|
|
By Stu Donovan, on May 18th, 2012 If you answered yes to all three questions posed in the title of this post then you may want to consider working for us.
Pro’s of working for MRCagney:
- You get paid to read about transport (including certain blogs)
- You get paid to talk about transport all-day, every-day
- You get paid.
Cons of working for MRCagney:
- There’s lots to do and you have to work really hard
- You will meet lots of grumpy old engineers and planners that will try to convince you that a 17 level off-street parking structure is absolutely necessary for “safe and efficient” access to your road-side vege stall.
More seriously though – here’s a detailed position description. Note that this position description relates to what we call our “ideal candidate”, so don’t feel like you shouldn’t apply simply because you don’t completely fit the requirements.
By Matt L, on March 22nd, 2012 Here are the key points from my submissions to Auckland Council’s Long Term Plan (LTP) and Auckland Transport’s Regional Land Transport Programme (RLTP). The LTP sets out everything that Auckland Council intends to spend its money on over the next decade – including what it will spend on transport matters. The RLTP is an Auckland Transport document, setting out general funding requirements over the next 10 years but with greatest specificity about the next three years. Remember that submissions close tomorrow at 4pm and you can do your own easy submission here
Long-Term Plan:
I support the proposed funding split in operational expenditure between public transport and roading of approximately 50/50 however I note the following:
That the proposed funding for PT subsidies doesn’t match the RLTP which predicts operational costs to stay largely the same over the same time period. It appears that the council have largely just carried forward the current operational costs based on predicted patronage numbers. This indicates that we aren’t expecting to see any increase in efficiency of our public transport network which is one of the aims of both Auckland transport, the NZTA and the central government
These costs also don’t match the wording on page 42 of volume one and page 87 of volume 2 of the LTP which says that the operational subsidy for public transport will increase by $73.5m over 10 years.
I think that these numbers need to be clarified and matched to what is in the RLTP. This is likely to cause the proposed operational expenditure on public transport to decrease significantly. It also means the split between spending on roads vs public transport will no longer be balanced. I would like to see the funding level and split to stay the same which would allow for Auckland transport to invest in additional services which would further help to increase patronage in the region.
- The LTP needs to take account of the patronage targets that have been agreed to by the council of reaching 121 million trips by 2022.
- The LTP will need to take into account the changes in the priorities of projects as a result of the various changes that have been made to the Auckland Plan, specifically:
- The bringing forward of the completion of the AMETI project
- There is no mention of how the East West link will be funded
- Potential investigation into a NW Busway
- I recognise that a number of projects that have been listed as roading projects will contain a significant public transport components in them. More work needs to be done to split these costs out so the public are accurately informed of the costs.
- I support that the LTP has provided funding for the City Rail Link however I am concerned by how it is being addressed in the LTP.
- It is noted that the funding for the CRL is dependent on the government contributing 50% of the costs and if that doesn’t eventuate then the project will be reassessed in the 2015-2025 LTP. I feel that as the council has confirmed the project as the top transport priority for the region that it needs to have more certainty around it. In the event of the government not contributing to the project then the council be looking to fund it solely and do so by delaying or cancelling or scaling back other, less important projects first.
- The council is giving the impression that much of the funding pressure that will be placed on ratepayers is a result of the CRL when there is a considerable amount more money being planned to be spent on roads. The language in the document needs to be clear to the public where the majority of the money is planned to be spent
- There are a number of projects that I feel the timing or scope of should be adjusted:
- The Auckland Plan proposes considerable greenfield development in the south, this will likely to make electrification to Pukekohe necessary before 2022.
- There is likely to be a requirement for further bus priority along Wellesley St which would require available funding.
- Integrated ticketing will likely mean a lot more transfers between public transport services. I feel that some money should be budgeted at key interchanges for infrastructure upgrades to make the process quick and easy for passengers.
- There is likely to be strong growth on the rail network to stations other than Britomart or Newmarket. To help avoid fare evasion funding should be made available to install fare gates at other key stations e.g. Henderson, New Lynn, Panmure, Manukau, Papakura.
- I also support funding being made available to progress the development of walking and cycling across the harbour bridge.
Alternate funding Options
I believe that the need for alternative funding has been driven largely by the council not being willing to prioritise and cut projects which has led to it having an ever increasing ‘wish list’. I feel that the council needs to do more to work within the existing and not inconsiderable level of funding that is planned to be spent on transport in the region over the next 30 years. I feel there is a problem with how these options have portrayed, particularly that the public impression is that the funding is to pay for a large amount public transport projects.
I note that the majority of the funding is actually destined to pay for roading projects and I feel that this should be made clear before any final decision is made. In saying this I do believe there is a place for some of the alternative funding options that the council has proposed which could both help to raise additional funds and change behaviours which could significantly change the use of alternative transport options. I believe that of the options presented the following are what should be developed further by the council:
- Tolling New Roads – This should be a requirement for any new road built in the region and analysis of the impact tolling should be required to take place as part of the development of the business case for these roads.
- Road pricing on existing roads – Serious consideration needs to be given as to how this would be properly implemented. I note it has the ability to provide a high level of income for the council by spreading the charges out over a large base of users.
- Additional Car parking charges – I support this but believe it would also need a change to the current policy around minimum parking requirements as it would be unfair to charge people a fee when they haven’t had the option to remove the number of car parks that they have.
- Visitor taxes – Visitor taxes could be useful but I feel it would have to be clear what the funds were being used for and should be ring fenced to pay for infrastructure that will improve the visitor experience e.g. rail to the airport
- Airport departure tax – As with visitor taxes it needs to clear what the funds are for and should be ring fenced to help pay for infrastructure that visitors will be highly likely to use like rail to the airport
RLTP
Summary:
Giving effect to the Auckland Plan:
- Implementing the patronage targets of the Auckland Plan’s transport chapter
- Achieving the ‘transformational change’ for transport envisaged by the Auckland Plan
- Prioritising projects in a way that implements the Auckland Plan (generally, not just its transport chapter)
Alignment with Auckland Council’s Long Term Plan:
- Resolving inconsistencies with the LTP over public transport services funding
- Resolving inconsistencies in the funding split between public transport and roads compared to the LTP
Project Specific: - Investigating a busway along SH16 between Waterview and Westgate
- Ensuring that infrastructure to support the reorganisation of Auckland’s bus network is funded
- Funding the full integration of public transport fares
- Removal of a number of projects from the RLTP that actively undermine the goals of the Auckland Plan and of the programme generally
2. Giving Effect to the Auckland Plan
Page 5 of the Draft RLTP notes that the Draft Auckland Plan was given consideration in the preparation of the document. Since the publication of the Draft Auckland Plan, a number of amendments have been made to it that are relevant to the RLTP. The wording of the Auckland Plan seeks a “transformational shift” in public transport most particularly, but also has a number of targets that relate to reducing Auckland’s automobile dependency. These include:
- Public Transport patronage of 121 million trips by 2022
- Public Transport patronage per capita of 100 by 2040
- 70% of vehicular trips to the city centre by public transport in 2040
- Increasing the proportion of people living within walking distance of frequent public transport from 14% to 32% by 2040
- Increasing proportion of non-car AM peak trips from 23% to 45% by 2040
While most of these targets have a 2040 implementation, I consider that some progress towards achieving them will need to occur over the period covered by the RLTP. Currently the RLTP does not clearly highlight how these targets will be achieved (understandable as many of the targets were not on the Draft Auckland Plan and therefore not able to be incorporated into the draft RLTP) or even worked towards.
The ‘transformational shift’ in transport the Auckland Plan seeks to create is also not carried through into the RLTP to the extent that is necessary. The wording of the Auckland Plan highlights that Auckland’s population growth over the next 30 years will mean that a fundamental shift in the way Aucklanders get around is required – quite simply, it is impossible (and increasingly undesirable and expensive) to continue to build additional road-space to cope with traffic growth. Therefore, a much greater use of public transport as well as the optimisation of the existing transport network, is necessary.
The RLTP, while focused on projects in the next three years in particular, should prioritise those projects based on which ones best contribute to achieving the ‘transformational shift’ envisaged by the Auckland Plan. The prioritisation of project must also complement other goals of the Auckland Plan (not just transport). In particular:
- Providing a transport network and making transport decisions that encourage intensification in places identified as suitable for such development
- Undertaking high-level investigation in proposed Greenfield suburban areas to ensure a different outcome to the ‘car dependent urban sprawl’ that has typically resulted from previous urban expansion
As well as the Auckland Plan, the RLTP must by law give effect to the Regional Land Transport Strategy. The 2010 RLTS proposed a 50/50 funding split between roads and other forms of transport – a funding split that should be given effect to by the RLTP.
3. Alignment with Auckland Council’s “Long Term Plan”
There are a number of areas where the Draft RLTP does not align with Auckland Council’s Long Term Plan. This misalignment causes confusion around “what will actually happen”, particularly in relation to the funding available for public transport services and the funding split between roads and public transport. The proposed public transport subsidies in the RLTP stay relatively flat over the decade while in the LTP funding almost doubles and it appears that the LTP has just increased current costs in line with patronage increases which is not likely to reflect what will really happen.
4. Project Specific Comments
I believe that a number of changes should be made to the RLTP’s project list, to better align with a more sensible strategic direction for transport, and to better give effect to high-level documents such as the Auckland Plan and the RLTS.
Projects to be added:
- Investigation and design of a busway along State Highway 16 between Westgate and Waterview, to support the significant urban development proposed for the northwest part of Auckland. This work needs to occur as soon as possible, so that it can inform NZTA’s proposed upgrade to the motorway.
- I understand (from AT Board Papers) that significant changes to the operational structure of Auckland’s public transport network are likely to occur over the next three years. There will be infrastructure requirements arising from these changes, such as bus priority measures, relocation of bus stops, road widening to eliminate bottlenecks for buses, key interchanges (both between bus and rail, and bus to bus). To ensure the success of the changes to the PT network, funding needs to be set aside for necessary infrastructure improvements.
- To properly take advantage of integrated ticketing, implementation of a zone-based fare system is necessary. This may require some funding in the short-term to cover any revenue loss while the system is being fine-tuned.
Projects to be removed:
- The Hayman Park carpark. This project undermines general policies in the Auckland Plan to encourage alternative transport options to metropolitan centres and also undermines investment in the Manukau Railway Station.
- Poorly located park and ride proposals. In inner areas (such as Sylvia Park and Avondale) extensive areas of parking can seriously undermine efforts to align land-use and transport outcomes, while adding relatively few passengers to the PT network.
5. Conclusions:
Some changes to the draft RLTP are necessary to ensure that it aligns more clearly with the ‘transformational shift’ for transport articulated in the Auckland Plan. In particular, targets in the Auckland Plan relating to reducing Auckland’s car dependency need to be embedded in the RLTP and form part of the project prioritisation process – projects contributing to achieving these targets should be ranked higher, projects undermining the targets should be ranked lower. Auckland has traditionally suffered from having a disconnect between the strategies, policies and goals of its transport documents, and where the money is actually spent. The draft RLTP continues this unfortunate trend, by ignoring the transformational targets it has been set and continuing to spend the bulk of its money on road-based projects.
This submission suggests changes to the RLTP that would ensure it better meets its requirements to give effect to strategic documents like the Auckland Plan and the 2010 Regional Land Transport Strategy. Overall, I note that factors influencing transport patterns are changing at a relatively rapid rate. Rising fuel prices, changing demographics, the need to reduce carbon emissions and the Council’s desire for a compact city mean that our future transport demands may be very different to what has happened historically. The Auckland Plan must be robust and resilient to these changes.
These are really important documents relating to the funding of transport activities in Auckland over the next three years in particular. So make sure your voice is heard.
By admin, on February 9th, 2012 OK, so trying to keep me away from blogging is a bit of a lost cause. I have directed my efforts at a new blog, based around a fictional city that I spent quite a lot of 2007-2009 drawing. The fictional city, I hope, will be an interesting way to explore urban issues in a way that’s removed from our normal blinkers of looking at particular cities (especially the ones we live in) and can easily avoid creating conflicts with my new job. At a personal level, I hope that it’s a useful way for me to learn a bit more about this place I spent so long creating.
Blog posts probably won’t be quite as regular as they were here, as I’m also trying to not spend quite as much of my life in front of a computer as before.
So, sorry for misleading you a week or so ago. This truly is my last post.
By Matt L, on January 31st, 2012 For those of you that use Twitter we now have an official twitter account for the blog that you can use to keep up to date with the latest posts and information about transport issues, previously Admin had this going through his personal account but with his new job it is more appropriate to separate this out to its own account.
You can view it here https://twitter.com/AkTransportBlog
By admin, on January 30th, 2012 Tomorrow I start work as a transport planner for the Council, and so ends my stint as a blogger on this site. As I outlined in more detail in this post and this post, this blog has meant a lot to me over the past few years and it has been truly awesome to see it develop from a personal blog that pretty much nobody read into what the site is today – something that is seemingly quite influential and gets around 2,000 views a day during the week.
However, my sadness in ending my involvement with the blog is tempered by my excitement for what I’ll be doing in the new job – and also by my confidence (fully reinforced by this couple of awesome recent posts) that the future of the blog is in good hands. I have updated the “Contact Us” page – with Matt L generally being a first point of call for news related matters and each blogger being contactable for feedback on their posts. I’ve found this to be helpful over the years, and many links sent through via email have inspired countless blog posts.
It’s been fun.
By Patrick Reynolds, on January 26th, 2012 As there’s been a lot of discussion about population density here I figure this post from good ol’ Cap’nTransit is on the money. Yes this is my view too, you think more density is needed? Well build the transit and the density will follow [all else being equal], foolish to try to wait for some ideal density then meet that demand with infrastructure. Transit supply is causative. Or as the Cap’n says: ‘The population density to support my ass’
Here are two interesting posts on Twitter and Transit. One beautiful the other more for the quants. Both instructive.
The second is via Atlantic Cities where there is also this argument for High Speed Rail in the Union’s most populous State, California. Newt of the GOP has been banging on about the US heading back to the moon in some kind of pissing contest with China, but frankly if they can’t even get a train to run from SF to LA and any decent speed I think he’ed better dodge that race. *Note for Geoff: These arguments here for HSR are intended as a metaphor for local arguments for urban transit, not as a literal argument for HSR in NZ. Same things apply, land use transformations, economic return not a financial one etc, but at a vastly different scale.
More from the States on gas prices [as they call them] and what to do, and for once this doesn’t involve bombing somewhere else or other wise frackin’ it all up.
Closer to home; no round up from me will be complete without at least a passing note on resource supply issues. As we head to the exciting singularity of peak damn near everything it’s good to see some people have their heads up. Here’s an introductory note from across the ditch, what I especially like about this is that it states a view that I also have, namely that it could just be that a world with less freely available oil may well be a lot better in a number of ways; once we’ve made the adjustment. Like London after the peasoup smog and mountains of horse-shit. I’m also guessing less isolation, more localiasation, more human interaction, less alienation. Perhaps more meaningful lives. Perhaps.
There’s also this guy, Denis Tegg, I know nothing about him but he has been manfully plugging away on this issue in NZ for a while and here he is bringing an important shelved report to the surface. I say manfully because there is a really creepy silence on this issue and Climate Change in the mainstream media and in government in NZ. It’s like if we don’t mention these problems they’ll just go away.
Look away Actoids! Here’s a well reasoned piece on the attractions and limitations of neoliberalism. It’s short too. Relevant how? Transit like our cities need long term planning, by elected bodies. The market is a great tool, but a lousy master, and an even worse god. As I think we’ve just seen.
Those interested in the strange ways that change can happen will like this. Why the US Marine Corp may well lead the US into a solar future.
Back to transit, and more personally; I have new wheels, yay! and loving it, but won’t be going to these extremes to protect them. No.
By admin, on January 23rd, 2012 With only a few days to go of my contribution to this blog, I thought I’d have a look back at some of the statistics of this blog. A few of them can be seen down the left-hand side of this page – as I write we have:
- 1,688 posts
- 1,266,909 words in those posts
- 26,198 comments
- 2,249,494 words in those comments
But some statistics can only really be seen behind the scenes, so for your curiosity here are a few:
It has also been interesting to see how visitor numbers to the blog have changed over time, going from under 8000 views in July 2009 to almost 66,000 in August last year – the busiest month so far. This post on Public Address, in particular, seemed to really bring what had previously been a generally ignored blog, into public view.
Of course, it is the knowledge that many hundreds of people visit the blog each day, and that many of them take the time to comment and share their thoughts, which has kept me going and keen to post almost every day. I’m sure it’ll take me some time to adjust – but in the meanwhile I am curious about how the various readers of the blog found their way here the first time, which post do they remember (if any) which encouraged them to keep coming back and if there are any particular favourite posts. Because, I’m a curious person too.
By admin, on January 13th, 2012 I was sad to read, back in late December, that Jon C, who runs the AKT blog, is moving to Australia and won’t be able to continue posting on the blog in the future. This blog and AKT have always been quite complementary to each other – predominantly because I don’t have a hope in hell posting as frequently and getting out to take as many photos of developments around the Auckland rail network as Jon managed. Many a transport story was broken on his blog, plus the insight he enabled us to have into upgrade works around the city was second to none.
What makes Jon’s decision to shift to Australia and discontinue blogging particularly sad, perhaps, is the fact that my days of being able to continue writing blog posts here are also numbered. In the last couple of weeks before Christmas, the dream transport planning job for me came up , I applied for it, and I was the successful applicant. I start in that role on January 31st. It will involve me definitely working to achieve much of what I’ve discussed on this blog over the past few years, inside the system rather than outside it. As I knew when applying for the role, unfortunately in life you can’t have both. Of course, as someone with pretty much no transport planning experience, I highly doubt I would have been able to get such a job without the blogging work I’ve done here.
As I think Jon C has noted in the final few posts on his blog, transport blogging is fun, but is also hard work at times. With a new baby, I have found it more and more difficult to find the time to put together the type of posts that I most like to write. Posts like this and this, which I know got various people at Auckland Transport thinking quite a bit about how they might rework the way the City Rail Link’s cost-benefit analysis should be undertaken.
I do feel that I have achieved quite a bit in my blogging time. Perhaps the best illustration of that is to look at what’s in the background behind Len Brown the day he found out he had won the mayoralty: Yes, that map looks remarkably similar to something I had posted on my blog a few months earlier.
Other things that originally were proposed on this blog, like two-waying Hobson and Nelson Streets, initiating an 020X route and many others, have been incorporated into official plans. Operation Lifesaver, a cheaper alternative to the Puhoi-Wellsford road, was taken up by Labour and the Greens as a way of freeing up funds to build the City Rail Link. I have also generally seen a vast improvement in the quality of our transport debates, compared to a few years ago. Often when a transport issue comes up in the newspaper, I don’t have to write a letter to the editor because there are three or four others saying pretty much what I would have.
Personally, I certainly will miss blogging. While it’s hard work, it is also enormously rewarding and at times, fun. I still get a little thrill each time I have an email telling me there’s another comment. I still particularly enjoy commenters who challenge my way of thinking, but avoid simply acting as trolls. I constantly find myself wanting to be challenged on the big question of whether a greater focus on public transport really is the way to go. What would it take to prove me wrong? What would I argue in a debate if I was arguing on the side of a roads-centric policy? How would I refute that argument? It’s important that I’m able to answer that first question, because if I’m not going to change my mind no matter what evidence is produced – then we’re talking ideology rather than an informed opinion. I have tried not to be ideological about this issue.
Fortunately, this blog will not cease to be updated from January 31st onwards, as I have a bunch of keen and excellent writers to take up the reins. In a way, I think the blog could benefit from being more of a “group effort” – although knowing how challenging it is to keep writing post after post, I’m certainly keen on growing the number of writers to ease the pressure on those contributing. Guest posts over the next few weeks, and beyond, are therefore most welcome. I think that transport blogs have played a pretty important role in the transport debate over the past few years (heck even Steven Joyce mentioned us in parliament once) – and I hope that trend continues.
By admin, on October 24th, 2011 Well it was an extremely stressful game, and full credit to the French for playing unbelievably well, but: I’ve watched the All Blacks lose games in every World Cup since 1991 so this is very satisfying. But wow, did it have to be that stressful?
As an aside, despite the huge crowds the transport system seems to have held up well and Auckland Transport finally closed Queen Street to cars this afternoon.
By admin, on July 27th, 2011 Quite a few people I have met up with in person recently have asked how things are going with the little girl we had a few weeks back. Well here she is in a pretty inevitable hat – thanks to Auntie Bernice who did an excellent shop at the London Transport museum when she was there a few weeks ago: While she was five weeks early, and we needed to stay in the hospital for the first couple of weeks, little Adele Ophelia Clare is now doing great. If only she wasn’t always so awake at 11pm each night!
|
Recent Comments