Politicians need to cut car dependency not fuel taxes

1. Fuel protesters are reported to be threatening direct action at oil refineries on 14 September if cuts are not made to the price of fuel. Despite recent increases in the cost of fuel in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, CPRE believes these protests miss the bigger challenges facing the country.  CPRE highlights, in particular, that:

• Motoring has got cheaper while public transport is more expensive. Between 1998-2002 the cost of public transport rose (rail by 4%, and bus by 7%). The cost of motoring has remained virtually the same. Between 1998-2002 motoring costs infact reduced by 3%.  
• Future cost of motoring predicted to fall substantially.  The Government's Transport White Paper assumes that pump prices are expected to be 17% lower in 2010 than in 2000. Falls in fuel prices coupled with improved vehicle efficiency means the cost per vehicle km is projected to fall by 29% between 2000-2010.
• Transport emissions a threat to action on climate change. In September 2004, the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, described climate change as 'the world's greatest environmental challenge'. Emissions from transport are responsible for 20% of total UK emissions, are forecast to rise, and now represent a serious threat to achieving the serious reductions in CO2 that are needed.

Rural areas would be hit by lower fuel prices

2. It is often assumed, in the context of this debate, that the best thing to do for the countryside would be to see lower fuel prices through a reduction in fuel duties. There is no doubt that dependency on the car is higher in rural areas.  However, this also needs to be weighed against the problems faced by those without a car who have lost out because of increasingly expensive public transport.  It also needs to be seen in the context of the major environmental problems caused by traffic growth. 

3. Traffic on rural roads has increased faster than in urban areas, and Government forecasts indicate this will increase dramatically in future (a 30% increase between 2000 and 2010). This will undermine UK efforts to cut carbon dioxide emissions and means that the impacts of traffic on peoples' quality of life will be felt even more widely. Already the tranquillity of the countryside has been shattered in the last 30 years.

4. Under the existing conditions of poor public transport and a lack of local services, the worst affected are those without a car and those on low incomes who are forced to own a car due to a lack of alternatives. These problems are best addressed through measures to increase transport choice, rather than by trying to make driving cheaper. This would primarily benefit the well-off since those on the highest incomes travel 3 times further than those on the lowest income levels. It would also lead to further traffic growth and congestion.

5. Cutting fuel duty will not address the transport problems of those most in need and will damage policies designed to address climate change and traffic growth.  In addition, it will cut off an important source of potential funds to improve public transport.

A package of measures is needed to reduce car dependency

6. CPRE believes a package of measures is needed to encourage more sustainable transport patterns, in ways which do not disadvantage those on low incomes. This should involve:

• improving public transport in rural areas. Since 1 April 2005, the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) have been given responsibility for funding rural transport. Before April, the funds were held by the Countryside Agency. CPRE is concerned that the RDAs will not give rural public transport the priority it needs;
• a Government target to improve rural public transport.  The current Government met its target for increasing the availability (rather than the use) of rural public transport several years early. Rather than extend the target, it promptly dropped it, and the Transport White Paper contains no specific target for improving rural public transport;
• reducing other types of motoring taxation. CPRE supports moves in recent Budgets to reduce VED for cars with more efficient engines. Further reductions in VED would help to shift the burden of taxation from ownership to use which is more likely to benefit those on low incomes; and
• examining other targeted measures to support those on low incomes in  rural areas. This might include increasing the level of means-tested benefits to incorporate a 'rural travel bonus' for claimants with rural postcodes; and introducing a Rural Council Tax Rebate for remote rural areas.

Reduce car dependency not fuel taxes

Paul Hamblin, CPRE's Head of Transport Policy, commenting on the threat of protests said:

'We cannot duck the need to reduce the environmental consequences of traffic growth. 60% of car trips are under 2 miles and traffic on rural roads is forecast to rocket.  Increasing pump prices mask a fall in the cost of motoring.  The people really losing out in rural areas aren't car drivers, but those without a car who have suffered from spiralling public transport costs and the loss of local shops and services.

The fuel protests only go to highlight the need to move away from our increasing dependency on the car, and to invest in alternatives. Politicians should show how they will cut car dependency not fuel taxes.'