Business Booms at Watercare

The large newspaper advertisements in NZ Herald today, and the stormwater story earlier in the week, are shots across the bow of unsuspecting Auckland public.

The newspaper advertisments described Watercare's new charges for water and wastewater, and for residential and business ratepayers. Of course it has always been deeply ironic that the "One Council, One Bill" rhetoric was never ever going to be true. The re-organisation was always intended to allow Watercare to be a law unto itself, with its own computer system of residential and business ratepayers, and with its own business model and charging system. It is now almost stand-alone.

Watercare has embraced Central Government's business growth model with both hands. Watercare is now well placed to be sold off as a going concern, taking a sizeable chunk of Auckland Council's debt with it, and the promise of some very large, well funded, centralised network infrastructure projects.

The devil here - is behind the detail in Watercare's media release.

There are a few things that need to be aired, that are hard to discern readily in the Council's Ten Year Plan, which is the shop window on what Watercare plans:

1) I support the fact that Watercare can now charge residential ratepayers for their wastewater services on a volumetric basis. This will provide an economic incentive for water consumers to manage their consumption of water.

2) But these changes do not apply to business customers. We see in Watercare's public statement that "existing arrangements will apply...". While these are to some extent volumetric, their main purpose is to allow businesses to tip contaminants and trade wastes into the sewer, where they mix with ordinary sewage, ensuring that the cocktail that finally arrives at Mangere is completely untreatable for re-use. So Watercare is perpetuating an outdated system, which provides little incentive for Auckland business to clean up its act at source, and generates a nice little earner for Watercare. The resulting biosolids are too contaminated to be reused as soil conditioner, and must be landfilled. Hence Watercare's desire to continue its business oriented dumping operation by landfilling the biolsolids at Puketutu. (I have walked on the existing biosolids landfills in Manukau Harbour. These are not happy places.)

3) The Council's Team Year Plan includes the debt level for the Auckland Council Group - ie Council, plus Council Controlled Organisations - including Watercare. The debt level that Council has voted for is close to $13 billion - almost 3x what it is now. It appears that around $3 to $4 billion of that debt is Watercare debt. Part of the increase in that debt will be the proposed $800 million "Central Interceptor" project - the huge pipe/storage system to be dug under Auckland, allowing business as usual activity to occur, and to allow for more of it.

Councillors should not be allowing Watercare to hide this burgeoning centralised network of water and wastewater infrastructure - on the basis that the bills for it reduce Council's own rates bill, and on the basis that "they can blame Watercare...not us".

Watercare's practice is increasingly unsustainable. It is already the biggest user of electricity in Auckland - because of its need for pumping of water and wastewater, and for the electricity intensive, centralised treatment plants that it operates.

The fact that Auckland Council has to deal with stormwater, now that Watercare successfully separated the meter-paid waters, further exacerbates this trend. I await with interest the debate over the stormwater disposal charges that Watercare will levy on the Council, when Council seeks to divert pesky stormwater flows into Watercare's Central Interceptor. Another nice little earner for Watercare.

Staging Rail Link = Sensible Strategy

(NB: I have previously referred to this as the city "loop" project and, understanding the misconceptions and following advice, prefer to stick to "link" in this posting.... Apologies...).

Few Auckland commuters will benefit from an "all or nothing" approach to the Central City Rail Link project....

Other large transport infrastructure projects have had to be delivered stage by stage in the Auckland Region. For example the Northern Busway project (later stages include links to West Auckland and to Silverdale), the State Highway Project (this has been in progress for forty years with latest stages being Waterview Connection and SH20), Rail electrification (later stages will include extensions to Southern and Western lines), the Harbour Bridge (Clip-ons and extended approach road access added over the years).

While it is always cheaper to build a large piece of infrastructure in one go, the fact is that budgets usually don't permit that. It is useful to note also that communities learn as infrastructure projects are incorporated into existing urban fabric. Stage by stage incorporation - incrementalism - has its benefits. Very few projects - when all the stages are built - look the same as their initial design plans.

Infrastructure is improved if feedback and experience can inform designs of later stages. In other words there are substantial benefits to be had if infrastructure can be built in a staged manner.

The whole Central City Link project - tunnels, lines, connections and stations - comes at a significant cost. Estimates vary around $3 billion for everything - including additional trains and some rail interchanges. Many other projects and capital requirements have been incorporated into Auckland Council's new Ten Year Plan. Holding rates down has pushed significant and increasing debt out to the future. (The Draft plan has almost doubled the Treasury Management debt limit from 175% of revenue, to 275% of revenue. This has enabled the Council to adopt a ten year plan which allows council to take out substantial loans, allowing debt to treble from the present level of $4.5 billion.)

This might be called intergenerational equity, but it could also be irresponsible. Council needs to cut the coat to suit the cloth. We should not be spending more than we are earning - as a city.

The Draft Long Term Plan 2012-2022 currently calls for a massive increase in Council debt - out to almost $13 billion - which will require interest payments of $800 million/annum - over 25% of Auckland Council's rates income. Thus a quarter of rates revenue will be to service bank loans.

Consider these points in debating the merits, or not, of staging the Central City Rail Link:

1)  The most important part of the project is the network capacity that will be gained through connecting Britomart through to the Railway in the vicinity of Mt Eden. This capacity increase will be significantly greater if the connection at Mt Eden is in both directions. Not just West Bound. This stage - call it stage 1 of the Central City Rail Link - is the tunnel. The existence of the tunnel alone will free up Britomart (currently an end of line constraint) and significantly increase the carrying capacity of the rail services through Auckland Central Activity District. This will lead to much higher frequencies and greater carrying capacity per hour. Even if there are no stations along the tunnel. This improvement alone will allow Auckland Transport to apply necessary improvements to other feeder parts of the network whose capacity constraints will become the new bottleneck to rail service increases.

2)  Once the tunnel is built and operating, the case for stations built at strategic points along that new corridor will be huge. Land owners and public alike will call for stations, and the argument for private contributions to the cost and amenity of those stations will be huge. This is the experience of station development along Hong Kong commuter rail systems. Build the tunnel infrastructure, and development will follow. That is the appropriate sequencing. The same thing happens when a State Highway is built. There are calls for interchanges and access to the new network. Auckland Council must build the network, and that will be the trigger for next stages of development. Of course future proof planning is required for the route of the tunnel, and future proofing can be built into the tunnel itself to enable/ease the subsequent construction of stations - so that normal service is maintained.

3)   The Manukau Rail spur stands as a bleak reminder of what happens when what is built is a politically motivated whole project. There it was all or nothing. And it was all built - and it is still nothing in regional terms because the fundamental need to build a network was not respected. I was part of the Auckland Study visit to Perth a few years back which was organised by Waitakere City Council as part of the due diligence for the New Lynn Station. We were exposed to the advice and wisdom of a bunch of planners and urban designers. A key take home piece of advice from integrated rail and land use planners was: "Don't build spur lines. Build continuous lines and loops." Continuity is the thing to aim for. Building Auckland's Central City Link alone delivers that enormous benefit. Stations can follow.

Council is right to pursue the City Rail Link project. Auckland has been calling for it for decades. Closing the loop will bring huge efficiencies to the rail network and further justify electrification investment. But it can reduce risk to build it in stages - the tunnel being the first stage - and may be just the step the Government needs to financially support the project.

Auckland Council Rubbishes Innovation

It would be great to see something truly local come out of Auckland Council when it comes to the management of waste.

There were some very positive initiatives underway across the Auckland Region before amalgamation. These were valued by many, and were the start in the long walk to reducing our individual footprints across our region.

 From outside council it's hard to see where the "one size fits all" pressure comes from that seems to force Councillors into making "Regional Decisions" rather than local ones.

 I live in Devonport. A Borough known for innovation: first Nuclear Free Borough; also was first to get Kerb-Side recycling underway in New Zealand (I think). That initiative was partly driven by the fact Devonport had its own tip. Also used by Navy. Back then residents could not "chuck it and forget it". They could see the face of the tip. They could see the impact of their wasteful ways. And it was relatively easy for the Borough Council to roll out a significant "reduce, reuse, recycle" program.

 When I moved here, household rubbish was collected in small biodegradeable paper sacks. This then shifted to medium sized biodegradeable plastic sacks. The message was you paid for what you dumped, but recycling was free. (I know - you paid for it in your rates - but the economic incentive was there.) While I was on North Shore City Council a whole suburb (Bayswater) trialled a kitchen putrescible collection scheme. The object being to reduce to as close to zero as we could the disposal of organic matter into landfill. This was one of several experiments and innovations.

 It is disappointing to see Auckland Council going ahead with what appears to be a one size (bin etc) fits all. This approach may appeal to contractors who can have one size of truck. But taking the long view does require local initiatives and projects to occur - and to build on local initiatives that are already successful and have local buy-in. Otherwise all you are doing is encouraging residents to chuck it and forget it. The environment is big enough to absorb all your rubbish.

Innovation is essential if communities are to play a useful part in cleaning up their acts, and enabling them to participate in local projects which help reduce urban environmental impacts.

Women Who Want to Bike in Auckland

A university colleague is conducting research about cycling in Auckland. Specifically she is investigating the obstacles that women who want to cycle in Auckland experience. Thank you to those readers who visited her web-based survey and completed it. She has asked me to close the link now (June 18 2012) as the survey period is over.

Active Authentic Christchurch Centre

I've been highly critical of the planning that led to the Christchurch we know was built before the earthquake. And I was also critical of some of the planning for the CBD post-earthquake.

In particular I could not believe the institutional silence around previous earthquakes that knocked the Cathedral spire down. However. Now that we are where we are, I now believe that New Zealand has a duty to protect as much as possible of the Cathedral from further demolition and from future earthquakes.

The rhetoric is compelling: the city is Christ Church, the centre of Christ Church is Cathedral Square, Christ Church is internationally known as the Cathedral City. There is massive value and history attached to this place and the icon that is the iconic church at the centre.

There are famous cathedrals and churches in Cologne, Coventry and Kobe - still standing, or rebuilt, iconic heritage, memories enshrined. Proudly. At a cost. A heritage cost. An investment.

Canterbury Cathedral has similar status for New Zealand now. Yes it is vulnerable and the Church of England can't pay the amount needed to protect it. But it is essential for the future of Christchurch that the church that remains - remain standing. It is precious for the economic future of Christchurch, as it is for the city's cultural future and its heritage. What better place to remember where the city came from, and to remember the earthquake itself. This has to be a Government responsibility and priority.

Which brings me to the 4 Avenues area of the old central business district. What to do, now that 800 or so buildings have been or are being demolished. I read the Listener magazine piece by Bob Jones, and agree with amalgamation of sites idea. Not sure about a lot of water spaces in there.

But it is clear that the market will not rush into building commercial buildings now in this part of Christchurch. A lot of money has already gone - to Auckland and other parts of New Zealand - and many businesses have relocated to other commercial hubs in other parts of Christchurch where there is some critical mass, and where there is infrastructure they can connect into.

I did entertain the idea of relocating Jade Stadium and QEII into the central business area. I was thinking, well, if both of these amenities are to be built, why not locate them in the centre - given all the available land. (I don't think it is appropriate to rebuild QEII at Burwood. This land is too compromised.)

But. Stadiums are very expensive things as we know, and we look at what's happening in Dunedin right now. The Super 15 games that have been playing in the Christchurch temporary rugby facility have had a great buzz about them. Recessions are not good times to rebuild the sort of stadium that Jade was - ie very big - very imposing, takes up a lot of space, and hardly gets used. Doesn't do a lot to activate an urban environment either.

But that's not the same with a multi-purpose athletic and swimming facility. It can integrate much better into an urban fabric, and be used as an anchor for a different sort of Christchurch centre....

I see Christchurch as the centre of a remarkable industry that is New Zealand's own. It's the outdoor pursuit, physical fitness, extreme sport capital of the world. It also offers the best place to chill, get organised, and equipped, for all those fantastic activitities that New Zealand is increasingly known for in Australia and further afield: Great Walks, cycling expeditions, mountaineering, ski-ing, tri-athlons, elite sport events, canoe-events, rafting...

The South Island has other centres, but they are constrained in their accommodation offerings, and do not offer the space that Christchurch now has to be the active life-style support city for the South Island.

Christchurch needs to be able live this lifestyle itself. Putting an upgraded QEII facility in the centre provides a new magnet, and new organising force for transport: cycling becomes much more dominant and rational. So does the related infrastructure. So does walking. And the sorts of businesses that would co-locate will be tourism, event and support services - event management, clothing, gear, and even manufacturers that specialise in elite sport equipment.

Well. That's what I think aanyway.

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.

Bankruptcy Looms for Ponzi Mangawhai

Two Oceans, two Harbours, two versions of reality.... The number "2" comes up a lot with this Ponzi saga. Doubling of rates is the use of "2" that worries most Mangawhai rate payers. (see background here.) Especially those on fixed incomes who were not consulted when Kaipara Council was persuaded to double the size of its sewage scheme.....

... and of course there's the double-take, double-act, of Mayor Tiller and even Ex-Local Government Minister Nick Smith. Smith had the gumption to use this Ponzi example is a reason for over-hauling local government, and going ahead with local government mergers. What Mangawhai needs is an accountable and democratic Council - not a bigger one that's further away.

This Ponzi is a real doozy. Council has been influenced by property speculators to go ahead with a much bigger sewage scheme. Council was persuaded the sewage project had to be bigger, enable even more land to be developed, because then the returns from rates and developer levies from all the new subdivision enabled by the scheme would not only pay back the investment (fantastic!) - but Council would reap further benefits (even more fantastic) and be able to spend on other projects. Dream on....

This is one hell of a Ponzi scheme, and the thing is, Council can't escape criticism. Not only can it not escape criticism, but it alone has to be liable for losses. Why should existing ratepayers - whose benefit from this high risk investment - has already been paid for, be required to pay the Ponzi costs of a failed property speculation?

And this is where "2" really comes into its own. Kaipara District Council has double-crossed the Mangawhai community by allowing itself to be influenced by vested interests (who carry no risk), and expecting ratepayers to pay for policies which did not meet Local Government Act duties. Members of the Mangawhai public who did their best to get Government Watchdogs to audit Council processes have been let down totally. No wonder there's anger. The elephant in the room here is Central Government. It, and its agencies, stood by and did nothing...

I well remember being on North Shore City Council when it sold its shares in Auckland International Airport for around $80 million. The meeting was in confidential, but the halls and corridors were filled with brokers and dealers advising what price to sell at and what to do with the money. They wanted Council to invest the money in the stock exchange. Councillors got all excited. It was only the sober voice of the Chief Finance Officer who calmed everyone down and advised: "put it in the bank. This is public money. Council is not in the business of taking risks with public money..."

Pity there wasn't a similar voice of reason on Kaipara District Council when it voted and took out bank loans - in "public excluded" meetings - that underwrote speculative property development at Mangawhai.

Public Agoraphobia in Auckland

Albert Park is one of Auckland’s oldest public spaces, reflecting the formality and culture of early British colonisers and a clear planning distinction between public and private.

Opened in 1979, Aotea Square reflects an altogether different history. It and Mayoral Drive were built following the demolition of lower Greys Inn Road and much of old Auckland’s urban fabric, enabling the creation of uncongested road access to the CBD and high capacity central city car-parking. Meeting the accessibility and mobility needs of private car owners was a far greater priority than the creation of a successful public space at Aotea Square. If Auckland’s citizens or visitors feel some sort of connection with a public space it is more likely to be successful, but Aotea Square’s success is limited to skateboarders and the protestors who recently occupied it.

Public spaces reflect the character of a city. My favourites include the South Bank in London, Xocalo in Mexico City, and Odori Park in Sapporo.

The earliest public spaces – Greek Agora - were formed within a civilisation which valued democracy and recognised and accepted cultural difference. Public spaces provided citizens the means of building community life.

They were places where people would:

• meet,
• greet,
• talk and learn about each other.

They were building blocks for tolerance and understanding.

If urban public spaces merely exist to provide more air, a view of the horizon to break the monotony of endless buildings, as a setting for alien artworks, or as places to park vehicles, they will not meet human needs and will be unsuccessful. Or if they are designed mainly as gathering places for consumers, like outdoor shopping malls dominated by shops and places to spend money - rather than time, then the broader public interest will not be served.

From a purely functional point of view, public places do need to provide:

• seating,
• toilets
• and simple food.

But to be successful they must also provide reasons to be there that are more than merely offering a diverting place to chill, waiting for the theatre or film to start – though people-watching appeals to many.

To be successful, to form part of the infrastructural heart and soul of a city, public spaces need:

• safe places for children and the elderly,
• familiar connections for people from different cultures,
• and embodied reminders of a city’s history, ancestry and heritage.

Little of this heart and soul is evident in Aotea Square, though it is improving. The children’s playground at Wynyard Quarter is one of the greatest successes of that public space, though sadly its footprint is zoned for high-rise development. And maritime heritage and character reminders there are at huge risk from development pressure and a light-handed regulatory approach from Auckland Council.

Queens Wharf is Auckland’s most recent public space. It was opened to the public two short years ago and rapidly became a political football. The moth-balled McCully Cloud and some cheap security fencing around its heritage shed are the visible reminders of that history. A sad superficial legacy for a place that embodies and still exudes Auckland maritime history.

At least twice in its short public space life Queens Wharf has shown its potential for Auckland. The first was when two Chinese warships came to visit. Queens Wharf became a magnet for Auckland’s Chinese community – largely absent from the CBD following the unfortunate loss of the waterfront Oriental Market. The second was early in the Rugby World Cup when Queens Wharf and downtown Auckland glowed with the energy and laughter of its Tongan and Samoan peoples.

Today, despite the sign that insists Queens Wharf is open to the public, it has been taken over by Airport Buses, taxis, casual traffic, and its very own roundabout and traffic lights, to the extent it is often dangerous for pedestrians entering and exiting the ferry terminal. All the talk of pedestrianising Quay Street seems empty when this ad hoc traffic makes the area unsafe. It would be good to see Council walking the talk on the waterfront.

As a Devonport resident I now enjoy easy access to Airport Buses, but this traffic is the thin end of the edge, building up to the establishment of a primary cruise ship terminal with all of its associated traffic demands and which risks being the kiss of death for a truly successful public space on Queens Wharf.

Thankfully, two thirds of submissions to Auckland Council’s Annual Plan oppose a Queens Wharf cruise ship terminal. If Council does not heed these submissions I will be among those who claim the Council is suffering from Agoraphobia – fear of successful public places.