ARC 30 Year Plan Gets Public Support


With the change to the management of transport in Auckland following Rodney Hide’s legislation, it’s unclear how much of an academic exercise the ARC’s draft 30-year-old Auckland regional land transport strategy was – but 166 people were moved to make submissions.

The council’s transport committee this afternoon heard that of those who made submissions , 55% said they liked what was being proposed, 20% had no preference and 15% disagreed.

It’s unlikely there will be any dramatic changes to the plan, judging by the notes put by ARC officers alongside the submissions although it’s emphasised their notes are not ARC policy.

Officers’ comments on rail submissions include:

On bringing forward construction of an airport rail loop:

“Patronage modelling undertaken suggests airport rail would attract patronage by the end of the planning period that would make rail construction realistic. Only limited investigations have been carried out to date on the detailed route of the rail connections and how the introduction of rail would be staged. The draft RLTS states that priority should be given to undertaking these investigations and that following these, steps should be taken where necessary to protect the alignment and identify funding. It’s expected the investigations will include a review of the timing of construction. These investigations will include the relationship between the Avondale-Southdown rail line and the Airport rail loop and how services would operate.”

On the possibility of a North Shore rail link:

“The policy is for further investigation of North Shore rail, particularly regarding the route, costs and benefits within the North Shore. In the meantime, the ability for rail to cross under the harbour and connect with the existing rail network is being protected. Other actions taken, including route protection on the North Shore, will depend on the outcome of that investigation. The justification and timing of an additional road crossing is also subject to further investigation.”

45% of the 84 submissions which  commented on funding Auckland transport said the expenditure should come from a combination of channels such as council rates, user pays and central government.

20% had other expenditure ideas. Examples of these comments: “Central government has a key role to play. If Auckland fails, NZ fails” and “Why should the public prop up private enterprise?”

BACKGROUNDERS:  ARC’s 30 year old plan

Auckland airport want airport rail sooner




  1. ingolfson says:

    Pretty disappointed by the airport loop comments. They say that the SH20 improvements to teh airport need to be done earlier, for economic reasons / for the businesses there.

    Well doh! If there was an airport rail link, those roads would have less traffic on them, making it easier to access the airport business areas. In turn, having a widened SH20A will mean they can further defer any construction of the rail link with a “look, we just improved access, no need yet” comment.

  2. Matt L says:

    I’m pretty disappointed with the responses to submissions. In most cases the excuse given for not improving services was that there was not enough patronage to justify it. The problem is until it is put down on paper so the general public think about these things they will never think of changing what they do. Two perfect examples are: Upgrading SH16 to include a busway the excuse was there is already an RTN in the area despite the fact it doesn’t cover much of West Auckland.

    Another is the eastern RTN (through howick/botany) only being a busway instead of a rail line. The excuse given was people from the area don’t want to travel to city and there is no corridor existing to build it. In other words “Lets put this in the to hard basket”

    We really need someone in this city that has a strong vision and the drive to see it completed as these local bureaucrats are completely lazy.

  3. jarbury says:

    I think the officer probably felt as though they didn’t have the power to suggest giant changes. Big changes might still happen as a result of the decisions of the RTC members themselves - so don’t lose hope yet!

  4. Matt L says:

    Jarbury thats the problem. If you have 160 + submissions and all the ones on the northwestern route say it should be a full busway then why isn’t that listened to? That is the point of making submissions.

  5. Ingolfson says:

    “Jarbury thats the problem. If you have 160 + submissions and all the ones on the northwestern route say it should be a full busway then why isn’t that listened to?”

    Because there’s still the issue with funding a new busway when they have not enough funding for their other priorities to start with.

    Also, even if there are lots of submissions for a Northwestern Busway, that does not mean there is clear support for it. To have a clear picture of that, they would have had to include the option in the list of potential scheme - and then would likely have gotten at least a few who opposed it (and I’m not only talking of the anti-PT freaks).

    “Big changes might still happen”

    I don’t think so, to be honest. And I don’t worry too much. What we should be worrying about is whether anything within this plan will still have any relevance in two years. ARC/ARTA will be gone soon, remember?

  6. Anne says:

    WRT the airport rail link, I’ve heard it suggested that Auckland Airport is actively blocking the rail link as they feel it will impact their (considerable) revenue from their parking lots. Can anyone confirm this?

  7. Jon C says:

    @Anne, No. It may have been once but not now. In fact, the company is actually demanding they start it earlier.

  8. Anne says:

    Thanks for the link Jon, looks like the airport rail link has had an interesting history. Looks like someone at the top of AIAL has a bit more vision than his/her predecessors. (If only I could say that about the rest of the acronyms involved in Auckland public transport!)


Leave a Comment


XHTML: You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>