PDA

View Full Version : Submission on proposed Auckland congestion charges



adamww
20th April 2006, 09:26
<b>Keep Motorbikes exempt from road tolls</b>

Is everyone aware that the Ministry of Transport ‘Auckland Road Pricing Evaluation Study is up for discussion and submissions, and according to this document motorcycles are not exempt from the new congestion charges (tolls). Pg 17.

Eg $6.00 to cross the harbour bridge.

MOT site http://www.transport.govt.nz/business/land/arpes/.
Now I am not an expert in this in anyway, but from what I understand most countries do not charge motorcycles as the whole point is to reduce congestion so they should be encouraging us to ride, not the other way round.

I think we need to get as many people as possible to go to the above site, register and make a submission. If we can get this changed it will worth the effort.

Submissions need to be in by the 28 of April so there is not a lot of time.
So let the government know what you think !!! (in a polite manner of course)
Also we need to spread to the word.

<table border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3" align="center"><tr><td align="center">OK, this can be as simple as "register, cut & paste".
Example answers are in this thread, so there is no excuse for everyone not doing this.
Once done, please reply so in this thread.<div style="text-align:right"><a href="http://spankme.dynu.com"><img src="http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/images/spankA.gif" border="0">
SpankMe</a></div></td></tr></table>

Scouse
20th April 2006, 10:13
Oh well just head out on the NW motorway turn left at the end and head to the Shore through hobsonville if ya realy want to go to the Shore

Magua
20th April 2006, 10:26
Bugger heading through west auckland to or from the shore until they finish the uhc motorway.

GR81
20th April 2006, 10:35
a long detour..!

popelli
23rd April 2006, 20:17
motorcycles are not exempt from the new congestion charges (tolls)


Govt policy is to discourage motorcycling, make licences harder to get

based probably on flawed statistics on accident costs re motorcycle accidentes.

not based on the cause of these accidents (cars) but the victims (bikers)

it is reflected in ACC levies

to the Govt, less motorcycles = less expenditure = more money to be redistributed to whom they choose to give it to.

The Stranger
25th April 2006, 23:43
Is everyone aware that the Ministry of Transport ‘Auckland Road Pricing Evaluation Study is up for discussion and submissions, and according to this document motorcycles are not exempt from the new congestion charges (tolls). Pg 17.
Eg $6.00 to cross the harbour bridge.
MOT site http://www.transport.govt.nz/business/land/arpes/.
Now I am not an expert in this in anyway, but from what I understand most countries do not charge motorcycles as the whole point is to reduce congestion so they should be encouraging us to ride, not the other way round.
I think we need to get as many people as possible to go to the above site, register and make a submission. If we can get this changed it will worth the effort.
Submissions need to be in by the 28 of April so there is not a lot of time.
So let the government know what you think !!! (in a polite manner of course)
Also we need to spread to the word.

Ok I wasn't.
I missed this thread and it wasn't until I noticed it in the Harold today that I realised submissions close on Friday.

So, a cue from Big_Dave I have put together a submission both for review and for others to use.

From what I gather at the above site you got to address all four questions/statements (underlined below) so here is some thoughts. I have no experience at this so I would welcome any constructive input or suggestions as to how to better get the message across.

The important thing is to GET BLOODY MOVING!!!

Reactions and comments on the study and its findings.
In general I support the idea of the study as being a positive step in the attempt to reduce traffic congestion in Auckland city. For a number of years congestion reduction has been talked about, and whilst there is much talk there has been comparatively little action. The completion of the rail hub at Britomart, the current motorway expansion projects and the addition of bus lanes to the various motorways being notable exceptions. This would appear to be a good next step in the process.

Whether road pricing is a good idea as a means to manage congestion and raise revenue, given its other potential social, economic and environmental impacts.
I believe that road pricing is a good idea as a means to manage congestion and raise revenue. However there is a caveat here. The revenue must be used to reduce congestion and to assist those for whom the scheme has created undue un-anticipated hardship. For example university students may well find the scheme adds unexpected expense. Examples of assisting the reduction of congestion with the funds raised may be the purchase of land in suburban areas to provide for park and ride facilities, the quicker completion of planned motorways, improved/extended rail, encourage business and retail away from the CBD, expedite provision of realistic broadband internet capacity to allow for tele-commuting (un-bundle the local loop FFS) and an alternate harbour crossing.

If the government were to enable road pricing, are there any areas you have identified in the report that could be improved or problems that would need to be overcome?
One area of the report that could be improved is, the report fails to recognize and support factors which currently meet it’s objectives. If the objective is to reduce congestion in the CBD it should recognize and support such measures. For example motorcycles. They take up little space, cause no road damage and put out less pollution than a car, bus or truck. Indeed whilst Motorcycles are specifically included in the charges schedule bicycles are not. Both are ridden on the road and both take up about the same amount of space except bicycles create greater congestion because they travel at a slower speed. It would appear to be inequitable and counter productive to increase the cost of a means of transport which currently meets the objectives of the solution.
I would like to refer you to comments made by the Mayor of London as follows.

"Both motorcycles and scooters are exempt from the congestion charge as they do not cause congestion. The Mayor wishes to make it crystal clear that he has absolutely no intention whatsoever of making scooters and motorcycles pay the congestion charge"


If the government were not to enable road pricing, what other feasible alternatives are there to meaningfully manage congestion, acknowledging the significant investment the government is already making in additional roading and public transport?
I do not see a realistic viable alternative. There are numerous ideas which could help, some of which I have outlined in the questions above, and many others which would have an impact to one degree or another, however given our car culture I doubt these would have anywhere near that significant impact that I believe road pricing would.

