This is another Guest Post by occasional blog commenter Peter
There was a lot of response and reaction to my blog post earlier this week, which criticised most political parties for either their transport policy or their general image. I ruffled a few feathers and had a few good debates in the comments. This was the point of the post: we’re in an election year, people who read this site obviously have a big interest in transport, the government’s transport policies are illogical and stupid, yet transport isn’t a particularly big political issue – let’s have a debate about it all!
Probably a second point to make is that I obviously will vote: as many people in the comments pointed out, it’s utterly retarded not to vote. Throughout history so many people have given their lives to defend your right to vote while politics has such a big impact on you, that it’s downright reckless not to vote. Sure, your vote might not make the world of difference – but if everyone thought that then what would be the point of this whole democracy thing? So I will obviously be voting – though I haven’t yet got around to figuring out who for quite yet.
Since my last post we have seen the delivery of the 2011 Budget. It was a pretty harsh budget, but arguably necessarily so – given the country is racking up debt at the rate of nearly $400 million a week. Kind of interesting to think that a month’s worth of borrowing is equivalent to the cost of the CBD Rail Tunnel. Reminds me of reading somewhere once that Los Angeles could build an entire massive underground metro system for the price of one month’s military engagement in Iraq. I guess nobody ever runs cost/benefit analyses on military engagements.
One area that did quite well out of the budget was transport. The website www.wheresmytaxes.co.nz has usefully put together expandable pie graphs outlining in quite a lot of detail where all our taxes get spent. Even looking at the general overview of the graph you can see that Transport is a pretty big ticket item – with over $4 billion dedicated to be spent on transport over the next year:
Well we certainly can’t complain about not enough money being invested in transport! The real question relates to how logically and sensibly that money is being spent. I tend to agree with admin and Auckland Transport – a lot of the money is being spent stupidly, leading to inevitable cutbacks where it’s really needed.
But I’m not going to spend this blog post moaning about the lack of logic in the government’s transport policies. We all know that already and rarely do we ever get a commenter defending the roads of national stupidity (RoNS). What I’m going to focus on is the question of why Labour aren’t making a bigger deal out of this? The Green Party’s transport policies in their “alternative budget” seem to have some good things (cutting back most of the really expensive and economically stupid RoNS) but also seemed a bit optimistic in terms of money saved out of the transport budget (I wonder whether more of that money should have been redirected rather than simply cut). But at least they’re saying something.
Let’s have a look at Labour’s response to the budget in terms of its wasteful spending on transport. Any media releases – nope. Any blog posts – nope. I wonder how many of Labour’s budget speeches have mentioned transport? Probably none. It’s infuriating when the government has such a gigantic weakspot on an issue that could play right into Labour’s hands (as they really do need to come up with some big ticket reasons for why the deficit has blown out and some big ticket savings to bring it under controls) they seem to simply ignore that issue. Why?
Is it because Labour still feels beholden to the trucking lobby and the AA? Certainly for a number of years Labour’s transport policy was almost as neanderthal as National’s now is – maybe it takes a long time for a tiger to changes its stripes? Do they actually support most of the same uneconomic transport projects as National? I tend to think not, but then why aren’t they saying anything?
Is it because they think the government’s transport policy is so successful and popular that they would lose support by opposing it? Well I certainly hope not, as the Super City elections in Auckland showed last year there’s growing public support at least in this city for a renewed focus on improving public transport. Projects like the CBD Rail Tunnel and Rail to the Airport in particular have a very strong level of public support. By contrast, the “holiday highway” seems to be derided on an almost daily basis – so I don’t think that excuse makes much sense either.
Perhaps they’re scared of taking Steven Joyce on? Perhaps they’re too disorganised to make a coherent argument? Perhaps they don’t think the country cares? What do you people think? Why does Labour ignore transport so badly when trying to criticise the government?
Processing...
Incompetence?
National has actually done more for rail since 2008, than Labour did in its nine years prior to 2008.
*snort*
Name me three rail projects that National initiated.
Three rail projects started and funded by National:
1. KiwiRail turn-around plan: $4.6 billion
2. Wellington rail upgrades: $88 million
3. New locomotives and TranzScenic carriages: $115 million
The commitment to KiwiRail is enormous, think about what capital projects have been approved in other portfolios and you’ll see the Government’s expenditure on rail is considerable in the current economic climate.
What a ridiculous suggestion.
Excuse me, National was only completing the projects already initiated under Labour, albeit as begrudgingly as possible. Way back in this blog are the break downs on the costs and startups of said rail projects, plus the cutbacks and slow downs the Whigs have done their best to get away with. A little research goes a long way.
Geoff, been living on the moon for a while?
Bit rich from someone living in Switzerland to say.
If Geoff had said “…in the years prior to 2006” he would be right. Labour did eventually and seemingly reluctantly invest in rail. Project Dart, the infrastructure side of electrification, Wellington’s new trains and the purchase of Kiwirail were all Labour initiatives that they funded. There were smaller things too.
This govt has put money into the Kiwirail turnaround plan, and stumped up more cash for Wellington’s network but has otherwise generally ignored rail.
And the KR investment was ridiculously grudging. Joyce’s words at the time amounted to “We’d sell this if we hadn’t pledged not to, so now I’ve got to grin and make the most of it.”
Given the overall cost of the turnaround plan $750m is very meagre, especially compared to what they’re throwing into the RODS (that’s D for Dubious).
A clue?
If you hadn’t noticed, Michael Cullen is no longer part of the Labour caucus. And he did eventually stump up for the biggest upgrade of the rail network in NZ’s history – the electrification of Auckland.
Well he stumped up for half of it.
I think it says a lot that even though I’ve been following transport issues for years now, it’s the last year of this electoral term and I had to go to Labour’s website to learn that Shane Jones is their spokesperson for transport. We only hear from Jones when he’s pontificating about Treaty issues, not about transport. David Parker as Energy spokesperson should also have something to say in the context of the fuel price hikes, but I haven’t heard anything from him either. This isn’t Parker’s first term working on transport-related issues either; he was Climate Change Minister in Labour’s third term, so clearly has some interest in these kinds of issues that goes beyond the time limits of his portfolios.
He only took over in the last couple of months, so don’t be too harsh on him. That you don’t know that he only just took over the portfolio is the more-damning indictment on Labour’s performance.
“He” being Jones, in Transport.
Couldn’t let this one go without a response- but I fear I won’t be able to cover it all via a comment section on my iPhone, so forgive me if I’m a bit brief!
I’m loathe to think that people judge a political parties level of concern on an issue via a crude measure such as how many press statements they see. Having said that, I won’t dispute the principle that we could always do and say more.
The areas where we absolutely need to keep repeating our message includes the Government’s complete over-investment in RONS at the expense of PT. The CBD rail link and holiday highway is a perfect example of that. I’m pleased that Len Brown is beginning to work on designation to make the rail link happen- but central Government seems content to wait till 50,000 cars cram into the downtown area at peak hours, our buses hit capacity and even our slightly larger electrified rail carriages hit capacity before they assist with it (or at least start believing the business case) We’ve said we’d help make the link happen, and fast.
But you’re right that there’s much more to the debate than the link. Perhaps a Labour guest post is in order?
Jacinda, thanks for the post. I’m sure Josh would welcome a post from Labour if one was offered.
Our “problem” with Labour is that you’re collectively invisible in the House. Key trots out his “More people use the road between Puhoi and Wellsford than use Auckland’s rail network” line, and Labour lets him get away with it. In March, the daily average was nearly 10,000 more people using Auckland rail than using Puhoi-Wellsford, but did we hear Labour say it? Did we hell! Every time Joyce and Key and English dismiss Auckland’s public transport needs and Labour don’t call it, we all die a little inside.
We needed you to be shredding Joyce’s every word six months ago. The ammunition has been there for you to use, but the only impression we have is of a caucus that is so thoroughly incompetent that it can’t even shoot an elephant-sized target with a tank from across the room.
Here here! I think we’re all just a bit worried that Labour underestimates how many votes there are in these issues, and we need the opposition to make known the stupidity and straight-out lies that seems to blurt out of Joyce/Key/English whenever transport investment comes up – because aside from us PT nerds, few are fully awake to the extent of the government’s over-investment in the RONS and routine lies and truth-twisting that this govt gets away with on PT issues. The ammunition is absolutely there, particularly in the wake of the budget, the transport GPS and English’s “age of austerity” and “nice to have” comments. Granted Labour has had little help from the media which continues to be infatuated with Key – why can’t we have journalists like that guy on BBC Hardtalk that owned Key’s ass!
Thanks Jacinda. I think there are three (related) issues that Labour/Greens should focus on:
1. National wasteful spending on RONs is out of step with their statements on the need for fiscal austerity. That is, given the need to save money, spending on low value roads is illogical;
2. National’s unwillingness to fund the CBD rail loop in contrast to their willingness to fund Pu-ford etc. That is, given the CBD rail loop has a higher BCR than Pu-ford, the latter should be funded; and
3. National’s arrogant disregard towards the Auckland Council’s strategic transport plans.
But despite Jacinda’s pleas, the observation that Labour has been lazy on transport issues is an accurate one. I think Labour’s reluctance to talk about transport may simply reflect their caucus – there is no one who has a consistent track record on transport related projects or industries. Truth be told the Labour caucus is dominated by lawyers, accountants, teachers, and unionists that probably do not give a fig about transport issues, compared to other things that they have on their radar. More than anything else that’s what explains Labour’s silence. Basically, there is no one there that is driven to wake up each morning by the need to improve NZ’s transport system.
On the other hand, the Green’s have a number of passionate and smart people. Not only has Gareth Hughes constantly pushed transport issues in parliament, but he has also been out on the ground campaigning on transport issues since a long time before he was in parliament. A few years ago I remember seeing Gareth dressed up in a yellow and black “Electro-man” outfit standing on train platforms around Auckland (remembering that he lives in Wellington). He was handing out flyers to increase public awareness of the need for electrification and thereby put pressure on Labour.
And beyond Gareth, there are other Green MPs with a passion for transport. Russel, for example, has questioned Bill on the RONs several times. And Kevin Hague consistently speaks out in support of cycling issues. So I think it really just comes down to passion and priorities, the Greens are passionate about a better transport system whereas Labour are not. That’s why I will be voting Green in November, because on this particular issue they are the only party making much sense (even if they have a slightly romantic attachment to extremely expensive rail lines).
For me the key issue is the use of the NLTF, and I would very much like to see a clear policy that it isn’t simply about building automatically building roads because that’s where the tax is from. All forms of taxation come from somewhere and it would be an abrogation of government’s responsibility to just spend everything in proportion to the area that the revenue came from. To me the best use of this fund is actually to help the country move away from an over reliance on road transport… Transformation then, an idea I see that the current government says it can’t find an examples of….. there you go Labour: ‘Our policy is to gain maximum value from this fund to build strength, resilience, and robustness into this vital sector of the economy, to build towards independence of fuel source as much as possible, and to transform the efficiency and choice available in the movement of people and goods throughout the country’ or similar….
Thanks for dropping by and commenting Jacinda. You’re more than welcome to send in a guest post – the invitation is extended to all MPs to show I’m not playing favourites.
A few observations here.
Geoffs comment that the present National Govt has done more for rail than the previous Labour Govt. Geoff, if you think that National represents the future for a strong and resilient public transport system then I suggest that you have rocks in your head. I’d pick that the Labour Party at present has more grasp on the needs for public transport than the National Party.
The previous Labour Government can arguably be criticised for not spending more $$ on public transport. They may argue otherwise. That debate could be for another day. Yes, perhaps in the mid 2000’s the price of petrol hadn’t reached it’s high point and a ‘balanced’ approach to transport was deemed the orthodox approach. Some for rail, some for buses and some for big road projects. That is, I will argue, the previous Labour Govts approach. Again, you can argue that it was a little short sighted in light of the probable immediate future of high oil prices and supply constraints. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but maybe that criticism is valid.
But lets fast forward a few years. Lookign back and blaming the previous Government, whilst doing very little, is simply not acceptable. If all people can do is blame the previous Labour administration without putting forward progressive alternatives then they are no good to either the debate or preparing laying in place a plan for the future. It is the here and now and the next few years that counts. As Peter describes, the Roads of National Stupidity is simply a myopic use of money in the face of an oil constrained future. It is about as myopic as the suggestion from Bill English to sell state assets to pay for the large 2010 tax cut deficit. It may be a plan of sorts but it has no future – none what so ever.
So then, the present National party thinking provides us with few or no future oriented plans. It’s back to the past with Joyce et al. It is correct however that the Labour Party DOES have to provide a better option, does have to present a future oriented plan. For example, a clear statement on the future of the Holiday Highway under a Labour Government and a clear statement on the rail loop under a Labour Government. If the Labour Party does want to create a clear point of difference then approaches to public transport, especially in Auckland, is a very good way.
Finally, I think well done to Peter for asking the question and getting a response from Labour. That is a good start. It is only a start however. In 6 months there will be an election. That is only 6 months to influence public opinion and influence political parties thinking. After that it’ll be too late to say “National has actually done more for rail since 2008, than Labour did in its nine years prior to 2008.” You can say what you like but the window of opportunity for change will have closed. We all have a choice, we can wait for the political parties to set their own policies or we can try and apply pressure that will set the policies for the party.
You can individually email or telephone or write to the political parties. What politicians fear most however, and what has the most impact on them, is general public debate and public disgruntlement. Having the debate on a forum like this alone won’t get the necessary shifts. It has to be taken out into the public areas. Leaflet bus stops and train stations. Raise criticism of the governments policy on public transport, challenge other political parties to come up with something better. Build the public resentment and backlash.
Likely some of you reading this will be doing so already. For the people who aren’t, too late in December. Crossing your fingers and hoping doesn’t, in my experience, change many things.
Well said Rob, totally agree. From experience I know stirring up a hornets nest politicially is the only why to get action.
Rob, I didn’t say National represents the future of rail. Merely that they have signed off on more funding for KiwiRail than Labour did. National are enabling asset replacement via the Turnaround Plan, whereas Labour was reluctant to authorize anything at all. Neither party has any decent rail policy. Only the Greens do, but they’ll never lead a government, and if they did, the following destruction of all the industries that rail serves would make it unnecessary anyway!
Labour bought KiwiRail mere months before the 2008 election. They never got a chance to commit to any kind of “turnaround” plan, because none existed before National took the reins.
You still haven’t named my three rail projects (KR’s turnaround doesn’t count) that National initiated. New lines, upgrades, new rolling stock? Anything? No, you can’t, because they haven’t initiated a single thing for rail. It’s all been carrying on things commenced under Labour.
Another problem with it only being the Greens strongly supporting public transport is that it generates a perception that the only benefits of better PT are environmental ones.
In reality a smarter transport policy makes sense economically, socially and environmentally (perhaps in that order). The need for better PT to offer choice as higher petrol prices mean low earners have to choose between feeding their car and feeding their families should be a core Labour issue.
Admin knows that I am passionate in my opposition to Mr Joyce’s Motorway madness and particularly the Holiday Highway. I have an email from Shane Jones which is little short of a rant about Joyce’s mad scheme to spend all this money on RoNS and very little on Public Transport and actually stating that Labour would look “very seriously at alternatives as a matter of urgency”. It also promises to support our campaign for the adoption of a scheme like Operation Lifesaver. What it does show, is that he has at least got a grip on what the problem is and doesn’t appear to be worried about upsetting the road transport lobby. My question is, why not show the same passion for the subject where it matters, in the house and in the press and other media?
Regrettably, I don’t think that Labour generally have enough passion to want to win. The response I have had from every other Labour politician (including Jacinda) has been a deafening silence. They could score some real points in Auckland on the PT issues and it really only needs a couple of seats, say on the N Shore to go to Labour and ACT to fail to win Epsom and we could be looking at a whole new ball game. But are they ready, capable and willing to govern?
By the way, Gareth Hughes with his support and enthusiasm has won my vote for the Greens.
Me too – my party vote is going to the Greens mainly because of:
1. Russel’s economic priorities, namely reduce income tax for low-income households, funded from a capital gains tax on property – but excluding the family home; and
2. Gareth’s dogged and effective pursuit of Joyce on transport issues, not only the RONs but also the government’s response to high oil prices.
I’m thinking about voting for Jacinda in Auckland Central. While Nikki Kaye is fairly liberal as far as National MPs go, she has not been sufficiently outspoken in speaking up for Auckland Central especially wrt to the CBD rail loop.
Geoff. That said, what about the other issues raised? The National Party as it currently stands provides no future for public transport. The Labour party has the potential to provide a better future. The challenge for us all must be to create the political climate for a better future. Either changing the governments position or changing the government. Thats not about the past, it’s about the future. As admin states below, PT has many benefits.
A few years back John Key criticised Helen Clark for doing nothing about high petrol prices. When quizzed about high petrol prices recently he admitted that the government could do little about it. So then, if he can do little about high petrol prices, what is he going to do about providing more public transport options? That is the kind of things Key needs to be pressed over and account for. Goff also needs to answer that same question. And Turia and Peters and Hone Harawira. I won’t bother with Brash as he is economically senile and has no plan for the future.
It’s really a sign of Labour’s failure to get to grips with this and generally communicate on the issue that so many people, like Geoff, think that rail initiatives that Cullen (reluctantly) signed off on are National achievements. Think about it, Joyce takes credit every opportunity he gets to show that he is ‘fair and balanced’ and, from Labour, nothing. Of course it doesn’t help that Transport’s been a revolving door with Labour since at least 1999 in ways that recall Phil Goodwin’s remark that Transport is a portfolio given to someone who’s either on the way up or on the way down, here for instance http://www2.cege.ucl.ac.uk/cts/tsu/tps01.pdf . Come on guys, take it a bit more seriously than that!
“You still haven’t named my three rail projects (KR’s turnaround doesn’t count) that National initiated. New lines, upgrades, new rolling stock? ”
Matt, Labour didn’t do any of those three things. The only good thing they did for rail was buy back the tracks. It took National to say yes to funding new locos, carriages and wagons. Labour probably would have done something, but it wouldn’t have been anymore than National. The Turnaround plan is funding 60 new locos and 3000 new wagons. That’s the single biggest investment in new rolling stock in NZ rail history.
New lines won’t happen under either Labour or National.
Also, if you look at similar sized rail networks on similar sized landmasses with similar sized populations – like Newfoundland – you’ll see that we have done extremely well rail-wise. If we were a state of the US, we wouldn’t have a railway anymore.
umm, let’s see. Labour bought back the tracks, and bought back KiwiRail. It double-tracked the Western Line, rebuilt Newmarket and New Lynn stations, got the electrification of Auckland’s rail underway (Joyce’s sole contribution was to abolish the regional fuel tax and then graciously extend a loan so that KR can buy the rolling stock on Auckland’s behalf with Auckland paying for something that won’t be owned by the region), got the Wellington metro rolling stock upgrade going (it takes years to get new electric trains, National’s just had the good fortune to be in power when the new units arrived), and generally put money into rail.
So, no, you still haven’t named anything. I don’t count the KR turnaround plan because a) only a fraction of the funding is coming from the government, b) the plan didn’t come out of Joyce’s office, and c) if Labour hadn’t forced National’s hand by buying KR National would never have done anything.
People talk about what’s important to them. Transport isn’t important to Labour.
(Well, obviously it is, at some level. But it doesn’t excite them, or strike them as something worth talking about insistently).
I wonder if part of the problem is that labour are also trying to get donations from the RTF and so don’t want to upset them. At the last election both National and Labour got donations from them and this year labour are going to need every bit of funding they can get just to stay above 30%. So while they may privately talk about cutting road spending and putting more into things like PT, the reality is they don’t want to speak out on something that might impact their funding.
Also I don’t see why National inherently couldn’t support PT improvements, getting more people around more efficiently should be supported as people who have more disposable income would then spend a higher proportion on other things so the economy would benefit more through that. The problem is that this current bunch can’t see past the cheque sitting in front of them.
I’ve never quite understood why the Road Transport Forum would have a problem with increased PT spend, especially in the major cities as more PT means less (usually single occupancy) cars on the road leading to more space for freight.
“If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail” All these guys see are roads, if there is congestion the only solution to them is to make the road bigger rather than make less people use it.
Also when you look at the RoNS, most are not in urban areas, P2W, Waikato Expressway, Tauranga Eastern Link and most of the Wellington project, you see that they are all pretty much rural projects where PT doesn’t generally exist. It may also be they would rather see money spent on roads around the country that they might be able to use rather than PT which they can’t use at all (even if it means existing roads are easier to use).
News today that Labour will scrap the Holiday Highway. http://www.labour.org.nz/news/speech-owning-our-future
Goff must’ve been reading my comments on this forum opver the past 2 days.
That is a good start. Now we await some positive news on public transport spending priorities.
Matt, the Auckland upgrades are not an investment in KiwiRail, and even electrification came only after years of Labour telling us it wasn’t worth doing. Buying back the tracks and the trains is a change of ownership. Like I said, Labour probably would have started spending had they stayed in power, but the fact remains they didn’t. It was National who instigated the Turnaround Plan, and are providing funding for it in both new money, and by allowing KR to reinvest all of its income back into the business. You may not count it, but the $4.6 billion going into the business over ten years is a National decision. It’s debatable whether or not Labour would have allowed that much reinvestment, considering how Dr Cullen used to talk about rail. Both National and Labour have been reluctant owners of KiwiRail.
I emailed Nationals then transport spokesperson in 2005 Maurice William pretending to suggest I had an anti-rail bent. He replied straight away agreeing that rail spending was a waste of money and electrification should be cancelled. Also note National did absolutely nothing for in their previous 9 years, and out of that zero investment we got Beard…..
Geoff you seem to forget about Ontrack and the hundred of millions spent of bring the network back from a state of collapse. Labour did not trust Toll one bit so did not want to put too much money into a network they did not control. They bought Kiwirail back so they could safely put money into rail without losing it, Toll were trying to make the govt pay outright for new locos so fair enough they didnt want a bar of that.
to be fair, Darren Hughes actually did a fairly good job on transport I think… He just unfortunately lost his job. What bothers me about Labour is that their transport policy, when I can get a handle on it, often seems to be a bit economically inconsistent. They are generally in favour of rail investment. But they also seldom speak out against roading investment and often support motorway projects. Which means they basically want to do both which just isn’t affordable… Although they have taken a strong stance against Puhoi to Wellsford which is good (although pretty easy to do given what a dog of a project it is) I would like to know how many of the other RoNS they are actually opposed to? Because unless they either oppose Waterview, Transmission Gulley, and the Waikato Expressway OR want to build them much more slowly (e.g., over20 years) then that doens’t leave a whole lot of money left over for anything else.
Nothing wrong with Waterview, (except the massive widening of SH16 with no proper bus priority around interchanges)it needs to be done and is more needed than the other RoNS you mention.
Waterview has a fair few benefits compared with the other projects, and it should be built some-day. However I can see no reason why it is urgent. At least wait to see how Vic Park affects congestion around the harbour bridge.
They’ve finally started to listen… I think.
“He said under Labour projects such as the Puhoi to Wellsford “holiday highway” would be put on hold indefinitely.”
Wow.
NZ Herald: “Goff plan: Scuttle holiday highway”
I’m sure that the timing of that headline coming just after your blog post was *ahem* completely coincidental.
I wouldn’t read too much influence into this discussion. The worthlessness of Puford is not news, and a lot of the announcements that Goff made over the weekend will have been a long time in coming. The launch of the campaign is the time to state that you’re scrapping some of the most-worthless programmes being promulgated by the other side.
I won’t consider us to have succeeded until we see Shane Jones and the rest of Labour’s caucus getting their mongrel on in the House instead of, as I put it to another Labour candidate of my acquaintance, “Acting like a friendly Labrador that barks a couple of times and then rolls over for a tummy-tickle.”
Matt@”I wouldn’t read too much influence into this discussion”
Absolutely. That’s just a cost-cutting measure and though that’s admirable, I would have been far more impressed if he had said he was cutting PuFord and redirecting those funds to an immediate start on the CBDRL to “help build a wider, more efficient PT network and provide residents with alternatives to congestion and sky-rocketing petrol prices” or words to that effect.
All he’s said is that he’d spend less. That’s not a vision.
Matt@ “The worthlessness of Puford is not news”
Absolutely. Goff’s announcement is just a cost-cutting measure and though that’s admirable, I would have been far more impressed if he had said he was cutting PuFord and redirecting those funds to an immediate start on the CBDRL to “help build a wider, more efficient PT network and provide residents with alternatives to congestion and sky-rocketing petrol prices” or words to that effect.
All he’s said is that he’d spend less. That’s not vision.
I would actually say it makes Goff look worse as he is just saying he will cut it without giving an explaination. He consistantly seems to oppose what National do just because they suggested it rather than for any logical reason. If he had of said “we will cut P2W as independant analysis shows that it will cost more to build than the benefit it provides” then he would look better making his point. Pehaps even better would have been to say “reports indicate that most of the benefit of P2W can be achieved by some simple things like bypassing the towns and safety upgrades, we will prioritise those which will free up money for other things”.
“Explaining is losing”. National haven’t explained diddly.
You can say that waterview isn’t a bad project. But actually it’s value depends very much on taking a traditional view point of the economic benefits of motorways, how induced traffic works, what is going to happen to the price of petrol etc etc. And if you go ahead and build it anyway (at the speed this government is proposing to) then you hoover up huge amounts of money from 2011-2015 that could be used for other things. And you have to draw a line somewhere. Puhoi to Wellsford is not a brave or decisive place to draw that line because it’s a crazy project that nobody (not even NZTA) think is a good idea. What about Transmission Gulley, the Waikato Expressway, and the other RoNS (that are not already half finished)?
If you support them all then that leaves just $1.5 billion (assuming you save $300 million for safety upgrades to SH1 and a bypass of Warkworth) that you could cut from Puhoi to Wellsford to use on sustainable transport between now and 2020. I think almost everybody on this blog would agree that is not enough to make the improvements to NZ’s passenger transport systems we need. So, I guess what I’m saying is that Labour has to either say “We want all these motorways – therefore our public transport improvements would be limited ot x, y and z.” Or they have to say “We want this motorway, but not these other 3. That gives us $8 billion left over during the next 10 years and here is what we would do with it.”
The problem I have with many PT advocates (which includes the Green Party) is they seem to have a roads and cars are evil attitude and give the impression that the only way forward is a complete halt to all road construction and to divert all the funds into PT improvements. I think some of this comes from the fact that we haven’t had balanced spending for the last 60 years so one mode is grossly over represented but the reality is the way to change that is not to do a full 180 and invest everything into PT as while it would be nice, there are a lot of other things to consider:
1. If you stopped all of those roading projects, what are you going to spend that money on? There aren’t hundreds of PT projects all designed and consented just sitting around to be constructed, a lot of work would have to go in prior to that happening.
2. Some roads are actually useful to do, I consider Waterview one of those as it creates a new link rather than just an upgrade of an existing route (BTW you can hardly call the current roads between the motorways a decent current route). Another useful road in Auckland would be a bridge between Rosebank and Te Atatu South as again it creates a new link and would help spread out traffic from places like Gt North Rd and Te Atatu.
3. A complete 180 on spending is not likely to be very popular with the majority of voters.
4. Petrol isn’t going to be used forever and most of the public except that, I feel that those that campaign for PT improvement mainly on that issue helps paint all PT advocates as environmental hippies which makes it harder to get good messages across, the real benefit to PT is the added mobility it allows along with reliable trip times (if done right).
For the record, if I was in charge, I would leave Waterview, scale back P2W and break the other RoNS up into smaller projects only building the ones that make strong economic sense, which would probably mean focusing on things like bypassing some of the smaller towns in the Waikato, some of the Wellington projects (but not Transmission Gulley). My guess is you could easily free up about $3b-$4b which would make a good start on things like the CBD tunnel and a number of other PT projects. At the end of the day we probably have to be weaned off our roads focus rather than trying to go cold turkey.
Matt I agree that Waterview should be built, because it does actually offer new amenity, a completed WRR, but the associated NW work is very poor and increases auto-dependency, and should have a far greater PT component.
But I think you can understand that the extremity of the current policy means that push back needs to be forceful too. Your programme is reasonable, but how to get to it? To some extent there is an element of tactics to this, by stating an ideal position you can hope to get some middle ground reached. However we are in an age of change and what you are witnessing is the clash of world views, The Greens see a world ahead of resource scarcity and high carbon costs, so building these highways is nuts. Joyce and his ilk a determined that we are only heading for more of the same, or even a return to some even easier time, and his policies are acts of faith in this view of the future. I tend much more to the first view, the evidence supports it, so for me The Greens aren’t ‘wacky’ or extreme. Sometimes I think they overstate things, but for me the real extremists are those with the willful and ignorant opposing view. To me Joyce is so recklessly betting the firm on a disappearing resource that he can safely be called an extremely dangerous, and I believe, ultimately tragic figure. So we should save our irritation for him and his smug supporters, The Green view is gaining validation every day.
Well said.
To all of you who seem to think that Warkworth needs a bypass – I live here and we DON’T need one. What we need are some sensible changes to the Hill Street intersection, some decent light phasing that can be altered to suit the traffic flow and the Western Collector built. Once those three are in place then is the time to see if Warkworth, on a DAILY basis, suffers sufficient traffic congestion to warrant a bypass. Otherwise we are just spending money to satisfy the occasional holiday travellers and those people who made a conscious decision to trade off dollars (in terms of property price) for peace and quiet. The previous council under Penny Webster knew full well that they were encouraging ribbon development along a main arterial route – it would have been easy for them to discourage it. Quite frankly there are more deserving projects to spend the money on.
Jacinda – if you are reading this please note that, provided Labour truly means it when they say they will cancel the “holiday highway” then you have 2 extra votes from this area. I know that there are also many other people in this area that feel the same way but don’t make comments because the pro-road faction are pretty vocal.
Well said Watcher. There are a couple more votes here for Labour, even though I think the “gumboot” that National are putting up as a candidate will win Rodney constituency without too much trouble. So it’s a Labour vote and party vote for the Greens and who knows, in November we might have Gareth Hughes as Transport Minister!!!
Gareth as Transport Minister, WOW, what a fantastic idea! I’m voting tactical as well – Labour electorate vote/Green Party vote.
@ Matt L. I don’t think the Greens have ever said all roads are evil. But they do say that the RoNS are stupid, because almost all of them (with a few exceptions) are a dumb, dumb way to invest our transport funds. they have poor BCRs, they don’t generate a lot of jobs (compared to other forms of transport investment), they won’t solve our traffic problems (because of induced traffic) and many of them are in places where there are not actually serious congestion problems (e.g., the Waikato, Puhoi). The Greens don’t suggest that we stop investing in local roads or roading maintenance in their submission on the GPS because that is unrealistic. They just say that we should spending so much on big, unnecessary motorways with poor BCRs. IF we stopped building RoNS the economy wouldn’t grind to a halt… Instead we could finish off the ones we’ve already started and use the next 2-3 years to get the planning and consents in place for a series of big public transport projects such as CBD rail, the South-Eastern busway.
MattL I think it`s a bit ironic you`re dishing the Greens who have the most vision when it comes to PT and you yourself are a PT supporter. I think maybe you carry the perceptions of the party when more extreme members like Nandor and Sue Bradford were around. I think the party has worked hard to present a more articulate, intelligent, and less flakey image through the new party leadership. The last time I looked they weren`t wearing sandals, and smoking cannabis. I think it`s also very interesting the current govt has taken one of their initiatives (cleaning up waterways). I think they`ve got rid of some of the wacky bits while still retaining a real vision for the future (rather than the tried and failed visions of the two main parties). I agree that because of who they are they need to emphasise more than other parties that they aren`t about killing all roads. However the fact that this thread exists says there`s many more questions over Labour than there are over the Greens. I would even go as far to say that if Labour don`t come out of their sleepwalk and the Greens continue to be the ones to show out more as they have done in the house this term, that the dissatisfaction with Labour might be such that they actually further lose more of their party vote to the Greens as more and more people come to see the Greens as a viable alternative. As posters above said, more and more people are taking a greener view of the world, which is borne out in the increasing take up of PT in Auckland for instance (people obviously feel there are other options than using the car every day of the year) and the fact that transport was the major issue of the last local election.
I`d like to vote Labour, but at the moment they are making it so very, very hard. If they want my and other “ex-Labour” voters votes this year they need to earn them, and they just show no sign of being capable of doing so. Jacinta seems to have an active interest in PT, but like someone above said her caucus colleagues don`t seem to have much interest, especially when compared with Russell Norman and Gareth Hughes who have gone out of their way to raise it as an issue and question this govt at every possible occasion on their transport policy.
Whereas Labour has been largely missing in action. Local MPs David Shearer and Jacinta Ardern have been active but that doesn`t have as much public impact as if Phil Goff was spreading the news so to speak. And the party leadership has been publicly reticent about their transport policy so we don`t actually know if they`ll be much better than National. As Bob Scott said, rather than just saying we`re gonna cancel this, they need to be able to offer alternatives, or they need to explain the reasons why they oppose it. TVNZ political reporter Guyon Espiner criticised Phil Goff on the last point this morning on TV Ones`s Breakfast program. They just don`t seem committed. Instead they seem scared to make a stand on PT and would rather stay on the fence and have a bob each way. At least with National when it comes to transport they have a vision and policy which is out there for the public, even if if we totally disagree with it. With Labour, who knows?
Well said,
However, there is one very simple reason why in transport terms a Green vote is better then Labour.
Look at the Green list (draft) and look at there current polling (Roy Morgan).
The candidate who is on the verge of making it into goverment for the Greens is an expereinced and well respected Transport Planner, who has been helping write their transport policies and even blogs on this site.
Thanks Jonathan. I live in Akl Central. At least Labour have a decent candidate in that electorate this time (Judith Tizard was a disaster as Akl central MP so I even had to give my electorate vote to the green candidate last time) so they will probably get my electorate vote as I definitely don`t want the “waste of space” that is Nikki Kaye. However I think as per the last election, the Greens have worked the hardest to question the government`s transport policy so again my vote is heading that way. Simply put, Labour, on their performance over this term just don`t deserve my party vote. And I`m not like some people who blindly give their vote to the same party each election. No way. I`m not giving my vote away for free!
I`ve got some advice for Labour. Grow some balls and have the courage to back yourselves by making a point of difference with the govt in actively supporting PT. Oh, and start having a long term vision and some new ideas please. not the tired old claptrap that`s been tried and failed. And work on the concrete areas of govt and stay away from social policy that alienates middle NZ that marred your last term in office. Already, you are playing with social policy by deconstructing the family ministry and establishing a child one. Why? Surely you should be focusing on the family and children should be part of that. This recent release only confirms to many middle NZ voters the perception that you aren`t family friendly. That was a problem for the last Labour govt and you still don`t seem to have grasped that fact.
As for the Greens, if by some miracle Labour does get the most seats of any party in this year`s election, the Greens must have as a bottom line, substantially increased budget for PT spending, and also the Ministry of transport`s job. Those should definitely be a bottom line, otherwise they should tell Labour no deal.
Sorry, that should have read MINISTER of Transport jon
Sorry, that should have read MINISTER of Transport job.
The Rodney Times devotes the whole of their front page today to deriding Phil Goff’s statement that labour would scrap Puhoi to Wellsford. Included in this are lengthy quotes from Stephen Selwood, Chief Executive of the NZ Council for Infrastructure Development who trots out the same old rubbish about the road being the key to “unlocking the economic potential of the Northland Region” He then goes on to shoot himself in the foot by saying that the term “Holiday Highway” is inappropriate, whilst admitting that the road carries an average of 16,500 vehicles on average per day, but has dramatically higher volumes at holiday weekends.
A perfect definition of a holiday highway, I would have thought. Where do they get these people from?
Agreed, except that Nikki Kaye is the only national MP i’ve heard of that has tried to stand up to Joyce.
I beleive that is why we “now” hear nothing from her.
Would be interesting to stage an Auckland Transport debate between some MP’s, that would probably be the best way to solve all of this. Anyone got SJ’s number.
Wellington 04 817 9856 Although he won’t be there as he’s probably taken the Holiday Highway to his beach house.
“Agreed,except that Nikki Kaye is the only national MP i’ve heard of that has tried to stand up to Joyce.”
When???