It has been an interesting year so far for Auckland’s public transport – probably a good year to start writing a blog on the topic actually, considering all the goings on that have happened. Probably the biggest story of the year so far was the cancellation of the Regional Petrol Tax back in March, which put most of the public transport improvements that we can expect in the next few years, into doubt.
In the months since then it seems like everything has been about “cleaning up the mess” that Steven Joyce created in March through his transport announcements. Fortunately, most of the mess has now been cleaned up: with a decision on integrated ticketing being made last week, NZTA coming to the party and funding upgrades to Onehunga and New Lynn, the Manukau rail link going ahead, and funding for the below track part of electrification being outlined in the May budget. All we are really waiting for now is NZTA to confirm that they will provide the necessary funding subsidy for integrated ticketing (to be finalised in September I think) and for the funding of Auckland’s electric trains to be announced. Goodness knows when that will happen, although rumours suggest it might be this week.
So, we’re almost back to where we were a few months ago then. The question I wish to ask is “where to next?” It seems like the government is convinced that the money they’re going to spend on finishing ProjectDART (upgrades to the rail system that have been ongoing for the last few years) and electrification, that’s it. Auckland’s transport planning documents suggest that this is the case as well, with funding for public transport infrastructure after electrification is complete almost disappearing. As a public transport advocate I think it’s important for me to state that I believe we’re only at the beginning of this process to truly create a top-class public transport system for Auckland. Electrification and ProjectDART cannot be seen as endpoints, but rather the first step of a process. We must develop a vision for how we want Auckland’s public transport system to look like in 30-40 years time, and work out how we’re going to get there. With higher fuel prices a certainty in the future, combined with the need to reduce CO2 emissions from our transport sector, I think that it’s critical that we back up the “talk” of quantum shifts with a real plan. And we fix our broken funding system to ensure that the money’s available to do it.
Unfortunately, I doubt the current government has the vision or desire to do anything more than the bare minimum when it comes to public transport. Maybe a future Super-City Council will be just what we need to push the need for better public transport?
Processing...
I’m intrigued in the National Infrastructure plan that is being developed, I’m quite sceptical whether it will include anything regarding PT though. Not holding my breath, but I have some faint hope that it will LOL.
What do you think of the idea of starting a local body party to contest council elections..? The Public Transport Initiative or similar, I think it’s the perfect time and a comphrensive PT plan won’t be decided let alone put into effect unless some PT minded people get on there…
The plan is pretty simple for anyone who looks at the issue for a few hours,
Buses:
– SH18, SH16 and possible SH20 busway Northern busway extended to Orewa, SH18 and SH1 converted to rail when required with a Henderson to Westgate rail corridor designated. Price 3B.
Rail:
– Development A-S line, Onehunga to Airport link, Airport to Manukau, Manukau to Glen Innes, future Upper Harbour and North Shore lines, CBD loop. Price 9B + rolling stock.
Ferries:
– Possible new piers at West Park, Hobsonville, Beachhaven, Bayswater, Takapuna Beach, Browns Bay, St Heliers (investigation into pier feasibility, park and rides, TOD) and upgrades (park and rides, etc) to existing piers Devonport, Birkenhead, Northcote, Stanley Bay, Waiheke. New downtown piers and ferries. Price: 500M.
Active modes:
– Completion of the ARTA identified walking and cycling system. Price: 1.5B (including footpath maintainance.
Roads:
– Maintainance, safety improvements, bus lane conversions. Price: 6B (Currently 57M a year for parking, road and road safety just for the Auckland City Council which means Auckland wide it would be 300M per year or 9.6B over the next 32 years, I think some serious savings could be found here)
– Second Harbour Crossing with Heavy Rail tunnels. 3.7B.
– Some elements of AMETI namely Panmure roundabout elimination, bus laning. Price: 600M.
Light Rail/Trolley-buses:
– Study into possible light rail/trolley-bus networks in North shore (feeding into Takapuna), Waitakere (feeding into New Lynn), Central (feeding into Britomart) and South (feeding into Manukau) with the last three linked at a single station. Price 3B for say 250 kms of light rail or 500M for trolley-buses of similar length.
So that leaves 12.7B for central government over 32 years + rolling stock (rail and second harbour crossing), not ridiculous at 396.8M a year and 11.6B (without light rail or trolley-buses) for the new Auckland Council at 362.5M a year or with a light rail network 14.6 B at 456.25M a year.
I think this would be feasible by 2041 if local government got really committed to PT for the next 32 years and central government agreed to the rail expansion…
The above includes maintainance costs for the roads and footpaths over the 32 year period, all in current dollars of course…
I meant contest the upcoming new Auckland Council elections not all Councils…
I don’t think I’m the politician type. However, I certainly plan on doing what I can to raise the profile of public transport for the future Auckland Council.
One of the problems is that it’s central government that has all the money when it comes to transport. NZTA does raise a LOT of money from petrol taxes and RUCs each year, whereas from council rates I don’t think there’s as much, and certainly not the ability to increase that amount without a rates revolt.r
So I see there being two options for increasing funding for PT:
1) The “single funding pool” for all transport projects that I have been going on about a bit recently. This would enable us to truly compare different transport projects to work out which one we want to build most. Why shouldn’t the CBD rail tunnel be able to ‘compete’ against the Waterview Connection for that $1.4 billion in funding?
2) Find a way for the future Auckland Council to raise more funds for transport. One way of doing that could be a “parking tax” on the provision of off-street parking in certain parts of the city. I know that in Sydney if you want to provide an off-street parking spot in the CBD you need to pay the NSW government about $900 a year. That discourages the provision of parking places (and therefore reduces the number of cars going into the CBD each day) while also raising a fairly decent amount of money for public transport.
Your plan above is pretty impressive. We just need to find the money.
2)
Great post Joshua. You are so on the button.
There has been some talk from John Banks about the CBD rail tunnel. So I guess there is some hope yet. As well as that there has been plans to put a rail through the harbour tunnel (but I can see a cheap busway option being created instead). But these projects seem a while away.
But public transport activists can breath a sigh of relief that national wont be in power forever (maybe the Labour party will win an election again at some stage) if PT funding stops coming through after the DART project. However National have been supporting public transport a lot more than expected to date.
The public understanding and attitudes towards PT are changing in Auckland, I hope future decision makers will considers rising PT numbers and its importance to the regional growth plan.
Could CBT select someone to represent for council? Or is that against the beliefs of the group?
The CBT is designed to be politically neutral – basically to minimise the number of people that we’d annoy by aligning with any political party. People from across the political spectrum seem to support better public transport too – although unfortunately it is only the Green Party who seem to have cottoned on to this yet.
I am concerned that Labour still haven’t got their heads around public transport yet either. I think I need to find Darren Hughes (their transport spokesman) and somehow force him to spend a few hours reading this blog.
On number one, I’m not so sure a single funding pool is the best idea (maybe most likely)… The roading lobby is powerful in New Zealand and they could always find a roading project with a better BCR (or produce a convincing report at least) than the unpowerful PT lobby could find a PT project…
I think I like the idea of state highways and PT being funded the same way as local roads with central government paying a percentage and the local authority doing the same although I see higher percentile than the 50/50 of local roads maybe 70/30 and in Auckland ARTA deciding the projects for the region… Not going to happen anytime soon…
I really think the only way the above kind of plan will happen is if people passionate about PT get involved in the elections, otherwise the current road model following politicans and the roading lobby will keep on keeping on, PT is risky, roads aren’t… But if a party was on the ballot called say: Public Transport Initiative, people would vote based on the name, whenever I talk to people about Auckland traffic they say why isn’t there more PT, its complex you try to say and their eyes glaze over but I think it’d attract some votes maybe 5 – 10% in its first election, maybe even a Councillor or two and that then puts pressure on those elected much more than any lobby from people like us… I hope Mike Lee runs for Mayor, I’ll be voting for him..!
On number two, I don’t think the funding shortfall is that far off for the local budget I’d estimate the exisiting councils would be spending about 400M a year between them (a can’t be bothered looking at all the budgets but that’d be close) on new roads and footpaths, maintainance and safety upgrades on both and parking operations, I think that could cover a lot of the cost just needs to be focussed better and for the final funding at local council level I think you release a comphrensive plan for public consultation ammend it accordingly over a year period (while getting on with whatever planned PT projects are at the time) and then have a referendum (it’s how they do it in America, like the SF Muni, Boston MBTA too from memory), can’t complain about rates then..! At the same time you could put a question on the ballot about the heavy rail projects to put pressure on central government…
Other idea’s for funding could be a system of tolls for vehicles like London has in their CBD with zones (we’d only need one) all automated with cameras and dashboard displays for the vehicles, there are plenty of ideas like that it’d take someone with some balls…
Jsut an extra note the above party would be for Auckland elections only and would be independent of the CBT…
Do you think it would be easier to start a “Public Transport Party” or to ensure that some centre-left (most likely) grouping, like an extended version of City Vision, are very pro public transport in their policies?
In terms of funding, I am convinced that a single pool of funds is the way to go. Put it this way: it’d be hard to end up in a worse situation than what we are in currently, with funding for state highways being so easy and funding for public transport being so difficult.
Well you have to ask yourself what is more effective I guess… Historically C and R have been trouncing CV (or their equal) for 60 – 70 years, where as a right wing voter who is stuck in traffic on SH1 an hour each way is likely to vote for a centrist, party whose policies are all based around improving the choices and effectiveness of the transport system, when they would never vote for CV…
If you can get a councillor or two to on the council (and then some of the good ideas) and a good chunk of the vote say 5 – 10% in 2010 (which will change the other parties plans 100 times more effectively than lobbying ever could) it is a really effective way of causing change…
It’s unbelieveably easy to stand all you need is two signatures from people living in the ward you intend to stand in, which means (I’m guessing the future format) is 20 candidates from the future wards x 2 signatures, I don’t think it’ll be that hard to find 60 people passionate enough about PT to stand or sign a form, someone willing to put their name on the ballot for mayor, start a simple website with policy and membership details, a party is really easy to lodge too just need some signatures and a deposit and finally an executive (president, treasurer, membership co-ordinator at the start) and if you really want to get serious a party constitution…
The idea is just standing candidates gets some movement and momentum, it would be up to the candidates how many events or signs they wanted to attend and put up…
Maybe I could stand for a future Central Auckland local board/community council. Main policies to push for better public transport, and the CBD Rail tunnel in particular.
Talking about parking, I’d really like to see New Zealand, or at least the large cities, do what is done in Tokyo…where you can’t register a car unless you can prove that you have off-street parking for it, though I’d settle for a policy where the registration fee is massively higher.
There was huge argument here in Wellington when the council suggested reducing parking on Constable St (part of the main route over the hills to the Eastern Suburbs) in order to put in a bus lane…with people arguing for their “right” to park outside their own house. Given that these people were effectively being subsidised by other ratepayers in their free use of public space (which all they then use for is to park their cars on), I think they shouldn’t have had a leg to stand on. A policy like Tokyo’s cuts both their legs off 🙂
I don’t know whether encouraging the provision of more off-street parking is the way to go. I think that what really needs to change regarding parking policy is removing “minimum parking requirements”. People should be left to make their own decisions about how many parking spaces are required: for commercial activities, residential, everything. You can always regulate on-street parking through P60 or P180 signs.
Good post.
I like your plan Jezza. The only problem is the cost. Aded up it is:
$3bn extra busways (SH16, 18 & 20)
$9bn complete rail network
$0.5bn ferries
$1.5bn active mode (cycling, walking
$9.3bn roads
$3bn for light rail
$2bn total- money we don’t have
It needs to be scaled down drastically, maybe a airport line, CBD rail loop, and extra bus lanes, including a Glenn Innes-Botany railway, with manakau-Bitany being buses, until further funds can be found.
I like the idea of citizens initiated referendum to increase petrol taxes to raise funds. Also London style congestion charging could be used once network is complete, to repay loan. And the parking tax is not a bad idea.
I agree its good how the campaign for better transport is politically neutral. That does not mean it shouldn’t rate parties and candidates based on their public transport policies. Perhaps send a questionarre to all candidates, decide how they will be marked before the questionarre is sent out. Gather the information, and put out a press release showing the results, and the grades candidates get (i.e A+, C- e.t.c). If the money is avaliable, newspaper adds could be done showing the results, and encourage people to think about public transport when voting.
Definitely Jarbury, if you’re not really interested in being a politican though, president of a party like the one I talked about above would be a better idea… They drive party policy and make press releases on behalf of the party, etc… Some people are more suited to this than campaigning… For a local body party it can be as little, say an hour or two a week, or as much as desired…
Oh yes, and as for Darren Hughes, he has been mostly invisable since the election, and what he has said is mostly about building Transmission Gully and saying Steven joyce isn’t committed enough to the project! Google Darren Hughes and Transmission gully to find his views on this issue. So I won’t trust Hughes or Labour here.
Now given that the NZ First has been kicked out of parliament, and United Future is back down to one MP, any future Labour government, will have to include or depend on the Greens (unless Labour gets 46%+ of the vote, which is unlikely), and probably in a big way (as the Greens and Maori party are Labours only options). So despite Darren Hughes it will probably be the most pro-public transport government ever. Until that day comes, I’m sad we may have to stick with the crumbs we currently have.
I agree that Jezza’s plans are probably a bit ‘over-the-top’. In particular, I don’t think we need to spend that extra $9.3 billion on roads 😉
Regarding Darren Hughes, yes he has been incredibly disappointing with regards to transport. When was the last time he asked a question for oral answer on transport issues?
Hey Nick, I think that we do definitely have the funding just not the political will to spend it on anything other than roads, roads and more roads, remember how easily they found the funds for AMETI, imagine how hard it would be (or we’ll be told it was) to find 1.33B for a light rail system…
So lets break it down a bit further:
$3bn extra busways (SH16, 18 & 20) (I think extending SH1 northern busway from Orewa to the city is much more important than SH20, either would be good but SH16 and SH18 are obvious to me)
$9bn complete rail network (some of these costs would be reduced by making the extended SH1 and new SH18 busway rail proofed but say 9B – 10B including rolling stock).
$0.5bn ferries
$1.5bn active mode (cycling, walking)
$9.3bn roads (You guys misunderstood me, I definitely don’t propose NEW roading spending what I’m saying is that 9.3 bn is what is going to be spent by the councils from now to 2041 on roading by my guesstimation and I’m not sure if it includes AMETI, I think it does, I’d propose scaling it back to 6B for maintainance, safety and bus lane conversion only)
$3bn for light rail
$23 bn total- money we don’t have (it’s 23 bn without the second harbour crossing, say 27bn including it)… Money we have but as it stands most will be spent on local roads and SH’s…
After the WRR is finished in 2015 the government budget would be about 400M a year (plus SH maintainance)that is a drop in the ocean (considering it would be the effective transport budget for a third + of NZ’s residents) out of a 60 bn yearly budget but it would require them to spend all transport money inside the urban limits on rail and state highway maintainance only.
The council’s are a bit trickier at about 500M a year but they are already spending around 400M on roading and roading related activities (and some PT projects like the central connector) currently, remember the population will increase about 30% over the next 32 years so rates will too and if they stay in the urban limits now set, scale back new roading I think PT will serve the existing and future residents better than roads if mixed developments, TOD and intensification is done well… I also think if the government scaled back SH development and limited their budget to 400M a year on rail and 2nd harbour crossing they could contribute…
Finally 27 bn over 32 years is what I’d estimate is the minimum needed for Auckland to keep pace internaionally, remember the Queensland state government id spending 100 bn over a shorter period on Brisbane and the Gold Coast alone…
It does sound like a LOT of money, but I guess that over an extended period of time it works out at not a HUGE amount of money each year.
For half of the cost of the Rail Upgrade Auckland could get itself a mighty fine regional trolley bus system with a network of intersecting tram lines and the benefits of such would be far greater then the current rail system which as we know is only being done up so as to prop up the Rail and Maritime Transport Union which is one of Labours Biggest Props. Since the Bizarre costly Railway investments in Auckland only occured when the Labour Party was in power, we can safely assume that such investment in rail was done not so as to provide an improved regional transport service but so as to protect those trade unionist bludgers of the Rail and Maritime Transport Union.
Fact is Trams and Trolleybuses go to where people want to go, wheras with the Rail system you are often dropped off miles from where you need to be So trolley buses and trams form the basis of an ideal transport system
What I support
Regionalisation and Consolidation of Transport Beuracracys and operators into one Publicly owned Not-For-Profit monopoloy Transport Entity
Investment in Trolleybuses and Trams and development of a skeleton Rail system to support the Trolley Buses and Trams
In terms of Trolleybuses I would like to see a “heritage” shuttle in the Central City linking various parts of town using vintage trolley buses full restored and operated as an eesential part of the Transport Network
In terms of Trams, a fleet of 200 Melbourne W class trams and 140 Melbourn Z Class trams operating on a crosstown network of tram lines taht intersect the trollebus, diselbus and rail lines.
In terms of Road investment we must concerntrate on works that will improve the flow of traffic on the regions roads, such as more Flyovers at busy intersections so as to improve the flow of traffic etc. I am always impressed by the advanced traffic engineering of the 1950’s that we see in the Dominion Road Flyover. If anything such “flyovers” are what we need at high density intersections such as Great South Road and Chruch Street intersection, Green Lane and Great South Roads intersection etc. A road traffic tunnel linking Newton Road with Khyber Pass Road thus bypassing Symonds Street and a Road Traffic Tunnel linking Queen Street with Upper Queen Street thus eliminating the need for traffic to have to climb to the top of Queen Street in order to get to the Other Side of K Road.
Wider intersections and wider main arterial roads
Michael, one of the issues with simply focusing on bus/trolleybus/trams is that none of these are ever likely to be much faster than someone driving – unless you do something like the Northern Busway. And there certainly aren’t too many more corridors along which additional northern busways could be built. SH16 is perhaps the only other corridor suitable for a busway.
Investment in the rail network is also necessary to overcome inevitable overcrowding issues on the rail system in the future. The rail network is the only thing that can truly get people “off the roads” to free them up for transporting freight and for trips that can’t easily be replaced by public transport. Trams, bus lanes and trolley buses are certainly necessary (due to the limited coverage of the rail network) but they do involve squeezing more out of the current road network rather than bypassing it altogether.
Looking around the world, cities with higher public transport usage levels are almost always cities with better rail systems. I don’t think we’re really in a “bus or tram or rail” situation here – we need all three. But we need to work out which form of transport is most appropriate for which corridors – as for most buses will be most suitable (and we should focus on more bus lanes and look into trolley buses), for some trams will be appropriate and for others rail is most appropriate.
For example, the Howick/Botany Line that I propose simply has to be rail or it won’t work at all.
Auckland is designed around road transport not rail….we are too spread out for rail because in order for the rail system tto be able to meet the needs of Aucklanders it would need to reach all parts of Auckland andcost benefit wise can we justify this investment when for half the cost and twice the benefit we could develop a modern trolley bus system for aAuckland with the trolleys themselves being fitted with auuxillary power systems so as to be able to stray off route.
Michael, if we’re too spread out then how come Perth and Brisbane both have excellent rail systems, even though their population densities are half of Auckland’s?
The problem with trolleys is that they’re sloooooooooooooow compared to a train. We need trains, buses, trams and trolleys (perhaps) in Auckland – each doing what they do best. Not one or the other.
The Howick Mainline diesel bus service is a prime candidate for TrolleIsation. Auckland Council would control the lines and bus companies operating on franchise arrangement would operate the services.
I’m all for trolley buses over “dirty diesel” buses. However, I don’t see how a trolley bus would help the problem out Howick way – which is simply that public transport takes utterly forever to get to the city. I don’t see how a trolley bus would speed things up at all actually.