Auckland Cannot Afford Light Rail

 A  long and winding trail

The October report from the Auckland Light Rail team promoting tunneled light rail from the City Centre to Mangere continues a history of reports built on aspiration rather than evidence. Like its predecessors, it is long past its use-by date.

A proposal for underground rapid rail proposed by American consultants failed to get traction in 1965, a classic case of a landmark project that could not be justified.  

That has not changed. Regular rejigging of the dream since 2009 is a case of a solution looking for a problem. In an earlier post I looked for a consistent rationale for light rail.  All I found was:

considerable variation in the policy trail regarding what LRT services might be required, and in what order: long-term cross-regional commuting? linking the inner Isthmus suburbs and the CBD? lifting capacity between the outer Isthmus suburbs and the CBD? or linking other employment centres (Westgate, the airport) with the CBD?

It seems a decision has now been made.  It is not a sound one.

Who will use it?

CBD commuters? Not many. Jobs in the CBD declined by 7% last year. Over half were in the business sectors that accounted for well over 50% of CBD growth in the previous 20 years. Expect further falls: this is the sector in which the largest share of jobs can be done remotely. 

As it is, the CBD accounts for just 14% of Auckland’s jobs. Its where fewer than half the commuters rely on cars. Most arrive from the northern or the eastern suburbs. Very few will be using light rail from the south, and most have bus options.

Inbound travellers? Forget it. Mass tourism has tanked and there is no saying whether or when numbers will recover.  Anyway, it relies on coaches. Independent travellers hire vehicles at the airport, or head directly to their accommodation by taxi or shuttle.  Some outbound travellers may use rail if they live nearby and are not encumbered by cases, while inbound locals will usually head directly home with their meeters and greeters.

Mangere workers? A few, perhaps. The area employs 34,000 people, 80% on and around Auckland Airport. The majority come from across South Auckland, though, and a few from the west. Light rail running north doesn’t meet their needs. 

Non-work trips? There may be demand for Isthmus-based trips for purposes other than commuting. But given the many origins and destinations for personal, social, retail, and education trips, flexible modern buses provide a far more cost-effective option.

So, it is hard to see market support for the optimistic projections underpinning the report (p32).

 

Does it stack up economically?

Even assuming the projection of boardings is reasonable, a total benefit of $11.6bn for Tunnelled Light Rail is no more than “broadly commensurate with costs” (at $10.3bn).  Costs and benefits are summed over 60 years and discounted at 4%. These are geared to justifying projects with high upfront costs and a long payback period; in other words, high risk, low productivity projects.

It gets worse. It is not clear that the costs of business and household disruption during construction have been factored in. The cost of “enabling infrastructure for ... urban development” (touted as a benefit, pp. 34-35) has not been included.  No provision appears to have been made for the erosion of  bus patronage. And the stated accuracy of the capital cost estimates still lies between -50% and +60%!

Quite simply, the project lacks economic justification. The consequences will be a huge cost to taxpayers and ratepayers: see here for an instructive (if more modest) example in Queensland.

Tail wagging the dog

The latest report is founded on the notion that light rail will work if accompanied by intensive corridor development to sustain Auckland’s projected growth. So, we will be shaping urban land use to support an ill-conceived project.  Unfortunately, the unspecified and uncosted “integrated urban interventions” required to make light rail work will add a lot more to project costs than benefits, compounding the risk of under-specifying and under-costing that have driven the cost blow-out, ongoing disruption, and delays on the totally uneconomic Central Rail Link.

Let’s get real

The report appears to be a self-serving document assembled by a range of agencies (“central and local government working together”) driven by a ”need to develop new living patterns.” There is scant regard for the public purse, or for how residents might like to live, a severe case of groupthink.

Here are some contrary arguments:

·       People have diverse mobility and access needs – fixed route public commuter options only address a small share of them. For many households and life stages automobility remains a high priority.

·       Bus transport in Auckland is working well , despite competition with revitalised heavy passenger rail.  Buses offer flexible operations, fiscally responsible investment, and continuous technical improvement.

·       Road-based transit will adapt with shared travel options in vehicles that are becoming safer, more automated, and less prone to failure (increasing the capacity of the existing road network).

·       With rising carbon prices, the uptake of electric light vehicles and hydrogen fueled heavy vehicles well within the 60-year framework makes any argument around transport emissions redundant. (A fraction of the cost of light rail could go a long way towards accelerating that transition).

·       The decentralisation of services, retailing and employment is a land use trend that promises to reduce trip intensity and length, by meeting more  household needs locally. It should be encouraged.

An elephant in the room: the growth fixation

A fixation on endless growth codified in Auckland’s Unitary Plan may be misleading policymakers. Whether or not a city of around 2.5m by 2050 is what people want or sustainable may no longer be moot.  Even before Covid struck, the driver of the exceptional post-GFC growth mesmerising super city planners – international migration – was turning down, while the net outflow of people to other parts of New Zealand was growing.

The halt to Auckland’s growth in 2021 is not a blip, it is response to the cyclical nature of international migration, a falling rate of natural increase, the decanting of an ageing population to provincial New Zealand, slowing employment growth, and the diminishing attraction of a city of over-priced housing and increasing congestion – which light rail will do little to alleviate. 

If productivity is driven down by ill-conceived mega-projects, expect emigration to prevail over the next decade undermining the growth assumptions on which Auckland’s planning and investment is based. The city needs a Plan B.

Rapid Rail to Mangere – A Wet Feat?

And there’s a second elephant: climate change. With heavy consumption of concrete and steel in tunneling, track laying, and station development, the proposal runs headlong into New Zealand’s commitment to halving net CO² emissions by 2030. Light rail’s embodied emissions will exceed any gains from shifting people from cars and buses for decades.

Worse - if temperatures rise by even 1.5^oC above the Climate Change datum (a prospect based on more realistic assumptions than those used to support light rail) both Auckland Airport and much of the Wynyard Quarter could be beneath the tideline.

Its time halt the expensive business of surveying, consulting, and concocting cases, pack up the train set, and concentrate on developing resilience in the existing transport system. Auckland is at a crossroad.  It may be that it is time to take the path of conserving resources, not squandering them

Why compact cities aren't so smart

More advocacy for a compact city

I was interested to read the views of Rick Boven of the New Zealand Institute about central and local government needing to resolve their differences about the future of Auckland.  Well, they have worked on that since the establishment of GUEDO in 2005 (now the Auckland Policy Office). 

But that’s not what the article was really about.  Under the pretext of calling for “new ways of working together” Rick promotes urban containment and greater train travel for Auckland’s future. Well, we’ve heard all that before.

What Rick may have noticed by way of differences is not a failure of cooperation, but growing realisation that the old prescription for a compact Auckland is not working.  And while it may pain me to say so, in this instance the centre may be looking ahead, while the city continues to look to the past.  Any differences, Rick, arise from diverging views, not from a failure to work together.

Fallacies and frailties

And in this case I’m on the side of the centre.

I’ve picked away at the frailties of urban consolidation planning previously.  I can’t put it all together in one blog. But consider the following propositions about the compact city:

• A focus on centralisation guarantees congestion;
• A focus on centralisation reduces green space and concentrates urban pollution;
• Consolidation prejudices old infrastructure, increasing overload and the risk of failure;
• A focus on rail transit escalates costs, reduces flexibility, and caters for only a minority of trips among even those (relatively few) households that have ready access to it;
• A focus on rail transit commits us to developing unattractive brownfield sites with high remediation costs if we intend to increase residential densities nearby;
• A commitment to centralisation and higher densities increases vulnerability to extreme climatic events, rising sea levels, and other natural disasters;
• Medium to high density living is socially flawed, as it is associated with transience, increased urban crime, diminished quality of life, and loss of a sense of community, especially for households in middle to lower income brackets (and, ultimately, razing of failed apartment blocks);
• The market does not favour medium to high density housing unless well located, well appointed, and therefore out of the price range of most households;
• Refurbishment and restoration of inner city suburbs for higher density living leads to gentrification that displaces lower income households;
• Mixed use developments reduce the amount and push up the price of land for business while lowering the quality of life of residents;
• Limiting new business land and expecting to take up new employment by increasing densities on existing sites forces up business costs, reducing the attractiveness of investment and competitiveness of business.

None of this makes compact city policies look very smart.

Pushing for alternatives

The current council vision is for Auckland to be the world’s most liveable city.  Well, we won’t achieve that by “me-too” urban consolidation.  Don’t forget, in the corporate world consolidation is a defensive strategy, associated with stagnation not growth, holding the line, not forging ahead.

A better answer may be to take advantage of our distinctive physical environment and make sure that our urban form complements and takes advantage of it as we move ahead.

Here are some very broad ideas.

Allow decentralisation to continue.  It’s happening, don’t fight it.  Provide for it.  That means ensuring that people can meet most of their needs close to where they live.  A sustainable city won’t work without sustainable suburbs.  These should be at the heart of our plans.  And some of them might just have to spill over the urban limits.  Now there’s a real opportunity to practice some innovative urban design.

Let the city breathe:   We want a CBD which stands out among cities.  Well, by promoting sustainable suburbs we can lay off simply playing with structures and instead seize the opportunity to restore a green (and blue) heart to our city.  A timid but worthy start was made to Queen Street with the (re)introduction of Nikau palms, but we can go a lot further than that.  Barry Lett had great idea for the radical conversion of mid-Queen Street and Myers Park into an urban garden.  What a great place to visit!

If we take the pressure off forcing housing into the CBD, among other things, we could do a lot more of that.  We could think seriously about creating a pedestrian precinct the length of Queen Street. I would also push for my hot spots to be green – and forge walkways and cycle ways among them.  We could better Integrate the CBD with the quality areas around it.  On the harbour front we need to find ways to cross Quay Street, for example, to merge water and land.  We might start by taking note of Lambton Harbour in Wellington, and how it blends hard and soft surfaces, restores the harbour edge, and creates a place for all people. 

Develop Smart Sub-Urbs:  Forget Jane Jacobs’ nostalgia for the lost American city.  Those images belong to another age and another place.  Our life, our cultures, and our communities are in the suburbs.  Let’s ensure that strong communities can develop and thrive around urban villages and suburban centres throughout Auckland. 

If we are serious about sustainability, the suburbs are where it must happen. Here we can deliver smart urban design, strengthen social relationships, and provide capacity for improving the quality of life at all levels.  It’s also at a sub-regional if not suburban level that labour markets operate most efficiently, and employment opportunities might best be promoted.

And while we’re at it, we need to make sure that the suburbs are well interconnected by generous arterial corridors. This call for some difficult retrofitting.  It may mean reviewing how we use motor-ways; thinking more creatively about buses and bus-ways; and getting over an all-consuming desire to focus everything on the CBD, turning it into a giant interchange instead of a great destination.

Launch the Satellites: Some of the best places to live in Auckland are beyond the bounds.  We seem so desperate to cling to urban limits that we ignore the fact that people like Auckland because of what lies beyond them. Let’s see if we can encourage smart growth in places like Warkworth, Bombay, Pokeno, Wellsford and Drury, Beachlands, Pukekohe, and others.  Let our rural villages prosper, too. These are all places where we could do some exciting planning and design.  And let’s make sure that we have wide, green corridors linking them, corridors that can cater for whatever modes of transport the future might throw at them – electric cars, light rail, and the like.

There’s more, but I’m over my word limit.  If nothing else, let’s lift the discourse so that our ideas begin to match our aspirations.  The last thing we need to do, Rick, is to get together to recycle the old stuff.

Spatial Planning 3rd (and final!): a real alternative for Auckland

I have reviewed spatial planning for Auckland in earlier posts, and what it might or might not do for the region.  The spatial plan has to go through a deliberative process, the outcome needs to be balanced, and it needs to reflect some form of social consensus.

That doesn’t stop people from saying what they want in it or what it should look like. 

So here is my personal plan.  It needs work.  It needs analysis.  Any comparisons with alternatives, especially the mainstream option of pushing up first and out later, needs to be rigorous and systematic.  It could concentrate on differences at the margin (and not get trapped into comparing averages) to ensure a degree of economic rationality. Evaluation should also explore the capacity to encompass cultural diversity, and to provide the freedoms that a truly attractive city might offer to provide hope for growth, all without undermining the physical qualities that make Auckland – the new, greater Auckland – unique.

My alternative would promote the following:

1.       A simple map of bottom lines, the no go areas for development where we are prepared to make a real commitment (i.e., spend!) to protection and preservation.  It would focus on features and assets rather than zones.  It would be sparse and inclusive (identifying what we really want) rather than extensive and exclusive (focused on what we don’t want).

2.       A polycentric, connected city which reflects our fragmented geography and our cultural diversity and in which the rationale for centres – both those contained in the plan and those that might come into being in the future -- is clearly articulated.

3.    The evolution of the CBD first and foremost as the entertainment, creative, and educational centre, the place where Auckland’s cultures come together.  This is different from forcing it to be the commercial and employment centre of the region with a mix of high rise housing tacked on around the edges.  In the light of what is happening to CBDs worldwide and the need to consider issues of resilience and sustainability, the latter approach is a hiding to nowhere.  But we are hearing lots of good ideas about making the CBD more people friendly, more fun, and more accessible.  If we do that, the other stuff – inner city living and commerce – should follow.  We could promote the role of CBD (and harbourside) in developing a regional community of cultures rather than taking the high risk road of promoting it simply as an international centre of commerce.

4.   Promote the gateway employment zones (Mangere, Hibiscus Coast/Silverdale; Massey-Westgate, Drury) to take pressure off the land market and land prices as growth picks up, cut down on commuting and congestion, and provide good cross-regional, inter-regional, and international connectivity.

5.    Allow the evolution of distinctive villages and village centres within the urban fabric. This implies a more creative approach to city nodes than associated with the 1999 Regional Growth Strategy.  It can’t simply be done with lines on the map, rules about development, and a propensity to build out green spaces.  Urban villages need good local urban design and initiatives to encourage greater self-sufficiency.   We need to find ways to use existing building stock and not overload the capacity of local infrastructure and amenities.  It’s also important not to choke these centres off with unsustainable high density corridors between and through them.  The interstices should be transitional, perhaps with more parks, leafy suburbs, and opportunities for people to fill in the spaces with street scale activity.  The aim is to make centres attractive places to congregate and live, places of choice for residents and small businesses rather than places where people with limited choices are housed.

6.   Provision could be made for satellite centres to cater for a substantial share of growth. The possibilities include Warkworth, Wellsford; Dairy Flat, Coatesville, Beachlands-Maraetai, Whitford, Clevedon, and Pokeno. Some of these are underway already.  Let’s make sure that they are not unnecessarily constrained by poor decisions about transport links, unrealistic land use rules, or inadequate urban design.  Some of these places could end up with populations of 10,000, perhaps 20,000 or more.  Pukekohe is an example.  Warkworth is developing nicely.  These areas provide an opportunity to apply the more useful concepts of new urbanism – pedestrianisation, local work, and local services in village, town or even small city environments.  They may turn out to be more cost effective and sustainable on infrastructure grounds than trying to expand the current urban envelope.  They may even be associated with reduced car dependence.

7.   Focus on the core transport network – the main arterials between urban and ex-urban villages developed with generous corridors which contribute to land use flexibility, encourage localised intensification where appropriate, and leave a variety of transit options open.  Future transit might include implementation of “T lanes” (allowing for cars with two/three or more passengers only), heavy vehicle and bus lanes, even light rail.  Some understanding of the different demands made on corridors – commuting, freight movement, recreational travel, tourism, social mobility, and public transport; local, regional and inter-regional movement  – would lead to a more flexible and open ended approach to arterial roads, whether state or city highways.   

On the same theme, any rail development could be based on addressing and confirming positive land use opportunities such as (1) redevelopment around centres in the inner city and (2) smart growth centres on the edge.  

But I would not want any high cost transport commitment in my plan until its demand, economics, and business case had been proven, and a clear land use rationale established.

8.   Let’s extend our network of urban parks and green spaces.  Compared with many major cities, Auckland is not particularly green. It has several iconic green spaces within the urban area (the Domain, Cornwall Park, perhaps Albert Park, ...?) but that’s not the same as a green city.  Let’s cement nature into the urban area, not with rules for lot owners or obligations on developers but with a commitment to a public network of parks, perhaps even a town belt, where we can advance restoration, enhancement, and accessibility.  And let’s build it in to our bottom lines.

That’s it.  The implementation of my plan would be through the associated budget and programme commitments in the Long Term Council Community Plan and through rules – as few as possible – and some very broad and flexible zones contained in the unitary plan.