Editorial: Separate bills from council, ARC salutary

Auckland's Regional Council will shortly issue a brave booklet explaining what it does. It is well advised to do so because in a few months householders will begin getting regular rate demands from the ARC, ending the era of financing regional administration indirectly through city and district councils. There is nothing like a direct charge to prompt people to check whether they are getting value for money.

The booklet, entitled "A Day in the Life of Auckland", may not reassure everybody of the ARC's vigour, though the council has certainly been busy collecting statistics. A draft issued last week told us, for example, that on an average day 21 houses are built in Auckland, 80 are sold and the population grows by 49. It says the city has 13,000 shops, 1000 restaurants, 3099 lawyers, 408 debt collectors, 240 clowns, acrobats and magicians and 105 undertakers. There are many more gems for the statistically inclined.

The intention, perhaps, is to suggest that in such a big, busy, polyglot place we can be grateful the ARC is presiding over it all, its fingers on the pulse, counting everything in its domain. In fact, it is hard to see that the ARC does very much except count things and publish plans that never seem to happen. The council has not had much to do since 1992 when it was stripped of all its trading functions, including the big yellow buses that were its most visible public presence.

Nowadays it monitors environmental concerns, runs the magnificent regional parks, writes its plans and subsidises public transport services by private operators. It is the public transport role that will hit ratepayers hardest when the ARC bills begin to arrive.

The council has championed the scheme to upgrade and better integrate Auckland's passenger railways, bus and ferry services. Though it expects the improved services to attract more people to use public transport, the cost to ratepayers is expected to rise by 57.7 per cent.

Infrastructure Auckland, which is providing much of the capital for the scheme, has looked at the predicted patronage and operating losses and concluded that many of the extra rail passengers will be previous bus users rather than new recruits to public transport. The upgraded railways will more than double the annual rail subsidy, from $10 million to $25.4 million. Bus and ferry services, to cover their loss to rail, will cost ratepayers an extra $5 million a year.

When the bills arrive, ratepayers might be inclined to wonder whether this is the most efficient way to increase patronage on public transport. They will need to see a clear reduction in road congestion if they are to find the cost worthwhile. Yet the ARC has never claimed that public transport alone can sufficiently relieve congestion. Its transport plans always stress that the roading programme must continue apace.

Unfortunately the council's commitment to roading seems weaker than its enthusiasm for rail. Its objection to the widening of the Victoria Park flyover is particularly disturbing. The familiar flyover, long a motorway bottleneck, now stands amid mature trees and planned widening would hardly be noticed. The cost of the suggested alternative, a tunnel under the park, could not be justified.

The campaign against so harmless a project suggests objectors are working to a larger agenda. The ARC must ensure it cannot be accused of blocking roading to boost rail. Commuters must have the choice if the region's infrastructure is to best meet all transport demands.

The council's new legislative obligation to raise its finance directly from ratepayers is much to be welcomed. While separate bills may be less convenient, regional and local government provide different services and it is healthy that we confront their different costs. It should be invigorating for the council too.