Tag: Transport Committee

Heavy Auckland Plan Committee Agenda

Going to be a long and contentious day

 

August 13 is going to be a very long and contentious day in Town Hall starting at 10am sharp.

While the agenda is not as long as the Transport Committee agenda’s (and that is only due to the Auckland Transport monthly report from its respective Board being added) it does stand at 200 odd pages long and has five heavy items in there. They being:

  1. Unitary Plan Update
  2. Port Zone decision
  3. Lot 59 (The Manukau Bus Interchange opposite the MIT being built in Manukau)
  4. Mill Road/Redoubt Road Corridor
  5. Iwi Management Plan

 

You can see the main agenda and the addendum agenda below

 

The Main Agenda

 

The Addendum Agenda including the Unitary Plan and Port of Auckland

 

Of course I will be in attendance at that Committee meeting and Tweeting live as the updates and moves occur. Also an update on the Congestion Free Network should also arrive on Tuesday (the 13th as well).

 

As I said in the beginning, it will be a long and contentious day as the heavy stuff progresses through.

 

 

AUCKLAND HARBOUR BRIDGE – SKY PATH – (PART THREE)

To Fund and Build a Sky Path – Or Not

 

That is the (Multi) Million Dollar Question

 

Debate Now Spinning Its Wheels in the Mud?

 

 

I am now running exclusive commentary 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 – (PART TWO),” “AUCKLAND HARBOUR BRIDGE – SKY PATH” and “TRANSPORT COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS” here at BR:AKL.

 

The commentary at the moment is mainly run through me consolidating debate threads that pop on Facebook and pasting them into the blog here. Not every one has or wants to use Facebook so I thought the consolidating via the blog would be a good neutral electronic medium for both sides of the debate to take in. Speaking of the debate it has been a bit lop-sided at the moment with the critics doing most of the debating and the proponents going to ground and remaining silent since Wednesday’s Transport Committee meeting. Not wise of the proponents to be doing that unless they really want Council’s Strategy and Finance Committee to ‘dead-duck” the project until long after the Local Government Elections at the end of the year.

Thus as always guest commentary from both sides of the Sky-Path debate is welcome here at BR:AKL and you can contact me at view.of.auckland@gmail.com along with your submission piece for consideration and posting – just remember The Rules of the Blog.

 

And so I present the next round of the debate – consolidated on the Auckland Sky-Path Facebook Debate:

  • Sky Path proposal: The issues that require further work before any decision can be made on the proposal.
    • Nigel James Turnbull Nice but hardly a priority?
    • Luke Christensen SMBA being totally mischievous in every regard, what a bunch of red herrings. For example re Westhaven Boardwalk http://www.waterfrontauckland.co.nz/Waterfront-Auckland/Pages/NewsPage.aspx?ID=40
    • Lesley Opie Eh? You mean the cyclists exit into residential streets not the inner city? This will be no good at all. Just a waste of money. I thought the whole point of this structure was to exit into the city centre. If I lived in St Mary’s Bay I would be concerned. A lot of the serious cyclists are crazy on their bikes, noisy and speed without concern for pedestrians. Seen and heard them round my way in the Northboro Reserve Green cycleway. The St Mary’s Bay residents are going to be woken up at all hours of the night and early morning. Probably the Northcote residents too.
    • Sharon Stewart One of the SKYPATH presentation papers – I will find and attach so you can read for yourself said that from an operational health and safety perspective, probably no more than 1,000 users are wanted on the Pathway at any on time “However this allows for a conservative throughput of 5000 people per hour which is more than sufficient to make the project doable, he says. The number of Pathway users will be controlled by the barrier gates with a counting device and overseen by on site security personnel and CCTV cameras.
    • Sharon Stewart So a bike is 2 m long approx. Lets do the sums. They say 5000 could cross within an hour that would be a lot of cyclists 10 k long in one direction without gaps with possibly walkers does anyone really believe that is physically possible within an hour without major problems especially in peak hours. It would be worse than this because most people will be going the same direction if they can’t do this the business plan has FAILED already. What is the effect going to be on traffic with suddenly 5000 bikes appearing on the road with cars/trucks etc….? It sounds like a DREAM so the bridge is approx. thousand metres Long. Can someone tell me how they will get them across safely???
    • Sharon Stewart Another question that needs to be answered Lesley – 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 car/trucks etc…??? These are questions that need to be asked. The Auckland Harbour Bridge is a life line for those that live on the North Shore to get across to the CBD side.
    • 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 times have we be told this wouldn’t happen? How many times have we been told that these sort of projects will not cost the rate payer 1 cent.????
    • Sharon Stewart How much will the CCTV cost including staff? How many staff will have to be on duty? Really Looking forward to the business plan. ARE YOU????
    • Sharon Stewart Have they thought of the Cyclist coming off the bridge at peak traffic time – Morning and Afternoon peak traffic and mingling 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 bride crossing will also be a problem. Will the council have to buy more land for carparks next to the bride for all these potential users? They can’t all bike to the bridge if they have to get to the bridge by motorway – can they???
    • Sharon Stewart In one of the reports that I will attach – Barbara Cuthbert from Cycle Action Network says the Council is be asked to be a MINOR – guarantor, putting forward $3 million towards the project. WHAT ABOUT ALL THAT FOLLOW????? She says a further $29 million is being put up by the NZ Super Fund. WHAT. Cuthbert says New Zealand Transport Agency is also backing the project, provided it proceeds on the basis of being a tolled facility. ?????
      Sharon Stewart Millie Liang – I like your comment the other morning on the subject – When I asked will this become a huge burden on the Auckland Ratepayers???? Your answer – It’s 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 … I no body in the council has the common sense to ensure a simple thing like a motion sensor 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 I would have their necks on the chopping block not some highly paid cco exec or manager. MILLIE we all better to take not. Your comments on the sensor good one.
      • Lesley Opie How on earth did the NZ Super Fund get involved? Crazy!
    • Millie Liang  I recall the promoters are saying 65% of Aucklanders support this project. If so, how come less than 12,000 have made the effort to support them on their web site….. so where they going to find 5,000 an hr to use it 365 days a yr…. 

      note they state on web site Council get the privilege to own it after 20yrs….. and they got a 50yr guarantee for the structure, which is fantastic negotiating……

      BUT HOLD ON…The clipons have been stated as only having 15-20 yrs max left in them…… AND WHOS GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR THE SKY PATH TO BE DEMOLISHED…
      http://getacross.org.nz/

      getacross.org.nz

      February 11 2013 Auckland Council’sRead more…
    • George Wood Good work Sharon. We need to get our meeting w/ Doug McKay expedited.
    • Millie Liang Remaining life in clipons 15-20yrs is what I understand from the below..(about second comment down on web page.
      ………………………………………..
      Jon C
      August 21, 2011 at 6:11 pm

      @Andrew No they’re not. Leigh Hooper told the gathering the bridge was said to have 15-20 more years life so the pathway would be fine for then although they would be built to stand another 50 years.
      ………………………………………..
      http://www.aktnz.co.nz/2011/08/21/harbour-bridge-cycle-pathway-design-unveiled/

      www.aktnz.co.nz

      The Auckland Harbour Bridge cycle pathway design was unveiled this afternoon.
    • Ben Ross As usual I am consolidating all the Facebook comments (not everyone has FB but everyone can read a blog) into my Ben Ross : Auckland blog such as thehttps://voakl.net/2013/02/15/auckland-harbour-bridge-sky-path-part-two/ post yesterday which proponents and critics liked as it was a one stop shop for reading, then commenting, then flinging emails to Councillors (INCOMING >_<)

      voakl.net

      To Fund and Build a Sky Path – Or Not   That is the (Multi) Million Dollar Quest…See More
    • Ben Ross George and Sharon when is Sky Path likely to end up in Strategy and Finance for a decision?
    • Sharon Stewart When we are told we will make sure your made aware Ben and all those interested.
    • Millie Liang I mustn’t be thinking straight…
      1. ratepayers get the privilege of owning the sky path after 20yrs.
      2. Leigh Hooper tells people at opening bridge (I presume clip-ons) only good for 15-20yrs.
      3. rate payers get the privilege of get ownership and demolishing it at same time…. 
      4. 5,000 people using it an hr 365 days a yr but they will only allow 1,000 hr 365 days a yr.

      I got to be missing something… nobody can be that stupid to be conned that easy… it got to be me that’s stupid surely ?
    • George Wood This needs to be done in a thorough manner Benjamin Ross. Auckland Council have a huge responsibility here. Northcote residents want a lot of answers and I propose taking their concerns to heart.
      Millie Liang Ben Ross on one post an engineer when finding out how much it was all going to cost did a few calculations and what the $/Lm rate was left me with the impression it was far cheaper $/Lm to go on Sir R. Bransons plane ride into outer space… Will try and find it later today but shore it was on a councillors page.
      • Lesley Opie We who do not live in Northcote also want answers.
    • Ben Ross My comments are getting lost in transit again (Thanks FB and Telstra Clear).
      George I am aware Sky Path needs a major line by line review of the project – however as I said yesterday:
      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

      By the looks of it, Sky Path will be up before Strat and Finance hopefully in April (better not be next month) for consideration.

      Councillors have three options on that day: Pass the resolution, Reject the resolution, or spend over two and half hours spinning their wheels in the mud going no where and annoying the city to no great edge. For the sake of it, if Councillors can not get the information in 30 minutes on Sky Path at Strat and Finance then REJECT THE PROPOSAL – simple

      Either that or I start charging $80/hour for advocacy and efficiency services 
    • Millie Liang George, I realise you and the other good Councillors like SharonDickCameron and future AT CEO nominee Mr Benjamin Ross are busy sorting out other matters of concern to rate payers, I just can’t figure out how the promoters got so far with pushing it through council… Like I said previously if it was a half completed resource consent or bank loan proposal they would have been spun round at the counter that fast and shown where the exit first…..How come with all the experts/consultants/ pr machine/mayoral announcement/slick promo & video,,, how could they get it so wrong…

      I’ve may have possibly floated some big kites to get traction but never in my wildest dreams something like this based on the info I have been provided or researched and found on the internet…

      Maybe they consultants/promoters haven’t released some info on the basis of confidentially or commercially sensitive…. I don’t think that excuse “commercially sensitive” would stack up because I don’t think anyone else wants the job and in any case it is often an advantage to reveal all the cards because anyone else interested would have to come in with a lower tender.
      • Lesley Opie “I just can’t figure out how the promoters got so far with pushing it through council… “. It is who you know Millie – not what you know – or whoever makes the loudest noise. There are some in AKLD Council and in the Local Boards who are personally pushing this Skypath dressed up to look as if there is massive local board and ratepayer support.
      • Ben Ross Dont worry Lesley that so called Ratepayer support is near non existent and the Local Boards in the affected areas are blowing smoke up people’s noses – which will come back to bite them later (probably in the elections). It is of note while the Local Boards are singing and dancing the two concerned Ward Councillors which happen to be George Wood and Mike Lee are certainly not dancing to that tune – at all..
    • Millie Liang It’s an absolute disgrace Ben, that it took the council more than 10 min to flick through all the fluff and get to the nuts and bolts and have your answer. If people can do it on $5-$200 million property developments whey can’t Councillors. They are in charge of a multi $ billion dollar business paying huge salaries to people and it appears like the council is being run like some benevolent society or home of compassion, while hundred’s of lights continue to glow 24/7 at the Manukau Central Car Park building which is no doubt locked up as usual on weekends.. Anyone one know what the power bill is per day,, or does anyone really car as there are still some rate payers left in this city..
      • Ben Ross Might go LGOIMA the running costs of that building although I might get stone-walled on Commercial Sensitivity grounds
      • Ben Ross Already offered my now paid services to “assist” councillors get through things in a more “efficient” manner. In other words I am going to start charging by the 6 minute block for advocacy and efficiency services
    • Lesley Opie Most of the Aucklanders asked about whether they want a Skypath would not have known the detail and all the extra costs associated with this proposal. Where are all these cyclists coming from. Hardly ever see a cyclist using the cycle lanes down Lake Rd where I live – maybe more in the weekends for recreational use. In the end this Skypath is going to be used mainly by recreational cyclists. Council and ratepayers should not be part of the Skypath equation. Seems those who make the loudest noise get what they want. If Barbara Cuthbert and her cycling friends want to travel the harbour bridge then they can pay for the Skypath and the ongoing maintenance costs. Don’t talk to me about seaspray Sharon Stewart. We are more sheltered than the harbour bridge as we are exposed only to the south west. The glass on this Sky path will need to be cleaned every few days at the least. Makes me laugh about these consultants. The new Northboro Pipeline bridge over the mangroves is being held up because they suddenly found out they can’t put heavy machinery that will build the bridge on the O’Neills side of the bridge because under the existing narrow footpath that leads to where the new pipe bridge is to be built is the main sewer pipe from Devonport. A special temporary bridge is now having to be built over this area heavy machinery. The cost of this pipe bridge is getting more expensive George Wood. The consultants hadn’t thought about the fact that having a sloping footpath leading to the new wider bridge will mean that cyclist will speed over the new bridge. Guess it won’t be until a pedestrian gets hurt that this problem will be addressed. If our councillors took 10 mins to decide to give the green light to this Skypath – then they do not deserve to be stewards of our money
    • Luke Christensen many more people would use the Lake Road cycle lanes if they went somewhere, ie the CBD! The biggest issue I see if parking/congestion at the Northcote End. Although presume walkway would end next to Ferry Terminal where there are many parks, and neighbours used to ferry traffic. As for St Mary’s Bay have no idea what the issues are, will link to the Westhaven Boardwalk that Councillors should be aware of, so no issues there. This will be a fantastic tourist attraction for Auckland, at a tiny fraction of the cruise ship terminals, and could see a great link where people take Ferry to Northcote, and cycle or walk back again.
    • Lesley Opie Luke – I saw very few cyclists use the Lake Rd cycle lanes today between 10:00am and 12:00pm when I went out. A bunch of recreational cyclists (about 6) were using the cycle lane then when they got past New World (going towards the city direction) they decided to leave the cycle lane and break into the traffic and ride in the middle lane going through to Takapuna. They didn’t want to stay in the cycle lane on the left hand side and then cross at the lights at the Esmonde Rd intersection to go to Takapuna. They should be fined for not using the available cycle lane.

    • Millie Liang For those interested here are a couple of comments from Sharon Stewart facebook page who brought this to my attention first.

      Just a thought Sharon, Ben, George, Ken. I’m just working on a scoping and feasibility report for a development that will either go to market via a private offer to high net worth individuals or by way of syndication to the general public… If the Sky path is going to be financially viable with say 1,000-5,000 people using it per hr say paying $2 each I would have thought the promoters would have simply put and Investment Statement & Prospectus together, retained share options for their effort in putting it together and gone to the open market like any other private enterprise would. Then they could keep all the profits/management fees etc… Just simply treat the air rights license etc as say a typical ground lease agreement. Then the promoters are in the drivers seat and can lease off signage rights,cafe, gift booth, naming rights on seats in viewing areas, collect the money from viewing binoculars etc etc.


      If the numbers stack up I can’t see why anyone would go cap in hand and lobby Councillors to achieve the same result.
      Like · Reply · 3 hours ago

      Ken Shock Precisely !
      Like · Reply · 3 hours ago

      Millie …. just look at the model used by promoters of Hampton Downs whereby they took a bare paddock and created what it is today and selling it off with enough fat in it for a investor to take it to the next level. Surely Tony Roberts and Chris Watson aren’t any smarter than the sky path promoters in executing there well thought out and costed proposal and it wouldn’t cost much to take to market if their was a lawyer/accountant amongst their ranks.
      Like · Reply · 2 hours ago

 

 

And that is round two for the day. The consolidations will continue to happen on this important project until it either passes or gets rejected by the Strategy and Finance Committee (whenever that is)

 

As I said guest commentary is welcome and you can submit your guest submissions for consideration at view.of.auckland@gmail.com

 

Next round of consolidation will be done on Monday or Tuesday.

 

BR:AKL

Consolidating Debate Threads

For Your Easy Consumption

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

I Love Committees

Off to the Transport Committee

 

(Again)

 

I must be a sucker for punishment rocking up to Committees regularly – especially Government ones. However need to keep the networks going, keep an eye on proceedings, and undertake some of that “dreaded” lobbying to advance projects for the benefit of others (Manukau South Link, or AT-HOP fares anyone?).

 

Next Wednesday (13 February) at 2pm (heck that is a late one) is the first Auckland Council Transport Committee meeting which is chaired by Councillor Mike Lee. You can see the agenda (part one and two) by clicking on the links in blue below:

 

 

I am heading to the Transport Committee meeting on Wednesday for various reasons – they include:

  • Observing proceedings on the following:
    • The latest public transport patronage statistics for November 2012 where rail patronage slipped again for the fourth straight month (since August 2012) with levels now at the equivalent to August 2011 levels. Rail has slipped on by 17.2% for in comparison to November 2011 or 3.1% for the Year To Date that started in July 2012.
    • Comment on AT-HOP and its progression thus far
    • Reaction to Auckland Transport‘s rejection by the powerful Strategy and Finance Committee for funding reallocation to build the duplicate Manukau North Link. At the same time with me making enough noise as it is I might keep an ear to the ground for any noised on the South Link too
    • Any developments on the City Rail Link
    • Any developments on Pukekohe Electrification
  • Continued Lobbying of the Manukau South Link and possibly start lobbying for the Glenora Road Station down in Takanini (hey I am being honest and transparent on my actions in lobbying here folks – part of What I Believe In for a Better Auckland)
  • Reaction on the Mainzeal collapse that has stalled work on the MIT building over the Manukau Station. As the MIT works also included a bus interchange and ticket office, that work has stalled as well and could do for a while putting a nasty spanner in things. What I want to know does Council have a back-up plan to get things moving quickly!

 

Any reaction to the Mainzeal collapse would be interesting as Council has gone more dead silent than a Soviet Missile Submarine off the American Atlantic Coast… This is especially as a public transport project that the Regional Public Transport Plan depends on (wrongly as it stands (another post – another day)) – the Manukau Interchange has stalled entirely.

 

 

Will keep you posted from the events of the Transport Committee meeting next Wednesday.

 

Advancement in Rail

Pukekohe Electrification Builds Steam,

 

While

 

City Rail Link is Safe

 

 

Okay the subtitle for this post – Pukekohe Electrification Builds Steam is a nice play on words seeming the trains will be electrics, not steam engines.

Puns aside I managed to attend the back-end of the Transport Committee today after attending the first part of the Papakura Local Board meeting this morning. As I walked into the Transport Committee meeting this morning I must have just come into a pile of excitement and some Auckland Transport “moments” as there was quite a pitched debate going on. Now with the AT moment – I shall cover that in another post but for the moment let’s talk Pukekohe.

 

It has been mentioned since I reported on the November Transport Committee that steam is building (all hail the English language) to get the rail line from Papakura (where the current electrification will end) to Pukekohe electrified, as well as building two new stations at Drury and Paerata – both complete with bus bays and Park and Ride facilities. Now the cost of this project stands at $102m and has a Benefit Cost Ratio of 2.1. So for every dollar put in, you get $2.10 in investment return. Now for more on the actual project, please read the agenda below AND the case for Pukekohe Electrification also below.

 

Now apart from Councillor Casey’s sidetrack into the V8s in which depending on class of train, you can move between 284-700 passengers per train between Papakura to Pukekohe (answering that question of hers) the Transport Committee has thrown their full weight behind the Electrification and Station building project which (as Councillor Fletcher put it) an exciting moment for those in Counties (and in part South) Auckland. Now of course at $102m, Auckland Transport and the Council Strategy and Finance Committee (who oversee all things money within Council) are going to have to err rearrange budgets and finances to get the project within the current (oh I hate this saying – thanks Ruth Richardson) 2012-2022 Long Term Plan Fiscal Envelope. That is unless a special request is done to lug the project in there and seek extra money from the ratepayers – a move not wise as it creates precedent and makes the LTP a redundant exercise.

So Council and AT are going to have to have a long conversation on all things money as something from the budget is going to have to be dropped or put back. Nasty I know but hey, even Rebekka and I have to do it to our budget and finances at home when a capital project comes up outside the standard project – something else in that budget is just going to have to be put back.

 

However the wheels of progress are turning and fail the Governing Body doing a total back-flip, we should see the electrification extended to Pukekohe by 2018. Exciting times ahead

Oh any chance of squeezing in the $4m Manukau South (Rail) Link to be included with this project – just asking.

 

As for the City Rail Link

 

Ladies and gentlemen, I can safely say and be personally reassured that the City Rail Link is safe on the Council side of things (Central Government is something else) and that the project will advance from the Council side – although what exact time frame won’t actually be known until around 2014 when the new Council is installed and up and running. Now this is of course we do not get a total flip-out on Council and have every single new Councillor anti-rail.

However conversations I have had has given me this personal reassurance that the CRL will advance – subject to Central Government funding of course and that this project is supported by the majority of the Centre Left and Centre Right despite rumblings in the media and social media.

I am pleased ideology is being put behind in a particular case and that pragmatism and forward vision is rather in play instead. And whoever did release that draft report which curtailed the CRL has probably done more harm than good out of the exercise, so I am not particularly impressed and neither are others.

 

So we go forward and work continues on this multi-billion dollar mega project. Yes there are questions and work still be needing to be answered and done – but at least come hell or high-water this critical project continues to advance.

 

I give a nod and thanks to a particular individual for giving me that reassurance – for that I am thankful for (and I believe the city would be as well).

 

Agenda for Transport Committee – December 2012

 

Pukekohe Electrification Case

Meetings for More Meetings

Was at Transport Committee Meeting Today

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

The Agenda

[update from Admin: Embeds now working]