Governor General slams Auckland’s traffic congestion

Photo / Richard Robinson 

Auckland’s traffic congestion was decried by Governor General Sir Anand Satyanand yesterday as a “deadweight” on the region’s productivity.

Sir Anand, who grew up in Auckland, said heavy investment in motorways and the decline of public transport after trams were taken off the roads in the 1950s had led to severe congestion to the detriment of both individuals and the economy.

His comments came as he opened New Lynn’s $36 million railway station and bus interchange.

“Aucklanders lose valuable time through sitting in long traffic queues – the frustration to them and cost in time lost and petrol and diesel converted into fumes for no purpose has been immense,” he told 200 people at the opening.

“That cost is not simply borne by individuals who could have been at home enjoying time with their families. Congestion means that it takes longer for goods and services to get to their destination and onward to export markets.”

“All of this has been a deadweight on productivity for Auckland and, given the size of the region’s economy, the whole of New Zealand.”

But Sir Anand said new investment in Auckland’s public transport was beginning to pay dividends, evidenced by an increase of almost two million boardings last year to more than 60 million passenger trips on buses, trains and ferries.

Although that was still well below a figure of about 100 million trips in the 1950s, when as a child growing up in Ponsonby he enjoyed catching trams and trains, “it is good to see the trend heading in a northwards and correct direction.”

Sir Anand’s leadership of yesterday’s event, as a politically-neutral figure, came as politicians of the left and right congratulated each other on the realisation of a vision for the transformation of what retiring Waitakere Mayor Bob Harvey said had been a “very tired” town centre.

The station has been part of public investment of $300 million, on which his council has spent $91 million on surrounding road upgrades and a contribution to the railway trench, on which the Government spent $140 million.

I now think it’s quite possible that Steven Joyce, Bill English and John Key are the only powerful politicians left who think motorways are going to solve congestion in Auckland and create economic growth.

This is a NZ Herald article:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10675949

Share this

13 comments

  1. It was great to hear someone like the governor general make comments like this although you forgot one person off your list Jeremy, John Banks, he has shown in the last month or so that he is just as roads focused as always and is now claiming that it would cost $6 billion to build a line to the airport. Of course hopefully he won’t be a powerful politician for long (for the record I don’t like Brown either so this comment isn’t posted along any party lines)

  2. My hope is that the next general election is fought with PT as a big issue, because seeing as the chance of a change in government seems pretty scarce our only hope for continued investment is National being forced to listen to the electorate, something they (and Banks and the C&Rs) don’t seem so good at.

  3. “I now think it’s quite possible that Steven Joyce, Bill English and John Key are the only powerful politicians left who think motorways are going to solve congestion in Auckland and create economic growth.”

    You’re forgetting Phil Goff and Annette King who were members of the cabinet that approved the Hobsonville Rd to Brigham Creek Rd extension of the NW Motorway; approved and built the new Upper Harbour Motorway; approved the Mangere Bridge duplication; approved the Newmarket Viaduct replacement and widening; approved the Manukau extension of the SW Motorway; planned to build the Waterview extension of the SW Motorway; approved and built the Mt Roskill extension of the SW Motorway; widened the Northcote Road to Sunnynook section of the N Motorway; and upgraded the Onewa, Esmonde, and CMJ interchanges.

    You’re also forgetting Len Brown who lists the following as a priority: “We need to finish the motorway links – such as the Waterview connection and the North Harbour Highway – to make our roads clearer for commerce, and include bus lanes – such as that across the new Mangere Bridge” (http://www.aucklandtrains.co.nz/2010/04/21/len-brown-my-transport-views/). And who stood next to Steven Joyce at the opening of the Manukau extension of the SW Motorway recently and had the following to say about the new section of motorway: “The critical most important part of the infrastructure really is that it will take the pressure of the Southern Motorway going north and we are hopeful to see in the initial stages a 20% reduction of that”, which sounds like he was referring to a reduction in congestion (http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/new-motorway-trim-airport-travel-time-3744907).

  4. Those other politicians support a more balanced transport system… The Nats have not announced one single new PT project for Auckland…

    So I guess I should have said, “who think solely motorways are going to solve congestion in Auckland”…

    Back to your Cit Rat meeting now Obi…

    1. I have nothing to do with C&R. In fact I support all Labour’s listed road building since all the roads they planned, approved, built, and upgraded seemed eminently sensible. I just don’t see the point in pretending that Labour are anti-road when the evidence shows overwhelmingly that they’re road builders. Possibly the most prolific motorway builders since the 1960s and 1970s. You’re projecting your own views on to them for some reason, without noticing that they don’t agree with you.

  5. Obi, please point out where in the post I talked about the Labour Party once… I talked about how the three most powerful National politicians – when it comes to roads – have a ridiculous Auckland transport agenda…

    I have repeatedly criticised Labour’s transport policy in their last term… Your projecting your view that becuase I don’t agree with you I must be a Labour supporter – I’m not…

    1. I misunderstood your point and apologise for misrepresenting your views. The C&R comment confused me. Along with you naming three National Party motorway supporters but not Brown, Goff, King, Shearer, and Hughes who have all either built motorways in the past or support building motorways in the future. Although I suppose you only set out to name “powerful politicians” 😉

      1. Ha ha, I think that was the misunderstanding, I don’t really consider anyone in opposition powerful…

        Techinically the GG is very powerful but never acts on it – I can see why my comment in the post was confusing – my apologies for that…

        I support the completion of the WRR and Penlink, but that’s about it and I’d support building a comphrensive cycleway system, getting the buses running right and the CBD loop before/during these projects… After the WRR and Penlink is completed that should be it till we get a balanced system…

  6. These kinds of debates often seem kind of religious to me. Increasing population requires increased transportation infrastructure in general, both PT and roads, and the balance depends a lot on other aspects of urban design as well.

