Why discourage use of a much-needed road?

Tolls inconvenience motorists, distort travel patterns and often discourage the most efficient use of roads.

Those who have fought so hard for an inland route through Transmission Gully over many years should now be feeling betrayed by plans by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) to toll the route.

Tolls will compromise the objectives and significantly reduce the benefits of having the new road.

In 1997, when Transit NZ (now NZTA) first presented its case for a Gully designation, provision was made for toll plaza sites ‘‘in case a toll route is adopted’’. However, the commissioners were also told the road was expected to be constructed with national roading funds (without the need for tolls) by 2012 at the latest.

Tolling proposals advanced since then have been in the context of enabling construction of Transmission Gully to be brought forward and most supporters were prepared to accept tolls on that basis.

For instance, a region-wide ‘‘Willingness to Pay Survey’’ was carried out in 1999 by the Wellington Regional Council and Transit NZ. The understanding at that time was that using tolls could potentially bring forward construction from 2012 to 2006, but even though the majority of respondents favoured acceleration of the project, Transit NZ was not prepared to follow through on the survey’s results.

Then, in 2006, a committee appointed by Greater Wellington Regional Council and Transit NZ to consider over 6000 public submissions on the Western Corridor roading options recommended that Transmission Gully go ahead and found that tolling was not necessary to fund its construction.

Subsequently, the EPA Board of Inquiry in 2012 was told by NZTA that tolls were not planned and thus the board had no need to consider their possible effects.

We are now at the stage where the Gully is expected to be completed in 2020 and there is no way tolling it will bring that forward – the only justification in the past for considering tolls.

In fact, when NZTA eventually announced in July 2014 that a contract had been awarded, its chief executive at the time, Geoff Dangerfield, made a point of emphasising that construction by 2020 was at last ‘‘a certainty’’ and that its future operation and maintenance were ‘‘a requirement’’ of the contract.

A major purpose for building Transmission Gully was always to reduce the amount of traffic going through the coastal communities on the existing State Highway 1 – particularly Paremata, Plimmerton, Pukerua Bay and Paeka¯ ka¯ riki – while there would also be major benefits for other roads and suburban streets in the area.

It would also move traffic further away from the valuable Pa¯ uatahanui and Onepoto arms of Porirua Harbour – which was why it was supported by the Pa¯ uatahanui Inlet Community Trust and the Guardians of Pa¯ uatahanui Inlet. Anything that has the potential to discourage use of the new road should be avoided as it will be defeating those purposes.

People who have experienced toll roads here or overseas may claim that tolls will be readily accepted. However, in practice most motorists will do all they can to avoid spending money or dealing with the associated hassles where there are only minimal gains.

Whereas tolled roads generally provide motorists with significant distance, gradient or time savings, that will not be the case with Transmission Gully. The total length of the road is essentially the same as the existing route. The amount of relatively steep gradient is greater. Arguably, many people will find the old route more interesting.

When some of the traffic is removed from the existing route, the time savings for most motorists will be relatively small. The incentive to use Transmission Gully will therefore be relatively small and tolls will reduce that incentive even more.

The existing legislation requires the minister to be satisfied with ‘‘the level of community support for the proposed tolling scheme in the relevant region’’, that the tolling scheme is ‘‘efficient and effective’’ and that ‘‘a feasible, untolled, alternative route is available to road users’’.

The purpose of tolls, in this instance, is simply to raise additional roading funds, but that would be neither efficient nor effective. Such a strategy charges only the motorists using the toll road, but not those using any other roads elsewhere in the network. The extra costs of maintaining the existing SH1 as an alternative route will be met by Porirua and Ka¯ piti ratepayers.

And, in this instance, the road being proposed for tolling is the one we most want motorists to use.

Hopefully the level of community support for tolling will not be sufficient to satisfy the minister.

Unnecessary proliferation of toll roads throughout New Zealand should not be supported. Tolls inconvenience motorists, distort travel patterns and often discourage the most efficient use of roads. If NZTA and the other authorities want to raise more funds to maintain our roading network, they should forget about tolls on Transmission Gully and put their efforts into producing a comprehensive road-pricing strategy for the region.