KEY POINTS:
Auckland's roads, bridges, busways and railways are the bones of our city's future. That is why it is important to get plans right before casting them in concrete.
Transport infrastructure is expensive, difficult to change, and lasts several lifetimes. It determines how land is used and shapes how citizens live their lives.
The Mangere Bridge duplication project is a topical and typical example of how Auckland interests and transport entities engage in the transport planning process today.
We can do better.
Transit has prime responsibility for state highways and has had the bridge duplication in its plans for years.
This link of State Highway 20 has long been regarded as a high priority.
Motorway and business interests have cited the Rugby World Cup 2011 and lobbied for accelerated construction. It is now a top priority project for Transit.
Public transport advocates have pushed for a busway over the new bridge and also want provision for a rail crossing.
A few weeks ago the Auckland Regional Transport Authority sought advice, with urgency, on passenger transport needs for the bridge.
Long-term planning for state highways in Auckland has been well funded for decades, while that for passenger transport is struggling to recover from decades of neglect.
The uncertainty over whether Ontrack or Auckland Regional Transport Authority has responsibility for long-term planning of Auckland's commuter rail network has not helped.
But many Aucklanders think a high-quality passenger link between Auckland's CBD and its airport is a no-brainer. The unanswered question is: What alignment, and on a busway or a railway?
Environmental concerns have been triggered by Transit's resource consent process for the bridge and its approach roads.
For example, a Transpower cable, slung from pylons and needing an upgrade, runs through the same corridor as would the bridge.
Many people favour an underground cable, providing for it while the bridge is being built.
Others concerned about the coastal environment want to see beaches and walkways restored as they were before the existing bridge and motorway were built.
And the Volcanic Cone Society, flushed with success in protecting Mt Roskill from the ravages of road-builders, want the best for the volcanic cone that stands in the middle of this project.
A more challenging issue is what will become of Onehunga town centre on one side of the crossing, and Mangere village on the other.
People driving to the airport on State Highway 20 barely notice these communities. However, Onehunga town centre is a designated growth node in Auckland's regional growth strategy.
With potential high-capacity rail and state highway links, its own port, the street "bones" for urban regeneration, the town's future is at a crossroads. Its redevelopment could be enabled by an integrated transport design. But if there is not appropriate consideration it could be destroyed.
Although Transit has had some consultation with Auckland and Manukau City Councils, Auckland Regional Council, Auckland Regional Transport Authority, the Volcanic Cone Society and other groups, frustration and concern is evident as the scheduled resource consent hearing approaches along its statutory timeline.
Many design aspects of the whole project remain uncertain.
Rail bridge or not? Which way around the volcano? Will Onehunga town centre's transport links be connected or severed?
Should adjacent commercial land be rezoned? Who will pay to fix the coast? What about that Transpower cable?
A resource consent hearing is not the place to resolve these matters. It is the place where adverse effects on the environment of a project are remedied, mitigated and avoided by stipulating appropriate conditions.
What is needed first is an agreed and co-ordinated master plan of everything that needs to be built - whether by Transit, Auckland City, Manukau City or Ontrack - to make the whole project work in the best interests of local communities and the whole Auckland region.
This is largely what happened with the northern busway.
It consisted of a whole range of connected and co-ordinated projects, most of which needed separate consents. There was the busway itself alongside State Highway 1, five busway stations, bus priority lanes on North Shore roads, the widening of Fanshawe St, and providing a bus station at Britomart. And Auckland Regional Council committed itself to fund the new bus services.
As a condition of funding the northern busway, Land Transport NZ wisely insisted that all of these public agencies acknowledge their individual responsibilities and commitment to an integrated project.
The threat of tightened purse strings focused minds and motivated effective joint planning.
Land Transport NZ could investigate whether public money is being expended effectively and efficiently in the planning of the Mangere Bridge duplication and whether parties are giving proper effect to Land Transport Management Act duties - especially the need to integrate land-use planning with transport planning.
The risk of the present planning approach - which emphasises the core state highway project without integrated consideration of all of its component parts - is that consents will be sought for plans which need to be changed, and aggrieved parties will resort to legal action through the Environment Court.
A stitch in time usually saves nine, especially when it comes to big transport projects being fitted into Auckland's existing urban landscape. It needs good bones.
* Joel Cayford is an Auckland regional councillor.
