In the latest meeting agenda of the governing body of Auckland Council, there’s an interesting piece that documents what Auckland Council expects of Auckland Transport over the next couple of years (pages 85-90 of this document). Much of what’s included in this document has been foreshadowed in previous draft versions of Auckland Transport’s statement of intent, but a few things have been personally added by the mayor and it’s very interesting to get an overall feel for what the Council wants Auckland Transport’s priorities to be.
Pretty much all of these have a public transport component (AMETI, New Lynn TOD, RWC improvements) or relate solely to public transport (Manukau Rail Link, integrated ticketing, implementation of electric trains).
Added to those, Len Brown has included a series of further areas he wants Auckland Transport to focus:
Once again, the majority of these relate to public transport either in part or as a whole. It’s also good to see that work on a walking/cycling option across the Auckland Harbour Bridge hasn’t completely disappeared off the radar.
Reading through these projects it seems clear to me that Auckland Council very much expects Auckland Transport to be a public transport focused agency. There are no “I want you to focus on building this new road” requests at all, but plenty of expectations that all forms of public transport will be significantly improved over the next couple of years.
What will be interesting to see is whether the funding priorities end up matching this. Taking a look at Auckland Transport’s current (October 2010-June 2011) funding plans, the biggest chunk of money is to be spent on new roads:
Over $300 million on roading capital expenditure (ie. new roads) in a mere eight months! This was effectively decided upon by the Auckland Transition Agency, rather than the new Auckland Council, and I look forward to seeing how things change once the Council’s expectations of Auckland Transport start to filter through into new funding plans.
In short, the Council has articulated a clear requirement for Auckland Transport: that they primarily focus on improving Auckland’s public transport system. We await with interest to see whether Auckland Transport is up to the task.
Processing...
The good news is with that PT focus hopefully a decent sum of next years budget will be redirected towards PT needs. In saying that one area that could be good to focus on is grade separating all of the level crossings on the rail network. The busiest of them is St Jude St in Avondale and it carries over 19k vehicles a day which is more than P2W as well as being right next to a station so can see some long delays. With the increased frequencies that are coming there it probably a good idea to do as it will both improve safety, speed up roads and reduce noise for locals from having less bells and horns. The level crossing infrastructure can then be reused elsewhere in the country that they are desperately needed.
Shame no mention of the Whau River crossing. That would make a huge contribution to improving the lives of commuters in the west as it would allow just about everyone from Henderson, Te Atatu and all the way out west to avoid the Te Atatu Rd- SH 16 black hole in the morning. Buses could use it too.
That is my other favourite roading project as it saves tens of thousands of people from having to use only two interchanges which isn’t great for local traffic along the feeder roads.
I heard the other day it had been costed at about $150 million.
I reckon it would have made more sense to do that bridge than much of the proposed widening to SH16. Disperse the traffic, don’t concentrate it.
“Disperse the traffic, don’t concentrate it”
Of only traffic engineers got that!
$9 042 000 on “Travel Behaviour Change”. Are you serious?
Why not scrap that and put on a high frequency bus route network with that money?
6 am-11.30 pm, 15 minute no-compromise all day, evening and weekend.
You might want to read this:
Morton, A. & MEES, P. 2010 ‘Too Good to Be True? An Assessment of the Melbourne Travel Behaviour Modification Pilot’, World Transport Policy and Practice 16(2), 8-23
It’s about 3% of the budget. I don’t think that’s too much for progressing travel plans, and doing events and campaigns for PT and walking and cycling.
Website here: http://www.eco-logica.co.uk/pdf/wtpp16.2.pdf
Operating Expenditure – Transport Planning $80 million? That seems like an awful lot (compared to $200m for PT and $120m for roads). Does anyone know why this figure is so high? I’m struggling to think of what it could be spent on that is so expensive.
There’s the Auckland Plan to be developed at haste, which I imagine is carrying some hefty degree of consultancy bloat just to ensure there’s sufficient intellect and “go-fer” resource available to get it completed. AT has a huge role to play in the spatial plan’s developed.
Maybe that includes the staffing cost for the entire organisation?
Could it include coordination with organisations like Veolia and KiwiRail and so on as well?
Huge sums aren’t they. I read an article which stated the Auckland Council will spend $1.5 billion on projects over the next two years!
Great to see mention of the Pathway under the Auckland Harbour Bridge in Len Brown’s letter.
The technical report for the Pathway has been delivered to NZTA and they are now reviewing it.
We hope that NZTA will accept that waiting 20 to 30 years for the next Harbour Crossing is too long, and that it has a responsibility to get on with providing walking and cycling access across the bridge.
We feel that the technical review is somewhat of a formality to check the specific details of the proposed design as NZTA has previously advised:
“Current analysis indicates that there is sufficient capacity in the southbound box girder to support a walkway/ cycleway”
Pg 38: http://getacross.org.nz/pdf/100825_AHB_Pathway_Project.pdf#page=38
The Pathway Working Group led by Hopper Developments hopes to make good progress in 2011, but it all depends on whether NZTA decides to support the project.
http://www.getacross.org.nz
Thanks for the update Bevan.