Ridiculous proposed restrictions by Auckland Transport

February 4th, 2013 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

Mathew Dearnaley at NZ Herald reports:

Politicians are upset that an bylaw may ban mobile election hoardings and put restrictions on others.

The council transport organisation, which is trying to standardise bylaws in time for this year’s local elections, says it does not believe vehicles used solely for political should be allowed on city roads or in carparks.

But Labour’s transport spokesman, Phil Twyford, suggested yesterday that the organisation should concentrate on making its trains run on time. And Act’s John Boscawen said his party would oppose any such restriction “on people’s freedom of speech and to express, and to generate interest in the political process”.

Auckland Transport says in a position paper seeking public submissions by February 28 that its bylaws should support an objective of making roads effective for carrying people and goods.

It proposes that election signs be allowed on vehicles used for ordinary travel but not for the sole purpose of advertising, such as when towing trailer-mounted hoardings.

This is pathetic and ridiculous  Auckland has almost 1.4 million people living in it, and around 1.1 million vehicles. And Auckland Transport are trying to restrict cars used for political advertising, which would probably reduce the number of cars at any one time by oh around six or so.

As Phil Twyford says, they should focus on making the trains run on time, and not becoming political speech commissars.

Tags: ,

11 Responses to “Ridiculous proposed restrictions by Auckland Transport”

  1. PaulL (5,987 comments) says:

    Yup, that’s the problem with local councils. Not enough work to do, so they like to invent new work. There’s nothing like deciding that you personally don’t like something therefore it should be illegal.

    You know, “I don’t think you need to be driving your car today, you’re just advertising.”

    Next step after that is “I don’t think you need to be driving your car today, you’re just cruising / hooning.”
    Then “I don’t think you need to be driving your car today, you’re going to the shop, and you should only shop once a week”
    And then “I think your car is too big”
    And then “Unless you’re one of the favoured few, you must ride public transport, so as to save the roads for those with real need”

    Then we get some Zil limos, and we’re in business.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    “Vote Derek Armitage for Absolute Accountability…!” at 3am.

    No, thanks.

    Ban them :-P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Elaycee (4,393 comments) says:

    But Labour’s transport spokesman, Phil Twyford, suggested yesterday that the organisation should concentrate on making its trains run on time.

    Whaaat? A Labour spokesman actually talking sense??

    Scary…. 8O

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. lastmanstanding (1,297 comments) says:

    Auckland Transport like all the CCOs are run by a bunch of unelected self serving over paid morons.

    We have Rodney Hide to thank for forcing this abysmal bad governance system on Auckland ratepayers.

    The good citizens of Auckland should demand that these CCOs are disbanded and that governance is put back to those lelected by the ratepayers.

    Then and only then will we have any accountability.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. orewa1 (410 comments) says:

    I predict a serious revolt against the super city soon. Meddling in the job of central government while so much needs to be done within its own patch is just one of its manifold failings.

    The transition agency that set it up the predicted the council wages bill would fall from $604 million to $513 million as a result of reducing staff numbers. Instead, it was rose to $670 million in the last financial year. Meanwhile basic services such as garbage and water are now billed separately from rates, charged by privileged entities with no accountability and no competition. Go figure!

    Add to that the debacle of the one of world’s most infrequent, unreliable and costly public transport services.

    Bring back the 8 smaller but manageable and accountable mini-cities that preceded it, I say. Big is not necessarily beautiful. Thanks for nothing, Rodney Hide.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. davidp (3,581 comments) says:

    >But Labour’s transport spokesman, Phil Twyford, suggested yesterday that the organisation should concentrate on making its trains run on time.

    This is clearly a coded reference to Benito Mussolini. Is fascism a Labour policy now?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. All_on_Red (1,584 comments) says:

    It’s not the structure. It’s all the pointless crap they do. If they went back to basics and put a knife to a lot of “social” program’s we would save millions.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    I hope the Govt hurrys up with its review of local body responsibilities and stops this sort of crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. PaulL (5,987 comments) says:

    Nothing wrong with the structure. The problem is who the voters voted for. You can’t blame the structure for the fact that Aucklanders elected a mad lefty with aspirations to expand the size of the council.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Nick K (1,244 comments) says:

    As others have said, it’s not the structure. These types of issues pervade local government. Under the reforms, the wage bill did drop immeasurably. But there is no desire by the governing body to cut costs. It’s up to them now, not anyone else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Anthony (796 comments) says:

    I wish local bodies would ban election hoardings on all public land – untidy eyesores that don’t make one iota of difference to the outcome.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote