Queens Wharf - A Site Visit - Shed 10

Shed 10 is the one on Queens Wharf nearest Quay Street. Here we are at the front door. Ready for a site visit of ARC councillors and staff involved in this interesting and exciting project. For a start, you can get an idea of the size of the ground floor level of Shed 10 from this picture. You can drive a fleet of buses inside this doorway...

It might not be very pretty on the outside at the moment. Needs a certain amount of tlc. And you can see along the side, more or less where those pipes are, where an oxy-acetylene torch has been used to cut away the supports that would have held those big verandahs...

Interesting inside when the big roller doors are slid open. Pretty much as they were built....

This is the cast iron footing for one of the ceiling/1st floor supports....

And this gives an idea of the underside of the 1st floor. This picture gives no idea of size, but I reckon the joist timbers are around 50x20 cms. That's a very hefty joist.

And this picture shows a close up of the floor timbers. They look about the cross section of railway sleepers, and are coach-nailed into the joists. It was like walking on concrete. You had no idea it was a floor with a big open space below...

This long character-filled space was evocative of all the work that has gone on in there for almost a century. Even with just a few sky-lights on a grey day the light was great...

Apparently the roof trusses, and probably quite a lot more of the original stucture, was floated out here from Britain complete. Just needed bolting together...

Some temporary openings in the side walls give an idea of the perspective you get, looking out...

And again. I liked the feel of the building. Good bones.

Queens Wharf - A Site Visit

Almost an anti-climax to be allowed to walk over Queens Wharf today. I feel as if I know it like the back of my hand, but there's nothing quite like a walk over. We were only allowed to look inside Shed 10. That's the one nearest Quay Street. The shed shown here is at the end of the wharf. It's just one storey in height, and is currently let to a cool store company. Guess it's full of fruit...

Close up of the bollards, shock-absorbers and timbers and rail sections on the surface of the wharf. One of the Ports workers with us mentioned that in the old days a few of these bollards actually got ripped out under the strain of ropes tied to ships. One got flicked all the way to Quay Street...apparently

Here's the site visit team at the end of Queens Wharf. This area feels very big and wide. Exposed on a day like this...

But there are these interesting nooks and crannies you get to see when you stand at the end. Nothing like a bit of rust on some steps, and watching the waves lapping there.

And there's plenty of timber and concrete and ironwork that give the wharf that feel, and Aucklanders that opportunity to touch and enjoy something maritime and old and authentic. Without being close to a pumping restaurant and bar complex...

You'd expect the views to be good. And they are. North Head and Mount Victoria are easy to see. This would be a great vantage point to watch the big ships come and go...

The Harbour Bridge - so often missing from Auckland CBD's downtown view is great from Queens Wharf. You can see Chelsea Sugar Works underneath...

So that's the cool store shed to the right, and Shed 10 to the left ahead. You can see that Queens Wharf is split level. The Cool Shed and Shed 10 sit on wharf structure about a metre above the access level that runs up the middle of Queens Wharf....

This is a close view of that metre rise. You can see the sea through those gaps at the bottom. Perhaps this low wall would be a good place for a few seats...

And here's the eastern edge of the Queens Wharf. Bollards are white here...

These floats lie beside Shed 10. Maybe get dropped in the sea next to the wharf when a ship ties up....

And right at the Quay Street end of Queens Wharf, you are painfully aware of the tacky red fence between you and the ferry terminal. (This is a cheap and nasty bit of fence - not like that wonderful wrought iron stuff that adorns Quay Street.) You also notice the unimaginative and shut in concrete block wall of the ferry terminal additions. Note to all: get rid of those car parks. There is no room for private office carparks here. Lose the cheap red fence asap. Nor is there room for Fullers rubbish. And those buildings need to be opened up so they spill onto Queens Wharf.

My Select Committee Oral Submission ....

I was invited to deliver my submission to the Select Committee at Orakei Marae on Bastion Point - Wednesday 8th July. This was because part of my submission addressed the matter of Maori seats. I also submitted about community boards (Community Councils in my lingo), Auckland Council elections, and Three Waters. Quite an experience.

Anyway, here it is. Remember, this was my oral submission - it is written as I spoke it:

1. Introduction to Oral Submission

Kia ora, and thank you and your staff for the opportunity of presenting my submission in this special place, Orakei Marae, Bastion Point.

This submission is in support of my written submission, which you will have.

But first of all a brief introduction to where I’m coming from, and where I come from.
I am from the Mainland. Went to school in Oamaru, university in Christchurch, and after becoming vastly over-qualified, went to live and work in England for 14 years.
There I had a spectacular time as a rocket scientist on military projects, as a systems analyst for Shell International working on oil price modelling and crude oil depletion, then for IBM designing interactive multimedia resources used when they introduced the first IBM PC into UK and European dealerships for personal and business use.

When I returned to New Zealand, I didn’t need to go into Local Government. But I did because – like most committed politicians – I wanted to make a difference.

I’ve been an elected independent councillor in Auckland for the past 11 years. Including 6 years on North Shore City Council from 1998 where I chaired the Works Ctte during the Northern Busway design and North Shore’s major sewer network cleanup program. I served on Devonport Community Board through those years also. In 2004 I stood for ARC. In my first term I chaired its Transport Committee and the Regional Land Transport Ctte that shifted $1 billion from state highway spending to public transport. Since then I have focussed on the waterfront, regional development, and – of course – governance.

Like most local government politicians I have a love/hate relationship with local government. I love it when it’s good, and I hate it when it’s bad. And after eleven years total immersion I have some understanding of the difference.

It’s easy to hate something you don’t understand. Unfortunately – many of those who have the power to decide what happens to Auckland’s governance have publicly demonstrated a poor understanding of local government. And they hate it. Superficial criticisms and simplistic solutions will not deliver good governance for Auckland.

I am advised that this is not the place for me to state my opinions about the broad supercity proposals that have been proposed by Government – many of which I oppose - so I won’t say any more about those opinions, unless asked.

The rest of what I’m going to say now, addresses the specifics of the Bill that is in front of you. My objective is to get the best outcomes from a flawed process.

2. Maori Representation on Auckland Council

ARC has a Maori Liaison unit with good staff. People like Tipa Compain and Johnny Freeland. But their contribution to ARC decision-making is mediated by other staff, by committee chairs, and by statute. Consequent decision-making is Treaty of Waitangi driven. There is no room for the broader Maori world view to be expressed.

To get a free and independent Maori voice around the Auckland Council table there needs to be 2 or 3 Maori seats at Council and key committees.

Forgive me if what I say now is a bit ignorant. I have some understanding of the Ngati Whatua AIP. I have had informal discussions with individual Maori - not all from Ngati Whatua - because I saw opportunities for Auckland Maori at Auckland’s waterfront development. Through those discussions I understand some reasons why there has not been a coordinated and collective Maori voice in Auckland. Pending the resolution of individual iwi claims, it is difficult to speak with a collective voice. The Hikoi was an exception. I have learned a little of the negotiations that are occurring now between Government and Auckland iwi. I understand that the aim is for these negotiations to be with the broader collective, not just with specific iwi.

With that understanding in mind, I don’t believe the best solution to Maori representation on Auckland Council is through 2 or 3 Maori candidates being elected.

I think Maori representatives would be better being appointed to Auckland Council, and relevant committees, to allocated seats, by the Auckland maori collective leadership, rather than being elected at large or from large wards.

This process would also mean that the most appropriate or informed maori voices can be appointed to take those seats at Council and its committees for specific decisions.


3. Auckland Council Elections – 9 multi-member wards

Most Councils appear to be supporting 20 wards, with one member/ward. This will lead to 20 First Past the Post elections (though the STV voting system would improve outcomes). I think there is a better option, which is supported by a significant number of ARC councillors.

Presently the ARC's 13 members are elected from 6 wards. Rodney and Papakura/Franklin are single member wards; Manukau is a 3 member ward; Auckland is a 4 member ward; and Waitakere and North Shore are each 2 member wards. In the multi-member wards, voters get to choose ALL of the members from that ward. So in Auckland - for example - voters get to cast 4 votes.

I think this approach is better than 1 member/ward, because:

· Councillors are less inclined to be parochial (they will represent a broader area, and not just their "personal" seat);
· councillors from the same ward can support each other (sharing local meetings, and with local boards);
· ratepayers have choices who to make representation to;
· councillors can allocate ward responsibilities better;
· greater likelihood of Auckland Council concentrating on regional issues and regional decision-making;
· parallels the different structural roles of Auckland Council Vs Community Council – the one being regional, the others being local

An option for Auckland Council would be: Rodney remains a 1 member ward; North Shore becomes a 3 member ward; Auckland is split into two 3 member wards (say); Waitakere becomes a 3 member ward; Franklin and Papakura are each 1 member wards; and Manukau becomes a 2 and a 3 member ward. (20 in total).

