You'll be aware the ACT Party sees this as the way to go if we want to get those big infrastructure projects we need so badly moving more quickly.
ACT would have road development and maintenance funded through a system of tolls.
Both domestic and foreign companies would be able to fund projects instead.
And as the money wouldn't be coming from fuel excise tax, that would be reduced.
So what you'd end up with is, first of all, a much more targeted way of paying for those big schemes, much more of a user-pays system.
And for people who don't use the newer roads —the tolled ones— in theory... cheaper petrol.
Slight catch: some existing roads would also be tolled as long as another viable free route is available.
On the face of it, not bad, if it actually got things done more quickly. Like a new harbour crossing for Auckland perhaps.
Problem for ACT is that public-private partnerships don't exactly have a good name with the general public.
Transmission Gully for example... or the Pūhoi to Warkworth motorway... both were years late opening, and tens of millions over budget.
What is most appealing about the ACT plan is taking a long-term view toward infrastructure.
Too many politicians think 'long-term' means 'too hard. Let's kick the can down the road, make it someone else's problem sometime in the future.
And we need to invest billions, not just in roads but also rail.
So I'd go further. Set up and entrench a stand-alone Infrastructure Agency, funding guaranteed, safe from political interference.
Safe from half-wit Transport Ministers who think they know best.
Major investments with years of planning, and consenting, and land acquisition suddenly abandoned because a new government thinks they're vanity projects.
Tim Dower is a New Zealand journalist who works for Newstalk ZB as a newsreader and substitutes talkback announcer. This article was first published HERE
And as the money wouldn't be coming from fuel excise tax, that would be reduced.
So what you'd end up with is, first of all, a much more targeted way of paying for those big schemes, much more of a user-pays system.
And for people who don't use the newer roads —the tolled ones— in theory... cheaper petrol.
Slight catch: some existing roads would also be tolled as long as another viable free route is available.
On the face of it, not bad, if it actually got things done more quickly. Like a new harbour crossing for Auckland perhaps.
Problem for ACT is that public-private partnerships don't exactly have a good name with the general public.
Transmission Gully for example... or the Pūhoi to Warkworth motorway... both were years late opening, and tens of millions over budget.
What is most appealing about the ACT plan is taking a long-term view toward infrastructure.
Too many politicians think 'long-term' means 'too hard. Let's kick the can down the road, make it someone else's problem sometime in the future.
And we need to invest billions, not just in roads but also rail.
So I'd go further. Set up and entrench a stand-alone Infrastructure Agency, funding guaranteed, safe from political interference.
Safe from half-wit Transport Ministers who think they know best.
Major investments with years of planning, and consenting, and land acquisition suddenly abandoned because a new government thinks they're vanity projects.
Tim Dower is a New Zealand journalist who works for Newstalk ZB as a newsreader and substitutes talkback announcer. This article was first published HERE
3 comments:
In the UK a few years ago the Tory government published research that showed that PPP's for roading and hospitals inevitably went over time and budget and were an exceptionally poor use of public money.
Act's policy is a mix of PPP's and outright build/own/operate private tolling. Based on this overseas evidence, it's bound to be a disaster.
Here's a good summary:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15309576.2020.1741406
I disagree that tolls would be bad and have said so for a long time it would get new roads built where they are needed without political interference.We just have to look at Australia to see it working and as you mentioned the second bridge for Auckland would be paid for by the people who would benefit,how can you get fairer than that?
About as exciting as more speed bumps and 30km speed limits! No Act vote from this!!
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.