Matt’s posts last month on the changes Auckland’s experienced over the last ten years and what might happen over the next ten years got me thinking. Here’s where I think the city could be in ten years:
Auckland will have the best transit system in Australasia. The CRL will only be a couple of years old, but well ahead of projections. More importantly the bus network will be carrying several times the patronage it does today, with most of the growth coming across the day, on evenings and weekends. People will have had seven or eight years to get used to the fact that using the bus network is fast and easy at any time of day, and usually easier than dealing with traffic and parking. Transit will become a normal thing, not a commuter thing. We’ve seen fourfold increases on the busway and rail as a result of changing to regular, usable systems. That is about to happen for every bus route on every street in Auckland.
A whole generation will have moved through high school and university knowing that it’s often easier to catch the bus, and cheaper too. And it will be cheaper, not just because of new “all you can eat” fare passes, but especially because the large increase in all day use will have bumped up the fiscal efficiency such that fares will be the same as they are today in dollar terms, and considerably cheaper in real terms.
Traffic will be as high as ever, sitting at about the same equilibrium. Parking will be more expensive. People will drive a lot less per capita, but there will be more people. Cars will look and feel much like they are today, as will roads. People will still call for huge new motorways, but the sheer cost of retrofitting them to the city will ensure they stay on the drawing board.
Cycling will be a big thing, still not huge in sheer numbers, but high profile. Trunk cycle ways will stretch across the region and cycle lanes will be painted on to city and suburban streets with every upgrade or repair.
Auckland will be a world capital of culture and cool. We are already on the radar of trend spotters like Monocle, it won’t take too much to bump us up to the top of the list. The city centre will go from strength to strength, and suburban centers will be copying and innovating too. Transport becoming far cheaper and easier will mean people go out more, boosting attendance at shows, plays, gigs, bars and restaurants, but also parks, playgrounds, beaches and squares.
This will have a huge impact on the vitality of Auckland. Just going out once a month more on average will mean an extra twenty million person trips and activities a year.
We are well past the turning point already. Auckland is already reurbanising in the best possible way. We can’t see it so much because we are in the middle of the change, but looking back in ten years we will see this as the decade where Auckland grew into its boots as a stunning, confident and fantastic city. Like everything, we’ll look back and wonder why we didn’t do it all sooner.
Processing...
And don’t forget, CRL.
I noted that CRL in the second sentence!
don’t forget to read the post!
My bad! Sorry!
If we don’t fix the housing bubble, this is not going to happen
Actually I think the house bubble willl get worse because of this. Ridiculous house prices are driven by two things, lots of demand to live in the best parts of Auckland, and limited supply in those places. Living in a house that is either centrally located or by the water will only get more expensive.
Luckily the Unitary Plan still has enough provisions for units, terraces and apartments to be built in many of those desirable locations, so we will actually increase supply of more land efficient housing in he right places. Buying a villa in Mt Eden will be as expensive as ever, but getting an apartment in Balmoral will be a much more reasonable proposition.
Ridiculous prices are everywhere. As Lord Maths says below, the problem is income/prices spread. We’re building a city where people is spending all their money in housing with significant repercussions on the vibrancy of the city (that honestly to international standards sucks).
Wildly optimistic thinking, and basically a load of baloney. Your current train system is tiny, sick and pathetic, and even with the CRL, it will only get to a level of barely acceptable. For a decent public transport system, you need a frequent, underground, electric light rail type system – which Auckland is never going to get, to be honest. Sydney and Melbourne and – heaven’s sake – even Wellington have far better public transport systems than Auckland. Always have. Always will. You can’t make up 50 years of inaction in a couple of years.
Regarding your coolness factor, that’s largely down to Simon Farrell-Green, a Metro writer, sending out pro-Auckland pieces. Don’t be fooled. It’s not real.
Perhaps, Gary, you could read through the many posts on here re the New Network and the other initiatives which are currently being implemented.
Well that was an incredibly negative post.
Wow, haters gonna hate!
