Stu has recently been raising the issue that traffic levels have been flat and even decreasing over a number of years and yesterday the Greens spokesperson, Julie Anne Genter raised the issue during question time in parliament. Here is the video of the exchange:
You can get a transcript of it here
What this really confirms (as if we didn’t know it already) is that the government is really running with a build it and hope strategy which to me definitely isn’t what we should be doing when the costs are in the billions.\
Update
Here are some more videos on the topic from today, the first one is from TVNZ this morning (click on the picture)
And the second one is from Question time in parliament today where the topic was raised again
Transcript here
Processing...
He didn’t give a straight answer to any of the questions.
It is not reassuring. They fully plan to piss huge money up the wall. They don’t give a stuff that it isn’t in the economic best interest of the country. They’re not prepared to listen to any reason.
It isn’t governance. It’s mismanagement.
And the 500% increase in cost of oil imports over the last 15 years is staggering. That is the reason the country is now broke.
2 and a half more years of this pig-headed arrogance. Waduh!!!
Whatever happened to backing up statements with statistics, at the very least from the ministries involved?
I like a woodwork teacher telling a transport planner she’s not an expert.
Fill me with confidence. No, it’s not confidence, it’s something else
His smugness is disgusting!
So a government comes in with a “programme”. O thank god for that! “Working backwards” — ironic. RoNS will have a significant economic impact on NZ — a negative one!
Thank god for MP’s like Julie Anne Genter!!!!!!!
National — “working backwards”!
The 5c/litre increase in fuel due tomorrow will do nothing to reverse the trend downwards. Co-indices nicely with the announcement of the final route for Puhoi to Warkworth motorway, also due tomorrow.
Sorry, should have read ” will do nothing to reverse the downward trend.”
Questions for the woodwork teacher need to be shorter, with the questiion at the end: NZ is borrowing $250M/week. What justification is there for building RONS with low BCR’s?
A better question:
“With two thirds of NZs population growth in the next decade expected to occur in the Auckland region, what justification is there for spending anything less than 2/3rds of current and future transport funding on transport projects within the Auckland region – particularly when Auckland is still in catch up mode from decades of under-funding?”
You are kidding yourself if you think parliament is for serious debate on serious issues. It hasn’t been for decades, regardless of which party is in government.
The real war is won in the media. Labour failed dismally last time round. Julie-Anne sounds more promising.
The questions asked of him on Breakfast were quite good I thought and he tried to make out that what he said in parliament shouldn’t be used.
They don’t report question time properly, but it has an effect. The more transport issues are debated in parliament, the more they’re on the radar of journos. They wouldn’t have put her on television without the other work.
We can win this 🙂
It doesn’t hurt that she’s attractive, either, and that’s a good contrast with Brownlee’s less-than-slender frame. Voters are frequently shallow, and an attractive, articulate woman up against a morbidly obese man who’s not giving straight answers plays well in the media.
The CBD rail tunnel and Puhoi to Wellsford have about the same BCR when measured using the same methods. I think you can be consistent and in favour of both… I am. I think you can be consistent and opposed to both. But I don’t see you can be consistent and in favour of evidence-based policy and support the tunnel but not the road. So presumably Genter is opposed to the tunnel and the Green policy in favour of the tunnel?
Cost-benefit ratios aren’t really meant to be used for comparing which of different types of projects should happen, but rather to compare different projects of the same time. In effect, they are useful for going “should we spend this $100m on this state highway project or that state highway project”, rather than going “should we fund this rail project or that state highway project?”
The way BCRs are calculated differs quite a lot for the different projects, and is full of massive flaws like assuming the bus capacity of Auckland’s CBD is unconstrained – which it clearly isn’t.
What we really need to see is a robust review of Puhoi-Wellsford’s business case, like has happened with the CRL business case (and I presume continues to happen).
Are you really sure you know what the Puhoi-Wellsford BCR is? SAHA had a BCR of 0.4. And the costs in the business case statement are basically wrong.
uh, no. For Puford to have the same BCR as the CRL, the latter is measured using NZTA’s BCR rules and the former is measured with WEBs; indeed, the only way to get Puford’s BCR above 1.0 is to include WEBs. With WEBs, the BCR for the CRL is north of 2.0.
Go Julie Anne! Keep National under the pump.
Nice exchange but I still don’t see the point of these “questions”.
A MP ask something to the minister who doesn’t really answer, laughs at the questions (and so does the Speaker!) and after that we’re in exactly the same place!
These are honest questions from someone who hasn’t lived here long enough to understand the “tricks” of the political system … What would be the mechanism to have a real debate where the evidence that the Minister supposedly has seen is challenged?
Has there EVER been a change in opinion in a minister as a result of a question in parliament?
What frustrate me (and it also did frustrate me when the Minister for the Environment was questioned on the air quality related additional deaths) is that perfectly valid and pertinent questions are non-answered in 2 minutes whereas I’d like to see reports documenting the question-answer in depth which should provide the evidence for the public to have a stronger opinion and for the people making decisions actually justifying them.
My gosh, I just watched the Breakfast video and it was truly painful.
Gerry, Gerry, Gerry. Please stop obfuscating and just front up and accept the fact that a) Steven Joyce announced the RoNs before any business case had been developed and b) even though evidence show many of the RoNS are lemons your government is carrying on regardless. Subsequently “disowning” comments that you yourself made in parliament just the day before is disingenuous. You’re effectively saying “I said that but I didn’t mean it”. Well what did you mean Gerry? Does this mean that you lied in response to Julie’s question and thereby deliberately mislead the house? Or what are you saying exactly? Please explain.
It’s your political prerogative to fund things without any evidence; but it’s your political responsibility to provide honest answers to questions in parliament; that’s New Zealand’s only democratic “check” on the power of the executive. Your government is sounding all the more autocratic by the day …
Stu: I might be cynical, but I believe that a lot of the real evidence is not just inconvenient to the National party, but also irrelevant. A lot of their actions is in direct opposition to the evidence. Most of those actions seem to be aimed at financially benefitting their friends and cohorts. What is best for the whole country doesn’t matter, as long as the cream at the top is building up their empires.
“You’re effectively saying “I said that but I didn’t mean it”.”
I don’t see how you read that in Brownlee’s reply. All he said was that question time is always involves a bit more theatre than a less-political forum. You only need to watch question time to realise that is true. On both sides.
“It’s your political prerogative to fund things without any evidence”
I’m loving all this evidence based policy. So here’s a question for the Greens. Despite all the evidence that cell phone towers and HV electric lines are harmless, the Greens have a superstition-based policy to ban them. Specifically, they won’t build new HV electric lines within 200m of homes. What impact does that have on the future electrification of Auckland railways? Do we have to finish the project under a National government, because a Labour/Greens/NZ First coalition won’t do it without cutting a 400m home-free corridor across Auckland? If a future Labour/Greens/NZ First coalition decides to convert the northern busway to rail, then will it have to be diesel rail? And why does Genter not fight for the Greens to have an evidence based policy on electrical fields?
The cell tower evidence is mixed. But HV electricity pylons do have unequivocal evidence of leukaemias for those living within a certain distance. And a 220Kv line carres way more current than the overhead wires for urban rail.
Obi it looks like you’re engaging in pointless Greens bashing.
My understanding is that Auckland’s voltage is 25k, which is towards the upper end of the medium voltage power cable range, with the lines themselves being significantly lower to the ground. And it turns out that the Green policy is for a 300m clearance. So you’re saying that 25k volts is safe right beside homes, but 33k volts (which would be covered by the Green policy) needs 300m clearance? That doesn’t make any sense.
I’m making a point about evidence based policy. You can’t make evidence free policy on one hand and then pretend to demand evidence based policy on the other. The other parties are happy to acknowledge the political aspects of government decisions, as Brownlee does when he replies essentially that “NZers like driving their cars and the road building policy is popular”. The Greens are the only ones making the evidence based policy claim.
“You can’t make evidence free policy on one hand and then pretend to demand evidence based policy on the other.” You shouldn’t read the BlueGreens manifesto then Obi-wan. Your mind would explode from all the doublespeak.
Look I’m not an expert in RF and dangerous levels thereof and I haven’t read the specific Green policy thereon to offer an opinion, other than for the really high-powered lines are carcinogenic (at least to my read it in New Scientist 15 years ago memory) And no doubt incurring the wrath of Peter, the bug-eyed avatar, I too wish all parties (including the Greens) would make evidence based policy e.g. around wood burners. There’d be an instant ban due to the toxicity of woodsmoke.
I think on closer inspection you’ll find the policies of the Greens are closer to evidence-based policy than the others. For historical reasons they may be beholden to some of their supporters passions (such as on GM crops), but at least they’re not beholden to their corporate donors. Sky City uhhum. British American tobacco ahem.
“but at least they’re not beholden to their corporate donors. Sky City uhhum.”
You’ll be talking about the $15k donation to Len Brown’s mayoral campaign. Which doesn’t worry me, although you can go ahead and bag him if you like.
Actually I think all corporate donations (and large private donations) are a travesty subverting the democratic process. Have a listen to this week’s This American Life to see it at its most malignant. Or see the problem Australia is having with its mining billionaires buying up ad space and changing the course of the national debate.
Plus yeah thankyou for the opportunity. I will bag him – the man’s an idiot and a sycophantic bore. I dunno much about him really and that was just my impression of his first speech in parliament this time round. Len Brown was a John Key arse-kisser and he made sure that everyone knew that he was in National’s pocket, and had nothing to do with Act. When it comes to voting in the public’s best interest on gambling policy he can only be seen as terribly compromised. He should be sacked from parliament if the allegations are true of his non-disclosure of the donation. It is corrupt.
Obi – nice straw man there. I’m not arguing for Green Party policy; I’m arguing against National government spending on RoNs. Please don’t shift the debate in that way. Gerry did act like an uninformed dork and that was plain for everyone to see.
These questions in Parliament are great, in that the debate will start to spill over into the wider media, as seen on Breakfast.
However I do think that any questions to the Minister need to be quite pointed and direct, requiring the most specific answer possible – else Brownlee will continue to use his answers as an opportunity to both obfusticate, patronise, and talk up the Govt’s RoNS programme as a fait accompli. He can’t be given room to wax lyrical – the questions need to be framed so they require almost a yes/no answer, or to reveal a specific fact/document in the Govt’s policy making. Or lack of said fact/document.
Exactly, although he still managed to weasle out of presenting “evidence” as pointedly asked. Instead he presented his “belief”, and Genter let him off.
So someone with a masters degree in town planning who has worked as a transport consultant for a number of years is “not an authority” but a former woodwork teacher is? Says it all about this government really.
It’s actually quite an art writing and asking good Oral Questions. First, if you make the question too closed the Minister just gives you a one word answer, which is typically not much use. Second, if you get too detailed and specific then the press gallery won’t understand what you are asking about and the question won’t get media coverage. I think Julie did exceptionally well for what was (I believe) her first oral question ever. This is probably because she was a Parliamentary staffer briefly before she became an MP (I know people hate it when staffers become MPs but there’s no denying it gives you an advantage in terms of knowing how the system works).
Julie Anne Genter is having a field day with Gerry today:
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/5/0/4/50HansQ_20120405_00000006-6-Transport-Funding-Value-for-Money.htm
Nice to see Brownlee making my point from yesterday that the CBD tunnel also has a negative BCR:
“I do not think the member should get too hung up on the benefit-cost analysis on projects. Clearly, she does not, because the Green Party keeps pushing the Auckland central business district rail loop, which, of course, has an appalling benefit-cost ratio, but it does not stop the Green Party members saying it is a great thing.”
