IPENZ Submission to Auckland's Transport Strategy

I have included here the submission to the Regional Land Transport Strategy from the Auckland Transportation Group of IPENZ - Institute of Professional Engineers. It is interesting and varied and traverses many of the transport issues that Auckland is facing. It might drive you to look at the draft strategy, which you can find on ARC's website.

For transport adicts:

Introduction
The IPENZ Transportation Group, Auckland / Northland Branch (“The Branch”) represents the
Auckland / Northland-area professionals who are engaged in traffic and transportation engineering or planning and are associated with IPENZ, the Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand. The membership of the Branch / Group is open to engineers, scientists and any other persons professionally engaged in traffic and transportation engineering in New Zealand.

Overarching Themes
Our submission concentrates on a number of themes that we see in the draft RLTS. As such, our submission sets out the importance of these themes and what the Branch requests be modified:
· Public Transport / Active Mode Focus
The Branch supports the focus of the RLTS to invest more into public transport, especially into rapid and quality transit networks. We also consider that the proposed increases in funding and mode share for active modes are headed in the right direction. Auckland has been shown to be one of the most car-centric cities of the world in terms of transport policy and investment in the last half century, as shown by various research bodies, patronage figures and other indicators such as car ownership rates. To a degree, this is understandable due to Auckland’s spread-out settlement patterns. To a much higher degree, it is however based on policy and conscious funding decisions. Therefore, to achieve a greater balance, more transport integration and transport choice, planning and funding will have to take active steps to overcome the status quo. Further, Auckland is also running out of options. It is a truism worldwide that large cities have significant public transport systems. Auckland is increasing in both population and density, and is thus becoming both more suitable and more in need of greater public transport. Opponents of such measures point to the reduced flexibility of such modes of transport compared to those of private motor vehicles, ignoring the fact that the downsides of congestion already severely limit car flexibility, and will do so even more in the future if the status quo is retained. Also, attempting to counteract such congestion issues becomes increasingly costly, as transport space runs out or can only be provided by extensive (and highly expensive) engineering or land acquisition Therefore, public transport is more than just a “good to have” element, but is becoming a bare necessity if Auckland wants to continue productive growth.
· Regional Direction vs. National Constraints
One of the underlying themes of the draft RLTS is that while it generally aligns with a the local and national-level government strategies in its focus on integrated, public transport and active mode-focused transport planning and investment, it finds itself constrained by recent changes to the national-level GPS funding priorities. In short, the RLTS envisages a different direction for transport investment, and intends less money to be invested in roads and more money to be provided to other modes. In this, as set out in the document, it conflicts with the GPS, and may create funding gaps. We consider that as a regional document, it is acceptable for the RLTS to set a different agenda. Auckland’s transport philosophies, but also its transport issues and investment priorities, are different from those at a national level. The Branch accepts that this may result in future funding issues, where Auckland will have to either source different funding options or lobby politically for changes in the GPS allocations. We do not consider this inappropriate, especially in light of the long term view of the RLTS. Auckland should back its own strategic direction towards a more integrated transport system that supports all modes, and, in the constraints of a growing urban area, will produce more economic benefits than a road-centric approach.
· New Funding Sources
As noted above, we consider it appropriate for the RLTS to advocate spending priorities different from those of the GPS. However, we also encourage local government to investigate new funding sources for transport projects to drive the transformation to a more integrated transport system.

o In specific circumstances, especially where significant one-off funding is
required for specific large-scale projects (such as bridges or new transport
systems), private investment may be an appropriate way of sourcing extra
funding. It should however be ensured that financial risks and profits are shared
appropriately, and government does not simply provide financial guarantees.
o Private development contributions should also be considered to a greater degree
as a source of transport funding, as developers are among the most direct
recipients of financial gains from improved transport links. Contribution levels
should find a balance that does not discourage development while providing the
funding for quality transport infrastructure supporting the development.
o As discussed further in the specific comments on the objectives of Section 2, the
undisputed health benefits of walking and cycling may also offer the potential
for health funding to become transport funding and vice versa, creating greater
flexibility for transport project investment.
o Depending on existing or future legislation, transport funding may also become
available from “green” or emission trading sources. As noted earlier, the Branch also considers that funding shares for modes we consider as currently under-funded will increase again (as the success of existing public and active mode transport schemes - and the need for more provision - become widely accepted).

