Light rail artist impression in Auckland. Photo / Supplied
OPINION:
To accuse generals of fighting the last war, not the current one, is to accuse them of incompetence. The proposals regarding the construction and funding of a new light rail network connecting Auckland's CBD and the airport might exemplify this phenomenon.
Proponents of the light rail network argue that it is environmentally cleaner than other alternatives for large-scale commuting to the CBD. It also addresses Auckland Transport's concern that commuters do not like changing services and that a direct solution will enhance the use of public transport. If some cars are removed from the road, AT will be better positioned to encourage the use of alternative transport arrangements.
Of course, the bill for this new transport solution is significant, running into the billions of dollars, and will involve substantial further disruption to the CBD and to the suburbs through which it will pass as it is constructed.
Which leads me to the question: what problem is the light rail service designed to solve?
It appears to be structured for the Auckland that existed before the impact of Covid and the profound effects of lockdowns, restrictions and vaccine passes on work practices and other daily activities such as shopping, dining out and socialising, and leisure.
If the trend of flexible working (including working largely from home) continues, a rail network to service peak-hour commuting becomes less necessary and less relevant; there are simply fewer commuters travelling to the CBD.
Instead of investing billions of dollars in the rail network, might it not be better to focus on ICT infrastructure to ensure all Auckland suburbs have super-fast broadband to support home working, video calls and so on?
Equally, a better use of funding might be to invest in shared workspaces located in city suburbs.
These provide 'office' hubs where people can access business facilities without travelling as far as to the city centre.
This would have a further benefit in that local communities would have more people utilising leisure facilities, cafes, restaurants and local shops, as they would work, stay and spend locally.
This might also necessitate changes to other forms of public transport; networks of smaller electric mini-buses connecting suburban streets with the local business hub might also represent a better solution than a traditional hub-and-spoke transport network designed for one final destination.
The changes in our shopping and consumption habits also suggest traditional networks may not be appropriate.
When New Zealand feels the full effect of the Amazon phenomenon, it is likely that a significant portion of everyday shopping will move online.
This has been the trend offshore, and we should be taking note of it because of the inevitable impact it will have on our transport network.
The appeal of old-fashioned shopping streets and complexes are declining.
Across the world we are seeing the demise of the department store and the shopping mall as consumers increasingly let their fingers do the walking.
A glance at Queen St, once Auckland's premium retail and commercial strip, reveals how unattractive it has become.
The long-term effect of online shopping means that, in all likelihood, we will not see a resurgence of the CBD as a shopping destination for Aucklanders.
In that case it will need much more than a light rail network to rejuvenate the CBD, the decline of which will be exacerbated if workers do not return to offices in the same numbers as before Covid.
Another consequence needs to be acknowledged.
When San Francisco went into lockdown it was anticipated there would be an improvement in air quality as a result of the drop in the number of vehicles on the road.
Surprisingly, the reduction in carbon emissions was smaller than expected, because the decline in commuter miles was cancelled out by the rise in vehicles being used to deliver consumer goods and takeaways.
The population's habits changed, but the climate effect did not.
There is some evidence from both the United States and Europe that this trend is continuing and has not reverted to pre-pandemic levels.
This prompts another interesting question: if the purpose of the light rail network is to help reduce emissions, what are we planning to do to address the impact of more delivery vehicles on our roads?
Leaving aside the cost and practical disruptions of building a new rail network, there is little point proceeding if we will not ultimately achieve a meaningful and sustained reduction in emissions.
Might that money be better used to electrify delivery fleets and build different types of local collection points so we do not just replace cars with trucks?
Often unintended consequences defy good intentions.
For example, in London, when ridesharing businesses such as Uber were permitted to enter the market based on council policies to reduce emissions by cutting traffic, the upshot was another 30,000 vehicles on the city's roads daily.
Conversely, local business hubs would be far more likely to enhance walking and cycling as modes of transport.
Auckland Council often compares the proportion of citizens who cycle in Copenhagen versus Auckland and has used this as a goal in the creation of a network of cycleways.
The comparison is invalidated by two facts: Copenhagen is flat and compact as a city, Auckland is not.
A simple analysis of the area of Copenhagen shows that for most residents, the maximum journey from their home to the CBD would be around 6km.
In contrast, the maximum commute in Auckland would be measured from the boundary of the council area – around 40km.
A transport solution that works for a small concentrated city is unlikely to be viable in one as geographically spread out as Auckland, which is also divided by a harbour.
It is not to say that a strategy to get more people on their bikes is a bad one; rather, it may need to be modified.
There is little point building a network of cycleways connecting the outer suburbs with the CBD if the home-working trend becomes the norm.
In that case, the network should be focused on localisation and connecting workers and communities with local centres, in line with the behaviour of commuters in concentrated European cities.
Most importantly, we must avoid the trap faced by those generals.
It is critical that we re-analyse how the city is changing and how worker and consumer movement patterns are evolving and stop planning for past trends to persist into the future.
An Auckland in which most people do not physically work in a CBD office requires a different solution to any we have had before.
Before we press 'go' on any major transport investment we should ask whether and how the funds might be better deployed to build a city which is fit for purpose in the 21st century, and not a watered-down reflection of the 20th.
• Andrew Barnes is a businessman and philanthropist. He is the founder of Perpetual Guardian.
OPINION: Ferries dilemma reveals deeper port strategy issues.