Are they going up at entrance and exits or along the highway itself? I think I have seen some go up recently, not sure if they are just information systems or what they are exactly.
Pay for what you use is what the government is moving towards and it is a fairer system, overall, and reduces unnecessary waste. The current system simply charges at county borders. They are also doing it with electricity, fuel, water etc.
The National highways are maintained mostly by the toll fees, I guess they are budgeted separately from national roads and county roads.
Suvlaca should be happy with this as they should move the fuel tax onto fuel and away from the vehicle type.
I would be happy if people paid for what they use, yes. It would be a far more efficient system.
However, I am quite sure that with this new system, as I said on the last page, people won’t be paying for what they use. They will indeed be subsidising roads which they don’t use through travelling on roads which they do.
It’s a similar method to the one the government already has with fuel tax. They’ve just changed the wrapper, but the contents will most certainly be the same. As I’ve said. I’ll eat my hair if I’m wrong on this.
If I’m wrong, then we will see this in differences in toll fees. We should see dramatically more expensive tolls on the roads least travelled, and very cheap tolls on the roads more travelled and which require less maintenance overall.
Using your logic the highways would quickly degrade and could not be classified as highways as parts would become dangerous and not suitable for driving at high speeds , I just don’t get it.
There’s a lot about this I am not grasping. Doesn’t the current system basically apply user fees? Would this system apply to all national highways, even through cities? The purpose of some freeways is to cut back on congestion of traffic. This will have a negative effect as some people waste 20 minutes and burn 40NT more in gas just to save 40NT.
Suvlaca says each road or section of road should pay for itself, I’m pointing out the inconsistencies behind the argument.
The new system will likely generate more revenue for the govt/highway management office, but it is a fairer system than the current one which is based on county boundaries. Actually I believe some of the revenue currently from the tolls goes to each county.
There is no perfect system, but if you understand the current setup you already have people avoiding the highway at county borders and using local roads instead.
The new setup simply pays by amount of road use, which I think is fair enough.
I would recommend studying the advent of the American railroads.
There is no reason for degradation and poor quality, when people are paying for something they require.
I see no reason for wilful exploitation of resources and unlimited taxation for the benefit of frivolous pursuits.
When people pay for what they need, then the funds are there. When people demand higher standards, then there are always the means for people to pay for them when required. I don’t think “just don’t get it” is a statement which qualifies doubt in this type of system.
Most of history has shown that governments are not needed at all in order for successful transportation systems to be developed and flourish due to investments and revenues made possible through a free market.
Why don’t you try arguing for why only a government would be the best way to run a highways network, instead of a competitive private network? I mean most governments still hire private contractors to do all the work anyway. Why would you assume that private companies can’t do a better job in taking over the planning and development of road networks?
Private companies produce everything. Government produces nothing at all. Why would you presume that less professional governments would do a better job of administering charges to the public?
I didn’t mention anything about government, you are off on your own tangent again.
Your proposal simply wouldn’t work under either a private or public system as a highway is an integrated stretch of road over long distances with high minimum quality standards for obvious reasons.
[quote=“headhonchoII”]I didn’t mention anything about government, you are off on your own tangent again.
Your proposal simply wouldn’t work under either a private or public system as a highway is an integrated stretch of road over long distances with high minimum quality standards for obvious reasons.[/quote]
I don’t understand your obvious reasons at all. Why do I need government to imply their standards? I’m quite certain that government has nobody who develops road technologies or anyone at all who’s job it is to improve standards. To apply standards, perhaps, but that’s just the same as the department of government who forces me to purchase a car with airbags. Did they develop the airbag? Not at all. Governments don’t produce anything. That’s all done by the private sector. The government just meddles with our choices.
You would presume that the government only ever chooses the best quality roads. I would certainly argue the opposite in terms of Taiwan’s highways. They’re crap compared to many other road networks in the world. In fact they are positively dangerous in places and suffer from extremely poor management. Also the very building and maintenance of roads then becomes a heavily political motivated business.
The entire management system at this time is anything but efficient, cost effective, or fair. I do not presume that the roads which I drive on are far better under government management? I’d very much prefer an independent alternative that isn’t bound by government regulation.
Let’s not forget that companies as well as individuals are still responsible for the products which they create. I am not talking about building roads which are a direct cause of death. That would be against the law and anyone building such a road, even today would be held accountable, or in the government’s case, may be held accountable. It’s a very difficult thing to be certain of when road building is presently so political.
Getting back to the subject of fairness. Do you think for a moment that we are all created fairly and equally? The only thing which should be fair in the world is opportunity. Nature would normally provide us with that. Is it fair that Bolt can run the hundred metres faster than I can? Obviously not. Is it fair that Bill Gates had a better business plan than I’ve come up with? Perhaps we should bring him down to size to make me feel better about myself.
I don’t begrudge anyone their advantages. I don’t see why anyone should begrudge me of mine. My freedom to choose, my freedom to exert my energies in my own pursuits. I would love to see a resurgence of true capitalism. That’s when we were all better off for it. That’s when we had the freedom and equal opportunities.
There was never anything called ‘true capitalism’. Can you give us an example of this utopia where everybody has freedom and opportunity to do what they want?
I din’t use the word utopia. That’s a word which people tend to use to create a false impression of a statement in order to presume a greater sense of knowledge. I am drawing the clear distinctions between one system/method and another. We’ve seen how socialist systems work, and we’ve seen how well private enterprises work given the freedom to. I choose the latter.
A utopia might be something like a place where money didn’t exist and everything was free. There were no police, and no governments. People of religion could all live in peace, and there would be no war. etc.
I would recommend studying the advent of the American railroads.
There is no reason for degradation and poor quality, when people are paying for something they require.
I see no reason for wilful exploitation of resources and unlimited taxation for the benefit of frivolous pursuits.
When people pay for what they need, then the funds are there. When people demand higher standards, then there are always the means for people to pay for them when required. I don’t think “just don’t get it” is a statement which qualifies doubt in this type of system.
Most of history has shown that governments are not needed at all in order for successful transportation systems to be developed and flourish due to investments and revenues made possible through a free market.
Why don’t you try arguing for why only a government would be the best way to run a highways network, instead of a competitive private network? I mean most governments still hire private contractors to do all the work anyway. Why would you assume that private companies can’t do a better job in taking over the planning and development of road networks?
Private companies produce everything. Government produces nothing at all. Why would you presume that less professional governments would do a better job of administering charges to the public?[/quote]
ETC with pay per distance seems very close by. Testing is in progress - the blue disco light passing under them gives that millisecond 80’s disco feeling.
BUT… Rumor goes they are also able to measure your speed between the several ETC checkpoints… Seems we got ourselves a Dutch invention here implemented …
[quote=“sulavaca”][quote=“headhonchoII”]I didn’t mention anything about government, you are off on your own tangent again.
Your proposal simply wouldn’t work under either a private or public system as a highway is an integrated stretch of road over long distances with high minimum quality standards for obvious reasons.[/quote]
The entire management system at this time is anything but efficient, cost effective, or fair. I do not presume that the roads which I drive on are far better under government management? I’d very much prefer an independent alternative that isn’t bound by government regulation…[/quote]
A road or rail link under private ownership is a natural monopoly, and without regulation, naturally leads to the abuse of monopoly power. The only practical way to “compete” with the monopoly of a fixed transport link is to build another one.
This is an issue here in Western Australia, where I’m currently at, since key rail links were built and are owned by large mining corporations which restrict access to other mining interests, which are then compelled to truck their ore or build redundant competing rail links, which they are now doing. This is of course wasteful and environmentally damaging, but its possible because there’s a lot of space (and money) in Western Australia.
There isn’t a lot of space in, for example, Taiwan.
[quote=“Ducked”]
A road or rail link under private ownership is a natural monopoly, and without regulation, naturally leads to the abuse of monopoly power. [/quote]
That couldn’t be further from the truth. Both the customers and other private businesses can choose whether that monopoly can exist.
Where monopolies exist, governments support them.
[quote=“tom1807”]Has anyone news when the new system is starting?
My last information was it would be beginning of September, but seems no sign off that
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2[/quote]
I think it’s not gonna happen in September. They are going to do some kind of survey around mid-autumn holiday.
Apparently cash will still be usable for payment at a single booth. This will come as good news for everyone either borrowing a friend’s car or most of my foreign customers who are stumped by the ETC’s system of payment through iBon, or the Chinese text messages that come through.
One hick-up the system also has is that foreign diplomats may not all be able to use the system. I had one the other day. He registered his vehicle in his (the government’s) name. The ETC was registered in the same fashion. The ETC company however can’t activate the system as he uses an alternative I.D. card, issued by foreign affairs. The ETC company need his office’s tax number. As the office isn’t required to provide him with it as it’s his personal transport no body can activate the system. The ETC company are trying to resolve this issue with the government, but so far no progress has been made.
I have made several requests through several ETC stations already to improve the system for foreigners. ETC have responded saying that they will endeavor to provide a crappy Chinglish version of the present ETC phone app, but that text messages will likely only remain in Chinese.
So far from my own personal experience I have found that the system is extremely annoying due to the driver not knowing if the system is credited or not when using another person’s car. I move around many customer’s cars and am never aware if there is remaining credit on the system or not. This forces me to still use cash.
I am also annoyed by the additional paperwork now required to make transfers of vehicle ownership. The Etag can only be transferred at an official ETC station and not at many of the Etag fitment stations. This usually results in just tearing off the Etag and then having another one fitted at a local fitment station. I am sure there must be workarounds, but so far staff are unwilling or unable to assist.
And another logical step is to introduce congestion charges in Taipei, similar to the London model.
This is could get expensive, quickly. :neutral:[/quote]
I certainly agree that congestion charges will happen as soon as EToll is universal. Certainly for downtown Taipei, all street parking and just about anywhere else they what to stick a collection device. I have plans to place collection devices under seats on the MRT. ChChing, ChChing, ChChing.
If the people allow universal ETOLL expect the government to do a wallet deep dip.
When governments say they are going to make it more convenient for you, hang on to your wallet.
