Queens Wharf - another ad hoc Auckland accident?

Until yesterday, my understanding about what was happening down on Queens Wharf was pretty much as had been reported by NZ Herald on the 8th December:

"Queens Wharf is to be spruced up for the Rugby World Cup at a cost of about $10 million.

It is understood there is no political appetite or funding to proceed with a grand design for the wharf in the foreseeable future.

Last month, political leaders called a halt to the much-maligned design contest to turn Queens Wharf into a combined cruise ship terminal and "party central" venue for the 2011 Cup.

A joint entry from architects Jasmax and Architectus, featuring a ramp to the water at the end of Queens Wharf, was the winning design for the $47 million budget...."

The Herald even ran a picture of the winning design with that story. The winning entry was known as QW04.

I quite liked the variant of that design that was in the design competition. One of the reasons I liked it was because the Cool Shed was retained, and featured.

Anyway. I digress. Things have been moving along apace. Yesterday, an extraordinary meeting of ARC Council was called by ARC's Chairman.

It was all about Queens Wharf. I can't really go into detail here - because the item was in confidential. A slim majority of councillors were able to attend - almost half the ARC councillors had made other Xmas arrangements and were elsewhere.

So a bare quorum attended. I was not happy to be considering such an important matter with so little time to think about it, and with so few councillors there. And there was no real sense of urgency. A strong whiff of expediency or ad hockery (if that's a word) was in the air....

The Chairman of ARC has made no secret of his desire to get rid of the Queens Wharf sheds, and to build Auckland's primary cruise ship terminal there. Quite a few other councillors, not to mention a fair slice of Auckland's media and public are concerned by that proposal. That it will restrict the opportunities to provide for public waterfront amenity. Crowd Auckland's CBD waterfront with cruise ships and basically give over the cruise ship industry a fantastic slice of Auckland's central waterfront. Here's how ARC's Chairman describes what he wants in his November report to Council. This photo is part of his report:

"A lot of public and media attention has been given to Queens Wharf in recent weeks – especially with the decision taken by the government, Auckland City and ourselves to ditch the cruise ship terminal design competition. ...My own comments on the standard of the designs is on the record and I am determined that we do not accept a second rate building on such a magnificent site. These opportunities come perhaps once in a lifetime and should not be squandered. If the job is worth doing its worth doing well.... As you might have guessed given the interest of the public I have been inundated with design ideas (especially gigantic waka and oversized rugby balls) which are at least more interesting than the standard boring post modern stodge offered up by the architectural experts. With all the controversy flying about the designs it is important not to lose sight of why we resolved to acquire Queens Wharf from POAL in the first place. That was for a new cruise ship terminal for Auckland and for public open space. One thing is for certain the wharf will be formally handed over to the ARC and the NZ government in April next year and we will be opening it up to the public. In regard to cruise ships, the 2008/09 cruise ship season was the largest yet, with New Zealand receiving 118,976 passengers. As the country’s key hub port, Auckland received a significant proportion of the 2008/09 cruise ship passengers (112,870). Growth in passenger numbers is expected to steadily increase, helped by announcements such as the one P&O Cruises made in October that it is going to base its newest superliner – the 1800 passenger Pacific Pearl – in New Zealand. Analysis shows that each cruise ship passenger contributes between $200 and $300 to the Auckland economy... Research carried out for the Government in 2008 showed that a new cruise terminal on Queens Wharf could generate an additional $713 million in direct expenditure over the next 10 years. Many have been surprised at the remarkable renaissance of passenger shipping in recent years – which most travel experts had written-off long ago as superseded by air travel. But given that Auckland, largely thanks to the magnificent Hauraki Gulf and Waitemata Harbour, has been presented with this opportunity it is important in terms of the overall economic development of the region that we seize it with both hands.... Our current facilities are outmoded and overloaded and there is no room to grow. We also need to match the standard of visitor facilities being provided by Australian Ports. If anyone doubts this I suggest they visit Princes Wharf when a cruise ship is alongside and see the long lines of jet-lagged passengers...."

You get the picture. ARC's Chairman is VERY enthusiastic about cruise ships and the cruise ship industry. He still wants BOTH sides of Queens Wharf to be available for cruise ships - that's why he likes the picture he has in his report with 3 cruise ships.

I have had to push very hard to get the idea of public space provision on Queens Wharf to be included at the same level in ARC's thinking - as the cruise ship terminal. It's there, as you can see in the Chairman's report, but I think public space and public amenity continues to be vulnerable to the pressure for Queens Wharf to be Auckland's PRIMARY cruise ship terminal.

But I digress again. This picture shows the Diamond Princess docked at Princes Wharf. She's 925 feet long. Close to the maximum length cruise ship that can dock at Princes Wharf. You can see how she towers over the Hilton Hotel, and imagine the views of those living in the Princes Wharf apartments. I sometimes wonder whether reverse sensitivity issues are driving the cruise ship industry onto Queens Wharf....

So - what can I tell you about the confidential meeting? Well. It seems that the powers that be are interested in doing rather more than the $10 million Party Central do-up that the NZ Herald reported a few weeks ago.

Behind the scenes a lot of work has been going on to titivate and tart up the design competition winning entry (described above), so that it meets the expectations of those same powers that be who would quite like to get the whole thing done in time for Rugby World Cup. The detail of all of that was provided at the meeting. Of course there are conversations to be had, and deals to be done, and funding to be found and finalised, and other design details to be worked through, and nothing was actually finalised.

But it's a worry. Not quite in the spirit of due process.

A strong whiff of ad hockery. Another classic Auckland moment. Reminiscent of Mallard's stadium Auckland moment. Is this the only way Auckland can do anything? And if we seriously believe Auckland governance needs to be changed to get good decisions, do we really think it appropriate to allow the existing dying regime - or even a fragment of it - to decide anything as precious as the waterfront?

I won't say any more about that meeting. But I am happy to share some of the concerns I had, and some of the research I carried out before the meeting. First of all I am aware that the Design Competition Panel prepared a final report. This recommends that QW04 is the winning entry. My understanding is that the main reason it won is that it scraps Shed 10, to ensure that the cruise ship terminal part of its design can deliver the rigid requirements of the design competition brief. The brief is onerous. It talks about the need for 8000 square metres of cruise ship building space. It talks about other building requirements to meet the needs of the cruise ship industry. It turns out that there is no way these specified needs can, or could, be met by any adaptive re-use of Shed 10. That is a principle reason why QW04 won.

In other words, the price of the cruise ship terminal, is Shed 10. The Design Panel basically found that you can't have both. And clearly the security and other needs of the cruise ship terminal will always rule when it comes to public space and provision as well. And if the ARC Chairman has his way, both sides of Queens Wharf will be sacrificed to cruise ship heaven. To P&O et al.

Question: where do cruise ships to Sydney dock? Do they tie up by the Opera House - ie slap bang in the middle of downtown CBD? Answer: No they don't. Here's one place. Nice location by the bridge. But not in the heart of the CBD. And take a look at the buildings used for the ship. Beautiful use when the ship's not there. Question: Where are they planning to put the Wellington Cruise Ship terminal? In the heart of Wellington's downtown waterfront CBD? Answer: No. The plan is to put it between Te Papa and the Freyberg Pool. Well away from Wellington's downtown waterfront.

It is plain stupid to shove ships into and almost onto Auckland's downtown CBD waterfront. This space needs to be reserved for promenading and public amenity and public fun.

And here's the other thing I spoke about at the confidential meeting. Remember when Queen Mary 2 came to Auckland? Fantastic wasn't it. Everybody wanted to see her. Here she is. Parked at a container terminal. She was too big for Princes Wharf. And she's too big for Queens Wharf. So. Even if the powers that be spend a whole heap of money building the titivated cruise ship terminal on Queens Wharf, the Queen Mary will still have to park at Auckland's container terminal. How World Class is that? Queen Mary 2 is 1132 feet long. That's almost 200 feet longer than the Diamond Princess photographed at Princes Wharf above. When I asked the question about this, at the confidential meeting, I was advised that Queens Wharf needs to be strengthened to take a ship as heavy as Queen Mary 2, and lengthened as well. I was also advised that the contract with Ports of Auckland does allow for lengthening, but that the cost for lengthening has not be budgeted for. Last time I looked the resource consent process for lengthening Auckland's wharves had not suddenly become any easier. I checked the internet to see what the trend was for cruise ships. Queen Mary 2 was - for a short time - the longest cruise ship in the world. However I learned that Royal Carribean - a major competitor for P&O - has completed, or almost completed, two cruise ships that are bigger than Queen Mary 2. One's called Oasis of the Seas (1187 feet), the other's called Genesis (1180 feet). And apparently larger cruise ship vessels are on the horizon.

How world class would Auckland look if ships like these, and Queen Mary 2, had to dock at a container wharf? Remember the big container ship debate? Auckland was going to lose out on the world shipping stage if it didn't dredge Rangitoto Channel and expand Ferguson Terminal. These monty container ships needed water depth and berth length. So we spent the money. Why not take a whole of waterfront perspective in planning for cruise ships AND public space. No need to cram everything onto Queens Wharf. Take a bigger look.

What is happening is not a positive reflection on Auckland planning. I say, let's stop this waterfront ad hockery. By all means spend $10 million - or even $20 million - on Party Central on Queens Wharf. But don't rush something ill-thought-out onto Queens Wharf. It's too precious.

POSTSCRIPT (dated 15th January 2010). You will have noted the discussion in NZ Herald over the past few days. Orsman's front page reveal all was triggered by this blog. The subsequent debate has engaged the attention of the PM who has blocked proposals for a major and hasty redevelopment. Interestingly, Cooper and Company have come up with a "redevelop 30 metres of land behind the red fence and keep Quay Street as it is". Which has a degree of popularity about it. I think it's another short term fix. Quay Street's use has to change otherwise Auckland CBD will be separated from its waterfront by a traffic artery/sewer.

Xmas Otago Rail Trail Experience

Emily and I did the Otago Rail Trail for a Christmas treat. Came home on Monday after completing the 154 km expedition. Here we are with our rental bikes (Ranfurly Bike Hire). And by the Clutha River, just donwstream from the Clyde Dam at Clyde where we started off...

Crossing the Clutha River heading into Alexandra on day 1. Long stretches of Central Otago. This is by Olrig Station. Parked by a railway gangers shed...

Plenty of heritage and history along the way. And places to get some shade. Day 2 was hot...

Lots of bridges of all sorts of shapes and sizes. Nothing quite like biking across a bridge...

And the tunnels were interesting too. I think there were 3 quite long tunnels to bike through. We had a bike light that was bright enough to bike behind. Walking encouraged...

The Graham Sydney images of Central Otago and landscapes are everywhere. Hard to resist.

Here is Peter's Farmstay. The accommodation to chosse from along the way is hugely varied. Pubs, taverns, fancy hotels, basic campsites - you really become aware of the economic transformation this piece of infrastructure has brought about in Central Otago. The new gold mine. And seriously sustainable...

...and everywhere along the way, those fantastic, big sky views... sure we got the odd sore wrist and a numb bum from time to time... but it's fun. We were told the average age of people doing the trail is in the 50's...

And finally the train on the last piece of track left in place. I thoroughly recommend the Taieri Gorge train back to Dunedin. Buffet car and all...

Auckland Restructuring - Papering Reform Cracks - Bill 3

The current Auckland Local Government Law Reform Bill was released 10 December 2009, and had its first reading in Parliament 15 December, where it was referred to Select Ctte.This Ctte is likely to call for submissions....

This Bill is complex and large - 179 pages. It reads like a set of patches to cover over the holes that are graduallyemerging in this ship of reform. The Bill asks as many questions as it answers. I feel some sympathy for ATA - the Auckland Transition Agency - it ends up with a bucketload of more work to do - as we cruise toward abolition and relaunch November 1st 2010.

This table lists some of the provisions in the Bill - and my concerns about them. And some suggestions as to what fixes might help....
The table is not comprehensive, and if you want chapter and verse, I suggest you get a copy of the Bill yourself. But it is not - by any means - plain sailing....

Local Govt (Auckland Law Reform) Bill	My Criticism of provisions	Fixes I think are needed
ATA must amalgamate the region's LTCCPs to create a bunch of plans one for each Local Board. These plans must list the non-regulatory activities the Boards will do. It will also give Board budgets for 2011/12.	This seems sensible. But it will likely take until September 2010 before this work is done. Only then will prospective candidates have any idea of the magnitude and type of work that Local Boards will actually do. ATA's task is complicated by the fact the Local Govt Commission will only finalise Boards by end of March 2010.	Hard to know what to suggest here. Get it done as soon as possible though - I'd say by June to be of use in helping candidates decide their future. This is a good example of a repair patch needed to define - very roughly- the functions of Local Boards.
Transport Auckland established as a "non-standard" CCO. Exempt from many LGA provisions. Potential for its Board to be appointed by Ministers of Transport & Local Government. No mention about who/how it will be funded.	This is -in effect - a Crown controlled organisation. (See my blog about this a couple of entries ago). Would the Crown deny itself powers to control SOE's or other Authorities it owns? Would Govt fail to state in legislation the rules for SOEs to negotiate with Govt in regard to activities, objectives & budgets? I don't think so. Most SOE budgets are heavily tagged. Not so for Auckland Transport....	Government needs to learn from the 2004 transport and local govt reforms for Auckland. This was when ARTA was established to run Auckland public transport and other services. The checks and balances in place - about funding, activities, objectives - were decided in partnership with ARC. This model worked well for Auckland. It should be replicated for Transport Auckland.
Watercare will NOT do stormwater, and Auckland Council will NOT be able to change Watercare's SOI until 2012.	There are no provisions in the Bill for how Watercare will charge for water and wastewater services. Extraordinarily, it seems likely that Watercare will charge ratepayers for water services in a Bill separate from their rates bill. What a waste of a reform@! Also, appears to be no public process whereby transition in water/wastewater charges occurs. Apparently Auckland Council will be able to fire the Board. Now there's a blunt governance tool!	Auckland Council needs to be able to govern Watercare through its SOI immediately. Total nonsense otherwise. It also seems a nonsense that stormwater infrastructure and its use and management is to be separated from water and wastewater. Backward. Some sort of transition duty should be required as wastewater charges move from Uniform Charges to volumetric charges. These are major policy and public interest issues. Policy control should come via SOI.
Whole bunch of CCO's to be established by the ATA - many before the end of October 31st. Boards may be appointed also. Boards to appoint their own Chairs!	What Govt SOE or Authority exists where the Minister has NOT appointed the Board Chair? Why should Auckland Council not have the power to appoint the Chairs of CCOs it is supposed to control? This is crazy.	What is good for the goose, should be good for the gander. This Bill demonstrates a real failure on the part of Government to understand the need for independent local government. Is it so afraid of failure? Has it so little confidence in these reforms?
Mana Whenua and Maori Statutory Board set up with 9 members, that can appoint 2 people to Auckland Council Ctte dealing with resource management decisions. Option to sit on other cttes.	This is the fallback option instead of maori seats. I understand this option is likely to be unwieldy and expensive. However does have the benefit of ensuring the right mana whenua people serve on the Auckland Council cttes. That voice will be there.	Suggest a costs & benefits assessment is done for this option vv Maori seat option. Need to be better informed about this.
Auckland Council will be required to prepare a comprehensive Spatial Plan - with a lot of detail. Intended to provide a 20-30 year direction for Auckland. This will replace the Growth Strategy.	This sort of specific plan has long been needed. But this provision "drips with insincerity". It has no relationship with any of the other implementation plans. No relationshipwith Regional Policy Statement, District Plans, Regional Transport Strategy... In short, just another time-consuming strategy that won't stand a chance of getting implemented.	In my view, the Spatial Plan is an opportunity to do something good for Auckland planning, and its implementation. But Govt needs to take it seriously, for the Spatial Plan to be taken seriously by Auckland Council. The Spatial Plan lacks credibility when there is no obvious connection between it, and Auckland Council planning, and the infrastructure projects needed from Watercare and Auckland Transport....
Rating. A revaluation of the whole region is to be completed by 1 July 2010. ALL rates are to be based on capital value. Auckland Council must set a transition rate for each rating unit for 2011/12.	This is a doozy of a provision. For example, North Shore rates are based on Land Value (Capital Value includes Land Value PLUS improvements value.) This means there will be BIG losers,and BIG winners in this transition. Even a revaluation using the same rating system causes huge upheaval. Let alone changing the basis of rating itself@!	While the Bill provides for Auckland Council having a 3 year transition period - the scale of change will be very large for some rating units - too large to be safely absorbed across 3 years. I think work is required - ahead of Select Ctte - s0 there is better info about the impact of this change. Also, I think the rating Bill should include water as well as rates.
ATA "Planning Document". This is an interesting new planning document required of ATA (intro'd above). It must deal with initial allocation of decision-making responsibility between council and ALL Boards.	A necessary document. This needs to be planned for. But there are so many things that need to be planned for,for each Local Board: Building; staff requirement; budget; divisions... and think of this: that Waitakere Local Board is as big as Waitakere City Council...! Again- this won't be ready till Sept 2010, almost after the date candidates need to declare their hands...	When you look at this one - the sheer scale of it - you wonder about the sense of forcingall this to be done by Oct 31 next year. Maybe a better option would be to legislate for the current arrangements to run for another year - or maybe 6 months. Anything to avoid the patched reform ship from sinking through having too many unfixed holes....

ARC confirms $2 million for Long Bay Park addition

At full council meeting yesterday afternoon - 14th December - ARC confirmed an earlier Parks Committee meeting to contribute $2 million toward the cost of an additional 4.8 hectares of land at Long Bay Regional Park.

The land area - often known as "Area D" is shown in brown/orange on this map image. Area D is important for two reasons: the first is that it forms part of the backdrop seen when approaching the park by road (shown in the map); second is that the area has a boundary with a special "heritage protection area" which - though privately owned - has been set aside by the Environment Court. It may not be developed for urban purposes because of its heritage values.

The Long Bay Okura Great Park Society has been lobbying tirelessly for the purchase of additional pieces of land at Long Bay to protect existing regional park assets, and to improve public amenity at what is the most popular of Auckland's regional parks. Hundreds of emails were sent to ARC councillors seeking their support for a motion to contribute regional capital to support $5 million committed conditionally by North Shore City Council.

This digitally enhanced image shows Area D to the left, with the heritage protection area ot the right. The view is as you approach Long Bay down the road from Torbay Village. You can see the difference it makes....

Below is the email I sent in reply to the emails I received from Great Park Society members:

Dear xxxx,

Thank you for emailing me about this, and I understand and appreciate how much you – and other supporters of the Great Park Society – care about Long Bay and the Regional Park opportunities that still exist. I appreciate the personal views that you express.

You probably don’t really want to hear about my background in supporting Long Bay, but I want to use this opportunity say a few things. First – as North Shore City Councillor – I supported North Shore City Council initiatives to buy land there. Especially the big purchase that occurred there 7 or 8 eight years ago. At that time I was disappointed in the relatively small purchase that ARC made at the same time – "toe-nail clippings" was how I described the slivers the ARC bought then.

Ironic really. I recall that NSCC decided around 2002 to concentrate its purchase efforts in the North end of the Regional Park, leaving what we saw then as the most important Southern area to ARC, because we believed ARC would know better which pieces to buy there, and also, be in a stronger financial position than NSCC to purchase a substantial stake.

We were wrong. And when I was elected to ARC in 2004 I learned the main reason why. It was generally because ARC took these policy positions:

* Long Bay Regional Park was done. Nothing more to be done.
* ARC needed to concentrate on large regional parkland purchases, rather than buying land which could be seen as urban parks (ie Long Bay was seen by some that way. Ironic really. When ARC first bought land there, there was no urbanisation. Now….!)

I raised arguments like these:

* the backdrop needed protection (it was a major ARC policy that regional parks should be protected from being dominated or overlooked by even one house (eg Pakiri) let alone whole subdivisions)
* it is unsustainable for ARC to only provide large regional parks so far removed from Auckland urban area, that visitors need to drive an hour or more, there and back to enjoy them. Long Bay is obviously enjoyed by many who can access it by public transport, and by mini-vans and other vehicles at relatively low "carbon miles")

Throughout my last 5 years or so on ARC, I have been part of a consistent minority calling for more purchases at Long Bay Regional Park. However, ARC has worked tirelessly for planning controls to reduce the adverse effects of development. This is good but not enough.

One of the major gains of this Resource Management Act legal action has been the establishment of the Heritage Protection Area. I believe there is a compelling case to further protect the public interest in that area – the HPA, for the future, by purchasing some land in the vicinity of Area D. I also appreciate the co-benefit of that piece of land being in public ownership – because it will add to the backdrop effect for those accessing the park from the Torbay end.

So I will be arguing, at the ARC meeting this Wednesday, in support of ARC support for the partnership purchase of land at Area D, with North Shore City Council, and with a Trust which I understand has been set up to further assist. I expect there will be further information presented there, which will assist councillors make the best decision.

Thank you for your actions in leaving no stone unturned to achieve the best public outcomes at Long Bay.

Regards, Joel Cayford
I am pleased to report success, and to claim responsibility for leading the charge at ARC for the level of funding support that was finally agreed.

Auckland Transport (Authority) Bill - Independent & Powerful

This blog explores the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill (introduced to NZ Parliament on Friday 10th December), and in particular what it says about transport, and the Auckland Transport Authority – which we now learn here is to be known as “Auckland Transport”. In this blog I look at a few aspects of the Auckland Transport entity: what it is and how it is different from other CCOs; its powers and functions; how it will be funded

What Auckland Transport is, and how it differs from other CCOs

According to the Bill, this entity is “a body corporate with perpetual sucession” and “a council controlled organisation of the Auckland Council”.

But – and it’s a big “but” – various Local Government Act provisions relating to CCOs will not apply to Auckland Transport.

For example, Auckland Transport, does not have to comply with ss. 59, 60, 64 and 74 of the LGA. This means:

a) (s 59 does NOT apply) Therefore the principal objective of Auckland Transport is NOT to achieve the objectives of its shareholders (in this case Auckland Council), as specified in the statement of intent; and it is NOT to exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility by having regard to the interests of the community in which it operates….; (My interpretation: Auckland Transport does NOT have to deliver the objectives of Auckland Council – which might be embodied in annual plans, policy statements, spatial plans.)
(b) (s 60 does NOT apply) Therefore decisions relating to the operation of Auckland Transport DON’T have to be made in accordance its statement of intent; and its constitution…; (My interpretation: Even if Auckland Transport has a Statement of Intent – or Constitution – its Board can make decisions that are not consistent.)
(c) (s 64 does NOT apply) Therefore Auckland Transport DOESN’T have to have a statement of intent that complies with the detailed information requirements set out in clause 9 of schedule 8 of the Local Government Act…; (My interpretation: The SOI requirements for Auckland Transport are totally undefined. It appears to be able to decide its own direction, with little reference to Auckland Council. Strangely, however, s34 of the Bill requires that Auckland Transport “must have a statement of intent that complies with the LGA" – so – I don’t know. Can’t have it both ways…)
(d) (s 74 does NOT apply) Therefore the usual official information provisions of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act DON’T apply to Auckland Transport. (My interpretation: Auckland Transport will NOT be publicly accountable in the same way other CCO’s have been. However this is qualified by a specific provision which DOES make Auckland Transport subject to parts of LGOIMA.)

Auckland Transport Powers and Functions

The “status and powers” of Auckland Transport are untrammelled. Auckland Transport: “has full capacity to carry on or undertake any activity or business, do any act, or enter into any transaction; and …. full rights, powers and privileges … subject to the Act. NB: Auckland Transport can make bylaws – separate from Auckland Council.

Interestingly, in exercising its functions, Auckland Transport can act: “as if it were a regional council, territorial authority, or other statutory body, as the case may be…”. On the face of it, Auckland Council has tiny number of transport duties. These include: management of off-street parking facilities owned by the Council! Interestingly, Auckland Transport can – if it decides to – delegate duties or responsibilities to Auckland Council (s33, schedule 2). This delegation can also be to 1 or more Local Boards. (My interpretation: this provision – almost more than any other – underlines the hierarchy here. Auckland Transport has authority over Auckland Council, and very considerable independence from it.)

One of the key functions of Auckland Transport is to “prepare the regional land transport programme for Auckland in accordance with the Land Transport Management Act 2003…”.

This is the area – as former chair of Auckland’s Regional Land Transport Committee, tasked with establishing Auckland’s Regional Land Transport Strategy – that I wanted understand. Took a little time to unwind. Not a happy experience….

Presently, the LTMA 2003 says this:

15 Core requirements of regional land transport programmes
prepared by ARTA
ARTA must, in preparing an Auckland regional land transport
programme,—
(a) be satisfied that the Auckland regional land transport
programme—
(i) contributes to the aim of achieving an affordable,
integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable land
transport system; and
(ii) contributes to each of the following:
(A) assisting economic development:
(B) assisting safety and personal security:
(C) improving access and mobility:
(D) protecting and promoting public health:
(E) ensuring environmental sustainability;
and
(iii) is consistent with the relevant GPS; and
(b) give effect to the matters in the Auckland regional land
transport strategy, unless it is required to do otherwise
by operational considerations that affect the sequencing
and timing of activities, the funding available to it, or its
statutory functions, duties, or powers; and
(c) take into account any—
(i) national land transport strategy; and
(ii) national energy efficiency and conservation strategy;
and
(iii) relevant national policy statement and any relevant
regional policy statements or plans that are
for the time being in force under the Resource
Management Act 1991; and
(iv) relevant regional public transport plan; and
(v) likely funding from any source.

But this Bill – this law reform bill – changes this to:

15 Core requirements of regional land transport programmes
prepared by Auckland Transport
Auckland Transport must, in preparing an Auckland regional land transport
programme,—
(a) be satisfied that the Auckland regional land transport
programme—
(i) contributes to the aim of achieving an affordable,
integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable land
transport system; and
(ii) contributes to each of the following:
(A) assisting economic development:
(B) assisting safety and personal security:
(C) improving access and mobility:
(D) protecting and promoting public health:
(E) ensuring environmental sustainability;
and
(iii) is consistent with the relevant GPS and the Auckland regional transport strategy; and

xxxxx

(c) take into account any—
(i) national land transport strategy; and
(ii) national energy efficiency and conservation strategy;
and
(iii) relevant national policy statement and any relevant
regional policy statements or plans that are
for the time being in force under the Resource
Management Act 1991; and
(iv) relevant regional public transport plan; and
(v) likely funding from any source.

You'll see that s15(b) has gone. The key thing here is the loss of the power or influence of the Auckland Regional Land Transport Strategy to drive transport investment in Auckland. Previously, ARTA was required to “give effect to the RLTS”. Under these changes, the RLTS and the GPS are on the same policy level. Who knows how the Board of Auckland Transport will resolve any differences?

I think I know.

There is enough in what we see above to suggest that the Board of Auckland Transport has a great deal of latitude.

How Auckland Transport will be funded

The gap that remains unfilled – and one we all await with interest – is how Auckland Transport’s programme will be funded. What mix of Government and Local Government money will be required. The Bill makes some mention of developer levies – and this is good for regional transport infrastructure. More analysis required to see how that all works.

But – in terms of the principle that rating follows representation – it is hard to see a good strong link between the election platforms of would-be Auckland Councillors (in terms of rates and what should be funded), and the activities and funding requirements of Auckland Transport.

What does it all mean?

Auckland Transport is not your usual "Council Controlled Organisation". Because there are so many exceptions (noted above), and exemptions (noted above), and freedoms (noted above), really, Auckland Transport is a Crown Entity.

It is a Government Controlled Organisation.

If Auckland Transport is established as proposed, Auckland will lose something significant. It will lose its ability to determine its transport future. Auckland Council will become little more than an entity set up to extract rate revenues from Auckland ratepayers, and these revenues will then be directed to Auckland transport investments that central government considers are priorities in delivering its objectives, and not Auckland Council objectives.

Newmarket Station - Design Exemplar Auckland needs

The Auckland Regional Transport Committee had a sneak preview of Newmarket Station today.

Wednesday 9th December.




This is the main concourse. Airy - literally - and bright. Those are the escalators down ahead...

And here's looking back up those escalators - a pair serving each pair of platforms.

Apparently the rails wil be brought into the station in time for the official opening which happens mid January.

I guess we'll be looking at some overhead cables when the lines are electrified. Bring that on.

Standing on Platform 3 here, Platform 2 to the right. And 1 & 4 at the edge.

Having been here before design work began, I would not have expected something so spacious and appropriate could have been shoe-horned into the space left following the fire-sale of adjacent railway land for development.

Shows how wrong you can be.

Back up on the concourse level now, looking North. You can see through the glass, the hint of public square...

Throughout the station I was impressed by the attention to detail. Lots of that...

And here's another view of that square. Apparently it was privately developed to specification, but has now transferred to Auckland City Council. So it's a great public space - a plazza - or piazza. With interesting shade, seats round the perimeter, and surrounded by buildings which will shelter the space from weather. You enter the square on sweeping wide steps from the station.

I was impressed. This is an excellent example of an urban station in a medium density setting. It's a show piece of what is possible in Auckland, as the city transforms.

Making Sense of Emission Trading

At last there is real effort being made by media to understand Climate Change and one of the mechanisms proposed to deal with it: Emissions Trading. There seems to me a sea change happening. The public want to know more. They want to understand more.

It's good that PM Key is off to Copenhagen.
And it's good that China and the USA seem to have made significant decisions about their response to Climate Change just days before Copenhagen. All good.

I guess I've always been something of a skeptic. An Emissions Trading Sceptic. From time to time I'll run something here that throws a bit of light on the subject. In this blog I'll try to explain what emissions trading is (using stuff from the experts), and introduce some of the difficulties:

Explanation of Emissions Trading

This comes from an Australian economist writer for several Aussie newspapers. Peter Martin. It's a helpful explanation of how it might work for power stations in Australia....

"...To simplify, let’s suppose that the only emitters of carbon in Australia are power stations. Lets say that this year they have been emitting 100 units each.

If an emissions licensing and trading scheme were introduced next year the government might only hand out enough licences to allow the emission of 90 units.

Obviously each power station could comply if it cut its emissions by 10 per cent. It would be the same as if the government had legislated for a station-by-station 10 per cent cut.

But it would be a bad way of cutting total emissions by 10 per cent. Some power stations would find it difficult if not impossible to meet the10 per cent cut. They would be crippled. Others might find it easy. At little cost they might even be able to cut by 20 per cent.

Without trading in permits the stations that found it hard to cut would suffer, while the stations that could easily cut by more than required would be given no reason to do so.

Trading removes those problems. In the language of the economists, whatever the target for cutting emissions is, trading allows industry to meet it in the least damaging way possible.

Here’s how. A firm that can easily cut its emissions (perhaps because its coal-fired generator is nearing the end of its life and it can easily be replaced with a wind one) will find it has permits to spare. It might have been issued nine but only need seven, having two to sell.

Another firm, that can’t cut emissions without incurring a tremendous cost will find it cheaper to buy spare permits from the firm that no longer needs them. Its cost of producing power will go up but by nowhere near as much as it would have had it had no choice but to meet a target. Over time that firm will find that business case for switching to cleaner technology increasingly persuasive. But not all at once.

The firm that can easily cut emissions will have discovered a new way of making money, and the cleaner it makes its business the more money it will make. As a former Liberal Party leader used to say, it will become “incentivated”.

That’s the theory. It was put to the test in 1990 in the United States when President George Bush senior signed into law a new act designed to combat acid rain, caused by the emission of sulphur.

In a sharp break with the approach of the past the Bush administration issued annual permits to allow the continued emission of sulphur, but not quite as much as before. Then it encouraged the Chicago Board of Trade to set up an exchange on which those permits could be traded.

Each year the administration handed out fewer annual permits. Over ten years the price of a permit on the exchange climbed from $US100 to $US800 a ton. The polluters who could cut back easily found themselves rich. Those that couldn’t found business increasingly expensive — but not so expensive as to force them out of business straight away.

Over that decade sulphur emissions halved throughout the US. In some parts of the country acid rain declined 25 per cent. The annual saving in healthcare costs was said to top $US20 billion.

That’s the promise held out the promoters of emissions trading schemes for carbon.

Any the wiser? I hope so. Now here's a few comments from the other side. I quite like this one from John Blakeley that appeared in NZ Herald 19th November this year. He writes:

Carbon Trading: an indulgence we can't afford. He asks why parts of NZ's economy should be given credits for their sins of emission. "....Michael Kinsley, writing in Time Magazine in an article entitled: 'Credit for bad behaviour' in July 2007, suggested that the purchase of carbon credits to offset greenhouse gas emissions could be compared with the Middle Ages practice of buying indulgences for the forgiveness of sins. Martin Luther King (1487-1546) was a leader of the Protestant Reformation in Germany. His idea of revolt occurred when he saw indulgences being sold, a practice he openly condemned - leading to his eventually being excommunicated. In a similar manner to indulgences, purchasing carbon credits to offset greenhouse gas emssions can be seen as an alternative to making the hard decisions to reduce emissions. It is much easier for politicians to tell people they must pay a little extra for their electricity and petrol than to try and persuade them that they must cut back on their energy use...."

"...So from July 1, 2010, we will be asked to pay more for our electricity and petrol for a scheme which is likely to have no effect on reducing our gross greenhouse gas emissions. And it is unlikely that the average consumer is going to be happy to pay this extra cost as "indulgence money", especially at a time of considerable constraint on wage increases...."

"...I believe that it is now time to "go back to square one" and start again, to define the best, most cost-effective way for New Zealand to control future increases in greenhouse gas emissions. Purchasing indulgences by way of carbon credits is not the best way to go." (John Blakeley is a programme director in the Department of Civil Engineering at Unitec in Auckland.)

That's an interesting argument. It's one I feel empathy with because - for me - the important thing has to be actual reductions in carbon emissions. Not just some scheme which has got the banks, financiers, money lenders and economists all in a lather. Some of the other arguments are more sophisticated and go to the heart of actually implementing emissions trading. There is some very interesting information in Wikipedia for example (whose entries seem to be changing minute by minute as Copenhagen approaches) :

Emissions Trading Scheme Critics

Critics argue that emissions trading does little to solve pollution problems overall, since groups that do not pollute sell their conservation to the highest bidder. Overall reductions would need to come from a sufficient reduction of allowances available in the system....

Critics of carbon trading, such as Carbon Trade Watch, argue that it places disproportionate emphasis on individual lifestyles and carbon footprints, distracting attention from the wider, systemic changes and collective political action that needs to be taken to tackle climate change. Groups such as the Corner House have argued that the market will choose the easiest means to save a given quantity of carbon in the short term, which may be different to the pathway required to obtain sustained and sizable reductions over a longer period, and so a market-led approach is likely to reinforce technological lock-in. For instance, small cuts may often be achieved cheaply through investment in making a technology more efficient, where larger cuts would require scrapping the technology and using a different one. They also argue that emissions trading is undermining alternative approaches to pollution control with which it does not combine well, and so the overall effect it is having is to actually stall significant change to less polluting technologies....

The Financial Times published an article about cap-and-trade systems which argued that "Carbon markets create a muddle" and "...leave much room for unverifiable manipulation"...

And it is the mechanics of manipulation and actual implementation that make interesting reading as well. From wikipedia again:

Measuring, reporting and verification (MRV)

Meaningful emission reductions within a trading system can only occur if they can be measured at the level of operator or installation and reported to a regulator.... For greenhouse gases all trading countries maintain an inventory of emissions at national and installation level; in addition, the trading groups within North America maintain inventories at the state level through The Climate Registry. For trading between regions these inventories must be consistent, with equivalent units and measurement techniques.

In some industrial processes emissions can be physically measured by inserting sensors and flowmeters in chimneys and stacks, but many types of activity rely on theoretical calculations for measurement. Depending on local legislation, these measurements may require additional checks and verification by government or third party auditors, prior or post submission to the local regulator.....

Enforcement

Another significant, yet troublesome aspect is enforcement. Without effective MRV and enforcement the value of allowances are diminished. Enforcement can be done using several means, including fines or sanctioning those that have exceeded their allowances. Concerns include the cost of MRV and enforcement and the risk that facilities may be tempted to mislead rather than make real reductions or make up their shortfall by purchasing allowances or offsets from another entity. The net effect of a corrupt reporting system or poorly managed or financed regulator may be a discount on emission costs, and a (hidden) increase in actual emissions.

So, going back to the Aussie economist's simple example, someone would have to actually measure what comes out of the exhaust chimneys of each of these power stations. All the time. And keep detailed records. And these measurements would need to be credible and independent. It's the whole thing about verification. The devil in emissions trading is in the implementation detail. Sounds good to economists, but becomes more and more of a practical nightmare the closer you get to nuts and bolts implementation.

Imagine doing it with cows!

That's enough for now. Just to get your interest, and perhaps suggestions for further explanation or "making simple"....

Light Xmas Relief - The Lacuna - Book Review

Just finished it. The Lacuna, by Barbara Kingsolver. Engrossing read.

Set in the 1930's to 1950's. From Mexico to the USA. From Reds under the Bed, Frida Kahlo, Diego Rivera, Leon Trotsky, to the Un-America Activities Committee. And about writing and the power and comfort of words.....

Anyway. Here's me standing by the Pyramid of the Sun. Teotihuacan. Just outside Mexico City...

This is a square in the part of Mexico City where Frida Kahlo, Rivera, and - for a time - Trotsky lived. Coyoacan.

We went as a family...


This is inside the Trotsky Museum. And here's that book review I was promising (I've copied it from the "goodreads" website):


"....In her most accomplished novel, Barbara Kingsolver takes us on an epic journey from the Mexico City of artists Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo to the America of Pearl Harbor, FDR, and J. Edgar Hoover. The Lacuna is a poignant story of a man pulled between two nations as they invent their modern identities.
Born in the United States, reared in a series of provisional households in Mexico—from a coastal island jungle to 1930s Mexico City—Harrison Shepherd finds precarious shelter but no sense of home on his thrilling odyssey. Life is whatever he learns from housekeepers who put him to work in the kitchen, errands he runs in the streets, and one fateful day, by mixing plaster for famed Mexican muralist Diego Rivera. He discovers a passion for Aztec history and meets the exotic, imperious artist Frida Kahlo, who will become his lifelong friend. When he goes to work for Lev Trotsky, an exiled political leader fighting for his life, Shepherd inadvertently casts his lot with art and revolution, newspaper headlines and howling gossip, and a risk of terrible violence.
Meanwhile, to the north, the United States will soon be caught up in the internationalist goodwill of World War II. There in the land of his birth, Shepherd believes he might remake himself in America's hopeful image and claim a voice of his own. He finds support from an unlikely kindred soul, his stenographer, Mrs. Brown, who will be far more valuable to her employer than he could ever know. Through darkening years, political winds continue to toss him between north and south in a plot that turns many times on the unspeakable breach—the lacuna—between truth and public presumption.
With deeply compelling characters, a vivid sense of place, and a clear grasp of how history and public opinion can shape a life, Barbara Kingsolver has created an unforgettable portrait of the artist—and of art itself. The Lacuna is a rich and daring work of literature, establishing its author as one of the most provocative and important of her time.


The street outside the Museo Frida Kahlo (deliberate spelling mistake on the Mexico street sign...?)


And here's my daughter Emily - inside the Museum courtyard. Emily the Strange. Where Frida Kahlo lived. The blue walls are special.
I recommend "The Lacuna". You may have heard of another Kingsolver novel: The Poisonwood Bible.

I also recommend a visit to Mexico City.

NZTA bends the bridge...

(Before repair) The New Zealand Transport Agency needs to be taken to public account for its maintenance of Auckland Harbour Bridge.

It appears that preliminary NZTA engineering designs indicated 313 tonnes of additional steel were needed for the current clip-on repair. And on that basis work commenced. But now NZTA advise that over 900 tonnes of steel were actually used.

(After repair) I am advised that this 600 tonne increase seriously compromises the carrying capacity of Auckland's Harbour Bridge because the clip-ons are now so heavy they can barely support their own weight – let alone the weight of traffic.

This public fiasco should not be obscured by debates about the next harbour crossing.

Bikes on boats

This is a good news story. The photo here was taken at 8:00am on Tuesday 8th December on the good Fullers Ferry Kea, just before she left Devonport for Auckland. I could've taken a similar photo any other weekday - at about this time. Note the absence of lycra, and the bikes handing from the rack in the background...

As you can see there was not much room for any more bikes. Pity really. Still. You can put boats on Fullers Ferries at other crossing times, and of course there's always the Bayswater Ferry - not that far away - and a quicker harbour crossing. Though you have to be a bit dextrous getting your bike from one end of the ferry to the other - so you are ready to get off.

Room for improvement. By the way - my bike's the white Avanti in the stand with the blue helmet on the handlebars...

Here's the Fullers media release they issued following the news they'd won the NZTA's Cycle-Friendly Award. Now there's a good initiative - makes me think of what we'd like NZTA to do - so we can award them a cycle friendly award....

Press Release – Fullers

Auckland, 23 November 2009 – Fullers ferries is delighted to announce its winning award from the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) for ‘Cycle-Friendly Commitment by Business’ at the recent Cycling Advocates’ Network (CAN) Cycle awards ceremony …Fullers Wins NZTA Cycle-Friendly Award

Auckland, 23 November 2009 – Fullers ferries is delighted to announce its winning award from the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) for ‘Cycle-Friendly Commitment by Business’ at the recent Cycling Advocates’ Network (CAN) Cycle awards ceremony and NZ Cycling Conference in New Plymouth.

Now in their seventh year, the Cycle-Friendly Awards are designed to acknowledge and celebrate some of the most notable achievements in the country that are helping to promote cycling and to create a cycle-friendly environment. The Awards are devised by the CAN, the national organisation promoting everyday cycling.

The award, as well as a uniquely designed “bicycle-bell” trophy and certificate, was presented to Jim Hannan, Waiheke Relationship Manager (on behalf of Fullers’ CEO Douglas Hudson) by the Associate Minister of Transport, the Hon Jonathan Young (on behalf of the Minister, Steven Joyce).

Fullers has been working on several different cycle friendly initiatives to support and encourage cycling which resulted in its nomination for an award by Cycle Action Auckland and Cycle Action Waiheke. Barbara Cuthbert, Deputy Chair, Cycle Action Auckland was thrilled that CAA nomination of Fullers was selected to win the award.

“We are so grateful for the profile and practical support that Fullers gives to cycling and integrated transport in every aspect of their ferry operations. We have endless stories of the wonderful attitude from the deck crew and office staff towards cyclists which makes using the Fullers services such a joy. They are without doubt leading the way in integrated transport in Auckland,” says Barbara.

”The crew’s can-do friendly attitude demonstrated towards cyclists on a daily basis goes unnoticed in a region where too little investment is made in cycling. Bikes travel for free and some ferries in the Fullers’ fleet have recently been upgraded with extra space for bikes. Ferry travel extends our reach throughout the whole region. Fullers is also gearing up to carry bikes on their buses, once the Transport Regulations are changed. They are real leaders in integrating cycling into the public transport system”, she explains.

Nice to have some good news cycle stories.

Watercare declares independence from Auckland

Watercare is the ONLY local government entity that will survive Auckland's draconian re-organisation unabolished, unscathed, and - in fact - considerably enlarged.

I've had a lot of interaction with Watercare over the years.

Between 1994 and 1998 I was occupied - some might say pre-occupied - with the Waikato Pipeline project (in its emergency guise and then as permanent supply, see elsewhere in this blog for info about the Manukau Agreement that arose). And then from 1998 to 2004 I was North Shore City Council's main man on the Watercare Shareholder Representative Group (each of Auckland's councils hold shares in Watercare, and these give them the right to govern Watercare through a Statement of Intent and through appointment of directors to Watercare's Board).

I have been on ARC since 2004, and note here that ARC's role in respect to Watercare is a environmental regulator. ARC does not hold shares in Watercare. I was ARC commissioner when Watercare sought extensions to its resource consents to operate its "Pond 2 Landfill", which is on the edge of the Manukau Harbour, and is where most of Auckland's sewage sludge is presently disposed of. On the periphery of this, I have also acted as Conmmissioner on other wastewater related consents - notably North Shore City Council's wastewater and stormwater network discharge consent hearings.

Under SuperCity legislation, all of the Auckland Region's wastewater and freshwater networks and systems will be integrated, and transferred to Watercare. I understand that Watercare will maintain its status as a "Council Controlled Organisation", and that Auckland Council will "govern" it through an Annual Statement of Intent and through the hiring and firing of Watercare Board Directors.

I have to say that this is a remarkably arms-length arrangement. It would be hard to name a single project or initiative that Watercare has been responsible for over the past decade that has been driven by the collective will of Auckland ratepayers and exercised through the governance arrangements that exist, and which serve to protect Watercare - shelter it - from the will of the people.

Before I get too carried away here, I will talk only about 3 things:

Puketutu. Watercare sought a designation and resource consents to dispose of biosolids (Auckland sewage) into Puketutu. Manukau City Council did not accept the designation, and ARC declined the resource consents. Among the reasons for the rejections were that there were significant Maori concerns over what Watercare intended, and also that commissioners did not accept watercare's contention that its activities would "rehabilitate" the quarry on Puketutu. There were other reasons. Watercare has appealed those decisions - as is its right. Unusually - even significantly - Watercare has gone public in NZ Herald and its own oublic magazine (Interflow) to assert that: "Watercare continues to support vision for Puketutu Island..." Extraordinary really. This public body is giving two fingers - in public - to Auckland's regional environmental regulators. This is heading to a gunfight. Reason: Watercare has backed itself - and Auckland - into a shitty little corner. Critical to this is Watercare hanging onto the right of commercial polluters to dump heavy metal contaminants into sewers, thereby contaminating otherwise clean sewage, rendering it dangerous to apply to land - as is the practice in Northern hemisphere cities, Sydney, and so on. Dumping sewage biosolids in a hole in an island in a harbour is dark age stuff. But Watercare wants that "vision", and is pressing on its independent, unaccountable course.

Bureaucracy: A thickening layer of bureaucracy is growing between Auckland Council and Watercare - between elected decision-makers, and the managers responsible for delivering Auckland's water and wastewater services. Some degree of transparency is possible now - and is reported - comparing and bench-marking the relative performance of local services provided by North Shore, Waitakere, Manukau and Auckland City. This is good for performance management and reporting. After the integration, this separation will be absorbed into the Watercare corporation. Councillors will want to get a good handle on what Watercare is doing - and bureaucrats will be needed to extract useful information. But information assymetry will be alive and well: Watercare will know everything and Council bureaucrats will only be able to guess at the facts. Unless there is an independent audit. In my memory - there has only been one such independent audit. While I was on the SRG I managed to get support for international authority - Halcrow - to investigate Watercare's performance. No filing cabinet remained closed - in theory. It was a very useful report - which Watercare sought to influence, manipulate and deflect relevant recommendations - even going so far as to commission Price Waterhouse (if my memory serves me right) to rebut Halcrow. The thickening layer of bureacrats will further distance elected representatives from what is happening....

Wastewater network overflows: In this issue of Interflow, Watercare admits to 9 overflows from its sewer network to 30th September due to stormwater getting into the network, and 1 due to external power failure. Interflow notes that: "illegal stormwater inflows into Local Network Operators' sewers can cause overflows in heavy rain...." Speaking from experience, I am aware that exactly this problem applied on the North Shore. It's sewere network overflowed in heavy rain, and also when there was a power failure. That is why North Shore has invested heavily in storage systems to collect overflows (before they overflow), and why most pump stations have standby generators that kick in when there is an external power failure. In this way, North Shore is aiming to achieve a target of no more than 2 overflows per year. North Shore is setting an example. And here's the rub: a little birdie has told me that Watercare is propsoing a target of 6 overflows/year from local networks. 300% worse than North Shore's target. Talk about lowest common denominator. That's what integration will give Auckland I think - a decline in environmental standards and a structural failure of governance.

There's a lot more to say on this. Keep watching.

A Spatial Plan for Auckland

The grapevine suggests that Auckland Local Government Bill No. 3 will include a prescription for a Spatial Plan that is to be prepared by the new and incoming Auckland Council after election in Nov1 2010. That's interesting. Wonder what it will provide for?

Currently Auckland has a few regional planning instruments: The Regional Policy Statement (being reviewed now, but not much more than set of sustainable development controls); Draft 1 of the One Plan (this is a disappointing document that amounts to little more than a wishlist of unfunded and unprioritised projects); the Auckland Sustainability Framework (a useful and visionary document - but not a spatial plan) and the Regional Land Transport Strategy (good as far as it goes, but increasingly irrelevant with legislative moves to marginalise its effect).

There's lots of talk about "spatial planning" in Auckland - it trips off the lips easily - a bit like "iconic waterfront building". The words mean different things to different people. That's a comfort, but will not lead to any certainty, or delivery or change.

How about spatial planning Jakarta style:

On November 8, 2009 Jakarta’s Governor Fauzi Bowo closed and locked a gas station located on Jl. Jendral Sudirman to symbolically close down 27 gas stations and convert the areas into green spaces. The Jakarta Parks and Cemetery Agency announced that the 27 gas stations will be closed by the end of the year and the closure of these gas stations will add another 10,505 square meters of green areas in Jakarta (The Jakarta Post, November 11, 2009).

The conversion of gas stations into green areas is to meet the target for green areas in Jakarta stipulated in the Jakarta spatial plan 2000-2010 to cover 13.94 percent of Jakarta's total 63,744 hectares by 2010. In 1965, green areas made up more than 35 percent of Jakarta and have been shrinking ever since. Currently, green areas in Jakarta account for only 9.3 percent of the city's area, far below the target of 30 percent set by the Spatial Planning Law 26/2007.

I commend Governor Fauzi Bowo and his city administration for converting gas stations into green areas because of two main reasons. First, the conversion of gas stations into green areas is a good precedent for implementing spatial plans. Over the years, the spatial plan seems to be a legal document that is not fully enforced and implemented. The 27 gas stations are located in the areas designated as green areas in the Jakarta spatial plans 1965-1985, 1985-2005 and 2000-2010. For many years, the city conceded to the powerful owners of the gas stations and could not enforce and implement the spatial plans. In March 2008, the city proposed the plan of the gas stations conversion but it was rejected by the Jakarta City Council. This year, the city resubmitted the proposal and it was approved by the newly elected Jakarta City Council.

This an extract from http://indonesiaurbanstudies.blogspot.com/ prepared by Deden Rukmana Professor of Urban Studies and Planning at Savannah State University. Imagine doing something like that for an Auckland Spatial Plan. The Auckland Council would be competing with Infratil to buy the network of Shell Petrol stations across Auckland - and its depots and other land holdings. Imagine that as an initiative...

It is useful to begin with higher level thoughts about spatial planning. The European Parliament adopted a European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP) in 1999.

The aim of spatial development policies is to work towards a balanced and sustainable development of the territory of the European Union. In the Ministers' view, what is important is to ensure that the three fundamental goals of European policy are achieved equally in all the regions of the EU:

• economic and social cohesion;
• conservation and management of natural resources and the cultural heritage;
• more balanced competitiveness of the European territory.

What is interesting about this is that it considers not just a single city region, but the inter-relationship between cities and regions across Europe. And about balanced development. We could do with a bit of thinking like that in New Zealand - before imposing an Auckland spatial development plan.

Why? Well - for a start the Auckland growth projections show the lion's share of NZ growth is assumed to occur in Auckland, at the expense of other cities and regions across the country. ie Auckland competes with the rest of New Zealand for people, resources, employment - and just about everything else. Is it really sensible to promote and develop Auckland at the expense of the rest of New Zealand, and without at the same time, promoting other parts of New Zealand? I don't think so. I can think of many councillors in the past who have called upon NZ Government to adopt a national population strategy - in an effort to ensure that NZ growth and development was regionally distributed.

There is not good reason to stuff up Auckland through requiring it to absorb the rest of the nation's growth as well as its own.

The ESDP objectives may be summarised as follows:

• sustainable development
• polycentric pattern of towns and cities
• new urban-rural relations
• creative management of cultural and natural values

Which is fairly broad and uses the "s" word which may not pass the lips of anyone in present government. It seems. However, much of what emerged from further consideration of the "sustainable development" objective was the economic development thrust of what became known as the Lisbon/Gothenburg objectives, part of which go like this:

1. Making Europe and its regions more attractive places to live and work
• Expand and improve transport infrastructure
• Strengthen synergies between environmental protection and growth
• Address Europe’s intensive use of traditional energy sources
2. Improving knowledge and innovation for growth
• Increase and improve investment in RTD
• Facilitate innovation and promote entrepreneurship
• Promote the information society for all
• Improve access to finance
3. More and better jobs
• Attract and retain more people in employment and modernise social protection systems
• Improve adaptability of workers and enterprises and the flexibility of the labour market
• Increase investment in human capital through better education and skills
• Develop effective administrative capacity
• Help maintain a healthy labour force

And this is part of a European spatial development plan - spatial development including economic development - and relating to cities and regions.

Turning back to Jakarta, we find that Spatial Planning has been adopted by law as an institutional planning tool. This is apparently referred to as Law 6/2007. It requires a National Spatial Plan with National Strategic Area Spatial Planning. Then there is a spatial planning requirement at provincial (regional) levels, and a spatial planning requirement at urban (city) levels. There is a requirement for Metropolitan Spatial Planning and what is termed Agropolitan Planning.

It appears that this new planning approach (and the gas station story above, came as a reaction to a previous spatial plan, which is criticised in this 2006 newspaper story as follows:

"...July 14 2006 What will Jakarta be like in 2010? It will be a money-driven city with less social justice and no improvement in public facilities, urban planners say. While Jakarta's residents hope it will be more livable in the future, the city's spatial planning blueprint, known as Jakarta 2010, would likely disappoint most people.

There is a significant increase in land allocated for "prospective economic areas," which will occupy half the city within the next four years. Meanwhile, living area shrinks, a plan that according to urban planning expert Bianpoen would most likely affect the 5.4 million poor people living in kampongs and slums.

"The city plan lacks social justice as it continuously evicts the poor to make way for the rich elite," Bianpoen said after a Wednesday urban planning revitalization workshop held by the Jakarta chapter of the Indonesian Forum for the Environment (Walhi).

Currently, Jakarta's population swells to 12 million during the day, when commuters from surrounding towns make their way into the city. Some 8.7 million people actually live within the city limits. Each year, about 350,000 newcomers move here from other regions. Jakarta 2010 projects a total of 12.5 million inhabitants.

Meanwhile, the city has lowered its sights in terms of providing open space and greenery. Bianpoen said although the city plans to increase green areas to some 9,200 hectares from the existing 7,250 hectares, the target has actually been reduced to almost half that identified in the 1985-2005 master plan....

Not all spatial plans are sustainable. But they clearly need to be rather more than maps with future roads and railways marked on them. (I have spoken to a number of prospective candidates for Auckland Council who - when asked about spatial planning - speak only about rail to the Auckland Airport and the Britomart Tunnel).

Canberra has adopted a spatial plan. Part of Canberra planning. Goes like this:

The Canberra Spatial Plan is the key strategic
planning document for directing and managing
urban growth and change. It sets actions for
30 years and beyond to achieve this. The
Canberra Spatial Plan outlines a strategic
direction to achieve the social, environmental
and economic sustainability of Canberra as part
of The Canberra Plan.

The key principles underpinning The Canberra Spatial Plan are to:
■ Contain growth within 15 kms of the city
centre to reduce sprawl and protect biodiversity.
■ Increase the number of homes within
7.5 kms of the city centre to provide a
wider range of housing close to
employment and services.
■ Locate new residential areas close to town
centres and transport routes.
■ Locate employment close to residential
areas and transport routes.
■ Provide good travel connections to
minimise journey times and trip length.
■ Protect areas of high conservation value
from the impact of development.
■ Protect and enhance important assets.
■ Be a responsible partner in the region.

The Canberra Spatial Plan will be implemented over the next 30 years
through key interventions including land release, investment strategies
and further investigations. Some immediate actions include land release,
investment in infrastructure, Central Canberra Implementation Program,
master plans for urban renewal sites, policy changes to the Territory Plan
and the National Capital Plan and further investigations. The Canberra
Spatial Plan contains indicators for measuring progress and developing
new or revised strategies.

This is a large topic, and a large posting, so I'll bring it to a close, picking up on the Canberra mention of indicators (targets). In Auckland we haven't been that good at targets. We like the big hairy strategy and vision, but we don't mention targets, or how they will be met along the way. Some Auckland documents do mention targets though, and I think any Spatial Planning exercise would be irresponsible without them. These are development performance measures contained in the Auckland Sustainable Development Framework:

GDP per capita.
Labour productivity.
Multi-factor productivity.
Patent applications per capita.
R&D spend as a percentage of GDP.
Carbon emissions.

Resource effi ciency.
Occupation by industry.
Percentage/number of businesses in knowledge-intensive
high-tech services and creative industries.

Unemployment/labour force participation or utilisation.
Retention of skilled people and skills gap.
Business survival rates.
Access to broadband and cost.
Number of venture capital deals.

Proportion of private motor vehicle travel compared to sustainable transport.
Community resource accessibility index.
Percentage of population within identified growth areas.
Percentage of employment within identified growth areas.
Community perceptions of design (satisfaction with neighbourhood and new development).
Urban design review (expert opinions).
Total number/proportion of residential dwellings that meet minimum insulation standards.
Number of new residential dwellings built with solar water heating.

Kilometres and connectivity of bike paths.
Fuel consumption per capita.
Resident rating of satisfaction with accessibility; e.g. to services, shopping, open space, recreational facilities, passenger transport, etc.
Percentage of total development (new building consents) in growth areas and green field areas.
Urban density (number of people/dwellings per hectare).
Ratio of high/medium/low-density dwelling types in growth areas.
Housing stock by style, number of bedrooms, location.
Number of new residential dwellings built with rainwater tanks.
Percentage of all new public buildings that are built to 4 star Green Star standards.

Means of travel to work.
Average length of journey to work.
Percentage of population who live within 500 metres of a train station or transport hub.
Activity mix in centres and pedestrian traffic (measure of vibrancy in centres).
Total urban footprint and measures of land use (industrial, residential, business etc).

I have not included them all, and there will be others. Of course. Just to give you an idea. And these targets or measures need to be in the spatial plan, by area, and with targets each 3 year period, or so. So that progress can be measured. Not just soft words.

What I wanted to do here, is to broaden the idea of spatial planning, and to send a message to those who are presently drafting words for Auckland Local Government Bill No. 3 - don't confine your thinking to Auckland, and don't confine New Zealand's growth to Auckland either. The whole country needs to share in our country's economic development - the good bits and the bad bits.