As Matt wrote yesterday, it’s clear that central Auckland is becoming increasingly important for employment. So that’s good news for the City Rail Link, right? Well, it’s probably fair to call it mixed news.
National’s ‘support’ of the CRL came loaded with a lot of conditions. They wanted to delay construction until 2020 – five years later than the Auckland Council wants. They said they’d consider starting it earlier, but with two fairly tough conditions:
- Public transport patronage had to start increasing towards a goal of 20 million passengers a year.
- Employment in the CBD had to be on trajectory to grow by 25%, half the increase discussed in the City Centre Future Access Study.
Matt took a good look at these conditions back in June – check out his post here. He mentioned that the employment condition was going to be tricky.
Well, it’s now looking a bit trickier – probably – although this depends on a range of factors, which I’ll look at tomorrow. For now, I’ll use the most common definition of the CBD, which is (more or less) the area bounded by the motorways.
In the last couple of years, the CBD was adding 5,000 employees a year, but the latest data from Statistics New Zealand shows a slowdown in the year to February 2013. The CBD added just 1,590 employees, to reach a new high of 91,130.
Auckland CBD Employment, 2000-2013
Employment growth was pretty slow for Auckland as a whole in the last year – growing by just 1.0%, or 6,290 employees. The CBD increase of 1.8% is actually not too bad in that context. New Zealand employment grew by just 0.6%. But this still isn’t helping us get towards the targets which National have set.
I’m hoping that employment growth improves in the next year as the economic recovery continues, but there’s a long way to go unfortunately.
More people are working in the central city (including the CBD), and that improves the case for the CRL. But in terms of National’s conditions for support, the latest data will probably make them harder to reach.
Processing...
Isn’t a lot of this dependent on your assumption of what the CBD is. Matt’s slightly wider boundaries showed much higher growth. I think wider boundaries are sensible given the CRL has Newton Station in the city fringe and K Road station which is accessible from Ponsonby Rd area.
The choice of definition is important – more on that soon.
“The CBD increase of 1.8% is actually not too bad in that context. New Zealand employment grew by just 0.6%. But this still isn’t helping us get towards the targets which National have set.”
Nicely subtle John, yes the issue is the disingenuity of the government conditions, not some [hoped for] lack of attraction of the City Centre as a vital heart of economic activity.
Interesting to compare with the grand claims for the RoNS which are, we are told, being built in order to stimulate economic activity, but the CRL must somehow have its outcomes magically appear before it gets built. This is like refusing a patient treatment unless they make a full recovery first. Roads, to the government, are creative, but rail can only be reflective [if of any value at all]. Next we can expect Brownlee to say that because the AK CBD is outpacing the rest of the country it doesn’t need any investment. A version of the medieval witch test: if she drowns she was innocent, if she floats she hangs.
But of course the most egregious aspect of the CBD employment condition is that it continues the myth that the CRL is only for the CBD, that it has no effects anywhere else, it doesn’t transform the whole network, free up the roads for buses and cars, improve the whole frequency and performance and therefore utility of the whole PT system, enable new non- or through CBD trips therefore connecting various areas more quickly and efficiently than before… etc. Basically freights this government’s distrust and fear of urban life and monomanical belief that the only value comes from unrestrained resource exploitation and the gaming thereof….. so it goes.
“Next we can expect Brownlee to say that because the AK CBD is outpacing the rest of the country it doesn’t need any investment”
More like, Brownlee will say that because the AK CBD (using as narrow a definition as is legal) is outpacing the rest of NZ, its needs more investment all right
– but this should be in “MOAR ROADS” not “MORE RAIL”.
Fred- there is no assumption as to where the CBD is delineated- Council says it’s 3 census areas- City West, City East and Waterfront (without bothering to hunt down the real names).
It is exactly as it is in the map above. The reason to delineate is important and it has different rules than the adjacent suburbs- e.g. Tradesman can make as much noise as they like from 7 a.m. as opposed to the 7.30 sleep in we get out in “the sticks”
Get real Geoff, those are just three census districts designed purely to split the population p into similar sized chunks. It bares little relation to the actual edge of the city centre. For example you’d be a complete moron to claim that the Whittaker Place apartment towers or
The southern side of K Rd (but not the north) were outside the CBD. It’s not even aligned with the council definition of the CBD, very far from exactly as it is above.
Good point Nick- didn’t see the actual S and E boundaries!
“Within the motorway wall” is the easy explanation I guess.
The Council’s definition of it has an easy to follow version just here-
http://www.aucklandcity.govt.nz/council/documents/district/maps/b091.asp
(and adjacent maps natch)
My point is that there is a defined CBD And of course that you’d be a moron to lump a bunch of adjacent suburbs in with it.
Luckily we don’t have to…
That’s true about the CBD, but you’ll note notamy people talk about the CBD anymore. Council documents tend to use the City Centre, defining it in terms of land use and form rather than where some engineer in the 1960s decided to put a motorway.
We can still start in 2015 if we kick National out in 2014.
Indeed. But we still need a plan for the worst. If the economy is really turning around, National will get to play their “good economic managers” card and the sheep might actually believe it.
We can start in 2014 if we kick National out in 2014.
Election isn’t til November unfortunately.
Not necessarily. If Banks gets convicted of the charge he currently faces his seat is declared vacant and National loses its majority for confidence and supply. We could have an election in the first half of the year, potentially.
I could see him seeking a stay on entering the conviction until an appeal could be heard, given the consequences of his being recorded as convicted, but I’m not sure the Court would be willing to entertain a stay when an appeal can take years. If a stay was granted then we’d probably be left hanging on until whenever Key decided to go to the country.
Poor old John Banks . Bet he lasts a little longer than the mayor of Toronto.
But not much longer.
“If Banks gets convicted of the charge he currently faces his seat is declared vacant and National loses its majority for confidence and supply.”
No they don’t. National + UF + Maori have 63 seats which is well more than required in a parliament of what would be 120 seats. Then there would be a by-election which National would be almost certain to win, taking them back to 64 seats out of 121. National received 64% of the party votes in Epsom in 2011 so it seems unlikely the seat is going to swing to the left.
At the moment, the Government has committed to building the rail tunnel and it is the Council that is dragging its heels announcing how they intend to pay for their half. Does that change if Brown resigns or is forced out over the reference or the other matters for which he is being investigated? If so, Aucklanders have the opportunity to vote for someone who can deliver more than just talk. The fate of Banks matters not one jot to the rail tunnel. The fate of Brown does.
Obi, it is not beyond possibility that there’s some resentment from the voters of Epsom that they were made to look foolish at the last election with the mad hatters tea party stunt, and that they are embarrassed by the antics of John Key, and that they would vote on public transport issues, and many people in the electorate would benefit greatly from the CRL. Plus there is the generally on the nose aspect of a tired government. It isn’t guaranteed that it would vote National at a by-election.
I meant -embarrassed by the antics of John Banks, not the antics of John Key (although that’s a possibility).
“it is not beyond possibility”
True. But there is probably a higher probability that aliens will arrive and offer to cut a tunnel for us using their laser guns. Goldsmith and Banks secured over 80% of the candidate vote between them last time. Electorates don’t come much safer than Epsom, National are still riding high in the polls nationally, and the economy is starting to take off.
Obi, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that the Maori Party would declare its C&S relationship with National null and void if they remained the sole votes that kept Key in power, though you’re correct that I’d forgotten that the Maori Party sold out their constituents and signed a C&S agreement after 2011 as well as in 2008.
Even so there is no reason that the start on the build of the CRL tunnel section from Britomart to Aotea can’t start in December 2014 – if the consents and all are in place.
Especially as its cut and cover that far, so don’t need a TBM.
Interestingly is you use the wider CBD definition (in yesterdays post) we were actually right on track to meet the 25% increase.
Even using this data, with a base at 90,000 thats only 22,500 growth. That is 2800 a year, or looking at percentage terms were need 2.8% growth per annum, or in year one 2500 to be on track.
I am sure once the EMUs come on stream properly, and the redevelopment of the downtown area and around the Tank Farm area gets going that there will be more than 2800 new jobs a year in a few years time, more than wiping out any current shortfall of new jobs.
Even so, it would be good to be able to show this sort of growth from year 1.
However, what I also think will happen is that more of the existing 90,000 worker who work in the CBD will move to using PT once the EMUs show their efficiency.
So while the jobs growth may lag the required growth levels, actual PT use will not, and will probably exceed the growth you would expect to get if the 2800 new workers per year only used PT to get to and from their jobs in the CBD.
But of course – that doesn’t meet the current Gov’t target as they demand more jobs not more PT usage before they’ll open the coffers.
As Matt implies, National’s “conditions” for bringing forward the start-date for the CRL are so arbitrary in their purpose, yet so tailored in their near-guarantee of unachievability, that they should be recognised for what they are. A clear indication of National’s true intention not to proceed with the CRL at all. After all, they have a “Think-Big” roads programme to fund. Supposing the CRL conditions are miraculously met in a year or two’s time? Will National suddenly re-prioritise the CRL ahead of their cherished motorway schemes? No!
Come 2020 and if by some bad fluke National are still in office and their grandiose highway plans now in full-swing, what are the chances that in the midst of funding the inevitable cost-overruns, they will suddenly find funding and enthusiasm for CRL. Zero! There will surely be some new excuse for not proceeding, or a further roll-back of the start-date, or a further set of conflicted conditions.
If we want this thing to go ahead, National at least in its present form and with its present make up has to go. We deludie ourselves if we believe that their about-face, seeming show-of-support for the CRL is anything other than a crafted, and crafty political ploy.