Doesn't my city deserve world-class public transport too?

Thursday, 10 February 2022

Richard Worrall is a former journalist who specialised in transport and logistics issues. He has a masters degree in Transport Geography from Canterbury University with a special focus on rail transport. He is also the former New Zealand editor of the International Railway Journal, one of the two major global rail industry magazines.

OPINION: Writing in Stuff on February 5, Auckland Mayor Phil Goff claimed light rail is the key to the city ‘’becoming a world-class future-focused Auckland’’.

This raises a number of questions, first among them being what is a world-class city. Nobody in Auckland nor anywhere else seems to be able to define this clearly. However, what is clear is that Goff and the Auckland-focused central Government do not seem interested in any other city in New Zealand becoming world-class if this is in part measured by the quality of their public transport services on offer now or in the future.

A concept image of light rail in Auckland.

Only Auckland and possibly Wellington deserve such world-class public transport, according to the Government. If you should happen to live in another city, such as I do in Christchurch where more than 500,000 people now live within 30km of the city centre, the message is clear. You don't deserve to have world-class public transport and you will not be getting it.

* Phil Goff: Light rail key to a world-class, future-focused Auckland

* Is Auckland's new $14 billion rail line a Harry Potter fantasy?

This myopic view of who deserves to be “world-class” is not shared by other developed countries when it comes to high quality rail-based public transport for cities.

For example, since 1985 France has opened almost 30 modern light rail systems throughout the country. Only one of those cities, Paris, has a population greater than Auckland and another, Aubagne, has just 48,000 residents, making it smaller than Rotorua, Napier, Hastings, Palmerston North, Nelson and Invercargill.

The proposed route for the tunnelled light rail system which the Government will build in Auckland.

Most of the cities with state-of-the-art light rail systems in France have populations between 100,000 and 500,000; the same population range as our five largest cities after Auckland. Clearly in France, the belief is that as many citizens as possible should have access to high-capacity, efficient and climate-friendly rail-based public transport, not just those in the country's biggest city.

The next pressing question is the cost, or more precisely the cost per kilometre. This works out at about $660 million, which is outrageously expensive by global standards. Perhaps someone at Auckland Transport or the transport minister can explain how it is that the city of Tampere, in Finland, can build a light rail system which opened last year for just $33m a km, including the light rail vehicles?

At that cost, we could build almost 500km of light rail lines around the country, not just 24km in Auckland. Remember that more than 100 years ago many towns and cities nationwide had state-of-the-art electrically powered rail-based public transport systems, not just Auckland.

Richard Worrall: ‘’... it appears geographic equity doesn't apply to public transport infrastructure.’’

The answer no doubt will be that it is in part being built in a tunnel, but that begs the question as to why it needs to be? The busiest above-ground light rail line in Budapest, in Hungary, carries 200,000 passengers a day so clearly you don't need to go underground to get high capacity.

It appears, as is so often the case with many other decisions made by governments, that the decision to go for this half above and half below ground option is a vain attempt to simultaneously win and not lose votes at the next election.

Having made this decision to go for the $14.6 billion option, the question of who pays now rears its ugly head.

Goff says ratepayers can't afford to stump up the cost. A value capture scheme has been proposed for property owners along the route to help fund the project. However, precisely how much this will actually raise and over how long a period is unclear as it will depend on future house prices and how many property owners sell their properties and at what rate.

It is likely most of the cost, which is almost guaranteed to balloon above the stated figure, will be borne by taxpayers nationwide and this creates a geographic equity problem for the Government.

Geographic equity – how evenly government policies are implemented nationwide – already applies to many aspects of government policy and spending. No government in its right mind would decide, for example, that only children in Auckland can go to high school or only people in Auckland can be treated for cancer.

Unfortunately, it appears geographic equity doesn't apply to public transport infrastructure. Despite being home to two-thirds of New Zealand's population, there is no $30b package of rail-based public transport projects being lined up for the rest of the country.

Based on relative population size to Auckland, on behalf of the people of Greater Christchurch, I'd like a $4.5b light rail system, thank you. I'd also invite the civic leaders of other towns and cities to ask for their fair share of the world-class public transport cake.

If it's good enough for France it's good enough for Aotearoa/New Zealand. It’s more likely, however, that a consignment of plant-based aerial pork will be winging my way