The Stranger
25th April 2006, 23:50
Oh and if you are thinking it is an Auckland problem think again.
It is already being mooted for various other centres around NZ.
We need to get bikes excluded.

gixermike
26th April 2006, 00:19
if they are basing this on the 'success' of the london scheme, it is interesting to note the following response to asking if bikes were to be included in the review of charges (it went up last year):

from www.motorcyleparking.com (central london bike website)

Congestion Charge for bikers?! In response to the Evening Standard article on Thursday 24th March about Transport for London considering the option of making bikers pay for entering the Congestion Charging Zone, TFL has issued a statement from London Mayor Ken Livingstone stating that bikes and scooters will remain exempt from congestion charging in the capital.... 'Both motorcycles and scooters are exempt from the congestion charge as they do not cause congestion. The Mayor wishes to make it crystal clear that he has absolutely no intention whatsoever of making scooters and motorcycles pay the congestion charge...' (29 March 2005)

Oh, TLF is transport for london who run the scheme, and the tube, buses etc.

I'll try and find you something on accident stats, as they have fallen dramatically (Car Vs pedestrian, and car Vs bike) even though bike numbers have gone up soemthing like 3 times what they were before the charge.
Maybe worth a net search for it.

Mike

gixermike
26th April 2006, 00:26
oh, and if you want a copy of the uk motorcycle transport policy (it's porbably quite good if you want an example of an inclusive scheme) let me know and i'll email it. or you can download it from

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_035439.pdf
you can them bat it back at them if they say they are copying the system here..

doesn't stop me wanting to be in NZ rather than over here though, too many people..too little space.!
Mike

Jantar
26th April 2006, 00:31
Thanks for the information Mike. It shows how out of touch our Ministry of Transport officials are.

The Stranger
26th April 2006, 13:07
Maybe you noted the article on the front page of the Harold, they estimated that it would cost the average household $900.00 per anum.

There were a lot of people concerned about this matter previously, well now is your chance. I really don't want to hear moaning about what did BRONZ do etc etc later. BRONZ is making a submission, however weight of numbers will have a bigger impact.

_Gina_
26th April 2006, 13:14
So, a cue from Big_Dave I have put together a submission both for review and for others to use.


So does it matter if the submission is copied and pasted? Or should I play around with it a bit? Also does the number of submissions (in support of excluding motorcycles) work in our favour?

Cheers
G

Squeak the Rat
26th April 2006, 13:26
So does it matter if the submission is copied and pasted? Or should I play around with it a bit? Also does the number of submissions (in support of excluding motorcycles) work in our favour?

Cheers
G
It's slightly better if it's original, as long as you include all the good points (about motorcylcles :)) Personally, I'm against the scheme because I think it will have a negative impact of the local economy so I did my own (actually quite a while ago) - but the point is to make a submission that advocates the use of motorcycles to reduce congestion and therefore not have the same charges.

But a copy & paste is infinitely better than nothing at all. And the number of like-submissions *should* influence the decision.

Only 2 days to go for to get these in....

James Deuce
26th April 2006, 13:29
Govt policy is to discourage motorcycling, make licences harder to get

based probably on flawed statistics on accident costs re motorcycle accidentes.

not based on the cause of these accidents (cars) but the victims (bikers)

it is reflected in ACC levies



Who can blame them? Most motorcycle accidents are single vehicle ones, and directly attributable to the rider getting something wrong. A big chunk of motorcycle accidents are us falling off on corners, without any other vehicle being involved..

http://www.transport.govt.nz/business/land/research/annual-statistics-2001/docs/motorcycle-table-33.pdf

The majority of accidents involving other vehicles happen at intersections, and yes I agree it mostly involves the other vehicle not seeing the motorcycles, but in general we're our own worst enemy. The stats are drawn from reported accidents, and after reading stuff on here, there are a lot of single vehicle motorcycle accidents that go unreported.

I agree though. As an anti-congestion tool, motorcycles are only surpassed by push-bikes.

Ixion
26th April 2006, 13:38
Here is a copy of mine, which anyone is welcome to use in whole or in part.

Rich capitalists will doubtless wish to remove those parts relating to social equity.

Squeak the Rat
26th April 2006, 13:49
Here is a copy of mine, which anyone is welcome to use in whole or in part.

Rich capitalists will doubtless wish to remove those parts relating to social equity.
Stick it to the man! Excellent point about the "mummy wagons", I remember when kids walked to school (obesity epidemic correlation?) I was a bit dissappointed about the conclusion though Ixion - where's the revolution!?! :yes:

SpankMe
26th April 2006, 13:54
:done: &nbsp;

Pumba
26th April 2006, 14:41
Got mine in:niceone:

All that cuting and pasing was hard work:drinkup:, thanks to everyone that put up the templates for people to follow, I know I wouldnt know were to begin by myself

The Stranger
26th April 2006, 14:47
Who can blame them? Most motorcycle accidents are single vehicle ones, and directly attributable to the rider getting something wrong. A big chunk of motorcycle accidents are us falling off on corners, without any other vehicle being involved..

http://www.transport.govt.nz/business/land/research/annual-statistics-2001/docs/motorcycle-table-33.pdf

I agree though. As an anti-congestion tool, motorcycles are only surpassed by push-bikes.


