In the midst of a recession? Really?

Take a break from playing the game and chat here about real-world transportation issues!

Moderator: General Forums Moderators

User avatar
orudge
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 25129
Joined: 26 Jan 2001 20:18
Skype: orudge
Location: Banchory, UK
Contact:

Re: In the midst of a recession? Really?

Post by orudge »

doktorhonig wrote:I have to admit that I do not know the situation in the UK that well, but studies in Austria have revealed that the "poor motorist paying for everyone" is nothing more than a fairytale.
It's definitely the case in the UK - this graph shows how much of the price of petrol is tax - over 60%, the highest in Europe. VAT accounts for a relatively small amount of that. Now, as I said before, money is of course not ring-fenced in the treasury, since some things do of course cost lots of money without giving much back (the NHS, for instance). If we redirected all money earned from fuel tax to road construction and the like, we could have the best roads in the world, but other areas would suffer. But at the same time, if we didn't spend anything on roads, they'd crumble, and that *would* damage the economy, since just about everything you and I ever use is delivered by road. Rail is not efficient for door-to-door delivery (which, for the most part, includes distribution unit to shop-type delivery).
Rubidium
OpenTTD Developer
OpenTTD Developer
Posts: 3815
Joined: 09 Feb 2006 19:15

Re: In the midst of a recession? Really?

Post by Rubidium »

orudge wrote:It's definitely the case in the UK - this graph shows how much of the price of petrol is tax - over 60%, the highest in Europe.
I'm hereby arguing that the UK does not have the highest petrol prices in the EU. Just take a look at this lovely page about fuel prices. Unleaded and super unleaded are more expensive in the Netherlands (by 12 euro cent). I'm not arguing that the fuel prices in the Netherlands are higher as diesel costs 22 euro cent less than in the UK and LPG is 5 euro cent more expensive in the UK.

The page also shows that for (normal) unleaded petrol you pay 88 euro cents of taxes and duty a liter compared to 97 euro cents in the Netherlands.
michael blunck
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 5948
Joined: 27 Apr 2005 07:09
Contact:

Re: In the midst of a recession? Really?

Post by michael blunck »

orudge wrote: Motorists actually pay in far more than they "receive" in terms of roads funding in the UK - but, of course, it's not ring-fenced.
Just show me one single country with ring-fenced tax.

regards
Michael
Image
User avatar
orudge
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 25129
Joined: 26 Jan 2001 20:18
Skype: orudge
Location: Banchory, UK
Contact:

Re: In the midst of a recession? Really?

Post by orudge »

Rubidium wrote:I'm hereby arguing that the UK does not have the highest petrol prices in the EU. Just take a look at this lovely page about fuel prices
Ah, perhaps that's changed since the statistics I'd seen came out. £1.25/litre for unleaded is certainly a fair bit more expensive than we pay in the UK!
michael blunck wrote:Just show me one single country with ring-fenced tax.
That's the thing, I'm not advocating it. I'm stating that motorists pay in far more than they take out, and, if you go back to the original posts on it, that they're certainly not "free" to use.
michael blunck
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 5948
Joined: 27 Apr 2005 07:09
Contact:

Re: In the midst of a recession? Really?

Post by michael blunck »

orudge wrote:
Rubidium wrote:
orudge wrote: this graph shows how much of the price of petrol is tax - over 60%, the highest in Europe.
I'm hereby arguing that the UK does not have the highest petrol prices in the EU. Just take a look at this lovely page about fuel prices
Ah, perhaps that's changed since the statistics I'd seen came out. £1.25/litre for unleaded is certainly a fair bit more expensive than we pay in the UK!
Well, you can´t compare both tables simply because they give different numbers: the first one gives the amount of tax (in pence) per litre, the second one gives the absolute price in Euro per litre.

orudge wrote:I'm stating that motorists pay in far more than they take out
Well, there are more taxes where you pay far more than you´ll take out ... that´s the core of the thing.

regards
Michael
Image
User avatar
Dave
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 17243
Joined: 26 Dec 2005 20:19
Location: North London

Re: In the midst of a recession? Really?

