The options for harbour crossings have been exhaustively analysed and debated for years. Photo / Michael Craig
OPINION:
Transport Minister Michael Wood was half an hour late to his own party on Sunday. He was supposed to be at the Takapuna market at Smales Farm, to make a big announcement about the next Waitematā harbour crossing.
But, ahem, he got stuck in traffic.
When he arrived he took out his speech notes and ripped them to pieces. Then he declared he was sick of traffic and was going to build four more lanes on the bridge, starting right now.
Just kidding.
What he announced was consultation. The Government wants to know what kind of new “connections” we want, so its transport agency, Waka Kotahi, has prepared an online questionnaire for us all to fill in. There will also be public meetings.
Sometime next year, the Government will announce a preferred option. Sometime this decade, work will begin.
National’s transport spokesman Simeon Brown was quick to call the consultation a waste of time and money.
That’s rich. His own party favours the most expensive option: multi-purpose tunnels, for general traffic, rail and trucks.
But Waka Kotahi’s own analysis shows that would cost at least $15 billion to build. And every dollar spent would generate just 20 cents in value. I reported this in August last year: the figures predate inflation.
The agency also knows, from its own modelling in 2018, that extra road capacity across the Waitematā would increase congestion and travel times. This is because it would encourage more people to drive, and that would have to be prevented by congestion charging, aka tolls on the tunnel and bridge.
So. Mind-boggling cost, pathetic economic return, makes the problem it’s trying to fix worse, makes all the other problems worse too. It beggars belief this hasn’t been laughed out of town by everyone.
As for Brown’s complaint about another delay: when National was last in power it wasn’t going to start on a new harbour crossing until the 2040s.
The Labour-led coalition brought that forward to the 2030s and now the Government wants to make a decision very soon and get construction underway asap.
There’s a lot wrong with what Wood has announced (see below). But Brown’s claim that he “wants to drag out the timeline” is ridiculous.
Mind you, the minister and the agency have combined to exhibit an unusual skill: they’ve made a sped-up process sound like a delay.
What’s this new consultation for, really? The options for harbour crossings have been exhaustively analysed and debated for years.
Why doesn’t Wood just announce a preferred option? The one thing Brown is right about is that voters want the Government to get things done. So do it already.
Just going to say this. It’s already clear – not from my “bias” but from Waka Kotahi’s own modelling and cost analysis – that an excellent option exists.
It would ease vehicle congestion. It would future-proof the route against many decades’ worth of growth. It would reduce emissions and provide for cycling and walking as well.
And it would cost (this is also a Waka Kotahi pre-inflation number) only $1.8 billion.
If the Government and the agency were doing their jobs properly, this option would be at the heart of their consultation.
They would tell us how cheap it is. They would explain how and why it will meet all the key goals we have for a new harbour crossing. They would ask if there is any better way to meet the long-term objectives while being fiscally responsible, and if so, let’s hear it.
What is this miraculous option?
It is a new bridge that would carry light rail, or perhaps rapid buses, and have lanes for cycling and walking too. No cars: they already have a bridge.
Incredibly, this option was considered last year, and rejected, when the Government announced its ill-fated and very silly $700 million bridge just for cycling and walking.
But the consultation questionnaire doesn’t do any of this. Instead, it asks if we think we might catch a train or ride a bike. That’s almost pointless. It’s hard to predict your own behaviour and besides, how are we supposed to make an informed choice if we aren’t told what things cost or how they work?
What is the consultation really for? Badly designed, it looks like the latest attempt by Waka Kotahi to get everyone to abandon reason, so it can indulge, once more, its fetish for tunnels.
If you think that’s harsh, I’d love to hear a better explanation.
Interested parties have been quick to respond to the minister’s announcement.
The Greens’ Julie Anne Genter reminded Wood that if he’s serious about tackling the climate crisis, “Auckland’s transport emissions will need to be cut by up to 70 per cent” by 2050. She called on the Government to commit to “active transport [cycling and walking] and high-capacity, zero-carbon public transport”.
She also said, “Electric cars will of course play a role, but the high cost and congestion they cause means there is a much bigger role for more efficient transport like e-bikes and light rail.” She’s right.
Simon Bridges, speaking in his capacity as chair of the Auckland Business Forum, a transport lobby group with a high-falutin’ name, complained: “We’ve been around and around in circles on this project for decades. Each time we have a big hui about it, it falls back into limbo for years – we can’t let that happen again.”
A roundabout in the Waitematā? Now there’s a thought. Actually, this is the same Simon Bridges who was minister of transport for three of the years in which National did nothing to advance this project.
“We can’t have a situation where we get a rail crossing in 15 years,” he said on Sunday, “but have to wait another 10 years after that for a connection to support general traffic and freight. This is what the recent plans have suggested, and it won’t wash with Aucklanders.”
So that’s an Auckland business leader weighing in for a $15b spend with a return of 20 cents in the dollar that will make congestion worse. It’s nothing if not brazen.
There are many ways a new bridge might meet our future harbour crossing needs. I wrote about some of them last year.
Mayor Wayne Brown says he’s pleased the Government is going to consult, although I bet he’d be more pleased if the process was more meaningful.
He also said he would be “sharing his thoughts” during the consultation, “as a private citizen”. Nope, can’t do that. The mayor is the mayor. He can’t take that hat off for another three years.
And, he added, “The third crossing is decades away and not a priority for me right now given the public-transport crisis.” This is both wrong and right.
Not doing any long-term planning because you have some short-term problems is nonsense. Long-term planning is a core function of government, at all levels.
But Brown is right to call out the fixation on a new harbour crossing. It’s not the top priority for new transport infrastructure in Auckland. It’s not even close.
The northwest – think Massey, Westgate and Kumeu – desperately needs light rail or at least a rapid busway. The priority bus lanes they’re getting are not good enough. The city’s cycling networks need supercharging. They probably produce the best cost-benefit of all, along with all their other benefits.
The Eastern Busway from Pakuranga to Botany should be fast-tracked and Botany to the airport precinct should also be developed quickly. Important transit routes are proposed for the Upper Harbour and from New Lynn to Onehunga. Light rail – surface, not tunnelled – from downtown to Māngere is also crying out to be built.
Meanwhile, Auckland Transport has identified about $350 million of improvements it can make to the Northern Busway that would probably extend its life for decades. That’s yet more cheap and effective options, instead of tunnels.
You can have your say at nzta.govt.nz.
The two NZME cars sported signwriting to advertise the company's radio stations.