On the LTP 2024 Feedback

A few weeks ago, Auckland Council released the results of consultation on the Long Term Plan (LTP) that occurred in March. With almost 28,000 submissions, it received the most feedback of any Auckland LTP.

The consultation covered a wide range of topics soliciting feedback on different areas of council funded services and investment, as well as questions around the proposed Future Fund, the North Harbour Stadium and the Port of Auckland. Consultation was framed around several options: a central proposal (involving a rates rise, with choices and trade-offs), “pay less do less”, and “pay more do more”.

So what did Aucklanders say?

When looking at the overall direction for Auckland Council, responses from individuals show that while ‘do less’ (37%) was the highest single category, it was followed closely by the ‘central proposal’ option (34%) and ‘do more’ (20%). In other words, 54% either preferred to proceed with the proposed option or do more.

These results are further broken down by each area of Council services and investment.

Submitters leant towards the ‘do more’ option for “transport” and “water” and the ‘do less’ option for “city & local development” and “economic & cultural development”. While there is variation on each area, it’s important to note that the vast majority of submitters wanted at least the ‘central’ option and don’t want the reductions proposed by the ‘do less’ option. Simon Wilson has an excellent article on the LTP feedback that hits a lot of key points:

In the consultation, there was also strong support (74-89 per cent) for spending on council services, water, parks and other community facilities, and the environment.

How good is that? Despite a massive campaign by the grinches at the Auckland Ratepayers Alliance, we really are, in many respects, the city we like to think we are. Community minded and greatly caring of the natural beauty that surrounds us.

Less popular, but still with clear majority support, was spending on “city and local development” (60 per cent) and “economic and cultural development” (59 per cent).

While this gives a good overview of results in each area, when we get into the details of the written feedback it starts to become a bit more murky.

There’s a sentiment against “wasteful spending” on council staff and the development of the city – what some would call the “nice to haves”. As Simon Wilson puts it:

And many submitters had a crack at “nice to have” spending. Let’s just say it: There’s no such thing as “nice to have”. The phrase is a euphemism for “I don’t want it”.

Take the debate about whether bus lanes should replace car parks on arterial roads. There’s no “nice to have”: for people on both sides, the other is not nice to have.

Wayne Brown likes to call spending on cycleways a “nice to have”. He’s even taken to suggesting that all we need is a rumble strip to mark the bike zone off from the rest of the road. This is classic. The reason we need bike lanes at all is for the safety of riders. Rumble strips, especially in Auckland traffic, are a laughably out-of-touch solution.

Brown has also called economic and cultural development a “nice to have”. Spending on this was slashed in the last annual budget and the rest is still at risk. But it has several purposes. One is to create a higher-wage economy. For example, the pathways created for young people in the poorer parts of the city so they can get into skilled jobs in IT, construction, transport, design and other fields.

Another is to attract high-skilled workers and entrepreneurs to live and work in the city. That’s about supporting the economic opportunities, but not just that. It’s also about making the city a stimulating, entertaining and safe place. You can’t do these things without heaps of cultural activity, good urban planning and a thriving economy.

With a lot of overall support for the central proposal, splits between “do less” and “do more”, and a slant in the feedback against spending on economic, cultural, city and local development in Auckland, the important question becomes: what will be prioritised? According to Simon:

Brown is proposing a 7.5 per cent rates rise for next year, followed by 3.5 per cent, then 8 per cent, and “no more than” 3.5 per cent thereafter. The lumpiness is largely because of spending commitments on the City Rail Link. And the targeted rates for water and the environment are to be reinstated, which is excellent. These rates numbers are low.

[…]

There’s room for a bit of upwards movement there. Perhaps that’s the tradeoff the mayor can do to make his budget stick. And here’s why. When it comes to community care and building a better city, Brown’s plans include a lot of talk about community services and facilities, disaster resilience and there’s even a nod to the quality of the built environment. That’s all good.

But they do not include enough money for these things.

If Council goes towards the “do less” side of the split for these areas, then – according to the LTP consultation document – we may see less urban regeneration work and fewer public realm/ placemaking improvements, as well as reduced economic investment and less support for cultural facilities and events. This, in my opinion, would be a great loss for the ‘soul’ of Auckland, as these things that are what give the city a feeling of life.

Regardless of the rest of the LTP, what was pretty clear is that transport isn’t just something that submitters wanted more investment in, but was a major focus of people’s feedback. When asked what specifically they wanted Council to spend more/less on, transport was consistently in the most common themes raised by people.

It’s interesting to see that regardless of which overall option people selected, “public transport service / infrastructure” was always one of the top themes. Support for other areas of transport (“walking and cycling improvements” and “roads and foot paths”) were split between some wanting more and some wanting less. While this split was noted by Simon Wilson, he also highlighted something seemingly contradictory in the feedback:

“Walking and cycling improvements”, for example, feature prominently on the list of what some people want less of, and also the list of what other people want more of.

It’s the same for “roads and footpaths”: strong views both ways. (And yes, there is a contradiction between wanting better footpaths but fewer walking improvements.)

At face value this contradiction doesn’t really make much sense – and after diving back into the LTP consultation document, as well as the final 2021 LTP, it seems like “walking and cycling improvements” would fall under “roads and foot paths”. We can look to the proposed Regional Land Transport Plan to see where specific investment will go, so I expect the exact details for what people actually support will come out through consultation on that.

All of this was before we even get to the specific transport question, where the feedback on the proposed transport plan shows submitters overwhelmingly supported either all or most of the proposal.

We can again look more closely into what drives either support or opposition to the plan through the written feedback:

Its very obvious that respondents want more investment in public transport. A lot of people even said their opposition to the proposed plan comes from a desire for more investment in public transport than what is proposed.

Yet, while there is huge support for the proposed transport plan, it’s not something that exists in a vacuum. As Simon comments:

The one big thing Brown does have public support on, and likely council support, is his focus on public transport. Almost three-quarters of submitters backed the mayor’s public transport plan, which features a $50 weekly fare cap for all bus rail and inner-harbour ferry services, along with dynamic lanes and other measures to make bus travel faster and more reliable.

His intentions here are good, although his policies are not radical.

[…]

But despite his good intentions, the moderate nature of the fare cap highlights an enormous transport problem for the council.

As the mayor himself says: “Funding for transport in the Auckland region was cut by around $600 million, when the coalition Government scrapped the Regional Fuel Tax in its 100-day plan. And we are yet to strike a deal with central government on transport, which leaves us with a lot of unknowns and a significant shortfall for the time being.”

Decoded: Auckland Transport (AT) has to cut public transport services anyway.

It’s been previously discussed how catastrophically bad the draft Government Policy Statement on Land Transport from central government is, with its big focus on roads, as well as how it’s a disaster for local government. What’s clear is that the results of LTP consultation show that investment in public transport is overwhelmingly supported by submitters.

Yet if the Mayor is already setting up the possibility of cuts to public transport due to central government’s decisions, where does that leave Auckland? If consultation on the GPS, including Auckland Council’s own submission, shows strong support for public transport, will central government budge? What if Auckland’s RLTP consultation also reinforces the desire of Auckland for public transport? Or will government completely overrule the desires of Auckland Council and Aucklanders?

Whatever the answers, I think there’s going to be some contentious months ahead on transport in Auckland.

Share this