For many, the announcement that the government was coming to the party on the CRL – and, it sounds like, a heap of pointless roading projects – was a big shock. Many people, including myself, have suggested that this is not so much a case of the government agreeing with the council over the project, but making a very strategic political decision to gain support. A new poll out today by Horizon Research provides some insight as to what has caused this change of heart.
Nearly 47 out of 100 Aucklanders rated the Government’s performance on the Central Rail Link project as poor in the fortnight before it announced it would support a 2020 start date for the project.
46.9% rated performance on the issue has poor to very poor and 19.9% said it was good to very good. Others were neutral or not sure, according to a June 13 to 26 Horizon Research poll of 1026 Aucklanders aged 18+. Weighted to represent the Auckland adult population the poll has a maximum margin of error of +/- 3.1%.
The issue is among a number on which the Government is perceived to be performing poorly.
Top of the list is affordable housing (64.7% poor, 9.7% good), followed by traffic congestion (60.2% poor, 10.2% good).
It is also rated as listening poorly to Aucklanders (55.9% poor, 14,5% good) and scores poorly on trustworthiness (49% poor, 18.1% good), inspiration (47,2% poor, 13.9% good) and leadership overall (45% poor, 19.7% good).
Aucklanders also perceived the Government had managed relationships with Auckland Mayor Len Brown poorly (44.1% poor, 14.7% good), though it fared slightly better on managing relationships with Auckland Council (43.5% poor, 26.6% poor).
The Government got its best performance score for building new roads (28.9% good) though 35.7% rated this poor. Major investments in new motorways, electric passenger trains and electrifying rail do not appear to have been recognised by Aucklanders.
The Central Rail Link (CRL) announcement may go some way to improving the Government’s performance ratings on the CRL and traffic congestion issues.
This is not the first poll that Horizon have done on the CRL with one released back in November showing 64% of respondents supported it while another poll done by Research NZ earlier last year showed a similar result. We know the government do a lot of their own polling and I would imagine they are getting very similar results. The poor results would likely have been deeply concerning to them and what I suspect is the real reason for the change. Interestingly today they were busy announcing funding for a series of projects in Christchurch which perhaps suggests they were getting similarly poor polling results there too – it is certainly in line with what I had heard.
At the end of the day the reality is likely that if the government lost the support of the cities it would be very very difficult for them to get elected again and they knew this. With the CRL I guess I don’t even really care whether they actually believe in the benefits of project or not, the important thing is that they have realised that not supporting it is not an option – oh and it is for this reason I expect them to eventually bring forward the construction date by at least a couple of years.
Processing...
Interesting reading. Does that suggest most people think Nick Smith’s “sprawl baby sprawl!” solution to housing affordability has gone down like a lead balloon with Aucklanders?
ne can only hope so.
How do 22.5% think they’re doing well on public transport?
The 22.5% who never use it and call buses the “Loser Cruiser”.
The 22.5% who have bought the spin that the “We’re investing $1.5b in rail in Auckland” line means “National approved and budgeted the funding for $1.5b worth of projects that improve rail in Auckland”.
As opposed to the reality that it means “National inherited $1b of planned (and budgeted) or nearly-completed rail improvement projects in Auckland that we’re happy to claim credit for because we didn’t cancel them, and we’re generously loaning Auckland Council $0.5b to buy some trains after cancelling the regional fuel tax that would’ve gone towards paying for those trains.”
So the government has had a change of heart on the CRL in order to buy more votes. Whoop-de-do.
Now if they can just reopen the Napier-Gisborne Line, reopen Hillside Workshops, stop selling state assets and cancel the Roads of National Extravagance, then and onlly then will they stand a chance of buying my vote.
Oh, and commit to a CRL in Wellington, a suburban rail service in Christchurch, and rebuild the nation’s long-distance passenger train network back to at least what it was before privatisation eviscerated it.
Anything less and I will vote Green.
I won’t even mention Labour because I have no idea what they stand for on transpoprt issues.
Govt’s own supporters were also unamused, says a Horizon manager:
http://www.horizonpoll.co.nz/page/321/what-happened-to-govt-supporters-in-auckland-poll
Farrar’s polling would have reinforced that, and Joyce the strategist would have over-ridden Joyce the tarmac-lover, while Key looked on.
plausible theory, but how come the government is riding the “sell assets” theme for Auckland and Christchurch councils when that is unpopular all around the country?
Cos that’s core ideology, and, in fact, their only economic policy. Who knows what the plan is after they’ve sold all the silver…? Hawaii looks nice dear….
Even more interesting given Labour polling according to recent press.
Everyone is missing the two real revolutions here. Up until now, PT in this country has been a proxy battlefield for competing visions of the future of Auckland and of NZ. Now, it is a bi-partisan argument over emphasis, no longer if but when. I don’t think it is possible to overstate the importance of this political shift. Secondly, it marks a momentous power shift. For the first time, a united Auckland has bent Wellington to its will. It represents a crushing defeat of the do nothing, Balkanised “little Aucklanders” like that stupid old moaning rates guy Jim Mora always interviews, and Brewer and Quax and Woods. They are yesterday’s men.
Agreed. And I think Key just may have unleashed a dam load of urban expectation with this. We and especially Millenials, and whatever comes after them, now know they don’t have to take No from the grumpy old men … their certainties are crumbling…..
Ah i love the sight of a new zeitgiest suddenly coming into view… especially one I’ve been predicting….
I agree. Watching National U turn on PT infrastructure for Auckland is a huge deal. It doesn’t mean they have my vote, but perhaps PT will not be quite so much of a left/right issue anymore.
We may be seeing the sea change here that happened in Australia 20 years ago that was referred to in the tribute to Paul Mees. The debate in Australia now is much more about how much and when to build rail rather than if. Hopefully that will be the case here as well.
I expect that like in Perth, once Aucklanders see what rail can deliver (notwithstanding the 60 years of anti-rail propaganda NZers have been subjected to) there will be a stampede of demand. The rhetoric will turn from “when do we get our highway” to “when do we get our rail line”. Perhaps especially in the North and East.
Extend line from Manakau through Tamaki to Panmure via AMETI right of way?
What about lobbying by the Auckland Chamber of Commerce ? They no doubt lobbied Key directly, which would be more effective than going to Gerry. Some gentle words from the Chamber indicating they agreed with the Council’s study, and feared loss of National seats in Auckland over the issue could have been enough.
Yes that would have played a significant part of it too. In fact all of the major business groups have been pushing for it and they deserve credit for that. It’s not often you get a project with so much support from across the spectrum. I suspect it is the combination of all of these elements, and probably a few others have driven this.
That’s my take on it too. Despite the polls they realised that if they lose Auckland, they lose the election. So, throw Auckland some pork.
Whatever the reasons for the government’s change to support the city rail link, it is a very positive move for Auckland and the overall strategy of reducing urban sprawl and tackling road congestion.
However in arguing for rail only under the harbour, is CBT advocating a new bridge for heavy transport?
NZTA has made it clear that the existing bridge will last forever if trucks and buses are removed from it. If heavy vehicles continue to access the bridge, its life is limited.
A tunnel should therefore arguably provide for trains, buses and heavy transport – with tolls for transport and minimal congestion. The existing bridge could continue to service cars, motorcycles and cycles.
The clip-ons are certainly life-limited with use by heavy vehicles, but the main span is good for many more decades with or without heavy traffic; the main span doesn’t have the support and flexing challenges that affect the clip-ons.
If there’s a rapid transit connection across the harbour that links straight into the rapid transit network for the rest of the city, that’ll take a vast amount of traffic off the AHB. With that traffic gone it becomes feasible to restrict heavy vehicles to the main span because they mostly aren’t entering/exiting immediately adjacent to the AHB. Scheduled bus services would be off the AHB entirely, because they’d be feeding the rail service on either side.
Also, as observed here, the Western Ring Route will take a heap of trucks off the AHB by giving them an easier route north from the western/south-western suburbs.
As was meant to be the original route of SH1 until it was diverted at the behest of the mayor at the time through the central city (what a disaster!) in order to ensure that the bridge was a success.
What a different city it would be if that had happened. Yet another missed opportunity to create a nice city.
You know you can’t really call it a “sudden” change of heart. If you look at the way Gerry has talked about it over the past 2 years or so they have only ever been looking to clarify information. If they were against it they would not have been working closely with the council to sort out there concerns.
*snort*
You keen on believing that, sweetie. Up until Wednesday, the closest the government had ever got to conceding the CRL might be worth doing was Gerry talking about it starting sometime after 2030. Dragging it forward by a decade only mere days after Gerry was dismissing it in the House is absolutely “sudden”. Doesn’t get much more sudden, in fact.
Makes you wonder about what their internal polling in Auckland was telling them.
The times I’ve seen him respond to it he has always said they were looking into it, saying anything else would make people think they have approved it.
In a way it’s much like me, I support the CRL but if I ever question any of the figures people assume I’m dead against it.
He’s been wildly dismissive. The government used to talk about how Auckland’s rail network carries fewer people than the Puford route. Once that statement became completely, patently untrue, they moved to talking about how it was a short little loop which added no benefit for massive cost. Gerry dismissed the CCFAS before it had even been publicly released, saying that he had expected that the study would be wide-ranging and present a range of alternatives to just building the CRL.
Go back and read the transcripts of Question Time. Gerry, and Steven before him, rejected utterly any near- or medium-term need for the CRL. Gerry softened slightly when he talked about it happening, maybe, in 15-20 years’ time, but that was it. It was never a “We’re waiting for more information to decide when to do it”, it was always “We’re waiting for more information to decide whether to do it.” There has been no new information on the project’s necessity or cost that’s come out in the last month. None. Nadda. Zilch. Zip. There is nothing additional to add to the government’s understanding of the project, other than poll results which show them getting a comprehensive reputational thrashing over their handling of the CRL.
In yesterday’s parliamentary Question Time, Michael Woodhouse (on behalf of an absent Brownlee) insisted that his government’s attitude about the CRL hadn’t changed, ever:
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QOA/0/e/1/50HansQ_20130627_00000005-5-Public-Transport-Auckland-City-Rail-Link.htm
In other news, we have always been at war with Eurasia.
Doubleplus good spin from the Ministry of Traffic Reduction!
The poll results from about 2 days ago showed them with a 60% majority, so it seems a little strange to panic when there is no real competition. What it does do however is take the little bit of wind that was in the greens sails, now they will need to find something else to prove their while as being opposition.
In general I agree that has been his response, except on Campbell Live when my old wood work teacher stated pretty emphatically that National was a road party and rail had no part in their policy.
I suspect he may have been overruled by Key. Key understands cities and has lived in NY and London. He was more easily convinced once he saw the evidence.
I know Gerry and he is not a bad guy – bit of a bully but his heart is in the right place. The thing is his life experience has been very limited and he has never left Chch. He is a huge car fan – I saw him once coaching his rugby team yelling out the window driving up and down the school driveway. Even then I thought that was bizarre.
Rail was never on his radar and he doesnt understand public transport as he never used it.
A bit like Mrs. Thatcher then, who was known to personally hate railways and proudly boasted once that she had never used a train.
I’ve heard it said that she thought the UK’s rail network should be shut down and the trackbeds turned into motorways. Possibly only an apocryphal tale but it does indicate a certain mindset that some people hold in regard to trains.
Considering the ongoing loss of rail routes here over the last couple of decades I wonder if such an agenda is quietly being pushed in the background.
It’s fairly obvious Gerry doesn’t get out of his car – or any other sitting apparatus for that matter.