It’s too obvious a contradiction to go unremarked. If I were the Greens I would have had a response planned. Instead, all Genter did was try to raise a point of order that Brownlee shouldn’t try to point out the contradiction in her argument. A point of order that the Speaker slapped down.
Phil Twyford asked the Minister of Finance later if he agreed with Brownlee, so the point was made. Small victories.
No, it does not have a negative BCR. It may have a BCR less than one, depending in your point of view.
The lowest BCR I have seen for the CRL is, from memory, 1.1. Where’s your evidence of a BCR < 1?
For CRL v Puhoi to Wellsford comparisons, I remember this post as doing a pretty comprehensive analysis of the matter: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2011/11/14/comparing-the-city-rail-link-with-puhoi-wellsford/
Obi one of the many points on this issue I’m sure you can’t have failed to notice is that all the RoNS BCRs assume constantly rising traffic volumes, the Puford math has it at 4% p/a. These are clearly unrealistic. In contrast all PT and rail in particular is consistently booming, although the MoT refuses to see this. Therefore the RoNS BCR are inflated and the CRL one by MoT is clearly conservative.
There has been pretty much constant growth in road traffic for the last 100 years, up until about half a dozen years ago. You either need to believe that this recent traffic downturn is a new trend that just happens to have coincided with the worst global economic circumstances since the 1930s. Or that the traffic downturn is directly related to the economic circumstances and will resume its long term growth once the economy recovers. I’m in the later camp. I know you’re in the first. I don’t think 4% growth for that particular road is unreasonable given its proximity to fast growing Auckland and location in faster growing Rodney.
I know that the tunnel business case assumed huge increases in employment in the CBD that were based on no other analysis than “Auckland Council told us that this would happen”. Anyone concerned with evidence based transport policy would be questioning these dubious planning assumptions, rather than ignoring them in order to support a project with a low BCR.
For the last 14 years people have been driving less. The growth in traffic volumes is, in other words, occurring at a rate less than the growth in population, and that’s a period of time well divorced from any suggestion that it’s related to the state of the economy.
NZTA cannot tell us, even as an estimate, how many people (not vehicles) use the Puford route on an ordinary day. They do not appear to have recent traffic counts for the route. Why should be believe that traffic volumes on the road will grow at anything like the rate required to justify such an expensive project? The project is not essential, it’s just a monument to Steven Joyce and a convenience for a handful of holiday weekends a year. When was the last non-holiday period where there was severe congestion on the route that wasn’t related to a serious car crash? Car crashes that will continue to happen for a decade or more, because National and NZTA aren’t interested in a cost-efficient, effective solution: Project Lifesaver.
Just imagine the spend if the use of a newly built road corridor had increased 400% in 4yrs (NEX), or an upgraded road corridor had reached capacity 5yrs in advance (Britomart)….
We have a 10yr plan for motoways in Auckland based on 1.5 decades of stagnant growth in vehicle trips, yet no plan for any new additions to the PT network post-2014, given dramatic rises in 1/3rd of that time….
Not sure how much of this will filter through to the general public but this is great. She has Brownlee on toast he looks woefully out of his depth on the subject. Finally someone who knows there stuff is actually using facts to challenge the government on this policy Labour need to pile on hear and squeeze him further.
Julie-Anne needs to continue squeezing Brownlee (policy), Labour focusing on English (cost/spending)
Divide and conquer.
Cam here: http://inthehouse.co.nz/node/12397
Tywford has opened up another front; having a go at English, trying I guess to get Treasury to take notice of the crap math going on at the MoT and NZTA. Fat chance under this government but good to see both Lab and Greens using the material on this site!
Speaker Smith is particularly smug and annoying in this, and English just doesn’t answer.
Have to keep plugging away, both of the people I dealt with at TV3 and TVNZ are younger women and personally get the issues around transport and trying to find somewhere to live in Auckland which is a huge change to just being dismissed by SUV driving, suburb dwelling, old men full of certainty and entitlement.