Every weekend we dig into the archives. This post by Matt was originally published in January 2014.

As I discussed yesterday the debate on big urban issues of housing and transport far too frequently descends into left/right debates and today I’m looking at transport.

One of the reasons this has come up is that we’ve had some interesting conversations on Twitter in the last few days with a couple of Nationals MPs, which apart from highlighting a scary lack of understanding about transport, inevitably touched on the issue about whether the transport policy that we generally advocate on this blog fits into the traditional “left-right” political spectrum. Here’s what the fairly new National MP Paul Foster-Bell said on Twitter:

We have a fairly diverse range of bloggers on this site: a couple of economists, a transport planner, an urban designer, an architectural photographer, a planning student etc and of course myself who most recently working in banking and from our discussions I think we have some reasonably broad political viewpoints.

Furthermore, many of the key changes to transport and planning policy that we have advocated for strongest over the past few years hardly align with any traditional definition of a “left worldview”. Let’s take a look a few of our most common arguments:

  1. Cut back or cancel some of the Roads of National Significance that do not provide value for money. This seems to me like basic fiscal conservatism – as some of the RoNS projects are simply a huge amount of money being spent on a problem that really doesn’t warrant such high investment. Puhoi-Wellsford could be replaced by Operation Lifesaver, Transmission Gully is just overkill for a city that’s hardly growing in population, the Kapiti Expressway has a cost-benefit ratio of 0.2, the Hamilton bypass will carry fewer vehicles in 20 years time than the Kopu bridge did when it was a single lane… and so on. This seems like cutting wasteful spending, something that those on the right of the political spectrum say they want to do?
  2. Built the Congestion Free Network instead of the Integrated Transport Programme. Ultimately the CFN proposal is at least $10 billion cheaper than the current transport programme for Auckland. It probably has a much higher chance of achieving the many targets that Auckland has set for its future transport outcomes than the ITP is able to meet (although that’s not hard as the ITP failed to achieve just about any of its targets). Similarly to above, this is achieved through chopping out an enormous amount of wasteful spending on unnecessary projects (both road and rail) – yet again, something that those on the right of the political spectrum say they support?
  3. Built complete Streets. Democracy equality and choice are meant to be good things aren’t they? Most of our roads focus solely on the task of moving as many vehicles as possible and give scant regard for anyone not in a car. Building complete streets that treat each user equally and allow people to have a real choice in how they get around is the ultimate form of transport democracy.
  4. Improve walkability. 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.
  5. Get rid of Minimum Parking RequirementsThis key proposal is to get rid of a current regulation that causes more harm than good, that adds significant cost onto developers (thereby discouraging development and growth) and often just adds regulatory churn cost for no gain (as it seems most applications for parking waivers appear to be granted). I would have thought this aligns quite well with a “right of centre” political ideology where reducing regulation (especially regulation that harms economic activity and growth) is a very very good thing.
  6. Relax Planning Rules to give people more Housing Choice. This was covered yesterday but worth repeating again. Most planning rules limit development potential in existing urban areas: whether that’s through height limits, yard setbacks, density controls, parking requirements, minimum unit sizes or whatever. Through the Unitary Plan process we have advocated for (and will continue to do so) the relaxation of planning controls – particularly in areas where it makes good sense to allow high density developments to make best use of existing infrastructure. Similarly to parking controls, this is a relaxation of current regulation that significantly limits development potential and the prospects of economic growth through making better use of inner parts of the city. The relaxation/elimination of economically damaging regulation should be music to a right-wingers ears you’d think.

There are probably many more examples than 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. We could easily point out how bizarre it is that our current supposedly centre-right government has significantly increased petrol taxes to spend on a series of very dubious mega-projects in the form of the RoNS. That seems rather more “tax and spend” than fiscal conservatism.

Furthermore, if you look internationally there are many examples of centre-right political parties taking public transport seriously. In Britain, the current Conservative government is making a big contribution to the £15.9 billion Crossrail project in London and is also likely to spend even more money on the High Speed 2 rail project. That government seems to understand the economic importance of having good rail infrastructure. For example, Crossrail massively increases the residential catchment of the Canary Wharf employment area – somewhat similar to how the CRL vastly increases the residential catchment of the city centre. London Mayor Boris Johnson is a big champion of not only Crossrail but also getting more people to ride a bike and is planning to invest huge amounts of money in cycle infrastructure. In Australia, the centre-right New South Wales government is championing and making a massive funding contribution to the North West Rail Link project. Even in Auckland we have business groups who politically are considered “right of centre” supporting projects like the City Rail Link and improved cycling infrastructure.

It’s interesting to try to understand this political divide through other lenses than a traditional “left-right” spectrum. Pro-urban and suburban/anti-urban is perhaps a better lens in my opinion – particularly because it seems to explain better why some right-wing parties (like the Republicans in the USA, the current Liberal Government in Australia and the National government here in NZ) appear to be sceptical at best about public transport, while others (e.g. NSW government and UK government) seem to really understand the importance of public transport.

Perhaps this “pro-urban” and “suburban/anti-urban” divide even exists within the current National Party. It was interesting that John Key (an Aucklander who has lived in big overseas cities for much of his life) was the person who changed the government’s position on City Rail Link while Steven Joyce (grew up in New Plymouth and now lives on a lifestyle block in Auckland) and Gerry Brownlee (from Christchurch) were apparently the biggest opponents of that change. Or how we get current Associate Transport Minister Michael Woodhouse saying this on auto-dependency:

From Dunedin, in case you were wondering.

Share this

12 comments

  1. The problem with all those so called solutions to SH1 through Warkworth is the Hill St intersection.Until that is sorted none of those things will help that much

  2. National are presumably testing the waters on their new transport policies, which Bishop suggests will be launched next year. The regions alone aren’t going to do it for National, which means they will need to find a way to tap into the angst around the failure to deliver some of the bigger ticket Labour promises. In West Auckland, that means Light Rail. Here’s hoping we see a shift away from language like ‘slow trams’ and more about what they actually plan on doing and why they’re more capable of delivering it than Labour was.

  3. My guess is a lot of the national Party roads only approach comes from their funding sources, that’s how you get a radio DJ from the Naki and a woodwork teacher from the South Island into transport portfolios rather than people who actually know stuff about transport.

  4. Interestingly I heard bridges on the radio this morning saying national would get rid of the regional fuel tax. When asked how they would pay for Auckland transport investment he said from general tax. That is a very left wing policy isn’t it? Do they also want to pay for our food and power etc from general tax?

    1. Are we paying the rest of the country’s food and power from general tax? Because other regions seem to get their infrastructure without a regional tax, and in the case of LGWM vs. the CRL, at a higher contribution rate than Auckland does.

  5. And there was the Nat’s roading spokes person Chris Bishop on newshub’s the nation talking about roading yesterday [28/9/19 ;-

    https://www.facebook.com/NewshubNationNZ/videos/2187648644860778/

    And when they had Shane Jones with the money for the upgrade of the Nal one news had him on on the 6pm news and when it came to the late evening news they must have worked out what an airhead he is/was , they must have realised what an airhead he is and they removed toally from the item and keeped the rest that was showen at 6pm .

  6. I think it’s pretty fair to say this blog leans to the left. One of its main bloggers is married to Julie Ann Genter and the ‘Greens’ are a far left party.
    It’s ok to be left or right – hopefully not too far either way – and it’s ok to disagree. What I see this blog doing is getting people to talk about the transport issues and that is a good thing. You are not always right – the car haters are a bit of a joke, but many of the ideas here are well thought and well presented.

    1. Unfortunately not everyone fits into the classic left/right definitions. I personally consider myself an economic conservative but otherwise a progressive. Unfortunately nationals transport policies are neither economically conservative (they seem to hate user pays transport and fuel tax) nor progressive.

  7. For the simple-minded Right, the inconsistent attitudes that you point out flow from one simple hookline: ‘car = personal freedom = good. Public transport = regimentation = bad.’
    By ‘regimentation’ I mean what a left-leaning person would call ‘finding organised solutions to community problems.’
    The points that you mention about parking regulations, planning regulations, wasting taxpayers’ money on poorly justified road projects, which rationally you would expect the Right to oppose, all reflect the hookline .
    Most of us are well capable of thinking one thing today and thinking something inconsistent with the first thing tomorrow.

  8. Great article. When it comes to transport issues National often seem to be left of Labour – things like favouring general tax and rates over regional fuel tax, encouraging highly restrictive land-use rules, and generally favouring the the travel mode that is the most heavily-subsidised. Even their urban cycleways push could be seen as more consistent with the centre-left than the centre-right. Seems all round the wrong way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.