You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Policy' category.
This week, Transport Minister Paul Clark announced both a crackdown on misuse of Blue Badges and plans to extend the scheme to other people with mobility difficulties who currently do not qualify. These new measures are believed to cost up to £55 million.
The Government is considering giving councils the authority to confiscate stolen or forged Blue Badges on the spot. This power would help to reduce vehicle crime, as well ensuring parking spaces close to vital ammenities are available for those who need it most.
Around 1 in every 200 Badges in circulation is reported as stolen each year.
Two measures have been suggested for helping councils to carry out this task:
1. A £10m national data sharing system to ensure stolen or forged Badges from outside a council’s local area can be easily identified for the first time.
2. The DfT is also looking at new technologies to make Badges harder to forge, including barcodes that can be read through windscreens.
The second action point in the strategy is to extend the Blue Badge scheme to include seriously disabled Armed Forces personnel and veterans, people with temporary but serious mobility problems, young children with specific disabilities and individuals with severe mental impairments; thereby helping more people to retain their mobility and independence in the face of physical and/or mental illness.
Finally, in a bid to standardise assessment for Blue Badges across the country, a new system of assessing eligibility for the Blue Badge is also being developed. This will mean dedicated independent medical assessors, who will ensure that only those who really need a Badge receive one.
Last week the Department for Transport published their latest consultation on the future of biofuels standing by Professor Gallagher’s recommendations to carry out more research into the sustainability of their production.
The consultation comes about in response to widely held concerns about the indirect impacts of their production namely:
· Environmental: Unsustainable land use change and even net increases in greenhouse gas emissions.
· Social: Rising food prices due to increased rent for land as a result of competition from people wishing to use land to grow crops for fuel. This leads to lower production of food crops and farmers have to increase the price of their output to make any money.
The consultation recommended the following steps be implemented to ensure a sustainable future of biofuel production:
1. The rate of increase of the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation be slowed to reach 5% by 2013/14 as opposed to the earlier suggested date of 2010/11. This will require the rate of increase to be reduced to 0.5% per annum.
2. The EU target of 10% renewable transport fuels by 2020 should continue to be supported but closely monitored, and if evidence showing unsustainable production or adverse impacts on food prices arises, support should be withdrawn.
3. Sustainability criteria must address the indirect as well as the direct effects on land use.
4. The Government will work to establish international standards and controls, which reflect the international nature of the biofuels industry.
The RAC Foundation agrees with the Government’s decision to “amend but not abandon its biofuel policy” as the sustainability of fuel production is crucial for the future of transport. According to the latest evidence in the Gallagher review by 2020 ” Biofuels have the potential to deliver annual global greenhouse gas savings of approximately 338-371 million tonnes of carbon dioxide”, making biofuels an issue worth persuing – if somewhat more cautiously than before.
The Royal Automobile Club Foundation has welcomed the decision to delay the 2p fuel duty increase as “the only bright spot in a budget that seemingly does nothing positive for the motorist.”
Welcoming the fact that the beleaguered British motorist has been given a short breathing space, Sheila Rainger, Acting Director of the Foundation said: “This sensible decision is the only bright spot in a budget seemingly doing nothing positive for the motorist. But postponing the increase only delays the misery for British motorists struggling to make ends meet. The Chancellor should look again at the idea of a fuel duty stabiliser to protect British motorists from the shocks of the global oil market.”
The cost of fuel has leapt 20% in the last 12 months as the global oil price rises to over $100 per barrel – and any increases in duty would disproportionately affect motorists on low incomes and those in rural areas who are dependent on their cars.
The Foundation believes the motorist should no longer be expected to top up the ‘public purse’ with taxes disguised as environmental considerations, now that the Stern Review has demonstrated that motorists are the only energy users meeting their carbon costs.
“There is no environmental case for higher taxes. Based on the Government’s own figures in the Stern Review, the full cost of the greenhouse gases produced by road transport amounts to no more than 14p per litre. Road users are the only energy users paying the full cost of their carbon emissions; unlike rail or air travellers.”
The Foundation is disappointed there has been no provision for additional spending on improving the UK’s road network considering that both the budget and The Eddington Transport Study have recognised the importance of reducing congestion to develop and maintain the economy.
The RAC Foundation has already highlighted in its Roads and Reality report that by 2041 there will be an 11% increase in population and a 38% increase in vehicle kilometres driven, putting our already overburdened road system under increased pressure.
Rainger added: “The changes we face in future decades have simply not been taken into account. It seems the Government has decided to brush these forecasts under the carpet.”
On the subject of new tax proposals, she said: “Graduated VED has helped consumers choose the most efficient car to meet their needs. As long as new bands inform and do not confuse the customer they will be welcome. The impact of new bands on buying behaviour should be carefully monitored and the thresholds adjusted if necessary.”
Commenting on the first year tax changes, Rainger pointed out: “Measures that make people think carefully about choosing a vehicle that matches their needs are always welcome. However, we believe incentives for choosing a more efficient car are more likely to win the public over than swingeing taxes. The Government should monitor the effectiveness of this tax and be prepared to drop it if it is not working.”
The rising cost of fuel is squeezing UK household spending according to the RAC Foundation analysis of the 2007 Family Spending Survey.
The analysis finds that in the short to medium term, increases in fuel duty are contributing to the financial hardship experienced by many UK residents. Rural households, working age couples, the traditional family unit, retired couples and single person households are at particular risk from the pinch. Motorists living in the South (West and East), the Midlands, East England, Wales and Northern Ireland will also feel the effects of this increase.
“The cost of transport and its impact on UK households*” questions whether it is fair for motorists to bear the burden of topping up the public purse, and points out that, while the environment is often used as the argument for increasing fuel duty, recent analysis has shown that road users are the only energy users currently paying the full cost of their carbon emissions**.
The RAC Foundation’s fact file on household spending on motoring finds:
* 16% of household spending goes on transport and 88% of this spending is on private motoring
* Fuel purchasing takes 4% of the average weekly household expenditure, the second most costly weekly product or service after the cost of housing (mortgage interest – 7.1% – and gross rents – 6.1%)
* The average household spends £62 per week on transport. £18.20 of which is spent on fuel
* Households in rural areas spend 20% more on transport than those living in urban areas
* Working-age couples, the traditional family unit and retired couples (who are not completely dependent on the state) spend the most of their weekly budget on transport. Single households and retired couples dependent on the state also spend a high proportion of their outgoings on transport
* The South-West and the South-East regions spend the most on transport
* Wales and the Midlands commit the greatest proportion of their weekly expenditure to running personal transport.
* The East, the South-West and the East Midlands have the highest car ownership levels
* Households in Wales, Northern Ireland, the South West and the Midlands spend the largest proportion of their weekly income on fuel.
Sheila Rainger, Acting Director of the RAC Foundation said;
“UK households are under increased financial pressure as energy and other household bills are at an all time high. Fuel should not be priced as a luxury or be considered an undesirable purchase, as car travel is essential and in many instances the only way for people to get to employment, education and health services.”
* The cost of transport and its impact on UK households
** Roads and Reality, RAC Foundation, November 2007.
The analysis has made use of the ONS (2008) Family Spending Report 2007, published in January 2008 http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_social/Family_Spending_2006-07/FamilySpending2007_web.pdf
Hard Shoulder running is a sensible use of existing capacity. But it is not a substitute for a long-term strategic approach to the UK’s road transport needs.The Secretary of State says wider use of hard shoulder running will add 800 lane-km to England’s motorway network. But the RAC Foundation’s report, Roads and Reality, concluded that an additional 600 lane-km of capacity is needed each year to meet the needs of the economy and people’s desire for mobility.
If motorway charging is to be introduced it must be for genuine new capacity, not a part-time spare lane created by opening the hard shoulder.
Local french car number plates are set to be replaced with anonymous alternatives in 2009 inline with EU legislation, much to the annoyance of residents in the regions.
Currently a ’75′ plate identifies drivers as Parisian, a ‘23′ plate shows that they come from more rural parts of central France and the list goes on… Officials believe that anonomising plates will bring relief to drivers, as they will no longer get undesirable reactions from other drivers based on where they live. Instead France’s fierce regional identities have denounced the idea as unhelpful, as local plates are thought to help defuse road rage between local drivers.
The use of cars is often thought to reduce community cohesion, as they allow people to travel long distances away from where they live, so the value of local number plates in France provides an interesting and alternative view. According to an article in the press today it appears that bumper stickers declaring words such as ‘62 is us’ will be displayed alongside the anonomous new number plates when they hit the streets next year.
Source: The Guardian Monday 14th January 2008
The Government appears to have hit a brick wall in trying to convince the public about road pricing, according to the director of the RAC Foundation in a key note speech at the National Transport Conference in London this week. He suggested that a voluntary scheme with rewards for early adopters, including cuts in fuel tax, might be the way ahead.
He reminded delegates that, driven by concern about how road pricing would affect their lives in the car-dependent UK, more than 1.8 million individuals signed the Downing Street petition opposing road pricing, King urged UK authorities to use the lessons learned from the voluntary road-pricing scheme piloted in Oregon, USA, to address UK motorists’ concerns.
Calling for an open dialogue with motorists, whose support is essential if pricing is to be implemented, King briefed delegates on the successful Oregon pilot scheme, where motorists who opted into the pay- as- you- go scheme received discounts on fuel duty at the pumps. The scheme successfully addresses privacy concerns, and places minimal costs on businesses and vehicle owners.
Royal Automobile Club Foundation research on the acceptability of road pricing schemes has consistently found that the majority of motorists (60%) accept the principle that it would be fairer to pay for the roads according to the time spent driving in congestion, but are worried about how this change would impact their lives. Support for the concept of charging has increased slightly over the last four years, but support for any specific application of congestion charging is starting to wane. UK motorists also believe that any road pricing scheme should be socially just, with 58% agreeing that there should be protection for those on low incomes. When asked where finances should be reinvested, over 50% of motorists believe that finances should be directed straight back into the road network itself and acceptability increases if there are equivalent reductions in other motoring taxes.
