The Campaign For Better Transport

Brian Rudman comments in the Herald on the sneaky press release just before Christmas.

Think of a figure, double it, add your age and subtract the number of eels in Oakley Creek: that, it seems, is as good a guess as any for the price of completing the Waterview Connection.

I’m not surprised Transport Minister Steven Joyce and the NZ Transport Agency waited until the eve of the Christmas exodus to sneak out the highly embarrassing news that a tunnel was, after all, the most cost-effective and environmentally sensitive way to join State Highway 20 up to the Northwestern Motorway at Waterview.

The ARC feels insufficient information has been provided to properly assess the Waterview motorway link and it still prefers the option of a longer link through Rosebank Rd.  The Herald reports:

Auckland Regional Council’s transport committee has withheld support for the latest cut-down version of a motorway through Waterview involving a mix of surface and tunnelled sections.

The committee yesterday deemed it had received insufficient information to assess the $1.4 billion scheme before the Transport Agency board meets in a fortnight to consider submissions and decide whether to push ahead with the final link in Auckland’s western ring route.

It also restated its preference for a longer link through Rosebank Rd as “the superior strategic alignment” to connect the Southwestern and Northwestern Motorways, even though the Government ruled that out early this year as too expensive, while instructing the agency to review various Waterview options.

The regional councillors affirmed their support for completing the 48km ring route between Manukau and Albany, but questioned the strategic justification for running it through Waterview, where the latest proposal will require the demolition of up to 365 homes and loss of 5ha of public open space.

Read the rest of this entry »

Mathew Dearnaley reports on the Auckland City Council’s preference for a “surface-tunnel” option for the Waterview Motorway.  From the Herald:

Auckland City’s transport committee has infuriated communities in the path of the Waterview motorway by supporting the Government’s preference for a revised “surface-tunnel” option.

“I’m absolutely gutted by the response from our council – I think they have been irresponsible,” Margi Watson, Waterview-based spokesman of the Tunnel or Nothing protest group, said yesterday.

“The council was elected to represent the interests of communities, not the Government.”

Members of the ruling Citizens and Ratepayers bloc, led by Deputy Mayor David Hay, outvoted minority City Vision and independent councillors in backing the revised scheme, which the Transport Agency estimates will cost $1.4 billion.

That differs from the council’s previous support for a pair of deep tunnels to carry traffic along most of a 4.5km link between the Southwestern and Northwestern Motorways, and will provide extra comfort to the agency’s board when it meets in Auckland late this month to approve the new plan.

Read the rest of this entry »

I’m reading an excellent book at the moment – Resilient Cities by Peter Newman, Timothy Beatley and Heather Boyer. I commented on this book a few posts ago, with particular reference to how pathetic our preparedness for peak oil is and how stupid Treasury’s oil price predictions are. I have just got up to reading the chapter which relates to transportation issues, and there are certainly some interesting points in it.

The basic premise is that for a city’s transportation system to be resilient – that is to be able to adapt to the changing world that we face over the next few decades – it simply can’t be as auto-dependent as many American cities, as well as Auckland, are at the moment. Whilst electric cars may come along and be the answer to our problems at some point in the future, to properly ensure that the effects of peak oil and climate change are not too horrific there is simply no alternative to making cities more public transport oriented.

One point that I found particularly interesting, before I get on to explaining the pointlessness of building more motorways, is the relationship between increased public transport use and decreased car use. Often it is simply thought of as a one-to-one relationship: that each increased ride for public transport is one fewer trip made in the car. However, it appears as though the relationship is actually stronger than that: that “there is an exponential relationship between increased transit use and declining car use.” This is further explained:

This helps explain why use of cars by inner-city residents in Melbourne is ten times lower than that of fringe residents, though transit use by inner-city residents is only three times greater. The reason is that when people commit to transit, they may sell a car and even more closer to the transit, eventually leading to lan use that is considerably less car dependent.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Herald reports that the Government has canned the Waterview tunnel, but hasn’t announced what it will be replaced with just yet.  The Transport Agency is expected to make a decision today.  The maximum budget for the project will be $1.4bn.  Act MP John Boscawen thinks the whole thing can be done for $500m, so I’d be interested to see that proposal.

Let’s just say Auckland had $2.2 billion to spend on transportation. This money is from a crown grant rather than from petrol taxes, so there’s no real bias from the school of thought that petrol tax money should be spent on roads. Therefore, all different types of transport projects could be considered equal – ie. rail versus roads.

