On November 1st last year Auckland Council came into being and we saw the seven former councils plus the Regional Council disbanded. It is interesting to note what I said on October 31st last year, looking ahead towards what this new era for Auckland would bring:

Overall, thanks in large part to the results of the election a few weeks back, I now feel confident and hopeful that the local government amalgamation will turn out to be a good thing for Auckland. I hope that it will provide us with a ‘fresh start’ of sorts – a chance to finally tackle regional issues in an integrated manner, to finally take on central government and get a better deal for the city and a chance to generally speak with one voice. Of course I still have many reservations: who will play the environmental watchdog role that the ARC has importantly done in the past 20 years? Will the Auckland Transport CCO be an open, accountable and transparent organisation – or will it operate in secret and be dominated by 1960s-mentality road engineers? How will we be able to integrate our land-use and transport thinking when they’re now located in two completely separate agencies? How much staff knowledge and expertise will be lost in the transition process? And so on.

However, I’m hopeful that things will be better with this new structure because, quite frankly, the old structure didn’t work very well at all. The city councils were too big to be local, but too small to speak with much weight to central government and think regionally. The ARC was hamstrung by efforts in the 1980s and 1990s to destroy it (ARC Chairman Mike Lee has written an excellent history of the ARC here by the way). In transport matters, the councils rarely agreed with each other, or with the ARC, or with ARTA or with NZTA on what their priorities were – with the result being that generally not much got done outside state highway upgrades (because NZTA could just get on and do them without having to worry about what the councils were doing). ARTA was rarely able to improve the cost-effectiveness of its bus services through extending bus priority measures – because they weren’t responsible for those: that was up to the city councils. The city councils couldn’t really see the direct benefits of bus lanes, just the noise made by those moaning about them, so were (and remain) incredibly reluctant to expand them.

So, apart from the oversight provided by the ARC on planning and environmental matters, I don’t actually think I will miss much at all when it comes to the old local government system. But the big question remains about the new system: while it might be difficult for it to be much worse than what we had, is it likely to be any better?

On transport matters, the signs are promising. Auckland’s new mayor and council seem highly willing to take their transport vision to the government and demand to be heard. It would even seem as though the government has got the message – and is making the most positive noises towards rail transport heard since it took office. But it’s not just the big expensive rail projects where I’m hopeful the new system can deliver better outcomes – it’s also the small stuff. It’s things like Auckland Transport having an incentive and the ability to improve bus priority measures because enabling buses to go faster will increase patronage, lower operating costs and improve their bottom line that will make a huge difference. While the early signs aren’t great, I’m confident that Auckland Transport will (eventually) become a pretty open and transparent agency: plus having all transport aspects thrown together into the one organisation will hopefully mean better consideration of public transport in all transport projects.

But these improvements aren’t just going to happen magically. There will undoubtedly be internal upheavals within the council’s structure for a few years yet, there will be the incredibly difficult process of working out how to fairly pay for all these grand ideas without pushing rates through the roof, there will be attempts by staff to establish opaque fiefdoms and much much more. If the new Council wants to achieve its very very admirable transport goals, then it will need to be on the ball and keep pushing things along every step of the way. I think it should have very detailed and well thought out plans for what it wants achieved by the end of 2011, 2012 and 2013: both in terms of taking steps towards the “big three” rail projects, but also in terms of maximising the benefits of integrated ticketing, electrification and ensuring we have a number of good “quick wins” along the way.

In a general sense, I have probably been somewhat pleasantly surprised by the way the Council has worked over the past year. The ‘big picture vision’ for Auckland has been turned into something fairly concrete – by way of the Auckland Spatial Plan. For transport, we’ve seen something of a mixed bag but it comes out slightly on the side of positive. In terms of ‘day to day’ activities, by most accounts things have transitioned fairly smoothly – although much of the most difficult work is yet to come with contentious issues like rating and the long-term plan.

If we focus on transport, there have been a number of really great positives:

  • The ongoing strong support of the Council for the City Rail Link as the key transformational transport project for Auckland. The Council confirmed this project as the top priority transport project for Auckland and continues to push for it as strongly as possible.
  • Auckland Transport has generally been surprisingly responsive and willing to engage with the public. They opened up their meetings, they publish their board agendas (an increasing amount of which isn’t in confidential), they have engaged via social media like Twitter and so forth.
  • In key plans like the City Centre Master Plan we can see a more nuanced approach to transport, as a key balancing act between shifting people while not destroying the quality of space, than I’ve ever come across before.
  • Thanks to the hard work of Auckland Transport (and other involved agencies) we have ended up with the fantastic surprise of ending up with far more electric trains than we’d originally envisaged.
  • Setting aside the disastrous opening night of the Rugby World Cup, the transport planning seemed pretty good – especially on the last weekend highlighting that key lessons (such as closing Queen Street to cars) had been learned.

Of course there have been a few low-lights:

  • The short-comings in the original business case for the City Rail Link which gave the government leverage to criticise the project and shed doubt on its cost-effectiveness. Lots of hard work has happened since then, but we’ve been playing catch up over the past year.
  • The failure of Auckland Council to make more tough decisions in the Auckland Spatial Plan over which projects are priorities and which ones aren’t. This can still be remedied as the Plan is only in draft form.
  • The disastrous opening night of Rugby World Cup, which seemed largely due to extremely poor communication and co-operation between some of Auckland Council’s CCOs and the lack of a “Plan B” when things started to go wrong.

It will be an interesting next year. We’ll have a finalised Auckland Plan, we should start making real progress in getting consents for the City Rail Link and resolving remaining areas of difference with the government (assuming the government doesn’t change) about its funding, we’ll be getting pretty close to completing the infrastructure side of electrification, we’ll see integrated ticketing implemented fully and we’ll hopefully see more comprehensive improvements to the bus network.

How do you think Auckland Council’s first year has gone? What have been the successes? What have been the failures? And what do you hope to see from the Council over the next year?

Share this

14 comments

  1. The way Wellington (politicians- not city) wants to go to war against Auckland (city).

    How many votes will the Gummint lose because of of Joyce’s intransigence over the CRL?

    Enough to lose everything?

    That’d be a very expensive favour to the roading lobby…

  2. Bit early to tell yet Joshua- all the projects finished this year are legacy projects from the old councils. What new projects that they are working on are you looking forward to?

    Easy to get a consultant to do some drawings, a lot harder to fund and implement some of these master plans.

    Personally I don’t like the CBD-centric focus of this council- be interesting to see how some of the councillors up for re-election in the outer wards get on next time around.

    1. Topcat, just a thought for you: there are few successful cities that do not have a strong centre and: ‘There is a near-perfect correlation between urbanisation and prosperity across nations.’ Havard economist Ed Glaeser Triump of the City p7

    2. Take a look through the list of Alpha World Cities (Auckland’s not one of them) and find one that doesn’t have a clearly-defined CBD.

      If Auckland’s to have any hope of becoming “the world’s most-liveable city”, a recognisable heart is essential. A bunch of disconnected nodes doesn’t make for anywhere that can be pointed to and called the city’s centre of gravity, and it also requires much more infrastructure to support a city that doesn’t coalesce around something – just look at the calls for yet another cross-town motorway, from East Tamaki to Onehunga, to support our disjointed industrial centres and inadequate non-road freight corridors.

    3. Topcat – I live in Henderson and don’t have a problem with a more CBD focus as I think it has been lacking for some time. I also don’t think it means that outlying areas will be neglected either, at least on the transport front in the last year I have seen more of the little and often overlooked projects being done than in previous years, things like fixing up footpaths, resealing roads etc.

  3. Patrick

    On the other hand.

    Successful cities have employment, cultural and sporting facilities, entertainment, attractions etc.. spread throughout their metropolitan area. Have a look at New York? London? Chicago? Paris? Rome? You would even struggle to find a CBD in tehses cities.

    In Australia and NZ all those things are concentrated in the inner suburbs populated by ex-pats, gays, single professionals, very wealthy families. Everybody else has to live where they can afford to. They pay rates too- so why cannot they also enjoy the benefits of council projects.

    Thats why Waitakere, Manakau, Rodney, Franklin etc… were good for the locals- they invested in the local areas. Go out to Orewa, Swanson, Wellsford or Puke- ask tehm what they think of the Super City.

    1. New York has an enormous CBD for an enormous agglomeration (it’s called Midtown Manhattan). Likewise Paris has La Defense, and arguably the inner 20 arrondissement too. Likewise London has the City of London and surronding districts. Chicago has the Loop neighbourhood. In each of these cities there is a very visible concentration of employment, services, culture, entertainment and government at the centre. The only reason you might have missed them in these megacities is that the CBD’s tend to be huge also. Take a look at Sydney, Melbourne, Vancouver, hell even Los Angeles has a CBD!

      In makes a lot of sense to have this concentration at the core of your top level stuff, for example we can have only one main library, one opera house, one headquarters of each major company so they are at the centre of the region to have the greatest access to labour/patronage. Sure this results in housing close to the centre being expensive, but it still results in the maximal accessibility across the region. Stick your headquarters in Manukau, and it’s hard for people living in Waitakere or the Shore to get there. Stick it up north and it’s hard for those in Manukau, etc.

      Sure we need to distribute around employment, theatres, sporting facilities, libraries into strong local centres, but the top level stuff should be in the middle of the city where the most people can get to it. Auckland needs a strong CBD to attract and retain top tier business and talent, yet a strong CBD with good transport access is an asset that all Aucklanders can use (not just those who can afford to live in Parnell or Freemans Bay).

  4. But Topcat no one is suggesting removing everything from everywhere else but the CBD and trying to shift it there, merely improving the viability of the centre as we grow. No diminishment of other areas… have a look at the plans, plenty of growth in the sub-centres you mention too. In fact I completely agree, all neighbourhoods will be much more successful if they have a greater mixture of employment, education, recreation, and residential. This is the plan. And a strong and accessible heart is part of this. Were you in AK in the 80s and 90s? That was the height of the auto planners dreams… nothing in the CBD but offices… completely barren at night and on weekends, and even more car commuting than now. We have already improved things but must do better for the city to thrive…. no ghettos should be the aim, whether of employment or of housing- rich or poor. The more mixed the better for all. hence the aim for different housing sizes including apartments even in established areas.

    The point is that a strong centre is not at the expense of the rest of the city but will help those areas thrive and retain their identities too. This is the true international experience.

  5. Patrick,

    Fair enough, the Auckland CBD does need a critical mass of people outside 9 to 5.

    I’d just like to see AC show a little more interest in some of its neighbourhood and regional centres. We have some wonderful town centres Papatoetoe, Mt Albert, Browns Bay etc… which suffer terribly from neglect and competition from category killer big box developments which are allowed to spring up. Similarly I see my closest centre, Henderson downgraded to a neighbourhood centre after WCC invested huge amounts of resources in getting employment and transport in there.

    Its OK spending big bucks on tramways and footpaths in the CBD, but where are the plans for the public realm and town centres where everybody lives?

    1. Sorry TopCat but your suggestion that the council is focussing too much on the CBD is simply wrong. The CBD has been subsidising council activities in suburbs for decades. Even CBD specific projects, such as the Queen Street upgrade, were mostly funded from a CBD targeted rate, i.e. paid for solely by properties in the CBD. So if you want to move to a situation where rates are spent in the areas that pay them, then you better be prepared for a whole lot of money to be sucked out of the suburbs (which are currently subsidised) and reinvested into the city centre.

      The suburbs have always been, and continue to be, parasites that sucks money out of the city centre.

  6. Topcat- If you’re worried about killer big box developments you get onto your Councillor and Local Board. There are “Independent” planning commissioners out there who are sometimes a panel of just 1, and that one goes with the developer every time.

    That’s who’s letting them through. The LB’s would love to be on the planning hearings, I think they’re not allowed to be at the moment (maybe if they’ve done the RMA course?)

  7. Well that explains why I’m here…. get the transport right and the urban form will follow…. well if the planning rules and officials don’t prevent it… Ed Glaeser again: ‘Transportation technologies have always determined urban form’ Triumph of the City. p12

    Another good book : The Smart Growth Manual.

    1. less theoretically, I have high hopes for New Lynn for example as a transport driven development. I know it still looks largely like a roads-fest so far but as the intensity builds and the western line service continues to improve this will become a great place to live and work and shop and play. Especially once the CRL is in. Same for Mt Albert. I have just been in Melbourne and the urban transformations there are relatively new and council led, and are fantastic. A good 40-50 years ahead of AK, but then it is much bigger.

      1. Yes New Lynn is going to be good, the focus at the moment seems to be to get the infrastructure in place first then develop around that although it was largely planned and signed off by the WCC. It will be interesting to see if we get similar plans from the new council for any other areas.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *