State based EV road user charge (Overturned 18/10/23)

[ZeeDoktor]

Cities should preference public transportation IMO. EV or no EV, mass public transportation is better.

Public transport is only an option where it is dependable. Dependable meaning availability and on-time-ness at the 99.999 percentile. Australia is neither culturally, socially, nor economically capable of providing that kind of uptime. Not for any service.

I live right above town hall station in the Sydney CBD. I originally was very excited as for my very frequent international trips I could now use the train to get to the airport (and back). Except, I have been consistently running into problems with train lines down due to rain, social movement, track works, or some other excuses. I can't depend on them to operate when I need them, period.

 

[bay74]

I would love to love public transport, but even for longer trips in Melbourne, I too often have afterwards found myself thinking "should've just ridden" (being primarily a cyclist, the Model 3 is basically my wife's), because it would have been quicker, and if not quicker, at least more pleasant.

 

[Vostok]

In the age ubiquitously available handheld computing devices, one might even go so far as to use a smooth algebraically derived curve for the kilometre cost rather than a primitive step function which inherently disadvantages those just over the steps. Like tax brackets... Something like kilometre cost = -0.000000001*km^2 + 0.000003*km + 2.025...

If the formula is too complex people won’t understand it and will never accept it.

A tiered RUC penalises no-one who is just over the steps, because in my proposal the RUC rate goes down not up. People just over the steps are advantaged if anything, but only for those k’s over the tier, not every k driven.

 

[Quickst]

I can't depend on them to operate when I need them, period.

I go back to my statement that cities should preference public transportation. This means appropriate investment, instead of subsidies for EV cars.

 

[Max Spaghetti]

However car users are disproportionate users compared to those who say catch the bus or ride a bike

The buses and trains are subsidised with public funds. My taxes pay for your buses and trains. Is that fair? There are no buses or trains available for my daily commutes. Why single out roads as something that should be fully funded by fuel excise/RUC? As for the bikes, they contribute nothing, but still use the road/bike trails.

So we are in a situation where some public infrastructure is user-pays, and some isn't. Some is partial - e.g. the buses and trains are subsidised but there is still a small fare payable. (Unless you want to go to an airport - then they slug you - what is it about rail/bus fares to airports?) The main point is that there is no overriding philosophy that road funding should be based on a user-pays system.

 

[cafz]

Where the subsidies matter - as in, are a potential problem - is when they distort people's decisions in a way that results in overall less efficient options being chosen.

This tends to be a lot more important when for-profit businesses are involved, because business tends to be incredibly efficient at exploiting subsidies on offer. For example, if freight businesses were required to pay the full cost of rail, sea or air transport but had access to a heavily subsidised road network, that would tend to result in a lot freight going by road when it would be more efficient for the economy as a whole for that to go by one of the unsubsidised forms of transport.

 

[meloccom]

The buses and trains are subsidised with public funds. My taxes pay for your buses and trains. Is that fair? There are no buses or trains available for my daily commutes. Why single out roads as something that should be fully funded by fuel excise/RUC? As for the bikes, they contribute nothing, but still use the road/bike trails.

So we are in a situation where some public infrastructure is user-pays, and some isn't. Some is partial - e.g. the buses and trains are subsidised but there is still a small fare payable. (Unless you want to go to an airport - then they slug you - what is it about rail/bus fares to airports?) The main point is that there is no overriding philosophy that road funding should be based on a user-pays system.

The way I look at it, is that a bicycle on the road is one less car, less wear and tear, less traffic so I’m okay giving them a pass on user pays.

 

[Max Spaghetti]

The way I look at it, is that a bicycle on the road is one less car, less wear and tear, less traffic so I’m okay giving them a pass on user pays.

But that's one less person paying fuel excise! How on earth are we going to fill the hole in the budget!!

 

[ZeeDoktor]

Not even Sydney's rabid bike lane fancier city planners that start foaming from their mouths every time they hear from my strata via me are going to be able to tilt the scales to turn us into a new Amsterdam. Bicycles just are not in true blue's blood - no Aussie ever thought I was talking about bicycles when I use the word bike... so, fear not for your fuel excise / RUC.

 

[johnchidgey]

The buses and trains are subsidised with public funds. My taxes pay for your buses and trains. Is that fair? There are no buses or trains available for my daily commutes. Why single out roads as something that should be fully funded by fuel excise/RUC? As for the bikes, they contribute nothing, but still use the road/bike trails.

That's a really good point. My concern in future is that unless these different transit systems can have a logically aligned user-pays funding structure then there will be no system that is truly balanced and fair. Each of these areas are also managed by different government departments and some are public-private partnerships and OH MY GOD THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE!

Sigh. That's it...I'm going to Moe's.

 

[Max Spaghetti]

Sigh. That's it...I'm going to Moe's.

They've increased the excise on that pint of Duff at Moe's too... Drink up, you're filling the hole in the budget created by those pesky EV's...

 

[Vostok]

I just checked the NSW Electric Vehicles (Revenue Arrangements) Act 2021 law, and it is still on the books and in force. But as long as the Act is repealed within the next 3 years then there’s no problem, since the RUC in NSW was not going to be charged until 1 July 2027, or when zero emission vehicle sales became 30% of all new vehicle sales, whichever came first.

And then I thought… the NSW Government might not want to repeal it, and instead wait for Commonwealth decisions on what, if anything, it plans to do about RUCs nationally.

Because if the Federal Government comes to some kind of agreement with the states and legislates for an RUC, the States will need to administer it, which would mean NSW would only need to amend the current law to align it with the Federal Act, instead of having to start from scratch.

I wonder if the fact this law has not been repealed is an indicator of what might be happening behind the scenes?

The above Act also amended the NSW Duties Act (section 270D) to provide the stamp duty exemption for zero emissions vehicles, which took effect from September 2021 but was abolished from 1 Jan this year.

So I checked whether section 270D still existed in the Duties Act, because if it did, it would mean that zero emissions vehicles would still, under law, not be liable for stamp duty. The Government can’t just wave it away by fiat.

And… Section 270D has been repealed.

 

[jamesgo]

Have to admit, i'm expecting the Vic Govt Budget 2024 given the amount debt Victoria is now in, to try to claw back some money given they lost the court case. I'm guessing the easy option is to stop the EV Vicroads registration discount. Admittedly it's only $100 but it's the type of petty thing i'm expecting to happen.

 

[Vostok]

Have to admit, i'm expecting the Vic Govt Budget 2024 given the amount debt Victoria is now in, to try to claw back some money given they lost the court case. I'm guessing the easy option is to stop the EV Vicroads registration discount. Admittedly it's only $100 but it's the type of petty thing i'm expecting to happen.

In NSW the discount in the “motor vehicle tax” component of registration for a low emission vehicle is $43 for a vehicle weighing between 1500 and 2500kg (which would cover most EVs) compared to a fossil vehicle in the same weight range. If there are any EVs in the 1150 to 1500kg range, the discount is only $27.

So be thankful for your fixed $100 registration discount, for however long it lasts.

 

[AussieOwner]

I would love to love public transport, but even for longer trips in Melbourne, I too often have afterwards found myself thinking "should've just ridden" (being primarily a cyclist, the Model 3 is basically my wife's), because it would have been quicker, and if not quicker, at least more pleasant.

Public transport is basically non-existant in the regions....

Id just be happy with a footpath so i didnt need to walk the dog on the road

 

[qldoldun]

My wife and I returned yesterday from 2 weeks driving approx. 2,300kms around the north island of NZ in a Hyundai Ioniq Hybrid small sedan.

A good car to drive car but one that screamed at me every drive in the first couple of days until I remembered to disable all the warning sound each time i started the car.

Whilst there I read with interest the long debate about the new road user charges that came into effect on April 1. Diesels have paid this charge since the 1970’s which probably explains the absence of small diesel cars on the roads there.

From April 1 BEVs will pay $76 per 1000kms. PHEVs will pay $38 and HEVs will pay nothing. Of course the latter two will pay the fuel excise.

If these figures were adopted by the Commonwealth of Oz (and the fuel excise was 49.5 cents per litre) then an annual average drive of 15,000kms in the different cars would be quite different.

BEV 15,000 @ $76 = $1140
PHEV 15,000 @ $38 = $570 plus fuel excise.
HEV 15,000 @ $0 = $0 plus fuel excise.

The Ioniq HEV I drove averaged 4.1 litres per hundred so - 15,000 = 615 litres @ $0.495 excise = $304.42 p.a.
My RWD MY would have cost me $1140 !

No wonder so many BEV owners in NZ are not happy.

If Canberra wants to rapidly slow the uptake of BEVs then they should follow the NZ idiotic new rates.

Explains the vast numbers of small HEVs in NZ, especially Prius from Toyota.

 

[Vostok]

7.6c per km. Ouch. And Vics were complaining about 2.5c!

Also people in NZ drive about 10,000 km p.a. on average - less than here - but your point stands.

 

[ZeeDoktor]

Explains the vast numbers of small HEVs in NZ, especially Prius from Toyota.

No, it's about turning radius. The island is so narrow, any other car would need to reverse the full length after reaching water at the top or bottom.

 

[qldoldun]

No, it's about turning radius. The island is so narrow, any other car would need to reverse the full length after reaching water at the top or bottom.

If NZ was ironed flat like the majority of Oz then the land areas would be similar.

 

[Quickst]

If NZ was ironed flat

It would be under the sea