Aucklanders Views On Transport


Over 150 submissions were made to Auckland Council in relation to transport and transport funding for the Council’s upcoming Auckland Plan.
Here is a selection of the ideas of Aucklanders and Auckland bodies:

  • The Auckland Business Forum supports tolling for new projects and project bundling for strategic network charges - $2 to gain access to particular motorways and PPTs. It considers that borrowing will ultimately cost more. The forum strongly recommends an infrastructure implementation plan be developed.
  • Auckland Airport favours congestion charging, tolls and other road user changers were appropriate and fair.
  • Auckland Transport is deeply concerned that the Long Bay structure plan is not identified as a growth area in the Auckland Plan and says this will impact on infrastucture funding for this area. At present there is $90m allocated for upgrades of existing and provision of new roads
  • The ANZAC Auckland Harbour Crossing group supports the building of a 10-lane multimodal bridge and demolition of the existing bridge. Thinks the public was not given sufficient information about this choice when it was first raised.
  • Ports of Auckland supports road pricing measures with an evidence based approach.
  • The Institution of Professional Engineers supports road pricing
  • The PSA says the Council has low debt levels and could increase its borrowing to raise funding for infrastructure projects
  • NZ Council for Infrastructure Development suggests a highway network charge to fund transport projects
  • Office of Labour MP Phil Twyford suggests a North-western busway on SH16
  • Puketapapa Local Board supports regional fuel tax and congestion tax (“with relief to the poor’)
  • Waitemata Local Board submits that congestion charging is difficult for inner city residents
  • Foodstuff NZ says freight vehicles serving the CBD should not be charged a congestion charge.
  • McConnell Properties supports a PPP approach to funding infrastructure.
  • Waterfront Auckland prefers a tunnel for the next harbour crossing and says the decision must not be overshadowed by indecision so funding options alanlysed and agreed by central and local government
  • Waiteamata Local Board supports tax increment funding for the CBD rail link (“as part of the tool box”)
  • Sir Edmund Hillary Collegiate suggests the provision of a free shuttle bus from Otara to Papatoetoe so that people can catch a train there to other parts of Auckland
  • The South Auckland branch of Forest and Bird Protection Society supports road user charges so that Auckland can fund its own transport policies

  • Westfield prefers “a transport package that fits within funding envelope”
  • Saltlburn Ltd supports tolls, congestion charging and parking charges and that development charges need to reflect the costs of infrastructure
  • The Mahurangi East residents and ratepayers Assnociation says residents in the far north should not have to pay for public transport projects as they can not use them. PT projects should only be supported by rates by those who can use the service.
  • NZ Council for Infrastructure Development says congestion charging won’t raise enough funds because the CBD is only 10% of employment and a motorway network charge is the best way to raise the necessary funds.
  • The Auckland Walk-Bike-Ride Mapping Strategy Forum suggests funding should be prioritised for multi-modal mapping projects to support trip information.
  • Cycle Action Auckland submits the Council should allow growth to capitalise on existing infrastructure
  • Progressive Enterprises supports “alternative sources” of transport funding
  • Kingseat Village submits the Council should identify new growth areas such as Kingseat and urgently review the funding of infrastructure to places identified for growthRick Eade from Unitec supports PPPs for the provision of infrastructure
  • Brent Bielby supports regional fuel tax and tolls or congestion charging and the removal of early bird parking in the city as it encourages travel at peak times
  • The Pukekoke C&R Association opposes congestion charges
  • Paul Davie supports targeted rates and road user charges and development contributions
  • The Department of Corrections supports the Council determining projects suitable for PPPs as they have developed new prisons under this paradigm
  • The Puketapapa Local Board suggests congestion charging and fuel taxes
  • Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) considers a 60 local / 40 central government split for funding is about right. Wants TIFs considered carefully and doesn’t think they will raise as much revenue as some assume. Favours selected asset salesalthough does not define this. Favours infrastructure bonds as long as borrowing is limited by servicing costs unless charging is raised to cover this. It favours a network access charge as the best option.
  • The Forum for Auckland Sustainable Transport submits the Council should prioritise a walking and cycling link across the bridge by way of a PPP with the AHB Pathway Joint Venture and NZTA as a BOOT. This should be atolled project. Only cyclists and walkers should pay because motorists paid for the bridge. It should be tolled because NZTA will never fund it.
  • The Institute of Professional Engineers supports road pricing
  • CBT submits the Council should advocate to central government about the way transport funding is allocated. It suggests that new funding tools would have to beexamined on a case by case basis and suggests criteria such as who benefits, sustanability of funding, social and economic impacts, land use implications




