Last Monday the council held an Auckland Conversations event to discuss transport funding in the Long Term Plan. Overall I thought it turned out to be a very good discussion and you if you didn’t happen to be there or watch it online live you can view the recording here.
This was also where Generation Zero launched their Essential Transport Budget which in a case of the old and young combining has even been backed by Grey Power. You can see that specific part here.
However there was a bit of noise created before the event by the curmudgeouns Dick Quax and George Wood.
Right-wing Auckland councillors are describing a council debate on transport as a ratepayer-funded “gabfest for public transport lefties”.
They have criticised tonight’s fully-registered debate at Aotea Centre covering issues like extra rates, petrol taxes and motorway tolls.
Councillor Dick Quax says right-wing voices haven’t been included, and councillor George Wood says motoring advocates haven’t been invited to take part.
I assume they are primarily directing the comment at Patrick, Pippa and Sudhvir. One area I do happen to agree with them on is that it would have been good to see someone there representing the road lobby – for example perhaps the Road Transport Forum. However what I want to question is the idea that pushing for better walking, cycling and public transport – at least in the way that we and Generation Zero do – is somehow “leftist”. In fact if you look at the actual detail of much of the advocacy we do it could easily be classified as sitting on right of the political spectrum. Here are just a few examples:
Improved Choice
The idea that individuals should have the personal freedom to make their own choices is often considered a strong aspect of right wing politics and that’s something we agree with. In the area of transport in New Zealand our politics has focused on associating freedom with the ability to drive cars. I’m not sure of the exact reason for this, I assume it’s probably a combination of successful car company marketing, the fact that PT workers are/were unionised, that cars don’t need a timetable plus provide point to point transport and similar messaging coming out of countries we followed like the US.
Putting the messaging aside, for decades on only focused on building one mode of transport. Like almost everywhere else in the world we’re rational beings and the outcome of all that investment meant the only rational decision was to drive – and that’s what most people do. What we’re seeing now is that when high quality options such as the Northern Busway or the rail network are provided then people respond positively and will happily change behaviour.
One of the key reasons for our support of greater public transport, walking and cycling investment is that it improves the choice people have for how they get around. It means the only realistic option isn’t sitting in a car (in traffic) but being able to choose the best option for the trip/s they want to make (which may still be a car).
Fiscal Conservatism
We’ve been constantly appalled by the council’s transport plans which effectively seek to build everything ever thought up of over many many years. It’s the build everything approach that has contributed to the $12 billion shortfall which the council is trying to find a way to fund and is looking at either tolls or increased rates and fuel taxes. Over the years we’ve frequently looked for ways that we can both reduce spending but at the same time improve outcomes and of course that was one of the key reasons behind the Congestion Free Network.
We’ve taken the same approach with government spending. Some of the Roads of National Significance simply don’t provide good value for money and we’ve suggested some be cut back or cancelled as a result. The money saved from doing so can then be used deliver projects that will deliver better overall outcomes.
None of this approach is about being anti-car but improving what we build
Improved Efficiency
One thing that both advocates and transport agencies agree on is that we need to get more out of the transport system we already have. That means we need to move more people and goods via already scarce transport resources. In an urban area private vehicles take up massive amounts of space. One of the big advantages of public transport, walking and cycling is that they have the ability to move large numbers of people in less space so can play a bit part in improving the efficiency of our transport networks. Of course for those alternative options to be used we have to invest in them to make them usable to a wider segment of society.
Reduced Subsidies
To get people using PT though we need to improve the quality of the PT offering and the old business analogy of “you have to spend money to make money” seems quite appropriate. By investing in the network in the right way it allows us to improve PT and ultimately reduce the amount of subsidies required. As an example a bus lane allows buses to travel faster along its route by no longer subjecting it to normal congestion. Faster journeys are great for existing passengers and help accelerating patronage growth. However bus lanes are also good from a subsidy point of view. By speeding buses up you either need less of them to do the same job or can run more services for the same amount of money – thereby attracting more people to use it. Either way you reduce the level of subsidies needed which is good for ratepayers and taxpayers.
Encouraging businesses
We’ve seen both locally and internationally that when there is a focus on improving the walkability and the pedestrian environment (that includes wheeled pedestrians) a couple of significant things happen. One is that people shop more boosting local retail, perhaps the best example of this is the upgrade of Fort St to a shared space which has seen the hospitality retailers revenue increase by a staggering 400%. The second thing is that people walking (and cycling) more is good for them, improving health and therefore reducing long term costs to the health system. This is further enhanced as often these improvements also see a reduction in traffic crashes. So once again we see a case where we can lower costs while also increasing revenue and therefore tax at the same time.
There are probably many more examples like the ones above, but they give a good overview of why transport policy (and land-use policy) really doesn’t fit well into a traditional “left-right” ideological spectrum.
Processing...
I find the whole left / right debate in New Zealand around public transport very strange.
What is the one thing the Right Wing Government in the UK, the Torres do during the recession to stimulate their economy in London? Why build a new Tube Line – Crossrail for several billion’s of pounds. You would think London with over 10 Tube Lines would have enough, but the right wing government could easily see the benefit of another line to tap into certain areas which can’t easily get into the centre or through London and it was the right decision even when money was very tight back in 2009.
Why New Zealanders can’t see this is very strange. I actually think the New Zealand public transport debate is not about Left & Right, but Urban & Rural; and our National Government is more rural focused than right wing focused in many areas including public transport. To many of the senior members in cabinet come from a rural back ground like Bill English and don’t really understand how a major city works.
Bang on Adam. Moreover the Nats are actually more Muldoonist than Friedmanite – witness the Steven Joyce approach to Sky City, Northland etc.
