Aucklanders’ views on transport
The NZ Herald online asked their readers for their views on how to solve Auckland’s transport problems. Overwhelmingly they want more and better public transport ahead of more and more roads. Surprise surprise. Someone should tell the government.
Bookmark to:
February 28th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
They also asked their views on smacking and were heavily opposed to Sue Bradfords bill.
jh
February 28th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Yep, which if it represents a real majority (and I don’t know the answer to that) puts us in a difficult position. We believe that it is a basic human right to live free from violence, and that’s what Sue’s bill is about.
So our approach to dealing with this is to take our bill to parliament to let the people’s elected representatives make the decision after an informed debate (hopefully). One of the good things about sect 59 is that there has been a vigorous public debate which has involved their reps in parliament. What else do you think we should have done except put forward our ideas and try to convince the people’s reps that they are good ideas? You might not agree with it but surely that is the right way to do it. Obviously we don’t have a perfect democracy but nor is it completely undemocratic…
On public transport, I don’t agree with the govt’s limited public transport funding and use the public support for our position (there are polls on the issue which I don’t have in front of me right now) to try to push our agenda. We may not win because the roading lobby is very powerful and is well connected but we will give it a go.
February 28th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Smacking bill was badly named- it should have been called the ‘child beating bill’.
As regards transport- look at similar cities of Auckland’s size, say Perth? Just put in a fantastic new rail system which is a huge success.
I do wonder how many councillors/politicians are connected with the roading contractors. Could be a nice bit of investigative journalism there…
February 28th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
UK Kiwi
While you are at it why not check out how may of the politicians who support Bradford’s smacking bill are really communist sympathisers whose real aim is for the state to control our kids.
Why is it that the Greens see anybody with differing ideas as part of a great conspiracy?.
February 28th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
er BB, you are surely talking about yourself here. You’re the one who sees anyone with different views to yourself as “hard left” or “communist”.
Can you provide some evidence, some references, for your opinion that the Greens see anyone with differing ideas to them as part of a conspiracy. Can you? Anything? Go on! Put up or shut up!
February 28th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
UK, it was the media who named it the anti-smacking bill, we named it the repeal of section 59 bill.
(P.S. BB this is not me saying there is a conspiracy)
February 28th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Stuey
Sure, have a look at any number of the threads concerning the global warming theory, any (and I do mean any) link or research arguing that climate change is not man made is automatically accused of being funded by Exxon.
It is the same with the roding issue, some Greens just cannot seem to deal with the fact that not all Kiwis share their doom and gloom, it is almost as if the have convinced themselves that the reason the rest of us are not concerned about this issue is because we are being brainwashed by big business or dare I say it…..EXXON.
As they say Stuey truth is the first victim of any war, have a look at this thread for example, Russel has written it in such a fashion that would suggest over 75% of all Aucklanders want public transport when that is not the case at all.
The truth is that the vast majority of people in NZ want better roading, you may not like or want that but most of us do.
You (the Greens) need to do a far better job in selling your message to the public, the first thing you could do is to tell the truth.
February 28th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Big Bruv -
Congratulations - you actually got the numbers right. An independent survey conducted 8 months ago revealed that 75% of Aucklanders wanted at least half of all transport expenditure spent on Public Transport.” Check out the results at:
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/other10010.html
I don’t understand why transport spending does not reflect the wishes of the people who are directly affected. That is, if Aucklanders want more money spent on public transport (and the results of numerous surveys suggest that they do) why shouldn’t it happen? Conversely, people in rural areas and small urban regions can spend money on roads.
It seems like the Greens have the answers when it comes to transport: rail where rail corridors currently exist and busways where they don’t. I suspect that when the full Northern Busway comes online it will be overwhelmed by demand. It might even come close to making an operating profit in its first year.
Would a successful Northern Busway be enough for you to vote Green Big Bruv? Hell you can even drive your hybrid car to the bus station if you so desire ;).
