This week we have have seen Green MP Julie Anne Genter attacking Gerry Brownlee on transport spending, that attack continued again yesterday in parliament.
You can read a transcript here
Gerry’s answers seem to be getting worse and worse. Now he seems to be saying that the party that sold itself as having sensible solutions to solve the economy shouldn’t get hung up on how well a project stacks up economically. He also seems to be saying that it isn’t them that chose the RoNs but that it came from the regions. That is interesting for a few reasons,
- It indicates that the government didn’t do anything to check the wish list of the regions was a good idea
- The Auckland council has now repeatedly named the CRL as their top transport project but the government ignores it (Gerry even claims that the CRL has an appalling BCR, I guess he only read the deeply flawed hatchet job the MOT did)
- Everything else that the government is doing seems to be about taking power away from the regions and centralising it so this would go against that.
And Labours transport spokeperson has got in on the act focusing his efforts on Bill English
You can read a transcript here
There is certainly a lot of attention on this topic at the moment and rightly so with how much is pkanned to be spent on these roads.
Processing...
A sustained continued attack from the opposition and a sustained attack or lobbying from within The National Party membership wing will be needed.
Believe me the Neo Liberals are not happy with: “Everything else that the government is doing seems to be about taking power away from the regions and centralising it so this would go against that.” as they believe the absolute opposite with decentralising to the regions. Also the CRL has a high BCR – true Neo Libs will also support on the “Free Market” approach as well if market demand for such a project is higher than roads.
Look despite what some here thing, there are Centre Right people out there that would take up some of the causes here like the CRL. As Matt L said even Cllr Cameron Brewer supports the CRL (its Dick Quax who doesnt and I called him out yesterday over Manukau Station) providing we do not bankrupt the city with debt. I am not willing to see 25% of our Rates Bill go to paying $521m worth of interest on debt Auckland racked up by 2021.
As for Julie Anne-Genter – keep it up 😀
One thing to point out is that not everyone on this site, including the authors, sit on the left of the political spectrum. Transport really shouldn’t be a political issue like it but how do we change that?
That is what I am also trying to point out as well Matt although probably in a “roundabout way-in reverse” manner. The catch is perception and the perception I was given when I was referred here last year. However that perception for me has changed for the good 😀
How do we change it Matt? We unite, we debate vigorously and constructively, we act mature and all of us lead by example both “left and right.”
I already see that happening here at this blog which is 😀
It is going to take time but it will happen – watch 2013 Matt very carefully 😉
I think that’s why Julie-Anne Genter is putting so much emphasis on the poor cost-effectiveness of the state highway spend. National really should be concerned about the poor value for money being achieved by this spend, it’s just bizarre they’re not. It goes against pretty much every right-wing principle that exists.
To add to that, it seems that the government’s transport policy is based on the following:
1) Spend up large and hope for economic returns even though all detailed evidence points to the contrary.
2) Centralise decision making power into the hands of fewer and fewer politicians, away from local input.
3) Subject the spending to very little analysis and oversight, and don’t reassess the quality of the spend despite growing evidence that it doesn’t make sense.
Tax, spend, centralise control, not care about quality of spend. Hardly right-wing principles one would think.
Muldoon is back from the Grave in the carnation of Steven Joyce
Then again even all this in Modern Day National would disgust Muldoon.
And as I said, the Neo Libs are disgusted…
This energy needs to be continued – even people from within National will begin cracking. This blog has sustained a lot of it. Goodwork to the guys here e.g. Matt L, Stu, Peter, Patrick R and Nick R (missed anyone?).
This blog is a public vehicle of change 🙂
Dont worry the people in National are both cracking and cracking the whip (against the current government’s dodgy transport agenda) 😀
What I think is odd is that Gerry Brownlee is saying the RONS were regional priorities. But I’ve NEVER seen an Auckland planning document that selected Puhoi to Wellsford as a top priority. Not before or after the motorway was announced. Have you?
Good point Amy, that’s what immediately came to my mind. Furthermore, Kapiti Coast District Council spent years putting together a new arterial road to ease congestion on SH1 – yet this government completely ignored that work and ploughed ahead with their preferred motorway option.
Saying the RoNS were promoted by the regions is a plain lie.
Yes I meant to add that to the list in the post. it was never a regional priority until it was forced upon us.
I think the attack on cost-benefit ratios and stagnant vehicle trips can only go on so long. The govt always has an answer for it that much of the (ill-informed) public will agree on:
– so you want us to stop investing in roads? Ridiculous.
– if BCRs are so important, why are you pushing a rail “loop” with a poor one? Hypocritical
Eventually, the discussion has to move to ballooning PT numbers and the fact there is no plan post 2014, and Britomart is creaking at the seams and a victim of its own success.
Well actually, the question should be that if BCRs don’t seem to have such a big weight, why not extend that logic to modes of transport beyond those with rubber tyres and on to ones such as rail?
Change is slow it seems… it would be good to see B-line frequencies extended to weekends and evenings like the Brisbane BUZ system has. When people see lots of patronage, it adds more to the cause. Soon everyone wants a BUZ to their suburb…
“the question should be that if BCRs don’t seem to have such a big weight, why not extend that logic to modes of transport beyond those with rubber tyres and on to ones such as rail”
I agree totally, but you get into a circular argument with those who are anti-PT – “Both have bad BCRs, so how to choose? More people drive cars. A “tick” for the road option”.
I think eventually we should be championing what PT has done for congestion (and the NEX is a great example – more people than ever, less vehicles) and highlighting that in 2014, that’s all coming to an end….
Have a look at this post http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/04/05/the-redesigned-bus-network/
Looks like in a few years we will a pretty extensive network of high frequency services that run most of the day, every day.
Hello NZ counterparts,
What is the difference between MOT and NZTA?
Thank you!
Does anyone know what the BCR for the Northern Busway (NZ) is? Cost benefit analysis can be done before, during or after a project is completed, and compared to the initial BCR. Is it different?
The South East Busway in Brisbane had a terrible BCR of just 0.35, but it made no sense because it carries 7 lanes of traffic in the am peak.
Understanding Yesterday to Plan Tomorrow:
http://www.atrf.info/papers/2009/2009_Bitzios_Dennis_Grodum.pdf
It was 2.0 if I remember correctly, although that was on lower patronage figures than we actually see and I doubt it included the benefit of not having to build another harbour crossing which would make it about 15.0.
MOT = Ministry of Transport, part of government.
NZTA = Not part of governement, but answerable to it. Agency who’s job it is to build highways (and some other stuff like road safety, driver licensing and registrations… apparently).
LOL. I just re-read what I wrote.
A joking answer could be “Nothing. They both build roads”.
MOT is a policy agency across all modes of transport. NZTA is a funding and enforcement agency across land (roads, specifically) transport, deriving its existence and powers from the Land Transport Management Act 2003.
So MOT doesn’t actually build roads. What it does do is evaluate multi-modal transport options.
Farcical, if only the goverment could be made accountable. What’s annoying in question time is that you can give an answer that’s a childish cheapshot and its perfectly acceptable.
Not completely on topic, but is there some trick with the stats for the Northern Express bus? Only carrying 2.x million per year, it can’t be having a huge effect. That’s a single high patronage route in Sydney or Brisbane. Perhaps other routes on the northern busway go into a different bucket?
My understanding is that it only represents the NEX buses, not all of the other north shore buses that also use the busway.
I’ve heard that NEX represents about a quarter of peak time bus patronage on the busway. Off-peak it’s obviously more as (stupidly) not many off-peak routes use the busway.