THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORT IN

AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND:

Who should pay for what?

Analysis of an online conversation using Pol.is

Anne Bardsley, Finlay Harvey, Simon Wright and John
Pennington

December 2022
THE FUTURE OF TRANSPORT IN AOTEAROA
NZ: WHO SHOULD PAY FOR WHAT?

Analysis of an online conversation using Pol.is

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary ...................................................................................... 2

2. Introduction ................................................................................................ 5
3. What is Pol.is? ............................................................................................ 6
3.1 Background........................................................................................................... 6
3.2 The Future Transport Pol.is project ........................................................................... 7
4. Framing the conversation ............................................................................. 8
5. Who participated? ....................................................................................... 8
6. Opinion groups ........................................................................................... 9
7. Key findings .............................................................................................. 10
7.1 What should the future transport system focus on?..................................................... 11
7.2 How should transport be paid for in the future? ......................................................... 11
7.3 Principles – What is fair? ....................................................................................... 12
7.4 Areas of uncertainty and disagreement .................................................................... 14
8. Recommendations and next steps ................................................................. 16
9. Appendices ............................................................................................... 18
Appendix 1 – Pol.is moderation policies and instructions ................................................. 18
Appendix 2 – Framing perspectives .............................................................................. 19
Appendix 3 – Seed statements ..................................................................................... 21
Appendix 4 – Participant demographics ........................................................................ 22
Appendix 5 – Opinion group demographics .................................................................... 24
Appendix 6 – Opinion group views................................................................................ 25
1. Executive Summary
The transport system in Aotearoa New Zealand is under pressure to respond to current
challenges and to anticipate future needs. Te Mānatu Waka Ministry of Transport is considering
how the transport revenue system also needs to change to meet these needs.

These changes could have a significant impact on future generations. To make the right
decisions, it is important to understand what people want for the future, and what they think is a
fair approach to funding and financing the system in order to achieve those goals. The Ministry is
taking an innovative approach to engaging stakeholders and the public on these complex issues.

As a first step, the Ministry contracted Koi Tū: The Centre for Informed Futures to undertake a
pilot engagement process using Pol.is, an open-source digital tool designed to gather open-
ended feedback from large groups of people in an interactive manner. This report describes the
results of a Pol.is online conversation on the topic “who should pay for what?” with regard to the
future transport system.

The Pol.is tool allows participants to express their views by responding to short statements
about an issue and adding their own statements for others to ‘vote’ on (agree, disagree or pass).
In doing so, they are contributing to an evolving conversation that seeks to find areas of common
ground, while also identifying differences of opinion. By combining qualitative and quantitative
methodologies, Pol.is is well suited to opinion mapping and refining points of consensus. The
visual representation that the software provides aims to ensure that participants can see all
voices represented, and discern areas of agreement and disagreement amongst the groups.

The process
Background information on the project, including details of the current transport system and
how it is funded, was provided on a dedicated website which also served as a portal to the Pol.is
tool.

Four hypothetical perspectives on what the future transport system should focus on, and ways
to fund both its maintenance and its evolution, were provided to stimulate participants’ thinking
around the broad question “who should pay for what?” A set of starting (“seed”) statements for
the Pol.is was developed based on these perspectives.

The Ministry invited a range of stakeholders via email to engage with one another on the Pol.is
platform. The conversation opened on 4 October 2022 for participants to respond to the seed
statements and add their own statements. Calls to join the conversation also went out from Koi
Tū accounts via Twitter and LinkedIn.

People could participate at any time in the life cycle of the conversation. During the process, a
moderation team collated and themed the participant statements and added statements into
the survey that represented novel ideas, perspectives or rationale.

Participants were able to submit their own ideas and proposals for other participants to consider
until 4 November 2022. The Pol.is closed on 11 November 2022.

2
Participants
To register for the Pol.is, participants filled out a brief questionnaire asking about usual modes
of transport, the type of area where they lived (i.e. inner-city, suburban, regional town, rural),
age bracket, and gender.

The engagement did not attempt to achieve representativeness in the participant sample; rather
it focused on stakeholder groups, many of whom would have knowledge of or interest in how the
transport system is evolving. The majority (93%) of participants were between 26 and 64 years
of age (fairly evenly spread between 26-39 and 40-64 year brackets) and 60% were male.

With regard to transport modes, about a quarter of participants (24%) regularly used a bicycle,
scooter or other personal transport mode, and walking was a regular transport mode for 19%.
While it is likely that most people use private vehicles to some extent, only 48% of respondents
signalled that cars were their ‘main’ mode of transport. Most (82%) live in suburban or urban
areas of New Zealand.

A total of 436 people voted on (agreed or disagreed with, or passed on) at least one of the 106
statements that were moderated into the ‘discussion’. On average, each participant considered
and voted on 65 statements. In total, 28,350 votes were cast and 197 people submitted 685
statements. The number of statements was moderated down to a more manageable number that
didn't include duplications.

Opinion groups
Three distinct opinion groups formed over the course of the Pol.is process. They differed in
opinion over:
 Pricing of externalities
 Contribution by cyclists and drivers of EVs to the revenue system
 Involvement of the private sector in funding transport infrastructure
The demographics and transport habits of the opinion groups highlighted some divisions in
terms of cohort age, whether they lived in urban/suburban or regional/rural areas, and the
extent of private car utilisation vs. cycling or other active transport modes. These differences
were reflected in attitudes towards change, fairness, and how the system should be funded.

It is important to note that the group participating in the Pol.is conversation is unlikely to be
representative of the New Zealand population as a whole. The participants were essentially ‘self-
selected’ and comfortable engaging on transport issues via a digital platform. The opinions
generated will therefore reflect a particular group of people. Some of the differences between
the groups point to issues that require broader and more in-depth engagement to untangle,
using different approaches and formats such as, for example, deliberative workshops or citizen
assemblies.

Key findings
On basic principles, the participants overwhelmingly viewed the transport system as a public
good that should enable goods and people to move efficiently and safely. There was also a high
level of agreement that it should promote well-being, fairness and equity.

What should the future transport system focus on?

Across the three opinion groups, there was agreement around changes to make the transport
system more sustainable and affordable. In particular:

3
  funding priorities need to shift from a focus on roads and private vehicles to more
environmentally sustainable forms of transport (88% agreement); and
 urban density should be increased to make public transport and active forms of
transport (walking and cycling) more affordable and attractive (92% agreement).
How should it be paid for?
There was agreement around the use innovative mechanisms such as congestion charging and
pricing externalities (e.g. pollution pricing) to encourage people out of cars and into other forms
of environmentally sustainable transport (88% agreement). Parking levies were also perceived
to be an effective way to raise revenue and change travel behaviour.

Opinions were split on the utility of value capture as a revenue source for transport
infrastructure. However a large majority (84%) agreed that businesses that generate a lot of
transport, such as malls, airports and stadiums, should help pay for the transport infrastructure
they require.

There were distinct differences between groups over introducing a wealth tax and funding public
and active transport from this source. This was clearly supported by group A and not by group C,
with opinions in group B being mixed.

Priniciples: What is fair?

Fairness principles put forward by participants revolved around:
 Addressing disadvantage and inequities
 Fairness in pricing – who should pay more, or less, for the system?
 Safety and privacy
There was strong consensus that RUC should proportionately reflect externalities imposed by
different types of vehicles. For example, the road damage caused by larger, heavier vehicles
should be reflected in a higher RUC.

Recommendations and next steps

1. Further exploring areas of uncertainty and contentious issues: The public/private funding
debate, value capture, and issues of privacy relating to GPS tracking require more
nuanced deliberation supported by expert input.
2. Understanding consequences: The Pol.is demonstrated high consensus on a number of
principles and goals. These should be tested with a broader representative participant
sample. In addition, more focus on consequences of proposals would be useful in the
next phase.
3. Scenarios for the future: Road issues dominated this conversation, likely because road
transport currently structures our social-economic worlds. Getting people to imagine
future different possibilities in the next phase will be important.

4
2. Introduction
New Zealanders’ expectations about the purpose and function of the transport system are
changing in response to a range of pressures including climate change, population growth, and
economic and housing realities. The system is already starting to evolve to address these
challenges, but has much further to go. It is becoming increasingly clear that the current mix of
funding, financing and revenue also needs to change to meet the costs of large new
infrastructure projects with wider intergenerational benefits.

Te Mānatu Waka Ministry of Transport wants to enable New Zealand to move with confidence
and certainty towards a new, or renewed, transport revenue system that will be fit for purpose
for the next 30 to 50 years. Because transport expenditures are a major share of household,
business and government spending, it is important to understand what people think about how
funds should be raised and allocated, and what a “fair” funding system might look like.

Essentially we are asking “who should pay for what?” to enable a transport system that is fit for
the future and supports the wellbeing of all New Zealanders. This means thinking not just about
cars, but motorbikes, trucks, buses, trains, walking and cycling, and newer forms of transport
like e-scooters and car-sharing services. We also need to understand the role that pricing and
other tools can play to discourage harmful travel modes or to encourage sustainable travel
behaviours.

In asking these questions, we acknowledge that any change to the revenue system is a major
undertaking that will affect all New Zealanders. Thus, everyone should have the opportunity to
consider the complexity of the issues and express their views. This project is a first step in trying
to enable that process of engagement.

Equity/fairness issues
Transportation policy and planning decisions have significant equity impacts. They affect the
allocation of public resources, people’s quality of life and economic opportunities, and external
costs that the transport system imposes on different communities and sectors.

Equity debates consider the fairness of transportation funding, such as how fuel taxes and road
user charges impact on people, and the degree to which different vehicles pay their share of
roadway costs. But other questions arise around what is fair, such as:
 How should the transport system serve non-drivers?
 How should external costs (eg. congestion, crash risk, pollution) be considered in
planning decisions?
It is important to know what people think about these issues. Do they want transportation
planning to reflect equity goals? And if so, how does that translate to policy decisions, noting
that a decision may seem equitable when evaluated one way, but not if evaluated another? These
are all considerations that can be tested through novel engagement processes.

To address this complex topic, Te Mānatu Waka Ministry of Transport is taking an innovative
approach to engaging stakeholders and the public, by trialling an online interactive survey tool
called Pol.is, which is designed to draw on the collective intelligence of large groups and identify
areas of consensus as the conversation evolves.

5
Pol.is inherently focuses attention on major differences of opinion and on areas of common
ground. This Pol.is conversation sought to draw out principles of what a fair funding model might
look like.

In this analysis, we sought to understand:

• What people indicated they wanted out of the transport system
• Ideas on how it should be paid for
• Principles upon which a fair system should be based
While this report focuses primarily on highly agreed statements, the Pol.is Technical Report
includes levels of agreement, disagreement, passing and the number of votes for every
statement moderated into the discussion.

3. What is Pol.is?

3.1 Background
Pol.is is an interactive online tool used to gather and help make sense of open-ended feedback
from large groups of people. It can provide rich knowledge about group support for ideas in a
way that helps the participants themselves identify common ground.

Pol.is conversations begin from a set of short seed statements (up to 140-characters) that help
to frame the discussion by offering a range of possible perspectives on the question at hand.
Participants ‘vote’ on the statements by agreeing or disagreeing (or passing) and can add their
own short statements for others to vote on. Because statements must be very short, the
emphasis is on voting rather than writing, which lowers the barriers to entry into the
conversation.

Statements are presented to participants in a semi-random order so that all statements can be
considered on their own merit. Slight priority is given to newer statements, which tend to reflect
refinement or nuanced reasoning as the conversation evolves. It is assumed that not all
participants will consider all statements. People could participate at any time in the life cycle of
the conversation.

Pol.is records the sentiments of participants, producing a visualisation of clusters of support for
various positions. The graphical representation of voting patterns shows participants how their
opinions compare with those of others. Participants who vote similarly on multiple statements
are grouped together to form an ‘opinion group’ using Principal Component Analysis (PCA).
Participants can explore what agreements or disagreements define each group, the differences
between the groups, as well as areas that are agreed across groups.

Participants are encouraged to return to the Pol.is forum regularly over multiple weeks to review
emerging patterns, vote on new statements and add their own ideas, perspectives, and
proposals for all other participants to consider. These features promote greater learning and
ownership amongst participants.

6
 3.2 The Future Transport Pol.is project

This Pol.is project was initiated by Te Mānatu Waka Ministry of Transport as part of a long-term
programme of work to engage with communities, industries, and other stakeholders about the
Future of the Transport Revenue System. The Ministry wants to gather New Zealanders’ views
and ideas on principles, funding, and future choices in the land transport system. Using Pol.is for
this purpose allows a richer understanding of the different viewpoints and areas of agreement,
while also identifying points of contention and uncertainty.

The initial focus of recruitment for this Pol.is forum was on stakeholder groups, who were
contacted via email and asked to spread the word to their members. Broader invitations to join
the conversation were made via LinkedIn and Twitter, and via a few transport centred blogs or
social media channels.

A total of 437 people voted on (agreed or disagreed with, or passed on) at least one of the 106
statements that were moderated into the ‘discussion’. In total, 29,019 votes were cast and 197
people submitted 685 statements. On average, each participant considered and voted on 66
statements. Over 40% of participants added their own statements, providing 2.3 statements on
average per contributor. The large number of statements proposed by the participants indicates
high engagement in the process. The number of statements was moderated down to a more
manageable number that didn't include duplications.

Figure 1 shows the number of people engaging in the conversation, from the time of first voting.
Note that participants continued to join the conversation up until the Pol.is was closed, though
the biggest jump in new participants occurred in the first two weeks of the recruitment
campaign.

Figure 1 – number of new voters over time

The Pol.is project was run by Koi Tū: The Centre for Informed Futures at the University of
Auckland, with support from PEP Public Engagement Projects. This work is part of a portfolio of
deliberative processes being developed by the Complex Conversations team at Koi Tū. This Pol.is
conversation will help to frame and inform a set of deliberative workshops to both test the
methodology and refine our understanding of how groups of New Zealanders can come to
consensus on complex issues around transport infrastructure planning and funding.

7
Details of the Pol.is moderation, participant instructions, and privacy policies can be found in
Appendix 1.

4. Framing the conversation

In considering the way we will pay for transport in New Zealand in the future, this Pol.is
conversation asked the broad question: “who should pay for what?” Within this frame, questions
were presented to participants to think about (via the project website). Some of the key
questions are:
• How will we pay to maintain and improve the transport network if road vehicles travel
less, and less revenue is collected from fuel excise duty (FED) and road user charges
(RUC)?
• How should the transport system balance the promotion of well-being, safety, access
and connectivity, alongside environmental and economic outcomes?
• How should we pay for the major investments needed to transition to a lower emissions
transport system (e.g., EV charging infrastructure, more public transport, bike lanes)?
• How do we ensure that we are meeting the needs of all who use our transport system –
including businesses, people who live in smaller towns and rural areas, people who are
on lower incomes, or people with disabilities?
• Should we make more use of pricing tools (e.g., tolls, congestion and pollution charges)
to encourage people and companies to make different travel choices?
• If we are encouraging more use of public transport, walking and cycling, what should
those users pay towards its upkeep? As newer transport forms become more available,
eg e-bikes, scooters, should these make a contribution?
• How should other costs that vehicles impose on the system (such as congestion and
pollution, and vehicles’ use of scarce land) be accounted for? Should these ‘externalities’
be something that drivers should pay for?
• How should the benefits and costs or new transport infrastructure be shared across
society?
As with any complex policy issue, people have different perspectives about what the goals
should be, the principles that should underpin these goals and what actions we should take to
achieve them. The Pol.is conversation was initially framed around four hypothetical perspectives
on these issues, to catalyse participants’ thinking. The perspectives are outlined in Appendix 2,
and were available to participants on the project website. A set of 21 seed statements that
reflected these perspectives were input into the Pol.is survey to get the conversation started
(see Appendix 3), after which participants added their own statements for others to vote on.

5. Who participated?
To participate in the Pol.is, respondents registered by providing an email address and filling out
a brief questionnaire asking about usual modes of transport, the type of area where they lived
(i.e. inner-city, suburban, regional town, rural), age bracket, and gender.

The engagement did not attempt to achieve representativeness in the participant sample; rather
it focused on stakeholder groups, many of whom would have knowledge of or interest in how the
transport system is evolving.
8
Overall, the participants were ~60% male, 35% female, and 5% gender diverse or not specified.
The largest participant age groups (comprising 84.5% of the participant pool) were those
between 40 and 64 (n = 211), and between 26 and 39 (n = 197) years of age. Another 8.3% were
under 25 and 6.2% were over 60 years of age.

With regard to transport modes, about a quarter of participants (24%) regularly use a bicycle,
scooter or other personal transport mode, and walking was noted as a regular transport mode
for 19%. While it is likely that most people use private vehicles to some extent, only 48% of
respondents signalled that cars were their ‘main’ mode of transport. Their cars are mostly
petrol-fueled, and most do not use a vehicle for their work. 53% of participants are from
suburban NZ, with another 29% being inner-city urban.

Details of the participant demographics are listed in Appendix 4.

6. Opinion groups
Once voting began, a number of opinion groups quickly emerged. These groups changed over
time. By the end of the first week, two groups had formed from four smaller ones. A third group
re-emerged after week two and these three opinion groups remained through the rest of the
process. At the end of the Pol.is, group A had 219 participants, group B had 146, and group C had
45 participants (see Appendix 5).

Group A had the highest percentage of younger participants (54.3% aged under 40, compared
with 45.4% for group B and 31.1% for group C). They were the group that least used private cars
as their main mode of transport (32.2% compared with 68.9% in group C), and the largest group
of cyclists and public transport users. They were also least likely to live in a rural area or regional
town. Based on these characteristics, it is perhaps unsurprising that this group most favoured
mode shift – moving away from funding of roads and encouraging active modes and public
transport. They were also largely against the privatisation of the transport system and supported
funding models that encourage transport solutions that help the environment and promoted
safety and equity in access. On the whole, they support radical changes the transport funding
system to promote environmental and social gains.

Group B represents a mixed demographic between the other two groups. At 6.2%, they have the
lowest proportion of public transport users, but the highest proportion of walkers (21.4%) and of
women (40%). Interestingly, they also have the highest proportion of diesel vehicle drivers
(16%). They are between the other two groups with regard to the proportion residing in regional
or rural areas. The group was largely in favour of privatisation of the transport system but were
not against new funding mechanisms that can help promote mode shift to sustainable forms of
transport. Aside from the privatisation issue, there is otherwise broad overlap with group A.

Group C is the smallest group, which emerged after the first 2 weeks of the Pol.is process. They
represent by far the highest proportion of older participants (24.4% over 65, compared with >5%
in other groups) and of private car users. They are also the group least likely to drive and electric
vehicle and most likely to operate a vehicle as part of their job. This group differed from the
others in attitudes towards the contributions of cyclists and EV users, etc. to funding the
transport system. They were opposed to special treatment for these users and felt they should

9
pay their share, and were less supportive of pricing externalities. Opinions within the group were
split with regard to privatisation.

Statements that define these groups in relation to each other are shown in Appendix 6.

7. Key findings
Participants were in agreement about general principles for the transport system, in that it
should (a) enable goods and people to move efficiently and safely; and (b) promote well-being,
fairness and equity. The vast majority viewed the transport system as a public good.

As expected, the Pol.is conversation evolved over time. Nonetheless, a number of consensus
statements emerged early on and retained very high support throughout the conversation. These
revolved around:
1. shifting the focus of funding priorities from private vehicles to more environmentally
sustainable forms of transport;
2. using innovative mechanisms such as congestion charges and pollution pricing to
encourage mode shift; and
3. increasing urban density to make public transport and active forms of transport (walking
and cycling) more affordable and attractive.
These statements consistently achieved at least 89% agreement among those who voted on
them. An additional ‘consensus’ statement that emerged (with 81% agreement) was:
5. the transport revenue system should not make transport unaffordable for poorer people
or people living in rural and provincial areas.
The statements with the highest overall agreement at the end of the conversation are listed in
Table 1.

Table 1: Statements with the highest consensus across the groups

Lowest
Overall votes %agree
%agree%disagree%pass (all
ID Statement (# of votes) groups)
83 Road user charges should reflect the damage that 94%1%3%(291) ≥87%
large vehicles do to the roads, with heavier
vehicles paying a proportionate share.
10 Increase urban density to make public transport 92%3%3%(338) ≥75%
and active forms (walking and cycling) of
transport more affordable and attractive.
1 The transport system should enable goods and 90%1%7%(330) ≥86%
people to move efficiently and safely.
119 The transport system is a public good. 90%1%7%(242) ≥84%
11 Disadvantaged groups must be given 87%3%8%(334) ≥83%
opportunities to participate in decision-making
about future transport systems and how they will
be funded.

10
 7.1 What should the future transport system focus on?

A key part of the question “who should pay for what” revolves around the “what” needs to be
paid for. There was a strong focus on a more sustainable system in which private car travel was
de-emphasised, and public transport (buses and rail) and active modes take priority. There was
also a high level of agreement around urban planning changes to reduce the need for transport
and to make the alternative modes more attractive and affordable.

Consensus statements relating to “what” should be funded or encouraged for the future
transport system are Table 2.

Table 2: Statements relating to what the transport system should focus on

Support by
Support overall group (#
ID Statement (# votes) votes)
10 Increase urban density to make public transport and 92% agree (338) A - 97% (188)
active forms of transport (walking and cycling) more B - 90% (110)
affordable and attractive. C - 75% (40)
7 Funding priorities need to shift from a focus on roads 88% agree A - 98% (197)
and private vehicles to more environmentally (360) B - 82% (120)
sustainable forms of transport. C - 55% (43)
312 The transport infrastructure most in need of funding is 87% agree (160) A - 97% (83)
that which we have starved of meaningful funding over B - 94% (39)
recent decades: walk, cycle, rail, bus. C - 57% (38)
267 We need to stop investing so much in to roads and get 79% agree (166) A - 96% (89)
more people moving on trains and light rail. B - 78% (41)
C - 38% (36)
325 Transport funding should support infrastructure that 78% agree (157) A - 86% (84)
means people need to travel less. B- 81% (37)
C - 58% (36)

7.2 How should transport be paid for in the future?

Among the participants, there was agreement around pricing externalities and using funding
mechanisms that also drive behaviour change. This includes using congestion charges and
pollution pricing to encourage people out of cars and into other forms of environmentally
sustainable transport. While this ‘nudge’ strategy is not necessarily a revenue-generating
mechanism, participants thought that local authorities should be able to raise revenue with
parking charges, congestion charging and enforcement, to invest in transport.

Participants were unsure or had mixed opinions about the utility of value capture as a revenue
source for transport infrastructure. There was between 52 and 78% agreement (67% overall)
that new roads should be funded from financial contribution from developers. However a large
majority (84%) agreed that businesses that generate a lot of transport, such as malls, airports
and stadiums, should help pay for the transport infrastructure they require.

There were distinct differences between groups over introducing a wealth tax and funding public
and active transport from this source. This was clearly supported by group A and not by group C,
with opinions in group B being mixed. Consensus statements related to funding are listed in
Table 3.
11
Table 3: Statements on funding
Support by
Support overall group (#
ID# Statement (# votes) votes)
8 Use innovative mechanisms such as congestion 88% agree (346) A - 95% (188)
charges and pollution pricing to encourage people B - 91% (115)
out of cars and into other forms of environmentally C - 48% (43)
sustainable transport
84 Local authorities should be able to raise revenue 87% agree (295) A - 92% (175)
with parking charges, congestion charging and B - 92% (77)
enforcement, to invest it in transport. C - 62% (43)
256 Businesses that generate lots of transport, such as 84% agree (205) A - 90% (114)
malls, airports and stadiums should help pay for the B - 92% (53)
transport infrastructure they need. C - 57% (38)
74 Parking levies are an effective way to raise revenue 83% agree (289) A - 89% (176)
and change travel behaviour. B - 78% (71)
C - 66% (42)
132 Vehicle air pollution levy should be added to the 77% agree (256) A - 92% (148)
direct road pricing cost. B - 75% (66)
C - 28% (42)
199 New roads should be funded from financial 67% agree (273) A - 66% (165)
contribution from developers B - 78% (66)
C - 52% (42)
28 Introduce a wealth tax, to make the ultra-rich pay 65% agree (361) A - 81% (200)
their fair share & fund public/active transport. B - 52% (116)
C - 31% (45)

7.3 Principles – What is fair?

An important part of this conversation was to understand what people perceive is fair when
paying for transport infrastructure and services. Preferences relate to people’s values and
thoughts about societal/common goods. As mentioned, there was overwhelming support for the
idea that the transport system is itself a common good. On the question of intergenerational
fairness, 88% of respondents agreed with the statement that it is “better to pay a fair share for
transport now rather than leave more debt for future generations.” This statement was a late
entry into the survey so had fewer votes overall (n = 111), but showed high consensus across
groups (agreement from 92% of group A (63 voters), 73% of group B (23 voters), and 92% of
group C (25 voters)).

