Only 3 governors support DPJ's toll-free expressway policy

Sunday 13th September, 06:05 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 45 Total Comments Show All

waltery at 08:24 PM JST - 13th September

The green house argument - At toll booths - Slowing down using breaks and increasing speed, the electricity in operating toll collection booths etc puts more co2 out than Australia produces. You can put a road around Australia using every little card reader end to end, what a waste of time and money that was. It’s any Governments job to spread the wealth and provide service, don’t complicate it with a little surchargees on so many things. If you want us off the roads give us better CHEAPER! public transport! Fact: Japan is 1/3 of the size of Australia not the size of Vic it’s about the size of West Australia.
ThonTaddeo at 08:54 PM JST - 13th September

Having to fund the payback of the public loans, construction, and maintenance of expressways through a general tax on those that do not use the expressways seem unfair.

This says it all. Road maintenance should be paid by the people who actually use the roads. Those of us who can't drive suffer enough in an automobile-centered society without having to pay additional tax money so that drivers can enjoy their roads for free.
the_harper at 09:20 PM JST - 13th September

Waltery, try a quick google search to check your figures. Land area of: Japan - 337,835 Km^2, WA - 2,529,875 Km^2, Vic - 227,416 Km^2. So Japan fits into WA 7.5 times over. Victoria is 2/3 the land area of Japan. The figure for Japan is from the CIA World Factbook. The figure for Australian states from Geoscience Australia; http://www.ga.gov.au/education/geoscience-basics/dimensions/area-aus-states-territories.jsp

To be on topic, Australia doesn't have the population density to provide as efficient a public transport system as Japan's while maintaining a road and rail network over a land area the size of the continental USA. From what I experienced driving in Japan, the motorways should be carrying more traffic and the reason they don't is that the tolls are so high. What I mean is that a bit more traffic on the motorways would take some pressure off the local roads. However, I think it would be better to reduce the tolls rather than eliminate them; provided that the toll revenue really does go straight back into paying for and maintaining the roads.

I'm amazed that Japan doesn't have e-tags to smooth the flow of traffic through toll points. They were the worst choke points on the motorways.
memyselfI at 09:38 PM JST - 13th September

I really miss the freedom or driving a car. I really hate taking the train to work. cheaper tolls would work
USNinJapan2 at 12:05 AM JST - 14th September

As a regular (ETC) highway user, I prefer to have the tolls stay the same or at the most brought down to 1000 Yen. I'm against anything that would increase the number of cars on the highway. While they're at it they need to add additional ETC only lanes...
panzerdampf at 02:40 AM JST - 14th September

electric cars and toll free high ways, ++

電車... yeah that might work.
kidoave at 04:20 AM JST - 14th September

If the usage of the expressway becomes free 1) crazy traffic jam, 2)poor maintanance, 3)those who do not use the express has to pay it as well in their taxes, 4)the government would go deeper their debts to finance the loans for creating this roads.

before DPJ starts to govern...tsk tsk tsk....they already showing Poor decision making...study first before making statements....it would go back all to you if you don't....
Hephatsheput at 05:39 AM JST - 14th September

Only 3 governors oppose the DPJ's plan? It sounds like it's good to go. We all know that politicians say the opposite of what they mean.
888naff at 06:23 AM JST - 14th September

keep the trucks moving for a better economy. use public transport or get off the highways for eco ness.
illsayit at 03:42 PM JST - 14th September

i do eco ness, let me enjoy driving, or you get a license!

I like to pay a little, even like a tip kind of feeling. I wonder if they are re-thinking their construction techniques? The roads here are fantastic. Sometimes I wonder they dont bring the level of construction down a bit, yk and use more local companies. It would also bring the cost down just a tad. I dont think the cities will get too much traffic. Not more than there is, especially not delivery. If it would help people consider moving out ofthose traffic bound areas it would be good too.
LFRAgain at 03:43 PM JST - 14th September

ThonTaddeo

Road maintenance should be paid by the people who actually use the roads. Those of us who can't drive suffer enough in an automobile-centered society without having to pay additional tax money so that drivers can enjoy their roads for free.

