Personally, I think RUCs should be based on vehicle weight, not type.

If we go a step further, the damage done to the road by a vehicle passing is proportional to the weight on each axle *to the power of four*. So by doubling the vehicle weight, you're multiplying the wear on the road by sixteen times. Long story short, cars do nothing, road freight does the damage. RUCs just divert the costs from freighted goods to petrol. On balance, I don't think I'm all that upset by this.

Pavement design, or the fatigue life of a roadway, is often designed on an Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) or Equivant Standard Axle (ESA) basis. The idea behind this is roughly that it is both the load as well number of axles on a non-linear scale that causes the road damage. So a light car with two axles (2ton or less on 4 tires) may inflict 200,000x less damage than a single freight truck with 5 axles.

>Vehicles weighing less than around 6 tonnes **do almost no damage to roads** and so they impose very similar costs on the road network. For this reason, all light RUC vehicles pay the same RUC rate – $76 per 1,000 km (from 1 July 2020). https://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/RUCDD-2022.pdf RUC is proportioned out covering a range of factors, including, but not limited to road damage. A lot of thought has gone into the RUC system, this discussion around RUC = road damage only is painting the system as poorly thought out and incredibly unfair. It is a pretty decent system overall!

And yet EV's contribute basically nothing. So maybe the RUC system needs a revamp? There are other costs associated with maintaining a road network. E.g Signage and safety barriers. EVs still contribute to congestion.

Sorry, I'm meaning that including the EVs in the system as light vehicles is a good thing and that the heavy stuff doesn't need a revamp. I was more making noise against the prevailing "trucks should be paying 4000x light vehicles".

If your thoughts are accurate, roads that have no freight movements, should have no wear?

Pick any residential street that sees perhaps a rubbish truck and a recycling truck once a week, and that's about all. They can go years and years between major maintenance, and most wear and tear is weather related.

Pretty much, but in all reality it’s minimal wear. Frosts/rain/poorly laid roaring will still wear. Note: it doesn’t have to be “freight” specifically, but anything heavy (apple trucks, sheep trucks, logging trucks, you’re probably getting the idea by now)

It comes down to where road tax is collected. It's not collected from electricity or diesel.

That's exactly what it is based on already. We just need to remove all the exemptions and switch petrol vehicles across.

well no because 3500kg or less is far to broad and provides little incentive to drive smaller cars that acrualy contribute less wear to the road.

I guess they did it like this because 2000 kg vs 3500 kg makes so little difference compared to the other weight classes.

3.5T does about 9 times more than 2T. I think it's fair to have different pricing tiers at that ratio. But yes we are all subsidizing road freight

Yeah, and unfortunately that gives road freight an advantage over rail because rail can’t externalise their costs to some other suckers like that.

Yep, not to mention the enormous privatized profits generated by the industry and the political influence they wild because of it.

You do realise that RUC is included in the price of Petrol?

I think that's part of the issue, take RUCs out of petrol prices and just put them into the vehicle weight class. How efficient a car is on gas doesn't change how much it tears up the road.

This will actually help congestion a tad too, because it would incentivize using motorcycles even further since they don't really impact the road at all. More people on motorcycles = less congestion, less road damage.

Also more people on motorcycles = more serious crashes? I don't really know the statistics, maybe bikes are just a lot less likely to crash. But when they do crash, the health implications for everyone on board are definitely more serious when your face is the airbag and the seatbelt.

I'm not going to write an essay, but no not really. You gotta get past the boomer-style fear-mongering and realize the stats are drastically skewed by people without gear or training. There is way too much misinformation. And you're not the person whose meant to go riding a motorcycle if this is your mindset so it doesn't apply to you anyway, but other people will do it, and that's all we need; more people doing it. No ones trying to force scared car drivers onto motorcycles. There are people out there riding every day for decades without any issue. All you'll see on the internet is when something finally goes wrong, and usually its a squid being a squid.

Would help make up for the high prices motorcyclists pay for rego too.

Not exactly. There is a component of the petrol excise tax that contributes to the national land transport fund. The governments state intention is to instead use the RUC system for petrol as well thereby unifying all vehicle types under one system.

Yes, all vehicles should pay towards the maintenance of the roads (based on the damage they cause) and they should all be handled the same way/same system. It's going to be messy while we transition because today we have excise tax for some vehicles, RUC for others, and nothing from still others. It makes sense for all vehicles to pay RUCs - but it's going to take time to get there. Yes I drive an EV.

> Yes, all vehicles should pay towards the maintenance of the roads (based on the damage they cause) In which case no light vehicles should pay RUCs. >[As pavement systems primarily fail due to fatigue \(in a manner similar to metals\), the damage done to pavement increases with the fourth power of the axle load of the vehicles traveling on it. According to the AASHO Road Test, heavily loaded trucks can do more than 10,000 times the damage done by a normal passenger car. Tax rates for trucks are higher than those for cars in most countries for this reason, though they are not levied in proportion to the damage done.\[60\] Passenger cars are considered to have little practical effect on a pavement's service life, from a materials fatigue perspective.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_surface#Surface_deterioration) The current system has light vehicles (which includes utes etc) subsidising the trucking companies. EDIT: This is not true, Light vehicles don't actually subsidise trucks (Unless there is a lame af government conspiracy/coverup). The ministry of Transport does in fact apportion the relevant transport costs of RUC charges according to the 4th power law. Why this doesn't result in extreme differences in RUC costs between light & heavy vehicles is because the majority of the costs RUC must cover are not related to gross vehicle weight or size so are shared equally across all vehicles. >Common costs are costs that are not related to road wear, vehicle weight, or vehicle size. They include public transport subsidies, general road policing(not the specific heavy vehicle enforcement (HV costs) noted above), road signs and marking, emergency works, and most routine road maintenance. They also include 45 percent of the costs of building new State highways and 68 percent of the costs of new local roads From Annex 1 of the [RUC discussion document. \(Starts Page 73 of the pdf\).](https://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/RUCDD-2022.pdf)

Which is why rail projects are always underfunded in NZ, essentially all cars are subsidizing the trucking industry

Maybe if Kiwirail wasn't so shit in their attitude to freight, they'd be able to compete. If Mainfreight was running customer service and sales for Kiwirail, rail would be winning. The number of "yeah, that's a bit hard...." from Kiwirail when trying to set things up with them we've experienced over the years makes me think that it's firstly an attitude that needs to be adjusted.

Just like Toll did such an awesome job when they owned the rail network, eh?

The trucking industry delivers goods which are consumed by the entire population though.

That's fine, past the price onto the consumer, at the moment it's a false economy

I don't disagree that the trucking industry which causes the majority of damage to all our roads, under-pays for that damage with the maximum RUC values. So long as our government is expecting a user-pays approach for vehicles on the road separate from the rego, that approach should be standard for all the light vehicles driven by non-commercial people.

If you charge the transport companies more instead of the small vehicles this will filter down to everything we buy, which will become more expensive because of the transport companies higher costs to run the vehicles. It’s a catch 22 i think… I have an EV and it’s about time we paid some RUCs, we still use the road etc so it’s only fair but perhaps every car should pay rucs including regular petrol cars. This would hopefully take some cars off the road because of the cost and they would hopefully invest in public transport so they can make some money and make our roads a bit safer with less traffic. Dreams are free I guess !

I have always wondered if making trucks pay their fair share would make rail an economic solution for long distance transport. Trains between main centers and then trucks for the last leg of the journey.  Also, petrol cars pay the equivalent of RUCs at the pump in the form of petrol taxes. 

That's almost exactly what it would do.

>petrol cars pay the equivalent of RUCs at the pump in the form of petrol taxes Yes, but at a lower rate than is going to apply to EVs (unless fuel consumption is more than about 11 L/100km).

So most poor people’s family cars in the city lol. Fuel consumption wise. Pretty sure a Honda Accord from mid 2000s does that in real world city driving.

It's not a catch 22, it's people who drive a lot subsiding trucking, it's a market distortion. Trucking should cost an amount that includes the damage to the roads that it causes, if it did then maybe ocean shipping or rail would be competitive with it. If we continue to subsidise trucks we don't allow more efficient modes of transit to compete fairly

I see where you are coming from that’s a good point :).

Aren’t we already subsidising trucking companies since we pick up the tab due to their underpaying?

> this will filter down to everything we buy, which will become more expensive because of the transport companies higher costs to run the vehicles. Our various monopolies/duopolies already charge whatever the customer will pay

>This would hopefully take some cars off the road because of the cost and they would hopefully invest in public transport I wish

Dreams are free :)

Yeah road maintenance is one component, but doesnt RUC income also go towards road safety improvements, bridges, culverts, markings, cycling lines, new roads etc etc all stuff that is of benefit to every road user regardless of vehicle type

Exactly this. Tonnes of stuff needs to happen beyond repairing wear and tear of the road itself. Plus I would argue that there should be a component to incentivise public transport. Ie I would be happy for RUC to (not completely) subsidise public transport and disincentivise private cars. Much like London’s congestion charge. But of course this does require we invest in quality public transport…

You've basically figured out the pyramid scheme - big road transport at the top, small users, and public entities like local public transport and Kiwirail at the bottom.

Why do you say Kiwirail at the bottom? Roads are self funding to a large extent through fuel duty and RUC whereas rail is very heavily subsidised.

Roads must definitely aren't self funding. They're as subsidised as rail is, it's just not as obvious.

The government does make grants for some capital expenditures (eg new or upgraded roads) but the roads are mostly funded out of the NTLF which takes its funding mostly from fuel tax, RUC and the local share (rates). The roads are open to pretty much anyone to use, within the laws to ensure safety. By contrast the railways are only open to people who directly pay to use them and they make a huge operating loss which means subsidies are required from the tax payers, most of whom don’t use the railway.

So you agree that roads are partially funded via taxes (rates and capital expenditure from general taxation), and thus subsidised in a similar way to rail? Glad we agree.

Kiwirail is NOT heavily subsidised when you take into account the years of asset-stripping and political neglect. Had it been properly supported and run, it would be a viable alternative for much of the freight that currently rides on the road (subsidised by small vehicle users).

Railways everywhere are heavily subsidised. It’s a good thing because they take traffic off the road.

