Who should drive the bus when it comes to Auckland's transport planning?

Thursday, 17 August 2023

Auckland Transport have upgraded the Wanderer ferry as an interim solution until new electric ferries arrive. (Video March 2023)

Todd Niall is the senior Auckland affairs reporter for Stuff.

ANALYSIS: Auckland Council’s move to explore seeking a law change giving it more direct control of transport planning in the city is a sign of frustration with the current system.

The amalgamation of Auckland’s eight council’s into one in 2010 deliberately kept the delivery of transport, and all but the highest level of planning, out of the hands of elected officials – in contrast to everywhere else.

Thus was born Auckland Transport, a “council-controlled organisation” or CCO, with its own board of directors steered by an annual agreement with councillors of expectations and intent.

The councillors also get to appoint the board, including two of themselves, but not the seat occupied by a representative of the government agency Waka Kotahi.

It seems like a lot of influence on the end result. However, AT was given the final word on signing off every three years the statutory Regional Land Transport Plan – the nuts and bolts plan of what will happen and where the money will come from.

In doing that job, the plan needs to mesh with a range of strategies and schemes drawn up by the government, which co-funds most transport investment.

It’s a process in which the hopes and dreams of a council or individual councillors get diluted, and growing frustration is reflected in mayor Wayne Brown’s push for the council to be more directly involved.

It produced the curious sight in 2021 of Auckland councillors turning up at a Regional Transport Committee (overseen by AT), urging for more climate focused change to a plan which the council had already endorsed.

The council agency AT runs the city’s transport network but the council itself wants to be more hands-on with planning it.

Exactly why some councillors are frustrated may partly lie in the politicians’ own conduct, and how well or otherwise they have pulled the levers given to them since 2010.

AT leaders front up to councillors quarterly in a public council meeting, and have plenty of closed-door sessions with them in workshops, while the mayor gets to pursue his own relationship with the board chair.

The AT model seems particularly broken in a world where transport has become a big part of the city’s need to reduce climate-changing carbon emissions.

Alternatives to driving need planning, but also public funding and widespread public support.

Political ambition has become disconnected from political funding for AT, and on an issue requiring a big push across decades, the political cycle of just three years has introduced swings in priorities that don’t fit with the long-term nature of transport investment.

Being more responsible for planning would also make council and its politicians more directly responsible for ensuring there was funding for their plans – under the current set-up, AT can argue it doesn’t have the money for what’s wanted, nor the ability to reprioritise.

Whether Auckland Council has the time to wait for an incoming government to get around to thinking about its proposed law change is a moot point.

A more collaborative, round table approach on how to reach transports goals, how to plug the identified funding gaps and lead public support for behaviour changing policy may be a more productive route.

Changing the way Aucklanders get around is essential if the city is to meet its climate goals. Key elements are: getting public buy-in, better delivering alternative modes to driving and making sure changes can be funded.

Real political leadership will play as big a part in this process as changing the laws.