5 July 2011

Harbour Bridge Toll

This story is pretty interesting. Traffic consultants have said the money put aside for Auckland roading won't pay for a new harbour crossing alone i.e. money needs to be gathered from elsewhere. Also, a new crossing will probably be needed within 20 years as the clip-ons on the current bridge start degrading.

So, they have proposed a $6-8 tax on the current bridge to help pay for the new crossing. That's quite a lot. I understand we should pay for the new crossing. (In fact, what annoys me is Aucklanders going "Oh, that Harbour Bridge is such a bottleneck..." blah blah moan moan and then "No! We won't pay for a new one!") But why not just put the toll on the new part (like in Tauranga) so that if you want to skip the old bridge traffic and/or see the new route you can pay for it. If you don't want to pay for it you sit in traffic on the bridge like you are doing now.

BUT the bit I find most interesting is that traffic forecasters have predicted traffiic volumes on the bridge will halve by 2014 if the $6 toll is invoked, and will drop to 40% current volume if the $8 toll is introduced. Isn't that fascinating? So these people will either have to quit their jobs in the city or use public transport. The reason I find this fascinating is because it is a reason why people will stop driving to the city. Which means there are less cars on the road/less petrol/less emissions etc.

Is it unreasonable then to imagine a $6 "Auckland city toll" (similar to London?), where what you are paying for is the privilege to go to Auckland via the Harbour Bridge, period? The sole purpose of this kind of tax would be to discourage people from driving to the city and to avoid it, or use public transport instead, as opposed to funding another traffic project which will just let more cars into the city.

I find it all quite interesting as a thought and social experiment.

No comments: