Tony Holman: All roads lead to review of way Auckland Transport operates

The sticking points for the tunnels on the harbour bed have always been about funding and timing. Photo / Dean Purcell

Opinion

COMMENT: The inefficient use of the Waitemata Harbour for transport services, and successive governments' failure to face up to providing new and necessary infrastructure, namely twin tunnels under the harbour, to relieve the pressure on the Harbour Bridge, especially the ageing "clip-ons," is of growing concern.

During 1997-2010, I was on the North Shore City Council, Auckland Regional Growth Forum and Auckland Regional Transport Committee. I listened to many public submissions, presentations from NZTA, Government MPs and other officials about projected increases in bridge traffic, the likely end life of the "clip-ons" and the possible solutions. These included a second Harbour Bridge, or twin tunnels on the harbour bed.

Logic and cost indicated twin tunnels for public transport, including train travel.

The main variable was the question of the ingress/egress points, one of the advantages of the tunnel system being that these did not have to begin/end at the same points. Inflow and outflow could be better spread if that was desirable. This is State Highway 1 we're talking about, and tunnels were supported by NZTA, the Government, the ARC and councils.

The sticking points for the tunnels have always been about funding and timing. Governments have always fudged this by giving an "estimated" 20 years for completion. Meantime, other "needs" have been chosen as more immediate.

The Generation Zero dreamtime and unproven "SkyPath" is set to absorb millions needed for more essential transport improvements. The SkyPath promoters have described it as a tourist attraction rather than a valuable commuter addition.

The whole matter is one of priorities, and while the new Government faces a huge backlog of matters requiring urgent attention, it and the country cannot afford to ignore these cross harbour transport needs any longer. This must focus on commuter and commercial traffic.

The other aspect of our neglected harbour as a means of transport lies entirely at the door of Auckland Transport (AT). Its fascination with colossally expensive, badly designed cycleways is becoming a major scandal.

The latest is Grey Lynn/Westmere, likely to cost up to $35 million to fix, let alone what it has already cost. Another is the Northcote safe cycleway (estimated cost $20m), another white elephant, theoretically to allow large numbers of cyclists to use the SkyPath, which, if it ever eventuates, will now join the proposed "SeaPath" rather than disgorge at Northcote Point.

AT, responsible for commuter harbour services, has closed the Northcote ferry wharf, so that rather stymies any cyclists who might have decided to try the cycleway to the now defunct Northcote ferry. Worse, AT seems generally uninterested in and dismissive of the need to bolster commuter ferry traffic.

One relatively low infrastructure cost for AT is the building and maintenance of the ferry terminals, whereas land transport requires buses, bus stations, parking areas, hundreds of bus shelters, lots of bitumen ... I believe ferry travel is probably much cheaper per person per kilometre for AT than buses or trains.

Meantime, such things as the likely permanent closure of Northcote Point wharf, the rumour that AT wants to get out of commuter water transport entirely, and the cycleway debacles, makes one wonder isn't it time for a thorough, independent review of AT, its structure, and expenditure?

• Tony Holman has been an officer in the ARA, a North Shore City councillor for 21 years, a senior manager in three statutory boards and a former Watercare chairman.