It’s been two weeks since our last weekly roundup as we thought it was important to cover the release of the light rail information last week. Here’s our roundup of interesting thoughts, newsy items and good reads for the week.

In case you missed it – the last two weeks in Greater Auckland

Here’s some of the posts you may have missed since the last roundup.

  • Tuesday last Week Heidi wrote about reallocating street space.
  • Wednesday last week Matt covered the reports from the most recent Auckland Transport board meeting.
  • Thursday last week Matt wrote about how secrecy is damaging transport outcomes.
  • Friday last week Matt wrote about the latest plans for light rail.
  • On Monday Heidi wrote about making our arterials more liveable.
  • Tuesday’s post Matt wrote about the latest transport plans for Wellington
  • On Wednesday Matt wrote about how we can get a better outcome from light rail.
  • Yesterday we published a guest post by Ed Clayton about creating green density with Ecological Build Zones

City Rail Link Progress Videos

The City Rail Link team have uploaded their latest drone videos for the Mt Eden and Aotea sites. It’s also interesting to think about the scale of this when we have Auckland Light Rail suggesting a tunnelled option will less disruption than a surface option.

At the northern end of Aotea Station they’re up to the point of breaking through to the tunnels they built a few years ago from Britomart as far as about Wyndham St


COVID Impact Update

If you’ve been wondering what’s happening to public transport ridership during lockdown, here’s the latest update. Last week Ridership passed 50,000 trips a day for the first time since this lockdown began and is about 14% of what it was in the same week in 2019. On the positive side it is the highest usage has been during a Level 3 lockdown.


Victoria St Linear Park and Wellesley St Bus Improvements consultation

This is one we’ve been meaning to post about but keeps slipping by with so many other important things to discuss. The Council are consulting on the design for the Te Hā Noa Victoria St Linear Park and Wellesley St bus improvements and the consultation is open till Tuesday 9 November. These projects are part of the Midtown Regeneration project with the aim to have them done in time for the opening of the City Rail Link. Here’s a quick overview and our thoughts:

Te Hā Noa Victoria St Linear Park

This is just for the first stage of the Linear Park between Albert St and Kitchener St. The design is for just a single traffic lane in each direction alongside a protected bi-directional bike lane with most of the rest of the space. to be made more people focused.

The things that immediately stand out are

  • The design needs to take into account the changes proposed for Queen St. The corners on the queen St intersection should also be squared up more given there should not be vehicles turning on to it.
  • The High/Lorne St intersection should also be a raised table just like the Elliott St intersection.
  • The City Centre Master Plan suggests a new entrance to the Albert Park tunnels could be created west of Kitchener St. The design needs to ensure this can be achieved in the future  – there is a space that looks like it may be for this.

Wellesley St

The plan is to make the section of Wellesley St between Albert St and Queen St a transit mall with wider footpaths and six bus stops on each side. This will also tie into the Aotea Station. Though like the plan for Queen St, they’re also considering allowing access for essential vehicles and local access – it would certainly be good to get cruising cars out of Elliot St.

This change has been a long time coming, first signalled many year ago now so it’s good it’s finally happening. It appears this will have a very similar look to the Lower Albert St Interchange and it appears that like that, this will have fairly basic bus shelters. Both of these ‘stations’ need something that better reflects their importance as the busiest bus interchanges in the city.

As mentioned, consultation for these close on Tuesday.


More housing at scale

Developers are really starting to get it.

Shane and Anna Brearley of NZ Living and default KiwiSaver manager Simplicity have formed a new business to develop Auckland, Tauranga and Wellington build to rent places.

Simplicity members will get first dibs on renting those new homes.

“From 2022 to 2032, we plan to build 10,000 homes. That’s achievable,” said Shane Brearley, estimating the $5b finished value based on today’s numbers.

“These homes will be built in Auckland for the first three years, then Tauranga and Wellington,” he said naming Northcote, Mt Roskill, Ōwairaka/Mt Albert, Point England, Mt Wellington, Tāmaki and Ellerslie as target suburbs.

“We’ll follow the train lines – wherever there are good public transport corridors,” he said of site choice on the isthmus.


Street change success

Here’s a great story from Porirua about the success of an innovating streets project.

Big crunches. That’s what Paula MacEwan​ says she used to hear a lot of on her street.

Cars on Fantame St in Porirua’s Cannons Creek would often back out from angle parking near the shops and crash into parked cars. Some drivers would hoon down the road.

Those are now just memories for the people who live and work and study on Fantame St. MacEwan’s neighbour, Lui Sitama Tupuola​, said since the changes, he had not heard or seen an accident.

And some good changes from Whanganui


Transport Funding

There’s been a bit of debate and concern about how we fund transport recently for two things.

  • The government have made funding commitments to Auckland and Wellington through the Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) and Let’s Get Wellington Moving (LGWM) processes, however, Waka Kotahi have effectively been ignoring those agreements.
  • Waka Kotahi have been pushing for more funding and/or a change in funding streams and pushing the concern about existing funding sources drying up as fuel use falls.

In an article this week Transport Minister Michael Wood addressed this

“We are committed to our share of both ATAP and LGWM to help unlock our cities,” Wood said.

Wood also weighed in on the question of Waka Kotahi’s funding. Currently, the agency gets about $4 billion a year to spend, mainly from fuel excise duty and road user charges.

Waka Kotahi thinks that its funding is on shaky ground as fewer people drive and the cost of infrastructure escalates beyond the ability of Waka Kotahi to pay for it.

It thinks this funding cliff is fairly imminent, and this year asked for an urgent review of its funding.

….

But Waka Kotahi is not the only game in town. The Ministry of Transport has also been keeping an eye on the sustainability of fuel tax revenues since the last Government, and it has been planning for their eventual demise.

Interestingly, there’s a strong disagreement between the Ministry of Transport and Waka Kotahi about precisely when the fuel tax system becomes unsustainable.

Who is correct, Waka Kotahi or the Ministry of Transport?


Sale St Placemaking

This is neat for Sale St


The week in flooding

A state of emergency was declared in Gisborne and the Tairāwhiti region yesterday afternoon following wild weather that saw rivers rise and a number of flash floods. Residents have been advised to prepare to evacuate as a month’s worth of rain has fallen in the space of a day, affecting roads, sewerage and power. While there has been a strong locally-led civil defence response and the message has been to stay home, it didn’t stop some folks indulging in water sports:

The week in parking

Interested in the buying the downtown Carpark site? The council voted to sell it a few months ago and now it’s on the market with expressions of interest closing at the end of the month.

Elsewhere in the central city, after weeks of letting drivers dominate all our public spaces, Auckland Transport have finally started to show they can manage parking.

For some reason the Council and Auckland Transport seem to think protecting our public spaces is a difficult thing. All they really need is a few of these

Also in bollard news…

Locals in Manly are fighting both for and against bollards to protect the beach from cars damaging the berm. Auckland Council’s plans to install 300 bollards on the Manly beachfront has cause a flurry of reaction including several petitions, heated debate on social media, a standoff with contractors and a potential U-turn by council.

The bollards are proposed to protect the berm and exposed tree roots, and avoid coastal erosion. The work is considered urgent as part of routine work, even though it effectively removes some car parking along the beachfront. While better engagement with the community could have facilitated a constructive dialogue on the matter and avoided such a strong reaction at this point, it looks like it will happen now in any case. Hopefully a good outcome will be reached and the proposal won’t be shelved all together.

Exposed roots on Manly beachfront – proposed to be protected by bollards (source: https://www.localmatters.co.nz/hibiscus-news/bollard-backlash-causes-council-backflip/)

Meanwhile in Point Chev these have gone in:


Younger people are opting for low carbon travel

Research from the European Travel Commission has found that Generation Z and Millennials are more interested than Generation X and Boomers to consider sustainable travel options. We wonder if we’ll see more cycling tourism in the future to cater to this inclination to go green.

https://twitter.com/ETC_Corporate/status/1455150127291584519?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1455150127291584519%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fpublish.twitter.com%2F%3Fquery%3Dhttps3A2F2Ftwitter.com2FETC_Corporate2Fstatus2F1455150127291584519widget%3DTweet

Councillors on Housing and Parking

You may have seen some reporting yesterday about the discussion at the Council’s latest Planning Committee on their response to the government’s housing plans and AT parking strategy. We’ll be looking to cover both of these next week.

Share this

32 comments

    1. I ‘d go one further. There should be a caveat that it cannot be used for public car parking. If you cannot get to the Downtown area by PT then you aren’t trying hard enough.

    2. Hopefully a lot less than there currently is, as they push towards more of an integrated PT hub, but as we’ve seen over the years sometimes best laid plans get put to rest due to the politics of the car fanatics….

      https://www.panuku.co.nz/news-and-blogs/transport-outcomes-agreed-for-key-downtown-redevelopment-opportunity

      https://downtownauckland.co.nz/?dclid=CMW5uIal_fMCFQxTaAodMVcFUw#utm_source=dv360_display&utm_medium=display&utm_campaign=pwc_downtown_carpark_2021&utm_content=prospecting_nzherald_business_section_300x250

    1. I’d love to hear his definition of “their parking space”. The council won’t even let people build stuff on their own land, but car parks on public land are some kind of right? Nothing makes sense any more.

    2. There is a bit of a weird thing with being responsible to mow a verge but not being able to park on it. But other than that, it’s not your space. Put it this way – if you owned a Lambo, would you park it by the kerb?

      Most of society’s problems can be solved by looking at them through the lens of Lamborghini ownership.

      1. Basically you can park on the berm as Auckland Transport refuse to enforce this. You’re not allowed to do anything to a berm that isn’t mowing it or storing your wheeled possessions on it.

        1. “You’re not allowed to do anything to a berm that isn’t mowing it or storing your wheeled possessions on it.”
          Unless you live in a really nice street like Minehaha where it seems that you can put down some base coarse on the berm to enable you to park on it.
          There is so much berm parking in this street that some of the residents have taken to roping off the area in front of their house, presumably so they don’t have rutted lawns like the other addresses.

    3. I’m not sure if that article quite captured what Goff was really trying to say, which is more that the way this is discussed with the public is important.

      Having said that, Goff’s choice in what he did say was really, really depressingly off.

      He should’ve called AT out on their silly games. They haven’t implemented their own strategy. Putting strategies under review is AT’s classic delaying tactic that serves to stir up public opposition to the things they don’t want to do. What AT should have done was put their implementation of the strategy under review. What AC should have done is required this of them before the strategy was reviewed.

      Goff directly instructed AT to reallocate road space five years ago; why the dickens did he not slam them yesterday for failing to do so? This failure on Goff’s part to follow through is costing us the chance of a good transport system.

      But worse than that, he indicated yet again that he’s unaware of how our current consultation style is regressive, and doesn’t support good democracy.

      Goff is still prioritising the concerns of a driver having to make a few minor adjustments to their habits over the needs of children to inhabit a safe and healthy environment, and over the needs of people in such transport poverty they cannot participate in society, and over humanity’s need for a stable climate.

      From people who should be leaders, negligence is harmful.

      1. “This failure on Goff’s part to follow through”

        That’s Goff for you. He loves to seem like a progressive on Transport, but he’s never one who jumps in the breach to defend what’s needed but unpopular. He LOVES having AT to blame. How much harder would his life if transport was still in-house. He’d have to actually take some responsibility!

  1. I think some kudos for AT here,this issue(parking) should have been politically led.AT realised that wasn’t,coming any time soon, and have acted accordingly. Very telling that Goff used the pronoun “their”. I am already visioning Onehunga with bus /bike lanes,to unlock PT potential. I am guessing LTN,s will also will also enter the mindset ,if main arterial vehicle capacity is reduced.

    1. AT have had sufficient direction and approved policy to remove parking and reallocate road space.

      If they get mixed messages from the board or any councillors, that is an issue for them to raise – but it doesn’t require spending our rates on reviewing a strategy that they could have been implementing.

  2. The parking thing is only an issue because of council and now central government edicts to allow residential developments without provision of adequate, if any, off-street carparking capacity. Net result, people just park their cars on the street (for free), clogging up the street and making them unsafe. Lack of off-street carparking doesn’t deter car ownership if you can park for free on the road.

    So given this entirely foreseen outcome, which they’re not going to reverse (especially now), the only sensible response is to deter multi-car ownership through time limited parking and yellow lines in previously uncluttered suburban streets. Or prohibitively expensive carpark licenses (not the token cost of issuing currently in Ponsonby etc). All of which has to be enforced of course.

    1. “The parking thing is only an issue because of council and now central government edicts to allow residential developments without provision of adequate, if any, off-street carparking capacity.”

      Absolute nonsense. For several decades we have had parking policies that required 2 (!) off-street car parks for every dwelling everywhere. And still, on-street car parks did not get any tiny bit easier to remove over those decades from the 80s, 90s to 00s. In fact, people got more an more entrenched into seeing any parking removal as an attack on their western civilisation.

      The old policies have failed. Don’t go and blame the fact that in a city, space is too valuable for publicly subsidised parking on too few rules forcing people to build off-street parking. We had the worst of two worlds for decades (more expensive houses, and still no will to remove parking on the street).

      A city that tries to provide plentiful car parking is not a city. It’s a town that hasn’t realised it has grown up.

      1. I don’t think you understand what I was getting at Damian. I think we need to introduce parking restrictions on residential streets as an imperative. This was a much lesser concern, in my opinion, before off-street carparking requirements were removed since now, many more streets are permanently clogged and dangerous (not just Ponsonby/Freemans Bay type of suburbs) – and AT/Council has acknowledged the problem to me personally. Yes, there are always people who fill their garages with junk and still park on street regardless, those residences with more cars than people etc and those who want to be able to have visitors but the demand for on street parking is so much more evident now. Do you not agree?

        1. Off street car parking requirements haven’t been removed yet. Those things you are observing are happening despite people being forced to build car parks that they don’t want.

        2. I understand Council has required only 1 carspace per dwelling under the Unitary Plan (not 2) and have permitted even less for certain apartment developments recently. I’ve had both council and town planners tell me this is a problem all over Auckland (because people want to have a car regardless if they have a private space for it). Case in point we’ve got 5 dwellings with 21 ensuited bedrooms in aggregate but only 6 carspaces. I’ll make a wager with anyone that there will be at least another 5 or so resident cars parked on street when they’re completed (unless parking restrictions are put in place now).

      2. But Sailor Boy, I take your point, parking requirements have not been removed entirely yet but they have been substantially reduced or somtimes eliminated for new developments.

        1. Right, gotcha, parking minimums have been waived for specific developments. I also agree that we should have started controlling on-street parking long ago.

  3. The cry seems to be “there are too many buses downtown”. How quickly would they move if there was not so many single occupant cars in the way!

  4. For an underground right of way the CRL works are shambolic above ground. To think that undergrounding is proposed “to reduce the construction impact of Light Rail” who are they trying to kid.

  5. https://at.govt.nz/about-us/news-events/end-of-the-line-in-sight-for-auckland-s-diesel-commuter-trains/
    “KiwiRail and Auckland Transport (AT) are suspending the passenger train service that connects Papakura and Pukekohe from September 2022 until the second half of 2024, to allow for the work needed to extend the electric train service to Pukekohe.”

    Two Years??!! Will they be stopping all freight trains and the Hamilton Huia services as well? No. This is unacceptable. They should at minimum maintain weekday peak commuter train services from Pukekohe Papakura ( 7am till 9am & 4pm till 7pm ) .

    1. How does every other country in the world manage electrification works without closing the line but Kiwirail cannot?! Weekends, ok not ideal but we can live with that, but weekday shutdowns are not acceptable and as you note clearly won’t apply to freight traffic

  6. After watching a program on TVNZ1 ON 2/11/21 showing the conversion of the old SXC carriages , why didn’t AT do what the RES did , put them up for sale on Trademe . But no they sold them to the RES for $19.00 plus gst and I don’t begrudge the RES making a few extra dollars on them which I think that they have more business acumen than the Bunnies that run AT .
    And the ones that have purchased them have also turned them into different forms of accommodation .

    I put this together showing a short life history of the SXC’s , that I could find ;-

  7. Thanks central govt. 3+3 housing mandate, 3 waters, now the 3rd thing is to empower European level carless micromobility. Remove helmet compulsion, subsidise eBikes and get walking and cycling from our city to our north shore done not debated.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *