The 2010-2040 Regional Land Transport Strategy was today formally launched (downloadable in two parts: one and two). I have blogged about the RLTS on a number of previous occasions as it has slowly wound its way through the process of becoming a reality. Before I turn to the strategy itself, it is worth noting that this strategy is very different from all previous RLTS’s in that it covers a 30 year time period, rather than a 10 year one. This strategy is also able to focus much more on what projects are to be undertaken over the next 30 years to actually achieve the vision of the strategy. It also comes out at a really crucial time, with the reorganisation of Auckland’s local government just a few months away now. The RLTS sets the framework for what should happen in Auckland over the next 30 years, but in reality it remains to be seen whether that will happen. In that context it is clear that a top quality strategy is absolutely needed to reflect the difference between this RLTS (both in terms of its timeframe and the critical juncture of Auckland’s local government history we sit at) and previous ones.
Fortunately, I am pretty sure it delivers. While it’s certainly not perfect, the strategy is most probably Auckland’s best transport document in 60 years – and quite carefully looks towards creating a balance between outlining the step-change that is needed to be made to transport in Auckland, while at the same time ensuring that it’s a realistic and achievable strategy – not just some pie in the sky document that will become nothing more than a door stop. Here’s the foreword:
It’s good that the CBD rail tunnel gets a strong mention in the foreword. After all, it is Auckland’s most important transport project for the next 10 years in my opinion.
The executive summary of the RLTS provides a good outline of the RLTS’s vision, which I think manages to be both visionary and yet sensible/achievable at the same time:
Of course visions are just fluff without actions to make them happen. And unlike many previous regional land transport strategies, this one actually has a pretty decent line-up of important projects that are considered necessary to achieve the vision and give effect to the more general words of the strategy:
It would certainly be good to bring forward the timeframe for completing a few of those big ticket rail projects, particularly rail to the airport, but at least for the first time these projects are actually on the books. Whether or not they actually happen, and when they happen, is going to of course be dependent upon funding. And it is when we get through to the issue of funding that actually giving effect to the RLTS becomes a bit more challenging.
The graph below compares the amount of money estimated to be required for each type of transport investment (in blue) and the funding available (grey). It’s a bit worrying to see that hugely more funding than currently available will be needed for public transport services (subsidies) and rail improvements, while for state highways there’s far more money available than required.
If we can shift that big chunk of excess state highways funding into public transport then hopefully we might see some of the big ticket projects in the RLTS happen.
Overall, while I probably need to have a bit more of a detailed read through the strategy to be sure I can give it a wholehearted tick, it does in general look pretty good. However, the key will be its implementation – and in particular how the future Auckland Transport CCO hits the ground running to implement the strategy. That’s probably one of the biggest tasks for public transport advocates in the next few months, to keep this strategy centre-stage, to ensure that we can achieve the vision it sets out.
Processing...
If there is rail to the north Shore and Orewa it could be feasible to build a 10km extension of this new orewa line to link in with the north auckland line near tahekeroa. The bit of the North Auckland line between the new rail link and Huapai (maybe Waiamuku) could be closed and the north Auckland line could be a lot more competitve in freight travel times. This could change the BCR of Avondale-Southdown quite a bit however.
In any case worth looking at, especially with the government now thinking of closing the north Auckland line.
Bizarre the amount of money budgetted for highways when every other mode including maintenance actually doesn’t have enough funding. If ever there was a graph that shows how motorway focused NZ has become then this is it!
rtc – the roads lobby will just tell just that ARC is led by a bunch of sustainability wackos, and therefore the graph is skewed, with massive wastages intended in PT. Showing the graph to people won’t budge them either way, I am afraid.
But talking of the graphs, I don’t think they have much significance anyway. This is a 30 year horizon. In 5 years the gameplan will be quite different, and the priorities will have changed. That much is certain EVEN if Joyce and Key were still in power by 2015. So I don’t sweat too much about it. I am only sorry about all the money we will waste in the next couple of years.
Does it seem a bit odd to anyone else that around $12 billion is proposed to be spent on “public transport services”, yet under $2 billion on public transport infrastructure? I guess that there will be nearly $6 billion spent on rail infrastructure…. but that “PT services” figure still seems pretty high.
Surely we can figure out a way to operate the system more efficiently so that subsidies aren’t so high?
Maybe the ARC took into account PTMA reforms..?
I can’t believe there was only 166 submissions… Pretty excellent strategy, lets hope it doesn’t become a doorstop at the AT agency…
Jarbury, we are talking of 30 years of fuel costs, people’s salaries (from the bus driver to the guys in admin), repair and maintenance costs. I assume the capital costs are really only for NEW new infrastructure. If they have to repair a bus shelter smashed by a few drunks, that will come out of services. You will notice that the table has no separate “PT maintenance” column.
For me what is telling is the apparent gap on local roads, which are where the most serious congestion problems are. Local roads are the fundamental core of the network, more important than anything else.
However, I am also seriously sceptical about the ARC’s wishlist, I doubt very much whether this is at all optimal in terms of delivering better outcomes for most Auckland transport users.
Why? Because any RLTC for a major urban conurbation in the 21st century with serious congestion issues that doesn’t put road pricing as a major priority is simply negligent. It is a “build build build” your way out of congestion strategy, albeit build alternatives that are by and large meaningless for most trips, and certainly most commuters. Of course politicians are very good at promoting big construction projects that look like they achieved something with other people’s money, they aren’t very good at managing what already exists and dealing with long term distortions.
ARPES, flawed as that study was, did demonstrate to the last government that meaningful modeshift will NOT happen in Auckland without road pricing. It hasn’t happened in any other New World city yet. I suspect it will be another decade or so of wilful blindness before it is seen that traffic congestion will have continued to get worse in Auckland despite billions spent on roads and public transport, because the fundamental pricing problem hasn’t been addressed.
I agree with you that if the RLTS actually wants to achieve its goals, then it probably needs more “push” to complement its investment in creating “pull”. I outlined that quite strongly in my submission on the RLTS, but they didn’t really listen much:
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2009/11/15/rlts-submission/
I agree with you there Scott, building new public transport while building new roads and keeping the existing ones unpriced and unmanaged will do nothing but stretch out the status quo. Mode shift will not occur without some constraint on road access, let alone while building new unconstrained road capacity. You can build all the public transport supply in the world, but there will be no significant change in PT demand as long as you have the same growth in the supply of roadspace for private vehicles.
I think there are two feasible approaches to demand management to engage mode shift, the first is active road/congestion pricing to limit demand for low-value private road travel and to improve the efficiency of the road network through preventing congestion. This could be quite an efficient mechanism but unfortunately it would take a level of planning and government organisation that seems to be beyond the current agenda.
The second would be to stop building any new road capacity and ramp up public transport alternatives. Then the road space would reach a congested equillibrium where the time delay to road users will be the ‘price’. For a mode shift to work the alternatives in the same corridors would need to be faster that sitting in traffic, which would entail some expensive expenditure on rail, busways or at the least bus lanes.
This would be the easiest to do under the current governance model (as it involves simply dropping current road plans and bringing forward PT plans), but it would perhaps be a ‘hamfisted’ approach involving a pretty inefficient use of existing road capacity (i.e. letting it clog).
I guess there is a third option midway between these two, which would be using a variety of ‘soft’ indirect pricing measures via existing mechanisms (i.e. increased fuel tax, parking levies, changes to minimum parking requirements, increased registration), while any new arterials or motorways would be built as toll roads.
Whats the point building State Highways if we let the local road network fall into decay? The minimal time savings of motorways will surely be swallowed up by local congestion. In fact you could argue that in Auckland the cost/benefit of linking suburbs with local arterials will more than outweigh any widening of any state highway given that you don’t have to spend hours getting on and off the state highway system.
Thats probably the worst thing about the RoNS, defferring expenditure on local roads and maintenance for a decade to pay for new superhighways… sounds like a recipie for disaster.
Train link to airport by 2040 but better road access to airport from 2021. Will we be able to afford to fly by 2040? Or afford to drive to the airport?
Links no longer appear to be valid, but the document can be found at http://www.arc.govt.nz/albany/fms/main/Documents/Transport/RLTS/RLTS%202009/Regional%20Land%20Transport%20Strategy%20(RLTS)%202010-2040.pdf