  1. Max says:

    “Cycle Action Auckland submits the Council should allow growth to capitalise on existing infrastructure”

    Not sure who summarised our submission, but even I barely understand what that is supposed to mean…

    Ah, found it in our submission now: it was a comment under our headline “Compact urban growth: A city that can grow, without growing out of control.” - essentially, a call against sprawl, that particular comment not just re transport infrastructure.

    Our main comments though were actually:

    - Cycling to be supported as a key transport mode, to give Aucklanders real travel choices.

    - The Regional Cycle Network to be progressed as the key tool for this.

    - The plan emphasises old-style (car-dominated transport projects too much).

  2. Martin says:

    Some great recommendations there. One question I do have: Is the ANZAC bridge “pie in the sky” stuff? I’ve never been sold on it from what I’ve read about it here in Wales.

  3. Jon C says:

    @Max Thats the summary in the Council document

  4. Anthony says:

    @Martin, Though the Bridge Supporters have been very vocal, hardly anyone in Auckland wants a bridge….Which isn’t surprising…

  5. Scott says:

    Good to see IPENZ get two mentions :)

    @Martin, as Anthony said the ANZAC bridge group has been very vocal. However the engineering investigations done did not support such an option.

    Foodstuff NZ says freight vehicles serving the CBD should not be charged a congestion charge…? I think freight vehicles would be the greatest beneficiaries of such a charge, why would they need to be exempt lol.

    On the whole lots of big picture answers, and few self serving ones, great to see the support for variable road pricing.

  6. Carl says:

    why would you demolish the habour bridge?

    if your going to build another (big better whatever ect)

    then make the one we have now a train bridge.

    I’m sorry but demolishing something that has provided a service for ni on 50 years is stupid.

  7. James B says:

    I wonder why Foodstuffs want freight to be exempt from any congestion charging in the CBD. As far as I am aware they don’t have any shops in their. I could be wrong as they could own a chain of convenience stores. Progressive on the other hand is opening a new store in the old financial centre. I wonder if we may see a New World Metro or something similar.

  8. Matt says:

    James, Progressive and Foodstuffs both have large supermarkets within the area that would be affected by a CBD charge: Countdown Quay Street (Progressive) and New World College Hill (Foodstuffs).

    Foodstuffs likely also is concerned about the cost of moving stuff through Spaghetti Junction.

  9. KarlHansen says:

    I don’t see how that gives them a moral right to demand exceptions. Next, we will want all other interest groups to have one! Horror. What next? All people who live or work in the area to get an exemption too? All through and freight traffic that is deemed “nationally significant”? You end up with a swiss cheese full of holes.

    Freight charges are dirt cheap / kilo anyway, the increased end costs for consumers would probably be a cent or two per bottle of milk.

  10. James B says:

    To be honest I don’t see New World College Hill being inside the affected area. The area that it is located in is relatively low rise and low density.

  11. Carl says:

    why should they be exempt? they already rip off farmers and then rip off customers.

    they should be the first people to be “congestion charged” its them providing all the goods in a stupid place that is causing the problem in the first place!

    any money they make is shipped off to australia anyway, so they can def pay the con charge and we’ll take some money back.


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>