I must say I was rather shocked this morning to find an editorial in the NZ Herald on transport matters that I agreed with to such a great extent. Typical editorialist John Roughan, with his “Auckland wants to sprawl” and “Auckland should pay for the City Rail Link if we really want it” (not that I disagree there, our petrol taxes should help pay for it, but I don’t think that’s what he means) must have been away because I can’t ever recall seeing such a strongly pro public transport editorial. The editorial picks up on a proposal by the Auckland Business Forum to put a blanket toll on all transport trips around the region to help fund important transport projects. The proposal is relatively similar to the “network pricing” proposal that the NZ Council for Infrastructure Development is promoting as a way to help fund a supposed “gap” between cost of transport projects we “need” and the funding available for them. The Editorial says:
There is a surface allure to the Auckland Business Forum’s view that all transport users, not just motorists, should contribute to the city’s big road and rail projects. If nothing else, it seems fair to spread the burden. Accordingly, the forum says, the price of tickets for rail and possibly ferry trips should include a $2 toll to complement that being paid by car drivers. These tolls would raise more than $700 million annually to cover repayments on loans to fill a $10 billion funding deficit. The idea is included in the forum’s submission on the 30-year Auckland Plan as a means of financing a “ring-fenced’ group of high-priority network improvement projects. At the top of its priority list is the east-west highway corridor from Pakuranga to Onehunga, which is likely to cost about $2.5 billion, followed by the $2.4 billion inner-city rail tunnel plan, both of which the forum wants completed by 2020.
The sheer amount of money such a charge would raise makes it worth exploring further. But, as the editorial then notes, looking closer at the plan reveals its flaws:
Unfortunately, however, the Business Forum’s case has a serious flaw. The major thrust of transport spending in recent years has been to get people out of cars and on to trains, buses and ferries, thereby lessening congestion on the roads. To attract and retain patronage, public transport has not only to be fast, frequent, convenient and comfortable. It has to be affordable. The danger of making a $2 toll part of ticket prices is that this will cease to be the case. If so, many public transport-users would return to their cars, creating greater road gridlock. The forum’s prescription has the potential to be a spectacular own-goal.
And that’s ignoring the huge flaw with the NZCID proposal, which would push traffic off motorways onto local roads. The issue with fare levels and public transport use is something that has was highlighted by the comparator city study that Auckland Transport undertook in recent months – where Auckland had the highest fare levels and (perhaps not unrelated) the lowest PT per capita use:
The bright side to the business forum’s proposal is that a core part of the roading lobby seems to recognise the importance of the City Rail Link project:
Perhaps a more notable part of its submission is the high priority that it accords the rail loop. The road corridor from Pakuranga to Onehunga is, understandably from its perspective, top of its list. It caters for more daily freight traffic than any other state highway except the Auckland Harbour Bridge. But the forum’s promotion, as a second priority, of the rail loop suggests that, unlike Transport Minister Steven Joyce, it is convinced of its cost-benefit merits. This view could, of course, also hinge on the fact that forum members stand to be major beneficiaries of a project that advocates say will boost business and employment in a revived city centre. They also note that the rail tunnel would make road trips easier for longer periods of the working day.
I think there are plenty of ways we can fund the City Rail Link without resorting to network pricing, $2 a trip transport charges or many of the other funding proposals put forward. Most obviously we can redirect money away from silly motorway projects (like the Greens and Labour have proposed) while the Council’s side of the project could probably be funded through ‘betterment levies’ on properties that will appreciate in value through the project, a smarter approach to parking charges and a reprioritisation of council’s current transport funding – which totals around $650 million a year, not an insignificant amount!
Processing...