Submission by to the Auckland Council Draft Auckland Regional Land Transport Plan 2018 -2028 - on the - May 2018
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Submission by
to the
Auckland Council
on the
Draft Auckland Regional Land Transport
Plan 2018 -2028
May 2018About the EMA The EMA has a membership of more than 4000 businesses, from Taupo north to Kaitaia, representing around 40% of the New Zealand workforce. The EMA provides its members with employment relations advice from industry specialists, a training centre with more than 600 courses and a wide variety of conferences and events to help businesses grow. The EMA also advocates on behalf of its members to bring change in areas which can make a difference to the day-to-day operation of our members, such as RMA reform, infrastructure development, employment law, skills and education and export growth. We have a solid reputation as a trusted and respected voice of business in New Zealand, and our presence makes a difference. Therefore, we are constantly called on to speak at conferences, comment in the media and partner or provide advice to Government on matters which impact all employers (such as ACC, health and safety, pay equity). CONTACT For further contact regarding this submission: Alan McDonald General Manager – Advocacy Employers and Manufacturers Association Private Bag 92066 Auckland 1142 Telephone: 09-3670934 Mobile: 027 809 4398 E-mail: alan.mcdonald@ema.co.nz
Thank you for the opportunity to submit on the Auckland Regional Land Transport Plan 2018-2028.
General Comments:
1. The EMA is generally supportive of the programme outlined in the in the Draft Regional Land
Transport Plan (the Plan), its purpose and scope.
2. We accept that Auckland Transport’s strategy has to work within the constraints/guidelines
of various central and local government plans and visions while not necessarily agreeing
with the strategic focus or priorities outlined in those plans.
3. Our organisation has consistently demanded faster time frames for delivery and we maintain
the Plan and the associated Auckland Transport Alignment Plan (ATAP) lack ambition in
terms of the time frame for delivery of various projects.
4. The EMA also has concerns that some projects in the Plan, especially Penlink and Mill Rd,
appear to have much longer time frames for implementation than the priority recent
Government announcements appear to give those projects.
5. This may just be a simple matter of process but we look forward to clarification on timing
differences with these projects.
6. In general the EMA would also like to see greater emphasis placed on traffic management
tools available now to help manage congestion and traffic flows and plans to better utilise
under-used parts of the roading network such as busways, T2, T3 and clearways.
7. Long intervals between buses and peak times, especially on key arterial routes – followed by
potential passengers being left stranded by full buses – indicates less than optimal use of the
busway network. The dedicated North Shore busway remains under-utilised with constraints
on park and ride facilities and less than optimal transport links to the busway stations
continuing to hamper its maximum efficiency.
8. Also missing from the plan is a discussion of outcomes and quantifiable gains.
9. Will the plan just keep up with congestion, get ahead of it or simply minimise the losses as
population and vehicle fleet growth continues at a rapid pace?
The Challenge
10. The EMA agrees with the scale of the challenges outlined in the plan as they reflect both the
underinvestment and lack of forward planning that has plagued Auckland’s transport
infrastructure for several decades.
11. They also reflect the scale of population and vehicle fleet growth and the difficulties of
moving both freight and commuters through the network.12. The EMA is concerned that a number of the projects outlined in the plan focus on moving
people to and from the city centre while perhaps not enough attention is focussed on
significant congestion and choke points across the wider network.
13. One significant issue that does not appear to be addressed in this section is the better co-
ordination of land use and transport planning.
14. The completion of the recent Unitary Plan, a document the EMA also largely supports, again
highlighted this failure of co-ordination between the two critical parts of urban planning.
Under the Unitary Plan many areas and corridors given approval for densification are already
among the most congested suburban routes and arterials on the Auckland network.
15. And we continue to see green and brownfields development in areas that are clearly lacking
supporting transport infrastructure. Congestion at Riverhead, Kumeu and other areas of the
northwest again highlights the lack of planning and provision for supporting transport
infrastructure in tandem with residential/business development.
Regional Fuel Tax
“Gas (petrol) tax is a dinosaur tax. It’s an Industrial Age solution for a Post-industrial Age.”
– Portland Metro Council Chief Operating Officer, Martha Bennett.
This quote came from a discussion with the City of Portland on funding transport networks during
Infrastructure New Zealand’s recent fact finding delegation to the United States.
Portland, a city and metro area covering roughly 2.8 million people (where Auckland appears to be
heading) is internationally regarded as having one of the more successful public and integrated
transport networks. It uses a mix of streetcars, light rail, aerial cable cars and road transport to both
drive regeneration in the city and surrounding districts and move its rapidly growing population.
It is widely regarded as one of the best places to live in the US and with significant clothing, footwear
(it’s Nike’s international headquarters), medical, university and tech industry hubs it is also one of
the fastest growing cities in the US. As a consequence it is struggling to keep people and freight
moving around the city and facing issues of housing availability and affordability.
The point is:
16. That while the EMA does not oppose the proposal for a Regional Fuel Tax, we don’t believe
it is the best option for decongesting Auckland’s transport network nor do we believe it is
the best option for funding future upgrades to the network to try and meet or get ahead of
projected population growth and worsening congestion.
17. Portland, like many other cities around the world, is looking at other alternatives to fuel
taxes with the greatest focus going on time of use, distance covered, toll lanes,
HOV/Expressway tolled lanes and GPS based flexible congestion charging regimes.
18. Several years ago the EMA was part of a Regional Land Transport Committee tasked with
identifying possible alternatives for funding transport in the region. That group found that
while Fuel Tax was an option it was not the most favoured option.19. The EMA’s position is unchanged from those findings.
20. A petrol tax is a very blunt instrument that is unlikely to raise the $150 million per annum
currently in the media (petrol companies have told us this figure does not reflect current
sales let alone leakage that will occur from the imposition of a tax and subsequent collection
costs).
21. Even if introduced as an interim step it will do nothing to address the more pressing issue of
congestion that is currently costing the Auckland and national economies between $1.3 - $2
billion as per the NZIER research commissioned last year by the EMA, Infrastructure NZ,
Ports of Auckland Ltd, Auckland International Airports Ltd and the National Road Carriers
Association.
Our view is
22. That a congestion charging regime on the motorway system should be introduced a priority
using existing, available number plate recognition technology as already used on the
northern motorway and other toll roads around the country.
23. There is no need to wait for GPS systems being trialled elsewhere.
24. Take the tech industry approach and upgrade as you go from version 1.0 to 1.1, 1.2 etc.
25. The charging regime can be flexible to reflect traffic flows and congestion at various times of
the day and can be set at a rate that will both influence behaviour – taking traffic off the
system at peak times – while also raising funds for dedicated transport projects for both
public and private transport options.
26. Unless Auckland introduces new revenue sources the region will never be able to afford the
public transport system required or start addressing the pressing congestion issues already
plaguing both freight and commuter traffic.
Kim Campbell
CHIEF EXECUTIVEYou can also read