I also agree they have no idea, yes a road out to the farm might be OK catering for cars and quad bikes but not in the City. Having watched the parliament channel for 1hr 2 nights ago, think these politicians are just playing games with themselves andvit is embarrassing to watch. Yes the 10 one lane bridge upgrades before the bi election in Northland maximum bribe and again not on PT, Cycle Rail or Walking.
Yeah I dont even get the one lane bridge thing, most northlanders love them, they give it a rural charm and provide a bit of traffic calming on otherwise ruthless roads.
Well we might have the cricket advantage right now but the POM’s even with right wing governance put in subway. You win.
I feel that it is more an issue of “only poor people use PT” and thus any support of PT is seen to be “the voice of the lower class”. Rural v City does factor in at a national level but in the Auckland discussions (with Aucklanders) this seems to be the underlying issue.
You’re right that Transit is largely an urban issue, of course, as its utility is a function of urban economics; density and size. But you are quite wrong about rich and poor. In fact one of the oddities of Auckland’s networks is that they best serve older better off areas, and are used a great deal by people living in them. One of the big dwelling affordability traps is that cheaper housing is generally only available in disconnected and distant places that condemn those there to driving for almost every journey. In part this has happened by people paying more to be closer in or well served by Transit, but it is also in part a historical artefact of the older tram built suburbs being well served on those same patterns by buses [to the point that they now are bursting].
This is one of the great virtues of the revival of the rail network as it was just sitting there ready to serve many disconnected and lower value areas. We can see this is working extremely well too, so much so that this revival needs to to be continue with the whole of network fix that is the CRL. The brilliant success of the Northern Busway is another addition that serves middle to better off communities, as will AMETI. Some areas seem to be endlessly hard done by like Mangere, the New Network will there, but a true Rapid Transit extension through there is urgent too.
Transport shouldn’t be political it should just be transport. 60 years of a one ride pony, time for the Melbourne Cup at full gallop. Our Car Network with existing corridor allocation is arguably running at 30% capacity or less and no choice. Let’s fix all that before we do anything.
Wow 400% Retail Income with Shared Space. Hello Queen St Pedestrian and Transit Only.
The one point I agree with in all of this – we have to make better use of the infrastructure we have’. With our wasteful anti car Council we have the stupidity of the Dominion Rd plan (which will limit flows substantially) and other ‘beautification’ and addition of green spaces and median strips on suburban roads. How about (radical I know) the Council have an enlightened panel review PROACTIVELY intelligent suggestions from the public as to how to improve intersections, existing road flows, traffic light sequencing etc.
There are very simple things that can be done now to improve flows at low or no cost:
1. Remove parking on all arterial urban routes – two marked lanes each way ( the bus fans will like this too)
2. Have all traffic lights sequence INTELLLIGENTLY
3. Have all traffic lights show an orange light before the green to get everyone ready (as in the UK, etc)
4. Remove ‘runout’ lanes on the motorways, stops jams where 3 lanes merge into one
Making roads FLOW improves things for everyone – motorists, buses, cyclists etc
I could go on….all commonsense ideas, there will be many more from the public – all the Council needs to do is ASK.
How about some commonsense leadership from the Council’s traffic department?
Transport discussions also suffer from a number of very persistent myths and one of the funniest is this idea that if only the ‘correct’ traffic light sequence were employed then all vehicles would speed along unimpeded for ever… one of the many great self-delusions of the frustrated motorist. What they mean of course is if only they never got a red light then their drive would be fixed. This is so obviously hocum: beyond an incremental improvement for some journeys, say straight runs especially on grid patterned streets [Manhattan], the only way to reduce delay for one set of road users is to increase it for others. It is a finite game; time and space cannot be bent by the fiddling with coloured lights.
There are ways to reduce delay at intersections and the Americans, with their often Jeffersonian grided street patterns often employ one of the most straight forward: remove or reduce turning options; this means that each direction gets maximum throughput for longer and more often, but local access is reduced or even eliminated [motorway]. These turning movements are are also the cause of many collusions, especially with pedestrians, so that can be a argument for this too, however their removal can also lead to drivers having to take a more circuitous and therefore longer route to their destination. So there you go; no free lunch again. Speed for one user will surely mean delay for another.
Except of course where speed for tens, hundreds, or thousands, of users is prioritised over the speed for a few. This is how space and time in urban movement can be manipulated. The buslane, traffic light priority for Transit vehicles, and best of all; fully separate right of ways for fast frequent and high capacity vehicles speeds everyone and removes pressure from space eating cars. Ah but that’s crazy ‘car-hatin’ talk…
And this is where the naysayers logic fails. Traffic light sequencing is an art and on main arterial routes the council fails miserably. So thanks for saying it can’t be done. I have worked on this overseas and I can tell it can be done, but it needs a will. Whilst Len and co are doing their utmost to p off car drivers it will never be followed through with.
Car actually needs PT and Cycle to be high quality. On it’s own it can’t foot it. Current Situation Car Network needs conversion to a Transport Network that gives people choice and good for walkers too. But yes we do need to get parking off arterials and maximise the.missing modes.
Len nor any other elected official controls the traffic lights. NZTA and AT have a joint control centre that responds in real time with a ‘whole system’ approach of no small sophistication. Anyone who thinks these people are either careless or hopeless at managing this is just flat wrong. They are not yet able to transcend the laws of physics however.
Try getting hold of these people when lights go faulty and traffic queues for miles – *555 can’t even get hold of them. On ramp traffic lights are a prime example of lazy and potentially hazardous thinking. Anyone like to drive emergency vehicles around congested motorway intersections made way worse by these cursed lights? To say these AT people are onto it defies logic.
Len controls the directions, the overall instructions to these groups. If he says make it hard for cars so everyone will go on my train – that is what will happen. He creates the overriding policy. This Council has been shown time and time again to be a dictatorship – there is little democracy behind the closed doors.
Ricardo your naive understanding of how the city is run is going to mean you will be very disappointed when we get a new Mayor and the traffic lights aren’t suddenly always green for you. Perhaps you should run on a ‘green lights for all’ platform and sort it out for us?
“anti car Council” – in what way is the Council anti-car? All residents/businesses have to do is claim that the public space outside their home/business is vital for the storage of private property (i.e. cars/boats – but strangely not other home appliances like fridges or washing machines) and all projects that would use that public space to actually move people grinds to a halt.
Dominion Road is a classic example. The only reason it is so half arsed and ineffective is because the Council gave into the pro-car/pro-car parking agitation. Even though most people moving on Dominion Road aren’t in cars.
Try doing some cycle advocacy for a while and then tell me the Council is “anti-car”. That is a joke.
I agree with you 100% that all parking should go on arterials.
Yes this is amusing. Around the corner from our office a small bus company uses the public road to store their buses when not in use. I wonder what the response from the council would be if we moved a number of Portacom buildings into the street to run our office from? It’s the same right?
Great comment. Albert Einstein once said that human stupidity is infinite. This certainly applies to car obsessed,lead weight bigots that stop other transport modes from improving.
The Council wants to put a raised green strip down the centre of Dominion Rd. Anyone with even a modicum of commonsense can see the failings in that. One bus lane, one car lane and nowhere to turn or get around obstructions. That is a recipe for disaster. What are these fools thinking?
Sorry, but that is absolute nonsense. As Patrick has already hinted at, the idea of a “green wave” of nicely coordinated traffic lights making traffic flow freely is bunkum. If you look at our road grid you will see that every couple kilometres (often every couple hundred METERS), there is a another major road crossing the first road. So by making the first road flow better, the others flow worse.
Plus, by prioritising car flow, you screw pedestrians, who get told that they can’t (or only once every couple minutes) cross same road. We already do that way too much – no more, thank you!
Not bunkum – just needs a will on arterial routes.
Big problem is the majority of arterial roads in Auckland are also residential roads, or pass by schools, or shops etc.
The big overriding problem facing Auckland is economic. It is UNECONOMIC for all of us if traffic does not FLOW and goods and services take 3 times as long to de delivered. These costs come out of your and my pocket. That is what Council should get it’s head around. Making it harder to traverse the city is plain dumb, end of. How much of your day is spent commuting (whether by car, bus, train, bike, foot)? PT is PART of the answer, it is not THE answer in itself.
Start thinking about the costs, which affect ALL of us.
Oh I see. Now you have put your argument USING CAPS IT ALL SEEMS SO MUCH MORE PERSUASIVE. Well done.
Max is a traffic engineer so you have to come up with some actual evidence before you can tell him he is wrong. No problem right?
Ricardo you speak far too much sense to contribute to Transportblog
Which will be why Patrick Reynolds has jumped in with a post that shows up his lack of knowledge in vehicular efficiency
101 in vehicular effieciency bus>car.
OK, well as someone who I think can claim to know something about “vehicular efficiency” (seeing as I teach it and do research on it), I think Patrick’s pretty much on the button with his assessment. Once you’ve done basic optimisation of signal timings across a network, you can’t get more efficiency on a road corridor without taking it away from someone else – no such thing as a free lunch.
Happy to agree with the concept of removing parking from arterials though – but I probably wouldn’t be replacing them with general traffic lanes in most instances…
Sydney coped for many years before the Eastern Distributor was built – simply by having two lanes 24 x 7 no parking on all arterial routes. 2 lanes flow more than twice as much traffic as one lane (please don’t ask why). So we could get FLOWS UP, which benefit cars trucks and buses. Too hard? I don’t think so.
Sydney you say? AT and NZTA use sydneys system http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Coordinated_Adaptive_Traffic_System
They do green waves for VIP’s but not you im afraid.
Anti car would be tripling fuel taxes, reducing on street car park numbers by 90% and increasing G.S.T. on cars. The reality is different, cars, buses walking, and cycling are all supported.
Into the gas chamber after 10mins? Really that is offensive.
The ‘Reality above of the car jams ALSO includes BUSES – just as stuck as any of us.
Council needs to make roads flow instead of constantly bottle necking traffic.
No they need to allocate separate space just for buses so they don’t get caught in the congestion. For example, bus lanes.
People only need to see so many buses fly past them to start making some rational transport decisions.
That’ll work for everyone I’m sure! People who are obsessed about buses and PT usually always never have kids, families, sporting events and groceries to collect. Oh, and not forgetting the joys of Auckland weather changes.
What does ‘usually always never’ mean?
“That’ll work for everyone I’m sure! People who are obsessed about buses and PT usually always never have kids, families, sporting events and groceries to collect. Oh, and not forgetting the joys of Auckland weather changes.” False. People can carry some shopping on public transport (I have seen it), families can use public transport, and kids can use public transport (I have seen it). Narrow minded, car obsessed people ignore the reality of other transport modes. Its not everyone uses public transport or it doesn’t count. It is instead, used in a wide range of situations for a wide range of people, just like cars. Also, weather affects all transport, not just public transport. Please think, Ricardo, before commenting.
Sorry mate, died laughing. You obviously don’t have a family with all the commitments that go with it. And that is the problem with PT enthusiasts. They believe everything is possible on cycles, buses and trains. A balance is the answer, but that isn’t radical enough for PT proponents. Count the number of cyclist you see today in the rain. Wasted realestate – cycling will not take off in Auckland for the commuting masses – only appeals to the few hardy.
Relax. Nobody is going to force you out of your car. But there is some need to restore balance.
You don’t see cyclists out there because currently most roads are completely inhospitable to cyclists.
If I remember correctly decent bicycling infrastructure would cost only a couple of 100 millions, and experience oversees suggests that cycle mode share would rise to about 25%. Catering for a quarter for all movements for a few 100 millions is a big win.
For parents, I don’t remember my parents being too thrilled about having to ferry us around everywhere. Quite the opposite, they have better things to do than driving from A to B to C all day. I can’t even explain how little I am looking forward to getting stuck in rush hour traffic another half hour every day to drop the kids off at school.
Imagine how much easier it would be if kids (well at least the somewhat older ones) could just ride their bike if they want to go somewhere.
And as for bad weather, from personal experience it’s not too bad. You get wet from time to time but not too often, especially if you can avoid showers (hint: rain radar). And it doesn’t get freezing cold in the winter (look up Amsterdam climate and compare).
Children – check. Sporting activities – check. Groceries – check. I do all those things by bicycle and PT.
And weather? I cycle every day in Auckland and get caught in bad weather maybe 10 times a year. Obviously as you drive everywhere you wouldn’t know that.
Why does it have to work for everyone, all the time.? Who ever claimed that was the aim? Again, that is a car centric statement stuck in the past. This isn’t about everyone always doing anything. Sometimes a bus or train will work, other times walking or cycling and sometimes you will need your car.
My family only needs one car (saving us $,000s per year) as I do 90% of my travelling other than by car. However, I do have access to a car for the few times I do need it. This is why the Netherlands has a higher car ownership rate than the UK while having less VKT per capita. People make a choice on transport based on their needs. They don’t just default to the car.
Your massive generalisations backed up with zero evidence are not very convincing. Maybe try another tack, like say actually citing some evidence for your opinions.
Public Transport implies collective action. Collective action implies the existence of a civil society. Civil society implies the existence of communities.
All the above is ideological heresy! There is no such thing as society, and humans are isolated and atomised individuals who should be competing as rational economic beings in a perfect market place.
Hence, it follows that PT is a left wing project, the thin end of the wedge that leads to collectivisation and ultimately communism.
So really, PT is just communism.
Actually no it is just Logic. “Needs of The Many Outweigh Needs of The Few”. Spock was Logical so is Public Transport.
It goes back further than Spock, to Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, with the theory of Utilitarianism. The greatest good for the greatest number. And PT is it!
“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” Great wisdom. Its time that those selfish, stale, narrow minded, car obsessed, anti public transport, anti walking, anti cycling dinosaurs, Wood, Brewer and Quax are booted out in the next council election! They should be replaced by forward thinking people aged around 30 who support P.T., cycling and walking as well as cars. The older the wiser does not apply to Wood, Quax, and Brewer. A NBR article questioned the need to have CRL! These people remind me of Pinochet-corporate greed first,**** the greater good of community.
Streets are a common good, so they are socialist or communist, as you prefer! Public transport on the other hand would be a club good, as have to pay for it (economy 101).
“Public Transport implies collective action. Collective action implies the existence of a civil society. Civil society implies the existence of communities.
All the above is ideological heresy! There is no such thing as society, and humans are isolated and atomised individuals who should be competing as rational economic beings in a perfect market place.” Imagine if we had a far right ultra corporate fascist Council like Pinochet’s government, run by Quax and Wood-and maybe Judith Collins for a bit of blatant corruption too! Life would be a cold, sinister, depressing, selfish, car obsessed, money obsessed, rat race hell.
Left wing/right wing doesn’t apply to most arguments around transit. It comes down to selfishness and lack of care about anyone but themselves – the desire to drive in their own car, pay as little as possible for petrol and get as many roads built so that I they don’t have to share their commute with other people, all without ‘subsidising’ poor\lazy people who take transit. The right wing has become associated with these mentalities (and rightly so in many cases, I suppose) but it has little to do with conservative financial policies, so your arguments will fall on thoroughly deaf ears.
The use of ‘leftist’ as a slur has nothing to do with the robustness of your ideas – it’s just that – a slur to justify selfishness.
I struggle with this, because people I know and care about are very progressive when it doesn’t ‘cost’ them anything. Any mention at funding anything but cars immediately throws guards up and out come a million (purposeful?) misinterpretations or willful ignorances. Reasoned debate grinds them down to the point where they give up trying to rationalise and just state it as such – cars are just better and they won’t ever catch a bus. They don’t care about facts, efficiency, social equality or responsible spending.
Great summary. Selfish ***people*** like Quax reflexively call any hint of collective provision ‘leftist’ so I suspect this argument will elude his shrivelled brain like so much rational evidence has over the years.
oops, sorry.
The almighty ‘flow’ is a walking person’s worst nightmare when there’s insufficient infrastructure and priority, which is the case in Auckland/NZ. Take out parking from a typical arterial road in Auckland, now you have a four-lane road with vehicles going 50k and above, crossings only every 800-1000 metres, and sidestreets where vehicles have priority – good luck finding a gap to cross.
Edit: this is a reply to Ricardo’s comment – why aren’t replies turning up where they need to?
Works in Sydney (with many times the number of vehicles we have) and many other major cities.
Clearly you’ve never tried to cross something like Epping Road or Cumberland Highway. They are simply just horrible places to be around and you barely see a pedestrian or cyclist near them. So by what measure do you propose they work exactly for anyone outside of a car!? Or let’s look at another example, Parramatta Road between Newtown & North Strathfield – it is practically a traffic sewer ghetto and actually has barriers down the middle to prevent pedestrians from crossing large sections of it. So saying “it works” – well unless you’re in a car it certainly doesn’t.
Fine, build some overbridges for pedestrians. I don’t have a problem with that. But the core issue is FLOW. Auckland is fast becoming uneconomic to do business in because of this. The tradies who you get to build or fix things are charging more and why not. If it takes them an hour each way to get to your property for a one hour job they charge for 3. This has to be resolved. And please, sensible comment before some fool says they should use PT to get around.
Exactly, the roads should be used by economically productive vehicles like deliveries and tradespeople.
Not for you to ferry your kids around, go to recreational activities or buy stuff from the shops. Most of the time those activities are much better performed using other means of transport so you are not clogging up the roads for actual useful trips. None of those are economically productive activities.
The best way to handle that is road pricing, so that people who choose the car are not just taking advantage of the huge public subsidy offered for their journey and can assess whether the expensive process (for society and the individual) of using a car is worth it.
As for Auckland not being a good place for business, you need to tell that to the many businesses relocating here. Do you have a business? If so, why don’t you move it to Palmerston North if it is such a problem in Auckland?
Could it be that the advantages of a big city (more employee options, bigger market, better infrastructure) outweigh the disadvantages – like congested roads.
The moment anyone uses left-right labels in these conversations you know they have completely lost any argument, they clearly have nothing of value to bring, particularly no detail or insight but are simply trying to cloud the discussion. They are trying to connect two things they believe to be bad; whatever is being discussed and the other side the political spectrum and smear them with each other. It isn’t even effective.
Just one example. I find it endlessly amusing that a Councillor, living off our taxes [rates], accuses a longtime business owner and multiple rate-payer [me] of being some sort of communist. Even if such an expression were meaningful; I have never ever even been a member of any political party. Especially as said councillor has twice stood, unsuccessfully, for a minor and extremist political party [ACT], before he finally found a level that he could live off the taxed income of society [Ha!]. So I think we can see what these accusations really mask; the accuser’s own ideologically shaped world-views, and just how confused and contradictory they are.
His quackery is best ignored.
Ignoring the Quakery will allow it to continue. Dick was elected unopposed because his anti-social, greedy and generally illogical attitudes were not questioned enough. I am sure there are people much more capable of representing the real needs of the citizens of Howick and Pakuranga than Dick.
Greed and stupidity need to be identified and methods of avoiding them need to be shown as preferable alternatives that can be adopted by the majority. The outcome will hopefully be a better city, with healthier, happier and wealthier citizens. Dick might even learn to mend his ways. or get voted out next election.
If Dick wants to identify right-wing thinking as greed and stupidity, so be it.
Agree Fully. Transport is not Political. Transport should be about Moving People and Making Spaces Great Places to Visit. Roading Corridors are Public Realm and have a major impact on our lives. They can be hostile / car only or fully functional maximising amenity. It is time to make all corridors the latter. Things are so bad the Mayor can call Civil Defense as delaying Emergency Services.Actually this is the best thing he can do as it forces a Code Red and immediate fix no matter what the cost and all parties need to fall into line in 10 seconds. A Road Measuring Team, Expert Road Layout Team , Cycle, PT, Walking and Blog Expertise And Full Resources on a 24hr shift if need be. Call it Len time for the Wake Up call. I reckon Auckland Liveable, Functional 5 weeks from sound alarm.
My theory is that this is not an economic left/right (state vs market provision) but a culture war left/right we’re talking about. By “right wing” Quax doesn’t mean people who believe in the free market, but people whose ideals of society hark back to 1950s suburbia. These are the kind of people who say things like “I’m not going to Queen Street, it looks like Hong Kong”. They consider urban lifestyle and the creative/technical classes who enjoy it to be foreign and immoral. They like NZ being a sleepy backwater, like John Roughan.
Yes that’s right, but it’s all jumbled up and confused, on so many levels.
At central government level it isn’t helped by the increasingly politicised use of the NLTF by the current government for party political purposes. I am almost too stunned to comment on the recent goings on in Northland.
One could almost argue that petrol tax has become defacto political party donation – it’s outrageous and I’m really hopping Key and Co get a real bottom spanking in Northland. Maybe thay’ll kill the Omaha motorway out of spite.
I agree it is not “an economic left/right (state vs market provision) but a culture war”, but to me it is not really a left wing vs right wing thing, but rather a conservative (and right-wing) point of view vs those in favour of change. Reluctant to describe those in favour of change as ‘liberal’ but I guess that is the point on the political compass directly opposite conservative.
So I suspect George Wood wants to continue policies from the 1950’s onwards, and simply continue to build more roads as the answer, regardless of any evidence to contrary. That is conservative, not rightwing, though if I am being cynical, the transfer of funds from public sources to private companies tends to be a right-wing trend.
I would assume the economic right wing / libertarian solution would be more user pays and therefore less AT funding, and more road tolls; which to be fair would really dampen congestion if you have to pay a toll directly linked to congestion and cost of roading.
Saw Campbell Live cover Auckland transport last night, though they presented it as a choice between the two plans on offer, rather than considering there might be some middle ground, which leads me to think there is a false dichotomy there.
I think the media need to try and get from Dick Quax, George Wood, what they propose as a solution for Auckland transport if not cycling and public transport?. More roads cannot be accepted as an answer to any question like that as there is simple clear evidence that induced demand means that more roads will never work.
yeah, agreed. Quax doesn’t seem to be talking about choice, as a right winger may do. If he was we would be investing equally in both public transport and roads. He is talking about conservatism, the status quo etc. To misquote the Cable Guy ” Quax, this city is changing, you are gonna have to learn to live with that!”.
It also explains why David Seymour objects to “8 storey buildings” in Epsom, despite being the leader of a supposedly free-market party. I had fun baiting him on Twitter about it:
https://twitter.com/kumararepublic/status/558034913870774272
https://twitter.com/kumararepublic/status/562048145131962368
Good comments! My two cents worth on the confusion between right and left is that to me transport would be an ideal area to decentralise funding and democratic decision making from central government to regional bodies. In this way more urban areas like Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch can modernise there transport networks to there particular needs, while rural areas can stick with more traditional networks. For many in the ‘right’ here in NZ this is devil’s talk but if you read right wing theorists like Hayek he preferred local government to central government…. because as has been discussed here it is about giving people genuine choices.
Agree 100%. And the only reason the National government doesn’t want that is that cities would not use it on roads which would alienate National’s suburban/rural base.
“that cars don’t need a timetable” – If that were a valid left/right difference, why are people described themselves as conservative also so opposed to investing in cycling structure? Bicycles are the ultimate freedom machine.
No licence, no registration, no congestion, no parking fees. They are basically the modern equivalent to the horse but without the side products. If right wingers want to hark back to some mythical laissez faire, rugged individualism (think John Wayne and Clint Eastwood), they should be 100% behind the bicycle.
…and soooo user pays, that effort on a hill is a very good reminder of your commitment to the journey. It is quite literally all your own work [Except for you cheaters on your fancy lecky bikes!].
Brendon I agree, to a degree far greater than today, but not 100%, in the sense that national coordination is also required for interregional kit like State highways and freight and intercity railways….
Patrick something like 50% to 80% of funding could be devolved to regional bodies. That would leave central government with enough funding to sort out genuinely national transport interest items. Such as the creating one or two ports of national significance that can handle the bigger modern container ships.That sort of thing.
Regional bodies would have some sort NZQA type overseeing authority to prevent any really silly incompatibility decisions. The overseeing authority could also publish transport and housing data for the public such as actual travel times for various modes of transport. I would like them to publish data on housing/land affordability because that would be a key element of competition between the regions.
NZ would need a change in mind set. Dictatorial politicians like Muldoon would need to go and more rational collaborative politicians that can engage in genuine discussions and debate would need to come.
Well said Brendon, mindset and politicians being the crux of the problem we could always “think big”.
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/james-palumbo-we-will-only-see-new-change-by-taking-the-politics-out-of-politics-10097843.html
Indeed. I always think of the words of Edward Abbey (a rugged individualist if there ever was one) about the difference between walking and driving: “There is this to be said for walking: It’s the one mode of human locomotion by which a man proceeds on his own two feet, upright, erect, as a man should be, not squatting on his rear haunches like a frog.”
You have identified a critical point where the ‘liberal’ support of the motorcar is identified as an artifact of an oligarchy of petroleum retailing. Bicycle capitalists only make peanuts selling cycle tyres and accessories such as lights and lycra outfits. Support the motorcar and support the petroleum industry. stuff the environment. Global melting isn’t happening and let’s go back to the good old days when we could put lots of lead in petrol. Support bicycles and all our shares in the petrol business will become worthless.
The problem isn’t ‘left’ or ‘right’, its ‘them’ or ‘us’. Where ‘them’ are a small group of very rich people who are probably pretty old and who won’t be around to see the tide creeping onto the land, and the rest of us. “Them” are very good at getting persuasive people to explain to “‘us’ how the interests of “them’ are really the interests of ‘us’. ‘Them’ won’t be around to see the Auckland Isthmus become Auckland Island,
An intelligent comment Lloyd. As Rage Against The Machine say,”shedding light on the darkness of greed”. Oil obsessed fools will have their arrogance killed by peak oil. Keep up the good thoughts.
The final NZ transport myth that needs to be challenged is that public transport causes unaffordable housing. This is a stick that the ‘right’ beat the ‘left’ with repeatedly. The source of this myth is well publicised data showing sprawling car centric cities in the US have more affordable housing. What is neglected to be said is those cities have been receiving ‘free’ motorways from the Federal government since the 1950s and currently have 6 times the motorway length per capita than NZ. Another fact neglected to be said is places like Germany which provide new greenfield developments with a choice of road and public transport infrastructure from the outset have just as affordable housing.
The difference between affordable and unaffordable housing is to do with how competitive land supply is for urban areas not whether there is a single or multiple modes of transport in the network provided.
+100 – couldn’t agree more Brendon.
Definitely needs to happen in our home town of Chch. It could be improved so much by the replacement of parking with bus lanes on arterials like Riccarton Road.
Call someone leftist, and you don’t have to engage with their ideas. That’s awfully convenient when you can’t rationally fault those ideas.
In the current situation for transport in NZ we find that right seems to mean ‘centrally planned monolithic projects without sound business cases’ and left seems to mean ‘let’s investigate the best outcome from our constrained budget’. From where I stand that seems to be the wrong way around.
We live in a perfect car-only utopia, so why would we want to screw that up with those damn crazy leftist cycling communists trying to give us choices, options, freedom-of-choice and all that nonsense.
You make a very good point about new urbanism (for lack of a better term) being not being a specifically left-wing approach as many of its assumptions are based on ideas that are usually associated with the political right. I would argue new urbanism is best described as a form of ‘radical centrism’.
The reason PT has been thought of as left-wing was due to the political and technological changes of the early 20th century. Massive PT systems were ideal for centrally planned economies popular among communist and socially-democratic nations alike. These moved lots of people, often to large, labour-intensive workplaces common in the early 20th century. Cars were perfect for those favoured individual liberty and laissez-faire economics. Transport could be in the hands of the individual and provide choice. Roads could be built largely in an add-hoc fashion responding to ‘demand’. Of course it was never that simple — state driven capitalism in places like post-war West Germany and Japan also pushed PT — but car-based systems, PT, and their implications for housing became associated with those particular political ideologies.
Today we are seeing the break down of those assumptions. Readers of this blog will agree that cars are no longer about choice. Auto-dependency and sprawling suburbia no longer feel like economic or individual freedom, but for those who like only travelling by car and detached houses it still feels like freedom.
Those favouring laissez-faire economics have also mistrusted PT because of the level of state involvement. This blog has done an excellent job of showing roading projects have an equal or greater involvement of the state than PT projects and there many opportunities for private sector involvement in PT.
However, the left have traditionally been more interested in change than the right. Progressiveness is usually found on the left and conservationism on the right. Sometimes this bond can be stronger than ideology to the left and the right. NZ politics of the 1980s is perfect example of the left taking on right-wing ideology to foster change and the right stubbornly sticking to traditionally left-wing ideas.
So new urbanism is radical in the sense it is pushing for change. Change in our physical environment and change in the assumptions of policy makers.
It is also centrist as it is willing to take ideas from the left or the right to achieve goals that are largely utilitarian, that is, create the most amount of benefit for the largest number of people.
I would argue as political group new urbanists are products of the neo-liberal revolution of the 1980s and the more recent global financial crisis. We accept that open markets are necessary but there is still a role for the state. Individual liberty is a must but PT and planning has a role in providing real choices. There are multiple ways of achieving policy goals and these can involve the public and private sectors in innovative ways, but everything must be cost effective to the tax payer.
In short new urbanism doesn’t feel left or right wing because it’s a mixture of both. However, those who oppose change will see new urbanism as left-wing because they are opposed to change and because they still associate PT with old left-wing political values.
The Wikipedia page on the radical centre probably reflects the American and European contexts more than the New Zealand one, but still provides some of the ideas around the concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_center_%28politics%29
Logic can be confusing and it is easy to see how they got this wrong. They have assumed all cyclists are malcontents and all malcontents are leftists therefore all cyclists are leftists. But they are wrong. The logic actually goes all cyclists are malcontents and some malcontents are leftists!
It may be that people like Quax and Wood wrongly think that public transit is subsidised, and that public roads are not. They are both subsidised across the lifetime of the investment – very heavily in the case of expensive roads.
It’s the ‘public’ that bothers them, the idea that something is paid for by people who do not use it, and used by people who do not pay for it. In either case these are both slightly true. But I don’t think they’d like to acknowledge that about roads, because it would shatter their belief system which rests on strong individuals making it for themselves.
Yeah. That was the thing that shocked me in the LTP. Of the $10 billion in transport capex that AT wants to spend over the next decade, one-third will go on road renewals. Not new roads – renewals of existing roads.
In other words, roads are something we build once and then spend rates money on more or less in perpetuity.
As with any infrastructure. Why do so many people on this blog not think? ALL infrastructure requires maintenance. Do you think we can build train tracks and then walk away?
There’s also the non-financial subsidies which cyclists, pedestrians and public transport passengers pay to car drivers, which don’t seem to get talked about much. In terms of giving up their amenity, safety, and time to allow others to drive their cars.
And years of healthy life as well. Add that up.
and the money spent in policing, rescue, hospitals, etc. How many more emergency beds would be needed if all Auklanders drove instead of taking PT?
Shouldnt you people be working not posting on a forum at this time of the day. No wonder the productivity in this country is so low.
If there wern’t major, fatal issues with our Transport Sector we would all be very productive including less time getting around. Our Transport Sector aren’t even doing the smart things to fix it like reprioritising space whole beast with the new Strategic Fit. Now time for full Civil Defense Overide, which bypasses direct to Road Maintenance Managers on emergency works. No Project Politics just Fix Scenario with all resources ASAP.
Touch your own nose, mate. What are you reading Transport Blog for at this time of day?
Finally some common sense on this blog.
It’s become apparent we’re losing the race to e bottom and if only we’d abolish tea, lunch , loo and breaks of any kind; victory would be within our grasp.
Left, Right or just plainly unqualified, corrupt and Stupid. Transport Minister advising.only Government can deliver on transport after 10 one way bridge fix bribe, dear lord. NZTA board not one person actually qualified or trained in Civil Infrastructure or IPENZ ethics. Time for emergency works fix Auckland and 7 year backdated sue on negligence grounds. That will whack them around.
If London’s Tory Mayor Boris Johnson can be a strong public transit supporter, why can’t his New World counterparts follow suit?
It’s not left v right. It’s about being in this century or the last one.
“One [benefit] is that people shop more …. perhaps the best example of this is the upgrade of Fort St to a shared space which has seen the hospitality retailers revenue increase by a staggering 400%”
Hospitality retailers? Puh-lease!! They are not ‘hospitality retailers’ they are BARS. If you convert any street to a shared space and allow all the bars to take over the footpath [sorry, ‘streetscape’] to peddle their wares then of course you’ll see a 400% increase in revenue. They’ve got more room for people to sit/stand and buy alcohol. It’s the ‘garden bar’ of old, repackaged as ‘al fresco drinking’.
Given that the council has effectively allowed the bars to double their floor space, resulting in higher sales, maybe the council should charge more for the privilege.
cough they do cough, cough anyoneusingstreetspaceforbusinessispaying cough
I said ‘more’.
Westfield charge their tenants a lease + a % of turnover
Bet they make more off sidewalk leases than they did off parking.
They’re not all bars; there are quite a few restaurants, with another one opening soon. And while Westfield leases do have turnover-based rent above certain thresholds, the thresholds are so high that hardly any retailers reach them. There’s no doubt that rents on Fort St are now higher than they were pre-upgrade, because they will reflect the market once they get reviewed. And isn’t that the point you were wanting to make, that rents should be higher since turnover has increased?
Well, this just proves you are indeed right-wing and pro-capitalist.
Despite saying you are apolitical and neutral, in this post you explicitly note the benefits for private/capitalist business.
Can we expect a caveat on the About Us page noting the lack of neutrality?
agree mate. but then all of the western world politics after 1989 has been about right or far right. the center has moved to the right big time and now labour parties are just what conservative parties were 20 years ago, while conservatives are just full on right wing nuts.
Why do you think things are so binary, everything I’ve said is good for people first and foremost.
Being pro capitalist doesn’t make you political, at least no more than being pro democracy or pro rule of law does.
The transport sector should be designed to support the worker. Nothing more, nothing less.
And how does any of what I’ve suggested above make things worse for workers – or anyone else for that matter.
‘The transport sector should be designed to support the worker. Nothing more, nothing less.’
Why one group over any other? The transport sector should be designed to support everybody, shouldn’t it?
But who isn’t a worker? It’s not like we have an aristocracy of landed gentry sitting around smoking pipes, impressing proles and planning fox hunts.
Or do you mean no transport for anyone who isn’t working right then and there? So no transport for retirees, students or children? No transport to get the groceries or visit the hospital? No transport for, I don’t know, enjoying yourself? Heaven forbid someone does something other than labour for eight hours then return to their state house until it is time to labour again.
*opressing* proles.
Rhymes with feeding trolls. Where has Lord Maths shown this level of concern for the common people before? Hint: nowhere, they’re just using a different angle to give TransportBlog a hard time. I wouldn’t bother with it.
“Councillor George Wood says motoring advocates haven’t been invited to take part.” Auckland already provides hugely for car use. Some people are foolish and narrow minded. Motorway tolls and fuel taxes reduce congestion, and can fund public transport, to further reduce congestion. This reduces travel times for drivers. Transport means moving, not just moving cars. Plenty of Aucklanders use public transport, but these fools ignore that.
PT is subsidized as we all know. Motorists have been paying through the nose for these subsidies all along, so a little less arrogance please. If the roads were made to flow properly (require some intelligent thinking from ‘experts’), cars, trucks and BUSES could move more efficiently. Something the Council has zero comprehension of. Cycle lanes are largely wasted realestate – how many cyclists will you count today in the rain?
And driving is also subsidised, to a gigantic extent, far greater than most people realise.
Did you know, Ricardo, that road maintenance is $60,000 per km per year? In my little street of around 500m you could call that “largely wasted real estate”.
Firstly, how is driving subsidised? Excess from fuel taxes is used to prop up Social welfare, etc – it all goes into the ‘consolidated fund’.
Did you know that next to rates, the biggest earner for the Council is parking fees?
Secondly, as for road maintenance, train maintenance, cycle lane maintenance, bus maintenance. EVERY piece of infrastructure requires maintenance.
Do you think the 12 billion for Len’s new trainset is the full cost – forever?
Lastly roads do not get maintained EVERY year.
Road taxes are used entirely to fun NZTA. You need to look up cost of CRT. $12b is cost of entire council plan and includes some very very expensive roads.
All road taxes are hypocated and go directly to the NLTF. They’ve done this for about a decade now.
Roads are subsidised multiple ways. First councils pay for at least half of ask local roads project and maintenance. That comes out of rates. Secondly many projects are increasingly being paid for out of the consolidated fund because the govt want more built them is raised in taxes. Third there’s a huge amount of cross subsidisation to deal with the after effects of the transport system e.g. the health budget.
Lastly how do you think we got the road network to where it is. In the 50s-90s we invested hugely from the consolidated fund to build the network.
No fuel taxes go to social welfare. All fuel taxes and road user charges are hypothecated to transport spending. But around half of all rates, property taxes, go on transport, especially roads. This is a subsidy. Driving is not, as is commonly believed, user pays. And this is at the financial level, at the economic level vast swathes of the police and the medical spend goes to cleaning up the mess made by having a car and truck based transport system, largely operated by people ill suited, too drunk, or half asleep to be in charge of tons of metal at speed.
All transport is subsidised. The question is from which parts do we get the best value for money?
Here’s a fun fact: we spend more on policing roads in Auckland than we do running public transport.
Ricardo thought petrol tax and RUCs were used to fund other government spending? Instant disqualification from any debate about transport funding. I’m only an armchair transit/cycling fan and even I’ve known that for years.
Wissen Sie mehr Sorge um Ihr Geld Darlehen Anwendung zu machen, weil, wie ich einen Bauern die meisten von denen, die sagen, die Kreditgeber sind alle … Ich freue mich auf das Darlehen, es ist 8 Monate wurde ich betrogen nach Genres.
Aber ich besuchte ein Darlehen Ankündigung Ort zwischen bestimmten ernsthaft auf der ganzen Welt und ich habe eine große Dame bekannt, Rose Frau Name Französisch Nationalität, dass jede Person, die in Frankreich hilft, Martinique, Guadeloupe, Réunion, Neukaledonien, Honolulu, Polynesien und andere, indem sie Kredite und gewährte mir ein Darlehen in Höhe von € 165.000, die ich mit einem sehr niedrigen Zinsen für seinen Teil oder 2% auf meinem Leihfrist über 35 Jahren zurückzahlen und da ich am nächsten Morgen das Geld erhalten, ohne Protokoll. Brauchen persönlichen Kredit, dass Sie Ihre Bank nicht geben Ihnen einen Kredit, sind Sie CDI und other’re mit ihm zu reden, und Sie drücken zufrieden, aber seien Sie vorsichtig, Sie hier seine e-mail :: sophiegirouce@yahoo.com