2013 – YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL!
It Starts NOW
(Well as far as I am concerned it does)
WHO AM I AND WHAT ON HECK DO I BELIEVE IN – COME TRANSPORT OVER THE NEXT 80 YEARS IN AUCKLAND?
From the 2013 Local Election page here at VOAKL:
View of Auckland will be exclusively shining the light at the upcoming Election and subsequent campaign as incumbent councillors, Local Board members, the mayor, plus candidates wanting the fore-mentioned positions of Office go out and “work the floor” for our vote (the one’s that can be bothered to do so).
Continuing the self-reflection (or shining the light back my way) I am going to dissect my eight beliefs set out in the WHAT I STAND FOR – FOR AUCKLAND page and how they influence my decision-making on which candidates I will be choosing for: Local Board, Ward Councillor and Mayor in next years 2013 Local Government Elections.
In this post I am going to look at Number Three from my WHAT I STAND FOR – FOR AUCKLAND section as this is often a major talking point by Auckland citizens (apart from our weather) as we all use transport to get from A to B to Z and back to A again.
My “transport rationale” to be used here in this post is based on my submission to the now active Auckland Plan and was formed in part in reply to my thoughts on urban development in Auckland through to 2040. Please note carefully that what was written in my submission last year and what I stand for now could be: either the same, slightly different, or in some cases VASTLY different depending on my experiences, conversations and listening to opinion makers. This is to be expected especially for a liberal like myself who believes in change and will change their beliefs (in this case for a Better Auckland) or rather adapt to the ever-changing environment just like animals and trees adapt to Earth’s ever-changing environments. What I am getting at is, if you have a case or opinion that can sway or influence me – then please try as I will actively listen. But don’t take it harshly if in the end I do not end up agreeing with you. And hey, I am trying to influence opinion to so it goes both ways 😀 .
So lets shine the light onto what I stand for with transport.
#3 – Transport: An Integrated Approach to Transport: None of this “all for one but not the other approach” we get from both roading and Green lobbyists. Road and Mass Transit both have their places here in Auckland – albeit more balanced like the Generation Zero 50:50 campaign. This integrated approach also applies to many other things out there – I call it The Best of Both Worlds.
This stems from my submission to Auckland Council and my urban design work for Tamaki when I was a post-graduate planning student at the University of Auckland.
In short I believe in: Individual Freedom, Individual Choice and Individual Responsibility for where you live, where you work and how you move yourself around Auckland. However that mantra will not work when our planners can not get the basics in at least transport right.
From my Tamaki Redevelopment Project Assignment
However the point that needs to be put across is the disconnectivity of Tamaki to the rest of Auckland!
In reference to the map “Tamaki Reconnected – the Prelude;” it can be seen that there is no easy way for the people of Tamaki to get to their two primary job bases, no easy way for people to get to Tamaki to work (rail is limited in its connection) and no easy way for Eastern Suburbs commuters to get to the city base via Tamaki and vice versa. The lemon and purple dots show the main (but not all) routes for Tamaki (and in part the Eastern Suburbs) to get their job bases by road, with the black line showing the rail routes and the red ellipses showing major congestion choke points that add to commuting time as well as other negative effects.
To complicate matters for those in Tamaki wishing to travel to Onehunga, upon looking at www.maxx.co.nz there is no direct rail service to Onehunga from Glen Innes (you need to transfer at Otahuhu and Penrose to catch a train to Onehunga). To complicate things even more, there is no direct bus service from Glen Innes to Onehunga (need to transfer either at Sylvia Park, Penrose or Otahuhu) and vice versa. All these connectivity issues stem from the previously dominate planning thought of a radial transit network spanning out from the Central Business District, in neglect of “cross-town” services (such as Glen Innes to Onehunga). In fact current planning thought is still dominated by the ‘radial-mode’ which unless it and ‘cross-town’ services are addressed, “fringe” suburbs (suburbs not close to enough major transit corridors(compare Papatoetoe to Glen Innes)) such as Glen Innes are still going to be disconnected from the rest of wider Auckland.
Further more, when setting out a community plan such as one for Tamaki; trying to have localised job bases is all very well to cut down cross city commuting but until Auckland leaves its love affair with cars alone then the following quote applies: “People commute all over Auckland for employment – that is a fact. So even with (new) job bases set up in Tamaki, without transit connections in and out of the Tamaki job base, the community are going to be back to square one as rest of Auckland will just continue to by pass Tamaki and not bring in the much-needed wealth.”
So with the above in mind, connectivity will always be at the forefront of the Tamaki Community Development Plan. The ‘Tamaki Reconnected-The Prelude’ and the ‘Tamaki Reconnected-Overview’ maps highlight the current situation and the proposed plan on addressing Tamaki’s connectivity issue amongst other things.
You can see my Tamaki assignment by hitting the links in the Reference section at the bottom of my post.
The situation at Tamaki would influence my heavily in going for a 50:50 split in transport funding to help better move Auckland than current. Now 50:50 I mean 50% on roads, 50% as Generation Zero call it – Smart Transport Options (or as I call it Mass Transit – which is actually misleading).
Excuse the chopping and changing between Scribd articles but you can see both articles in full by hitting their respective links in the Reference Section at the bottom of this post.
From the Transport Overview section of The Auckland Plan submission
Now when I wrote my submission to The Auckland and Long Term Plans, my work at Tamaki was at the forefront on how it would influence in what would be my 50:50 transport funding/building split for Auckland. This is the Transport Rationale as well as some major proposed projects that were in my submissions:
Before I go on with my alternative objectives for Auckland’s Transport, some truths need to be realised first. These truths not only come from evidence sourced academically, but from one’s experience and reality of living and working in Auckland and interacting with fellow Auckland citizens in the same regard. In my opinion, it is ones experience and (perception of) reality of living and working in Auckland that would form the best foundation for planning Auckland’s transport needs. In simple terms every single Auckland citizen and business would be a transport planner, each uses a mode of transport (if not multi-modal) and can give what they think needs to be done to make their (and often others) transit trips easier and more efficient as they are the ones (rather than relying on planners solely in their Ivory Towers) that would be using the transit system. My submission for Auckland Transport is more based on my experiences and perceptions of reality of the Auckland Transport system rather than using overseas models (as one former Prime Minister said: (“Neither Keynes or Marx, nor indeed [Milton] Friedman, was a New Zealander and the one economic truth that every Minister of Finance should accept is that you cannot take a blueprint from some other economy, slap it on this country, and expect it to work”- Sir Robert Muldoon) – the same applies to planning and transport principles)
My Transport Rationale
Maps 11.1 and 11.3 in Chapter Eleven of The Draft Auckland Plan illustrate the Auckland Transit Network and projects through to 2040. In this submission I am tweaking around Council’s vision into something I believe more viable (economically, environmentally and socially) for the city. My rational acknowledges the fact that I do not agree entirely with the compact city ideal of The Draft Auckland Plan. Rather than this 75:25 split between brownfield/intensification and greenfield split which I see as driving affordability out of households and businesses reach, I advocate (which is also constant with my Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation section of my submission) more of a 50:50 split between the two LADU fields. This 50:50 split would achieve the following: choice of housing and business locations, affordability and economic progress – so as a result transport would be moulded around the 50:50 split.
Apart from a few major things/changes, again I agree mostly with The Draft Auckland Plan’s vision for Auckland Transport system. Therefore the transport section of this submission deals with those major things/changes and my priority system of what should be done over the next thirty years in Auckland. Again for brevity, this submission focuses on the Central Business District and south (but including areas near the Eastern Rail Line).
Those Major Transit Links
As mentioned in the Outline, this submission will focus on what are considered major transit links needed in Auckland to improve the efficiency of the regional transit network. These links are however not limited to:
- Eastern Highway and AMETI
- Inner City Rail Link
- Westfield Rail Diamond Realignment
- South-to-Manukau Rail Link completion
- Rail Station re-deployments/additions (where required)
- Bus route reallocation and priorities
- Future Proof the following lines:
○ Airport Line (from Onehunga-to airport-to main line at Wiri)
○ Botany Line
○ South West Line
○ North Shore Line
These links again would be constant in providing an efficient transit network for a city and LADU allocation around the 50:50 Intensification/Greenfield development split. These major transit links would also assist in the Plan’s main goal around affordability (and economic progress). However again for the sake of brevity and limited resources, this document will only be focusing physical infrastructure development, adding bus or ‘T3’ lanes on existing infrastructure will not be mentioned unless necessary.
You can see a slight bent towards the “Smart Transport” options however at $1.6b-$4b (depending if the Local, Sub Regional, or Regional options were chosen) The Eastern Highway sits right up there with The City Rail Link for substantial mega projects that would benefit ALL of Auckland and the wider NZ Economy.
This transport rational came from my NOW belief of the 60:40 (not 50::50 as per my submissions) Brownfield:Greenfield urban development belief, as well as catering better for cross-city or local commuting rather than just the current CBD-Radial commuting planners “plan” for. Now all that stems from my take on what lies ahead for Auckland through to 2099.
And that is:
The Existing and Historic Conditions of Auckland
Section B (Auckland Now) of The Draft Auckland Plan outlines the existing and historic conditions of Auckland. For the most part this submission agrees with what is outlined in this section – with one exception: Part B (of Section B) – Climate Change and Energy Security.
Again for the most part Auckland (and New Zealand) is vulnerable to energy supply shocks as the city and nation relies highly on imported fuels. However a mix of traditional (fossil fuel) and new (renewable) energy supplies (rather than a skew towards new) need to be implemented to help Auckland make Auckland more resilient to future energy shocks.
Whether one likes it or not traditional energy sources will be with us (Auckland and beyond) until at least the end of this century and the Land Use and Transport ideas mentioned in this submission acknowledge that fact. Measures can be taken to improve the quality of the social and physical environment while traditional energy supplies are still being used. Measures such better fuel quality, better vehicle maintenance and making newer vehicle fleets (that are more fuel-efficient and kinder to the environment) more affordable will go along way in reducing Auckland’s carbon foot print without shocking the economy if more drastic measures were introduced. Sound urban and transport design principles also go some distance in reducing the increasing need for energy and the enlarging carbon foot print. Making sure every residential house is warm and dry will assist in energy consumption being reduced from constant heating and cooling through fires, gas and heat pumps/air conditioning. Sound urban and transport design would allow efficient movement of people and goods – for an efficient transport network reduces energy consumption lost through otherwise inefficient transport movements. Sound Urban design would look at houses and commercial buildings utilising passive means of cooling and heating – again to reduce energy consumption needed for more active modes.
Through natural progression, Auckland will move away from traditional energy sources as new energy sources become more economically viable. I would be against trying to “force” the city away from traditional energy use unless one wants affordability to be thrown out the window, consumers and producers will switch over on their own accord if the alternative is better than the original – its all about freedom of choice.
This is how I see the progression through the energy sources (in this case transport) from traditional to new over the next 100 years.
- Traditional (Oil based)
- Hybrids (as a complement not as a replacement)
- Electrics (as a complement not as a replacement)
- Synthetic Fuels (coal based as New Zealand and Queensland have enough coal for at least 100 years)
- Hydrogen fuel cells (as a total replacement for of traditional and synthetic fuel sources)
Mitigation techniques can be done to improve our energy security and the ever-changing climate – but it must not send the city backwards as the already unaffordable becomes even more unaffordable.
This is where the crux (after reading all the above to which I thank you for your perseverance getting this far) of how I shape my opinions, advocacy and beliefs around urban development and TRANSPORT through until the end of the century.
Without overt interference from The State, I strongly believe that this is the path we will head down for transport (which subsequently can influence urban development trends) until the end of this century. The public will naturally transition through to non-fossil fuel types sources of power (whether through all the above or just some of the above steps) for transport providing The State stays the heck out of our way – although if does need to intervene then do so through encouragement not hindrance.
In conclusion and in short, my transport rationale based what I believe will happen over the next 78-odd years as well as Individual Freedom, Choice, Responsibility and Natural Progression. I am reluctant to alarm or force people over to something else overtly or rapidly as you will find a huge amount of push back from the average citizen.
In saying that though and in a loose line with Generation Zero, shifting our transport to 50:50 between roads and smart transport is a good start in the progression over to an eventual low-carbon and maybe finally non carbon economy. Thus I look for candidates and representatives who take a more balanced approach to transport rather than Dick Quax’s pro-one side and nothing else and a particular blogger I know who advocates for the other-side and nothing else.
As the 2013 Local Government Elections come closer I will continue to go through the other seven ‘What I stand for” points and use them as I shine the light on: Local Board, Council, and/or Mayoral candidates as well as myself. I will also endeavour to compile my extensive “What I Stand For” posts like this one into a nice simple executive style post/form.
In the mean time, if you made it this far – thanks for reading.
Submission to The Auckland Plan
Submission to The Long Term Plan
Tamaki Transformation Project Assignment (University)