JAFA Tax

[BM-GS]

Dunno how many are following the ins & outs of the Great Auckland Road Toll debate, but the fact that motorcycles will not be excepted from the tolling seems a little strange. Even Red Ken in London has accepted that 2-wheeled transport cuts congestion and thus bikes are free to ride around the middle of London (and the riders can use this saving to pay of their lobotomies, presumably).

Is anyone in KB or Auckland generally organising some protest about this? Paying an extra $6 to get across the cordon (harbour bridge, plus points further south, east & west) as well as taking your lives in your hands from the normal cage behavious seems a little harsh. Any politically savvy people out there?

Personally it doesn't bother me as I live & work on the North Shore and can (so far) avoid this problem, but a lot aren't as lucky. Still, it could just be the thin end of the wedge, with more of this type of thing coming up later for other people. $6 a day is about $1,500 a year off your net salary. Nice.

The JAFA Tax page is here:
http://www.transport.govt.nz/business/land/arpes/

Submissions on this daft plot close on Friday 28 April 2006.

Submissions can be:

Posted to:
Auckland Road Pricing Evaluation Study
Ministry of Transport
PO Box 3175
WELLINGTON
E-mailed to: arpes@transport.govt.nz
Faxed to: 04 495 9788

[Swoop]

They can do what lawyers should do, and ducks can - shove their bills up their arse!!!

Too right I'll be objecting!!!

[Motu]

Back in the bridge toll days you always had to pay on a bike...nobody complained then.Maybe they will go on gross weight...then a really gross bike like the GS would attract maximum penaly,while for a beautiful bike like mine....I'd expect they might actualy pay me to cross....

[Ixion]

Bikes was cheaper but. One shilling for bikes, 2/- for cars.

Other thing is, tolls on the original bridge was to pay for the bridge. So fair enough bikes should pay, cos they sue it to (but pay less cos they take less space and weight).

But these toll proposals PRETEND to be about reducing congestion, not maximising revenue. So they should be encouraging things that reduce congestion, right? Why should treadleys pay nothing and motorbikes, that are just as congestion efficient (more so since they take less time to get from a to b ) pay the same as cars ?

[Lou Girardin]

I think the fight is just beginning. Anyone heard anything from BRONZ?

[mouldy]

They can do what lawyers should do, and ducks can - shove their bills up their arse!!!

Too right I'll be objecting!!!

Time for a protest ride methinks .Can we coordinate Ulys BRONZ KB for a Sunday statement WE ARE VOTERS too

[Marmoot]

Back in the bridge toll days you always had to pay on a bike...nobody complained then.Maybe they will go on gross weight...then a really gross bike like the GS would attract maximum penaly,while for a beautiful bike like mine....I'd expect they might actualy pay me to cross....

If the toll excuse is for financing the bridge building, it is fair to tax everyone with no exemption.

But if the charges excuse is for 'easing the congestion', motorcycle should be exempt. UNLESS, the government is lying again.

And I see quite a bit of naivety in this site regarding our government....

[Flatcap]

And I see quite a bit of naivety in this site regarding our government....

I disagree, most KBers understand that the Labour "government" consists of a bunch of Communist, lefty, anti progress, hippy, pinko parisites with a tenuous grasp of reality and a compulsive need to legislate how they regard normal thinking people should live their lives.

[Ixion]

I disagree, most KBers understand that the Labour "government" consists of a bunch of Communist,...

No it does not, alas. If it DID consist of a bunch of communists, things would be very different indeed.

[Flatcap]

No it does not, alas. If it DID consist of a bunch of communists, things would be very different indeed.

What? The Yanks would hate us slightly more than they do now?

[Troll]

I disagree, most KBers understand that the Labour "government" consists of a bunch of Communist, lefty, anti progress, hippy, pinko parisites with a tenuous grasp of reality and a compulsive need to legislate how they regard normal thinking people should live their lives.

No the labour philosopy is to tax those that can afford to pay and redistribute to those that that need extra support

ie tax and penalise hard work thrift and effort and reward idleness and laziness

note this proposed revenue grab will not affect the unemployed or social welfare beneficiaries sitting at home all day but it will affect people going to work, ie it is in reality a tax on commuting to work, as such this is in line will labour policy to tax and penalise work and effort

if they really want to ease congestion then the real answer is to provide a postive alternative, ie cheap reliable easy to use public transport every other major city in the world has a public transport system that works

this tax on commuting will not reduce congestion unless tehre is an alternative that people can use

[Flatcap]

this tax on commuting will not reduce congestion unless tehre is an alternative that people can use

Yep - and what proportion of any congestion tax will go towards providing an alternative? The little bit that is left after useless but 'environmentally friendly' white elephants are created.

[Troll]

Yep - and what proportion of any congestion tax will go towards providing an alternative?

none it will go in the general pot and be dished out to the usual recipiants of govt handouts

no one would mind these taxes if the funds were ring fenced and put aside to sort out specific problems

what has happened to the 2nd harbour crossing talked about 20 years ago???

will the funds pay for this??

[Hoon]

I'm all for road tolls. My quick and easy fix to traffic congestion is to tax people off the road. I myself have no problem paying a few extra bucks a day to get to work if it means I'll save 30 mins travel time. My missus and I travel in the same car too so thats half the cost (and halves our contribution to traffic congestion also)

If I value my time at $20 p/h, I'm still making a profit by recouping that lost productivity sitting in traffic.

I can see why bikes should and shouldn't be exempt. On one hand it reduces congestion but does it? Sure a bike takes less room than a vehicle but if that vehicle carries two or more people then the stats don't look as good. Fortunately 95% of cars during peak hour are single occupancy so the point is moot however the LTSA aren't exactly known for encouraging motorcycle use so their stance is no suprise really.

[Postie]

we all know its not a congestion charge as bikes do not contribute to congestion.
Whats the bet that the name gets changed, to somthing like CBD Privilege tax or somthing equally as crap.