(DIR) Home
Government ignorant of local transport needs
(HTM) Source
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_This is a collective post by several Greater Auckland authors. (The
header image shows children trying to cross the road a few hundred
metres from a school gate, at a location where a raised crossing was
subsequently installed.)_
The final version of the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport
(GPS) landed on Thursday, at the last possible minute, just before the
long weekend.
As we said about the draft version, this is the worst transport policy
New Zealand has had in decades and the final version doesn't change
much.
It's terrible for road safety, undermines pretty much any action to
reduce transport emissions, disempowers local government from being
able to design internationally proven and locally supported best-
practice solutions, and makes accessing funding a bureaucratic
nightmare for anything other than overblown and often unnecessary
highway projects.
The final version barely changes any of this; it incorporates the
Roads of Regional Significance rebranding of the NZ Upgrade Programme,
and a few other things like a mention of regional shipping, and city
deals - but 99.9% of the draft GPS remains unchanged.
Moreover, when it comes to funding, nobody can pretend any more that
the National Land Transport Fund is a user-pays system; it's now
heavily subsidised by other sources. As reported by BusinessDesk:
> Of the $22b, $13.8b is forecast to come from fuel excise duty, road-
> user charges and other fees, whereas the remainder is made up of
> Crown grants and loans - an illustration of the stretched nature of
> the revenue system.
Notably, there were a few last-minute tweaks to some of the funding
ranges. You'll never guess: funding for **roads and especially state
highways** has shot up again - while the tiny and already decreased
funding for **walking and cycling** has been cut even further.
In what's becoming a pattern for this government's approach to
transport, the final GPS seems to have simply steamrollered over the
evidence, the local concerns about misplaced priorities, and also the
pragmatic concerns about how this stuff works in the real world.
It'll be really interesting to see the summary of public feedback,
when it appears in due course.
* * *
#### GPS vs RLTP: the gap between theory and practice
So, what does this finalised government policy statement mean in
practice for a city like Auckland?
As it happens, while the final GPS was landing, the Regional Transport
Committee (RTC) was hard at work, hearing submissions on the draft
Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP).
The RLTP sets Auckland's transport priorities for the next decade, and
needs to be finalised over the next few months. It's both a to-do list
and a funding bid. And, by law, it is required to "be consistent with"
the GPS. (Interestingly, Auckland has previously found some wiggle
room on this point - ironically, by fending off a judicial challenge
on the worrying climate implications of the _last_ RLTP).
So the people in charge of finalising the RLTP face a challenge: as
well as budgeting and prioritising a whole lot of projects, they'll be
threading the needle between a) what Aucklanders tell them they
actually want and need, and b) what Simeon Brown (also an Aucklander)
is telling them they're permitted to do.
On top of that, Auckland Council has already expressed grave concerns
about what the GPS means for our city. And, as highlighted by Connor's
post last week: there's a paradox embedded in the prioritisation
process for Auckland's transport projects.
Turns out, when you rank projects according to the benefits of
investment, top of the list are projects that move people efficiently,
can be finished quickly, help complete networks, and decarbonise our
transport system. Basically, _Auckland computer says yeah:_ go hard on
active modes, public transport, and fixing local roads… and hold the
cannoli/ state highways.
This largely accords with what Aucklanders say when asked: please fix
our streets and give us more, better, safe and affordable ways to get
out of traffic.
Unfortunately, the GPS and its funding buckets are out of whack with
this direction of travel. In a nutshell: _Government computer says
nah._
That's because it's intent on pouring the bulk of investment into a
few four-lane highways, aka More RoNS, and something it calls "pothole
prevention" which is really (overdue) maintenance by another name. And
the problem there is, this GPS also seeks to prevent cities from using
maintenance funds to _build back better_ with smart, dig-once,
multimodal ways that can actually _prevent_ potholes, enable greater
transport choice, and improve resilience.
Moreover, the GPS rolls back a number of evidence-based safety fixes
that Auckland is already seeing the tangible benefits of - from taming
speeds to survivable levels, to letting people cross the street more
safely. If it works and saves lives, this government doesn't seem to
want to know.
True, they've upped funding for public transport after a strong
pushback from Auckland in particular - but they've also cancelled free
and half-price fares for young people, and axed the ten-year targeted
fuel tax for Auckland that would have supported alternatives to
driving.
And as for investing in climate-friendly intercity travel, or
alternatives to trucking increasingly heavy freight on increasingly
fragile roads? If you believe this government gets the full potential
of rail, we've got two cancelled rail-ferries to sell you.
* * *
#### Local needs, local voices
The gulf between local needs and the Minister's notions was visible at
the RLTP hearings last Wednesday and Thursday.
Many of the presentations were from Local Boards, with many remarking
on the challenging time-frame as they took the opportunity to make a
direct pitch to the people in charge of the RLTP priority list.
Local Boards are perhaps closest to street level, when it comes to
hearing from constituents about transport issues. They work with
Auckland Transport to (ideally) fix local streets, with varying
(usually small) budgets, and varying degrees of success or
frustration. Some little fixes are big wins; others remain unsolved
despite years of advocacy.
So the Local Board spokespeople were threading the needle, too. They
praised the good stuff in the draft RLTP, like the move to keep the
Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF), a small but vital budget
line for safety and active modes projects.
On the other hand, they highlighted the gaps, including many important
projects that have languished for years or decades, always somehow
dropping to the bottom of the list.
It was notable how many of the Local Boards came calling for _more_
local investment in public transport, walking and cycling, and safety
projects - reflecting strong local feedback on these issues. Several
wished for smarter use of maintenance and renewals funding, to
complete networks and provide transport choice. They homed in on first
and last-mile connections. Public transport options to address
transport inequity. Solutions to dangerous and congested local roads
and intersections.
Mindful of the gap between government policy and local priority, they
urged the committee to speak up for Auckland, and for the creative and
coherent solutions that Aucklanders need. As one Local Board chair put
it:
> We urge you to push the government to support **your**
> prioritisations, which are also **our** priorities.
This was echoed by All Aboard Aotearoa, the advocacy organisation for
decarbonising transport (which led the climate-based judicial
challenge to the last RLTP). As they told the panel:
> We accept that there are difficulties in balancing the requirements
> of the GPS and the RLTP. But there's also plenty of room and
> opportunity to have a more climate-aligned RLTP, and it's critical
> that you do.
All Aboard and Lawyers for Climate Action New Zealand presenting to
the Regional Transport Committee on the draft Regional Land Transport
Plan 2024.
* * *
#### Below the fold…
Below are some notes from the RLTP hearings that give a flavour of
what those on the ground want from the city's transport planning.
**Note:** this is a fraction of what presenters covered; it doesn't
include all who presented; and transcriptions are as accurate as we
could manage in a live meeting. The formal Local Board RLTP feedback
can be found in the papers for upcoming meetings.
* * *
**Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board** called for an equity lens to address
the longstanding challenges of transport inequity experienced in their
area. They were concerned about time-of-use charging, and keen for the
A2B connections. They advocated for free fares, fare caps, monthly
passes, anything that would make public transport more accessible and
attractive.
They also urged the committee to _"push the government to support
**your** prioritisations, which are also **our** priorities. Otherwise
AT and the government will literally and figuratively be leaving South
Auckland behind."_
**Waiheke Local Board** asked for funding that reflects the fact
their roads are also walkways and cycleways and sometimes horse paths,
and that supports the island's aspirations for modal shift _"for which
we have huge community support."_
**Long Bay Residents' Association** asked for the East Coast Road/
Glenvar Road safety upgrade to go ahead; likewise the Vaughns and
Okura Road project.
**Hibiscus and Bays Local Board** echoed this call, and noted the
crash data for Glenvar/ East Coast Road, locally known as a dangerous
intersection through which lots of school trips have to pass each day.
**Whangaparaoa Local Board** called for urgent delivery of a bus
interchange, to make the most of Penlink investment: _"If we do
nothing, the project will not fulfil its potential to eliminate
emissions and shift from private vehicles."_
**Upper Harbour Local Board** highlighted safety and active modes;
and noted some projects that had been on and off the to-do list for a
decade, like The Avenue and Gills Road Link, and safety upgrades at
several intersections and Albany Highway.
**Howick Local Board** highlighted the intersections on Mill Road as
the key safety issue; a realignment of Chapel Road to reduce crashes;
and noted the importance of the Local Board Transport Capital Fund in
projects like temporary gravel footpaths, where developers haven't
built permanent ones: _"school kids are walking on the grass, and in
winter it gets muddy so they walk on the road, which keeps me up at
night."_
**Manurewa Local Board** called for more creativity about building
bike lanes or shared paths on wide grass berms. They want to see the
proposed rail corridor cycleway extend from Manurewa to Sylvia Park
(!) and perhaps all the way to Newmarket (!!).
They also advocated for funding for a local link from the SH1 cycleway
to Waiata Shores. which has a shovel-ready design and community
backing. Both Manurewa and Papakura Local Boards support it, but don't
have the funds to build it.
**Ōrakei Local Board** cheered the Local Board Transport Capital
Fund: "We're glad it's being retained and boosted. I think at street
level you may not appreciate what this funding means: AT is seen at
its best, working with Local Boards to deliver projects that are
mostly about safety, mostly around schools."
They also made a pitch for the Gowing Drive connection to the Glen
Innes to Tamaki Drive Pathway:
_"This is one of the most impressive cycleways in the whole of New
Zealand: a beautiful, magnificent, highly loved and impressive piece
of infrastructure. However, it's a motorway without onramps. You have
500 students in Meadowbank who go to Selwyn College and St Thomas
across the valley. That's 1000 trips by road that could be made via
the shared path._
_Yes, it's very expensive; we acknowledge that. We'd like to see it
funded. If it needs to be staged and needs to be a rough dirt track to
begin with while the underpass is built, let's do that. Otherwise
we're not fully utilising the $6m of investment we've made already, or
getting the best use out of that path."_
**Waitākere Local Board** made a strong plea for climate, and for
using the Transport Emissions Reduction Pathway as a guide in shaping
the RLTP. Among other things, they supported NW rapid transit and
prioritising walkways and cycleways, "one of the most efficient ways
of reducing emissions and addressing congestion."
_"We have a Local Board greenways plan, but nowhere near the funding
we need to deliver it. We used to put significant amounts of LB
Transport Capital Fund into it, but with the problems of recent years,
that's harder._
_We appreciate that all these things cost money, and knowing this is
not something you have control over, but: if we just cancelled the
East-West Link, that would release a **lot** of money that could be
used for a lot of projects."_
**Henderson-Massey Local Board** tuned in from a local public
library, with a passionate push for cycleway projects, including the
one on Rathgar Road that will serve five schools, and the Henderson
Connections plan.
_"One thing we're grappling with: everything except for state
highways was an equal priority for Henderson-Massey people. That puts
you in a challenging position in terms of balance… I would posit to
you, you've got to balance your longer term pipeline, against those
shorter-term priority projects such as Rathgar Road, to be able to
enable that longer-term infrastructure._
_For example, the Northwest is gaining 30,000 people, and we've heard
an argument to take away the Hobsonville link for the cycleway. Thank
you for the busway, but that other link… we had to fight to get that
back. These 'little links' are what enable best use of the big
investments."_
**Aotea Great Barrier Local Board** 's presentation focused on
climate action, resilience against sea rise, decarbonisation, and
charging for electric modes. They explicitly supported the
continuation of the Katoa Ka Ora speed management plan, which was
great to hear.
**Whau Local Board** in partnership with the Rosebank Road Business
Association asked AT to take its direction from Te Taruke-ā-Tāwhiri,
Council's climate action plan. On their list: dynamic lanes for
Rosebank Road; reviving the plan for New North Road, strong support
for Te Whau pathway, and high-quality active modes connections like
the New Lynn to Kelston cycleway (with six schools in a small area)
and links to Henderson.
They noted that Local Board Transport Capital Fund often has to be
used for _"projects that could reasonably be considered part of AT's
work programme, such as essential pedestrian crossings outside
schools." Also:_ _"If the East-West Link goes ahead, it must retain
the active modes and environmental components."_
**Maungakiekie-Tamaki Local Board** raised a number of issues,
including local access once level crossings are closed; better public
transport options from Onehunga, and improvemnents to Penrose and Glen
Innes train stations.
They made a pitch for removing the rail reserve designation through
Onehunga, and for more park and rides: _"It helps with getting cars
off our road… we're a car-centric society [so] getting people to drive
to the train station has got to be a good first step."_
**Papakura Local Board** pointed out that transport is not keeping
pace with development and population growth. As well as advocating for
grade-separating railway crossings, their presentation supported Mill
Road as an alternative to SH1, mentioned removing cycle lanes from
Great South Road, and called for cheaper and more reliable public
transport, including on-demand trials.
**Kaipāitiki Local Board** argued for local decision-making (with AT)
over local networks. Renewal and maintenance of existing assets was
strongly supported, including town centre footpaths, and footpaths and
walkways in general. Also keen for bus and ferry improvements,
Northern Pathway (walking and cycling) projects that link local parks,
and a full-time clearway on Onewa Road. They noted the unsatisfactory
state of cheaper chip-seal road renewals; and local challenges with
parking and traffic management around attractions like the new tree-
walk.
**Devonport-Takapuna Local Board** advocated for prioritising Lake
Road - after 8 years and $2m, there's no clear plan, with major
implications for buses and active transport. They made the case the
Local Board Transport Capital Fund should be allowed to roll over, so
boards could save up for key projects that would otherwise go unfunded
- like the Francis-Esmonde walking and cycling link.
They support lower-cost cycleways, but _not_ a reduction in cycle
safety projects - pointing out that lower costs should deliver a
larger programme. Strong local support for a new harbour crossing,
including active and public transport links; also keen for Northern
Pathway to be funded and progressed.
**Māngere-Otāhuhu Local Board** had transport equity at top of mind:
they "feel left behind at times." They backed Ōtara-Papatoetoe's focus
on the Airport to Botany link, and noted they'd been _"advocating for
the last ten years for free public transport - with four business
centres; this would enable local economic and social activity,"_ They
agreed that the LBTCF _"enables great projects",_ and gave the example
of a walking and cycling project for Walter Massey Park.
**Puketāpapa Local Board** noted that AT is _"the part of council
people have most contact with from the moment they leave their homes
to the moment they get home at the end of the day."_ A key ask was a
safer design for the risky Dominion Road/ Denbigh Ave roundabout,
which is busy with motorway traffic, freight, buses, and also
thousands of schoolchildren.
They also want better footpaths to support the mobility of elderly
residents, and prioritising footpaths close to bus stops as _"a key
tool for climate action."_ They're also keen on the Avondale to
Southdown railway line being put to use for moving people.
**Waitematā Local Board** agreed with the top priority of investing
in public transport, reporting that people in their area wanted it to
be faster, more reliable, and more resilient. Resilience was a theme,
with concerns about the harbour bridge, a call for smarter
maintenance, and getting heavy port trucks off city streets to reduce
potholes.
They support investment in active mode, especially a new approach to
deliver the cycling network fast and cheaply and easily, and more
investment in walking, especially for the benefit of elderly people.
The must-do projects: Great North Road, a new harbour crossing,
quality urban planning around CRL stations, and small-scale projects
for active modes and safety.
Safety was a major concern: even with the change in government
direction, _"well thought-out infrastructure is also key to reducing
risk",_ and they support lowering speeds around schools and in town
centres:
_"Some of us know what it is to be impacted by road deaths…. The
impact is life long. If you have to raise a crossing to save lives,
then please, do it."_
They urge AT to be _"be faster, more efficient, be tactical - don't
second guess, you are the experts, you have the knowledge, back
yourselves!"_
A final pitch for better placemaking, seeing streets are places to be,
not just routes to travel through, drew a positive response from
Richard Leggatt, the chair of AT: _"I can assure you we take
placemaking seriously - for example, GNR is going to tender pretty
soon and I've seen the plans, and frankly it looks pretty cool!"_
**Albert-Eden Local Board's** call was for more strategic planning to
give greater certainty, mentioning the local gaps now that both
Connected Communities and Auckland Light Rail have been cancelled.
They also wanted higher priority for mitigations around level crossing
closures.
Another key ask: much stronger and earlier engagement with both the
Local Board and local communities regarding any planned or potential
transport projects in the neighbourhood.
Indeed, this felt like the key subtext of many of the Local Board
presentations over the two days of hearings: _nothing about us,
without us._
**Other presentations** included:
**Fletcher Living** , advocating for safety upgrades to SH16 between
Brigham Creek and Waimauku, asking for _"consistency and a commitment
to creating a safe transport environment"_ and noting that
_"fundamental issues around safety and congestion need to be
addressed."_
**The AA,** which reported that, to their surprise, public transport
was the top concern in a recent member survey - with 38% of
respondents naming it as the key issue, ahead of congestion.
**Geoff West** , a member of the public, made a striking presentation
in support of removing kerbside parking to keep people safe, whether
they're walking, biking, or getting in and out of cars. Citing recent
tragic incidents, he said: _"I ask you to act urgently on my
suggestion… it doesn't have to be carte blanche over the whole city,
but you have to get started."_
And, **All Aboard Aotearoa** , the transport-decarbonisation
advocates, who:
* Encouraged AT to follow the Transport Emissions Reduction Pathway:
* Urged AT to remember its legal obligations, and seek opportunities
* Pointed out that while there are difficulties posed by the GPS, th
_
* Reminded the committee of the importance of **equity, safety** and
* Advised a more integrated approach to directives like productivity
* Recalled the flexibility around how "consistent" the RLTP needs to
##### **Share this**
______________________________________________________________________
Served by Flask-Gopher/2.2.1