Auckland’s first electric train arrives

We are happy to have the views of all candidates covered here, especially discussing their views on transport and urban form. Some of what Minto says in that article we would support, for example:

‘He points out that experts agree that road-building cannot avert total gridlock in Auckland…’ [although not quite how I’d put it]

But others show that he doesn’t really understand the issues:

For this reason, Minto is not in favour of immediately removing minimum parking requirements for business and homes, which some argue would make for cheaper housing. “There are families living way out west or south who currently need three, four or even five cars. But this will change once free public transport becomes a reality.”

Removing MPRs does not mean removing existing parking or even the end of providing more parking, but just getting distorting regulation out of the parking supply market, and removing one layer of cost for some future dwellings. The need for five car households should be addressed by providing real viable alternatives to always having to drive rather than forcing more wasteful parking everywhere. And this is a far more effective way of addressing transport poverty than trying to help people park the cars they can’t afford to run.

On housing too he raises a non issue, as the vast supply of detached housing for large families in Auckland is not going away, but rather we face a growing shortfall of dwellings more suitable for the growing numbers of smaller households:

Minto has no problem with the idea of intensification, or that Auckland should be growing “up” rather than out. But he insists that low-income families will still need stand-alone housing. “Families need wide spaces to grow up in – they’re not growing to grow up on the sixth floor of an apartment building.”

I also disagree that Auckland’s transport woes can be fixed by simply making the current public transport service free for users. I do agree with aspects of this question. I agree that cost of fares is a very important issue and a barrier to use for some. I agree that Auckland’s fares are often too high for the quality of the service offered [and are among the highest in the OECD]. However that the high quality Transit system Auckland needs can be ushered up while at the same time spending much much more on operating subsidies is hard to believe.

If households are running five cars then cost isn’t the thing that is keeping off Transit, but rather that using Transit just isn’t a viable option for many basic journeys in Auckland now, especially higher value work journeys. So I argue that Minto’s own example shows that cost of fares alone isn’t the first problem but the quality and utility of the system is.

Fixing that problem is the more urgent issue, which requires funding from as many sources as possible, and fares not only provide a source for that but also are part, I would argue, of the social contract that enables acceptance of the remaining subsidy by non-users.

So it seems that his phrase “Free and Frequent Public Transport” is more likely to mean in practice “Free or Frequent PT”. Very hard to see both happening at once. And i don’t think that a crappy but free system will actually help the people Minto is hoping to.

But still a realistic and coherent fares policy from AT, however, is also urgent.

I am glad someone is running on this platform as it is a very interesting idea, and perhaps targeted subsidies [other versions of the Gold Card for example] may be more likely to be a workable solution to transport poverty if for no other reason than they can avoid the pitfall of middle-class capture and that the cost would then fall where it should, in the national welfare budget.

I agree that Transport Poverty is a less visible part of the problem of Housing Unaffordability and that they need to be understood as part of the same issue.