Yesterday the Council made a fairly momentous decision to adopt the ‘Interim Transport Programme‘ that enables significant extra investment in public transport, cycling and safety over the next three years. While this decision means a good transport programme can be pursued in the short-term, it doesn’t yet solve the longer term transport funding issue that Auckland faces. I haven’t yet seen the ‘line by line’ budget detail, but I imagine that in years 4-10 of the LTP there are still some significant funding issues (although not as bad as under the Basic, which was particularly light in the first three years).
Many organisations are now saying the Council and government need to work together to agree on a long-term funding solution for transport in Auckland – be it a motorway user charge or something else. This has led to a number of questions for transport minister Simon Bridges in the past few days. Last night’s Radio NZ interview provides a pretty good summary of his response:
Or listen here.
This mirrors comments the Minister made in the NZ Herald a few days ago:
Transport Minister Simon Bridges said the Government did not believe the council had an optimal transport plan for the medium and long term.
“We are not going to be putting in place funding tools where we don’t think there is a good plan and at the moment we just don’t see that in terms of congestion and public transport,” he said.
He would engage with Mr Brown over the next year or so to come up with a plan that would satisfy the Government.
We have long criticised the 30 year Integrated Transport Programme that Auckland Transport published in 2013, as both unaffordable and ineffective at achieving many of the Auckland Plan outcomes that were supposed to guide it. In fact that criticism led us to create the Congestion Free Network, a plan that would better deliver on the outcomes sought by the Auckland Plan at a far lower cost than what was in the first version of the ITP. To Auckland Transport’s credit, it seems like they’ve spent a lot of time in the last couple of years reconsidering the first ITP and trying to make it deliver more at a lower cost. Their rapid transit network (from here) looks remarkably similar to the CFN – for example. A full update to the ITP must be coming along at some point (presumably after the LTP is finalised), which will offer the opportunity to assess the 30 year programme in a bit more detail.
However, the final section of the draft Regional Land Transport Plan provides us with some initial information about the extent to which the transport programme might be considered effective or optimal over the next 30 years. Some modelling outputs of key performance measures are shown, looking at PT patronage, access to employment and freight travel speeds. Firstly in the area of PT patronage:
The Auckland Plan network is modelled to have an increase in PT use from around 77 million trips at the moment to what looks like around 230 million by 2046. Depending on what Auckland’s population is at that time, we may not be far off 100 PT trips per capita, double what we achieve now. We know from experience that our transport models tend to underestimate patronage so in all likelihood I think patronage will grow faster than this. Either way it’s clear the plan will deliver massive PT growth, and also that there’s a material difference in the use of PT under the Basic and Auckland Plan networks.
Next, looking at access to employment by car:
So much for the Minister’s insinuation that the Plan leads to massive growth in congestion levels and a terrible transport future for those who continue to drive. From this modelling we can see a high proportion of jobs accessible within a half hour car commute in 2046 than was the case in 2006, despite huge population growth over those 40 years.
As for public transport:
There’s a huge improvement in the proportion of jobs accessible by a reasonable length PT commute, from under 15% to nearly 30%. With population growth this is likely to mean a ‘many times over’ increase in the number of jobs people can access within a 45 minute PT trip (presumably including wait times etc.) While the level of access is still below private vehicles, meaning that PT is not yet a true “mode of choice” under this plan, it’s clear that investment from 2006 to 2046 will make things a lot better.
The graph for freight travel speeds I think mistakenly shows percentages rather than average speeds, but highlights that in the AM peak under the Auckland Plan network speeds stay roughly the same over time, a pretty impressive accomplishment with so much growth projected over this time period:
Overall many of these modelling graphs included in the RLTP appear to tell quite a different story to what Simon Bridges is going on about. I wonder whether his advisors are still reading the 2013 Integrated Transport Programme, rather than the more recent version? I also think it’s about time that rather than say there’s something wrong with Auckland’s Plans he actually gives a vision for how he thinks the city should develop.
Processing...
I really tried hard to understand what Simon B said but I think in the end he meant: “we’ll give you money only if you build roads”. Why doesn’t he come up with suggestions? Why does the council have to guess what he wants?
Bridges; vision. A classic non sequitur.
Your Last sentence is the key. There are several people- Bridges, the 7 councillors who voted against the increase- who seem to be be good at ‘no’ but have no alternative plan.
From the interview it sounds likes Bridges wants to form some form of committee that will no doubt takes ages to produce a report not dissimilar from what we have, from which the government will cherry pick the plans that suit it and ignore the others.
Kinda sums up this particular government; no plans for anything much. No surplus in 7 years of pontificating on how weak the Opposition’s economic skills are.
Thats not entirely correct for the 7 councilors, Cameron Brewer did suggest an alternative yesterday to the transport fund leavy and it was along the lines of freeze top salaries and find savings elsewhere within administration budgets and existing budgets. Interesting the proposal to cut library hours to save money, when it went back to the staff, they were able to make the same savings within existing systems, and still keep the same hours or in some cases increase library hours. This indicates that with a sharp pencil and some detailed costings, there is savings able to be made within the existing budgets to reduce waste and get better services.
Can you direct me to more information on this plan of his and what it delivers for what cost?
Vague promises around capping salaries and increased efficiencies is not a plan.
Sorry Conan, I don’t have the actual amendment, but this is part of what he was proposing copied off his facebook page.
The transport targeted rate which increases overall household rates by 9.9% was amazingly won 15/7. One of my amendments of note titled “STAFF REMUNERATION COSTS” was just lost 6/17, despite ongoing public outcry and huge feedback on this issue during the public consultation. It read……
a) Direct management to freeze the top line ‘wage and salary’ staff budget at the proposed 2015/2016 level of $721.4million per annum with the total remuneration budget to be revisited in the next Long Term Plan.
It may not have gotten totally into details, but at least it was a directive to take a decent look at what savings could be made without cutting services and at council level ideally they should not be getting down to a line by line look at the budget, but someone needs to. It’s all very well cutting mowing berms to save money, but to then spend it on more consultants, more spin drs in the mayors office, more advisors is not the aim and increasingly that seems to be what is happening.
My disappointment with Cameron and his possie is exactly that. They have had years to articulate and alternative plan for discussion but seem instead to prefer to make it up as they go almost on the day.
It’s all very well to say savings can be achieved and I’d be wildly supportive of that, but would also like to see exactly where they are coming from and what services might suffer as a result. That is what is missing from the debate. If this blog can put up a costed plan then surely a group of our councillors can do the same?
Conan, I don’t disagree that they should be able to put up a costed plan, but as an individual councillor dealing with everything else they have to, I’m not sure they have the time, or resources to delve down to the level of detail that perhaps needs to be, and nor should they have to. Everyone in council should be looking to save money, and not just “keep with budget” as at the end of the day its all our money and the aim should be about providing service, and outcomes, not reports. The same can be said about government and the public service as well. In the case he gave of the libraries he suggested an option of charging for courier fees for transferring books between libraries when requested. A reasonable call I would have thought and something I would have thought is not a big factor, but it appears it is. The comment made was that the staff were not keen on this, so came back with other savings. A good outcome all around it appears.
David, the end of berm mowing wasn’t about saving money, although obviously it did that. It was about implementing a consistent level of service across the Auckland region. Quite sensibly that involved removing the anomaly or berms being mowed in the old Auckland city area, to make it consistent with what everyone else had been doing quite happily for years and years.
With an amalgamated council and single rating system we clearly can’t have a situation where one legacy council area receives special services that the rest of the region doesn’t, so the alternative would have been to add new services by introducing berm mowing to the whole region, at considerable expense.
Thanks Nick, probably not the best example, but at the end of the day not mowing berms would have saved money, so in that respect it always comes down to money. Also agree over the level of service and having to equalise it. At the end of the day I feel they should have told the residents to suck it up, but then again here in Orewa we pay the same rates as everyone else, but we mow our own berms, we also pay for our own rubbish collection privately and don’t have an inorganic collection like a lot of other areas. It is in the process of changing, but we have been waiting along time for that to occur. Even when I was in the city I mowed my own berms and it was probably only in the last 2 yrs I was there that occasionaly council would appear and mow them. Everyone in our street also mowed there own berms.
AT still do our ‘berms’ out here.
They use something called ‘green glyphosate’ or some such. Now, I’m no expert but, sounds remarkably similar Round Up.
David you will find that you don’t have a rubbish collection charge on your rates bill if you arrange your own disposal. It’s a separate additional charge on my rates bill that you won’t have.
If councillors don’t have the time to work on there proposal I wonder if they are suited to the job?
> again here in Orewa we pay the same rates as everyone else, but we mow our own berms, we also pay for our own rubbish collection privately and don’t have an inorganic collection like a lot of other areas.
Every area pays for its own rubbish collection overall, even if the individuals within them don’t. The former Auckland City and Manukau City don’t have direct user-pays rubbish collections, but they have a much higher targeted rate for rubbish to cover that (and in Auckland City, an exemption for people with private collections). For example, the former Auckland City has got a special additional $242.40/year rate for one wheelie bin each for rubbish and recycling.
The areas that have inorganic collection also have targeted rates to cover them, AFAIK.
You also don’t mow your own berms: you’re nice enough to mow the council’s berms for them. That’s fine for areas that prefer to do things that way, but in central Auckland, with lots of multi-unit dwellings and other properties that don’t have lawns, the issues are different to exurban places like Orewa. I think a targeted rate for berm mowing would be fine, but it was never offered.
(Frankly, I think having berms is ridiculous in urban areas. Better to have narrower streets, more parking, street trees, cycle lanes, parks, or other more valued uses of the space).
Stephen, when the berms were out in in our street a brochure was distributed outlying the benefits of the grass which was mainly stormwater control and for the sake of street trees. Our street hardly needs any more width for the low traffic volumes of a typical side st
> Stephen, when the berms were out in in our street a brochure was distributed outlying the benefits of the grass which was mainly stormwater control and for the sake of street trees. Our street hardly needs any more width for the low traffic volumes of a typical side st
Managing stormwater in place is fine if you’ve got space to kill, but things like berms and swales and lawns use up a lot of room and spread the city out. In denser urban areas, you manage stormwater by putting it down a pipe and deal with it elsewhere. For much the same reason that we deal with wastewater centrally, rather than having a septic tank in every back yard like you do in a rural hamlet.
I don’t think most Auckland residential streets (from property line to property line) need more width: quite the reverse. But now that they’re already built, the question is what to do with that space.
Anyone can “fix” the library budget, simply by buying less books and other items to stock it.
Hours stay the same (or improve), so it looks good on the bottom line – but its a service delivery cut no matter how you phrase it.
Whether its less hours or less books – the outcome is the same.
And sums Brewer to a T. He has nothing positive to add, just this “I know whats wrong” and leaving it at that.
He has no real vision, except perhaps his goal of him wanting to be mayor one day.
And what a wishy washy one he’ll make if he does make mayor.
Not sure where you got the comment that they are buying less books from Greg. I would suggest if you have some information that that is what they are doing maybe you should share it?. There has never been any mention of that and I would suggest that librarians would be less likely to do that than charge for transferring books on demand, so really it sounds like you are simply making something up to be able to hammer Brewer, when the library thing is not about him, but about council finding savings when they are pushed to within existing budgets.
David – you raised the spectre of how council magically found savings in the library budget to save reduced hours.
So whats the secret, what did they do? Or do you have no evidence on what they did instead?
There is really only limited ways to reduce your library costs, so if you don’t reduce hours – which is what you said Council avoided doing – so what did they do?
reduce the staff, reduce the number of libraries and/or reduce the stuff they have in them [including online offerings].
I hardly think charging for on demand transferring will cover the shortfall.
As for Brewer, his looney idea about capping/freezing the top staff salaries.
Ok whats his definition of “top”? The top management or anyone on over say $80K a year? And we’re talking freeze, so thats going to reduce the salary bill by what 1-2% at best?
Yes large chunk of council costs are the people who run it, but many don’t get the top salaries.
And the idea of “find savings elsewhere within administration budgets and existing budgets” sounds pretty wishful to me.
Its hardly likely that freezing top end salaries and the like will save council more than a fraction of what the additional levy needs to raise.
So how is that “dealing with the problem”. And what happens when they can’t magic up the savings?
Criticise council for not living in their means?
Like I said, Brewer can’t constructively contribute to any discussion, never has, never will.
All he can do is say “no, no, no” to everything put up. And like the wonkey donkey he is, his constant braying (and naying) and everything gets tiresome in short order.
At least 15 councillors put their constituents needs ahead of their politics to vote for the transport levy. So at least they can see whats needed to get the city transport back on track, even if Brewer can’t.
Greg, I have no more information than what has been stated and that is that the hours were not reduced and there has been no library closures. How the librarians found the savings is actually irrelevant really, they did and found savings that they considered were better than charging for inter library borrowing, which was where it started at Council level. did they reduce staff numbers?, I don’t know, but I know that if I go to my local library there is a staff member to help me and if I want a book I can find something. I may not find a particular book, but that’s what interloan presumeably is for. I agree I would not have thought it was simpy a matter of reducing the inter-loan books, but it seems that essentially that was all they were really talking about. Without seeing and line by line budget I guess we will never know. Maybe they cut out the chocolate biscuits at morning tea, or maybe Len got rid of one of his political advisors?.
As for the rest of your comments, you are entitled to your opinion. I have mine, and the voters will have theirs next year. Talkback radio has its opinion. We will see who survives the next election and perhaps then we will re-visit your comments.
Unfortunately the voters in Brewers ward (Orakei) never got to vote for or against Brewer because he was the only candidate nominated in the ward, whether that happens next time remains to be seen.
Perhaps he won’t find it so easy going next time whether he stands for mayor or something else.
Isn’t this the same as the government approach on dwelling affordability? Just to criticise what the junior partner is doing and proposing without offering any alternative solution, and in particular any solution that requires action, change, or spending by central government? All their effort goes into trying to persuad people that any problems are the fault of local government and that there is nothing central government can or should do.
I find Minister Bridges comments nothing but unadulterated waffle – the current government obviously take no notice of the trends which have been evident for some years now and are so well described on this blog. They refuse to acknowledge that the best transport solution for Auckland as New Zealand’s only city of scale will inevitably be very different from the best solution for other parts of New Zealand. And if the Government were serious about reducing the road accident rate in Auckland they would look for better design solutions than ‘moar roads’. I wouldn’t mind if the government made a few mistakes with regard to their application of taxpayer money into planned roading if the amount of money thus poorly applied, were not so huge but it is a monstrous amount and a complete misapplication.
I had hoped for better things from the new Transport Minister but at the moment he is clearly labelled as a “fail”
National plan is to make Auckland so crippled and expensive that everyone leaves for the regions. Why would anyone want to live in Auckland anyway when they could live in Nelson or Tauranga.
A decent job?
Because there’s nothing resembling city life in either Nelson or Tauranga?
Plenty of us who grew up in Ak remember what it was like before its current renaissance and have also lived overseas in big cities – we like what Ak is and where it can go.
Not bagging either Nelson or Tauranga if that’s your thing, but they’re not for me.
I just spent 3 months based in Auckland in the CBD and several things came up with discussions with the Councils chief planner and also the head of Auckland Transport. One, that the inner city has very few people living there compared to Sydney, Melbourne and even Brisbane. The train network is improving but no real drive to establish urban villages around train stations, despite some rhetoric. The value capture in terms of land and culture is acknowledged but does not seem to be pursued which is a pity in the new inner city rail project. The idea of removing the river of roads in inner city Auckland or rationalising them to alternate bike and walking paths did not seem to get any engagement. Overall there is change but it is glacial and its a pity as the inner city has so much potential, as one person observed, it was pregnant with possibility and that is the whole inner city not just the Wynyard Quarter.
Or even just come out with what he thinks is wrong with it rather than just the blather that he’s coming out with now. All he does now is say that it’s wrong and that National won’t support it.
Of course, if you look at National’s actions you can see that they’re operating from pure ideology. They’ll support more roads and sprawl despite the research showing that more roads and sprawl makes things worse and not better.
It looks to me like Auckland Council and the government in Wellington are both muddling through in the short term with their various agendas, each hoping the next election at one level or another will allow their agenda to proceed.
A right-wing road-lobbying public asset privatiser in Auckland would suit the National-lead government in Wellington just fine. A Labour / Green coalition in Wellington after 2017 would see public transport leap ahead.
In the meantime… The Council pushes on with what it can and the government in Wellington treats it with ignore.
The same for us is that local elections are just a year away and Len Brown probably isn’t re-electable because to many people are concerned about private matters that have nothing to do with Auckland’s future or issues that actually affect the lives of Aucklanders.