The big news to come out of last week’s Long Term Plan announcements was a big boost to transport spending over the next three years to be funded through a “transport levy” of $99 per household and $159 per business per year. As Friday’s NZ Herald editorial noted, this was a somewhat inevitable outcome given the Basic Transport programme outlined in the Draft LTP was terrible over the next few years (interchanges to support the new PT network were delayed till 2021, there was no walking and cycling funding for the next five years etc.) while the Auckland Plan network required government agreement on new funding tools, something that wouldn’t be possible in the timeframes of setting the budget from July 1 this year.
The “transport levy” enables an additional capex spend of approximately $523 million over first three years of the LTP period – approximately $170m per year with a bit of inflation for years two and three. This is being called the Interim Transport Programme. Budget Committee documents released on Friday highlight where that extra money will be going – still at a summary rather than project by project level of detail. It generally looks pretty good – here’s a quick overview by part of the budget:
The increase to public transport, walking and cycling is very significant. The report goes on to provide a bit more detail in what can be achieved with the extra funding. Firstly for public transport:
So the new PT network can be rolled out successfully – no more need for stupid compromises like we saw with consultation on the western network. ATs bus priority works can go ahead which should also see significant length of new bus lanes added, the ability to run double-deckers on much of the network and a major programme of improvements to bus stops. What the report says about light-rail is also quite interesting, that further planning and investigation is required before budget can be allocated.
The next area to see a big boost in investment is walking and cycling taking advantage of the Government’s Urban Cycleway Fund:
A $124 million walking and cycling investment over three years is a huge increase on what we’ve been doing in recent years (around $10 million per annum) and a huge opportunity to make a step change in the quality of infrastructure provided for cycling in particular. This should mean sufficient funding is available to fund Auckland Transport’s exciting cycling programme that was discussed a couple of weeks ago. Together with solely government funded projects, or cycling as part of other major projects, more than $200m is proposed to be invested over the next three years.
Increased funding for eliminating the Sarawia Street level crossing, advancing rail to the airport (SMART project) by making sure the new Kirkbride Rd interchange as allows for a rail line in they future (it’s insane that this wasn’t part of the project from the start), ensuring AMETI can maintain momentum (it was essentially paused for five years in the Basic programme) and providing a major boost to safety funding are also big winners from the extra money that’s now available.
Beyond the first three years of the LTP the funding drops back to what was in the Basic – as the transport levy is meant to be a “stop gap”. However, because some projects have been brought forward from the outer years, there’s now some capacity to add in a few more projects to years 4-10 of the budget. These are listed below:
Probably the most interesting addition here is the $43 million for the Northwestern Busway, which is excellent news and responds to the clear need for this project sooner rather than later. With the bulk of the busway likely to be funded by NZTA (as per funding of the Northern Busway), it seems quite possible the busway could start construction within the next 10 years.
Overall, and without yet seeing all the details of the updated transport budget, it seems that there has been a good prioritisation of “what gets added in” with the extra money available. The extra investment in making the new PT network a success and making a step change to the level of walking and cycling funding are clear highlights and mean that this really is a game-changer of a transport budget for Auckland.
Processing...
It is frankly outrageous that a full north-western busway is not being built now, with the current works, given what the northern busway has proven. Namely that adding a parallel Rapid Transit service to a major urban highway is both much cheaper and much more effective than adding ever more general traffic lanes. More effective for moving more people and goods on the route, and more effective at maintaining efficient use of assets, and more effective at providing choice and resilience to the wider city.
Still at least it now nearer that it was, if still not being done properly.
Fantastic that a cycling revolution is on its way to Auckland. And vital that those buslanes and interchange stations are underway. Very good.
Great to see these measures being implemented. I don’t like the sound of “35 speed management” projects. These are for the most part quite pointless and slow things down for cyclists, buses and of course cars. They are typically a minimum of $100k each meaning that’s $3.5m that could be better spent on cycle lanes etc.
They seem to have wasted a lot of money in Mt Eden putting speed bumps everywhere. Why not drop the speed limit to 40km/hr on residential roads rather than keeping the speed limit at 50km/hr while trying to prevent people doing the speed limit.
