IPENZ Submission to Auckland's Transport Strategy

I have included here the submission to the Regional Land Transport Strategy from the Auckland Transportation Group of IPENZ - Institute of Professional Engineers. It is interesting and varied and traverses many of the transport issues that Auckland is facing. It might drive you to look at the draft strategy, which you can find on ARC's website.

For transport adicts:

Introduction
The IPENZ Transportation Group, Auckland / Northland Branch (“The Branch”) represents the
Auckland / Northland-area professionals who are engaged in traffic and transportation engineering or planning and are associated with IPENZ, the Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand. The membership of the Branch / Group is open to engineers, scientists and any other persons professionally engaged in traffic and transportation engineering in New Zealand.

Overarching Themes
Our submission concentrates on a number of themes that we see in the draft RLTS. As such, our submission sets out the importance of these themes and what the Branch requests be modified:
· Public Transport / Active Mode Focus
The Branch supports the focus of the RLTS to invest more into public transport, especially into rapid and quality transit networks. We also consider that the proposed increases in funding and mode share for active modes are headed in the right direction. Auckland has been shown to be one of the most car-centric cities of the world in terms of transport policy and investment in the last half century, as shown by various research bodies, patronage figures and other indicators such as car ownership rates. To a degree, this is understandable due to Auckland’s spread-out settlement patterns. To a much higher degree, it is however based on policy and conscious funding decisions. Therefore, to achieve a greater balance, more transport integration and transport choice, planning and funding will have to take active steps to overcome the status quo. Further, Auckland is also running out of options. It is a truism worldwide that large cities have significant public transport systems. Auckland is increasing in both population and density, and is thus becoming both more suitable and more in need of greater public transport. Opponents of such measures point to the reduced flexibility of such modes of transport compared to those of private motor vehicles, ignoring the fact that the downsides of congestion already severely limit car flexibility, and will do so even more in the future if the status quo is retained. Also, attempting to counteract such congestion issues becomes increasingly costly, as transport space runs out or can only be provided by extensive (and highly expensive) engineering or land acquisition Therefore, public transport is more than just a “good to have” element, but is becoming a bare necessity if Auckland wants to continue productive growth.
· Regional Direction vs. National Constraints
One of the underlying themes of the draft RLTS is that while it generally aligns with a the local and national-level government strategies in its focus on integrated, public transport and active mode-focused transport planning and investment, it finds itself constrained by recent changes to the national-level GPS funding priorities. In short, the RLTS envisages a different direction for transport investment, and intends less money to be invested in roads and more money to be provided to other modes. In this, as set out in the document, it conflicts with the GPS, and may create funding gaps. We consider that as a regional document, it is acceptable for the RLTS to set a different agenda. Auckland’s transport philosophies, but also its transport issues and investment priorities, are different from those at a national level. The Branch accepts that this may result in future funding issues, where Auckland will have to either source different funding options or lobby politically for changes in the GPS allocations. We do not consider this inappropriate, especially in light of the long term view of the RLTS. Auckland should back its own strategic direction towards a more integrated transport system that supports all modes, and, in the constraints of a growing urban area, will produce more economic benefits than a road-centric approach.
· New Funding Sources
As noted above, we consider it appropriate for the RLTS to advocate spending priorities different from those of the GPS. However, we also encourage local government to investigate new funding sources for transport projects to drive the transformation to a more integrated transport system.

o In specific circumstances, especially where significant one-off funding is
required for specific large-scale projects (such as bridges or new transport
systems), private investment may be an appropriate way of sourcing extra
funding. It should however be ensured that financial risks and profits are shared
appropriately, and government does not simply provide financial guarantees.
o Private development contributions should also be considered to a greater degree
as a source of transport funding, as developers are among the most direct
recipients of financial gains from improved transport links. Contribution levels
should find a balance that does not discourage development while providing the
funding for quality transport infrastructure supporting the development.
o As discussed further in the specific comments on the objectives of Section 2, the
undisputed health benefits of walking and cycling may also offer the potential
for health funding to become transport funding and vice versa, creating greater
flexibility for transport project investment.
o Depending on existing or future legislation, transport funding may also become
available from “green” or emission trading sources. As noted earlier, the Branch also considers that funding shares for modes we consider as currently under-funded will increase again (as the success of existing public and active mode transport schemes - and the need for more provision - become widely accepted).

· Push & Pull Factors
The Branch notes that the preferred strategic option for Auckland’s future transport
systems dispenses with many of the “push” factors considered in Option 1. We consider
that these should not be discounted. Especially hidden subsidies like free parking (provided by the ratepayer via Councils, or by employers – and often mandated by District Plans setting minimum parking provisions) should be further investigated, with a view towards reducing the effect that these factors have in skewing transport towards the private car. This is especially
important because the costs of providing parking (such as construction costs and land
“used up”) are generally not included in comparisons between cars and other modes.
The Branch also accepts that road pricing is a very sensitive matter politically, but notes
that it has been shown to be one of the most effective methods to induce travel
behaviour change when “pull” factors are only of limited use. We consider that
hypothecation of all such revenues towards public transport projects would go some way
of making this more politically feasible, and that this option should therefore not be
fully discounted in the long term.
In summary, the Branch considers that the RLTS has correctly identified the major themes and
needs of transport in Auckland for the coming decades, and supports the direction of the RLTS.
The overall (approximate) 50/50 split between motor vehicle mode investment and investment in other modes is also supported as a step in the right direction.


Specific Comments, Section 2
Objective 1: Assisting Economic Development
We consider that the RLTS too quickly discounts the economic effects of public transport
investments (and solely notes that “movement of people” is considered in Objective 3).
The Branch considers that apart from pure transport and social benefits, there are also
significant economic benefits to be found in public transport. In the correct circumstances,
such as congested city environments where further road expansion is cost-inefficiently
expensive, an intensification of transport – moving more people in fewer vehicles – has
indirect but very clear economic benefits.
These include reduced economic dependency on imported fossil fuels (which contribute
heavily to trade imbalances), reduced congestion (especially compared achieving
comparable congestion reductions via costly new roads in built-up areas) and reducing the
need for valuable space being taken up by parking.
As such, we consider that the RLTS should emphasise (and research) the economic benefits
of public transport more strongly. We consider that under the right circumstances, public
transport aligns well with the national government’s current focus on economic efficiency.


Objective 2: Assisting Safety and Personal Security
We consider that the use of safety targets should be expanded to also include and
assessment of safety targets per transport mode trips / per transport mode km travelled. A
target of reducing to a certain number of fatalities or injuries alone ignores both potential
mode share change and population growth.


Objective 3: Improving Access and Mobility
Ensuring corridor and major roading upgrade projects always (from the outset on) include
assessment as to how public transport and active modes can be improved should be a major
goal. This would help ensure truly integrated transport planning.
Regarding improvements in the walking and cycling targets of Objective 3, we consider that
these are directly linked to Objective 2. In fact, the relatively modest walking and cycling
targets of this objective might be achievable by a concentrated focus on improving the
safety of these perfectly “natural” modes alone – walking and cycling need little promotion
if they are safe, and as often shown in studies of best practice (including by NZTA), a safe
design usually is also one that provides good amenity.


Objective 4: Protecting and Promoting Public Health
As with Objective 3, we consider that improvements in the walking and cycling targets of
Objective 4 are directly linked to Objective 2. The health benefits of walking and cycling are backed by significant and conclusive research, and translate directly into economic benefits (see Objective 1) by reducing sickness rates and increasing life expectancy. While not obviously the remit of a transport body, we consider it important that these benefits are publicised, and that transport authorities work more closely with health bodies.