Post by Dave »

orudge wrote:
michael blunck wrote:Just show me one single country with ring-fenced tax.
That's the thing, I'm not advocating it. I'm stating that motorists pay in far more than they take out, and, if you go back to the original posts on it, that they're certainly not "free" to use.
I agree with Michael - I pay tax for the NHS. I certainly don't get that back as I never get ill. I pay tax for education - no longer using that.

Not sure what you're getting at in termrs of paying in far more than they get out. What exactly do you expect to get out? Slash the road budget and direct it all towards encouraging companies to use rail to transport their goods - that way you lower climate change and the amount you have to spend on road maintenance.
Official TT-Dave Fan Club

Dave's Screenshot Thread! - Albion: A fictional Britain
Flickr


Why be a song when you can be a symphony? r is a...
User avatar
orudge
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 25129
Joined: 26 Jan 2001 20:18
Skype: orudge
Location: Banchory, UK
Contact:

Re: In the midst of a recession? Really?

Post by orudge »

Dave Worley wrote:I agree with Michael
There's nothing to agree with, surely? Both I and he were just stating facts. The point was that doktorhonig originally said that roads were free to use. I pointed out that, while there is not a "pay-per-use" system per se on roads, motorists pay in a huge amount of money which goes towards roads, and as such, they are definitely not free. The fact that motorists pay in a surplus (i.e., roads are, in fact, profitable) was just backing up the point. Obviously, if everything had to funded sorely from the users of those things, then the entire welfare state and much more wouldn't exist. I was not advocating that at all, so I'm not really sure why you both think I was. I was simply pointing out facts.
Dave Worley wrote:Slash the road budget and direct it all towards encouraging companies to use rail to transport their goods - that way you lower climate change and the amount you have to spend on road maintenance.
Well, that's a different topic entirely now, and the fact is, there will always be a significant demand for road transport, as rail is very limited in where it actually goes. It would end up being significantly less efficient (in terms of time, and ultimately money) for companies to send their goods from, say, their main distribution centre on half a dozen trains to six different railway stations, then have to lorries pick up the goods from those stations to deliver by road. Much easier just to send six lorries from the original distribution centre, ultimately saving time and manpower. Less efficient in terms of fuel, perhaps, and worse for the environment, probably, but business is built on efficiency.

That's not to say that in places where it is practical, building railway yards or whatnot on industrial estates and encouraging large-scale distribution (such as that done by the supermarkets) would be a bad thing - indeed, it should be encouraged. But there'll still be a hell of a lot of traffic that cannot be easily placed on the rails. One of the main reasons for building motorways in the first place was to create an efficient channel for freight distribution.
User avatar
doktorhonig
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 1104
Joined: 22 Aug 2006 11:03
Location: Austria
Contact:

Re: In the midst of a recession? Really?

Post by doktorhonig »

orudge wrote:There's nothing to agree with, surely? Both I and he were just stating facts. The point was that doktorhonig originally said that roads were free to use. I pointed out that, while there is not a "pay-per-use" system per se on roads, motorists pay in a huge amount of money which goes towards roads, and as such, they are definitely not free.
I think we all agree on the fact, that roads are not free, but free to use.
orudge wrote:The fact that motorists pay in a surplus (i.e., roads are, in fact, profitable) was just backing up the point. Obviously, if everything had to funded sorely from the users of those things, then the entire welfare state and much more wouldn't exist. I was not advocating that at all, so I'm not really sure why you both think I was. I was simply pointing out facts.
If the welfare state provides "free to use" roads, why not provide "free to use" rail? Does it "sound strange" because you actually get to use the vehicle for free and not just the thingy that sticks to the ground?
I think, we pay taxes for lots of things that are relatively useless compared to travelling.
User avatar
John
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 3402
Joined: 05 May 2003 18:44
Location: Cotswolds, UK
Contact:

Re: In the midst of a recession? Really?

Post by John »

doktorhonig wrote:
orudge wrote:There's nothing to agree with, surely? Both I and he were just stating facts. The point was that doktorhonig originally said that roads were free to use. I pointed out that, while there is not a "pay-per-use" system per se on roads, motorists pay in a huge amount of money which goes towards roads, and as such, they are definitely not free.
I think we all agree on the fact, that roads are not free, but free to use.
No - we are saying roads are definitely not 'free to use'.

Just because you don't pay up front, doesn't mean there isn't a charge.

Remember, you have to pay road tax, petrol tax, VAT on petrol and VAT on insurance before you can use the road. Also add to that the VAT on new vehicles and vehicle MOTs and VAT on any replacement parts (new tyres etc.) that your car needs by law.


Of course if you only walk along the road and footpaths, then you're only paying VAT on everything you're wearing. Although part of the council tax bill goes towards maintaining footpaths, so you pay through that as well...
michael blunck
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 5948
Joined: 27 Apr 2005 07:09
Contact:

Re: In the midst of a recession? Really?

Post by michael blunck »

Ah! This is all moot ...
John wrote:
orudge wrote: [...] motorists pay in a huge amount of money which goes towards roads, and as such, they are definitely not free.
Of course if you only walk along the road and footpaths, then you're only paying VAT on everything you're wearing. Although part of the council tax bill goes towards maintaining footpaths, so you pay through that as well...
Even the non-motorist pays for roads, kind of "cross-subsidisation".

regards
Michael
Image
andel
Retired Moderator
Retired Moderator
Posts: 7260
Joined: 07 May 2005 20:20
Location: Somewhere over the spandex sea
Contact:

Re: In the midst of a recession? Really?

Post by andel »

OK, I locked it so I can explain how concessionary travel works in the uk

So:

In the ENCTS - English National Concessionary Travel Scheme - we pay a proportion of the revenue lost if the [current] scheme hadn't existed. The basis of reimbursing the revenue is laid down in the Concessionary Travel element of the Transport Act 1985, 2000 and Concessionary Travel Act 2007 that:
a transport operator [be] no better nor no worse off than if the scheme hadn't have existed.
Previous to the scheme being in existance, there was a half-fare scheme in existance. Because that scheme was half-fare, for a £2 fare, a bus would take £1. However, because that scheme exists, we pay a proportion of the fare. How is this calculated?

We initially negotiate with Transport Operators, but I'll come to that in a minute.

We have something called an Average Fare - calculated on the average fare per route based on the typical fare paid, the number traveling etc. We can use the RAT - Reimbursement Analysis Tool - to calculate the average fare. This is available here.

So - having the average fare gives us a basis for negotiations. Why negotiate? Travel Concession Authorities (TCAs) who are about to hand over a couple of million a year, sometimes more, to a set of transport operators, you want to get a good deal.

Journeys, as previously mentioned, are calculated per route. But Routes have different categories - Urban, Inter-Urban, Rural, Urban-Rural, Specialist... varying on the area they cover based on the number of inhabitants.

Using these, we pay a percentage of that £1 of the half fare if the scheme hadn't existed to the transport operator.

But - hang on - what about if the off-peak first bus gets too full?

We have to pay what is called an "additional capacity claim" - where the bus is so full the operator needs to put on a bigger bus - and that cost of a bigger bus means that the local authority must pay for that bus. It can mean big bucks if you've not got your scheme right.

OK - what about the scheme itself? It's statutory is 09:30 to 23:00 M-F, All Sat and Sun, Bank Holidays. But some TCAs provide outside of that. Does this cost more? Yes, it does. Does it cost a lot more? In the grand scheme of it - no, it doesn't - perhaps even less than 1% in some cases. There are other elements - like on the disabled persons pass the "Companion Pass" element, where some disabled people who cannot travel alone can have a companion travel for free.

So - thats the scheme. Want to know my opinion? People using the bus means that they're going places like hospital appointments, usually not in a taxi at NHS expense like it was the case in 2003, or they're going out, which means they're not in their drs cloggin up the place, or they're going shopping on the bus instead of driving and causing congestion... and bus operators have buses earning money, not empty because fewer people are travelling.

Is it right that older persons should travel free...? probably not for some of the richer people... but disabled people, for whom the motability money covers very little of the travel costs you normally - is it right the scheme is taken from them? If you asked me "is it right they should pay nothing" I would like to point out that this scheme means that more disabled people go out instead of staying in their homes as recluses - documented fact. Ask me now - is it worth the price we pay as UK tax payers to ensure that more disabled and older persons have a better quality of life, as well as supporting employment for bus drivers? I personally don't mind. I think the scheme has done more than people give it credit for.

What's all of this worth? I dunno, but I suggest before you try to take apart half of my reply, please bear in mind my vested interests, as a pass holder and someone who has an indepth knowledge of the schemes.

