Editorial: Eastern highway plan gridlocked by politicking

At a casual glance the Auckland eastern highway proposal looks to be the easiest and most obvious roading project imaginable. Much of the route is already a valley of vacant land left in the eastern isthmus for just this purpose, and crosses a bay already traversed by a railway and a sewer line. How, then, has the proposal come to cost so much that consultants now estimate it would require a subsidy of $250 million a year?

The short answer is politics. In the interests of public transport the project has grown to be much more than the highway needed. It also incorporates the railway, a dedicated bus lane, cycleway and other requirements of the Government's national transport strategy, a document developed in negotiation with the Green Party.

The original roadway, according to the latest financial study, would cost about $2.2 billion when you include the cost of land purchases. But with all the alternative transport modes added on, the "eastern corridor", as planners now call it, carries a terrifying bill of $4 billion.

Since even the simple highway is not one of Transit New Zealand's priorities for Auckland, it is unlikely to be financed from national funds. And its principal proponents, the mayors of Auckland and Manukau, cannot reasonably ask their ratepayers alone to bear the burden of a major regional artery. Unless the Auckland region can be persuaded to share the cost - and for the region too, other projects probably take priority - the eastern corridor will need to be at least partially financed from tolls.

The latest financial assessment, by Deloitte, has concluded that tolls at their optimum level would be unlikely to attract private investment without a public subsidy of $250 million a year. That figure is simply too much to expect Auckland and Manukau ratepayers to contribute. So is the scheme dead?

Certainly the multi-modal monster looks to be untenable. Already some are asking whether a bus lane is really needed in any case alongside an existing railway. And will anybody really use a cycleway alongside a busy highway when they might just as easily bike along the waterfront? The scheme's proponents admit that for most of the journey the proposed route is longer than the alternatives already available.

But it could provide a faster route for motor vehicles, particularly if it is tolled. Deloitte estimates that a toll of $5.40 for a vehicle using the entire route would be capable of attracting sufficient private investment to build the highway, leaving the councils, perhaps, to find another $1 billion for land purchases. That is the proposal that should now be considered. If the Government continues to insist on all the public transport elements of the national transport strategy, the Government should provide their additional cost.

Since Transport Minister Pete Hodgson is adamant there will be no national contribution, he should permit Auckland to build the bare toll road financed through a public-private partnership. The practicality of the proposal would still depend on the tolls it could sustain. An earlier study concluded that tolls could not be set much above $2.90 before patronage dropped and revenue declined. But a toll of just $2.90 would pay for just 45 per cent of the road cost.

So unless the motorists of the eastern and south eastern suburbs are prepared to pay a good deal more than $2.90 to escape congestion, the highway is probably not feasible. Indeed, if so few motorists are prepared to pay more than that modest sum, congestion on their existing roads must not be too bad. But these estimates are based on desktop modelling, not real surveys.

It is time to find out how much time people are losing on the present roads and how much they might pay for a faster trip. Their answers should be the decisive consideration for this vexed road. If motorists will not pay for it, drop it.