Tag Archives: George Wood

Shift Over Auckland Council

Posted on by

Time For the Private Sector to get involved

 

With The Clunker

 

Disclaimer: I haven’t had to put one of these in here but in this case I do. I do declare a ‘Conflict of Interest’ in this post as I am the Managing Director of TotaRim Consultancy Limited – a consultancy firm that does deal with Urban and Transport Planning/Management. However the point made in this post does stand with bringing in the private sector for the next round of engagement processes. 

 

 

I have been watching the developments of Councillor George Wood’s Notice of Motion involving The Clunker and the results that have come from it. The Notice of Motion per page 7 of the Auckland Council Governing Body Agenda was the following:

10 Notices of Motion
10.1 Notice of Motion – Cr Wood – Unitary Plan notification
In accordance with Standing Order 3.11.1, the following Notice of Motion has been received from Cr George Wood for inclusion on the agenda for the Governing Body meeting being held on Tuesday, 23 April 2013. There has not been a similar notice of motion within the previous six months.
Motion
That the Governing Body:
a) consider provision is made for a more in-depth mediation between Auckland Council and submitters to occur before the Unitary Plan is formally notified and therefore the current time frame planned for deliberations on the submissions and the September notification date be extended.
Background
Cr George Wood has provided background information in the attachment.
Attachments
A Cr George Wood’s Notice of Motion……………………………………………………. 39

 

Page 39 can be accessed from the hyperlink above in blue.

 

The result from yesterdays Notice of Motion was the following:

I am happy that what I set out to achieve with my Notice of Motion has more or less been accomplished. Further interface with the community will occur following the closure of the current submission period on 31 May. This is a major improvement on the process and one that will give a lot of the community comfort.

This backs up what was in the NZ Herald‘s article titled “Unitary Plan deadline will stay – Brown” this morning:

…

A group of councillors, led by George Wood, yesterday tried to extend the timeframe for the rulebook – or Unitary Plan – beyond the local body elections in October.

Most councillors voted for a compromise solution that will include further engagement with Aucklanders after the May 31 deadline for feedback on the draft plan.

It is possible this solution could have the same effect of delaying formal notification of the Unitary Plan – set down for September – until after the election. This would push it out until next year.

Mr Wood cited community concerns at Milford and Devonport in his North Shore ward for the council playing a game of “Russian roulette” before the Unitary Plan was notified.

…

 

Okay so this has come about with some “further engagement” to happen post May 31 – the deadline for the first round of feedback but before formal notification of The Unitary Plan (whenever that now is).

Personally to me this is more of an annoyance than anything else what has come about from the Notice of Motion. My reaction from what came out of the Governing Body yesterday was the following:

Ben Ross : Auckland · 61 like this

13 hours ago ·

  • I am beginning wonder if the nine Councillors concerned should be spending more time with the community and less time on the waves about the UP. Short of Central Government pulling one off I do not see anything changing soon so it is time to best use with the cards we have here.
    If I can make heads and tails of this and run informative commentary on the Unitary Plan – then I don’t see why the Councillors can not. (Either that or I start billing them $500/hour + Disbursements + GST to do their informative and consultation work for them)

    Ben Ross : Auckland And TotaRim Consultancy Limited is already geared up to take on such affairs here in Auckland

 

(And yes folks I am GST registered with the company also registered with the Companies Office – so all legit and above-board)

 

So for those that can adapt to having some of the rules changed – but still with the same cards still in your hands it is time to best make what has resulted. What does that mean this end? BR:AKL and Unitary Plan Community Meetings wise it means carry on as normal. However, on my entrepreneurial side it does mean position oneself to take an opportunity presented by the Governing Body.

 

Meaning?

 

If Council is dead serious with pursuing “further engagement” post May 31 but prior to notification then I am calling for Council to shift over and let the private sector step in for this “further engagement” phase.  As I said: ‘I am beginning wonder if the nine Councillors concerned should be spending more time with the community and less time on the waves about the UP. Short of Central Government pulling one off I do not see anything changing soon so it is time to best use with the cards we have here.

If I can make heads and tails of this and run informative commentary on the Unitary Plan – then I don’t see why the Councillors can not. (Either that or I start billing them $500/hour + Disbursements + GST to do their informative and consultation work for them)”

 

So I do honestly wonder if the Councillors can not grasp this now then how on Earth are they going to grasp it post May 31 in the “further engagement” process. Thus I call for Council to shift over and allow the private sector to undertake the process of this “further engagement.” My reasons (but not limited to)?

  • Neutrality away from the Councillors, Local Boards, Mayor and Bureaucrats (nothing stopping them representing but a “one step of separation” measure has been introduced to take off the direct effects situation)
  • Nimble and flexibility (including use of resources) to the changing environment when out consulting the communities. This includes pulling off a better result in getting feedback from RIGHT ACROSS THE CITY – something the public meetings are failing at rather badly (and as I have commented on before)
  • Fresh set of eyes, ears, and (hate to say it) brains to go over the complex document and all the feedback collected thus far
  • Professional second opinion
  • [will add more as it comes to mind]

 

Before someone quotes Conflict of Interest in getting the private sector to undertake the next round of “further engagement” rather than Council; I can fire right back that Council in its entirety has a larger conflict of interest when ever the line between bureaucrat and politician starts to get blurred. Specialist consultancy firms are already bundling up submissions on behalf of their private sector clients as one would expect. So it is up to Council to be more proactive and search out more reputable sources who can act neutral and undertake the “further engagement” round. Either that or Catch-22 will apply to this UP process.

 

Some might agree (looking a feedback received thus far it would seem that way) with the sentiment I have, others might not. Even though I am running commentary flat tact with the Unitary Plan through the blog and community meetings as noted in my “A CASE OF CIVIC DUTY,” there will be a time where I will flip over from “civil duty” to a more “professional” tact for my Unitary Plan work.

 

Above all else though; my own submission writing for the Unitary Plan continues as I hit draft version 8 at this point and time.

 

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND

BR:AKL: Bring Well Managed Progress

The Unitary Plan: Bringing Change

Auckland: 2013 – OUR CITY, OUR CALL

 

Challenge Laid Down To Oppositional Councillors

Posted on by

The Challenge is Laid

 

Who Will Step Up From the Opposition?

 

Answer Thus Far – NO ONE!

 

This morning I threw down a challenge to the oppositional Councillors of The Unitary Plan – a.k.a The Clunker. I’ll repost the challenge here then some replies on what I got thus far:

 

George Wood and Cameron Brewer. You keep popping up on the Facebook feeds on what is wrong with the Unitary Plan (which the city knows and it is becoming a game of State the Obvious here). What I do not see from both of you is a power point presentation or 10 A3 pages of an alternative to The Clunker in where (in your opinions as they count too you know) YOU THINK The Unitary Plan should go. If I can come up with material and take it round with me to community meetings and Civic Forums and go one to one with residents and others, then I am sure you two can as well otherwise I am thinking “What on Earth am I paying you for with my money”

 

This was shortly followed by this from me

I just laid a challenge down to two councillors that are opposed to The Unitary Plan, by extension this extended to the rest of the oppositional councillors as well. You get paid to put an alternative forward while I don’t and thus far I seem to be the only one clocking the miles going around the city trying to both understand residents and get an alternative put forward…

 

So the challenge was laid down and this was the responses I got thus far from either Councillors or Local Board Members and my replies in return:

  • Nigel James Turnbull Ben I don’t think Councillors should be doing this work. Officers are tasked with this and should be responsive to Councillors guidance on how to model and look at the issues inherent in such a big piece of work. I do agree that pointing out some obvious solutions is important, but that is exactly what they have been asking for, like non operative status at notification, better public exposure and consultation over the plan, consideration of infrastructure requirements in growth areas etc. these and many other important issues need to be addressed and suggestions included and not put to one side. The issues you are seeing simply add to the case that this needs to be done once, and done properly. There is no way it should be made operative in September, it would be poor judgement on any councillor that suggests such an option.
  • Ben Ross : Auckland I was writing a post on Town and Local Centres but I’ll stop to comment here. I disagree Nigel with your first two centres – but then it might come down to the leadership style one is looking for out of our civic leaders. The Councillors are individual human beings as well and are affected by the clunker like everyone else. As I look for a more visionary and proactive rather than reactive which is what George and Cameron are doing (in my opinion), I would expect them to draw that alternative up from their personal beliefs, measure it against the current Unitary Plan alongside residents and businesses, then put in their own submissions for planing officer considerations.

    Look I am saying this again and again and again until I go black and blue in the face, we need alternatives to the UP if we believe the UP will not work. We need someone with vision and balls (more than guts) to draw up that alternative and take it to the residents and go “What do you think” 
    For the most part it might get the residents out of either their shell-shocked mode or NIBMYism mode and get them doodling on paper their vision for the city. 

    But it needs someone with that vision. As I said if I can draw an alternative and take it to the city, then why can’t the oppositional councillors to assist the community in thinking…

    Proactive – not reactive – as I expect that from Auckland Transport!

 

And

 

  • George Wood Ben Ross: The 70/30 or 60/40 brownfield/greenfields split is one of the important issues here. Whilst the Auckland council officers went down to 40% greenfield they fudged the overall figure with it adding to 110%. The intensity of the development on the town centres is of concern to communities especially the height and bulk and the provision of infrastructure. Lets hear the views of the community and then the plan can be modified to accommodate the concerns.
    • Ben Ross I just wrote a long post on Local Centres and “place-setting”http://voakl.net/2013/04/11/the-clunker-local-centres-and-transport/

      And yes I know someone in Council fudged the figures with the 60/40 aspect – probably a butt covering exercise which will not work.

      As I just said to Nigel in regards to this we do need a visionary here to take lead and go forward. Communities are just about running around blind and fragmented here George they really are. This is showing up again and again with these community meetings. Most communities are doing their upmost best here with the Clunker but the catch often missing is the Clunker is a regional document and you need to go regional with thinking here. Also the fact that the Clunker is so damned large it nearly makes it impossible to go regional without help and leadership

      I am going to go on a limb here and annoy the oppositional councillors in saying I am doing a better job (although I am going to give credit as well to some of our Local Boards here for doing a fantastic job – you know who you are) in slowly uniting the city and its communities around the Unitary Plan: by running commentary through the blog giving my take on what is going on, showing up to as many community meetings and civic forums as possible to either hear what people are saying or to give my alternative back (to council), often alerting people to something in the UP that might have been missed, and building an alternative that I have gone out on a limb and taken it around the city and used it as material to talk one to one with residents. 

      Often that material kicks off an interesting dialogue and gets the juices flowing into what we all want for our city – as well as some interesting compromises as well.

      A single resident of Auckland should not be left to the task of uniting his city around a clunker of a document which is cause the biggest amount of angst since Ruth Richardson’s mother of all budgets in 1991. That should be a visionary Councillor’s job – but am struggling to see one here. All I see is sniping Local Politics – so someone has to fill that void 

      If the Councillors believe they are doing a better job than myself in all the above then prove it to me!

 

That is the challenge and some of the responses I threw down this morning to the opposition. So far (and with respect) their responses have been underwhelming and somewhat expectant of a reactive not proactive opposition…

The opposition to the Unitary Plan need to step up fast to the leadership mantle. Not leave the more proactive in Local Boards and the community just about floundering about from a vacuum in central leadership… 

 

 

A Letter from A Councillor

Posted on by

Councillor George Wood Writes to Manukau Courier

 

While checking my Facebook feed in the morning (as you do) I noticed a comment from former Manurewa Local Board Chair:

 

That got me looking and I discovered this:

 

Basically Councillor George Wood spelling it out as it is with public transport issues down here in South Auckland – especially with buses (an area admittedly I am not paying much issue to but should very well be).

I agree with the entire letter from the Councillor to the point I will be throwing more resources or rather effort here at BR:AKL on our bus issues and getting them sorted.

 

However Newman was “fuming” because the Southern Initiative got mentioned and the bad onus around that. Yes the Southern Initiative has had its rather ugly moments in either rough-shodding over the Local Boards or budget re-routing away from Local Boards to Southern Initiative projects that are overseen by the main governing body.

The focus from the letter should be on our transport here in South Auckland, not dragging the Southern Initiative into this as that is another debate along with the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act.

Also I have seen no oppositional Councillor nor mayoral candidate state they would overthrow the Southern Initiative after the 2013 elections and put in place an alternative. I believe it is the case of we are lugged with it – let’s try and make this work best we can – as rough-shodding by Council Officers, CCOs, and the Governing Body happens right across the spectrum – not just the Southern Initiative.

My comment to Newman makes somewhat that point:

Ben Ross

Burnt from the Budget (which burnt the entire city any how) I still see.

That aside – well something must being going on as 2012 was a mixed year for success and failures in dealing with the Governing Body from personal experience (that is the Governing Body not the CCOs).

Failures: The Auckland Plan in part but more so the Long Term Plan. The new Rubbish Policy.

Successes: Irony would have it this has been down the transport division:- Manukau South Link, Pukekohe Electrification Extension, cant comment with the RPTP yet as the hearing is still coming up, slow progress with the bus situation down south – but least its moving.

Next Challenge: Again transport, however Alcohol Policies with the new Act in position

So “bringing them to the Governing Body” has had its moments of success and failures -( for a scrappy little ratepayer  ) – but that is to be expected. 2013 is going to bring?…

 

A case of win-some, you lose-some. But you continue to battle on in pushing or lobbying for what you want to see to make Auckland a better place – the purpose behind this blog from day one.

 

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND

Shining The Light – To a Better Papakura (OUR home)
AND
To a Better Auckland – (OUR City)

Auckland 2013: YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL

 

 

 

THE ACHILLES HEEL OF C&R – CTD

Posted on by

Open Schism in C&R Exposed

 

And so I go trundling through Facebook and Twitter this morning (as I usually do) and I notice this crop up which links to an article from Bernard Orsman and the NZ Herald:

Council duo attack rail link spend

By Bernard Orsman

 

C&R ticket divided on Mayor Brown‘s $2.86 billion policy, with some comparing it to a ‘black hole of Calcutta‘.

 

Spending on rail in Auckland has been compared to a “black hole of Calcutta” as right-leaning councillors take an increasingly strident line against Mayor Len Brown’s $2.86 billion city rail link.

Communities & Residents councillors George Wood and Dick Quax are openly contradicting their ticket’s policy of support for the rail link by saying it does not stack up and calling for a halt.

C&R leader and rail supporter Christine Fletcher is playing down the divisions in the caucus, saying Mr Wood and Mr Quax have always had “extreme” views and the ticket is a broad church.

Mrs Fletcher insisted the C&R policy of supporting the rail link and land purchases, but not approving a start on construction until funding is in place, “was the policy” and had the backing of candidates chosen for next year’s local body elections.

The views of Mr Wood and Mr Quax – half the C&R caucus of four councillors – have hardened in the past week with the release of a Horizon Research poll showing 64 per cent of Aucklanders support the rail link and a leaked report saying rush-hour traffic in central Auckland will slow to walking pace in 10 years without the rail project.

Mr Quax said the rail project made little sense because it would gobble up 80 per cent of the public transport capital budget over the next 10 years when much-needed bus lanes and ferry terminals received a “paltry” 20 per cent.

“The Government has made it quite clear that it does not see the central rail link as a transport priority project. The numbers don’t stack up. For every dollar it returns just 40c and will only remove 1400 cars per day from the road.”

Mr Wood said he supported the project “sometime in the future”, which Auckland Transport said could be 2025 and the Government 2030, subject to it being financiallyviable.

“Rail is a ‘black hole of Calcutta’ and is soaking up 80 per cent of the public transport budget and costing ratepayers around $461 million over the next three years,” he said.

“There is a lot to be done in other areas before we get into sucking all the lifeblood out of Auckland into this one project.”

Centre-right and independent councillor Cameron Brewer is also becoming increasingly concerned about the cost of the rail link after initially supporting the project and work to secure the designation and buy properties along the 3.5km underground route.

Mr Brewer said he had yet to be convinced about the cost and benefits of the project, including the benefits to nearly 90 per cent of Aucklanders who do not work or live in the CBD who may have to pay for it through tolls or a regional petrol tax.

Mr Brown did not want to comment about C&R’s internal wranglings on the rail link, but said he could not see how councillors could ignore the latest poll.

“The poll showed overwhelming support for the city rail link and integrated bus and rail improvements to public transport across Auckland.”

Rail wrangle

•C&R councillors George Wood and Dick Quax blast the $2.86 billion rail link
•C&R leader Christine Fletcher says the ticket supports the link
•Mayor Len Brown points to a poll showing 64 per cent support

 

Did I not ask the last week to Communities and Residents (C&R) for a UNIFIED Policy Statement on the City Rail Link? I think I did in this particular post: THE ACHILLES HEEL OF C&R. With the question being in that post: “Is Communities and Residents (C&R) Actually Unified?”

Well if you read the article above, I think the answer is a firm ‘NO!’ Especially after the language exchange from Councillors’ Wood, Quax and C&R Council Leader Chris Fletcher…

 

And so where am I going with this?

Well if we want to avoid this parody below I think it might be seriously time to take the broom out, brush out the cobwebs and inject some new blood into Council. And by new blood I mean electing no-one that has served on a legacy Council prior to the current Auckland Council.

Yes that picture still gets the laughs every time someone goes at posts it.

 

But in any case, can Auckland really afford a fractured Council in the most pivotal period of our future (2013-2016). Pivotal meaning that what ever Council does in 2013-2016 will affect Auckland quite easily for the next 50 years. So no pressure there folks :P

 

A schism has been exposed in the primary (heck that is loose when they only hold 19% of the voting power in the current Council) centre-right party “ticket” which can result in being the catalyst to a fractured Council after the elections next year. It is something I clearly do no want, and nor does Auckland!

I have warned aspirant Councillor Cameron Brewer about the City Rail Link on Facebook:

Cameron Brewer, I had noticed this after C&R developed a schism that the ratepayer has noticed: “Mr Brewer said he had yet to be convinced about the cost and benefits of the project, including the benefits to nearly 90 per cent of Aucklanders who do not work or live in the CBD who may have to pay for it through tolls or a regional petrol tax”

That argument about the CBD can be shot to pieces by anyone from the Centre like myself OR the Centre-Left with a simple and slick marketing campaign that would have Auckland Transport envious on the City Rail Link. This resulting in the Centre-Right’s flank being awfully exposed in the campaign next year.

I might go an expose that flank now in a post of mine and see where we go over the next 10 months

 

So as ratepayers and voters next year we have a collective decision to make; do we bring in a unified and progressive Council that will take us forward for the next 50 years, or a fractured Council that will cause us to backslide in the mud for the next 50 years.

 

Again as candidate to the Papakura Local Board in next year’s Local Elections you can check my baseline policies and stance on the City Rail Link

 

2013 – Your City, Your Call

 

 

The CRL and That Poll Ctd

Posted on by

Looking at the Debate that has Cropped Up Again on the City Rail Link

 

Yesterday in my “THE CRL AND THAT POLL” I had stated that:

Thanks to Bernard Orsman from the NZ Herald and Horizon Research (a polling company), debate has flared up again on the City Rail Link. Is there any thing new in this debate? Currently no so I wont bother going into it much unless you like to go around on a Merry-Go-Round with the emergency stop button absolutely stuffed beyond repair…

 

Well to prod the debate along some we would not all be stuck on the never-ending Merry-go-round I asked this question last night over Facebook and Twitter:

Ben Ross: In any case, is C & R releasing a unified policy statement on the CRL any time soon so votes can make a choice in 10 months time?

 

And wouldn’t you know it the debate has shifted has the spot light has been clearly shone onto Auckland’s centre-right local body political organisation “Communities and Residents” (C&R).

Let’s see what C&R members or officials have to say on the debate (for the sake of continuity I shall paste the entire thread):

Bernard forgive me if i read this wrong but since when is 1099 the majority of Aucklanders?

  • m.nzherald.co.nz

    A majority of Aucklanders want the Government to make a significant contribution to the $2.86 billion city rail link, a new poll shows.
    • Bernard Orsman A poll of 1099 people is the basis for a scientific poll…just ask Peter.
    • Donna Beattie They didn’t poll me
    • George Wood Were people told of the costs involved in the CRL project? It is interesting that depreciation and operating costs have not been revealed at this stage of the planning. Even B Ben Ross has not considered the operating costs. It certainly wouldn’t be taken up by the private sector and run like a business s happens in Hong Kong!
    • Bernard Orsman Would the private sector have built the Northern Busway George?
    • George Wood The Northern Busway is a completely different funding arrangement. It was built by Transit New Zealand who committed $200 million of funding from the Alternative to Roading (ATR) fund and funding from the Infrastructure Auckland funds ($40 Million). Around $60 million of additional ratepayers money got a state-of-the-art system of five bus stations but the operational funding required per passenger is a lot lower than rail. It currently would carry over 5 million passenger trips (Northern Express and North Star Expresses) each year which is half the rail systems current patronage at a fraction of the overall cost.
    • Ben Ross Is someone sitting on a report that I let alone the rest of Auckland has not seen George in regards to operating and depreciation costs in regards with the City Rail Link? I rather hope not this side of the Local Body Elections 2013…

      Operating Costs and Depreciation of the CRL has entered my mind and crossed my thoughts many times once the CRL opens around the 2025 mark. If I were to look at paying patronage, total patronage and trains per hour being thrown down that 3.5km tunnel, the private sector opportunities with the 3 CRL stations available (sky rights and retail/office rights anyone?); the allowing of the airport, Botany and North Shore Lines (and especially the North Shore Line which can carry 900% more passengers than the bus way ever could (as well as the fact the North Shore Line runs via the CRL system); AND account for the late Owen McShane Rail Fallacy then YES I have appreciated the operating and depreciation costs of the CRL mega project from beginning to the end.
    • George Wood Ben Ross, this is interesting commentary from Brisbane on the south east Queensland public transport. Bus is looked upon as being more favourable to passengers.

      http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbanes-bus-growth-outstrips-rail-20110503-1e6mm.html

      www.brisbanetimes.com.au

      Southeast Queensland bus patronage has surged by 65 per cent over the past six years, more than triple the growth in rail usage.
    • George Wood Good South East Brisbane busway report and evaluation.
    • Ben Ross Hmm yes, although I remember buses playing second fiddle to heavy rail in Brisbane while I was there in 2003-2005. Heavy rail was mode of choice if one lived on the Sunshine or Gold Coasts and did not want get stuck in metro car traffic all day
    • Ben Ross But that is beside the point as this argument is flipping over to a bus verse rail competition argument which should have been buried in the 90s but has not <_<. Rail, bus and car complement each other on a comprehensive mixed transit system rather than compete against each other. It should be a requirement for all Councillors, Mayors and Ministers of Transport to do a four-year course in Sim City 4 building before standing for office… Just saying (after I have been known to build extremely comprehensive transit systems for sprawling cities over 3 million)
    • George Wood I was around in about 1999/2000 when the ARC decided to go with the rail system. It was never really evaluated to the Nth degree with the chairman of the ARC Philip Warren being hell-bent on buying the rail rights from Tranz Rail.
    • Ben Ross Sounds like a Councillor Lee there George
    • Ben Ross In any case, is C & R releasing a unified policy statement on the CRL any time soon so votes can make a choice in 10 months time?
    • Desley Simpson Ben my understanding is that C/R support continuing to buy land as part of preserving the option, but are not committing until Govt confirms funding.
    • Ben Ross Thanks Desley, much appreciated and understandable with that answer. To do otherwise would be near financial if not political suicide. 2018 rather than the Centre-Lefts 2015 would be the preferable construction start date all things considered. Call it a gut feeling on that one
    • Bernard Orsman Let’a be perfectly frank everyone. Len is not going to start building the CRL until the funding in place. That includes council funding, Government funding and alternative funding sources. Right now, the Government are not coming to the party with funding and won’t allow him to toll roads or introduce a regional fuel tax. In the meantime, he boxes only with property purchases and designation. The National Government clearly don’t support the project and it won’t happen until there is a change of Government in 2014 or 2017? Labour and the Greens have indicated they will pay the Government’s share by using money set aside for the holiday highway. Whether they will support alternative funding sources is unclear. As the saying goes, there is a lot of water to flow under the bridge. As for C&R, its position is all over the road. It will be interesting Ben Ross to see if they develop a clear, unequivocal policy next year or do what they have done the past two years and each have a separate view.
    • Mark Thomas Across Auckland, I think support for the CRL is more mixed than this suggests. 90% of submitters from the Orakei ward didn’t support it in the Long Term Plan. Not because improved public transport including rail isn’t part of Auckland’s future: it has to be. They don’t support it because there is no plan to fund it! (And, Horizon has been one of the least reliable surveyors of public opinion).
    • Bernard Orsman What are you saying Mark. Do you, or C&R, want the CRL removed the LTP – and nothing to happen until 2022 at the earliest???
    • Mark Thomas No. I support the continued designation and associated funding for now, but a much more effective conversation needs to happen with Aucklanders and other potential funders about cost, value and timing. I appreciate Len’s “Consensus Building Group” is partly designed to do this, but when I look at its composition: Child Poverty Action Group, Combined Trade Union, Environmental Defence, AA, EMA, Cycle Action, Walk Auckland, Business Forum etc it looks more like a United Nations. Except the Security Council veto holder is missing. So, we need an Auckland transport initiative that gets agreement on both the problem and the most cost effective solution. Stay tuned!

I will continue to prod Communities and Residents over the next few months to make sure a unified policy statement does get released by them to the Auckland voter – no matter which way they swing, so long as it is a clear stance before and in time for the Local Government Elections next September.

 

On another front and in another thread, the validity of the Horizon Research poll in the CRL has been brought into question. You can see the arguments crop up in the second half of the thread (the first half is about cost again):

Bet the people of South Auckland were not told of the true costs of the Central Rail Link? It will be far more than we have been told up to now especially when the depreciation and operating costs have not been assessed. The point I would raise with the people who are so enthusiastic that this project proceeds is: If it is so good why isn’t the private sector clamouring to run the Auckland Metro Rail system? Maybe Ben Ross can answer this question?
    • Millie Liang Good point George. I read a research paper a while back that showed long term maintenance of infrastructure in California hadn’t been costed in and over a 50yr period up keep costs were 4-5 times the actual construction cost. As you say if it made commercial sense the Council would be turning private enterprise away from the door every day… I would simply ask the Germans/Italians or even Mr. Branson come have a look (at their cost) and tell us if you interested..
    • Hone Willis If you are looking for “commercial sense”, then public transport is probably the wrong place to look.

      Did California do a costing on roading maintanence savings in that study Millie?

      The issue (for me) is Auckland’s current “unfinished” Rail network is a waste of space.

      If we are not going to close the loop, or increase coverage in any way… we might as well focus on wharf traffic, and forget about passenger rail.

      We needed the loop to be finished fifty years ago, when it would have cost so much less, now.. the cost is almost prohibitive.

      Or, perhaps we need to accept that Aucklanders are incapable of doing what every other major city in the world has done..

      An efficient means of moving your workforce around saves everyone time and money….
    • Ben Ross Correct, and heavy rail is the most efficient form of people movement in a large city (well subway is for the super dense cities but even they still have extensive heavy rail systems).

