How to “unleash” Auckland’s transport system?

A few weeks back there was a very high profile launch of the Auckland Spatial Plan discussion document, known as “Auckland Unleashed”. The launch was accompanied by a great video of Mayor Len Brown outlining his vision for rail’s role in shaping his vision for Auckland over the next 20-30 years.

But beyond the fancy headlines and videos, there are some very interesting transport debates that the “Auckland Unleashed” document touches upon. In fact, along with the question of whether or not Auckland should keep its metropolitan urban limits, the transport focus of the Auckland Plan is likely to be its most hotly debated and discussed element. The government certainly didn’t hold back in slamming the Mayor’s public transport vision before he’d even launched the plan. For advocates of better public transport, and a better balance between funding for roads and other transport modes, it will be essential to be involved in this debate. I plan to do a series of posts between now and the end of May (when submissions on the discussion document are due) outlining how I think the Auckland Plan might approach transport.

The diagram below reminds us how critical the Auckland Plan will be in guiding other documents that will shape Auckland over the next 20-30 years:
Transport is mainly discussed in the “People and Infrastructure” section of the discussion document. Hidden among the big picture fluffy words that the Auckland Unleashed document has a large number of are essentially three options for the transport direction the Auckland Plan could take.

1. Continuing with the ‘balanced’ approach promoted in the 2010-2040 Regional Land Transport Strategy, which effectively suggested a 50/50 funding split between spending on roads and public transport over the next 30 years.
2. Adjusting the RLTS to fit within the existing funding envelopes. This is much more ‘stick’ and less ‘carrot’ in terms of trying to get people out of their cars and onto other transport modes. This option would, by far, be the least expensive.
3. Adjusting the RLTS to bring forward the “big three” rail projects (CBD Rail Tunnel, Rail to the Airport and Rail to the North Shore).

These are outlined in more detail below:

OPTION 1 : THE RLTS AS ADOPTED IN 2010

The RLTS aims to develop a transport system which supports a compact urban form consisting of centres, corridors and rural settlements. It provides for improvements in each mode of transport, with an emphasis on public transport, walking and cycling. It has a focus on travel demand management, rather than a ‘predict and provide’ approach, to encourage more people to walk, cycle, use public transport, share car trips and to work, shop and play locally where possible. It identifies projects of high regional significance and identifies the need for additional funding and a reallocation of funding.

Completion of the planned state highway network is also identified as a priority in the first 10 years, in accordance with the approach taken in the current Government Policy Statement, along with improving the operation of existing roads.

Throughout its development in 2009 and 2010 I was pretty supportive of the direction taken in the RLTS. It outlined the need to complete the CBD Rail Tunnel by 2021, the need to advance a series of large rail projects in the 2020-2040 time period, but also smart things like the need to take a fresh look at our parking policies and ensure better alignment between transport and land-use planning. It says a lot about where things have come politically in the last year in Auckland that the RTLS is now likely to be perceived by many as very conservative in terms of its public transport vision.

OPTION 2 : THE RLTS, WITH ADJUSTMENTS TO FIT WITHIN THE OVERALL CURRENT FUNDING ENVELOPE FOR TRANSPORT

This approach would limit the number of new transport infrastructure projects on the assumption that not all the projects could be funded. This approach may require choices between some of the large transport projects, and would rely to a large extent on existing infrastructure and a travel demand management approach to achieve the desired outcomes. If this option is tied towards achieving particular targets, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions or becoming an economic powerhouse, prioritisation of projects would be affected. This option could be described as a network management approach.

This approach needs to be modelled to understand the effects of a network management approach. This would need to be done once there is agreement about prioritisation criteria for applying limited funding to transport projects.

Funding constraints are obviously a massive issue when it comes to transport priorities. If there’s no money there, then no matter how much you want a project to happen it simply won’t. As I noted above, this option is much more about ‘stick’ than ‘carrot’, and probably has some very worthy elements to it. We do need to give serious consideration to what the transport priorities for Auckland over the next 20-30 years really are. If we build the Puhoi-Wellsford “holiday highway” then chances are we won’t be able to afford to build the CBD Rail Tunnel until post-2020. If we build a $4 billion+ additional harbour crossing in the next 20 years then chances are we won’t be able to afford Airport Rail – let alone a railway line to the North Shore.

OPTION 3 : THE RLTS, WITH 3 RAIL PROJECTS BEING BROUGHT FORWARD

By bringing forward the City Centre Rail Link, as well as rail to the airport and rail on the North Shore, a strong commitment is being made for growth to be based around public transport. This would require significant reallocation of investment in rail and land use to support these projects and could also require some state highway projects to be deferred to make available funding for these three rail projects. This option could be described as a rapid transit approach.

Work needs to progress to full understanding of the costs and benefits of these rail projects and to future-proof the routes. The City Centre Rail Link Business Case is being checked for robustness. That review is expected to be completed by the end of April 2011. The Business Case assumes the City Centre Rail Link will be operational by 2021 at an indicative cost of around $2 billion. The rail to the airport is subject to an investigation, which is progressing through to December 2011. Indicative costs could be around $2 billion depending on the extent of connections. Investigations have been carried out regarding the connection of rail to the North Shore, but the route on the North Shore needs to align with the area where the growth is expected. Costs of rail in the North Shore are likely to be far greater than the other two rail projects, and would vary, depending on whether heavy or light rail is used and whether or not the route follows the Northern busway route. Under current funding options, pursuit of this option could leave Auckland with critical gaps in its motorway/arterial network.

Option 3 would certainly represent a ‘quantum shift’ in Auckland’s transport policy of the past 60 years and would need the government’s funding priorities to be turned completely upside-down. It is absolutely true that a number of state highway projects would not be able to proceed if Option 3 was pursued – because there is simply not enough money to advance these three rail projects while still continuing to build masses of motorway around Auckland.

That said, it seems to me that in October last year Auckland voted for a transport revolution by electing Len Brown as Mayor. I absolutely think Option 3 is the way to go, even if I’m as yet unsure about the timing of North Shore Rail. We can’t shy away from the public transport versus roading debate; we can’t cop out by saying that we need more of both public transport and motorways: there simply isn’t enough money to build lots more of both. I think we need to recognise the world is changing and plan for the future – with that future being Option 3.

It will be interesting to see what feedback from the public there is on this issue, and which of the three positions the council ends up deciding to take. This could be as profound a moment in the history of Auckland’s transport policy as the 1955 Master Transportation Plan for Auckland, which condemned us to 60 years of an almost exclusive focus on providing for the private automobile.

Share this