No offence intended, but since drivers also pay taxes, the roads are no more "free" for them than they are a tax burden for you. Everyone pays in some form.

Also, one way or another, we all use the roads, be it actively or passively. How do you think that produce you bought to spruce up your dinner table got to market? How do you suppose the natural gas that heats your bath makes it your your home in those giant pressurized canisters? Emergency vehicles transport heart attack patients on those very same roads that you claim to not use, roads that, heaven forbid, you may have to rely on to get you to a hospital in some distant unfortunate future.

We, as a society, are wholly dependent on the roads that make up a critical transportation system to bring us everything from apples to zoological specimens. And unless we plan to criss-cross every square meter of road with a overlying rail network for transporting goods from prefecture to prefecture, city to city, and neighborhood to neighborhood, the argument that you're being taxed unfairly is one largely without substance.
ThonTaddeo at 09:26 PM JST - 15th September

the roads are no more "free" for them than they are a tax burden for you. Everyone pays in some form.

"Everyone pays in some form" is a cop-out. Yes, everyone pays, but some people are getting more for their money than others, and a society in which people are made to pay for things that they cannot possibly use is an unjust one.

The prices of the goods I buy already include the costs of getting the goods to the stores. If those transport trucks use the expressways to ship their stuff, they should pay the tolls and then reflect that in their prices.

If a stretch of highway costs X yen per year to maintain, and Y trips are made on that highway in a year, then a toll of X/Y is the fairest and most just solution possible. Forcing the entire population to pay so that only one segment of the population can drive their cars on the roads is as unfair as overcharging on the tolls in excess of actual costs so that some other road can be built somewhere is.

Paying for highways with tax money rather than user fees means that drivers would be free to use the highways to their hearts' content while non-drivers would be forbidden to get on those roads, which are closed to pedestrians and bicycles. But they have to pay to subsidize the drivers, whom society's infrastructure is already designed to benefit in many ways. Making non-drivers subsidize them on yet another front is a step backward.

The argument is about the expressways, not the roads in general. If some emergency vehicle had to use the expressway to get me to a hospital, I'll gladly have the highway toll added to my medical bill.
LFRAgain at 03:12 PM JST - 16th September

ThonTaddeo,

You say that this argument is strictly about expressways, and not general roads, but I beg to differ. Your statement was, and I quote:

“Road maintenance should be paid by the people who actually use the roads. Those of us who can't drive suffer enough in an automobile-centered society without having to pay additional tax money so that drivers can enjoy their roads for free.

As I already said, everyone pays taxes, so no one is getting anything for free. But you’ve basically condemned the entire taxation structure as it pertains to roads because you, as you admit, do not drive, and feel that having to pay taxes for a service you don’t use amounts to some sort of suffering.

So, should I, as a person who doesn’t often walk, feel incensed at the tax expenditures made to provide “Walking/No Walking” signals at intersections? They’re no use to me.

Should I, as an avid cyclist, demand that the portion of taxes that go to the construction and maintenance of pedestrian overpasses be struck from my tax obligations? Can’t get my bike up there.

Should I be allowed to withhold that portion of my taxes that perpetuates the suffering of having to tolerate sidewalks, space that could be better used for wider bike lanes?

You're making the very old (and very unsuccessful) "pick and choose" taxation argument, and I can tell you right now you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone of its merit. There are countless examples of things that are paid for by our taxes that, while we may not agree with them personally, serve the broader "good," if you will. Furthermore, no society in its right mind is going to itemize and custom tailor each and every tax bill to accommodate the whims of a particular subset or individual. Not only is it petty, but also logistically impossible.

By your estimate, tax money earmarked for advanced cancer research doesn't necessarily help you if you personally don't have cancer. Moreover, someone with cancer who benefits from said research is certainly getting more for their money than you are. Are you saying this is unfair and that only people with cancer should have to pay taxes into cancer research?

The postal service delivers your mail using those same roads you complain about having to maintain yes, even expressways), and you seem to be arguing that the solution is to covering the costs involved is increase the price of what? Postage stamps? How do we determine which stamps get the “no road” price for pedestrians and the “road price” for car users?