I specifically focussed on the new network bus system in this post, not because I hate trains, but because there is huge potential there’s that is about to be unleashed. Auckland will have a better transit system than Melbourne or Sydney with the New Network, simply because it is getting the service model right. That service model starts at people front door, and it has to run all day, seven days a week.The big Australian cities fail because they can’t get the basics of network integration right. 3/5 of Melbourne doesn’t live within walking distance of rail or tram, and have you tried to use one of their buses lately?
It’s easy to scoff at that and point to their masses of rail infrastructure, but the point is they run it like shit. With the CRL Auckland will be able to run just under half the number of trains through the city as Melbourne does. Difference is well do it with four tracks leading to town, while Melbourne has nineteen.
Anyway, forget about train systems (ours already carries more people than Wellington by the way, and we don’t even have half our fleet yet!). Consider mobility by all means. Auckland is creating shared spaces and cycle infrastructure at a cracking pace, wellington is building traffic flyovers through the city core. Auckland is rolling out a New Network with a raft of bus lanes to back it up, Sydney is spending it’s money on new motorways and making footpaths smaller downtown to create more traffic lanes. Aucklands waterfront development is literally a world champion.
Auckland is doing things right, and a big part of that is the single Auckland Council having the power and remit to work for the city as a whole. Add in our stable economy, good quality of life and strongopulation growth, and we can only sky rocket further.
You failed to mention that Sydney are also putting Light Rail down George St to Circular Quay running up to Randwick via Central as well as recently extending the inner west line. Not to mention the North West Rail link running Automated Single Deck metro style trains, which is currently under construction and all under a Liberal State Government. Have to disagree with you in regards to Melbourne, I have never lived there but every time I visit I am amazed at how easy is it is to get around, trams are fantastic, trains are fantastic, neighborhoods are fantastic, myki card is fantastic with zonal fares. I appreciate the optimism for Auckland and I can see where you are going with this, but it has a long way to go and attitudes towards PT in this place will need to go a long way with it. Time will tell I guess.
Yes Sydney is putting down light rail, but only because they have a bus congestion issue of their own design. They are using infrastructure to try and fix a network planning issue.
Well I did live in Melbourne for several years until quite recently. Your comment perhaps reinforces what I was trying to say. Yes Melbourne trams and trains are fantastic… if you happen to stick to the city and inner suburbs where the lines overlap and provide good service (which I assume you did like most visitors). Get out slightly and the service become rapidly appalling. The tram to my neighbourhood ran once every half hour at most times and stopped 1.5km short of the town centre, train station and bus routes. I rode it perhaps a half dozen times in four years. Great if you were a peak commuter to the CBD, terrible for anything else. Likewise with my train, good peak service to the city, very bad for me going the other way to my suburban workplace. On Sundays, some of the lines ran every 40 minutes. In the northern suburbs the only way to go from the likes of Collingwood to Abbotsford is to ride a tram into downtown then back out again. The idea of a functional bus to take you 4km across town is just inconceivable there. Melbourne is a city with great PT for city commuters and a handful of inner suburbs, the rest is traffic and congestion.
There are no plans to fix this, although there are plans for more mega projects. Building multimillion dollar infrastructure doesn’t necessarily fix anything. Auckland however does have plans to sort the basics out first, and this is why it is going to be better, and soon.
I agree as a visitor Melbourne is great to get around. I go every year and I love it. But it’s always so much easier as a visitor to big cities because you never go to the underserved suburban corners and believe me Melbourne has those, and they are not well catered for.
What Nick is saying is that Auckland can have a very very good equitable, lean and efficient system compared to both Sydney and Melbourne, and is actually building it, Won’t happen until the CRL is open but it is tantalisingly close. Partly this is possible because of smaller size and relatively linear form, but also, ironically, because of how bad it has been; so much will be completely new and designed for now.