You are quite right, however when you look at the costs of an accident, us falling off on a corner is insignificant. The vast majority of these types of accidents the biker walks away from.

It is the ones involving cars which cost both dollars and lives, and very very often those are predominantly the fault of the other vehicle.

Cost should not therefore be attributed to the motorcyclist as it is now with ACC.

Plus it is my right to screw up a corner, it is not up to the govt to protect me from myself.

ManDownUnder
26th April 2006, 14:52
Ignoramus question time...

What do they do in other centres with congestion charges - charge m/bikes or not?

Why (not?)

Can we use some of their rationale here?

MDU
PS CaN - awesome posts mate... learning lots over here... I haven't been thinking much about it to be honest

SPman
26th April 2006, 14:57
Done! - as most of us have been......... :finger:

The Stranger
26th April 2006, 15:00
Not entirely sure.
London don't charge bikes, see gixermike post.

DemonWolf
26th April 2006, 15:42
Done ......

James Deuce
26th April 2006, 15:48
You are quite right, however when you look at the costs of an accident, us falling off on a corner is insignificant. The vast majority of these types of accidents the biker walks away from.

It is the ones involving cars which cost both dollars and lives, and very very often those are predominantly the fault of the other vehicle.

Cost should not therefore be attributed to the motorcyclist as it is now with ACC.

Plus it is my right to screw up a corner, it is not up to the govt to protect me from myself.

2-3million is expended per death in a variety of publicly funded services from police to coroner to ACC funded funerals. No one is protecting you, they are recovering costs.

Motorcyclists as a rule are more likely to be badly injured which will cost more per injury accident than a car. Doesn't matter who is at fault. My one legged, one armed ex-motorcyclist brother in law has cost millions to rehabilitate.

I still think if more people rode motorcycles, the urban accident rate would go down due to greater understanding, and traffic congestion would obviously reduce. So they need to charge motorcyclists a toll as the revenue from an urban congestion tax would drop.

We're all doomed.

Jantar
26th April 2006, 15:56
Here is my submission. Its loosely based on CaN's but modified to reflect the views on someone who doesn't live in Auckland.

Dear Sir,

The following is my submission on Road Pricing: Tackling Congestion in Auckland.


Reactions and comments on the study and its findings.
As someone who doesn’t live in Auckland, my first reaction to the congestion in Auckland is that Aucklanders deserve it. But logic dictates that something must be done, and I congratulate the Ministry for carrying out this study. While I support the idea of the study as being a positive step in the attempt to reduce traffic congestion in Auckland city, I feel that it has been too restrictive in that it has not looked at other possible options that could reduce the need for either road pricing or roading upgrades.

Whether road pricing is a good idea as a means to manage congestion and raise revenue, given its other potential social, economic and environmental impacts.
I believe that road pricing is a good idea, in the short term, as a means to manage congestion and raise revenue. However there is a caveat here. The revenue must be used to reduce congestion and to either improve the infrastructure or reduce the need for the measures in the first place. Examples of assisting the reduction of congestion with the funds raised may be the purchase of land in suburban areas to provide for park and ride facilities, the quicker completion of planned motorways, improved/extended rail, encourage business and retail away from the CBD, expedite provision of realistic broadband internet capacity to allow for tele-commuting (un-bundle the local loop FFS) and an alternate harbour crossing. Of all of these options the one that would have the longest term benefit is to encourage large businesses to move away from the Greater Auckland area, and to relocate to areas that do not have boundaries set by the sea. Waikato would be a good alternative for many businesses.

Where road pricing is applied it should be aimed to a large extent at discouraging the vehicles that are causing the congestion (eg single occupant cars), and encouraging those vehicles that help to alleviate congestion. A lower charge for multi occupant vehicles, and no charge for at all for busses or motorcycles.

There are many vehicles that use the Auckland Motorway system and do actually stop anywhere in Auckland. Unfortunately SH1 passes nright through the worst congested areas, and because of the geography of the land, there is no alternative route. Care must be taken not to penalise through traffic on SH1 who are not stopping in Auckland itself.

If the government were to enable road pricing, are there any areas you have identified in the report that could be improved or problems that would need to be overcome?

The report appears to be aimed at punitive measures to discourage all vehicles from using the roading network around the inner city, and fails to recognize any benefit in encouraging vehicles that reduce congestion. If the objective is to reduce congestion in the CBD it should recognize and support such measures. For example motorcycles. They take up little space, cause no road damage and put out less pollution than a car, bus or truck. Indeed whilst Motorcycles are specifically included in the charges schedule bicycles are not. Both are ridden on the road and both take up about the same amount of space except bicycles create greater congestion because they travel at a slower speed. It would appear to be inequitable and counter productive to increase the cost of a means of transport which currently meets the objectives of the solution.
I would like to refer you to comments made by the Mayor of London as follows.

"Both motorcycles and scooters are exempt from the congestion charge as they do not cause congestion. The Mayor wishes to make it crystal clear that he has absolutely no intention whatsoever of making scooters and motorcycles pay the congestion charge"

It is also worth noting that in London motorcycle accident statistics have fallen dramatically (Car Vs pedestrian, and car Vs bike) even though motorcycle numbers have increased by a factor of three times what they were before the congestion charges were implemented.


If the government were not to enable road pricing, what other feasible alternatives are there to meaningfully manage congestion, acknowledging the significant investment the government is already making in additional roading and public transport?

Alternatives may include, but are not limited to: Encourage business to relocate from the CBD to outlying areas; Encourage business to relocate from the greater Auckland area to provincial centres; Encourage business and schools to move to a staggered working day; Encourage business to allow glide time working hours, job sharing and tele-commuting; Make motorcycle parking free in the inner city area (4 motorcycles take up the same parking area as one car);


Yours Sincerely

The Stranger
26th April 2006, 16:08
2-3million is expended per death in a variety of publicly funded services from police to coroner to ACC funded funerals. No one is protecting you, they are recovering costs.

Motorcyclists as a rule are more likely to be badly injured which will cost more per injury accident than a car. Doesn't matter who is at fault. My one legged, one armed ex-motorcyclist brother in law has cost millions to rehabilitate.


The "cost" of a death is a highly subjective thing. What about all the employment it creates, Police, undertakers, ACC staff, and hey they all pay taxes and ACC levies.

As a matter of interest how did your brother-in-law's accident happen? I would almost bet it wasn't single vehicle. There are exceptions though.

Surely the burden of cost should fall on the cause of the problem not the symptom. Smokers and drinkers pay huge tax to take care of their self inflicted problems, they are the cause and they pay.

James Deuce
26th April 2006, 17:12
Surely the burden of cost should fall on the cause of the problem not the symptom. Smokers and drinkers pay huge tax to take care of their self inflicted problems, they are the cause and they pay.

You couldn't afford the Insurance premium you would need to pay to cover yourself for all eventualities, nor would I expect the average Kiwi to ever carry enough cover to do so, thanks to a poor attitude to personal responsibility. The end result is that the victim or patry with serious injuries never gets the care they need.

I think you may want to start a new thread. Irrespective of you opinion on what causes accidents, more than 50% of motorcycle accidents are avoidable. The reported stats show that 50% of open road accidents were just down to riders losing control in a bend. I've done it myself. We've had people who belonged to this site die doing just that and the continued refusal of the motorcycling community to acknowledge that they could do a better job of looking after themselves instead of passing blame to other people and then refusing to accept that there are consequences to continually screwing up basic things like riding to the conditions, or incorrectly assessing road condition or corner radii, absolutely confounds me.

When faced with such intransigence from a minority group of road users who are over represented in the stats generally labelled "incompetent road user", why would a government body, local or national, consider excluding a group of road users from congestion charges if it is going to encourage more people to expose themselves to a risk that experienced riders can't manage, let alone a flood of new ones? Or more importantly (to a govt. org.) potentially lose a heap of revenue?

I'm not suggesting that you don't attempt to lead the charge in showing that motorcycles can reduce congestion, therefore they should be excluded from congestion charges, I just think we should look closely at how we view ourselves, and possibly look closely at the commonly held "fact" that car drivers cause all motorcycle accidents. They patently don't.

We should be leading from the front, which for a while we were allowed to do with CBTA. Like it or lump it ACC is cheaper than private liability insurance.

The Stranger
26th April 2006, 17:34
Jesus Jim, you shouldn't smoke dope then post on KB man.

Your logic is going all fuzzy.

pyrocam
26th April 2006, 17:47
did anyone else notice that arpes (Auckland road pricing evaluation study) is an anagram for rapes

somewhat more appropriate name for the new tolls?

Karma
26th April 2006, 21:11
Done......

Blairos
26th April 2006, 21:36
All :done:

Skyryder
26th April 2006, 21:55
Where do I find this arpes document??

Skyryder

Ixion
26th April 2006, 22:03
http://www.transport.govt.nz/business/land/arpes/

Zed
26th April 2006, 23:21
:done: good onya Adam!

adamww
27th April 2006, 11:27
Its good to see everyone getting on board with this.
Don't forget to contact those you know who have not yet made a submission.
Power is in numbers, the more the better, even if they are not as detailed as some of the examples in this thread, good simple comments are just as valid.

sAsLEX
27th April 2006, 12:46
2-3million is expended per death in a variety of publicly funded services from police to coroner to ACC funded funerals. No one is protecting you, they are recovering costs.


but hey they saved a few dollars in construction by using cheese graters which instead of nicely deflecting a fallen rider, removed three of their limbs and now requires constant care and special vehicles and home modifications costing ACC millions of dollars for their remaining life time.

EDIT thiefed Ixion's one, stupid website didnt like Firefox, explains alot about the Government only supporting MS and not Open Source.........or maybe my comp is being a dick?! Who knows?

Ixion
27th April 2006, 12:57
..
EDIT thiefed Ixion's one, stupid website didnt like Firefox, explains alot about the Government only supporting MS and not Open Source.........or maybe my comp is being a dick?! Who knows?

No, it doesn't support Firefox. Or Opera. Or Netscape. I've complained about that, not heard back yet though

_Gina_
27th April 2006, 13:07
:wait: :wait: :wait:

Now I wait for the great news that motorcycles will be excluded!!
:yes:

Hitcher
27th April 2006, 13:07
There are two clearly separate issues here:

1. Should motorcycles have to pay to use toll roads? Of course they should, but at a lesser rate than other motor vehicles, based on gross laden weight or some relevant formula.

2. Should motorcycles be exempt from measures designed to reduce road congestion? Possibly, depending on other measures that are applied. A fundamental issue is reduction in usage of carbon-based fuels, atmospheric emissions and other environmentally-sound measures. There is little achieved by forcing people out of their cars and onto motorcycles. Better public transportation has to be the priority, and if congestion revenues are applied to fund this, then that has to be good.

Grahameeboy
27th April 2006, 13:31
My 2 cents worth

I do agree with the need to reduce traffic congestion, however, for example with just 1 direct bridge from North Shore to Auckland City should motorists pay for this inadequacy by the Govt when the issues of traffic from North Shore were apparent soon after the bridge was originally built, hence the Nipon Clipons.

What about vehicles with disabled people. I have a disabled Daughter, normally take the ferry but otherwise I have no choice but to use the bridge / motorways because public transport ie buses are not adequate. Disabled carriers should be exempt from the Road Toll because they do not have a choice.

I disagree that motorcycles should pay a toll / same toll. Motorcyles are not a congestion magnet like cars plus the Vehicle Registration fee for motorcycles is higher than cars. This implication contradicts the policy of reducing traffic congestion.

Plus, a small point maybe but motorcyclists wear gloves so they will have to stop longer and fiddle about which will not help the traffic flow and often they keep wallets etc under the seat or in a rucksac so they will have to stop, dismount, remove seat / take rucksac off etc to pay the toll....unlike in a car when you have money immediately ready and you are through the toll in seconds.

Cheers.

The Stranger
27th April 2006, 13:49
There are two clearly separate issues here:

1. Should motorcycles have to pay to use toll roads? Of course they should, but at a lesser rate than other motor vehicles, based on gross laden weight or some relevant formula.

2. Should motorcycles be exempt from measures designed to reduce road congestion? Possibly, depending on other measures that are applied. A fundamental issue is reduction in usage of carbon-based fuels, atmospheric emissions and other environmentally-sound measures. There is little achieved by forcing people out of their cars and onto motorcycles. Better public transportation has to be the priority, and if congestion revenues are applied to fund this, then that has to be good.

Re 2 - emissions are not relavent. That has not even been discussed in the documents that are the subject of this thread. Busses and trains polute more per passenger than do cars or bikes, essentially because of their higher weight per passenger. If emissions were a concern they would not be trying to move people to public transport. Also whilst there is a myth about how bad motorcycles polute I would like to see evidence to support this position. I have no doubt that on a PPM basis bikes are worse, but how many millions are produced by each.

And besides, many bike models are capable of meeting Californian emission standards, all could be bought into line over a period if that was a requirement.

Back Fire
27th April 2006, 14:02
confused the shite out of me... never really done this stuff so cheers Ixion

:done:

Hitcher
27th April 2006, 14:33
Re 2 - emissions are not relavent.
It may be helpful if you wrote down a list of the items we are supposed to agree with you about.

Ixion
27th April 2006, 14:45
Just agree with EVERYTHING we say comrade. You'll find it easier that way.

EDIT. Mr CaN is right, there is nothing at all in any of the proposals about emissions. Or pollution. Not in the pciture.

The Stranger
27th April 2006, 14:49
[QUOTE=CaN]Re 2 - emissions are not relavent. QUOTE]
It may be helpful if you wrote down a list of the items we are supposed to agree with you about.

Shit hitcher, you should know by now you are meant to agree with me on everything.
When I want your opinion I will give it to you.

No seriously, This thread is about the submissions to the proposed road tolling in Auckland and as such I would like to address the issues raised in the discussion documents on the govt web site. Although specific to Auckland at this stage I seriously view it as a motorcycling issue, and that is where I am coming from.

Hoon
27th April 2006, 15:11
Yeah I'm not entirely convinced Motorcyles should be exempt - maybe charged less but not exempt. A motorcycle only has the advantage over a car if that car has a single occupant. A car with 2 occupants has a similar footprint to 2 motorcycles and any more the motorcycle is actually worse off. I don't see why a motorcyle should be exempt when a car with 3 people must pay a toll when they are doing more to help congestion.

Motorcycle use as a solution to traffic congestion isn't at top of my list.

Number one would be to improve the vehicle/passenger ratio. If every car had a minimum of 2 people in it, this would almost half traffic congestion. Tolls would encourage this.

Number two would be to improve Public transport. Yes it sucks but before it can get better, people need to start using it to inject the funds. To get people to use it would take driving as an option to suck even more. Tolls would encourage this.

Number three would be more bike and scooter use. Motorcycle exemption would encourage this. The only problem is once vehicle/passenger ratio and public transport improves, the benefits of motorcyle use actually decreases. I can see this reaching the stage where motorcycles would have to be charged again so I see why the council would favour charging them from the get go instead of introducing it further down the line amidst much opposition.

The Stranger
27th April 2006, 15:31
Yeah I'm not entirely convinced Motorcyles should be exempt - maybe charged less but not exempt. A motorcycle only has the advantage over a car if that car has a single occupant. A car with 2 occupants has a similar footprint to 2 motorcycles and any more the motorcycle is actually worse off. I don't see why a motorcyle should be exempt when a car with 3 people must pay a toll when they are doing more to help congestion.

Motorcycle use as a solution to traffic congestion isn't at top of my list.

Number one would be to improve the vehicle/passenger ratio. If every car had a minimum of 2 people in it, this would almost half traffic congestion. Tolls would encourage this.

Number two would be to improve Public transport. Yes it sucks but before it can get better, people need to start using it to inject the funds. To get people to use it would take driving as an option to suck even more. Tolls would encourage this.

Number three would be more bike and scooter use. Motorcycle exemption would encourage this. The only problem is once vehicle/passenger ratio and public transport improves, the benefits of motorcyle use actually decreases. I can see this reaching the stage where motorcycles would have to be charged again so I see why the council would favour charging them from the get go instead of introducing it further down the line amidst much opposition.

Cool, but I would like to urge you to make a submission.

What you are suggesting re multi passenger cars is effectively car pooling. I can't recall ever seeing it work anywhere. Perhaps those coming in from the shore could correct me on this. There are too many variables for it to work on a scale large enough to make a difference. Everyone you ask has a different reason why they don't car pool, and lets face it, there is enough incentive now (cost) and people still don't/wont can't. Plus if they do allow that the biggest car poolers will be mum and the kids, which co-incidentally is a huge source of the problem as is evidenced by traffic flows during holiday periods, so I doubt they will encourage this.

So I doubt you will see 2 occupant cars to any great degree and I really would have thought that it would be more like 4 bikes to a car. The worst time for congestion is the time stopped, at this time you can fit a lot of bikes in a car space. Cars blocking intersections prevent cars moving, but not bikes, bikes move away from the light quicker, therefore on a single phase more bikes would fit through than cars, creating less congestion.

Hoon
27th April 2006, 15:33
Ohh by the way CaN I have registered and cut'n'pasted your submissions (except the student bit - they have it too easy these days!).

The impartial unbiased critic may agree with my last post but the biker in me would like nothing better than seeing more bikes and bikers, cheaper parts and gear and more racers on the starting grid!!

Plus I aint one to rain on your parade - I admire someone that stands up for what they believe in and inspires others. Nice job!

Ixion
27th April 2006, 15:40
Some places overseas actually work on a "occupants per" basis. Problem is that it requires a human manned toll gate thingy to do it. The proposal here is based on there being no humans collecting tolls, all done by transponders and cameras etc.

Human manned toll booths push the collection costs WAY up. But transponders can't tell how many people are in the car.

Motorcycles are efficient in this respect, in that the metal/person ratio is as high as a car with 4 people or a bus with about 10 or 12. Hence the arguement for either exemption or reduction. Exemption is simpler because you'd start to get some pretty small numbers on some of the schemes.

Also, noone has gotten transponders to work very well on bikes yet (the Aussies are trying hard). The units are big (by "put in your pocket" standards) and delicate and not waterproof. On a car it's easy to mount. On a bike you either have to carry it in a pocket (difficult and could be dangerous in a crash). Or somehow waterproof and vibration proof it. Technically, they are feasible. But in practice, there are heaps of problems. Though technology is ever advancing , so I would be cautious of saying that it won't work by the time anything gets off the drawing board.

Cameras on bikes is an even bigger problem as we know from speed cameras. And if the cameras can't pick up the untranspondered bikes, who would fit a transponder. "Yeah, I'm from out of town ,officer" .

I know in the States, and even in Oz, some bikers do carry the transponders. But that's cos there the alternative is you have to go through the human manned toll booth and pay anyway. And be delayed.

With no human manned booth, and relying on cameras, there's no reason for a bike to carry a transponder. And lots of excuses why not.

Squeak the Rat
28th April 2006, 09:30
Submissions close today.

Darryboy
28th April 2006, 12:09
Cheers for the copy/paste CaN.

Karma
28th April 2006, 12:14
Can you imagine what would happen if they had human manned tolls?

Biker pulls up
takes off gloves (and maybe helmet)
unzips jacket to try and find wallet
finds wallet, doesn't have cash so pays by EFTPOS
put card and receipt in wallet
put wallet back in jacket
zip up jacket
gloves (and helmet) back on
kick bike into gear and head off

Can you imagine how pissed the cagers would be sat behind you?

vifferman
28th April 2006, 12:17
I see the D'Auckland City Council have more or less said they don't give a damn what their ratepayers think - they're going to do what the council thinks is the 'right' thing as far as tolls and suchlike go.
So much for democracy...
And the MOT have received only 1000 submissions so far.

I bet it's just like "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe" - they've buried the submission thing deeply in the Interdweb, and not publicised how to access it. And then if you do stumble across it, you have to wade though so many stats and so much bureaucrat-talk, it's a mission to get to the end to comment on it. Instead the citizenry (those who can be bothered) just blow off steam by writing letters to The Harold which go unheeded and accomplish little.

I reckon if this scheme does go through, some concerted public disobedience will have to be organised.

The Stranger
28th April 2006, 12:25
I bet it's just like "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe" - they've buried the submission thing deeply in the Interdweb, and not publicised how to access it.


Well vifferman, unlike the movie, we have done the dirty work for you.
Just follow the link in the first post and all will be revealed.

thehollowmen
28th April 2006, 12:27
And lots of excuses why not.

No, that's an excuse as to why we should have a "disable the transponder" BBQ.
Yes officer, they don't make them well enough and the vibrations keep making the solder joints break.

:-D

vifferman
28th April 2006, 12:28
Well vifferman, unlike the movie, we have done the dirty work for you.
Just follow the link in the first post and all will be revealed.
I did, thanx. :niceone:
My point was that the average Joe and Josephine, who don't belong to KiwiBiker and have such kind and helpful people to save them the effort, they'll end up going, "Whooahh!! This is too hard... but I'm only one person, so it won't matter if I don't put in my submission too."

Swoop
28th April 2006, 12:38
Submission done!

Squeak the Rat
28th April 2006, 12:44
I did, thanx. :niceone:
My point was that the average Joe and Josephine, who don't belong to KiwiBiker and have such kind and helpful people to save them the effort, they'll end up going, "Whooahh!! This is too hard... but I'm only one person, so it won't matter if I don't put in my submission too."
You are right, it is complicated and wordy. But the link and process it was also well documented in the city council "magazines" that go to all rate payers, plus it's been in the news etc etc.

If it goes ahead, my first question if ANYONE who complains to me will be if they made a submission. If the answer is no, then talk to the :finger:

Good on every one here who is at least trying to make a difference :yes:

Korea
28th April 2006, 14:15
Done my bit. Big plug for bike use - here's hoping it helps :wait:

Ixion
28th April 2006, 14:19
Can you imagine what would happen if they had human manned tolls?

Biker pulls up
takes off gloves (and maybe helmet)
unzips jacket to try and find wallet
finds wallet, doesn't have cash so pays by EFTPOS
put card and receipt in wallet
put wallet back in jacket
zip up jacket
gloves (and helmet) back on
kick bike into gear and head off

Can you imagine how pissed the cagers would be sat behind you?

That happened in OZ. The gubberinment backed down. You forgot, it is unsafe to do all this while starddling the bike,. You need (for safety) to get off, stop the engine, and put the bike on its stand. Then get your card out etc.

Squeak the Rat
28th April 2006, 14:25
Yep, and definitely take helmet off if you're transacting with a cashier. You'd probably need to take out ear plugs too, so that you can understand what they are saying.

eliot-ness
28th April 2006, 15:16
Being a cynic by nature I'm amazed that anyone believes this is an attempt to reduce congestion. It is nothing short of a blatant tax. Who, for instance drives into the city for any other reason than to work, shop, deliver goods or all the other services that keep the city alive. If exemptions are to be granted shouldn't all these people be the first in line. If, as suggested, the revenue gathering is to take place for example at the harbour bridge then all users, traveling into the city or not, will be paying. Have any measures have been taken to cover those whose jobs take them in and out of the city several times a day??
The best way to beat this IMHO is not by asking for exemptions for certain groups but for all those unfortunate enough to have to work in Auckland to simply not go to work for a week. It might then become clear to the beaurocrats just who are the most important group. It could also bring pressure to bear from employers who contribute more to the wealth of Auckland than any bunch of politicians

The Stranger
28th April 2006, 15:25
Being a cynic by nature I'm amazed that anyone believes this is an attempt to reduce congestion. It is nothing short of a blatant tax. Who, for instance drives into the city for any other reason than to work, shop, deliver goods or all the other services that keep the city alive. If exemptions are to be granted shouldn't all these people be the first in line. If, as suggested, the revenue gathering is to take place for example at the harbour bridge then all users, traveling into the city or not, will be paying. Have any measures have been taken to cover those whose jobs take them in and out of the city several times a day??


Hmm, may pay to read the documents, but in short yeah.
You pay a max of $6.00 a day. As an employer and someone whom is likely to have people in there many times a day I am really looking forward to it.

When our charge out rate is $100.00 per hour it should save us and our customers a lot of money.

MacD
28th April 2006, 15:29
Submission made and link passed on to other motorcyclists at work (they're not all KBers :eek5: )

limmy
28th April 2006, 16:01
Shit! They've closed submissions already! It's not even the end of the day. Lazy government fucks.

MacD
28th April 2006, 16:04
Fax your submission to them if you can't use the online form now.

Fax no.: 04 495 9788

Magua
28th April 2006, 16:07
There's an email address there you can send submissions to. I made mine, hopefully not too late.

scracha
28th April 2006, 18:44
It's good they can translate the website to Maori but perhaps they could have spent money getting it to work in Firefox.

scracha
28th April 2006, 18:57
If it really is a "congestion" charge then shouldn't motorcycles / mopeds and other PTA's be either excempt or have a significantly reduced charge (as is done is London for example)?

On a similar vein, surely there should be a high "peak time" charge. For example, $3 per day "off peak" and $6 per day if you drive in the zone between 7am - 9am or 4pm to 6pm?

Let the sparks fly. I also reckoned they should increase the tax on gogo juice. I'd happily pay 3 bucks a litre to go on SUV free roads.

paturoa
28th April 2006, 19:45
I just did the online submisison and itwas stil open.

I travel to the city centre each day on my bike. If tolls are put in place I will swap to a company car and use that. I'll do that because it will be better for me personaly.

This will not solve anything, there is no solution. I don't choose to travel on poorly designed, congested roads (ie resulting from under-investment) cos its fun. I do it cos I need to, as I suspect most people do. How I choose to get to where I need to is based on a personal value decision for me, as will everyone else.

Tax wont change the underlying problems or introduce better options or any solutions. So why is it on the agenda??????

London achieved significant changes, wonder if that had anything to do with the existing public transport alternatives????

The other thing that pisses me even more is that we have nbeen suckered into this submission bullshit. Is there a bunch of gummbermint tossers somewhere reading all of this and summerising it - umm no.

Should have a site where you online vote.

This gumbermint is over the top.

The next step for me is that I am going to email my local MP and Local Gumbermint reps and tell them that I will never vote for them again if this comes to pass.

