Joel Cayford’s excellent blog discusses North Shore City Council’s submission on the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill, and how that council has done an excellent job raising important matters relating to that bill that require modification of further analysis. The submission as a whole is certainly worth reading, but it is the parts relating to the establishment of “Auckland Transport” that are probably of most interest to readers of this blog:
Auckland Transport
Auckland Transport’s objectives
“…The objective and operating principles of Auckland Transport, as set out under s.45 of the Third Bill, are not as specific or wide-ranging as the objectives for ARTA under the (soon to be repealed) Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004….”
“…the LGAAA (2004) provides more specific objectives for ARTA, which do not apply to Auckland Transport:
– expansion of what exhibiting a sense of social and environmental responsibility means
– avoiding adverse effects on the environment
– ensuring views of affected parties are taken into account
– give land transport options early and full consideration
– provide early and full opportunities for consultation on land transport programmes
– focus on overall needs of region and views of communities
– consider needs of future generations, including cultural and economic wellbeing
– foster co-operative and colaborative working relastionships
– clear accountability“…we believe that the objectives for Auckland Transport need to be more specific because they are currently open to misinterpretation… Auckland Transport’s objectives need to be similar to ARTA’s objectives…”
Accountability of Auckland Transport
“…Accountability during the transition phase to 1st November 2010. Prior to the Auckland Council coming into effect on 1 November, the Auckland Transition Agency (ATA) together with the Ministers of Local Government and Transport, influence the direction of Auckland’s transport systems. Legislation contained in the 3rd Bill will guide the direction of Auckland Transport – for example by setting objectives and operating principles – after the Bill becomes an Act. Thus, elected local representatives do not have any influence during the important transitional period…”
“…Ongoing accountability post 1st November 2010…. There is no statement on what happens if the Auckland Council is not satisfied with Auckland Transport’s contribution to the council’s (or the Government’s) objectives….”
“…Accountability to Local Boards…. Auckland Transport is not accountable to local boards. Furthermore, the governing body of the Auckland Council is not accountable for the activities of Auckland Transport, but for how it influences the governance of Auckland Transport… Auckland Transport, unlike other CCO’s, does not need to prepare and adopt a 10-year plan that includes information on how the organisation is giving effect to the Auckland Council’s strategy, plans and priorities… the 3rd Bill should set out consultation requirements for Auckland Transport, including the opportunity for Local Boards to provide feedback on proposed activities that have an impact on the Local Board’s area…”
“…Auckland Council oversight of Auckland Transport planning…. We note with concern that the proposed legislation at New Clause 75 subsection 3 (p.55) currently exempts Auckland Transport from the requirement to prepare and adopt a plan under New Clause 75 subsection 2(c) which enables Auckland Council to require substantive CCO’s to prepare and adopt a plan covering a period of at least 10 years describing how the organisation intends to: (i) manage, maintain, and invest in its assets; and (ii) maintain or improve service levels, and; (iii) respond to population growth and other changing environmental factors, and; (iv) give effect to the Council’s strategy, plans and priorities…. Removing Auckland Council’s exemption (as in the Bill now) would provide the opportunity for Auckland Council to obtain an explicit statement from Auckland Transport on how it intends to “give effect” to key Council strategies, in particular the Spatial Plan…”
Transport and Land Use Integration
“…The 3rd Bill is particularly emphatic in allocating responsibility for developing and managing the Auckland Transport System to Auckland Transport. But we believe the Bill does not adequately emphasise the fundamental importance of achieving transport and land use integration… Transport and land use integration is a key objective of the RLTS but we believe that its ability to influence the actions of Auckland Transport has been substantially downgraded from that currently applying to ARTA. Whereas the 3rd Bill requires the Auckland Transport’s RLTP to be ‘consistent with’ the RLTS, ARTA’s RLTP has been required to ‘give effect’ the RLTS…”
“….We have a number of questions about this:
– Will Auckland Transport reflect the land use strategies being promoted by the Auckland Council through the selection and prioritisation of transport projects in the RLTP?
– Will Auckland Transport provide public transport services and infrastructure which support the region’s land use strategies?
– How much recognition and accommodation will be given by Auckland Transport to land use objectives and plans in individual transport projects?“…we believe the following additional objective for Auckland Transport is required….The objective of Auckland Transport is to undertake its functions in a way that contributes to the effective and sustainable integration of land use and the transport system, including an affordable, safe, responsive and sustainable network…”
Questions about Auckland Transport’s accountabilities are very well founded in my opinion. I also think that having such a huge separation between transport planning (that will be done by Auckland Transport) and land-use planning (that will be done by the Auckland Council) is a recipe for disaster in many respects. We need better co-operation between transport and land-use planning, not greater separation.
Remember submissions are due on February 12th. Make your submission online here.
Processing...
Writing a submission for IPENZ Transportation Group Branch now – I see another important point they missed. They have one non-voting director on the board from NZTA. Where is the KiwiRail non-voting director? Certainly, good liaison at such a high level would be crucial.
Good point Max.