Last week Len Brown presented his first draft of the councils budget for the next financial year (2014/15). If approved as is it will see the total amount of money raised from rates increase by 2.5% which is said to be down from the 4.9% projected in the long term plan. The increase was brought down due to the changes agreed last year (which included the berm cutting changes) as well as further savings identified this year although the the 2.5% also includes some new spending added to the plan.
The new spending has come about as a result of a few requests for additional funding. These are
As you can see only some of the additional funding requested has proposed to be part of the plan and of that the Living Wage Policy has had a lot of time in the media however as you can see that represents only a small fraction of the amount that Auckland Transport requested (but didn’t get). Slightly more information about the Auckland Transport request is below.
Auckland Transport – at this stage no increase. Auckland Transport have signalled a budget issue which is related to both shortfalls in revenue and increased costs. However, before any increases in funding are considered we need to have a robust discussion with the Board and senior staff on the issues that have led to this shortfall and explore a range of alternatives to simply topping up the budget with ratepayer funding.
The comment about needing alternatives to just topping up budgets with ratepayer money is an interesting one as it matches with comments I have heard elsewhere that AT put their hand out for more funding without even considering cutting back some of the stupider projects on their books. I suspect part of the problem is that many of the projects on the books are also able to get NZTA funding. The way the system works is that the money from them can’t just be used for whatever the AT wants and so if the project is cut back then AT are almost certain lose the government funding they have. All of that means that if AT decided to cancel or delay a project that had NZTA support then they may be reliant on whatever funding they can get from the council.
So just how much do the council spend currently (or are planning to spend)? The first few tables show the planned capital expenditure for the 2014/15 year for projects over $3 million.
The CRL costs will primarily relate to property acquisition but other than the CRL and EMU costs there certainly isn’t much for other PT projects and many of the projects needed to really make the new PT network work properly look like they aren’t going to get funding – they are probably in the $18m that Auckland Transport are asking for extra funding from. But the figures above are only the capital expenditure costs, below is the planned operational expenditure.
Processing...
Several commentators on this blog have mentioned that roads are paid for by fuel taxes, usually combined with something along the lines of you and your bikes/feet/buses are using them for free.
If that is the case I wonder about the line item ‘general roading $279m’ above. There’s a saving to be made.
Well that is patently false, about half of the councils road budget comes straight from rates.
What is multi-modal operations? AT Hop?
The rates for the property I rent are paid by my landlord and then passed on to me through my rent. Or do you think my landlord wouldn’t do that for some strange reason?
The only people who use roads and don’t pay for the privilege through fuel taxes are pedestrians and cyclists.
Of course, most of that extra money from fuel taxes goes towards maintaining/repairing the damage inflicted by heavier motor vehicles (vs negligible damage from walking/biking); nationally the road maintenance budget is ~40-50% of the overall roading bill.
The myth about freeloading non-motorists has also been covered elsewhere, e.g. http://cyclingchristchurch.co.nz/benefits-of-cycling/mythbusting-cyclists-dont-pay/
As are my rates and ACC levies – so do you still believe as arate payer and sometime car driver and PT user that I (when I cycle) have not ever paid my fair share for the roads I cycle on?
Fuel Taxes and ACC levies are there to pay for the “extra” costs incurred by car, motorcycle and truck drivers on our roads and hospital system.
Which is only fair that these users pay for their disproportionately high damages and claims they cause.
Pedestrians who never drive, or rent, or pay taxes in form whatsoever but who shop in local shops pay the rates that the shop-owner is being charged by their local in the cost of the things they buy from the shops.
So to claim cyclists (or pedestrians) pay nothing for roads or footpaths is ridiculous, and if thats what you believe you’re 100% mistaken, Go troll elsewhere.
I think you miss the point, Tom, that roads are not just paid for through fuel taxes but also through rates. I have been a ratepayer for 30 years and am a pedestrian and therefore have made a strong contribution to road construction and maintenance, as are many others.
You misunderstood me guys. I replied to a comment that disappeared, complaining about non-rate payers and PT users not paying fuel taxes.
But in all likelihood they pay via rates
$25.5M capex and $23.5M opex for footpaths? I wonder if they include shared spaces in this.
That’s because most of them would cost less than $3 million; therefore aren’t deemed “important” enough to be listed here. There will be some cycle facilities as part of some of the listed roading projects however (e.g. AMETI); again it is not often made clear that these projects have some benefit to cycling as well.
And I have always considered that a double-edged sword. Yes, we want walking/cycling included in new projects as a matter of course.
But where I most often hear this comment is when some politician explains away the feeble walking/cycling budgets by saying “but there’s all this other funding in other projects…” Even if, as some have estimated, the worth of other walking/cycling projects is about the same amount as in the dedicated cycling funding, we are still spending less than 2% on walking & cycling, despite already much higher volumes (heck, cycling alone is approaching 2% in some areas, and walking is much bigger).
Why are we spending $19M on 4 laning Whangaparoa Rd when AT are currently pushing for PENLINK? Isn’t that a double up?
A project which by all intents and purposes will simply shift congestion down the road but in doing so create a complete unsafe and horrible environment for anyone on foot or bike. This project is an example of $19 million that could be spent on improving pedestrian priority in the CBD rather than wasted on further rounds of road widening. AT needs to be reined in, they’re completely dysfunctional are clearly have no plans to improve anything in Auckland asides from widening roads. I’m yet to see anything else emerge from the organisation.
I’d rather they spend $19m on Whagnaparaoa Rd than $300m+ on Penlink.
So would I but if they’re going to do it then I cannot see the need to spend the $19M.
Are they going to do it? I can’t see any funding for it. Maybe they spend the $19M first then see if they need the $300M road afterwards.
Hearing a lot of noises that Penlink is being pushed through rapidly and that it will be tacked on to the Puhoi to Warkworth contract.
Did I read that in an AT business report?
CAA has had confirmation that cyclists will be treated much better in this four-laning than was originally proposed. CAA went to the bat on this one when we heard that despite the Regional Cycle Network designation, all the cycling infrastructure they were proposing was putting some “shared path” signs on a 2m wide existing (!) footpath next to a 60 km/h road. They eventually agreed that was crap when we put up enough of a fuss.
We haven’t seen the new design yet, so unsure what they are proposing instead. Probably cycle lanes? Though – fingers crossed – there’s a risk it might be shared bus lanes (PT also complained about the original design, I understand) which would again be pretty horibble for most cyclists.
Some will disagree with me but my feeling is that we’ve got to stop the bus/cycle sharing arrangement dead. It has no place in today’s infrastructure. It is time to start building protected cycle lanes. I know there is a cost to this but now is as good a time as any. That includes the NNR project. If we are to stop building half assed infrastructure then we need to draw a line in the sand.
Since there’s no separate line for public transport revenue, I assume that ‘public transport opex’ means ‘the net public subsidy after accounting for farebox revenue.’
Are there any separate bus and rail annual reports that show more detailed information from which one can calculate, for example, the bus and rail farebox cost recovery ratios?
Auckland transport generally doesn’t collect farebox revenue, that goes to the operators. So yes the public transport opex is the net public subsidy ‘top up’.
But doesn’t that change with AT HOP and AT now collects the revenue and farms it out to the operators on a pro-rata basis?
And don’t they get to keep all the Train revenue now its all AT HOP/paper tickets from AT HOP machines?
Why is “Travel Demand planning – general” under the AT OPEX area?
Admittedly its only $12.2 million but it sounds like thats a project/CAPEX item to me, not an OPEX one.
And why is there a “Travel Demand planning” line but no “Travel Demand operations general” line?
Another sop by AT to the “Yep, we’re doing Travel Demand” tick box while they get on with more roads in the meantime?
Travel demand planning doesn’t involve building stuff but running programmes to encourage things like walking or cycling to schools etc.
So its actually “running the programs” not “planning them” – then why not call it as such?
In any case $12.5m is a piddly amount for this, they should be spending $125 m (10 times as much) a year on this as this one program will return the best cost/benefit numbers around if they actually believed in it.
Because it is planning, they plan school travel plans, workplace travel plans etc. Auckland transport doesn’t really build anything for travel demand management, nor really run programmes. More like develop them and get them underway.
School travel plans? In a Travelwise survey at my sons school (September 2012), it was noted that just 3% cycle to school. How many want to cycle to school? 20%! How much has been done to make it safe for kids to travel to school? Nothing. Absolutely nothing, aside from some training.
Glen Innes to Tamaki Drive clearway? Is that along Kohimarama Road. If it costs $5 million got to be a bit more than repainting, but that doesn’t pay for much kerb rebuilding.
Either way struggle to see it as priority.
I thought c/way referred to a cycleway. A cycleway alongside the rail line would certainly be welcome
ahh that sounds much better! Yes the Orakei Board had talked about that, would be great.
Manukau City Rail Link, is that the south link? Costing $5.5 million, but pity we won’t have any electric trains to run it, or opex funding to run it either.
Actually I think that is double tracking the north link to allow ten minute headways.
I thought that had already happened? Maybe it’s actually the bus interchange costs? Overall remarkably few dumb projects which is good. Good to see money for Otahuhu and Te Atatu interchanges.