Feeling that perhaps I am one of those people he criticises as ‘people who in the one breath chant “more jobs, more jobs” and then in the next breath say “but don’t do that, or that, or that”, I thought I would ask Mr Joyce a few questions about why he and the National Government are saying ‘we won’t’ to a prosperous and sustainable Aotearoa.

Mr Joyce criticises those who say ‘you can’t explore for that there’. In actual fact, those of us who are deeply concerned about the Government’s risky ‘drill it, mine it’ agenda for our country are not saying ‘you can’t’ without providing alternatives that will both keep our valuable clean green image intact, and provide a more  sustainable economic path for Aotearoa.

As the Greens have been pointing out for a while, if we were to secure just 1 per cent of the global renewable energy market in the next five years, we’d create a $5.8 billion industry with 60,000 more green jobs. Short term risky exploration ventures will not create a long term stable economy for New Zealand. And with the Government boasting in its recent briefing to incoming Minister of Economic Development that we have one of the lowest royalty rates in the world, how can we take their claims of the economic benefits to New Zealand seriously?

So Mr Joyce, why won’t you and your Government commit to a modern and sustainably prosperous economic plan for Aotearoa, when the opportunities to do so are so viable?

Mr Joyce criticises those who say ‘you can’t build that there’. I wonder if he is referring to the vast expansion of new motorways planned which he himself presided over while Transport Minister? In the recent briefing to the incoming Minister of Transport, data revealed a transport budget blowout of $ 1 billion is expected as oil prices remain high. Is this smart economic planning? As Julie Anne Genter, fellow Green party MP and transport spokesperson said in a blog last week ‘As oil prices rise, people turn to buses, trains, walking and cycling, but this Government is planning to blow the budget on uneconomic motorways’

So Mr Joyce, why won’t you and your Government invest in sustainable transport options for Aotearoa giving Kiwis real choices which will be better for our economy and contribute to healthier lifestyles and a cleaner environment?

As it’s a large part of the Minister’s economic plan, he is also no doubt referring to those of us who criticise asset sales as the ‘you can’ts’. As my colleague Russel Norman revealed on Wednesday, the Government is planning to sell off assets which are earning four times more than the cost of capital tied up in them, some of which, according to the Prime Minister himself, have returned 18.5% shareholder profit over the last five years. Why won’t the Government implement smart economic decisions like a temporary earthquake levy for Christchurch, or a capital gains tax which would unleash capital to be invested in innovative productive Kiwi businesses?

So I ask My Joyce, rather than focusing on the ‘can’ts’ why won’t you and your Government focus on real solutions like renewable energy, green-tech, or smart transport that would deliver for Kiwis.

Yesterday I took apart my bike and crammed it into the small rental car of a friend attending the festival. We drove back to Dunedin airport, where incredibly helpful people gave us materials to pack up the bike. Upon arrival in Wellington, I unpacked it, put it back together (with the assistance of friends I ran into in the baggage claim), and cycled back around the bays. I was slightly surprised and very proud that it worked properly!  A half hour bike ride now seems impossibly short.

The festival itself was a great success. Sunday was a community open day in the town of Mataura, where I (and hopefully quite a few locals) learned a great deal. The star of the weekend was a fifth generation Queensland farmer named Sid Plant, who has direct experience of a mine moving in and destroying a farming community. His community of 64 families has dwindled to 11, as the noise, dust, and other negative impacts of the mine have driven people to sell off and move out. He said the land would take at least a million years to return to its pre-mined state. His story was poignant, and actually brought tears to my eyes as he played a song written about the sad fate of his town Acland.

We are up against something big. The powerful corporate interests that stand to make a lot of money from selling fossil fuels, especially as liquid fuels and fertiliser become more expensive, have money and influence on their side. Local and central government tend to be optimistic and enthusiastic about the potential to increase growth, and reluctant or unable to challenge the proposals. The public are busy trying to make ends meet and raise their families. They usually just want to avoid conflict, and would like to trust in the professional competence of those proposing the mine and/or those charged with regulating activities. Given the financial challenges facing many families, survival of their nearest and dearest is paramount, and they may not feel they have the luxury of protecting an abstract entity called The Environment.

For decades the argument has been that there is a trade-off between prosperity and environmental protection. It was right there in the answers to the poll on the Southland Times website yesterday. It essentially asked: Do you agree with the protestors that coal mining will be bad for the environment, or do you think we should go ahead because it will make us rich? When it is posed as this kind of dichotomy, it is easy for people to believe the Government’s rhetoric about a ‘balanced’ approach — just a little more environmental degradation for a little more economic growth won’t hurt us.

The green paradigm shift is the recognition that we don’t have to trade off our health and well-being for a little more economic growth. All the additional fossil fuels we burn from now on will only make it harder for us to transition to an economy that is not dependent on fossil fuels, and will worsen climate change. We have the opportunity to do things differently, and in a way that benefits us all.

It may not be good for mining companies, who have a mindless and ethic-free imperative to return a profit by doing the same old thing. But companies are not people. The people working for mining companies can do something different, and possibly much more enjoyable. We need government and regulation to step in and create the incentive for new activities that won’t result in catastrophic climate change, that won’t threaten our essential farmland, and that will build up (rather than destroy) our communities.

We must start with education and outreach, listening and learning. The more people involved in the conversation, the more robust our collective decisions about the future of our economy will be. As someone said at a closing meeting of the festival, a tiny flame as been kindled in the community of Mataura. I look forward to watching it grow.

This is how the story begins.

I left beautiful Karitane this morning, after an incredible breakfast that included gluten free pancakes made by my exceedingly generous hosts. The morning was cool and overcast, perfect conditions for cycling, and still very beautiful. The ocean was a still blue grey mirror reflecting the sky, with hints of light coming in through on the horizon under the layer of cloud.

The Coast Road had a lot more ups and downs than I expected. It was perfect for interesting cycling, but I was running late to meet fellow cyclists at the top of Mt Cargill. I note that when you’re not pressed for time, cycling is nearly always enjoyable as long as you travel at a good sustainable pace. Many people find it difficult because they try to travel faster than is comfortable for them. I did that for a while and then resigned myself to being a bit late, and started enjoying the ride.

The journey up Mt Cargill took me just under 90 minutes, during which I saw about three cars and one heavily-laden German cycle tourist who was pushing his bike. More stunning nature, lots of endorphins, how could I not feel fantastic when I reached the top? A cyclist and Green Party member had come up (and part way down) the hill to meet me, which made the last few climbs even easier.

In less than 20 minutes we were down the other side in Dunedin, checking out the bike lanes on North Road with fellow cycle advocate, Dr Hank Weiss, who researches injury prevention and rides a well kitted-out electric bike, with room for a passenger or cargo on the back.

We went through town and met up briefly with Metiria, and then spontaneously joined Hank for an afternoon presentation/workshop on an innovative road safety curriculum being developed for school kids by teachers and the NZTA. It was heartening to meet the committed and talented people working in these areas, in all different roles. I’ve no doubt that this work is a small but important step in changing the transport culture we have in NZ.

Unfortunately, I do believe that culture follows infrastructure to a great degree, and that as long as we continue developing infrastructure that is designed to increase the speed and flow of vehicles, innovative educational intervention will be unlikely to have a huge impact.

We see examples of the misguided and unintended consequences of traffic engineering principles all around us. Ever find it hard to keep to the speed limit on the motorway or a wide empty arterial? Roads are deliberately designed to have sight lines and take high speeds to be ‘safer’. But because they make you feel comfortable travelling at a higher speed, subconsciously you will tend to speed up.

Increasing the speed and flow of vehicles is also the quickest way to discourage people from walking or cycling. It feels unsafe, it can be very unpleasant, and it usually creates environments that are long and boring. Have you noticed that you can walk 20 minutes down a street full of people and shops, like Lambton Quay, and not even notice? Whereas walking along a suburban arterial, bordered by car parks, strip malls, surrounded by noisy cars and trucks, where you’re the only person walking feels like you’ve been crossing a desert for hours after about 10 minutes?

The psychological reaction to different urban environments is very real. Jan Gehl reports on some of the research in this area in books like Life Between the Buildings. This impact of urban form influences our choices about how we travel, and where we want to be. Dunedin could do a lot better by prioritising people in the town centre and environs. There would be economic benefits for the city and for shop keepers, as well as a reduced road toll.

I stayed too long at the workshop, and the weather turned for a while. A strong westerly wind was blowing and it was starting to rain, and it was after 4pm. Looking at my options for getting out of town, I succumbed to safety and time concerns and got a ride to the end of the motorway.

Good thing I did, it was nearly 2 hours straight into the westerly wind, along the beautiful, empty side roads like Henley Rd, to Waihola. Slow going, but the sun came back and I was happy to be away from the big trucks on the highway, and just paced myself.

Tomorrow (Friday) is my biggest challenge day. Well over 100km to Gore, and strong headwinds are forecast. If the winds are too strong, the distance may be too ambitious for one day. I’ll do my best, though!

Next post: Day 7 — Serenity to accept that I cannot change

There’s something I want to say to all of you. It’s a little personal.

It’s not your fault.

It’s not your fault that it’s difficult, inconvenient and expensive to take the bus or train most of the time. It’s not your fault that it’s difficult and frightening to walk, cycle or send your kids to school on their own.

