Category: Planning

Looking at all things planning.
Check the Sub Categories for more specific forms of planning

Papakura Set for ‘Large’ Housing Development

· 5 Comments ·

Upwards of 500 “Low Cost” Housing to be Built – In Papakura

 

We all know housing affordability in Auckland sucks with the Demographia Affordability rating being around 5.3 or “severely unaffordable (affordable is at 3.0 meaning the total cost of a home purchase should not exceed three times the total annual income of the household living in it. Currently Rebekka and I sit around the 3.52 mark). All sorts of measures are trying to be taken to allow the average person to at least being able to afford their very own house to live in. In this particular case Housing New Zealand has put out a tender to the private sector for the construction of upwards of 500 new homes that are: state houses, social housing and full private houses. The NZ Herald explains:

 

From the NZH:

Big low cost homes job set to start

By Simon Collins

5:30 AM Friday Oct 12, 2012

 

 

Housing New Zealand is seeking a private partner to build houses on former Papakura army camp land.

Earthworks for Auckland’s biggest low-cost housing development in 25 years will start next month on land that used to be part of the Papakura army base.

Housing New Zealand is seeking a private sector partner to build between 450 and 500 homes on the 24ha site between Walters Rd and McLennan Park. Tenders close on October 16.

Its general manager of asset development, Sean Bignell, said the homes would be a mix of 10 per cent state houses, 20 per cent other social housing and 70 per cent for private sale at prices likely to be “in the high 200s to the high 300s” – putting most of them below the lower quartile mark of Auckland residential properties sold this year.

Finance Minister Bill English said recently that high land prices had skewed Auckland builders towards large, high-value houses, and there was “no housing being built for people in the lowest quartile of income”.

“That is clearly unsustainable,” he said.

A start on the Papakura project comes as Housing NZ bows out of another long-planned 10ha development next to the Weymouth child welfare home, which the new Social Housing Unit in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has allocated to “third-sector” social and affordable housing.

 

If you want to know where approximately, check the map below

 

Click for full resolution

 

So between 450-500 new houses are to be built in the vicinity to where I live. Hmm means its going to be noisy and dusty for a while but I am not particularly minding too much. Look we need more “affordable” housing and if Housing NZ can take the lead in offering this affordable housing then so be it. If I was to have any concerns it is not around the fact “low-cost” housing is about to be built in my backyard; my concern is around the urban design factor which sets the future for this large-scale project for life.

I assume the houses will be a mix of 2-4 bedrooms on sections between 400-600m2? I need to go hit up my Local Board and take a look at the plans as they are not easily found online at the moment. The plans would tell me what kind of urban design work is being done and whether the urban design method chosen will be a benefit or a total hindrance to the future of this development. And something tells me the urban design of this development is actually going to be a hindrance more than a benefit here. How so?

Quick crude maths tells me the following:

  • My house is 110m2 on 520m2 – and I have a 3 bedroom home, so that means I have a front and back yard
  • The new development site is 24 hectares or 240,000m2
  • Divide the 240,000 into 500 houses and you get 480m2, however take into account roads, paths and berms and the average lot would be around 400m2
  • Divide the 240,000 into 450s house and the figures move to 533m2 and 450m2 respectively
  • This does not take into account parks, green spaces or “alleyways”

If we want the kids to at least have a decent backyard to play in and maybe grow the vegetable garden as well (although that is a lost art in Auckland) I would suggest 450m2 sections for three and four bedroom houses would be a generous and comfortable size. Anything smaller and we get no yard space for the kids and that can generate problems if there are no parks nearby. And no Bruce Pulman Park does not count unless you want to cross a very busy Walters Road while the McLennan Park is often used for sports. From what I have also gleamed from the graphic for this new development, thankfully the roads inside the new development are grid which promotes easy of traffic (foot and vehicle) flow while mitigating against the Fear of Crime perception that often comes about in urban development. However there are only two ways in and out of the development (so connecting to main roads) which could be a bit of a pain and isolating factor to this new development. In fact the lack of access to the main roads could isolate this new development and lack of accessibility can mean crime can fester inside the development.

