My Account
Ramp it up
I wonder who is responsible for the maintenance and generally poor state of the Ōrewa northern motorway on/off ramps and roundabout – the gateway to Ōrewa? I presumed it was NZTA whom I have emailed but received no response. The whole area needs to be cleared of weeds and long grass, rebarked and planted where suitable. There then needs to be a regular maintenance plan put in place to keep it looking satisfactory. We all pay lots in road tax and I wonder why basic maintenance to keep gateway infastucture looking good cannot be done?
Keith Knill, Ōrewa
Editor’s note: You are correct, NZTA/Waka Kotahi is the agency responsible. Waka Kotahi advises that this concern has been raised with its maintenance team. They will look into the issues you have raised.
Tolling unfair
Congratulations on your coverage in Hibiscus Matters of the very limited NZTA “consultation” process regarding tolling Whangaparāoa Peninsula residents who may use the proposed Penlink Bridge. It seems the sole focus of this consultation is a convoluted, complex toll structure to be imposed on local residents. This tolling is not to fund the project but is a new and unique tax for ongoing repairs and maintenance on the road! The first such tax in NZ and on top of the Auckland Regional 11.5 cents per litre petrol tax. National road maintenance is paid by NZTA. It is patently unfair, inequitable and inappropriate that a tiny portion of the Supercity population (Whangaparāoa residents) are to be subjected to the only two traffic tolls in the whole of Auckland whilst all other transport and roading investments across Auckland are fully funded and untolled. The Northern Gateway Ōrewa/Puhoi toll is $2.30 per journey to fund the capital cost of the 26 km 4-lane state highway from Ōrewa to Warkworth – approximately half the proposed new Penlink $4 toll.The proposed Penlink toll is extremely complicated with multiple tolls and toll-points with a minor $1 discount for off-peak usage. For most peninsula residents the cost will be $6/$8 per day to pay for the 7km two-lane road’s running costs. Administratively we can expect collection costs to be similar to the Northern Gateway – around 35 percent for bureaucracy. Other Hibiscus Coast and Albany non-peninsula residents commuting through Silverdale and new housing developments will be the prime beneficiaries of the reduced congestion but will not be taxed or tolled. Even worse, the proposed Penlink construction is another “undersized Auckland Harbour Bridge of the 60s – but without the clip-ons”. The original four-lane highway has become a 2-lane road with future traffic growth to be moderated by further toll increases. Surely the smart approach would be to properly re-model existing and future regional and local future traffic patterns north of Albany? This should include motorway volumes, intersection congestion, on/off ramp design and congestion, and bus/light rail lanes. The plan should incorporate attractive, efficient, customer-centric public transport options to attract patrons. For example express buses to the CBD from the peninsular. Continuing to route all Whangaparāoa buses on convoluted routes through Silverdale and enforcing bus changes or on-site parking just adds traffic congestion and reduces the attractiveness of public transport for commuters. If tolling is the answer, the modelling should incorporate congestion tolling options for all 1.7 million Supercity residents, not just the 27,000 in Whangaparāoa.
Michael Cahill, Stanmore Bay (abridged)
Toll misleading
The invitation for residents to “have their say” on Penlink tolling is misleading, considering claims made by Waka Kotahi in the consulting invitation document are obviously biased in favour of a toll system.They have to be, if anyone cares to read this document. The document is at the very least,very misleading. Four claims are made – shorter travel times, safe and reliable journeys, fewer carbon emissions and faster freight movements. These are also benefits of no tolls on Penlink. Waka Kotahi ignore this. They also claim people will have choices about travel times. Really? Most people travelling on Penlink will not have a choice as to the times they travel. It is not a holiday highway, it’s a commuter highway. Waka Kotahi know this. We already pay a Fuel Tax,so it looks like Waka Kotahi expects residents to have to pay twice to travel to and from their work places,or customers workplaces Last,but not least, everybody already pays taxes into the general fund, part of which goes to Waka Kotahi and funds borrowed for Penlink’s construction will incur interest, which is also funded from our taxes. So,in effect, we will pay three times for Penlink. Waka Kotahi is attempting to pull the wool over residents’ eyes.
Brent Marshall, Arkles Bay (abridged)
Waters need reform
In Mark Mitchell’s Opinion piece about the proposed Three Waters Reforms (HM Jan 24) he makes several assertions that require a response. He asserts that the proposals have been developed undemocratically and without the involvement of the local councils responsible for water infrastructure. He ignores the fact that following the inquiry into the 2016 Havelock North Drinking Water health risk, the National Government established the Three Waters Review to look at how to improve the regulation and service delivery arrangements of drinking, waste and stormwater to better support our environment, health and safety. The review continued with the change of Government at the end of 2017 and continues with the Three Waters Working Group that includes nine Mayors representing a cross section of local councils. Throughout the review, transparent and open discussion with local government and stakeholders continued and acknowledged that there were serious issues that needed to be addressed if New Zealanders were to be assured of access to safe drinking water and efficient water management. The 150-plus meetings revealed that local councils do not have the capacity to invest in the water infrastructure necessary to cater for the growing needs of their communities. One only has to look at the frequent “Do not Swim Here” notices posted on Auckland beaches to see that. The meetings and subsequent research revealed that if we were to avoid continued deterioration of the infrastructure we would need to invest between $120billion and $185billion over the next 30 years to catch up on historical under investment by local government. Without reform the costs would be shared unevenly among households with rural communities disproportionately bearing the higher costs. I agree that we need to prevent privatisation of the water infrastructure and the Government has guaranteed the Three Waters proposals include legislation that cement in local authority ownership of the Three Waters entity, no provision for shareholding and a prohibition of dividends to ensure that all capital was reinvested in the infrastructure. Unless there is a realistic alternative proposal to the Three Waters Reform, we will continue to stumble from crisis to crisis as infrastructure struggles to keep up with the increasing demands on it.
Stephen Doyle, Ōrewa (abridged)
Four lanes required
I have attended many meetings about Penlink, starting when Doug Armstrong was Mayor of Rodney, then John Law etc. Unfortunately many supporters of Penlink have passed away in the meantime, because of the procrastination of the then Governments and Auckland Councils. If I recall, the cost of a 4-lane Penlink Motorway across the Weiti River was in the vicinity of $80 million originally, and now a 2-lane Penlink will cost in the vicinity of $830 million. I would suggest unless Penlink is four lanes, the whole concept should be scrapped, forthwith.
John Taylor, Manly
Cracks cause falls
On February 8 at approximately3.45pm, I had the privilege as so many other locals and neighbours did, of watching a guardian angel in action. An off-duty nurse attended to a man who had fallen off his bike during rush hour traffic in Brightside Rd, Stanmore Bay. Apparently he was cycling along the pavement on his way to Stanmore Bay School. His wheel struck one of the many pavement cracks and bumps,which sent him flying. While he lay motionless, an off-duty nurse driving by sprang into action. She managed the situation, keeping him calm and supporting him while waiting for the ambulance. She was thanked by the Paramedics but left before anyone could get her name. It would be good if Auckland Council would repair the multitude of bumps, cracks and hazards that have existed along Brightside Rd for what seems like millenia. It’s not getting any better. For example when my 91-year-old mother walks to the shops or the beach she says it is like trying to negotiate a minefield of trip hazards. Come on Council – you can prevent more accidents from happening. Isn’t that what we pay rates for?
Louise Waller, Stanmore Bay (abridged)
Parks ain’t broke
There is much to be concerned about in the Council’s draft management plan for Auckland’s 28 regional parks. Just one example is the suggestion that we give each park an additional name. So on that issue alone, I’d be grateful if Councillors and/or staff would answer a few basic questions for Hibiscus Coast ratepayers, like: what is the real objective here; is there anything wrong with the names Shakespear and Wenderholm, and why spend more of our money to achieve nothing of any benefit? As for the rest of the plan, our magnificent parks ain’t broke, so what is the Council trying to fix? What is the true objective behind overthrowing their management and maintenance?
Fiona Mackenzie, Stanmore Bay
An Auckland Council spokesperson responds: “It is important to note that it is a dual-naming programme. The names of the parks will not be changed or removed, they will have a Māori name added to reflect their history.”
Keep parks as is
Millions of visits are made to Auckland’s Regional Parks each year. Thousands volunteer in the parks. The present 28 parks form an identifiable parks system central to the recognition of the parks as an outstanding world class asset that the city and its people can be proud of and treasure. Some members of the Hauraki Gulf Forum (HGF) have proposed that 21 of the 28 parks “join” the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park. The Draft Regional Parks Management Plan (RPMP) has Item 45 Investigate formally including regional parks that contribute to the coastal area of the Gulf into the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park. The draft RPMP unequivocal commits to the purposes of the HGMP Act and to collaborating with the HGF. No justification exists for inflicting lasting damage on the Regional Parks by breaking up a recognised parks system. Proposals on strengthening the HGMP Act include one to allow the HGF to become an Authority and prevail over regional and district plans. No informed submissions to the RPMP can be made when the implications of the any changes are unknown. The Regional Park network has served Auckland magnificently for many years and should not be thoughtlessly fragmented. The recent public assurances from the Council about the effects of putting the parks into the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park are completely worthless as the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act could be changed in ways that make the Council powerless to honour those assurances.
Ralph Lyon, Red Beach
