The council have announced the results of the public submissions on the Long Term Plan. We saw a few updates during the consultation including this one from on the results up to 19 February. At that time there had been around 5,000 submissions however the full consultation ended with over 27,000 – that’s a lot more than the 10,000 from the previous LTP.
Auckland Council’s 10-year budget consultation received a record 27,353 written submissions, with the majority of Aucklanders opting to support the advanced transport network, it has been revealed today.
In addition to the written submissions, there were 1,354 pieces of feedback via social media and more than 1,400 Aucklanders attended a Have Your Say event. The previous LTP consultation received 10,084 submissions.
The consultation saw Aucklanders provide feedback on a number of issues including the levels of investment in the region over the next decade and what council needs to do to fix the region’s transport problems.
Figures show that 50% opted for the advanced transport network and 29% supported the basic transport plan. On the question of funding the transport options, 34% supported motorway tolls, while 27% favoured a fuel tax and rates rises.
Auckland Mayor Len Brown says that elected officials now had a responsibility to listen to what Aucklanders have said.
“Aucklanders have spoken and their wishes are clear,” he says.
“They want a more comprehensive transport system that will cater to the needs of our growing city.
“The council now has a responsibility to listen to what they have said and act decisively through the decisions we make.
“Yes, it will be challenging to get where we need to go, but there is no doubt in my mind that Auckland is ready for that challenge.
“Our future depends on us having a transport network that is fit for purpose and has the ability to cope with the increase in population that will take place here over the next 30 years.
“So my thanks go to all those who got involved to give us their views. I will do everything in my power to ensure that we don’t let them down.”
Elected officials will now consider the feedback in a series of briefings and workshops ahead of final decisions that will be made on May 7 & 8.
The plan will be formally adopted by the council on 25 June and the final plan, including 21 local board agreements, will be available at www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz along with a summary of decisions made in July.
The accompanying report provides a lot more information. First up the demographic breakdown. This is something Peter looked into more closely in this post. I’ve updated his table with the final information which shows that over time the numbers from some demographic groups did improve however some segments of the population are still well over represented. One of the biggest shifts has been in the 15-34 age brackets which likely highlights the great work that Generation Zero did and shows that younger people are keen to be involved when engaged correctly.
The next table breaks down the results by local board area (where it was available) and you can see that the rural areas, the North Shore and much of the Isthmus area tend to be over represented while the west and south to be under represented.
Moving on to the actual results.
Of the people that answered, 54% disagreed with the proposed 3.5% rates increase which was up slightly from the earlier updates. This update doesn’t say whether people think the rates should be higher or lower but I assume most would think the latter (was 79% last time).
More interesting are the areas where people want more or less focus to go on. There are some notable changes compared to the earlier feedback. Previously those saying to spend more on transport only slightly outnumbered those who said spend less. The comparison now shows a lot more people want more spent on transport. The other major change is for parks and community. Previously those wanting more spent were only about half of those saying to spend less whereas now it is much more even. The graphs for the other results aren’t that different to the earlier results.
Next up the question of which of the two official transport plans people support and preferences for how the Auckland Plan network should be funded. The results seem very similar to the numbers from February. It’s worth remembering that the council tried to push both of these questions as a binary choice yet the results are anything but.
So what is it people think we should be focusing on? In short public transport and cycling. I wonder what out transport budget would look like if it mirrored the results below. Of course this isn’t that dissimilar to the results the AA released a few weeks ago.
The last question I was interested in was on the public’s views for merging a few CCOs such as Waterfront Auckland and Auckland Council Properties Ltd to create a single one called Development Auckland.
Now we wait to see if the councillors listen to the results.
Processing...
Is it safe to assume the 17% supporting the ‘other transport option’ represents the gen zero essential tranport plan?
The online questionnaire was appalling. The options were predetermined to suit council getting more money. I notice that around half the respondents favour NO fuel tax or motorway tolls. There was NO option to tell council to live within budget. The whole exercise was abhorrent and deceitful. And before the haters have a go, I’m not the only one who had pointrd out how biased the survey was. The NBR also had an article stating the same. This was not a democratic act by any means.
Agreed on the questionnaire, it was a loaded, predetermined tick the box for what AC wanted but the funding remains a mystery. From those figures there is no mandate to fund this from either tolls at just over a 3rd in favour or any other method. Stating the obvious we don’t have the spare cash in our low wage economy to throw into the bottomless pit.
Well, I have wondered for a while whether this was supposed to be mainly a fig leaf in terms of the extra funds not appearing. In that sense, it can still work reasonably well (“You said to us you are ambivalent about ways X and Z of raising extra money, but certainly don’t want to raise rates either. So we *had* to cut project P and T.”)
I am not even opposed to them doing that. It’s called leadership, making hard calls. But please, Councillors, look at the bloody Q2C table responses when deciding what to cut!!!
The last question re CCOs shouldn’t have been on the survey. How many people in the community have the knowledge or familiarity with the pluses and minuses of consolidating CCOs? How many of them know what a CCO is? This is a technical matter for the experts and policy makers to work through. The public really doesn’t have a clue as to whether ACPL and Waterfront, for example, should be combined.
Re Ricardo. Correct about the survey questions. The questions were all loaded. It was a marketing piece more than a legitimate survey.
Stevenz, yes you are correct. The public know nothing and really these decisions should just be left to unelected ‘experts’ and politicians. Why we even bother with all this so called ‘democracy’ is beyond me. All these elections are just a waste of time and money; leave it to those who know better.
Stevenz is indeed correct and the suggestion that he is against democracy is a straw man. He is against presenting questions that an audience has no means of answering, and expecting a useful result. You have to inform your audience first, as we do in elections.
Spending less on “governance & support” – isn’t that the area where the same people then complain that Council never considers their needs, proceeds too slowly on their applications, and when you call, there’s nobody available to talk to you?
Cake and eat it too, if you ask me. Also known as “I want more service and less rates”.
Ironically governance and support might even include consultation on the LTCCP.
The figures show that 50% opted for the excessively expensive transport network, and 50% against the excessively expensive transport network. On the question of funding the transport options, 66% did not support motorway tolls, while 73% did not favour a fuel tax and rates rises.
Auckland Mayor Len Brown says that elected officials now had a responsibility to listen to what Aucklanders have said.
“Aucklanders have spoken and their wishes are clear,” he says.
50% for, 50% against, we should get a half way between solution – a.k.a. The Essential Transport Budget!
+1
Grrr. They’re still listing “Kiwi” as an ethnicity. So unprofessional.
Why is it unprofessional to have ethnicities that people identify with?
Also, if people give it as a response in significant numbers, ignoring it is unprofessional, as it skews the other results.
Any genuine statistician in NZ will know how to handle responses like ‘Kiwi’ or ‘New Zealander’. Why give that small group any prominence?
I opted for Pacific because I was born here and NZ is in the Pacific.
Unfortunate. Fictitious responses render the data less useful. It’s important to identify to what extent various communities are represented. You do realise that ethnicity is not the same as nationality don’t you?
I’m with mfwic (for once). Being born on a Pacific Island aka Norf aka Te Ika a Maui I consider myself a Pacific Islander. If my skin isn’t brown enough for some bureaucrat- tough.
Having “Kiwi” as an option may have taken the “other” category down from 2400%+ over represented to only 700% over represented but they’re still missing one vital category- what is it?
WHy is race so important? As opposed to, for example, religion or personality type.
Do you really think the Council should be asking what colour my skin is? And yes ethnicity is the polite word for race.
Ethnicity is about belonging. Race is about genetics. There is plenty you can read about this if you genuinely want to understand it.
If it is about belonging, what is wrong with Kiwi? That would be the only ethnic group I belong to.
Matthew, how would you describe the difference between ‘Kiwi’ and other ethnicities in New Zealand? How do we spot one?
Sacha, in terms of your belonging definition, it is someone who feels they belong in the NZ culture and lifestyle.
If your response to that is – there is no single culture – well, that is true. But do you then end up defining ethnicity as “sports loving nationalist”, “fantasy geek” etc?
I find it hard to get past the 3D pie charts and the terrible green/red colour schemes….
The mayor’s claim that Auckland has spoken when South Auckland is so woefully under-represented shows this was always a central city, middle class hijack.
Considering south auckland had just as much of a opportunity and chance to contribute than central auckland, I think it actually shows more who cares or values their say more than anything.
You do understand the differences in the populations who live in Central and South Auckland, right? And their relative resources and ‘opportunites’?
Wow. Just wow. Equal chance and opportunity? You are joking right? That implies everyone’s personal situation is the same which is ridiculous. A large chunk probably don’t have access to the internet or a computer or a car to get to a board office or time/money to spend to do that. Many people out south don’t speak English well let alone write in english as it isn’t their first language or even second language. It is likely many did not even know there was a survey in the first place. Many probably don’t know they even have a say in things. Also the south has a very large cohort of young people who are oblivious to politics. Their opinion on what kind of city they want to live in is just as valid as anyone else’s but it’s just difficult to get their thoughts as is indicated in this survey.
For the record the survey is quite useless. It is not statistically representative of the population, it is self selecting and incredibly biased but I also don’t mind the results.
So you like the results of a “useless” survey?
Kind of self-defeating and nonsensical of you isn’t it?
Lol. Nice piece of moral outrage.
However, pretty sure there are many, many more people fully capable of filling an online submission form then a meager 27300 odd. Even in South Auckland.
Also, go Rodney. 3.9% population and highest number of returns. Bet that skewing the results somewhat haha.
I think you missed the point. The survey was never about genuinely finding out what the population or a representative sample think. It was a process by which the Council staff could pretend they actually gave a crap about what we think. It was always just going to be something they drew pretty pictures from then used to justify what they had already decided to do.
Absolutely correct mfwic
Submitters are a self-selecting group and it is therefore a biased sample. So, whatever other merits this survey has (and I think it does have them) one should be wary of calling it representative. However, a “middle class hijack” suggests a conspiracy, which is…unlikely.
“Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.” – Napoleon
+1
Interesting the number of people that think AT should focus more on buses. Do they think buses are the best way forward for Auckland, or is it that they use the bus system and its so bad that they want change, or is it just because more PT users take buses than trains?
Problem is that we didn’t know what we were actually getting
“Are you willing to spend an extra 2.5 minutes per trip in traffic to save xx$ off your rates bill” would be a proper consultation exercise.
Input-based policymaking is 1950s style.
That level of precision would be impossible to deliver on however: to you in a car? as a package? on foot? on Transit? on which route? at what time? And what would the quality of those 2.5 minutes be? glorious ones bathed in light and fragrance? or 2.5 minutes of traffic congestion or crammed in a train? with wifi? or no? etc etc
27000 submissions out of a population of 1m or so is hardly a mandate.
And it isn’t meant to be. Otherwise we’d have mob rule, which is far from what’s needed to balance the interests of all current and future residents, businesses and visitors to this wonderful region.
Despite the flaws highlighted, it is an interesting survey. Is it possible to cross-classify responses with demographics? I remember the keynote speech at a transport conference some years ago reporting on a similar survey (done somewhere in Europe I think). Which showed that the majority of people wanted money spent on public transport and cycling. He then presented a graph showing actual expenditure in the previous 10 years – almost all on roads. But then he showed the public preference by age and sex. Every age-sex cohort preferred public transport except one – 25 to 40 year old males. Then he showed the demographics of the city planning department – 90% of them 25 to 40 year old males.
A couple of things: 1) the question regarding the transport options – from memory, light rail was introduced outside of this particular option halfway through the consulting period, and people were not given a chance to submit on it with the knowledge that it was to become a part of AT’s approach. Had people known this was such a realistic option for Auckland, more people may have backed it.
2) Was there an option to say you supported neither of the proposed rates rises? Curious to know how this has been extrapolated out as a specific response if there was no definite option for it, and if it wasn’t a specific option, would the outcome have been different if people had the option to choose it. (I just can’t remember what was or wasn’t on the form, sorry).
A huge response from the wealthy areas and a very low response from poor areas. South Auckland, Puketapapa (Mt Roskill), Henderson-Massey. Also little input from the group that will provide most of the population growth, Asians. This is probably why South Auckland so regularly miss out on capital expenditure, they don’t complain so they don’t count.
I tried to participate in the survey but was upset with how biased it was, so just gave up on it. Judging by the comments, I wasn’t the only one. When will those in power realise that people they are supposed to represent and work for are not brainless dummies and are capable of spotting the obvious, and, indeed, can even read between the lines!
Lingering questions from this whole “consultation” process
1) Don’t see the second harbour crossing on the project list (http://shapeauckland.co.nz/media/1045/appendix_long-term_plan_transport_programme_list.pdf). Personally I find this misleading, as it was one of the selling points / differentiators in the promotional material circulated by Auckland Council
2) Do we really need that many PnR sites, essentially at every single train station? Remember, PnR still generate car trips, and may not be the most efficient way of using (already scarce) land space. Previous post (http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2014/10/30/auckland-transports-30-year-project-list/) states “there’s also a lot of pretty good stuff that is missing out under the Basic Transport Network”? May be a dozen out of 141 additional projects that add real value, but this corresponds to less than 10%.
3) The questionnaires were very biased and not statistically sound. Especially Q2b funding options – I managed to figure out that you could choose neither (i.e. can submit the online form without selecting any option for this question) and I put my comments to elaborate on my (lack of) choice. But the vast majority of people who completed this form and supported neither were not aware of this and felt forced to choose one of the two options given. Am sure the outcome will be very different if the survey were re-done and people were given the option of “neither” upfront.
> Personally I find this misleading, as it was one of the selling points / differentiators in the promotional material circulated by Auckland Council
Have you got a link to any of that promotional material? The second harbour crossing (or rather, the third crossing, and the fifth project to add more lanes across the harbour) isn’t on the list because it’s an NZTA project, which would be fully funded by central government.