National-ACT’s determination to corporatise Auckland’s transport operation has been one of the most controversial aspects of its super city plan. They rammed it through against the advice of three government departments who argued a council-owned company would be less accountable to ratepayers than if it was run in house. The transport agency, governed by a hand-picked corporate board, will spend 54% of the super city budget and have 1000 staff.
There is no doubt getting progress on transport is top of Aucklanders’ must-do list for the super city. If it fails on this it will be judged harshly. And more specifically, it will be judged on its success or failure in ramping up public transport.
Which is why it is worrying there are early signs public transport might not be top of mind for those setting up the new transport agency.
For starters it appears the Auckland Transition Agency has overlooked the need for ongoing development of the bus system, which still carries the majority of Auckland public transport passengers.
It has specialists on urban design, storm water, cycling and walking, and several parking meter specialists. But no bus system development specialists. These are the people dedicated to the initiatives that give buses priority, from bus lanes to special signals at traffic lights, and the green patches in the middle of intersections that allow buses to queue jump.
Huge numbers of Aucklanders, especially in the outer suburbs, depend on the buses to get around the city. And the buses also feed the railway stations.
This public transport blind spot is reflected in the agency’s 306-page workforce plan which is mostly about roads. Bus stops, bus shelters, and bus priorities only get one mention each in the entire document. The words bus lane only get one mention, and that is in the context of revenue collection.
Josh Arbury over at the Auckland Transport blog has more to say on the apparent lack of focus on public transport in the new transport agency. He is also concerned about a lack of integration with urban design and land use planning, a point well made to the select committee when the bill was being considered.
The announcement of the newly appointed interm chief executive of the transport agency David Warburton gives further cause for concern. Mr Warburton does not appear to have any significant experience in urban transport. While the ATA says he has a PhD in environmental engineering, he did his thesis on dairy shed effluent at Massey. He was Wanganui District Council’s CEO under Michael Laws, and then led a Melbourne-based engineering firm that does very little urban transport work.
He may well be a good manager, but don’t we need leadership on urban transformation? It has been reported urban transport high fliers from Perth and London pulled out of the recruitment. Perth is the public transport success story of Australasia. They are where we would have been if we had adopted Robbie’s rapid rail 25 years ago. Perhaps the Perth candidate got wind of Steven Joyce’s roads fixation and a super city being set up by people who just don’t “get” public transport?
The first tier of management that has the words public transport anywhere in it’s job description is the third level down… It’s going to be a transport nightmare, Joyce is about the only person left on the planet who thinks more roads can solve Auckland’s woes (he actually probably doesn’t but the Nats got $110,000 from the roading lobby before the last election) – I’m really looking forward now to Labour bringing Transport back “in house”…
Wow, $110K is enough to sway a major party to throw the long term transport strategy of a million plus person city into complete and unworkable disarray?
That’s cheap as chips…these private sector interests really know how to get bang for their buck.
$55,000 directly from the Road Transport Forum to Nat Party coffers and $5,000 to 11 Nat MPs… That’s just one road lobby…
But Loota before you go attacking the Nats, they also gave $5,000 to a few Labour MPs though I won’t name them because this comment will get deleted… You may have noticed the very “road flavoured” transport policy of the last government… The Nats aren’t the only ones stuck in the 1960s…
Yeah, read you loud and clear, JMH.
I wouldn’t normally be quite so concerned about the structure of a public agency, as in reality all the major decisions are made by politicians to – by definition – have to at least be somewhat accountable to the people.
The difference is with Auckland Transport that the CCO structure means there is quite a significant level of separation between what happens “on the ground” and the ability of that organisation to be accountable. The staff will technically be accountable to the board who is accountable to the council, but that’s a pretty long chain.
What this means is that those who have high-level management jobs in Auckland Transport will have an unbelievable free reign to pursue whatever they please. Now this could be a very good thing, as Auckland politicians (with a few notable exceptions like Mike Lee) tend to make transport far worse, rather than better. Just look at the recent and ongoing Dominion Road T2 debacle for proof of that.
The down side to this is that if Auckland Transport is a very roads-centric organisation, and the signs are that it might very well be such a thing, the ability of anyone to do anything about this is quite limited. We’re going to have to kick up a fuss if that’s the way it turns out, if there is to be any hope of trying to improve public transport in Auckland.
ARC Councillor Joel Cayford has an interesting story about the need to really change the transport culture for the better: http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2010/08/do-you-know-chocolate-teapot.html
Dear oh dear. The modern cult of management means that a “manager” can manage anything. Why would anyone expect Dr Warburton to know anything about transport? After all, the CEO of the Supercity knows (insert your preferred adjectival) all about local or regional government, having been headhunted from a liquor company. And look from whence we acquired our Prime Minister!
jarbury
Buses should only feed the train stations. I should not be able to get a bus from Glen Eden all the way into the city.
Greater Auckland desperately needs a comprehensive and efficient public transport sytem. For me that means a much more regular (and reliable) train service between west Auckland & the city outside peak hours, and a bus service that is frequent enough from my street, to guarantee I will make the desired train in time.
The bus between the city & west Auckland can be really slow in peak hours, due to far too many cars on the road.
And to attract people out of their cars into public transport, the fares need to be lower.
According to my calculations for my journeys, bus & train, or bus all the way to the city is more expensive than going by car.
I prefer the train because it’s a smoother ride and easier for doing some work (as long as I can get a seat).
There was an article in the Sunday Star Times about Auckland’s transport fiascos about 18 months ago, quoting Paul Mees, a senior lecturer in transport planning at RMIT University, Melbourne:
To put it another way, if building motorways actually reduced congestion and fostered economic growth like too many traffic engineers (and their glove-puppet Minister) think, then Auckland would be the least congested and most prosperous city in the Western world.
While I agree in principle, until we have integrated ticketing, a crap load more trains and a CBD rail tunnel to handle all those extra trains, that would actually do more harm than good.