Real Debate in the Herald, at last.

Two interesting articles in the Herald this morning. Both a refreshing change from the largely silly and scaremongering level of the debate about Auckland’s future in that publication and other parts of the mainstream media recently. 

The first is about the future of the Port including its impact on the city. Great to see a private logistics company stating the obvious about the port:

Mainfreight boss Don Braid says better rail and use of an inland port should restrict the need to reclaim more of the Waitemata Harbour.

Mr Braid, the Herald Business Leader of the Year for 2011, is unconvinced by the case from the board and management of Ports of Auckland on the need to fill in more of the harbour.

And

Mr Braid said he was frustrated at how reliant the port was on moving containers by truck and the lack of rail.

“If you are running an efficient port with an efficient transport network feeding it in and out, then you have a very good chance of being able to use the inland port to help with the overflow and restrict the additional land the port might well need.”

Very hard to see this as anything other than good sense and good business. Land in South Auckland has got to be way cheaper than trying to make the stuff out in the harbour. And there clearly is more capacity on the rail line, although the future amplification of the Eastern Line must be protected, especially as passenger demand on the AK network is showing no sign of halting its dramatic climb.

Also he makes the second obvious point that a level of proper government led strategic control needs to be exercised over this whole industry, to co-ordinate our investments in this vital area. Let’s hope ideological prejudice doesn’t prevent this equally sensible idea from being exercised:

He also wanted to see a national port strategy to stop spreading limited capital over 13 ports “fighting for a little piece of the action” and an end to Auckland councils “raping and pillaging” port dividends instead of reinvesting in greater efficiency.

I’m still struggling with the mixed messages out of the Port company, which I have to say looks increasingly poorly run. I mean which is it?: Either the port is being run out of business by evil unions and the under-bidding of Tauranga or it’s booming like a Chinese subway and they demand to be able to pave the entire harbour….? Such a missed opportunity that proposed merger with Tauranga in 2006, then there would at least have been co-ordination for surely the upper North Island is effectively one market for the movement of goods at this scale.

Interesting though that council ownership doesn’t seem to help much, in fact may muddy the council’s thinking and actions. Torn between wanting that return on investment, and doing right by the city and citizens….?

The second is more problematic. On the one hand Michael Barnett of the business owners union appears to be completely on the money, especially if you only read the headline:

Len Brown’s vision needs funding, ideas and urgency

I fully agree, 2030 is a ridiculous wait for the urgent need to balance Auckland’s distorted transport infrastructure pattern. To still only really have road based transport as the one widespread network in our biggest and growing city would be a disaster in 10 years let alone 18. Len Brown is showing every sign of being worn down by relentless opposition to his sensible vision for Auckland. Especially the bullying obstruction from the government, who of course jealously hold all of our taxes, the money required for intergenerational investment. His Anniversary Day speech was timid, he’s exhibiting a bit of Stockholm Syndrome I’m afraid, getting very defensive. So isn’t this good?:

Mayor Brown’s estimate that we have until 2030 to get an integrated transport solution in place to avoid unacceptable day-long congestion has to be seriously questioned. There are major bottleneck sections in the motorway network – for example at Mt Wellington and Constellation Drive.

Well no. Because Barnett’s idea of an integrated transport solution is simply more and more motorways. He goes on to say:

NZTA commissioned research in 2007 for the east-west corridor indicated that if a strategic solution is not in place by 2020, the whole route will be gridlocked most working days. Yet there are no firm plans or funding to get the project under way.

And finally the killer; the line that has been used again and again by the the road building lobby for years in Auckland: completion.

The point: The economic and social benefits of the major roading investments Auckland has made over the past 15 years will not be realised until these gaps and weak links in the network are tidied.

Really Mr B, will there ever come a time when you and your members will agree that we’re done here, that to build anymore motorways would only trap every individual and business deeper into auto-dependency, congestion, and uncompetitive transport costs: Time to build that long planned complementary rapid transit network to free up the existing and lavish motorway system? Because it is clear to any detached observer of Auckland’s motorways that the last missing link, the last gap in the network, is now consented and about to be built: the Waterview connection. Especially when you add all the millions of dollars of extra work also funded and occurring on SH1, and SH 16. No, to create an integrated transport network we need to urgently invest in everything else, and not spend anything much more on motorways. We have pretty much built nothing but motorways for 60 years in Auckland, many of them twice, and very little else. So to get to an integrated system we have to play catch-up with the other modes. It is absurd to believe that we could afford to spend to the degree that Barnett is urging.

And remember the investments that have been recently made in the RTN network, the Northern Busway and the rail system, are paying of handsomely: the busway is delaying the need for further huge spends across the harbour and rail use keeps booming: at an outrageous 384% since before Briotmart was opened. Again saving us from trying to expensively accommodate ever more cars onto our narrow isthmuth.Reading though and it is clear that Barnett is being more than a little sly, is he urging the government to get behind Brown’s programme?, to free up our transport capital to support the council’s wishes? Oh no. His real agenda is to say sweet words about the necessary public transport plans of the council but then to launch into a vast list of road projects that he knows have a far greater chance of being funded under this current government, simply because they are roads, not because of their relative value. Could it be that that Mr Barnett’s Forum and the lobby group NZ for Council Infrastructure Development that he quotes are really more interested in us funding everything on their lists for the sake of their members’ balance sheets than objectively having the city’s and the nation’s best interests at heart?

So yes it is time to fill in the missing gaps in this growing city’s infrastructure, but those gaps are not road shaped. For example, if we need more connection across the Waitemata Harbour it must be by the modes not currently supported by the infrastructure. We need to be able to walk and cycle. But most importantly this missing link in the RTN network does need filling and happily this means saving billions of dollars compared to building yet more car lanes across the water. See this analysis and do the math Mr Barnett: next Harbour Crossing. Because surely your members can build other things than just motorways?

Share this