4 ms·

It's also incorrect to compare this bike path, which seems to be more expensive than most, to the average road cost. I quoted several road projects which were m

It's also incorrect to compare this bike path, which seems to be more expensive than most, to the average road cost. I quoted several road projects which were much more expensive than average. Is the average comparison price comparison more like 30x? If so, that's what you would expect for 3% of the population, yes? > Cost per actual trip is what matters. Then work out and present the numbers, rather than feelings. Every person biking is a car off the road, and the car on the road requires a LOT more space than a bike. Bikes also take far less space to store, so you don't need a much space dedicated to parking instead of housing or businesses. Your secondary effects should include reduced pollution (EVs don't have exhaust, but still release tire/brake particulates) and improved general health (by people biking instead of driving). Try digging up the planning study which justified this work, and see what it reports. That should include the "rationally acknowledged" details you seek. > You are trying to imply that the difference between $750 and $317 is free money not paid for by Christchurch tax payers. No, I was pointing out that your math - "that is $750 per person" - is wrong. If that simple calculation is wrong, how well can you/I trust your analysis?

robocat 3y ago
You're off on some other tangents... The government money for the cycle lanes comes mostly from car and fuel taxes: https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/national-land-transport-programme/2021-24-nltp/facts-and-figures/ https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/national-la... Roads are mostly paid for by car users - so their relative expense is fucking irrelevant. It is perfectly valid to complain about the costs of cycle lanes when they are being paid for by people that are not using them. Sure non-cyclists do get some benefits - but nowhere near the amount that non-cyclists are paying. I couldn't find any figures on cross-regional tax imbalances. But as a first estimate I think it is fair to assume Christchurch government taxes are approximately the same as government expenditure on Christchurch. Not quite right e.g. we hear a lot of complaints that Auckland roading infrastructure is subsidised by the rest of the country. I'm only quoting public info - this is not an area I care that much about. I'm just interested in some estimates given the issues I perceive around the city.
- eesmith 3y ago
  > The government money for the cycle lanes comes mostly from car and fuel taxes: My experience from the US is no doubt leading me astray. However, you have mischaracterized your source. It says "Revenue in the NLTF comes from two main sources – fuel taxes and road user charges." The entry for "Road user charges (net)" says "$6 billion End customers of freight carriers in the prices paid for goods and services. Light diesel vehicle owner payments." It does not give a breakdown for just cars, and even people without a car pay for goods and services which are transported over roads. Furthermore, the National Land Transport Fund is not the only organization which funds roads. It took a while to find it, but I see that "Council receive Transport related revenue from several operating streams. These are rates, borrowing and the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) subsidy, via the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) which Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency administer on behalf of the Government." at https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Council/Plans-Strategies-Policies-Bylaws/Plans/Long-Term-Plan/LTP-2021-final/Asset-Management-Plan-AMP-Transport-LTP-2021-2031.PDF https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Council/Plans-Strat... . You therefore need to include rates and borrowing into the total budget sources. According to https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/national-land-transport-programme/2021-24-nltp/nltp-funding/regional-and-activity-tables/?group=region&state=current&dataType=NLTF&a%5B12%5D=1&a%5B13%5D=1&a%5B9%5D=1&a%5B8%5D=1&r%5B41%5D=1 https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/national-la... , for example, the "Total for Canterbury › Christchurch City Council › Local road maintenance" for the "The total cost of the activity’s phase for all years, including local share" is NZ$ 548,783.1 while the NLTF funding is 32,772.9+35,390.3+40,024.8 = 108,188 or less than 20% of the total cost - if I understand it correctly. If I understand "Total for Canterbury › Christchurch City Council › Local road improvements" correctly, under 10% is from NLTF funding. The main entry point to this statistics is https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/national-land-transport-programme/2021-24-nltp/nltp-funding/ https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/national-la... That sure seems like far less than half the funding for roads in Christchurch come from car and fuel taxes. Can you find a better breakdown? Lastly, look at the breakdown of NLTP funding. "In 2021–24, $24.3 billion of funding is forecast to be managed under the NLTP" of which $910m is "to walking and cycling improvements". That is 3.7% for walking and cycling. You wrote that in Christchurch "3% of trips are by bicycle". Are those numbers pretty proportionate? Especially given the growth in cycle traffic in Christchurch over the last few years? ("with the city seeing a 30% increase in cycling over the last five years" says https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300918660/back-to-the-cyclopolis-christchurch-returns-to-its-cycling-city-roots https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300918660/back-to-the-cyclo... ).

robocat 3y ago

You're off on some other tangents... The government money for the cycle lanes comes mostly from car and fuel taxes: https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/national-land-transport-programme/2021-24-nltp/facts-and-figures/ https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/national-la... Roads are mostly paid for by car users - so their relative expense is fucking irrelevant. It is perfectly valid to complain about the costs of cycle lanes when they are being paid for by people that are not using them. Sure non-cyclists do get some benefits - but nowhere near the amount that non-cyclists are paying. I couldn't find any figures on cross-regional tax imbalances. But as a first estimate I think it is fair to assume Christchurch government taxes are approximately the same as government expenditure on Christchurch. Not quite right e.g. we hear a lot of complaints that Auckland roading infrastructure is subsidised by the rest of the country. I'm only quoting public info - this is not an area I care that much about. I'm just interested in some estimates given the issues I perceive around the city.

eesmith 3y ago
> The government money for the cycle lanes comes mostly from car and fuel taxes: My experience from the US is no doubt leading me astray. However, you have mischaracterized your source. It says "Revenue in the NLTF comes from two main sources – fuel taxes and road user charges." The entry for "Road user charges (net)" says "$6 billion End customers of freight carriers in the prices paid for goods and services. Light diesel vehicle owner payments." It does not give a breakdown for just cars, and even people without a car pay for goods and services which are transported over roads. Furthermore, the National Land Transport Fund is not the only organization which funds roads. It took a while to find it, but I see that "Council receive Transport related revenue from several operating streams. These are rates, borrowing and the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) subsidy, via the National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) which Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency administer on behalf of the Government." at https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Council/Plans-Strategies-Policies-Bylaws/Plans/Long-Term-Plan/LTP-2021-final/Asset-Management-Plan-AMP-Transport-LTP-2021-2031.PDF https://ccc.govt.nz/assets/Documents/The-Council/Plans-Strat... . You therefore need to include rates and borrowing into the total budget sources. According to https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/national-land-transport-programme/2021-24-nltp/nltp-funding/regional-and-activity-tables/?group=region&state=current&dataType=NLTF&a%5B12%5D=1&a%5B13%5D=1&a%5B9%5D=1&a%5B8%5D=1&r%5B41%5D=1 https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/national-la... , for example, the "Total for Canterbury › Christchurch City Council › Local road maintenance" for the "The total cost of the activity’s phase for all years, including local share" is NZ$ 548,783.1 while the NLTF funding is 32,772.9+35,390.3+40,024.8 = 108,188 or less than 20% of the total cost - if I understand it correctly. If I understand "Total for Canterbury › Christchurch City Council › Local road improvements" correctly, under 10% is from NLTF funding. The main entry point to this statistics is https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/national-land-transport-programme/2021-24-nltp/nltp-funding/ https://www.nzta.govt.nz/planning-and-investment/national-la... That sure seems like far less than half the funding for roads in Christchurch come from car and fuel taxes. Can you find a better breakdown? Lastly, look at the breakdown of NLTP funding. "In 2021–24, $24.3 billion of funding is forecast to be managed under the NLTP" of which $910m is "to walking and cycling improvements". That is 3.7% for walking and cycling. You wrote that in Christchurch "3% of trips are by bicycle". Are those numbers pretty proportionate? Especially given the growth in cycle traffic in Christchurch over the last few years? ("with the city seeing a 30% increase in cycling over the last five years" says https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300918660/back-to-the-cyclopolis-christchurch-returns-to-its-cycling-city-roots https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300918660/back-to-the-cyclo... ).