I can’t say that I’ve been particularly generous in my opinion of Steven Joyce over the last 10 or so months since he became the Minister of Transport. But perhaps I was starting to feel a bit less grumpy about what has happened to transport matters – as a lot of the mess he created in March has subsequently been cleaned up. As long as he confirms funding for electrification in the next week or so (not via a PPP please) and the NZTA confirm that they will provide the necessary subsidy for the integrated ticketing project, we will basically be back where we were a year ago – with the added bonus (I suppose) of not having to be lumped with a 9.5c a litre regional fuel tax (just a 6c a litre national one for more roads, sigh, but anyway).
There is still, of course, the GPS problem. But perhaps the current increase in public transport patronage and lower levels of car use might result in public transport expenditure being at the maximum of the ‘band’ that the GPS outlines. Maybe Joyce will start to realise that Aucklanders want more and better public transport – and are voting with their feet.
However, an interesting blog post by Auckland Regional Councillor Joel Cayford indicates that such a change in thinking is unlikely. As will become obvious, unfortunately it seems like our transport minister lives on another planet when it comes to his thinking into transport matters. Joyce visited the Regional Transport Committee on Friday to talk to them for an hour – half the time outlining his transport priorities and half the time answering questions. I do kinda wish I could have been there, but thankfully Joel Cayford gives a very good recollection of what went on:
I noted a few points as he addressed us. These don’t encapsulate what he said. They probably say more about me – than they say about him. But anyway:
1) He said that Auckland spent $1.6 billion on transport last year. He didn’t say what that was on, but I imagine it will be everything: construction, maintenance, running costs, fuel …. unsure whether it will include the amount of money citizens put into buying and running their cars… A hell of a lot of money though. Confirms my concern about the % of Auckland GDP that does go into transport. It is not an end in itself – we can’t export it…
2) He stated very clearly that Govt was focussed on immediate transport projects and growth. This is not a surprise. It is part of the mantra. Part of recession-busting…
3) He spoke of the new toll road being built at Tauranga. 24 kms long. He emphasised the travel time savings it will bring. This sort of comment is a real throw back to the bad old days – everybody knows you can’t build your way out of congestion. Travel time savings are typically very short-lived. Induced demand sucks up the new capacity very quickly. The value of the long term benefits cited for new roading projects (due to travel time savings) – is almost always overstated. These benefits disappear very quickly. They rarely justify the cost of such projects. The Minister needs to show a healthy skepticism about travel time savings benefits. They are ephemeral.
4) The Minister ended with an informal set of comments about where the Government is going with Auckland Transport Planning and service delivery: he characterised the options – something like ARTA?… or a committee within Auckland Council? He indicated there seemed to be good support for an RTA (Regional Transport Authority) rather as recommended by the Royal Commission. Interestingly he suggested it would be likely to include ALL ROADS. Including local streets. It would NOT include rail or state highways though. All of the above is subject to Cabinet approval.
Well in terms of the good news, I will be happy to see a Regional Transport Authority – largely similar to that recommended by the Royal Commission – happen in Auckland. I think ARTA have done a pretty good job in the time since they were formed, and effectively retaining ARTA but giving it the extra responsibilities that the transport departments of each of the councils will result in far better transport planning integration. I think it’s worthwhile pushing for the RTA to have at least something of a say into state highways and railways – something for my future submission I think.
In terms of the bad news, it’s frustrating (but not surprising) how much emphasis is placed on time savings benefits. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – most time savings benefits will simply be to those travelling outside work hours, so therefore they will simply get more leisure time. And if providing leisure-time based time savings benefits was so important, the government should buy everyone a dish-washer. Crikey I could use one at the moment!
Nothing too horrific in what’s said above, however it is actually in the answers to the various questions posed to Steven Joyce by members of the Regional Transport Committee where we start to see the real problems:
Cllr Chris Darby of North Shore City Council asked the Minister about how transport policy and spending plans would respond to the warnings that have been given by the International Energy Agency (as reported in NZ Herald 4th August), which has highlighted the tight link between economic growth and oil price when an economy continues to depend on petrol and diesel.
The Minister dismissed the question by saying he believed that oil prices were set politically, and were variable, and that fuel users were not sensitive to price. (Comment: This answer would not be any comfort to Auckland households on a budget, reliant on a car to get to work. We know there are households which spend – now – 40% of household budget on transport. We also know that travel plummeted when crude oil prices doubled eighteen months ago….)
Ummm… what the hell? It seems like he’s denying the existence of peak oil and saying that no matter how high petrol prices get, people will keep on driving. On the first issue, he should listen to the IEA a bit more – as they know what they’re talking about. On the second issue – does he never talk to NZTA? If he did, they would tell him how traffic levels have fallen in almost direct correlation with rising fuel prices. I know he’s a multi-millionaire and doesn’t care much about the price of petrol, but the rest of the country certainly does!
