RLTS Submission

Well I have made a start on my submission on the 2010-2040 Regional Land Transport Strategy. Submissions are open on this very important transport strategy until December 18th. Making a submission is pretty easy, and you can either use the template and “hints” provided or come up with your own suggestions. The ARC has a pretty flash consultation system that enables you (once registered and logged in) to make various comments on different parts of the strategy, save them, log out, log back in and add more, and so forth until finalising your submission and sending it off. Or, of course, there’s always the old-fashioned way of just sending it in.

In the rest of this post I will outline parts of my eventual submission, and also areas where I think I might need to do a bit more work on. It would be good to get some feedback on a few of the points that I make, although I do really encourage people to make submissions of their own. If you like what I’m saying, then absolutely by all means copy part of or all of what I have written blatantly and send it in as your own submission.

Well, here we go….

Introduction:

Overall, I generally support the proposed Regional Land Transport Strategy 2010-2040 (RLTS). The RLTS proposes a balanced approach to transport spending, a rough 50/50 split between road investment and public transport investment, which I am generally supportive of. The main ‘strategic’ area where I am not in general agreement with the RLTS is that I consider the goals of the strategy will need to be met by “push” and “pull” factors, shifting Auckland away from automobile dependency, not just the strong focus on “pull” factors that the strategy proposes. Overall, I consider that Strategic Option 4 – Quantum Shift, should be the preferred option.

There are some specific aspects of the RLTS that I consider should be amended, and these form the bulk of this submission. Where I support part of the RLTS, this is generally not stated (with some exceptions though).

The alterations relate primarily to the following matters:

1. Clarification about what the strategic option chosen is.
2. Further consideration of “push” factors.
3. Further analysis into what would be required to meet the New Zealand Transport Strategy 2008 targets.
4. Timing of significant projects (such as Airport Rail and the “Panmure-Botany-Manukau City Centre RTN/QTN”).
5. Whether the Panmure-Botany-Manukau City RTN/QTN should be rail or a busway.
6. The inclusion of a Northwest Busway as an RTN.
7. Consideration of trams/light-rail for some QTN routes.

Clarification of the Preferred Strategic Option:

Four strategic options are proposed in Chapter 4 of the RLTS: Demand management, Mixed investment, Public Transport led change and Quantum shift. Yet the final option appears to be none of these four strategic options, or closest to what could be described as a “watered down strategic option 3”. While I support the preferred strategic option that has been chosen (with some amendments), it is considered that for clarity’s sake the preferred option should be included in the initial list of options, rather than something that appears to ‘come out of nowhere’. Alternatively, an explanation of why none of the four initial options were chosen might be necessary.

It is submitted that the RLTS be altered to either include the Preferred Strategic Option as strategic option, or that further clarification of why it was chosen, when not actually part of the first four options, be included in the RLTS.

Further consideration of “push” factors

As noted above, the preferred strategic option appears to be a ‘watered down option 3’, with most of the focus being on providing levels of public transport service ‘ahead’ of the demand for them, and therefore attracting people to using public transport. While I certainly do not oppose a greater share of transport spending going to public transport, I think that there is a need to balance these ‘pull’ factors with some of the options mentions in ‘strategic option 1’, which seeks to remove many of the hidden subsidies enjoyed by road users (such as over-provision of parking) so that the true cost of driving becomes visible and people are ‘pushed’ towards public transport for trips where it makes more economic sense.

Over the past decade the ARC has seemed to focus mainly on ‘pull’ factors, to encourage people to use public transport by spending increasing amounts of money on providing more buses, trains and ferries. While this approach has certainly worked to some extent, with decades long trends of declining public transport use – both at an absolute level and at a per capita level – being reversed, in other respects the results have been disappointing. Per capita use of public transport has remained roughly the same (37 trips per capita per year in 1999/2000 rising to 41 trips per capita per year in 2008/2009) even though the amount of operating expenditure has increased by 250%. While much of this extra spending was certainly necessarily – particularly to ‘kick-start’ the rail system after decades of neglect – it appears as though simply “spending money” on transport services will not lead to the kind of ‘step-change’ that the RLTS is hoping to achieve. Therefore, in my opinion both push and pull measures will be required.

