I’ll be up front about my past voting in general elections. In 2000 I turned 18, so I’ve voted in three different elections. In 2002 and 2005 I voted for Labour, while in 2008 I voted for the Green Party. Probably the most significant factor in my change of heart was the respective transport policies of the Greens and Labour. While I still definitely support the general centre-left political ideology of Labour, I was frustrated that it took them so long in government to actually do anything about improving public transport. It wasn’t until last year that they got around to passing legislation for the regional fuel tax to fund the electrification of Auckland’s rail network (they never actually felt generous enough to fund it from general taxation), to sorting out the management of public transport through the PTMA and buying back the rail network.
Throughout Labour’s time in government we see the following type of exchange when the Green Party questioned them on projects such as the electrification of Auckland’s rail system:
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: Is he satisfied with the Auckland Regional Transport Authority’s business case for the electrification of the Auckland passenger rail system; if not, why not?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) : A case has been put forward that sets out plans and justifications for electrification. There are still a significant number of issues surrounding that—in particular, the issue of funding.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Why does Land Transport New Zealand require the use of the Treasury discount rate of 10 percent to evaluate major passenger transport investment, while countries like the UK, the USA, Canada, and Australia use 3 to 6 percent, thus valuing future benefits more highly; and does he agree that the 5 percent discount rate used in the New Zealand Energy Strategy draft for energy-efficiency investments is also appropriate for rail electrification, which both increases energy efficiency and uses renewable energy?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: To some extent, discount rates are arbitrary, whichever ones are used. I would have thought a discount rate of 3 percent would be exceptionally low if it applied to almost any project, particularly given the structure of New Zealand’s interest rates, which have a bearing upon an appropriate discount rate. One could use a somewhat lower discount rate, but it would not make as big a difference to total cost-benefit ratios as the member might think.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does he agree that if we are attempting to move to a quality public transport system that is used by not just low-income people, it is appropriate to value the time saved by commuters who choose trains at the same rate as we value the time saved by car drivers commuting, in evaluating the benefits of public transport investments?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Again, one could argue a great deal around that. I notice that the valuation of both is at a very low level, given what wages are. But, of course, one of the essential differences is that if one is driving a car, one cannot be doing anything else; if one is in a train, one can. Therefore, the value of time lost when in a car is more than that lost when on a train.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does he agree that the economics of rail change if rail rolling stock is regarded as having a life of 40 years—which it does, in fact, have—rather than the 25 years that the Land Transport manual directs?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If rail rolling stock is to last 40 years, usually a great deal of work has to be done to it in the interim; often, there are two or three rebuilds during that period of time. The point I am trying to make is that one can fiddle the figures as much as one likes to produce the answer one wants, but I do not think that is the best way of making rational decisions around these sorts of issues.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Why is he happy to fully fund State Highway 20 when the benefit-cost ratio is 1.2 and falling with the increase in construction costs, but not at this stage to even partially fund the Auckland rail electrification, with a benefit-cost ratio of between 1.5 and 2.34, if we use even a conservative discount rate of 7 percent, an assumed life of 40 years, and the same value for travel time saved; and when will he make a decision to electrify now?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Well, I am never going to make a decision to electrify now—I am quite sure of that. It would be a sheer physical impossibility to engage in that. I think the member needs to consider that we have to work through this process carefully, and one of the key issues in any such decision is who pays what. She might find that if her local motorists in the Coromandel are paying the full cost of Auckland’s electrification, it might not be wildly popular.
An interesting question to ask now would be: “has Labour changed?” As much as I berate the National government, and Steven Joyce in particular, at least he has said he’ll commit government funds to electrification. I am still awaiting to see him carry through that promise, but that’s irrelevant to the point. If Labour hadn’t farted around back in March 2007, when the above discussion took place, it’s highly likely we’d be halfway towards having electrification complete by now, and we’d probably have it up and running by the time of the Rugby World Cup.
There are signs that Labous is waking up the need for a more sustainable transport system. A good post on their blog, Red Alert, asks “Why do the Nats hate rail?” I’ve certainly been pretty busy in the comments section there, both hassling National’s transport policies but also voicing my disappointment at Labour’s past transport policies, and their need to support more balanced and sustainable transportation policies. Labour still support spending a huge amount of money on the Waterview Connection, and I just wish Darren Hughes would critique transport policy more – the only thing I’ve heard from him on the matter seems to be him pushing for Transmission Gully. An insanely expensive motorway with a cost-benefit ratio of 0.3-0.5. He needs to do better in my opinion.
For example, Labour should be asking when we’re going to find out how Auckland’s electric trains will be funded. They should be asking why it will take so long to implement integrated ticketing in Auckland. They should be criticising the embarrassing lack of analysis Steven Joyce did when coming up with his roads of National (big N) significance and so forth.
Which way are they going to go?
Processing...
It’ll be great if Labour gets into PT big time… That would mean in 6 or 9 years when we next have a centre-left Labour-Greens government we’d get some real movement from day dot…
That’s my goal Jezza. I haven’t been impressed by Darren Hughes on this matter though – the only transport matter he seems to have mentioned is the need to build the Transmission Gully motorway. Oh, and to spend $2.5 billion on the Waterview Connection tunnel. Not that promising.
I too share your concerns about Darren being transport spokesman, seems to have too much of a vested interest.
There certainly was a change in the last term of the Labour Government when Michael Cullen finally seemed to come on board to paying for the large improvements in Auckland passenger rail. Before that he was not convinced that passenger rail had an important part to play and seemed obsessed that buses were the only way to go. I seem to remember there was some talk about having a busway from Tamaki to the city and Michael was interested in that.
Also the people I know in Labour at the grassroots and the backbench MP’s are all very passionate about passenger and freight rail,so there is good hope for the future.
Yes I think that Cullen did finally come around to the idea that public transport was more than just a drain on funds. Last year’s spiking oil prices was critical in that change of attitude I think.
I will give Darren Hughes a bit more of a chance to raise public transport issues before I pass final judgement. But let’s just say I haven’t been particularly impressed so far.
I have to say the problem with convincing labour to get into PT heavily is that it will be inquiry after inquiry before any results are had. It would be more beneficial to convince a National Led campain as it would then be done much quickier. However convincing National might be near to impossible. My problem is a tend to agree with National Policies apart from Public Transport, where I wish they gave priority over roading. Even some priority would be good. To me it looks like a loose loose situation.
I think Labour are proverbially sitting on the fence on this issue – with the party’s younger MPs quite pro-PT for reasons related to peak oil and climate change. However, there is still the situation where they reckon there are votes to be won by building big road projects – and can’t help themselves.
Yesterday’s Question for Oral Answer by Carmel Sepuloni is a classic example: http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/b/7/c/49HansQ_20090806_00000012-12-Roading-Roads-of-National-Significance.htm
Seeing the primary question I was hopeful that Labour might attack the concept of “roads for National significance” or ask why there aren’t public transport projects of national significance. But no, in the end it was simply a “why don’t you do one here too!”
Labour always talk wonderfully in opposition. Especially the younger and newer MPs. And then they get into power, throw away the evidence and decide that it’s their role to be “pragmatic”.
Unless you see it as actual written policy, confirmed in writing as a commitment, AND backed by firm public statement from the leader of Labour, I’d take their talk as aspirational rather than concrete.
Fair points George. However, I’m sure you’d agree that Labour are more likely than National to be pro public transport.
Indeed, they are better. They’re also more likely to move towards a sane policy – but for this reason they need more criticism, not less. They tend to pat themselves on the back and talk about how sustainable and green and pro PT they are, If they’re congratulated (which I’m not suggesting you’re doing), this tendency becomes even worse. Labour often want to be everything to everyone, and are afraid of offending certain groups. This often means they walk over their allies, who tend to put up less criticism, or at least don’t have the same clout or media space. There are also some complete neanderthals in their cabinet, who argue for all the wrong decisions – the other MPs need to feel empowered make the right decisions and confront their colleagues.