Kevin Sampson says spending billions won't solve Auckland's gridlock. But a revised spatial plan that encourages incremental shifts and changes will. CBDs need less focus

In an April 2023 published article ‘A short history of doomed second harbour crossing proposals for Auckland – and a quicker, cheaper option’  Timothy Welch traversed the history of proposals for a second harbour crossing in Auckland and concluded that demand management by way of congestion charging and changed usage of the existing bridge would be a better solution than the five options then out for public submissions. While congestion charging would certainly help reduce current problems, especially before the chosen of the 5, now redundant, options could have been completed at the earliest in 2039, more effective additional steps need to be taken in reducing the demand for travel into, out of, and through central Auckland. Before looking at those further steps it needs to be recognised that four of the five options were basically flawed in two ways. And since then of course the new coalition Government has discarded all the options and gone back to the drawing board and also cancelled the light rail project.

One major fault with four of the five options is that they repeat the age old unsuccessful method of solving traffic congestion of simply adding more road capacity. At the moment motorists in Auckland and other large cities around the world in planning to go somewhere think about the likely level of road congestion, therefore the cost and time involved, and make a decision as to whether the effort is worth it. The current level of congestion does limit peoples willingness to travel for discretionary reasons, and also where they undertake business activities. One of the main reasons New Zealanders are loathe to use public transport is the greater convenience of taking their own vehicle. Thus if you increase the capacity of harbour crossings and achieve a short term reduction in congestion people will undertake journeys they would not have previously done. This will continue until the congestion on the new roads again reaches the stage it impacts on travel decisions. In economic terms, increasing the supply and reducing the cost (easy travel with reduced congestion) will increase the demand.

The second fault with the four options that involve increasing road vehicle traffic across the harbour is that they will simply add more traffic to the already fully loaded Northern and Southern motorways. Unless more billions of dollars are spent increasing the capacity of those roads, a second harbour crossing for road vehicles would simply create even greater congestion on those motorways. This would be aggravated if the new government allows more greenfield residential development on the outskirts of Auckland including for people working in central Auckland.

Another three factors need to be taken into account when looking at the idea of a second harbour crossing:

- the first is global warming and the need to reduce our GHG emissions, not increase them by encouraging greater road vehicle travel, particularly on congested roads where the emissions per kilometre travelled are higher.

- the second is the need to be beware of local and central government politicians pushing through infrastructural projects not because they are justified but simply to satisfy their ego in leaving behind a legacy project.

- the third is New Zealand politicians’ willingness to pander to the public’s liking for quick simple solutions to complex problems, especially solutions that don’t require the public to change their personal behaviour.  New Zealanders want to see major infrastructure policy changes especially in regard to global warming as long as they are not themselves impacted financially or by perceived inconvenience. Unfortunately ‘there is no such thing as a free lunch’.

The basic premise underlying the push for another harbour crossing is that the number of people wanting to get into and out of central Auckland for work, to shop, attend entertainment venues, etc, will inexorably grow and this needs to be catered for. But is that premise correct? Is another harbour crossing in Auckland’s best interests?

The population of greater Auckland is already more than three times that of the second biggest New Zealand urban area, and four times that of the next biggest. The people living in those two smaller areas have all the facilities available to them that enable them to have full lives. They can work, educate themselves and their children, shop, socialise at hospitality venues, and partake in an extensive range of recreational activities. They don’t need a unified city of 1.7 million people to have a satisfying life. Those with construction and service businesses don’t need to travel to other similar sized cities to obtain sufficient work.

Thus the fundamental flaw in the planning for another harbour crossing is the perpetuation of the outdated idea that a large city must have one central focal point or heart. In Auckland’s case a central shopping area entertainment precinct, a business and commercial area – all not only for people living in the area but also coming from elsewhere. Large cities in other countries no longer have that unitary focus. The concept of one focal point has become outdated by several developments: the advent of suburban shopping malls and big box shopping, the development of suburban recreational facilities, and most recently modern communication and other IT advances that allow distance working. The acceleration of distance working due to Covid has really shown that travel to work for many people is unnecessary, unwarranted, a waste of time and money, and creates more greenhouse gases.  Tauranga is a good example of a central city area spluttering to a stop with a multitude of empty shops and wider Tauranga residents living their lives very happily without going into the central area. At the same time the Tauranga City commissars are spending large amounts trying to revitalise the area without recognising that the world has moved on.

So rather than building another harbour crossing for vehicles it needs to be accepted that having downtown Auckland as a unitary focus for the greater city is an outdated concept. Spatial planning for greater Auckland needs to recognise this with planning for Auckland’s future focusing on three areas: south, north and  west of Waitemata Harbour and policies adopted to encourage people to live, work, shop, and play in their local area. Strategies and tools need to be established that over time creates that mode of living in Auckland. Congestion charging is one such tool. Limits on further office and commercial development in ‘downtown’ Auckland could be implemented. And given the impact of working from home trends the impact of this on vested interests in central Auckland is not as draconian as it might first appear. Differential Council rating is another available instrument. And as suggested by Timothy Welch existing lanes on the bridge could be allocated to public transport, i.e. buses or in another guise ‘trackless trams’. Seemingly practical new proposals for ferries for cyclists have surfaced. Having a walking track on the existing bridge is not one that would greatly appeal to many given the high level of vehicle emissions and the idea could be dropped.

So there is no need to spend billions of dollars adding to Auckland's transport infrastructure which in the end will not solve the congestion problem, will add to GHG emissions, and will not improve the quality of life for Aucklanders.

Changing the way people in Auckland think about how they organise their lives, including their businesses, will take time but probably no more than the time until the earliest of the new harbour crossings could possibly be available. Look how quick people adapted their lives to the Covid restrictions. There is no need to alter the governance structure for greater Auckland and the existing Council model is quite capable of implementing the new spatial planning concept while retaining region wide responsibility for all its current services. Nor does this model for greater Auckland’s development require that central Auckland go backward. It simply ring fences the area in terms of activities that encourage people to come from other parts of the greater area. To the extent that more intensive housing allows more people to live, work, and play, in the central city, then economic growth there will continue.

Another planning issue for Auckland is the idea that shifting the port would be a major improvement to downtown Auckland. This is a project that will cost many billions simply to satisfy the aesthetic desires of a few. There is already sufficient waterfront land for establishing harbour front recreation for those who live in the central city, e.g. the old tank farm, and even if the port is shifted and that land is beautified then the percentage of Aucklanders who would actually go there is likely to be minimal. Taking the focus of peoples lives away from central Auckland would make shifting the port even more unwarranted than it is already.

The process of change will be incremental as residential, commercial, and industrial developers respond to Council changes in where these various activities can take place. But with the right incentives in place change will happen well before any new harbour crossing could be completed.

Kevin Sampson, B SC, M Com (Hons Economics), is a reader with a long standing interest in New Zealand economic policy.