Sensational-Adelaide.com

well given what IA have just said it looks likely, howeve it appears that it will be run by the Government

I actually support the idea of paying to use a road and getting rid of the levies and rego fees.

I assume which ever party that is not in power when these ideas are tested will obviously be against them.

Waewick wrote:...I assume which ever party that is not in power when these ideas are tested will obviously be against them.

Yes, lol it's a bit of a poisonous policy for whoever puts the bill forward.

Although, rego fees do not fund road infrastructure. They are (supposed) to cover the cost of making sure a vehicle is road worthy.

monotonehell wrote:

Waewick wrote:...I assume which ever party that is not in power when these ideas are tested will obviously be against them.

Yes, lol it's a bit of a poisonous policy for whoever puts the bill forward.

Although, rego fees do not fund road infrastructure. They are (supposed) to cover the cost of making sure a vehicle is road worthy.

ha, i didn't know that. that is hilarious.

Waewick wrote:

monotonehell wrote:

Waewick wrote:...I assume which ever party that is not in power when these ideas are tested will obviously be against them.

Yes, lol it's a bit of a poisonous policy for whoever puts the bill forward.

Although, rego fees do not fund road infrastructure. They are (supposed) to cover the cost of making sure a vehicle is road worthy.

ha, i didn't know that. that is hilarious.

(Same story with stamp duty, but in a post GST Australia reality does not necessarily follow intent. They all go into general revenue and are used for whatever.)

Provided the cost to use roads is commensurate with the amount of damage (environmental and physical) the vehicle of choice does and the congestion it contributes too then I am happy with that.

I ride a bicycle

realstretts wrote:Provided the cost to use roads is commensurate with the amount of damage (environmental and physical) the vehicle of choice does and the congestion it contributes too then I am happy with that.

I ride a bicycle

I think you'll pay the same then

Waewick wrote:

realstretts wrote:Provided the cost to use roads is commensurate with the amount of damage (environmental and physical) the vehicle of choice does and the congestion it contributes too then I am happy with that.

I ride a bicycle

I think you'll pay the same then

Gotta love my morning commute to work past hundreds of cars holding each other up.

Well briefly listening to our top class minister mulligan he is already refering to it as tolls and won't happen.

People like him need to be removed from office.

If they're intending to toll all roads then they should just stick with fuel excise. It's so much easier to administer. The overheads and bureaucracy to administer what the Libs want to do would be wasteful.

The stickler here is that motor registration has become a defacto revenue stream for the states instead of the fee for registration it is supposed to be (like stamp duty), and they won't want to let that go. Seems that this proposal might be a scheme to wrest more revenue control away from the states?

monotonehell wrote:If they're intending to toll all roads then they should just stick with fuel excise. It's so much easier to administer. The overheads and bureaucracy to administer what the Libs want to do would be wasteful.

The stickler here is that motor registration has become a defacto revenue stream for the states instead of the fee for registration it is supposed to be (like stamp duty), and they won't want to let that go. Seems that this proposal might be a scheme to wrest more revenue control away from the states?

it wasn't a libs idea it was an infrastructure idea.

you know for once in my life I would love SA to just enage in a concept rather than just complaining about it and try to point out all the hard things that we just don't understand.

I don't believe it would be that hard to administor (otherwise it wouldn't have been suggested) and I do believe it would be fairer even to the phantom poor people every talks about.

as part of the debate, we may actually end up having a real conversation and also address PT issues

or we can do what Australians do very very well, complain about it endlessly till it goes away, then in a few months complain that the Governments don't do anything.

Waewick wrote:
I don't believe it would be that hard to administor (otherwise it wouldn't have been suggested) and I do believe it would be fairer even to the phantom poor people every talks about.

Taxing fuel is surely the easiest way to do this. It taxes distance and weight.
I think the only reason we are discussing this is because of electric cars which makes the current pay for use system fail.
Leave fuel tax for existing cars and invent some automatic system for new electric cars. Surely be cheapest option.

bits wrote:Taxing fuel is surely the easiest way to do this. It taxes distance and weight.

But it doesn't tax based on the road that you on and the time of day you are using it, and therefore doesn't discourage people from using the busiest roads at the busiest times. Its all about putting levers in place that encourage more efficient use of resources which in turn leads to a stronger economy for all of us.

License plate recognition cameras coupled with automatic charging for driving into the City in peak hours or driving on certain roads at certain times of day. The technology exists and works very successfully - including in the City of London.

Concessions could easily be applied to certain vehicles for people with disabilities, low-income etc (although granted this would leave some scope for registering vehicles to a friend/family member who applies for a concession - I'm sure this could be addressed somehow).

Granted, this probably isn't a state or nation-wide solution but would work well to reduce city-based traffic.

muzzamo wrote: But it doesn't tax based on the road that you on and the time of day you are using it, and therefore doesn't discourage people from using the busiest roads at the busiest times.

Sure it does.
Sitting in traffic takes fuel. Open road I get about 8l/100km city peak hour is more like 14l/100km.

muzzamo wrote:

bits wrote:Taxing fuel is surely the easiest way to do this. It taxes distance and weight.

But it doesn't tax based on the road that you on and the time of day you are using it, and therefore doesn't discourage people from using the busiest roads at the busiest times. Its all about putting levers in place that encourage more efficient use of resources which in turn leads to a stronger economy for all of us.

Congestion tax could follow.

But what it does is give a price point to the car.

Right now I hop in the car without a second thought as the immediate cost is 0 ( I incur petrol, rego and wear and tear independently )

Under this idea, I could look at it and say $5 to drive into the city or $3.60 to catch the bus.

That immediate feedback would be a trigger for many.