It has been difficult to figure out what Auckland Council thinks of the Puhoi-Wellsford “holiday highway” project. Obviously the council’s Transport Chair Mike Lee is not a fan, as he was the one who coined the “holiday highway” name in the first place. But there are signs that this is not the position of the council as a whole.
Firstly, working out what Mayor Len Brown’s position on the project is has always been a bit tricky. Back in October last year, just after he had won the mayoralty, he seemed to suggest that at the very least, he wasn’t likely to publicly oppose the project. Then a few months later the council put in a fairly neutral submission to the Puhoi-Warkworth section, seeking a lot of further information from NZTA rather than saying they fell one way or the other with regards to it.
While the project is one that would be fully funded by NZTA, and therefore the council’s position on it wouldn’t necessarily dictate whether it happens or not, it has always seemed reasonably important to me for the council to “show its hand” a bit more in relation to what it thinks – especially because of the project’s environmental effects, significant cost and its impact on land-use development patterns to the north of Auckland. There nothing as effective at undermining your attempts to curb urban sprawl than building a motorway out into the countryside.
Former ARC councillor Joel Cayford has picked up on this point in a recent blog post about some of the early things we’ve learned about the upcoming Auckland Spatial Plan – and in particular its identification of Warkworth as a satellite centre growth node:
But the bit that’s a real worry is the inclusion of Pukekohe and Warkworth. These are both outside the MUL. I can’t speak much of Pukekohe – but I do know a little about Warkworth. Not only is it outside the MUL – the Metropolitan Urban Limit – it is beyond the end of Alpurt B2 – the new Northern motorway. In fact it’s slap bang on the proposed route of Minister of Transport’s “holiday highway”.
If I was him I’d be pinching myself a little. “what’s going on here, don’t tell me theat Auckland Council is giving me another reason to support the motorway extension…”
Because that’s what a growth strategy for Warkworth will require. Roads. Transport. It’s like Auckland Council knowingly intends pricking its own MUL strategy.
I could understand a growth strategy for Orewa, or even Silverdale. Both on good state highways, and even got the Northern Busway running up there now.
But not Warkworth.
Unlike Pukekohe, Warkworth is nowhere near the rail line and therefore its growth is likely to generate many more vehicle trips. At the moment Warkworth doesn’t even have a bus service connecting it to metropolitan Auckland. Given its poor transport options to the rest of the region, as well as the quite sensitive natural environment around Warkworth, it’s somewhat of a surprise to be identified as a satellite centre.
So one has to come to the conclusion that there’s little to be achieved from making Warkworth a satellite centre other than helping to justify the Puhoi-Wellsford holiday highway. Which does beg the question of why Auckland Council would want to do this. Are they now strongly supporting this project?
Processing...
Maybe they’re trading horses? For the rail link?
Good luck with that
I think it’s a bit more likely that the horse-trading is occurring within the council. There are a number of councillors strongly supporting the City Rail Link who I normally wouldn’t expect to be the biggest PT supporters.
Like the local councillor for example.
That’s what I think as well, I suspect it is mainly to keep Penny Webster onside as she has been strangely very supportive of Len and his projects
I wouldn’t be so cynical of Warkworth. To start with its already enjoying fast growth as is. I imagine the idea is to build a satelite city with most of the new residents having jobs in Warkworth area. So a business can have a plant in Warkworth benefiting from cheaper real estate but the benefits of being close to a big city. It also strikes a nice urban/rural balance.
And even if we expand Warkworth dramatically, it won’t justify the worst stage 2 of the holiday highway (Warkworth-Wellsford) (in my view stage 1 can be justified as a long term thing but should come after the CBD rail link, but stage 2 being a waste of money as a much cheaper project lifesaver can iron out all the problems here for far less cost
>…Warkworth doesn’t even have a bus service…
Nakedbus and Intercity both serve Warkworth, last I checked.
Living near Warkworth and right on the route of the Holiday Highway, I just wish that NZTA and the Minister would come clean on the real reason that this road is to be built. The road is designed to service the needs of the 90,000+ extra residents that are expected (and planned) to move to Rodney in the next 20 years, mainly in the coastal areas to the east of Warkworth and Wellsford. Already the farmers owning this land are being “Rated out” and forced to sell up for development. The people of Northland have been hoodwinked into thinking that this project is for greater connectivity with Northland. It isn’t.
Warkworth is growing quickly, and has a structure plan to guide its development – but employment and industrial opportunities are declining. The very good Mahurangi Technical Institute is disadvantaged by current Govt policy, so what hope and opportunities for local current and future workers? Seems the ‘holiday highway’ is being used to justify the lack of investment and direction for the area – ‘build a motorway and send everyone to Auckland to work’ was the policy approach indicated by the National Party candidate for Rodney in a discussion the other day.
I reckon Len Brown has traded support with Penny Webster – holiday highway for CBD rail, with the sweetener of finance committee chair for good measure (he obviously hadn’t seen the state of the old Rodney District Council books and the immoral payour of the old CEO by Webster at that stage. Or had he?)
The highway is being justified to carry aggregate but the aggregate’s required for the big RoNs projects – a self fulfilling prophecy (see the Regional Freight Demand Strategy for this info). But the railway line is “uneconomic”!!?? The Nat spin is that the Motorway will transform Northland’s economy – well it will help the heavy haulage and quarry operator’s private economies, who are often one and the same. Meanwhile doing nothing to assist or uplift the poor in rural communities who are without jobs, education, prospects, hope… Slick superficial spin justifying an unaffordable expense, though John Key says “we’ll sell assets to pay for it!”. Be very careful who you vote for on Nov 26. Crony capitalism is alive and well in this Govt.
As the council wouldn’t be paying for it, I think their comments should be limited to BCR comparisons with the CBD rail link, airport rail & harbour rail tunnel.
Well not necessarily if it has unacceptable adverse environmental effects and undermines the council’s land-use strategies.