And I won’t even broach the impracticality of emergency personnel taking the time between giving you CPR and an IV drip to check the box on your personal information form that asks, “Would you like to be billed directly for the use of this stretch of highway or would you like general taxes to pay for it?”

Hospitals, libraries, police stations, fire stations, post offices, water, sewage, telephone, and electricity infrastructure – all are examples of things that we all have to pay for, but could arguably be something that we don’t really use ona regular basis, if at all. Are you really suggesting we have every taxpayer in the nation fill out an opt-out checklist for how his or her tax money is used?

If that were to actually happen, there is so much that simply would never get funded, and that’s the simple reality. So we share the load. Sometimes we come out ahead, sometimes we come out behind. But it works out to about the same for everyone in the end.
ThonTaddeo at 10:16 PM JST - 16th September

LFRAgain,

You say that this argument is strictly about expressways, and not general roads, but I beg to differ. Your statement was, and I quote:

“Road maintenance should be paid by the people who actually use the roads. Those of us who can't drive suffer enough in an automobile-centered society without having to pay additional tax money so that drivers can enjoy their roads for free.

Fine, strike out "roads" and replace it with "expressways". Expressways are what I was mainly thinking about, are the subject of the debate here, and are what the DPJ wants to make everyone pay for instead of just the users.

no society in its right mind is going to itemize and custom tailor each and every tax bill to accommodate the whims of a particular subset or individual. Not only is it petty, but also logistically impossible.

For the expressways, it can't be that logistically impossible, because it's being done right now. The people who pay for the expressways are the ones who drive on them.

No one's proposing any kind of tick-box scheme for opting into taxes and fees. The post office can use whatever means of delivery they like (ground, air, sea, whatever), pay the costs of that shipping, and set their rates accordingly.

Hospitals, libraries, police stations, fire stations, post offices, water, sewage, telephone, and electricity infrastructure – all are examples of things that we all have to pay for, but could arguably be something that we don’t really use ona regular basis, if at all.

At hospitals we (if we're part of the national insurance plan) pay 30% of the costs with the state covering the other 70%. With the mail, we pay for stamps in order to send stuff. Water, sewage, telephone, and electricity all have monthly bills that cover the expenses in providing us with these services. And the highways -- as of now -- have tolls.

But the only one of these services where the incoming government wants to shuffle all the costs onto the public is the highway system. Why not let taxes cover everything, and let people mail all the letters they want at no additional cost? No more phone bills or electricity bills!

And what makes that so disgraceful is that only the expressway system bars a segment of the public from making use of it. There are physical requirements for driving, and if (like me) your vision isn't good enough, you can never operate a car. I'll fund cancer research, because that might be me in the hospital some day, but I'm barred by law from ever getting on the highway.

Anyone can join the health insurance plan and use the hospitals, and they pay a portion when they use them. The only public service you've mentioned that exists at no cost to the user is the library, and even they're kind enough to have books in braille and large print for the visually impaired. (I hope I'm not being so insensitive as to miss a group of people who really can't use that service at all, like some people can't with highways.)

The toll system for the highways is fair enough as it is, and it's vertainly fairer than what's being proposed. The impression I get is that the DPJ knows it can gain votes because more than half the population drives cars, and they'll notice getting on a highway for free more than people will notice the additional tax burden.

Even making the trains free, or subsidizing them more, would be better than this. The subset of society rich enough to drive cars wants to enrich itself at the expense of those too poor or physically infirm to drive them. If your goal is an equitable and just society, that's a step backward compared to how things are being done now.
societymike at 09:19 AM JST - 17th September

Man, i think everyone here has forgotten the FACT that before ANY of the current Expressways were built, the ONLY way they were able to get funding to build them was that they PROMISED to only have the Tolls as temporary. The tolls were supposed to go away in the 90's, then it extended, and extended, and extended. The construction of them has long been paid for, it's the maintenance that is the issue, and with the super high cost of the tolls now, it is WAY more money then is needed. The question now is.. where is that money going?? Only a fraction of it is needed for maintaining the expressways.