The New Bus Network, new trains, etc. And just how the CRL will crack open the hidden resource of our funny little rail system… Consider the stunning Centre City revival and it turns out we’re actually proving to be pretty nibble at regeneration and reinvention…
I am extremely optimistic that Auckland is going through a really significant and powerful step up right now. And doing it through the three tools that have been shown to work in cities across the world:
Waterfront repurposing
Investment in Public Realm
Provision of high quality Public Transport
Versus the three that the big end of town always want but that don’t work, or have decidedly mixed outcomes for cities: investment in [especially public investment in]:
Casinos
Convention Centres
Stadia
Melbourne trains and trams *are* fantastic, but the picture’s very different if you’re in a part of the city not served by trains or trams. I loved staying with a friend in Northcote, with trams at the end of the street, but when I stayed in a different suburb, I was stuck waiting for infrequent, slow buses. I’m not sure I believe Auckland will ever beat Melbourne overall (certainly not if we don’t get density rules right), but we’re certainly starting to do buses better.
Chris, good point and this the trap that Auckland must avoid. The CRL provides excellent transport options, but only for a favoured minority. We must avoid perpetuating the current situation where many parts of Auckland suffering infrequent expensive services.
For me, living in Devonport, it’s madness that to go to a concert in Auckland I have to come home after work and then drive back into town just so I can get back home afterwards. What should happen is that I stay in town, go to a restaurant or bar, and then go to the concert, knowing that when I return to the ferry terminal there will be a ferry within 15 minutes maximum. That way, I will meet friends and put money into inner city businesses, not into imported petrol and car parking charges. Imagine thousands of people doing the same every month, and you can see how mobility can truly revitalise a city and make it a cool place to live.
I think Nick R is totally on the money with this piece – quality public transport can transform a city and Auckland can do it too. But the network has to cover all of Auckland; the CRL is part of it but the network overall is where the improvement really needs to be.
David, please, the ‘favoured few’. Bit rich coming from a Devonpovian: Devonport already has very good access to the city, as the crow flies, on a boat. The CRL serves 3/4 of Auckland’s population as it radically improves the entire rail network. People on the Shore often seem have these very bizarre ideas that they are somehow hard done transport wise and are the majority of Auckland’s population. In fact they have the only RTN route to be built since the 1930s in the Busway, and have always had the particular pleasures and frustrations of the ferries.
True you have to get yourself to the wharf, as others do to their stations, and I’m sure you’d prefer more sailings, but it’s a pretty nice way to arrive car-free in the city really, and then imagine your how further mobility options will improve with trains every 2.5 mins, west, south, and east with the CRL.
David B – totally agree, although I tend to use the ferries anyway as driving is just so unpleasant from Devonport. The ferries should be running at 15min intervals no doubt. Problem is that it is an unsubsidised service so no way to force Fullers to do that.
A competitor to Fullers would be welcome. Maybe the guys who started the Waiheke service will take them on.
I prefer the Melbourne model – give good public transport to the areas close to the city and forget about the rest. If you are the type of person that wants to use PT then you will live and work near the CBD. If you are a car person you can live in a sprawl suburb.
The Auckland model of trying to give PT options to everyone just wont work. Even with the CFN almost all of the suburbs nearer the city will only have bus links almost the same as they have now (with the exception of the few near the train line).
If Auckland reinstated the old tram network it would be a far better place.
“Devonport already has very good access to the city, as the crow flies, on a boat”. Yeah but there has to be a boat and on weekday evenings there often isn’t – just an hourly service after 8pm with last ferry at 11:15pm. As a consequence there is madly congested road access to the peninsula, demands for 100s of millions of $ to be spent fixing it and a widespread anti-density feeling because Lake Rd is already too full. You can laugh at the wealthy whinging Devonpovians but they have influence – if you want to win the density done well cultural battle you need to convince the bourgeoisie – they run the place.
“Regarding your coolness factor”
I remember Auckland in the late 80s and all through the 90s and I can tell you, it doesn’t compare to what it is now. Auckland really is one of the best cities in the world when you factor in all it’s natural and urban charms. It’ll never be NYC, but it’s not supposed to be.
“Your current train system is tiny, sick and pathetic…”
Close up the shop, guys! Everything’s shit and it’s never, ever going to get any better.
Seriously, though, I love the optimism shown in this post and many of the comments. Perhaps the sense of positivity and pride in the city is one more sign that things are going in the right direction!
Is it April 1st today
I have a strong optimism for Auckland’s future as well. It really has started to become ‘cool’ in recent years.
But first we need to build the CRL. That’s the vital stepping stone.
I know this is “Transport”blog, but still, this reads like a hipster wetdream (anything called Monocle should be run from at maxmum speed). Culture and cool isn’t exactly the be-all and end-all of what makes a great city. Here are a few other considerations…
1. Will Auckland be affordable? Will wage growth exceed house/rental inflation?
2. Will intensification have negative effects (noise, health etc.) I know it may seem odd, but will this adversely affect sporting success? Sprawling US cities like LA and Miami are absolute factories for top athletes and sportsmen, whereas more intensified places like New York (five boroughs) and Boston are less so (yes they have pro franchises but the players didnt grow up there)
3. Will the University of Auckland have continued its long slow slide down the rankings? A great city needs a world class university. Without UoA in the world top 50, we can’t validly claim to be one of the world’s finest cities.
And most importantly…
4. Will we have real, valid local democracy rather than the current system where Local Boards have symbolic value at best, while the Mayorocracy ruuns things as he/she wishes??
1. Detroit is affordable; perhaps what you really mean is successful but more equitable, then intensification is vital; more equal access is vital .
2. Good grief; channelling Kipling, straight out of the Edwardian moral panic about cities; worried urban living won’t make sufficiently robust cannon fodder?
3. Yes, but only because of the rise of standards in the rest of the world, especially Asia.
4. The mayor is only one vote at Council, the real over-concentration of power reaching right down to local level is in central government. You want a city run by local board equivalents; move to Wellington.
On US sportsmen – you are dead wrong. You are mixing up where someone went to college and made their name with where they were raised). Many are from high density cities or small country towns – few from big sprawling cities. I will choose a few high profile ones to show you:
1. Michael Jordan (NBA) – Born and raised Brooklyn New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jordan)
2. Jon Jones (UFC) – Born and raised Rochester, New York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Jones)
3. Floyd Mayweather (Boxing) – raised New Jersey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floyd_Mayweather,_Jr.)
4. Kobe Bryant (NBA) – Born Philadelphia – spent much of childhood in Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_Bryant)
5. Derrick Rose (NBA) – Born and raised Chicago, Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derrick_Rose)
In fact, I struggled to find any athletes on the best paid list for athletes from LA or Miami.
Even in NZ, many high profile All Blacks came from cities (John Kirwan, Jonah Lomu). So yeah, facts can be so inconvenient.
Nice cherrypicking there. Here is some REAL data showing that intensified cities (not cities per se) produce relatively few top athletes.
https://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recruiting/rankings/rank-3402
http://deadspin.com/infographics-where-do-high-school-basketball-stars-com-5984694
http://regressing.deadspin.com/this-map-shows-exactly-where-college-football-players-c-1504937484
http://athlonsports.com/college-football/state-recruiting-where-do-best-players-come
What on earth does this have to do with anything? It’s like saying that Arthur Lydiard trained his runners on long runs in the rural Waitakeres, therefore we never should have allowed any subdivisions west of New Lynn.
maybe not to have good athletes is a good thing if they end up like Dick Quax
My grandfather always used to say, “Silver equals first loser”.
Take that, Quax!
1) Yes Auckland will be more affordable. Better transport and greater job density means a more productive economy. Better public transport to all parts of the city means greater access to employment for workers, and a greater labour pool for employers. The city will certainly more affordable to travel around, particularly when people can drop the second car used just to get one person to work. Housing costs will drop on average because we will increasingly be building cheaper and better housing typologies. Not much will change for the so called quarter acre dream, land-intensive housing will always be a choice between high expense in desirable areas, or long travel times to fringe areas with limited services… but people will have a greater range of quality housing options such that not every has to buy in to the single house on land typology.
2) Intensification will have some negative effects, and some positive effects. The positive health effects of a more walkable city will greatly exceed those of a driving city. Living in a terraced house next to the park is better than living in a suburb where you have to drive to the park. A more intensive, walkable transit-able city is better for sports, both amateur and professional. Right now any aspiring athlete under the age of 16 needs their parents to drive them to and from practice. What if the 14 year old could get an early bus to swim training on their own, what if a young track start could confidently and timely get home from the stadium after dusk even if they can’t drive? What if a cyclist could ride to training without worrying about getting killed on the way to the velodrome? Access to regular, long span public transport across the suburbs (and not just to town) would be a huge boon for young people accessing sports and training facilities. Something as simple as having your friends able to walk to your weekend rugby game boosts participation and performance, with a more intensive city you have more people within walking distance of every rugby club. We have great sports facilities, great climate, great local support. The only thing holding participation back is access, and we can fix that.
3) With bettter public spaces, better public transport, more intesification and greater engagement in public life, the University will be one of the greatest benefactors. More students, more elite suduents, engaging more. You know who likes a ‘hipster wet dream’ lifestyle? Students, especially the most successful ones who have their pick of study locations. ANU is the best university in Australia acedemically, but all their postdocs go on to Melbourne or Sydney to teach and research, simply because the don’t want to live in Canberra. Massey Albany is a weak university because it has an uninspiring campus and a student base that drives in for lectures then drives straight out again. The strength of UofA is it’s urban character, and what is good for urban Auckland is good for the urban university.
4) The mayor has no real power in our city, you’re mad to call it a Mayorocracy. Council has power collectively, to run a city collectively. Local boards have power and funding to deal with local issue just fine. Avoiding petty fiefdoms is the best feature of our system. We have excellent and valid local democracy, but here local means Auckland, not just your little neighbourhood.
But if kids don’t have a backyard to play cricket, if local greenspace is getting turned into apartments/houses and such (e.g. Unitec, the reserve above Long Bay), will activity actually increase? Of course great PT is amazing for sportsmen, but don’t forget if you keep building buildings, you take over greenspace (unless you build up and leave plenty of space for fields and parks around the housing). I think you are right in saying that being able to walk to a ground is great, but intensification means fewer grounds, and it also means fewer opportunities to chuck a ball around in the backyard. Martin and Jeff Crowe learned their skills in the backyard.
My point about the university was that the initial post took a very narrow and dare-I-say bourgeois attitude towards a “good city.” Culture and cool certainly don’t resonate with me (or with many others), I don’t want a city full of lazy kulaks sipping long blacks, I want a city that is an engine of industry, scholarship, and sporting success.
I’m sorry but the Mayor has ALL the power. To say it’s a collective is absurd. I’ve been on the inside and I can guarantee that what the mayor wants, he gets, unless there’s a sudden (and rare) public ruckus. The Auckland Plan is the “Mayor’s Vision” not “Council’s Vision.” Local Boards get to choose what colour to paint the library and that’s about it.
“Culture and cool certainly don’t resonate with me (or with many others), I don’t want a city full of lazy kulaks sipping long blacks, I want a city that is an engine of industry, scholarship, and sporting success.”
Funny dichotomy you’re proposing here. These days, the most productive sectors are those that rely upon significant inputs of creativity, imagination, and intelligence. That’s where our economic future lies, not with the bygone days of the screwdriver industries.
You know what attracts the people who start those businesses and staff them? “Culture and cool.”
Also, to echo Nick, once land prices get expensive – as they have done in Auckland – you have a choice. Either you intensify (i.e. produce more houses per hectare of pricey land), or you fail to provide affordable housing. Do the maths on that!
Oh dear. Gary you’ve totally sprung me! I’m actually in the employ of Auckland Council. Monocle’s editorial team has nothing to do with what I write or what is happening here – we’ve actually been paying them all this time! HOW DID YOU GUESS?
Fair enough, the style of the post has a whiff of Pangloss about it, when we think of the current state of Auckland – but I don’t think there is anything above that’s wildly beyond the bounds of what could happen, as long as we match the optimism with active effort to make it happen (and vigilance over the authorities that can either make or break Auckland’s future prospects). We’ve made strides but I am not sure we are by any means at a safe tipping point yet.
Yes definitely a optimistic whiff, but the point is we have the governance structures and plans in place to actually achieve these things in the near future. That is the key difference that sets Auckland apart for all our peers across Australasia.
Yes that is a really important point. And for all those who think Brown’s mayoralty has done nothing are really mistaken (which is infact why he is so loathed by those who want nothing to change: Brewer, Quax, North Shore MPs). By end 2016 we will have a brand new and hugely improved Transit system and the CRL underway. Couldn’t happen without amalgamation. Wellington really ought to take note; it seems to be going backwards now and the spilntered nature of its governance is part of the reason for that.
So Len has done a lot has he? Well, I’d like to know:
Has the reliability of water improved under his watch?
Has the number of sewage leaks decreased under his watch?
Has response time to dog attacks improved under his watch?
Have fewer alcohol premises failed stings under his watch? (Not likely based on today’s news reports)
Have building and resource consent processing times decreased under his watch?
Has the ease of accessing library services improved under his watch?
Has the standard of public art improved under his watch?
Has the quality and quantity of public events e.g. concerts increased under his watch?
Has the reliability of rubbish pickups improved under his watch?
Has the number of noise complaints dropped under his watch?
Has the number of stormwater overflows dropped under his watch?
Has the average commute time dropped under his watch?
Has the water quality in Auckland’s streams improved under his watch?
These are, unlike your antiquated project-based (input) view of success, actual levels of service, not “things.” Remember assets exist to deliver services, and if there aren’t actual improvements in service, then there’s no point building the assets.
You seriously think there is a problem with water supply in Auckland?
Anyway no wonder you think the mayor is all powerful if you think one vote on Council can achieve that wish list; meanwhile on planet earth….
governance is such an important point; totally missed by Gary and misrepresented by Lord Maths (mind you, the latter considers immigrants to be “sell outs” so you have to wonder …). Compared to Wellington and Australian capital cities Auckland’s governance structures are a dream and give it a huge long-run competitive advantage. Key features:
1) Auckland Transport administers all transport functions, with the notable exception of state highways and
2) Auckland Council;s boundaries integrate a coherent metropolitan area with a reasonable rural periphery/hinterland.
In contrast, Australia’s city governance is a confuzzled mix of local councils (too small) and state governments (too large), plus a strange federal overlay (too random). Some have dedicated transit agencies, which disintegrates them from parking/land use strategy etc. Others bundle transit into state governments that don’t have control over local roads and thereby can’t get bus stops/lanes, SEQ being the notable example. All in all Australian city governance is a mess and it’s actively holding their cities back in so many ways.
Auckland’s governance is not perfect, but by golly it’s a darned sight better than most. Ways to make it better:
1) Urban development agency, as recommended by CCO review. This would be the glue that binds together the Auckland Council’s strategic vision and Auckland Transport’s implementation; and
2) Elect some councillors at-large, as recommended by Royal Commission on Auckland Governance but dismissed by Rodney Hide. Ensures greater diversity of representation and less parochial representatives.
You might have missed the news Stu, but we just got the urban development agency this week. Waterfront Auckland and council property has been merged to form Development Auckland. Given the great work from Watfront it bodes very well!
What you call parochialism some call “representing the people that voted for them” also known as “*representative* democracy”.
It’s what used to exist in the UK before the tyranny of parties.
So that means the NZTA will fund the CRL straight away just like they have funded the Waterview connection
No it won’t, what it means is that the first stage, or ‘Enabling Works’ – Britomart to Wyndham St is going to start next year; is already out to tender.
Nick,
loving the optimism and positivity.
When we moved here from London, our decision was based on Auckland being pretty awesome already but we also thought that Auckland had the potential to be much, much better once it sorted its transport and housing issues.
I think we’re on track with sorting the transport issues.
The Unitary Plan was a missed opportunity to sort housing intensification but I think the pressure on the housing market will eventually reach the point where intensification is the only solution. It’s just painful waiting for it to happen when you know it’s the inevitable outcome.
We’d lived in Melbourne and Auckland before we made our decision to come here so it wasn’t completely theoretical.
Love it, but have one big concern.
If by some bad set of circumstances, National or its ilk are still in office by 2020, are they really going to enthusiastically embrace the CRL, or will they find yet more excuses to procrastinate? By then, if all goes according to their plans, they will be deeply into major road projects such as the AWHC. When these run into the inevitable problems and cost-overruns, are they still going to turn around and prioritise the CRL?
I would feel much more positive about all this if we could get rid of National as soon as possible.
I have similar concerns. There are a lot of senior National MPs who are opposed to the CRL and are only going along with it because John Key said so. I’m also not entirely convinced by the MPs who’ve had a change of heart. “Show me the money!” and I’ll feel a lot more comfortable.
Auckland – most improved – over the next 10 years.
The best? One of the best..? In Australasia OK sure…
I am living in an Asian capital city… nothing special – mid range possibly top 10-20 by most rankings in Asia alone.
Commute (15-30mins) – 5min walk, metro, 5min walk – .cost… 66 cents! I can also take cheaper buses, cycle or scooter.
I live 4 stops from accessing a part of the CBD proper and three major interchange stations (10-15 mins).
I live 7 stops and 1 interchange from accessing high speed rail – 300kph trains.
I live inside a true metro system, 100+ stations running 6am – 12am, 3-5 min freq.
My local station (5min walk) has PT bikes – 72 bike stations – that you can use your metro card to access, first 30mins free.
The two major bus stops I can access within 5min walk of my house (one integrated with the metro / PT bike station) run at least 5 – 10 routes 5am to 10:30pm at 10min freq.
Wages – I make the average wage in NZ dollar terms c.$25-30 per hour. But the cost of living is considerably cheaper.
For 6 months of the year I’m taxed at 5% (the other 6 months I get a rebate that is a lump sum 60% of my other 6 months tax once a year).
Rental – I pay the equivalent of $400 / month!!! This is ‘expensive.’
Auckland in a world context will be better… but the best? Even close to the best..? Hmmm
Hi John, note that I’m arguing that Auckland will become one of the best cities in the world (not the absolute best). I’m also not saying we will have the best transit system in the world by any means. What I am saying is that Auckland is already a great city, stable economy, stable government, wealthy, low crime, low poverty, beautiful natural environment, low pollution, strong growth etc.
Your asian capital, how is the pollution, the natural environment, the human rights? What proportion of the population live in poverty? I’ve no doubt Auckland can fix its transport faster than Beijing clears its air, Hanoi eradicates poverty, or Singapore gets a spectacular natural setting.
About the only thing we’re not great at is transit, pedestrian realm, and housing choice. But we are rapidly fixing those, because we have the means to do so. Because we are so blessed on other counts we don’t need the best transit in the world to be a great world city, we just need to get the basics right. That we are doing, and fast!
Hi Nick,
c.2.5m in the city, 7m in the metro area.
Government is democratic, human rights are there to be exercised.
Poverty is relative – plenty of poor – but I’d say little poverty.
Environment is decent, large riparian riverside park cycleways all along the multiple rivers in the basin and out to the coast. Mountains of 1200m+ that you can climb within the metro area.
Problems… often too hazy / cloudy (though it does have a sub-tropical climate so 8 months of the year it’s a good thing) and too many scooters.
What magical city is this? If you won’t say, it seems very odd. Is it a third world country or first world (ie Japan, South Korea, Singapore etc)? Sounds to me like it’s in China or Thailand (or somewhere similar). None of those cities are in the world’s most livable. It’s obsurd to say those places don’t have poverty, you obviously haven’t traveled from your expensive suburb to slums.
It sounds like Taipei to me. I’ve been there, and my brother lived there for about 5 years. It’s a nice city as large asian cities go – actually quite westernised. The PT is great, the road traffic is not so great, but not terrible compared to other asian cities.
You got me Jaime! 🙂
Nothing magical, just providing a counter example.
This post states a big claim and I don’t think I’m hating on Auckland by providing a different opinion (even if originally and still in my veins a Wellingtonian!)
PS show me the “Taipei slum” and I’ll happily leave my expensive??? suburb and check it out!!
A touch personal there I’d say…
Hey I’m not hating on Taipei, it sounds very good from what you say and I know It has a great transit system. Anyway, the fact that Taipei is great won’t stop Auckland being great too. Again I wasn’t suggesting Auckland would be the ultimate city in the whole world, just that we have a very good chance of becoming one of the best, most loved places to live, and soon.
Nick R, I must say this blog and the developments I’m following about Auckland certainly do make me think.
I will be back in NZ I’m sure in the next decade and a few years ago I would have only thought of Wellington… Now Auckland really does look an exciting possibility to live and work in. I just hope in five years Christchurch too might be on the ex pat radar… Go NZ INC !!
excellent article while most people will still have a car more often it will be parked at home and used less often and a AT hop card
will be as common as a eftpos card in peoples wallets
Wonderful positive upbeat post, Nick; and I totally share the optimism. The comment by Gary near the top is risible but illustrates the paucity of vision prevalent in grumpy buggerland, where change is unimaginable and best resisted.
We gotta stay optimistic but I think the time horizon to ‘fix’ Auckland will be a lot longer than 10 years. I hope the CRL is the start of something good, however the systemic issues Auckland has are bedded in deep. I’ve had cause to travel to all corners of the joint over recent weeks – not one of the trips was viable via public transport and all made me feel depressed at the state of the non “rock-star” neighbourhoods (your Ponsonbys, Westmeres, Parnells etc). The amount of strip malls, the car congestion in places you least expect it, the absence of street life or just a lone pedestrian walking down a bleak four lane road… it’s painful and sad. The truth is the natural assets of this city – the location and landscape – shine through despite the havoc we have wreaked. Car culture rules and rolling that back will take the rest of this century – and then maybe we can start thinking about a city that is beautiful, functional, clever and caring for everyone, not just the privileged few.
The thread’s run out of nesting – this is a reply to David B, Dec 4 at 10:02.
My comment about Auckland doing buses better than parts of Melbourne is in no way meant to disparage the CRL. In fact, in order to keep doing buses better, we need the CRL to unlock capacity in the rail network so we can feed buses to train stations and move people efficiently rather than try (and fail) to add more and more buses to the central city to keep up with demand.
I take your point that Devonport could do with better late-evening services. Perhaps you should make a submission to AT suggesting more frequent sailings. But that’s not a reason not to build the CRL, far from it – higher rail capacity enables efficiency improvements across the bus network, which will free up money and capacity for improvements to buses and ferries in areas not served by trains. We could keep making incremental improvements to the current kludge of routes… or we could build the one major project that unlocks latent capacity in an existing asset and enables more efficient operation of the entire network across all modes.
And speaking of trains and areas not currently served by them, in the long term, there’s no rail to the Shore without the CRL.
A word also for the airport. I fly regularly to Canada, and this year to Shanghai, Schipol and CDG so a few to choose from, and I’m really impressed by the services here, and the attitude. Needs good free wifi – and of course a train to the city, like Vancouver and others – but CRL will make that possible.
The multiple ‘cities’ in other cities now seem quite weird to me. Auckland has such a different feel from the old glass tower era, with wealth up there and NOTHING in the civic realm for the mortals walking down below.
How can it be a wonderful place to live if an average worker can’t own his own home? Fortunately we are not all economists here…