Now let’s look at two ways in which that money could be spent:

The first option is on a cheap and nasty Waterview Connection. This open cut, fully surface level option is projected to cost almost exactly $2.2 billion. This is a total of $1.456 billion for construction costs, $290 million for SH16 upgrades and $450 million for financing costs. This option will involve the demolition of around 500 houses, the loss of a huge amount of open space in a part of Auckland that is considered to already be short of open space. Because of its high social and environmental costs, its cost-benefit ratio may be below 1. Furthermore, 73% of the benefits it will supposedly bring are  internationally criticised ‘time-savings benefits’, which don’t actually seem to exist in the longer-term. So, to conclude, for this option we get a 4.5 km motorway driven through a suburb, a huge loss of open space and all justified on fairly dodgy time savings benefits that may not even exist.

The second option, which also costs $2.2 billion, would involve a two track railway line being built from Avondale to Manukau City via Onehunga and the airport. This option would firstly involve completing the Avondale-Southdown railway line – that has been designated since the 1940s. Because of its long-running designation no houses would have to be demolished to make way for the line. Completing the Avondale-Southdown railway line would open up rail access from West Auckland to the airport and south, it would offer freight trains an alternative route through Auckland to the congested Newmarket junction, thereby over time allowing higher frequencies of passenger trains to be operated. This part of the project would cost $729 million and include four train stations – for interchanges with high frequency bus services to the city along Manukau, Dominion and Sandringham Roads.

The rail option would also involve linking the airport to the city by rail – with trains able to travel from Britomart to Onehunga, then over the Mangere Bridge to the airport. Furthermore, it would also link with the existing main trunk railway line near Manukau City. This finally creates a high quality public transport link from the city to the airport, creates an alternative  rail link between Manukau and Britomart, increasing the capacity of the Otahuhu-Wiri section of the Southern Line. It makes running inter-city trains to Britomart a possibility, and they could even go via the airport for extra connectivity.

They both cost $2.2 billion.  They both compete for the same money, a crown grant. I wonder which has the most long-term benefit for Auckland? I wonder which will be built?

With most business opportunities, it is possible to calculate the expected monetary benefits and costs, while considering other factors such as the opportunity cost of capital and project risk.A similar approach for transport infrastructure projects is also attractive. Just work out the benefits in today’s money, divide this by the cost and – presto! – you know exactly how much the economy will benefit from for every dollar spent.

Take the proposed Waterview motorway extension, for example. Treasury and Ministry of Transport officials have worked out that for every dollar spent on the $2.8bn motorway connection between Mt Roskill and Waterview, the economy will receive $1.15 worth of benefits.

In the business case document now being considered by Cabinet, officials point out that “full tunnel” option means that the benefits are only a little in excess of their costs. Some above ground options might save up to $200m from the construction cost, but these have higher social and environmental costs, and also involve the loss of park land and a significant number of houses.

Considering the billions of dollars at stake, one would hope that the economic benefits and costs of the various options are as accurate and as realistic as possible. So are they? Well, no, actually.

Read the rest of this entry »

Parliament yesterday had some interesting discussion about progress on deciding which option of the Waterview Connection is likely to be built, if any at all. It seems like Steven Joyce has got it into his head that the poor cost-benefit ratio of the Waterview Connection (only 1.15 and I have my suspicions that’s vastly over-estimated) can be fixed simply by finding a much cheaper option – never mind the environmental or social effects it will have.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I share the member’s concern about the cost-benefit ratio of the twin two-lane tunnels proposed by the previous Government. The cost estimates for that project were extraordinarily high, and that is why I have asked officials to consider ways to save costs. We are still working through the final decision on that.

The reason Mr Joyce is still working on this, is simply because there is no significantly cheaper and better value option. For a start, the cost difference between a full tunnel option and other potential options is not nearly as big as people make it out to be. The Ministry of Transport’s review of the Waterview Connection clearly pointed that out (see page 18 of that document).

To paraphrase (all costs in 2015 dollars)

1) Cost of full tunnel option: $2.005 billion for 4 lanes, $2.335 billion for 6 lanes
2) Cost of cut and partial cover options: $1.790 billion for 4 lanes, $1.813 for 6 lanes
3) Cut and extended cover: $1.988 billion for 4 lanes, $2.205 billion for 6 lanes
4) Open cut (no tunnel at all): $1.456 billion for 4 lanes, $1.585 billion for 6 lanes

Read the rest of this entry »