LTP and RLTP submission

I believe that the need for alternative funding has been driven largely by the council not being willing to prioritise and cut projects which has led to it having an ever increasing ‘wish list’. I feel that the council needs to do more to work within the existing and not inconsiderable level of funding that is planned to be spent on transport in the region over the next 30 years. I feel there is a problem with how these options have portrayed, particularly that the public impression is that the funding is to pay for a large amount public transport projects.

I note that the majority of the funding is actually destined to pay for roading projects and I feel that this should be made clear before any final decision is made. In saying this I do believe there is a place for some of the alternative funding options that the council has proposed which could both help to raise additional funds and change behaviours which could significantly change the use of alternative transport options. I believe that of the options presented the following are what should be developed further by the council:

1. Tolling New Roads – This should be a requirement for any new road built in the region and analysis of the impact tolling should be required to take place as part of the development of the business case for these roads.
2. Road pricing on existing roads – Serious consideration needs to be given as to how this would be properly implemented. I note it has the ability to provide a high level of income for the council by spreading the charges out over a large base of users.
3. Additional Car parking charges – I support this but believe it would also need a change to the current policy around minimum parking requirements as it would be unfair to charge people a fee when they haven’t had the option to remove the number of car parks that they have.
4. Visitor taxes –  Visitor taxes could be useful but I feel it would have to be clear what the funds were being used for and should be ring fenced to pay for infrastructure that will improve the visitor experience e.g. rail to the airport
5. Airport departure tax – As with visitor taxes it needs to clear what the funds are for and should be ring fenced to help pay for infrastructure that visitors will be highly likely to use like rail to the airport

Summary:

Giving effect to the Auckland Plan:
–   Implementing the patronage targets of the Auckland Plan’s transport chapter
– Achieving the ‘transformational change’ for transport envisaged by the Auckland Plan
–   Prioritising projects in a way that implements the Auckland Plan (generally, not just its transport chapter)

Alignment with Auckland Council’s Long Term Plan:

–   Resolving inconsistencies with the LTP over public transport services funding
–   Resolving inconsistencies in the funding split between public transport and roads compared to the LTP

Project Specific: –   Investigating a busway along SH16 between Waterview and Westgate

–   Ensuring that infrastructure to support the reorganisation of Auckland’s bus network is funded
–   Funding the full integration of public transport fares
–   Removal of a number of projects from the RLTP that actively undermine the goals of the Auckland Plan and of the programme generally

2.     Giving Effect to the Auckland Plan

Page 5 of the Draft RLTP notes that the Draft Auckland Plan was given consideration in the preparation of the document. Since the publication of the Draft Auckland Plan, a number of amendments have been made to it that are relevant to the RLTP. The wording of the Auckland Plan seeks a “transformational shift” in public transport most particularly, but also has a number of targets that relate to reducing Auckland’s automobile dependency. These include:

• Public Transport patronage of 121 million trips by 2022
• Public Transport patronage per capita of 100 by 2040
• 70% of vehicular trips to the city centre by public transport in 2040
• Increasing the proportion of people living within walking distance of frequent public transport from 14% to 32% by 2040
• Increasing proportion of non-car AM peak trips from 23% to 45% by 2040

While most of these targets have a 2040 implementation, I consider that some progress towards achieving them will need to occur over the period covered by the RLTP. Currently the RLTP does not clearly highlight how these targets will be achieved (understandable as many of the targets were not on the Draft Auckland Plan and therefore not able to be incorporated into the draft RLTP) or even worked towards.

The ‘transformational shift’ in transport the Auckland Plan seeks to create is also not carried through into the RLTP to the extent that is necessary. The wording of the Auckland Plan highlights that Auckland’s population growth over the next 30 years will mean that a fundamental shift in the way Aucklanders get around is required – quite simply, it is impossible (and increasingly undesirable and expensive) to continue to build additional road-space to cope with traffic growth. Therefore, a much greater use of public transport as well as the optimisation of the existing transport network, is necessary.

The RLTP, while focused on projects in the next three years in particular, should prioritise those projects based on which ones best contribute to achieving the ‘transformational shift’ envisaged by the Auckland Plan. The prioritisation of project must also complement other goals of the Auckland Plan (not just transport). In particular:

• Providing a transport network and making transport decisions that encourage intensification in places identified as suitable for such development
• Undertaking high-level investigation in proposed Greenfield suburban areas to ensure a different outcome to the ‘car dependent urban sprawl’ that has typically resulted from previous urban expansion

As well as the Auckland Plan, the RLTP must by law give effect to the Regional Land Transport Strategy. The 2010 RLTS proposed a 50/50 funding split between roads and other forms of transport – a funding split that should be given effect to by the RLTP.

3.     Alignment with Auckland Council’s “Long Term Plan”

There are a number of areas where the Draft RLTP does not align with Auckland Council’s Long Term Plan. This misalignment causes confusion around “what will actually happen”, particularly in relation to the funding available for public transport services and the funding split between roads and public transport. The proposed public transport subsidies in the RLTP stay relatively flat over the decade while in the LTP funding almost doubles and it appears that the LTP has just increased current costs in line with patronage increases which is not likely to reflect what will really happen.

4.     Project Specific Comments

I believe that a number of changes should be made to the RLTP’s project list, to better align with a more sensible strategic direction for transport, and to better give effect to high-level documents such as the Auckland Plan and the RLTS.

Projects to be added:

• Investigation and design of a busway along State Highway 16 between Westgate and Waterview, to support the significant urban development proposed for the northwest part of Auckland. This work needs to occur as soon as possible, so that it can inform NZTA’s proposed upgrade to the motorway.
• I understand (from AT Board Papers) that significant changes to the operational structure of Auckland’s public transport network are likely to occur over the next three years. There will be infrastructure requirements arising from these changes, such as bus priority measures, relocation of bus stops, road widening to eliminate bottlenecks for buses, key interchanges (both between bus and rail, and bus to bus). To ensure the success of the changes to the PT network, funding needs to be set aside for necessary infrastructure improvements.
• To properly take advantage of integrated ticketing, implementation of a zone-based fare system is necessary. This may require some funding in the short-term to cover any revenue loss while the system is being fine-tuned.

Projects to be removed:

• The Hayman Park carpark. This project undermines general policies in the Auckland Plan to encourage alternative transport options to metropolitan centres and also undermines investment in the Manukau Railway Station.
• Poorly located park and ride proposals. In inner areas (such as Sylvia Park and Avondale) extensive areas of parking can seriously undermine efforts to align land-use and transport outcomes, while adding relatively few passengers to the PT network.

5.     Conclusions:

Some changes to the draft RLTP are necessary to ensure that it aligns more clearly with the ‘transformational shift’ for transport articulated in the Auckland Plan. In particular, targets in the Auckland Plan relating to reducing Auckland’s car dependency need to be embedded in the RLTP and form part of the project prioritisation process – projects contributing to achieving these targets should be ranked higher, projects undermining the targets should be ranked lower. Auckland has traditionally suffered from having a disconnect between the strategies, policies and goals of its transport documents, and where the money is actually spent. The draft RLTP continues this unfortunate trend, by ignoring the transformational targets it has been set and continuing to spend the bulk of its money on road-based projects.

This submission suggests changes to the RLTP that would ensure it better meets its requirements to give effect to strategic documents like the Auckland Plan and the 2010 Regional Land Transport Strategy. Overall, I note that factors influencing transport patterns are changing at a relatively rapid rate. Rising fuel prices, changing demographics, the need to reduce carbon emissions and the Council’s desire for a compact city mean that our future transport demands may be very different to what has happened historically. The Auckland Plan must be robust and resilient to these changes.

These are really important documents relating to the funding of transport activities in Auckland over the next three years in particular. So make sure your voice is heard.