It’s not your fault that the goods you buy or sell are mostly moved by truck. And you can’t change the transport system on your own through your consumer choices.

But you CAN tell the Government that you want a smarter transport policy. One that will make it easier for you (or others) to spend less money on cars and petrol. One that will stimulate economic development in our town centres. One that will reduce the road toll, and reduce our collective carbon emissions. One that will make it possible to travel between some cities on a train, or even a bike, if you choose.

We can do this, and the Government can SAVE money. And you don’t have to stop driving if that’s the best option for you. (Though you may have pay a little more directly for parking and fuel emissions, but you’ll find it easier to find a park and you’ll get stuck in fewer traffic jams).

That’s my message, just wanted to make sure it was coming through clearly…

Today was a fantastic day. I cycled the 80-some km from Timaru to Oamaru with the wind at my back. The highway signs informed me it is called “The Strawberry Trail”. I stopped for an excellent lunch at a cafe that’s just over halfway to Oamaru, at the turn-off to Waimate. They even had gluten free pancakes and organic museli! But I opted for a salmon frittata.

I passed a few fellow travelers on loaded touring bikes, both going the opposite way. Liz, from San Francisco, has been cycling all over the South Island for the past 5 weeks, and this is her last week before heading home. She’s loved her trip, but finds the trucks overtake uncomfortably closely and the shoulder of the road is significantly bumpier than the road itself.

Shortly before arriving in Oamaru, I saw the typical road signs that had been informing me just about every kilometer how far it was to Oamaru and Timaru, but something was different. These signs had the distance to the South Pole and the Equator — and I was just over halfway. The 45th parallel. Pretty sweet. It’s the sort if subtle thing one might miss if not on a bicycle.

Tonight I cycled into the heart of old Oamaru and watched the little blue penguins come in from their day at sea. Unbelievably cute. The town has a well preserved and very charming historic quarter, but typically the main street is mainly oriented to cars and car parking, and development stretches out thin along the state highway. Still, there’s a bike lane the whole way and it’s well lit. It’s got potential.

The cycling seems to be getting easier (knock on wood), though everyone I meet warns me about the big hills into Dunedin, and I am starting to worry about the 75km I have planned for Thursday. I may yet have to revise the itinerary down a bit.

Tomorrow, I leave the highway for a while to cycle by the sea, and then I head up into the hills. Eek…!

Next post: Day 5 — Serendipity and Community

So I decided to take the train from Picton to Christchurch, a journey that can be arranged in conjunction with the Interislander ferry from Wellington. And to my pleasant surprise, the two modes are quite well integrated. It’s only a 4minute walk off the ferry to the train station, and you can arrange to have your luggage transferred for you upon check-in the ferry terminal.

Bicycle facilities on the ferry are sorely lacking, and I am hard pressed to understand why. You pay extra to bring a bike, and there is plenty of room for a nice rack in a clean and well lit area, which would hardly cost much. I was told to walk to the end of the car storage area, with no instruction how or where I should secure my bike. I saw another bike already tethered to some sort of railing ensconcing barrels of what appeared to be motor oil. The ground was wet and oily, and there were a few random ropes that I used to tie my bike to a filthy railing.

My beautiful bicycle was treated better on the train, which has quite new and very comfortable carriages. The luggage operator expertly secured my bike with a small, new bungee cord to one of the luggage racks. But there isn’t much room for growth in bike/train tourism as they would not easily be able to accommodate more than a few at one time.

The Picton-Christchurch rail service is lovely and efficient, with some of the most stunning views of the Kaikoura coast. I highly recommend taking this train. At about 5 hours, it competes well with driving for time, and is far more comfortable than a car, as you can read, move around, and enjoy the gorgeous scenery.

The only problem with the alternative journey from Wellington to Christchurch is it’s comparable in price to flying, if not more expensive, even though it takes far longer. How could that be? Surely an airplane is more expensive to buy and operate than a small train, and one would expect the ferry to be more cost effective for passengers only.

I suspect the answer lies in the relatively low demand for rail, which may have roots in unintentional subsidies to other modes, and the asset stripping that occurred when the rail line was privatised. I’m also curious about subsidies or initial state investment that enabled airports to get up and running, though that merits more research in the NZ context.

If externalities such as climate pollution are included, the ferry and train could become more attractive, despite the longer journey. As demand for these slower but lower carbon modes increased, there would be more opportunities for services (making it more convenient), fixed costs could be distributed over a larger pool of consumers, we would see potentially more competition with the ferries, and consequently relative prices may fall, or at least have more variation as airline tickets do.

What do you think?

Arriving in Christchuch I was a short ride from Riccarton, where I am staying — a neighbouhood well endowed with bike shops, outdoor gear outlets, and cheap tasty Vietnamese food. Everything a girl could dream of, except the surplus of big empty car parks behind the shops of course.

