Martin Gummer. the former head of transport funding agency Transfund, wrote an excellent opinion piece in today’s Herald on some of the transport decisions being made at the moment. Here are some key segments.
Recent political comment about two big transport proposals – the Puhoi to Wellsford Highway, and the CBD rail loop – are starting to frame them in polarised terms.
Urban vs rural, rail vs road, the working person vs the wealthy holiday home owner, Auckland vs Wellington wishes.
But this should not be the basis for choosing between them. Both are huge projects, with considerable risks, uncertainties and impacts. Both will have their day – but when?
This is the key issue. I have little doubt (unless oil prices really skyrocket) that one day we will need to extend the four-laning of state highway 1 further north. As Auckland becomes an ever more dominant part of New Zealand’s population (remembering that 75% of the country’s population growth in the next 40 years is in Auckland) it seems like we will need to improve transport infrastructure linking this city with the rest of the country. But is the Puhoi-Wellsford motorway a priority now? Are there other projects we could spend the money on that give us an even better return? Could we achieve many of the benefits for a fraction of the price? There are serious questions to ask – and Mr Gummer does a great job in asking them:
Are there cheaper ways of delivering similar results? Or, more realistically, are there much cheaper ways of delivering at least some – and sufficient for the meantime – benefits?
This is one big difference between the projects. The CBD rail loop is an all or nothing project. A loop that stops halfway is not a loop but a dead-end – or loopy.
The holiday highway, however, has a lower cost alternative – improvements to the existing road, that could defer replacement for a further 20-30 years. Corners could be smoothed, alignments improved, maybe a short bypass built around Warkworth, and three- or four-lane sections with a central wire barrier built in the Dome Valley…
…Undoubtedly the highway would reduce accidents and save lives and injuries. But couldn’t most of these benefits be gained by analysing accident black spots and thinking creatively about how to reduce them within a budget $200 million or less?
This was essentially the point of “Operation Lifesaver“. Fix the Warkworth bottleneck, improve safety on the existing highway, sort out a few of the nastier corners and so forth (though I think concrete medians are better than wire medians). It’s highly likely all this could be done for a fraction of the $1.6 billion proposed to be spent on the holiday highway.
The other interesting issue that Mr Gummer comments on is the level of political involvement in the process of deciding what projects are go be prioritised:
The minister and the Government are getting into tricky territory here. This has more than a whiff of the politicisation of transport funding that characterises the Australian system.
If so, then the minister has to be prepared to deal with the proponents of other projects throughout New Zealand who knock on his agency’s door. Unless he takes these two huge projects right outside the transport agency’s funding allocation system, he risks undermining its integrity.
This will have widespread implications, not least for the Government’s relationship with local government and its standing in many communities.
In many respects, the Government Policy Statement has already undermined the integrity of the transport funding model (the idea of a GPS was introduced by the last government, ironically because they were unhappy that NZTA and Transit before them were not focusing enough on non-roading projects). Many of the roads of national significance were effectively given funding before any cost-benefit analysis had been undertaken. The choice of the projects, rightly or wrongly, was undoubtedly political.
Mr Gummer continues:
The CBD rail loop also requires hard-headed, analytical questioning of the cost estimates, the passenger patronage modelling results, and the economic benefits. Incidentally projects of such scale and impact, like Melbourne’s Trans-Urban City Link, can and do influence a city’s overall economic performance and this should be taken into account.
At $2.3 billion the CBD rail loop is a huge project and the confidence levels of the cost and benefit estimates need tough scrutiny – as do potential scope adjustments that could improve its viability.
We also need to know what the cost of subsidising extra rail services would be (net of reductions in the cost of existing services associated with increased system-wide patronage).
Both projects will have longer term, “transformational” effects. The most profound will be the impacts on land values, land use, property development and generated (induced) traffic.
The CBD rail loop should encourage urban renewal, commercial activity and property development along its alignment, and more intensified urban development around or near other rail stations – helping to harness Auckland’s growth within its existing urban area.
It should also make rail travel a more viable, accessible option for more Aucklanders.
The holiday highway will further improve property values, increase property development in Warkworth, Wellsford and surrounding communities, and encourage more commuting from there to Auckland. Where do the Government’s priorities lie?
Considering the impact that both the CBD Rail Tunnel and the holiday highway will have on Auckland’s future built form, it seems crazy that either of them would progress too much before we’ve completed our spatial plan and made some serious decisions about where, when and how we want Auckland to grow. After all, it would be pretty dumb for Auckland Council to produce a spatial plan based around intensification, rail upgrades, curbing urban sprawl and focusing on boosting CBD employment – only to have all of that undermined by a motorway project that encourages the city to sprawl northwards.
