A potential pay per mile fee to replace road tax.

[Bletchleyite]

We may get to the position where EV owners would object to IC drivers not contributing to dealing with the pollution that is caused by their driving.

I doubt that. You don't see petrol Vauxhall Corsa drivers queueing up to protest against diesel Range Rovers. Pretty much all anti-SUV action comes from people who don't drive at all, primarily the pro-cycling community.

 

[LUYMun]

Pretty much all anti-SUV action comes from people who don't drive at all, primarily the pro-cycling community.

I might suggest that the classic car community also find SUVs abhorrent...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I might suggest that the classic car community also find SUVs abhorrent...

I doubt it. Most classic car owners will own a modern car too for daily use, and these days that probably means an SUV.

 

[PTR 444]

I think that would be political suicide

Even so, it would have to be done. Scrapping fuel duty just removes any incentive to switch to electric. The best way to do it is to gently nudge the rate upwards in line with EV ownership, to a point where it will eventually become more economical to switch to electric. There’s no reason why a road pricing system and fuel duty cannot co-exist, especially if the latter raises 90% less in tax revenue than it does now.

 

[The Ham]

Do rail passenger fares cover the costs of policing the rail network? Do rail fares cover the cost of NHS treatment for anyone injured on the railways ? Since the rail network only survives due to huge subsidies, the answer is no.

What about injuries cyclists sustain when they come off their bikes ? Do cyclists cover the cost of their NHS trreatment ?

As others have started, cyclists generally (even if they don't wear any safety equipment) Dave the NHS more than they cost through being much healthier.

The local authorities spent about £2bn on roads maintenance this is dwarfed by taxes raised from motorists.

Here are the transport spending figures for the last five years.

4.5 Transport	32,701	34,420	49,387	44,685	43,578
of which: national roads	4,820	5,574	6,153	5,438	5,660
of which: local roads	5,304	5,619	6,797	5,867	5,468
of which: local public transport	2,484	2,403	7,199	4,983	4,344
of which: railway	18,226	18,285	27,052	25,862	25,942
of which: other transport	1,867	2,539	2,185	2,536	2,163

Source: Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2023 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/public-expenditure-statistical-analyses-2023

Vehicle Excise Duty and Fuel Duty run at about £35bn a year not to mention the other taxes motorists pay such as VAT and Insurance premium tax. So your assertion that motorists aren't paying their way doesn't stand up.

Thanks for those figures. The amount the railways get spent on them is over 50% of the total and nearly five times that spent on road - Ouch !.

A point worth noting, the figures given are typically for ALL rail costs (i.e. what it would cost the government if there was zero ticket income) - although if that's the case here I'm not sure why it's jumped by £9bn for COVID, but if it doesn't then why hasn't it fallen by more than £1.1bn since COVID.

What percentage of the population are we calling "rural"?

The government defines rural as anywhere with a population of under 10,000, which is a little over 15% of the population.

I suspect that there's two perceptions in play on threads in here:

One is that as rural areas make up such a large percentage of the nation that it's a much higher value.

The other is that it's only places with a much smaller population (i.e. somewhere which may or may not have a local shop or pub).

It's possible for rural settlements to have a train station with 2tph and an hourly bus route, two supermarkets, two petrol stations, 5 pubs, a post office (and sorting office), three church buildings, an infant school with 360 children, a junior school with 480 children and three estate agents.

 

[edwin_m]

a junior school with 480 children and three estate agents.

Perhaps a return to school will make them a bit more trustworthy.

 

[LUYMun]

I doubt it. Most classic car owners will own a modern car too for daily use, and these days that probably means an SUV.

I was referring to the "practical classic" genre of owners still using their 70s/80s/90s vehicles as their daily use, many of whom aren't persuaded by the SUV revolution.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Yes of course, quotes here seem to be claiming that IC vehicles carrying fuel tanks containing petrol of diesel carry the stored energy for the vehicles on the road whereas EVs only carry a little energy which might well have provided by burning gas. Soon, renewable energy will be way ahead of CO2 sources and flexible tariffs will result in a significant amount of that energy being from the vehicle owner's PV installation.
We may get to the position where EV owners would object to IC drivers not contributing to dealing with the pollution that is caused by their driving.

How much does a battery weigh ?. Is is lighter if only partially charged for a short journey ?.

How much does an empty fuel tank weigh ?. How much does it weigh partially filled for a short journey ?.

With all this talk of charging an EV but giving the electricity back to the grid during peak use what happens if you have a 75% charged EV and you plug it in at 18:00 for a long evening/overnight drive - could you find at 19:00 when setting off that you only have 25% ?.

I was referring to the "practical classic" genre of owners still using their 70s/80s/90s vehicles as their daily use, many of whom aren't persuaded by the SUV revolution.

Very true. I drive older cars but have no interest in a SUV.

 

[Ediswan]

How much does a battery weigh ?. Is is lighter if only partially charged for a short journey ?.

Yes, but only by a very tiny amount. E=mc^2 applies.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Yes, but only by a very tiny amount. E=mc^2 applies.

I feared as much.

We also have to worry about the hysteresis curve for the battery charge and discharge - there will be waste. But then again if it smoothes out the general UK peaks in electricity demand it could be worthwhile - just as long as it does not leave the car owner high and dry if they want to drive at the end of the period of UK peak electricity demand.

 

[tomuk]

A point worth noting, the figures given are typically for ALL rail costs (i.e. what it would cost the government if there was zero ticket income) - although if that's the case here I'm not sure why it's jumped by £9bn for COVID, but if it doesn't then why hasn't it fallen by more than £1.1bn since COVID.

No the spending would be lower if there were more fares income.. The figures are also total, revenue and capital so the lack of reduction in spend is probably due to HS2 spend ramping up.

The government defines rural as anywhere with a population of under 10,000, which is a little over 15% of the population.

I suspect that there's two perceptions in play on threads in here:

One is that as rural areas make up such a large percentage of the nation that it's a much higher value.

The other is that it's only places with a much smaller population (i.e. somewhere which may or may not have a local shop or pub).

It's possible for rural settlements to have a train station with 2tph and an hourly bus route, two supermarkets, two petrol stations, 5 pubs, a post office (and sorting office), three church buildings, an infant school with 360 children, a junior school with 480 children and three estate agents.

Yes this is the problem what the ONS may technically define as rural varies widely from the public view. Maybe the public are lumping in leafy suburbia with poor public transport provision or more distant town and cities with poor transport links. It isn't only ONS rural residents who require cars to function.

 

[edwin_m]

I feared as much.

We also have to worry about the hysteresis curve for the battery charge and discharge - there will be waste. But then again if it smoothes out the general UK peaks in electricity demand it could be worthwhile - just as long as it does not leave the car owner high and dry if they want to drive at the end of the period of UK peak electricity demand.

Nobody will agree to their cars being used in this way unless the utility makes it worth their while, both in payment or discount and by allowing the user to set up minimum charge levels.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Nobody will agree to their cars being used in this way unless the utility makes it worth their while, both in payment or discount and by allowing the user to set up minimum charge levels.

Yes, I would assume so.

 

[AM9]

With all this talk of charging an EV but giving the electricity back to the grid during peak use what happens if you have a 75% charged EV and you plug it in at 18:00 for a long evening/overnight drive - could you find at 19:00 when setting off that you only have 25% ?.

There's never been any suggestion that energy will be taken by the grid without the car owner's consent. Once again, a specific case has been outlined, itself an extremely rare scenario, but it proves nothing. It is a fact that a large proportion of cars are parked in the early evening and not restarted until the next morning. Quite a number of those cars are connected to a domestic PV system during the day, meaning that with the average daily mileage of around 25 miles, these cars are hardly drawing on their stored energy, (25 miles would probably require between 5kW and 8kW), which is peanuts, even to a small metro use car with their typical 40kW battery.

 

[E27007]

I feared as much.

We also have to worry about the hysteresis curve for the battery charge and discharge - there will be waste. But then again if it smoothes out the general UK peaks in electricity demand it could be worthwhile - just as long as it does not leave the car owner high and dry if they want to drive at the end of the period of UK peak electricity demand.

Concerning your hysteresis effect which I interpret as "power efficiency" of a charge/ discharge cycle of a battery, ie the battery returns less than you put in, I have refurbished and tested several NiMh battery packs for Hybrid cars using smart chargers, the hysteresis was very close to 90% ratio of Discharge/Charge, for an illustration in round figures, if a battery stick was charged from empty to full at 10Amps, the charge cycle would be 40 minutes duration, discharging from full to empty at 10Amps draw would be 36 minutes duration, 36 / 40 equals 90%.
For the majority of the 60 sticks of cells I measured and calculated , the ratio of Discharge / Charge per cycle was 89%

 

[Meerkat]

A GPS pay per mile system would be an awful Big Brother job.
And an absolutely huge government IT scheme - so would be decades late and cost a few decades worth of revenue! The German lorry system was a shambles wasn’t it?
The data created would be vast, and the error complaints an enormous workload.
Can you imagine the cost of deciding the charges? Out to multiple nationwide and local consultations, a general high or low debate, with ongoing arguments about relative costs on every road across the country.
Plus it’s tech, so the bad guys would soon be better at defeating it than the government is at updating it!

I also agree that if the externalities have dramatically reduced then the motorist shouldn’t be used as a cash cow (and how much road damage do cars do relative to the lorries?)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I also agree that if the externalities have dramatically reduced then the motorist shouldn’t be used as a cash cow (and how much road damage do cars do relative to the lorries?)

So how would you replace that lost money? VAT or base rate income tax to 30% perhaps? It's a lot of money that needs to be replaced.

 

[Meerkat]

So how would you replace that lost money? VAT or base rate income tax to 30% perhaps? It's a lot of money that needs to be replaced.

That's a completely separate issue. Why should the motorist keep paying it all if the excuses for its levying have been dramatically reduced?
Income tax would probably be more progressive than fuel tax

 

[The Ham]

That's a completely separate issue. Why should the motorist keep paying it all if the excuses for its levying have been dramatically reduced?
Income tax would probably be more progressive than fuel tax

Whilst the environmental impact will be reduced, other modes of transport are still greener (walking & cycling).

Even if we ignore that for a bit, the sheer amount of space which cars need is a good reason to try and apply some limits to their use.

For example about 1/3 of the land which I own which my house is on its either drive or garage. That doesn't account for the significant amount of highway land between me and my neighbours opposite to provide access to the houses and yet more parking spaces.

OK, that's unusual to be able to have that much parking without encroaching into the two way nature of the road, but for most retail, office, or other commercial development only about 40% of a site will be building the rest will be mostly access and parking.

 

[edwin_m]

That's a completely separate issue. Why should the motorist keep paying it all if the excuses for its levying have been dramatically reduced?
Income tax would probably be more progressive than fuel tax

Advocating the removal of a major source of government income without suggesting an alternative income source or reduction in spending is simply cakeism. The government will still be spending at least as much on on roads, on policing, and on accidents if all vehicles are electric. There might be less need for spending to mitigate pollution, but the government largely isn't doing that today so reducing it (not eliminating - still tyre particulates) doesn't help the public finances.

Fuel tax incentivises people not to drive, or if they do drive it incentivises them to do so in the most economical way, which is generally also the way that most minimises the downsides for others. Removing it creates a massive subsidy from those that drive less or not at all to those who drive more.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Advocating the removal of a major source of government income without suggesting an alternative income source or reduction in spending is simply cakeism. The government will still be spending at least as much on on roads, on policing, and on accidents if all vehicles are electric. There might be less need for spending to mitigate pollution, but the government largely isn't doing that today so reducing it (not eliminating - still tyre particulates) doesn't help the public finances.

Fuel tax incentivises people not to drive, or if they do drive it incentivises them to do so in the most economical way, which is generally also the way that most minimises the downsides for others. Removing it creates a massive subsidy from those that drive less or not at all to those who drive more.

Of course the problem with a fuel tax is that Electric Vehicles use a form of fuel that is used for more essential things like heating ones home.

So along comes road pricing, it is inevitable. For those who think Road Pricing will be too complex and cumbersome - I don't think that will be an issue. Road pricing does not have to be too sophisticated to be better than the current road tax which has nothing to do with actual use. The fuel tax part is fairer but wont work with electricity. But something in the electric car measuring the power usage must be possible ?.

A meter in the electric car/lorry could even count repeated acceleration and braking by just counting what is used as power to accelerate and ignoring what is returned to the battery when slowing down. This would crudely charge more for use of back roads rather than simpler routes along main roads. Especially out of town roads.

Of course there will always be a temptation to make the road pricing more and more complex.

It does appear that a lot of the money raised from road vehicle use gets spent on things beyond what can be attributed to road vehicles.

 

[edwin_m]

Of course the problem with a fuel tax is that Electric Vehicles use a form of fuel that is used for more essential things like heating ones home.

So along comes road pricing, it is inevitable. For those who think Road Pricing will be too complex and cumbersome - I don't think that will be an issue. Road pricing does not have to be too sophisticated to be better than the current road tax which has nothing to do with actual use. The fuel tax part is fairer but wont work with electricity. But something in the electric car measuring the power usage must be possible ?.

A meter in the electric car/lorry could even count repeated acceleration and braking by just counting what is used as power to accelerate and ignoring what is returned to the battery when slowing down. This would crudely charge more for use of back roads rather than simpler routes along main roads. Especially out of town roads.

Of course there will always be a temptation to make the road pricing more and more complex.

It does appear that a lot of the money raised from road vehicle use gets spent on things beyond what can be attributed to road vehicles.

A black box with accelerometers could monitor "heavy footed" driving of EVs without messing with the vehicle's internals, just as some insurers do now. But I think trying to tax based on driving technique is unnecessary for EVs - there's a bit more tyre pollution but not the tailpipe emissions and noise consequences that such driving causes in an IC vehicle.

I remain to be convinced that taxes on driving actually cover the externalities, particularly if the health consequences of pollution are as bad a some claim them to be. At least EVs will reduce (though not fully eliminate - tyres again) that aspect.

 

[Peter Sarf]

A black box with accelerometers could monitor "heavy footed" driving of EVs without messing with the vehicle's internals, just as some insurers do now. But I think trying to tax based on driving technique is unnecessary for EVs - there's a bit more tyre pollution but not the tailpipe emissions and noise consequences that such driving causes in an IC vehicle.

I remain to be convinced that taxes on driving actually cover the externalities, particularly if the health consequences of pollution are as bad a some claim them to be. At least EVs will reduce (though not fully eliminate - tyres again) that aspect.

Your right to include tyre wear - I forgot that.

Actually I think heavy footed driving is worth taxing because I notice heavy footed drivers tend to drive over the speed limit, take more risks and are generally more dangerous - they drive at the engine's limit not gentler. I must admit the separate black box does have the attraction of leaving the cars electronics alone.