Objective 5: Ensuring Environmental Sustainability
Sustainability of public transport is most easily achieved by high patronage rates. Therefore,
we consider that sustainability should concentrate on making public transport effective and
highly used – even if sustainability then is only a “secondary” effect compared to the more
obviously sustainability-related aspects like fuel-efficient public transport vehicles.
We also consider that by reducing overall consumption of fossil fuels in the transport
network (whether by more efficient vehicles or by more intensively used public transport),
economic benefits are gained, as per Objective 1. These should be offset against the costs of
ensuring this sustainability.
We also note that the most sustainable modes are the active modes, walking and cycling.


Objective 6: Integrate Transport and Land Use
We consider this objective is both supportive of, and supported by the provision of effective
public transport. In this regard, we consider that apart from providing better service
frequencies, public uptake is increased most effectively by improving the ease of use of
public transport in general, and by reducing and improving transfer between modes (having
to transfer between modes or services is one of the main barriers to increased patronage).
In this regard, we strongly support projects like integrated ticketing, inter-modal initiatives
like park-and-ride, or “bikes on buses” / “bikes on ferries”, and also encourage projects or
service realignments that provide improved feeder systems to RTN or QTN transport links.
Interchange stations, both “feature” and “everyday” examples, should also be a focus.
In regards to integration of land uses, we also note that active modes have significantly
reduced barrier effects, and thus ensure greater connectivity, where other transport projects
may cause localised dis-integration while trying to support the intensification of land uses as
per the Regional Growth Strategy.


Objective 7: Achieving Economic Efficiency
In regards to achieving projected benefit/cost ratios, the Branch considers it problematic that
many transport projects do not compete against each other, but only within their specific
funding bands of the GPS. While this may in some instances protect worthwhile projects
that do not produce as many directly quantifiable benefits in a BCR calculation as others,
this compartmentalisation also allows for projects with high BCR's to lose out on funding
while marginal projects (often with very significant price tags) go forward instead.
This is made worse by the fact that transport funding for Auckland projects is (and likely
will remain) fragmented between local funding, national-level land transport subsidies and
motorway projects, and separate rail funding. This structure reduces the ability of transport
planners to fairly assess the truly worthy projects region-wide.
In regards to active mode projects, we note that the economic benefits may (under current
accounting rules) not appear to be as high as those of other projects. However, especially if
included from the start of the planning process, the cost for good walking and cycling
provision are also minimal.
We also consider that fuel savings should be included in the economic assessment of active
modes. Like time travel savings, they do not accrue to the transport authority, but to the
individual user, and therefore are in the same way a measurable (and much more easily cost-quantifiable) benefit in the “benefit/cost” equation.


Specific Comments, Section 4
Section 4.7.1: Role of walking
The Branch, as set out earlier, considers that one of the best methods of promoting this
natural and inexpensive form of transport is to improve safety, which is also closely linked
to amenity (i.e. safe walking is usually pleasant walking at the same time).
The Branch considers that the proposed target of 15.3% of all regional trips to be made by
both walking and cycling in 2040 is not high enough. Further, by setting a target only for
2040 (rather than adding interim targets), it becomes too easily possible to let the required
initiative lapse politically.
We also consider that the level of detail provided for this mode is low, and specific projects
for walking in the RLTS have not been set out to any degree. Schemes or projects should be
proposed to activate the suppressed demand, rather than expecting this to occur on its own.


Section 4.7.2: Role of cycling
As with walking, improving safety and safety perceptions are considered some of the
primary keys to achieving more cycling.
The Branch considers that there should be a separate target for cycling mode share. The
combination of the cycling mode share with the walking mode share (which share some but
not all the same requirements) ensures that this mode is much more likely to remain an
afterthought in transport planning. We also consider that the level of detail provided for this mode is low, and specific projects for cycling in the RLTS have not been set out to any significant degree. As above, schemes or projects should be proposed to activate the suppressed demand.


Section 4.7.3: Role of public transport
As noted in our comments regarding the objectives of the RLTS, we consider that service
frequency and ease of use/transfer as the major requirements for improved patronage. A
further important element is of course the comparative efficiency for the user in terms of
travel time and travel cost compared to motor vehicle alternatives.
We consider that public transport is less suitable for some of the more dispersed
communities on Auckland’s fringes. Providing services here is likely to be a trade-off that
could create high subsidies, undermining the case for public transport where it works well.
The Branch therefore discourages public transport services that are too inefficient to
succeed, as being worse than no local public transport at all – for example, the provision of
services that travel only a small number of times daily could often be considered a waste of
scarce transport resources, including being contrary to environmental sustainability (though
this has to be weighed against minimum provisions for people who have no other option).
This also means that trial services for new routes should not be slimmed-down versions of
“real” provision, but need to give realistic and useful travel options. We consider that
services like the Helensville train trial have failed not only because an insufficient customer
base but also because of a lack of useful service frequencies.


Section 4.7.4: Role of private vehicles
As the most flexible way of transport for middle and long distances, the motor vehicle will
and should remain a mainstay of Auckland transport. The Branch however encourages
RLTS initiatives which ensure that the private vehicle is just one of many transport options,
contrary to the current situation, where it is perceived by many as the only realistic choice.
This will, among other results, make it easier for couples and families to dispense with
multiple cars, and retain only one vehicle shared between them.


Section 4.7.4: Role of freight
The Branch considers it important that freight traffic is improved, both in efficiency and
sustainability. It is however acknowledged that the classic “non-sustainable” freight traffic
(i.e. truck traffic) uses roads due to their inherent flexibility and (for the road user) great
cost-efficiency, and that this limits the ability to easily reduce this freight mode share.
This translates to the need to improve the flexibility and efficiency of alternative freight
modes, or of alternative freight routes, to reduce the transport, societal and environmental
effects of transport.
An indirect result of the combined roles is that a reduced emphasis on private vehicle use in
our transport system (especially on fixed routes, such as those of commuters) will increase
the ability of commercial motor vehicles to utilise a less congested existing road network.


Specific Comments, Section 5


The Branch would like to comment on the “Activities of Regional Significance”:


· Rail Electrification – We consider this project to be of great importance to Auckland,
due to its likelihood of creating a massive initial rail patronage gain (the well documented
“Sparks effect”) and due to it providing Auckland with the ability to jumpstart the next steps in improving the Auckland commuter rail system (since we consider that the success of this scheme will strengthen the case for better public transport in the years to come). It will also increase reliability of services, and reduce dependence on fossil fuels in the public transport system.
· Integrated ticketing – While less spectacular than the rail electrification, integrated
ticketing has been shown worldwide to release suppressed public transport demand by
increased ease of use, while at the same time providing valuable transport data and
synergies. The Branch strongly supports this project, and encourages transport
authorities to ensure that, despite the manoeuvring of individual transport companies,
the system become a success by ensuring and requiring full interoperability.
· CBD Rail link – The Branch considers that this project should be embarked on after
electrification of the rail network, to leverage the patronage and political capital that is
likely to be gained by successful electrification, and to ensure that the rail network can
accommodate the further increases expected and required.
· Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing / North Shore Rail – The Branch considers
that this project represents an important long-term step in improving resilience of the
Auckland transport network, and improving the connectivity for modes other than motor
vehicles. Due to the fact that motor vehicle volumes on the existing Auckland Harbour
Bridge have actually decreased in the last years, we however consider that the rail
provisions of any such (likely multi-tunnel) project be proceeded with first.
North Shore Rail should be an integral part of any such added Waitemata Crossing.
· Western Ring Route – The Branch supports the completion of the Western Ring Route,
as long as environmental mitigation for this motorway project is to a good quality level.
This especially relates to any barrier effects where the project is not underground.
Also, both the costs and the benefits of associated projects (such as bus lanes on Great
North Road, or cycle paths on the general motorway alignment) should be included in
this as parts of a corridor project, to ensure it benefits all modes.
· Avondale / Southdown Rail – The Branch supports the eventual provision of this rail
link to reduce freight movements on the main commuter lines of Auckland. However,
we understand that commuter services here are also projected to see high demand,
especially if connected to an airport link.
· Airport Rail Loop – as one of the major employment and travel centres of Auckland,
the airport is a natural destination for an extension of the rail network. It also offers the
chance to improve the efficiency of terminus lines like the Onehunga Branch or the
Manukau spur, by providing combined commuter / airport services.
· Improved SH20A/B – We do not consider this project to be of immediate significance.
While improving road access to the air port has important economic aspects, this project
should be delayed until airport rail access is provided.
· Panmure, Botany and Manukau City Centre RTN/QTN – We consider this project
to be of great importance for one of the parts of Auckland with the highest motor vehicle
mode share, and which is badly served by public transport.
We also consider it important that the route be protected for at least light rail, even if
this is not included in the initial phase, and also encourage investigation as to whether
the proposed route could be brought even further north towards the substantial
residential areas in the general vicinity of Howick.
· Manukau Rail Link – The Branch supports this project, but notes that as a short spur
line into a limited catchment, the success will likely be limited initially. Connecting it
with the Panmure, Botany and Manukau City Centre RTN/QTN would help release
efficiencies not available as a stand-alone link.
· AMETI – The Branch generally supports the improvements proposed as part of this
project scheme. We especially support improvements for public transport and active
modes, which are very marginal in the affected areas.
· Henderson, Westgate and Albany Bus RTN/QTN – The branch considers that this
link will become more important in the coming decades, as commuter travel between the
current Waitakere and North Shore cities increases.
· Northern Busway extension to Orewa – The Branch generally approves of the busway
use and extension, and notes that greater park-and-ride provisions and improved feeder
services should also be considered.
While the Branch is in general agreement with the proposed investment, we note that several of the proposed projects of especially high significance are only intended to be realised at the end of the RLTS timeframe, i.e. taking more than 20 years (such as the Airport loop and the Avondale Southdown rail link, only to be realised by 2040). Even considering the limitations of funding, some of these timeframes are considered an issue, seeing that the constraints these projects are to overcome already exist today.


In summary, the Branch considers most of the identified projects as being of great relevance,
though we have identified a number of projects of immediate significance, especially relating to improving rail patronage and ease of use of public transport (integrated ticketing). However, we consider that many of the proposed timeframes are excessively long. Further, we consider that the RLTS process should investigate whether the proposed works planned
for State Highway 16 by NZTA, which include some future-proofing for bus shoulder lanes, should be more extensive, with a view towards a long term concept of a “North-western Busway”. This would complement the RTN link provided by the Western [Rail] Line, which does not serve the communities along SH 16 further west than Pt Chevalier well, as it is located too far south.


Submission Summary
The Branch supports the intentions of the draft RLTS. This especially extends to proposed
investment in public transport and active modes, and supports the RLTS intention to try and
achieve these aims despite different funding priorities on the national level.
The Branch asks transport authorities to further consider “push” factors towards travel behaviour change, like reducing free parking paid for by the general public, and asks for more work to be done in specifying how the walking and cycling mode share is to be increased as intended. The Branch also generally supports the proposed projects of regional significance identified in the RLTS, and especially recommends integrated ticketing and several of the proposed rail projects for prioritised realisation. However, some timeframes are considered excessively long, and better provision for future bus priority link on the North-western Motorway should be included.



The submission was prepared and presented by Pravin Dayaram and Max Robitzsch to the hearings sub-committee of the Auckland Regional Land Transport Committee.

CCO support comes out of the closet

It's taken a while but finally those who - ideologically speaking - must really love the Government's CCO model for Auckland local government, have felt they had to come out in support. They've had to because the Government's usual business friendly friends have either been noisily opposed (The Chamber of Commerce), nervously opposed (the great and the good of Remuera and Meadowbank such as I heard addressing the Select Committee), or teeth-gritted and opposed on the electorate telephone ("what the hell do you think you're doing? do you seriously want to lose the next election....?").

It was very predictable that EMA (Employers and Manufacturers Association), and NZCID (New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development) would be supportive. And lurking in the ideological background is the Property Council of New Zealand (see later in this blog).

Here's what NZCID said on the 17th February 2010:

The NZCID submission strongly endorses the overarching framework provided in the Bill for the Auckland Council to be able to operate effectively from its establishment on 1November 2010, including... arrangements relating to the governance of council-controlled organisations (CCOs), and in particular the management of transport and water supply and wastewater services.

and

"Talk that CCOs will make all decisions behind closed doors is scaremongering, Selwood says

and

"The last thing that industry can afford right now is any discontinuity in the important work of the CCOs in the delivery of key infrastructure services", Selwood says.

But I would do NZCID a dis-service by not quoting the changes it believes are essential to the legislation around CCOs. Its submissions place a touching faith in a hoped for spatial plan:

...we think there are enhancements that can be made to ensure strong alignment between the Auckland Council and the Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) and to better define the role and authority of Local Boards....

Improvements to the Bill sought by NZCID include:

- Ensuring that the regional spatial plan has statutory authority in terms of the Resource Management Act and becomes the guiding planning framework that the Council Controlled organisations shall be required to give effect to;
- Providing for integration of the regional spatial plan with national plans such as the National Infrastructure Plan, Government Policy Statements, New Zealand Transport Strategy and other relevant national spatial planning policies and processes;
- Using Statements of Corporate Intent and a combined Executive Management Board as the primary vehicle to provide for consistency of purpose and clear authority, control and accountability between Auckland Council and the proposed CCOs;
- Requiring strong integration between central government and the Auckland Council, especially in the development and implementation of the Spatial Plan;
- Requiring plans of CCOs to give effect to the regional spatial plan;
- Strengthening the governance of the Auckland Transport Agency (ATA) to provide for improved alignment between central government agencies and the ATA...

You can see how much emphasis there is in these submissions around the spatial plan. A cynic would say that of course NZCID will submit like this. It will know there's not a cat's chance in hell of there being an agreed spatial plan inside 3 years. So all this stuff is just flim flam. It's disingenuous. NZCID's objective is to get all those wonderful infrastructure projects (and budgets) under the control of independent CCOs, and then contracts and money will flow into the coffers of the infrastructure planning and construction companies that make up the bulk of NZCID's membership, and whose annual subscriptions keep NZCID afloat.

Then there is EMA. What has it had to say? I checked its submission to the Select Committee about CCOs and other aspects of local government reform. Some extracts:

EMA (N) led the demands for reform of Auckland’s local governance with its “Rev up the Government” campaign (2005) and its “Fix Auckland” campaign (fixauckland.com) in 2007. Between us and the New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development (NZCID) we consulted over 70 Auckland community, business and political organisations on what form that reform should take. The Councils in Auckland consulted no one on this. EMA (N) also held 14 meetings with its members attended by over 1600 people for the purposes of consultation....

Regional Spatial Plan
The Bill fails to provide for clear linkage between the regional spatial plan, the statutory planning processes under the RMA, and the investment programmes of the Council and the proposed CCOs: especially the water, transport and waterfront development CCOs. The Bill does set out the purpose and functions of the spatial plan but does not give the plan statutory status in terms of the RMA. Our view is that the plan would need to be given a formal statutory role under the RMA or be given legal effect through the Auckland Regional Policy Statement. Most importantly the plan should map designated utility corridors for the development of regionally important transport, energy, water, telecommunications and social infrastructure projects. As it stands the section is vague in terms of requirement for consistency of CCO and other Council plans and strategies with the overarching Spatial Plan....

Regional Infrastructure Plan needed
The new government plans to develop a 20-year National Infrastructure Plan in conjunction with local government to set a clear direction for vital national infrastructure investment, including the identification of top priority projects.... In conjunction with this it is critical that the Auckland region have its own 20 or 30 year infrastructure plan, and a strategy to fund it....

Ethos, values and guiding principles of the CCO’s
When it comes to the CCO’s culture and guiding principles, we concur with the
recommendations of the NZCID as follows. CCO ‘s Statement of Intent documents would be strengthened by including a narrative on how each CCO contributes to and/or aligns with Councils wider objectives and priorities for Auckland. Such a narrative might include the following guiding principles:

In enabling the establishment and advancement of a single, unified Auckland local
government entity, Auckland Council’s governance body and service delivery agencies
(CCOs) together with the 19 member local boards will be guided by the following desired outcomes.
• To manage, and give united leadership to, Auckland's growth in all forums local,
national and international;
• To provide leadership based on values of fairness for all, equity and sustainability;
• To work to ensure the continued ability of all Aucklanders to improve their standard of living and quality of life;
• To act positively to protect and enhance Auckland's stake in New Zealand's growth
and development;
• To ensure a fair and equitable return on the Region of Auckland's contribution to New Zealand's economic growth and development;
• To give Aucklanders an effective and united voice in Political decision making which affects Auckland.

Another tier of guiding principles seems appropriate to address a range of operating
considerations, including:
• The shared tension that could arise from the separation within Auckland’s new unitary structure between policy development and strategic planning – which resides within the Council - from delivery and implementation roles – which reside in arm’s-length CCOs.
• How CCOs, Council, Local Boards and other constituent entities – and central
government agencies - will be expected to ‘work together’ with each other;
• What accountabilities and working arrangements will exist between Council’s Chief
Executive (CEO and management team) and the CEOs (and staff) of the CCOs; and
between Councilors and CEO of CCOs. ((The issues around Council-CCO CEO
relationships should be the subject of a separate paper? – Discuss))

A point to note is that while the CCOs are required to behave in a business-like way, they are not established as stand-alone businesses as such. They are constituent parts of a single Auckland Council structure, which could be recognized in each CCOs Statement of Intent with some core principles about how this shared working partnership would be expected to operate.....

Transport Governance
Given the significance of transport issues in Auckland, this is one of the most important issues to resolve within the new governance arrangements for the city. In EMA (N)’s opinion the option actually chosen in the Bill for Auckland Transport (Option 2-Options refer to CAB Min (09) 30/10).) is not preferred. Under Option 2 the Regional Transport Authority deals only with public transport and local roads. Option 5, which included state highways, should have been chosen....

Water Governance We are generally pleased with and support the proposal for the establishment of Watercare Services as a CCO. Our long history of involvement with Watercare gives us confidence that the culture of the organisation and its experience as a responsible and efficient operator and deliverer of water and drainage services will transfer over into the new organisation and result in an outcome to the benefit of the region’s population....

The EMA demonstrates a better understanding than NZCID of how local government works, but is full of the sort of detailed implementation questions that remain unanswered about CCOs, and which expose the fundamental weaknesses in the approach at this scale. I'd like to end this summary with the EMA's submission on computer systems:

Integration of IT Systems
One of the critical success factors for the transition to the new Auckland Council will be the speed and efficiency of the integration of the IT systems of the existing Councils into one overall Auckland Council system. The ATA needs to move as quickly as possible, consistent with good practice to get the new system in place.

This is a bad joke, perhaps indicating how unaware organisations are of the complexity that is Local Government information systems. My understanding is that it will be years before the computer systems can be integrated. And maybe some systems will never be integrated simply because the cost of doing that will be too great compared to the real benefit. The bad joke of the so-called Integrated Council Information System is that it is INCIS for short (remember the Policy computer system integration project? The plug was pulled on that after some $100 million had been spent.)

And there's another outfit in this little ideological triumvirate of support for CCOs.
That's The Property Council of New Zealand.
Here's what it asked the new Government to do in its 'Briefing to the incoming Government'...:

Property Council seeks the transformation of Auckland’s governance in order unshackle the region’s economic performance, eliminate regulatory duplication and divergent planning outcomes. Property Council made the following recommendations to the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance:
move to a single regional governance body, ‘‘One Auckland’’, which operates within a defined set of statutes. One Auckland would contribute to the governance of Auckland through six portfolio areas: one transport; one water; one economy; regional parks and facilities; one regulatory plan; local democracy and Maori empowerment...

unify planning and decision making through the adoption of one Regional Spatial Plan, one Auckland Regional (District) Plan, one Long Term Council Community Plan, one Auckland Sustainability Plan, and one set of bylaws. These documents and bylaws would in turn be complemented (but not overruled) by local Community Plans....

vertically integrate water and wastewater services in the Auckland region to eliminate duplication, confused roles and unnecessary cost. Vertical integration would result in a centralised billing arrangement, one asset management plan and one agency controlling one network. Property Council endorses Watercare Services Ltd., a council controlled organisation, as the agency that should be utilised to deliver the less-cost approach to reform within the Auckland water industry....

establish a One Auckland Transport division for the Auckland region, One Transport, as a council controlled organisation (CCO). One Transport would be responsible for governance, funding and development of transport infrastructure, and would be wholly owned by One Auckland, which in turn would appoint a Board of Directors....

establish One Auckland Investments as a council controlled trading organisation (CCTO). One Auckland Investments would be a passive portfolio holder/investor. This public company should be responsible for managing One Auckland’s shareholding in: Auckland International Airport Limited; Ports of Auckland; and other property assets.

establish a Tourism Auckland as a CCO to actively engage at a strategic level with
significant public and private sector stakeholders, and manage all major tourism projects where One Auckland has a strategic interest. Tourism Auckland would comprise of three integrated arms: Visit Auckland, Major Events Auckland and Major Venues Auckland.

establish One Auckland Major Projects as a CCO. One Auckland Major Projects will actively engage at a strategic level with significant public and private sector stakeholders, and manage major projects where One Auckland has a strategic interest. Such major projects may include (but not be limited to): Rugby World Cup 2011, Americas Cup and Other international sporting events (e.g. Commonwealth Games)....

Recommendation to the Minister of Local Government:
Property Council recommends using the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance as a blueprint for local government reform elsewhere in New Zealand. However, failing a Royal Commission, a similar process could be led by an empowered Local Government Commission....

Sound familiar? The interesting thing about the Property Council's Briefing to the incoming Government is the extent to which the Government was guided by it (or ideas very like it) in terms of 'One Auckland' and 'One Transport' and 'One Water' and so on.

It might be OK for a centre-right government to count among its supporters the NZCID, EMA and Property Council of NZ, but when they are your only public supporters, and the rest of your friends desert you, or doubt you, or publicly criticise you - surely that's a signal that cannot be ignored.

The truth is that NZCID, EMA and Property Council of NZ are lobbying organisations. They are lobbying in the interests of their members. End of story. The EMA appears to have some limited knowledge of the inside workings and purpose of local government. But none of these organisations claims to have a good understanding of local government. They want conditions changed to best suit their interests. That is what their members expect after all.

At the start of this term of Government, I observed that no member of Cabinet had useful experience of local government.

So they were as happy to trash it as these advocate organisations.

The thing that has changed though, is that most members of cabinet now have a very good working knowledge of Auckland local government because many of them have sat through two Select Committees.

Cabinet now understands local government far more profoundly than when they made their first hasty reform decisions, and they can see that their proposals are far more profound and damaging to democracy and local services than they first appreciated.

Today, on radio, the only defender of the faith in these reforms was Stephen Selwood. He was responding to criticism from Local Government New Zealand which has finally entered the fray. If there's one thing that people at LGNZ understand it's Local Government. And it's one thing that Stephen Selwood still does not understand.

Auckland Waterfront Big Picture - Quay Street Boulevard

A little while ago, in the midst of the design competition around Queens Wharf and talk of "whole of waterfront" approaches, Coopers & Co put forward a suggestion which revolves around transforming Quay Street into a waterfront boulevarde.

This is a closeup of a section of that image showing the Queen Street end of Queens Wharf, and Quay Street between Queens Wharf and Captain Cook wharf.The little structure between could be pontoons, and holds three big screens...

Here's how it might look with the big screens fired up. People on three sides: Captain Cook Wharf, Quay Street and Queens Wharf. You can see how this treatment of the waterfront opens it up to the urban core of Britomart especially, but also Queen Street.

You can see in all of these images that the fence sections of the Red Fence have been removed - or partly removed - so that there is much more public access and permeability from the urban core, across Quay Street, and onto the pedestrianised waterfront. In times of an event there would be planned reduction in traffic flows along Quay Street. Maybe only 1 lane each way. When Britomart Station was under construction Quay Street was sometimes closed entirely and all traffic flowed along Custom House Quay. I think - in fact - that a lot of traffic (big trucks etc) travel along Quay Street now because they can. This sort of traffic should not be encouraged to go through the CBD. This traffic should flow around the CBD. That's why Grafton Gully was built, connecting with SH1, and the huge one-ways of Hobson and Nelson also. Ideally, we should be trying to minimise traffic along Quay Street - and making pedestrian traffic the priority.

It is more appropriate to plan for public transport access to this part of time, and to open up Quay Street - all the way to the water's edge for pedestrian activity. The Rugby World Cup is a pretext to give it a try - associated with Queens Wharf - but in the long term, something like this is what Auckland's waterfront needs.

...and we need to think of Quay Street all the way along to the Viaduct - so that it is a pedestrian boulevard all the way. Not blocked by the red fence. Leave the heritage posts in place - and maybe some sections of fence. This approach needs to become a major plank in Auckland's waterfront planning.

Super City Job "Lolly Scramble" not always sweet...

The Sunday Star Times had a bit of a scoop this weekend when it published information about the process the Auckland Transition Agency (ATA) is running to staff up the jobs that will need to be filled at the new Auckland Council, and its CCO's, well before October this year.

The article states: "...nearly twenty times more applications received than positions available..." And contains interesting details about applications for the first three tiers of management. (By the way, other ATA documentation suggests that Auckland Council will have SEVEN tiers. That is a very hierarchical structure - see more about this below.)

The SST article states: "...by Thursday, when applications closed for 25 'tier 3' senior management jobs across the new Auckland Council, 390 people had applied. At the next level up, 100 people have applied for three 'tier 2' roles reporting directly to the chief executive. Another 28 people have applied for one job of Interim Chief Executive...."

What is interesting about all this, is that this hierarchical structure, and the way it is going to be populated, has been designed by relatively faceless people at ATA. Let's think about hierarchies for a minute: The Auckland Regional Council has a 4 tier structure today, though under the previous Chief Executive - Jo Brosnahan - it had a 3 tier structure. It was, and still is, a relatively flat structure. I am advised that one of the benefits of a flat structure is that it is attractive to creative and highly motivated staff who feel they are not simple cogs in a machine, and who appreciate the easy access to senior members of staff who themselves have greater responsibilities because teams tend to be larger and so on.

I understand - for example - that one of the consequences of the ARC restructuring (which followed Peter Winder's appointment to the post of CEO of ARC), was that several regional experts quit the ARC. Some of these are still in the region working as consultants, but others have moved on. Of course there will be split opinions about the precise reasons for these personal changes, but my understanding is that generally, the Jo Brosnahan era at the ARC was one which emphasised Excellence and Technical Leadership. The objective was to position the ARC as the thinking leader behind Auckland Region. And to an extent that objective was fulfilled. I was certainly very aware of that culture and that feeling when I was elected there in 2004, and was impressed with the calibre of technical staff there.

It is often said that Councils get the planners and the engineers and the scientists that are not good enough to be employed by the BECA's and the OPUS's and all the rest of the private sector expert consultancies. But it's only when you work with Council staff that you find out there are some extremely competent officers working for Councils. They are aware that could earn more in the private sector - rather than for a council - but they choose to work for a council for a range of other reasons including: job satisfaction (you get to do some very interesting work at a council); job variety (expert council staff get to work on a range of jobs at one time - which suits them - they can handle and enjoy that stimulation); part of a team (when I was at North Shore City Council I was particularly aware of the quality of work, thinking and creativity from the Environmental Protection Team, and from the Three Waters Team); and opportunities to work in new specialist areas.

Council project and service work was like a vocation for them. Their passion and commitment was evident. They repaid the freedoms that went with the jobs they had, with enormous energy, and sometimes hours above and beyond the call of duty. This kind of give and take goes with a creative structure and organisation, and one that is responsive to the needs of its staff.

I believe this culture is under serious threat with the structure that is being populated now by ATA. There is a chill in the air. Everyone is being very positive at the ARC where there are still many highly motivated and competent staff. Most of these would be at the tier 3 and 4 level of the proposed Auckland Council. I talk to some of them, and they are pretty talkative about the process they are going through now. One was part of a group of managers from all of Auckland's councils that were invited to a meeting at the Aotea Centre by ATA. The purpose of the meeting was for them to receive a presentation about the proposed structure, which also went into some detail about the jobs and positions that would be established. He told me it was a bit wierd looking around and seeing how many managers there were. He did a rough count. He also did a rough count of the jobs on the big screen. "Only about a quarter of us will get jobs", was his opinion.

And they all went back to their offices and sat down in front of a computer screen to "be mapped". This involves interacting with a computer program which asks questions about your skill areas, and asks you to self assess. What percentage of your job is X, what percentage Y and so on. Pretty anonymous and soul-destroying stuff. I appreciate that this method does enable a degree of self assessment, and that it is in reasonably common use when private sector companies have reshuffles and reorganisations.

In the case of Auckland Local Government, every organisation (with the exception of Watercare) is being abolished. Wound up. And this means that every employee is looking for another job. An enormously stressful experience for thousands of individuals.

I know it's not lambs to the slaughter, and that's not the purpose, but - going back to that SST article we read: "....According to a back-of-the-envelope calculation by the Public Service Association, the average redundancy would be about $18,000..."

People I know in the HR industry have described the processes that are typically experienced in organisations like Air New Zealand or Vodafone. Middle managers are treated extremely well during change. Instead of computer mappings, they are interviewed and assessed through human processes. They have access to skilled advisers. It seems to me that this a far cry from what Auckland council managers are being put through.

As one who is planning to stand for Auckland Council, and one who has a history of trying to get to grips with issues by talking with Council staff, I do wonder how easy it will be to do that with this massive and deep structure, wheels within wheels....

And I wonder how many of our very best people will walk away from Auckland Local Government. Either because they don't get mapped right, don't get treated right, or because they take a look at the job slot that has their name on it, and decide it doesn't offer the qualities that they have come to appreciate where they are now.

"Well", people say to me, "you can always change the structure when you get in there, can't you?" Yeah - Right. Imagine the new Auckland Council deciding it wanted a flatter management structure. Say - 4 tiers - to encourage innovation and team building. That sort of thing. There would be bedlam. Councillors wouldn't know where to jump. They'd say, "think of the costs... think of the union action... ATA's just spent millions recruiting for these positions - are you going to throw all that out the window?... what do you know anyway - they say this structure is the best for Auckland... we should really let it have some time to bed in..."

You can hear all that can't you. The truth is this structure - these structures - will become black holes, laws unto themselves - from a management structure point of view - almost impenetrable by those elected to govern them. Councillors won't be able to trust themselves to fix them. And while the only person they employ is the CEO, his or her ability to restructure the organisation beneath them will also be limited. So Auckland will inherit a structure which is concrete, and inflexible, but which will grow inexorably. This seems to be the common feature of very large bureaucracies. They grow.

The reason we are in this fix now, is fundamentally because there was a move to amalgamation. A move to merge. ARC led it with the rhetoric "the one and the many". This vision has become The One Bureaucracy (a dysfunctional entity of CCOs, Boards and a Council) and The Many Ratepayers. (I hasten to remind you that I was among those few municipally experienced ARC councillors who opposed these moves to amalgamate). The Government bought the vision (and now regrets it I'm sure). And those who think they will benefit the most continue to defend it (NZCID, Property Council and EMA).

So what is Plan B?

Queens Wharf: ARC and Government JV Meeting on Thursday

A little bit of pre-amble first, to get to the point of this blog....

Auckland Regional Council met yesterday to consider its Draft Annual Plan for the first 4 months of the 2010-2011 year. It's only 4 months, because that's all the time left to ARC (from end of June) to abolition at the end of October 2010.

The public meeting of ARC's full Council considered the ARC's activities, and provided budget and activity reviews for each ARC department. In particular, the activities listed for the ARC's Transport and urban Development Department to 31 october 2010 included the item:

In terms of Queens Wharf, work will progress on the agreed option for the redevelopment of wharf for the Rugby World Cup.

One councillor (not me) queried this item. In fact I was curious as to what "the agreed option" was, and who had agreed it.

The CEO (Peter Winder) gave a one sentence response, and then stated to the effect: "... there will be a meeting of the Unincorporated Joint Venture this Thursday, between Government and ARC, given the alignment between the parties..."

This was an interesting revelation. I was not aware such a JV was in existence.

The ARC has not considered the matter of Queens Wharf, or re-considered its position, since it last considered it at a confidential meeting that was held on the 22nd December 2009, which was attended by just 7 councillors. That meeting was the subject of my last December blog: http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2009/12/queens-wharf-another-ad-hoc-auckland.html. At that meeting the ARC learned of proposals for a $100 million Cruise Ship terminal, which it voted to support (though I voted against).

In the last few months this project has been opposed by all Auckland's Councils and their Mayors. There have been statements from the Prime Minister and also the Hon Murray McCully (Minister of for Rugby World Cup and supporter of Cruise Ship Terminal).

The ARC's position has not been revisited in the light of these events.

Later in yesterday's ARC Council meeting I asked two further questions about Queens Wharf: "What is the agenda for the Thursday meeting? and "When will the item be reported back?"

The CEO responded. He stated that the Queens Wharf JV meeting would be conducted: "within the framework agreed at the December 22nd meeting" and that "the numbers will be within that...". He also noted that the item would be reported back after that meeting, and that it would be either to a meeting of full Council or of the Transport & Urban Development Committee.

The mention of "the numbers" rang alarm-bells with me. There has been considerable discussion behind the scenes following the Mayoral Forum meeting which decided against the proposed $100 million Cruise Ship Terminal. The option still exists - in theory at least - of Government and ARC proceeding independently to develop the Cruise Ship Terminal - despite the opposition of all of Auckland's Councils.

This option exists because the ARC and Government co-own Queens Wharf. In addition ARC would be the consent authority because Queens Wharf is a structure over water. Queens Wharf is not on land, so is not subject to the planning jurisdiction of Auckland City Council.

A problem would be the funding. Who would pay for the Cruise Ship Terminal? Government has indicated it was prepared to invest in the Cruise Ship Terminal - but I understand this would be in the form of a loan. This loan would become a charge on the incoming Auckland Council. So ratepayers would still be expected to pay for the Terminal. It would not be a gift.

There are other options. Chairman Mike Lee has made no secret of his desire to demolish the sheds that are on Queens Wharf. I am advised that the Hon Murray McCully shares this scorched wharf enthusiasm. Neither see any value in retaining these character buildings.

I - and many other don't agree with immediate demolition. I think Auckland should have the opportunity of using these buildings - as part of Party Central -and as part of reclaiming and rediscovering how we might use this new public waterfront asset and its amenity.

At the Confidential December 22nd meeting of Council, ARC made a number of key decisions, none of which I am freely able to disclose. However, I choose here to disclose some details, because of the public interest matters this issue raises, and because I don't believe due process is being followed.

In particular, at the Confidential December 22nd meeting of Council, ARC decided that:

In the absence of an agreement by Auckland City Council to progress and finance the development, the Chief Executive investigate an exclusive partnership between the Auckland Regional Council and Government and report back to Council in January 2010.

This motion refers to the development of Queens Wharf including the $100 million Cruise Ship Terminal. Auckland City Council has clearly not supported that project. Now it appears the ARC and Government have set up an Unincorporated Joint Venture. However there was no report to Council in January - as decided in the resolution. Nor one in February. Now we hear informally about a meeting of this JV happening this week. Without the ARC receiving a formal report as agreed. Not good process.

Secondly, at that meeting, the ARC also "endorsed the CEO to negotiate a contribution by the ARC ..... towards the 2009-10 cost of redeveloping Queens Wharf..." I cannot reveal the precise details of the amount voted on (somewhere between $5 million and $10 million), but it seems entirely appropriate to reveal some of the works and their costs that the ARC considered would be part of the Queens Wharf Redevelopment.

ARC estimates in the report circulated for the meeting provide a figure of $1.1 million for: "Site Preparation", including: "demolish sheds, remove redundant services"....

So. Without any reports or further consideration it was assumed that the sheds would be demolished. ARC hasn't actually voted on that issue. But you can see how intriguing this is. The ARC would be the regulatory body considering any application its JV might make to demolish the sheds to make way for anything else - be it Party Central or a Cruise Ship Terminal.

So where are we now?

So far, Auckland's Councils don't support a Cruise Ship Terminal. But Government and ARC - according to its December 22nd decision - both do.

And we have learned there's a meeting of The ARC and Government Queens Wharf JV on Thursday, where ARC's position will not have been clarified and established in advance by the meeting it resolved to have.

Not good process.

What will ARC's Regional Planning legacy be?

We had a meeting of the ARC's Regional Strategy and Planning Ctte this week where we discussed the future of the present review of Auckland's paramount planning document: The Auckland Regional Policy Statement. It is being reviewed now, consistent with legislation that required such a review at least every ten years.

The current review has been underway since November 2007. The issue ARC is now facing is that it will be abolished in a few months time. As the report notes:

At this juncture, the decision point is fast approaching as to what to do with the
proposed ARPS. The review commenced in November 2007, and in light of potential
legislative changes (Phase II reforms to the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA),
transport legislation and the Local Government Act (RM2U), new National Policy
Statements (NPS) and National Environmental Standards (NES)), along with
governance changes and the transition to the Auckland Council, it is timely to review
its progression.

The report contains some very robust statements about what the consequences are for regional planning of actions outside ARC's control such as supercity and government's legislative programme:

The governance changes will impact on the nature and form of all resource
management documents in the region. The third Auckland Bill was released on 10
December 2009. This outlines the contents and process for the new Spatial Plan.
Submissions to the Select Committee close on 15 February 2010. The timing of the
Phase II reforms to the RMA, transport legislation and the Local Government Act
(RM2U) is uncertain and their implication for the ARC’s planning documents
unknown.....

Phase II of the RM2U reform may alter the content that an ARPS can/may address,
particularly in regards to setting urban limits, land supply and housing affordability
issues, and in particular, freshwater management. No specific timeframe has been
given for these potential changes....

And in regard to supercity governance changes currently in the wind relating to the possibility of a spatial plan approach the report notes:

The development of a spatial plan clearly has implications for the role and scope of
the ARPS. The future of the proposed ARPS as a legacy item is not assured. It is not
drafted in a manner that reflects the governance and legislative changes outlined
above.

This is very serious stuff.

The ARC agreed to a process where we would adopt the ARPS, but not publicly notify it. Thus we would pass to Auckland Council an adopted draft, ready for its action.

Because I am aware that a huge amount of work has gone into the real core of regional planning in this review, I was anxious that we not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Leave it all a bit like a damp squib. The core issue has been planning for the staged redevelopment of Auckland's existing urban environment - through re-zoning, some medium and high density development - both for residential and employment generating activities, the roll out of high capacity public transport corridors.

This is critical work, which will need extensive consultation.

Potentially a very hot potato, but good work has been done and this needs to be packaged with the work done in the regional land transport strategy, and made available in a succinct way to the incoming Auckland Council.

The meeting was covered reasonably usefully by Bob Dey. You can see his report of the meeting at: http://www.propbd.co.nz/afa.asp?idWebPage=8338&idBobDeyProperty_Articles=13829&SID=513072092

Auckland's Local Boards: According to ATA

On the 26th of February this year, ATA released its discussion document entitled: "Auckland council local boards". You can get it from the main page of their website at:
http://www.ata.govt.nz/web/cms_ata.nsf

The first media comment about it in NZ Herald (28th Feb) began like this:

"...Wanaka has more decision-making powers than what is planned for local boards in the Auckland Super City, says Queenstown Lakes District councillor Lyal Cocks.
The Central Otago Community Board, population 6000, has been delegated the maximum functions legally possible by its political masters in Queenstown.
The seven board members have been able to build a new sports facility, come up with a new water system for the small town of Lake Hawea and decide what roads will be sealed.
About all they cannot do is buy and sell land and set rates.
Mr Cocks, who chairs the board and is a member of the New Zealand Community Boards' executive committee, is unimpressed with the plans for local boards in Auckland....

Fairly damming NZ Herald introduction, but the report goes on to give a more comprehensive account of what is envisaged in the ATA discussion document. Then, The Hon Rodney Hide swung into action and ran an opinion piece in the Herald (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10629699), containing large chunks of the ATA document, and which defended ATA's document.

These are strange days indeed. Normally a Minister is advised by Departmental officials (in this case Dept of Internal Affairs), but here in Auckland the Minister is being advised by this unusual beast called the Auckland Transition Agency. Which, by its own account: "...does not make public policy, it is here to implement legislation..."

I think there is quite a lot going for the ATA discussion document on local boards. It is at its most interesting when it strays way outside current legislation, and moves into submission mode. A large hunk of this discussion document is advocacy. It is effectively advocating legislative change. So, while ATA might not be "making public policy" in respect to Local Boards, it is very definitely making a public policy case for change.

But I'm getting ahead of myself. In this blog I'll just draw attention to salient aspects of the discussion document, and comment.

In terms of non-regulatory responsibilities the ATA document suggests:

They will make locally based decisions on, for example, location and design of new local facilities, local service standards, maintenance programmes for local infrastructure, and local centre branding and marketing. In doing so, they will develop and reflect the distinct characteristics and needs of their local communities.
In allocating the non-regulatory activities, rather than asking "Why should local boards undertake certain activities?" the ATA has asked "why not?".

What is especially interesting about this is the reference to: "...local service standards, maintenance programmes for local infrastructure..." this clearly would include matters relating to roads and to sewers and to relevant service levels. Today, Community Boards on the North Shore get some involvement in these matters, but it's not alway certain. And I am aware that this pattern is not repeated across Auckland where in some areas there are no Community Boards, and others which have extremely limited scope to engage with local infrastructure matters. However, the obvious question now is: how will local boards be able to make such decisions... what is the mechanism?

Then we have a very interesting contribution to the debate from ATA in respect to regulatory responsibilities, which goes like this:

The ATA is not authorised to delegate regulatory activities to local boards, but to complete the picture on the role of the local boards we have considered which decisions in these types of areas may be delegated to them. The delegations to local boards will be decided by the governing body, once elected.

This section of the report then goes into the matter of regulatory activities for local boards. This is encouraging.

But probably the most interesting section of the discussion report is one headed: "Working with Others", and which addresses the vexed and controversial matter of CCOs - Council Controlled Organisations. The Exec Summary of the report states:

Council-controlled organisations will need a direct relationship with local boards both in seeking input to their plans and around day-to-day matters in local board areas....
For example, the legislation establishes a transport agency, Auckland Transport, to manage Auckland’s local government transport network. Auckland Transport will be responsible for footpaths, street furniture, signage and lighting, all of which contribute to building a "sense of place" and will be of key interest to local boards. Auckland Transport will need to work closely with local boards on these sorts of activities....
Effective working relationships will be essential to the success of this governance model....

Amen to all this.

But what is interesting is the language used here. It's all about "need". "Auckland Transport will need to work closely with local boards..." This language is really a submission to Government. Because - as we all know - it's one thing to have words like this in a document like this - a sort of aspirational statement - but it's quite another to be certain that this sort of behaviour will actually happen magically.

Unless CCOs are required to work with local boards, unless there is a formal process specified for CCOs to engage with local boards on plans and service delivery levels, then the minimum will be the norm. Why? Because meaningful engagement comes at a cost, and if you're a CCO whose SOI objective is something like: "deliver infrastructure services at minimum cost consistent with meeting environmental, economic, cultural and social objectives...", then the cost driver will lead to reductionist, do-minimum approaches when it comes to dealing with local boards.

Then we have:

This discussion document contains our thinking on the initial allocation of decision-making responsibilities to local boards, and on how local boards will fulfil their role. Once we have received your feedback, we can then undertake the task of allocating specific and detailed responsibilities to each local board, and determine initial budgets for the local boards....

It is useful to note ATA's emphasis here on this being the "initial allocation" of roles. It is a reminder that Auckland Council will have the ability to allocate more roles and responsibilities. But before I end this blog with a warning note, a little more from ATA's discussion document:

...These responsibilities will be significant. The Local Government Commission has proposed 19 local boards, many of which will represent communities larger than many district councils in New Zealand. The budgets and allocation of responsibility will be commensurate with this. Local boards will need good support from the Auckland Council organisation.
The structure already approved by the ATA includes a Manager Local Board Services at a senior level in the organisation. We are proposing that this manager will have dedicated staff to provide strategic and policy advice, and consultation and administrative support to local boards.....

And here is my warning.



The ATA document is silent on how Local Boards will be administered and staffed and advised. There is no information on how Local Boards functions and services will be staffed and delivered locally, though the document is at pains to state: "...local boards will be effectively supported from day one...". The document appears to be suggesting that the staff available to support local boards will be located at offices of Auckland Council which will be located: "...across the region.." I read this to mean that Local Boards will share staff with other Local Boards. There appears to be no commitment to the establishment of locally managed and resourced Local Boards. There is nothing here about the building of Local Boards - and by that I mean as local institutions, housed locally, and with local staff, local resources, local relations and partnerships in the same buildings with - eg the library, CAB offices, and other locally specific services and agencies. This is both a missed opportunity, and a loss for the community.



There is no point having Local Boards that exist on paper, and on ballot papers, without also having Local Institutional structures including bricks and mortar and dedicated staff.



This is the big gap in the thinking.

Financial Crisis and Asset Bubbles and things

I'm always interested to hear of thoughtful insights into why we had that global financial crisis. You know. What was the fundamental cause. I expressed my thoughts about it - a bit amateurish I know - on this blog:
http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2008/12/how-should-auckland-respond-to-global.html
Looks like it was December 2008.

Anyway. I get sent stuff from time to time from my friends at The Resource Rentals for Revenue and Justice Association. Their motto goes: "Pay for what we hold or take, not what we do or make..." and further explanation: "Private Enterprise must not include private ownership of the elements of life. Free trade must not include the freedom to 'invest' in ownin others' natural resources which should rightfully be their source of revenue".

A lot of the thinking behind this association is to do with tenure. And land development.
Anyway. A while ago I was sent an editorial/opinion piece from the Sydney Morning Herald, written by Peter Hartcher who is the Sydney Herald's International Editor. It is dated 22 Sept 2009. I read it and was interested in the way it characterised the crisis, and what - if anything - we have learned from it, and what is happening now.

Here are some paragraphs:

"...the first of the great systemic problems. It's called "moral hazard". Meaning?

If you think you are completely safe from any risk, you will behave recklessly. Goldman's, like most banks and investment banks around the world, has just seen what happens if you take absurdly dangerous risks.

Answer: you make out like bandits.

The Government rescues you if anything goes wrong and the boss even gets to keep his job. One US investment bank was allowed to fail outright. Lehman Brothers.

This was the event that took a Wall Street crisis and made it a global one. Officials will be extremely wary about letting any big institution fail in future. Moral hazard, already big before the crisis, has become giant.

The G20 will pretend that curbing bankers' pay and raising capital requirements will solve the problem. It will not.

The incentive to take maximum risk has only increased...."

and

"....The other great flaw is the problem of bubbles.

Every decade or so, a huge asset bubble develops. That is, a dangerously big bulge in the price of shares or real estate. Japan's land and share bubble of the 1980s wrecked the world's second biggest economy.

The US housing bubble of 2003-07 wrecked the world's biggest economy, taking the global economy down with it.

Each bubble formed when central banks allowed money to become too cheap.

When interest rates are so low that money is, essentially, free, people abuse it.

A bubble follows. Disaster is only a matter of time.

The world's central bankers have been programmed to be vigilant against inflation in the prices of goods such as bread and petrol, but to ignore inflation in the price of assets such as shares or real estate.

They must be reprogrammed.

But they are deeply invested in the old orthodoxy...."

What I like about this is its reminder that it was the US housing bubble of 2003-07 that wrecked the US economy, and took the rest of the global economy with it. In NZ I see too often the argument that it was the finance industry that caused the crash, without properly looking behind that veil and seeing what was happening on the ground.

What I also like about it is the reminder of the extent of the corporate banking bailouts that have happened round the world, and which are still happening, and having little effect it seems on the behaviour of lending institutions.

You can see the whole article at: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/greed-is-god-again-and-we-have-learned-nothing-20090921-fyjr.html

Endangered Species: Auckland Waterfront Character Buildings

This blog is about the protection of the maritime character of the Wynyard Quarter, aka the Western Reclamation, on Auckland's waterfront. Specifically it is about the protection of character buildings down there - all of which have a connection with Auckland's maritime past - all of which ARC (Auckland Regional Council) is seeking to protect in the area's planning controls. However, ARC's commitment to the protection of built characters and heritage is not shared. Various parties, notably Viaduct Harbour Holdings, are resisting ARC's protection efforts in the Environment Court. Sadly, Auckland City Council is also not supporting ARC, in respect of many of the buildings. It is supporting ARC in regard to some buildings - what I would describe as the obvious ones. But unfortunately Auckland City's support does not extend to some of the more workmanlike buildings which give the area so much of its character. The map shown here - and I know it's a bit hard to read in this blog, but I've enlarged a bit of it below - is of the Wynyard Quarter....

The map show shows the location of the 17 buildings ARC believes need some protection from demolition, and some planning regard for their character and heritage qualities. You can see that the buildings are numbered, colour-coded, and three of them have red rings around them. The legend explaining these codes is next...

Ok, so here's the legend. The eight green buildings (Nos 1-8) were in the Plan Change for Wynyard Quarter that was notified by Auckland City Council a couple of years ago. Following submissions etc three further buildings (Nos 9-11) were added at the decision stage - presumably through commissioner's decision. After the decision on the Plan Change was released it was appealed by various parties, including VHHL and ARC. The VHHL appeals sought the deletion of buildings 8, 10 and 11 from the Plan Change. The ARC's appeal seeks the inclusion of additional buildings 12-17. Mediation is presently occurring under the Environment Court's direction.

Building/Structure 1: 65-75 Jellicoe StGolden Bay Cement building and silos Buildings 1-7 are protected by consensus at this stage. No party has appealed these buildings being protected. Protected so far. Building 2: 1-17 Jellicoe StShed (referred to variously and AHB Shed and Fisherman’s shed) Protected so far.

Building 3: 22-32 Jellicoe StBrick building used by Sanford Protected so far.

Building 4: 22-32 Jellicoe StSanford Building Protected so far.

I include here a couple of images I prepared for submissions I made to the Plan Change a couple of years ago. You can see Building 4, the Sanford's Building on the right, in the context of the adjacent building envelopes that will be permitted as of right by the Plan Change. (The building across Jellicoe Street approximately shows the Red Shed - Building 2 - which is protected so far).... The reason this image is here is to give some impression as to the dominating effect of new development on the skyline, and on character buildings, and on the general feel of the area. That is why I believe it is critical that all of the buildings which ARC seeks protection for - and you can see them distributed thoughout the area on the map - remain protected. Not just for themselves, but because of the way their presence will balance the modernising presence of new buildings as the land is developed.

Take the ASB building proposal for example. The two ASB buildings occupy the footprints to the left of the protected Sanford Building, and are across Jellicoe Street from the protected Red Shed (which you can see in this image). Note how invisible the Sanford's Building has become. And that's without the building that can be built to its right. In fact the ASB proposal (apart from the volcanic roof form), broadly follows the plan change, and shows a stepping down in heights toward the Sanfords Build. So it does not disappear altogether. The point I'm trying to make here is that the retention of character buildings can and should have an important defining role in determining and affecting the development of new buildings.

Building 5: 8-14 Madden St Sail Connections (formerly Selwyn Timber Company then N. Cole Building) Protected so far.

Building 6: 120-126 Halsey St:Halsey Street Flower Traders (Formerly Neuchatel Offices) Protected so far.

Building 7: 118-120 Beaumont St Sailors’ Corner (Former British Imperial Oil Company) Protected so far.

Building 8: 101-107 Beaumont St Dive HQ/ Burnsco Marine/ Teleflex Morse At risk! Auckland City Council has gone cold on this one, because they have decided that Beaumont Street needs to be widened to provide for three lanes of traffic heading West out of Wynyard Quarter. So they believe the frontage will need to be demolished. This is a bit tragic for an area whose traffic patterns are planned to be the very antithesis of the rest of Auckland. ie pedestrian and cycling centred, with only a small fraction of the traffic movements in and out to be by means of single occupancy vehicles. It would be a travesty of traffic over place - if this widening and character building demolition ever occurs. Come on Auckland City!

Building 9: Packenham St West and Halsey St (120-126 Halsey St): J. Lysacht Building Protected so far.

Building 10: 121-127 Beaumont StTrans-Pacific Marine At risk! VHHL are opposing.

Building 11: Corner Gaunt & Daldy Sts (125-127 Beaumont St)Marine Electronics Warehouse At risk! VHHL are opposing.

Building 12: 38 Hamer StSanford boat slipway P.Voss slipway At risk! Though ARC seeks some character building protection. The rest of these buildings 12-17 have been added in for consideration by ARC after a very careful look at characters and heritage buildings on Wynyard Quarter. At this late stage it appears there is little support from other parties to include these buildings among those accorded some protection. I ran a detailed blog entry about this particular one - the Vos Building - last week. This is the sort of result we can aim for on this site. You can see it at: http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2010/02/vos-building-maritime-heritage-at.html

Building 13: 139 Packenham St West: Southern Spars At risk! Though ARC seeks some character building protection.

Building 14: Packenham St West: North Sails At risk! Though ARC seeks some character building protection.

Building 15: 136 Beaumont St Gloss Boats (Former Bailey’s Shipyard and Devonport Ferry Co. Building, Segar Bros/Mason Bros. Boiler Shop Slip) At risk! Though ARC seeks some character building protection.

Building 16: 132-136 Beaumont StHQ (Former Chas Bailey Shipyards, Old North Shore Ferries Building) At risk! Though ARC seeks some character building protection.

Building 17: 129-135 Beaumont St Smart Marine At risk! Though ARC seeks some character building protection. I think it is time that Auckland City Council (not just officers) had a second look at this.