The Auckland Regional Transport Committee’s latest meeting agenda takes particular interest in the progress of the Regional Land Transport Strategy (RLTS), which is being reviewed and updated. Such a review cannot occur quickly enough, in my opinion, as the 2005 RLTS is a roads-centric piece of rubbish. I guess that might be slightly harsh on that document, as it did represent quite a shift away from the EVEN MORE roads centric strategies that precded it, but it still looked to spend at least twice as much on road transport funding as it did on public transport.
The new RLTS sets a long-term strategic position that appears likely to be the kind of quantum shift away from 20th century roads-centric transport funding that is so essential for Auckland. I won’t bore everyone with the details (in fact, I still need to read through them myself to understand whether this will actually turn out to be as good as it sounds – often there’s a huge disconnect between words and actions when it come to transport) but it does seem like a sensible range of options for the strategic direction of transportation in Auckland are being presented. One of the biggest issues with the previous RLTS was that it only looked at a range of transport funding options that already presumed that roads would get the bulk of funds. In the end, the ARC did go with the most public-transport friendly option, but even that was just a roads-fest. So it is good to see the options now being presented offer a real choice.
- Strategic Option 1 – Demand Management: Heavy use of factors which push people away from motor vehicle use (including road pricing) towards use of public transport (PT), walking and cycling. This would need to be supported by improvements to PT and walking and cycling to accommodate the diverted demand.
- Strategic Option 2 – Mixed Investment: Continuation of the current strategy of improvement in all modes, with some shift away from road investment.
- Strategic Option 3 – Change led by Public Transport (PT) Improvements: Heavy investment in PT infrastructure and services in order to ‘pull’ people from cars to PT, but some investment in roading.
- Strategic Option 4 – Quantum Shift: A combination of the “push” factors from Strategic Option 1 (congestion pricing and parking measures) with the “pull” factors of Strategic Option 3 together with a “what if” land use designed to maximise the opportunities for public transport, walking and cycling.
The following table details various aspects of the four options further:
Now let’s have a look at what public transport improvements are envisaged for these options:
So option one includes a reasonable upgrade to the public transport system. In particular, it identifies that if we push people out of their cars (likely with peak oil coming soon anyway) then the CBD rail tunnel is a critical project to deal with patronage increases.
This option is fairly similar to option 1 above, but also includes quite a range of roading improvements that I haven’t included.
Metro…. metro… METRO!!!! Holy heck this option sounds pretty awesome. A metro line from Massey Uni, through the CBD and then under Dominion Road. Sure it would cost billions but it would be fantastic for Auckland.
Option 4 includes the same public transport projects as option three – but also with the added push factors that would accompany option 1. So what are those push factors?
Road pricing is a very controversial issue, and I generally am only supportive of it when there are great public transport alternatives. However, I do note that peak oil will impose a form of road pricing itself – as petrol increases rapidly in price. So even if we don’t embark on a deliberate process of road pricing I still think that we will end up with many of its effects.
I am very supportive of these ideas. The provision of free parking is one of the biggest hidden subsidies given to the private car. When we go to a shopping mall everything we buy is more expensive because the mall has to provide a huge amount of free parking. That means if someone walks, cycles or catches the bus to the mall then they are subsidising those who drive – pretty unfair as walkers, cyclists and bus riders are usually the young, old and poor. As Auckland intensifies there will be increasing pressure on land value and it just won’t make economic sense to provide so much parking anymore. So therefore I think that it is very likely to have much more parking regulation in the future.
So, overall I am a big fan of “Strategic Option 4 – Quantum Shift”. It includes the fantastic public transport improvements outlined in Option 3 as well as the push factors of option 1 that I think will happen anyway. The significant change in land-use patterns that Option 4 envisages are somewhat already underway in the future planning framework Auckland City Council is putting together at the moment.
Bring on the quantum shift – finally Auckland looks like it might end up with a half-decent Regional Land Transport Strategy!
Processing...
Hi Jarbury,
The quantum shift is along the lines of what I’ve suggested in the past. However, as you note the road pricing might be very politically difficult to pull off in Auckland, especially without a lot of high visibility PT projects in place before hand.
There could be a lot of success with a ‘soft quantum’ option, basically high PT development, limited road network extensions and a series of softer push measures such as the 10c a litre petrol tax, much tighter restrictions on super cheap sh*tbox jap imports (a younger fleet is good for emissions and safety aspects also), new urban highway/motorway projects developed as toll roads, maximum rather than minimum parking requirements for developments, and a parking levy in centres with good PT access.
That would probably achieve a lot of push, without a massive, expensive and politically troublesome road pricing system. The only downside is you would lack the ability to target particular areas or corridors (except the parking levy) or to manage access based on time of day, congestion etc.
Quick Shift pro is the latest site for human life If you visit the sit then you will find many interesting things.I hope that every man like to earn easily if you want to earn easily then I will say you that you can visit the Quick shift pro-2.I am sure that you must be success.I have a site that is quick-shift-pro-2?col=-16066
but your site is very strong so i want to visit your site every day and please every body visit the site.
Yeah I agree that road pricing will be a tough proposition to push for. Parking restrictions are quite likely to be imposed in the near future – with the ARC Draft Parking Strategy being quite a revolution in that respect.
I’m more of a fan of petrol tax rather than road pricing – largely because it’s far cheaper and less of a hassle to administrate.
I too like the good news that Auckland could get a decent rail system. I wouldn’t get too excited about the metro. I don’t know where you got the news about Parsons Brinkerhoff and their proposals from, as I can’t find it in the document. Even if they did use the word a metro, I suspect what they meant was a normal underground heavy rail link. And we just don’t have the population density to support a real metro, like the ones in Europe and the one they are planning for Sydney.
I agree wholeheartedly with you and them that a Manakau-Botany-Panmure link, the CBD rail link, a rail link to the airport, and preferably North Shore (if not extending the busway through a dedicated bus tunnel or special bus lanes on the bridge to the CBD) are important, but the whole metro idea is pie in the sky, and too expansive to construct.
Regarding road pricing, is the waterview connection going to be tolled. Tolls are my favourite road pricing method. petrol tax ain’t bad either, and it is a pity National dumped the regional fuel tax idea.
Nope the Waterview Connection won’t be tolled. Petrol tax is my prefered method, as it’s cheap and simple to collect. Not sure how transport will be funded in an “electric cars” future.
Clearly these Metro lines are a “dream” project, and they would be underground heavy rail rather than a London Underground style Metro. But it’s certainly better to be talking about this kind of stuff than whether we’ll need to double-decker the Southern Motorway.
The future of Auckland’s transport is public transport. The ARC realise this, we just need to convince the government now. Oh, and the new super-city (damn I hope they’re an empowered ARC and not an expanded Auckland City Council).