Should cyclists pay road taxes ?

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

1 | ... | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22

3264 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2730404 17-Jun-2021 21:27

MikeB4:

sir1963:

Did Google also tell you about the $3 Million per km Christchurch spent of cycleways ?

Did google also tell you of the additional cleaning to keep the cycle paths safe (leaves, loose gravel, glass, moss, etc) ?

Did google tell you this needs to be done on both sides of the street ?

Did google tell you that with separation barriers this means normal street cleaning trucks can not be used.

Did google tell you that Transmission Gully cost is $3.5 Billion and still not finished?

And it will supply a more secure route into and out of Wellington.

It will allow faster and cheaper transport of goods and services

It will in effect earn money for the users, that increased commerce will increase the GST take for the government

People who use the road will be paying either fuel or RUC taxes which will be paying for that and other projects

It will also help reduce pollution by signficantly reducing congestion.

No one cycles from wellington to Levin and back on a daily basis.

The rail network is incapable of handling the goods and commuter traffic that the roads handle.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2730406 17-Jun-2021 21:42

sir1963:

And it will supply a more secure route into and out of Wellington.

It will allow faster and cheaper transport of goods and services

It will in effect earn money for the users, that increased commerce will increase the GST take for the government

People who use the road will be paying either fuel or RUC taxes which will be paying for that and other projects

It will also help reduce pollution by signficantly reducing congestion.

No one cycles from wellington to Levin and back on a daily basis.

The rail network is incapable of handling the goods and commuter traffic that the roads handle.

Given the high peat content of the ground the maintenance will be very high, example the amount of resealing that has been done to the Kapiti expressway since opening a few years back.

The road will not solve the congestion both into and out of the capital as the choke points will still be present.

The road is at high seismic risk and is still an insecure route leaving the capital still at risk. The route through the Gully is an area of unstable steep slopes and rock.

Rail could move far more goods and people out and into the capital without encountering the ever present congestion which wont be solved by the new highway.

The road does not address emissions and ground pollution.

You still don't seem to get that the answer being sought is to get vehicles off the roads into sustainable alternative transport in order to reduce emissions and help save our only home and teh only home of future generations.

SomeoneSomewhere

1804 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2730407 17-Jun-2021 21:45

It will in effect earn money for the users, that increased commerce will increase the GST take for the government

People who use the road will be paying either fuel or RUC taxes which will be paying for that and other projects

It will also help reduce pollution by signficantly reducing congestion.

And as noted, they won't fully fund it because only a portion of the roading budget comes out of charges. BCR of 0.6 before the cost blew out isn't great.

It will encourage more journeys by car and cause more congestion ahead of the merge in Linden. Two four-lane roads becoming one is going to be brutal. SH1 already backs up almost to that interchange in the morning.

The rail network is incapable of handling the goods and commuter traffic that the roads handle.

If you consistently spent billions on the rail network, you'd have a much nicer rail network. Sure, it wouldn't do everything or get everywhere, but there'd be a lot less strain. Putting more housing within walking/cycling distance of the CBD or existing rail links would also help, rather than building out suburban sprawl.

sir1963

3264 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2730409 17-Jun-2021 21:49

tdgeek:

sir1963:

Personal attacks ?

Not cool.

How is that a personal attack?? Yoh want cyclists to pay. The poster suggested a footpath user tax, same thing.

No, the poster said "Next OP will want pedestrians to pay a footpath user tax."

OP being "Original Poster".

I have made no such suggestion, and even in other posts given reasoned argument why footpaths are different to cycle paths.

I find it objectionable for people to dishonestly represent me and my views.

Id the poster had suggest HE believed pedestrian should be taxed extra, then that is his view that he then has to substantiate .

sir1963

3264 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2730417 17-Jun-2021 22:16

MikeB4:

sir1963:

And it will supply a more secure route into and out of Wellington.

It will allow faster and cheaper transport of goods and services

It will in effect earn money for the users, that increased commerce will increase the GST take for the government

People who use the road will be paying either fuel or RUC taxes which will be paying for that and other projects

It will also help reduce pollution by signficantly reducing congestion.

No one cycles from wellington to Levin and back on a daily basis.

The rail network is incapable of handling the goods and commuter traffic that the roads handle.

Given the high peat content of the ground the maintenance will be very high, example the amount of resealing that has been done to the Kapiti expressway since opening a few years back.

The road will not solve the congestion both into and out of the capital as the choke points will still be present.

The road is at high seismic risk and is still an insecure route leaving the capital still at risk. The route through the Gully is an area of unstable steep slopes and rock.

Rail could move far more goods and people out and into the capital without encountering the ever present congestion which wont be solved by the new highway.

The road does not address emissions and ground pollution.

You still don't seem to get that the answer being sought is to get vehicles off the roads into sustainable alternative transport in order to reduce emissions and help save our only home and teh only home of future generations.

My understanding is the resealing was because the original sealing was porous , allowing water into the road beds, this is disaster for roads.

Rail is moving AWAY from electrification back to Diesel (yes, I agree STUPID in the extreme)

Rail would need 4+ lanes to cope with the traffic of passenger/freight trains with regular schedules, there is no space for this unless you get rid of the existing road.

Rail is a seismic risk, Kaikoura has shown the dangers of single point of failure for both road and rail. There is no other option for rail freight to the South Island than wellington.

Neither is cycling in this case because no one is going to cycle from Levin to Wellington each day. And as had been pointed out, rail can not do it either, it does not have the capacity. That capacity will also be grossly expensive and even more difficult to supply as the existing rail route will still need to be utilised whist building additional tracks beside the old ones. The gully did not have this limitation.

This would be a case where the billion dollar bridge should be scrapped in favour of the rail upgrade, as would rail to Auckland and Wellington Airports.

The other issue with rail is that during summer, high track temperatures means trains are significantly limited in what speed they can do.

Idealy we would kill off Wellington Airport and have a high speed rail link from Ohakea to Wellington as Ohakea does not have the wind/weather issues Wellington does.

Rome and Florence both have international airports well outside of the cities, as is Heathrow.

However all of this costs money, lots of money, and motorists are NOT an endless pool of funds to use to pay for other transport options. Auckland already has an additional 10c (+gst) local fuel tax to pay for alternative transport options.

sxz

761 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2730422 17-Jun-2021 22:36

sir1963:

MikeB4:

I am disabled and after years of fighting I am in a position to cycle for my health and the planets health but I can't why? because of the almost homicidal bigotry towards cyclists in Aotearoa that makes riding on the roads unsafe. I am still disabled and there are extended times that I must use my electric chair in which I must risk going on the roads and dice with death (looking at you NZ Bus and your drivers) I also pay RUCs on my vehicle (Hybrid so not exempt) and I pay the top rate of tax as does my wife and we pay rates.

@sir1963 don't say I don't contribute to the cost of cycles ways etc as I do and so does my wife.

Trying to apply RUCs to cycles, mobility scooters and by your logic push chairs, scooters and wheelchairs is the same as the failed TV licence scheme of days gone by.

Show me where you pay for cycleways.

I swim, I pay rates, and then on top of that I have to pay an entrance fee to get into the pool.

I also pay the top tax rate, still no free pool for me.

I also pay fuel taxes, Bus fares, walk.

My son is disabled , he walks everywhere, averages 35000 steps a day. He works, he pay taxes. He pays rates via his rent. And he STILL has to pay to go to the pool.

Simply saying "I pay rates" means nothing, if that were the benchmark I would be swimming for free.

When you pay RUC, that is solely for when you vehicle is on the road, nothing else.

Mobility scooters uses footpaths in the main, and the vast majority of rate payers use footpaths during the week.

And push chairs use the footpath, and scooters, and wheelchairs, and pedestrians and along with damn near 100% of the population in towns and cities. So its fair these are covered by rates.

But almost no one (2% ?) use cycleways, and the cost a lot of money.

But as I say, we can reduce the complications of taxing by just adding an extra $2000 to everyones tax bill.

Your swimming example isn't a good one. Each cyclist usually means one less car that day. Can't say the same for a swimmer, in fact in my experence, most people at my pool drive there, then drive home. So swimmers often cause two extra vehicle movements.

In fact all of your arguments are flawed - it all really comes down to three questions: Do we want to encourage cycling? Why? And would more people ride if each bike/cyclist had to pay annual fees?

I think new fees would mean less people would ride. Much less. Which would mean more traffic. Little jimmy would get dropped to school each day. I would start driving to work every day. There would be less available carparks. More money would then be spent on more roads, which in itself doesn't fix anything in the long term. But hey - at least you'd be happy knowing that everyone else is stuck in the same traffic that you are stuck in.

SomeoneSomewhere

1804 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2730430 17-Jun-2021 22:57

Rail is moving AWAY from electrification back to Diesel (yes, I agree STUPID in the extreme)

Rail would need 4+ lanes to cope with the traffic of passenger/freight trains with regular schedules, there is no space for this unless you get rid of the existing road.

Rail is a seismic risk, Kaikoura has shown the dangers of single point of failure for both road and rail. There is no other option for rail freight to the South Island than wellington.

Neither is cycling in this case because no one is going to cycle from Levin to Wellington each day. And as had been pointed out, rail can not do it either, it does not have the capacity. That capacity will also be grossly expensive and even more difficult to supply as the existing rail route will still need to be utilised whist building additional tracks beside the old ones. The gully did not have this limitation.

This would be a case where the billion dollar bridge should be scrapped in favour of the rail upgrade, as would rail to Auckland and Wellington Airports.

Four lines is not necessary. There have been significant improvements to North-South Junction to allow freight to run through during peak times without trashing the schedule. Double tracking that area may be justified in future, and double-tracking Upper Hutt-Trentham is in progress now. Triple tracking Porirua-Takapu Rd will also likely be necsesary at some point.

But there's still a lot of improvements that are far cheaper. The electrical system can currently only handle occasional 8-car sets, majority 6-car - some more substations and over-head feeders can improve that reasonably cheaply. Platform expansions to allow 10-car sets is also a possibility but will require track realignments and land acquisition in some places. There's room for signalling improvements too - the signalling system is very, very old and could probably handle roughly double to triple the trains-per-hour (6-8 > ~20-24) given control system replacement, some more signals, and maybe some track changes in the throat.

And yes, rapid transit out south of the city.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

sir1963

3264 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2730450 18-Jun-2021 07:26

sxz:

[

Your swimming example isn't a good one. Each cyclist usually means one less car that day. Can't say the same for a swimmer, in fact in my experence, most people at my pool drive there, then drive home. So swimmers often cause two extra vehicle movements.

In fact all of your arguments are flawed - it all really comes down to three questions: Do we want to encourage cycling? Why? And would more people ride if each bike/cyclist had to pay annual fees?

I think new fees would mean less people would ride. Much less. Which would mean more traffic. Little jimmy would get dropped to school each day. I would start driving to work every day. There would be less available carparks. More money would then be spent on more roads, which in itself doesn't fix anything in the long term. But hey - at least you'd be happy knowing that everyone else is stuck in the same traffic that you are stuck in.

Each person on a bike is one who is not using public transport

Got it, cyclists ONLY ride a bike because they do not have to pay, all the other stuff is just strawman BS.

And where I live and work, I do not have any traffic jams, and I quite happily read or listen to podcasts while I am on the bus. Yesterday there were 30 odd other people on the bus who were obviously not driving a car, but paid a bus fare. I also walk and ride share part of the way.

So to encourage public transport it should be free and the cost put onto everyones rates.

Kyanar

4089 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#2730525 18-Jun-2021 09:42

sir1963:

So to encourage public transport it should be free and the cost put onto everyones rates.

There's actually valid arguments for this. The cost of the revenue collection and enforcement is quite high. You think those ticket machines, smartcard readers, turnstiles/cattlegates and inspectors are free?

Look at the cost of AT's HOP project. Or Melbourne's Myki. Or Wellington's, er, whatever it's doing now. Hell, Brisbane is spending half a billion dollars on a new ticketing system.

jfanning

438 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2730526 18-Jun-2021 09:44

sir1963:

Each person on a bike is one who is not using public transport

Got it, cyclists ONLY ride a bike because they do not have to pay, all the other stuff is just strawman BS.

And where I live and work, I do not have any traffic jams, and I quite happily read or listen to podcasts while I am on the bus. Yesterday there were 30 odd other people on the bus who were obviously not driving a car, but paid a bus fare. I also walk and ride share part of the way.

So to encourage public transport it should be free and the cost put onto everyones rates.

No, public transport should not be free, why would you even think that? If you can't tell the difference between costs of public transport and cycling then this thread should really stop

sir1963

3264 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2730528 18-Jun-2021 09:56

jfanning:

sir1963:

Each person on a bike is one who is not using public transport

Got it, cyclists ONLY ride a bike because they do not have to pay, all the other stuff is just strawman BS.

And where I live and work, I do not have any traffic jams, and I quite happily read or listen to podcasts while I am on the bus. Yesterday there were 30 odd other people on the bus who were obviously not driving a car, but paid a bus fare. I also walk and ride share part of the way.

So to encourage public transport it should be free and the cost put onto everyones rates.

No, public transport should not be free, why would you even think that? If you can't tell the difference between costs of public transport and cycling then this thread should really stop

So the fact that:

People who use public transport pay rates is not a valid reason.

People on public transport means less cars on the road is not a valid reason

I even have to pay the fare for an electric bus I get to use periodically, so pollution is not a valid reason either.

Personally, I have no problems paying for the facilities I use that benefits me, and I do pay.

Cyclists, not so much.

jfanning

438 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2730531 18-Jun-2021 10:05

sir1963:

So the fact that:

People who use public transport pay rates is not a valid reason.

People on public transport means less cars on the road is not a valid reason

I even have to pay the fare for an electric bus I get to use periodically, so pollution is not a valid reason either.

Personally, I have no problems paying for the facilities I use that benefits me, and I do pay.

Cyclists, not so much.

So you can't tell the difference of (let's use a bus as an example)

A bus is heavy, it does a lot of damage to the roading infrastructure
The bus needs cleaning
The bus has a driver who generally likes to get paid (and if doesn't get paid properly strikes, example Wellington, good times for passengers there)
The bus has an engine that needs maintained, and costs money to repair
The bus has large wheels that aren't free and need to be replaced
In fact the last two mean the company managing the bus (remember the councils don't own the buses) need to employ mechanics, or send out for repair

All of these costs are subsidised by your rates (so the person who cycles to work is making your bus ride cheaper, what a nice person), and the user pays the difference.

For a bike

they make virtually no damage to the roading infrastructure
All maintenance costs are paid by the owner of the bike
The rider of the bike gets exercise while riding the bike, reducing costs for healthcare etc.

The damage and use of the roads are more than paid for by the costs the user pays in general tax or rates

sir1963

3264 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#2730566 18-Jun-2021 11:21

jfanning:

sir1963:

So the fact that:

People who use public transport pay rates is not a valid reason.

People on public transport means less cars on the road is not a valid reason

I even have to pay the fare for an electric bus I get to use periodically, so pollution is not a valid reason either.

Personally, I have no problems paying for the facilities I use that benefits me, and I do pay.

Cyclists, not so much.

So you can't tell the difference of (let's use a bus as an example)

A bus is heavy, it does a lot of damage to the roading infrastructure
The bus needs cleaning
The bus has a driver who generally likes to get paid (and if doesn't get paid properly strikes, example Wellington, good times for passengers there)
The bus has an engine that needs maintained, and costs money to repair
The bus has large wheels that aren't free and need to be replaced
In fact the last two mean the company managing the bus (remember the councils don't own the buses) need to employ mechanics, or send out for repair

All of these costs are subsidised by your rates (so the person who cycles to work is making your bus ride cheaper, what a nice person), and the user pays the difference.

For a bike

they make virtually no damage to the roading infrastructure
All maintenance costs are paid by the owner of the bike
The rider of the bike gets exercise while riding the bike, reducing costs for healthcare etc.

The damage and use of the roads are more than paid for by the costs the user pays in general tax or rates

The bus pays RUC to cover the cost, + the drivers and the company pay taxes and rates.

Libraries need cleaning, they are free. Playgrounds need mowing/maintenance but they are free, footpaths need maintenance/cleaning and they are free

Free buses do not imply the driver does not get paid

Buses are using existing roads, there is nothing new to build for them

We should be encouraging people to get out of their cars and use public transport. One bus can take 50+ people, and they do it over longer distances than cyclists will typically travel each day.

Swimmers get exercise, reducing healthcare costs, but they still pay an entrance fee, even when they walk or cycle to the pool. If healtht were a priority swimming would be free too.

People on buses pay rates and taxes too, and when they use their car they pay fuel or RUC + any regional fuel tax to pay for services like buses.

And maintenance is not the only cost, there is the cost of creation, cycle lanes are not built for free, they are costing in Christchurch about $1000 for every man, woman and child who live there.

Any reason you give as to why cyclists should not have to pay can be applied to other areas with just as much validity.

And the most honest answer I have seen is that if cyclists had to pay, they would stop cycling.

All of the other reasons be damned, health, congestion, etc etc etc, it can all be ignored so long as someone else pays.

jfanning

438 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2730575 18-Jun-2021 11:36

sir1963:

The bus pays RUC to cover the cost, + the drivers and the company pay taxes and rates.

Libraries need cleaning, they are free. Playgrounds need mowing/maintenance but they are free, footpaths need maintenance/cleaning and they are free

Free buses do not imply the driver does not get paid

Buses are using existing roads, there is nothing new to build for them

We should be encouraging people to get out of their cars and use public transport. One bus can take 50+ people, and they do it over longer distances than cyclists will typically travel each day.

Swimmers get exercise, reducing healthcare costs, but they still pay an entrance fee, even when they walk or cycle to the pool. If healtht were a priority swimming would be free too.

People on buses pay rates and taxes too, and when they use their car they pay fuel or RUC + any regional fuel tax to pay for services like buses.

And maintenance is not the only cost, there is the cost of creation, cycle lanes are not built for free, they are costing in Christchurch about $1000 for every man, woman and child who live there.

Any reason you give as to why cyclists should not have to pay can be applied to other areas with just as much validity.

And the most honest answer I have seen is that if cyclists had to pay, they would stop cycling.

All of the other reasons be damned, health, congestion, etc etc etc, it can all be ignored so long as someone else pays.

Why are you saying the bus drivers pay rates and taxes? I thought you said this didn't matter?

Libraries are not free, they are fully funded by the and for the rate payers in the district

Playgrounds are not free, they are fully funded by the rate payers in the district

Footpaths are not free, they are funded by the rate payers in the district

Buses are not free, as they are only partially funded by the rate payers in that area, what is so hard about this that you don't understand?

There is no reason to charge cyclists, the amount of damage they do to the road is next to nothing, the cost to handle payments is excessive and doesn't work. Other countries have tried and this has failed. They don't enforce the helmet law, how would they enforce this?

They don't enforce the red light, orange light, passing, speeding laws now for cars, why and how would they enforce a registration cost for bikes?

Swimmers pay extra because the cost of the swimming pool is only partially paid by rate payers, they are not fully funded, and will never be so, there is no way that the public will accept fully funding these things, why are you having so many issues understanding this. Why are you getting so upset by something that really has no impact on your life?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18663 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2730578 18-Jun-2021 11:44

Maybe time to move on. There is an element of obsessiveness to this.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | ... | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22