(in the above thread someone talked about the transponder method - I read something a while back, Melbourne newpaper I think, where someone made this centrifuge thing that killed the transponders without damaging the tamper seals on them)

ajturbo
28th April 2006, 20:45
why the fuck should i worry?????

i don't live in dork land!:nya:

Squeak the Rat
28th April 2006, 21:02
why the fuck should i worry?????

i don't live in dork land!:nya:
Don't start that shite! :lol:

I don't want to have come down to South Auckland and give you the jandal....

Cleve
28th April 2006, 21:10
why the fuck should i worry?????

i don't live in dork land!:nya:


ummm yeah, like, grow up...

Lou Girardin
29th April 2006, 08:46
Can you imagine what would happen if they had human manned tolls?

Biker pulls up
takes off gloves (and maybe helmet)
unzips jacket to try and find wallet
finds wallet, doesn't have cash so pays by EFTPOS
put card and receipt in wallet
put wallet back in jacket
zip up jacket
gloves (and helmet) back on
kick bike into gear and head off

Can you imagine how pissed the cagers would be sat behind you?

That's what we did at the Harbour Bridge toll booths, except for the eftpos that is.

Although there may have been a 1000 submissions, many of those are from interested groups, and the letters to the editor have been unanimous in opposition. Pollies consider each letter to represent a 1000 individual views. If they introduce these measures without having an efficient transport system in place, they current office holders can kiss their place in the trough goodbye.
BTW I'm particularly impressed that the Shorites will have to pay more because we're "richer". I think the Westies and Southies should pay more because it's easier for the Gummint to top up their benefits.

MacD
29th April 2006, 09:04
That's what we did at the Harbour Bridge toll booths, except for the eftpos that is.



I used to have a bulldog clip attached to the brake mount to hold the coins. It was quite a common solution if my memory is correct!

Another aspect of the proposal which annoyed me was the assumption that the charges would result in time savings and implied that this would increase productivity, offsetting the cost to individuals. Well swapping from a motorcycle to a bus would actually increase my commuting time by more than 200%! (<10 minutes to >30 minutes door to door). And the planners wonder why people don't use public transport!?

Street Gerbil
29th April 2006, 22:38
Missed the deadline... I had quite a few rather unpleasant comments which I wanted to share with the government. Nevertheless, I seriously doubt they give a rat behind what do we have to say. Too much money is at stake.

metric
30th April 2006, 16:00
Here is a copy of mine, which anyone is welcome to use in whole or in part.

Rich capitalists will doubtless wish to remove those parts relating to social equity.

great work there Ixion..!

metric
30th April 2006, 16:03
It's good they can translate the website to Maori but perhaps they could have spent money getting it to work in Firefox.

:killingme

so true

adamww
2nd May 2006, 13:36
Glad to hear a number of submission were made.
Thanks to all.

babyB
3rd May 2006, 21:12
i put submission in while ago ( sorry forgot to post)

adamww
3rd May 2006, 21:43
You should all have recieved confirmation from the Ministry of Transport today. Well I know I did.

sAsLEX
3rd May 2006, 21:58
You should all have recieved confirmation from the Ministry of Transport today. Well I know I did.
Did you check the email you recieived it from??

C.Money

Now is this someones idea of a joke from the LTSA(hitcher you there?) or some freak coincidence the guy replying to our complainaints about this money making scheme bears that as a name?

Hitcher
3rd May 2006, 22:04
Now is this someones idea of a joke from the LTSA(hitcher you there?) or some freak coincidence the guy replying to our complainaints about this money making scheme bears that as a name?
There are three private listings for people by the name of "Money" in the Wellington Whitepages.

babyB
4th May 2006, 01:12
You should all have recieved confirmation from the Ministry of Transport today. Well I know I did.
same , came 2day
lol bet C money has had share of pranks with name like that

Squeak the Rat
5th May 2006, 08:36
I thought Mr Money could have proof read his letter a bit better.


Thank you for your submission which has been received. Your comments have been taken into consideration and will be reflected in the Ministry of Transport's report to Government. The report will summarise your views and others - though without individual identification. The report summarising the public submissions will be made available on our website either Late in June or early in July.

At this stage of the consultation process there is no opportunity for public submissions to be heard, written submissions only are being considered. Should the Government decide to proceed further with any of the schemes there will be other opportunities for public comment.

Once again, your comments are appreciated.

Yours fa


Chris Money
Principal Adviser
Infrastructure
Ministry of Transport

Hitcher
5th May 2006, 09:33
bet C money has had share of pranks with name like that
But not as many as his brother P. Or his sister Ali. Or his uncle Hege.

sKilled
12th June 2006, 02:45
Fa is a colloquial Samoan farewell.
I would be rather pissed at such a taxation as I live in Freeman's Bay and need to go to University everyday. It would take less than 10 minutes by car/bike, but more than 30 with a bus, costing me at least $3 a day for the bus alone. The Link bus service is also loosing respectability due to a massive downturn in terms of reliability.
Either exceptions are drawn for motorcycles/scooters/mopeds, or an increased level of service in the public transport.
In my opinion, such a fee system would possibly encourage car pooling ($6 split 4 ways = $1.50, nice eh). Of course most people are more likely to pay the money and continue driving alone, all the while bitching and moaning.
Oh, and I think any car fitted with one of those silly 'pssshhhtttt' blow off valves or polished spinner mags should be charged 10 times that amount, or the registered owner shot. I prefer the latter.

sKilled
12th June 2006, 02:45
BTW: I so miss the well organised public transport in Germany - perhaps the Auckland Mayor could invite a couple of theur experts over for a little brainstorming session?