Should cyclists pay road taxes ?

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 22

1133 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1145

#2718421 4-Jun-2021 18:22

Great reading: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/news/gavin-scoble-all-have-the-right-to-be-on-the-road-even-cyclists/7UFCVWMFQ4O3EDSJ5DNVALBJFQ/

Also @sir1963 what is this non-existent road tax you speak of? I don’t see it mentioned in my tax return so I’m a little concerned that I’ll shortly receive a bill for my 10 years+ of unpaid road tax? I do wonder what the penalty and interest will be on that…

antonknee

1133 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1145

#2718423 4-Jun-2021 18:25

tdgeek:

Wow. This thread is quite interesting. There is a hatred towards cyclists. There is a love towards cars. That's the theme of this thread. Congestion, climate change, quality of life are clearly unimportant.

This country hates taxes yet we have proponents of fees fees and more fees. We have a low wage economy. We have climate change. Is there no real issue with trying to change things for the future?

It seems not

People forget that a cyclist is just a person on a bike - a living, breathing person with thoughts and feelings and a family. Not some class of “other”.

To your second point, I guarantee you the people who think charging cyclists would save them money are the mouth breathers who whine about paying taxes but would whine even louder if they had to cover the actual cost of their driving. (To be fair, I’d also about soil myself if I had to pay the true cost of my driving).

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2718424 4-Jun-2021 18:25

tdgeek:

sir1963:

and as I say, What exactly makes cyclists so special that they should contribute nothing extra towards the cycle lanes they are going to use ?

CONGESTION

CLIMATE CHANGE

Cyclists , or in fact anyone who uses Public Transport, are not special. But, we could avoid this bridge cost by deciding to allocate Harbour Bridge lanes to GREEN non cars. That way there is no extra 700 Million cost, cars continue to use the bridge, now cyclists can too, win/win

The bridge is just one small part, and the number of cyclists will make sod all difference to the 170,000 vehicles that use the bridge every day.

So, if cyclists were to pay for the extra bridge..

$700 Million for 1000 cyclists each way per day over 10 years

700,000,000 / 2000 (cyclists) = $350,000 per cyclist

Over 10 years

350,000 / 10 = $35,000 per cyclist

over 365 days

$95.89 per 1000 cyclists, per day for 10 years, with each cyclist going 1 trip each way.

And thats + repairs and maintenance

The on top of that is the cycle path to and from the bridge.

All this with no real impact to traffic congestion , with population increases making any savings a short term gain.

The numbers don't actually stack up.

alasta

6891 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3365

Trusted

Subscriber

#2718425 4-Jun-2021 18:26

KrazyKid: Interesting thread.

Did you have a counter to the climate change argument?

I'm also not sure how you think a 10x in heath cost savings is a bad thing along with reducing congestion and CO2. Sure if it was the only saving maybe, but when combined with other benefits...

The problem with the CO2 argument is that it assumes that the only alternative to a bicycle is a fossil fuelled car.

I personally get around fine by walking and using electrified public transport, and it has never bothered me that I have no idea how to operate a bicycle. I have to say, dodging bicycles on the Wellington waterfront keeps me extremely fit.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2718426 4-Jun-2021 18:26

antonknee:

tdgeek:

Wow. This thread is quite interesting. There is a hatred towards cyclists. There is a love towards cars. That's the theme of this thread. Congestion, climate change, quality of life are clearly unimportant.

This country hates taxes yet we have proponents of fees fees and more fees. We have a low wage economy. We have climate change. Is there no real issue with trying to change things for the future?

It seems not

People forget that a cyclist is just a person on a bike - a living, breathing person with thoughts and feelings and a family. Not some class of “other”.

To your second point, I guarantee you the people who think charging cyclists would save them money are the mouth breathers who whine about paying taxes but would whine even louder if they had to cover the actual cost of their driving. (To be fair, I’d also about soil myself if I had to pay the true cost of my driving).

I keep hearing that, but tell us what the actual cost is.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2718428 4-Jun-2021 18:30

antonknee:

Great reading: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/news/gavin-scoble-all-have-the-right-to-be-on-the-road-even-cyclists/7UFCVWMFQ4O3EDSJ5DNVALBJFQ/

Also @sir1963 what is this non-existent road tax you speak of? I don’t see it mentioned in my tax return so I’m a little concerned that I’ll shortly receive a bill for my 10 years+ of unpaid road tax? I do wonder what the penalty and interest will be on that…

The tax is built into the cost of petrol. Its not built in for diesel which is why you have to pay Road User Charges in advance.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300283956/government-looks-to-phase-out-fuel-taxes-road-user-charges-under-transport-review

The Government currently collects about $4 billion a year from fuel taxes and road user charges. The revenue is currently used to build and maintain roads, and other transport projects.

Dyson

Shop now for Dyson appliances (affiliate link).

antonknee

1133 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1145

#2718432 4-Jun-2021 18:53

sir1963:

I keep hearing that, but tell us what the actual cost is.

Well as I’m not a transport economist, I’m not sure I’m qualified to give you an accurate figure. But the IRD thinks a rate of .76c per km is a good figure - although that wouldn’t include societal costs or the portion of infrastructure paid out of income tax.

This US website seems to estimate USD$0.39/mile in indirect costs - https://cruz511.org/drive/true-cost-of-driving/

I’m not sure it’s all that easy to measure, particularly the indirects. Consider the cost of climate change, or the cost of widening a road, or the cost of a lost life in a car accident but then weigh up against the economic benefit of that widened road minus the costs of the extra congestion it creates….

antonknee

1133 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1145

#2718434 4-Jun-2021 18:55

The more I think about it, the more unhinged the original proposition becomes. On the one hand, you say cyclists are such a small proportion of the population they aren’t worth infrastructure. Then you say cyclists paying “road tax” (not a thing btw) would make a meaningful impact - how so, if they are so few in number?

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2718437 4-Jun-2021 19:03

antonknee:

Wow what a thread, and started on a ridiculous proposition. Was the OP stuck in traffic this morning as a bike whizzed past congestion-free and so now has a vendetta against cyclists?

The simple answer is sir1963’s plan is unworkable, but thankfully it’s also unnecessary. Cycling is cheaper than driving - end of (take into account infrastructure, societal costs, health outcomes, climate change, congestion, cost of a bike vs car).

In any case, we don’t have user pays for everything in this country and if we did - it wouldn’t be cyclists footing the big bills.

Disclosure - haven’t ridden a bike for transport since I was about 10.

I actually use public transport, and walk, which is still 100% irrelevant to if cyclists should help pay for the infrastructure they benefit from.

Cycleways are additional infrastructure, not instead of. Even if 100% of people cycled, it would not change the need roads.

And the plan is NOT unworkable.

Currently motorists contribute $4 Billion in fees/taxes/etc for roading. This is on top of ordinary taxes/rates.

If Cyclists think 2% of roading going to cycleways is too low, perhaps they would like to contribute $80 Million per year in fees which would be 2% of 4 Billion.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2718439 4-Jun-2021 19:16

antonknee:

The more I think about it, the more unhinged the original proposition becomes. On the one hand, you say cyclists are such a small proportion of the population they aren’t worth infrastructure. Then you say cyclists paying “road tax” (not a thing btw) would make a meaningful impact - how so, if they are so few in number?

Unhinged is wanting billions spent on infrastructure and not contributing anything extra towards it.

Unhinged is not recognising roads are essential, cycleways are not.

Unhinged is not recognising that all of our economic activity relies on roads.

Cyclists objections just boil down to "We don't want to pay".

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4797

#2718444 4-Jun-2021 19:21

sir1963:

antonknee:

Wow what a thread, and started on a ridiculous proposition. Was the OP stuck in traffic this morning as a bike whizzed past congestion-free and so now has a vendetta against cyclists?

The simple answer is sir1963’s plan is unworkable, but thankfully it’s also unnecessary. Cycling is cheaper than driving - end of (take into account infrastructure, societal costs, health outcomes, climate change, congestion, cost of a bike vs car).

In any case, we don’t have user pays for everything in this country and if we did - it wouldn’t be cyclists footing the big bills.

Disclosure - haven’t ridden a bike for transport since I was about 10.

I actually use public transport, and walk, which is still 100% irrelevant to if cyclists should help pay for the infrastructure they benefit from.

Cycleways are additional infrastructure, not instead of. Even if 100% of people cycled, it would not change the need roads.

And the plan is NOT unworkable.

Currently motorists contribute $4 Billion in fees/taxes/etc for roading. This is on top of ordinary taxes/rates.

If Cyclists think 2% of roading going to cycleways is too low, perhaps they would like to contribute $80 Million per year in fees which would be 2% of 4 Billion.

We didn't used to have dedicated cycleways, and they used to be just an area at the side of the road, or combined with walking tracks. . It is mainly because traffic has become too congested and busy, and people used them for parking, that in some areas they are now unsafe and more dedicated lanes are needed. With more cars on the road, means more money to spend on the roads.

We really only got into dedicated cycle during the last financial crisis when they were used as a project to spend money.

Many cyclists are taxpayers or will be tax payers. There are many things that are not user pays in NZ. Next walkers will be having to pay to walk on the footpaths! Ironically cyclists aren't allowed to use footpaths, so that is infrastructure that walkers get for free. Well not really because they are also taxpayers, unless they are tourists.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#2718446 4-Jun-2021 19:44

mattwnz:

We didn't used to have dedicated cycleways, and they used to be just an area at the side of the road, or combined with walking tracks. . It is mainly because traffic has become too congested and busy, and people used them for parking, that in some areas they are now unsafe and more dedicated lanes are needed. With more cars on the road, means more money to spend on the roads.

We really only got into dedicated cycle during the last financial crisis when they were used as a project to spend money.

Many cyclists are taxpayers or will be tax payers. There are many things that are not user pays in NZ. Next walkers will be having to pay to walk on the footpaths! Ironically cyclists aren't allowed to use footpaths, so that is infrastructure that walkers get for free. Well not really because they are also taxpayers, unless they are tourists.

Ask any shop owner how the loss of footpaths, parking, and roading impacts their business.

100% of economic activity ultimately depends on roads.

Being able to walk between shops is important to commerce, so is walking to public transport, walking from what ever transport you used to get to businesses, or to relatives, friends houses.

Footpaths are essential for postal services, junkmail, and news papers. Lots of commercial services utilise footpaths (trades people, deliveries, etc) getting too and from their vehicles.

Not all footpaths are paid for by rates, I lived in a private "court" of 15 houses where the footpath was privately owned, as was the road and infrastructure.

SomeoneSomewhere

1882 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1086

Lifetime subscriber

#2718458 4-Jun-2021 20:18

sir1963:

antonknee:

Wow what a thread, and started on a ridiculous proposition. Was the OP stuck in traffic this morning as a bike whizzed past congestion-free and so now has a vendetta against cyclists?

The simple answer is sir1963’s plan is unworkable, but thankfully it’s also unnecessary. Cycling is cheaper than driving - end of (take into account infrastructure, societal costs, health outcomes, climate change, congestion, cost of a bike vs car).

In any case, we don’t have user pays for everything in this country and if we did - it wouldn’t be cyclists footing the big bills.

Disclosure - haven’t ridden a bike for transport since I was about 10.

I actually use public transport, and walk, which is still 100% irrelevant to if cyclists should help pay for the infrastructure they benefit from.

Cycleways are additional infrastructure, not instead of. Even if 100% of people cycled, it would not change the need roads.

And the plan is NOT unworkable.

Currently motorists contribute $4 Billion in fees/taxes/etc for roading. This is on top of ordinary taxes/rates.

If Cyclists think 2% of roading going to cycleways is too low, perhaps they would like to contribute $80 Million per year in fees which would be 2% of 4 Billion.

If 100% of people cycled, a I expect a four-lane harbour bridge would have negligible congestion at peak times.

My example was to show that 1,000 people per day is a hugely pessimistic guess at how many people will use it. If there are 400 people using the awful & long SH2 Petone-Ngauranga presently, I would expect 20-50x that on a harbour crossing.

Information from the 2020 budget: https://www.interest.co.nz/news/105604/budget-2020-transport

Note that total recoveries (taxes, RUCs etc. collected) is $1.8b.

Total spent (minus rail, supergold card, airfreight subsidy) is $5b. This excludes spending by local councils.

Were I a exclusively a cyclist, I'd like my refund for the $3.2b / 5m = $1600 of my income tax that went to roads I didn't use bit still got charged for. Or perhaps we should agree that user-pays is a bit stupid for stuff that's non-trivial.

SomeoneSomewhere

1882 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1086

Lifetime subscriber

#2718460 4-Jun-2021 20:19

sir1963:

SomeoneSomewhere:

So close, and yet, so far. The reason all of the above is charged, whether or not the revenue exceeds the cost to collect it, is to discourage the activity. They don't want congestion, so charge you for causing it. We do want cyclists, so don't charge them extra fees.

And just for the sake of argument, the 1000/day figure for the new bridge seems on the low side. Roughly 400 people cycle each way Petone-Ngauranga, based on old figures, a much smaller population at end, and worse distance, weather, and road conditions.

So let me get this right, by your logic they charge people at swimming pools because they don't want people to use them ?

Swimming pools have limited capacity and a charge reduces over-crowding, so yes, I expect that's a big part.

elpenguino

3577 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2939

#2718480 4-Jun-2021 23:41

sir1963:

mattwnz:

We didn't used to have dedicated cycleways, and they used to be just an area at the side of the road, or combined with walking tracks. . It is mainly because traffic has become too congested and busy, and people used them for parking, that in some areas they are now unsafe and more dedicated lanes are needed. With more cars on the road, means more money to spend on the roads.

We really only got into dedicated cycle during the last financial crisis when they were used as a project to spend money.

Many cyclists are taxpayers or will be tax payers. There are many things that are not user pays in NZ. Next walkers will be having to pay to walk on the footpaths! Ironically cyclists aren't allowed to use footpaths, so that is infrastructure that walkers get for free. Well not really because they are also taxpayers, unless they are tourists.

Ask any shop owner how the loss of footpaths, parking, and roading impacts their business.

100% of economic activity ultimately depends on roads.

The thing about roads is that they are public space. This is an idea going back in our civilisations for many centuries. It's only in the last few decades that we've got carried away with the motorcar and the widespread use of it has driven (ha) other users like cyclists from the roads - roads which they are also entitled to use.

Now, I don't know what kind of place you want to live but a few years ago I watched a doco about the decline of Detroit. Detroit dedicated itself wholeheartedly to the motorcar and there was one quote from a local that has stuck with me, along the lines of:

"You could take a motorway to the centre of town and park all day for 50 cents but the place didnt have any soul".

I don't want to live in a place where I drive everywhere, am stuck in traffic on the way, end up overweight and unhealthy. Sure, I need to drive sometimes, but cycling from time to time, whether it's up the nearest hill, down to the shops or to work is fun and does great things for the heart.

I think you're all wrong trying to shock everyone by saying every cyclist will need to pay 'total divided by X' because you're so fixed on your argument you're forgetting a whole bunch of basic facts such as this - cycling tracks do not need to be built to take the weight and wear of a car. You can cycle perfectly well on gravel or hard packed surfaces and these can be built and maintained for much less expense than a tar sealed road.

A lot of current cycling tracks have been built for next to nothing by volunteer groups on public land. I know because I've helped on one. When we all choke to death on the pollution from your (and my) car those tracks will revert to bush in months, unlike the scars on the environment our roads created.

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 22