The big news that the Council will be pushing back its preferred start date for the main part of the City Rail Link was not a huge surprise – aside from the enabling works the project’s probably not practically ready to start so quickly, even if funding support was available from Central Government (which it’s not). However, this is hardly a “win” on any account, as reduced spending on CRL in the next few years doesn’t free up money for other projects – as we stressed last month. This is because CRL doesn’t have an impact on rates until it opens, and it apparently is the level of rates income that constrains the transport budget.
So what does the rest of the transport budget look like? Looking at the details, the result is quite a mess, particularly during the first five years. This will become a core part of the big LTP question around whether the public wants a much larger transport programme and if so, how we’d prefer to pay for it (rates & fuel tax increases or a motorway toll). Hidden away at page 252 and 253 of the November Budget Committee agenda (27MB PDF) is the 10 year transport programme (although this is from before yesterday’s decision to delay the CRL):
This reflects the list of projects “above the line” in Auckland Transport’s ranking of all projects and reflect’s what’s possible in the “Basic Transport Network”. I don’t have a huge concern about the project list itself, although there are a few pretty low value things in there like Mill Road. The issue is more about the timing and sequencing of the programme – especially in the first few years.
You’ll see a number of important projects in there that are based around supporting the new public transport network that Auckland Transport are implementing over the next few years. Projects like the Otahuhu, Te Atatu and Manukau interchanges. Or the necessary improvements to Wellesley Street so it can cope with becoming the main east-west bus route across the city centre. The big problem is that these projects don’t appear to be funded until 2021 or in some cases (like Wellesley Street) even later:
This is a pretty insane situation, especially for projects like the Otahuhu interchange which is utterly fundamental to any implementation of the new PT network in the south. AT have started on the project but it seems they only have enough money for early works and design. The other big issue is the walking and cycling programme – which appears to be the line item “W+C Programme Risk Management”, that doesn’t have any funding at all for the first five years of the budget period.
The numbers at the bottom of the table above tell a rather strange and difficult to understand story about the total amount of funding available for transport over each of the next 10 years, jumping all over the place from a low of $453 million in the 15/16 year up to a whopping $978 million in 20/21 before dropping back down again significantly. The CRL numbers will change a bit, but remember not the rest of the programme.
But even within the funding envelope available, it seems that Auckland Transport has made some strange decisions around the timing of projects. Why is Albany Highway such an extremely high priority that it sucks up nearly $40 million in the first couple of years? Why is there no funding for AMETI, then one year of funding, then no funding again? Some of the project costs raise questions too – how does a Te Atatu bus interchange cost $46 million? How can a Wynyard interchange cost $25 million and a Downtown one $24 million when a Learning Quarter interchange only costs $8 million? Should we really be spending $171 million on the Reeves Road flyover?
There seems to be an expectation that the “Basic Transport Network” is just an academic exercise, with the public supposedly hugely in favour of the motorway tolls scheme (or higher rates and fuel taxes) that will “save the day”. I’m a bit sceptical about this – the government has not greeted the tolls scheme warmly and the public seem to be screaming even about the proposed 3.5% rates increase. We could very well be stuck with the Basic Transport Network for the foreseeable future, which means it needs a hell of a lot of work to ensure the new public transport network doesn’t fail, to ensure momentum on the walking and cycling programme is not lost and to finally make some tough decisions around whether we should be spending $143 million on Mill Road, $171 million on the Reeves Road flyover or $135 million on the East West Connections project.
The currently proposed budget is just a sticky mess that seems almost designed to fail.
Processing...
saw the CRL stuff of course in the herald and the interchange concerns in the local paper this week too
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/business/63936594/Transport-delays-for-South-Auckland
from the purely local perspective re the interchange stuff – I agree with your points the interchanges
and the proposed changes really do need to go hand in hand ………
Is it because these projects are not endorsed by the petroleum industry i mean nzta.
How about bringing forward the red light camera spending, surely that would be revenue positive given the way Aucklanders drive.
Has PenLink disappeared or has it been renamed/absorbed into something else ?
There seems to be no recognition of the feedback process than better bus infrastructure leads to reduced operating costs, increased patronage, and higher farebox recovery. For example, there is no bus priority investment until FY21. What is the target date for a 50% farebox recovery set by the government ?
Yes ‘sticky mess’ indeed.
What’s the bet that closer to 2020 other roading projects push ahead of public transport infrastructure.
They just want to seem to take PT seriously, but set it up and fund it in such a way it is doomed to fail. Then they can say: see, we tried PT and it didn’t work. Back to more roads, sprawl and congestion!
Looks like Dominion Road isn’t going to be started until 2017 now (they keep saying ‘construction will begin next year’ every year). So I guess the chances of getting light rail in 2030 is very close to nil now (they will have only just finished the current upgrade by then!).
This ‘super city’ is a complete flop.
AT have demolished half of the new and very expensive walk bridge at the south end of the Otahuhu platform, I assumed because of the Otahuhu bus/rail interchange. Now from that table above it is due for completion in 2021? So what then, an incomplete construction site until then? When did this decision take place and who are the idiots in council who decided this was a good idea. Something is seriously wrong with this “Super City” model.
I’m relieved however that in this illogic more flyovers are in the mix, right at the time AC want to demolish the one at Eden Tce as its unsightly and the Waterview interchange/mess blots out the skyline.
I might add that the loss of the Titi St pedestrian bridge now means that those passengers left, who can be bothered with the extreme inconvenience, must walk half way along Salesyard Rd to get to the only other entrance. But don’t worry lower class citizens, you just might, if you are very good, get it back by 2021. Nice one Auckland Council, massive fail.
In terms of capacity it is rail,bus then car.This new bus network has the potential for benefits never seen before. Hopefully functional not over the top and flexible.Hope even considering minimal markings like symbols only as when patronage starts to soar could create even more width available for separated cycle like beach rd.But right now our best chance is to get it up and think trialing sometimes as good as any.I’m thinking symbols as even some places might be shared or exclusive truck lane 2 address their needs also.In terms of enforcement $100 direct to police social club and $900 to rail projects.
The budgets seem bad and are think the key thing is a mandate for public transport to have priority in the network 4 speed the rail stations are still there. AT manage the local Roads yes or no?They have control over road maint budgets which incl roadmarking and signals. Time to show what a fast well connected network can do try on the fly 1000 buses moving can do a lot if they have priority 20circuits better than 3 or 4.
Matt L thanks for doing this article.
This blog is in desperate need of this sort of financial analysis. Congrats on authoring this piece.
We do this kind of analysis all the time and a large part of ideas we’ve produced such as the CFN was based on the poor financial performance of the the current plans and us seeking to get better value from it rather than the build everything approach that the council push.
What a disgraceful budget. Even if CRL is delayed, the new otahuhu, manukau interchanges would transform public transport in south auckland. Now those are delayedvto 2021. What a joke.
The PT network needs 2 consider cost , ease , long term keeping costs down. Road resurfacing or changing layouts needs 2 be quick and easy which is why coloured surfacing is wasted money.
I am concerned about the cost of the interchanges when really this about a fast and ideally rapid transit network.What is the opportunity cost of waiting 2 years to citizens, economy and environment when this could be done over the next 2 months. We have the buses, have the plan,have the road even now integrated ticketing. This really will be a big thing I’m sure of it.
My only concern about the costs of the new interchanges is if they skimp on them so much that they’ll need re-building in a few years. The value in New Lynn, Panmure, and what will be in Otahuhu and Manukau is huge. These are, or should be, very long lasting assets that will have millions of people passing through them for years and years, and ought to be be built well and once out of durable materials utilising best design practices. They are vital to the economic performance of the city.
Cost cutting and delay on these is very very short sighted.
I agree they will be a great asset. But right now are we making the most of the pt knowledge and resources yes or no why not put up 99 % of the network now and adapt best of what is there right now around those drop off points.
This is crazy. Neither are huge costs… we could build all the interchanges by delaying one arterial upgrade. The buslanes and the interchanges are both vitally needed for the New Network to work. Just need to take a pause on the massive road overbuild programme and play catch-up on PT for a few years. Then reassess the whole city’s systems again to check on priorities. pretty confident we can lower road capex costs by getting this PT upgrade right; it will reduce pressure on the road system.
Again I agree but think we could launch now it will stop unnecessary road building dead and boost rail
If the mayor was supportive we could implement by end of Jan entire bus network.Setup a posting 4 each street based on ATs plans.
To setup these bus circuits will not take much within the existing road.In terms of the missing interchanges we can create a short term fix (while the ultimate gets built)making the most of the roads around the rail stations. Manukau will be easy. If we launch it will be a game changer with 40 years bent up demand.We just need a mandate it is doable for peanuts combined effort with AT-no capex reqd.Or we can keep looking at budgets like this and plans on paper.