33 comments

  1. Lots of positive sounding things, but the plan appears to be to do nothing for a decade and hope self driving cars will ‘efficiency’ ourselves out of having to take public transport seriously (see graphs for points 92 and 94)

    1. I kinda disagree the report said “This could present opportunities to defer or avoid future investment in additional road capacity.” It didn’t really say anything about reducing PT.

  2. It’s essentially just a continuation of central government’s pre-existing vision for Auckland. The only thing that has changed is that AT have fallen into line with it. But they’ve been doing that for a while now. Dumping two of the mayor’s promised three new rail lines and gearing up for major new roading projects not previously planned or wanted by anyone (East-West, Mill Rd, Pukekohe, etc).

    Note the reference to the need to ensure the Eastern Highway designation remains in place. I still maintain that project will proceed eventually.

    Auckland continues to be controlled by central government.

    1. East-West was out of scope for ATAP as was Puhoi/Warkworth, Northern/Southern Corridor Improves, CRL & a few other things.

      Technically neither of those Rail projects I think have been dumped, Mass Transit was Light Rail to Airport as SMART had Busway via Manukau (Had low BCR as well) while LRT was Dominion. North Shore Rail hasn’t been dumped it just looks that way since the road crossing looks like its just been shelved in all but name, it’s gone from accelerated needed 2025-30 to in the interim report “High opportunity costs” & “Does not appear to substantially improve congestion results.” now in the final report it’s 2038-2048. Also we shouldn’t assume rail, rail is likely to be best but when you are doing official transport documents bit hasty to say that without doing at least a comparative business case on modes. In CAP a North Shore Rapid Transit Study was mentioned so again possibly maybe hasty to put anything in until that report is finished.

      Eastern Highway designation is good in my opinion, not because I agree with project but wish we extended logic protecting other routes better and more often.

      Mill Rd & EWL were technically in ITP so not new new.

    2. What do you mean dumping Geoff? For the very first time, the airport and north shore lines are now on the programme, as part of an agreed plan signed off by local and central government together.
      I don’t see how that is dumping, in fact that is the complete opposite of dumping. Both lines have gone from being ignored to being a core part of the programme.
      Congratulations to Council, AT and central government for pulling together and finally getting a plan in place for rail to the airport and north shore.

  3. Good to see they intend to improve bus corridors in the central area as an immediate priority. Hopefully we will see more focus on this now with proper median continuous corridors. Road pricing is ok but there seems to be a lack of urgency for actual implementation.

      1. This isn’t a basic half ass road pricing scheme either. It’s a whole of network dynamic bells and whistles proper thing that doesn’t exist anywhere in the world at the moment.

    1. Yes it will take some research tbh & what they may do is look very closely at Singapore who want to really roll out that GPS based Dynamic Congestion Pricing, it was that they looked really interested in. They also want to wait to a few base projects are done like CRL, NW Busway & AMETI which isn’t technically necessary but politically expedient

  4. An expected mix.

    Good:

    – NW Busway in the first decade
    – Pukekohe electrification in the first decade
    – Harbour crossing deferred to post 2038
    – A clear message that you can’t build your way out of congestion.

    The Bad:
    – Light rail too late
    – Some worrying stuff about arterial roads
    – East West link waste of money

    1. Good to see Pukekohe electrification in the 2018-2028 period. .I suppose that brings to an end any further need to consider BEMUs?
      The 3rd main as well in 10 yearsl. Then a 4th main in 30 years. So Middlemore station rebuild will future proof the 4th main. Is there any info, plans, layouts etc. available for the replacement Middlemore station?

      1. Quad tracking Wiri to Westfield junction should be funded today. As should adding a third where it’s easy from Westfield to GI. Schlep more Port freight by rail than on 18 wheelers though the middle of the city.

        1. POA have stated recently that the bulk (I can’t remember the percentage but it was high) of freight to and from the port is already moved by rail. 18 wheeler is a very American term and very few trucks carting freight of the port are small enough, even those carting light stuff like cars fall into that category.
          Don’t get me wrong I think the third main north of Westfield makes sense but I’m not sure it will fit past Panmure and it will need to be electrified to allow the subbies to use it for possible future express services.

