https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350393104/wellington-congestion-charges-could-they-become-reality

Here it comes to NZ folks. Next up will be the ULEZ, ulta low emissions
zones, followed by more cameras than you think possible doing things that
maybe the population does not want.

Anyhow lets have a look at the article.

The main idea is to reduce the traffic volume in peak hours by 8 to 12%

"Modelling had shown that successful congestion charging could reduce congestion by up to 8-12% at peak times, Brown said."

We all know how well modelling has worked for instance climate change, covid case numbers.

Then we have :-

"In many cases, only about 5% of trips needed to be moved out of peak
times to maintain traffic flow."

So why they going for the higher 8 to 12% ?

There are many more logic total fails in this article, with things being glossed over. What amount is a "small fee". Enough to get the reduction or revenue yes? In a world where there is a living crisis I am sure the tax
well be not small to them.

Also penny to a pound the fee/tax will rise faster than inflation.

“Congestion is a tax on time and productivity,” Brown said. “It results in fewer jobs being done, fewer goods being moved, and delays to
services across the city.”

So congestion holds things up, so we well get rid of it by taxing the
traffic. Just shifting the cost to the average car user, sorry worker who us trying to get to work. (So that is where the tax cuts go)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 27 Aug 2024 22:54:37 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350393104/wellington-congestion-charges-could-they-become-reality

Here it comes to NZ folks. Next up will be the ULEZ, ulta low emissions >zones, followed by more cameras than you think possible doing things that >maybe the population does not want.

Anyhow lets have a look at the article.

The main idea is to reduce the traffic volume in peak hours by 8 to 12%

"Modelling had shown that successful congestion charging could reduce >congestion by up to 8-12% at peak times, Brown said."

We all know how well modelling has worked for instance climate change, covid >case numbers.

Then we have :-

"In many cases, only about 5% of trips needed to be moved out of peak
times to maintain traffic flow."

So why they going for the higher 8 to 12% ?

There are many more logic total fails in this article, with things being >glossed over. What amount is a "small fee". Enough to get the reduction or >revenue yes? In a world where there is a living crisis I am sure the tax
well be not small to them.

Also penny to a pound the fee/tax will rise faster than inflation.

�Congestion is a tax on time and productivity,� Brown said. �It results
in fewer jobs being done, fewer goods being moved, and delays to
services across the city.�

So congestion holds things up, so we well get rid of it by taxing the >traffic. Just shifting the cost to the average car user, sorry worker who us >trying to get to work. (So that is where the tax cuts go)

Don't worry, Gordon, this is just another distraction from the
government - notice there is no close time frame on the proposals, and
Simian will have to approve any scheme anyway - under NAct1st local
government doesn't need a Council - why not just leave it all to
Brown? But not to worry, there will be another idea for making life
harder for Councils next week - it distracts from the reality that for
most people the tax cuts will not even pay the increase in the
electricity bill, and the increase in rates because the government
cannot afford clean water will be on top of that again . . .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 27 Aug 2024 22:54:37 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/350393104/wellington-congestion-charges-could-they-become-reality

Here it comes to NZ folks. Next up will be the ULEZ, ulta low emissions >zones, followed by more cameras than you think possible doing things that >maybe the population does not want.

Anyhow lets have a look at the article.

The main idea is to reduce the traffic volume in peak hours by 8 to 12%

"Modelling had shown that successful congestion charging could reduce >congestion by up to 8-12% at peak times, Brown said."

We all know how well modelling has worked for instance climate change, covid >case numbers.

Then we have :-

"In many cases, only about 5% of trips needed to be moved out of peak
times to maintain traffic flow."

So why they going for the higher 8 to 12% ?

There are many more logic total fails in this article, with things being >glossed over. What amount is a "small fee". Enough to get the reduction or >revenue yes? In a world where there is a living crisis I am sure the tax
well be not small to them.

Also penny to a pound the fee/tax will rise faster than inflation.

�Congestion is a tax on time and productivity,� Brown said. �It results
in fewer jobs being done, fewer goods being moved, and delays to
services across the city.�

So congestion holds things up, so we well get rid of it by taxing the >traffic. Just shifting the cost to the average car user, sorry worker who us >trying to get to work. (So that is where the tax cuts go)

These politicians and councilors are a piece of work.

Not only do they deliberately cause bottlenecks, obstructions and
neglect the roading improvements necessary for the free flow of
traffic, they are now going to slap on congestion charges to punish
the long suffering motorist for the damage they themselves have done.
How are they going to spend the extra revenue collected? More humps,
chicanes and other unnecessary nonsense? Don't expect debt repayment
to be anywhere near the top of the priority pile.

I'm very disappointed in Wayne Brown. This sort of nonsense is typical
of the likes of Phil Goff. Wayne Brown was elected to stop of this
kind of stupidity. He has failed. Same same goes for Simeon brown.

Bill.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)