Stu has recently been raising the issue that traffic levels have been flat and even decreasing over a number of years and yesterday the Greens spokesperson, Julie Anne Genter raised the issue during question time in parliament. Here is the video of the exchange:
What this really confirms (as if we didn’t know it already) is that the government is really running with a build it and hope strategy which to me definitely isn’t what we should be doing when the costs are in the billions.\
Update
Here are some more videos on the topic from today, the first one is from TVNZ this morning (click on the picture)
And the second one is from Question time in parliament today where the topic was raised again
In my last post I suggested NZ is at a transport cross-roads: Evidence shows people are driving less and that they have been doing so for some time. Along the way I could not help but poke fun at the NZTA and MoT for resolutely sticking to the line that “traffic volumes are growing”, when they quite clearly are not and have not been for sometime (either in NZ or overseas).
My main idea (which is not particularly original) was that a combination of demographic, socio-economic, and technological factors are reducing per capita demand for vehicle travel. For this reason I suggested NZTA/MoT should consider deferring (at least for now) major investments in state highways.
After last week’s post I have done some further digging and analysis. The first thing I did was to check whether the decline in demand for vehicle travel is evident in other data sets.
And indeed it is: data from the MoT’s household travel survey shows that total vehicle kilometres travelled have fallen by approximately 3.2% in the last five years, while per capita vehicle travel has fallen by 7.8%. The rate of decline even seems to have accelerated over the last two years, as shown below.
The second thing I wanted to check was the relationship between state highway travel and economic activity. The chart below plots vehicle kilometres travelled on the state highway network versus (real) GDP (both per capita). It shows that vehicle travel has started to fall, whereas GDP continues to grow. This trend is consistent with evidence found in a number of other countries and implies that New Zealand’s economic growth is not dependent on growth in vehicle travel.
The “decoupling” between economic growth and state highway travel is further highlighted if you divide the total kilometres travelled on New Zealand’s state highway network by the real GDP recorded in each year. When you do you get a graph that looks similar to that shown below. The y-axis in this graph measures the number of vehicle kilometres that is undertaken on the state highway network in order to produce one dollar of GDP.
Maybe I’m a nerd but this graph makes me sit up and take notice; if MoT/NZTA weren’t nervous before then they certainly should be now.
The graph suggests that, since 1998, NZ’s economic growth has increasingly outpaced the growth in state highway traffic – a decoupling that continues unabated to the present day. During this period, the number of vehicle kilometres travelled per $ of GDP produced declined by 25-30%. Ultimately this suggests NZ’s economy has, during the last 14 years, been able to develop in ways that do not depend on (or subsequently cause) growth in state highway travel.
But wait there’s more. Analysis by the OECD actually suggests that New Zealand’s historical investment in state highways (“motorways”) has had negative impacts on macro-economic performance. The impacts of highways are particularly bad when compared to positive benefits found for other types of transport investment, such as roads (in general) and rail.
** NB: I’m not completely sure but there seems to be a slight methodological issue with the OECD analysis, in that the investment in “roads” category appears to include investment in “highways”, while the latter is also included separately in the regression. So if Roads = Local Roads plus Highways, then the effects of Local Roads on its own would be calculated as Roads – Highways, or 1.85 – (-0.34) = 2.19. But that’s a econometric detail that would not change the key result …
You may be sitting there wondering why investment in highways would negatively impact macro-economic performance?
One possible explanation is that highways are very, very expensive. Thus investment in highways creates the need for the government to raise additional taxes, which in turn has negative macro-economic impacts. Another possible explanation is that NZ’s investment in highways simply caused our cities and towns to disperse, which in turn undermined potential agglomeration economies (i.e. external benefits of density).
Irrespective of the rhyme or reason for the negative macroeconomic season, all this empirical evidence casts serious doubts over the wider economic benefits of the Roads of National Significance” (RoNS). It also raises questions over why National has increased funding for state highways at the expense of other categories of transport investment, such as local roads and rail, which seem to have more positive macro-economic impacts.
So where does this leave us? Well, my original suggestion was that kiwi’s were driving less and loving it. We now know that not only are kiwis driving less, but we are also growing our economy at the same. And all this evidence is directly at odds with the claims of the National Government, and the bureaucrats at the MoT/NZTA. Honestly, what gives?
Along with ‘Transformational’ the other phrase suffering from misuse in discussions around Auckland’s transport plans at the moment is ‘Multi-Modal’. This seems to have come from the logistics sector where it refers to the sending of goods over a variety of technologies and/or involving handling by various companies to get to their destination. In the urban transport context it seems to have at least three meanings:
1. A journey that uses more than one kind of movement, eg walk/bus/walk, or drive/rail/walk, or bike/ferry, or even bus/bus/bus [3 different bus rides] and so on.
