From Dr Lester Levy

· 1 Comment ·

Dr Levy writes in the NZ Herald

 

I caught this piece this morning (while debunking Orsman) from Dr Levy – head of Auckland Transport

 

Lester Levy: Restoring faith in Auckland’s transport system

Commuters can be assured public transport will be sorted and the service will be one everyone enjoys using.

 

Far too many Aucklanders have lost faith that there is an alternative to their private car. Photo / Brett Phibbs

EXPAND
Far too many Aucklanders have lost faith that there is an alternative to their private car. Photo / Brett Phibbs

When it comes to transport in Auckland the stakeholders are as many and varied as are the differing and divergent views.

I guess it has always been like this and over many decades ad hoc decisions, decisions half-made, questionable decisions and decisions deferred or never made have severely limited options.

Transport solutions in Auckland are well behind where they should be, but not where we have to stay.

I have been chairman of Auckland Transport for six months. What do I see? Public transport in Auckland is just not yet good enough. The trains do not run frequently enough and frequently they do not run on time. The bus real-time information does not seem real to many, because it is not, a lot of the time.

Peak times on trains and buses are often very crowded and it just seems like there are not enough of them – that is because often there are not. The new AT Hop card has had some issues – these have been very frustrating for passengers

…

 

You can read the rest over at the Herald site

 

I have made mention before of Dr Levy’s mission and drive for both Auckland Transport and Auckland’s Transport here at the blog:

While I can be harsh upon Auckland Transport (AT-HOP, Snapper and the Family Pass being the classics), in the same regard I can praise and work alongside them as well (The Regional Public Transport Plan which is back for consultation). Dr Levy though is right through Auckland losing faith in its public transport (as I covered with the fall off in patronage statistics with rail) and even AT itself. I do not particularly envy Dr Levy’s formidable task in turning AT and the public transport system around but I do praise him to take the task head and hands on. Having seen Dr Levy turn around Auckland Hospital I can have faith he can do it again with Auckland Transport 🙂

 

In saying that though while I have faith in Dr Levy, I am apprehensive about the Auckland Transport Executive Team headed by CEO David Warburton. I am allowed to feel apprehensive as a human is I have concerns from the executive team not pulling its weight enough to get the changes we need through. The disdain executive members can have for the Auckland Council Transport Committee don’t help me allay that apprehension and I wonder if all the changes required can be pulled off by 2020-2025.

 

The apprehension against the executive is my private ponderings although I have mentioned them here as I know they will pick up on this.

 

Still; full praise to Dr Levy and his mission.

 

If the RPTP can be pulled off right (so far it has (and I have been involved in it through submissions and hearings) then that should be a big boost for AT and the transport system in Auckland. In saying that I better brush up and prepare my submission for the RPTP southern sector feedback AT is asking after. Need to get those bus routes right you know 😉

 

Lessons from British Columbia in Electoral Races

·

Lessons too with The Unitary Plan

 

This particular article was given to me via Facebook and has some very poignant lessons on elections, and “selling” the Unitary Plan:

B.C. election offers lessons for politicians everywhere

From advertising strategies to mobilizing young voters, politicians have a lot to learn.
By: Michael Byers Published on Thu May 16 2013

 

The main thrust of the article was going on about an incumbent long thought to lose only to win and cause a large shock that even caught the premier out. Tactics and some sober reminders were also pointed out which I should go through point by point in regards to the UP but, touching on the mayoral race as well.

 

From The Star.com

Christy Clark’s re-election was a political shocker of seismic proportions. Nobody saw the victory coming: neither the pollsters, nor the pundits, not even the premier herself.

Across Canada, across the electoral spectrum, politicians and their advisers are scrambling to understand what occurred. Here’s an initial assessment, from my vantage point close to the front lines.

 

  • Positive campaigning is about demeanour, not substance. It’s about conveying optimism and empathy, about connecting with potential voters and inspiring them to turn out. Christy Clark did this well; Adrian Dix did not. And you never, ever, say that you’re running a positive campaign. Just do it!

Speaks for itself with a mayoral campaign. As for the Unitary Plan it is one of the things I try to do when running balanced commentary on this vast document. Yes I will go into attack mode (as Orsman and some conservatives find out quickly) but, that is going to be covered in another point in this post. Yes The Clunker can reign confusion and anxiety but the idea is not to go cause a self-fulfilling prophesy and fuel those negative emotions. Empathy for those that have anxiety (which is legitimate) and optimism for that despite a lousy hand from the Unitary Plan as it stands now, things CAN get better. I suppose empathy and boundless optimism with the Unitary Plan is what is keeping me from going off the deep end for this long as it stands. At the same time real alternatives are being crafted and presented for which all are being received favourably by most sides of the spectrum (you can never impress a NIMBY if you push change or even progress (so some battles you can never win)). All from running a positive campaign approach

 

 

  • Incumbents have to be held to account. Barack Obama’s “yes we can” campaign was leveraged explicitly on eight years of Bush administration failures. The B.C. NDP should have campaigned hard against the major scandals from the B.C. Liberals’ 12 years of power, including the deceptive introduction and shamefaced retraction of the HST. They should have campaigned against British Columbia having the highest child poverty rate in Canada, and against Clark’s personal proximity to the scandal-ridden sale of B.C. Rail.

Again this speaks for itself if one wishes to run against Len. As for me with the Unitary Plan and holding those to account; well the Penny’s (Hulse and Perrit) will get me asking questions if I am lost or don’t like something in particular with the Unitary Plan. Pretty much standard “operations” with a civic body and a planning document. Depending on how such questions are answered will influence whether I go positive or on the attack. Thus far I have not needed to go on the attack against the Penny’s. However holding Local Board Members and Councillors’ feet to the fire is something I will do more readily in regards to the UP. Those like Angela Dalton and Desley Simpson seem to be the exception rather than rule in not having to hold their feet to the fire. Why? Because they do their job and display empathy to all despite the UP being not the easiest document out there. And because both Angela and Desley do their job properly (and extended to Calum Penrose, Mike Lee, Sharon Stewart and Chris Fletcher) I get along with them well when sorting out the crap hand dealt to all of us with the Unitary Plan. We might not all agree but that is democracy and makes for healthy debate and stronger resolutions.

However with the good comes the bad. And there are those I will be holding their feet to the fire over the Unitary Plan. I do not tolerate scaremongering or deliberate misrepresentation from elected members on aspects of the Unitary Plan. The Three Storey House and Walk Up Apartment issue is the most recent case where I have (and rather sadly) gone on an attack path against some of the elected members (which ironically is our more conservative members who have an infamous name that has the word blue in it). This attack has happened because of their deliberate misrepresentation over the three storey housing issue which the subject matter has always been in the Unitary Plan. It would have helped if those particular members actually read their own legacy District Plans which formed the new rules  in regards to three storey buildings in the Unitary Plan

So people will be held to account where required – pure and simple with no apologies for it…

 

 

  • Attack ads work, at least if they are directed against real weaknesses. Adrian Dix did change his position on the Kinder Morgan pipeline halfway through the election campaign. He did wrongly backdate a “memo-to-file” while serving as chief of staff to an NDP premier in 1999.

Attack ads don’t work in NZ too well. Whale Oil and David Farrar would be the better people for opinions on this. But yes to me they do work when executed right and as part of a multi-prong campaign. Especially when an opponent has real actual weaknesses. This also applies with the UP when I go on the attack.

 

 

  • Never show up at a shootout with a Nerf Gun. Attacks have to be countered, and strongly, before they cause lasting damage. This can require launching a retaliatory attack — ideally, again, one that is directed against a real weakness.

Well no ahem Sherlock. Anyone with half a brain should know that. It is also like taking a knife into a gun fight – you will not win… Speaking of which I am listening to a Morning Report piece on the Unitary Plan where this bullet point I am commenting on comes into effect. If a journalist is on to it which they were in this piece, showing up to a shoot out with a Nerf Gun is only going to hurt and it did. As for the bullet point in itself, something that needs to be learned in NZ. Although I measure I will try to use if I get caught in a shootout (to varying degrees of success)

 

 

  • Most people, rather than voting on detailed policies, make their choice on the basis of some broader narrative. The economy matters, but detailed solutions — like Adrian Dix’s beloved “skills training” — do not. The people who are hurting most in tough economic times are also those who, because of a lack of time, education or civil engagement, may be most receptive to simple messaging.

Yep as I learned that in Political Marketing at the University of Auckland. It is also the reason why I get friends to assist me to simplify my documents on the Unitary Plan so that is not only easy to read but encompasses a broader narrative for the readers out there.

 

 

  • Progressive parties need to address the felt desire of many progressive voters for cross-party electoral co-operation. A clear commitment to introducing proportional representation immediately upon being elected could help to draw third party supporters toward any progressive party with a real chance of winning. Unfortunately, the B.C. NDP believed it could win successive elections within the “first past the post” system. Federal Liberals and New Democrats please take note!

Take note those seriously running for office. Failure to do will get you buried. I wonder if this particular bullet point rings out why the Centre Right, Local Government lot in Auckland have been failing with the Super City. It could very well be a lesson for them to take note before the Centre Left increases its majority further.

