So people who live in Auckland pay rates, whether as owners or through rent that pays their landlord's rates. And the council gets the money from the fuel tax (I presume?), so it's just a different way of collecting rates.

So the benefit of the fuel tax is that people who come from outside Auckland pay for road use? Or is the benefit that it discourages car use and encourages public transport use?

What was the original justification behind the fuel tax?

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago (8 children)

TLDR - because its needed.

First of all, I believe car use should be discouraged so bit biased here. Just getting it out in the open.

The idea was that public transportation was (and still is) a massive issue in Auckland. Split by two harbours creating choke points, massive sprawl, complete lack of investment. Can't just keep adding more cars, more lanes, more delays. Why not take a bit from the individual problem causer and use it to greater a better long term solution?

I've been stuck in traffic for ages, then look beside me and see a bus stop that didn't get finished (Rosedale road for anyone around) because it got bumped for budget. I use a car for work where public transport isn't practical (10 sites a day with full kit) but when I do site visits for new clients the first thing I do is check for a bus.

Oh, and given up on trying to get a car parking in cbd - $14 for 30 minutes parking after 40 minute drive? Na, I'm good, id rather take a 30 minute bus trip and meet the wife for lunch.

[–] Dave 3 points 9 months ago (7 children)

Why not take a bit from the individual problem causer and use it to greater a better long term solution?

I guess I look at this and think instead of having the government change the law so the council could implement this, why not take a bit from everyone (problem causers as well as uses of PT who benefit from better PT) as higher rates? It seems like a simpler approach?

I’ve been stuck in traffic for ages, then look beside me and see a bus stop that didn’t get finished (Rosedale road for anyone around) because it got bumped for budget.

Did the fuel tax help?

[–] Rangelus 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Higher rates affects only people living in Auckland, but fuel tax can get people visiting as well. Plus, I would suspect the thinking was if you can't afford the fuel tax you can take a bus. Obviously the reality is different, but that was probably the intention.

If you listened to the Wayne Brown, there was hundreds of millions of dollars already allocated for roading and transport projects. It hand't all been spent yet because contracts had been signed but work hadn't started yet. As he said, all removing the regional fuel tax does is get rid of these projects, because he will not raise rates.

Full disclosure, this is the very first time I've agreed with anything he's said.

The other option is, of course, road tolls. His argument was this is a tool to reduce congestion (I find this dubious, but regardless), not to generate revenue for the council. And I'll be honest, I find little difference between a fuel tax and a road toll - both are regressive taxes and affect lower income earners more.

In my opinion, the central government needs to step in across the country and fund the shit out of infrastructure upgrades. 3 waters, but for roads and rail as well.

[–] Dave 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Plus, I would suspect the thinking was if you can’t afford the fuel tax you can take a bus.

This raises another question. Was the Auckland fuel tax only on petrol? As in if you drive a big diesel ute you don't pay? Or was it on all fuels? What about trucks? Farm deliveries?

It hand’t all been spent yet because contracts had been signed but work hadn’t started yet. As he said, all removing the regional fuel tax does is get rid of these projects, because he will not raise rates.

Presumably these projects were being done because they are needed, not for fun?

I find little difference between a fuel tax and a road toll - both are regressive taxes and affect lower income earners more.

I agree, they are basically the same thing. Both have road users pay for their use of the road based on how much they use it. Road tolls just come with the additional feature of being able to avoid paying by avoiding toll roads and instead using other roads that you aren't paying for (except through petrol tax, but then toll road users are paying twice).

In my opinion, the central government needs to step in across the country and fund the shit out of infrastructure upgrades. 3 waters, but for roads and rail as well.

The current government got in campaigning on returning power to councils. I doubt this will happen on any great scale.

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

I think you've hit the nail on the head - these projects weren't being done for fun. They are needed, there is clearly a demand for them worth millions, and now they are held or canceled.

Personally, I also don't believe more power should be returned to council because its not just that area that uses it - Whangarei depends on Auckland airport and the northern corridor, Hamilton relies on Port of Tauranga. We need wider plans and integration, not less.

[–] Ilovethebomb 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Plus, I would suspect the thinking was if you can't afford the fuel tax you can take a bus.

People just forget the trades exist, don't they?

[–] Rangelus 2 points 9 months ago

They really don't. And I'd point out, heavy trade vehicles will do more damage to roads than a light hatch back.

Plus, more public transport means fewer cars on the road for tradies. Win-win!

load more comments (4 replies)