Sunday Star Times asks idiot about transport

Well if you read this article by Esther Howard in New Zealand's leading leftwing rag - the Sunday Star Times, you wouldn't be that enlightened about Auckland transport. She talked to three leading international gurus and an Auckland expert, none of whom actually presented differing views from each other.

Paul Mees is a radical advocate of endless subsidies to public transport, and is rabidly against private transport. He does not present evidence for his claims, and is not widely acknowledged as being of great standing in urban transport circles in Australia and New Zealand. He wants an end to road building, and to pour money into public transport, putting high density Zurich on a par with Auckland. He gives no evidence whatsoever for his claim that this would reduce congestion.

Paul Bedford is another public transport enthusiast, wanting trams galore and also anti-roads. Again, someone who gives no evidence that spending a fortune on public transport will ease congestion.

Professor George Hazel is a bit more sensible. Another supporter of public transport, but more intelligently also promotes integrated ticketing and payment systems. He suggests people get credits for using public transport off peak.

Stuart Donovan from Auckland is even more sensible, as he promotes ending requirements for developers to provide parking (but then advocates taxes on parking). He supports replacing fuel taxes with tolls, at least this would ease congestion.

So you see, high standards of journalism again in New Zealand newspapers. No one who believes in efficient management of roads and free market transport was asked. The answer, you see, is to run all transport commercially - roads and public transport.

One more reason why Auckland shouldn't be a supercity

The Stuff Poll

You want any of those people governing part of your money? Your land?

No - the incompetency of Auckland local government is NOT because it is fragmented, it is because it tries to do far too much, and far too many who get elected (and who manage it) have a competency deficit.

Hopefully Rodney Hide will dump the idea as comprehensively as the government that called for the Royal Commission was dumped at the last election.

Then scrap the ARC - yes it gets rid of the obvious body to lead a supercity.

After all, the ARC barely existed not very long ago, and almost all of what it does is destructive to Auckland's prosperity, or can be better carried out elsewhere.

That ought to be the report Rodney Hide seeks next from DIA. It would be a pilot for the rest of the country.

Auckland councils have a laugh

$22 billion! The draft Auckland transport plan seeks that amount over 10 years. $2.2 billion per annum, divide it by 1.4 million Aucklanders means $1,571 dollars per man woman and child,

Stuff rightly points out it is "little more than a wishlist", it is hardly a plan. It is like listing what you want if you win the lottery, except Auckland councils want to make you pay for it, whether by rates, fuel tax or general taxation.

Current road taxes are adequate to maintain and make regular improvements to the road network, but any serious major improvements ought to be put through the "toll" test. If it can't be funded through tolls (and road taxes collected from the road), then it probably isn't worth doing.

I've suggested before that a good pilot for private investment of Auckland roads would be to sell the Northern Motorway from Spaghetti Junction to Constellation Drive, allow the owner to toll it which could fund duplicating the congested Victoria Park Viaduct, strengthening the Bridge and a second crossing IF it is viable. Oh and the proceeds from the sale could be allocated to Auckland motorists.

However, in the big picture there is a demand for all sorts of passenger rail network extensions, when none of them could generate enough revenue to cover operating costs. There is ample evidence from the Sydney and Brisbane airport railway lines that an airport railway line does not make sense.

What is most apparent is that this is driven by the public transport obsessed ARC, which has bought into the failed cargo cult ideology that building public transport relieves congestion. You can see it from this statement:

"A rail tunnel under the CDB, for example, would result in more than 200,000 people being within 30 minutes travel of Queen Street"

I'd say far more than that are within 30 minutes travel of Queen Street already. Those people own their own vehicles, and their fuel tax more than pays the cost of the infrastructure they use, and pays to subsidise the public transport they don't use. These magic people are car commuters.

If ever there was a reason for Rodney Hide to throw away any nonsense of a single Auckland council, it is this - a big Auckland council will demand massive cheques from taxpayers for grandiose projects. The question needs to be asked - Is there a role of local government in transport?

Big powerful Auckland council run by a celebrity?

The Sunday Star Times suggests this.

However, Aucklanders should say thanks but NO thanks, if what they want is lower rates and for local infrastructure to be provided on the basis of need, user pays and economic efficiency.

A big powerful council will want to get into every aspect of policy.

A celebrity Mayor would find it difficult to resist what they tend to be addicted to - attention and applause. Thousands would run to the Mayor wanting help and the drug of big government - OPM - Other People's Money. After all, what celebrity wants to be Mayor and simply say "no. You should try to convince people to pay voluntarily".

The next battle for Auckland should be about resisting a supercouncil. The Labour government inspired Royal Commission should be ignored. The key issue is what is the role of local government.

That is a debate the Royal Commission never was asked to enter into, because Labour's belief is "whatever the local community empowers it to do" - which of course simply means "whatever councillors want".

THAT ladies and gentleman is the problem of Auckland local government - it has become the hobby horse of far too many power hungry petty fascists, tempered by good natured people who seek good governance. These battles shouldn't happen - local government, if it is to exist, should be confined to "public goods". National could do worse than introduce a new Local Government Bill, that gives councils 3 years to divest themselves of activities that are not "public goods". That same period should include a prohibition on ANY rates increases over that time.

Rodney Hide is Minister of Local Government, you would think top of his agenda would be abolishing the power of general competence - the power that currently gives councils the power to do whatsoever they like, as long as it is ratified as part of the Long Term Council Community Plan. Abolishing this would do more for Auckland governance than any behemoth sized council.

One big council - one big bureaucracy

Governance in Auckland has been seen as a problem by many, mostly councils and central government, for some time. Mainly by those who think councils should be doing certain things, rather than considering whether such things should be done at all, and if so, by whom. I've not seen a major problem. Transport is often cited as an issue, but in the last few years umpteen major motorway improvements have progressed in Auckland (I can think of eight) and the major hold up has been the ridiculously expensive boondoggle called rail. Just because neither users nor ratepayers are willing to pay for this, doesn't mean there is a problem in governance - it is a problem with the idea.

So the report in the NZ Herald today of what the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance will recommend should send shivers up the spines of Auckland ratepayers - and by that I mean ratepayers of any one of the seven Auckland territorial local authorities. One big council, without restricting what it should do, will be a behemoth of a bureaucracy looking for a job. On top of that a Mayor, with powers to dictate, should also scare Aucklanders - as such Mayors will look for totem poles to build, at the expense of everyone else.

A libertarian view of local government would be that it is hardly needed at all. After all, as long as private property rights are well defined (which at present they are not), then planning becomes simply the delineation between those rights (which could include airspace, sight lines and factors for air and noise). Most of what else local government does is to meddle in utilities or supply facilities that could be provided privately, assuming that local government didn't pilfer money from everyone to pay for them.

So what is really needed in Auckland is not the creation of a mega council, but a serious debate about what the role of local government should be.

Labour, with the Alliance (before it divorced Jim Anderton) and the Greens changed this radically with the Local Government Act 2002, by repealing rather unwieldy legislation that defined what local government was allowed to do, and granting a "power of general competence" (yes the joke from that phrase is too obvious). This effectively gave councils the power to build, buy, sell or engage in any activity that a natural person could do. Councils could set up schools, restaurants, trucking firms, radio stations, dry cleaners, banks or service stations, as long as they went through due processes of consultation. This was a view that local government could effectively be a mini-version of central government, although Labour resisted granting local authorities new taxation or regulatory powers.

National and ACT voted against this legislation, quite rightly so. It is time to take a different approach.

Look at what councils do that could simply be privatised, whether by sale or by transferring to trusts run by interested people. All commercial activities could clearly be sold, or shares transferred to ratepayers. Non commercial activities, like recreational centres, pools, libraries and parks could be transferred to interested parties to run, accept sponsorship, donations or charge for usage. The regulatory activities of councils could then be reviewed on a case by case basis, to consider how private property rights could be used to address the relevant issues.

In short, there is a grand opportunity to rethink local government, so that it shrinks considerably in the next three years. The more difficult examples, like local streets and footpaths may be last on the list, but in the meantime rates should be capped - permanently at current nominal levels, to force councils to trim, and if need be, merge. In other words, the scope for local government to be perpetual busybodies would decline over time, freeing up ratepayers funds, land and the public to decide whether what is done "for the public good" is actually what they are prepared to pay for. Commercial property owners in areas for "regeneration" may foot the bill for upgrading the street scape, instead of expecting all ratepayers to chip in.

The grand council idea is a recipe for local government to do more, much much more. I believe Owen McShane once wrote that the ideal size of a council was one that served between 10,000 and 40,000 people - not so small that it couldn't have enough capacity to carry out its functions, but not so big that it could charge ratepayers enough surplus to dabble in new areas of activity.

The appropriate response of the new government to this forthcoming report is thanks, but no thanks - there needs to be a more fundamental review of the role of local government. Local government has resisted year in year out the drive for lower taxes, and rode on the back of property price increases to increase rates beyond inflation. It is time to say no to a big Auckland council, and consider instead something else as a first step. Why does Auckland need two layers of local government?

Oh and if you think I'm wrong, note this part of the report "the commission will almost certainly recommend the mayor and new council become more involved in the social needs of the region, such as affordable housing".

Get it? You vote out a leftwing central government and you can watch one get elected locally - and you know who will be forced to pay for it.

I can only hope the Minister for Local Government can see this for what it is - a report commissioned by the last government which should be destined as a door stop.

More fuel tax thanks to Labour

and the Greens, and NZ First, and United Future and Jim Anderton.

2c a litre next year, rising to 9.5c a litre by 2011. Yes, you needed that didn't you?

7c of it is to electrify the Auckland passenger rail network, which shows you how much of a great saving that will be, because fares can't recover that cost.
1c is for further upgrades to Auckland's rail network.
1c to help build the Penlink highway in Rodney District
0.5c to upgrade ferry terminals and a new ticketing system

Well it IS a Labour government.

National opposed it, but big surprise what did John Key say in response? *baaaahh meeeeee toooo* Getting used to National opposing policies it just never changes when it is in government? Getting used to wondering what the hell the point is in voting National yet?

The NZ Herald reported he "acknowledged a fuel tax as a "legitimate way" of raising money for electrification, but was concerned at the speed with which it would go up to 9.5c"

Meanwhile, according to the NZ Herald the rail worshipping Greens are unhappy that a small part of the new Auckland regional fuel tax, which largely comes from motorists is to be spent on - a road!! Yes, outrageous really - motorists paying for a road, when they should be happy to be paying for transport modes they don't use, and which aren't even within 10kms of them (rail). Given motorists on the North Shore will pay this new fuel tax and wont get a railway, maybe the Greens might ask why they should be paying this tax at all?

The Greens think the proposed Penlink road/bridge, to link Whangaparaoa Peninsula with the Northern Motorway, is inconsistent with the Auckland Regional Land Transport Strategy - a document that before Labour was barely relevant to transport planning (fortunately). It calls the Penlink project "pork-barrelling of the worst kind". Not that the Greens believe in special subsidies for projects no - I mean the Wellington trolley buses for example...

Unbelievable. So pillaging the pockets of road users, car users, taxi companies, bus and truck companies to pay the costs of building an electric rail network isn't pork- no, because those who use it wont be paying for it, but those who don't use it will.

Now the Penlink project was once meant to be a toll road, but its costs have blown well out and it is no longer viable - which tells you that it shouldn't be getting built at all as not enough revenue can be gained from tolls to pay for it - but for the Greens to feel blasphemed against because a new petrol tax may have less than 15% of its revenue spent on a road, tells you how disconnected from user pays they are.

Just think if car usage dropped 20% there wouldn't be enough money to waste on subsidising railways hmmm.

Auckland doesn't need mini government

Alex Swney is wrong, with his solution to the problem "the current regime was fragmented, duplicated, obstructive and costly". You see it wouldn't be if politicians stuck to their statutory minimums.

The question of how much local government Auckland needs is a function of how much you believe Aucklanders need to be forced to pay for what they may or may not use, and how much you believe their private property rights (or extensions of them) can't be an effective delineration of rights.

Until you confront the issue of what local government should do, you can't answer the question of how to set it up. At the moment legislation says local government has a power of general competence, it can do whatever it sees fit short of passing bylaws beyond statutorily defined limits.

If the debate isn't going to confront that, then it is a complete waste of time engaging in this debate. What matters is what National thinks, and sadly there is little sign that it thinks local government should, at least, be confined to what can be generously called "public goods".

So John Key, what is it? Or should I ask Hone Carter? There is enormous potential to make a real difference to ratepayers.

Just say no

The NZ Herald reports on Auckland local government "Former North Shore Mayor George Wood and former regional councillor Wyn Hoadley called for a collective approach on economic and social issues to tackle issues such as health, housing, job shortages and education."
.
In other words a mega council to extend itself into social policy.
.
Care for a 100% rate hike anyone? As a start?

Auckland local government?

It doesn't matter how you want to slice the Auckland local government cake - it is still cholesterol laden and tasteless. It's too big. Arguments about the best structure avoid the first point - what should local government do? Labour and the Greens believe it should have the power to do just about whatever it wishes, this means running businesses, supplying housing, regulating and planning as much as it can get away with. I believe that, at the most, it should provide a transitional role in defining property rights, administering public space and divesting itself of activities that could be done by the private sector and voluntarily.
.
What does National believe?
.
It could start by restricting local authorities to only being custodians of arms length commercially or cost recovery run water, sewage, stormwater, rubbish collection and public parks, with planning authority only to enforce private property rights. It could transfer roads to companies with adjacent property owners owning the shares and paying access fees. However, most of all local government needs to be limited. The current review of Auckland governance ignores this, and attributes blame for Auckland problems on the wrong arrangement of councils - when the real blame is the meddling of councils and their inability to carry out well some of the functions they are entrusted with. The poor turnout at local body elections show what little interest many people have in local government and how poorly representative it is of "the community".
.
So first decide what local government should or shouldn't do. What do YOU think? Would Auckland be worse off if Auckland Regional Council was abolished?

ARC plays with your money

The ARC, which became a greatly empowered and enriched entity under Labour, is looking to spend $10 million of Auckland ratepayers' money on Eden Park.

.

Stuff reports "Council chairman Michael Lee said the proposed contribution would come from its investments, not rates" which is still ratepayers' money, he simply wants to soften the blow by claiming rates wont go up as a result - well they will, as there will be less money than there would have been otherwise.

.

The alternative is that $10 million could simply be redistributed to all Auckland ratepayers as a grant. Given around 300,000 or so ratepayers, that extra $30 would be helpful for some, it might even help pay for a ticket to Eden Park - you know, so that people can choose to support it.