Eastern Busway requires removal of some trees but will be replaced

One part of east Auckland is looking a little less green after numerous tall trees were chopped down to make way for the Eastern Busway public transport project.

- Anger over removal of large trees to make way for Eastern Busway, Times 22 August

While it’s unfortunate to see trees cut down, the removal of some trees in the short-term is necessary to enable the Eastern Busway project to progress. We know that transport is a significant challenge for locals and the Eastern Busway will provide more frequent, reliable and quicker transport choices for East Auckland.

The Eastern Busway project have advised us that they will be planting natives to replace trees that are removed during construction. The designs that we’ve been provided show an increased number of trees and planting as part of the landscaping along the route. We’ve seen their commitment to sustainability through the deconstruction and removal of houses along Ti Rakau Drive which provided recycling and reuse opportunities.

The Howick Local Board is committed to improving the number of trees through our Howick Urban Ngahere Action Plan, with the goal of increasing our tree canopy cover from an estimated 15% to a much healthier 30%. Last financial year we supported local volunteers to plant 16,420 trees in public reserves, in addition to those planted by council staff in parks and playgrounds. Last week in our feedback on Auckland’s draft Future Development Strategy, we suggested a policy to ensure that established trees lost through development are replaced as part of the consenting process.

To find out more about the Eastern Busway, including how they're mitigating the impact of construction and how to up to date on what's happening check out their website:

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

Latest Climate Report shows ‘We are pretty much out of time’

"We are on a pathway to global warming of more than double the 1.5 degree limit agreed in Paris. Some governments and business leaders are saying one thing, but doing another. Simply put, they are lying,"

"This report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a litany of broken climate promises. It is a file of shame, cataloguing the empty pledges that put us firmly on track towards an unliveable world."

-United Nations secretary-general António Guterres.

The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from the worlds top climate scientists makes for pretty grim reading. Despite decades of promises to reduce our carbon emissions, we’ve increased them. And I mean we - New Zealand is one of the worst performers.

"Two in five people worldwide live in a country with annual emissions of less than 3 tonnes of greenhouse gases per person. ... In New Zealand, that figure is 17 tonnes."

So much for our 'nuclear free moment' or 'climate emergency' or whatever the latest political buzzword is. Successive governments and councils have failed to act, leading to more emissions. In fact many of the plans and policies that have been put in place have led to increases emissions - the absurd $37B Auckland Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) confirmed last year claimed to reduce it by 1%, but relied heavily on EVs which will not deliver fast enough nor are they a realistic solution for many.

While Auckland Council has proposed a new Climate Action levy to fund $1B in dedicated actions, they couldn’t provide any estimates on what the impact would be. Under Te Tāruke-ā-Tāwhiri: Auckland’s Climate Plan, the goal is to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 50 per cent by 2030. The bulk of this is transport and with less than 8 years left, we need to move faster.

Despite all the talk, we're well behind where we need to be. Lack of action is embarrassing for a nation that has promoted itself based on our love for the environment. The Climate Action Tracker shows what we're really doing to help our planet and our people - not enough. And before anyone says "but we can't afford that" - the cost of inaction will be much, much higher.

We're running out of time - we need real climate action now.

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 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. 

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

Climate action needed now

Auckland Council’s departing sustainability officer has some hard truths about the lack of action on climate change.

"John Mauro said the council and community needed courage and ambition to make better progress, but there was a trend towards "show-ponying"." - Stuff

It was great to get the declaration of an emergency but we need to do something. We don't have the time or money to waste - we need real Climate Action now. Another six years of buying diesel buses is worse than inaction, it's creating more emissions and pollution.

Auckland Council must direct Auckland Transport and all the Council Controlled Organisations to present realistic, practical but ambitious plans to address climate change (both mitigation and adaption) and then make them happen.

Our environment needs action at all levels

Today marks the first day of a new government mandated ban on single use plastic bags. It's been a while since the supermarkets phased them out and everyone has adapted, even if remembering the reusable bags is a challenge! However plastic bags only represent a very small amount (~0.01% ) of the 1.6 million tonnes rubbish that ends up in landfill every year and while I fully support the end of single use plastic bags, we’ve got a lot more to do.

There’s definitely an appetite to do more for the environment. Over the weekend we had a number of events focused on the environment with Howick holding its first Ecoday event on Saturday, followed by tree planting with Macleans College and then Bucklands Beach clean up on Sunday with the Howick Youth Council. All events were well attended showing the keen interest that East Aucklanders have for our environment which is great.

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

View fullsize

It’s fantastic to see that locals are keen but we need urgent action by council or our efforts are at risk of being washed away.

We need to invest heavily into water infrastructure to reduce flooding and pollution. The pipes in the older parts of East Auckland such as Howick, Pakuranga and Cockle Bay are struggling to cope with current demand, with overflows not uncommon. As housing continues to intensify, we urgently need to ensure we can meet current and future demands. The work being done to understand the current network is good but needs to be done across the region and much faster.

Last month Auckland Council declared an climate emergency which was another great start but we urgently need action. This means reducing our emissions and for Auckland 40% of these come from transport. While the transition to electric vehicles will help, we cannot all fit on the road. Public transport and active modes such as cycling and walking are essential to reducing our impact on the environment. But they need to be realistic options - reliable, affordable and accessible. Projects like the Eastern Busway can help transform our area, but much more needs to happen to ensure it delivers for more.

I’m pleased to see that soft plastic recycling is back and the government is investing $40m into waste minimisation innovation but we need to do more to reduce the waste being generated in the first place. Strong product stewardship is key to this, ensuring that those producing the waste are required to ensure it’s sensible disposal. We all have personal responsibility but we also need industry to get up to speed.

I want to see a council that leads the way, supporting local community efforts across the city backed up by meaningful action by Council that will ensure that our environment is looked after for future generations.

Rising sea levels are putting our infrastructure at risk

Local Government NZ has released a report that shows the massive risk to infrastructure from climate change.

"At only half a metre [sea level rise] there is estimated to be $2.7 billion worth of council-owned infrastructure at risk - and that doesn't count the private buildings, the government buildings, whatever that's on top of that that's being served by that infrastructure.

"It goes right up to at three metres of sea level rise, it's estimated about $14bn of council-owned infrastructure at risk."

This is great leadership from Local Government NZ - the risk to infrastructure from Climate Change is very real and we must be planning for it now.

For Auckland with 1m seawater rise, they estimate:

• $1.4B for water (drinking, storm and wastewater)

• $78.75 for roading

• $373m for 390 public buildings (community facilities, council housing, council offices, playgrounds and significant other buildings/facilities).

Auckland has begun planning for this but we need to move faster. These costs are substantial and local government cannot shoulder this cost alone and requires a coordinated response.

Read the full report here.