Editorial: Tricky mix of messages on transport

Ask a thousand people of most cities to nominate its main problem and you risk receiving a thousand different replies. But there was never much risk of an unwieldy response when we asked Aucklanders. Of the 948 who answered the question in a Herald-DigiPoll survey, 736 named traffic congestion. No other problem was mentioned by more than nine people. The difficulty of getting around the city is a daily curse for many citizens, and their patience with politicians who have allowed this problem to persist has been astonishing.

It is even more astonishing when the poll confirms a fair measure of agreement among Aucklanders about the most desirable solution. "Public transport," said 67.2 per cent when asked to choose between public transport, more roads or tolls on certain roads at certain times. Local politicians advocate a mixture of all three, but if they are looking to the voters to indicate which measure should receive the bulk of ratepayers' funds, the poll is a fairly clear statement. The dilemma remains, though, whether local bodies should act on what people say or on what people do.

Auckland already has an extensive bus service and only 8 per cent of the citizens use it every working day. A further 7 per cent use it most days and another 8.6 per cent perhaps once a month. Just over half say they never use it. This poll offered the respondents a number of possible improvements to public transport and asked which would be most likely to entice them to use it. Most nominated "more frequent services" closely followed by "a better rail service". Cheaper fares were also attractive but, interestingly, two proposals highly desired by local transport planners, exclusive bus lanes and integrated ticketing, attracted very little. As indeed did reduced travelling time, the very purpose of exclusive bus lanes. Only 7.6 per cent said they would be enticed on to public transport by faster trips.

So what are local body candidates to make of it all? Clearly, there are votes to be won in the short term by promising more frequent public transport, especially by rail, rather than building more roads or introducing tolls to ration road use. But Auckland is a sprawling city of mainly low residential density. To provide the public transport network that most residents say they desire would cost much more than the same residents might be willing or able to finance. There are votes to be lost in the long run by imposing a vastly greater burden on ratepayers for an amenity that might not after all entice many Aucklanders to give up the convenience, privacy, enjoyment and independence of the personal car.

Auckland local bodies, of course, are already committed to a fairly comprehensive public transport scheme integrating bus and ferry services with three rail lines into the central city. The Britomart terminal has been built, other rail and ferry stops are being upgraded and a dedicated busway is being installed on the North Shore where rail does not reach. But the plan acknowledges that it is unlikely to make much dent in Auckland's traffic congestion unless road tolls, congestion charging or some other form of discouragement to car travel is also introduced. And, indeed, unless the whole sprawling character of Auckland begins to change.

To turn Auckland from a car city into a natural public transport community, many residential areas will have to be zoned for higher-density housing. The regional growth plan hopes to accommodate many more people inside the present urban boundary. But when this plan was put to Aucklanders in the latest Herald-DigiPoll survey, it was supported by only 40 per cent and opposed by just over 48 per cent. Clearly, those elected in a few weeks have to do a better job at explaining what is planned and why. And those who vote need to be aware that when you say you want something, there is a possibility you will get it.