In politics, transport sits in a weird space. It’s a key topic in local body elections – which is understandable as people’s interactions the transport system are experienced at a local level – however it’s at a national level where most of the key decisions around funding and overall transport policy are made. Yet despite this transport remains a second or even third tier issue at a national level. Instead the focus tends to be on the Economy, Health, Education and Welfare. In many ways this is odd as transport policy is perhaps the one intervention that can have hugely positive or negative impacts all of those and other issues. This is one of the reasons why I think transport policy should have much more attention and importance placed on it.
With that in mind and with the election just a few days away I thought it was about time to do a wrap up of the transport policies of the parties that might get over the 5% threshold to enter parliament.
National
National will:
- Keep building the Roads of National Significance to address capacity constraints on our roading network and encourage economic growth.
- Kick-start the Accelerated Regional Roading Package with a $212 million investment in a suite of important regional roading projects.
- Accelerate important State Highway projects in Auckland to reduce congestion, capitalise on the Western Wing Route, and improve connections to the airport.
- Start the Urban Cycleways Programme to make it easier and safer for people to cycle to and from work.
For the most part National’s transport policy seems to follow the theme of not rocking the boat. It’s about them keeping on doing what they have been doing with a particular focus on the completion of the RoNS. This is not surprising as many of the RoNS projects are currently under construction and the reality is they would need to be finished regardless of who’s in power and they were hardly going to stray far from the draft Government Policy Statement released in June. Of the RoNS there are a couple of projects that would get underway during the next government if National are still in charge and they are:
- Puhoi to Warkworth
- The Huntly and Hamilton bypasses and the Longswamp section
- Sections of the Wellington projects
- Sections of the Christchurch motorways.
In addition to the RoNS the government announced at the budget it would spend $212 million on a series of regional roads around the country. It turns out some of the projects aren’t that bad and probably would have been funded sooner if the government hadn’t sucked up as much funding as possible for the RoNS programme.
The most surprising announcement from National was a few weeks ago where they promised to invest $100 million into urban cycling facilities over four years. This would be a welcome boost to a meagre cycling budget and it’s great to see National finally recognising the need for urban cycling infrastructure.
Lastly when it comes public transport there is simply nothing really being promoted in the their policies other than the claims about how much they’ve spent on PT – all of which was initiated under the previous government. This contributes to the fact that over the last six years the government haven’t funded, let alone announced a single new PT project (funding the CRL in 2020 doesn’t count in my books).
Labour
Labour will:
- Build a 21st century transport system that provides choice and is cost effective
- Rebalance the transport budget away from the current government’s exclusive focus on motorway projects towards a more rational investment in the most efficient and sustainable combination of transport modes. For freight this means investing in roads, rail, our ports, and coastal shipping. In our cities it means a greater emphasis on public transport, and walking and cycling
- Invest in the Congestion Free Network for Auckland
- Reduce congestion in Auckland by building the City Rail Link immediately, funding it 50:50 with Auckland Council
- Eliminate an unnecessary hassle by removing the annual registration charge for light trailers and caravans
- Reduce congestion and make the roads safer by requiring trucks to not drive in the fast lane on three and four lane motorways
- Reduce costs for motorhome and campervan owners by reversing changes made by the current government that have doubled their Road User Charges
While National may be trying not to rock the boat too much Labour seems prepared to do it, but if it doesn’t upset some people.
Their transport policy is much more PT friendly, even talking about improved PT as giving people a choice in how they get around. Fantastically they have even agreed to support the Congestion Free Network which is great to see. In addition to Auckland they say they will invest heavily in PT for Wellington and start rail services in Christchurch starting with services to the north of the city.
When it comes to active modes Labour seem to be the most vague, they talk about how National’s cycling plan is too little too late and that they will invest more but are oddly quite about just what they would do or how much it would cost.
It’s when it comes to roads that the party seem to be the most in conflict with themselves. They support Operation Lifesaver which would scale back the Puhoi to Wellsford RoNS but have also given their support to other low value projects on the RoNS list like Transmission Gully – instead fighting the PPP building it. The big challenge for Labour will be to see if the projects mentioned can be stopped because them being able to do so will be essential to freeing up funding for the other projects on their list to do.
In addition to above, Labour are also promising a raft of smaller changes like with things like banning trucks from using the fast lane and reducing costs for caravans.
