"Get off the road, you don't pay rego"

RobertL
Posts: 468
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2016 3:08 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: "Get off the road, you don't pay rego"

Postby RobertL » Fri Nov 24, 2017 10:03 am

tcdev wrote:
bychosis wrote:...are we going to see car driving up and back on toll roads all night on the last night of the year to run up enough tolls to save on rego? "I'd better drive to work all next week to get my toll quota otherwise I'll pay out $1200 in tolls and have to fork out rego too"

A mate of mine used to buy/lease/? his car and petrol through work, but there was a minimum km requirement to get the tax break (don't ask me how it worked). So in the last few weeks of the financial year, he'd drive from Sydney to Melbourne, as many times as it took to get his km's up to spec. Pretty stupid system... :(


The tax system used to have a threshold of 25,000 kilometres per annum. It lead to all sorts of silly behaviour as you describe and has since been changed to a flat rate with no minimum qualifying kilometre figure.
Image

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7220
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: "Get off the road, you don't pay rego"

Postby find_bruce » Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:54 pm

Interesting follow up by the ABC Electric cars are breaking our roads, here's how. Some interesting visualisations on how people get to work. Looking at the Sydney map for example, those who take a train to work are where people live close to the train line.

It touches on the whole rego question with this graphic

Image

Together with this
All up, governments spend approximately the same amount of money on road infrastructure as they receive from drivers.

At more than $12 billion of new engineering work done for the public sector per year, it's greater than the spending on energy, telecommunications and water combined.

Quick maths shows something is wrong with these figures - $1,334 per vehicle for $12billion would mean there are some 9 million registered vehicles, but there isn't - in fact there are more than 18 million registered vehicles in Australia.

Has anyone seen any recent publications that compares revenue with expenditure on roads?

eeksll
Posts: 2371
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:36 pm

Re: "Get off the road, you don't pay rego"

Postby eeksll » Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:19 pm

so it should be "get off the road, you don't pay for fuel" :shock:

AdelaidePeter
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am

Re: "Get off the road, you don't pay rego"

Postby AdelaidePeter » Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:31 pm

find_bruce wrote:Together with this
All up, governments spend approximately the same amount of money on road infrastructure as they receive from drivers.

At more than $12 billion of new engineering work done for the public sector per year, it's greater than the spending on energy, telecommunications and water combined.

Quick maths shows something is wrong with these figures - $1,334 per vehicle for $12billion would mean there are some 9 million registered vehicles, but there isn't - in fact there are more than 18 million registered vehicles in Australia.

Has anyone seen any recent publications that compares revenue with expenditure on roads?


Nice catch. The $12 billion figure is low. Even back in 2008-9 it was $15.9 billion https://bitre.gov.au/publications/2011/files/is_040.pdf . The ABC article said $12 billion on new engineering work; but I can't think why the author thought that was a useful distinction to make.

Anyway, I've always been sort of uncomfortable with the "rego doesn't pay for roads" argument. It seems from those figures that it does indeed partly pay for roads.

User avatar
find_bruce
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 7220
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 8:42 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: "Get off the road, you don't pay rego"

Postby find_bruce » Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:47 pm

AdelaidePeter wrote:Anyway, I've always been sort of uncomfortable with the "rego doesn't pay for roads" argument. It seems from those figures that it does indeed partly pay for roads.
Its actually the "rego pays for the roads" argument that is highly dubious. What it assumes (and the same assumption is made in the ABC article) is that there is no cost to collecting rego, instead there is a whole bureaucracy dedicated to processing licences and registration.

The former NSW Minister for Roads would blather on about wanting to impose registration and / or licences for cyclists. Part of the opposition came from within the department as the cost would significantly exceed any money raised.

AdelaidePeter
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am

Re: "Get off the road, you don't pay rego"

Postby AdelaidePeter » Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:56 pm

find_bruce wrote:
AdelaidePeter wrote:Anyway, I've always been sort of uncomfortable with the "rego doesn't pay for roads" argument. It seems from those figures that it does indeed partly pay for roads.
Its actually the "rego pays for the roads" argument that is highly dubious. What it assumes (and the same assumption is made in the ABC article) is that there is no cost to collecting rego, instead there is a whole bureaucracy dedicated to processing licences and registration.

The former NSW Minister for Roads would blather on about wanting to impose registration and / or licences for cyclists. Part of the opposition came from within the department as the cost would significantly exceed any money raised.


Here in SA there is a separate admin fee, $7 from memory.

I find it hard to believe that it costs $270/car x 18 million cars = $4.86 billion to administer the collection of registration. Does it cost something? Sure. But let's not avoid the fact that rego does contribute something to roads. (And that, if the rego was set high enough, it could make money off cyclists' registration too. (EDIT: Though I'm definitely not saying that would be a good thing)).

uart
Posts: 1147
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 9:15 pm
Location: Newcastle

Re: "Get off the road, you don't pay rego"

Postby uart » Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:40 pm

eeksll wrote:so it should be "get off the road, you don't pay for fuel" :shock:

Yes it looks like it's definitely a bigger slice of the pie than rego.

I'm not in favour of a flat rate per km like they are trialing in Oregon however. I realize that some changes will be necessary with the increase in electric cars, but I think that the system still has to provide incentives for less polluting cars and less polluting forms of transport.

Under the current system, someone with a car the uses 5L/100km pays a lot less fuel excise than someone with a fuel guzzler, and I'm perfectly happy with that. Low fuel use vehicles are often lighter and less powerful than guzzlers, and so cause less road wear. Plus, as I mentioned above, there should be incentives for polluting less.

But now electric cars are definitely going to open up a whole new tin of worms here. Perhaps a keep about half the current fuel excise, and get the other half from a "per km" charge on rego.

human909
Posts: 8376
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: "Get off the road, you don't pay rego"

Postby human909 » Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:51 pm

AdelaidePeter wrote:But let's not avoid the fact that rego does contribute something to roads.

What fact?
Please do show me facts about where and when road funding comes the 'registration' of cars?

AdelaidePeter wrote:Anyway, I've always been sort of uncomfortable with the "rego doesn't pay for roads" argument. It seems from those figures that it does indeed partly pay for roads.


You might as well be arguing that my GST on my bicycle pays for the roads or my extra tax on my beer pays for the roads. It makes just as much sense.

User avatar
Thoglette
Posts: 3427
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:01 pm

Re: "Get off the road, you don't pay rego"

Postby Thoglette » Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:56 pm

uart wrote:But now electric cars are definitely going to open up a whole new tin of worms here. Perhaps a keep about half the current fuel excise, and get the other half from a "per km" charge on rego.


Any such charge has two problems:

Firstly, it will (as Mr Churchill pointed out) create (continue) a sense of entitlement and separates private car use from "moving people and goods". A better solution would be to stop building new roads and to stop "improving" existing ones. That would save some $15B per annum, based on the WA numbers (WA Main Roads alone spends $1.5Bpa on improvements and less than 1/3 on maintenance. Yet when the PTA "loses" $75M we apparently have a problem).

Secondly, it is highly regressive and excessively targets those who are least likely to be able to afford to live in a "walkable" location or one well serviced by public transport. Run it as a percentage of gross (not taxable) income and it might be a little fairer. But see point one.
Stop handing them the stick! - Dave Moulton
"People are worthy of respect, ideas are not." Peter Ellerton, UQ

User avatar
outnabike
Posts: 2105
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 2:53 pm
Location: Melbourne Vic

Re: "Get off the road, you don't pay rego"

Postby outnabike » Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:57 pm

Our call is to tell the motorists to “Ged orrf our road.” :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... 0y1KnqLNrU

Automobile companies had an interest in retaining control of the roads, and in putting their product at the center of the story. In 1927, for example, the Ford Motor Company's promotional materials said the Model T "started the movement for good roads everywhere." Today, Reid points out, curator Suzanne Fischer of the Henry Ford Museum sets the record straight: "It wasn't car owners that first demanded better roads," she says in a museum video, "it was bicycle riders":
"I often hear now-a-days, the automobile instigated good roads; that the automobile is the parent of good roads. Well, the truth is, the bicycle is the father of the good roads movement in this country," he wrote. "The bicycle is to be given credit, not only as the pioneer of the good roads movement but also as the parent of the automobile."
Vivente World Randonneur complete with panniers

BJL
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:45 pm

Re: "Get off the road, you don't pay rego"

Postby BJL » Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:19 pm

I think you're all forgetting something here. Only major roads are funded by state and federal governments. The majority of the roads in most areas are paid for by local ratepayers through their council rates.

