The Transport Minister, Simon Bridges, may not be as loud and brash in his pronouncements as his predecessors but the message yesterday remained the same. He was, he said, "very sceptical" about the options presented by an independent advisory board to the Auckland Council to plug a $12 billion transport funding gap over the next 30 years. Shorn of euphemism, that represented yet another Government thumbs-down for the recommended solutions to the city's congestion woes.
The board suggested a toll of about $2 as drivers entered the city's motorways, or a mixture of a rates rise of about 1 per cent and a 1.2 cents a litre higher regional fuel tax. The first would require Government approval which, clearly, will not be forthcoming. Mr Bridges said the motorway system was built by taxpayers, and any revenue raised from it would belong in the first instance to taxpayers. Never mind that the on-ramps are half-funded by ratepayers and offer an ideal and simple charging point. In the case of the second recommendation, the minister noted that rates were a matter for the council, but said the Government did not support new taxes or raising the national tax for the benefit of one region.
The Auckland Council can have expected no less. It knows that as congestion woes have mounted, popular sentiment has become much more accepting of the idea of tolls. It also knows that in an Automobile Association poll, most stated a preference for motorway tolls rather than a rates rise. But it is equally apparent that any thought that the weight of Aucklanders' opinion will one day cause the Government to buckle appears misplaced.
Such rigidity is hardly helpful. If the Mayor, Len Brown, can convince Aucklanders that they should accept motorway tolls, the Government should, aside from making the required law change, butt out. But the rights and wrongs are quickly becoming irrelevant. It is time for the council to turn its mind to options that would receive a better reception. In that, there is no need to change the guiding principle.
Most of the $12 billion must be drawn from those who derive the most benefit. That rules out increased rates because the financial burden would be met by homeowners who would gain little. In contrast, charging motorists to use existing roads draws the funding from the major beneficiaries. User charges cause people to think about their use. Road congestion would ease very quickly as people were induced to leave their cars at home. A smoother path would become available to those who most need to travel by car and have most to lose by delays.