Overall Labour’s transport policy has some really good stuff in it but also seems to be a bit of a compromise which perhaps stems trying to placate their regional based MPs/candidates trying to win local elections.
Greens
A bus or train every few minutes. By investing in an integrated network of trains and buses with dedicated rights of way, we can make it easy to get around our largest cities without a car.
Unlocking Auckland to become a vibrant city where public transport is fast, clean and affordable, and where cycling for adults and kids is safe. We will implement the Congestion Free Network including underwriting $1.3 billion in funding for the Auckland City Rail Link to start immediately, and extending rail to the Airport and the North Shore within 15 years.
Safe walking and cycling. The Green Party will invest at least $100 million a year in new, safe, separated walking and cycling infrastructure in New Zealand’s small towns and big cities.
Resilient regions. Our switch in spending away from a few motorways in urban areas will result in increased transport funding so regions can contest for projects that will best serve their transport needs. We will also reverse the neglect of our rail network, and invest significantly in the transport backbone of New Zealand.
Affordable fares. The Student Green Card will give free off-peak travel to all tertiary students and apprentices. We will investigate options to lower fares for everyone, and implement smart, integrated options for monthly and annual passes.
As expected the Greens are primarily pushing PT and active modes of transport strongly. One thing I particularly like about the overall policy is that they have gone to the extent of creating a mock version of the Government Policy Statement to show that they have thought through the issues of funding. Like Labour the challenge for the Greens is that a lot of the transport budget is likely to be tied up in the RoNS that are already under way for some time yet which will impact on how much they can do.
Fantastically they too have adopted the CFN as part of their core transport plan (to be fair they announced their support for it first) and have even gone to the extent of creating their own stylised version of it.
They have also backed the Fast Forward plan for Wellington which would see a light rail network built around the city. I’m yet to be convinced this is necessarily the most practical solution for Wellington but I certainly agree a comprehensive plan is needed. In Christchurch the party have stopped short of suggesting the solution but say they would work with the region to come up with a rapid transit solution for the city. They say there will also be money for an interim commuter rail service to be set up until the future of rapid transit is decided. All of this would be assisted by the creation of a single transport agency for the city similar to Auckland Transport. I think this is a good idea and perhaps one they should have suggested for Wellington too.
For all cities use of PT is expected to be helped by way of a Student Green Card which gives free off peak travel for students. Again like the Wellington plan the policy isn’t terrible but I do think the money could perhaps be used for other things better such as lowering the cost of PT for a wider section of society.
For all cities walking and cycling feature strongly too with the Greens promising to spend $100 million a year on cycling around the country which is a significant amount more than National plan to spend. I can’t speak as well for other cities but in my view we will need as much as we can get if we want to create a decent, connected and safe cycling network so the amount proposed be a welcome change.
NZ First
The NZ First transport policy contains a number of quite positive as well as some bold moves. There’s a lot of talk about creating a more balanced policy including much more investment in PT and rail in particular. In some cases this appears to be focused on rail for freight purposes however they have also said that if they were the government they would contribute 75% of the money needed for the City Rail Link (Greens have said 60% while Labour and National are offering 50% – with the later not till 2020). One thing they say is they want all new urban road projects assessed to see if a PT option could partly or wholly achieve a better outcome. For that to happen it’s likely the transport modelling and assessment criteria would need to be updated – and that’s not a bad thing at all.
In terms of bold moves I think that the fact they even mention the idea of introducing road pricing is a positive move as it’s a discussion I think we as a country need to have fairly soon.
Conservatives
The Conservatives don’t seem to even have a transport policy and the only mention of transport is in a question to Colin Craig. The answer might be funny if it weren’t for the fact the party might end up making it to parliament. Craig says:
In respect of rail, In Auckland light overhead rail is an affordable and realistic public transport solution. It is unlikely population numbers in other centres would support a big investment in public transport.
I can only assume he’s referring to a PRT pod type system, like he did when he stood for Mayor in 2010. He further comments:
The provincial and national rail network is economic in some cases but not all. We are a very big but sparsely populated country and it is not economic to have a full rail and full road network competing for the movement of a limited number of goods. National has elected to invest into roads rather than rail and in some areas this is the best option.
