[Technology] Pay by the mile road pricing...

[worthingseagull123]

I'm not saying that no-one needs to travel but there will be a lot fewer of them. I do say that very few people (if any) will own a car. Yes, there will be plumbers, sparkies etc who need to travel but they make a small percentage of the workforce.

And (this is pure guesswork on my part) there may not be a need for so many.

Not that long ago, connecting a modem to a PC and setting up an email account was not easy (it took me nearly a day to get my first one running) and now look how quickly we're connected. Twenty years ago, I took my CCNA certification to configure routers within a network, now they're plug and play. We saw that transformation of an industry in a couple of decades, what to stay that plumbing won't be equally commoditised?

There will be plenty of people owning cars. I’ve absolutely no intention of ever stopping driving. I hate cycling and I wouldn’t use a bus if it was free.

Plenty of people will think the same and will want to own a car.

 

[Bodian]

This thread really does read like something the manufacturers of horse-drawn carriages would have been having around 1900

What was the tax being discussed in those days ? Hay tax perhaps ?

Turnpike roads at a guess.

Pedant alert - Turnpike Roads were not a tax as such, but privatisation. Turnpike Trusts were private trusts, and all the money raised from the travellers went to repair the road, with a bit of profit for the trustees. But they wouldn't have been discussing Turnpike Roads in around 1900, as they were in decline ever since the coming of the railways, with many Trusts being wound up and the roads handed over to local councils - finally being done away with under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1888, which made the main roads the responsibility of the county/borough councils.

Sorry - it's the day job!

 

[Gwylan]

There will be plenty of people owning cars. I’ve absolutely no intention of ever stopping driving. I hate cycling and I wouldn’t use a bus if it was free.

Plenty of people will think the same and will want to own a car.

I quite confidently predict that by 2050, fewer than 1 percent of the population will own a car. And the number of car owners will be a small minority by 2040, maybe 10 percent.

 

[Mr Putdown]

Pedant alert - Turnpike Roads were not a tax as such, but privatisation. Turnpike Trusts were private trusts, and all the money raised from the travellers went to repair the road, with a bit of profit for the trustees. But they wouldn't have been discussing Turnpike Roads in around 1900, as they were in decline ever since the coming of the railways, with many Trusts being wound up and the roads handed over to local councils - finally being done away with under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1888, which made the main roads the responsibility of the county/borough councils.

Sorry - it's the day job!

Time wise you’re absolutely right, but In my defence I was responding to a post suggesting a tax on hay.

 

[Doonhamer7]

Pedant alert - Turnpike Roads were not a tax as such, but privatisation. Turnpike Trusts were private trusts, and all the money raised from the travellers went to repair the road, with a bit of profit for the trustees. But they wouldn't have been discussing Turnpike Roads in around 1900, as they were in decline ever since the coming of the railways, with many Trusts being wound up and the roads handed over to local councils - finally being done away with under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1888, which made the main roads the responsibility of the county/borough councils.

Sorry - it's the day job!

But most major highways are now hidden ‘turnpikes’ based on shadow tolls, they are all ‘owned’ by PFI holders (mainly banks but still some construction companies hold some parts)

 

[worthingseagull123]

I quite confidently predict that by 2050, fewer than 1 percent of the population will own a car. And the number of car owners will be a small minority by 2040, maybe 10 percent.

Ok. We’ll talk in 20 years and then both agree I was right.

 

[Gwylan]

Ok. We’ll talk in 20 years and then both agree I was right.

I wish I had a fiver for every business that confidently told me 10 to 12 years they would never adopt cloud and now use it. I wouldn't have to work for a while.

I won't be around to see the full extent of the shift but all the trends are pointing to the death of the private vehicle

 

[beorhthelm]

I quite confidently predict that by 2050, fewer than 1 percent of the population will own a car. And the number of car owners will be a small minority by 2040, maybe 10 percent.

quite unlikely. i understand the case for that, fleets of self driving cars owned by large large corp and renting time. its efficient and may well happen. however we saw early car adoption was on affluence, leisure, moving to convenience. those reasons to own a vehicle will remain. it might be ok to book a google car every morning for work, but nothing will beat just walking out and getting into your car on a whim to go into town, visit family, etc. one car per household, reducing multiple car ownership, would be more likely scenario.

 

[zefarelly]

You aren't wrong. I walked over a mile this morning to support my local farm shop. I bought grapes and blueberries from Peru. I keep meaning to buy seasonal British produce, but I can't quite get in the rhythm of it and get tempted by foreign delights like satsumas and bananas.

It's not easy, Whilst meat and fish in our local Co-Op isn't great, the fruit and veg is as local as possible, I've swerved bluberries for blackberries recently, raspberries and stawberries still localish, Netherlands at worst. I've notice some veg, and fresh Basil/tomatos actually from Sussex. . .

Satsumas and bananas is always going to be the tough one.

 

[zefarelly]

What was the tax being discussed in those days ? Hay tax perhaps ?

look up the price of red flags in 1865 . . . the The Locomotive Act didn't put people off.

 

[zefarelly]

I quite confidently predict that by 2050, fewer than 1 percent of the population will own a car. And the number of car owners will be a small minority by 2040, maybe 10 percent.

I've got 5 scooters, 4 cars, 3 push bikes. I hope I live until 2050 . . . . all of the scooters and at least 3 of the cars will still be here, they're all between 50 & 60 years old already.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

If motorists are no longer polluting the environment why should they continue to pay a regressive tax ?

You are kidding? Do you know how much energy and materials go into producing a car and the electricity to run it? The infrastructure they run on?

No longer polluting? Look again.

 

[zefarelly]

Tax free classic cars are an interesting concept I'm suprised more people haven't jumped on. although very old classics can get tiresome to drive mid winter. THere's a good argument a healthy 55 year old car is a far greener proposition than anything built in the last 25 years.

 

[Gwylan]

quite unlikely. i understand the case for that, fleets of self driving cars owned by large large corp and renting time. its efficient and may well happen. however we saw early car adoption was on affluence, leisure, moving to convenience. those reasons to own a vehicle will remain. it might be ok to book a google car every morning for work, but nothing will beat just walking out and getting into your car on a whim to go into town, visit family, etc. one car per household, reducing multiple car ownership, would be more likely scenario.

We shall see but just look at the trends. There was a survey in the US a couple of years ago that showed only a quarter of 16-year-olds had a driving licence (down from half about 20 years previously) ... and that's before the arrival of Uber. And that's in car-orientated US, I imagine the figures for UK 17-year-olds are even more sobering.

Ally these trends to the way that we're moving away from a one-payment covers all model. Cloud computing has changed the way we pay for IT. We have water meters now to pay for what we use. We're seeing more PPV on TV. Surveys reveal that we only use our cars for about 5% of our time (and some of that time would be spent looking for a parking space) - if we were paying for a TV channel that we watched so little, we'd scrap it.

And all of this is before self-driving cars: the biggest cost of Uber is the driver. If you could make an Uber journey for, say, a third of the cost, my guess is that usage would increase dramatically. Would you buy a car, keep it parked for most of the time when you could make a journey for perhaps a fraction more (but no tax, fuel or parking costs to consider)?

I don't know what the world will look like in 20 years time but I know what way the trends are going. There are more restrictions on using cars in city centres. You can bet that when self-driving cars come in, insurance costs for existing drivers will go through the roof and I'm willing to bet that parking would become exorbitant.

look up the price of red flags in 1865 . . . the The Locomotive Act didn't put people off.

That's precisely my point though. People didn't trust railways, they didn't trust electricity, they didn't trust cars - lots of people preferred the old ways and didn't want to change ... but change they did.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

You are kidding? Do you know how much energy and materials go into producing a car and the electricity to run it? The infrastructure they run on?

No longer polluting? Look again.

As I’ve already mentioned that applies to all consumer goods and infrastructure projects which is why the tax to pay for it should be applied across the entire economy rather than selectively on car drivers. This can be done through income tax.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

We shall see but just look at the trends. There was a survey in the US a couple of years ago that showed only a quarter of 16-year-olds had a driving licence (down from half about 20 years previously) ... and that's before the arrival of Uber. And that's in car-orientated US, I imagine the figures for UK 17-year-olds are even more sobering.

Ally these trends to the way that we're moving away from a one-payment covers all model. Cloud computing has changed the way we pay for IT. We have water meters now to pay for what we use. We're seeing more PPV on TV. Surveys reveal that we only use our cars for about 5% of our time (and some of that time would be spent looking for a parking space) - if we were paying for a TV channel that we watched so little, we'd scrap it.

And all of this is before self-driving cars: the biggest cost of Uber is the driver. If you could make an Uber journey for, say, a third of the cost, my guess is that usage would increase dramatically. Would you buy a car, keep it parked for most of the time when you could make a journey for perhaps a fraction more (but no tax, fuel or parking costs to consider)?

I don't know what the world will look like in 20 years time but I know what way the trends are going. There are more restrictions on using cars in city centres. You can bet that when self-driving cars come in, insurance costs for existing drivers will go through the roof and I'm willing to bet that parking would become exorbitant.





That's precisely my point though. People didn't trust railways, they didn't trust electricity, they didn't trust cars - lots of people preferred the old ways and didn't want to change ... but change they did.

It’s not change that is the problem, it’s the lack of alternatives. All suggestions including yours only work in cities. How is the school in an undesirable small town going to find staff if all suitably qualified people will not live there ? It’s just one of many examples that I mention purely because it is drawn from my own life. Writing these issues off as resistance to change is quite wide of the mark.

 

[strings]

I don't know what the world will look like in 20 years time but I know what way the trends are going. There are more restrictions on using cars in city centres. You can bet that when self-driving cars come in, insurance costs for existing drivers will go through the roof and I'm willing to bet that parking would become exorbitant.

Parking is a valid discussion here too... I read an article a few years ago (and I haven't got time to search for it right now, but may try later) that looked at the cost of parking in a town/city centre versus the rental cost of land in that same town/city. It found that in many cases the cheapest way per square foot to hire land, is to pay for a parking space. Given that parking spaces were available for less than the 'going rate' in terms of the value of the land, there is an argument to be made that councils are already subsidising parking by not making drivers pay the true value of the land they are using.

I try to post this without opinion - it is an issue I don't have strong feelings on, but I thought a valid point given the discussion is around paying to use the roads.

 

[Dave the OAP]

What does it matter by 2030 (maybe 2035) know one will own a car - we’ll all be getting an Uber or whatever replaces it (think laterally = Amazon or Google) and it has huge tax implications.
1. Car charging will end up being variable - want to use the m25 between 8-9am - kerching! Want to use rural road in highlands at midnight - zilch
2. Councils make revenue from car parks / parking tickets - this revenue will be lost. I heard New York City makes $600-700m per year in car parking fines, which is used to pay for other services.
3. As no one owns a car and there all electric - there will be no petrol stations, tire centres, garages as they will all be done at warehouse type facilities - owned by car manufacturer and done during non-peak hours. This means no rates/taxes for council on all these SME business. I suppose no different to all the farriers / blacksmiths / dung collectors that disappeared between 1910 and 1920
4. Your office will be say at most 1/2 the size it is at present and 30% of land space for offices in the Uk is for car parking - not needed - so less rates/taxes
5. So although central govt has an issue to deal with local govt has an even bigger one which I expect they haven’t even thought about.
6. So to replace this revenue tax will have to be either on all our wages (vote loser), vat (20% already), business profits (which remember in most case is our pension pots), stealth tax (have another go at all our pensions) or massive sin tax (booze, fags, legalised recreational drugs, all food that’s enjoyable (fat/sugar tax))

One way or another we’ve all got to pay tax to run a functioning society

Very interesting comment of the radio yesterday ( actually from a Green Party member ) that suggested if car fuel duty and car tax was removed due to petrol/ diesel cars being banned ( of course this only applies to new vehicles and there will still be internal combustion vehicles on the road until they retire them) then there will be such a big hole in the public finances that it will have a serious look on how the government raises taxes in future. 28 billion is currently raised, but actually over 3 billion less now as journeys drop.

 

[jakarta]

Would happily ditch my car except I need it to visit Client Sites with all my work equipment at the present moment.

As soon as I quit my Consultancy work it will get binned and we will just use Mrs Jakarta's car (although as a 2 seater Sports Car visits to local waste tip to do any recycling will be an issue!).

Will be happy to go back to my CBR600 which does far too few miles at present. As a 1997 model it will soon become Road Tax exempt which is a fascinating concept but clearly proves how old I am getting...

I'll likely be gone by 2030 so I'm afraid what happens after that is of no real interest!

 

[Gwylan]

It’s not change that is the problem, it’s the lack of alternatives. All suggestions including yours only work in cities. How is the school in an undesirable small town going to find staff if all suitably qualified people will not live there ? It’s just one of many examples that I mention purely because it is drawn from my own life. Writing these issues off as resistance to change is quite wide of the mark.

For a start, you're assuming that somewhere will stay "undesirable" permanently. It may well be that your undesirable town is prime real estate. I saw a survey this week that said that Crawley is one of the best places to live in the country - that's a far cry from its reputation when I was young. I have experience of this: I moved to Balham in the mid-80s when its claim to fame was the most crime-ridden station on the Underground - it was cheap though. A few years ago, I saw a flat in my old block for sale at just under a million quid, it's become a very 'in' area.

Secondly, we may see more inducements for teachers to live nearer schools so they're part of the community.

Finally, as I posted earlier, we'll start seeing road price differentials where hiring a self-drive car in urban areas may would cost a fraction of the urban charge.

That's always assuming that schools continue to exist and kids aren't taught at home by remote link, of course.