animaal Registered User
#226

Shefwedfan said:
To start getting people out of cars.....tax the arse off them :-)

Once people have to pay per KM they might decide it would be better to walk that 1km to drop off the kids instead of bringing out the juggernaut SUV


You're about 50 years too late. The state already "taxes the arse" off car drivers. If behaviour changes are what you want, maybe better alternatives should be provided for people. It's easy to shout that other people should be paying more tax.

I'm fine with charging per KM, but it should be revenue neutral overall. This could probably be implemented as a green measure? I.e. shift tax from VRT, Motor tax, levies etc to fuel tax. The trouble is that the "green agenda" has usually been used in this country as a flag of convenience to increase taxation.

Shefwedfan Registered User
#227

animaal said:
You're about 50 years too late. The state already "taxes the arse" off car drivers. If behaviour changes are what you want, maybe better alternatives should be provided for people. It's easy to shout that other people should be paying more tax.

I'm fine with charging per KM, but it should be revenue neutral overall. This could probably be implemented as a green measure? I.e. shift tax from VRT, Motor tax, levies etc to fuel tax. The trouble is that the "green agenda" has usually been used in this country as a flag of convenience to increase taxation.



Nothing in this country is revenue neutral.


As I mentioned pages back, the Irish people are lazy, they will never look for an alternative till it hits their pocket.

If they know it is going to cost them x to drive the car 1km to a shop or free to walk/cycle. I expect the rate of change to walk/cycle to increase.

cgcsb Registered User
#228

Taxing per km achieves nothing in terms of modal shift. people working in rural areas and driving 40km round trip a day are doing so because there aren't alternative modes to switch to. The target for modal shift is the urban/suburban driver who drives less than 15km per day and has alternatives. The best way to do is this is: complete bus connects and all the infrastructure associated with (including banning cars from many streets), then apply a congestion charge to every car crossing the canals during rush hour.

2 people have thanked this post
Lord Glentoran Registered User
#229

dr.fuzzenstein said:
If I go to Bargaintown, can I bring a bed, a wardrobe and three piece suite on the bus with me?


That is some impressive car you have.

6 people have thanked this post
AndrewJRenko Registered User
#230

monument said:
It’s really not clear what you’re getting at here — what are you on about ignoring employment law, or H&S laws?

As I understand it, Mrs O'B was suggesting that it was unreasonable to expect shops and businesses to expect their delivery drivers to comply with traffic laws (like not parking/stopping/loading in clearways and mandatory bike lanes) because this would have a negative impact on profitability. I was just pointing out that lots of businesses could increase profitability by ignoring lots of laws - employment laws, H&S laws, traffic laws - but that wouldn't generally result in good outcomes for society at large. It's not a great reason for breaking the law.


animaal said:
You're about 50 years too late. The state already "taxes the arse" off car drivers.

Does taxing the arse off involve getting drivers to pay anything near the real cost of their vehicles to society?

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cars-air-pollution-cost-nhs-vans-vehicles-health-bills-lung-disease-a8384806.html

cgcsb said:
Taxing per km achieves nothing in terms of modal shift. people working in rural areas and driving 40km round trip a day are doing so because there aren't alternative modes to switch to. The target for modal shift is the urban/suburban driver who drives less than 15km per day and has alternatives. The best way to do is this is: complete bus connects and all the infrastructure associated with (including banning cars from many streets), then apply a congestion charge to every car crossing the canals during rush hour.


I don't disagree with your conclusions, but I don't think it that simple. People in rural areas with long commutes have often made decisions to balance long commutes against property size/price. A tax per KM would certainly discourage others from getting into situations where long commutes are part of their lifestyle.

I know that's a bit of a simplification too, and few people willingly sign up for these kind of commutes.

1 person has thanked this post
cgcsb Registered User
#231

AndrewJRenko said:
I don't disagree with your conclusions, but I don't think it that simple. People in rural areas with long commutes have often made decisions to balance long commutes against property size/price. A tax per KM would certainly discourage others from getting into situations where long commutes are part of their lifestyle.

I know that's a bit of a simplification too, and few people willingly sign up for these kind of commutes.


People who already have established homes for themselves cant just be told oh by the way you're going to be punatively taxed for making a decision that government policy encouraged at the time.

People shouldn't live in isolated areas unless they are farmers/foresters etc. but that's the fault of the planning system.

Shefwedfan Registered User
#232

I see Department of Transport have released a tender for

Request for Tender for provision of real world vehicle exhaust emissions measurements and fuel economy assessments on a range of diesel- and alternatively-fuelled buses.

Maybe they are starting to see diesel is not the answer

animaal Registered User
#233

AndrewJRenko said:

Does taxing the arse off involve getting drivers to pay anything near the real cost of their vehicles to society?

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/cars-air-pollution-cost-nhs-vans-vehicles-health-bills-lung-disease-a8384806.html


That's a single report issued for "Clean Air Day". It's interesting but I'm not sure how independent it is. It also applies to the UK rather than this country.

But let's assume it's equally valid here.

From the first paragraph, health-related costs "of an average car in inner London over the vehicle’s lifetime was nearly £8,000". That works out about €740 per year if we assume the car's life to be 12 years.

The 2018 Irish budget for road improvement/maintenance is €909m. With 2.5m vehicles on the road, that works out at €363 each.

so let's say that adds up to cost to the state of about €1.1k per car.

On the other side of the equation... let's look at a 1.8L Toyota Avensis.

