Loading...

Follow Greater Auckland on Feedspot

Continue with Google
Continue with Facebook
or

Valid

Train users are likely to have been feeling frustrated over the last week or two with what have become nearly daily delays and cancellations. As a Western line user, this has been made more frustrating because unlike the Southern and Eastern lines, for which AT have at least put out some comms, there have been none for the Western, despite services often being delayed or cancelled as part of the disruption.

The main issue causing this disruption appears to poor, or a lack of maintenance from Kiwirail with AT finally tweeting this thread yesterday

In the past few weeks, we’ve been experiencing a number of delays and cancellations on our train services. These are primarily on the Southern Line, but have flow on effects to the wider AT Metro network. pic.twitter.com/ob2Vl0FPzR

— Auckland Transport (@AklTransport) June 16, 2019

Here’s the text from the whole thread:

In the past few weeks, we’ve been experiencing a number of delays and cancellations on our train services. These are primarily on the Southern Line, but have flow on effects to the wider AT Metro network.

KiwiRail, who own, control and maintain the train tracks have multiple temporary speed restrictions due to track that is not up to standard. Most of these locations have been identified as needing the train tracks to be completely replaced.

A number of locations had tracks replaced over Queen’s Birthday Weekend, while the line was closed which removed some of the temporary speed restrictions but there is still work to be done. KiwiRail has assured us that the track is safe.

These speed restrictions help maintain the track condition until maintenance work can be completed. We find these delays and cancellations incredibly frustrating, as many of our customers will do, and we apologise for this.

Together with Transdev, we are working with KiwiRail to resolve this as soon as possible with planned maintenance: (link: http://ow.ly/Vz0c50uFqqk) ow.ly/Vz0c50uFqqk You can keep up to date with the AT Mobile app, our social media channels or our text message alert system:

In addition, stuff reports on comments from Kiwirail

KiwiRail Executive General Manager Operations Siva Sivapakkiam, apologised for the inconvenience to commuters, but said safety was KiwiRail’s top priority.

“KiwiRail owns and maintains the railway tracks and signals for the Auckland network, as part of our regular maintenance programme, we have inspected and identified sections of rail track that need replacing on the southern and eastern lines.

“We have placed temporary speed restrictions at several locations on the southern and eastern lines until we can carry out this work. The line needs to be closed to commuter trains to safely lay the new rail track.”

Sivapakkiam said KiwiRail was working closely with AT to prioritise the required maintenance and to lift the temporary speed restrictions as quickly as possible.

“On the basis of the current speed restrictions, it should be expected that delays will continue, and that some services may be cancelled.

“Future inspections of the rail track across the Auckland network may require further temporary speed restrictions to be introduced,” he said.

Things sometimes unexpectedly breaking, severe weather and other random acts that occasionally impact services are all annoying at the time but are understandable. But tracks being in poor condition feels like something that should have been foreseen and I think serious questions need to be asked of Kiwirail to why they’ve let them get to such a poor standard. Now on a normal weekday there are over 74,000 trips being made and ongoing delays will only serve to erode trust in the system.

The vastly improved reliability and punctuality of the system following the completion of electrification in mid-2015 is likely to have played a significant role in driving ridership up over the last few years, seeing it double to over 20 million in just the four years. This is reflected in the graph below showing the number of trains arriving at their destination within five minutes of schedule rising from around 80% to over 96%.

Here’s rail ridership as a comparison.

You can also see a breakdown of punctuality by line from 2011 onwards. One thing that’s interesting about this is that the eastern line was the worst performer but is now the best. This improvement in performance is likely related to why the Eastern Line has seen some of the strongest growth over the last few years.

Looking forward it appears there are now a lot of weekend shutdowns ahead, including three of the four weekends in July. I assume most of these are related to this track issue.

If there’s one silver lining to this disruption it’s that it’s yet another example of why it’s important that we don’t try to rely on the existing network for all future rapid transit lines. Having light rail as an independent but connected part of the rapid transit network is a feature, not a bug.

The post Rail Delays Expected appeared first on Greater Auckland.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

There hasn’t been much news on the Auckland light-rail projects for a while now, with the project seemingly stuck in some sort of purgatory as the Government (hopefully) slowly comes to the realisation that the NZ Super Fund proposal to build an elevated and tunnelled route is complete madness. With the Puhinui station upgrade and improved bus priority about to start construction, it will hopefully get people to understand that a high quality PT option will be delivered in the next few years. Although some will refuse to to believe that a Puhinui-Airport rail link would be much harder and more expensive than it intuitively seems.

As I discussed late last year, one of the frustrating things about the idea of serving the Airport with heavy rail is that it places what I think is undue importance on this particular job – getting people from the city centre to and from the Airport. It’s a useful reminder that only around 4% of trips on the City Centre to Mangere corridor are these ‘end to end’ journeys.

While the Airport is an important part of Auckland, it seems strange that such huge emphasis get placed on trips between the city centre and the Airport, a pretty small minority of overall journeys. Also, very little discussion ever occurs about the people who travel to and from the airport every day.

Alon Levy’s excellent Pedestrian Observations blog looked at this issue of over-emphasising Airport connections a few years back and came up with some interesting hypotheses to explain this.

It is a truth universally acknowledged that cities spend far more per rider on airport connectors than on other kinds of public transit. On this blog, see many posts from previous years on the subject. My assumption, and that of such other transit advocates as Charles Komanoff, was always that it came from an elite versus people distinction: members of the global elite fly far more than anyone else, and when they visit other cities, they’re unlikely to take public transit, preferring taxis for most intermediate-length trips and walking for trips around the small downtown area around their hotels.

In this post, I would like to propose an alternative theory. Commuters who use public transit typically use their regular route on the order of 500 times a year. If they also take public transit for non-work trips around the city, the number goes even higher, perhaps 700. In contrast, people who fly only fly a handful of times per year. Frequent business travelers may fly a few tens of times per year, still an order of magnitude less than the number of trips a typical commuter takes on transit.

What this means is that 2 billion annual trips on the New York-area rail network may not involve that many more unique users than 100 million annual trips between the region’s three airports. Someone who flies a few times per year and is probably middle class but not rich might still think that transportation to the airport is too inconvenient, and demand better. In the US, nearly half the population flies in any given year, about 20% fly at least three roundtrips, and 10% fly at least five. Usually, discussions of elite versus regular people do not define the elite as the top half; even the top 10% is rare, in these times of rhetoric about the top 1% and 0.1%. When Larry Summers called for infrastructure investment into airport transit, he said it would improve social equity because what he considered the elite had private jets.

