A wee while back Auckland Council adopted an interim “transport levy”. The levy amounts to $100 per household has been adopted as an interim measure for three years to accelerate a range of transport improvements that would otherwise be unfunded, e.g. public transport, walking/cycling, road safety, and rural seal extensions.
You can read about the specific types of projects that are funded by the transport levy in this post.
The reception to the levy was interesting. At the positive end of the spectrum was this Herald editorial, which acknowledged 1) Aucklanders wanted better transport; 2) the improvements had to be funded somehow; and 3) the Government wouldn’t allow other revenue raising initiatives.
At the other end of the spectrum were these (rather extraordinary) comments from John Key (source):
“I just think their priorities are wrong,” Prime Minister John Key said on TV3’s Paul Henry programme this morning. “They’ve got to turn around and say, what is the most important issue? The most important issue has to be, in our view, provide roading solutions in the very short-term for where people live. Only 15 percent of people live in the CBD.”
Key goes on to say:
“When the strategy they’ve got is focusing on 15 percent of where people live – not the 85 percent of where they live, or on the fact that we need to build more houses and build those houses we need infrastructure – I think the council does need to sit down with the Government and say okay, because we have a lot of experts. They are going to do that I think, because in the end, if they don’t, then their options will be limited to basically their rates, and there’s only so far rates can go.”
This is an extraordinary statement for several reasons.
First, John Key’s views seem to contradict the choices which Aucklanders are making. Census data shows that from 2006 – 2013 “growth in car use has been pretty anemic – a mere 2.3% increase” while “demand on all other modes is growing like crazy. There have been double-digit increases in bus trips (up 18.8%), train trips (up an astonishing 67.3%), and bike trips (up 26.4%). Ferry and walking trips have also done extremely well.” Absolute growth in non-car transport JTW travel exceeded growth in car JTW travel at the last census. More recent patronage data suggests the growth in demand for non-car modes has, if anything, accelerated since the census. In a nutshell, the absolute demand for non-car transport is growing much faster than the demand for vehicle travel – especially at peak times.
Second, John Key’s views seem to go against what Aucklanders say they want. The results of this 2014 survey show “improved public transport” receives the highest support, whereas this Stuff poll shows Aucklanders want Central Government to focus more on public transport than roads. Then there’s this Herald poll which found over 50% of Aucklanders supported better public transport – which is much higher than the level of support for road improvements (including highways). And an UMR survey which found New Zealanders as a whole supported PT improvements rather than roads. In a nutshell, there’s overwhelming evidence that Aucklanders want greater investment in public transport.
Third, John Key’s seems to be unaware that Auckland Council has been consulting on transport issues for circa 5 years. Key’s comment suggests Council is not prepared to “talk”. This, however, doesn’t acknowledge that in the ~5 years since Auckland Council/Auckland Transport were established, they have been consulting almost constantly on transport issues. We’ve had the Auckland Plan, the Unitary Plan, the Regional Public Transport Plan, the Parking Discussion Document, and the Annual Plan, among other documents. Almost all of these consultation exercises – in which Central Government agencies and MPs have always been welcome to participate – have found strong support for public transport and walking/cycling. In a nutshell, Auckland Council and Auckland Transport have consulted far more extensively on transport issues in Auckland than Central Government.
Fourth, John Key misunderstands what the transport levy will be used for. Let’s note from the outset that John Key gets his figures wrong (or is mis-quoted) when he suggests “only 15% of people live in the CBD”. He must have meant to say only 15% of people work in the CBD. This mistake, however, belies a bigger issue: How is the proportion of Aucklanders working in the city centre even relevant to a levy that funds improvements across the whole region? Such as road safety upgrades and rural seal extensions? Bearing in mind the CRL was included in the base capital programme, and would have been funded regardless of whether the transport levy was ultimately adopted by Council. In a nutshell, John Key seems to misunderstand what the levy is to be used for.
There is another reason why I thought John Key’s statement was quite extraordinary. This is not because of what it says, but instead because of what it fails to mention about the Government’s own transport tax raising efforts. More specifically, the impact of Auckland Council’s $100 transport levy pales in comparison to the extra fuel excise taxes raised by John Key’s Government since it came to power in 2008. The increase in fuel excise taxes which has occurred under John Key’s watch is clearly illustrated in the figure below (source data).
In 2008/09 there was a big jump in fuel excise revenues, which is subsequently followed by a gradual rise. My rough calculations suggest NLTF revenues have, under this Government, increased by approximately $450 million p.a. If we apportion one-third of this additional revenue to Auckland, and divide the result by 1.5 million Aucklanders, then we find that every person in Auckland is paying approximately $100 p.a. more transport tax under this Government than they were under the last. Put another way, John Key’s Government has, for seven straight years, increased the transport tax burden on Auckland’s households by approximately $200 to $300 p.a.
Wow. So let’s get this straight:
- After five years of almost constant public consultation on transport priorities and funding, Auckland Council chooses to increase household rates by $100 p.a. for three years to fund a bundle of transport improvements which seem to align fairly well with Aucklanders’ (revealed and stated) preferences; while
- Since coming to power, John Key’s Government has – with very little consultation – increased transport taxes by approximately $200 – $300 p.a. to fund a bunch of highways and bridges that National thinks are important, but which really don’t seem to matter that much to most NZers.
And then John Key has the temerity to turn around and criticise the transport priorities of Auckland Council and Auckland Transport?
To this I say “pot, kettle, black”; John Key and his Government are well and truly up the transport tax creek without a paddle on this issue: Transport taxes are approximately half a billion higher each and every year since National came to power, which is a much larger financial impost (and one applied to the whole country) than the transport levy adopted by Auckland Council. Problems with transport “tax and spend” exist much more at the level of Central Government than Local Government, and much more with National than Labour.
Which brings me to one final point: In his statement, John seems to imply the “experts” employed by Central Government agencies (e.g. MoT and NZTA) would agree with his Government’s preferred transport investment strategy. This is an interesting presumption, given that one of the key characteristics of New Zealand’s Westminster system is an “independent, non-partisan civil service“. I personally have not seen any surveys of what the experts at the NZTA and MoT think about this Government’s transport investment priorities.
The MoT’s own analysis suggests Government’s spending, especially the RoNS, has been spectacularly ineffective from an economic perspective – and much less effective than the transport investments made by the last Labour Government. Then there’s a surprising number of business commentators, like Rod Oram, Bernard Hickey, Richard Prebble, and Don Braid who, from my reading, aren’t particularly supportive of the Government’s priorities either. These commentators instead seem to prefer less investment in RoNS and/or greater investment in alternatives, especially rail.
So where does this leave us? Well, based on the evidence I’d wager a bottle of John Key branded wine (2015 vintage) that the transport priorities articulated by Auckland Council and Auckland Transport would receive much more support from the so-called “experts” than the priorities of John Key’s Government.
What do you think?
P.s. This may be my last post from “down under” – as of next week I’ll be moving to Amsterdam to start a PhD in Economics. Catch y’all on the flipside!
Processing...
I have nothing to add beyond shaking my head, and, shout if you’re missing someone to say “I wish it was this easy in Auckland” over a (fairly average) beer.
it’s an interesting situation really.
For me personally, Amsterdam has terrible weather, average food, and relatively low (after tax) wages compared to NZ. In contrast, Auckland has average weather, great food, and relatively high (after tax) wages. So why would I move to Amsterdam? Well, the ability to get almost everywhere without a car (mainly by bicycle) adds to my quality of life in Amsterdam in a way that leaves Auckland in its dust. It’s that simple.
And quality of life not just for me, but for any potential future children. As a born and bred Kiwi, I’d much rather raise my children in the Netherlands, where they seem to have much more effective family and social policies.
You could move to Welly. It’s not quite as bad here and you can manage without a car if you are prepared to make a few adjustments.
Unfortunately I see non-car livability slipping away here also, as Govt and Regional Council continue to fund only mega-motorway schemes.
I am hanging out for a change-of-air at yet another general election, before I give up on what ought to be the world’s “Coolest little Capital” (currently looking more like Foolishest little Capital).
Go well in NL and remember – black clouds always pass eventually.
Yeah the tax is a bit hard to grapple with, as are the (Amsterdam) rents, but you’ll soon find that you don’t give much thought to transit or biking any more (unless you visit Noord and wander if you are still in Amsterdam).
In short John Key has a lot of charisma but little knowledge of transport or sustainable business and his polices are going to be a big cost on tax payers in the future.
I don’t think history is going to be kind to this Government
yes I tend to agree with you.
This National’s Government main claim to fame is achieving a (future!) fiscal surplus. Although economic history will probably show this deficit was caused largely by them in the first place; It was National who decided to 1) cut income taxes when they came to power in 2008 and 2) engineer a subsequent “tax switch” which I understand ended up costing more than it raised – as well as beign short-sighted by exacerbating the shift to online purchases. These changes suppressed government revenue and exacerbated the fiscal deficit much more than it would have been had tax settings been left where they were. Of course, there may be a long run positive effect from tax cuts, which I’m open to debating – but don’t think are particularly relevant when discussing short-term fiscal objectives!
The surge in net migration over the last few years is a long-run positive, in my view, although I strongly suspect that has more to do with Australia’s poorformance than anything going on in NZ. It’s hard to pin-point any policy changes National has made which would have caused such a significant shift. I actually struggle to think of many “big policy changes” this Government has made, except perhaps selling down the Government’s stake in power companies (which you have to admit was rather bold – even if you disagree with it).
They certainly have their head in the sand with regards to superannuation, and stopping contributions to the NZ super fund (which has delivered excellent returns far higher than the Government bond rate) would rank as one of the sillier moves. I saw a talk by Bill English to a group of economists where he went apocalyptic at the suggestion that we had a super problem. This is from a finance minister overseeing a budget that is seeing super costs increase in the order of ~$500 million p.a. To me that looks like a pretty big problem – and it’s only going to get worse unless we can drastically engineer a change in our demographics (which is, by the way, something I’m open to as an alternative to tinkering with super settings).
With regards to climate change, this Government’s track record is frankly embarrassing, and I think that’ll also become clear in time. Unfortunately for our childrens’ generation ….
And last but not least we come to transport. History seems likely to show this National Government was the most uninformed, wasteful, and downright porkbarrelly manager of NZ’s transport taxes in recent memory.
I was at Bill English’s talk too, and note he was thinking not just of superannuation but also healthcare. But the reality is, both of those things (and especially the healthcare) for our ageing population will only really start to bite in the decades to come. Kicking the can down the road, as National has done for seven years and counting, is very short sighted. Although, to be fair, it was only after they left government that Labour started talking about raising the super age, and no one is really talking about the health issue yet.
true – although Labour did establish the Super fund to start the move from a paygo to a saygo scheme. I recall National in opposition advocating for cutting taxes instead of investing in the super fund.
Going back further it’s important to note that previous National governments have pushed through raising super age from 60 to 65, so they’ve definitely been proactive in the past.
Also important to note National reduced super from 65 to 60 in the first place.
That’s true, not sure how I managed to forget the Cullen fund. That was actually some good forward thinking.
That’s one view point, but at the end of the day John Key knows what Aucklanders want, the tragedy is that council has taken an left wing extremist position on this.
I think John Key is living in his own little world. I don’t think it is “leftist” to want a halfway decent public transport system (something which we don’t have yet btw). Even in the “land of the free” America most large cities have extensive public transport systems.
I can’t quite figure out whether you’re being genuine or sarcastic? I hope it’s the latter. If not then may I request that you supply some evidence to support your statement that the Council has taken an “extremist left-wing position”?
Are you conflating left wing politics with public transport…?
Len Brown has exempted businesses from the transportation levy and employed a flat rate. The levy is as regressive and user-pay-ish as the council can possibly make it. It is as right wing as additional taxation gets.
Business sites pay $150pa, residential pay $99pa
What utter rubbish. The Council has consulted forever on transport and the answer has always come back – “fix transport”. He is basically trying to strong-arm Auckland into building more roads and motorways, whilst completely ignoring public transport. After the waterview connection is built, Auckland will have an excellent motorway system, yet the fool wants to go and build more motorways up in the north shore. This is not a left/right issue. It is a common sense issue. We have spent 50 years building motorways in Auckland, and it has led to massive sprawl needing more roads and motorways to be built. It has contributed to the housing problem as well because now we have 50% of houses that are one-storey, a lot of it in central auckland where the NIMBYs don’t want intensification. This has led to more pressure to build more houses on the fringes of Auckland’s sprawl which will lead to John Key wanting more roads and motorways to connect these far horizons. It is an never-ending spiral.
Savage
As in Michael Joseph … ?
As in Garden. And also as in “JK just got savaged by Stu”
I think its problematic to represent growth across modes as percentages because modes like cycling are starting from a very low base, whilst vehicles start from a very high base.
The main issue with JK is that he sets up a false dichotomy between inner city/pt and sprawl/cars…it doesn’t need to be as simple as this.
Certainly, in my view putting light rail in the inner city burbs is a waste of time and only serves those central city folk that find buses too icky. The CRL is important as is a Western busway, this is where the council/govt should focus first IMO.
Good point about the low bases for other modes, I would add that perhaps the growth in car use is muted because the roads are at capacity. If public transport was at capacity this blog would be screaming for increased capacity but it is biased against cars.
Where is the evidence that Auckland’s roads are “at capacity”? By most international comparisons I’ve seen Aucklanders have cruisy average commute times. Remember that vehicle volumes on many roads in Auckland were falling for the period from 2006-ish to 2012/13-ish, especially in central areas.
Nz (and Ak) has very high historical p/capita car ownership rates, therefore you wouldnt expect to see huge growth in any context IMO.
Stu, having had input and discussion with Council roading initiatives in the past (and coming away disillusioned at the lack of creativity) I can assure you that Auckland’s roading was deemed and accepted by the planners as being ‘at or over capacity’ over 7 years ago. Congestion is such that Aucklanders now ask themselves ‘is this trip necessary’ before heading out. Commute times are no longer ‘cruisey’ – maybe compared to traversing Manila – but not elsewhere. 1 hour plus to drive 20km is not cruisey. The levelling out is simply because it is difficult to commute via vehicle in a timely manner across Auckland. If you use the motorways you will find ‘rush hour’ is now a number of hours morning and afternoon weekdays, and marginally better on the weekends. Commute times and urban congestion became even more painful after onramp lights were introduced but the planners patted themselves on the back by saying ‘motorway travel times improved a few%’ – completely disregarding the fact that TRIP TIMES starts when you turn the key on and finishes when you turn it off. Very sneaky stat gathering. So any levelling out in your graphs can be put down to ‘there ain’t no more capacity so you cant get any more vehicles moving’.
Ricardo pretty much nailed it. Furthermore, the TomTom congestion surveys consistently show Auckland has among the worst traffic congestion in the world, in spite of our relatively small population. ‘Sprawling’, ‘car-dependent’ US cities of similar size like Charlotte, North Carolina have average peak-hour delays of a half to a third of what Aucklanders experience. Of course, TransportBlog rubbishes these surveys because they undermine almost everything this blog claims about urban form and transportation.
The TomTom index is rubbish. And people questioning whether to travel by car at peak times is a perfectly normal thing for urban areas internationally.
It’s something I’ve encountered in every city I’ve ever lived in, many of which are smaller than Auckland.
> but it is biased against cars.
[SCENE: one man is vainly trying to hit a screw in with a hammer. A second approaches.]
VISITOR: You know, you keep hitting that screw with a hammer. Sure, it’s going to kind of go in, but you’re damaging the screw, and what it’s going into, and doing far more work than you need. Why not try this screwdriver?
HAMMERHAND: Trust you, typical lefties. Always biased against hammers. I just don’t have a big enough hammer, that’s all.
~
Cars are a tool. They’re good for some jobs. They’re not good for others, and particularly not that great for getting large numbers of people around a well-populated city. Building a city in a way that means most people need to drive lots is a ludicrous way to plan a city. Like hammering in a screw, it sort-of works but it damages the city and involves far more expenditure of human effort.
This blog isn’t “anti-car” any more than the guy suggesting the screwdriver is “anti-hammer”. When we’re discussing transport policy, it’s a question of using the right tool for the job. If you’re personally emotionally invested in some particular mode of transport, be it choo-choo steam trains, a big gas-guzzling V8, or inconvenient gearless bicycles – leave it at the door.
No. Absolute growth in non-car JTW trips is also larger than growth in car JTW trips. Read Peter’s post and comments for more details.
What is the rationale for amalgamating all non-car modes into a single category? And how do you determine JTW trips vs. non?
The rationale is that cars use roads, a type of investment which John Key explicitly refers to as being worthy of a higher priority. And he very clearly means investment in roads for cars – because Council is already proposing considerable investment in roads for non-car modes, e.g. bus lanes.
JTW is defined by the census.
Okay, but you can see here a potential rational for including buses (that use public roads) on the other side of that ledger …providing JK is arguing for roads vs.cars.
Note this isn’t a position I agree with, but it is a potential counter argument that should be anticipated…
Simon, you could agree to that assessment, if their actions indicated they believed that.
Yet they have not built one metre of buslane or busway on any Government controlled (NZTA) roads or motorways in Auckland during Keys term as PM.
Any buslanes come from AT, and only after AT convinces NZTA it won’t hamper the cars who use the road network first. Talk about being precious.
And any busways on the motorways come in the form of “future proofing” not actually building anything, buses are relegated to the motorway shoulders in fits and starts, and only whenever NZTA can’t imagine another use for that bit of road. Or (more likely) to act as a proxy/placeholder for “future proofing” in the form of being able to widen the motorway by another lane in the future – when they deem it fit to do so, by kicking the bus out of the bus shoulder.
And just saying that because buses use roads, that more roads is ipso facto good for PT is plain rubbish.
If they were so committed to buses over cars or other modes of PT, they’d be laying down busways and buslanes everywhere they can.
Evidence thus far says otherwise.
Simon buses don’t usefully use urban motorways because there are no people there, unless a dedicated route and stations are built. This government has prevented NZTA from extending our only urban busway, or from building a new one on the NW.
‘Buses need roads too’ is a deceit from politicians if they then don’t invest in specific bus infrastructure. Intercity bus companies do benefit from the massive rural highway duplication programme, as, of course, do road freight companies, yet this massive build is disporportionately funded by urban private motorists.
This gov does not understand the value of cities to the economy nor how they work. I agree this will gov’s current popularity will look baffling to future generations.
Could the JTW mean “Journey to Work”? If so could we also include “Journey to school” as there seems to be a significant easing to congestion when school holiday times come around.
We really need to keep on with the congestion free network with pulse services feeding the trunk PT trains or busways (as in the ZVV model) so that everything moves on the 10 minute time frame. That then becomes a turn up and go PT model.
P.s. I should say that I completely agree with you re: the urgency of the CRL and NW busway, and also the false dichotomy between inner city and suburbs.
There is another reason that using percentages is useful. They indicate what the marginal user wants. The next user, not the past or current user, who is by definition catered for. We do have a huge road resource, it works very well, the panic around congestion is out of proportion with the facts. AKL’s statehighways, for example, usually operate at LOS A or B. If anything this indicates an oversupply of lane kms! (quite apart from the issue of induced demand, etc…).
In deciding what to invest in now, from the base we already have; the marginal use, the coming demand, is the key metric. If, however the argument were about what to build in an Auckland with no roads, no rail, no bus systems, or ferries, then yes the gross mode shares would be the telling metric.
Patrick, you must be one of about a dozen people in Auckland who thinks the road network works well and there isn’t a congestion problem.
Kleefer. Auckland does have congestion issues for a city of its size, but these are entirely to do with only have one complete system; the private vehicle mode. Auckland has a mode balance problem not a lack of road space for drivers. The TomTom index actually illustrates this. Most of the time road space is oversupplied so the contrast with the peaks is extreme. Improving the quality (frequency, reach) of the Transit networks is the cheapest and most efficient way to improve efficiency of the whole city, not by trying to expand the already saturated SOV network. And we know this is what the marginal user wants. This is proven in Auckland now by current uptake rates.
“in my view putting light rail in the inner city burbs is a waste of time and only serves those central city folk that find buses too icky”
I guess the flip side to that is: why spend 2 billion making Auckland’s only decent PT option (trains) even better while the rest of us have to take overcrowded buses?
Both Isthmus buses and trains are near capacity, something needs to be done about both.
“Certainly, in my view putting light rail in the inner city burbs is a waste of time and only serves those central city folk that find buses too icky”
As Jimbo said, it needs both things done.
LRT is not a icky-bus alternative, its a smart investment in the entire network. LRT is going there because thats where the densest concentration of bus users is located.
Not because they’re the electorates supporters of National’s government.
LRT releases a ton of buses for use in the rest of the network – each LRT “train” can release 10 – thats right up to 10! single decker buses from plying that route.
These freed up buses can then be put around to the other parts of Auckland that need, without the buses companies needing to buy more buses to do so.
And captial costs of more buses represent a big cost to bus companies -even though they have a long life time.
And with those freed-up buses offering options to more commuters, peak road loads can reduce with more people per vehicle, increasing road space and decreasing peak congestion without spending so much on roads. A good flow-on win-win-win for all. So many buses get tied up on Symonds St alone.
Even if the bus companies could not re-route freed-up equipment, it could allow the older buses to be retired, reducing maintenance and operating costs, making non-single vehicle options more attractive. Another win!
A great post. ThisTransport Blog is not against cars per se, but is certainly opposed to all of the governments transport tax take, being applied only to more roads instead of a more balanced approach, which includes significant investment in public transport as happens in more enlightened countries overseas.
The Key government has generally performed well but regretfully poorly in the case of transport. And the statistical evidence is becoming clearer as time goes by.
The Government may well have a lot more experts to call on than AT or AC can, or does.
However, the Key lead Government has a track record over the last 7 years of ignoring almost all of that advice anyway, and cherry picking the advice they want. So Keys point there is?
“Do what we say, not do what we do”?
Hmm, sounds to me like the long gone ghost of Robert David Muldoon is definitely talking into this Governments ear.
National are only interested in supporting their voter base, – business and middle-class, affluent folk, rural constituents – so the government does anything that keeps them happy. The rest don’t matter as they are not going to vote for them.
Soaring Auckland house prices = more happy equity-rich homeowners,
More roads = easier for their commute to the office and bach, and makes the truck lobby happy.
Better public transport ? = bah humbug, just workers and it’s Len’s baby.
Liberal Len Brown was a spanner in the works for the super city, and wasn’t part of National and ACT’s plan to control the city’s assets. Len will be gone in the next election, so maybe they will get their man/woman in the seat and have their way more in Auckland (unfortunately).
” Len will be gone in the next election, so maybe they will get their man/woman in the seat and have their way more in Auckland (unfortunately).”
And if that doesn’t happen, and we get another “Liberal” (your words not mine) in as Mayor next year, what then?
Another 3-6 years of do nothing ‘cos central Gov’t hates Auckland Council?
Meanwhile: (the rest of) the world turns, Auckland and NZ economy continue to get further and further behind the 8 ball…
In every western country except NZ and Australia, PT is not a political left v right issue.
Then why did the Liberal Abbot government cancel a bunch of PT projects and fast track a bunch of roads, while it was the Labour party in VC that campaigned on cancelling the new east west link motorway?
Governments of all stripes make stupid decisions, and as I said, except in Australia and NZ its not seen as a left v right issue.
In Aussie the Liberals are the right wing party and Labor is the left wing party.
In NZ National is the right wing party and Labour is the left wing party.
It is hardly uncommon for John Key to not have a scrap of a notion about the reality of the country that he claims to represent. Like most of Aotearoa, Auckland lags behind on everything, and it stems from a ridiculously spread out city with a low population and useless urban transport options. The Auckland Council has made fantastic improvements in recent years, and although there is still a long way to go, it appears that the light has been seen. And although public transport seems to be associated with a socialist political position, it isn’t as if communists don’t drive cars and I have never been asked about my politicial preference when boarding a bus or train!
Don’t need to ask you Matthew, if you use PT, then in this governments eyes, you’re a loser, either too poor, or too left leaning to be worth saving.
The only reason they’d support PT for the masses is to ensure that their factory owning supporters can ensure their workers could get to their low paid work shifts on time.
Now we all know thats fallacy, but the “farmers” who run National see it that way, because their world view is 50+ years out of date.
I concur Matthew.
I personally believe transport would benefit from being much less politicized. Yes there’s room for some differences in value judgements around the fringes, e.g. whether the role of PT is patronage or coverage, or whether we should invest in maintenance and renewals or new capital projects, but those differences tend to affect the last 10% of the budget, rather than the majority.
The sad thing for me personally, having worked in this field for about a decade, is seeing the increasingly political nature of transport debates in NZ, which is largely the fault of this Government. For many years NZ had a fairly “agnostic” transport funding system. Yes you can quibble with the appraisal methods used (e.g. high discount rates made it hard to fund PT and walking/cycling) and/or the level of funding (which made it hard to build anything!), but the actual structure of transport investment was fairly neutral. Every now and then Labour would show up and fund its pet projects, although I understand this was normally done through crown appropriations (i.e. kicking money into the NLTF bucket), rather than predetermining how NLTF revenues would be spent.
Enter National and suddenly we have transport ministers picking a bunch of RoNS that soak up a huge chunk of the NLTF, wandering around local electorates promising two-lane bridges, and ultimately creating the conditions in which we need to increase transport taxes. Meanwhile National turn around and attack Auckland Council for funding transport investment that Aucklanders clearly seem to want?!?
The mind boggles really.
I can understand why a government will want to try and score political points, thus transport is probably not going to be immune from that. What I don’t understand is why public transport is associated with left-wing politics. I am someone who would identify with the right more often than with the left on many issues, however i have always seen transport as fairly neutral; I support public transport because it simply makes sense.
Have fun in Amsterdam, Stu!
thanks will do – expect a slightly more footloose and fancy free style of post in the future.
Not to mention, isn’t there another HUGE pile of people who get stuck in traffic going THROUGH the city because they have no choice?
Reducing the car density also benefits all of them, as well as that 15%
yes, asides from being incorrect with regards to numbers and the impact of the levy, it’s also absurd (from a transport network perspective) to talk about where people live independently of where they need to travel to. As you note, the city centre is also home to the central motorway junction!!!
Thanks for raising this Stu. Oddly, the MBIE don’t look to have updated their series to reflect the latest tax increase of 3c a litre on the 1st July.
http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/energy/liquid-fuel-market/weekly-oil-price-monitoring
Since being elected in 2008, the Government has raised regular petrol taxes and levies from 70c to 97c. This isn’t actually necessarily a bad thing, except they are taxing and spending on the wrong projects. The opportunity cost of the wrongful investment in RONS and other projects without a justifiable business case is huge.
Mystery solved: On 1st July 2015 the National Land Transport Fund rose by 3 cents per litre to 59.524 cents per litre. However at the same time the ACC levy fell 3 cents per litre to 6.9 cents per litre. So total excise taxes and levies as at 1st July 2015 are unchanged at 67.129 cents per litre.
I honestly wish that politicians actually know the facts before making ridiculous comments.
The Ministry of Transport and the Prime Minister should honestly try going around Auckland during rush hour and see if their roads will help them out. Maybe they should also experience the rush hour public transport mayhem. Then maybe if their skulls aint that think, they might actually realise how crap everything is. I still don’t get how people think that the CRL will only benefit the CBD? Yes it might have the most direct impact but opening up the CRL will impact the whole entire Auckland Network.
p.s. Also does the 15% of individuals who live in the CBD. How about those who work in the CBD? Or those who study in the CBD?
I think that if you ask most professional staff in central government they will tell you that the Westminster system is critically endangered. When I was at MfE (when National took power), that certainly was the case. We were made quite aware of ministers’ interests and were strongly discouraged from providing “free and frank” advice that contradicted those interests. Anything associated with the previous government was anathema, and there were words we were forbidden to use, one of which was “sustainability.” I was also told point blank that I did not work for the people of New Zealand, but worked for the minister. I doubt it’s gotten better.
What’s the alternative to the current government, which is really only carrying on where the previous government left off. Labour is still in disarray after Helen left, the Greens has lost its leader and the new ones haven’t even raised their heads – which leaves just Winstone – need I say more. So, like it or not, we are probably heading for another three, or even six years of the current government simply because there is no alternative. Same goes with the Auckland mayoralty – where’s the alternative to Len Brown.
What about Penny Hulse as an alternative to Len?
In their 5 years of consultation I don’t recall Auckland Council ever asking us if we wanted another $100 stuck on our rates. They asked if we wanted improved public transport and we said we did the way a child says “I want a pony” . they asked if we wanted road pricing (which they were never able to give us) and we said we did. But they never said “do you support us spending money like there is no tomorrow and bilking the ratepayers for it?”
At the heart of all of this it is the elected government who has a mandate for charging us tax and spending our $. Local government only has a limited role with the limit being whatever the central government lets them get away with.
The Auckland Council did ask how these project should be funded and most people wanted a Motorway Levy. But since the central government thought that would hurt their voters more, John Key and Simon Bridges said NO. So Auckland Council didnt have any other choice but to increase the rates. If they didnt Auckland would be in a stand-still while the rest of the world leaves us behind.
Except in your narrative you are leaving out the choice Auckland Council had to tell us the truth. That they didnt have authority to bring in motorway tolls but intended to bilk the ratepayers. They knew that when they consulted they just didn’t bother telling us. I have already written to the Minister of Local Government pointing out that a rates cap might be popular with voters at the next election.
Auckland Council doesnt have authority in most things. Everything is up to the central government. This is a common knowledge. The consultation was used to see what the Auckland Council should propose in front of the government for approval. It does not mean that whatever Aucklanders want they get. Most things need to go through the central government for approval. However everything that they had put forward had been rejected (everything). So the only thing the Auckland Council could do that does not need the government approval is to increase the regional rate.
And again you have left out the part where they didnt tell people they were going to do that. Maybe had we known that was their intention we wouldn’t have asked for all the transport improvements they put forward, maybe if they had included the extra charge in the long term plan consultation people would have given informed views, but no they tacked on a rates increase at the last minute. At least that will be easy to get rid of as the next Council will not need to consult on removing something nobody wanted in the first place.
Did you actually read the proposal, joined the discussion on the long term plan? Cause if you did you would know that they specifically ask people, if I remember correctly, whether we want a Status Quo where same funding for the next couple years and would cost similar amount; whether we want a Basic Transport Plan where funding slightly increase but not alot; or whether we want the advance Transport Plan where everything gets massive funding to improve the ailing transport system of auckland however would cost more. Majority of response said they want the expensive but well needed solution. From the beginning the Auckland Council made us choose whether we want cheap over expensive. People knew that choosing the advance option would be more expensive from.
And for the increase in rates rant that your on… yes Auckland council did not consult with the public. They do not need to consult the public if it comes to increase in rates. If they consult the public on everything they do, then why do we need a council? The public voted for a representative to be their voice.
The central government introduced fuel tax… no consultation.
The central government introduced higher GST… no consultation.
As a summary, not everything needs consultation with the public.
“Auckland Council had to tell us the truth. That they didnt have authority to bring in motorway tolls but intended to bilk the ratepayers. They knew that when they consulted they just didn’t bother telling us”
Au contraire, Oh yes they most certainly did. They made it *very* clear during ll the consultation that motorway tolls and/or fuel taxes would need central government legislative support (law changes) to be put in place.
Don’t know where you get that idea from that they hid that under the carpet.
meh, they presented two funding options and the government ruled one out. The interim levy seems like a fairly logical response simply by a process of elimination :).
In other words we should have seen it coming. Left wing spend-thrift Council wants to increase spending regardless of the consequences, ratepayers are a soft target, results in increased rates even though they didnt say that when the asked their consultation questions. In my view they lied.
John are you really getting this huffy over $100 pa ? I’m sure than on your rates bill, like mine, this is totally inconsequential, and yet it achieves so much, especially as it all attracts matching funding from the NLTF. Frankly it is not only clever politics by the Council, as they have so few cards to play, but it is also the fiscally responsible thing to do.
My only complaint is that they are spending it PAYGO, instead of further leveraging it by using it to borrow even more, and fully accelerate the transport plan.
I don’t remember being asked to add 12c per litre to the price of fuel either.
No one also asked me if they should increase GST from 12.5% to 15%
I certainly don’t recall being asked if I wanted a TPP deal signed on my behalf either, nor has Tim Grosser deigned to let any details slip about what he is negotiating “on our behalf”. So, mfwic, don’t give me any of that whiny bullshit about not being consulted by the left.
‘Which brings me to one final point: In his statement, John seems to imply the “experts” employed by Central Government agencies (e.g. MoT and NZTA) would agree with his Government’s preferred transport investment strategy. This is an interesting presumption, given that one of the key characteristics of New Zealand’s Westminster system is an “independent, non-partisan civil service“.
I think this is at the core of the problem. To some extent, ministers are being “Sir Humphrey-ed” by their own appointees who run their own agendas. Staff down the ranks “speak the same narrative” or loose their jobs in constant rounds of restructuring. In New Zealand a minister is ultimately aware that they have to answer to the people. They are generally all motivated by a strong sense of public duty, whether one agrees with their particular world view or not.
On the other hand, too many modern day “Sir Humphreys” have been promoted far beyond their technical knowledge and abilities, they offer poor quality advice to ministers (only tell them what they think they want to or should hear), tend to be overly concerned about their next performance bonus, that next career move and covering their asses from their last decision making “cock-up”.
Does John Key really believe this stuff? The guy lives in Parnell and has lived in London & New York – he surely can’t be that provincial?
He’s definitely no Provincial. His electorate is semi-rural Helensville which will be the recipient of a fair chunk of the additional $7M in rural road seal extensions funded from the Auckland transport Levy. He either doesn’t know this or knows this and chooses to ignore it in this context. Either way he will claim the benefit when it comes to glad handing his way around the electorate ahead of the next election.
John sit in his private luxury car most of the time.
does the pm have access to a helicopter whenever he fancies? similar arrogance to Bob Jones who didnt like being told what to do by airnz so he has now brought his own private jet.
Not sure about the “whenever he fancies”, but he certainly seems to spend a lot of time with the Air Force NH90s and 757s
“I think the council does need to sit down with the Government and say okay, because we have a lot of experts. They are going to do that I think, because in the end, if they don’t, then their options will be limited to basically their rates, and there’s only so far rates can go.””
Translation: Unless the Auckland council comes to the government cap in hand and say “we were wrong, you were right all along we do need to build more motorways and stop messing around with PT” the the government isn’t going to lift a finger to help solve transport issues in Auckland. If the council insists on investing in PT then they are on their own.
Good translation.
Now see if you can translate this:
“Nats – Gottavotemout”
It really is a disgraceful position for the Prime Minister to take. What is the point of having a democratically elected council if the PM just gives them the big “up yours”? Simon Bridges wants another year to talk some more. In other words, he is waiting for the Council elections and hoping like hell that a right-wing Mayor is elected who will be more ‘ideologically pure’.
Meanwhile Auckland “burns”!!
Two more years of this lot, then we can get on with trying to fix things.
Good luck with the PhD, Stu. I’m just finishing off an economics Masters. PhD seems a bridge too far!
I believe that a large part of the problem is that his transport minister thinks the answer lies with some sort of electric cars. Unfortunately his minister fails to recognise that if this is indeed the answer then the question is, “what is the ideal transport for Toyland?”
The recommendation of ‘short term’ solutions is telling as well. Short term band aid fixes are what got us to where we are now. At least with the targeted levy AC will have the funds to implement more long term solutions.
So what will happen to Auckland now?
When Len is gone, I know National will make sure its not a council in favour of pt.
And I don’t see any competition in Central government either. So people will vote the devi they know again, and he will be pulling on things other then pony tails.
And Auckland will be sent deeper into the stone age,
With most people on or slightly above min wage and forced to spend all there in come on car maintenance fuel and parking with a little bit left for accommodation and food while the rest earn over 100k. That’s just the tip of the iceberg in my opinion, I lent my old 80s car to my brother to take care of while I catch a bus to work. I can now save some money 🙂
Anyway I have seen many comments in regards to a western busway. Which I don’t think is needed. They have a rail line out west. Just send buses on bus lanes to local stations and finish the crl and a NW rail spour. More bus ways will just put more diesel buses in the cbd.
Anyway we can’t expect to much from Auckland.
Well Auckland was never destined to do well,
It is full of hills, they spent all there effort reclaiming the harbor to fit in a cbd and port when most other founded city’s built bridges tunnels and rapid rail systems at the time. Now we just build motorways.
National is the dairy farmer / truck / bus party. If you look at them that way, everything makes sense.
Keys tactics are pure Crosby-Textor. The truth is irrelevant. The goal is to dog whistle to “your” people.
Steve true, except the bus part. Where on earth do you get that idea? Because they are extending the Northern Busway, building a North Western one? Oh wait…
Whenever anyone says: ‘Buses need roads too’ they are either displaying their total ignorance of how cities and Transit works, or just PT washing their campaign for 100% transport funding for private vehicle and truck transport, or both.
I mean private buses over public trains. The pattern there has been fairly consistent. Underneath is National’s hostility to public service provision as opposed to private service provision.