Stephen Selwood: One body to drive them all - road, rail and footpaths

Under Auckland's multi-tiered transport system, one agency can blame another for any failings. Photo / Paul Estcourt

Opinion

Councillor Christine Rose is totally correct in pointing out that transport issues are integral to Auckland's future.

Fix our transport governance and related issues and we take a big step to making Auckland an even greater place to invest, work and live.

But her reasoning is way off track in believing Auckland's transport turmoil will be addressed by creating a transport department within the new Auckland Council rather than the dedicated transport agency the Government has proposed.

Past experience in Auckland shows that such structures result in politicisation of decision making, pork barrel politics, short term planning and funding horizons borne of three-year election cycles.

It's true that a large amount of ratepayer money is collected for transport and this will likely continue under a single council. But Christine Rose ignores the core reality that over half the money spent on transport in Auckland is provided by road users through central government - not ratepayers.

In a nutshell, Auckland's transport infrastructure helps the region generate a third of the nation's wealth. To overcome the years of conflict between Auckland and central government over transport issues, it is critical that a governance system that shares responsibility and accountability for funding transport improvements is put in place.

This is at the core of why the New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development proposes a structure that aligns both central and local government transport functions within one governance agency.

An Auckland transport authority that is operationally independent of the council with a board appointed jointly by the Crown and the Auckland Council would recognise the fact that metropolitan Auckland's transport network is a cohesive system.

For the system to work effectively, all of its parts - from land use development to rail, local roads, arterials, state highways, cycling and walking - must be managed in an integrated fashion. A joint management structure will ensure alignment of transport investment decisions with overall land use development across the city.

The authority would report to the Auckland Council through the spatial plan set by the council and an agreed statement of corporate intent.

At the same time it would be statutorily responsible to ensure development and maintenance of the state highway portion of the roading network as well as rail network standards which would continue to be set at central government level by relevant crown agencies - The Ministry of Transport, the New Zealand Transport Agency and KiwiRail.

A major benefit and advantage over establishing a department within the new council would be the removal of inter-agency conflict and a strengthened business plan to enable better value for money allocation of limited funds.

Key performance indicators would be set in the statement of corporate intent so that at the end of each year ratepayers, council and central government would have one transparent mechanism for measuring performance against the goals set in the region's plan.

The current malady of one part of Auckland's multi-tiered transport system being able to blame underperformance on failures by another part of the system would become impossible.

Responsibilities of the agency would include transport planning and contracting delivery of transport services - road, rail, bus, ferries, as well as traffic management, transport system information and Auckland-wide walking and cycling networks.

Ratepayer participation at a local level would be ensured by prescribed consultation processes with local boards on infrastructure and service improvements, as happens now through the multi-council system but with better systems and targets to encourage greater community involvement.

There are numerous international city precedents for the transport governance system I have outlined here, most notably Vancouver, London and Toronto - all of which have a single overarching transport authority covering all modes of transport and with roles and participation devolved across all stakeholders, from central government to local communities.

Perhaps the standout example is Vancouver, just ranked by the Economist magazine as the world's most liveable city from the 140 looked at.

Vancouver's TransLink plans and manages the metropolitan transport system as a strategic whole, with a board that reports to the Greater Vancouver District Council, a tier of local councils and the provincial government. Services are delivered through contractors as well as subsidiaries.

The agency has a long-term transportation strategy that supports Vancouver's growth and sustainability goals - the equivalent of the proposed Auckland Council spatial plan. The strategy is underpinned by the requirement that it must be a fully funded plan that helps maintain, improve and expand the transport system and Vancouver's liveability and economy.

Transport is the most critical issue on Auckland's governance reform agenda. As Vancouver's approach demonstrates, an effective, de-politicised transport system is critical to lifting productivity and driving economic growth and improved social outcomes.

We desperately need a fresh start and a transport governance system that gives confidence that Auckland will get best value from the billions of taxpayer and ratepayer dollars being spent.

I accept it is a job that needs the guidance of a single Auckland Council and an overarching spatial plan to chart the vision.

But if Auckland is to improve its economy and become a better place to live, an integrated transport approach through a dedicated agency, with an independent professional board appointed jointly by the Crown and the Auckland Council, is by far the best solution for Auckland's transport governance.

* Stephen Selwood is chief executive of the New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development.