However, almost 80% of motorists are so anxious about the situation that they want an independent watchdog to stand up for their interests. Nine out of ten do not trust the government to deliver a fair system. Therefore one way ahead could be a voluntary system that gives motorists a package of benefits, which will make a real difference to their journeys.
A voluntary scheme, where motorists can opt to join what we have dubbed “UK Drive Time” would bring great benefits. Scheme members could benefit from:
- reduced fuel duty,
- satellite navigation and congestion avoidance,
- stolen vehicle tracking,
- e-call emergency button to notify police or breakdown service in event of an accident,
- discounts for greener cars,
- parking availability,
- location of favourite shops or restaurants and
- cheaper insurance.
Even if only ten per cent of drivers sign up to such a voluntary scheme, significant congestion reduction will still be achieved. Having a meter in the car outlining the cost of each journey will lead to a reduction in journeys by highlighting the actual cost of the trip – RAC Foundation research has found that most motorists regard fuel, tax and insurance as “sunk costs” and do not relate them to individual journeys. In Oregon the “pay as you go” group showed a reduction in miles travelled even thought they were paying the same amount as those paying tax at the pumps. Where the charge varied at rush hour there was a 20% reduction in travel.
Motorists already pay £44 billion per year in motoring taxes. If the motorist is to accept road pricing, the RAC Foundation urges government to demonstrate that pricing will be part of the solution to their needs, along with more investment in transport, and not just another means to raise money and price them off the roads.
The RAC Foundation believes the government needs to change the way the debate is presented. Road pricing is not an end in itself but may, as a voluntary scheme, be one element of a package of measures required to give the UK a transport system fit for the 21st century.
Commenting, Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation, said:
” Economists have been talking about road pricing for more than 40 years and it always seems to be ten years away. If the Government is serious about changing the way we pay to travel then a fresh approach is needed. A voluntary scheme that gave motorists other benefits would be a step in the right direction.
“No-one is likely to buy “road pricing”, but they might be interested in subscribing to “UK DriveTime” as a package of solutions which incorporates services that motorists actually want.”
A new report out today from PACTS suggests that Government should look to introduce 20mph zones in all built up urban areas to reduce road accidents. No one would disagree with reducing road casualties, especially in the areas where children, cyclists and predestrians are most at risk, but this does appear to be quite a draconian measure, which the RAC Foundation believes, if implemented might do more harm than good.
20mph are already a feature in many towns and cities in areas, where they make sense, for instance outside schools, in town centres or near play parks. As a result the majority of drivers understand and respect these limits where they are in place, but if they were to be put in place across a whole town or city, compliance might be an issue and there will be problems with keeping ‘roads for movement’.
Almost 70% of people admit to speeding and almost one quarter will say they will speed if they think the limit is too low (www.thinkroadsafety.gov.uk). However, the new report suggests that average speed cameras can be used to get around this issue (i.e. similar to the ones seen on motorways, especially in and around roadworks).
In a 20mph zone a pedestrian has a 95% chance that they will live when involved in an accident, which emphasises the importance of 20mph zones, but they need to put into action in the right places to be truely effective and acceptable to the motorist.
The RAC Foundation welcomes the commitment to an increase in transport spending but stresses that a greater proportion must be spent on roads as 93% of passenger journeys and the majority of freight are carried by road.
The total estimate to be spent on transport in 2007-8 is £20bn and this is forecast to increase to £23.7bn by 2010-11. However, the motorist is already paying double this amount in motoring taxes each year (£45bn in 2006) and it is unclear how much the motorist will be getting back in the coming years.
Commenting, Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation said: “Whilst any increase in transport spending is welcome, we need to see a greater proportion spent on roads. The vast majority of trips are by road and the motorist already pays more than twice as much in motoring taxes each year than the total transport budget. The motorist will view the recent fuel duty increase and proposals for yet more increases over the next two years as money for nothing unless the road infrastructure is improved.”
Soyabean prices soar
January 18, 2008 in Comment, Environment, Policy | by elizabethdainton | Leave a comment
World soyabean prices have climbed to a record level this week, partly because farmers in the US and Asia have been growing corn, palm oil and other crops to supply the biofuel industry. Poor harvests in Latin America and rising demand in China have added to price pressures.
One commentatorsaid ‘It is finally a trade-off between filling stomachs and filling diesel tanks in cars and trucks’ (Ashok Gulati, Director of the International Food Policy Institute)
Soyabeans are a staple product for Asian cuisine especially for the poor, as it is a key source of protein. For many Indonesians, a piece of fermented soyabean cake is often their only source of protein and last year soya products accounted for 22% of Indonesians’ protein intake, excluding rice, according to Government data.
Authorities in the countries effected are starting to take action to contain the effects of the price surge by importing lower quality soya-beans and prioritising debate on the issue, but currently producers are directly passing increased costs onto consumers.
This is just one example of how finding new ways to power vehicles is starting to have tangible unintended consequences. As the biofuel debate progresses it is essential that the overall impact of their use is considered and kept under review.
Source: Financial Times Friday 18th January 2008