Category: News

Dodgy Governance

·

White Water Rafting in Manukau or White Water Shafting in Auckland?

 

It seems Dodgy Governance at Auckland Council continues, again around the White Water Rafting Shafting facility that was “approved” (subject to public “consultation”) by – oh look the Auckland Council Strategy and Finance Committee. The very same committee blasted over The Long Term Plan and the V8 saga down in Pukekohe!

 

A press release from Councillor Cameron Brewer – Orakei

 

Rafting’s compelling economic story news to economists

Tuesday, 9 October 2012, 6:44 pmPress Release: Cameron Brewer

Whitewater rafting’s compelling economic story news to Council’s economists

Today’s revelation that neither Auckland Council’s own economic development unit nor Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED) were asked to have input or to review last week’s proposal to support a $20m – $30m ratepayer investment into a whitewater rafting facility in Manukau, shows the poor process surrounding the project going from bad to worse, say Auckland councillor Cameron Brewer, who chaired today’s Economic Forum.

“At today’s forum some councillors were genuinely surprised to hear from representatives of ATEED and council’s own EDU that neither were involved in the Counties Manukau Pacific Trust and Regional Facilities Auckland’s proposal for proceeds of a council land sale to go into converting a South Auckland paddock into a whitewater rafting facility.”

Mr Brewer says that’s concerning given the controversial proposal narrowly got through last week largely off the back of all the economic development promises sold to councillors.

The report circulated to the 4 October 2012 Strategy & Finance Committee promised that the project would create 110 full-time equivalent jobs, attract 31% of its visitors from outside the Auckland region and New Zealand, act as a catalyst to attracting quality development within the surrounding area, and contribute an additional $7.4m annually to Manukau’s GDP.

“Now we learn that the compelling economic story that helped to successfully sell this project was never audited or even inputted by council’s own economic team or ATEED which employs 60 people in its economic development operations alone. That’s not good enough, particularly when you consider the proponent’s business case for this facility was completed in July last year. As councillors we need to be confident that what is promised can stand up to scrutiny and that should start with internal reviews of such big economic promises at the very least.

“I support those councillors who now want to see this project’s economic feasibility and business case peer reviewed by either council’s own economic development unit or ATEED. That needs to be done before this project becomes part of council’s draft annual plan for 2013/14.”

“This project was rejected outright by the former Manukau City Council three years ago. It then somehow escaped this council’s proper 10-year Long Term Plan budgetary process, and now we learn it has also avoided the scrutiny of council’s two economic development teams despite it being sold as an economic development project. Ratepayers should be even more worried,” says Mr Brewer.

ENDS

 

Well this sorry saga flies in direction contravention to just about every fundamental I stand for – for a better Auckland, specifically these points:

  1. Basics first: One thing I learnt when I moved out from the parents’ home and struck it out in the real world (including getting married and owning our first house) is that with the limited resources you have got, you did the basics first then with anything left over you just might be able to afford a luxury. Same applies to our civic institutions; they have limited resources so get the basics right first then “treat yourself or others” to a luxury if you are able to do so once the basics are taken care of.
  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 DAILOUGE 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 DAILOUGE 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.

 

Council is not getting its basics right if it splashes out on this rather large-scale luxury item. Council is also not listening nor even consulting those who should be auditing this facility proposed in Manukau City so how the hell are we meant to display the remotest of confidence in our civic leaders which Councillors and the Mayor are.

The answer is we can NOT!

Council has infringed on my fundamentals with this White Water Shafting deal and I am not very happy about it – in fact I am disgusted by those Councillors who voted for the proposal…

 

Can I spin a positive out of this? Well apart from standing for Papakura Local Board next year the answer in short is sadly NO!

 

Although I have to ask this question: Do I continue to stand for Local Board, or try my hand at Council itself and try to tip out a centre-left sitting Councillor north of me (in other words NOT contesting Papakura as the current councillor centre-right and it is pointless trying to tip out one of your own). It is a question that I will need to think long and hard over as the elections draw near.

In the mean time it is back to submission and speech writing – before Council does anything else rather daft!

 

New Rail Timetables

·

 

New Rail Timetable Now Out

 

Auckland Transport ambassadors were sighted at Britomart this evening handing out the new rail timetables that become effective October 15.

That means October 15, all the Auckland metro rail lines will be operating under a new timetable Monday to Friday (weekend timetable remains unchanged).

 

Here is the fronts and back of the new timetables being handed out:

 

 

Make sure you get your copy as there are some changes that might catch you out.

 

Online versions can be found at: http://www.maxx.co.nz/timetables.aspx

 

Back to the Table – Again

·

Bus Drivers Reject Latest Offer

 

Not so sure what to think here but it would seem NZ Bus Drivers have rejected their latest pay offer from NZ Bus who run Auckland’s  Metrolink, Waka Pacific, Go West, North Star and Link (City, Inner and Outer) bus fleet.

This is from my inbox this morning (Saturday):

 

Results of Auckland bus drivers ballot

 Bus drivers have voted against a revised proposal from NZ Bus for their collective employment agreement. 

The vote was 51% against ratifying the proposed settlement, and 49% in favour. 

Drivers voted by secret ballot at their different bus depots over the past week and a Company lawyer was present to supervise the counting of the vote. 

Spokesperson for the bus unions, Karl Andersen, said that the voter turnout was very good.  There were very few union members that didn’t vote. 

“After careful consideration of the offer, drivers are still of the view that they don’t earn enough to provide for themselves and their families,” he said. 

Karl Andersen said despite some movement from NZ Bus, both the amount offered by the company, and a delayed implementation of pay increases, was still a core issue for drivers. 

The unions are considering their options at the moment and will make some decisions about next steps early next week, he said. 

 

On Monday we will probably hear what is next in store for NZ Bus, its union workers, and bus commuters. Hopefully no more strikes…

 

 

All Things Public Transport

·

Auckland Transport Releases RPTP

 

Some good news after the Bums Rush Auckland Council gave yesterday with its continuing crap handling of our finances. Auckland Transport had released the much vaunted Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP) for viewing AND submissions. You can check the RPTP at the AT website HERE (which includes links to the submission form) or read the embed at the bottom of this post.

I am busy reading through the 138 page document but from what I have seen so far I can personally say that if we follow through with this, then Auckland as another blogger said is on the cusp of a (Public) Transport Revolution. Yes I will be forming an extensive submission on this RPTP, especially around the “zones,” fares and most likely feeder bus set ups. And yes I will trundle along to a hearing in front of Auckland Transport if the CCO gives enough heads up for me to get a period of time off work.

 

As I said earlier, I am busy reading through the document, so no extensive commentary just yet. But from glances at the website and summary documents I can safely say (for now) that the RPTP will meet the number three fundamental in my “What I Stand For – For Auckland” page:

  • An Integrated Approach to Transport: None of this “all for one but not the other approach” we get from both roading and Green lobbyists. Road and Mass Transit both have their places here in Auckland – albeit more balanced like the Generation Zero 50:50 campaign This integrated approach also applies to many other things out there – I call it The Best of Both Worlds.

 

While I begin writing the submission to the RPTP, I’ll show an example of what will be in my submission – in this case Zonal Fare:

From my ZONAL FARES post written last month:

Ben’s Proposals for Zone Based Fares

Four Zones (I will draw a map later) with the Central Post Office (so Britomart Transport Centre) as the central focus point in which the zones are calculated:
  • City Zone (Orakei, Newmarket and Grafton Trains Stations, plus the city side of the Harbour Bridge andPonsonby Road form that boundary)
  • Inner Zone (Basically marked by the traditional Otahuhu and New Lynn fare boundaries, and Smales Farm on the North Shore)
  • Outer Zone (Manurewa to the south, Westgate and Swanson to the West and Albany to the north)
  • Regional Zone (all areas beyond the outer zone)

These zones are like a target with a cross in the middle extending through the zones. From the very south to the very north of the zoned areas would mean travelling through eight zones one way. Four zones to get half way the journey and another four zones as you move through the centre to the other end of the city.

The fares for moving within or between the four zones (single trip – cash fare one way – flat fee regardless or adult or child)
  • Within a single Zone: $2
  • Between two Zones: $3
  • Between three Zones:$5
  • Between four Zones: $7
  • Five or more Zones: four zone fare plus the price of the “extra zones” travelled to the daily fare cap of $15 (so travelling six zones would equal $7 + $3 = $10 one way)

I also propose a maximum fare cap of $15 per day for all travel on the integrated public transport system. However you would still be able to by a full day pass for unlimited travel on all modes across all zones from 9am Weekdays and all day weekends and public holidays for a discounted cap price of $13 if you know you are going to be travelling around all day.

The trusty Family Pass should also be made available at the same time as a full day pass for the flat fee of $25. Super Gold holders ride free per usual at their dedicated times.

Okay so we have the zones set (map coming later in an update) and the fares organised for cash-single trips (no using an AT-HOP card), the day and family passes, Super Gold Holders and the maximum fare cap for any one day’s travel.

Now to using an AT-HOP card in place of cash.

Those who would use an AT-HOP card would be our current more frequent travellers who use the exiting ten-trip passes (being phased out) or monthly passes. Using an AT-HOP card should mean you get a discount when paying your fare compared to feeding money down a ticket machine or to the ticket office. Thus I propose the AT-HOP cards have a flat 20% discount regardless of child, adult or tertiary student on the cash fare otherwise charged for your journey. As for Monthly passes there would be four sets of “monthlies” available with prices reflecting discounts accordingly. The same conditions on your 31 days of use from the first day “used” with the existing monthly paper monthlies will transfer over to the AT-HOP Card loaded with Monthly profiles.

 

The Four Monthly Passes and fares (child in brackets)

  • 1-Z – For travelling within one zone: $60 ($50)
  • 2-Z – For travelling between two zones: $90 ($75)
  • 3-Z – For travelling between three zones: $ $150 ($110)
  • A-Z – Ultimate pass – travelling between four or more zones: $210 ($150)

 

The discount rate for adults with Monthly Passes is at minimum 25% compared to single-cash fare with child passes higher (there are no Tertiary discounts).

As for bikes – free travel but as per usual to on-board staff discretion depending on train loadings.

I still have a lot of work to do on these but it is a start and would be a good time to get the initial dialogue going to refine this idea ready for a submission to Auckland Transport in due time.

 

Well that due time is here and it is time to write that submission.

The submission will also become another piece of my “policy platform” when I contend for Papakura Local Board in next year’s Local Government Elections.

 

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND

Shining The Light –
To a Better Auckland

Auckland 2013: YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL

 

Auckland Got The Bums Rush Again

·

Crony-ism Much with White Water Shafting Deal?

 

So it seems we (the ratepayer) got the absolute Bums Rush for due process and all things fiscal responsibility when it came to this White Water Rafting proposal for Manukau.

From The NZH:

Water facility clears first rapid

By Bernard Orsman

5:30 AM Friday Oct 5, 2012

 

Rafting and kayaking venue approved, but the vote leaves some councillors fuming

A controversial $30 million white-water-rafting and kayaking facility in Manukau is back on the drawing board after coming through the political rapids at Auckland Council.

After a lengthy and testy debate yesterday, the council voted 11-9 to allow the Counties Manukau Pacific Trust to build the facility at the TelstraClear Pacific Events Centre, subject to public consultation.

The trust will receive $20 million from the sale of a piece of adjacent council-owned land and promised to raise the remaining $10 million.

Trust chairman and business leader Sir Noel Robinson gave a guarantee to councillors that the project would not require any ongoing funding from ratepayers.

Sir Noel said the trust was proud of what it had achieved for the community and the youth of South Auckland with the Pacific Events Centre and wanted to complete the next stage, the white-water facility.

The commercial venture, with an entry fee of $35 for kayaking and $55 for rafting, is budgeted to run profitably, which will enable the trust to subsidise 15,000 local schoolchildren annually.

 

You can read the rest of the article over at the NZH site.

 

The feeling that I am seeing coming through right across the spectrum from main stream media to social media outlets is one of pure and utter condemnation and disgust against the 11 idiots who voted for this proposal behind the Telstra Pacific Events Centre in Manukau.

This remark from Manurewa Local Board Chair Angela Dalton surmises the current feeling out there in Auckland:

Angela Dalton shared a link.
This morning I spoke alongside colleagues from 6 other Boards at the Auckland Council Strategy and Finance meeting. We told the Councillors we are struggling with the money we have been given in our budgets. To find another 3% savings they
must first look to the regional budgets and projects such as the Waterfront and CDB. They should also look to the CCO’s before coming to the nickel and dime budgets that the Local Boards have to operate on. Following that I stayed to listen to a four hour debate on why we should or shouldn’t sell ratepayers land in my ward to fund the construction of a White Water Rafting Project that is touted to deliver many of the outcomes of the Southern Initiative. In a deja vu vote of 11-9 the Manurewa Local Boards wishes were once again discarded, 11 votes that included the 2 Maori Statutory Board is the same scenario that saw us have 1.75 million dollars stripped from our budgets a few months ago. I can tell you most assuredly that a trip down a white water rafting shute is not going to turnaround the lives of young people in Manurewa. I thank the Councillors who supported Manurewa in the debate, Cameron Brewer, Calum Penrose, Dick Quax,Christine Fletcher, George Wood, Sharon Stewart. I hearBernard Orsman who was at the debate today will have a piece in the Herald tomorrow about the Trust who are leading this project. Today was jacked up politics once again marginalsing Local Boards advocacy on behalf of their communities.

And this from Orakei Ward Councillor Cameron Brewer:

The most outrageous decision in the two years of this council’s existence was made today. Nine councillors agreed to sell council land and for the proceeds (worth $20 – $30m) to go towards a whitewater rafting facility in the paddock between Telstra Clear Pacific Events Centre in Manukau and the southern motorway, subject to public consultation. Another nine of us councillors were against this controversial project which was rejected by the Manukau City Council 10 votes to 3 back in 2010. However this time the proponents secured the support of two non-elected Independent Maori Statutory Board members so it just got through 11/9. This is a project that’s been 10 years in the making but leaped frogged the exhaustive Long Term Plan consultation and budget processes, which was only signed off on 28 June! Disgusting when you also consider the growing debt mountain, the core council service and local board cuts, and the rates increases. This money needed to be spent much much more wisely

 

With this final remark from me personally:

Ben Ross I suppose I raise this challenge here as well for those who do care genuinely for Auckland: 
Okay so Council led by our now wayward Mayor has failed beyond doubt with this White Watering Rafting project. So where is our Alternative Mayor and Council (candidates) willing and ready to stand now against this failure and say to Auckland,”We stand for Shining the Light for a Better Auckland” come 2013. 2013 Shining the Light for a Better Auckland.

I said Council failed as the motion got passed 11-9, meaning that motion now constitutes going into Council policy for which all of Auckland feels the effects of.

 

I looked at my What Do I Stand For and Believe In – For a Better Auckland page which is located one over here at BR:AKL and looked at which of the eight fundamentals which have been “breached” by yesterdays decision at Council. Apart from numbers two and eight (as urban planning and transport were not in effect here per-se) the Council basically breached the rest of the fundamentals ESPECIALLY numbers six and seven:

  • Basics first: One thing I learnt when I moved out from the parents’ home and struck it out in the real world (including getting married and owning our first house) is that with the limited resources you have got, you did the basics first then with anything left over you just might be able to afford a luxury. Same applies to our civic institutions; they have limited resources so get the basics right first then “treat yourself or others” to a luxury if you are able to do so once the basics are taken care of.
  • 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 DAILOUGE 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 DAILOUGE 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.

 

So because six of the fundamentals were breached and especially two of the “heavies” that I believe in were totally disregarded by nine Councillors and those two useless Independent Maori Statutory Board Members who voted for the proposal, I am in total opposition to them with me showing no confidence in them what so ever!

 

The question is then ‘now what?’

Well I am running for Local Board in Papakura next year in hoping to do my part in restoring sense and responsibility back into our civic institutions (for a better Papakura and Auckland), but for the rest it is a case of what I said above: “So where is our Alternative Mayor and Council (candidates) willing and ready to stand now against this failure and say to Auckland,”We stand for Shining the Light for a Better Auckland” come 2013. 2013 Shining the Light for a Better Auckland.”

 

Auckland now waits for that alternative!

 

As what I stand for – in Shining the Light for a Better Auckland; you can check my fundamental principles below:

THIS IS WHAT I STAND FOR AND BELIEVE IN FOR A BETTER AUCKLAND

  1. Strong but no interfering Governance: Meaning Council  shows active and real leadership but does not interfere with the daily lives of residents and businesses
  2. Finances: If my family has to live within its means then so does the civic institutions that impact on us greatly (that being Council and Government). You work out your income, then what you can spend on – NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND as with Auckland Council
  3. An Integrated Approach to Transport: None of this “all for one but not the other approach” we get from both roading and Green lobbyists. Road and Mass Transit both have their places here in Auckland – albeit more balanced like the Generation Zero 50:50 campaign
    This integrated approach also applies to many other things out there – I call it The Best of Both Worlds.
  4. 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
  5. Keeping It Local: Large centralised civic institutions seem impersonal (if not frightening) to most us. So how about keeping it Local and allow our Local Boards to be resourced properly so they can execute their true functions of local advocacy and providing our local community parks and services for us.
  6. Basics first: One thing I learnt when I moved out from the parents’ home and struck it out in the real world (including getting married and owning our first house) is that with the limited resources you have got, you did the basics first then with anything left over you just might be able to afford a luxury. Same applies to our civic institutions; they have limited resources so get the basics right first then “treat yourself or others” to a luxury if you are able to do so once the basics are taken care of.
  7. 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 DAILOUGE 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 DAILOUGE 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.
  8. Stay out of my way: I believe in the following strongly “Individual Freedom -> Individual Choice -> Individual Responsibility (oh and do not forget the consequences)”   I am an adult who can make choices for myself (whether it was right or wrong), treat me as such rather than a child.

 

Sydney’s Rail Woes

·

Sydney Suffering from Rail Woes

 

 

I was meant to get this published but just ran out of time. Check this piece from the SMH on the impending rail woes about to hit Sydney Metro:

 

Crush hour: $9b rail link flaw

Jacob Saulwick

Transport Reporter

 

RUSH hour commuters will be forced to wait for at least two crowded trains to go through Chatswood station before being able to continue their journey to the city, under the O’Farrell government’s centrepiece $9 billion transport project.

The government’s decision to build the north-west rail link as a shuttle between Epping and Chatswood, breaking its promise to allow trains to run all the way to the city, will lead to potential chaos for many north shore and Hills district commuters.

Thousands of commuters disembarking at Chatswood will be unable to get on city-bound trains already operating at capacity. And passengers getting off the north-west trains may struggle to fit on the crowded platform at Chatswood.

With an ”optimised” timetable for the north-west rail link, more than 40 per cent of peak-hour passengers transferring to the city at Chatswood will be unable to get on the next service because it will be too crowded, according to analysis commissioned by Transport for NSW and obtained by the Herald.

 

Further, more than 15 per cent of them will be unable to fit on the next two citybound trains on the north shore line.

The analysis was commissioned and done just before the Premier, Barry O’Farrell, and the Transport Minister, Gladys Berejiklian, announced the new model for the north-west rail link on June 20.

Last night Ms Berejiklian said one of two environmental impact statements required for the link has received planning approval.

Under the model, the line will be built and run by a private operator rather than RailCorp. Transport for NSW hired consultants from the engineering firm Arup to look at whether Chatswood Station could cope with the passengers transferring to citybound trains.

Arup modelled what would happen if one peak-hour train on the north shore line was cancelled which, on RailCorp’s record, would happen about once a fortnight. In this case, 62 per cent of north-west rail link passengers would not fit on the first train to the city. Almost 40 per cent would not fit on the second train. More than 20 per cent of passengers – about 1900 people – would have to wait for a fourth, fifth or sixth train. In this scenario there would be ”extreme difficulties to alight and to enter the platform from stair”, a summary of the analysis says.

”Patrons entering the station have difficulty moving away from the stair and patrons coming off NWRL services … cannot exit carriages due to congestion,” the summary says.

Even with a good running service, queueing levels would exceed good practice. ”Modelling doesn’t take into consideration the frustration and anxiety of missing trains,” it says.

The modelling assumes 8880 people will get off the north-west rail link at Chatswood to transfer to the lower north shore or city.

Using freedom-of-information laws, the Herald requested the analysis in July. The response from Transport for NSW redacted all substantial analysis, in part because it said releasing it could jeopardise procurement for the line. The department said the analysis was only preliminary because it was based on assumptions still being developed.

The Herald obtained sections of the analysis independently.

A spokesman for Transport for NSW said the modelling obtained by the Herald assumed 20 trains an hour on the north shore line in the morning peak.

”We are undertaking work to determine what improvements need to be made to the network to run 24 trains an hour,” he said.

Ms Berejiklian said: ”The government is working to make this a world best-practice interchange and we are confident we will deliver that.

“Everything that has been presented to me by Transport for NSW leaves me in no doubt that Sydney’s rail future has been well thought through.”

The government’s infrastructure adviser, Infrastructure NSW, will release its plan for new tollroads through the inner west and south of Sydney tomorrow.

It will also recommend building an airport at Badgerys Creek, a move that is not supported by the O’Farrell government.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/crush-hour-9b-rail-link-flaw-20121001-26vkt.html#ixzz28HA6rrqN

 

As I was pasting that article to here, this came up just now at the SMH:

 

Adapting existing infrastructure will put NSW on road to recovery

Opinion – Paul Broad

 

Making Sydney a more economically successful and better place to live is a major objective of the State Infrastructure Strategy. This is because Sydney, as the major economic force of NSW, is most capable of driving an upturn in the state’s fortunes.

The strategy is called ”First Things First” with good reason: this phrase captures the main messages that have come out of the past 12 months’ consideration of what the state needs to set it up for the future.

There has been too much waste and misdirection in past infrastructure policy, which has contributed to the slowing of our economy compared with other states. The result is that in spite of record spending on infrastructure – $70 billion spent in the past five years, representing a doubling of funding from the previous five-year period – much of our infrastructure networks fall short of community expectations.

Take transport as a case in point. Some passenger train services are actually slower than they were decades ago. Road congestion has been gradually worsening. The CBD in peak hour defines gridlock.

 

We need to address this situation by dealing with the most urgent priorities first. This means focusing on those initiatives and projects that will yield the greatest economic impact.

There are more than 30 transport-related recommendations in the strategy covering urban and regional areas and all major modes of transport. Each is important in its own right and represents a considered assessment of the best, fastest and most cost-effective solution available.

Using the yardstick of economic impact, the single biggest transport priority is the WestConnex project that involves construction of an M4 East linked to a duplicated M5 East and major urban renewal along Parramatta Road.

The NSW Bureau of Transport Statistics data shows that overwhelmingly Sydney relies on roads for daily travel. Of 17 million average weekday trips, 69 per cent are by road, 19 per cent by bicycle or walking, 7 per cent by bus, taxi or ferry and 5 per cent by rail. If you consider passenger transport alone, 93 per cent of trips are by road.

Most road travel is dispersed to myriad smaller locations across our large metropolitan area. They are not trips to CBDs that could be easily transferred to rail, for example. Our motorway network acts as a major distributor of these millions of journeys as opposed to being a funnel through which people commute to the major CBDs, contrary to popular opinion.

Considering all these points, as well as the dominance of roads in moving freight, WestConnex will have a major beneficial impact on the largest possible number of Sydneysiders.

Conversely, roads do not replicate the role of public transport, especially rail and buses, in servicing CBD locations.

Public transport is the best option for these large centres and it will need significant targeted investment to grow the capacity of public transport systems, as well as speeding up journey times and making services more reliable.

While there are cases where capital investment is needed, the strategy recommends much can be achieved at less cost and more quickly by incrementally improving the road, bus and rail networks we already have. What is advocated is a mix of both.

The strategy’s future vision for central Sydney is built around the CBD Transit Improvement Plan – a mixture of bus rapid transit and rail improvements. In short, most of the peak-hour buses that flow into the city at present will be able to bypass the traffic completely via an underground route similar to the successful Brisbane model. As a result, bus/rail interchanges will be built at Wynyard and Town Hall as part of a major modernisation of these critical stations.

A significant upgrade to the City Circle Line to increase capacity and allow more services is also proposed, as are plans to introduce rapid transit on key rail lines including the main west lines and turn-up-and-go express services between Sydney and Parramatta.

For areas serviced by buses, such as the northern beaches, a program of upgrades including an extra lane on the Spit Bridge are being proposed.

Speeding up train services is the focus for outlying areas. Getting the main intercity journeys Wollongong-Sydney and Gosford-Sydney down to one hour is the goal of the strategy.

Infrastructure NSW believes this approach has got the priorities right. Its methodology is more modest than the infrastructure planning of the past – in our view, a positive advantage that will deliver more real results for public transport users and motorists alike.

Paul Broad is the managing director of Infrastructure NSW.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/adapting-existing-infrastructure-will-put-nsw-on-road-to-recovery-20121003-26zkc.html#ixzz28HBHdl00

 

 

After reading both of those I was wondering to myself; “Geez this sounds all awfully familiar.” That’s right, it is the very same problems, debates and solution seeking that Auckland and its transport is going through RIGHT NOW! At least we can take some small comfort that our Aussie neighbours are experiencing the same issues as us in Auckland. Although flushing A$9 billion down the shitter into some rather large rail fallacy prone project (The North West Line (Sydney)) is rather eye popping stuff here (compared to our large scale mega projects).

 

I do have to ask this though:

Why does everything a Centre-Right central or state government in the Northern Hemisphere do in regards to mass transit turn out to be success stories (okay might be pushing it with the USA) while in the Southern Hemisphere, anything the Centre-Right central or state (where applicable) governments do in regards to mass transit turns into one big shit-stink pile that gets us no-where (maybe backwards if we are lucky to get any movement)?

I thought we were meant to achieve: “An Integrated Approach to Transport: None of this “all for one but not the other approach” we get from both roading and Green lobbyists. Road and Mass Transit both have their places here in Auckland – albeit more balanced like the Generation Zero 50:50 campaign. This integrated approach also applies to many other things out there – I call it The Best of Both Worlds.” (From my What Do I Stand For and Believe In – For a Better Auckland page)

Groan and eye-roll material stuff here folks…

 

 

Quay Street Nuts Ctd

·

Follow Up on Quay Street

 

 

After yesterday’s initial post on Quay Street Nuts, I had a few discussions with others as well as a general head scratching session last night on the Quay Street issue. Basically I came to the same conclusion as I did yesterday in which I said:

 

So from what I can gather unless my English and interpreting documents some what out of whack, these incoming changes have been signalled well in advanced in three sets of plans (The Auckland Plank, The City Centre Master Plan, and The Long Term Plan 2012-2022). Whether I agree with the changes or not is a different story although it can be seen above in my comments to the Facebook thread.

In short I have no issue with the Quay Street works, but as I said:

“I think the problem is that this part of Quay Street flipping over to a boulevard is somewhat too soon without actual alternative in place. Stanley Street and State Highway 16 is not somewhat of an alternative heading from the east seeming our engineers can not phase traffic lights for peanuts” 

 

Outside of that issue, I am not having major issues here with Quay Street (west) although I am looking at alternatives here (not whole scale Quay Street west – just some minor tinkering to smooth the works transition). As for Quay Street east, I already drew up a plan for that and submitted on it. However works in that sector are not due to after the CRL I believe, so still time to keep the dialogue going there.

 

Oh if you are wondering what I meant about sticking the boot in at that particular Hearings Panel; it means I strongly disagreed with Parnell and do not want that station built, was not overtly fond of Quay Street work so soon in the game, and as for the CRL – well you all know how I advocate for that mega project on a delayed timetable. But as I said, there was both constructive criticism and as I said singing the praises too. So I am not always a grumpy old fart :P

Due credit is give when it is due – such as Councillor Wood is about to find out.

 

George will still get his due credit tomorrow when he goes into bat for the 380 Airport buses at tomorrow’s Transport Committee meeting.

 

Just to provide clarification here on Quay Street-west and Quay Street-east as they are treated as two distinct entities by both Auckland Council and the CCO’s as well as myself. Quay Street-west is Quay Street from the Viaduct Harbour through to the Tangihua Street/Tinley Street/Quay Street Intersection (where the Z petrol station and port entrance is); while Quay Street-east is from that same intersection through to the Stanley Street/Tamaki Drive/Quay Street intersection.

 

Further explaining: with Quay Street-east; that is being “dealt with” in my Auckland Water-Frontier work as I create a boulevard and an expressway in that section of Quay Street. This run of commentary on Quay Street-west is where this post (and the current “angst” from Orakei) is focusing on (again mentioned above).

 

I also had a read of a few letters to the Editor in the Herald this morning which were somewhat scathing of basically Orakei (mainly the Councillor, Local Board Chair and the Tamaki MP), while one was supportive of light rail along Tamaki Drive. And again after a ponder I would also tend to be in agreement with Mr Sheehan of Milford and his letter to the editor as well as Mr Broome’s letter to the editor on Light Rail – although I would look into the timetable of that. I would look at the light rail timetabling plan (for roll out) due to the fact I had mentioned something similar in the Wynyard Quarter section of my submissions where a light rail line would run from Wynyard Quarter to (as of now after some progression post-submission) east end of The Auckland Water-Frontier project zone.

 

And where does all this bring me too? It brings me to politely disagree with Orakei and their assertions around Quay Street and offer support behind Ludo Campbell-Reid and the works soon to start on Quay Street-west (although I can withdraw that support too).

A respected former centre-right councillor did raise with me:  “I think its more the lack of communication than the vision.” My reply to that was: “The question though  is where (the lack of communication). I found it in three sections of the City Centre Master Plan, a section of the Long Term Plan and sections in the main Auckland Plan. Heck even I was aware of Quay Street west (although I paid little attention to it as I was focused on Wynyard Quarter and Quay Street east) when writing submissions and having frank discussions with Ludo, Cathy Casey, and George Wood in the hearings panel. I am of the current opinion Quay Street might have snuck up on some more quickly than first anticipated”

 

 

So the issue in my eyes with Quay Street-west is basically done and dusted with works soon about to begin – of which I have as said many times above and before, no problems with. I might email Ludo Campbell Reid around some minor “transitional” concerns with Quay Street-west to endure traffic movements are smooth and not heavily disrupted pre CRL however to seek some reassurances.

 

 

 

References

 

Letters to The Editor

 

Reference to City Centre Master Plan

http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/ccmp/Pages/home.aspx#ad-image-0

 

 

Coal: Its and Our Future

· 1 Comment ·

Opinion: All things Coal

 

I was cruising through the opinion sections of the Herald on the trip home today when I saw this opinion piece on coal:

 

From the NZ Herald:

 

Dave Feickert: Dark day as coal mines shuttered

By Dave Feickert

 

The recent decisions by Solid Energy to put the Spring Creek coking coal mine on to care and maintenance and stop the development of the half sunk ventilation shaft at the East Side mine will have horrendous consequences for the West Coast and the Huntly regions. These regions are already hard hit, especially the Coast after the deaths of 29 Pike River men in a gas explosion on 19 November, 2010, and the loss of over 300 Pike jobs.

Coming with the decision to dismiss many other staff at its headquarters and elsewhere it looks like a panic restructuring brought on by crisis. State Owned Enterprises Minister Tony Ryall told Solid Energy unions on Tuesday that the company had debts of over $300 million. This was news to the men. He made this sound highly significant but in financial terms it is not. It may be that the debt accumulated without the Government being aware, but that is because of the remote, revenue-collector role they chose to play.

Solid Energy has made a hefty $614.3 million profit over the last 10 years, with $394 million in the last five years alone. Government has had its pound of flesh big time.

Why then is this state-owned enterprise acting more like an American coal robber baron from the 1920s and despoiling whole communities?

Both Mr Ryall and Prime Minister John Key have taken up the refrain of Solid Energy’s Don Elder that it’s all because of the collapse in international coal prices, which are priced in US dollars. Apparently, Spring Creek can only get $120 per tonne now and its production costs are high, partly because it is going through a development phase into new reserves. So over 300 miners in an area of high unemployment are to be sacrificed and there is nothing the Government can do.

It is difficult not to share the anger of the miners who went to see Ryall at the Beehive because this is decidedly not the international view of coking coal prices. Kevin Crutchfield, the CEO of Alpha, one of the biggest coal mining companies in the US, has just said, on explaining why it is moving from power station coal to coking coal: “Globally there remains a structural undersupply of metallurgical coal and Alpha expects to see demand grow by more than 100 million tons by the end of the decade.” This is long-term thinking, totally absent in the Solid Energy board.

Crutchfield and other coal industry analysts know that the demand for steel will pick up again in China as that country, India and Brazil move to a developed country per capita use of steel. They are only halfway there at the moment. Coking coal prices will then rise.

The key question for Solid Energy is how to get through production gaps, when developing new areas of coal is costly, as it always is in mining, through to the promised land. Do the Solid Energy board members understand this? There is not a single mining engineer on the board and the sole Australian minerals expert knows little about how to mine West Coast coals, I would guess. Elder, himself, is not a mining engineer.

So if coal prices are “volatile” rather than “fixed” what about production costs? Well, we have just seen an unprecedented co-operation between a workforce and local management to come up with a costed plan for transition, survival and future success. It has already been rejected, with Ryall admitting that he had not even read it; for that was a matter for the board. This is head-in-the-sand government.

And to hear Steven Joyce, the “ideas man” of the Government and a possible future PM, say that coal is one of the sunset industries they are not interested in is quite incredible. We have 11 billion tonnes of coal reserves and we should remember that oil and gas are by no means as plentiful. Coal was once the foundation of the chemical industry and will become so again as oil and gas deplete. Moreover, it will be processed in future in an environmentally acceptable manner. Once again, driven by its own insufficient oil supply and a growing dependency on oil imports, China is leading the way in this new revolution, but then it is doing so in renewables, too.

Let us then also consider the horrendous costs to the nation and the taxpayer should the non-miners on Solid Energy’s board decide to shut a publicly owned company’s key assets down – closing its two deep mines and refusing to develop Pike River, which it also owns. Pike had over 300 jobs and many of those miners remain unemployed. Spring Creek and East Side have over 300 miners, including contractors; so we have a thousand deep mining jobs at stake.

As the Europeans know from closing down their coal industries there are two jobs depending, in related industries, on every mining job.

I have calculated on the basis of the redundancy pay for Spring Creek miners and just 150 of the total workforce remaining unemployed for two years that the cost to the taxpayer -with the multiplier effect on other jobs – will be over $30 million. And here we are talking about the whole deep mine sector.

In the UK the mines started closing fast in 1986. Those 180 have now gone, but for a handful and the communities, 26 years on, remain devastated.

Just go and see for yourself, Mr Ryall.

Dave Feickert is a mining consultant who worked in the UK coal industry for 10 years. www.davefeickert.co.nz

 

This comment caught my attention the most:

HC (Onehunga)
11:17 AM Monday, 1 Oct 2012

 

As much as I am for a gradual move away from the use of fossil fuels, I realise that the use of coal will be necessary for at least a few more decades, if not longer, for industrial purposes in steel mills, in powering some high tech power generation plants with sophisticated, environmentally friendly filter systems reducing emissions. Other industrial use of the resource is possible.

And to build more alternative generation capacity, energy from coal is needed to make steel to build the wind generators, dams, solar reflectors and else.
So of course, the government is again following ideology and a hidden agenda.

They prefer fully privatised operators like Bathurst (now how often did Joyce refer too that company?) and want to sell off 49 per cent of Solid Energy, being a state owned enterprise. It is apparently even written in their annual plan – or the likes thereof – that they want to make the SOE “fit” for the shares sell-off.

The government should step in to help Solid Energy establish some additional, diversified operations, within which the workers can be employed until the supposedly now so low coal price recovers again. Train them to do something else for being.

 

I would be tended to agree with that comment that was made in reply to the opinion piece. Look as I have said in my submissions amongst other places; oil, gas and mainly coal will be with us until at least the end of this century. Coal is used in so many of our industrial processes that if we were to ban all coal use tomorrow (hello Greens) we would be sent back before Roman times. Ask yourself and look around your home (including car, garage and outside) and see what had coal as an input to produce that item you have/use and what can honestly replace coal to make that item you have or use. You might be shocked on how crucial coal actually is. In my home coal was used for the following:

  • car manufacturing (whether it be steel or power production)
  • house (power generation for the actual house and the factories producing wood, nails, tiles, pipes, electrics, etc)
  • garden (fertilisers both synthetic and organic like Blood and Bone (comes from meat works you know), sprays, power generation again for factories producing wood, brick, concrete, etc)
  • Fuel (synthetic petrol is possible in NZ)
  • Food (indirect but check our fertilisers are made and again power production)
  • heating (old place had a fire-place able to burn coal, power generation for heating and cooling (Huntly?))
  • Gadgets like my computer and tablets (power production for the mines, steel and other metal production, etc)
  • And so on

Coal is pretty well embedded with us if we are to remain industrious and not slip back to pre Industrial Revolution days until actual alternative are here and viable – which they are not.

To say other wise is damn stupid and foolish. And as said from the commenter and myself, coal will phase out eventually – just not when the Greens would like to do so.

 

So unless you are willing to give up every thing you have that was made by industrious process (and that includes your bus, train and bike) then don’t go bagging coal. Of you do have an alternative – why is it not on the market yet?

 

Causalities of – The LTP?

· 1 Comment ·

And Here Come the Causalities

 

 

The Long Term Plan 2012-2022 was adopted into existence earlier this year, setting the Council’s course on all things revenue and expenditure (yeah lets ignore the V8s and White Water-rafting for a few seconds). On the rates side; some of us got stung with large rates rises while others got nice rates decreases. All of us though got service and capital expenditure cuts when our respective Local Boards had to follow through on a 3% cut in their budgets per the Mayor’s “orders.”

Manurewa Local Board have been very vocal on what the funding cuts have meant capital expenditure wise (so money for community projects like playgrounds and upgrades to community facilities). Well it seems I have stumbled (via the NZH) across our first OPEX (so facilities funding in the operational costs side) casualties in the form of POSSIBLE library closures.

 

From the NZ Herald:

 

Cost cuts threaten two libraries

By Bernard Orsman

5:30 AM Monday Oct 1, 2012

 

Pressure goes on after mayor’s directive for all areas of city council to trim budgets by 3 per cent in election year.

 

Libraries in Snells Beach and Grey Lynn have been marked for closure as the result of a directive from Mayor Len Brown to reduce costs in what will be election year.

Snells Beach residents, many of whom are retirees, are bewildered and angry at murmurings the refurbished Mahurangi East Library in the community centre is closing.

More than 300 locals have signed a petition deploring the proposal and there is fighting talk by local politicians of chaining themselves to the building.

“We love our bright, welcoming, well-used library, the heart and soul of this mixed and growing community,” said local Sandra Garman.

The other locality in the cost-cutting sights of council library manager Allison Dobbie is the Grey Lynn library, housed in its original 1924 building on Great North Rd.

Waitemata Local Board chairman Shale Chambers said closing Grey Lynn library would be unwarranted, completely wrong and would cause pointless grief.

Mr Brown, through chief executive Doug McKay, has directed all council departments, local boards and council-owned bodies to cut their operating budgets by 3 per cent next year.

This is so Mr Brown can reduce the projected rates increase for his election-year budget to “well below 4 per cent”.

Mr Brown and Mr McKay have boasted about making $1.7 billion in savings and efficiencies over 10 years.

And for the first time they are calling for cuts to service levels. This has led Ms Dobbie to look at closing two of the council’s 55 libraries.

She did not return calls to comment about the pressure she was under to reduce library services.

In a written statement, Mr Brown said he doubted any libraries would be closed to reduce next year’s rates.

But he would not give a firm guarantee to Snells Beach and Grey Lynn library users

 

Article continues at NZH site

 

Okay so which way is it, we looking at library closures or not? And why is a guarantee not able to be given here – that to me sounds like that the libraries will close but not one has the balls to say so from the outset. Gee I feel the communities affected through being left in limbo over the state of their libraries.

 

But we all knew this kind of thing was coming under this Council with this failed Long Term Plan.

I suggest that we divert money from the CAPEX budget and sink it into the OPEX budget. The money for the Cruise Ship Terminal and the money for phase one for the Quay Street Boulevard would cover the libraries and other Local Board budgets for the next wee while to come (oh say 10 years).

And what about Quay Street Boulevard? Defer all work on it until 2020 but leave enough money behind for our engineers to get the traffic light phasing RIGHT and maybe some extra signage and pot plants.

 

Hey we all got to make sacrifices here and I am making a few suggestions that are win-wins all round here.

But then again win-wins and the simple things often escape Council and the bureaucrats – otherwise we would not have these problems would we?