How Auckland’s transport system develops and how it is paid for is probably something that will be debated until the end of time. That doesn’t mean we should just sit back and endlessly debate it though. Almost everyone agrees that something needs to be done to and it seems many are even prepared to pay extra for it.
If there’s one thing that’s been clear for many years now it’s that Aucklander’s want more choice in how they get around. Many have either travelled to, lived in or come from other cities around the world that provide residents with greater transport choices and have therefore seen first-hand the benefits greater options provide residents. However in Auckland they primarily turn to the car as for most that’s the only realistic option for getting around. The car might be preferred by many but a lot of people would love to have options and that’s come through in survey after survey. The most recent case of this was the Long Term Plan where the feedback was overwhelmingly in favour of focusing more on public transport and cycling. The desire for more transport choice was something the AA noted too in their survey.
It’s this strong feedback that is almost certainly a factor in the majority of the council’s Interim Transport Programme – which is possible due to the new transport levy – going towards PT and active modes.
However the transport levy is only meant to be an interim step until a longer term funding solution can be found. During the LTP the council consulted on taxes and rates or tolls on motorways. I was quite surprised that just over half supported the tolling options in some manner – although that could also be an outcome from the binary choice that was presented.
To be honest I’m not a huge fan of motorway tolling – or at least not what was proposed. That’s because I feel that just targeting motorways is likely to have a number of large side effects such as pushing a lot traffic that would otherwise be on the motorway onto arterials and then making it more difficult to roll out PT and cycling initiatives. A road pricing scheme that was more focused on getting the most out of our entire road network by better managing demand rather than a scheme focused primarily on raising revenue seems like better option to pursue.
Unfortunately it doesn’t seem like any kind of alternative funding method is going to get much support from the government. They’ve previously signalled they don’t like the idea of tolling or other ways of raising taxes which is why the council adopted a transport levy. Now it seems they are ruling out the toll idea completely with Radio NZ reporting that Transport Minister Simon Bridges has written to Mayor Len Brown saying the government is unwilling to even consider the idea.
This stance is really quite absurd. It’s not like Auckland was just asking for a huge wad of cash the government but instead just to be allowed to raise funds in a new way to pay more projects itself and the political risk in doing so sits firmly with the council, not the government. It makes me wonder what the government is so afraid of, that it will be so successful that Auckland improves faster and better than they’d like.
I’m not sure if this is just the reporting or if it actually reflects Bridges/the government’s views however if it’s the latter it’s concerning that he seems to be suggesting that the only role in PT is in reducing congestion rather than it enabling greater access to the wider city. It reflects that the government seem to see PT only as an option of last resort for the poor or those that can’t stand congestion rather than it having the ability to be a mode of choice. One such example is the Northern Busway which now gets high usage all across the day thanks to the investment to give it a congestion free and therefore a time competitive route.
He’s proposing a year-long negotiation with the council on an agreed 30-year programme focusing on reducing congestion, and boosting public transport where that reduces congestion.
Of course Len Brown seems to be acting like nothing’s ever happened with Radio NZ reporting that he still thinks the government might eventually change their mind and approve it. I think he’s dreaming if he thinks that and also if he thinks the government is going to respect the council’s transport plans. In fact given the time-frames involved it seems more like the transport accord is more of a way to buy some time on making a decision.
This news comes hot on the heels of a report from the OECD suggesting that Auckland/the government needs to consider road pricing but to help manage the congestion. They also note that more PT would be needed to give people more options and the ability to avoid the costs. Note: there’s quite a number of concerning aspects of the OECD report which I’ll cover in a separate post.
Processing...
Can the council introduce tolls on local roads or would that require the government to change the law, Something like Londons congestion charge?
No. Local government can put forward a Local Bill but it has to go through Parliament in the normal manner. Usually the local MP will lead it. Parliament then debates it and votes on it so it needs a majority to pass its readings.
I should have said that you can toll a road under the Land Transport Act but it requires an Order in Council which means the Minister has to advise the Govenor General to approve the tolling. Route K in Tauranga was done by a Local Bill. Either way if the Government of the day doesn’t support the idea you are stuffed. Then best way forward is to get people to understand the benefits of road pricing so the government will want to support it. But it is one of life’s hard sells getting people to pay for what they think is currently free.
