"....The main pressure on our transport system comes from the rapid population growth Auckland is experiencing. On current estimates our population is projected to reach two million by 2035. Two-thirds of this growth is expected from our birth rate and internal migration, and one-third as a result of migration from other countries. In order to cope, Auckland’s transport system must be upgraded across all modes – roads, public transport, walking and cycling. A higher level of investment is required to address current issues and respond to future growth. Analysis indicates that, even with additional funding, maintaining the current performance of the transport system is unlikely.....This document also notes the different funding options that had been put out for consultation, along with consultation about what sort of transport improvement plan was supported. People wanted the advanced Auckland Plan Transport Network and were divided over whether it should be funded by motorway tolls or fuel taxes.
(ShapeAuckland)"
Crucially, the Council document notes that because Central Government is not supportive of either tolling the motorway or of fuel taxes to fund Auckland's public transport improvements, and if Auckland Council is committed to delivering the public transport improvements sought by Aucklanders - then another funding source would be needed.
I agree. Almost 10 years ago Auckland Regional Council managed to get Central Government to agree a 5 cents/litre fuel tax to fund planned public transport expansion. It was actually enshrined in legislation. Sure there were those who were opposed, but there was broad support, and it would have been inexpensive to implement. But the current Government canned it. Back to square one. Government unhelpful ideological meddling has meant a ten year delay in getting revenue for what needs to be done.
Now I'm uncomfortable with some of the side-effects of the CRL fast-track. But if other public transport projects can be funded through this targeted rate then I support it. Make sure it's kept ring-fenced is all. And if it means there's less pressure on Council to sell bits and pieces of scarce public land - like Queen Elizabeth Square for example - then I'm all for it.
Finally, a query to those who prepared the ShapeAuckland report. They begin by discussing the fuel tax pros and cons, and then comes this:
"A motorway user charge is more complex to introduce, expensive to implement and requires legislative change. However, compared with rates and fuel tax, this option provides greater ability to manage transport demand. It aligns the costs with those who use it, and delivers them benefits in return. Implementation requires investment but the economic benefits of doing so significantly outweigh the costs. This option would provide economic benefits more than three times greater than the rates and fuel tax option....(ShapeAuckland)"Now I would like to understand the reasoning behind this statement more. My understanding of rates is that this is the cheapest and most efficient money a Council can collect. The systems are all in place. Just a few computer settings to change, out the increased rate bills go, and in extra the money comes. Hard to get more efficient in terms of revenue raising.
Maybe it comes down to timing. Raising rates now to fund public transport improvements now, is somewhat different and more immediate than building road toll systems (100's of millions in cost), collecting revenues, paying back the investment over a decade or so, and only then directing revenues to PT. Sounds like rates increases now, and when we get a Government that can see the sense in transport funding systems widely used in other global cities, then Auckland can evolve a little more.
3 comments:
You say Joel ... "But if other public transport projects can be funded through this targeted rate then I support it. Make sure it's kept ring-fenced is all".
I can't agree ... on so many (hardly ideological!) levels.
Motorway and rapid rail should be user pays (simple equity.)
Tolls do not affect-benefit those who have to pay (rates)simply because they own a property in the AC region (wrong financial policy driver) and
We up Puhoi way did not want to be in AC, we detest its culture/raison d'etre and do not stand to benefit from the transport tax/levy (area of benefit issues).
Now, central government must become active to sort out this mess ... a mess to which, as you so rightly observe they have contributed.
I remember quite clearly the 5c per litre approved tax. It was going to help fund PENLINK as well which remains in the neverland.
Government did agree instead however to provide direct funding for rail electrification but that was a one off whereas the fuel tax would have kept giving and would be unnoticed by drivers now.
As a rough estimate NZ's use approx. 500 litres of petrol per capita for travel. (according to a 2009 World Bank study) 500 x 1.4m x .05 = $37.5M per annum in lost revenue x 10 years = $375m.
Not a great deal in the scheme of regional transport infratructure costs but better than a kick in the pants.
Making it 10c, 15c or 20c then we would be taking some more serious money and it would be a fair user pays approach except for those poor buggers who end up being forced to buy an "affordable" house in Huapai or Wesley.
Don't want to hog this space Joel but here (anyway) are a few thoughts on road funding.
Of the alternative funding mechanisms ... the best, IMHO are those closest to the user's actual "use".
Property rates, as I said earlier, are a very poor (the worst of) roads funding mechanisms (for obvious reasons).
(And BTW a "levy" is just weasally for "qua" rate).
Tolls are fine (conceptually)except for the transaction charges/difficulties. Future tech solutions beckon however.
Which brings us to the best, most direct of motorist user pays charges ... added petrol tax charged at the pump.
Regional tax rate variations merely reflect needs/expenditures locally with no perceptible disturbance of or added collection difficulties within the charging system. The fact that earlier initiatives to collect differential regional gas taxes is no reason now! to discount them entirely.
"If at first you dont succeed ..."
Post a Comment