Councils concerned about Govt’s road-heavy transport plan
Major city councils are concerned the Government’s road-heavy draft transport plan lacks sufficient funding for public transport, walking, and cycling, and lacks a needed strategy for emissions reduction.
The deadline for public submissions on the Government’s latest draft Government Policy Statement (GPS) on transport, outlining at a high-level the plan to spend billions on roading and other transport initiatives in the coming decade, passed on Tuesday.
Transport Minister Simeon Brown said yesterday he would now consider 600 submissions the Ministry of Transport received on the plan, before publishing the final plan in June.
Already it is clear the councils of Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch has serious qualms about how the plan intends to fund roads, compared with other transport infrastructure. The councils provided their submissions to The Press yesterday.
Auckland City Council has delivered the Government a 91-page submission on the draft transport plan, more than twice the length of the plan itself, asking the Government commit to working with Auckland Council on a “integrated transport plan” for the city.
“We don’t expect the entire GPS to be framed around Auckland’s needs, but nor is it acceptable that the needs of Auckland are overlooked.”
The council warned against the Government pursuing its roads of national significance (RONS) in Auckland, saying its proposed integrated transport plan should be how projects in Auckland are determined. “Within the Auckland context, we do not believe that the RONS programme should preclude the selection of designs that differ from the standard of a four-lane fully grade-separated motorway. We note that several of the RONS, including East West Link, have already been consented with designs that deviate from this standard.”
While the council supported the Government’s proposed “strategic priorities” for transport - economic growth and productivity, increased maintenance and resilience, safety, and value for money – but was “concerned about overall funding levels proposed” across state highways, local roads, public transport, and walking and cycling.
“In particular, we are concerned about the proposed reduction in funding for the public transport services activity class.
“If this is funded at the lower end of the band, AT may need to significantly increase fare costs and/or reduce services, by up to 30 percent. This would lead to increased peak period congestion and may leave entire suburbs without public transport services.”
The Christchurch City Council was concerned about a lack of recognition for Christchurch transport projects in the draft transport plan, asking that two projects be included in a Canterbury crown investment programme: the Greater Christchurch Public Transport Futures and Mass Rapid Transit, and the Pages Rd bridge renewal.
It also expressed concern about a “strong state highway focus” coming at the “expense of consideration of the economic and broader contribution of the local road network” and the use of public transport, walking and cycling to manage congestion.
“The council believes that the draft GPS is missing an opportunity to achieve the outcomes sought by significantly reducing the funding available for walking and cycling and public transport infrastructure and services.
“We are concerned about the removal of climate change as a strategic priority.”
The Automobile Association (AA) said in its submission the roads of national significance projects would be welcomed by its members, but noted a lack of detail about when the roads might be built and at what cost.
“The size of the resulting programme of road investment raises questions about both its affordability and the capacity of the construction industry to deliver projects within expected time frames at reasonable cost.”