Major city councils concerned about Government’s road-heavy transport plan

Thursday, 4 April 2024

Major city councils are concerned the Government’s road-heavy draft transport plan lacks sufficient funding for public transport, walking, and cycling, and lacks a needed strategy for emissions reduction.

The deadline for public submissions on the Government’s latest draft Government Policy Statement (GPS) on transport, outlining at a high-level the plan to spend billions on roading and other transport initiatives in the coming decade, passed on Tuesday.

Transport Minister Simeon Brown on Wednesday said he would now consider 600 submissions the Ministry of Transport received on the plan, before publishing the final plan in June.

Already it is clear the councils of Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch has serious qualms about how the plan intends to fund roads, compared with other transport infrastructure. The councils provided their submissions to The Post on Wednesday.

Auckland City Council has delivered the Government a 91-page submission on the draft transport plan, more than twice the length of the plan itself, asking the Government commit to working with Auckland Council on a “integrated transport plan” for the city.

“We don’t expect the entire GPS to be framed around Auckland’s needs, but nor is it acceptable that the needs of Auckland are overlooked.”

The council warned against the Government pursuing its roads of national significance (RONS) in Auckland, saying its proposed integrated transport plan should be how projects in Auckland are determined.

“Within the Auckland context, we do not believe that the RONS programme should preclude the selection of designs that differ from the standard of a four-lane fully grade-separated motorway. We note that several of the RONS, including East West Link, have already been consented with designs that deviate from this standard.”

While the council supported the Government’s proposed “strategic priorities” for transport - economic growth and productivity, increased maintenance and resilience, safety, and value for money - but was 'concerned about overall funding levels proposed“ across state highways, local roads, public transport, and walking and cycling.

“In particular, we are concerned about the proposed reduction in funding for the public transport services activity class.

“If this is funded at the lower end of the band, AT may need to significantly increase fare costs and/or reduce services, by up to 30 percent. This would lead to increased peak period congestion and may leave entire suburbs without public transport services.”

The Auckland council said the Government’s move away from de-carbonisation efforts would have “significant implications” for the council’s climate policies. It recommended not relying primarily on the emissions trading scheme to reduce emissions, as the Government has proposed, but also focussing on “mode shift”.

“Relying solely on the electrification of the vehicle fleet would likely not be an effective or equitable pathway to achieving Auckland and the government’s climate targets, given the slow turnover of the fleet in New Zealand, global supply issues and the relative unaffordability of electric and low emission vehicles for many households.”

Wellington City Council, in its eight-page submission, said the Government’s new transport approach was a “significant shift” from prior plans, and it believed the new plan would make planning for new multi-modal infrastructure - accommodating for cars, buses, cycling, and walking - more difficult.

“Not allowing for a multi-modal investments approach in council streets across several activity classes will not result in efficient infrastructure investment for a future Council asset and will not serve the practical community mobility needs of New Zealand’s largest cities.

“We strongly encourage a rethink of this part of the proposal.”

The capital’s council was concerned that walking and cycling funding would be nearly halved from 2025 and remain at 1-2% of the overall transport budget for nine years.

The council had proposed to spend $100 million in the coming decade on an urban bike network, meaning the usual 51% subsidy from the Government’s national land transport would be $50m. The council said it was not clear how such funding would be sought under the new transport plan.

While the council supported the strategic priorities it was concerned “the methods for achieving them will not deliver the safe and efficient multi-modal system that the country needs”.

Though the council welcomed the “acknowledgement of the acceleration of Wellington’s North-South, East-West, and Harbour Quays’ bus corridors”.

The Wellington council said there appeared to be no “substantive vision” for what a more climate-conscious emissions profile the country needed to transition to would be. The council also “urged caution” about raising public transport fares to the extent it might discourage use.

The Christchurch City Council was concerned about a lack of recognition for Christchurch transport projects in the draft transport plan, asking that two projects be included in a Canterbury crown investment programme: the Greater Christchurch Public Transport Futures and Mass Rapid Transit, and the Pages Rd bridge renewal.

It also expressed concern about a “strong state highway focus” coming at the “expense of consideration of the economic and broader contribution of the local road network” and the use of public transport, walking and cycling to manage congestion.

“The council believes that the draft GPS is missing an opportunity to achieve the outcomes sought by significantly reducing the funding available for walking and cycling and public transport infrastructure and services.

“We are concerned about the removal of climate change as a strategic priority.”

The Automobile Association (AA) said in its submission the roads of national significance projects would be welcomed by its members, but noted a lack of detail about when the roads might be built and at what cost.

“The size of the resulting programme of road investment raises questions about both its affordability and the capacity of the construction industry to deliver projects within expected time frames at reasonable cost.”

The Motor Trade Association said it was supportive of the “direction of travel”, but recommended to improve road safety that six-monthly warrants be required for cars older than 15 years, instead of cars made after 2000, now up to 24 years old.

The association also asked that councils be allowed to use any funding raised by proposed time of use charging fees on a broad range of transport initiatives, including local incentive schemes to increase purchases of low- or zero-emissions vehicles.