Auckland
communities will be poorer and less resilient in future if they allow Central
Government’s narrow focus on the GDP growth benefits of road construction to
frustrate the popular planning consensus that has steadily taken shape under
Local Government leadership here over the past fifteen years.
Transport
Minister Gerry Brownlee’s blunt dismissal of Auckland Council investigations
into road tolling, fuel tax and parking levy options to fund public transport
infrastructure is the latest central government intervention as Auckland
struggles to develop local solutions to its growth problems. Brownlee criticises Auckland Council for even thinking about
tolling “my roads” to fund “your projects”.
Auckland is suffering from a discrepancy between the priorities
of central and local government. Buoyed by a resurgence in the popularity of
alternative modes of transport, a balanced approach to growth and development
of urban form is being advocated by Auckland Council Whereas central government
continues to invest heavily in highways while paying little more than lip
service to alternative forms of transport, and advocates relaxing the
metropolitan urban limit (MUL) instead of increasing density within the
existing urban area.
It hasn’t always been this way.
Much of Wellington’s suburban railway infrastructure was
funded by a central government imposed “Betterment Tax” on new development.
Until the National Roads Act in 1953, a proportion of the uplift in value of
private land in newly developed areas formed the revenue for rail
infrastructure and state housing. Similar practices are common in other western
countries today, but not New Zealand, where speculative land development is
encouraged and where the true costs of infrastructure and subsequent living costs
are born by communities.
Auckland’s
suburban rail development plans came too late to benefit from land development
tax funding. They were replaced by state highway plans funded by car
registration and fuel taxes leading to unprecedented suburban development.
While communities and families have been able to realize the Auckland version
of the American Dream, it has come at a cost and with a set of risks that are
no longer hidden.
Quite apart
from the loss of horticultural land and the cost of infrastructure (roading, electricity, water, stormwater wastewater),
travel options for those unable to drive themselves (including school aged
children, and the elderly) have declined in quality and amenity, and the costs
of private transport are higher for those in distant suburbs as fuel costs
increase and because distances and travel times to work, shop and school
increase.
The risks
of unemployment and more expensive fuels strongly indicate a need for
resilience. That requires a range of transport options and urban form that is
less demanding of travel, enabling people and communities to spend less on
essential travel freeing investment for more productive economic activities.
These costs
and risks are no longer hidden from Auckland communities who, with increasing
voice since the late 1990’s, have accepted and voted for the need for regional
change. In 1998 all of Auckland’s Councils adopted the Auckland Regional Growth
Strategy which put in place the Metropolitan Urban Limit restricting sprawl. In
2002 Auckland Councils led the development of new legislation enabling the
collection of development levies to pay for new infrastructure. And in 2005 all
eight Auckland Councils adopted a Regional Land Transport Strategy which
advocated shifting $1 billion funding from state highways to public transport.
At the
time, the Labour Government’s Minister of Finance Dr Cullen was noisily and
strenuously opposed to investment in rail. But after Auckland Councils took the
next step and called for a 5 cents/litre regional fuel tax to fund public
transport operating costs – receiving strong public support – Central
Government accepted the regional consensus and explored ways to strengthen
Auckland local government. This eventually led to amalgamation and the Super
City.
It should
have come as no surprise to the Key Government that Auckland would vote for a
Council largely committed to continuing the momentum in favour of efficient
urban form and further investment in public transport options.
However the
new Government lost no time in imposing its plan for Auckland, dismissing the
regional fuel tax, and rolling out a program of roads of national importance to
rival state highway plans not seen since the 1960’s. These are to be funded by
fuel taxes exclusively collected by Central Government.
Communities
will continue to be forced to own and run cars to meet their travel needs. They
will congest Auckland roads, and Auckland Council will be required to provide
alternatives on a skimpy budget, without recourse to fuel taxes and road tolls.
The
Government’s emphasis on GDP as the sole measure of economic success is also a
throwback to the 1960’s. Alongside new motorway infrastructure plans, this
year’s budget highlighted the rebuild of Christchurch as central to national
GDP growth – as if another earthquake in Wellington or a volcano in Auckland is
the solution to economic woes. As if another motorway is the solution.
Auckland’s
urban form and reliance on private car travel is keeping us poor. Not all, but
many. Property speculation and motorway construction certainly enrich some, but
New Zealand’s steady decline to the bottom of the OECD in wealth inequality,
which is at least partly driven by escalating costs of private travel, needs to
become a bigger driver of Government transport investment decisions.
3 comments:
"Auckland is suffering from a discrepancy between the priorities of central and local government."
Your statement encapsulates the source of the social malaise which has spread across the city. And local Government now mirrors Central in its bid to sell off, or 'optimise'about 10% of its $960,000,0000 portfolio of commercial and residential properties, no doubt to increase its pre-election GDP.
I wonder what commercial and residential properties owned by Auckland Council are referred to in this comment? Any information...
No surprise really. Since the mayor was not the mayor preferred by the Key government, Wellington appears to do anything to sabotage an effecient and strong Auckland. Whish was incidently the purpose of the supercity; a city that woudl be empowered to make decisions. Things only got harder from what I can see
Post a Comment