David Thornton: Better transport, roads benefit all

COMMENT

While the Auckland Regional Council searches for ways to pay for its transport responsibilities, ratepayers are getting alarmed again at the prospect of 5 per cent increases in local rates and 20 per cent increases in ARC rates to pay for solutions to Auckland's traffic problems.

For those who have been crying out for Government to apply petrol and fuel taxes to building new roads, and other transport measures to ease congestion, including public transport, a parliamentary question and answer session that took place this month will bring no comfort:

Winston Peters: Why is the Government collecting $2.2 billion in all sorts of road taxes for the intention of repairing or constructing new roads, yet only giving Transfund almost less than half of that $1.2 billion; why is she robbing the New Zealand motorist and road user in the way she is?

Helen Clark: Every Government, for a very long time, has taken more money off various road users in petrol and fuel levies than it has spent on roading. Not to do so would lead us to radically increase other forms of taxes, which we are not prepared to do.

There was a similar response from Don Brash a few weeks ago when he was asked what National's policy was.

Both Clark and Brash have claimed that other countries also collect taxes from fuel for the purpose of the general revenue (consolidated fund).

Transport Minister Paul Swain says the fuel tax money goes to pay for police, who have a significant function on our roads, and the health sector, which has to deal with the aftermath of road accidents. And there is some validity to that argument.

The real issue for Auckland is not where the money comes from but how it is spent.

There seems to be an interminable battle between the lobby for new roads and the lobby for public transport.

That battle has consumed hundreds of millions of dollars over the past few years, as consultant after consultant has been retained to justify the case for maximum expenditure on one to the detriment of the other.

In the process little physical progress has been made on either, with the resultant increase in congestion we see every day.

The glib answer - and certainly the correct one in this case - is that Auckland needs both. Some new roads and a vastly improved public transport system. The roads will take years to put in place but a bus-based public transport system could be in place in a relatively short space of time.

It is surely common sense to accept that Auckland's geographical design, or lack of it, demands a public transport network based around the roads that already exist.

The luxury of spending half the ARC transport budget on a rail system to cater for about 2 per cent of the travelling public is a nonsense. That issue was one of the causes of the Ratepayers Rebellion protest.

Having made a decision in favour of a bus network, the next step is who will pay and that is the decision we will hear on December 12 when Government policy will be announced.

It is difficult to apply the user pays principle across the board to transport. Everyone benefits to a greater or lesser degree from the provision of new roads.

People and goods can be moved around. Workers can get to work and earn money. Employers make money, which benefits shareholders. People can ride their bikes, ambulances can get victims to hospitals, fire engines can put out fires, and rubbish collectors can clear our rubbish.

And we can all interact with family, friends and our community

Because everyone benefits, everyone should contribute to a greater or lesser degree.

It is perhaps this level of contribution which is the stumbling block.

So who should not carry an unfair burden? First and foremost residential ratepayers should not carry that burden. The present rating system is a property tax unrelated to services used or ability to pay. It is a tax on unrealised wealth.

If central government is intent on local councils contributing to the cost of providing public transport, it must find a fairer system of funding for those councils.

So who should pay?

Accepting that roading and public transport are vital in both social and economic terms, there is an overwhelming case for the cost to be spread as widely as possible and the simplest way to achieve that is by central government taxation across the whole community. In other words funding should be from income tax and GST. And that could be done on a regional basis if necessary.

And there is also a strong case for charging businesses on a user-pays basis, if only because businesses can recover costs from end users. This again spreads the cost on a more equitable and affordable basis.

The December 12 package is unlikely to provide immediate benefits but immediate actions to solve the Auckland traffic crisis are imperative.

Until new roads are built, the absolute priority is to make the best use of existing roads. Introduce disincentives to unnecessary car travel by such simple methods as reduced car-parking capacity together with increased car-parking charges.

Ban older children from driving to school.

Ban all kerbside parking on arterial and secondary and feeder roads - this measure will also significantly improve traffic flows.

But above all, give absolute priority to a vastly improved bus-based public transport network. And do it without caning residential ratepayers again.

Let the Government guarantee a payment of $50 million a year to Auckland public transport for the next three years and in that time work on producing a new way of funding local government generally on the basis of ability to pay, user pays, and subsidy for those living on low, fixed incomes.

* David Thornton is a member of the Glenfield Community Board.