 

 

  • Pollsters have trouble accounting for lower turnout among some parts of the population. Young people are still not voting, and inspiring them to do so is the single greatest challenge facing progressive political parties today. Twitter and Facebook are no replacement for face-to-face relationship-building. Christy Clark lost her own seat because of a young and energetic B.C. NDP candidate who forged thousands of personal connections the hard way.
A pet problem in getting sections of the population to vote. Still Len managed to pull it off and might very well do so again in these elections with nothing impossible in this stage of the game. As for the Unitary Plan and face to face relationship building; it is the main reason why I headed out across the city to listen to the UP community meetings and gauge people’s views on it. The jetsetting around the city meeting different people has helped frame commentary on the Unitary Plan. The relationship building is also helping when drawing up those alternatives and then putting them out there for people’s thoughts. I supposed the measured successes of the Special Character Zone, and the Manukau as The Second CBD of Auckland work has resulted in the face-to-face relationship building. Seeing faces is often best compared to seeing “Facebook.”

 

  • There are no second chances. The key organizers of the B.C. NDP campaign were the same people who lost the 2009 provincial election. The campaign manager was Brian Topp, who was the early front-runner in the 2011-2012 federal NDP leadership race. With all due respect to Dix, who would have made a remarkably good premier, politicians who want to win cannot allow friendships to shape their choice of campaign teams.

Hmm Banks got a second but not a third chance however, with the UP there is no second chance once it goes into full operation. The bullet point makes a sober reminder when assembling teams to advance any project. Surrounding yourself with Yes-Men that pander to your ego and maybe Small Man Syndrome is going to be the fastest way to be both attacked by all sides and fail at the same time. You always need strong teams and teams that have people who will either go outside the square in thinking or disagree with you if something is utter crap. These kind of teams are winners and serve a reminder to both those with the Unitary Plan and those running for office the stakes in getting this aspect oh so wrong.

 

So we have sobering lessons from Canada that apply here in Auckland. I recommend having a deep thought session about this while I go debunk a piece said on Radio NZ this morning.

THAT 10 METRE – 3 STOREY HOUSE – The Sequel

·

Auckland Transport Blog Reports

 

 

YAY!

One of the few times I will  move faster than Captain Kirk’s Enterprise in reblogging someone else’s post. But after some banging one’s head against a wall with Mixed Housing Zones and Three Storey Houses, the boys at ATB got a post of their own up on this touchy subject.

 

Before I do the “reblog” just a quick remark in light of an email last night on my original 3-storey house post.

 

It is in regards to Restricted Discretionary Activities that the 3-storey houses and Walk-Up Apartments fall under per Section 4 of the Unitary Plan. In the matter of Restricted Discretionary Activities with Mixed Housing Zones I am seeking full clarification with the Unitary Plan team. This might take a small amount of time so please bear with me as I await information from the planners.

 

As my own view on it:

I do  not agree with Restricted Discretionary Activities as set out in Section Four of the Unitary Plan. As it gives power to a central planner on a non-notified basis, it would go against my Centralised Master Community Plan and Semi-Liberal Plan Districts that hand most basic planing development/oversight to the Local Boards. Version 1.0 of the CMCP and SLPD can found in my submission to the Auckland Plan.

 

 

Now for the Reblog

 

ATB has finally gotten up their take on those three storey houses and Walk-Up apartments:

By Matt L, on May 20th, 2013

I’m not sure whether it is driven out of selfishness or just a sheer lack of understanding but the opposition and reporting of the unitary plan now seems to be bordering on lunacy. Almost the entire concern about the unitary plan so far seems to have been in relation to height limits. First the focus was around the heights of apartments but opponents of the plan have now moved on to the height limits in the mixed housing zone. For these opponents even three stories seems to be scary so thanks to Google, I went for a look around some of their neighbourhood and look at what I found:

…

You can see the rest over at ATB through clicking the blue hyperlink above

 

While writing this the thought someone commenting on taste and decency of the three storey residential buildings in ATB’s respective post had struck my mind. Remember this which I used to kick the debate off this end?

San Fran 3 storey houses

 

Patrick who put up the photo first over on Twitter does not even like the look of those San Fran Ladies. To me those lower photos in ATB’s 3-storey post have me scratching my head from me going ewwww at some of the buildings. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and will always kick off a never-ceasing Merry-Go-Round debate. So if you are going to comment, please do so on urban design controls and if you feel inclined the Restricted Discretionary Activity business. If you do comment on the RDA please note my position above with the CMCP and SLPD.

 

But thank you Matt and ATB for getting your local version post up on three-storey houses and Walk-Up apartments.

 

Auckland Plan Submission CMCP and SLPD Extract Version 1.0