I recognise that road-pricing is an incredibly sensitive issue, and that Auckland is probably not ready for such schemes at the moment (until the public transport system has been significantly improved at the very least). However, there are other ways that the hidden subsidies enjoyed by road users could be reduced, thereby making public transport a more viable option. The most obvious is to eliminate minimum parking requirements from all District Plans, as these planning rules effectively force developers to spend a significant amount of money on off-street parking that only encourages people to drive to work or to shopping. The money spent by developers is recouped through higher prices at stores, lower wages for workers and in the residential sector through higher rents and house-prices – effectively it becomes a significant hidden subsidy paid for by everyone, but only enjoyed by those who drive. Other ways to “push” people to public transport could include not providing additional road capacity for peak hour flows (as improvements will generally be quickly lost to induced traffic anyway) or other matters that would relate more to central government policy (such as providing tax incentives for employers to give their staff public transport passes rather than a carpark, or making a greater proportion of registration fees being paid for through petrol taxes so those who drive more pay more).

A greater consideration and inclusion of push factors would shift the preferred strategic option more towards option 4 – Quantum Shift. I believe that this is appropriate, as it is clear Auckland does need to make a quantum shift in our transport planning.

What would be required to meet NZTS targets?:

While the preferred strategic option meets a number of targets set by the New Zealand Transport Strategy 2008 (NZTS), there are also many targets that it – along with all the other initial options analysed – fails to reach. This is outlined in Table 16 of the RLTS.

The targets that the preferred option will fail to meet are:

• Halving greenhouse gas emissions
• Reducing vehicle kilometres travelled by single-occupancy vehicles
• Increasing public transport trips to 144 million a year
• Increasing the active mode share to at least 17%

In my opinion, many of these targets are critical, and the RLTS should do better to meet them. It appears as though many of the targets would be met by Strategic Option 4 (Quantum Shift), although the greenhouse gas emissions and the improved number of public transport trips targets would have been met by none of the proposed options. I am highly surprised that no options were even presented that would have met these targets, particularly in relation to reducing greenhouse gas emissions which is a matter of global significance.

It is submitted that the Preferred Strategic Option be altered in such a way that it can meet more of the NZTS targets. If this is not possible, then the RLTS should at least include an explanation of what would be required to meet these targets.

Timing of Significant Projects:

While I understand that the RLTS has to be realistic in outlining the timeframes for important projects, I am of the opinion that it could be more ‘optimistic’ in terms of the timeframes for a number of projects. Most obviously, these include the Airport Rail link and the Panmure-Botany-Manukau City Centre RTN/QTN.

Pages 69-71 of the RLTS detail the timeframes for a number of substantial public transport projects. These include the following:

• CBD Rail Link (by 2021)
• Rail electrification (by 2013)
• Integrated ticketing and fares (within 10 years)
• Northern Busway extension (in two stages: first by 2031 and second by 2040)
• Airport Rail Loop (by 2040)
• Avondale-Southdown Rail Connection (by 2040)
• Panmure-Botany-Manukau City Centre QTN/RTN (QTN to be progressed ASAP, upgraded to RTN by 2031)
• Henderson-Westgate-Albany connection (QTN during period of strategy, possible upgrade to RTN in the future)
• North Shore Rail (busway likely to approach capacity by end of RLTS period, so investigation into rail should continue)

I support the prioritisation given to the construction of the CBD Rail Tunnel. It is hoped that completion before 2021 is possible, although it is central government, and not the ARC, that would have to fund the majority of this project.

It is submitted that the timeline of “within 10 years” for integrated ticketing is completely unacceptable. This project must be completed in time for the Rugby World Cup in 2011, and the RLTS should not provide any scope for it taking longer than that. Integrated ticketing has already taken far too long. Any references to “by 2020” or “within 10 years” must be removed from the RLTS and replaced by “by 2011” or “within the next two years”.

It is submitted that the RLTS give higher priority to the extension of the Northern Busway to Albany than the current plan of “by 2031”. It is my understanding that NZTA have committed to this first stage of busway extension to be constructed within the next 10 years, and the RLTS should reflect that. Further extension of the busway beyond Albany should be subject to a rigorous cost-benefit analysis, as other busway projects (such as one on the Northwest Motorway) might be of greater benefit.

It is submitted that a higher priority be given to the construction of the Airport Rail Loop. Although practically the airport rail connection cannot be completed until the CBD Rail Tunnel is open, due to the capacity constraints of Britomart station, completion of this rail link should be a high priority once the CBD Rail Tunnel is completed. In other words, I submit that the Airport Rail Loop be constructed shortly after 2021, as opposed to within the 2031-2040 timeframe outlined in the RLTS.

With regard to the Avondale-Southdown rail connection, I understand that ARC modelling has shown that this link would be highly popular, especially if connected to an airport service. Furthermore, the Avondale-Southdown rail connection is likely to become a highly essential freight corridor as passenger service frequencies increase on the Avondale-Newmarket-Westfield parts of the rail network. I submit that this connection, if required, should be constructed at around the same time as the Airport Rail Link. Once constructed, the Avondale-Southdown connection would enable the operation of an “Isthmus Loop” line, using the inner part of the Western Line, the CBD Rail Tunnel and the Eastern Line to form a complete circuit of the Auckland isthmus.

I wholeheartedly support the RLTS’s ambition of providing a Quality Transit Network (QTN) along the Panmure-Botany-Manukau City Centre corridor as soon as possible. Statistically, this is the most car-dependent part of the whole Auckland region and suffers from a very slow bus service at the moment (buses take longer to travel from Howick to the CBD than from Orewa to the CBD for example). Measures such as bus lanes along Pakuranga Road, Ti Rakau Drive, Te Irirangi Drive and Botany Road must be explored as soon as possible, while other steps to improve the speed of bus services – potentially including wider bus stop spacing for some services and express running on the Southern Motorway – should also be explored. In the longer term, in my opinion rail is the most appropriate means of providing a Rapid Transit Network (RTN) to this area. This is explored further in later parts of this submission. Construction of a rail-based RTN should be a higher priority than what has been included in the RLTS, for the primary reason that this part of Auckland is growing quickly yet has extremely poor transport connections with the rest of the city. Ideally, a rail-based RTN should be completed by 2025 to serve this part of the city.

I support the identification of the Henderson-Westgate-Albany connection as a bus-based QTN corridor. It is submitted that further information be included in the RLTS that would indicate what kind of improvements might be seen to bus services along that corridor, such as a frequent dedicated “superior service” to truly provide what is expected from a QTN. A timeframe for those improvements should also be included in the RLTS.

While the timeline for the construction of a rail link to the North Shore does not fall within the 30 year period of the RLTS, in my opinion the RLTS should ensure that adequate route protection for this link occurs and also that no motorway tunnel underneath the Waitemata Harbour is built before the rail tunnel, as if billions of dollars get spent on a road tunnel it is unlikely there will ever be the funding available for the rail link.

The Panmure-Botany-Manukau City Centre RTN

The RLTS outlines that this corridor would be most suitably serviced by a bus-based RTN (assumedly a busway along similar lines to the Northern Busway), and that RTN should be constructed during the 2021-2031 time period.

I am of the strong opinion that further analysis into whether a busway is the most suitable way of providing an RTN along this corridor should be undertaken. My primary concern relates to the question of ‘what will happen at Panmure?’ There is currently no busway between Panmure and the central part of Auckland – where most trips originating along this corridor are likely to be headed towards (other than Manukau City Centre). This means that city-bound buses, once they reach Panmure, will either have to travel via congested city streets to the CBD, or all passengers will need to transfer onto trains at Panmure that may already be very full.

It is also submitted that a rail-based option would provide a significant speed advantage over any road-based option for this route. As mentioned above, at the moment it can often take well over an hour to complete the bus trip between Howick and the CBD, while at peak times it can take around an hour to drive that distance. If a railway line was built along my preferred alignment (see below), then it would be possible for a train to travel from Botany Town Centre to the CBD in under half an hour. This significant time advantage for rail would attract a large number of users, and would also make feeder buses very attractive, as a feeder bus ride to a train station plus the train ride may still be faster than driving. Such advantages are unlikely to be possible with a bus-based solution – unless there was to somehow be a busway constructed between Panmure and the CBD. As shown above, I favour a more northern alignment of this future railway line than is what ARTA generally indicates on their “proposed future RTN maps” for this route. Such an alignment would make it possible for large areas of development such as Highland Park, Bucklands Beach, Howick and Farm Cove within close proximity of the railway line. The currently proposed alignment – which follows Ti Rakau Drive to a greater extent – includes more ‘dead’ areas, and could not really include a particularly good station location between Pakuranga and Botany.

As outlined above, I consider that it is essential this link is given priority, with the goal of completing it by 2025.

Northwest Busway RTN:

I submit that the Northwest Motorway (SH16) be upgraded from a QTN to an RTN, with a busway along similar lines to the Northern Busway being constructed on the northern side of the motorway.

NZTA have plans within the next 10 years to widen SH16 between St Lukes and Westgate, at a very significant price of around $860 million. Due to the effects of induced traffic, I think that this will be a complete waste of money (except for the funds dedicated to raising the causeway to mitigate the effects of rising sea levels) and it is likely that only a few years after the motorway has been widened it will return to its current level of congestion. I also think that this money would be far better spent on constructing a “Northwest Busway” along the northern side of SH16, between Britomart and Westgate (via Albert Street, Cook Street and Hobson/Nelson streets in the CBD with a station behind Aotea Square). Busway stations could be located at Western Springs (next to the onramps where the Caltex Station is current located), Point Chevalier (in the carpark behind the shops), Te Atatu (in the large empty field to the north of the motorway), Lincoln Road (on the site currently occupied by the old boat), Massey (next to the Royal Road interchange) and Westgate.

See this post for further information.

This RTN would complement the Western Line railway, as both service very different parts of west Auckland. It would also facilitate the intensification of development at Westgate, in a similar manner to how the Northern Busway will facilitate intensification at Albany. Park and ride facilities could be offered at Westgate, Lincoln Road and Te Atatu Road, removing vehicles from the Northwest Motorway (rather than encouraging them as a motorway widening would). The busway could be serviced by a trunk route, similar to the Northern Express (perhaps called a Western Express) that ran at frequent intervals, and connected to feeder buses that served all the stations.

I am of the opinion that even if such a busway is not high on the list of priorities for the region, it is important that it is considered as soon as possible because of the works NZTA are proposing to SH16. At the very least, the SH16 widening should future-proof for the construction of a busway – which will not be possible unless it is on the plans.

Consideration of Trams/Light-Rail

It is submitted that the RLTS should give greater consideration to the use of trams/light-rail along a number of QTN routes. Trams can provide significant benefits over bus lanes in terms of route capacity, urban design effects, ride-quality and (based on international evidence) patronage.

A number of routes in Auckland may become suitable for trams over the next 30 years, including Dominion Road, Queen Street, Tamaki Drive, Wynyard Quarter/Tank Farm and Great North Road (between the city and Pt Chevalier) among others. The RLTS should be altered to reflect the possibility of operating trams along some important routes where it may have advantages over simple bus lanes.

Conclusions:

Overall, I am generally supportive of the 2010-2040 RLTS, although I consider that the preferred option should be closer to ‘strategic option 4‘ than ‘strategic option 3‘ to ensure that the money invested in the public transport network is not undermined by continued hidden subsidies for private vehicles users – particularly in the form of minimum parking requirements, which must be removed from all planning documents as soon as possible. There are a number of parts of the RLTS that I have suggested alterations to, which generally involve the “speeding up” of many of the significant public transport projects that are included in the strategy. Another important alteration is the need for the RLTS to further explore what changes to the strategy might be necessary for it to meet more of the targets outlined in the 2008 NZTS.

These issues aside, I support the ARC’s general objective to develop a more balanced transportation system in Auckland, and reduce Auckland’s car dependency.

In terms of what more I could add, it would be nice to have a few hard facts about the level of subsidies provided to private vehicle users through minimum parking requirements (which may involve quite a bit of research to find that out), a bit more on possible routes suitable for light-rail, and probably a bit more on walking & cycling matters – as they do seem to have been a bit ignored by the RLTS.

Share this