Tag: Facebook

AUCKLAND HARBOUR BRIDGE – SKY PATH – (Part Two)

· 9 Comments ·

To Fund and Build a Sky Path – Or Not

 

That is the (Multi) Million Dollar Question

 

And The Debate Continues

 

I have been running commentary of recent on the Auckland Harbour Bridge Sky-Path Project. You can find the commentary thus far as well as supporting links in my “AUCKLAND HARBOUR BRIDGE – SKY PATH” and “TRANSPORT COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS” post here at BR:AKL.

 

Since those two posts a nice long debate has cropped up on Facebook amongst those that would be in opposition to the Sky-Path proposal as it currently stands. As in my previous commentary the Sky-Path proposal passed through the Council Transport Committee and is now before the Strategy and Finance Committee either next month or in April. From there; Councillors and Council Financial Officers can and will go over this proposal with a very fine tooth comb before the Councillors either “support” Sky-Path or “reject-it” on any one of numerous grounds including deferment (which I my current position).

 

The following paste dump from Facebook will illustrate the oppositional hurdles Sky-Path have to face if they do not want a Rejection-Dead Ducking from the Strategy and Finance Committee:

From Councillor Sharon Stewart (Howick Ward) – oh and heads up it is a long one:

  • Auckland Harbour Bridge cycle pathway design launched – Auckland – AKT

    http://www.aktnz.co.nz

    The Auckland Harbour Bridge cycle pathway design was unveiled this afternoon.
    • Sharon Stewart How are they going to keep the structure clean from sea spray? How often will they need to clean it? (THE GLASS) How much will this cost? How are they going to keep the structure clean from exhaust emissions as the structure will no doubt get very dirty from the bridge being used daily with cars/trucks etc…. ??? These are all questions that need to be asked.
    • Sharon Stewart Who will be responsible for the on-going maintenance and cleaning of the structure inside and out? Will all this come out of RATES? How many CCTV cameras will they need to cover the length of the bridge – in case a problem occurs in the middle – accident or even gang fight?
    • Sharon Stewart IS THIS A Fairytale?
    • Sharon Stewart How much will the CCTV cost including staff? How many staff will have to be on duty? Looking forward to the business plan.
    • Sharon Stewart Just thought of another question – air conditioning – has this been factored in. Cost etc… Remember all the bad air up above exhaust fumes.
    • Ken Shock Here is a question – why do motorists have to pay for roading with fuel taxes and rego fees – but bicycles get a ‘free ride’ ?? Why no rego ## on bicycles so that they can be busted when they break traffic laws – I see them do it frequently. I say user fees are the answer to maint. of bike facilities !
    • Millie Liang Hi Ken and Sharon. Totally agree with everything you both say…To me the Councillors are being played for fools.
      The promoters of this scheme are quoting this expert and that consultant says it viable…”cause it’s commercially viable on paper other wise these experts won’t be consultants for the council for very long. 
      I have evaluated hundreds of business plans, marketing plans, property development forecasts over the years and not one of them have ever stated the project isn’t going to make a fortune..

      People that say just “trust the experts” are simply away with the fairies and need to have a brain scan….

      Question. how are they going to keep walkers and bike riders separated or from being distracted by the view and killing each other ?…… Are under 10yr old kids meant to be kept on a leash ?. Where’s the Councils Q & A link on their web site or are ratepayers meant to be compliant stupid fools also. 

      And like Ken says and I’ve asked elsewhere before..How come motorists have to pay for rego’s warrants and cyclists don’t have to…both use the roads…
    • Sharon Stewart Exactly Millie – Do you not think Cyclists going up and down in two different directions along with walkers is a recipe or accidents? Apparently its 4 m wide for both cyclists and walkers in two directions.
    • Sharon Stewart Have they thought about the cyclists coming off the bridge a peak traffic times – morning/afternoon peak traffic and mignling with the traffic on or at the bridge approaches etc? How will this be managed?
    • Sharon Stewart Parking of cars that want to do the bridge crossing will also be a problem. Will the council have to purchase land for carparks next to the bridge for all these potential users? Would this cause issues with peak traffic all these potential bike users of the bridge at peak times? Anything as Millie Liang has commented on looks good on paper.
    • Sharon Stewart Pleased to see that George Wood has similar concerns along with Nigel Turnbull
      • Sharon Stewart Yes on the Skypath – he seems to be supporting so far the Eden Park recommendations. That surprised a few of us.
      • Millie Liang but I thought George voted it to go to the next stage.. If he’s got concerns why didn’t he simply vote against it until everything was in order… He’s been in this game long enough to know that once an idea gets momentum the promoters get confident and crank up the pr machine and then it’s hard to kill…. Someone needs to check Georges medication.. maybe all the get fit exercise is playing tricks on him and he fancy’s himself riding around town looking like some Tour de France 25yr or thinking he’s Buck Shelford running round Eden Park…or maybe eyeing some seat on some board/committee.
    • Sharon Stewart QUOTE FROM AN EARLIER POST – The proposal for the Auckland Harbour Bridge pathway Project Update —- Its going to Strategy and Finance committee. Lots of questions have been asked to be reported back to the Strategy and Finance committee. The proposal should cover all costings and contingencies before it is given approval from the Auckland Council. Ratepayers should not be exposed to risk. This is such a big issue and should be debated by the full council. The ratepayers have to decide is this a high priorty. I have had calls from Ratepayers from all over Auckland – most have suggested the 2nd crossing could have a walkway and cycleway incorporated. We now have only just a quorum. JUST.
    • Sharon Stewart QUOTE FROM AN EARLIER POST —Sharon Stewart Councillors Quax, Morrison, Wood and Stewart had lots of concerns. As I said before its not all done and dusted.
      Wednesday at 10:01pm Remember the Transport committee is not a committee of all Councillors – going to see what other councillors think about this. Now is the time to discuss and question before – the rubber stamp.
    • Sharon Stewart Question is will this become a huge burden on the Auckland Ratepayers????
      • Millie Liang cause it going to be another white elephant just like that Manukau Central car park building nearly empty all the time with 100’s of lights burning up ratepayers money 24/7, even on weekends when the building is all locked up…. If no body in the council has the common sense to ensure a simple thing like a motion senor in the lighting system,,, then how much collective brain power and common sense do the Councillors have… Councillors need to remember they were elected to run the city and it’d their necks on the chopping block not some highly paid cco exec or manager.
    • Sharon Stewart In the perfect world it would be nice to have everything – unfortunately its not the perfect world.
    • Millie Liang The first thing that Councillors should do is all in their own quite time and alone is sit down with all the information/plans/costings/reports(and none of this commercially sensitive rubbish so information is withheld from them) and write down all the questions they want answered… Then they are all correlated and the promoters/AT (or whoever they are) answer the questions in a Q & A… If Councillors don’t have any idea themselves, I sure consultants/engineers/architects construction companies who never get on the councils preferred contractors/consultants list will gladly pull it apart for free I would guess…. There is no way the consultants/designers/promoters will ever admit to anything but it being a success, therefore go outside the inner circle and get independent assessment.. Like any development proposal it’s all flashy and slick and 1+1 =2 and fools most people, hopefully the Councillors aren’t made to look like idiots…. And I hope once the construction drawings/specifications/contract docs are ready, international fixed price tenders are called…..Then and only then once the tenders come back should the council decide if it’s commercially viable…..

      Better still…why doesn’t all the Councillors just sit on their hands, call international tenders for design/build/operate the skypath….The councils preferred Consultants/AT etc won’t like it but but aren’t the Councillors Inc in the drivers seat and not just mere passengers as to what happens in Auck….. Remember we were told Eden Park wouldn’t cost ratepayers a cent, now look what the councillors have signed us up to…the govt must have thought,,is that how stupid the council and people of Auckland really are
    • Sharon Stewart QUOTE ABOUT — SkyPath’ vote going ahead Wednesday
      By: Laura Heathcote | Latest Auckland News | Monday February 11 2013 12:21
      Complicated politics are expected to characterise the vote on a plan to allow pedestrians and cyclists to cross the Auckland Harbour Bridge.
      An Auckland Council transport committee will decide on Wednesday whether to support SkyPath, a tolled walking and cycling route which would be slung below the bridge.
      Heart of the City’s Alex Swney says his support is shared by cycling and walking advocates as well as the Council’s business faction – which supports the public-private partnership.
      But he acknowledges Auckland Council is trying very hard to keep rates down.
      “Then there’s the complication. There are some that think that walking and cycling should be free so you want to try and second guess these things, you just don’t want to.”
      Cycle Action Network chair Barbara Cuthbert says the council’s being asked to be a minor guarantor, putting forward $3 million towards the project.
      She says a further $29 million is being put up by the NZ Super Fund.
      “This is a gift to the people of Auckland that we know that well over 65 percent of Aucklanders want this facility and this allows them to get it for virtually no investment from the council.”
      Ms Cuthbert says if the vote goes through, it’s hoped SkyPath would be operational by the end of next year.
      Cuthbert says New Zealand Transport Agency is also backing the project, provided it proceeds on the basis of being a tolled facility.
      “This is the final step. The transport agency have been very helpful in helping it get through to here in terms of giving advice and access to the bridge.”
      Photo: Edward Swift
      • Millie Liang HOLD IT A MINUTE..Barbara says “we know that well over 65 percent of Aucklanders want this facility”. 20-30% of auckland are meant to be asian and another 10% maori ….. now tell me how many asians or maori do you see riding round auckland…what’s her 65% based on and how was the survey structured, where/time/day ..was it leading questions….I studied probabilities & statistics at uni and you can get the results you are after quite easy….. How many councillors own a bike and are regular cyclists….then how many will regularly ride over the bridge
    • Sharon Stewart QUOTE FROM THE ABOVE ARTICLE SkyPath vote going ahead Wednesday -Cycle Action Network chair Barbara Cuthbert says the council’s being asked to be a minor guarantor, putting forward $3 million towards the project.
      She says a further $29 million is being put up by the NZ Super Fund.
      • Millie Liang Hold it…. some where I read it was commercially viable and why should ratepayers be landed with having to provide any guarantee…… So it’s $3 million….. those that want it should fund raise or can’t they even do that..go get sponsorship off all the consultants/contractors/bike retailers, travel companies etc etc etc, sell naming rights…how hopeless are they…. everyone got dreams but who’s paying…. To me it’s only going to be of benefit or interest to very few people, trouble is I believe they know how to lobby and work the system and get their demands pandered to, and the majority of Councillors are to scared to stop it in case they loose votes and are booted out in a few months time.
      • Sharon Stewart INTERESTING COMMENT – MILLIE
      • Millie Liang hahaha. just thought,re (Barbara Cuthbert says) I often hear in conversations/negotiations words along the lines of; she says / he says are all waffle words and simply verbal diarrhea…We get every everything in writing then we look at it and if it doesn’t stack up we move on…… Just ask Barbara to produce the MOU/Heads of Agreement or whatever doc she got from NZ Super Fund and if she got nothing in writing I would presume it just verbal diarrhea……
        Remember in this game it is more smoke and mirrors to get anything off the ground and reality is never the same… If the promoters/consultants etc etc don’t hype it and float the kite high it won’t have the Wow factor and people tire and move on….Councillors need to realize they were elected to collectively run the city in prudent manner and not like some division of WINZ.
      • Sharon Stewart Millie – make sure you read the Bernad Orsman and Brian Rudman articles in the New Zealand Herald today. On the Eden Park issue.
      • Millie Liang Ok will do… I hope I’m wrong but if they both thinking straight they will say the Councillors were conned and played big time by McCully or whoever the minister is.
    • Sharon Stewart I wouldn’t have thought that the NZ Super Fund would be supporting something like this?? Like your comments. NZ Superannuation Fund????
    • Sharon Stewart Lots of SPINNING – going on with the bikes
    • Millie Liang Another way to look at it….. The Councillors Inc need to imagine they are the financiers for this development and it is their own money they putting on the line… They need to act like astute and prudent professionals and ask the hard questions/seek independent expert opinion…

      Has the Council sought opinions from independent experts around the world as to the cost/commercial viability of it and if so where’s the reports. ?…. Where’s the report form the clip-on builders as to the pro’s-cons of doing it…. what’s the warranty on the existing structure, because if they going to bolt / weld onto the existing clip on that causes more problems that any of the maintenance workers will tell you…… actually what should happen is councils should go work as a maintenance worker and see just how bad it is…like the tv program where switched on bosses get hired as the new guy on the ground so they can see what is really going on in his company..
    • Sharon Stewart Did you read the above information quote from Barbara Cuthbert who said Council is being asked to be a minor guarantor putting forward $3 million towards the project. She said a further $29 million is being put in by the NZ Super Fund. I wonder what all the TAXPAYERS and the baby boomers will think about this. From my experience on being on council – projects like this always blow out and guess who picks up the mess. That’s right the RATEPAYER OR THE TAXPAYERS. Central Government keeps passing the baby over to the Local Government and its just getting out of control. That’s my opinion anyway.
    • Sharon Stewart Wonder what people like Stan Blanche and David Thornton thinks about all this?
    • Millie Liang You spot on Sharon. I commented re Barbara under your “INTERESTING COMMENT – MILLIE”
    • Millie Liang  I couldn’t believe the councillors took the hook line sinker over Mt Eden…what were they thinking… To me it wasn’t about the collective good for auckland but about getting themselves onto these paying bds and playing you scratch my back and I will scratch yours. Just my thoughts got no proof but I know how the game is played. Wonder what the voting would have been if no councillors were allowed to be appointed to any bd /committee.
    • Millie Liang One last thing before I need to concentrate on work.George, Cameron,Sharon,Dick, Ben, Lesley has any one calculated the wind and current movement on the bridge and how that will affect useage and what happens if people panic.
      • Lesley Opie Wind – that is something that will affect this structure. We live in direct line of the harbour bridge and when the strong south westerly winds come – it is awful – you can’t go outside. Imagine it is far worse actually on the harbour bridge. Think this walkway/cycleway is going to be a bit of a white elephant. With all the public transport proposed for the future how many will actually use it?
      • Sharon Stewart Lesley the public – need to understand that if we don’t get all the answers to the questions councillors may support this and this could end up being a huge anchor around us for ever. Hope you read all the post between Millie and I – probably best to copy and past – make sure you read all the See mores – this is just CRAZY. Imagine 5000 bike all 2 m long going one way across the bridge. Imagine the problem it will cause at the end of the bridge especially in peak traffic. Imagine even over the weekend people from the North Shore side wanting to ride across hundreds or thousands or maybe not many at all. If we got the numbers the SKYPATH are talking about the problems it will cause around Mission Bay – the bay’s etc… I don’t really think anyone has really thought this through. Imagine the window cleaning from inside and outside from all the sea spray. Imagine what would happen if 50 tourist end up on the bridge walking and site seeing and cyclist coming from both directions – FAST – It’s only 4 m wide for both cyclists and walkers in both directions. They are even suggesting having a cafe. What about air conditioning. They will need that because they can’t use the air from above because of he exhaust emissions unless they want to stop cars/trucks/buses etc… using the Auckland Harbour bridge the life line for those that live on the Shore to get to the other side. Cost of the CCTV cameras the length of the bridge in case of emergency. Accident or a gang fight. Once again no business plan. JUST A LOT OF SPIN.
      • Lesley Opie Where I live a wide cycle/walk bridge is being built to replace the narrow Northboro Pipe bridge (costing well over a million dollars – building passing bays on the bridge would have been much cheaper and adequate). When this bridge is wide the serious cyclists are going to speed over the bridge – they do it now when no one else is on the bridge. Health and safety issues have already arisen with the Northboro cycleway/pathway with pedestrians and cyclists – even though there are signs that say “Share with Care”. Cyclists seem to think they have the right of way over pedestrians (children, old people, mothers walking babies in buggys, people walking their dogs). Those who are proposing this Skypath don’t care about the effect on the surrounding environment so long as they can get their cycle fix. The bottom line is speeding cyclists and pedestrians sharing the same exit and entrance path and shared cycle/pedestrians paths, is not a good mix. Imagine a child walking with mum and dad suddenly decides to run ahead or sideways – could be quite nasty. Seems that those in charge of building the shared cycle/path ways don’t see the health and safety issue at all. They just think that everyone will share with care.
    • Sharon Stewart If you look at the plans Millie it will be glassed in. If it was open aired people would be blown off the bridge. Lot’s of Glass that would need to be constantly kept clean at I would suggest a huge cost. The maintenance of this under – grip on as they call it will be a constant drain on eventually the Ratepayers when the baby is passed on – as it happens all the time. RATEPAYERS ARE JUST AN EASY TOUCH. JUST KEEP PUTTING THE RATES UP FOR ALL THESE COSTLY DREAMS.
    • Sharon Stewart Read the 25 comments – above and take it all in. Looking forward to your comments. Some of those that are involved in promoting this SKYPATH are keeping to themselves today. SO FAR.
    • Millie Liang That’s why the mayor wants to ram another 1-1.5 million into the city…..It’s got nothing to do with the quality of life everyone enjoys..its all about the money… The average hard working people in the wider Auckland community think they can’t make a difference and that’s why there is such a poor voter turnout for elections… And when they go broke or simply sell up and move out they keep quite as they think they are failures…Like rats on a wheel, never mind how fast and clever you are you will get thrown off eventually… look at what they tell old people who have lived in their homes for 40-50yrs and can’t afford the continual increases in rates and cost of living…”well maybe you should consider selling up and moving somewhere where you can afford”..
      If this madness isn’t stopped, properties will be sold up, developers build 30-80sqm high rise apartments and the quality of life goes out the window and we book 6mths in advance to go to Long bay beach.
    • Sharon Stewart I hope the local Howick and Pakuranga times my local community paper picks up on this. As its a problem for all communities not just the Northshore and the CBD. Unless the public are aware of what is truly really going on – THINGS HAPPEN. Its called missing the boat.
      • Sharon Stewart Reay Neben, Nick Neben make sure you read all of these posts on the Skypath.
    • Millie Liang Re you comment Sharon ” Some of those that are involved in promoting this SKYPATH are keeping to themselves today. SO FAR.”…. old trick  they will keep quite pretending they aren’t aware, but if they any good they will be planning and plotting their next move…. Most probably studying up on how Sun Tsux would play his next card… If the councillors stand united, use common sense for once they will be able to withstand the next move of the promoters, but if councillors are picked of one by one, then it’s game all over.
    • Sharon Stewart Correct Millie its like a game.
    • Ben Ross Well we know what you must do Sharon when it hits Strat and Finance either next month or in April. Reject the proposal outright or defer it to the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan giving Skypath two more years in getting their figures together
    • Millie Liang Ben… To me it should have never got this far in the first place if astute people likeGeorge are still waiting for answers and he’s going to go and raise his concerns with the ceo . It’s like the Councillors were sleeping on the job… Imagine you going to the council for a resource consent with half of it missing or going to the bank for a loan with half your application not filled out ?
    • George Wood You are so right about the half baked application Millie.
    • Ben Ross Well then if that is the case Millie, the Skypath people are going to find a fast rejection from Strat and Finance just as AT did rather quickly with trying to get a half baked application for money reallocation in regards to the Manukau North Link duplication – although AT are going to be stupid enough to try again next month (insert Tui Ad here if I get a speaking slot) 

      It belongs in Strat and Finance no matter where they are with the progress for two reasons:
      1) To get the financial officers to run over this with a red pen and ruler
      2) So Strat and Finance can pass the rejecting resolution which is binding and tell Skypath one of several things: it will be deferred in any solid decision until your T’s are crossed and I’s are dotted, it will be rejected outright regardless until we get a new council at the end of the year, it will be rejected and sent back to AT (please don’t do that one) for more reports

      That proposal got stuck in the Transport Committee for over two hours leaving me fuming on the time wasting exercise that was when Skypath did not belong there at that point in time.

      Least it is now in Strat and Finance where the answer is simple: Half bake it like AT did last week with Manukau and it is rejected – pure and simple. Just don’t take two and a half hours to reach that conclusion please
    • Stephen Maire Ben, you continue to impress me. Keep it up.
      • Ben Ross Thanks for that  – incoming post in a few hours on this

 

Phew that took a moment to get it into the blog and format it back out – although I am not going back over the Facebook comments to correct spelling or gramma either 😛

But you can see where the debate amongst the opposition to Sky-Path is. Again my current line is this:

Well then if that is the case Millie, the Skypath people are going to find a fast rejection from Strat and Finance just as AT did rather quickly with trying to get a half baked application for money reallocation in regards to the Manukau North Link duplication – although AT are going to be stupid enough to try again next month (insert Tui Ad here if I get a speaking slot) 

It belongs in Strat and Finance no matter where they are with the progress for two reasons:
1) To get the financial officers to run over this with a red pen and ruler
2) So Strat and Finance can pass the rejecting resolution which is binding and tell Skypath one of several things: it will be deferred in any solid decision until your T’s are crossed and I’s are dotted, it will be rejected outright regardless until we get a new council at the end of the year, it will be rejected and sent back to AT (please don’t do that one) for more reports

That proposal got stuck in the Transport Committee for over two hours leaving me fuming on the time wasting exercise that was when Skypath did not belong there at that point in time.

Least it is now in Strat and Finance where the answer is simple: Half bake it like AT did last week with Manukau and it is rejected – pure and simple. Just don’t take two and a half hours to reach that conclusion please
With my official line being: REJECT THE SKY-PATH PROPOSAL AT THE STRATEGY AND FINANCE COMMITTEE ON THE PROVISION THAT IT (THE PROJECT) IS BEING DEFERRED TWO YEARS UNTIL THE 2015-2025 LONG TERM PLAN IS OPERATIONAL. IN THAT DEFERMENT, THE SKY-PATH PROJECT SPONSORS HAVE THOSE TWO YEARS TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THEIR I’S ARE DOTTED AND T’S ARE CROSSED IN THE FULL BUSINESS AND ENGINEERING CASES BY THE TIME THE PROJECT COMES UP AGAIN ON THE 2015-2025 LONG TERM PLAN (CONSIDERATIONS).

No doubt this debate will continue – hopefully with the Sky-Path proponents having something to say in reply to the questions that were asked by those above – sooner rather than later.

 

BR:AKL will keep tabs on the Sky-Path development as it reaches the Strategy and Finance Committee  and whether the project will pass or rejected by Council as a whole!

 

The Reality of Parking in the CBD

· 2 Comments ·

Even a Parking Operation Admits on Public Transport

 

And

 

The Logic I Use When Travelling into The CBD

 

This morning while reading the morning Facebook comments (politicians and councillors are usually online making their statements for the start of the day) I saw this from Councillor Cameron Brewer in regards to CBD parking:

Don’t ever say I’m never nice nor helpful: ‘Mr Brewer, chairman of the Business Advisory Panel, said the council had “done well” to reduce its charges in its three main parking buildings in the central city.’
My friend Alex Swney in the CBD is hoping the private car parking providers will follow suit. In the meantime it’s much cheaper to use council’s Civic, Downtown, and Victoria Street car-parks. That’s my public service announcement for the day…

The article in question from the NZ Herald was this one: Big cities mean big parking bills

As a result I packed the following quip:

Mr Ryan has hit it right on the money – and it is the truth – not that Transport Blog would ever recognise it:
“”The reality is that until Auckland’s public transport services are improved, motor vehicles shall still pour into the city each morning at increasing rates, and these commuters do need to be catered for – and that’s where the private parking companies have a significant role to play.”

