AT digging in over Pohutukawa Six

The Auckland Transport board meet on Friday for the first time and a paper in the open session gives an update on the fate of the six Pohutukawa at St Lukes. Unfortunately it doesn’t make for good reading with AT continuing to push the line that removing the trees is the only option. Additionally they disingenuously continue to claim that that the improvements are all about bus users and cyclists when there is barely any improvement for buses and no cycle facilities are included at all (a shared space doesn’t count). Here’s the executive summary.

The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) is upgrading the St Luke’s Interchange (the Project) to accommodate future increased traffic demand at the intersection as a
consequence of the opening of the SH16/SH20 Waterview Connection in March 2017.  NZTA’s proposed upgrade offers Auckland Transport (AT) an opportunity to provide bus priority, cycling and pedestrian improvements (Improvements) at this location as part of the NZTA project.

The Improvements were not included in the 2012-2015 RLTP, as the opportunity to deliver the works early through the Project had not been identified. In August 2012, AT and NZTA made an agreement in principle (subject to Board approval if required) that AT would deliver the Improvements through the Project and contribute to the related costs, then estimated to be between $4.5m and $8.0m. The most recent assessment, received in January 2015, puts the estimated total AT cost at $5.5m for which budget is allocated in the 2014/15 Annual Plan.

Works to increase the number of lanes on the St Lukes section of the motorway are already underway (Stage 1) and consents to lift and widen the motorway overbridge as well as associated works affecting the St Lukes Interchange were granted to both AT and NZTA for their respective portions in February 2014.

NZTA and AT are seeking to provide an additional turning lane for westbound access to the motorway overbridge on Great North Road and additional lane allocation to provide for bus priority through the St Lukes Road-Great North Road intersection. These works are known as Stage 2, the preferred option, and result in the removal of six Pohutukawa trees.

Alternative options to avoid removal of the six Pohutukawa trees were investigated including; reduced lane widths, relocating traffic lanes, alternative land take, reduced lanes and a do nothing option. Only the preferred option delivers AT’s required outcomes, being improved passenger transport facilities (lengthened bus lane), improved cycle/pedestrian facilities (widened footpath to provide a shared use facility) and improved traffic flows (additional left hand turn from Great North Road to St Lukes Road). None of the alternative options could provide these overall improvements; therefore Stage 2, the current Works proposal was progressed to consenting.

In May 2014, AT lodged a NoR to alter two designations to enable progress of the Stage 2 works. The application was publicly notified on 6 June 2014. As is standard practice for applications where council land is involved, an independent hearing panel was appointed to hear the application. Following a hearing on 5 & 6 November 2014, the hearing panel concluded that AT has adequately considered alternatives and the works are reasonably necessary to meet the transport objectives of the immediate and wider network.

The Group Manager Property and Planning has reviewed the hearing panel’s recommendation and at the time of writing a decision on whether to formally accept or decline the recommendation is imminent. The decision is required to be notified to council (a statutory requirement of the NoR process).

There’s a few key points in here that are worth highlighting.

• The existing works on the motorway interchange and widening of St Lukes Bridge also involve raising the bridge up. As part of that consent the intersection itself also needs to be raised. The report states (page 4) that even if the trees stay they will need to – and already have consent for pruning 25-50% of the canopy out of four of the Pohutukawa. This is because they need a 6m clearance “to achieve over height route dimensions“.
• Because the intersection is going to be raised anyway AT want to make their changes at the same time. They say that if this doesn’t happen it would likely need to happen as a standalone project which would likely take more than 10 years and that doing so would increase the cost as it would be a standalone project rather than hooking into the work the NZTA is already doing.
• That seven alternative options were considered including, some of which kept the trees. These options included reduced lane widths, relocating traffic lanes, alternative land take, reduced lanes and a do nothing option. To me AT need to release the details on all of the alternative options that were considered along with why they were rejected.

Below is the plan that’s currently consented to happen which will see the intersection raised and 25-50% of the canopy from four of the Pohutukawa removed. Also note the eastern side pedestrian crossing has also been removed from this design too.

And here is Auckland Transport’s plans that double up the slip lane, only adds 100m of bus lane and for which the cycle facilities consist of just a 3m shared path that most people won’t brave the eastbound on/off ramp intersection to be able to reach in the first place. You can see Cycle Action Auckland aren’t impressed by this either.

And all of this disruption is just so that there’s slightly fewer vehicles on the eastbound off ramp.

Of course there’s still no thought to sending the footpath behind the trees or considering the use of the space behind the trees currently used to store private property as this landscape plan shows

To me it seems like AT are digging their heels in on this issue however it seems the more they do that the more determined the community will be to oppose it.  To me here are the things that AT need to urgently do on this issue.

• They need to explain why it is there HAS to be a double slip lane.
• They need to publicly release all of the options that have been considered and information on why they weren’t proceeded with.
• They need to be honest that this upgrade isn’t about people on buses or bikes but about giving more space over to cars.
• They get some independent designs produced .

Below is a press release from many of the people fighting to save the trees.

Auckland Transport Board needs to hear alternatives to destruction of historic trees

Auckland Transport’s board is unlikely to hear of the widespread concern from iwi, urban design experts, the Tree Council, cyclists, and the wider community about Auckland Transport’s plans to destroy a stand of mature pohutukawa trees on Great North Road as part of the St Luke’s junction project.

The trees were planted around Arbor Day in 1934 as part of a Depression- era project to enhance greenspace and create Chamberlain Park. They stand opposite the gates of MOTAT, and over recent months have attracted a storm of protest and a number of signs and colourful ‘yarnbombing.’

“Representatives of the various interest groups had asked for the opportunity to briefly address Auckland Transport Board at the open session of the Board’s meeting on Friday 20 February,” says Christine Rose, a spokesperson for the Pohutukawa Savers. “This is the only opportunity the board will have to hear of the range of community concerns about Auckland Transport’s plan. Auckland Transport have advised, however, that only one community representative will be allowed to address the Board.”

Jolisa Gracewood, a fellow spokesperson for the Pohutukawa Savers, who has written about the issue for the blog Public Address, said this is the latest in a series of events that have seen the community effectively shut out of debate on the controversial decision to remove the trees.

“All but two of the 64 written submissions to a Council-appointed Hearings Panel on this issue were opposed to the loss of the trees. Fully 54 of these submissions including a petition with 1475 signatures and individual comments, were ruled out of order on a technicality; a wrong number was supplied and a mistake perpetuated by Council in its correspondence with the public up until the late afternoon of the day before the hearing.

AUT Maori Development lecturer, Ella Henry, questions AT’s claim that “no concern was raised by mana whenua in regard to the removal of the trees.” She is concerned that there has not been appropriate and meaningful consultation with Mana Whenua groups, and also Mata Waka/Taura Here – those Maori who are not tangata whenua, but are, like herself, part of the Auckland community, and who are passionate about ensuring that indigenous flora and fauna in the region are protected and enhanced.

Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Deputy Chairman Ngarimu Blair said they have not been engaged on the proposed tree removal and is concerned with their removal. “That area is already hostile to families who visit MOTAT, Pasifika and Western Springs. It is hoped the design can be re-thought to retain these trees and any other measures that can bring back a sense of calm and safety for those not in cars,” Blair said.

Says Christine Rose, “A community liaison meeting in January was remarkable for the unwillingness of Auckland Transport representatives to consider alternatives that would meet their objectives and preserve the treescape. This meeting was also notable for the high-handed approach of Auckland Transport’s representatives who, with one exception, were not even prepared to introduce themselves to the MP, local board and community representatives who attended.

“The proposed solution meets only narrow transport objectives, offers inadequate provision for walking, cycling, and public transport, and fails on social and environmental grounds. It would be a travesty to destroy the trees for a suboptimal plan, when credible alternatives exist.

“Friday’s board meeting is a last chance for positive, open dialogue. We would like to see Board members fully informed of the range of concerns so that they are well-positioned to test the thinking of Auckland Transport officers and their advisors before agreeing to the destruction of a piece of Auckland’s history.

Jolisa Gracewood says that there is strong community support for funding an appeal to the Environment Court should Auckland Transport proceed.

“There is frustration at what is proposed, the high-handed process, and the unwillingness to consider alternatives. Auckland Transport is a publicly funded, Council-owned CCO that spends 50% of Auckland’s rates on roads but cannot be held accountable by the public in how it spends their money. If accountability can only be achieved through a legal process, reluctantly, that may have to be the option chosen.

“We are hoping, however, that the Auckland Transport Board will ask their staff to reconsider this ham-fisted plan and come up with something that is more appropriate for Auckland’s goal of being the world’s most liveable city. Auckland Transport is already pursuing excellent place-making projects such as the shared spaces, the boardwalk, transforming the disused Nelson St off-ramp into an aerial bike path, and the Reeves Rd flyover giving way to the AMETI busway, so we remain hopeful.

“The original planting of these long-lived native trees was a forward nod to the city’s centenary. Preserving the trees and working around them as we look forward to the bicentenary in 2040 would be a splendid gift to future generations of Aucklanders, for which AT would be warmly praised and respected.”

The Auckland Transport Board meeting will be held on Friday 20 February at 1pm in the Kauri Room, Level 11, HSBC, 1 Queen Street, Auckland. Anyone interested in showing their support for saving the trees is encouraged to attend.

Share this