Writing in a NYT op-ed, Owen D. Gutfreund, a professor of history and urban studies at Barnard College and author of 20th-Century Sprawl: Highways and the Reshaping of the American Landscape, says,
It’s imperative that we rethink the way we approach transportation. Our highway policy has remained largely the same since the 1950s even as driving habits have changed. Then, most families had no more than one car, and many had none. Now nearly every household owns at least one; two is more typical, and each car is driven more miles per year. The population, too, has nearly doubled. The result is that bridges and highways are overburdened and falling apart, while local governments lack the money to respond adequately, a problem worsened by dwindling federal contributions.
And he has a solution:
So here’s the answer: charge a premium for expensive and inefficient vehicles. Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London, has already taken this step, tripling toll charges for S.U.V.’s. We should take this one step further, requiring that vehicle registrations include designation in tiered classes, taking into account weight, sales price, emission rating and gas-mileage efficiency. Tolls would be levied according to these classes. Smaller, cheaper and more environmentally friendly cars would pay less, while drivers of more expensive, wasteful and higher-polluting cars would pay more. This is everything a tax structure should be: fair and progressive, while rewarding socially beneficial consumer decisions and penalizing selfish, destructive ones. Also, it provides a fairer allocation of the actual highway costs among users, since heavier vehicles produce more wear and tear on road surfaces, requiring thicker pavements and more frequent repairs. We already use this logic to justify higher tolls for trucks and other multi-axle vehicles. Why not also ask S.U.V.’s to pay a heavier toll?
While there is some merit in this suggestion, it would need to be introduced progressively on new vehicles (not regressively as in the latest UK proposal), to avoid unfairly penalizing people.
In addition, in the UK cost of road use is already equitably distributed through tax on fuel, and if you have low consumption and/of high mileage, you pay more…
Industry changes are required to provide the ‘carrot’ of pricing for more environmentally friendly vehicles, as the present pricing structure does not wholly support this principle.
Concessions would need to be introduced for such classes as farmers, who have a valid reason for driving larger 4wheel drive vehicles; and the self-employed plumbers, electricians etc. Do they have a tax allowance for their works vehicle (sometimes only vehicle), or do they have to absorb the extra cost and pass it on to the consumer?
Is small business driven out by competition due to greater financial flexibility and economies of scale in larger operations?
The demographic of developed countries is radically different from the 1950’s, and the infrastructure necessary to support and promote environmentally sound lifestyles and behaviour is lacking and needs to be developed and cultivated.
Because prevailing economic theory and ‘the market’ do not adequately value environmental goods and services, government intervention is required to redress the damage.
Environmental considerations and concerns have only recently become mainstream policy, and are widely abused by government for point scoring, leverage and power broking, rather than their true ends.
Whilst we got to benefit (as consumers) from the lack of environmental controls, through economic development. lower prices, subsidies etc. We also (as consumers) suffered the costs (environmentally, quality of life, pollution, health) and get to pay for the costs of correction both through direct taxes and higher costs passed on by industry for clean-up and their costs imposed by taxes and regulation.
A real breakthrough in policy and development is required, instead of inadequate token gestures; but government does not respond well to longer term issues and challenges, and is shy of the ramifications of unpopular decisions among powerful lobbies.
By the time the problems and global ramifications of resource exploitation, dwindling reserves, the shrinking gap between per capita consumption and agricultural production, pollution and damage, with the added potential impact of climate change become apparent, on a scale which cannot be dismissed or denied, we will have passed the point where these problems may be easily addressed.
The still current cornucopian beliefs, and reliance on the hope of technological solutions which are not being adequately of sufficiently researched funded or explored is not sustainable.
The approach of England towards curbing vehicle use has suffered as much from ‘greenwash’ as genuine environmentally credible solutions.
In addition, only a small portion of the huge income raised through fuel and vehicle tax is spent on maintenance, improving capacity, traffic flow and alleviating congestion, or environmental measures.
The problems (congestion, pollution, increasing vehicle ownership and vehicle size) are difficult to address without adversely punishing lower income groups.
Forcing the poorest people to abandon their cars, in order to show progress towards ‘environmental’ goals, is not an equitable solution and has many potentially negative consequences for society as a whole.
Measures should not deliver reduced freedom and quality of life to those least able to afford pay, whilst allowing the wealthier to choose pollute.
Poorer people are frequently unable to afford the latest technology; they tend to have larger families and require larger vehicles as a result. They also have less choice in where they can afford to live.
It is reasonable that we should all make concessions to reduce environmental impact; but a system is needed which does not disadvantage the most vulnerable.
The average income of UK hill farmers in the Peak District is >£8,000, or £2.50/hour for a 58hour week!
You are regarded to be in ‘fuel poverty’ if you spend more than 8% of your income on domestic fuel bills! Average bills of £300/quarter (each gas and electric - total £600) requires an income of more than £30,000 to avoid fuel poverty, £500/quarter requires income of over £50,000!
While reducing journeys is a valuable strategy, it requires structural changes, and decentralization of services- the opposite of prevailing trends, with Post Office closures and out-of-town developments predominating; reductions in rural public transport and doctors services; and business increasingly using ‘just-in-time’ ordering strategies.
While public transport needs to be improved, using public transport exclusively costs more than owning and running a car for many families, and imposes many limitations, (E.g. increased journey time; crowding; discomfort; limited choices; exposure to risk and weather; greater demands on time, administration and organization) reducing quality of life and freedom. In addition it is common that employers have very limited tolerance of the limitations and inefficiency of public transport, and dismissal for failures of the service provider, beyond the control of the employee are of frequent occurance.
Stronger and better incentives are necessary for industry to produce more efficient vehicles.
The latest suggestion to retrospectively tax larger, less efficient vehicles has been condemned by environmental groups.
While it will swiftly removing many of these vehicles from use (by devaluing them almost instantaneously); it unfairly punishes their owners for decisions made over the previous decade. At the time these vehicles were purchased manufacturers were not producing these vehicles to the same efficiency or environmental standards as other vehicles.
The move to get rid of SORN (statutory off road notification) and require all vehicles to be taxed, even when they are not in use, is another extremely inequitable measure, which would appear to have little effect on emissions.