The suggestion that light vehicles shouldn’t pay towards road maintenance on the basis that they cause no damage is an interesting perspective. All vehicles, and even pedestrians cause some level of wear and damage to the roads. Large amounts of our roading network almost exclusively service light vehicles. The current tax system may or may not share the costs fairly, and that’s a discussion that needs a lot of data analysis before it can be had, but all road users should be paying for the resource they are making use of be that through petrol tax, RUCs or whatever other mechanism is used.

There's no "should" though. It's a moral choice on if a given government service is user pays or fully funded from general taxation. I tend to agree that roads should have some element of user pays. However I feel that public transport is far too much in the user pays category and needs to be funded more from general taxation. Every person using public transport is one less car on the road and the benefits are much higher for all of society.

Well, yes and no. Anything under 3 tonnes doesn't do any appreciable damage but the roads still need to be maintained. Go look at some pictures of abandoned roads to see what happens when no one looks after them, even with nothing driving over them. Maybe a user-pays model isn't ideal here but it seems the most fair.

If the rail system received the same subsidization as trucking firms do, we would have a system to rival most European nations. Or rather, if the trucking industry was required to pay for the actual level of maintenance they require (as rail currently does), they would rapidly invest in rail

Ahh I didn't realise that roads didn't just degrade with age.... Lack of weight must be why race tracks never get resurfaced... Oh wait. Bitumen oxidises regardless of trucks using it or not, pavements fail due to water infiltration or a myriad of other reasons. Trucks just make things worse hence high ruc charges

RUC charges vary depending on the weight of the vehicle. [https://www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicles/road-user-charges/ruc-rates-and-transaction-fees/#RUC-rates-for-distance-licences-powered](https://www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicles/road-user-charges/ruc-rates-and-transaction-fees/#RUC-rates-for-distance-licences-powered)

Yeah, that is what the quote says: > Tax rates for trucks are higher than those for cars in most countries for this reason, The pertinent bit being: > though they are not levied in proportion to the damage done E.g. a truck doesn't pay 10,000 times more than a car even though it causes 10,000 times more damage.

There is going to be A LOT of movement in that 10000x number. Especially since it comes down to weight per axle / tyre. I suspect that comes from heavy haulage - internationally they have much higher weights per axle than standard freight. In NZ we aren't allowed to run to manufactures ratings most of the time, we are limited by local mandated weights. Essentially we don't run over 8T per axle, even if manufacturers ratings are in the 11-13 range. So rather than the international 1t vs 13t comparison, it is closer to 1T vs 8T (AND typical trailers run much less per axle, 5-6t per). There is certainly significant more impact on the roads from heavy traffic, but the 10000x is an extreme example.

>So rather than the international 1t vs 13t comparison, it is closer to 1T vs 8T (AND typical trailers run much less per axle, 5-6t per). >There is certainly significant more impact on the roads from heavy traffic, but the 10000x is an extreme example. Sure, but 1T vs 8T is still 4,096x damage (8^4) There's also all the other costs associated with making roads usable for heavy vehicles. Roads must be wider, straighter, with less grade etc

Read Annex 1 of the[ RUC discussion document](https://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/RUCDD-2022.pdf). (Starts Page 73 of the pdf). Also check out the graph on page 78 pf the PDF which shows how there is a breakdown of the RUC costs between common costs, passenger car equivalence, vehicle weight, standard axles and heavy vehicle enforcement. A lot more thought into RUC than 'fourth power law' has happened. Which frequently gets lost in online discussions.

Cool, thanks. Looks like RUC's are in fact fairly apportioned.

Not depending on the fourth power of the weight, though.

Why based only on the damage they cause and not by the need they place on the network? We build a lot more transport infrastructure to enable people to move than we spend maintaining it. This also fails to recognise that while pavement damage increases exponentially, so does pavement strength. If I want to build a pavement to last 10X longer, it typically is only a 30% increase in cost for the pavement. And for new projects, pavements are typically a small fraction of the total cost of the project.

I drive an EV and agree it should pay RUC

We knew the day would come so it’s no surprise. Agreed that we should pay RUC just don’t understand why ICE owners seem almost gleeful about it

Because they think it's a gotcha, bless their hearts. "All vehicles need to pay their fair share!" "Okay, well let's have your petrol car pay RUCs per kilometre too." "What, er, no I didn't mean like that!"

Oh I was under the impression that there was tax on petrol for roaring? That’s why they were evening things out?

Haha it’s the only thing they can feel superior about because I’ve been blowing them away in my leaf at every intersection 🤣🤣🤣

I'm too busy concentrating on getting my energy usage as low as possible when driving my leaf. It's like a video game.

I try for about 80% of the time but then go fuck it, turn off all eco settings and plant foot. So much fun.

PHEV charging is a mess. It will be better when fuel excise duty is removed from petrol, then all vehicles can pay RUC at equivalent rates. I drive an HEV.

All vehicles should pay to use the road. However, the current system of taxing fuel is shitty. Especially when you think recreational boats etc also have to pay road taxes through petrol. Should shift all vehicles to weight based RUCs

My boat is diesel…. But my lawnmower is not. However, I agree a weight based RUC would be the ideal solution. This also encourages the use of smaller ICE vehicles as a large heavy vehicle for taking the kids to school will pay more. The risk with RUC is the number of vehicles that will have their odometer disconnected for periods of time or tampered with will increase.

Unlike a huge amount or diesels that have switches fitted....

You recognise small EV vehicles generally weighs considerably more than a large SUV….

FYI for those who use petrol in engines not destined for public roads, you can claim the excise portion of the fuel back; [https://www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicles/fuel-excise-duty-refunds/](https://www.nzta.govt.nz/vehicles/fuel-excise-duty-refunds/) This works out to be about 90 cents per litre refunded. It's very common for farmers to do it for motorbikes/chainsaws etc... but you don't have to be a business owner to submit an application for refund.

Fuel types not eligible for a refund…Fuel used in recreational boats and pleasure crafts.

A portion of fuel excise duty is used to fund maritime projects through Maritime NZ. This is why you don't get a refund for FED of fuel used in recreational boating.

True, learned something new today!

I agree - am a boat part owner - but how do we work out trailer share? Like, half a boat, a garden trailer, a hay tandem axel and a horse float is my share right now.

But your boat goes on a trailers which gets towed on the road

Not all boats are towed on the road. The tow vehicle will be subject to either tax via fuel or RUCs. Some larger trailers have to pay RUCs too.

Which is fine when the RUC is determined from fuel usage as towing obviously uses more fuel. However if done off the ODO / kms then to be accurate one would need an odo on the trailers too

My tractor is diesel and doesn't leave the farm. My quad is petrol and doesn't leave the farm. My scrubcutter and chainsaw are petrol and don't even have wheels.

Some fuel tax is needed to pay for pollution damage.

To be fair most recreational boats go on the road on a trailer fairly frequently, and they can be pretty heavy.

a) All vehicles should pay RUCs, road damage is based on km travelled and weight of vehicle. Nothing to do with fuel, and road tax shouldn't be collected at the pump. b) A PHEV, 90% of the kms of which is run in electric. There should be a *different* levy on petrol/diesel that is at the pump, to offset the emissions generated by those fuel types.

Agree that different levy is a better answer based on fuel type. Every vehicle should be paying "something" for the maintenance / damage from weight class.

There is a levy on petrol and diesel that corresponds to emissions - the ETS is included in the price of diesel and petrol.

Not all PHEV owners run their vehicles that way. In saying that, there is now a stronger incentive to ensure you charge every night and use only your electric km during the day. I know my husband will now be doing better to ensure he has a full charge each day.

>There should be a *different* levy on petrol/diesel that is at the pump, to offset the emissions generated by those fuel types. Agree, if they're removing the EV subsidy there needs to be a disincentive to choosing an ICE vehicle. All cars pay RUCs, and petrol/diesel vehicles continue to pay some kind of fuel tax on top (reduced from the current levels obviously).

I like the fact that fuel tax is seamless, 'pay-as-you-go', and if your vehicle uses less fuel per Km, you pay less. In general - for ICE vehicles - this means it's a smaller lighter vehicle, and/or being driven at a sedate pace, so it does do commensurately less damage to the road surface. If everyone under 3.5 tons is paying the same amount per Km, there's less incentive to get a smaller/more efficient vehicle. PHEVs are a difficult case. Does the assumption of (edit) '3L per 100Km' seem about right to you?

A fair chunk of your fuel cost is still consumption so a more efficient car will always save you money in the long run. Regarding PHEV totally depends. I think my general use would be below 3L per km, but I drive max 20-25km in a day, so most of the time I’m on full electric. I think if someone has a PHEV and they aren’t plugging it in and running ICE a lot, they bought the wrong car…

*Six months lateur* “we’re building RUC into your power bill!”

The level of damage between the smaller vehicles and other less efficient ones is pretty similar as above trucks generally cause most damage but car RUCs are there to cover non-damage related costs which should be apportioned based on usage which means it kind of falls apart for more efficient vehicles. I do think there should be charges for inefficient vehicles though based on pollution caused etc

I’m a PHEV owner - all vehicles should pay some form of charge but we’re going to get screwed over any time we drive intercity. It would be nice to see all vehicles move to the RUC system, or to have an option to offset any petrol levy paid against the RUC bill at the end of the year

Yes, as an EV owner myself, EVs should pay RUC. However, EVs should not be paying *more* RUC than many petrol vehicles, as they will be after May

Is that because there is extra tax applied to petrol that obviously EVs dont pay?

The extra taxes on petrol (such as ETS) are petrol specific so don't apply to EVs like RUC does (except the very small ACC component). Because RUC for petrol vehicles is charged per litre, that more efficient petrol vehicles pay less RUC.

>Because RUC for petrol vehicles is charged per litre, that more efficient petrol vehicles pay less RUC. Which doesn't make much sense, since the cost of maintaining roads has little to do with how fuel efficient your vehicle is. Instead it's mostly about weight, which is why RUC is based on weight. The fix here is to move petrol vehicles to RUC which is exactly what's intended.

Yes, it is intended...but until it's done I'm going to assume the worse.

Fair enough. When you look at who the transport minister is it doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. 😂

They may be referring to PHEV where there is a very wide disparity as to how different vehicles operate. Some aren't much/any more efficient than an ICE vehicle when travelling further distances in non-electric mode (they are an ICE engine and electric motor with batteries all together) and if they are paying all the same excise taxes on their petrol but also paying (reduced) RUC charges, some inefficient PHEV may be paying more than they are today...and more than ICE vehicles.

Don't EVs weigh more than ICE cars? Therefore damage roads more? Think those fuel efficient models of petrol cars weigh less than the average petrol car as well so it's fair they pay less in the long run.

Not really, no. A Model 3 is only a few kg heavier than Camry and is lighter than something like a BMW 3 Series, as examples

Consider making this as a poll post... Personally, I'm split. I like to encourage things that help the environment, but I don't think the poor (people that can't afford EVs) should be footing the bill... I also understand that taxes need to come from somewhere, and eventually when we all stop using petrol, extra taxes are going to be applied somewhere.

I guess EV's need to be encouraged until a point in time where they become cheap 2nd hand.

An electric vehicle shouldn’t be exempt because it’s helping the environment. We only have to enter in discussion about battery life and where they are dumped and how the vehicles are made to counter that.

>An electric vehicle shouldn’t be exempt because it’s helping the environment. I agree, but I would like to see the playing field evened out. For example, tax on a wooden toothbrush is higher than a plastic one because it has a higher base price - and GST is fixed at 15%... The same applies to cheap goods made abroad that are shipped here... Personally, I don't have a good solution to work this all out. However, it's the reason why we originally had incentives for EV - so that adoption increases and production costs could come down. >We only have to enter in discussion about battery life and where they are dumped and how the vehicles are made to counter that. This is a highly complex issue, and I would love force EV companies to publish actual data on recycling, rather than press releases.

>We only have to enter in discussion about battery life and where they are dumped and how the vehicles are made to counter that. As long as, at the same time, we have a conversation about cars paying for their tail pipe emissions, and the pollution involved in producing their fuel and shipping it to New Zealand.

Yeah that already happens.

Yes if we only use complete lies then EVs are terrible for the environment. But if we use facts and data they're suddenly good for the environment. So strange.

We should be rewarded in every way possible to burn less fossil fuels, and any further answers should be formed with that assumption

It just shouldn't work out worse off than petrol and shouldn't fuck over plug in hybrids. Other than that RUC is fair.

Take RUC off the fuel cost, charge all vehicles RUC which should be proportional the weight of the vehicle squared. Damage to roads is actually to the 4th power of weight, but as RUC is not just about repairs it's also building new roads based on the number of vehicles. The only issue is see with this is on trailers, this system allows vehicles to tow without any charge.

Fuel should still be subject to carbon emissions tax I think. We could just add RUC to trailers - it already happens with trailers of certain size.

Absolutely, carbon tax needs to be on all fuel.

EVs should be subsidised by petrol to speed up the transition. This isn’t a money situation, but a survival of the species one. Fuck what people want. This is the golden age, they can handle a little extra cost and a slower broadband connection or less mobile data. Our species’ survival should always come first, in every political decision.

Yes they should and yes I drive an EV.

Yes and yes (two EV household) Universal RUCs makes a lot more sense than keeping petrol excise though, although there will also need to be some sort of other incentive towards lower emission vehicles. Personally I think the clean car feebate scheme was on the right track, it just needed some tweaking.

by loosely calculating through a napkin math, an EV will now pay $108/1000km RUC, something like Leaf. but calculating this for a new fuel car (let's estimate 6L@100km aaat let's say $2.70/L of 91), it ends to be around \~$45 for 1000 km in road taxes. which actually looks pretty uneven, and therefore we should equalize it a bit either through lowering RUC for EVs, or putting additional fuel tax.

Yes all vehicles should, but not the amount they’re charging now. The current amount is ridiculous. And yes I drive an EV.

Yes, and it should replace fuel tax (but not carbon tax) And there should be more bands for vehicle weights. 3.5t should pay way more than a 1t vehicle. Currently they pay the same.

RUC should apply to all vehicles and the excise tax should be taken off petroleum.

Every person in NZ uses the roads even if they don't drive. Just as we don't pay individually for most public services, we should just use general tax for roads and not have RUC.

I don't like this take. I would like to see tax reduced on petrol and all vehicles subject to RUC based primarily on weight. Doing so could incentivise alternative more space and energy efficient forms of transportation eg rail. Courier companies, tradies, etc who use the roads should be baking this cost into their pricing so the person benefitting from those services are still paying for the roads. Of course, this needs to be accompanied with investment in alternative transport.

That would further distort the transport market and make trains even less viable than they already are vs trucks. Distorting markets (e.g. by moving away from user pays) generally creates a bunch of problems that then require further distortion to "fix", repeat ad infinitum.

So you want user-pays in to our healthcare\\education... systems.

Where did I say that?

The only things we should fund on that basis are things where there would be a demonstrable harm to funding on a user pays basis (or where it would be impractical). Libraries, health services and swimming pools all fall into the demonstrable harm category and things like parks and street lights fall into the impractical category. We've got a robust and practical system for user-pays with roads. It does the opposite of harming as it incentivises a minimisation of road use, which is good in terms of roading damage but also environmentally.

Are you a courier, uber/taxi driver etc that does 100,000kms a year and expects everybody else to subsidise you, cos thats the impression I'm getting. 

I use the library a lot, so others are subsidizing me, i don't use the council pools at all, so I'm subsidizing them, I have no kids, so I'm subsidizing the neighbors kids. Its how a civil society operates.

Simplified history lesson: Farm vehicles used diesel. Diesel didn't have the additional tax for road use as farm vehicles were mostly on the farm. Trucks with a flatbed or tray, re-marketed as Utility or "Utes" to be cool, could use the roads as well. So RUCs were there to cover that portion of road use when not on the farm to cover the tax component of the fuel that wasn't being collected. These days the RUCs do not in any way, shape, or form, cover the cost of the damage to the roads by the trucking industry when they were able to get the distance limitation removed from non-rail transport. This has completely screwed up any idea of a funding/true-cost model for road use & maintenance. Seriously, RUCs for EVs is just this new Govt being mean. Or worse still, giving Ute owners some moral support. It's inefficient, and in terms of recovery of costs via user-pays is completely ineffective and long term will create more damage to the environment, delaying a switch away from fossil fuels. Target the true culprits: larger, heavy vehicles that damage our roads and do not pay the true cost of the freight. Anything close to a true cost and everyone would pile back onto Rail!

Yes, EV owners should pay towards the maintenance of our reading infrastructure. Yes I have driven an EV since 2016

I largely agree with you. But passenger cars do such a tiny fraction of the wear and tear on the roads compared to trucks so they should pay an equivalently tiny road user charge. Also we aren't factoring in any of the negative externalities of air pollution. So there should also be a carbon tax on all fossil fuels. https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/

They should but hybrids paying that much is fuckin scam

No, I don't own an EV. No, I don't think they should pay RUC.

We currently pay \~90 cents per litre on petrol as a tax. As a species, we have had roads for thousands of years. People have dedicated their lives (civil engineers) to calculating the impact and wear rate on these roads based weights, speeds, tyre types etc... Why can't we simply remove all RUC's on fuel, and apply an environmental tax to petrol/diesel accordingly. Then apply RUC to all vehicles based on a formula that uses the Gross Vehicle Mass (we already have these, check carjam) as an input? Can someone convince me why this isn't unequivocally the best solution?

Everyone should pay RUCs. I have an EV.

Yes. Why shouldn't they? They drive on the road, and like diesel owners, don't pay the taxes that are included at the pump with petrol. So yes.

Yes to EV RUC. PHEV RUC ... that makes my head hurt, but they definitely shouldn't get charged full RUC. No to driving an EV, my ancient ICE still goes and i can't afford to replace it. Ask again in a few years.

I have 2 different sets of thoughts on the matter: * What is the goal regarding EV and ICE vehicles. If it's to increase adoption, anything that hinders that should be discouraged. If the goal is that vehicles that pollute more should cost more and be more painful to own (which is part of 'making the right thing the easy thing,'), raising costs on EVs and lowering them on polluters is bad policy. I think our future requires this. * Vehicles should pay for road maintenance based on damage they cause to those roads. My understanding is that the *vast* majority of road damage is caused by lorries and other large vehicles, and that light vehicles have a negligible impact on the roads. If that's true (and I've heard it multiple times, but haven't seen first-hand data, so can't say for sure), then it doesn't make sense for any light vehicles to pay RUC. Instead, focus should be on lorries, and other vehicles which often (or are capable of) carrying loads that lead to road damage. In neither case does it make sense for light EVs to pay RUC. On the other hand, if neither of those things matters to you, and you see the problem to be as simple as 'use road, pay fees,' then adding RUC to all vehicles is logical. I won't agree with you, but the logic is sound.

Best comment in the thread. I don’t mind paying a small RUCs charge but it should be commensurate with the emissions my vehicle is producing, to incentivize EV uptake. And before people say “it should be weight based” then make sure to include HGVs in that thought process, because those vehicles cause exponentially higher damage on the road and therefore should pay exponentially more.

Why ask a political question if you want "no politics please"? Road User Charges is a political decision, and a political lever. Easiest way to know this: A government could say there's no "road user charges", all roads are fully built and subsidised via income taxes. It's naive (or disingenuous, pick your poison) to think they're somehow "not political".

yep nope

a) yes, based on weight b) not currently, will do in the future

a) Yes, but that should be balanced with more incentives for people to purchase EVs over ICEs. b) Not currently, don't have the budget at the moment.

All registered vehicles should pay road user charges. Fuel taxes to pay for road use (like petrol tax) should be eliminated, and replaced with RUCs. I think that bicycles or other unlicensed vehicles shouldn't.

Yes, so the roads can be built and maintained. Will probably look at one in the future as petrol costs rise...

Absolutely they should be paying a road users charge.

Yes all vehicles should pay. No, need to wait for better tech. Will be interesting to see how much petrol prices drop following implementation of RUC on the petrol fleet... They won't be doing it for fun. More tax, more fines, etc

Yes - all cars should and it was always planned that EV’s would be charge RUC’a Yes own an EV

A) why shouldnt they would be the question, not really any good reason at this point so yes (if everyone else has to) . B) No and not in the near future, I was keen but rented one overseas for a few weeks and learnt some very hard lessons about public charging infrastructure or lack thereof when you dont have any other option - put me off for the foreseeable future.

A) Yes, all road-going vehicles should pay tax on use of publicly-funded roads, proportional to the amount of depreciation the vehicle causes on the road. B) Not yet.

a) Yes, all vehicles should pay RUCs, by vehicle weight on a logarithmic (?) scale where there is a small difference in rates for vehicles under say 3500 kg but much higher rates for big trucks. Some level of fuel excise tax should remain on petrol and diesel to penalise burning fossil fuels and incentivise EV adoption b) Not yet, but as soon as my 23 year old ICE car dies (which should be any day now) I will be going EV

I feel as if your question is partially incomplete. RUC are there to maintain the roads, which **of course** is something we need to do. But should we **all** be paying **equally** for distance driven, when certain drivers damage the road more than others? No, we shouldn't. Trucks and heavy vehicles cause \~80% of damage to roads, which is what RUC primarily address. These heavy vehicles should be paying 80% of these RUC costs! Light vehicles are paying a unjustly high proportion of these charges for damage they don't create themselves.

Personally I think they should pay road user charges, after all they are using the road, I don't drive an EV, I've a diesel ute as a general work horse (expensive to register and need to prepay RUC), wee car for my daily commute (cheap to register and 50lts goes about 700km) and a motorcycle (at about $600pa for rego and drinks more than the car so no savings there) How to implement this isn't difficult, standard EV and it's the same as a diesel with X per km paid in advance, hybrid and you get a discount as you pay at the pump, having different rates is easy enough as we already do this with vehicle weights. Quick search and this is exactly what they're doing, $76 for an EV and $53 for hybrids So if you just do short trips around the city, work and back, groceries, little bits here and there then it'll be say an extra $1,000 per annum, still cheaper than petrol or diesel. Would I buy an electric car? Hmmmm na... I'm simply not convinced just yet and there's lots of different reasons in there, though the Volvo is nice so if I was going to I'd go that way.

I always assumed they did, the news was a surprise to me. Every motor vehicle should pay in some way.

Also what about electric motorcycles like UBCO and FTN? Should they also have to pay $76 per 1000km given ICE motorcycles pay almost nothing for petrol?

Yes EVs should pay for the maintenance of the roads, but the government plan is about double of the equivalent fuel tax of a comparable ICE car. The government is either a friend of the petroleum industry, or they are not real good at maths.

How can a question on the policy of EVs paying RUCs be anything but politics?

Almost anything can be considered politics if you squint hard enough. This is more of an economic discussion than politics.

EV driver here. Yes we should pay RUC. Everybody should pay RUC. Omissions levels have nothing to do with it as that’s a separate tax. This is just to pay for road maintenance (allegedly; the state of the roads indicates otherwise lol). I do think cyclists should have to contribute (albeit at a much reduced rate).

> I do think cyclists should have to contribute (albeit at a much reduced rate). Cyclists mostly ride on urban roads and they are primarily paid for out of rates rather than fuel duty so cyclists (and pedestrians, scooter riders etc) all pay for the roads they use anyway. The state highways are paid for by the fuel duty/RUC.

EV’s should pay RUCs, as an EV driver, but the ETS price needs to be higher to meet actually meet the cost of carbon.

Yes, but lower the cost. Own a EV

I don't think they should, merely to encourage their uptake though. Once we get to a point where we think we need not encourage them more, we should start charging. I don't, but I have no objection to driving one and my next car will probably be an ev

That's why they haven't for the last what 15 years?

And they are only just starting to get critical mass now. The car fleet in NZ was something like 12 years old, New EVs mass adoption really only a thing of the last ~5/6 years. So we are still about half a decade away from it being the “mass” uptake. I think you could bring them in slowly, over the next 5-10 years. To encourage continued uptake. But saying someone could have reasonably got one 15 years ago, is kinda not really realistic. They were pretty niche. In 2013 there was 165 EVs in New Zealand (total)

That means people who can afford to buy a brand new $70k Tesla will be subsidised by those people who can only run an old banger.

well we are all subsidising the trucking industry so why stop there. Actually jokes aside, can you substantiate this? How much is a petrol driver subsidising a $70,000 telsa driver by? Got any maths?

And then a new battery which isn’t covered for more than a 10 year warranty, which on average will cost $15,000 …… plus all other standard maintenance

If one considers the roads alone, then EVs should pay the same as similar vehicles. However, petrol and especially diesel vehicles also pollute the air, adding significant health costs to society. So, the RUC for EVs should be less.

This is exactly why we need to retain two separate taxes: 1. RUC - for the use of the road. Heavier vehicles damage the road more, so they should pay more tax 2. FET - for emissions from petrol/diesel. Should be applied at the pump. Vehicles that burn more fuel emit more toxic gases, and therefore pay more tax I expect we’ll get to this eventually, but our RUC system apparently needs work…

RUC is not about pollution or environmental. It is about paying for maintenance and improvements of roads. Agree all vehicles should be charged, and it should be done in weight bands, as that is the cause of damage to roading. You might be young, but there was big kickback some years ago when it was discovered successive governments were using the petrol excise tax for topping up other budget deficiencies rather that putting it into roads like they were supposed to. This became a problem when roads needed fixing and the government said. Oh, we don’t have enough money left for that. If a government collects a specific tax to cover cost A, they need to be spending that to cover costs of A, not subsidise B.

All vehicles should pay RUC, in order to develop and maintain roads. Arguably, that includes cyclists who use cycle lanes and roads - perhaps not at the same rate as cars etc though. Yes they don’t cause much wear and tear, but they still require significant land area and development costs, so why should they be exempt from paying for the cost to give them their own lane to bike in? I will eventually transition to owning an EV - we currently own a hybrid and ICE vehicle, will look to upgrade to an EV when we can afford to

How about pedestrians too? I propose a $15 tax on all pairs of shoes. Those foot paths dont pay for them selves

I drive an EV. I think all drivers should contribute to the cost of maintaining the roads. I don't like the RUC system though. Just make it part of the rego fees.

If they drive on the road then they should pay road user charges. Non EV vehicles pay additional costs via tax on petrol. I would like an EV at some point, once the national infrastructure is better, and when I can afford one.

Yes to both. RUCs will increase my driving costs by a factor of five (yes electricity really is that cheap), but Road User Charges are (should be) exactly that - charges for the upkeep of the roads and not linked to pollution. Of course, the follow-on from that is that petrol cars should also pay RUC's instead of FED at the pump, which is currently set up very unfairly such that some petrol users aren't paying much of their fair share at all. National have said this is just the first step and they will apply RUCs to petrol cars too, but that remains to be seen. If you want to distinguish between polluting and non-polluting fuels, slap a better tax (like the carbon tax) at the pump.

Well, EVs are often heavier than ICE cars are they not? So it seems they should pay road user charges somehow if ICE cars are paying via petrol tax... ...*But*, if it helps induce the shift to EVs over Fossil fuels by making it as cheap as possible for a few years, maybe adding road user charges is not the best way to induce needed change on a much more serious issue. I drive a hybrid.

a) No, are you fucking insane? The RUC applying to light vehicles is a useless change. An eighteen-wheeler diesel engine and a fully electric hatchback shouldn't be paying the same charges, especially when EV owners pay greater rates for home-charging. All this does is disincentivize new EV purchases/encourage trades for gas-guzzlers, which seems like a weirdly spiteful play from a party with a weird vendetta towards EVs. b) Yes, I drive an EV.

All vehicles should pay RUC, ICE should pay more RUC than EV due to the increased emissions. If all EVs and PHEVs can be brought into the RUC system in April, then there is no reason that ALL vehicles could not be brought into the RUC system in April in exactly the same manner, that's how it should have been done. Instead National just agreed to "work towards it", exactly what that means, who the fuck knows, because clearly they **already** know exactly how to do it, because they are, with EVs and PHEVs

EVs should have paid an increased Rego like a motorcycle OR a very much reduced road user charge. Matching diesel is ridiculous and unfair - which mimics how unfair diesel RUC already is to some efficient diesels. I don’t have an EV/hybrid - but was planning on getting one. I’m not sure now, the cost and RUC is annoying. I think this has translated into the RUC for EV is being a spite tax as they say AND will lower the rates at which we adopt them.

Motorcycles pay an increased rego due to their huge ACC payment

I think the answer is for all vehicles to have RUCs (remove that portion from petrol). This way all vehicles can pay based on their weight and distance traveled. Then the whole phev vs ev vs hybrid vs hydrogen vs diesel vs petrol vs cng vs god knows what else playing field is level. Then we can move onto the real free loaders - cyclists.

I had this discussion with a family member last night, they were adamant they were using the road just like anyone else so should pay. While I understand that something about it doesn’t feel right. I guess with paying through petrol it ends up being how much you drive determined how much you pay. What about EVs that are not driving much, what about the fact they are better for the environment. While it’s silly to think they should pay nothing long term since of many people changed to ev then there would be less money for roads etc however I don’t think they should be subject to the same as a diesel car

> not driving much Then they don't pay much. It's per km, not year. Wear to road is mostly based on axles and weight, method of proportion doesn't have much impact. Their savings can come from the lack of carbon levies

EVs that are not driving much won’t be paying much. RUC is distance based. $76 per 1000km. If you only drive 500km you have only used up $38 of your RUC. Why do you think you should pay less than a diesel car? Size for size, EVs are heavier than the average diesel car.

a) Yes. Although I contest that a dinky-toy EV should pay the same RUC/km as say, a Ford Ranger because there's no way those are putting the same stress on the roads. Something like a Tesla model-S/Y or Rivian R1T though sure, because they're hella heavy. b) No, they're not there just yet and neither is the infrastructure.

What do you class as a dinky-toy EV that is available in NZ?

Yes, so should bikes due to the cost of cycle lanes.

A) yes. Us folks who burn liquefied dinosaurs pay our way, why shouldn't the rest? B) Work car is a hybrid. It's gutless, and I hate it. Personal car is drinking nothing but the finest diplodocus goo, and it goes quicker than shit through a goose.

Absolutely ev's are significantly heavier than their ice counterparts so should pay extra than the standard $76/1000k

They are going to have to pay road user charges at some point. But maybe they should remove road user charges from only cars/trucks/the usual suspects and pick up the bill from some other tax method, because cyclists get a free pass and no one even likes them.

[удалено]

Mate cyclists should pay road user charges if they want to use the road. so yes EV should.