In all that regard, I am going to have to go take a look at the plans to see what is exactly proposed. As I said nothing wrong with new development even in my backyard (I knew things like this would happen in Papakura when we chose to move here), but piss-poor urban design that turns this much needed housing into a crime-bed will not go down particularly well with me.

 

Now as for public transport access. This development is somewhat isolated from the main bus network which runs up and down the Great South Road. Rail-wise you have Takanini and Papakura Station both within 5-minutes of each other although 450 new houses will put pressure on Papakura’s existing Park and Ride which is already short of spaces. This new development would be the perfect time for Auckland Transport to haul arse and get the new Walters Road Rail Station along with a Park and Ride (with 450 spaces) and shuttle bus bay to serve Papakura north, Addison, Takanini east and the new development soon to be built. Trying to encourage public transport with Walters Road Station and Park and Ride would be a good start in improving public transport accessibility, especially for our new residents soon to move in.

Papakura Local Board as well as myself support and are advocating to AT on the Walters Road Station, this new development PLUS the continued development of Addison would be the perfect catalyst into getting our new station by 2015!

I have written in previous submissions as well as the current submission I am writing (the AT Regional Public Transport Plan) for the construction of Walters Road Station, and am making it an election campaign pledge to continue to have the station built sooner rather than later in the Local Government Elections next year!

 

But in the mean time, I shall go search those plans for this new development.

 

Family Pass Hard To Get

·

Yes We Know You Can Not Get Family Passes for the Train Easy Any-More

 

The guys over at Transport Blog picked up and ran with a post on the lack of accessibility to get a Family Pass for the trains, for a day out as currently being seen in the school holidays:

By cbtadmin, on October 11th, 2012
…This policy discriminates against any family that doesn’t live near the three stations mentioned. For instance a family of 5 wanting to travel from the new Manukau Station to Britomart return will have to pay  ($6.80 x 2) + ($4 x 3) = $25.60 x 2 = $51.20 return!  The same family of 5 going from Britomart to Manukau return could get the $24 family pass….

 

Sorry to say guys but where have you been for the last three to four weeks – seriously?!

BR:AKL picked up on the Family Pass issue last month and ran an extensive post on this: $57.80 FOR A RETURN TRIP ON AN AUCKLAND TRAIN

 

The BR:AKL post also included all relevant public information available on the ticketing regime change as well as the Fare Matrix on the new costs of a family day out on the train due to the Family Pass issue.

I emailed every single Councillor and the Mayors Office over this situation as this was of high concern as we approach Labour Weekend and the summer holidays. Needless to say I have received a few replies back and been in extensive email conversation with Councillor Mike Lee over the Family Pass (as well as the fare affordability situation in general) issue.

BR:AKL will maintain the pressure to assure a fair and balanced outcome for family and day tripping users as it is unfair and unbalanced to get slugged $57.80 for a day in town compared to $26 if that same family went by car!

 

I have also made it an election campaign pledge in my running for Papakura Local Board (Local Government 2013 Elections) next year to continue the lobbying and pressure Auckland Transport to restore fair and balanced fairs for families if the situation as not been reverted by then (one year from now).

 

 

But regardless to who posted first on the Family Pass issue, the point being is that Auckland Transport needs to fix the issue NOW as there are not a lot of happy people. Actually off-peak patronage as noticeable dropped these school holidays according to feedback to BR:AKL. I wonder if that is due to the difficulty getting Day Rovers, Family Passes and Discovery Passes from the rail network now. Hmm…

 

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, QUERIES OR COMPLAINTS ON FARE MOVEMENTS WITH AT-HOP THEN CONTACT ANYONE OF THESE AUCKLAND COUNCILLORS ON THE ACCOUNTABILITY AND PERFORMANCE COMMITTEE WITH YOUR CONCERN. THEY ARE THE ONES THAT CAN HELP YOU (or Auckland Transport themselves) WITH YOUR CONCERN – NO ONE ELSE (including Veolia)!

SUBMISSION TO RPTP – CTD

· 1 Comment ·

Part One Down, Onto Parts Two and Three

 

As mentioned in my SUBMISSION TO RPTP post, my submission is currently being written in response to Auckland Transport‘s call for feedback on the Regional Public Transport Plan:

Have Begun Writing Submission to Regional Public Transport Plan

As mentioned in the ALL THINGS PUBLIC TRANSPORT, Auckland Transport has released the Regional Public Transport Plan for public submissions. I have read the 138 pages of the RPTP document and have begun writing my submission to the plan. My submission will be covering five main points on the RPTP which will be further reinforced in the subsequent hearings panel afterwards – the points being:

  1. Lack of direct Manukau to Papakura South Rail Link from Manukau Station
  2. Constructive Criticism and Praise to Chapter Five – Key Directions which looks at the proposed network (and services) through to 2022
  3. Chapter 6.4 – Fares and Ticketing. Specially my counter proposal around zone fares and pricing
  4. Chapter 6.5  – Infrastructure of the physical Public Transport network and facilities (building on from my submissions to The Auckland, and Long Term Plans)
  5. Chapter 6.6 – Customer Service Interface – and how best it can be used and improved for a clean,easy, efficient and “happy” portal for customer service interactions

I will endeavour to keep a running commentary as I write my submission and get it in by the deadline of Monday 4th November 2012…

 

I have completed Point Three: Fares and Ticketing. That part of my submission is around introducing zonal fares rather that fares based on distance travelled, coupled with suggestive fares public transport passengers would be charged. You will be able to see the full submission as I send it to AT once I have completed it.

And so I move onto the next part which is Points One and Four: The Lack of direct Manukau to Papakura South Rail Link from Manukau Station; and Chapter 6.5  – Infrastructure of the physical Public Transport network and facilities (building on from my submissions to The Auckland, and Long Term Plans).

 

In regards to the lack of a direct link from Manukau to Papakura; I will continue to lobby and advocate to Auckland Transport on getting a firm timeline of completion for that link. As I have commented in the past here at BR:AKL (formerly VOAKL) Manukau Station is handicapped by access and pathetically low patronage due to a lack of a direct link from Papakura to the station. In my experience, the bulk of your peak and off-peak passengers (regardless of the tertiary institution campus being built on top) to and from Manukau come from your: Homai, Manurewa, Papakura and Pukekohe stations. Currently the passengers from the south have to catch a train and go as far as Puhinui Station before transferring to Manukau from Britomart service (it is vice versa if leaving Manukau and wanting to go back south)  which runs hourly in the off-peak and weekends, and around 20-30mins in the morning and afternoon peaks.

To me this is unacceptable to which I actually put the blame on Auckland Council and the former Manukau City Council rather than Auckland Transport. Auckland Transport got lugged with the Manukau mess so I am strongly recommending to AT to help clean up the situation and pressure Kiwi Rail to build that South Link by 2018!

 

In regards to the infrastructure point, I am basically looking at rail and bus stations in regards to: facilities on the stations, ease of access, whether Park and Rides should be build adjacent to the said stations, and whether the tough call needs to be made in closing down or relocating stations for better patronage and access to the travelling public. I will also investigate looking in establishing a light rail system that spans the Waterfront to St Heliers Bay along with running up and down Dominion Road as far as Lynfield. Now I said investigate as Light Rail was part of my Auckland Water-Frontier proposal especially around Wynyard Quarter, so I will “see” if this system can be expanded further in its reach and access. Now if anything, this part of the submission and the fares part will be the most prickly in the hearings with AT after I submit my submission (unless AT really take to task my points on the Customer Service Interface – and how best it can be used and improved for a clean,easy, efficient and “happy” portal for customer service interactions knowing how err sensitive our CCO can be).

But at the end of the day I am submitting fair and balanced, but constructive feedback to Auckland Transport on their RPTP. There will be no defaming, there will be no harsh negative comments. Any thing I do constructive criticise will have ideas, proposals and alternatives from what I believe can make our public transport submission better.

And this is the goal of this submission; “To a Better Auckland”

 

My RPTP, along with all other submissions I have done to Auckland Council or Auckland Transport (Auckland Plan, Long Term Plan, CBD Parking Regime Change, City Centre Master Plan, the Regional Land Transport Plan, soon the Unitary Plan, and currently the Regional Public Transport Plan) form my policy platform (extending on my What I Stand For fundamentals) as well as I stand as a candidate for Papakura Local Board in next year’s Local Government Elections – for a Better Auckland.

 

Updates will continue as I continue to write the submission to the RPTP

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND

Shining The Light –
To a Better Auckland

Auckland 2013: YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL

Submission to RPTP

·

Have Begun Writing Submission to Regional Public Transport Plan

 

As mentioned in the ALL THINGS PUBLIC TRANSPORT, Auckland Transport has released the Regional Public Transport Plan for public submissions. I have read the 138 pages of the RPTP document and have begun writing my submission to the plan. My submission will be covering five main points on the RPTP which will be further reinforced in the subsequent hearings panel afterwards – the points being:

  1. Lack of direct Manukau to Papakura South Rail Link from Manukau Station
  2. Constructive Criticism and Praise to Chapter Five – Key Directions which looks at the proposed network (and services) through to 2022
  3. Chapter 6.4 – Fares and Ticketing. Especially my counter proposal around zone fares and pricing
  4. Chapter 6.5  – Infrastructure of the physical Public Transport network and facilities (building on from my submissions to The Auckland, and Long Term Plans)
  5. Chapter 6.6 – Customer Service Interface – and how best it can be used and improved for a clean,easy, efficient and “happy” portal for customer service interactions

 

I will endeavour to keep a running commentary as I write my submission and get it in by the deadline of Monday 4th November 2012. But in the mean time I will again show my (counter) proposal for zone based fares including this time MAPS and Graphics on my counter proposed zones. Also note that this RPTP submission will form the continuation of my comprehensive policy proposal package for my election campaign next year to the Papakura Local Board (in the Local Government 2013 elections).

 

BEN’S PROPOSALS FOR ZONE BASED FARES (Update Version 2.0)

 

Four Zones (maps of the first draft of the proposed zones are below)) 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 Ian McKinnon Drive, the city side of the Harbour Bridge and Ponsonby Road form that boundary (so the CRL falls inside the City Zone))
  • Isthmus Zone: (Basically marked by the traditional Otahuhu (Mangere Road and Savill Drives and New Lynn (including Rata and Ash Streets) fare boundaries, and Northcote Road on the North Shore)
  • South and East Zone: (Manurewa, Mill Road (north end), Point View Drive)
  • Mid West Zone: (Westgate (Brighams Creek) and Swanson, west side of the Waitemata Harbour)
  • Mid North Shore Zone: east side of Waitemata Harbour, Albany and Long Bay)
  • Outer South, North and West Zones: (all areas beyond the outer zone)
  • Optional South and East Zones: ((so South and East mega zone split into two) State Highway One and Otara Locality)

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 seven 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 (maps further down) 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.

 

These are the maps of the proposed zones (first draft and subject to refinement)

Click for enlarged pictures

 

Balance, simplicity, fairness and minimisation of fare evasion was the methodology behind the zone fares, prices and boundaries stated above. Further refinement will be done as I continue the submission but constructive feedback in the comments department down below is welcome as always.

This submission is part of my “What Do I Stand For and Believe In – For a Better Auckland” fundamentals;  the backbone in the formation of my comprehensive policy proposal package for my election campaign next year to the Papakura Local Board (in the Local Government 2013 elections). :

Part Three of the Better Auckland fundamentals: 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.

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND

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

 

Meetings for More Meetings

·

Was at Transport Committee Meeting Today

 

I finally managed to squeeze some time in my hectic work schedule to trundle along to a Auckland Council committee meeting today. And today it was the Transport Committee chaired by Councillor Mike Lee that I was able to rock up to and sit quietly down the back and observe around about two-thirds of the proceedings before I wanted lunch and carry on with other things.

I also saw for the first time although I did not introduce myself (bit shameful on me) to them were; MP Julie-Ann Genter and Principle Transport Planner Joshua Arbury. Both were due to give their respective reports or presentations in front of the Transport Committee today.

You can see the agenda (the hard copy was thicker than a piece of 4 by 2) in the embeds below. But from observations today out of that Transport Committee; the bulk of the resolutions were: “To Hold another meeting to discuss what was in this meeting which was about the previous three meetings WHICH was about the meeting last year.”

I say we are getting progress somewhere if today’s resolutions were anything to go by…

 

One thing that I will single out though was the immature behaviour of Councillors Quax and Morrison against Julie-Ann Genter and her first class presentation (which reminds me to email her to get a copy of that presentation). Councillor Quax raised a point of order as Ms Genter was explaining a finer point in her section of the presentation about abolishing ‘minimum parking requirements for a development’ due to “time.” While the Chair might of not been keeping time I certainly was and 10 mins was not up to the point anyone that passed a motion for extension of time (which Cllr Dr Cathy Casey did raise in the end) I would have been grateful so I could hear Ms Genter finish her presentation fully. What Councillor Quax was doing was trying to “stomp” on Ms Genter’s presentation as it would have been a direct affront to his flawed and dead ideology which Auckland is trying to shake the legacy from off.

I for one Councillor Quax do not support Minimum Parking Requirements and made that extremely clear in my submission to the Auckland Plan, and will make it even more extremely clear in my submission to the Unitary Plan.

As for Councillor Morrison and asking Ms Genter had she read the Auckland Plan. That to me was implying that the MP had no idea what she was talking about in her presentation when speaking on land and transport planning. Most likely also Councillor Morrison was also implying that he supported the extremely flawed ideology on having Minimum Parking Requirements. I’ll tell you want Councillor, I would be falling head over heels to get Ms Genter into a working party on the unitary plan as some of her ideas were pretty damn solid and much better than what I am seeing coming out of Unitary Plan discussions at the moment.

So to both Councillors – SHAME ON YOU! Then again both of you I would oppose and are in opposition to what you represent any how…

 

And on that note, I wonder if I rock up to the Governing Body meeting coming up – should be a lively debate in that meeting.

Oh and good to see my local Councillor Calum Penrose also participating in the Transport Committee today 😀

The Agenda

[update from Admin: Embeds now working]

 

 

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

 

 

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?

 

 

 

 

 

Quay Street Nuts

·

 

Quay Street Plans Are Nuts

 

Well so the Herald has pointed out this morning:

 

From the NZH:

 

Quay St boulevard ‘just nuts’

By Amelia Wade

5:30 AM Monday Oct 1, 2012

 

Anger has erupted over plans to turn Quay St into a pedestrian-friendly boulevard within three years – and the greatest upset has been caused by what critics say was lack of public consultation.

But Waterfront Auckland says it kept the community well informed about the “exciting project” and it “couldn’t have done more” consultation.

Waterfront Auckland’s plans, revealed in the Herald on Friday, could result in more crossing points, a wider footpath taking in a lane of traffic or two and opening up parts of the red fence to improve to the water’s edge.

The first stage – from the Viaduct to Britomart – is due to be finished by 2016.

But critics of the project say the Tamaki Drive Master Plan hasn’t been taken into account, the traffic plan is “just nuts” and the local board most negatively affected by the proposal was not consulted.

Tamaki MP Simon O’Connor said he was disappointed by the plan, which he said would take cars off the street in the name of beautification.

“This is a surprising development that does not appear to have been thought out …

 

It seems to be motived more by ideology than practicality.”

Mr O’Connor said Waterfront Auckland was pinning its hopes on the “unfunded, yet to be built rail loop and a new ferry service”.

Auckland councillor Cameron Brewer said the suggestion that Quay St was not a busy road outside rush hour was “just pie in the sky”.

“This is a critical piece of transport infrastructure that carries over 30,000 cars a day. Taking out lanes and directing more traffic down the likes of Customs St is just nuts.”

Mr Brewer said he had been given assurances that the community would be closely consulted before any decisions were made.

Orakei Local Board chairwoman Desley Simpson said Auckland Council‘s environmental strategy and policy planning manager, Ludo Campbell-Reid, had been to only one of the board’s meetings, during which he gave a short presentation on the original Quay St Vision.

“We were not encouraged or asked for any comment on input into these plans. He promised to workshop this with the board which has yet to happen,” Ms Simpson said.

She said the plans also didn’t take into account the Tamaki Drive master plan, in development since February, which includes safety improvements at the intersection with The Strand.

Waterfront Auckland’s general manager of development, Rod Marler, said the Tamaki Drive plan was outside its area of control and influence but it had been working with Ms Simpson and consulting the local board about its plans.

Mr Marler also said there was three months of consultation for the waterfront plan last year and included in that was the Quay St project.

“All the projects that we proposed for the waterfront had wide consultation, on general public bills, with key stake holders. It’s been through council, it’s been through local boards – there was plenty of opportunity for people to discuss those initiative … I don’t think we could have done too much more, from a waterfront plan perspective.”

Mr Marler said there was a roadshow for the plans, to which all the affected parties were invited, and there were also workshops with the council.

Waterfront woes

Tell us what you think about the plan. newsdesk@nzherald.co.nz

 

Might get some feedback to the Herald on this if I can be bothered getting round to it (lunch first) 😛

 

Now this was from Facebook this morning in regards to Councillor Cameron Brewer replying to the Herald’s “Nuts” piece (comments also included):

 

  • Local MP Simon O’Connor, local board chair Desley Simpson, and the local councillor went out to bat for their eastern bays constituents who woke up on Friday to the surprising news that the Quay Street boulevard is supposedly done and dusted!

    Quay St boulevard ‘just nuts’ – National – NZ Herald News

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz

    Anger has erupted over plans to turn Quay St into a pedestrian-friendly boulevard within three years – and the greatest upset has been caused by what critics say was lack of public
    • Ben Ross And for the rest of us, this morning in today’s edition of the Herald. Give me a second to check the CCMP and what that says on this
    • Jan O’Connor Quay St is crucial for the successful operation of all North Shore bus services – these services all connect with others at the Britomart Transport Centre. Are they mentioned at all? And how will the cars from the East ever get to the carparking in the Viaduct or Downtown. Ferries from the East – highly expensive operations.
    • Jules Clark If a lot of the through traffic using Quay St are trying to get to the motorway north, then they should just use the Stanley St city bypass. I’m actually happy to see that a transport decision is this time not “car-centric”. There are plenty of Aucklanders who would love to see Quay St made pedestiran friendly. I know this next comment will raise hackles, but perhaps all those in the Eastern Bays who are up in arms should stop driving into the city every day with only one person per vehicle. Stop being selfish and try public transport once in a while – or carpool and use the T2 lane!
    • Ben Ross Still looking through the CCMP…
    • Ben Ross From Page 90 of the CCMP
      Changes to Quay Street need to be considered in the context of the wider road network and public transport improvements, such as the restructured bus network and the City Rail Link. from entering the city centre, although access to the surrounding area. It will also have a critical role as a diversion route during construction of the City provision for pedestrians will naturally encourage freight and unnecessary freeing up Quay Street for an enhanced pedestrian environment with reliable public transport. Consideration of the surrounding road network, especially Customs Street, will be vital to ensure elsewhere in the city centre.

      Okay not good – although I thought in my presentation to Council said that the above was extremely fool hardy if not stupid… someone forgot to give Ludo and the Planners the memo 😛

    • Ben Ross 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
    • Jan O’Connor The boulevards are wide enough already. Just going there now to inspect & see if I can count more than 30 people braving the weather between the Viaduct & Britomart.
    • Ben Ross Right I have gone through the CCMP with a fine tooth comb and if I am reading this right I have nothing but bad news (which I wish wasn’t). According to the CCMP in three different sections and the LTP, it seems Council and the CCOs have (now I am being neutral here so no opinion on being a passer on on what I am seeing) gone on limb here and consulted when submissions were asked for when the City Centre Master Plan was up for consultation. The CCMP also stated that part one of Quay Street works is due to begin now as stated.
      I remember so as I put the boot into the hearings panel (Ludo was present as I have a letter from him acknowledging my submission) on Quay Street, the CRL and Parnell Station while singing the praises and passing a few ideas of Wynyard Quarter. 

      However as I said above: 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

      Emphasis on the last past with engineers, lights and peanuts!

      Look why I am giving a damn here when this is affecting Waitemata, Orakei and North Shore Wards and not Papakura is a case of who knows. But there is a way around this for Quay Street west (the Britomart end) I am just trying to think of something (Quay Street East is not affected yet).

      In the mean time I seriously need more coffee – I don’t get paid enough for this – wait I dont at all 😛

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 😛

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