Editorial: Don't sell us short on Britomart plan

Infrastructure Auckland decides today how much money it will contribute to the Britomart transport centre. The omens are not good. A lack of vision appears about to compromise a project pivotal to the development of an efficient and convenient public transport system. If Infrastructure Auckland fails to meet the Auckland City Council's funding request, the impressive Britomart design will have to be scaled back.

Bus, train, light-rail and ferry users, present and potential, will be the immediate losers. But the long-term victim of faint-heartedness could be Britomart's very viability, and the inherent charge on Auckland ratepayers.

The city council envisages funding the $249.5 million transport hub from three sources. It plans to borrow $133 million, the maximum available without affecting its credit rating; a further $91.5 million has been sought from Infrastructure Auckland; and $25 million from national road funding body Transfund.

Infrastructure Auckland, however, has produced a report indicating that it is likely to contribute a maximum of $55.5 million, based on its evaluation of Britomart. Transfund, likewise, has signalled that the council should not expect to get $25 million. Thus, a considerable shortfall is likely.

If such eventuates, an underground concourse linking rail, bus and ferry services will almost certainly be lopped off the project. The $39.3 million concourse is designed to allow commuters to move freely and rapidly from the railway station in the former Chief Post Office to the Ferry Building, bus stops and Queen St. Its magnitude has already been reined in. When the cost of Britomart ballooned to $261 million, the cost of the concourse was reduced by $13 million by eliminating travelators and eight escalators, narrowing the width to 5m and changing the lighting.

Such compromise might have been essential but the total loss of the concourse would be extremely unfortunate. It is both aesthetically pleasing and crucial for the movement of commuters. In any integrated transport hub, the components must be linked. Without the concourse, public transport users will be faced with trudges across Queen Elizabeth Square and Quay St, sometimes in miserable weather. Convenience, one of the trump cards of a successful public transport system, will have been seriously undermined.

Some optimists suggest that if the concourse were abandoned now, it could be added to Britomart later. That is unlikely to happen, and even if it did the cost would inevitably have escalated. More significantly, the damage wrought by the concourse's cancellation would have been done. Building the likes of Britomart in stages is a recipe for disaster. Commuters who find it not up to expectation on the first day, and perhaps not much of an advance on what is already available, will scamper back to their cars.

Infrastructure Auckland has set a funding limit of $410 million on passenger transport over the next decade. Its evaluation of Britomart, and the $55.5 million it appears prepared to contribute, presumably pays heed to likely funding calls for other aspects of the region's public transport development. But it must recognise in the first instance that the transport system will be seriously flawed without an effective hub. If commuters do not enjoy the height of convenience when they arrive at and leave downtown, it reflects on every aspect of the system. Seen in that light, it would be false economy for Infrastructure Auckland not to meet the city council's funding request.

The council, for its part, must make every effort to ensure that Britomart survives in its intended form. It should not be distracted, for example, by claims for spending on an indoor arena. Such claims envisage Britomart being seriously scaled back or built in stages. Aucklanders have tolerated traffic congestion for long enough to know where their priorities lie. They want Britomart, and they want the city council to start building the transport hub next month, as scheduled.

Britomart is a classic example of the need for visionary decision-making. If successful, it will transform the city. Those who decide its shape will be able to dip into a grab-bag of excuses if they choose to be short-sighted. They will talk of other priorities and claim credit for saving ratepayers' money. In fact, all they will have done is short-change Aucklanders with yet another example of stunted thinking.

Feature: Getting Auckland moving

Herald Online traffic reports

Rideline Auckland bus information