From: bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au (Bernd Felsche)
Subject: Re: Revenue and Lead in petrol (was: We also need better roads?)
Organization: MetaPro Systems, Perth, Western Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 02:36:32 GMT

In <2638@grivel.une.edu.au> drobinso@mendel.une.edu.au (D.Robinson) writes:

>>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?   

That's not what I'm saying... It's just that they weren't
*excplicitly* stated as having been included or excluded
from the statistics. Besides, what makes you think accidents
will stop happening when everybody's using public transport?
You'll still have drunks stagger into traffic, children
chase their dog into a four-lane highway, etc, etc

>>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).

>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?

Not _my_ figures. RACWA published them. Not having *any*
spare time to do reasonable research into whatever catches
my whim puts me at the disadvantage of having to believe
what's presented by a reputable source.

I did not count the individual dollars and cents. I did not
audit the government's records on a record by record basis.
I'll leave that up to the people who get paid to do it and
whose responsibility it is to get it right.

>>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.

Yes, but because you've done the research and have the raw
data, it's up to you, IMHO to set RACWA right, or at least
to present your argument. It's not that I don't believe your
statistics, or that I don't believe RACWA's synopsis, but I
would like the record set straight. The discrepancy is too
large to ignore, even if one were to acknowledge that RACWA
had not included "costs of accidents".

>>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?

There is *no* way I can change the governments policies. I'm
not part of the government, the government doesn't care a
rats arse about community concerns, it's only aim is to be
re-elected by distortion of facts and empty promises.

>>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.

Well, km travelled has little correlation with petrol usage.
With A/C on full blast in 40C heat, in a CBD traffic jam for
45 minutes, I'll travel 1km and use about 1litre. On the
other hand, cruising at 90kmh, I'll travel 15 km on another
litre.

>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.

Privacy concerns! Ouch! How will you stop the one careful
driver in the family lending his ID to other people to fill
their tank. How will you stop fuel being siphoned into other
cars. How.... If there's a system, people will learn to work
around it for their own benefit. And it doesn't take much
imntelligence to do so, as I've illustrated.

>>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.

It sure is. So why is it that complete idiots get licences?
Why is it that I could (if that was my job) regularly dish
out half a dozen tickets for non-speeding traffic violations
on the way to and from work?

It has to do with driver education. Australians believe that
it's a human right to drive. It's not! There is no
justification at all for the number of incompetent driver on
the roads, other than an unwillingness of governments to
hurt people's pride by telling them that they are bad
drivers and force them to undergo compulsory re-testing
periodically (not more frequently than 5 years) and whenever
they get a traffic code violation or three.

Governments also have to bite the bullet and make safer cars
more available to the general public, not just the fortunate.

>>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.

Hang on. Putting pressure on the voters, by increasing
taxes, will change the way the various governments act?
Want to buy a harbour bridge?

The big push to decentralise in the 70s was a dismal failure
because governments failed to compensate with infrastructure
changes, as others have pointed out here. Governments cannot
and should not (IMHO) delegate societal infrastructure
establishment and management to private industry.

BTW: Anybody know if I can hire a bicycle from the federal
governement. I've got this mortgage to pay off... :-)
-- 
+-----+ Bernd Felsche                     _--_|\  #include <std/disclaimer.h>
| | | | MetaPro Systems Pty Ltd          /      \ bernie@metapro.DIALix.oz.au
| | | | 328 Albany Highway,              X_.--._/         Fax: +61 9 472 3337
|m|p|s| Victoria Park, Western Australia 6100  v        Phone: +61 9 362 9355
Newsgroups: aus.politics