In May the AA created the first issue of a newsletter highlighting infrastructure issues in Auckland (5.5 MB). The AA say they have 1.4 million members nationwide of which 900,000 are personal members and of those 285,000 are in Auckland. Between November 2013 and February 2014 the AA conducted two different research projects to obtain the views of many of their members through two research projects on issues like infrastructure priorities and how to fund it.
The AA say:
Auckland Members want better infrastructure for all transport modes, and they want it sooner rather than later. They believe their city has been held back by an infrastructure deficit, and are excited to see new projects brought into the frame that could ease congestion, provide transport alternatives, and energise the city.
However they also say that while most members have heard of a one or two of transport projects in the current ITP, most don’t fully understand them. This line also gives a good clue as to why people support large scale projects even if they don’t stack up economically.
There is a tendency on the part of Members to assess large-scale projects not on the basis of economic costs and benefits, but rather of civic pride and the potential to raise Auckland’s international profile.
I suspect the RoNS are also affected by this sentiment, some people think they must be a good idea even though many of them don’t stack up.
While people were generally supportive of building everything – like Len Brown is – and thought tolls were the best option to raise additional revenues to pay for projects, perceptions changed when more detailed discussions about funding actually happen.
Also, 60% of Auckland Members would rather scale back the infrastructure programme than help to fully fund it. On average, those Members say that one quarter of the $200 million per year infrastructure funding shortfall should be met by programme cut-backs (though no specific projects were identified). Members who are less financially secure say one third of the shortfall should be met in this way.
This is similar to some of the thinking we went through when coming up with the Congestion Free Network. We asked ourselves what could we do if we didn’t/couldn’t raise any extra funding and what the best projects we thought would be to give the biggest impact overall to transport in Auckland.
To raise money tolls were the most favoured option however the AA say that’s also because their members think there should be a free alternative route. They also seemed to agree with tolls on the motorways simply because they think they can avoid them, presumably by using local roads and clogging those up even more. This is of course perhaps the key issue with the suggestions of road pricing that only covers some routes. In my mind if there is ever to be a road pricing scheme it will have to be more than just tolling motorway on/off ramps and that will likely mean a much more expensive scheme. I also believe that it’s critical we have some decent alternatives to any road pricing which would mean at least the current suite of PT projects, the CRL and a decent number of walking and cycling projects. On PT and active modes the AA say:
Though there is no question about the status of the private car as the default transport mode, Auckland Members strongly favour increased investment in Auckland’s public transport (particularly rail) and active modes.
There is a tendency to see public transport as symbolic of the shortcomings of the network, but also of the network’s potential.
Due to concerns about personal safety or the level of convenience, however, actual usage remains low. Interestingly, there is no evidence among Auckland Members of status-based attitudes standing in the way of greater use of public transport or active modes
I do think that Aucklanders are increasingly aware of the urgent need to get the ‘missing modes’ improved. Yes lots of people drive and lots will continue to do so even if we built the CFN however I think many more will change if the options are there and we’ve been seeing that change happening with the investments that have occurred over the last decade or so. The great thing is also that rather than being standalone improvements, each investments currently happening generally multiply top of each other to deliver a vastly better result. As an example the new network and integrated fares are both great projects that will help to boost patronage however together they work to fundamentally change the PT experience in Auckland. It’s also pleasing to see that the last sentence that there is no evidence of status-based attitudes. That’s certainly the impression I get even today when catching a bus or train and seeing the wide variety of people who are doing the same.
Lastly the AA has provided some “high level recommendations for officials”. These are summarised as:
- Auckland is ready for the conversation
- Expect a tough road ahead
- Be prepared to have the hard conversation
- Heed the warning signs
- Keep it flexible
All up it seems a very balanced newsletter from the AA and I think it’s useful addition to the discussion and it will be interesting to see what they come up with next.
Processing...
‘Auckland Members strongly favour increased investment in Auckland’s public transport (particularly rail) and active modes.’
Well that pretty much leaves the current government as the only people who don’t want this….
AA Quote (from above): “Auckland Members want better infrastructure for all transport modes, and they want it sooner rather than later. They believe their city has been held back by an infrastructure deficit, and are excited to see new projects brought into the frame that could ease congestion, provide transport alternatives, and energise the city.”
Matt commented:
“However they also say that while most members have heard of a one or two of transport projects in the current ITP, most don’t fully understand them. This line also gives a good clue as to why people support large scale projects even if they don’t stack up economically.”
I suspect that many people support the large scale projects they have heard of, because they don’t hear about the myriad of smaller projects, and therefore assume that when the “big” projects are announced (or talked about in the media), that is all they’re ever getting in the way of infrastructure. So of course, if Auckland AA members feel cheated in the infrastructure “race” with other NZ cities, they will accept any old gift horse on the basis that “anything is better than nothing”.
Without any counter-information, how would/could they think or make choices otherwise?
What is needed from the media, AA included – (through good information from Council, AT, NZTA, and of course the dear old Central Government), is clear concise information, including the trade-offs/pros and cons of the many options, and then a way to have their input and have it considered before the final decisions are made. Then be able to reconsider/change things down the track once earlier projects have been completed or external events dictate otherwise.
Not really that much to ask these days is it?
As for Big projects being a source of civic and perceived international pride, thats probably true to an extent still in the transport planners thinking.
But whether the country as whole still swallows that 60s “You can’t stop Progress, and isn’t it wonderful” gee-whizzery – it is a different matter altogether.
And just like the current muddled thinking by the politicians over the “strategic voting” goings on (or not goings on, depending who you listen to) in various electorates for this election.
I think that the Politicians (and news medai as well) need to realise that the “people” are more sophisticated in their thinking and understanding than many think.
Lastly to follow on from Patricks comment about how the Politicians don’t yet get it, here is a plagiarised political slogan from 42 years ago:
“Its Time for Change – Its Time for a new Minister of Transport”.
This is a big step forward for the AA and a tribute to the robust discussion and analysis carried out on the CRL and other PT projects by this site and at times by AT and Auckland Council. Hopefully the AA can continue with their dispassionate documentation, analysis, and presentation of their members views in future issues of their Auckland Infrastructure Issues newsletter.
I resigned my membership of the AA years ago because I considered they had become a redundant organisation. I believe they had great value for motorists in the more pioneering days with up to date road information,maps and their breakdown service etc
At the time of my resignation, you could buy equally good or better maps at your local stationer,road information was unimportant and if you bought a new car it was warranted, more than likely, for around 3 years by the dealer, even if he did have a breakdown arrangement with AA
Two other things annoyed me with the AA. They purported to represent my (member) views to government re motorways and other things with which I did not agree. Furthermore they started promoting all sorts of member deals for services and products for which I had no use or preferred to make my own mind up about.
Finally they deserted the insurance association with the New Zealand based AMI for the present Australian based provider although the Christchurch earthquake has changed all that.
That funding gap graph has some surprising results! People would rather pay a $1 toll (more than $400 a year if you pay it both to and from work) or a $5 congestion charge (more than $1000 a year if you pay it work daily) than a $33 rates hike! Can only assume the people who voted for those options are the ones that wouldn’t have to pay them – PT users, retired, cyclists, and more likely, those that don’t work in the city and/or don’t take motorways.
Personally I’m against tolls in a city mainly because they penalise those that currently have poor transport options while those that have always had good transport options continue to do so for free. Also they are inefficient compared to rates or fuel tax.
I drive from Mt Roskill to Penrose (I would take PT but the options are currently awful), so I doubt I would be hit by a toll or congestion charge, but I would still prefer the rates rise or fuel tax options.
Exactly the current problem with Auckland’s PT – unless you want to be funnelled through the CBD to get anywhere, you’re screwed. I don’t know why we have this obsession with having the CBD as our transport hub, but people need to get across the city too, not just into the centre and back out.
One big reason is because if you take thousands of people off the roads who only go to and from the CBD every day, the road network for people who do drive (for whatever reason) is far clearer.
Here’s an example: consider how much easier commuting is during school holidays; someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but that difference in traffic is something like 5-10%.
The figure I heard from the old ACC was that ARC estimated that 40% of the morning peak trips were education related when schools were in (this was about 8 years ago now).
So if you say, ok come School Holidays a lot of the trips still happen, just not at the same time as the school timetable requires.
So 10% volume drop sounds too small , and 40% drop at holidays too high, so somewhere in the middle like 20% difference?
Also note, even if you drop by 10%, it is spread more evenly over that 2 hour AM peak period from 7am to 9am instead of all lumped around the 7:30am to 8:30am or whatever time window it is,
So the spreading out of the same or similar volume can have just as big an impact as the dropping off of the absolute numbers travelling in the peak i.e. the peak becomes less “peaky”.
Our system is very focussed on the CBD, but it’s always going to be the best location for a transport hub: central, and the biggest destination anywhere.
Cars work best if they get spread out, but PT doesn’t follow the same pattern. You generally get the best trip times with high frequencies and connections, rather than direct but infrequent routes.
That said, Auckland’s New Network has a bus route between Mount Roskill and Penrose (via Onehunga) that will run every 15 minutes or better all day, which should help JimboJones.
This is one of the issues that the New Network will address: new direct + frequent cross city routes, connecting with other high standard ones, especially the rail network, non-CBD movements will be way easier and better. But remember that the frequency and quality of many of those services still rely on the demand pull of the centre; win/win, and will be even better with zone fares so not paying more for transfers. Check out the NN map here, for all the new cross city routes and clever connection:
https://at.govt.nz/media/309352/AT-Schematic-Southern-POST-Consult-Sept-2013.pdf
Note JimboJones there is a direct Mt Roskill to Penrose Frequent service coming.
Also the CRL, although all the new work is in the CBD will enable all sorts of fast and frequent non CBD trips, like say the Eastern Suburbs to Eden Park.
There already are two direct routes, the 008 and the 009. The 008 goes from Mt Roskill shops but I would need to catch a 258 to get there – I assume that is basically the route that will be every 15 minutes. It goes to Penrose station but I work more towards Ellerslie meaning I would need to catch a third bus. All up I imagine it would take at least an hour, which is a lot longer than my 20 minute drive. The 009 is much better for me but it somehow takes 40 minutes from Richardson Road to Penrose, it seems to stop in Onehunga for ages on the way. I imagine that will never be frequent.
To be fair I doubt any city can provide good PT options for everyone – I was just explaining the reason why I drive…
Agreed, PT will never serve all trips, but through increases in density along good PT routes, and improving PT connectivity the proportion will increase. Cycle infrastructure will also help as that is actually a relatively short ride if the roads are safe.
I think a lot of people struggle to understand this (not necessarily you).
A lot of people don’t realise how little money tolls raise once the running costs of the tolling system are deducted (especially if cash is allowed).
That $33 a year on your rates bill is probably about as efficient as it can get money raising wise, and it may well take a $400 annual toll (at $1 each way) to get the same amount of net money to the council.
i.e. of that $400 you’d pay, $370 odd is swallowed up in running costs of the toll system.
So, if users were asked, would you pay $33 “annual levy” that covered all your usage, or $1 each time you used the road, many people would say hang on if I make more than 33 trips a year I’m better of with the annual levy.
But of course, many people also think that $33 is the “year 1” levy and that it will go up (like all rates do) at or above inflation forever, so within ten years the annual levy is now $103, whereas tolls once struck tend to stay the same for a while. So while the $1 each way toll may seem a bad choice, in the long run it may not be as bad as you assume.
The system that supports the Puhoi tunnels tolls can support other tolls, and its return rate is considerably better than the 7.5% you suggest. From memory it’s returning more than 50c/$1, and that’s with that one toll installation having to repay not only its own costs but also the costs of developing and installing the back-end computer system. More installations will spread those back-end costs more thinly and mean an even better return.
Your point about the rates being the most-efficient way to collect the money is still made well, though. Even at a 75% pass-through, you’re going to have to toll a lot of people to get the same amount of money that spreading the love across all ratepayers achieves. Plus, all ratepayers benefit from a well-functioning transport system, even if they don’t wish to acknowledge such, whereas only billing people who have to go through a toll cordon means it’s not as equitable overall.
Yes, but then you need enforcement as well, the Northern Gateway toll road is simple to toll, its in a single location over 1 motorway with no scope to easily avoid paying.
The biggest cost of the methods of paying for the toll (cash at the booths or online or by phone etc). I recall discussion that the transaction cost of the payments was at least 50 cents for every dollar paid, let alone the cost of the actual system installed above the roadway.
Imagine that sort of system spread all around Auckland roads, and all the non-payers who will register their cars to false/incorrect addresses to avoid the tolls being collectable by council and how much money on collections they’ll spend for a city wide system.
And depending on the type of system it is (“pay when crossing the cordon” or “pay if you drive anywhere in the area” based system), then all sorts of ways around it will be found by would be toll avoiders.
So the rate of collection will drop, but the cost of running the system will go up exponentially as you add more toll nodes, as don’t forget these can all be vandalised if they are on city streets.
So tolls are not quite the panacea they appear to be – if they were we’d have them in NZ already I’m sure.
> the Northern Gateway toll road is simple to toll, its in a single location over 1 motorway with no scope to easily avoid paying.
The same would be true of any tolling system or congestion cordon. You need a big pile of signs and cameras at every entry and exit point, but the enforcement method is the same: via recording your numberplate and chasing you up legally if you don’t pay.
> all the non-payers who will register their cars to false/incorrect addresses
I’m sure there’s people who think that sort of trick actually still works, but government departments have shared information like that routinely for more than 20 years. Once it gets to the point of debt collectors or legal action, you need to go to some serious effort to avoid The Man knowing where you live. At an absolute minimum, you need to not own any real estate, not have a tenancy bond or utility bill in your name, and not be getting a benefit.
And that’s just for small fry. For people who rack up large debts the police are going to get involved eventually, and they have much niftier tricks, including and not limited to “tracking your cellphone” and “asking your Mum”. Plus, presumably you’re still driving around in the same car with the same number plate. When you pass a cop car with an ANPR scanner, you’ll get pulled over.
We live in a fairly effective surveillance / database state, and have for a long time.
> then all sorts of ways around it will be found by would be toll avoiders.
You need a large number of cameras, but it’s still an achievable task, especially if the cordon is designed around choke-points. Other cities have cordons, and have managed to make the net tight enough to stop most people slipping through.
> So tolls are not quite the panacea they appear to be – if they were we’d have them in NZ already I’m sure.
We mostly don’t have tolls for exactly one reason – they are really unpopular. Hence the tolls on the Auckland and Tauranga harbour bridges getting abolished as election bribes. But in Auckland I think people are gradually coming around the the point of view that tolls might be worth it if it provides some more funding for transport.
“…but government departments have shared information like that routinely for more than 20 years…”
Maybe, but given the number of mail items I get from Government departments (NZTA included – but not the only one here, a recent one was from NZ Post to a former employee!) addressed to people that have never lived at my address, seemingly because the street I live on has a few others with the same/similar name in various former Auckland Councils all with different postcodes. And these government Depts all appear to use the same “flawed” address matching techniques, so end up matching it to, and thus sending it to my address. So that wouldn’t be much of a help to let NZTA or their agencies track down people who don’t want to be found and can’t in fact reliably contact the people who do want to be found on their databases.
“We live in a fairly effective surveillance / database state, and have for a long time.”
more like “we live in a fairly effective surveillance society / with out of date databases and matching techniques, and have for a long time.”
“Other cities have cordons, and have managed to make the net tight enough to stop most people slipping through.”
Yes, and one of the issue that was raised years ago when a toll cordon/area cordon was raised was the issue of people going into/out of the cordon by the back door so to speak.
I am quite certain if there is an incentive to avoid paying for crossing the official cordon lines, and two neighbours with back to back properties that cross the cordon border could easily make themselves more than a few bucks by letting people drive through the cordon through their properties without paying an official toll.
Quite do-able, and was one obvious reason its not in place now.
Motorways, well you can’t sneak on to/off of the motorways easily, but a central isthmus cordon for examples would be full of holes (either man made or natural).
A cordon with holes in it is not much use for capturing revenue or discouraging SOV driving is it now?
“But in Auckland I think people are gradually coming around the the point of view that tolls might be worth it if it provides some more funding for transport.”
As long as they think everyone else will be the ones paying them, they are fine with them. When they’re the ones paying, thats a different story.
> So that wouldn’t be much of a help to let NZTA or their agencies track down people who don’t want to be found and can’t in fact reliably contact the people who do want to be found on their databases.
They step up their efforts when they actually give a crap about finding you. If you don’t want to pay your thousands of dollars in outstanding tolls, it doesn’t really matter whether letters reach you or not, since you’re ignoring them! What matters is whether process servers, debt collectors, or the police can find you – and they rely on personal smarts in conjunction with a lot of data, not a simple automated process.
> I am quite certain if there is an incentive to avoid paying for crossing the official cordon lines, and two neighbours with back to back properties that cross the cordon border could easily make themselves more than a few bucks by letting people drive through the cordon through their properties without paying an official toll.
There’s a tiny number of properties (mostly commercial) that would really have that option, and it’s hardly something you can advertise or charge for sneakily. Have a guy with a bucket taking cash? It doesn’t seem like it’d be worth your while unless you were charging a similar fee to the congestion charge itself. Maybe you can tip off a few dozen neighbours and friends and get away with it, but that’s hardly the end of the world for the congestion charge.
Sure, you might get someone whose driveway happens to meet up with a rear neighbour and knocks the fence down and sets up a toll gate and so on. But if loads of motorists start taking a weird detour down side streets then taking one-way trips into a driveway, the council’d notice pretty quick, particularly since they’ll be looking out for tricks just like that.
You also pick a cordon line to judiciously avoid gaps and reduce the number of cameras you need, taking advantage of natural barriers like rivers and the harbour, artificial “barriers” like motorways, railways, and parks, and looking at what’s built on private property to check whether those sorts of holes are possible.
Have a go at drawing one around the isthmus. You’ll find that you can do almost the whole thing with cameras on the bridges over the Waitemata, the Whau and Tamaki rivers, Avondale stream, and Otahuhu creek, and you’ve only got a few kilometres left which can run almost entirely through parks (where you can chuck bollards up, if needed) – not coincidentally, both those parks are on “Portage Roads”.
Or do the CBD. You use the motorway designations themselves as the barrier lines, plus the railway line around Vector Arena. That’s almost the whole thing. You’ve got a bit more work to do at about Carlaw Park, but I reckon you can do it without crossing a single bit of private property.
> A cordon with holes in it is not much use for capturing revenue or discouraging SOV driving is it now?
I think even a really, really half-arsed cordon will catch 95%, and a decent one will catch more than 99%. Either of those numbers is going to achieve most of the objectives of the cordon.
Glad to see that AA are starting to move on from their previous vocal opposition to rail in favour of rubber-tyred public and private transport.
If the AA respects the views of their Auckland members, why can’t our central government respect the views of its Auckland consitutents when it comes to transport?
I was seriously considering not renewing my AA membership because of their previous dogmatism, but this rethink on PT is welcome to see. Let’s keep working on the AA to keep the momentum going.
As for the central government – their inner circle is not interested in anything or anyone that doesn’t suit their view of the world (i.e. through the windscreen of a ministerial BMW). If you care about Auckland transport issues you’ll vote for a change in September.
I was thinking the same about my AA membership. Thankfully I filled in the above survey and hey….
I agree with Warren S. What is the purpose of AA membership in the age of google maps and cars that never break down? How is it possible they have 1.4 million members? Also if they’re going to change their tune to be PT adthen they should consider giving up the name Automobile Association.
Well no so fast Simon. What this response shows is that many people who primarily or even only drive implicitly understand is how the city having high quality alternatives to driving benefits them when driving.
Getting those reluctant drivers off the road, especially at the peaks, those forced into driving because there is no good enough alternative, will greatly improve remaining drivers’ experience.
It is perfectly rational to want to see investment in Transit and Active yet have no intention to leave your car. But it is also likely that many are now entertaining the idea of using alternatives themselves for some journeys, perhaps their commute, or perhaps they are thinking about their kids getting to school, or elderly relations getting more freedom.
Then there is, we hope, the understanding that having a high quality Rapid Transit Network will allow the city to prosper in the years ahead and they, even as motorists benefit from that too. These people travel overseas a fair bit so experience of other cities is a likely source of this kind of view.
I’m happy for there to still be a motorist club if that’s what people want.
Cars that never break down? Flat battery is the biggest callout, followed by flat tyres and lost keys…
Yes, that’s all fine PR, and I agree that investment in PT can benefit drivers whether or not they use it, and that might explain why the AA is advocating for other modes. However, none of this explains why almost 1/3 of NZers and a much greater proportion of driving NZers woud pour their money into annual membership fees. These fees are going to breakdown assistance and maps which they don’t need and have only recently been put toward PT and active mode promotion. I find it curious.
Motordom’s long tail.