Purchase cost is about €30k. VAT & VRT work out to be €12600. Again assuming spread over a 12-year life, that's €1050 per year.

An average car drives 16000 km per year (more for a diesel car, but let's stay conservative). At 12km per litre, that works out to be 1333l per year. With 60% of that being tax, this motorist pays €1144 fuel taxes per year.

Motor tax for this car would be €280 per year. (there are cars paying less, but there are also cars paying the 2008 rates which are far higher).

Insurance Levy is €25 per year


With whats above, I work out cost to the state per car to be about €1000 per year, and the state takes about €2500 from the motorist in motoring-related taxes/charges per year.

I'm not sure if I've missed other significant taxes - I haven't included on-street Parking costs, tolls, VAT on servicing or on NCT. These are trickier to estimate, and I'm not too bothered.

If we want to be difficult, we can add nebulous things to either side of the equation. The anti-car person could talk about costs due to traffic congestion, the pro-car person could talk about the benefit to businesses of having people able to drive to shopping centres. But I'm just focusing on measurable things.

I think it's fair to say the state "taxes the arse off" the motorist.

1 person has thanked this post
Mrs OBumble Registered User
#234

AndrewJRenko said:
As I understand it, Mrs O'B was suggesting that it was unreasonable to expect shops and businesses to expect their delivery drivers to comply with traffic laws (like not parking/stopping/loading in clearways and mandatory bike lanes) because this would have a negative impact on profitability.


I have NO idea where you got that understanding from.

I was saying that it's unreasonable to expect small to medium enterprises to have people in work to receive deliveries at night. Just because it's viable for large supermarkets and the like doesn't make it viable for others. And inner city residents don't want to be woken by delivery wagons at 4am, thanks.

Streets need to be designed to facilitate deliveries at reasonable times, as well as everything else that they need to do, including providing for pedestrians, shared/public transport users, cyclists, wheelchair users, etc. Reasonable is not defined as "when no one is likely to be riding a bicycle".

Shefwedfan Registered User
#235

Mrs OBumble said:
I have NO idea where you got that understanding from.

I was saying that it's unreasonable to expect small to medium enterprises to have people in work to receive deliveries at night. Just because it's viable for large supermarkets and the like doesn't make it viable for others. And inner city residents don't want to be woken by delivery wagons at 4am, thanks.

Streets need to be designed to facilitate deliveries at reasonable times, as well as everything else that they need to do, including providing for pedestrians, shared/public transport users, cyclists, wheelchair users, etc. Reasonable is not defined as "when no one is likely to be riding a bicycle".



So now inner city resident are getting woke by delivery trucks at 4am? I suppose the current solution is better....with trucks/buses/car/transits etc etc etc allowed to drive around all night and all day!!!!


I think you will find inner city residents would love a traffic free area so they are not poisoned everyday of the week with exhaust fumes.....plus their kids not able to play anywhere because they risk getting knocked down.....

2 people have thanked this post
dashcamdanny Registered User
#236

Shefwedfan said:
So now inner city resident are getting woke by delivery trucks at 4am? I suppose the current solution is better....with trucks/buses/car/transits etc etc etc allowed to drive around all night and all day!!!!


I think you will find inner city residents would love a traffic free area so they are not poisoned everyday of the week with exhaust fumes.....plus their kids not able to play anywhere because they risk getting knocked down.....


Innercity residents chose to live in the exhaust fumes of the inner city.

I think the same argument was used against people who choose to live in the country side a few posts up.

Shefwedfan Registered User
#237

dashcamdanny said:
Innercity residents chose to live in the exhaust fumes of the inner city.

I think the same argument was used against people who choose to live in the country side a few posts up.



They choose to live in the inner city, well some do and some don't


They don't choose to live in exhaust fumes.....they have to live in it because of traffic.....


Not sure what your point is? you saying now people shouldn't live in the city centre because of the traffic?

dashcamdanny Registered User
#238

Shefwedfan said:
They choose to live in the inner city, well some do and some don't


They don't choose to live in exhaust fumes.....they have to live in it because of traffic.....


Not sure what your point is? you saying now people shouldn't live in the city centre because of the traffic?


Generally innercity residents do choose to live there.
People flock to the city to rent. I did once myself.

My point is, the city always has been and always will be a dirty place to live.
If one does not like where they live, its always a good option to move to the suburbs or countryside.

Where they usually require a car

Shefwedfan Registered User
#239

dashcamdanny said:
Generally innercity residents do choose to live there.
People flock to the city to rent. I did once myself.

My point is, the city always has been and always will be a dirty place to live.
If one does not like where they live, its always a good option to move to the suburbs or countryside.

Where they usually require a car



So you are saying people shouldn't live in the city centre? they should move to suburbs and buy a car?

Not really a long term plan?


You do understand my point is that the city centre does not have to be a dirty place......

1 person has thanked this post
dashcamdanny Registered User
#240

Shefwedfan said:
So you are saying people shouldn't live in the city centre? they should move to suburbs and buy a car?

Not really a long term plan?


You do understand my point is that the city centre does not have to be a dirty place......


I did not say people shouldn't live in the city, I said they should move if they dont like living in the city. Which includes traffic noise from loading trucks.

It certainly does not have to be a dirty place, and I wish it would change. I work there. And breath all this crap into my lungs daily. It will naturally become a cleaner place with the evolution of electric vehicles though .

Want to share your thoughts?

Login here to discuss!