If there is one thing that both supporters and opponents of the Unitary Plan agree on it is that the councils communication over the plan has been less than ideal. Personally I think one of the biggest failings has been that the council didn’t put any effort into showing people what plans existed currently so they could accurately judge what change was occurring. We know that height has been the biggest sore point however as I pointed out the other day, the height limits in much of Auckland is actually no different under the Unitary Plan as it is under the current operative plans that the UP is eventually replacing. Some simple information like this would have gone a long way to helping address concerns that people have had.
Likewise it is a shame that more work wasn’t done to enable the council to show the impact of the various kinds of development options. If people object to intensification that is fine but it needs to be understood what that means. If more development occurs through sprawl then we need to know what the costs of that are. So yesterday I actually found myself slightly agreeing with Bernard Orsman and even Dick Quax over the unitary plan.
The Auckland Council hasn’t done any work to compare urban and rural infrastructure costs as it asks Aucklanders to adapt to a new way of life that includes a mix of residential intensification and urban sprawl.
The council is commissioning an “Auckland cost-of-growth study” that doesn’t begin until after feedback closes on a new planning rulebook which has huge implications for the city’s urban, rural and coastal environments.
The issue of infrastructure arising from the rulebook – or Unitary Plan – has been a hot topic at public meetings, where people have expressed concerns about the effects of a more-compact city on water, transport and open spaces and costs in rural subdivisions.
An expression-of-interest document for the growth study says there is some overseas evidence that it is more expensive to provide infrastructure outside urban areas than inside, “but no specific work has been done for Auckland”.
And
Councillor Dick Quax said it was unbelievable that the council was only now seeking evidence that the compact city being promoted was better in terms of infrastructure to “peripheral expansion”.
“I would have expected that before plans are drawn up to change forever the way people in Auckland live … there was some hard evidence to guide council. Sadly this has not happened and is another failure of the draft Unitary Plan,” he said.
Council chief planning officer Roger Blakeley said the Unitary Plan was a resource management document and did not include funding for infrastructure.
“The council knows about the costs of infrastructure. The long-term plan 2012-2022 includes provision for funding of roads, water supply, wastewater, stormwater and parks,” he said.
Dr Blakeley said it was well established that infrastructure costs for new “greenfield” developments were higher than the costs for urban “brownfield” developments. One Sydney study had put greenfield costs at more than twice those of brownfields.
I kind of agree with both Quax and while Roger Blakeley is technically correct in that this is a resource management document it has some fairly wide implications as we are seeing with the debates that have been had over the last few months. As mentioned earlier this is being hampered by a failure to properly communicate which is something that a study like this could have helped with.
But being a long time reader (and then author) of this blog I was sure I remembered seeing a post on something similar to this that was produced by the former Auckland Regional Council. So I went looking and managed to find this post.
It reports on a study completed by the ARC called The future land use and transport project. The study looked at a couple of growth scenarios and narrowed them down to three for further comparison. They were:
As a comparison I would suggest that the Unitary Plan actually sits somewhere in between scenario 4 and 5. Option 4 is within the blue shaded areas while option 5 also includes the areas are shown in Pink.
The study then went and ranked each of the options against a large number of criteria which sat under the headings of Environmental well-being, Social well-being, Economic well-being and Cultural well-being. For this post I’m not so interested in the evaluation criteria but instead the section on infrastructure costs. Perhaps a failing is that the study only seems to have looked at transport infrastructure costs rather than the costs for all infrastructure like I hope this new study will do however there is still some useful information. The ARC study says:
Infrastructure costs
The compact scenarios utilise current infrastructure more efficiently, thus reducing the need for additional infrastructure investment. Transport infrastructure costs are greatest, with the expansive scenario requiring the greatest additional investment in the transport network. The expansive scenario would require additional road infrastructure worth approximately $31.4 billion compared with around $15 billion for
the compact scenarios.However, when the costs of providing passenger transport is taken into account the investments needed to support the compact scenarios significantly increase, see table 3 below. Overall the model outputs signalled that the compact scenarios would require around $30 -$32billion expenditure, whereas the expansive scenario would require about $40billion. Yet despite the additional investment in transport infrastructure, the expansive scenario provided the worst accessibility compared with the compact scenarios.
This quite clearly shows that for transport at least, the sprawl based options end up costing us considerably more and I’m not even sure if road maintenance costs are included in these figures. But of course these are only the transport costs. We really need to also be considering the costs of all of the other forms of infrastructure for various options.
So where does this leave us. I get the feeling that within the council, there is already a lot of fairly detailed information about the exact costs of growth via sprawl vs. more intensive development. However it might be the case that while the info exists, it hasn’t been easy to pull it all together. Hopefully this study will be able to do that as well as consider the costs of infrastructure and services that haven’t traditionally been considered by councils, like the costs of more schools and emergency services. I also hope that the study is able to break down in a concise way the actual impacts so it can easily be explained to the general public.
At least I was able to say that I agreed with Bernard Orsman and Dick Quax on something for a change. Assuming that this study would likely come out with similar results to this and other international studies which suggest that sprawl is much more expensive, it will be interesting to see they continues to campaign against intensification.
Note: If you haven’t done so, make sure you get your submission in for the Unitary Plan.
Processing...
Spreading out clearly costs more to build and service:
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/neighborhoods/2013/05/quantifying-cost-sprawl/5664/
http://www.vtpi.org/sg_save.pdf
Why do you keep using the argument of smart growth against expansion? They can be one in the same with good planning.
They can, except that isn’t what is being proposed.
I’m all for leafy compact Satellite Towns with a great little semi-intense walkable centre based around an efficient and frequent electric rail service to other hubs and the big Centre [and beyond], all separated by strictly enforced green belts of productive farmland. Be great places to live, and viable to with great connection to the wider employment and education resources of the whole city.
But that’s not what the government and its chums want, nor the anti-plan crazies… that’s just undifferentiated shapeless placeless sprawl fed by ever wider motorways with ever more vehicles that then have to be expensively forced through and to every other part of the existing city so unproductively and wastefully.
I still have some hope that if we can get Nick Smith and his cronies to butt out that this kind of Urban Form could happen along the southern line- with new stations and town centres between Papakura and Pukekohe, but planners will have to be allowed to plan for this to happen. In a very modest way this is what is planned around Swanson for example, even though it is actually joined to the old style of sprawl burbs spread-out like marmite on toast…..
Interesting that you say that given the current examples if hobsonville, Westgate and Flatbush which are all either council or government run developments.
Are you saying they are trying to stop such developments in the future?
At the levels below the politics reason breaks out, Hobsonville is especially good. No it is the Joyce/Brash/Smith/C+R level that old fashioned unplanned tract housing and Moar Motorways and no transit provision is being pushed… officials both local and central are not the problem it seems…. The bigger developers are a mixed bag too.
I’m yet to see anyone propose large sprawling unplanned suburbs, but in any event that is a bit different from the sentiment of your first post.
One of the things the council should be doing is development plans. The more well planned ddevelopment’s we get the better I think. And as we have seen in Auckland such developments need a lot of land.
I can’t help you with what you see or don’t see, but if this sprawl advocate gets his way there’ll be the same kind of crappy green fields development that we already see.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10886288
Sorry, but that article made no mention about crazy greenfields developments.
In terms of the ones we see I assume you are talking about Westgate, hobsonville and flat bush again?
Or are you talking about the one on the lion breweries site that went bust?
Isn’t- “I’m all for leafy compact Satellite Towns with a great little semi-intense walkable centre based around an efficient and frequent electric rail service to other hubs and the big Centre [and beyond], all separated by strictly enforced green belts of productive farmland. Be great places to live, and viable to with great connection to the wider employment and education resources of the whole city.”
The plan from back in the day? An 80+ year old planner wrote a great letter to the Harold saying exactly that. I guess the motorway folks killed it?
Unless AC gets wayyyyy better at their comms and gets some real community buy in, the motorway folks will kill this one too.
Anti plan crazies doesn’t help either, we are all submitters on a draft draft and unless the Pollies wrest control from the Planners there will be hell to pay come election time.
Can you imagine Hagar a waste the whole process will be if the Right take the City and the Left take Parliament?
Well with the new legislationj planned by National, the parliament will just set a new pro-rail GPS and the Council/Auckland Transport will have no choice. Democracy at work!
How much of a…
Hagar is just a super lame comic strip
That study appears to only compare the per capita infrastructure costs of high density greenfield development vs low density greenfield development.
the lack of a robust study which compares the cost of the various growth model options is a fundamental flaw of the Auckland (spatial) Plan, and entirely unsurprising given the unrealistic timeframes imposed by politicians at all levels.
Does every city have to do the research? City of Halifax. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/05/03/ns-halifax-sprawl.html
Unfortunately probably yes as otherwise the sprawl proponents continue to push their agenda suggesting that somehow their city/country is different.
More research: ‘Sprawl costs double’:
http://blogs.curtin.edu.au/sustainability-policy-institute/news/new-pb-cusp-research-reveals-urban-sprawl-costs-double/
It’s unfortunate that supporters of intensification, who by and large are professional town planners or well-read laymen, tend to use the word “sprawl” to describe the alternative approach to managing growth. It’s as bad as if advocates for this form of growth started banging on about “slums” or suchlike to describe high density dwellings (and some do use such pejorative terms, but it’s not common). Neither descriptor is correct, but is simply scare-mongering and undermines any valid argument either way. I tend to use the term “expansion” although “peripheral expansion” works too. If there’s a better word than “intensification” then I’d be happy to use it. It’s time to have a grown-up debate!
Now back to the substantive issue. I’ve previously mentioned my experiences with sewer separation and stormwater sewer realignment so won’t detail those again. However, it does raise the issue of condition as well as capacity. So I agree with Matt’s comment above (although not his language or evident bias) that Auckland does need to do its own research on this topic. This must be both robust and comprehensive. As anyone who has worked on infrastructure on both greenfield sites and reinforcement projects knows, the average unit costs are vastly higher for the latter. Traffic management alone costs a small fortune. As I said a day or two ago, I’m astounded that this research wasn’t undertaken prior to issuing the draft UP, as it’s a fundamental issue.
I agree with you there. The only difference there should be between greenfields and brownfields is the urban renewal aspect, in terms of quality of product I’m talking.
The great renewal work they are doing in wynyard could happen anywhere, you could slap it in the domain or down in Cambridge and both would likely be much cheaper. Neither would be ideal but both just as easy to do physically.
On another related point. People often say Auckland is no good for rail because we aren’t intense enough, however the counter argument is that we are of higher intensity than many other cities of high PT usage.
What I have seen people do is argue both sides saying we are plenty intense enough for PT but then claim it’s our low density sprawl that makes 85% of us drive.
Again…regards rail use in Auckland the almost total absence of a functioning system is why people weren’t using it obviously. Now that has improved since Britomart and will improve again with electrification, but won’t improve dramatically until the CRL is built. No one can ‘choose’ that which isn’t there, or few can choose that which is barely there.. Density or otherwise is a second order issue: Important but of little moment if the the service isn’t there or so suboptimal as to be all but irrelevant.
Regarding rail, if memory serves me right. Back in 1900 most of the populated areas around Auckland were either on the rail network or the tram network. But then times changed.
But anyway that is completely besides the point. The point was that Auckland already has, and has for some time had sufficient density to operate cost effective PT. It has not been the choice of people to not build houses on old industrial lots or contaminated ground that had contributer to a high level of car usage but more the way we have planned the development with highly segregated zones and poor connectivity.
You dont need to go that far back. Until 1956 almost everyone in Auckland lived within a short distance of a tram line. The reach of them was quite amazing, all the way to Onehunga. Times changed in that the government decided to destroy the tram network despite the protests of the Auckland citizens at the time. Patronage was falling but it was also doing so in Melbourne and imagine what a different city it would be now.
We havent invested in PT or cycling, we have invested in roads. Therefore people drive. Simple.
Goosoid, you have moved onto a completely different topic. However in terms of the new topic, I recall a post here a week or two ago with an old letter to the editor which had someone commenting on how great the new buses were.
I also recall the graphs we got shown they showed us that the decline in PT usage started back before 1920 and if it had not been for WW2 PT usage would have been more in the range if 50k rather the 100k seen in the 1950s.
Yes, that is clearly a very confused argument. The reason 85% of us drive is that we havent invested in anything other than roads since the tram network was destroyed in 1956. At least until Britomart was opened.
As you say, cities like Perth have achieved much better PT usage with lower density just by actually investing in PT infrastructure. Perth is also evidence that a long, skinny city like Auckland is good for rail investment.
Induced demand is a reality whether we are discussing roads, rail, buses (e.g. Northern Busway) or cycling.
Jonno1 – just on your point. Can you give examples of “expansion” which dont deserve the term sprawl? When I hear sprawl I think of Houston with uncontrolled, unconnected suburbs exploding into the hinterland. No PT and no attempt to make it part of the city it is on the periphary of.
I agree expansion can occur in well planned and connected satellite towns connected to the city with rail or busways – as you can see in Germany or Scandinavia. But lets face it, that is not what the opponents of intensification want and certainly not what this government is going to support. Brownlee was very clear in his Campbell Live interview that for National urban transport means roads – lots and lots of roads. That is sprawl, plain and simple.
Jonno, ” spread out over a large area in an untidy or irregular way” is not pejorative in the way that “a squalid and overcrowded urban street or district inhabited by very poor people” is
I realise that I’m in a bit of an echo chamber here, but I’ll attempt to answer your question, NCD, and goosoid’s, in good faith.
NCD: Agreed.
goosoid: The draft UP provides a good example of expansion, meaning planned developments on greenfield sites. It’s broadly a discussion of appropriate ratios. Houston may well be an example of how not to do it so by all means make that point. But Houston is not Auckland.
Satellite towns is another option, I agree, but whether they’re connected by road, rail or both is a secondary issue. I was speaking with someone today who had driven up from Hamilton between 5 and 6.30am, who commented on the stream of traffic in both directions. So maybe there’s quite a bit of crossover already.
I was really hoping for an example of expansion that was a positive one and led to good urban outcomes – not just sprawling suburbia a la Houston. If you think what Auckland is aiming for isnt really sprawl, then OK I agree expansion is a good word.
In my experience, roads cant supply a good urban outcome as they just kill communities by reducing the ability to easily get around and to create nice public spaces. Parking provisions in particular will really kill urban centres as it means large dead areas filled with metal boxes.
The best expansion (I am avoiding “sprawl” :-)) I have seen revolves around cycling and rail. Germany in particular does that evry well and I have heard Denmark is also good though I have only been to Copenhagen. Its “five finger” (now up to seven fingers I think) plan is usually held up as the way to do “expansion”.
But I dont see any of this proposed as an alternative to the UP and some intensification. Just Houston style sprawl with motorways. This is what Demographia hold up as the ideal model and the government seems to be signing from their song sheet.
Yes Houston is the model, quite explicitly, because it has been growing anti-urbanists point to that growth as some kind of proof that their spatial model is best. Conveniently ignoring the riches of the oil industry of which Houston is the local and global capital driving employment in the area way above national averages which is a huge pull factor, and the decline of manufacturing in the ‘Rust Belt’ acting as a push one. There are other issues too like sunshine, and even that Texas is the leading state for wind electricity generation. Basically Texas is energy rich, so to say that only its dispersed urban form makes it a success is risible. And typical Kotkin.
There are, however clouds on the horizon, or rather not, in the case of increasing aquifer depletion and drought. Which puts the fact that while Texas’ energy riches have allowed such a wasteful spatial order it also makes it dependant on lots of oil for connection and lots of electricity for aircon, plus water….
Albequque and Phoenix show more signs that this spatial arrangement is running out of time… very dependant on the Colorado River.
In terms of Danish planning, Copenhagen is great but Århus is not quite as intelligently planned: its relationship with its port/waterfront leaves a lot to be desired and its peripheral suburbs are dire. Some of the larger towns (eg Ålborg, Odense, Næstved, Kolding, Vejle, etc) can be pretty awful in terms of sprawl but as they’re quite compact and retain their historic centres it’s not so evident. Plus they’re not so car focussed as their New Zealand equivalents (Hamilton, Palmerston North, Timaru, etc).
Agree J1.
But with one caveat, if the only or overwhelmingly dominant connective mode is the private car then those satellites will remain high dispersed in arrangement and will either have to stay small [Pokeno] or become hostage to the same car-caused problems of the Big Smoke [Hamilton]. And the Big Smoke will also suffer the increasing problems of auto-dominance to accommodate all those ex-urban commuters’ cars: Auckland; and its miserable urban quality and its unaffordable transport plans.
So no it matters hugely how we connect the satellites to the sun.
http://www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/jic_gfu_rep_0602.pdf
This is interesting in that it points out that different types of services are more or less sensitive to sprawl: cost of parks and recreation, fire protection, libraries, sewers, roading and policing all have a negative correlation with increasing density.
When we came back to NZ with teenage children who had grown up overseas, one of their comments on driving around Auckland suburbia was “where is everybody?” – a few more people in our parks and on our footpaths would go down well.
Part of the NIMBY scaremongering pamphlet in the Belmont area (which by the way made excellent fire starting material) was to suggest that intensification may mean more “foot traffic”! Of course my first reaction was – people outside…walking…what will I do? Will there be children walking…or even (cue gasp) cycling? Shouldnt they be home playing Xbox or something?
And the four riders of the apocalypse right behind them.
Where is everyone? is a very good question much of the time in Auckland. It’s especially true any time after about 7pm, when how overbuilt Auckland’s roads are becomes particularly apparent.
Went past the bottom of Hobson Street at 5 to 6 today and it was completely empty, probably 6 cars in the entire first block.
operation successful, patient dead.
A good example of the difference between brownfield and greenfield developments can be found in the work being done by SCIRT to enable the relocation of 5000 households from close to Bromley treatment plant to the opposite side of the city.
http://strongerchristchurch.govt.nz/work/activity/1199
Yes, brownfields development makes a lot of sense. Once the demolition phase is complete it essentially becomes embedded greenfields so existing schools and emergency services etc can be better utilised, although the issues of infrastructure feeder capacity beyond the brownfields site still apply. In some situations new, higher pressure, pipes can be inserted into the old ones, eg into leaky low pressure cast iron water or gas mains. And then there are drilling techniques (eg Chorus, Vector). Existing connections still have to be re-made but it minimises disruption.