And don't forget, we voted for this......didn't we?This concept (massive hike) will have a lot of unintended consequences. Firstly, moving people out of cities and towns, and building on the green belt (any longer) will not be popular, as people will see any savings on house prices wiped out by payments for travelling on essential journeys, whether to work, to buy food or whatever. It is the death knell for the out of town developments that only make sense if you have a car, or actually two per household as there is nothing within walking distance apart perhaps from an "experimental" corner shop. I can think of about ten new developments within six miles of me that are economically illiterate if the cost of driving a car for essentials and/or work doubles or more. Simply, nobody in the target income bracket could afford to live in them. some are only a few hundred houses but four are 1,000 plus and two of these are way bigger than that. The houses are not cheap for what they are and bearing in mind that many are a good distance from anything required to live unless the owners have access to two cars per house. They are cheaper than trying to live in the middle of the nearby cities.
Is our housing policy to squeeze even more people into the cities or to spread them out a bit? How does the transport policy assist this goal?
A knock on effect will be a reduction in the flexibility of labour. This will lead to lower incomes eventually as only those people within an economical commute will be able to afford to apply for jobs in their area. Look at the devastation of a number of industrial areas when e.g. "the mine" closed. I believe there are still places where one can buy a house for a pound as long as one agrees to live in it. If we get car taxes wrong the closure of mines and factories in specific areas will be as nothing compared to the economic disaster of huge swathes of housing becoming worthless overnight.
Such a policy will lead to greater concentrations in cities with a detrimental effect on the concentration of people into specific areas regardless of whether such areas are vulnerable to floods, global warming etc., or are suitable for greater concentrations of people (sewage system, roads (Ha ha ha) or other access, quality of life, pollution etc. etc.).
I applaud ventures that will be clean and green. Personally I'd like a bit more focus on pollution first. However, transport in over-crowded England (and UK), is a major planning issue as if it is got wrong for any reason, the economic damage will bring the country to its knees very quickly with a fall out that will have a swift "no-return" tipping point.