Submission To Draft Long Term Plan PDF Mode

SUBMISSION TO DRAFT LONG TERM PLAN (2012-2022)
Benjamin Ross
Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross
Submission to Draft Long Term Plan 2012-2022

The Draft Long Term Plan 2012-2022 should be the Action Plan to The Auckland Plan (The Vision). Thus The Long Term Plan (The Action) should be carrying out the set goal: The Auckland Plan should have One Goal: To accommodate employment and economic activity in supporting a healthy social and physical environment for over two million residents by 2040. In doing so The Plan has to follow the objective of being: Simple, Efficient, Thrifty, and restoring Affordability to residents and businesses while still making Auckland The Most Liveable City.
2011
Compiled by Benjamin W. Ross 89 Arimu Road Papakura Auckland 2110 New Zealand [Papakura Local Board Area] Ben.R001@gmail.com http://voakl.net M: 0278591988
1|Page
Layout of Submission
1. 2. 3. 4.
TRANSPORT MY LOCAL BOARD PAPAKURA FINANCES AND COUNCIL DEBT PORT OF AUCKLAND INCLUDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AS A RESULT OF POAL 5. CONCLUDING REMARKS 6. SUBMISSION FORM (ATTACHED SEPARATELY IN ELECTRONIC VERSION) 7. REGIONAL LAND TRANSPORT PROGRAM (BRIEF OUTLINE ON SUBMISSION FORM , MORE EXTENSIVE COMMENTARY WILL BE PROVIDED IN SUBSEQUENT HEARING PANEL)
2|Page
Introduction
Being the first Long Term Plan for the Auckland super city a lot of mashing together of legacy work from the former Auckland regional and territorial authorities as well as bring in new initiatives happening. Happening as Auckland continues to find its way for the first time in a united sense where all peoples of Auckland work with a single governing body (rather than multiple). However despite now one territorial authority for Greater Auckland, the principles remain the same: that being: To accommodate and now facilitate employment and economic activity in supporting a healthy social and physical environment for over two million residents by 2040. In doing so The Plan has to follow the objective of being: Simple, Efficient, Thrifty, and restoring Affordability to residents and businesses while still making Auckland The Most Liveable City. That piece was taken from my submission to The Draft Auckland Plan, however I believe the goal I stated in that submission remains exactly the same for The Draft Long Term Plan 2012-2022. How so? It is because through The Draft Long Term Plan which actions The Auckland Plan, that Auckland through Auckland Councils governance is able to realise the goal of Most Liveable City. Thus through The Long Term Plan, Auckland Council will dictate the path Auckland takes to its destination in 2040 the expiry year of the first Auckland Plan. In my submission to The Draft Long Term Plan I will be touching briefly on the following subjects (which is also the order of the submission): Transport My Local Board Papakura Finances and Council Debt Port of Auckland including Economic Development as a result of POAL Regional Land Transport Program (Separate Attached Document)
Effectively my submission will be following in the order of the Council submission form that was attached to Volume One of The Draft Long Term Plan. This form can be found at the back of this submission (hard copy) or attached separately if electronic file. Due to time constraints, I was unable to draw up a comprehensive submission on the Regional Land Transport Program. However a comprehensive presentation with addition material will be produced at the subsequent Hearing Panel. Please note with the release of the Better Local Government March 2012 paper from the New Zealand Government, I have moved from specifics to a more general outline in my submission to the LTP. This is because of the sweeping nature of the Local Government reforms proposed in which council governance direction could be significantly changed.
3|Page
Transport
NOTE: The Transport Section assumes as of March 2012 that Port of Auckland will be staying on its current site regardless of site expansion or not (unless otherwise mentioned) Please refer to the sections on My Local Board and the Regional Land Transport Program for more specifics on Aucklands Transport. In this section I am outlining briefly on the City Centre Rail Line and Transport Planning over the next ten years although there will be overlap between the three sections. In my submission to The Draft Auckland Plan I had outlined a Three Tier Priority System for transport infrastructure rebuilding over the next 30-years. Priority One projects would fall in this current Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) and were of belief that these projects needed to be done now to assist Auckland the most in moving.
The Priority One Projects were (both if the Port stays or moves):
Reflecting Port of Auckland staying where it is and expands on current site
Priority One (To be completed by 2022) Building of the Eastern Highway (to the Sub-Regional Standard Option as mentioned in Section 3.5 of the EASTDOR Final Report Realigning the Westfield Diamond Relocating or adding rail stations Re allocating bus routes, improving bus feeder systems to rail stations or bus RTN systems Feasibility Study of the Airport Rail Line including freight option Starting the bus Rapid Transit Network roll out especially along State Highway 20, 20A and 20B South-to-Manukau Rail Link Completion Completion of three-lane-ing Puhoi to Warkworth State Highway One expressway including the Warkworth bypass Roll out of North Western Motorway Bus Rapid Transit Network Third Rail Line from Papakura to Port of Auckland via The Eastern Line (Sylvia Park, Glen Innes) including crossovers between each station Crossovers built on the Auckland Rail Network between Papakura and Swanson (that are not already included in the Third Rail Line works) Upgrade of Neilson Street Off-ramp and Route Ten (Church Street) to a 4 lane expressway with speed limit set to 70km/h. This is my modified version of the South West-East Link from SH 20 to SH1 and Eastern Highway Removing SH1 Mt Wellington Pinch Point widening Bridge to 6 lanes from 4
4|Page
Reflecting if Port of Auckland RELOCATES to south East Auckland

As you can most likely figure there will be some changes maps will be provided further on in the Mini Series and in the Port of Auckland Index @ voakl.net This assumes the Port is open to basic operations by 2020 and full operations and port fully leaving old site by 2027
Priority One (to be completed by 2022) Building of the Eastern Highway (to the Local Standard Option as mentioned in Section 3.0 of the EASTDOR Final Report Realigning the Westfield Diamond Relocating or adding rail stations Re allocating bus routes, improving bus feeder systems to rail stations or bus RTN systems Feasibility Study of the Airport Rail Line including freight option Starting the bus Rapid Transit Network roll out especially along State Highway 20, 20A and 20B South-to-Manukau Rail Link Completion Completion of three-lane-ing Puhoi to Warkworth State Highway One expressway including the Warkworth bypass Roll out of North Western Motorway Bus Rapid Transit Network Third Rail Line from Papakura to Westfield Junction including cross overs at between each station Crossovers built on the Auckland Rail Network between Papakura and Swanson (that are not already included in the Third Rail Line works) Upgrade of Neilson Street Off-ramp and Route Ten (Church Street) to a 4 lane expressway with speed limit set to 70km/h. This is my modified version of the South West-East Link from SH 20 to SH1 but not to Eastern Highway Removing SH1 Mt Wellington Pinch Point widening Bridge to 6 lanes from 4 Extension of third south bound lane from Manurewa to Takanini on Southern Motorway (SH1) + Takanini Interchange upgrade (future proofed for Port Arterial Road) Great South Road widening from Takanini Interchange to Walters Road/Great South Road roundabout Start and completion of temporary Port Arterial Link Road from Great South Road to new Port site Start and completion of Port Rail Link from NIMT Line to new port site
Again there will be overlap on transport projects between this Transport Section and the My Local Board and RLTP sections of this submission.
5|Page
Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross But where I am going with this is that the funding ratio allocation between roads and mass transit (I believe 60:40) is correct for this current Draft Long Term Plan. How the money is spent on actual projects is an entirely different matter. For example this is where I disagree with the Draft Long Term Plan in its current form: PENLINK should be a Public, Private Partnership enterprise with a $2 toll placed on the road for the next 25 years. This PPP would be a prototype on the private sector assisting in providing arterial link construction and maintenance to assist Council with its strained Capital Expenditure debt loadings. The City Rail Link does not get a mention as a Priority One project in both my submissions. It gets shunted back to a Priority Two project for construction and completion around the 2022-2032 period. AMETI is a stop gap measure into assisting Eastern Auckland moving cross-city (both freight and people). However AMETI by the looks of it can be adapted for The Eastern Highway both Local and Sub Regional options and regardless on the Ports future Funding is scarce or non-existent for transport efficiency programs such as rail station relocations or additions (including park and rides or bus interchanges) Lack of Bus Rapid Transit Network roll outs in the Draft Long Term Plan especially for North Western Auckland
Why have I kicked the CRL out to the 2022-2032 period? The simple reason is money Auckland regardless of central government contribution does not have the money upfront or through debt instruments without crippling the city with high interest repayments. With the City Rail Link the estimated cost being told to the Auckland public is around $2.4 billion with the mayor wanting completing around 2022. I believe that to be impossible even with central government coming to the party and stumping up with 50% of the cost. What is also the problem with the CRL is that the Rail Fallacy has not being applied to the cost and time to completion of this megaproject. The Rail Fallacy basically is: take any rail project and its associated costs stated by the public sector, and multiple the cost and time to completion by 1.5 times for a more accurate reflection of the said rail link. So applying the Rail Fallacy would mean that the CRL would not be complete until around 2027 and at a cost of $3.6 billion. For case examples of The Rail Fallacy at work; rail projects in Scandinavia and here in Auckland illustrate how rail can come in over-time, over-budget and not to the satisfaction required of rail users or taxpayers. The Manukau Rail Branch Line is Aucklands local example of The Rail Fallacy where (long story short) the line finally opens on April 15 nine months late and coming in at around $91m rather than the original $60m that was the estimate budget for the project. And to make matters interesting the Manukau Station is 110 metres short on where it was meant to end up (due to budget constraints). While the Manukau Line will prove popular despite some short comings (including no direct Papakura-Manukau Link, you need to transfer at Puhinui Station); being over time, over budget and missing the mark by 110 metres is not confidence inspiring for mega-projects such as the CRL. All in all, delays the CRL construction by five years while proper funding options are sorted and carry out the rail efficiency program (later mentioned in this submission) which will give extra redundancy capacity on the rail network both pre and post City Rail Link.
6|Page
In regards to the Eastern Highway which includes the West-East Link via Neilson and Church Streets in Onehunga and Penrose (as part of a comprehensive freight transport package), I have included this in this current LTP as a critical project needed for Auckland. It does need central government support as State Highways are included in this package however one question must be asked first; Port of Auckland, staying of going? Auckland Council needs to make a clear and conscious decision with Port of Auckland. As no matter where the Port ends up, the consequences of such a decision would significantly alter the Draft Long Term Plan in governance and funding decisions. To be straight up, submitting on the LTP is extremely difficult when a prime asset can influence Auckland so much. As for the other transport plans mentioned above in the bullet points, please see my submission to the Regional Land Transport Program.
7|Page
My Local Board Papakura

