Unitary Plan Submission and Government’s Transport Policy Statement do not marry up
That Tweet picked up quick reaction this morning with people wondering the very same question.
The Left Hand of the Government says the following with their submission to the Unitary Plan (credits and references to Transport Blog where applicable)
Concluding remarks from the Minister for the Environment
On Housing
On the Unitary Plan being lean and efficient (liberalised)
Plan Integrity (note point 48 below)
Infrastructure
Source for the images: http://transportblog.co.nz/2014/06/15/governments-view-on-the-unitary-plan/
Right apart from the Minister for the Environment being a bit late here (see Where Was The Minister Back in August [Updated]), we can see on the face value of the submission alone that the Minister supports:
- The 60:40 Brownfield:Greenfield Development Ratios set out in the Auckland Plan
- Liberalisation of the development controls set out in the Proposed Unitary Plan
- Issues with the Housing Affordability provision distorting the housing market in being able to supply the housing according to demand
- Warning on over reliance of Greenfield developments being in consistent with efficient infrastructure provision and use of existing infrastructure networks (quoted from point 48 above)
So on face value of the Minister’s submission I can support what Minister Adam’s is saying as it would be consistent with my own submissions to the Auckland Plan and Unitary Plan (both first and current proposed versions).
However, I ask you to note this: “Warning on over reliance of Greenfield developments being in consistent with efficient infrastructure provision and use of existing infrastructure networks“
Why?
Well lets take a look at the Government Policy Statement (GPS) 2015-2025 for transport released yesterday by the Minister of Transport.
The Government Policy Statement (2015-2025) (GPS) on Transport
Yesterday the Minister of Transport released the Government Policy Statement on land transport funding over the next ten years. For full expert commentary see Transport Blog’s: The Draft 2015-2025 Government Policy Statement
Some points from the GPS statement though:
- Motorway network in Auckland to be completed by 2017 (so when the Western Ring Route is fully completed)
- According to Greens MP Julie-Ann Genter the increases for public transport and active transport funding remain at zero in real terms
- Funding for new and improved state highways continues to increase while funding for public and active transport remains static in real terms
- Vehicle Kilometres are down from previous pre Global Financial Crisis peaks and are remaining steady
- Freight movements by rail is increasing (a point I have observed with the Port of Tauranga Metro Port freight trains)
- Nothing special or anything mentioned in lining up funding for the City Rail Link which is due to be started 2020 or earlier if key demands are met
- No mention that I can see for funding (significant or otherwise) for rail especially freight rail despite more freight movements by rail especially between Auckland, Hamilton and Tauranga
A key point from the GPS:
What are the funding proposals for GPS 2015?
The average increase in the maximum level of funding available under each activity class in draft GPS 2015 is set out below, and is compared to that available under GPS 2012:
- State highway improvements – increases the annual maximum available funding by 4.0 percent per annum (compared to the GPS 2012 level of 4.6 percent).
- State highway maintenance – increases the annual maximum available funding by 3.0 percent per annum (compared to 1.3 percent under GPS 2012). This rate of increase is intended to recognise likely maintenance cost pressures, in particular the costs associated with maintaining new infrastructure which has been built to higher standards.
- Local road improvements – increases the annual maximum available funding by 4.3 percent per annum (compared to 2.8 percent under GPS 2012). This reflects good returns and sustained vehicle kilometres travelled on local roads.
- Local road maintenance – increases the annual maximum available funding by 2.4 percent per annum (compared to 2.0 percent under GPS 2012).
- Public transport – increases the annual maximum available funding by 3.0 percent per annum (maintaining the GPS 2012 level of 3.0 percent average annual increases). This rate of increase reflects current and projected patronage growth.
- Walking and cycling improvements – increases the annual maximum available funding by 3.5 percent per annum (compared to 1.9 percent under GPS 2012). This reflects opportunities to provide more options for active modes of transport.
- Regional improvements –a new activity class that will ensure funding is available for worthwhile investment in provincial areas.
- Road policing – increases the annual maximum available funding by 1.9 percent per annum (compared to 0.2 percent under GPS 2012). Funding is designed to maintain the current level of activity in this area.
- Road safety promotion – increases the annual maximum available funding by 1.4 percent per annum (compared to 0.6 percent under GPS 2012).
- Investment management – increases the annual maximum available funding by 1.4 percent per annum (compared to 0.0 percent under GPS 2012). This is intended to allow the delivery
…..
Source: http://transportblog.co.nz/2014/06/16/the-draft-2015-2025-government-policy-statement/
A note on rail and coastal freight from the GPS Draft (page 6):
Rail freight, coastal shipping and freight transfer facilities
15. While the Minister of Transport has a role in guiding coordination within the rail sector, and between the rail, road and sea transport sectors, investment in rail freight services and infrastructure is not currently covered under the GPS.
16. Investment in rail freight services and infrastructure is managed by public bodies under their own empowering legislation. Investment in urban passenger rail services is funded from land transport revenues and local rates, is delivered by regional councils, and is covered under GPS 2015 (draft).
17. Funding of coastal shipping services, ports and airports are only covered to the extent that land transport services link these facilities. These services are delivered by private providers, and there is no authority to use revenue from the Fund for these services.
18. Nevertheless, there is benefit in public agencies involved in rail freight and land transport investment coordinating their activities where possible. GPS 2015 (draft) provides guidance about the priority to be given to improving efficiency where these various networks link.
…
We have a Minister of Infrastructure (Bill English who is also Minister of Finance) who should be able to bridge the gap between road and rail funding. This would leave Gerry Brownlee as the Minister for/of Roads to focus solely on the State Highway network like his Australian Federal counterpart.
The submission and the GPS documents will be at the bottom of this post
But from what I have read in both the Government’s submission to the Unitary Plan, and the Minister of Transport’s Government Policy Statement we have the classic situation of ‘The Left Hand is not talking to the Right Hand’ syndrome.
How so?
From point 48 of the Minister for the Environment’s Submission to the Unitary Plan:
“In addition, an over-reliance on Greenfield Development would be inconsistent with efficient infrastructure provisions and use of existing infrastructure networks.”
This means the Minister for the Environment in her submission to the Unitary Plan recognises the following:
- The 60:40 Greenfield;Brownfield Urban Development split to give the balance for some sprawl and some intensification. In other words actual choice on what types of housing and job centre developments the City needs. Not willy-nilly sprawl that the Minister has warned about that you would see with a 70% Greenfield split
- Liberalised planning rules to allow freer developments according to OUR needs not an authorities’ needs
- Infrastructure needs to be provided in accordance to that 60:40 development split. This means:
- Southern Motorway upgrade per the 2014 Budget to allow more efficient traffic movement within the Takanini Area as well as allow more efficient inter city freight movement in that area
- Continued increase in funding for rail to allow the City Rail Link and other passenger rail improvements to mitigate against further road congestion as the city grows.
- Continued increase in funding for public transport and active transport for the same reasons as rail. Also promotes health and better accessibility to more citizens to wider parts of the city than otherwise if it was achievable by just the car alone
- More investment in freight rail infrastructure like a third main between Westfield and Pukekohe so the increasing amount of freight trains do not mix with the increasing amount of passenger trains.
- With the Motorway Network complete in 2017 according to the GPS that should mean the Second Harbour Road crossing is ditched for good while funding for new and improved State Highways should be decreasing as a subsequent result
- Local Road funding should be matched to a per population ratio so that Auckland Transport can maintain the existing network as we grow
From conclusions gathered from the GPS 2015-2025
- GPS is not used to help fund freight rail infrastructure and facilities but funds apparently freight travel by road infrastructure facilities.
- With increased funding still going to the Roads of National Significance and other State Highways it means other modes like rail, public and active transports miss out (they all come from the same tax-payer funded National Land Transport Fund pool (notice it says land transport and not road transport? Australia distinguishes with a Ministry of Transport and a Minister for Road (the National Highway system like Highway One))
- I have no problems with State Highways like SH2, 27 and 29 (so the main freight routes between Auckland, Hamilton and Tauranga) being upgraded like the Maramarua Bypass and Transport Blog’s Operation Life Saver. They are value for money. Roads of National Significance apart from the Western Ring Route are gold-plated highways that are not value for money that I take issue with.
- It can be logically concluded with the amount of increased funding for State Highways and the RoNS program but no real increases to rail, public and active transport the Minister of Transport is more to be believed that he supports the 70% Greenfield urban development type the Minister for the Environment is warning against.
In short and as I get to the concluding remarks:
So come on New Zealand Government which is it going to be? Transport Infrastructure marrying up with the wishes of your own Unitary Plan submission (so a 60:40 per the Auckland Plan) or something totally disjointed as we are seeing now. Because disjointed is not helpful not only to Auckland Council and Auckland Transport but every single citizen and business in Auckland that are influenced by the Unitary Plan and Transport GPS.
I also wonder if we need a Minister of Planning like the Australian States have. Their Ministers’ of Planning are more proactive than our Ministers (of anything) are in working alongside respective Councils and Local Territory Authorities. How so well check what New South Wales is doing that puts New Zealand to absolute shame:
NSW electricity sale: what Mike Baird’s $20b plan will buy
Rail
- A second Sydney Harbour rail crossing running west of the Sydney Harbour Bridge
- A Sydney Rapid Transit Line, incorporating North West Rail Link, running from Rouse Hill, through Chatswood, under Sydney Harbour, through the CBD and ending in Bankstown
- New driverless trains on the Rapid Transit Line
- Three new CBD train stations, including one servicing Pitt Street
- Trains running every two minutes through CBD stations
- 60% per cent more trains through Sydney
- Upgrades and improvements to the rail network in western Sydney
Roads
- WestConnex construction fast-tracked
- WestConnex expanded with new links to north and south
- M4 connected to the City West Link at Haberfield
[The WestConnex is the NSW equivalent of both the Southern Motorway upgrade and the Western Ring Route for Auckland. So deemed essential.]
And from the Minister of Planning in Western Australia
Planning Minister John Day says it’s time for Perth to ‘grow up’
We are so behind here it is quite shameful.
The Minister for the Environment’s Unitary Plan Submission
The Government Position Statement 2015-2025 on Land Transport
The Q&A on the GPS
Reference and Credits
Thanks to Transport Blog to where I got the graphics used in this post from. Transport Blog can be seen here: http://www.transportblog.co.nz
Talking Auckland appreciates the effort and dedication the authors at TB put into their posts.
Talking Southern Auckland 