2. An infrastructure project designed to facilitate different modes of movement, eg the AMETI project includes highways, buslanes, cycleways, and train station redevelopment, so can be described as multi-modal.
3. An analysis of needs for an area that sets out to not proscribe what mode, or combination of modes, will provide the best outcome. Currently there is [yet another] study into the transport needs of south west Auckland that aims to be multi-modal, which is to say it will look at whether trains, bus systems, more motorways, or maybe teleporting [!?], will best suit the needs of the area and at what cost.
So we can see how the phrase can mean various things, although generally we can say it is intended as a positive; as it sounds like a good thing, sounds like it offers choice, democracy, and in a sophisticated way. Who doesn’t want that?
Here is Auckland Central MP Nikki Kaye:
I support, as does the Government, the development of a robust multi-modal plan for future transport into the CBD, which includes a thorough analysis of all the alternative modes to transport.
Sounds good doesn’t it? Except this is from at post on her website where the MP is detailing the government’s refusal to support the construction of the City Rail Link, because, somehow, it supports ‘a robust multi-modal plan’. So when you don’t want to support something but still want to appear all positive it seems calling for ‘a thorough analysis of all the alternative modes to [sic] transport’ seems like a cunning choice of phrasing; go all multi-modal. Okay, so perhaps we’ed better look at this phrase a little deeper.
The multi-modal journey.
Almost all public transport trips are multi-modal. With the occassional exception of someone who say works at Westpac, whose offices are directly above Britomart and who also happens to live right next door to another train station, all PT trips can be assumed to involve getting to the point of connection with the transit system by some other means, usually walking, and then doing the same at the other end of the transit journey. This fact is one of the reasons that cities with more effective public transport systems consistently record better health statistics than those without. Simply because with more people using PT, more people are getting more exercise.
The chief advantage of the vehicle mode is that it can be point to point. Straight from your garage at home to the carpark at your office. So while very handy also both extremely sedentary and completely mono-modal; therefore cities dominated by car use report poorer public health outcomes. There is all the evidence in the world for this for example; here, here, and here.
Of course park’n'ride journeys are also multi-modal, but usually involve less walking. And when I ride my bike to University I am only using one mode point to point, but still getting more exercise than those rainy days when I take the bus. But despite these two examples a place that supports more PT journeys, and therefore more multi-modal journeys, reports better health outcomes.
Nikki Kaye again:
Twitter with Nikki Kaye
Yes well Multi-Modal does include cycling and walking, and it’s great that Kaye knows this but do her government’s transport policies actually encourage more of either? There is nothing, for example, about opposing the construction of the City Rail Link that supports either Multi-Modality or cycling and walking. In fact quite the reverse. All PT encourages walking, offers choices other than driving, and frees the streets up to be available to cyclists and walkers. And fully underground and transformative projects like the CRL do these things extremely well.
So lets look at some more examples.
It is often gloomily noted that in order to get funding for a cycleway in Auckland you first need to find a billion dollar motorway project to attach it to. Certainly this is true of the Waterview project [and here] which despite taking place on a rail designation its only claim to any multi-modality is that the Environment Court has forced the addition of some pretty good funds for cycleways and paths as a means to mitigate the negative effects of this motorway on the local community. It has no public transport component -so other than the mitigating paths and bridges it is not really a multi-modal project. Hopefully AT will add buslanes to Gt North Rd after this project is complete but there is no funding or specific inclusion of bus priority in the Waterview project itself.
Multi-modality can be retro-fitted to an ordinary road too. Here is a multi-modal street in Manhattan: From left; bike lane, parking, general traffic, dedicated buslane. And to top it off pedestrian priority in the foreground. Four modes each with their own priority, clearly to do this you need a fair bit of road width, and that presupposes other systems of movement to compliment the road space. Of course Manhattan has a comprehensive subway system to free up this roadspace.
First Avenue NYC photo: NYC DoT
This pattern of strict separation isn’t the only way to multi up the modes; there’s also the ‘shared space’ way, this offers a more anarchic multi-modality that can work extremely well, especially in narrower streets where vehicles can be calmed by enough users of other modes, this type of system is common with trams too:
Shared Street in Copenhagen
Or we could think of particularly mono-modal systems; motorways are not only restrictive of what travels along them [no walking or cycling, and very little successful public transport] they also break connections across them for other modes, especially walking and cycling, but also for more local motorised connection too. Not only that but the quantity of traffic that they then dump onto to local streets severely limits the exercise of multi-modal patterns seen in the examples above.
Auckland's CMJ
This is what a Mono-Modality looks like. So anyone looking for a ‘robust Multi-Modal plan for future transport to the CBD’ would be wanting to urgently add the modes that are missing from this picture, and could well be looking to limit the use of systems like this one: the largest Motorway interchange in in Australasia.
So I guess the question I want to ask the government is how sincere are they really about Multi-Modality? I agree a truly multi modal Auckland would be a great improvement but successive governments have deviated very little from a highway dominant policy and the current one has greatly accelerated it, and therefore increased our Mono-Modality. The Government Policy Statement makes it very hard to get funding from NZTA for any mode at all other than state highways, in fact it seems designed to enable motorways to get funding no matter how poor their cost benefit analyses. So under this government the share of Land Transport funding going to anything other than state highways has shrunk. And now they are planning to make it even more difficult for the local authority to make its own investments that may differ from this bias.
These actions then are the exact opposite of promoting the Multi-Modal. I know this may seem naive but I would very much prefer politicians to back up their sweet words with actual actions.
Green party transport spokesperson and transport expert Julie Anne Genter pointed out in parliament yesterday how spending money on public transport can save us a whole lot of money and uses one of the best examples there is: the Northern Busway.
The busway is definitely one of the great success stories we have in Auckland. We have been able to increase the number of people crossing the harbour each peak period even though the number of cars crossing the bridge has declined over the same period: We have seen from the most recent study into another harbour crossing that adding more lanes of traffic will cost many billions of dollars.
The other key message from her speech is that investment in public transport is actually about giving people a choice. If someone wants to drive to work then that is perfectly fine but they should also have good quality alternative options. The busway shows that if there is a viable alternative then people are very prepared to use it.
The word ‘Transformational’ is turning up frequently around discussions about Auckland’s future. I am encouraged by this as it surely means change. More than that doesn’t it particularly mean making bold decisions precisely designed to lead to different outcomes than we have now? This is important because it goes to the heart of the debate between the Council’s plan to invest in public transport versus the road lobby’s determination to prevent that and continue to build ever more motorways.
Here are a couple of examples, the first is mayor Len Brown talking a few weeks ago about the MIT campus that is now being built directly on top of the yet to open Manukau City Station, big ups-ing its transformational nature:
“The Hayman Park site is a superb example of an integrated, transformational project aligning MIT with the local community, business and industry, Auckland Council and Auckland Transport.”
And here is Bill English a little less sure that he has any transformational projects but sure he’d like some:
“I mean, if there are transformational ideas out there we will grab them with both hands and do them. We just wish there was a few more.”
So it is an idea that gets politicians excited, and why not, because generally that’s the way they can try to improve our world: Change things. And transformation is a kind of change with bells on. Transformation is required when things need to be ‘turned around’. It implies a bold and imaginative quality. Transformation suggests a break with the past, a ‘fresh start’. A complete change.
Here is a dictionary definition:
Transformation is the process of changing from one state to another.
So it was interesting to hear Councillor Quax on Morning Report argue in the context of the council’s transformational plan to prioritise investment into public transport over roads that:
‘nothing can be transformational if it only moves a small amount of people and freight around, that’s why roads need to take precedence over rail’
In other words Quax is arguing that because we are not already in the new transformed state, the place the transformation is intended to get us to, we shouldn’t make the necessary changes to get there. Errr? Are you sure you understand what the word means, Dick?
This is clearly an absurd argument; the whole point of the transformational is to change those numbers around, so in fact, the current imbalance between road and non-road movements is the very reason for changing what we invest in. Because you get what you invest in. More roads: more driving: new alternatives; less driving. Which will then, of course, free up the existing and extensive road network [along with all the other improved health, energy use, and quality of place outcomes we know come with increased PT use].
It is interesting to see that Quax is not arguing against transformation, as you might expect, but rather simply that he can’t imagine it happening. Like Bill English above who is presiding over an enormous and expensive continuation of last century’s highway building plans [while preaching austerity] simply because he too can’t perceive any transformational projects. Is the inability to see and understand the transformational because these men are looking in the wrong place? They don’t seem to grasp that the transformational, by definition, requires a break from the past.
The problem is that if you are only prepared to look backwards it will be hard to see a better way forward. This is the hegemony of the status quo, it takes a little more effort and enquiry to see how things could be different. Because the future is uncertain isn’t it?
So to be fair to Quax it is worth rephrasing his rather wooly headed statement above into a more useful question;
‘if we do invest differently, ie if we stop building ever more motorways and instead build a rail and busway network will we get the transformation we desire?’
What evidence is there that we can change things in Auckland? If we do invest boldly in new rail and busway infrastructure for the next decade or so will people use it? First of all it is clear that we can’t, as Quax is doing, just look at the current state to see what future we could have, so we will have to look elsewhere for a model. But we can also look at what trends there are already present in Auckland to see if we get changed outcomes from changed investment.
The clearest model from the recent past is Perth. Because it is culturally not dissimilar to Auckland, a similar size, is in fact an even more spread out city, and has done many of the things that the Auckland Council has been arguing we should do here to transform both our habits of movement and the quality of the whole city. So what happened?
This is Rail patronage in Perth and Auckland to 2011[Auckland is now around 11 million]. Perth’s first jump was on the back of electrification, bus coordination stations, and the construction of an underground CBD line. Patronage from a level similar to where Auckland’s is now, trebled, then doubled again with the addition of the all new Mandurah Line. This is what Transformation looks like. Before the early 90s investment rail use was bumbling along. It is clear there is no point in looking at the 1980s figures to see what could be achieved though changed investment.
Now that we’re all facing the right way let’s see what else could happen if we are really bold, like Mayor Len Brown said he was going to be when he started his term, proposing new transit infrastructure throughout the city:
Here we’ve added Vancouver. Greater Vancouver has about 2.3 million people. So where Auckland is expected to get to quite soon this century. Vancouver’s extremely successful Sky Train only began in the 1980s and is being added to constantly because it is a huge success and means that the city does not need to spend billions and billions on highways and parking and all the other hidden costs of auto dependency. This technology is ideal for new lines in Auckland like across the harbour to the North Shore. Nick argues here that this would be considerably cheaper than any further road crossing and certainly would help transform more than just the North Shore. It also could be the answer to the transport problems in Dick Quax’s Eastern suburbs too.
Well that’s great for Perth and Vancouver, but would that happen here in Auckland? Well here is the pattern of change in Auckland since the construction of Britomart and the other improvements to our existing rail network, and remember these changes were only about fixing the existing badly neglected system, and doesn’t yet involve modern electric trains or the great changes that the CRL will bring to the whole network, let alone extending the network to new areas. So not yet what you could really call Transformational investment:
So a very consistent uptake by Aucklanders, give us a good quality alternative to driving and a lot of us will take it, leaving more room on the existing road network for the rest. The numbers are still low but are very much beginning to make a big difference especially at peak time. But really we are just at the point that this existing resource could become a very significant influence on patterns of movement and also quality of place in Auckland. So transformation is without a doubt possible but only if we choose to make it happen. What we build will determine what we get and how we live. And it is absolutely certain that if we mostly just continue what we have been doing- building roads- all we will get is more driving and more over-crowded roads no matter how much we spend. And no transformation.
The best way to live in the 21st century is to stop living in the 20th century
With so much focus on the Auckland spatial plan at the moment, words of “step change”, “transformational” and “public transport led approach” being bandied around, discussion about new ways to fund this “step change” and “transformation”, and the excitement of a single Council looking at transport issues in a long-term way, it’s easy to forget that it was not even two years ago that we put together Auckland’s previous 30 year transport strategy. The 2010 Regional Land Transport Strategy was actually tasked with the very job of taking a long-term vision of Auckland’s transport future. It was, in fact, the first RLTS to look at transport with a 30 year horizon in mind – the same horizon (with a couple of years difference) as the Auckland Plan is focusing on.
Previous posts, and an excellent column from Brian Rudman, have highlighted the credibility gap between the pretty words of the Auckland Plan, when it comes to transport matters, and the reality of where the money is proposed to be headed. But how does this plan compare to the 2010 RLTS? Did the RLTS have a big funding gap too? Is the Auckland Plan really a step change towards a public transport focused transport strategy, when compared to the RLTS?
There are quite a few graphs in the RLTS that provide us with a useful insight into where it saw the money going. This one is a good start, which compares the expenditure envisaged by the strategy over the next 30 years with the funding available: While there’s certainly a misalignment between the expenditure envisaged by the strategy and the funding available, overall there’s actually not a gap between the amounts. In other words, there’s enough money to deliver the RLTS, we just need to shift around what that money is spent on.
Another graph breaks down where the RLTS proposed to spend the $46 billion (presumably updated slightly due to inflation to become the $50b baseline used in the funding gap discussion) over the next 30 years: It’s fairly close to a 50/50 split between new roads and roads maintenance/renewals on one side and public transport infrastructure, PT services and travel demand management, walking and cycling on the other side. In short, the definition of a balanced transport strategy. We even see the funding split broken down by each of the decades covered in the strategy: Oh if only there was anything close to this level of detail available in the transport section of the Auckland Plan. Strangely the Auckland Plan seems completely devoid of such detail, perhaps because it would highlight something that goes against what all the pretty words of the plan are saying?
Thankfully, Rudman’s column provides some of the numbers to help fill in the gaps. With a couple of assumptions and a bit of maths we can start to make comparisons (not on a decade by decade basis sadly, but overall) between the RLTS and the Auckland Plan on that key matter – where is the money going? This comparison highlights quite a few surprises. Instead of the step-change towards public transport spending we see both PT infrastructure and PT services spending remain relatively unchanged from the RLTS – the small increases probably reflecting little more than inflation. There’s no distinction made in Rudman’s column between spending on Local Roads and State Highways, so we have to lump the two together, but that shows where the real “step-change” in the Auckland Plan is, and also highlights where the funding gap has originated.
Using this comparison, we can make a few helpful conclusions:
The additional roads proposed in the Auckland Plan, compared to the RLTS, are the source of almost the whole funding gap.
All the public transport projects proposed in the Auckland Plan and the RLTS are affordable under current funding arrangements, we just need to change around the allocation of funds.
The Auckland Plan is not a step-change towards a public transport led transport strategy at all, it’s a step change towards spending billions and billions on new roads.
In fact, it seems like the 2010 RLTS was the real step-change document. The Auckland Plan just proposes to spend hugely more on motorways, a continuation of the transport policy which has failed Auckland for decades.
What changed? Where did all these roading projects come from? Given that it is clear we cannot build every thing everyone wants even if every proposed scheme is a good idea [and these road projects are of debatable value at best], don’t we have to be clear about priorites and direction? After 60 years of building and re-building the grand motorway plan for Auckland it will be functionally complete with the big Waterview connection and the total rebuild of the North Western. Isn’t it clear that we must focus our resources on maintaining this road asset and provide for growth and resilience by building the missing complementary [and booming] public transport systems?
Is it because vested interests are fighting against the very idea of change in collusion with our state institutions, as described in a recent comment by Mike:
NZTA holds the power everywhere. All the regions can do is recommend projects in their Regional Land Transport Programmes, ranked so that Strategic Fit (what the government wants) outranks the other two criteria of Effectiveness and Efficiency (=BCR), which are used to “inform” NZTA’s National Land Transport Programme. Ultimately it’s NZTA’s decisions based on MoT’s criteria based on the Government Policy Statement. Any local/regional input is a charade.
Is it a top down thing from Government, because they and their close friends just like motorways?
If ever you make the mistake of reading the comment stream on the average Herald article about Auckland you will find this kind of thought from people like Rodney of Howick who states:
For some reason [Mayor] Len Brown seems convinced that there will be more businesses started in the CBD and more people wanting to live there. Sorry Len, but cities grow outward and not inward.
Well Rodney is wrong both in general about cities and in particular about Auckland over the last decade or so. Cities grow in all sorts of ways and recently Auckland has been growing inward and upward [a direction that Rodney seems to be ignorant of] and hasn’t it been fantastic. I recently covered the issue of inner city living in Auckland so in this post I want to illustrate some of the great changes that we have seen in Auckland’s public and commercial world in order to both contradict this kind of thinking and to celebrate these changes.
Auckland Art Gallery
But I also want to make an additional claim about Rodney’s opinion. He’s right. Well, he was right. Auckland, like almost every other city in the western world grew outward in the second half of the last century away from its old centre. There was a consistent and unstoppable move away from inner-city areas for both habitation and commerce throughout this period. The very terms urban and inner-city came to freight negative connotations and lower value was given to the existing structures of the old city centres,
‘Clapham? Surely not! I wouldn’t recommend it. It’s terribly urban, so urban,’ with her feelings centred on the word urban. I wondered if I had mistaken the meaning of urban, if it now meant more than ‘of the city’.
-Janet Frame Angel At My Table p282 original emphasis.
Of course some cities suffered from this phase more than others. Auckland’s inner suburbs were bisected for motorways to feed these new suburbs and the city itself very nearly completely expired through flight and separation. This transformation was the result of public policy, especially as expressed in transport decisions, but that in turn did reflect the spirit of the times [although it was not universally supported- see Paul Mees Transport for Suburbia for good coverage of this]. The move to the suburbs was in, and the destruction of the old city was consistent with the brave new world of modernism which had an exhilarating commitment to the bold fresh start on a blank canvas. And why not, after the appalling wars that seemed to be the culmination of the old world order.
Detail of the new Auckland Art Gallery by FMJT + Archimedia
The most affected cities of this phase have become know as ‘doughnut cities’ because they now have a hole instead of a centre. Detroit is the poster child for this, but Christchurch is another good example. A weak centre ringed by low density suburbs with busy shopping malls sitting in a sea of carparking. The surviving examples of its Gothic Revival past made the old centre like a fairly lifeless full size museum. Of course it now has bigger problems and in fact the chance to fix this imbalance, but it is not clear that it will.
Takutai Square above Britomart Station
Auckland’s centre was largely saved by the failure of those that wanted the University to leave town for a poorly connected greenfields site at Tamaki. Unlike the Christchurch CBD which lost its University, it was largely the growth of the University along with AUT through the barren years of the 1980s that just kept the city going until the tide changed.
North Wharf by Fearon Hay Architects
And a tide it is. We are now in a new phase with a complete new set of economic, social, environmental, and spatial imperatives. Which are in the process of transforming our lives in ways that are just as profound as the one that began with the Great Depression and wasn’t really in full flight until the 1950s. [See Richard Florida's The Great Reset for more on this]. Although these changes are not evenly spread nor always obvious in the midst of them happening.
Ironbank by RTA
Central to understanding the postwar revolution is the rise of the car and huge spatial changes that we made to accommodate it. Likewise it seems that we are currently in an age where the penetration of the auto-centric life has reached its limits and a new order with different patterns of movement are beginning to assert themselves. I am not claiming that we will suddenly abandon all driving but rather its centrality to our lives and the dominant role it has in shaping our communities and routines will diminish. This will take time and like the last big shift will require effort and investment in alternatives, and of course will be contested by those who benefit from the old way, or just identify with it.
North Wharf at Wynyard Quarter
An important driver of this change, and also a result of it, is the desire for a more livable and human-centred spatial order, and perhaps ironically, one better connected to its constituent parts, its suburbs. While the centre is crucial to this dynamic change [See Ed Glaeser's The Triumph of the City], it isn’t at the expense of the hinterland but rather it is a transformation and an intensification of everywhere. It should mean the triumph of the local, a rise in difference, as well as in interconnectedness. And a world where the word urban has reverted to its older connotations, more likely to imply sophistication and growth than decline and despair.
The Imperial by Fearon Hay Architects
The Imperial
Except for our friend Rodney, or others like him whose views were formed last century and are stuck there. Or others living eslewhere in the country for whom Auckland is a distant or unwelcome thought. And this is the world view that the current government holds and is determined to force on us all. That they are clearly fighting against the new zeitgeist that is, like the last one, both global and probably irresistible is cause for optimism. But it also underlines how frustrating it is when we at last have a Council that speaks for the whole city and that ‘gets it’ only to have yesterdays world view being clung to by a dominating authority.
from Fort Lane, one of the new shared spaces; until recently only used for parking vehicles and trash
My photographs here are intended to show that the transformation of Auckland is well underway and not just a theory or the dream of some urban designers at the Council. But a real phenomenon being invested in by companies and public bodies and being successfully occupied by a full range of businesses, institutions, and individuals for all of our benefit.
A great example of successful transformation: The Auckland Art Gallery
These are the amenities and pleasures, business and work opportunities, that are the fruits of intensification and improved interconnection. This is the city we can have if we invest in new forms of movement and liberate the city from being so dominated by the demands of the car. Maybe even Rodney may come to town on occasion and see that ‘up and in’ is the 21st century way and for the simple reason that growth in these directions will help make us happier, healthier, and indeed wealthier.
New or improved uses for old building are the best way to be able to keep them. Better than a new car park?
Adding exciting new layers to the city can only be afforded through more intense use
New and old businesses co-existing in new ways: Making the city one big shared space
This blog has been fairly critical of the transport priorities in this country as well as the transport ministers driving these priorities even though both the both the bloggers and those who read and comment on the site represent a wide range of political views. Last week we saw the Gerry Brownlee answer his first questions in parliament on transport and while it was a disappointing response I do chalk it partly up to the theatrics of the debating chamber and like most things it is what happens behind the scenes that is more important. This is where the advice he receives becomes quite important and we have also see a glimpse that with the release of a few briefing papers from the Ministry of transport (you can read my thoughts here and here). Reading through the papers I definitely got a sense that the authors had a bit of a grudge against commuter rail in Auckland with comments like below where just like the NZ Herald and other publications they have played up the costs of the rail proposals while largely ignoring the fact that the majority of the spend on new projects is actually for new and improved roads.
The draft Plan emphasises a shift to public transport to accommodate future trip growth and reduce congestion. It proposes over $5 billion of new rail capital spending to support this goal. The proposed spending on rail is part of an ambitious capital plan which proposes some $22 billion of new capital spending on major Auckland transport projects, predominantly roading related projects, over the next 30 years. The draft Plan canvases new funding mechanisms, with an emphasis on a road pricing scheme, to fund this programme.
When it comes to mode share though, rail is largely played down with comments about how small it’s mode share currently is that gives the reader the impression that virtually nobody uses it. This is not the feeling that people who actually catch trains have however, especially at peak times when trains are often standing room only. Over the next few years Gerry is likely to be involved in a number of high profile media events related to rail which will all give a great opportunity for him and the government to take credit. We will see the opening of the new Manukau line and station, the opening of a Parnell Station and of course the big one will be seeing the completion of the electrification project and the arrival and running of the first EMU’s.
With this in mind I have decided to issue an open invitation/challenge to both Gerry Browlee and Chris Tremain (the associate minister of transport) to come and catch the train with me to town one morning to see for themselves the impact it has as after all the best way to understand something is to try it yourself. In case you are concerned this isn’t a media stunt and it isn’t about hounding you certain projects, it is purely just to help you to understand what thousands of Aucklanders go through every day to get around the city.
My contact details are here so Gerry and Chris what do you say will you come and catch the train with me? I promise I won’t bite.
Yesterday was the first opportunity for Labour transport spokesperson Phil Twyford to question new transport minister Gerry Brownlee in parliament. The issue at stake related to a point I made in this post, from the briefing to the incoming minister, which highlighted the decline in cost-benefit ratios of state highway projects over the past few years. It’s best summarised by this graph: Here’s the exchange:
It’s early days and I’m sure transport is a pretty big portfolio with a lot to learn but it is very concerning to see Gerry Brownlee simply not answering the question with anything other than a simple yes/no answer and going off on his own little tangents. Perhaps he doesn’t quite have the same command of the transport portfolio yet that Steven Joyce had or he is just playing games (after all parliament often operates on the same level as a kindergarten). Its disturbing to see that he seemingly couldn’t care less about the significant deterioration in the cost-effectiveness of state highway spending.
Phil if I may suggest some further questions:
Does he pan to do anything to change the mix of projects so more high value projects are progressed.
Should projects with high BCR’s, regardless of their mode be progressed ahead of projects with low BCR’s
If he is not concerned about low value BCR’s, does that mean we should be paying more attention to other factors and if so what are they.
Does he plan to instruct his officials to make any changes to the way BCR’s are calculated.
I’m sure this is only the first of many exchanges we will see over the coming few years.
There have been a series of articles in the NZ Herald over the past week talking about dire shortages in rental properties in Auckland, particularly in the inner suburbs. This article in particular highlighted the shortage in available properties there are in places where people so obviously want to live:
The shortage was acute in the inner-city suburbs, she said.
“I don’t think there’s enough rental properties near the city … Most people will have to take their rose-tinted glasses off and say they have to live further out in the suburbs.
“Give me a million houses in Ponsonby. People love Ponsonby.”
Rental property owner Sue Beesley put up a listing for a central apartment overnight on Monday. By the time she checked online yesterday, more than 600 people had taken an interest.
“It’s a very busy time… A lot of people are trying to shift,” she said.
In some cases, prospective tenants are going to pretty extreme measures to get a place, as explained further in this article:
Desperate house hunters are sending realtors full CVs with photographs before viewings – which they turn up to with applications already filled out – and one renter says he has been up against offers to pay $100 extra a week.
You would think that with demand being so high for housing in the inner suburbs that we would be seeing more redevelopment here. But, for some reason it just isn’t happening – with building consents at a 46 year low, which is just staggering:
There were fewer building consents granted for new dwellings in 2011 than in any calendar year in 46 years, figures released by Statistics New Zealand show.
There were building consents granted for 13,662 new dwellings in the 12 months to December 31, down 12.4 per cent on the year to December 2010, and the lowest since the series began in 1965, Stats NZ said.
That included 1,156 consents for apartment units, which was up 23 per cent from 2010. Excluding apartments there were 12,506 building consents granted for dwellings through 2011, down 14.7 per cent from the year before.
Stats NZ said there was NZ$4.925 billion worth of residential building work in 2011, down 12 per cent from 2010 to its lowest level for a calendar year in 10 years.
While it’s positive to see the boost in apartments being built, clearly it isn’t enough – more housing supply is needed in the parts of Auckland where people most want to live: the inner suburbs. Another recent NZ Herald editorial attempts to join the dots together on the issue:
Normally in these circumstances the demand would bid up the price of houses too but that is not happening. Auckland house prices went so high during the last property boom that they far exceeded sensible affordability levels as a proportion of incomes…
…The only practical answer to high rents and unaffordable prices is to increase the supply of new houses.
If young adults today are to aspire to home ownership as their parents could, the building industry has to be expanded and governments must ensure that nothing stands in the way of construction of the type of houses these people want.
Their need is too important to be fodder for a political argument between land developers and city planners as to whether urban limits or land banking are aggravating the housing shortage.
The editorial seems to tentatively link this issue with the battle that’s currently going on over whether the Council’s spatial plan should allow more sprawl or not, but this seems to miss the point. The huge demand is in the inner suburbs. That’s where people want to live. That’s where we need more housing. Why isn’t it happening?
Has the government’s changes to taxation of property (unable to write off depreciation and making tax avoidance more difficult) discouraged investment in residential development?
Has the collapse of finance companies in 2007/2008 meant that developers simply can’t find the money to undertake redevelopment?
Are council’s planning rules in these areas of highest demand too stringent, and are they making it impossible for developments to stack up financially?
As an example of failure to grasp the appeal of centrally located properties there may also be a problem in the banking sector as recent comment from Simon showed:
I’m a case in point. I’m 31, single, I had a good year, scraped together a deposit and went apartment shopping. I didn’t much feel like leaving the inner suburbs. I found a really nice apartment I really liked. It had good light and a big balcony and a high stud and a big park across the road. It was built post-leaky, the price was right and I thought: yes. The bank wanted a 30% deposit, plus security over my parents’ place. I gave up and bought a house on minimum deposit in the suburbs.
Okay so the banks got burnt a little from their own over-enthusiasm on apartments during the bubble, but this looks like an overreaction and like they really don’t understand this market well enough to differentiate between good and poor properties.
One issue that needs discussing is whether we are in fact undergoing a big shift in housing patterns back to renting, perhaps as big as the post war growth in home ownership and suburban spread, that was actively incentivised by successive governments. There is plenty of evidence that this is happening here and it is consistent with changes in other OECD countries. More NZ Herald articles here and here:
Aucklanders who own their own homes have declined from 74 per cent in the 1986 Census to 58.7 per cent last year, according to Statistics New Zealand’s household economic survey.
The Herald of course doesn’t pause for a moment to consider whether a strong rental market could be part of a solution and not a cause for panic, quoting this authority [bizarrely discussing another issue]:
Prime Minister John Key said in 2010, when Chinese investors first sought to buy the Crafar farms, that he would “hate to see New Zealanders as tenants in their own country”.
And of course both articles above quote ACT’s productivity commission blaming the council’s Urban Limit for the problem, but does at least print an opposing view to this for the first time.
The council yesterday noted the commission’s concern that its aim for a more compact city would worsen the problem of housing affordability.
But its submission said the commission had failed to demonstrate that releasing more sections outside the existing urban limit was the solution.
This was likely to pile on significant costs for providers of water and transport services.
The council called for further investigation into interventions in the housing market to help developers cater for low- to medium-income groups.
So it does seem as though there’s some kind of market failure going on here and a political battle about it. We should be getting more housing, but we’re not – and the explanation doesn’t seem to be that simple. But it’s certainly an issue we cannot continue to ignore. But other than criticise the city council’s proposed plan, and boosting the demand at the top end of the market through tax cuts [as Bernard Hickey pointed out recently on Twitter, below], very little is proposed at the national level.
This of course fits with the default setting of the government, still a touching faith in the market, and a refusal to consider that it has any role in assisting the less well off in its policy settings. Isn’t it the case that markets are useful tools, but terrible masters and even worse gods, as we have recently so plainly seen?
The article above does also note that the decline in home ownership mirrors the removal of state policies designed to help people at the edge of affordability into ownership [Does everything go back to the reforms of the 1980s and 90s?].
A shift in state housing policy further widened the divide. The right to capitalise the family benefit to buy a first home ended in 1986. State lending for home ownership stopped in the 90s.
Another change in 1992 allowed investors who owned rental properties through qualifying companies to offset losses on the properties, where the rent fell short of mortgage payments, against the owners’ other income. But they could still take the profits of capital gains tax-free when they sold.
Officials estimated in 2008 that the ability to deduct losses meant an investor would be willing to pay $25,000 more for a median-priced house than someone who planned to live there.
The Smiths borrowed the full cost of buying their two rental properties five years ago. “We have benefited from generous tax schemes,” says Anita.
Says Nigel: “We win either way. Either you are getting the tax break, or you’re winning because you’re getting enough rent to cover the mortgage.”
So yes I do think there are things that the council can do. Especially involvement with state agencies and private developers on specific redevelopments [Like the Melbourne Housing Commission?] and with planning regulations, especially ways of defining certain areas on the city fringe and on transport routes for higher density development with relaxed car parking requirements and where possible increased building height. However allowing expensive new homes way out in the country-side will provide no relief for all those people that want to live affordably in the city. And nor will distant tract housing on the fringes help for the same reasons while also condemning their inhabitants into transport poverty and employment inflexibility. Trying to force people out there is likely to end in market failures as well as committing us to insane levels of extended infrastructure spending. So isn’t this really is a way bigger issue and needs some leadership at the national level, including around the distortions in the tax system, despite the government’s determination to wash their hands of it and blame the council?
We have seen from the 
Recent Comments