Yesterday Radio NZ aired a panel discussion Len Brown, our Patrick Reynolds and David Shand – who was a member of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance and chaired the 2007 Independent Commission of Inquiry into Local Government Rates. The discussion was focused on the issue that is likely to occupy a lot of space for the next six months or so, alternative transport funding.
or listen here
In the past we have been critical of the giant wishlist the council have been aiming for. Since then and as Patrick states in the piece, Auckland Transport has actually done a decent job of cutting it must of the crap projects. That’s left us with a much more realistic list of what’s needed however the big issue that remains is the same process doesn’t seem to have occurred at the NZTA who are plowing on with many very expensive motorway projects. A more realistic view of what motorway projects we actually need – i.e. having a proper discussion about projects like the Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing – is needed. While I don’t think we can completely remove the funding gap, such a process and changing the way we think about funding transport on Auckland could reduce the gap significantly which might in turn change what funding options are best.
Over the next few weeks and months it’s an issue we’ll look at in much more detail along with some proposals of our own.
Processing...
I think NZTA needs to mothball all big spending projects until Waterview is opened and the full effects (good and bad) can be assessed, then sensible discussions had around what is actually needed.
I also liked Len Browns suggestion to link all Auckland Transport related spending to 10 year agreements (that align with the LTP cycles) so that what is in the LTP and the Government projects does actually align or at least not contradict.
I did listen the piece twice – once when broadcast live and again early this morning on replay and noticed some points.
1. Patrick was the voice of reason through out. Saying sensible comments, but I noticed no callout to the Congestion Free Network was made during the discussion.
2. Shand said that Aucklands Finances are in a good state, and he called out the Herald in particular for outright lies and misrepresentations as to “council going broke” – a line we see spouted here with monotonous regularity as the reason why we can’t do anything except lie back and accept more Government Motorways as they’re paying for it. Shand should be and is in a position to know so that should be the end of the council about to go broke debate.
3. Shand also said that Local Government funding via rates is basically reaching the end of the road NZ wide and a bigger NZ wide discussions about funding all the long term projects for all councils is needed more than ever.
4. Brown was touting the 10 year agreements with Government as the way forward and says that Central Government will butt out of the funding debate until the Auckland funding discusssions are had.
He also indicated he is talking directly to Key (bypassing Bridges?)
I’m not sure that silencing the Government here is a good idea as whats the point of debating about specific funding models (motorway on ramp tolls, fuel taxes) the government simply wont’ accede to and will say no to as simple out and out political decisions?
A suggestion was made by Shand that one possible future is that maybe central Government should start to pay rates on all crown owned land (like Motorways and schools)
– thats a slippery slope but one we need a good informed debate about especially with the options and alternatives.
One thing is certain we need a lot of background information and discussion to be fully informed. So bring on the informed debate. We need to have it, and have it now.
‘I think NZTA needs to mothball all big spending projects until Waterview is opened and the full effects (good and bad) can be assessed, then sensible discussions had around what is actually needed.’
This is a very fine proposition. The effects of Waterview, supersizing SH16, the New Network, rail electrification, and integrated fares all will change the picture substantially so there ought to be a major post implementation review and analysis before more 20thC motorway plans are mindlessly forced through.
Not least of which because I agree that Waterview’s likely effects are quite tricky to foresee… I can picture both kinds, as you say.
A suggestion was made by Shand that one possible future is that maybe central Government should start to pay rates on all crown owned land (like Motorways and schools)
Local governments have been “demanding” this for at least a century, It simply isn’t going to happen,
ref:: New Zealand Herald, Volume LII, Issue 15965, 9 July 1915, Page 4
RATES ON CROWN LANDS.
LOCAL BODIES’ DEMAND. LOSS OF REVENUE.
http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=NZH19150709.2.21
The big gainers would be Westland, Southland and Ruapehu District Councils, where DOC land is a large percentage of their overall land area,
DOC land could be exempted, though, or at least charged a very low rate since it’s undeveloped. Cents per hectare kind of thing. It puts pretty much no load on council facilities whilst simultaneously providing carbon sinks as well as recreational facilities for which councils pay nothing, so there’s a big quid pro quo going on. Without DOC facilities councils would have to provide more green space of their own.
Think of all the GST that would be added to the rates on the Govt land! What a bonanza?
Guess doc would need to shed even more staff to accommodate that!
What is the aim of AT? Is it to enable the people of Auckland to move from place to place as efficiently as possilbe, and to move goods as efficiently as possible?
If that is what the aim is what are the impediments to achieving that! Too many cars? To many trucks? to many people?
It seems to me to be that the congestion is caused by too many vehicles wanting to use the roads/streets at the one time. (Witness the picture of I think it was Hobson Street posted the other day.)
Cars seem to take up a lot of space in the congested periods. Irrespective of how many there are in them. I feel strongly that the Council needs to look at raising the price of parking in the City where a lot of those cars are going to be for most of the day. This would solve 3 issues:
1 reducing the number of vehicles on the road at the congested period.
2 Raise additional revenue (that the Govt won’t allow them to do with the tolls or fuel charges.)
3 Increase PT patronage and thereby reduce the PT subsidy
It would be helpful if the CFT were adopted in advance of this with pulse type feeder/distribution services to the arterial system. It would be a prerequisite that the PT mode is established prior to the actual occupation of the SHA’s.
All this activity would drastically increase the economic activity of the city and produce more taxes to speed it up still more.
(The question of parking was covered in recent submissions and the object was to set prices so that 15% of spaces were available at any time.)
If government departments had to pay rates we would be no better off. I would have thought Shand might understand that. The government would hand money across to Local Government and then cut services to balance their books. Local Govt would then have to take up the slack and spend some of the new money to provide the same services. Most people couldn’t give a damn whether they tax us on income or on our land it is still a tax and it is the total of all taxes that matters.
agreed. govt land is generally used to provide a public good i.e. schools – the government already pays for improvements to these facilities (which are required to accommodate growth) from funding through general taxes. All that would result is a reduction in operating budgets for our schools/ police stations which couldn’t be maintained through increased provision from local govt. There is also an element of local government concentrating growth in greenfield areas necessitating the development of entirely new pieces of infrastructure required to service those greenfield areas
All three panelists were brilliant, it would be hard for anyone to argue against their points. Would have been a good debate if key and bridges also showed.
Change mode balance on main roads. Bus and full cycle network via roadmarking and signal work.
Apply full bus fleet, smart, rapid core 40%, all fleet working 6am to 10pm then 20% overnight.
Reduce fares, coupled with a property rates on all carparks except domestic $10 per day.
1 in 3 out of a car min and motorways free flow. No more motorway projects except rail under Harbour and busways on highway. Carry on with $10b congestion free network, probably 50% paid by car parking. Opens up std budget for other modes eg physical protection cycle etc. The rates on carparks- one person counts, rates clerk charges easy to implement and adjust ad required. Tolls not necessary.
My principle point is that Urban Rapid Transit [Rail or Bus] is equivalent to State Highways in effect and should be funded on the same basis. Whether this is;
1. 100% from the National Land Transport Fund via NZTA, as the Northern Busway was, as I argue above or
2. That all projects everywhere are funded on a Regional/NLTF 50%:50% basis as suggested by economist Stu Donovan
needs to be examined further.
This is critical now in Auckland as the return on massive motorway spending is diminishing rapidly as the system nears completion. It is becoming increasingly clear that the highest value for money return for all transport users, especially drivers and commercial road users, now comes from improvement to the alternative networks, especially the high quality Rapid Transit ones.
Here, again, is Michele Zeibots clear description of this process: http://www.smh.com.au/national/new-motorway-will-derail-commuters-20140217-32hvs.html
Good article by Michele. Sydney evidence. I do fully agree with you but believe a full arterial mode share rebalance happens first so all.modes can grow while rapid transit is installed, not fully waiting for it to kick in, one.link at a time. We need to remove the blockage to these 2 networks first and fast so they are at least 4 star. The balance is wrong let’s fix that first right now and set bus and cycle free.
I agree that rapid transit should be funded on the same basis as other projects. However, rapid transit is unlikely to improve traffic speeds. All it would do is ensure that the fall in average traffic speed happens at a slower rate or hopefully, not at all.
Investing in more roads means that some roadways would have more capacity. However, it does not mean that average speeds would go up throughout the entire roading network. It may increase average speed near the new road is, however, average speed would fall somewhere else in the roading network as other parts of the network have to handle more vehicles.
Overall, as Patrick said, it is likely that the “highest value for money return for all transport users, especially drivers and commercial road users, now comes from improvement to the alternative networks, especially the high quality Rapid Transit ones.”
Yes Richard the only observed way to ‘solve’ congestion is to seriously downscale a city’s economy and/or population, a la Detroit, and this is not something we wish to achieve. So the aim is to improve the efficiency of the networks not completely empty them.
The potential to increase traffic speeds is massive . What was the average speed on the motorway in the holidays 90-100kph what will it be in Feb 10kph. If 30% or more use alternative networks via rail,bus, cycle won’t that achieve a similar outcome? or am I missing something? Definately rapid makes a huge difference, so does actually having that alternative network even at 4 stars, and reasonable fares, and carparking cost disadvantages, quality of plant, access to wider network, safety of the cycle network etc. It is all important.
“What was the average speed on the motorway in the holidays 90-100kph what will it be in Feb 10kph. If 30% or more use alternative networks via rail,bus, cycle won’t that achieve a similar outcome? or am I missing something?”
The thing you’re missing is that when people realise there is free flowing traffic at peak times they will change mode / time of travel / or route to take advantage of the extra road capacity and congestion will return.
The reason there is free flowing traffic over the Christmas holidays is because almost nothing is happening in Auckland economically. The 2 week end of term school holidays throughout the year also create improved traffic flow as commerce continues but I suspect these conditions only exist because two weeks is too short for people to change their habits to take advantage of the extra road capacity.
The speed of Public Transport can affect traffic flows as the equilibrium between the two modes changes (as outlined here http://www.smh.com.au/national/new-motorway-will-derail-commuters-20140217-32hvs.html) but improved public transport could not create the traffic conditions observed over the Christmas holidays. Those conditions can only be achieved through economic decline – or by pricing a portion of people off the road.
I do understand where you are coming from. But I think as the alternatives networks get more attractive, rapid, good overall service, carpark disincentives, and fare incentives , cycle network possible growth to 36% it could keep up so no one is disadvantaged. I think with bus and cycle at 1 star there is massive potential in our case. Especially if alternative modes get 80% plus funding and bus gets back under public control and grows to full potential and not tied up in knots.
Yes but Transit can and does absolutely optimise utility and speed for general traffic and we only need to look at the case of the Harbour Bridge/ Northern Busway relationship to see a very clear example of that right here and right now.
It is pretty clear that the Southern and Eastern lines as well as bus systems on the isthmus do the same for the Southern Motorway but it is much less obvious because the route is not so clearly focussed as it is across the harbour.
Agreed the rapids are fully proven 100%. To get bus and cycle up to footing it and maximising the existing rapid first is where I am coming from. Parking and flush medians used and even 1 lane out of 2 for alternative modes boosts these 2 networks and limits car growth as it doesn’t matter when the motorway is currently at 130 to 150% capacity. This way it gives all modes a chance. What I’m suggesting first is only a remark and signal works which would be max $2m and open the gates for bus and cycle. Then fully go rapid all guns blazing.
If we changed arterial and motorway priority fully just with white lines and symbols. I bet you wouldn’t need any property rates on carparks to stop congestion. Still a massive weapon up sleeve. Rail and Road using true network running costs applied to each individual mode – split car, truck and bus square metres so can see true costs and charge accordingly on a road / rail user tax. This would be fairer than a petroleum tax. Focus most spending with no additional on sustainable alternative networks. The problem is we aren’t even trying to change mode share in a fast and cheap way but build around the problem.
It is counter-intuitive, but when the motorway is flowing at 90 – 100 km/h it is actually carrying more vehicles than when the speed drops to 30 km/h. It is when more vehicles attempt to use the motorway than it is capable of handling that it clogs with traffic and its performance drops. That is why tolls increase the capacity of the network and people are tolled *on* rather than *off*. Tolling the southern motorway would double its capacity. Yes you can get something of the same effect with a busway or a parallel rail service, but what happens is that people use the public transport service because the road is congested. As more people transfer to public transport, congestion eases, the road becomes more attractive. The same thing happens when a new toll road is built next to an un-charged road – as soon as some people use the toll road, the un-charged road gets uncongested and the toll operator goes bankrupt. Its happened quite a bit in the US.
But think a bit more about the fact that a properly priced southern motorway would have double the capacity. If Auckland could introduce road pricing, the need for a lot of the projects on the wish list would disappear. Road pricing should not be seen just as a means of raising money – it should be seen as a better way of charging for roads. What if Aucklanders paid for their roads through a road user fee instead of rates and petrol taxes? Rates would come down, people who don’t have to travel to the CBD would pay less for and the roads would operate more efficiently.
I do understand what you are saying but what about the arterials when you introduce tolls on the motorways they are fully rooted. As you mention a tolled rd vs a non tolled road. I fully agree that motorways should free flow in fact all roads. First by ultra cheap roadmarking get the balance right on the arterials so bus and cycle at 4 star before we do anything. Get the bus fleet fully utilized 6am to 10pm the full 1000 with smart routing and a rapid as possible core. Cycle and bus at 4 star on equal footing or pref bus and cycle with signal priority. For $2m takes away car network bias last 60 years without touching motorways. Now we implement a property rates on all carparks except household. This is a serious all round car demand tool and funding source. At daily PT pass it is a minor encouragement to use PT at $50 it is 20 nuclear warheads and all cars gone. But could control whole tap especially coupled with PT fares. I do like your idea about a road user fee. It should be based on true road maintenance per square metre of space that each mode occupies to make it fully fair for all modes. The cycle should change to concern so doesn’t count.
On cycle above that should say concrete not concern.
Peak vehicle capacity on motorways is achieved at speeds far below the posted limit. From memory it’s at about 40km/h that a given vehicle lane (assuming minimum legal spacing) can carry its highest volume of cars.
David I think you’ve got your maximum throughput speed too high; more like around 70 kph IIRC, as at higher speeds the following distances increase proportionately.
David is it possible to toll just one lane of the motorway not the entire width, with variable pricing to ensure this lane is always free flowing?
With the important additional point that this lane is designed to express bus lane standards.
Is that feasible -can a small number of private vehicles share a bus lane or do they slow down bus movements so destroying the whole purpose of having a bus lane?
Would that help alleviate congestion/increase transport speed for the entire system so allowing more residents (workers/businesses) greater access to more places thus increasing the agglomeration economic effect.
Would tolled lanes done in this way make bus lanes more economic so that more of them can be provided?
Would it help the economics for the infrastructure provider -so they don’t go bankrupt?
Brendon this system exists in the US; optional toll lanes, know as ‘Lexus Lanes’. The really interesting thing about them is that they attract less uptake than expected. It turns out people don’t really want to pay a bit more to get there faster, or at least as often as was supposed. That is it turns out people value their money more than their time more often than theory proposed.
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2013/06/why-are-hot-lanes-struggling-make-money/6000/
They are a version of HOV lanes, just with charging; ah, the home of the brave….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_occupancy/toll_and_express_toll_lanes
Patrick what about the possibility of combining a express bus lane with a congestion charge motorway lane. Is that feasible or just something that in theory could work but in practice would be some hideously compromised beast.
Allowing people the the option of paying to slow down Bus Rapid transit? Really can’t see any value in this. Heavy vehicle priority lanes on motorways with adjacent Rapid Transit systems seems like a better use of road space to me: Expedite people and goods directly over the policy of the last 60 years of trying to do this by just expensively building for more flow for all classes and hoping the good stuff gets through.
77% of traffic is ‘light passenger’ according to the Ministry, so clearly this is target class for reducing congestion, or rather increasing efficiency. It is also the least valuable to the economy.
Patrick if we had exclusive bus lane on all motorways and arterials just by painting white symbols would that solve congestion on it’s own and obviously full bus fleet utilising that. Then 6 months later mark full cycle network? Even with no property rates on carparks or any form of motorway tolling? Then focus on true busways or rail with std budget.
This is on the basis that one lane on arterials is removing 25 to 50% car motorway demand anyway and one lane less motorway supply but fully promoting an entire bus network. Isn’t that self regulating and promoting bus-rail in one go? plus cars moving, sounds like 70kph limit also good for maximising capacity. Then you still have fare controls and a road user tax applied backwards from real road maintenance per sq metre per mode. Not even charging car unless you have to. Then in 6 months remove all car parking and flush medians on main roads for marked protected cycle. Is this fixing too many problems with a paint job.
The bus symbols every 50m you could do under a mobile closure at night over the next 2 weeks before school comes back. Again do we have the 1000 buses or not. We aren’t even trying to fix this problem but for $50k of white paint and a mobile closure for 14 nights you could make an almighty positive impact for rail, bus, car and truck.
Full bus network on 4 lane roads and motorway system in 2 weeks via one person painting a bus symbol every 50m. One lane full use bus , sure as hell better use than restricting motorway incoming by ramp metering. Patrick you would pass Perth trajectory for rail for sure even with our 200% fares. Enforcement $100 police social club, $900 rail projects, not quite a concrete barrier but brave to pass it.
Patrick, to clarify your statement about the Busway being funded 100% through the Land Transport Fund, the Busway roads, bridges etc. were funded by (then) Transit, but the stations, access roads and parking were funded by North Shore City. I don’t recall the split of total funding between the two bodies, but the cost to NSCC was not inconsiderable.
The discussion was well informed, intelligent and clear, but I’m afraid that David Shand may have inadvertently predicted the government’s probable lack of response to Len Brown’s optimistic vision of getting a funding agreement with Wellington when he made statements like “the Commission recommended (funding option) but the government didn’t act on it”. Going in to the last election no party had an inkling of policy on Auckland, but all retained the pre amalgamation blinkers.
If projects are funded 50-50 i.e. council pays 50% and NLTF covers the other 50%, there could be potential issues. If councils are free to use the NLTF as they wished, the NLTF could be completely emptied. If the Government controlled the NLTF, then it would mean that the Government would essentially be controlling what infrastructure projects go ahead or not. Correct me if I’m wrong
Yes the devil is in the detail certainly. Currently NZTA decides if it will join the local partner in funding a project. AT and NZTA seems to work very well together but there certainly is room for serious disagreement I guess, but it seems to work more like a good system of checks and balances. I do think it’s wise that central agencies weigh in on local plans of any scale, as they can bring real sophistication and grunt, ideally though that wouldn’t be as politicised as it has been under this gov., ie specific projects being pushed through sidestepping the evaluation process….
I think we need a second harbour crossing as much as we want clogged Takapuna Streets – but wait, that’s exactly what seems a greater possibility! And I can even hear the Devonport whine regarding Lake Road from here.
One good thing Len mentioned was basing.project discussions on facts not sentiment.I guess current growth trends are facts then. Also performance of northern busway keeping Harbour bridge flowing and great patronage growth. On funding whilst I see congestion tolling on motorways has positives, it will also fully choke arterials. I think applying property rates to each carpark, creates an disencentive to even take a car, plus it is very easy to setup, no equipment, 1 person counts, advises rate clerk job done. Make extra daily cost same as PT day pass, $10 Calgary?. Also promotes malls to encourage PT? This helps reduce car usage across entire grid. Should only start after bus and cycle network at 4 star, so viable choices. Decision over extent of carparks is flexible also, as well as cost, is it uniform or more in the CBD? Not just a funding tool but a solid car mode demand tool, as well as disencouraging carpark in key areas for better development.
Dare I say it but $50 per day would mean alternative mode growth 5000%, trucks and buses have road network to themselves. Even with buses under private ownership and going in the wrong direction. , you should get to rail quite fast.
Isn’t that congestion free tomorrow paying 1 person with a hop card to count the carparks? vs 110 b next 30 years? Actually this is more than a car demand tool it could be 20 nuclear warheads fired at each car bonnet so may need careful handling. But an interesting approach, not suggested yet. Cycle width issues? OK might be slightly aggressive counter attack but rapid busways on all arterials for $60k per year does make a good benefit-cost ratio and emissions instantly down heaps.
Over the festive period I have been engaged in an extended email conversation about funding transport, housing affordability, productive versus unproductive capital and its links to inequality, the Tiebot model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiebout_model, and Bertaud -Cities as labour markets thesishttp://marroninstitute.nyu.edu/content/working-papers/cities-as-labor-markets.
From that discussion a strong argument could be made that responsibility for regional and especial urban transport should be transferred down from NZTA to regional bodies. That included the bulk of fiscal funding/ transport taxes.
Sounds interesting. Bulk funding regions is certainly an option, although clearly there is a need for national coordination, a role that NZTA currently has.
Yes but MOT/NZTA know nothing about unbiased multi-modal solutions and your plans run rings around them. Especially now with growth figures even with bus and cycle at 1 star or below with no reasonable network, or bus with any effective routing or management right now to adapt routes to suit rail or even try a high frequency core. Both government organizations are clearly corrupt nothing less and I personally cannot forgive them for the damage they have done and keep trying to do. How many examples do we need. If there was a full clean out and you guys in control actually listening to suggestions and making informed decisions maybe.
Patrick re the combined bus and toll lanes idea. I suppose I’m asking how much spare capacity are there on express bus lanes? As you know I am from down south and have never seen Auckland’s northern busway so it is hard to get a feel for how it works. Is it continuously full of buses, buses passing a given point several times a minute? Or are buses spaced out more? I genuinely don’t know.
Do other types of vehicles already use bus lanes -emergency vehicles? taxis?
Are there some proposed bus lanes where there would be less buses so this idea might be more appropriate?
Obviously if this idea was to work private car use of the lane would have to be rationed (by price/tolls or some other mechanism) so that it did not interfere with the operation of the express bus service.
In peak times in the peak direction there’s something like 80-100 buses an hour. They are often spaced out but that’s why they work. Adding in other vehicles would cause delays for example buses pulling out of a station would have to wait for the cars to clear first. Repeat that at every station and could add a minute or more to bus users travel time.
A few years ago the old Auckland City Council caved to the well heeled of the eastern suburbs and let T2 cars on the a Tamaki Dr bus lanes as a trial. Their study afterwards found travel time for bus users and the drivers in the general traffic lane slowed down and only those T2 benefited. The slow down was caused by T2 drivers using the lane to bypass congestion then cut into the general traffic lane at bus stops before cutting back into the bus lane. Cars in the bus lane slowed buses at intersections as they took longer to get through. Sadly the political power wasn’t very supportive so caved and made the trial permanent and some of those same people are trying to water down other bus lanes
Yes, or in short, an empty buslane or busway is an effective one FOR ALL ROAD USERS.
Mate, I think that an empty buslane has no buses in it. Not too sure how it would help all road users haha
An empty buslane doesn’t have T2 ppl pushing in front slowing you down, while a bus using the lane will be frequent and rapid enough to attract some users out of their car and mean there’s less people driving, reducing your queue time.
Agreed. Now we desperately need widespread bus lanes and the full 1000 buses using them effectively. 6am to 10pm. 2 x ,8 hr shifts and lets get on with it and clear this mess double teaming with rail. In six months let’s do a serious arterial remark and bring cycle to join in also and do signal improvements , all very possible for what $50,k bus symbols right now and $2m approx in 6 months time. 60 years of car network bias gone, even with no fares adjustments, or carpark rates or tolling let’s see if that corrects balance. Then go crazy with rapid transit and hopefully a public bus fleet that is self thinking and self driving this mode to 100% utilization and making future long term decisions like capacity and propulsion.
After a full scale bus network given 12 months, and with cycle 6 months think very fair to apply carpark property rates to fully control congestion so all roads at free flow at peak hour, no wasted emissions, or damage to economy. So even if adding the 2 networks doesn’t fully fix congestion fully in this time period this tool/weapon will and provide additional funding addressing problem directly for a change. Or implement sooner for free flow now? Or diet arterials even further beyond what is needed for bus and cycle.
The fact is Len and David you have options galore without any major spend to eliminate congestion. Liveable is doable so fast if we had some more clout. Not saying rapid transit not vitally important just pointing out 2 faster ways for current mode imbalance problem.
It’s all about supply and demand. The arterials are the primay supply for cars. Demand for car use is based on cost, speed, attractiveness of other options eg speed,less stress, can do other things, availability, safety even fitness, comfort, freedom, easy to use and viable everywhere. Do a three pronged mode share rebalance arterial supply, parking cost and improving the other modes the fastest way. An arterial road remark addresses 2 out of 3 in one go. Reduces car supply and maximises bus speed and cycle safety. AT finally looking at this but only for bus and not widespread or thorough enough. Not going to get there to be honest and 15min network needs a rapid as possible core, not just our current rail.
Then you also have fares like cheaper for families and a cheaper day pass so really footing it with car mode 24hrs. Len and David all these things I’ve just mentioned are under your governsnce without touching the motorways, which would boost bus further by the way. Stern leadership guys the things I’ve just mentioned aren’t even capital expenditure yet we have $1.25b per annum in congestion and kids can’t safely bike to school, plus environmen . public amenity etc.
.
Richard, you could consider the bus lane to be a railway line just like the line alongside the motorway at Greenlane and Ellerslie.
I was just criticising Patrick’s choice of words. However, I do actually see the benefits of bus lanes and busways as they increase the efficiency of the roading network. Just take a look at the Northern busway. If everyone on those buses were in single occupant vehicles, we would need another ten lanes across the harbour bridge.
Correction: However, I do actually see the benefits of free flowing bus lanes and busways as they increase the efficiency of the roading network.
Mr David Shand has a rather One sided viewpoint if you happen to disagree with his. The Radio Nz article LACKED BALANCE and I blame the media for that error and omission. The Availability of Kiwi Rail Use of Their Tracks will be a serious issue overlooked in this podcast. A one sided view indeed.