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
