Tax us on to trains and we'll drive away

Comment by OWEN McSHANE*

The road network and motorway system designed for Auckland back in the mid-sixties was expected to operate without undue congestion until about 1985. Here we are in 2003 and the network is only one-third completed.

We should not be surprised that we have a congestion problem.

The real question is how come the system operates at all?

The answer is decentralisation.

In the sixties Manukau City was still a place where sheep could safely graze and the North Shore was no more than a booming dormitory suburb.

As the road building fell behind schedule and the roads became increasingly congested Aucklanders responded by decentralising out of the central isthmus and to the north and south of Auckland.

The motorway system was intended to maintain the central Auckland area as the dominant centre with virtually no competition from outside.

But unlike London, Central Auckland does not have the critical mass, in historical, commercial and cultural terms, to survive any significant increase in costs. So when congestion increased the costs of doing business in Central Auckland, business moved to the suburbs.

We now seem determined to speed up the process.

Human beings are subject to fads and crazes. History reminds us of tulip mania, the South Sea Bubble mania, and more recently dotcom mania.

Auckland is in the grip of red-hot Trainomania. How else can one explain the ludicrous proposal to tax Central Auckland out of existence?

For some reason our politicians and planners are determined to build a massive white elephant called a Rapid Transit System, or whatever name is fashionable for the next few days. It is estimated to cost $1.5 billion.

And the train planners hope it will carry a useful number of passengers.

However, one of my rules of thumb is that any train system costs twice the budgeted cost to build, and wins only a third of projected patronage. The recently built American systems cost about US$35 a passenger trip to run. Those few systems which appear to have been built within budget had their budgets revised upwards just before opening day.

We are already experiencing the early costs of our own Auckland folly. For example, the lack of an effective road network means that distribution companies have to operate more depots than they need and use more trucks than they should. This makes Auckland business less competitive and consumes excessive capital - and New Zealand is short of capital.

Yet we are determined to squander a billion or three on a train system that will fail to achieve any of its goals.

I wonder how many readers are puzzled by the enthusiasm for electrified trains at a time we are told we should be using less power. It seems that power for trains is sanctified while power for showers is excessive consumption. And these trains will impose their 50-megawatt peak load at times of peak demand.

The trains will have no impact on congestion because they can serve only those comparatively few people who commute in and out of their suburbs to the central business area. This is about 3 per cent of all daily trips in the region. The proposed target is 20 million trips a year, which is only 2.7 per cent of all Auckland trips.

The present train system delivers only about 700 passengers a day to the CBD. Britomart will have its work cut out - but it should be roomy.

Finally, even the most zealous Trainomaniacs are having to face the fact that their generous projections of patronage will not be sufficient to justify the capital investment, let alone the ongoing subsidies of running costs. In a rational world this would be a good reason to abandon the project.

True zealots cannot admit failure and so we are now told that Aucklanders should embrace demand management to force us out of our efficient and competitive cars, taxis and buses and on to uncompetitive and hopelessly inefficient trains.

The planners want to reduce Aucklanders' mobility by charging a $5 fee to drive across Central Auckland, increased petrol tax and $8 an hour for central area parking. This amounts to about $250 a week per Auckland household, according to the Automobile Association.

We have to wonder why any modern economy would want to tax efficient means of transport to prop up a Think Big train system that has been an economic catastrophe since day one.

The Government has recently taxed low-alcohol spirits to reduce their consumption. Governments tax cigarettes to discourage their use.

The proposed anti-vehicle taxes will not discourage people from using their cars, taxis and buses and encourage them to leap on to trains, simply because, for the vast majority of Aucklanders, the trains will not take them where they want to go, when they want to go, and allow them the freedom to change their mind in response to a call on the cellphone.

Instead, these taxes on the use of Central Auckland will simply discourage the use of Central Auckland. Central Aucklanders will relocate to Albany and Rodney in the north, Waitakere and Kumeu in the west, and Manukau and Howick in the south and east.

When our local bodies see their passengers disappearing out of Auckland Central the regional planners who are largely responsible for this transport folly will use the Resource Management Act to try to stop this decentralisation.

Indeed, this attempt to contain Aucklanders in Auckland is well under way for residential use.

Every proposal to provide employment or retail centres in the north, west or south of Auckland will be fought through to the Environment Court, at huge costs.

Costs will pile on costs and pile on costs.

Business will decentralise to Queensland. Central Auckland will succumb to central city blight. The RMA will get the blame.

These trains are supposed to make Auckland more competitive. Just how stupid can we get?

* Owen McShane is director of the Centre for Resource Management Studies.