Auckland Council rubber stamps annual transport levy of $99 for residential ratepayers and $159 for business ratepayers

Auckland Council rubber stamps annual transport levy of $99 for residential ratepayers and $159 for business ratepayers

Here's the statement from Auckland Council

Auckland Council’s Budget Committee today agreed to introduce the Mayor’s interim transport levy to begin immediate work on Auckland’s transport challenges.

The Budget Committee agreed 15 votes to 7 to the interim levy of $99 ($114 incl GAT) a year for non-business ratepayers and $159 (183 incl GST) for business ratepayers for the first three years of the Long-term Plan (LTP) 2015-2025, the council’s next 10-year budget.

The Mayor’s interim levy was in response to the majority of Aucklanders opting to pay more for the Auckland Transport Network Plan during public consultation and in an independent survey earlier this year.

“Today is an historic day for Auckland. We have responded to the clear message from Aucklanders - start fixing our transport problems and that is exactly what we can now get on and do,” Len Brown said.

To fill the $12 billion funding gap for the full Auckland Plan network, Auckland also opted for a Motorway User Charge.

Given that a user charge would require legislation and take a number of years working with government to put in place, the three-year interim levy allows for immediate new investments of $500 million in transport.

These new investments will include:

· Increase in walking and cycling funding across Auckland of $124 million

· $43 million for North-western busway and additional 45kms of bus lanes

· Park and Ride extensions at Silverdale, Pukekohe and Papakura. New facility for Westgate

· Delivering arterial and local road networks

· Public transport safety improvements for rail crossings.

An interim levy was first signalled in the draft LTP published in December 2014.

 

And here's a transport levy infographic provided by the Council.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

11 Comments

Comment Filter

Highlight new comments in the last hr(s).

I voted for the the higher expenditure option only because this should have been done instead of the rail tunnel project. but of course there was no box to tick for no rail tunnel project! I voted for a motorway toll only because if there was one of them I would be able to avoid it by not going on the motorway unless it was really really necessary. By putting this as an EXTRA BILL ONTO MY RATES is the very last thing that I wanted but the standard feedback form did not allow me to clearly spell out what I wanted. The text that I wrote would have been ignored. Flawed consultation being manipulated by Brown and his team.
Brown has in the past said that he saw scope for an increase to the uniform annual general rate. (After having reduced it and putting up the variable one hugely). So essentially he has got what he wanted albeit that this extra transport levy will have to be seen to go on transport. But as I say, this stuff would have been done regardless, within a much reduced rates bill if the tunnel job wasn't being accelerated. This must be the nail in the coffin for those 15 who voted for it.For the 7 who didn't: congratulations you are champs!
Going it alone on the early expenditure on the tunnel, assuming that it can convince the govt to allow tolls or petrol levies in future: This Council seems to think that it is god.
Oh that's right, the council propose to borrow more as part of this plan as well. Just in time for the borrowing costs to increase.... This is not what a prudent, rational person would do. Then again, this is the Auckland Council!!!!

confused. you voted FOR the fund raising for the project, based on the idea that you avoid the fund raising, ...so that you would be able to enjoy the fruits of that fund raising??

The consultation document did not have a box to tick for no accelerated council expenditure on rail tunnel.

This is a standard tactic, ie just give you the bad options and you pick the least worst. Personally I think there should be toll charges to pay for the motorways, user pays and all that.

Charging a toll on the motorway to pay for a train is not user pays. Charging a toll on a new motorway to pay for the new motorway is user pays. The proposed toll on the motorway is basically increasing the cost of using a car to force people onto public transport. I am not against tolls, but I am against tolls on existing roads. Build a second harbour crossing and put a toll on it, build a rail loopy thing and charge people to use it, but don't build a rail loopy thing and charge people to go over the existing harbour bridge. Making me pay for something I can't use isn't a good idea. I think the northern toll road is a good example of how the system should work. You build a new road and use tolls to pay for it.

This is really is a Council out of control, who thinks it an do whatever it wants. So it goes it alone for the first 3 years, when it cannot convince the Government to raise tolls and tax on fuel, guess what, the temporary transport levy is extended for another 3 years, or becomes permanent. This will end up funding the train set that he has decided will be built whatever anyone else wants, especially ratepayers, who of course pay his wages.

I think you are wrong here. When you want 30,000 new houses you have to have the infrastructure to support them. Just who pays for that? The Govn is beating Auckland to fix the political hot potato but the Auckland Council is saying hold on, there are huge costs here that have to be met how is this paid for? The Govn however wont allow the council to meet them except via rates on existing households. So who pays?

The train set has already been agreed with central govt, purchased, and mostly delivered, and Len had very little to do with it. Have you not heard about the rollout of the new electric trains? With the reduced operating costs over the diesel trains they pay for themselves.

So the government wins all round as they get the gst component on all the levys and on the higher rates. Nice boost for them.

And why does Len Browns example above not show or say gst exclusive?

Who were the 7 that voted against?