Greens and roads
March 20th, 2013 at 10:00 am by David FarrarStuff reports:
Improvements to the merging of SH1 and SH2 traffic at the Ngauranga Interchange north of Wellington, completed in August 2011, had shaved an average of two minutes off people’s journeys, he said.
The opening of a third lane through the Victoria Park Tunnel in Auckland last year had reduced travel times by between 5 and 17 minutes, while upgrades to the Te Rapa section of the Waikato Expressway were saving motorists an average of 3.5 minutes.
“These travel time savings are just the beginning, with much of the roads of national significance programme still to come, but already these roads are delivering huge benefits to productivity and the environment,” Mr Brownlee said.
Green Party transport spokeswoman Julie Anne Genter said her party never opposed sensible, cost-effective roading projects like the Ngauranga upgrade.
Really?
Can anyone name a roading project the Greens have supported?
For Ngauranga, their 2005 policy was:
Wellington: Inner-city ‘bypass’ and the Western Corridor from Ngauranga to Otaki
The Western Corridor is a narrow stretch of land ideally suited to public transport. Major roading projects are extremely expensive and send the wrong signals in terms of climate change, peak oil and urban sprawl. The Green Party will Work to ensure a comprehensive upgrade of public transport occurs before further consideration is given to significant roading upgrades.
Doesn’t sound like support to me.
They also opposed for over a decade the inner city bypass which has made a massive difference to traffic flows onto and off the motorway.
But I’m serious with my challenge. If you can find a press release from the Green Party unequivocally supporting a specific roading project then post the link in the comments.
Related posts:
- Time savings from Roads of National Significance
- The Greens’ New Deal
- Labour vs Greens
- 10c petrol levy in Auckland
March 20th, 2013 at 10:05 am
They are all detailed here.
Vote:March 20th, 2013 at 10:15 am
Nope I can’t find any … Greens/Road stuff.
So how do! out of town Green Party members get to the Beehive when Parliament is in session?
I imagine via a sailboat or rowing skiff approach from Cook Straight followed by a brisk walk up to Molesworth St.
Surely none of them would have the sheer gall and effrontery to be seen dead in one of Mr Ford’s fine velocopedes cruising along … wait for it … “A Road”!
Vote:March 20th, 2013 at 10:25 am
Why do they need to unequivocally agree with you? They truly (like I and most NZ’ers seem to) believe you’re wrong to prioritise road building ahead of PT so their position seems pretty consisten from where I’m sitting: Yeah that’s a nice road, but we still think the money is better invested in improving PT.
Vote:March 20th, 2013 at 10:29 am
The Ngauranga upgrade must have been extremely cost-effective. It consisted of nothing more than painting over some white lines showing three lanes and painting some new white lines indicating four lanes, in the process eliminating the shoulders for 600m. And moving the cats eyes, though you can still feel where the old ones were.
Vote:March 20th, 2013 at 10:36 am
No. Indeed, at one point the policy was to cut spending on roads so much that maintenance would have been halved.
The Greens opposed the Mt Roskill extension to SH20, which had a BCR of between 3-4, the Wellington Inner City Bypass had a BCR of 3.
Jeanette Fitzsimons once argued the solution to collisions on SH1 north of Hamilton was to paint the road a bright colour and lower the speed limit, opposing the Waikato expressway.
Sue Kedgley repeatedly lied about the Wellington Inner City Bypass referring to it as a multi-lane motorway extension that would destroy Te Aro – when it was a 400m one way street connecting to a new on ramp.
You can see it now opposing a one way bridge at the Basin Reserve, as if it is like a huge motorway.
A Green Party member who is now a regional councillor opposed getting rid of the traffic lights at Newlands because it would “encourage car commuting” for six lanes of traffic to no longer be sat for 30 seconds at a time.
The problem the Greens have is that they believe in peak car – that traffic isn’t growing because people are not driving more and more as incomes rise. However they also believe building new roads generates new traffic.
You can’t have it both ways.
Meanwhile, the Greens think that public transport, that carries less than 5% of all trips across the country, is deserving of half of the money raised from charges on road use.
Vote:March 20th, 2013 at 10:38 am
Well apparently they support this road but as it’s a smaller version of what was wanted that’s not really support at all.
Vote:March 20th, 2013 at 10:47 am
Liberty….
Yep, the red melons really do want to stop the world so that they can step off. If I could think of a way of helping their d design I would gkladfky help finance it.
he real;ity ios that everytime this silly Genter opens her Californian mouth it is ibvious that she has brought toi New Zealand the mal.aise that is killing Ca;lifornioa.
Vote:March 20th, 2013 at 10:55 am
One thing about Julie Ann Genter. She is a very attractive lady and appeals a whole lot more than Delahunty,Turei and Sage.
Vote:I don’t agree with her views but she is like a breath of (fresh) or is it stale air.
Nothing the Greens do comes from the real world. They are a pack of nitwits, however they are dangerous.
March 20th, 2013 at 11:22 am
“the inner city bypass which has made a massive difference to traffic flows onto and off the motorway.”
You’re taking the p1ss right? I agree with the main thrust of your argument – the blind anti-road agenda of the greens, but I think you’re using the wrong example with Karo Drive.
I can’t find the official report which noted time savings, after completion of Karo Drive (note ‘Drive’ LibertyScott – it is wrong to call it a ‘street’ – it definitely is more road than street), which showed average savings in the order of seconds, not minutes. As a regular user, I can confirm that, but better proof is provided by the current NZTA project page for “Karo Drive Traffic Improvements”, to ease the congestion that occurs during peak times.
Either the Greens were right that it would create induced demand (the spectre of much roading debate, which I do not completely believe in btw*), or NZTA just got it hopelessly wrong (more likely?)
*Induced demand ignores the shorter peak periods that increasing roading volumes create – sure, you induce more demand or flow of traffic volumes at peak time (which the road can now better handle), but the period when the most congestion is experienced is shortened by this same act. That’s what easing congestion is about – and what seems to have not occurred at Karo Drive.
The other claim by NZTA/WCC over Karo Drive is that it would reduce the traffic around the quays so that we could have ‘beautiful’ pedestrian-friendly boulevards there instead – better connecting the city to its waterfront playground. A bit difficult to argue that this has been achieved either!
Vote:March 20th, 2013 at 11:30 am
somewhatthoughtful – did you survey people on your bus ride to work?
“They truly (like I and most NZ’ers seem to) believe you’re wrong to prioritise road building ahead of PT”
The majority of NZers prefer to use private transport, and do just that. Its staggering to suggest otherwise, when the proof of it stares you in the face every time you step outside! It’s a very strong car culture that we have, for better or worse.
Sometimes facts just get in the way of a good argument I guess.
Vote:March 20th, 2013 at 11:47 am
Its just weasel words… the difference between “opposing” and “not supporting”
Vote:We all know the anti-road agenda of the Greens by now. We should have huge wind turbines on top of each city bus, so it generates even more power the faster it goes. Genius.
March 20th, 2013 at 12:02 pm
They support Project Lifesaver, which delivers 80% of the benefits of the Puhoi Wellsford holiday highway toll road, at a fraction of the cost:
Do I get a chocolate fish now DPF?
[DPF: Almost.
It's like me saying have they ever supported lower taxes, and when the Govt proposes lowering taxes, they say don't lower them that much.
You get a partial fish!]
Vote:March 20th, 2013 at 12:08 pm
Project Lifesaver is not a new road, it is safety measures on an existing road. It’s also in the same boat as the Kapiti Expressway example that labrator brought up – they only support it because they oppose a bigger and better one.
Vote:March 20th, 2013 at 12:13 pm
gazzmaniac – the project based on a bypass of Warkworth, where most of the congestion occurs. It is a roading project in any case so I still get my chocolate fish.
Vote:March 20th, 2013 at 12:30 pm
I support the giving of campit a carob fish. This will both be cheaper and a more effective spend than DPF’s proposed chocolate fish.
Vote:March 20th, 2013 at 12:30 pm
Again, they only support it because they don’t want the bigger road.
Vote:March 20th, 2013 at 12:31 pm
I thought the greens wanted to ban chocolate fish, since they contain too much sugar?
Vote:March 20th, 2013 at 12:32 pm
lazza
I had this conversation with Jeanette Fitzsimmons a few years back.
First, she drives from her spacious farm with only two occupants to Auckland. When you multiply the per-person space she occupies by the world population, there isn’t enough land on the planet for everyone.
Second, she flies to Wellington. I asked why she didn’t take the Northerner train, but apparently she makes enough sacrifices to her family to justify flying. Fair enough, but its funny when she tells everyone else they should use public transport.
Third she takes a taxi or crown car to her residential accommodation. I told her used a motorbike which was very good according to her since all those folk using nasty SUV’s clog up the road. I did ask her about why the school holiday traffic phenomenon occurred and whether she thought everyone with children simply stopped work for every school holiday but that didn’t fly very well with her for some reason. Anyway I did some wee tests. One day I roughly counted all the vehicles I passed on my left while on the motorway (yes I lane-split), then doubled it. It came to about 800. Those are the cars I overtook, mind, not all the cars that commute. The next day I tried to count the SUV-type vehicles that were not obviously commercial-oriented. I think I got to about 50. It happened that school holidays started about then so the following week I again went to count the cars I overtook. I got to about 50 because the traffic was so light.
She then walks to work. This is the funny bit. She was proudly saying that she “chooses to live” within walking distance to work (parliament). When I reminded her that it was the taxpayer than enabled that choice, and that very few could afford either the house price or the rent to live that close she wasn’t very happy. When I extended the argument and asked whether she was suggesting everyone had two properties – one a family home, and another a work bolthole – and wondered about the house price implications of everyone doing that my dialog with her effectively stopped.
Hope that helps, lazza!
Vote:March 20th, 2013 at 12:43 pm
The Luddites only support dirt roads for carts hauled by oxen.
Vote:The comrades are determined to send NZ back to the 11th century.
March 20th, 2013 at 12:46 pm
Presumably the wind turbines that they intend to carpet our land with will need lots of service roads. No problem there I guess
Vote:March 20th, 2013 at 1:00 pm
Green spokesperson Robyn Malcolm supports roads since it gives her something to drive on after she has spent the evening drinking.
Where do I pick up my chocolate fish?
Vote:March 20th, 2013 at 3:44 pm
davidp 1.00pm
Ahh the hobbit hater Malcolm. The green eco terrorists would be very anti you wanting a choc fish. Made of Palm nuts etc. According to them not good form.
Vote:March 20th, 2013 at 7:46 pm
davidp (2,608) Says:
March 20th, 2013 at 1:00 pm
Green spokesperson Robyn Malcolm supports roads since it gives her something to drive on after she has spent the evening drinking.
Where do I pick up my chocolate fish?
—————–
Chocolate fish with Marmite for that!
Vote:March 20th, 2013 at 10:19 pm
In response to Sam above on Karo Drive. Travel time savings at the peaks are in the order of several minutes. Kedgley was keen to say that for long periods time savings were 30 seconds – long periods being 9pm to 6am (it was the minimum travel time savings).
Karo Drive/Inner City Bypass is a creature of the very low levels of road funding in the 1990s as the Nats got to grips with the budget deficit at the time. It was an el cheapo alternative to a proper cut and cover tunnel between the motorway and the Basin Reserve, which was scrapped because of money, although it didn’t help that the Greens opposed it kneejerk style, even though it would have dramatically improved the environment in Te Aro and relieved the waterfront.
Now it makes more sense to deal with the Basin Reserve and tunnel bottlenecks, but the full cut and cover tunnel would still be worth pursuing from an urban amenity point of view (and indeed the tunnel for Buckle Street could be a very small first step towards that). Instead of getting a third of traffic taken out of streets used by pedestrians, cyclists, buses and local traffic, the Greens effectively pushed the then Transit NZ towards a one-way system that just enabled a more efficient traffic flow across town, and bypassed Ghuznee Street.
Of course there has been no induced traffic, despite the scaremongering, because induced traffic is a phenomenon based on mode shift when there is a road upgraded which could encourage people to shift from a parallel equivalent public transport service – a situation which is rare in New Zealand.
oh and “Project Lifesaver” has one new road, a Warkworth Bypass, is more than was ever supported before. So Campit is right, although his quote about “independent Campaign for Better Transport” is a hoot, since it is packed full of Green party members and supporters. It is about as independent as Greenpeace, as it is a ginger group for rabid opposition to private motoring and trucking, and to support any expansion of public transport.
Vote:March 21st, 2013 at 9:36 am
You are completely wrong. The CBT is an incorporated society independent of any political party. Personally I have never been a member of any political party, nor am I likely to in the future. I have no idea what party our members vote for or support. We encourage robust, independent, fact based discussion on our forums and via the Auckland Transport Blog. That is all.
Vote:March 22nd, 2013 at 10:34 pm
Yes, CBT is legally independent and it is simply disingenuous to claim that there isn’t a strong alignment between CBT policies (and people) and the Green Party. It was born out of “Campaign for Public Transport” which shows the true colours of this organisation, which essentially provides support for the strongly leftwing environmentalist philosophy of opposing new road capacity, supporting any measures to tax and regulate private road transport and road freight, supporting any measures to subsidise public transport and railways. It is a ginger group that is modally biased, and completely uninterested in principles of economic efficiency or user pays, but rather has a long list of pet projects that it advocates regardless of whether the people who will use them pay for them. I’d be curious if CBT would EVER advocate massive subsidies for flights to certain destinations or international shipping services, or trucks where there aren’t railway lines. No, because they don’t fit the basic ideology.
The term “better transport” conceals that it is:
1. About land transport only, CBT is virtually silent on air and sea modes.
2. “Better” never means improved personal mobility by car, although patently the car has unlocked enormous opportunities for people, otherwise they wouldn’t have moved wholesale to own cars over the past generation or two.
3. “Better” almost never means freight travelling by the mode that minimises costs to users and taxpayers.
4. “Better” almost never means building a new road or expanding road capacity.
5. “Better” almost always means more public transport subsidies, more public transport services.
6. “Better” almost never means road pricing to reflect infrastructure costs and demand/supply, but rather to penalise hated modes.
CBT’s modal view is obvious:
- Cars bad
- Trucks bad
- Buses good
- Trains really good
- Walking and cycling good
To be truly evidence based there would be a view that actually ALL modes are useful, and that the most sustainable solution is for people to pay for what they use, including paying when capacity is scarce.
Vote: