I initially started writing this post with the intention of posting it last week however it was put on hold as a result of the Green Party policy targeting kids walking and cycling to school.

In just over 6 months is next general election. At a national level transport is an oddity in that it’s not normally a big talking point – with the possible exception of those who read this blog – instead the focus is usually on the big three of the Economy, Education and Health. It’s an oddity as transport policy can have massive impacts on those three issues along with many others. This is because transport isn’t a direct objective but is an enabler for other outcomes, and that is why it is also so important to get right. While I expect some minor changes in some areas, overall I suspect we aren’t going to see any major changes in transport policy from the main parties. Many people probably have a good idea of each party stands for but with this post I thought I would highlight what the transport policy of the parties that achieved over 5% in the 2011 election.

National

National’s transport policy at the last election was really just a continuation of what they had been doing for the three years prior to that. There were a number of issues that they highlight as wanting to do however the one given the most attention was clearly Keep building better roads. That part of the policy said they would:

  • Invest $12 Billion over 10 years in State Highway construction.
  • Complete construction on:
    • Christchurch’s Southern Motorway Stage 1.
    • The Ngaruawahia and Te Rapa sections of the Waikato Expressway.
    • The Tauranga Eastern link.
  • Construct New Zealand’s largest-ever roading project, the Waterview Connection on Auckland’s Western Ring Route, including two three-laned tunnels bored under Avondale.
  • Start construction on:
    • The Christchurch Western Bypass and the Southern Motorway Stage 2.
    • The Basin Reserve Flyover and the Mackays to Peka Peka Expressway on the Wellington Northern Corridor.
    • The Cambridge and Rangiriri sections of the Waikato Expressway.
  • Design and consent the Transmission Gully section of Wellington’s Northern Corridor (construction due to start in 2015/16).
  • Finalise the design and consenting of the Puhoi to Warkworth section of the Puhoi to Wellsford RONS, and prepare for a construction start in 2014/15.
  • Construct replacement Waitaki River bridges on State Highway 82 at Kurow.
  • Evaluate four new RONS projects for development following final completion of the first three RONS projects (Victoria Park, Waterview, and Tauranga Eastern Link):
    • State Highway 29 between Hamilton and Tauranga.
    • State Highway 1 between Cambridge and Tirau.
    • Further development of the Hawke’s Bay Expressway.
    • State Highway 1 North and South of the current Christchurch motorway projects.
  • Continue to develop key regional roading projects that will enhance productivity and economic growth, including the Rotorua Eastern Arterial and the Waiwakaiho Bridge in New Plymouth.
  • Improve the resilience of key inter-regional freight routes like Mt Messenger on State Highway 3, and the Manawatu Gorge.

The most interesting (and concerning) of these points was the additional four RoNS projects. I don’t know if the NZTA has done any work on them internally but I’m certainly not aware of any public discussion of them. Part of the reason these may not have happened is that the government are having enough problems funding the current RoNS work and so anything extra is being left for the time being. This coming election I suspect we will see the policy largely unchanged however there will definitely be an increased focus on the fast tracked Auckland projects they announced in June last year. They will undoubtedly claim a lot of credit for electrification and other PT improvements (expect to see a lot of shots of politicians wanting to associate themselves with the new trains). Of course discussion of the CRL will feature somewhat however I suspect that before the election we might see the government agree to Len Brown’s $250m kick start suggestion.

Labour

As you would expect Labours’ policy (6.2MB file) was more friendly to public transport including supporting paying for half of the CRL which would have been done by opting for an Operation Lifesaver approach to the Puhoi to Wellsford road although other than that there were no specifics given as to what would be done. There seemed to be quite a bit of talk around reducing emissions and working to shift more freight to rail. One difference to National was in sea freight where they promised to develop a national port strategy.

In addition to Puhoi to Wellsford which was mentioned earlier, when it came to roads Labour opposed the four new RoNS projects that National talked about but more specifically mentioned a few other projects including that:

  • Labour will investigate and prioritise improvements to the “East-West Corridor” proposal in Auckland between East Tamaki at State Highway I and Onehunga at State Highway 20.
  • Labour prefers the original Western Link Road plan, not the four-lane Kapiti Expressway as has now been approved and will fund it 100%
  • Labour will also continue to support the Transmission Gully project but only so long as it meets reasonable cost-benefit criteria.
  • Labour will ensure the funding for local roads is not further undermined by the excessive focus on Roads of National Significance.
  • Labour will promote the introduction of a nationwide infrastructure to recharge electric vehicles.
  • Labour will investigate the appropriate use of mechanisms including tolling, PPPs and road pricing, ie. congestion charging.

So a bit of a mixed bag there. Perhaps the overall thinking is summed up well by this statement which sits under the PT section

Labour will examine ways to maintain and increase the overall transport spend beyond the National Land Transport Fund to develop our public transport systems so that they are a credible and attractive transport option.

That sounds quite a bit like what we’re seeing in Auckland with Len (which I guess is unsurprising) where with the exception of a few of the RoNS projects, the focus is on working out how to raise more money to pay for everything rather than cut low performing projects.

This election I suspect we will see some more of the same. We know Labour have already said they are backing the CRL and would pay for half of it including Len’s proposed early start. I also suspect they will end up copping the Greens walking and cycling to school policy.

Greens

Of course we already know one of the Greens policies with the announcement last week although there is obviously more to come. As many would expect, the policy focused around reducing investment in roads and investing more in alternatives like PT, Walking and Cycling and shifting freight to rail and shipping. In Auckland they said they would:

  • invest 60% ($1.44 billion) to fast track the CRL
  • spend $500 million to build north-west and south-east busways
  • provide $30 million per year to fund walking and cycling in the region including across the harbour bridge.

The greens actually seem to keep their transport policy up to date (or have done so recently) meaning we don’t really have to speculate much. Here is the vision they are aiming for.

Vision

New Zealand has a sustainable transport system that supports liveable, people-friendly towns and cities, and enables the movement of people and goods locally, regionally and nationally at least social, environmental and financial cost.

  • People of all ages and abilities have access to safe, reliable and convenient transport.
  • Traffic on roads and roading is reduced as other modes of transport are preferred. Road traffic is predominantly low or zero-emission vehicles.
  • Public transport in urban and rural areas is widely available and extensively used.
  • Walking and cycling are a popular transport choice, facilitated by a nationwide web of safe and attractive cycle and walkways.
  • Transport infrastructure provides access to provincial areas and supports regional development.

The link above also contains a number of very specific policy points should you be interested.

New Zealand First

The NZ First transport policy relates almost exclusively to the movement of freight whether it be by road, rail or sea. In fact there isn’t even a single mention of public transport or commuters in the policy and there’s only one mention of building a cycle network which comes with the caveat of “where appropriate”.

With his history, I’m not even going to bother trying to predict what kind of policy Winston Peters might come up with this time.

So there’s my brief look at the transport policies of the main parties at the last election. Overall this year I don’t expect we will see too much different in the various positions compared to the last election with perhaps the biggest difference being National and whether or not they support an early start to the CRL. I’m guessing that will largely depending on what the polling is looking like

Share this

45 comments

  1. Wasn’t the original idea with the RONs that they were economic stimulatory packages, funded from the general income, not from money from Road User Charges and Fuel Excise Duties. The argument that such stimulatory spending is still required now we have a more healthy economy (as conventionally measured) is very weak or non- existent.

    Reply

    1. Na they never were stimulus policy. Good stimulus projects are ones that are ‘shovel ready’, ie already designed and preferably consented. Also less complexity is good for shorter lead times. Most of RONS total opposite. Need to be investigated from scratch. Good stimulus projects would of been operation lifesaver projects, less complex and already designed.

      Reply

      1. Heck, from a pure stimulus perspective, simply identifying all roads that needed banks repaired and retained, road surfaces redone, and footpaths repaired would have been far quicker and would have done more for the economy than anything else (and by gosh, some of our footpaths could stand being a bit more level!).

        But no, such “maintenance” things, while being a massive boost for the economy, especially the small and medium construction businesses, those aren’t as sexy as some white elephants.

        Reply

  2. The government will have to basically give away its transport election policy when it releases the draft GPS in the next couple of months.

    Reply

    1. Do they HAVE to provide a new one? In any case, I doubt it can be much worse. GPS is percentage-based, so even announcing more RONS wouldn’t necessarily skew the disaster even more than it already is.

      Reply

    1. I wonder how much Auckland PT usage has increased because of the gold card? Probably a lot of off peak trips I imagine, helping improve the off peak frequency of services due to the extra demand.

      Reply

      1. And taking cars off the road, letting the rest flow more economically. But that is not a metric they seem to understand. Reducing car traffic always seems evil and un-kiwi to them…

        Reply

  4. Labour looks a bit weak, I might have to vote Green for the first time ever. Surprised none of them mention the CFN – maybe we will see that in Labours policy this election?

    Reply

    2. As a political party, you tend not to want to be seen as pushing anything that smacks of lobby group. The party / politician simply acts as if they always believed in it.

      And that’s perfectly fine. Most lobbyists aren’t in it for the glory (they are either in it because they believe in it, or because they are after money…).

      Reply

  5. “Mr Brownlee says the Greens want the Government to be slavish to benefit-cost ratios, but at the same time want it to bring forward the construction of the Auckland rail link.

    He says that project has a benefit-cost ratio that is ‘below low’, and into the negative.”

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/239134/brownlee-criticises-greens-on-rail-link

    That doesn’t sound like the rhetoric of a transport minister preparing to agree to Len Brown’s kick-start proposal for the CRL!

    Reply

  6. Also, Brownlee is cute when he says the BCR is “into the negative” 😉 That would imply that the CRL construction would produce only disbenefits, as the benefit side of the ratio would have to be a negative number.

    Reply

  7. I asked Winston Peters about his support for the CRL in one of those online Q&A sessions a while ago and he said that NZ First did support the CRL. Good to hear but unlikely to be a priority for NZ First in coalition negotiations. Unless you’re trying to tactually vote NZ First (a very risky tactic) then Labour or Greens are the only options for good transport.

    Reply

    1. Not that risky last time around given that Key and Peters both refused to even consider working together. Possibly very risky this time

      Reply

  9. I was interested to see on the Paul Henry Show last night, where they were analysing Labour’s current low polling, that Josie Pagani was concerned that Labour kept attacking National’s roads programme. Her view was that the ongoing attack would be a real negative for voters, I guess especially those who can’t see beyond their steering wheels. I was a bit puzzled because I couldn’t really recall anything much that Labour had said about RONS or roads in general lately (unlike The Greens who seem to be constantly on Gerry’s case); there was a minor press release or two around Xmas/New Year but hardly an ongoing campaign. I guess it’s a fair point that you have to be able to offer a constructive alternative though, rather than just whinging about the other side’s policies, but I don’t think I’ve really seen either from Labour yet.

    Reply

    2. Which ones? Herald digipolls? I can do better polls than that at the pub. Random phone polls mean only old people and self employed answer the phone the others are actually working

      Reply

      1. I think you must be right. These people bother me all the time and ask person questions like ‘if there was an election today who would you vote for?’ Being a prick I always say Greens. It is the best way to annoy both National and Labour and when the election does come around and the Greens don’t do as well as expected it annoys them too.

        Reply

  10. Given that Labour (with help from the Greens) is our only chance of stopping National’s “Think Big Roads” policy, it is concerning how vacuous Labour’s policy seems to be in just about all areas. Do they stand for anything other than simply “not National”? The Greens come across as having far more ideas and thought-out policy. I think Labour should team closely with the Greens and simply adopt their policies if they can’t think of any of their own.
    As far as transport policy is concerned, Sept 2014 will be the Election of National Significance (EoNS). If National remains in power, the die will be firmly cast for a “Think Big” splurge worse than Muldoon’s. Labour had better not blow it!

    Reply

    1. For the first time in a long time, the values Labour stands for are set by Labour’s members, not stitched up in a back room strategy meeting. The party’s policies and actions are required to be consistent with those values: https://www.labour.org.nz/policy-platform . It’ll be interesting to see how that works out when Labour are next in government.

      The detailed policies are gradually released over time. Some, like Best Start, KiwiBuild, KiwiPower, KiwiAssure, etc. have already been released. (Why is everything called “KiwiSomething”?) As Matt points out, Labour’s also promised to fund 50% of the CRL immediately, and can Puford in favour of Operation Lifesaver. Other policies, including the transport policy, will be released throughout the election campaign. This dripfeeding approach irritates me as much as the next guy, but it’s media-friendly, and doing it that way makes campaigning lots more effective. The election’s still six months away, and most people aren’t thinking too much about it yet.

      The Green Party write a gigantic detailed book of all their policy proposals on their website, and I appreciate that forethought. But it’s still pretty meaningless for a minor party, who won’t get to do 10% of what they promise. Having all those detailed policies doesn’t tell you what’s going to be important, or what the Greens are going to try to get in coalition negotiations. Nor does it tell you what’s going to change in the next three years.

      Reply

      1. “who won’t get to do 10% of what they promise.”

        It is not meaningless, because if they get to be in government, they can try to influence all these things. Not getting them line-by-line as in their program doesn’t mean they can’t steer broader policies in this direction…

        Reply

        1. You know what general direction the Greens will push policy in, sure. But you also know what general direction Labour will push policy in, too. It’s the line-by-line detail of Green policy that, while nice of them to provide, still has little bearing on what they’ll accomplish if they are part of the government.

          In fact, despite all the detailed policy, the Greens are even less of a known quantity than Labour. The Greens have never been in government before, and not even a necessary support party except for 1999-2002. Based on that experience, and the disappointing performance of Wellington’s Green mayor, the Greens’ problem is that they just might not be very effective in government.

      2. And yet Labour can not seize the narrative off National so their polices mean for nothing. Six months out people are already talking the election and National continues well (at the moment) across the charts (including iPredict).
        I have already written two narratives Labour are failing at badly and at today’s performance there will be third one coming up tomorrow morning.

        So again unless Labour seizes the narrative off National (and don’t blame the media either with both sides copping it rough one way or the other) we are approaching another third term National Government

        Reply

        1. Failing at in your opinion. I guarantee there is more public support for Labour’s housing policies than there would be for liberalising development controls and planning regulations which likely come across as vague policies. Building houses is heartlands Labour policy and restricting foreign ownership and capital gains tax are measures adopted internationally to cool down the housing market.

        2. IF there is such support you claim Louis why is it not being translated back across the polls nor iPredict.

          Of note CGT has not cooled the Aussie Housing market but rather external economic factors such as the resources boom falling off the wagon and the Federal Government squandering changes to rebalance the Aussie economy

        3. iPredict’s a betting market which trades fairly low volumes so can easily be influenced by one or two people. Point is that Labour are not going to go up in the polls because they announce plans to somehow ban councils from imposing MPRs and so on.

          I’m not familiar with Australia’s housing market but if the market has cooled recently then that’s not to do with CGT as CGT has existed in Australia for quite some time. Regardless of its effect on the housing market, it’s unfair that property investors should get favourable tax treatment over other sources of income, and it likely is causing over-investment in property.

  11. Actually, Gold Card was one of the best ever pro public transport pieces of policy ever inacted! Free movement on PT for pensioners….no other party has ever come close to beating that policy. NZ First has done a lot for PT usage just by that single policy.

    Imagine PT usage figures if that NZ First policy had never come into place! I am quite amused at authors rather cavaliar attitude to the party which drove Gold Card into place.

    I spoke with Winston on Saturday about the CRL and he said NZ First has always supported it. In a recent meeting he even said NZ First would like to continue electrification from Pukekohe to Hamilton to ensure the trained professionals constructing the Auckland electrification are not lost overseas.

    This years policy from NZ First will be more detailed on rail and PT.

    Reply

    1. I agree about the Gold Card, and in fact think it sets an useful precedent for extending PT access to other groups, like beneficiaries, especially with off peak discounts. And especially as the power of the network is improved and it becomes more useful for more locations, times, and destinations. It is potentially a great tool to help liberate people from Transport Poverty and still function fully in the whole city’s commercial, cultural, and social life.

      Hey important to note that today the Integrated Ticketing programme ended, or rather its full use begins! Congrats all; and here’s to the speedy implementation of Integrated Fares!

      Reply

      1. I think the actual roll-out wasn’t too bad. Some coms issues, and of course lots of hick-ups with Snapper etc… BEFORE the roll-out. But hey. It’s here, it’s working, it has potential for a lot more.

        Reply

    1. That would be nice, but beyond some planning certainty, it wouldn’t change much either way. But maybe the Nats think that is good. Prick one potential issue before it can be a nuisance, by giving another small concession.

      Still, I am not so sure at all it will be that.

      Reply

  13. Thank God there are enough sane voters not to elect a Labour Govt.

    I quite liked Queen Helen but traditional labour policies are all about jealousy taxation and rewarding sitting on your arse 🙁

    Reply

      2. I can’t imagine National will bother with a transport policy this time. If you dont make promises you dont have to break them. Surely they will prune two ministers and say ‘vote for us for more of the same’. If they do have a policy it will be ‘we support roads and we support CRL, while making sure they dont actually have to pay for either. As for actually building CRL surely the biggest risk to it isn’t from central government now the risk is that Auckland wont be able to pay for its share. The Council certainly doesn’t look like an organisation saving up to pay for a major purchase. Three times the borrowings of the previous 8 Councils with little to show for it looks like wanton spending to me. How long before ratepayers put in a Council that does the old fashioned slash and burn policy.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *