Decisions on RLTS submissions
Hearings on the Regional Land Transport Strategy began today, with the hearings commissioners making decisions on the 166 submissions on the RLTS that were received. A summary of opinions on the RLTS is outlined in a fairly short report that accompanies the documentation for the RLTS hearings, while decisions on each individual point made by submitters is included in a rather long document entitled “submission summaries and officer recommendations” (my name is in there if you look hard enough for it!)
I posted my original submission on the RLTS here, and it is interesting to see how the ARC has responded to the points that I made. Here’s the responses to each point that I made:
Overall, it seems as though a few of my suggestions have been taken on, but certainly there are no radical changes. The ARC still wants the Panmure-Botany-Manukau RTN to be bus-based (although it is recongised that both rail and bus options will be really expensive). They also reject my my point that more focus needs to go on “push factors” and not just “pull factors” – because of their fear of road pricing. Well, my submission does actually note that there are other ways to “push” people towards the outcome the ARC wants, but I guess they didn’t want to go with that. On another note it is good to see that the RLTS will be reworded so that the ‘preferred strategic option’ is actually one of the original proposed options, and that the stupid wording which said that integrated ticketing would happen “within 10 years” will be removed. As integrated ticketing will actually be happening within the next 2 years, having “by 2020″ was a bit bizarre.
I suppose it’s a tad frustrating that some of my bigger points haven’t yet been taken up. But there have been some changes that appear to have occurred as a direct result of my (and others’) submission that has improved the RLTS. And I guess that means it was worthwhile submitting on it.
As a final point, it is interesting reading through all the submissions that most people seem to generally support the RLTS’s focus on public transport. There are a few nutjobs, like the “Centre for Urban and Transport Studies”, who think that we should be building 20 lane wide motorways, but in general most individual submitters, and most agencies who submitted, think that the ARC’s strong focus on improving public transport is the right approach.
Someone tell Wellington please.
What did you expect Jarbury. Public consultations are always an exercise in “tokenism”, just to show they went through the motions, but still did what they wanted anyway!
That’s true Scott. You’ll only ever get concessions that don’t really mean much. Fortunately it’s still a pretty good strategy anyway.
As I have said in other places it is a shame we don’t have someone running this who has a strong vision and the drive to see it completed as these local bureaucrats are completely lazy and just put big changes in the to hard basket for someone else to deal with in the future.
I think the timeframes for the RLTS (it legally has to be operative by April 2010) makes it difficult for the ARC to make massive changes at this stage. The members of the Regional Transport Committee might be a little bit more visionary than the official who responded to each submission point so there might be hope yet that we’ll end up with a few more submission points being accepted.
On the other hand, it’s a relief that the RLTS hasn’t been watered down too much despite the submissions of NZTA, Rodney District Council, nutjobs like the Centre for Urban and Transport Studies and so forth.
Is that Centre for Urban and Transport Studies (CUTS!)another Owen McShane reincarnation? Sounds like just another right-wing think tank, they all try and have independent names like that. However I find most of those people aren’t really into market models for roading either, probably because they know it won’t work, and no new roads would ever be built again. They all seem to hate trains for being subsidised though.
On a different matter why is the busway extension to Albany have to be included as part of the Redvale extension. Only a tiny handful of buses go past Albany. Is the only point of this so NZTA can increase the cost so it won’t be viable?
Bingo Luke! I thought exactly the same thing, googled them and there he was….. I do wish their name was “the Centre for Urban and [something beginning with N] Transport studies. That’d be a laugh.
And to your second point, I made this point in my submission (somewhere….) Extending the busway proper to Albany ASAP is critical, but beyond there I can’t see being a priority project for decades. Or at least not until the motorway between Silverdale and Albany become congested, or until there are 20 buses per hour or so making that trip either way.
I think the idea is predicated on significant growth in Rodney District, which kind of is happening (Silverdale North subdivision for example).
“That’s true Scott. You’ll only ever get concessions that don’t really mean much. Fortunately it’s still a pretty good strategy anyway.”
Uhm, it’s consultation. It’s not “change your mind according to whatever people say to you” – especially when that includes people like David Willmott. Especially when the comments you will get will disagree quite a bit.
Consultation is also a valuable tool for policy makers and politicians to gauge the mood of the stakeholders for any policy and future policies.
“As I have said in other places it is a shame we don’t have someone running this who has a strong vision and the drive to see it completed as these local bureaucrats are completely lazy and just put big changes in the to hard basket for someone else to deal with in the future”
Now you are asking for someone who ignores the public and just plows on regardless, with his vision? And actually, I think for a New Zealand policy document, this is relatively radical pro-PT! Especially seeing Auckland’s funding constraints for PT (thanks National!).
“Is that Centre for Urban and Transport Studies (CUTS!)another Owen McShane reincarnation? Sounds like just another right-wing think tank, they all try and have independent names like that.”
Well, David Willmott is a very real person and transport engineer, though even in the transport profession he is considered a bit… let us say “fringe”… in his views. His submission is perfectly in line with the articles he publishes in industry magazines etc…
When are you giving your oral submission, Jarbs? I’m up in two hours…
Well kudos to you both for showing up to present your submissions. At least they have to consider your points then (that can’t be guaranteed when its a written submission only).
The Botany line is so obvious it really irks me that not a single local or central government politician sees the sense of it… I guess DS would be supportive but he is a man-god…
Your submission was excellent Max. Raised some good points.
I haven’t been able to present in person unfortunately. Too damn busy at work.
I did present on Friday. Very cycle- and walking friendly bunch at the hearing. Shame they are all going out for the Supercity but hopefully a few of the core ones supporting PT and active modes will make it onto the Auckland Council.
Oh, and it was pleasant to see that Councilor Baguley seems quite supportive of the city tunnel, from the gist of his questions and comments. He was not much interested in active modes, but then, others had already covered those points.
We had a long discussion (the question period was probably 15 minutes!) about the merits and drawbacks of the “silo” approach of BCR calculations – with me for the IPENZ Transportation Group proposing that a more integrated approach would be preferable.