The great tragedy of all this is that successive Governments have resisted distance-based charging for the road industry. Rail freight users just have to wear the rail access charge. At least Infrastructure Victoria is now seriously investigating that initiative, despite what the road industry and TWU think.

A national GPS based tonnekm, tome of day, location (road type) charging system is long over due.  Technology is here to do it. Of course the same location system can ensure the revenue goes back to the correct road maintainer whether it be shire, roads Vic, Vicroads.  Of course any system can be corrupted by the politics.

Will make it interesting at the fuel bowser, where heavy transport meets the ordinary road user (who blindly subsidize road freight for their right to convenience).

A political hand grenade none the less.

The article is questioning very clearly the need for the line and why the government inaction.  Good work Railpage in raising these issues recently.

The great tragedy of all this is that successive Governments have resisted distance-based charging for the road industry. Rail freight users just have to wear the rail access charge. At least Infrastructure Victoria is now seriously investigating that initiative, despite what the road industry and TWU think.

A national GPS based tonnekm, tome of day, location (road type) charging system is long over due.  Technology is here to do it. Of course the same location system can ensure the revenue goes back to the correct road maintainer whether it be shire, roads Vic, Vicroads.  Of course any system can be corrupted by the politics.

Will make it interesting at the fuel bowser, where heavy transport meets the ordinary road user (who blindly subsidize road freight for their right to convenience).

A political hand grenade none the less.

Properly km/distance charging would crimp the profits of the industry which relies on keeping the vehicle on the road as much as possible so it can be making as much money as possible. I think if you substituted registration charge with a distance charging scheme for vehicles over a certain tonnage they'd be able to better measure wear on local roads so councils could better make the case for state/federal money.

Its a bit ironic that the first moves toward the needed technology and funding models is coming from the km charges for electric cars.

The great tragedy of all this is that successive Governments have resisted distance-based charging for the road industry. Rail freight users just have to wear the rail access charge. At least Infrastructure Victoria is now seriously investigating that initiative, despite what the road industry and TWU think.

A national GPS based tonnekm, tome of day, location (road type) charging system is long over due.  Technology is here to do it. Of course the same location system can ensure the revenue goes back to the correct road maintainer whether it be shire, roads Vic, Vicroads.  Of course any system can be corrupted by the politics.

Will make it interesting at the fuel bowser, where heavy transport meets the ordinary road user (who blindly subsidize road freight for their right to convenience).

A political hand grenade none the less.

Properly km/distance charging would crimp the profits of the industry which relies on keeping the vehicle on the road as much as possible so it can be making as much money as possible. I think if you substituted registration charge with a distance charging scheme for vehicles over a certain tonnage they'd be able to better measure wear on local roads so councils could better make the case for state/federal money.

The technology is here to have a full tariff system based on tonnekm for all vehicles.   GPS and scales on heavy vehicles that can close the loop as you say of use, wear and tear and responsibility to maintain.  The reality will be the political dysfunction that is happy for the ordinary motorist to pay for their privilege while completely subsidizing the freight on road.   Cant see any politician upsetting the ignorance of a revenue stream subject to almost full political whim of the funding outcome.

Its a bit ironic that the first moves toward the needed technology and funding models is coming from the km charges for electric cars.

In my view, yes, subsidies for electric vehicles should be considered.

But doing it through the road payment system is bad policy and will be slow to get to the desired response.

Think about the fuel tax already collected.  If we have 42.5c/L, and assume average 10L/100km, thats a per km rate of fuel tax of 4.25c/km.  

Assuming that the road user charge is set at or around that rate, $1000, $2000 or even $5000 cash back for purchase of an EV would equate to about 23k, 47k or 117k of driving.  The fixed amount of subsidy will elicit much more consumer response than cheaper fuel on an already expensive vehicle.

And on top of that, once the subsidy is consumed, people will still continue to drive on the roads as their habits will be formed, so there wont be any consumption issues to worry about.

Note that this charge should also be applied to non EVs too - do it once and be done with it.

In my view, yes, subsidies for electric vehicles should be considered.

But doing it through the road payment system is bad policy and will be slow to get to the desired response.

Think about the fuel tax already collected.  If we have 42.5c/L, and assume average 10L/100km, thats a per km rate of fuel tax of 4.25c/km.  

Assuming that the road user charge is set at or around that rate, $1000, $2000 or even $5000 cash back for purchase of an EV would equate to about 23k, 47k or 117k of driving.  The fixed amount of subsidy will elicit much more consumer response than cheaper fuel on an already expensive vehicle.

And on top of that, once the subsidy is consumed, people will still continue to drive on the roads as their habits will be formed, so there wont be any consumption issues to worry about.

Note that this charge should also be applied to non EVs too - do it once and be done with it.

The problem of switching to distance based vehicle taxes is the reverse of the GST.

Then the states were supposed to abolish taxes like stamp duty, sales tax, etc in return for the GST (which of course they didn't, and still haven't).

This time you're asking the feds to give up their fuel excise so the states can extract a dollar per mile from motorists.  As sure as I've got a beer in my hand the feds will keep the fuel excise in place by claiming that abolishing it will make the curtains at parliament fade.

In my view, yes, subsidies for electric vehicles should be considered.

But doing it through the road payment system is bad policy and will be slow to get to the desired response.

Think about the fuel tax already collected.  If we have 42.5c/L, and assume average 10L/100km, thats a per km rate of fuel tax of 4.25c/km.  

Assuming that the road user charge is set at or around that rate, $1000, $2000 or even $5000 cash back for purchase of an EV would equate to about 23k, 47k or 117k of driving.  The fixed amount of subsidy will elicit much more consumer response than cheaper fuel on an already expensive vehicle.

And on top of that, once the subsidy is consumed, people will still continue to drive on the roads as their habits will be formed, so there wont be any consumption issues to worry about.

Note that this charge should also be applied to non EVs too - do it once and be done with it.

The problem of switching to distance based vehicle taxes is the reverse of the GST.

Then the states were supposed to abolish taxes like stamp duty, sales tax, etc in return for the GST (which of course they didn't, and still haven't).

This time you're asking the feds to give up their fuel excise so the states can extract a dollar per mile from motorists.  As sure as I've got a beer in my hand the feds will keep the fuel excise in place by claiming that abolishing it will make the curtains at parliament fade.

The problem with the Feds collecting the fuel tax is that they dont own the roads, the states do (and councils), and have the ongoing maintenance costs to go with that.  The states collecting the charge for using the roads is a good move as they wont have to go seven rounds with the feds to get the money to maintain the roads.  Which cuts the federal politicians out of the road funding decisions.  I have mixed views on this, but nothing stops the feds from investing in roads either. It would become like our rail system in some ways...

A lot of road funding is paid for by the Feds though, at least in Victoria. There's even a difference in quality between a road that's federally funded, and the crap the State pays for.

The cost of road maintenance due to damage by heavy vehicles is 3 times the cost of moving the same tonnages via rail.

The cost of road maintenance due to damage by heavy vehicles is 3 times the cost of moving the same tonnages via rail.

The cost of road maintenance due to damage by heavy vehicles is 3 times the cost of moving the same tonnages via rail.

and from a recent trip in Western Victoria, it appears the road maintenance budget to fix roads damaged by trucks extends only as far as "Rough Surface" signs, or sometimes if they can scrape a dollar or two more, a speed restriction sign of 80.

A lot of road funding is paid for by the Feds though, at least in Victoria.

A lot of road funding is paid for by the Feds though, at least in Victoria. There's even a difference in quality between a road that's federally funded, and the crap the State pays for.

Well, no there's no difference in standard. It's up to each road authority (state or local) to specify the design standard. The Feds have no say in that. The only way they can influence that is if they wave a huge bucket of cash under the authorities nose so a higher standard could be used.

A lot of road funding is paid for by the Feds though, at least in Victoria. There's even a difference in quality between a road that's federally funded, and the crap the State pays for.

Well, no there's no difference in standard. It's up to each road authority (state or local) to specify the design standard. The Feds have no say in that. The only way they can influence that is if they wave a huge bucket of cash under the authorities nose so a higher standard could be used.

Not sure that's true. Every road in my area that's majority federally funded is sealed with asphalt - including some random little residential street, whereas the state ones are just chip seal. Someone somewhere is specifying something different.

I've never seen a grant document that specifies how a road is to be built. But as I said, it depends on the amount of money offered. However, if you're in Canberra, everything was gold plated.

Now, excuse me while I go and finish my Federal "Roads to Recovery" quarterly report and finalise the State "Fixing Country Roads" summary.

As much as I would like to see this line re-opened to grain trains, the reality is if the Toolamba - Echuca & Eaglehawk - Inglewood lines haven't been re-opened when they need less work, then simply put, Dookie has no chance.