How to pay for Len’s trains
October 12th, 2010 at 11:00 am by David FarrarLen Brown campaigned on three major rail projects and has a mandate to get them implemented. That is why we have elections.
However there is no mandate for taxpayers, rather than ratepayers, to be the major source of funds.
The Herald reports here on the likely costs of the three rail projects:
- Central City Tunnel – $1.5b
- Rail to Airport – $1.45b
- Rail to Albany – $1.8b
That is a total of $4.75b and there are around 1 million adults in Auckland. So just send each resident a bill for $4,750.
Related posts:
- Govt to buy electric trains directly?
- Will China fund Len’s rail loop?
- 100 initiatives in 100 days
- The trains cost $1.5 billion!
October 12th, 2010 at 11:05 am
Two words David, the second of which is “off”.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:06 am
You are not a lefty are you…. You must know that some people, special people, will have their rates reduced to pay for this while the not so special people, the cash cows, will be hit to pay for it just before they pick up sticks and head for Aussie.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:06 am
Stephen Joyce wants to spend taxpayer’s money on roads in Auckland. Why don’t they just use that?
[DPF: Nope almost all of the money from roads is user pays through petrol tax - motorists pay for their roads]
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:10 am
We can free up a lot of cash by getting rid of the Holiday Highway – that’ll pay for the central rail tunnel immediately. I can’t think of any other major infrastructure that has a worse case for it than Joyce’s Puhoi-Wellsford link – the return on investment is something like 0.6! Sarah Palin would approve! The value of doubling the capacity of Britomart via the central city tunnel is a complete no-brainer by comparison.
National has an issue with roading. Over-heavy trucks, stupid over-expensive Holiday Highways – guess the trucking lobby are getting their money’s worth!
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:12 am
Personal mobility is a major contributor to connectivity and hence to urban economic development. US research reveals that each billion dollars spent on highways supports about 25 times as much personal mobility as each billion spent on public transport. The same amount of highway spending supports the movement of more than 1.25 billion tonne-miles of truck freight, which keeps product prices low and supports overall economic growth. Public transport carries zero freight.
Vote:Any informed analysis of the poll-driven Airport rail-link shows that it, too, is dead in the water. Introducing light rail (trams) onto Auckland’s narrow street network is equally nonsensical. Where is the room for light rail lines, vehicle lanes and bus lanes in say Karangahape Road or Parnell rise? As for rail tunnels under the harbour, the Governor of New Jersey has cancelled completion of the rail under the Hudson River connecting New Jersey to Manhattan. Shouldn’t we find out why?
October 12th, 2010 at 11:14 am
Hasn’t the price on fuel gone up locally in AKL to pay for AKL rail infrastructure? Or is it NZ wide?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:15 am
Considering that most council planned spend ups seem to double in price I wouldn’t be counting on any of those figures. How much was budgeted to pave Queen St versus how much it cost?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:16 am
Why does the left love trains so much?
YOu would think they would have some regard for the unemployed.
Current research in Los Angeles finds welfare recipients with a car have access to fifty-nine times more jobs than those who depend on walking and public transport. Recent studies of 23 cities in France find similar results.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:18 am
“As for rail tunnels under the harbour, the Governor of New Jersey has cancelled completion of the rail under the Hudson River connecting New Jersey to Manhattan” – Obama is putting the screws on him not to cancel. Should be a good showdown. My money’s on Christie to staunch Obambi out.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:19 am
Hey, I think I’ve just discovered a sure-fire, election-winning issue for the Banks campaign to relentlessly pursue to electoral vic……
…Oh
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:21 am
Repton,
“Stephen Joyce wants to spend taxpayer’s money on roads in Auckland. Why don’t they just use that?”
Because the roading has national benefits (even if only indirectly) whereas the only benefit from the train plans is that Len & his cronies get to sleep a little easier at night
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:21 am
Actually Owen – I think the attraction to public transport for the left is about control. Control the transport system and you can bring a city to a halt through industrial action.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:25 am
That is a total of $4.75b and there are around 1 million adults in Auckland. So just send each resident a bill for $4,750.
$4.75b is the capital cost, so that $4,750 per resident is over ten years at least, working out to $475 per resident a year at most. A regional petrol tax would spread that burden beyond just residents, diluting the pain further.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:27 am
No david divide the bill over those that voted for him!
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:27 am
I’m willing to cut a cheque for $4,750 right now and even send it to the Greens (even direct to Toad – I trust him more than Len and co.).
The deal is that I never want to hear about these train projects again and it’s the last money I pay for the thing.
Deal?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:28 am
That’s for AuckLenders.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:28 am
And what do you think all the low-life beneficiaries (the same morons that voted for Brown) will do with this $4,750 bill????
File it with the mass of traffic infringements that they’ve received, that they are never likely to repay, would be my guess.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:29 am
and you’ll trust who to keep the deal tom?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:30 am
I’m with Tom Hunter. Got my chequebook open and ready.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:30 am
The central city loop makes sense, the others dont. Luckily that is the first priority so hopefully it will stop then.
lets face it, how many would catch a train to the airport. It has no benefit to locals (ie. ratepayers), only people travelling (business or holiday) – much better for the economy to get these people paying for a taxi.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:31 am
Okay. Okay. I’m just trying to see if there’s some capitalistic way to make these awful people leave me alone…..
I’m doomed aren’t I?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:32 am
I’d guess that the argument would be that with decent public transport they wouldn’t have to buy a car with their million dollar benefit packages.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Well I like trains. But hey- lets make roads and rail user pays.
Lets choice what is more cost effective.
I don’t believe Motorways always bring economic growth more than a similar spend in rail would do.
Reality if you look at this documentary is Auckland is spending one day at work every week to pay for our transport.:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO3d13EOfRI
I’m keen for a real debate.
Anthony -Act supporter.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:33 am
We can free up a lot of cash by getting rid of the Holiday Highway
Q: Why do most people go to the airport?
A: To go on holiday
D’oh
Having said that perhaps the Puhinui link only, could be reasonably cost effective.
Vote:And the central city loop would be great for getting in to different parts of the city.
But the link to the North Shore is nuts, if it means pulling up the busway, buses unlike trains can go onto the roads too.
October 12th, 2010 at 11:36 am
Part of the problem is Auckland’s low density, so where to put the trains isn’t obvious, and we’re left with he legacy of the current network. The issue is whether or not there is enough of a destination at each station to make it work. Some parts of it work well. For example, with more frequent trains than of yore rail is a good way for pupils at Kings and staff at Middlemore to get there from North and South. Parking pressure at both is another driver.
Getting from the CBD to the airport is an embarrassment. The drive time doubles (or more) when it rains. We need something better. In Sydney I’ll take the train even though the fare is inflated – still cheaper than taxi and better than being herded while waiting for one (Aussie airports can’t get the concept of having taxis waiting and available for passengers quite right).
We haven’t been very smart about rail and it doesn’t need public funds. In Hong Kong rail is partly funded through development of its land. Develop a site with the station at ground level (or below) then a few floors of retail, then a few of offices, then some apartments. You then have revenue from the buildings. You have also created a destination – so people will use the train more to get there to work, shop or live. I understand rail has a more tenuous grip on the land here in Auckland but the opportunity was missed at Newmarket to do the same (and probably even Britomart).
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:36 am
I made a point about in the GD earlier today about what could be done to leverage existing roads with computer technology in cars and transport, rather than gigantic fixed investments in 19th century technology.
But people often scoff at such “futuristic” things and I’ll grant that such have been talked about at least since the 1960′s.
Well guess what – it’s here now – Google’s Driverless Car
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:36 am
Taken for a Ride
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2486235784907931000#
This one is fairly cool also, not completely relevant to Auckland, but really interesting.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:39 am
macdo (8) Says:
October 12th, 2010 at 11:36 am
Part of the problem is Auckland’s low density, so where to put the trains isn’t obvious, and we’re left with he legacy of the current network. The issue is whether or not there is enough of a destination at each station to make it work. Some parts of it work well. For example, with more frequent trains than of yore rail is a good way for pupils at Kings and staff at Middlemore to get there from North and South. Parking pressure at both is another driver.
Really interesting Macdo – could look at transportblog.co.nz there are substantial research to say Auckland’s density is not as low as we are always told.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:45 am
Owen McShane says:
“Current research in Los Angeles…”
Your argument is irrelevant before it’s started. Why seek inspiration from LA’s sprawling asphalt mess? Auckland has a sprawl problem, but why do you wish to make it worse?
You’re great at picking and choosing from only the small selection of sources that back your arguments.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:46 am
4.75 bil doesnt seem that bad! We should be investing more in public transport. Keep as many poor fuckers off the road as possible.
And who says we have to pay it in one go? spend the money, pay it off over 20 years of need be.
Id rather trains than council flats!
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:48 am
DPF – that’s a pretty poor argument, especially for you. Can’t you do better than that? There are lots of reasons this might not work, but when the holiday highway is there looming above any ‘can’t afford it’ responses from Govt… any shut down will have to be a bit more clearly thought through…
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:50 am
Top Gear take a driverless BMW around their track. At speed!… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRF_KaWzxq4
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:51 am
[DPF: Nope almost all of the money from roads is user pays through petrol tax - motorists pay for their roads]
Believe it or not, motorists also use bicycles, trains, buses and feet. What is so wrong with paying a petrol tax to improve public transport thereby improving your personal car journey?
[When a motorist uses a train, then they pay a train fare. Wear and tear from cycling and walking is near zero. If a train track will reduce congestion by more than a road, then that may be worth funding from petrol tax. But some train proposals such as in Wgtn had an $80 million cost and would only reduce by 100 or so the number of cars on the road - cheaper to buy everyone a helicopter!]
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:51 am
You can piss off with your regional fuel taxes. I’m not paying for a service that no one in my suburb would be able to access without driving to a train station. Wallet-fulfilling prophecies indeed.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:53 am
bhudson (348) Says:
Because the roading has national benefits (even if only indirectly) whereas the only benefit from the train plans is that Len & his cronies get to sleep a little easier at night.
Because public transport has national benefits (even if only indirectly) whereas the only benefit from the roads plans is that Joyce & his corporate buddies get to sleep a little easier at night.
There, fixed that for you.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:54 am
I heard rate payers pay more most roads and maintenance actually.
So lets make a real debate.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:56 am
Hey lets sell the roads and trains. See which is more cost effective to travel on?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Thanks for the pointer kiwiAnthony.
Vote:No doubt that population density has increased, East of the Tamaki Estuary has gone from zero to populated in a decade. With existing housing the census data show more people living there in many areas. I guess the issue is the where “to” and where “from” question. Rail is good for bulk (and while I’m at it – contrary to Owen;s comment I see plenty of freight going by rail).
My guess, Glen Innes isn’t a natural starting point for all the people taking the train form there to the CBD – but with a good and cheap car park it works out for commuters from a wider area in time and cost (and that cost to the individual will influence behaviour).
October 12th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
decanker,
No. Roading investment will serve to free up the traffic flows enabling quicker and more cost effective movement of goods as wellas the general conducting of commercial business (people moving around performing their business.)
Rail systems are a sink hole for investment that few will choose to use voluntarily. the net result is that the roads remain as congested – keeping the cost of commerce up, while we are all paying for another service that few people use.
The difference is as follows:
- Joyce’s plan will make a difference for others
- Len’s plan will make a difference for him
Whose motives are more pure?
Fixed for you (again)
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
decanker, let me fix that for you:
Vote:“Because public transport provides unions and the left the ability to bring the country to a halt”
October 12th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Don’t worry chaps, only two days ago Toad said he was prepared to pay for it.
Send the bill to the Greens.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Will de Cleene,
Two simple issues with your idea:
1. It only addresses the capital costs. These things cost money to run & maintain. Where is that coming from? (hike the regional fuel tax a bit more even?)
2. The other flaw is that you expect those who don’t use the system to pay for it. That, Will, is theft.
What is more, the argument that the road users benefit through reduced traffic on the roads only has even a shred of viability if you can guarantee that enough people would elect to use the train system to have a genuinely noticeable effect on road congestion.
It doesn’t happen. If it did your exsiting rail systems would be full to capacity. As would all the buses
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
Same old stupid fucking prehistoric doctrine- pay more tax and we leftists will bring you Nirvana. And on another thread people are going mad about tribal superstition.
NZ is predominantly a country of detached from reality socialist idiots and nothing has confirmed this more emphatically than to see that fucking grinning moron Christine Fletcher back yacking her fucking brainless head off again.
If you’ve got money, fuck off overseas. If you don’t, the left and its loser leaders will take it from you.
Clearly the best and only course of action is to let this nation of dumbfucks and parasites sink in their own shit. They’re never going to learn any other way.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
bhudson, yeah silly me, rail systems in the great cities of the world are such sink holes for investment that few choose to use voluntarily.
Can you please present your argument that shows how a puhoi-wellsford highway is less of a sinkhole for investment than an inner-city rail loop?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:08 pm
I would be interested to know how the funding of the Airport rail would work. Given the really really sh!t quality of what it would be competing with, the ticket price could be quite high and it would still be a better option for many people than the airport bus ($15 last time I used it) or taxis ($60 last time I used one.) Not to mention that a few well-placed stations might even see a LOT of Mangere people commuting to Onehunga or the CBD on it.
At the end of the first 25 years it might turn out that the ratepayers don’t need to put very much into the airport rail line at all…?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
RightNow (1,531) Says:
decanker, let me fix that for you:
“Because public transport provides unions and the left the ability to bring the country to a halt”
That is fucking hilarious.
How about:
Vote:“Because public transport provides terrorists with something to blow up, and win”
October 12th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
No, that’s not right. Motorways in Auckland are 100% funded by central government – Second Manukau Crossing, Victoria Park, Waterview, Puhoi to Wellsford. Local roads are funded by a combination of central Government funding and rates. Up to 40% of your rates bill gets spent on local roading.
I don’t see why motorways should get such a funding advantage, when they aren’t required to return a profit and there are never any post implementation reviews to gauge their effectiveness. The new Manukau crossing was supposed to save minutes on the journey to the airport, but I’ve seen no evidence that it has achieved that for the $280m spent.
You also fail to recognise that if you want to reduce congestion then moving people to public transport is a far better solution than widening roads. The Harbour Bridge now carries more people than ever and less vehicles thanks to the Northern Busway. The equivalent of two motorway lanes now use the buses at peak over the bridge.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Rubbish.
Experience from the last few years in Auckland (Northern Busway, rail improvements) is that if a good PT service is provided, people flock to use it. How does that not help decrease road congestion? Public transport projects often accrue large parts of their total benefits to road users. If the most cost-effective way of improving the throughput of a roading system is to allow more people to use PT alternatives, then why should funding for the PT not come from the same pool as road funding?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Redbaiter – been to Auckland lately? Getting around is still sh!thouse, but there have been significant improvements over how it was say 8 years ago (through the central motorway junction and Grafton Gully, and the East Tamaki Interchange) all delivered to you by the evil socialist nanny state.
Perhaps instead of spouting your usual “gummint is baaaaaad” dogma, you could explain what would be better?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
Redbaiter (11,932) Says:
October 12th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
“If you’ve got money, fuck off overseas.”
You’re right, I should take my money overseas, to a country with proper transport infrastructure.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:13 pm
What a joke…
Auckland has paid for everyone of its major transport/infrastructure initiatives – and yet we’re supposedly the economic capital of New Zealand, and the international gateway to everywhere else.
Are we not eligible for a small hand out from central government?
Efficient rail services in Auckland will benefit the country, we are miserably behind every other OECD member, and this is one way forward for sustainable transport alternatives.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
The idea of more trains is a good one – but how do you pay for it?
The cost is around $250 or so per year per person if set out over 20 years and results in less cars on the road along with a more efficient transport network. The government will pay some if the projects were to go ahead but this would still put a big bill with the tax payer.
I am living in Ireland and despite the crisis here they are still going ahead with a light rail project and putting the main commuter line underground in Dublin.
Unless Auckland is to stop growing what is the alternative – bus lanes everywhere including the Auckland Haubour bridge?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Don’t agree with you on this one David.
If you believe that it is the councils role to build infrasture (whether that be rail, new stadiums, town halls, water treatment etc) then it should only be funded through debt so that the burden/cost falls on a number of different generations as they benefit from these projects
[DPF: Oh I agree one should use debt to spread the cost over the life time of the asset. I was just highlighting what the cost would be if done up front]
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Of course its too late for a lot of you.
Stuck with negative equity in houses you paid idiot prices for because lying politicians told you NZ has a booming economy. Same gormless gullible fuckwits who voted for lying Lenny.
My advice is no matter how bad your situation, cut your losses now.
Its going to get a lot worse before it gets any better.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
No indeed. I live not far from there yet always drove to the equally new and larger car park at Orakei in order to get to the Auckland CDB. I did so because there was no way in hell I was going to leave my car there all day. Not to mention the fact that my work at the CDB often meant getting back to the train station in the dark (7-8pm), in mid-winter – in Glen Innes!
But aside from all this is the fact that was merely one of my contracting jobs. It lasted a year and was only the second time in a decade that I managed to work the CDB. Moreover, as much as I enjoyed the brief train ride and walk to the office, the fact was that I experienced any number of delays – not to mention the usual standing room only (back to starting from Glen Innes I hear?). In my work that’s not an issue but I would bet such is not the case for most people who would be in trouble for being late on a frequent basis. Start work earlier? Sure – ignore the scheduling issues with kids schools and other commitments.
If the Greens and the Left can figure a way to force/incentivise more businesses to cluster around existing Auckland train stations then it may work better.
The problem is all such grand plans will not change as fast as private transport – nor adapt as fast as people and businesses to such independence.
Riding the commuter train to work each day for a few months with a flexible work schedule – fun.
Forever in a normal job – soul destroying drudgery.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
decanker,
“…how a puhoi-wellsford highway is less of a sinkhole for investment than an inner-city rail loop?”
Given that you people of the left have so much faith in govt and regulation, I decided to get your answer from a govt agency. Transport say:
“As one of the roads of national significance, the Puhoi to Wellsford project will:
* enhance inter-regional and national economic growth and productivity
* improve movement of freight and people between Auckland and Northland
* improve the connectivity between the medium to long term growth areas in the northern Rodney area
* improve the reliability of the transport network through a more robust and safer road between Auckland and Northland.”
Can you please answer for each of those points how an INNER CITY rail loop will deliver those benefits. Particularly interest to read how it will help with freight movements into and out of the Auckland region. Or how it might assist in our national economic growth.
I don’t have the local knowledge to justify whether or not that particular roading project is a better investment than other roading project options, but what is abundantly clear is that it will prove more benefits than an inner city rail loop.
But, also, to repeat what I said originally on this topic on GD, go ahead and build all the rail you want to (and answer to your local ratepayers.) Just don’t ask the rest of the country to fund your playthings for you
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
“Getting around is still sh!thouse,”
So who the fuck of any worth is “getting around” in Auckland. Look at the car next to you. Probably some bleached blonde hooker, or dole bludger or at best, some idiot feminist telling herself she’s the next female Donald Trump and running rent roles for clutching old penny pinching landlords. She could be stuck in traffic for a week and it wouldn’t affect a real economy one iota. Auckland is just one big socialist churn. A complete shell based on left wing fantasy.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Redbaiter – so in the right wing Nirvana Crusader Rabbit land who pays for and builds roads ? If the motorway network in Auckland was in private ownership I would have strong concerns about its ongoing maintenance. Look what happened to the rail network when kit was in private hands – it was fucked over.
I worked in monopoly network infrastructure engineering for a while – I saw first hand the damage done when long term under investment in maintenance occurred and the cost to business and community. There are some things that are too valuable to leave to private interests.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
campit & James Butler
I believe the ATA Harbour Bridge data linked to here a day or two ago showed that both the use of PT and vehicle trips have increased – (PT by 3000/5000 and vehicles by 2000/5000.)
The initiatives may have helped to curb the vechicle congestion growth a little recently, but they still represent 40% of the growth in number of trips.
I’m sorry, but you haven’t actually achieved a reduciton in vehicle congestion – you have arrested the growth a little, but that is all.
There is also the question of the law of diminishing returns. If you freed up another lane for buses, would that guarantee a commensurate growth in PT usage?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
bhudson (351) Says:
October 12th, 2010 at 12:20 pm
“As one of the roads of national significance, the Puhoi to Wellsford project will:
* enhance inter-regional and national economic growth and productivity
* improve movement of freight and people between Auckland and Northland
* improve the connectivity between the medium to long term growth areas in the northern Rodney area
* improve the reliability of the transport network through a more robust and safer road between Auckland and Northland.”
I see, it’s going to “enhance” and “improve”, be “more robust” and “safer”. That’s great. Why don’t they extend the southern motorway to Hamilton too? Or all the way to Tauranga? Sure, it’ll be fucking expensive, but it will “enhance” and “improve”.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
“There are some things that are too valuable to leave to private interests.”
Yep, that was well demonstrated when the Soviet Union, totally controlled by planners like you grew to be one of the most successful countries/ civilisations the world has ever seen.
Like the sentence above, there’s not one you ever write here yourself Mr. Gibson that isn’t underpinned by insane political fantasy.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
John Gibson
That’s not actually correct. It was well and truly F-d over before it was sold. The maintenance was well behind and the rolling stock was ready for retirement. The organisation employed 22,000 people and sending a car to Auckland from Wellington on the train was more expensive than loading it on a ship and sending it to Taiwan. After the sale the headcount went to just over 5,000 and hey surprise it became cheaper to move a car to Auckland than Taiwan from Wellington…. who would have guessed a bloated sheltered workshop would be such a mess…..
Yes I know the lefties like to pretend it was in fine shape before the sale – but they also like to pretend socialism works and that Helen Clark was the greatest leader this country has ever seen.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
decanker,
You can rant all you like. If that agency was to publish information that supported your case you would claim that it proved your case. The fact that they state that a project you don’t like will return national benefits is not invalidated because you don’t like the project.
In fact I don’t think the Transport Agency are against trains at all. Neither am I – as long as the users pay for them.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Some things that were too expensive / blue sky / uneconomical to be invented by private interests.
Space exploration
Internet
Aviation black box
Synrock
Gene shears
polymer bank notes
Microwave landing system
Atomic absorption spectroscopy
Jindalee Over the horizon radar.
The list could go on and on…
Oh, one more – aerogard!
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:38 pm
Hey lets put Cullen in charge of buying new trains… I bet he can negotiate a fast delivery simply by paying twice the asking price.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Really? I’ve had pre-new crossing trips from the Airport take over an hour to get to Onehunga. Even in rush hour it only takes ten minutes now.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
John Gibson
before you start defending dear leader as being a great leader – think about the position her iron fist left the party in – not a lot of leader potential groomed on her watch… She might have been a strong leader – but strong leaders that are good leaders surround themselves with other stong people so that their departure is not a disaster to the party. She failed there didn’t she – big time.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
By increasing the capacity of the inner-city rail system, it becomes possible to increase service frequencies (or build new services) throughout the Auckland rail network. This in turn reduces congestion on the road system caused by individual commuting trips, making it easier and cheaper for those things which do need to go by road – local city-bound freight being one – to do so.
The benefits of the Puhoi to Wellsford project are undoubtedly real – the question is, do they exceed the costs? The only answer I’ve seen is no.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:48 pm
decanker
Los Angeles is relevant because the urban area of Los Angeles (urban area is the standard international unit) has the highest residential density of any US city – 2,400 people per square km.
Auckland urban area has the highest density of any city in Australasia and indeed is denser than any US urban area except for Los Angeles.
Auckland Urban area density is 2,200. The typical density of high growth high employment and high innovation ranked cities in the US is about 1,000 per km squared. Raleigh is only 700.
Auckland has congestion on its surface streets because the streets are far too narrow for the density they serve.
Auckland has the kind of density that drives residents away – seeking lower congestion and more affordable housing.
The planners have created these problems with their dumb theories and like the central planners of the Soviet block there answer to the problems caused by communism is more communism.
The big cities of the US are now loosing population and employment. The high growth job rich cities are those of about 1 – 3 million but with low density and affordable housing. And with good roads and commute times of about 22 minutes average. And multinuclear.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
@big bruv 12:06 pm
Yeah, out of my taxes and rates, and if they have to go up to pay for it, then so be it. Over 15 years, which is the estimated time for completion, it is only $320 per adult Aucklander per year.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
James Butler,
“By increasing the capacity of the inner-city rail system, it becomes possible to increase service frequencies (or build new services) throughout the Auckland rail network.”
James, try explaining that. How does an inner city loop that services only the inner city enable the increase in service frequencies (or new services) in other areas throughout the rail network?
On the face of it that defies logic. However, the question is not meant to be inflammatory. I am interested to know how that is possible.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Britomart Station is currently constrained by it’s single entrance and the tracks surrounding it, such that even at current growth levels it will run out of capacity before other parts of the network – so preventing further growth in any services which end up at Britomart (which means pretty much any useful commuter rail service). Basically, if each train going in needs to go out the same way, then no other train can arrive behind it – or even get between it and Newmarket. By making it a through-station on a loop, the same number of tracks and platforms can suddenly service a vastly larger number of services.
More in-depth analysis is here (as with most of the topics mentioned in this thread)
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Every time you allow the likes of MNIJ or John Gibson or Len Brown to influence your thinking on any issue, you take a step backwards towards neanderthal-ism.These people live in a fantasy world, nothing they say has even a kernel of truth, and it is because NZ has listened to these fantasizing knuckle dragging lunatics for so long that things are not getting better and will not get any better.
Until NZers wake up and stop being sucked into the web of deceit these power obsessed lunatics are constantly spinning this country will continue to decline economically and socially until like their Soviet Union, it will bottom out in massive economic collapse that will leave almost every citizen destitute.
The saddest thing is that this is apparently going to be the outcome, and that NZers will not awaken to how they are being so constantly and so comprehensively lied to until the collapse does arrive.
Just remember, unlike the Soviet Union, NZ is a democracy. When this catastrophe occurs, you will have brought it on yourself through ignorance intellectual laziness and apathy.
This is no more evident than in the idiocy that the loony Christine Fletcher stands as some kind of antidote to the sickness.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 1:18 pm
I live near Albany. There is no way I want any trains coming to Albany.
We have a hugely popular bus-way. It’s biggest impediment is the lack of parking for cars (not bicycles, shoes or horses, but CARS) at the park-and-ride terminals. Otherwise, it would be even more successful!
Our biggest need on the North Shore is for a second harbour crossing. (And not a train-only crossing!)
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Build your fucking railways. They’ll just be one more part of the dead weight of socialism that will eventually send NZ to the bottom of the economic sea. Fucking deck chairs on the Titanic isn’t even half way there.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
James Butler,
To take up the cost vs benefit point you raise yourself on the puhoi – wellsford highway, what are the benefits that this will deliver vs the costs to build, run and maintain (most $ in this thread are only the capital costs.)
The argument is that Britomart is nearing capacity with respect to throughput of trains. That is relevant if those trains are at, or near to, capacity. What is the utilisation of passenger carrying space during peak times and non-peak times?
The number of trains throughput argument is irrelevant if they are empty or not near capacity. that would be like trying to solve a problem that doesn’t actually exist. (Obviously the peak time is most relevant, however how little they are used off peak is relevant if the incremental utilisation improvement during peak hours is not substantial.)
Even if it can be shown that utilisation would be improved through the loop, the argument that should be funded other than directly from the service users is unsustainable unless there is evidence that proves that a very significant number of people who would otherwise travel by car, would then use trains – i.e. only if a genuine and noticeable reduction in vehicular congestion can be guaranteed. Otherwise you have non-users subsidising the service for no benefit.
Incidentally, if their is a current (under) utlisation issue perhaps you would be better off looking first at the management of the services before throwing money into infrastrucutre. Build the utilisation and that supports your business case for more investment.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Jack – you praising the US military?
redbaiter – bit worked up today mate? some people are still thriving in NZ. take dime for example! Sure, income is down a touch cause of the recession, but im still killing it.
i love my country. i would give up and leave.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Red
many people
here are not left I would say. I think socialism is sick and your right it’s amazing how many people in Auckland are anti business and socialist.
But Are motorways are “free market” working at its best. While we are being taxed is it not best to put that money into the most effective form of transport that we can get?
Also: I hope people who voted Len are not extrapolating it as a support for Labour. People I know just thought the supercity thing was was undemocratic.
Its probably more like Labour saying “hey look’ it’s our man more than Len saying hey Vote Labour.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Ha ha, a family of 5 is up for nearly 25 grand .
They never get the idea in Auckland, you need high density to even consider trains for mass transit.
To get high density, you need the planners to ensure people can sleep at night (noise pollution), and get to their schools/shopping/work/parks/entertainment etc….You need to be able to walk or catch a train to everything. London has this sorted.
Auckland town planners? Thats an oxymoron.
To spend 5 billion on connecting Albany and the airport to the CBD is ludicrous.
I reckon Auckland would be better concentrating on the rail they already have in place.Encourage high density around the existing rail lines. But, the architectural design needs coordinating. I can just imagine the mess if they let the developers off the leash.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
@toad:
$640 per year would put us over the margin. My family is already bled dry by this socialist tax and spend approach to solving problems.
Fortunately, I refuse to accept the legitimacy of a local government that is based around another socialist stolen election. I would not accept the legitimacy of a dictatorship in another country, I am not going to accept a mayor and election where the Labour Party was complicit in vote fraud with the knowledge of that fraud supressed.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
@bhudson – all good points. I believe that current analyses of the business benefit of the loop include the factors you have mentioned, but I’m running to the end of what I can comment on with less than a lunchbreak’s-worth of research. As mentioned, transportblog.co.nz is very good at digging up actual numbers and analysis if you’re interested.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
whatever happened to rodneys rates bill? is that dead?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 2:33 pm
All incoming Mayors and Councillors should be made to sit down and watch the Simpson’s episode where Springfield brought/built a monorail. A brilliant con job….its more of a Shelbyville thing….
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
“i love my country. i would give up and leave.”
What’s the bet you’re a trougher? Making money not from risk or endeavour, but from licking the boots of some socialist lackey somewhere, or by working some kind of spin off related to interventionist government policy.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
By 2030 Auckland’s population will be 2 mill and rising. So the actual cost per ratepayer will get smaller as we get more ratepayers. The costs on the other will skyrocket the longer you get around to start doing it.
Given that 70% of NZ’s growth in the next 20 years will be in Auckland, its hardly unreasonable that we should recoup the taxes that have been spent outside Auckland in the past 15 years
Wreck- quite correct- you are throwing money down the drain unless you take steps to increase density at the same time as building new rail.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
“people I know just thought the supercity thing was was undemocratic.”
So Labour will be changing it back if they ever regain power??
When are you going to awaken to the fact that practically everything you hear by way of political news opinion or comment from the mainstream media (Tv One, TV3, Herald, Dominion) is completely compromised by their devotion to Progressive politics? They are poisonous partisan cowards debasing the trade of journalism and your perceptions regarding the supercity being an attack on democracy are a direct result of their yellow journalism.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Goodness why are so many people about being wrong on so many issues.
Another transport myth is that high residential density is the key to making rail work.
Not so. The key is high employment density at destinations.
The New York rail commuter system works because of the massive concentration of employment on Manhattan island. The residential densities in New Jersey etc are low.
Even so, commuter times in New York are among the highest in the US (60 minutes or so) which is why New Yorkers are leaving for smaller lower density cities with commuter times of only 22 minutes average. Get up to date here:
http://www.newgeography.com/content/001805-north-americas-fastest-growing-cities
Another myth is that you can increase public transport use by packing people at high density around transport nodes by forced densification. This travel node densification works it if it voluntary but not if it is forced.
Smart Growth densification actually reduces the public transport market share.
Vote:Prof Peter Gordon’s group at UCLA found that the voluntary densification means that people who do not have access to cars (for whatever reason) will huddle around bus terminals and railway stations.
However, if the densification is forced the first thing is that the price of housing goes up, and second thing is that the new residents have normal access to cars and displace those without cars. Consequently public transport market share goes down.
Planning interventions are almost always counterproductive.
Get used to it.
October 12th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
redbaiter – are you fucking insane bro? I am a capitalist and I am self made!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You actually couldnt be more wrong.
I guarantee I have been nailed by the left more than you over the last 10 years. WHats more, I am hated by the left.
34, white, straight, landlord, business owner, no kids, business degree. I actually think i epitomise everything the left hate!
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
Macdo
I did not say that rail does not carry freight.
I said public transport does not carry freight referring to commuter rail and light rail.
ACtually, if you run commuter rail on existing rail then the amount of freight on rail goes down because the two don’t mix.
One choice is to run the freight at night and keep all those people living near railway stations awake at night.
But rest assured no freight will be delivered to Britomart.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Landlord.. pfft, knew it. What business? Cleaning state offices is it?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
We will know that Auckland has come to its senses when we start building HOT lanes instead of Busways.
Motorway lanes dedicated to buses only are surely the most inefficient and ineffective infrastructure imaginable.
They are not designed to increase general mobility but to get people out of cars – a policy of the freedom haters.
And please, before bothering to respond do find out what a HOT lane is. Clue – it is NOT an HOV lane.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Whats wrong with being a landlord? You assume I have negative geared? WRONG!
Im an importer redbaiter. import and wholesale.
What do you do for a crust redeye?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 3:57 pm
“Im an importer redbaiter. import and wholesale.”
Pffft.. knew it. A leech parasiting of the churning created by socialist economic policies. Retailing/ wholesaling and landlording do nothing to increase a country’s wealth or build its economy. You’re doing well alright, only because of the socialist government policies you come on here pretending to despise.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
Red chill man it’s not as bad as you think. Many people are informed and -don’t worry Labour are gone for another 10 years.
I am pro libertarian, the supercity is a communist idea in my thinking.
But let’s hope it works. But do look at abit of research regarding trains: http://www.transportblog.co.nz.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
LOL, I’ve never been closer to calling Poe’s Law (in it’s generalised form) on Redbaiter.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
“Pro libertarian..”
Sigh.. bogged down in nutcase doctrine.
True American post -revolution Conservatism was doing Libertarian before Ayn Rand was a sparkle in her father’s eye.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
HAHAHAHA so whats the ideal profession redbaiter?
I thought buying shit cheap and selling it for a profit was pretty good!
Or should i become a farmer? wait.. they got subsidies once.
Maybe a builder? wait, they build houses for socialists
umm doctor? fuck! they have a union?
Policeman? ah crap, they have a union and they are all PC…
ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm i know a priest. sure they molest kids but its all about religion eh redbaiter.
how much tax do you pay red? id love to know. i suspect youre a crusty old guy living off his pension, bitter because he failed in life.. so now you sit on kiwiblog all day judging everyone else. does it make you feel better red? judging? proving to yourself than youre better than everyone?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 4:05 pm
“LOL, I’ve never been closer to calling Poe’s Law on Redbaiter.”
Call it what you like, its only your credibility at stake.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 4:06 pm
“I thought buying shit cheap and selling it for a profit was pretty good! ”
You just better keep voting for Labour for without socialism Dime you’re fucked.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Actually dickhead, the products I import cant be made in new zealand and still be affordable. Remember, we dropped our protectionist policies.
So whats the redbaiter solution? We dont import consumer goods anymore?
Sounds like a fun life.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
This leftie likes dime. More and more
When you say “products”, you mean used cars eh?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Dime
You should know by now that the only products Redbaiter approves for import are Glen Beck and Sarah Palin dolls.
Oh…and Bibles.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
RRM
Dime is a true centrist, he will shag both left and right wing hookers.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Toad
“it is only $320 per adult Aucklander per year.”
So it’s only $4800 aye….for a system that most will never use and based on the con that is climate change.
By the way, do you base your figures on rate payers or ALL Aucklanders?
Because as you well know not everybody in Auckland pays rates, the bludgers in state houses get a free ride, renters do not pay rates either.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
RRM – lol no. not cars. I did sell new cars in aussie in my early 20′s though. I had a talent for it too
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
That money that landlords use to pay the rates bills for their rental properties, where do they get it from, I wonder?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
Dunno, but I know who they claim it back from. The taxpayer.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
“Retailing/ wholesaling and landlording do nothing to increase a country’s wealth or build its economy. ”
You used to be (mildly) amusing Red. Now you are just revealing massive (and by massive I mean collosal) ignorance.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
“You used to be (mildly) amusing Red. Now you are just revealing massive (and by massive I mean collosal) ignorance.”
Yeah yeah, everyone who opposes your ideas is an arsehole. We’ve already got that message. We were hoping for some counter argument.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
RRM
Would it not be fairer to have a poll tax then?
That way everybody pays the same amount and nobody (even state house bludgers) do not get a free ride.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
LOL, lack of counter argument never seems to slow you down Baiter.
I don’t think I’ve seen you explain a single idea in four years of reading these threads, all you seem to have is what you just accused Kiwigreg of.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
“We’ve already got that message.”
Who are you speaking for?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 4:52 pm
So what do you do for a living, Redbaiter?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
“So whats the redbaiter solution?”
To what problem? You’re such a fuckwit you don’t even know what I’m talking about do you? The fact is that when socialist governments get into power and implement their redistributionist policies, it causes increases in spending. Therefore retailing, wholesaling, real estate all boom, but primary industry pays the real bills. Look at the Warehouse. Making a fortune selling worthless shit to morons who don’t even work for their money. While our trade balance relies on primary industry.
Its not fucking rocket science. Anyone whose primary income is generated from retailing or such should naturally vote for socialism, the Klarks and Keys of this world, unless they’ve got the intelligence to look further than their commie noses. I doubt you’d fit that criterion Dime.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
posts on kiwiblog and crusader rabbit while waiting for the DPB to arrive.
Wouldn’t work in an Iron Lung. Thinks the world owes him a living. Odd how he flew from the Capitalist Paradise to live in this squalid socialist dictatorship, isn’t it? Guess he had to leave when his unemployment insurance ran out.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
“Yeah yeah, everyone who opposes your ideas is an arsehole. We’ve already got that message. We were hoping for some counter argument.”
How many times has he pasted this template response over the last few days? Who is the “we”? Identities? Or voices in head?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 4:57 pm
“I don’t think I’ve seen you explain a single idea in four years of reading these threads,”
Yeah, well you of course would be the most objective judge of that on here wouldn’t you, you mentally crippled socialist imbecile.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Like I said.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 5:00 pm
Fuck you guys are a joke. If I took the time to respond to every piece of worthless shit, sneers, false allegations, abuse, etc etc you post I ‘d never have time for a word of real response. Morons in a moronic country.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
The closest I can think of to eliminating all academics, journalists and politicians, and getting everyone (that survives) to work in primary industries, is Pol Pot.
There was one or two typos, is this better?: “If I took the time to write every piece of worthless shit, sneers, false allegations, abuse, etc etc I post I ‘d never have time for a word of real response.”
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 5:02 pm
Actually, its overseas borrowing that is paying the bills now. We’re so far in debt through fucked up socialist pump priming and false employment in government or government related schemes that there isn’t even anything to churn any more.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
“Actually, its overseas borrowing that is paying the bills now.”
Oh yes socialist pc lickspittles are we still borrowing a quarter of a billion a week? How much gold you got stashed, I must ask my local pollie or tribe. Hi Rik Tau. I see you have John Boy Key in your back pocket. See you at the cup!
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Red chill Mr.
Its all good fun. We’re all cool here, lets talk about it.
I’m not a moron and many people arn’t.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
“I’m not a moron and many people arn’t. (sic)”
Fair enough Kiwi. I’m quite ready to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. You’re not off to a good start though with that Libertarian bullshit. Still reading Atlas Shrugged are you? Doesn’t take too long if you can stay awake.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Red Bud, we’re all here and are interested in what you have to say.
We know what you’re saying.
Vote:NZs got some issues be a solution.
October 12th, 2010 at 5:28 pm
@big bruv 4:28 pm
Bruv, for a start it is not just climate change that is a driving factor – in fact that is a less significant factor than several others.
No 1 is congestion. The more commuter vehicles we can get off the roads by people using public transport, the quicker trucks delivering freight and those who have to use their own or company cars for their work will be able to get to their various destinations each day. There are huge economic benefits in that.
No 2 is reduced dependence on oil. As oil gets harder to find and extract, the cost of running private motor vehicles is going to increase significantly (ie way beyond the increase in the CPI) over the next 30 years. Getting public transport infrastructure in place will mean that those on lower incomes will still be able to afford to get around the city. Economies that are totally oil-dependent and don’t move to alternatives are likely to be in serious shit in your and my lifetimes. That’s also a reason that the electrification of the Auckland rail network that is going ahead is so important.
No 3 is climate change. I won’t put up the argument for that again, as I’ve done that many times before but you still deny it is even happening, bruv.
And as far as the airport line goes, I’m one who (as a Green, unfortunately) has to fly reasonably frequently in the course of my employment. A $10 train fare (which it would be if subsidies similarly to existing passenger rail services) to get home after a few days away working looks pretty attractive compared with the $70 taxi fare I have pay to at the moment. Even a $20 train fare (if trains into and out of the airport aren’t subsidised at all) looks pretty attractive.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
The left just love to spend other people’s money.
Electric trolley busses is the way to go, much cheaper.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
redbaiter – do you actually know that youre insane?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Redbaiter, maybe if you got a job you’d be less angry, then you’d live longer. Just a friendly suggestion.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
“redbaiter – do you actually know that youre insane?”
“Redbaiter, maybe if you got a job you’d be less angry,”
Yeah yeah, typical socialist morons- everyone who opposes your ideas is an arsehole. We’ve already got that message. We were hoping for some counter argument.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
Toad
1.I find it fascinating that you are now supposedly all for business and economic benefits, nothing your party says or does supports business.
Improving roading in Auckland would have the same effect as forcing people onto over crowded and unreliable public transport, despite what the Greens have to say about public transport the favoured mode of transport will always be the private motor car for most people.
2. The “dependence on oil” argument is weak and best demonstrated the luddite thinking of the Greens, yes, one day there will be no more oil but by then we will have alternative fuels and alternatively powered vehicles, we are ALWAYS going to need roads. I realise that roads are the enemy of the Green party, it ruins your dream of the village economy and enables people to travel which is something that the Green party are dead against.
3. I have never denied that climate change is happening Toad (another of your lies) what I have always maintained is that it is not caused by man, I have said to you many times that as soon as you can provide me with proof that climate change is man made then I will be a believer, until then I will maintain that the climate change con is the work of the left and nothing more than a massive transfer of wealth.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
wreck1080
But they did it in Sydney. They also got a tunnel under the harbour and a stadium so don’t think there isn’t more catchup in the pipeline following this wallop.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
big bruv
I don’t get that thing that AGW disciples do either. If you say the climate is always changing but you can’t believe dairy farming is so significant that you need to tax cow farts they turn around and say you are a climate change denier and start barraging you with facts that climate has not always been static. What is it with that…..
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
red
Debate
Lets go.
One:>
Why are New Zealand people so socialist?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 7:36 pm
redbaiter – gotta ask, how are you even on here? new zealand doesnt manufacture motherboards, cpu’s etc we have to IMPORT them.
are you comfortable using a socialist computer? does that make you a socialist? :O
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 7:40 pm
Dime. You’re a braindead socialist moron. Worse than that. You’re a boring braindead socialist moron. Let me help you out.
The sales industry is a staple part of any country’s economy because it………
Renting houses is a staple part of the NZ economy because it…..
There you go.
Child. Who wipes your arse for you?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
“Why are New Zealand people so socialist?”
1) Primarily because they have been slowly conditioned to be so by forces working within the country and applied so gradually that they have not been detected.
2) Because they are an island state with nothing to compare themselves too. The media is tightly controlled. The education system is fully in the hands of the left. The left control all of our public institutions. NZers are just not exposed to anything on a day to day basis other than unrelenting Progressivism. Stark difference to the US, where you can find hundreds of outlets that assault the stautus quo. In NZ, there are practically none. These (mainly) stupid politically ignorant dumbfucks have voted themselves into tyranny.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
$4.75b isn’t even five months Government Borrowing.
Rude not to. How about a 100 ft high Gold Statue of Len Brown right by Eden Park while we’re at it. Lovely pictures for the international television audience at the RWC next year.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
Red,
I’ll help you out…
“The sales industry is a staple part of any country’s economy because it………”
…needs to sell the goods and services it produces in order to obtain income. It also needs to sell the goods it imports in order to service the needs of the consumers. [No country is truly self sustaining Red. If it were, there would be no trade.]
“Renting houses is a staple part of the NZ economy because it…..”
…provides housing for those who are unable to buy their own.
Twat
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
“Twat”
Where’d you get your knowledge of economics? Back of a Weetbix packet?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 8:08 pm
Red,
“back of a weetbix packet?”
You would know. It would seem to be your encyclopedia. I guess the pictures help your understanding.
Why don’t you treat us to a bit more of your ignorance? It is occasionally amusing
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
I think NZ are socialist because the world was socialist in the early 1900′s and it served us well through till the mid 1900′s when protected markets started to vaporise. Since then we have been locked in a staggeringly cumbersome flip flop to reform, renationalise, reform, renationalise. Change will be driven by generation “X” getting off their lazy asses by starting to demanding more say in democracy than just voting for the red team like granddad told them to.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
$320, toad? It’ll be slightly higher than that. Only B-Dawg’s voters will be footing the bill.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Smart people don’t leave Auckland. Come back help get the city sorted.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Toad you’re being a duplicitous little frog again, but no surprises there.
You state that the cost of the rail is only $320 per adult per year, but this is only the capital cost…. You then go on to suggest that a new link to the airport should be subsidised along similar lines to existing rail subsidies.
That’s going to make your rail a damn site more than $320 per year!
There are a number of other wallies on here also saying: “It’s only x$ per year per adult”, but as I outline, the only way any of this would be viable is if it were heavily subsidised, meaning your rates bill will have to double.
If fares were increased to be in line with actual operating costs, then no one would use rail. Cheaper for the gummint to hand out Taxi chits to everyone.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Instigate Plan B. Maybe we need to
-Go into emergency Governance:
Well, we do have a solution actually
>>to help NZ it’s called ‘default’ on our IMF and we have about 6 months to solve.
We would have Government run by bankers.
Supercity? We need to cancel the supercity.
Vote:Not sure what to do about this supercity thing though.
October 12th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
@mattyroo 8:28 pm
What you don’t seem to get is that a subsidy is justified because more people on trains rather than commuting by cars reduces congestion. And that reduced congestion facilitates road transport for those who need roads to deliver freight or otherwise do business to get to point A and point B quicker.
Huge economic benefit for business in that – getting people who just use roads to get to and from work off the roads, so the roads are more available to those who need to use them for business that grows the economy.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
“What you don’t seem to get is that a subsidy is justified because more people on trains rather than commuting by cars reduces congestion.”
But we could also do that toad by making poor people sell their cars and give us the money. And it wouldn’t be wrong cause they’d be able to get the train. I don’t get this subsidy malarkey. I think you’re just having us on. I mean, you’re not poor, are you?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Instigate Plan B
Lets fight dirty…..
All go on the Doll.
Government will be bankrupt, IMF will come
control and reform country. Including reducing all beaucracy.
And set a state of USA in Wellington.
Are we ready
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
@toad,
What is the utilisation of the current rail services toad?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 8:57 pm
No that fucking subsidy is not justified at all toad. They use the service, they pay for it, along with tolling highways.
You only try to promote that as your line of argument because you want free, or near free, transport for your constituents, the dole bludging scum.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Instigate Plan B
KA said:
I’ve been thinking along the same lines….. But more about offshoring all my income, fuck this socialist mob of cunts, they’ve had too much of my money over the last few years, and done fuck all productive with it. So why should they be given the opportunity to take any more?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 9:14 pm
If we want a chance:
Steven Joyce Minister of Finance.
Act Back in and Roger Douglas as a minister.
Reduce number of MPs to 80
get rid of MMP and transition to STV
Build a constitution copy the Americans.
Remove gun laws.
Privatise 40 percent of Secondary schools.
Privatize 80 Tertiary Education
Remove GST all together
Put Tarrifs on imported goods (luxury goods)
Remove the Resource Management Act
Remove Building code to insurance.
Week 1.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
week 2.
Pay the pensioners more
Pay the disabled more
Build more state housing for desperate needs.
Sell:
Kiwibank
AIrNZ
TVNZ
Diary Farms
Energy companies
Highways
Privatize or contract Winz
Sell Stadiums
Remove Legal Aid
Remove sports funds
Tax Alcohol
Remove Kiwishare from Telecom
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 9:24 pm
National fully endorses Len Brown and Auckland Council’s right to raise that money from ratepayers, as it has effectively endorsed the local government policies of Labour, the Alliance and the Greens when they were in government.
National voters might wonder whether there has been a change in government at all.
No new world city has ever built an urban rail network in the modern (post WW1) era and had it make a discernible difference to traffic congestion, none have built one that can charge fares to cover operating costs let alone the deadweight cost of the capital tied up in a bespoke inflexible network and at best a rail network might be able to handle 3% of all trips in Auckland. 3%!! Even before the pursuit of rail earlier this decade, commuting to CENTRAL Auckland was dominated by bus trips, with mode shares that were not out of line with other similar cities in Australasia. The problem is, and this is evaded by the railevangelists, 88% of jobs in Auckland are NOT in central Auckland.
Work undertaken by officials earlier this decade investigated where traffic congestion occurs and concluded that car trips to central Auckland were not the problem, the problem was greatest on local roads across the isthmus, the pushing of through traffic through spaghetti junction and some motorway links that were unbalanced. The huge amount of money poured into motorways in Auckland in the last decade has helped, and the Western Ring Route will help a lot, but the remaining key issue is that the local road network is not well managed, has significant bottlenecks and needs investment.
However campaigning on fixing the local road network, improving intersections, replacing underused bus lanes with high occupancy vehicle lanes and concentrating on bus based transit is far too big for a soundbite for an election. Politicians love promoting trains because it is about “thinking big” and they can open them to grand aplomb – it only becomes unstuck when they run out of other people’s money.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
kiwi anthony – now I am all for greater access by the law abiding citizen to firearms but do you mean remove all gun laws? Such as licencing, careless use, discharging a fire arm in a built up area in a manner likely to cause distress, presenting a firearm at a person?
And wtf is with getting rid of GST and putting on tarriffs? Income tax is productivity stifling not a consumption tax.
We already have a constitution – around 800 years in the making. I am happy to stick with that. The US can keep slugging it out with an appointed partisan supreme court.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
What the hell? You want to pay pensioners more? Without even a means testing? Those free loading bastards are sucking the life out of this country and you want to give them more? What are you on?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Thanks
GPT
Gun Laws: I ment amend the American constitution so we ‘can’t’ have guns. Keep the rest of their constitution.
“And wtf is with getting rid of GST and putting on tarriffs? Income tax is productivity stifling not a consumption tax.”
Not bad comments GPT
Im not convinced about this “consumption tax’ as a great alternative to productivity tax.
Sure its always sold as that.
Second Tariffs are fine for a small country like our until we can start paying off debts.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
GPT
Vote:re Pensioners
Means Test them sure, you recon they suck the blood out of our country?
October 12th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
Mainly the ones in Greypower who seem to think old = permission to freeload. Bring back the surtax.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 10:23 pm
Libertyscott – Vancouver disproves your theory. It has a lower percentage of jobs in its CBD than Auckland, it has a lower population density than Auckland, yet PT modeshare is up near 20% compared to Auckland’s 7%. The critical thing is that the 20% of trips that are on PT in Vancouver (which includes the excellent and very popular SkyTrain system) is that they are the very trips that would otherwise cause the most congestion.
If we look at Auckland, sure only 7% of all trips (probably a bit more than that now) are on public transport, but at peak times around 50% of people entering the CBD do so via public transport, with a growing number of those on the train. In other words, if we didn’t have public transport we would need twice as many lanes into the CBD and twice as many parking spaces – we wouldn’t actually have much of a CBD left.
Even outside the CBD, there are some areas where PT modeshare is reasonably high. Around 9000 out of the 25000 people who cross the Harbour Bridge between 7 and 9am each morning do so via public transport. If we didn’t have those people catching the bus, then the Harbour Bridge would need to be way way way wider – how much would that cost?
Getting back to the main point, I take issue with the argument that “all petrol tax dollars should be spent on roads and roads only”. This is for two reasons:
1) Road users benefit hugely from people shifting onto rail. NZTA has calculated that each additional peak time rail trip in the Auckland region generates $17 of decongestion benefits – benefits enjoyed by road users. So if the CBD rail tunnel, for example, was to boost rail patronage from around 9 million up to say 18 million per year (it doubles the capacity of Britomart so that’s a reasonable estimate), and if half those trips were at peak times, then that’s around $80 million a year in road user benefits from that project. Over a 30 year return period…. yeah well I’m sure we get the point.
2) Not everyone who drives does so at peak times. For example, I drive a reasonable amount at weekends and in the evenings. I therefore pay petrol tax. But during peak times I catch the bus into work because I don’t want to pay $13 a day for parking. There’s no benefit to me of having my petrol tax dollars spent on widening motorways to allow more people to drive at peak times (and therefore inevitably undermining the viability of my bus service, but that’s another issue). It’s completely logical for me to want my petrol tax dollars to be spent on extending a railway line my way, so I can use that when I need to get to work.
Ultimately, there is a little funding pool for transport projects and a lot of projects that want to be funded. The logical thing would be to undertake economic analyses of the various projects, see which ones stack up best (regardless of whether they’re rail, bus, road or whatever) and prioritising those projects.
I don’t oppose the Puhoi-Wellsford “holiday highway” because I don’t like the idea of having a motorway up there (in fact my parents have a beach house at Mangawhai Heads so it’d be kinda handy), I oppose it because it has a cost-benefit ratio of 0.8, and takes money away from projects that stack up much better. I also oppose it because it won’t do anything to improve the road over the next decade, and in the mean time around 50 people will die due to there being no safety upgrades.
Over 15 years, I think that it’s completely reasonable and possible to complete both the CBD Rail Tunnel and Rail to the Airport. North Shore Rail should take a bit longer, but that’s OK as we want to squeeze as much benefit out of the Northern Busway as possible – but there will come a time when that gets saturated and we simply have to upgrade it to rail.
We have the money already, we’re just spending it on the wrong stuff.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Why would you want to ban guns? Guns keep the law abiding citizen safe. And also kill varmints which is a good and positive thing – esepcially for the environment.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
How about sending the bill to those who voted for Len Brown and in return i will promise to not use the trains and stick to car or motorbike.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
All those who’ve actually used their gun to shoot an assailant, please say aye.
Don’t all speak at once.
There’s nothing quite as bloody weird as gun fetishists. (Except perhaps gun-rights fetishists.)
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Banana Llama (991) Says:
October 12th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
How about sending the bill to those who voted for Len Brown and in return i will promise to not use the trains and stick to car or motorbike.
I’ll send my bill for 40 percent of all my rates, including Business rents.
Then I wil live in an apartment bike to work and train to my boat.
:>No gun debates.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 10:45 pm
Okay what are you charging me for?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
Rates are about $2500 -$4000 a year
2500 * 20% = $500 a year.
about 20% of rates go to pay for roads
:>http://www.localcouncils.govt.nz/lgip.nsf/wpg_url/About-Local-Government-Local-Government-Statistical-Overview-Index#LocalGovernmentExpenditure
1.5 Billion over 50 years by 1 million
= $300 a year.
Close huh,
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Perhaps he could just put the trains on his credit card?
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:14 pm
No RRM, there is nothing weirder than those who claim to be all for individual rights and responsibility but want to ban another person’s sport because its not there cup of tea.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
Or Wellington could give Auckland the burned out remains of their’s. Just a thought. Actually here’s another thought for Auckland ratepayers, you will be paying for this pipe-dream, but just wait until Franklin, Papakura and Rodney ratepayers get the bill for Auckland, North Shore, Manukau and Waitakrere’s leaky buildings. A trainset will look like a toy by its price-tag in comparision. Pony up guys you’re gonna love this ride.
Vote:October 12th, 2010 at 11:26 pm
Jarbury – Sorry you are wrong about Vancouver. The 25% modeshare for PT is for commuter trips to downtown Vancouver, not conurbation wide. For rest of Vancouver it is 13% (which is still very high). Yet Auckland’s downtown commuter mode share for PT has always been over 30%, except that until the past decade most of them were on unsubsidised buses. Given the vast majority of predicted rail users in Auckland are either current rail or bus users, this is about a huge subsidy to give those people a more comfortable ride (at someone else’s expense) without any serious discussion as to why they should be rewarded. The ones crossing the Harbour Bridge by bus are almost entirely going to the CBD of course, and there is ample scope to have far higher bus frequencies (which would be greatly helped if the bridge was priced properly).
It is a strawman to argue “without public transport” as nobody has ever argued to remove it, the argument is whether financial self sustaining buses are better value for money overall compared to highly unprofitable and enormously expensive trains.
You misconstrue the NZTA figure about benefits from rail users. The $17 benefit is only if a car driver shifts from driving to travelling by rail. Simply more rail passengers does nothing to reduce congestion, because it may be a new trip, a shift from bus or a shift from sharing a car. It is nonsense to claim that all or even the majority of generation of rail trips are people who would otherwise drive. It would be nice if there was some impartial research into this and the optimism bias behind it.
I wont disagree about the inefficiency of fuel tax as a mechanism for charging for road use, but perhaps the biggest elephant in the room is that the work done by the last government on rail for Auckland demonstrated that it would only meet patronage forecasts if Auckland had a serious congestion charging scheme on the roads. Shifting from fuel tax to congestion charging to pay for road use would have the effect of not cross subsidising peak road capacity from off peak users, but also dramatically reducing congestion (and boosting rail patronage). However politicians don’t have the intellectual wherewithal to argue this point in New Zealand (though they know how to argue about spending money that isn’t theirs).
Auckland should abandon further development of rail once the sunk cost of existing expenditure has been spent, and focus on Auckland’s local road network being significantly enhanced, and endorsing a shift from fuel tax to distance based road charging that will enable peak charging. The transport network that will carry 96% of Auckland trips for the next 50 years needs to have the same proportion of attention, and once the roads are efficiently priced the railway can be priced to make a profit as well. The result will be less peak trips, more working at home and telecommuting, far more reliable trips and improved environmental outcomes.
The key is to get out of the politically inane arguments that “all you need” is rail, or to finish a certain road link. No new world city has successfully tackled congestion either from endless road building or grand rail projects, Auckland wont either.
Vote:October 13th, 2010 at 2:59 am
I think the Auckland Super City Council should levy all ratepayers to get this new rail set up ASAP maybe 5-10%, also there should be a levy on all fares to help contribute to the development of the rail network. John Key has given Len Brown the green light to do this.
If we don’t build it people won’t use it and we will have even more gridlock on the roads however if Red and his mates migrate back to Australia as they are threatening to do we will have less people on the roads.
If you have ever travelled and used the train networks in Tokyo, London, or New York you will realise how efficient they are.
If only Robbie had done it 35 years ago, i wouldn’t be wasting my time blogging on this site.
Vote:October 13th, 2010 at 9:15 am
Tokyo, London, New York, ––– Auckland.
Does one size really fit all?
Vote:October 13th, 2010 at 9:41 am
If the business case for these rail projects stacks up (I mean, you wouldn’t do them otherwise, would you?) then why not open them up to private investment, either via a bonds issue or a PPP? If there’s a dollar in them, investors will be lining up won’t they?
Unless, like most leftie pipe-dreams, there is no appreciable business case and they’re just pushing an ideological position (public transport = good / private vehicles = bad)
Vote:October 13th, 2010 at 11:23 am
That’s not a bad idea, except seeing as we expect a significant portion of the benefit to accrue to road users, for a robust investment you’d need to come up with a way for the PPP to collect revenue from road users. I’m not saying it can’t be done, but it sounds like a political minefield on the face of it…
Vote:October 13th, 2010 at 11:38 am
James Butler,
“That’s not a bad idea, except seeing as we expect a significant portion of the benefit to accrue to road users, for a robust investment you’d need to come up with a way for the PPP to collect revenue from road users.”
A real problem with this statement James is who is the “we” – The we who seem to comment more on this blog do not agree that the rail initiative will bring significant benefits to road users – we see that the impact on vehicular congestion will insignificant at worst to minimal at best. That would not warrant road users paying for investment in services they neither use nor benefit from.
As libertyscott noted above:
“Simply more rail passengers does nothing to reduce congestion, because it may be a new trip, a shift from bus or a shift from sharing a car. It is nonsense to claim that all or even the majority of generation of rail trips are people who would otherwise drive. It would be nice if there was some impartial research into this and the optimism bias behind it.”
Let’s see the explicit breakdown of data behind it, instead of headline grabbing numbers.
Let’s also remember that it is the pro-PT group that are lobbying to get the additional funding – the onus is on them to provide the full proof and granularity of data to support their funding request. They have to sell this concept and facts to those that would supply the money (which includes us dear old vehicle users – as we are group you wish to subsidise your travel)
Vote:October 13th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
The issue is Britomart, it is an ‘in and out’ station with a single double tracked access… This limits the number of train movements in and out of the station and therefore along the whole network (6 southern line, 6 western line, 6 eastern line, 2 Onehunga branch, soon 2 to Manukau branch, plus slots for 2 more after electrification)… By making Birtomart a through station you double the number of train movements possible on the network from 24 per hour to 48 per hour after the Central Undergorund is built… Effectively by building a 3.5 km tunnel you are doubling the 73 km network…
Vote:October 13th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
After seeing Owen McShane’s drivel on climate change, I’m afraid I can’t take anything he says seriously.
For example, he says above that planning intervention is almost always counterproductive. I take it he prefers anarchy.
DPF gives his usual superficial analysis, but of more interest was the attitude of the PM. He set up a straw man argument by saying, patronisingly, there is no “free lunch” as though Auckland asked for all our transport costs to be centrally funded, although he conveniently ignores how, historically, much of more of Auckland’s fuel tax has gone to the rest of the country than to Auckland. Never mind. I’m sure it’s one of the reasons they hate us south of the Bombays, that we built their roads.
But a smarter approach for Key, assuming he wants to hold on to his support in Auckland, would be too simply say he is open to discussion, and will help as much as he can, with a positive attitude and a sunny smile (even if he then stabs us in the back).
That he has not, and instead opted for a churlish tone as regards the new mayor’s ideas on this issue, opens the way for Labour to openly offer to consult and formulate a plan with Len Brown to submit to the electors next year.
But who is Labour’s transport spokesperson? Do they even have one?
Vote:October 13th, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Why is anarchy the alternative to central planning?
Why do councils write 15yr plans? What other organisation plans that inflexibly, that far ahead. It’s bullshit. Why do central planners believe they know how a town should look over private developers?
You left wing idiots forget the bloody obvious: That we could have had rapid rail in Auckland if Labour had not wasted billions on Kiwirail, the Skyhawks, a bankrupt ACC, interest free student loans, Welfare for Families – to mention but a few.
You numbnuts cannot get the most simple point – if Labour had not taxed and spend our way into recession, we coul dhave paid for rapid rail in Auckland.
Labour’s transport spokesman knows this which is why he/she is silent.
Vote:October 13th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
Darren Hughes is Labour’s spokesman and he asked Joyce a question in parliament on this issue today…
Vote: