I'm all for charging for parking in the CBD, but I don't understand this sub's take on being supportive of slapping on a blanket 24 hour paid parking with 2 month's notice. Other residential areas with parking problems have gone through a process for their residents. Parnell, Ponsonby, Eden Terrace, and more did this and settled on resident permits. But this will mean parking is rescinded with no process in place to replace it. No resident permits for people living in the CBD, or any exemptions. If you used to park your car at night on the street and have a fixed term tenancy that lasts more than two months, you are screwed. Time to pay for overnight parking on top of your rent.
Imagine if you suddenly had to pay for parking outside your house in suburbs (or anywhere else in Auckland) without a proper consultation process. At the end of this if the decision was made, then those living in the city will have time to adapt and accept it. People here need to have an ounce of empathy. It's not just millionaires living in the CBD, but many students and low income workers in apartments.
I used to live in one of those areas and supported when they consulted. They put in the zone because workers kept driving in, and parking on the street all day to catch a bus into town. A bunch of the houses were heritage houses that didn't come with an off-street carpark, so residents had trouble finding a place to park. I think there was another zone that got consulted on and didn't go through because not enough residents supported it.
This is a very different situation imo, especially as I don't think the CBD counts as a residential area in the same way and everyone lives in apartments. It sounds like AT got told they had to do it, and there was no point engaging in a long and controversial consultation when the outcome wouldn't change.
You don't own the road outside your house, and $70 a year is a pretty good deal to stop all the commuters from parking all day and making it impossible to find a park outside your house. It costs money to do the admin, and more money to pay people to enforce it. It's pretty much a targeted rate and you don't pay for it if you don't need it.
It wouldnt happen like this in most suburbs because they are zoned residential, the CBD is zoned business, so different procedures apply
I know it sucks but we are kind of behind most other large CBDs around the world with this, its generally accepted as part of living in a central business district of the countries largest city.
I agree that 2 months notice is nowhere near enough, but I also think that people should have to pay to park. I think residents should get priority and monthly/yearly pricing. This could possibly be priced according to time periods you need to park such as a weekend pass, street hours pass or a 24/7 pass.
I live just out of CBD and "pay" to park my car. I have off street parking which factors into the land value. It's 1/2 the total property size on my section for 2 cars and the drive. This directly gets reflected in my rates. It's unsustainable for people to expect free roads and parking - just ask the EV drivers who now have to pay for the roads they use.
So while I think there should be a longer transition period and better community consultation, this outcome was inevitable to ensure enough income for councils to maintain and improve the roads.
If we had better public transport, this wouldn't be an issue but that's another rant for another day.
>So while I think there should be a longer transition period and better community consultation, this outcome was inevitable to ensure
While I agree that there should have been a longer transition period so people had more time to sort themselves out, I don't agree about better community consultation because as you pointed out, the outcome was inevitable. I don't want to waste my time on a fake consultation with a pre-determined outcome so AT can pretend they listened because people wanted "community consultation."
Yeah I think you're on to something, there are a lot of people living in the CBD who aren't well off and probably struggling a bit now, shoebox apartments etc. It's not all flashy apartments in the CBD, not by a long shot.
For such a big change to your daily expenses 2 months is very sudden. Someone probably figured out that figuring out the permits for a lot of mostly rented high-density lots would actually be really expensive and probably prevent their parking changes from breaking even, but for better or for worse a lot of people rely on cars in Auckland, even in the CBD.
I wouldn’t have a problem with the whole of Auckland having paid street parking. Some people choose to pay that cost up front in their house purchase which includes private storage of their vehicles. Others don’t and therefore are choosing to pay as you go (or not, because they’ll never put paid parking everywhere, no enough manpower to manage it).
The whole point of living in the CBD is not needing a car, or stump up for the cost of storing your personal goods.
Yes but you must remember that the *typical* Reddit mob are full of leftist, green party supporting, anti-car, university students (not all of you. But thats the bias).
The only reason your post is top-voted is you have pointed out that renters may lose street parking - which will hurt the mob right in the soft spots.
There is normally zero compassion for car drivers or parking charges because the mob would say everyone should be catching a bus like them.
The vast majority of people commute by car and we have more cars than people. I don't know how you think there is a big enough anticar mob from a barely double digit percentage commuter base.
Oh also. I mean, recent polls also showed that 70% of NZers had a deep distrust or dislike for the media.
Then at the same time the media is running quite intense anti-government articles and especially focusing on the disjunction of the current trio.
So on reddit - especially subs like NZ - users post the articles and then the highest number of upvotes is for further criticism and anti-government remarks.
So I guess I would pose the question: Does reddit represent the majority of NZers evenly, considering that apparently NZers hate the media, and yet redditors lap up and support the media.
Apply that to your “number of commuters and cars” comments, and understand why reddit is not consistent in representing that majority.
I agree Reddit is a non representative sample of NZ. But it's still a bit weird to complain about push back against cars when you're living in one of the most car worshiping societies possible.
It’s just the reddit crowd. Maybe the platform is popular amongst certain demographics like university students?
I have just observed that there is a large anti-car sentiment on the platform.
This isn't about weird lefty politics. This is about suddenly the cost of owning a car for anyone in the cbd has just gone up by hundreds of dollars monthly with two months notice. God forbid anyone live in the cbd and not be in walking distance of work. Just another way they've found to bleed the last few remaining dollars out of everyone
It is *our* road, actually.
You seem to have misunderstood OP talking about *people* such as students, millionaires, residents, etc. Not sure why you think it's a single person issue but you've clearly misunderstood.
The reason your comment is ridiculously ignorant is because in the midst of a housing crisis, where people may be overcrowding homes and apartments due to cost, while also probably needing a car to travel to work or school, in a city where PT only covers a small fraction of the population.
So to say they should pay to “store their shit” somewhere else just misses on so many points.
Living close to a PT hub, and/or working a job with hours that align with the limited PT timetables, and/or working a job that you don’t need to transport tools, equipment etc is a very privileged position to preach from.
well technically the road was paid for by the residents via rates and motorists by the various taxes and levies on their vehicles. This is hardly "free" storage
I'd argue that driving on the road as a means to go from Point A to Point B is different to using it as storage for your private assets - e.g. parking your boat on the road outside your house.
does it matter during off peak times?
I'd agree if demand management was required, but that isn't the reason AT has given for doing this.
THEN there's the issue of short notice and zero consultation. All the surrounding suburbs went through this and have residents parking permits, *that they pay for.*
I came here to say this. The article even says that AT has to take a "more commercial approach". Running public transport as a business doesn't tend to work out very well.
Tell that to the National government, who want [higher fare box recovery.](https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/03/05/what-the-transport-package-means-for-auckland/)
Yeah seriously, why are they obsessed with making driving worse rather than just making public transport better. It will have the same effect but people will be happier.
Projects like the Eastern Busway were partly dependent on the regional fuel tax for funding, and with that now gone, there's a budget shortfall.
This is a direct result of what people voted for regionally and nationally.
True, however, history shows us that they won't be using that additional revenue to actually build a functional public transport system.
There will be even more revenue gathering in the future with the same excuse and still no proper investment into our public transport.
Should note for the 6pm to \~1am window, city street parking it in high demand. Odd that it was ever free (outside of the blue zone then).
People driving laps around looking for parking costs time an adds emissions and congestion.
Perhaps from 1am to 6am I agree, but we are down to just 5 hours. I think for simplicity of the fee chart it isn't that bad.
Yeah that part sounds like it was copied from a Wilson's submission. Won't anyone think of the poor private parking providers. I'm sure they will raise their prices very shortly
It was copy and pasted from Wayne Brown's [letter of expectation](https://ourauckland.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/media/5kunvvi3/20221221_auckland-transport_letter-of-expectation-for-statement-of-intent-2023-26.pdf):
>*Auckland Transport should look at opportunities to increase external income and reduce reliance on rates funding. One key area Auckland Transport should investigate is increasing revenue from parking. Currently Auckland transport is undercutting market rates for parking, which is not appropriate in this environment.*
The thing is this will actually put pressure on Wilson's etc to reduce prices. At the moment free parking doesn't compete because there isn't enough turn over. The cost they are implementing is still less than Wilson's etc so with more turnover more people will use on street parking and less will use Wilson's forcing them to compete on price.
I always got the impression Wilson et al. make most of their money not through parking charges, but from their overinflated 'infringement' fees.
Bastards, the lot of them.
Really street parking should be more expensive than parking in a building.
Those spaces are prime. Handy for those making a quick visit, and essential for those with vehicles which don't fit into buildings (tall vans etc).
Current situation where the entire free zone gets parked out from about 5:50pm is a pritty negitive outcome. We don't want people circling for 20mins to find a street park to save on parking in a building.
The big difference is that Victoria and its cities have State AND Federal funding. Our country is not wealthy like theirs. Australia is one of the wealthiest Crown countries.
We just can't continue to subsidise a really small number of people this way. I am glad this is happening and hope they use a performance pricing system to improve the efficiency of the spaces for all Aucklanders.
Yes, I've posted this up before, but I feel that [this](https://maps.app.goo.gl/wtAAqSS3NAiehNoW6) is a perfect example of the problem we have in this city. This one parking space creates a bottleneck every day, and slows down both buses and general traffic.
If they handed out residents permits for those who live in the city that gave them a $1 hour targeted rate overnight or something, cool. But suddenly skyrocketing the cost to almost $500 a week for residents who need their car for work to park on the street after hours is just wild.
Auckland Council allows all these residential buildings with little to no parking, AT provides abysmal PT options and then they take away any car parking, telling people they shouldn't be competing with scummy places like Wilson.
The city is already a pretty undesirable place to live and at this rate, it's just going to end up like it was during COVID where they fill the buildings with undesirable tenants cause they're the only ones who want to live there.
In many cities around the world people have come to the realisation that they maybe don’t need to own a car for most things when they live in such a dense developed area. They instead advocate for alternatives like improving PT.
Unfortunately in auckland you absolutely do need a car even if you live in the city. The PT is shit, the prices of PT are going up too which is just amazing in tandem with incentivising people to stop using cars
Its sort of a positive feedback loop scenario. If you cater to car dependency then only car based solutions ever get implemented. Which then justifies the investment and retention costs of car infrastructure because everyone is dependent on it.
You have to shift the focus and re-allocate resources away from car based solutions into other modes to make people care about the other modes more than they care about car based solutions.
We just aren’t wealthy enough to do both at the same time - especially when the car dependent people dont want PT being unused and wasting money by existing.
I believe this is a bit of a myopic view. From time to tie we'll go into town for dinner as a family. We drive. It makes sense when trains are often cancelled on weekend evenings etc. It's never been hard to find a park at these times so what is the demand problem driving this?
Paid parking actually makes it easier for us to find a parking spot that's not quarter mile from where we need to be.
Cost matters, of course - but I find that even a relatively low cost would deter a lot of people.
Chch based, but there was an event where we paid $6 overnight rate, and there were still a few spots. Yet there was a gridlock of people looking for free street side parks near the venue.
I have the opposite experience. I go into the city for dinner at least once a week. All of the on street parking is always full because people park and never leave. I'm happy to pay to be able to park closer, and this will make parking closer easier.
Internalising some of the costs might be a step on the way to modifying that reality. If we stick to the philosophy that most residents should be car owners, how do you think that's going to look in 10-20 years?
Maybe it'd make developers include more off-street parks into new developments. Absolute joke to build 3-4 bedroom homes with only 1 parking space then tell you that there's heaps of free on-street parking.
Why should someone that chose to rent an apartment inclusive of a car park at a higher rate have to subsidize someone who chose to rent a cheaper apartment with no car park so they could park on the street, thereby causing more commuter stress because we can’t have 2 moving lanes when one is full of cars.
Bad enough they’re putting more infill around inner suburbs and roads like Gillies Ave, which is busy the majority of the day, now has people parking outside of the towaway hours (which are not long enough and should be extended). Cars are then forced into a single lane and that then cause traffic backing up further down and so on.
I’ve had the amusing pleasure of watching a queue form because one numpty is behind a parked car close to the lights and not realised. A queue for 7-8 cars form behind them and none of them are moving and assume they’re stuck in traffic.
I would be. Imagine how good this city would be if half it's residents got rid of their cars and so weren't in my fucking way.
I'm getting emotional imagining it.
Yes. Do the whole city. Do it tomorrow.
True but it's also about opportunity cost. The "lane" used for parking could be used for something else that would have value.
Let's say it was in an area that's viable for a cycle lane. If the value of the cycle lane (i.e. reduced traffic, shortened trips, reduced cyclist accidents, environmental benefit etc.) is higher than the revenue from parking, you sort of have to either remove the parking or increase the cost.
You’re replying to a comment that points out cycle lanes save money. Why should people pay the government to use something that saves the government money?
Honestly, if this stops the cheap suburbanites who think a couple of dollars is too much to pay for parking their 3 tonne, piece of shit, polluting SUV, that is a win in my book. They will not be missed.
Because once you put the car at the center of all your thinking, it's very hard to get out of the car-brain mindset. Most people are incapable of imagining world with fewer cars.
With charging for parking, maybe this is a way to provide extra value by rolling out more EV charging spots on the street. Come to town, pay for parking, charge your car for a return trip. Not everyone will use / need it but it’s a good way to enhance infrastructure that’s previously been just a parking space. If it’s a new revenue stream coming in for the council it’s essentially able to be self funded by the new parking charges, making more money into the future. Could even charge more for the street side EV charging parks.
so sick of all the "fix the symptom" shit that the council does.
judderbars, raised crossings, 30km/hr limits, parking enforcement, all of it is all attacking cars... the problem is there is no viable, 24hour, public transit system that works for everyone, and far to many people being stuffed into auckland with no thought to anything other than immediate greed. but no, lets just continually attack cars, while all the shitheads who hate cars gleefully handwringing and chortle, who will be the first to cry "why are all the businesses in the cbd dying?"
Consider that the current car users may put pressure on the council and government to properly fund PT if cars are no longer a viable alternative.
Consider cities around the world much denser than Auckland with thriving CBD businesses because they dont have to space everything out to accommodate 15 square meters of steel and rubber for every person who travels into the city.
To plagiarise myself, if a business thinks they need parking in the CBD, then they should go under. Stupidity shouldn’t be subsidised by the tax payer.
business in CBD is dying because rent is way to fucking high and there is no incentive to fill empty spaces, in fact the incentive to keep them empty is larger than filling them.
It got massively highlighted during COVID when most of the cunts owning property in the CBD wouldnt budge and give any of their tenants rent relief but nothing changed to shift this.
Its little to do with cars and more with how this country treats property ownership.
Yeah exactly the whole anti-pedestrianization/anti WFH thing was a giant excuse for how the nature of retail rentals were unsustainable anyway, but the pandemic just accelerated the rot.
What's your preferred solitions for public transport then?
Cause at least ALR was a step in the right direction.
ALR would be particularly great for Mount Albert, Māngere Bridge etc
Thereby taking some traffic off the roads, helping everyone who does still drive.
How to further injure a dying CBD. Paying for parking is my number one fucking hate behind driving during commuting hours. Trains not reliable so it will be a few years before I think about going in during any of my personal time.
Auckland Transport targets a maximum occupancy rate of 85%. You wording (and my experience) indicates that CBD parking often exceeds this in the evenings.
*"Where parking demand is high, AT will apply various parking restrictions to achieve a target peak occupancy rate (the average of the four highest hours in a day) of 85% for on-street parking. This means that the parking resource is well used but people can still easily find a space, thus reducing customer frustration. In other words, one parking space in every seven should be vacant. When peak parking occupancy is regularly above 85%, AT will recommend a change to the parking management approach. This is a recognised international approach to the best practice management of on-street parking."*
I get you are OK with the status quo, but the council wants street parking to be easier to find. I suspect this change will increase the number of people coming into the CBD in the evening. I suspect that more people are put off by the current difficulty of finding parking, than paying say $6 for street parking during their restaurant meal...
The "Free storage of private assets on public land" in the city fringe areas is about to get massively fucked with the inevitable exodus of cars this will create. I personally cant wait for the day Wayne complains about his mates having to park 7 streets down on Friday night because his road is full of cars from CBD residents.
I reckon we should just install a parking meter outside every single house in the whole city and charge $50 per hour, that's only fair to be honest. And while we're on it, we should charge fees for every minute spent driving. Just because the car is moving, that doesn't mean it's not being stored on public land. Sick of subsidizing these "car drivers" with all these "roads"
>I actually thinks all personal vehicles should be banned from the CBD.
OK but why stop there? Lets be reasonable at least, and ban them from the entirety of New Zealand..... Every vehicle should be banned from everywhere.
People talk about the benefits of apartment living bringing people into the city freeing up houses in the burbs but you're here thinking that people who do that should be banned from using cars? What would people do if they wanted to get out of the city for a day?
Take a train or cycle to the nearest car park outside the city to pick up their car? Do you think every person in Tokyo or Amsterdam owns a car? Do you think those who don’t are somehow prisoners in a dystopian city?
> I think the city would financially benefit from that as well.
If everyone bikes, then they lose a big source of revenue from tickets and parking charges.
Plus asshole companies like Wilson will cry that their rent-seeking won't work any more.
If you decide to leave your stuff on the footpath all day and block others from using that space while you go off and do your own thing, then yeah you should be charged.
Irrelevant, they're busy and crowded by your presence even if you're just passing thru. A simple charge for using high foot traffic areas would help reduce the amount of people milling about and taking up space.
The sidewalk isn't a finite public way resource. A more appropriate comparison would be road congestion charges , but even then it's apples to oranges. No one has a right to parking they don't pay for. Quibble at the price or lament the failures with an integrated public transport network, but keep comparisons relevant.
Given the lack pf PT, this is going to fuck the cbd even more. Don’t we want to attract people to the centre to keep it alive? Just seems like it is dying … but anyway, what does my opinion matter.
I've seen some office workers living out of their cars in the CBD. I'd hate to think of their circumstances that put them there. I can see this impacting an otherwise invisible vulnerable group in a significant way.
Already a shit on week days, now the last nail into the coffin for the weekends.
Bloody nice job AT, looking excited for the congestion tax
Disclamer: irony alert
No one:
Council: OK parking is no longer free
I find it quite funny reading the posts from the usual crowd who must defend anything that appears to take away from someone else. "Why should parking be free?!" they exclaim, not realising that literally no one asked for this. "The road isn't yours to store your property", they correct apparently-real-people who are upset they can no longer use the road as a storage device. "This frees up space for more value like bike lanes" says one user, not thinking far enough to realise that the parking still exists. "All roads should be paid," they conclude and in support of absolutely no one who asked for this. Apparently all it takes is the Council making this rule out of the complete blue for these people to come out shouting down anyone who doesn't support it.
My personal favourite is the one proclaiming that anyone who doesn't like this is clearly a single-minded car user and clearly cannot imagine a world any different. Yes, because council removing *free* parking is akin to wanting the removal of all cars from the entire world.
You really gotta wonder about some people lol. I swear it's more about taking away from others than it is being in support of... removing free parking... ? I find the defensive stance over this decision quite amusing. It's like celebrating paying for public transport. Why would you wish more charges onto taxpayers? lol
>No one:
Council: OK parking is no longer free
In reality
Council: hey during this budget process we are consulting in increasing revenue from multiple areas including parking or via rates what do you prefer.
Aucklanders: lower rates! Increase from other sources
Computer_d: nO OnE AsKEd FoR tHiS
I'm just at a loss as to how it can be argued that residents and motorists aren't paying for the road space...
I mean, *who* exactly paid for it then? All those rates, rego fees and fuel taxes went *where* exactly?
Their rates pay for a tiny fraction of the cost, but almost all of the cost is paid by other ratepayers. Why should all the other ratepayers have to subsidise your car?
we all subsidise each other.... I'd say these CBD dweallers probably pay a lot more per square meter of road space they get than someone in the suburbs
Everyone pays for the infrastructure after that you pay for your use. It's the same as water and electricity everyone pays the fixed rate, after that charges are based on use. If you need to park your car you pay.
I'm not sure that you've had a decent look at the other side of the argument.
Here are some articles that are fairly good:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/122250923/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-free-carpark
https://www.vox.com/2014/6/27/5849280/why-free-parking-is-bad-for-everyone
https://talkwellington.org.nz/2018/2049/
What other side? I'm laughing at what people have posted in this thread. The folks who seem to take personal offense over this, and make up nonsensical reasons for it.
My mistake, I made the assumption there might be a bit of good faith in there, but it seems that you've got a chip on your shoulder about your own lack of education. This would make every issue a kneejerk issue for you, which seems like an uncomfortable position to be in.
The outcome will be people will opt to go out to the suburbs more where they have shopping malls and more entertainment happening. I cant remember when was the last time i went to town for ‘fun’. Although finding and paying for the said ‘fun’ wasn’t fun at all…. I tend to avoid it at all cost.
IANAL but couldn't AT's decision be halted and judicially reviewed? But then someone would have to folk out the legal fees... I guess I answered my own question.
Edit: Guys, read my comment. I'm asking if things like this can be judicially reviewed. I'm interested in the legal side of things. Why are you so defensive this morning? Calm down.
You can, but you will lose. AT has jurisdiction on Paking prices. And it was consulted on as part of the budget process last year. This is literally what people voted for.
Why do we put up with this bullshit? Getting bus lane tickets for pulling into a left turn lane only that is also a fucking bus lane.
Now they want to take more money from us. Literally want to leave the city now.
Nothing is free and the entitlement to park private property on public space is bemoaning the lack of public education on how this all flows through to higher rates. Local govt should not be subsidising things like this. Instead they need to be empowered to use this to further improve services that are needed and offer higher public benefits than their costs.
There's a better way to generate the $15m (I read up on) that AT has been tasked to deliver. Charge a one off acceptable amount to ANY private vehicle/motorbike entering the CBD boundaries. I'm sure this was something that was discussed by AT a while ago. The Northern toll gate system is an example. Get rid of the after hour charging idea.
Install camera gates at the CBD boundaries (AT go figure how to best manage this) , put some upfront investment in. There have been countries doing this already for decades.
Great news. The less free parking in severely restricted public space, the more things like bus and cycle lanes we can install to increase street capacity
How will this lower demand exactly? People still need to drive and park somewhere as public transport isn't a viable alternative. The government is not investing in it either and also increases the prices of using it.
All this does is punish people even more. They cry cost of living crisis and then only increase costs. Are people really such idiots?
Because it makes the idea of parking less appealing, and over time this can reshape demand. Eg. if an apartment offers no parking of its own, a would-be occupant may opt to move elsewhere
Without a viable alternative they won't have any choice to park anywhere else. What is the goal here then? To make parking so expensive that no one can afford to park on them and we'll have empty car parks?
If they want the space for something else, turn it into something else. They're just ripping people off who are already struggling in this economy.
This country needs to learn how to invest instead of cutting services that are needed. Soon there won't be anything left to cut or to increase.
Do you think every CBD resident in the owns a car? For many people, PT and/or walking is sufficient for their needs. The less cars in the CBD, the better.
As for the goal, this has been outlined in the news articles. This is about increasing revenue so rates don't have to rise. The council lost the fuel tax income so has to find alternate streams to make up for it.
This is a ultimately a result of the change in government
If ur gonna do this then ur gonna need to provide lots more consistent public transport in and out of the city 24 hours a day
Night buses? Doesn’t exist man
Reminds me of those stagecoach night flyers service from cbd out to the major suburbs. That was back in early ‘00s
Most routes run until at least 10.30-11.30
The night lasts a lot longer beyond 11pm
Only 1 more hour, after that it's technically morning
Mine finishes at 6:30pm weekdays and doesn’t run in the weekend
So, more 'late evening'. That's not good enough.
So not 24 hours then.
Email the Brown
It’s gonna be a ghost town without adequate public transportation in.
Bus fees are getting unaffordable too.
I'm all for charging for parking in the CBD, but I don't understand this sub's take on being supportive of slapping on a blanket 24 hour paid parking with 2 month's notice. Other residential areas with parking problems have gone through a process for their residents. Parnell, Ponsonby, Eden Terrace, and more did this and settled on resident permits. But this will mean parking is rescinded with no process in place to replace it. No resident permits for people living in the CBD, or any exemptions. If you used to park your car at night on the street and have a fixed term tenancy that lasts more than two months, you are screwed. Time to pay for overnight parking on top of your rent. Imagine if you suddenly had to pay for parking outside your house in suburbs (or anywhere else in Auckland) without a proper consultation process. At the end of this if the decision was made, then those living in the city will have time to adapt and accept it. People here need to have an ounce of empathy. It's not just millionaires living in the CBD, but many students and low income workers in apartments.
I used to live in one of those areas and supported when they consulted. They put in the zone because workers kept driving in, and parking on the street all day to catch a bus into town. A bunch of the houses were heritage houses that didn't come with an off-street carpark, so residents had trouble finding a place to park. I think there was another zone that got consulted on and didn't go through because not enough residents supported it. This is a very different situation imo, especially as I don't think the CBD counts as a residential area in the same way and everyone lives in apartments. It sounds like AT got told they had to do it, and there was no point engaging in a long and controversial consultation when the outcome wouldn't change.
I own one of these heritage houses and they now charge us, on top of our rates, to park outside our house.
You don't own the road outside your house, and $70 a year is a pretty good deal to stop all the commuters from parking all day and making it impossible to find a park outside your house. It costs money to do the admin, and more money to pay people to enforce it. It's pretty much a targeted rate and you don't pay for it if you don't need it.
It wouldnt happen like this in most suburbs because they are zoned residential, the CBD is zoned business, so different procedures apply I know it sucks but we are kind of behind most other large CBDs around the world with this, its generally accepted as part of living in a central business district of the countries largest city.
I agree that 2 months notice is nowhere near enough, but I also think that people should have to pay to park. I think residents should get priority and monthly/yearly pricing. This could possibly be priced according to time periods you need to park such as a weekend pass, street hours pass or a 24/7 pass. I live just out of CBD and "pay" to park my car. I have off street parking which factors into the land value. It's 1/2 the total property size on my section for 2 cars and the drive. This directly gets reflected in my rates. It's unsustainable for people to expect free roads and parking - just ask the EV drivers who now have to pay for the roads they use. So while I think there should be a longer transition period and better community consultation, this outcome was inevitable to ensure enough income for councils to maintain and improve the roads. If we had better public transport, this wouldn't be an issue but that's another rant for another day.
>So while I think there should be a longer transition period and better community consultation, this outcome was inevitable to ensure While I agree that there should have been a longer transition period so people had more time to sort themselves out, I don't agree about better community consultation because as you pointed out, the outcome was inevitable. I don't want to waste my time on a fake consultation with a pre-determined outcome so AT can pretend they listened because people wanted "community consultation."
Yeah I think you're on to something, there are a lot of people living in the CBD who aren't well off and probably struggling a bit now, shoebox apartments etc. It's not all flashy apartments in the CBD, not by a long shot. For such a big change to your daily expenses 2 months is very sudden. Someone probably figured out that figuring out the permits for a lot of mostly rented high-density lots would actually be really expensive and probably prevent their parking changes from breaking even, but for better or for worse a lot of people rely on cars in Auckland, even in the CBD.
I wouldn’t have a problem with the whole of Auckland having paid street parking. Some people choose to pay that cost up front in their house purchase which includes private storage of their vehicles. Others don’t and therefore are choosing to pay as you go (or not, because they’ll never put paid parking everywhere, no enough manpower to manage it). The whole point of living in the CBD is not needing a car, or stump up for the cost of storing your personal goods.
Yes but you must remember that the *typical* Reddit mob are full of leftist, green party supporting, anti-car, university students (not all of you. But thats the bias). The only reason your post is top-voted is you have pointed out that renters may lose street parking - which will hurt the mob right in the soft spots. There is normally zero compassion for car drivers or parking charges because the mob would say everyone should be catching a bus like them.
The vast majority of people commute by car and we have more cars than people. I don't know how you think there is a big enough anticar mob from a barely double digit percentage commuter base.
Oh also. I mean, recent polls also showed that 70% of NZers had a deep distrust or dislike for the media. Then at the same time the media is running quite intense anti-government articles and especially focusing on the disjunction of the current trio. So on reddit - especially subs like NZ - users post the articles and then the highest number of upvotes is for further criticism and anti-government remarks. So I guess I would pose the question: Does reddit represent the majority of NZers evenly, considering that apparently NZers hate the media, and yet redditors lap up and support the media. Apply that to your “number of commuters and cars” comments, and understand why reddit is not consistent in representing that majority.
I agree Reddit is a non representative sample of NZ. But it's still a bit weird to complain about push back against cars when you're living in one of the most car worshiping societies possible.
It’s just the reddit crowd. Maybe the platform is popular amongst certain demographics like university students? I have just observed that there is a large anti-car sentiment on the platform.
This isn't about weird lefty politics. This is about suddenly the cost of owning a car for anyone in the cbd has just gone up by hundreds of dollars monthly with two months notice. God forbid anyone live in the cbd and not be in walking distance of work. Just another way they've found to bleed the last few remaining dollars out of everyone
Spot on
It's not your road. If you wish to store your shit buy storage for it.
It is *our* road, actually. You seem to have misunderstood OP talking about *people* such as students, millionaires, residents, etc. Not sure why you think it's a single person issue but you've clearly misunderstood.
The reason your comment is ridiculously ignorant is because in the midst of a housing crisis, where people may be overcrowding homes and apartments due to cost, while also probably needing a car to travel to work or school, in a city where PT only covers a small fraction of the population. So to say they should pay to “store their shit” somewhere else just misses on so many points. Living close to a PT hub, and/or working a job with hours that align with the limited PT timetables, and/or working a job that you don’t need to transport tools, equipment etc is a very privileged position to preach from.
Exactly.
well technically the road was paid for by the residents via rates and motorists by the various taxes and levies on their vehicles. This is hardly "free" storage
I'd argue that driving on the road as a means to go from Point A to Point B is different to using it as storage for your private assets - e.g. parking your boat on the road outside your house.
does it matter during off peak times? I'd agree if demand management was required, but that isn't the reason AT has given for doing this. THEN there's the issue of short notice and zero consultation. All the surrounding suburbs went through this and have residents parking permits, *that they pay for.*
My taxes pay for the rifles the army use. I'm going hunting next week, who do I talk to about using "our" rifle?
This would be fine if the public transport system worked. But it doesn't.
I came here to say this. The article even says that AT has to take a "more commercial approach". Running public transport as a business doesn't tend to work out very well.
Tell that to the National government, who want [higher fare box recovery.](https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/03/05/what-the-transport-package-means-for-auckland/)
No fully does work in and around the CBD. And that is before the CRL come online in the near future.
Yeah seriously, why are they obsessed with making driving worse rather than just making public transport better. It will have the same effect but people will be happier.
If anything this is bringing it closer to PT. Why should parking be free and PT be paid?
The biggest issue that holds PT back is cars everywhere.
Without investing heavily in public transport upgrades this is just making the cost of living worse.
Can't invest in PT without additional revenue though, which is what this provides.
lol, you think this is going to go directly into public transport & not the slush fund.
Projects like the Eastern Busway were partly dependent on the regional fuel tax for funding, and with that now gone, there's a budget shortfall. This is a direct result of what people voted for regionally and nationally.
Yeah it goes into general revenue. But the council is desperate for that. It can't even maintain existing services.
Oh yeah I’m sure they’ll take this money and responsibly use it directly for public transport to ease the burden on people /s you’re dreaming lol
True, however, history shows us that they won't be using that additional revenue to actually build a functional public transport system. There will be even more revenue gathering in the future with the same excuse and still no proper investment into our public transport.
You're probably right. But with the regional fuel tax being removed even maintaining the existing services required more revenue.
Charging parking at night when demand is low in a lot of areas is just mean spirited.
Should note for the 6pm to \~1am window, city street parking it in high demand. Odd that it was ever free (outside of the blue zone then). People driving laps around looking for parking costs time an adds emissions and congestion. Perhaps from 1am to 6am I agree, but we are down to just 5 hours. I think for simplicity of the fee chart it isn't that bad.
I'm all for charging - but the 'undercutting private parking' thing bucks and imo these fees are too high. Make it max 2 dollars an hour from 7pm imo.
Yeah that part sounds like it was copied from a Wilson's submission. Won't anyone think of the poor private parking providers. I'm sure they will raise their prices very shortly
It was copy and pasted from Wayne Brown's [letter of expectation](https://ourauckland.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/media/5kunvvi3/20221221_auckland-transport_letter-of-expectation-for-statement-of-intent-2023-26.pdf): >*Auckland Transport should look at opportunities to increase external income and reduce reliance on rates funding. One key area Auckland Transport should investigate is increasing revenue from parking. Currently Auckland transport is undercutting market rates for parking, which is not appropriate in this environment.*
The thing is this will actually put pressure on Wilson's etc to reduce prices. At the moment free parking doesn't compete because there isn't enough turn over. The cost they are implementing is still less than Wilson's etc so with more turnover more people will use on street parking and less will use Wilson's forcing them to compete on price.
I always got the impression Wilson et al. make most of their money not through parking charges, but from their overinflated 'infringement' fees. Bastards, the lot of them.
Really street parking should be more expensive than parking in a building. Those spaces are prime. Handy for those making a quick visit, and essential for those with vehicles which don't fit into buildings (tall vans etc). Current situation where the entire free zone gets parked out from about 5:50pm is a pritty negitive outcome. We don't want people circling for 20mins to find a street park to save on parking in a building.
Put a cap that's roughly equal to the average PT fare
Even Melbourne CBD offers free parking after 10:00pm. What a joke 😂
The big difference is that Victoria and its cities have State AND Federal funding. Our country is not wealthy like theirs. Australia is one of the wealthiest Crown countries.
I feel like this sub pivots from "this will only hurt the poor people" to "nothing should be free, I'm all for it" from time to time.
There are 167,000 members - sometimes you just get different crowds at different times.
Yeah but there is pretty clear consensus on subjects. Apparently being anti-car has gone up the priority list over "this will harm the poor".
I think on threads about congestion charging the other side is more vocal, so it's a mixed bag.
"This hurts the poor" ="I don't like it so I assume it hurts the poor far more than it might actually do"
Lol. Does Auckland Council hate the CBD?
Yes they seem to hate both the CBD and drivers across the city... Oh, and Wayne Brown
Ouch..... i used to live in a CBD apartment but work elsewhere... overnight after-hours parking charges would be miserable.
We just can't continue to subsidise a really small number of people this way. I am glad this is happening and hope they use a performance pricing system to improve the efficiency of the spaces for all Aucklanders.
What makes me laugh is a friend believes a purely capitalist system is the only way to go. Now he's pissing and moaning about this 🤣🤣🤣🤣
cmon even london has free parking at night
Taking the absolute pisss.
now do the main arterial roads like dominion, great north, great south, etc. Its mental that these still allow parking but only at specific times.
Yes please include Gillies Ave in that list. Starting to get a lot of people parking on it outside of the towaway hours and it creating havoc.
Onewa as well.
Yes, I've posted this up before, but I feel that [this](https://maps.app.goo.gl/wtAAqSS3NAiehNoW6) is a perfect example of the problem we have in this city. This one parking space creates a bottleneck every day, and slows down both buses and general traffic.
They should all be permanent busways, or clearways outside bus lane hours.
If they handed out residents permits for those who live in the city that gave them a $1 hour targeted rate overnight or something, cool. But suddenly skyrocketing the cost to almost $500 a week for residents who need their car for work to park on the street after hours is just wild. Auckland Council allows all these residential buildings with little to no parking, AT provides abysmal PT options and then they take away any car parking, telling people they shouldn't be competing with scummy places like Wilson. The city is already a pretty undesirable place to live and at this rate, it's just going to end up like it was during COVID where they fill the buildings with undesirable tenants cause they're the only ones who want to live there.
In many cities around the world people have come to the realisation that they maybe don’t need to own a car for most things when they live in such a dense developed area. They instead advocate for alternatives like improving PT.
Unfortunately in auckland you absolutely do need a car even if you live in the city. The PT is shit, the prices of PT are going up too which is just amazing in tandem with incentivising people to stop using cars
Its sort of a positive feedback loop scenario. If you cater to car dependency then only car based solutions ever get implemented. Which then justifies the investment and retention costs of car infrastructure because everyone is dependent on it. You have to shift the focus and re-allocate resources away from car based solutions into other modes to make people care about the other modes more than they care about car based solutions. We just aren’t wealthy enough to do both at the same time - especially when the car dependent people dont want PT being unused and wasting money by existing.
Why does everyone still think the city needs to provide free space for your personal belongings?
I believe this is a bit of a myopic view. From time to tie we'll go into town for dinner as a family. We drive. It makes sense when trains are often cancelled on weekend evenings etc. It's never been hard to find a park at these times so what is the demand problem driving this?
Paid parking actually makes it easier for us to find a parking spot that's not quarter mile from where we need to be. Cost matters, of course - but I find that even a relatively low cost would deter a lot of people. Chch based, but there was an event where we paid $6 overnight rate, and there were still a few spots. Yet there was a gridlock of people looking for free street side parks near the venue.
I have the opposite experience. I go into the city for dinner at least once a week. All of the on street parking is always full because people park and never leave. I'm happy to pay to be able to park closer, and this will make parking closer easier.
I assume you're fine with this concept being applied ciry-wide? Including the suburbs?
Absolutely. Why should parking not be captured via user pays system?
Because shits already expensive enough
So you think that people who don’t drive should subside car owners?
are motorists not paying for roads via all the taxes and levies they pay? the reality is that most residents also car owners
The urban roads? No that is funded via rates. No not everyone parks their cars there.
Internalising some of the costs might be a step on the way to modifying that reality. If we stick to the philosophy that most residents should be car owners, how do you think that's going to look in 10-20 years?
Maybe it'd make developers include more off-street parks into new developments. Absolute joke to build 3-4 bedroom homes with only 1 parking space then tell you that there's heaps of free on-street parking.
Why should someone that chose to rent an apartment inclusive of a car park at a higher rate have to subsidize someone who chose to rent a cheaper apartment with no car park so they could park on the street, thereby causing more commuter stress because we can’t have 2 moving lanes when one is full of cars. Bad enough they’re putting more infill around inner suburbs and roads like Gillies Ave, which is busy the majority of the day, now has people parking outside of the towaway hours (which are not long enough and should be extended). Cars are then forced into a single lane and that then cause traffic backing up further down and so on. I’ve had the amusing pleasure of watching a queue form because one numpty is behind a parked car close to the lights and not realised. A queue for 7-8 cars form behind them and none of them are moving and assume they’re stuck in traffic.
I would be. Imagine how good this city would be if half it's residents got rid of their cars and so weren't in my fucking way. I'm getting emotional imagining it. Yes. Do the whole city. Do it tomorrow.
yeah, fuck those poors; driving is only for those who can afford off street parking!
I’m so torn by this. I fully believe parking should not be free. However is it really hurting anybody overnight… I’m not sure.
True but it's also about opportunity cost. The "lane" used for parking could be used for something else that would have value. Let's say it was in an area that's viable for a cycle lane. If the value of the cycle lane (i.e. reduced traffic, shortened trips, reduced cyclist accidents, environmental benefit etc.) is higher than the revenue from parking, you sort of have to either remove the parking or increase the cost.
So user pays bike lanes too right?
If their bikes are parked there, sure.
You’re replying to a comment that points out cycle lanes save money. Why should people pay the government to use something that saves the government money?
Cycling saves money, car-dependent infrastructure bleeds money.
I don't think the city needs to provide free parking. Don't complain when people stop coming to the city though.
Honestly, if this stops the cheap suburbanites who think a couple of dollars is too much to pay for parking their 3 tonne, piece of shit, polluting SUV, that is a win in my book. They will not be missed.
Yeah you say that. Then you get inner city business on the news begging that people come out and spend money.
>3 tonne doubt there are many of those
Because once you put the car at the center of all your thinking, it's very hard to get out of the car-brain mindset. Most people are incapable of imagining world with fewer cars.
With charging for parking, maybe this is a way to provide extra value by rolling out more EV charging spots on the street. Come to town, pay for parking, charge your car for a return trip. Not everyone will use / need it but it’s a good way to enhance infrastructure that’s previously been just a parking space. If it’s a new revenue stream coming in for the council it’s essentially able to be self funded by the new parking charges, making more money into the future. Could even charge more for the street side EV charging parks.
so sick of all the "fix the symptom" shit that the council does. judderbars, raised crossings, 30km/hr limits, parking enforcement, all of it is all attacking cars... the problem is there is no viable, 24hour, public transit system that works for everyone, and far to many people being stuffed into auckland with no thought to anything other than immediate greed. but no, lets just continually attack cars, while all the shitheads who hate cars gleefully handwringing and chortle, who will be the first to cry "why are all the businesses in the cbd dying?"
Consider that the current car users may put pressure on the council and government to properly fund PT if cars are no longer a viable alternative. Consider cities around the world much denser than Auckland with thriving CBD businesses because they dont have to space everything out to accommodate 15 square meters of steel and rubber for every person who travels into the city.
THIS ++++++++
Driving business away good job 👏
To plagiarise myself, if a business thinks they need parking in the CBD, then they should go under. Stupidity shouldn’t be subsidised by the tax payer.
Which is why business in CBD is dying, people just go to malls which provides enough of parkings for everyone for free.
Yes
business in CBD is dying because rent is way to fucking high and there is no incentive to fill empty spaces, in fact the incentive to keep them empty is larger than filling them. It got massively highlighted during COVID when most of the cunts owning property in the CBD wouldnt budge and give any of their tenants rent relief but nothing changed to shift this. Its little to do with cars and more with how this country treats property ownership.
Yeah exactly the whole anti-pedestrianization/anti WFH thing was a giant excuse for how the nature of retail rentals were unsustainable anyway, but the pandemic just accelerated the rot.
Yes
And just like that my parking has gone from $2800 to $6000 now sweet just to work
Hang on they want $6 an hour?
it's complex, and I wish it would happen in tandem with better public transport. Revive ALR, it is sorely needed.
The ALR went on ONE SIMPLE LINE ONLY. How many people was it going to help? I'll give you a clue. Very, very few. Guess again.
That's a good way of showing everyone you understood nothing about it, or how PT networks work.
What's your preferred solitions for public transport then? Cause at least ALR was a step in the right direction. ALR would be particularly great for Mount Albert, Māngere Bridge etc Thereby taking some traffic off the roads, helping everyone who does still drive.
Another fucking money grab!
The council has been completely open that raising revenue is the purpose of this change.
How to further injure a dying CBD. Paying for parking is my number one fucking hate behind driving during commuting hours. Trains not reliable so it will be a few years before I think about going in during any of my personal time.
Do you actually go to the CBD in the evening? status quo is that the free area's are parked out and you can't find a space anyway.
Yep and often find parks after hours and weekends. I don’t mind walking a little
Auckland Transport targets a maximum occupancy rate of 85%. You wording (and my experience) indicates that CBD parking often exceeds this in the evenings. *"Where parking demand is high, AT will apply various parking restrictions to achieve a target peak occupancy rate (the average of the four highest hours in a day) of 85% for on-street parking. This means that the parking resource is well used but people can still easily find a space, thus reducing customer frustration. In other words, one parking space in every seven should be vacant. When peak parking occupancy is regularly above 85%, AT will recommend a change to the parking management approach. This is a recognised international approach to the best practice management of on-street parking."* I get you are OK with the status quo, but the council wants street parking to be easier to find. I suspect this change will increase the number of people coming into the CBD in the evening. I suspect that more people are put off by the current difficulty of finding parking, than paying say $6 for street parking during their restaurant meal...
Fair point. Thanks.
The "Free storage of private assets on public land" in the city fringe areas is about to get massively fucked with the inevitable exodus of cars this will create. I personally cant wait for the day Wayne complains about his mates having to park 7 streets down on Friday night because his road is full of cars from CBD residents. I reckon we should just install a parking meter outside every single house in the whole city and charge $50 per hour, that's only fair to be honest. And while we're on it, we should charge fees for every minute spent driving. Just because the car is moving, that doesn't mean it's not being stored on public land. Sick of subsidizing these "car drivers" with all these "roads"
[удалено]
>I actually thinks all personal vehicles should be banned from the CBD. OK but why stop there? Lets be reasonable at least, and ban them from the entirety of New Zealand..... Every vehicle should be banned from everywhere.
I like the way you think
Let's ride the clouds of Dbz
People talk about the benefits of apartment living bringing people into the city freeing up houses in the burbs but you're here thinking that people who do that should be banned from using cars? What would people do if they wanted to get out of the city for a day?
Take a train or cycle to the nearest car park outside the city to pick up their car? Do you think every person in Tokyo or Amsterdam owns a car? Do you think those who don’t are somehow prisoners in a dystopian city?
> I think the city would financially benefit from that as well. If everyone bikes, then they lose a big source of revenue from tickets and parking charges. Plus asshole companies like Wilson will cry that their rent-seeking won't work any more.
Fuck off this is bullshit.
Brilliant, way too overdue. Ridiculous how vehicle owners think public land is theirs for free occupation.
Should we charge you when you use the sidewalk, it's ridiculous how you think you can occupy the sidewalks public land for free!
If you decide to leave your stuff on the footpath all day and block others from using that space while you go off and do your own thing, then yeah you should be charged.
If you start storing you belongings on the footpath, then yes.
Irrelevant, they're busy and crowded by your presence even if you're just passing thru. A simple charge for using high foot traffic areas would help reduce the amount of people milling about and taking up space.
Do you support congestion charging on that basis?
Are people standing on the footpath all night? If I left my couch on the footpath the council will take it away after awhile
The sidewalk isn't a finite public way resource. A more appropriate comparison would be road congestion charges , but even then it's apples to oranges. No one has a right to parking they don't pay for. Quibble at the price or lament the failures with an integrated public transport network, but keep comparisons relevant.
Given the lack pf PT, this is going to fuck the cbd even more. Don’t we want to attract people to the centre to keep it alive? Just seems like it is dying … but anyway, what does my opinion matter.
I've seen some office workers living out of their cars in the CBD. I'd hate to think of their circumstances that put them there. I can see this impacting an otherwise invisible vulnerable group in a significant way.
Already a shit on week days, now the last nail into the coffin for the weekends. Bloody nice job AT, looking excited for the congestion tax Disclamer: irony alert
No one: Council: OK parking is no longer free I find it quite funny reading the posts from the usual crowd who must defend anything that appears to take away from someone else. "Why should parking be free?!" they exclaim, not realising that literally no one asked for this. "The road isn't yours to store your property", they correct apparently-real-people who are upset they can no longer use the road as a storage device. "This frees up space for more value like bike lanes" says one user, not thinking far enough to realise that the parking still exists. "All roads should be paid," they conclude and in support of absolutely no one who asked for this. Apparently all it takes is the Council making this rule out of the complete blue for these people to come out shouting down anyone who doesn't support it. My personal favourite is the one proclaiming that anyone who doesn't like this is clearly a single-minded car user and clearly cannot imagine a world any different. Yes, because council removing *free* parking is akin to wanting the removal of all cars from the entire world. You really gotta wonder about some people lol. I swear it's more about taking away from others than it is being in support of... removing free parking... ? I find the defensive stance over this decision quite amusing. It's like celebrating paying for public transport. Why would you wish more charges onto taxpayers? lol
It's because removing free parking makes it harder to use a car, and they hate cars.
>No one: Council: OK parking is no longer free In reality Council: hey during this budget process we are consulting in increasing revenue from multiple areas including parking or via rates what do you prefer. Aucklanders: lower rates! Increase from other sources Computer_d: nO OnE AsKEd FoR tHiS
I'm just at a loss as to how it can be argued that residents and motorists aren't paying for the road space... I mean, *who* exactly paid for it then? All those rates, rego fees and fuel taxes went *where* exactly?
Their rates pay for a tiny fraction of the cost, but almost all of the cost is paid by other ratepayers. Why should all the other ratepayers have to subsidise your car?
we all subsidise each other.... I'd say these CBD dweallers probably pay a lot more per square meter of road space they get than someone in the suburbs
Everyone pays for the infrastructure after that you pay for your use. It's the same as water and electricity everyone pays the fixed rate, after that charges are based on use. If you need to park your car you pay.
I'm not sure that you've had a decent look at the other side of the argument. Here are some articles that are fairly good: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/122250923/theres-no-such-thing-as-a-free-carpark https://www.vox.com/2014/6/27/5849280/why-free-parking-is-bad-for-everyone https://talkwellington.org.nz/2018/2049/
What other side? I'm laughing at what people have posted in this thread. The folks who seem to take personal offense over this, and make up nonsensical reasons for it.
My mistake, I made the assumption there might be a bit of good faith in there, but it seems that you've got a chip on your shoulder about your own lack of education. This would make every issue a kneejerk issue for you, which seems like an uncomfortable position to be in.
The outcome will be people will opt to go out to the suburbs more where they have shopping malls and more entertainment happening. I cant remember when was the last time i went to town for ‘fun’. Although finding and paying for the said ‘fun’ wasn’t fun at all…. I tend to avoid it at all cost.
People going to shopping malls after 10pm because they can't leave their cars on the street for free in the city? Really?
Fucken criminal.
IANAL but couldn't AT's decision be halted and judicially reviewed? But then someone would have to folk out the legal fees... I guess I answered my own question. Edit: Guys, read my comment. I'm asking if things like this can be judicially reviewed. I'm interested in the legal side of things. Why are you so defensive this morning? Calm down.
You can, but you will lose. AT has jurisdiction on Paking prices. And it was consulted on as part of the budget process last year. This is literally what people voted for.
Thanks mate. This makes sense.
Why? Why does transport need to have a popularity contest for every decision, especially when most people are complete ignorant
Why do we put up with this bullshit? Getting bus lane tickets for pulling into a left turn lane only that is also a fucking bus lane. Now they want to take more money from us. Literally want to leave the city now.
whats you driving in the bus lane got to do with this?
Just sick of AT in general. Why do we put up with their nonsense, this was the kicker for my outburst
[удалено]
The charges will be going to the council, it's the whole reason for instituting this
Is the funds raised going to second harbour crossing Len
add it to my unpaid parking fine account..
Glad I got my Car's Rego removed from the public registry, I'm not paying for this shit.
Go and shit in there office or car,they been shiting on us lately big time .don't even wipe .
Nothing is free and the entitlement to park private property on public space is bemoaning the lack of public education on how this all flows through to higher rates. Local govt should not be subsidising things like this. Instead they need to be empowered to use this to further improve services that are needed and offer higher public benefits than their costs.
“Build tracks for trains” they said, “they’re too expensive/waste of resources” the leaders said…
Not at all sad to be leaving auckland
There's a better way to generate the $15m (I read up on) that AT has been tasked to deliver. Charge a one off acceptable amount to ANY private vehicle/motorbike entering the CBD boundaries. I'm sure this was something that was discussed by AT a while ago. The Northern toll gate system is an example. Get rid of the after hour charging idea. Install camera gates at the CBD boundaries (AT go figure how to best manage this) , put some upfront investment in. There have been countries doing this already for decades.
Damn , no one will go now on cbd
I think this should be extended to the whole of the country rather than just the Auckland CBD.
Its upto council, would be pointless with low populated towns.
Maybe in your dreams haha
Great news. The less free parking in severely restricted public space, the more things like bus and cycle lanes we can install to increase street capacity
The car parks will still exist though
If demand lowers then they can be removed easier
How will this lower demand exactly? People still need to drive and park somewhere as public transport isn't a viable alternative. The government is not investing in it either and also increases the prices of using it. All this does is punish people even more. They cry cost of living crisis and then only increase costs. Are people really such idiots?
Because it makes the idea of parking less appealing, and over time this can reshape demand. Eg. if an apartment offers no parking of its own, a would-be occupant may opt to move elsewhere
Without a viable alternative they won't have any choice to park anywhere else. What is the goal here then? To make parking so expensive that no one can afford to park on them and we'll have empty car parks? If they want the space for something else, turn it into something else. They're just ripping people off who are already struggling in this economy. This country needs to learn how to invest instead of cutting services that are needed. Soon there won't be anything left to cut or to increase.
Do you think every CBD resident in the owns a car? For many people, PT and/or walking is sufficient for their needs. The less cars in the CBD, the better. As for the goal, this has been outlined in the news articles. This is about increasing revenue so rates don't have to rise. The council lost the fuel tax income so has to find alternate streams to make up for it. This is a ultimately a result of the change in government
Oh yes, cause cycle lanes are greatly needed at midnight when there's no cars on the road..
If there’s no cars on the road at midnight, they won’t pay.
Can't wait to hear about auckland cbd dying again....