Friday saw one of the first council meetings of the year with a focus on working through the feedback of the Auckland Plan. Here is a high level view the feedback on Auckland’s Infrastructure and Transport.
Submissions highlighted the important role infrastructure plays in developing urban form both as anenabler and as a limitation. The timing of infrastructure investment and the linking of that investment to Auckland’s wider growth aspirations were also emphasised. A number of submissions supported further identification of region’s critical infrastructure and protection of this infrastructure. Greater attention to planning and operating social infrastructure and an increasing profile for sports and recreation and parks was suggested. Improving the resilience of Auckland’s infrastructure systems was a common theme, in particular provision of decentralised as well as centralised infrastructure. Sub‐regional planning for infrastructure was supported.
A number of submitters note the inter‐regional nature of Auckland’s infrastructure networks, and highlighted the role of ports and airports. There was significant support (pro forma) for the Ports of Auckland’s role and that the plan should give certainty to its future and make provision for investment required in transport infrastructure (both in its immediate vicinity and the rail network).
There was strong support for managing Auckland’s transport as a single system integrated with land use. Many submitters supported the provision of transport choice. Submitters supported an integrated public transport system that is affordable, with some submitters support more water based transport (ferries). There was generally strong support for the CBD rail loop although some submitters expressed concern that connections to other parts of Auckland also needed to be improved. There was strong support for improved infrastructure for pedestrian and cyclists, and in particular improvements to the regional cycle way.
However concerns raised in the submissions include:
- Too much focus on public transport
- Public transport needs to be affordable and reliable – support greater priority to bus rather than rail
- In planning for future capacity the plan should not overlook private vehicles as an option
Submitters also suggested that the plan give greater attention to inter regional connections and rural transport (e.g. road sealing, public transport). There was support for changes to parking policy and better parking regulations.
There were a number of project specific matters identified in submissions relating to the City Rail Link, Waitemata harbour crossing, Rail to airport, Puhoi to Wellsford project, Penlink and AMETI project (timing). There was strong support for an interchange at Puhoi as part of the Puhoi to Wellsford project .
Its pleasing to see that the CRL has had strong support although we once again see it referred by multiple different names. I find it interesting that a theme of too much focus on public transport has come through considering that more than half of the money proposed to be spent on transport is for roading projects, something even the MOT picks up on. It also goes against the grain of pretty much every survey that has been done on what transport investment people want to see which perhaps suggests that the likes of the AA, RTF and their supporters have put a lot of submissions in.
Turning to the submissions received from local boards on transport aspects:
- Many local boards expressed support for improved public transport and the benefits that it will deliver and a number of local boards expressed particular support for the city‐centre rail loop, the rail link to the airport, for an increase in park and ride facilities, and for the second harbour crossing to be a tunnel.
- A number of local boards expressed concern that the proposed changes to Quay Street and any change to the location of the ferry terminal would have a negative impact on vital transport links or access into the city centre.
- A number of boards expressed their support for planned improvements to Auckland’s road network, in particular improvements to existing “pinch‐points” which cause congestion.
- There was support from the rural local boards for the improvement of and sealing of rural roads.
When more detailed feedback including any changes the council plans to consider comes up I will put up a new post.
Processing...
A big problem with the Plan is that while it talked a good talk about public transport, as the MoT point out, most of the money goes on more motorway. Yet that is not highlighted anywhere in the document. Reading it, you would think that $17b goes on rail to $5b on roads, but actually the opposite is true. It is grossly misleading.
The discussion document upon which this feedback is based doesn’t list the proposed projects with their cost. It is therefore a flawed feedback process. There should be a parallel process of listing the projects, their cost, benefits and proposed delivery period.
I think this statement “strong support for the CBD rail loop although some submitters expressed concern that connections to other parts of Auckland also needed to be improved” just reinforces people are ignorant of the CRL. People still believe it only serves the centre city and it doesn’t benefit them in any way. Benefits alot of Auckland.
Yeah well it needs to be emphasised that the CRL is a pre requisite for any further expansion of the rail network.
Not only that, it’s a prerequisite for full value for money out of the existing resource of the rail corridor. It turns and 2.5 lines into an actual network that can take a huge load off the road network.
Well here’s an unlikely ally: Federated Farmers President Bruce Wills in yesterday’s SST ‘Urban Sprawl the threat…’ http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/latest-edition/6368346/Urban-sprawl-the-threat-to-farmers-not-immigration
Because if it’s not intensification and public transit it’s paving more and more farmland [and transport poverty]
An unlikely ally indeed…although the “Auckland is the world’s 7th largest city in the world by land area” had me rolling the eyes a bit…
The area covered by the Auckland Council is reported by the Council as being nearly 4900 sq km. That’s pretty bloody big. I wouldn’t rule him wrong, especially since he can actually cite a neutral source instead of the “Everyone knows Auckland’s the biggest city by area in the world” nonsense which is absolutely objectively false.
I think he has fallen into the density trap and is using the size of the entire region rather than the size of the urban area.
Mt Isa City Council administers about 43,000 sqkm. That’s bigger than Switzerland.
There’s a cattle station in Australia that’s bigger than Belgium.
I realise that overall size doesn’t mean much, but most people don’t engage to the level of understanding developed vs undeveloped density and it’s also incredibly hard to find scholarly numbers on the subject.
We should stop complaining that he used a questionable statistic which is in the favour of anti-sprawl advocates, and be thankful that one of the most powerful non-politicians in the country has said publicly that the compact city concept for Auckland is precisely what’s needed.
Yes there’s Demographica nonesense made-up-math in there but the conclusion is still valid; a more contained Auckland is not only better for the city but also for the countryside. Both for it productive side and for its wildeness.
Same goes for Hamilton and Tauranga.
Ironically it is demographia data that says Auckland is the 182nd largest city in the world by urbanised area. Just slightly bigger than Warsaw at 544 square kilometres.
Morning Patrick (and others) 🙂
I have taken a look at the agenda’s coming out piece by piece for the Auckland Future Vision Committee which will preside over the The Auckland Plan finalisation.
Interesting stuff to come out of it although I am more waiting for when the Committee deliberates Chapters 7-11 of The Draft Auckland Plan – mainly because that is where I commented heavily in my submission to the Plan.
I have noticed all your guys comments here about the CRL (Federated Farmers I have a tendency to ignore) and a level of ignorance from Aucklander’s
Bit harsh is it not?
Any how I recommend and suggest that the Campaign for Better Transport who were successful in getting the Onehunga Line reopened do the following:
Fundraising and Sponsorship
Then with that cash do a massive information blitz from now until the local elections in 2013 “informing” and “educating” the populace on the benefits of the CRL. Leaflets, blog posts, Social Media, seminars and really rarking up Auckland Council to make sure they do not falter.
Look if CBT can get success out of Onehunga then I know they can get success in getting rid of the “ignorance” for the CRL.
For one you would have my support from this National Party Member slash Len Brown voter that is for sure 🙂
Although a case of what will the deliberations for Chapter 11 of the DAP reveal this month as well 😮
I don’t think it’s harsh saying people are ignorant about the CRL. How often do I hear people say they want rail to the airport before the CRL not knowing the link to the airport can’t function without the CRL.
How often do I hear why do we need a rail loop around the city centre. I don’t live in the city centre. I’m not going to use it. What a waste of money. Spending $2b on the students living in their shoebox apartments.
How often do I hear people say the CRL economic benefit is poor but think the Puhoi highway is great. Not also thinking how it could revitalise the city…………Yes alot of ignorance still exists. Better info needs to get out there.
No wonder people are confused when everyone called it the CBD Loop for so long.
Too Much Focus on Public Transport? I was just about gobsmacked by that remark! It would take a pretty long period of massive public transport investment and spending to bring the balance of road spending against public transport back to an equal share.