Get off the Berm

A disturbing trend in many elections these days seems to be just how commonly the media will latch on to and push trivial issues at the expense of providing insight and analysis into the vision and policies of the candidates.

In the lead up to the last Auckland Council elections the key issue pushed by the herald seemed to be about how unfair it was that good honest car driving, herald readers were being fined for driving illegally in bus lanes. It was a campaign the herald ran for months against the old Auckland City Council and then the newly elected council with it all starting after a Herald editor got caught driving in a bus lane. Some of the headlines from the times show quite clearly the line being pushed by the herald, examples include:

Bus lane fines ‘unfair tax on drivers’

Bus and parking fines ‘a money grab’

Smile, you’re on 50m camera

Life of abuse in the bus lane

Voters turn up the heat on Banks over bus lanes

Drivers in dark over new bus lane signs

AA blames city council for bus lane ‘mess’

Auckland streets ahead in dishing out bus-lane fines

The council and AT have since embarked on expensive exercises in changing signs and trialling different lane marking techniques but crucially since that time I’m not aware of any new bus lanes that have been added to the city. In fact you could say some have been removed as since then Auckland Transport buckled under the pressure from the Orakei Local Board and changed the bus lanes along Remuera Rd into T3 lanes.

This time the stupid issue seems to be about whether the ratepayers of the entire region should pay for the grass berms in the old Auckland City Council area to be mowed while the rest of the region (and country) continues to do it themselves without complaining. As a ratepayer who lives outside the isthmus and who mows my own berm it shouldn’t take much to imagine what my views on the topic are.

But it isn’t just that there is this stupid argument going on but that the reporting on it takes the place of what I would consider to be far more import issues. Where are the articles on the actual visions of each candidate, the analysis and comments from experts (on both sides of the debate) on whether those visions are actually possible or if they are full of holes and contradictions. What about the reporting about how the candidates will pay for those visions, for example how is Len actually going to pay for the massive (road heavy) transport wish list he is pushing or how is John Palino along with is new running mate Cameron Brewer going to pay for Manukau to become a second CBD if he is also wanting to cut rates elsewhere.

A prime example of the debate we should be having is about how to actually fund Auckland’s share of the CRL costs seeing as both candidates say they support it (Palino only after being caught out by the government agreeing to it).

But as mentioned, instead of a proper look at issues that will affect Aucklander’s in the future we instead debate a small patch of grass out the front of a section. But seeing as it has come up I hope that this will be the one and only post we ever write on the subject. The question I have over the topic is:

Why does a berm/verge have to be grass?

The verge is considered to be part of the roadway and according to wikipedia:

Benefits include visual aesthetics, increased safety and comfort of sidewalk users, protection from spray from passing vehicles, a space for, benches, bus shelters, street lights and other public amenities. It is also often part of sustainability for water conservation or the management of urban runoff and water pollution and may provide useful wildlife habitat. Snow that has been plowed off the street in colder climates may be stored in the area.

The main disadvantage is the right-of-way must be wider, increasing the cost of the road.

My only guess is that the reason for berms/verges needing to be grass has come down from either a traffic engineer somewhere wanting drivers to have as much clear line of sight as possible or perhaps most likely the council wanting the cheapest way of creating and maintaining them.

Now all of that is fine but why not at least allow for property owners to plant and maintain the berms with some set conditions.  The conditions could include restrictions around which kinds of plants are allowed on a berm and rules/expectations around the care and maintenance of them. There could also be conditions in place so that if the council/AT or an infrastructure provider needs to access underground services, that they can do so and if necessary remove any planting.

Allowing residents to do this would not only help in removing some of the stupid arguments in this debate but would allow for neighbourhoods to develop some unique character, something especially important in many of the greenfield suburbs built over the last 15 years and which have a cookie cutter type look to them. The example below is of newish suburbs from the four corners that seem identical in look and feel.

Is it seriously going to hurt anyone if the residents of these houses plant a few low growing flowers or shrubs?

Out of interest I had a quick search to see what other cities do and I quickly found that both Hamilton and Tauranga have policies that let people do just that. Both are worded almost identical, here is Hamilton’s:

In some situations Council will allow residents to plant the berm with conditions, including that the resident takes full responsibility for on-going maintenance and either ensures that subsequent owners take over that responsibility or that the verge is returned to grass when the property is sold.  Written applications to plant berms should be sent to City Transportation.

It really seems this is an issue the council or AT could knock on the head quite quickly and allow for us to focus on the real issues.

Share this