To summarise, there are two main reasons why Airport connections might end up being over-emphasised compared to other transport needs:

  • Politicians, senior bureaucrats, business leaders, media and other members of the ‘elite’ use Airports far more frequently than the average person – so therefore connections to airports are a much bigger deal for them than for most people.
  • A very wide variety of people travel to the Airport over the course of a year, compared to other key places. This means that a lot of people experience travel conditions to and from airports, even if they do so quite rarely.

What seems to be lacking in Auckland discussions is good data and useful metrics to compare different corridors against each other. Alon does this for New York, which illustrates how poor Airport connections perform compared to other projects.

None of this makes airport transit a great idea. Of course some projects are good, but the basic picture is still one in which per rider spending on airport connectors is persistently higher than on other projects, by a large factor. In New York, the JFK AirTrain cost about $2 billion in today’s money and carries 6.4 million riders a year, which would correspond to 21,000 weekday riders if it had the same annual-to-weekday passenger ratio as regular transit, 300 (it has a much higher ratio, since air travel does not dip on weekends the way commuter travel does). This is around $100,000 per rider, which contrasts with $20,000 for Second Avenue Subway Phase 1 if ridership projections hold. Earlier this year, the de Blasio administration proposed a developed-oriented waterfront light rail, projected to cost $1.7 billion and get 16 million riders a year, which corresponds to about $32,000 per daily rider; a subsequent estimate pegs it at $2.5 billion, or $47,000 per rider, still half as high as how much the AirTrain cost.

Avoiding this over-emphasis on airport connections will continue to be difficult in the absence of good data, because the allure of good airport connections is strong in both political elites who use airports extremely frequently,  as well as the broader public who use them occasionally.

Of course this isn’t to say that Auckland Airport doesn’t need rapid transit connections from both the north and the east. But rather, we shouldn’t over-emphasise the ‘end to end’ element of what the broader City Centre to Mangere light rail project does, and we certainly shouldn’t go out of our way to serve the airport with enormously expensive infrastructure – especially if that means ongoing delays to other key rapid transit corridors, especially in the northwest. Given this, it feels like Auckland is getting the balance about right.

The post Airport connections are over-rated appeared first on Greater Auckland.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Consultation for The Solid Waste Bylaw finishes on Sunday. Read on to understand why it matters.

As the world becomes more urban, cities need to become more liveable. Proximity helps, and walkable cities offer more opportunities for social connection and for low-carbon lifestyles. But for cities to be better places to live, we need to nurture the natural environment. Living more closely together, we will rely more on the parks, gardens and stream corridors that we retain. Yet these pockets of nature will be more fragile, fragmented as they are between hard paving and buildings.

Transporting food and products into the city and transporting waste out of the city is a poor use of energy. If all the food waste and plant waste is transported out of the city, there’s also a huge loss of nutrients and organic matter that the soil and plants in the city need. We need to see our use of resources as more of a circular process, and composting is key to that.

Last week the Auckland Council declared we have a Climate Emergency. Responding to this emergency will require a complete re-analysis of our relationship with nature. Carbon is sequestered in healthy soil, and climate change will stress our flora and fauna. The same exploitative practices that are causing climate change are stripping our ecology of health. The climate crisis is urgent, but the UN has found that:

the five direct drivers of change in nature with the largest relative global impacts so far … are, in descending order: (1) changes in land and sea use; (2) direct exploitation of organisms; (3) climate change; (4) pollution and (5) invasive alien species.

Networks of residents are practising the skills we need to address these issues. Council needs to reach out and connect with these groups, learn from them, and help spread their skills throughout the city. And often, that is exactly what Council does.

But in the area of waste, there seems to be a mismatch between mindsets. In preference to separating waste at source and e-trike kerbside food waste pickup schemes, the Council has chosen corporate models involving truck cartage, exporting of recycling to poor countries, and industrial scale composting plants outside the city.

A new conflict has arisen over the proposed Solid Waste Bylaw, which will outlaw common and healthy composting practices, such as using seaweed from the beach, leaves from the footpath, grass clippings from the neighbour.

If people follow these new rules, the healthy social connections that happen when members of the community swap waste resources with each other for compost making will be prevented. And many people will simply be put off composting, meaning energy will be wasted as their food and garden waste is trucked out of the city.

Alternatively, if people continue with healthy composting practices, they will be doing so in defiance of the Council, so the bylaw will drive a wedge between Council and the very practitioners Council needs to learn from.

I am asking questions of Council about process and management oversight, and how the bylaw missed the input from Council’s teams who understand sustainability. Until I get those answers, though, I’d like to bring it to your attention, in case you care to submit.

Most of us have consultation burnout, so I thought I’d circulate an email from For the Love of Bees, which includes easy-submit instructions from the Auckland Compost Collective. Obviously, tailor your submission to reflect your experience and to suit your beliefs.

——————————-

The Auckland Composting Network is concerned about the wording of a new council bylaw taking effect in 2019. Submissions on this bylaw are closing in three days on the 16th of June. We would like as many supporters as possible to make a submission to ensure that local living compost hubs can continue to build momentum and establish themselves as a valuable resource for our city and very relevant climate change ready infrastructure.

Our collaborators at NZBox are also concerned about the current wording of the bylaw, they say, ‘it would completely undermine the capacity of Auckland residents, businesses and communities to compost or resource community composting initiatives. Producing quality local compost supports growing quality local food, which supports food resilient and healthy communities. Local composting hubs enable soils to sequester carbon, while reducing waste to landfill and emissions getting it there. Composting our own food waste provides local jobs, community connectivity and amazing education opportunities.’

Finn Mackesy on behalf of the Auckland Composting Network has put together a template to make a submission quick and easy – in 7 mins.

We hope you can take the time to COMPLETE A SUBMISSION, please read Finn’s guidelines below.

Kia ora Koutou,

As you may be aware Auckland Council is currently seeking submissions on the proposed Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2019.

The purpose of this bylaw is to manage and minimise waste, protect the public from health and safety risks and nuisance, and to manage the use of council-controlled public places. While on the whole the proposed bylaw seems fit-for-purpose there are several sections that pose challenges to individuals and groups wanting to manage and minimise food waste at the local level. In response to the shortcomings of the proposed bylaw the Auckland Composting Network have created a templated submission response and instructions for quickly completing an online submission (see below).

We need as many Aucklanders as possible who engage in and/or support local composting to provide feedback on the proposed bylaw to ensure safe, sustainable and effective methods of household and community scale composting are acknowledged and valued. Please share this with people, organisations and networks who you think might want to make a submission to support Auckland Council in enabling communities and individuals to compost.

Submissions close on Sunday June 16. Completing the online submission process using the templated responses will take approximately 7 minutes to complete.

If you are wanting to read the full proposed Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2019 follow this link

To complete the online submission process there is a combination of click responses and free text sections. To make it as easy as possible to provide feedback to the proposed bylaw supporting local composting and navigate the submission process instructions and templated responses have been provided below.

Here is a link to the online submission

Kind regards,

Finn Mackesy

on behalf of the Auckland Composting Network

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION

  1.     Click the link above
  2.     Fill in your personal details
  3.     Click Next at bottom of page

Which of the following would you like to give feedback on? *

Select as many as apply

  1.     Tick the first option: Requiring people to deposit and dispose of waste appropriately 
  2.     Click Next at bottom of page

Proposal 1

  1.     Tick Agree

Proposal 2

Clarify how a person may dispose of or discard material on premises they own or occupy. (Clause 8)

Reason

We want to make rules about the disposal of material on private premises easier to understand and to better address nuisance and safety risks from the burial and composting of material.

  1.     Tick Disagree

Please tell us why

  1.     Copy and paste or edit the templated response (below) in the text box provided:

“The wording in two sections within Clause 8 unnecessarily limit households’ and communities’ ability to manage and minimise organic waste safely. The following rewording is requested:

(1) A person may dispose of or discard waste by burial on premises that person occupies or owns if –

(c) the waste is food scraps or green waste from domestic activity on the same premises and the premises is in a rural area or if in an urban area the food scraps are fermented using the bokashi method first.

(2) A person may dispose of or discard material by composting if –

(b) Replace “at a community garden” with “as part of a community composting initiative” to ensure other effective community composting initiatives remain permissible activities. I.e. “the material is from activity on the same premises that it is composted on or the material is composted as part of a community composting initiative.”

Clause 8 also needs to ensure that the collection of materials from offsite which can make composting efforts more effective is permissible under the new bylaw. Examples of such materials include seaweed collected on the beach, leaves fallen on the footpath (which might otherwise block a public drain), the neighbour’s mown grass or hedge clippings, biochar, sheep pellets, animal manures from local farms, coffee grinds from the local cafe, compostable packaging, woodchip from an arborist, and oyster shells.

Proposal 3

  1.     Tick Agree

Proposal 4

  1.     Tick Agree
  2.     Click Next at bottom of page

Do you have any other feedback on the proposed new Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2019?

  1.     Copy and paste (or edit and personalise) the templated response (below) in the text box provided:

In general I support the Proposed Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2019. However, there are two areas of the proposed bylaw that are currently weak or missing – (1) providing sufficient opportunities for landowners and residents to compost materials on site by safe and effective means; and (2) recognising and endorsing community composting initiatives beyond community gardens as effective, sustainable and pro-social means of managing and minimising waste.

I request the following additional changes to the proposed Proposed Waste Management and Minimisation Bylaw 2019 to ensure that all effective biological composting methods and community composting initiatives are recognised and endorsed under the new bylaw.

Clause 5      Interpretation

Composting means the activity of creating nutrient-rich fertiliser and organic matter from food scraps, green waste or both and to avoid doubt, includes worm farms and anaerobic digesters and other biological means of converting organic waste materials into nutrient-rich fertiliser and organic matter.

This addition will ensure that all effective composting techniques and biological processes are explicitly included under the bylaw (E.g. Effective Microorganisms (EM) and Black Soldier Fly (BSF) farming). It also ensures that new and promising biological means of processing food scraps can be tested and developed under the bylaw.

Clause 12     Operators of waste management and resource recovery facilities

Definition of a resource recovery facility needs to include community composting operations for the bylaw to effectively recognise and value the role of community composting initiatives and facilities.

Add to Clause 1.b.ii. in the definition of a resource recovery facility …“to avoid doubt, includes a commercial or community composting operation…”

  1.     Click Next at bottom of page
  2.     Complete the Tell us about your experience section

Click Finish

The post Healthy Composting, Healthy City – Under Threat appeared first on Greater Auckland.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Google maps has a useful little tool, where you can not only see current traffic congestion levels, but also what conditions are ‘usually’ like at any particular time of day (show the traffic overlay and then change the box at the bottom to ‘typical traffic’. This makes it possible to take a look at where congestion is worst across the region at different times of day.

Starting first with Tuesday at 8am, which I’ve taken as a pretty good proxy for probably the heaviest ‘morning peak’. The first map shows the northern and western parts of Auckland:

Most main roads across the region are orange, which means that they’re busy but not totally congested. What you’d expect and hope to see. Main areas of congestion seem to be:

  • Citybound on the Northern Motorway between Oteha Valley Road and Esmonde Road. It’s very notable that congestion eases significantly over the Harbour Bridge itself. Access onto the Northern Motorway at places like Esmonde Road and Onewa also seem to be highly congested.
  • Westbound on State Highway 18 through Greenhithe. This seems to be largely caused by a lot of people driving from the west to the large number of jobs around Albany that are really poorly served by public transport.
  • Citybound on the Northwest Motorway right from Westgate through to Western Springs. This is one of the main reasons why rapid transit to the Northwest is so essential.
  • Citybound on the ‘inner’ Southern Motorway is pretty widespread, right through until Greenlane. Presumably this is caused by quite a lot of trips to the large employment area around Ellerslie and Penrose being pretty dependent on cars.

Looking next further to the south, you can see the citybound congestion on the Southern Motorway extends right down to Manukau City, and then again between Drury, Papakura and Takanini.

State Highway 20 is also quite congested between Manukau and Puhinui, presumably due to Western Ring Route traffic overlapping with people heading to the Airport along Puhinui Road. Ti Rakau Drive in East Auckland is also pretty congested.

Looking next at how things stand around midday, you can see how ‘peaked’ Auckland’s traffic is. The motorway network seems to work quite well during this ‘interpeak’ time:

There’s almost no red on this map, and most of the ‘orange’ seems to be in busy parts of the city where you’d expect traffic to go a bit slower, like the city centre, down Dominion Road and then around major centres like Manukau, Henderson, New Lynn and Onehunga.

Tracking forward to 5pm, as an indicator of the evening peak and there’s a lot more red on this map.

Some broad observations of the evening peak:

  • Many of the main motorways are (somewhat unsurprisingly) a mirror image of the morning peak. Much of the northwest and northern motorways are jammed, although perhaps not quite as severely as in the morning.
  • State highway 18 (Upper Harbour) seems to avoid pretty much any congestion in the evening, even though it gets pretty jammed up in the morning.
  • Citybound congestion on the Northern Motorway is almost as bad as northbound congestion – which you would think is a bit surprising as this is counter-peak. Having only 3 lanes on the harbour bridge is obviously a key factor in this.
  • There seems to be a lot more severe congestion in the city centre and through spaghetti junction in the evening peak than in the morning peak.

On this last point, I zoomed into the central area to take a closer look.

Some of the most severe congestion seems to be on the onramps to the major motorways, where traffic gets stuck at ramp signals. The fact that northbound lanes on State Highway 1 through spaghetti junction are green while the ramp signal is the very darkest red suggests that NZTA haven’t got the balance right – something I highlighted in this post a while back.

Looking to the south, it’s interesting that northbound (technically counterpeak) congestion is worse than southbound between Greenlane and Otahuhu. Further south the merging of State Highway 20 and State Highway 1 creates all sorts of issues around Manukau. There’s also quite a bottleneck where State Highway 20A from the Airport merges into the Western Ring Route.

So what can we make of these patterns? One thing that really stands out to me is that congestion seems worst (at least on the motorways where it appears to vary by time and place the most) for the kind of peak direction radial trip that public transport – especially rapid transit – is well suited to. Continuing to upgrade and expand rapid transit on the big corridors to the southeast, south, southwest, west, northwest and north is well suited to providing better travel choices for the very trips that face the most congestion.

For a little fun, I also made this gif showing how traffic levels every 20 minutes of the day from 6am to 10pm.

What stands out to you in these maps? Were you surprised by anything?

The post Analysing Auckland’s congestion appeared first on Greater Auckland.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Paris has long had one of the world’s best public transport systems, but in recent years the city has made giant strides forward in reducing the impact of cars on the quality of the city – including the quality of its air. In 2016 cars were removed from the banks of the river Seine, opening up an amazing new public space for the city:

Source: https://www.dw.com/en/the-seine-river-banks-in-paris-now-car-free/a-38300589

Now Paris is looking at taking the next step, through removing lanes and lowering the speed limit of Paris’s ring-road – known as the Peripherique. This from a CityLab article:

This Tuesday, Paris deputies submitted a report to Mayor Anne Hidalgo proposing a reduction of the speed limit on the Parisian Boulevard Périphérique, the 22-mile-long highway that encircles the central city, to 50 km/h (about 31 miles per hour). Cars and trucks on one of Europe’s most notoriously congested and polluted urban highways would not only be obliged to drive more slowly, they’d have less room to do it: The number of beltway lanes open to all traffic would also be slashed from eight to six. One lane will be reserved for public, emergency, and zero-emissions vehicles. The other one is to be devoted to trees.

It’s not that surprising to see Paris take another step towards improving the quality of their city, but perhaps what might be a bit surprising to some is a major likely benefit from these changes – reduced congestion.

Making a busy highway smaller and slower might seem like a counterintuitive means of defeating traffic in the U.S., where certain states and cities are working on widening, not culling, their traffic-clogged beltways. But during its peak hours, traffic is already moving at a very stately pace on Paris’ inner beltway: Average rush hour speeds are around 35 km/h. And many traffic experts say that lower speeds can improve fluidity and lower travel times by limiting the so-called accordion affect, in which vehicles accelerating and decelerating gradually create build-ups around junctions that turn into fully fledged jams. Driving more slowly, in some cases, can get you where you need to go faster.

It’s also likely that we will see the inverse of ‘induced traffic demand’, where removing vehicle capacity actually results in overall less traffic and less congestion. A classic case study of this recently was in Seattle, where there was a brief gap between the Alaskan Way Viaduct being closed and a new tunnel opening – yet traffic was actually better than usual during this time!

About 90,000 vehicles per day traveled the Alaskan Way Viaduct until it was closed on Jan. 11.

“The cars just disappeared,” he wrote. “Where did they all go?”

A spokesperson for the traffic data company Inrix told Gutman they “disappeared.”

Some people are walking and biking, preliminary city data shows. And some additional people took the bus and train. And a lot of people appear to be telecommuting.

As a result, traffic speeds haven’t been effected much by what everyone predicted would be gridlock.

Viadoom is looking more and more like another much-hyped “Carmageddon” that wasn’t. Time after time, cities anticipate crushing outcomes from the closures of key freeways — but the actual outcome is muted. We saw it with the closure of Los Angeles’s 405 freeway in 2011. And we saw it in more recently with the same highway in Seattle closed for two weeks of maintenance in 2016.

The changes in Paris will be great for safety, noise and air quality in this part of the city, as well as helping to reduce congestion:

That the Périphérique needs change is no secret. Since being completed in 1973, the city’s inner ring has developed a fearsome reputation for jams. It’s a formidable smog machine, too, pumping out >37 percent of all nitrous oxide emissions for the Greater Paris region. And with 156,000 people living within 200 meters of the road, it discharges these pollutants in a heavily populated band of territory…

…Slower traffic is quieter, too—Paris noise observatory Bruitparifreckons that holding vehicles to 50 km/h should reduce average levelsby a moderate but still significant two to three decibels. It is also notably safer, with slower speeds giving drivers more reaction time and lessening the force of collision impact. Past experience in Paris bears this out. In 2014, the Périphérique’s speed limit was reduced from 80 km/h to 70. This ten kilometer drop saw accidents fall by 15.5 percent in a single year.

Despite some backlash, it seems likely the changes will be approved in June.

The post Paris tackling congestion, by removing lanes appeared first on Greater Auckland.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Yesterday the Auckland Council unanimously agreed to declare a climate emergency, joining other cities in New Zealand and around the world in doing so.

“By unanimously voting to declare a climate emergency we are signalling the council’s intention to put climate change at the front and centre of our decision making,” says Mayor Phil Goff

Today, members of Auckland Council’s Environment and Community Committee voted to join a growing community of cities around the world who have formally and publicly recognised the urgency for action on climate change by declaring a climate emergency.

“Our declaration further elevates the importance of an immediate national and global response to address our changing climate,” said Councillor Penny Hulse, chair of the committee.

“We want to be a part of the global community calling for change. We have listened and are listening to people; to Aucklanders who supported targeted rates to improve the health of our environment and water, to the students who went on strike and demanded action on climate, to groups like Extinction Rebellion who came to the council and pleaded with us to take more action including declaring this climate emergency. To these groups and to the many others who have made their voices heard, I say thank you,” says Councillor Hulse.

Mayor Goff says, “Our obligation is to avoid our children and grandchildren inheriting a world devastated by global heating. Scientists tell us that if we don’t take action, the effects of heating will be catastrophic, both environmentally and economically.

“In declaring an emergency, we are signalling the urgency of action needed to mitigate and adapt to the impact of rising world temperatures and extreme weather events. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says we have only around 12 years to reduce global carbon emissions to limit temperature rises to 1.5 degrees.

“While international and national actions are critical, at a local and personal level we need to play our role in achieving that target.”

It’s good to see the council take this step but unless they and their CCOs take more action, it does feel like it risks being a bit of a feelgood political statement than anything serious. Here’s what they say it means for Auckland:

By declaring a climate emergency, the council is committing to:

  • continue to robustly and visibly incorporate climate change considerations into work programmes and decisions
  • continue to provide strong local government leadership in the face of climate change, including working with local and central government partners to ensure a collaborative response
  • continue to advocate strongly for greater central government leadership and action on climate change
  • continue to increase the visibility of our climate change work
  • continue to lead by example in monitoring and reducing the council’s greenhouse gas emissions
  • include climate change impact statements on all council committee reports.

Part of my issue with it is dictionaries define ’emergency’ as: “A serious, unexpected, and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action“. I’m sure someone can debate the ‘unexpected’ aspect but the part that seems to be missing from the council’s announcements is the immediate action, particularly in relation to the single biggest contributor to emissions in Auckland – transport.

So, if the council were serious about this climate emergency declaration, here four things that need to change immediately to help address this emergency

Give people more options to avoid car travel

The best way to reduce emissions from cars is to give people realistic alternatives for getting around. Some of this obviously takes time to build and there are funding constraints but an emergency should dictate a radical reprioritisation of what’s planned with investment going only to support modes of transport and projects that help reduce emissions. All of this means we need more and better public transport and many more cycleways.

Tied to this a stated goal needs to be a significant reduction in vehicle kilometres travelled all across the region (not just the city centre). While there are some good things happening they’re taking too long or simply aren’t enough. Take Auckland Transports Statement of Intent for 2019-22 for example. It shows they only targeting to deliver 28.5km of new cycleways over 3 years.

To put that in perspective, we have nearly 5,000 km of urban roads in Auckland (and another 3,000 rural roads). Real and meaningful immediate action would be for the council to require AT to significantly increase this using temporary solutions until such time more money is available for permanent ones. Of course one of the big things that prevents AT from being able to do this, and has slowed down the existing cycling programme at the same time as making it more expensive is the demand from locals to retain ……

Parking

The Councillors may have unanimously voted to declare a climate emergency but you can be certain that many of them will quickly jump in behind locals to complain about removing any on-street carparks from their local areas.

Of course the desire to retain parking not only makes it harder to convert space to encourage emissions free transport options but it also has the effect of encouraging people to drive to the location in the first place.

A poignant reminder of issue with parking emerged yesterday with the announcement that Costco would open it’s first NZ store in Auckland and would have 800 carparks. That store will be located in Westgate, which is part of major growth area for Auckland over the coming decades, bringing us to ……

Supporting Growth

Auckland’s development pattern of spread out suburbs is a key contributor to our auto-dependency and that is only going to get worse if current plans to build around 110,000 of new homes on Auckland’s fringes comes to fruition.

Enabling all this to happen that is a programme called Supporting Growth and as we learnt yesterday, it seems they’re about to announce their finalised plans for the three main development areas – North, Northwest and South. If we were serious about a climate emergency we would be putting a halt on any implementation of these networks and refocusing that growth back to the existing urban area. We could then spend the money that would have otherwise gone to these areas to significantly improve walking, cycling and PT options which also happen to benefit existing residents.

Perhaps some of the money could also go towards …..

Street Trees

At the last election Mayor Phil Goff campaigned on a policy of planting 1 million trees over this term – I understand the target is very close to being achieved. But while 1 million trees is good, what would also be good is if we saw more trees planted in our streets – and lots of them. There is no reason why every suburb shouldn’t be called a leafy suburb.

Pohutukawa, St Paul St

The post Auckland Declares a Climate Emergency, but is it enough? appeared first on Greater Auckland.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Google maps has a useful little tool, where you can not only see current traffic congestion levels, but also what conditions are ‘usually’ like at any particular time of day. This makes it possible to take a look at where congestion is worst across the region at different times of day.

Starting first with Tuesday at 8am, which I’ve taken as a pretty good proxy for probably the heaviest ‘morning peak’. The first map shows the northern and western parts of Auckland:

Most main roads across the region are orange, which means that they’re busy but not totally congested. What you’d expect and hope to see. Main areas of congestion seem to be:

  • Citybound on the Northern Motorway between Oteha Valley Road and Esmonde Road. It’s very notable that congestion eases significantly over the Harbour Bridge itself. Access onto the Northern Motorway at places like Esmonde Road and Onewa also seem to be highly congested.
  • Westbound on State Highway 18 through Greenhithe. This seems to be largely caused by a lot of people driving from the west to the large number of jobs around Albany that are really poorly served by public transport.
  • Citybound on the Northwest Motorway right from Westgate through to Western Springs. This is one of the main reasons why rapid transit to the Northwest is so essential.
  • Citybound on the ‘inner’ Southern Motorway is pretty widespread, right through until Greenlane. Presumably this is caused by quite a lot of trips to the large employment area around Ellerslie and Penrose being pretty dependent on cars.

Looking next further to the south, you can see the citybound congestion on the Southern Motorway extends right down to Manukau City, and then again between Drury, Papakura and Takanini.

State Highway 20 is also quite congested between Manukau and Puhinui, presumably due to Western Ring Route traffic overlapping with people heading to the Airport along Puhinui Road. Ti Rakau Drive in East Auckland is also pretty congested.

Looking next at how things stand around midday, you can see how ‘peaked’ Auckland’s traffic is. The motorway network seems to work quite well during this ‘interpeak’ time:

There’s almost no red on this map, and most of the ‘orange’ seems to be in busy parts of the city where you’d expect traffic to go a bit slower, like the city centre, down Dominion Road and then around major centres like Manukau, Henderson, New Lynn and Onehunga.

Tracking forward to 5pm, as an indicator of the evening peak and there’s a lot more red on this map.

Some broad observations of the evening peak:

  • Many of the main motorways are (somewhat unsurprisingly) a mirror image of the morning peak. Much of the northwest and northern motorways are jammed, although perhaps not quite as severely as in the morning.
  • State highway 18 (Upper Harbour) seems to avoid pretty much any congestion in the evening, even though it gets pretty jammed up in the morning.
  • Citybound congestion on the Northern Motorway is almost as bad as northbound congestion – which you would think is a bit surprising as this is counter-peak. Having only 3 lanes on the harbour bridge is obviously a key factor in this.
  • There seems to be a lot more severe congestion in the city centre and through spaghetti junction in the evening peak than in the morning peak.

On this last point, I zoomed into the central area to take a closer look.

Some of the most severe congestion seems to be on the onramps to the major motorways, where traffic gets stuck at ramp signals. The fact that northbound lanes on State Highway 1 through spaghetti junction are green while the ramp signal is the very darkest red suggests that NZTA haven’t got the balance right – something I highlighted in this post a while back.

Looking to the south, it’s interesting that northbound (technically counterpeak) congestion is worse than southbound between Greenlane and Otahuhu. Further south the merging of State Highway 20 and State Highway 1 creates all sorts of issues around Manukau. There’s also quite a bottleneck where State Highway 20A from the Airport merges into the Western Ring Route.

So what can we make of these patterns? One thing that really stands out to me is that congestion seems worst (at least on the motorways where it appears to vary by time and place the most) for the kind of peak direction radial trip that public transport – especially rapid transit – is well suited to. Continuing to upgrade and expand rapid transit on the big corridors to the southeast, south, southwest, west, northwest and north is well suited to providing better travel choices for the very trips that face the most congestion.

What stands out to you in these maps? Were you surprised by anything?

The post Analysing Auckland’s congestion appeared first on Greater Auckland.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

This is a quick event notice for our friends at Women in Urbanism. Apologies for the late notice.

Kia ora!

Please join us today at Russell McVeagh for a conversation on Women and Cities!

Ellie Craft from Women and Urbanism Aotearoa and MRCagney will be delivering a short 101 on WiUA. We will then move on to a panel where she will be joined by Kathryn King (NZTA), Jacqueline Paul (AUT and Landscape Architect), Christine Ammunson (Aurecon) and Boopsie Maran (WiUA & Places For Good).

We’ll be covering:

  • how cities are gendered,
  • the experiences of the panel as women in the urban industries and community activists,
  • and what we can do to create more equitable cities that work well for everyone

Date: Tuesday, 11th June
Time: 5.30 pm – 8 pm
Venue: Russell McVeagh, Level 30, Vero Building, 48 Shortland Street, Auckland

There will be snacks and drinks!

If you have any dietary requirements, or special access needs, please let us know when you RSVP!

To RSVP, email events@russellmcveagh.com

Also, here is a Facebook link to the event: https://www.facebook.com/events/1313395332160906/

Women in Urbanism Aotearoa

Our mission is to transform our towns and cities into more beautiful, inspiring and inclusive places for everyone. We do this by amplifying the voices and actions of all self-identifying wāhine, girls and non-binary people.

You can find out more about us, and our work here:

https://www.womeninurban.org.nz/

Want to become a WiUA member?

Well you can now, just fill in this membership form

Nāku, nā

Women in Urbanism Aotearoa

The post Women in Urbanism Event Aotearoa – Today! appeared first on Greater Auckland.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Today the Auckland Transport board meet again and as usual, here are the highlights from the papers.

Closed Agenda

Like last month, there is little of interest on the closed agenda. The only thing worth noting is it appears we’re soon to hear more about the plans for the transport networks in the greenfield growth areas that were consulted on last year. This from the items for noting

  • Supporting Growth Alliance: Public Launch of Board approved Network
Business Report

Here are the most interesting updates from the main business report. These are in the order they appear in the report.

Procurement

AT always list in the report any procurement being undertaken or contracts issued for greater than $2 million. This time they note the project below. I’ve since learnt it relates to the new bridges over the motorway at Northcote Rd as for some reason they weren’t able widen the existing road bridge to accommodate the cycle lanes. It would be nice if it meant cyclists and pedestrians could avoid the motorway interchange completely and not have to cross all the on and off ramps but I can’t see how that would happen without detours.

Northcote Safe Cycle Route Stage 2 (Bridge Construction) – This procurement is for the physical works of the required bridges and includes, but is not limited to: utility services work and relocations, construction of two bridges, cycle and pedestrian signalisation, construction of the connecting paths, modifications to the Smales Farm entranceway and landscaping works.

Road Safety

Analytics

The analytics report is one of the most interesting parts of the board report – although it can sometimes be hard to tell how much of it is effectively a tech demo and how much is going to become part of ATs regular tools. This month they say

The implementation of red light running analytics utilising existing camera infrastructure is complete, and eleven sites are in operation. Twentyfive further sites are planned for a progressive roll out of new cameras and analytics between May and November 2019. To provide the highest possible accuracy of detection of red light runners, AT Business Technology have deployed an improved solution that uses an input direct from the traffic controller, which is implemented at the new Morningside Drive / St Lukes Road site. Three further sites will have cameras installed in June with analytics built by the end of June. The analytics will detect both vehicles and buses.

AT has also built and refined speed detection analytics using a single CCTV camera on Grafton Bridge. The refinements have improved accuracy dramatically from 65% to 95%. The use of a single camera in the Auckland Transport speed detection system is different to the conventional way of using radars to detect speed. Single camera CCTV analytics is significantly cheaper and quick to deploy. This means the solution could be rolled out across wider Auckland and would collect enriched data. Grafton Bridge is the first trial site.

Having Auckland-wide information on speeding would be invaluable in helping to understand the scale of the problem and the effectiveness of interventions.

MAPI

If you’ve been noticing a lot of raised tables being installed recently, this is part of a project called Mass Action Pedestrian Improvements. AT describe it as:

MAPI is a component of the high risk urban programme which improves safety by focusing on constructing raised tables at existing pedestrian crossings.

Projects

Cycleways

One of the concerns we’ve had for some time is that some of the most delayed projects are the cycleway ones. Notably, It’s been more than six months since the last cycleway project was completed (Ian McKinnon Dr) and nothing has started in that time. Thankfully it appears things might finally be starting to move in the right direction again with a number of projects at or close to the construction phase. As well as the Northcote bridges mentioned above we have

K Rd – contract has been awarded and construction starts late June/Early July

New Lynn to Avondale – the main works tender is in the market and construction on the new bridge over the Whau start in October.

Takami Drive to Ngapipi – About to go to tender for construction

On Street LPR

AT are looking to use licence plate recognition on a car to help improve parking enforcement. They say it’s still going through a testing and pilot phase but assuming that goes well, they will start to trial it with the first phase of that being to monitor residential parking zones and phase two being on street paid parking.

AT Metro

Bus services

In the list of items relating to bus services, these ones stand out. The service rationalisation could be interesting and we’ll be watching to ensure it doesn’t mean cutting any frequent routes back.

  • A strategic review of bus routing in the city centre is nearing completion, targeting solutions that remove the number of buses terminating in the city centre, to reduce pressure for on-street bus stops and layovers.
  • A number of service changes are being made in August and September 2019. These focus on:
    • service rationalisation on poor performing routes to improve on-going operational expenditure
    • some capacity improvements to address known issues on routes 755, 70, 75, 105, 101, 27 and Onewa Rd services
    • diversion of 134 services to serve Williamson Avenue

On-Demand

ATs rideshare trial continues to underwhelm with just over 90 trips a day in April and a total since launch of almost 10,400 till the end of April.

Integrating Ferry Fares

With the council approving funding to provide integrated fares for ferries, AT say:

Work is commencing on the development of ferry fare integration into the broader PT fare structure based on Council preliminary development funding approval. This would see single zone land-side bus/train travel incorporated into the existing ferry fare price. Council has also approved preliminary funding for free PT for 5 – 15 year olds on weekends and public holidays from September 2019.

Forward Planner

This gives an indication of what we can expect in the future. One item we’re likely to hear about in coming months is something called “Park and Ride Integrated Development“. This is likely related to a story we saw late last year suggesting AT were looking at developing P&R sites, including potentially awful options like this at Constellation station.

Statement of Intent

The board are due to sign off their next Statement of Intent – which is essentially that they plan to do over the next year or so. I haven’t gone through it but I did notice this in the letter from the Mayor/Council.

Managing the impacts of the transport system on the environment

The new emphasis on emissions reductions is positive and council supports the inclusion of the new measures. It is positive how Auckland Transport is working with other members of the council family to help develop and implement the Auckland Climate Action Plan and supporting water quality and environmental outcomes (both in renewals and new builds).

The transport system is also a major contributor to water quality issues. Acknowledging that there are only certain aspects Auckland Transport can directly control, the statement of intent should include a commitment to work with council on measuring the impact of the transport network on water quality.

Longer term, the council is interested in how to decouple vehicle kilometres travelled from population growth (as noted in the draft SOI) and how to continue the mode share shift regionwide, but especially in the city centre and city fringe areas, to reduce vehicle numbers allowing developing of the Access for Everyone programme.

This is notable as it’s the council pushing for these changes, not “an ideologically driven group of anti-car bureaucrats” like a certain mayoral candidate has suggested.

Let me know if the comments if there’s anything important you’ve seen that I’ve missed.

The post June-19 AT Board meeting appeared first on Greater Auckland.

Read Full Article
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

We have a job this year. Auckland’s future will be influenced by the outcome of the local elections. We need to see our city become safer and healthier, with infrastructure modified for a more affordable and low-carbon future.

Auckland Transport, despite its internal wranglings, has the beginnings of a programme to deliver change. We also have councillors willing to champion it. Roll on election: we now need to replace all the obstructive councillors with more progressive ones, so that the transformation of Auckland Transport from roads-first to a safe multi-modal people-focused organisation can continue.

Under the Local Government Act, our Council is required to plan for present and future generations. Councillors favouring easy status-quo votes over good planning are failing in their legislative duty. And that’s particularly hurting our kids.

The most urgent job is to address the safety crisis, to make the city safer for its most vulnerable citizens. As the Auckland Regional Public Health Service submitted recently:

Speed limits are currently at a level that is known to be unsafe. Auckland Transport is required under the ‘Land Transport Rule: Setting of Speed Limits 2017’ to set speed limits that are safe.

Estimates from the International Transport Forum show that out of 26 international cities, Auckland has the second highest pedestrian fatality rate.

Reducing speed limits makes our roads safer for all road users – fewer collisions, fewer injuries, fewer deaths.

Communities in which it is safe and easy to walk, cycle or take public transport are associated with healthier populations.

Late last month, two Kowhai Intermediate students were hit by a van. They were simply walking to school, crossing an arterial road on a green man. Both were hospitalised, one was critically injured.

I’m aware of a few others just this year: a 15-year-old seriously injured by a car when he was just walking to school on the footpath of an arterial road, another crossing a road that had no pedestrian crossing its entire length yet lines of parked cars obstructing visibility. And pedestrians have been struck by cars and buses in locations where the safety need had been highlighted multiple times.

Every one of these tragedies was in an area with a speed limit known to be unsafe. Each one was:

no accident. It was a trap knowingly set … predictable and preventable

Auckland Transport plans safety improvements, only to have them overturned by external pressure. What can they do if the councillors themselves are throwing obstacles in its way? The quotes below are from politicians of left and right – their names and parties don’t matter. The quotes are simply material to discuss, so we can be prepared with questions and information for all our candidates, citywide.

Many of you have written to me in the past requesting pedestrian behaviour should be better managed – it is absolutely frightening to have someone step from the footpath onto the road into the path of your vehicle without looking. That’s actually one of the drivers (pardon the pun) around the slower limits. They want to ensure that even if people make mistakes it shouldn’t cost them their life. An argument against is to point out the lack of pedestrian safety campaigns that target pedestrian behaviour. Should this not be explored before undertaking a change of this magnitude?

This councillor makes an argument against ensuring that a mistake made by someone walking doesn’t kill them. Yet motorists make mistakes all the time and usually it’s someone else put at risk.

Public Meeting TONIGHT on Auckland Transport’s !@#%^& ideas for St Heliers (and Mission Bay).

If you feel your candidate is inciting conflict, call it out.

Here’s the NZTA’s Crash Analysis System’s data for St Heliers. Some of these dots represent multiple crashes (the 10 dots at the corner of St Heliers Bay Rd and Tamaki Drive represent 44 crashes, for example). The red dots are serious injury, blue are minor injury.

“To solve a problem, you have to have a problem,”…[the councillor] said she could not see how 12 new raised pedestrians crossings could have solved three serious crashes in St Heliers over a five-year period.

Imagine how that comment makes those victims and their families feel. We need to preempt injury; sometimes a place needs fixing even if no serious crashes have occurred. Poor safety also leads to minor injury crashes (many resulting in long-lasting discomfort for victims), low physical activity rates, and low independent mobility rates for children.

My article made it clear I support lowering road speeds in suburban streets with lots of people about, but not on the main arterials.

Slowing speeds down across the board will just make things worse.

Children walk along and cross arterial roads too, like the children hit this year. Should children be denied the safety offered by international guidelines for speed limits on arterial roads just because a few councillors can’t take on new evidence and ideas?

A councillor requested of AT:

1) Detailed evidence of deaths and injuries within the last five years in the affected areas (not just totals, but specifics of each and every incident that lead to death or hospitalization within the affected areas within this period).

Apparently, this councillor was invited in to look at the data that is available for each crash.

2) Specific evidence that the proposed changes would have affected the outcomes in these incidents (not just generalized safety theories, but specifics as to how these theories would have applied in each of these incidents)

The specifics for how safer speeds affect driving culture are more broad brush than that. No-one can look at a crash and say definitively what would have happened, just what statistically was more likely to happen. Looking in detail at the crash records would also be of dubious ultimate value; the “Turning The Tide” report recently recommended we “Train police to minimise a pro-motorist bias in enforcement and crash investigations.” Until that’s done, the crash data has limited use.

Three times they have failed to supply this information. I have since complained to the Ombudsman. Why is AT being so evasive? One can only conclude its because the facts don’t support its agenda.

The councillors were given extensive information compiled by experts. New Zealand is a member of the OECD, and its International Transport Forum compiles and analyses research from all OECD countries, so it has a big pool of data. It is their guidelines that Auckland Transport is following in its safer speeds programme. Rejecting their findings amounts to Trumpian-style grandstanding.

(Credit: Average Joe Cyclist, ElectricBikeBlog.com)

Inherent in Auckland Transport’s plans is the assumption that slowing the speed limit will reduce cycle accidents. However, there appears to be abundant evidence that many cycle accidents are unrelated to speed limits. For example, in Holland, older men falling over on e-bikes while stationary are behind the rising death toll among Dutch cyclists. Cyclist deaths in Netherlands now surpass the numbers killed in cars. Please provide evidence that Auckland Transport’s policy of encouraging cycles will not result in a higher road toll as a result.

If we adopt safer speeds and develop a cycling network as the Netherlands have done, all the evidence suggests we will reduce the number of lives lost in our community. There’s still a lot more work to be done. One day our currently most egregious safety issues may be solved, and older men falling over on e-bikes when stationary will become the most important issue to tackle.

According to the government’s own studies: nationally, only about 15 per cent of fatal accidents occur above the speed limit.

Speeds that lie between a safe speed and the current speed limits, are unsafe speeds. It’s also the range where most travel occurs, so it is no wonder that’s where many fatalities are occurring.

What is the percentage of deaths caused by pedestrians who are crossing roads but not using the crossings?

In case your candidates are also searching for victim-blaming data, Auckland Transport replied “For the five year period 2013-7 there are no NZ Police records in online NZ Transport Agency CAS system of pedestrian at-fault deaths due to pedestrians not using a pedestrian crossing”.

How is AT paying for the 30 kmph consultation process?

What impact on journey times are you contemplating with this new speed limit regime?

How much money is spent annually on orange cones?

How much money is spent on leasing orange cones?

If you’re faced with the “no money for safety” miserliness, you could bring up 60 years of over-investment in roads that needs to be righted. Or that the costs of keeping pedestrians and cyclists safe from the dangers posed by vehicles is supposed to be covered by motorists, and there’s a debt to be paid because this hasn’t been done.

Engagement with NZ Police with Respect to Delays Caused by Accidents.

The best way to reduce delays from crashes is to make the whole system safer overall. Safer speeds will add a few minutes’ in travel for a far more reliable journey time meaning most people will be able to actually leave home later each day. We need quality, un-biased data to design a safer system. Putting pressure on the Police to work quickly at this time doesn’t assist that.

All candidates will talk about the change they’ll bring. The key is to discover the basis:

  • Real change to our transport system, to make it safer, healthier, and more sustainable,
  • Real change to how consultation is done, to remove bias for the status quo,

Or just:

  • “Change” that amounts to a reversion to previous norms, by cancelling the real programmes of change.

An engineer, a doctor and a councillor walk into a bar. The engineer proposes best practice solutions to real problems of safety and health. The doctor welcomes the proposals. The councillor calls the engineer an unelected idealist.

What does the voter do?

(Speculation about the identity of the councillors and candidates quoted is not the intention of this post; comments to that effect will be deleted.)

The post An engineer, a doctor and a councillor walked into a bar… appeared first on Greater Auckland.

Read Full Article

Read for later

Articles marked as Favorite are saved for later viewing.
close
  • Show original
  • .
  • Share
  • .
  • Favorite
  • .
  • Email
  • .
  • Add Tags 

Separate tags by commas
To access this feature, please upgrade your account.
Start your free month
Free Preview