      I am finding it ironic Australia and NZ is behind the ball with heavy rail with the Republicans in the USA and the Tories in the UK having another crack at heavy rail programs again….
    • Ben Ross The law for starters does not allow private enterprise to run our metro rail system – or our freight rail system either.
    • Ben Ross And there is a difference between run and operate…
    • Millie Liang Hi Hone..I need to dig the paper out but I recall what opportunity/ cost benefits were envisaged were lost in something like 10-15yrs when traffic volumes were back to what they were previously and then an under budgeted maintenance program is causing ongoing problems.
    • Barnsley Bill George. The people of south Auckland will not be paying for it
      • Ben Ross The people of South Auckland like myself already pay well will be paying for the CRL: General Rates, Targeted Rates for those near the corridor, development levies on new houses near the corridor, general taxation and for those who use buses, trains or ferries – our fares
    • Ben Ross The ones who benefit from the CRL – pretty much every Aucklander that travels by train, bus, ferry, or car on a major arterial road or motorway no matter where their destination is inside the region
    • Scott Bovaird Grrrr you can’t compare the value of a public transport service on the basis of ’would commercial enterprise be interested’ its nearly annoys me as much as people who think John key will be a good pm cause he is a ’business man’….
    • Ben Ross Agreed Scott. I was going to trot out the Public Good speech but I just err did a major screw up at home and need to go fix it before I have hell on the home front
    • Millie Liang Hi Scott.. I doubt if there is many with a more Socialist ideology than me but it all needs to be paid for and I can’t see it being wise to kick the can down to our kids generation to pay down the debt. I definitely wouldn’t call someone who was a foreign exchange dealer a business man..The ones I know before they burnt themselves out were more like gamblers :):)
    • Scott Bovaird Note I didn’t actually say I was in favour of the CRL just that I hate the above analogy. I also think john key is as far from being a proper business man as you can get.
    • Scott Bovaird Millie plenty of ways to pay for it… Regional fuel tax… Hotel bed tax( my preferred at the moment)… Just two off my head
    • Millie Liang Agree with your thoughts Scott, as long as it isn’t just property owners that have to pay for it through increased rates.
    • Dick Quax People support the cental rail loop because they just don’t know the real cost. A billion here and a billion there and soon you’re actually spending real money – even the rate payer may notice.
    • David Thornton This Hoizon survey carries no credibility in view of previous polls it has conducted being shown to be unscientific. This is one of those polls where the client [Auckland Council?] has indicated its position and hopes the survey will prove it. Use your imagination. And who is behind this AllaboutAuckland website?
    • Ben Ross Dodgy polling companies are unhelpful true. And yes who is this All About Auckland outfit?
    • George Wood All About Auckland is the former Franklin Live Ben Ross
    • David Thornton And who owns it and is there a financial arrangement between it and Auckland Council?
    • George Wood It is owned by Kane Glass who has been committed to recording the Auckland Council meetings from virtually the first day,.
    • Ben Ross :-D:-D all good then.
    • Jay Boreham I’m with David Thornton on this. This survey was done by the same company who did the sham survey against the NZ Police earlier this year. I would question the integrity of this survey and AC for using them if I was you. Also would an online poll really reflect the population in the South.http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/33031.html

      www.police.govt.nz

      The findings of a recent survey claiming falling public trust in Police were del…See More
      • David Thornton Jay, i see that the Police survey story refers to the owners of Horizon, do you knoqw who they are?
      • Jay Boreham According to their website their “Prncipal” is Graeme Colman who is/was also a consultant for Morrison McDougall Public Relations who say: Graeme was Auckland City’s Media Manager for three years and he managed the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development, involving policy advocacy at the highest levels. According to BACS “Graeme provides some results from the many surveys he has conducted with suggestions of how charities can improve their chances of business support.”
    • David Thornton George Wood getting back to Horizon – can you confirm that Ak Cl did in fact commission this survey, and did the council approve the survey questions. Also how much did it cost?

And now you can see where one particular part of the CRL debate is going.

 

Although me getting mentioned twice? What am I here – the unofficial Transport Mayor of Auckland or Mayoral Candidate for Auckland folks? Heck I am flattered :P

 

So will see how this debate continues to pan out as we approach the Local Government Elections in September next year. In the mean time there will be plenty more to be said on the City Rail Link!