Comments on: Auckland Transport Plan – epic fail

By: jarbury

jarbury — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:21:52 +0000

Yeah there are quite a few reasons for Tables 6 being the way it is. I shall comment more on that tomorrow.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:26:13 +0000

I’ve been steering at the 2009 ATP, and though table 6 appears to be detrimental towards PT, I feel when taken in context with the whole document it may be a way of emphasising the governments piss poor attitude to actually doing a proper job. Maybe ARTA’s way of applying some pressure.

By: jarbury

jarbury — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 03:47:25 +0000

Yes there are certainly some good aspects of the Auckland Transport Plan. I will do a more detailed analysis tomorrow and look at some of the positive sides.

But you really can’t go past what happens to Public Transport Infrastructure funding and Rail funding in the 2015-2019 time period.

Over those three years we have a combined funding of around $110 million for all public transport projects, including rail. That’s the time when we should be digging the CBD rail tunnel and starting to build the Howick/Botany and Airport Lines. I can’t see us doing that with $110 million to play with over three years.

Maybe we’ll get a bus lane. Whoop de doo.

By: Nicholas O'Kane

Nicholas O'Kane — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 03:39:41 +0000

I agree. And ARTA has been until now reasonably good for PT.

But its not that pathetic. there are some upsides. We get basically $1.2bn over the period. I guess the $700m 2009-11 might be for electric trains and projects currently under construction, meaning we have $500m left over for our own projecs. Which should cover either part of the CBD rail loop or improved access to Britomart. And theres another $700m for passenger transport infrastructure, menaing a few more bus lanes. And you might get some more cycleways with that $500m for walking and cycling. And there the new ferry terminal at Hobsonville, allowing ferries from thewre out in the RLTP you blogged on in the last two posts.

Not the best transport plan, but hardly a disaster either. The way I interpret it, is we may get some small improvements, but most still goes to roads. Basically a continuation of the last 10 years.

By: jarbury

jarbury — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 01:25:26 +0000

I don’t know what’s up with the big jump in service funding either. Public transport services is basically ARTA-speak for subsidies. The subsidies are paid out either to the bus companies or as a contracting fee to someone like Veolia to run the train services.

One would kind of hope as public transport patronage increases in the future that we could get away with lower levels of subisidies – at the very least on a per person basis.

While throwing money at operational costs of public transport is fine, it will be capital expenditure that really makes a difference. And what we see proposed for the 2015-2019 period is, quite frankly, pathetic.

By: Sam F

Sam F — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:58:07 +0000

There does seem to be a $500m jump in public transport service funding. I wonder why? Would have thought that money actually needs to go into facilities and capacity.

The rail figure in particular is a slap in the face. So much for MAXX’s public crowing about increased demand. The service is already groaning under passenger demand; I suppose we can now look forward to a total collapse over the next decade?