Things don’t get better:
I asked a question about New Zealand Energy Efficiency & Conservation Targets (Government Policy), which this government is in support of when it comes to EECA’s Warm Homes:Clean Heat program, but does not take a consistent view of when it comes to transport. I noted the multiple objectives in the Regional Land Transport Strategy (these include: public health, gas emissions, economic efficiency…), and those in EECA’s program (which include: employment, improved health, reduced energy use)… I suggested that transport policy needed to internalise energy costs rather than just assume that energy will always be available for transport – no matter the demand.
The Minister made a number of points in answer: that short term projects were necessary, otherwise people will not be able to afford the things they want in life; that Auckland does not need anymore transport projects (after Victoria Park and SH20); he stated that roads – more than any other mode – pay for the full costs of roading; he attacked the NZEECS transport energy target that calls for a reduction by 2015 (I think) of single occupancy vehicle travel – he said he thought that was unattainable, unrealistic, and repeated a comment he has made many times before – that there are dangers in too speedy a transition to change…
I guess he doesn’t talk to Nick Smith very often about how the transport sector can reduce its CO2 emissions. In fact, I do wonder what his views of climate change are (as he denies peak oil he seems pretty ‘out there’ in comparison to mainstream scientific evidence). Interesting that he doesn’t think Auckland will need any more transport projects after SH20 and the Victoria Park Tunnel – what about electrification? What’s the plan when the rail system hits capacity in 2015? Oh, and roads don’t pay their full cost – half of local roads are paid by councils, while the hidden subsidies in the form of minimum parking requirements and so on are a huge cost to society. International evidence actually shows that the most auto-dependent cities spend more of their wealth on transport than transit-oriented cities. And regarding the final sentence, what are the dangers to a too speedy transition I wonder? I can certainly see many dangers from a transition that goes too slowly – like our city being completely screwed if/when petrol gets to $3 a litre.
This bit I find kind of funny actually:
He defended the Wellsford motorway project by talking about Whangarei and what Northland needs. He needed to be reminded that already – even in the crappy state it is – that 8% of Northland freight gets down to Auckland by rail. It is disappointing for a Minister to bang on about a $3 billion project (like Wellsford SH), without at any time indicating its relastive priority to other projects (if you have $3 billion to spend on transport – where is the best bang for those bucks). And also to not take his own advice and conduct a comprehensive benefit-cost analysis of this and other wish list projects….
So he’s really into getting value for money from transport projects – except when they’re his pet projects. Somewhat hypocritical I think.
And finally:
But the statement he made that really brought me up short was toward the end of the Q&As. I think it was in answer to a question from Kathleen Ryan who represents Environmental Sustainability on the RTC. She asked about risks because of fuel price hikes. The Minister stated: “… off the top of my head… that the credit crunch was a much bigger issue than fuel price rises…”. He appeared to believe that fuel price changes were exacerbated by the credit matter – and that it was the credit crisis that was the cause of the fuel price shock. This is completely contrary to my view of what has happened, and what the cause and effect relationship is. My understanding is that what happened was that what has underpinned global growth over the past few decades has been land development and city building – based on the availability of private transport powered by cheap fuel. In other words the wealth generation the world has seen has been built on cheap and continuous supply of fossil fuel. Suddenly that assumption was challenged, and the attractiveness and certainty associated with funding arrangements for land development – derivatives, hedge funds, loans, the whole nine yards – stopped.
My understanding of things is quite similar to Joel Cayford’s: oil prices peaked in July last year, which (along with other things) led to the credit crunch and the financial meltdown. It was the meltdown that caused oil prices to collapse. Can he really not know this? Is he just playing dumb?
This is really depressing. The guy just doesn’t have a clue.
Processing...
He’s a blinkered ideologue who will forge on with roads regardless of any evidence put in front of him. The need for value for money only applies to projects he dosn’t like and a way of justifying his stance.
The only way we will get the future investment Auckland needs is if we have a different govt. Notice how he wants the RTA to not deal with rail? That’s so he can ensure the government is in control of rail and can strangle any future plans. They have said it all along they will finish DART and then that’s it, they think any future rail investment is a waste of money.
I’ve thought for a while now that the only thing that might change his mind would be high petrol prices. If we’re honest about it, that’s what it took to change Michael Cullen’s attitude towards rail.
Joyce’s arguments sound silly to us now, but they will sound really silly to everyone when petrol’s $2.50 a litre and rising. That’s probably the main reason why I generally feel better about petrol prices going up than I used to.
The thing I can’t understand – or perhaps I understand it all too well – is that Joyce is by all account not an unintelligent person – after all he claims to have a BSc in zoology (OK, that’s no guarantee of intelligence, but it does suggest he’s been exposed to the rigours of scientific methodology). His comment about Auckland spending $1.6 billion on transport last year suggests that he’s still looking at things from the somewhat myopic perspective of a businessman – and one not in full control of his figures – rather than as a politician and administrator, ie he’s weighted his understanding to reflect public transport expenditure rather than overall transport costs. But there must come a point where even he must think ‘what are all these people on about?’; surely not even an idealogue can be so persistently blinkered? Or does he just get a thrill giving superficial and ingenuous responses to people – such as those he gave to Joel Cayford – who are obviously better qualified to deal with the issues at hand? This may well explain the smug expression he commonly wears, particularly in parliament. Moreover, he seems to be able to bulldoze decisions through cabinet with, apparently, barely a whimper of opposition from the minister for climate change, let alone anyone else; tellingly, Trevor Mallard on Red Alert notes that Key seems to rely an awful lot on Joyce. I really don’t think he’s really understood the compromising nature of politics; ultimately he seems to think his role as minister of transport is just about letting the business interests he was appointed – as a list MP – to represent have a free hand to make ‘efficiencies’ and ‘productivity gains’ and stuff the flack. Just totally depressing!
Well there is a reason I refer to him quite often as the Minister for Trucking.
@ Christopher i think that sums up his attitude perefectly. As i have said it does not matter how many arguments are put in front of him he knows what he wants to do and he’s going to do it regardless.
Jarbury you should apply for a position on the Herald as a part time columnist, then copy across this (and other blogs) so the right wing head in the sand Herald readers might get a bit of a wake up call!
I doubt Joyce would be affected by public opinion, but all the evidence points to Key being very aware.
That might be a bit of a conflict with my current job Patrick – but I do plan to write a few more letters to the editor after my last one got published on Saturday.
No, half the cost of local roads are paid for by property owners through rates which then goes to territorial authorities and unitary authorities (regional councils don’t do this). That MAY be legitimate if it were a flat property access charge, as many local roads serve little more than that, but I suspect it is too low. If local roads were put in the hands of local road companies, then property owners could be levied an access charge for driveways, which may be flat for residential properties (higher for rural), and be weighted according to traffic volumes for commercial properties (i.e. carparks or developments with carparks).
On your other points, private motoring and road transport will not be replaced by other modes, regardless of fuel, it may have a blip in demand due to price, but it wont be a fundamental change. There is no evidence to support that, it is in fact environmentalist wishful thinking.
Bear in mind Auckland rail only “hits capacity” because it is grossly underpriced. Get the users to pay the cost of that (and yes deal to the cross-subsidy of local roads, and introduce congestion charging on roads), and you wont have this problem.
The fundamental problem of all urban transport is underpricing at peak times, on roads and public transport. I find it bizarre that environmentalists want to continue this grossly inefficient and environmentally unfriendly practice of subsidising people in full time employment using motorised transport to get to work at the same time. Much road and most public transport capacity sits around under-utilised most of the time because of this underpricing, and suffers overcrowding at peak times.
Liberty, I do think you have a fair point in that transport is underpriced at peak hour (and perhaps overpriced off-peak?) Shifting to a system that deals to that issue would be quite tricky though, and I certainly wouldn’t advocate for a fast-transition away from that. There are clearly significant economic benefits of having everyone at work at the same time (you can contact them to conduct your business as everyone’s business hours match up) and perhaps those benefits outweigh the cost of having a transport system (road or rail) which requires over-building for peak hour flows.
The other problem with pricing people off the road is that those who will be priced off the road are the poor. If the poor aren’t able to get to their jobs when required that will probably just result in more unemployed people. I can’t see that as a good outcome.
So if Aucklanders are not sensitive to fuel prices as Joyce claims, levying a fuel tax of, say, nine and a half cents to pay for electric trains would be ok with him?
Good point Strider. He certainly twists the argument as he pleases to suit him.
“There are clearly significant economic benefits of having everyone at work at the same time (you can contact them to conduct your business as everyone’s business hours match up) and perhaps those benefits outweigh the cost of having a transport system (road or rail) which requires over-building for peak hour flows” Perhaps the people who gain those benefits should pay for them, not people who stay at home or work at home?
If the environment matters, why subsidise such a massive waste of resources involved in peak commuting?
It is a nonsense to say road pricing prices off the poor, it prices off those who don’t value the trip. That means tourists who shouldn’t drive then, people undertaking leisure trips. The toll lanes in Orange County demonstrated that the people who most used them were those with multiple jobs, the wealthy tended not to use them. Besides we have road pricing now, except everyone pays the same, the unemployed driving during off peak hours pay the same as the employed at peak hours. THIS is inequitable, but it is less transparent. I’d strongly argue for road pricing that redistributes what is paid on the following factors:
– Basic charge for infrastructure wear and tear (RUC currently does this reasonably well);
– Time of day variation to reflect demand;
– Location variation to reflect infrastructure costs and demand.
In other words, driving around Auckland at 5am would be very very cheap, people who work then would pay less. However 2 hours later would be a different story.
It can be done, it will do far far more for the economy, environment, sustainability of public transport, urban form, urban sprawl and congestion than ANY supply based solutions. It’s just a shame there are so many enthusiasts of the tired old solutions of build rather than manage.
Liberty, assuming that electric cars do become more popular in the future we are going to need to find an alternative to fuel taxes as a way of funding our transport system in any case. It seems likely that RUCs would step into the gap, but over time yes I agree it might make more sense to charge more at peak hour than at off-peak times. One would need to weigh up the cost to the economy of having to “over-build” the transport system with the cost (social and economic) of having a work-day that is more spread out in terms of different shifts that people do. Peak hour car pricing would certainly make obvious the benefits of public transport.
I do think that pricing the poor off the road would be an issue though – but there are possibly other ways around that.