THE PRESS MONDAY, JULY 3, 1978. Paving for the road tunnel

Press, 3 July 1978, Page 12

THE PRESS MONDAY, JULY 3, 1978. Paving for the road tunnel

As guarantor of the outstanding $5 million debt on the ChristchurchLyttelton road tunnel, the Government has shown a surprising apathy towards the problems of the Road Tunnel Authority. Rising costs and shrinking revenues have been squeezing the authority’s finances for more than a year. After having to defer payment on some accounts last year, the authority placed its plight before the Prime Minister in February this year. Although senior officials of the Treasury and the Ministry of Works have since visited Christchurch, and presumably reported to the Prime Minister, no reply has yet been received from the Government to the authority’s February representations.

Until the National Roads Board’s annual grant of $200,000 was received the authority was unable to meet its halfyearly interest commitment of $116,000 due by the end of last month. The authority’s next financial crisis may be expected in six months, when more interest payments are due. The authority will need to keep pressing the Government for a firm commitment before Parliament goes into recess before the General Election in November.

The authority’s growing financial difficulties, and the recent increases in the tunnel tolls, have led to renewed demands for abolition of the tolls. The four local bodies—Christchurch City Council, Lyttelton Borough Council, Lyttelton Harbour Board, and Heathcote County Council—reiterated this demand when they met in Christchurch on Friday to consider the tunnel’s problems. They also sought the elimination of the tunnel debt and the incorporation of the tunnel in the State highway system. These requests amount to a demand to shift the burden of payment from the main users of the tunnel, the local commercial firms and private motorists, to taxpayers generally.

The authority has accepted, since its establishment, the responsibility to collect from users sufficient revenue to cover all the costs of financing and running the tunnel. The only other comparable amenity in the country is the Auckland Harbour bridge, users of which are also levied by way of tolls. The bridge, however, is much more heavily subsidised by motorists elsewhere than is the tunnel: the Roads Board’s annual grant to the Harbour Bridge Authority is now $lO million. If the Government finally abolishes the toll on the Auckland bridge it could do no less than abolish the toll on the Christchurch-Lyttelton tunnel. As a gesture towards regional growth the Government might well consider the merit of removing tolls from the tunnel first.

Abolition of the tolls, however cannot be taken for granted. The authority can only assume in the meantime that the tolls will be maintained until the tunnel is finally paid for. Abolition of the tolls on both the Auckland bridge and the Christchurch-Lyttelton tunnel would, however, substantially lower costs. The 24-hour manning of the bridge and the tunnel is very expensive; yet even if the collection of tolls were abandoned some supervision of the bridge and the tunnel would have to be maintained to deal with breakdowns and accidents. As an experiment, the tunnel authority might dispense with the collection of tolls between midnight and 6 a.m. to see if the saving in wages exceed the forgone revenue. Certainly, the present situation calls for a thorough re-examination of the road tunnel’s finances and operations. The authority should be prepared to take drastic steps to restore financial viability to its operations, if the Government’s eventual response to the authority’s representations is unfavourable.