• Owen@social.ridetrans.it
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    @ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712

    “Probably sometime during the Fraser government, back in the 1980s.”

    Huh? So you are actually agreeing with me. You think Australia can increase its gas tax today?

    "So an important difference between Australia and the US is that the Australian Federal Government already has a national Fuel Excise Tax, as well as Goods and Services Tax on Fuel: "

    Also this isn’t a difference between Australia and the US. The US also has a federal gas tax.

    • AJ Sadauskas@aus.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      @owen @heatofignition @mondoman712
      “Also this isn’t a difference between Australia and the US. The US also has a federal gas tax.”

      Okay, I stand corrected on this point.

      But my core point remains.

      Look at the oil price shocks of the 1970s, early 2000s, and two years ago.

      Just increasing the price of driving alone doesn’t create sustained modal shifts, unless public transport and cycling are viable alternatives.

        • AJ Sadauskas@aus.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          @owen @heatofignition @mondoman712 The really big missing piece of the puzzle in Australia — even the major capital cities — is the frequency of suburban bus services.

          Here’s the timetable for a typical Melbourne suburban bus route: https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/stop/15701/allambanan-drdorset-rd/2/bus/#StopPage:::datetime=2024-03-02T21%3A00%3A00.000Z&directionId=193&showAllDay=false&_auth=f308870091d891540e8a71291593644d70d97c0fb737e7cc29342c6a7802e96d

          If you want to financially penalise people for driving, I think at a minimum you need to get that service up to a 10 minute all-day frequency.

          Regional and rural transport services are another weak spot as well.

          And I think you’re more likely to get the results you’re after if the increase in driving costs (however it’s implemented) comes either at the same time, or after services are improved to a reasonable standard.

          • Owen@social.ridetrans.it
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            @ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712

            You keep ignoring my question which just confirms my suspicion that the answer is “never.”

            If your answer is "only after every person in Australia has 10 minute transit service within a 15 minute walk (20 hours a day??), your practical answer is never. Because that will never happen.

            And you haven’t even engaged with my point that you’re equity analysis is just vibes. You haven’t actually done any cost/benefit analysis.

            • AJ Sadauskas@aus.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              @owen @heatofignition @mondoman712 The answer is definitely not never.

              I’m all for increasing the cost of driving, including fuel excises. And taxes on cars. And potentially congestion taxes.

              But most people — at least in the mainland capitals — should be within comfortable walking distance of a public transport service that runs every 10 minutes first.

              That’s not currently the case.

              Price mechanisms aren’t as effective as they could be at changing behaviour if there are no viable alternatives in place.

              So my answer is ideally petrol prices should be increased at the same time as decent bus services are rolled out across the capital cities.

              And I think where public transport services are already at a decent standard, or as services are improved, we should be rolling out more localised disincentives to driving, such as pedestrianising streets.

              We should be doing that right now.

              • Owen@social.ridetrans.it
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                @ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712

                Right, it sounds like we’re mostly on the same page. If you scroll back up and read my original reply, I’m pushing back on multiple people communicating a hard line in the sand, no additional car ownership costs before there’s some vague level of transit service.

                That is a lot different than asking our policymakers to coordinate transportation changes, which you seem to be saying now. Here’s the original post:

                https://lemmy.world/comment/8058778

                  • Owen@social.ridetrans.it
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    9 months ago

                    @ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712

                    Its an important distinction because people have a delusional perception of what’s already available. Every city has a bus system. People can use 20 minute bus service! And I guarantee if middle class folks start riding those buses, the service will improve.

                    And additionally there are places that will never have transit. We can’t hope people will eventually just stop living in rural areas and then after that, finally, we’ll raise fuel taxes.

            • Owen@social.ridetrans.it
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              @ajsadauskas @heatofignition @mondoman712

              However if we decide it’s ok to make it expensive to own a car, we actually can envision a world where everyone lives within transit because people will choose to do that.

              And the money we raise from fuel taxes – which are mostly paid by wealthy and middle class earners – can be used to actually expand transit.

              • AJ Sadauskas@aus.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                @owen @heatofignition @mondoman712 Here’s where there is a big difference between the US and Australia.

                The wealthiest parts of Australia’s capital cities are in the inner-city, which already have access to good public transport.

                The poorest areas tend to be the outer suburbs, where public transport is a half-hourly bus, and cycling involves navigating a six-lane stroad with no protected bike lane.

                It’s the opposite to the US, where in many metro areas the wealthiest white residents live in outer-suburban gated communities and the (often Black) working class have traditionally lived in the inner city.

                The wealthiest suburbs in Melbourne are served by the (mostly inner-city) tram network. Toorak, Brighton, Kew, Camberwell, and increasingly Fitzroy.

                And the poorest tend to be in the outer suburbs.

                There’s a whole history of why it played out differently to the US.

                But the big factor for why someone lives in, say, Carrum Downs in outer southeast Melbourne (where the local public transport is by bus) is because it’s all they can afford.

                In the US, where the wealthiest people live in the outer suburbs, raising gas prices to encourage them to move to the inner city where there’s better public transport would probably work.

                The difference is that in Australia the wealthiest people actively avoid the outer suburbs.

                It’s the working class who tends to live in the outer suburbs.

                Most Carrum Downs residents would gladly choose to live somewhere like Brighton or Toorak with good public transport. If they could afford it.

                That means there needs to be decent alternatives to driving if you’re going to increase the cost of driving.