The 20 year plan
March 5th, 2010 at 1:52 pm by David FarrarOver at NBR (sub needed), I review the Government’s 20 year infrastructure plan. A couple of extracts:
The most under-reported story of the week was the release of the country’s first ever 20 year infrastructure plan. The 141 page plan is our first ever stock-take of the national infrastructure yet it got a fraction of the headlines given to an MP musing on a blog about financial incentives to child abusers to get sterilised.
It is tempting to ridicule the notion of a 20 year plan, recalling that even the Soviet Union only had five year plans. But when it comes to capital spending on infrastructure, it does seem sensible to be looking beyond the next election. …
And on the roading side:
A user pays principle does raise the issue of whether or not the Government should have a fixed amount of petrol tax, or whether it should simply vary the petrol tax, so there is sufficient funding to pay for all roading projects that have a positive benefit to cost ratio. This could mean petrol costing $2 a litre, but it would mean safer and faster roads.
And some scepticism about the airports:
Rather boldy the Government declares that ports and airports operate within a competitive market, and the Government does not need to intervene with their investment decisions. I’d like to know how Auckland International Airport is in a competitive market. If Air New Zealand objects to increased landing charges, what are they going to do – land in Hamilton instead?
The full column is at NBR 24/7.
Related posts:
- 40 year plan beats 20 year plan
- National’s Infrastructure Plan
- Road Funding
- 10c petrol levy in Auckland
March 5th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
Perhaps because it’s written in dull policywonkspeak:
Ya don’t say?!
Perhaps because, with three year electoral cycles, a document which says stuff like:
and
ignore the political reality that such things are ideological battle grounds and “the government” is not going to think those things in a year, or four years, or nine years, or whatever… but certainly in less than 20. Which is no reason not to plan, but the plan needs to be focused, achievable and take account of such realities. On first reading, this doesn’t.
And perhaps because, in a country with a population which generally doesn’t trouble themselves to think too deeply about the future, it’s not newsworthy. (I’m not saying it’s not newsworthy, but I guarantee if you asked most people whether they wanted a quick chat about infrastructure they’d ask if it came with paparazzi pics of Alison Mau and her galpal).
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
A 20 year plan for infrastructure? Great idea, but infrastructure is easy as it just comes down to spending money. First let’s have a 10 year plan to make NZ more prosperous so we can pay for the infrastructure. Otherwise were on the same trajectory as Greece – they have infrastructure but can’t pay the creditors. That is NZ’s future if the government doesn’t make some hard choices and spend some of their political capital.
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
“If Air New Zealand objects to increased landing charges, what are they going to do – land in Hamilton instead”?
No.. New Plymouth its the closest point to Australia.. it has not got an international airport yet.. but surely making it one is in the 20 year plan.. to go along with New Zealands only westcoast deep water export port. New Plymouth alway operates within a competitive market.. It has to. It would be great if the government relinquished its half share in the NP airport to the city of New Plymouth . Then the Government does not need to intervene with New Plymouths investment decisions, of making the airport profitable for the district and New Zealand by making it international.
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Not only tempting to ridicule a 20 year plan, it is ridiculous. Local Bodies already do it at great expense and little benefit. Once again we are copying the failed Socialist ideas and will require an additional bureaucracy to match. A rightist government of the type most of us voted for should be going for smaller government.
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
RKBee (148) Says:
March 5th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Good idea, not so much as a direct Akld competitor but as Oil/gas/dairy increases in importance a direct route from Ozzz and elsewhere to New Plymouth makes sense. As for Hamilton A fast rail or road link would provide all the competition to Akld Int Airport as well as other benefits like competition to the super city authority.
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
20 yr plans arent new nor are they fanciful I worked for an international company that had 25 yr plans and some not all of the big picture stuff we were working on 25yrs ago is coming to the market place now.
the trick is to have a big picture and be flexible to change to get ahead of the markets wants needs so your planning as we did to put stuff in the fridge as we called it or into the freezer for longer term stuff.
Then you take it out of the fridge/freezer when required. The old saying about planning is oh so true.
There were long term plans for Aucklands transport in the 1950s 60s and 70s.
Trouble was the pollies etc didnt follow thru and thats why we have the unholy shambles we do today.
I mean establish a housing area 30 kms from the CBD and dont provide transport infrastructure and then scratch your balls wondering why you have road conjestion.
But thats what these idiots do. Unless. They look at you blankly when you point this out to them as if Dolly did it
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
A twenty year plan is OK provided it is a strategy rather than a plan and provided it does not gain sanctity like the Soviet Plans.
Indeed the key plan is the plan that advises how to adapt to change.
For example we know that the application of machine intelligence and communication to transport vehicles will be as big a revolution as the invention of the internal combustion engine. Trains in NZ are destined to total obsolescence because private vehicles will be able to electronically convoy and gain all the apparent benefits of the train and without all the dis-benefits.
We should not commit any expenditure on rail that does not pay back within five years.
And we all know what that means.
Forget about green or sustainable technologies. By definition they tend to be backward looking. If you children want a secure career path keep them away from wind power and tidal power and steer them towards the application of machine intelligence and ipod type communication to ANYTHING they can think of.
Vote:that is where the future is. Not with choo choos and windmills.
March 5th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
Ideas for the 20 year plan – resources are running out, increased population will make situation worse – so the plan is to plan for a static population. Mobility – fuel may not run out but the cheap stuff will so the plan is to plan for economic replacement or improved efficiencies. Climate change – for whatever reason plan to adapt – crops may not survive increased temp or less rainfall so plan for alternatives. Pensions – aging population and longer lifespan – start increasing the age of eligibility now, say each 1 Jan increase age by a month or two. I am available to advise govt on the basis they pay nothing for ideas successfully implemented, $1m for ideas unsucessfully implemented and $10m for successful ideas not implemented – tongue in cheek.
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 7:32 pm
It isn’t really a 20 year plan though in terms of transport…. mainly just projects that have already been announced. Even Bill English was saying that it’s only really a 5-7 year plan that will be expanded upon in the future.
I think the best part of the Plan is its recognition of the need to align urban growth with transport infrastructure investment. Which means that unless we want Auckland to sprawl to Whangarei it’s pretty dumb to build the Puhoi-Wellsford motorway.
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 7:41 pm
What I really find completely unbelievable is that we actually HAVE a plan let alone a twenty year one!!!!!!
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Twenty year plan x 2 million select com hearings = big waste of money.
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 10:12 pm
Too narrow a definition. Should read ” …so there is sufficient funding to pay for all
roadingprojects that have a positive benefit to cost ratio for road users.”[DPF: Yes I agree. Did not mean to exclude other transport projects]
Vote:March 5th, 2010 at 10:22 pm
Ahh but in my case we had REAL leadership to drive the plan forward rather than the soft cock wimps of leader we have had for the past 40 years.
Fact is although they pretend to be leaders they are cardboard cutouts who wimped out when it mattered.
The political excuse is just that If Churchill had sucumbed to that excuse we will all be speaking Japanese or German.
We have gutless wind blown leaders who dont have the balls to act in the best interests of the majority.
They are too frightened of offending the smallest minority.
They fail to take the bold steps that they know are the right course.
The irony is that they condemn the lower levels of our society to sink ever deeper in the mire rather than assisting and supporting them to rise to their rightful place as equal and valued contributors.
There are none so dumb as those who will not see
Vote: