We’re approaching halfway through the consultation period for the Council’s 10 year budget and already 4,300 Aucklanders have provided feedback. This budget, technically known as the “Long Term Plan”, outlines where billions of dollars of Council investment will go over the next decade.

One of the big issues being consulted on in this year’s Long Term Plan is a regional fuel tax of 10c (plus GST) per litre, to help increase Council’s funding of transport. A brief explanation of the Regional Fuel Tax is outlined in the video below:

A Regional Fuel Tax is not a new idea for helping to fund Auckland’s transport needs. In 2008 the law was changed to allow applications for a Regional Fuel Tax and an Auckland scheme was developed in detail, which would have funded electrification, our electric trains, the Hop Card system, train station upgrades and Penlink. This scheme was quickly reversed in 2009 and ultimately the law was changed in 2013 to remove the ability for Regional Fuel Tax applications to even be made.

The new government plans to reverse this law change, once again making it possible for an application to be made.

The Long Term Plan’s “Consultation Document” lays out in detail the argument for the Regional Fuel Tax. Firstly, the key point that without substantial extra new revenue, funding for transport will be limited basically to completing committed projects (like the City Rail Link), running existing services and looking after current assets.

…it is clear that without additional funding we have little ability to do anything other than projects already committed and renewals of the existing network. The baseline budget for these committed projects is approximately $9 billion for 10 years. To start delivering ATAP projects we need additional funding.

Normally we would fund this sort of investment in long-life assets from borrowing but our capacity to borrow sustainably is limited. Therefore, we need to fund this from operational sources that can both fund directly and also be leveraged to create additional borrowing capacity.

Unfortunately, the mess Auckland Transport made of the draft RLTP means that we don’t yet know where the extra $2-3 billion of spend into transport that’s supported by the Regional Fuel Tax will go. This makes the consultation process a bit weird, because at the moment the Council is asking Aucklanders to support paying an extra tax without knowing what the money will be spent on. This may mean public support for the Regional Fuel Tax is lower than it would otherwise be. Once ATAP is updated and a new Government Policy Statement (which details priorities for government’s transport spend) is released, it should be a lot clearer how important the fuel tax is.

The consultation document goes on to compare the Regional Fuel Tax with what exists at the moment – the Interim Transport Levy:

Our preferred option is a regional fuel tax. The new government has indicated it is developing legislation that would allow Auckland to introduce a regional fuel tax in 2018, of up to 10 cents per litre plus GST, for both petrol and diesel, for a period up to 10 years. The estimated revenue from a fuel tax is $130 to $150 million per annum. The combined impact of the direct fuel tax revenue, matching funding from central government, additional borrowing enabled, and infrastructure investment in greenfields areas by Crown Infrastructure Partners would enable an $11 to $12 billion transport infrastructure programme for Auckland. The additional borrowing required is not likely to be significant if the assumptions of NZTA/central government funding and additional growth infrastructure charges are met. Any additional borrowing required can be managed within our prudential borrowing limits.

Another option is to continue with a targeted rate such as the Interim Transport Levy (ITL). In 2015 we introduced the ITL for a period of three years to provide dedicated funding for additional transport projects. The ITL is a fixed amount of $114 for non- business ratepayers and $183 for business ratepayers and is due to expire at the end of June 2018. There are two issues with this option – firstly the amount of funding raised by the current ITL is still far short of what is needed to deliver a significant number of the ATAP projects (the current ITL raises $60 million per annum and would only provide sufficient funding and debt capacity for a transport investment programme of approximately $10 to $10.5 billion). Secondly, the ITL costs fall equally on all ratepayers regardless of how much they use the transport system. We don’t believe this is the fairest option going forward and would only consider extending it we were unable to implement other, fairer options. If there is any significant delay to introducing our preferred option of the regional fuel tax then we will consider continuing the ITL as a temporary measure.

A further option would be to increase general rates. This is not considered a good option because of the significance of the increase across all ratepayers that would be required (to deliver an $11 to $12 billion programme an increase of around 9-10 per cent), and the lack of transparency to the community. Like the ITL, general rates would not reflect individual ratepayers’ usage of the transport system.

We think a regional fuel tax is the fairest option. Transport users would pay according to the amount they travel (estimated to cost about $140 per year for the average household) rather than every ratepayer – some of whom may be very low users of the transport system.

Personally I think there’s a pretty strong argument for continuing the transport levy as well as introducing the Regional Fuel Tax. There are a few reasons for this

  • Aucklanders are already now accustomed to paying it and so the council are paying full political cost of bringing in fuel taxes anyway
  • The vast bulk of the ATAP funding gap will remain unfilled, even with the fuel tax in place.

But if you were to choose, the Regional Fuel Tax is better because it raises a lot more money in a way that probably more fairly reflects how much people use the transport system.

It’s a bit difficult to know exactly what projects the Regional Fuel Tax will help to fund, but looking at the project list in the draft RLTP (with a bit of guesswork around how it might be rearranged to actually reflect the Government’s and the Council’s priorities), some clear candidates appear to be:

  • The AMETI Eastern Busway, which has languished in various rounds of investigation for years now with little clear progress being made.
  • The next set of electric trains, to allow better train frequencies once City Rail Link opens.
  • A (presumably quite big) increase to safety projects.
  • Network optimisation
  • Road seal extensions
  • City centre bus improvements
  • More bus lanes
  • A (presumably much larger) cycling programme
  • The Council’s share (if there is any) of light-rail

A scenario where none of this can proceed and we are back to the $9 billion programme of current commitments and asset renewals would be a disaster for Auckland. While the government might still proceed with some of the big investments, like light-rail, there would be no money for the big changes needed to safety, cycling, bus lanes and very popular areas of investment like road seal extensions.

It seems like we can expect more consultation on the specifics of the Regional Fuel Tax, with the Long Term Plan consultation document’s section on transport ending by saying this:

There is still a high degree of uncertainty about the government’s priorities and how much flexibility the regional fuel tax legislation will allow. However, what we can say is that all funding from a regional fuel tax will be committed to transport projects and/or services and will improve the performance of Auckland’s transport network. After the ATAP review is completed in March, we will consult with you on the specific transport programme we would fund from the Regional Fuel Tax (and an assumed matching government contribution).

For now, it’s worth submitting that you support the idea of a Regional Fuel Tax – at least in principle. So far there’s a pretty narrow majority of submitters who support the Regional Fuel Tax and without it there’s no chance of making much progress at all on transport in Auckland over the next decade.

You can have your say here.

Share this


  1. I support it. But only to get the more visionary projects off the ground that will get transport to areas that don’t have that access already; LRT and cycling. More trains are great for the people who can already catch trains.

  2. What i would like to know is with all the money needed We are about to have a fuel tax what is the council thinking about the poverty factor which is going to come from this

    1. That seems a bit over the top Mike. Petrol prices fluctuate by way more than 10 cents per litre all the time, even across different suburbs.

      It will matter where the money goes though.

      1. That’s not over the top we have to think about this long and hard .People are all ready having issues making ends meet .When this fuel tax comes in everything will go up NOT JUST FUEL .You know that will affect poverty badly

        1. What would you prefer? Rates rises or motorway tolls? These were all put to the table as possible fundraisers. Rates rises was the least preferred option – given that it affects everyone including those who don’t drive. Motorway tolls (a more user pays based scheme) had more support but requires a huge investment to implement a toll network (including building many toll gantrys at on/off ramps).

        2. What would you prefer people in poverty which is what i am seeing no matter what you think putting more charges is going to do good .Its not what you will see is a unhappy Auckland .I have seen a number of projects happen in the last 3 weeks which did not need to happen .Why not look at what is currently been spent and work out what is needed and what is not .before going down the track of charging people more money

        3. There’s been some repaving going on in Pt Chev that I would much prefer to have seen delayed while the Victoria Quadrant had some maintenance or Blockhouse Bay Road has some pedestrian amenity added.

        4. Alex F, The changes to Carlisle Road and Browns Bay did not need to happen. They were not a priority for the local board but Auckland transport does what they want. I haven’t got full costs yet but looks like it will be between half a million and million dollars. Completely unnecessary since it has now made things more dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians (at the Carlisle Road end especially)

        5. To be honest, I’d expect congestion to have more impact on commodity prices than a fuel tax would.

          Congestion induced transport inefficiencies are becoming a big issue now for logistics operators. They will have to pass those costs on. Spending two hours to make a delivery that used to take 30m four years ago will cost more than a 10% increase in fuel costs. Keeping in mind that the cost of a vehicle per hour is substantially more than the cost of fuel to operate it.

          I’m not saying that there will be zero impact – Business is about extracting profit where ever you can and rising fuel costs is an area that can be used to justify price increases. I’m simply unconvinced that the actual impact (post bedding in period) will be substantial enough to worry about.

        6. That’s just concern trolling. 10k a year to keep a car on the road is going to impoverish most average earners regardless if they whack a few more cents on that planet killing shite, if you’re in a city and not a tradie there’s buggar all excuse for you to own a murder box, and you should be on a bike, in a bus, on a train, or taking shanks’ pony

        7. FRED H best you orove to everyone who is going to be hurt badly with this fuel tax .I know Poverty is going to get worse I also know that the kids are the ones who are going to get hurt the most as they will be the ones stuck at home because MUN and DAD wont have the money to pay for gas to take them out .Please explain you outrageous comments and please stop callibg people trolls as that alone shows people your a bully

        8. ‘In an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with “concerns”. The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you’re an ally. Concern trolls who use fake identities are sometimes known as sockpuppets.’
          If you honestly think egalitarian car ownership is a desirable goal for this country then that’s probably one of the reasons this country’s standard of living has dropped so markedly. But I’m sure you were aware of that with your giant ideological blindspot.

          Any structures that limit car ownership or use in an urban environment is generally a good outcome, congestion charges, fuel tax, tolls, less investment in roads, abolition of MPRs, all leads to better air, thinner waistlines, increased housing supply and less corpses being peeled off roads and bumpers. Bad outcome for the car finance industry, fuel distributors, prosthetic limb manufacturers, and those with small packages that need expensive items to compensate for lack of…character 😉

  3. They should just keep both taxes due to people’s apathy. As you say, the political cost has already been paid and most will have forgotten about it.

    As long as the money is spent well.

    On the other hand this will hit poor people much harder given that poor people live in some of the more poorly served PT areas.

    1. Your right with hitting the poor people Alex .This is going to hurt them badly in more ways then people think

      1. It’s complicated though, Mike. Poor people are especially hit by having to commute long distances from cheaper suburbs on the outskirts, to keep old cars running which takes a large chunk of their income, and by long PT trips that desperately need rapid transit improvements. At some of the Living Wage meetings I’ve been to, it’s been made quite apparent that higher wages and better worker rights are highest priority; better and cheaper public transport is next on the list.

        A fuel tax would assist people in poverty if it can be used to improve public transport and as one of several mechanisms to encourage a more dense urban form requiring less sprawl.

        1. If the fuel tax is used to improve PT in those areas that already have great PT like Newmarket, Orakei and Remuera and Mt Albert then all you will achieve is to increase the price of land in those already affluent areas. That is why it shouldn’t be used on more train services on the existing lines.

        2. Those affluent areas with good PT services should have less restrictive housing development rules -car parking minimums should be abolished, height limits raised, accessory dwelling allowed, view shaft and heritage restrictions reviewed etc. If the city has invested scarce resources on good public transport for this areas there should be a quid pro quo of more residential space be available to be built there.

        3. You’re being a bit selective there. Middlemore, Papatoetoe, Glen Innes, Manurewa and Takanini also have pretty decent PT and would benefit from an improvement to train frequencies.

        4. I am being selective. But my point is we should not support a regressive tax. If you want to change the way people travel then apply a congestion charge. Don’t increase fuel costs for everyone regardless of when the need to travel just because it is easy to get away with it.

        5. A fuel tax is appropriate from a climate change point of view though, mfwic. And in terms of reducing amenity for active modes, a congested road is foul to walk or cycle beside but a free-flowing less-congested road can be really dangerous. So there’s a cost associated with non-peak travel that needs to be captured too. It’s not all about congestion.

        6. It is Heidi but only if it were a national carbon tax. There is no case whatsoever for regional taxes to address the externalities of carbon. If you want a Pigouvian tax then it needs to be on all carbon emissions regardless of source or location of that source.
          A regional fuel tax is only justified on the crappy logic of ‘we need more money, this an easy way to raise some’.

        7. Yes, that’s probably true. Having said that, being put off walking by exhaust fumes is something that happens in cities. So there should be some way cities can capture that cost.

        8. mfwic, there is some purity of thought to your suggestion that carbon taxes should be national rather than regional. But then nations tend to argue that they should be international rather than national. Got to start somewhere and why not with the largest city in the nation? Looking at America, cities are stepping in on climate change policy, where national policy is lacking. Likewise, equity is important in taxation. But there isn’t any equity now and you can’t wait until that happens before doing anything.

        9. Heidi the more that road user charges and other appropriate infrastructure funding techniques are used, then the less requirement there is to restrict and ration housing development because car dependency/urban sprawl is not being unnecessarily subsidised. A less rationing/restrictive approach to housing will significantly lower housing costs which will have major benefits for reducing inequality and improving barriers to the labour market. For example, think how much easier Auckland schools could recruit teachers if housing costs were not an issue.

        10. Yes, Pt Chev has been in a bubbling toxic froth over the cycleway plans. Now HNZ’s resource consent application to go to 5 stories here has added fuel to the social friction here. As a woman said at a meeting yesterday “It’s horrible – neighbours are fighting it out, parents at schools aren’t talking to each other any more.” Or something to that effect.

          Those NIMBYs appalled the resource consent process might allow an extra story didn’t get up in arms whenever the resource consent process allowed a small house with one vehicle crossing to be turned into a large house with three vehicle crossings. Or the permeability rules get waiived somehow to allow a medium sized house to have garages and driveways added.

          This is all about selective criticism of the RC process to support NIMBY resistance of intensification. Wish me luck as I battle it out with one community organisation tonight.

        11. Good luck Heidi.

          Do you have a link to a page about the HNZ development?

          I really hope AT finishes the cycleway, HNZ builds the apartments, and the sky doesn’t fall in. 1,000s of people will realise how baseless the NIMBY arguments are and simply move on.

        12. Thanks, Sailor Boy and Brendon. All I have is what was circulating in the community:


          HNZ have a bigger development planned on the corner of Pt Chev Rd and GNR. The RSA also has a bigger development. And yet another development has around 100 apartments. So change is coming.

          What needs to happen at the same time is the provision of more alleyways, cycleways, small parks, and much more education about how transport, land use and lifestyle options are all interconnected.

        13. Heidi I think there is a way that an urban development authority or similar entity could create new laneways (possibly bus lanes too) through private property and provide greater housing intensification.

          What they could do is identify approximate areas where they want a new laneway -say an arterial road with good public transport but few side roads for active mode travellers to access the surrounding area.

          They could offer the neighbours in that area the possibility of joining a community land trust that has upzoning rights in exchange for gifting a laneway for public use.

          There is a discussion of how community land trusts might work in the following Twitter thread. https://twitter.com/LondonYIMBY/status/973625260615618560

        14. That looks like a rather inoffensive low rise apartment building Heidi. Especially compared to those we have to put up with closer to downtown. Where are our YIMBYs?

        15. Good question Matthew. I think Greater Auckland should organise a Yimby sub-group. A group of like minded people that could meet socially and do some advocacy work with local government and in the community promoting the building of more housing where people want to live.

        16. Brendon, I wonder if even wealthy Pt Chevies, pooling money in a trust, would “take the risk” and spend the money to build something even half as dense as the HNZ development. But the more examples we can circulate, the more people will get used to ideas like this.

          The biggest shame is that HNZ doesn’t do more, and Council doesn’t build. This is the view across Pt Chev Rd from the HNZ development, which is, incidentally, the location of much-needed alleyway to connect Pt Chev Rd through to the Walmer Rd reserves: https://www.google.com/maps/@-36.8676238,174.7081417,3a,75y,41.89h,80.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sQICWG45MJ7Fb8yoeZSCYRw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

          At least one of the single storey houses along here is not even occupied, some are poorly maintained. I’d imagine there’s a fair bit of land-banking going on. Given both the need for alleyways and housing, some sort of pressure needs to be put on the landlords along here. The most obvious one to me would be Council buying up properties to build apartments and to create the linkages. And some green stormwater infra while they’re at it…

        17. Looks like a really nice development in a really nice area. Looking forward to seeing it built.

        18. Heidi the PT Chev existing property owners might take the risk of a joint development scheme if there was a guaranteed buyer, which KiwiBuild would be and if they got good architectural advise from say a Urban Development Authority.

          Of course it would all depend on the case by case specifics. It might not work in PT Chev but I think it would work in some places in Auckland.

        19. Re YIMBY ideas, Brendon: I wonder if there is a YIMBY organisation along the same lines as: ttp://www.bikeswelcome.org/ Or if there could be one?

          Organisations, businesses and individuals could register as YIMBY, supportive of a set of stated development concepts, and promote it in their literature / shopfront / whatever.

        20. Heidi each YIMBY group seems to quite specific to its own country/city -although they seem to have common themes -advocating for more houses where people want to live in a open, constructive, inclusive… manner.

          I definitely think Bikes Welcome could be a model for NZ. There would be a huge overlap in common interests between advocating for better cycling solutions and advocating for more cycle/active transport centric housing solutions.

          I would be happy to help out in any way I can. Although I am not Auckland based. GA can give out my email if needed.

        21. Hi Heidi
          Some of what you have said is true .But some of what you said is pure force .PT is been forces on people in Auckland it is clear to see that fact .The problem is when you put the cost of using PT everyday you will find that it is cheaper to use a car .One thing I have found in NZ people love there cars and you will be hard pushed to get them onto PT .With the remark about old crappy cars sadly we don’t see to many of these on the road now days .I have had people turn up to my company wanting work and some of the story’s we have been told is amazing .One guy who I employed works 2 jobs to make ends meet he said yesterday he was thinking of moving out of Auckland as it was getting to expensive to live in this city .I do think At should look long and hard at what they are spending money on .As we have seen a number of projects which are not needed on roads that are fantastic before they come along and ripped them up .Then we see circles been placed on a back street in Auckland which is failing badly .A number of people just don’t understand why we are expected to pay rates for works that are clearly going to cost much needed money in other areas

        22. Two things wrong with what you said:
          “The problem is when you put the cost of using PT everyday you will find that it is cheaper to use a car”. Not necessarily, the cost of private car use certainly decreases with more occupants but the reality is most (approximately 80%) is single occupancy. There is more hidden costs that people do not consider when driving, other than petrol and parking, such as depreciation, insurance, maintenance and regulatory costs. The IRD calculates the true cost of private car use as 77c per kilometre.

          “One thing I have found in NZ people love there cars”. That doesn’t mean we want to use them for every single journey. Nobody likes getting stuck in congestion and generally people take a car where other methods are too far out of reach. Anyone would be made to drive from Mt Albert to the city for a 9-5 job that they don’t need a vehicle for any other purpose.

        23. Yes there’s definitely a strange disconnect between what roadworks need to be done and what roadworks get done.

          It might be worth both of us looking up how women in poverty travel, and how men in poverty travel. My experience has been in what women do. Caregivers at resthomes, for example, disproportionately use PT. Sounds like your experience might be more in what men do. And of course, both matter.

          I’m not quite sure what you mean when you say that some of what I said is pure force, but I quite like it. 🙂

        24. There’s also a hidden cost of PT: Time. That’s often what makes the car cheaper. If the bus is going to get stuck in the same traffic as you are then why bother? Less mucking around at each end too.

        25. And what the mucking around looks like? Some of my quality reading or “me” time happens at bus stops… 🙂

        26. Well, for me to get to my desk at my normal start time using PT, Google suggests I leave at about 11:30pm the previous day and walk most of the way. Lots of me time, but not much opportunity to read in the middle of the night 😉

        27. I TOTALY understand what your saying for me to get to work i leave at 4.30 am .If o don’t i get stuck in traffic and the worst thin is their is no PT scalable that gets me to my place of employment

        28. Mind my grammer i am.on my phone ans sometimes my dam fingers are to dam big for the key board

        29. No problem about grammar, Mime, we all slip up with swipe and auto-correct, too. Indeed, it’s often quite funny what pops out by mistake.

          Yes, trying to provide a PT network that actually works for all users is a goal of this site. There was a post recently that discussed how AT extending the hours of the day that PT was available had a better return on investment than most things they might consider, and lots of people here are arguing that they do so.

        30. Good morning to you Hidi .
          With the trains which head out west at night They are empty for the best part of the night .I don’t think that service is value for money to say the truth.

        31. Top of the morning to you too Mike. Are you enjoying the cloud formations? Beautiful colours just before, too.

          The point is not to look at individual services, but the whole network. If you provide the services that mean people can return home later, they don’t have to take the car in the morning. And if they can get to an early shift by PT then they’ll take it home during the afternoon, whereas before they’d have had to take the car for both trips. And if they don’t have their car with them during the day, they use PT to do errands at lunch time, not the car.

          I think the BCR for this was shown to be quite impressive, better than improving bus frequencies at this stage! If I get a chance later I’ll try to dig it out – of course, if someone else has it at their fingertips, please put a link! Cheers.

        32. Can I also say Heidi, I’m a huge motorsport fan but sitting in congestion for an hour each day is hugely frustrating and I’m militantly in favour of the CFN being set up and implemented on a massively compressed time frame. Just show us what we’re getting, send us the bill and get on with it.

        33. Mike I have to agree with Heidi about the late trains. For many people those late trains are essential to making public transport a possible commuting option. For several months I was relying on the 22:35 Southern line train out from Newmarket as my only way to get home after work. If those late services didn’t operate, I would have been forced to drive a car in to town every day, pay huge amounts for parking, etc.

    2. Poor people are less likely to even own a car and drive less. So I would expect it to be broadly progressive but there will be some people more affected than others

      1. Are you certain that poor people are less likely to own a car and drive less? I wonder if there are stats available on car dependency and how it varies across Auckland?

        My suspicion is that the poor are more car-dependent, not less, and more susceptible to car-related costs. It’s not just about lower PT frequencies and higher fares, although they don’t help, but also different journey to work patterns that often don’t fit the standard 9-5 CBD-based model.

        1. I don’t have any data to back it up but my guess would be that more well off people would use their car for non-work purposes more, which would likely mean they use cars overall more.

  4. Fully support the fuel tax and have already made my submission to the council.

    This was something the previous Labour government established in Auckland in order to improve transport infrastructure and it was wrongfully rescinded by National. The National party (in particular Judith Collins) is still opposed to the fuel tax because it doesn’t comply with their preference that the National Land Transport Fund (contributed by fuel excise and ruc) should be spent only on roads.

    1. Alex your sentence is accidentally deceptive “National Land Transport Fund (contributed by fuel excise and ruc) should be spent only on roads.”

      The reality is the road network used by private motorised vehicles (not the footpath’s, cycle-lanes and bus lanes part of right of way network) is not fully funded by the National Land Transport fund (which has contributions from fuel taxes, vehicle registration charges and road user charges).

      The Land Transport Fund only pays for the following parts of the road network -100% of State Highways and approximately 50% of local roads. Ratepayers pay the remaining 50%. So private motor vehicle use of public road network is being subsidised to a significant degree by ratepayers. Other transport modes are also being subsidised by local authorities and central government on a case by case basis.

      In effect the degree of subsidy of private motorised vehicle use versus other transport modes is decided in a cost sharing agreement between local and central government, by agreeing on what roads are state highways and what percentage of local road costs will be funded from the Land Transport Fund.

      The regional fuel tax allows some local variation in an otherwise nation system of transport mode subsidy rates. This will allow Auckland and other highly urbanised areas (if they get regional fuel taxes too) to transition faster to a multi-modal transport system whilst allowing other regions (rural local authorities) to remain automobile centric.

  5. I wish in that little video that they didn’t pave over more land for the active and PT infrastructure. We don’t have that land. Our road corridors can’t be widened further. I think clarity would’ve been better here: showing congested roads reallocated to PT and active modes.

  6. The only problem with a fuel tax is that increasingly there are more and more EV/HEV/PHEV as well as vehicles becoming more and more efficient – a lot of new car models now use half the fuel that the same model from 10 years ago did (thanks mostly to vastly improved gear boxes and direct injection).
    It also penalises vehicles that use a lot more fuel (which isn’t necessarily a bad thing from an emissions standpoint, but that vehicle might travel half the distance of another and pay more fuel tax).

    That said it is needed and I support it.

    I think what the council should really do is on the date the fuel tax is implemented drop the prices on HOP fares by around $0.10 and promote it – saying hey it’s going to get more expensive to drive but PT is already cheaper and we are going to make it even better by making it cheaper!)

    1. I love the idea of reducing HOP fares. I think that they should drop even more for zone 3 outwards. Having said that, we’d need to remove/de-emphasize the 50% farebox recovery target first.

      RE fuel efficiency, yeah I’m still amazed by how much more efficient my current car is, compared to one I had that was ten years older. City driving ~750 – 800KM range vs ~450KM with the same size tank but a much more powerful engine. Lower emissions too.

      Regarding the fuel tax – My next car will be electric. I’ve succeeded in talking my partner around to the benefits. With regard to the impact on fuel tax, I don’t see that as being a problem. If the fuel tax incentivises people to use more energy efficient vehicles, switch to electric or simply travel less – That’s a good thing.

      It does highlight that we need more tools to provide funding though. I guess that’s where congestion charging is supposed to assist, however it’s going to have to be practical a _lot_ sooner than 2028!

      Personally, I’m tempted to design an ANPR system in my spare time just so that I can provide AC/AT with a reason to hassle the govt. Not too bad on pricing, I imagine 100 cameras plus back-end coming in at about 500K – 1M capex, with opex (sans-labour) being around 50-100k per annum.

    2. Agree, AKLDUDE. The idea of using the fuel tax to reduce other sources of income is absurd, as it would cut out the opportunity of reducing PT fares.

    1. If you toll the motorways you’d have to toll any parallel network of local roads. Or – even better – disconnect them to allow permeability for active modes. This is one of the “sounds good but rarely enacted” principles of AT. The following image is from their Urban Street and Road Design Guide and shows how walking needs to be possible everywhere, cycling most places, then buses and then cars. Looking forward to seeing this happen on the ground, AT:


    2. It’s not a win-win if you don’t have access to frequent public transport, is it? In fact it is just an extra charge on those without public transport who already face massively higher transit costs. Fuel taxes are regressive in Auckland.

        1. Good question Heidi, I think it needs to be treated by government as a strategic major project, a bit like the Think Big projects back in the 1980’s, except based on CO2 reduction rather than fuel independence.

          We have under-invested for so long now that the funding required to fix this and to reduce to zero carbon is probably way beyond what a council can realistically generate. It is genuinely of national significance.

        2. Yes. Sad thing is we’ll probably see attempts at this. When it’s all too late to reduce the misery…

      1. Who are the people who don’t have access to public transport to get to the CBD? Maybe some hospo or service roles during the night?

        1. They’re easy to find I think. I’d include everyone who has an hour plus trip, who has to take say three separate buses, who has long gaps between services, and who pays high public transport fares such as in our outer suburbs.

          There was a map a while back showing the catchment of people who leave within 15 minutes of the rapid transit network – from memory it included less than half of the city. I think it would be fair enough for them to pay the fuel tax as they are already benefiting the most from PT. I’m trying to avoid the situation where those with the poorest public transport end up paying the most for it (on top of $5-10k a year in extra car costs)

  7. Totally agree need the fuel tax. I don’t mind still paying the Interim Transport Levy as well & I think most people won’t remember they are still paying it but I agree with Phil Goff who said, if IIRC, that extending that levy would be: “in extreme bad faith when it was sold as a temporary measure until the council was able to implement a regional fuel tax.”

  8. Hmmmm….

    The AMETI Eastern Busway – don’t live there, won’t use it
    The next set of electric trains – don’t live near the lines – won’t need to use it
    A (presumably quite big) increase to safety projects – possibly use these – but these should be funded as priority
    Network optimisation – which network/s?
    Road seal extensions – really??? Where in Auckland other than very remote roads
    City centre bus improvements – don’t use them
    More bus lanes – don’t use them
    A (presumably much larger) cycling programme – don’t cycle… no point
    The Council’s share (if there is any) of light-rail – really… don’t live near the proposed lines, won’t use them…

    So why am I paying for this again??

    1. What do you use? And who’s paying for that?

      And you’re paying for the things you listed, um, how? Using fuel? That fuel which is the world’s capital, and you’re using it as if it is income? Ummm…

      1. He does kind of raise a point; It’s a bit shit to expect people in places like West Auckland to pay for stuff with a fuel tax but then to not given them any practical alternative to drive and just let them sit there burning more fuel in gridlock. Farm the whole lot into regional LRT, not just isthmus lines IMO.

        1. West Auckland is the single biggest benefactor of the CRL, I don’t think they have much to complain about.

        2. And one of the most likely projects to be accelerated is the NW busway/LRT. The west probably gets the best deal, though there is something for everyone, especially with a regional cycle network.

        3. I’m sure people in Huapai will be postively delighted with all the extra services they’ll get. Meanwhile on the Northwestern, after years of congestion from roadworks, the half-arsing of the NW upgrade results in bedlam. You are welcome to come and tell those of spending 40 mins getting from Waterview to Lincoln Road how lucky we are; I am sure it will be well received.

        4. I’ll give you a hint: If train services were viable options for people, don’t you think they’d be using them already? Or are we just voluntarily spending hours a week in congestion for the fun of it?

        5. You got any further information on this, Sailor Boy: “And one of the most likely projects to be accelerated is the NW busway/LRT. ”

          I’ve been hearing otherwise. What’s the real story, AT?

        6. So are you complaining that west Auckland will have to pay a regional fuel tax to build the public transport that hey would need to avoid paying a fuel tax.

          That’s circular logic which traps us in the status quo. Surely it is better to pay a fuel tax that will help to fund options to avoid that fuel tax in the future, rather than sitting on congested roads forever?

        7. I have no problem with paying extra to get access to new infrastructure. None whatsoever. But claiming that everyone can benefit from the CRL simply because there is a West Auckland line (regardless of access) is incredibly dismissive. And in the absence of firm commitment to LRT, I remain unconvinced.

        8. Heidi, Greens and Labour campaigned on the NW busway and LRT and it is a priority for Phil Goff. the Government Policy Statement (GPS) and ATAP 2 are likely to have it as Priority 3 or 4 (AMETI, CRL, and Airport LRT higher)

          AT’s draft RLTP is trash and will be thrown out, councilors have already indicated that they won’t support anything like it.

          What makes you think that it is a lower priority?

          @BW, I really think your argument is disingenuous. Yes, of course some people benefit more from infrastructure, just because it isn’t your turn *right now* doesn’t mean that you won’t get indirect benefit, or that you won’t have your turn eventually.

        9. If you are talking about Huapai and the North-west then that is a fair concern. Not sure why you chose to refer to the broader West Auckland, I guess it helps exaggerate the area of concern.

        10. Sailor Boy: It is no less disingenuous than implying because a rail line is named something that the entire region can access it or that is a realistic option. Like I say, happy to chip in, but it would be nice to get even a firm commitment out of it first. I don’t think that’s asking too much at all.

        11. Jezza: To respond meaningfully: You don’t have to go very far up the NW to find places where you’re looking at a 90 minute door to door commute on PT, unfortunately; it’s not a point that really needs exaggerating.

        12. Thank you for clarifying, I didn’t get that argument from your original posts. I agree that it would be preferable to have a list of accelerated projects before we decide on this.

        13. SB – If LR was coming, I would expect there would be a planned land-use change for a particular piece of land necessary to the infrastructure. Yet no land-use change is planned there for 10 years. And no light rail is on the horizon. So says one AT silo, to another who needs the information for what they’re doing.

          Hence my conclusion that LR on the NW has slipped in priority. Alternatively, it could just be that those with the information like to hold it close.

        14. AT aren’t leading the NW rapid transit project anymore.

          There is no land use change (I assume you mean NOR or designation), because the project is in the business case stage. Priority projects still have to go through a process, the process is just accelerated.