The original person, in the post? Who wants free train travel? Pushing his luck a lot. TfL Freedom scheme costs a lot per year... stupid amounts... is it feasable? Not really. Sorry dude.
Andel
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this post are not necessarily those of Andel, who will do and say almost anything to get the attention he craves.
[/size]
User avatar
Kevo00
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 5646
Joined: 07 Feb 2004 01:51
Location: East Coast MainLine

Re: In the midst of a recession? Really?

Post by Kevo00 »

Ok...so if I understood correctly, the scheme pays an approximated half fare for every journey undertaken by a qualifying person, correct?

I agree that this is preferable to taking a taxi at NHS expense. Is there any evidence that people will take multiple buses when necessary using this pass? Or is there a point at which private transport is still preferable? Here in Milton Keynes there have been real arguments after they changed the bus routes so that people who previously could can't get buses to hospital or Stony Stratford without going into MK Central, meaning people have driven or got taxis instead.

To go back to the idea of introducing it for rail, I guess the problem is that a half price bus journey mostly costs the council £0.70-1.50ish. On rail, that's prboably going to go up to £2-3, depending on how considerable usage is. On routes into London it could easily be £5-10. Clearly it would provide extra income for operators, but would also potentially be quite expensive to implement for the DfT.

On this subject, I once remember hearing the former MD of Go-Ahead Northern describe the old National Bus Company and Muncipal/PTE concessionary transport schemes as a Marxist wealth transfer. I would broadly agree that local bus or maybe even rail is a good idea but perhaps a pensioner getting a Kings Cross - Inverness train for free is a wealth transfer too far.
andel
Retired Moderator
Retired Moderator
Posts: 7260
Joined: 07 May 2005 20:20
Location: Somewhere over the spandex sea
Contact:

Re: In the midst of a recession? Really?

Post by andel »

Kevo00 wrote:Ok...so if I understood correctly, the scheme pays an approximated half fare for every journey undertaken by a qualifying person, correct?
It's about that... imagine its about 65 pence in the pound, including the generation factor which I did not whittle on about for the sake of sanity.
I agree that this is preferable to taking a taxi at NHS expense. Is there any evidence that people will take multiple buses when necessary using this pass? Or is there a point at which private transport is still preferable? Here in Milton Keynes there have been real arguments after they changed the bus routes so that people who previously could can't get buses to hospital or Stony Stratford without going into MK Central, meaning people have driven or got taxis instead.
Yes - both to Hospitals and Doctors, through the figures of the decrease in Non-emergancy transport/hospital car service and surveys. Good transport networks and planning also demonstrates this, as well as working with transport operators.
To go back to the idea of introducing it for rail, I guess the problem is that a half price bus journey mostly costs the council £0.70-1.50ish. On rail, that's prboably going to go up to £2-3, depending on how considerable usage is. On routes into London it could easily be £5-10. Clearly it would provide extra income for operators, but would also potentially be quite expensive to implement for the DfT.
Half price - on the half fare scheme I don't think there was any local government topping up of that half fare... we now pay them to ensure they are no better or no worse off than if the current scheme hadn't have existed.
Andel
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this post are not necessarily those of Andel, who will do and say almost anything to get the attention he craves.
[/size]
User avatar
Kevo00
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 5646
Joined: 07 Feb 2004 01:51
Location: East Coast MainLine

Re: In the midst of a recession? Really?

Post by Kevo00 »


Half price - on the half fare scheme I don't think there was any local government topping up of that half fare... we now pay them to ensure they are no better or no worse off than if the current scheme hadn't have existed.
So does that mean for rail the full fare would have to be paid, because there wasn't a half price scheme for rail?
User avatar
Chris
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 1985
Joined: 05 Oct 2009 16:36
Location: Leeds, UK

Re: In the midst of a recession? Really?

Post by Chris »

orudge wrote:It does seem to me though that all of this privatisation over the past 20 years or so, in both roads and rail, has resulted in many more costs for "middle-men". All these for-profit companies need to earn their profit somehow, and that's generally going to be by increasing costs to the taxpayer. Privatisation is supposedly meant to bring competition, but the UK rail franchises, for instance, have pretty much no competition (with a few exceptions), and fares keep rising.
The thing is, the UKs railways can't be very competitive, as not many routes are duplicated, particuarly because the railways were nationalized, and so duplicated routes were seen as (rightly at the time) wasteful. At the moment, there is competiton between Chiltern, Virgin and London Midland between London and Birmingham, as well as the three open access operators, however, without the Beeching Axe, then there would be more competiton, in particular the GCR. Basically in my opinion, they should sell off the infrastructure to private companies for them to operate instead of frachising, as this doesn't really encourage competiton.
Screenshots

Formerly Class 165
User avatar
Geo Ghost
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6550
Joined: 25 Oct 2004 10:06
Location: Hertfordshire
Contact:

Re: In the midst of a recession? Really?

Post by Geo Ghost »

One day I'll stop hitting the refresh button instead of Spell check...
JamieLei wrote:A Kent pensioner wants free nationwide train travel for the over 60s.
I personally think 2 thirds off or 3 quarters off travel would work better.
Free travel on buses is alright in my opinion as most buses journeys are only short distance across town or between towns.

Where as trains are more expensive and go all over the country between towns, cities, counties etc.
Tha's my opinion :wink:
User avatar
doktorhonig
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 1104
Joined: 22 Aug 2006 11:03
Location: Austria
Contact:

Re: In the midst of a recession? Really?

Post by doktorhonig »

John wrote:No - we are saying roads are definitely not 'free to use'.
The taxes you pay don't scale with the amount you use roads. You can buy a car and don't use it. You can ride your bike and don't pay taxes for using the road. (Yes you still pay VAT, but VAT is one of the most general taxes we have, and VAT pays for everything, like salaries for politicians, policemen, mowing the lawn in parks, or sending the army to afghanistan)
John wrote:Remember, you have to pay road tax, petrol tax, VAT on petrol and VAT on insurance before you can use the road. Also add to that the VAT on new vehicles and vehicle MOTs and VAT on any replacement parts (new tyres etc.) that your car needs by law.
If you really add the VAT to road-specific taxes, then I would expect free internet access, since I paid a lot of VAT when buying a computer. Computer users pay in much more than they get out, you know? Counting only road tax and petrol tax would be ok - but I doubt you would be able to finance all the roads in a country with those.
John wrote:Although part of the council tax bill goes towards maintaining footpaths, so you pay through that as well...
Again, you don't have to pay for using it. If I go to the UK and use your footpaths, I wouldn't pay, for example. These are general taxes paid by people in your country and they are used to maintain infrastructure in your country. And rail is infrastructure just like roads, television, internet, parks and the police.
User avatar
Ploes
President
President
Posts: 956
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 16:04
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: In the midst of a recession? Really?

Post by Ploes »

Rubidium wrote:I'm not arguing that the fuel prices in the Netherlands are higher as diesel costs 22 euro cent less than in the UK
Just rember, Diesel passenger cars pay something eye watering like €1000 a year in road tax to off set for that.
Its apparently something to with the haulage industry.
andel
Retired Moderator
Retired Moderator
Posts: 7260
Joined: 07 May 2005 20:20
Location: Somewhere over the spandex sea
Contact:

Re: In the midst of a recession? Really?

Post by andel »

Kevo00 wrote:

Half price - on the half fare scheme I don't think there was any local government topping up of that half fare... we now pay them to ensure they are no better or no worse off than if the current scheme hadn't have existed.
So does that mean for rail the full fare would have to be paid, because there wasn't a half price scheme for rail?
well, a scheme exists in that older persons get 34% off. So it would probably be based on the average fare for 66%.

But you can bet the law would change to become 10% of the fare.... !
Andel
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed in this post are not necessarily those of Andel, who will do and say almost anything to get the attention he craves.
[/size]
Kogut
Tycoon
Tycoon
Posts: 2493
Joined: 26 Aug 2009 06:33
Location: Poland

Re: In the midst of a recession? Really?

Post by Kogut »

We all have huge debts, but this isn't about money, it's about redistributing resources.
It is NOT about money? And that debts are results of numerous stupid projects like dotating shipyards, mines, farmers, stupid "innovative" projects, factories of big companies, early retirement age and free travel.
Correct me If I am wrong - PM me if my English is bad
AIAI - AI for OpenTTD
Post Reply

Return to “Real-World Transport Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests