Ship sets sail and the band plays on Queens Wharf

One thing I really liked about Singapore City's waterfront was a covered space where bands performed and musicians and all sorts of arts did their thing. Basic lighting was provided, plus electricity. Sometimes lots of people came. Othertimes just a few fans. These spaces are also good just to sit and stare and have lunch...

Useful to have shade from the sun, and rain. You can sit either side of this arrangement. Completely ignore the band if you'd like...

It's here to serenade the ship which has finally left Queens Wharf after an active stay. Auckland lived up to its waterfront reputation. Was a place to play and to socialise. Shipping and ports related activities firmly in their place. People first....

Nothing quite like watching a full cruise ship leaving. Especially when you can stand close enough to recognise who's on board. Remembering those times together. All too short. Next time, maybe...

Sun's getting low now, time to see what's on offer in the food court in the Cool Shed. Getting peckish. Or maybe a beer. Before I catch the train home...

SuperCity in September...

Rumours shifted toward legislative fact this week, as Government moved to quash concerns and find some middle ground that is less like the swamp and slough of despond they've been inhabiting for months on Auckland governance reforms.

My call is that the fresh-faced MPs sitting on the Select Committee finally understood that it wasn't just a few enthusiasts who were complaining and bleating about change. They understand, now, how "all pervasive" local government actually is, and how many Aucklanders depend on it and care about it. The Government is now fully engaged...

1) So, it seems like there will be no Maori seats. But this still leaves some wiggle-room for designated maori representation. Which I support over elected-at-large Maori seats anyway.
2) The great thing this week is the Herald announcement about Auckland Council, that the Government has given away elections-at-large, and instead favours 6 (or so) multi-member wards. (See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10593649). This was my preferred option for Auckland Council elections, and a key part of my submission to the Select Committee.

The rumours about 12 or so Community Councils - and not 20-30 - still seem to have some legs. We'll know about that this week - 4th September. The ARC and Community Board Association have supported 20-30 Community Councils. I respectfully disagree with them.

If Auckland must have only 2 tiers of local government, and one of those is Auckland Council, then the second tier must be effective at delivering local services and resourced up enough to carry out local planning. This is the primary purpose of local government - it is what ratepayers pay for. Local Government needs to be accountable to its communities and ratepayers, but there is little point in having lots of tiny, highly accountable, local bodies, which are incapable of actually doing anything worthwhile or substantial. (There is no going back - under present political arrangements - to 30 Borough Council sized, fully resourced and independent Community Boards/Councils - even though many of us might aspire to that.)

The second problem with lots of tiny, local, community councils, is that they will have tiny agendas and little discretion, and would consequently not attract many experienced and able people to stand as local Councillors. As I said in my submission: "if the job of a community Councillor is to peel bananas and they are paid peanuts, we will get monkeys...."

The third problem is that a gulf of indecision and incapacity would open up between Auckland Council and 20-30 little Community Councils. This would force Auckland Council to divert its energies into local services and local planning, distracting it from the core regional planning and infrastructure business it is intended to focus on.

That is why, on balance, I support the alternative Royal Commission recommendation, which was that Auckland had about 12 local Community Councils.

Rugby Ball Shows on Queens Wharf....

Continuing with these designs on Queens Wharf, what I'm really looking forward to is the removal of that fence that separates Queens Wharf from the Ferry Terminal. And, removing the structural walls (concrete block and grey) that separates the Ferry Terminal itself from Queens Wharf. You can see that wall in the background, in this pic, just over the roof of Shed 10....

But before I go there, closer, here's another pic of Queens Wharf, looking over the Cool Shed to Shed 10. Wonder what that "egg" is in the background....?

Looking down Queen Street, between the existing buildings there, you can see along Queens Wharf. You can still see the heritage fence that lines Quay Street, but the fence by Ferry Terminal buildings has gone. So have the car parks there. No way should there be office commuter car parks on Queens Wharf. Banish them. This is a social place...

The "egg" is the Paris Rugby Ball. Built for the last Rugby World Cup event. A building to showcase New Zealand. Continuous film shows on the interior walls. An exhibition of all that's the best about New Zealand - for locals and visitors alike.

It would fit nicely on Queens Wharf for the 2011 Rugby World Cup. Part of the life on the city end of Queens Wharf. With tables and brollies spilling out from the newly activated edge of the Ferry Building...

It would be part of the transformation of Queens Wharf into a premier downtown showcase, show place for Auckland and New Zealand...

We are all looking forward to a bunch of fantastic ideas from the design competition. It's a very interesting project .... Go well....

Aucklander's carbon footprint compared to Londoner's...

Did you know:

London Vs. Auckland transport CO2 emissions: 2006 comparison
Population Total emissions Per capita total emissions Transport emissions Per capita transport emissions % transport emissions of total emissions	London* 7.3 million 44.3 MtCO2 6,068 kg/person 9.6 MtCO2 1,315 kg/person 22%	Auckland** 1.2 million 11.93 MtCO2 9,941 kg/person 5.14 MtCO2 4,283 kg/person 43%

* Halcrow Group et al, 2009 VIBAT Stage 1 Report, p.58 (see:www.vibat.org)

** ARC Modelling

So. Aucklanders are responsible - on average - for THREE TIMES more transport CO2 emissions compared to Londoners, due to our higher travel demands and greater transport energy use. Interestingly, London's relatively low transport carbon footprint, the UK Government and Greater London Authority are jointly getting on with a set of policy initiatives to reduce this carbon demand (due to transport) by 60% by 2030.

The UK is taking CO2 emissions - and transport energy efficiency - very seriously.

I wonder when our Government will get round to translating its 10 - 20% CO2 reductions by 2020 target it has commited NZ to at Copenhagen, into policies and strategies that will reduce transport energy in Auckland....

And I wonder what we need to do as a region to ensure that our new Regional Land Transport Strategy also tackles this imperative....

But, hey ho, even if we do have a great little regionally agreed RLTS, Transport Minister Joyce doesn't seem to feel any need to give it any attention anyway. He's just advanced the biggest road building program NZ has seen. Totally in conflict with the current RLTS. Maybe he thinks it's a sign of economic strength and power to push Auckland's transport related CO2 emissions way up, so that then we can skite internationally that we emit FIVE TIMES more CO2 per capita getting around than our London mates. Now there's a claim to fame....

"Shared Space" in Auckland City

Thank God for Ludo.
He's pushing the boat out in Auckland City.
Well. Some people think he is - but actually - all he's doing is advocating for changes to public space in Auckland's CBD that should have been done years ago. Most civilised cities around the world have converted streets to shared space.....
Auckland City Council have made a great little video about this new policy.
Good on them.
Here it is:



Enjoy.
And copy - the policy that is.

How sustainable is ferry travel....?

This is an interesting one. The issue of how "carbon hungry" ferries are first came to my attention when I was asking the former CEO of Veolia (Chris White), how expensive it was to run our diesel trains. I did some research and found the following:

Cost of fuel to run Auckland's public transport. % of mode operating costs.
Mode Rail Bus Ferry	% of Operating Cost 3% 11% 30%

You can appreciate how much it costs to push a ferry through the sea, compared to the low rolling friction of a train, with steel wheels running on steel rails whose gradients are usually not more than 2%. But a train is a very heavy thing - when it's full of passengers the total weight hardly changes.

Now we have a "free weeks ferry and bus" ticket being offered by ARTA and Fullers. This is good. But it is helpful to understand what we are promoting here....

There is a fantastic link I recommend if you are interested in growth strategy and intensification and stuff. It's a blog: Agenda 21, Auckland, Intensification, and Sustainable Urban Development, by Manish Udar. You can find it here:
http://sustainability.rediffiland.com/blogs/2007/05/21/Agenda-21-Auckland-Intensification-and-3.html

Here's a quote:

".....Public transport is an area of considerable energy wastage. It is quite commonly believed that commuter trains are the most sustainable form of urban transport, followed by fully occupied buses followed by fully occupied cars and that the least sustainable form of urban transport is an empty commuter train followed by an empty bus followed by a single occupancy car. But these common assumptions are not borne out by facts, if energy consumption and CO2 emissions for various transport modes are examined....As is shown by the following table, urban transport also contributes heavily to the greenhouse effect if it consists of petrol, diesel or gas driven buses, or if coal or gas is used in the production of electrical energy to power public transport trains. It also shows that vehicles with a high occupancy rate are less likely to contribute to the greenhouse effect. If a lot of people are packed together in a given space, they are more likely to be able to find a group of persons to occupy their vehicle to its optimum capacity. This seems to suggest that an intensified city will lead to lower greenhouse emissions. Whether this is borne out by experience needs to be examined....."

Carbon dioxide emissions in terms of kg per passenger kilometer
Mode Electric car (2 seater, 2 people) Average bus Quickcat ferry (rush hour) Suburban diesel train 4.0 litre Jaguar XJ8 (2 people) Electric Inter City 225 train Internal air flights Jet Raider ferry (average)	Carbon 0.02 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.16 0.17 0.26 0.45	Occupancy 100% 20% 65% 22% 40% 50% 65% 20%

That old Jet Raider ferry is seriously hungry.
Because those partly filled trips really chew through the diesel.
Wonder how the Kea does?

Super SuperCity Gossip....

We will apparently know on September 4th what the Auckland Governance Local Select Commitee will recommend to Parliament for Auckland Local Government structures (almost wrote "strictures").

There is a certain amount of "noise" around right now about Maori seats. As always it's a bit difficult to look through that haze and see what the real story is. There are several rumours around...

Rumour (A) has it that the Select Committee will recommend:

- 2 Maori seats
- around 6 at large seats on Auckland Council (down from 8)
- 12 Community Councils (not the 20-30 Community Boards favoured by Rodney Hide)

It will be interesting if the recommendation actually is 12 Community Councils. That's close to one of the option favoured by the Royal Commission.

I think - given this wholesale abolition and restructuring of Auckland is underway, and that a Key requirement appears to be that there shall be 2 tiers and no more - that 12 Community Councils is the best of a bad bunch.

Government would never have supported an option where there were 30 strong, well-resourced Community Boards/Councils established. It would have been deemed too expensive, too disruptive (of Auckland Council), and woul have required the election of around 150 Community Councillors - almot doubling the present number. Can you imagine this Government swallowing that rat? I think not.

12 Community Councils strikes a balance between: having local councils of sufficient scale to implement significant local regeneration and urban restructuring projects and which will attract high quality candidates because their work will be meaningful and significant; achieving better connection with local communities than existing City Councils.

Rumour (B) has the following:

- 0 Maori seats
- no at large seats on Auckland Council (down from 8)
- 26 Community Councils

Given recent announcements about Maori seats (to have none), maybe this one has more legs. Who knows. Good to see the very strong position taken in NZ Herald that Government is wrong to drop maori seats. Interesting about politicians of principles: Hide Vs Sharples..... What might Sharples threaten to do if there are no maori seats?

Interesting times. All will be revealed 4th September. And even then, Parliament has a way of changing things if public opinion polls suggest rejection.

Queens Wharf Design Competition underway...

About time. A few conflicted agendas to sort out, but at last the competition is underway. I am delighted to see that the competition provides for "adaptive reuse" of the existing sheds. It also provides for the option of an iconic disruption of the wharf as well....

Time will tell. It looks like the total duration of the competition - it is in 2 stages - is about 8 weeks. That's for those who make it into stage 2....

I think this space needs to become a social space for Auckland and Aucklanders.

Think of it as: myspace.auckland.com

Sure it's a big place, and can be used for other purposes from time to time, like docking cruise-ships, but its downtown location and proximity to public transport links screams out that this needs to become a public space. A social place.....

The organisers/key agencies for this competition have set up a website.
Check it out at: http://www.queenswharf.org.nz/

The timetable for the competition is:

Mon 24 August 2009
Stage 1 design competition opens
» Learn More
Fri 28 August 2009
Design contestant briefing and Q&A session (optional)

Fri 11 September 2009
Stage 1 design competition closes, 12 noon

Sun 13 September 2009
Public exhibition of designs opens
» Learn More
Sun 13 September 2009
Queens Wharf public access day
» Learn More
Mon 14 September 2009
Evaluation starts on submitted designs
Fri 25 September 2009
Short list of designs to go forward announced
Mon 28 September 2009
Start of detailed development for short list designs (Stage 2)

Fri 16 October 2009
Close of detailed development for short list designs, 12 noon

Mon 19 October 2009
Evaluation starts on detailed designs

Fri 30 October 2009
Conclusion of the evaluation of detailed designs

Mon 06 November 2009
Winner announced during this week

So. get on down there for the site visit on Sunday 13th September.
Liberate the place with your presence.
Take your camera and take lots of pictures.

Tetrodotoxin and North Shore Beaches...

The ARC had a formal briefing from environmental experts at its Environmental Management Committee meeting today. So I thought it useful to share the report....

While the science is somewhat tentative, there does appear to be strong evidence to support the opinion that the dog deaths and problems experienced at Cheltenham and Narrowneck beaches, are unrelated to reports of penguin, pilchard and dolphin deaths elsewhere in the Hauraki Gulf.

The dog deaths that occurred after ingesting substances found on NarrowNeck or Cheltenham beaches were neurological. The dogs died very quickly - less than an hour afterward. There have been other reported dog deaths in Auckland Region, but these have been lingering deaths accompanied by vomiting, and sometimes these sick dogs have had to put down after being sick for some time.

The cause of death of the dogs that died after eating something on Narrowneck or Cheltenham beaches have been attributed to tetrodotoxin - often referred to as TTX for short. TTX was confirmed in the stomach of one of the dogs that died.

ARC specialists have been working with other Government specialists intensively. Last week 150 Sea Slugs were collected off NarrowNeck and Cheltenham beaches, between high and low tide marks. Of these Sea Slugs, four were confirmed contaminated with the TTX poison. It is suspected that the dogs ate or tasted a Sea Slug poisoned with TTX.

Rapid death is associated with TTX poisoning.

ARC specialists visited North Shore beaches yesterday (Monday 17th August) and found 5 Sea Slugs at NarrowNeck Beach and 2 at Cheltenham. These Sea Slugs are now being tested at the Cawthron Institute in Wellington - where the others were tested. So there is still a risk that poisoned Sea Slugs may be being washed onto these beaches.

A Public Health Warning is still in force for North Shore beaches, but it appears that Cheltenham and NarrowNeck beaches are where the TTX poison danger has been localised.

Apparently TTX is produced from a reasonably common bacterium which can infect quite healthy sea animals. It appears that this bacterium lives happily in soft bodied animals like Puffer Fish and Octopus, in a sort of parasitic arrangement. It doesn't harm them. However if another animal attacks the host and bites it, then the bacterium emits TTX which can either kill the attacker or repel it. Scientists believe that Sea Slugs - which are carniverous and eat pretty much anything - ate a sea animal which was contaminated with TTX.

Then these Sea Slugs themselves became contaminated with the TTX poison, died, and got washed up on beaches, where they have tempted local dogs.

We were advised that adult Sea Slugs are about 80 - 100 mm long. They are soft, smooth to the touch, and coloured pale grey, with brown/black stripes. It appears that Sea Slugs go through a boom/bust breeding cycle where a proportion of mature healthy Sea Slugs commonly die - after spawning - and may get washed up on the beach. What was uncommon with the present situation, was that a proprtion of those that were washed up were around 40mm long - ie young. This supports the view that the Sea Slugs themselves were poisoned.

ARC experts stated that this was the first time TTX had been detected like this, in the Hauraki Gulf, but were quick to point out that this may have happened before - it was a natural event - but may have not come to anyone's attention before this event.

When and how might oil decline affect New Zealand?

A long ago I worked for Shell International in London. IC/13 was the department that employed me where I was a Systems Analyst building computer models for Shell's Strategic Planning and Econometrics gurus. It was after the Oil Crash...

Anyway. I prepared a few graphs to tell a wee story....

Imagine NZ's economy goes like this graph. It graphs annual GDP change. We're in a recession now, so GDP change is negative. Plan is it will turn positive. Not till 2013 here...


Much of New Zealand's economic growth will need to be fuelled by oil - because we are still very much a carbon economy. It turns out that a good indicator of what is happening in global oil terms, is the number of days of oil supply there are - above the ground of course - in OECD stocks....

So let's have a look at that, if nothing was happening "bad" - ie there was still an "infinite" amount of oil under the ground. The rest of world would be in +GDP growth territory, and would be drawing more heavily on those OECD stocks. More would be pumped from OPEC oil reserves correspondingly, and the number of days in stock would stay about the same - maybe go up a bit to keep pace with growing demand...

But actually that's not happening. This graph shows that actual levels of stocks are falling behind forecast - despite the decline in global GDP/economic activity. This information is among the pile of inputs that world experts are looking at, with increasing concern... because....

...the reality is that when Western economies get geared up, get their finances sorted, recover from the recession, and move into production, the energy they need - that they will demand - will be more than can be supplied from the OECD stocks, even with the OPEC pumps going full bore...

A major finding at Shell, and one which I am sure is shared everywhere, is that the first big trigger for price rises, for spot price rises that fed into price rises at the petrol pumps, was that OECD stocks went into decline... that seems to be the risk Western economies are looking at.

So. The recovery brings the risk that there will not be enough oil around to fuel it. And the proverbial will hit the fan...

I haven't yet been able to find a good historical data graph charting crude oil price vs inventory (stocks), but this one shows the general relationship.

International Energy Authority - "Oil Crisis in 2010" - fact or fiction?

Amazing how an article in Granny Herald can hit the spot.

You can see it here.

It's a reprint of most of an interview given the UK Newspaper The Independent by Dr Fatih Birol, the chief economist at the respected International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris, which is charged with the task of assessing future energy supplies by OECD countries.

Key bits include: "The IEA estimates that the decline in oil production in existing fields is now running at 6.7 per cent a year compared to the 3.7 per cent decline it had estimated in 2007, which it now acknowledges to be wrong...." and: "Dr Birol said that the public and many governments appeared to be oblivious to the fact that the oil on which modern civilisation depends is running out far faster than previously predicted and that global production is likely to peak in about 10 years - at least a decade earlier than most governments had estimated...."

You can see how the article appeared in the Independent here. There is a lot more. What is particularly interesting about this link is that the newspaper has been running an email opinion and feedback and debate section after publication.

This is almost as interesting as the article itself.

For example:

'global production is likely to peak in about 10 years'

Firstly, oil is not produced, it is extracted. The earth produces oil at an extremely slow [geological] rate compared to the insane rate at which we are using it ..... around 84 million barrels a day, down from a peak of 87 million barrels a day.

Secondly, it's a nice line, but it does not match the facts.
Global extraction of light sweet crude peaked in 2005, and absolute peak of extraction almost certainly occured between 2005 and 2008. Desperation attempts to prop up the system (tar sands, deep water etc.) are unlikely to compensate for loss of extraction from old oil fields, such as Cantarell, which is now experiencing double digit annual depletion.

Thirdly, since we are headed for an abrupt climate change event (due to massively excessive emissions, very much related ot the use of oil), the last thing we need is an economic recovery that spurs increased oil use and increased emissions.

So here we are, falling off the energy cliff and headed into enviornmental catstrophe, with clowns and criminals in control, squandering one of the most precious substrances we have on futile wars and the construction of white elephants, such as the absurd Olympic venue.

The crux of peak oil is, of course, that there can be NO economic growth with a declining energy supply. And a little further down the track the industrialised food production system, which is totally dependent on cheap oil, will collapse, either rather slowly, or very rapidly -we just don't know..

Governments totally ignore all these issues.

It all goes to show what many of us have been sating for a long time: mainstream culture is completely insane and we are headed for a series of catastrophe of almost unimaginable proportions.

However, in the culture of 'be happy, think positive', reality rarely gets a mention.

And:

This piece is so laughable that it is either a hoax or the author was told to write something to cause panic on a slow day of selling papers.

I have been in the Oil/Natural gas business all of my adult life. I can tell you this: We've only found about one tenth of what's available. The United States alone has enough reserves to be energy independent for centuries to come.

If you still believe the myth that oil was made by decomposing dinosaurs or vegetation you are so behind the times. Our planet makes oil and it has never stopped making oil. Oil is a fundamental element of the earth just like water, methane, carbon dioxide, oxygen, iron, etc.

Stop the panic mongering.

What a worry!

And if you are interested in actually hearing what the good Dr had to say about these same things about a year ago, try this:

Steven Joyce visits Auckland's Regional Transport Committee...

It was 9:00 am on Friday morning, and members were invited to an extraordinary meeting of the Auckland Regional Transport Committee whose purpose was: "...to provide an opportunity to receive the Minister of Transport, the Honourable Steven Joyce..."

We only had an hour. The Minister spoke for 30 minutes and took questions for the other 30. Afterward he had to rush off and open the upgraded Morningside Railway Station. Coincidentally (!?) a positive article appeared in NZ Herald that day, noting that passenger transport patronage was now higher than 25 years ago. ARTA has done a fantastic job building services and winning customer support. Very good result.

It was good to have the Minister attend, speak, and answer questions.

I noted a few points as he addressed us. These don't encapsulate what he said. They probably say more about me - than they say about him. But anyway:

1) He said that Auckland spent $1.6 billion on transport last year. He didn't say what that was on, but I imagine it will be everything: construction, maintenance, running costs, fuel .... unsure whether it will include the amount of money citizens put into buying and running their cars... A hell of a lot of money though. Confirms my concern about the % of Auckland GDP that does go into transport. It is not an end in itself - we can't export it...

2) He stated very clearly that Govt was focussed on immediate transport projects and growth. This is not a surprise. It is part of the mantra. Part of recession-busting...

3) He spoke of the new toll road being built at Tauranga. 24 kms long. He emphasised the travel time savings it will bring. This sort of comment is a real throw back to the bad old days - everybody knows you can't build your way out of congestion. Travel time savings are typically very short-lived. Induced demand sucks up the new capacity very quickly. The value of the long term benefits cited for new roading projects (due to travel time savings) - is almost always overstated. These benefits disappear very quickly. They rarely justify the cost of such projects. The Minister needs to show a healthy skepticism about travel time savings benefits. They are ephemeral.

4) The Minister ended with an informal set of comments about where the Government is going with Auckland Transport Planning and service delivery: he characterised the options - something like ARTA?... or a committee within Auckland Council? He indicated there seemed to be good support for an RTA (Regional Transport Authority) rather as recommended by the Royal Commission. Interestingly he suggested it would be likely to include ALL ROADS. Including local streets. It would NOT include rail or state highways though. All of the above is subject to Cabinet approval.

But I have to say I was disturbed by much of what I heard. Particularly his answers to questions asked by members. Many questions addressed the issue of energy - availability and cost. Others questioned the need - for example - for 4 lane state highway to Wellsford.

Cllr Chris Darby of North Shore City Council asked the Minister about how transport policy and spending plans would respond to the warnings that have been given by the International Energy Agency (as reported in NZ Herald 4th August), which has highlighted the tight link between economic growth and oil price when an economy continues to depend on petrol and diesel.

The Minister dismissed the question by saying he believed that oil prices were set politically, and were variable, and that fuel users were not sensitive to price. (Comment: This answer would not be any comfort to Auckland households on a budget, reliant on a car to get to work. We know there are households which spend - now - 40% of household budget on transport. We also know that travel plummeted when crude oil prices doubled eighteen months ago....)

I asked a question about New Zealand Energy Efficiency & Conservation Targets (Government Policy), which this government is in support of when it comes to EECA's Warm Homes:Clean Heat program, but does not take a consistent view of when it comes to transport. I noted the multiple objectives in the Regional Land Transport Strategy (these include: public health, gas emissions, economic efficiency...), and those in EECA's program (which include: employment, improved health, reduced energy use)... I suggested that transport policy needed to internalise energy costs rather than just assume that energy will always be available for transport - no matter the demand.

The Minister made a number of points in answer: that short term projects were necessary, otherwise people will not be able to afford the things they want in life; that Auckland does not need anymore transport projects (after Victoria Park and SH20); he stated that roads - more than any other mode - pay for the full costs of roading; he attacked the NZEECS transport energy target that calls for a reduction by 2015 (I think) of single occupancy vehicle travel - he said he thought that was unattainable, unrealistic, and repeated a comment he has made many times before - that there are dangers in too speedy a transition to change...

In answer to a supportive comment from Auckland City Council's representative on the RTC, the Minister called for: "a hard-headed approach to projects - need real benefit/cost assessment...". (Comment: I completely agree. The problem is, the value of travel time savings are invariably overstated because they get used up in a few few years - they are not there for the duration of the asset. ie the benefits are overstated. And the costs are understated. Particularly those associated with public health; increased emissions (because more fuel is consumed); greater proportion of economic effort used up in transport - displaced from other more productive sectors of the economy....)

He defended the Wellsford motorway project by talking about Whangarei and what Northland needs. He needed to be reminded that already - even in the crappy state it is - that 80% of Northland freight (by weight) gets down to Auckland by rail. It is disappointing for a Minister to bang on about a $3 billion project (like Wellsford SH), without at any time indicating its relastive priority to other projects (if you have $3 billion to spend on transport - where is the best bang for those bucks). And also to not take his own advice and conduct a comprehensive benefit-cost analysis of this and other wish list projects....

But the statement he made that really brought me up short was toward the end of the Q&As. I think it was in answer to a question from Kathleen Ryan who represents Environmental Sustainability on the RTC. She asked about risks because of fuel price hikes. The Minister stated: "... off the top of my head... that the credit crunch was a much bigger issue than fuel price rises...". He appeared to believe that fuel price changes were exacerbated by the credit matter - and that it was the credit crisis that was the cause of the fuel price shock. This is completely contrary to my view of what has happened, and what the cause and effect relationship is. My understanding is that what happened was that what has underpinned global growth over the past few decades has been land development and city building - based on the availability of private transport powered by cheap fuel. In other words the wealth generation the world has seen has been built on cheap and continuous supply of fossil fuel. Suddenly that assumption was challenged, and the attractiveness and certainty associated with funding arrangements for land development - derivatives, hedge funds, loans, the whole nine yards - stopped.

Hiatus.

Transforming Queens Wharf's cool shed into a "Cool Shed"

At the end of Queens Wharf stands what is generally known by Ports of Auckland as "the cool shed". Inside it contains a purpose built cool room often used to hold bananas and other fruit and vegetables that need to be kept cool to prolong their lives before being onsold to shops for distribution.... So. With all the talk about Queens Wharf, I decided to have a play with it. How could it be reused....?

Here it is with a paint job. Kept the life buoy. And cleaned up those big roller doors. Won't it be great when we can cycle round the edge, and take the dog for a walk....

This is the western edge of the cool shed. The sunny afternoon side. Mostly out of the wind. I thought it would be fun to put some big awnings up. Festive. Adaptable. Adjustable. People appreciate the shade when the sun is high in summer. As they linger to watch the action. Plenty of ferries coming and going. Quite close by too. Recognise people you know as they go past.

There's a few occasional tables here. Not directly associated with specific restaurant. Probably needs to be some public seats too. Maybe against the walls. Lots of scope for that...

This is another perspective. The cruise ship is still moored. People coming and going over there. But a different and separate experience by the cool shed....

And here we see part of the cool shed opened up for business. Can see that the iron trusses are part of the restoration. Popular in there...

This part is a Food Court - much like you can find in a mall. Concessions offered to operators. Low cost take away food - not expensive restaurants. Places to sit and eat outside - under the awnings - on the lee side of the shed away from the wind....

There's room for a few bays like this in the cool shed. One might be for low cost retail. Another might be set aside for a farmer's market. There are options to service these bays from the rear - perhaps service lane/corridors behind the frontages...

And of course you can go through and step out the other side of the cool shed. There's that cruise ship just begging to be looked at...

Or maybe head out the door to the end of Queens Wharf. Check out that view... Find a bit of shelter there. Maybe there's a skate ramp or stage or just a place to sit and eat that takeaway....

Either way, the views are pretty interesting. Another afternoon well spent on Queens Wharf....

Should the ARC notify the RPS...?

This is a conundrum.

The ATA - Auckland Transition Agency - has written to Auckland Regional Council and advises that we should NOT notify the Regional Policy Statement which we have been working on reviewing for the past couple of years....

This is an interesting call for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the ATA's chair has been at pains to state that the ATA, "is not here to make public policy..." But there is nothing in the legislation which established the ATA, to indicate it has the authority to require anything from the Auckland Regional Council relating to its duties under the Resource Management Act.

The RPS is the paramount planning document for Auckland Region. The District Plans of territorial authorities in the region are required by statute to "give effect to any regional policy statement..." s.75(3). Profound stuff.

The RPS has been significantly changed by Plan Change 6, which was triggered by the LGAAA (Local Government Auckland Amendment Act 2002), which required the RPS to be changed in order to "....give effect to the Regional Growth Strategy..." (or words to that effect). There are outstanding appeals to Plan Change 6 - notably from property developers, supermarket chains, councils at the edge of Auckland (eg Waitakere City Council) - al the usual suspects. Those who stand to benefit from business as usual - more urban sprawl.

Be that as it may - and some of those appeals come before the Environment Court any day now - there is a practical and a statutory need for the region's RPS to be reviewed and re-notified. So it is interesting that ATA want to hold up the works until Auckland Council comes into play. My guess is that would create a delay of three years at least before the reviewed RPS is notified.

One problem with this - for example - is the fact the RMA has been changed in various ways since the previous RPS was notified and adopted.

Example 1: s.30(1)(gb) states that the ARC now has a new function in the region, and that is: "...the strategic integration of infrastructure with land use through objectives, policies and methods...."

Example 2: s.7 describes the matters that the ARC (and other authorities) shall have particular regard to. These have been expanded to include: "...the efficiency of the end use of energy..." and "...the effects of climate change..." and "....the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy..."

These are major changes in legislation which should bring about major changes in policy.

But from where I sit - around the table at ARC committees and council - I am not convinced at all that ARC has properly and effectively engaged with these new duties. Nor am I convinced that where ARC has got to in drafting its new policies, that these fit the bill of s.30(1)(gb) set out above. So maybe a bit of delay will improve that. Not sure.

Can a brand new Auckland Council be trusted to do the right thing? Big call.

Ever since 1991 - with the passge into law of the RMA, Auckland has both benefitted and suffered from its influence on planning. As I've said many times before, under the RMA we plan for what we don't want, rather than what we do want. We plan to avoid, remedy, mitigate adverse effects. We don't - through that Act - plan for the things and directions that we do want.

Well - we haven't up till now. But the changes to the Act clearly steer those in authority to branch in a different direction, and take a broader look at what planning Auckland actually needs, in order to develop differently.

Think about this: much of the political pressure for Auckland governance to restructure was to bring about better regional planning - particularly in respect to regional infrastructure and regional land use patterns and their integration. Then ask yourself this question: do you have confidence that better regional planning and coordination will ensue from where Auckland governance is now heading? A focus on long-term outcomes is the lense you should use.

Hiatus.

Queens Wharf - Design for people and ships and sheds...

The cruise ship is in. You can see the extendable walkways. These come from level 1 of the Shed 10. This is the way passenger exit and entry is handled by Wellington's equivalent shed. And many other places. It means that entry and exit facilities can be handled on level 1. Leaving wharf level for other things. Including visitors...

The futuristic shelters can be used to group activities like interpretation, food vendors, seating... Important to note the interesting views that are available at the end of Queens Wharf and along its length...

Rudman likes Puketutu dump idea

Today Rudman has stirred me up with his opinions about Puketutu - which - probably unsurprisingly - don't accord with mine.

Rudman seems to want his cake and to eat it as well - enthusing about how well his garden grew with biosolids a long time ago, while advocating strongly for dumping it in the Puketutu quarry. Dismissing Maori concerns as spiritual mumbo jumbo and calling for "scientific rather than spiritual" thinking.

Speaking of science - most western cities have developed ways of using their sewage wastes, without landfilling it. Auckland has a bad record of permitting the sewer network to be used to dump toxic chemicals. For a trade waste fee. The science of this is that heavy metals get mixed with the sewage wastes. Inextricably. So that it is dangerous to use the biolsolids because of the mercury and nickel and other metals that are mixed with it. That's the science of why Auckland's biosolids are dangerous to health, and need to be safely stored somewhere. For a long time.

Bit like nuclear wastes get vitrified with glass. Then "stored" underground. The worry being if the radio-nuclides get back into the biosphere.

Like nuclear waste, the best thing with heavy metal contaminants, is to avoid putting them into the biosphere in the first place.

Auckland needs to apply some long term thinking and modern science to its heavy metal waste stream, and to its sewage waste stream. Logic (and science) suggests these two streams should be separated (like kerbside recycling - much easier to deal with wastes when they are kept separate. Stand a better chance of being reused.

Watercare's biosolids - about 300 tonnes per day - are about 70% water. That's why Pond 2 Landfill has lasted so long. The 300 tonnes is mostly water. It leaches out - into the Harbour. To stabilise the biosolids, Watercare adds tonnes of slaked lime. That's either calcium oxide or calcium hydroxide - never been totally sure about this. The reaction produces ammonia - a major source of odour issues. The solids set of set - from a jelly to a more sludgy heap. The important point here is that a major component of the biosolids - in terms of solid weight etc - is the added lime. This is not rocket science.

Auckland needs to deal with this issue in a modern fashion. Using modern science. But while Watercare is able to dump biosolids for minimal cost into a quarry - or even into a landfill - then Auckland won't move forward.

12 Bottles of Oyster Bay Savignon...

I bought that Metro with the cover: "We Love Supercity", and wished I hadn't.
Sat on it for a couple of days then let rip with this letter:

"....Simon Wilson's populist cover story giving a big thumbs up to Rodney Hide's SuperCity does not serve Auckland's interests well. It is a once-over-lightly piece of journalism that fails to do justice to an important public interest matter. "What we have now is broken", appears to be the article's central argument. What about Britomart? The Northern Busway? North Shore's cleaned up sewage system? The fact you can catch and eat snapper from our harbours? Newmarket and New Lynn station and town centre developments? Additions to our extensive Regional Park network? These are Auckland success stories. I agree that regional governance needs strengthening - but there is no need to destroy everything else to achieve that objective. That sort of draconian destruction might be entertaining to write about, but such journalism does not add to the sum of human knowledge, nor does it help Auckland...."

Then a few weeks later got an email from Metro to say I'd won a case of wine for submitting the letter of the month. Fantastic. Still enjoying the fruits of this labour....