Category: General

Everything else

The Reality of Parking in the CBD

· 2 Comments ·

Even a Parking Operation Admits on Public Transport

 

And

 

The Logic I Use When Travelling into The CBD

 

This morning while reading the morning Facebook comments (politicians and councillors are usually online making their statements for the start of the day) I saw this from Councillor Cameron Brewer in regards to CBD parking:

Don’t ever say I’m never nice nor helpful: ‘Mr Brewer, chairman of the Business Advisory Panel, said the council had “done well” to reduce its charges in its three main parking buildings in the central city.’
My friend Alex Swney in the CBD is hoping the private car parking providers will follow suit. In the meantime it’s much cheaper to use council’s Civic, Downtown, and Victoria Street car-parks. That’s my public service announcement for the day…

The article in question from the NZ Herald was this one: Big cities mean big parking bills

As a result I packed the following quip:

Mr Ryan has hit it right on the money – and it is the truth – not that Transport Blog would ever recognise it:
“”The reality is that until Auckland’s public transport services are improved, motor vehicles shall still pour into the city each morning at increasing rates, and these commuters do need to be catered for – and that’s where the private parking companies have a significant role to play.”

 

That spawned off a few questions in Twitter and Facebook while I was away in Manukau however in reply I posted the following over at ATB’s “The cost of parking:”

 

Devils advocate time 😀

Popping my head in here after my Twitter and Facebook remarks I would have to be somewhat “brave.” However while I shall reply to my remarks sometime today (or tomorrow) – actually no I can answer it right here below and it seems to (in my eyes) reinforce the point I made that caught the attention of a few here.

I have noticed the quotes quoted above but the most prominent one has been missed – which was a statement from Mr Ryan which gives further weight to the argument of his quoted above:

“”The reality is that until Auckland’s public transport services are improved, motor vehicles shall still pour into the city each morning at increasing rates, and these commuters do need to be catered for – and that’s where the private parking companies have a significant role to play.”

Whether increasing rates or not is playing around with statistics and something I am not interested in for this part of the debate. Mr Ryan has stated (could be that it is an admission) what is basically the truth of the current situation we face in the CBD. Heck I can vouch for that on more than one occasion both when working for a public transport company (now self-employed) or having to go to the CBD for say the Unitary Plan forums last year.

With work in a particular transport company, the position I was in often required me to start or finish outside of public transport hours, so that meant having my parking paid for and a trip in and out of the CBD from Papakura.

The other case was The Unitary Plan forums last year at Town Hall. I had a choice; train or car. I took the car from Papakura to the CBD, parked, attended the forums and went back home again. Why? Because I am a liberal and “operate” in a way that is sensitive to price and time considerations against me. That means I will choose an option that is the least expensive, the most efficient, the easiest to complete, and most efficient in relation to time spent travelling – when about to undertake my travels.

And so all costs (including time and money) considered it was the car that was used as it filled the criteria above when making my travels (and no I don’t like being coerced either into one option when it is more expensive than the other)

So that meant travelling up and down State Highway One and parking in the AT Civic Parking Building – because to use the train took double the time and 1.3x the cost as it would have by car (and also I think the main forum was on a Saturday which drops the trains to Papakura every half hour to boot)
So I can clearly hear what Mr Ryan is saying in his: “”The reality is that until Auckland’s public transport services are improved, motor vehicles shall still pour into the city each morning at increasing rates, and these commuters do need to be catered for – and that’s where the private parking companies have a significant role to play.” remarks.

He knows and I know that until P/T is improved (and yes I would assume safely that he knows it is being improved constantly) this is the reality of the situation.

So basically I re-highlighted Mr Ryan’s statement on P/T and parking buildings as well as the “logic” I use when deciding to make trips in this case the CBD but also when travelling through wider Auckland. The logic was simple; price and time and which was better when choosing between private and public transport.

 

After that I went for the full comprehensive argument in regards to the transit situation:

If you want me to extend this argument to a more fuller comprehensive situation then lets look at a few comments in Facebook

Again in regards to Cameron Brewers remarks and link to THAT Herald article

We paid $24 for just over an hour, at the parking building across from the gallery. Yes, we could have taken the train in – but the Orakei car park is full by 0800. Incidentally, one of the reason’s Liability Len’s inner city loop will fail to achieve the necessary patronage is the lack of suburban car parks.
Yep – can vouch for that when the Papakura Park and Ride is full.

However this comment lead me to this which has obviously caught the attention of a few here via Twitter and Facebook

That is correct —-. The rail situation is compounded by the following (and excuse me if I am repeating)
1) Lack of Park and Rides especially at the big stations
2) Lack of feeder buses
3) Lack of cycle lockers
4) Stations in the wrong place

Now all this I am trying to bring to AT’s attention next week at the RPTP hearings (wish me luck there) but until then what Mr Ryan said is true and absolute reality

Mr Ryan has hit it right on the money – and it is the truth – not that Transport Blog would ever recognise it:
“”The reality is that until Auckland’s public transport services are improved, motor vehicles shall still pour into the city each morning at increasing rates, and these commuters do need to be catered for – and that’s where the private parking companies have a significant role to play.”

The article can be found here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10861778
You can figure out what would have caught the attention from the above remark (which was made before the post here went up).

If you are trying to understand the “logic” in the quip then sorry not going to explain here – catch up over a coffee, soy latte or an iced drink if you want to understand me and it.

However to me and others I share conversations with it shows the situation which Mr Ryan has stated but Transport Blog did not pick up on (and if so not well enough). This is especially that one could interpret Mr Ryan’s remarks on a read between the lines support in getting p/t to be better (and most likely (if fleshed out fully) as part of a fully integrated transport system – public and private)

Look I would love for the CBD to be free of parking buildings but our P/T system has a very long way to go before that could either be viable. So for now and to me – CBD parking buildings – the necessary “evil”

 

So basically we have the following:

  1. A basic admission of truth from a private parking operator in the CBD
  2. The logic I use when travelling
  3. The Reality on the CBD and Parking

 

And I will use a car if it is more efficient in time and money compared to the nearest public transport option okay? As I said I am a (social) liberal and am sensitive to time, price and efficiency considerations; thus if private transport meets my travelling criteria OVER public transport – then so be it. This is why (and said above) I advocate for a fully integrated transport system catering to both public and private transport options – because I know and experience the reality of the situation and sympathise with other citizens in the same boat as me (which might be the bulk of Auckland).

 

However some (as I do use and will advocate for private transport (as well as public transport)) case me off as the villain due to that (private transport) use and advocacy. As if I care about them. My care is to the citizens and visitors of Auckland and having the full suite of private and public transport options available to them. It is why I advocate the split and private/public integration. And as am example all things considered with Port of Auckland staying put for now I advocate for: The Eastern Highway but; in the same regard advocate for the North Shore, Botany, Airport and South West (Rail) Lines as part of the full integrated transport suite. Oh and as for the Second Harbour Crossing, that would be heavy rail only tunnels – for now.

Also working with politicians on both sides is a must and something I strive to do – both at Central and Local Government Level as it is also a must in getting Auckland moving (forward).

And so this blog will continue to push on

 

BR:AKL’s full integrated transport suite: starting to turn a good transport system into an advanced integrated transport system – one step at a time 😀 

Honesty and Integrity Part Two

·

Democracy Won – Sort Of

 

Result Needed? – Didn’t Happen

 

And so Monday has been and gone, the issue for Howick Local Board basically being kicked into touch until the Local Government Elections in September/October. For just under two hours I watched as the issue of removing the  Local Board Deputy Chair went through its protracted motions in “moving” to remove the Deputy Chair – Adele White, only for the entire process to come to a shuddering halt when the Chair – Caesar Michael Williams after that 2:45 hours withdrew the motion and an amended motion to “fix” the underlying issue was passed.

 

What was the situation?

Honesty and Integrity – Such is a Demand of OUR Civic Leaders

 

This particular issue has been simmering away for a while but has just recently come to (over)boiling point as the particular issue comes to ahead tomorrow evening.

The particular issue? Howick Local Board Chair Michael Williams trying to force his Deputy Chair Adele White to “stand down” or be “forced” to be “stood down.” The reason for this? The real reason is currently unknown despite what is coming through the Main Stream Media, Facebook and Whale Oil.

Now one might be asking: Why is BR:AKL bringing this up now rather one of his Rail Efficiency Posts, or Rates and Len Brown posts.  Well the REP, Rates and Len Brown posts will be still coming, however I am bringing up the Williams issue two-fold; first is that I have been watching this issue from the word get-go, second the issue falls into the branch of “What Do I Stand For and Believe In – For a Better Auckland.”

…

 

Result after Monday?

  • Best political scrap I have ever seen in a while
  • The Deputy Chair remaining
  • Cowards hiding behind silence of procedure
  • Character attacks
  • A Board still effectively paralysed
  • Democracy still on critical life-support even after the victory for Adele White
  • Honesty and Integrity still not there
  • Oh and the best sledge I have ever seen from a person

 

Whale Oil – Cameron Slater was also at the proceedings on Monday and gives a pretty good account of it over at his blog:

A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE FORUM, CAESAR GOT RINSED

by Whaleoil on January 22, 2013

Last night was a delight to behold politically, deep in Pakuranga. I haven’t enjoyed a political meeting like that in quite sometime.

A tin pot dictator got rinsed. It took three hours but the momentum through the night built and built and built and still the dictator tried it on…only in the face of certain defeat did he through in the towel and move to remove the motion from the paper…a gutless cowardly end to a night of even more gutlessness and cowardice from Michael Williams and his band of dupes.

In the end Caesar was in fact stabbed by Brutus, as I predicted.

The evening started by a move of venue. The original venue was too small and was inundated by 5:30pm. Eventually around 200 people showed up to witness a good old-fashioned political shellacking.

The first order of business in the standing room only hall was the presentation of a petition organised by Jami-lee Ross with 821 signatures supporting Adele White. Jami-lee Ross spoke for ten minutes strongly and forcefully, making several strong points including using Steve Udy’s quote describing Michael Williams as having a Caesar Complex. He finished to a standing ovation after mentioning road safety several times.

Then 12 citizens who had asked to speak, one after the other stood and spoke and all spoke in favour of the work of Adele White, and against the cowardly bullying of Michael Williams and his group of other cowards. They were all very strong speakers and some directly attacked the actions of Michael Williams and Jim Donald.

David Collings added drama by endlessly raising points of order against Michael Williams and eventually proposed a motion to be added to the original motion. He tried to also add a motion to debate the recent news of Michael Williams drunk driving but Williams pals saw that off.

…

You can read the rest over at WO.

 

But it is this point Slater made that hit the mark home:

If Michael Williams was an honourable man he would resign today. He failed utterly and has no integrity and no shame.

Go Caesar, go now, before the mob gets angry.

 

Williams did not resign – and will not resign until the voters of the Howick Local Board area throw him out at the next elections (Lord help us if that does not happen) and this is where Honesty and Integrity basically collapsed and Democracy still been bludgeoned to near death by Caesar Williams and his Deputy Jim Donald (who should have been (I have to be polite) put out to pasture long, long ago).

How?

Because Caesar Williams and now Jim Donald (an accomplice is just as guilty as the original sinner) are still absolutely and utterly in contempt of these two points made in my Honesty and Integrity (MK I ) post:

What The Williams Affair does show is that Michael Williams is in contempt in two main areas that I hold civic leaders to that allows him to execute his duties as Chair of the Howick Local Board. They are:

1) Open Governance: I believe in open governance where the public can sit in, listen and where possible discuss “matters-of-state” as much as possible with their representatives. None of this hiding behind closed doors (except for commercially sensitive material that does come up from time to time), and fessing up when you know you have stuffed up. You might find the public are more sympathetic you one acknowledges and apologies for a legitimate mistake

And

2) Listen and Engage: God gave us two ears and one mouth. In my line of work you actively listen with both ears THEN engage in dialogue with your one mouth. Not the other way around as that is usually monologue and the fastest way to get your ears clipped. Same applies to civic institutions:  you actively listen with both ears THEN engage in dialogue with your one mouth unless you like getting your ears clipped… Oh and remember some days all the person wants you to do is JUST LISTEN to their little piece – as all we want some days is just to get it off our chests.

Monday night showed in its absolute display Williams and Donald unable (most likely never could even comprehend to begin with) act with honesty and integrity (Such as a Demand of Our Civic Leaders – for which they are) and fulfil those two rather easy and straight forward “commitments.” I had a great deal of sympathy for the ratepayers of the Howick Local Board area and those few Local Board members who do act with honesty and integrity and actually fulfil the two points made above, because they (those Local Board Members) are in the minority while representing the majority of good local citizens. The sympathy lies (and was proven) in the fact the Local Board is in a state of paralyse at the worst POSSIBLE TIME.

 

I have mentioned in the first Honesty and Integrity post of the Unitary Plan and the resources needed from Local Boards to do what they need to do to make sure the Unitary Plan does not adversely affect them (which in the form I am hearing – will):

The Howick Local Board needs its absolute resources and dedication with a clear conscious and voice that can handle robust debate and outside-the-square thinking as the Unitary Plan comes rocking to all of our doors. You Mr Williams cloud that conscious and voice and could do very well irreparable damage to Howick due to your “short-comings” that can not be fixed and lack of proper judgement and responsibility in your mistakes (drunk driving and resisting arrest).

Your Caucus Leader, Councillor Chris Fletcher spells out the such high risk in the game that is called The Unitary Plan:

“Been pondering over summer why Auckland Council is hell bent on accommodating an extra million people. Auckland’s relatively small (internationally speaking) population gives us a natural competitive advantage. Leaves me wondering about the drivers of the Unitary Plan.”

 

And I’ll further add to the weight of Councillor Fletcher’s concern:

“The current Stats NZ population clock has us I believe just shy of 1.5m people. Current conservative and “normal” projections have Auckland at 2 million by 2032-ish while high end has 2 million by 2024-ish. I believe it is a case of when and not if (this is the 5th attempt to get this section edited) we get to 2 million – so I suppose Council is being prudent in its planning via The Unitary Plan for it.

However what needs to be watched is Council “forcing” growth (to suit an (usually failed) agenda rather than allowing growth to happen at a more natural and organic rate (leave what be) and planning around that.

 

How the heck can Howick trust you now Mr Williams when (to me and as I expect my Civic Leaders to have regardless of “jurisdiction” crap) when this entire mess shows you clearly have no honesty and integrity in you to execute the responsibilities of Local Board Chair when your community is staring down the barrel of the Unitary Plan to which Councillor Fletcher, and myself have just vividly pointed out.

 

That last question above still applies even after Monday, even after Adele White stays on as Deputy Chair, even after the amended motion to “fix” the underlying issues paralysing the Local Board. “How the heck can Howick trust you now Mr Williams when (to me and as I expect my Civic Leaders to have regardless of “jurisdiction” crap) when this entire mess shows you clearly have no honesty and integrity in you to execute the responsibilities of Local Board Chair when your community is staring down the barrel of the Unitary Plan” and was raised by your own constituents time and time again on Monday.

 

As good as intentions the amended motion was “resolve” the issues, there at times when things can not be fixed and need to be turfed out and replaced. With Williams and Donald (who were in deep discussion with one another after Monday’s proverbial collective spanking they received) still there and fully capable of doing what they have done (leopard does not change its spots) I don’t expect much fence mending to occur – nor sadly the collective fire power be gathered that will be needed for Len and Penny’s Unitary Plan.

 

With prayer and luck Howick can “hang on” until September/October when they can vote in a new Local Board (bringing back the honest ones and dumping the dishonest ones). Hopefully Howick Local Board has enough resources and energy left to fight their way through the Unitary Plan process. And hopefully Caesar William’s damage to Howick does not spread to the other Local Boards nor the Main Council (so far it doesn’t seem so).

 

 

While we hope this issue is long and buried, sadly I doubt it will be as maximum friction will undoubtedly continue. More blood will be spilt, more of the Caesar complex will continue, and honesty and integrity will continue to allude some. So while Democracy sort of won – in Adele White staying, Democracy also lost in Williams not resigning from Chair and the Board…

 

An eye will be kept on Howick Local Board as this term runs down.

 

And yes finally, Caesar got “rinsed” and Adele White dropped this pearler of a sledge:

She finished up her speech with an outstanding sledge where she referred to fellow board member Shirley Warren’s previous role as Michael Williams’ play centre teacher. She said she was sorry to tell Mrs Warren that she didn’t do a good job with Mr Williams because “He doesn’t share his toys and he doesn’t play nicely.”

The crowd roared with approval.

 

Honesty and Integrity

·

Such is a Demand of OUR Civic Leaders

 

This particular issue has been simmering away for a while but has just recently come to (over)boiling point as the particular issue comes to ahead tomorrow evening.

The particular issue? Howick Local Board Chair Michael Williams trying to force his Deputy Chair Adele White to “stand down” or be “forced” to be “stood down.” The reason for this? The real reason is currently unknown despite what is coming through the Main Stream Media, Facebook and Whale Oil.

Now one might be asking: Why is BR:AKL bringing this up now rather one of his Rail Efficiency Posts, or Rates and Len Brown posts.  Well the REP, Rates and Len Brown posts will be still coming, however I am bringing up the Williams issue two-fold; first is that I have been watching this issue from the word get-go, second the issue falls into the branch of “What Do I Stand For and Believe In – For a Better Auckland.”

 

To bring readers into the loop I point to these two articles/posts; one from The Herald, the other from Whale Oil.

From The Herald on Sunday (HoS):

Power play foiled by arrest

By Joanne Carroll

5:30 AM Sunday Jan 20, 2013

A local politician from a leafy, well-to-do village has been charged with drink-driving and refusing to accompany a police officer. Michael Williams, a chartered accountant and the Howick Local Board chairman, faces a defended hearing at the Manukau District Court on March 1.

Williams was charged after the roadside incident in May but has kept the matter from his board members amid his bid to replace deputy chairwoman Adele White, who is also a senior police constable. Williams is charged with being more than twice the legal limit with a reading of 169ml of alcohol per litre of blood, and refusing to accompany a police officer in Auckland on May 10.

The stoush between Williams and his deputy has drawn the National MP for the area, Jami-Lee Ross, into posting an online petition backing White. Ross’ wife, Lucy Schwaner, is also a board member.

Ross and Williams ran together in the Citizens and Ratepayers Team for the 2010 local election.

Ross yesterday told the Herald on Sunday the charges against Williams gave “some new context to his attempt to oust a well-known and respected senior constable”.

…

You can read the rest over at HoS

 

Two pieces from Whale Oil:

CAESAR MICHAEL WILLIAMS FACING COURT FOR DRUNK DRIVING

by Whaleoil on January 20, 2013

Oh dear me look at what Michael Williams has been hiding from councillors as he makes his powerplay to dump Adele White from the Deputy Chair role at the Howick Local Board.

And

WILL HE STAY ON? THE PROBLEM WITH MICHAEL WILLIAMS

by Whaleoil on January 20, 2013

There are a number of issues that stem from the Herald revelations into Michael Williams’ problems.

 

WO goes on and lists the four sticky problems Williams is basically now looking at.

 

While I am trundling along to the Howick Local Board meeting this evening to watch the “proceedings” I must say I am not particularly amused by Williams actions which brings the Howick Local Board into disrepute in the eyes of not only their constituents but also the eyes of the wider city.

Furthermore Williams’s actions not only not doing Communities and Residents (C&R) any favours right now as they get ready to contest the 2013 Local Government Elections, but his actions can (if they have not done so already) paralyse the Local Board in dedicating every single last utter resource they very well need in making sure The Unitary Plan (released soon) does not adversely affect them (which I have an idea it might).

However as far as I can see at the moment; The Williams Affair has not spread its poison to the Main Council level (yet) and is not hampering the four C&R Councillors in their duties on the Main Governing Body and respective Committees.

 

What The Williams Affair does show is that Michael Williams is in contempt in two main areas that I hold civic leaders to that allows him to execute his duties as Chair of the Howick Local Board. They are:

1) Open Governance: I believe in open governance where the public can sit in, listen and where possible discuss “matters-of-state” as much as possible with their representatives. None of this hiding behind closed doors (except for commercially sensitive material that does come up from time to time), and fessing up when you know you have stuffed up. You might find the public are more sympathetic you one acknowledges and apologies for a legitimate mistake

And

2) Listen and Engage: God gave us two ears and one mouth. In my line of work you actively listen with both ears THEN engage in dialogue with your one mouth. Not the other way around as that is usually monologue and the fastest way to get your ears clipped. Same applies to civic institutions:  you actively listen with both ears THEN engage in dialogue with your one mouth unless you like getting your ears clipped… Oh and remember some days all the person wants you to do is JUST LISTEN to their little piece – as all we want some days is just to get it off our chests.

 

By virtue of extension Williams failed this aspect of Open Governance: “fessing up when you know you have stuffed up. You might find the public are more sympathetic you one acknowledges and apologies for a legitimate mistake.”

Drink driving is a scourge New Zealand and must always be actively discouraged. Resisting arrest is just plain dumb and shows no sympathy from me. If you are arrested, you might as well go quietly and “sort it” at the station rather than making a total ass of yourself plus making things more difficult than it should be. What might have been a slap across the wrist if you cooperated with the police (knowing you stuffed up) now turns into basically what Mr Williams is now facing – more damage than required… As a Civic Leader (Chair of the Local Board) I expect Mr Williams to have been straight up with his Board members and his constituents when “done” for being off his trolley while driving and to show an added amount of respect to the position of Chair, stand aside on Gardening Leave until sorted. While the Drink Driving Charge would have annoyed people to no certain ends, being open, straight up/honest, and taking responsibility would have made the effects much less than Williams obstinate approach which has riled the community up (also having two people on the Local Board working for the police provides a catalyst to the situation as well). So what is Williams playing at here? Caesar complex as one of his yes-men said or as I call it “Small-Man-Syndrome.”

 

As for the ‘Listen and Engage’ part; from what I can see with this entire Deputy Chair situation, Mr Williams is incapable beyond any doubt of fulfilling the ‘Listen and Engage’ part as mentioned above. Now while ‘Listen and Engage’ was implied to the politicians, bureaucrats and the ratepayer; again by virtue of extension (must look for a new term in the thesaurus) this is also implied between a Chair and Deputy Chair on a Board as well as THE ENTIRE BOARD when debating amongst themselves. However upon reading this (and I am going to take it from Whale Oil as it had a better analogy):

From Whale Oil:

One of his little band of helpers who were seeking to knife Adele White, Steve Udys also has an interesting turn of phrase:

“What I would say is he has been a little bit silly but that has nothing to do with Adele not being the right person for the job. He may have a Caesar complex but we have to live with that,”

Caesar? More like Mussolini. I wonder if Udys will now act like Brutus and knife him on the way to the meeting. Steve Udys thinks that this issue has nothing to do with Adele White, he is wrong. His contention is that Adele White is too busy to fulfil the role of Deputy Chair. Each of those board members seeking to unseat Adele White should now ask themselves how a person with a full-time senior role in a company, who is facing charges on drunk driving and failing to accompany a police officer (arrested, in other words) can possibly remain on the board, let alone chair the meeting. This isn’t a couple of beers over the limit either, this is twice the legal limit. It isn’t like Michael Williams hasn’t had problems with the bottle before.

A drunk driving, arrest resisting, board member with a Caesar complex isn’t someone we really want representing us is it?

ROLE MODELS:

Adele White teaches kids how to be safe on the road.

Michael Williams teaches kids how to be a drunk driver on the road.

 

Caesar, Mussolini, and/or Small-Man-Syndrome – whatever you want to call it – it is applying here in spades and that is unfortunate. Furthermore from what I have gathered from various electronic sources on the entire Williams situation, it has been implied that he is nothing but a bully who surrounds himself by “yes-men” in order to get HIS agenda through – not the communities agenda. Deputy Chair Adele White is being seen as the (might be lone however I doubt that) voice of outside-the-square thinking and logic in Howick community affairs. Knowing Williams suffers from S.M.S this outside-the-square thinking and logic dares to have a voice and would fly against everything Williams “stands for.” However there might be more beyond this but I can’t be certain in this entire mess come saga. Talk about a Caesar complex alright.

 

In my take and opinion on all things we need more people like Adele White and their outside-the-box thinking, logic and voice – who get the job done in benefit on their communities; and less people like Michael Williams who are nothing but absolute bullies and counter productive to real and true progression of their communities (due to often advancing things to their own personal gain). Does Michael Williams hold the Honesty and Integrity required to be a Civic Leader? The answer is NO.

 

Time to go Mr Williams, before your poison spreads and damages the rest of C&R in Auckland as well as detracting the main four C&R Councillors from doing their jobs.

The Howick Local Board needs its absolute resources and dedication with a clear conscious and voice that can handle robust debate and outside-the-square thinking as the Unitary Plan comes rocking to all of our doors. You Mr Williams cloud that conscious and voice and could do very well irreparable damage to Howick due to your “short-comings” that can not be fixed and lack of proper judgement and responsibility in your mistakes (drunk driving and resisting arrest).

Your Caucus Leader, Councillor Chris Fletcher spells out the such high risk in the game that is called The Unitary Plan:

“Been pondering over summer why Auckland Council is hell bent on accommodating an extra million people. Auckland’s relatively small (internationally speaking) population gives us a natural competitive advantage. Leaves me wondering about the drivers of the Unitary Plan.”

 

And I’ll further add to the weight of Councillor Fletcher’s concern:

“The current Stats NZ population clock has us I believe just shy of 1.5m people. Current conservative and “normal” projections have Auckland at 2 million by 2032-ish while high end has 2 million by 2024-ish. I believe it is a case of when and not if (this is the 5th attempt to get this section edited) we get to 2 million – so I suppose Council is being prudent in its planning via The Unitary Plan for it.

However what needs to be watched is Council “forcing” growth (to suit an (usually failed) agenda rather than allowing growth to happen at a more natural and organic rate (leave what be) and planning around that.

 

How the heck can Howick trust you now Mr Williams when (to me and as I expect my Civic Leaders to have regardless of “jurisdiction” crap) when this entire mess shows you clearly have no honesty and integrity in you to execute the responsibilities of Local Board Chair when your community is staring down the barrel of the Unitary Plan to which Councillor Fletcher, and myself have just vividly pointed out.

 

If you Mr Williams acted with that honesty and integrity as so demanded from us to you, forgiveness would have been easier to ascertain and moving forward much easier than what is here now regardless of which way the courts would have swung (although resisting arrest deserves one massive ass-kicking by every person living in your community).

 

But now we have this 6pm meeting tonight – in Howick to which I am going to trundle along and watch. Lets see if you Mr Williams will using this final shot to act honestly and with integrity and stand down as Chair of the Howick Local Board until your date with the Courts are over…

 

[insert Tui Ad and pigs fly remark here]

Brewer and Transparency

·

Some Are – Some Are Not

 

Transparent…

 

One thing people like is transparency, especially if it is either their money or lives (livelihoods) being affected by the said corporation or civic institution. In my “What Do I Stand For and Believe In – For a Better Auckland” post I make mention of: “Open Governance: I believe in open governance where the public can sit in, listen and where possible discuss “matters-of-state” as much as possible with their representatives. None of this hiding behind closed doors (except for commercially sensitive material that does come up from time to time), and fessing up when you know you have stuffed up. You might find the public are more sympathetic you one acknowledges and apologies for a legitimate mistake”

By virtue of extension; Open Governance also applies to being transparent to the ratepayer as well – especially in regards to “costs” that come out of the ratepayers pocket.

 

Yet we have a case of a Council Controlled Organisations (CCO) (Watercare (Auckland Transport figures seems to be out but not released currently)) being transparent with the ratepayer and Councillors , but the Main Council Body not being transparent with the ratepayer and councillors (this especially from the Council Planning Department…).

 

From the NZ Herald:

Watercare opens up on legal costs

By Bernard Orsman BernardOrsman

5:30 AM Thursday Jan 17, 2013

CCO’s willingness to offer data lesson in transparency for council, says councillor.

Watercare Services is teaching its big brother Auckland Council a lesson in accountability and transparency by releasing details of how much it is spending with city law firms.

Auckland Council is refusing to release details of millions of dollars of spending with city law firms, saying it may prejudice future negotiations.

The only information the council’s general counsel, Wendy Brandon, is prepared to release is that the council uses a number of law firms and the five highest paid over the past two years were Brookfields, Buddle Findlay, Kensington Swan, Meredith Connell and Simpson Grierson – in alphabetical order.

Ms Brandon’s insistence to limit the details of legal costs from ratepayers is not shared by Watercare’s corporate affairs manager, David Hawkins, who has given a breakdown of 33 law firms used by the council body in the past two years and how much each was paid from total spending of $6.26 million.

The figures ranged from $522 to Rob Webber and Associates to $2,686,705 to Russell McVeagh.

The approaches are outlined in information collected by councillor Cameron Brewer into legal costs by the council and seven council-controlled organisations (CCOs).

The figures show that legal costs for Watercare and Auckland Transport increased by 34 per cent and 127 per cent respectively between 2011 and 2012, which both CCOs put down to costs for big construction projects.

Council acting chief executive and chief finance officer Andrew McKenzie said that overall the Auckland Council group had cut its legal costs by about $3.6 million, or just over 9 per cent.

Mr Brewer said Watercare’s 34 per cent rise in outside legal costs did not make good reading, but at least they did not hide behind the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. “Watercare didn’t see the need to protect themselves or the legal firms they use, so I can’t see why the rest of the council can’t show the same transparency.”

…

You can read the rest over at the Herald.

 

So Watercare have stumped up but the Main Council will not (while waiting on AT).

 

Councillor Brewer had this further to say:

From NewsTalk ZB

Councillor calls for transparency over legal costs

By: Aroha Tahau | Latest Auckland News | Friday January 18 2013 10:17

One Auckland City councillor is appalled the council won’t publicly release details on how much its paying different legal firms.The council’s total legal bill this year was 21 million dollars, but when councillor Cameron Brewer asked about a break down of where the funds were going, the council refused.

Councillor for Orakei, Cameron Brewer says Mayor Len Brown promised transparency and now he needs to publicly say what money is going to different legal firms.

“Ratepayers deserve to know where in fact council is spending its legal budget. At this stage we know that they’re spending over $21 million per annum but they refuse to tell us what legal companies are indeed benefiting.

“I’m calling for the council to come clean, to be transparent, something that the mayor campaigned on and actually come out with how much we’re paying what legal firms around Auckland.”

 

And from Facebook:

The council has refused to release me information about how much they are paying each of the city’s big law firms. Today I call on them to show the same transparency Watercare has shown. Going to the Ombudsman may be my only option. The council group spends over $21m a year on legal bills. Should the public know where this is going?
Watercare opens up on legal costs – National – NZ Herald News
Watercare Services is teaching its big brother Auckland Council a lesson in accountability and transparency by releasing details of how much it is spending with city law firms.
  • Alice-Margaret Midgley Absolutely agree Cameron.
  • Ben Ross Okay – what are the officers hiding now?
  • Stephen Maire How can Brown refuse??? Still another valid reason to cease paying rates imo.
    • Ben Ross By law and definition he can not refuse. Watercare I take my hat off to, yeah their Legal Bills might of been ugly per se but least they released them immediately so that I cant get double angry on the actual bills AS WELL AS stalling. Sure I might be peeved with Watercare over their legal bills, but that peeved will last around 2 seconds and all is well.

      As for the Main Council, well stalling now keeps the anger sustained much longer and will have me peering through the eventual reports with an electron microscope.

      The old saying goes: You get pulled over by a cop, you hand over your licence and answer his questions true-fully with no added lip and you walk away with a fine. Give him lip and hello he is going to do the full works including Rego, WoF, tyres, springs, rust, position of plates, lights and even maybe the horn. Not only is that time consuming for you but your risk of the dreaded pink sticker became that much higher – al because you gave lip

      Council is now in the same situation… which means – idiots
  • Gary Holmes So…. the council is more than happy to release details on the private lives of elected members via the annual declaration of interest (which i still refuse to complete) but won’t tell us how they are spending ratepayers money. The old Auckland City practice of officers thinking they control the place continues I see……..
    Mark Donnelly That’s incredible arrogance! Can’t see how they can justify not giving you the information. Can’t be private commercial, as anyone who contracts with Council knows it can become public knowledge – look at Tender information.
    Was this done at CEO level?
    btw – do senior managers maintai a “gift” register? ie corporate hosting etc etc
    • Ben Ross Umm with respect I think the idea might not be to bring attention to one’s self especially with the Annual Declaration of Interest List – the idea is not give someone an idea to go having a look through there especially with elections so close .

      However for the rest of the argument yes I agree with you there Gary 

      Hey now that Main Council is stalling while Watercare is playing ball – shall we now look at the rest of the CCOs?
    • Aaron Bhatnagar Actually, I found Auckland City officers pretty responsive to our directives to open up matters. Things under the Hubbard term was pretty bad, but the Banks Term part 2 was widely acknowledged as good for transparency and openness. A lot of stuff that was done in confidential committee work was put back into open. Stuff that was confidential was done for discussion, and then when the result was achieved, the results could be released into the open. Stopped the political leaking by both sides too.

      I do struggle to understand why the sum of council legal bills can’t be published. I can understand why the negotiations over billing levels wouldn’t be published, but that is a different thing.
    • Gary Holmes Good point Ben however its worth considering why do they council need to know who your partner or spouse works for, who you bank with, what groups you are a member of, what companies you have shares in and the list goes on. As Local Board Members, who have no decision making ability on contracts etc, it is not required, especially when the Council imposed that code of conduct on Local Boards without consultation. I have fought this one for the past two years and will continue to do so! Time for that coffee Ben
    • Ben Ross Time for that Coffee indeed – I shall reply to that in a moment (needing coffee at home right now – going to be a very long day here)
  • Stephen Maire Brown is the picture of arrogance unfortunately. He thinks its leadership style. But he is deluded and possibly mentally unfit for his position. Heart attack survivors often suffer such mental malady.
  • Gary Holmes i don’t necessarily think this is the mayor’s decision, more likely to be the CEO and his senior management.
  • Stephen Maire The buck stops with Brown. He must have full knowledge of this. If he does not, then we have a serious problem that needs immediate attention and action on behalf of the ratepayer.
  • Robyn Forryan Keep pushing Cameron you are already having an impact and the public have the right to know this information.
  • Stephen Maire And we shall also remember and be exceedingly grateful for your efforts on our collective behalf Mr. Brewer.
  • Jules Clark What’s required is some CPR … “Cease Paying Rates”!
  • David Cooper Keep pushing Cameron you will out of a job soon..
  • Wayne Davis You can bet the TOP guys are getting a GOOD shot at any fees,same as Council consultants. The Waitakere City Council had Kennsington Swann, hate to think what Auckland Council use!!

 

Open Governance which includes being transparent with costs and actions by your civic institutions.

 

My point was made above in regards to one aspect of being transparent – especially if some flak or anger might come your way:

“By law and definition he can not refuse. Watercare I take my hat off to, yeah their Legal Bills might have been ugly per se but least they released them immediately so that I can’t get double angry on the actual bills AS WELL AS stalling. Sure I might be peeved with Watercare over their legal bills, but that peeved will last around 2 seconds and all is well.

As for the Main Council, well stalling now keeps the anger sustained much longer and will have me peering through the eventual reports with an electron microscope.

The old saying goes: You get pulled over by a cop, you hand over your licence and answer his questions true-fully with no added lip and you walk away with a fine. Give him lip and hello he is going to do the full works including Rego, WoF, tyres, springs, rust, position of plates, lights and even maybe the horn. Not only is that time-consuming for you but your risk of the dreaded pink sticker became that much higher – al because you gave lip

Council is now in the same situation… which means – idiots”
This would stem from this part in the “What Do I Stand For and Believe In – For a Better Auckland:” None of this hiding behind closed doors (except for commercially sensitive material that does come up from time to time), and fessing up when you know you have stuffed up. You might find the public are more sympathetic you one acknowledges and apologies for a legitimate mistake.”

While Watercare have not stuffed up per se (still got questions on a big jump with the legal bills for last year however) at least they have made deliberate attempts to annoy Councillors or ratepayers – thank you Watercare.

 

As for the Council Main Body – we hiding something that we ought to know about? It is our money you know…

 

A Direct Message to Auckland Transport

·

Yes I am Talking to You

 

Yesterday I posted about the 2011 and 2012 rail patronage statistics coming through via a Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act request. In the same post down at the bottom a “direct” message was also written “to” Auckland Transport.

 

I am going to repost the message to AT here after the “irony” alarms were set off this morning in Twitter. No sooner than I had tweeted that: “Awaits to see if anyone from @AkTransportBlog has another “moment” on the buses or trains this morning #whyohwhy #basicsfirst” – a comment came up from one of their regular readers saying: “My 8:05am 839 outbound Shore bus started 13min late due to Transpower & @AklTransport closing Fanshawe bus lane. You closed the wrong lane!”

Face-palm right there. Last I checked the Transpower works on Franshawe Street continue until March when “March-Madness” occurs (that being schools, universities and all businesses are back and transport systems face a large surge). So if problems are coming up now down at Franshawe then Lord help those in February and March if it does go to custard down there.

 

So here it is again – my message to Auckland Transport

 

I am not your enemy and I don’t want to be your enemy.

Your goal is the same as my goal (I think after a head scratch) and that is: to build and maintain (and this includes in the customer service satisfaction and confidence in using our public transport) a world-class public transport system that is: easy to access, easy to use, easy to understand, and most of all it is affordable to all – for our most liveable City.

However something has gone horribly wrong your direction and we are now seeing a sustained and systemic patronage slip in our rail network – a backbone (but not the sole back bone) to keeping the citizens and visitors of this city moving. I have no interest in attacking you Auckland Transport as that is counter-productive.

But your experiences that I have had with you both good but more hostility does not (and with absolute respect) leave me with much confidence in you nor your abilities in achieving the goal – it just simply does not. What is not also helping in my confidence towards you is the feedback I hear from infrequent and frequent passengers – customers of Auckland Transport on the public transport system which I am sorry as much as I want positives, I only see overtly negative feedback on experiences.

Your goal is my goal and all I want to do – am trying to do is as a ratepayer (your master, your employer – not the other way around) is “do my bit in” making our transport system better. Whether that be through praise in what you do right, constructive criticism to overcome the weaknesses, or offer alternatives and ideas others might not have thought of in getting our transport system moving forwards – not backwards as we are seeing; this is my way in doing my part in achieving the goal so that our transport system  is: easy to access, easy to use, easy to understand, and most of all it is affordable to all – for our most Liveable City.

You would have now doubt read my “FIRST STEP IN IMPROVING AUCKLAND’S PUBLIC TRANSPORT” post that sums up the current feelings towards you – Auckland Transport on the customer service and experience of the current system; and if you haven’t then I recommend strongly in reading it.

So what say you Auckland Transport – I am pitching with everything I have (skills, experience, knowledge, ideas, and pure passion and enthusiasm (my former co-workers can vouch for those two) to you – to make our transport system a better place in partnership with you. You know where to find me, you know where to contact me.

I await your reply. 

 

-Message End-

 

2011-2012 Rail Patronage Stats – And a Direct Message to AT

·

2011-2012 Rail Patronage Stats – For Auckland

 

Direct Message to Auckland Transport also included

 

While undertaking my normal cruising through blogs and social media that I keep an eye on, someone had filed a Local Government Official Meetings and Information Act (LGOIMA) request into the 2011 and 2012 Auckland rail patronage statistics – in which the numbers have been released by Auckland Transport.

 

You can see the patronage information HERE on page two or in the embed below

Accordingly the disclaimer from Auckland Transport applies: “The following sets out the observations of train passenger boardings by station following a single weekday sample during the month of May. The data is representative of a “typical” weekday usage but is subject to daily/seasonal variances. Auckland Transport does not warrant the accuracy of the counts.”

Source: Auckland Transport

It is of also to note that it is mentioned by Auckland Transport that there were service disruptions (I am trying to remember them) in 2011 and 2012 which “could have” affected “normal” patronage demand on the network.

 

So in other words the statistics are pretty next to worthless as you need an uninterrupted day to gauge “normal” patronage demand properly.

 

The Request and Stats

Source: Auckland Transport

Disclaimer: [as above]

 

What can I get out of these stats?

  • Papakura is still the third busiest station
  • Increase on patronage on the Western Line but slump on the Southern and Eastern Lines (again there were disruptions on those life which WILL affect numbers)
  • Onehunga is underwhelming – which means those passengers are getting on at Ellersile making the Onehunga trains appear busy in the peaks
  • Manukau. The comment from my Facebook will be more apt in describing this one:
    • As for Manukau, well George you and I have been down this road with Manukau. With the station 700 metres short to where it short and an observation on that concrete post, it was the entire reason behind my urgency to you and Mike Lee to see that South Link be built in order to get that patronage up

 

Now arguably these measurements were done in May when (looking at the Auckland Transport rolling 12-month patronage statistics) there was still growth, however since August 2012 there has been what is now a systemic and noticeable decline kicking the patronage levels back to July-August 2011 levels (so a full total back slide rendering efforts and good work gone in – useless). You can see my views on this backsliding over at my “FIRST STEP IN IMPROVING AUCKLAND’S PUBLIC TRANSPORT” post.

 

To which I have this message to Auckland Transport:

 

I am not your enemy and I don’t want to be your enemy.

Your goal is the same as my goal (I think after a head scratch) and that is: to build and maintain (and this includes in the customer service satisfaction and confidence in using our public transport) a world-class public transport system that is: easy to access, easy to use, easy to understand, and most of all it is affordable to all – for our most liveable City.

However something has gone horribly wrong your direction and we are now seeing a sustained and systemic patronage slip in our rail network – a backbone (but not the sole back bone) to keeping the citizens and visitors of this city moving. I have no interest in attacking you Auckland Transport as that is counter-productive.

But your experiences that I have had with you both good but more hostility does not (and with absolute respect) leave me with much confidence in you nor your abilities in achieving the goal – it just simply does not. What is not also helping in my confidence towards you is the feedback I hear from infrequent and frequent passengers – customers of Auckland Transport on the public transport system which I am sorry as much as I want positives, I only see overtly negative feedback on experiences.

Your goal is my goal and all I want to do – am trying to do is as a ratepayer (your master, your employer – not the other way around) is do my bit in making our transport system better. Whether that be through praise in what you do right, constructive criticism to overcome the weaknesses, or offer alternatives and ideas others might not have thought of in getting our transport system moving forwards – not backwards as we are seeing; this is my way in doing my part in achieving the goal so that our transport system  is: easy to access, easy to use, easy to understand, and most of all it is affordable to all – for our most Liveable City.

You would have now doubt read my “FIRST STEP IN IMPROVING AUCKLAND’S PUBLIC TRANSPORT” post that sums up the current feelings towards you – Auckland Transport on the customer service and experience of the current system; and if you haven’t then I recommend strongly in reading it.

So what say you Auckland Transport – I am pitching with everything I have (skills, experience, knowledge, ideas, and pure passion and enthusiasm (my former co-workers can vouch for those two) to you – to make our transport system a better place in partnership with you. You know where to find me, you know where to contact me.

I await your reply. 

 

A Letter from A Councillor

·

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

 

 

 

Alternative City Planning/Building

·

What I Do in my Downtime

 

From time to time in my downtime I go an embark on some “alternative” city planning and building. That being off to play a round of Cities XL 2012 for a couple of hours busy planning, building, rebuilding and managing the city/town/village. Currently on the “planet” I have 6 cities or villages under way, each specialising on a specific task at hand. Whether that be a farming town to supply food to the other cities, or a holiday town for people to get a way and relax, or a big hulking industrial and commerce centre as a central point of interactions.

At the moment I am busy focusing on Delta City, a city that will be a large hulking industrial and manufacturing centre coupled to an extensive port to “export” and “import” all the trade of the other five cities.

Delta City is at 202,000 and growing surely but steadily as it becomes the manufacturing hub on the “region.”

 

Here are a couple of teaser shots of Delta City:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

For all the current 212 shots you can visit the Delta City Slideshow HERE!

 

Now one wonders how I get thus far with such a large city? Well this next shot does help:

Photobucket

 

These snapshots which I take an overview shot of the city then doodle lines on them happen when I am embarking on major transport and/or urban development projects. In this case I am planning for major road thoroughfares and bypasses to move the bulk of the cars, trucks and buses around as Delta City continues to sprawl outwards.

 

Now for our public transport junkies (or mass transit as said in North America) there is no mass transit currently in Delta City. However extensive tram tracks as well as the Operation Centres for buses and trams has been built. The next step is to build the bus and tram depots, then the tram/bus stops, then the actual routes themselves for the citizens to use. This of course takes a bit of time to do as your money is limited and citizens always moaning about something else along the way…

 

However this “retail” version of a city and transport simulations is a good way to pass the downtime and home in some skills gained in real life city living and planning. I might post some more up from the other cities as well over time.

To Better (Auckland’s) Transport

·

Work Starts Now!

 

So while some are nursing off hang-overs from what seems to be a quiet New Years in New Zealand (while the American’s delayed the Fiscal Cliff just that little bit longer), some in between outdoor (or indoor) projects and sunning themselves in this beautiful weather are preparing for the work ahead – To Better (Auckland) Transport.

 

Now that it’s a new year and free from the earlier restrains in transport commentary, BR:AKL can continue to focus in a more steadfast manner advancement in Bettering Auckland’s Transport. That means I can bring off the ice some ideas and concepts that were previously frozen and bring them back into the light for commentary, discussion and lobbying. One such idea/concept that is being brought off to the ice and back to the forefront is my Rail Efficiency Program that I introduced in August last year:

 

THE RAIL EFFICIENCY PROGRAM

 

How to get Better Resilience out of the Rail Network

 

A Rail Efficiency Program Series

 

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE REP

 

In this new series, I be running posts on how we can get more resilience thus punctuality and reliability in the existing Auckland Rail Network prior to the City Rail Link opening. In this post I will give a an introduction to the Rail Efficiency Program which was briefly mentioned in my submission to The Auckland Plan.

 

Those who travel on Auckland’s passenger rail network as I do on a regular basis know the frustration when your train is delayed or even worse cancelled due either some kind of fault, breakdown, accident, pesky freight train in the way, congestion at pinch-points (such as Puhinui, Otahuhu-Westfield, or Newmarket), and/or the effects of an earlier disruption still snowballing through the network affecting the train you are on. Now there are some things either happening or in the pipeline that will help reduce the frustrations and disruptions such as:

 

You can read the rest of that particular post through clicking on the respective link.

 

How as it alludes to; the idea behind the REP is to invest in current infrastructure to get maximum performance and resilience out of it before diving in and investing large sums of money into brand new infrastructure (the City Rail Link being one of those new pieces of infrastructure). This article from the New York Times forwarded to me by an acquaintance highlights a view-point on the worth of investing in existing infrastructure:

 

From the New York Times:

The Virtues of Investing in Transportation

By LAURA D’ANDREA TYSON
Improving the existing transportation infrastructure can create jobs and increase productivity, studies have found. Construction began last year to replace Doyle Drive, which carries commuters between the Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco.Jim Wilson/The New York TimesImproving the existing transportation infrastructure can create jobs and increase productivity, studies have found. Construction began last year to replace Doyle Drive, which carries commuters between the Golden Gate Bridge and downtown San Francisco.
Today's Economist

Laura D’Andrea Tyson is a professor at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, and served as chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton. She currently serves on President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness and its infrastructure subgroup.

Years of under-investing in the nation’s transportation infrastructure are apparent in congested roads, freight bottlenecks, airport delays and overcrowded or nonexistent public transit operations. Yet the heated debate in Washington about how much and how fast to slash government spending is overlooking how a significant, sustained increase in infrastructure investment would create jobs and strengthen the nation’s competitiveness.

Infrastructure spending, adjusted for inflation and accounting for the depreciation of existing assets, is at about the same level it was in 1968, when the economy was one-third smaller. Public investment on transportation and water infrastructure as a share of gross domestic product has fallen steadily since the 1960s and now stands at 2.4 percent, compared with 5 percent in Europe and more than 9 percent in China.

Experts differ on how much more is needed but agree the amount is substantial.

The American Society of Civil Engineers, for example, estimates that we need to spend an additional $110 billion a year to maintain the transportation infrastructure at current performance levels. The Congressional Budget Office reported in May that simply maintaining the current performance of the system would require the federal government to increase its annual spending on highways by about one-third, while state and local governments that account for about 55 percent of capital spending on the highway system would have to increase their annual spending by similar or larger amounts.

Financing highway projects whose economic benefits exceed their costs would necessitate more than a doubling of federal investment on highway infrastructure from its 2010 level of $43 billion. All these estimates apply only to shortfalls in economically justifiable spending on transportation and highways; they do not include other critical infrastructure areas, like water, energy and broadband.

Government spending on infrastructure raises demand, creates jobs and increases the supply and growth potential of the economy over time. The C.B.O. says infrastructure spending is one of the most effective fiscal policies for increasing output and employment and one of the most cost-effective forms of government spending in terms of the number of jobs created per dollar of budgetary cost.

Studies indicate that each $1 billion of infrastructure spending creates 11,000 (estimate of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers) to 30,000 jobs (estimate of the Department of Transportation for infrastructure spending on highways) through direct and indirect effects.

Most of these jobs are added in construction and related sectors, hard hit by the housing crisis, and most of them are relatively well paid, with wages between the 25th and the 75th percentile of the national wage distribution.

Public infrastructure enables the private sector. A modern transportation infrastructure improves private-sector productivity by reducing production and transportation costs, and facilitating trade, economies of scale and efficient production methods.

Not surprisingly, the quality of transportation infrastructure is a major factor affecting business decisions about where to locate production, and the eroding quality of infrastructure is making the United States a less attractive place to do business.

According to the 2010-11 competitiveness report of the World Economic Forum, the United States now ranks 23rd among 139 countries on the overall quality of its infrastructure — between Spain and Chile. In 1999, the United States ranked seventh.

The Obama administration’s budget request for $556 billion for the reauthorization of the surface transportation bill over the next six years is an important first step. But how the money is spent also matters. Because of political considerations, a large fraction of federal infrastructure spending currently finances projects aimed at building capacity rather than maintaining existing capacity.

Yet recent evidence indicates both that the returns on projects to expand capacity have been falling over time and that projects to maintain capacity often enjoy higher returns.

In a time of budget austerity, the allocation of scarce federal dollars for infrastructure must be guided by cost-benefit analysis — rather than by earmarks and formula-based grants, as is currently the case. That’s why the Obama administration is calling for the use of performance criteria and “race to the top” competition among state and local governments to allocate federal spending among competing projects.

That’s also why both the administration and a bipartisan group — led by Senators John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts; Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas; and Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia — have proposed the creation of a national infrastructure bank.

Such a bank would focus on transformative projects of national significance, like the creation of a high-speed rail system or the modernization of the air traffic control system. Such projects are neglected by the formula-driven processes now used to distribute federal infrastructure funds among states and regions.

The bank would also provide greater certainty about the level of federal funds for multiyear projects by removing those decisions from the politically volatile annual appropriations process and would select projects based on transparent cost-benefit analysis by independent experts.

The bank would be granted authority to create partnerships with private investors on individual projects, and these would increase the funds available and foster greater efficiency in project selection, operation and maintenance. Such partnerships — common in Europe and other parts of the world — often result in earlier completion of projects, lower costs and better maintenance of infrastructure compared with investments made solely by public entities.

Despite rapid growth in the last decade, such partnerships are still rare in the United States. Why? Because infrastructure decisions are fragmented, with states, cities and municipalities owning their own assets and applying their own political and economic criteria to potential deals with private investors. Several states do not have legislation authorizing partnerships and no guidelines exist for how decisions will be made.

One obstacle may be gone: Representative James Oberstar, Democrat of Minnesota and the previous chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, opposed these partnerships and urged state and local officials to avoid them. He lost his seat in 2010, and Representative John Mica, Republican of Florida, who now heads the committee, supports the partnership concept.

Improving infrastructure investment decisions through cost-benefit analysis and public-private partnerships is one way to realize larger returns on scarce investment dollars.

Applying congestion pricing or tolls and fees to make private users pay a larger share of the total cost of their infrastructure use is another. Drivers do not currently pay the full costs of their driving, and those substantial costs — including traffic delays, accidents and damage to roads — are borne by other drivers and society.

Congestion pricing and more reliance on tolls would relieve the economic and social costs of congestion; it would give clearer signals about the demand for different types of infrastructure, and it would reduce the required amount of infrastructure investment. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that widespread use of congestion pricing would reduce the necessary investment in highways by about $20 billion a year. But congestion pricing, despite its successes in London and elsewhere, is likely to encounter vociferous opposition, as Mayor Bloomberg learned when he proposed a reasonable plan for New York City.

Even as we slash other forms of government spending, we must invest more in our infrastructure.

 

Now the idea behind an Infrastructure (Investment) Bank is an idea in my opinion as a transport advocate a worthy idea to investigate for Auckland and wider New Zealand – especially as the CRL and North Shore (Rail) Line projects come up on the plans and “books.” But the moot point on investing in existing infrastructure is the point I am hammering home – with the Rail Efficiency Program! The REP is also one of the main reasons why (finance being the other) I advocate in delaying the City Rail Link for 3-5 years in start date, so that the existing infrastructure is up to scratch before adding a major piece of new infrastructure that could and would simply overwhelm the existing infrastructure in place.

So as my hearing for the Regional Public Transport Hearing in February (where I sit before Councillor Mike Lee, Mark Lambert, Peter Clark and Paul Locky (so fun times on a roll as it seems it is half of the Auckland Transport Board 😛 )) draws closer, I will further expand on the Rail Efficiency Program and decide whether to go into bat with it at the RPTP hearing to a certain extent.

 

Regardless however the goal in the transport “wing” of “Shining the Light for a Better Auckland” remains the same:- To Better (Auckland’s) Transport

 

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