Should cyclists pay road taxes ?

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Should cyclists pay road taxes ?

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 22

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2718729 5-Jun-2021 18:02

sir1963:

If everyone cycled, everyone would end up paying perhaps $2K extra in taxes each year. because the need for roads will NOT go away.

If everyone cycled, the current roads would not need to be expanded. They can be used for economic transport, for EV's, for cars that need to be used such as ambulances, etc. Or for pool cars and so on. I get you are a cycle hater, but one day transport has to be revised due to climate change. If we incentivised EV's, e-bikes, scooters we can reduce the need for road congestion. Those that "need" to use the roads can use them. Those that "want" can hop on an electric bus, or cycle,

mattwnz

20155 posts

Uber Geek

#2718732 5-Jun-2021 18:16

Considering how much NZs population has increased over the last 20 years, we should have been building more new roads and infrastructure for this growth There are more people and trucks and cars than ever, which should have been able to pay for it from levies, fuel taxes, road user charges plus general taxes etc. .However all the red tape and lack of competition means that these projects appear to be significantly more expensive to build that ever. It is ironic that we have ancient infrastructure in Wellington such as the Mt Vic tunnel which the city relies on, which was built many decades ago without all this red tape and not up to the standards that a new tunnel would need to be, yet it is used by thousands every day. We should have these projects shovel ready incase of another GFC. I remember the last GFC led to money going into straightening the Rimutukas.

mattwnz

20155 posts

Uber Geek

#2718734 5-Jun-2021 18:24

GV27:

sbiddle:

Why are we wasting so money on this when the requirement for a tunnel is still there (and has to happen at some point). The cost of this is probably 1/5 of the cost of the tunnel. Surely it makes sense to finally start on this now and then move the current bridge to offer express bus lanes and cycle/bike paths? A 2nd bridge or tunnel has been announced so many times, and if work had actually begun on this after the last time it was announced construction would have already started. It really just does show that a country of procrastinators we are!

(And I say this being somebody who is fully behind cycle infrastructure).

A tunnel will cross at least $10b. Not only that, the requirements for tunnels to move general traffic over and above just light rail or similar includes:

1) Increased ventilation demands over and above what the CRL has to provide for, so a much higher cost per km;

2) Increased footprints at entry/exits, which will suck up a huge amount of land on both sides of the harbour;

3) A bigger corridor to feed both the tunnels and the current bridge, which wouldn't be dismantled once a tunnel is built, which will involve either building into the existing rapid transit space taken up by the busway, or expanding the houses on the other side of the motorway (or both).

A pedestrian and rapid transit bridge would give most of the benefits of a whole set of tunnels for a fraction of the price, but NZTA is falling over itself to not include this as an option in the discussion around the next harbour crossing.

Don't forget also that for the price of a tunnel to connect two already-connected parts of inner Auckland, you could probably build mega-projects all over the city and still have enough money left over to redevelop Eden Park into an indoor all-purpose venue.

We can't afford tunnels and can't justify them when a proper bridge would do the same job with almost none of the downsides for a fraction of the cost.

Can't the government borrow the 10 billion from the printed money from the reserve bank? It will be a good recovery project. Otherwise this money will have to go to banks under the FLP, and they will just be pumping it into houses pushing prices even higher. The price is always going to go up. They may need to look at what happened with Tranmission Gully which has yet to be finished.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2718736 5-Jun-2021 18:26

mattwnz:

Considering how much NZs population has increased over the last 20 years, we should have been building more new roads and infrastructure for this growth There are more people and trucks and cars than ever, which should have been able to pay for it from levies, fuel taxes, road user charges etc. .However all the red tape and lack of competition means that these projects appear to be significantly more expensive to build that ever. It is ironic that we have ancient infrastructure in Wellington such as the Mt Vic tunnel which the city relies on, which was built many decades ago without all this red tape and not up to the standards that a new tunnel would need to be, yet it is used by thousands every day. We should have these projects shovel ready incase of another GFC. I remember the last GFC led to money going into straightening the Rimutukas.

Maybe, but if we collect all the revenue from RUC where are the roads? National and Labour have all these road projects but where are they? IMHO the issue is we have a population half the size of greater Los Angeles, yet the population is widespread over 1600 km length and over many many many individual small towns, medium and large towns and a few cities. And we need more health care, more wages, less tax, more water infrastructure, and many so ons. 5 Million cannot support all that. Yet NZ is a desirable place to live. Because we aren't living like sardines. There is no utopia, you want THIS you cannot therefore have THAT

Its like that cliche, here are 3 things, choose 2

mattwnz

20155 posts

Uber Geek

#2718737 5-Jun-2021 18:32

tdgeek:

mattwnz:

Considering how much NZs population has increased over the last 20 years, we should have been building more new roads and infrastructure for this growth There are more people and trucks and cars than ever, which should have been able to pay for it from levies, fuel taxes, road user charges etc. .However all the red tape and lack of competition means that these projects appear to be significantly more expensive to build that ever. It is ironic that we have ancient infrastructure in Wellington such as the Mt Vic tunnel which the city relies on, which was built many decades ago without all this red tape and not up to the standards that a new tunnel would need to be, yet it is used by thousands every day. We should have these projects shovel ready incase of another GFC. I remember the last GFC led to money going into straightening the Rimutukas.

Maybe, but if we collect all the revenue from RUC where are the roads? National and Labour have all these road projects but where are they? IMHO the issue is we have a population half the size of greater Los Angeles, yet the population is widespread over 1600 km length and over many many many individual small towns, medium and large towns and a few cities. And we need more health care, more wages, less tax, more water infrastructure, and many so ons. 5 Million cannot support all that. Yet NZ is a desirable place to live. Because we aren't living like sardines. There is no utopia, you want THIS you cannot therefore have THAT

Its like that cliche, here are 3 things, choose 2

Except we did manage to support it 20-30 years ago with a far smaller population. The problem seems to be that things have increased so much in price (not including most things in the CPI), compared to wages. NZers aren't earning enough, and one way they seen to be trying to offset that is increasing peoples house prices, so those that own houses are getting their wages supplemented with massive tax free capital gains to make them feel richer. But those that don't own a house are going backwards.
The standards now are far higher, and there are far more people clipping the ticket along the way, which all adds to the costs. Everything is getting 'professionalised'. You just have to look at the insane number of cones for example that are now used when there are road works. The cones themselves are becoming hazards as there are so many of them. Councils tend to be responsible for local roads, I don't know how much they get from the government from vehicle taxes, but some would come from ratepayers. But many are building vanity projects like new libraries and town halls, which cost millions, and often built from borrowing and loading more debt onto the books for future generations to pay. IMO they should be concentrating on key infrastructure, or this should be covered by central government. My council provides free swimming pools and free usage of them. Yet not everyone swims, and these are often used by tourists driving through.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2718738 5-Jun-2021 18:38

GV27:

A tunnel will cross at least $10b. Not only that, the requirements for tunnels to move general traffic over and above just light rail or similar includes:

1) Increased ventilation demands over and above what the CRL has to provide for, so a much higher cost per km;

2) Increased footprints at entry/exits, which will suck up a huge amount of land on both sides of the harbour;

3) A bigger corridor to feed both the tunnels and the current bridge, which wouldn't be dismantled once a tunnel is built, which will involve either building into the existing rapid transit space taken up by the busway, or expanding the houses on the other side of the motorway (or both).

A pedestrian and rapid transit bridge would give most of the benefits of a whole set of tunnels for a fraction of the price, but NZTA is falling over itself to not include this as an option in the discussion around the next harbour crossing.

Don't forget also that for the price of a tunnel to connect two already-connected parts of inner Auckland, you could probably build mega-projects all over the city and still have enough money left over to redevelop Eden Park into an indoor all-purpose venue.

We can't afford tunnels and can't justify them when a proper bridge would do the same job with almost none of the downsides for a fraction of the cost.

