The Auckland Council has just released their Draft Regional Land Transport Programme for 2012-2015. This is where Auckland Transport sets out what their priorities are for the next 10 years and, most importantly, what they’re going to spend money on in the next 3.
What’s in it for cyclists?
Overall, the Regional Land Transport Programme is pretty bad, from a cycling perspective. It’s not dramatically bad. It’s just that there’s nothing proposed which will rapidly increase cycling rates or make cycling much safer or more pleasant.
There’s lot of pretty words about health, the environment and allowing for all modes. But none of the key projects relate to active transport. Instead it’s just the usual – electric trains, AMETI, completing the Western Ring Route, funding the CBD rail link and upgrading various regional arterials.
The list of cycling projects they have put at the top of the document (p.25) sounds good.
But it doesn’t match up with the list of projects they’re actually planning to fund on (p. 47).
To be fair, some of the projects listed at the start are included in other sections of the budget because the cycling and walking investment is part of a larger roading project. For example, the cycling paths that will be built as part of the Waterview Connection don’t show up in this section because they are included in the Western Ring Route funding.
But some projects just don’t seem to show up at all. For example, as far I could see, there is no mention anywhere else in this document of a walk and cycle way across the Harbour Bridge.
So why list this project if they have no plans to fund it? The positive part of me likes to think the council is being aspirational and ambitious. But the cynical part wonders if it’s mainly just there as a form of greenwashing.
Funding proposed for walking and cycling is minimal – 0.8% or $37.6 million. As this graph shows, the amount the council is planning to spend on walking and cycling over the next 10 years is literally so small you can’t even see it in most years. It’s the tiny white line, right down the bottom of the graph.
This seems less than generous, especially since around 16% of all trips in Auckland are made by foot or by bike.
On the other hand, they’re proposing to spend $4.8 billion on state highways or 42% of the budget.
So, how does this match up with the Auckland Plan’s aspirations to make Auckland the world’s most liveable city? Or their goal to have 37% of trips in rush hour happening by public transport, walking and cycling by 2040 (that’s up from 23% today)?
Well, it doesn’t basically. This is because the council is being driven to invest in certain types of projects by the government’s priorities as set out in the Government Policy Statement on National Land Transport Funding.
I’ve blogged about this before but just to refresh your memory – the GPS is a document the Minister of Transport writes that sets out how the government will allocate funds from the National Land Transport Fund. This influences what councils invest in because if they choose to build a project that the government won’t fund from the National Land Transport Fund they have to pay for 100% of the cost themselves.
The previous Minister of Transport set the budget for walking and cycling at just 0.7% of the total fund, and put most of the rest into building huge new state highways such as the Puhoi to Wellsford Holiday Highway. The council can’t change that state highway expenditure.
This is why Auckland Transport is proposing to spend so little on walking and cycling themselves and so much on motorways. It’s also why they don’t have enough money to build the CBD rail link.
They point this out, although in a pretty mild way on page 38 where they say: “A more flexible funding system is also required, to enable national funding to be allocated more responsively to local needs.”
This is civil servant language for: “Stop giving us money for all these stupid motorways and fund some of the public transport projects we actually want to build, you #@!##!”
Summary
While it’s fairly bad news for cycling and walking, the plan is pretty good news for public transport, with the council remaining determined to fund the CBD rail link and increase funds for public transport services.
What do you think? Could they do better? What cycling projects would you like to see prioritized?
Submissions: Are due on the 23rd of March. You can use this online form (although then you have to submit on the whole long-term plan, not just the transport part). You can also email them a submission at rltp at aucklandtransport dot govt dot nz. They don’t list submitting by email as an option but they can’t refuse to accept your submission if you include: your full name, postal address, local board area, phone number, the plan you are submitting on (The RLTP for Auckland, 2012-2015) and whether you want to speak to your submission.
I guess most people would like the bit that affects them the most sorted.. so for me that is mahia/Gt Sth/puhinui… I would love to not have to fight the traffic every day..
I reckon they should put commuter cycle lanes beside train tracks, or motorways (separated by barriers). They could then charge a small amount to recoup the cost – I reckon buying a pass that allows you to use them, and doubles as a “discount” card on your rates.
So, say you cycle to work 3 days a week, you swipe your pass, it lets you on the “cycle expressway” – and every week you do 3 days of trips, you get $xx off your rates. This is because you are a conscientious citizen who is preventing congestion on the motorways, freeing up carparks, and only moderately contributing to C02 (as if it mattered).
We just need 4 – one from each point of the compass – although, the west already have one, and it could be upgraded – made wider, smoother, and then away they go.
I’d be willing to pay for that.. (and I am not usually willing to pay for anything).
Yeah, DE-pressing. Business as usual.
One context comment however – the RLTP includes whatever State Highway funding the NZTA has already announced. I.e. projects where Auckland Council essentially has no say (and doesn’t contribute rates money, or contributes only a very small share for works around the edges).
That is one of the reasons why the Auckland RLTP is so heavily weighted towards state highways – your rates aren’t going towards these highways. That’s your taxes instead.
While I am very disappointed that except for the City Rail Link (probably planning and property purchase costs), the RLTP buget shows no real initiative by Council to do things different, to some degree they simply CAN’T. Not with 2/3rds of the money in this RLTP directly or indirectly controlled by the Ministry of Transport.
In other words, this is really Wellington’s budget, not Auckland’s.
@Lucy You make cycling in Auckland sound so successful when you put it like this…’around 16% of all trips in Auckland are made by foot or by bike’.
In actual fact, 15% is attributed to walking and 1% to cycling.
Public bicycle network in CBD to give truly flexible Public Transport not restricted by timetables
@Reizar – Lucy is well aware of it. However, since the table (and the Ministry of Transport/NZTA accounting standards that created it) lumps walking and cycling together, it is a very valid observation.
Because at a passing glance for someone who doesn’t know the context, and isn’t big personally on cycling, hearing “Oh, cycling gets somewhat less than 1% – well, they only HAVE 1% of the mode share, so it’s okay” sounds perfectly reasonable.
By highlighting that we are talking of the COMBINED budget, we are stressing that it is even more ridiculously low than it looks.
hi Reizar. I know that! Have done about a billion posts lately which included the fact that cycling has 1% mode share. But, often transport funding statistics mean little to most people (the sums of money are just so big that it’s very hard to get your head around what they actually buy). I was trying to find a way to show how unbalanced our transport funding is in regards to active modes.
Looking at it from another perspective – if you accept that mode share is a good rationale for allocating funding (which I don’t necessarily) then to put it another way – the council is allocating 0.88% of their budget to walking and cycling. Assuming a 50% split that means they’re giving 0.44% of their budget to a mode that has 1% share (cycling). So you might shrug and go “Oh fair enough”.
But the council SAY in all their rhetoric that they want to increase active mode share and make cycling in Auckland safer. So doesn’t under-funding it to such a chronic degree seem a little perverse? To put it another way, I think $37 million would be enough money to build a walk and cycle way across the Harbour Bridge and maybe complete the CMJ cycle way. But I’d be surprised if there was any change left – which might suck for the million people who don’t live in central Auckland but would quite like to go for a walk or cycle.
@ Max. I know that they can’t control what the govt plans to spend on state highways. But if they wanted to be bold they could prepare a RLTP which completely didn’t match up with the govts funding priorities and say “Look at this mismatch! You need to give us more money for public transport, walking and cycling.” They have done this to a certain degree but not as much as the last RLTS did. http://www.arc.govt.nz/albany/fms/main/Documents/Transport/RLTS/RLTS%202009/Regional%20Land%20Transport%20Strategy%20%28RLTS%29%202010-2040.pdf
Hi Lucy
Not even sure that’s legal. Or sensible – it would offer government too easy an out by pointing at them and say “Well, look at those blighters, can’t even read the funding rules.”
It would be a statement, but because it would immediately lead to NZTA declining all the funding applications contained within the structure, it could end up being a very serious defeat for Len. Brinkmanship? Not sure he should do it. Government is still too popular right now.
well that is effectively what they did with the Regional Land Transport Strategy in 2010. I also don’t see at all why they couldn’t just put in a list saying “These are the projects we would like to fund” and “These are hte projects we are being forece dto build?”
NZTA wouldn’t turn down the applications and it would be clear they had understood the funding rules – they just didn’t like them.
I think it would help Len more than having articles like this in the Herald about how he sold out. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10788288
Sigh. Maybe I should just move somewhere sane.