Auckland Transport Blog

Earlier this week the Auckland Regional Council released their “State of the Environment Report”  The whole report makes for quite interesting reading, analysing the pressures faced by Auckland, what steps have been taken to protect the environment from the pressures, and what further steps probably need to be taken. It is an incredibly comprehensive and necessary report, and once again reinforces what a loss to Auckland it will be when the ARC is wound-up into a single Auckland Council. The environmental oversight that they provide is absolutely precious, and I worry tremendously about who, if anyone, is going to replace that role.

Anyway, in terms of transport, the report makes a number of interesting findings. These key findings are outlined below:

• Nationally, vehicle ownership increased from 641 vehicles per 1000 people in 2001 to 698 vehicles per 1000 people in 2007. The Auckland region is likely to have experienced the same or a similar trend.
• Congestion in Auckland shows considerable variability. Travel times in the evening peak have declined for the past three years, however it is too early to tell if this is a longterm trend.
• Between 2004 and 2008, the amount of Vehicle Kilometres Travelled (VKT) in the Auckland region is estimated to have increased by about one billion (nine per cent).
• Nationally, there was steady growth in the engine size of vehicles between 2001 and 2007. However, this rate of growth declined for both New Zealand-new and used imports in 2006 and 2007.

Looking at congestion, there have been some really interesting statistics over the past few years, and many of the fluctuations – particularly between 2007 and 2009 – can tell us a lot about what causes congestion and what is may help ease it.

First, the data:

If we look at the averages for motorways, state highways and arterials, it is quite revealing to note the fluctuations between 2007, 2008 and 2009. On the motorways we’ve seen a continued decline in congestion – which may be the result of a number of factors such as the completion of the CMJ improvements at the end of 2006, an increased use of public transport for longer-distance trips (particularly on the Northern Motorway when the busway become operational) or other reasons – which become a bit more obvious when you look at the stats for state highways and arterials.

The statistics for state highways (the ones which aren’t motorways) show a dramatic decrease in congestion between 2007 and 2008, but about half of that improvement being lost again between 2008 and 2009. For regional arterials, we see a small decrease in congestion between 2007 and 2008, but a large increase between 2008 and 2009 (particularly in the morning peak and interpeak). In short, 2008 was clearly the least congested year on Auckland’s roads.

To try to explain this phenomenon I think it’s worthwhile to see what petrol prices were in these various years. The data referred to above was collected in March 2007, March 2008 and March 2009 so we have a good opportunity to try to see if there appears to be any relationship between congestion and petrol prices. The AA “Petrolwatch” provides the following archive information on petrol prices (recorded at the end of each month):

March 2007: $1.56 per litre for 91 octane
March 2008: $1.78 per litre for 91 octane
March 2009: $1.59 per litre for 91 octane

It would seem as though the level of congestion somewhat mirrors the petrol price. This is not surprising, as petrol prices get higher people will want to drive less, and will consider alternatives such as walking, cycling and using public transport more.

While this is hardly earth-shattering news, it is very interesting to see just how clearly congestion is affected by petrol price. To me, this information shows that if we really want to reduce congestion in Auckland there is only one way to go about it – and that is to get people off the roads, and that one of the most effective ways of doing this is by making driving more expensive.

I suppose that one could argue that congestion has continued to decline on motorways between 2008 and 2009 “on average”, even though petrol prices reduced. However, if you look at the data closely, the time when the motorway is most congested (ie. the morning peak) actually worsened between 2008 and 2009. Considering the amount of money that has been thrown at building motorways in the past three years (and continues to be thrown at this task) it must surely be a disappointment for NZTA that the morning peak times on the motorway continue to become more and more congested – no matter how much money seems to be spent.

Of course there were many disadvantages of having high petrol prices in 2008, and I think that internationally the high oil prices certainly contributed to the economic meltdown later that year. However, it’s worthwhile noting that high petrol prices really do seem to reduce congestion – arguably more effectively than anything else.

The term “Greenwash” is quite well known, meaning situations where companies disingenuously promote their products as environmentally friendly when they aren’t, or over-sell what are really quite modest environmental benefits. Wikipedia defines the term as follows:

Greenwashing (green whitewash) is the practice of companies disingenuously spinning their products and policies as environmentally friendly, such as by presenting cost cuts as reductions in use of resources. It is a deceptive use of green PR or green marketing. The term green sheen has similarly been used to describe organizations that attempt to show that they are adopting practices beneficial to the environment.

An interesting phenomenon that I have seen in transport circles, particularly in Auckland, is what could be called “public transport-wash”, or “PT-wash” for short. It is when road projects have tiny or pointless little supposed public transport improvements tacked onto them in order to help “sell” them to the general public. Road engineers and other people who generally promote big roading projects realise that what people really want is better public transport, so that’s why they add on these supposed public transport benefits that most of the time don’t really exist, or at best are extremely minor compared to the project as a whole.

A classic example of “PT-wash” is the proposed widening of State Highway 16. As noted in the NZ Herald last year, around $860 million is going to be spent on widening SH16 between St Lukes and Westgate over the next decade. In that original article you see the following paragraph:

Bus shoulder lanes would also be extended over the full distance, boosting an existing “patchwork” of peak-hour priority sections.

At the Waterview Connection Expo I attended on Saturday, there was a bit more information on the extent of these bus shoulder lanes. Somewhat unsurprisingly they will continue to abruptly end at each on-ramp, off-ramp or over-bridge, and in general seemed to be a continuation of the “patchwork” of priority lanes that exists at the moment. In reality, we’re probably going to merely end up with slightly wider shoulder lanes that are a bit smoother – and that’s it. Yet the project is being sold to the public as helping to improve public transport. AMETI is another classic example of “PT-wash” in my opinion. A whole pile of massive road upgrades that justifies itself on the basis of adding a few bus-lanes, when really what’s needed is a whole new rail corridor.

I may seem to be overly grumpy and exasperated here, but I really do think that we need to keep an eye out for “PT-washing”, to ensure that we’re not being taken for a ride here. If a project does nothing significant to help public transport then we shouldn’t be tricked into thinking that it does.

An interesting agenda item in the recent Auckland City Council City Development Committee meeting provides an interesting insight into how the supply of parking can impact upon the need to build expensive roading projects. While the whole report is an interesting read, basically in short there is going to be a lot of redevelopment around the Wynyard Quarter/Tank Farm area of Auckland’s CBD over the next 20-30 years which raises some potentially difficult traffic problems. One way to solve those problems is to restrict the supply of parking that is constructed in the area quite severely, so that on average only 30% of people travelling to the area will use their private vehicles. The other option considered was to build a $100 million grade separation of the Halsey Street/Fanshawe Street intersection.

This is detailed below:So basically, through restricting parking supply, we’ve managed to save $100 million and have avoided having to build a pretty damn ugly grade separated intersection. Hopefully this is a bit of a lesson for Council, that in areas of the city with the potential to be well served by public transport, restricting the supply of off-street parking means that other transport modes will be encouraged and they won’t have to build super expensive roading upgrades.

Imagine if we put that $100 million into the tram-line that the ARC envisages for the Tank Farm area? Heck, for that price we could almost extend it along Tamaki Drive out to Kelly Tarltons or Mission Bay.

Well I went along to a fairly significant chunk of NZTA’s Waterview Connection expo today. While I criticised the wisdom of running something for seven hours in a previous post, I must say that having all that time available meant that issues could be delved into in far greater detail than I’ve ever seen at any previous consultation. This was certainly a good thing.

While it’s obvious that NZTA are going to fairly significant lengths to mitigate the adverse effects of the project, there are still a number of unresolved matters in my opinion, a number of areas where I think there could be relatively minor design tweak that could lead to significant benefits, as well as some fundamental problems I have with aspects of the proposal that unfortunately probably won’t be changed, but at least I can reserve “I told you so” rights in future years. This post will focus on the more fundamental matters – in particular the works to state highway 16 – while future posts will talk about other matters.

The biggest problem I have with the upgrade is not actually the Waterview Connection, but rather the upgrades to State Highway 16 that are occurring in conjunction with the SH20 actual Waterview Connection. I’m not exactly sure why these two projects have been bundled together, although the thinking is that because the Waterview Connection will feed extra traffic onto SH16, it needs to be widened (the causeway between Pt Chev and Rosebank also needs to be raised up a bit). And not widened by just a little bit either, widened by three lanes as shown in the diagram below: The end result will be a nine lane wide motorway between Pt Chevalier and Te Atatu: five lanes westbound and four lanes eastbound. Inevitably, within a few years this super-wide motorway will become congested just as every other motorway widening project around Auckland has never eliminated congestion – just pushed it back a little bit until induced demand kicked in.

I pointed this out to many of the NZTA staff at the expo, and how silly it seemed to effectively flush $800 million down the toilet on widening a motorway that will become congested again within a few years. They pointed out that some of the work is necessary anyway, such as raising the causeway, and probably one additional westbound lane will be necessary to soak up vehicles from SH20. They also pointed out that bus “shoulder lanes” would be provided. However, the problem with bus shoulder lanes is that whenever they come up to a road overbridge or an on-ramp or an off-ramp they end abruptly, the bus needs to pull out into traffic again and much of the benefit is lost. Furthermore, bus drivers (understandably) wanting to avoid having to pull out into motorway traffic often simply avoid the shoulder lanes. In short, shoulder lanes are of limited benefit to buses and generally are just sop to shut public transport advocates up (kinda the same process as “future proofed for light rail”).

As I have detailed previously, it seems quite unbelievable that we’re spending around $800 million on upgrading state highway 16 yet not build a busway. The Northwestern Motorway is perfect for a busway, as there are station opportunities at St Lukes, Pt Chevalier, Te Atatu, Lincoln Road, Massey and Westgate just sitting there as I explained last year. Furthermore, it seems as though the problem isn’t that NZTA don’t want to build a busway, but that ARTA/ARC have only ever designated state highway 16 as a “Quality Transit Network (QTN)” rather than a “Rapid Transit Network (RTN)”. In terms of busways/lanes, apparently QTN means shoulder lanes and RTN means full busway (like the Northern Busway). Therefore, if state highway 16 were to be designated as an RTN then NZTA would be somewhat forced into at least strongly considering putting a busway along there.

Most of the arguments put up against SH16 being an RTN are along the lines of “but the train line is the RTN out west” or that “the busway would cannibalise patronage on the train system.” What this misses is the completely different alignments of the two. How many people living in Pt Chevalier take the train to work? How many in Te Atatu? How many in Massey? How many in Westgate? The answer all up is probably a big fat zero. They either drive or they use the incredibly messy, slow and complex system of buses that serves those parts of West Auckland at the moment.

This is clearly shown in the map below, with the Western Line shown in green and the route of a possible northwest busway shown in red. West of Pt Chevalier, the two are never less than three kilometres apart (the yellow stars indicate possible busway station sites):

Now I wouldn’t argue that the northwest busway is one of the most pressing public transport projects in Auckland, and perhaps that is why it has been ignored by just about everyone as a possibility, but the fact remains that NZTA is going to be spending $800 million here. Shouldn’t we at least ensure that money is spent on something that will have long-term benefits of giving people more transport choices (like the rampantly successful Northern Busway) rather than on simply widening SH16 and watching all that extra capacity being eaten up by induced demand?

The response I got today from most NZTA staff about this situation was that a busway should be considered as “another project”. The problem with that approach is that the money for the future busway is being spent on pointlessly widening SH16. I don’t think it’s that likely we’ll spend $800 million here on widening the motorway and then in 10 years spend another $600 million on putting a busway next to our superwide (but of course now super-congested) motorway. If we want the busway we need to do it now.

Why aren’t we doing that? Why are we flushing $800 million down the toilet widening SH16 instead?

I didn’t get the chance to make it to the expo on the Waterview Connection today, although some commenters here did go along and it’s interesting to hear what they have had to say about it. I will try to get along next week.

One interesting things to come out of the expo is a pile of additional information, that is available to view in this document. It covers everything from the planning process to noise minimisation to tunnelling techniques. From a planning perspective, it’s interesting to hear that the notice of requirement is likely to be lodged around the middle of this year – so if you’re planning to make a submission on the Waterview Connection then it would pay to start thinking about what you’re going to say now.

The diagram below shows the construction techniques that will be used for the project (which now also includes some of the work to State Highway 16): Looking at the State Highway 16 widening part of this project (which seems to have been lumped in together with the Waterview Connection project itself), one of my biggest criticisms of this motorway widening is that it will simply induce traffic – meaning that before particularly long the motorway will be just as congested as it is now. The information in the diagram below tends to confirm my suspicions: The graph immediately above shows that widening state highway 16 will result in many more vehicles using it than would have done so otherwise, had the project not been constructed. What I find particularly interesting is that traffic on Te Atatu Road and Rosebank Road is also higher in the “2026 with project” scenario than it is in the “2026 no project scenario”. So not only is the project inducing traffic on the motorway itself, it’s also inducing traffic on the surrounding roads. NZTA claim that, in general, the motorway widening will divert traffic from local and arterial roads onto the motorway, although I’m not sure how much I really believe that as it seems NZTA do not believe in the concept of induced demand.

It’s a bit of a different story for the Waterview Connection part of the project, with some of the traffic benefits here will actually be quite real, as the new route means that local and arterial routes will no longer have to serve the functions of of a connection between SH16 and SH20. So roads like Carrington Road and Blockhouse Bay road will have long term benefits. I do still question whether this is really the most essential way to spend billions of dollars on transport in the Auckland region, but I guess at least with the Waterview Connection part of the project I think there will be long-term benefits with cars drawn off existing local roads. With the State Highway 16 widening I really can’t see any long-term benefits.

Apparently there was some talk about how the Avondale-Southdown rail corridor will be protected, and construction of that corridor “made easier” by the Waterview Connection project. That is certainly a good thing, and something I will look to find out more about when I visit next Saturday.

There has been a lot of talk about electric cars being the way of the future, a way that we can supposedly retain our automobility yet at the same time confront problems with declining oil supplies and the effect of transport on climate change. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald from December last year, reproduced in the lastest “Going Solar” newsletter, suggests that electric cars may not be the answer. Quite fascinatingly, it shows that electric cars are definitely nothing new:I do think electric cars are definitely part of the solution for the longer-term transport problems we face. However, I think they’re definitely not the solution on their own. In the end, we need to reduce our auto-dependency – whether or not it’s petrol-powered auto-dependency or electric-powered auto-dependency.

The government has released a document on improving road safety in New Zealand, called “Safer Journeys“. There is quite a wide variety of measures being looked at to improve road safety. These include raising the driving age from 15 to 16, ensuring that learner drivers get more experience before getting their restricted license, fixing up right-hand turning rules to improve safety, reducing blood-alcohol limits and other measures. Most of these seem pretty sensible.

However, what seems to have been ignored are measures to simply reduce the number of people driving on our roads. If we look at the road toll in recent years 2008 stands out like a beacon:

In 2009 the toll jumped back to around 400 I think, making 2008 the year which had the lowest toll by quite some margin. So what happened in 2008?  The answer there is higher petrol prices, so therefore people drove less. Traffic volumes on many parts of the state highway network were down 10% in 2008 compared with the same month the year before.

If one was being provocative, you could argue that we need to raise petrol taxes significantly so that driving is made more expensive – as therefore history seems to show that fewer people will die on our roads. Alternatively, we could improve public transport, walking and cycling so that people have more options when it comes to getting around. It’s a pity that has not been given greater consideration in what otherwise seems to be a fairly well thought through document.

A 1950s book that we discovered at work has some really interesting aerial photographs of Auckland overlaid with some of the transport plans at that time. One plan in particular I find quite interesting, because it shows how Auckland’s spaghetti junction was envisaged to look. It’s worthwhile to note that route “E” was never built – quite thankfully as it was a motorway down Dominion Road and would have completely torn the heart out of this part of the city. I find it interesting to see how narrow all the proposed motorways look – simple white lines on the photograph.

It’s somewhat gutting to compare that with how things turned out – shown in the photo below. It becomes clear how much of the inner-city we lost by building spaghetti junction:

I shudder to think what this area might have turned out like if we had also built that Dominion Road motorway.

NZTA have announced the details of the Waterview Connection expo to be held over the next couple of weeks. It seems like a lot of further information on the latest alignment will be unveiled at this expo: I must say this does seem to be a rather strange way to undertake consultation with the community. Usually there are “Open Days” where people drop by for half an hour or so, have a look at plans, ask various experts particular questions that concern them and so forth. I must say it would take a pretty dedicated Waterview Connection enthusiast to sit through all seven hours of the expo. I wonder why NZTA has chosen this kind of format?

I might be able to get along to the March 13th session, although even a transport nerd like myself would struggle to sit through seven hours of the thing.

There’s a quite remarkable opinion piece in the NZ Herald today by Maungaturoto resident Danielle Williamson. I say remarkable because she actually gets close to making the Puhoi-Wellsford “holiday highway” sound like a sensible option for funding priority. Here’s the article in full:

Danielle Williamson: Highway more than holidaymakers’ getaway

The Auckland Regional Council chairman calls it a holiday highway.

Which is all good if like Mike Lee, you live in Auckland and only use State Highway 1 on your way to the beach.

You needn’t use it often and when you do, you’re not in any hurry. You know the Government has identified it as a “road of national significance” but you can’t quite figure out why.

Surely a road which carries fewer than 20,000 vehicles a day can’t be all that nationally significant, can it? All you know is the Puhoi to Wellsford stretch has been earmarked for priority motorway extension and it’s going to cost you, the taxpayer, a horrendous $2.3 billion. Minimum.

And you know that in doing so, in four-laning a whole 34km chunk of SH1 of such little consequence, Auckland misses out on urgently needed public transport funding.

It hardly seems right, does it? After all, Auckland is New Zealand’s largest city, gateway to the country and in need of a proper commuter rail system.

But on behalf of the 250,000 New Zealanders who live north of Albany and use SH1 not as a holiday highway but as the only viable route into Auckland and beyond, let us be fair. SH1 north of Puhoi is a disgrace and in dire need of an upgrade.

People die on this road in appalling numbers. It is substandard, narrow and too winding. Anyone who travels this road on a regular basis can see it is unable to handle current traffic volumes.

And finally, when it does in fact go into holiday highway mode – because hoards of Aucklanders must all escape the city at the very same time – Warkworth and Wellsford become holiday hell and are gridlocked from one end of town to the other. Or further – sometimes traffic is blocked for up to 25km.

No it doesn’t happen every day, but it does happen enough to warrant both communities a bypass. And yet for some Aucklanders, this seems to be a problem. So much so that when it comes to regional transport priorities, the Auckland Regional Transport Committee thinks it barely rates a mention and puts it bottom of the list.

But wait! With 32 per cent of the national transport budget (and one third of the national population) allocated towards Auckland roading projects – completion of the Western Ring Route and the Victoria Park Tunnel – Auckland is hardly missing out.

To the Northland region as a whole – and particularly its economy – SH1 is the only viable access to the rest of the country. It is our transport lifeline and critical to the prosperity of the region.

Better – and safer – roads allow for easier movement of freight and people between Northland and Auckland and beyond. It allows for community growth, economic development and helps bring much needed tourists our way. It may even benefit the Auckland economy.

To the individuals who live here, SH1 is of critical importance. Whether it be for business, medical care, education, pleasure or practicality, SH1 is the only link south. We need this road. And we need it to be reliable and safe.

Unfortunately for Northlanders, frequent SH1 traffic delays and road fatalities are not simple inconveniences on the way to bach. They are a fact of life.

Gone are the days where one could hop in the car and be in the city without incident.

Greater traffic volumes now mean when travelling from the North, precautions must be taken in case of delays. If you require medical treatment in Auckland, you allow yourself plenty of time for the journey and hope that for whatever reason, the road is not closed.

If you have an early morning flight at the airport, it’s best to go the night before. And if the weather is bad and conditions less than ideal, you may cancel altogether because you know that on this particular patch of road, the Grim Reaper may be around the next corner.

But this is not about Northland prosperity or total project expense. The main issue here is road safety. SH1 from Puhoi to Wellsford in its present capacity as a two lane single carriage way is unsafe.

In the first three quarters of 2009 alone, 100 accidents occurred here.

Eight people were killed. Since the new Northern Gateway dual carriage toll road from Orewa to Johnstone’s Hill in January 2009 (to the end of August 2009), there were just five accidents and no injuries. The numbers speak for themselves.

The Government is right in declaring this particular stretch of SH1 one of national significance as it is high time the road from Puhoi to Wellsford be divided into a proper motorway.

For the 30 people who lost their lives on this small stretch of New Zealand road in the past five years, it is long overdue.

* Danielle Williamson lives at Maungaturoto, Northland.

There’s a lot to agree with here. Certainly, the stretch of road is very dangerous – particularly between Warkworth and Wellsford (which is unlikely to be upgraded within the next 10 years in any case). Also, certainly the traffic congestion – while generally limited to holiday periods and Sunday evenings – is very severe. So there are some good arguments that we need to do something about this stretch of state highway one between Puhoi and Wellsford.

However, I do think we need to question whether that something really needs to be a $1.4 billion (or $2.3 billion according to Ms Williamson) four-lane motorway. Most of the congestion seems to be caused by the Warkworth bottleneck, and as I have previously explained, surely the best solution there would be to simply bypass Warkworth. You’d only need to build a fairly short stretch of new road, generally across fairly flat land – surely that wouldn’t cost much more than $50-100 million, and you would have solved most of the congestion problems.

The second issue is safety, and as I said earlier the crash record of this road clearly indicates we need to do something to improve safety along here. But the question really is whether that thing should a supremely expensive motorway? What about alternatives such as easing particularly nasty corners, extending passing lanes, constructing wire barriers down the middle of roads, installing permanent speed cameras at regular frequencies and other such measures? Should we not at least try out those other things first before embarking on a hugely expensive motorway?

And here’s where we come back to the title of this blog post. We certainly have a problem here with the Puhoi-Wellsford stretch of State Highway 1. However, the proposed solution is massive overkill – it is using a sledgehammer to crack open a nut. It’s always tempting to come up with grandiose solutions to problems, without considering their cost. In public transport circles there’s a regular debate about whether we should construct the CBD Rail Tunnel as a two-track tunnel or a four-track tunnel. In an ideal world, of course we’d build it as a four-track tunnel – as chances are 30-40 years down the track we will need four-tracks of rail capacity through Auckland’s CBD. However, in the shorter term it’s actually ludicrous to suggest such a solution, because it’s going to be hard enough finding the money for a two-track tunnel, and really demand can only justify a two-track tunnel for quite a few decades to come.

In the end, we don’t live in Norway, Switzerland or Saudi Arabia. We don’t have money coming out of our ears and we need to be careful about where we spend money – to ensure that it’s worth it. That means, in the case of the CBD Rail Tunnel, that we end up with a two-track tunnel – and in the future if we need further capacity we perhaps find another alignment. For Puhoi-Wellsford, sensible thinking would mean that we bypass Warkworth, we spend a significant amount of money on safety upgrades to the existing road, but we don’t waste $1.4 billion on a motorway that will used by fewer vehicles than drive up and down Sandringham Road each day.

The other important issue to consider is that, by focusing so much on this “big bang” approach to fixing the problems faced along the Puhoi-Wellsford corridor, we’re actually delaying safety improvements that are really needed right now, or congestion easing improvements that are also probably needed already. It’ll take around 9 years (according to NZTA) to plan, design, consent and build just the first section of this road (from Puhoi-Warkworth). The second section won’t be upgraded for more than a decade, which means at least 10 more years of too many people dying along this stretch of road. Once again, the sensible approach would be to get on with bypassing Warkworth and get on with improving safety along the road as a whole.

Unfortunately, minor bypasses and safety upgrades don’t get as many news headlines as 35km long new motorways. Which explains a lot.