100 initiatives in 100 days

November 2nd, 2010 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

Do you recall saying h would announce 100 initiatives or policies in his first 100 days in office – 1 a day.

Today is Day 2. I presume Day 1 was spend lots of money getting sworn in. so what was the big policy for Day 2.

He announced it on Breakfast this morning. They’re going to clean the windows of the Town Hall.

Day 1 it turns out was doing designations for the planned rail tracks. No problems with that as early designations help, but I await with interest his policy on how much he will increase rates to pay for his rail plans.

Len may think he has a mandate for the rail – and he does if the ratepayers of Auckland who voted for him are willing to pay for it. But he does not have a mandate to demand the taxpayers of Wellington, Napier, Nelson and Christchurch pay for it. In fact the best quote I can give comes from Labour’s Stuart Nash:

All this posturing, threats and huge budget promises re Auckland from their new councillors etc makes me shake my head in disbelief.

Akld is but one of many cities in this wonderful country and if Aucklanders think they have pre-eminent rights on all of our taxes then they need to pull their heads out from their nether-regions and get real.  New Zealand does well when all New Zealanders are thriving.

Well said Mr Nash.

Tags: , , ,

53 Responses to “100 initiatives in 100 days”

  1. BeaB (1,960 comments) says:

    My question is how well the Sydney rail link from the airport manages as I had read that it is losing money. If so, how could a much smaller city like Auckland sustain a rail link?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Scott (1,614 comments) says:

    No big government please Mr Brown. Don’t we have a private sector?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. trout (865 comments) says:

    The short answer is that Auckland could not sustain a rail link. Very few passengers travel from the CBD to the airport. In fact it seems to me that the bulk of air passengers arrive in people movers from South Auckland. Perhaps a rail Airport-to- South Auckland is Lenny’s next project.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. virtualmark (1,423 comments) says:

    It’s not just crazy Len. Down here in Wellington we have Celia Green-Brown revving up to spend our tax dollars on light rail too. There must be something about trams and airports … every tin-pot mayor seems to want to get the two together.

    AFAIK there is no public transport scheme in the world that exists without a subsidy of some kind. Light rail is just one more unnecessary burden on the public purse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. shoreboy57 (116 comments) says:

    No problems – lets all pay for our own stuff. We’ll pay for our trains and Wellington can pay for all the beltway bullshit and bellyaches

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. dog_eat_dog (683 comments) says:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10562190

    I think you’ll find Aucklanders were paying for everyone else’s transport networks for a long, long time. Whether the projects are stupid or not, isn’t it funny how no one wants to return the favour. Even worse was the regional fuel tax, which told Aucklanders that they would have to cover the mismanagement of taxes they already paid. Wonder if we’ll see that return in the next few years?

    Although it’s good to see that the argument (from Labour of all people) “this project doesn’t directly benefit me, so why should I pay for it?” is now acceptable. I look forward to the new user-pays Labour Party in the election next year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. grumpyoldhori (2,410 comments) says:

    Ah well, typical bloody Jafas, they all believe the majority of NZs overseas funds are earned in Jafaland.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. decanker (220 comments) says:

    @virtualmark said: AFAIK there is no public transport scheme in the world that exists without a subsidy of some kind.

    Yeah, those currency traders riding the subway in NYC should get off the trains and into their cars. Those trains are holding back New York’s economic growth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. decanker (220 comments) says:

    Wait, what? I’m paying for Transmission Gully?? When am I going to drive down there and make use of that? It’s nine hours away! Wellington rate payers should pay for it.

    My taxes are re-building Christchurch?? I don’t even f*cking live there!

    Etc etc

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. david (2,483 comments) says:

    Decanker,
    The least we should expect is some honesty about transport subsidies. If it is deemed appropriate to pay a subsidy for some reason then it needs to be identified and made public the extent to which various services are propped up.

    Some calculations put Auckland’s passenger subsidy at a level per passenger per trip at about the cost of a taxi fare for the ride. Knowing that would be better than waffly claims of freeing up roads, transport efficiency etc etc. I never did see a Cost/benefit study of the North Shore bus lane but can only acknowledge that if it encouraged more bus travel, it has an ongoing cost to taxpayers/ratepayers in increased subsidies commensurate with the passenger miles travelled.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. jaba (2,069 comments) says:

    I would say that Nash is about to get bitch slapped for making a mockery of Labour’s Len Brown’s vision

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. campit (438 comments) says:

    Well 75% of New Zealand’s population growth to 2050 will be in Auckland, so why shouldn’t it receive more infrastructure funding?

    [DPF: It should receive more than its share of the population - I agree. But there are limits to how much can be given]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Fale Andrew Lesa (473 comments) says:

    :D

    Grow up David; Auckland is the economic power-house of the country. If Auckland performs poorly economically you can bet your bottom dollar that the entire country will feel the pinch.

    Stop being just another ‘Whiny Wellingtonian’ and prepare for the Supercity that’s about to take your sad excuse for our capital by surprise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. campit (438 comments) says:

    But he does not have a mandate to demand the taxpayers of Wellington, Napier, Nelson and Christchurch pay for it.

    But he could push for fuel excise taxes to be spent on the most cost effective projects in the Auckland region, not just roading projects.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. All_on_Red (957 comments) says:

    Decanker,
    those subway trains are still losing money despite the currency traders (who all have town cars anyway..)

    “Like almost all transit agencies, the M.T.A. does not meet its operating expenses from the fare box, although its revenues cover a higher share than most. It requires subsidies from government entities to cover the rest of its costs and to help limit fare increases as expenses rise. Capital investment – both for routine maintenance, upgrades and expansion – requires public sources.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/info/metropolitan-transportation-authority-ny/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Stop being just another ‘Whiny Wellingtonian’ and prepare for the Supercity that’s about to take your sad excuse for our capital by surprise.

    Will they be surprised by the debt levels Len Brown is about to saddle the city with?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Whoops (139 comments) says:

    DPF.. shoddy.

    How’s that SCF thing working out. ChCh had any surprise bills turn up recently?

    (and yes – I’m an Aucklander :-P)

    (and Stuart – a List MP from BOP… what an odd thing to say I thought LB was a Labour bloke. Must be local politics. I assume they have the vote in Napier?)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. decanker (220 comments) says:

    DPF says: But he does not have a mandate to demand the taxpayers of Wellington, Napier, Nelson and Christchurch pay for it.

    Did Wellington get a mandate to demand the taxpayers of Auckland, Napier, Nelson and Christchurch pay for Te Papa and the NZSO?

    [DPF: NZSO plays around the country. Te Papa gets visits from all over the country - if one could place it on wheels I am sure it would tour also]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Brian Smaller (3,915 comments) says:

    The Sydney Airport rail is a rip off. You pay about three times the fare to get off at the airport. I just get my brother to come and pick me up or drop me off.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. virtualmark (1,423 comments) says:

    What All_on_Red said.

    Currency traders aren’t riding the subway – haven’t you seen the line ups of town cars outside the big banks late each night? They’re not there to take the janitors home.

    And just like I said … every public transport system relies on an ongoing hand-out from someone. They are a perpetual bludge on the public purse. Greenies can swoon all they like about light rail and buses and cycle lanes and skateboard-pooling for all I care. But the car is the killer app. It takes people where they want to go, when they want to go there, without being stuck to fixed routes and unreliable timetables.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Doug (405 comments) says:

    What amuses me is all the Labour folk where saying Democracy under Attack, ran marchers up Queen Street and said we are all going to Hell in a hand Cart. Now they have a Leftie Mayor things could not be better.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. BeaB (1,960 comments) says:

    Virtualmark – And we pay for our own car ourselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. campit (438 comments) says:

    And just like I said … every public transport system relies on an ongoing hand-out from someone. They are a perpetual bludge on the public purse.

    And the local roading system requires a significant rate payer subsidy in every city in New Zealand – up to 40% of your rates bill in fact. Should we stop this subsidy as well?

    But the car is the killer app. It takes people where they want to go, when they want to go there, without being stuck to fixed routes and unreliable timetables.

    But cities with well developed public transport spend less of their overall wealth on transport. Economically it doesn’t stack up to perpetually build sufficient roading capacity to allow people to drive themselves to work, park there all day and drive home again. Single occupant car use is the primary cause of congestion. Some 40% of the land area in Auckland is taken up by roads or car parks, hardly an economically efficient use of land.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. GJ (329 comments) says:

    The more I see of Len Brown on TV the more nervous I become for the future of Auckland.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. campit (438 comments) says:

    Virtualmark – And we pay for our own car ourselves.

    And ratepayers pay for half the cost of the roads you drive on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. scrubone (2,972 comments) says:

    The idea of Auckland rail asking for money seriously annoys me, having seen first hand trains enter Britomart with perhaps half those on board having paid a fare.

    My guess is that millions would have been lost over the years through simply not putting systems in place to make sure all passengers paid a fare – basic stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. virtualmark (1,423 comments) says:

    Yet campit …

    First, what does that “ratepayers pay for half the cost of the roads” work out to be in terms of costs per traveller per km? What’s the wager that while it is a subsidy it is way less of a subsidy than the subsidy per passenger per km that we pay for public transport?

    Second, buses and light rail also rely on that same subsidy. So it’s not as though the car is getting a unique benefit there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. comsumist (59 comments) says:

    All the flash promises of rail would be fine if he did have an endorsement from the majority of Aucklanders, which he doesn’t. It is worth remembering, and Len particularly should not forget, he only got a majority of the votes cast, and that only about 25% of the votes cast (from memory, too lazy to check exactly) from registered voters.

    Realistically, the rail thing is just way out of our reach in Auckland. There’s no good waving the “we must have this to catch up with Australia” therefore we must have rail. Why on earth Len expects everyone else in NZ to cough up, or why the other 75% of Auckland should cough up for his election bribe is beyond me.

    His disingenuous comments about keeping rate increases in line with inflation (why did Maunkau have so much debt?) and the idea that “savings” from the Auckland Council could be put into rail (so they’re not savings to be used to keep rates down now, they’re extra cash for Len to spend) just give me the shits. Not only are our rates going to go up, but they will be above the rate of inflation, plus I suspect we will also have a mountain of debt built up that somewhere down the line (long after Len has buggered off) ratepayers will have to settle…

    Yay!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Rick Rowling (776 comments) says:

    Someone had to say it…

    Auckland is the economic power-house of the country

    What was New Zealand’s balance of payments excluding Auckland?

    Oh that’s right, a huge surplus.

    What is it including Auckland?

    A huge deficit.

    Auckland’s economic activity doesn’t really help when so much of it is redistributing & spending the nation’s wealth rather than making it…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. decanker (220 comments) says:

    comsumist says: All the flash promises of rail would be fine if he did have an endorsement from the majority of Aucklanders, which he doesn’t. It is worth remembering, and Len particularly should not forget, he only got a majority of the votes cast, and that only about 25% of the votes cast (from memory, too lazy to check exactly) from registered voters.

    Using that argument, you’d be saying the NACT govt doesn’t have the endorsement to build roads in Auckland as they only got a majority of the Auckland votes cast at the general election, which is not the majority of Aucklanders.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    Back in 2003, my essay, Another Day, Another Vision, another Turkey, showed that a rail link from the CBD to the Airport could not succeed, because of basic catchment analysis, reinforced by the proven failure of the Sydney-Airport rail link.
    The response from the rail enthusiasts back in 2003 was that things would come right in Sydney, and with Auckland.
    Well, it is now 2010, and the driving time to the Airport in peak hour has just been reduced by 20 minutes, and the Waterview Connection will deliver further gains to more Aucklanders.
    The recent experience in Sydney indicates that the viability of an Auckland Airport rail link is now even further reduced.
    In 2006, a major Booz Allen report found public transport’s market share of ground access to the Sydney airport was 15%, while private road based access had increased to 84%.
    The proportion of airline passengers using public transport (rail and bus) was only 12%.
    Only about 1 in 17 of “meeters and greeters” used the train. 66% of them park their cars.
    The rail planners of the late nineties had predicted the link would be carrying about 70,000 passengers a day by now.
    By 2009 an average of 90,000 passengers a day used Sydney International airport and about 10% of those, or only 9,000 passengers a day, used the rail link.
    The total of passengers, staff and “meters and greeters” at Sydney airport is about 100,000 a day, and rail carries only about 11,000 of those per day – only 16% of the prediction.
    This is far below the loadings required for the Sydney Airport Rail Link to pay its way.
    The Auckland figures simply make even more dismal reading for any potential investor.
    Auckland Airport move a total of about 15 million passengers, staff and “meters and greeters” a year through its international and domestic terminals, or about 40,000 people movements a day, of which maybe 10% would take a train. That is only about 4,000 a day.
    No rail system can run efficiently or effectively on such low volumes.
    Such a rail link will simply destroy capital because the revenues will not even cover the cost of capital.
    We do not have savings to spare and cannot afford to destroy the few we have.
    You do not make decisions on expensive infrastructure by popular vote.
    No urban rail investment over the last few decades has reduced city congestion and generally makes congestion worse because it diverts funding from roads and buses.
    Anyhow, new driverless cars and Avego systems are about to make rail as obsolete as the telex machine and the gestetner.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. labrator (1,691 comments) says:

    Robotic taxis are the future. A van just drove from Italy to China with basically no driver. It’d be great to have dedicated robot or “efficiency” lanes added to the motorway instead of train lines. Prices of taxi rides should plummet once we get rid of the drivers and they’ll finally know the most efficient route to your house..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    Jesus Owen – You come along, make all the sense in the world with real data.

    What you have done will be just a red rag to the dreamers and they will want rail along Tamaki Drive next to take the pressure off all those poor buggers having to run along the waterfront.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. big bruv (12,388 comments) says:

    decanker

    The rest of us paid for your new bloody footy stadium just so you guys can host what will be a national embarrassment (the 2011 RWC)

    When the people of Wellington wanted a new stadium we paid for it ourselves, the same goes for Hamilton and Christchurch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Shazzadude (468 comments) says:

    “My question is how well the Sydney rail link from the airport manages as I had read that it is losing money. If so, how could a much smaller city like Auckland sustain a rail link?”

    I’d say the main thing that would affect the Sydney rail link is how close the airport is to town. A train ticket costs around $15AU while a taxi would only be around double that. Comparatively, the airport is around 40 minutes away from the CBD in normal traffic, and potentially much longer in peak traffic, and a taxi from the airport to the CBD could set someone back up to $100.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    Shazzadude,

    No one wants to wait around for the train. It will go tits up and them it will be subsidized and them it will only run once every couple of days . I try not to be pessimestic but the train wont work especially for anyone on business.

    Back packers have all day to frig around but most people don’t.

    Taxis have priced themselves out of the market in Auckland as well. You can get a rental car for the day for under $100, for a rollerskate ,as opposed to a taxi return trip $200, its a duh no brainer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Zapper (847 comments) says:

    [DPF: NZSO plays around the country. Te Papa gets visits from all over the country - if one could place it on wheels I am sure it would tour also]

    How do you get around when you visit Auckland?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. dog_eat_dog (683 comments) says:

    DPF: The War Memorial Museum gets more visitors each year than Te Papa.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. ch123 (460 comments) says:

    These people who bitch and moan about public transport being subsidised would bitch and moan even more about the increased resultant congestion if there was no public transport and everyone had to drive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    The more I see of Len Brown on TV the more nervous I become for the future of Auckland.

    Wait until he starts spontaneously breakdancing!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    ch123

    If the 23 people who used public transport a day in Auckland used the road, it would make bugger all difference.

    At the risk of sounding totally condescending, Auckland is a bloody big bit of dirt, Its not Wellington where 3 valleys syphon in a bowl around the harbour, its not Christchurch , which is the size of Glen Innes and its not Dunedin, thank Christ.

    All the trains in the world are not going to ease Dominion Road, Sandringham Road, Lake Road, although they would all flow quicker without the bus only lanes

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. gazzmaniac (2,270 comments) says:

    I feel obliged to point out that the Airtrain in Brisbane makes a significant profit and is not directly subsidised by the state (unless you count the fact it connects into a subsidised railway system).
    I use the airtrain a lot to travel to Brisbane Airport (I live on the Gold Coast) as it’s the cheapest way for one person to travel to the airport, which is on the north side (ie the other side of the city from the Coast). It’s $28 one way, of which about $18 is for the air train portion only. It’s economical to go from the CBD also – it costs about $40 in a cab. On peak it runs every 15 minutes and off peak every 30, and it’s unusual (although not unheard of) for there to be delays. On the down side the first train arrives at 6:25am which means that about 1/4 of the outgoing domestic flights are not serviced, which is a real pain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. ch123 (460 comments) says:

    @Pauleastbay

    Your argument might actually be valid if you didn’t try and be clever and make out like no one in Auckland uses public transport.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    ch123

    Fair enough, but how many people actually use public transport in Auckland daily.?

    Then if we can find that out, compare that no. with the population.

    If it was more than 15% I’d be surprised. Surely there is a Len follower out there with some no’s. that will justify the cost to the Auckland rate payers.

    Watch Mike Lee throw his weight around, Brown wont be able to control him and he will break the bank

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Caleb (465 comments) says:

    …. the rest of the country patiently waits for a volcano to appear in the auckland cbd.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Man in a Hat (11 comments) says:

    Auckland needs lots more roads, not pet rail projects. More roads, it is so simple.

    BTW, just remember that via general taxation every third kilometre of road in the country is paid for by Aucklanders. So every time your odometer ticks over that third kilometre whisper, “thank you Auckland for this lovely road”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. ch123 (460 comments) says:

    For the record, I’m really glad I work at home (in Auckland) and don’t have to deal with the crap that is Auckland traffic.

    @Man in a Hat

    And just where are you going to put those roads? Other than the motorway that was supposed to go through Auckland’s eastern suburbs (until those stupid nimbys got it shut down) I don’t see where you could possibly put any more roads that would ease the congestion.

    Although having said that, the city planners are effing idiots. Just look at Lunn Ave in Mt Wellington (above the new Stonefields development in the old Winstone quarry) which is a one lane each way road where there was plenty of room (at least until the Mt Welly end) to put in the needed two lanes. And it’s now almost impossible to get out of the shopping areas onto the road…

    @Pauleastbay

    “How many people actually use public transport in Auckland daily”

    A shitload. Can you imagine how congested Auckland’s roads would be (as if they aren’t already) without each of those buses at peak time taking 50 cars off the road. Never mind the fact there would be no parking available for all those cars.

    I hate to cite Wikipedia (but can’t be bothered following the links to get the stats from the horse’s mouth) but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport_in_Auckland says in the year to June 2008 there were 43 million bus trips. That’s 117k per day on average. Weekends will be lower, weekdays higher than the average.

    From the same source, 7 million train trips in 2008. That’s 19k per day average.

    Look, I’m no proponent of subsidised public transport, but if you took away the subsidies and it therefore cost a lot more there would be a shitload more traffic on the roads. So maybe you’d get that bus lane back to queue in in your car, but your journey would take a lot longer. That’s all I’m saying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. emmess (1,334 comments) says:

    Len low speed pork
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/01/high-speed_pork_107785.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. jarbury (464 comments) says:

    OK so there are two questions here. The first is “why should rail be subsidised?” and the second is “why should Auckland get a bigger chunk of the pie than it has in the past?”

    The answer to the first question is, quite simply, that road users benefit hugely from people using public transport – particularly during peak times, particularly for CBD-centred trips and particularly for long trips. It just so happens that rail trips are CBD centric, are long and a pretty big chunk of them happen at peak times. NZTA has calculated that every peak time rail trip in Auckland generates $17 in decongestion benefits. Benefits that are enjoyed by road users. Here’s NZTA’s table showing public transport benefits: http://transportblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/economic-benefits-pt2.jpg

    The answer to the second question, as campit has already mentioned, is quite simply that Auckland is growing way way way faster than the rest of the country. Between now and 2030 over 60% of New Zealand’s population growth is in Auckland. Between now and 2050 around 75% of NZ’s growth is in Auckland (in those past 20 years the rest of the country’s population effectively stops growing whereas Auckland keeps growing due to its younger population and the fact that most migrants settle here). Over the next 40 years Auckland’s population will grow by a million people whereas the population of the entire rest of New Zealand will only grow by a third of that. More details on population growth here: http://transportblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/pop-growth-2051.jpg

    So really a significant majority of the country’s “new transport infrastructure spend” should be in Auckland. No offence to places like Invercargill, but if your population isn’t growing chances are you won’t need too many new roads or too many new railway lines. Of course we need to maintain your existing roads, but the new infrastructure need is likely to be fairly low.

    NZTA spends around $3 billion a year on transport throughout New Zealand. That means over the next 15 years (the timeframe for Len Brown’s three railway projects) NZTA will spend around $45 billion on transport. Three rail projects with a combined cost of less than 20% of that total doesn’t actually seem too scary any more when you think about it – especially when ratepayers are obviously going to make some contribution to the projects.

    The money is there, we’re just spending it on the wrong stuff and in the wrong parts of the country compared to where the need is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Scott B (23 comments) says:

    @Pauleastbay

    “How many people actually use public transport in Auckland daily”

    I agree with ch123. A Lot of people really do.

    A count of people entering the CBD during the morning peak (7am to 9am) found that the majority of people arrived by non-car means. The percentages were as such: 46% Private vehicles, 47% public transport, 7% walking and cycling.

    The stats 132 have quoted are out of date (only by a couple of years, but PT patronage has grown heaps in that period.

    5,559,954 boardings were made (Bus, train and ferry) in September (2010) Thats 185 000 a day. These are not small numbers. A lot of those users have access to cars and drivers licenses. Try to imagine the congestion in auckland if even 50 000 more people tried to drive to work in the morning. That’s about the same capacity as 20 motorway lanes.

    “No one wants to wait around for the train. It will go tits up and them it will be subsidized and them it will only run once every couple of days”

    People don’t really want to crawl along the motorway at walking speed every day either. (well not me any anyway… mabey you do like it?)

    Despite what you think 893,000 trips were made by rail in September. Frequency’s have just been increased on our existing lines and will be again over summer. Overcrowding is a major issue on some services.

    It just makes sense to subsidize public transport because it is cheaper than building the equivalent capacity of roads (even if we had space to, which we don’t in the CBD and many other areas

    [edit] I forgot to cite a source for my stats. network patronage came from here:

    http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/about-us/publications/Reports/Documents/AT-ARTA-Report-MBR-Sep2010-Final.pdf

    Have a read. The graphs of growth are impressive.

    The CBD count was commissioned by the ARTA

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Scott B (23 comments) says:

    I tried to add a link to the source data for my previous post but the spam filter didn’t like it.

    here it is again: http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/about-us/publications/Reports/Documents/AT-ARTA-Report-MBR-Sep2010-Final.pdf

    Have a read, the growth graphs are impressive

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Paulus (2,304 comments) says:

    JafaBrown worries me. Is he for real or just a Labour Party puppet?
    His personal office advisers, paid for by the ratepayers, come straight out of the union led leftwing.
    Goofy should be worried too – he no longer controls the Labour Party. Helen/Heather ALWAYS did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Sam Hood (1 comment) says:

    @Pauleastbay. I agree with ch123 that you really do have no idea. I would like to add that the MAJORITY of trips made into the CBD (the focal point of our worst congestion) are made my Public transport. That means that if there was none, there would be twice as many cars using streets made for half that amount. The subsidies are extremely small by comparison to the cost of:
    -widening EVERY arterial into the city… including motor ways- how do we survive with the northwestern! its only 9 heavily congested lanes wide… so small!
    -destroying dozens of CBD buildings to make way for people to travel way less efficiently
    -lost productivity as businessmen give their undivided attention to their trip to work, rather than answering emails/ reading reports/ typing documents on the train
    -longer travel times… our new trains will travel at 110 km/h…not likely in a car at 8am

    And on Dominion Road, over half of peak trips are made by bus, and they still share lanes with cars probably 25% of the way, so getting rid of the lanes would definitely NOT double the roads capacity… not to mention the capacity of the roads it feeds from/to which would have over double the cars but no extra capacity (the average car on Dominion road contains 1.1 people). Also, the bus passengers are much better off as they can get to the CBD from Balmoral in 12 minutes… as opposed to 40 in a car at 8:30am. Under your scheme there would be no quick way for businessmen to get to work- you would be destroying their freedom of choice. Not to mention emergency vehicles who also need a quick access way. In short, Everyone loses… car users, the eventuating very small group of bus users, and the man who died because there were thousands of stationary blocks of metal sitting between the hospital and his house.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.