RUCs to apply to all vehicles (incl EVs), replacing road user tax on petrol

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › RUCs to apply to all vehicles (incl EVs), replacing road user tax on petrol

1 | ... | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#3459839 9-Feb-2026 09:40

TwoSeven:

As a motorcyclist I’m a fan of RUC - it drops the fuel price a fair bit, and one can ride multiple bikes and just pay for km’s ridden.

what I’m not such a fan of is paying nearly $600 per year per bike for ACC. I don’t mind paying ACC, but I would prefer to pay it once.

I would also like to see the rates changed from engine capacity (cc) to power (kw).

Seem fair. Bikes are very individual/personal and you can only ride one at a time*.

I don't know how far you take that principle though. I have a sports car I only do about 3,000 kms per year in, I've banned Mrs Aqua from driving it, after 'the incident'. Should I pay less ACC for that? Maybe everything should be on per km basis. Then there is one payment and it scales with the frequency of exposure to risk

*Disclaimer: if you do manage to ride two bikes simultaneously you should pay more ACC 😁.

Mike

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#3459843 9-Feb-2026 09:46

gzt: Doesn't the article say he ain't gonna do that?

"Transport Minister Chris Bishop says funding the $56 billion in roads promised by the Government would require a nearly 50c per litre lift in petrol taxes, on top of the coming 12 cents increase in 2027. Bishop has not proposed that petrol taxes be so substantially increased, and instead plans to phase out petrol taxes in the coming years"

Just toll roads already. We pay either way and with tolls, they are funded by road users. I'm over having to pay road taxes for petrol that is being used in the boat/chainsaw/mower/genni/water-blaster.

Mike

richms

29104 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10222

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3459866 9-Feb-2026 10:57

MikeAqua:

Seem fair. Bikes are very individual/personal and you can only ride one at a time*.

I don't know how far you take that principle though. I have a sports car I only do about 3,000 kms per year in, I've banned Mrs Aqua from driving it, after 'the incident'. Should I pay less ACC for that? Maybe everything should be on per km basis. Then there is one payment and it scales with the frequency of exposure to risk

*Disclaimer: if you do manage to ride two bikes simultaneously you should pay more ACC 😁.

I have always thought that the ACC should be moved to the driver and not the car, but people keep bringing up reasons that poorer people who drive for work would suffer. IMO its like any qualification for a job so if you do it for work they should be paying you more to cover the costs of having it. We already have classes of licenses where even for a baby truck you need additional testing, so whats the problem with putting what ACC you pay on there too and making it so that if you are not paying much you only get small bikes, if you pay more you get bigger bikes. Then bring it in for cars at a later date where you pay more to drive more risky cars, whereas NPC cars are the cheapest.

Richard rich.ms

SaltyNZ

8869 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9554

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3459869 9-Feb-2026 11:02

richms:

whereas NPC cars are the cheapest.

Non-Playable Cars? Makes sense they'd be cheapest, I guess. :-D

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4797

#3459871 9-Feb-2026 11:04

MikeAqua:

gzt: Doesn't the article say he ain't gonna do that?

"Transport Minister Chris Bishop says funding the $56 billion in roads promised by the Government would require a nearly 50c per litre lift in petrol taxes, on top of the coming 12 cents increase in 2027. Bishop has not proposed that petrol taxes be so substantially increased, and instead plans to phase out petrol taxes in the coming years"

Just toll roads already. We pay either way and with tolls, they are funded by road users. I'm over having to pay road taxes for petrol that is being used in the boat/chainsaw/mower/genni/water-blaster.

road tolls are to pay for a particular new road. Most roads adjust built that are not tolled are already paid for. Road user charges are a more fair way to charge but decentivises people buying clothes more efficient vehicles as they end up paying more than they do now

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#3459930 9-Feb-2026 11:45

mattwnz:

road tolls are to pay for a particular new road. Most roads adjust built that are not tolled are already paid for. Road user charges are a more fair way to charge but decentivises people buying clothes more efficient vehicles as they end up paying more than they do now

That is how it's done, now but ... it doesn't have to be. With different legislation, specific existing roads (or times) could be tolled. I guess you'd get to point where if you're tolling a lot of roads, you may as well just use RUC. Perhaps RUC could have something like 'surge' pricing that incentivise people to avoid certain routes, times of day, or even days of the year.

Want to travel on a public holiday weekend? Go for it. 33% RUC premium per km on SH1. Want to cross the Auckland harbour bridge? Fill your boots, son. $2 extra on your RUC bill.

I'm thinking out loud here ... if you combine electronic RUC with spatio-temporal pricing, you have all sorts of possibilities. More importantly you are targeting the use. Charging someone road tax for petrol that won't be used by a road vehicle, is almost as silly as charging them road tax on a steak and cheese pie (just because they bought it at a service station).

Mike

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

SaltyNZ

8869 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9554

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3459932 9-Feb-2026 11:58

MikeAqua:

I'm thinking out loud here ... if you combine electronic RUC with spatio-temporal pricing, you have all sorts of possibilities. More importantly you are targeting the use. Charging someone road tax for petrol that won't be used by a road vehicle, is almost as silly as charging them road tax on a steak and cheese pie (just because they bought it at a service station).

And it really works, but both Ford Ranger Man and BMW 7-Series Man will rather vote for Winnie than allow that to ever happen.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7827

Lifetime subscriber

#3459940 9-Feb-2026 12:24

Characterising people on the basis of the vehicle they drive is really a bit silly and is not going to improve the quality of the discussion. Besides, pretty much anyone who currently relies on a personal vehicle at peak times is going to share the opinion of those hypothetical individuals regardless of the vehicle they're driving.

eracode

Smpl Mnmlst
9334 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6203

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3459943 9-Feb-2026 12:51

TwoSeven:

As a motorcyclist I’m a fan of RUC - it drops the fuel price a fair bit, and one can ride multiple bikes and just pay for km’s ridden.

This sounds interesting. Could you please explain how that works.

Sometimes I just sit and think. Other times I just sit.

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#3459946 9-Feb-2026 12:59

SaltyNZ:

And it really works, but both Ford Ranger Man and BMW 7-Series Man will rather vote for Winnie than allow that to ever happen.

I can't comment on the beamer, but ... the Ranger is the most popular vehicle of the last decade. There are so many Rangers ... a person could dream up any characterisation about Ranger drivers and convince themselves they are correct simply via confirmation bias.

Mike

SaltyNZ

8869 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9554

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3459950 9-Feb-2026 13:10

MikeAqua:

SaltyNZ:

And it really works, but both Ford Ranger Man and BMW 7-Series Man will rather vote for Winnie than allow that to ever happen.

I can't comment on the beamer, but ... the Ranger is the most popular vehicle of the last decade. There are so many Rangers ... a person could dream up any characterisation about Ranger drivers and convince themselves they are correct simply via confirmation bias.

Indeed. But what I'm getting at is that such a policy, though they have been proven to be effective at reducing congestion everywhere they've been tried (see New York) would be electoral suicide no matter which political team campaigned on it, whether you're talking about tradies or investment bankers.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Scott3

4177 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2990

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3459955 9-Feb-2026 13:35

On Chris Bishop's comments. Clearly moving to RUC is not front of mind is he is still taking about stuff in cents per liter, despite the plans to get rid of petrol road use tax's.

It is now 2026, and their continues to be a strong disincentive in road tax to buy a EV, vs an efficient non plug in hybrid.

MikeAqua:

gzt: Doesn't the article say he ain't gonna do that?

"Transport Minister Chris Bishop says funding the $56 billion in roads promised by the Government would require a nearly 50c per litre lift in petrol taxes, on top of the coming 12 cents increase in 2027. Bishop has not proposed that petrol taxes be so substantially increased, and instead plans to phase out petrol taxes in the coming years"

Just toll roads already. We pay either way and with tolls, they are funded by road users. I'm over having to pay road taxes for petrol that is being used in the boat/chainsaw/mower/genni/water-blaster.

If we are talking about the current style of road tolling (i.e. Tauranga eastern link), there are several issues, in rolling this out across the entire $56b package.

Overheads. 32% of toll revenue currently goes back into administration. This is simply not an efficient way to collect revenue.
Adds a chore for road users. A minor one, but one none the less.
Current legislation (and social expectations) requires there be a free route. This limits the number of routes tolling can be applied to.
Many of these roads are vastly more expensive than what can be recovered realistically by tolling. (Brynderwyn road upgrade is around $10b, and used by around 10,000 vehicles per day. Ignoring inflation / interest rates, and admin costs, the toll would need to be $137 per vehicle per trip to pay the road off in 20 years). If we want to build such roads, they need to be funded by money from elsewhere. (If it is worth building such expensive roads for such low user volumes is a debate for another thread, For the purpose of this one lets just assume we want to build if for a non economic reason, like Civil Defense).
Generally we want people using the flash new roads (designed for high traffic volumes, generally faster, safer etc than the routes they replace). Tolls can break this, and if large volumes of people take alternate routes (or just abandon their travel), can undermine the purpose of the project.
Equity issues as to where the toll roads end up. Kind of rough on the people of Tauranga, that they have two toll roads, were as the likes of wellington got Transmission Gully untolled (The reason for it not being tolled was that modeling showed tolls would cause high traffic diversion to the coastal route, undermining safety and environmental benefits.

I would be happy to get rid of current tolling system, based on the first bullet point alone. We are pissing a third of the toll revenue away... Just bump up petrol tax / RUC to cover the cost...

The only way I can see a road toll system being an logical economic solution for NZ, is if we go full noise, and have a system that covers the whole country. Some kind of base km rate (Potentially varied, more expensive to operate roads, such as low volume rural routes, and routes with expensive bridges and tunnels cost more), and a congestion charge. We have the potential to solve congestion, Effectively changing the cost of driving at a oversubscribed location / time from delay to cost. Would give massive economic (and environmental) gain. Of course politically tricky as requires pricing the poor off the road (at peak times).

"I'm over having to pay road taxes for petrol that is being used in the boat/chainsaw/mower/genni/water-blaster"

While objectively unfair, the fuel tax contribution of chainsaw/mower/genni/water-blaster use is generally peanuts. Commercial users can claim this back, and non commercial users are unlikely to be running hundreds of liters of fuel a year through their chainsaw... Boating is a bit different Pretty easy to run hundreds of liters through a larger boat engine in a single day. But this situation has existed for decades, and there does not seem to be the political motivation to resolve.

boosacnoodle

1280 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 862

#3459966 9-Feb-2026 14:35

The risks you face on the road are proportionate to the kilometres driven - not how many cars you have. You could have a hundred cars in your garage - registered but not driven - and pay thousands into ACC, despite facing zero risk. The argument in favour of RUC-funded ACC just makes sense.

SaltyNZ

8869 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9554

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#3460014 9-Feb-2026 15:01

Scott3:

and have a system that covers the whole country. Some kind of base km rate

Well then, coming full circle: that's exactly what the RUC is.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

tweake

2647 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1139

#3460032 9-Feb-2026 17:55

Scott3:

Overheads. 32% of toll revenue currently goes back into administration. This is simply not an efficient way to collect revenue.

Brynderwyn road upgrade is around $10b, and used by around 10,000 vehicles per day. Ignoring inflation / interest rates, and admin costs, the toll would need to be $137 per vehicle per trip to pay the road off in 20 years). If we want to build such roads, they need to be funded by money from elsewhere. (If it is worth building such expensive roads for such low user volumes is a debate for another thread, For the purpose of this one lets just assume we want to build if for a non economic reason, like Civil Defense).

"I'm over having to pay road taxes for petrol that is being used in the boat/chainsaw/mower/genni/water-blaster"

While objectively unfair, the fuel tax contribution of chainsaw/mower/genni/water-blaster use is generally peanuts. Commercial users can claim this back, and non commercial users are unlikely to be running hundreds of liters of fuel a year through their chainsaw...

i dislike tolls for the same reason. it seams like a lot of waste.

actually the brynderwyn hill is a good example of the problems with our roading system. yes its only 10,000/day, traffic either side of the hill is triple that. but a lot of the traffic over the hill is freight. also what happens when its out of action? 10,000/day squeezing through backroads with one way bridges and corners to tight for trucks. they put stop go guys on, goodness knows how much the traffic management cost.

commercial uses certainly claim back the tax.

1 | ... | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83