Road building is way behind the population growth mainly as regional fuel taxes ended up being taken into the consolidated fund and “lost” not put back into roading. Regional fuel taxes should in future be in a separate account that is used only for transport to stop that happening again. Road improvements shouldn’t be just about the big roads as there are many smaller improvements that would be very helpful.
If he gets in to parliament someone will need to tell him that fuel taxes were hypothecated by the previous government.
There are of course a couple of other minor parties that could squeak in based on winning an electorate but I’m going to ignore them for this post as it’s long enough already.
Processing...
I know you rightly don’t want to rank the parties, but roughly it would seem:
1) Greens
2) Labour
3) NZ First
4) National
5) Conservative
Although that 75% of funding for CRL by NZ First is pretty big. Enough for them to jump Labour? Perhaps not due to their support for rail being more about nostalgia than the future.
Being a Cantabrian I would change the order to
1.Labour
2.NZ First
3.Greens
because the Green party do not have a specific and costed PT proposal for Christchurch while Labour and I believe NZ First do.
nah – but the Greens have proposed organisational improvements in Christchurch which will enable PT projects to be be developed and implemented more easily. So I would argue that in the medium to long run the’r policies for Christchurch will lead to considerably better transport outcomes than a one-off project.
Also, I don’t think it’s wise that political parties develop specific transport proposals: That should be left to the regional community. Instead, political parties should focus on policies and levels of funding, rather than projects per se – lest we continue this trend towards transport funds being used for pork barrel politics.
Like it or not transport funding and the decisions on what projects will go ahead is controlled by Wellington. I don’t like it and would want it to be different. But no political party is proposing otherwise. I note that the Green party has fully costed transport proposals for our biggest city but not for our second biggest one. To me that means Christchurch will not be getting any new transport solutions from the Green party.
bollocks. What is controlled from Wellington is 1) how funding is split by activity class and 2) how financial assistance rates vary by activity class. The simple fact is that the Greens will 1) vastly increase funding for PT activity classess compared to ANY other political party and 2) equalise financial assistance rates across activity classes, including state highways.
So if you want better PT in Christchurch, then you should vote for the Green Party.
NZ First have provided no detail on funding by activity class and/or changes to FARs. Therefore they can’t be trusted to deliver better PT, IMO.
Stu I think Matt L gave the correct situation re the Green party’s Christchurch policy below without the abusive language. I have politely responded to that.
As someone who supports decentralisation I would want funding and decisions about transport infrastructure to come from a local bottom up process. This is what works in Northern Europe.
For all the merits of the Green Party and other’s to the left, none of them are proposing this.
There is some costing for PT in Christchurch on page 10 here
https://www.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/policy-pdfs/GreenerChristchurch-20140811-4-FINAL.pdf
Thanks. My apologises to the Green party, their transport policies haven’t been well publicised down here. It seems Labour, NZ First and the Greens have similar transport policies regarding Christchurch. I think that the Greens start with a interim passenger rail system while the other two go straight to a permanent solution. In reality there might not be much difference. I do think NZ has underfunded transport for decades so an increase funding to the NZTA may be necessary but that is a debate for another day.
As you say might not be too much difference between an interim solution than a full one but I do like the idea of doing it till working out just what kind of rapid transit system Christchurch should have (because it should have one)
Yes I get your point. In a rapidly changing environment like Canterbury a fast acting yet flexible approach may be best.
I also think a housing/passenger rail solution like the following would work for Greater Christchurch.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/transit-agencies-get-creative-1406668928
To add something else into the debate.
See the corner of the little graphic? “…Created by transportblog and generation zero”.
I love that this site has contributed so much.
I don’t know how many of the readers of this blog have read Hager’s “Dirty Politics” book, but it looks like this site (or rather, its contributors) was being lined up for the smear treatment by Cameron Slater and co when Nicky Hager exposed his behaviour. Transportblog’s contributors dodged a character assassination bullet that was only being readied for firing because of their tireless work on P.T. Now you’ve got everyone except National more or less supporting the CRL, onwards and upwards!
I have the book but haven’t had time to read more than snippets of it so far. Can you point me to the chapters/pages where it looks like GZ and TB were being lined up as targets? Would like to read.
If it ends up being National + NZ First, it’d be great if Winston could squeeze some big transport improvements out of National.
But Labour + Greens would be a dream come true from a transport perspective. Hope we don’t have to wait 3 more years!
From what I’ve heard, National are fundamentally against the CRL. I think he would have much better luck pushing through his other policies.
In fact, I wonder if his support for the CRL is actually tactical; he will first bargain with the CRL, when national say no, he will ask for everything else instead.
Not sure were the Notice Of Requirement is with the Hamilton Bypass, but NZTA are already saying completion date is in 2020 now, and only if money is released next month.
http://hamiltonurbanblog.co.nz/2014/09/ruakura-staging-without-hamilton-bypass/
Nice summary. Great effort by you guys getting a good message out there and being as neutral as possible.
While I strongly support increased PT investment and think the RONS are a big waste of public money, I don’t vote on transport issues like many other kiwis. I cannot bring myself to vote for any of the top 4 parties for a bunch of reasons not related to transport which leaves me voting for the other micro parties like ACT or the Conservatives, or just protest voting for the Civilians.
And yes Colin wanted those hilarious pods. Those guys have no clue on transport issues, even less than ACT.
I know what you mean about the large parties, but sometimes you just have to hold your nose and vote tactically to stop fringe idiots getting in. For example, I have to candidate vote for Murray McCully this year. Even with his huge majority, I can’t take the chance that Colin Craig will sneak in to parliament. But ew, Slimy Murray. I’ll have to shower after voting.
I do find that Colin Craig being taken in any way even remotely seriously is disturbing. He has bought himself a political party (but he’s not alone in that). He famously has no idea whether humans ever landed on the moon, but is willing to believe that Pods will bd the answer to our transport woes. His beliefs are so ludicrous that I would laugh if I wasn’t already crying….
The visual intrusion of pods would be a dealbreaker in a lot of places, and it remains unproven whether their capacity can scale up to the necessary level as promoters say they can. But conceptually, I still find the idea of a transit system where you rock up to your nearest stop, a vehicle is waiting for you even at 3 am on a weekday morning, and it will take you non-stop to your destination pretty appealing. That seems to be the promise of driverless cars, but the technical hurdles faced by driverless cars are pretty high compared to pods (which don’t rely on any particularly cutting-edge hardware; their challenge is the software issue of coordinating hundreds or possibly even thousands of vehicles). In an Auckland context, I could see initial applications service Manukau or Albany, linking the rail/busway stations with the malls and other facilities. Not much is happening on the pod front worldwide at the moment, so I doubt I’ll be proven right or wrong in the near future.
I heard that pods leave chem trails……
They’re powered by small children who are smacked to accelerate.
It’s unfortunate but true. I almost wish that we could vote not for a party block and local representative, but instead for ministerial positions… so you vote for the person and policy you want on transport, another for the person and policy you want for education, etc. I guess it would result in an uncohesive coalition of silos than might never get anything done….
Without a consistent and coherent platform the paralysis would destroy the possibility of achieving anything.
I think that MMP is a better system than FPP, however uncomfortable i am with some of the results.
The only answer i can think of is raising the profile of the issues that are important, until transport becomes a first class policy area, the likelihood that it will be anything more than something else that parties can trade for votes is remote.
Anyone millionaire can buy a party, but no one can really buy voters unless you are the government and spending other people’s money with election promises. While Colin is ridiculous, I do respect that he put his money where his mouth is unlike all the other MPs, except maybe the Greens and he has been around several years now funding various things he supports. In that time Colin has gained support from a sizeable group of kiwis which is no small feat. When Winston retires and NZ First with him, Colin stands to gain a big chunk of those voters. So if he sticks around for the long run, his influence will only grow. Scary stuff alright….
Cycle Action has also done a vote roundup at http://caa.org.nz/general-news/vote-bike/. A Greens/Labour coalition would definitely be a dream team for cycling outcomes, but we found the Maori party also had some good words to say:
– Reduce transport disadvantage by shifting focus from private cars to make public transport, walking and cycling core activities.
– Improve people’s connections to their environment in rebuilt neighbourhoods with a focus on community safety, including separated walking and cycling paths, and lower speed limits for areas with high pedestrian counts.
So while it might be improbable, a Green/Labour/Maori coalition would work well.
Well done to the Greens and Labour for adopting the congestion free network, and well done to those who have worked tirelessly to develop and promote the CFN. I hope that we will see your vision implemented in the near future.
Indeed, the sooner the better. The CFN is a great concept, and the Greens backing it is one of the reasons their transport policy is the best. You can tell a party really means to make a difference when they recognise a good idea, give credit to the originator and then develop it further. Opposition parties have limited resources, and using them to thoroughly cost and develop policies means they really do care. As opposed to say, a few slogans and making empty promises which belie your track record.
Which is how you can tell a party is not serious about an area. The Nats have initiated nothing but roads for six years, whatever they say ahead of the election, that stance will almost certainly not change as long as their inner circle stays the same.
Labour has some good ideas – Phil Twyford certainly has his finger on the pulse of Auckland transport and housing issues – but are too often trying to have a buck each way to protect their provincial MPs. Winston is adept at reading the zeitgeist, hence NZ First’s suddenly-impressive transport policies – but he usually forgets his promises once back in Parliament. And so on and so on.
The conclusion is simple. If transport is your number one issue, then vote Green this Saturday.
I would have preferred that parties stick to strategy, concepts, goals, and outcomes, rather than jumping straight to a solution (regardless of the quality of the specified solution – the CFN has not been produced through a full policy-making cycle (but neither have the RONS…)).
What does ‘a full policy-making cycle’ mean?
Mr Maths, most people don’t realise (and I think you are in the same boat) that the CFN isn’t the work of TransportBlog, it’s the work of AT and Auckland Council. It’s little more than the current Integrated Transport Plan with some of the less cost effective highway projects deferred and the public transport projects brought forward instead.
So Labour and Greens support it is simply saying they support the plan devised years ago by Auckland Local government, just with a stronger focus on the public transport elements.
Unlike Labour, NZ First wants to extend electrification to Pukekohe, then onwards towards Hamilton. I cannot farthom how you have ranked Labour as great in transport policies. Will it protect 100% the rights of Gold Card Holders, all 631,000 of them for PT usage? I don’t think Labour on transport front is that amazing, it’s good, better than National, but NZ First is definitely better with the Railways of National Importance nationwide strategy. I hope you have not ranked Labour high based on other personal feelings unrelated to transport?
Rail freight is important for NZ, so NZ First has a plan to develop it. Also, NZ First is the ONLY party demanding route designation to the Auckland Airport by the end of 2015. Both the sites favoured parties Labour and Greens have not drawn a line in the sand on that point.
On the CFN… while it has merit, I am opposed to any political party forcing on something the ratepayers have not endorsed. It is not a political party who should dictate to ratepayers what transport plan a city has. So the CFN first should be endorsed by the people who will pay for it. Not keen on a political party over riding local council on what is local council issues, unless a local council simply is stuck on an issue.
Local democracy is just that.
But you should dictate what rail lines it has?! The CFN those same rail lines too… So it’s just busways and tram lines that are special?
This is the best thing about NZ First transport policy, I would promote the hell out of this:
“Subject every major new urban roading project to a requirement that its transport objectives cannot better be achieved partly or wholly through an alternative public transport option or options taking account of regional or national transport strategy criteria as well as a wide range of cost/benefit considerations including externalities and socio-economic considerations, as well as city/district and regional plans.”
+1 Jon. NZ First are running a good campaign and their transport policy is the best overall imo.
Jon a couple of points.
– Extending electrification to Puke is part of the CFN. Hamilton is something not likely to be feasible in the next 3 or probably even 6 years so not a major concern it isn’t being pushed by others.
– I don’t agree that Gold Card holders should get free PT so NZ First pushing that is a negative for me. I would rather see the money spent to give a range of people cheaper travel rather than just one select group e.g. community service card holders and students (I don’t agree with the Greens student card for the same reason either).
– In my opinion NZ First’s RoNI is not a good idea and no different to the RoNS. I would rather the focus be on getting the best outcomes for the corridors. In some case that will be better roads, in some cases improved rail and in some cases perhaps both.
– Route designation to the airport by the end of 2015 is not feasible. The CRL too 2 years to get route protection from when AT said they were going to do it and it still has environment court challenges to deal with. The RoNS aren’t much better and despite having the weight of the Govt behind them it’s taken almost years for Puhoi to Warkworth to get consent. There’s a lot of work to do before it’s possible to even go for consent so my guess is that even if they pushed hard from Monday it would be 2-3 years minimum before getting consent. The other thing is that as soon as route protection is sorted they need to be able to buy the land and that won’t be cheap.
– Funny you should say the CFN shouldn’t be forced on tax/ratepayers but have just talked about forcing airport rail and RoNI on them. Also technically the CFN has been endorsed by ratepaters as it is simply a re-prioritisation of projects in the Auckland Plan and ITP which have been adopted by the council/AT. I would also note it has the support of quite a number of councillors who frequently bring it up in council meetings when discussing transport.
Matt L – in your opinion Hamilton trains may not be feasible in the next 3 or 6 years, even though the demand is there for it now. But at least NZ First has the vision to be able to plan for it, prepare it and even look at extending electrification for it.
Super Gold Card – You are young and full of ideals. When I see pensioners on limited fixed incomes, the advent of the Gold Card is one of the best social policies out to help them and their mobility issues. They arefaced with increased costs, but usually have no means to increase their incomes bar the pension. NZ First implemented that, and it has worked incredibly well.
RONI – are not RoNS, but allow for a programme of rail development projects over the next 10 years around NZ. It will divert some funds from the least ideal RoNS projects. It means the best corridors get the funding, either road or rail. Not sure why you are so confused about that.
Airport Rail Route designation by end 2015 – How many more years do you need to sort it out Matt? NZ First is saying, AIA and AT need to get it sorted by end 2015. They have had 30 years to sort it out, now time limits will be impossed to get something finished so costings for construction can be undertaken. What is wrong with that, or do you want to wait another 30 years?
What’s different about CFN vs airport rail. As I have stated, it is now a joke that AIA and AT have not designated a route. So now pressure needs to be applied to ensure routes are decided upon. It might require a push through the processes, but after 30 years of nothing it is time to get action. CFN is not endorsed as you pen, by the public at large whatsoever. It is endorsed by you and the Greens, but the average ratepayer in Auckland does not know about it, and they are the ones who will pay a lot for it. As, mentioned, I personally like most of the CFN concept, but I would ask the ratepayers to endorse it. Put it up to the next mayoral contenders to champion, then the signals are truly there.
Are you seriously suggesting that I don’t have vision. You seem to confuse vision with reality/practicality and both are needed to make real change.
– Is there demand for rail services to Hamilton – yes, is there enough for a proper service with the limitations that exist – not convinced. In my opinion services from Hamilton need at least the CRL (no space in Britomart otherwise) and the third main to happen first otherwise it will be left a lumbering slow service with just a few passengers.
– The point is that there are more than just pensioners on limited fixed incomes who could benefit from cheaper travel. Also it might recall the stories of PT operators rorting the system due to the open nature of it, that hardly says it’s worked incredibly well to me.
– Why not just call it infrastructure of national significance and leave the money in a contestable fund rather than specify the amounts for specific modes. That’s why it’s like the RoNS.
– There are detailed technical processes that have to happen to designate a route (unless NZ First plan to drastically change the RMA). I understand they know roughly where it will go but you can’t just turn up to designate a route with a line on a map. Take a look at the documents AT had to produce for the CRL or the NZTA have produced for the RoNS projects. All of that has to be done for Airport rail to get a designation. http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/plansstrategies/DistrictRegionalPlans/aucklandcitydistrictplancentral/changes/Pages/planmodification68-71.aspx
http://www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/puhoi-to-warkworth-application/assessment-reports.html
– The average ratepayer doesn’t know about a lot of things the council does including what projects are currently in the Auckland Plan. In saying that I’m more than happy for the CFN to be put out in public for a discussion and I’m pretty confident that if there was a proper debate on it that it would be endorsed. Regardless of who’s in government I think we’ll hear more about it in the future anyway as the council/AT come to grips with reduced levels of spending and look for ways to get the best bang for their buck.
“Why not just call it infrastructure of national significance and leave the money in a contestable fund rather than specify the amounts for specific modes. That’s why it’s like the RoNS.”
<– point one
" In saying that I’m more than happy for the CFN to be put out in public for a discussion and I’m pretty confident that if there was a proper debate on it that it would be endorsed. Regardless of who’s in government I think we’ll hear more about it in the future anyway as the council/AT come to grips with reduced levels of spending and look for ways to get the best bang for their buck."
<– point two.
In the first, you espouse the correct view – that the specific solution should not be selected too early. In the second, you espouse the opposite view – that we should immediately implement a specific solution. Wouldn't you rather say that it would be wiser for us all to come to a collective agreement about the outcomes we want from the transport system before we select a solution?
Exactly Math Lorde: IONS, I have been pushing that mode-blind line for years.
Not totally off topic- but did you all the idiot in the Herald today saying ” metro rail doesn’t help with congestion”?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11326500
Who invited him here- Road Transport Forum or Whoever it is that thinks diesl pollution is beneficial?
Metro Rail HAS NEVER been claimed to “FIX” congestion. It’s offering people an alternative CHOICE to sitting in traffic, albeit in a congestion free environment!
Yes: TRAFINZ, Traffic Institute of NZ, says it all really; http://www.trafinz.org.nz/about/
Mohan has done himself no service by stepping off a plane and making pronouncements about a specific place that are simply generalised mode preference.
He’s so off the mark that I wonder if it’s worth bothering to take apart….Frankly absurd about running diesel buses being better than electric rail in a country with largely renewably generated electricity. The embodied energy in The CRL will be less than than that in the motorway building we will otherwise build…. and so on. Also the long life of urban underground rail tunnels mean that the operating energy makes much more difference than the construction consumption.
These quotes are great:
“With metro, all you do is create extra capacity,” Dr Dinesh Mohan told the Traffic Institute at its annual conference in Auckland today.
“You just increase transport, you don’t reduce congestion.”
Er, yes.
All the growth to the AK Centre City this century has been on PT and Active modes, this is what has enabled the city to thrive, is that ‘all’? ‘Increasing transport’ is exactly the aim of the CRL. And, of course, all of those people using the ‘increased transport’ are completely not taking part in congestion; they themselves are not subject to it, and they are not subjecting others to it. It won’t ‘solve’ congestion for those who still choose to take part in it, but it certainly reduces the overall exposure to congestion. And certainly much more effectively than only building more roads. Congestion, is, after all, too much driving.
Anyway Auckland is in a unique situation with its existing rail infrastructure just needing a few extensions to be a highly efficient, and yes high capacity network.
It would appear there are different issues and opportunities in the places he is used to studying.
I agree that his comments were not that useful, but dissing TRAFINZ is a bit unfair; they’re far more supportive of sustainable transport, road safety, lower speeds than central Govt is. Just check out their submissions and conference topics.
1. NZ First, 75% CRL, airport rail, electrify to Hamilton. Major spend and vision.
2. All other parties promise less.
All other parties have a budget though.
No, other parties are riding rough shod over democracy. CFN is not a decision to be made by central Govt, it should be by the people of Auckland to decide on. Aucklanders want the CRL and voted Len Brown in because they support that. Greens, as a central Govt. party should not be telling Aucklanders what to do. That’s not democratic and as bad as the Nats telling us what to do locally.
I support most of the CFN personally, though the lack of trains from Kumeu is rather foolish except for a select few here who think spending hundreds of millions to get some buses in 10 years time is better than spending bugger all on extending trains from Waitakere to Huapai-Kumeu now.
Personally I support spending money on public transport that people use. And your characterisation of the preferred public transport mode for Auckland’s north-west sub-region would be funny if it was not so wrong.
As far as I know only a couple of die-hard rail fanatics believe rail services past Swanson are preferable to the NW busway. I’m darned if I can understand your view. because a NW busway would provide a 20-30 minute trip versus over an hour on the train. The latter would do little for serving development at Hobsonville, Westgate, Lincoln Rd, and Te Atatu, i.e. vast areas of the city from which there already is substantial PT demands.
Of course you’re entitled to your opinion, but don’t delude yourself you’re in the majority and that those who think otherwise are a “select few”; the reality is exactly the opposite.
I think light overhead rail just means light rail at ground level, rather than heavy rail underground.
It means monorail pods, if Mr Craigs earlier comments are anything to go by.
I have talked to Colin about this, and he favoured a wire suspended system that a fellow from Poland (I think) was promoting.
Another 4 years of National – YAY! Now we can look forward to the RONS being completed and the start of the AWHC
3 years. But yeah, sigh.