When news like the leaked CCFAS report comes out, it is always quite interesting to see the response from various groups or organisations.
First up the project has plenty of support from Steven Selwood and the NZ Council for Infrastructure development
In the eyes of infrastructure experts, Auckland desperately needs the proposed city rail link.
A draft report by transport engineers Sinclair Knight Merz says in terms of existing roads, by 2021 most bus networks near and in the city centre will be at capacity or overloaded, and traffic slowing to 8km/h.
New Zealand Council for Infrastructure chief executive Stephen Selwood says if nothing is done, people will be deterred from moving to Auckland.
He says by international standards Auckland is a small city, and already out of its depth.
“For us to be suffering the level of congestion that we do across the city, and certainly accessing the city centre, is abnormal for a city this size.”
Stephen Selwood says it will take a collective approach and suggests small motorway charges be put in place to act as a disincentive for people driving their cars at peak times.
But then this is not really a surprise as their goal is just to get as much built as possible. So next we have the Employers and Manufacturers Association.
Auckland employers say that traffic flows will grind to a halt before any major changes to the city’s public transport system are agreed on.
The Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA) says that a proposed rail project has been delayed too long.
EMA chief executive Kim Campbell says the rail project has taken too long to get underway because it has been delayed by futile reports on what transport options are best suited to Aucklan
The EMA and its members obviously see the benefits of being able to move more people around faster and the business growth that enables. The CEO of the EMA even appeared on the CRL video that Auckland Transport put together.
So what about the other side of the fence. Well we have George Wood who despite not having seen the report is claiming it must be wrong.
There’s criticism over the leaking of a report on Auckland’s future transport options.
A draft document by transport engineers Sinclair Knight Merz has backed the idea of an underground rail loop, and paints a grim picture of what the city would be like without it.
Councillor George Wood doesn’t agree the rail tunnel is the best option, and he says the Council should have been given the report first.
“Disappointed that it’s come out in the media in the way it has as a draft document.
“I don’t think that the kind of findings this document has come up with really are correct, and I want to see more background information.”
And lastly a group who oppose rates claiming it could bankrupt the city. Of course this group are a massive hypocrites who are just lobbing against the project because its a rail. If they were serious about their claims they would also be criticising the council for planning to spend 60% of the transport CAPEX budget ($5.3 billion) on roads.
Today’s media story of a ‘leaked report’ on the Central Rail Link is yet another attempt to convince Aucklanders that the Central rail Link is inevitable and vitally necessary.
There is no mandate for the expenditure of more than $3 billion on the proposed Central Rail Link in Auckland over the next seven years.
Despite Mayor Brown’s frequent claims that Auckland supports his Rail Link, and his use of an unscientific ‘phone-in’ survey to back his claims, most ratepayers do not support significant rates increases to pay for this project.
And ratepayers are aware that there will be permanent demands for subsidies to bridge the negative difference between fare revenue and cost per passenger.
While many ratepayers may approve of a Rail Link at some time they will not give full support until they are given the true picture of the impact on rates.
Recent public transport usage statistics do not indicate the level of growth in passenger numbers which would be needed to support a business plan strong enough to attract Government into paying for half the cost.
There has been no convincing evidence so far that forecast passenger growth could be achieved.
Who will these passenger be – shoppers, workers, tourists, – where will they be going to and from?
About the only thing I do agree with from the comments I have seen is that it would be good to actually see the report but as it sounds like it is still in a draft state, lets at least allow it to get finalised first.