        15. It’s beneficiary, not benefactor.

          The benefactor is the one who provides the benefits, not receives them.

        16. I’m not sure where you get your information Heidi, but AT/NZTA is currently working on the notice of requirement for the Northwest rapid transit. The designation will be sufficient to cover both bus and light rail (they have a very similar footprint).

        17. I’m talking about adjacent land. Based on what you’ve said I think there could have been a bit more information forthcoming then… Thanks for this, SB and Nick R. Are you able to give an idea of time frames? Could be very useful. Ta.

        18. Not sure what you mean then? There’s a huge expansion of the urban boundary across Westgate, Whenuapai and Kumeu, and massive intensification allowed between Westgate and the city under the Unitary Plan…

    2. Apparently you are a non-cycling resident of the north shore, why did the region pay for your road upgrades on Albany Highway, why will they pay for the new bus station at Rosedale?

  9. Hang on a minute. If I use the council thing to calculate new rates for 2018 with all the extra targeted rates loaded on I get this based on the house I just sold.

    Total current rates (2017/2018)
    Change in existing rates
    Removal of interim transport levy
    Proposed water quality rate
    Proposed natural environment rate (low or high option)
    $23 or $53
    Rodney Local Board transport targeted rate
    Total estimated rates for 2018/2019
    $2,739 or $2,768
    Total estimated rates change from current rates
    $460 or $489

    And on top of that a 10c/ltr fuel tax.

    1. It’s great that rural residents are getting charged their fair share for transport as their costs are so much higher than urban residents.

      1. +1 Thing is that “fair share” is still likely a smaller proportion of what it really costs in rural areas. In saying that, I don’t mind subsiding rural people as they often create food for us city folk & their roads provide a nice weekend drive for us to escape to.

        1. But you’ve absolutely no evidence of a subsidy.
          That aside, what’s with all the other charges? Do I really have to pay to clean up the shit that flows into your harbours every time it rains cause you’ve ignored it for so long? Fuck that.

        2. Same with your unsealed roads. Do I really have to pay to seal them cause you’ve ignored it for so long? Fuck that.

    2. And they’re all because the wrong decisions regarding land use, transport, respect for our waterways and environment have been made for so long. Some of those decisions simply being in order to keep rates low. At some stage, it’ll always come back to bite you on the bottom.

    3. Tony you’re pretty unlucky with such a big general rates increase. Your property must have gone up heaps in value.

  10. A city has to be alive, to live, breathe and grow. We all need to contribute, to make the city healthy and accessible for all. Without public transport we will quickly find ourselves living in a polluted, gridlocked and unhappy city which will be no place for people to live and kids to grow up.

  11. Electric cars, hybrids and efficient new cars will pay less than cheaper older less efficient cars. This tax isn’t progressive but perhaps does increase safety of the fleet and improve emissions.
    The following could be fairer:
    – vehicle sales tax (% of sale price paid as tax as part of change of ownership, stamp duty)
    – annual ownership tax based on vehicle age (increase rego cost, with newer cars paying more)
    – congestion charging

    1. Congestion and fuel tax will achieve the same aim – impossible to avoid, and if you are going to contribute to congestion, at least there is an incentive to do it an environmentally friendly way.

      I’m not a fan of taxing vehicles simply for existing.

      1. The production of the cars was never taxed sufficiently for the resource used, so there is a good basis for it…

  12. “Secondly, the ITL costs fall equally on all ratepayers regardless of how much they use the transport system.”

    Yet they propose replacing this unfair system with an even unfairer one. Under the proposed replaced one, cyclists, pedestrians and PT users will cease paying the ITL whilst motorists will pay more than the ITL.

    Which is why the next change of government will reverse this new arrangement yet again.

    Instead of mucking around with something that won’t survive the next change of government, they should be looking at establishing a sustainable and fair funding arrangement that ALL transport users contribute to.

    1. “cyclists, pedestrians and PT users will cease paying the ITL whilst motorists will pay more than the ITL.”

      Perfect, those who need the least spending contribute the least. Those who require expensive infrastructure pay the most.

      1. I am a motorist. AT provides no PT for me or my family or my neighbours. AT’s journey planner software rather sarcastically suggests that because they cannot provide any journey suggestions I need to change the starting address.

        The existing (road) infrastructure is fine for us and we don’t require any additional infrastructure at all. We do not experience any congestion. The bits I use require maintenance but that is overwhelmingly due to heavy vehicle damage…but we will pay your tax.

        Can you perhaps explain why you believe that our “costs are so much higher than urban residents”?

        1. I suppose, MFD, that this regional fuel tax gets your support? Neighbours of yours may indeed drive long distances, for which they will be taxed. You, however, don’t, so you won’t be paying the tax. Far better this way than increasing the transport levy. which would have you and your neighbour presumably paying the same.

        2. I was going to say that I am ambivalent but on reflection I am against it.
          Auckland Council state that the tax will enable them to invest in measures that will reduce congestion. This is, of course, false.

        3. Well congestion is like an infection, it spreads and intensifies and throbs for longer each day. I think we all realise here that you can’t get rid of congestion. I’d say more specifically you can’t reduce its intensity on one particular arterial road. Not sure that local roads can’t be cured of it. Nor that the congested period of the day can’t be shortened. When cities remove a highway and there is traffic evaporation in the area, some of that transfers to less congestion in the vicinity.

          Either that or what the Council have said is total bollocks. Either way, that’s not a reason not to support it. The decision for me comes down to whether it’s more equitable or if it will have a positive influence on travel behaviour.

          Or do you think what they say is false because they won’t do the investing?

        4. Hi Heidi ,The council will always look at ways of extracting money from the rate payer and now the car owners .At present The city as a whole are expected to pay the billions out for the new Rail tunnel which some say is not going to end after its built .While this is happening we are seeing projects like the circles which are been placed on roads on the inner city Which may look good at the time they are placed but sadly have no safety benefits what so Eva to the users .Most think as I do what a total waste of money . The council have options which are clearly not been looked at or over looked totally as to saving money .Take the cycle way markings for one we as contractors are expected to charge the main contractor around $40 per sqm for the greening then that main contractor clips the ticket and charges the council in some cases $55 per sqm .When you look at the amount of this greening happening you will see the savings to the council are huge in this area .And would guarantee that the quality of workmanship would go up majorly .
          These days the councils around the country hand all the work to a maintenance contractor who is running to the bank while the citys are running to the people of the city to pay for all this work

        5. “but sadly have no safety benefits what so Eva to the users”

          Except for the documented safety effects of traffic calming.

        6. Actually Mike PT charges people to use it, and active transport requires frequent human sacrifice by the users to appease the car gods, so I believe the charges are greater for those groups. Just to add, how much in regards to infrastructure has the car brigade had spent on them over the past 60 years? Some tens of billions I would guess, but that’s probably a bit on the low side, that’s not to mention the approximately $1 billion(at least) every year that the social costs of cars striking humans incur on the citizens of Auckland. In all fairness they should get no more than 20% of the transport budget being spent on them considering they are only one of five main modes(trains, buses, walking, cycling) that a city should provide to maximise efficiency of space and movement.

        7. “Or do you think what they say is false because they won’t do the investing?”

          It’s false because they spending that they will undertake will not reduce congestion as they claim. In fact several of their claims are bizarre and misleading:

          “We think a regional fuel tax is the fairest option. Transport users would pay according to the amount they travel (estimated to cost about $140 per year for the average household) rather than every ratepayer – some of whom may be very low users of the transport system.”

          Do they really think that the “transport system” is roads+private vehicles? Surely some mistake!

          I respond to a reasoned appeal rather than claims that trigger my BS detector (and Auckland Council is notable for that). Such a reasoned appeal would go something like this:

          We need more money to do transport projects. We promised not to raise rates beyond a certain limit so we are going to impose a fuel tax. We haven’t decided exactly what we are going to spend it on but it won’t decrease congestion.

          On receipt of such an argument I would reluctantly agree to it (in spite of the fact that none of the spend would benefit me , my family or my neighbours).

          Why reluctantly? Because there is a much broader issue to be addressed; the fact that nationally around 50% of roading costs are met from rates. For many local bodies these costs are a major proportion of their budget. Which parties impose the bulk of these costs? Heavy vehicle operators.

          What is AC’s approach to this issue? It’s to mollycoddle and encourage them. Let’s look at a couple of examples:

          Last month AC approved Fulton Hogan’s application to expand operation of their McNicoll Road quarry near Clevedon to permit up to 90 truck movements per hour along country roads (including a one-way bridge). 50% of the roading costs of that truck traffic will be borne by Auckland ratepayers.

          More generally, when the HPMV legislation was introduced enabling longer and heavier trucks what did AC do? Caved in to government pressure and spent up on strengthening bridges to enable the trucking companies to cut their costs. Again, 50% met by ratepayers.

          Back to Clevedon: AC recently allowed development of a 350 site “canal” development near the mouth of the Wairoa River (in contravention of many of their stated objectives in the “rural” section of their plan), thus ensuring that they will need to spend up on North Road.

          Over now to Glenbrook Beach where 3 years ago AC approved the development of 800 house sites on onion fields at the end of a dead-end road out of reach of any of their transport projects. These sites are advertised as being “an easy 67 km commute to the CBD”.

          In short, AC by their decisions (which frequently are in contravention of their own plan) impose unreasonable transport-related costs on ratepayers. When they stop doing that I will be more receptive to their requests for more money. Less of their adspeak bullshit would also make me more receptive.

        8. The increase in truck vkt as shown by Auckland traffic models indicated to me that we need to do something to reduce it. Others seemed to think any planning that increased it was a boost to the economy. Now the damage to roads by heavy trucks is happening even on the suburban local roads, and the danger to residents is huge. So yes, this is head in sand stuff. And honesty would be nice. I’m just not sure what we should do.

        9. “Can you perhaps explain why you believe that our “costs are so much higher than urban residents”?”

          Because maintenance alone for rural roads is usually more than the entire transport component of rates for rural properties. Have a look at Banks Peninsula DC. Almost went bankrupt and had to get merger back into Christchurch City to subsidise maintenance of their rural roads.

        10. Hi Sailor boy Have a look at what the council have been charged to do this works .You might get a shock to see the price for the same job in the city is much cheaper you are getting charged for travel and if a sub contractor is doing the works in your area your getting charged there rate plus the clipping of the ticket .Also when a sub contractor is doing works and they need to get product from a main contractor this is been charged out at a much higher rate .it all about making money .WE are all screwed by what we call the top 5 these are the big contractors who hold a monopoly over the market .Mate we get screwed every-time we do works for these company’s

        11. Are you really suggesting that rural car drivers are the cause of these maintenance costs? Really? Take a look at the fourth power law for axle loading as pertains to wear in flexible paving. Calculate the ratio of wear between a loaded 50 tonne 5 axle truck and the car of your despised rural resident. Here’s a reference to help you with your calculations:


          For the archetypal commuter car let’s use a Toyota Corolla with a 600 kg axle load:

          Extra marks if you show your workings.

        12. OK so better planning should reduce trucking. The cost of maintaining roads needs to be put far more onto the vehicles that cause it. Congestion from all vehicles needs to be priced. The relationship between rural and urban needs to be considered in a holistic light. Here, and at Council. PT, active infra, and rail freight need to be funded and improved so the carrot is established before the stick is wielded. There is fairness in a fuel tax, just as in any carbon or pollution tax. And poverty needs to be tackled independently. Considerations of poverty should not be used as an excuse to continue poor pricing mechanisms.

          As for what the first steps to take are, in a political and social environment of vested interests, lobby groups, high accident rates and disconnected populations?

          I’d say, huge education programmes. If the discussions I’ve been having are anything to go by, most people are understanding just one piece of the puzzle.

        13. The increase in truck vkt as shown by Auckland traffic models indicated to me that we need to do something to reduce it”.”

          AC is actively promoting it. Here’s a gem of a document in which AC actively supports expansion of quarry operations within the AC region:


          They acknowledge that it will lead to significantly higher road maintenance costs:

          “Brookby quarry is the most recent quarry in Auckland to propose a major expansion, and as a result it is also the quarry on which Auckland Transport has the most information .The rural local roads surrounding Brookby quarry are not designed to a standard to carry high proportions quarry truck loadings. The degrading effects on these roads are significant and are projected to halve their 25 year design life before needing to be renewed again. It costs $750,00013 per km to renew a local road across its 25 year life where a local road is not being subjected to a high proportion of quarry truck loadings. The road will last its intended 25 year life cycle. By comparison, Auckland Transport’s Sothern Road Corridor Manager has projected that the
          renewal costs (attached) for the roads surrounding Brookby quarry will increase significantly to $2,250,000 per km over 25 years. This is approximately $37.5 million of additional renewal costs if we include the 20km of road (within a 10km radius) surrounding Brookby quarry that are used heavily by quarry truck traffic.”

          So…they support expansion of quarry traffic and acknowledge that it will lead to a large increase in road maintenance costs. But wait., dear reader, there is more:

          “Auckland Transport’s allocation of funding from NZTA
          NZTA allocated $1.28 billion to Auckland Transport during the 2012-15 NLTP period
          Auckland Transport’s road maintenance and renewal expenditure for the same period was approximately $783 million ($261 million per year) of which NZTA contributed approximately $254 million ($84 million per year).The $529 million shortfall was funded primarily by Council rates.”

          It seems that 69% (!) of our road maintenance costs in Auckland are borne by the ratepayers..and AC wants to hand a big subsidy to quarry opearators and then has the temerity to ask us for more money for their transport projects?

          But wait, there’s STILL more…

          Ports of Auckland (fully owned by AC) operate a breakbulk terminal on the Waitemata harbour. It used to be rail-served but some stupid tossers decided to remove the rail. New Zealand Steel imports coal from Indonesia and trucks it to their mill at Glenbrook. It takes plenty of trucks to move a shipload of coal. Each truck fully loaded traverses around 22 km of local roads…all because there is around 400m of rail missing. Trucking is cheaper because we, the ratepayers subsidise the trucking companies big time. Thanks, Auckland Council.

          Perhaps now you can see that when Auckland Council asks me to help out with their transport projects I am sorely tempted to give them advice regarding sex and travel.

          …and don’t get me started on their rural plan.

  13. It should be user pays so it should just be the regional fuel tax. Ratepayers already pay too much towards transport and road users too little.

    Most of the additional expenditure will go on improving the network capacity. The cross subsidy for PT expansion is justified on the basis that there is no congestion tolling.

    Anyway, implementing congestion tolling would be far better than the regional fuel tax & it would spread out the needed expenditure & be direct user pays by those using the network in peak times. It’s implementation is many years too late.

  14. There are many issues with a fuel tax, I for one will rarely pay it as I normally fuel up outside of Auckland. Unless other regions implement a similar tax there will be widespread ‘leakage’.

    A fuel tax does little to reduce pollution and may increase it unless is accompanied by an increase in road user charges to stop people moving to diesel.

    A better option would be to increase the existing national fuel tax and road user charges and use the increase to fully fund expenditure on roads, rail and public transport. It would be cheaper and easier to implement.

    Personally I would prefer a dollar a litre increase on petrol and 2 dollars on diesel which might a real impact on pollution over all of New Zealand.

    If the government is serious in its talk of zero emissions the move to non-polluting vehicles will have to occur quickly, Other governments are moving to ban diesel and eventually petrol cars.

    The rich will move to Teslas and the like sooner rather than later, particularly as they can use a number of special lanes when in an electric vehicle. As has been already pointed out the proposed tax is focused on the poor who have older vehicles and often cannot use public transport.

    The fuel tax is a tax with a limited life span, for yesterdays people.

      1. Person that moans about being called a concern troll, trolls someone by dismissing their argument by saying that they must be on drugs, great counterargument there, wouldn’t want to be self-reflective now would we 😉

        1. Hi Fred
          as in the past when a number of people comment on these pages there are a number who disagree with that person start call people trolls mate .My issue some of these people like myself have a strong argument on the subject.what ends up happening is the people who get called trolls end up been bullied badly not a nice thing to happen Fred

        2. No Mike, being held accountable for your position is not bullying, that’s called being butthurt due to being called out on unjustifiable garbage, i.e. trying to claim a car is some kind of human need(such as water, food and shelter) and attaching it to poverty qualifies as concern trolling, refer to the definition I have provided in an earlier comment. Your arguments aren’t strong either but more likely strongly held as you have most likely invested a lot of social, financial, and possibly political capital in your defence of the automobile and its pseudo-legal requirement for any individual to access the dominant transport network of this country and particularly Auckland. Of course holding this position means you have to ignore or minimise the social costs(deaths, injuries, obesigenic environment creation, air pollution, emission contribution) financial costs(taxpayer and ratepayer costs, cost of owning and operating a car, subsidies from other avenues) and the huge neglect of any member of society that can’t access automobiles independently(the physically disabled, the blind, epileptics, anyone under the age of 16 and most people over the age of 85, and of course anyone poor enough to not have a spare $8000-$10000 needed per year to run a car). Fortunately I haven’t drunk the koolaid on the alleged brilliance of the private motor vehicle and its infrastructure in the urban setting, just doesn’t really stack up in regards to moving enough people, providing enough housing, value for money, maintennance costs, addressing poverty or safety for users and non-users. I think a more nuanced approach, similar to what we have with aircraft or firearms would be better suited to addressing the needs of the most, for the least amount of money… 😉
          And nice to see you addressing your friends little bit of trolling, how very consistent of you 🙂

        3. My comments are strong Fred and i can tell you we have all ready had pricing for the new transport charges form our factory if the 10 cents a lt fuel comes in and i can say everything is going to go up and people are going to get hurt Fred .I am sorry but that is cold hard facts and we cant get away from that

        4. What will happen when people get taxed not just a little bit for fuel, but for all their carbon use and for all their pollution, Mike?

  15. Actually facts require evidence Mike, citations and references, not just opinion and rhetoric repeatedly bashed on the keyboard. Fact: almost 400 people a year die on our roads, 12000 injured, costs $4 billion annually, from NZTA website.

    1. The facts are clear to see .The public of Auckland don’t need to look at the pumped up figures that have been place in front of them .The cold hard facts are money is been spent on projects that are not needed and not a requirement and Auckland city council are wanting more money while we see these projects going ahead Come on have a good look at what is been spent and how to save money first stop putting works out to maintenance contractors and start saving money by going straight to the contractors who are doing the works stop the clipping of the ticket which is what is present now you will see that we don’t need as much as you first thought

      1. So no counterarguments for anything I’ve written, nor have you provided any references or sources for your ‘facts’ which merely makes them Mike’s opinions on rinse and repeat. So with nothing to add to the debate Mike it’s merely a desperate and sad defence on your behalf of the status quo and some arbitrary commodities that for some strange reason you consider sacrosanct. Therefore this fuel tax is really a brilliant idea for getting some much needed PT infrastructure up and running while applying a user pays approach to vehicles operating on a congested inefficient road network in an urban setting…happy days 😉

      2. Which are the pumped up figures? “The cold hard facts are” … we’ve spent money on the wrong things for decades. Of course poor decisions are still being made now. But as individuals we can’t micromanage. All we can do is encourage moving in the right direction. And that direction has to be people-centred and sustainable.

  16. I may have missed it somewhere, but does anyone know if the government has committed to give the extra 1.5c GST take to Auckland Council/AT as well?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.