Gerry Brownlee made some quite remarkable statements in parliament recently (this video is worth watching; Lockwood’s response to Julie’s point of order about halfway through was a moment of quite some mirth in my flat). To summarise Julie’s questions and Gerry’s answers (NB: I have quoted Gerry verbatim in some places, hence some of it is incoherent):
- Are the RoNs an appropriate use of money? While fuel prices “fluctuate”, supermarket’s offer fuel discount vouchers, so “it’s clearly evident then that the pump price is an extremely irrational input into the consideration of strategic transport policy.”
- Should the RoNs be reconsidered in light of stagnant traffic volumes? By alleviating congestion you will reduce time and distance spent travelling, which is very good for the environment.
- Is the risk of high petrol prices a risk to the RoNs? “There are a number of studies that suggest that the relative price of petrol to the decisions that people make about transport modes is inelastic.”
- What specific evidence suggests the RoNs are the best way to improve NZ’s economic productivity? Less congestion leads to economic benefit, and National won the last election so NZers agree.
- Does the minister expect the economic impact of borrowing for the RonS will be similar to Greece? No, because Greece spent most of their money on monolithic rail projects.
Questions numbered 1 and 3 are, I think, the most interesting, so let’s unpack what’s going on here in a little more detail.
In response to question #1, Brownlee suggests that fuel prices are an “irrational input” into the consideration of strategic transport policy because fuel prices fluctuate, and supermarkets offer fuel discount vouchers. Now, what Gerry terms “fluctuations” is more accurately described as a long term (since 1998) upwards trend in fuel prices, with various ebbs and flows along the way. Yes, the GFC was one giant ebb – but prices have since recovered and now sit at levels similar to what they were pre-GFC (which is surprising given the economic meltdown in Europe).
Quite how supermarket fuel vouchers are relevant to the debate I’m not sure. Mainly because the lower prices one person pays has to be offset (in terms of the fuel price margins) by someone else paying more (probably those schmucks like me who don’t have fuel vouchers). And I find it quite humorous that Brownlee suggests New Zealanders should avoid higher fuel prices by spending $400 per week on groceries. That level of spending may be achieved in the Brownlee household, but it certainly does not happen in mine ($50-$100 per week on groceries is all I spend).
And while fuel prices are certainly volatile, it’s a stretch to suggest they are an “irrational input” into strategic transport policy. Indeed, Brownlee will find that most of the transport models on which the business cases for the RoNs are based actually incorporate fuel prices as an input into the generalised cost functions that they use to determine mode split. Stated differently, the fuel prices that Brownlee criticises as an “irrational input into … strategic transport policy” are actually part of the highly rational equation that determining expected traffic volumes on the RoNS. Therefore to call them “irrational” would seem to be directly undermine the validity of the models on which the RoNs’ are based. That’s an own goal Brownlee …
And now question #3. Julie’s asks whether high fuel prices would be a threat to the RoNs programme. Brownlee suggests that they are not, because the demand for travel is “inelastic.” Hmm … that actually sounds somewhat informed. But before we decide that Brownlee has awoken from his transport coma let’s first review what the word “inelastic” actually means. WikiAnswers defines it as follows:
Inelastic demand is when the quantity demanded of a good doesn’t respond strongly to changes in price. The percentage change in quantity demanded is less than the percentage change in price (% change in Qd < % change in P).
This basically means that if the price of fuel were to increase by 100% then the demand for travel would reduce by less than 100%. Brownlee’s correct to observe that the elasticity of demand for vehicle travel with respect to fuel prices is less than 100%. It’s typically around -30% in the long run, which means that a 100% increase in fuel prices would on average cause a 30% reduction in demand. That definitely fits the technical definition of “inelastic”. But does this confirm that the risk of sustained high fuel prices is no reason to reconsider the RoNs?
The short answer is no, and here’s why: While travel demands are inelastic with respect to fuel prices, they are not immutable – i.e. they still reduce when fuel prices rise, as you would expect (that is after all what economists refer to as the “universal law of demand”). And as most traffic engineers will tell you a small reduction in vehicle demands can have a major impact on travel delays, because congestion is a upwards sloping non-linear function of demand.
If you’re not one to revel in obscure mathematical jargon, then the figure below may help – it shows the type of travel delay functions likely to have been used in the transport models on which the RoNs business cases were based (source). And you can see that they ramp-up quite considerably.
In this graph the x-axis is the volume (demand) to capacity ratio (v/c), while the y-axis measures vehicle delays. So if you’re up around 90% v/c (x-axis) then a reduction in demand in the order of 15% might shift you quite a long way down the curve to the left, i.e. towards less delay. The non-linear relationship between vehicle demands and delays is, incidentally, the primary reason why the roads are generally so clear during school holiday periods – because the small reduction in travel demands caused by parents not dropping their children at school results in much less congestion.
So the takeaway message is this: While travel demands are inelastic with respect to fuel prices, that is not a valid reason to suggest that the economic merits of the RoNS would not be affected by a period of sustained high fuel prices. The truth is that sustained high fuel prices would reduce travel demands sufficiently that the (already tenuous) economic benefits of the RoNs would vapourise. That’s what Julie was getting at and that is what Brownlee does not seem to understand.
At some point I hope it becomes untenable for Brownlee (or anyone else for that matter) to suggest that fuel prices do not impact on the RoNs business cases. One might even think that point is approaching relatively fast; after all we’re now halfway through 2012, state highway traffic volumes have been broadly flat this year thus far, and fuel prices have now increased quite substantially in recent weeks. Of course, I hope that fuel prices plummet tomorrow and NZ’s economic growth surges – in which case most of the RoNS might be a worthwhile investment.
But that’s not something I’d be prepared to bet $14 billion on. That’s actually what National are doing: They’ve gone out and bought a $14 billion transport lotto ticket. When you put it in those blunt terms Bill English’s cries of “prudent fiscal management” start to sound quite hollow, but that’s getting off topic …
Processing...
“Of course, I hope that fuel prices plummet tomorrow and NZ’s economic growth surges – in which case most of the RoNS might be a worthwhile investment.”
Building motorways is not something that should be based too much on small fluctuations in input costs of their operation. The long-term trend is steady rising prices for fossil fuels, as you have rightly observed.
The reduction in fuel prices you seem to desire could be expected to harm efforts to wean New Zealand from its high level of fossil fuel dependency. Let’s not forget that CO2 in the atmosphere is already at 400 ppm, well above the 350 ppm that climate researchers have concluded is necessary to prevent greater than 2 degrees of climate change, and a possible runaway climate change scenario.
I know that governments act as if this is something that only future parliaments need concern themselves with, because the course of action required to prevent dire consequences is politically untenable. They are able to do so because so many of us openly express our desire that more fossil fuel be burned. I fear that locking in $12 billion in roading projects will only make the requisite actions even less tenable, given the likelihood of sunk cost fallacy driving transport decisions in the transport corridors the RoNS will serve. And let’s not forget that electric cars are “decades away” from mass-adoption, even in light of current fuel price trends.
In summary, how is the desire expressed above not tantamount to a turkey voting for Christmas?
I wouldn’t put money on electric vehicles being around for too long, problem is if they do obtain mass adoption, our general electricity prices are going to skyrocket. I would be looking at other more sustainable options for long term replacement. However these are even further away from mass production let alone adoption than the electric vehicle.
Electricity is, however, the most flexible fuel source, as every source of energy we’ve ever known can be used to make energy. This include fossil fuels, solar, geothermic, tidal, hydroelectric and nuclear. With petrol based cars we can only use alkanes and alcahols, a bit less flexible.
To paraphrase the question 1 answer, Supermarket petrol discount vouchers justify the RoNS, given they are nothing but ‘Strategic’. Who would have thought?
Don’t forget that the demand curve becomes more elastic as you travel up it. That PED of -0.3 you quote is only the PED at the current price level, as petrol prices are on the rise I don’t think it is unlikely (but my understanding of economics is limited) that we could easily see petrol prices much more elastic in the future anyway.
I do agree with you that it doesn’t really matter though. I think it’s like cigarettes, with high prices them only the addicted buy them, and now the demand is considered inelastic. Almost all NZers are ‘addicted’ to cars, as a proper alternative isn’t available. The cost on society of this is not health and pollution, but sprawl. Spending on the RoNS is like spending on the development of new technology for producing cigarettes.
[Note: Please don’t take me seriously. Cars are a wonderful mode of transport. I’m just exaggerating to make a point. I really don’t hate cars. Like everything in life it’s about BALANCE]
Yes there’s some interesting recent research which looks at how elasticity changes at different price points for transport.
The inelastic demand function may well apply in rural New Zealand where there are minimal PT options, but some of the RONS roads could be quite sensitive to petrol prices. Transmission Gully, for example, parallels New Zealand’s best suburban rail service. Traffic on this road would be extremely sensitive to the relative price of train fares vs petrol.
I was playing round with the relationship between petrol pricing and traffic in Auckland over the summer, and the analyses I was doing showed a different type of inelasticity. As the price of petrol increases, travel decreases, but the inverse relationship is less true. This makes sense, in that people may make structural changes to their travel, which then have a strong inertia to reversal. If the price of your commute gets too high, and you switch mode, you might sell your car or find that PT is less stressful or that it you gives you more time to read/play Angry Birds or that you enjoy cycling. Over time, people might also choose to look for a job closer to home, or a home closer to their work. All these will mean that following a petrol price decrease, people’s habits may have changed, and they will not necessarily change them back. The idea that this market is efficient, and that people vary their distance travelled in close relation to the price of petrol just doesn’t seem tenable (nor was it well supported by my analyses).
So is the economists. In fact, I’ve taken to saying that the average run of the mill economist wouldn’t know what an economy was if they tripped over one. They treat money as the economy rather than the limited resources that we have available to us.
Julie and Labour can have great performances in Parliament, but it seems to get little media exposure and has little influence on the electorate. They need regional allies, such as local government. Just think what a regional tour by Julie and Labour could do, talking to these councils, then getting reports in the LOCAL media. These could be some of the messages:
1. “As National use the Land Transport Fund for RONS, there will be cuts to local roads. Councils will be forced to either forgo maintenance or raise rates”
2. “The Greens and Labour believe the councils should be the main bodies prioritising major land transport expenditure in their regions”
3. “The Greens and Labour are supportive of councils imposing fuel tax surcharges to fund regional projects”
4. “If Brownlee goes into debt to fund RONS, Councils will be the main losers”
A ploy like this may well get allies among conservative local councillors who may never vote Green or Labour, but could work within the National Party against RONS.
Not too bad a stratedgy. Email her.
Brownlee is stretching the truth to its inelastic breaking point.
And what a banan republic have we become that supermaret fuel vouchers are now an argument for transport policy decisions involving billions and billions of dollars. Shame on them, because they have none.
I find his claim about “monolithic rail projects” particularly interesting.
I actually folund this speech by Phil Twyford on this subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVvLiNlXzIQ&feature=player_embedded
Of course Twyford is an opposition MP and so we can hardly hold him out as a impartial commentator.
But I also found this article by Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-17/greece-s-highways-are-smoother-than-its-finances.html
Can anyone identify these “monolithic rail projects”?
They built a white elephant metro line for the Olympics which lost a lot of money, however that pales in comparison to the amount the lost on the Olympics in general.
It also pales in comparison to the motorway system they built/improved for the Olympics, just that doesn’t get mentioned…
“The truth is that sustained high fuel prices would reduce travel demands sufficiently that the (already tenuous) economic benefits of the RoNs would vapourise.”
Petrol prices are still less, in real terms, then they were in 1980. Real incomes are a lot higher. And most significantly cars are about twice as efficient. We still have a long way to go before petrol prices bite to the extent they did 30 years ago.
But the bigger issue is the effect of new technologies. Back in the 1880s, folk in the UK were worried about “peak horse”. The sheer quantity of horses was at the limit of the country’s ability to grow horse feed. No doubt some people suggested that there was no way out of the problem because no other animal has the stamina or carrying ability of the horse. Then someone invented the ICE and the peak horse problem became irrelevant while we ended up with a mode of transport that was a couple of orders of magnitude better than the horse in terms of range, speed, capacity, and ability to tow a boat or caravan. Sooner or later we’re going to be using vehicles powered by electricity or fuel cells or some technology not yet invented. But we’re not going to reverse over a hundred years worth of personal mobility.
The idea of a “holiday highway” is an interesting one. Look at industrial revolution era UK and the development of the railways. Before this, people didn’t really have holidays. The railways started the idea of visiting the seaside and there were lines from all the major urban conurbations to the coast nearby. Residents of London went en mass to Southend or Brighton. Residents of Manchester to Blackpool. Residents of Yorkshire to Scarborough. Now people use aircraft, cars, and sometimes even trains to take their holidays wherever they feel like it. Surfers. Fiordland. Rotorua. Or maybe even, gasp, the beaches near Warkworth. One of the reasons I predict that personal mobility isn’t going to go away is because people aren’t going to revert to a holiday by the seaside to the nearest location serviced by a rail line.
On the other hand, I’ll give you the supermarket vouchers point. That was close to incoherent.
There is already a road to Omaha and surrounding beaches. Isn’t a 4 lane highway to get to the beach overkill for when it is congested maybe 8 days a year? Are suggesting we need a motorway to every popular beach in NZ 🙂
I’m suggesting that people enjoy having a variety of geographically located potential employers; taking the kids to footie on a Saturday morning; visiting the supermarket on the way home; popping out to a beach at the weekend; visiting friends; going down to Mitre 10 and returning with a boot full of tools and wood; and going away for a long weekend or holiday. This is personal mobility. I don’t believe that people are going to be willing to give up flexible personal mobility in favour of a lifestyle dictated entirely by the availability of public transport. I believe that future people are going to demand even more flexible personal mobility, and that will generate demands for roads of all types. Road usage has taken a bit of a knock recently, mostly because of the global financial crisis. Once that passes I expect the long term trend to continue.
Funny that the examples you give are (mostly) covered by local roads, and by normal (non-motorway) state highways. Yet our government is wanting to plow lots of motorway money right into those corridors where dedicated public transport would work well, while letting the local roads rot.
How was it a white elephant? Do you mean it has very low usage?
Local roads are a matter for local councils. You seem to be in favour of central government taking over everything and being responsible for building and maintaining local roads all over the country. On the other hand, a number of commenters here think that central government shouldn’t dare to even review any decision made by Auckland Council… although central government is expected to pay for what ever Auckland Council decides.
Me? I think the current central versus local split makes sense and works well.
Local roads are funded 50/50 by rates and by NZTA. Which is a similar split to that suggested for the funding of the CRL.
@Obi (Hoping the reply function works for once) But I dont understand the point you are making. I have never seen anybody advocate ripping out the motorways we have or a freeze on building new motorways.
We currently have a 90% road – 10% PT split on transport spending. If that was to rise to 25% on PT I think most people on this blog and the CBT would say that was an amazing result and be pretty happy.
I am sure that the Road Transport Forum thinks that even 10% is an outrageous amount to spend on PT that will lead to NZ collapsing and all of us ending up riding horses.
Also on electric vehicles, I am a huge fan of electric vehicles and they have a place, for example an office car for everyone to share to get around the city. But if you think that NZ will be replacing its vehicle fleet in the next 20 years with electric vehicles, I think you need to do a little more reading. The resources needed for that would be huge and economically disastrous. Just look at the availability of rare metals for batteries, let alone the steel needed to build all those chassis.
“I have never seen anybody advocate ripping out the motorways we have or a freeze on building new motorways.”
I think the majority of posters and commenters here would be in favour of a freeze on building new motorways, after the current Auckland projects are complete. Hardly a week goes by when we don’t have at least a couple of posts complaining about motorway plans.
Regarding electric vehicles… We can’t predict disruptive technologies. Horse owners couldn’t have predicted the internal combustion engine. Sooner or later someone will make an orders-of-magnitude improvement to current electric vehicle technology. Or they’ll invent something completely new and unexpected. Because the person who does that will become extremely rich. And because that is the way things have worked for the last few thousand years, apart from a few setbacks (world wars, black death, and Mongol invasions).
@Obi – Well I have never seen anyone on this blog advocate that. Can other people say whether they want a freeze on new motorways at any time? I certainly dont want that. I have a car and I use it. Not very much but that is a choice.
I dont want to take choice away from other people. I just ask for the choice to not use my car that almost every other person in the OECD is being given by their govt. I have just come back from 3 years in Europe and seen what that choice means. Even in Copenhagen and Amsterdam people still drive cars and we are about 1 million miles away from those cities (unfortunately).
Electric – sure, there may be some ground breaking technology that we cant foresee. I mean I saw Back to the Future as well and I would love a Mr Fusion! But do you want to bet our energy and economic future on that? But if pro-rail people said “let’s build rail because in the future there might be a new technology that will revolutionise rail” we would be told that we are dreamers.
Also there is still the problem of building another 1 billion cars to replace the ones we have now or to take the time, energy and resources to convert those 1 billion cars to electric drives. Can you imagine that?
Of course, most pro-car people just deny Peak Oil altogether and so dont even have to address this issue.
I think what might have been said a few times is that the Waterview Connection – the long promised “final link” in Auckland’s motorway system – should be just that.
After Waterview the motorway system really is quite completed. That idea scares the hell out of the roading and construction lobbies, though presumably the construction lobby will eventually realise there’s good money to be made in rail projects.
Peter, saying the motorway network will ever be ‘complete’ is rubbish. No networkj i the world has ever been called complete.
Just on the top of my head here are the motorway projects that could be completed in Auckland of the next while (if we wanted to).
– SH2a grade seperation
– Sh2b 4 lane expressway
– SH20 and SH18 widening to three lanes
– Eastern motorway
– Onehunga to Mt Wellington Motorway
– South Eastern Highway grade separation
– Mt wellington highway bridge widning to three lanes
– Pakuranga to manukau motorway (eastern highway extension
– seccond harbour crossing
– third harbour crossing (from eastern highway / grafton gully under devonport/takapuna to smales farm area, rejoin with sh1)
– Port to grafton gulley link
– sh1/18 inetchange
– Albany expressway grade seperation
– Penlink
– Greville to Constelation widneing to three lanes
– Extension of SH16 through kumeu
– extension of sh1 to wellsford
Needless to say I only support a couple of these projects
Obi, any reason the flatlining of traffic growth started in 2005 then? The GFC started 2007/2008 did it not? How you can be confident that long term growth will resume? And when is this? The Minister of Finance was recently quoted as saying this current state of financial affairs could last a generation.
We were in financial crisis before most of the rest of the world. Labour’s enormous and unsustainable expansion in the state sector caught up with us. The Minister of Finance is supposed to take a persimistic view of the country’s finances, in part because it is his job to restrain unsustainable spending. You’d hope that the US can turn themselves around and the rest of the world can get back to growth, leaving behind Europe who seem to be determined to underperform.
We do have the advantage of being tightly bound to the Australian and Chinese economies. Australia is still healthy… you may have noticed a couple of weeks ago that the market valuation of the Aussie banks exceeds that of all EU banks combined.
I have noticed Obi that these overly expensive policies put in by Labour have not been reversed by National although people still keep using them as an excuse. Explain that.
“Explain that.”
It’s tough for a government to take away things that people get used to, even if they are not sustainable. In NZ it’ll cause governments to lose elections. In the US they’re heading towards a Medicare and Social Security meltdown, but anyone who dares to suggest reforming them rather than letting them go bankrupt will not win an election. In Greece or France you’ll bring rioters on to the street and they’ll set fire to buildings and buses.
National’s solution is to tinker at the margins and hope that holding spending steady-ish and hoping for economic growth will fix things. I’m a sceptic. We’ll either elect a government that looks a lot like the reforming Lange government of 1984. Or we’ll end up like Greece, and for similar reasons. Namely, an unsustainable state sector and too many vested interests.
@Obi I really wonder about your grasp on the economy. China is not a healthy economy, Australia is not a healthy economy, just look at the price trend of coal and iron ore. It is not a case of back to growth — climate change, limits to growth and the mathematics of exponential growth preclude that. We have some economically really basic differences from Greece, notably we have our own sovereign currency. Labour reduced public debt during their term in office. The enormous and ustainable expansion is not state sector under Labour but debt under National compounded by tax cuts for the wealthy and the gross mismanagement of tax money by wasting it on projects such as roads of national significance which can’t pass any rational test of good value.
Indeedy, sir, we do. Can’t have our pristine beaches (and baches) be inaccessible by car in a single late Friday afternoon drive. That would not be Kiwi, that would basically be un-kiwi activity, sir. I hope you are not one of those Europeans who want to do his holiday travelling by train, are you?
Do you think this amazing new technology will require a 4 lane road to every destination? Even if you are completely pro road you would have to question whether producing a few very gold plated projects is a good spend of the transport budget. I don’t think anyone on this blog is suggesting that we don’t still have roads the we have, and even improve those roads to make them safer and easier to drive.
Are you seriously suggesting that you believe the remaining RoNS program is a sound and sensible use of this nation’s money?
You’ve taken a very anti rail approach your post. How many people on this blog talk of their rail based holidays in NZ? We don’t really have that sort of rail here and very few would suggest we should. A downtown rail link is not about going on holiday, it has a daily purpose, rather than being at capacity twice a year.
I think this comment was directed at me…
“Are you seriously suggesting that you believe the remaining RoNS program is a sound and sensible use of this nation’s money?”
Yes. Along with the rail tunnel which has a BCR about the same as Puhoi to Wellsford. I can’t think of a completed road project that hasn’t yielded wider economic benefits way beyond those expected. The business case for the Harbour Bridge no doubt referenced travel time savings for a few ferry users. It may have been quite marginal. But it opened up housing for hundreds of thousands of people and a couple of substantial non-CBD business centers and helped Auckland grow from 300k people pre-bridge to 1.5million and growing. Similarly, my mum remembers traveling in to Wellington via the Paekakariki Hill Rd that was bypassed by the current SH1. Wellington would have been a backwater if the Paekakariki Hill Rd was still the main route in to the city. The Centennial Highway helped unlock huge potential but has reached its limits 70 years later. Transmission Gully will help it grow for the next 70 years. The CBD rail tunnel will yield similar wider economic and non-economic benefits which mean its low BCR is mostly irrelevant.
I’m not anti-rail. Rail is great for hub-and-spoke trips, such as travel to work in the CBD. If I didn’t walk to work then I would take a bus or a train. But people enjoy all the other trips that they make on a day to day basis and which are often not well suited to public transport. My bet is that these trips have levelled off with the current financial crisis, but that growth will continue once the crisis is past and this will mean a continued need for new roads. I don’t think we’ll slip back in to the traffic patterns of 100 years ago because people don’t want it, and won’t stand for it. Don’t bet against 150 year long trend on the basis of a recession-based blip.
What benefits does the Puhoi – Warkworth ( now that they have deemed the Wellsford section as a maybe) motorway offer over Operation Lifesaver considering the price difference? What do you think the time difference will be on a normal weekday?
The time saving is irrelevant. It’ll allow a couple of hundred thousand people to settle in the area around Warkworth and (potentially) Wellsford while still having easy access to Auckland CBD and the major non-CBD center in Albany. That’ll also
take some pressure off future housing price increases in Auckland. I can’t see how the wider economic benefits won’t be enormous, and none of it will have anything to do with holidays.
To put it into numbers… 100,000 new homes around Warkworth at, say, $500k each is unlocking $50billion worth of real estate value, even if there were no other benefits. That’s already a 25:1 BCR.
Operation Lifesaver is a cheap bodge of a road improvement that won’t allow any of that growth or any of the resulting economic benefits. However, if you’re in to dodgy infrastructure projects then it’s easy to think them up. For instance, you could increase the capacity of the Auckland rail system by taking out most of the seats on the trains. If people stood at the sort of densities they do on the London Underground then you could carry a lot less people, wouldn’t need to build the rail tunnel, and it won’t cost much more than a guy with a spanner. The BCR will be much greater than a tunnel and it’ll save $3billion. But it’s just a dumb short-term idea… These things should be done properly.
I don’t believe for a second that they will be putting 100,00 homes in Warkworth any time in the next 40 years as most properties still seem to be getting sold as lifestyle blocks.
Actually, I’m just going to disagree with you Obi so this doesn’t keep going but I will do what I can to make sure it doesn’t get built.
Obi, the piece of road that limits the number of people wanting to live in Warkworth is not the one north of Puhoi, but the ones actually congested south of Albany. I simply find it hard to believe anyone cares about only being able to average 70 until Puhoi when the northern motorway further towards the city is at a crawl. Also, when there is plenty of land available plus better local facilities at Silverdale and Orewa e.t.c, why would we want Warkworth as a growth node? Isn’t it more efficient to focus on less well-sized centre than trying to spread out all the centres. You make a good point about the Harbour bridge, but the harbour bridge provided new land that was closer to the city than any other greenfield. When, inevitably, Auckland grows out that far (as even ideally intensification will only take up some of the housing market with a growing population) I can see the point of building that road, and it should be well future proofed for widening and the addition of other modes such as rail/busway and cycling. But that is over 50 years away (guessing), as there is plenty or greenspace to fill before Warkworth becomes even a decent satellite town. The project will only take around 8 years to build, so why start so early? It’s like buying a car for your child at age 2 because he’ll need it when he leaves uni at age 22. The fact is things can change – it’s necessary risk. Also, a lot of the operation lifesaver costs are related to a bypass that can be integrated into the full motorway project at a later date, and safety improvements that are needed weather on not the road keeps it’s SH1 designated, as especially if the other road is tolled the Warkworth to Welsford section will still be reasonably busy, and in fact more dangerous as average speeds will be higher. I don’t mean to be cruel, but I really think you are wrong. The road would be nice, and maybe one day it’ll be worth it, but now is not the time.
Yes excellent point Hamish. All Puhoi-Wellsford will do is make it quicker to get to the carpark that is the motorway south of Greville Road in the AM peak.
What I would be doing is securing a designation for a dedicated RTN route. To build a city of 100,000 dwellings in Warkworth, which is what Obi is suggesting (comparison: in 2006 the number of dwellings in North Shore was just 77,000 dwellings), an hour away from Auckland CBD, without excellent PT would be silly. 250,000 people in Warkworth? Really?
Yes, I think in general we need to be putting a lot more designations in. Th things I would like to see designated:
Sorry, for some reason the the comment submitted itself early.
I would like to see designations for:
– Northwestern Busway/Rail
– Northern Busway/Rail extension to Orewa and (through Albany not alongside motorway)
– Upper Harbour Busway/Rail
– Onehunga – Airport – Manukau Rail (+ motorway??)
– Penrose – Pakuranga – Botany – Manukau line (+ motorway??)
– Avondale – Southdown updated to fit in with motorway project and not run through Onehunga houses
For the parts of these where it is currently undeveloped this will save a lot of political effort or money from tunnelling later.
@Obi (sorry reply function not working)
“Rail is great for hub-and-spoke trips, such as travel to work in the CBD”
This would be fine if that was how every other city in the world used rail. But how do you explain the fact that ALL other cities in the developed world over 1 million use rail as the backbone to its transport network?
Sorry this will sound very patronising and I dont mean it to be, but have you used the PT systems in Australia, Europe, Hong Kong, Singapore or the US? We have the WORST (not bad, worst) PT system of any city over 1 million people in the developed world. And there is NOTHING special about Auckland that makes that justifiable. Since 1955 transport policy has destroyed the once excellent PT network in this city and this country.
If you are interested read “The American Heresy: The rise and decline of public transport in Auckland” or “Backtracking Auckland?: Technical and Communicative Reason in Metropolitan Transport Planning” both by Paul Mees et al. He is an academic from Melbourne Uni.
“But how do you explain the fact that ALL other cities in the developed world over 1 million use rail as the backbone to its transport network?”
They don’t. Los Angeles and Houston have negligible rail systems to take just two examples. And even in cities with a vast rail network, rail journeys are still typically a lot less than vehicle journeys. London being a good example.
@Obi – Los Angeles and Houston. Are you sure about that?
Being one of the densest cities in the US, Los Angeles is now investing heavily in rail transport:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_Los_Angeles
Houston: “METRO began running light rail service (METRORail) on January 1, 2004. Currently the track runs approximately 8 miles (13 km) from Downtown Houston to the Texas Medical Center and Reliant Park. METRO operates an extensive park-and-ride bus system to serve many of Houston’s outlying suburban areas. Most of the park-and-ride buses run in barrier-separated high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lanes that provide direct service from park-and-ride parking lots to major employment destinations. Prior to the opening of METRORail, Houston was the largest city in the United States without a rail transit system.[citation needed]
Following a successful referendum held locally in 2003, METRO is currently in the beginning design phases of a 10-year expansion plan to add five more sections to connect to the current rail system. An 8.3 mile (13.4 km) expansion has been approved to run the service from the Uptown through Texas Southern University, ending at the University of Houston campus.”
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_Houston#Mass_transit
Sorry but we are last man (or city) standing in the developed world.
“And even in cities with a vast rail network, rail journeys are still typically a lot less than vehicle journeys. London being a good example.” And your point is? Again, one more time, NOONE (not even the Greens) is advocating NOT building or maintaining roads. That is exactly why a pro-PT person would be happy with a 75/25 split in transport spending.
Actually Obi, Los Angeles has quite an excellent public transport system. Its obviously not as comprehensive as some, but it is very well used and links many of the key destinations round the city. The city is investing heavily in expanding it, and is looking to start intensifying around Metro stations, just like Auckland.
“And even in cities with a vast rail network, rail journeys are still typically a lot less than vehicle journeys. London being a good example.”
London isn’t a good example of this. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_share whose data is from Transport For London, 37% of journeys to work are by car, 63% by public transport, walking or cycling. London would seize up if the majority of commuting was by road. Noone is advocating preventing people getting to the beach in their cars, but for Auckland’s morning and evening weekday commute cars are a poor choice, and it would make sense even for those who choose to stick with their cars (maybe even especially for them!) to divert a lot more funds into making PT a more viable option for more people.
David O: “London isn’t a good example of this. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_share whose data is from Transport For London, 37% of journeys to work are by car, 63% by public transport, walking or cycling. London would seize up if the majority of commuting was by road.”
It certainly would seize up. But most journeys in London aren’t to work. Zones 2-6 are full of people driving to the supermarket, driving to their children’s schools, driving to visit friends, etc. And your commuting figure includes buses. I always assumed that the Tube carried a bigger percentage of London’s journeys than it actually does. Mainly because I used it, I usually used it at peak time, and it was always packed. Then I stumbled across some figures that surprised me how prevalent car use was in the city. Unfortunately I’ve lost the figures.
It’s not true that cars are about twice as efficient. Engines have become twice as efficient, but overall cars continue to consume about the same amount of fuel per km driven due to increased weight, increase size (frontal area) and the addition of more air conditioning and other luxuries draining power.
Yeah I saw something the other day which said that the Model T Ford got more miles to the gallon than your average US car today.
How was it a white elephant? Do you mean it has very low usage?
I was in Athens quite a while ago (2007) and certainly enjoyed the use of their metro system. Without cheap euro loans there was no way Greece could have afforded to build this (let alone the Olympics!) but I think for the Greek public the metro will be one of the beneficial assets to come from their spending binge.
So long as the EU pay for it and not the rest of us (thinking IMF here).
goosoid: “Sorry but we are last man (or city) standing in the developed world.”
The cities mentioned (including LA, thanks Stephen H) are developing rail systems and have made progress that is minor when compared with their size. But the claim was that every city over 1 million people had rail “as the backbone to its transport network”. You’d hardly claim LA’s metro is the backbone of anything… The grid of honking great freeways is, for better or worse. Likewise, you can’t honestly claim that an 8 mile light rail system is the transport backbone of Houston, a city of 6 million people. Rail is better developed in Auckland than both these cities. Auckland’s 2-and-a-bit line rail system also isn’t too dissimilar to Atlanta’s 2-and-a-bit line rail system, even though Atlanta is a much bigger city.
San Jose has a population of around 2 million people and relies on a small light rail system. Hardly a backbone, especially when compared to the extensive freeway system. Dallas-Fort Worth, Calgary, Edmonton, Austin, Denver, Phoenix, and San Diego all have light rail systems but no metro rail systems. San Antonio has a population over 2 million but no metro or light rail. It is developing a rapid transit system based on buses. Tucson is developing light rail, but is currently rail free.
Auckland certainly isn’t unique.In fact Auckland’s rail system is better than that of a lot of larger cities.
Somewhat right, somewhat wrong I think obi. Reliance on rail should be looked at in terms of patronage rather than the extent of the system I think. For example the Calgary C-Train carries over 260,000 trips a day – that’s 6-7 time Auckland’s current rail patronage. And in a city that’s smaller than Auckland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-Train
Crap a bloody brick, if I spent $400 a fortnight (per pay cycle for our household) my wife would absolutely skin me alive, hang me off the nearest tree then divorce me. How in god’s name unless you have a family of 15 blow $400 at Pak N Save on groceries – AND NO I am not referring to Trade Customers…
Anyone who did blow $400 should be sent to the CAB for budget advise FAST!
Any case that is something else…
As for Brownlee – must be the petrol fumes again
I think that’s why the supermarkets like it so much – to reach the threshold people have to buy more ‘luxury’ items on top of their normal spend. These such ‘luxury’ items also happen to be the higher margin items, so it is worth them giving you a pretty hefty load of money in fuel discounts (assuming you own a car with a reasonable tank) because their profit on your purchase will rise considerably.
Possibly a bit off topic but $400 per fortnight seems low to me. In our household that would amount to $5.71 per person per day for food, drink, hygiene items, household cleaning items etc etc. I’m guessing that you don’t have teenage children.
Obi, those cities over 1 million without rail systems have weak downtown areas. They are also not constrained by topography, which means it’s cheap to build a new freeway, whereas in topographically constrained cities such as Auckland or Vancouver where new freeways involve expensive bridges or tunnels. Most of their current stock of freeways were built either from Federal funds or State fuel taxes when fuel was cheap and additional taxes easily tolerated. It is now politically difficult to increase fuel taxes. Furthermore, additional freeways through built-up areas are also expensive and politically difficult. The last urban freeway in Los Angeles was the Century Freeway built in early 1970’s and to make it politically palatable it was designed for a light rail line in the median. Nearly all these cities are looking to light rail for their additional capacity.
The Los Angeles conurbation has 12 million people but it’s not one labour market. On an LA forum a resident in the South Bay region commented that can’t access employment at Burbank because the commute time is too long by both car and PT. The only employment accessible to all residents within a reasonable commute time from all areas is along the Red Line spine, and this accounts for (I believe) ~12% of employment. A consequence of a large car-dependent city without strong downtown employment is a therefore fragmented labour market where (for example) an upper North Shore resident can’t access employment in the airport zone within a reasonable commute time.
I agree with pretty much all of that. I was only addressing the simpler question: “But how do you explain the fact that ALL other cities in the developed world over 1 million use rail as the backbone to its transport network?”
Here is a good one… Jacksonville (population 1.3 million) has a 2.5 mile long people mover. It sounds similar to the one they have (or had?) at Disneyland. A people mover isn’t a rail backbone by any stretch. And talking about Disneyland, Orlando has a population well over 2 million and no commuter rail system or light rail.
However, the mistakes America (and we) made in the past by not realising the limitations of private transport are no excuse for unbalanced transport spending. And since the portfolio has been skewed to roads for so long here, we really need to skew the spending right back so it is prioritising PT.
Interesting read. Even more interesting are the comments (especially regarding rail as a mainly hub and spoke operation – disagree to some extent). Car traffic in the Uk is declining (4% last year) and the government are wiring up railways like there is no tomorrow, perhaps that is due to the fact they haven’t grasped the smart car revolution (which apparently will stop all accidents and also abolish congestion – if somebody could explain the latter to me; especially in terms of fixed road space I would be grateful). The amount of land also wasted in fellating private transport is astonishing; especially in times of straightened food production.
Still, onwards and upwards to a great car future where private transport which gives the individual the freedom to…not do anything really….
In regards to obi’s 100,000 dwellings at Warkworth, I don’t know where on earth he’s got this idea from. Warkworth currently has around 3,500 people and is surrounded by pretty sensitive enviornmental areas (particularly to the south and east). It’s going to be an almighty struggle to find a way for it to grow to 20,000 people, let along ten times that number.
But imagine how much more fulfilling life will be out in the Woodcocks Road area when there is a beautiful new motorway there to whisk you, free of ever travelling below the 100km/h limit, to anywhere you would ever want to be in the whole wide world.
This idea comes from statements made by ACC local board members in public meetings. Being a resident of the area I have heard everything from an additional 100K residents to an extra 30K properties (which roughly equates to 100K residents) and any other numbers that any interested person can dream up! Now that Warkworth is designated as a satellite development area for ACC this gives strength to the notion that a new road is needed – hence the RoNS. To say that this amount of growth will destroy the character of the area completely is an understatement and a concept not yet clearly understood by the locals – none of whom want another Albany but that is exactly what they will get. Trev, Warkworth is surrounded on all sides by sensitive environmental areas – not just to the south and east. To the west we have the catchment areas and flood plains of the Mahurangi River which flows out to the Mahurangi estuary among some of the most stunning natural scenery – much of which will be destroyed forever by the planned new road. To the north of course we have the problematic Dome Valley and the surrounding hills.
The geotech of this area is so difficult for the engineers that they have had to put a large section of the road coming into Warkworth on an 8m high causeway down the old Kaipara River bed which floods periodically. The intrusion of the road into the lifestyles of all people along the route is significant – not to mention the fact that this road destroys the value of those properties – with no compensation. So many people will have their life savings decimated by this road – and that sum mounts up to some considerable millions of dollars of wider economic cost that is conveniently swept under the carpet. But those of us involved see this as little more than government theft which we are powerless to address.
See, I still think the Silverdale / Orewa area is a much more suitable candidate for the kind of city satellite they envisage. It doesn’t have the geographical limitations for a starter. That will make things much simpler (cheaper) to start with. Maybe someone in council has a substantial property holding in the Warkworth area?
I agree, from my comment above:
So that’s 3 people in a short space of time that think this plan is flawed, so what is it that Auckland Council can see that we cannot?
Bryce, it’s not their plan, that idea was cooked up and forced on them by Holiday Highway central. Lot of arm twisting by big bullies through the planning process…. Promoted by certain Rodney politicians.
Auckland Council identified Warkworth as a potential new area for growth. This was along with Kumeu and filling the gap between Papakura and Pukekohe. Silverdale and the likes are current resedential growth areas, and hence are not in this list. I would certainly put Warkworth at the bottom though, as it is more constrained and further away from Auckland than Kumeu, and doesn’t have the potential to develop around new rail stations that the Papakura to Pukekohe option has. It is right for Auckland Council to put all options up for consideration though, but Warkworth is many decades away from ever being a good option.
I can see the logic in all of the other places but not Warkworth. Heck, I think Huntly is more logical. Expressway / rail / cheap land. Oh, but that’s in the Waikato so it’s not included even though it makes sense (in my mind).
Plenty of land around Puhoi as well and what da ya know there’s are motorway right there.
Interesting is the last point on Greece, I’ve actually recently come back from holiday from there, from what I can see most of their money was spent on roading, they got a great motorway system! Believe it or not, they are still spending money on roads, but hey they aren’t in any kind of financial trouble right?
Only problem is National are doing everything else right in terms of the economy, apart from the allocation of the transport budget. The problem National has is Brownlee is effectively making this a main election mandate, which is a very risky policy decision. They are effectively alienating a massive support base that maybe looking elsewhere if they go down that track.
Expect big PT support for the next election!
Well properly considered the RoNS programme is consistent with the other big folly that this government is rushing through. Both are regressive and all about special interests, here:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business-editors-picks/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501981&objectid=10829989
Don’t necessarily agree with the entire article, although it does raise some good points, I do however agree with the asset sales, and I believe Key made it clear prior to the election that it was a mandate, you don’t agree don’t vote for us issue. Unlike the RoNs which were never given that status by National before the election.
I do accept that there is now increasing opposition to the asset sales and this should be revisited to make sure it is what the majority of NZers want.
Either way Browlee is going down a dangerous track if he is making a mandate issue.
Many might disagree with you in terms of National doing “everything else right”, but let’s not get drawn into that debate. I think the point you raise (perhaps inadvertently) is an important one – why does Central Government has so much influence over transport matters when hardly anyone makes their voting decision on that topic? Conversely, transport is often the biggest issue in local government elections but councils have relatively little power over transport budget issues.
The fact that the City Rail Link, Auckland’s number one transport project, is not provided with a cent of funding in the 2012-2015 NLTP is testament to this undemocratic situation.
Fully agree, however I think with the recent publicity over transport in Auckland we may be seeing a bit of a shift in public view points, transport might not be number 1 on the list. But it is certainly moving up the ranks.
Brownlee however seems to believe that transport was a big voting topic of the election, to the point it was a mandate, if he wants to go down that track he might be quite surprised by the response, especially in Auckland, which only has 1/3 of NZs population.
I am beginning to think that this may, just may, be the case for the first time ever. Whole new bunch of young voters too, as there is every election, but this lot do not seem as cynical and apathetic has has been the norm for quite a while… I am getting a bit of a sense like 1984 again; out of touch old white men in suits [I know they’re not that old but they act it], just not having any sense of what is important to this generation.
Every time they sneer at the Green world-view they are basically alienating a lot of young people at a very deep level. There’s more than a whiff of hubris about this government. They may be very surprised to find that one of the things they are confident is working for them perhaps won’t this time….?
Couldn’t agree more!
You are right, the cities in the SW of the United States are certainly the worst in the developed world. I dont know how much better Auckland is than those cities, maybe now with the massive growth in patronage, we may be better.
Just re Atlanta, according to this article it has the 8th busiest subway system in the United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_Atlanta
I will leave you to your pro-car opinions Obi, luckily we live in a country where we are all entitled to them. In my opinion they wont create a city that our children will be happy to inherit from us. I thyink they will ask us why we didnt do more to make it a more livable city and I dont think mobility achieves that, accessibility does.
My favourite city is Copenhagen closely followed by Amsterdam. I realise Auckland will never be like those cities (well for as long as the cheap oil lasts) but I will do everything I can to ensure that my children have the use of a good PT network.
If this country keeps showing a determination to neglect PT, I will leave NZ again to a city that doesnt. And I think with my skill set and earning (ie tax paying) power that will be a loss to NZ overall.
Goosoid. AK can improve a whole lot and pretty fast if we choose it. By which I mean if our all controlling masters in Wellington let us choose it.
Fantastic natural environment with a stupid built environment, I know which is easier to improve. Changing our movement infrastructure is the most urgent way forward. Onward!
I agree with you 100% Patrick. I guess it is the lack of vision in NZ that is driving me nuts, especially when you see what is being done in Northern Europe.
I will stick with it and be as active as I can in the CBT. Let’s just hope sanity and vision prevail and not “business as usual”.
I see in the NLTP they have budgeted $1b for policing and education. Is this over and above what the govt already spends? How far would that go towards fixing dangerous stretches of main roads around the country that could reduce the road toll?
I had some time while at work this afternoon (don’t ask :-)) to stare at a map of Auckland / Northland and I think if you were going to build a satellite town north of Orewa, then Wellsford rather than Warkworth makes more sense. It is only 15 minutes more on the current road and has a rail link.
If you really want to open up Northland, rather than build the motorway over Dome Valley, I would look at taking it along Ahuroa Rd past Puhoi itself and then follow the rail line to Wellsford. I would also allow a RTN route alongside this road. Potential you could have a Northern rail line, via the new (cough) harbour crossing to link to the current line at Western end of Ahuroa Rd.
Advantages: potentially cheaper land purchases away from housing (apart from Puhoi itself), a potential rail link which would speed up freight to and from Northland (which means the northern line would need to be heavy rail rather than a ‘skytrain’ style.), Wellsford appears to have much better geography than Warkworth for a large township, Warkwoth can maintain it’s little gateway to the East Coast status.
All of this of course could be done in stages, starting with Operation Lifesaver initially as the current road still needs to be made safe. The rest can happen over the next 30 or 40 years.
Enough rambling 🙂
That $14B lotto ticket seems to have won 😀 Crude is $47.00 today – lowest price in 10 years