Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has urged the government to let Transport for London (TfL) use ‘roads tax’ paid by the capital’s drivers to help fund growth in cycling and walking, as well as on the city’s roads.
The reference to ‘roads tax’ came in a press release yesterday announcing TfL’s draft budget for 2018/19, the first year of its new five-year business plan.
It was no accident, with money raised by the government through Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) set to be ring-fenced for use exclusively on roads under reforms announced by George Osborne in 2015 when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer.
TfL’s latest budget sees it have to balance the books against the backdrop of a £700 million cut in central government funding.
“With the removal of the government grant, this will be the first year that TfL has had to address the critical and unique demands of London’s road network, including congestion, maintenance, renewals and air quality, without support from the government,” the press release said.
“Both TfL and the Mayor are calling on the government, as part of their Transport Investment Strategy, to make sure that a link between ‘roads tax’ and roads funding is applied to London as well.
“This would allow TfL and the boroughs to continue modernising London’s road network, as well as support more walking and cycling journeys across the capital.
The press release continued: “From 2021, the £500 million raised every year from Londoners’ Vehicle Excise Duty will be collected by central government and only invested in roads outside the capital.”
As cycling journalist and author Carlton Reid points out on his I Pay Road Tax website, nowadays there is no such thing as ‘road tax’.
The process to abolish it was begun by Sir Winston Churchill in 1926, with the Road Fund, raised from motorists and ring-fenced to be spent on roads, disappearing in 1937.
Currently, motorists are required to pay VED each year, based on their vehicle’s emissions, or engine size for vehicles registered before 1 March 2001. Less-polluting and some older vehicles are exempt.
Roads are now funded from a mix of general and local taxation, and money raised through VED is not ring-fenced for use exclusively on roads – but that is set to change under the reforms unveiled Osborne in his June 2015 Budget, his first for a Conservative majority government.
Outlining changes to VED, he said: “I will return this tax to the use for which it was originally intended.
“I am creating a new Roads Fund. From the end of this decade, every single penny raised in vehicle excise duty in England will go into that Fund to pay for the sustained investment our roads so badly need.
“Tax paid on people’s cars will be used to improve the roads they drive on. It is a major reform to improve the infrastructure and productivity of our economy – and deliver a fairer tax system for the motorist.”
Osborne’s words were in stark contrast to those of one of his most illustrious predecessors as Chancellor, Churchill, who in a note to Treasury officials in 1925 wrote: “Entertainments may be taxed; public houses may be taxed; racehorses may be taxed … and the yield devoted to the general revenue.
“But motorists are to be privileged for all time to have the whole yield of the tax on motors devoted to roads. Obviously this is all nonsense … Such contentions are absurd, and constitute … an outrage upon the sovereignty of Parliament and upon common sense.”
Despite the fact the Road Fund was abolished eight decades ago, anyone who cycles on Britain’s roads will know that many motorists still take the view that ‘road tax’ exists and that people on bikes should not therefore be on the public highway since they don’t pay it.
Such views not only miss the point that road tax doesn’t exist and the VED they pay goes into a central pot together with other forms of taxation, but also that most adult cyclists also own cars (and are in fact more likely to come from multiple car-owning households than the average driver), and even if they were subject to some kind of duty, in line with the least polluting vehicles, they would pay nothing.
But under the forthcoming reforms, those motorists may feel even more of a sense of entitlement – although it’s worth noting that at the time of Osborne’s announcement, the £6 billion raised annually through VED was dwarfed by the £27 billion gained from fuel duty, which won’t be ring-fenced.
As a result, there will be a shortfall between the amount of money set aside for roads through VED, and the amount of expenditure on them.
Commenting on the TfL draft budget, London’s Transport Commissioner, Mike Brown, said: “This budget sets out what we will deliver in the next year as part of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy as we work to achieve his vision for 80 per cent of journeys to be made by walking, cycling and public transport by 2041.
“We will continue with our massive programme of investment in the transport network, modernising and boosting capacity, delivering healthier safer streets and providing affordable and accessible transport that will support London’s economic growth.
“This will be achieved alongside our extensive savings programme which is reducing our day to day costs, while protecting frontline services, as we manage a £700 million per year reduction in government subsidy.
“This will put us well on the way to generating an operating surplus for the first time in our history in 2021/22.”
Deputy Mayor for Transport, Val Shawcross, commented: “The next year will be a truly exciting time for London, with the opening of the Elizabeth Line, and major projects like the transformation of Oxford Street.
“At the same time, today’s budget shows how we’re also looking to the future with further tube modernisation and an unprecedented commitment to walking and cycling infrastructure.
“Through our major programme of TfL efficiencies, I’m proud that despite the removal of our government grant, we’re both freezing TfL fares and building a world-class transport network that will improve quality of life for Londoners all across our city.”
TfL’s board will consider the draft budget on Tuesday 20 March.

41 thoughts on “Sadiq Khan urges government: Let us use Londoners’ ‘roads tax’ to help fund growth in cycling and walking in capital”
With due respect to those who
With due respect to those who’ve used it before…
Ah, road tax, our old friend.
Ah, road tax, our old friend.
Leviathan wrote:
Excellent use of a Star Trek gif (and Montalban was so much better than Cumberbatch…
)
brooksby wrote:
I’ve never been as disappointed by a movie in the theatre. I’ve seen plenty of worse movies, but mostly at home, where you have little or no expectations for them. This was a Star Trek movie and following on from a really fresh and exciting reboot. And sure it looked good, but the constant callbacks and character swaps were annoying. I groaned out loud when Kirk died in the reactor and Spock was outside this time. I mean who was this movie for? If it was a Wrath of Khan remix; I don’t need that I want something new, and if it was for a new audience then they won’t get the references anyway. Just perplexing. And then JJ made the Force Awakens, another rehash; only rescued because he had to use new characters. I was not best pleased when they gave him Episode IX.
Sorry, off topic I know.
Leviathan wrote:
You should try watching in the cinema, it’ll give you a whole new perspective.
Way to get 1000’s of
Way to get 1000’s of perfectly reasonable white van men and black cabbies on our side….
…thinking about it…is he just trolling them? Should we just laugh at it? 80 years of no road tax hasnt stoppee the abuse, maybe just roll with it!!!
Sadiq Khan made a completely
Sadiq Khan made a completely unaffordable pledge to freeze all fares as part of his mayoral campaign. He told the many people who said this was an political gimmick they were fools.
Two years on the capex budget at tfl has had to be slashed to subsidise a partial fare cap with a knock on to long term transport improvement schemes that everyone benefits from. And now he wants top up funds to replace the funds he did have but frittered away buying office.
The joke is on thick Londoners who voted for a mayor with no grasp of finances and who has sat on his hands when it comes to new cycle routes – 6 schemes were ready to go when he took office but none have been started and all we hear is empty soundbites from the Nike “walking” czar he employed to advise on cycling.
ex_terra wrote:
Ahem.
Compared to Boris ‘Garden Bridge’ Johnson, the Tories have given Khan £700m less to spend on London transport than his predecessor. The princely sum of zero pounds. You can bet that instead, it will be spent out in the shires featherbedding roads in Tory electorates.
That’s why Khan’s got less to spend on cycle tracks, Crossrail 2, cycle bridges, etc etc.
We could have used the £52m Johnson sank into the Thames for the Garden Bridge, frankly. Or the £36 million he spent on the dangleway, which doesn’t have a single regular user. This article adds up £940m that Johnson wasted on useless projects:
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/architecture-design-blog/2016/jul/27/bikes-buses-bridges-boris-johnsons-biggest-design-blunders
But yeah, blame Khan, yawn.
So what about the tax dodgers
So what about the tax dodgers that do pollute, you know those who supposedly produce less than 99gCo2 per km though that’s only in the lab in best case scenario with all the accuracy of a tissue over the exhaust to measure smoke particles. That’s not even taking into account the fact that government allow the Euro6 vehicles to have a 100% leeway on their emissions until 2020 (conformity factor), that doesn’t even take into account that London motyor traffic is nowhere near the 30mph average speed used for Euro6 ‘real world’ testing so produce massively more actual pollution.
Don’t even get me started on the tax dodging EVs!
Bang up the tax on fuel, bang up the tax on EVs and no more free electricty for EV users, then you might actually see a change in use of motors which is one of the prime reasons why the roads are in such a shit state to begin with and money spent on roads for motors.
As a Northerner that visits
As a Northerner that visits the Capital 4/5 times a year, I had great fun for an hour on a Boris bike today.
City is full of wankers, on foot, bike and car. I wasn’t embarrassed to be a cyclist but a member of the human race!
alansmurphy wrote:
I used to drive in from the Northen home counties for best part of a decade but this was 15 years ago and I was lucky in that I had to be in for 7am and out by 4 at the latest (usually) so avoided most of the carnage but these days whenever I’m back there it’s absolutely horrific, just descended into a free for all.
it’s a losing battle, London is quite literally imploding and the hundreds of billions thrown at it won’t/can’t stop it from doing so unless drastic action is taken. Take Crossrail as an example, what is it now at £70Bn (Originally £14.8Bn), it’ll still be a load of pony.
