Dialogue: Britomart decisions most vital since harbour bridge

The waterfront transport centre is a generational issue of vital importance to Auckland's development. We must not settle for second-best, says ALEX SWNEY.*

Let me paint you a picture. An American widow gets off a cruise liner at Princes Wharf in 2004. There's a one-day stopover in "Arkland" and the purser has given her pamphlets that describe the place.

Our visitor is a class of baby boomer - financially secure, well-travelled and independently minded. It's a fine day and she's happy to walk a little. Her first stop is at an information booth in a square, under an ugly statue. There are thousands of people in the square - most of them moving purposefully to and from some large stairways that lead underground.

"There's obviously lots to see here," the visitor tells the booth attendant. "What's the best way of getting around?"

The attractive youngster behind the counter, who wears a bright button saying "First City of the Pacific," intones a long list of options beginning with limousine services.

"Or there's our light-rail system," she adds reluctantly.

"You mean the subway."

"Well, sort of. It's a commuter service really, reaching out to the suburbs, but with stations also along Queen St. Part of it is above ground."

"And I get to it by walking down those steps?" asks the visitor.

"Yes."

"Is there no elevator?"

"No. It seems that when it was built, they decided to go for the cheapest option."

"And what's it like when you get down there?" enquires the American.

The attendant, conscious of her role as an ambassador for her country's biggest city, leans towards her prospect and says in a confidential fashion: "It's a bit of a nightmare, really. Once you're down on the concourse level, you have to walk for miles, as well as finding your way around."

"Thank you, my dear," says the visitor, relieved at having been spared the effort. "I'll get a cab."

"Yes, well, I'd suggest you wait until mid-morning. It's still rush hour and there'll be a bit of a snarl on the roads."

"Snarl? I would have thought a good public transport service might have reduced traffic on your streets."

The attendant exhales deeply and says: "Yes, I'm sorry, we all did."

This little scenario, while fiction, is the vision held of a cut-price Britomart transport hub by a number of downtown businesspeople; of a utilitarian facility that ends up being neither fish nor fowl as a local transport solution and that doesn't extend the physical range or choice for visitors and Aucklanders.

In order to create The First City of the Pacific, you are bound to compare firstly with the competition - Rio, Los Angeles, Tokyo, Honolulu, Sydney. Can we realistically usurp any, let alone all, of these sophisticated destinations and by what measure? Remember, too, that while we can kid ourselves, the litmus test will be conducted by outsiders looking in.

Let's take Los Angeles. The motorways that brought Aucklanders to work every day also promoted suburban sprawl - just as they did in Los Angeles. As we've become both upwardly and horizontally mobile, we bought cars and demanded more motorways so we could sprawl further. All the time we were forgetting what we stood for as a city. We became, instead, a collection of polyester suburbs whose occupants sometimes came down town.

Other social, commercial and financial pressures collaborated towards the trend. In the past three years the Auckland city centre workforce has reduced by 5000 - but here's the twist: this reduction has been offset by the growth in high-density accommodation in the city centre. Aucklanders have recognised the downside of sprawl - the interminable daily trek from an infilled suburbia.

Los Angeles now has a population of 10 million. It has just opened the widest motorway in the world - 18 lanes - yet it has conceded that an effective system of public transport is inevitable. So at a cost of $1 billion a mile it has begun digging and tunnelling for an underground public transport system.

The last time Aucklanders were faced with a transport issue of such magnitude was when we considered the construction of the harbour bridge. Originally, planners produced a five-lane bridge with a rail crossing and a pedestrian lane. The cost was deemed astronomical, so new plans were commissioned for a four-lane structure. The day the bridge opened in 1959 it was almost at capacity and within ten years we were doubling its size with the "Nippon clip-ons" to cope with the growth that the bridge itself was generating.

Today on the Son of Britomart we face a similar conundrum. Fiscally, I like to think of myself as dry and am always advocating cost-cutting from City Hall. But the Son of Britomart is a generational issue that must be viewed with a horizon beyond the next election. It is an answer as much for today as it is for our children and their children. It is vital, therefore, that it is future-proofed for buses, ferries or even light rail if we as a city are going to be moving anywhere.

The availability of the Britomart land represents a golden opportunity to construct the transport hub vital to development of our city. We need our civic leaders to take a long and subjective view - say, about the length of their own strategic plan - and then have the courage to act decisively.

The council has just published its draft annual plan. If you make only one submission in your life to this planning process, make the downtown Auckland transport hub the subject. It is just too important to ignore.

* Alex Swney is general manager of the Heart of the City group of retailers.

Herald Online feature: Getting Auckland moving

Herald Online traffic reports

Rideline Auckland bus information