Britain driven on to roads by falling cost of motoring
Attempts to cut emissions undermined by higher price of using public transport
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
Labour's efforts to slash carbon emissions are being undermined by the simple but remarkable fact that the cost of motoring has fallen while the cost of public transport has risen since the party came to power. Official figures, seen by The Independent, show that the cost of motoring has fallen by 13 per cent in real terms since 1997, while bus and coach fares have increased by 17 per cent above inflation. Rail fares have risen by 7 per cent extra above inflation.
The findings come despite the Government's pledge of cutting carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2020.
Drivers often feel that they have been unfairly targeted by the Treasury, with the duty on petrol having increased dramatically since 1997. But the rises in the costs of running a car have been more than offset by the falling cost of buying and maintaining a car in real terms. For example, a Ford Fiesta with a 1.25-litre engine cost £9,165 when Labour came to power. Consumers can buy a similar model 12 years later for £9,995, making it much cheaper once inflation is factored in. The cost of maintenance has also fallen sharply as cars have become more reliable.
Meanwhile, the real cost of public transport continues to increase above the rate of inflation. Rail users were hit with fresh fare rises this year, despite the recession. Regulated fares, including season tickets and off-peak services, increased by an average of 6 per cent. Unregulated fares, which include advance purchase tickets, rose by an even higher average of 7 per cent. Those average increases hide dramatic fare increases for some commuters. For example, season tickets between Gillingham and London went up by £280, a rise of more than 10 per cent.
Coach travel costs are also increasing for some this year, with many services being removed from the Government's concessionary travel scheme for pensioners. Thousands of pensioners will be affected by the change, introduced after complaints from local authorities and bus operators that it was costing them too much.
The Association of Train Operating Companies blamed the Government's determination to reduce the industry's subsidy for the rail fare increases. The Department for Transport wants passengers to bear even more of the costs of running Britain's rail network. It is currently attempting to reduce the public subsidy handed to the industry and wants passengers to shoulder 75 per cent of the costs, which are currently split 50-50. Rail industry chiefs are putting pressure on the Government to axe the policy and actively favour public transport over less environmentally friendly forms of travel.
Iain Coucher, the chief executive of Network Rail, called for a rethink. "If we want to reduce our carbon emissions, we need to make the most environmentally friendly forms of transport the choice," he told The Independent. "If we are pricing people away from it, that is probably wrong in the long term.
"Over the last decade, we have dramatically improved the size and quality of the railway. Passenger numbers and punctuality are at record levels. So we have raised the game, but to some extent that has come on the back of higher fares to improve the service."
The rail industry watchdog, Passenger Focus, also called for the policy to be reversed. "People always cite price and reliability as the two main reasons for being unsatisfied with train travel," said Ashwin Kumar, its passenger director. "The Government needs to look at this policy again."
Despite the figures, the Department for Transport again refused to favour public transport over car use. A spokes-man said: "Investment in buses has more than doubled over the last 10 years and we are committing £15bn to our railways over the next five years. However, this does not necessarily mean giving up your car, which is why over the past decade we've delivered £150bn of investment on all forms of transport."
Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrats' transport spokesman whose parliamentary question revealed the statistics, said the Government still had not made public transport affordable enough to encourage people out of their cars. "These figures show starkly just what a raw deal train and bus passengers have had out of this government, and that car drivers, for all the moans about fuel prices, have done rather well," he said.
"While ministers are busy preaching about cutting carbon emissions, the Department for Transport has allowed polluting transport to become cheaper and cleaner transport to become more expensive. The Department is clearly part of the carbon problem rather than part of the carbon solution."
Theresa Villiers, the shadow Transport Secretary, said it left Labour's green credentials "in tatters".
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
One thing is certain: there is no long term future in oil-based transport systems because the necessary oil will not be available in the future, and because we cannot continue adding massive quantities of CO2 and have a habitable planet.
For the moment denial of reality is far more popular than preparing for it.
I agree with you sentiment entirely; a few short years from now (or in a worst case scenario a few months) the question will not be:'Which car shall I buy?' but:'What am I going to eat?'
However, getting the bulk of the populace to focus attention on any of the real issues seems a near impossibilty when they are surrounded by the culture of denial.
'Peak Oil' is a myth and there is nothing that pleases the Petro Industry more than the public perception that it is true.
There is more oil being produced by this Earth than we know what to do with. For instance the US have enough oil in ONE field under Gull Island in Alaska to supply their country for 200 years. There are new discoveries all the time.
Demand for Oil does not decide it's price, that is decided by the Oil Cartel on the instruction of the Globalists Manipulators.
So long as the opinion that Oil is running out and that CO2 is somehow a toxic gas the longer these Global Fascists will have control of the lives of the people on this planet.
As for CO2 not being a toxic gas, I suggest you seal all the ventilation of the room you are in and see how long you last: depending on the size of the it will be between 2 hours and 20 hours before you die of CO2 poisioning.
As I said originally, 'denial of reality'.
The motor industry has been flogging us cars laden with alleged 'improvements' , often endorsed by government inspired but dubious 'safety increases' and 'reduced pollution' which actually make the cars heavier, reduce primary safety, and increase the resources used in their manufacture while there has been but little genuine improvement in 20 years. No wonder they are going broke.
My old car seats 4 (5 at a pinch), same as the new one, it has a larger load area and better brakes than the newer one, and it has better mpg. It has a lower top speed, but still 25mph over the highest speed limit in this country. It's also cheaper to tax. Wake up, consider the actual car and not the gadgets, compare the size and weight, and see if you really can confirm the alleged improvement. Cars that are more efficient but also heavier and bulkier may improve their performance in tests - on the road the inexorable laws of physics take over.
Incidentally, a great deal of what little real performance improvement there is in terms of mpg is due to the use of lighter engine oils - this can also be done in well maintained older engines with the same results.
As a Manchester resident who relies on public transport, that's why I voted against the congestion charge. "We're going to give a bunch more cash to First, Stagecoach and whoever" is an unconvincing way of improving public transport - if they were credible deliverers of a decent system, we wouldn't be in this mess.
Why do none of the political parties have the courage to stand up and say the truth, that rail privatisation is a complete and utter failure? They are in total denial about this one, central fact. Subsidies are much higher than under British Rail but now no-one can afford to use trains unless they absolutely have to or can book months in advance. We desperately need to move on with this debate and propose some form of collective ownership that does not recreate British Rail MK2. Would mutual ownership by the customers, just like the building societies, be a viable proposition?
The politicians, especially the Tories, have still got their heads firmly in the sand on this one.
Britain needs not more and more cars crammed onto more crowded roads burning more and more fuel, but subjectively safe cycling conditions which make cycling an option for everyone.
Whats more the prices were not prohibitive its only in the UK that public transport is shabby and over priced.
The government can't afford for us to stop using our cars hence the multimillion pound bail out of an industry which we are constantly told is killing the planet. I think the truth is if everyone stopped using their cars and adopted public transport not only would the outdated infrastructure collapse but the loss of revenue from all those car generated taxes would put the government even(if that were possible) further into the red.
Why blame government when all one has to do is make a choice based on personal responsibility to either walk or get a bike?
Why does everyone appear to believe that government policy is the beginning and end of all decisions one makes in everyday life?
Government is only interested in tax revenues from excise duty and fuel. Bus and train companies, multinational car manufacturers are only interested in share value and profit, none of this relates to our fragile planet.
The game remains the same and the virus is virulent as ever.
Choose not to join in :-)
Force ministers to actually use public transport, rather than the tax payers footing the bill for their driven cars. Let's see how long until they start complaining like the rest of us.
On another note, I recently completed a cycling proficiency afternoon provided by my work and I now leave my car at home in favour of my bike. It takes the same amount of time and I feel healthier and happy at work. Forget public transport or cars for getting about, go on your own steam and stop lining the pockets of the greedy government and private prats.
I'll not pay any heed to what the Liberals say though, when in charge of East Sussex County Council in the 90's and running short of cash, the first thing they cut back on was rural bus services. Plus whilst Paddy Pantsdown was preaching the mantra of how public transport is best way back then - The then Liberal MP for Newbury was ardently defending the building of the bypass there - which has since proved to be a complete waste of money and not solved any problems.
As for this:
"Despite the figures, the Department for Transport again refused to favour public transport over car use. A spokes-man said: "Investment in buses has more than doubled over the last 10 years and we are committing £15bn to our railways over the next five years. However, this does not necessarily mean giving up your car, which is why over the past decade we've delivered £150bn of investment on all forms of transport."
What a joke! Every week on the Number 10 website people are pleading with the Government to reopen Rail lines that would give new leases of life to areas of the country and solve many congestion problems - but each time they come back with stupid statistics like that. Sacking the whole DOT and starting again filling it with non-drivers would be the only way to make the place run properly without it's head in the sand over the country's problems!
Also, public transport tends to be unreliable, late, dirty, operated by less than helpful staff and populated by kids who insist of playing their music over tinny speakers. I'd rather sit in my own car in a traffic jam thank you very much.
Mr. Brown has many cars in the warehouses. These run on the candles and batteries I am told.
Come 2020 we will have no smog no police officers, no petrol pumps, no nothing. All smooth flow, The Chinese by that time will be in UK manufacturing more bikes. Great, 2020 here I come. Let Mr. Brown come back please in spite of all the expenses and Gurkhas cases.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
The findings come despite the Government's pledge of cutting carbon emissions by 80 per cent by 2020.
Here are two contradictory questions. One. The more motors sold because of falling cost, I believe the 2000 pound is the value for the scrape, however in the private market it may fetch more, so we may more cars. Then we have the cars from Japan that are expensive because of the Yen exchange value. 2020 is like 1984....
To put this way, we are short of cash and may not be able to afford cars.
So how can we pollute the roads?
All that we know is we live in the fantasyland of global warming and all scream CO2 not knowing exactly what this is. We have surprise form UK scientist that they may get us more power from Anacondas. A "completely new kind of wave power machine" which resembles a giant swimming sea-snake could be generating energy off the coast of the UK within five years, its developers said today. Checkmate's chairman Paul Auston said the anaconda could help to meet EU targets to source 15% of all the UK's energy needs from renewables by 2020 - the lion's share of which is currently expected to be met by wind power. So we are safe.
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla