Submission on proposed Auckland congestion charges

**Squeak the Rat** · 26th April 2006, 13:49

Originally Posted by Ixion

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!?!

**SpankMe** · 26th April 2006, 13:54

**Pumba** · 26th April 2006, 14:41

Got mine in

All that cuting and pasing was hard work

, thanks to everyone that put up the templates for people to follow, I know I wouldnt know were to begin by myself

**The Stranger:Me** · 26th April 2006, 14:47

Originally Posted by Jim2

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/busines...e-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.........

**The Stranger:Me** · 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

Originally Posted by CaN

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:Me** · 26th April 2006, 16:08

Originally Posted by Jim2

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

Originally Posted by CaN

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.