Last time I checked the federal budget for this exact topic, the federal government raised about $19 billion per year through fuel excise. I think that was the 2015-16 financial year. Recently, I saw an article by the NSW government proudly announcing at $74 72.7 (close enough) billion dollar roads plan for the next four years. If everybody is allowed to make dubious assumptions to try and skew the overall picture (and why not, the NSW government is fantastic and claiming this is all THEIR doing), then so will I and assume that the entire $72.7 billion that NSW will be spending on the roads is all public money. So even if the entire amount raised by fuel excise was spent on the roads, it would seem that NSW has pretty much spent it all already!

edit - source - https://www.budget.nsw.gov.au/budget-ov ... -our-state
Okay, I might have shot myself in the foot. They did say roads AND public transport funding. And I'm too lazy to check out the exact details in the budget paper.

But there's more! Here in Victoria, the RACV likes to claim that only 1c per litre of fuel excise collected is spent on the roads. By their measure, that's about $500 million per year ($19 billion / 38). I'm pretty sure that a tad more than $500 million per year is spent on the roads in Australia annually. Even if they're talking about Victoria alone, I find that hard to believe.

None of it adds up so it can only mean one thing. Roads are also funded by other sources of taxation :shock: And not only that, the MAJOR source of roads funding is by taxes other than fuel excise. Double :shock: :shock: And cyclists pay their fair share of those taxes just like everyone else. Triple :shock: :shock: :shock:

Except tolls for roads we're not allowed to use anyway.

Electric vehicles - Boooooooooo. Freeloading scum who damage the roads and cause congestion but don't pay their fair share. Boooooooooooooooo. Next time I see an electric car, I'm going to yell abuse at the occupants, throw a water bidon at them and try to force them off the road. They shouldn't be on the roads anyway.

:P

User avatar
Strawburger
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:19 pm
Location: Dulwich Hill, Sydney

Re: "Get off the road, you don't pay rego"

Postby Strawburger » Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:03 pm

find_bruce wrote:Interesting follow up by the ABC Electric cars are breaking our roads, here's how. Some interesting visualisations on how people get to work. Looking at the Sydney map for example, those who take a train to work are where people live close to the train line.

It touches on the whole rego question with this graphic

Image

Together with this
All up, governments spend approximately the same amount of money on road infrastructure as they receive from drivers.

At more than $12 billion of new engineering work done for the public sector per year, it's greater than the spending on energy, telecommunications and water combined.

Quick maths shows something is wrong with these figures - $1,334 per vehicle for $12billion would mean there are some 9 million registered vehicles, but there isn't - in fact there are more than 18 million registered vehicles in Australia.

Has anyone seen any recent publications that compares revenue with expenditure on roads?


Yeah those numbers are wrong. There are wrong assumptions in there. When I read it I scratched my head wondering how they got those.

Rego pays for the process, stamp duty the same so the only money you could count is the fuel excise that comes soley from motorists.

Expenditure on roads is WAY more than 14b per year. I'm assuming the report is referring to national figures?

NSW revenue on vehicles is approx 3b. Fees and fines around 0.7b. FYI Land tax is also 3b, gambling tax is a whopping 2b... NSW budget spend is around 15b. 8b on new roads, 5b for services and operations and 2b on maintenance.

So, with Victoria matching nsw and qld not far behind, those figures don't add up.
n=10 (2013 & 2004 roads,2010 track,2x 2009 foldups,1990 hybrid,1992 trainer,2007 rental,1970's step through,1980's zeus)

User avatar
Strawburger
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:19 pm
Location: Dulwich Hill, Sydney

Re: "Get off the road, you don't pay rego"

Postby Strawburger » Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:15 pm

And as for the road user pricing argument, the current model is broken. It has been for some time, the roads industry is trying to change it but politics and votes get in the way. The revenue is dropping rapidly however the politicians don't want to change it because they want to get voted in at the next election...

The funding/tax model needs to change, but how? In the next 5 or so years when driverless vehicles are on the road you will see the transition to user pays. It will be forcing the hand of the govt to adapt or cry poor...
n=10 (2013 & 2004 roads,2010 track,2x 2009 foldups,1990 hybrid,1992 trainer,2007 rental,1970's step through,1980's zeus)

AdelaidePeter
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:13 am

Re: "Get off the road, you don't pay rego"

Postby AdelaidePeter » Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:17 pm

Strawburger wrote:Rego pays for the process, stamp duty the same so the only money you could count is the fuel excise that comes soley from motorists.


As I said earlier, if "Rego pays for the process", then that process costs $270/vehicle x 18 million vehicles = $4.86 billion . Sorry I don't believe admin is that expensive. Most rego money would have to go to revenue (and indirectly, to roads, depending on how you want to argue it).

User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 28963
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: "Get off the road, you don't pay rego"

Postby Mulger bill » Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:35 pm

Going back to this again...
Image

How much 2x2 urban type road can I get for my $607?
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011

fat and old
Posts: 3058
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: "Get off the road, you don't pay rego"

Postby fat and old » Tue Jan 16, 2018 7:56 am

Mulger bill wrote:Going back to this again...
Image

How much 2x2 urban type road can I get for my $607?


5 meters of kerb and channel
1/4 of a stormwater drainage pit
3 sq. meters of asphalt wearing course
10 traffic light globes
20 meters of painted lines
2 meters of drainage

Take your pick :lol:

hunch
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 7:06 am

Re: "Get off the road, you don't pay rego"

Postby hunch » Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:31 am

AdelaidePeter wrote:
Strawburger wrote:Rego pays for the process, stamp duty the same so the only money you could count is the fuel excise that comes soley from motorists.


As I said earlier, if "Rego pays for the process", then that process costs $270/vehicle x 18 million vehicles = $4.86 billion . Sorry I don't believe admin is that expensive. Most rego money would have to go to revenue (and indirectly, to roads, depending on how you want to argue it).


Registration in NSW is $65, there are other extraneous costs added on....and recently additions addressing some electric vehicle costs, but I could very well see that burned up in admin, records maintenance, etc.

Excise, about the only thing I can think NSW sees there, beyond funding a portion of the medical aspect of road trauma through medicare, is the couple of decade saga of the Pacific Hwy upgrade. When Howard was in power, I do seem to remember him wanting a Federal toll road for some sort of bypass/ring road in Sydney, which was agin' the rules iirc, so that went nowhere.

Cyclophiliac
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2014 7:48 am

Re: "Get off the road, you don't pay rego"

Postby Cyclophiliac » Tue Jan 16, 2018 8:40 am

Car registration isn't just to cover admin costs, a large chunk of it is 3rd party insurance. Refer to the appendix at the end of this document:
https://www.racq.com.au/-/media/racq/pd ... 3966B77184

Given that motor vehicles are far more dangerous to other people than bicycles, the 3rd party insurance premiums make sense, and people shouldn't use this part of the rego cost to justify their use of the roads.

Also, as I mentioned before, road maintenance costs are largely due to the damage done by motor vehicles (bicycles cause almost no measurable road damage), and so again people shouldn't use this part of the rego cost to justify their use of the roads.

Philistine
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:57 pm

Re: "Get off the road, you don't pay rego"

Postby Philistine » Tue Jan 16, 2018 10:57 am

Cyclophiliac wrote:road maintenance costs are largely due to the damage done by motor vehicles.


There is a 2015 US Government survey on line that claims one 40 tonne 18 wheel truck does as much damage to the road as nine thousand six hundred medium size cars (I have written the numbers long hand lest anyone should think it is a typo).

If the survey mentions bikes, I haven't got to that bit yet (there are 146 pages), but, if you apply the same methodology, there are not enough bikes in the World to do as much damage as the aforementioned 40 tonne truck.

http://archive.gao.gov/f0302/109884.pdf

User avatar
Strawburger
Posts: 1690
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:19 pm
Location: Dulwich Hill, Sydney

Re: "Get off the road, you don't pay rego"

Postby Strawburger » Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:09 pm

Sorry, I was referring to the $65 rego fee.

What I didn't allow for is the $200-600 tax collected at the same time for road maintenance
n=10 (2013 & 2004 roads,2010 track,2x 2009 foldups,1990 hybrid,1992 trainer,2007 rental,1970's step through,1980's zeus)

User avatar
bychosis
Posts: 5245
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:10 pm
Location: Lake Macquarie

Re: "Get off the road, you don't pay rego"

Postby bychosis » Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:59 pm

Cyclophiliac wrote:Car registration isn't just to cover admin costs, a large chunk of it is 3rd party insurance. Refer to the appendix at the end of this document:
https://www.racq.com.au/-/media/racq/pd ... 3966B77184

Given that motor vehicles are far more dangerous to other people than bicycles, the 3rd party insurance premiums make sense, and people shouldn't use this part of the rego cost to justify their use of the roads.

Also, as I mentioned before, road maintenance costs are largely due to the damage done by motor vehicles (bicycles cause almost no measurable road damage), and so again people shouldn't use this part of the rego cost to justify their use of the roads.


In NSW, the CTP insurance is separate from the rego fee. You need to buy a policy from a supplier and take proof of purchase to the RMS and pay your rego. It was supposed to be cheaper to open up the CTP market, but...
bychosis (bahy-koh-sis): A mental disorder of delusions indicating impaired contact with a reality of no bicycles.

User avatar
Comedian
Posts: 5405
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: "Get off the road, you don't pay rego"

Postby Comedian » Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:39 pm

Well.. this is an issue that's going to be really very big I think. I've been following this with great interest for some time. I've got issues with how green electric cars are (particularly in Australia where the bulk of power comes from coal) but I think this is going to be a side issue.

I watched this video which I found really interesting. Maybe I hadn't seen it laid out - but it's clear that car makers are not going to stand still and watch their industry disappear. They are going to do everything they can to keep you dependent on your mobility which they will supply.

What's more they have fundamentally no vested interest per se in cars that use fossil fuel. If they can make electric cars cheaper to buy and operate then they hope (and with good reason) you'll buy and use them even more.

I expect too that the people selling fossil fuel will do all they can to make their products as competitive as they can to sell as much of it as they can before their income dries up. Car makers will likely look to milk their existing production as much as they can too. I think we could see the price of purchase and operation of all vehicles decline in the future.

As much as we know it's not working there are very big vested interests that want to keep us dependent on vehicle derived mobility.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k7k3Mzknm8

fat and old
Posts: 3058
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: "Get off the road, you don't pay rego"

Postby fat and old » Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:59 pm

Philistine wrote:
Cyclophiliac wrote:road maintenance costs are largely due to the damage done by motor vehicles.


There is a 2015 US Government survey on line that claims one 40 tonne 18 wheel truck does as much damage to the road as nine thousand six hundred medium size cars (I have written the numbers long hand lest anyone should think it is a typo).



Yep. Those trucks that do the most damage to roads are those which are used to repair them :lol: . I love that business model!

User avatar
mikesbytes
Super Mod
Super Mod
Posts: 18592
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:42 pm
Location: Tempe, Sydney
Contact:

Re: "Get off the road, you don't pay rego"

Postby mikesbytes » Tue Jan 16, 2018 9:56 pm

But I do pay rego for my car. And when I'm cycling I'm causing less damage, less obstruction, less pollution than when I drive my registration car
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?

User avatar
Lukeyboy
Posts: 3437
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 2:38 am

Re: "Get off the road, you don't pay rego"

Postby Lukeyboy » Tue Jan 16, 2018 11:28 pm

Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: adam0bmx0, Cyclophiliac, Google Feedfetcher, Kronos