Unfortunately, this is the normal state of affairs when there is a change of leadership, especially a change of
one of the main parties.
The transport analyst knows the large cost of these stop-go political cycles - the current eight-month halt has cost New Zealand at least $3 billion* in lost transport project value.
The stop-go cycle has also meant a truncation of certain projects such as Let’s Get Wellington Moving (LGWM) and the Auckland Light Rail, meaning wasted time and taxpayer money, and getting us closer to the $3.5b of opportunity lost. This is the cost of inaction.
The sudden judder to a halt only makes sense if it is done with a firm intention to improve the quality and speed of the decision-making going forward. For example, there were bad things about Auckland Light Rail and LGWM that meant they did need re-focusing – but we don’t want to lose the good parts of the investigative work that took place.
We need to remove these political stop-go cycles by handing a large part of transport decision-making to the experts.
Government involvement in transport should be to set performance objectives for its transport agencies, enforcing budgets and uniting all of its road-controlling authorities. It should also set high level targets for important national objectives such as road safety, economic performance and affordability.
However, it should not be involved with specific transport projects or be able to stop projects in their tracks in the manner that has occurred to date. There is just too much danger of transport projects becoming political footballs or moving away from fundamentals i.e. contribution to economic growth.
Also, funding major projects like a second Auckland Harbour crossing or upscaling Wellington’s public transport access cannot be done across a single political cycle. Specific transport project decision-making needs to be firmly and deliberately delegated to the capable New Zealand Transport Agency Waka Kotahi (NZTA).
Central government needs to focus on pulling the big levers (Crown funding and major national objectives) to make the transport sector go.
The Transport Minister could possibly be making the right signals in this regard – so far indicating the GPS investment period should be extended to 10 years from six years, thus encouraging a longer-term view. Also, Simeon Brown delegated most of the responsibility for the roads of national significance and the regional of roads of significance to NZTA.
I am impressed with this as the amount of Crown backing for transport projects has necessarily been rising in recent years, meaning more central government control could be asserted - but, intelligently, this is not happening.
As a whole, these roads will probably struggle to meet the Government’s top investment criteria – an adequate contribution to economic growth. This is addressed by the minister allowing NZTA to pick the jewels in the crown.
If Brown continues in this direction and makes NZTA fully independent, then he could be the minister that marked the turning point in New Zealand transport infrastructure growth. The next GPS should be legislated as setting policy only, and contain no recommendations on individual transport projects.
This is better than delivering on difficult election promises - everyone accepts the transport sector is in rapid change - this facilitates generational change for the better.
The analogy is with the independence given to central banks to tackle inflation in the 1980s to prevent the manipulation of interest rate policy. As a result, a largely stable economic environment has presided over three decades.
Just like RBNZ, NZTA will have to set down a scrum to provide New Zealanders with sound transport investments, and manage the technology transition to a clean transport environment.
It is important that NZTA stands its ground using its processes, investment principles and research when making its assessment of the candidate roads.
For example, the road investment appraisals will need to include a whole-of-life carbon emission analysis in line with the 40-year horizon predicated by NZTA processes. How could this not happen? On a 40-year view, we have to deal with the carbon emissions - there is no choice in this matter.
The draft GPS is quiet on this.
Large New Zealand corporates are now required to report their carbon emission profile. How could an independent Transport Agency not do the same?
There is another silence.
Public Transport
Commuters aged under-35 are the biggest users of public transport, the future of economic activity.
Growth is exploding - up 90 -110% over the 2013 consensus - in these age categories. This is being led by key international cities like London - the leadership is with our young executives – and corresponding falling car driver licence registrations.
This is the result of better public transport provision, the rising cost of car use, the loss of status of owning a car (it is not cool anymore), greater environmental awareness and, importantly, this generation likes public transport. This is also reflected in the under-35s participation on my own social media articles on public transport.
This is the future opening up in front of our eyes.
An independent NZTA should be looking forward to the inevitable growth, and be supporting and rallying the other road-controlling authorities in public transport - so that our children do not have to pay more further down the track. Championing his transport agencies, a young, dynamic and independent transport minister has the opportunity to connect with his age group on public transport.
It is universally understood that we have an infrastructure deficit. Can we start investing properly for the future?
- The $3b amount is an illustrative figure based on an estimate of delayed National Land Transport Fund and local authority expenditure on new transport projects multiplied by a typical benefits-to-cost ratio for an NZ transport project as an approximation for lost value.