March 1st, 2007 at 1:15 am
mmm, OK BB I often enjoy your comments but surely this is silly.
You say: “why not check out how may of the politicians who support Bradford’s smacking bill are really communist sympathisers whose real aim is for the state to control our kids.”
Which to me sounds like a conspracy theory - ie there are all these politicians with a secret communist agenda for the state to control kids.
And then you say: “Why is it that the Greens see anybody with differing ideas as part of a great conspiracy?”
Well, you may well accuse us of that, but, regardless of our guilt, surely you are guilty of exactly that in the previous statement? You are saying that the politicians who disagree with your view of s.59 repeal bill are part of great conspiracy. Which is a view that you are perfectly entitled to hold but if you want anyone to take it seriously you will have to provide a bit of evidence for what is a pretty wild accusation.
After all we can provide a fair bit of evidence around the role of Exxon in funding the climate change denial lobby for example.
March 1st, 2007 at 3:44 am
“I don’t understand why transport spending does not reflect the wishes of the people who are directly affected. That is, if Aucklanders want more money spent on public transport (and the results of numerous surveys suggest that they do) why shouldn’t it happen? ”
In fact the current transport funding system is defined in the Land Transport Management Act which was written in very close collaboration with the Greens, and passed by votes from the Greens. Land Transport New Zealand uses the NZ Transport Strategy, written in close collaboration with the Greens, as a key instrument in its funding decisions.
If the Greens don’t like the outcomes, then take Land Transport NZ to judicial review, but don’t criticise the funding framework - you helped design it and voted for it! Remember also that the funder is driven by what bids it receives. It recommends proportions of funding for roads and public transport based on the bids it receives from local authorities and Transit, and I know Land Transport NZ goes out of its way to fund public transport projects.
The main limitation on funding more comes down to:
- Poor quality bids from regional councils (Land Transport NZ has to demonstrate to its board that a project will deliver net benefits in meeting the NZ Transport Strategy objectives and is economically efficient, if it doesn’t it would be breaking the law in funding it, regardless of how “nice” it seems);
- Unwillingness by regional councils to raise rates to contribute the local share (which they must provide otherwise what accountability is there for local authorities spending central government money? You can have councils elected promising to spend money they are not accountable for raising. Transit is different as it IS accountable to central government and the Minister of Transport can sack the board, determine its statement of intent and what outputs are wanted from Transit).
A bit more honesty about a system that the Greens signed up to would be helpful. Do you want that radically changed, if so why did you support the LTMB? If you think it is ok but being operated wrong, then get LTNZ judicially reviewed? if you think councils are performing badly, then lobby them? If you think councils should have more instruments to raise local share funding, then argue for that.
March 1st, 2007 at 8:48 am
BB -
I’ve used Auckland public transport.
Being a Wellingtonian, I just assumed that what existed would be adequate to my needs, staying on the North Shore. It took me all day to do one trip there and back across the bridge, changing buses, heading to South Auckland, and then returning after an hour’s meeting. No wonder Aucklanders complain!
The service is so lacking in basic consideration fo rthe needs of transport users, and seems to have been strung together on the assumption that it’s not there to get anyone to a job/school on time. So poor people can just wait longer, eh?
Along with all the other status-fueled “policy discussion” that goes on in the greater Auckland Region, this is one topic that makes me glad I’m not one of the 1 in 4 NZ’ers living north of the Bombay Hills
Don’t get me started on the broadband service wars….
March 1st, 2007 at 11:42 am
LB, you raise some very very good points. The first thing is that while we may have had an influence on the legislation we did not get everything we wanted. We made it better than it would’ve been but such is the compromises of politics we didn’t make it as friendly to the environment as we wished. It is still the case that if you want to build a state highway through your local park then Transit will come up with all the funding but if you want a railway line they won’t. For this reason local councils aften do not even bother making bids for funding public transport capital investment. They know if they go for a big expensive road they are more likely to succeed so why bother doing all the work to prepare a case.
I can’t comment on the legality of what Transit did.
March 1st, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Tried another train trip yesterday in Auckland. Another disaster. Drunk male on the train who would not stop drinking, was abusive to passengers and guard. Refused to stop smoking. Was finally persuaded to leave the train but prevented the elderly guard from re-boarding the train. Meaning train was stuck for over 30 minutes. Chaos up and down the line. Police were called but never came. We went out to help the guard but were told not to interfere as the drunk would have us up for assault.
Passengers need to feel safe on public transport and extra police will need to be employed to control the rising incidents (my more travelled fellow passengers assure me this is a frequent occurance) of disorderly behaviour.
Always joke my alarm system on my car is a South Auckland Special as it locks the doors as soon as it is in motion. At least in my car I dont have to put up with unsocial behaviour.
Is there a central plan for the proposed Auckland Public transport system? Where will the tram/train and bus lanes be? Where are the stops? Seems to me we want a system but we have no designs.
How can a public system be costed if there is no design?
How can we get enthused about a system that has no design and no costing.
Sure dont build anymore roads but get a plan for the public transport infastructure together so we can see what we are getting.
And include in the proposal extra staffing for transport police. It needs to be safe.
Not to worried about building more roads. Alternative, almost free transport is just around the corner in compressed air powered vehicles so we still need those roads.
March 1st, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Russel
As it happens I do not think that all politicians who support Bradford’s bill are communists, I do think that some are, but not all.
What I do believe is that this bill is all about the continuation of Comrade Klarks wicked social agenda and frankly I am disappointed that the Greens have allowed themselves to be used by the corrupt Labour party in this way.
I made that statement as an example of how silly and annoying it can be when well researched evidence is put up against the global warming theory and it is immediately shot down as being funded by Exxon.
Those who are so quick to rubbish this evidence as Exxon funded are the very same people who tell me I should read and believe the links or data supplied by Green party supporters, I am encouraged to (blindly) believe that their data is the only true and independent research done on the subject and that the author of that data is totally without bias.
You cannot have it both ways Russel.
March 1st, 2007 at 8:03 pm
re: compressed air cars, are they really going to work (economically)? They have been promised to be ‘just around the corner’ for years. Every few months another media outlet does a story on them. For example, here was the BBC’s championing of them from 2002:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2281011.stm
and then what happened? da wikipedia article say: “they have been said to be going into production “soon” since at least 1998. In Wired magazine, May 1999, production was stated to start in 2000.”
BB, I disagree that every single time someone posted an anti AGW link that it was dismissed as being funded by Exxon, without any attempt to rebut the content of the link. I know that I have argued against the content/science of the link several times without mentioning any funding conspiracy. I know there have been some commenters who have just said ‘that is a junk resource’ but that is not all of us, nor all the times that people have posted sceptic links.
For example, here are three of mine: about a Nigel Lawson opinion piece … about the hockeystick … about the hockey stick & “warming stopped in 1998″ - no mention of funding conspiracy there, and a genuine attempt to argue the science case.
March 1st, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Stuey
Just out of interest what is your opinion on the thoroughly discredited Al Gore doco?
If we are going to be teaching (brainwashing) our kids about (the supposed causes of) climate change should we not at least put both sides of the story without the blatant half truth and lies evident in Gores film?
March 1st, 2007 at 9:46 pm
I have no opinion on the film, I haven’t seen it. I’d like you to provide some references on the fact that it has been “thoroughly discredited” though.
March 1st, 2007 at 9:58 pm
big bruv,
Today I was talking to a woman I have known for a long time, and she also spoke about hearing of:
“(the supposed causes of) climate change should we not at least put both sides of the story without the blatant half truth and lies evident in Gores film”.
By the time we finished our conversation I had learnt about where she had got that information, and she had learnt that her sources and their reasons for saying what they did were not as credible as she had been led to believe.
I have agreed to give her some straightforward, easy to read, well verified
sources so that she can get a reliable second opinion.
Maybe we should swap notes?
March 1st, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Rather than discussing a movie, Bro, which after all is “infotainment” at best, if you’re up for/to it, why don’t we discuss the IPCC report (here’s the executive summary)
We could discuss what part of the science you don’t understand, or don’t agree with.
After that, we could discuss what needs to be done about global warming.
Go on, I dare ya. I’m bored, now that Mouldwarp seems to have crawled under his virtual bed whimpering (I think it was Exxon Mobil acknowledging global warming that finished him off).
March 2nd, 2007 at 12:00 am
Russel, fair call, though I recall that the Greens wrote and edited substantial parts of the current transport legislation and had support from the Prime Minister’s office for its position. You got most of what you wanted and sung the praises of it at the time.
I take issue with your point - for starters who is “you” with this statement?
“It is still the case that if you want to build a state highway through your local park then Transit will come up with all the funding but if you want a railway line they won’t.”
Transit is not the funder, it must apply to Land Transport NZ for the funding for a project - the railway is the same, except the government has separate special funding for the railway. What you are ignoring is that almost all of Land Transport NZ’s funding comes from road users, so road users pay for roads. State railway funding does not come from rail users, it comes from taxpayers whether they use rail or not. Your key point though comes from the fact that roads have many varied users, cars, trucks and buses. There is no modal substitution for most freight (short distances or remote from railways), and realistically the mode shift achievable without road pricing is always going to be less than 5%, so there are huge benefits in many road projects. Having said that, until Labour went on its road building binge, road projects routinely were not funded under the old funding system - Transmission Gully would be dead and buried under the old legislation, as would at least 2 projects I know of in Auckland. By diminishing economic efficiency as a criteria, you have opened the door to inefficient road building as well as public transport spending. Don’t forget, a lot of public transport proposals are money down the drain.
“For this reason local councils aften do not even bother making bids for funding public transport capital investment. They know if they go for a big expensive road they are more likely to succeed so why bother doing all the work to prepare a case.”
A little bit of advice, they are not the same councils Russel. Regional councils are responsible for public transport, they do not build, fund or operate roads. Territorial authorities are responsible for local roads, they do co-ordinate but they are quite separate. You’ll also struggle to find any councils that have bid for funding for a big expensive road in recent years - most councils bid for local road funding that is mostly maintenance and small works that I don’t think anyone would oppose (improved signage, redesign intersections, bridge replacements). Most big road building is Transit driven, which in fact is Ministerially driven - Ministers including the PM wanted a lot of big roads built in Auckland in the past few years, Transit is doing what it’s been told.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
If we are talking about the proportion opposed to Sue Bradford’s bill, has anyone polled the children who will be most affected by it? Why should their views be discounted? Just because they are not allowed to vote on complex issues on the (debatable) grounds that they cannot understand them, this is no reason why they cannot have a say on something they would understand only too well, and something that directly affects them.
March 5th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
wrong thread i think kiore..but if you substitute ‘roading’ for ’sue bradford..’
and ‘motorists’ for ‘children..’
it works..!
it’s sorta a generic protest..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 5th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Neat one phil!
March 5th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Russel Says:
February 28th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Yep, which if it represents a real majority (and I don’t know the answer to that) puts us in a difficult position. We believe that it is a basic human right to live free from violence, and that’s what Sue’s bill is about.
————————————————–
Your right it, is about (childrens) right to live free from violence but it is also about criminalising parents who smack, social engineering, the sloppy use of language, poor presentation of arguments .
I think some /many rules have been broken here. The issue comes down to some key points which can be verified (or argued over) by social scientists, or presented as such and the Greens conclusions should then follow from that. Instead it has pretty much been presented as “I’m an expert, I’m out there where it’s all at and this is the way it is”.
BJ is trying to validate some of Sue’s claims and isn’t having much luck.
Why did all Labour MP’s vote “yes”?. That’s democracy?
If there is one thing that saves the human race it is that we improve our public decision making.
jh