In Volume Four of the Draft Long Term Plan is the information and agreement for the Papakura Local Board which is in the area I reside in. After looking through Chapter Twenty (Papakura Local Board) I am pleased to say that I am very satisfied with what is in the Chapter and agree with all aspects except for the Southern Initiative. However I do have two main concerns about Papakura Local Board over the life of this Draft Long Term Plan; those concerns being transport and Bruce Pulman Park.
With Bruce Pulam Park this was noted from the Chapter:
Bruce Pulman Park is a high-class sporting facility located in Papakura which the local board wishes to continue to develop in partnership with the Bruce Pulman Park Trust. Due to the nature of this facility (members of the community from Papakura and further afield use it) it is not considered a local facility. The Papakura Local Board therefore does not have the decision-making allocation or funding responsibility. This responsibility sits with the governing body. The draft LTP does not currently include any funding allocation to continue the development of this facility, despite the local board advocating strongly for funding. We will continue to advocate to the governing body to include $36 million over the 10-year period covered by the LTP for the on-going development of Bruce Pulman Park. That being so I support Papakura Local Board in advocating for the $36m over the life of this Draft Long Term Plan to continue development of the large park facility. Thus Auckland Council should be over this current Long Term Plan be allocating the full $36m by 2016 to finalise the development of Bruce Pulman Park. Especially with population increases in the surrounding area as Auckland accommodates two million people by 2031.
With transport this was noted from the Chapter:

There are a number of transport projects we will be advocating to Auckland Transport to progress including: 1. Improving local bus services so that there are improved connections within Papakura 2. A new rail station in the Walters Road area this is not currently funded in the draft Longterm Plan 2012-2022 3. An upgrade to the Takanini station (scheduled for 2012/13) 4. A new Park and Ride station at Drury (investigations are underway, but funding is not confirmed) 5. Mill Road corridor access to industrial area, i.e. Hunua Road. I will be addressing these bullet points in more detail in my separately attached submission/presentation to the Regional Land Transport Program (Hearing Panel). However I mention these particular projects here as I believe they need strong advocating for (except the Takanini Station Upgrade) as these projects must work with urban development due in the Papakura area.
8|Page
Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross As in my submission to the Draft Auckland Plan, I mentioned Priority One transport projects to be completed by 2022; this included reallocating or adding rail stations. The addition of the Walters Road Station, the Drury Park and Ride Rail Station and the closing down of Takanini and Te Mahia Rail Stations would fall under the Priority One category. Thus I call for Auckland Council in this Draft Long Term Plan to fund the Drury and Walters Road Station while closing down Takanini and Te Mahia Stations. In doing so rail passengers would be better served by better located stations as well as best suited in accommodating population growth in the Papakura area over the next thirty years. The upgrades to the Takanini and Papakura Motorway Interchanges were placed as Priority Two (to be completed by 2032) in my submission to the Draft Auckland Plan. However rethinking the situation especially around population growth, I now believes that these interchange upgrades should be brought to priority one status (completion by 2022) due to population growth in the Papakura/Takanini area. Although the upgrading of these interchanges I would advocate for in the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan rather than the 2012-2022 Long Term Plan. However that could change with the Port of Auckland Question. Local bus services will be covered in my submission/presentation to the Regional Land Transport Program (Hearing Panel). With Mill Road, the area that this road runs along is subject (at least in my Draft Auckland Plan Submission) intensive Greenfield urban development to assist in accommodating two million people and subsequent businesses, industry and civic institutions. Thus I believe Auckland Council through Auckland Transport should be future proofing Mill Road and roads that feed into it to allow the increased traffic flows from the Greenfield developments along that corridor. Essentially allowing the road to be four laned and traffic signals installed at some locations. On a totally separate issue that does concern Papakura is the Port of Auckland Question. If it is decided that the Port moves to South East Auckland, the decision would have direct consequence of Papakura and the requirements of action to facilitate the port being relocated. Aspects such as funding infrastructure in the Papakura area would change with port relocation and preparations should be made just-in-case. I will be dealing with the Port of Auckland question in a subsequent section further on in this submission.
9|Page
Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross With the Papakura Local Board area subject to a high amount of Greenfield urban development, proper resources (both human and financial) needed to coordinate the planning efforts to allow development to happen smoothly. As per my submission to the Draft Auckland Plan and from what can be said on the council deliberations of the Plan, Papakura is one of the sites where major Greenfield development is to occur. Thus Auckland Council should be allowing the Papakura Local Board with the proper resources to oversee to development in the Local Boards area (rather than central council). This follows my call in my submission to the Draft Auckland Plan (including maps):
Semi-Liberal Planned District

Using Chapters Seven and Eight of The Draft Auckland Plan as a reference point for urban (re)development, areas of Auckland (not under a Centralised Master (Community) Plan or protection order) would be (in this submission) allocated for land/development/utilisation using Semi Liberal Planned District
Like the Centralised Master (Community) Plan, the Semi-Liberal Planned District once the Auckland Plan is activated Local Boards, Auckland, stakeholders and developers would need to work together to form the Semi-Liberal Planned Districts to takes communities (and Auckland) forward for the next 30-50 years. However while developing a SLPD, the primary goal of The Plan has to follow the objective of being: Simple, Efficient, Thrifty, and affordable while still making Auckland The Most Liveable City. So rule of thumb, the SLPD (as one person said) if printed on A4 paper should be no thicker than an average persons thumbnail - anything thicker means it is too complex and/or inefficient.
The Semi-Liberal Planned District Model of land allocation/development/utilisation draws primarily on Texan model1 of urban planning (with limitations) AND draws on aspects seen in the Centralised Community (Master) Plan in short/brief, the SLPD slightly more regulation to it than Texas, but not as much as currently in Auckland.
An article by the admin of the Auckland Transport Blog title: Taking a Fresh Look at Planning Regulation gives some extremely useful insight into the planning dilemma that faces Auckland. I personally find the article refreshing and in a strange sense of irony the article gives a sense of understanding behind the methodology of the Semi-Liberal Planned District model. Thus the final ideal of the SLPD is to allow a decentralised, semi-regulated, collaborative, efficient, simplistic and affordable approach to LADU!
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/09/housing-supply-australia-look-to-texas-to-solve/ (Accessed September 2011)
10 | P a g e
Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross The main crux of the SLPD would come from the: decentralised, semi-regulated, collaborative, efficient, simplistic and affordable approach to LADU. This is how the crux or ideal would be achieved:
Under SLPDs the decisions and/or oversight would be with the Local Community Board rather than the centralised Council Council provides a statement of intent (The Auckland Plan) and action plan for Auckland (Auckland Long Term Plan) over the next period of time Council provides a mediation service when there is a dispute with an SLPD Council assists Local Community Boards with resources required when an SLPD is being carried out SLPD follows the Philosophies of Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation (mentioned page 14) Simplified Zoning Collaboration between the Local Board, Community and Developer (allowing greater flexibility and response to community concerns and needs/desires)
SLPDs would deal with the rest of Aucklands LADU that is not under a CMCP or other protective orders (such as regional/national parks or heritage areas (marked by (*) in Chapter 8 of the Draft Auckland Plan).
SLPD and DURT
Efficiency, simplification, desirability and affordability these are the objectives the SLPD model of LUAD. Currently in Auckland, the planning documents used for LAUD are complex and extremely dense (in document thickness) leading to the consequence of DURT forming DURT being Delays, Regulation, Uncertainty and Taxes (McShane, 2011)2. High amounts of DURT from planning complexities and density leading to LADU inefficiencies. The ultimate consequence, make Auckland less affordable and desirable to live, educate and work in, thus the idea behind the SLPD-LADU is to lessen (or eliminate) the LADU-DURT.
http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/library/34-centre-digest/541-on-oil-spills-demographics-and-durt?start=6 (accessed September 2011)
11 | P a g e
Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross DURT does the following
1. Delays: Delays in Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation as applications are delayed by what is deemed excessive regulations and plans 2. Uncertainty in LADU as private land owners and developers try and guess or figure out what they can do with their land (again owing to complexities of Aucklands planning documents) 3. Regulation: excessive regulation (as illustrated various contributors to Auckland planning) causes multiple effects ranging from inefficiencies of the bureaucracy, to stifling LADU, overinflation of costs due to inefficiencies, to stifling ones choice in all matter of things 4. Taxes: This includes fees, contributions and levies often imposed excessively due to points made out in Point #3 (regulation)
To lessen the LADU-DURT and improve affordability in the city I recommend these solutions (outside of adopting the Planning Philosophies):
Decentralised basic Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation to Local Community Boards and their communities Simplify Zoning Bulk Fund Local Community Boards Adopt the Golden Rule that if a plan of any kind is thicker than a persons thumbnail, then the Plan has failed (as it is too complex thus leading to DURT) Recognise the following: o Auckland is heterogeneous patch work of different communities the city is not and should be treated or planed for as a super homogenous city o People want choice on how, where and what they want to live in o People are individuals their thought processes and actions are often on an individual basis not collective o Cars (regardless of power source) are going to be with us until at least the end of the century cars are also the ultimate form of individual freedom, choice and expression in status and movement o Aucklands population is heterogeneous so the city plans for a heterogeneous population not a homogenous one Adopt KISS Keep it Simple Stupid And remember its the Economy Stupid. If the city economy is hindered by DURT, then the city becomes unaffordable, inefficient and undesirable to live, work or conduct business in
The SLPD is the main DURT busting weapon that Auckland needs to achieve the goal a plan that is Simple, Efficient, Thrifty, and Affordable while still making Auckland The Most Liveable City.
12 | P a g e
Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross The Semi Liberal Planned District Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation has two main DURT busting pieces of ammunition: Decentralised basic Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation to Local Community Boards and their communities AND Simplified Zoning.
Decentralising basic LADU to the Local Community Boards allows greater flexibility, collaboration, response to the needs and desires of the community and final delivery of LADU outputs. These merits through decentralisation allow for greater efficiency and affordability to the community and wider city through the minimising of the DURT (that would be currently found in Aucklands centralised planning model). However, the central regulatory body at Auckland Council still has a part to play in decentralised SDLPs. The central body is still charged will allocating primary infrastructure (water, electricity, waste, telecommunications, main roads and city wide public transport, etc.), so to avoid being out of sync with the Local Community Boards and their plans, the central regulatory body would be collaborating with local community boards and providing guidance required to achieve city wide outputs and outcomes.
A basic summary on page 28 indicates how the central regulatory body (Auckland Council and the bureaucracy) interacts with local community boards, developers and stakeholder when LADU is carried out (both under SLPD and CMCP models).
There is nothing stopping local community boards teaming up together when undertaking an SLPDLADU program - in fact this encouraged (under the watchful eye and guidance of the central regulatory body) when planning for large scale (or higher density) commercial or industrial development. However if local community boards can not cooperate together in achieving the primary goal, then the central regulatory body must be given dispensation to take over the LADU process.
Another piece of ammunition in the SLPD-LADU DURT busting arsenal is to simplify zoning. Paragraph 22 Page 4 of the Housing Affordability in Auckland (contained in the Minister of Local Governments letter to Auckland Council) states a review and the Ministers desire to move always from the current constraint model of LADU to a model that allows more mixed development. The paragraph also states that to achieve the goal of moving away from the constraint model to more mixed open LADU; we (Auckland Council and the city actual) need to use zoning controls, innovative approaches to development levies and relaxation of containment strategies (that (can) cause further declines in housing affordability). In the Auckland Transport Blog post Taking a Fresh Look at Planning Regulation the author stated that we over plan rather than under plan and as a result the city gets itself into all sorts of pickles (refer to the blog post for such pickles). I agree on both arguments there, Auckland does over plan (on LADU details rather than LADU form) and has an overtly excessive LADU constraint policy (through the Metropolitan Urban Limits to be replaced by even more stricter Rural Urban Boundary). The Semi-Liberal Planned District for Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation aims to simplify the LADU process through simplified zoning. 13 | P a g e
Support of the Papakura Local Board Plan in general, advocating for funding to be brought forward on some projects and proper resources to the Board to oversee major development in Papakura. This is what is needed to ensure Papakura is a thriving metropolitan centre on the southern urban fringe of Auckland. Auckland Council through the Long Term Plan needs to support the Boards plan and actions over the next ten years for this place and my home to be a happy place.
14 | P a g e
Papakura Proposed Greenfield Expansion
15 | P a g e
Proposed Takanini Greenfield Expansion Area
16 | P a g e
Council Finances and Debt

Note, my submission in regards to Council finances and debt takes into account the Better Local Government Paper 2011 recently released by the New Zealand Government. The control of Auckland Council finances and debt is extremely important to the viability of this city. Simply put; if finances and debt get out of control, the ratepayer and every other person living in Auckland suffers. Suffers through increased costs placed upon them to bring bad finances under control and repay bad debts. Those increased costs also means opportunity cost applies, which means in trade for repaying bad and dumb debt we get reduced services in return, affecting the viability and liveability of Auckland. It is of my opinion that looking at the finance figures produced in this Draft Long Term Plan 2012-2022, that Auckland Council is leading the city down the path of bad finances and high, dumb debt. As a result of this, I call on Council to reign in the city finances and take a more cautious approach with taking on more debt. This section on Council finances and debt is divided into three sub-sections: 1. 2. 3. 4. General The Operating Budget (OPEX) The Capital Budget (CAPEX) Recommendations
General Remarks on Council Finance and Debt

Upon looking at Volume Three of the Draft Long Term Plan, it was pointed out that some budget lines had deficits while total debt was forecast to $8.4 billion by 2021 an increase from around $3.1 billion as of 2010. Using figures from page 14 of the New Zealand Governments Better Local Government 2011 paper; since 2002 the average rate increase for the Auckland ratepayer has been 7.8% per annum, with debt increasing 380% of the same 2002-2010 period. The figures on page 14 also state that the average rates per capita is $908 (although the range of rates varies highly) with council debt sitting around $2,134 per capita (as of 2010). One could interpret as of 2010, the individual ratepayer/household was in a situation where the city was spending more than what it was earning. Moving through to the 2012-2022 period (the life of the first Long Term Plan), the average rate rise for ratepayers is around the 3.9% - 4.6% mark with council debt (as mentioned earlier) ballooning out to $8.4b by 2021. What the average rates rise figure hides is the range of rates to be paid movement of the life of this LTP. Rates movement for business and household range from a 5.6% approx. DECREASE to a 10% INCREASE on last years rates OUCH! Furthermore ratepayers are due to be slugged with a $350 per annum Uniform Annual Charge to help cover the budget deficits over the next ten years. To sound a word of warning and how council need to restore the Council Budget back to a fiscal neutral position I point out how the $8.4b debt will affect the average ratepayer. In the year 2021 Council debt is due to hit $8.4b, which means we as a city have borrowed a total amount of $8.4b to 17 | P a g e
Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross cover capital and operating expenditure (not enough income coming in) - that debt HAS to be repaid back and with interest too. On calculations it means in the year 2021 that at prevailing interest rates, $524 MILLION of our money will be paid back to the lenders for JUST THE INTEREST of that $8.4b debt pile. Or simply put 25% of your total rates bill will be paying just the interest of the $8.4 debt no principle, just interest. If Council were to also pay principle I would be at a guess that 30-37% of your rates will be going to that debt pile in order to reduce the debt! In paying that amount of ratepayers dollars to pay down a rather large debt bill opportunity cost applies to the city. Opportunity cost being according to Wikipedia: Opportunity cost is the cost of any activity measured in terms of the value of the next best alternative forgone (that is not chosen). It is the sacrifice related to the second best choice available to someone, or group, who has picked among several mutually exclusive choices. [1] The opportunity cost is also the cost of the forgone products after making a choice. Opportunity cost is a key concept in economics, and has been described as expressing "the basic relationship between scarcity and choice". [2] The notion of opportunity cost plays a crucial part in ensuring that scarce resources are used efficiently. [3] Thus, opportunity costs are not restricted to monetary or financial costs: the real cost of output forgone, lost time, pleasure or any other benefit that provides utility should also be considered opportunity costs. Basically means that the money spent on interest repayments is money expenditure on items such as services or rates reductions foregone! So the tough question has to be called: Time to go through the budget line by line and trim provision of services or capital expenditure in order to bring the Main Budget back towards a fiscally neutral position or find other revenue sources or both. In Point Four of the Council Finances and Debt section, I will outline some recommendations for Council to consider in order keeping debt under control and restore the Budget back to a fiscally neutral position.
The Operating Expenditure Budget (The Opex)

Going through the OPEX budget lines in Volume Three, I noticed that at least 60% of the individual OPEX budget lines were or are planning to run a deficit over the life of the Draft LTP. It means that individual Council departments were spending more than what was budgeted for and as a result having to borrow money to cover their expenses (as revenue brought in was unable to). The continued running of deficits for the OPEX budget which leads to an increase of the total debt pile (that needs to be repaid back) is unacceptable. Council will either need to raise more revenue or cut back expenditure on the OPEX lines in order to restore the OPEX to a fiscal neutral position. If the OPEX does need to go into deficit, then I recommend that it be short term and that any money borrowed to cover the OPEX shortfall be repaid within five years of the deficit occurring. 18 | P a g e
Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross As a rule of thumb the OPEX should always be fiscally neutral however if borrowing is needed, then repayment costs should be no more that 5% of the total rates bill in any given financial cycle.
The Capital Expenditure Budget (The CAPEX)

Capital expenditure is required if council wishes to invest on new assets or renew/replace existing assets just as businesses and households do. To fund the CAPEX lines like businesses and households do, Council take on debt (borrowing) and repay it back over a period of time (like a mortgage or loan). I do not mind Council taking on debt to fund the CAPEX lines but what I do mind is when that debt is running away and repayments become rather high. As I mentioned above: Council debt is due to hit $8.4b, that means we as a city have borrowed a total amount of $8.4b to cover capital and operating expenditure (not enough income coming in) - that debt HAS to be repaid back and with interest too. On calculations it means in the year 2021 that at prevailing interest rates, $524 MILLION of our money will be paid back to the lenders for JUST THE INTEREST of that $8.4b debt pile. Or simply put 25% of your total rates bill will be paying just the interest of the $8.4 debt no principle, just interest. If Council were to also pay principle I would be at a guess that 3037% of your rates will be going to that debt pile in order to reduce the debt! To me, that is rather high and some tough choices need to be made; as I believe (and suggest) that total repayment of debt should be no more that 15% of ones rates bill in any given financial cycle. So where does Council draw the line on CAPEX spending in order to keep debt under control (and now cause high rate rises as a result)? Ironically the City Rail Link at a cost of $3.6b (after the rail fallacy has been applied) contributes to most of the $8.4b forecast debt. It is the reason why I have called for in my submission that the CRL be delayed or pushed back as a priority two project with completion by 2032 rather than 2021. The push back allows Auckland Council to get its finances in reasonable order (including maybe saving for a deposit) and better secure alternative funding (including from central government) for such a large project. The push back also allows other important CAPEX projects to be carried out and keeping debt under control. I urge Auckland Council to consider all CAPEX projects that are listed in the 2012-2022 Draft LTP to avoid a debt blow out and 25% of our ratepayers dollars being sunk into dumb debt (interest repayments).
19 | P a g e
Suggestions
I strongly believe in a Fiscal Neutral Budget at all times that is we spend as much as we earn. I do not mind Fiscal Surplus Budgets, but it must not come at the expense of the viability and wellbeing of the city. With Fiscal Deficit Budgets I am strongly against them when the city is operating under normal conditions (that is no disasters like Christchurch), however I can tolerate them for short periods of time (that being in a given LTP period Fiscal Deficit budgets do not occur for more than two years out of ten and the money borrowed to cover the deficit is repaid in full with three years of that deficit occurring). Thus I recommend the Council adopt the following general guidelines when it comes to the OPEX and CAPEX budgets: Assuming all revenue collected = 1 or 100%, then total outgoings should not exceed 1 or 100% from both the OPEX and CAPEX Lines. With debt repayments the following guidelines are suggested: All revenue collected = 1 1) Total debt repayment including interest from the OPEX Line should be no more than 0.05 to 1 (meaning a 5% maximum of total revenue gained should be spent repaying OPEX debt). 2) Total debt repayment including interest from the CAPEX Line should be no more than 0.15 to 1 (meaning a 15% maximum of total revenue should be spent repaying CAPEX debt) 3) Total debt repayment from both CAPEX and OPEX thus should not exceed 0.2 to 1 (meaning no more that 20% of total revenue gained should be expended on debt repayment including interest) 4) If you need more that the maximum percentages given to repay OPEX/CAPEX debt then it means you have borrowed or spent too much get costs under control! 5) If all annual revenue collected = 1 then annual expenditure including servicing debt) should not exceed 1, if annual expenditure does exceed 1 (meaning a fiscal deficit budget) then that deficit should not exceed 1.1x total annual revenue collected in that given financial cycle the debt thus accumulated repaid within three years of occurring. 6) In regards to total existing debt verse assets to keep the 1:0.2 (revenue : % paid of total revenue to debt) feasible; total existing (plus the addition of new) debt should not exceed total Council assets by the 67% mark to avoid negative gearing) AND/OR In regards to total new debt acquired verse total annual income, total new debt acquired over a standard financial cycle should not exceed 200% of total annual income over that same standard financial cycle (1:2). This section includes both CAPEX and OPEX borrowings/debt In regards to revenue gathering, the council has these methods either available or should be advocating for supplementing standard rates income: Targeted Rates (more likely to be in the CBD for the CRL and Wynyard Quarter), areas next to the Northern Bus-way, and most likely Manukau, Panmure and Botany for large infrastructure projects either being built or planned to be built) Bed Tax in the CBD (cover the City Centre Renewal) Advocate for GST Revenue sharing with Central Government (50% of all GST raised should be shared with Local Authorities based on population) Congestion Charge on the motorway network between Mt Wellington, Great North Road and Takapuna. However this would only work if the Eastern Highway and Second Harbour Crossing was built plus the completion of the Western Ring Route to allow viable bypassing of the CBD inner motorway network 20 | P a g e
Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross Lowering the Development Contribution Fees and liberalise planning rules per the SLPD DURT Busting campaign to allow development to be responsive to demand and allow the private sector to assist in providing infrastructure via the Municipal Utilities District program like in Huston, Texas.
These measures above in regards to repayments, debt : assets, debt : income, and revenue : expenditure is designed to keep the Council Books in a healthy position and not creating extra burden on struggling ratepayers. These measures are tough, but coupled with what is proposed in the Better Local Government 2011 paper, quality services while keeping the cost to ratepayers reasonable is achievable.
21 | P a g e
The Port of Auckland Question

I am raising the Port of Auckland question in my submission to the Draft Long Term Plan as it needs to be answered. This is especially with a review underway by Council on options for the port. I am basically doing an information dump on my interpretation of Port of Aucklands options and my recommendations on what to do with the port. This includes responses from ACIL. To save duplication and time I will be pasting information straight from my VOAKL Blog on to this submission as it covers the points I am raising.
The Question: Is Auckland Council doing the right thing for Port of Auckland. This was my commentary to that question and the question I raise via the LTP to Auckland.
Possible Port of Auckland Relocations

JANUARY 8, 2012 2 COMMENTS (EDIT)
Could the Port of Auckland be Relocated Somewhere Else INSIDE Auckland?

I have been covering the Port of Auckland saga extensively here at View of Auckland as well as Whale Oil at his site. In several posts I have mentioned that the Port verse Maritime Union fight as spawned off two other key debates. First being the ownership ratio of the Port public, mix, private; the second being a possible relocation of the Port away from the Waterfront to another location.
Before you go further I recommend brushing up the Port coverage at VOAKL by checking out the Port of Auckland Index first if you have not done so already.
In the POAL debate; efficiency, viability and all other things economic have cropped up. The location of the current Port of Auckland has also come up with some saying it should be moved so that Port itself can be more viable as well as releasing land for extensive waterfront development. VOAKL has called and will continue calling on the Auckland Council to hold an enquiry into options for the location of the Port to allow the best rate of return and economic viability possible. An enquiry made up of a broad range of representatives from Business, Industry, Engineering and Academia would report on whether: Keep the port where it is and make improvements there, Relocate the Port within Auckland, or Close the Port entirely and allow Marsden Point and Port of Tauranga take POALs place. This calling on an enquiry to the Port I consider extremely urgent as in February, Auckland Council will debate and finalise The Draft Auckland Plan into the Auckland Spatial Plan a legal document Council must follow for the next 30-odd years. No matter which of the three options will be recommended by such an enquiry and adopted by Council, all three options will have serious implications, consequences and ramifications to The Draft Auckland Plan. Serious enough are these consequences that any of those three options could trigger a re-write of The Draft Auckland Plan and Draft Long Term Plan, basically duplicating an exercise that did not have the foresight into such a CRITICAL ISSUE. So then lets take a look at the three options possible for the Port of Auckland starting with relocation within Auckland The area I have chosen for a possible Port of Auckland relocation is South East Auckland near Clevedon.
22 | P a g e
You can see on the map picture above the current Port of Auckland site on the waterfront of the CBD and the possible relocation in South East Auckland. Now I recommend taking a look around Google Earth or Maps of the Auckland Region on the surroundings of the port site and possible relocation site. I chose this site for several reasons: 1. No volcanic rock that would need blasting and no harbour bar that the Manukau Harbour has 2. Area is at South East site is pretty easy to deal with both on land and water. Sandy and loam soil on land sand and mud on the Strait bed so easy to dredge for shipping 3. Port site is pretty much out of site to existing urban Auckland, rural Auckland to a degree especially if you use green belts surround the port, and expansion to urban Auckland thanks to the port again if clever urban design and Greenbelts doubling up as parks are used 4. Road access can be pretty much be easily built except for one section in Papakura 5. Rail access can be built as well again some clever design work but can be done 6. Large amounts of open land available for supporting industry, commerce and residential next to the proposed port and along the road and rail corridor from Papakura to the port relocation site 7. Infrastructure layout should not be too difficult as the topography is flat, there is the National Grid (power transmission) in the area (so can easily build a substation), freshwater is easy to access with the dams just south at the Hunua Ranges and the Waikato Pipeline running down Mill Road. As for Sewerage, not that hard to connect to the Mangere Sewerage Plant or built a second one at the Port relocation site. 8. No conflicts of land use as you get in the current CBD location. Plus the Port has room for modest expansion in the future without adverse affects you also would get at the CBD location.
Here is a closer up shot of the possible relocation site. You can see a super imposed line where the outer most limits of the Semi-Liberal Planned Districts are planned to go as part of the 60:40 Brownfield:Greenfield
23 | P a g e

expansion of Auckland (as per my submission to the Draft Auckland Plan). As you can see, further expansion to the port site along the Papakura-Clevedon Road corridor would not be too difficult to do in theory. All things considered, yes the rural area will be swallowed up but with the fluid and progressive nature of the city and the fact two million people are projected to live in Auckland by 2032 this area I will still consider as the best possible site for Port relocation and city engine-house expansion. Another way to look at it is this, if the bulk of development is concentrated around the port relocation site and the corridor back to the SLDP (Semi Liberal Planned District) , I would say you could get an extra (including the Southern Drury fringe and Pukekohe Satellite not on this map) 350,000 people down in this possible prime development zone. This kind of development could slow down or put off development in areas north and northwest of Auckland (keeping it rural) giving the balancing effects of rural vs. urban development. Furthermore just looking at the map to the left here is a lot of green space and parks to offset any urban development in the area. As a catalyst to possible port relocation and supporting development at Clevedon, you could get extensive redevelopment elsewhere in Auckland as the market and city adapt to the changing needs of the citizens and businesses. It is possible if you build the port at this possible relocation site and provide adequate road and rail connections from State Highway One and the North Island Main Trunk Line to the port; for new businesses wanting to set up near the port or, existing businesses at Mt Wellington, Southdown, Penrose, Onehunga, Westfield, Otahuhu and Wiri relocating to near this new port. It is a possibility if land and rent in the new development area is cheap, planning rules is not restrictive and there is economic sense to move to the new development zone. As a further catalyst to the possible port relocation; the industrial areas I had mentioned above could also be redeveloped into either more industry or even residential or commercial space depending on the needs of the City. And another catalyst to relocating the port to South East Auckland is freeing up waterfront land for redevelopment. Some people including the current Mayor are want to redevelopment the waterfront into a Prime Attraction and Business Zone for Aucklanders and tourists, well this relocation and development option could provide the best of All Worlds: CBD Waterfront entirely opened to the public, port relocated to position for viable for operations, needed development to accommodate city growth towards two million people. So economic and social gold mine or an absolute bloody disaster in relocating the Port of Auckland? We simply do not know so that is why I am calling on Auckland Council to hold an enquiry so WE DO KNOW. We as Auckland cannot put our collective heads in the sand and ignore the possibility of something that very well might take the city forward. I would rather know for those qualified to give advice on if this option for the Port of Auckland is viable is not. So then what are we waiting for?
Source: http://voakl.net/2012/01/08/possible-port-of-auckland-relocations/
24 | P a g e
Possible Port of Auckland Relocations Part Two

JANUARY 10, 2012 LEAVE A COMMENT (EDIT)
Could the Port of Auckland be Relocated Somewhere Else OUTSIDE Auckland?

In the POAL debate; efficiency, viability and all other things economic have cropped up. The location of the current Port of Auckland has also come up with some saying it should be moved so that Port itself can be more viable as well as releasing land for extensive waterfront development. VOAKL has called and will continue calling on the Auckland Council to hold an enquiry into options for the location of the Port to allow the best rate of return and economic viability possible. An enquiry made up of a broad range of representatives from Business, Industry, Engineering and Academia would report on whether: Keep the port where it is and make improvements there, Relocate the Port within Auckland, or Close the Port entirely and allow Marsden Point and Port of Tauranga take POALs place. This calling on an enquiry to the Port I consider extremely urgent as in February, Auckland Council will debate and finalise The Draft Auckland Plan into the Auckland Spatial Plan - a legal document Council must follow for the next 30-odd years. No matter which of the three options will be recommended by such an enquiry and adopted by Council, all three options will have serious implications, consequences and ramifications to The Draft Auckland Plan. Serious enough are these consequences that any of those three options could trigger a re-write of The Draft Auckland Plan and Draft Long Term Plan, basically duplicating an exercise that did not have the foresight into such a CRITICAL ISSUE. Having first looked at relocating the Port within Auckland (South East Auckland Clevedon), we now take a look at moving the Port outside of Auckland. It has been touted by some that the Port of Auckland should relocate entirely out of Auckland and to a dual sharing role with Marsden Point (which handles NZs Bulk Fuel Imports/Exports) and Port of Tauranga (NZs largest port by volume). The map below gives their locations in regards to Auckland.
25 | P a g e
Tauranga is around 206km and is a 2:30 hour drive from Auckland CBD using State Highway Two (add an extra 15-30mins for using State Highway 29 (over the Kaimai Ranges)). Marsden Point from Southdown-Otahuhu is around the 150-155km mark and the trip would top 2 hours allowing for traffic and roading conditions. Rail wise; Auckland is connected to Tauranga by the North Island Main Trunk Line from Auckland to Hamilton, then at Frankton Junction the rail traffic splits off and uses the East Coast Main Trunk Line to Tauranga. Towards Marsden Point, freight trains would use the North Auckland Line which starts from Westfield Junction and heads up towards Otiria near Whangarei. However the Marsden Point Branch Line (proposed) would need to be built to allow the freight trains to continue towards the Marsden Point Port. I have also noted on the map the Port of Tauranga Metro Port located at Southdown/Westfield Rail Junction and the Kiwi Wiri Inland Port which is on the NIMT next to Manukau City Centre. Wiri Inland Port serves as a facility between Kiwi Rail and trucking firms to move containers between Wiri and Port of Auckland itself (saving truck movements on a congested State Highway One and Grafton Gully). Metro Port at Southdown is a Port of Tauranga Facility and serves as large inter-modal transfer point for rail/road goods moving between Auckland and Port of Tauranga. Effectively Auckland has the inter-modal transfer facilities to allow goods to be transferred to/from road/rail. Having the Port of Auckland closed and Marsden Point and Port of Tauranga take up POALs place should not be a problem right? Well not really I will address that soon in this post. By relocating POAL to Marsden Point and Port of Tauranga, you effectively close down POAL at its Waterfront site. If that were the case then I suspect Auckland Council would hold the land and either redevelop it and/or lease it out to commercial interests. By doing that it the waterfront could be so-called reclaimed back to the Auckland ratepayers and general public. Relocating the Port outside of Auckland also has impact on infrastructure with traffic flows altering in response to the shift. Projects such as the Eastern Highway, South-East Link from Onehunga to State Highway One, the third rail line from Westfield Junction to the current Port of
26 | P a g e

Auckland location and upgrading Grafton Gully and Stanley Street would all be cancelled due to the port relocation. However other infrastructure projects would arise to deal with the new traffic movements. The North Auckland Line would need to be upgraded, with tunnel clearances increased, track re-laid, more passing loops, inclines and turning curve radiuss improved, signalling upgrades north of Swanson and even a new freight rail line from Southdown to Avondale via Onehunga to bypass Newmarket Station all needing to be done. The Marsden Point Branch Line would also need to be completed as well. Road wise, both State Highways One and Sixteen would need upgrades to allow the increase in freight traffic. These road and rail options are not cheap with the PuhoiWarkworth Holiday Highway (State Highway One upgrade) estimated to run into billions of dollars alone. SO you hope that your Return on Investment from redeveloping the former POAL waterfront site would be enough to assist in funding the infrastructure upgrades. Auckland to Tauranga infrastructure wise is not as bad for moving increased amounts of freight between Auckland and Port of Tauranga although upgrades would still be needed. At the minimum road wise, State Highways 27, 29, 1 and 2 would all need upgrades to cater for the increased truck volumes that would use the highway. Upgrades such as more passing lanes and able to support the increased wear and tear of the road would be needed. Rail wise, the East Coast Main Trunk Line is already there and in reasonable condition moving goods from Port of Tauranga to Auckland and other destinations. Again minimum upgrades for the rail line would be; signal upgrades, more passing loops, ballast upgrades, grade separation of some level crossing and possibly either improved or new train stabling/servicing facilities to handle the increase the rail volume over the that section of line. The North Island Main Trunk Line would also need upgrading with track duplication needed from Te Rapa to Pukekohe which will not be easy due to swamp land at Mercer. A third rail line between Pukekohe and Westfield Junction complete with more crossovers to allow freight trains to run through without impeding passenger metro trains that also run on that part of the line. New inter-modal facilities could also be needed to supply the increased demand in such services arising from the increased long distance freight travel to and from Auckland. Once the infrastructure and redevelopment questions have been answered and settled, there is one other question that needs to be asked. Unlike keeping the Port where it is or relocating it to South East Auckland, having your (what would be) two major ports at least two hours (by road or rail) away from the city could have some negative consequences. The main consequence is freight cost the cost of moving the freight such a distance OR not having immediate access to the port that some businesses might require. The cost both monetary and time wise moving freight from Marsden Point or Port of Tauranga could be deemed excessive by some business. These business could either relocate or just close both which have flow on effects into the Auckland economy.
27 | P a g e
Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross All above are questions that The Enquiry need to ask, research and answer on so that an informed impartial decision can be made on what is the best option for our very sick Port of Auckland.
http://voakl.net/2012/01/10/possible-port-of-auckland-relocations-part-two/
28 | P a g e
Possible Port of Auckland Relocations Part Three

JANUARY 29, 2012 1 COMMENT (EDIT)
What if the Port of Auckland stayed where it is

In the POAL debate; efficiency, viability and all other things economic have cropped up. The location of the current Port of Auckland has also come up with some saying it should be moved so that Port itself can be more viable as well as releasing land for extensive waterfront development. VOAKL has called and will continue calling on the Auckland Council to hold an enquiry into options for the location of the Port to allow the best rate of return and economic viability possible. An enquiry made up of a broad range of representatives from Business, Industry, Engineering and Academia would report on whether: Keep the port where it is and make improvements there, Relocate the Port within Auckland, or Close the Port entirely and allow Marsden Point and Port of Tauranga take POALs place. This calling on an enquiry to the Port I consider extremely urgent as in February, Auckland Council will debate and finalise The Draft Auckland Plan into the Auckland Spatial Plan - a legal document Council must follow for the next 30-odd years. No matter which of the three options will be recommended by such an enquiry and adopted by Council, all three options will have serious implications, consequences and ramifications to The Draft Auckland Plan. Serious enough are these consequences that any of those three options could trigger a re-write of The Draft Auckland Plan and Draft Long Term Plan, basically duplicating an exercise that did not have the foresight into such a CRITICAL ISSUE. Having first looked at relocating the Port within Auckland (South East Auckland Clevedon) followed by taking a look at relocating the Port entirely out of Auckland, our final look is keeping the Port where it is and upgrading it to handle future demand in shipping traffic.
Port of Auckland where it is plus some expansion

The Draft Auckland Plan and its associating support documents plus technical manuals have the Port of Auckland staying where it is, with the potential to expand in its current location to meet future growth (see bottom for embedded link of technical document) This expansion comes in the name of possible 20 hectare expansion into the Waitemata Harbour; this expansion seems to have parts of the media and other commentators running red-hot with all sorts of commentary from just about all angles. The New Zealand Herald ran three stories alone on the Port of Auckland issue, with Joel Cayford also writing an extensive post on POAL as well late last year. The three Herald articles were:
Port will shrink harbour (graphic: see ports new look) Editorial: Open scrutiny of port plans vital for city The big issue behind port dispute
Cayfords Blog post can be found HERE I highly recommend reading Cayfords post before progressing as he sums up very well what I am also thinking in keeping POAL where it is and allowing it to expand. The NZ Herald in the Port will shrink harbour piece also has an interesting graphic of what COULD be the final result in POAL did extend 250m into the Waitemata Harbour. Look having POAL extend that far into the harbour is one thing that is enough to alarm just about any person in Auckland or beyond, but what I am touching on here as Cayford did is the transportation links to and from the Port that will prove to be its (POAL) Achilles Heal.
29 | P a g e
Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross Quoting from Cayford:
There are other side effects in Auckland of an expansion of POAL activities for example dredging, reclamation into the City of Sails playground, and obstruction of view corridors. However, if POAL does not expand then the report has this advice: When a port or its hinterland facilities are more strongly congested than is the case for competing ports, the quality of that ports service may be lower in that it takes more time to access and egress the port and the reliability of service declines, and this weakens its competitive position.Just a quick digression here into Aucklands hinterland. Specifically rail. The POAL plan suggests as much as 30% of container movements could be by rail. That sounds not very much to me. We should get as many of these container movements as we can onto rail rather than trucked by road. Lets assume 50% and consider the implications of POALs growth plans. The 5% POAL growth strategy would mean the port would be handling about 3,600,000 container movements per year in 2040. About half of these are ship-ship movements i.e. POAL acts as a hubbing port for other ports. The other half is distributed by road and rail. Assuming half of these are moved by rail, that means 900,000 containers are moved by rail. What would that mean for Aucklands hinterland? Well. All of these container movements have to use the North Island Main Trunk Line NIMT which takes them through the residential areas of Orakei, Panmure and Glen Innes. Trains through these areas travel slowly, at about 30 kph. What does it mean for the local environment? Well. 900,000 containers carried by train over a year, each about 10 metres long (allowing for gaps between containers and rail trucks), would require 30 trains a day, each about a kilometre long, to get these 900,000 containers through that bit of Aucklands hinterland. If trains ran with 5 minute headway between each train, POAL container trains would run for 3 and a half hour each and every day of the working year (estimated to be 300 days) through Panmure and Glen Innes etc. And if that matter isnt a concern, then POALs strategy of becoming a gateway port (in competition with POT) should be, as the paper goes on to explain: One consequence of the drivers of change in the organization of supply chains is that gateway ports have in many cases become a replaceable element of the chain, with relatively weak bargaining power. A port that provides service of a given quality at the lowest price does not necessarily gain market share, as other factors that are not under the ports control also affect port choice. The focus shifts from port performance to supply chain performance. Among the other factors, hinterland transport costs have become relatively important, as the cost per kilogram per km on the hinterland is 5 to 30 times as high (depending on the hinterland transport mode) as the maritime shipping cost. Routing choices, and to some extent port choices, are strongly dependent on hinterland transport conditions, and reliability of the total route has become increasingly important to those in the supply chain making the routing decisions. So spending up large on POAL reclamations will not guarantee that POAL is favoured as a gateway port especially if road and rail conditions are congested and expensive. Simply put there are two ways in and out of Port of Auckland to get freight over land to and from where ever it needs to go. The first being (as mentioned above) the North Island Main Trunk Line or for train commuters The Eastern Line from the Port (opposite The Strand near Britomart) to Westfield Junction, before the NIMT carries on from Westfield Junction south on the Southern Line. The second route being State Highway One (The Southern Motorway) via Grafton Gully and Stanley Street (State Highway 16) from the Port to (usually) the South Eastern Highway or Mt Wellington Highway. Now the reason why I mention Westfield Junction and the South Eastern or Mt Wellington Highways is because, these two links serve the major logistics freight hub and an intermodal base in Auckland which are in the suburbs of; Penrose, Mt Wellington and Westfield. However there is another freight logistics hub in Wiri further south which sits right on the Southern Line. This inland port is also an inter-modal base for containers to be transferred to and from trucks to/from rail the same as Metro Port in Penrose. Lets take a look at a map at the area of logistics hubs, inter-modal bases and transport routes in comparison to the city.
30 | P a g e
Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross The first map we look at from Port of Auckland to Westfield/Penrose
The second map is from Westfield to Wiri
You can click on the images to enlarge them to 1920980 or check them out live on Google Earth You can see that POAL is pretty isolated from its support bases in both Wiri and Penrose/Westfield. Trucks and freight trains have to traverse some of the most congested routes in Auckland to move their goods to or from the Port back or from their inland bases before the goods is either further moved by train or truck to their final destinations and their customers. If you a truck you also have to traverse the steep Grafton Gully and get stuck in the Newmarket Viaduct on the way out. As Cayford blogged, congestion is time and time is money to businesses, exporters and importers; and heck you see some congestion between Wiri and Port of Auckland both on the roads and railway (passenger train movements). So the question is, if we (Auckland) have congestion now fouling freight movements between POAL and the inland operation points at Penrose/Westfield or Wiri, then
31 | P a g e

I hate to think of the fouling and economic inefficiencies come 2040 when there two million people and a port moving double the volume of goods now. If you want a congestion trial take your car onto the Southern Motorway from Manukau and head to Britomart on State Highways One and 16 (Grafton Gully), take a train from Britomart to Papakura and back on the Eastern Line, then your car back to Manukau back tracking the way you came up Grafton Gully and see if you do not get stuck behind a freight train or truck on your circuit. Believe me if you do it can be a very painful experience as your time is eaten away also you can see what the trucks have to go through as well as rail commuters. Look simply put, the Port can expand all it wants but it will be still constipated and inefficient due to the hapless transit links and isolation from its inland support bases. And being isolated and constipated will continue to hobble POAL in being a competitive port against Marsden Point and Port of Tauranga which do not have these problems. Now you can fix the transit problems if you are willing for the Port to expand such as seen in this graphic here. However the transit fixes will cost more than the City Rail Link and Second Harbour crossing combined so an estimated total of around $7 billion. This is how the $7b would be broken down: 1. Third Rail Line complete with Crossovers at each train station and electrification between POAL and Papakura on The Eastern Line: $1.3b minimum as this includes bridge rebuilds and the Meadowbank Tunnel being widened 2. Eastern Highway as a full grade separated Motorway rather than the expressway I advocated for: $4b minimum and that is not including political resistance 3. The South East Link from State Highway 20 through Penrose to Mt Wellington Highway, State Highway One, The Eastern Highway and East Tamaki/Highbrook (through a modified Eastern Highway): $1.5b minimum 4. Upgrade to Wiri Inland Port: $100m minimum (the site would have to be relocated I have an idea for location along old spur lines in Southern Wiri for it work just need no muppet to build on it first In fact here is another map showing the old spur lines from The Southern Line, the sites of possible new intermodal hubs and the existing Wiri Inland Port.
Ironically these new possible hubs could work well due to the fact that there are already logistics bases there and existing (but mothballed) rail infrastructure to support it. Plus the spurs are off the main line so no fouling of passenger train movements especially when the Third Rail Line is built properly. $7 billion potentially spent on transit fixes with a colossal port protruding into the Waitemata Harbour and we run the risk still of high congestion and nuisance from increased freight movements in the most highly populated and valued areas of Auckland. Is the money being well spent or could it be used for something in my honest opinion rather more productive for the city. The Opportunity Cost both economically, environmentally (both physical and social) and pure monetary wise is extremely high if POAL stays, expands and money sunk into extremely expensive transit upgrades. Is such a cost worth it? At the end of the day, Auckland Council is going to have to think long and very hard on what to do with POAL. I have given three possible options with Joel Cayford is giving detailed analysis on what would happen if POAL stays where it is. I preferably would have POAL relocate to South East Auckland with support coming in from Marsden Point something I will touch in my final post in the POAL Location Mini Series.
32 | P a g e

The question is what is best for Auckland and New Zealand in the long run concerning POAL could a move be required and we cop the short-term pain for long-term gain. Time for that enquiry Councillors.
http://voakl.net/2012/01/29/possible-port-of-auckland-relocations-part-three/
33 | P a g e
Final in POAL Location Mini Series

JANUARY 29, 2012 3 COMMENTS (EDIT)
Where I believe the Port Should Go

Over the past month VOAKL has been running a three part miniseries into possible Port of Auckland Locations. In recap these were the three options: 1. Port stays where is, expands up to 250m into the Waitemata Harbour by 2055 and billions of dollars are sunk into improving transit links between the Port and inland operation bases such as Wiri Inland Port the Metro Port in Penrose 2. Port relocates to South East Auckland near Clevedon. Entire new port, supporting infrastructure and urban development is built 3. Port relocates outside of Auckland to Marsden Point up north and Port of Tauranga to the south east. Improvements to infrastructure such as the North Auckland Line, East Coast Main Trunk Line and several state highways are carried out. Logistics and inter-modal bases adapt to new movements and locations as required After some weighing up and giving consideration to the consequences both positive and negative on all three option in my honest opinion and for the sake of Auckland (let alone the rest of the country) relocating the Port of Auckland to South East Auckland would be the best option overall.
For what the South East Auckland Option curtailed read the post on it HERE.
The reason why I chose South East Auckland was due to the following: Auckland still has a major port within its city limits Port would be away from the CBD by doing this you can achieve the following: Port and supporting logistics or inter-modal bases whether already in Auckland or they move to the new port site are at the southern end of Auckland. Being at the southern end allows quick access to the Waikato and further south as well as large industrial, residential and commercial bases that are housed in Southern Auckland from Penrose/Onehunga/Mt Wellington; to Wiri, Manukau City and Auckland International Airport; to East Tamaki; to Papakura. To serve north-west and North Auckland, State Highway 20 and the Western Ring Route is available and bypasses State Highways One and Sixteen through the highly congested Central Auckland including the Auckland Harbour Bridge. Open the entire Down-town waterfront to the public allow public spaces as well as commercial and residential development Constipation from The Eastern (Rail) Line from the Port to Westfield Junction, the Southern (Rail) Line from Westfield Junction to Wiri and the congested Southern Motorway between the Port and Mt Wellington is removed. Also conflict of movements between passenger and freight trains, cars and port freight trucks is also removed from Central Auckland and the CBD Costly infrastructure projects such as the Third Rail Line between the Port and Westfield Junction can be canned while the Eastern Highway is down scaled from a full-blown motorway to a more friendly expressway As the new port location is close to the south-east end of my proposed urban expansion program, it would be a straight forward exercise to expand the infrastructure and development connecting the port and new urban area. As a further trade-off any further urban expansion further north can be sent to the southeastern expansion area so the 60:40 Brownfield:Greenfield development ratios can be still realised. Freight costs would be the least out of the three options outlined. No congestion or constipation from keeping the Port where it is; no long distance running and associated costs from Marsden Point and Port of Tauranga to Westfield and Penrose. No need for out of Auckland infrastructure upgrades such as; upgrading the North Auckland Line from Marsden Point to Westfield including the Avondale bypass, duplicating the East Coast Main Trunk Line or building more passing loops, upgrades to State Highways 1, 2, 27 and 29 to cater for increased volume and weight of freight trucks moving between Tauranga and Auckland, Marsden Point and Auckland The new possible location of the port has a sea bed of mud and sand which is easy to dredge Open flat land and a large body of water makes port expansion easier
34 | P a g e

There are negative consequences as well moving the Port to South East Auckland which I know and realise, consequences such as: Virgin Greenfield rural land converted into industrial, transport and urban use (although the nearby area was going to be done so anyway) Set up cost of moving the port (although in dollar terms it would be cheaper than keeping the port where it is or relocating outside Auckland) Urban footprint expands (was going to do so anyhow, and the offsets can be made) Traffic volumes increases in South East Auckland although well-defined and built transit links can contain and mitigate the effects from those traffic volumes Environmental concerns from human activity (again nothing new and mitigation can be done to offset the concerns) Possible Maori Cultural concerns in the development area It is important to remember that cities fluid entities and constantly change and adapt as human needs also change and adapt. Meaning cities are not static they move and change as a part of life thus Auckland is not static and has to change and adapt to the ever-changing world around it. This means literally committing to urban expansion and renewal in order for Auckland to function at its best as an international and major city. Relocating Port of Auckland to south East Auckland is just a part (although a major part in this current frame of time) of Auckland evolving and adapting to the needs of its citizens and the highly globalised world. Environmental impacts with modern thinking and technology can be mitigated so our impact is managed in not minimised or eliminated plus our laws are usually pretty strong (if not too strong if the Resource Management Act 1991 is anything to go by) to make sure we look after our environment from and with our impacts.
However this is all my opinion in what should happen to the Port of Auckland. I am no expert in these things and hence why I recommend an enquiry into what is best for our sickly functioning port. In my next post my letter to Auckland Council calling on an enquiry into POAL here at VOAKL
http://voakl.net/2012/01/29/final-in-poal-location-mini-series/
35 | P a g e
The question (well two actually) on Port of Auckland asked to Auckland Council which prompted the commentary above:
4) For the sake of optimal Return on Investment and Productivity in benefit to the wider economy and social environment: Which ownership model would be considered best for Port of Auckland Limited. 100% Council Owned 75% Council Owned, 25% Private owned Mixed Model: 51% Council Owned, 49% Private Owned Minority Holding: 75% Private, 25% Council Owned Full Privatisation
5) For the sake of optimal Return on Investment and Productivity in benefit to the wider economy and social environment: What location would be most suited for Port of Auckland: Port stays where it is and infrastructure upgrades are committed Port gets relocated to somewhere INSIDE Auckland, example south east Auckland Port is relocated somewhere OUTSIDE Auckland. That would mean Port of Tauranga, and Marsden Point in Northland which would also give way to subsequent infrastructure upgrades as well.
These five above questions need to be answered sooner rather than later especially as these questions and possible outcomes would have major bearing on The Draft Auckland Spatial Plan and The Draft Long Term Plan. Enough of a major bearing that no matter which way the enquiry recommends in questions four and five it could basically force a total re-write of both draft plans. Therefore I have placed the Port of Auckland Question here in my submission to the Draft LTP as it is of critical importance due the consequences of any decisions made, decisions that will affect the LTP and have impacts on activities, revenue and expenditure.
36 | P a g e
Concluding Remarks
I would like to thank the Council, councillors and officers in advance for their time reading and considering my submission to the Draft Long Term Plan 2012-2022. Restoring Council to a fiscally neutral position, keeping debt repayments to no more than 20% of ones rates bill, capping existing debt at no more that 67% of total assets, and capping new and existing debt to no more than 300% of total annual revenue is of high importance if we wish to realise the following goal: To accommodate and now facilitate employment and economic activity in supporting a healthy social and physical environment for over two million residents by 2040. In doing so The Plan has to follow the objective of being: Simple, Efficient, Thrifty, and restoring Affordability to residents and businesses while still making Auckland The Most Liveable City. Keeping the finances in order also allows Council to fund services and critical capital expenditure (regardless if delayed or not) needed to make this city a growing, liveable city. Careful consideration also has to be given as the next round of urban development gets underway. This is especially around Papakura where I live as the area is slated for large scale Greenfield urban development as well as some important infrastructure works. Keeping the planning and development process simple and streamlined will assist in keeping costs down, and restore affordability to our city which is highly unaffordable. Auckland has a lot of challenges ahead, but done right in this Draft Long Term Plan the goal so often mentioned here and in my submission to the Draft Auckland Plan is capable AND without breaking the bank.
Benjamin W Ross Papakura
37 | P a g e

Submission To Draft Long Term Plan PDF Mode

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Submission To Draft Long Term Plan PDF Mode

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

SUBMISSION TO DRAFT LONG TERM PLAN (2012-2022)

Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross

Submission to Draft Long Term Plan 2012-2022

Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross

Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross

Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross

Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross

Reflecting if Port of Auckland RELOCATES to south East Auckland

Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross

Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross

My Local Board Papakura

With transport this was noted from the Chapter:

Semi-Liberal Planned District

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2011/09/housing-supply-australia-look-to-texas-to-solve/ (Accessed September 2011)

SLPD and DURT

http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/library/34-centre-digest/541-on-oil-spills-demographics-and-durt?start=6 (accessed September 2011)

Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross

Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross

Papakura Proposed Greenfield Expansion

Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross

Proposed Takanini Greenfield Expansion Area

Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross

Council Finances and Debt

General Remarks on Council Finance and Debt

The Operating Expenditure Budget (The Opex)

The Capital Expenditure Budget (The CAPEX)

Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross

Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross

The Port of Auckland Question

Possible Port of Auckland Relocations

Could the Port of Auckland be Relocated Somewhere Else INSIDE Auckland?

Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross

Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross

Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross

Possible Port of Auckland Relocations Part Two

Could the Port of Auckland be Relocated Somewhere Else OUTSIDE Auckland?

Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross

Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross

Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross

Possible Port of Auckland Relocations Part Three

What if the Port of Auckland stayed where it is

Port of Auckland where it is plus some expansion

The second map is from Westfield to Wiri

Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross

Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross

Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross

Final in POAL Location Mini Series

Where I believe the Port Should Go

Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross

Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross

Submission to the Draft Long Term Plan (2012-2022) Benjamin W. Ross

Benjamin W Ross Papakura

Você também pode gostar