A few days ago there was an interesting piece on Radio NZ’s “Morning Report” programme, which highlighted the funding shortfall in the transport budget over the next decade – largely arising from the proposed $10 billion spend-up on the Roads of National Significance. The shortfall, which could be up to $2.5 billion over that timeframe, may need to come out of other projects being deferred or not happening at all.
So nothing particularly new here. Greens and Labour transport spokespeople then raised some fairly legitimate concerns – is this a good use of a huge chunk of the transport budget? Are we putting all our eggs in one basket? Do the projects stack up? Brownlee’s response to this (from about 1.30 onwards) is just bizarre. He says:
I find them [Phil Twyford’s comments] most disturbing because they’re very light on factual information. But I’m not even sure I know what the Greens are on about. If people want to go back to an age where we have dirt roads and the horse and cart and we want to persist with the idea that if you take a square wheel and you run it fast enough it will get you there, then you follow their policy.
Ummmm… what?
I never thought I’d say this, but I might miss having Steven Joyce as transport minister – at least he had a brain.
Processing...
Wow. Ease up on the personal insults.
I rarely say this, but the “at least he had a brain” (or at least “he had the dignity of acknowledging his OPPONENTS have brains”) is totally appropriate here.
Whoever answers a reasonable query with a totally off-topic, and nonsenical attack on the opposition, should go to the US and run for president there.
Jesus, what on earth is that response even supposed to mean? What he trying to be funny? and this is the man in charge of deciding where billions of dollars are spent?
….uh? I’m not sure how to respond to this – I’m 100% lost for words at this lunacy.
Emabressing,emotive and illogical drivel from a medeocre minister way out of his depth and struggling to counter critisism.. The telling thing is how he accuses Twyford of being light on facts and then launches into a rant about square wheels and dirts roads.
Oops – in my haste i bashed out quite a few typos there. Sorry if the previous post is hard to read.
Ban the wheel!
socialist!
This is the way of our parliamentary system, stupid and reprehensible though it may be: To assume that the Hon Joe Bloggs (or Gerry Brownlee or Steven Joyce), with absolutely zero prior understanding of transport issues other than “Duh – Kiwis love cars so we need more roads”, can be safely put in charge of the portfolio for national transport policy. Or health, education, economic development, environment, or whatever. Just occasionally a particular minister may rise to the task and shine, but this is rare. Most range from lacklustre and inept to downright incompetent and dangerous. As I am sure I would be if I was suddenly swept into parliament and told to manage Ethnic Affairs. However I would like to think that I wouldn’t arrogantly claim more insight into the subject than those with far more expertise than I, and seek to override their advice!
Earlier that day Brownlee was quoted in the 7am or thereabout news about the NZTA warning that funding for RoNS was ending out at the end of 2012 and therefore all the funding for RoNS after would come out of the general transport projects budget to the tune of about a 2b shortfall.
Brownlee was then quoted in a soundbyte as saying in effect that “there is no funding shortfall for transport or RoNS and we will find the money as needed”.
I’m sure Bill English would have let out a large groan when he heard that on the radio.
And in any case, if Brownlee says the Government can rustle up 2b for RoNS anytime it likes, can we have some of that for the CRL please?
Brownlee will obviously have been suffering from an excess of stress relief following yesterdays successfull non-announcement on the Christchurch city centre draft plan. The real announcement has been deferred 100 days. On that day the news media and the nation will be too busy watching the Olympics opening ceremony to pay close attention to how little of the people’s plan has survived.
“We have decided to put the transport aspects of Volume 1 to one side for the time being.” That means no “slow core” with it’s shared spaces and no change to the one-way system and a saving to NZTA of $150m. That saving comes on top of the $180m saving from denying that aftershocks are earthquakes and the $240m saving by capping NZTAs rebuild contribution to $50m pa with taxpayers funding the the $40m pa shortfall through CERF despite CCC roads generating well over $100m pa in revenue for NZTA. So the government’s books look a little bit better, and Christchurch will look a whole lot uglier.
The slow core is described on page 113 of the plan including estimated cost and implementation time frame:
http://resources.ccc.govt.nz/files/CentralCityDecember2011/FinalDraftPlan/FinaldraftCentralCityPlan.pdf
I think the other parties were asking questions and wanted some facts from you Gerry. I wouldn’t have wanted him as my woodwork teacher, too handy with a piece of dowel. Yes, usually leaders look to shape policy for the better good of people. Not just more of the same because that’s what people are used to. Share some more of that transport spend around Gerry.
It’s a poor analogy with excessive hyperbole. But the sentiment is that people’s expectations now are not the same as expectations a hundred years ago when a lot of our infrastructure was built. Therefore we need to have a process of continual improvement. I’d have a hard time disagreeing with that.
Blinkers. On. Obi.
You cannot read that into his response. He’s simply attacking the Green Party while replying to a question from a labour MP.
It’s a very bizarre response from a very bizarre man.
And Brownlee is the first politician in human history to attack another politician, or to have a dig at an opposing party when answering a question?
Lol, what a weak come back.
Don’t forget that Brownlee was a failed woodwork teacher
Yes… Don’t forget to mention that he was a woodwork teacher. Showing contempt for ordinary people is a sure vote winner, and a great strategy for winning political arguments.
I went back in time & checked… he is a “illiterate woodwork teacher”
Nice Marty – makes grand and immediate sense to me now …Brownlee is a joke.
Thanks for this Pete it really shows how stupid he is. Out of all the people in cabinet Steven joyce is probably my favourite.
I might be more stupid then him, I didn’t get that square wheel thing…
I think what he is trying to say (via a very bizzare analogy) is that public transport is a fundamentally flawed concept, and while you can get some results if you really throw a huge amount of effort at it, it will always be an awkward and ineffective way to do things.
I’m not sure when the Greens released a policy of systematically destroying all the existing paved roads and motorways and replacing them with dirt tracks, or where people will be forced to give up car ownership in favour of horse buggies. Perhaps I missed that bit.
Curious that roads and wheels are the only means he has to form an analogy. Singlemindedness or a lack of imagination?
Wow, what a moron. What a bunch of arrogant pricks they are. I think Steven Joyce still runs transport to be honest, Brownlee just seems like a puppet with Joyce pulling the strings.
How many projects are being deferred because of the RONS? The Kapiti Coast is crying out for median barriers, but apparently theres no money, so they have to wait for the new expressway to be built in god knows how long.
There was a fatal crash on a Wellington motorway recently because someone went the wrong way up an off ramp. It didnt even have signs on it? No money again?
It would be interesting to work out how many people have died as a result of the RONS program, from safety programs that would have otherwise have gone ahead, but instead were cancelled to help pay for the new motorways.
As every day passes the honourable member Brownlee is slowly dismembered by more nimble-minded (and better informed) opposition MPs, namely Twyford and Genter.
But don’t give Joyce any credit: He has taken us from a reasonably independent, effective transport policy under Labour and Annette King (who, as an aside, is very astute), to an overly highways-focused pork-barrel transport policy that fails to deliver anything but asphalt (and certainly not economic poorformance).
Both Joyce and Brownlee should go down in history as some of New Zealand’s worst transport ministers. And it’s not because they’re Nats: It’s because they don’t care about transport, and therefore don’t try to understand. Instead of information, they have relied on arrogance and bluster.
While National’s defeat at the next election is likely to be more about land sales and casino deals, it’s the havoc they’ve wreaked on transport that is probably their most underwhelming aspect of the whole experience.
And to think that I was mildly optimistic when they were first elected that they would have the gumption to transform NZ’s economy by reforming the tax system. Sigh.
It was Annette King who began the move towards so-called High Productivity Vehicles, trucks of up to 65 tonnes GVW, which are now operating on our roads. These vehicles will drive freight off our railways and increase the risk to other motorists. Annette King astute? I think not. She had the wool pulled over her eyes by the trucking lobby. Joyce was fully aware of the issues and pulled the wool over the eyes of the NZ public.
The whole RONs palaver is all about transporting freight by truck – read the Paling reports of 2008 and 2010.
65T? Bollocks. The maximum “ordinary” (but still specially-permitted) weight permitted is 53T, anything more than that requires a specific permit for that journey.
The only capital works project for public transport initiated since National took power is the Parnell station. Everything else was started under Labour. Everything else we’ve seen under National is the destruction of non-roads transport: not allowing Hillside to bid on the wagons contract, now looking to sell it; closing various regional lines; disallowing NZTA from funding public works capital projects from the land transport fund. Whatever Labour did with roads, they also began everything we’ve seen that’s balancing out our transport spending.
http://www.nzfoa.org.nz/news/forestry-news/928-200112aforestrynews
Not 65 tonnes but close at 62. I have found evidence of 65 tonne in trucking industry publications so for now it might be better if you kept your bollocks to yourself.
IMHO the wording of the legislation was deliberately misleading in order not to cause a backlash from the public (who were largely asleep at the wheel). NZTA indirectly acknowledged the increased rollover risk posed by such vehicles in their FAQs published in the lead-up to the consultation process with the following gem:
Q5 Does this mean that there will be bigger trucks on the roads?
Generally, no. Trucks will not be any wider or higher than current limits, but some small increases in overall length are proposed. The Rule amendment will allow an increase in length for some vehicles to operate without a permit as well as provide for others to apply to operate at longer lengths under a permit. The latter will be considered on a case-by-case basis where routes are suitable for increased length and vehicle safety would not be made worse through increased length. Longer trucks can be safer because the load height can be reduced and the vehicle is, therefore, more stable during cornering.
So the corollary of this is trucks of the same length with a 50% greater payload are going to have a higher SRT and hence will be less stable during cornering.
NZTA went to state:
Q6 Will the vehicles carrying heavier loads be safe?
Yes. The vehicles will be required to meet all the current safety standards. The increase in the mass of existing vehicles could have an impact on their centre of gravity and the operational Static Rollover Threshold (SRT), and, in some cases, this may require adjustments to driving techniques, particularly in relation to cornering. However, the vehicles will still be required to meet the established standards for the SRT. The NZTA will work with the transport sector to ensure any driver education or training issues are addressed.
So there you have it. Adjustments to driving technique will address the issue…and it was Annette King who stated to parliament in May 2008:
“If New Zealand’s economy is to continue to grow, efficiency in moving goods on the road needs to improve. New Zealand’s freight task is projected to double by 2020. Already, 66 percent of all freight moving around the country is carried on our roads. With these kinds of projections soon to be a reality, it is clear now is the time to find innovative ways to optimise our transport system,” she said.
“It is important, however, to remember that these vehicles will not be any bigger, only heavier. Many vehicles operating on New Zealand roads already have the capacity to carry more than 44 tonnes. This permit system can improve road freight efficiency by consolidating loads and reducing the number of vehicle movements required to distribute the same amount of freight.”
Mr Anderton spoke about the Government’s sustainable transport objectives at today’s launch. “While increasing the productivity of our roads is important, it is only one of a number of factors that will give us a transport system that is accessible, sustainable and offers value for money.
“These trials will therefore be an important step towards working hand in hand with the Government’s initiatives to support sea and rail freight objectives.”
My apologies. The media seriously failed to cover the law change adequately, as the only figure I ever saw was 53T. I knew trucks could go higher, but not under a standing permit. That’s a massive difference.
It really is a massive difference and under the current legislation there is NO upper limit on mass or length. Each application is considered by NZTA individually using some as yet unstated criteria. At the time the legislation was being mooted I made inquiries under the freedom of information act and NZTA essentially confirmed this.
It’s the thin end of the wedge and the way I see it is the beginning of the end for rail freight in NZ.
The media didn’t report it because they didn’t understand it and there was a concerted effort by Joyce, the RTA, NZTA, the MOT and others to obfuscate. NZTA continues to be the cheerleader in this respect. Even the term High Productivity Vehicle is design to convey a “feel-good” aspect (STDs notwithstanding!) to what would have been most unpopular law had all of the facts been made known to the public. In the meantime Labour were completely oblivious (or perhaps aware that they were complicit). I wrote an extensive email to the shadow minister of transport (in my capacity as a professional engineer and concerned citizen) pointing out facts and errors on Joyce’s part and exhorted him to raise questions in parliament. He didn’t even acknowledge my email. In that respect they failed miserably in their role as the opposition.
The MOT ran some poor trials of trucks loaded to a GVM of 50 tonnes a few years back. They really were for show given the limited data, poor design-of-experiment and lack of applicability since 65 tonne vehicles are now being approved by NZTA (so why putz around with 50 tonners?). One of the subsequent report’s conclusions was that SPECIFIC fuel consumption (ie litres per tonne-km) did not appreciably change in going from a GVM of 44 tonnes to 50 tonnes. Joyce went on to state that trials had demonstrated that 50 tonne trucks use no more fuel than 40 tonne trucks so the environment would be better off etc etc. Even if he wasn’t aware of the absurdity of this statement he should have been. The nonsense persists in NZTA’s justification for “investment” in stronger bridges whereby each “HPV” uses the same amount fuel per km as a truck loaded to 44 tonnes. Since the HPV carries a greater payload the flawed method demonstrates bogus savings in fuel and CO2 emissions that can be used to justify expenditure on bridge “improvements”.
In the meantime a report issued by Stimpson and Co reviewing the first year of operation of the permit system states:
“This work on infrastructure impacts requires longterm observation and modeling. In the case of pavements, the earliest results are not expected before the end of the current three‐year monitoring period in 2012/13. No specific monitoring of HPMV impacts on structures is proposed beyond existing asset monitoring programmes.”
In other words it is not clear what the detrimental effect this limited number of HPVs is having on the roading infrastructure…but they assure us of the economic benefits…very strange.
The MOT is not immune from being a Joyce groupie for these extra-heavy trucks. Here’s a gem from their website:
Will there be additional infrastructure costs as a result?
“Increased wear and tear will be met through the increased road user charges. Local road controlling authorities receive about 50 percent of this via Funding Assistance Rates (FAR) from the Crown, with the remainder met by ratepayers who benefit from the regional stimulus and economic and community benefits.” The last part is a Joyceism. Ratepayers should pay up so that the trucking industry can smash their roads and drive the railways out of business.
My research (and it is reasonably extensive) has lead me to the conclusion that RONS are intended to reduce costs for truck operators…period. Maybe I should write something for this blog and throw it open to discussion…
Nailed it.
I’m submitting to the AT hearings tomorrow pointing out that HPVs are a lost less HP once you account for increased road damage, bridge strengthening, the costs of investigating strengthening etc etc
What a bunch of arse! Labour and National are both puppets of the truckers.
Vrooom! Vrooom!
Don’t forget that the additional RUC on these trucks is not increased consistent with the increase in damage. ie: There’s no fourth-power relationship between the additional axle weights and the additional RUC. So even if the TLAs are getting half the RUC it’s half of a sum that doesn’t cover all the extra damage. The suggestion that they can pay the rest from economic benefits is bollocks, since income tax all goes to the Crown and most of the benefits that come from fewer vehicle movements aren’t visible except at an aggregated level.
MFD, feel free to submit a guest post….
Like you, I’m no fan of the National Party, but it’s the area of transport where they irk me the most with their intransigence and dismissal of alternatives. Were it not for their transport policy I’d probably find them almost tolerable. For me, it’s all quite reminiscent of George W. Bush’s presidency, where so many environmental regulations people believed to be set in stone were repealed.
Don’t embarrass yourself Obi! Usually you shine quite a well constructed contradictory opinion; but, this is pretty darn obvious.
If you recall a wee while, I did say Brownlee would make a complete muppet of himself and potentially be the downfall of National… Whoop, whoop!
Phil… This blog is usually full of interesting coherent posts and comments. It influences and educates. For those reasons I keep coming back and have a lot of respect for regular posters and commenters, including ones I rarely agree with like Patrick R.
But this comment thread is full of frothy mouthed lunacy. It’s at about the level of a really bad post on Whaleoil, designed to whip up the faithful in to a frenzy of knee-jerk reactivity. It doesn’t influence or educate. I think it lets the blog down.
Come on Obi, this stuff is being said by more than just transport-geeks. There is a change in the zeitgeist and the rest of the country is waking up to the talentlessness of the current mob in government.
I don’t have to start a conversation about how bad National are anymore, others are doing it for me.
What’s telling is the way Brownlee says “transport fleet”. Not transport system. He says fleet, and he is obviously thinking only about trucks.
Has a minister ever been sacked for being thick?
What a pachycephalosaurus!!!
And you all thought I was going to say pachyderm.
Why doesn’t NZ Herald publish these kind of stories? I wish the whole of NZ could read this blog to show what muppets we have at the wheel.
Stu: “Both Joyce and Brownlee should go down in history as some of New Zealand’s worst transport ministers”.
In that case surely Key should go down in history as one of the worst prime ministers for failing to recognise and deal with these shortcomings in his own cabinet. For his complicity in this whole sorry tale of mismanagement and ineptitude in the transport portfolio.
Agreed.
I think also that Brownlee has a view that trains remain an old technology. Train technology, as we know, has moved on through time just as vehicles have moved from buggies to the modern vehicle. We’re not running around on steam trains anymore (although auckland’s trains may be a little way off benchmark technology!)
Yeah, its amazing how many anti-PT comments to Herald transport articles make reference to “19th century technology”.
To be fair, if they are only used to Auckland’s diesel klunkers, you can’t really blame them…
If you watch, it’s mostly a couple of commenters saying the same thing repeatedly. The general attitude towards rail in the comment threads is shifting more and more towards pro rather than anti. It’s only Peter Bills’ posts that attract lots of the “level it, pave it, drive it” crowd.
I went on a train in China that did 330km/h, covered the equivalent distance from Auckland to Christchurch in a little over two hours… and all I had to do was sit there using the wifi internet drinking coffee.
Pretty sure that wasn’t running on 19th century technology.
Unless it was a MagLev, the wheels in was running on are considerably older than 19th Century technology 😛
Were they square wheels?
Yes square wheels on a dirt road. Well I didn’t actually check… but they must have been according to the Honorable Member. 😉
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10800629
Seems Gerry loses the plot again (somewhat) on Q&A as reported by the Herald this morning.
First transport gets fisted, then Christchurch get shafted with a Central Government led shoddy plan.
Remember, Brownlee said whatever it was first then transport second. Oh boy here comes a Auckland all over again and look what we got stuck with trying to play transport catch up
Ben, It looks to me that that is code for National having absolutely no intention of letting Cantabrians have any form of public transport in the rebuild of Christchurch now or ever (other than a rebuilt bus terminal). (A delay in political speak is really “you’re never going to get it” or a promise for a far flung date is the same thing – Tobacco Free NZ by 2025 for instance – why not 2012 or 2013?)
Light rail featured pretty highly on the wishlist of the locals for what they wanted for their city. What they want counts for nought in the ideological world of the National Party. Another city screwed over.
Smoke-free by 2025 is based on projections for natural attrition of smoking rates to zero through non-prohibition measures. To do it quicker would require making smoking illegal, and we all know just how well prohibition works. Look at the War on Drugs.
I have often thought that Christchurch was on a path that set it to follow the same mistakes Auckland made decades ago, and that was even before the earthquake hit. Since then my fear is that out of a desire to see the rebuild happen that the quick and easy path will be taken and that they will end up with a city centre that looks like Albany, Botany or Manukau which would be a great shame.
Hehehe, I’ll post an piece from a post I am drafting on on Social Liberalism and National tomorrow (forgot to email it to myself 😛 ). Would make Brownlee really flip out.
That aside I feel for Christchurch and what awaits them.
Mince Pies to keep the man distracted while the people of Chch rebuild THEIR city?