The whole point of the spatial plan, which was central government’s idea, is to ensure we have better alignment between infrastructure and urban development. It would just be bizarre to progress a project like the holiday highway that may well completely undermine the urban form that the spatial plan tries to create.
Processing...
Just to cut through the numbers for a moment on the value of these important projects it is pretty clear why the three highways with the worst BCRs are unlikely to have much transformative effect on the economy. Because they don’t give us anything that isn’t already there, they are duplicating existing roads that are not fatally clogged, or close to it. Speeding up movement a little, even for freight on trucks, is not the same as building a completely new mode for distributing the most import input, people, into the heart [or perhaps I should say brain] of the nation’s economy. Especially as the better the CBD line works the freer the road and highway network in all Auckland will be too. It really is a win/win. As well as future proofing against coming resource pressures. [Oil hit $90 yet?].
Petrol up to $1.93 just up the road from me. That’s the first time since about September 2008 that I can remember it being above $1.90 a litre.
Oil is $89.28 at the moment, highest it’s been for a while.
There is a chorus of voices now questioning why Stephen Joyce is so hell bent on proceeding with a huge project that has such a questionable BCR while dismissing the CBD loop out of hand. It’s good to see thoughtful and well written articles like this and Oram’s peice in the SST.
One thing that has come out of this is the way in which this government seems to want to impose it’s will on Auckland, reading Joyce’s article last week and previous comments by the likes of Nick Smith it seems clear that government has decided Auckland’s future has to be low density sprawl through the removal of the MUL and heavy investment in roading infrastructure. I’m glad we have elected a centre left local government who will not just blindly go along with this. Imagine if Banks had been elected.
I agree Cam – the voices are growing louder and the more stories that get printed like this showing just how hypocritical the government has been the more pressure will come on them over it.
John Key is the MP for Helensville. How do we get across to him that an Auckland which sprawls all over his electorate is not, actually, a good idea?
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helensville_(New_Zealand_electorate)
“… Helensville covers an area of the rapidly growing northern Auckland urban fringe, drawing Helensville and Kumeu from Rodney District, moving south to take in Paremoremo, Greenhithe and Albany from North Shore City, and finally tacking west to include Whenuapai, Hobsonville and West Harbour from Waitakere City“.
The Puhoi-Wellsford “holiday highway” is a done deal. I live right in it’s path and am trying to fight the proposals. We have been told that submissions on the NZ Transport Agency proposals need to be in by 28th Jan and that the final decision will be made on 14th Feb. That gives them no time to digest any of the points brought up in the submission process. Property acquisitions will apparently start immediately after that.
Bob, you have my sincere sympathy with this. I saw your letter in the Rodney Times – what is the feeling amongst the comunity there? Are residents really convinced that this project is a benefit to the region – they appear to be accepting it as a fait accompli? Do they know that the toll road looks like an economic lemon?
And, more to the point, are they prepared to vote against National if they feel particularly strongly against the road? Because the only thing that can stop it is if National are gone-burger next year. If they get a second term, the road will be too far advanced by 2014 for an incoming Labour government to have a chance of unpicking the damage. The best that could be hoped for would be that it would stop at Warkworth instead of continuing on to Wellsford.
As always with a project like this, there are differing views. Warkworth town folk are upset that the proposed route has access only on the North of the town and believe that visitors passing through will not double back into town. Commercial vehicles delivering to the town will also have to double back and go through the town to access the industrial area. Here in the rural areas there was shock at the route chosen as everyone was expecting a route to the East of the existing SH1. Apart from my personal situation, I worry from an environmental point of view. The earthworks in this area are HUGE, with 2 viaducts over 500m long and 1 about 200m long. If you’ve seen the viaduct over the Waiwera river on the existing motorway, that gives some idea of the scale. The proposals also include huge cut and fill works including filling in a valley near to us. My fear is that these works will damage the landscape forever and use up all the funds with the Warkworth-Puhoi section being cancelled as a result. The other worrying thing is that the NZ Transport Agency seem to be able to ride roughshod over everything. The way they handled telling affected residents was appalling. We are now told that submissions on their propsals close on 28th January (the Christmas/New Year holiday comes in the middle) and that a final decision will be made on the route by 14th February, after which they start negotiations with affected landowners. Doesn’t give them much time for analysis of the submissions does it?
The thing that gets me about all this is that, supposedly, this is about making it easier to get tourists and goods to/from Northland and thus benefit Northland’s economy. Except that when oil prices inevitably spike really high (they’ve jumped USD4/bbl in three days, and the next price that ends in a zero is USD100/bbl), domestic tourists won’t drive because it’ll be too expensive and road freight costs will go up dramatically because diesel gets much more expensive.
Remedying the shocking state of the rail line would insulate this to some degree, by providing cost-effective access north of Auckland for freight and tourist movements. Especially if they ran a car train that people drove onto in Auckland and drove off at the far end, giving them a car with which to move around within Northland without having to drive it all the way up there and use all that expensive petrol.
Of course, given that National are only barely convinced that the climate is changing I shouldn’t be surprised that they don’t think the International Energy Agency has the foggiest idea about the impending oil price shock.
“The Puhoi-Wellsford “holiday highway” is a done deal.”
They can (to the detriment of the locals) push through designations and land acquisitions relatively quickly, I assume. However, they still need consents and design and preparation work before they can start – and I assume they cannot FORCIBLY acquire any land until that is in place? No one assumes construction will start earlier than 5-plus years down the track.
So the road is FAR from a done deal. Years of fighting to come, and years of bad press for SJ. In fact, I think this motorway will be his undoing unless he cancels it, or moves out of the transport portfolio. It will become an albatross around his neck.
Rumour is that Joyce is up for a promotion into B’linglish’s job. Where Bill will go I’m not sure so I don’t consider it to be more than a rumour, unless he’s going to retire at the next election. Which is possible, but not terribly likely given that he’s still fairly young. Hell, if the Zombie of Parliaments Past can return to leer over Hide’s shoulder when he’s into his 70s then Bill’s got at least another decade of public disservice left in him.
And if Joyce goes from Transport, we’ll probably end up with Maurice. Who’s an even scarier thought.
You are right. They cannot forcibly acquire any land until consents are in place, but they are being very agressive here and some of the residents have agreed that if the route is confirmed (that’s probably a done deal), they may as well just give up, accept the offer and move on. For a lot of the locals, the worry is the uncertainty. I want to fight all the way. I’ll lay down in front of the bulldozers if necessary because I don’t believe that there is an economic, environmental or social case for building the road.
The rail option is a non-starter. I’ve travelled the line and it’s far too narrow, particularly through the tunnels, for existing rolling stock, let alone passenger services and larger bulk goods. There are tunnels on the line that were built in the 19th century, and could not be widened for 2 way traffic.
Steven Joyce is not the only one pushing this. The Auckland City Council is heavily in favour despite the contradiction of the Spacial plan and the Northland Developement Board are keen to save their “five to seven minutes”.
I wouldn’t necessarily say the Auckland Council supports the project. Transport Committee chair Mike Lee has been its biggest opponent and coined the term “holiday highway”.
Auckland Council is probably better described as “apathetic” or “resigned” rather than “supportive”. Brown put it best when he said that Joyce has “the bit between his teeth”, and that he doesn’t see the point in expending political capital on trying to fight something that’s being driven from the Beehive.
Whether that’s a good attitude is a different matter, and I think Lee may have a chance at fomenting discontent about the whole thing, but I wouldn’t say they’re fully supporting it.
So what if the rail line needs tunnels widened? Why couldn’t that happen. The cost of Puford would pay for a whole hell of a lot of improvement to the line – double-tracking, tunnels, the works. And there’d be change left over.
Bob, the line is perfectly capable of taking existing rolling stock, it is currently used twice a day to move forestry and dairy products and general goods between Whangarei and Auckland.
Furthermore, it is still used for occasional passenger services. For example earlier this year a charter train was run using a Silver Fern DMU to bring people from Whangarei to the AC/DC concert in Western Springs, and take them home again afterwards. The track speed would probably limit passenger services to scenic tourist trains like the Overlander rather than commuter type trains, but it is perfectly possible.
As for the tunnels, two track tunnels wouldn’t be necessary uless there was a massive increase in traffic on the line. Even the Kaimai tunnel leading to the busiest export port in the country manages with a single track.
Auckland Council is not heavily for this. They are insufficiently strongly opposed, likely out of a belief that making TOO much noise will only make negotiating over the CBD tunnel harder.
“Of course, given that National are only barely convinced that the climate is changing”
Rodney Hide isn’t even convinced “barely”, and if pointed at facts, he’d only say “not man-made”.
That said, climate change is just one out of a whole bushel of reasons* why the transprot policies of this government is worse than luncay – in summary they are actual sabotage of our society’s future.
*(oil price risks, lack of infrastructure redundancy, consequences for road safety of a “cars first” culture, noise and direct (local level) air & water pollution emissions, skewed economic benefits for the trucking and housing development industries, fostering of sprawl and subsequent settlement infrastructure costs, undermining of the integrity of the cost-benefit calculation process, disconnecting communities, creating more and more impermeable surfaces, wasting land for car parking, fostering obesity…. the list just goes on and on)
The old Rodney Council was enthusiastic though, and I assume Penny Webster still is- they like Wayne Brown seem to buy SJ’s nonsense about economic transformation. And probably recognise that if the money isn’t spent on this it will not be spent anywhere else near Northland.
If this project goes ahead, and Northland remains an economic under-performer (which is almost certain), they’ll have gained nothing except a big road. Better to tell National that they’d rather the money was spent on infrastructure in Northland, like the Marsden Point line or upgrading some of the unsealed local roads.
Of course, in the game of “Where’s mine?!” that is regional infrastructure funding that’ll never happen.
So where to from here for Steven Joyce?
1. Keep ignoring the mounting opposition and plough on ahead (no pun intended) with Puhoi-Wellsford, and not fund the CBD tunnel?
2. Drop or scale back Puhoi-Wellsford and still not fund the tunnel?
3. Drop or scale back Puhoi-Wellsford and grudgingly agree to fund the tunnel?
4. Keep on with Puhoi-Wellsford AND fund the tunnel, maybe by adopting it as a Route of National Significance?
I’m actually picking #4, though obviously it will depend on whether this becomes a bigger polling issue. (More pressure needed on the CBD tunnel!)I bet National will be watching this very closely, especially if oil does have another spike before election day. What do others think?
Rodin5 How about?: 5. Plow on with Puford and keep piling rocks and confusion in the way of CBDRL while pretending to agree to it, by saying that it will happen ‘one day’. But of course not yet as there is ‘no money’ and look I’ve just increased all the charges, and rail must make a profit, and nothing is proven, and it’ll probably be a white elephant [Like Britomart!]… and who wants to get on a train anyhow or work or live in a city, and look how much I’m spending on rail already… all right then, oh but look all the money’s gone and as petrol is now $2.50/ $3 a litre so the country has to borrow so much just to keep the trucks running…. see we can’t afford such luxuries now….
[sorry]
How many electorates would the lose up north, one? Is it likely to swing away from National anyway?
How many would the lose in central Auckland? There are a good three or four swing seats on the ithsumus!
All the electorates north of the Harbour Bridge are very safe National seats.
However Auckland Central, Maungakiekie (Onehunga,Panmure) and Waitakere are all very much swing seats.
Also National would have hopes to potentially pick up Te Atatu and New Lynn.
All these elctorates have rail running through them apart from Te Atatu which has the rail line as its boundary.
I think the only way the Nats will agree to the CBD loop tunnel would be a PPP.
The RONS are taking up all the transport budget and I really cant see Joyce doing an embarassing back-down on this road, or Bill English funding out of the consolidated fund.
Labour seem much more keen for it to go ahead. However with David Cunliffes recent talk about the possibility PPPs for major infrastructure I worry they maybe keen to PPP the CBD loop tunnel.
PPP’s are only really a solution when the private company can bring in significant revenue from user charges to cover the cost, with the main examples being toll roads. Brisbane also got its airport line with no govt financial contribution at all this way. However this cannot be done for the CBD loop tunnel as fares from say Panmure to Midtown/Aotea will be the same as the fare from Panmure to Britomart.
PPPs are rubbish for public transit projects because most of the benefits are economic not financial, ie are not monetised, so how does the private ‘P’ get a return on its investment without just taxing the system? In fact they’re rubbish for all transit projects as the private sector cannot borrow as cheaply as the government [local or national] therefore pushing up the cost of the project AND they insert a profit margin AND a risk premium. So you have to believe that the private sector is always so efficient by an exponential factor compared to the public one, which uses the same companies to build these projects, and that they won’t seek big profits, or fill the contracts with fish-hooks and ‘do not compete’ clauses that tie up future projects and strategic planning, to even start to consider them [see Australia]. Don’t even think about it.
How about just evaluating all projects on an equal dispassionate level with intelligent analysis and fund the best ones for the best future shape of our city and country out of the very efficiently harvested transport taxes? Ha.
Luke, don’t forget that all these projects are actually stretched out over quite a bit of time. rodin5’s Option 4 IS very much feasible if projects get delayed here and there a few years, thus freeing up money in the mid-term. I mean, National is proposing to spend 11 (!) billion on motorways. It’s NOT like there are 2 billion which can go either this way or that way. They could keep face if they did it right, and Auckland would probably shut up about Puhoi if they agreed to fund the tunnel.
All that said, I think they will try Patrick R’s strategy (i.e. the status quo, with attempts to sound hard-headed but reasonable) for a while longer.
Good to see more pieces in the Herald covering the downsides to all of this motorway building excess….
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10692749