This is a guest post by regular commenter Nicolas Reid. If you would like to have a guest post published on here feel free to email it through to jarbury[at]yahoo[dot]com. I may edit it where necessary and may not post it if I think it isn’t suitable, but hopefully on most occasions it would be posted.
Transport infrastructure and the policy behind it have been the main factors influencing the shape and form of Auckland since its inception. Auckland was originally founded as a port town on the strength of the deep all-weather anchorages available in the Waitemata Harbour. All the capital, goods, resources and colonists of the young settlement flowed in and out of this harbour. As the town grew outward from the activity at the docks at the foot of Queen St development was clustered in a tight band around the Queen St valley within walking distance of the waterfront. This was neither really choice nor accident as walking was the only form of transport available to the vast majority of early Aucklanders.
As the region prospered and the population swelled the town soon outgrew the amount of land available in the small walkable central area. While this did create demand for taller buildings in the Queen St valley, they primary solution to growth was the construction of transport infrastructure to access land further out. Some of the earliest suburbs of Auckland were waterside settlements connected to the Queen St valley by ferries crossing the sheltered harbour. At this time roads were unpaved and the going was tough on foot and cartwheel alike. Tram rails set in the roadway provided an answer to land based expansion, allowing speedy comfortable access along the main roads radiating out from the town centre. Wide ribbons of residential and commercial development sprung up along the tram routes which eventually extended their way right across the Auckland Isthmus.
Throughout the same period railways were extended south and north-west from the town of Auckland to provide reliable connections to the rest of the country, yet this infrastructure also allowed the development of satellite suburbs within the Auckland region. The characteristic shape of Auckland focused on the central isthmus and stretching to the south and northwest was founded by these early rail based transport
arteries.
As Auckland matured into a thriving city it was very much a product of its public transport links. The dense walkable core stretched out along the tramways covering the isthmus, while outer suburbs and towns were dotted along the railways and ferry wharves. This was the case for the first part of the twentieth century, however as the century progressed there was a pronounced shift away from rail transport as policy decisions began to favour automobile and road based transport. The private car was seen as the means to provide mobility and freedom to the masses, and as the car shifted from being a rich-man’s plaything to a consumer product transport policy shifted to an almost exclusive road focus. Starting in the 1930s plans were progressed for a series of motorways covering the region to provide fast and convenient access to all corners of Auckland. Around the same time Auckland’s central railway station was shifted from the Queen St waterfront to a more isolated location on the edge of the CBD.
Various plans were drawn to revitalise the railways through line extensions and tunnels under the CBD, however these were consistently passed over in favour of accelerating motorway construction through the central city. The motorways were seen as a killing two birds with one stone, not only could they provide great capacity for private cars and trucks they could also support public transport through a system of express buses. Soon enough the growth of car ownership and the ongoing expansion of road infrastructure was severely affecting rail patronage. Following World War II the tramways of the isthmus were progressively removed. Faced with a huge backlog of deferred wartime track maintenance, old unreliable trams and discontent among the growing ranks of car drivers, it was decided to replace the ageing tram system with a fleet of new buses sharing the streets with cars.
By the 1960s the removal of the tram system was complete, while railways and ferries had been reduced to a small niche role. The transport and land use pattern of the next four decades was thus firmly established by choices in transport policy: Auckland’s transport system was to be based almost exclusively on private cars and trucks running on an expanded system of roads and motorways, while a limited bus service would be maintained to service peak commuters to the CBD and to provide a basic welfare service for anyone unable to have access to a car. The central government provided tax funds for ongoing road and highway expansions, maintained a low price of imported fuel and and removed tarrifs on importing new cars and quality restrictions on second hand cars from abroad. Meanwhile the crippled and neglected bus system was privatised, private companies were offered a windfall of commercial profits on a few highly patronised city commuter routes while given subsidies to stop the rest of the network from disappearing completely.
In the latter half of the twentieth century the shape and form of Auckland followed the accessibility provided by the new automobility. Land within and around the old tram and railway suburbs was filled in with low density housing as people were no longer limited to living within walking distance of a rail station or tram stop. For the same reasons industry shifted from a ring around the inner city and along the rail corridors to diverse locations further out, and the relative importance of the Queen St valley declined as commerce and retailing were no long restricted to downtown. Later the fringes of the urban area began to be rapidly expanded, as new housing subdivisions and industrial estates were built on huge tracts of previously inaccessible land. With the horrors of urban living during industrial revolution a not so distant memory, strict zoning regulations were impacted to limit density and provide a strict separation between homes, factories and other urban activates.
For a while it seemed Auckland had got it right, but soon enough the pitfalls of mass auto mobility became apparent. With almost one car per adult in the city and limited alternatives to driving, traffic congestion became rife as the act of travelling became synonymous with driving a car. Projects were continually progressed to widen roads and extend motorways, yet for all their increasing expense they could barely keep pace with congestion let alone decrease it. Providing sufficient parking became a constant problem, initially downtown then through out the city. Roadside parking vied for room with driving lanes, while in town centres vast open lots and multi-story parking buildings occupied valuable real-estate. High parking fees were charged to pay for this land and structures, and steep fines issued to prevent their misuse. Walking and cycling as means of transport had become virtually extinct. The focus on the automobile had made roadways dangerous and inaccessible outside of a car while suburban expansion meant that most places of interest were far too far way even if one did brave the roads by foot or pedal.
Many new suburbs were built without even a simple footpath up the side of the street, as no one was expected to walk anywhere and there was nothing to walk to anyway. Smog and air pollution had become an issue, however this was mercifully kept in check by the strong ocean breezes clearing the isthmus. There was no such natural mitigation of the fuel price issue however, as the total reliance on imported fuel left the city’s transport system at the mercy of international geo-politics. As congestion and fuel cost increased and journey times continued to expand, the simple act of getting to ones workplace each day was consuming an increasing amount of the region’s time and wealth.
By the end of the twentieth century Auckland had achieved exactly what it had been planning and building for the previous fifty years: a transport system of near-universal automobility at the expense of any other mode. A city where people generally had no choice but to drive anytime they wanted to travel anywhere for any reason. A city where being economically productive and having quality of life meant getting a drivers licence and having access to a car, or if that was not possible having someone else drive one where they needed to go. A city where traffic congestion, parking problems and high travel costs were an unavoidable fact of life.
At the cusp of the twenty-first century voices within the government and populace of Auckland had begun to question this policy, arguing that investment in rehabilitation the railways and expanding other public transport infrastructure would be an efficient and cost effective way to reduce congestion and meet further travel growth in the growing metropolis. It was argued that with near universal automobility in the congested city, any attempt to supply new road infrastructure would be rapidly swamped by the huge demand for car travel that already existed. Therefore the only real choice would be a transport policy focused on providing alternatives to private road transport. This view was naturally rejected by the establishment, as it went against half a century of establish policy and practice. The public, politicians and industry alike were so invested in private road transport that it was almost inconceivable to do anything else.
The very structure of transport politics and economics revolved around buying cars and building roads, successfully running buses, trains and ferries and building the city around them was a long lost memory. Many suggestions were made why public transport could never work again in Auckland: the land was the wrong shape, the city too spread, that the people were somehow involved in a ‘love affair’ with cars and the costs and congestion that came with them. Yet small gains have been made: Auckland’s station was moved back to the CBD, trains and tracks were refurbished, ferries upgraded and bus infrastructure built. Indeed wherever improvements in alternatives to driving were made, people flocked to the alternative.
Yet many reasons continue to be put forward as to why Auckland is necessarily so car focused, yet few seemed willing to acknowledge the only real reason: Policy. Auckland was once a public transport city, and it actively decided to become a private transport city. For fifty years its leaders pursued that agenda, and they have shown little sign of moving away from it. Auckland is at the crossroads, recent investment has show public transport to be not only viable but highly effective and the city now has a critical choice to make. The question is now how exactly should Auckland spend the huge amounts of money it sets aside each year for transport? Should it maintain the seemingly failed policy of the last half century or should it radically revolutionise the transport agenda in Auckland?
Processing...
When I was looking at the 1950’s aerial photos on the arc’s gis programme recently and they gave a fascinating overview of how Auckland had developed historically, and more recently.
They showed the both the old development pattern and the new auto orientated development that was just beginning to spread.
One thing I found interesting was the spread of settlement along the waters edge, throughout most of the region. Usually this was only a block or two thick before the farmland appeared. Also interesting was how the rest of the region was a series of small rural settlements, linked by the railway in the west especially.
However the dark clouds were on the horizon in the fifties with motorways quickly spreading through the outer suburban areas. You could see how these motorways meant all the gaps had started to fill in, meaning the start of proper urban sprawl. Amazing how the Northwestern went all the way to Westgate by 1961.
Auckland did build its motorways further and earlier than most other cities around the world. That’s a huge reason why we have ended up so auto-dependent.
In 1959 I think we had the following motorways:
Southern: from Ellerslie to Wiri Station Road (where Manukau City is now)
Northern: from Fanshawe Street to Northcote Road
Northwestern: from Pt Chevalier to Lincoln Road
It is interesting that it’s taken 50 years to extent the northwest motorway any further. I suppose that shifting the commercial airport away from Whenuapai in 1966 took away a lot of the reason why the NW motorway was extended so early.
The north western motorway was originally developed as the main route north around the top of the harbour, but once the harbour bridge was built the focus shifted to extending the northern motorway northwards. With much less potential for development in the small region of the country to the north-west of Auckland, there was little need to extend the ‘intercity highway’ function of this motorway any further. It remained busy as a commuter motorway but there was little need to go beyond the city limits.
Guess how many kilometres of freeways Melbourne had in 1959, when Auckland already had those three main routes built and operational… absolutely none!
@Nick R – they’ve built a few since then though looking at maps, they’re lucky in that most of them bypass the downtown unlike Auckland.
When the northwest motorway opened it was actually called the northern motorway. I think we would have a much nicer city had we made SH16 and the western ring route the main north-south route across Auckland. It means we could have avoided destroying half our inner city through building CMJ.
Really concise, accurate post… Enjoyed it…
I admit that I don’t consider most of the pieces on Jarbury’s blog as “concise”. Thoughtful, yes – but conscise implies short (I know, I know – power point disease making me want shorter stuff for my short attention span) 😉
I didn’t actually write this. Hence the guest post. Sometimes it is good to be concise, sometimes it is good to dig deeper. I think that Nick does well in this post to detail a huge amount of Auckland’s trnsport history.
One positive thing to take out is that we made Auckland auto-dependent through ploicy choices; therefore we should be able to fix it through policy choices.
Thanks guys, I was trying hard here to present a concise and meaningful history without divulging into preachyness. It’s quite easy to say our predecessors were fools or ideologically blinded but the truth is most of their decisions were quite understandable given the conditions and thinking of the day.
The points I really wanted to make were:
a)That the shape and the form of the city is largely a product of the nature of the transport system and planning/zoning controls (and the natural landform of course), and
b)the nature of the transport system and zoning/planning are a product of consious policy decisions that are maintained over time.
I hope that got across.
RTC, in regard to Melbourne’s freeways there are a couple of key differences. Firstly Melbourne’s first solution to increasing traffic was to widen and ‘boulevardize’ key streets, this meant that they didn’t get stuck in to freeway construction until almost two decades after Auckland and arguably these wide avenues are generally quite good examples of urban design. Secondly they never built a massive ‘CMJ’. Certainly radial freeways were built but these ended at main roads several kilometres from the central city. It was not until the late 1990s that the radial corridors were connected in the central area, again about twenty years after Auckland. I think the best thing is because they waited those extra two decades to build ‘City Link’ it was constructed almost entirely in tunnel or elevated sections. As a result today central Melbourne isn’t surrounded by a moat of motorway like Auckland is and the CBD has a much greater cohesiveness with it’s fringe.
This is a very good history but it overlooks two key events in 1927 that suggest that the root cause of Auckland’s unbalanced transport planning hasn’t changed.
In 1927 Auckland’s ratepayers voted against a special loan to fund extensions to the tram system.
In 1927 Parliament voted to add a third ‘levy’ on motorvehicles to fund the development of national and regional highways.
That unwillingness of ratepayers to contribute to regional transport infrastructure, and a similar unwillingness from taxpayers viz. metropolitan rail, has resulted in the only group with a willingness to pay being the only group who’s needs have been met. Till that attitude changes nothing else will change.
One other point, the motorways haven’t significantly increased car ownership. Auckland’s per capita car ownership is pretty much the same and Christchurch and Wellington. What they have increased is average trip length because the motorways mean that a ten minute trip can be twice as many km in Auckland compared with Christchurch, ie the same travel-time budget lets Aucklander’s live twice as far from where they work.