Last week the latest iteration of the National Land Transport Programme was announced. This is largely a business as usual plan, dominated by the big spend on a few massive state highways projects. However there are a few things to be celebrated, especially for cycling, and even more in the language and thinking in the supporting documents. This was repeated at the launch too, especially in the words of NZTA CEO and AT Board representative Geoff Dangerfield, and NZTA Auckland/Northland Regional Director Ernst Zöllner.
The high level aims are all strong and commendable. The focus on ‘economic growth and productivity, safety, and value for money’ are incontestably valuable. If they were to add ‘resilience, energy security, and environmental performance’ it would probably be a perfect list. But of course this is really set by the Government Policy Statement.
Dangerfield was his usual clear and persuasive self, setting a high level context and skilfully bating away questions. Zöllner was particularly articulate about both the dynamic nature of the situation in Auckland and the unformed quality of Auckland’s PT networks; especially the incomplete nature of the core Rapid Transit Network. Both noted the strong growth of PT ridership numbers, which will see a rise in the PT opex spend.
Here’s what the agency says about the Transit and Active modes, in the Providing Transport Choices document:
All incontestable good sense, and exactly the sort of points regular readers here would recognise, especially the emphasis on the value of the high quality own-right-of-way Congestion Free networks of rail and dedicated busways.
People using public transport on high-quality public transport services with a dedicated right of way, like the Auckland Northern Busway or metropolitan rail networks, can now enjoy fast, efficient journeys on comfortable modern buses and electric trains, while freeing up road space for other people and freight.
There remains, however, some considerable daylight between this analysis and the actual projects being funded. This is especially the case with the comparatively tiny sum of $176m for Public Transport Capital Works in Auckland out of a total $4.2 billion spend over the three year period in the region [~4%] and $13.9 billion nationally. This sum [half of which is from the Council’s Transport Levy] will bring much vital kit, like the Otahuhu, Manukau City, and Te Atatu bus interchanges. But is a long way from fixing those big gaps in the RTN network. In response to my questions on this they quite reasonably countered that some funding for bus capex is in other budgets, notably under the AMETI programme, as part of the North Western massive highway works, and the Northern Busway extensions.
However the two Busway sums do not result in the construction of even one metre of additional RTN. For the Northern Busway the previous minister deleted construction of the proposed extension from the accelerated motorway package [a loan to be met from future NLTF], so all we are left with is ‘future proofing’ and no one can ride on a busway that has only been future proofed for. On the Northwestern we do get the improvement of bus shoulder lanes and a station at Te Atatu; but no RTN. AMETI is the best of the bunch, but that’s only if the proposed BRT does happen instead of the place-ruining flyover that appeals more to some entitled voices there.
Then we come to the great problem that the National Land Transport Fund is barred from investing in rail infrastructure yet Auckland is now showing the huge value of using this separate network for moving increasing numbers of people completely outside of traffic congestion. And some RTN routes are clearly best served by rail. Just as well the Council has the courage to just get on with the CRL first stage by itself so at least this vital gap at the heart of the RTN is getting a start.
The case for near term investment in PT and especially for completing the RTN can be summarised thus:
- current demand growth of 20+% on Auckland’s Rapid Transit Network,
- the RTN is showing improved operating cost effectiveness as it grows,
- the strongly voiced value the agency sees in quality PT networks especially their positive effects on traffic congestion and economic growth,
- the well known relationship between what is invested in and what then grows in use plus the positive externalities of increased PT use,
- and the observed sub-optimal nature of the city’s current PT networks in both quality and extent, ie the clear opportunities for improvement.
Processing...
It’s obvious that NZTA needs to be able to invest in rail infrastructure where it creates major passenger transport benefits. CRL should be their project with Council contributing a share of the station costs.
We all know what NZTA’s “future proofing” regime consists of – a full blown motorway for any roads project no matter how large or small, and, at best, a line on a map, with no costings or linkage provision for anything else. Sometimes it comes packaged up in a cheap box labelled “Cycling and Walking improvements”, but not often enough.
Cases in point the AWHC project, the Kirkbride road interchange, the East-West motorway project.
and mangere bridge…
NZTA have been better than AT in investing in cycling infrastructure, however otherwise pretty accurate.
I think the likes of the NZTA / AA / Government / etc only talk about PT to make themselves look better, they all still have roading only agendas.
If they really believed that ‘adding more kilometres of road is not sustainable’ then they would put significantly more money into PT infrastructure (and stop trying to pretend that operational costs are infrastructure investment). Apparently PT is so ‘critical’ in ‘major urban areas’ that they are going to spend a whopping $176 million of their $4.2 billion Auckland budget on PT. Say one thing, do another!
Yeah I don’t understand what their issue is, they say one thing and do the other. The amount spent on roading vs PT should be the complete reverse; as one already has plenty of infra and the other not. NW and East urgently need seperated PT corridors (Busway or Rail) and the North needs an extended and probably very soon if not already; a higher capacity one. If there was as much investment in PT as NZTA are communicating there should be; they would of been actually funding them and these solutions would of been implemented yesterday.
Would have.
I don’t care what people say.
I care what they legislate for and fund.
What they say is untrue to the degree that there is a difference between what they say and what they actually implement.
Oh wow that picture hurts my eyes. Can we not use that effect please, especially with such a large picture?
funniest_comment_ever
Why thank you 😉 although I was serious. Maybe I’m just getting old
Will select a sharper one for you tomorrow…
It hurts my head too!
Exactly what it looks like after a dozen pints as you stumble to catch the first train out in the morning…