    Having lived in Auckland, Sydney, San Francisco South Bay Area and now suburban Chicago for six years I can say that the easiest place to live from a transportation point of view, by far, is where I am right now, even though it is easily the largest metro area I’ve lived in. Second easiest would be the SF Bay Area.

    Chicago has pretty good PT into the city center from the burbs, but very little otherwise. Most of my driving is on surface streets and I rarely run into significant congestion. Main roads are mostly built wide enough to accommodate the traffic demand well and I think this is aided by the fact that commercial properties all have plenty of off road parking. So you’re almost never sharing road space with parked vehicles. Suburban density is low enough that the number of people competing for road space in any particular area is manageable. There is a decent network of expressways that get me further distances around the metro area pretty easily.

    Just one data point – it takes me about 30 minutes to drive the 24 miles from my house to Chicago O’Hare Airport. From my old place in Mt Albert, it would take not very much less than that to drive the roughly 11 miles to Auckland Airport. Of course one case proves nothing, but it is, fwiw, representative of the subjective feeling I have about the relative ease of getting around here.

    Just to balance this with another perspective, I travel to Atlanta regularly and as a visitor there I find the rapid transit system great for the corridor from the airport north to the business, retail and entertainment districts.

  7. I had an interesting meeting with a C+R candidate in the weekend. I took the opportunity to try to get him to look at Auckland’s real transport needs. He was a good listener and he certainly gave me a sympathetic hearing. But what was most interesting, and in contrast to some optimistic posts here recently, he told me that he has met with Simon Moutter the CEO of AIAL to get his views on rail plans to the airport. It turns out that away from PR this guy is all against it. Same tired arguments- business men won’t use a train etc although I suspect it’s really all about income from parking.

    In addition it seems to me that one of the biggest problems, and I guess we all do it, is that the people making the decisions simply think about themselves and a few people around them and then generalise that attitude out to the rest of the world. And with transit in Auckland, middle aged men with 7 figure incomes, a car they love, convenient free parking and a self image based on their own separate specialness find it hard to imagine themselves getting on a train, and therefore see no utility to it. And all of the people making decisions on this level involving these sums of money are a very homogeneous group…. Moutter may have no commercial reason for opposing or not supporting a rail link to the airport- I just don’t know [but have heard it mentioned by people on the inside], but he certainly thinks that because he can’t see himself ridding it he can’t really imagine it working.

    So it seems any hope of AIAL seeing value in contributing to a rail link, outside of some vague planning, looks slim.

    As usual we have to get a service built before people can imagine it. This is a version of Roughan’s favourite argument: it shouldn’t be there because it isn’t there…. if we needed it we’ed have it,; we have motorways therefore they’re the best solution. And if the witch floats…..

    1. Whether Moutter’s view reflects a biased subjective perception based on his personal circumstance or just good business sense I can’t say, but I just offer this observation for what it’s worth – I mentioned my experience with the Atlanta transit system, which has a station inside the airport terminal. It works great for me, because I normally travel by myself, typically just for a couple of days (v. little luggage) and I stay at a hotel only about 200m walk from the station in midtown that I travel to. However, the number of people who use the airport train is actually pretty small compared with the number of air passengers (the busiest airport in the world btw). Many of the airport train passengers are people who commute to and from their jobs at the airport. And the bulk of the passengers on that line in general are actually residents of the suburbs north of the airport whose use of it has nothing to do with the airport.

      All that to say, there are examples of airport trains around the world from which, if they were inclined, planners could actually do some surveys and test the validity of skepticism like that of Moutter that you cite.

  8. Yes Mark, and this is the real point of this proposed line as I think Nick R has described it: It should be considered as Auckland’s South Western suburban line, linking Onehunga, Mangere Bridge, Mangere, the airport and Manukau for those people there while additionally offering transit to the airport from the rest of the system. I’m pretty certain that that uptake will happen too but it doesn’t live and die on the 13 million airport travellers p/a. The 12 000 daily workers at the airport and how many more at Manukau city will certainly use it.

    Interesting to hear about Atlanta, certainly every time I go to London I use the train, no problem with luggage as extra space is provided on the units. In fact the biggest inhibitor to its use, initially at least, will be the incompleteness of the rest of the system, but this is still a good start and will help build demand for further coverage.

  9. If there’s one available, I will always use the train from an airport to wherever (usually a hotel as first stop). Almost invariably, this choice has proven to be the correct one. Singapore, Fukuoka, Tokyo, Osaka, Berlin, Hong Kong, Atlanta (yes, like Mark Thomson I loved it, and my first time was ten years ago) Chicago (north line, sadly though, have to extend by taxi to Mundelein) – being amongst some that come to mind. And I don’t just carry an overnight bag as I am usually there for a week or more and have never found luggage to be an issue.

    Of course airport station designers know that peassengers will be carrying, bags and/or pushing trolleys – that’s probably why they get the contracts!

    I for one, bemoan the fact that Auckland lacks an airport railway line and station as it costs my company upwards of $120 each time I catch a return taxi to the airport here in NZ – and that’s from Mt Eden! I’d hate to think what it costs for businesses across the bridge!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *