Transmission Gully proposed by Hearings Committee

So the Western Corridor Hearings Committee has come out in favour of Transmission Gully. That doesn’t mean it will go ahead, but it is definitely something for Transmission Gully proponents to cheer about. I have read the Hearings Committee report executive summary, and will consume the rest in the next few days. However, before the Transmission Gully Think Big crowd pop their corks, they need to sober up and consider the following:

1. 
   These are recommendations, following consultation and the development of a view on the work done to date. They are only a reflection of the results of consultation and amending the plan due to that. The public has had its say, or rather the public that is agitated about it. The recommendations are not binding, and the final decision on the Western Corridor Plan will be made by the Regional Land Transport Committee. EVEN then, Transit’s board does not need to follow what the RLTC says. The Land Transport Act 1998 Section 181(1) states that Transit must ensure that it “takes into account any current regional land transport strategies”. Transit wont proceed with something that is unaffordable.
2. 
   Transmission Gully has become cheaper, now it is around $955 million, when it has been up to $1.1 billion on some estimates. It still remain unaffordable though, the money for it simply does not exist, unless it is taken from other projects or people. National's answer of using all of the petrol tax money does not wash - through three tranches of funding promised by Labour, Wellington is already getting all of its petrol tax share.
3. 
   The Hearings Committee assumes that, somehow, there will be funds to cover the gap in cost between the coastal and the Transmission Gully options – some of it is made up by NOT proceeding with valuable projects that need to happen anyway. If anyone thinks the Paekakariki intersection can be tidied up for $1 million, they are kidding themselves. Doing so would probably breach the Land Transport Management Act in itself. Similarly, the Whitford Brown Interchange is a high benefit/cost project that is about access between Porirua and its northern suburbs that the Hearings Committee wants dropped. The savings from the dropped projects are only one-third of the cost difference between Transmission Gully and the coastal option.
4. 
   Statements such as “ It appears to the Subcommittee that the case for NLTF funding being made available for the completion of the TGM is at least equally as strong as the case for funding to be made available for the Mana Bypass or the Northern Expressway” are not backed up by analysis. The Northern Expressway (which is about a 4-lane highway bypassing Paraparaumu and Waikanae) has a good benefit/cost ratio, and a Mana Bypass is likely to have a reasonable one, compared to Transmission Gully, which has benefits half of the costs. The Northern expressway and Mana Bypass projects are cheaper, with higher benefits – Land Transport NZ tends to fund projects on this basis!
5. 
   The Hearings Committee has considered evidence claiming Transmission Gully would have a benefit/cost ratio of 1:1, by changing the discount rate and counting the multiplier effect on the economy etc (which is to some extent double counting). The truth is that by taking the same approach to the coastal route you’d get a BCR of nearly 2:1 and there are many many other projects of higher value that get really good BCRs. BCR is first and foremost a ranking tool, and Transmission Gully ranks very poorly. If the Hearings Committee is not better placed than Land Transport NZ and Transit to change the BCR formula. Land Transport NZ spends nearly $2 billion a year of road user's funds partly based on that analysis, the Hearings Committee is hardly a comprehensive review of funding policy.
6. It makes some weird assumptions about funding, getting Porirua City Council to fund the Porirua bus/rail interchange (which is outside its mandate) and delaying it, it recommends an extra $25 million on public transport that doesn’t exist!

It wouldn’t toll Transmission Gully, because tolls would not produce enough income to pay for the cost of tolling! However, an untolled subsidized Transmission Gully would generate enormous demand for growth on Kapiti Coast, and encourage commuters to live on the coast and drive to central Wellington. This is what happens when politicians build uneconomic roads! It subsidises the transport of people to and from Kapiti - something I would have thought the Greens would be less than happy about.

So the committee has proposed a very poor project, that ranks as one of the worst in the country, which does not have funding, as the preferred option.

It has analysis in the report as vapid as:

The Sub-committee notes that TGM provides approximately 108 new lane kilometres (27 kilometres of four-lane highway) whilst retaining the existing Coastal Route as a local road and scenic highway. In contrast, the Coastal Route Upgrade provides approximately 44 new lane kilometres on the existing alignment (10 kilometres of new two-lane Coastal Expressway, 2 kilometres of four new lanes through Pukerua Bay, and 4 kilometres of new four-lane Mana Bypass). The Sub-committee therefore agrees with many of the submitters that TGM appears to provide much better value-for-money.

Except it costs a lot more and has a far lower benefit to cost ratio!

How about the great finding that:

“A number of young adults, children and the elderly submitted that their independence would be destroyed.”

By a road? How about your independence interfered with by taxes taken to build roads you don’t use?

Then there is the analysis behind why Transmission Gully benefits GDP:

“The contribution to GDP from transport savings is very much the same for the two scenarios ....The contribution to GDP arising from construction costs is greater for TGM.

– because YOUR taxes are being used to build it – the GDP benefit is purely a transfer to the construction sector. Since when is taxing people to pay construction companies for a poorer net benefit project a contribution to GDP?

So where to now? Well the Regional Land Transport Committee, Regional Council and Transit are in an invidious position. The Hearings Committee has recommended a bunch of proposals for which there is no funding – Transmission Gully and Grenada-Gracefield (or Tawa-Gracefield, they haven’t made their minds up).

If I were them – I’d defer it, not bother about Transmission Gully or the coastal route 4-laning, but proceed with a Paekakariki interchange and Pukerua Bay Bypass.

You see this is what happens when central planning goes wrong. Bureaucrats argue about how to spend other people's money, and nothing gets done. Politicians interfered with a rational funding allocation process, dedicating special money for Wellington and then special money for the Western Corridor - when it should have simply been left to Land Transport NZ to spend all road users' funds efficiently.

The timeline is like this:
- Up till early 90s – coastal upgrade preferred and designated option.
- Early 90s – locals want Transmission Gully (nimbyism) and bureaucrat agrees (Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment)
- early 90s- Different bureaucrats disagree, not enough revenue from road users to pay for it, other projects deliver better returns.
- mid 90s – agreed that Transmission Gully be long term option, but unaffordable for many years
- 2004 – Transmission Gully investigated properly, suddenly trebles in cost – unaffordable, look again at coastal upgrade
2005- coastal upgrade cheaper, even when mitigated and built to high standard - funding made available for it – bureaucrats agree it is best value for money
2006- -NIMBYISM comes out again, and another bunch of bureaucrats disagree and recommend to 2 other sets of bureaucrats to change their mind.

Alternative?

Roads run by profit oriented company – receives revenue directly from charging road users. Figures out best way to expand capacity, negotiates with land owners to buy land to widen road or build new road, negotiates with local road owners (company, co-operative or whatever) to interconnect with their roads – builds best option.

In the short term, I'd spend road user funds on the best projects in the region - by economic efficiency - and then I'd sell Transit New Zealand, abolish the RMA and the Public Works Act, and let Transit figure it out. You see the majority of French motorways are privately owned and operated, and France is hardly a bastion of free market liberalism.

The Hearings Committe has reflected the noise of public opinion, largely based on people living near a highway that has existed for over 70 years, who want someone else to pay for a new road to take the traffic away from their homes. They do not care who pays, as long as it is not them, so that their property values can be increased thanks to taxpayers.

Read the full report of the Hearings Committee here - Hearing SubCommittee report

Read the proposed Western Corridor plan here - Western Corridor consultation document

See the proposed Western Corridor plan costs here - Western Corridor costs diagram

Review of comparative costs of Coastal Highway and Transmission Gully

The original 2004 report which blew the cost of Transmission Gully up to $830 million from $255 million - Beca Carter report on Transmission Gully cost executive summary

See Minister's decisions and officials reports to Ministers on the Western Corridor - Officials report on Western Corridor

See how the Mana upgrade has already reduced congestion at minimal cost.

See my history of Transmission Gully blogging:

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

Part Five

UPDATE: Stuff reports Hearing's Committee result incorrectly. Kim Ruscoe and Adam Ray haven't been reading the report that thoroughly.

"A new inland motorway through Transmission Gully can be built without charging tolls or using ratepayers' money – and for less than the original $1.1 billion estimate. That is the finding of a Transit-Greater Wellington regional council committee set up to study the best way to fix the region's chronic traffic problems. "

No, the Hearings Committee was set up to undertake public consultation and make recommendations based on that consultation. It had no mandate to "study the best way to fix the region's chronic traffic problems", it was the Western Corridor Plan consultation process, not about the Hutt or access to the airport or roads south of Ngauranga Gorge. Read the terms of reference!

Try this quote "The committee has also found that the original estimated $1.1 billion cost of building the Gully route was too high. Government road builder Transit New Zealand has admitted it over-estimated the Gully route's cost by $98 million. Further savings could be made by removing $18 million for outdated toll booths and axing some projects planned for the existing coastal highway, which would not be needed when it became a local road."

Hold on a second. There is a $465 million gap, this saves $116 million - you don't save money on Transmission Gully by not building some improvements on the existing route which would NOT be a local road. Knocking out the projects as listed by the Committee, saves only another $205 million - so there is still a gap. The existing route will still carry 40% of its current traffic, in other words, what it carried in the late 1970s, hardly a local road - it will be the main road north for Porirua, still.

Then Kim Ruscoe and Adam Ray say "The Government has offered a one-off $500 million cash injection for the region's roads. " Really? When? Look at my link above to find the papers, there is NO mention of $500 million. The figure is $405 million for the Western Corridor roading, with $255 million for other Western Corridor roading, public transport and transport demand management. The $255 million is to cover projects that should go ahead regardless of whether Transmission Gully or the coastal route is chosen.

The NZ Herald report is more accurate here, and TVNZ reports that "Funding for the gully route is a major concern but Sir Brian Ellwood from the Western Plan Hearing Subcommittee doesn't believe the public should foot the bill." Then proceeds to say the government should pay - huh? TVNZ then says "The pressure is now on the government to come up with the funding." Um no, the report needs to be considered by Transit and the Regional Land Transport Committee, the government already has offered more money for Wellington roading than has been seen in over 35 years in real terms.

So who wants to pay more taxes for Wellington to get an uneconomic road, while the rest of the country gets told to ignore its Think Big wishlists?

Helen Clark is always her own person says Germaine Greer

That's what Germaine Greer said in the Sydney Morning Herald as follows:

"Professor Greer's ideal female leader was New Zealand's Prime Minister, Helen Clark. "She's always her own person," she said."

Oh sure, absolutely, no doubt about that AT all - complete integrity there. Of course, then again which MPs are always their own person?

Why drugs matter?

Some comments on the DPF blog have accused me and Libertarianz of going against the cause of overthrowing socialism because we want ACT to support legalisation of cannabis. This arises from Richard Worth’s rather pathetic attempt to attack Rodney Hide for being a supporter of legalising drugs (where, to be fair, it is never clear whether he is or isn’t). I think Worth is completely misguided, there are far bigger fish to fry for National in terms of attacking Labour – but he can’t get past Hide winning the seat off of him. It is petty, vindictive and utterly useless for National to attack ACT, since it virtually cannabilised most of its vote at the election anyway.

.

However, I did say that Hide brought it on himself by not expressing a clear view one way or the other on this. I want Rodney to support legalising cannabis, even if, for a start, for medical use on prescription. I think, deep down, this is what he truly believes. He wont even say that. It is critical to being a liberal party to believe adults have the right to decide what they do with their own bodies – The Economist two years ago advocated legalising drugs – so it is far from being a radical non-mainstream view.

However, this is what I got in return…

“You're a lefty pretending to be something else. Have to be. Nothing would make Helen Klark happier and be more likely to ensure her e-election than advocation of drug legalisation by ACT or the Nats. From a strategic point of view, its just an incredibly dumb idea. Success in politics and most things is down to timing.”

Well really? How would the Greens react? How many young urban voters would think ACT or National are perhaps no longer the reactionary party of conservatism? So politics are just about what the voters want, rather than challenging the status quo and questioning why the status quo doesn’t work?

.

Russell Brown got it in one though:

“Seems like a fairly standard National tactic: try and scare the horses by accusing your opponent of being soft on (a) drugs, (b) crime, (c) whatever. What I find a bit odd is the belief that Act conducts itself according to the principles of classical liberalism anyway. It would be a much more interesting party if it did.”

.

Indeed it would be. I would support ACT if it was consistent on freedom and liberty. This is not a matter of degree, whether tax is 10% or 20%, but whether or not adults own their own bodies and can control what they ingest. No freedom is more important than that.

You can get your taxes back, run your business how you want, but get arrested for taking a puff of cannabis. ACT would probably gain support if it came out in favour of legalising cannabis - Lindsay Perigo did get several thousand votes in Epsom when he stood in 1996 - on that platform. National wont run with it, but it could be supported by an ACT party that took votes from the liberal left to the liberal right.

That, of course, is not as important as the debate - why does the state own your body?

The Evil Empire

Yes, today is the day President Ronald Reagan called a spade a spade, and said in 1983:
.
“Let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, predict its eventual domination of all peoples of the Earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.”
.
He was right, of course, Reagan also put the boot into moral relativists in saying:
.
“I urge you to beware the temptation of pride - the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.”
.
Why was he right? Unfortunately too many nowadays need reminding of a system that prohibited you from leaving the country, that prohibited any publications not approved by the state, prohibited meetings not approved by the state, suppressed information that could be seen as critical of the system (e.g. the Chernobyl accident) and aided and abetted satellite regimes that were equally as brutal in suppressing dissent. The Soviet Union was an empire bent on dishonesty, bent on denial and built on the ever present violence of state totalitarianism. A cold brutal corrupt bureaucracy acting on whim, acting on command to push people about, deport, arrest, execute and bully. It lost because it could not compete materially or ethically – and it was only two years before Mikhail Gorbachev opened up the USSR, and reformed it to its ultimate disintegration.

.

and why is it relevant? Well check out Not PC's post. Why don't you spend $1 million of YOUR money, seeking permission to build with your own property and your own money, a marina - go through the legal system, take FOURTEEN BLOODY YEARS to get permission from the courts - and a tinpot little wanker called Chris Carter - who never EARNT $1 million from productive activity in his life - says "fuck off, you've pissed all your time and money down a hole". The people of Te Atatu elected a little despot.

.

The founders of the Soviet Union hated initiative, entrepreneurship and money. To quote Ayn Rand:

.

"Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion—when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing—when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors—when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you—when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice—you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality."

.
Chris Carter produces nothing - even if you accept the nonsense of spending a decade and a half and $1 million to just get permission - he vetoed a court decision, and our own Union of Soviet Socialist Fascists are cheering him on. I sincerely hope the Whangamata Marina Society gets a judicial review of this decision. I hope the society wins and wipes their arses on the faces of the smug little power-lusting vermin who would make Brezhnev proud!

Waikato wants more roads money

Well of course it does - you see moving from a benefit/cost funding approach for roads to a more "strategic" or politically defined funding framework has meant Auckland has gained and Waikato has lost. Many Waikato projects are relatively low cost compared to Auckland projects, and have quite high benefits, but the government decided votes were in Auckland - and granted $900 million of Crown funding for Auckland transport over 10 years. Wellington has been granted $480 million so far, with another $405 to come if there is agreement on the Western Corridor roading option.
.
The answer? Well the Nats have half of it - instead of granting sums of taxpayers money to fund regional transport on an adhoc basis, shift petrol tax from the Crown account to the National Land Transport Fund, and insist that Land Transport NZ fund projects on a benefit/cost priority basis, with no projects below a threshold of 2.0. Shifting 9c/l immediately would have no net fiscal effect if you use it to replace the special Crown funding for transport in Auckland, Wellington, Bay of Plenty and for state highways. The remaining 9.8c/l could be moved over in a four year period, to avoid fueling more inflation.

.

and some Waikato projects aren't worth doing in the next ten years - a Hamilton eastern bypass? There already is a western one, which the region wants around $250 million spent on (and it is worthwhile)- the benefit/cost ratio of the eastern one is no higher than 1:1 at best. It is time to stop this Think Big approach to roads - most of the projects worth doing are relatively small and fix blackspots and pinchpoints. They don't get much publicity, but every year they save more lives and reduce delays for far more bang for your buck than most really big projects.