HOW WILL I FIX AUCKLAND TRANSPORT?

1/4/2022

Auckland CCO’s - What would I do?
Firstly, we need to understand the construct.

Auckland has four Council Controlled Organisations.

Auckland Transport
Eke Panuku Development
Auckland Unlimited
Watercare.

During the current Mayoralty, these CCO’s have been left to their own accord.They have had an easy run, semi-autonomous.

Each of them have their own unique issues in regards to fiscal irresponsibility, lack of accountability, and minimal standards of servicing the ratepayer.

For this statement however, I wish to focus on Auckland Transport - but bear in mind that the others will require a similar treatment.

The Board of Directors for a CCO is created by Auckland Council via the Appointments and Performance Review Committee.

The official role of APRC is as follows:

Reviews the chief executive's performance
Makes appointments to council organisations and council-controlled organisations (CCOs)
Makes recommendations on CCO accountability policy.

Currently, the Appointments and Performance Review Committee consists of:

Chair: Mayor Phil Goff
Dep Chair: Cr Christine Fletcher

Members:
Cr Josephine Bartley
Cr Alf Filipaina
Cr Pippa Coom
Cr Richard Hills
Cr Chris Darby
Cr Angela Dalton
Ex officio: Deputy Mayor Bill Cashmore
Independent Māori Statutory Board member:
David Taipari

As you can see by the names on the APRC, it is stacked with Councillors from camp Goff. Thankfully Christine Fletcher is there trying to hold things together, but running through the names you can quickly see how she would be outnumbered.

So from that APRC, we have the following appointments to the Auckland Transport Board of Directors:

Adrienne Young-Cooper, Chair
Wayne Donnelly, Deputy Chair
Darren Linton
Kylie Clegg
Mark Darrow
Dr Jim Mather
Nicole Rosie
Abbie Reynolds
Tommy Parker

CCO liaison councillors:

Councillor Bill Cashmore
Councillor Chris Darby

Most of those members sit on a multitude of boards, it’s their profession. It should be noted that the Chair for Watercare is not an Aucklander… same will go for many members across the four boards.

You can go to this page to find out more on each member, their specialty. https://at.govt.nz/about-us/our-role-organisation/board-of-directors

Previously, Councillors Christine Fletcher and Mike Lee were on the AT Board with voting rights - but they were removed by Mayor Goff, and replaced by Councillors Darby and Cashmore. However those two positions are now non-voting.

So, again, what would I do?

Firstly, the Appointments and Performance Review Committee would be replaced by Councillors who listen to the ratepayer, Councillors who I feel would have a much better idea of what the people want - and would make better decisions towards who are on the Auckland transport board. I would place myself on this Committee as Chair.

I do not want people who are captured and driven by ideology.

I want people on the Committee and Board who understand that Auckland is more than just what’s between K’rd and Northcote.

The refreshed APRC would then decide who stays and who goes on the Auckland Transport Board of Directors.

As Mayor I would not place myself into AT, as there will already be too many other tasks requiring my attention. But I would have confidence in the new APRC to hold the CCO to account - as they currently have not been.

Next, I would ensure that Councillors are reinstated to the AT Board - with voting rights.

Finally, Auckland Council would produce a very firm letter of expectation to Auckland Transport, and use that set of standards to hold them to account.

This is what I would do for you, the ratepayer and resident of Auckland. This is not just for AT, all four CCO’s need to be completely analysed from the top down.

You deserve better than what you are currently getting. Together we can make it right.

6 Comments

Susan Jayne

1/7/2022 06:30:03 pm

Re-"Appointments and Performance Review Committee would be replaced by Councillors who listen to the ratepayer,..... I would ensure that Councillors are reinstated to the AT Board - with voting rights. ...... This is not just for AT, all four CCO’s need to be completely analysed from the top down."
Thankyou! Thankyou! Thankyou!
I get the feeling as a person who really does rely on AT transport "options" to get around-and is currently nursing a bodily injury as a result - plus having seen more of my fair share of unpleasant busdriver / passenger interactions and mishaps,[mostly involving others]. I also have sympathy for the many "nice" AT personnel- but AT also hires some 'stinkers' too! but in some ways I don't blame them, they have little personal protection if things do go pear shaped, and they get a 'bad' passenger.
I appreciate the need for this reconstruction of the relationship between AT and Auckland City Council.... and... don't get me started on the mismanagement of the shared access walking and cycleways.
Would there be room for some localized forum type events, where people who regularly rely on these services could express their desires and experiences actually using these services. We had some excellent 'Delta' type workshops held which involved planning for the Western Springs Rubbish Recycling project to 'repurpose' the old AHC Hall. Cheap to put on and effective for 'real' data gathering.
Often, as in the instance of the cycleways the design and more importantly the codes of conduct regarding what is expected of users is MIA.
AT are great clarifying these issues for passengers on their vehicles but the shared cycleways and existing footpaths are a mutuality disrespectful battleground between between cyclists, ev users, and pedestrians.
For example is the cycle/walkway an appropriate place to off leash walk your dog or let your toddler to roam free, your children to use as a ball playing court,or a ride-on toy yard; or a convenient place for the amateur sports cyclist to practice their speed trials while commuting to and from the office [in particular, the track from Newton Gully through to Morningside] ? Or for Mum Dad riding their own 'big' machines, and the kids wobbling along trying to keep up on their first two wheelers which should really be restricted to the park or back yard? [behind Mt Albert Pack'n'Save] What if a child falls off into another rider's way? And; wasn't 12yrs or 14yrs once the [ACC] recommended minimum age for road bike riding? Maybe 10yrs for sole charge of a bike might be better for public pathways. And; Mums pushing giant prams also 3 abreast [often with 'satellites' on tiny rideons buzzing round them] strolling home from playcenter, oblivious of someone trying to move past them, without flattening one of the little critters. Or experiencing nearly getting a school bag in the face from a bunch of school kids, clogging the path as one slung her bag full of books over her shoulder - giving me that 'apologize -who me?' look when she discovered I was behind them getting sandwiched between them and the next bunch who just got off the bus - location for that one -Rocket park on the pavement outside the takeaways. No wonder there's so much anger out there. My solution for that so far is 'be in a safe place by 3pm'.
Apparently 'civility' is not a legal obligation- as long as you don't mention sex race or disability. It seems that all of these social groups feel exclusively entitled to behave in this way. I've seen too many near misses and accidents and too much whingeing and mindless blame slinging in the aftermath.
The major thing causing this nonsense is the user/ designer attitudes - constipated planning, funding and design; and far too much political correctness and virtue signalling opportunism - not the existence of these shared pathways, which actually are the way of the future.
A major reaction to raising these points can be a 'romanticization' of the 'chaotic foreign [3rd world] street'.....we get to deal with it that is, then its put as a 'mystery' why Aucklanders refuse to get out of their cars. It took how much alphabet soup after their names to come up with these conclusions? Time our city planners are made to stop posing about 'climate change' and relying on virtue signalling like campaigning for 'fare free' public transport for everyone to resolve the issues. The 'cost' of the bus isn't the main issue - many people who are too poor to catch the bus already have access to discounted services.
Unfortunately, its the 'crap' and sometimes surly, shoddy and dangerous 'gotchas' hidden within the service delivery that is the issue- like being intimidated waiting at a lonely bus stop or rail station at night, or the lack of shelter in bad weather and worse. No car often means 'no social life at night'.
Unfortunately many people who do have to deal with it in NZ are 'people who don't matter'- all others ['real' Aucklanders] can afford to use a c

9/9/2022 06:19:55 pm

There’s nothing here? Like, you’ve got some wishy washy statements about ideology and “people who listen” but there’s no policy detail.

What’s your view on public transport? Active transport? Equity for all users? Solving congestion? Being climate neutral by 2030?

Jayne Fowden

10/9/2022 03:25:45 pm

Re-"Like, you’ve got some wishy washy statements about ideology and “people who listen” but there’s no policy detail." This has nothing to do with "ideology"- and -Yes yr right- there is "No policy detail"
But the question I am answering has nothing to do with "policy" - what it is, is a observation about experiencing the absence of vital design elements crucial to the effective deployment of this infrastructure; which is inherent with the stated aims of transport policy, namely making sure that the infrastructure is able to be used and not just an expensive, contentious and wasteful virtue signal.
Too often, using Auckland's public transit infrastructure is like trying to use a vehicle with square shaped wheels because the designer thought it would look good on their resume', and was more interested in getting paid to show their supporters that they were doing 'something innovative', and then wondering why people are reluctant to use it.{Duh}
I am not a infrastructure user who has an alternative, and it is not my job to create policy, but in this instance I'm asked to state my perspective as a user and member of the public.
I would like to ask you what is wish washy about making observations about the obvious health and safety hazards and describing them eg describing getting a near face-full of school books from a student alighting from a bus, or getting soaked waiting for a bus because of the crappy and obtuse bus shelter design, and neglectful maintenance of the infrastructure public transport users and providers have to grapple with. Its a real disincentive to the user, and the provider to provide a 'good' service. No wonder people prefer the relative safety of their own cars.
The "green" initiative in this instance prefers too much "stick" eg removing car parking infrastructure, taxing petrol, and making sure that bus shelters cannot be used by "rough sleepers", without providing any "carrots" such as better shelter for waiting patrons, sufficient bus routes and better working conditions and a living wage for service provider staff.
There are already generous discounts and 'free public transport' options for people who need them. There are much more important 'user' issues that take priority over promoting a 'free' service, when most people who would benefit from extending the 'freebees' are wealthy enough but are opting to drive an 'expensive' private car to avoid having to use the service.
To clarify the matter for them, it should be a requirement for people appointed to work on this project to be sentenced to use it for ALL their requirements to get around unassisted [and get to work on time] for at least 3 months in each season of the year. If they survive the experience maybe they will learn something. It would be hoped that the people who are supposed to be well qualified to resolve these issues come from a position of knowledge rather than political expedience, 'green' virtue signalling, box ticking, and undue interest in how much they can get out of it for themselves.
Currently public transport users have to grapple with an infrastructure designed by people who never seem to live in fear of having to rely on it in daily life- go figure.

John Ware link

20/10/2022 12:59:13 am

Challenge produce quickly. Big street most some. Role development and nature recently.
Bring happy result recognize. Fact black necessary bad.

20/10/2022 02:13:12 pm

Re- "Challenge produce quickly." A fast upgrade for infrastructure-For bike lanes.
Upgrade designated lanes for cycles, last mile personal mobility EVs,and mopeds by creating separate on-road space for both cycles/low powered EVS, and motor vehicles that are protected from larger, faster vehicles with substantial barriers, or are road marked equally as wide as a normal motor vehicle lane. The cycle lane can have sub-lane markings for travel in both directions. Eg-as on Waterveiw cycle lane; and the use of paved or robustly textured barriers in place between cycle and motorist only lanes.
Create appropriate speed and following regulations for these spaces.
Creating cycle/EV only lanes of equal width to motorized vehicle lanes could be used especially in the instance of main road and popular commuter routes; beginning with routes where the existing width of the roadway accommodates multiple lanes running in both directions.
Use both measures where traffic build up persists.
NB; Cyclist/EV/motorized mobility device users pathways require wider pathway footprints than do pedestrians!
Growing numbers of people living with mild to moderate mobility issues are using standard model personal EVs, and even larger mobility scooters as essential equipment as an ALTERNATIVE to motor vehicle use, particularly the seated models. Unlike people living with profound disabilities NZ does not cater for moderate to mild disability needs within its current transport infrastructure. These people require services to better accommodate their transport needs. Because of inadequate and poorly designed transport infrastructure many also return to motorized transport in despair.
Separating transit services for cycle/EV use form motorist infrastructure increases transport resilience in the face of the upcoming Mass Transit services disruption, and will ease pressure on Bus service, and motorist service provisions such as parking services.
Putting more physical distance between motor vehicles and cyclists eases the temptation for impatient cyclists to dart between traffic queues. NB controlled pedestrian crossings already have dedicated cyclist and pedestrian crossing signals and lanes.
Create 'rest areas' where shared walk/cycle-way users can pull over at reasonable intervals along existing longer cycle routes-for health and safety reasons.
Enforce respect from both motorists and cycle lane users for correct use of the lanes-eg – publish educational advertising to create public consciousness raising about the issues, and stronger restraint for motorists who stray onto cycle lanes, or cause crashes by pulling or backing suddenly out of concealed driveways, and cyclists who attempt to use 'motorist only' lanes, or ride recklessly on cycle lanes and shared areas.
Maintain cyclists'/LP EVs right to use footpaths especially where cycle lanes are not available, but rules must apply for BOTH cyclists and pedestrians. [What part of being a pedestrian absolves someone of the responsibility to look where they are going?]
Modify footpaths to accommodate personal EVs and cycles.[as well as for mobility vehicle users].
Provide SECURE parking for larger EVs and cycles at bus stops.
Provide [albeit] limited space for up to 4 standard/smaller sized cycles/LP EVs, internally, onboard buses - particularly for provincial bus routes.[many of these vehicles can be carried onboard and fold to some degree].
Right now Bus drivers have personal 'discretionary' power to let a EV or cyclist board the bus with their vehicle – many refuse on principle, and are very rude about the matter; mostly because of personal opinions, while simultaneously letting other passengers carrying much larger items on board.
NB-These extra services do not have to be provided free, and could be paid for using the AT Hop card. Again, consultation with EV and cycle users about placement and design of on board carrying spaces strongly recommended.
This measure may enable more strategic planning for bus routes and stop numbers needed.
Some suburban neighborhoods may require fewer bus runs daily, or a commuter service, and fewer stops placed closer to main roads or local shops if this measure was considered.
This measure could also ameliorate the disruption caused for patrons during the rail services upgrade, and encourage 'green vehicle' use.
Encourage hospitality businesses to provide EV/cycle parking/charging services, and 'comfort' stops.
From a EV users perspective considering these measures would be a start to encouraging motorists to use alternatives.

20/10/2022 11:23:07 pm

Follow up inflammation-
I had not seen this video when I responded to this conversation. Please forward this link to anyone in ACC responsible for designing the future transport infrastructure- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlVWv9O0qQ4&ab_channel=Propel

BLOGS & POLICIES

HOW WILL I FIX AUCKLAND TRANSPORT?

Leave a Reply.

Author

Archives

TAGS