Follow us on Twitter


Ministry of Transport CEO on the future

An interesting piece on Radio NZ what the CEO of the Ministry of Transport think will be the future of transport in NZ. I agree with some of what he says but in others it seems like he off the mark. You can listen to an interview here

Or listen here

New Zealand had 2,488,008 licensed cars and vans on its roads at the last count three months ago.

However Mr Matthews, who is also Secretary of Transport, said in three decades there will be little point in people owning such vehicles.

“I have to say as a self-confessed petrol head and the owner of five vehicles, the concept of not owning a vehicle is pretty hard for me to swallow.

“But for my grandchildren, I’m sure it won’t be so difficult for them to imagine,” he said.

Mr Matthews told the transport summit he foresees major changes in how people travel, envisioning a future “more tailored to individual needs” and with “more choice”.

“You’ll no longer need to look to see when a bus, train or taxi will be available because there probably won’t be any bus stops or bus timetables, in fact there’ll be no parking as well.

“You’ll probably no longer need to worry about cleaning out the garage to get the car in because you probably won’t own a car.

“It simply won’t make any sense anymore for you to own your own vehicle,” Mr Matthews told the internationally-attended summit.

I agree that in the future people probably won’t own cars however I’m a bit sceptical it will completely happen within 30 years given the pace of change in the car industry, for example the average age of a vehicle in NZ is around 13 years and getting older. The issue of bus stops are an interesting one though as he doesn’t appear to be suggesting that buses themselves will disappear. In my view we’ll still see PT but increasingly it will high quality, high capacity options such as busways and rail (light and heavy) and more dedicated stations rather than small stops. Within that system driverless cars are likely to be quite a useful last mile solution.

Of course if we don’t need carparks or a garage and driveway that also opens up a huge amount of space in urban environments that can be put to better use. In cities like Auckland where space is at such a premium that presents interesting opportunities.

One area I think he’s way off the mark is on the future of freight

He said there needed to be a drive toward significant improvements in the productivity and efficiency of freight supply chains, and he believed freight vehicles would be self-driving.

“These modern road trains will be more flexible, more responsive to market and consumer demands than any of our current train systems can ever be… The rail network outside of Auckland and Wellington, which is shared with commuter services, already effectively provides a separated freight corridor.”

Mr Matthews said these corridors could be transformed into high-speed freight networks.

“Rail may not be the technology of choice in the future for New Zealand… I imagine the space the corridors currently occupy being allocated for a different way of use.

“Imagine platoon trucks not guided by rails, but by a system that allows them to operate safely on narrow concrete pads through these dedicated freight corridors.”

Ripping up the railways and turning them into truckways has been a desire from the trucking industry for decades. Is it really practical for us to spend what would be 10’s of billions to rip up the existing working rail network and replace it with continuous concrete strips strong enough to carry super heavy trucks. Included in that is bound to be a need to duplicate the corridor seeing as most of the rail corridor is single track. We’re then going to have fleets of driverless trucks to run on these truckways in a platoon just like trains and carriages do now. To be honest I’m not quite sure what we gain from this suggestion and if it’s automation that’s desired it would surely be cheaper and easier to upgrade trains to be driverless and then invest in automated systems to quickly load and unload trains at destinations.

The UK consultant who is also quoted in the piece sums up one of the issues quite nicely too.

“Platooning of trucks has been tested, successfully tested quite a few times – it works – technology is not a real problem.

“The problem is acceptability and the problem is liability – acceptability because car drivers don’t want to be associated with large trains of trucks where the person doesn’t appear be in control.”

One thing I will say about the views of the MoT CEO, at least they are starting to look to the future. These comments follow on from a report late last year looking at future demand in which only one of four scenarios would see travel demand increase. They’ve also been doing more work thinking about the future – one piece of which I’ll try to talk about this week.



The Skypath decision

I’m still buzzing over the fantastic news that consent for Skypath was approved this morning. What makes it even better is reading the decision of the commissioners. It appears to be a comprehensive result and leaves no doubt that this project is both good and satisfactorily addresses the concerns local residents have raised. The decision can be read here and starts from around page 51.

Skypath aerial

Here are some of the highlights.

The Commissioners have, in consideration of section 5 of the RMA had to consider whether the proposal would achieve the purpose of the Act. The proposal consists of three distinct elements – the Northern Landing; the main span of the Harbour Bridge and the Southern Landing; we have had to take a holistic approach, with the understanding that RMA is not a no effects Act. In looking at the total proposal we consider that the effects (with the mitigation proposed) at a local level, notably landscape and visual, amenity and traffic/parking at the Northern Landing, are not of such significance that the broader strategic goals associated with the SkyPath project – connecting a regional cycling network; providing a tourism opportunity; giving multimodal choice, and the existing investment at both regional and government levels should be set aside. We believe that the proposal will meet the needs of current and future generations in relation to both health and safety. It is our overall assessment that SkyPath will promote the sustainable management purpose of the Act.

The proposal will provide greater optimisation for the use of the AHB, by offering a broader range of modes available to users of the AHB. The amenity values will be enhanced through greater accessibility to the Waitemata Harbour, offering accessibility and views not currently available (aside from commercial activities such as the bungy and bridge walk enterprises). We acknowledge that the residents immediately adjacent to the AHB on Northcote Point value their current levels of amenity, including the quietness of the area (being the lack of activity). However the increased activity generated by the SkyPath is considered to maintain that amenity through provision of increased screening, directional signage, security and planting and/or fencing along currently open boundary frontages. Overall the Commissioners consider that the proposal will maintain and enhance the quality of the environment through the provision of cycle/walking facilities that provide a crucial link across the Waitemata Harbour that is not dependent on a “timetable” or motor vehicle.

We consider that the proposal meets the relevant provisions of Part 2 of the RMA as it achieves the purpose of the Act being sustainable management of natural and physical resources; in particular it provides for people’s social and economic wellbeing, while avoiding remedying or mitigating the identified adverse effects on the environment.

And some of their main findings on the principal issues in contention.

  • The traffic and parking effects associated with parties who chose to drive to SkyPath will be adequately mitigated through provision, implementation, review and monitoring of the Operational Plan. This finding applies to both the Southern Landing and the Northern Landing.
  • The adverse amenity effects at the Northern Landing (primarily associated with increased activity, privacy/overlooking, noise, and perceptions relating to safety and security) can be adequately mitigated through design and site management as proposed by the Applicant. We find that the scope of the consent would include the provision of public toilets at the Northern Landing and have included a condition requiring the location to be subject to CPTED review.
  • The design of the structure, including white rods and ribs, is appropriate. The Commissioners are satisfied that it is appropriate that the SkyPath structure reads as an addition to the bridge structure through the colour of the rods and ribs. The Commissioners note in making this finding that any suggestion that the SkyPath structure should not detract from the heritage value of the AHB is not something that can be considered. The heritage value of the AHB should more appropriately be protected through a public process to schedule the structure (including an appropriate level of analysis from an expert) through either the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 or the RMA.
  • We are satisfied that the further design assessments required by NZTA for the SkyPath structure are not expected to require any substantial change in the SkyPath structure.
  • We concur with Mr Farrant, the Council’ Principal Heritage Adviser Central, that SkyPath will have zero impact on the built heritage of Northcote Point.

And the reasons for the decision, some of which duplicates the comments above.

The reasons for this decision are included in the decision report above but can be summarised as follows:

1. In terms of section 104D(1)(a) of the RMA, the adverse effects of the activity on the environment at the Northern Landing have been considered as moderate. Turning to section 104(1)(a), mitigation measures have been incorporated into the design of the proposal, and a range of consent conditions have been imposed to ensure that any adverse effects on the environment for the entire proposal can be satisfactorily avoided, remedied or mitigated.

2. In terms of section 104D(1)(b) and section 104(1)(b) of the RMA, our finding is that the application is for activities that will not be contrary to the objectives and policies of the operative Auckland Council District Plans (North Shore City Section and Auckland City Isthmus Section) and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

3. The proposal is consistent with Part 2 of RMA as it achieves the sustainable management of natural and physical resources by providing an alternative transport option that promotes both personal health and social wellbeing, and positive economic impacts.

4. The proposal is in accordance with the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act by providing public access within the coastal environment and avoiding adverse effects on the natural character and quality of the environment.

5. The proposal is consistent with the Auckland Regional Policy Statement by helping remedy adverse effects on the transport environment.

6. SkyPath is perceived, and acknowledged, as a critical transport link. It is a positive gain for Auckland’s transportation network.

7. The proposal will help promote alternative transportation modes and active lifestyles, and improve recreational options for Aucklanders and visitors to the region.

