Upgraded pretty much immediately if NZTA follow through I listened to pieces of the New Zealand Budget today which was a more tame affair than the Australian … Continue reading Takanini Interchange to be upgraded
Some Transport Updates And Council wants a Housing Conversation with you Transport Recently I sent some enquiries away on progress of the following: Manukau South Rail Link Pukekohe Electrification … Continue reading Updates and a Conversation
Just leave it be, bed the EMU’s in, and roll it out when Manukau is on stream
And so we are at day 4 of the electric trains running on the Onehunga Line – our shortest line of the Auckland rail network. After a bit of a rocky start on Monday which was expected all seems to be bedding in well on the Onehunga Line and reviews of the EMU’s quite positive.
What was not positive was the fact that the timetable did not change (so an increase in frequencies) for the Onehunga Line to reflect the EMU’s on the line.
Knowing that a new timetable is due out (all fingers crossed) in October after the Manukau Line goes on stream with the EMU’s, and knowing what goes into timetable creations from my former life in Transdev I was not particularly amused at the criticisms levelled.
On the idea “ghosting” a timetable (so creating it well advance than implementing it at the set time) it can be done but would be best effective if all lines were done at once. Knowing the Southern Line has the freighters on it and at the risk of the freighter schedules changing (for whatever reason) I would be wondering if ghosting would have worked. If someone in the know could comment on this it would be greatly appreciated – thank you 🙂
Anyhow the current timetable is not flash but we are meant to be rolling to all EMU’s on all lines for weekend services at the end of the year. Although they are still wiring up the Western and Southern Lines at the moment so all EMU weekend services will be interesting if those two lines are not complete by then.
At the end of the day it is a game of patience especially as we are on the final stretch.
The new timetable comes out for all lines with better frequencies later in the year. We are bedding in new EMU’s so in my opinion the existing timetable suits it rather well.
Rather than “criticising” AT I give them and Transdev the tick of a job well done this week all things considering including the teething issues on Monday.
Now if Auckland Transport can claw back those roll out dates for the Southern and Western Lines next year I guarantee some very happy people including me.
Our EMU’s are here and South Auckland gets the new bus network first up next year. Along with integrated fares I can say I have a 🙂 on my face for where we have got to so far. That said I also know the road ahead and I mentioned here: “Now We are Electrified, What Next?”
As for when I will catch my first EMU? Most likely later in the year when they ply the Manukau Line 🙂
I noted yesterday that Councillor Cameron Brewer (surprise – surprise) released an “opinion” on the public losing interest with Auckland Council. The actual question is ‘has the public actually lost interest?’ I would say no and even Radio new Zealand’s Todd Niall would say no in his written correspondence earlier this week.
Lets take a look at what Councillor Brewer is saying this time.
The second term Auckland Council is proving to be an interesting one and very different to the inaugural 2010 – 2013 Governing Body.
We are currently going through a budget round to lock in where council’s $3b expenditure is directed for the forthcoming 2014/15 financial year.
This year we had fewer than 2,000 written submissions from the public on our Draft Annual Plan with only a few dozen turning up to speak to their submissions. The Mayor takes this as a vote of confidence in the council, but I take a different view.
My view is that the public interest in this council is at an all-time low because Aucklanders are increasingly of the view that this term is a bit of a lost cause, a bit of a political basket case. The Mayor has hung on to his political career but has lost a lot of political capital. Whatever your view on that, this is bad for Auckland.
….
Todd Niall and myself have already commented on the low Annual Plan submission count and why it was that low. You can see my own commentary behind to low submission count (which includes extract’s from Todd’s analysis) here: “Todd Niall Hits the Budget Nail on its Head.”
From that commentary piece:
To be honest I can see why both the Annual Plan submission count is very low and how most submissions were pertaining to local rather than regional issues. For the low submission count the Annual Plan submissions were called for during the final weeks of the massive Unitary Plan submission period. With limited time and resources available a conscious call might have been made on which of the two submissions you would pick to get done. Is it the Annual Plan or is it the Unitary Plan? I made such a conscious decision and chose the Unitary Plan over the Annual Plan to dedicate my submission time to – so as a result no submission from me on the Annual Plan this round.
What also factored into not doing an Annual Plan submission this round was the knowledge knowing the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan (the main Council budget document) is coming up for debate soon. Something again Todd Niall points out…
…
Maybe that’s why Aucklanders have turned out in such low numbers to have their say on this year’s annual plan. They know that far bigger debates lie ahead.
Again I would say that is why the submission count is low not because we have lost interest but rather we had the Unitary Plan at the same time as well as knowing those bigger more important debates ahead (like the Long Term Plan).
The Unitary Plan submission count (at 8,900 as of the beginning of the month) I would say is a testimony to Auckland paying interest into what Council is doing. Of course we have the next Unitary Plan submission round late next month where anyone can submit on the points previously made (so no new material). Also if you are like me you are taking a break between all these big submission and consultation periods unless you want to burn yourself out from it all.
Continuing from Voxy
The lack of interest and coverage shows that the public and media have effectively given up on this term, with 2016 set to be a watershed election.
One thing’s for sure the third term will be just as different again with a new Mayor and many new councillors after a whole new public mandate and direction sought and secured.
….
Be very careful what you wish for Councillor. I can assure you the public and media (both Main Stream, and Social) have certainly not given up on this term. That said I do believe and agree that the third term will be quite different with new Councillors including a possible replacement for Orakei Ward too 😉 .
Finally:
In the meantime all councillors are committed to making a difference. For me it means keeping the Mayor accountable and focusing on the likes of fighting for lower rates increases and pushing for more sustainable debt levels. I will also continue to advocate for regional funding for projects in the Orakei ward area.
….
Groan…
Local Boards I thought would be the best advocates for getting funding for projects in their local area while ward Councillors are meant to be focusing on the big picture regional stuff. Or did Cameron not read this: Slow News Day. We Have the Bigger Picture to Focus On
Oh well I suppose the above was expected from Councillor Brewer.
In the mean time this storm outside is causing enough havoc as is – although I still have mains power in Papakura for now
Stay safe out there folks and keep listening to updates from Civil Defence please.
Where is our disconnect with youth and employment? Yesterday Mayor Len Brown kicked off a Youth Summit in the CBD to illustrate the high youth unemployment problem in Auckland, … Continue reading Youth Connect – Our Youth Disconnect
A week ago I critiqued Watercare (who provide our fresh and waster water services in Auckland) on their decision around a recycled storm-water scheme in Stonefields. You can read it here: Patch Protecting or Genuine Concerns?
This morning I noticed (and a few others) the editorial for the Herald this morning commenting again on the recycled storm-water scheme. Lets take a look bit by bit from the editorial this morning shall we?
Stonefields, a village-style residential development in what was the Mt Wellington quarry, has branded itself with environmental “sustainability”. The basis of that brand was a dual water supply. Every house built so far has both a drinking-water supply and a “third pipe”, bringing surface water from a central reservoir to toilets and outside taps. The system may have saved water from the metropolitan supplier, Watercare Services, but saving water is not the supplier’s prime concern.
Many, in fact, will suspect the monopoly supplier’s refusal to operate Stonefields’ scheme as intended is motivated by the simple desire to maximise its revenue. Not so, says Watercare. The scheme, it says, would have cost Stonefields residents more than they will pay for the normal water supply. And since the groundwater collected for the third pipe would not have been treated to the same standard, it would have been charging those residents more for a supply of lower quality.
Common sense is probably on the side of Watercare. Surface run-off, especially from roads, is polluted. It was going to have to be treated as it was pumped from Stonefields’ collection tank to the reservoir, though not to a drinkable standard. The company says the cost of collection, treatment and pumping would have resulted in Stonefields residents paying five times the cost of Auckland’s potable water. And most of the third-pipe water would be flushed into the same second pipe, where it would need sewage treatment and disposal
……
“Many, in fact, will suspect the monopoly supplier’s refusal to operate Stonefields’ scheme as intended is motivated by the simple desire to maximise its revenue.” When you read the rest of the editorial I wonder but not help that is “bending the truth” to a wide degree.
What would be nice if the editorial posted some hard figures on the actual cost Watercare is purporting for the third pipe recycled storm-water scheme. Costs that include both the set and operations of such a facility in comparison to the normal set up we already get. Then for good measure some comparative costs from overseas as well as the private sector to see if the scheme is not value for money as Watercare (and the Herald) claim
I also note saving water is not Watercare’s main concern. Well no if it is out to maximise income and profits which is telling as we further get down the editorial.
Cost is not the only consideration. Enthusiasts for third-pipe water conservation ought to consider what would be lost. This is a country in which the water is safe to drink. To slake a thirst, we turn on the nearest tap without a qualm. That would change if not all piped water could be trusted. The outside taps at Stonefields were to carry a sign that the water was not safe to drink. Do we really want that?
The former Auckland City Council ought to have thought of all these practicalities before it invoked principles of sustainability and made third-pipe reticulation a feature of Stonefields’ development consent. Its own water retailer, Metrowater, was going to run the system. But for the Super City’s creation, and the bulk supplier’s takeover of the whole system, the true costs of “sustainability” might never have been known.
….
I assume whoever wrote this has never been around much as plenty of outside taps (not drinking fountains) even in urban Auckland carry the Do Not Drink sign above the said tap. And can someone tell me – who races to the garden hose and drinks out of it – regularly? So a really weak excuse here in that section of the editorial.
Thanks to the Waikato River, Auckland will never be short of water. There is no point conserving the water for its own sake if it must be replaced by a costly supply of inferior standard, no matter how interesting or exciting the environmental engineering involved.
…
I am quite sure the people of the Waikato – especially those who use or treasure the river will be quite comforted that Auckland will never be short of water thanks to Watercare drawing water from there and then pumping it to Auckland after it treated – NOT. I am aware Watercare are seeking consent to double the amount of water intake from the Waikato River to pump into a growing Auckland. This consent process has riled the people of the Waikato as the extra intake will no doubt put strain on New Zealand’s longest river. It is of note the lower Waikato is reliant on rainfall, Lake Taupo and the Waipa River for its water flow – and it is certainly not unlimited either. Just look what happens when our South Island hydro stations get dry years and the knock on effects downstream…
Now if you want a contradiction then check this last bit from the editorial
More water falls on Auckland than the city can use. Only a fraction of Stonefields’ storm water was to be channelled into the third pipe. Most would have drained to the Tamaki inlet. Reducing stormwater pollution of the sea around Auckland is the real challenge. Collecting tanks and treatment may be the answer, and if the water can be put to a cost-effective use, all the better. But recycling for a needless purpose at greater cost is not sustainable.
—-
Okay so more water falls on Auckland than we can use yet we get 10% of our total supply from the Waikato with Watercare wanting to increase that to 18% of total supply. Auckland also in 1994 suffered a drought which eventually led to the Waikato pipeline being built in the first place so that Auckland would not be faced with a similar situation again. So which way is it? We get enough rain that we do not need the Waikato, or is Auckland that large that we need the Waikato to supplement our dams.
In any case the real question that begs to be asked is ‘who actually wrote the editorial?’ Watercare or the NZ Herald themselves…
Hearings Begin on Warkworth Section of Holiday Highway
The Herald has noted that the Board of Enquiry gets under way today for the Puhoi-Warkworth section of the Puhoi-Welsford Roads of National Significance Program otherwise known as the Holiday Highway.
Fast-tracking of $760m extension to be considered over 14 days.
Plans for one of the country’s most expensive transport projects – a $760 million extension of Auckland’s motorway network to Warkworth – go under the microscope today.
A board of inquiry appointed for fast-tracking planning consideration of the 18.5km extension as the first half of a Road of National Significance will preside over 14 days of hearings.
The Government is promoting the extension over 12 viaducts and bridges from the Johnstones Hill traffic tunnels south of Puhoi to a new roundabout north of Warkworth, as a vital freight and tourism link with Northland.
Even so, many of the 14,000 vehicles a day expected to use the new road by 2026 will double back to Warkworth’s often bottlenecked Hill St turnoff to eastern beaches.
That keeps critics such as Auckland Council infrastructure chairman Mike Lee calling it “the holiday highway” to the intense annoyance of Northland leaders and former Rodney mayor Penny Webster.
…
There will only be one traffic interchange between Orewa and Warkworth, to be confined to just south-facing ramps at Puhoi, after residents protested against an earlier plan which would have denied them access.
…
So you will need to double back and still get held up at the notorious Hill Road intersection at Warkworth in order to get to the eastern beaches. That in itself is rather self-defeating.
In any case the Holiday Highway even if fully completed as the gold-plated 4-lane motorway would still fall well short of where it would need to be if it were to serve the population and industrial centres of Northland. You would need to take the motorway all the way to Whangarei itself to get the “benefits” you would be sort after – much like the 4-lane expressway Auckland to Hamilton and Cambridge.
Ironically there has been two more cheaper but more beneficial transport schemes to connect Auckland up to Northland than the Holiday Highway. One is Operation Lifesaver devised by Transport Blog, the other is to fully upgrade the North Auckland (rail) Line from Swanson to Whangarei with a branch line to Marsden Point (home of a deep water port and our oil refinery) to allow our more powerful DL’s to haul longer trains from the area south (like logs).
You can read about Operation Lifesaver as an alternative to the Holiday Highway HERE.
Operation Lifesaver I believe follows the same premise as the upgrades to State Highway 2 that have happened and are going to continue to happen again soon. You can read what NZTA has done and what it will be up to with State Highway 2 here: Safety Improvements for State Highway 2. Once the upgrades are complete that section of State Highway 2 (which carries more regular, holiday and freight traffic than the Holiday Highway ever would) will allow that traffic to travel efficiently and safely to their destinations. So if these kind of simple upgrades to a much busier State Highway 2 are effective why does State Highway 1 going north need to be a 4-lane Motorway that does not really go the distance it would need to? And these upgrades to State Highway 2 are very similar to what Operation Lifesaver proposes.
Lets hope this Board of Inquiry puts the Holiday Highway under the same intense microscope as it did to a Wellington Highway project last month. And cross fingers the Board of Inquiry might start shifting us away from this motorway to something more viable that will not break the bank…
Talking Southern Auckland 