Phil Tywford asked transport minister Gerry Brownlee in parliament yesterday about the CRL

Transscript is here.

Perhaps it is just me dreaming but Gerry did at least seem less negative about it than he had in the past. Based on his answers it suggests he waiting for the final version of the CCFAS to come across his desk before he can properly comment. At least he isn’t ruling the CRL out altogether which is at least a start.

However I must say, Gerry’s comments at the end were actually pretty good, although no one in parliament got the joke.

Share this

35 comments

  1. I am not convinced Gerry even got the joke as he says it is something Central Govt wanted to do. I reckon his advisors put that in and he went with it.

    Lol.

    1. Of course the Auckland Council will still have to pay half of that, even under the Labour Green proposals, so govt share only $1.5 billion, and thats probably a maximum rather than a minimum.
      In my mind should be split so Govt pays for building the tunnel, and Council pays for stations, extra EMU’s, and some of the service relocation costs.
      This is roughly what has historically happened with rail infrastructure in Auckland. Would probably end up close to 50:50 anyway.

        1. Not quite true, budget is $1.8b for the tunnel, plus ~$400m for the extras bringing the total to $2.2b. The $2.8b is the costs inflated to the year the money is proposed to be spent, something that isn’t done in any other transport project.

          1. The Onehunga line extras just plain shouldn’t be counted at all. That to me is a totally seperate project. Yes should still be done, bus cost is part of the airport line not CBDRL.

          2. Why does Auckland Council/Transport do this if no other projects are reported this way? Very considerate, but confusing and FUD-enduring. Come on council – clear communication for the public please!

          3. They have to do part of it for LTP purposes and I suspect they are using the inflated figure so that in a few years time they can show that it hasn’t gone up any further, a bit of under promise and over deliver.

  2. I reckon its still particularly worrying that this guy’s in charge of transport.

    From the 5th most common and cynical arguments people use against urban gondola transit –
    http://gondolaproject.com/2011/05/05/the-5-most-common-and-cynical-arguments-people-use-against-urban-gondola-transit/

    “Don’t get me wrong, I love The Simpsons. But using a 20 year old musical number from a fictional cartoon show as evidence to back up a questionable stance is lazy, lazy rhetoric.”

    I’d say from his parliamentary comments Gerry considers it pie in the sky technology with no use for Auckland. i.e. he doesn’t get it at all, which as he’s the Transport Minister is a bit of a disaster for Auckland and a bit of a disaster for the country really.

    As for 64% of Aucklanders wanting it, he just doesn’t believe the figures as in “There must be something wrong with the numbers, as they don’t agree with my prejudices”.

    He doesn’t get urban rail and he doesn’t get roads either as his continual backing of Transmission Gully in the face of overwhelming evidence its a dud proves.

    So as I said, I reckon its still particularly worrying that this guy’s in charge of transport. He might do better in a place like Shelbyville or some other small and fictional place.

      1. Keep defending it Matt.
        One thing that is great about a blog is traffic and congestion, how ironic you advocate against these. Good luck on making a bit of coin from this site. Oh – and you didn’t even need to use the CRL to do so.

        1. What’s your point? Gerry’s clearly just rounding up a 2021 figure rather than using what it will cost in todays money. By comparison the RoNS are still in 2008 or 9 dollars I think.

          As for the blog, it is doing very well thank you and traffic to it continues to grow. You might also notice that there is no pay walls or advertising on the blog. We have never intended as a blog as a way to make money and all of us bloggers do it because we genuinely want to make the city a better place.

          1. ” Gerry’s clearly just rounding up a 2021 figure rather than using what it will cost in todays money. ”

            Really ? How do you know ? It could be he is using the revised total from the City Centre Future Access Study.

            As to why this total is higher, perhaps the CCFAS consultants recognised the need to invest in bus infrastructure to carry the other 50% of new commuters needing to get into the CBD under the rail tunnel plan 🙂

          2. Like a NW or the AMETI busways? I think GB has issues thinking about a single PT project much less combining 2 into 1 (although a busway is almost a road – there’s hope yet). I’m happy to be proven wrong though 🙂

  3. Why don’t use boys setup a beer night, everyone on the blog from Auckland meet at time and place and have a good old debate. Risk night. Remba the family feuds over that game. Would be good fun. No?…

    1. I don’t even get the points you’re trying to make to be honest. Seems like just trolling. Matt’s clearly shown you information on the costing of the project and that Gerry is plain lying when he says it’s at least $3b.

  4. This guy, or girl called Josh, don’t bother with answering the complete idiot, troll.

    Gerry B, another Nat fool with just under 2 years to go. Then we csn seriously get infrastructure Auckland needs as a city, New Zealand needs as it delivers wider economic and long term benefits.

    1. Jim reeves.. So appropriate. Welcome to my world!..
      Jon get your labour bs off the blog. I make real arguments and make all the effects public, submission time is upon us, this blog will prosper.

      1. Hear that Josh? It’s the 21st century, arriving by modern, fast, efficient electric rail. Just like other first world cities.

        Give us a wave as we whizz by you in the traffic.

  5. Yes I was watching question time yesterday and I also heard his last comment that the government would take the findings of the CCFAS into account in its decision making on the crl rather than the poll on the auckland public’s view on it. Mildly positive alhough there are a lot of votes in auckland for politicians.
    If we don’t feel we’ve had much progress up this way come the next election the voting may reflect that.

  6. Let us hope not under promise, never get a chance to deliver… Giving nominal future costs as well as including all of the Onehunga extras, unlike the ‘comparable’ motorway projects, is just throwing ammo to Brownlee and company.

    1. I would not get too caught up on the “extras” such as the EMUs and Onehunga: If the costs are included then it means that the benefits can be counted too.

      To not include them would be like saying that we’re going to run the same rolling stock and network with/without the CRL, when actually the CRL allows you to run many more services. Yes the extra trains have a cost, but there are benefits from those services too.

  7. FYI 64% of people asked liked the idea of the CRL. There was probably no question about funding. If they had been asked “If you had to pay higher taxes and petrol prices to pay for the CRL, would you want to build it?” Then I suspect the number would have been very different. That is what Gerry is questioning. Any poll can be twisted to get any result. Also regarding the 3B lie. How is it a lie? These are cost ESTIMATES. By the time this project is done and dusted, I am fairly certain it will cost over 3B. A project this big and unusual could very likely run slightly over budget. May as well prepare people for the cost and if it runs under budget, than thats a good thing. If we under budget, it will leave a bad taste of PT in people’s minds.

    1. Ari they weren’t asked ‘would you prefer to have the CRL before the Holiday Highway’, which are the policies of the two main opposition parties either.

      Or ‘would you support spending less on motorways so we could start building the CRL tomorrow at no extra cost to tax payers or rate payers?’

      Would you prefer those questions? Are they fairer? They are possible accurate questions. Could probably get close to 90% with the second one.

  8. The fact we are debating wording of polls is silly. What needs to happen is a completely costed plan with multiple options for funding needs to hit the Ministers desk, rather than some nonsense PR campaign. I think this project is already in the category of ‘when’ not ‘if’ it will happen.

Leave a Reply