In July, the government unveiled a draft for public opinion, proposing to amend the highway toll management regulation. The revised regulation aims to extend tolls on government-funded highways.

In its annual report on toll highways released in December, the Ministry of Transport said China has run up a huge deficit - 66 billion yuan ($10.4 billion) - from constructing and operating the world's largest network of toll highways. Most of the deficit is due to bank loans and the mounting interest on them.

From 1994, China began to charge tolls on some highways for the bank loans to be paid off. According to the previous regulations, state-funded highways are allowed to collect toll for 15 years after they are put into operation. In central and west China, where the economy is less developed, the period can be extended but to no more than 20 years. 

However, the new regulation does not specify how much longer the tolls would remain. Even after the bank loans are paid off, they could be continued to pay for the maintenance of these highways. Many people are concerned that highway tolls will continue to be imposed indefinitely.

The public has been complaining about the high toll rates and traffic congestion. The draft sparked a heated discussion with some saying it indicated highways would collect tolls forever. Questioning the transparency of toll revenue utilization, they say extending the toll period will only compromise the governments' credibility.

However, supporters of the regulation say charging tolls is the fairest way and will fund the operation and maintenance of China's vast highway network.

Pro

Dong Xuebo

Deputy Director General, China Highway and Transportation Society

I think charging tolls is the fairest way to use the highways. Even after the bank loans are paid off, tolls should still be collected to maintain the roads, but at a lower rate.

There are no free highways in any of the countries around the world. The difference just lies in the ways of charging toll. Generally speaking, there are three ways.

In some countries, governments use tax revenue to fund the construction and maintenance of highways. No matter whether a taxpayer drives on highways or not, he or she has to pay.

Some governments levy fuel taxes. Only those who drive are required to pay. This is fairer, to an extent. However, all drivers, no matter whether they use highways or not, have to pay.

In China and some other countries, only the actual highway users pay the toll.

I think it is the fairest way. The policy of charging toll on highways is vital to the rapid development of China's highway network, and so, should be carried on. Extending the toll period can help healthy highway development in China.

pros

Jing Qiaoxi

People.com.cn

Since car owners account for only a small proportion of the whole Chinese population, the fairest and most plausible way is to charge those who use the highways. The public concern is that the toll utilization is not transparent and transport authorities and construction companies may conspire to make illegal profits. Extending the toll period will breed more corruption.

In my opinion, the toll policy will not necessarily lead to corruption. Even if the highways were free, there could be corruption. So, while extending the toll period, more anti-corruption policies should be put in place.

If the government is soliciting public opinion, why not listen to what people are saying? There are a lot of things the government can do, like putting toll revenues under public supervision, or explaining why they are encountering huge deficits.

cons

Hu Yinbin

Quzhou Daily

As building highways requires large investment and they are vital to national economic and social development, it is acceptable to charge tolls. But there should be limits. The government cannot set a loan pay-off period to collect tolls.

For one, current toll revenue information lacks transparency. Take Guangdong Province in south China, for example. The provincial transport authority said on June 29 that its highways made a profit of 390 million yuan ($61.2 million) in 2014. However, a previous communique by the same authority on June 11 showed the same highways had incurred a deficit of 2.88 billion yuan ($452 million).

If figures given by a provincial authority can change randomly, is there any credibility in the deficit figure - 66 billion yuan ($10.4 billion) - given by the Ministry of Transport?

Can people trust the [state-determined] loan pay-off periods that are based on such confusing figures? Add to it the vested interests of local governments or certain departments, and someone may extend the pay-off period using a fictitious reason. With no transparency, the public cannot supervise [such measures].

Furthermore, if highways are allowed to charge toll for an unlimited period, some local governments' passion would be ignited, resulting in an overabundance of highways. The mandate of building for public benefit would be lost. Highways would become some local governments' ATM card.

Con

Jiang Debin

Media commentator

The gross profits of highways are so high that they are a ready source of cash. However, with large bank loans, the liability of highway operators is also high. Management deficiency has further aggravated the issue. Experts estimate that if the current highway operation system is not changed, it will take decades, or even centuries, to pay off the loans. Therefore, instead of extending the toll period, it is better to change the operation system.

For government-funded highways, tolls should be abolished as soon as the agreed-upon toll period expires, no matter if the debts are paid off or not. This is in line with market economy rules. Extending the period will only ruin the governments' credibility.

Pros

Chen Bin

Media commentator

Ministry of Transport statistics show that the average cost of building 1 km of highway reached almost 100 million yuan ($15.7 million) in 2013. After highways are put into operation, regular funds are needed for their maintenance. No highway materializes out of nowhere magically. From an economic perspective, there can be no free highway.

Who builds these highways that are a kind of commercial goods? One category is businesses that obtain a franchise and invest in building the roads. They are permitted to charge users money for a certain period.

The other category is the government. These highways are considered the local taxpayers' property and as the representative of the taxpayer, the government has the right to collect tolls.

No matter where the fund comes from, charging those who use highways is the most efficient way to operate them. Even if people are allowed to drive on roads built by governments for free, someone has to pay for their construction, operation and maintenance - the taxpayer. Some taxpayers rarely or never use highways; so it would be unfair to make them pay.

Also, free passage will lead to congested highways. In 2010, Guangzhou [in south China] stopped charging toll on an expressway, resulting in increased traffic, especially during rush hours. Once a 15-minute drive, it now takes at least half an hour.

The fallouts of the toll-free policy are huge. Every taxpayer has to pay for the highways and more time is wasted traveling on them. With increased traffic, more accidents will happen. During emergencies, people can't have a quick getaway on highways. All of these underscore one truth: free things are the most expensive ones. So, the current toll period of highways should be extended.

Con

Li Li

Dahe Daily

In Chinese, highways and expressways literally mean high-speed public roads. As they are public, they ought to be public services funded by the government. Taxpayers and car owners have already paid taxes, as required, and have the right to drive on highways for free. It is understandable that governments will charge tolls to pay off loans, but highways should be toll-free in the long run to indicate they are public property.

The obsession to continue charging toll exposes an ulterior motive to make a profit, which will inexorably undermine government credibility. As a public service provider, the government should play its due role to serve people.