All posts in the topic Christchurch petrol tax ? (Short link)
Summary
- There are 7 posts — by 4 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Andrew Groom at 2007 Sep 20 23:47 UTC
Hi All,
What does everyone think about the idea of a Christchurch petrol tax as
a way of controlling growth of the city ? I'm a big fan of equitable
measures like this that would be (relatively) cheap and easy to
implement. Obviously this would have the biggest impact on those who
travel the furthest, notably people commuting to outer suburbs and
nearby towns. Maybe longer term it would discourage people from living
further out if they still had to commute into the city centre to work,
or to maybe find other ways of commuting.
The amount earned would naturally be taken off our rates, which should
make it more palatable to the majority of us who commute relatively
short distances.
What do you think ?
Cheers, Andrew.
Hi Andrew,
Petrol tax has boundary problems - those who live furthest away will have
the easiest access to non-tax supply.
These days it would be easier to have a toll. As traffic builds up at peak
commuter times then the toll cuts in.
Rates are a very iniquitous tax. Anything to reduce them would be a good
idea - like your petrol tax credit. The people who pay the most seem to get
the least benefits. I mean, we all pay rates, but for my low rates am
getting a full rubbish collection - yet a householder in, say, Fendalton is
paying something like $200 a week in rates - and getting the same rubbish
collection. Is that fair?
And the gap is getting wider. Those wealthier than average are just about
reaching the stage where they have to be wealthier - just so they can be as
wealthy as me...Of course socialists probably think this is very fair.
I feel though, that older people sitting in comfortable homes in areas that
have become increasingly higher valued end up paying more in rates than they
can afford.
But, getting back to petrol tax... everyone seems to forget, we don't have a
traffic problem except during brief periods of the day - and that a large
part of the problem is associated with dropping off and picking up school
kids. We won't have a traffic problem in the future either - so long as the
roads keep up with the growth. As the suburbs and satellite towns develop we
will see increasing expansion of commuters the other way - against the
normal commuter flow. And people will work outside the CBD.
Unfortunately, looking at the ghastly article about bus barriers in
yesterday's Press, we have planner who parrot the fact that commuting cars
must be reduced by bus barriers etc. No! Commuting cars create their own
dis-incentive. if you don't like waiting in a traffic jam you go earlier -
or later. All buses and things do is reduce the traffic enough for someone
else to decide to take the car. Now ain't that logical? Not to a planner
paid to create barriers such as bus barricades!
Christchurch does NOT have a traffic problem!
But it will if resources are diverted to bus barriers and light rail
corridors. Those resources would be better distributed to a northern
corridor to replace Marshlands and Papanui/Cranford Roads. Roads that can be
used by trucks carrying goods to and from ports. Productive roads.
Cheers
Tim Kerr.
Tim says (above)
[ " Unfortunately, looking at the ghastly article about bus barriers in
yesterday's Press,
we have planner who parrot the fact that commuting cars must be reduced by bus
barriers etc.
No! Commuting cars create their own dis-incentive. if you don't like waiting in
a traffic jam you go earlier -or later. All buses and things do is reduce the
traffic enough for someone else to decide to take the car. Now ain't that
logical? Not to a planner paid to create barriers such as bus barricades! " ]
Please note Tim and others, that Unplanner has not noticed the fact yet, that
the problem of these ludicrous barricades is not congestion, but the fact that
Vehicles can not turn left or right properly, either into or out of Hills
road. The man is his own parrot.
According to Traffic unplanner ideology, all opposition in "Misinformation'
yeah thats right Richard,
Why Richard West do the Police, Traffic see your plan as absurd, and an
"intentional blockade, and why do AA think the same.?
Andrew says (above)
[ what about "Christchurch petrol tax as a way of controlling growth of the
city ? I'm a big fan of equitable measures like this that would be (relatively)
cheap and easy to implement." ]
Wait on Andrew, in what way is a punitive and selective measure against vehicle
"Equitable" ? And honestly why do you want to control the growth of the
City?
There are one hundred of us to one cycle, therefore to balance the situation
would it be equitable to tax Bus and Bike?