 

That spawned off a few questions in Twitter and Facebook while I was away in Manukau however in reply I posted the following over at ATB’s “The cost of parking:”

 

Devils advocate time 😀

Popping my head in here after my Twitter and Facebook remarks I would have to be somewhat “brave.” However while I shall reply to my remarks sometime today (or tomorrow) – actually no I can answer it right here below and it seems to (in my eyes) reinforce the point I made that caught the attention of a few here.

I have noticed the quotes quoted above but the most prominent one has been missed – which was a statement from Mr Ryan which gives further weight to the argument of his quoted above:

“”The reality is that until Auckland’s public transport services are improved, motor vehicles shall still pour into the city each morning at increasing rates, and these commuters do need to be catered for – and that’s where the private parking companies have a significant role to play.”

Whether increasing rates or not is playing around with statistics and something I am not interested in for this part of the debate. Mr Ryan has stated (could be that it is an admission) what is basically the truth of the current situation we face in the CBD. Heck I can vouch for that on more than one occasion both when working for a public transport company (now self-employed) or having to go to the CBD for say the Unitary Plan forums last year.

With work in a particular transport company, the position I was in often required me to start or finish outside of public transport hours, so that meant having my parking paid for and a trip in and out of the CBD from Papakura.

The other case was The Unitary Plan forums last year at Town Hall. I had a choice; train or car. I took the car from Papakura to the CBD, parked, attended the forums and went back home again. Why? Because I am a liberal and “operate” in a way that is sensitive to price and time considerations against me. That means I will choose an option that is the least expensive, the most efficient, the easiest to complete, and most efficient in relation to time spent travelling – when about to undertake my travels.

And so all costs (including time and money) considered it was the car that was used as it filled the criteria above when making my travels (and no I don’t like being coerced either into one option when it is more expensive than the other)

So that meant travelling up and down State Highway One and parking in the AT Civic Parking Building – because to use the train took double the time and 1.3x the cost as it would have by car (and also I think the main forum was on a Saturday which drops the trains to Papakura every half hour to boot)
So I can clearly hear what Mr Ryan is saying in his: “”The reality is that until Auckland’s public transport services are improved, motor vehicles shall still pour into the city each morning at increasing rates, and these commuters do need to be catered for – and that’s where the private parking companies have a significant role to play.” remarks.

He knows and I know that until P/T is improved (and yes I would assume safely that he knows it is being improved constantly) this is the reality of the situation.

So basically I re-highlighted Mr Ryan’s statement on P/T and parking buildings as well as the “logic” I use when deciding to make trips in this case the CBD but also when travelling through wider Auckland. The logic was simple; price and time and which was better when choosing between private and public transport.

 

After that I went for the full comprehensive argument in regards to the transit situation:

If you want me to extend this argument to a more fuller comprehensive situation then lets look at a few comments in Facebook

Again in regards to Cameron Brewers remarks and link to THAT Herald article

We paid $24 for just over an hour, at the parking building across from the gallery. Yes, we could have taken the train in – but the Orakei car park is full by 0800. Incidentally, one of the reason’s Liability Len’s inner city loop will fail to achieve the necessary patronage is the lack of suburban car parks.
Yep – can vouch for that when the Papakura Park and Ride is full.

However this comment lead me to this which has obviously caught the attention of a few here via Twitter and Facebook

That is correct —-. The rail situation is compounded by the following (and excuse me if I am repeating)
1) Lack of Park and Rides especially at the big stations
2) Lack of feeder buses
3) Lack of cycle lockers
4) Stations in the wrong place

Now all this I am trying to bring to AT’s attention next week at the RPTP hearings (wish me luck there) but until then what Mr Ryan said is true and absolute reality

Mr Ryan has hit it right on the money – and it is the truth – not that Transport Blog would ever recognise it:
“”The reality is that until Auckland’s public transport services are improved, motor vehicles shall still pour into the city each morning at increasing rates, and these commuters do need to be catered for – and that’s where the private parking companies have a significant role to play.”

The article can be found here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10861778
You can figure out what would have caught the attention from the above remark (which was made before the post here went up).

If you are trying to understand the “logic” in the quip then sorry not going to explain here – catch up over a coffee, soy latte or an iced drink if you want to understand me and it.

However to me and others I share conversations with it shows the situation which Mr Ryan has stated but Transport Blog did not pick up on (and if so not well enough). This is especially that one could interpret Mr Ryan’s remarks on a read between the lines support in getting p/t to be better (and most likely (if fleshed out fully) as part of a fully integrated transport system – public and private)

Look I would love for the CBD to be free of parking buildings but our P/T system has a very long way to go before that could either be viable. So for now and to me – CBD parking buildings – the necessary “evil”

 

So basically we have the following:

  1. A basic admission of truth from a private parking operator in the CBD
  2. The logic I use when travelling
  3. The Reality on the CBD and Parking

 

And I will use a car if it is more efficient in time and money compared to the nearest public transport option okay? As I said I am a (social) liberal and am sensitive to time, price and efficiency considerations; thus if private transport meets my travelling criteria OVER public transport – then so be it. This is why (and said above) I advocate for a fully integrated transport system catering to both public and private transport options – because I know and experience the reality of the situation and sympathise with other citizens in the same boat as me (which might be the bulk of Auckland).

 

However some (as I do use and will advocate for private transport (as well as public transport)) case me off as the villain due to that (private transport) use and advocacy. As if I care about them. My care is to the citizens and visitors of Auckland and having the full suite of private and public transport options available to them. It is why I advocate the split and private/public integration. And as am example all things considered with Port of Auckland staying put for now I advocate for: The Eastern Highway but; in the same regard advocate for the North Shore, Botany, Airport and South West (Rail) Lines as part of the full integrated transport suite. Oh and as for the Second Harbour Crossing, that would be heavy rail only tunnels – for now.

Also working with politicians on both sides is a must and something I strive to do – both at Central and Local Government Level as it is also a must in getting Auckland moving (forward).

And so this blog will continue to push on

 

BR:AKL’s full integrated transport suite: starting to turn a good transport system into an advanced integrated transport system – one step at a time 😀 

A Letter from A Councillor

·

Councillor George Wood Writes to Manukau Courier

 

While checking my Facebook feed in the morning (as you do) I noticed a comment from former Manurewa Local Board Chair:

 

That got me looking and I discovered this:

 

Basically Councillor George Wood spelling it out as it is with public transport issues down here in South Auckland – especially with buses (an area admittedly I am not paying much issue to but should very well be).

I agree with the entire letter from the Councillor to the point I will be throwing more resources or rather effort here at BR:AKL on our bus issues and getting them sorted.

 

However Newman was “fuming” because the Southern Initiative got mentioned and the bad onus around that. Yes the Southern Initiative has had its rather ugly moments in either rough-shodding over the Local Boards or budget re-routing away from Local Boards to Southern Initiative projects that are overseen by the main governing body.

The focus from the letter should be on our transport here in South Auckland, not dragging the Southern Initiative into this as that is another debate along with the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act.

Also I have seen no oppositional Councillor nor mayoral candidate state they would overthrow the Southern Initiative after the 2013 elections and put in place an alternative. I believe it is the case of we are lugged with it – let’s try and make this work best we can – as rough-shodding by Council Officers, CCOs, and the Governing Body happens right across the spectrum – not just the Southern Initiative.

My comment to Newman makes somewhat that point:

Ben Ross

Burnt from the Budget (which burnt the entire city any how) I still see.

That aside – well something must being going on as 2012 was a mixed year for success and failures in dealing with the Governing Body from personal experience (that is the Governing Body not the CCOs).

Failures: The Auckland Plan in part but more so the Long Term Plan. The new Rubbish Policy.

Successes: Irony would have it this has been down the transport division:- Manukau South Link, Pukekohe Electrification Extension, cant comment with the RPTP yet as the hearing is still coming up, slow progress with the bus situation down south – but least its moving.

Next Challenge: Again transport, however Alcohol Policies with the new Act in position

So “bringing them to the Governing Body” has had its moments of success and failures -( for a scrappy little ratepayer  ) – but that is to be expected. 2013 is going to bring?…

 

A case of win-some, you lose-some. But you continue to battle on in pushing or lobbying for what you want to see to make Auckland a better place – the purpose behind this blog from day one.

 

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND

Shining The Light – To a Better Papakura (OUR home)
AND
To a Better Auckland – (OUR City)

Auckland 2013: YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL

 

 

 

The CRL and That Poll Ctd

·

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

  • m.nzherald.co.nz

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

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

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

      www.brisbanetimes.com.au

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      www.police.govt.nz

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

An Investigation

·

Rates Due to Hike Again – So Time for An Investigation

 

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

  • Despite inflation running at just 0.8%, rates keep going up and on the isthmus service levels fall. In the Mayor’s draft 2013/14 budget released today road-side berm mowing will be axed in the old Auckland City area. Wards like Orakei will soon be paying more for even less.

    Another service reduction for old Auckland City area | Voxy.co.nz

    http://www.voxy.co.nz

    Auckland Mayor Len Brown’s draft budget for 2013/14 released today will cut out a long-held lawn mowing service for residents living in the old Auckland City area who are the same ratepayers stung the hardest with ongoing rates increases, says Auckland Councillor for Orakei Cameron Brewer.
    • Andy Cawston and 3 others like this.
    • Lea Worth Really….. why are we not surprised!!
    • Desley Simpson Pay more get less ! So again Orakei gives and doesn’t receive
    • Ben Ross Give the money to Local Boards away from the Governing Body seeming the Mayor and side kicks can’t budget. Bulk funding Local Boards with 33% of the total rates intake any one?
    • Stephen Maire Yes Ben.
    • Lea Worth At least that way Ben we would be protected from being seen as the cash cow to fund Len’s crazy ideas
    • Stephen Maire Yes, its OUR City not his.
    • Desley Simpson Cash cow and like all cows now need to eat ( mow) its own grass!
    • Ben Ross Just a refresher (just in case) Bulk Funding the Local Boards goes like this. Orakei currently pays $106m in rates to the “Council” yet “Council” only gives $10m (about 10%) back to Orakei to run its Local Board and services. The proposal I am running with is Orakei pays $106m to “Council” and Council gives back (and that is a must, no if’s buts or maybes) 25-33% (up to Local Board’s decision on level) back to Orakei so Orakei can run and maintain its Local Community Services, Events plus any CAPEX spending as it sees fit (of course with dialogue with its residents and businesses).

      The Governing Body can not touch the 33% as it is ring fenced to Local Boards. This also includes the Governing Body unable to hike the rates beyond 1.6x the rate of inflation at max with all spending spelled out per the current Better Local Government MK II Bill/Act/Paper
    • Mark Donnelly Desley – isn’t berm mowing in only a few local board areas a LB decision per the Act? ie not “regional” – and you could go to local govt commission for a ruling? This isn’t about a “cost” but about making a cut in just one or two board areas?
    • Cameron Brewer Good work George Wood. The Mayor botched that one – he didn’t even have the numbers to refer his budget to Strategy and Finance committee. He is very poorly supported by his political inner circle who don’t know how to whip or secure the numbers. Beautiful to watch.
    • Andy Cawston (shakes head in disbelief…)

      It would have been reasonable to expect significant cost efficiencies to arise from the Auckland SuperCity merger — reduced duplication of effort and infrastructure being the efficiencies that spring immediately to mind.And it would have been reasonable to expect the rate take to stay stable and/or for services to be improved for the same cost, or more likely to decrease in cost as these efficiencies filtered their way down…

      …but no. Exactly the opposite has happened.

      (Makes marks of the Balanced Scorecard)
    • Tracy Kirkley out west , we have mowed our own berms…forever…its not that hard.
    • Nigel James Turnbull 2.9% is actually pretty good as a rates rise. I wonder how much more could actually be found? And berms are generally mowed by most of us arent they? i mean i do my own berms because council did such a poor job normally…i would be incensed if the whole region got it and only we were getting this cut. I do understand how bearing the brunt of rates increases coupled with the highest rates rises is a bitter pill to swallow.
    • Andy Cawston Service cuts + rates increases + increases in debt burden is not on.
    • Penny Webster A good thing this is ony the beginning Cameron. We look forward to your considerable input and suggestion of further cuts.
    • Cameron Brewer Bernard Orsman covers yesterday meeting in today’s Herald. The good thing about the Mayor’s budget now staying at the Governing Body level is that he has to own it and front the meetings over the next 8 months, and not just kick it to Strat & Finance. This is primarily why a majority of us voted for it not to go to S & F. It was not really about excluding the Maori Statutory Board.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10842948

      www.nzherald.co.nz

      Auckland Mayor Len Brown is proposing a rates rise of between 1.9 per cent and 2.9 per cent in next year’s election-year budget.
    • Andy Cawston I’d quite like to see Brown strive for a 5% rates DECREASE. It’s time we saw some Efficiencies of Scale arising from the merger of the Auckland-based councils. Any competent business would have found such efficiencies within weeks of a merger, yet the exercise appears not to have happened yet with Council.

      A 2% increase, within that context, is utterly unnecessary and obscene.
    • Ben Ross I have a debt and spending policy I might go pitch to voters when I run for Papakura Local Board next year. Fiscal Conservatism (hey Andy I am a conservative after all 😛:P ) is the name of the game and something those serious about fiscal prudence need to adhere too. The idea was in my submission to the (now failed) Long Term Plan. Busy writing post now on this

Okay so that is the discussion as of when I was writing this post. But the situation that I think is worth investigating is bulk funding Local Boards as I have suggested above:

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

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

 

That policy piece stems from at least half of my What I Believe In for a Better Auckland fundamentals which I am going to pitch to voters at next year’s Local Government Elections (running for Papakura Local Board). The fundamentals being applied here are:

  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. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 dialogue 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 dialogue 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.
  6. 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.

Actually that is 3/4 of my fundamentals being applied from the bulk funding of Local Boards proposal.

But the point I am going to pitch strongly to Papakura (in fact most likely to be the strongest as all other fundamentals technically stem from it) is Point Three (in bold):

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.

It is of my strongest belief that the Local Boards are in a better position than the main council and bureaucracy to deliver your local community services as well as being the main calling point from local residents (so you) in advocacy issues. And none more so with being the main calling point for advocacy that urban development within their jurisdictions.

 

In my submission to the Auckland Plan, and in my pitching to the Civic Forum of the Unitary Plan; I pushed for Local Boards working with planners in delivering the urban development outcomes in Auckland. An excerpt from my submission:

The main crux of the SLPD would come from the: decentralised, semi-regulated, collaborative, efficient, simplistic and affordable approach to LADU. This is how the crux or ideal would be achieved:

  • Under SLPD’s the decisions and/or oversight would be with the Local Community Board rather than the centralised Council
  • Council provides  a statement of intent (The Auckland Plan) and action plan for Auckland (Auckland Long Term Plan) over the next period of time
  • Council provides a mediation service when there is a dispute with an SLPD
  • Council assists Local Community Boards with resources required when an SLPD is being carried out
  • SLPD follows the Philosophies of Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation (mentioned page 14)
  • Simplified Zoning
  • Collaboration between the Local Board, Community and Developer (allowing greater flexibility and response to community concerns and needs/desires)

As well as

So in the end the SLPD-LADU model follows a hybrid of Houston’s method of urban planning and (to a limited extent) the (although simplistic and maybe crude compared to reality) techniques used in Sim City Four!

In short this is how the SLPD-LADU would work:

  • Council provides its goal/vision for the wider city over a period of time
  • Council provides a framework on how it would like to reach that goal
  • Council and the Local Community Boards begin the SLPD-LADU Process by:
    • Created a SLPD which “maps out” the local area’s intentions
    • Zoning or rezoning begins
    • Memorandum of Understanding between Council (if required), the Local Community Board and developers in developing the land (but complies with the Region LADU Philosophies previously mentioned)
    • Development begins
  • Development is then underway with the developer having to provide these basic provisions inside the zoning area – effectively zone or zoned district or districts:
    • Water infrastructure for the district
    • Electricity infrastructure (in coordination with the local lines company)
    • Telecommunications infrastructure (in coordination with whoever is contracted to provide phone/broadband cabling
    • Basic park/recreation facilities (set a minimum percentage of total developed area within the zoned district (except for “pure” industrial land)(percentage to be determined at a later date))
    • Basic street network (that can be readily connectable to the main transit system)
    • Allow for provision of a mass transit system if one is required (often in medium and higher density zoning districts)
  • After completion, the corresponding infrastructure of the zoned district would be allowed and capable of connecting to the existing city infrastructure

You can see the rest of the Submission that covers Land Use (urban development) in the embed below.

 

But as you can see I am pushing for democracy to return to the Local Boards and costs to be brought back under control. I will run further commentary in my Civic Forum update but in regards to Council finances and debt, check my submission to the LTP via the link below as both submissions are interlinked.

2013 you will need to decide how you want your Local Board(s) to work for you (and how it should be resourced). We all have a long road ahead but I advocate for local (community) democracy and basics first in regards to finances for you the Papakura ratepayer. Yes we all need to work together for a better Auckland, but also we need to work and focus closer to home – a better Papakura. Because a Better Papakura that you love and enjoy to live in contributes to a better healthier Auckland!

Check my commentary on the Unitary Plan and the pitch for local democracy and moving away from big stick regulation in building outcomes for housing, transport and the (physical and human) environment!

 

Submission to LTP where I mention a Debt and Finance Policy for Council

 

Submission to Auckland Plan

Unitary Plan as Thick as a Brick

· 2 Comments ·

Unitary Plan On the Path to Already Fail

 

To quote me from Facebook:

“When the Unitary Plan appears to be thicker than your average Bible at home, you know there is something VERY wrong here – with our planners and planning process…”

 

Now hopefully that is not true; but after I asked this morning in Facebook to those who have seen the Unitary Plan in its preliminary stages, I am rather not looking forward to seeing the Unitary Plan thus far hopefully next week. The actual answer to my question on the thickness was this: “it’s so thick it’s stupid,” so confidence in the Unitary Plan has already gone down the toilet – cute…

 

Yesterday in my K.I.S.S post I said this in regards on the Unitary Plan and simplicity:

The Late Owen McShane taught me that any “plan” over a thumbnail in thickness (on A4 paper – no cheating with A3) is a: dead weight, too complex, and albatross around the city and ratepayers neck. I would be a case of Gin that the Unitary Plan is going to be thicker than my thumbnail to the point it is going to be thick as my fist (yes that means the plan makes a fist of things). The K.I.S.S rule needs applied to the unitary plan, but to do that in benefit of the city, 3/4 of our bureaucratic and Stalinist Planning Department in Council would be all out of a job. Maybe that might be a good thing?

Thumbnail in thickness being the absolute maximum that ANY operating plan should be! Well it seems the Unitary Plan is going to fail that little test so I devised some crude measurements here.

I measured the thickness of thickest and largest Bible in the house; the NIV Life Application Bible standing at 48mm (4.8cm) and some 2385 pages in thickness. I also measured the thickness of my thumbnail which stood at 18mm (1.8cm) which means in theory the Unitary Plan using A4 paper (A3 for any maps – I’ll be generous there) should not be thicker than 20mm (2.0cm) at the absolute maximum. However again that does not seem likely.

So lets take a look at some pictures (and yes they are crude) for reference to thicknesses here folks:

 

 

9mm (94 pages) in thickness (or half a thumbnail) when both my submissions to the Auckland and Long Term Plans are combined. With 18mm being the thickness of my thumbnail (make it 20mm for a tolerance factor) and applying the K.I.S.S rule quoted above, the Unitary Plan should not be longer than 200 pages or both my submissions doubled up in thickness. But no we are seriously looking at a massive behemoth that is looking to be as thick as our largest Bible at home.

Heavens sake what is wrong with our planners – do they not understand thrift and simplicity? Obviously not or I would not be writing this post.

 

However I have some good news folks for all those who like simplicity, efficiency and wanting Council and planners to get the heck out of the our lives (and the road too). I am off to the “Civic Forum to discuss the Auckland Unitary Plan” on Tuesday 23 October and Saturday 27 October at Auckland Town Hall. So ideas abound once I get my first glimpse of this Unitary Plan. And yes I shall endeavour to “shrink” the Unitary Plan so it is no thicker than one’s thumbnail in the line of two of my eight fundamentals for a Better Auckland:

  • Strong but no interfering Governance: Meaning Council  shows active and real leadership but does not interfere with the daily lives of residents and businesses
  • 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.

 

So lets hope that at this Civic Forum this crucial fundamental will apply:

  • 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 dialogue 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 dialogue 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.

 

Dialogue not monologue (from the bureaucrats and Councillors)!

BR:AKL will run commentary as I attend this Civic Forum on the Unitary Plan and the outcomes from it.

 

Stay tuned as I strive for you a Better Auckland – and hoping like anything the Unitary Plan does not become as thick or thicker than my Bible as that would be really thick!

 

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND

Shining The Light –
To a Better Auckland

Auckland 2013: YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL

 

Out Meeting the Locals

·

At Public Meeting on Liquor Store Application

 

Tonight I was notified of a public meeting facilitated by Papakura Councillor Calum Penrose (so my local Councillor) here in Papakura (my home and community) on opposition to a liquor store being opened in the area. So I trundled down to Papakura Central School where the meeting was held, said my hellos and took a seat to listen to proceedings. Normally in public meetings (as well as hearings) I might get up and ask questions or have a say, but tonight this was new territory for me so it was a case of sit quietly and observe what was going on in this public meeting.

 

This Facebook status sums up what the meeting was on:

 

A great turnout in Pahurehure, Papakura tonight – 120 residents turned out in objection to a liquor store proposed for their corner block of shops. Excellent leadership from Calum Penrose for Papakura and Manurewa, he is pictured here with his friend and popular local JP Raj Thandi and Manurewa Local Board Chair Angela Dalton. Aways on hand to give my sister town Papakura my personal support. Photography by Daniel Newman – nice job, good angle 😉

Calum Penrose, Raj Thandi, and Angela Dalton working to stop the opening of a liquor store in Pahurehure.

 

I also posted a Facebook staus:

 

Attended my first public meeting inside my on Local Ward (Maurewa-Papakura) on opposition to a Liquor Outlet being opened in the area. Was a good discussion lead by Local Councillor Calum Penrose. — with Daniel Newman and Angela Dalton.

 

As I said above; while I have been to public meetings before they have been outside my Ward (so Orakei and North Shore), this one in Papakura as I stated in my Facebook status my first LOCAL public meeting – so new territory.

But while new territory tonight, it was also an excellent learning experience for me. There was a chance to mingle afterwards where I would make introductions and conduct some networking like I have done in Orakei and The North Shore; however a fatality on the Western Line tonight (groan) forced me to return home to support Rebekka who had her shift extended by half to assist with all the “disruption” that goes with a fatality.

But in saying that, while tonight was my first LOCAL public meeting where I got to observe the locals in my or rather our own local community, it shall not be my last!

The people present are locals, fellow locals in our fellow community that is Papakura, and the very people I wish to represent next year after the Local Government 2013 elections. So my focus is returning home Auckland, to Papakura. Yes I will keep an eye out for wider Auckland, especially as the Regional Public Transport Plan and Unitary Plan are either up or coming up for submissions. But attention is now back to the home front as it is where I live, play, work (in part) and shop. That home as I have said is Papakura.

Yes I will still attend submission hearings and pop over to other Wards in Auckland to pay a visit, but my primary attention and focus is now returning home – to Papakura.

 

So look out Papakura, you shall be seeing more of me 😀

 

BEN ROSS: PAPAKURA

Shining the Light with You – Towards a Better Papakura

Papakura 2013: YOUR COMMUNITY – YOUR CALL

 

And

 

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND

Shining the Light – To a Better Auckland

Auckland 2013: YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL