Len Brown's Think Big plan - 10 questions

When you look at Len Brown's plans for spending a fortune on transport infrastructure in Auckland and his plans to charge those using it rather than tax various groups to pay for it, you might ask some real fundamental questions about what he isn't saying and in fact why you trust politicians to get these things done at all.

You see when you look at the underground rail loops, with cold dispassionate eyes, you can see this:

-  An underground rail tunnel and stations costing NZ$1.5 billion plus, that wont be a saleable asset.  Nobody will want to buy it outright for anything approaching 5% of that cost, without getting some subsidy for doing so.  In other words it is a wealth destroyer on the face of it.

- Those who would be forced to pay for it wont be those using it, regardless of what taxes are imposed to force others to pay for it.  Indeed those using it wont even be paying for the cost of running the trains through it.  At best they might pay half the operating costs, one day.  They are not paying for the trains either, you are.

-  Besides the users, the others benefiting are those businesses staffed or patronised by the users, who also wont be paying for it directly, well no more than you are paying.

-  There will be no discernible difference in traffic congestion, because both central and local government run the roads as Soviet style assets charging all users similarly regardless of time and location, with no attempt to ration scarce resources except by queuing or to invest in new capacity unless it is approved by political fiat.

The biggest problem I see in considering urban transport in Auckland is the complete lack of context of the debate.  You see if you want to fly to London, there is precious little involvement of politicians deciding, anymore, the prices, the frequencies of services, the types of planes, the timetables or in getting taxpayers to cough up money for the planes, or the airports.  Similarly if you want to send a container from Albany to Manukau.  You find a company that does the job and you pay it, with the company finding a truck, setting the price and then using the road - and paying road user charges for the privilege (and hopefully avoiding the queues inspired by the Soviet style rationing of the state and council's roads).  In neither case does what the Mayor of Auckland think have too much influence, although in the latter he'd clearly like to tax it more to pay for some unrelated infrastructure.

Yet when it is about people commuting, it suddenly becomes interesting.  Compare even simply getting a bus from Auckland to Whangarei, which is a service run by a private company for profit, buying its own buses, setting its own timetable and prices and providing a service for passengers willing to pay admittedly using State Highways.   Getting a train from Auckland to Manukau involves a train bought by the government, owned by the council, running at prices and times set by the council, managed by a private company, with its costs paid for by ratepayers, taxpayers and road users.

1.  Why are there always alleged "funding crises" for "Auckland transport", mostly involving shifting large numbers of people short distances, but not for moving freight short (or long) distances and not for international passenger or freight transport?  Could it be because the latter is virtually always the responsibility of private companies operating for profit, but the former is dominated by local authorities and planners deciding how they people should move, rubbing up against most Aucklanders who decided long ago they can buy a car and figure it out for themselves?

2.  Why is it that new ships, aircraft, trucks, buses, bicycles and cars (i.e. NOT infrastructure, just the objects that use it) are always  paid for by their owners, because in almost all cases they get enough from their users (if they are used to offer paid for services), but not trains?  Could it simply be that the people that use trains don't like them enough to pay for new ones?  Could it be because government is too lazy to spread the cost of capital of new trains over the life of the asset? 

3.  Why is it that users of ports, airports and the state highway networks all pay for the full costs of maintaining and building them, but users of railways and local roads don't?  Why are they special?

4.   If Aucklanders so desperately want an underground railway loop to use, why does no one, not even the uber-council of Auckland want to borrow the billions required to build it?  Could it be because there wont be enough money raised by the users of the railway to pay for the cost of operating a train through it, let alone pay for the railway in the first place? 

5.  If the underground railway loop is not about the people using the trains, but about revitalising the Auckland CBD, why wont the property owners of the area served by it invest in the loop, or at least support a specific rate to pay for the cost of it?  Is it because they know they Mayor and government are a soft touch with taxpayers money, or do they really simply not believe that the underground rail loop will make a lot of difference?

6.  Given the government has committed to spending NZ$1 billion of other people's money electrifying the current network (with the users not paying a cent towards it), predicated on ambitious prediction for growing usage (and reducing usage of the roads), why would anyone commit to spending several billion more before it actually being demonstrated that the earlier predictions for the results of destroying taxpayers' money on an unsaleable liability would meet expectations?

7.   Why is it good to shift large numbers of people from using a mix of subsidised and commercial bus services to using far more expensively subsidised rail services?  Could it be that advocates of the rail strategy don't like this inconvenient issue being highlighted?

8.    Outside peak times, how much of the capacity of Auckland's rail network lies idle, how much more will lie idle after electrification and the rail loop (I suspect around 66% given international benchmarks)?  How does that compare to the recent extensions to the motorway network?

9.    Why should road users across Auckland, on all roads, at all times, pay for a piece of unprofitable infrastructure that will

10.   Finally, why wont Auckland's Mayor and grand council face up to the fact that if it replaced rates funding of local roads with a form of direct tolls with congestion charging, that it would do far far more to relieve congestion and improve mobility than any rail scheme at next to no cost (whilst giving Aucklanders that don't contribute to peak jams some tax relief)?  Or is it far simpler politically to promise people big infrastructure baubles they don't have to pay for?

Want to know the common denominators with all of these?  A hint is this:

-  Planners don't like people moving about at times, places and in ways that they don't understand and can't organise.  They inherently fear this.  What they ignore is that there are planners in the transport sector that make things work smoothly, but they are commercial planners.  They make airports work like clockwork, logistics companies arrange for parcels to go from Dunedin to Dar Es Salaam and major to do all of this, because the incentives are right.

- Politicians don't like telling people they can't continue to have recourse to other people's money to subsidise their activities any more.  They much rather offer people something for nothing the cost of taxing others.

- Privatising the roads terrifies people because they have been inculcated with legends of fear from past privatisations perpetuated by hysterical socialist doom merchants. 

You see anyone who pretends that an underground rail loop will fix Auckland's transport woes is either a fool, naive or a liar.  Have a guess as to which one the people who should know better are.  If they don't like answering any of the questions above with a straight answer, then you'll know it isn't because they are stupid.

Want growth? Get a spatial plan

Yes that's what the Green/ACT government thinks.

The headline is "Spatial Plan will ensure economic growth for Auckland".

The main space I can find is between the ears of the press secretaries of Nick Smith and Rodney Hide that have let such empty nonsense escape their offices.  It plunges new shallows of vapidity, reaches new epic heights of failure and demonstrates once again that this government is devoid of philosophical challenge to the leftwing, planning obsessed arrogance of the past.

The press release is so empty that you could drive a train through it, and it shows once and for all that Nick Smith, the Green Party member in Cabinet, is driving policy.

There is more substance between an electron and the nucleus of an atom than this piece of pontificating waffle

"One of the most important roles of the Auckland Council will be to articulate the 20-30 year vision for Auckland through the spatial plan"

Really?  What happens if it doesn't happen? Will there not be economic growth?  Indeed when has ANY local government successfully forecast economic activity by sector, location and the like ever?  Did the local government plans of 20 years ago talk about the internet and online economy?  Of course not.  Did the local government plans of 40 years ago talk about an economy driven by services and tourism from China and India?  Hardly.  So why is it important?  

Take this piece of Sir Humphreyism.. "Cabinet agreed the spatial plan is the key vehicle for developing an integrated approach to managing Auckland’s urban growth."

Why manage it?  Why must there be an integrated approach? Who told you this (the Ministry for the Environment Smart Growth control freaks no doubt)?  

Oh the faith... "The spatial plan will illustrate how Auckland will develop in the future. It will show where and when growth will occur in transport, housing, energy, water, recreation, education and health infrastructure and services"

Will it Nick? Will it, bollocks!  Unless you live in an authoritarian nanny state where you stifle the private sector growing anything that is not in zee plan.  How do you know Auckland will develop like that, and most of all, how do you know it is right?

Oh and he knows what Aucklanders like "Aucklanders will be looking to see that the spatial plan sets out their aspirations for their city – all those that are affordable and feasible – and which supports efficient and effective resource allocation"

No they wont, they will be looking to see how best to live their own lives peacefully, with their family and friends, minding their own business.  Most of them are not busybodies who want to tell other people where to live, how to move and what businesses they should run and where. 

Imagine Auckland without a spatial plan.  It isn't hard. 

Auckland hasn't had one up till now.  However, you voted for National or ACT to make sure there was one didn't you?

Len's boondoggle

If you want an example of why politics should be taken out of the sphere of transport then Len Brown’s policies provide some pretty clear guidance.  A lot of attention has been paid to his policies focused on building expensive electric rail lines to the North Shore, Auckland Airport and an underground CBD rail loop. These lines that would cost billions of dollars, would lose money year after year to operate and hence couldn’t be sold for even one twentieth of what it will cost to build them.  However, Len Brown is a politician – he has visions, visions of how to spend other people’s money and he doesn’t care whether this spending is worth it financially, economically or environmentally.  No, he’s joined one of the religions of recent times - Railevangelism – driven by faith, passion and a belief that trains are good, and a little thing like money shouldn’t get in the way of Auckland having more.

The cost of his plans approach NZ$5 billion.  To put that in context that is around two years total spending on land transport by government on roads and public transport, across the country.  It is double the total annual national take of fuel tax, road user charges and motor vehicle licensing fees.   So if you like Think Big, you’ll love Lenin’s Think Biggest. 

Ahh, but wont people use it?  Well sure they will, but you wont be charging fares that even cover the costs of running the trains (which need to be bought too, the $5 billion doesn’t include those).   You see the whole urban rail strategy is based on the trains not making a financial return.   So not only will the capital expenditure be a deadweight loss, but it will bleed money continuously unless the fares are increased to change that.  Funnily enough if the fares were increased the trains would be empty, which tells you exactly how much those who would ride the trains truly value them.

Ahh, but wont their be economic benefits from reduced traffic congestion?  You’d hope so for that sort of money, and a year on year subsidy, but this is where things break down a little.  Yes, the NZTA estimates that removing one car from peak time roads in Auckland and shifting the users to rail is a $17 benefit in reduced congestion.   However, will everyone on those trains have been people who would have driven cars?  Hardly.   Many will be existing bus users,  for the CBD loop some will have otherwise walked, some will have been car passengers (so the car is still being driven but the train offers a convenient option for the passenger) and yes some will be drivers of cars.  On top of that some will be new trips, trips that otherwise wouldn’t have been done,  but which you will have been forced to pay for.   Funnily enough the railevangelists treat everyone on a train as if it is someone who is doing good for everyone else by not driving a car, ignoring that many of them would not have driven in the first place.

Oh but wont congestion be reduced?  Really?  What new world city has made any impression on traffic congestion by building a new electric rail network?  Los Angeles? No.  Portland?  No.  Atlanta?  No.  In all cases the impact on traffic has been minuscule, and is more than made up by the continued growth in road traffic.  A large amount of money spent for next to no gain.   In Auckland only 12% of commuters terminate their trips in the CBD because most jobs are not downtown.  Len Brown wants to build a railway focused on servicing downtown Auckland where over 30% of commuter trips are already by public transport (mostly buses, which get ignored by many railevangelists because they aren’t politically sexy).  The simple truth is that his ideas will benefit a tiny percentage of commuters at a cost of thousands of dollars for every Aucklander.

Surely a rail line to the airport is a good idea and will take lots of people out of their cars?  Well it might take some businesspeople (they always need a subsidy) from taking taxis to the CBD, but the catchment area for airport trips is across all of Auckland.  Who will take the train to west Auckland or Penrose or Pakuranga or Long Bay or Point Chevalier?   Auckland does not and will never have the kind of high frequency metro service seen in London, Paris or New York,  so it will remain highly inferior to take any connecting trips by rail.   An airport line wont ever stack up.

Let’s be clear, the last and the current government have committed to wasting your money on a heinously expensive rail electrification scheme that is already costing a fortune.  Before that has even been built or proven by any measure, Len Brown wants to build the next few stages at around 3x the cost of what is committed already.   He isn’t even saying “let’s wait and see how it goes” in case it proves to be a financial failure or simply doesn’t reduce congestion, he’s calling for more money to be poured down this tunnel of faith.

The economically rational response to the rail programme is to treat it as a sunk cost, let the current contracts be concluded and eventually sell the whole thing off to whoever wants to run it.  The economically rational response to Auckland’s traffic congestion is to commercialise and privatise the road network so it can be priced and invested in according to demand, rather than political whim, and finally for Len Brown to get his pilfering hands out of the wallets and purses of ratepayers.   He is no better at planning how Aucklanders should move than he would be if he wanted to plan how Aucklanders should eat, dress or be housed!

National-ACT fails Auckland

Clap - clap - clap.

Margaret Thatcher once commented about how horrified she was in the 1970s when a senior Conservative MP expressed the view that socialism was "inevitable" and the Conservatives existed to slow it down and moderate it. In other words, when the Tories would get elected, it was to tinker, but by and large whatever Labour did in government would not be overturned.

One wonders if the current National minority government in New Zealand has the same profound inspiration - to preserve the legacy of Helengrad and tinker.

When I now see the results of the local government policy of that government then all i can say is well done. Because it passes the test of the Tories before Thatcher - maintain and continue with the policies of your opponents.

Auckland, all of Auckland, now has a Mayor - more empowered than ever before, to lead a council with the wide ranging powers granted to it by Sandra Lee and Judith Tizard in the height of the Labour-Alliance government that was Helen Clark's first term.

Why? Because Rodney Hide and ACT, cheered on and fully supported by John Key and the Nats, facilitated it.

In 2008 when Labour was kicked out, there was hope from some that it would mean that the local government policy of Labour, that National and ACT opposed, would be rejected.  The hope being that local government would no longer have a "power of general competence" - which Labour and the Alliance (supported by the Greens) gave councils, allowing them to enter into ANY activity they wish, which of course means they can grow (what councils will shrink?).  Even with a change of government, local authorities could subsidise anything, enter into any business activity, enter into any form of social activity (schools, healthcare, housing and welfare even) and government could not stop them, without a change in the law.

With Rodney Hide appointed as Minister of Local Government, there was some hope that this would be wound back - that rates might not be increased unhindered, and councils could not engage in ever more new activities, crowding out private business, private non-commercial activities, and ever imposing higher financial and regulatory demands on the people they claim to serve.

To be fair he briefly tried in 2009 to change the powers of local government, but failed because National decided to keep the Local Government Act 2002.  

However more importantly he failed to answer the question "What should be the role of local government"?  

The answer implicitly given is the same as Sandra Lee, except she answered with conviction:

"Whatever elected local politicians want to do".

In parallel he inherited the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance commissioned by the Clark, Peters, Dunne regime.   He could have, rightly, decided to treat it as curious but out of step with the objectives of the new government.

No.  He embraced it.  With the exception of the blatantly racist pandering of the proposed Maori only seats (as New Zealand remains increasingly alone in ascribing credibility to the patronising fiction of democracy being racist), it was as if the government had not changed at all.  Same policies, different people implementing them.

So the "super city council" (let's not pretend Auckland as a city changes because the petty control freaks who seek to govern it have only one place to rule it from) was created.  Not only was one council created out of eight, but the role of Mayor shifted from being cheerleader and chairman of the council, to having power over money and private property.   

So the biggest local authority in Australasia has been formed, by parties ostensibly committed to free enterprise.

Some ACT supporters thought it was a cunning plan, believing that a bigger council would be dominated by the "centre-right" (which you should be glad for. "Better than the socialists" right?).  

The victory of Len Brown does not exactly demonstrate that.   He has already stated his priority is joining the railevangelists in making ratepayers (and the government) pay for three rail lines.  Projects that are not economically viable in their own right, none of which will generate enough in fare revenue to pay for their operating costs let alone the capital that will be destroyed in building them.

So John Key and Rodney Hide have created a powerful local government entity and Mayoral position that is unfettered, and now a cargo cult loving, "think big" socialist has been elected as Mayor.   Not only that, but this Mayor is talking about a referendum on having apartheid Maori seats. 

Well done.  I don't know quite what Labour can say to this - as I can't imagine it would have been substantively different if it was still in power.

Hide says it is "good for Auckland".   Well given he let it all happen, and endorsed letting voters choose a council that can do what it wants to Aucklanders, he can hardly complain.

It's politics not values after all.

So, if you're unhappy about all of this, will you be voting National and ACT next year?

UPDATE:  It is telling that Idiot Savant thinks this is an epic fail for Rodney Hide.  He's right you know.

Small mercies from new Auckland transport body

Now I've been damning of the creation of the Auckland mega city consistently. Quite simply, making councils in Auckland merge, whilst keeping their nearly unlimited power to enter into business, welfare activities, buy what they wish, set rates for whatever they wish, is a recipe for potentially untrammeled socialism at the local level. The last Labour Government gave local authorities a "power of general competence" (led by Alliance MP and Local Government Minister, Sandra Lee), which National and ACT opposed, yet both parties are now creating the largest government agency outside direct central government control in Auckland.

Transport is clearly one of the big issues for Auckland, but it is important to note the roles and responsibilities for that activity in the city. Bear in mind I am talking about urban transport, not intercity or international passenger or freight transport. Most of that operates quite well with little involvement of local government, except with local roads.

The creation of "Auckland Transport" as the new Council Controlled Organisation responsible for local body transport duties in Auckland has caused a bit of a stir with both Brian Rudman and Bernard Orsman opposing it. Indeed, it is noted that The Treasury, Ministry of Economic Development and Department of Internal Affairs all opposed it. Whilst the Internal Affairs opposition is unsurprising, the opposition of both Treasury and MED should put paid to any belief by those on the left that either agency is dominated by a "new right neo-liberal" agenda. For removing local transport operational matters from direct political interference WOULD be embraced by those who believe in less politics, less bureaucracy and more professional approaches to providing services.

However, let's be clear about what Auckland Transport will do.

It will operate Auckland's local roads, the roads that are not state highways. It will seek ratepayers money to pay for around half of the local road costs, and bid to the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) for the rest (which gets its money from road users through fuel tax etc). It will contract out all of the maintenance and construction work (as usual). There will, in essence, be little change, except that like the state highways, they will be run at an arms length from politicians. Given New Zealand's state highways are acknowledged by the World Bank to be among the best managed in the world, this is no bad thing. The less political interference in managing the roads the better, as we have seen with telecommunications, electricity and postal services.

The second function is around public transport. Auckland Transport will contract subsidised public transport services, and regulate commercial ones. Buses, trains and ferries. It will own some infrastructure, but not the rail network (which is now Kiwirail). So it will do what ARTA does, decide what it wants to use ratepayers money to subsidise, seek funding from the NZTA for it, and contract services. Now as much as I believe that function should be phased out, it is exactly what you want to have at arms length from politicians. Why should politicians dictate bus routes, train timetables or the conditions for contracting services?

So why is Bernard Orsman upset? He doesn't like "unelected" directors making these decisions, yet this is exactly how half of Auckland's transport funds already get allocated, and how Auckland's state highways are managed - by the NZTA board. A board appointed by the Minister of Transport, but which is statutorily required to make its own decisions based on specific criteria such as economic efficiency. Other Auckland transport assets are run the same way, like the Ports of Auckland, locally owned but a company. Auckland Airport is a largely privately owned company. Kiwirail has a politically appointed board, but is a state owned enterprise. It's NORMAL for there to not be day to day political interference in the transport sector.

After all, look at the state of Auckland transport. The worst congestion is on the local road network, the network starved of investment in part because local government prevaricates about funding new capacity. In addition, it has been obsessed with introducing bus lanes, but showing no interest in allowing the capacity of those underused lanes to be shared with trucks or taxis.

A better solution would be to run the roads as a company, and give it the right to charge motorists directly (in exchange for refunding fuel tax and road user charges), and for property owners to take back the roads outside their premises in exchange for a cut in rates, but to be grateful for small mercies - at LEAST transport in Auckland will be one step less political.

Still politicians will raise rates to pay for roads and public transport. Public transport that if the roads were properly priced based on cost and demand/supply, wouldn't need to be subsidised. Roads that should be paid for mostly by road users, with property owners paying for accessways (for example).

Brian Rudman doesn't like having an arms-length organisation for Auckland transport, yet gives arguments as to why it should exist. There are plenty more. How many councils have roads fixed up to the point where a councillor lives, or a major friend of some politicians? How confident are you that YOUR needs are to be met by a local authority politician?

So there is no reason to worry, it might be slightly better than the way things are now, but not much. The left oppose Council Controlled Organisations because they see them as a step to their bogey - privatisation. It isn't that, unfortunately, but it is a step towards transport being driven by professionalism and delivering infrastructure for users, not meeting political demands first.

Those who oppose it might wonder why they seem to have no problem with it in so many other parts of the transport sector, or whenever else government provides infrastructure.

If only Labour were right

Phil Twyford, (Labour's list MP with a non-existent profile) says of the government's Auckland mega council plans:

"Council-controlled-organisations are to be established for water, transport, community services (including libraries and community houses), land development, the waterfront, and economic development. Each of them will report to a council-owned holding company."

The HORROR. Like electricity, the railways, NZ Post, Air NZ all under Labour. Too many function though surely?

It's not enough though, Phil is concerned that if his train is late, he wont get a swift response from the Mayor - because the Mayor gets involved in day to day activities right?

"If the trains aren't running on time, or the footpaths aren't being maintained, the mayor will have to talk to the CEO of the holding company who will have to talk to the CEO of the council-controlled-organisation. who will have to talk to the contractor who is delivering the service."

Um, well given the government owns Kiwirail, and the ARC already contracts a private company (Veolia) to run the trains, how would that change Phil, given that's the arrangement that was in place when Labour set it all up?

However he presents the best claim next, he's scared his little friends will be lost:

"This is corporatisation gone mad. There will be nothing for the elected politicians to do. I don't know why people would bother standing for office under this model. It will be impossible to hold the politicians accountable because they won't have the power to deliver.

Phil Twyford said a rump CEO of the Auckand Council would be left to administer corporate functions like information technology, human resources and finance, and public relations."

I'll believe it when I see it, and I'm convinced it isn't true, but if it is..

speed the day. I'll take back most of what I said about the mega city proposal.

If it can stop local politicians in Auckland from meddling in operations, from pushing their own little agendas at the expense of ratepayers, from even turning up to council meetings, it will be a great step forward.

Shame it's almost certainly vacuous hyperbole.

UPDATE: Let's remember how trains in Auckland are run at the moment...

The ARC has a council controlled organisation, called ARTA (set up under the last government) to CONTRACT OUT management of the passenger rail service, which it has done so to a company called Veolia. A private company. Veolia runs the trains, ARTA owns the trains (Kiwirail owns some too which are leased to ARTA), Kiwirail owns the tracks. Kiwirail is an SOE, effectively another arms length commercial organisation. So anyone complaining about the trains in Auckland going to a local politician would see that person following quite a trail of organisations down the line.

The Labour Party is complaining about the trains being just LIKE that, yet set the trains up to RUN like that.

So is Phil Twyford so stupid that even he doesn't bother to research the governance arrangements in Auckland for rail transport set up by the last Labour government before complaining about the current government doing what he says, is the same thing?

National adopts Alliance local government policy

With the NZ Herald reporting Local Government Minister Rodney Hide unable to get National Party support to constrain the powers of local authorities, and unwilling to push it further, it seems like New Zealand is now stuck with a policy on local government driven by Sandra Lee when she was Minister of Local Government in 2001.

In the Local Government Act 2002, pushed by Lee and supported by Labour, local authorities were given the "power of general competence" to pursue the "economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being" of their communities. In other words, they not only could do whatever they wished, within the bounds of other laws, but they had a "duty" to consider those four "dimensions" of community development. It implied that councils not only could, but should be involved in economic development, promoting arts and culture and having a social welfare role of sorts.

National and ACT voted against this when it was in Parliament, but just to show "Plus ça change", it means nothing. The concerns expressed at the time have evaporated.

National has effectively adopted the local government policy promulgated by Labour and the Alliance. None of ACT's local government policy looks like coming to pass.

What does this mean for the supercity? Well my warnings that the supercity does not look constrained are right.

Auckland will have a mega city, with mega powers, and no constraints on its power. Even Rodney Hide now believes the majority can pillage the minority by saying:

"If a community want something and are prepared to pay for it, that's fine".

Rodney, if the community are so willing to pay for it, why the hell is the council making them pay? What does local government have to do with choice?

Mildly tinkering with transparency doesn't ratchet things back.

No. On local government the left has won, the ACT enthusiasts who think an Auckland mega city will vote to the "right" and constrain council spending (presumably with downtown railway tunnel enthusiast John Banks as Mayor), are deluding themselves. They have at least surrendered the rest of the country for their rose coloured view of the mega city. Frankly, it's a view that I could understand from National, which is as embedded in local government as the Labour Party, but that's it.

Rodney Hide and John Key are essentially adopting a legal framework and policy of the Alliance and Labour parties on local government.

Is this what you voted for?

No service means no subsidy

Again, rare for me to agree with Idiot Savant, but whilst NZ Bus services are suspended due to strike action, it shouldn't be getting subsidies for services not being provided.

Funny how the ARC Chair Mike Lee is pointing this out, but admitting that ARTA, which is a branch of the ARC, is still doing it.

Does he not realise how this strengthens the case for the abolition of the ARC?

Indeed it strengthens the case for abolishing bus subsidies. I'm neutral on the industrial dispute. That is between two groups of people negotiating payment and conditions for the provision of services.

However, part of the leverage in that dispute is that NZ Bus loses fare revenue when services are not provided. Yet, when it gets subsidies of, on average, $2 a passenger trip from ARTA, regardless of whether services are provided, then the main losers are Auckland ratepayers (who pay 60% of that subsidy) and motorists/commercial road transport operators (who pay 40% of the subsidy through fuel tax and RUC). It used to be that around half of all bus services in Auckland were fully commercial, in that fares more than covered costs and that the market was open to competition.

Now the proportion is much less, I have heard an estimate of around 20%, but it isn't clear. ARTA has "contracted over" commercial routes, so that one subsidised operator is paid to provide a set of routes. This effectively shuts out competition, which ARTA can prohibit if it undermines a contracted service.

Now, if NZ Bus relied wholly on fare revenue it might seek a settlement more quickly, as the business would be dependent wholly on pleasing customers, not a bunch of transport planners.

Intensification for Auckland

One of the core philosophies of the Auckland Regional Council's planning approach for the region is intensification. It believes it is good to encourage people to live in higher density housing, close to "nodes", which happen to be railway stations. Indeed it is one of the key reasons why the ARC has embraced rail transport instead of bus transport. You see at one point, the then ARA advocated converting most of the rail lines into busways, busways would mean buses could travel around the central city hop on a busway, then exit to reach your home in the suburbs. However that wouldn't meet the intensification objective, as it would mean you'd STILL live on your quarter-acre section in the suburbs, when you SHOULD live in an apartment or semi-detached townhouse close to others. That is one key reason why taxpayers are being forced to pay for rail instead of bus.

So the theory is simple, people live closer together near a railway station, means they walk to the train to go to work, less people drive, all sounds good right?

No.

For starters it assumes that putting more people together means less driving, but it appears not to be the case. For if the development works, and there is retail and more reasons to go to the "transit oriented development" location, people drive there from further afield. It attracts people who go by car as well.

Secondly it assumes that because the railway is there, your job is on another station on the line. Wrong. Most jobs are not located within walking distance of the line people live on, and even if it was originally, as jobs change you may be less likely to find another job located also on that line.

Don't believe me? The LA Times did an investigative report into some such developments there, and the conclusions were rather clear. They did nothing.

This is one conclusion of the LA Times:

"In Los Angeles alone, billions of public and private dollars have been lavished on transit-oriented projects such as Hollywood & Vine, with more than 20,000 residential units approved within a quarter mile of transit stations between 2001 and 2005.

But there is little research to back up the rosy predictions. Among the few academic studies of the subject, one that looked at buildings in the Los Angeles area showed that transit-based development successfully weaned relatively few residents from their cars. It also found that, over time, no more people in the buildings studied were taking transit 10 years after a project opened than when it was first built."

Now it went on to claim Portland is working, but is it? Cascade Policy Institute, based in Oregon, says there is precious little evidence of this. It gave evidence to Portland City Council using official stats to demonstrate:

1. Despite high spending on public transport, the share of public transport for commutes into downtown Portland declined between 2001 and 2008 from 46 to 43%. It was static across Portland at 15% between 1998 and 2008. The goal of 60% share for downtown commutes by 2010 looks unattainable.

2. Portland's light rail system achieves ever growing ridership, although this isn't attracted from car users. However the proportion of operating costs paid for by users is less than 3%.

3. Dense housing advocated by Portland costs around 100% more than lower density housing, per person.

The question to advocates of the great Auckland experiment is this.

Where is the evidence that intensification and rail electrification will be any different for Auckland? Who should pay if it fails?

Rudman shows why politics and transport don't mix

Brian Rudman has a cheek to call the Minister of Transport an ideologue when he is one of the true believers of the Auckland rail religion. Rudman doesn't call into question the "business cases" the ARC puts together on rail, or Mike Lee's strong leftwing political background in being mischievous towards the government before he is put out of a job.

Bear in mind a "business plan" for something that produces ongoing financial losses is a curious thing, and that scepticism from central government officials about the veracity of the ARC's work doesn't motivate Rudman to question his fellow true believers.

He damns the proposal for a Puhoi-Wellsford motorway. A project which may not be worthwhile, but only money to investigate it has been approved. Money paid for by road users of course. The same can never be said about capital expenditure on Auckland's railways. Rudman in a rather arrogant style dismisses the only major link between Northland and the rest of the country as a road to John Key's holiday bach. I guess he thinks nothing exists north of Puhoi.

Auckland's Regional Transport Committee, a hodgepodge of political interests, naturally wouldn't think so. Given it is advocating a billion plus underground rail tunnel in central Auckland, which would also run at a continued loss, it is clear it worships at the same church as Rudman and Lee.

Rudman doesn't understand why central government time and time again has said no to pouring taxpayers' money into Auckland local government's railway flights of fancy, except the last government. Maybe he should check his premises, these being the following key features of the religion he subscribes to:

- Auckland rail projects all result in ratepayers and motoring tax payers losing money year after year, but that's ok. It is for their own good, even if few ratepayers will see their property values increase as a result, and motorists wont notice a jot of difference to congestion.

- Auckland rail projects always fail conventional economic cost-benefit appraisal, compared to other public transport projects or road projects. That's because the wrong things get counted. People don't value saving travel time that much (they speed, use shortcuts and overtake because they are mean spirited), accident reductions aren't that important, and it is just really really special for people to ride by train instead of, bus.

- Just because the majority of Auckland rail users come from buses or wouldn't have taken the trip in the first place, doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile subsidising them at $4 a trip.

- It doesn't matter that 88% of Auckland jobs aren't in the CBD, where the railway is focused, it doesn't matter. Just ignore that. It will change when there is a railway, you'll see. Aucklanders who work elsewhere don't matter anyway, and we'll build more railways to serve them.

- It doesn't matter that 7% of Auckland trips are by public transport (most of those by bus), spending over a billion to get it to 15% (by 2051!) is good for you all (although 17% of trips are currently by foot).

- It doesn't matter that between 33 and 45% of peak trips to Auckland's CBD are by public transport, predominantly by bus as it is. It doesn't matter that this split is high by international standards.

- It doesn't matter how much money is spent on rail in Auckland, it must all be good, it must be good, even though the whole network was only worth $20 million to start with and wont be worth much more after $550 million is spent electrifying it. You couldn't sell it off for what has been spent on it, you couldn't sell it off for a quarter of that. However, in the church of Auckland rail, spending other people's money is a core sacrament.

- It doesn't matter that the impact on traffic congestion of Auckland rail is virtually nil. Traffic congestion is good. Car users are addicts and must be weaned off their addiction. They really don't want to drive, many don't really want to own cars, they just haven't learnt it yet.

Brian wants government to treat Aucklanders as adults. Brian, they would be better treated as adults if you let them spend their own money, respected the fact that most Aucklanders most of the time choose the transport modes that best suit them, respected the fact that most of the money you want spend on railways comes from people using roads, and respected the fact that this religion of yours is completely useless for the trips most Aucklanders do most of the time.

Maybe you should go to Penrose/Mt. Wellington, Auckland's second biggest employment hub, and ask workers there what the electrified railway will do for their trip to work?

George Wood urges caution on Auckland rail

While the outgoing Chair of the ARC, Mike Lee, plays politics (he is an Alliance member from way back) in demanding the government cough up money for lavish rail plans that haven't even had any serious investigation done, George Wood talks some commonsense in the NZ Herald. The basic questions that rail enthusiasts, like the ARC, evade and avoid, because they have a grand vision of changing Auckland.

Wood is concerned about accurate costings and whether all these projects are good value for money, he notes "The Northern Busway Project was a good case in point. The final costs were considerably greater (nearly double) than the initial early estimations.". The record of rail project in the US shows on average public transport projects finish 20% above budget.

"A few decades ago the majority of employment was in the Auckland Central Business District. People now find their place of work is in the outer suburbs where they live, or they travel to other parts of the region.

In the case of North Shore City, in excess of 60 per cent of workers do not have to leave that city to find work. These days the majority of the Auckland region's workers never have to travel into the Auckland CBD."

He's right, but the planners still think of Auckland in the 1950s or want to go back to it. Only 11.7% of jobs in Auckland are in the CBD. So you might ask why spending over a billion dollars to service those jobs is worthwhile, particularly when half the people in those jobs don't live anywhere near a railway station or line. Half as many jobs are in Mt Wellington and Penrose, but the planners have no interest in commuters going there.

"In the next three years the operational subsidies provided by ratepayers will amount to $43.3 million. The remaining 60 per cent of this three-year operational cost, which amounts to $108.2 million, comes from petrol taxes and road user charges paid by Auckland's motorists."

So $36 million a year in subsidies, for around 8 million trips a year. So that means every trip carries a $4 subsidy. You might think it would be better if fare payers could pay that, but even if they did, it wouldn't start to cover the capital costs.

"Once the new rolling stock is purchased someone, and again it will probably be the ratepayers and motorists, will then have to pay for the depreciation of this equipment. This will amount to around $12 million a year" Oh and you're forced to pay for the rolling stock new as well of course.

"In 2001 ... we were told that 25 million passengers would be using the metro rail network by 2015. We are still a long way off this figure. The Auckland Regional Transport Authority has now revised its target down to 17 million passenger trips by 2016. This is still a huge increase when last year's annual figure was 7.9 million."

In other words, the massively inflated targets for patronage aren't being met, so the targets get revised and history is rewritten. What does that remind you of?

"Buses operating in the region carry six times the number of passengers carried by our trains. Buses are a far more cost-effective means of providing transport services to all our communities."

Indeed he is right. Buses carry around 43 million trips a year, (2007/2008) compared to around 8 million on rail. Some bus services are unsubsidised, but the annual subsidy total in Auckland for buses is around $93 million, so around $2.16 per trip. Cheaper than rail certainly, and it would be cheaper still if the ARC hadn't poured so much into contracting over commercial routes, and decimating profitable bus routes with the competing rail services. Subsidies were only $45 million in 2005, with similar levels of patronage, so the ARC geniuses have more than doubled subsidies with no net increase in patronage. Given the big increases to and from the North Shore with the new busway, this means significant declines on the Isthmus. This was before the recession.

So while George Wood is largely right, I wouldn't take the ARC or the new Supercity as the great model in fiscal prudence in looking after public transport in Auckland. I most certainly wouldn't think Mike Lee has any good record in knowing how to spend ratepayers' money. It's about time Auckland and central government took stock before pouring more money into Auckland's public transport networks.

Work starts in Manukau on destroying wealt

Matthew Dearnaley at the NZ Herald has written a report on how construction is about to start on the first new rail line (not widening) in Auckland for 80 years - a branch from the Main Trunk to a station at Manukau City.

The report tells you the line is costing $90 million:

$50 million from Kiwirail. He doesn't tell you that Kiwirail didn't raise the money through a loan, to be paid off from future access charges from Veolia (the operator of passenger trains in Auckland). No. It comes from tax. Kiwirail will never get a cent of this back to return. $50 million is for the track, alone. Note that the last government paid $81 million for the entire Auckland rail network between Swanson to the west and Papakura to the south, with all branches in between. $50 million for 2 km of track tells you how little it is worth once it is built. You wont be able to sell the line for a tenth of that.

$33 million from Manukau City Council. This is for the new station and associated bus station, and the earthworks associated with the project. At least buildings have alternative uses, but $33 million? $39 million is the cost for the expanded Wellington international airport terminal. The difference is that the users (airlines and passengers) are paying for that. No doubt this could all be reused so will have some value. By the way, the money comes from ratepayers in Manukau City.

$7 million from a combination of Auckland Regional Holdings (the money from the privatisation of the Yellow Bus Company that is sitting around accumulating interest waiting to be wasted on projects like this), and NZTA (for the local road improvements around the site). ARH money is Aucklanders' money, NZTA is from road users.

Not a cent from future users? Matthew didn't ask why.

The line will carry trains how often? Every 20 minutes at peak times (I assume he made a typo). So watch the tumbleweeds go past the rest of the time. Meanwhile, the parallel motorway being built - the Manukau extension to SH20, which will link the Southern Motorway to the recently extended SouthWestern motorway through to Mt Roskill, wont be sitting for 20 minute intervals without a single vehicle.

600000 users a YEAR are predicted. Wow, sounds a lot? Hmmm. That's 2400 a day, if divided up to every weekday, excluding public holidays. To get some perspective on this we are talking about:
- The new motorway will carry 30,000 vehicles a day on average each with at least one person
- Wellington Cable Car (one vehicle every 10 minutes) carries around 3200 a day, 7 days a week.
- Fullers Ferries carry around 1.2 million users a year;
- the Northern Express bus route using the Northern Busway carries over 120,000 users a MONTH;
- Wellington's Johnsonville line carries 1.2 million users a year, it's long been considered marginal at best, and at off peak times has trains carrying less than single bus loads every half hour.

So 600000 a year for $90 million, let's say a 30 year payback period for the line, except the users aren't paying for it. So it is $5 per person per trip over 30 years, excluding interest, plus the cost of the train subsidy ($3.69 per passenger trip in 2002) plus the cost of the train itself.

I also remember seeing an economic benefit cost analysis, which said for every dollar spent on this project, it would generate 40c in savings for users and motorists. So it destroys wealth on every measure.

It would have been nice had Matthew Dearnaley in the NZ Herald had asked some simple questions like that. You know, the sort of thing a journalist does. Questions like:
1. What contribution will users make to the costs of building the line and station? (none)
2. What are the NET economic benefits of this project? (negative)
3. How many cars a day will this project take from roads and what will be the reduction in delays? (not a lot)
4. What would $90 million do elsewhere?...

I can answered the last. $90 million would:
- Cover the planned property purchases for the Waterview connection motorway;
- Is almost the total cost of maintaining all of Auckland City Council's roads ($93 million);
- Almost the total cost of renewal of all State Highways in the Waikato ($92 million);
- Pay 90% of the cost of the East Taupo bypass.

Oh and remember this is advocated by local politicians. Take this:

"Manukau Mayor Len Brown says he expects the new station to rival Newmarket as the second busiest in the region behind Britomart when it opens in early 2011".

Given Auckland's trains carry about 7 million trips a year, and Wellington's still carry around 9.5 million, in a metropolitan area with one quarter the population, you can see how it is easy to be a little cynical about vast amounts of money going into the train set.

Especially when the money almost entirely comes from people who wont benefit one jot from it.

Meanwhile, the supercity takes another step closer. Think it's going to stop repeating this nonsense?

Auckland's railevangelists getting worried

You see the government hasn't yet robbed you to pay for trains 99% of you will never ride on, and which will likely run at a loss throughout their operating lives. The ARC wants brand new ones to move people who currently happily commute in some aging diesel trains (which still have life in them) or by bus. The government is looking at ways to minimise the cost, and Brian Rudman has heard rumours that this means reusing secondhand trains. Given all of Auckland's currently (and apparently "very successful") trains are secondhand, that isn't necessarily a bad thing - unless you worship the twin ribbons of steel and ache for a new train to get excited about.

There are 121 carriages of one form or another available to run existing Auckland passenger train services. About two thirds lie unused for most of the day, as the focus is on peak services. So if you only buy 75, it will be plenty for growth and to sustain off peak services, with the existing carriages capable of handling peaks. Bear in mind those using it aren't paying for more than one third of the operating costs so they shouldn't expect something brand new.

Outgoing ARC chairman Mike Lee is apoplectic with the lack of enthusiasm by the government to spend other people's money as much as he likes "We're fed up with second-best for Auckland. We've had it since the 1950s, and this is going to be the end of it. We're not going to meekly bow down and accept it". We? Mike, Aucklanders buy the cars and houses they want with the money they have, they have not bought a train set, they never voted for anyone to make them pay for a train set, so why should New Zealanders across the country pay for one for Auckland?

Take the waste of money involved in revitalising the Onehunga branch line, closed to passenger service in 1973. Railways are high density pieces of infrastructure, only superior to roads when very high volumes of people or good are being moved point to point. However, the ARC is spending your money on the Onehunga branch for a half hourly service - at peak times!! Find a road in Auckland that has NO traffic for half an hour at peak times. At best the trains might be 4 carriages long, so we are talking about buses every 7 or 8 minutes being replaced by a train. Getting 100 people excited in a meeting does not a railway make. A reasonable rule of thumb is a passenger train ought to carry, on average, three busloads to make it marginally more efficient than a bus - assuming the line itself has its fixed costs spread over many freight trains. NZ$15 million, plus ongoing subsidies, and money for new trains, to run a half hourly service, wont make any real difference to congestion on roads.

Auckland doesn't need an electric trainset. Given the huge amount of money spent (and written off, you wont get the money back if you sell it) in upgrading the Auckland rail network, it would be a waste to close it down - but the existing trains should be run into the ground with fares charged to recover operating costs and maintenance at least. Aucklanders should be given a chance to buy shares in a new private Auckland rail system, and see if they are willing to put their money where Rudman's mouth is. Of course if it means that the whole system winds down when trains need replacing, then some intelligent questions can be asked about how much of Auckland's rail network is worth saving

In other words, if you support Auckland's existing trainset, maybe it's about time you coughed up some money yourself.

Rodney stopped something bad getting worse

No race based seats in the Auckland supercity so says the NZ Herald.

The reasons given?

- Inconsistent with National Party policy on the parliamentary Maori seats (remember that? Remember when National believed the state should be colourblind?)
- It would be wrong to have such seats "just in Auckland" (slightly concerning point, but he hasn't announced spreading them nationwide);
- 2 Maori seats wouldn't give Maori an effective voice (one could argue it discourages Maori from standing in general seats and would only attract those of a certain political persuasion).

So a board will be set up to consult. Apparently the consultation processes that already exist for everyone else aren't enough, and of course the fact Maori can vote for everyone else on the council means they are no more shut out of it than anyone else.

However, nevertheless, it is a minor victory for commonsense. Yet don't get too excited Rodney. You stopped something being worse than what it is. The supercity still remains a bad idea. The only point to a supercity for me is if it has drastically reduced powers and responsibilities. What's the odds of that then?

Protecting Aucklanders' assets

Labour’s latest leftwing pinup MP Phil Twyford has introduced a bill to require a referendum for any privatisation of Auckland local government owned assets. He talks of protecting “our assets”.

I fully agree that ratepayers’ assets should be protected, the biggest risk to them is local government. Local government spends their money on their behalf buying assets that end up being worth less than what they were paid for, without consent from those whose money they spent.

So I propose that the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Bill be amended to be the Local Government (Protection of Aucklanders Assets) Bill, and it have a new Section 5:

The following section is inserted after section 63:
“63A Acquisition of Auckland local authority assets
• “(1) No Auckland local authority shall—
o “(a) buy or otherwise acquire, or purchase any equity securities, shares or title in any property; unless
o (b) the finances used to make the purchase have been acquired with the express consent of those who have contributed.
(2) No Auckland local authority shall—
(a) levy rates on those liable for rates within the territory of Auckland local authorities without the express written authority of those it seeks to levy rates against;
(b) levy any other taxes whatsoever.

Now whose assets was Phil Twyford interested in? The ones that are taken from those who actually pay for councils, or the ones his mates control?

New reasons to abolish the ARC

Number 1: ARC wants to force people to pay for a tourist tram. It is already going to waste Auckland ratepayers' money on a "feasibility study", even though it doesn't own the roads or property that such a tram would run on. Given the loud silence from the private sector, this is just another toy from the same people who made you pay for a big elaborate train set to replace commercially viable bus services. Of course it hasn't stopped legions of gormless idiots saying it's a great idea on the NZ Herald website, none having the slightest idea as to how to pay for it.

Number 2: ARC wants to force people to pay for a far more elaborate SH20 motorway extension. Whilst there are issues with the government's less expensive plan to complete the South Western Motorway in Auckland (mainly how it wont obtain consent from all property owners), the ARC has shown that other people's money is no object. Again. It is campaigning to extend the motorway from the current end at Mt. Roskill through Rosebank Peninsula to the North Western motorway. Why? It is "superior" strategically, and has less environmental impact. Given the ARC has no responsibility for roads at all, belongs to the railway religion, and the views are expressed by hard-left shrews like Sandra Coney, you can see where economics escaped them all. Mike Lee is "annoyed" this very high cost option was ruled out. Well Mike, it was ruled out by the previous government as well, and nobody sees the ARC coughing up money to pay for it (let alone the private sector).

So couldn't Auckland local government reform simply wind up the ARC as a good start?

Why get local government out of transport?

Well the NZ Herald gives a great example:

"Chris Darby, North Shore City's representative on the Regional Transport Committee, acknowledged that a 34 per cent Government increase in highway construction funding over the next three years may give the country a short-term economic development boost."

You might ask what a Regional Transport Committee is needed for, before the last government it was nearly impotent.

Mr Darby condemned the (new government funding) policy statement, which Auckland Regional Council officers have estimated will require 76 per cent of land transport funds to be spent on roads, as "an absolute time warp to the 1950s."

A time warp - even though easily 40% of funds are always spent on maintenance as it is, is it that unreasonably to spend three quarters on road maintenance and upgrades? The rest of the world is building roads, but Mr Darby is a local government planner, and he wants to throw other people's money at modes he thinks Aucklanders ought to be using, rather than letting Aucklanders choose, after paying real prices for using roads and public transport.

ARTA itself admits that 86% of commutes in Auckland are undertaken by car, but only 7% by public transport (most of which is NOT rail) and 5% by walking and cycling. So it is hardly unreasonable for central government to expect 76% of Auckland transport funding to go to roads, roads move over 90% of Auckland commuters, railways move less than 2% and the rest go by ferry or footpath.

"He said it failed to provide against dwindling oil supplies and risked leaving future Aucklanders with redundant roading infrastructure and inadequate public transport to make do with less fuel.

"It will be a long-time liability - what we are seeing here really lacks imagination and I am convinced it lacks examination," he said."

Apparently Aucklanders will move by some other means, and Mr Darby is another commodity speculator who doesn't actually risk his own money on the assertion that oil prices will go sky high. If they don't use roads, will they fly? Railways couldn't physically move more than maybe 9% of Auckland commuters even if almost all those who live near them used them! So who lacks imagination?

What sort of imbecile is Mr Darby if he thinks there will be LESS fuel, not DIFFERENT fuel? Why will roads, the most flexible transport infrastructure there is, be redundant? HE is the person without examination of his assertion, they are the sort of rants of Green politicians, not anything from a transport professional.

So why should he have any say at all? He doesn't represent users, he doesn't represent producers, he represents planners.

What's wrong will letting those who maintain and build roads spend the money raised from taxing those using them. If there is less road use (as there is), there is less money and less road building. If there is more road use, then there is more money, and at peak times roads might cost a lot more (and a lot less at off peak times).

Similarly if there is more public transport use, there is more money to spend on services - oh yes, don't forget that Auckland local government has spent the last few years subsidising rail services and undermining commercial (unsubsidised) bus services, so more fare revenue doesn't mean more services, as it doesn't generate enough money for more.

So isn't it time that local government had its hands taken off one of the most essential sets of infrastructure in the country?

Who is excluding Maori?

I note the image from this post on the Standard the specious claim that the new Auckland supercity (which I oppose) excludes Maori.

Not having preferential guaranteed representation based on race, when you have the same voting rights, same rights to stand candidates and be elected as everyone else, doesn't exclude - it simply means you are being treated the same.

No matter how some Maori paint it, any other option IS race based preference, it IS racism, and it is not what New Zealand in the 21st century should be embracing.

The matter of who your ancestors are should not give you privilege in government, and the idea that Maori need Maori to represent them is no more specious than to claim I need a brown haired blue eyed half Scottish, half English descent 30 something male who was adopted, with a double degree, mixed state and integrated Anglican education and is atheist, to represent me. Otherwise you think that political ideas are inherently dependent on race, which is a concept I'd rather was left back in history, like the Germans did in 1945.

Environmentalists risking lives

A group of transport fanatics are proposing that Aucklanders break the law and walk and cycle along a motorway this Sunday. They of course mean the Auckland Harbour Bridge.

There is a reason walking and cycling on motorways is illegal - motorways are built for motor vehicles travelling at open road or close to open road speeds, and are free of obstructions to avoid accidents. If there was a walkway/cycleway then fine, but there isn't. It's like the stupid teacher who decided to walk some kids through the Terrace Tunnel in Wellington - recklessly stupid.

The construction of Auckland Harbour Bridge was funded through tolls on motorists and its ongoing maintenance is funded through fuel taxes and road user charges on motorists. Auckland ratepayers pay nothing. Pedestrians and cyclists pay nothing. There is no "right" to use something you don't pay for, and which creates hazards for those who do.

Building a walkway/cycleway isn't cheap, partly because having people walk on a bridge creates challenges different from a road bridge, because it creates a resonance effect from the steps, different from rolling. The cycle/walkway enthusiasts don't want to pay for it, they want the money taken from road users, even though the business case for it doesn't stake up. They lie that every biking or walking is taking a car off the road, when it is more likely it is a new trip, as it is a novel experience. The effects on congestion will be negligible.

The answer simply is for those who want it to pay for it. Imagine even a turnstile either side charging £2 to cross the bridge. Why not? The motorists paid for their part.

Meanwhile, the issue is a bunch of activists willing to risk the lives of people, by walking on a motorway, which will give others the idea that walking on motorways is fine. What parents take their kids on a protest march on a motorway?

The Police set a bad precedent by letting a Hikoi cross the bridge illegally some years ago, so refusing it this time will look like "you can get away with breaking the road code if you're a Maori led group".

Where else might they demand "a right" to travel? Through Rimutaka tunnel? Through the Terrace Tunnel? Through Lyttelton Tunnel? It's a nonsense. Pay for a walkway, or use the bus or ferry.

Rudman: People use something they don't pay for

That's Brian Rudman's latest piece of genius. He is pleased that public transport patronage went up a fair bit in the last nine months in Auckland.

Much of that is due to the Northern Busway, and a lesser extent due to greater use of rail services. Not that surprising when you consider how much the price of petrol went up for part of that period, which made public transport more "competitive" price wise.

However, the increased usage isn't from people paying for what they use. The Northern busway cost NZ$210 million (paid for by all road users) and has a lot of unused capacity (empty space that other vehicles could used). Rail passengers moreso don't pay anything towards upgrades to the system, and only pay a third of the cost of running the trains through fares.

For ARTA Chairman Mark Ford to regard it as an "investment" under circumstances where the investment costs more money is a little stretch.

However, Brian is making a far bigger claim saying "These were 3.7 million trips that were not taken in a private car on our congested roads." How does he know what would have happened otherwise? How many train trips were previously bus trips? How many trips were previously people car sharing? How many trips wouldn't have been made at ALL?

How many of those trips would have occurred had the bus and train passengers had to pay the same proportion of cost of providing those services and infrastructure as motorists do?

Brian goes on about the Tamaki Drive bus lane, which he thinks shouldn't be allowed to be used by other vehicles. Far better for trucks and fully loaded cars to be stuck in congestion, rather than the near empty bus lane let a few more vehicles in, right Brian? Those evil car drivers and their passengers should catch the bus!

The real issue in Auckland is congestion, which is a result of supply not matching demand, which is itself a function of price and funding. Pouring a fortune into subsidising public transport is tinkering at the edges, and the most successful example is, funnily enough, the one that requires the least ongoing subsidies - buses.

However, what I really want to know is has ARTA done surveys as to where new bus and train users come from? What were they doing before? After all, if a majority of them weren't driving cars, then isn't this all a great big subsidy for people who weren't on the roads in the first place?