Every year the 21 local boards each get a share of $10 million to spend on transport projects in their area. The money is split up based on the population (except for Waiheke and Gt Barrier). The amount that each local board has to spend from when the funding started in 2012 through to the 2016 is shown in the table below along with how much they have currently planned to spend and what’s left.
But just how much can the local boards get for their money. Information Auckland Transport is providing to local boards shows just how expensive the types of projects local boards could use the money can be.
With these kinds of costs it’s easy to see how $10 million doesn’t buy you that much.
Processing...
$2k for a seat. Cant we just put a bbq table there? $250. Allows for lots of replacements.
Ignoring the fact that at most benches people aren’t sitting to eat, and also that the quality of benches around town are a lot better than what you’d get for $250 at Mitre 10, can you imagine how much of the footpath would be used up by them, and how silly they’d look.
Bryce, $250 doesn’t get you a seat that can withstand ten years of weather and abuse in a public environment. Then of course there is the supply, install, concrete pad bit. The actual seat is the cheapest part of the equation.
Most seats don’t get left there for 10 years any way. Even the fancy, expensive stainless models get vandalised or replaced on a regular basis.
I have a pretty good idea of how much it costs to lay a concrete pad for a seat. And if council are buying seats then they had better be getting them for a good rate. $2K is at the very top end for a seat.
what about traffic management, environmental controls and other compliance costs. As Nick says the actual seat and materials is generally the cheapest part of the job
Traffic management? Environmental controls? Compliance? To install a seat? I hate to say this but the words ‘too much red tape’ come to mind.
true. but way of the world unfortunately. That’s why those figures they have stated aren’t worth the paper they are written. as one of the other posters has mentioned, an accuracy of 10 – 60%….
A big added cost appears to be AT’s ‘consulting’ over Traffic Management and ‘resolution’. Code for we’ll charge you a heap of money in order to come up with pointless reasons why the 2s delay this project will cause cars is unacceptable and we won’t allow it.
no its actual traffic management – signs, cones, lane closures, temporary markings, stop/go men etc.
No cost for cycle infrastructure improvements. Is this list a ring fenced list of what local boards can spend this allocated money on, or just a potential list?
Perhaps a way to get these costs down is to adopt ‘better practice’ rather than best practice. There seems to be little incentive for the companies that carry out the work especially when they look at the rate card which looks pretty favourable to them. Will a concrete footpath always cost $75 p/sqm? Imagine if it could be done for half that and still look good; it is possible.
I don’t agree that Local Boards should be able to have a slush fund that they can spend on what ever they or their lobbyists want. The money should be spent based on need and prioritised regionally across Auckland not just being used to tart the place up.
So you believe that your local ELECTED representatives should have no say over where and on what rates money get spent? Great – you agree with John Key and Rodney Hide, who moved most of this money and these decisions into un-elected CCOs.
This paltry 10 million, which is, literally, a fart in the total budget, is the first tentative step to get back some money into the hands of the actual people.
Taxation without representation – it is alive and well.
yes, that is exactly what I am saying when it comes to engineering issues and wish list projects. Why should a LB lobbied by local businesses and Residents Associations decide which areas get enhanced footpaths, traffic signals or tetratraps? They don’t have a clue other than somebody telling them its a good idea.
And the tetra trap has never been tested or verified by an independent body!!!!! Yet local boards have been green-washed into installing it nilly willy across the city.
Where is the accountability from Auckland Council & Auckland Transport? Where is the approval systems?
Quite right Vera. I know the Local Boards are there to represent us the people, however as I look around Howick/Cockle Bay/Bucklands Beach, it’s not long before you see wasted money & effort on roading projects which appear to have been undertaken just to spend the money. Would prefer we find better ways to work out need and priority based on good research and evidence.
I think the problem there is not that the local boards have a bit of money to spend, you just need to elect better people to your local board 😛
I disagree, having a sum of money ring fenced to a particular area is not fair if other areas need it. Every year their is a scramble to spend every last little cent available that could be better used somewhere else and the inevitable lobbying for additional budget for the following year. Most of the projects that are procured this way are for the most part the ‘nice to have’ projects purely because this budget has been made available and likely wouldn’t proceed if they were competing against other projects. I am sure that $40M dollars could be spent more wisely around the region.
Vera, Auckland Council’s budget for the 2012/2013 year was $3.06 billion. Auckland Transport’s was $826m. $10m per annum divided amongst 21 wards is bugger-all for any of them and a drop in the bucket against AT’s overall budget. Spreading this “slush fund” as you put it around local areas on the basis of population is the fairest way to do it. Otherwise we go back to the days of pork under the old system, where the Eastern suburbs got basalt kerbs and ashphalt road surfaces seemingly every other year whilst the Otaras and Mangeres were lucky if potholes got fixed before they reached a size where one might lose a small child.
Spending based on need is the fairest. Also, I would have thought that $40M over four years could be much better spent. That would probably pay for the bulk of professional services for the CRL or it could pay for a heap of upgrades to the rail network. I don’t see how somebody saying that they want new footpaths outside a row of shops because they don’t like the look of it is fair and reasonable in world of ever reducing budgets.
however, that’s not to say that there could be some efficiencies made in how projects are prioritised around the region. As you say I agree with your scenario that some areas such as the when they shouldn’t be. For all its warts, the current system of numerical assessment if implemented properly, would provide more balance.
Have a look under the maintenance section of the new AT Code of Practice, there should be no reason that any road in the region is dealt with any differently.
$15K for a drinking fountain? Wow
I imagine it’s mostly in the cost of plumbing fresh water and drainage to the site.
The actual costs range from 10% to 60% of what is listed. The rest is the cost of meetings, reports sitting listening to urban designers and all the other extraneous opinions, revising and so on.
I know the new Bayswater pipe bridge cost $3m. It is a fantastic facility but that does seem like a huge amount of money for something that is about 200m long and only carries cyclists and pedestrians.
It means that Devonport-Takapuna will struggle for any other funding for cycling/walking projects in the near future. Which is a shame when the area did so well in the census on cycling and walking to work. Probably because of the Navy and also so many people can cycle and walk to the ferries.
“only cyclists and pedestrians” – that’s the mentality the has led to the massive under investment in walking/ cycling infrastructure in Auckland. There is still a need to ensure the bridge is structurally sound and is able to last for 30 – 50 years, all of which adds to material and design costs. In addition, there was the consultation required to ensure it was able to meet community demands and the need to prepare documentation required under the Building Act/ RMA. All of which add up.
The bayswater bridge is a good linkage for a local community, exactly what this money shoudl be spent on,
But while checking the bridges exact location, I noticed the criminal vacantness of the Navy houses in Bayswater, I mean are we still in the 1950’s? This suburb is close to the CBD by ferry and we have almost 1/4 acre scetions… I mean surely the land owners (ngati whatua) or the Navy can see that this would make an ideal site for newer, warmer, denser housing ala the way hobsonville is being developed?
Ngati Whatua do see exactly that, and have plans to develop it.
And are getting hammered by the usual “High rise tenement blocks being built on your doorstep” emotional claptrap in the local papers.
Not if the local residents can help it.
The Waitematā Local Board passed the following resolution last week. We are very much focused on ensuring good quality spend from our share of the Transport Capex Fund and not frittering it away on small (expensive) improvements that Auckland Transport should be doing anyway.
b) That the Waitemata Local Board:
i) affirms that, subject to the finalisation of relevant plans, the Board has identified:
• Greenways Routes (currently with Auckland Transport for feasibility scoping); and
• Ponsonby Road (currently in the final stages of Master Plan development); and
• Newmarket streetscape improvements (currently under precinct development planning with City Transformation),
as likely project proposals for the Local Board Transport Capital Fund.
ii) notes that project proposals need to be identified to Auckland Transport no later than 31 August 2014
Tetra Traps what a green wash and a waste of rate payer’s money! The Tetra Trap is a Auckland Transport initiative that is not much more than a do nothing. The Tetra trap is a 20 mm screen over the outlet of the catch pit. It stops floating debris but limits the flow capacity of the catch pit. When a large storm occurs the device self-cleans losing the retained floating debris into the stormwater system.
The Tetra Trap does not stop fine sediment or dissolved heavy metals which are the pollutants of concern from roads. AT and their consultants (GHD) have carried out a subjective test which did not follow any accepted industry protocols or measured what was going in and going out. The results of this test were not accepted by the ARC or the now dissolved Auckland council stormwater technical services, however the results of this test are being used to justify putting the devices in.
AT and council have spent over hundreds of thousands of dollars installing these devices that do not address the stormwater issues from roads, but too the layman they make it look like AT are doing something about the stormwater. Would it not be better to do something that has been properly evaluated and actually works instead of wasting rate payer’s money?