Implementing Transport Solutions - Are we pussyfooting around?

David McGregor, Senior Partner | October 2001

Recently I participated in an action group that examined the obstacles to Auckland implementing the key components of its Regional Land Transport Strategy (RLTS). Regrettably, one of the greatest obstacles appears to be Ministerial/Governmental inertia over the Land Transport Act review.

Formation of ATAG

The CEO of the Auckland Regional Council, Jo Brosnahan, had taken the initiative to convene a group of stakeholders to consider the problem. This group comprised representatives of all the public sector and private sector stakeholders in the provision of public transport and roads in the Auckland Region.

Inevitably an acronym emerged for the group namely, ATAG (Auckland Transport Action Group).

Current Position

It took ATAG six months to analyse the position in Auckland and conclude that:

• There was no over-arching responsibility for the implementation of the RLTS. Currently 15 public sector bodies along with many private sector bodies are involved in transport in Auckland.

• There is no effective link between the strategy and funding. Presently funding from Transfund is project-based with no relationship to the RLTS as a whole and only a weak imperative to be "not inconsistent with the strategy". Similarly, Auckland's own source of funding, namely Infrastructure Auckland has considered that its function requires some contestability which, whether intended or not, conveys the impression that the RLTS is being second-guessed.

• Resource management processes frustrated implementation because they were complex, costly, duplicative and time consuming.

What had been considered was a continuum of options to tackle the problems. The options were conveniently categorised, as extending from the revolutionary to the evolutionary. The latter ranged from implementing measures within the framework of existing law to the changes needed to ultimately achieve the revolutionary option, ie Commissioner or Dedicated Transport Authority.

ATAG proposals

ATAG proposed that current arrangements should be improved upon to provide for a single decision-making and priority-setting process for regional transport projects. The provisions relating to the RLTS would be strengthened to provide for a determination of priorities along with accountability for, and monitoring of, implementation.

The new look process would provide for:

• A five year regional work programme with timelines, priorities and funding requirements to enable implementation of the RLTS.

• The assignment of responsibility for implementation of regional transport projects, services and activities, under agreement with relevant providers.

• Funding agreements with Transfund, Infrastruture Auckland and local authorities to provide adequate and sustainable funding to ensure the implementation of the Regional Land Transport Strategy.

• Linkages between the regional work programme and setting of timelines with achieving an efficient and effective use of resource management procedures.

• Linkages to national and regional policy statements, strategies and plans, and the capacity to support the provisions of the RLTS by advocacy including its priority, at all levels.

• Evaluation, monitoring and reporting processes to ensure that the work programme milestones and timelines undertaken by contracted providers meet the region's and government's objectives.

ATAG envisaged that the Regional Land Transport Committee would be empowered to appoint an independent, dedicated and professional implementation group to ensure separate advocacy of the RTLS to transport infrastructure and funding agencies, its project development, performance monitoring reporting and any other form of communication.

Land Transport Act review - going nowhere?

Early on in the process we saw that perhaps the greatest opportunity to overcome these problems was the Ministerial review of the Land Transport Act.

In Auckland this has involved a series of workshops to consider various structures capable of delivering the desired outcomes - the development of roads and the provision of public transport.

The early indications that this process had legislative priority now seem less convincing. The distinct impression one is left with is that this consultative process (presently confined to local government) is going nowhere.

The production of Cabinet papers, the acceptance of some but not others and the creation of new groups of advisers now points to the emergence of a "non-statutory New Zealand Transport Strategy". Given the extent of advertising copy devoted to this issue for the local body elections here in Auckland one wonders whether it is now being driven by agendas not strictly related to transport outcomes. In the meantime, Rome burns.

Flyers for a Transport Summit in 2002 that anticipate commentary on local government and its role in the provision of transport services regrettably seem premature.