Save Auckland from the Royal Commission

When I wrote this blog I was feeling a bit desperate about the state of play. You'll see it's a wildly pragmatic approach. Trying to make some sort of silk-purse out of Rodney Hide's ear. But as you'll see it proposes a committee structure to manage the governance of the "middle tier". Now (23rd April) I think this approach is a cope out. I leave it here out of a sense of completeness. But don't think I am now serious about this. Having thought about it - I'm not serious.....

* Adopt an incremental approach * Ensure Auckland’s economy stability
* Protect Auckland’s development from uncertainty
* Fix what’s broke by implementing clearly needed improvements

Profound changes have been proposed to Auckland governance by the Royal Commission. These present severe implementation challenges. The risks of failure outweigh the possible benefits. Toronto is a good example of how long it takes a city to recover from large scale restructuring, and to become effective.

The foundation for the Royal Commission recommendations was provided in the ARC’s submission, which was criticised as draconian and failing to either understand or appreciate the role and importance of local government. However the Royal Commission did not consistently adopt the ARC’s idealised model which called for one central authority and about twenty local councils, and which would have necessitated the wholesale abolition and restructuring of Auckland local government.

Because of this inconsistency, the Royal Commission’s recommendations are neither one thing nor the other. They fall between the two pillars of local democracy and centralisation. They are severe in their impact and deliver an unbalanced outcome.

When the Royal Commission was established the global economy was on a more certain footing than it is now. Today, Auckland and New Zealand are on much more precarious economic terrain. While this uncertainty can present opportunity for change, it also intensifies the risk of failure. Auckland’s economic stability is an essential component of New Zealand’s economic recovery.

It would be a major risk to Auckland’s economy and New Zealand for Government to adopt the whole suite of the Royal Commission’s recommendations.

A pragmatic and precautionary way forward would be for Government to support some of the Royal Commission’s recommendations. This would be an incremental or staged approach. It would be seen as measured and responsible.

This is a short list of high priority improvements which are straightforward to implement with minimum risk of unintended consequences and uncertainty. Manageable Changes and Reforms for Auckland. The following is a summary of practical changes drawn from the report of the Royal Commission that can be implemented now - not without difficulty – and that will have a lasting beneficial effect on Auckland with reduced risk. These changes can be built upon in the future, while having significant utility now.

• Water & Wastewater: Implement general thrust of Royal Commission recommendations. This includes the transfer all water and wastewater assets to Watercare, along with management responsibilities.



• Transport: Implement general thrust of Royal Commission recommendations.



• Local Government Structure: Retain existing 3 tier structure, but make the following incremental changes:
  
  Auckland Regional Authority: Same duties as existing ARC; plus responsible for Watercare; plus directly responsible for Waterfront Development Agency (not through ARH); plus required to develop one spatial plan for whole region (this to have statutory effect by providing a duty to provide development direction through Regional Policy Statement); plus duty to issue one rating bill and collect all rates and water rates for itself and for TLAs (Ratepayer bill sets out separate TLA, ARA and water rate components); has mayor elected at large plus 15 (or so) councillors;
  
  TLAs: Same duties as existing City and District Councils; less water and wastewater functions; less arterial road control; sets local rates for balance of services which are collected on its behalf by Auckland Regional Authority; required to give effect to strengthened and directive Regional Policy Statement; no elected at large mayors – but Municipal Council Chair elected by members, some reduction in number of members reflecting reduced role;
  
  Community Boards: Same duties as now.

These changes by themselves are significant. They will step the Auckland region irreversibly into the sort of future envisaged by the Royal Commission, but not in a way, and at a speed that risks instability and consequent long term damage.

Royal Commissars or Royal Commissioners?

This blog was inspired, among other things, by comments made by Margaret Bazley when she was interviewed on National Radio last week. She spoke long and hard about pre-school service provision in South Auckland. She passionately advocated for the whole of the Royal Commission's recommendations to be implemented. Every one. That all of the commissioners had agreed 100% with every one of its over 100 recommendations....

Didn't sound that credible. Bit over the top. Not very practical. Alarm bells went off....

So I had a quick read of its 788 pages. Not every word you understand, but enough to form an opinion that this whole thing is a bugger's muddle, that it's a stuff up. So this blog is a bit of a reprise on how we got here, but mostly it's about what the commissioners have done. First a bit of background....

How we got a Royal Commission

Several quite different political initiatives have led to the New Zealand Government decision that a Royal Commission was needed to: "receive representation upon, inquire into, investigate, and report on the local government arrangements (including institutions, mechanisms, and processes) that are required in the Auckland region over the foreseeable future…"

For example, since 2005, Manukau and Waitakere City Councils have sought to have the powers of the Auckland Regional Council (ARC) reduced in regard to the ARC’s ability to set the Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL). Frustration at not being able to act independently and rezone rural land for Greenfield development partly inspired the so-called "Auckland Mayoral Coup" in 2006 which was led by all four city mayors, and which sought to replace the elected ARC with themselves, selected businessmen, govt officials and the Minister for Auckland Issues. The mayors proposed a 'Lord Mayor' who was to be elected from across the whole region.

Countering this initiative, elected councillors advocating for sustainable development, and seeking compact urban development and more energy efficient land use patterns, called for a stronger and more independent regional government, with the power to implement regional strategies such as the Growth Strategy, the Auckland Sustainability Framework, and the Regional Land Transport Strategy.

Business interests in Auckland, frustrated by matters including transport congestion, delays in the completion of the state highway network, and reports about shortages in land supply for commercial development, called for greater involvement in Auckland governance of business leaders. Some went so far as to suggest the whole of Auckland’s local governance should be in the hands of a Commission run by government appointed commissioners.

Also in 2006 the Metro Project, run from the ARC’s Auckland Regional Economic Development Office (AREDO), commissioned an International Review Team to undertake a visit and review of Auckland and to comment on a series of background papers prepared for the Metro Auckland Project team. The review partners included Auckland business interests, central government departments, academics, and local government representatives. The "Metro Report" made a number of recommendations relating to Auckland’s governance and other matters that attracted the interest of Central Government.

And for the past few years there have been numerous public debates about who should be responsible for the funding and political management of Auckland Philharmonic Orchestra, Motat, and other regional amenities.

These were among the most significant calls for change to Auckland’s governance arrangements. And so the previous Labour-led Government set up a Royal Commission to look into it. The Commission was also told to incorporate the findings of the Rating Review. David Shand was also on this. In my opinion, the Rating Review was a peculiar and unbalanced piece of work. You can read my analysis of it at: http://www.joelcayford.com/arc.htm#q6 (The Ups and Downs of the Rating Review)....

What the Royal Commission wrote

I'm not going into every last bit here. This is not a comprehensive analysis. But it is a strategic one. First thing that struck me was how wide-ranging the commissioners have gone with their review. Hardly a stone left unturned. For example they are even pulling Government into Auckland with an Auckland Cabinet Committee - apparently essential to the whole thing. The report's Part 3: Vision for Auckland, starts well enough with chapters on vision, economic development, environment, urban design & heritage. But then there's a doozey of a chapter - social wellbeing - that runs for 70 pages. Social well-being makes up half of the Royal Commission's vision for Auckland..... My bet is this is Margaret Bazley's chapter. It's the issue she really went into bat for on radio. I accept that Auckland has social issues, and that it's a tale of several cities, and that Manukau has different issues to deal with than North Shore. I also accept that these differences affect the priorities of each Council. But Central Government and taxation play the main role in health, education and social well-being matters and related service provision. While these matters need to be born in mind for Auckland local government, they are not core local government services. The line needs to be drawn - otherwise we'll all be trying to do everything.

Then we get into Part 4: Structural Reform. This part really shows up the weakness or inappropriateness of what the Royal Commission has done. This section sets out the Guiding Principles for Shaping Auckland Governance. These are said to be: common identity and purpose; effectiveness; transparency and accountability; responsiveness. Nowhere a mention of practicality or implementability. And this, I think, is at the heart of why this Royal Commission has served up a crock. Rather than follow the guidance and direction that underpinned its terms of reference, the Royal Commission has gone right back to first principles, it has thrown all of the local government toys out of the cot, and then - from scratch, a tabla rasa approach - tried to put it all back together. But they haven't gone the whole hog - which is what ARC was recommending (and which I strongly opposed, talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater). They've gone part of the way.

The Royal Commission's recommendations fall between the perfect "start from scratch ideal", and the "quick and do-able dirty", and that's why it fail on many counts. Recommendations must pass the test of being practical and implementable. Because this is not a perfect world. That should have been a principle for the Royal Commission. It is astounding to me that it was not.

But then we have Part 5: Practical Solutions to Pressing Problems. Sounds good, but it's already too late. Royal Commission had already decided that being practical and putting forward recommendations that passed an implementation test - was not to be on of its principles. It's in Part 5 that we can find the Peter Salmon Chapter, and the David Shand Chapter. The Hon Peter Salmon had a lot to do with crafting the Resource Management Act. Chapter 24 - Planning for Auckland - is RMA specific. It makes no mention of the role of the Local Government Act - which is more about planning for what we do want. It introduces an extremely powerful planning tool called Development Levies. This chapter is written as if the LGA did not exist. It does not do the notion of integrated planning any favours.

Also in Part 5 we have what I regard as the David Shand chapter. Chapter 26, The Three Waters. To my eye, this chapter has been pretty much lifted out of his Rating Review report. At 43 pages, it is nearly twice as long as the chapter on transport. Sadly, I couldn't find a chapter that seriously dealt with the pressing issue of how to properly integrate land use and transport planning, and to deliver more sustainable and energy efficient land use development.

The Royal Commission's view of Community Engagement

At page 296 etc, the Royal Commission sweepingly states that "community engagement is poor...". In my experience the best community engagement that I have seen in my 12 years of local government has been driven by community boards. And it has been far from poor. I have written about this elsewhere. I also believe that North Shore City's engagement with its community over the need to clean up its wastewater network and systems, was exemplary. Indeed I am aware that this work has attracted international attention. And based on this sweeping incorrect generalisation, the Royal Commission abolishes Community Boards.

End Note

I'll leave you to make what you will of the plethora of recommendations made, and the extent to which they match up with the reason Auckland got into this. But I think the Royal Commission took far more rope than was given, Commissioners pursued their own hobby horses individually, and they did not produce a coherent and practical set of implementable recommendations. I just hope that Auckland, and Central Government, are wise enough to ensure that Auckland is not hanged by them.

"Place Shaping" without Community Boards

Woke early today with community board abolition on my mind.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So. What about the Royal Commision?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


• power to propose the budget;


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


• power to establish and maintain an appropriately staffed office;


• power to obtain independent advice.

That's a lot of powers!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

But I could be persuaded.

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

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

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

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

Back on the street - to go home.

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

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

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

Alsop's Architectural Vision for Britomart & Waterfront

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

North Shore City Council reviews Cycle Strategy...

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

• To increase the number of people cycling


• To increase the number of students cycling to school


• To improve safety for cyclists


• To improve convenience for cyclists


• To improve enjoyment in cycling

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


North Shore City Council 7 Cycle Strategies

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

I recommend you make a submission.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For your interest.

Peddling for a National Cycleway

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

Choice is good - they might even think.

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

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

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

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

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

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