However, since you mention the effects of tolls to me and have determined to take Bliss on over the matter I will throw in with her on the effect. Effectively choosing (which is something the wealthy can do) vs “being denied” (which is what happens to the poor), access to a public facility like a road, is a problem.

We have price mechanisms for people to buy food and support mechanisms for poor people who cannot.

The question revolves around keeping the playing field level. If it takes the rich guy 15 minutes to get from one appointment to the next and the poor guy an extra hour or more on top of that (which could easily be the case in a place like Auckland) then the poor guy is paying a tax that is measured in time, and will be handicapped in his performance. Limiting access on the simple basis of a flat rate price is difficult for me to support on this basis.

I am not at all fond of the other alternatives on offer either. Perhaps the rates charged could be variable based on income ?

In either case the public transit system and the system of developing and planning public transit systems must (as you pointed out) be hammered into some more appropriate shape.

respectfully
BJ

You said (accusingly

“Saying “Grant people access according to needâ€? how do YOU know what need is? What sort of bureaucracy will establish that? ”

Yep. A hideous bureacracy, I agree. But the alternatives? Allow rich people access at the expense of the poor, or do nothing.

The question which is more hideous?

And there is evidence from Austrailia that tolls keep poor people off the roads.

Someone here alredy said that they would not be affected by tolls because they would just pass on the chargges. My point proved I think.

happy travels
W

The devil is in the details. If it’s a clear and transparent system for a defined zone or stretch of road (e.g. motorway tolls or central London charge) then OK. If you’re going to sell us compulsory satellite-tracking with complicated rates per hour and place, then get out of here.

Who is going to pay for it? It has a benefit/cost ratio well below one, it is unaffordable without taxpayer subsidies, it will greatly encourage car commuting from Kapiti into Wellington. Why should NZ taxpayers pay for Kapiti/Otaki property owners to have a windfall and commute by car into Wellington? It is a dog of a project and cannot be afforded under current road taxes.

“Rationing road use on ability to pay is supported by rich people everywhere. Yes it clears the roads.” Actually BJ the evidence is that where toll lanes are introduced, the rich dont use them anymore than anyone else. People pay for low congested roads when they value time highly, which typically means freight, couriers, people with appointments - many rich people happily sit in their cars in congestion comfortable. Saying “Grant people access according to need” how do YOU know what need is? What sort of bureaucracy will establish that? I guess lots of people “need” to drive to work in the morning peak? Congestion pricing only needs to be a few extra dollars at peak times to work, hardly rich when half the country subscribes to Sky TV and given what people spend on gambling, shopping, alcohol etc.

Besides, rationing road use by price would be a CHANGE from what we do now, which is charge everyone the same. It would be cheaper to drive offpeak when roads are quiet if you replace existing road taxes with road pricing, and that is when many people on low incomes drive (elderly, beneficiaries, students). You could replace local rates funding of roads with road pricing revenue, benefiting people without cars (I used to live in Wellington owned a house and had no car for years).

If you don’t like the price mechanism BJ, then we’ll do away with it for food, because only the “rich” get to eat vegetables and fruit when there is a poor crop.

The benefits of congestion charging are obvious in saving time, improving competitiveness of public transport (and walking/cycling) and reducing emissions, and frankly the most stupid use of transport is road vehicles queuing, going slowly and wasting far more fuel than they would be if it was free flow conditions. Everywhere in the world supply based solutions have not fixed the problem in big cities (building roads/public transport), demand based solutions can and have (London, Singapore, Stockholm, Oslo, Italian cities have access control as well).

We now have really heavily used bike lanes (as befits a predominantly flat city) and they take up a portion of the carriageway, which in turn makes it harder for buses to be given preferential right of way.
The Council is in the process of creating “dedicated bus lanes”, on three major routes so far.

Unfortunately our local route is not one of these, and commuters sometimes take an earlier bus to guarantee “on time” arrival at work. (Usually that isn’t too arduous because the buses are frequent during “rush hour(s).”)

All in all, things are “happening” here and the the Councils (both Regional and City) are “determined”!

However, there are still daunting numbers of one-occupant cars, and of several vehicles per family …

Here in Wellington the buses go almost everywhere, and they’re scheduled to go quite frequently. Only trouble is they never turn up at the bus stop when they’re meant to, because of congestion casued by too many cars on the road.

>No worries about road user (congestion) charges. Like many in business who need road transport for access to and from work plus the delivery of raw materials and finished goods, I will simply add the extra costs onto my charges. My oppostion no doubt will do the same. Not going to stop me carrying on in business.

Indeed. The idea is that those whose businesses are really dependent on driving through that area will be able to pass the cost onto the customer, because their competitors will be incurring the same cost. Those who don’t need to drive through the area will have a financial incentive not to. The likely effect of this is that the number of service vehicles will remain relatively constant, and the number of private cars will drop. Which means less congestion, and the service vehicles don’t have to spend as much time waiting in traffic.

>Problem with all financial levies, taxes, charges is that they will simply be added onto the cost of doing business (and living). I will charge more as will my supplier. The end user will go for higher wages, salaries. So inflation goes up.

If the congestion charge goes into the council’s general pool, it doesn’t cause inflation. You see, Councils keep putting rates up to pay for the stuff they need to do, and the stuff the government makes them do. If they get money from congestion charging, they don’t need to put rates up so much, so there’s less inflation from rates rises. Hence the net effect on inflation is zilch.

We can rely on public transport in Christchurch and environs, and its planned-in-stages further improvement and expansion, courtesy Environment Canterbury (our Regional Council).

see: http://www.metroinfo.org.nz

Problem with all financial levies, taxes, charges is that they will simply be added onto the cost of doing business (and living). I will charge more as will my supplier. The end user will go for higher wages, salaries. So inflation goes up.

Notice the road user charges on diesel has reduced the number of trucks on the road? No because the cost is included in the freight charges use to bring good and services to you.

Having said that to avoid the traffic I leave home at 6 and the factory at 3 or at 7 depending on how much work is lined up.