tags: Ecology, Politics, Society, Travel
One million road petitioners can’t be wrong, can they?
February 11th, 2007, by Rich.
Warning: apache_lookup_uri() [function.apache-lookup-uri]: Unable to include '/pics/2007/road-tax/deadend' - error finding URI in /home/www/boakes.org/htdocs/mods/plugins/boakes-depicticon.php on line 65
The experimental petition system that Downing Street is running has generated it’s first 1,000,000 signature petition: it asks the PM to “scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy” and it’s a great example of how public opinion is not necessarily good for the public.
What do the petitioners think they are supporting?
The petition subtext highlights that there is already an effective travel tax administered through the cost of fuel: “The more you travel - the more tax you pay” it explains helpfully.
Next it goes for the heart strings, calling the proposed monitoring system “an unfair tax on those who live apart from families” and it pours pity on the “poorer people who will not be able to afford the high monthly costs“.
It rounds off with a stirring and simple plea: “Please Mr Blair - forget about road pricing and concentrate on improving our roads to reduce congestion.”
So that’s:
- Standing up for poorer people,
- Reuniting estranged families,
- Caring for the commuter who’s stuck in congestion.
This is a petition (and therefore a million petitioners) with heart and compassion: it’s very warm and fuzzy, but it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
An Existing and Necessary Tax
The petition calls for road improvement but roads are not created or improved without investment. Funds don’t magically appear at the Dept. for Transport without tax, so the petition is implicit in it’s agreement that a travel tax is necessary, it’s just misguided about the most fair means of delivering it.
As the petition points out there is already an effective tax on travel, through fuel, but it neglects to mention that:
- Poorer people are already affected by a high travel tax.
- Families that live apart are already taxed when they travel to see each other.
So the warm and fuzzy words about “poorer people” and “families” obscure the real issue, that the petition is merely opposing is an alternative mechanism for taxation; not an additional tax.
Our Electric Future and the Green Tipping Point
Electric vehicles create less atmospheric pollution and less noise pollution than their combustion engined counterparts. At present, there are large tax incentives for people who switch to electric or hybrid vehicles in the combined form of a reduced road fund license fee, and a reduced need to purchase heavily taxed fuel.
There will hopefully come a time when a green tipping point is reached, where the number of alternatively powered vehicles is large enough that the fuel tax is no longer a viable mechanism for funding road maintenance.
This green tipping point cannot come soon enough, in my opinion, and it’s the reason why an alternative mechanism for travel tax is a necessity. Electric vehicles cannot travel without roads, so a travel tax will still be necessary, however, in urging the Prime Minister to abandon this line of investigation, the petitioners are supporting a taxation system that is becoming obsolete.
Diminishing Returns and Fairer Taxes
In recognizing that revenue from the existing fuel tax will diminish, we must also accept that a government that did not investigate alternative sources of funding should be accused of negligence and short-sighted governance. The government is only a representative of the people, so demanding the cessation of research into those alternatives is short sighted by the people who signed the petition.
An important aspect of a journey-based tax was overlooked in the simple text of the petition and it is this: once travel-tax is decoupled from fuel, it can be applied to the journey and the traveler directly, so if somebody who’s “poorer” is traveling, they may be able to travel at a lower tax rate.
Journeys to and from job interviews could be subject to tax incentives. Journeys during peak times could be charged at a higher rate, meaning those with good jobs who choose to commute in busy times every day would pay more. Family gatherings would end up costing less because they tend not to require peak period travel. In fact, all kinds of journeys could become subject to either incentives or penalties which overall would make travel taxation more fair.
The people who signed the petition didn’t see that - what they saw was an emotive plea that was not backed up by any real consideration for the facts.
Improved Planning
Todays monitoring systems can tell us that n-hundred-thousand vehicles pass a particular point on a particular motorway each day, which is quite useful for road planning. Knowing the entire journey of each of those vehicles will give a far greater insight into where and how specific roads should be improved (through the application of techniques such as Ant Colony Optimisation).
Conclusion: There is No Alternative to Journey-Based Tax
Road usage, and thus, congestion, will continue to increase. Without an improved mechanism of taxation on travel, the gradual switch to electric vehicles will result in reduced funds being available to the DfT for road maintenance. Poorer people will still be taxed as they are today, and families that live far apart will continue to be taxed at the same rate on journeys that take longer as peak time congestion increases because of an overburdened road infrastructure.
Road congestion will not just affect private citizens, the goods vehicles get stuck in jams too, which increases the delivery cost of whatever they’re carrying, which in turn is passed on to the consumer, a few pence added to an expensive item like a TV makes very little difference, but for companies that are hauling basics such as grain, fruit & veg, this puts a significant extra markup on everyday items that “poorer people” cannot afford not to buy.
An alternative journey-based taxation system, could encourage more flexible travel practices by all and enable travel by “poorer people” through targeted tax incentives and journey-based insurance policies. The empirical knowledge of the road network and it’s use would lead to more effective improvements that are targeted at the problems of congestion (rather than the symptoms, which are all that can be monitored by measuring traffic flow and choke points).
So looking at the subtext of the petition again and see how it stacks up:
- Standing up for poorer people - failed - with high fuel-based taxes they’re no better off when traveling, and with increased freight costs, the basic cost of living will increase.
- Reuniting estranged families - failed - with high fuel based charges and increasing congestion they’re worse off: it will take longer and thus cost more in fuel to get home.
- Caring for the commuter who’s stuck in congestion - failed - with increased congestion and high fuel charges they’ll switch to an electric vehicle, but still be stuck in traffic, on a road system that is not properly maintained, so they’re worse off too!
One million people can be wrong. One million people put their name to a solution which only exacerbates the problems that they are hoping to solve.
Update: The Email Campaign & The Anti-Petition
Apparently the one-million mark was passed thanks to an email campaign that (for want of a better description) scare-mongered about the hardware costs for such a system, yet none of the figures suggested were verifiable, or very realistic. Then scare-mongered about the loss of civil liberties that the system might represent.
Looking around the web several people are commenting on the story, some highlight the hardware cost issue. Roo from The Book Garden pondered the foolishness of the whole petition. Conversely Gavin Ayling described it as “proof of a backlash against government misuse of power“, though I think a more realistic description is:
a worrying example of how people can be persuaded to do anything if you push the right emotional buttons and provide them with imbalanced information.
Derren Brown eat your heart out.
Sanity: An anti-petition!
Thankfully, there is some sanity and balance in the world.
Thank you Tim Lewis for starting an anti-petition to the above nonsense. Tim petitions the prime minister; “don’t scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy.” His supporting text is rather eloquent, and makes for a far more convincing petition:
Having recently received an email asking me to sign the a petition to scrap the vehicle tracking policy, I’d like to propose the opposite. I strongly feel that driving is a privilege and not a right. There are simply too many cars on the road and too many people making journeys by car when they could simply walk or cycle. Thousands die every year in road accidents and many, like myself, are forced to risk our lives in trying to get to work in a sustainable manner. We are dependent of foreign oil and the wars to secure such resources will only get worse if we don’t curb our driving habits. Driving started off as a freedom but as we’ve redesigned our land around the auto mobile, rather than the pedestrian, it’s become nearly a necessity. It is, however, perfectly possible to live a successful, car-free life. I would like to advocate that this become the norm and if this law helps driving to become even less attractive than it already is, I’m all for it.
I am delighted to sign such a sensible petition.
Other voices…
People are starting to speak up about the road pricing scheme.
- Paul Kingsnorth takes a more direct route than myself, lambasting the “petrol heads” supposing that “the next thing we know they’ll be campaigning to ban zebra crossings, ambulances and traffic lights on the grounds that they slow them down unacceptably.”
- Clive Bates has some interesting thoughts on the numbers involved, and discusses why the many counter petitions are at a disadvantage.
- Richard Dows wonders if the proposed system could help build “a truly worthwhile, cheap, eco-friendly, and on-time national transport grid?“
- Brendan of the excellent PetrolPrices.org asks If the proposed system is a bad idea then how do you think motoring should be taxed in the future?
February 12th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
*signs up*
Thanks Rich!
February 12th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
i am signing up
tell the government motorist have had enough taxes
February 12th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Hi Frank, you message is unclear (even though you left it four times).
Does “had enough of taxes” mean you’re in favour of the current system, where your insurance is annual and your road usage is taxed through fuel prices (which will soon become ineffective and thus unfair to anyone without an electric vehicle).
Or does “had enough of taxes” mean you’re signing up for the pay-as you drive scheme which at least has the potential to be fairer - poorer people will pay less, heavier road users will pay more, and thus those that can will shift their travel to less congested, cheaper times, reducing congestion.
February 13th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Tim Lewis writes “successful, car-free life” unless he lives in London or another major city he doesn’t have a life. As he advocates a car-free life he cannot use taxis, therefore with public transport he must be home by 10pm. How many of these “greenies” go to the supermarket, shops, etc on the bus or walk and never use a car? Very few I’ll wager.
The government knows that a car is a necessity not a luxury and that is why they tax the motorist at every opportunity.
February 13th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Hi Mark,
A car is a luxury, not a necessity, but many of us have become reliant on it to the point where our lifestyle could not continue without it, we’d still have a life, but it would be more village based.
The car gives us the illusion of choice and freedom, but, as we reach gridlock, sadly, that choice will disappear.
So who uses the roads? Polarizing the issue I can see two kinds of road user: those who need to use the roads, and those who don’t. Obviously it’s not that simple, but for the sake of the discussion lets simplify.
Those that need to use the roads include the emergency services, national freight and deliveries to local shops.
In contrast, among those who don’t need to use the roads are parents on the school run, or people with sports cars out for a Sunday drive, going nowhere, just driving, with the top down and probably wearing a scarf.
Parents are the first good example because cars have given parents the opportunity to choose schools that are further away from their homes than would otherwise be possible. As we approach gridlock, it will become harder and harder to reach those schools, so the choice disappears. The petition doesn’t help those people.
Next, recreational Sunday drivers. Now, don’t get me wrong, I love to put the top down on our little convertible and go for a Sunday spin in the countryside, heated seats and all, but I know it’s a privilege, and I recognize that I have to pay for that.
Now lets say my neighbour likes the idea of my Sunday jaunts around the South Downs so much, that he buys an electric car to do likewise. We drive similar routes at similar times, but because of their low emissions he pays zero road tax and his electric batteries are charged straight from the mains socket, which is not taxed as a fuel.
The result is, we drive the same mileage, on the same days, but whilst I pay for the upkeep of the roads through my fuel tax, my neighbour contributes nothing. We end up with twice as many cars on the road, which doubles the wear and tear on the asphalt, whilst maintenance and improvement funds remain static.
Taxes per-se are not unfair, but failing to “tax the motorist at every opportunity” results in taxation that is really unfair because people end up being taxed unequally.
Taxing the journey, not the fuel is the only way we’ll be able ensure people are fairly taxed and thus afford to maintain a viable road network for the next 100 years.
February 14th, 2007 at 10:44 am
Polarisation based on a highly specific point of view or personal preference does nothing for the long-term future. I happen to know a little bit about vehicle technologies AND taxation AND environment matters, and the notion that electric vehicles are the long-term solution is risible.
Until (if ever) we get cold fusion, where does the electricity come from? - fossil fuels (note that analogous arguments are already running about wind-farms, wave-power farms ). The electronics for electric cars are also quite dirty if one does the complete cradle-to-grave analysis .
To suggest that “electricity is not taxed as a fuel” is also incredibly naive. There is a general provision (in the UK at least) that ALL fuels used for road transport are taxable, and in practice they are taxed. Concessions for bus diesel and the like are exactly that - CONCESSIONS or discounts. If mains electricity ever looked like becoming anything other than a tiny minority interest, does anyone seriously believe that the civil “servants” in HMT will be happy to let it remain “untaxed”? (It is of course actually taxed at a politically-conspired special low rate of only 5% VAT – odd, when all householders are polluters, and only some of them are also motorists).
I absolutely accept and agree with the need for debate and research, but that must look at the whole problem holistically and for the long term. By any stretch of the imagination, we need more roads in some places, while also needing some systemS (sic) to reduce demand for travel, and hence some congestion. It is stupid to suggest that we can get rid of congestion, since that would demand an infrastructure that could cope with the highest peaks of travel demand 24/365. The best we can hope for is to optimise it so that the fewest are subjected to the least amount.
But the mobility genie is well and truly out of the bottle. We will NEVER get it back in, no matter how piously we hope. In a democracy, if the overwhelming majority (especially those who know that there is life outside the M25, even if it’s low on public transport) want mobility, then that is what we should have. The issue – the challenge - is to manage it realistically (?!?) and sustainably, and that is a job for government.
We are where we are, and need to move forward, not hark back to some mythical halcyon days.
Just because YOU don’t seem to want to travel much, gives you no right whatsoever to dictate how much I should be able to travel, so long as it’s for a legal end-purpose; and my travel is undertaken legally.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Thanks Stewart , your closing remark hits a very important nail squarely on the head: this is about the ability to travel, and not just driving.
It’s about enabling everybody to travel wherever they want, whenever they want, and critically, it’s about keeping choke points moving so that road-freight remains viable.
Taking a step further back, it’s also about understanding how the road network is used, so the rail network can be more effectively improved, and so public transport services can be devised that meet the dynamically shifting demands of the population.
I love having a car, it gives me the freedom to move around without having to stand at a bus-stop for thirty minutes in the cold. It gives me the ability to chop down the never-ending supply of garden-overgrowth and take it to the local tip. It enables me to go to the local DIY store and buy (always too heavy) materials for doing up my home. It enables me to go and visit friends who live in the middle of the countryside, et cetera… and most importantly, it lets me do this whenever I want to.
If I want to go shopping at the huge Tesco in Port Solent at 3am, I can; and it costs me no more, or no less, than if I travel at 08:15 just as the same roads are getting really congested.
If I can shop at 03:00 but I choose to do so at 08:15, then I’m contributing to the congestion, yet there is little incentive to make me prefer the 03:00 option.
The polarization I mentioned previously was a massive simplification to make a point. There are as many arguments as there are counter arguments, and providing everybody starts discussing the issue, we all win.
As you suggest, nobody has the right to “dictate” how much anyone else travels, but we do have the right to come to a democratically debated consensus on how to fairly tax travel, because it effects everyone. I certainly don’t have all the answers, nobody does, like any other citizen I have experiences which cause me to have concerns and hopes, those are what I’m writing about; they’re my input to the debate.
The petition, and the supporting email, were not trying to promote democratic debate, they were merely trying to win the argument without any discussion; calling on the government to abandon its research. The emails disingenuously suggested that the government was purposefully not advertising the petition, suggesting it was a conspiracy, when in fact, no petitions are advertised. It further stated that if 750,000 signatures were gathered, the government would have to act on the petition, as if it were a referendum.
This is why the lobbyist news reports of the government “back peddling” and the petition system “back-firing” seem so silly. They’re seizing on the factually incorrect emotive content of the campaign, and waving a politically biased flag from the top of a million signatories, most of whom only learned of the petition through misleading spam, whilst ignoring the success of the petition system in encouraging debate.
February 14th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Did I say we all win?
We can’t all win, but we avoid an all-lose scenario.
Losing in this game might involve:
Everything above happened in Portsmouth a couple of years ago when one car crashed on the M275 northbound mid afternoon. Cars were stuck outside the University building for so long (until around 10pm) that I ended up going to the local shops and buying Everton Mints and water, then wandering between the cars telling people what I knew, lending people my phone, and telling them where they could find the Uni toilets.
More congestion will only lead to such situations becoming worse.
February 20th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Hi,
I’m the Tim Lewis who started the petition. Thanks for your kind words regarding my petition and thanks for signing up. I’d like to respond to Mark’s comments as they’re probably echoed by quite a few of the million odd people who signed the opposite petition. I appreciate that Britain generally has a very poor infrastructure for non-car users and I would seek to change this situation. If I’d had enough space in the petition, I’d have advocated using the money from these taxes to fund an infrastructure that would allow people the option of cycling or walking safely and comfortably between every town, city and village in the UK. According to Sustrans (a sustainable transport charity), it would cost around £500 million to create such a nationwide infrastructure. A lot of tax payers money, you might say. However, widening the M25 cost £5 billion.
To respond to the ‘unless he lives in London or another major city he doesn’t have a life’ comment, I have lived in London and in other big cities and I’ll concede that the infrastructure for alternatives to cars tend to be much better in such places. In Swansea, where I used to live, the cycle paths were good enough to allow me to cycle 20 miles a day to work and back quickly (about 15-20 mph average).
Having recently moved to Sussex, I appreciate that not everywhere is so lucky. This is why I’m now becoming active in my new local community to try and advocate the creation of such an infrastructure. This is good for motorists and those who like to use their legs as the fewer cars on the road, the less likely you guys are to be stuck in traffic.
As for my car use, I like to think it’s appropriate: I’ll make a long car journey (30+ miles) maybe once every 2-4 months and hardly ever get in the car for less than 10 mile journeys - and then only if the missus has bent my ear far enough that I’ll acquiesce to using the car. I do almost of my shopping locally, using my bike panniers and trailer or just my arms and a bag or two. I also like to support local shops rather than just shop at big, inaccessible out of town monstrosities. I appreciate that lorries still deliver to local shops as well, thus using fossil fuels but the net savings from individuals not using yet more fuel to travel to out of town stores are real.
February 20th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
What this article failed to mention, was how tracking the whereabouts of every vehicle, at all times, is very 1984 ish. Which is a much better reason to scrap it, than the ones mentioned.