Buses as barriers. All those (non)commuting cars, stuck behind buses, engines at idle, the most INefficient petrol consumption. How does this dovetail with reducing CO2 emissions, and keeping the Christchurch air CLEAN???? John RAtkinson > To: <email obscured>> From: <email obscured>> Subject: Re: [Canterbury Issues] Christchurch petrol tax ?> Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 10:45:02 +1200> > Tim says (above) > [ " Unfortunately, looking at the ghastly article about bus barriers in> yesterday's Press,> we have planner who parrot the fact that commuting cars must be reduced by bus barriers etc. > No! Commuting cars create their own dis-incentive. if you don't like waiting in a traffic jam you go earlier -or later. All buses and things do is reduce the traffic enough for someone else to decide to take the car. Now ain't that logical? Not to a planner paid to create barriers such as bus barricades! " ]> > Please note Tim and others, that Unplanner has not noticed the fact yet, that the problem of these ludicrous barricades is not congestion, but the fact that Vehicles can not turn left or right properly, either into or out of Hills road. The man is his own parrot.> According to Traffic unplanner ideology, all opposition in "Misinformation'> yeah thats right Richard,> > Why Richard West do the Police, Traffic see your plan as absurd, and an "intentional blockade, and why do AA think the same.?> > > Andrew says (above)> [ what about "Christchurch petrol tax as a way of controlling growth of the city ? I'm a big fan of equitable measures like this that would be (relatively) cheap and easy to implement." ]> > Wait on Andrew, in what way is a punitive and selective measure against vehicle "Equitable" ? And honestly why do you want to control the growth of the City?> There are one hundred of us to one cycle, therefore to balance the situation would it be equitable to tax Bus and Bike?> > paul scott> North avon,> Info about paul scott: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/scottpaul> > This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/1mVRpvd1qwMJv2e7qkO77E>
Aren't we all already paying an AUCKLAND petrol tax?? John RAtkinson > Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 09:20:19 +1200> From: <email obscured>> To: <email obscured>> Subject: [Canterbury Issues] Christchurch petrol tax ?> > Hi All,> > What does everyone think about the idea of a Christchurch petrol tax as> a way of controlling growth of the city ? I'm a big fan of equitable> measures like this that would be (relatively) cheap and easy to> implement. Obviously this would have the biggest impact on those who> travel the furthest, notably people commuting to outer suburbs and> nearby towns. Maybe longer term it would discourage people from living> further out if they still had to commute into the city centre to work,> or to maybe find other ways of commuting.> > The amount earned would naturally be taken off our rates, which should> make it more palatable to the majority of us who commute relatively> short distances.> > What do you think ?> > Cheers, Andrew.> > > Andrew Groom> Bryndwr, Christchurch> Info about Andrew Groom: http://forums.e-democracy.org/contacts/andrewgroom> > This topic's messages may be viewed at: http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/2B0jyOtQD65Jzry9GNI9OF>
petrol tax pledge I promise I will pay also New words old and new Christchurch Press today August 9 Bob Parker [ letter to editor ] “ When I am Mayor I most definitely will not be signing the pledge… I will , however .. make a public declaration to act faithfully and impartially and to the best of my skill” Quite convincing, and I am glad Bob has picked up on the assertion that he is Mayor impending. I read it twice for signs of Tuam speak and there was less than usual. But he accuses Megan again of subscribing to “tired rhetoric” on the pledge issue, as he previously and similarly did on the Civic building issue. You are banned form using the word rhetoric Bob, on the grounds of rhetoric repetition. Christine Dann [ same letters to editor] “ in 2006 .. without mandate or consultation Council entered into negotiations to sell the port of Lyttelton “ and “Council weasel worded the definition of ‘strategic asset’ to reduce its obligation to consult” OK points to Christine for the scary truth, very scary truth, and also that nifty saying ‘weasel words’ , can I use it too Christine. I like it. But wait. Did Christine Dann tell us that she is an entrenched Green Red, No, just that she lives in Diamond Harbour. Slightly disingenuous Christine ..you are fundamentally scribing red politics Christine even though you are right [ I mean left] on the pledge issue. Lets not mince words about the Pledge. Megan picked up 5% votes for her clear, unequivocal, and honest pledge. The pledge could pivot the election. If I was Bob I would sign. This would probably earn him the Medallion of Quixote. Now lets go across to the topic Cars, buses, Bikes and Pedestrians Bob Shearing speaks Tuam. Bob Shearing says “ If it was not for our very good quality bus service, and the pedestrian and cycle facilities available, the problem would be much worse”. Nonsense : As Andrew Groom points out, Cyclist per cent of traffic is 5% and dropping. Bob Shearing says “One the options is Bus Borders and as has been well debated, these are being trialled at two stops on Hills Road. I fully support the trial and look forward to the reports coming out of the trial. Of course the other option is dedicated bus lanes, which would be great if we had the room on all our main routes. However with the loss of street parking and the difficulty of including cycle lanes and footpaths, I believe these lanes will cause even more controversy than Borders". “In the end it will no doubt be a mix Boarders and Lanes and all users will need to accept and appreciate each other in the road space.” More nonsense from Tuam There is no trial punters, see how " these lanes WILL cause even more controversy". There is no trial on Hills road it is a trial of tribulation for you drivers who want to turn in or out of Hills road. end . tough biscuits The parrot can tell us the outcome of the so called trial we can tell you what the results will be. Citizens, the drainage re alignment on Hills road proves it .. there is no trial, listen to the parrot Richard West he can tell Papanui road next .. get out of your car Ok you people get out now, I paul scott will drive down in my V8 holden and pay you tax So get out of your cars now, make way for me I promise to pay tax I give you my pledge get those other poor people offa my road “ in the end it will be a mix of lanes and blablkabla “ we have already bloody decided so go away paul scott and Andrew groom and Tim don’t tell us the facts we don’t do independent trials because this is doctrine The parrot will talk to you later. And as for you Andrew Groom you are in danger of being awarded the Medallion of Quixote for honesty and integrity. You can see that they won’t tell you bus figures because they don’t want to admit the facts. I would rather have you Andrew Groom than Tuam Street, big fat dumb hungry elephants “ shut up all of yas just show them a photo when its done” Disingenuousness And Tim, be kind bro, can you drop that school drop off to 600 meters. It would cover Burnside easily. And as Orwell say the poor little animals looked from Pig to Man, and from Man to Pig again, but already they could not tell the difference.” Paul Scott http://paulscottfilms.blogspot.com/
Hi John,
John Atkinson wrote:
> Tax increases, particularly on fuel. Not on your Nelly, no way!!!!
> This is FORCE dressed up in weasle words.
>
> If you're so keen on Bus travel, make the Bus option ATTRACTIVE to
> people. One BIG bugbear, is not knowing when the damn Bus is going
> to arrive/has just gone. The local Transport Co. has fledgling
> technology to provide Bus etas to a mobile phone. Promote this
> information, and how to access it! Timetable, and route
> information needs a major upgrade. I have found it VERY difficult
> to plan a one off bus trip. Got so frustrated I gave up, and TOOK
> THE CAR!!!!
Yup, I completely agree, John. One-off bus trips are something I would
avoid, having had similar experiences. Trying to get across town by bus
is technically feasible, if you've got a lot of time to kill. Commuting
into town regularly along the arterials is by far best done by bus (if
it's too far to walk or bike), though.
Actually, I deliberately didn't suggest that the funds raised from the
petrol tax be channelled into buses, because I don't think it would be
the best use of the money. In a way, that's just perpetuating the idea
that we must be moving somewhere in some way or other (think of the
common depiction of city life showing lots of cars, lots of busy people
buzzing to and fro, lots of frenetic activity, lots of shopping - this
is a good and just way to live your life, apparently). My feeling is
that it's better to discourage travel, especially high-energy travel,
and put the money into things that are actually healthy and enjoyable,
e.g., libraries, pools, parks, entertainment.
The thing about getting from A to B is, how many of you actually enjoy
it (the time spent *between* A and B, that is) ? Personally, turning the
radio up loud and singing along is the only way to make the journey
tolerable, but certainly not enjoyable. On the other hand, a walk or
bike ride to the shops or a cafe on a sunny day can sometimes be the
highlight of my day (yes, I know, I must get out more :-).
Cheers, Andrew.