This structure – which echoes the ARC’s present workable arrangement - offers an effective balance between at-large representation, and 20 single-member wards.


4. Community Council (Board) Functions, Candidate Quality, Numbers

Community Councils should be required to produce a Local/Community Plan annually, which would cover:

· the community vision;
· outline of community priorities, projects and activities;
· key assets and values that need to be protected by Auckland Council;
· balanced budget for 3 years to fund these priorities;
· how the plan delivers on regional plans and strategies;
· performance measures.

In addition, Community Councils should have clearly defined local planning responsibilities - such as the ability to process local resource consent applications. There is good reason for the Bill to statutorily provide for this sort of process and role.

Community Councils will be the local eyes and ears of Auckland Council. They will bear the brunt of community concerns should these arise. It is appropriate therefore, that their responsibilities are clear cut. Auckland Council should be accountable for its decisions, while Community Councils are accountable for local decisions.

The current bill provides for Auckland Council to delegate other functions to Community Councils. Such as local parks maintenance and management, local roading repairs. This is appropriate. This discretion is hard to prescribe in statute.

Community Board members need to be paid appropriately. If you give local members the job of peeling bananas and pay them peanuts – you’ll get monkeys. There is dead wood in Auckland community boards now. This is a consequence of lack of power and low pay. Ensuring a typical Community Council workload translates into something like 3 days a week/member, would justify remuneration in the $35,000 to $45,000. Candidates of quality will be attracted by a combination of personally satisfying and publicly meaningful decision-making, and worthwhile remuneration.

How many Community Boards? Most North Shore Community Boards are col-located with Area Offices in buildings which also house the local library and community services such as the CAB. These combined community facilities are local institutions, but they have depended on North Shore City Council which acts as the anchor tenant. I would invite Select Ctte members to visit – for example – East Coast Bays, Glenfield and Devonport Area Offices to gain a better understanding of what I am talking about.

If any of the associated Community Boards (local Council) are abolished then it will be difficult to justify retention of the related Area Office. Like a house of cards. Whole communities will suffer.

Institutional losses on a huge scale are implicit in Government’s reform proposals. It is my submission that – to ensure some community continuity – then Community Councils be built broadly along the lines of existing Community Boards.

Summing up: The legislation needs to deliver Community Councils that are appreciated as important, valuable and significant by the local community, and which will attract candidates of quality, and which can be established without destroying institutional community development infrastructure and networks that exist now.


5. Three Water Management & Watercare Vertical Integration

It is essential that if vertical integration is the objective (merging Watercare as wholesaler of services, with the local water service functions of the current city and district councils), then that integration needs to be horizontal and include stormwater.

Throughout my experience of Auckland local government I have observed lobbying from those keen to gain control of piped and metered infrastructure. Water and wastewater are piped. They are also metered (wastewater is metered using “water-in” as a proxy for “wastewater-out”). A nice neat business.

The Bill at the moment is silent on stormwater – though some say that the word “wastewater” includes “stormwater”. First time I’ve heard that one. To avoid uncertainty, the Bill needs to explicitly state that this vertically integrated entity will, also, manage stormwater and be responsible for stormwater infrastructure – soft and hard – and for managing and maintaining it. Regional stormwater infrastructure consists of detention & settling ponds, natural streams, and some piping.

Much of Waitakere, North Shore, Manukau stormwater infrastructure is currently run in an integrated way with the other 2 waters. Stormwater is the biggest problem for wastewater (infiltration causes overflows at pump stations); and rainwater is increasingly used as local supply (for washing water and irrigation). Stormwater is inextricably intermingled with water and wastewater. That is why related infrastructure needs to be managed as part of a 3-water approach.

ENDS

So, there you have it. The most obviously engaged members of the Select Committee were Shane Jones and Simon Power, and its Chair - Tau Henare. They appeared very interested in the idea of Maori seats being allocated, and appropriate Maori members appointed.

Puketutu - Not a Dump for BioSolids - So Far

On the 9th July 2009, independent commissioners - chaired by Leigh McGregor, declined Watercare's applications for consents needed to dispose of sewage biosolids into the quarry hole that will be left on Puketutu Island when Winstone Aggregates finish their rock quarrying operation there. I breathed a sigh of appreciation.

There is a god....

This project - continuously referred to as a "land rehabilitation" by Watercare - has been around for a while. ARC has been dragged into it - reluctantly as far as I am concerned, willingly as far as some others are concerned - because the temptation of a free regional park was dangled in front of it. Like this: Watercare buys the Island and uses a chunk of it as a biosolids dump, and ARC can have the balance for a regional park immediately, and the whole of it for park when the quarry hole is fully "rehabilitated"....

Stank, as far as I was concerned.

Made me think of Goebbels. He used to say, " if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth." Felt the same to me, the use of the word "rehabilitation" to describe the dumping of partly processed human sewage as a "beneficial use" of this material, as a good way of "rehabilitating" this hole in the Island.

Anyway, this picture comes from Watercare's website and is an aerial view of Puketutu. To the right, you can see the edge of watercare's Mangere Wastewater treatment plant. The sort of triangle area, also to the right, is the current Pond 2 Landfill site used to deposit biosolids now. It's capacity is to 2012 or thereabouts...
And, this picture shows Puketutu in the middle distance. The picture is taken from Mangere Mountain. In the background you can see the Waitakere's. And the Manukau Harbour is the water you can see. None of these pictures give a good idea of the topography of Puketutu. It is steep and undulating, and is about 140 hectares in area. It would make a fanatastic park. Views from it toward Manukau Heads are great. But please hold the biosolids...

I guess the decision will be appealed. But it must help push Watercare in a different direction. And about time. It's a worry with Watercare being supported as the vertically integrated entity in charge of all of Auckland's 3-waters, if it so resolute about least cost, business friendly approaches to water.

To quote summarised reasons for the decision to decline:

"...(a) There would be severe and irreversible adverse effects on the spiritual and cultural wellbeing and values of tangata whenua and their ancestral relationship with the Island if this proposal was permitted to proceed;
(b) The proposal would have adverse effects on the natural character of the coastal environment and the cultural values of tangata whenua which are both matters of national importance and of regional significance. Therse effects could not be adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated and in the case of iwi values would be irreversible;
(c) The properties of the biosolids are far from favourable, and will restrict the landform to a very flat, distinctly unnatural appearance, with prolonged and intrusive aftercare likely to be required;
(d) In purely physical terms consent to the proposal might be granted, subject in all respects to the imposition of appropriate conditions. However, the purely physical considerations are considered to be far outweighed by the significant adverse effects that would be caused for matters of national and regional importance;
(e) The disposal of biosolids is not an appropriate way to "rehabilitate" Puketutu Island: it will degrade the island environmentally and leave it in a worse state than that prior to its "rehabilitation"..... etc

Just as an end note to this posting, I note that Auckland's wastewater system needs a policy upgrade. For a start the "trade waste" option of tipping heavy metals etc into the sewer, in exchange for a nominal trade waste fee, must be stopped. Sydney Water stopped this practice almost 20 years ago. Their goal was to reduce the heavy metal contaminants that render biosolids dangerous to life and healthy land. Stopping trade wastes would begin the slow process of creating a better quality organic biosolids that is more likely to be composted usefully with greenwaste and used as a soil conditioner. I appreciate there are challenges with this. But it is becoming the Western world norm to genuinely reuse biosolids, and to recycle their organic content back into the ground.

Queens Wharf - a couple of shed pics from the old days

I've mentioned the fact the Queens Wharf sheds had verandahs in times past.

Thought you might be interested in the evidence.

The wharves also had a couple of other interesting building shapes.

Thought you might be interested in those too. See the picture below.

Don't forget, the wooden structure that makes up the ferry terminal today, is the heritage outline from those same times....

Auckland’s waterfront needs iconic public places – not iconic buildings

This piece was submitted to NZ Herald on Wednesday last week, 24th June. You will read it here first. You might only read it here:

The Queens Wharf debate has been dominated by kneejerk calls for an iconic building. When Tank Farm/Wynyard Quarter was liberated from Ports control the debate then was about the need for an iconic building. And while original planning for Princes Wharf redevelopment advised against an iconic building, the Hilton Hotel got built there anyway. Big enough to block surrounding harbour views, and big enough to dominate the small public spaces squeezed around it.

Auckland needs iconic public spaces on its waterfront far more than it needs another iconic building.

Public space has been undervalued in Auckland’s CBD for as long as I can remember. The development of Aotea Square marked the start of public space decay. Conceived as a transformational urban project – together with Mayoral Drive, Aotea Theatre and new Council offices – its main driver was the need to decongest city traffic.

Much of central Auckland’s built heritage, character streets and public spaces were destroyed. Aotea Square works as a market place but is largely unsuccessful as a public place and remains unloved by Auckland. Queen Elizabeth Square is a more recent example of the decline in the quality of Auckland public places. Now a desolate bus park with a few struggling Kauri, though the addition of the glasshouse coffee kiosk has been an improvement.

Forty years ago American urbanist William H Whyte filmed people using New York’s public places in an attempt to analyse what made them successful. His findings boil down to a few simple amenities:

* toilets;
* seating;
* food;
* shops.

Whyte noted that the most attractive public places “retained heritage buildings” and “worked with the grain of the city”. He wrote later, “…(these findings) should have been staggeringly obvious to us had we thought of them in the first place…”

The absence of alcohol in these findings reflects the fact Whyte’s research encompassed the whole demographic. He was as interested in understanding what attracted children, families and the elderly to New York public places, as he was in the behaviour of youth and the upwardly mobile.

Last year I worked with a group of Auckland University Planning Masters students who analysed Auckland’s waterfront public places using Whyte’s observational methods. We added: harbour views; wind shelter; and activities of interest to Whyte’s criteria, allowing analysis of waterfront open space amenity.

We found that Waitemata Plaza in Viaduct Harbour is the only downtown Auckland waterfront space with public toilets. Compare, for example with Wellington’s waterfront. Wide harbour views can only be had from the end of Wynyard Point and the Hilton Hotel. Compare, again, with Wellington’s waterfront. There is limited provision of simple food (as opposed to restaurants and bars) or retail in and around Auckland’s waterfront public places.

The best waterfront public seating is across the road from the Price Waterhouse building. But there are no public toilets, no takeaway food or retail, and harbour views are obstructed by the Hilton Hotel building that dominates Princes Wharf.

Auckland must learn from its mistakes or they will be repeated on Queens Wharf.

The Hilton was consented just over ten years ago in 1998 by Auckland Regional Council. The application was not notified, so the public didn’t get a say. At the time relevant planning documents stated: “…a fundamental objective of the redevelopment of Princes Wharf is that it should contain an appropriate mix of uses so as to achieve a balance between commercial activity and public access and enjoyment of the Wharf. To ensure that an appropriate mix and balance of uses is provided and maintained, there is a requirement for a minimum percentage of the development to be of publicly orientated uses – 'people places' – such as Art Galleries, Museums, Theatres, Entertainment or Educational Facilities, and in addition certain 'private commercial' uses shall be limited to maximum percentages of the development….”

Reading these words today it is hard to understand how the Hilton Hotel complex actually got built on Princes Wharf.

The ARC consenting process required formal certification of building plans by ARC’s appointed adviser: architect Clinton Bird. He advised commissioners of the proposed Hilton Hotel: “…by retaining the existing sheds, the development relates not only to the earlier wharf structures, but also to the dominant texture of the city. The resulting city texture on the wharf would be not too dissimilar to assembling six slightly longer but similarly wide and high Ferry buildings in the same pattern of layout…”

It is hard to reconcile those words with what got built. Where are those sheds now on Princes Wharf? Where are theatres and art galleries? What about public enjoyment?

Today, after an investment of $40 million of public money Auckland has public control of Queens Wharf. I am relieved that a combination of the need to provide space for a Rugby World Cup party and scarcity of public funds, means one option is to tidy up the old sheds on Queens Wharf.

This presents an opportunity for civic experimentation and the creation of a successful waterfront public place. I agree with Alex Swney - now is not the time for hasty, iconic and embarrasingly permanent structures.

Instead lets bring theatres, food markets, and fashion shows into the sheds, and flag poles and light shows, moveable-feasts and treats-on-wheels onto the wharf.

Open up the Queens Wharf sheds and restore their verandahs, so that in 2012 when they are exactly hundred years old they are fit for purpose, providing for the needs of the public and fans from the floating hotels moored alongside.

And don’t forget toilets and seats sheltered from the wind.

That's what I think about Queens Wharf. By all means go down the road of iconic buildings when RWC is over. Perhaps. But let's have a good solid design competition first. At least as comprehensive as was deployed for Britomart Railway Station. Not a a bunch of architect's drawings slung together in a jury-rigged process. In the meantime, let's use those sheds.

Governance Changes - Keep the Good Bits

The following blog was submitted to NZ Herald a couple of weeks ago, and they ran it:

“Governance arrangements for the Auckland Regional have been a cause of concern for at least the past 50 years”, begins the policy statement introducing Government’s Bill to abolish Auckland’s existing Councils next year, and establish the merged Auckland Council.

There is no mention in that policy statement of successes banked in recent years thanks to accelerating implementation of the Auckland’s Regional Growth and Land Transport Strategies.

No governance system is perfect. There are always winners and losers. While there is widely acknowledged room to strengthen regional governance, it is important that Auckland does not lose momentum through governance changes that risk derailing good city building work in progress.

Exemplary projects in recent years include: Britomart Station, Newmarket Station and Central Transport Connector arterial upgrade projects run by Auckland City Council; the New Lynn station and town centre project managed by Waitakere City Council’s development agency; Manukau Station and FlatBush development managed by Manukau Council’s land development Council Controlled Organisation; and the North Shore Busway project where that Council oversaw station and local arterial busway lanes delivered by a joint steering group.

Projects like these were envisioned by the Auckland Regional Growth Strategy when it was adopted by the region in 1998 to manage Auckland’s growing pains of wasteful sprawl, damaging infill development and congestion. The strategy called for a Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL) to protect rural land, and areas of higher density development at existing urban centres and along public transport corridors.

Little happened on the ground initially because land development patterns envisioned by the strategy required changes to Auckland, Manukau, Waitakere and North Shore District Plans, and because public transport services in Auckland were poor.

None of the urban regeneration projects mentioned above could have proceeded without District Plan and funding changes that enabled them, and which also enable and incentivise adjacent private property development projects.

Changing District Plan provisions for part of a city to enable higher density development is a non-trivial task. A city’s District Plan has legislative status. People and communities manage their interest in land and buildings accordingly because the District Plan provides the framework for assessing resource consent applications.

Plan Changes are intensely political activities. Again, there are winners and losers. Private property rights are affected. Public realm amenity is affected also.

According to Ministry of Environment data, about thirty District and Regional plan changes – some privately initiated – are handled each year by Auckland authorities. From start to finish the more controversial of these take several years to become operative. Processing time is in direct proportion to the level of public interest and concern. Plan changes relating to Milford Shopping Centre and St Lukes Shopping Centre are amongst the more challenging District Plan changes in process today.

Plan Change hearings are typically heard by elected Councillors, who are accountable for any supporting policy decisions. Plan Changes are not the same as resource consent decisions that are often delegated to officers or independent commissioners.

Under current governance proposals Auckland will be served by just twenty councillors. They risk being overwhelmed by the policy and hearings workload of District Plan changes, particularly if these follow the exemplary charrette process adopted by Waitakere City Council in achieving public buy-in for its New Lynn regeneration Project.

The 1998 Growth Strategy aimed for 80% of Auckland’s increase in population being accommodated within Auckland’s existing urban area, and the remaining 20% in greenfield development. Initially, as Auckland’s councils developed implementation plans, the opposite occurred. Most of the increase in population was absorbed by greenfield development.

But by 2006, 88% of Auckland’s growth occurred within the MUL, with some spillover development accommodated in lifestyle blocks. By 2008 Auckland CBD had been transformed from a sleepy commercial centre to a mixed use city-that-never-sleeps full of apartments and city dwellers. Similar changes for Takapuna, Henderson, New Lynn, Newmarket and Manukau CBD are envisaged. Detailed local planning will be essential.

Community Boards lack the scale and resources for this work.

Auckland has been wasteful of energy as well as land, with 56% of that energy being used in the region for transport alone. The Regional Energy Database administered by Auckland Regional Council estimates that people and businesses in the region spend $3.4 billion per year on energy for transportation. That is a huge economic burden.

When transport energy was cheap and roads were relatively uncongested, Auckland’s sprawling land use patterns barely affected the region’s economic performance. But that is not the case today, and the situation will worsen as fossil fuels become scarce.

Auckland’s Land Transport Strategy was adopted in 2005 after being supported by all the region’s Councils. It called for a significant shift in investment from motorways to passenger transport systems. Part of that strategy was to free up motorway space for freight transport. This year showed the highest number of passenger transport trips since 1985, and the highest number of rail trips since 1955.

Recent years have seen significant progress in delivering the Growth Strategy on the ground and the Transport Strategy on road and rail. The benefits of that progress will be felt for decades to come. But there is a long way to go. It is essential that changes to governance do not send Auckland back to a future dominated again by low density sprawl and motorways.

And you can see - as a matter of interest - how NZ Herald ran it:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10577017
Their edits are always interesting, and usually helpful. For students of journalism...