Would central government have to pass legislation to allow that, or could they do it with bylaws?
I’d have preferred a blanket 30km/h zone myself rather than all those expensive speed bumps around Mt Eden, which seem to actually encourage speeding in places – cars slow down for the bump, then speed up until they brake for the next one. Speed bumps aren’t great for bikes, either, especially on slopes. I misjudged my approach one time on a downhill and ended up with a broken spoke.
In event of an emergency imagine a ambulance going through all those speed bumps… A lower speed limit is may be the best solution
Agreed. Pointless waste of money. Imagined benefits are simply that – imagined. Emergency services hate them and as you say, people speed up between them. Don’t drop the speed limit, simply enforce it. If you have ever tried to drive at 40 or 30 all you are doing is wasting fuel.
30 or 40km is standard in inner-city neighbourhoods in Europe. Means you’re less likely to kill or hurt someone on collision. 50 is unnecessarily fast.
So what is the plan for Dominion road while they decide on whether they do light rail? It looks like it is about to fall apart (needs resurfacing), the intersection with Balmoral road is causing massive delays for both cars and buses (at least needs a change of phasing times, there is almost always a queue for miles up Dominion road with no queue at all on Balmoral Road), the buses are at capacity (double deckers coming any time soon?), the roundabout at the cnr of Denbigh ave just doesn’t work, the footpaths are falling to bits and the general appearance for a major shopping area is pretty bad.
Between Auckland Council and Auckland Transport they have delayed all maintenance and essential changes for about 10 years now, will we see anything done in the next 10 years?
Speed reduction is the single greatest initiative we could be doing to improve safety for all road users, particularly those walking and cycling. Changing the posted speed limits make only a minor difference on their own (typically ~2km/h reduction for every 10km/h posted reduction) so physical measures are often needed to get effective speed reduction. We can be far more imaginative than just humps, e.g. speed cushions can minimise the impact on buses and bikes while still slowing down cars. Or we can also play with lateral widths/alignments and surfacing treatments for other ways to get speeds down.
If by ‘lateral width’ adjustment, you mean what are called chicanes, I can testify that a year or two ago, they installed these in Victoria Street in Pukekohe, which is where I live. The result has been really good. It’s a long straight street, and people used to hoon down it at 60-70, though there are kids playing on the footpaths and stuff. The chicanes have, in my and my wife’s experience, just about stopped all of that. The speed limit is still 50 – and I agree that it’s too fast – but I really doubt that changing the speed limit would have much effect on the speed of cars, if done without any other change.
jj
Any examples of speed cushions? Not a term I’ve seen before.
Oaktree Ave in Browns Bay, plus the roundabout outside the Brownzy have them 🙂
The costs of traffic calming measures don’t improve safety as it focuses drivers attention on the bumps etc rather than other users such as cyclists. They also pose a direct hazard to cyclists and slow journeys for cyclists (or make them leave the road to go around the hazards). For the millions spent on this it would allow a lot more cycle lanes and make the city more liveable with less noise and pollution caused by vehicles going over/around these hazards.
“Cycle lanes” (well, separated cycleways) make absolute sense when you are talking about busy arterials. But they would be overkill on quiet local streets. Unfortunately, many of our “local” streets have still been designed to allow 50km/h uninterrupted 2-way traffic. So we need to reduce speeds (and volumes) to make them perfectly fine for cycling. Not everyone is cycling along an arterial route for their journey; you need local streets to improve the network permeability.
You can design traffic calming so that it is not a hazard/hindrance to cyclists; personally I’ve never felt slowed down by calming treatments, but that’s probably because I’m already doing the typical design speed (20-30 km/h). And traffic calming per km is generally less costly than separated cycle facilities.
Speed humps without breaks for cyclists are not good. Chicanes I love when riding; its a straight line on a bike.
Another advocate for further ruining flow?. Why are you so obsessed with impeding traffic movement? We have reasonable speed limits, people using all forms of transport have to get from A to B, so placing obstructions makes no sense at all.
The flow must flow! Flooow! Flooooooooow!
“Why are you so obsessed”
Hyperbole such as this makes you look demented, mad, idiotic and eluded.
Yes, except for the 250 odd people who die a year on our roads – double the number per capita who die in places like the Netherlands and Denmark where speeds are more restricted and the sacred flow is even more interrupted.
But of course in NZ, human life (especially children’s) takes 2nd place to making sure no car driver ever experiences any delay – other than that caused by all the other cars.
What does ‘renewals’ mean??
jj
resealing.
Maintenance of existing roads, footpaths and other transport infrastructure
Last week the figure for seal extensions was $10mil now it’s $6 mil total? Is that right?
The document above was from before the mayors presentation in which he said he wanted more for sealing.
$6mill total then it seems.
And this $99 is to be levied equally on all households?
Yes, I believe the right leaning councilors wanted a flat levy as opposed to a rates based system. So a little inner city apartment pays the same as a distant mansion despite one being served much more cheaply.
If you’re right about r/wing councillors pushing for flat rate it would explain Brewer’s statement in support.
Obviously unfair but if that’s what it takes to get it through I guess we should be happy. At least “less than $2 per week” makes it an easy sell.
Woops, just reread that matt. ‘From before the mayors presentation’. Could be 10.
Also, guess that depends on your definition of distant and mansion richard.
Presumably “distant” is somewhere still within the Auckland Council boundaries (will the Gulf Islands be paying the levy too?), and “mansion” is any house anywhere within that area.
As an extreme example, I assume Kim Dotcom’s place is going to attract the same $99 levy as a one-bedroom studio in the central city.
And another extreme example would be the shack on Great Barrier Island.
So what is the plan for Dominion road while they decide on whether they do light rail? It looks like it is about to fall apart (needs resurfacing), the intersection with Balmoral road is causing massive delays for both cars and buses (at least needs a change of phasing times, there is almost always a queue for miles up Dominion road with no queue at all on Balmoral Road), the buses are at capacity (double deckers coming any time soon?), the roundabout at the cnr of Denbigh ave just doesn’t work, the footpaths are falling to bits and the general appearance for a major shopping area is pretty bad.
Between Auckland Council and Auckland Transport they have delayed all maintenance and essential changes for about 10 years now, will we see anything done in the next 10 years?
How does the Interim Transport Programme compare with the Essential Transport Budget?
The only way to have the Transport Levy would be to COMPEL Mayor Len Brown via Writing that He and Council WOULD NOT utilize the Transport Levy for the CITY RAIL LINK! Mayor Len Brown has a “Fixation” with the C.R.L at ANY COST and could easily commandeer the Transport Levy to suit HIS Spending Priorities. ZERO TRUST from Public toward the Len Brown and Council who Cary out far too much behind closed doors and a “Highly Political Council” at best.
You’re in luck: I guarantee the transport levy won’t be used for the City Rail Link. Because the CRL was funded anyway, even under the Basic Transport Plan, with no levy.
The CRL was planned before Len was elected, and all major candidates for the next mayoral election support it. Good thing, too, because it’s the single most important transport project in Auckland, and decades overdue. That’s why it’s funded under even the Basic Plan.
Tusitala, e tatau ona e faitau muamua faamaumauga ae aua le osovale. The CRL was already funded well before this transport levy came up.
Thank you.
On this issue, I appreciate Mayor Brown’s willingness to listen to the majority of Aucklanders and push forward the CRL. Opinion polling has consistently shown that an overwhelming majority supports the project:
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/11/19/aucklanders-want-the-crl/
transportblog.co.nz/2014/09/27/public-continue-to-want-better-pt/
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2015/03/24/the-aa-and-the-long-term-plan/
Furthermore, I’m heartened that the major mayoral candidates, such as Cameron Brewer, are also voicing support for the project.
“a “Highly Political Council” at best”
What does that even mean? They are elected politicians. Of course they are gonna be highly political about stuff. Sigh.
Quite right Max; but then you have Penny Hulse (an otherwise sensible person) stating that we should keep politics out of housing! Ridiculous statement. Everything but everything is political.
Would someone ask Tusitala to stop SHOUTING? It makes him look rather childish (or I should say, even more childish).
The CRL is the highest priority transport project for Auckland and has backing from all Parliamentary Parties that poll >5%, from all Mayoral candidates and the majority of Council and the majority of Aucklanders. It has been planned in some form or another for almost 100 years, since the Morningside Deviation from the 1920s was being debated.
It is so important that it is included even in the Basic network. This fee won’t pay for it.
It isn’t Len Brown’s rail link. It’s Auckland’s Rail Link. The Mayor is a great cheerleader for it, but he’s far from being alone.
No mention of Pukekohe electrification. Was that just an accidental mouth fart by Len on Friday?
That should be, like the busways, a central government project. Given it is clear we need more trains too, which is a sign of success, both Puke electrification and more EMUs should be rolled up together in a medium term package.
My question wasn’t when other people thought electrification to Puke should happen or which government should pay for it. It was whether it is Len’s intention to do it soon? His words on Friday seem to contradict with the words in this post.
I’d heard the same thing about it being included in this extra short term funding talk from last week.
yes I’m really saddened by the slowdown on this front: Electrics to Pukekohe would be grand for a whole load of reasons, e.g. remove need for transfer at Papakura, new stations, Drury P&R, get rid of all diesels etc etc.
Electrics to Hamilton too.. one day!!
The other game changer is Gen-Y’s move to urban living. “The supply of housing [in Sydney] since March 2011 has been 36 per cent detached houses, 19 per cent townhouses and 45 per cent units”. So more users of inner city PT.
http://www.theage.com.au/business/the-economy/apartments-townhouses-continue-to-drive-australian-building-approvals-20150504-1mzb3y.html
Gosh, that extra cycle funding is exciting. I have been in cycling advocacy for over 7 years now, and this is the first time we aren’t either looking at combatting cutbacks, or fighting for small increases, but realistically looking at a big boost. Let it be the start of something huge!
Great isn’t it Max. Let’s wait for it to be official, then Champagne!
Pop that champage! Just been approved by Council.
Yep, we’re going to be very busy at Cycle Action, Max. Oh wait, we already are….
I just noticed mention of Bus Lanes (second) coming to Remuera Road in the first section (point 13(a).
That one line will *really* set the Orakei Local Board and its lead minion, Cameron Brewer, going, they’ll simply go absolutely apeshit at that suggestion.
They hate the fact now that those existing priority lanes are not “T2 lanes”, which is what they’ve always wanted. Might as well be the One Ring the way they carry on about them – as in “My precious T2 lanes, my precious”.
So, the thought of them being snatched away by all those nasty little Hobbits in AT to become Bus Lanes, well that’ll be enough to make them want to throw someone or something into Mt Doom in protest!
Facts of the matter are that Remuera Road should already be nothing but Bus Lanes, it should never have stopped being bus lanes after ACC amalgamated.
This current “T3 lane” bullshit there, is just ATs smoke-screen exercise until AT get enough balls to stand up to Brewer and co and tell the OLB to shove the T2 lanes up their arse and accept its Bus Lanes.
Furthermore, when these need extending and joining up in the next few years I can imagine even more howls of outrage from the OLB and their “rate paying” businessmen/shopkeepers whose customers can’t park right outside their premises now because its a clearway – but who equally don’t want that to become a bus lane as that will attract even more “traffic” through their suburbs.
If the OLB and their crony supporters had any smarts, they’d stop all this bellyaching right now and instead lobby AT long and hard to get Remuera Road included in the LRT program as an offshoot of Manukau Road LRT routes.
Agreed, the trams need to be the promised end result but the bus lanes need to be sold as the necessary precursor to build patronage
Great to see how this has ignited a debate. Great article.
yes, I’m really saddened by the slowdown on this front: Electrics to Pukekohe would be grand for a whole load of reasons, e.g. remove the need for transfer at Papakura, new stations, I’d heard the same thing about it being included in this extra short term funding talk from last week. You can design traffic calming so that it is not a hazard hindrance to cyclists. personally, I’ve never felt slowed down by calming treatments, but that’s probably.