· Push & Pull Factors
The Branch notes that the preferred strategic option for Auckland’s future transport
systems dispenses with many of the “push” factors considered in Option 1. We consider
that these should not be discounted. Especially hidden subsidies like free parking (provided by the ratepayer via Councils, or by employers – and often mandated by District Plans setting minimum parking provisions) should be further investigated, with a view towards reducing the effect that these factors have in skewing transport towards the private car. This is especially
important because the costs of providing parking (such as construction costs and land
“used up”) are generally not included in comparisons between cars and other modes.
The Branch also accepts that road pricing is a very sensitive matter politically, but notes
that it has been shown to be one of the most effective methods to induce travel
behaviour change when “pull” factors are only of limited use. We consider that
hypothecation of all such revenues towards public transport projects would go some way
of making this more politically feasible, and that this option should therefore not be
fully discounted in the long term.
In summary, the Branch considers that the RLTS has correctly identified the major themes and
needs of transport in Auckland for the coming decades, and supports the direction of the RLTS.
The overall (approximate) 50/50 split between motor vehicle mode investment and investment in other modes is also supported as a step in the right direction.


Specific Comments, Section 2
Objective 1: Assisting Economic Development
We consider that the RLTS too quickly discounts the economic effects of public transport
investments (and solely notes that “movement of people” is considered in Objective 3).
The Branch considers that apart from pure transport and social benefits, there are also
significant economic benefits to be found in public transport. In the correct circumstances,
such as congested city environments where further road expansion is cost-inefficiently
expensive, an intensification of transport – moving more people in fewer vehicles – has
indirect but very clear economic benefits.
These include reduced economic dependency on imported fossil fuels (which contribute
heavily to trade imbalances), reduced congestion (especially compared achieving
comparable congestion reductions via costly new roads in built-up areas) and reducing the
need for valuable space being taken up by parking.
As such, we consider that the RLTS should emphasise (and research) the economic benefits
of public transport more strongly. We consider that under the right circumstances, public
transport aligns well with the national government’s current focus on economic efficiency.


Objective 2: Assisting Safety and Personal Security
We consider that the use of safety targets should be expanded to also include and
assessment of safety targets per transport mode trips / per transport mode km travelled. A
target of reducing to a certain number of fatalities or injuries alone ignores both potential
mode share change and population growth.


Objective 3: Improving Access and Mobility
Ensuring corridor and major roading upgrade projects always (from the outset on) include
assessment as to how public transport and active modes can be improved should be a major
goal. This would help ensure truly integrated transport planning.
Regarding improvements in the walking and cycling targets of Objective 3, we consider that
these are directly linked to Objective 2. In fact, the relatively modest walking and cycling
targets of this objective might be achievable by a concentrated focus on improving the
safety of these perfectly “natural” modes alone – walking and cycling need little promotion
if they are safe, and as often shown in studies of best practice (including by NZTA), a safe
design usually is also one that provides good amenity.


Objective 4: Protecting and Promoting Public Health
As with Objective 3, we consider that improvements in the walking and cycling targets of
Objective 4 are directly linked to Objective 2. The health benefits of walking and cycling are backed by significant and conclusive research, and translate directly into economic benefits (see Objective 1) by reducing sickness rates and increasing life expectancy. While not obviously the remit of a transport body, we consider it important that these benefits are publicised, and that transport authorities work more closely with health bodies.


Objective 5: Ensuring Environmental Sustainability
Sustainability of public transport is most easily achieved by high patronage rates. Therefore,
we consider that sustainability should concentrate on making public transport effective and
highly used – even if sustainability then is only a “secondary” effect compared to the more
obviously sustainability-related aspects like fuel-efficient public transport vehicles.
We also consider that by reducing overall consumption of fossil fuels in the transport
network (whether by more efficient vehicles or by more intensively used public transport),
economic benefits are gained, as per Objective 1. These should be offset against the costs of
ensuring this sustainability.
We also note that the most sustainable modes are the active modes, walking and cycling.


Objective 6: Integrate Transport and Land Use
We consider this objective is both supportive of, and supported by the provision of effective
public transport. In this regard, we consider that apart from providing better service
frequencies, public uptake is increased most effectively by improving the ease of use of
public transport in general, and by reducing and improving transfer between modes (having
to transfer between modes or services is one of the main barriers to increased patronage).
In this regard, we strongly support projects like integrated ticketing, inter-modal initiatives
like park-and-ride, or “bikes on buses” / “bikes on ferries”, and also encourage projects or
service realignments that provide improved feeder systems to RTN or QTN transport links.
Interchange stations, both “feature” and “everyday” examples, should also be a focus.
In regards to integration of land uses, we also note that active modes have significantly
reduced barrier effects, and thus ensure greater connectivity, where other transport projects
may cause localised dis-integration while trying to support the intensification of land uses as
per the Regional Growth Strategy.


Objective 7: Achieving Economic Efficiency
In regards to achieving projected benefit/cost ratios, the Branch considers it problematic that
many transport projects do not compete against each other, but only within their specific
funding bands of the GPS. While this may in some instances protect worthwhile projects
that do not produce as many directly quantifiable benefits in a BCR calculation as others,
this compartmentalisation also allows for projects with high BCR's to lose out on funding
while marginal projects (often with very significant price tags) go forward instead.
This is made worse by the fact that transport funding for Auckland projects is (and likely
will remain) fragmented between local funding, national-level land transport subsidies and
motorway projects, and separate rail funding. This structure reduces the ability of transport
planners to fairly assess the truly worthy projects region-wide.
In regards to active mode projects, we note that the economic benefits may (under current
accounting rules) not appear to be as high as those of other projects. However, especially if
included from the start of the planning process, the cost for good walking and cycling
provision are also minimal.
We also consider that fuel savings should be included in the economic assessment of active
modes. Like time travel savings, they do not accrue to the transport authority, but to the
individual user, and therefore are in the same way a measurable (and much more easily cost-quantifiable) benefit in the “benefit/cost” equation.


Specific Comments, Section 4
Section 4.7.1: Role of walking
The Branch, as set out earlier, considers that one of the best methods of promoting this
natural and inexpensive form of transport is to improve safety, which is also closely linked
to amenity (i.e. safe walking is usually pleasant walking at the same time).
The Branch considers that the proposed target of 15.3% of all regional trips to be made by
both walking and cycling in 2040 is not high enough. Further, by setting a target only for
2040 (rather than adding interim targets), it becomes too easily possible to let the required
initiative lapse politically.
We also consider that the level of detail provided for this mode is low, and specific projects
for walking in the RLTS have not been set out to any degree. Schemes or projects should be
proposed to activate the suppressed demand, rather than expecting this to occur on its own.


Section 4.7.2: Role of cycling
As with walking, improving safety and safety perceptions are considered some of the
primary keys to achieving more cycling.
The Branch considers that there should be a separate target for cycling mode share. The
combination of the cycling mode share with the walking mode share (which share some but
not all the same requirements) ensures that this mode is much more likely to remain an
afterthought in transport planning. We also consider that the level of detail provided for this mode is low, and specific projects for cycling in the RLTS have not been set out to any significant degree. As above, schemes or projects should be proposed to activate the suppressed demand.


Section 4.7.3: Role of public transport
As noted in our comments regarding the objectives of the RLTS, we consider that service
frequency and ease of use/transfer as the major requirements for improved patronage. A
further important element is of course the comparative efficiency for the user in terms of
travel time and travel cost compared to motor vehicle alternatives.
We consider that public transport is less suitable for some of the more dispersed
communities on Auckland’s fringes. Providing services here is likely to be a trade-off that
could create high subsidies, undermining the case for public transport where it works well.
The Branch therefore discourages public transport services that are too inefficient to
succeed, as being worse than no local public transport at all – for example, the provision of
services that travel only a small number of times daily could often be considered a waste of
scarce transport resources, including being contrary to environmental sustainability (though
this has to be weighed against minimum provisions for people who have no other option).
This also means that trial services for new routes should not be slimmed-down versions of
“real” provision, but need to give realistic and useful travel options. We consider that
services like the Helensville train trial have failed not only because an insufficient customer
base but also because of a lack of useful service frequencies.


Section 4.7.4: Role of private vehicles
As the most flexible way of transport for middle and long distances, the motor vehicle will
and should remain a mainstay of Auckland transport. The Branch however encourages
RLTS initiatives which ensure that the private vehicle is just one of many transport options,
contrary to the current situation, where it is perceived by many as the only realistic choice.
This will, among other results, make it easier for couples and families to dispense with
multiple cars, and retain only one vehicle shared between them.


Section 4.7.4: Role of freight
The Branch considers it important that freight traffic is improved, both in efficiency and
sustainability. It is however acknowledged that the classic “non-sustainable” freight traffic
(i.e. truck traffic) uses roads due to their inherent flexibility and (for the road user) great
cost-efficiency, and that this limits the ability to easily reduce this freight mode share.
This translates to the need to improve the flexibility and efficiency of alternative freight
modes, or of alternative freight routes, to reduce the transport, societal and environmental
effects of transport.
An indirect result of the combined roles is that a reduced emphasis on private vehicle use in
our transport system (especially on fixed routes, such as those of commuters) will increase
the ability of commercial motor vehicles to utilise a less congested existing road network.


Specific Comments, Section 5


The Branch would like to comment on the “Activities of Regional Significance”:


· Rail Electrification – We consider this project to be of great importance to Auckland,
due to its likelihood of creating a massive initial rail patronage gain (the well documented
“Sparks effect”) and due to it providing Auckland with the ability to jumpstart the next steps in improving the Auckland commuter rail system (since we consider that the success of this scheme will strengthen the case for better public transport in the years to come). It will also increase reliability of services, and reduce dependence on fossil fuels in the public transport system.
· Integrated ticketing – While less spectacular than the rail electrification, integrated
ticketing has been shown worldwide to release suppressed public transport demand by
increased ease of use, while at the same time providing valuable transport data and
synergies. The Branch strongly supports this project, and encourages transport
authorities to ensure that, despite the manoeuvring of individual transport companies,
the system become a success by ensuring and requiring full interoperability.
· CBD Rail link – The Branch considers that this project should be embarked on after
electrification of the rail network, to leverage the patronage and political capital that is
likely to be gained by successful electrification, and to ensure that the rail network can
accommodate the further increases expected and required.
· Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing / North Shore Rail – The Branch considers
that this project represents an important long-term step in improving resilience of the
Auckland transport network, and improving the connectivity for modes other than motor
vehicles. Due to the fact that motor vehicle volumes on the existing Auckland Harbour
Bridge have actually decreased in the last years, we however consider that the rail
provisions of any such (likely multi-tunnel) project be proceeded with first.
North Shore Rail should be an integral part of any such added Waitemata Crossing.
· Western Ring Route – The Branch supports the completion of the Western Ring Route,
as long as environmental mitigation for this motorway project is to a good quality level.
This especially relates to any barrier effects where the project is not underground.
Also, both the costs and the benefits of associated projects (such as bus lanes on Great
North Road, or cycle paths on the general motorway alignment) should be included in
this as parts of a corridor project, to ensure it benefits all modes.
· Avondale / Southdown Rail – The Branch supports the eventual provision of this rail
link to reduce freight movements on the main commuter lines of Auckland. However,
we understand that commuter services here are also projected to see high demand,
especially if connected to an airport link.
· Airport Rail Loop – as one of the major employment and travel centres of Auckland,
the airport is a natural destination for an extension of the rail network. It also offers the
chance to improve the efficiency of terminus lines like the Onehunga Branch or the
Manukau spur, by providing combined commuter / airport services.
· Improved SH20A/B – We do not consider this project to be of immediate significance.
While improving road access to the air port has important economic aspects, this project
should be delayed until airport rail access is provided.
· Panmure, Botany and Manukau City Centre RTN/QTN – We consider this project
to be of great importance for one of the parts of Auckland with the highest motor vehicle
mode share, and which is badly served by public transport.
We also consider it important that the route be protected for at least light rail, even if
this is not included in the initial phase, and also encourage investigation as to whether
the proposed route could be brought even further north towards the substantial
residential areas in the general vicinity of Howick.
· Manukau Rail Link – The Branch supports this project, but notes that as a short spur
line into a limited catchment, the success will likely be limited initially. Connecting it
with the Panmure, Botany and Manukau City Centre RTN/QTN would help release
efficiencies not available as a stand-alone link.
· AMETI – The Branch generally supports the improvements proposed as part of this
project scheme. We especially support improvements for public transport and active
modes, which are very marginal in the affected areas.
· Henderson, Westgate and Albany Bus RTN/QTN – The branch considers that this
link will become more important in the coming decades, as commuter travel between the
current Waitakere and North Shore cities increases.
· Northern Busway extension to Orewa – The Branch generally approves of the busway
use and extension, and notes that greater park-and-ride provisions and improved feeder
services should also be considered.
While the Branch is in general agreement with the proposed investment, we note that several of the proposed projects of especially high significance are only intended to be realised at the end of the RLTS timeframe, i.e. taking more than 20 years (such as the Airport loop and the Avondale Southdown rail link, only to be realised by 2040). Even considering the limitations of funding, some of these timeframes are considered an issue, seeing that the constraints these projects are to overcome already exist today.


In summary, the Branch considers most of the identified projects as being of great relevance,
though we have identified a number of projects of immediate significance, especially relating to improving rail patronage and ease of use of public transport (integrated ticketing). However, we consider that many of the proposed timeframes are excessively long. Further, we consider that the RLTS process should investigate whether the proposed works planned
for State Highway 16 by NZTA, which include some future-proofing for bus shoulder lanes, should be more extensive, with a view towards a long term concept of a “North-western Busway”. This would complement the RTN link provided by the Western [Rail] Line, which does not serve the communities along SH 16 further west than Pt Chevalier well, as it is located too far south.


Submission Summary
The Branch supports the intentions of the draft RLTS. This especially extends to proposed
investment in public transport and active modes, and supports the RLTS intention to try and
achieve these aims despite different funding priorities on the national level.
The Branch asks transport authorities to further consider “push” factors towards travel behaviour change, like reducing free parking paid for by the general public, and asks for more work to be done in specifying how the walking and cycling mode share is to be increased as intended. The Branch also generally supports the proposed projects of regional significance identified in the RLTS, and especially recommends integrated ticketing and several of the proposed rail projects for prioritised realisation. However, some timeframes are considered excessively long, and better provision for future bus priority link on the North-western Motorway should be included.



The submission was prepared and presented by Pravin Dayaram and Max Robitzsch to the hearings sub-committee of the Auckland Regional Land Transport Committee.

Walking Safely on the North Shore....

In many ways, walking and cycling are great ways to get around our city. These non-motorised travel methods cause virtually no noise or air pollution. The only energy they require is provided by the traveller, and the very generation of that energy leads to useful cardio-vascular exercise. These modes don’t take up much space either, and they are quite economical, costing much less than cars and public transport, both in direct user costs and public infrastructure costs. In fact the presence of pedestrians and cyclists enhance the liveliness or urban environments, making both commercial and residential areas safer and more interesting.

Unfortunately, North Shore City Council, in common with other Auckland Councils has done little to promote walking and cycling – especially safe walking and cycling. On the contrary, many recent transport “improvements” to North Shore City – generally to ease congestion and create more capacity for vehicular traffic - have often made walking and cycling less feasible, less convenient, and more dangerous. The consequence of this is that walking and cycling make up a smaller and smaller proportion of all trips.

A research project gave me an opportunity to to recall some of my experience of this. It serves to illustrate the problems that confront those who seek to ensure that the safety of the most vulnerable members of our society are recognised and provided for in all aspect of transport design.

Fig. 1 Wolseley Road. South side. Footpath camber safety issue for disability buggies, prams and children on bikes and other toys.

Figure 1 shows the footpath on the south side of Wolseley Road, Milford. It was pointed out to me by an elderly resident when I was campaigning for election to North Shore City Council in 1998. After election one of my goals was to change North Shore City council’s footpath policy so that this sort of problem would not be repeated. I also tried to ensure that retrospective repairs were made to pavement where there were similar safety issues. The photograph here was taken in 2007. To date no work has been carried out to remedy this problem. I raised this matter at various Council meetings. A typical response from some councillors was that people who were worried about falling, or rolling down the driveway (it was a joke for some), should use the other side of the road. Figure 2. shows the other side of the road.

Fig 2. Across the road from figure 1, looking East.

Officers explained to me, and to my fellow councillors – in report after report – that there was an issue with some North Shore roads, because of the steep terrain in some parts of the city, that unless effort was made to smooth the way between the road and the driveway, then cars would bottom and risk damage in making the transition from private property to the roadway. I understood that that was clearly an issue, but it did raise questions about the planning that had gone into the design of this road, and others like it across the East Coast Bays area. The question of who had right of way arose. I asked officers to report to council who had right of way on a footpath: did a car crossing the pavement have right of way, or did a pedestrian (or cyclist) using the pavement have right of way over a car crossing the pavement? When I asked these questions I expected the answer to be straightforward, but it took officers almost two years to provide the answer to the question. It was stated that national transport policy guidelines indicated that pedestrian users had right of way in those circumstances. We were getting somewhere.

Fig 3. Looking south along Lake Road near Belmont. The asphalt footpath has been resurfaced, but all of the driveway crossings have been replaced with concrete aprons allowing quick access and egress.

Then in 2002, after programmed maintenance of Lake Road pavements, I was surprised to see Devonport’s traditional asphalt footpaths altered and severed through the construction of concrete accessways, as pictured in Figure 3. These were put in place at the same time as footpath asphalt. When questioned, officers justified their actions by saying it was consistent with council’s “like with like” policy, that when maintenance work was done, like materials would be used when carrying out repair works – it was just that the concrete needed to be strengthened… By now a few more councillors shared my concerns. They could see that what had previously been regarded as a continuous pavement for pedestrians and other users, had been transformed into a dangerous obstacle course cluttered with a series of high speed private entry and egress access “roads”. I raised with officers the question whether constructing a pavement like this was consistent with national policy of ensuring that pavement users had priority over those needing to access the road or private property by driving across the pavement. It was obvious to all that the provision of carefully shaped aprons meant that it was easier for a car to drive into or out of a driveway at speed, putting pedestrians at increased risk. Officers suggested that – at considerable cost – these aprons could be removed. Another option was to cover the concrete with a coating of asphalt, but this would have camouflaged the fact that the surface was now undulating, and might itself contribute to accidents. All very frustrating. Around this time I became aware of the existence of Council engineering design standards. After some cajoling, Council officers were persuaded to put on a Works Committee agenda, a report which contained the particular engineering design standards that had led to the changes in pavement layout in Lake Road. These standards were also responsible for the design outcomes in East Coast Bays Roads like those illustrated in Figures 1 and 2. I moved resolutions which sought changes to these design standards in order to achieve pavement designs which would not discriminate against the safety of pedestrians and other pavement users, through prioritising the safety of cars and car movements. Though I still had a year of my term to run, this resolution did not succeed while I was Chair of the Works Committee.

Fig 4. Parents volunteer to walk groups of children along “routes” to local schools

A major success in 2003 was the development of North Shore City’s first Walking School Bus. Council was concerned at the number of car trips involved in taking kids to school. Surveys showed that parents did not want their children walking to school, because they felt it was not safe. Officers came up with the Walking Bus idea. It was supported by Councillors. Implementation was funded by Infrastructure Auckland, ARC and North Shore City Council. Positive media followed and – when ARTA was set up a year later – Walking School Buses was one of the first Travel Demand Management projects it adopted and pushed throughout the Auckland Region. This was a success story, and one North Shore City Council initiative I felt proud of. Then in 2004 another issue arose in respect of pedestrian safety, particularly the safety of children walking to Westlake Girls High School. Changes were proposed to the road network around that school to accommodate traffic-engineer predictions of increased movements along Wairau Road, and the need to provide for buses accessing the Westlake Busway Station. This involved Shakespeare Road being extended across Wairau Road.

Fig 5. Westlake Girls High School is in top left corner of this artist’s impression of the modified Wairau/Shakespeare Road intersection. The brown areas are pedestrian holding bays. Note the large radius turning curves which allow fast travel.

I recall chairing a meeting about these designs where the engineer responsible proudly explained that his designs would be safe for cars or buses driving at 70 kilometres/hour. Apparently the road intersection design was almost to motorway standard. When I reminded him that this was a 50 kph zone with five schools and thousands of students he merely shrugged. I spoke about this example at the 2007 Trafinz Conference, by which time I was on the ARC. Afterwards I was approached by Julie Chambers of Auckland District Health Board who was keen to talk with me about the need to change the way school designations were prepared, in order to better provide for the safety of children accessing schools. I was also approached by a slightly grumpy North Shore City Council traffic engineer, embarrassed by my criticism. He said to me, “you know what the problem is don’t you – the school is in the wrong place.”

Fig 6. Thousands of girls attend the school and need to cross this intersection to do so. It is busy and dangerous.

Good to see John Banks supporting CBD rail extensions...

The Hon Stephen Joyce should be feeling well and truly in a corner over Auckland rail now. Hopefully he will see sense and make some appropriate announcements very shortly. Can't imagine that the Government would like the SuperCity election campaign next year to turn into one where every candidate campaigns against central government transport priorities!

I know there's a lot of enthusiasm for the Britomart Loop - because it will get rid of the bottle-neck and all that - but there are some major planning issues around CBD rail that should be in the public domain.

Today, Britomart is the only railway station in the Auckland CBD. Its configuration constrains the Auckland rail network’s passenger carrying capacity. The Britomart Rail Tunnel project could release this constraint, and add one, two or three more stations, depending on which historical plan is considered. These plans were all prepared before the Auckland region decided to accept a Northern Rail connection to the North Shore through a harbour tunnel, as its preferred alignment and mode for the second harbour crossing.

The strategic planning issues this project poses are many and varied:

• A key objective for Ontrack is to increase rail freight, which in Auckland shares the network with commuter rail services. The implications of this conflict needs to be understood, and options for managing it considered to avoid rail freight services inhibiting the development of high capacity and high frequency passenger transport rail services.

• While the Britomart Rail Tunnel project has been around in some shape or form for almost 85 years, limited strategic planning for Auckland CBD Rail has been carried out recently that takes account of the provisions contained in Plan Change 6 to Auckland’s Regional Policy Statement, let alone a possible rail connection to the North Shore. ARTA (Auckland Regional Transport Authority), which now has the responsibility for planning Auckland’s passenger transport service network, has not conducted the necessary comprehensive strategic planning to support a NOR for the Britomart Rail Tunnel project.

• Auckland City Council will need to be involved in the planning for the size, location and functionality of railway stations within the CBD area, as well as bus/rail interchanges that might be required on the CBD periphery. ARTA, ARC and ACC will need to coordinate and sequence land use changes, the staging of transport infrastructure construction, and the roll out of new rail services – in order to optimise integration outcomes. There is a need to properly coordinate these planning processes in accordance with RLTS provisions, which suggest a duty to establish an appropriate “CBD Rail Steering Group” including ACC, ARC, ARTA and Ontrack.

• The Auckland CBD has changed immeasurably since the Britomart Tunnel was first conceived almots 100 years ago. Other major destinations have emerged: Hospital, Domain, University. If the goal is to reduce the need to take a bus into the CBD - because there is good rail - then these other destinations need to be served by an underground CBD rail network, of which Britomart Tunnel is one corridor. ARTA are engaging with this planning. It needs to be public.

These questions need to be addressed thoroughly in an Integrated Transport Assessment process in accordance with RPS provisions, culminating in the development of a publicly agreed long term Auckland CBD rail network plan, before Ontrack can legitimately proceed to issue a Notice of Requirement for the Britomart Rail Tunnel project.

Auckland might be getting TODs, but PODs are slow to come...

A couple of years ago I attended Newman's presentation: TOD, POD and GOD. He'd gone beyond Transit Oriented Development, and Pedestrian Oriented Development - to Green Oriented Development, and was talking about green roofs and energy efficient housing and the like. Good stuff.

Here is Auckland, there is a head of steam up over TODs, we have the Northern Busway, and we have some successful rail infrastructure. Which needs electrification and extension and further development. That's all good. But public transport infrastructure needs to be linked into land uses to form a good TOD. There are a few of these in Auckland, but there's not been much in the way of PODs.

New Lynn and Newmarket are among the most successful TODs. Waitakere City Council has gone to exemplary lengths to get the New Lynn development up. This is a TOD (because you've got rail and bus services connecting there, and driving the development), but the council has also strived to make the whole environment pedestrian friendly by creating a trench for the rail and establishing more pedestrian oriented paths and spaces. It's not totally successful, because there is still - in my opinion - too much provision for the private car.

Newmarket is a pretty good TOD too. And its pedestrian environment is OK, but again, there is execessive emphasis on the car, and not enough on pedestrian and cycling amenity.

Auckland reaps what it sows.

Auckland's strategic documents don't really get to the core of what is needed to deliver PODs. I tried with the previous RLTS (the one that is active now), to get some policies in there about POD. And here is the salient policy from RLTS 2005:

3.1.6 Design transport connections within high
density centres and corridors to give priority to
supporting pedestrians, cyclists and public transport
and to enable improved urban amenity and land
use integration, rather than to provide for the free
flow of vehicle traffic. (ARTA, TAs, Transit NZ,
OnTrack).

Needless to say, that sort of sentiment expressed in a single policy statement is all well and good, but it needed to be fleshed out somewhat. Easy to ignore. And at the time it would be safe to observe that officers were not full of ideas about this stuff either. Auckland is so far behind the eight ball on things like this.

Anyway. Again at the RLTC I have raised the matter of the need to better integrate land use and transport policies - in order to deliver POD as well as TOD - arguing that Auckland transport strategies are too reliant on public transport alone to deliver the benefits and city shaping that is needed.....

I was asked, after the last RLTC to provide some feedback on how the new RLTS should be changed to better provide for POD thinking. So I dug back into that assignment and here is the advice that I have provided for consideration in this draft RLTS:

My contribution here is drawn from a paper I did earlier this year which you can find at:
http://www.joelcayford.com/AucklandsTransportCarbonEconomy.pdf

You will see in there, in terms of Transport Carbon Reduction - based on the work of VTPI (Victoria Transport Policy Institute - based in Canada - which is extracted and quoted in the paper), a region like Auckland can expect a 20% to 40% transport carbon reduction through ensuring that the transport/land use patterns of existing town centres, DOES shift to a much more pedestrian and cycling oriented transport pattern than now. But at present, my sense is that the policies in place in the RLTS and the performance targets, don't drive that outcome hard enough.

The key things I want to draw out, some of which may be in the current RLTS draft, include: Go back to the principles set out in the ARGS, including:

• Reduces the need to travel by car by encouraging more employment/business/retail/community facilities close to residential areas and the opportunity to walk or cycle. This pattern needs to foster a critical mass in terms of population to support a range of small local enterprises.
• …(the need to)…Enable a regional land use pattern where local areas have sufficient critical mass in terms of population to support a range of quality and accessible community facilities and services, including health facilities and education and training to support employment choice.

Then, from the other end of the policy spectrum, the Long Term Sustainability Framework (LTSF) proposes a number of performance measures and targets which I think need to be built into the RLTS, so that there is real focus on delivery:

• Proportion of private motor vehicle travel compared to sustainable transport.
• Community resource accessibility index.
• Percentage of population within identified growth areas.
• Percentage of employment within identified growth areas.
• Fuel consumption per capita.
• Means of travel to work.
• Average length of journey to work.
• Percentage of population within 500 metres from a train station or transport hub.
• Activity mix in centres and pedestrian traffic (measure of vibrancy in centres).
• Total urban footprint and measures of land use (industrial, residential, business etc).

... while some of these relate more purely to land use, and might be better placed in the RPS, a good number of them are better placed in the RLTS, and lead to the desirable outcome that there be targets (5 year, 10 year, 20 year, 50 year) for these measures, which are indicative of the implementation of the principle of the ARGS. They can be added to, for example, by including a mode share set of targets as well.

In the Growing Smarter (GS) document, it is stated, as part of its assessment as to why the ARGS has not been happening on the ground, for example:

• Subdivision codes and traffic engineering codes and parking requirements are often in conflict with good urban design and TOD-type development…."

GS goes on to state:

• To avoid the worst impacts of climate change and rising oil prices we need to rapidly reduce the use of carbon-based fuels, develop ways of recapturing carbon, facilitate a shift to the widespread use of renewable energy, and radically reduce energy use. Aucklanders will also need to significantly reduce their dependence on the private motor vehicle, and redevelop their urban form and rural centres into a compact urban form.
• The RLTS review needs to find ways to reduce CO2 emissions from the transport system.

I note that in the current RLTS the "Emissions" appendix explains that one of the reasons for increased emissions is that under the strategy, people will actually take on average slightly longer trips: "Longer average vehicle trips are due to higher vehicle speeds. The combined effects of significantly more investment in roading, public transport and travel demand management, result in higher speeds, which allows people to travel further in the same time period…." . In part this is a consequence of not achieving the sort of urban form, density, and POD transport mix, that will cause a shift in this.

I have prepared a set of policy recommendations in the paper, which you can see at Chapter 5.

In retrospect, I think priority should be given in the RLTS, to bringing out the ITA (Integrated Transport Assessment) policy tool, and having it triggered earlier/lower down the hierarchy in the consenting process. It needs to include some of the targets and performance/assessment measures mentioned above. This would in part achieve better TOD outcomes, but needs also to drill down into the POD outcomes.

Finally, last but not least, I note that - for example NSCC (North Shore City Council) is reviewing its pavement/footpath strategy at present. But this all rests on the bedrock of "Infrastructure Design Standards Manual". The IDSM. This manual - and the engineering standards it enshrines, is the root of many of the anti-cycling and anti-pedestrian and pro-car outcomes that we see. In my view the RLTS needs to require a review of these IDSMs as they relate to Auckland Region's town centres, so that there is a shift in emphasis. The drive for this review is bring about a mode shift, by making pedestrian and cycling environment much more attractive and safer than now.

This material probably needs a bit of rationalisation and tidying, but gives an idea of where I think Auckland (and SuperCity) needs to be going if we seriously want to change the amenity, and public experience of our town centres.

Planning for the Auckland CBD Rail Network....

Stephen Joyce is right to say that the planning of Auckland's CBD rail network is not complete. But that's not an excuse to delay electrification...

These images are from a small power point presentation I have prepared to bring out some of the thinking that is needed when planning future rail service extensions in Auckland CBD...

This schematic shows the existing service connections and CBD rail network. Newmarket is a significant station where you can change lines. So is Britomart...

There has been talk of a Parnell Station. Actually, when you go along that line, and look North, and look at a map, you are aware of the proximity of the Domain, Hospital and University....

In any case there is a major challenge in preserving CBD rail services when Britomart undergoes engineering changes to make it a tunnel/through station....

This is a logical next step....

It does not require a station at Parnell (though one might be a good idea). Needs a set of points etc, so some trains go under Domain, through to Aotea. This line would likely need a viaduct across Grafton Gully - above motorway - below existing bridge...

And it could be connected to North Shore (in event rail link goes there), but would certainly be connected to Britomart Rail tunnel. Aotea Square would become major destination and line change....

Here it is...