Tomorrow is a pretty important day for transport planning in Auckland, with the 2010-2040 Regional Land Transport Strategy taking its second to last step towards adoption, in its consideration by the Regional Transport Committee. In the appendices to the agenda for that meeting there is a summary of the changes made as a result of hearings conducted on the RLTS in February, as well as a marked up version of the RLTS showing changes that have been made.
I have blogged at length about the RLTS before (my full submission can be read here). Fundamentally I very much support the RLTS and I think it’s most certainly the best transport strategy/plan we’ve had in Auckland for 60 years. Whether or not it eventually makes much of a difference in what happens to transport in the new local government structure in Auckland remains to be seen, but we have certainly set an excellent framework with this strategy to guide Auckland to a more sustainable transport future. Of course nothing’s ever perfect and my submission suggested a number of ways in which I felt the RLTS could be further improved. It seems as though some of my suggestions have been taken up, while some haven’t (perhaps the most important two suggestions that haven’t been taken up is the need for the Northwest Busway corridor to be designated an RTN and the need for the Howick/Botany Line to be planned as rail and not a busway).
The changes that have been made to the RTLS as a result of the hearings appear to generally strengthen it, and certainly appear to result in it making a bit more sense. Two of the changes require specific comment in my opinion as they are particularly excellent – the cross-modal evaluation of transportation projects and a great focus on maximum parking standards rather than minimums.
Looking at the rather clumsy sounding “cross modal evaluation of key transport projects” matter first, this is explained below:
This is an issue that I have highlighted in the past, that it’s utterly crazy that a sate highway project with a poor business case might be funded ahead of a railway project (or a local road project) with a good business case, just because they have access to different funding pools and are never compared with each other. Surely we should fund the transport projects we most require regardless of type, and surely they should all have equal access to one big pot of transport money. While the additional wording in the RLTS is just a small step towards that outcome, it’s certainly a step in the right direction.
In terms of parking policy, it is excellent to see the shift in mindset that is happening with regards to parking policy and the growing realisation that providing more and more parking doesn’t actually make things better in terms of how road operate, but rather makes things worse by encouraging people to drive more often – therefore inducing congestion to the roading network. The RLTS hearings committee’s report says this:
It is extremely pleasing to see such a change in thinking on parking policy happening in recent times. Much of the credit has to go to the good folks at McCormack Rankin Cagney for opening everyone’s eyes to the effects of poor parking policy and shifting things in a far more sustainable direction. Eventually I think it’s likely that we’ll shift to having maximum parking controls in certain areas that are well served by public transport and/or have real congestion problems (ie. you really do want to restrict the number of cars likely to travel in that area) while elsewhere not having parking controls at all (ie. no minimums or maximums) leading to a market-based solution (which would most probably be a dramatic reduction in parking provision). The RLTS makes a relatively small, but also quite meaningful, step in that direction.
So there certainly is some good news happening with regards to the long-term transport strategies for Auckland at the moment. Hopefully the Transport Committee does realise the usefulness of a Northwest Busway and make State Highway 16 part of the Rapid-Transit Network. If they did that then overall I would consider the RLTS to be a truly excellent strategy to take us forwards for the next 30 years.
Processing...
You know my views on the NW busway and like you I think it is vital that it be added, I will cross my fingers for it. My only concern is that Steven and Rodney will get annoyed with this document and will change the supercity legislation last minute to throw it out. Also how much does Auckland transport have to give effect to this document, could they just ignore it completely and do their own thing?
The Regional Land Transport Programme (which outlines the projects that Auckland Transport will fund over the next three years) has to give effect to the RLTS, but also has to give effect to the Government Policy Statement under the wording of the proposed legislation. That’s a change from the current situation where greater regard has to be given by ARTA to the RLTS than the GPS.
Joyce’s sneaky way of lowering the status of the RLTS.
This RLTS is something to really get excited about I think, I believe the momentum built up so far is enough to keep the PT ball rolling and Joyce will be the last dinosaur we see as MoT as by 2014 (when Labour will be close to returning) gas prices might well be dictating more balanced spending…
I can’t really say that I agree with you, Jeremy, even though I submitted on the thing. They will bury it, and what will be written & done under Joyce & whoever heads AT initially will bear only token resemblance to this.
Sure, the tide will swing back to PT eventually, but by then, those folks in power will want to write a new RLTS or whatever its called then…
Perhaps balanced spending will be forced upon us sooner than we think if the US military is anything to go by:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/11/peak-oil-production-supply
There’s an article in today’s Herald suggesting that a numbr of changes might be made to the 3rd Super City bill by the select committee to alleviate some of the concerns about accountability…. will be interesting to see those details.
It looks like the NW busway has snuck into the plan which is great news.
Indeed, Jarbury may have gotten his (very sensible) wish.
I will believe it when I see it. Some rather difficult hurdles to jump through I believe.
What do you mean? Before it is built? Of course. But it has now made its way into official documentation, and that is a good basis for further advocacy for it.
Interesting reading on page 59 that there will be an increase in public transport services of 130% but an increase in public transport usage by 270%
So double the services for three times the patronage, more or less. That sounds great, at the least it means a much improved farebox recovery ratio which is all important now.
However you’d hope there would be at least that kind of efficiency gain on a system as inefficient as Auckland’s, I reckon with some worlds best practice on reorganisation, integration and timetabling they could triple patronage without the equivalent of a single extra service.
“practice on reorganisation”
They will get practice with reorganisation alright. Joyce & Hide made sure of that.