|
November 30, 2003 New Zealand
We Don’t Need Another Airport
The growing debate over how to use Whenuapai once the air force moves out throws up a range of issues about the Auckland region's development. In particular, what kind of work and urban lifestyle do we want? It's make up your mind time. January 14 is the closing date for submissions to Defense Minister Mark Burton on how to use the air base's 311ha in north-west Auckland. In March, the cabinet will consider a paper on the issue. The case for turning the air base into Auckland's second civilian airport is being made by Enterprise Waitakere and Enterprise North Shore, the economic development agencies of the two cities, at meetings for their business communities. The air force's departure by 2007 will trigger the loss of 1061 jobs (full-time equivalents) at the air base and perhaps another 600 in the surrounding community. North-west Auckland will lose $235 million a year in economic activity, with almost all of that suffered by Waitakere, a report earlier this year by NZIER, the economic researchers, said. The proposed solution is to make Whenuapai a civilian airport, as it was before Mangere took on the role in the 1960s. The idea is driven by Waitakere mayor Bob Harvey, Enterprise Waitakere and Infratil, the sharemarket-listed company which is the operator and 66% owner of Wellington airport. North Shore mayor George Wood and Enterprise North Shore support the idea. They argue Infratil could lease the airport from the crown, make a modest investment in upgrading the runways and terminals and start operations very speedily. This would be an attractive deal for Infratil. If the airport works financially, it could buy it later from the crown and cut Waitakere in on the action. The city has an option to buy a 33% stake at the same entry price as Infratil. If the airport proves uneconomic, Infratil can let the lease lapse and leave the crown to rethink what to do with the land. Under this scenario, Waitakere City said, ratepayers would face no financial downside. But, of course, they believe the airport will be a success. Domestic and trans-Tasman budget carriers would be the most likely users of the airport. Within 10 years, it could be handling two million passengers a year, equal to perhaps about 10% of the traffic handled then at Mangere's Auckland International Airport. Benefits, they argue, would include the creation of about 800 jobs at the airport and another 1000 locally, fuelled in part by the development of industrial jobs on the 200ha of the air base not needed for aircraft. And Whenuapai would ease Auckland's traffic congestion by reducing the number of vehicles travelling to Mangere. The impact of aircraft on the local environment would not be great, they said. Today, Whenuapai handles some 22,000 takeoffs and landings each year, mainly from small and noisy military aircraft. In contrast, one million airline passengers a year would need only 15,000 movements of larger, quieter aircraft. All this, they argued, adds up to the best use of the land. In contrast, the land is probably worth a maximum of only $40m (and it might require large sums for environmental rehabilitation) under its current alternative zoning - 4ha lifestyle blocks. And they would not contribute jobs or much economic activity to northwest Auckland. It's no surprise that Auckland International Airport is opposed to a competing airport at Whenuapai. It argues that the region had this debate 50 years ago, leading to the building of the Mangere airport. Sited on 1500ha of land and surrounded by water on three sides, its environmental impact is contained and it can easily handle the region's airline growth for at least the next 50 years. Key to that is to build a second runway for which it has resource consents. Auckland International said it would be economic nonsense to partially duplicate airport facilities and environmental impact by investing in Whenuapai. While these opposing views have fuelled some debate, there are some wider issues which have barely been raised, let alone subjected to rigorous analysis. The first is land transport. There's no denying how miserable it is to drive from North Shore to Mangere at peak times. But is an airport at Whenuapai an attractive but superficial response? Might it actually contribute to traffic congestion rather than ease it? For example, budget airlines would draw on all of Auckland for their customers, not just the North Shore. Perhaps the real solution to the traffic problem is to significantly upgrade mass transit (presumably light rail) to Mangere. But the more passengers Whenuapai draws away from Mangere, the more it undermines the economics of such transport investment. Secondly, the economic impact of Whenuapai's closure needs to be set in context. As the NZIER report points out, the 1061 airbase jobs lost would equal only about 0.5% of the jobs in the north-west Auckland region, or equivalent to about four months of new job creation locally. Also, the $235m of lost business represents only 2.3% of Waitakere's economic activity. Waitakere City's response is to promote the airport as a job creator. However, a fair proportion of them would be relatively low skill, low paid service or industrial jobs typical of the work in and around airports. So is Waitakere under-selling itself? Could Whenuapai's 311ha be used for a high value, knowledge economy venue such as a world-class science, information technology, biotechnology, creative industries or business park? New Zealand has to have a world-class city if it is to attract the best workers, businesses and investment. But Auckland fails to live up to that, lacking many elements of world-class infrastructure such as business parks. Should Waitakere City help the region - and itself - by being much more ambitious? Having positioned itself as an Eco City, should it create post-industrial, highly paid, knowledge-based jobs in a science, technology or business park? If New Zealand is to earn a higher standard of living through bigger export earnings, it is more likely to come from those jobs rather than industrial ones. Thirdly, what will the Auckland region look like in 50 years? Auckland Regional Council's growth strategy believes the population will be at least two million, up from 1.2 million today. The housing stock will jump from 400,000 homes to 720,000. We'll need transport, infrastructure, public services such as schools and hospitals, plus places to work, shop and for recreation. In the last 50 years, Auckland has done an abysmal job of coping with the trebling of its population. Short-term, ad hoc planning has created a dismal legacy of poor transport networks, unplanned communities and shortages of public amenities. Waitakere City and North Shore City are seriously deficient on those scores. Despite efforts to upgrade Takapuna into a true town centre and brave plans to rebuild the Henderson civic centre, both cities are formless, unattractive sprawls. Just imagine, though, if the 311ha of Whenuapai and the largely undeveloped land around it, strategically situated between the two cities, became the new true, 21st century centre of the entire west and north Auckland region. Planned boldly with a solid commitment to coming generations of Aucklanders, it could become a world-class urban centre, complementing the world-class airport at Mangere and linked to it by world-class transport. But, heck, maybe that's far too big a dream. Maybe another airport is just the kind of economic driver Waitakere, North Shore - the Auckland region as a whole - really want and need. Let's hope the debate and analysis gives us the right answer because we will live with the consequences for generations.
|