How many of our politicians actually lived any length of time in a NZ city with decent public transport – where it’s not a poor, inferior second choice?
If they had, I can imagine things would be very different .. but with our current transport minister being from Tauranga, well… he’s way out of his league and he’s in control of stuff he hasn’t an inkling of an understanding about. Transport backwardness is actually the thing I find most irritating about the National Party.
It’s not just that people would prefer transport options, it’s also that they are wise to. With the population of Auckland heading inexorably up and the isthmus on which the city is built and straddles getting no wider, no matter where these new people live; out or up, if they and the current residents have only got roads and cars to move with soon no one will be going anywhere.
It’s either add those alternative modes or it’s increasing gridlock. Even the MoT and government must understand that at some level, but do seem to be having a hard time letting go of their deeply held prejudices….
I find it extraordinary that someone would rule out road pricing, the only policy measure that’s effective in reducing congestion, and then turn around and talk about how they want to focus on reducing congestion. Boggles my mind.
It only reduces congestion if alternatives are available, after the CRL is built it will become more appropriate.
Actually it reduces congestion even if there are no alternatives. One choice is always to not travel. But it is better if there are choices. In Auckland there are plenty of buses you could choose to ride on or you could ride a bike or walk or move house or get a job somewhere more convenient. We are spoiled for choice.
Another choice is to travel at a time when the charge is lower i.e. off peak.
Yes, the Government’s position could be summarised as: All congestion reducing measures will be considered, except those measures that are effective at reducing congestion. The Government’s transport policy is looking all the more shambolic as time passes: We’ve had the largely ineffective RoNs programme followed by the one-way bridges in Northland bribe.
Meanwhile, Auckland Council has consulted on a long-term regional spatial plan and possible funding options. The general results of this consultation are clear: Aucklanders want, and are prepared to pay for, better transport in general, and better public transport and walking/cycling in particular. Hence the Council has voted for a targeted (and temporary) transport levy, and by a large majority too it must be added.
Auckland Transport, to their credit, appear to be undertaking more detailed work to identify how this plan might best be achieved, given the available funding, e.g. new fare structure and PT network improvements.
In a nutshell: Auckland is ready to (try to) tackle its transport issues, while Central Government is holding it back. Why? Who knows. But I hope Auckland Council treats Bridge’s letter with the disdain it deserves. And speaking as a ratepayer, I’d personally be prepared to pay the transport levy for longer than three years if it provided AC/AT with the funds they needed to advance their transport programme independently of central government funding.
I’d rather pay more for the right projects than wait for the centralised command-and-control dinosaurs in the National Government to come around to the fact that maybe, just maybe, Auckland should decide how its city’s transport system is developed. Not politicians and bureaucrats sitting in Wellington!
This is a trust thing of course – the team in Wellington thinks that the AT/Council transport planning is CBD-centric and they also have little confidence in Len Brown’s judgment, I tend to agree with them on both of those points. Until there is dialogue the Government won’t understand that Auckland is already over-provisioned with good-quality roading.
But things have to move on – AT is now showing that it can come up with innovative ideas and they just need to learn about the transport environment outside of the isthmus and include the rest of Auckland when planning new public transport infrastructure..That can and will be achieved quite quickly I feel.
The mayoral situation is a bigger obstacle. Perhaps the best way forward would be for Len Brown and Penny Hulse to stand down as the mayoral team. It is plain that they haven’t been able to work in a productive way with the government, and for many people the ports situation has fatally damaged their credibility in terms of being able to demonstrate a vision of a better Auckland.
While Brown and Hulse (or the entire elected Auckland Council) could retire tomorrow to “solve” this problem.
There will be future Brown’s and Hulse’s leading Auckland that the Government of the day struggles with. But its a two way street.
So it is also true, and critical that the Government of the day learns to work actively and productively with whatever democratically elected officials Aucklanders vote for – no matter how much they [the Government and ministers of the day] dislike them.
It seems the current Governments approach to Auckland is to say No, No, No, and wait for the next set of elections and hope for a better “fit” as a result.
If they feel that Auckland council is that poorly performing, then sack them, and lets call fresh elections in Auckland now because the cost of waiting another 15 or so months and hoping for a new set of councillors is costing the country and all Aucklander’s dearly.
The question is and if the next (Auckland or General) elections bring in more of the same as last time for either side? What then? Waste another 2 or 3 years?
They do want to drag it out. They’ve blown the transport budget on a small number of huge projects yet know that AKL needs investments like the CRL. The chimera of the magic paper surplus means they need to play for time. All this is the result of false goals and short-termism. Two issues that characterise this gov.
It is just disgraceful that Simon Bridges and John Key are playing politics with Auckland transport plans. So basically, Auckland elects a council with a clear mandate to get on with transport planning, but the govt is saying ‘nope, you guys have to do what we say’. So we end up getting Dick Quax as mayor in disguise. What is the point of having a separate Auckland council if it is just going to be rule by Wellington?
I absolutely agree. It seems that the National government has been particularly obstructive from the very beginning of the super-city, when Aucklanders had the temerity to vote in a left-leaning mayor. Not, I’m sure, what they had in mind at all. And, for heavens sake, they did it twice! Couple that with New Zealand’s unwillingness, or inability,to spend what is necessary on any piece of infrastructure in order to give it a life beyond the next ten years or so; the Harbour Bridge being a classic example. Seems we’re doomed until we can (again?) elect a government which has the vision, balls and willingness to spend what it takes to make this city work. It’s their job damn it!
Really? The only city ceentric poliicy that I see is the three year cycling program, but that is also ligical, they want best bang for cycling buck.
“Perhaps the best way forward would be for National to stand down as the government. It is plain that they haven’t been able to work in a productive way with the council, and for many people the transport situation has fatally damaged their credibility in terms of being able to demonstrate a vision of a better Auckland.”
There, fixed a minor typo for you
Regardless of how you may feel personally about Len Brown, he’s been a bloody good mayor. The best we’ve had for ages. I agree that he’s not coming back next term but that does likely mean that Phil Goff will be mayor and he’ll likely pick up where Len and Penny have left off. I certainly don’t see Len/Penny as having failed to work well with central govt, if anything they’ve bent over backwards to accommodate them.
What the OECD report said was to introduce CONGESTION charging wasn’t it? Crucially this isn’t about money raising, its about nudging people into behavioral change. See this fantastic 8minute TED talk on how that other isthmus city Stockholm solved congestion overnight with really quite small congestion charges or 1 or 2 euros. http://www.ted.com/talks/jonas_eliasson_how_to_solve_traffic_jams?language=en#t-79763
And of course this charge would be a timed charge – it wouldn’t apply in the middle of the night, it would only apply at times of peak congestion. And it would only be on congested roads – not just some parts of some of the motorways, but on some parts of some arterial roads as well.
So I hope it is clear that a CONGESTION charge that the OECD is asking for is a completely different beast to a motorway toll.
Lastly in this TED talk Jonas Eliasson suggests that you don’t try and work out the details – let people work out for themselves what is the best way to get to work when faced with a small congestion charge – just try it.
Cheers
Peter
This is an extremely powerful story. Given these findings it’s remarkable that it’s so difficult to garner the political will to do this.
National are ideologically opposed to public transport at the expense of more roads. They are road zealots and that will not change unless they get booted out of government. It is a shame that they are die in the ditch fanatics over roads, because otherwise I have no real issue with them.
It is certainly the area where they let themselves down the worst. They just seem determined to ignore any evidence or the actual real world results of their policies.
+1. It’s so bizarre. It’s as if they think sensibly funding public transport over roads will shake the very foundations of modern capitalism.
“He’s proposing a year-long negotiation…” What’s magical about a year? Why can’t it be 3 months, or 6? Why even put it in terms of time frame? It makes it sound like talking for year is at least as important as what they will talk about. Maybe for some political reason it is, like seeing the back of Len Brown?
I’m a very critical reader and those kinds of things (among others) really bug me. Sorry.
‘The proportion of Generation Y using public transport for their main trips, such as to work and study, was predicted to increase from 35 per cent to as much as 54 per cent the next five years.
“Such increased demand is unlikely to be realised without a considerable increase in investment.”
The research suggested pumping money into more services during peak times, better network coverage, more bus lanes, free transfers, real-time information and free wi-fi to unlock the latent demand for public transport among Generation Y.
It also recommended current public transport requirements should be investigated, “as existing projections may underestimate latent demand, cause unnecessary stress on the transport network, and lead to reactive rather than proactive investment”.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/news/69292170/Death-of-the-car-Why-Generation-Y-is-turning-to-public-transport
NZTA research.
This is irrelevant since the council can easily raise rates. The government cannot prevent Auckland from advancing.
Which is what the council have been forced to do. But the government knows there’s a lot of pressure to keep rate increases down (which doesn’t apply to user charges, levies, and other “indirect” taxes). Refusing to entertain the idea of any form of alternative revenue generating methods perfectly fits the pattern of a government pathologically opposed to giving other elected bodies any powers to make decisions it disagrees with (examples include: removing the power to levy regional fuel taxes, narrowing the purposes for which councils can use rates, narrowing the number of things development contributions can be used to fund, and of course, replacing Environment Canterbury completely). The last thing the government wants it for Auckland Council to get greater powers to independently implement transport decisions.
Politically hard to justify, actually politically damaging as the council are now finding, good way to lose the voter base. Also doesn’t have the added benefits of congestion charging.
It is perhaps more politically viable than the government acquiescing to council requests for regional taxation powers.
Congestion pricing is fine. As long as you are rich and like the idea of encouraging only rich people to use a publicly funded resource and leave the underfunded PT system for all the poor people. Or forcing poor people to stay away from their families even longer by working weird hours. Great idea.
We know it works to reduce congestion, but is that something we want? We also know it doesn’t generate income either because the system itself is so expensive to run and maintain. If there is any suggestion that this is a alternate funding scheme, then it is rubbish. Just charge a toll to access any petrol station in Auckland. Done.
How do you “know” all of this? Where is your evidence?
The system seems to work well in Singapore and London. In Stockholm, after 1 year the residents voted to keep it ij place as the advantages were so obvious.
“Or forcing poor people to stay away from their families even longer by working weird hours” – That is more likely if we don’t do anything to reduce sprawl and provide good PT. That will force low income workers further and further out which will reduce time with their families.
Wow, Stockholm has really good public transport!
Check out their stations and their rail network http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/se/stockholm/stockhlm.htm They also have proper integrated fares, a simple zone structure and provide public transport routes across the whole city. With a system that provides that much coverage it seems much fairer and reasonable to apply a congestion charge.
Ari,
Off peak users currently cross subsidise peak users. So off peak users will benefit, as well as peak users that are willing to pay. It will save money by reducing the requirement for infrastructure projects to be funded. I am not sure why you define the 80% of people who will still use the system as “rich”? I would use a different definition for 80% of the population.
Congestion free roads will also have significant economic benefits of course – so in the end we will all benefit from cheaper goods, more efficient PT etc.
“Just charge a toll to access any petrol station in Auckland. Done.”
We already had that in place, law passed, toll set, was all ready to go – back then it was called a regional fuel tax/levy, but it was the same thing.
And while fully approved by the previous Government, it was gone by lunchtime when National took power.
And they keep saying “ain’t gonna happen” every time we ask and beg to be allowed to bring it back in.
So whats your realistic solution to the expensive status quo given the government won’t budge?
Fuel tax not as as good as a timed congestion charge since it does nothing for people all trying to take their cars out at the same time.
We know, that Simon,
Ari doesn’t though – hence his suggestion to toll all petrol stations.
However, a fuel tax does at least provide the funds to pay for the investment needed to prioritise the active and Public transport modes over yet more cars.
And so is better than anything Transport Minister Bridges has come up with so far.
The best thing about fuel tax, in my opinion, is that the mechanism to collect it already exists rather than the need for a big dollar infra spend just to collect congestion charges. Combine fuel tax with parking pricing and we may well get the change we require, but for less expenditure.
or put a regional tax on that petrol. Oh wait… govt don’t want that either
Wish I had more time to comment on this. Peter and Stu are right when they say road pricing can reduce congestion. I am a strong supporter of road pricing so long as the $ are ring fenced and spent on other modes. If that occurs most people win. The people who drive and pay get a quicker trip. The people who swap to buses or trains get a subsidised trip. But there are losers and we should think about them. Willingness to pay is not the same thing as utility. $ and utility are not identical. When you price anything it favours wealthy people over poor people. Think of the parking cost at Auckland hospital as an example- poorer people with a kid in the hospital get a lot of utility from bringing their family to visit but struggle to pay. In economics it is the Marshalian view versus the Walrasian. Marshal assumed every pound was equal. Leon Walras focussed on maximising utility which takes into account that money has diminishing marginal utility. $10 to a starving man is worth more that $10 to Bill Gates. For me this is why the toll money has to go to buses and trains and not to the road building industry or the Council’s slush find.
I agree, and think you’ve got a really good point about the fact that the marginal utility of income is not constant. I find that there’s a tendency for economists to bracket their thinking when it comes to the relationship between efficiency and equity. (I am as guilty of this as anyone else.)
I ran across this quite interesting perspective on welfare economics a while back. It argued, with a long detour through Pareto and Arrow’s impossibility theorem, that some level of distributional equity was needed _prior_ to the operation of markets if they were to deliver a welfare-maximising outcome. I probably need to think more about the technical side of the argument but it doesn’t seem unreasonable.
Depends on the types of buses and trains being subsidised. If it was diffusion of the public transportation network outwards to incorporate more places, then yes a toll could be equitable. However within intensification of an existing network (as the CRL is intended), tolls tend to minimise utility for poor people.
Intensified improved public transportation increases the value of an area. Poor people cannot afford to live in high value areas and are excluded from the benefits of intensification (the rent is too high). Poor people live in low value areas with poor infrastructure and limited transportation choice. Poor people are disproportionally affected by tolls, because tolls are levied upon what is typically their best transportation choice.
Tolls for intensification are a subsidy for property owners, by means of regressive taxation. I’m glad the government has excluded them.
How is it regressive? Poor people are more likely to avoid it and therefore pay less. If we are really worried about the inequity of road pricing you can redistribute the funds as cash. In fact you could fully recompense poor people with cash ( that they could choose to use paying the tolls or pocketing).
The other thing is market clearing road pricing would reduce the need for infrastructure spending and would provide an alternate revenue stream. So petrol tax and RUC could be cut to more than offset the costs of tolls. Off peak users would benefit.
If giving away road use for free (or under pricing it) is a good idea from the POV of equity, why don’t we do the same with bread. Everyone can have as much bread as they like. Sure we would end up needing to produce a lot more with a government subsidy, and half of it would go mouldy and get thrown out, but it’s still a better outcome right?
Complete incompetence on part of the government. They need to go. Leaves a big hole for labour to drive a bus through and support road tolling. The survey results clearly show majority support for the toll. Peak hour road users are the most heavily subsidised industry in NZ and we have to keep overbuilding infrastructure to support them and over subsidise PT. I am no fan of the mayors levy either. It is completely inequitable. NZ needs some decent leadership.
Realistically the only solution is regime change. If and when the penny drops for a majority of Aucklanders that this government’s transport policy is making things worse rather than better then the governments electoral support will surely erode. Public sentiment in Auckland is slowly shifting (has been for about two decades) away from an almost totally roads focussed transport system towards a more balanced network with a far greater modal share for PT. And growing public support for PT encourages politicians to change their approach. 20 years ago Auckland City managed transport via its Works & Roading Committee (which pretty much says it all). By the end of the decade the title had changed to Transport Committee and although a lot of attention and money was still being invested in roads, radical ideas like changing modal share were being actively discussed. Although the transition has not been as rapid as many of us would like, there has been significant change. If the government is unable to get with our program then we need to find a new one who is.