From: drobinso@mendel.une.edu.au (D.Robinson)
Newsgroups: aus.politics
Subject: Re: Revenue and Lead in petrol (was: We also need better roads?)
Date: 11 Dec 92 05:42:44 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: University of New England, Armidale, Australia

In article <1992Dec5.070451.23765@metapro.DIALix.oz.au> bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche) writes:
>In <2608@grivel.une.edu.au> drobinso@mendel.une.edu.au (D.Robinson) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov28.040934.25462@metapro.DIALix.oz.au>
>>   bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche) writes:

>>Australian Road Costs $mill(1986-87)
>>Road construction and maintenance    4200
>>Trafic facilities and policing        783
>>Accidents                            5520

>>Total                               10503

>We're talking about _different_ statistics here. I'm talking
>about the proportion of taxes allocated to roads, as
>published in RACWA's Road Patrol every two months. That
>figure does not include "Accidents". I did check the facts.

Are you saying that the cost of accidents isn't a necessary
cost of using the roads?   

>August figures - which I have at hand - indicate a total of
>approx $8000 million collected in 91/92 (cf approx $6500
>million in 86/87), against a federal government expenditure
>of approx $1500 million on roads (cf $1300 million in 86/87).

Federal revenue was listed as about $6000 million.  (The discrepancy
of 500 million is due mainly to import duties, which most people think 
of general taxes, rather than a specific tax on road users).  The balance 
($1200 million) of my road funding figure was raised by the States.
Federal road construction/maintenance was about $1350 million.
The balance of the road construction and maintenance ($2850) was spent 
by the states and local authorities.

Therein lies the difference.  We accept that income tax raised by the
federal tax office may be spent by the states.  The same applies to roads.
Your figures, by omission, would appear to be a deliberate distortion of the 
truth.  Are you proud of that?

>If you know that they are misleading the public, it's your
>responsibility to set them straight.

Yours too, surely, if you want to live in a fair and honest society.

>The NRMA can think whatever it likes. The problem is that
>there is lead in the petrol because some cars require it.

Let me quote another poster on the subject.  
johnr@bohra.cpg.oz.au (John Reid) writes:
>I believe that the lead levels could be reduced to the EC standard (about
>1/3 of the current level of lead) without affecting the performance of the
>existing vehicle fleet. I saw this done in the UK in the early eighties.

>The problem is that the Oil companies have to make major changes to their
>refineries to achieve the same octane rating, and this they don't like
>doing. In Britain a chemistry professor at Reading university blew the gaff
>on the oil industry, and told the country that the only cost to the oil
>companies was a reduction in throughput. When they were obliged to make the
>change they were able to make it within a month, and there was no
>perceptible change in the price of petrol. Our cars continued to run as
>before....

>>But then, who gives a damm here about children's IQ?  Not you, obviously.  

>>>Besides, petrol is not the only source of lead in the
>>>environment. You saw what *you* wanted to see in the report.

>>You mean, *you* believe whatever you choose to believe, without even bothering
>>to check the facts.  The lead in petrol has different chromotographic 
>>fingerprint than that from lead in paint or other sources.  And surprise, 
>>surprise, the fingerprint from the lead in the kids' blood just happens to be 
>>identical.  It COULDN'T have come from anywhere else.  

>So you're absolutely sure that lead from other sources has
>no impact on intelligence. 

That's silly.  Anyone who lives in Port Pirie or Broken Hill obviously has 
other sources of lead to worry about.
But the kids tested were typical Sydney suburban kids.  Presumably
if they had been exposed to other sources of lead, this would have shown
up in the chromotographic analysis.  If their major source of lead was from
petrol, then the same is likely to be true in most other parts of Australia.

>>Nobody is saying that cars should be banned, or that everybody should be
>>forced to use public transport.  All I'm saying is that road users should 
>>pay their FAIR SHARE of the the true costs, not just the road construction 
>>costs, and according to their actual use.  First reduce the charges per 
>>vehicle, and substitute them with charges per km.  So if you choose to leave 
>>your car at home and use public transport, you pay less road charges, for 
>>contributing less to the conjestion, pollution or other costs.  

>But it's the government policies forcing me to live so far
>from work. (I'd love to be only a 10km cycle-ride from
>work.) With a charge/km I may as well resign and go on the
>dole.

How about changing the policies instead?

>How would you collect taxes? Set up toll booths at 1 km
>intervals? Sorry if it sounds silly, but if you ignore the
>practicalities of the current environment, you'll wind up
>with laws and regulations which are impractical to enforce.

>km travelled have little to do with the costs, even looking
>at the statistics you give. There are other factors such as
>the nature of the vehicle, the driver's ability, the length
>of trips, etc. etc..

For the 28,400 heaviest vehicles responsible for over half the road damage,
the idea came from the bureau of transport economics.  Most of them have
tachographs.  For the rest of us, taxing petrol is a reasonable approximation
to a tax per km.  It's fairest for pollutants and greenhouse effects.
It's a bit unfair to careful drivers, but I don't see why a 'no
claim bonus' couldn't operate.  Given a couple of card readers and electronics
at petrol stations, drivers could present an id card with car rego
number, to qualify for tax discount.  Electronics calculates totals for
station to subtract from tax on the next delivery.  Some random checking to
prevent fraud.  Sounds a lot cheaper to operate than some of the anti-
congestion schemes and congestion taxes being proposed by the RTA at the
moment.

>Please don't portrait me as an uncaring rev-head. I've
>witnessed too many near-fatal accidents and I'm totally
>convinced of the fragility of the human being.

Which is why the user-pays principle should apply equally well to road
transport.  Such an argument also reinforces the 'road improvements to
save lives idea', if accidents are properly costed and paid for.  
Avoiding the accidents is then a valid way of saving money.

>And why not move the work closer to where the people live?
>In Germany, you used to be able to get a tax rebate, based
>on the distance between home and work (maybe they still do
>that).. That makes it in the government's interest to keep
>people living reasonably close to work.

Maybe they have better co-operation between levels of government over there.
Second only to the Dutch, Germans also have a much better record of planning 
cities for people, rather than for cars
More relevant, here tax rebates operate at federal level.   I'm not sure that 
would provide much of an incentive to those in the states and local authorities
who end up making the decisions about where people should work and live.

Taxing road users fairly according to use might at least put pressure on
these decision makers, by putting pressure on voters.