Once again thank you to all who have fought so hard for this project over the years. In my view now consent has been granted the government should step up and take over the funding of the project – especially considering their new found support for cycling.

A great day for Auckland – Skypath Approved

It’s just been announced that consent has been approved for Skypath. I’ll have a closer look at the details shortly but for now it’s time to celebrate, this is a great day for Auckland. Well done to everyone involved and a huge thank you to Bevan Woodward and his team who have tireless campaigned and pushed this project forward. Without them today wouldn’t have been possible.

Skypath Consent - From Westhaven

Any bets on how long it will take for the Northcote residents who oppose to lodge and appeal of the decision in the environment court?

Kirkbride Interchange and Rail Future Proofing

Rail to the airport is in the news again – and not in a good way – this time related to the Kirkbride interchange the NZTA are currently building and whether it’s future proofed for rail. The answers by Auckland Transport and the NZTA also hint at some of the dysfunction, lack of critical thinking and potentially deliberate sabotage that’s long plagued this project – one which is constantly one of the most popular publicly.

Auckland Transport is having to stump of $21 million to “future-proof” a motorway project for trains or trams to the airport.

The council body is paying the money to the Government’s Transport Agency, towards extra costs of designing a motorway interchange for trams to run through a trench beneath Kirkbride Road, Mangere, or trains on an elevated line.

That is additional to $140m the agency is spending on the 580-metre trench and a motorway extension to the airport in an accelerated Government-funded project.

Preparations are well-advanced for the trench to be dug west of George Bolt Drive.


Considering that airport rail has been talked about for decades and has been on regional plans for probably just as long it’s absolutely absurd that AT are having to pay $21 million to widen the trench to be able to accommodate rail. Long-time readers may remember the excuse given by the NZTA for not building a busway along SH16 at the same time as all the motorway widening going on was that the old Auckland Regional Council didn’t list the route as a rapid transit one (rail or busway). That isn’t the case here because as mentioned rail has long been on the plans and been subject to many studies, some of which they themselves have been involved in. The NZTA should also remember the public desire the project in the form of the 10,000 signature petition the CBT organised back in 2007.

So why are AT now paying the NZTA future proof the interchange?

As I understand it when the government announced they were accelerating the project back in 2013 the Highway Network Operations (HNO) team within the NZTA quickly went to work on designing the interchange. They didn’t look at the work their planning teams had been working on with AT and designed the interchange to take up the entire space of the motorway designation. They claimed their design future proofed the interchange for rail but what they really meant is there was space beside it for rail to go but it would effectively require starting from fresh including needing to purchase and designate all the land. In other words the NZTA’s work didn’t preclude a future rail line but didn’t do anything to help it either.

When AT realised and challenged HNO they claimed it was a done deal and they were on too tight a schedule to make any changes. They also tried to use Watercare – who need to build a new pipe through the area – as an excuse for not being able to accommodate any changes however it turns out Watercare were only bringing their project forward after being told to by HNO. After working out they only needed a few extra metres and some high level talks HNO backed down and agreed include the project but with a new catch – AT would have to pay. They then tried to claim the extra work would add something like $60 million to the $140 million project. The price of $21 million has come about after AT sat down and worked out what the actual extra cost would be.

That it even got to that this point is absurd and puts into question both organisations claims of working together well in partnership. Putting this aside, so what are we now getting?

Auckland Transport project director Theunis van Schalkwyk has since, in a joint statement with the Transport Agency to the Herald, confirmed that his organisation has allocated $21m to make the trench 3.5m wider than planned.

Its new width of 29m would provide an 8m rail corridor, which the statement said would be enough for trams to run through the trench or for elevated trains above it.

So the NZTA almost severely hampered rail to the airport all for the sake of 3.5m – that’s less than a single motorway lane. Here’s what the current plan is for the project

Kirkdbride Layout

And a closer look at the interchange itself

Kirkdbride Layout - interchange

The answer and these images also raises new questions.

  • How will Light Rail run through the trench, presumably it would have to be down the centre and would have to be protected from cars by barriers. Is 8m enough space for both the tracks and barriers?
  • By designing so that heavy rail has to be overhead is that a strategy to ensure local opposition?
  • After either light rail or heavy rail pass the interchange then what? How does light rail get to or from the centre of the motorway, if elevated how does long is the line elevated for?
  • If an elevated line is built I’m assuming that it would have to stay elevated for some distance to get past Bader Dr and the SH20/SH20a motorway interchange. How will that impact on Mangere Town Centre. Alternatively it would be interesting to hear the local communities thoughts if as a result Mangere town centre was served by a station like this from Vancouver (Brentwood Town Centre).

Brentwood Skytrain Station

Of course Kirkbride is just one of what seem like many mountains in front of getting rail to the airport. Earlier promises by the NZTA’s predecessor to future proof the recently duplicated Manukau Harbour Crossing for rail turned out to be completely pointless – only allowing enough space for a single low speed track. At the other end it seems that rail will required to be in a tunnel though the airport property as it will have to get under a longer runway.

In addition to all of this I think that AT’s current fascination with Light Rail is distracting them. Light rail is appropriate for the isthmus routes they’re suggesting but in my view is completely inappropriate for rail to the airport as it simply won’t be fast enough. LRT would likely take around 50 minutes to get to the city vs 30-35 for heavy rail hooking into the existing network – either at Onehunga or perhaps as Patrick suggested the other day.

All up it feels like rail to the airport will go the same way as so many other transport projects in Auckland’s history. So much opportunity to easily get a great result hampered by short term thinking and expediency. So much hassle could have been avoided if AT and predecessors had applied just a little bit more urgency in obtaining a designation for the project.

Waterview Connection May Time-lapse

The latest few images and videos from the Waterview Connection Project.

And the East Tamaki pre-cast facility which has now finished producing 24,000 segments and it plus the machinery are now up for sale. It highlights just what a massive logistical challenge these big projects are and something that will need to be repeated for the CRL.

This image also shows the progress of the southern ventilation building while the image after it shows what it should eventually look like.

I hope AT are planning to do something similar time-lapse videos for when they start the CRL works

Guest Post: Next Step for the NEX in Silverdale

This is a guest post from reader Bryce Pearce which purely coincidently was scheduled just after AT announce that the New Network will roll out to the Hibiscus Coast in October and that more double deckers will start running on the Northern Busway from January

You may, or may not have heard that under Auckland Transport’s ‘New Network’ the NEX bus service on the Northern busway is to be extended to the Silverdale Park’n’Ride, where it will link with local bus services. Hibiscus Coast New Network Confirmed

While this alone is very good news for the Hibiscus Coast, the question that needs to be asked is – why is the final stop so far away from any walk up catchment?

That’s a good question and, luckily, there is a very simple solution – extend the Northern Express (NEX) bus service to the ‘new’ Silverdale Town Centre.

Doing so would enable a very reliable journey from Silverdale to anywhere else (incl areas on the rail network via a transfer at Britomart) on a frequent basis. It also brings the NEX within walking distance of quite a bit of the Millwater area (forecast to have 10,000 residents) and also ties in well with development within Orewa itself.

Another benefit of this location is that, rather than the shared path alongside Hibiscus Coast Hwy to the Park’n’Ride, it offers a very easy, quite flat, 2.5km ride from the Orewa Town Centre utilising the Te Ara Tahuna Cycleway

How great would this link be to access the stunning, and very popular, Orewa beach on sunny days and pretty much all summer (there is a great selection of food and beverage in Orewa these days).

Silverdale Catchment

There is an existing on-street stop in front of the Silverdale Town Centre that would be appropriate to use as an interchange stop. This has the potential to be expanded and some quality shelters added. This would allow for an easy transfer from/to the N91 / N95 services that would use the same stop (rather than going all the way to the park’n’ride) with the added advantage that it would be much nicer for people to await or alight from services at a shopping centre rather than a station on its own, next to a busy road.

Another advantage of the Silverdale Town Centre location is a central location to add an Auckland Transport Service Centre to assist students and other concession holders with their validation and ticketing requirements. This is very needed in this area right now.

Extending the NEX service through the Silverdale Town Centre would allow other routes to terminate there and save a 4km detour to the Park and Ride. This would allow a more operationally efficient service for all services and potentially allow more frequency and alternative running routes.

Post implementation of the Silverdale Town Centre extension, there is some good justification for the extension of the NEX service right into the Orewa town centre itself.

The 895X could easily be terminated at the Silverdale Town Centre interchange, with passengers changing to the NEX, and allowing for more frequent services between Waiwera, Orewa and the CBD. This could be very beneficial in allowing access to the Waiwera Hot Pools off peak and in weekends.

Here is the map I have drawn out for the following services (using the same colour scheme as the AT map): NEX / N95 / N91 (which would be the same as the N92).

NEX Extension

The remaining question is: Why are Auckland Transport opposed to extending the NEX to Silverdale Town Centre?

This explanation from AT explains their reasons.

There were a number of suggestions for changes to the termination point of the NEX, including Silverdale Centre, Orewa, and Millwater. But to take the NEX through congested local roads would affect its reliability and therefore the quality of the service, and so the NEX will terminate at HC Station in the recommended network.

The budget for the expanded park and ride (and shelters?) is $5.9M. This will add just under 400 car parks but will do nothing to remove vehicles from Hibiscus Coast Highway (it may even add vehicles). Why not instead spend a large chunk of that on bus priority measures along Hibiscus Coast Highway? Measures that would make a far larger difference to a much larger number of bus users.

The economics of fare policies, part 1

A few months back, Auckland Transport put out its new fare policy for consultation. The draft policy, which they call Simplified Fares, has two main elements:

  • Standardised fare zones that ensure that journeys within or between zones cost the same regardless of whether you’re travelling by bus or rail [ferries are excluded]
  • No transfer penalties between services, which is a key element in enabling a frequent connective network.

Those are indeed simple principles, but developing and implementing a fare policy is seldom simple. So the whole thing got me thinking: Why do public transport fares work the way they do? And could we do things differently?

As I’m curious, I figured that I should take a quick look at the economics of fare policies. Part one of the series looks at the biggest-picture question: Why do we subsidise public transport?

First, some background. In most developed-world cities, public transport systems are subsidised by taxpayers. Users pay some of the operating costs – ranging from as low as 10% to as high as 80% – but seldom all. In New Zealand, the national farebox recovery policy requires all regional transport agencies to cover 50% of their public transport costs from fares. However, data from the Ministry of Transport suggests that some agencies are closer than others to this target:

MoT farebox recovery rates 2013-14

Is 50% the right number for all regions? I don’t know – and the answer depends in part on what other goals we’re trying to accomplish with public transport pricing. But it’s clear that some level of subsidy must be provided in order for the entire transport system to work efficiently.

To see why, we need to take a look at what economists call “second-best pricing”. According to Wikipedia, it can be desirable to impose a subsidy to “offset” for an uncorrected market failure elsewhere:

In an economy with some uncorrectable market failure in one sector, actions to correct market failures in another related sector with the intent of increasing economic efficiency may actually decrease overall economic efficiency. In theory, at least, it may be better to let two market imperfections cancel each other out rather than making an effort to fix either one.

In transport, we have a situation where people have multiple options for getting around. They can drive, take the bus (or train), cycle, etc. In this situation, a price change in one market – say, a fare increase for public transport – can encourage people to switch to another mode instead of paying more.

As I argued in a recent post on congestion pricing, road space is usually not priced “efficiently”. All road users pay fuel taxes or road user charges based on the total number of kilometres driven or litres of petrol used. But they don’t pay more to drive on busy roads, where they impose delays on other drivers. As this diagram from a 2012 UK study on the external costs of driving shows, the last 10-20% of car trips impose significant costs on society.


Public transport can play a useful role in smoothing off the big spike at the right hand side of that chart, by providing a more space-efficient option for travelling on popular, congested routes. Another way of saying that is that in the absence of congestion pricing (and in the presence of other subsidies for driving, such as minimum parking requirements), higher public transport fares can result in a perverse outcome – additional congestion and delays for existing road drivers. This is shown in the following diagram:

PT fares and congestion diagram

Effectively, a failure to price roads efficiently means that we have to provide subsidies for public transport to prevent car commutes from being even more painful than they currently are. Public transport subsidies are, in that sense, subsidies for drivers. By making your neighbor’s bus fare cheaper, they in turn make your drive to work a bit easier.

Finally, it’s worth considering how we got into this situation. 80 or 100 years ago, public transport systems tended to cover their operating costs with fares. For example, Auckland’s tram system was profitable, if in need of maintenance and refurbishment, up until its removal in the mid-1950s. (Mees ref?) This changed, in large part, due to the introduction of subsidised motorways.

This article by Joseph Stomberg at Vox describes how the US interstate highway system was developed in the 1950s as an explicitly subsidised – i.e. not tolled – transport mode:

The first step was changing how roads were funded. In the 1930s, there were already privately owned toll roads in the East, and some public toll highways, like the Pennsylvania Turnpike, were under construction. But auto groups recognized that funding public roads through taxes on gasoline would allow highways to expand much more quickly.

They also decided to call these roads “free roads,” a term that was later replaced by “freeways.” Norton argues that this naming shift was essential in persuading the federal government — and the public — to shift away from tolls. “It started with calling the roads drivers pay for ‘toll roads,’ and calling the ones that taxpayers pay for ‘free roads,'” he says. “Of course, there’s no such thing as a free road.”

In other words, the “original sin” of transport subsidies was the construction of non-tolled highways paid for out of general tax revenues. This choice led in turn to a situation in which we must adopt “second best pricing” in public transport, and offer an offsetting subsidy. I’m not necessarily opposed to this… but it does mean that I am skeptical to complaints that buses and trains are subsidised.

What do you think we should do about public transport pricing?

Airport Transport Plans

Following up last week’s Mangere/Airport RTN post, reader Martin B pointed to this recent AIAL Masterplan: pdf.

Airport terminal

Here are the key Landside Transport pages:

Airport Transport

Map of the future precinct; white dotted lines indicate the rail line and the white rectangle the station:

Airport Masterplan

Good to see both northern and eastern routes are being planned for, however they are completely missing a trick by not taking the station right into the Terminal building (04). We know that AIAL are planning for the line to be cut and cover through their property so why not take it all the way to under the yet-to-be-built Terminal building? Seems pointless to insist that rail users stop just short enough from their destination to have to drag bags across a couple of roads. Interestingly this places the station with the proposed massive new parking buildings.

I have used trains to get to airports all over the world and by far the best have stations fully integrated into the terminals. Given this is a completely new integrated domestic and international terminal building surely it wouldn’t be difficult to future proof for this. Especially as they are claiming they are to reduce congestion while providing 20 000 carparks. The RTN route and service will need to be as good as possible to make sure it attracts as many users as possible to help keep those approach and local roads flowing.

After all, isn’t the plan for a streamlined seamless experience?

The National Land Transport Programme 2015-18

The NZTA yesterday announced the what it would fund over the next three years as part of its National Land Transport Programme 2015-18 (NLTP). The NLTP combines funding from the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) – which is essentially road/fuel taxes, council rates and from other government funding sources such as for the spend up on regional roads announced last year.

The headline figure is that over the next three years $13.9 billion will be spent on transport which is about 15% more than the 2012-15 NLTP and of which about $10.5 billion comes from the NLTF. Most of the rest comes from local councils through rates. Where the money comes from and where it is being spent is quite well shown in this graphic from the NZTA.

NLTP 2015-18 revenue and investment flows

As you can see above the vast bulk of the funding is going on building new and maintaining existing roads. Of the $5.5 billion for road improvements the majority (almost $4.2 billion) is going towards State Highways. None of this is particularly surprising as it’s a continuation of the trend we’ve seen for a few years now and one that has been continued with the current Government Policy Statement (GPS) which the NLTP has to give effect to. The GPS doesn’t set specific funding levels but it does provide funding ranges for each category. Just how the actual investment in this programme compares with it’s GPS funding range for each category is shown below. You an quite see quite clearly that for State Highways the funding level is well above the midpoint set by the government – although interestingly local roads are at the bottom of their range (note: this is just for funding from the NLTF so doesn’t include rates).

NLTP 2015-18 allocation vs GPS funding range

One area that is at the top of its range is walking and cycling where the NZTA are putting in over $100 million which is on top of the $96 million from governments Urban Cycling Fund.

One aspect I was interested in was how the money is divided up across the regions. A lot was said about how Auckland is getting ~$4.2 billion in funding however when you look at on a per person basis (using Stats 2014 population estimates) it appears Auckland is spending about the National average while it’s the Waikato doing pretty well.

NLTP 2015-18 Regional Spend

Just looking specifically at Auckland around $4.2 billion will be spent over three years. I find the press release and other information about this investment quite odd as it seems the NZTA are doing everything they can to avoid saying how much their spending on roads. They focus attention on the $1.175 billion going towards Public Transport (of which only about $176 million is for new PT Infrastructure and services), on the $960 million on road maintenance and the $91 million on cycling yet there is very little focus on the over $2.1 billion being spent on roads, $1.8b of which is state highways.

There are also a few other things I picked up on, including:

  • The term Congestion Free is entering the NZTA’s lexicon

Mr Zöllner says Auckland’s future depends on a strategic joined up approach to both its motorway and local road network, along with critical public transport, walking and cycling networks, to ensure highly reliable, dedicated and congestion free travel.

  • It is claimed that spending $960 million on maintenance will help ease congestion, I’m not quite sure how that will work.
  • That the changes to the Northern Motorway will include the design and consenting for extending the busway to Albany which is good although no actual construction on it will happen within this time. They also say the motorway widening is only to address predictions of large travel demand in the future i.e. there is no proof it will actually happen and of course any predictions of large demand for PT seem to be ignored, especially by the government.

These projects aim to address predictions of large travel delays in peak times within the next decade, and provide alternative travel options.

  • The NZTA are now talking about the package of works to widen the southern motorway between Manukau and Papakura as part of the route between Auckland, Hamilton and Tauranga. As such seem to be lumping in the time savings from other projects such as the Waikato Expressway to claim the works will help save 30 minutes. This is odd seeing as one of the reasons they lost the Basin Reserve Flyover was that they lumped in time savings from other projects.
  • It’s been cut from the online version but in the original emailed version of the press release they claim the Puhoi to Warkworth motorway will save up to 30 minutes, odd seeing as it only currently takes about 20 minutes now except for about four days a year in a single direction.

Road of National Significance, providing a safer, more reliable connection between Auckland and Northland by extending the four-lane Northern Motorway (SH1) to Warkworth. The project is estimated to cut 30 minutes from journey times in peak periods.

  • This map shows where the NZTA is investing. It seems to me that the symbols are way off in some places and also minimise the impact of massive projects such as Waterview which only gets a single icon for all the North Western work that’s happening.

NLTP map auckland

One of my big concerns about the PT funding in particular is that it simply won’t be enough investment to cope with the increase in demand. The NZTA say they think with this investment that over the next three years PT patronage will increase to 21%. Given we’ve had roughly a 10% increase in patronage over the last year alone and we still have the New Network, integrated fares and the completed roll out of the new electric trains that 21% figure seems a little undercooked.

Lastly I think the NZTA deserve credit for how they’ve made the NLTP data available. Through this table you can select any combination of activity classes and regions and get a list of every single project that will be funded from the NLTF and also download all of the data easily.

Focus to get Auckland Moving

One segment of Auckland Transports latest business report highlights AT’s latest Pedestrian Safety Shaming campaign.

Between 2009 and 2013 there were over 50 fatal and serious pedestrian related crashes in Auckland City Centre. Most crashes are on Queen Street and Karangahape Road, but also Quay Street, Symonds Street, Mayoral Drive, Victoria Street and most recently on Fanshawe Street.

Two campaigns will be launched in June/July, as part of the ‘Regional Pedestrian Safety behaviour change programme’ to encourage behaviour change in pedestrians.

Cross Safely With the Green Man

Will focus on Queen Street and Karangaphape Road. Final creative approach is shown below, based on the fact that there are ample safe green man pedestrian crossings along these roads.

Media will be situ’ and include Adshels, outdoor posters, wall murals/shop windows and themed ‘urban walkers’.

2015-06 Ped Safety Campaign green man

I love the description that there are ample pedestrian crossings in the city. Having a light and having one that phases frequently enough e.g. like with the double phasing on Queen St are two different things. Many of the crossings are not friendly to pedestrians at all. Also if there are crashes on Queen St then what on earth are the drivers doing as the street has a 30kph speed limit. The second campaign:

Switch Your Focus

The other Auckland streets which have high pedestrian crash statistics don’t have the number of green man intersections Queen Street has. Pedestrians are most often distracted by thought (daydreaming), food, mobile phones and just a lack of focus on the danger. The campaign will inform pedestrians that they need to focus when they cross the road.

Messages will again be distributed primarily through outdoor media, making use of existing infrastructure for message delivery (Adshels) and targeted ‘Urban Walkers’ dressed suitably to the campaign style, who will engage with pedestrians and provide helpful advice.

2015-06 Ped Safety Campaign Focus

What are urban walkers dressed suitably in campaign style who’ll engage with pedestrians, its cringe worthy. And before some of you start blaming all the pedestrians remember that if you’re a driver and the car ahead of you suddenly stops, it’s your responsibility to be driving in a way that you too can stop in time.

Seeing the images on Twitter, Andy Baird thinks the images above deserves a meme so has created this fantastic image that might be more appropriate for AT to focus on.

AT Rail Focus campaign idea