Joel Cayford: Let's all work together to get Auckland moving

COMMENT


The Auckland region's councils are meeting this week to respond to Government proposals intended to rapidly upgrade Auckland's transport system, and to improve its planning and integration with land use.

On the surface there is a public veneer of co-operation between the councils, but beneath the shine the same old battles continue.

Auckland's story of disintegrated transport management has been told and retold. It is one of good ideas, fresh thinking, rational argument and innovation being subordinate to the local political milieu.

It is a regressive history of vested interests and political cliques pandering to the motorist, and fighting to control and expand their power bases. Now some fear too much money will be spent too soon on doubtful rail projects.

For years central Government has stood back and encouraged Auckland's councils to work together to establish a co-ordinated and rational structure that would manage and implement technically advanced and effective transport systems.

We tried but could not agree. So the Government has stepped in and taken decisive action consistent with its land transport strategy, which takes New Zealand forward from brute industrialisation into a modern era characterised by transport decisions integrating social, economic, public health and environmental requirements.

The Government's proposals include almost $1 billion of additional funding for Auckland transport over 10 years, and the establishment of a new Auckland Regional Transport Authority owned and governed by the Auckland Regional Council. The Government also proposes to fold Infrastructure Auckland, its assets and its transport and stormwater funding activities into the regional council.

These proposals come with strings attached. In particular, the Government requires Auckland's councils to align their planning documents with the new land transport strategy.

This seems sensible. It would be silly for the Government to provide more funding for transport projects which risk taking the region backwards when measured against its strategy.

This is one of the issues canvassed in a paper prepared during the holiday break by the chief executives of the region's councils. Its 26 recommendations are being considered by councillors. One is that the Government should pay the extra money before the councils change their plans.

I accept that the public process of changing every council plan relating to transport will take a couple of years. But the regional land transport strategy could be made consistent with Government policy in just a few months.

It is worth noting that the joint officer group, which included Government and council officials, reported late last year that some projects in the regional land transport strategy would lead to increased air pollution. The group's report said these projects should not be prioritised. Instead, it recommended a raft of traffic demand-management measures and increased investment in rail. These recommendations are repeated in the Government proposals.

The chief executives' report also highlights a regional split on what to do with Infrastructure Auckland. The regional council's chief executive wants the regional council to be able to determine how Infrastructure Auckland assets and money will be spent using a process similar to rates expenditure decisions.

But I agree with the chief executives from the region's city councils who want the intent of existing Infrastructure Auckland legislative provisions to be retained. This requires that its assets and funds can be applied only to capital stormwater and transport projects which meet specific criteria.

Infrastructure Auckland is responsible for $600 million in cash and $600 million in assets. It would be far too tempting to put that pot of gold within easy reach of councillors, however well-intentioned.

Further checks and balances that could be put in place to ensure the resource is not spent wastefully might include an annual cap, the retention of something like the existing Infrastructure Auckland board to filter regional council funding requests, or a moratorium until the transport authority is properly in place.

What will that authority be responsible for? Auckland has never had an authority like it before, but similar entities are commonly used to manage transport assets and operate services around the world.

At one extreme, the transport authority could be seen just as an arm's length organisation to procure bus, ferry and train services from private operators like Stagecoach. This would leave the vast majority of asset management, funding prioritisation and operational decisions to the regional council.

The regional council needs to manage the regional land transport strategy and the transport authority's performance, while the authority's job is to deliver the strategy in accordance with an annually set transport implementation plan - developed by authority staff - which would be approved by the regional council and subject to submissions from city councils.

The transport authority's board would be held accountable for the delivery of the plan, and its staff would be responsible for detailed asset management and planning, service co-ordination and procurement and for obtaining necessary Transfund money.

In the future it is conceivable that Government might agree to incorporate the Auckland function of Transfund into the transport authority when the entity has a proven track record.

In their desire for integration, the region's chief executives are also calling for the Auckland functions of TrackCo (the Government company holding rail assets) and Transit (responsible for state highways) to be part of the transport authority.

The thrust of the transport governance proposals is to achieve greater integration of all related decision-making. But the region's councils need to demonstrate an ability to work together first and get the basics right before the Government delegates further responsibilities to the transport authority. In the meantime, integrated planning can be achieved by agreement and co-operation.

It is important that Auckland's councils get this right from the start. Government pressure and scrutiny is essential, too. If Auckland continues to develop as it has, communities will suffer continued low-density sprawl, ad hoc intensification within existing built-up areas and poor-quality transport systems.

* Joel Cayford is North Shore City's works and environment committee chairman.