          1. Link for the port rail proportion, BT? Last thing I saw in media was POAL saying they want to increase to 30 or 35% via rail. Panmure is future proofed for 3rd main, no worries there. Gossip that POAL have cash to get it started as it helps them delay moving. Big opportunities in that whole zone with words being thrown around like “Britomart throat remodelling” and “additional stabling” and “improved port/motorway access”. Imagine grade separation of Quay Park Junction, 21 EMU stabling in the East Yard, a freight road on the abandoned Vector Curve formation bridged into the port, and a new double tracked rail access to relocated rail sidings closer to the container terminal. People are thinking this stuff up right now.

  5. What is the status of the ATAP once a new mayor comes in? I understand you can’t re-negotiate everything, what is there is there (until National get voted out). However, is there any leeway for some movement of timelines for some of the projects? For example, suppose Phil Goff gets voted in, he has a policy of wanting to bring forward the planning for light rail to 2019.

    1. The projects are really indicative the report says the times could change, and each project would need to still go through a business case. So yes leeway for movement I guess.

    2. Phil Goff has already said he will use PPP to bring LR forward if he has too, so you could expect (assuming he can find a private partner) that LR will be started sooner rather than later.

        1. For what building long needed PT projects early or using PPP?
          Personally I would prefer to see the current HR network extended first but if LR is really as cost competitive as AT would have us believe it is, why not just get on with it.

          1. We have just had a report that says the obvious: sort out bus priority first, then implement expensive infrastructure later when required, and he wants to go it alone without government funding. Reckless.

          2. Should we be relying on government funding when other options are available?
            I’m no fan of Goff but see him as the best of the current options for Mayor and from the sounds of it the election is just a formality.

          3. PPPs are not really another form of funding just an expensive way of borrowing. I agree it seems like a formality. The only candidate I remotely agree with is Chloe, so will be voting for her.

          4. MW:

            Because Goff is a realist, he knows this Government won’t outlast his mayoralty, so he is looking beyond the current Governments fixation on “build. more. roads. now. then Tell me whats the problem we need to solve again?”

            And also because, history shows that “implementing the expensive( non road) infrastructure is always gazumped by yet more roading projects always gussied up as a series of “minor” piecemeal road projects that do little more than drain the coffers for that expensive infra to ever get built.

            Don’t agree? Well then exactly how do *you* think we got in to this mess in the first place that ATAP needs to solve? Other than by following that logic mindlessly for 6 decades?

            Yeah anyone can say “sort out the PT first”.
            But what they mean is “make sure everyone else has to use the buses/trains – while I keep using my car/SUV/truck/uber wherever and whenever I like.”

          5. “Because Goff is a realist, he knows this Government won’t outlast his mayoralty, so he is looking beyond the current Governments fixation on “build. more. roads. now. ”

            Has he come out against specific road projects? I haven’t noticed that.

            We could always spend less money, rather than spending on expensive stuff, so the kitty is empty for things you don’t want.

  6. On active modes, does anyone know what the well aligned level of funding is likely to be after 2018, which is where the current plans (to my knowledge) end?

    “In a number of areas, including safety and active modes (walking and cycling), the views of central and local government are already well aligned on the priorities and likely level of future funding. We have therefore taken as given, the initiatives that are already underway in these areas, including the Safer Journeys Action Plan, the Auckland Road Safety Plan, and the Urban Cycleways Programme.”

    1. Basically the models can’t deal with Active mode, well actually they can’t deal with rail either, but that’s another matter. So current levels of funding for cycling and walking were considered to be rolled over for the period and that that already has alignment between AC and Govt. In other words: out of scope.

    1. They can spend the time adding more lanes to East West and think of more flyovers to put in the SH1/18 interchange. There’ll always be one more road that needs doing….

Leave a Reply