Thread: People Power Required

SilentC,

The only reason that consumption of fuel in Australia is relatively inelastic at present is that the price is not yet high enough to constitute a real deterrent. However, in England it is; my sister, who lives in SW England, owns a holiday cottage in NW Scotland. If the price of petrol were not so high, she would drive the 600 miles to get there when she goes on holiday. But it is more economical for her family to fly up there rather than drive; so that is what she does.

Rocker

As usual I beg to differ. In larger regional centres publci transport a viable option. Places like Dubbo, Bunbury etc have great sytems.

As for smaller towns, well theres no need and no one expects them to catch a bus down the shops, because theres no congestion costs to over come.

The real problem is not the actual use of fuel. It's more the cost of providing inrastructure for all the cars and trucks. Eventually we'll be using alternative engery for oru transprot but if we've still got hte same travel habits then our cities will become more and more clogged. God knows why anyone woudl wnat to live in Melb or Sydney now let alone in 50 years time. I, for one, do not want to spend 2 hours driving to work.

England is much smaller than Australia. If I wanted to get to most places I can think of outside of a city, I would be relying on some form of road transport for at least part of the way. We are lucky enough to have an airport in Merimbula but most other people in our region have a 1 or 2 hour car journey ahead of them if they wish to fly anywhere.

Yes, obviously if they put the price up to $3.00 a lot of people would stop buying it. However I don't think that would be in the interest of the powers that be. For a start, they would lose the revenue that they currently collect. There would be a break-even point where the extra tax revenue would be balanced out by the drop in demand. Then it would start to go the other way. So they would then need to find some other source. Maybe it would be a tax on timber, seeing as there are so many of us around these days?

If they wanted to stop people smoking, they'd ban cigarettes.

This won't stop people from smoking, it will just make them criminals. Prohabition has never worked.

As for smaller towns, well theres no need and no one expects them to catch a bus down the shops, because theres no congestion costs to over come.

So why do we have to pay so much more for fuel? Perhaps we should get ours subsidised because of the lack of an alternative.

It's true, It's true, public transport in Brissie is terrible. I live less than 3.3 km from work, door to door. It usually takes me 7 or 8 minutes to drive to work.

There is a bus stop at my font door but it would take 2 different busses and 47 minutes to complete the trip to work.

Why would I use public transport??

Education is the key. If you want people to drive less then teach them. Let them know the importance of using public transport. (Of course our PT system needs to improve.)

The problem is we are living in a first world country. We take a lot of things for granted. Water, paper, electricity and fuel become so basic and worthless.

We need to change the way we live. We need to stop improving our living standard or even back off a little bit.

I agree that high petrol prices may or may not reduce fuel consumption. But low petrol prices certainly won’t help.

Keep the price up and stop them from driving to the city during peak hours.

Some thoughts of mine:

Why should there be one to one correlation between tax fuel and money spent on roads. The cost of roads is only one factor in the cost of a private transport system. It should also pay for:
Health care to cover the cost of treatment from accidents
Pollution
Policing of road laws
Awareness campaigns to reduce drink-driving, speeding, etc

Let them know the importance of using public transport.

Public transport just isn't a factor in rural areas. That's the other thing people forget about - we don't all live in cities.

Why should there be one to one correlation between tax fuel

No-one is saying there should be but that was the justification for the excise in the first place. How much of it do you think is spent on anything even vaguely road-related?

Originally Posted by silentC

How much of it do you think is spent on anything even vaguely road-related?

I wouldn't even want to guess how much of the health service and police is specifically related to roads. I could imagine it was a lot though. But, more of a concern is that I don't think anybody really knows the full cost of the private transport infrastructure. I just think comparing tax on fuel to money spent on infrastructure may be missing some other very significant factors.

Wow, 2 pages and this thread has stayed on topic. Is this a record?

Originally Posted by silentC

Maybe it would be a tax on timber, seeing as there are so many of us around these days?

Don't forget that in recognition of the growing scarcity on most rainforest species, the collection of same has been banned altogether in this country.

So there IS recognition that some timbers are a diminishing resource!

Cheers,

P (Always ready to assist in keeping a thread on track!)

Originally Posted by craigb

Wow, 2 pages and this thread has stayed on topic.

Not any more!

Did you know that blackbutt is a fire rated timber, suitable for level 2 + 3 construction of decks and other external timber features?