the river side. Well there would be, except for the fence mentioned above, but why shouldn't we be able to cycle along Fleet Road and Highbridge Road in safety anyway.

So through the Town Quay, across Abbey Road, and onto Abbey Green. The paths across this green were designd without cycling in mind, and the opportunity to improve this a bit at the Brodway end was missed, despite my contribultion to the consultation about the works. So we negotiate another undropped kerb and cross to Clockhouse (or is it Clock House) Avenue and thence to the Town Hall.

It isn't clear whether the path between the Library and the Health centre was intended to be shared use, but the signposting at Axe Street is for pedestrians only, so I'm guessing tjhey managed to forget cycling again, despite my input.

At St Paul's Road there is a crossing (a Toucan I think), "conveniently" placed between two motor vehicke free entrances to the estate, one of which was made in my campaigning period, and, you've guessed it, my suggestion of a dropped kerb for cycling was not taken up. Little wonder that the suggestion of a retro-fitted one at the other, older entrance wasn't either.

Facebook

There is now a Stibasa page on Facebook, please 'like' us there.

Also, to avoid confusion (or cause it, arguably) with the Barking and Dagenham Branch of the London Cycling Campaign, they now have a separate Facebook Page as "Barking and Dagenham Cycling Campaign". Please 'like' that, too.                                  

Nip Nip

http://nipnip.co.uk/

Nip Nip ofers electric bikes for sale or lease to businesses, and runs a mobile bike mechanic service, about which they say:

"Dr NipNip bicycle repairs and servicing facilities are between 30-50% cheaper than well known high street cycle stores" and

"All of our mechanics are recruited through a social enterprise scheme designed to help unemployed Londoners get back into the job market"

Worth knowing. If you use them, let me know how you get on.