Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Eastlink... making us pay!

Discussion in 'General Motorcycling Discussion' at netrider.net.au started by tomohawk, Mar 25, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I just found this: http://www.eastlink.com.au/page.aspx?code=HOWTOPAY

    I wasn't aware that we motorcyclists were going to have to pay to use EastLink... I was under the impression it would operate in much the same way as CityLink... Oh well!

    I guess I won't be using it too often. I sure hope the rules for use of CityLink don't change now, as I have to use Punt Rd to Toorak Rd on the M1 every day to get to work....


     
     Top
  2. It's always been on the cards to charge MC's. Once EL put it into operation and it works then ShittyStink will follow suit.

    I'd have no problems paying tolls to get to my destination quicker.

    What I detest the most is that you are forced to pay tolls to move at a snails pace.
     
     Top
  3. I do have problems paying tolls as i see the idea of toll roads as fundamentaly flawed. But what I have a bigger issue with is having had tolls interoduced on what were existing roads (The Tulla and South eastern Car park).
    Oh well hopefully it will relieve some load on the roads that I do use because of all the idiots willing to pay for it.
    see how long the tolls would last if every body just said no and didn't use it
     
     Top
  4. Motorcycles are not exempted from tolls on shitty link. We're just not charged. We may be whenever they get their act together. I think it will still be great value in time and safety whenever they do decide to charge.
     
     Top
  5. +1,000,000 :)

    I think there should be a movement (ignore that pun) to start something that gets Shittylink to only charge 1/2 of the toll (or even cheaper) when the vehicles passing under the gates are moving less than 60km/h, see if they can keep their end of the bargin...
     
     Top
  6. And/or an imperfect road surface that for a month or two M7 Westlink couldn't be bothered fixing (two HUGE steel-plated speedbumps, one each direction). Though it's come to my attention that one of them has been properly repaired now, hurrah!

    I like Booga's thought. ;) Similar to the Connex service for people with monthly/yearly passes.
     
     Top
  7. i thought tollways was part of the reason for the front numberplate argument to raise its fat ugly head again?


    im against paying tolls. why should we pay tolls, and registration? the infrastructure has us screwed at the moment. roads are stuffed, public transport is stuffed, and we are all double paying for the privalidge of getting anally violated (vic thinks this is a good idea of course :D ). plus of course the added fewer of the dreaded 3ks of the limit and dying a horrible death!
     
     Top
  8. completely agree roads should be free, we pay enough taxes fines etc, where does all that money go, BUT we do these tollways and like others here if you can't do the posted limit why should you have to pay?
     
     Top
  9. It was the original reason... then after it got voted down (IIRC), they decided to go for the speed camera reason (after all, toll money doesn't go directly to the government... and the government has to know who we are to protect us from our own foolishness) /sarcasm


    Well, I'm in Brisbane... a city which has only 2 toll roads (quick, block the border passes... there's a storm of southerners coming up! :wink: ) and bikes pay half the toll of cars (I told you to block those border passes!). As a result, we don't get the pain you do - though that may change when the city tunnels & Northern bypass come online about half a decade from now.

    The original idea of toll roads was for the toll to assist in the upkeep & upgrading of the road (shyeah, right... like THAT's gonna happen) - much the same as registration money was originally intended to do. Of course, government being what it is, money coming in has to be used... there's nothing to say HOW it has to be used, though :roll:
     
     Top
  10. *shrug*

    As long as they have a non-tag toll option which they say they do.

    And as long as that doesn't cost extra over the tag option (which they don't mention).

    Then it isn't discriminating against motorcyclists which would be my main concern, not the secondary issue of whether there should be toll roads or not.
     
     Top
  11. I am pretty sure City link was a privatised government initiative, the governement sold the project to City Link and said, here you build this road, we give you permission to do it. thus citylink is a company and can do whatever they want with this road wtihin the boundaries of there contract, if they want to charge motorcyclists thats there perogative, this might not have happend previously due to the fundamental cost > Benefit, the cost of implementing the technology to charge motorcyclists was greater than the benefit, or it was just simply not around or the oppurtunity cost was too high, with the pace of technology advancement it may now be cheaper for them to do so who knows.... I may have gone offtrack here but fundamentally i was answering one of the above posts that said the money from tolls was supposed to go to upgrading the roads....City Link is not owned by the government, it is owned by a company, and companys aim to make profits to keep shareholders happy and the wallets of executive directors fat and bank accounts healthy, nothing new here.
     
     Top
  12. I am with Falcon Lord. I am fundamentally opposed to concepts like toll roads when the Federal and State governments are not using the taxes that they already collect from us for this purpose, but instead horde it so that they can claim they are in surplus, while at the same time providing us with a user paid system.

    They cannot have it both ways. Either we are taxed to provide infra structure, or we pay for that infra structure as we use it!

    On top of that, I see that once again because these people can't get their acts together we Motorcyclists are going to have to pay an additional fee (even if it is only 20 cents) for the privilage of driving on their fancy road.

    Come on. We don't ask for special treatment, but we should atleast be given a fair and equitable deal.
     
     Top
  13. Yes, actually it does say somewhere that you have to pay extra, for everything (even recharging) to have a tag-free account... :evil:

    Ref: http://www.eastlink.com.au/page.aspx?cid=111
    Thats just one page, the topic about this last week has a more definative table.
     
     Top
  14. And to make matters more interesting...

    The toll roads up here are going all electronic next year... no toll booths. Which basically means that everyone driving or riding on the tollroads HAS to have a transponder (or a fat wallet to pay out the fines).

    Side note: I know you've had such things for years, but we're still growing up, OK? :wink:

    Now I wouldn't really mind that (especially since it means no stopping), except for the fact that the transponder is not DESIGNED to attach to motorcycles (and it's NOT waterproof), and they won't modify it so that it will!
     
     Top

  15. You have to be specific about which toll road you are talking about, like i said initiaitives like city link and i am going to assume eastlink is the same, are privatised, owned and run by companies because the governemtn a) does not have the funds to complete the project b) is not efficient enough to run the project. Hence the project is sold to a company who recoups the cost and makes a profit by charging users, if it was not sold to a company chances are the road would not even exist unless the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT decided hey... i think we need an eastlink in melbourne... so your left with 2 options, a generous government or a project and permissions sold to a company, State governments dont recieve money from your income tax, their only source of funds come from gst and they spend that money on things like the commonwealth games buying the grand prix and other major events and many other services. The government is running budget surpluses agreed and has done so for the past 10 years, you see benefits in forms other than paying for you to get aound and bypass the city faster, this has effects like reduced interest rates, higer income for the export industry, a reduced current account deficit, improvemtns in roads and highways that do not collect tolls. by running these surpluses, the governent is assisting to create favourable suppply side conditins to the economy whre business can increase private investment, expand production, hire more people, etc... along with this comes increased incomes and spending in the economy and a greater standard of living... did everyone have lcd tv's 10 years ago? did everyone have mobile phones? you owe a lot mroe to the governemtn than you think, so what if your daily expense have increased? in the grand scheme of things your wage over the last 10 years should have increased too, in terms of inflation this has a neglible effect however overall the standard of living has increased!!!! peter costello, the howard governent.. have done very good things for thsi country of the last 10- years keep your eyes peeled for the budget night in may, and look at what they allocate towards infrastructure, then try and make the same arguement....
     
     Top
  16. Unfortunately you miss the point of my post I think. My discussion was deliberately devoid of partisan politics. Both parties are just as bad each other.

    My issue is with the concept of charging taxation to supposedly provide us with infrastructure such as roads through things like the Petrol Excise and the state government charges (note, both levels of government are to blame here), then privatising these same infrastructures (power, gas, water, transport, road construction) with the idea of "User pays being more efficient". That is fine. If it is going to be user pays then do not make a surplus off my patrol taxation and dump that money into something useful such as improving hospitals or building more public housing for the homeless, the list goes on.

    I believe in the debate about road safety that went on in a thread the other day there was a quote about the federal government in the last financial year plowing a woping great 12% of it's petrol excise money back into road projects.

    A government, any government, should not be crowing about how fantastically it budgets to provide us with a massive surplus when it makes its money by under funding things such as mental health, emergency housing, or by privatising services it is collecting taxation for.



     
     Top
  17. Actually they can, it just isn't that black and white.

    They can tax us to cover a part of the cost of infrastructure and we can pay for another part via usage costs.

    That's actually what's happening now.

    *edit*

    As for charging bikes extra for not having tolls (which I just read the post about) that's something we should be protesting about.

    That *is* discriminatory.
     
     Top
  18. Yes well obviously being the big bad government who we have no control over they can, and they do.

    This does not mean that it is right and they should.



     
     Top
  19. I am particularly unimpressed regarding the extra fees required by motorcyclists due to having no tag. Sure, our tolls on EastLink are half of that of a car, but that is not relevant to the point.

    The fact is they charge a compulsory 'punishment' fee for not having a tag even though there is no option. I am actually tempted to grab my mate's eTag, stick it under my seat go for a quick blat down citylink and see if the gantries pick it up.

    If they do I'd probably grab one of the smaller EastLink toll devices and keep it in there (provided it could be set up to charge me as a motorcycle). Then again, I'd have to remove it to use citylink, because I'm sure as hell not paying when I currently don't need to ;)
     
     Top
  20. I hate opening arguments like this, but when posts are so blatantly wrong I am left with little alternative…
    You have No Idea what you are talking about!
    Citylink being a toll road system, was entirely a short sighted and partly ideological decision by the Kennet government. They privatized vast amounts of public infrastructure in the same way Thatcher did to England. They sold off many public Assets and the set up tollways on existing roads because they fundamentally agree with the principle of industry making money off all transactions. As apposed to the view of a society maintaining base infrastructure as part of the framework of that society.
    How you build an asset and how you fund an asset are two totally different things. You can have private construction of a public asset as in Eastlink. So efficiency of construction is an irrelevancy. As for the garbage about it being a

    This shows that you don’t know anything about how it is structured. The roads are government owned with a contractual lease to Transurban.
    Also note that if this was about Free market and all of that other ideological garbage they quote when arguing that Tollways are appropriate, then please explain to me how congesting other roads around the area to push people onto these tollways is a competitive market environment?
    Yes the tender could be said to be competitive (Though the process was apparently highly flawed) but how we as the consumer get to decide is not at all competitive if the alternative is being restricted.
     
     Top
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.