Motoring Taxes - Under Discussion Again

[Border Reiver]

On various internet sites, I've noticed that the old topic of taxing motorists has come up again, with the chancellor keen to recoup some of the money spent on CV19. With the likelihood of many more electric cars being bought, the government is going to be receiving less in fuel duty than before and the subject of taxing us in pence per mile travelled is being discussed again. Some report that we could be charged up to 75p per mile, while others say that, depending on where we live, we could get a "free" first 3,000 to 4,000 miles with any further miles being charge in pence per mile.
I find this very disturbing in so far as it could cost me (at 75p per mile) nearly £100 just for a day's walking in the Yorkshire Dales and maybe around £900 for fuel for a week's holiday in Scotland. This would seriously impact on not only our walking/climbing, but destroy the hospitality / tourism industry. I read that the Labour party suggested this in 2007 and it was dropped after a petition signed by over a million people.
Any thoughts on whether this is likely to happen and how much impact it will have on most outdoor people.

[jmarkb]

There is a lot hiding in the "up to" bit of "up to 75p per mile" - I think that sort of level would likely only be charged for rush hour travel in city centres. Some rough sums - to replace the entire £28 billion of annual fuel duty with pay-per-mile taxes on the 33 million motorists who average 10,000 miles a year would require an average rate of less than 9p per mile. So maybe £5 for an off-peak 100 mile day trip to the country might be closer to the mark.

[Glengavel]

Pay-per-mile rears its ugly head on a regular basis. Beloved of the Westminster (and Holyrood) urbanites, it's basically a tax on the rural population. One wizard wheeze that has been mooted is a basic 'standing charge' - so effectively a road tax AND pay-per-mile - talk about having your cake and eating it.

[ChrisButch]

That this question has to be asked at all illustrates how car-dependent hillwalking has become: and that's an uneasy relationship, for obvious reasons (see concurrent thread on climate change and hillwalking). More transport options for getting to the hills without relying on a private car are as desirable as they're unlikely. One of the biggest losses specific to the Highlands was the virtual disappearance of the postbuses.
The first half of my Munro round, in the mid 1970s-80s, was done entirely without a car - and that was from a base a long way south of the border. Not unusual at the time - but then there were far fewer hillwalkers.

[al78]

The fairest method of taxing per mile is to have the cost proportional to demand, so rammed full roads command a premium. It would then be in line with pretty much all other forms of transport where price is highest when most people want to travel, and many who live in the countryside don't generally do much, if any, local driving on rammed full roads at peak time. As for it being a burden on the rural population, whose choice is it to live in the countryside tens of miles from their jobs and essential facilities and services which necessitate driving maybe hundreds of miles a week?

[simon-b]

That this question has to be asked at all illustrates how car-dependent hillwalking has become: and that's an uneasy relationship, for obvious reasons (see concurrent thread on climate change and hillwalking). More transport options for getting to the hills without relying on a private car are as desirable as they're unlikely. One of the biggest losses specific to the Highlands was the virtual disappearance of the postbuses.
The first half of my Munro round, in the mid 1970s-80s, was done entirely without a car - and that was from a base a long way south of the border. Not unusual at the time - but then there were far fewer hillwalkers.

From the original Northern Fells by A. Wainwright, Binsey page 5: "Bus No. 71 goes past the Lodge" (circa 1961).

From the revised version by Chris Jesty, same page: "buses that pass the Lodge are very infrequent" (circa 2008).

Add to that the fact that the railway serving Keswick closed shortly after Wainwright finished his Lakeland books. He used public transport when preparing his guides and didn't have a car. Chris Jesty had a car and would have struggled to research the revisions without one. It's doubtful that public transport in Lakeland has improved since the 2000s. Definitely a sad loss.

Also, if Wainwright missed the last bus back to Keswick or wherever he'd have had a chance of finding accommodation in the valley where he descended. Nowadays it's more likely to be full (whenever Covid allows it to be open).

[simon-b]

The fairest method of taxing per mile is to have the cost proportional to demand, so rammed full roads command a premium. It would then be in line with pretty much all other forms of transport where price is highest when most people want to travel, and many who live in the countryside don't generally do much, if any, local driving on rammed full roads at peak time. As for it being a burden on the rural population, whose choice is it to live in the countryside tens of miles from their jobs and essential facilities and services which necessitate driving maybe hundreds of miles a week?

That's rather a sweeping generalisation about the rural population, al. There are those whose families have lived there for generations and are not all particularly affluent.

[rockhopper]

As for it being a burden on the rural population, whose choice is it to live in the countryside tens of miles from their jobs and essential facilities and services which necessitate driving maybe hundreds of miles a week?

Like Simon, I'd tend to disagree with you on this point. If you take your argument to its logical extreme, almost all of us would live in urban centres of population leaving only the very rich and sheep (generalisation I know) to rural areas almost akin to a rerun of the highland clearances.

[Border Reiver]

I was raised in a small hamlet that my family had lived in for 300 years. When I left school, work was plentiful in agriculture and forestry, but it became highly mechanised and jobs became fewer. "Affordable" housing for young local people was snapped up by people from the towns and cities who wanted to live the "good life" at weekends and still travel daily the 50+ miles to their city jobs. Young local people couldn't compete in the housing market and mostly had to seek work and housing in the towns although a few remained to work on farms and estates. The "every 2 hourly " bus services of the 1940's, 50's 60's 70's dwindled to once a day.
The countryside has changed a lot, but wherever they came from, the farmers, café and restaurant owners, B&B and hotel owners and self catering owners all rely very heavily on footfall from people like us walkers, tourists and holidaymakers, who all travel by vehicles. Without us, almost all their businesses would go bust and if the government made it unaffordable to travel, then everyone except the very rich and those that can live their entire lives in the city would be in dire straits.

[Caberfeidh]

The "every 2 hourly " bus services of the 1940's, 50's 60's 70's dwindled to once a day.
The countryside has changed a lot, but wherever they came from, the farmers, café and restaurant owners, B&B and hotel owners and self catering owners all rely very heavily on footfall from people like us walkers, tourists and holidaymakers, who all travel by vehicles. Without us, almost all their businesses would go bust and if the government made it unaffordable to travel, then everyone except the very rich and those that can live their entire lives in the city would be in dire straits.

Once a day? You lucky, lucky [expletive deleted]. We used to dream of having a bus once a day... I went into the shop at Roybridge and asked when was the bus to Fort William (all of twelve miles down the road, and the largest town of any size in the area); the girl practically laughed in my face and said there might be one next week ). Though the last part of your post is correct; it would drive businesses bust and leave rural areas desolate, meaning only the very wealthy could travel around the land, that would not stop governments doing so. Labour would do it "for your own good" and the tories would do it for their own greed. This may drive the evolution of the flying car.

[ChrisButch]

If you look at access to mountain areas elsewhere in Europe, car dependence is not universal. In September I spent two weeks bagging in Val Senales, in the Otztal Alps on the Italian/Austrian border. There's an hourly bus service the length of the valley, with stops at the departure points of all the main routes to the surrounding 2500/3200m tops. Having a car would have been completely unnecessary, even a liability. That picture is replicated across large parts of the Alps, particularly in Italy and Switzerland and to a lesser extent Austria, but not France.
So what are the factors which make this possible, in stark contrast to Scotland? In no particular order, I would guess they are the larger permanent population, which although not large is still greater than that of the depopulated Highland glens; cross-subsidising of summer walking access from winter ski industry profits; no privatisation of public transport, coupled with a political will to reduce car dependence and to boost summer tourism to make the local economy less dependent on environmentally damaging skiing; and a local tourist tax.
None of these seem directly applicable to most of the Highlands: so that in the absence of other factors, its hard to be optimistic that anything similar could develop in Scotland. Yet you have only to look at the Lakes and Snowdonia to see the negative consequences of car saturation, and despite a realisation of those consequences by the National Park authorities, the marginal effect of remedial measures. Other than briefly at bank holidays, we've yet to see anything as extreme in the Highlands, although situations like the Northern 500 fiasco suggest that complacency would be unwise.

[Lightfoot2017]

The fairest method of taxing per mile is to have the cost proportional to demand, so rammed full roads command a premium. It would then be in line with pretty much all other forms of transport where price is highest when most people want to travel, and many who live in the countryside don't generally do much, if any, local driving on rammed full roads at peak time. As for it being a burden on the rural population, whose choice is it to live in the countryside tens of miles from their jobs and essential facilities and services which necessitate driving maybe hundreds of miles a week?

Utterly ridiculous argument.

Anyone who thinks the rural population "chooses" to live in the countryside miles away from jobs really doesnt have a clue.

Not everyone who lives in a rural area has upped sticks in the big city and moved there for a quiet rural idyll.

The vast majority of people who live in rural areas do so because thats where they're from. They were born there, their families are there. People in rural areas often cant afford to move to town or cities where property prices are prohibitively expensive.

They're caught in a trap between expensive homes in the towns and cities and not enough affordable housing in rural areas. And not enough employment opportunities either. Rural areas have some of the highest levels of intergenerational households for a reason.

To make such a sweeping statement shows a laughable lack of awareness of the issues and challenges faced by people who "choose" to live in rural areas. The Scottish Rural Health Partnership (SRHP) has done some really interesting research in this area. The issues are far more complex and multi-faceted than people "choosing" to live in rural areas.

The vast majority of people who live in rural areas dont choose to live there. They dont have the option. They have to drive hundreds of miles every week to work and for essential services.

Maybe take a bit more time and thought before making such sweeping generalisations in future.

[Gareth Harper]

On various internet sites, I've noticed that the old topic of taxing motorists has come up again, with the chancellor keen to recoup some of the money spent on CV19. With the likelihood of many more electric cars being bought, the government is going to be receiving less in fuel duty than before and the subject of taxing us in pence per mile travelled is being discussed again.

Do you have a link to these governmental discussions and proposals?

[CharlesT]

The fairest method of taxing per mile is to have the cost proportional to demand, so rammed full roads command a premium. It would then be in line with pretty much all other forms of transport where price is highest when most people want to travel, and many who live in the countryside don't generally do much, if any, local driving on rammed full roads at peak time. As for it being a burden on the rural population, whose choice is it to live in the countryside tens of miles from their jobs and essential facilities and services which necessitate driving maybe hundreds of miles a week?

Utterly ridiculous argument.

Anyone who thinks the rural population "chooses" to live in the countryside miles away from jobs really doesnt have a clue.

Not everyone who lives in a rural area has upped sticks in the big city and moved there for a quiet rural idyll.

The vast majority of people who live in rural areas do so because thats where they're from. They were born there, their families are there. People in rural areas often cant afford to move to town or cities where property prices are prohibitively expensive.

They're caught in a trap between expensive homes in the towns and cities and not enough affordable housing in rural areas. And not enough employment opportunities either. Rural areas have some of the highest levels of intergenerational households for a reason.

To make such a sweeping statement shows a laughable lack of awareness of the issues and challenges faced by people who "choose" to live in rural areas. The Scottish Rural Health Partnership (SRHP) has done some really interesting research in this area. The issues are far more complex and multi-faceted than people "choosing" to live in rural areas.

The vast majority of people who live in rural areas dont choose to live there. They dont have the option. They have to drive hundreds of miles every week to work and for essential services.

Maybe take a bit more time and thought before making such sweeping generalisations in future.

Well said Mr Lightfoot, I couldn't agree more. Such generalisations get us nowhere and show little understanding of the real issues faced by many who don't live in the towns. I live in rural Oxfordshire and it is a relatively wealthy part of the country, yet there are areas where real deprivation exists and public services are not readily available on the doorstep as in towns. The use of a car is all but essential for most households here and adding to their costs, which are generally inflated anyway above those of urbanites, is not an approach I find acceptable.

[Border Reiver]

On various internet sites, I've noticed that the old topic of taxing motorists has come up again, with the chancellor keen to recoup some of the money spent on CV19. With the likelihood of many more electric cars being bought, the government is going to be receiving less in fuel duty than before and the subject of taxing us in pence per mile travelled is being discussed again.

Do you have a link to these governmental discussions and proposals?

Most of the main newspapers ran the story on or around the 16th Nov. Here's a few.
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1360644/aa-president-rishi-sunak-pay-per-mile-road-pricing-uk-tax
https://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/cars/drivers-could-face-pay-mile-charges-government-considers-road-pricing-plug-ps40bn-tax-hole-3037050
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8951969/Rishi-Sunak-considers-plan-charge-motorists-mile-drive-Britains-roads.html
Not necessarily true, but the money has to come from somewhere and motorists have always been an easy target. I think it'll not be as bad as the worst case scenario, but it'll hurt still.