Re: Road and Rail Funding (was Re: Bugger all express services on Hillside Trains)

[mauried@commslab.gov.au (Maurie Daly)]

In article <7lc0hl$fp1$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> amorton@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Anthony Morton) writes:
>From: amorton@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Anthony Morton)
>Subject: Re: Road and Rail Funding (was Re: Bugger all express services on Hillside Trains)
>Date: 30 Jun 1999 02:48:21 GMT


>>Anthony Morton wrote:

>>>  As for funding
>>> new roads with tolls, I agree in principle but I'd suggest that, if you're
>>> in favour of road pricing, you'd achieve the same outcome more easily by
>>> raising petrol prices.

>David McLoughlin  <davemcl@REMOVEiprolink.co.nz> wrote:

>>The problem with doing that is that is penalises essential road users
>>and ordinary people making trips which can't easily be done by public
>>transport.

Its also worth noting that the cost of roads is heavily dependant on what they 
are to be used for.
By far the most expensive roads to build are those designed to carry heavy 
articulated trucks and it is these vehicles that also cause the most road 
damage.
However , under the new Democrats fuel regime , the highest fuel excises are
being applied to motorists and owners of light trucks (under 4 tonne) , but 
the heavy articulated trucks which traveres the Hume Highway every night will
now pay only 20 c fuel excise, as against 37 c for motorists, ie the users 
that do the least damage are being asked to pay the most.
The whole policy is totally warped.
The only saving feature is the removal of fuel excise for Rail , but its not 
really a saving as the excise should have never been there in the first place.
We can thank Keating and Co for taxing rail.

MD