Pay increase for drivers a good start

Auckland Council is announcing an immediate wage increase for the city's bus drivers on Thursday to try and boost its staff numbers.

The average increase will be 8%, bringing the average wage up from $23.71 to $25.62 per hour.

It comes after continued bus service cancellations across the city amid staffing shortages and winter sickness.

Essential workers throughout this pandemic (and before), our bus drivers deserve better pay and conditions. Great to see this being recognised with Auckland Council announcing today that drivers will receive an increase of 8%, effective this Thursday.

Public transport is our greatest opportunity to improve congestion, emissions and road safety. For too long local governments have focused on the costs, trying to make it as cheap as possible while central government has placed complex rules on how its run leading to perverse outcomes. This means less focus on service quality and more pressure to keep wages down.

We need to invest more into public transport, taking into the account the significant social, economic and environmental benefits that it provides. And not just for those that use public transport - more reliable, accessible and frequent buses and trains is good for everyone.

Eastern Busway Burswood diversion continues to divide

I popped into Eastern Busway community drop in session in Burswood this morning. Nice to see full size maps and talk with knowledgeable staff from Eastern Busway Alliance.

I'm still unconvinced about the Burswood diversion and it was good to get a bit more information on it. Apparently it avoids underground infrastructure, reduces the number of intersections and will be faster to build.

Not surprisingly, local feedback is pretty mixed, with the loudest opposition from those who are directly impacted.

I'd still prefer to see this regionally significant project get the priority it deserves, with but ultimately the decision sits with the Board of Auckland Transport who are due to make the decision later this month.

On a more positive note, there's been good progress on reducing the visual, social and environmental impacts of the Reeves Rd Flyover. By ensuring its integrated into Pakuranga Town Centre masterplan, it should help connect the space underneath into more useful space. Great to hear that Te Tuhi has been involved in the discussions.

The Eastern Busway will be game changer for East Auckland and I cannot wait to see it done. It will connect up with the Airport to Botany busway, providing yet another connection onto rail network, airport and beyond.

See more at the Auckland Transport website.

How many people need to die for Auckland Transport to act?

I’ve gone to write this piece a number of times, but struggled. Not because I don’t know what to write, but because it makes me so angry and frustrated. Too many people are being killed or seriously injured on our roads.

And Auckland Transport has been big on promises for road safety, but their record shows otherwise. Their website proclaims that they have adopted Vison Zero:

“Vision Zero, an ethics-based transport safety approach, was developed in Sweden in the late 1990s. It places responsibility on the people who design and operate the transport system to provide a safe system. This is a transport system that is built for human beings, that acknowledges that people make mistakes and human bodies are vulnerable to high-impact forces in the event of a crash. To protect people from forces that can cause traumatic injury we need to look at how the whole system works together to protect all those who use our roads.”

Levi James (19) was killed on his bike riding to see his grandmother.

The page that makes this bold claim that “No death or serious injury is acceptable” has little updates since 2020. The Auckland Transport Monthly crash statistics – Road deaths and serious injuries page hasn’t been updated since 15 April 2021 and most of the data is from 2020. No surprise, they’ve never taken road safety seriously.

But this is too important - people are being killed. These aren’t just numbers - real people are dying on our roads in avoidable situations.

On 5 March 2022, Levi James (19) was killed on his bike riding to see his grandmother. Not only is this a terrible tragedy, it was avoidable - Auckland Transport had recently completed a project in this area, but refused to consider basic safety improvements for bikes, even though their own plans and policies required it. And improvements recommended by an independent safety review weren’t implemented either. They’ve blamed budgets, but that’s a cop out - there are simple solutions that don’t cost big money. And this is meant to be a priority regional route on the strategic cycling network. Read this post on Greater Auckland for more details.

12 weeks since this terrible tragedy and Auckland Transport have done nothing.

In an email to a council worker after Levi's death, seen by the Herald, an Auckland Transport (AT) staffer said the organisation had considered removing parking outside the shops as a "quick win", however, that would require consultation with businesses and affected parties.

"We anticipate that given the town centre environment and businesses operating there would be varied responses and would take several months to complete."

- Father's grief as officials fail to act after teen cyclist son's death in Royal Oak, NZ Herald 27 May 2022

This should be completely unacceptable, but it’s how Auckland Transport respond. Four years after the tragic loss of life in an intersection in East Tamaki, there is still no sign of action from Auckland Transport despite a coroner's ruling that the road layout was the primary cause of death.

William Wiki Teoi was killed trying to cross the road in East Tamaki.

William Wiki Teoi​ was hit by a car while crossing East Tamaki Rd in Ōtara​ and died later at Middlemore Hospital from heart failure in March 2018.

The 84-year-old​ had been trying to cross the busy four-lane road because a nearby pedestrian crossing was not accessible in his wheelchair.

Why has it taken so long to do nothing? Auckland Transport decided to do something else instead, widening the road instead of building a safe crossing for people.

I’ve been fighting with Auckland Transport to get them to build a crossing near my workplace - as we were promised in 2015. And again in 2017, 2018, 2019… When they finally did something (on one of the five intersections), they managed to make a complete meal of it.

How does this keep happening?

AT Board Papers 26 May 2022

Auckland Transport has a serious cultural issue that needs to be addressed. And culture is driven from the top - the executive leadership and the Board. So what is being said at the highest levels of Auckland Transport? At their Board meeting on 26 May 2022, this is what appears in their papers.

The AT safety team are aware of these concerning trends and are continuing to deliver on the 2021 business improvement review recommendations. One of the key actions has been the development of the advocacy plan, focusing on increasing our influence on policy and regulatory changes to support our Vision Zero strategy such as our ongoing work with NZ Police to increase enforcement efforts and with Ministry of Transport’s Fines and Penalties Review.

AT Board Papers 31 March 2022

For an organisation that is taking Vision Zero seriously will ensure that safety is an issue that everyone considers not just “the safety team”. Developing an advocacy plan isn’t going to bring back Levi, William or the 59 people killed on Auckland roads in 2021. Vision Zero requires a system response, not pushing the responsibility onto a team who’s responsible for advocating for change. “System designers are ultimately responsible for the safety level in the entire system - systems, design, maintenance and use.” is what their website says, but their Board papers say otherwise.

The data here is from December 2021 which is almost 6 months ago. Worse, the comment here is identical to the comment that appeared in the same report (but a different graph) in March 2022. Not only has AT done nothing in the period between these meetings, they’re just copying and pasting their excuses.

I’ve never seen an organisation do so little in the face of such awful, avoidable tragedy. I’ve worked for organisations that have hurt and lost people so have no illusions about how challenging this can be. But in every case I’ve seen people try to fix the problems, laser focus on the immediate issue and a increased focus on health and safety throughout the organisation. Auckland Transport seems immune to the very human response that we must all do better to ensure that people get home safety.

The Mayor and Councillors helped build this culture when they voted in support of a proposed Emergency Budget that cut funding for safety programmes, with the full knowledge that it would lead to more serious injuries and deaths on our roads.

I’ve sat in meetings and watched elected representatives and council staff debate which part of council should pay for critical safety infrastructure for children. I’ve seen the determined school representative come back month after month, begging for action not more words or promised. But instead of keeping our tamariki safe, Auckland Council has been distracted with it’s own internal processes.

I’ve written to the Chief Executive of Auckland Transport asking him why their organisation is failing to respond, although I have little faith that I will get a reasonable response.

What will it take for Auckland Transport and Auckland Council to act?

Submission on Auckland Council's preliminary response to housing intensification

Central Government (together with the Opposition) have created legislation that requires all larger cities in New Zealand to allow more intensification of housing. Auckland Council have prepared a preliminary response and asked for public feedback. The following is my submission.

What do you think of our proposed walkable catchment of 1200 metres from the edge of the city centre?

My response: Do not support - I think it should be further

I encourage Council to extend the walkable catchment to 2400 metres (30 minutes) for the City Centre. I would also encourage the use of Business - Mixed Use Zone instead of a Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone to allow greater mixed use.

For many, walking is the default mode of transport with the 2018 census noting that at least 10% of people living in the central suburbs already walking to work. This is despite the existing safety and pollution issues that many pedestrians face, which suggests that it could rise much higher if it was encouraged, enabled and supported by fit for purpose infrastructure. We also need to consider the positive impact of micromobility which is further reducing distances and helping connect public transport and active modes.  Limiting the catchment to 15 mins will significantly reduce the potential housing that could be developed near the city centre

What do you think of our proposed walkable catchment of 800 metres from the edge of the metropolitan centres?

My response: Do not support - I think it should be further

I encourage Council to increase the walkable catchments for the Metropolitan Centres in the isthmus (Newmarket, Sylvia Park) to 1600 metres (20 minutes) and 800 metres (10 minutes) for other Metropolitan Centres. Both Newmarket and Sylvia Park are vital commercial and retail centres that have good transport links, which can support greater growth.

What do you think of our proposed walkable catchment of 800 metres around rapid transit stops?

My response: Do not support - I think it should be further

I encourage Council to increase the walkable catchments for Rapid Transit Stops to 1600 metres (20 minutes) for Rapid Transit Stops. This is a relatively short distance to access frequent, reliable public transport and would enable much greater growth in areas that can support it. Retrofitting rapid transit into other parts of the city will always be complex and expensive, so we must better utilise what we already have and are planning to deliver. I strongly encourage Council to ensure that the definition of Rapid Transit in implementing the NPS-UD includes high bus priority areas.

I encourage Council to make use of the Business - Mixed Use Zone instead of a Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone, in the first 200 metres of the Walkable Catchment of Rapid Transit stops. This will enable even greater, mixed use growth in these critical areas, moving us closer to the 15-minute neighbourhood. 

What do you think of our proposal to apply the Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings Zone to residential areas up to around 400 metres from large town centres with high accessibility?

My response: Do not support - I think it should be further

I support upzoning adjacent to town centres - enabling people to live near town centres will reduce our transport needs and improve the wellbeing of residents. The pandemic has reminded us how important it is to have easy access to the essentials without needing to travel across town. I encourage Council to consider extending the upzoning to a distance of 800m around all Town Centres defined by Council as ‘large + high accessibility’, as well as all other town centres on the isthmus.

What do you think of our proposal to apply the Terrace Housing and Apartment Buildings zone to residential areas up to around 200 metres from small town centres or large local centres with high accessibility?
My response: Do not support - I think it should be further

I support upzoning adjacent to town and local centres. However, I encourage Council to extend the upzoning up to 400m around all Town Centres which have have high accessibility. While our city is growing, we still have an opportunity to build in 15-minute neighbourhoods through the use of mixed use zoning close to town centres.

What do you think of our proposal to include identified special character areas as a qualifying matter?

My response: Do not support – I do not think special character areas should be a qualifying matter

I fully support genuine moves to protect our history including listed Heritage buildings, but do not support the protection of entire suburbs simply because they are old.

While I appreciate that this is a complex issue with limited time and resources, the approach that Auckland Council has taken to identify these buildings is too broad, leading to perverse outcomes. While there are suburbs of Auckland that have a number of historic houses that deserve protection, claiming an entire suburb needs protection is disingenuous. While we must protect the important historical buildings, not everything that was built in these neighbourhoods needs automatic protection.

Special Character Areas relies heavily on the concept of collective value, failing to recognise the importance of place and building, and creating the impression that suburbs that are not protected are at risk. In reality we need a more nuanced approach, that recognises the need for our city to grow and develop, while respecting where we’ve come from. There are plenty of good examples in New Zealand and around the world, where historic buildings are redeveloped in a way that respects the past while enabling them to remain current.

Finally, the Special Character overlays are focused on the central suburbs - the areas with the greatest access to transport and existing amenities. We must make better use of our existing infrastructure, while we close the significant deficit seen across the city. 

What do you think of the proposed residential special character areas that we have identified?

My response: Do not support – I do not think special character areas should be a qualifying matter

As noted above, I fully support genuine moves to protect our history including listed Heritage buildings, but do not support the protection of entire suburbs simply because they are old.

Older homes were not built to modern standards of warmth and dryness, nor weather tightness. Replacing older homes and villas with modern apartments will radically improve quality of life for residents, offering warmer, drier and healthier living environments.

What do you think of the proposed business special character areas that we have identified?

My response: Do not support – I do not think special character areas should be a qualifying matter

As noted above, I fully support genuine moves to protect our history including listed Heritage buildings, but do not support the protection of entire suburbs simply because they are old.

Business zones need flexibility to adapt in order to provide for the needs of a growing local population. This includes providing for local shops and services, as well as apartment-style housing above.

What do you think of our proposal to include areas in Auckland with long-term significant infrastructure constraints as a qualifying matter?

My response: Other

I support the extremely limited use of infrastructure constraints where there is no other viable alternative. However, this cannot be used as an excuse and must be the option of last resort. I am deeply concerned that this is too open for abuse, given the poor state of the infrastructure in our city. There are few neighbourhoods that could claim they have no issues.

We know there are parts of Auckland where the infrastructure cannot cope with current demands, flooding streets and homes when there is heavy rain. Beaches become unswimmable as waste floods into our harbours. As our city continues to grow these issues continue to compound, increasing the risk of serious, long-term environmental damage. Watercare in particular has failed to identify, contain and resolve these issues, creating real concern that intensification will only lead to more issues. 

It should be noted that these aren't new concerns - in East Auckland, the Manukau City Council apparently had a moratorium on intensification due to the lack of infrastructure but decades later, little has been done to address the gaps. Council must take proactive action to address these infrastructure gaps while investing across the city to build capacity for growth. Retrofitting infrastructure is expensive, disruptive and unpopular - we must make better use of our existing infrastructure and ensure that all new developments include sufficient infrastructure to support the planned growth. Intensification in existing urban areas is a more efficient use of infrastructure, compared to greenfield development. Prioritisation of infrastructure funding between greenfield growth and brownfield intensification needs to be considered.

If this is included as a qualifying matter, Council must ensure that there is a strict and transparent process to ensure it is not abused. Areas that are identified as requiring limited development must have a robust plan developed to address the gaps, including timeframes and funding. Long-term and permanent use should be extremely rare and only where there is no other alternative.

Other qualifying matters

Do you have feedback on any other qualifying matters? (please be clear which proposal you are talking about)

I support the Stockade Hill viewshaft protection which was secured after a long, expensive battle by local residents. It should be noted that this was established under the previous zoning rules and it should be reviewed to ensure that the existing overlay will continue to protect the views of the Waitematā. 

I support the protection of viewshafts of cultural and spiritual significance to mana whenua in Tāmaki Makaurau.

Auckland Council mismanagement is costing us more

"Aucklanders may face higher than expected rates rises in future, some services may be cut, and major uncommitted projects delayed as worsening council finances hit the drawing-up of this year’s council Budget.

A continuing fall in revenue has pushed the council’s losses due to Covid-19 to $900 million, and a raft of previously unflagged measures are possible."

- Auckland Council budget: Grim warning of worsening finances as losses hit $900m Stuff 13 April 2022

Imagine how different Auckland would look if our elected representatives hadn't wasted the first 10 years of the super city on vanity projects and bickering.

Goff wasted $935k on a secret report for a waterfront stadium that we don't need nor can afford. Now he's selling our local parks to balance the books.

He and almost every councillor wasted millions on the Wynyard Tram, now they're cutting services because we have no funds.

They declared a climate emergency in 2019, then put up public transport fares again & again while approving plans that increased our carbon emissions. As he leaves, Goff finally proposes some real action but he wants more money to do it and still can't say what the impact will be.

When I bang on about the appalling financial mismanagement at council, it's not for nothing. This is what happens - it has serious, long term impacts on our city, our neighbourhoods, our community.

I love this city, I just wish all our councillors cared just a little bit more

Auckland Council Budget 2022/2023 consultation feedback to Howick Local Board

As part of the Auckland Council budget consultation, the Howick Local Board hosted an online public forum. The following is a rough transcript of what I said in my 3 minutes:

Kia ora.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak, I will do my best to stay on topic and on time. Given the short window, I’ll focus on one regional and two linked local priorities.

Firstly I’m encouraged by the increased focus on climate action. As noted earlier, our goal is to reduce our emissions by 50 per cent by 2030. With less than 8 years left to deliver this massive change, we need to significantly increase action.

It’s good to see that we’re getting some improvements to the East Auckland public transport services, including more frequent services through Ormiston and Flat Bush.

The Budget proposes $144m for Cycling and $84m for walking which is great but is very light on the details of where this will happen. I understand that Auckland Transport is still finalising the plan for both active modes and I encourage the Howick Local Board to make sure that our area does not miss out on these opportunities.

Like one of the previous speakers, I have questioned the lack of carbon reduction targets or estimates - $1 Billion dollars is a lot of money to invest without knowing the impact. I’m not suggesting it’s too much, in fact I suspect it won’t be near enough to undo the damage that we continue to do to our environment. But the proposal represents a massive increase on previous funding and by ring fencing it we can have more confidence that it will deliver so I support it.

Onto the local priorities and I wanted to speak to both the greater focus on renewal and maintenance of assets and the need for the skatepark and other wheeled play at Lloyd Elsmore Park.

As some of you are aware, I’m involved with East Skate Club. While I’m not here formally speaking on their behalf, I do want to take this opportunity to endorse the need for a proper skatepark facility for our community. 

I acknowledge the minor refurbishment that the HLB delivered which has improved the safety of the park. However, it’s still very small and outdated - ten kids and it’s full. It lacks basic facilities like toilets, water and shade. There is no pedestrian access, forcing kids to walk on the road which is unbelievably unsafe. In its current form it is in no way fit-for-purpose.

COVID has reminded us how important it is to have outdoor recreational options in our neighbourhoods. There are some amazing skateparks around, the success of the skatepark in Sir Barry Curtis Park is proof enough. If we create good spaces for our tamariki they will attract not just locals, but also people from all across the city. A decent skatepark will not just help locals, but also encourage people to visit East Auckland, bringing visitors and much needed revenue to our local businesses.

In order to be successful, the planning and design must include the users - skaters, kids of all ages. This will take time so the sooner we start the better. Thank you for including this as a priority.

Thank you.

I’m still working through the formal consultation process and will post a copy of my submission in the next few days.

The budget consultation will close at 5pm on Monday 28 March 2022. Details on the proposal and ways to have your say can be found at akhaveyoursay.nz/budget

Reducing fuel prices and public transport fares welcomed but needs long term solutions

It's great that the government has announced a reduction in public transport fares, given how critical mode shift is for addressing climate emissions, congestion & road safety.

While I suspect it was driven by pragmatic political factors, any action on transport poverty is welcomed.

Fuel taxes will be slashed by 25 cents a litre for the next three months at the cost of $350m. Public transport fares will be halved costing $25-40m.

I have questions about how this will happen practically and would like assurances that this will not negatively impact projects (funded by fuel taxes or not). I would like to think that the government will simply make more funds available, but so often the devil is in the detail.

It does raise the important question as to why it's taken so long for this to happen, especially given the relatively low cost. While price isn't the only factor, it does make a difference.

The bonus side effect of this is a wider understanding of how little it would actually cost to 100% fund public transport. The other side of this coin is the massive cost of continuing to over-subsidize private vehicle use. The fact that so many kiwis are hurting from rising fuel prices is a reflection of our poor transport options.

In the absence of a realistic alternative, people are forced to drive.

Reducing the cost of fuel is a relatively quick way to reduce pressure on household budgets and I expect most people will (understandably) welcome this. But unless we fix the underlying issues, it's still broken. I also worry how this will impact people when the cuts are removed and the prices go up again.

Also we must not lose sight of the bigger picture. This is only temporary - we still need to reform how we fund and manage public transport so that it can be affordable, accessible and reliable. The current model is clearly unfit for purpose and needs more than short term fixes.

Eastern Busway feedback shows Burswood diversion unpopular with locals

Auckland Transport have released the response to the December consultation on the Pakuranga to Botany leg of the Eastern Busway.

There's a bit to work through, but it's clear the Burswood diversion created a stir (which is no surprise given the shock it was to locals). I still question some of the info they've presented here and it feels very much like they're pushing a solution that the community doesn't want or need.

I fully support the Busway and want it delivered sooner. However driving a diversion through Burswood at the cost of many homes is unjustified. I applaud the response from local residents who have organised to oppose this bizarre proposal. My submission is available here.

Apparently AT have confirmed the proposed design for Pakuranga to Botany, although it's pretty light on details.

More consultations due later in the year, although it does feel like the decision has been made (using cost as the excuse).

Documents are available online - https://at.govt.nz/.../eastern-busway/pakuranga-to-botany/

Also interesting to note that the diversion has had mixed response from the Howick Local Board

A plan that would see the next stage of the Eastern Busway public transport project dissect a residential community has sparked heated debate between members of the Howick Local Board.

See the full article in https://www.times.co.nz/news/board-members-clash-over-busway/

Auckland Council finances still don't add up

Major transport projects like the Eastern Busway have been delayed because Auckland Council told us they didn't have the money to fund it. Yet the NZ Herald has revealed that council is sitting on $285 million of unspent regional fuel tax earmarked for transport.

“Auckland Council is sitting on a $285 million goldmine, after it failed to spend nearly half the money it raked in thanks to the regional fuel tax.

In 2018, the Government introduced an additional tax on fuel sold in Auckland of 10c a litre (with GST taking the figure to 11.5c) to help the council fund transport projects in the city.

But according to data from the council, as of December 2021, less than half of the $515 million raked in by the tax has actually been spent, leaving the council with a $285m tax surplus.”

— NZ Herald 26 Jan 2022

Meanwhile this very same council is busy selling off our parks and community centres using the excuse they don't have enough money. The hearings for the East Auckland parks (Golflands Park, Fortyfoot Park, and Aberfeldy Park) have been delayed again and again, but council are still determined to sell them.

Even before the pandemic is was clear we needed more public space and it's even more important now.

Auckland Transport $37B plan nothing to celebrate

On Monday 28 June, the Board of Auckland Transport approved their ten year plan known as the Auckland Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP). The plan comes with a hefty price tag of $37 Billion which on the face of it seems positive - Auckland has under invested in transport for far too long. However, there isn't much to celebrate. 

It does not meet the needs of our current growth projections, so congestion will continue to get worse. Blocked roads already cost the city millions of dollars a day in lost productivity - we need action to provide realistic alternatives to unlock our city. Reliable, affordable and accessible public transport would take pressure off our roads and leave capacity for those who need their vehicles.

It does not move us towards the council's climate change target of reducing emissions by 64% by 2030. In fact it only claims to reduce emissions by a mere 1% and that relies on the government's controversial freebate scheme for electric vehicles. Analysis by people far smarter than me suggests that the plan will actually increase emissions in the short term. Auckland Council declared a climate emergency in 2019 and has done little since (in fact public transport fares have gone up twice since).

It does not deliver the infrastructure we need - key projects like the Eastern Busway are delayed. It’s taken far too long to get this project to this point and now it’s going to be another two years late bringing the final date to around 2026 (I won’t hold my breath). This is despite promises from the Mayor last year that delays like this wouldn’t happen.

Our elected representatives had their vote last Thursday, and to their credit, both Howick Ward Councillors Sharon Stewart and Paul Young voted against it. But the plan was still endorsed by the rest of council and Auckland Transport has signed it off.

According to AT, they were hamstrung by the funds provided by Auckland Council in their 10 year plan. It’s worth noting that the RLTP is funded through the Regional Fuel Tax, the extra that Aucklanders have to pay at the fuel pump in exchange for an accelerated transport plan. I’ve always believed that this was a clumsy funding model and it’s not delivering.

What’s even more unbelievable is that the council is still out of touch with our transport needs. This should not happen - this process has taken months and involved countless staff from across Auckland Council and it’s various organisations. We all know that the council has funding challenges but to arrive at this point to discover that key projects and outcomes cannot be met is appalling. There aren't side projects that got lost in the detail, they’re core to the city's transport plan.

Auckland Council and Auckland Transport have agreed to develop a Transport Emissions Reductions Plan, but we've all heard the promises before. We’re already a year and a half through the decade and Auckland Transport is never on time. Even if they do agree to a plan this year, I have little faith they’ll be able to deliver it by 2030. 

Further delays to Eastern Busway are unacceptable

Yesterday Auckland Transport admitted that the Eastern Busway has been delayed yet again.

They've blamed a council funding squeeze but the reality is that AT is incapable of delivering on their promises.

We have been promised this for decades and it was finally happening. When it was under threat last year we were assured this would never happen. But frustrating here we are again, another slow down.

We've endured years of disruption from construction, paid more in fuel taxes and put up with dreadful congestion with promise that solution was coming. We now have to wait longer again.

While we've been waiting AT have reduced the plans, cut walking/cycling connections and delayed the delivery.

Meanwhile they've wasted millions on vanity projects like AT Local and the Wynyard Tram which have taken us backwards.

Disgraceful.

I'm furious - for over a decade we've been told that the CCOs aren't accountable to our elected representatives but nothing has been done.

It's clearly not working, it has to change.

Did this pole really need to go here?

For years I've been battling with Auckland Transport to try address the lack of pedestrian crossings on the Mt Wellington Highway near Sylvia Park. Not just a major shopping destination, it's also a transport hub for the area but there's gaps in the footpaths.

I recently noticed roadworks underway on one of the on ramps and what appeared to be a new pedestrian crossing. My excitement was quickly dampened when I discovered this pole had been placed right in the centre of the new footpath.

It's clearly a hazard, especially for people with wheelchairs, prams or mobility scooters. Not sure who's fault it is but clearly it doesn't belong here.

I've asked AT what is happening...

Where's my bus?

I'm meant to at a sustainable business event, talking with other local young professionals about what we can do to tackle climate change. Huge challenge we have to face.

But instead I'm standing at a bus stop waiting for a bus that may never come.

I use public transport as my primary means of getting around Tāmaki Makaurau - bus, train and the odd ferry. There's lots to enjoy, but the reliability is an issue that we must address. Accessibility and affordability also big concerns.

Apparently I missed my connecting bus (or it never turned up) and the next one couldn't fit in the Ōtahuhu station so just drove past. Now I'm late because I tried to do the right thing and not drive.

So much for the Climate Emergency Auckland Council and Auckland Transport

Road safety needs to be taken seriously

It's Road Safety Week and Auckland Transport have shown their support. But what we need is action.

For all the promises of Vision Zero, there's too many issues being ignored. People are being hurt and killed, it's shameful. Last year 37 people were killed on Auckland roads and nearly 500 were seriously injured.

On paper Auckland has some great plans and strategies to make our city safer. But in reality, the focus shifts and the funds evaporate.

• Not enough pedestrian crossings, too many missing legs.

• Not enough protected cycleways, too much mixed traffic.

• Not enough enforcement of rules, too many bad habits formed & endorsed by lack of action.

• Not enough action, too much talk and promise.

In East Auckland we've seen primary school kids left to fend for themselves, forced to share roads with heavy construction vehicles and no footpaths while council debates who funds the solution. Thanks to the tireless work of their caring school and community, it's being addressed but it shouldn't take so much effort to keep people safe.

I don't blame the staff at Auckland Council or Auckland Transport - these issues are cultural and systemic. They're driven by poor governance, confused strategy and a lack of political will. Last year's Emergency Budget saw safety funding cut which our Councillors and Mayor knew would increase injuries and deaths but they voted for it anyway. If we were serious about safety (and we should be) then we'd prioritise it, not defund it.

In the meantime, travel safely and look out for others.

Auckland Transport is increasing fares, yet again.

In what feels like deja vu, Auckland Transport is yet again increasing the fares for public transport. From 7 February about half of all passengers will pay an average 35 cents more for each trip. In 2016 they reworked the fare structure and every year since then fares have gone up. Last year they blamed petrol prices and this year it's COVID19. The reality is that Auckland already has one of the most expensive public transport fares in the world and making it more expensive is only making our transport issues worse. 

Auckland Transport and Auckland Council are selling these changes as a win by focusing on the 10% discount for off peak fares. We do have spare capacity in our off peak services and encouraging people to use this is a great way to smooth peak demand. But practically most people commuting to work, school or university will not be able to delay their trips to take advantage of this. They've also introduced a daily fare cap which should be a great way to encourage multiple trips. I’m a big supporter of a daily cap but setting it at $20 a day means it won’t do much to offset the increased costs.

While this decision comes from Auckland Transport, it’s ultimately Auckland Council who are  accountable as they set the priorities and budget for the CCO. Auckland Council says it’s aiming to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and with transport making up nearly 40% of Auckland’s carbon footprint, getting people into more efficient forms like public transport is a must. Our council declared a climate emergency in 2019 but has continued to increase the cost of fares, driving people back to private vehicles.

These increases are apparently going to save $4.3m but we're kidding ourselves if we think that this makes good financial sense - congestion alone costs our economy hundreds of millions of dollars a year. A study in 2017 suggested that the cost of congestion in Auckland was $1.3B a year or $3.5m a day in lost productivity. Improving the capacity, design and state of our roads will help address this but to get real change we need to get people onto mass transit.

Public transport won't work for everyone in every situation but it should cater for most people's daily commute. And the more people that use it, the less traffic on the road for those who can't. I use public transport to commute to and from work every day and, while it’s not perfect, it's generally reliable and stress free. We still get stuck in traffic, but I can listen to music or read and the short walk to and from the stops has been good for my physical and mental wellbeing. 

Across Auckland we are investing in transport which is fantastic. Many of the biggest projects underway around the city are transport related - CRL, Eastern Busway, Airport to Botany. These projects are delivering the much needed capacity and reliability to the network that we need to cater for our fast growing population.

But all of this will be a massive waste of money if it's too expensive to use! And Auckland Transport knows this, admitting that 556k less trips a year will happen on public transport as a result of these increases. Trips that will end up in private vehicles which means more emissions, congestion and crashes. Our city is growing fast and we're decades behind in transport infrastructure and services, cutting corners now is just kicking the can down the road again, a very congested poorly maintained road.

If Auckland Council and Auckland Transport are serious about addressing climate emissions, reducing congestion and making our city safer they will reduce, not increase the prices for public transport.

Council should be investing in the safety of our children

Last night was the Howick Local Board meeting for November, a little over a year after the new Board was sworn in. A lot has changed since then and our elected representatives have had to tackle some tough challenges, including a global pandemic that not only changed how we live and work, but also massively impacted the council’s revenue streams and therefore its ability to operate.

There's been plenty of coverage over Auckland Council’s financial troubles, the drastic (and in my view poorly considered) cuts to the city budget earlier this year far from over.  Even if the COVID19 vaccines are as successful as we all hope, it'll be sometime before council revenue returns to its previous levels - the cuts will be here for a while.

One of the worst decisions was to cut back the road safety funding, including the end of the Community Safety Fund - once the flagship of the Vision Zero programme. Dropping this not only sent the wrong message that we should simply accept more deaths and serious injuries to save a few dollars, but also put critical projects at risk.

Once such project was the Flatbush School Road bridge. Once a small rural backroad, this area has grown quickly with massive housing developments and a new school, Te Uho o te Nikau Primary. Sharing this tiny bridge with increasing traffic, including large trucks, put the students at risk. I witnessed the dedication and persistence of the school as they turned up at every Howick Local Board meeting asking for action. After far too much debate over which part of Auckland Council would fund the project, it ended up with the Community Safety Fund. As the process rolled on, COVID hit and the Emergency Budget saw the end of the fund, leaving the bridge in question.

One silver lining from last night's meeting is that this critical project will continue, funded by Auckland Transport directly. A small delay due to consenting means the bridge should be done in February or March 2021. Great news for the Board, Management and Parents of Te Uho o te Nikau Primary School who worked so hard to keep their students safe.

It's a good news story for these students, although it should’ve come sooner. But too many other children around Auckland still have no safe walking or cycling options. On Twitter yesterday I saw parents lamenting the lack of safe access to schools across the city. While there is some work underway, it’s small programmes and pilots - nothing that will seriously shift the gears into action.

I appreciate that this year has left Auckland Council with less ability to respond to issues. But this only highlights the need to get these projects done earlier, quicker and with urgency. Imagine if we'd spent the $900k wasted on yet another stadium report on improving safety around our schools? Or the $10m given away to Eden Park? Or whatever AT Local cost? 

We've got our priorities wrong Auckland, keeping our kids safe should be at the top of the list. More students walking and cycling is better for congestion, the environment and children’s health. Instead our city gets distracted with half-baked ideas for waterfront stadiums. We need to focus on real priorities, cut the fluff and get on with it.

Auckland Council's ineffective governance of CCOs

Auckland's Council Controlled Organisations (CCOs) account for 2/3 of the services provided to the public, control 2/3 of councils assets and make up half the operational budget.

Considering the massive impact they have on our daily lives, you'd imagine that they would be a top priority for Council. But in reality "council’s many plans, policies and strategies offer almost no practical strategic direction to CCOs."

In fact "in some crucial areas – such as water, property and arts and culture – there is no strategy at all." Perhaps caused by "a lack of commitment by some councillors" and the "insufficient face-to-face discussion and meaningful dialogue between CCOs and the governing body".

Those aren't my words (although I agree with them wholeheartedly) - these quotes come from the CCO Review that recently found that the "council’s governance of, and liaison with, CCOs is not working as it should". This is no surprise to Aucklanders who have to live with the erratic performance of these organisations, battling between silos and getting very little in response. And it's not just us, with CCOs "not sufficiently responsive to local boards’ concerns".

Yesterday Auckland Council formally adopted all of the 64 recommendations from the review. Of those, 25 are to be progressed over the next 6 months while the others will be worked through with the CCOs and local boards. This is undeniably great news and is a significant step forward.

How much actually changes, only time will tell. But when you look through the recommendations, it's disappointing to see that there are clearly significant gaps in basic governance and accountability.

This isn't a dig at the recommendations - they're solid. But it shouldn't take public outcry and a costly external review to agree that "quarterly meetings of council and CCO executive leadership teams have a formal agenda". That's basic business practice not followed and it gets worse as the review goes on.

Auckland Transport and Watercare are constantly criticised for their maintenance and lack of planning, yet only now will they "submit their asset management plans and detailed supporting information to the council every year so it can assess how well the plans give effect to its urban growth strategy." It's no wonder that our infrastructure isn't coping with our rapid growth, despite all the election promises we heard.

At the risk of sound like a stuck record, Auckland Council lacks proper governance and oversight. Many of the councillors elected have little to no business experience, yet they're responsible for one of the largest budgets in the country (second only to central government). Perhaps this review will be a wake-up call for those charged with governing our city? Past performance says that's unlikely, but I'm always hopeful for our city.

Read the full review here: https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/about-auckland-council/how-auckland-council-works/council-controlled-organisations/Documents/CCO-review.pdf

Read the Governing Body decision here: https://ourauckland.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/articles/news/2020/08/council-agrees-cco-review-recommendations/

Eastern Busway cannot come soon enough

As we work hard to recover economically from the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown, the Eastern Busway presents an exciting opportunity. If the Government and AT give this "shovel-ready" fully-funded infrastructure project the very highest priority it will create desperately needed jobs and local investment. If more money is needed to deliver the project faster or to current specifications, that should be considered.

- Christopher Luxon (National candidate for Botany) & Simeon Brown (MP for Pakuranga)

In a piece in the NZ Herald, Christopher Luxon and Simeon Brown have both called for the Eastern Busway to be built faster. It's great to see the support for this critical transport infrastructure project for East Auckland.

I've long argued that this has taken too long and needs to be accelerated (part of my campaigns in 2017, 2018 and 2019). We need it yesterday to cope with the massive growth we continue to see in the area. While we also need road improvements, congestion free transport like busways allow for larger volumes of people and also support walking and cycling. They also free up the road for those who can't use public transport, making it a win for all.

Another reason to get this project done is we need to move onto other transport projects, with better connections through to Howick, Bucklands Beach, Cockle Bay and beyond. The sooner we can get the Eastern Busway done the better!

Great to see support coming from local MP and candidates.

Howick Local Board goes online to approve transport investment

The Howick Local Board for April was held online but not open to the public. I normally attend these and it was a shame to not be able to attend this, but I understand that changes are necessary in these challenging times.

As expected when we move to a new way of working, there were a few teething problems but nothing significant. Full credit to the Chair, Board and Council team for making this work.

The big item on the agenda was to allocate the Local Board Transport Capital Fund (LBTCF) which is a discretionary fund that each local board gets to to spend on transport projects they see as a priority. This is in addition to the other Auckland Transport spending. There was minor changes to the proposed wording, but the result is effectively the same.

This means the Board has:

• asked for options of up to $3m for better pedestrian safety around Bucklands Beach;

• asked for options for speed indicator variable message signs (VMS) on Point View Dr;

• asked for options for an information plinth at Half Moon Bay, and other locations;

• asked for options for better walking route between the Half Moon Bay Ferry Terminal and coastal walkway in front of the Bucklands Beach Yacht Club;

• allocated up to $4m for the Howick Walking and Cycling Plan;

• reserved $3m for projects from the Steering Group on the Howick Village Centre Plan.

Historically the fund has been under spent, which has been disappointing consider the huge transport challenges we have in East Auckland. As they say, the devil is in the detail and there is a bit to work out, especially for the Bucklands Beach work, but it's great to see these progress.

The Auckland Council website is hosting a video recording of the session (23 minutes) if you're interested. And the minutes are also available (although these only record the outcomes, not the discussion).

Auckland Airport shortchanges Auckland ratepayers

Thanks to the poor actions of Auckland Airport, Auckland Council "lost an immediate $18 million in the value of its shareholding last week, and had missed a $70m gain".

Auckland Council holds the largest share of the Auckland International Airport but these have been diluted as a result of this sudden decision. This is on the top of a drop in value in shares as the airport struggles with the lack of flights.

I can appreciate that businesses need to make quick steps in this unprecedented time, but to not include your largest and longest investor in these is extremely poor.

As a result of Councillor Chris Darby's quick actions, Auckland Council will be looking into how they can improve oversight into a significant investment, hopefully preventing a repeat. Strangely, five councillors voted against this - seemingly happy with the lack of oversight and resulting loss for ratepayers.