Addressing disadvantage/inequity
Participants agreed strongly that the transport system should promote well-being, fairness and
equity (89% agreement overall; ranging from 75% in group C to 95% in group A). This relates to
the idea that the revenue system should not make transport unaffordable for poorer people or
people living in rural and provincial areas, a statement also garnering high consensus across the
opinion groups (81% agreement overall, with highest support [88%] from group C). There was
support for focusing transport capital investment in places without functioning public transport
and micro-mobility networks.

Other points of consensus on principles of fairness are that:

12
  The funding system should enable the design of transport systems that are accessible to
everyone, all the time (not just able-bodied people travelling at peak times)
 Disadvantaged groups must be given opportunities to participate in decision-making
about future transport systems and how they will be funded.
A majority of participants (69%) disagreed that public transport must be funded by the region it
services, and did not support the statement that “It's unfair for Southland/Northland to pay for
Auckland’s public transport.”

Fairness in pricing – who should pay more, or less, for the system?
Participants agreed on pricing of externalities – including the damage done to roads, the impact
on public safety, and emissions. For example, they agreed that road user charges should reflect
the damage that large vehicles do to the roads, with heavier vehicles paying a proportionate
share. They were also supportive of congestion charging, and wanted the revenue from this to be
reinvested in the transport system. They did not support the involvement of private entities for
collecting this revenue for this reason.

There was disagreement about whether it was fair for commercial vehicles to pay more because
they benefit financially from the transport system (58% agreement overall, ranging from 37 to
67% agreement among the three opinion groups)

With regard to EVs, a majority felt that EV operators need to “pay their share” via RUC. This is
something that was supported by 100% of group C; the overall agreement was 67%. An overall
majority wanted to see E-bikes be considered for incentives and subsidies, though group C had
mixed opinions on this.

Safety and privacy

Participants contributed numerous statements pertaining to safety, and a 72% majority felt it
should be prioritised over efficiency.

Several statements were put forward about privacy issues relating to tracking road/transport
user for the purpose of user-pays revenue gathering. However, interestingly, these statements
did not garner significant agreement and had significant numbers of “pass” responses,
suggesting a mix of opinion and some uncertainty around this topic.

Consensus statements relating to fairness principles, including addressing disadvantage and

inequities, fairness in pricing, and safety and privacy, are shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Statements reflecting fairness principles

Support Support by
overall group (#
ID Statement (# votes) votes)
Addressing disadvantage/inequity
682 Our funding system should enable the design of 90% agree A - 97% (35)
transport systems that are accessible to everyone, all (64) B - 78% (14)
the time. Not just able bodied people travelling at peak C - 86% (15)
times
2 The transport revenue system should not make 81% agree A - 81% (187)
transport unaffordable for poorer people or people (339) B - 78% (110)
living in rural and provincial areas C - 88% (42)

13
 11 Disadvantaged groups must be given opportunities to 87% agree A - 89% (186)
participate in decision-making about future transport (334) B - 83% (108)
systems and how they will be funded C - 87% (40)
417 It's better to pay a fair share for transport now rather 88% agree A - 92% (63)
than leave more debt for future generations. (111) B - 73% (23)
C - 92% (25)
537 We should focus transport capital investment to bring 82% agree A - 83% (37)
up to standard places without functioning public (62) B- 69% (13)
transport and micro-mobility networks C- 91% (12)
Fairness in pricing
83 Road user charges should reflect the damage that large 94% agree A - 97% (176)
vehicles do to the roads, with heavier vehicles paying a (291) B - 93% (75)
proportionate share. C - 87% (40)
112 Electric Vehicles need to pay their share and have road 69% agree A – 61% (180)
user charges (307) B – 61% (86)
C – 100% (41)
30 The income from congestion charging should not be 87% agree A - 89% (83)
collected by private entities - it should be fully (155) B - 81% (37)
reinvested in the transport network C - 88% (35)
Safety and privacy
115 Safety should be prioritised over efficiency in all cases 72% agree A - 78% (144)
(i.e. efficiency improvements should only be done if (247) B - 66% (60)
they can be done safely) C - 58% (43)
114 Motor vehicles are the key risk to pedestrians and 75% agree A – 94% (148)
cyclists, so motor vehicle drivers should pay for this (263) B – 66% (72)
sort of safety improvement C – 25% (43)
30 Any revenue gained from road safety enforcement (eg 67% agree A – 59% (194)
speed cameras) should be directly reinvested into road (344) B – 80% (106)
safety improvements. C – 70% (44)
369 Retaining our privacy is an important value. Even if we 52% agree A – 53% (62)
have user-pays systems, they shouldn't track our (111) B –52% (21)
movements. C – 50% (28)

7.4 Areas of uncertainty and disagreement

The Pol.is process uncovered a large number of statements that garnered the agreement of a
significant majority of respondents. However, participants also ‘passed’ on a significant number
of statements. This may point to areas of uncertainty due to lack of clarity in the statement or
lack of knowledge of the topic. Some topic areas identified indicate where further information
and communication may be necessary to fully engage the public in the discussion. Examples of
statements that were passed on by ≥30% of participants are shown below in Table 5.

Table 5 – Statements “passed” on by ≥30% of participants

ID# Statement Overall votes
%agree%disagree%pass
(# of votes)
316 The Public Finance Act should be re-written to remove 46%8%44%(150)
unnecessary funding restriction that has starved transport
investment since the 80s.

14
 122 Annual vehicle fixed licence fees should cover the fixed costs of 21%33%44%(221)
providing roads.
5 Waka Kotahi (NZTA) should be allowed to borrow more against 38%24%37%(327)
its own assets to pay for roading maintenance and upgrades
43 ETS revenue should pay for lower emission transport 57%9%32%(285)
448 Funding local roads through Council rates drives regional 57%11%31%(114)
inequality, as poorer areas lack the needed funds for transport
improvements.
117 Funding for modal options from RUC should be clear so people 54%7%38%(225)
can see the link.
575 Shifting the cost burden onto the commercial fleet, will result in 43%25%30%(78)
increased cost of delivered goods and services increasing
household costs
685 Do not overinvest in EV yet, there will be new technologies to 44%22%32%(58)
come along that could be better.

There were a number of issues where opinions were split both between and within groups, and
on which a significant proportion passed on. These represent issues that require further
information sharing and deliberation to identify and refine points of consensus (if possible) to
help inform policy decision-making.

For example, the statements that touched on privacy, and separately, on value capture, elicited
quite mixed responses even within groups, as illustrated in Table 6.

Table 6 – Contentious statements

ID# Statement Overall votes Votes by group
%agree%disagree%pass %agree%disagree%pass
(# of votes) (# of votes)
Privacy
369 Retaining our privacy is an 52%25%22%(111) A – 53%24%22%(62)
important value. Even if we have B – 52%19%28%(21)
user pays systems they shouldn't C – 50%32%17%(28)
track our movements.
439 Preserving privacy is important, so 50%23%26%(143) A – 53%20%25%(78)
when we build systems to monitor B – 39%30%30%(33)
transport use we shouldn’t track C – 53%21%25%(32)
individual users
Value capture
12 If new transport projects mean 52% agree (374) A – 61 % (207)
property values increase, those B – 42% (123)
who benefit should contribute C – 36% (44)
funds to that project
193 The government should 19% agree (250) A – 15% (156)
compensate a loss in property B – 27% (55)
value if a transport project causes C – 25% (39)
a decrease

15
8. Recommendations and next steps
The Pol.is tool has provided a rich forum for ideas to be presented on the future of the transport
system. Participants voting on preferences and providing new ideas over a four-week period led
the formation of consensus groups around key issues.

It should be noted that before preferences can be expressed, they must be formed, and this
often comes through participation in this type of discussion. We would expect that over time, if
the same statements were repeated, some engaged participants might change their mind on
matters that they have previously answered (i.e. changing their answer from disagree to agree,
or vice versa ) or answer when they previously passed. Pol.is as it is currently configured does not
give the option to reconsider the same statement more than once. It does, however, allow
participants (or moderators) to add statements that might clarify confusing or contentious
points by including a justification or reasoning within the statement text. This shows the
beginning of a form of deliberation that may be useful for setting up further engagement, for
example in mini-public forums. We will consider the areas of uncertainty when providing
information for these activities.

There were some fundamental issues that a significant number of people passed on, and many of
these also showed substantial disagreement among those who voted. While the passed-on
statements may signify areas where a different approach to information provision may be
needed in the next phase, topics on which contention remains high provide points to focus
further deliberation in other engagement fora. For example, there appeared to be an entrenched
divide around private sector involvement in transport funding. Bringing more evidence and
reasoning to the debate may clarify positions and determine whether perceptions on this issue
are able to be shifted.

Another key issue that arose relatively late in the Pol.is conversation was around privacy, which
might be impacted by GPS tracking of road system users for the purposes of distance-based
charging. Interestingly, there was not a strong reaction to these statements, and opinions for
and against were somewhat split. It is possible that the participant sample was skewed towards
groups knowledgeable about this technology and/or comfortable in a digital environment where
many of our actions are ‘tracked’. This is an important topic to explore in further deliberations.

It should be noted that the attitudes and perceptions of the opinion groups reflect somewhat
predictable divisions among stakeholder groups in terms of age, lifestyle/location and transport
habits, and this outcome was partially determined by a recruitment strategy that focused on
stakeholder groups. However, the Pol.is participants as a whole do not necessarily reflect the
makeup of the New Zealand population as a whole, and it is therefore essential to broaden the
dialogue in the next phase.

Recommendations following on from this Pol.is conversation:

1. Focus on areas of uncertainty: There are a number of topics that appear to require clarity
for participants to engage meaningfully. Some statements represent misunderstandings
by the participants. A deliberative process would need to address these areas of
uncertainty.

2. Further exploring contentious issues: The public/private funding debate and issues of
privacy relating to tracking travel for the purpose of distance-based charging require
16
 more nuanced deliberation supported by expert input. A further point of disagreement
relates to value capture – how it can contribute and whether this is fair approach.

3. Understanding consequences: The Pol.is demonstrated high consensus about a number

of principles and goals. These should be tested with a broader representative participant
sample. In addition, more focus on consequences of proposals would be useful in the
next phase.

4. Scenarios for the future: Road issues dominated this conversation, probably because
road transport currently structures our social-economic worlds. Getting people to
imagine future different possibilities in the next phase will be important.

5. Implications for further engagement: It is important to ensure that a broader cross-

section of the population be included in the next stage, and that the process be designed
to support dialogue and deliberation across the divides that our media and traditional
political structures (government and stakeholder groups) help maintain.

17
9. Appendices

Appendix 1 – Pol.is moderation policies and instructions

The participation instructions, statement moderation policy, and privacy policy used for the
polis are listed below. This information was available to participants on the survey website.

Instructions
o Answer a statement by clicking ‘agree,’ ‘disagree,’ or ‘pass/unsure.’ The next statement
will automatically appear.
o If you can’t bring yourself to categorically agree or disagree with a statement, the
challenge is to write and submit a ‘better’ one!
o To add a statement, fill out the ‘share your perspective’ box and click submit.
o Click on opinion groups or the ‘majority opinion’ button to explore areas of agreement
and difference. Note that the opinion groups will not be shown to start with but will be
displayed once enough people have voted on enough statements.
o You don’t need to ‘vote’ on all the statements at one time – Pol.is will only present you
with statements you haven’t considered
o More detailed instructions are available here.
Statements and moderation
o You cannot reply directly to a statement
o Statements should be about a standalone idea that improves existing statements, or
presents new perspectives, experiences, issues, or proposals.
o Statements can be a maximum of 140 characters, so be concise.
o Statements should not include multiple ideas.
o Statements must be on topic, clear and should not name people, be offensive or be
duplicates of other published statements.
o The moderation team will aim to accept, or decline submitted statements within 72
hours.
Voters and statements are anonymous
o Participants cannot see who has submitted a statement or how any individual has voted.
o The moderators cannot see who has submit a statement or how any individual has voted.
o The reports that Pol.is generates do not identify anyone.
o The Pol.is is on a member-only page of the dashboard.
o The project team will not identify individuals when it analyses the data and reports
findings.

18
 Appendix 2 – Framing perspectives

These hypothetical perspectives were proposed to catalyse thinking about ways of funding a
transport system that will undergo significant change over the next 30 years. They are not
exhaustive, nor do they represent government policy statements. The seed statements derived
from these perspectives are listed in Appendix 3.

Perspective 1: Building off what we already have

 What will the future look like? Roads will continue to account for most movement of
people and freight.
 How will we pay for it? Continue to focus on user-pays via FED and RUC, with revenue
going back primarily into the roading system. This includes charges EVs, sooters and
bikes to use the system.
 The argument is that people pay for the distance travelled, meaning that those who use
the roads more, pay more. Those users have a fair expectation for decent roads. The
system is quite simple, efficient and well understood. A more complex system could cost
more to administer, however, the current system may not meet the funding needs for
large infrastructure projects that might be needed in the future.
Perspective 2: Focus on sustainability
 What will the future look like? Focus on shifting to more sustainable forms of transport
to reduce carbon emissions, pollution, and harm to human health. Construction of new
roads could be cut back and funds transferred to supporting other modes, with equity
and environmental outcomes.
 How will we pay for it? Using innovative funding mechanisms that will help motivate the
behaviour change required.
o Road pricing via tolls, congestion charges and pay-as-you-drive schemes
o Pollution pricing in “low emissions zones” – charging a fee for high-emissions
vehicles in the zone
o Taxing the increase in property values from proximity to infrastructure
improvements such as public transport hubs.
 The argument strongly considers external costs of transport on people and the
environment. Funding mechanisms can drive mode shift, improve safety and protect the
environment.
Perspective 3: Societal and cultural considerations
 What will the future look like? A transport system that provides equal opportunities for
people to participate in society. The needs of all groups, like Māori, Pasifika, disabled
people, young people etc. are a central focus.
 How will we pay for it? Using funds that come from town-planning and similar
developmental projects, as they are linked to gaining economic benefit from all groups
fairly engaging in society.
o Funding mechanisms need to recognise the social costs of transport as well as
economic costs.
o If new transport projects mean property values increase, those who benefit
should contribute funds to that project
 The argument strongly considers the needs and expectations of diverse people,
cultures, abilities and socioeconomic status. An inclusive system serves all people as

19
 fairly as possible, valuing social cohesion and access to society as much as economic
activity and success.
Perspective 4: A market solution
 What will the future look like? A transport system that uses a mixture of privatisation
and public/private partnerships to collect revenue and inject expertise into an agile
system that responds to change and uses innovative technology.
 How will we pay for it? Funding will come from private companies gaining ownership
over parts of the system.
o There will be innovative technologies like GPS technologies, and other revenue
streams.
o Reducing tax burden with private competition in public transport, car sharing
and personal transport.
 The argument strongly considers the fact that the market is good at responding to
change when there is competition. Innovation and disruption are assisted by
privatisation. On projects that need larger amounts of capital to get off the ground,
private ownership can help fund, and push projects over the line.

20
 Appendix 3 – Seed statements

The following ‘seed’ statements were prepared by the project team to give early participants
some statements to vote on at the start of the Pol.is.

ID# Statement
0 The best way of reducing disadvantage is through the welfare system, for example by
providing higher levels of subsidy for transport for lower income people
1 Privatisation costs you more: you pay more as a taxpayer and as a user of the service
2 Make much greater use of public/private partnerships to inject private sector money and
expertise into the transport system
3 Allow more private competition in the provision of public transport, car share initiatives,
and personal transport to reduce the tax burden
4 Allow the private sector to collect revenue using tolls and other innovative technologies
(e.g, GPS technologies)
5 The use of market mechanisms to raise revenue for the transport system would promote the
principles of efficiency, fairness, property rights
6 If we are serious about how to raise revenue for the future transport system, then we should
get the private sector much more involved
7 If new transport projects mean property values increase, those who benefit should
contribute funds to that project
8 Disadvantaged groups must be given opportunities to participate in decision-making about
future transport systems and how they will be funded
9 Increase urban density to make public transport and active forms (walking and cycling) of
transport more affordable and attractive
10 Construction of new roads should be cut-back and associated funds used to support a shift
to public transport and active modes (modal shift)
11 Use innovative mechanisms such as congestion charges and pollution pricing to encourage
people out of cars and into other forms of environmentally sustainable transport
12 Funding priorities need to shift from a focus on roads and private vehicles to more
environmentally sustainable forms of transport
13 Charge all vehicles that use the roading system Road User Charges, including electric
vehicles and bikes
14 Waka Kotahi (NZTA) should be allowed to borrow more against its own assets to pay for
roading maintenance and upgrades
15 New forms of transport that contribute to the public good should be funded from general
taxation, not petrol taxes and road user charges
16 The current transport system should continue to be paid for by road users through Fuel
Excise Duty and Road User Charges
17 The transport revenue system should not make transport unaffordable for poorer people or
people living in rural and provincial areas
18 The transport system should enable goods and people to move efficiently and safely
19 The transport system should also promote well-being, fairness and equity
20 The best way of reducing disadvantage is through the welfare system, for example by
providing higher levels of subsidy for transport for lower income people

21
 Appendix 4 – Participant demographics

What type of transport do you use MOST often? (Outside of any travel Percent Sum
you may do for work)
Private car 44% 215
Motorcycle or moped 2% 9
Other private vehicle (eg. van, ute, motorhome) 0% 2
Bicycle, scooter or other personal transport 24% 117
Public transport (eg. bus, train, ferry) 12% 57
Taxi, shuttle or rideshare (eg. Uber, Lyft) 0% 0
Walking 19% 92
None of these options 0% 2
Total Responses 494
How is this vehicle powered? Percent Sum
Petrol 68% 151
Diesel 12% 26
Electric / hybrid 21% 46
None of these options 0% 0
Total Responses 223
Do you operate a vehicle as part of your job? Percent Sum
Yes - a car, van, ute, motorbike or other light vehicle 14% 68
Yes - a truck, tanker or other heavy goods/service vehicle 0% 2
Yes - a taxi, bus, train or other passenger vehicle 1% 3
Yes - an emergency services vehicle 0% 0
Yes - a tractor, forklift, 4x4 or other specialist vehicle which typically does 1% 4
not travel on public roads
Yes - another vehicle not mentioned above 1% 7
No - I do not operate a vehicle for my job 83% 405
Total Responses 489
Which of these best describes the area where you live? Percent Sum
An inner-city area of New Zealand 29% 140
A suburban area of a New Zealand city 53% 256
A regional town in New Zealand 11% 54
A rural area of New Zealand 6% 28
I am not currently living in New Zealand 2% 8
Total Responses 486
What is your age? Percent Sum
Age 16-25 8% 40
Age 26-39 41% 197
Age 40-64 44% 211
Age 65+ 6% 30
Prefer not to say 1% 5
Total Responses 483
What is your gender? Percent Sum
Female 34% 164
Male 61% 294
22
Gender diverse 2% 8
Prefer not to say 4% 17
Total Responses 483

23
 Appendix 5 – Opinion group demographics

Age All Polis Group A Group B Group C

participants
16-25 8.28% 10.2% 7.6% 4.4%
26-39 40.79% 44.1% 37.9% 26.7%
40-64 43.69% 40.0% 49.7% 44.4%
65+ 6.21% 4.1% 4.8% 24.4%
Prefer not to say 1.04% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0%
Gender
Female 33.95% 28.6% 40.0% 31.1%
Male 60.87% 65.3% 57.2% 66.7%
Gender diverse 1.66% 2.0% 1.4% 0.0%
Prefer not to say 3.52% 4.1% 1.4% 2.2%
Main type of transport
Private Car 43.52% 32.2% 49.7% 68.9%
Motorcycle/Moped 1.82% 1.6% 2.1% 2.2%
Other Private vehicle 0.40% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2%
Bicycle, scooter or personal transport 23.68% 33.1% 20.7% 2.2%
Public transport 11.54% 14.7% 6.2% 11.1%
Taxi, shuttle or rideshare 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Walking 18.62% 18.4% 21.4% 13.3%
None of these options 0.40% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
How is this vehicle powered?
Petrol 67.71% 71.1% 61.3% 75.8%
Diesel 11.66% 6.0% 16.0% 12.1%
Electric/Hybrid 20.63% 22.9% 22.7% 12.1%
Do you operate a vehicle as part of your job?
Yes - a car, van, ute, motorbike or other light 13.91% 10.6% 15.9% 24.4%
vehicle
Yes - a truck, tanker or other heavy 0.41% 0.0% 0.7% 0.0%
goods/service vehicle
Yes - a taxi, bus, train or other passenger 0.61% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0%
vehicle
Yes - an emergency services vehicle 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Yes - a tractor, forklift, 4x4 or other specialist 0.82% 0.0% 2.1% 2.2%
vehicle which typically does not travel on
public roads
Yes - another vehicle not mentioned above 1.43% 1.2% 1.4% 0.0%
No - I do not operate a vehicle for my job 82.82% 87.3% 80.0% 73.3%
Which of these best describes the area where you live?
An inner-city area of New Zealand 28.81% 31.4% 27.6% 24.4%
A suburban area of a New Zealand city 52.67% 57.6% 52.4% 37.8%
A regional town in New Zealand 11.11% 7.3% 12.4% 17.8%
A rural area of New Zealand 5.76% 2.0% 7.6% 17.8%
I am not currently living in New Zealand 1.65% 1.6% 0.0% 2.2%
Totals 505 245 145 45

24
 Appendix 6 – Opinion group views

Participants who vote similarly over a range of statements are placed into a group of like-minded
voters representing opinion groups.

The tables below reflect the top three statements that constitute an opinion group. They will
have either a large percentage of agreement or disagreement with a particular statement.

X% / Y% / Z% (n) where X% is the percentage of respondents who agreed with the statement,
Y% is the percentage of respondents who disagreed with the statement, Z% is the percentage of
respondents who passed on the statement and (n) is the number of respondents.

Statements that categorise Group A

ID Statement Group A Group B Group C
9 Construction of new roads 97%0%2%(198) 74%16%8%(118) 34%47%18%(44)
should be cut-back and
associated funds used to
support a shift to public
transport and active modes
(modal shift)
17 Make much greater use of 5%81%13%(207) 63%17%18%(132) 36%43%20%(44)
public/private partnerships to
inject private sector money and
expertise into the transport
system
6 Charge all vehicles that use the 6%84%9%(209) 36%49%14%(125) 77%11%11%(44)
roading system Road User
Charges, including electric
vehicles and bikes

Statements that categorise Group B

ID Statement Group A Group B Group C
17 Make much greater use of 5%81%13%(207) 63%17%18%(132) 36%43%20%(44)
public/private partnerships to
inject private sector money
and expertise into the
transport system
16 Allow more private 5%77%17%(198) 56%17%25%(130 37%35%26%(45)
competition in the provision of
public transport, car share
initiatives, and personal
transport to reduce the tax
burden
30 Any revenue gained from road 59%24%16%(194) 80%10%9%(106) 70%15%13%(44)
safety enforcement (eg speed
cameras) should be directly
reinvested into road safety
improvements.

25
Statements that categorise Group C
ID Statement Group A Group B Group C
88 All road users including cycles 4%88%7%(165) 19%62%18%(66) 71%16%11%(42)
and micro-mobility modes
should share the costs of
maintaining and building roads
5 Charge all vehicles that use 6%84%9%(209) 36%49%14%(125) 77%11%11%(44)
the roading system Road User
Charges, including electric
vehicles and bikes
214 Cycleways, bus lanes and 86%5%8%(117) 57%21%21%(61) 10%82%7%(39)
pedestrian crossings are only
required due to the presence
of motorists, therefore
motorists should pay for them.

26
HELP CREATE AN INFORMED FUTURE
We engage with people and organisations focused on the long-
term development of New Zealand, and on core issues where
trustworthy and robust analysis can make a real difference.

Professor Sir Peter Gluckman

Director, Koi Tū: The Centre for Informed Futures
Phone: +64 21 775 568
Email: pd.gluckman@auckland.ac.nz

informedfutures.org