Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Australian Federal Urban Infrastructure Minister Paul Fletcher wants a new system of road charging, which ends the free ride enjoyed by electric cars which do not have to pay fuel tax.
Electric cars are breaking our roads, here’s how
And what the future holds for the neighbourhoods that need their cars the most.
By Jackson Gothe-Snape
In 2018, Australia’s roads are plagued with problems: the long-term decline in the road death toll has slowed, congestion is tipped to increase and long commutes are linked to poor mental health.
And now a multi-billion-dollar road funding black hole looms.
It’s caused by the growing popularity of fuel-efficient cars, prompting a multi-generational reset to national roads policy which will change how you pay to drive.
For the people who rely most on their vehicles, that means trouble.
…
A Tesla-shaped loophole
Fuel excise means — for most drivers at least — the more they drive, the more they pay.
However, low-emission vehicles are letting some drivers get away charge-free.
The CSIRO has predicted revenue coming from fuel excise will drop by almost half by 2050.
Urban Infrastructure Minister Paul Fletcher argues the current road funding system has “some features that don’t seem very fair”.
“If you’re buying a 10-year-old Commodore, the amount you’re paying is effectively four-and-a-half cents per kilometre.”
The Federal Government is looking at ways to more closely link how people use the roads with what they pay.
…
The EV honeymoon was never going to last. The current Australian government, to their credit, seem keen to balance the Federal budget. Rich electric car owners are a tax plum ripe for the plucking.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Why but an electric car, if it is going to cost the same to drive as a conventional ICE car?
I have mentioned before on WUWT, that the west coast governments of British Columbia, Washington, Oregon and California are thinking about mileage taxes for electric cars. Electric car owners don’t buy gasoline. So, that lost tax revenue will be have to be collected somewhere else.
Here are two examples
———————————–
Metro Vancouver’s mobility pricing commission starts consultations
No firm proposals on the table yet but new revenue sources needed for transportation system, mayors say
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/mobility-pricing-metro-vancouver-1.4371429
Moving around Metro Vancouver: EXPLORING NEW APPROACHES TO REDUCING CONGESTION (36 pages)
An exploration of the regional baseline, and implications for mobility pricing
https://www.itstimemv.ca/uploads/1/0/6/9/106921821/its_time_e1_research_report_-_moving_around_metro_vancouver_-_oct_24.pdf
Washington Road Usage Charge Pilot Project
Test Drive the Road Ahead
GAS TAX WON’T MEET FUTURE NEEDS
https://waroadusagecharge.org/
Well, my electric meter reports my hourly consumption of electricity, and can be used to deny service remotely. I can easily imagine the government putting such a device on cars, remotely reporting how many miles you have driven over a time period, and activating a kill-switch if you do not stay current on your monthly tax bill. Of course, if you have minimum income, they can charge you lower rates, or none at all, and if you are in government, give you a complete exemption.
This would get the widespread support of those living on government handouts, since there is no way to exempt them from taxes at the gas pump.
This may be off topic… But BC’s carbon tax isn’t working!
——————————-
Latest figures show B.C.’s carbon emissions continue to increase
The B.C. government has quietly released the latest figures on B.C.’s carbon emissions that show the province continues to have an uphill fight to make significant targeted reductions.
http://vancouversun.com/business/energy/latest-figures-show-b-c-s-carbon-emissions-continue-to-increase
It was never about reducing CO2 and former Pemier Gordon Campbell could have cared less about CO2. This is the new cash 💰 cow that everyone in Gov’ts around the world are on the bandwagon about, and why Paris was so wildly popular by all the poor countries in the world in getting wealth transfer from the OCED countries. I wouldn’t be so opposed to all this if it weren’t for the fact that the money collected always disappears down a black hole, never to be accounted for again.
I would be glad to see middle class welfare about to be trimmed or middle class virtue signalling coming at the cost of the conceited believers who buy road-going dodgem cars, instead of coming at the cost of the sensible tax-payers; as is sort of the case with the ‘Tesla Tax’ coming in Norway. However this sounds like nothing more than an extra grab for tax by a bloated government.
If the government were introducing road tolls in-lieu of fuel excise it would sound like a fair move, but of course this won’t happen. “The Federal Government is looking at ways to more closely link how people use the roads with what they pay” really means “The Federal Government is looking at ways to more closely fleece people who use the roads and maximize what they pay”.
So Australia is planning on becoming more and more like left-tard Norway, where we already pay eye-watering fuel excise and in addition pay road tolls when crossing every council boundary in one direction. And for that cost, we get inadequate, congested roads with granny friendly low speed limits. And just to add insult to injury, the highway robbery tolls are about to triple at peak-hours and be levied in both directions in pursuit of a ‘zero growth’ policy. That tax grab is despite income tax near enough to half your income and VAT being a quarter of the price of things.
I guess someone has to pay for this CCS and wind boon-doggle the current government is pursuing.
But at least the weather is better down under.
…unless this gullible warming they keep promising ever kicks in.
Given the massive tax take from ‘evil fossil fuel’ cars and given this is used for 101 areas . there really is no choice but to end the ‘tax free ‘ ride EV have , once EV’ get popular. These are just the early signs of that.
Still EV main problems, range , cost and charging time remain despite the application of fairy dust and wishful thinking the three killer elements holding back EV ownership .
For lets is be fair must people care little about what powers their car , they do however care about its cost and its availability . So it is an irony that be dealing with EV’s main draw back they are at the same time killing off its ‘cheaper ‘ running cost aspect.
How about we let all the roads go hell then nobody would drive which would take all those CO2 emitting monster out of service. Win-win-win. Less taxes as there would be no roads to maintain. Cleaner air to breath due to non existence of emissions, people losing weight because they no longer sit on their asses to get around.
Many city people need a car for some journeys, but avoid using it in the city center if at all possible. Especially in London, where there are good public transport alternatives.
However, if they are forced to spend a small fortune on replacing their IC engined car with a new EV, then they will have to justify that outlay by making the EV pay for itself. Which means no more public transport, every journey will then be by car. City traffic jams could become far worse as a result of this policy, with EV owners insisting on using the car for every journey. The low fuel cost will only exacerbate this problem.
Norway is developing Thorium power in the middle of some mountain. Very forward looking.
“Electric cars are breaking our roads”
Poppycock!
The amount of “damage” that passenger vehicles do to our roads is minuscule, whether those cars are powered by fossil fuels, electricity, or unicorn farts. The real damage done to our roads comes from heavy transport vehicles, most especially the ones that run at maximum gross weight loads. Were it not for the heavy trucks, we would go much longer between repair/renovation operations on the highways.
Our politicians have made a choice that fuel taxes on all vehicles should pay for the maintenance, but even though the heavy transports pay more, what they pay is not proportionate to the wear-and-tear that those heavy transports actually cause.
On the other hand, I’m a firm believer that the electric vehicles should be paying just as much as other vehicles in their weight class for highway fees (whether based on “fuel” purchase or mileage driven).
We could also go far longer with existing gross weight load rules if they built the roads with better materials.
On NY Route 17 in upstate New York (near Waverly, I believe) you pass (westbound) over a short section of pavement identified by a small sign that indicates “Test Pavement Area.” It has kind of an unusual, “coarse” texture, so if you ever drive over it you’ll probably notice if you’re not distracted by other things.
This “test” section has been there, untouched, since before I got a driver’s license – more than 3 1/2 decades. During that time it has developed not a single crack, not a single pothole, it has not been resurfaced or repaved. Still in perfect condition.
They didn’t start using this better road material, of course, claiming it was “too expensive.” I beg to differ. First, it’s obviously cheaper in the long run (problem No. 1 – politicians can never look at long term benefits, only at what they can point to regarding what they’ve done in the here and now), and second, it’s much less disruptive than the constant cycles of breakdown, repair and reconstruction necessary using the cheap crap.