Category: Hot Discussion

An issue causing hot discussion either here in the blog or in the wider community

Pukekohe Electrification Ctd

·

Pukekohe Electrification Case Took Some Legs and Ran

 

After the news of Auckland Transport releasing the business case for extending the electrification all the way to Pukekohe, so that ALL Auckland Metro Rail services will be covered by the new EMU’s (replacing the existing diesel fleet), the entire concept has seem to grown legs and gone for a run on its own steam (excuse the pun).

From Auckland Now:

Electric trains could reach Pukekohe

SARAH HARVEY

Electric trains could run to Pukekohe if Auckland Council approves a $102 million upgrade to electrify the line past Papakura.

The electrification of Auckland’s train system is already well underway and an Auckland Transport spokesman said today they were “looking at options” to extend the project to Pukekohe.

“This would see trains running from Pukekohe to Britomart every 20 minutes at peak times and every 30 minutes at other times.”

The extra stretch is expected to cost $102.3m including buying two trains, creating park and ride facilities, new stations at Paerata and Drury and a major station upgrade at Pukekohe. Three bridges would be raised and the lowered.

Almost $19m has already been set aside in Auckland Transport’s long term plan for the project, which is expected to save $2m a year by having electric rather than diesel engines.

Mayor Len Brown welcomed an investigation, saying it would mean people in Franklin would be able to make full use of the rail network along with the rest of Auckland.

“This would mean quieter, faster and more efficient trains all the way to Pukekohe.”

Brown said Pukekohe was a key centre for residential and business growth, and there would be a rapidly growing need to move people to and from homes and jobs.

The area’s population is predicted to more than treble in the next 30 years to close to 80,000.

Franklin Local Board chairman Andy Baker said electrification was something the board and community had advocated for for a long time.

“We are extremely pleased that the investigation is happening now as it makes sense to do the work while we have contractors and systems in place to build Auckland’s electric rail network. ”

The first electric train is due to arrive in Auckland from Spain in the third quarter of 2013 and will undergo significant testing before going into public service in 2014.

 

 

And so it seems Auckland, especially South and Counties Auckland are all abuzz with the real possibility that by 2016, electric trains could be running from Pukekohe all the way to Britomart and Swanson (out west).

In saying that we in South and Counties Auckland must also not lose sight in all this excitement on the Manukau South Rail Link which would allow EMU’s to run Pukekohe to Manukau direct services, giving easy and fast access for South and Counties Auckland to their major service and employment hub – Manukau City Centre.

 

Exciting times ahead for this part of Auckland in regards to rail and efficient, accessible public transport.

 

You can see the Auckland Transport Business Case for Electrification to Pukekohe at my PUKEKOHE ELECTRIFICATION CASE post.

 

The CRL and That Poll Ctd

·

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

  • m.nzherald.co.nz

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

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

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

      www.brisbanetimes.com.au

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      www.police.govt.nz

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

The CRL and That Poll

·

Debate has Cropped Up Again on the City Rail Link

 

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

 

Here is The NZH article from Orsman however:

Aucklanders want Govt cash for rail

By Bernard Orsman 

5:30 AM Monday Nov 19, 2012

Survey finds most want loop link built now and see direct funding as best way to pay for it.

A majority of Aucklanders want the Government to make a significant contribution to the $2.86 billion city rail link, a poll has found.

The poll, by Horizon Research, also found that 30.4 per cent of Aucklanders support tolls to help pay for the rail link and 24.9 per cent support targeted rates for those who benefit most.

They are more lukewarm about a regional fuel tax, asset sales, higher rates and a higher departure tax as funding mechanisms.

This is the first poll on funding options for the rail link since Mayor Len Brown issued a discussion paper in February on new funding sources to stop dodging what he said were the tough decisions to get Auckland moving.

Mr Brown has encountered a brick wall of resistance from the Government for the 3.5km underground route from Britomart to join the western rail line at Mt Eden. The Government refuses to back the project beyond designating the route and successive Transport Ministers have said there would be no tolls or a regional petrol tax. Transport Minister Gerry Brownlee declined to comment on the poll.

Mr Brown has established a “consensus building group” costing $1.1 million under the guidance of environmentalist and political activist Guy Salmon to try to persuade the Government to support one or more funding options.

The poll, of 1099 Aucklanders, found that among those who supported the rail link, 64 per cent wanted it built as soon as possible, 22 per cent by 2020 and just 3 per cent did not think it needed to be completed by 2020.

The poll also found that 75 per cent of Aucklanders wanted better integrated bus and rail services.

Last night, Mr Brown said it was no surprise Aucklanders overwhelmingly continued to support major transport projects, including the rail link, and wanted them built as soon as possible.

However, the left-leaning Mr Brown continued to rule out the sale of core strategic assets – “they bring in tens of millions of dollars a year, taking pressure off rates” – but would not rule out using the proceeds of non-core assets, such as surplus property, to fund transport.

The poll was taken between October 31 and November 12 and has a margin of error of 3 per cent.

The NZ Council for Infrastructure Development has proposed a regionwide toll on every on-ramp to the motorway of $3 in peak hours, $1 in the off-peak and $2 at other times.

Getting around Auckland

Main findings of survey
* 75 per cent support for improved bus-rail public transport
* 64 per cent support for city rail loop
* 14 per cent opposition to city rail loop

Of those who support the rail loop
* 64 per cent want it built as soon as possible
* 22 per cent want it built by 2020
* 3 per cent do not think it is needed by 2020

Funding options
* 56.2 per cent significant government funding
* 30.4 per cent tolls
* 24.9 per cent targeted rates
* 17.6 per cent asset sales
* 16.9 per cent regional fuel tax
* 8.3 per cent higher rates
* 7 per cent higher airport departure tax
Source: Horizon Research

 

If I feel like on Wednesday I will sum up the arguments on Facebook and post them here at BR:AKL.

But in the mean time, go enjoy dinner or what ever meal of the day is next when you read this folks as you are not missing any thing new – yet!

 

Although whoever commissioned Horizon Research for the CRL poll – I am not impressed with given Horizon’s dodgy Colin Craig polling in the past…

 

Oh and I have sent this to Communities and Residents Auckland via social media on the CRL:

By the way, has Communities and Residents passed a resolution or motion yet on either supporting or being FULLY against the Auckland City Rail Link?

Getting a bit of crossed wires and messages here folks and that will create confusion with the voters next year

 

Let’s see what I get from that department…

Minutes from Meeting

· 1 Comment ·

Manukau South Link – Moving Ahead – Slowly

 

November 7, I had posted in my “WHEELS OF PROGRESS CONTINUE TO TURN” post how the Auckland Council Transport Committee resolved to pass a motion on moving along with the Manukau South Rail Link:

 

Today I took a quick look over and found the UNCONFIRMED Minutes (they will not be confirmed until the next Transport Committee meeting next month) of November’s meeting and found the resolutions in regards to the Manukau South Link:

 

For those who hate scrolling here is the motion and resolution here:

 

Transport Committee – 07 November 2012
Minutes – Page 5

8 Notices of Motion

  • 8.1 Notice of Motion

Cr GS Wood to move:

  • That the Transport Committee: Requests Auckland Transport to give a high priority to the installation of a south facing rail link between the Manukau Spur Line and the North Island Main Trunk Line at Wiri so that this connection can be in place by the time that electrification of the Auckland Metro rail system occurs.

Resolution number TRAN/2012/93

MOVED by Cr GS Wood, seconded Cr M Lee:

That the Transport Committee:

  • a) Receives the Notice of Motion by Cr George Wood: “Requests Auckland Transport to give a high priority to the installation of a south facing rail link between the Manukau Spur Line and the North Island Main Trunk Line at Wiri so that this connection can be in place by the time that electrification of the Auckland Metro rail system occurs.”
  • b) Notes that rail construction is the responsibility of KiwiRail.
  • c) Requests that Council officers consult with Auckland Transport (and the relevant Local Boards) and report back on the cost and benefits and strategic priority of a Manukau Branch line south facing connector in relation to other outstanding rail projects.

 

CARRIED

 

And so we wait as the wheels of the bureaucracy turn as the Benefit Cost Ration, as well as the strategic priority finding of the Manukau South Link get drawn up. It is a start as the Committee could have rejected the motion outright thus effectively burying the link for a very long time. I will keep the correspondence to the Transport Committee going seeking regular updates on how the planning is going for this crucial line.

I will also keep readers here at BR:AKL updated on any progress as well.

 

But so far; a small victory, and a heading in the right direction. Fingers crossed folks 🙂

 

Pukekohe Electrification Case

·

Pukekohe to be Electrified by 2016?

 

Last week I had posted on the progress of the Manukau South Link and Electrification to Pukekohe (WHEELS OF PROGRESS TURNING CTD). Yesterday I had gotten wind and later a hold of a the business case study for extending the Auckland Electrification Project all the way to Pukekohe – the southern most station on the Auckland Metro Rail Network. This business case will be presented to the Auckland Transport Board meeting on the 20th of November in the open session of the meeting. Just out of curiosity I do not see the Manukau South Link sitting in that agenda – time for an email?

 

Anyhow, below is the business case with workings and drawings for the options available when extending the electrification to Pukekohe:

 

I have not gone through the full document on the electrification to Pukekohe as of yet, but will endeavour to do so over the weekend and write-up commentary next week!

 

However now we at least have something to see and work on in regards of the potential $102m electrification extension project, which can include two brand new rail stations complete with Park and Ride facilities.

 

Exciting times ahead in this department – that is for sure! 

A Question on Trees

· 3 Comments ·

Carrot or Stick?

 

When I was at the Civic Forum on the Unitary Plan, the discussion about trees on private property popped up. The basic question on trees that reside on one’s private property was: should a private property owner have to go through the motions with the bureaucracy to remove a tree from their property (so we could be looking at permits, restoration costs and even possibly having your decision in wanting a tree (especially if it is a protected tree)) – so the big stick; or should a private property owner be able to freely remove their tree providing it does not cause high detriment to the local environment (increased erosion being the main one) and that the owner replaces the tree with another tree either on their property or in a public park/reserve – so a carrot or rather incentive.

 

Councillor Penny Webster raised the idea of using the carrot rather than a stick at the Civic Forum where private property owners could freely remove a tree on their property if it was causing shading onto the house, or as a hazard to the house or surrounding utilities (power, water, sewerage) providing the fact the owner replaced that tree with another one on their own property or at a near by public park or reserve.

 

Right now I am about to go through the motions of removing a Bottle-brush tree from the front on my property. The tree blocks sunlight in the winter (thus chilling the house) and has branches interfering with power lines. At the same time the tree is also a home and feeding place for our resident Tui birds who enjoy making a racket in the morning before the sun is up (noisy buggers). Now I am going to be presented with two options here when removing that tree: utter bureaucracy (outside of the fact I need to inform Vector so the power can be isolated) to have the tree removed; or Council will let me just get on with the job removing the tree as I am going to replace it with a Kowhai at the other end of the property away from the overhead wires (as well as it won’t shade the house).

 

In replacing the Bottle-brush with a Kowhai, Mr and Mrs Tui bird won’t lose out – in fact they gain with a native tree (the Kowhai which is their favourite) replacing the Bottle-brush tree. And in replacing with a native I do my little bit for Green Society in preserving a habitat while getting some extra value onto my property valuation (just don’t tell Council or I might get a rates rise 😉 ).

 

 

And so I ask this question to readers: Status quo (the stick) when it comes to removing trees; or the replacement idea (so incentive) when wanting to remove a tree on your property.

 

(South) Auckland Gets Shafted – Again (Ctd)

·

Someone Flushed Good Money Down the Loo – on a Possible White Elephant

 

I got wind of this particular story last night on $14 million of our ratepayers cash being spent on a possible (heck it is actually) White Elephant called a car parking building.

From Bernard Orsman of The NZ Herald:

$14m empty carpark – that you paid for

By Bernard Orsman BernardOrsman

Rates slashed but Manukau’s $14m parking building remains almost empty daily.

A carparking building in Manukau that cost ratepayers $14 million to build is sitting virtually empty and slashing prices to attract vehicles.

The building has been called a “dog” by councillor Dick Quax and lauded by Mayor Len Brown as a transformational project for the Manukau community – few of whom are using it.

When the Herald visited yesterday, the top two levels of the seven-storey Ronwood Ave carpark were empty and there were just 10 vehicles on the top five levels, including five Auckland Council cars.

The first and second floors had 62 and 18 vehicles respectively, but overall the 680-space carpark hadan occupancy rate of just 13 per cent.

It is understood the occupancy rate has improved since Auckland Transport cut the hourly rate from $3 to $1 and the all-day casual rate from $19 to $6 and $4 for an early bird special.

The transport body is matching and, in some instances, undercutting its own on-street rates to lure vehicles to the carpark. The on-street charges are $1 an hour and up to a maximum of $5 for all-day parking.

The $14.05 million carpark opened on June 18 as a revenue-gathering, commercial operation by Auckland Transport.

An Auckland Transport spokeswoman yesterday said it was performing below budget while the new Manukau Institute of Technology campus – which is leasing 240 carparks – was still under construction.

It was also built to free up valuable land in the city centre for future development to provide another 354 leases and act as a park-and-ride facility for the new Manukau branch line railway station with 86 public spaces.

The pro-public transport Auckland Transport Blog has called the carpark a disaster and an appalling waste of money, and published aerial photographs showing it set in a “sea of … car parking” at Manukau central.

Mr Quax said the carpark was a dog and he did not believe it would reach capacity for a long time, and councillor George Wood described it as a strange project with few vehicles using it.

But Mr Brown, who encountered strong resistance to the carpark when he was Mayor of Manukau City, remains bullish.

“This project is an investment in the future of Manukau City along with the neighbouring train station and MIT campus currently being built,” he said. “It is an example of our commitment to our growing metropolitan centres across Auckland.”

A planned $6 million expansion of the carpark has been cancelled.
Carparking woes

$14m cost to build

680 parking spaces

90 spaces in use yesterday

$19 original all-day casual rate

$4 new all-day early bird rate

 

Oh dear, oh dear what has the Mayor and Auckland Transport done with this folly.

 

My reaction of Facebook reaction was rather swift as well as Twitter comments on what $14m could of been better spent on:

Meh – the Mayor is full of crap (even more so than the Mangere Sewage Plant) with his comments on the AT public parking building in Manukau City Centre. If AT are having to slash prices to even undercut its own street parking that is already existing then we have a problem.

Note to AT Planners, Manukau is a destination station – not an origin station so a Park and Ride is next to useless here regardless of the Manukau Tertiary Campus

 

As I have said before; people COME TO Manukau as it is a major service hub, not start their journeys from the station (well there are a few but more of a rarity there) so a public car parking building acting as a Park and Ride is nothing short of a daft idea. In a conversation I had with a Councillor last night; I said that even with the Tertiary Campus being built, the parking building is in the wrong place let alone the fact no student is going to pay $19/day (although that has been slashed now) when they can park on the street for $5/day. Also the fact that most students are most likely to catch a bus or a train (Manukau South Link anyone?) to the campus might be an indicator that this new parking building is going to remain under utilised.

 

Now as for this AT parking building in the wrong spot, let me show some pictures for you to illustrate my point (click for full resolution):

The annotated pictures show what is currently happening and what SHOULD of happened to get better bang for our buck in ratepayer investment!

 

So what could of $14 million could of got the ratepayer instead of this parking building? It could have got the following (the newer Avondale Train Station cost $2 million as a base price comparison for a new station)

  • Close to a 1% reduction in our rates bill
  • The Walters Road Rail Station behind the Mitre 10 MEGA at Takanini, complete with Park and Ride, Kiss and Ride and even a shuttle bus facility
  • Upgrades to Papakura Station Interchange including again Park and Ride, Kiss and Ride and Bus Interchange
  • The Manukau South Link (4 times over)
  • Upgrade to the tired Otahuhu Town Centre Bus Station
  • New Bus Stops at Addison and East Takanini (which has no bus routes currently)
  • Deposit on the Selwyn Station complete again with Park and Ride, Kiss and Ride, and Shuttle Bus Facility (Selwyn Station is the relocated Meadowbank Station)
  • Decent lawn mowing and garden services for Papakura and Manurewa Local Boards

 

But no, we won’t be seeing any of those investments (apart from Selwyn Station and the Manukau South Link) any time soon!

 

Come on Your Worship and Auckland Transport, get it together with better investment and planning of our scarce ratepayer dollars on WORTHWHILE projects – for which that new Manukau Parking Building is NOT!

Local Board Service Provisions Falter

·

Local Boards Starved of Needed Cash – So Another Way to Provide Local Services?

 

Just recently Manurewa Local Board Chair – Angela Dalton posted some rather sad pictures on the state of affairs in regards to maintenance to civic places like parks and berms in Manurewa. I’ll let the photos do the talking here:

 

Now after Angela had posted the photos, the Council contractor raced out with the mowers to err trim the grass – and leave it all behind (which would have made great hay for my chickens) (oh and miss the edges too). However as the Manurewa and Papakura Local Boards will attest to, service provisions for these Local Boards from the main Council and its contractors who look after civic places has basically fallen off a cliff. And these Local Board Service Provision stories I keep seeing on Facebook due to either Local Boards facing cuts in their budgets to fund provisions or services, or super city amalgamation being a catalyst to decrease in either services or quality of services are appearing time and time again.

 

So the question is ‘what on earth is going on here?’ Why are our Local Boards being hurt with inadequate service provisions and ratepayers/communities having to suffer from reduced service levels from Auckland Council. Last month I ran a post (AN INVESTIGATION) highlighting the discussion about rates and service provisions to our local communities.

I had basically said that we need to look at how we fund things, how we fund the Local Boards, and how the Local Boards should be properly resourced to provide adequate service provisions for their communities. An example of what I said was:

Just a refresher (just in case) Bulk Funding the Local Boards goes like this. Orakei currently pays $106m in rates to the “Council” yet “Council” only gives $10m (about 10%) back to Orakei to run its Local Board and services. The proposal I am running with is Orakei pays $106m to “Council” and Council gives back (and that is a must, no if’s buts or maybes) 25-33% (up to Local Board’s decision on level) back to Orakei so Orakei can run and maintain its Local Community Services, Events plus any CAPEX spending as it sees fit (of course with dialogue with its residents and businesses).

The Governing Body can not touch the 33% as it is ring fenced to Local Boards. This also includes the Governing Body unable to hike the rates beyond 1.6x the rate of inflation at max with all spending spelled out per the current Better Local Government MK II Bill/Act/Paper

You can read the rest of that post by clicking HERE.

 

After I posted the “An Investigation” post, Botany National MP – Jami-Lee Ross posted and kicked off this discussion with me about Local Board funding and service provisions”

 

Rates Due to Hike Again – So Time for An Investigation

Okay, some idiot in Council mentioned rates and rates rises again giving the hapless ratepayer a sour stomach as we approach Summer and the Silly Season (although for Council, it is always the Silly Season with the Ratepayer Credit Card). Here is a piece from Councillor Cameron Brewer via Facebook with all the comments below (I am pasting this to draw context on where I am going with this):

 

  • Andy Cawston likes this.
  • Jami-Lee Ross In my view, the simplest way to fund local services would be as follows:
    1) have a clear definition of what is local and what is regional
    2) everything regional is funded from a general rate set by governing body. They are accountable for it. 
    3) everything local is funded from a local services targeted rate, funded from within that ward and kept within that ward. Local board set this targeted rate and are accountable for it. No cross subsidisation on local projects. Complete control for local boards when it comes to local issues. High spending local boards can spend whatever they want. Frugal local boards can likewise do so and not see their savings going back into the general pool.

    This model would ring-fence local funding for local initiatives, but would still see regional infrastructures and services funded. It would empower local boards much more as well as demand greater accountability.
  • Ben Ross You and I are on the exact same page here Jami-Leein regards to your comment 😀:D Now then can we do such a thing or do we need you guys (Central Govt) to a legislation change?
  • Jami-Lee Ross Auckland can do that by itself. It would just require discipline and a willingness by the governing body.
  • Ben Ross Okay so in other words a great amount of difficulty then 😛:P if you know what I mean
  • Jami-Lee Ross Im not sure we are on the same page – bulk funding as you describe it would see the governing body still in control of the level of funding to local boards. I would suggest LBs decide themselves and be accountable for it. If LB-A wants to ramp local rates up by 25%, they should be able to, but have to fund that from within their own local board area. If LB-B wants to have a 25% cut in local rates, they should also be able to, but have to find the saving within their own area.
  • Ben Ross Okay a similar page then but none the less ideas that can be worked on. We are both wanting similar outcomes just at this point in time different ways in achieving it. Although I am sure we can flesh out points and build a solid idea/proposal/case
  • Jami-Lee Ross It’s all academic anyway. Chances of seeing the governing body give up some power is near zero.
  • Ben Ross Sadly yes

A good discussion of ideas there about Local Board funding and service provisions. And a (mature) discussion to be honest and frank we as a community and a city need to have.

I’ll tell you what, I will go look into these ideas some more and get back to you. However I am willing to run in my election to Papakura Local Board next year stating that; If elected to Papakura Local Board 2013, I will advocate and push for a full and frank discussion with the residents and businesses inside the Papakura Local Board area on Local Board Funding and Service Provision. Do you want the status quo as currently; or do you want something like bulk funding and increased “power” over your Local Board service provisions whether it be the method I suggest OR the method Jami-Lee Ross suggested. Which ever option you chose will be the option pushed to lobby the main Council/Governing Body!

Just a quick note though, the wheels of the governing body and bureaucracy turn slow. So even if and when the discussion began, it will take some time to push the governing body and bureaucracy to change and adopt the provisions you want for your community. Patience would be the key thing here, something even I need and have to persevere with as we go through the motions with the Manukau South Link.

 

Service provisions for our Local Boards funded or provided by the main Council is a sore point with local residents, businesses, communities and Local Boards. Alternatives are being searched for and once found should be presented to the local community/communities for their input and discussion. At the end of the day it is the local that gets stuck with how and what local service provisions are provided and funded for – whether it be from the main Council or via bulk funding. I am ready to have that robust discussion for a Better Papakura and Better Auckland – are you?

 

Wheels of Progress Turning Ctd

·

NZ Herald on “Boost for Trains In (the) South”

 

Wednesday I had posted on The Wheels of Progress Turning and how we are a step closer to Electrification all the way to Pukekohe and getting the Manukau South Link built and operating. Today Mathew Dearnaley from the NZ Herald posted his article on these two developments.

From the NZH:

Boost for trains in south

By Mathew Dearnaley

Auckland Transport will be asked by its council parent to give high priority to a south-facing rail link from Manukau while also considering the cost of electrifying trains to Pukekohe.

The council’s transport committee this week heard the organisation’s board is to consider electrification costs to Pukekohe at its next meeting in a fortnight.

But after the Franklin and Papakura local boards urged a more direct rail link with Manukau, the committee also decided to ask Auckland Transport to give that high priority before electric trains start running in 2014.

Although the Government’s existing $500 million electrification project is to stop at Papakura, committee member Christine Fletcher said an extension to Pukekohe was “the next logical step”.

Mrs Fletcher, who is also a council appointee to the transport board, believed an existing order of 57 electric trains being built-in Spain should be extended.

Although the cost of electrifying rail to Papakura was estimated at $115 million in 2008, and would normally be seen as the Government’s responsibility, committee chairman Mike Lee noted that he and Mrs Fletcher had persuaded the transport board last month to save $50 million by scaling down the upgrade of Dominion Rd.

“So it’s a matter of priority,” he said.

The committee also decided council staff should do their own study, although in consultation with Auckland Transport and the local boards, on the costs and benefits of a south-facing link from Manukau in relation to other rail projects.

Councillor George Wood said an $81 million north-facing line to Manukau, built to feed into a new Manukau Institute of Technology campus, was not “giving anywhere near the level of service it could do to people living to the south”.

 

Hmm Mathew, you might want to do some research (or get your junior to do so) on how the Manukau South Link came about. To give you hand go click THIS LINK and THIS LINK and THIS LINK on how the entire Manukau South Link matter arose and got to where it was.

As I have emailed Councillors Wood, Fletcher and Lee; a massive thanks to all three of them was sent for facilitating the discussion on the Manukau South Link which then got put alongside the Pukekohe electrification proposal. A special thanks to Councillor George Wood was also mentioned for bringing to the Transport Committee the Notice of Motion after I had raised concern about the South Link with him directly.

Now I will work on operation proposals on services running from Pukekohe and Papakura to Manukau using the South Link using both the existing DMU (Diesel) rolling stock and the new upcoming EMU (Electric) rolling stock and forward them to the Transport Committee for consideration.

But as I have said before:

I will continue to advocate and lobby hard for that South Link to be built – FOR YOU, the residents of South (and Counties) Auckland! As you deserve better!

 

Why?

 

Well I get nothing out of this directly nor personally per se. What I do get once the South Link is built and operating is the quiet satisfaction that access for South and Counties Auckland to Manukau via the South Link (Manukau being the major Southern Hub of Auckland) has been greatly improved for residents and communities south of Manukau. Quiet satisfaction that as a citizen and ratepayer of Auckland, I have done my part in advocating and lobbying our civic institutions in wanting to make my community that I live in a better place. And that is regardless if I am elected to Papakura Local Board next year or not!

 

I’ll draw up another post this weekend on my campaign for Papakura Local Board, but as Councillor Wood noted and thanked in the Transport Committee on Wednesday: I do have a real passion and drive on transport and planning issues here in Auckland as I just simply want Auckland my home to be a better place to live, work and play in. Thus why I lobby, advocate and draw up proposals for Council on all things Transport and Planning – it is not for me – it is for you!

 

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