Agree. Whats the price tag for another bridge to replace the current one? Make it for commercial transport, extending the life of the old bridge that can be used for cars/cycles. Add a tier on top of the new bridge for cycles, so that cars have the old bridge and any spare capacity for the new bridge if there was any.Doesnt need to be fancy, the LONG bridge at Lake Ponchatrain near New Orleans wasn't fancy, just a motorway over water. Can't be that hard.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2718739 5-Jun-2021 18:42

mattwnz:

Except we did manage to support it 20-30 years ago with a far smaller population. The problem seems to be that things have increased so much in price (not including most things in the CPI), compared to wages. The standards now are far higher, and there are far more people clipping the ticket along the way, which all adds to the costs. Everything is getting 'professionalised'. You just have to look at the insane number of cones for example that are now used when there are road works. The cones themselves are becoming hazards. Councils tend to be responsible for local roads, I don't know how much they get from the goverenmtn from vehicle taxes, but some would come from ratepayers. But many are building vanity projects like new libraries and town halls, which cost millions. IMO they should be concentrating on key infrastructure, or this should be covered by central government. My council provides free swimming pools and free usage of them. Yet not everyone swims, and these are often used by tourists driving through.

Built in 1959 or thereabouts? Back then the standards were lower, yes stuff was cheaper, now its not.If you built that bridge now, it would likely have longer life and more capability. Back then it was basic practices. Steel, concrete that will do. Ok for Austins and Ford vans

Wise

Send money globally for less with Wise - one free transfer up to NZ$900 (affiliate link).

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2718740 5-Jun-2021 18:43

sir1963:
Batman:

He thinks cyclists pay no tax. Some pay no tax sone pay more tax than him.

But I think he mainly disagrees with the clip on harbour bridge for 1 billion dollars (650mil x blowout costs).

I disagree with that stupid clip on too. But not because cyclists supposedly pay no tax. That's a generalization which is inaccurate.

ALL motorists pay additional taxes to help pay for the roads (to the tune of about $4 Billion a year)

NO cyclist pays any additional taxes to pay for cycleways.

The additional taxes are on TOP of income taxes, Rates etc, the fact you pay these is 100% irrelevant.

Depends on your government. If you run for mayor or PM and you get voted on then you can tax whoever you want.

If I get in I'll build a no speed limit highway from North to south, make prisoners work for their board lodging and security, tax apple and google, but I'm not sure I want to tax cyclists.

gzt

17120 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2718747 5-Jun-2021 19:08

sbiddle: Why are we wasting so money on this when the requirement for a tunnel is still there (and has to happen at some point). The cost of this is probably 1/5 of the cost of the tunnel. Surely it makes sense to finally start on this now and then move the current bridge to offer express bus lanes and cycle/bike paths?

It has a different function and purpose. In principle a dedicated structure purpose designed for cyclists and pedestrians makes perfect sense to me. It is also a recreational and tourism asset. I'd like to see more details on the design. The renders I've seen don't show the approach proposals for instance. The other question I have is, does it really need the height of the existing structure.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2718765 5-Jun-2021 20:37

tdgeek:

sir1963:

If everyone cycled, everyone would end up paying perhaps $2K extra in taxes each year. because the need for roads will NOT go away.

If everyone cycled, the current roads would not need to be expanded. They can be used for economic transport, for EV's, for cars that need to be used such as ambulances, etc. Or for pool cars and so on. I get you are a cycle hater, but one day transport has to be revised due to climate change. If we incentivised EV's, e-bikes, scooters we can reduce the need for road congestion. Those that "need" to use the roads can use them. Those that "want" can hop on an electric bus, or cycle,

Not a cycle hater. Thats just emotive clap trap to try and make your POV look stronger.

However, Holland, the cycling capital (on flat land) only supports 27% cyclists, so NZ would be lucky to get 10% at best.

More likely the population will be using EVs, for lightweight vehicles, commercial vehicles will be using diesel for a while yet. Peak traffic will STILL need to be catered for.

There will be no reduction in roads, there will still be needed for the same reasons they are currently needed.

The part I found interesting was nothing said about everyone paying an extra 2K a year in taxes, ie. cyclists paying more towards cycleways

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2718767 5-Jun-2021 20:38

gzt:
sbiddle: Why are we wasting so money on this when the requirement for a tunnel is still there (and has to happen at some point). The cost of this is probably 1/5 of the cost of the tunnel. Surely it makes sense to finally start on this now and then move the current bridge to offer express bus lanes and cycle/bike paths?

It has a different function and purpose. In principle a dedicated structure purpose designed for cyclists and pedestrians makes perfect sense to me. It is also a recreational and tourism asset. I'd like to see more details on the design. The renders I've seen don't show the approach proposals for instance. The other question I have is, does it really need the height of the existing structure.

with a toll gate at either end.

elpenguino

3421 posts

Uber Geek

#2718830 5-Jun-2021 23:17

sir1963:

with a toll gate at either end.

With all due respect, you're dreaming. Or trolling.

New Zealanders and agencies of the NZ govt strongly believe there's more benefit from more cycling than the inverse.

https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/Walking-Cycling-and-Public-Transport/docs/benefits-of-investing-in-cycling/cyclelife-benefits-booklet.pdf

Whether an Auckland bike bridge will actually ever be built is another story.

Most of the posters in this thread are just like chimpanzees on MDMA, full of feelings of bonhomie, joy, and optimism. Fred99 8/4/21

mattwnz

20155 posts

Uber Geek

#2718843 6-Jun-2021 00:36

tdgeek:

mattwnz:

Except we did manage to support it 20-30 years ago with a far smaller population. The problem seems to be that things have increased so much in price (not including most things in the CPI), compared to wages. The standards now are far higher, and there are far more people clipping the ticket along the way, which all adds to the costs. Everything is getting 'professionalised'. You just have to look at the insane number of cones for example that are now used when there are road works. The cones themselves are becoming hazards. Councils tend to be responsible for local roads, I don't know how much they get from the goverenmtn from vehicle taxes, but some would come from ratepayers. But many are building vanity projects like new libraries and town halls, which cost millions. IMO they should be concentrating on key infrastructure, or this should be covered by central government. My council provides free swimming pools and free usage of them. Yet not everyone swims, and these are often used by tourists driving through.

Built in 1959 or thereabouts? Back then the standards were lower, yes stuff was cheaper, now its not.If you built that bridge now, it would likely have longer life and more capability. Back then it was basic practices. Steel, concrete that will do. Ok for Austins and Ford vans

They all have a use by date. I am not sure what the habour bridges life is, but it wasn't that long ago when an accident potentially could have caused the end of it. You just need a big crash on it and it could leave Auckland without a bridge at all. Thi sis why they need an alternative, at least for contingency. But also becuase this one will reach the end of it's life. It is iconic too that they needed to enlarge it not all that long after it was built with the Nippon Clippons. It was just typical that they didn't plan for the increased usage.

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2718852 6-Jun-2021 08:21

mattwnz:

They all have a use by date. I am not sure what the habour bridges life is, but it wasn't that long ago when an accident potentially could have caused the end of it. You just need a big crash on it and it could leave Auckland without a bridge at all. Thi sis why they need an alternative, at least for contingency. But also becuase this one will reach the end of it's life. It is iconic too that they needed to enlarge it not all that long after it was built with the Nippon Clippons. It was just typical that they didn't plan for the increased usage.

IIRC there are still many years left, and a new bridge is in future plans. This thread is about the terrible idea of creating a small bridge for two wheel traffic users

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2718869 6-Jun-2021 09:22

gzt: ... The other question I have is, does it really need the height of the existing structure.

There is still a requirement for ships to pass under the bridge - both the sugar works and the NZDF armament depot are up-harbour. I suppose we could always just add the relocation costs to those to the project cost, money well spent if it allows a few dozen more to cycle to work

1 | ... | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ... | 22