Queens Wharf Traffic Hazard

Queens Wharf is becoming a traffic hazard for pedestrians entering and leaving the ferry terminal. At rush hour and throughout the day passengers transfer between the ferry terminal and Britomart and the bus stops in Queen Elizabeth Square.

Many fellow commuters have remarked on the decline in pedestrian safety. It began with the Airport Bus stop being transferred from Quay Street to Queens Wharf. For a while this seemed great - especially if you wanted to get from Devonport to Auckland International Airport. This service is great. Step off the ferry and into the bus...

Of course everyone else has to cross Quay Street to catch that bus. Not too much of a hassle. But it strikes me as extreme laziness on the part of Auckland Transport to casually take up more public space to park its buses, and at the same time create a pedestrian hazard.

You might think: 'exaggeration'. But I write this having almost been run over by a bus that tried to make it across the lights, just at the same time as a ferry load of passengers were unloaded, many of whom were running to Britomart.

When this warship was in, pride of place was given to the huge BP fuel tanker plus ancillary cars. You could visit and look, but it wasn't a straightforward experience for family groups who ran the gauntlet to have a look.

So. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport. Don't say you have not been warned. This growing accident risk is directly of your making. You will be liable for any accidents that are caused in the conflict that is of your making between buses, taxis, ancillary traffic - and commuters who have no alternative.

If the plan is to pedestrianise Quay Street is genuine - in part - one or two lanes - doesn't matter - it does not make sense to introduce another traffic element that has to feed into and across Quay Street precisely where commuters are walking between modes at the busiest public transport interchange in Auckland.

Straighten Auckland Bus Services

This is a map of Auckland's tram routes when it had tram routes. These routes shaped Auckland's development for many years. The car and motorways have shaped Auckland since. We do have a rudimentary public transport system, primarily based around a cluster of bus services that have been developed over time. Many cities have developed this way. Many cities have rationalised and developed their bus services. Auckland planners are considering what's best for the future of Auckland's bus services. I've spent some time looking at it....


This map (which you can expand by clicking) is built up from the bus maps provided by Auckland Transport. Apart from the Northern Busway - and even including it - you can see that each bus service (which has a unique number) is represented by a line on the map. Thus the more services that run along a corridor, the thicker the corridor, made up of a rainbow of different services. This is one of the reasons why Auckland's bus services are not intuitive, and are difficult to understand for new users and tourists alike.

This map shows the approximate geographic areas of responsibility of the different bus operators which contract to Auckland Transport to provide subsidised bus services. The fact that there are a range of different operators, each with contracts which are a form of property right, presents a challenge to those seeking to rationalise bus services. Interestingly, when I visited Curitiba with a study group we learned that there had been hundreds of bus operators, and that these were rationalised to less than a dozen. Key in that restructure was the idea that bus services should be in the form of a network, and that buses did not stop in the city centre, instead they went through the city centre, allowing passengers to change there etc. This experience was fundamental to my understanding of what = a rational bus system.


This map is my arterial simplification of the Auckland Transport bus map listed above. Other factors that have been taken account of in this rough map - which essentially shows the roads that have the most different bus services running along them - includes that the routes should not directly compete with rail services, and also that they should echo the historic tramline layout. So this map is a bus network map.


This map is a close up of the map above. It shows the main arteries of the bus network. These arteries could contain end-to-end high frequency services by rationalising the bus services that run along those corridors. For example, the Northern Busway service - run by Ritchies - should not terminate in Auckland CBD, it should run through the CBD and along one of the other arteries (eg to the airport, to Howick, or Flatbush). This would require a shared contract between the operators who currently provide services on just one of these arteries. I am sure that incentives could be found to make this a worthwhile development for operators - without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


And then Auckland could have a high frequency public transport bus system that was a genuine network. An arterial bus network. Without complexity. Not everybody would benefit in this rationalisation, but it would deliver a network system capable of considerable expansion, and which would be far more reliable - provided the inidividual arterties were properly protected from congestion, and freed up for buses.

Parnell Pet Project Politics

Recognise these two faces? Two peas in a pod. Both let nothing stand in the way of pet projects. Both wanted the character sheds on Queens Wharf demolished. Both want a mega cruise ship terminal on Queens Wharf.

Both have track records of delivering personal pet projects, no matter the cost, no matter the fallout, a deal's a deal. Man oh man. Good qualities if you want a champion for a good project. But damaging and expensive otherwise....

Take the Helensville Rail trial service for example. Even as Chair of ARC's Transport Ctte I didn't see that train project coming. Thought it was just a bad idea. So did ARTA. So did Connex (now Veolia). All strongly advised against it. I was advised it would be cheaper to buy the few potential commuters a BMW each. But Mike Lee pushed it through. Every trick in the book. Never really held accountable for the cost of that failure. Blamed Connex. Blamed ARTA...

Now we have a brand new Parnell Railway station in the wrong place being manipulated into being by the same old Mike Lee up to his same old tricks.

Here's what ARC's report into the proposal had to say when a Parnell Railway possibility was considered by ARC's Transport and Urban Development Committee at its 4 June 2010 meeting. The report gave an update on planning investigations into 3 options for a station at Parnell shown in this graphic from the report. The Cheshire Street option is the one being pushed for by Mike Lee - for reasons which are not altogether clear. The report says this about that option:

The Cheshire St site provides the best access to Parnell centre. However the Cheshire St site has nearly 50% of its catchment in the Domain meaning intensive business or residential development could not take place in this half of the station’s catchment, and the walking catchment is more limited.

The report comments on the Parnell Road Overbridge option like this:

The Parnell road over-bridge site was originally favoured by Auckland City Council and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. The Newmarket/Parnell Area Plan, part of the Future Planning Framework, approved by Auckland City Council, located the station close to the Parnell Road over-bridge site because it served the busiest catchment, was closest to the University and would assist the development of the business node at Beach Road/Stanley Street.

The "middle" option - Carlaw Park - is described like this:

The Carlaw Park site appears to combine the advantages of both sites. It can service the university and the Beach Rd/Stanley St business node while providing better access to Parnell centre. The Carlaw Park site is approximately 200 metres from the Cheshire St site and can provide access to Parnell centre within a four minute walk....

The report does not make happy reading for supporters of the Cheshire Street option (like Mike Lee - who appears to be suppressing ARTA and ARC's consideration of this matter.)

There is potential to reduce car trips and hence congestion if the station is located with good access for university students. In the University’s Travel Plan (2007) 15,710 students and 584 staff indicated that they would replace car travel with other modes of travel. Approximately 50% of this group indicated the proximity of public transport to the campus would be a factor in this decision.

The Auckland City Council has looked at pedestrian accessibility, including walking
distances, gradients and safety. In comparing the options, it identifies a number of
safety issues, in particular isolation and personal safety concerns, for the Cheshire
site, and the difficulties of the track to the museum for the aged and infirm....

The 4 June 2010 ARC meeting report also summarises ARTA's position on the matter, along with this tabulation of the relative merits of the two different options that ARTA looked at. It appears that ARTA conducted preliminary investigations into the feasibility of siting a station on the existing rail track between Parnell Road tunnel and the Stanley Street Bridge. Its findings include:

...While no conclusions have been reached, both the northern (former Carlaw Park) and southern (Cheshire St/Mainline Steam) locations are considered to be feasible options. It is apparent that a balance may need to be found between serving different catchments such as museum visitors, Parnell and Carlaw Park business node residents and visitors, and university students....

But it is when land use considerations are brought into play that the Mike Lee option runs into serious treacle. As the report notes:

It is important that development of a station and the wider site in Parnell is based on good urban design principles and leads to a high quality development. Master planning will be essential to ensure that the benefits go beyond the site and that it works for Parnell and wider communities....

The report includes a fair summary of the ideas of Parnell Mainstreet whose concept at Cheshire Street is to consolidate transport infrastructure around the heart of a community, utilizing the existing rail network, an established rail depot, character railway buildings and undeveloped railway land. The ‘idea’ centres on establishment of a ‘destination’ train station, not just a purely ‘commuter’ station nor university station.

In a sense this is a heritage idea driving Auckland's rail network design. A Mike Lee hobby horse - a bit like heritage trams running around the Wynyard Loop.

The report concludes fairly categorically:

One key consideration is the potential for transit oriented development around the station in the medium to longer term.

From the analysis completed by the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and ACC to date it is apparent that a station at Carlaw Park would support the business node, university, Vector Arena and provide reasonable access to the Parnell centre, irrespective of any future land use changes in the vicinity of the station.

A station at Cheshire Street will be reliant on significant redevelopment in the area as part of comprehensive masterplan. The KiwiRail site is strategically important, close to Parnell, offers wide views and amenity, overlooking the open space of the Domain, likely to have high land values (assist redevelopment), enable growth of Parnell without affecting the heritage character of the main street, etc.

If a significant redevelopment can be delivered in conjunction with station development, then this location for a future station should be supported.

If the future use of the Cheshire Street site is not transit supportive (i.e. it provides for few residents or employees, is not designed to support walking and PT use and is designed for vehicles) then the location of the station should not be supported.

The report also mentions that The Auckland Regional Transport Authority (ARTA) had committed $1.5 million to Parnell station design in 2011/12 (Regional Land Transport Programme, 2009/10-2011/12).

Those are the only funds that had been allocated to that project by Auckland Regional Council and ARTA before their abolition at the end of 2010. The matter was considered by ARC's Transport Committee (items for information only ) twice more before Council ended.

However the Parnell Station was considered for decision at ARC's last Council meeting on the 27th September 2010. The last hurrah. After ARTA had been pushed into agreeing to Mike's project...

The report makes little mention of the need for Transit Oriented Development, or of the need to connect with the greatest number of land uses. It provides this rough concept outline of where the station would go, which confirms the wilderness nature of its location, and the lack of development opportunities, given the determination to retain the heritage buildings.

Here is the executive summary of that Council report:

A concept design for a new station at Parnell has been developed by ARTA in conjunction with KiwiRail. It has been determined that the preferred location is one adjacent to the existing Main Line Steam (MLS) Depot off Cheshire Street and preliminary design is now being progressed with associated costings.

A total cost of $13.2-15.2 million has been estimated. This includes $5.5m for track
modifications and between $3.5 to $5.5m for platforms, overbridges, lifts, platform
equipment and retailing walls.

Relocation and refurbishment of the Newmarket Heritage Building has a budget of
$4.2m carried forward by Kiwirail from an earlier government commitment. While
there is no detailed costing available at this stage, unspent funds could be utilized for other purposes such as track modifications.

Enabling works for electrification between Newmarket Tunnel and The Strand are
currently programmed to take place in July or August 2011. Re-grading of the track
along this section would involve significant rework of the electrification infrastructure.

This would suggest that a decision on the future Parnell station should be addressed
by Auckland Council and Auckland Transport with urgency, in order to integrate
works and avoid costly reworking.

Thus not only are the Mainline Steam site buildings to be retained, but the old wooden heritage station from Newmarket Station is to be restored there as well. This may be a good idea for a heritage park - but it makes little sense to be developed into a modern station on a line that is destined to carry tens of thousands of commuters/hour. The devil is in the detail. Final extracts from the Council report indicate the rushed nature of Mike's Parnell Project:

In order to meet rail and platform gradient requirements the rail track will need to be re-graded over approximately a kilometre of track and crossover points critical for access to The Strand will need to be relocated. Modification of the access tracks to the MLS Depot is also required. KiwiRail have undertaken preliminary track design and have determined that these modifications are feasible.... (and all before Christmas it seems)

This Kiwirail owned site clearly has potential for development as an integrated transit oriented development, and this could potentially provide opportunities for private sector funding. Parnell Inc have shared their views with the council that in their view that the MLS building could be used for alternative suitable uses, such as a museum and space for local exhibitions and small businesses, etc, and include rail heritage.... (all very preliminary and potential, could this, could that...)

Preliminary modelling has indicated that a Parnell Station would influence rail service frequencies and more analysis would be required to identify any necessary mitigation measures.... (Man oh man)

There are no financial and resourcing implications arising from this report. The cost of a future Parnell Station is estimated in this report and will need to be considered by the Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and Kiwirail.... (And that's the big one. No budget has been previously agreed for this by ARC or ARTA)

So suck on that Auckland Council. And do your job properly. It's about time pet projects like this bottom-of-the-priority-list Parnell Station option get the full once over before being included in any Auckland Council budget approval. That means integrating public transport planning with land use planning.

Auckland Rail Blame Game (2)

I thought you'd like this crowd control system in Victoria, Australia. "....The officers and horses are equipped with riot gear to protect them from any indirect projectiles or attempted assaults, as well as reflective tape to aid visibility. Mounted police are often employed in crowd control because of their mobile mass and height advantage...."

Yesterday, Monday after Friday's rail chaos, there were a number of interviews which I thought I'd interpret. Read between the lines. Offer my perspective. I'll skip the ones in the morning because they were all a bit overheated.

But first of all, a story. When I was a North Shore City Councillor, I was also on Devonport Community Board. Devonport hosts a big event - The Devonport Food and Wine Festival. Every year the organisation that runs it - Devonport Rotary (to generate money for various good causes in the community) - comes to Devonport Community Board in support of its application to run the event on Windsor Park at the waterfront.

One year I remember, Devonport Rotary had been a bit too successful with its promotions of the event. It had sought permission for an event of about 20,000 people over two days. But what happened was the event - and Devonport - were basically overwhelmed because around 40,000 came to the party. The event organisers closed the barriers around their event - they had sufficient security for the event which was enclosed in a wire fence - so the rest spilled out into Devonport streets, squares and waterfront areas, and got quietly pissed in public. They did other things in public too. There was quite a public backlash. Devonport Rotary was called to account by the Community Board.... and when Devonport Rotary came along the next year to seek permission we were very keen to make sure they didn't overdo the promotion. In short we got involved in event management and crowd control.

(PostScript: Needed to add this bit on Wednesday morning after reading about McCully's takeover of Auckland's waterfront, after his gated party central on Queens Wharf got mobbed.

The equivalent in Devonport would have been for Rotary to annex Devonport's town centre!

McCully's Government is stepping way over the line here. And in who's interest? The International Rugby Board? The National Party election campaign? Because I don't think McCully's knee jerk actions are in Auckland's best interests. A rational national approach to the situation Auckland finds itself in, would be a partnership between the police and Auckland Council, the rapid development of a crowd management plan, and the managed redirection of crowds to existing alternative locations. The easiest would be to pedestrianise Queen Street from Quay Street to Aotea Square, and to relocate some attractions to Aotea Square. And an associated media campaign to direct crowds to different attractions at different destinations. A strong, but organised and directed police presence would be essential (not on horses). Crowd monitoring (helicopter or whatever) would provide info to a crowd control office. This info would be used to manage the police presence. Their job would be to firmly direct and redirect pedestrian movement. This would not dampen party spirits. It would give people confidence the event(s) would be safe to attend. Sending people onto Captain Cook Wharf at this late stage is not a good option.

I must confess a part of me secretly likes Government taking control of Captain Cook and the West edge of Bledisloe from the Port Company for Party Central. Just as I quite liked Govt stepping in to take Queens Wharf for that purpose. Next step? Cruise ship terminal on Bledisloe. Not on Queens Wharf....)

Back to Friday.

The first interview of interest that I heard yesterday was on National Radio with the CEO of Veolia Auckland. Graham Sibery I think. Interviewed by Mary Wilson in her usual combative, not really listening sort of way. But I was listening. It was interesting that the CEO of Veolia was the only person being interviewed on CheckPoint. Here's what I heard him say:

* we had an agreement with Auckland Transport to carry 15,000 fans to Eden Park for the game (from Newmarket and Britomart and presumably stations along the way)
* the stations are basically "unmanned"
* we had people climbing on the trains
* the rail system was basically overwhelmed

The interviewer wanted him to fall on his sword of course. She wasn't really listening, and she didn't know the organisational background and responsibilities that underpin Auckland Transport services.

But I have some idea.

Veolia has a service contract with Auckland Transport to operate and maintain the trains which are publicly owned. KiwiRail has a contract with Central Government to maintain the rail network. But it is Auckland Transport that has responsibility for operating and maintaining Auckland's railway and ferry stations. And Auckland Transport is answerable to Auckland Council.

There were two events on Friday night. Rugby at Eden Park and the Rugby World Cup festivities on the waterfront. Auckland event management and control is fundamentally the responsibility of Auckland Council - though this duty is discharged through a variety of boards and committees where other stakeholders are represented.

Auckland Council owns and is responsible for Auckland's streets and Auckland's ferry and railway stations.

So. Veolia has a contract with Auckland Transport to carry 15,000 people to see the rugby and attend the opening at Eden Park. I explained in yesterday's blog about this that Auckland's rail infrastructure carries about 3,600 passengers/hour/line at peak commute times. (Because it is a limited service today). I imagine then, that to carry 15,000 people to and from the game, Veolia will be relying on passengers tolerating crowded trains, and assuming it will meet its obligations by moving about 6,000 from Newmarket and Britomart respectively over a two hour period, and about 3,000 from the West. These numbers are informed but speculative. I haven't sighted the event services contract.

So now we come to the second significant interview of the evening. That's with Mayor Len Brown by Mark Sainsbury on CloseUp after TV One News. Len Brown apologised first up, and then appeared to blame everything on the fact that 200,000 people turned up at the Waterfront instead of the 120,000 he figured would come.

What was the transport plan for getting people to and from the waterfront? Veolia had contracted to get people to Eden Park. That's a fair question?

It is interesting that there doesn't appear to be any push from politicians to haul Fullers over the coals in public in the same way that Veolia is being hauled over the coals.

Ferry services are handled slightly differently to rail. Fullers is contracted with Auckland Transport to operate the ferry services, AND to handle ticketing and manage the ferry terminals. Effectively ferry stations. So it's a more horizonatlly integrated contract with Fuller. Passengers step into Fuller's hands pretty much from the moment they walk into a ferry station to when they walk out of it. Fullers collects the whole farebox too.

But that's not what happens with Rail. Auckland Transport runs the stations, issues the tickets, collects the farebox - and sub contracts to Veolia the running of the trains. I'm not sure exactly where you draw the line on a station platform between Veolia's responsibility and Auckland Transport's responsibility, but you get the picture. Basically Auckland Transport - under control of Auckland Council - is responsible for everything that happens in Auckland's railway stations.

Which as Veolia's CEO explained are basically "un-manned" - except for Britomart - because that's where tickets are issued (unless you get one on the train, and when travel is free there's no need for ticket collectors.....)

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see what happened.

Auckland Council permitted two hugely popular events at each end of its main railway line (Eden Park and Britomart). Auckland Council anticipated about 60,000 at one, and at least 100,000 at the other. But only contracted with Veolia to get 15,000 to Eden Park.

Auckland Council and Auckland Transport appear to have made no effort at all to stop crowds of people from flocking to station and ferry platforms all over Auckland, and - as both Len Brown and Veolia's CEO said - overwhelming the system.

My experience at the city ferry terminal was that it was overwhelmed - not by people coming over from Devonport - but by people who had been attracted to the waterfront to see the fireworks and who realised their only way to get a good look was to be over the other side of the Waitemata. They jammed the terminal so completely - let in first by Fullers ticketing staff, who then closed the gates to the terminal - that people could not get off the ferries. But there were so many others outside the gate, spilling out into Quay Street, that no-one could get of the terminal either.

So yes. The transport systems were overwhelmed.

But it is not because of Veolia that there was chaos.

The chaos arose because Auckland Council did not plan properly for the inevitable crowds. Central Govt shares this responsibility also. They now need to share the management of Plan B.

Mayor Brown's comments suggest Auckland Council simply hoped that crowded stations would be cleared by a steady stream of empty trains (let alone ferries). But 15,000 doesn't make much of a dent in 100,000 - let alone 200,000 - especially when they're going in both directions! Hope is not enough. I'm sure Veolia's report will make interesting reading, but that's not the report I'll be looking for. Auckland Council and Auckland Transport and the Event Managers need to get together and write a report we can all learn from so crowd chaos doesn't happen again.

Auckland's waterfront is becoming a party place at last. Make it a safe place to be, to get to, and to get home from. But don't take risks putting all our eggs in one basket down there for the really big crowds - when other adjoining public places and streets can be used more effectively and made safe.

Auckland Rail Blame Game

Decades of neglect and under-funding are the fundamental reason for the fragility of Auckland's commuter rail system. Central and Regional Government each share some of the responsibility for the delicacy of Auckland Rail which comes under strain at peak time - like any network system.

But it's not that simple. We should be able to do better with what we have. The public should be able to rely on the institutions that are responsible for governing and operating Auckland commuter rail to provide services that are safe - irrespective of the delicacy or robustness of the network. It should not be up to the public to carry out a risk assessment everytime they give up their cars and follow advice to take public transport.

Auckland Rail is an accident waiting to happen in peak times.

While it was my responsibility chair Auckland Regional Transport Committees, I became aware of one of the unfortunate legacies of Auckland's rail neglect. And I have reason to believe that problem still hasn't gone away. This experience was during 2005. Auckland rail services at the time were only around 60% reliable - that is - around 40% of rail services arrived or left at times that were significantly different from timetable, driving commuters up the wall, and away from rail.

At the time, the CEO of Connex which was responsible for operating the trains under contract to ARTA (Auckland Regional Transport Authority), was Chris White. He's now with Veolia in Melbourne. He had huge experience and commitment, but I found it was largely ignored by Auckland Regional Council (ARC) politicians in particular, who were determined to stretch the fragile network to its limits in order to meet ill-founded public expectations about service levels.

I talked to Chris and asked him, "why is the service so unreliable...?" because I really didn't know, and because I thought I should know, in order to more effectively chair relevant committees. He answered, "the timetable's too tightly wound...". I had no idea what he was talking about. So I asked him.

He explained further, "you guys want us to deliver 10 and 12 minute services, with trains and systems that keep falling over, and we just can't do it, not with the best will in the world...". I was learning.

Back at the ARC, in a sort of populist hope over experience way, politicians had been egging on officers and staff, putting pressure on an inexperienced Board of Directors at ARTA, who were bullied into accepting completely unrealistic performance targets for Auckland's fledgling rail system.

With the reluctant support of ARC politicians, I made a presentation to ARTA's Board and senior staff, asking them to "unwind the timetable", and adopt 15 minute headways. Which they gratefully did. Within a week or two the service reliability performance was better than 95%.

The network is stronger today than it was then. But not much stronger. And there is a continuing history of political interference and politicians turning a blind eye to the fundamentals of what makes for a safe, frequent and reliable operation. That problem has not yet been sorted by changes in governance arrangements.

Wisconsin Rail states: "Commuter rail will provide an additional transportation choice and improve mobility by connecting suburban and urban areas. It will help connect workers to their jobs and provide an alternative for those who cannot or chose not to drive. It will also provide rail safety benefits through crossing and infrastructure improvements..." The city defines commuter rail: "passenger rail operating primarily oon existing freight and/or intercity passenger railroad tracks on a separate right-of-way between and within metropolitan and surburban areas... commuter rail usually operates during peak travel times with limited stops and in conjunction with other transit modes as part of a regional transit system..."

Now there's not much in there that you could take exception to, or even that is different from Auckland. But there are some key points:

provide rail safety benefits through...crossing improvements

separate right-of-way

connecting urban and suburban areas

...peak times with limited stops...

Auckland has consistently ignored the real threat to safety, and to frequency and speed of service, that is posed by the dozen or so dangerous level crossings that interrupt rail's right-of-way across the network. While budget was planned for this in 2006, almost nothing was allocated, and little was spent. Instead short term projects were pursued that had the support of one or two politicians. This problem still besets Auckland rail planning.

Which brings me to peak time travel. Which includes events.

Crowd Control at Victoria Station: The Underground station at London Victoria facilitates around 80 million passengers per year. Due to severe overcrowding, crowd control is in place during the busiest times. This includes closing the entrance to the Underground stations at times and only letting passengers exit. This is to prevent passengers being pushed onto the tracks when standing on the platform.

There was no evidence of any effective plan either at Britomart or at the Auckland Ferry Terminal - to manage this situation - short of closing down the station. Ok, nobody was killed or injured and that's a measure of success, but also thousands of people's travel arrangements and fun were ruined or severely affected by such a draconian approach.

Reading on a little, in Google, as you do,

Massachussets Bay Transit Authority annnouncement:
NEW YEAR’S EVE – FREE SERVICE AFTER 8
COMPLETE SCHEDULE AVAILABLE BELOW.
Friday, December 31 through Saturday, January 1st

Today, the MBTA announced its service schedule for New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day. The MBTA is providing extra transit services throughout the First Night Festivities and will be offering FREE service after 8:00 p.m. Extra MBTA Police will patrol the system to assist with crowd control and safety.

I'm sure we would like rail to be free when there's a big event in Auckland. But what I'm really interested in here is the reference to "extra MBTA police". That's right. A key complaint from those affected on Friday, in Auckland, was that there was nobody around. Nobody to protect them. Nobody on hand to deal with perfectly predictable incidents with fire-extinguishers and emergency stop buttons. No system that was useful and quick and efficient for dealing with "shit happens when there's a party" sort of situations.

The Victoria Transport Policy Institute has researched what makes people happy/unhappy with public transport. "Crowding in accessways, stations and platforms makes walking and waiting time less pleasant.... A minute of time spent waiting under high crowding conditions is valued equal to 3.2 minutes of onboard train time whereas walking time is valued at 3.5 times higher (reflecting the additional discomfort and effort involved, but not the reduced walking speed caused by crowding). In dollar value terms, an hour of waiting under high crowding is valued at $30.33 and an hour of walking is valued at $32.65. Extreme crowding can increase costs as much as ten times.... Fruin developed six station environment crowding Levels-of-Service ratings, ranging from ‘A’ (no crowding) to ‘F’ (extreme crowding). Research summarizes the effects of density and crowding on travel time cost values. These costs begin to increase significantly when crowding exceeds LOS D, which occurs at a density of 0.7 Passengers Per Square Meter (PSM). Crowding has an even greater impact on walking, since it both increases costs per minute and reduces walking speeds. For level of service ‘F’ characterized by the breakdown of passenger flow, the crowding cost imposes a cost 10 ten times greater than level of service A...."

I know. You'll be saying we know all that. But the thing is. What are you going to do about it?

I note in the literature, reams of advice to congressional requesters, regarding the vexed topic: COMMUTER RAIL: Many Factors Influence Liability and Indemnity Provisions, and Options Exist to Facilitate Negotiations. The report I looked at was prepared for Congressmen by the US Goverment Accountability Office - whose byline is: accountability, integrity, reliability. I guess this will be the sort of thing that Mayor Len Brown, and even the Minister for the Rugby World Cup will be looking for. In the blame game.

I think the issue comes down to one of safety. It is not safe to have passengers walking along railway tracks in the dark. It is not safe to lock passengers in stopped trains and fail to explain why. It is not safe to let passengers onto platforms that are already full. And that's really just the start. Safety should be paramount in Auckland's commuter rail planning.

Auckland's rail network has a very low carrying capacity. And that will remain so for at least a decade it seems. Our system is not like Perth's which can carry 18,000 passsengers on each line/hour. Our system struggles now to carry 3,000 passengers on each line per hour on a good day. (Do the math: 6-carriage trains, 6/hour at 10 minute headway, 100 passengers/carriage at 100% loading = 3,600 passengers/hour). That's the reality. Any attempt to "tighten the timetable" - to carry more people to Eden Park for example - is an invitation to disaster. It is a risk. It puts people's lives at risk. It creates unsafe and uncomfortable environments. It is not a responsible way to run a railroad.

Auckland Council must now prioritise passenger safety, and the funding of projects that increase public safety and service reliability - especially at peak travel times because that is when the risk is greatest.

The New York State Dept of Transport has a Public Transport Safety Board which promulgates System Safety Program Plan Guidelines for Commuter Rail Transit Systems. "Historically, the PTSB's oversight program has been built around a requirement that each property develop a System Safety Program Plan (SSPP) that details the property's internal operating procedures for conducting business in a safe and efficient manner. The guidelines contained in this document provide individual properties with the guidance...." These include:

4.2.2.7 EOP for crowd control on a train and/or at a station is attached or referenced in SSPP

6.1.6.3 SSPP reflects which rail stations/terminals are monitored by CCTV for surveillance and crowd control

11.2.1.8 Emergency operating procedure for crowd control on a train and/or a station is developed by the Transportation Dept.

11.5.4.3 Railroad Police help define roles and responsibilities for responding to an incident of crowd control/disturbance.

15.6.4.4 Conductors are trained on passenger safety including
overcrowding and disruptions....

And I really only scratched the surface of the systems and situations referred to in these New York guidelines.

If Auckland wants a rail service to match its waterfront, there's work to be done. And it's not the frills. It's the fundamentals.

Parnell Station Jumps the Queue

Auckland Council recently unveiled aspects of its planning work. Generally it looks good, but it is peppered with classic Auckland ad-hockery (not sure if that's a word, but you'll get my drift. This blog and two others below (Waterfront Conflict and MUL Buster) explain why I think this.

The draft Auckland City Centre Masterplan reveals the possibilities for the future of Auckland’s city centre through a 20-year vision.

It identifies eight ‘place-based’ transformational moves intended to:

* Develop the ‘Engine Room’ that is the core CBD and celebrate the waterfront opportunities.
* Enable growth around the City Rail Link stations.
* Create a better-defined network of green spaces through street-based ‘green carpets’.
* Celebrate the unique characteristics and attributes of the urban villages, quarters and precincts, and create better connections between them.
* Transform the public transport and offer the city centre a more pleasant place to walk around.
* Add greater depth and choice to the city centre retail, visitor, cultural and residential offer so as to ensure that Auckland’s City Centre becomes a destination, not just a gateway.
* Develop a compelling value proposition and climate for individuals, corporate citizens and business to invest in their city centre.

All good.

The Council has adopted "...eight moves to transform the city..." These are "key moves" to transform the performance of the Auckland city centre.

These moves are as follows:

1. Uniting the waterfront and the city centre – The north-south stitch
2. Connecting the western edge of the city to the centre ‐ The East‐west Stitch
3. Queen Street Valley CBD and retail district ‐ The Engine Room
4. Nurturing an innovation and learning cradle
5. New public transport stations and urban redevelopment opportunities at K Road, Newton and Aotea Quarter - Growth around the City Rail Link
6. Connecting Victoria Park, Albert Park and the Domain as part of a blue - green park network The Green Link
7. Connecting the city and the fringe – City to the villages
8. Revitalising the waterfront water city

I look closely at the waterfront one of these in the postings below (Waterfront Conflict and MUL Buster - which is the bigger regional Auckland Plan). It's not clear what's what in these plans. They overlap. Use different words, goals and outcomes. We'll be kept on our toes. I hope the Councillors are on theirs...

What I want talk about a little in this posting is transformation step 5. One of the reports that Council has considered relates to "The Engine Room" - a rather post-industrial term for the Auckland CBD (far too business oriented I think. Successful central city areas are known for muuch more than business. Culture for a start... which isn't only about business).

Anyway. When you get into that report it also explores the need for new stations on the proposed city loop (transformation step 5), we suddenly find - at page 61:

...In addition to the 3 new City Rail Link growth node areas, a Parnell station is to be reopened to better connect the eastern side of the city fringe to the city centre. It will also enable growth and access to the medical research centres and university in the Park Road area....

Here's a picture of the site which I've borrowed from the site of the group that has been lobbying for a station there. (http://www.parnell.net.nz/Station/Lobbying.htm)

While the Auckland Regional Council supported the idea of a station there, and the Auckland City Council noted that: "...is not materially inconsistent with the Future Planning Framework's Newmarket/Parnell area plan..." this hardly constitutes a mandate or requirement on Auckland Council to suddenly begin work on a station there now.

If the Council finds itself wallowing in cash to improve the rail network, the highest priority must be unblocking the various rail crossings on Auckland's rail network which will continue to act as bottlenecks on the capacity of the network - especially once it is electrified. (There is a myth that Auckland rail is the same as Perth rail. It's a myth because Perth rail was largely grade separated from the roading network. Auckland's was built on the cheap with a huge number of road crossings at grade.)

These crossings are bottlenecks. They need to be removed. Until they are, investment in electrification and new rolling stock will be prevented from delivering the promised benefits. Building ad hoc new stations is - I think - an irresponsible use of public money now.

My recollection of the debate at Auckland Regional Council is that it was largely driven by the desire to protect the heritage buildngs. That's a good project. The buildings have merit. But it shouldn't be driving Auckland's rail development strategy.

Far more rigour is required before this project should be supported by Auckland Council for funding. Someone even mentioned to me that work on regrading the corridor - so that the station could be built - is scheduled for Christmas! Who is making these decisions? Is this genuine consultation?

This project reminds me of a very poor Auckland Regional Council political decision. One taken against officer advice. And that was the ill-fated Helensville Rail service which had to withdrawn because it was so slow and poorly patronised.

The wording in Auckland planning documents around this Parnell station project is disturbing. It talks about "reopening" the Parnell station. But there was never one at the spot. The line is sloping and a station is unsafe there. It is also a myth that it will be widely used by students at Auckland University. Sure some might use it, but the climb is significant.

I know. I bike it and walk it several times a week.

With the City Rail link project on hold at the moment, there appears to be a cunning plan for the Parnell Station to jump all the queues and get what funding there is. Wrong project. Wrong process.

I'd like to know what does Auckland Transport think about this? And by Auckland Transport I mean its skilled staff. Where is the mandate from the Auckland Transport Statement of Intent that justifies this project?

AMETI Traffic Sewer Still On Track

I was asked to give a lecture on the AMETI project to Masters in Planning students at Auckland University, who are investigating urban design aspects of the Tamaki Transformation project. I wanted to give a bit of the planning history and put what's happening there in a political planning context....

As far back as 1946 the then Ministry of Works had designs on the corridor for a new highway. The goal was to connect the suburbs of Tamaki with Auckland CBD. There were also plans for suburban rail improvements at the time. This graphic I have borrowed from www.transportblog.co.nz.

And the De Leuw Cather work in the 1960's continued the idea of an Eastern Highway - which was clearly marked on their planning maps.

This image taken from Auckland Council's GIS system shows the lay of the land today - and highlights the fact that a transport designation has been in force along most of the proposed highway route for a long time. Much of it is green space. The Eastern Rail line occupies some of the corridor.

From 2002 to 2004 Mayor John Banks floated the idea again of the Eastern Motorway. He even had designs on Ngataringa Point (where I live) for a tunnel. But the main point of this slide is to show the alignment of the proposed Eastern Motorway - connecting Tamaki suburbs with Auckland CBD. Regardless of what happens along the way - how many houses might be removed and so on.

Various resident groups rose up in opposition. Particularly the residents around Hobson Bay who did not want to see that little bit of paradise damaged by such a huge corridor. They made up this computer image of how the whole thing might look running through Hobson Bay. This was the start of strong opposition to Mayor Bank's project. In fact it directly led to his downfall, and to the election of a number of new councillors to Auckland Council in 2004. They reversed the Eastern Motorway Project, and out of this emerged AMETI.

Considerable planning efforts were made to change the emphasis of the project, to promote public transport, cycling and pedestrian amenity. I sat on the South Western/Eastern Corridor Steering Group for 3 years (as ARC's representative) from 2004 to 2007, and advocated for the need to integrate land use planning with changes to transport. This approach was generally supported and appreciated at the time. However Auckland City Council did not handle related plan changes at all well, and the Panmure community in particular became angry, organised, public meetings occurred, and eventually Auckland City Council backed off significant aspects of a residential and commercial intensification project (Plan Change 59 and Plan Change 142). The AMETI project went into recess for a time. It had become very expensive too. What was clear to me throughout, was that traffic engineers from Auckland City and Manukau City had long ago prepared engineering drawings for road widening projects through and around Panmure and Glen Innes. They were keen to get them built. It was always a case of "we need to widen the road to decongest the traffic - and then we'll fix public transport..."

Last year Auckland had local government amalgamation, and the whole AMETI project got tipped into the Auckland Transport CCO. Auckland Transport has been working hard on the project and in April had an open day down at Panmure where various transport designs were shown. I was amazed to see that we now have an "AMETI ROAD". A new road is proposed to decongest traffic. A number of huge "Manukau City" type interchanges are proposed. As shown here. Concern is being expressed about how the public transport dimension will work - for example there is an existing rail service: how will it be interconnected with a proposed busway? Or will it compete? Will a new bypass road draw custom away from public transport infrastructure...?

Around Panmure the design is interesting as shown in these images. A box section is proposed - local arterial road above local arterial bypass below. It is unclear how long this elevated corridor runs but it seems to be 500 metres or so. You can see the cross section proposed. It looks like a creative option, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that "AMETI ROAD" will act as an Eastern Highway. High traffic volumes, and massive severing effects on local communities of Panmure and Glen Innes. Politically what seems to have happened is this: The Eastern Highway idea has never gone away. It keeps getting reborn in different guises. Auckland City Council had a serious attempt at integrating land use planning with transport planning in the mid 2000's, but mis-managed it, not helped by leaky building crisis played out in the headlines. Reaction by community against crappy medium density housing. Then we had amalgamation, and the silo of Auckland Transport created. It has picked up AMETI - but along the way the need to integrate the project with land use changes risks being overlooked. I understand there is a forum of some kind where Auckland Council officials sit down with Auckland Transport officials - but this has all the hallmarks of a project where the road builders have all the money and all the cards. It will be the residents of Panmure and Glen Innes who risk losing out in the long term. They are quiet now because no-one is trying to push medium/high density plan changes on them. These projects do take time. It is essential to bring the community along - not for the ride - but to ensure the best overall outcomes are delivered. AMETI needs to be about integrated outcomes. Auckland does not need another traffic sewer.

And of course no presentation about transport planning at University is complete without a few words from Mumford.

Super City Reforms - Stirred but Unshaken

The Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill that was reported back from the Auckland Governance Legislation Select Committee yesterday makes for an interesting - and long - read. There are 60 pages of explanation from the Select Committee - most of these pages are taken up with the "majority" view (of National and Act members presumably), while some are dedicated to the "minority" views of the Labour, Green and Maori Parties. And there are 320 pages of the Bill complete with cross-outs (deletions from the first draft) and new sections.

The majority recommendation introduction conveys the tone of the Select Committee's thinking:

"...In our consideration of the bill we faced the challenge of finding the appropriate balance between specifying in the legislation the details of the governance structure and allowing Auckland Council appropriate flexibility to decide its own structure and processes. In finding this balance we have been mindful of Auckland's long-standing difficulties in providing integrated governance of the region. We have tried to devise a governance structure and legislative framework that can help the region progress. We are confident the new Auckland Council will take up this challenge, that it will listen to and represent its many diverse communities, and that it will overcome factionalised interests and work for the good of all Aucklanders..."

The key words to note in the above introduction are: "appropriate balance" and "integrated governance of the region" and "overcome factionalised interests".

The Good Bits

There are some good bits in the Bill. The Select Committee did listen to the tonnage of submissions that were made to this Bill. But remember, this is the third bill. There have been two other Bills that more or less set the course for these reforms. I was one of many submitters who tackled the specifics of Bill 3, rather than the fundamentals of the Government's reforms of Auckland governance. The last few sentences of my submission were these:

"....Throughout the process of Auckland Governance reform I have expressed strong concerns about both the process and the direction of these reforms. For the purposes of this submission I have set aside my broader concerns, and concentrated on the specific provisions in the Bill which I submit need to change in order to deliver the Government’s stated purpose of the Bill, namely: “…to create one Auckland, which has strong regional governance, integrated decision making, greater community engagement and improved value for money…....”
(You can see my submission at: http://joelcayford.blogspot.com/2010/02/my-submission-on-auckland-supercity.html)

Many people and groups made submissions to the Bill with this caveat. We were trying to make the best out of a bad design. Trying to make a silk purse from a sow's ear. And there have been improvements made by the Select Ctte. To this sow's ear of a SuperCity governance structure.

These include:

* Auckland Council being able to hire and fire directors of any of the CCOs. (Though in my experience of CCO's and Council owned entities - which includes Watercare, ARTA, ARH, Sea + City, POAL - we have never actually fired a director. A few didn't get their terms renewed after 2 or 3 years service. The major effort is in the initial appointments.)

* Auckland Council NOT being able to appoint councillors as directors to CCO's - except it can appoint 2 councillors onto the Board of the Auckland Transport CCO. (I agree that if Auckland Council must have CCOs then governance becomes problematic if you have councillors on CCO boards. The reason Select Ctte accepts having councillors on the board of Auckland Transport is because of the amount of money spent by that CCO, and the need - therefore - for increased accountability. This is tacit acceptance of the lack of accountability that goes with any CCO structure).

* Auckland Council being able to appoint the Chair and Deputy Chair of all CCO's.

* The Select Ctte setting out a comprehensive example of the non-regulatory activities that it recommends Local Boards should be empowered to decide and determine. (I am inclined to accept the view that the Select Ctte did not have the expertise to decide in detail what Local Boards should and should not be enabled to have power over. However the Auckland Transition Agency - which has been empowered to make this call - will have its work cut out in making these jurisdictional allocations in time for would-be candidates to know what Local Boards will be tasked with after elections later this year.) It is also appropriate to set a minimum timeframe of 18 months after the election before Auckland Council can reduce any powers that are allocated to Local Boards by the ATA, noting also that at any time - subject to consultation -Auckland Council can delegate additional powers and responsibilities to Local Boards.

* included in the list of activities for Local Board are economic development activities related to town centre upgrades, and where those "affect the Auckland transport system" then the local board would need to "work with Auckland Transport". The interaction with Auckland Transport specified in this exemplar includes decisions about: "Local policy positions on draft statements of intent for CCO's" - which presumably include Auckland Transport. (These are significant roles. However they may just be proxies for consultation that may be ignored. ATA's work now becomes critical. That is what Auckland council will inherit on day 1 - and can be in place for at least 18 months.)

* new accountability policy power for Auckland council over its CCOs. "This policy would allow the Auckland Council to articulate more clearly its day-to-day accountability expectations regarding its substantive CCOs..." (By the way, note the Bill sets up TWO types of CCOs - substantive CCOs - including Auckland Transport - and smaller ones.) The accountability policy specifies Auckland Council's wants re: "CCOs contribution to, and alignment with, the Council's and the Government's objectives and priorities; planning requirements of Auckland Council; requirements that CCOs operate according to LGOIMA; management of strategic assets....". The ctte suggest this accountability policy goes into Auckland Council's LTCCP.

* the Select Ctte recommends a new clause (45/75A) requiring "all substantive CCOs to give effect to all relevant aspects of the Auckland Council's LTCCP and to act consistently with all relevant aspects of other strategies and plans of Auckland Council, including its local boards, as specified by the governing body..." (This is significant. It pust the onus on Auckland Council to adopt relevant strategies that will influence the decisions of CCOs.)

* the Select Ctte has dabbled a bit with the spatial plan provisions. More below about these. But what is interesting is that there is explicit inclusion of "social and cultural infrastructure", and a new section dealing with spatial plan implementation.

* there is also a new provision allowing Auckland Council to set the "rules" for each CCO, but these appear to largely relate to the constitution for each CCO, and appear to be more administrative. (For example I don't think a rule would be allowed for Auckland Transport's CCO constitution requiring its directors to give effect to the Regional Land Transport Strategy!)

The Media's handling so far

NZ Herald has fallen at the first hurdle on this. Their coverage headlined: "U-Turn" is a complete misrepresentation of what the Select Ctte has delivered. The Select Ctte has improved what is fundamentally flawed, but the reforms are resolutely in the same direction. And of course the incoming council will work hard to get the best out of these reforms. That is its duty. But talk about being handed some pretty poorly designed tools to get the job done.

Also the Herald's editorial suggested all was well and we can all wait happily till November 1. Well. The news is that the transition work has really only just got properly started. The ATA must allocate the jurisdictional responsibilities and decision-making responsibilities - along the lines suggested by the Select Committee - to each and every board in the next few months. And each one is different. Not to forget "diverse". Much focussing of media microscopes will continue to be needed to ensure the best outcome. No washing of hands just yet please.

Back to the fundamentals

What is really happening with transport? The Select Ctte's explanation is helpful. It recommends: "...inserting a new section 41(eb) to specify that Auckland Transport is also repsonsible for undertaking any functions or exercising any powers in relation to the management of the State Highway system that the New Zealand Transport Authority has delegated to it.... " It is also clear from briefing papers prior to the first version of this Bill that the purpose of the spatial plan (which was closely linked with the National Infrastructure Plan) was to ensure that Auckland would be ready to receive infrastructure projects that had been centrally planning and funded.

Now, under Select Ctte recommendations, the spatial plan is to include social and cultural infrastructure that is being funded by central government. That could mean schools or prisons. And normally that would be good and appropriate for Auckland planning if there was a fully integrated approach to planning here. But that is not what is proposed. The integration that is proposed and argued for is all about vertical integration. It is about Auckland Council decisions being integrated with central government infrastructure decisions. And that is where the government's ideas about integration begin and end.

The spatial plan and Auckland's governance structure could become tools for rolling out Government economic growth policies. Not only will there be reduced red tape for private sector developments, But potentially central government's development plans for Auckland are also to be smoothly rolled out, the way smoothed by a nationally driven spatial plan, delivered by a super Transport CCO, with a side-lined Auckland Council tut-tutting noisily but ineffectually.

We all need to remember the importance of local place-making in all of the argument and discussion that led to the Royal Commission. Those discussions recognised the importance of horizontal integration, as well as vertical integration. Yes there needed to be better integration between Council and central government, but yes, there also needed to be much more joined up thinking at local level around local place-making plans.

It is at local level that the most sustained and sustainable economic development can occur. It should be through local master plans that infrastructure needs are identified - including for local roads and new allocations of existing road space. That is also the level for good integrated decisions around land use, and land use changes, and transport. Let alone transport energy use.

I have much more to say about this. But in later blogs.

I will end this by drawing attention to the new provisions for spatial planning in the Bill:

66A. Development, adoption, and implementation of spatial plan.
(1) The Auckland Council must involve central government, infrastructure providers (including network utility operators), the communities of Auckland, the private sector, and other parties (as appropriate) throughout the preparation and development of the spatial plan.
....
(5) The Auckland Council must endeavour to secure and maintain the support and co-operation of central government, infrastructure providers (including network utility operators), the communities of Auckland, the private sector, and other parties (as appropriate) in the implementation of the spatial plan.

This includes most people, I guess, but not Local Boards explicitly - though they are part of Auckland council. But a key purpose, probably THE key purpose of the spatial plan is to:

(c) enable coherent and co-ordinated decision making by Auckland Council (as the spatial planning agency) and other parties to determine the future location and timing of critical infrastructure, services, and investment within Auckland in accordance with the strategy; and
(d) provide a basis for aligning the implementation plans, regulatory plans, and funding programmes of the Auckland Council

Despite the sprinkled inclusion by the Select Ctte of the four well-beings throughout its recommendations, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the broad quadruple bottom-line goals that informed the commencement of Auckland local government reforms have been transformed into a political restructuring that supports an economic growth oriented infrastructure program driven by central government.

The contest of ideas and ideologies that have led to Auckland governance reform will continue to influence its implementation. The proposed Spatial Plan could become a tool to be used solely to support a narrow economic growth program, or it could be used to assist Auckland’s economic development more broadly. But to do that it must be enabled to act locally, and to integrate horizontally, not just vertically to satisfy central government appetites for infrastructure led economic growth.

Best practice spatial planning in Europe and Britain suggests a process that needs to be followed in Auckland to deliver the best planning framework for the future, and also to make a decisive break with Auckland’s bad planning habits of the past.

* Select the issues: Public process of identifying and defining a limited number of strategic issues; build public confidence through involvement and perception that the real issues are being addressed

* Develop a long term plan: Take account of power structures (including land owners, businesses, local boards, central government); develop decision-making structures and processes (to enable implementation to happen); develop conflict solving processes and structures that enable and ensure action and implementation

* Build consensus: Ensure vertical integration in planning process through effective involvement of central government in regional decisions; ensure horizontal integration in planning process through effective involvement of local boards and local stakeholders in local decisions

* Sustainable development: Ensure compliance with four well-being principles of Local Government Act and public consultation requirements; address issues of social exclusion in decision-making; respect and emphasise priority of local place-making alongside regional development objectives

Modern spatial planning is about much more than a map of new infrastructure projects. It is also not about "overcoming factionalised interests" as the Select Ctte appears to want.

It is about changing the way Auckland goes about implementing its strategic economic development plan. Unless these process changes are made in Auckland, then old problems will remain and history will repeat.

Auckland CBD Rail Link Study

At ARC's Transport and Urban Development Ctte meeting today (10th February 2010) we had a presentation about the Phase 1 Summary Report, as conducted by KiwiRail, APB&B and ARTA (in association with Auckland City Council and Auckland Regional Council).

The final objective of the work is to enable the preparation of material needed to lodge a Notice of Requirement by the end of 2010. Since December the satudy group has identified and evaluated potential routes for the link and potential station locations and has identified a shortlist of options for more detailed evaluation.

I have pasted a couple of pictures of a map from the report in here to give you an idea of the main short-listed routes and stations:



What particularly interested me was the recommendation there should be 3 stations (not 2) between Britomart and Mt Eden. Also the assessment of land use support the project can bring. Officers informed the ctte that a lot more work was needed. This would include detailed assessment of land use benefits, and also assessment of rationalisation of bus services (where commuters can switch from bus to rail to make the final trip into the CBD for example - like in Perth).

I have not really done justice to the report here. Just a tip off.

You can download the report yourself at:
http://www.arc.govt.nz/albany/fms/main/Documents/Council/Agendas%20and%20minutes/Transport%20and%20Urban%20Development%20Committee/Web%20version%20-%2010%20Feb%2010%20-%20Agenda%20(part%202).pdf

Making Auckland Transport Decisions Democratic

Architects of the new Auckland need to provide the public with a reasonable ability to influence the shape of their city and the services they pay for. This ability needs to be at least as good as now – but it should be better.

Draft legislation currently in front of Parliament is the final opportunity to influence Government’s designs on Auckland governance, and to ensure that the current tradition of public involvement in local decision-making and local planning is enshrined in law.

Transport affects every citizen and fundamentally shapes the region’s future. Transport spending accounts for more than half the budget of Auckland Local Government. That explains the public interest in transport, and the public’s interest in being able to influence transport decisions that affect their lives and their properties.

Consider local streets for example. Today residents are able to deal direct with their Council – sometimes through a local Community Board – about local street works. Ratepayers are interested in whether their street is paved in smooth Hotmix or Chipseal. Residents want contractors to clean up tar stains in the event of messy roadworks. They want a say over berm and street tree maintenance; whether bluestone or concrete kerbing is constructed; whether chemical or hot water weed treatment is applied; and where bus shelters are placed. Residents have that influence today.

When the new Auckland kicks off later this year, all transport works and services will be undertaken by a separate corporate structure named Auckland Transport. It will be separate from the new Auckland Council, though it will be funded by rates raised by Auckland Council, and it will be under arms length control.

However, there is no provision in the draft legislation that will entitle the proposed Local Boards – let alone ratepayers - to information about, or influence over, or redress after, works in local streets. This backward step is a recipe for community outrage and must be addressed. At the very least Local Boards should have the ability to deal directly with Auckland Transport or any other Council Controlled Organisations where there is a local impact in respect of Council work being done. Local consultation by Auckland Transport should be mandatory.

Public accountability in regard to local transport activities is important, but so too is public accountability over the transport strategies and project priorities directing Auckland Transport’s expenditure right across the region.

For the past decade, Auckland’s transport decisions have all been taken by elected councillors in accordance with a regionally agreed transport strategy – which itself is the result of wide ranging public consultation and which was voted for by elected councillors representing Auckland ratepayers. During that decade Auckland’s development has changed direction. It has a Northern Busway; at-capacity rail services; fantastic new stations; and kilometres of new cycle infrastructure.

Government’s proposed legislation threatens to de-rail that success story by allowing the separate Auckland Transport organisation to ignore transport priorities determined by new Auckland Councillors, and to merely “consider” Auckland’s popular Regional Transport Strategy – rather than “give effect” to it.

While the legislation does provide for a Spatial Plan and thereby supports the idea of public participation and regional planning, there is no practical obligation on Auckland Transport to actually implement that Spatial Plan.

Unless Government makes changes to its Auckland transport legislation that provide for Local Board involvement and enable effective control of Auckland transport decisions by Auckland Councillors, Government can expect a storm of criticism deserved because it will have severely damaged Auckland democracy.

North Shore City's useful Bill 3 Submission

I would like to congratulate North Shore City Council officers for a very useful and readable draft submission to the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill. Aka Bill 3. I understand this submission is very much the thinking of the politicians first and foremost, put into submission form by the officers.

You can find a link so you can download the whole thing at the end of this blog. But what I wanted to provide was my extracts from it. My choice of extracts is based on getting the main guts out of the submission, so you can use bits and pieces in your own submission. If you want to. It's not bad to repeat stuff - especially if you strongly agree.

NSCC's submission is a very useful summary of issues relating to: Local Boards; CCO's in general; Auckland Transport CCO in particular; Spatial Plan; and Stormwater.

1. Statement of Principles

Inter-relationships

“…there is risk with moving from 8 local government organisations to one local government organisation and 8 Council Controlled Organisations that the same issues with tensions and slow resolution of problems could continue to be the bane of Auckland’s governance, therefore it is vital the organisations have a shared goal of contributing to the vision of the Auckland region as a whole and implementing plans consistent with the Auckland region’s Spatial Plan…”

Subsidiarity

“… we believe Auckland Council should have the ability to focus solely on regional strategies, plans and their implementation. It is highly important, therefore, that the principle of subsidiarity is applied, we note that the Government is applying this same principle in its cabinet decision for ‘Local Boards to have a statutory role broader than community boards but narrower than local authorities and a much greater interdependence between the Auckland Council and Local Boards (compared with Community Boards and Councils), requiring close consultation and integrated decision-making’. We believe it is vital that the Auckland Council Governing body have the time to focus on regional issues, and not be caught up in decisions that can be made at local level by Local Boards.”

Equity and Access

“…. Communities across Auckland vary significantly. It is highly desirable for the health and progress of the region as a whole that individual community needs and and desires are able to be reflected appropriately… the regional benefit of recognising and allowing for these differences should be allowed for within the base funding agreements with Local Boards providing that the general equity and access to services across the region is maintained…”

2. Local Boards

Place Shaping role of Local Boards

“…we believe in order for the Local Boards to have a truly ‘place-shaping’ role and to engage local democracy at grassroots it is vitally important that the functions of the second tier (the Local Boards) be clearly defined, are substantive and meaningful… we believe the powers and functions of the second tier should be enshrined in legislation, to esnure clarity of prupose and clear delineation of duties and powers between the two tiers…

“….while we believe local planning and consenting issues should be delegated to Local Boards and acknowledge that this is not achievable with the requirement that Local Boards deal only with non-regulatory matters, this does not preclude the Auckland Council from delegating to Local Board members the power to be part of a panel hearing resource consents, to provide the local input and enable better connectivity with the place-shaping role the Local Boards should have…”

Placeshaping and the role of Council Controlled Organisations

“…It does not appear from the Bill that Local Boards will have the ability to input into any strategies or plans made by the Council Controlled Organisations (CCO’s) this includes Auckland Transport and Watercare Services Ltd, or that the CCO’s will be accountable to the Local Boards for work to be done in a local area. There is likely to be a large amount of work doen by Local Boards in helping placeshape their neighbourhoods, this not only involves dealing with local people on what Auckland Council may do for them but also what might be needed in their respective areas in regard to traffic calming measures or parking issues on roads…. (however) Auckland Transport is not directly accountable to Local Boards. Furthermore, the governing body of the Auckland Council is not accountable for the activities of Auckland Transport, but for how it influences the governance of the CCO – eg through appointing directors, and influencing its Statement of Intent….”

“…. Our council would like to see some provision in the Bill for Local Boards to have the ability to deal directly with the transport organisation or any of the other CCO’s where there is a local impact in respect of the work they are doing. We believe there should be a requirement in the Bill for the CCO’s to have in place a Local Board agreement stipulating how the Local Boards and the CCO’s will interact and what decision making will prevail between the 2 bodies by 30 April of the year following an election…”

3. Council Controlled Organisations

Retention of infrastructure assets in public ownership

“…we are strongly committed to the belief that all infrastructure assets should remain in public ownership… we believe that provisions surrounding Watercare Services Ltd remaining in public ownership should be enshrined in law….”

Establishment of CCO’s through Order in Council

“…The Bill allows the Minister to establish, through an Order in Council and on the recommendation of Auckland Transition Agency further CCO’s… our Council believes there should be further constraints placed on the criteria for establishing new CCO’s….”

Ability for Minister to appoint initial directors of CCO’s

“…The Bill provides for the Minister of Local Government to make the initial director appointments to the CCO’s established under an Order in Council. It is generally considered best practivce for the body to which the directors to be accountable, to appoint them… we believe there should be ability for an interim board to be appointed for an interim period, this will then give the Auckland Council the ability to review the board members and the mix of skills…”

Integration of Spatial Plan and Infrastructure

“… we believe there should be provision within the Bill for CCO’s to ‘give effect’ to the Auckland region Spatial Plan…”

Requirement to consider 4 well-beings

“…there should be provision within the Bill for CCO’s to consider the four well-beings as part of their planning process…”

Local Board agreements with CCO’s

“…We believe there should be a requirement in the Bill for the CCO’s to have in place a Local Board agreement stipulating how the Local Boards and the CCO’s will interact and what decision making will prevail between the bodies by 30 April of the year following an election…”

4. Planning

Spatial Plan and lack of timeframe

“…while we agree that the Auckland Council ‘must prepare and adopt a spatial plan for Auckland’ (Clause 66(1)), we are concerned that there is no timeframe for when such a plan should be completed, and nor is anything said about when updates are required. We note that since Toronto became a unitary authority in 1998, there was considerable delay before its first Spatial Plan emerged – a delay that is widely seen as being a major cause of the difficult development environment that the city has experienced…”

“…we suggest that the wording in Clause 66(1) be amended to read: ‘That Auckland Council must set a strategic vision for the city and must prepare and adopt a spatial plan by the end of its first term in office. Updates to the spatial plan should be prepared on an as required basis but no less than every six years.’…”

Spatial Plan and the need to recognise importance of integrated planning

“…We believe it is critical that the proposed Auckland Council structure responds to the strategic importance of centre and corridor planning, particularly because these two fundamental elements of regional planning are controlled, respectively, by the Auckland Council and by Auckland Transport. But because we believe that the linkages between Auckland Council and Auckland Transport are less strong than desirable…. There is a likelihood that integrated planning will be difficult to achieve…”

Spatial Plan and the need to recognise sustainability and sustainable development

“…In order that the purpose of the spatial plan… ‘Section 45, 66(2) becomes consistent with existing law and clearer about the imperative of long-term thinking in achieving sustainable development…’, we suggest that Section 45, ‘66(2) be amended to read: The purpose of the spatial plan is to provide an effective long-term strategy for the sustainable development and management of Auckland…”

“… we also feel that there should be a clear connection made between social, cultural and economic factors and the more ‘physical’ development responses that have been emphasised at Clause ’66. We therefore suggest that Clause ‘66(3)(f) be amended to read: “to set out a development strategy on how to achieve broad policy objectives for land use, transport, other infrastructure, and environmental management in Auckland’s evolving social, cultural and economic framework’…”

5. Auckland Transport

Auckland Transport’s objectives

“…The objective and operating principles of Auckland Transport, as set out under s.45 of the Third Bill, are not as specific or wide-ranging as the objectives for ARTA under the (soon to be repealed) Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004….”

“…the LGAAA (2004) provides more specific objectives for ARTA, which do not apply to Auckland Transport:

- expansion of what exhibiting a sense of social and environmental responsibility means
- avoiding adverse effects on the environment
- ensuring views of affected parties are taken into account
- give land transport options early and full consideration
- provide early and full opportunities for consultation on land transport programmes
- focus on overall needs of region and views of communities
- consider needs of future generations, including cultural and economic wellbeing
- foster co-operative and colaborative working relastionships
- clear accountability

“…we believe that the objectives for Auckland Transport need to be more specific because they are currently open to misinterpretation… Auckland Transport’s objectives need to be similar to ARTA’s objectives…”

Accountability of Auckland Transport

“…Accountability during the transition phase to 1st November 2010. Prior to the Auckland Council coming into effect on 1 November, the Auckland Transition Agency (ATA) together with the Ministers of Local Government and Transport, influence the direction of Auckland’s transport systems. Legislation contained in the 3rd Bill will guide the direction of Auckland Transport – for example by setting objectives and operating principles – after the Bill becomes an Act. Thus, elected local representatives do not have any influence during the important transitional period…”

“…Ongoing accountability post 1st November 2010…. There is no statement on what happens if the Auckland Council is not satisfied with Auckland Transport’s contribution to the council’s (or the Government’s) objectives….”

“…Accountability to Local Boards…. Auckland Transport is not accountable to local boards. Furthermore, the governing body of the Auckland Council is not accountable for the activities of Auckland Transport, but for how it influences the governance of Auckland Transport… Auckland Transport, unlike other CCO’s, does not need to prepare and adopt a 10-year plan that includes information on how the organisation is giving effect to the Auckland Council’s strategy, plans and priorities… the 3rd Bill should set out consultation requirements for Auckland Transport, including the opportunity for Local Boards to provide feedback on proposed activities that have an impact on the Local Board’s area…”

“…Auckland Council oversight of Auckland Transport planning…. We note with concern that the proposed legislation at New Clause 75 subsection 3 (p.55) currently exempts Auckland Transport from the requirement to prepare and adopt a plan under New Clause 75 subsection 2(c) which enables Auckland Council to require substantive CCO’s to prepare and adopt a plan covering a period of at least 10 years describing how the organisation intends to: (i) manage, maintain, and invest in its assets; and (ii) maintain or improve service levels, and; (iii) respond to population growth and other changing environmental factors, and; (iv) give effect to the Council’s strategy, plans and priorities…. Removing Auckland Council’s exemption (as in the Bill now) would provide the opportunity for Auckland Council to obtain an explicit statement from Auckland Transport on how it intends to “give effect” to key Council strategies, in particular the Spatial Plan…”

Transport and Land Use Integration

“…The 3rd Bill is particularly emphatic in allocating responsibility for developing and managing the Auckland Transport System to Auckland Transport. But we believe the Bill does not adequately emphasise the fundamental importance of achieving transport and land use integration… Transport and land use integration is a key objective of the RLTS but we believe that its ability to influence the actions of Auckland Transport has been substantially downgraded from that currently applying to ARTA. Whereas the 3rd Bill requires the Auckland Transport’s RLTP to be ‘consistent with’ the RLTS, ARTA’s RLTP has been required to ‘give effect’ the RLTS…”

“….We have a number of questions about this:

- Will Auckland Transport reflect the land use strategies being promoted by the Auckland Council through the selection and prioritisation of transport projects in the RLTP?
- Will Auckland Transport provide public transport services and infrastructure which support the region’s land use strategies?
- How much recognition and accommodation will be given by Auckland Transport to land use objectives and plans in individual transport projects?

“…we believe the following additional objective for Auckland Transport is required….The objective of Auckland Transport is to undertake its functions in a way that contributes to the effective and sustainable integration of land use and the transport system, including an affordable, safe, responsive and sustainable network…”

6. Ongoing operation of development contributions

“…development contributions represent a significant funding source for the Auckland region (projected to fund a total of $1.6 billion of growth related capital investment over the 2009-2019 period). If the legal provisions around transition and the ongoing ability of Auckland Council to use development contribuitions as a funding tool were not carefully managed, the new Auckland council would be faced with a major funding issue…”

7. Water and Stormwater organisation issues

“…there is some confusion around the relationship between wastewater services and stormwater. It is assumed that initially at least Auckland Council will be responsible for stormwater management across the region… while powers under LGA 74 Pt 21 have been removed from the Auckland Council (these relate to the use of vehicle crossings; planting in dividing strips; foot paths and channels….) some of these are useful for stomrwater management when dealing with overland flow and flooding, and the powers therefore need to be restored to Auckland Council for stormwater management. If these powers remain removed from Auckland Council, there needs to be a requirement for Auckland Transport to acknowledge the function of roads in managing/conveying stormwater and a requirement for them to work with Auckland Council…

Good eh?
Anyway, here's the link so you can download this submission. It's the lion's share of the agenda you can get from NSCC's website for its Council meeting of 3rd February 2010.
http://www.northshorecity.govt.nz/YourCouncil/Meetings/AgendasAndMinutes/Documents/2010%20Agendas%20Minutes/February/Council%203%20February%202010%20Order%20Paper.pdf