This is a short post with an update of 'where the money is going'.
In my last post I looked at the Auckland Plan refresh and the associated Long Term Plan (the 10 year budget), and asked the question as to whether the two plans are aligned.
Having looked at the Long Term Plan in a bit more detail, it is useful to compare projected capital expenditure in the 2018 long term plan with the projections in the 2015 version of the same plan. Have priorities changed due to the Auckland Plan refresh or the Unitary Plan being settled, for example?
The following are the 30 year projections of capital expenditure, by infrastructure, for the 2015 and 2018 long term plans. The numbers are billions of dollars. Running a city is not cheap!
Table 1: Total 30 year projected expenditure by infrastructure type ($ billions)
Infrastructure type
|
2015 plan
|
2018 plan
|
Roads
|
16.8
|
26.3
|
PT
|
6.8
|
18.6
|
Wastewater
|
10.9
|
10.2
|
Water
|
9.6
|
9.6
|
Stormwater
|
3.9
|
4.5
|
Community
|
11.1
|
13.9
|
Total
|
59.1
|
83.1
|
The graph of the above figures looks like this.
Figure 2: 30 year Capital Expenditure $ Billions
Total projected capital expenditure has increased by $24 Billion for the 30 year projection period, between the two plans. This extra expenditure has been identified in the 3 years between the plans. What gives? Is this increase in response to the rapid population growth experienced over the past 3 years; the plan to open up a lot of greenfields land for housing; a shift in priorities; or just a better idea of what is needed? Is it all of the above?
Interestingly, other council documents like the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (see this blog) identified the need for $20 billion dollars of infrastructure for greenfields areas, although that figure included NZTA spending on motorways.
Interestingly, other council documents like the Future Urban Land Supply Strategy (see this blog) identified the need for $20 billion dollars of infrastructure for greenfields areas, although that figure included NZTA spending on motorways.
What sticks out is the huge increase in spending on 'roads’. Passenger transport also gets a big lift in investment and as an infrastructure class, sees the biggest percentage increase. Roads don’t just carry cars, they also provide space for buses, trucks and cyclists, so it not like the budget is all about ‘cars, cars, cars'. But due to the large investment in both roads and passenger transport, the combined transport categories now take up over 50% of the capital expenditure. As the graph shows, not much else changes.
The following is the 10 year projection, again in billions of dollars. The 10 year budget allows for a bit more of a break down of the ‘community’ infrastructure category in the 30 year projection.
Table 2: 10 year capital expenditure ($ Billions)
Infrastructure type
|
2015-25
|
2018-28
|
Transport
|
7.9
|
12
|
3 Waters
|
5.6
|
7
|
Parks and Community
|
2.4
|
2.6
|
Centres development
|
1
|
0.3
|
Other
|
1.8
|
1.8
|
Total
|
18.7
|
23.7
|
Here is the graph….
Figure 2: 10 year projected capital expenditure ($ Billions)
Figure 2: 10 year projected capital expenditure ($ Billions)
As I said in my last blog, it seems wrong that infrastructure that would add real amenity to an intensifying city - like more and better parks and open spaces, improved town and local centres and associated public spaces - gets so little investment.
Once again, we seem to be letting transport investment dominate development and spending. Some of that investment will be helpful to the pattern of development suggested by the Auckland Plan refresh. But you do wonder about the mix between roads and passenger transport, and between these two classes of investment and the 'softer' infrastructure that is so important.
The worry is that the lift in investment in transport between the two plans reflects the work of AT and central government in identifying and planning for the future transport needs of a larger, more expansively developed city. Good on them for doing this work. But has the same level of analysis and planning gone into identifying the 'soft' infrastructure needed, especially in the existing urban area? My guess would be: no. And that is why the above figures for community infrastructure essentially 'flat line' between the two budgets. Hopefully I'm wrong.
What gets funded, gets built. What is not funded, does not happen.
The worry is that the lift in investment in transport between the two plans reflects the work of AT and central government in identifying and planning for the future transport needs of a larger, more expansively developed city. Good on them for doing this work. But has the same level of analysis and planning gone into identifying the 'soft' infrastructure needed, especially in the existing urban area? My guess would be: no. And that is why the above figures for community infrastructure essentially 'flat line' between the two budgets. Hopefully I'm wrong.
What gets funded, gets built. What is not funded, does not happen.
