|
|
Post by yobarr on May 26, 2024 8:50:06 GMT 10
In an effort to ease traffic congestion, for many years I have advocated free public transport for all people, the cost being subsidised by a small increase in the price of fuel.
Not only would this shorten travel times for commuters and other travellers, but it also would likely encourage tourism.
If tourists know that they can travel all around a particular area of Australia at no cost, this might influence their decision about which parts of Australia they would be likely to visit?
Now Brisbane has introduced such a scheme, albeit with a 50 cent fare for any journey, resulting in a curent $96/week travel cost now being reduced to $5.
Gotta be a good thing, surely?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Harding on May 27, 2024 15:03:59 GMT 10
Yes, my initial response is to agree that public transport within a city should be free or very low cost but then I wonder where that $91 difference is going to come from?
*Someone* will have to pay: be it via fewer teachers, nurses or road sweepers the money must come from *somewhere*.
|
|
|
|
Post by yobarr on May 27, 2024 19:19:25 GMT 10
Yes, my initial response is to agree that public transport within a city should be free or very low cost but then I wonder where that $91 difference is going to come from? *Someone* will have to pay: be it via fewer teachers, nurses or road sweepers the money must come from *somewhere*. Hi Mike, could I ask you to refer to the first paragraph in my opening post? |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Harding on May 27, 2024 22:15:45 GMT 10
The problem is that "small increase" may not be as small as you imagine - do you have any costings?
|
|
|
|
Post by yobarr on May 28, 2024 9:21:04 GMT 10
The problem is that "small increase" may not be as small as you imagine - do you have any costings? How did I know that someone would ask that? Yes Mike, I do have the figures but for a day or two I'll be busy preparing a truck and trailer for work. Yes, I've been roped-in again to driving, albeit reluctantly. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Harding on May 28, 2024 20:45:36 GMT 10
>How did I know that someone would ask that?
My sincere apologies for troubling you Yobarr.
|
|
|
|
Post by nobodyhere on Aug 17, 2024 7:06:26 GMT 10
Superficially, if an existing commuter is now saving $90 per week in travel costs, this would need to be recouped via a $90 increase in fuel levies. Since this levy would apply equally to existing commuters, new commuters and non-commuters, the latter would now be copping a massive hike in their fuel bill to subsidise the others.
|
|
|
|
Post by yobarr on Aug 17, 2024 11:19:19 GMT 10
Superficially, if an existing commuter is now saving $90 per week in travel costs, this would need to be recouped via a $90 increase in fuel levies. Since this levy would apply equally to existing commuters, new commuters and non-commuters, the latter would now be copping a massive hike in their fuel bill to subsidise the others. Later, maybe? |
|
|
|
Post by arewelost on Aug 17, 2024 13:47:16 GMT 10
I am a believer in user pays, up to a point. In NSW, some toll roads have capped expenditure (need to claim a rebate) to keep costs down for regular users. But for others, toll roads only cost the user. My tax dollars did not fund toll roads on the other side of the city/state/country that I don't use. But those roads are there if I want the convenience of what they offer.
In NSW, pensioners pay a maximum of $2.50 per day for almost all public transport, and consolidated revenue pays the rest. There are other caps in place for non pensioners to reduce the cost of commuting at the expense of that public purse. Caps on medications, electricity rebates are other examples, let alone the huge cost of welfare.
Personally I believe 50c is too cheap, and hardly worth the bother of collecting it. At 5 times the price ($2.50 as for NSW pensioners) that is a hardly noticeable cost. Better, would be a weekly cap on costs so frequent users get a benefit, but otherwise the consumer pays. After all, they are mostly workers who pay taxes.
Looking at the bigger picture, I believe it fits within the goal of discouraging private vehicle usage as part of the fossil fuel reduction agenda.
|
|
|
|
Post by nobodyhere on Aug 17, 2024 13:54:57 GMT 10
It may be that a nominal fee is being charged so that there is some way to count the number of people using the service.
|
|
