News & Discussion: Roads & Traffic

[Nathan]

The only part of vehicle ownership and use that contributes to the cost of infrastructure is the levy on petrol.

Which worth noting, obviously doesn't apply to electric vehicles (which are set to get parking discounts in the city).

[rubberman]

Omada and westside.

It really is hard responding. Since you seem to be attacking positions I neither hold nor advocate in the main.

All infrastructure and government handouts have to be paid for. The question I have repeatedly raised is whether the benefits to cyclists should have some more contribution paid by those cyclists. If you think that's an outrageous suggestion, you haven't been listening to economic debate for the past 50 years.

The report quoted by realstretts clearly shows that almost all benefits flow personally to individual cyclists, rather than to the community as a whole. If you think the report is wrong, say why.

Since most benefits accrue to individuals, rather than taxpayers generally, why should those individuals get a free ride? There may be a reason, say like seniors on public transport, or kids for such a subsidy. But we don't pretend that this is anything but a freebie at public expense. So, why pretend that cyclists, getting 90% of the benefit of cycling infrastructure aren't getting a freebie. On realstretts' figures at least, they are.

If that is the case, why not provide identical freebies to everyone?

That's my gripe. Cyclists want a freebie that others either do not get, or don't get to the same extent. Nothing is free. Someone else is paying.

[realstretts]

Dude must be trollin

[Llessur2002]

So motorists (of which I am one) also get a 'freebie' in terms of the massive road infrastructure that has been paid for over the years out of general taxation revenue. At most they've thrown some pocket change at it in the way of fuel excise but in relative terms that's bugger all.

So when you state that "Cyclists want a freebie that others either do not get, or don't get to the same extent", presumably you'd be happy if the cycling community (of which the vast majority are also motorists) threw the same percentage of 'pocket change' towards the cost of cycling infrastructure as motorists do to roads yes? In that case I'll be glad to pay up in full when the feds come knocking on my door for somewhere in the region of 7c.

And, whilst we're at it, what about all the pedestrians who have been freeloading from taxpayers over the years with all of those free footpaths? I mean, they're hardly ever used anyway outside of the CBD so in terms of value for money that's surely worse than the few bike lanes we have.

I'm not even sure why this conversation has gone on so long anyway - it's not as if any level of government has seriously considered the idea, nor will they in future. It's a moot point.

[realstretts]

Perhaps we should get back on topic? Traffic congestion -here is some great footage of congestion over the last week

[mshagg]

Put another way, if you want free cycling infrastructure for health benefits, I want free gym membership.

Not unreasonable logic, although subsidised access to gyms is probably outside the bounds of a discussion on transport infrastructure.

If you don't want to pay directly via rego, then neither should car or motor cycle owners.

An alternative might be possibly an imposition of a tax such as a land tax on all property owners, which would flow through to renters, and thus be paid by all.

Such a tax is far more efficient than rego, which would counter the "it would cost too much to collect" argument.

Not sure how many times this has to be addressed. Rego doesn't pay for infrastructure. Taxes do. i.e. the 'alternative' you have set out, is effectively how it already works.

I can see how your world view arises from the status quo. Motorists have historically been the primary beneficiaries of public road infrastructure. We motorists certainly haven't "paid for it" in the direct sense, but it seems the various expenses which come with owning and operating a motor vehicle have been associated with "paying for roads". A growing number of cyclists are requesting some of that infrastructure money (a tiny fraction at that) be directed their way and motorists see this as cyclists muscling in on their racket.

That is essentially my underlying argument - you have no claim to that money. It's no more a motorists than it is a cyclists. Seeing as we're all into 'putting things another way': cyclists have been funding infrastructure which primarily benefits motorists since the advent of the car.

The really perverse part of your world view is that you object to cycling infrastructure to your own detriment as a motorist. Every person that rides a bike instead of driving is one less car for you to sit behind at the lights. Every person that rides a bike is one who is less likely to require expensive treatment for obesity, cancer, type 2 diabetes etc. Every person that rides a bike is one who is less likely to lodge claims with our property and bodily insurance providers. Every person that rides a bike produces fewer carbon emissions which need to be offset through direct action or carbon pricing. The list goes on. I cant think of a more literal application of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

[Llessur2002]

I cant think of a more literal application of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

other than literally cutting off your nose?

[rubberman]

Put another way, if you want free cycling infrastructure for health benefits, I want free gym membership.

Not unreasonable logic, although subsidised access to gyms is probably outside the bounds of a discussion on transport infrastructure.

If you don't want to pay directly via rego, then neither should car or motor cycle owners.

An alternative might be possibly an imposition of a tax such as a land tax on all property owners, which would flow through to renters, and thus be paid by all.

Such a tax is far more efficient than rego, which would counter the "it would cost too much to collect" argument.

Not sure how many times this has to be addressed. Rego doesn't pay for infrastructure. Taxes do. i.e. the 'alternative' you have set out, is effectively how it already works.

I can see how your world view arises from the status quo. Motorists have historically been the primary beneficiaries of public road infrastructure. We motorists certainly haven't "paid for it" in the direct sense, but it seems the various expenses which come with owning and operating a motor vehicle have been associated with "paying for roads". A growing number of cyclists are requesting some of that infrastructure money (a tiny fraction at that) be directed their way and motorists see this as cyclists muscling in on their racket.

That is essentially my underlying argument - you have no claim to that money. It's no more a motorists than it is a cyclists. Seeing as we're all into 'putting things another way': cyclists have been funding infrastructure which primarily benefits motorists since the advent of the car.

The really perverse part of your world view is that you object to cycling infrastructure to your own detriment as a motorist. Every person that rides a bike instead of driving is one less car for you to sit behind at the lights. Every person that rides a bike is one who is less likely to require expensive treatment for obesity, cancer, type 2 diabetes etc. Every person that rides a bike is one who is less likely to lodge claims with our property and bodily insurance providers. Every person that rides a bike produces fewer carbon emissions which need to be offset through direct action or carbon pricing. The list goes on. I cant think of a more literal application of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

Look, I do understand clearly that the revenue from any tax, be that stamp duty on house transactions, or car rego, or payroll tax all goes to general revenue. I get that.

What I am saying is that if cyclists want infrastructure why shouldn't they pay for it? Money has to come from somewhere. Ok, if you don't like the idea of rego, come up with some other means of funding what you want. It's extra expenditure you are after, there's a deficit, where's the money coming from, if those who benefit aren't prepared to pay. All I hear in these responses is that cyclists want government to provide infrastructure, well, who's going to pay for it?

If you look at the report referred to by realstretts, it shows that most of the benefits accrue to cyclists individually. So, frankly, either cyclists should not expect government to subsidise private benefits, or those subsidies should be open to all, and everybody's taxes increased to pay.

But this idea that the public purse should be opened for one group to snatch the benefit without that group contributing. Well, it's why we have an out of control deficit in this country. Nothing to do with politics, but everything to do with people wsnting something for nothing and screamingblue murder if someone tries to wean them from the public teat.

[Llessur2002]

Look, I do understand clearly that the revenue from any tax, be that stamp duty on house transactions, or car rego, or payroll tax all goes to general revenue. I get that.

What I am saying is that if cyclists want infrastructure why shouldn't they pay for it? Money has to come from somewhere.

So we end up with a user pays system for absolutely every bit of public infrastructure - roads, cycle paths, hospitals, footpaths, schools, street lighting, skate parks, the new Torrens footbridge?

[rooshooter]

Surely even the current minuscule spend on cycling infrastructure benefits more than just the cyclist? One more car off the road, etc etc?
Yes I know not everyone can ride every where, you can't go fridge shopping on yer bike - but surely a safe network of cycling infrastructure provides people with options.
If that network helps decrease car traffic by even a few percent then I'm willing to pay a bit more in tax or rego or whatever. You know, for the greater good of our ever fattening society.
Surely even the most one eyed of you here have to admit the ratio of tax payer coin funding roads vs cycling infrastructure is virtually 99-1. I'm happy to help redress that balance as part of my responsibility as a tax payer.
The vitriol in this thread is disappointing for what I thought was a progressive and open minded forum.

[rubberman]

Look, I do understand clearly that the revenue from any tax, be that stamp duty on house transactions, or car rego, or payroll tax all goes to general revenue. I get that.

What I am saying is that if cyclists want infrastructure why shouldn't they pay for it? Money has to come from somewhere.

So the North-South corridor - presumably there should be a direct levy on motorists for that then? And the NE Connector? I mean, bloody motorists wanting something for nothing? If motorists want extra infrastructure then they need to realise someone's got to pay for it - they can't just suckle it all from the public teat right? Not with our deficit...

The answer is this: The need to do something about the NS corridor was flagged 50, FIFTY years ago. That's half a century. Five decades. And it's still not effing finished. Why? Because everybody stuck their hands in their pockets and said "Nup, not paying for this."

But guess what? If people had said, yep we want it AND are prepared to pay, it would have been built 45 years ago. So my answer is, if people want infrastructure, and they want it in a reasonable time frame, then yep a direct levy.

It's the same with the trams. There was a recent article in the city rag with a nice pic of a dropcentre tram about the possibility of a tram down Prospect Road. Guess what? One of the residents' association spokespeople said they would oppose any levy to help fund it. My bet is that it will be at least 20 years if it ever happens. Oh, the government's response? Er, well we're going to commission a study. Yep. A study. Another study.

If you can't see a pattern here, then, by all means let's keep talking about all the infrastructure we need, bitch about why the government is doing all these studies and only building things at a pace even a snail would find glacial. And of course why we shouldn't have to pay for it.

So, what do you want? Infrastructure now, and you pay for it, or wait for fifty years? Your choice.

[bits]

So, what do you want? Infrastructure now, and you pay for it, or wait for fifty years? Your choice.

I'm happy to wait.
Ns motorway was never needed before. Peak hour comes and goes immediately and the roads function fine. Adelaide was a 20min city till a year ago and it became a 22min city.
Things are left in study after study because they are not required yet. Pipe dreams get shelved awaiting for the city population to catchup to these wild expectations from some.
When there is demand for something and the dollars add up in the study it will be built(eg Ns motorway). This is why we have elections and pay many people to manage the state.

If you think you can do this better (eg tax bicycles) run for a seat and see if the majority of the public think your ideas are good.

[rubberman]

So, what do you want? Infrastructure now, and you pay for it, or wait for fifty years? Your choice.

I'm happy to wait.
Ns motorway was never needed before. Peak hour comes and goes immediately and the roads function fine. Adelaide was a 20min city till a year ago and it became a 22min city.
Things are left in study after study because they are not required yet. Pipe dreams get shelved awaiting for the city population to catchup to these wild expectations from some.
When there is demand for something and the dollars add up in the study it will be built(eg Ns motorway). This is why we have elections and pay many people to manage the state.

If you think you can do this better (eg tax bicycles) run for a seat and see if the majority of the public think your ideas are good.

Bits, thank you, thank you!

When talking about infrastructure, you have exactly captured the issue. If people are not personally affected, then generally they are, as you say "happy to wait".

So, you are "happy to wait" for the NS corridor, me too! I am "happy to wait" 50 years for cycling infrastructure, as are plenty of others. There's also plenty of people "happy to wait" for trams down Prospect Road etc.

That is, on one side there's a lot of people who see infrastructure like the NS corridor, cycling infrastructure, trams as being ok, but something they are "happy to wait" for. Even 50 years.

On the other side, we have those who are most impacted by the inadequacy of infrastructure stomping their feet and getting impatient for "their" projects to get off the ground. Just go through the frustrated comments on this site by people who want this stuff. Claybro used to go mental at the lack of progress on South Road.

So, in SA we have two sides generally :

Those "happy to wait" 50 years for something to happen, happy to discuss each report, survey, study business case and announcement till the cows come home, and on the other side,

Those affected by the lack of infrastructure and who want/need something done now.

Guess what?

The "happy to wait" people win every time because nobody is prepared to pay more, even if they are the main beneficiaries.

So, I'm "happy to wait" for more cycling infrastructure.

As far as your political reference is concerned, in the stupendously unlikely case of wanting to get into Parliament then, I'd do the following in SA:

1). I'd assume that nobody would want to pay extra
2). I'd tell whoever came through the door their bit of infrastructure was vital and a great idea, and I'd put it to the Premier, yes indeedy.
3). The Premier would announce a "Promise to look at it" during the election campaign.
4). Before the next election after that, a feasibility study.
5). The next election after that, a plan.
5). The next election after that, a promise to start, if the Federal Government would match the State funding.
6). Oh dear, that nasty Federal government , still vote 1 Rubberman, and we'll fight for you.
7). The Feds have come through, hurrah! Now we need to do the design, Next election.
. Now we need all the approvals and land purchases, next election.
9). Construction starts, next election.
10). Collect my Parliamentary Pension as I cut the ribbon.

Allowing for false starts, stuff ups and changes of government, yep, that's 50 years or so.

However, no way would I do the following:

1). Raise a tax on the beneficiaries of the infrastructure.
2). Build it immediately using the money raised.

Thats 3 years, start to finish, full on cycling ifrastructure, tram system, whatever. But it won't happen.

Why? Because nobody proposing that would get elected.

FWIW, Just for some perspective, in the early 1900s, the people of Adelaide decided they wanted a new tram system, and WERE prepared to pay. Sir William Goodman built 55 miles of track, power and converter stations, over 100 trams, plus bridges in TWO YEARS. Yes folks, over 100 years ago, without machinery it was possible to build a tram system bigger than we are looking at today, in two years. The only impediment to cycling infrastructure and other infrastructure is our willingness to pay.

But I'm "happy to wait". I sure as hell will vote against any politician trying to raise my taxes for someone else's infrastructure. Like you point out bits.

[Llessur2002]

I don’t think the funding argument’s as black and white as you make out Rubberman – it’s not just a case of we need more infrastructure so taxes have to be raised to pay for it. We already pay a significant amount of tax into the ‘pot’ – we need to have a sensible national conversation about how that tax is spent to build infrastructure suitable for 2050, not 1950. As our population grows it seems absurd that such a large proportion of the money is spent on infrastructure which primarily caters for mass commuting via single-occupant vehicles. I’m sure many taxpayers would be happy to see funding for new and larger roads gradually reduced and redirected towards public transport, cycling and walking infrastructure.

For example, the North-South corridor – I agree this will be a fantastic piece of road but given the option of ploughing that money into public transport, cycling and walking I think I would have chosen the latter. I think the state government may have chosen that option too – if the federal funding had been made available for that purpose.

It could very easily be argued that roads have received too large a share of the overall funding pot in recent years and that this imbalance needs to be redressed - developed countries around the globe are moving increasingly towards more sustainable transit options and there is absolutely no reason why it won’t happen here in time.

So we can either build a few more roads and then sit stewing in our single-occupant cars for another couple of decades until even the new roads hit capacity - or we can start investing in alternative infrastructure creating a culture-shift away from private cars and onto public transport and bikes which, in turn will reduce demand for roads.

It is perfectly possible – Holland had virtually no cycling infrastructure until the 1970s – it only took a change in political thinking and a couple of decades for cycling to become as popular as it is now. There is no reason why that can’t, shouldn’t or won't happen here.

[Nathan]

Following on from that, let's stop thinking about car infrastructure and cycling infrastructure as seperate things that require seperate funding. View the roads (along with rail) as infrastructure for movement, independent of the mode. From there, we plan and fund those roads by the most efficient (both movement and cost) way of using them — whether that's planning a non-stop motorway to cater for freight, or building separated bikeways along city and inner suburban streets. Cars, trucks, bikes, etc — none of them exist in a vacuum, so let's think and fund things holistically.