Editorial: If we really want it, we'll have to pay

History has shown that when Aucklanders really want a transport link, they are prepared to pay for it. Photo / Herald on Sunday

Opinion

A "business case" for a central Auckland rail loop has been endorsed from left and right of the new Auckland Council. Mayor Len Brown found it "compelling", Christine Fletcher, co-leader of the Citizens and Ratepayers minority, said there was a consensus for it.

It is not known how many members of the council are accustomed to assessing business cases for big investments. Transport Minister Steven Joyce seems to know what to look for: figures based on guesswork for wider economic benefits (webs). This report, said Mr Joyce, has "webs on steroids".

It estimates that an underground rail connection from Britomart to the western line, with stations in Albert St, Pitt St, Upper Symonds St and Khyber Pass Rd, would return 3 times its cost in "transformational" benefits to Auckland and the country at large. It would do this by boosting business and employment in the central business district where productivity is higher than average.

Anybody looking for reliable data to support this contention will not find it easily. The report, prepared by consultants for the former Auckland Regional Transport Authority and KiwiRail, is everything those commissioning it could have desired. It has not subjected their proposal to critical analysis, and does not highlight the likely operating losses that probably would be charged to ratepayers.

It is an exciting project. The loop could be the revival of the CBD, bringing all corners of it within a 500m walk to a station. The ridges around the inner city would be more easily accessible. The line from the western suburbs could come straight into the city, rather than joining the southern line at Newmarket. Most important, many more trains could run once Britomart became a through-station.

All of this might entice many more employers to set up in the city. It might entice commuters to leave their cars at home. They might decide to live near railway stations rather than beaches. They might.

The consultants appear to have no doubt. "International experience shows that strong patronage growth follows investment in quality services," they say, and point to the increase in Auckland's rail patronage after the Regional Transport Authority was established in 2003.

"Build it and they will come" is a dubious theory. White elephants happen. Now that Auckland has a single council in command of all its rate revenue and unrivalled in its expression of the city's interests, we need it to keep a cool head. A rail circuit of the inner city needs to be assessed more critically than the tone of this report suggests.

As it stands, it seems unlikely to persuade the new Auckland Transport agency where city and national representatives need to agree on projects to be jointly financed. If the council and its representatives on the agency are confident of their project, they must first convince Aucklanders to pay the lion's share of it.

History has shown that when Aucklanders really want a transport link, when they know they will use it, they are prepared to pay for it. Before Mr Brown, Mrs Fletcher and the rest try to convince Mr Joyce of the merits of this proposal, they should put it to Auckland - with an honest price on it.

Then, if ratepayers are as excited as they are by the case for an inner city rail circuit, they could have a proposition the Government would find hard to refuse. As it is, it sounds like business as usual - Auckland's voice whining like a demanding child expecting a treat from the taxpayers.

One in four national taxpayers is a ratepayer too. Auckland has four times the population of any other city in the country. It has been given the cohesion at last to made big, responsible decisions for itself. Let it begin.