All in all, it was a great day and journey. I have some photos to illustrate the post, but I may have to upload them later.

Now I just hope the wind stays a nor’easter or dies down, or it’s going to be a hard slog to Ashburton tomorrow!

Next Post: Day 2 — The windy Canterbury Plains

Here is a copy of two of my questions, which are identical to the rest except they deal with different motorways.

7354: Gareth Hughes to the Minister of Transport (11 Oct 2011): What is the most recent cost estimate for the whole of the Puhoi to Wellsford road of national significance project, as well as for each constituent part?

7353: Gareth Hughes to the Minister of Transport (11 Oct 2011): What is the most recent cost estimate for the whole of the Puhoi to Wellsford road of national significance project, as well as for each constituent part?

For those of you who don’t know about QWAs, they are a tool that MPs have to hold Ministers to account. We can ask Ministers written questions on any reasonable topic, relating to their portfolios. Legally, if the House is sitting the Minister is obliged to respond to our question within 7 working days.

That’s the theory. In practise, of course, Ministers are often very busy and don’t answer all their QWAs on time. The Minister of Transport, has a particularly bad track record. Also, unlike most Ministers, he seems to treat QWAs as a game where the goal is to avoid giving any meaningful information.

In this particular case, the Minister actually never responded to my QWAs at all because he was late and when the House rose for the election all QWAs are cancelled.

I didn’t want to make a big deal out of this because I appreciated the Minister was dealing with the Rena clean up at the time. I am sure we will certainly be asking for this information once the House sits again in February.

After all, there have been rumours that the cost of the Wellington Northern Corridor will far exceed expectations and I wouldn’t be surprised if the same was true of the second section of Puhoi to Wellsford due to the challenges of the terrain up there (as reported by the Herald). The business case for these motorways will be even weaker if their cost increase.

However, even if we can ask again for this information in February I think it shows the Minister’s disdain for democracy and open government that he didn’t bother to give us this crucial information before the election.

There was another blog post about the Minister’s undemocratic practises recently at the Standard. This covered how the Minister of Transport recently decided (in secret, against the advice of several government departments) to try and restrict the powers of the Auckland Council to be involved in transport  planning.

Instead he wants those powers to be devolved to the (unelected) board of Auckland Transport, a CCO. What’s more, 5 of the 7 board members on Auckland Transport were appointed by the Minister. Auckland Council is fighting back against this decision and I hope they’ll be successful.

Over the next 3 years we will keep up the fight to try and keep the government’s transport  planning and funding decisions transparent and accountable. But I think it’s going to be an uphill battle. What do you think?

National’s transport plan quite simply ignores Aucklanders. It’s a 1950s-era policy that continues disproportionate spending on a few uneconomic motorways, including the Puhoi to Wellsford ‘Holiday Highway,’ and promises no new funding for high quality trains and buses. It’s light on detail and heavy on tarmac.

On Labour’s, I welcome their change in direction down the right road with their announcement that they would fund half the CBD Rail Link.

However, the Greens would go further and would fund 60% of the CBD Rail Link and allow the Council alternative funding mechanisms like a congestion charge, land betterment tax and parking reform to raise their share. The Greens are still the best bet for smart transport solutions for Auckland.

The Rugby World Cup opening showed clearly the need to increase Auckland’s rail system’s capacity — right now if a train stops in Britomart tunnel it literally jams the whole rail system for hours. The link is smart and would double the capacity of the rail network, transform the CBD and allow further developments like links to the Airport and North Shore in the future. By cutting spending on uneconomic motorways, such as the Puhoi to Wellsford ‘Holiday Highway’ and the Wellington Northern Corridor, we can free up enough funds to pay for urgently needed rail projects like this and light rail to connect Wellington.

National Governments stopped progress on this needed piece of infrastructure in the 1950s and the 1970s and the best way to stop them holding Auckland back again in 2011, is to party vote Green.

I think many Kiwis would be shocked to find out Nuclear-Free New Zealand is playing a role in the international nuclear chain but even more so in the aftermath of the Rena tragedy that consenting requirements and response strategies are woefully inadequate.

Both the Prime Minister and right wing blogs are trying to downplay it, as simply ‘Aussie dirt,’ and whilst I acknowledge it is actually more of a toxic hazard than a radiation hazard, the real concerns are the risks to our valuable brand of a spill, contravention of our nuclear-free spirit and apparent lax standards.

Documents released under the Official Information Act show that there is a great deal of confusion surrounding the contingency plans if something goes wrong. While the shipments have been authorised by the Environmental Risk Management Authority, they transhipped between 1996 and 2009 without any approvals from the authority.

