Follow us on Twitter

Comparing the CMJ

This is a graphical representation of just how much land we’ve turned over to out motorway network. The image below is of what effectively constitutes the Central Motorway Junction (CMJ). This is 49 hectares in size.

CMJ Size comparison 1

It kind of reminds me of some sort of alien creature latched on to the southern end of the city sucking the out it’s life

As a comparison the second image shows what is really the core of Auckland’s CBD and is home to tens of thousands of jobs. This is also 49 hectares in size including the space taken up by roads within the boundary.

CMJ Size comparison 2

And how the look compared to each other

CMJ Size comparison 3

Now this isn’t to say that if this land wasn’t a motorway it would be as developed or as valuable as the land in the core of the CBD but particularly the parts West of Symonds St would be very different. You may remember this post which showed what the area south of K Rd used to look like – a dense inner suburb that if it still existed today would probably look a lot like Ponsonby or Freemans Bay. It’s been estimated that the construction of the CMJ displaced around 50,000 people which at the time was almost 10% of everyone living in the region.

Newton 1959 - 2010 - 2

No Economic Rationale for $760m Warkworth Toll Road

This is the fifth in a series of posts based on the Campaign for Better Transport’s submission to the Puhoi to Warkworth Board of Inquiry. The full presentation is over at bettertransport.org.nz

In this post we look at the economic justification for the Puhoi to North Warkworth Toll Road (PNWTR).

In the executive summary of the Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE), the NZ Transport Agency has provided the following table of economic effects:

Economic Summary from the AEE executive summary

Economic Summary from the AEE executive summary

While the NZTA assert that there are positive economic effects from the project, the only evidence supplied is a letter providing a high level assessment.  The letter contains general assertions such as “there will be improvements in the economic welfare for Auckland and Northland businesses and residents”, but no quantitative analysis is undertaken.

NZTA claim that the Project will lead to reductions in vehicle operating costs, yet travel time savings for many in the Warkworth and Matakana regions will be in the order of one or two minutes.  Tolls will add significantly to vehicle operating costs, so claiming vehicle operating costs will reduce is unsubstantiated.

No evidence-in-chief has been supplied to back up any of the positive economic effects claimed in the Executive Summary.

At the Board of Inquiry,  NZTA’s Tommy Parker said the idea of the PNWTR is to stimulate the economy in the north:

It is also important for the Board to know that this is seen as a lead infrastructure so the nature of the policy is to provide infrastructure that will stimulate economic growth in areas of economic potential, and that you will be aware that the two regions that will be affected by this project is New Zealand’s most prosperous region in Auckland and one of its least prosperous regions in Northland. So the idea is to connect the two, get greater connectivity between the two to stimulate the economy in the north.

The reality is there is no correlation between travel time savings and economic growth in Northland.  In March of this year, Statistics NZ published regional GDP figures. Here is the chart for Northland:

Northland GDP (source Statistics NZ)

Northland GDP (source Statistics NZ)

 

On 25th January 2009, the Northern Gateway Toll Road (NGTR) opened, offering a travel time saving of up to 9 minutes.  This is a far greater travel time saving than that offered by the PNWTR, so you would expect to see a corresponding increase in GDP for Northland if there is a linkage between road building and GDP.

You can see that immediately after opening, GDP in Northland dropped, before rebounding to the 2009 level.  There was clearly no correlation for the NGTR, so it is likely that the PNWTR, with smaller travel time savings, will also have no correlation with economic growth.

NZTA have not quantified how project travel time savings equate to economic benefit. Table 7 of the Traffic Assessment Report shows Northbound travel time savings:

Table 7: Northbound travel times in minutes

Table 7: Northbound travel times in minutes

The third column is headed up “2026 Project using fastest route”, because in the bottom three scenarios the fastest route is via SH1, not the toll road. The use of percentage figures gives the impression that travel time savings are significant. However, the travel time savings for the Warkworth, Woodcocks and Eastern Beaches routes are miniscule – just one or two minutes at most times of the day. (Ignorning HS and HE which stand for Holiday Start and Holiday End). It is unlikely that these travel time savings will equate to any meaningful economic benefits.

Here are the Southbound trips from Table 8:

southboundtts

Travel time savings are claimed to be greater, but the odd thing here is that this is because the base case travel times are so much more than for the north bound trips. No reason is given in the report for this.

It may be related, but there is a bit of an anomaly with the routes used determine travel times. The report says the 2026 Base Case assumes that the Western Collector will be completed. This is shown on the map below.

Warkworth Western Collector, forecast to be complete by 2021

Warkworth Western Collector, forecast to be complete by 2021

The Western Collector should offer travel time savings to Woodcocks and possibly to the North for trips on the existing SH1. However, looking at the travel time routes used for the 2026 scenarios, the Western Collector clearly isn’t used to determine the base case numbers above.

Figure 15: 2026 Travel time routes of the Transportation Assessment Report

Figure 15: 2026 Travel time routes of the Transportation Assessment Report

Instead of turning opposite McKinney Rd, trips to and from Woodcocks are modelled to take the long route. This will be overstating the Base Case travel times for trips to the Woodcocks area and possibly to / from the North as well.

Contrast the complete lack of economic evidence for the PNWTR with the evidence-in-chief supplied for the Basin Reserve Board of Inquiry. Here is what NZTA’s economist has to say about that project:

From Basin Reserve BOI Evidence In Chief

From Basin Reserve BOI Evidence In Chief

NZTA acknowledge that economics are relevant considerations under the RMA for the Basin Reserve Flyover, but apparently this is not the case for the PNWTR. You could argue that a Benefit Cost Ratio of 1.2 is hardly a ringing endorsement of the economic worth of the Basin Reserve flyover, but at least NZTA have bothered to carry out some kind of calculation of the benefits of travel time savings, vehicle operating cost savings and so on against the cost of the project. Presumably the economics of the PNWTR are so bad that NZTA would rather not provide an economic assessment at all. NZTA should not be able to pick and choose which projects they provide an economic business case for, and which they do not.

Bear in mind that the discussion of economics at the Board of Inquiry takes place in the context of the Resource Management Act.  Commissioner Chandler made the following comment at the hearing on the 10th April:

MR CHANDLER: Perhaps I’ll just mention, Mr Pitches, talking about cost benefit ratios, the Board of course cannot take cost benefit ratios into account in its decision making.

MR PITCHES: All right. So just to respond to that. Benefit cost ratios generally are an indicator of the economic worth of the project, which is why I included it in my presentation. I still stand by my statement that the Resource Management Act place weight upon the economic value of the proposed project and should be considered.

To me it seems ludicrous that the Board should not consider the economic worth of the project, as measured through a benefit cost ratio.  If the NZTA were proposing a 32 lane motorway then surely a Board of Inquiry would be obliged to test the economic rationale. But then again I’m not an RMA lawyer.

Perhaps it comes down to how adequately the NZTA have considered alternatives.  I will be covering this in my next post.

Photo of the day: Problem not a lack of roads

This photo from Lennart Nout on Twitter today of the morning peak shows that the problem with traffic in Auckland isn’t a lack of roads. During the off peak and during times like school holidays there is more than enough capacity available on the roads. 

This is looking north from Northcote Rd

What we really need to address is how we move people during peak times. In my view investing in alternatives like the Congestion Free Network is the best way to do that.

CFN 2030A

Mahurangi Matters on the Puhoi Warkworth Board of Inquiry

To date there has been limited media coverage on the Puhoi Warkworth Board of Inquiry.

Fortunately Karyn Scherer, from the local Warkworth newspaper Mahurangi Matters, is one of the few reporters attending the BoI.  She writes in her opinion piece:

As someone who lives not too far north of where the Puhoi to Warkworth motorway is likely to terminate (or originate), I should be eagerly awaiting its completion.  I travel to Auckland fairly regularly and I have to confess I rather enjoy slipping my sedan into cruise control once I hit the Northern Gateway, and cranking up the stereo.

This is the thinking of most of the general public I think.  Perhaps it explains why there hasn’t been much media coverage – the promise of the freedom of the open road, unimpeded by others means that few are able to conceive the construction of the toll road will be anything but a good thing.  Others may buy into the NZTA argument that this is “lead infrastructure”, and even though the capacity isn’t required now, there will come a time when it is. Ms Scherer continues:

But even before this month’s public hearing into the motorway extension began, I was starting to have doubts about whether it was a good idea.

Meeting some of the people whose lives have already been destroyed by the proposal because they live along the route was more than just food for thought. Sure, you need to crack a few eggs in order to make an omelette, but shouldn’t we also consider whether too many omelettes will give us a heart attack one day?

The most sense I have heard so far in the hearing was from the Campaign for Better Transport, a voluntary organisation of about 50 people that has won some important battles over transport issues. The elephant in the room at the country lodge in Silverdale where the hearing is taking place is the economic rationale for the project. Basically, there isn’t one. It’s a political decision, driven largely, I suspect, by the Government’s desire to spend up on infrastructure to help stimulate the economy in the wake of the GFC.

Bingo! Ms Scherer is a former business reporter at the Herald.

The problem with such Keynesian responses is that there is a long-term price to be paid.

I’m well aware that most people in this area want the new motorway – but few seem to have given much thought as to who will pay for it, and whether it is worth it. There is no such thing as a free motorway, so ultimately it will be taxpayers who fit the bill, and those who pay the tolls.

Those who can’t afford the tolls will miss out on its benefits. Ironically, they are likely to be commuters who travel to Auckland for work, and could do with a decent motorway. For much less than $760 million, says the CBT, we could upgrade the existing highway and everyone would benefit.

Read what the CBT has to say in this transcript. It starts at page 382.

At last, some commentary on the fact that this will be a toll road, and the fact that there is no economic business case behind it.  Because the northern junction of the project is almost two kilometres to the north of Warkworth’s main intersection, there is a high probability that many Warkworth and Matakana residents aren’t actually going to use the new route, especially if it is tolled.

The transcript linked to in the editorial relates to the presentation I gave to the Board on the 9th of April. My appearance was supposed to be at 11:00am, however I wasn’t called until 4:30pm by which time any media had gone home.

The following day I was sworn in and cross-examined by the NZTA and the Board for 40 minutes. I think this transcript (from page 412) is more revealing of the Board’s thinking.  I’ve put the highlights below the fold to stop this post from getting too lengthy.

Continue reading Mahurangi Matters on the Puhoi Warkworth Board of Inquiry

Disney’s 1950′s vision for roads

I’ve posted this before but following on from my post this morning, this video from Disney in 1958 shows the kind of vision that has dominated our transport and land use planning for such a long time.

Some things mentioned in here have actually come true or seem close to doing so while others I’m very thankful that haven’t.

Now where’s my sun powered electro suspension car?

 

Just another $500 million

The herald this week ran a large piece on the projects under construction as part of the Western Ring Route (WRR) including aerial photos of the progress. The projects covered were:

  • The Waterview Connection breaking it down by:
    • The Southern end
    • The Northern end
    • The Waterview interchange
  • The raising and widening of the Northwestern Motorway Causeway
  • The Te Atatu Interchange
  • The St Lukes Interchange
  • The Lincoln Rd Interchange

But the thing that got me about the article was this part

The 4.8km link between the Southwestern and Northwestern Motorways will fill the last-but-one gap in the 48km Western Ring Route. It will bypass the city to the west and link Manukau, Auckland, Waitakere and North Shore.

All that will be left to complete, by about 2019, will be a $500 million-plus motorway-to-motorway interchange at the northern end of the route.

It’s made to sound like it’s some sort of minor completion task but in reality at $500 million it would be the second most expensive road project in Auckland after the Waterview tunnels. What’s more it’s all just to satisfy some transport planners desire to make a map look prettier.

SH18-SH1 map gap

The project is more than twice the cost of a similar junction at Manukau built just a few years ago. It’s even almost enough to get a fully offline busway all the way to Silverdale – not that it’s needed that far yet (but NEX services to Silverdale are). It will be eclipsed in price any time soon by $800 million Puhoi to Warkworth motorway (if it goes ahead). 

Further it’s also technically incorrect to say that’s the final project for the Western Ring Route as there is still an estimated $100 million upgrade of the Royal Rd interchange (and associated widening either side of it) that will be left to do. Also needing to be included are the costs of widening the Northern and Southern motorways either side of the western ring route which the NZTA say are needed to handle the traffic from the WRR.

All up over the span of the roughly 13 years that we will have actually been building it, the Western Ring Route will costing us almost $4 billion. That’s on top of other major motorway projects that have been/are going on like the Victoria Park Tunnel, Newmarket Viaduct replacement and the myriad of projects the government announced last year they would fast track. Here’s a breakdown of the costs of the various WRR Projects

WRR Costs

It’s the ability to really break some of these mega projects down into small chunks that I think has been instrumental in Auckland forging ahead with so many motorway projects ahead of other transport investments. Projects like the CRL have suffered because they require the entire thing to built before they become usable and the price tag then looks scary. However spreading out the cost of the CRL over the years it will take to build shows that annually it’s about the same as what we’ve been pouring into these motorway projects. (note: cost of CRL in today’s dollars is ~$1.8 billion other costs often quoted include extra trains for an inefficient operating pattern and future inflation).

All of this makes me wonder how different the public would have perceived these projects if upfront they had been told it would have cost almost $4 billion to build. Would public sentiment about what transport projects we should build be different if we could have had a more realistic discussion about how much things cost.

Mighty River Rail: A Fresh Future?

Looking at a number of separate but current issues got me thinking about the possibility of the return of passenger services on the existing rail lines through the Waikato. These include:

  • The potential appeal of well connected and well designed satellite towns.
  • The difficulty of retaining vitality and that appeal in many existing country towns.
  • New challenges and opportunities for a number of Waikato towns caused by the rerouting of SH1.
  • Population growth pressures on Hamilton and Auckland and the poor quality of recent ex-urban spread.
  • The existing rail lines and legacy stations in the Waikato.
  • The coming availability of Auckland’s current diesel passenger trains.

Starting with the last point I would like to stress that I am not proposing a Hamilton-Britomart intercity service. This idea has a great many practical problems in particular the crowded condition of both Britomart Station and the Auckland network, it is simply too hard to fit additional services through the Auckland network without more track and the CRL to free up station space at Britomart; so no time soon. But also the fact that the market for such a direct service is unproven and likely not large, especially as it would not be competitive with buses using the motorway for price or speed. The billions being spent in the Waikato countryside is speeding the road route there and even if the Auckland network can jam up at anytime for any number of reasons [I spent a loathsome hour getting from Otahuhu to the city on SH1 last week], it still will be hard for the existing rail route to be competitive. At least until such a time as it could run reliably and directly through the Auckland network at speed.

No I have another suggestion that is to embrace the available resource of the line by going instead for coverage and local connectivity. But it starts in Auckland still. The plan is for Auckland’s new electric trains only to reach as far south as Papakura so a few of the current diesel trains will remain as a shuttle service from that station south to Pukekohe. This system will be in place in late next year and Papakura station has been upgraded to facilitate its operation as a transfer point between the two rail systems.

So the first idea is simply to extend the coming southern shuttle between Pukekohe and Papakura south to connect with the towns of the northern Waikato already on the line. Even just extending those services south to Tuakau, the next town on the route to Hamilton, and then to the growing town of Pokeno would cost very little and offer an opportunity to test the idea. But I’m sure the people of Ngauawahia and Te Kauwhata would be pretty keen on the service too going on information from previous intercity proposals, and if a service goes that far it would be crazy not to continue into Hamilton. It would then have anchors* at both ends and not just be an appendage of Auckland’s system. On one hand then it would just be extending the Pukekohe catchment and on the other offering those country towns the chance to redevelop the areas around their stations as well as an additional way to travel within the wider region. Politically and financially it would require the Waikato Regional Council to work with AT and agree on the details. Let’s assume that’s not impossible.

As the line to Pukekohe is likely to be electrified and intermediate stations added this service could then terminate there instead of Papakura and become a much more intra-Waikato one, still linking into the big and frequent Auckland network at that network’s southernmost point for further connectivity. So the possibility arises to take the service south to all the points on the line to Hamilton and even beyond, so say:

  • Pukekohe
  • Tuakau [apparently has .5mil budget set aside for a station]
  • Pokeno
  • Te Kauwhata
  • Huntly
  • Ngaruawahia
  • Te Rapa [new station at The Base mall]
  • Frankton [Existing Station]
  • Hamilton City [The surprisingly already extant underground central city station]
  • Claudelands [new station Hamilton East]

No new track. Simply station and safety upgrades or reinstatements of legacy stations and two new at grade stations in Hamilton.

Ngruawahia Stion

By not trying to race between the two big city centres the added stops become an advantage rather than a disadvantage. It would be as much about travel between any points on the line as end to end and be a tool for regional placemaking. And of course there then is the option to include Te Awamutu to the south, and Morrinsville and Cambridge to the east for more of a pan-Waikato network.

The Waikato District Council could slowly build up a programme using the onetime opportunity of Auckland’s Diesel units in much the same way that Auckland did with Perth’s, assuming it works sufficiently. It’s a low risk chance to grow something new in the Waikato in part taking advantage of Auckland’s proximity by plugging into that bigger network but really focussing on its own region. Particularly to do something for the towns along the route.

Below is a strangely nostalgic map from NZTA designed to promote their massive programme of highway building through the Waikato countryside all this decade; trying to make costly heavy engineering seem all cosy and approachable like something in a kid’s book [particularly 1960s- just like the whole RoNS idea].

Curves.ai

Other than the attempt at cute and the apparent use of the current SH1 entirely by cyclists in the future [!], the key thing this map tells us is that pretty much all the towns on the current route are about to become bypassed. So in as much as they rely on passing traffic for business and vitality that game is up, or soon will be. But also of course in as much as their centres are severed and made unliveable by the heavy traffic speeding through them there is an opportunity too for these places. The scale of the works is more apparent in this version:

Waikato Expressway

Waikato Expressway

A reinvention for the likes of Huntly and Ngaruawhaia is going to be required, but this work usually never happens when NZTA leaves town, although surely there is an opportunity and a need to reorient these places from being focussed around the traffic that used to race through them. It will be up to the local communities and the District Council to unlock the possibilities made available by SH1 going. The chance to restitch their mainstreets back together, calm the remaining traffic; in short make place; to build a new identity and economy in these communities. Could the return of a rail service linking these places, anchored by the two big metropolises, have a role in this? The currently unused stations could certainly be a focus for redevelopment, cafes, information centres, markets etc. A focus for the rediscovery of place and character.

The rail line is less direct than the new road precisely because it connects all these old towns like pearls on a string; so I suggest don’t fight that essential characteristic of the route, use it for local interconnection and not as an attempt to imitate the highway which will soon completely bypass these towns as it expressly designed to avoid them to better serve interregional movement.

North Waikato Line

Above is a rough outline from Papakura south. It is clear that Tuakau and Pokeno could easily be served as Pukekohe extensions, then there is a bigger jump to the old towns south of Pokeno to Hamilton which would make it much more than an extension of the Pukekohe service. And finally a possible third stage east and south of Hamilton out to Morrinsville, Cambridge, and TeAwamutu. So three stages:

Waikato Line

The first stage should gain support from those advocating country living. We are often told that Satellite Towns are a great way to get the best of all worlds; right in the country, but with the social hub of a village centre, and connection to the employment, education, and action of the big city. But to get this the detail matters enormously. Quality of place takes work; those three boxes all need to be properly ticked. Here, I suggest, is a mechanism to help achieve this work.

For example look how they are marketing the spreading little north Waikato town of Pokeno:

Pokeno

Note the mention of rail right in the same sentence as the state highways as a selling point for Pokeno, yet there is no rail service, and no plan for one either. I agree it would be great if there was. Not least because it would give the town an opportunity to develop as a real Satellite Town, not just a piece of displaced sprawl as it seems to be becoming now. The station and surrounding amenity could become a village centre of the kind at the heart of the successful country Satellite Towns around overseas cities.

The TVOne report linked to on the website above is worth a look. It is a good showcase of the often confused thinking, particularly by those that consider themselves experts, on the issues of urban form and the role of transport infrastructure in shaping those forms.

Here’s a quick look at the easily available Hamilton City Stations. Hamilton being the other anchor* of this line.

Hamilton City Stations

The triangle is the existing Hamilton Station at Frankton, the rectangle is Hamilton’s big secret, the country’s first underground urban station, currently unused [edit]. And the line a rough position for an East Hamilton station, around Claudelands, with good residential walkup and next to the Claudelands Convention Centre. These are about a kilometre apart. There is a good opportunity to add a station at the back of The Base at Te Rapa, and a more difficult option for one between that and these three city stops perhaps at Forest Lake Rd. Although the surrendering of rail land for a duplicate highway through there has squeezed the corridor and added to the severance both of which would make this more difficult and expensive. So it goes. However this little urban network alone could be quite useful; Claudelands to The Base certainly looks handy, nicely balancing Ngaruawahia to the city say.

While it is the case that the forces associated with the massive road build currently taking place in the Waikato have been strongly opposed to any rail revival in the region I think for them to continue that now this would be to misunderstand the potential and the purpose of this project. As conceived here it is complimentary to the huge highway system. It is to serve those communities left behind by the Expressway; to help them develop into stronger entities in their own right. To help mitigate the shock of the departure of the highway and to take advantage of the new possibilities that must be found for these places. This project is no threat to the vast sums being spent on highways.

This is a very different argument than that for improvement and extension of the Auckland network for which there certainly is growing demand of significant scale, but I can imagine local people getting behind such a proposal. So a good first step would to hear their views here and if supported then to work towards getting some real analysis done. After all this is not a detailed proposal more a bit of free thinking. After the low hanging fruit [and admittedly Auckland centred] first stage I concede it gets trickier:

  • What sort of frequency would be required for a meaningful service?
  • Could such a frequency be justified by the ridership?
  • How to set the ticket price to stimulate uptake but also help fund operations?
  • How do you balance economic value of place and social quality against financial costs?
  • Is this the best stopping pattern?
  • Are the trains available? Suitable? Affordable?
  • Will KiwiRail be cooperative?

And finally is this the kind of thing that the people of the Waikato want?

Thanks to Jon Reeves and CBT for additional information

* Anchoring. Here is Jarrett Walker:

“So transit planners are always looking to anchor their lines.  Anchoring means designing a line so that it ends at a major destination, so that there will be lots of people on the vehicle all the way to the end of the line.  A line with strong anchors at each end will have more uniform high ridership over the whole length of the line, and a much more efficient use of capacity overall.”

The Road Marking Dance

A neat video showing two clearly experienced guys painting doing road marking.

Note to AT, see how easy it is to mark a street, perhaps you could get some people doing the same thing but instead of saying BUS STOP they could also paint the words BUS LANE.

Low Traffic Forecast For Costly Warkworth Toll Road

This is the fourth in a series of posts based on the Campaign for Better Transport’s submission to the Puhoi to Warkworth Board of Inquiry. The full presentation is over at bettertransport.org.nz

Previously I pointed out that the NZTA produced Traffic Assessment Report for the Puhoi to North Warkworth Toll Road (PNWTR) is not realistic in a number of areas:

It is very hard to appreciate the significant combined effect of these erroneous assumptions, so I’ve modelled the outcome in this table:

Projected Puhoi To North Warkworth Toll Road Traffic Volumes for 2026

Projected Puhoi To North Warkworth Toll Road Traffic Volumes for 2026

The more realistic input assumptions mean the result is 56% less traffic on the toll road, and 50% more on the existing SH1 than NZTA’s forecast.

This is significant, not just because 6,031 really is a pitiful amount of traffic for a $760m toll road, but because one of the objectives of the toll road is to reduce congestion at Warkworth.  Current AADT volumes are about 17,400 veh/day, so traffic volumes of 21,788 represent an increase in traffic volumes of 25% by 2026 on the existing SH1.  Without improvements to Hill St, delays will get far worse after the project is completed. It also means the claimed safety benefits are doubtful. There aren’t any safety improvements proposed for the existing SH1, so the number of accidents will be higher than NZTA’s report also. I’ll be talking more about this in a subsequent post.

The assumptions that I have used are laid out here:

assumptions

Stepping through each assumption:

  • Project scenario straight line growth.  Although the NZTA’s own Economic Evaluation Manual stipulates a zero default growth rate should be used, I have based growth on the historic trend of 2.1%. Incidentally if you use a higher growth rate than this, more traffic results on SH1.
  • Toll route % traffic: This is the split of traffic assumed without a toll. I’ve simply used the same split identified in the original report.
  • Warkworth Plan Increase in SH1: The 2,800 increase in traffic on SH1 comes from Test B of the original report.  I’m assuming this because most new growth is currently planned to be in the west and south of Warkworth. Obviously if there is an increase in traffic on SH1, there must also be a reduction in traffic from the toll road.
  • Matakana straight line growth: The original report assumed virtually nil growth, but here I’ve assumed the same growth for Matakana Road as for Sandspit Rd.  I’ve assumed 50% of the additional Matakana traffic will take the toll road. The 50/50 split is roughly the split the original report claimed. Although NZTA have since retracted this split, I’ll run with this for now.
  • Toll diversion: The effect of any toll is to divert traffic on to the free alternative. I haven’t modelled a toll tariff amount, I’ve simply assumed that the NZTA will set a toll that will divert about 15% of the “further north” traffic and 80% of traffic to Warkworth and the eastern beaches.  There is a greater diversion of traffic for these destinations as the existing SH1 is already forecast to be quicker.  I’m just assuming 20% of these trips will be on the toll road because of the increased safety and comfort of the toll road, even though the trip will take longer. (Off memory, about 25% of trips on the Northern Gateway corridor takes the free the Hibiscus Coast route.)

So there you have it. You can test your own assumptions by downloading the spreadsheet.

Labour focuses on minor transport issues

Labour released a small part of their transport policy yesterday and frankly it’s absolute rubbish with it seemingly designed just to target a handful of complainers. You can get a good feel for what they’re aiming at when the policy is called Easier Driving and with the slogan accompanying the policies is

Labour will make it easier to get a family holiday on the roada

The three things this release says they will do are:

The issue

Trailers and caravans
Currently, owners of light trailers and caravans must pay an annual licensing fee (usually referred to as ‘registration’) of $28, plus a $7 administration fee.

It is a tax that generates a huge amount of hassle for the 600,000 light trailer and caravan owners in New Zealand while bringing in little revenue for the government. With 20% of the cost to owners going on administration, it is also highly inefficient. No policy justification exists for charging a registration fee for light trailers and caravans; it’s just a money grab.

Trucks
Heavy trucks have a speed limit of 90km/h. If they drive in the fast lane on multi-lane roads, they either slow down light vehicle traffic or, frequently, exceed their speed limit. This is both inconvenient for other road users and dangerous.

Motorhomes and campervans
The current government unfairly increased Road User Charges for owners of motorhomes and campervans when it changed from assessing RUC based on actual gross weight to using maximum allowable weight, instead.

Many campervans and motorhomes are built on heavy chassis or converted from buses but never carry anywhere near their maximum allowable weight. This means they have far less impact on the roads than a fully-laden commercial truck with the same maximum allowable weight. Charging them the same RUC as a much heavier vehicle goes against the principles of the RUC Act. This change has seen RUC costs unfairly double for some motorhome and campervan owners.

The detail

Labour is committed to getting rid of unnecessary costs and rules that put a burden on Kiwis. As an example of this approach, we have identified several current rules and requirements that make using the roads a hassle. Changing them will lower costs and make life easier for Kiwis, and give a boost to domestic tourism.

Labour will remove the annual licencing fee for light trailers and caravans. This will reduce revenue into the National Land Transport Fund by $17 million a year (less than 1% of the NTLF, which can be met by reprioritisation), but save owners of trailers and caravans $21 million a year, as well as countless hours and hassle.

In other jurisdictions including the UK, South Australia, Victoria and many US states, heavy trucks are required to not use the fast lane on multi-lane roads. Labour will adopt this rule for three and four lane highways. Heavy trucks can still travel at their 90km/h speed limit in the other lanes, but it keeps the fast lane clear for faster light vehicle traffic.

Labour will create a special RUC class for motorhomes and campervans that reflects their actual impact on the roads, as suggested by the AA. This will reduce revenue into the National Land Transport Fund by $2-5 million a year (to be funded out of reprioritisation within the NLTF).

That there are so many other transport issues that will need to be addressed and they decide to waste time on this stuff doesn’t bode well for their overall transport policy. The trailer and caravan changes seem like tinkering around the edges and if Labour were serious they would get cracking on changing the entire licencing system.

As for the trucks on motorways, as far as I’m aware there is technically no such thing as a fast lane so it will be a bit hard for them to stay out of it. Even if this was implemented as it sounds it doesn’t mean there is that many places it would actually have any affect. The only three lane state highways are in Auckland and Wellington and on those most trucks do tend to stay to the left. I can’t remember the last time I saw a truck creating a hold up in free flow motorway traffic. Certainly they can be an issue outside of Auckland but then this policy wouldn’t be relevant anyway due to the lace of qualifying roads (and that doesn’t mean we need to go and build more).  This map shows the extent of motorways in Auckland that have over three lanes. Obviously there are some big upgrades going on that will increase this in coming years.

black = 3 lanes, red = four lanes and green = 5 lanes

Motorways with more than 3 lanes