It took only five years before the Waterview Tunnel's redirection of traffic stopped easing congestion. Photo / Nick Reed, File
It took only five years before the Waterview Tunnel's redirection of traffic stopped easing congestion. Photo / Nick Reed, File
OPINION
Firstly, I want to acknowledge the Automobile Association's (AA) role in the transport policy debate.
We share a lot of goals, such as reducing the number of deaths on our roads, and it kindly spoke to us as we were shaping our latest report "Te Ara Matatika vol.2 –a Fair Charge for Better Cities". We also agree that congestion charging in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland needs to be designed so it does not hit those on lower incomes the hardest.
All Aucklanders want a city that is easy and safe to move around. Commutes should be timely and consistent, kids would be able to walk and cycle to school without worry, and public transport needs to be affordable and accessible to all.
However, the policy prescriptions the AA is advocating (NZ Herald, May 27) do not bring us closer to that potential future – its solutions will actually make congestion worse and increase greenhouse gas emissions.
The AA is calling for more investment into new roads. The good news for the AA is the Government and Auckland Council are continuing to spend billions on new roads and lanes like Penlink and widening the Southern Motorway.
The bad news for everyone else is this will not reduce congestion in the long run.
As the AA's report shows, it only took five years before the Waterview Tunnel's redirection of traffic stopped easing congestion. You only have to look at cities such as Los Angeles to see where a relentless focus on roads gets you – 16 lanes of motorway stuck in gridlock every day.
The AA also says that the "consideration of travel times needs to return to the front and centre of transport decision making". It's true that when Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency was set up in 2009, travel times used to be a priority under the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport – a very technical document that guides the agency's investment decisions with local government.
But the question is, did this actually lead to investments that improved travel times in the long run? No.
Is there anyone who seriously argues that traffic got better under this direction? No.
Kathy Errington. Photo / Supplied
Instead, projects were selected based on what would ease congestion in the immediate term but the long-term effects of building large motorways through our city were ignored.
The more motorways we build without providing good alternatives to driving, the more cars we are going to get to fill them up. Instead of easier commutes, we've ended up with more traffic, worse air quality, and a much harder journey to get to zero-carbon by 2050.
The only way to get quicker trips, in the long run, is to have fewer cars on the road.
The best way to do this is to give people true transport choices - affordable, fast and reliable public transport, so they can realistically leave the car at home, which makes it easier for those who must drive.
We've seen cities such as London and Paris successfully invest in large-scale public transport and walking and cycling networks and there have been massive benefits beyond making commutes easier. Those cities are now more attractive, safer, and liveable - no wonder Kiwis are beginning to flock back to these places for their OEs.
Finally, the AA's report points out that areas outside the isthmus and lower North Shore have continued to grow and the people who live there typically drive and have longer commutes.
The Government and Auckland Council should be building good public transport infrastructure to places like the high growth areas in the northwest as a priority to help turn this around.
If we return to the same transport policy of the past 70 years, as the AA is promoting, we are going to get the same results.
