There was an excellent op-ed in the Herald yesterday by Auckland Chamber of commerce chairman Michael Barnett related to the Integrated Transport Programme as well as the debate surrounding the issue of funding. The herald piece missed off the last few paragraphs so here it is in full from the Chamber of Commerce website.
If a business plan was signed off by the Board of a listed company knowing that it set out an investment programme that would deliver a negative result, there would be one outcome – they would lose the confidence in their investors.
The just released Integrated Transport Programme predicting worsening congestion in Auckland even if we find the extra $400 million a year needed to finance the Auckland Plan’s transport projects falls into that category. It charts an unacceptable future for Auckland.
The document that was signed off by the Boards of both Auckland Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) should concern Aucklanders and have them look at our political masters, who signed off a 30-year Auckland Plan from which the transport programme has been compiled. Isn’t their job to provide the leadership for building a thriving Auckland, and for which transport is set out in the Plan as an enabler?
The one saving grace of the Programme is that it is honest. It plainly states that even with the $25 billion invested to build by 2021 projects like the Central Rail Link in the central City and AMETI and East West Link in south Auckland, within 30 years Auckland’s road congestion will be worse than current levels in cities like Sydney and Melbourne, which already have much larger populations.
But it offers no solutions. At the moment Auckland cannot even fund the transport infrastructure investment programme we have agreed and want to do, let alone the further initiatives needed to head off the worsening congestion long-term.
Auckland needs and deserves the certainty of knowing we have a transport plan for the long game.
As I view our situation, at all levels, the decisions that need to be made right now are business-like leadership decisions – and the ground has never been as well prepared as it is now for a leader to step up to the plate and make the big calls required.
There are four things that need to happen – and fast.
First, while Aucklanders debate how to fill the $400 million a year shortfall needed to finance the immediate Auckland Plan transport projects, Auckland Transport and NZTA – our transport infrastructure and service providers – need to be demanding and seeking a much improved business-like performance from the existing transport system.
Train and bus services must be re-organised to run on time and become reliable; they must lift their game and not leave passengers waiting at stations and stops. Auckland Transport must quickly introduce integrated timetables between train, bus and ferry services, provide secure parking for cars at suburban bus and train stations, and ensure train fares are paid. They must micro manage a much improved performance from the bus and rail systems.
With some trust and certainty that these micro improvements make a real difference, I am confident thousands of Auckland commuters would leave their cars at home – and would be keen to do so.
Second, the funding shortage debate must be brought into the real world.
The debate has quickly revealed a preference for a user pay approach – network tolls or a cordon – rather than increasing rates. There are two parts to the debate – to find revenue to ensure major projects are built within the Plan’s timeline, and to bite the bullet with congestion management scheme by 2021 to head off the predicted worsening gridlock.
However, we are starting this debate without knowing what we are going to invest in or what level of return we will get from making this investment. We are not planning the funding solution in a business-like way.
The business case for the major projects has not yet been done, so there is no informed way to confirm what the measurable benefits of the projects will be.
It is remiss, surely, to promote a debate on options to raise the $400m/yr to invest with no idea of the likely return. It is like going to a banker seeking a loan for a million dollars without disclosing what the money will be used for.
Of course, the first question the bank will ask is: What do you want the money for? And the next question will be to determine whether the return on the investment is sound – does it stack up?Third, there is no way of knowing what the rate of return to the economy has been from the billions of dollars invested in Auckland transport infrastructure in recent years – either roads or public transport – the work to make this assessment has not been done.
In general, returns on investment will depend on the nature of the projects themselves.Judging from improved traffic flows where new motorway links have been built, suggests that the investment has been value for money. The Western Ring Route corridor benefits were calculated to be $1.40 for every $1 invested and something in the order of 1500 jobs.
Similarly, shifting Auckland’s main railway station into Britomart has seen a big jump in passengers regularly using rail.
But even though some $1 billion a year has been invested in improving Auckland transport infrastructure since about 1990, there is no firm, quantitative basis for claims about the impact of this investment on Auckland’s economy and growth. We don’t really know what it has done to boost Auckland growth and productivity.
Fourth, we must stop talking about the cost of transport infrastructure and manage it as an investment.
Auckland’s contribution to New Zealand in dollar terms is significant. A 2006 study indicated that some $18 billion in revenue being paid from Auckland against which about $14 billion was returned to Auckland in services and investment.
There is no argument from Auckland about the huge central government investment going towards the Christchurch rebuild. But when you look deeper into the NZ Inc performance, you see that its economic engine room – Auckland – which generates a third of the nation’s GDP and provides a third of its employment, is still performing well below the bottom line.
Next week’s Budget is expected to confirm NZ Inc is on an official track to budget surplus by 2014/15, a stable government (i.e. business-like leadership?), and low-levels of public debt compared to our peers in the Northern Hemisphere.
And if we deduct the cost of the investment NZ Inc is contributing to the Christchurch earthquake recovery, then the country as a whole is doing fairly well.
Assuming the business case for Auckland’s major transport projects show a positive return for the Auckland economy, it is then reasonable to ask why central government shouldn’t underwrite a fair share of the investment – which is what it is, an ‘investment’ in Auckland and New Zealand’s growth-led future.
The scale of the investments required is clearly beyond Auckland Council’s rate payers. A substantial central government input will be required, and that is the call our Mayor and Councillors should be focusing on – encouraging government to do what it is obviously going to have to do.
They have a choice. They can let Auckland’s transport congestion get progressively worse and only act when the problems become intolerable, or they can take a business-like response and plan, invest and advocate for investment in delivering a long-term solution.
We all know the problems. We all know the solutions. We all know what actions are needed. And we know who should be in charge of taking the decisions.
Our leaders.
And dare I say it again – it’s urgent!
As Michael kind of notes, the real problem and funding gaps stem from the Auckland Plan. The Auckland Plan is meant to be the vision, the document that lays out the out level outcomes that we want to achieve and rough strategy we need to get there. For the most part it does this very well however when it comes to transport, the politicians couldn’t help but fall out of the sky and start naming individual projects that needed to happen. This left us with a massive wish list and more than a few projects that are likely never to be justifiable and/or that actively work against many of the goals set out in the plan. Because these projects were specified in the Auckland plan, they were then fed into the Integrated Transport Programme unsurprisingly poor results.
Those same projects also created a funding gap of $10-$15 billion. This led to the creation of the consensus building group (CBG) who were tasked with finding the best solutions to bridge that gap however the CBG were unable to question the projects on the Auckland Plan wish list. To me that leaves the entire exercise seeming almost like a waste of time.
As Michael suggests above, we need to actually go back to the start and work out which projects we can build that will lead to a positive outcome. It is likely to mean that many projects on the existing list simply get chopped off or replaced by different ones that provide a better overall outcome. We also need to acknowledge that we simply cannot solve congestion by building more roads. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t improvements to the existing roads that we could make to make them more efficient but it won’t solve the long term issue, as Patrick said yesterday what we feed grows. Only with a proper reassessment of our transport projects can we really then start to have a conversation as to how much extra funding, if any, is needed. At that point the work already done by the CBG will come in handy.
Overall I think it is an excellent piece from Michael and there is only one small part that I don’t agree with him on which is the part about ensuring carparking at train and bus stations, an issue Stu addressed last week.
Processing...
That list of motorway projects sure is long and the costs massive when compared to the paltry and comparatively cheap PT projects proposed.
I don’t get what central government are trying to achieve with the meddling they are doing with Auckland at the moment. The fact that the CBG were told that the list of projects was set in stone and that the money had to be found from somewhere and, that the list is basically being dictated by central government it just smells wrong. I would like to believe they have some master plan that will benefit us all but the longer I look at it I wonder. I have tried getting some good information about what is driving this but so far I only get the same stuff back. I do wonder if there are any politicians left that remember the money they are playing with is from the people they are supposed to represent?
“I don’t get what central government are trying to achieve with the meddling they are doing with Auckland at the moment.”
They are trying to consolidate even more power in Wellington, and shore up their own agenda, by disrupting alternative concepts that could be seen as successful if left to their own devices.
They are making sure their mates in the road construction and haulage industry are happy.
Yep. And to goose GDP. And of course it’s not an actual investment since it doesn’t reduce our personal spending on simply getting around. Spend more money to spend more money = insanity.
Are cycleways being “wrapped” into these roading projects? The cycle network alluded to in the Cycling on Sunday post seems to tick all the boxes in terms of a massive return on investment and the relatively low initial and future capital cost. Would have also thought the amenity improvements and wider economic benefits (e.g reduced oil imports) and potential jobs (e.g cycle manufacture) are things Auckland/New Zealand needs. A few carparks at the further out stations would be good – especially if they start having things like grocery pick up services in the future!
No the cycling network is separate.
Matt’s statement is both correct and incorrect. “The” cycle network – the Regional Cycle Network – is a distinct project, with its own funding stream (though comparatively, it is closer to a funding trickle).
However, many (if, these days not most) of the large roading projects also have some good, in some cases, very good, provision for cycling. AMETI, Waterview, Albany Highway – all these have cycling components that would be almost impossible to fund with the current system. But because they are wrapped in a larger package, they become both more viable (less costly), as well as less likely to fall afoul of the ridiculously low cycling funding pot.
Thanks. Guess I was leading to whether the $600m or so for a decent RCN could actually be even lower if AMETI, Waterview and the Albany Highway had cycleways with provision for integration with a RCN. The deferral of SH1 6 laning Orewa to Albany is standing out as a source of funds for this.
At the very least it should be cut down to Albany to Penlink.
Penlink should be cut from the list anyway.
My guess is “not really”, as progress on the main regional cycle network is so slow, without these other projects it would slow down to almost nothing (compared to the target length and quality – we’d still be building on key sections a 100 years from now). We need these opportunities to saddle on other projects – but we also need a dedicated cycle network project & funding to close the gaps where no other projects are planned.
Saw they are making some pretty good progress on the GGCW when I was o that side of uni today.
I have a nitpicky point about the first two paragraphs of the op-ed, in the sense that it’s fairer to compare what happens in 2041 if you do nothing vs. if you do the plan, rather than compare today to if you do the plan (which is what Michael does).
That kind of comparison is also made by the government in dismissing the CRL, because they say congestion gets worse even if the CRL goes ahead.
But it’s a very well thought out column on the whole. And the fourth paragraph, where he raises the point that congestion would be worse than in the larger cities of Sydney and Melbourne, does sort of justify that earlier comparison… because we need to think, hey, why are we accepting a worse outcome for Auckland’s future than those cities have?
I have an issue with the congestion levels of single occupant cars being the measure of success. The point of the transport programme of work should not be to try and achieve unhindered movement of single occupant cars at peak times. It should be to achieve the efficient movement of people and freight.
If the outcome of the programme of work moves thousands of people more via public transport, then that is a significant positive outcome.
Exactly. The CRL will solve congestion completely for tens of thousands of people, who can not only move through town at 50 km/h, but don’t even need to stop at intersections.
Absolutely right Cameron, sorry I omitted that point!
What exactly are all those road projects anyway? $820 million on a few sections of Great South Road? $665 million on the Albany Highway? There’s $2,500 million marked for “other urban arterial upgrades”. What on Earth are they planning to do that could possibly cost that much?
The Albany Highway is almost entirely for safety purposes, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists it is really dangerous at the moment and given that there are around 10,000 students on or within 500m of the road it needs to be done, also it is about a 6km stretch and if you look at the page it is a pretty hefty project to support an emergent metroplitian centre.
Well, the website http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/improving-transport/albany-highway-upgrade/Pages/albany-highway-north-questions.aspx says that they’re doing that at the moment – four-laning, cycle lanes, wider footpaths etc. all for $70m. So what’s the other $595 million for?
My concern is that we’re being asked to pay for a vast array of stuff that we know nothing about. How can we decide whether that spending is worthwhile if we don’t know what we’re getting?
That is exactly the point Michael is making. Do we go blindly into ‘how to raise money for transport’ or should we maybe first look at the quality of the spending first?
No idea? The project you linked to is actually the easier half of the project, there is also Albany Highway South, I can only asssume at that cost that they are redoing the motorway bridge?
I look at all the proposed extra roading for the North Shore (the only area that I know reasonably well) and I say, “Liveable city – you have to be joking!”. More motorways will inevitably lead to more congestion in our suburbs and the central city. The further this mayoralty goes the more I think this slogan, “the world’s most liveable city” was just a very clever marketing ploy. Not that I am advancing the cause of his oponent.
Part of this obsession for motorways seems to be driven by the premise that Aucklanders need to drive everywhere. I think that this belief is held because Aucklanders feel they have to drive everywhere. Our planners have not made it easy. The North Shore Leisure centre can not be accessed by pedestrians from the main road, largely it seems because no one thought that this was important. Ironically people (have to) drive to the Takapuna Leisure Centre. However if it is important to us we can demand better access than simply by car.
I thought I would experience Auckland’s train system on the weekend as I have not done so before. (ok not entirely true – used the Sushi train near the waterfront a couple of months ago). I wanted to take my son to Waikaraka Park. We rocked up to Britomart and went to buy a ticket. I had already google searched the route. To my amazement the ticket seller said, “where is that?”. The speedway I said. “Is that out west?” she said. She went on to say that in seven years she had never been asked what train to get there. The reason that I am gob-smacked is that this is a reasonably easy trip by train and then by foot. (I can only imagine that people don’t take the train because what self respecting petrol head would). Although a direct route from the station to the park would certainly take much of the walking out of the trip.
I have to say that the cost from Takapuna to Te Papapa is really discouraging compared to what it would have cost us to drive. I guess integrated ticketing will help that.
I am impressed by how good the trains are. Yes they are old and they are slow compared to systems overseas. How does our narrow guage affect that? And electrification will help no doubt. Post electrification there seems a real possibility that they will become far more popular.
One train per hour to Onehunga -just magic!!!!
Does anyone from Remuera ever use the train? It seems not.
One thing that is apparent is how successful rail to the Shore is likely to be. The busway is already so successful. I was somewhat surprised and yet wasn’t that at 5pm to the city and 11pm on the way back the bus was full. Imagine how passengers would view a service that doesn’t become gridlocked on Albert or Fanshaw on the return journey.
Quote taka-ite … Does anyone from Remuera ever use the train?
From what I have observed there plenty of Kings College traveling by train to school from the ‘leafy suburbs’ and back but not many of their parents going to work by train however. Looks like a case of ‘do as I say but not as I do’?
Hopefully these kids will grow up as real people and actually catch the train because it quicker and easier, and better for the environment, and better for the cit, and cheape for the city.