"Place Shaping" without Community Boards

Woke early today with community board abolition on my mind.

The Royal Commission fundamentally undermine their opposition to community boards with their arguments in defence of community boards being retained at Waiheke and Great Barrier. In terms of character, difference, history and heritage, Devonport is as much an island in the North Shore, as Waiheke is in Auckland. Half a metre rise in sea level and Devonport will actually be an island - can it have a community board then? There are other parts of Auckland just as special as Waiheke. We must not lose them or their potential, through failure and absence of governance, just because they are not surrounded by the sea. That sounds positively archaic.

When Peter Salmon - Chair of the Royal Commission - announced its recommendations, he made much of the duty of proposed Local Councils (Urban ones in the city especially), as being "place making" or "place shaping". That's about urban design, streetscapes, local colour, detailed planning. Stuff like that.

In fact I know from my 10 years in local government, and living in Devonport - that stuff is what Devonport Community Board spends 90% of its time doing. Like:

• Devonport Commissioners (Community Board members do this) consider all resource consent applications that break the rules. These are consents for building activities with adverse effects that exceed the rules in the District Plan. These involve real people who live in house and work in buildings. But they also involve their neighbours. This stuff needs genuine local care. It's at the heart of "place making".
• Trying to stop the Devonport Recycling Depot being flogged off by Council for other purposes, when local people use it for green waste, for rubbish transfer, and as a place to buy garden stuff locally. For "place making".
• Making sure that changes to Market Square (by the supermarket), and Marine Square (by the Devonport Wharf and Ferry Terminal), are upgraded as people want, and taking account of best urban design principles and ideas. More "place making".
• Championing the cycleway infrastructure through local parks, around the coastal edge and along Lake Road. This is real "place shaping" stuff, and without Devonport Community Board it simply would not have happened.

Council was the fly in the ointment on all these projects. Community Board input and advocacy was critical. Under the Royal Commission's recommendations, Devonport would by lucky to have one councillor to act for it's interests on the new Waitemata Urban Council (the proposed council transformed from North Shore City Council). It will have its own higher level urban place shaping requirements to tend to - such as the Busway, Bus stations at Browns Bay, Takapuna, Glenfield - parks, integrating Hibiscus Coast into its planning. And so on.

And I wonder whether the Royal Commission added up the number of resource consents that would have to be considered by these Local Urban Councillors, if they lost the services of Community Board members who are now certified for RMA consent hearings by MfE and who hear or otherwise deal with the bulk of local home improvement consents. Perhaps the Royal Commission is reliant on RMA streamlining that is so draconian that few consents ever get dealt with publicly.... I hope not...

This is not to say that I think Community Boards should be retained everywhere. I think some on the North Shore were unnecessary, or were dysfunctional, or became dysfunctional. These local entities can fall into ruin with the wrong mix of members, and with lack of community interest or involvement. But these factors can inter-relate. Chicken and egg. When a community board turns to custard no-one wants to get elected onto it, and the community laughs at it, and ignores it. That's a tragedy of the commons...

Setting that aside, across Auckland there are highly developed and special places. Property values are high there. Families and people want to live there. The sense of place, the opportunity for further "place shaping and making" is tangible. It is also precious. People and communities value it - both financially (they are prepared to pay the higher property prices), and spiirtually (these places have soul).

I don't know all of them. Of course we know about the soul in Waiheke, and The Barrier. But it absolutely exists in Devonport, Highbury (North Shore), Grey Lynn, Mount Eden, Remuera, New Lynn, and Onehunga. These are local communities and high functioning community boards I know something of.

There is something about these types of communities and how they develop in the future that is seriously threatened by the prospect of community board abolition. These communities are what give Auckland its diversity - at local level - and character.

I think, before the baby is thrown out with the bathwater, that those who advocate most strongly for their retention, need to construct some metric or set of criteria and thresholds that will enable selected community boards to be retained, and for new community boards, at a later time, to be established.

So. What about the Royal Commision?

It's been an interesting day. Absorbing the Auckland Royal Commission's report - well - the Executive Summary, listening to comment, watching TVNZ's report, and we had an ARC Council briefing at 2:30 today. It's been enlightening. But there's still a few clouds over Auckland with these recommendations.

My first positive thoughts were these: good to see regional governance strengthened; good to see second level of local government retained with entities based around the existing North Shore, Waitakere, Auckland and Manukau City structures, and Rodney District, and Papakura combined with Franklin.

And it was interesting to see the approach to Auckland City: separate Auckland CBD and Waterfront and give special treatment through direct governance by Auckland Council, and local input through an Auckland CBD and Waterfront Community Board. That would be a doozey of a community board to be on!

But I was disturbed to see Community Boards generally abolished - except for the obvious examples retained at Waiheke and Barrier Islands.

I was also disturbed to see the recommendations regarding Auckland City Council mayoral power. I don't think Auckland is ready for that sort of executive power at all.

The Commission has recommended that Auckland's elected-at-large mayor should have these additional powers and duties:

• power to appoint the deputy mayor (currently done by majority of council members);


• power to appoint the chairs of each committee of the Auckland Council (currently done by majority of council members);


• power to chair committees as he or she may determine;


• power to propose the draft LTCCP and the draft annual plan to Auckland Council;


• power to propose the budget;


• power to initiate and formulate major policy for consideration by council;


• power to establish and maintain an appropriately staffed office;


• power to obtain independent advice.

That's a lot of powers!

It also recommends interestingly - that the mayor should have four annual meetings with members of the public "mayors days"; and meet monthly with the chairs of the 6 local councils; and have quarterly plenary meetings with all councillors and chairs from across the region (around 70 would be in the chamber for those meetings.)

The degree of centralised decision-making, and the lack of grassroots local government is the main concern I have. This is not the same as the model advocated by ARC: "the one and the many". This is: "the one and the few", but without the truly local.

The functions of the local level of local government that have been proposed by the royal commission - essentially as the local delivery point of centrally governed services and policies, and with a strong responsibility for being Auckland Council's "ears and eyes" into the local community - means that it will be difficult for that role to be further decentralised.

It might make sense for Area Offices to be maintained throughout each Local Council Area. But that might be thought wasteful.

The challenge - I think - is for those supporting the abolition of community boards to demonstrate that the functions today of good and well-functioning community boards can be well provided by the proposed local councils. Conversely - those wanting some form of community board - or equivalent function - to be retained need to argue why, and also how that might happen. Difficult. But unless this is done well and responsibly, there is real risk here of the local baby being thrown out with the regional governance bathwater.

On a detailed front, things I like about the Royal Commission recommendations, in no particular order, include:

• stuff about the waterfront like: an emphasis on urban design, management and planning; that future waterfront development be done by an agency with a masterplan - "as opposed to the present piecemeal approach" - hooray!


• integration of water and wastewater especially that water and wastewater will be charged volumetrically and that there is to be an independent services performance auditor and that Watercare will be required by legislation to promote demand management. Boy. Watercare has long needed that....


• that Auckland council is to appoint a parks ranger responsible for volcanic cones!


• that the 6 local councils (4 urban, 2 district) won't have elected mayors, they'll appoint chairs.


• that North Shore City will become Waitemata and include the urban developed Hibiscus Coast part of Rodney (basically Whangapaoroa (sp?) and Orewa, and encompass the Busway from Takapuna through to Silverdale).


• that elected councillors will be prohibited from being appointed to CCOs (like Auckland Regional Holdings, Watercare, RTA (made from ARTA), the proposed Urban Development Agency etc).


• that local roads will still be controlled by Local Councils as they exercise their "place making" or "place shaping" roles.


• particular recognition is given that stormwater management need to be shared between Watercare and the Local Councils. This is a complex issue.


• that Auckland Council should develop a regional waste management strategy, including for organic waste, and integration of waste management with other encironmental programmes. About time I say.

Anyway. While I can get excited about this stuff, at the moment it's only a set of recommendations. Though the Royal Commission has also gone to the trouble of drafting legislation to implement its recommendations. But it won't happen until Government enacts the required legislation.

Do you think Government will want an Auckland Mayor as powerful as London's Mayor of Greater London Council? Depends which Party puts him/her in there I guess. But that's a political lottery. When I was in Curitiba Brazil I met Jaime Lerner - the famous ex-mayor of that city. Did some amazing stuff. Had huge personal power. But that was South America. And London is very established. Auckland is in between. I don't think it's ready for the sort of individual mayoral power that the commissioners would like.

But I could be persuaded.

Joyce's Transport Thinking no Joke...

There have been signs of quality thinking and analysis in some of the new Key Government's approach to New Zealand. For example aspects of the RMA Streamlining were well research and managed.

But transport is an exception to this approach.

After opening Alpurt B2 (the 7.5 km stretch of tolled northern motorway), Joyce has a rush of blood to the head and declared he would 4 lane the motorway all the way to Wellsford. Personally, I thought he would retract that foolhardy statement. That section of motorway has not figured high on any Auckland regional transport priority list. And I have seen a lot of those lists.

The rushed out "GPS2" - Government Transport Policy Statement 2 - is devoid of rationale and argument. There is no effort there to suggest that officers or analysis or responsible thinking had anything to do with that so-called policy statement.

It is hard to conclude anything more positive about what government is doing and planning with transport than, "they are making it up as they go along...."

This is not a good way to run a railroad, or any transport system for that matter. The public do support PM Key. For now. Auckland has had a long and painful history of being jerked around by governments on transport. What is happening now is an action replay of that. But this time, I believe, the Auckland public are staunchly behind the strategy for transport and land use that has been painstakingly built - by consensus - within the region. Key and his government will have some time to prove themselves. But this transport stuff beggars belief.

When he advocates for the proposed national cycleway, Prime Minister Key has appreciated the need to justify the economic benefits of that project to the country. For example revenues from increased tourism. And the job creation benefits.

Another huge benefit of that sort of spinal infrastructure is that towns and cities and communities along the way will want to connect with it. Thus it becomes a network whose utility grows in proportion to the number of people and places it connnects. Its value grows as well. So does its long term economic value and benefit.

Similarly, when it comes to Auckland, and particularly the heart of Auckland, Government transport spending needs to deliver a significant increase in the efficiency and output of Auckland's economy. That's because Auckland’s economy is being throttled by inefficient transport costs. 13% of Auckland's GDP gets spent on transport. That's like driving a car with the choke out compared to our leaner competitors with developed public transport systems.

Better designed cities in developed Asian countries and in Western Europe spend around 6% of their GDPs on transport. Auckland is inefficient in large part because of its transport systems. People drive for hours in their cars, freight sits for hours in congestion. It all costs the economy money. Unproductive money. While it remains this way, Auckland will fail to pay its way in the New Zealand economy. Opportunities will be lost.

So the Government concentrates on road investment in its GPS.

But Metro Auckland has no room for more roads - apart from completing SH20, and widening a couple of links such as Victoria Park flyover. Auckland needs an effective mass transit network - some of it in tunnels - to move people around within the metro area, thus freeing up metro road space for freight and for other essential traffic.

You can't put 2 litres of traffic, into a 1 litre roading network. That traffic demand has to go somewhere else. An efficient rail-based, undergrounded (in part) rail system will provide that capacity.

An honest government level cost benefit analysis will show that Auckland needs better public transport systems, much sooner than it needs a motorway to Wellsford.

Auckland won't be fobbed off with Joyce remarks that "rail needs to be made commercial" either. In a country like New Zealand, and metro area like Auckland that will never happen. Hong Kong - with its density - is one of the few cities in the world that has profitable mass transit systems. It is also high time for Government to see the distinction between "national rail" and Auckland "commuter rail". While these systems can run on the same rail gauge and even use similar rolling stock, the function, purpose, economic stimulus effect, of these two types of rail application are fundamentally different. And need to be treated that way in economic analysis.

Auckland commuter rail is reliant upon integrated ticketing and fares. (Despite what self-serving Infratil may say about this.) It is also reliant upon ensuring that there is good coordination between land use planning and transport planning. This is where the rail hits the community. At rail stations. These need to relate well to rail, and to the community, and to connecting modes (walking, cars, feeder buses).


I have little faith that KiwiRail in Wellington, has any better idea for achieving that integration and urban planning in Auckland, as Transit did when it bulldozed motorways through Auckland urban fabric.

Joyce and Co - while they appear to have grown up in and around Auckland - appear to have very little comprehension of, or respect for, the delicate planning dance needed to get the best long term economic development outputs from urban mass transit transport investments.

Beware the unintended consequences of misplaced certainty that ignorance and failure to take good advice will surely bring. You owe it to Metro Auckland to think hard before breaking the transport embryo that was hatching here.

Government rethinks Fuel Tax - 2

So now we have Hon Joyce's media statement about some of the Govt's policy positions on transport. Two things stand out:

1) Govt wants to spend an additional $1 billion on motorways over the next three years. Including progressing the Puhio-Wellsford motorway. These projects being part of Govt's intention to fund large infrastructure projects.

2) Govt says it's committed to Auckland rail electrification, and that it wants rail and train procurement handled by one agency. KiwiRail.

ARC's statement issued today by Chairman Lee makes the following points:

"....while the government’s commitment to rail electrification is reassuring, a number of questions remain to be answered including how the funding shortfall for the balance of the region’s public transport infrastructure programme will be met.

The ARC "...has real concerns about whether the New Zealand Transport Agency will be able to bridge the gap on projects that would have been funded by the regional fuel tax. This includes the Newmarket station ($35 million) – which is half built – and an existing contract for diesel trains ($31 million) to help meet demand until new electric trains are in service."

"Funding will also need to be found for transport construction projects virtually ready to go. These include new stations at New Lynn ($13.6 million) and Manukau City ($14 million), and some ferry terminals on the North Shore and elsewhere ($37 million in total). And for integrated ticketing, for which an international tender is all but complete."

Mr Lee said over the next five years, the ARC had planned to invest $257 million in public transport infrastructure in addition to the electric trains.

"$202 million of this was to be paid for by the regional fuel tax. With the tax now gone, we will need to find other ways to fund this that do not come back on the ratepayer."

So that's what ARC said.

ARC will now need to recut it's coat. A different mix of projects will require a different mix of funding. And NZTA will support those projects in different ways. That work now needs to be done by ARC, so it's in a position to issue its LTCCP for 2009-2010. There seems likely to be a significant funding gap. But work must be done on that....

The other major piece of work that's required is to assess exactly what the implications are of Govt's decisions about where its money will be coming from for its massive increase in SH spending. It's easy to understand that Govt will increase its Customs and Excise take from fuel - to substitute for the Regional Fuel Tax. No new systems are needed. It's just a question of cranking up the Customs & Excise take across the country - no boundaries to skip to avoid that increase etc. Economies in not having to create new systems to collect the regional fuel tax. That's easy to comprehend.

But Govt has said it will get its extra money (the $1 billion for extra state highway spending) from these sources:

1) $420 million reallocation of non-state highway classes. (This could be catastrophic for things like cycling, walking, demand management, and other forms of public transport susbsidy. I need to understand better what this means. Something must suffer with a reallocation like this.)

2) $258 million in new Crown investment. (Not sure where this comes from).

3) $283 million in extra fuel tax revenues. (I think this is the increase from additional customs and excise revenues that is targetted at state highways - the rest of that increase is for rail - I think).

So. Some questions to clear up about that $ 1 billion. Might be robbing sustainable transport to pay for yet more state highways instead. This seems likely to conflict with the Auckland Regional Land Transport Strategy. Which is still in effect.

Disappointing to see so much shoved into motorways like Puhoi to Wellsford - without any real engagement with what that means to Auckland's land development. Hon Joyce trying to make good his hasty Wellsford promise when he opened the stretch of Alpurt that has the tolls. (NB: the newly opened bit of motorway is about 7.5kms long, and it cost a whopping $385 million. Wellsford is another 36 km further North - 5 x that distance - through some reasonably challenging countryside. At an eye-watering cost.)

Worrying to see so little from Govt about need to align land use and transport planning - though it does put some store in the findings of the Royal Commission.

And then there's the ARC, struggling to hold its head above water, while getting the job done. Some work needed here to determine exactly what ARC can fund.

Glimmer of hope that I see - is that perhaps - now - we won't have to flog off the waterfront land to the highest bidder to develop a decent electric railway system.

Government rethinks Fuel Tax - 1

I am a keen supporter of a fuel tax to fund public transport. We already have a pretty big fuel tax - called Customs & Excise - government already charges duty on petrol and diesel, and uses that money for transport projects.

A little bit of history

When I was Chair of Auckland's Regional Land Transport Committee (2004-2007), we agreed a new strategy that shifted about $1billion from pure roading projects, and re-prioritised that amount for public transport investment.

Mind you, it was one thing for the Auckland Region to decide that strategy, but it was quite another to get the Government to action the strategy. We couldn't do it without Government support and cooperation. Government could've decided to shift some investment away from an emphasis on State Highway investment, or change the transport project funding ratios. But no.

On the region's suggestion, the previous Government introduced a power for Regional Councils to collect up to 10 cents/litre of fuel, for investment on regionally prioritised transport projects. Auckland Region was treated a bit differently - we were empowered to collect only up to 5 cents/litre of fuel sold, and that revenue could ONLY be invested in capital transport projects. Basically infrastructure.

Central Government would take the other 5 cents/litre. Government decided it would spend the lions share of that revenue on doing the "below track" work on rail modernisation in Auckland - including aspects of electrification - with the rest being targetted at the controversial Penlink project.

Current ARC funding planning for public transport

The ARC got that power less than a year ago, and the tax would've kicked in 1st of July 2009 at the princely sum of 1 cent/litre. Last year, the ARC consulted with the public - in accordance with the new law empowered us to collect regional fuel taxes. The majority of the public agreed with ARC's regional fuel tax plan. That was the 2008-2009 annual plan. The ARC has spent the last few months preparing its next annual plan (2009-2010) which details exactly how ARC would fund ARTA to buy new electric rolling stock, bring in integrated ticketing and fares, and do other capital projects - such as new ferry terminals (Bayswater and Half Moon Bay for example), and various railway stations and some bus service related infrastructure.

Funding was always going to be tight - especially as the bulk of ARC's investments through ARH have turned to custard (see elsewhere in my blog). Basically the plan was to raise debt (bank loan or bond issues) to provide ARTA with necessary capital for trains and integrated ticketing mainly, and service that loan with fuel tax revenues. Other passenger transport costs - such as operating subsidies for buses, ferry and rail - would be funded from rates and from available ARH revenues.

That was the plan anyway. We were just about to put it out for public consultation.


Joyce's spanner in the works (!?

Then last week we learned that Government was having a rethink. It was considering canning the fuel tax, and funding the train purchase itself. Not much else is known except that The Hon Joyce has said on radio that Govt will be releasing a "Policy Statement" on Tuesday (17th March). That will be interesting.

In the meantime, ARC is staring at an LTCCP that is shot full of financial holes. It won't float. And ARTA - which has two tender processes out there in the marketplace right now - will be feeling a bit uncertain about its future - or at least the future of these key infrastructure projects. Time will tell, I guess.

Some thoughts....

Being a positive sort of lad, I can understand that this National Government - having sucked on the rail lemon, and said "yes" to it - they now need to do it all their way. It probably makes quite a lot of sense for all of NZ rail to be handled from one agency. Call it KiwiRail. That means that all NZ train purchases would be done through one agency. It would mean that Wellington and Auckland buying decisions would be coordinated. It would mean that planning for Auckland, Wellington, and any other city's rail, plus the national lines between - would be centrally coordinated and planned. That could be a good thing.

Transit (now absorbed into NZ Transport Agency), was successful as a nationally coordinated and planned transport entity for state highways. Where it came apart though, was at the local end, where its state highways needed to interconnect and relate to local land uses.

It's called integrated transport and land use planning.

That has been a failure in New Zealand so far - mostly.

So, that is something that needs very careful thinking, if Wellington is going to take over Auckland's commuter rail project. The fact that in the past few days that Infratil has been able to reverse the regulatory environment for public purchase of privately provided passneger transport services (notably bus and ferry), does not augur well.

My Joyce has commented that "New Zealand is a small country..." in support of his idea that rail should be centrally managed. The same is true when it comes to trusting the market to deliver the best outcomes for public transport procurement. New Zealand is a tiny country in that respect, and we can't afford a whole heap of operators competing with each other for a slice of the small pie that equals 'public transport. We have already seen market failure there. That's why ARC supported a more appropriate framework. Of course Infratril resisted that. Hullo....

Back to my main point in this blog.... the funding gap that has opened up in Auckland with the potential loss of the fuel tax includes: ferry terminals, integrated ticketing, railway stations, and a pretty long list actually - that was to be part-funded by the regional fuel tax. There is a yawning funding gap for public transport in Auckland, and I am concerned at the chasm in regional planning that opens up when major Auckland transport planning is done in Wellington.

Thank you ARTA and Auckland City for India Vs Black Caps!

I was lucky enough to go to the cricket on Saturday with a mate. What a fantastic night. We started with the ferry trip across from Devonport. Then at Britomart we were informed by the smiling asian woman at the ticket office, that of we showed the ticket inspector our tickets, the train to Kingsland Station would be free. Coffee and pastries in hand, we assembled on the platform among a happy and highly prepared bunch of Indian cricket groupies. Faces painted with Indian flags. We were outnumbered.

Quick trip to Kingsland station, out the door, onto the street, highly organised, good humoured and efficient pedestrian management. And we were there. Indian flags and painted faces everywhere. The fans were everywhere.

We took our seats in the stadium which was filling up, and it was like being in a busy, noisy, colourful India street. What a buzz. Everytime a face went up on the big screen, or a blue uniformed cricketer did some training on the group - the roar went up. And then there was the big game, with 6's and 4's for Africa (India and New Zealand). Reminded me a bit of being at Cardiff Arms a long time ago - I was there when the AB's won 13-12. Such a passion for their sport. An unaggressive passion. The newspapers and TV are full of the results. The Black Caps won.

Back on the street - to go home.

The feel of Kingsland Station - with the Taiko takeout so near, and the neon beckoning other attractions up the street nearby, the co-location of heritage buildings, everything close. I had a glimmer of how many other parts of Auckland could be - if we keep working at it. Make that public realm by our rail stations really work for pedestrians, ensure there is a mix of activities. Good access and street amenity.

We got on the train with a group of youthful Auckland Indians. They seemed to be using the train for the first time. Didn't know it would stop at Britomart and we'd all tumble out. Which we did. They were delighted they hadn't had to pay. Felt a bit guilty. Muttered, "thank you" to the guard as they bounced up the platform ready to continue their night in the CBD.

Thank you ARTA. That free train service was great. Appreciated. A present for Auckland. Maybe you should let people know it was deliberate - not a case of not enough ticket collectors! And bits of Auckland are showing we can do really attractive urban design. Thank you Auckland City Council.

Alsop's Architectural Vision for Britomart & Waterfront

I was invited to attend the Ignite Architect's evening out (26th February) with world renowned architect Will Alsop. Billed as a discussion about the adverse effects of the RMA, and an opportunity to see the concepts for Britomart and Waterfront put together by a collaboration of Ignite staff and Will Alsop. We were treated to pictures of some of Alsop's stunning architectural achievements. You get the flavour from a selection I have pasted in here.

When he applied himself to Auckland, several things he said stuck in my mind.

"You have no big public place for people to congregate and celebrate. Where are you all going to go when you win the Rugby World Cup? Where will you gather?..."

He didn't refer to Aotea Square. Funny why that space doesn't really work. OK for the Friday Market. But bleak otherwise - apart from the wonderful Maori gateway. It has very weak edges - using urban design speak. They are unqualified. Especially the Aotea Building itself. It presents a very cold and unfriendly exterior. I won't mention the Council building. Unspeakable. And the edge of the entertainment complex is a strip of what Auckland does well. Bars.

"And then there is the Red Fence. I am told we can't go past that. But why wouldn't you want to? It's where people really want to go. In my experience if you want to develop public places down by the waterfront, where the Port company has been, you need an Act of Parliament. Ports Companies have too much power..."

I have to agree with him. Even today we see on the front page of Herald a news article where the Auckland Port company - 100% publicly owned - wants a "capital restructure", and then to flog itself off to the highest private bidder. Fantastic. Just because it's going down the fiscal gurgler is no reason to pass off to the private sector all that waterfront land. Auckland would be richer if Ports simply gave itself back to the public, rather than selling itself on the open market.

Anyway. I digress. Alsop and his team came up with a series of concepts for Britomart. One image of which I have been able to find. The idea really was to lift development in Britomart precinct above ground level, put it on stilts (a Department Store with offices, and an apartment tower at one end), and - importantly - leave the ground level public space. You can see that in this picture:

Then sticking out the Northern side of this elevated building would be: a library (in a sort of elephant's trunk shape extending between existing heritage buildings and running out above Quay Street to a place vertically above the red fence), and hotel (in a different sort of elephant trunk shape, located a block away from the library, but also running out to the red fence).

Radical. Hard to get the presbytarian approach of Auckland to engage with that. Maybe. Alsop was very strong on the need to engage the public in this process. I agree. The Britomart Railway station was itself a very public design process. Whereas what we have seen for TankFarm, and for Princes Wharf, have been behind-the-scenes revenue maximising activities.

Needs to change. Thank you Ignite for a bit of stimulation and that kick in the bum.

North Shore City Council reviews Cycle Strategy...

If you take a keen interest of cycling issues in and around Auckland, you'll know about the Lake Road cyclelane, and the public debate that whirled around that...

One of the outcomes at North Shore City Council of all the hot air and incendiary letters that ensued, was that it decided to review North Shore City's Cycle Strategy. That strategy was put together by a previous council - one a little more representative of the interests of cycling and of pedestrian oriented development and other modern ways of thinking about urban development and transport.

It is essential - I think - that a good number of thoughtful submissions are made. The strategy is being reviewed now. Submissions close on the 16th of March - a week's time.

You can see the current North Shore Cycle Strategy, and the form to make a submission (you can do it on the internet), on NSCC's website at:
http://www.northshorecity.govt.nz/have_your_say/walk_and_cycle_strategies/cycling_strategy.html

I've put in a submission. The submission form asks for your response to the vision, 5 goals and 7 strategies. You can go into those in detail at the NSCC website - but they are big files, and take a while to download etc. But the heart of the NSCC cycling strategy is as follows:


Vision and 5 Goals for cycling North Shore
The vision for cycling on the North Shore is:

“To provide a safe, convenient and enjoyable cycling environment that meets the needs of cyclists and encourages cycling as a mode of transport and as a means of recreation.”

This vision is supported by five goals which reflect national and regional transportation and community objectives. The goals are:

• To increase the number of people cycling


• To increase the number of students cycling to school


• To improve safety for cyclists


• To improve convenience for cyclists


• To improve enjoyment in cycling

The Executive Summary contains a brief description of the current 7 strategies to deliver that vision, and the 5 goals. I have pasted them here:


North Shore City Council 7 Cycle Strategies

Strategy 1 - Develop safe, convenient and quality cycle networks and supporting facilities to meet cyclists’ needs The provision of safe, convenient facilities for cyclists is paramount in encouraging people to change their travel behaviour. People must feel safe and know they can get to their destination easily. This strategy provides for the development of the cycle network (strategic and local) through cycle specific projects and other road improvements, and supporting facilities such as parking, learn to ride facilities, hand rails and integration with public transport.
Strategy 2 - Apply best practice cycle design guides to cycle networks and to cycle facilities Ensuring that the appropriate cycle facilities are located in the correct location and to the required guidelines and standards (safety and otherwise) will create a vibrant, well-used cycling environment on the North Shore. This strategy provides best practice solutions for cycle facility type, design and location,
incorporating Austroads documents and guides from Transit NZ, Transfund and the Land Transport Safety Authority. It also provides a comprehensive process for delivering the best solution on a case by case basis, recognising that each situation is different. Best practice design guides also apply to urban design and safety guides and Land Transport Rules. This chapter also outlines enforcement in terms of ensuring appropriate behaviour from motorists and cyclists.
Strategy 3 - Maintain cycle infrastructure to a high standard. Once facilities are in place it is important to ensure that they are kept up to standard and updated where and when necessary. This strategy outlines the cycle facility maintenance plan. Another important facet of maintenance is monitoring and evaluation – ensuring that the facility or programme is achieving the goals of this Cycling Strategy. North Shore City is following the lead of the Regional Cycle Monitoring Plan in its monitoring and evaluation programme.
Strategy 4 – Support education and training programmes that improve cycle safety North Shore City Council is dedicated to protecting its citizens and improving road safety. This strategy provides for the ongoing expansion of the Council’s cycle safety programme, which includes education sessions delivered in schools and workplaces
as well as other community initiatives. Driver awareness and education is addressed through active support of regional and national campaigns. Current programmes include:
• ‘Bike It’ the North Shore City schools’ bike programme
• Kids Bike Day
• ‘Share the Road’ campaign (regional and North Shore City level)
• Adult beginner bike sessions
Strategy 5 – Support programmes promoting cycling In order to
maximise the number of people using the cycle facilities provided around the city, a programme is required for promoting cycling as a safe and efficient way to get around. This strategy provides for the ongoing implementation and development of programmes such as the TravelWise school programme and the workplace travel plan programme, which are important channels for promoting safe cycling to people travelling to school and their place of work. The Council will also continue to promote cycling through cycling events, community based programmes, neighbourhood accessibility plans, personalised journey plans and by supporting promotional activities initiated by other organisations.
Strategy 6 – Improve the coordination of efforts amongst groups affecting cycling. The provision of cycle facilities and programmes is progressed by many different parts of North Shore City Council. This strategy seeks to develop processes and structures to maximise the efficiency of these different parts of Council and ensure the successful delivery of this plan. The main driver for coordination will be a cycle steering group made up of relevant Council officers. This group will monitor the implementation of this document and report back to other Council departments and external organisations and groups.
Strategy 7 - Ensure that where possible, adequate resources are available to implement the Cycling Strategy Resources are required to action the strategies outlined above. This strategy puts in place the processes required to ensure that, where possible, this funding is available from all obtainable sources – in particular from the New Zealand Transport Agency and North Shore City Council itself.

I recommend you make a submission.


The survey questions, and my submission, were basically this:

Do the vision statement and goals reflect your vision and goals for cycling in North Shore City?: Yes.

Are the seven strategies appropriate to achieve the vision and goals?:
No

If not, please suggest how these could be improved.:

Strategy 1 is supported. Safety is paramount to deliver the vision. If people don't feel it is safe to cycle on North Shore, then this effectively means North Shore City does not "encourage cycling as a mode of transport..."

Strategy 2 goes too far, in my opinion, in emphasising "best practice cycle design guides to cycle networks and to cycle facilities". It is more important now to be re-allocating road space to cycling (by setting it aside with white painted lines for example), and by removing the right to park cars in the road reserve. It is also more important now to be working with Parks Dept (and ARC's Parks Dept) to allocate space within parks and reserves for green cycleroutes - which can connect with road cycleroutes. Then later, as demand and acceptance grows, then resources can be allocated to improving the standard of cycleway infrastructure. It is better to have a safe cycling network that is less than perfect, than it is to have a few short sequences of cyclepaths which are world class, but which don't connect, and lack utility.

Strategy 3. My response to this is similar to Strategy 2. What is important to cyclists is that cyclepaths on road reserves are swept regularly, and are kept clear of glass fragments and other detritus that can make cycling unsafe or unreliable. It is better that existing cyclelanes are kept functional, rather than money being wasted keeping them beautiful. In cash-strapped times the priority needs to be utility and safety - rather than perfection.

Strategies 4, 5 and 6 are essentially motherhood and apple pie. It is good to do these things. It is good for NSCC to be walking the talk. It is also appropriate for NSCC to act consistent with its vision for cycling on the North Shore.

Strategy 7. I don't support the caveat "where possible" in this strategy. NSCC has a duty to deliver multi-modal transport infrastructure. There is clear direction from all levels that Auckland, and its sub-cities, need to do far more to encourage land use settlement patterns, and urban form which "encourage cycling as a mode of transport...". Just as NSCC has promulgated Plan Changes 22, 23 and 24 to require much greater responsibility on the part of land developers to ensure that stormwater effects are minimised etc, then in the same way, NSCC needs to be ensuring that its District Plan guides and shapes land use patterns which will genuinely "encourage cycling as a mode of transport" - ie that people are encouraged to use a bike for local errands, shopping, going to school, going to work etc - rather than feeling actively discouraged to use a bike by land settlement patterns, absence of safe lanes, and large physical distances between land uses, limited mixed uses etc. Thus - NSCC has a duty to financially support cycle infrastructure development, but it also has a planning duty to ensure that land use patterns also "encourage cycling as a mode of transport".

If this is relevant, please tell us how we can work together. :
As an ARC councillor, I am keen to ensure that Regional Planning and TLA planning is well integrated and coordinated. Am happy to come along and talk about this, or/and facilitate sharing of ideas with ARTA.

Are the actions listed in the Cycling Strategy 2009 appropriate to achieve the vision and goals?: No

If not, please explain what we could do better or differently.:
In particular, my comments in regard to Strategy 2 and 3 indicate that the priority now is to establish NSCC cycle path networks (that don't need to be gold-plated). Cycle infrastructure needs to be connected and joined up. PM Keys initiative for a national cycleway is a good opportunity for NSCC to share this popular vision, and engage over how this path might integrate with North Shore cycle infrastructure. It is important for North Shore's economic future and tourism, that North Shore is part of this initiative.

For your interest.

Peddling for a National Cycleway

Don't you think it's fantastic that the Prime Minister of a National Government should advocate for a cycleway the length of New Zealand? I certainly do. Key's enthusiasm for cycling should surely make all those who whine about cycling being for masochists, and on and on, many of them unreconstructed petrol heads, to think twice.

Choice is good - they might even think.

But I do have a little note of concern nagging - being a few days away from booking my own family cycling expedition on the Otago Rail Trail.

You might recall that this very same National Government has let out a few squeaks about certain bits of the NZ rail network being unprofitable - as if any railway - or indeed any motorway - is actually profitable (when you add all the true costs up). There might be a little agenda here.

Imagine if it was proposed that those railways should be ripped up to form the spine of a national cycleway - like the Otago Rail Trail writ large.... You can almost hear the comment: "we can kill two birds with one stone here..."

Setting that possibility to one side, I think a national rail trail would set cycling solid into NZ's national psyche. A bit like a cycleway across Auckland's harbour bridge would. Everybody would want to connect to it - especially towns and cities along the way. It would be the trigger for the establishment of a nationwide network of cyclepaths.

That is an outcome NZer's and tourists would love.

See also NZ Herald opinion piece by Barbara Cuthbert:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10560821