Gathering some facts on road costs

[Jezston]

Much as I like the campaigning done by ipayroadtax, I have to say their website is a bit of a mess! Very had to navigate and get facts.

Anyway, was looking to get some figures and sources on how much is raised by VED compared to how much is spent on the road, so as to potentially turn "you don't pay road tax" arguments quickly on their head - the whole 'doesn't exist' thing is too complicated to explain to some people, who usually react to it with hostility and don't get it. An interesting counter point I thought is to show that 'road tax' isn't actually enough to pay for the roads, so people who don't even drive are paying for it so drivers can.

Now what I have found so far is two things:

1. The 'blue book' from the office of national statistics (as referred to by the wikipedia article on VED) that shows that in 09/10 , £5.63 billion was raised via VED.

2. From this unsourced Guardian infographic, the budget for the Highways Agency is £6.5 billion: http://www.scribd.com/doc/29479816/Public-Spending-by-UK-government-department

But presumably the highways agency does more than just build roads, and also other people spend taxpayers money on the roads, too. Any source for complete info on this?

The other interesting fact I gathered from the Blue Book is that tax aquired from various duties on 'hydrocarbon oils', aka fuel - although have no idea how wide ranging this is - fuel used by power stations etc - is a rather staggering £26 billion in 2009. If the bulk of that is from vehicle fuel, couldn't the government just get rid of VED altogether, save a great deal on administering and enforcing VED, and just charge it on fuel?

 

[Poacher]

From a position of ignorance, and in a snatched minute or two of my pitifully short lunch break, I'd suggest that the Highways Agency budget is mostly concerned with motorways and trunk roads, as these are the responsibility of central government. Other roads are generally the responsibility of the highest tier of local government in the relevant area - normally county council or unitary council - and their income comes from a variety of sources, including central government grants (from the Consolidated Fund) and from Council Tax. You may need to look on each council's website to try and find the level of their highways budget. Good luck!

 

[growingvegetables]

Off the top of my head (it'd take time to dig out again the figures - they're very well hidden), the Highways Agency has responsibility for 3% of the road network (motorways and a few significant A-roads) in England. 97% of the English network is the responsibility of local authorities.

Add in the complexity of the devolved administrations, and all the other costs ....................... and the bottom line will be that petrol-heads are very heavily subsidised.

 

[CamPhil]

A bit out of date, but I found this: http://www.basden.demon.co.uk/G/facts/road.costs.html
I doubt the proportion has changed in favour of equity since - if anything it's probably gone the other way.
It seems that motoring pays for less than a quarter of it's overall cost to the taxpayer.

 

[gilespargiter]

Apart from the fact that since Winston Churchill abolished Road tax in 1926 - so no one pays road tax, which I think you sort of inferred in your post. It is a tricky bunch of figures to collate. As has been pointed out above VED is not the only source of revenue from the roads, their is also road fuel duty - which is around 400% of the actual price of the fuel.
In addition the central government highways agency is responsible for; basically all the blue, green and nearly all red lines on your map, county councils are responsible for virtually but not quite all others. So their are quite diverse sources for the figures there.
Also the original purchase of a new vehicle attracts revenue according to its type, class and in some instances who purchased it. Vehicle insurance also attracts revenue.
The crown is not obliged to, and nor does it, either publish figures about exactly which revenue raised what or to spend any particular revenue on any particular thing.
I would suggest that a good start would be the Road Transport Federation (RTF). I know this published a report a couple of years back that claimed that vehicles over 7.5tonnes alone paid for all road construction and maintenance. - Not quite what we would like to hear. However they did clearly state where they got each part of their figures - so at least they can be checked. A good start to finding comprehensive information I would think.
I like you have in the past expressed the view that it would save a lot of bureaucracy to abolish VED altogether and include it in road fuel duty. This could be operated by a swipe card system - with the cards issued by the MOT testing station so that each type of vehicle pays appropriately. This would have the instant two fold effect of people paying directly for their amount of vehicle use and also making it very difficult to use a stolen one. In my view it is also absolutely ridiculous that police and other such service vehicles pay VED - the home secretaries left hand paying his right! Talk about jobs for the boys - then again god knows what they would get up to if they weren't doing that...
Just one further point, I would think at a guess that probably at least 85% of cyclists have at least one vehicle parked at home - so they get a particularly raw deal.

 

[growingvegetables]

It is a tricky bunch of figures to collate.

True.

In addition the central government highways agency is responsible for; basically all the blue, green and nearly all red lines on your map, county councils are responsible for virtually but not quite all others.

Wrong.

- There is no "central government highways agency". The Highways Agency is responsible for England's motorways (some of the blue lines) and strategic/major trunk roads (some of the other coloured lines). Look at their network map - it covers about 3% of the English road network.
- the Scottish and Welsh, (and Northern Ireland?) administrations are responsible for their own strategic routes.
- "county councils" is inaccurate in England alone, let alone the devolved administrations.

I would suggest that a good start would be the Road Transport Federation (RTF). I know this published a report a couple of years back that claimed that vehicles over 7.5tonnes alone paid for all road construction and maintenance.

I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be the only one to be surprised at this - I'd like to see something more as evidence than a throwaway like that?

 

[gilespargiter]

Ok some fair points there. True to say I'am not up on all the latest shifts of which exact agency does exactly what, but as far as I'am aware as I say although most likely now filtered through various other layers of bureaucracy the funding for international and national routes and there regulation and standards comes from central government i.e.basically the blue, green and most red lines on the map. However funding for other routes comes also from more local councils - so making the figures more tricky to collate.
I was not putting forward the FTA's (not the RTF as I mistakenly called it) report as evidence, and do not trust that they have included or excluded all the appropriate figures. I do remember thinking when reading it (a couple of years ago) that it did include clear verifiable references to the sources of the figures they did use. So I suggested it would be a good place to start finding out how to acquire the figures.
In my view the issue of VED and who pays what exactly is largely a "red herring" because ultimately we all pay for all of it. So the real issue is how all of us can exercise our right to freedom of movement on the public highways conveniently and safely (subject to the rules, supposedly to enhance this) by any method and at will. How we want to orient the movement of ourselves and our products.
We as cyclists are basically saying that our movement is often unduly hazardous and often inconvenient - so we want the situation improved.

 

[GrasB]

Add in the complexity of the devolved administrations, and all the other costs ....................... and the bottom line will be that petrol-heads are very heavily subsidised.

Are we subsidising motoring or are we paying for our modern lifestyles? Just how did the goods we buy from shops get there? Even if we do walk or cycle to the shops that's just the last small step not the whole journey. This involves lots of vehicles traveling long distances etc. It's something which is ignored almost always when the cost of roads comes up. Roads don't just gets cars from A to B, they are the network which delivers all kinds of different services, some of which wander right up to our door.

So if we took away all private cars but kept pedestrians, cycles, road going public transport, goods deliveries & service vehicles (refuse trucks, BT vans, etc) how much of that infrastructure would still need to be maintained to a reasonable standard & how much would that cost? The difference between that figure & how much it costs now is the real cost that the 'petrol head' motoring public puts on the tax payer.

My guess, & I emphasise this is a guess, from seeing a tarmac drive which carries 2 rubbish collections a week, 3 delivery vans a week plus countless pedestrians & cyclists a day is that would actually be relatively low. I see the vehicles which do the damage are the heavy ones, especially where they make tight turns. 5 years ago we had both the main drive & service drive resurfaced with smooth tarmac. In the subsequent 5 years this has been rendered into pot-holed mess where the refuse truck & delivery vans have to make tight turns. In addition to this where the delivery vans have to do a 180 the surface texture has become very open, no where near as bad as the areas that the refuse trucks turn in. Compare this to the main drive which is traveled almost exclusively by cars. Even though it sees far more traffic it's still in almost pristine condition. In addition to this, where is most all the surface damage done on heavily traveld roads? Typically it's on the track widths of heaver vehicles not cars.

Just a thought.

 

[AnotherEye]

Based on current estimates, the cost of recorded traffic casualties is
approximately £10 billion and the costs of traffic congestion around
£18 billion per year. A recent report* by the Environmental Trans-
port Association (ETA) estimated the total external costs of car use
at £50 billion per year, including congestion, pollution, noise, road
crashes and global warming).

On this basis, far from being victimised, the motorist is being subsi-
dised by society to the tune of roughly £34 billion per year. A unique
form of victimisation!

http://www.rdrf.org/membarea/rdrfbs7.pdf

 

[AnotherEye]

Are we subsidising motoring or are we paying for our modern lifestyles? Just how did the goods we buy from shops get there? Even if we do walk or cycle to the shops that's just the last small step not the whole journey. This involves lots of vehicles traveling long distances etc. It's something which is ignored almost always when the cost of roads comes up. Roads don't just gets cars from A to B, they are the network which delivers all kinds of different services, some of which wander right up to our door.

As I recall; the damage done to the road surface is proportional to the square of it's weight. Therefore a bicycle does no measurable damage whereas an HGV does far more than a car.
If this were taken into account & assume that we are subsidising the haulage industry we a can also deduce that goods that have traveled a long distance are subsidised more than locally produced products.
If all delivery vehicles were to pay the true cost of their impact we might see a significant switch back to the railways and the canals?
I guess HGV's pay a higher VED & more duty on their fuel (because they do less MPG) so this must be taken into account.

 

[AnotherEye]

During my search for something I'm stumbling upon other links of relevence:
http://www.rdrf.org/freepubs/pumpup.htm

 

[Richard Mann]

As I recall; the damage done to the road surface is proportional to the square of it's weight.

Fourth power of axleweight.

 

[AnotherEye]

Fairness in a Car-Dependent Society:
see page 19 (3.1 The costs and revenues of motoring):
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/data/files/publications/fairness_car_dependant.pdf

 

[Linford]

As I recall; the damage done to the road surface is proportional to the square of it's weight. Therefore a bicycle does no measurable damage whereas an HGV does far more than a car.
If this were taken into account & assume that we are subsidising the haulage industry we a can also deduce that goods that have traveled a long distance are subsidised more than locally produced products.
If all delivery vehicles were to pay the true cost of their impact we might see a significant switch back to the railways and the canals?
I guess HGV's pay a higher VED & more duty on their fuel (because they do less MPG) so this must be taken into account.

Without wanting to turn this into a bun fight, the motorist in the middle gets clobbered mostly in fuel duty, but (sometimes) partially in VED.

Total raised of fuel duty and VED is actually just under £30 billion, and total spent on the roads as you say is about £6 billion.
I do recall Tony Blair being pressed on the fuel duty escalator when he was PM, and fessing up that the money raised was needed to prop up the NHS spending, the welfare system, etc, so have to acknowledge that the road users who bay for licenses and taxes are subsidising the other bits of public spending which the politicians are afraid to tax through other methods (like income tax).

The freight rail association put out the blurb a few years ago that a single HGV on a single pass over a given road surface does as much damage to it as 40,000 cars. I understand it is all down to specific axle weights, so for arguments sake a 3 axle hgv loaded to the gills and weighing 20 tonnes will have a surface pressure than a 6 axle hgv weighing 44 tonnes.

As GrasB pointed out, we cannot do without delivery vehicles and HGV's, but they (the heavier ones) do not pay a proportional cost versus damage (VED of a max levy if £2,100 pa on the biggest of them, as opposed to VED charges of up to £435 pa for cars), and so subsequently, that means that their beneficiaries (the users of the goods they carry) are also subsidised and do not get to feel the full impact.

I do feel that the way which VED banding for cars has been done has by and large been only done to 'soak the rich' and has been done under the green washing mantra of saving the planet, as the sort of people who drive cars in the top bands may only actually do 3 or 4 thousand miles at most a year in them, and so will not pollute in the same way as a 44 tonne HGV clocking up 100,000 miles pa.

Public transport is another one who gets away very lightly. They are all run 'for profit', and the bus co's get big rebates on the fuel they buy. In addition to this as well, a 2 axle 10+ tonne bus (which will do a lot of damage to the road surface on every pass) pays less VED than a 1.3 tonne Ford Focus - The private users of buses get subsidised travel (as do the councils who dish out bus passes as the operating costs per mile are substantialy lower than HGV's).

There is also the issue about natural erosion and repairs required after a few hard frosts. The winter always takes it toll, and the damage always seems to be where the runs of tarmac are not sealed (or resealed) where they meet. Some bloke running a line of tar down these joins each autumn as a preventative measure for the coming frosts could save and awful lot of digging up and resurfacing IMO.

I could go on, but do not accept that the car users get off lightly.

I also have a motorbike (bigger than 599cc) which weights 162kg dry - with me on it and fuelled up, we are looking at a weight no more than 250kg it is one of the most efficient clean burning engines in a vehicle on the road (over 200bhp per litre in unaspirated form) - I have to pay £75 VED pa and do about 4k miles pa - also do I damage the roads with the weight of it ? (do I hell)

All users irrespective of what they drive or ride require that money is invested in the road network to keep it usable, and that does wholely (sp) come from the VED and duty paying users, and given the above arguments, I would find it hard to try and claim otherwise

 

[Linford]

Based on current estimates, the cost of recorded traffic casualties is
approximately £10 billion and the costs of traffic congestion around
£18 billion per year. A recent report* by the Environmental Trans-
port Association (ETA) estimated the total external costs of car use
at £50 billion per year, including congestion, pollution, noise, road
crashes and global warming).

On this basis, far from being victimised, the motorist is being subsi-
dised by society to the tune of roughly £34 billion per year. A unique
form of victimisation!

http://www.rdrf.org/membarea/rdrfbs7.pdf

I can't agree with this one sorry, the average motorist/motorcyclist pays proportionately more than any other group with all things considered !