Editorial: ARC's 'green' transport plan ignores reality

Opinion

Green thinking might not win many votes in national elections, or dominate the advice given the Government, but it has remarkable sway at the Auckland Regional Council.

The council, though soon to be superseded by a single city, is letting its transport committee proceed to publish an updated strategy notable for its divergence from the Government's plans.

Roads, the Government's priority, rank behind rail projects on the list compiled by staff at Regional House. Their first desire is rail electrification, followed by a central Auckland rail tunnel and integrated public transport ticketing, in that order.

Their highest-ranked road, the western ring road, is fourth. A widened highway to Wellsford, one of the Government's "roads of national significance", is at the bottom of the region's list.

The philosophies of the draft regional land strategy 2010 - broadly similar to those of 1993, 1995, 1999, 2003 and 2005 - reveal the reason for the divergence.

Concerns such as climate change and "peak oil" are paramount for the region's planners whereas they compete with equally important economic and social equity concerns in the evaluations of central Government.

Regional transport strategists aim to reduce private car use by developing a "more sustainable urban form". Their first stated goal is to "support and contribute to a compact and contained urban form consisting of centres, corridors and rural settlements". Their other goals and priorities flow from that fundamental mistake.

Auckland is not and never will be a "compact and contained urban form". Its environment and terrain invite sprawl. The regional plan has been trying for 10 years to contain coastal ribbon development and force population growth into higher-density concentrations near railway stations.

Aucklanders have resisted for good reason. They have come to the region for its coastlines and climate. Planners of land use and transport need to work with the demonstrable demand, not against it.

That point has been made here many times. It might not need to be repeated when the Super City displaces the regional council. For one thing, Auckland's transport will then be managed by an ad hoc authority representing the Government as well as the Auckland Council.

For another, the Auckland Council will be a good deal busier than the regional council has been. It will take over most of the tasks of five municipal councils and two rural districts as well as giving regional direction.

In a nation of our size, two levels of public administration are probably sufficient. When a regional tier was inserted between central and local government it was given mainly an environmental oversight role.

In some regions it is called the environmental council. Other parts of New Zealand are watching the reform of Auckland's government as a model for wider change.

If the green thinking in Regional House was to survive in the Auckland Council, it is hard to see how the envisaged joint transport management would work. The divergence of principles and priorities was evident to Transport Minister Steven Joyce when he read the region's latest draft strategy.

Since the Cabinet will hold the crucial purse-strings it is clear whose priorities will prevail. Auckland's roads are of national interest in a way that its public transport is not.

Governments and their officials have been hard to convince of the value of commuter railways in Auckland. Environmental reasoning alone has not persuaded them.

The regional council should not be publishing another forlorn transport plan. Auckland can look forward now to more balanced leadership.