Personally I’d level the whole city, send the millions as migrants to other countries until it’s rebuilt (isn’t that the done thing these days?) but whilst levelling it keep some of the population back to be removed permanantly who won’t be missed, repatriate the land back to the people and start again from scratch.
Probably cheaper than continually making a fucking hash of the whole thing and throwing more bad money at shite infra
Anyone who wants to own a car in a city or town must prove that they have somewhere off road to park it and on street parking on through roads is a non starter for all but the disabled.
Well it’s a start in my fantasy solution.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
I used to drive in from the Northen home counties for best part of a decade but this was 15 years ago and I was lucky in that I had to be in for 7am and out by 4 at the latest (usually) so avoided most of the carnage but these days whenever I’m back there it’s absolutely horrific, just descended into a free for all.
it’s a losing battle, London is quite literally imploding and the hundreds of billions thrown at it won’t/can’t stop it from doing so unless drastic action is taken. Take Crossrail as an example, what is it now at £70Bn (Originally £14.8Bn), it’ll still be a load of pony.
Personally I’d level the whole city, send the millions as migrants to other countries until it’s rebuilt (isn’t that the done thing these days?) but whilst levelling it keep some of the population back to be removed permanantly who won’t be missed, repatriate the land back to the people and start again from scratch.
Probably cheaper than continually making a fucking hash of the whole thing and throwing more bad money at shite infra
Anyone who wants to own a car in a city or town must prove that they have somewhere off road to park it and on street parking on through roads is a non starter for all but the disabled.
Well it’s a start in my fantasy solution.— alansmurphy
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/countryandregionalpublicsectorfinances/2015to2016#net-fiscal-balance
ConcordeCX wrote:
Ah, the old regional comparison of income vs spend.
Even, in this instance, if you sidestep
“This is the first time that we have published country and regional statistics on public sector revenue and expenditure and, as such, it is appropriate that the statistics being released are classed as experimental statistics”
you’re still hit square-on by
“All Category (i) profits are allocated to the location of the registered office. Category (ii) profits, which make up the majority of taxable profits, were allocated to countries according to the sub‐UK split of enterprises’ employment totals, or to the registered office if no employment data were available.
Company level Corporation Tax liabilities were assumed to be in line with the distribution of company level taxable profits. ”
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/methodologies/countryandregionalpublicsectorfinancesmethodologyguide#country-and-regional-public-sector-finances-apportionment-methods
In the 15 years of my career spent working outside London for hugely profitable companies with enormous corporation tax bills, guess where the registered office has been, and where those profits and corporation taxes are applied in games like this one.
ConcordeCX wrote:
I have such mixed-feelings about that graph. On the one hand, I get weary of endless resentment from…non-Londoners, when money gets spent on London in part because that’s where investment gets the most returns.
On the other hand, most of the plus side of bar chart is down to the City, which is in good part just dodgy chancers shuffling other people’s money around, and still doesn’t seem like a sustainable way to finance an economy.
Also – how much of the money spent on ‘London’ is actually Crossrail – which as far as I can make out is for the benefit of anyone _but_ Londoners, being mainly intended to let people from outside London get through the city without having to interact with it? Crossrail is _not_ really ‘spending on London’, its money being spent to drill a hole through it for the benefit of outsiders, so I’m not convinced it should be included.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
I used to drive in from the Northen home counties for best part of a decade but this was 15 years ago and I was lucky in that I had to be in for 7am and out by 4 at the latest (usually) so avoided most of the carnage but these days whenever I’m back there it’s absolutely horrific, just descended into a free for all.
it’s a losing battle, London is quite literally imploding and the hundreds of billions thrown at it won’t/can’t stop it from doing so unless drastic action is taken. Take Crossrail as an example, what is it now at £70Bn (Originally £14.8Bn), it’ll still be a load of pony.
Personally I’d level the whole city, send the millions as migrants to other countries until it’s rebuilt (isn’t that the done thing these days?) but whilst levelling it keep some of the population back to be removed permanantly who won’t be missed, repatriate the land back to the people and start again from scratch.
Probably cheaper than continually making a fucking hash of the whole thing and throwing more bad money at shite infra
Anyone who wants to own a car in a city or town must prove that they have somewhere off road to park it and on street parking on through roads is a non starter for all but the disabled.
Well it’s a start in my fantasy solution.— alansmurphy
London is on track to the first city in the developed western world to count as a ‘mega city’, with a population of over 10 million. We could rename it Mega City One for a start. People move to London because of jobs basically, though the madness of Brexit may limit the speed of growth. I think flattening it is a bit of a non starter. The world’s biggest city is Tokyo, with a population of 32 million as I recall, if you include the satellite towns. Seoul and Mexico City both have populations of about 22 million, though defining accurate numbers for the latter are hard due to the numbers of illegal barrios. Cairo, Rio de Janeiro, Istanbul, Mumbai, Shanghai and Bangkok are all in the mega city club too, along with a few others. The thing about London’s growth is that there is a chance for it to be better planned than for any of the existing mega cities (just a chance though).
Using funding to help develop cycling infrastructure would be a good step for London. I doubt cash from vehicle taxation would be made available. What I do find rather sad about Khan’s vision for London is that while is is ensuring public transport and cycling are being developed, he is not also promotoring the use of powered two wheelers. In fact the policies in place at present will actually limit the use of powered two wheelers and also impact on the safety for powered two wheeler riders.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
I used to drive in from the Northen home counties for best part of a decade but this was 15 years ago and I was lucky in that I had to be in for 7am and out by 4 at the latest (usually) so avoided most of the carnage but these days whenever I’m back there it’s absolutely horrific, just descended into a free for all.
it’s a losing battle, London is quite literally imploding and the hundreds of billions thrown at it won’t/can’t stop it from doing so unless drastic action is taken. Take Crossrail as an example, what is it now at £70Bn (Originally £14.8Bn), it’ll still be a load of pony.
Personally I’d level the whole city, send the millions as migrants to other countries until it’s rebuilt (isn’t that the done thing these days?) but whilst levelling it keep some of the population back to be removed permanantly who won’t be missed, repatriate the land back to the people and start again from scratch.
Probably cheaper than continually making a fucking hash of the whole thing and throwing more bad money at shite infra
Anyone who wants to own a car in a city or town must prove that they have somewhere off road to park it and on street parking on through roads is a non starter for all but the disabled.
Well it’s a start in my fantasy solution.— alansmurphy
Fucking moaning northerners in moaning about London shock.
Is that all you do? Anything else to take up your time? Life so great/shit you need to de-stress by stereotyping 10 million people?
Fine. Fuck off back up north and stay there. Luckily I know enough northerners myself to know you’re just the usual minority of bigoted Muppets that every region has.
Xx
StoopidUserName wrote:
I used to drive in from the Northen home counties for best part of a decade but this was 15 years ago and I was lucky in that I had to be in for 7am and out by 4 at the latest (usually) so avoided most of the carnage but these days whenever I’m back there it’s absolutely horrific, just descended into a free for all.
it’s a losing battle, London is quite literally imploding and the hundreds of billions thrown at it won’t/can’t stop it from doing so unless drastic action is taken. Take Crossrail as an example, what is it now at £70Bn (Originally £14.8Bn), it’ll still be a load of pony.
Personally I’d level the whole city, send the millions as migrants to other countries until it’s rebuilt (isn’t that the done thing these days?) but whilst levelling it keep some of the population back to be removed permanantly who won’t be missed, repatriate the land back to the people and start again from scratch.
Probably cheaper than continually making a fucking hash of the whole thing and throwing more bad money at shite infra
Anyone who wants to own a car in a city or town must prove that they have somewhere off road to park it and on street parking on through roads is a non starter for all but the disabled.
Well it’s a start in my fantasy solution.
— BehindTheBikesheds Fucking moaning northerners in moaning about London shock. Is that all you do? Anything else to take up your time? Life so great/shit you need to de-stress by stereotyping 10 million people? Fine. Fuck off back up north and stay there. Luckily I know enough northerners myself to know you’re just the usual minority of bigoted Muppets that every region has. Xx— alansmurphy
Fucking moaning Southerners in moaning about Northerners shocker, that’s ALL you do! (statement not question) Anything else to take up your time, like more bitching about Northerners, you destress by being an ignorant head in the sand idiot. Fine, off you fuck, just fuck off completely and stay fucked off, anywhere but this forum and the UK. Luckily I know enough people in the South myself and haing lived in the South for 29 years to know you’re just the usual minority of bigoted clueless muppet that mostly occurs in that there London.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Don’t worry, it’s mostly OK on the other days.
It really isn’t.
Err, no. I think Crossrail is roughly on budget, although costs have crept up a little latterly.
You might be confusing your higher figure with HS2, which is something entirely different.
It’s an unusual manifesto pledge but we did vote for Boris twice, and Sadiq has been disappointing thus far, so you might have a chance.
alansmurphy wrote:
I’ve spent years batting back such comments, but yeah, we’re leaving. I’m an actual Londoner, but it’s all too much now. Probably an age thing, but it IS crazier, more stressful and more miserable than it’s ever been.
No need for me to leave for work till 8.30 every morning, but I leave at 7 to make it less chaotic.
On a vaguely related note, I might be a little late today as the wife’s just given me breakfast with Marmite on the toast. Grounds for divorce…
Something something something
Something something something war on the motorist.
Get rid of “road tax”/VED
Get rid of “road tax”/VED completely and shift the burden entirely onto fuel. In one easy step, you’ve killed the argument and got a perfect pay-as-you-go road charging system that punishes the most polluting vehicles.
Extra duty on diesel obvs.
MrGear wrote:
Cool, we can shift the educational burden on to parents and have a PAYG health service while we’re at it.
don simon wrote:
Cool, we can shift the educational burden on to parents and have a PAYG health service while we’re at it.— MrGear
No what he said was:
I know it’s visible above but you don’t seem to have read it. What you said is not even close to being distantly related to the point.
Morat wrote:
Am I correct in thinking that an added fuel duty punishes who use the facility directly while allowing the indirect beneficiaries to get away scott free.
Much like my need of education. No kids, no pay. No car, no pay.
Or is it more like the PAYG health care where you only pay for what you use?
I’m obviously confused (I’m not really).
don simon wrote:
How does anyone indirectly benefit from someone else burning fuel and get away with it “scott free”?
Rich_cb wrote:
Oh Christ! It’s back….
don simon wrote:
Not going to answer the question then?
Rich_cb wrote:
Simply, no. Not to you, it’s not worth the effort, mate.
don simon wrote:
Just another post you can’t back up then.
Rich_cb wrote:
That’s right because not engaging with you is exactly the same as not being able to “back something up”.
Fortunately you won’t go on about it…
don simon wrote:
So you’re not engaging with me by replying to my posts, novel approach.
I’ve seen you pull the same act multiple times, post nonsense and then have a hissy fit when asked to back it up.
Rich_cb wrote:
No mate, I get that you have a zero tolerance to the internal combustion engine, that you can’t see the bigger picture and that you’ll follow me around and bang on about it until everyone has died of fucking boredom. I get that inspite of your less than perfect life, you’re happy to criticize others.
I’ve heard you, I disagree with you now move the fuck on!
don simon wrote:
Still not backing up your nonsense are you?
Rich_cb wrote:
Didn’t really need three posts….
Rich_cb wrote:
So sorry, I didn’t ask for multiple posts. I hope you’ll forgive me.
I get what the title is
I get what the title is trying to say, but “the growth in walking” sounds amusing – what were they doing before that? Slithering, sliding or moving on all-fours! The “growth in cycling” is true evolution!
chaos wrote:
growth in walking means convincing the people who drive a few yards to the shops for twenty Rothmans and a bag of Wotsits to get off their arses, walk down there, and buy some quinoa and blueberries instead.
First thing, the renamed VED
First thing, the renamed VED is not to be spent on “roads” but on “the Strategic Roads Network” ie those roads managed by the Highways Agency centrally – motorways and a few A roads. Map for England here
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/677493/s170085_Network_Manangement_Map.pdf
shows it’s not quite true that none is in London, but very little is. Other roads, including those managed by TfL and London boroughs, will continue with their present funding.
More importantly, geographic ring-fencing on top of (or even if only instead of) purpose ring-fencing would get absurd. Road tax paid on vehicles registered in Cornwall to be only spent on the A38 and A30, etc.
Still, good on Khan for
Still, good on Khan for suggesting cycling and walking in the context of, shock horror, transport budgets.
Maybe I have missed some
Maybe I have missed some detail on this story, but I honestly don’t see where the benefit lies.
As far as I can see, in previous years, the government has spent more than the amount of money taken in from VED on roads, so … are they planning just to continue as they are but call the VED monies ringfenced, or are they planning to carry on as they are and ADD the VED funds to the amount budgeted normally?
If the former, the only effect will be to give legitimacy to the drivers’ argument that they pay for the roads and cyclists don’t, therefore they have more rights, while making no difference to investment in the road infrastructure.
If the latter, there will be around £6Bn lost from other areas of the transport budget, and we can probably wave goodbye to any (serious) investment in cycling infrastructure as a result.
Everyone does seem a bit
Everyone does seem a bit tetchy today.. and it’s not even a full moon tonight.