Tag: environment

Waste Water Furore

·

Legit Concern

or

NIMBYism Striking Back

 

I noticed this cropped up in the Manukau Courier this morning via the Stuff Website:

‘Don’t dump it here’

Plans to release much of Auckland‘s wastewater into the Manukau Harbour have met a storm of opposition from waterfront residents.

Watercare has received 468 submissions from Mangere Bridge people and groups ahead of public hearings on its “central interceptor” project.

 

The feedback makes up the bulk of the 752 submissions on the project’s resource consent applications.

 

The interceptor, a 13km underground tunnel, will take up to two million cubic metres of sewage and stormwater to the Mangere treatment plant every year.

 

It will also include 6km of linking sewers and create a long-term replacement for an ageing 7km tunnel section – the Manukau Siphon – near the plant.

 

The $800 million proposal aims to improve the water quality of the Waitemata Harbour and reduce or eliminate 122 flooding spots, mostly in Avondale, Western Springs and Mt Albert.

 

But Mangere Bridge residents say those improvements will come at a cost to the environment.

 

Many of their submissions were completed on forms distributed throughout the community by the Mangere Bridge Residents and Ratepayers Association.

The form says the proposal could have dire effects for the water quality of the harbour and birds roosting in the area.

“It is not good ecological practice to transfer large amounts of water from its natural catchments to a shallow enclosed harbour with finite capacity to receive it,” the form says.

 

Te Akitai Waiohua Waka Taua Trust, which is associated with Pukaki Marae, has also lodged numerous submissions against the proposal.

 

The trust says there has been insufficient consultation with tangata whenua regarding stormwater discharge, air discharge, earthworks and coastal structures.

 

But Watercare chief executive Mark Ford says his organisation has a “strong record” of community consultation on major projects such as this one.

…

 

I’ll take the word of Mark Ford over the Trust and Resident’s Ratepayer’s Association on reflection of consultation “issues” with Maori Trusts, and Resident and Ratepayers Associations pigeon holing debates/feedback with Pro-Forma forms as seen in the Unitary Plan debate.

But my question to the objectors is: Where is all the waste going to go for treatment?

  • We have an extra million people and subsequent urban development to support it on its way.
  • Our waste water infrastructure needs upgrading including expanding the Mangere Waste Water Plant.
  • There will be later on a second treatment plant in Drury with an outfall again in the Manukau Harbour to deal with waste water in the Southern Rural Urban Boundary area.
  • We have to stop the overflow of the sewerage pipes in the isthmus area spilling untreated sewerage into harbours.
  • Some waste water is being diverted to the North Shore plant for treatment.
  • And the Mangere Plant is state of the art with its Bio Reactors that are extremely efficient in treating our waste water which will be expanded

The simple answer is the waste-water is best suited to Mangere at this point in time along with other current and proposal plants. There is simply no where else to dump treated waste-water from the advanced plant that will have minimal effects on the actual physical environment.

From the article again

The central interceptor proposal reflects international best practice and will save Auckland more than $500m going forward, Mr Ford says.

 

Major upgrades are also being planned for the Mangere treatment plant to address Auckland’s wastewater needs.

 

“These will ensure continued protection of the Manukau Harbour and enable the Mangere wastewater treatment plant to continue to operate within its current discharge loads into the future.”

 

Watercare also intends to divert the wastewater flows of about 75,000 existing households from Mangere to a plant in Rosedale by constructing another tunnel from west Auckland to the North Shore.

—ends—

 

Unless you want the open oxidation ponds and sludge lagoon again as a method of treating our crap I’d suggest you let Watercare carry on unimpeded.

 

 

Time for Some Sim Unitary Plan

·

1.4 million people in a 16.7km2 Area?

Can I do it?

Yes I can

 

Cold crap winter’s Sunday mean lots of hot chocolate, the heater and time to crack out some Sim City 4.

The Mission: Develop this 16.7km2 piece of real estate:

The hole where I will design and build the new mega city centre
The hole where I will design and build the new mega city centre

The area is planned to be the main core for the region or rather MEGA city. So that mean maximum densities and a very efficient transit system to boot to move those Sims around.

 

The existing transit map (note it does not show subways)

And the transport networks
And the transport networks. Note the Black and Light Blue are both highways (motorways)

Going to be fun connecting the transit system from the surrounds up to the new area. Of note this is what I have to connect up:

  • 2 lane roads
  • 4 lane avenues
  • 6 lane raised and ground level motorways
  • heavy rail
  • subways
  • Elevated High Speed Rail
  • Ferries and a port in the north west end

Infrastructure wise

  • Fresh water pumps
  • Treatment plants
  • Pipes
  • Some high tension power lines at the beginning
  • Nuclear FUSION reactors
  • Waste Depots so the trash is sent “off map” meaning some deals with it next door if I don’t incinerate it at a Nuclear Fission plant else where on the fringes of the mega city

Of note when I last had a “city” in that piece of real estate it took 4 fusion reactors to power it 😛

 

And to show were I will be starting:

Blank canvas for my new CORE city
Blank canvas for my new CORE city

Last time I developed a walking city with 75% of the 1.4m sims either walking or taking mass transit. Impressive? Yep despite the also impressive rapid roading system that matched it.

 

So time to fire up and get going. If one is wondering I do have a A4 colour copy of the above pic’s where I do pencil in preferences to what goes where in the planning phases. So essentially I am do a Sim Unitary Plan first then let the developers and sims let rip.

Fun times ahead

 

All Things Waste

· 2 Comments ·

Unitary Plan and Waste

 

No I am not referring to the Unitary Plan being either waste or being waste. If you want that go read one of Bernard Orsman’s pieces from the NZ Herald…

 

What I am referring to in this post is a question that has come up in the Unitary Plan discussions of recent: waste. That is waste-water (sewerage) and refuse (what goes to the tip) in Auckland and how we are meant to cope with it through to 2041 as a million extra people live in Auckland. While the Unitary Plan as such does not deal specifically with waste (that is dealt by the Waste Minimisation Policy adopted by Council recently), as the Unitary Plan dictates land and zoning rules it might be prudent to have the land available for waste facilities here in Auckland.

 

The city is going need the room to treat the increase sewerage and process the refuse as we march towards 2.5 million people. So where do we place these facilities?

Waste-water wise we already have two main facilities; the Mangere Sewerage Plant with its four hi-tech Bio Reactors (eliminating the needs for the oxidation ponds that use to pong), and the Albany Sewerage Plant which recently received an upgrade but not as hi-tech as Mangere (Albany still has Oxidation ponds which the Northern Motorway runs over). There are countless smaller sewerage treatment plants scattered around the Auckland region that service small places like Helensville but not connected to the metropolitan sewerage system.

Refuse wise I believe we have a main landfill somewhere on the North Shore operated by TransPacific Waste Management on behalf of Auckland Council with countless transfer centres around the city. As for recycling plants I would have to look but, I think Auckland Council has one dedicated recycling plant while paper is often dealt with by private firms (one I know of in Penrose next to the Onehunga Line).

 

Upgrade or even expansion wise for our waste facilities seems a rather straight forward exercise.

Waste-water wise Watercare (the Auckland Council CCO) has marked down that a new waste-water treatment plant is likely to be needed in the Drury industrial area to supplement the Mangere Plant when the intensification and Greenfield development takes off down this end of the city. If you replicate the Bio-Reactor set up at Mangere to the Drury site then there should be no issues with treatment in the south of the city. You can upgrade the Mangere Plant by adding more Bio-Reactors to it which would seems a good idea as the plant already exists. The catch is can the existing pipes take the extra load if we upgrade the plant. The same can go for the North Shore treatment plant in expanding its capacity by adding the Bio-Reactors to the existing facility (just need to watch those pipes again).

So with waste-water providing Watercare and Auckland Council does not take their eye off the ball nor piddle the money else where, the waste-water issue should be a straight forward one with a new plant and the existing two upgraded.

 

As for our refuse here in Auckland, this is where it gets interesting.  I have written a post on our trashy problem before and can be seen here: “TIME TO TAKE OUT THE TRASH – Waste to Energy for Auckland?”

The post is self-explanatory and challenges Auckland to be mature in asking itself how we deal with our trash. I highly recommend taking a read.

 

Waste-water and refuse. Two rather stinking problems or concerns for Auckland as the city grows but, two of the easier problems to “deal with” if the city acts in a mature and proactive manner. Just keep your eye on the ball folks and no piddling the money away…

 

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND

BR:AKL: Bring Well Managed Progress

The Unitary Plan: Bringing Change

Auckland: 2013 – OUR CITY, OUR CALL

 

 

Groan – Who Wrote This

· 1 Comment ·

Seen This Post Before…

 

, a Consultant in urban, economic and community development who no wait that was someone else who served with Councillor Mike Lee on the former Auckland Regional Council – wrote a post over on his Cities Matter blog about the apparent flawed analysis on the City Rail Link. There are also two comments from various individuals that caught my attention and will also be “mentioned” as well.

From Cities Matter:

 

 

 

 

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2012

A Flawed Case? Auckland’s City Rail Link Project

 

A tale of two cities
Two newspaper stories on infrastructure investment caught my eye last week. The first praised the approach undertaken by the Port of Tauranga. The Port has performed extremely well for shareholders, including 55% owners Bay of Plenty Regional Council.  This is put down to rigorous analysis of the financial impacts of any capital spending:

For years Tauranga has used its capital resources astutely to lift cargo volumes and improve efficiency to build economic value for its shareholders. …
The port has an outstanding record in kicking for the right goalposts when determining strategic capital development. ….
For Tauranga, a vital key has been to back innovation-driven capital investment with rigorous economic and financial analysis.

Contrast this with the latest addition to the grab bag of evidence assembled by Auckland Council to justify an underground central rail link (CRL) . Admittedly, Auckland Transport is not a commercial operation.  However, making the best possible use of capital is a key to the efficiency and productivity that will underlie the long-term prosperity of the city and the country.  And this project will not deliver.

Fiscal irresponsibility
I have not read the latest report in depth. But I did have a quick look to see what the financial implications of implementation might be for the ratepayers of Auckland, and how risk was assessed.  I couldn’t find any discussion of them.  And interestingly, in their absence it would be easy to use the analysis to demonstrate why we should not be risking substantial public funds on it. Yet the Mayor was quoted as saying that this report provides a strong basis for funding negotiations with the government.

The Transport Minister won’t buy into this.  He quickly responded by pointing out what the latest report demonstrates.  The project is not viable.  There is no financial analysis suggesting that this project has a life.

…

 

You can read the rest over at his blog.

 

Now that “latest report” McDermott is referring to that our utterly incompetent Minister of Transport responded to was the recently release City Centre Future Access Study (CCFAS) which can be found HERE. Now CCFAS I have mentioned briefly before while other blogs have covered it more in-depth.

 

My simple reply to the post written by McDermott for tonight (more in-depth coverage will come over the rest of the week), it is an exact replicant of what came out of Councillor Cameron Brewer’s Department which is widely believed (might as well been knowing the National Government Spin-Doctors) to have come straight out of Gerry Brownlee’s Office!

There is nothing new there McDermott and what you have said with the BCR’s has been refuted over at Transport Blog more than once – and will continue to be done so again and again and again until one basically “learns.”

 

As for the two comments posted, well that was heart sinking material to read it – but none the less expected!

 

” as it will never generate one cent of a financial return.”

LibertyScott; there is more to this world than the utter Neo-Liberal belief on “financial returns.” The London Underground at 150 years old last week shows the absolute long-term wider Economic returns to our sole World City (in my opinion) – London. And when I speak of Economic I speak of its full utter definition – that is: social, monetary, social and physical environmental, and the wider economic spin off’s out side of the pure revenue and expense which your blinkers can not look past from. Some goods in the world are subsidised (in fact roads are too for that matter) because there is more than absolute dollars and cents here – a fully integrated transport system is one of those goods.

 

“Let’s hope that serious advances in road-based transport will happen soon enough, fast enough, to get the public to re-think their brainwashing on the “inherent virtue” of rail. At the end of the day it’s about public buy-in and sadly they have thus far bought it.”

Andrew Atkin; mate your might as well bugger off to Brisbane mate where they are facing the consequences – and some very brutal ones at that of over investing in road-based transport and not developing a more balanced approach to their entire transport system which includes rail and ferries. Furthermore even our American cousins including such places as Houston and LA (oh look car central) have begun switching slowly over to more integrated transport systems which include – oh look rail. The Republicans in – look again TEXAS are going for a fully privately built and run rail line service and seeing where that ends up. If they make success out of it, it will blow away conceptions that rail is a socialist toy… As for public buy in; well they will keep buying in if real estate statistics are anything to go by. Guess where our hottest real estate is – why the fringe suburbs around the CBD which all sit on major road/bus and even rail corridors. The CRL will be an even bigger booster in those fringe areas when the latent rail capacity is not only opened up – but new areas that carry high density of travel also fall into extended rail catchment of the City Rail Link. I have not included the three new rail lines that can open up too because of the CRL giving the rail system even further reach into areas of Auckland not currently be served by rail. So sorry Andrew, don’t quite think the public will say to your way just yet looking at trends

 

And so this second post coming from me is the one I boot down the paddock.

 

Booting it for being an exact replicant of the crap that came out from Brownlee’s Office and that Brewer was silly enough to publish – with no actual alternative that presents even a better Benefit Cost Ratio than the CRL because there is none – Pure and Utter SIMPLE!

 

My take on all this

GROAN!