The safety procedures appear sketchy at best regarding who is responsible and what is to be done in the event of a radioactive spill. Western Bay of Plenty Harbour Master Jennifer Roberts stated in a 2010 submission to Government that neither the Tauranga Fire Service, nor Port of Tauranga staff, had the equipment and training to detect and deal with a uranium yellowcake spill.

Given the two companies that ship uranium yellowcake through our ports use predominately Flags of Convenience ships we can introduce better regulation for coastal shipping that supports the use of local crews and ships that know New Zealand waters and hazards to minimise risks. Furthermore, we can invest in our emergency maritime services so that they have the capacity and resources to respond quickly if accidents do happen.

I support the use of nuclear science in medicine however I’m proud of our independent nuclear-free position and we think we shouldn’t be part of the nuclear trade given its risks in mining, power and nuclear waste disposal and ultimately its links with nuclear weapons and depleted uranium munitions.

The government is implying that the council is trying to force a particular type of development on Auckland – rather than leaving it up to the market.

It’s ironic the government is saying this when, in fact, Auckland’s sprawl is no accident and has little to do with market forces. Instead it is largely due to successive governments unbalanced transport funding policies which have prioritized motorways above all else and over-regulation by the council.

One regulation that drives sprawling development is minimum parking requirements. Whenever I try to explain what minimum parking requirements are peoples’ eyes glaze over and I can see I’m losing them. So here’s a real life example:

Imagine that you’re a developer and you want to take over one of the car yards on Great North Road and turn it into a 4 story development. This development would consist of say 10 apartments. The apartments are 2 bedroom – your market is couples, singletons and young families.

Your development is 2 minutes from a bus stop on Great North Road (one of the most regular bus services in Auckland) which will get the residents of your apartment into the CBD or to the university in 15 minutes.

It is also 7 minutes walk to the local supermarket, 10 minutes from the Grey Lynn library and doctor’s, and 10 minutes walk to the Kingsland rail station.

And it’s just 5 minutes bike or 20 minutes walk to the restaurants and pubs of Ponsonby and K Road. There are various primary schools in the vicinity and some good high schools a short bus trip away.

In short, this is an incredibly accessible location. Many people living in this area might well choose to live without a car.

Building carparking is expensive so you want to offer resident a choice You will build just a few carparks and offer apartments with a carpark at a higher price. Apartments without a carpark will be cheaper.

But the council declines your resource consent application. They say that by council regulation you are required to provide at least 1 carpark for every apartment in the building (more if it’s a big apartment).

To provide those carparks you’re probably going to have to either a) build an underground basement or b) devote one story of your whole building to carparks.

That drives the cost of your development up immensely. It also means that all the potential buyers for your apartments have to pay a higher price – regardless of whether they want a carpark.

You crunch the numbers and decide your development is not economically viable – instead you decide to look at building some detached town houses in a greenfield site on the fringe of Auckland.

The government likes to talk about cutting needless regulation.  Minimum parking requirements are the type of regulation we need to cut.

New Zealanders often talk about how vibrant and fun Wellington City is compared to our other big New Zealand cities. People don’t know why – they just know they like the Wellington CBD. It has so many cool pubs and cafes. It is fun to walk around. It has such high rates of public transport use.

Well, one of the main reasons is that Wellington City Council got rid of all their minimum parking requirements in their CBD in the 1990s.

Rather than criticizing Auckland Council for trying to create a compact city, central government should be listening to Auckland and encouraging the council to get rid of minimum parking requirements and other planning regulations that encourage car dependency and discourage medium density housing.

Otherwise our hopes of providing affordable accessible housing for the 900,000 people projected to move to Auckland over the next 30 years are very slim indeed.

Normally, I generally don’t encourage people to make form submissions on a topic but because the issue of land transport funding is pretty technical I wanted to make it as easy for people to participate in this process as possible.

The current GPS controls the allocation of $38 billion worth of funds and is incredibly unbalanced towards motorways, so I thought it was important to make New Zealanders aware of that.

I was pretty horrified at how few people made submissions on the 2009-2012 GPS, despite the fact that it affected the distribution of literally billions of dollars of New Zealand taxpayers money.

This time around over 420 people used my form to make submissions. Another 50 also made their own, independent submissions.

However, I was less impressed by reading the summary of submissions because it sounded as if the Minister virtually discarded all these form submissions. I can understand his point that a form submission is probably not as valuable as a unique one. But, I think they should still count for something.

And judging by the changes between the draft and final GPS (very few) he also seems to have disregarded almost every one of the 50 unique submissions that came from the public, or as he likes to call them, “non-stakeholders”.

So who were the stakeholders? They were the 44 businesses and organizations the Minister deemed important enough to consult.

The list of those consulted is revealing. It includes 17 councils, 11 organizations and companies that represent road users or have as a primary focus road construction, just 1 company to represent rail interests (Kiwirail), 1 organization to represent the bus companies (the Bus and Coach Association), and 3 organizations to represent walking and cycling interests.

Not one group that represented the interests of public transport users was included in the stakeholder list, even though the Campaign for Better Transport (which represents bus and train users in Auckland and Waikato) made an unsolicited submission.

This process shows clearly the the Minister’s disregard for public opinion and lack of interest in genuine consultation.

In fact, after a few years in Parliament I’ve begun to wonder why it is that the distribution of the fuel tax is left so much to the control of one Minister with virtually no scrutiny by Parliament or the public.

What do you think? Do you think that there should be more democratic control and oversight of the National Land Transport Fund? And, if so, what do you think is the best way of achieving that?

It’s a deeply worrying situation especially with a severe weather warning issued.

The Government and petroleum industry have gone on the defensive over the speed of the response. When I was in Tauranga over the weekend I detected genuine frustration at the perceived lack of government action and locals were angry that the fine, settled weather was being squandered. A Stuff internet poll of over 4000 people found less than 12% of respondents thought the Government had done a good job so far. Nearly 18% said the response was slow but improving but almost 59% said they had been too slow to act. It’s galling for many given Key moved incredibly fast when it came to an Auckland fanzone and surveillance legislation but not with this environmental crisis.

The slow response should be a wake-up call for New Zealand’s deep-sea oil drilling plans.

The difficulty the Government is having to contain the oil spill from the Rena cargo ship demonstrates the enormous difficulty and expense we would face to contain a catastrophic deep sea oil leak. Given that New Zealand does not even have the local resources to contain the heavy fuel oil from the stranded cargo ship Rena, it is clear we would suffer horrendous environmental and economic consequences if a deep water oil well had a problem, as happened in the exploratory well in the Gulf of Mexico last year. Yet the Government is encouraging deep sea oil drilling: giving tax breaks, as well as subsidies in free geotechnical information to oil companies, and has already granted permits for deep sea oil exploration and drilling.

Obviously an oil well spill and a ship oil leak are two different things but they both put oil into our environment and the Rena demonstrates the challenges a small country faces dealing with an oil spill. Accidents happen and the risk to our clean green brand isn’t worth it.

With bad weather approaching, experts are saying it’s possible the Liberian-flagged ship will break up spilling up to 1700 tonnes of heavy fuel oil and scattering its containers, some containing hazardous materials into the water. This would be catastrophic and our worst marine environmental disaster.

At a time when the world’s eyes are on New Zealand you’d think the Government would be acting decisively. I’d like to acknowledge the hundreds of officials working hard, and volunteers registering for the clean-up, though I am worried that no one has assumed overall responsibility.

There is coordination between the ship owners and the Government, which is great. However, it is important that the public knows who has ultimate responsibility, and for the sake of the environment, that should be the Government. Transport Minister Steven Joyce, has to show some leadership and assume responsibility. It’s a sticky situation and we can’t have the buck passed between Maritime New Zealand, the ship owners, the salvors Svitzer and the Government.

Under the Maritime New Zealand Act the Government has the power to instruct Maritime New Zealand  to take control of the salvage. One of the lessons from the Deep Water Horizons incident in the Gulf of Mexico is that there needs to be a centralised point of command for both salvage and clean-up. I am hoping this constructive suggestion can be acted upon by Minister Joyce.

I’m off to Tauranga tomorrow to check it out but I’ve been amazed how slow and ponderous the response has seemed. Perhaps it is because all the information on the threats and actions haven’t been released publicly by the Government or perhaps it has just has been slow.

Questions have to be asked, why weren’t  oil booms deployed, during calm weather to contain the spill. Why have we had to wait days for the salvor’s naval architect to fly to New Zealand? Why hasn’t the fuel been pumped off the ship already?

The Government acted very fast to assume control of the Auckland waterfront after the Rugby World Cup transport fiasco, they just passed surveillance legislation under urgency yet when it comes to the environment they haven’t acted in haste.

I desperately hope the worst-case scenario doesn’t play out and this tragedy can be resolved soon, but if anything it highlights the risks to New Zealand of oil spills as we as a nation consider deep-sea oil drilling.

Did you have a choice of safe walking or cycling; or to catch a bus, train or ferry; or were you like many Kiwis and was driving your only choice?

World Carfree Day is a great day to say we deserve choices about how we can get around. Carfree day is all about celebrating how great our towns and cities would be if they had more people, more parks and fewer cars. Reducing our dependence on cars and our vulnerability to rising and volatile oil prices will only happen if we take a balanced approach to transport spending and don’t blow it all on new motorways.

The Green’s plan is for a smart approach that invests in sustainable, modern, affordable, and reliable public transport.

My first function this morning was in Ōhariu in a suburb not well catered for by buses and not at all by train. Driving was my only option so I thought I’d try out City Hop’s car-share scheme and invite Labour MP Charles Chauvel to join me.

Car-share is a smart green idea that enables many people to benefit from access to a car, without having to pay all the costs that come with ownership.

There are cars parked in key spots around the city. If you are a member, you get a swipe card key that gives you access when you have booked the car. At the end of the month, you get a bill for the hours you have driven. All the costs, including petrol and insurance, are included.

It’s convenient, it’s greener, it can save you heaps of money, and the more people that benefit from car share, the more our towns and cities benefit from having fewer cars on the road and parked.

It’s a good message for Carfree Day – it’s good to share.

It’s pretty disappointing that a committee  made up mostly of Auckland-based MPs wouldn’t grant me leave. The decision  continues the ‘blame someone else, but look like you are taking action’ approach adopted by the Government.

Auckland Council released their report on what happened yesterday, however this was far from an independent report. Essentially, the investigation was self-conducted and unsurprisingly reported back the problems, but not who was responsible.

The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, made up of members from National, Labour and the Greens, is the appropriate place for a cross-party inquiry and could have looked at what role Government played in the embarrassment. I think it’s vital we ask: was the transport debacle caused by systematic bias against trains and buses in Government transport planning and decades of underinvestment? The committee has had a very light work load for quite a long period of time so had the capacity to conduct it – just not the will.

Friday night’s fiasco was unacceptable and risks undermining confidence in public transport for future games and risks Auckland’s reputation to host major international events. It is important to transparently and independently get to the bottom of what happened so we can make sure it doesn’t happen again.

I think the fear was an inquiry would show we need smarter transport investments like the CBD Rail Link to get our rail and public transport up to scratch, which isn’t a message the motorway-mad Government wants to hear.

The Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee was discussing my petition to fast-track the CBD rail link. The committee had already decided that both The Ministry of Transport (MOT) and the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) should be invited to submit on whether or not the government should fund this project based on their research.

However only asking information from MOT and NZTA gave the committee just one side of the story.

I put forward an unsuccessful motion that the Auckland Council should also be able to make a submission on funding for the CBD rail link. Its important to hear from them because they too have prepared an in-depth and internationally-peer reviewed report (unlike the MOT/NZTA’s ‘in-house’ one) and have started the designation process for the link. However, the National MPs on the committee voted to prevent this.

I found it particularly ironic that, of the MPs who voted against, 3 out of the 5 were Aucklanders themselves. Just what are Tau Henare, Jami-lee Ross and Jacqui Blue going to say to their constituents wanting the link? What’s National Party select committee chair David Bennett going to tell his Hamilton constituents who recently found out their rail link to Auckland would terminate at a station that closed ten years ago because Britomart station was at capacity without the rail link?

So why are the National MPs in Auckland so scared of hearing what the Auckland Council has to say? Is it because they know that the public sees the CBD rail loop as being more of a priority for Auckland than their uneconomic Puhoi to Wellsford Holiday Highway?

Why is the Transport Select Committee leaving it up to a Wellingtonian to advocate for Auckland’s voice to be heard?

Do they fear that the council could easily pick holes in the assumptions they made in their own, deeply biased and not internationally peer-reviewed review of the CBD rail link business case? What do you think?

This weekend people will be able to get more of a sense of what that network might eventually look like. The first phase of Nga Haerenga has focused on creating ‘Great Rides’. These are mostly purpose-built and off-road, and mostly oriented to recreation and tourism, showing off some of  our country’s most visually impressive natural features.These tracks are mostly finished or close to finishing, and I have several more to open before the election. In the meantime the team has moved to start identifying great cycle touring routes. These will both link the Great Rides and provide recommended ways to cycle longer distances. The routes are mostly on quiet back-country roads, which will be prioritised for safety improvements and signed so that all road users know to expect cyclists. There are three routes being launched this weekend, all linking to Taumarunui (which is, after all, on the Main Trunk Line. As if there were branches). One goes to Ongarue, which is one of the launching points for the amazing new track through Pureora Forest, while another heads to Whakahoro, connecting to the tracks linking Ruapehu District with Whanganui (some of which I’ve previously ridden, and know they’re going to be great).

The third route takes the “Forgotten Highway” through Whangamomona (which, as I recall, is a separate country, unless it’s been re-annexed) and then branches off to New Plymouth. New Plymouth is already well-known for its fantastic coastal pathway for walking and cycling (which now extends as far as Bell Block and looks like going further) but was also selected, along with Hastings, to be a ‘model community’ for walking and cycling. In this scheme NZTA has put up some funding that will assist the City Council to implement and pilot best practice in encouraging walking and cycling with a view to rolling these ideas out in other areas.. Ive been speaking to the team from the Council and am pretty excited by what they have achieved already and what they have coming up.

So this weekend people will see three distinct but integrated components of the eventual national network: the Great Rides, on-road great cycle touring routes, and urban cycling infrastructure. We start with some speeches in Taumarunui tomorrow morning and then a bunch of us will ride the new route to Whangamomona on Saturday night and then on to New Plymouth. Local riders strongly encouraged to come and join us, or at least roll up for my compelling and insightful speeches in both locations!

But here’s a bit of a round up of the big transport stories of the last few weeks and my reaction.

More funds for rail upgrades in Wellington. The government has announced an additional $88.4 million of funding to renew the Wellington rail system. This is great and long overdue as the Wellington rail network has major reliability issues. A newer signalling system should help to resolve this.

Cuts to public transport subsidies. The Sunday Star Times picked up some research I did around the cuts to the rate of public transport subsidies the government has just bought in.

These cuts will have major negative impacts on the ability of councils like Hamilton and Auckland to provide quality services. Their only options really are to cut services, raise fares or raise rates. This is such short sighted thinking from the government – especially when public transport patronage is soaring and vehicle traffic on our state highways is dropping.

The release of the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport which allocated $36 billion of funds over the next 10 years. I’ll be writing several more blog posts about this because it’s so important. For now, let’s just say it puts a ridiculously large amount of money into uneconomic and unnecessary state highways and far too little into improving our public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure. You can see more of my reaction to the government’s tragically unbalanced transport funding policies in this  TVNZ interview.

Nikki Kaye comes out in support of trams for central Auckland. Despite various critical responses to this, I think it’s great to see a National MP supporting smarter transport solutions. However, like Jacinda Ardern, I am a little dubious about whether Nikki’s own government would pay for this proposal.

I’m also doubtful about whether it’s wise to call for a tram system without doing a proper cost-benefit analysis of whether it is the best option for this area. I’d like to see a study which compared the costs of a tram versus a better bus service.

It might be possible for us to get say 80% of the benefits of a tram service just from upgrading the bus service at one fifth of the cost. So I’d support Nikki in calling for a study to find out what the best solution for the area is. I’d also like the study to consider whether this should really be a transport priority for Auckland region. There may be other areas that are more in need.

The driving age has risen from 15 to 16 years old, a change that I support as it will mean safer roads for us all.

Finally, I’m co-hosting with Shane Jones the first ever Smart Transport for NZ conference in Parliament on the 19th of August. This should be awesome – I’m excited as we’ll be having some amazing keynote speakers like Dr. Paul Mees, a leading Australasian authority on smart transport. Register online if you’re interested.

The survey asked 750 people, including 270 Aucklanders, whether the central Auckland rail tunnel or the Puhoi-Wellsford ‘Road of Significance to the National Party’ should be the greater priority for the region. 63.3 per cent of the Aucklanders support the CBD Rail Link proposal, whereas only 24.8 per cent favoured the highway.

Even non-Aucklanders can see the importance of the CBD rail loop for Auckland – 48.1 per cent supported the tunnel, compared with only 19.2 per cent of non-Aucklanders who prioritised the highway.

In response, the Minister of Roads, Steven Joyce said the result wasn’t surprising and that you couldn’t compare the two projects…..yet his latest dodgy report into the business case of the link was only low because he decided to use flawed motorway-methodology to measure this rail project.

Someone who wasn’t surprised by today’s poll was Auckland Mayor Len Brown, who said the CBD rail link would have positive effects for transport and the economy in Auckland.

I’m calling for a moratorium on motorways and a re-balancing of the transport budget so we can invest in the CBD rail link which is necessary, transformative and affordable.

Despite clear opposition to the flyover, the NZTA have offered Wellingtonians two options of the same 8 metre high behemoth – a sham consultation between Flyover A and Flyover B. Other options were considered but have never been put to the public for consultation, perhaps in fear we might prefer better public transport and cleaner air.

So now is the time to put in a submission and let them know what you think of a flyover running next to the iconic Basin Reserve. Let them know what you think of a motorway that will displace the historic Mother Aubert Creche and Hataitai Kindergarton. Tell them what you think of the loss of Badminton Hall, a large section of the town belt and 25 properties (including an apartment block) on Wellington Rd. Perhaps you could also tell them about the loss of access to the Hataitai shop and the increased air and noise pollution.

All the information you need to do this can be found here on our submission guide. If you’re pressed for time you can send in our automatic submission here.

Wellington does not need an uneconomic, expensive and polluting urban motorway. It is vital Wellingtonians make their voice heard and demand affordable and sustainable transport solutions.

Option A

Option B