Transport policy with a vacuum of critical analysis

Politicians love transport policy.  I used to think it was some throwback for the men who engaged in it, who as boys may have played with model planes, trains, cars or whatever, and perhaps didn't get a chance in adulthood to get to play with full sized equivalents, because they chose a different career path.  Yet women in politics are quite keen on it too, although in most cases it tends to reflect one side of politics - the desire for control.

Transport is a sector which almost everyone has an opinion about, because almost everyone travels on a regular basis whether it be short trips in town, commuting or long distance travel.  However, as in most sectors, a little knowledge isn't really enough to make informed decisions about what should actually happen (except for your own choices).  The problem with transport is that almost all politicians have just that - a little knowledge.

That's exactly what you can see today in New Zealand, and if you think I'm just picking on the Labour Government you're wrong.  The previous National led government was far from perfect, nor was the previous Labour led government. All of them have been unwinding what was around 20 years of reforms in transport policy that progressively reduced or removed political roles in the supply and prices of transport infrastructure and services.  It started under the Clark Government, which renationalised the railways and Air New Zealand, for quite different reasons (both of which were a result of its own failure to continue previous reforms), and undertook a series of reforms that increased political control over central government funding of roads and public transport.  It renewed Wellington commuter rail system, and poured hundreds of millions to revive Auckland's system.  The Key Government took that new politicised framework, and reprioritised it to large motorway projects (Roads of National Significance), but it also funded the electrification of Auckland's commuter rail system and the City Rail Link (underground rail loop) in Auckland.  

Now, of course, the Ardern Government is moving away from motorways and focusing on trams.  

It announced its "Government Policy Statement" which is effectively a way of declaring its priorities for spending the money collected from road user through fuel duty (which it wants to increase), road user charges (which it also wants to increase) and motor vehicle registrations and licensing fees.   Phil Twyford might have announced it, but Julie Anne Genter, former junior transport planner, has also been influential. 

To understand what it means you need to also understand that in transport policy there isn't an agreed single point of view as to what works best or the impact of different policy instruments.   

The market-oriented approach

On the one hand is a belief that allowing market mechanisms such as user pays, competition, private enterprise and choice for users will enable better outcomes overall.  Indeed, you can see the results of this in many parts of the transport sector.  In shipping, aviation, freight and even intercity passenger transport in New Zealand, there is a light handed approach to the role of government.  Advocates of a more market approach seek to move away from politically based funding of transport infrastructure and services, encouraging transport users to pay for the costs of the services they use, which also includes a move to forms of road pricing.  Advocates of a market based approach tend to consider that there is little reason for government entities to own or operate transport service providers and that there are merits in moving towards more private ownership of private infrastructure as well.  They regard the negative externalities of transport (congestion, accidents, pollution) as being able to be managed through more market mechanisms and technology, rather than by controlling user behaviour.  Market oriented advocates are neutral across transport modes or user decisions, as long as users pay for what they use.

New Zealand transport has a lot of the free market

Ports are all run as businesses, some with private ownership, and all shipping (except the Interislander - which is profitable in its own right anyway) is operated competitively by the private sector.  Prices are set by the operators depending on competition and demand.

Airports are largely all run as businesses, some are partially privatised, and the airline industry is completely open to competition.  Air NZ may be (just) majority state owned, but it receives no subsidies, and New Zealand has one of the world's most open aviation markets.  The main restrictions are bilateral ones, many have "Open Skies" agreements with NZ, others have limits on the number/capacity of flights.  Airlines set their own fares, which was not at all the case until the late 1980s.  Airways Corporation is still an SOE, but is not subject to any political interference.  Unlike some countries, such as the USA, the NZ aviation sector funds itself, with airlines paying airports and the Airways Corporation for their services.

It's on the land that the role of politicians is most intrusive.  Yet in many areas they have little role.  For freight transport (on road), there are no significant barriers to entry and operators set their own prices depending on competition and demand.  Goods move around the country and in cities with relatively few restrictions, except some limits on road use due to noise and limits to the network.  For passenger transport between cities, besides aviation, most people drive, but for those who don't, coach services operate as an open market, with competition and prices set by the market.   Even though Kiwirail is state-owned (and has received well over $1 billion in new capital from the past two governments), it operates non-commuter passenger services as a business and is the same with freight.  It just happens to not be able to charge some of its freight customers enough to pay for the renewal of its infrastructure - which is where your taxes come in.  The taxi sector too is reasonably open, which is why Uber has been able to set up successfully too.

Now you're going to say - hang on, the roads are all government.  That's true, but it's also important to separate the roads into what are two networks. Firstly, the state highways (this includes all motorways). These are fully funded by road users from fuel taxes and road user charges.  All revenue from those charges goes into the National Land Transport Fund, and road user charges are set to recover the higher costs heavier vehicles impose on the road network, through greater wear and tear.  Secondly, the local roads. On average about half of the money spent on council roads comes from the National Land Transport Fund, the remainder from local rates.  Some argue that this means local roads are "subsidised", but there is an argument for ratepayer funding of local roads, because the presence and standard of local roads influences property values.  They could be seen as a proxy for an access charge to the road network for property owners.  However, it's not as if local roads typically "compete" with other transport modes like railways.  It is state highways that do that.

So all public roads are dependent on funding from the National Land Transport Fund allocated by the NZ Transport Agency, which also happens to manage the state highways.  Local roads are also dependent on ratepayer funding. This is far removed from the United States which funds a reasonable proportion of road spending from general taxes, or on the other hand from the UK, where road funding is around a quarter of the revenue raised from motoring taxes.  For NZ the emergence of taxpayer funding of roads has been a recent policy initiative, and not a welcome one.

The central-planners' approach

Unlike the advocates of a market oriented approach, central planners believe strongly in politically directed funding, regulation and provision of transport infrastructure and services.  They tend to be  advocates of central or local government owned and operated transport providers, and unquestionably support government ownership of transport infrastructure.  They seek control of service standards, frequencies, routes, fares and charges.  The primary focus of central planners is on urban transport, although they drift into intercity transport of people and goods as well.  They largely show limited interest in the shipping and aviation sectors.

The central planners are now heavily focused on environmental objectives, with strong enthusiasm for scheduled fixed-route public transport.  That's because they are particularly focused on inputs, on what infrastructure and services are provided.  This is interesting because the current generation of transport central planners like to think of themselves as showing "new thinking", because they reject the previous generation of central planners selection of inputs.  Both generations embrace the "predict and provide" methodology of deciding what transport infrastructure to build.  The difference is they disagree on the inputs.

The previous generation were strong advocates of building more roads, large urban motorways and car park buildings to accommodate the predicted unfettered growth in car traffic.  They weren't interested in road users really paying for those motorways (or at least not just the ones riding them, with the exception of tolls on some crossing), but saw the future as one where private car use could be accommodated in cities.  On the scale some planners predicted that was clearly neither going to be affordable, nor desirable, but when such roads were built they did encourage development at the locations they served, and by lowering the cost of driving (in terms of time and fuel), they helped generate demand (that's where the widely misused "if you build roads they just fill up with traffic" cliche comes from).  The "motorway planners" regarded public transport as antiquated and increasingly just existing for those who do not own cars, or in high density cities, accepted as commercial metro systems.

The current generation of planners are strong advocates of building more urban railways, building tram lines (now called "light rail") and uses buses to connect to these, as well as supporting cycling infrastructure.  However, most notably they also support measures to reduce the speed of other road traffic, by reallocating road space to trams, buses, bicycles and pedestrians, and to provide priority to the preferred modes (rail, bus, cycling, pedestrians), over cars, trucks and vans (freight isn't that important to the central planners - either it should go on rail or be moved at off peak times, or it is ignored altogether). The "public transport" planners regard private motoring as not just antiquated, but almost malignant. Some of the language used to describe motorists is either hostile or treats them as is need of help.  The term "car dependent" or "addicted to their cars", is language you'd expect of those who abuse narcotics, not people who choose a mode of transport.  It's designed to support a narrative that "if only" more money was spent on public transport, people could be "weaned away" (as they are children) from their cars.  For the central planners, the only choice worth making is away from driving.

It's all about emissions

Now the policy is singularly focused on climate change, despite existence of the Emissions Trading Scheme which means every time you refuel your car, or ride a bus or fly domestically, you are paying for your CO2 emissions. The Ardern Government thinks it is responsible for helping save the world by making it more expensive to own (the wrong) cars and use them, and to take money from you for driving and put it into their preferred modes of transport. Similarly the Vision Zero strategy around eliminating road fatalities is as much about making driving less convenient and less fast - enforcement of bad driving behaviour comes second to reducing speed limits and instituting speed bumps, because slower traffic is safer (it's also more competitive with modes that are demonstrably slower). 

That's why even if road transport emissions dropped dramatically because of takeup of electric vehicles and the like, that isn't good enough.  You see the policy is not so much about reducing emission, but reducing emissions the right way.  It doesn't matter that it makes no difference.

The moral imperative of the Ardern Government's transport policy is not one based on trusting people to make their own decisions, but rather to direct them and to spend money to provide choices that are approved and recommended (like the Te Huia train) having taken it from those that are not approved or recommended (car drivers and truck operators).  There is policy obscurity in that having concepts like "user-pays" or "economic efficiency" are not desired, because they don't deliver a tramline, nor do they deliver a bicycle bridge over Auckland harbour.

Is it because the Ardern generation are too young and too narrowed minded in their understanding of history (and too full of conceit about the capabilities of their power and the ability of the state to figure out what's best for everyone)?  Have they swallowed the hyperbolic nonsense of the Greens that the whole system is set up to "favour" driving, even though motorists buy their own vehicles and pay a much higher proportion of the costs of their transport choice than public transport users?  Do they really think the common people would be happier and better off if they only just walked and biked a lot?  Do they really think that many people don't use vehicles for their "legitimate purposes"?

That last point is instructive, because it shows the philosophical starting point of Ardern and Wood.  They think the ordinary folk make endlessly foolish decisions, and they need correcting.  So they will take their money and give them "correct" choices, like the slow train from Hamilton to.... Papakura (soon Puhinui... wow).  Like the slow tram down Dominion Road (maybe), which isn't really about relieving congestion, but about a vision around urban form (it doesn't matter that most jobs wont be accessible with the tram).  Now most recently the Let's Get Wellington Moving project which was once a collaboration between central and local government to plan a major uplift in road and public transport infrastructure, now relegated to proposing a pedestrian crossing on a part of SH1 near the airport of which one side is over a kilometre from anyone's home.

It's not quite the 1970s, it isn't illegal to send freight by road if there is a parallel rail line, and petrol prices aren't regulated, nor is Kiwirail a department yet - but any sense that users should drive spending and users should, by and large, pay for what infrastructure they use is evaporating.  This is a government that thinks it knows best.

Te Huia - a nice idea, but a lot of money to achieve very little

The launch of the Te Huia commuter train from Hamilton to Papakura has obtained a lot of publicity today, showing how journalists love an excuse for a train ride, and the lack of any high profile easy to understand positive news in New Zealand.

It is easy to see why some would be convinced this might be a good idea.  After all, there has been a daily commuter train from Palmerston North to Wellington (the Capital Connection) since 1991, running until very recently, as a commercial (unsubsidised) service, although it carries more people from intermediate stations like Levin and Otaki especially, than from Palmerston North.  However, experience for passenger rail travel from the Waikato to Auckland has been not so good.  The last time this was attempted was in 2000, commercially, by the then private TranzRail with a train called the Waikato Connection.  It ran once daily from Hamilton to Auckland, but had most of its passengers boarding at Pukekohe (which then had no service) and Papakura (because it basically offered a faster/non-stop more luxurious option than the basic diesel commuter trains), so that at the end less than a seated bus load of passengers used it from Hamilton. 

The latest attempt is not even a train from Hamilton to Auckland, it is from Hamilton to Papakura, to connect with the electric commuter train to Auckland, so it actually takes 2.5 hours from Hamilton to downtown Auckland.  This isn't exactly competitive with driving, which is around 1hr 40-50 minutes from station to station (and realistically almost everyone isn't starting or finishing their trips at either) although congestion can worsen that towards 2hrs.  The train has two stations in Hamilton and one in Huntly, with no other stops, so it offers nothing for any commuters in Ngaruawahia, Taupiri, Mercer or Pokeno for example, although those in Ngaruawahia or Taupiri might drive to Huntly to leave their cars.

The cost is eye-watering, at $67.6m in capital spending, $58.5m from road users' taxes and $9.1m from local authorities. Another $29.3m in being spent over 4.5 years in subsidies, mostly $22.1m from road users' taxes.  Over $1m has been spent to make Huntly Station operational in itself.  Given $55.1m is being spent on public transport subsidies for all other Waikato services in 2018-2021, this is a lot of money to take from road users and ratepayers for one service, operating two times a day weekdays.

The media reports indicate it could remove 73,000 cars off the road... a year.  The train has capacity for 150 people (not much at all bearing in mind that the Capital Connection has 448 seats).  Now given there are 262 working days a year, this means it should take 279 cars off the road each weekday return. Page 16 of the last Household Travel Survey 2015 indicated mean NZ car occupancy per trip is 1.51 so if we optimistically assume this is car occupancy for potential users of the train, that means that the train need to carry 421 people per day (which is significantly above its capacity of 300) to remove 73,000 car trips a year.

Media reports today variously indicated 90 people arriving or 70, but even if 90 all drove a car each, for each service (and don't now) it would still only be around 47,000 car trips a year removed from the road.  However, it is highly unlikely 90 all drove or would drive separate vehicles, so it all seems a bit far-fetched.

Even if it DID do this, at what cost? is it worth nearly $100m to take 279 cars off the road a day? In emissions terms it is meaningless, because the ETS means that the emissions from cars simply get consumed by someone else (and if the cars still drove someone else wouldn't be using those emissions).  In congestion reduction terms it might make a small difference to travel times, but it isn't worth $100m

New Zealand Election 2020: Electorate vote Part Two - General Electorates Mangere - Wigram and Maori electorates

As the nation waits in anticipation for the Libertyscott opinion of who you should vote for in electorates, I present the following (and yes, I'll accept any additional information to change my mind about any of them, I simply did a cursory search online for those I don't know):

Mangere (safe Labour): Labour's William Sio is a sure thing here, note he opposed gay marriage. National's Agnes Loheni is standing again, and she speaks well about avoiding a victim mentality.  Her maiden speech included "That soft bigotry of low expectation is the road to hell laid brick by brick with good intentions". She's conservative on abortion, although I don't think late-term abortions on demand are consistent with individual freedom. There isn't much other choice here, Fuiavailili Alailima from New Conservatives talks little about freedom.  Agnes Loheni - National

Manurewa (safe Labour): There is a whole story around why Louisa Wall, the sitting MP, has effectively been ousted by internal party infighting.  So the Labour candidate is now Arena Williams, a young lawyer who looks like being very much in the mould of Ardern. Nuwanthie Samarakone is the National candidate, who is a young entrepreneur (so that's a step up). ACT doesn't have a candidate here, although the breakaway TEA Party does, there is next to no information about its candidate, Wella Bernardo.  New Conservative candidate Mote Pahulu is too conservative for me, s say yes to Nuwanthie Samarakone - National

Maungakiekie (marginal National): Denise Lee is the National MP, she's inoffensive, and her rival is Labour list MP Priyanka Radhakrishnan, whose main achievement has been around campaigning against domestic violence across ethnic communities (which is laudable). On balance I'd prefer Lee in a marginal that Labour might win, but there's little from her background to suggest she's any great advocate for less government. The ACT and New Conservative candidates both say some good things about less government, but none are compelling.   Take your pick

Mt Albert (safe Labour): You'll want to vote against Jacinda Ardern. National list MP Melissa Lee is trying again, and her record in the Key Government is nothing particularly exciting (voting against gay marriage and in favour of NOT raising the alcohol consumption age).  About the only signal you can give here is to try to narrow Jacinda Ardern's majority by voting for Lee, and also keep the young  hard left Green candidate Luke Wijohn at bay Melissa Lee - National

Mt Roskill (safe Labour): Labour's Michael Wood is the MP, and of course was previously a union negotiator and spent years in local government.  National list MP Parmjeet Parmar is trying again to win this seat, but there is little in her profile that suggests she believes in less government.  Give Chris Johnston of ACT your vote.  Chris Johnston - ACT

Napier (marginal Labour): It's hard to see Stuart Nash being unseated here, but this was a secure National seat for some years.  Katie Nimon is head of a long-standing family business and has a shot at unseating Nash, which is good enough for me (especially since this is now my electorate).  Katie Nimon - National

Nelson (marginal National): Nick Smith is no friend of small government, and although the profile of Rachel Boyack of Labour just grates (former union organiser with a big Green bent), I'd be tempted to vote for her to help excise Nick Smith from Parliament (he's number 18 on the list). If you can't cope with Boyack, then Chris Baillie from ACT is an excellent choice, given his commitment to free speech.  However, given Nick Smith's record on the RMA, he is central to the housing crisis and the hand-wringing corporatism that held back the Key government.  Rachel Boyack - Labour

New Lynn (marginal Labour): Deborah Russell is the Labour MP, who effectively said the small businesses failing under lockdown was their fault. Lisa Whyte is the National candidate who despite having been in local government, does appear to support lower taxes and opposes Kiwibuild and the Twyford tram.  Lisa Whyte - National

New Plymouth (moderately safe National): National MP Jonathan Young is socially conservative, but I'm not holding that against him. ACT's Ada Xiao although originally from the PRC appears to support freedom in Hong Kong and supports Taiwan, although that seems a strange pitch for the people of New Plymouth and may be to push back against concerns that she was an aircraft designed for the PRC government.  No strong feelings here.  Take your pick

North Shore (safe National): Maggie Barry has retired, which is no great loss.  National is putting forward Simon Watts who is a health administrator.  Nick Kearney of ACT has openly opposed land tax. Give Kearney your vote.  Nick Kearney - ACT

Northcote (safe National): Dan Bidois is standing again for the Nats, he's quite a clever chap and his maiden speech actually lauded free enterprise.  He's only be there a couple of years, so give him another go.  Dan Bidois - National

Northland (marginal National): NZ First hopes this will be its lifeline, so a vote for Matt King is to stop this and remove one party of corporatist pork barrelling (it isn't insurance against Labour, for obvious reasons).  Matt King - National

Ohariu (marginal Labour): I'm not fan of Greg O'Connor, Labour MP and ex. Police unionist.  Brett Hudson, National list MP is running again, and although he quoted John Stuart Mill in his maiden speech that's not enough to woo me. Jessica Hammond (who I know) is a very bright and very engaging candidate for TOP, but if she were elected she'd bring in TOP MPs, and there is no need for more enthusiasts of new taxes/ex. policy wonks in Parliament.  My friend Sean Fitzpatrick is standing for ACT, and as an entrepreneur and self-made man, who believes in freedom and personal responsibility, he deserves your vote.  Sean Fitzpatrick - ACT

Otaki (moderately safe National): Nathan Guy isn't standing again.  Wing Commander Tim Costley is the new National candidate and although he sees himself as a natural leader (uh oh), he's probably worth a shot this time compared to Labour's Terisa Ngobi, who is clearly in favour of more government.  Tim Costley - National

Pakuranga (safe National): So do you want to keep Simeon Brown?  He's socially conservative, but believes in free speech and talked well about government governing least, yet has been big on advancing the war on drugs.  There's not enough about Mo Yee Poon for me to give him an endorsement.  So Take Your Pick

Palmerston North (safe Labour): Iain Lees Galloway is standing down, so the Labour candidate is Tangi Utikere. He's a former teacher and city councillor, and seems pretty much the bog standard moderate Labour politician. William Wood is the National candidate and is notable for being just shy of being a child, having turned 18 at January. While some think encouraging young people to be politicians is a noble goal, I think it is a waste for young minds to be focused on telling other people what to do, rather than building one's own life. Yet he got a lot of grief because when he was 14. 14! he impersonated Hitler. Now he then apologised and this beat up is so utterly over the top. No one should feel humiliated for what looked like poking fun at Hitler in your early teens, so for that alone, give him your vote.  William Wood - National

Panmure-Otahuhu (new electorate nominally Labour):  former Manukau East MP Jenny Salesa is the Labour candidate, and was a public servant before being an MP.  National list MP Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi is running this time.  His maiden speech was promising, with the only major negative being his strong opposition to gay marriage.  ACT has no candidate, but Ted Johnston, the New Conservative candidate appears weak on freedom especially since he stood for TOP in 2017.  I'd pick Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi - National

Papakura (safe National): Judith Collins holds this and will keep it, so give Bruce Whitehead of ACT your vote, just so she knows some people in her seat have a penchance for individual freedom. Bruce has a long pedigree of being a strong supporter of individual freedom  Bruce Whitehead - ACT

Port Waikato (safe National): former Hunua MP Andrew Bayly is standing for the Nats.  He waged war on meth in homes, which is all very well, but shows little interest in less government.  ACT's Dave King is more promising, whereas Steven Senn of the New Conservatives is a bit too enthusiastic about citizens' initiated referenda for me (freedom doesn't come from the majority voting for whatever they want).  Dave King - ACT

Rangitata (safe National): Megan Hands is the new National candidate, nothing wrong with her (nothing exciting either).  The alternatives are Hamish Hutton of ACT (who seems reasonable) and Lachie Ashton of the New Conservatives (who seems like a Muldoonist).  However James Rae of Not a Party seems like he'd be more fun.  James Rae - Not a Party

Rangitikei (safe National): Generations ago this was the heart of funny money Social Credit, but not anymore.  Ian McKelvie from the Nats will continue to hold this seat.  In his maiden seat he said "I don’t believe we have any ‘rights’ in life – property or otherwise - we must earn them", well... no.   Neil Wilson of ACT is a better choice as he believes in "enlightenment values" and "Human happiness is a legitimate moral purpose and productive work is a good and noble activity. Reason is the tool of choice but without freedom neither happiness nor productive work can be achieved".  He'll do.  Neil Wilson - ACT

Remutaka (safe Labour): Chris Hipkins is the MP here, so you'll want to challenge him. Mark Crofskey is the National candidate, but you'd think he'd update his party website to have a statement that isn't saying Simon Bridges is leading the team.  Otherwise Crofksey seems ok. Hank Optland of the New Conservatives seems largely better, as does Grae O'Sullivan of ACT, but I'd pick Crofskey just to narrow the majority of Hipkins.  Mark Crofskey - National

Rongotai (safe Labour): My old electorate, Paul Eagle from Labour holds it, and I'm going out on a limb here, but I think he deserves it.  He's low on the Labour list and he got some flack lately because he challenged the cycling evangelists who wanted rid of some car parking around Greta Point. He is a shoo in, but what about National's David Patterson? He wants co-investment by central government in Wellington's water and sewerage system, and Council housing.  Bugger that.  Nicole McKee will get in on the ACT list anyway.  I'd be happy with Eagle holding on here.  Take your pick

Rotorua (fairly safe National): Todd McClay of National is expected to hold onto this seat fairly safely, but he is a bit of a mixed bag. Referring to the Xinjiang re-education camps in China as "vocational training centres" rules him out of contention. Sure he may have said more about human rights later, but there should be no tolerance of obeisance to the PRC's nonsense. If only is opponent wasn't so clearly leftwing in the form of Claire Mahon, who has an impressive career funded by UN agencies and Amnesty International, which makes you wonder what she aspires to as the MP for Rotorua.  So both aren't going to be advancing more freedom in New Zealand. Vote Pete Kirkwood from ACT given he at least talks about choice and freedom. Pete Kirkwood - ACT

Selwyn (safe National): Nicola Grigg is the National candidate here who is a shoo in as well.  She was a press secretary to Simon Bridges.  Nothing remarkable here, so give your vote to ACT's Stu Armstrong, who talks about freedom, unlike Bronwyn Lyell of the New Conservatives who is an enthusiast for referenda as well.  Stu Armstrong - ACT

Southland (safe National): Joseph Mooney is the National candidate, and he would be new to Parliament.  He seems like a nice chap, who joined the Nats because he believes in limited government (well someone has to).  There is no ACT candidate and the New Conservative candidate, Fiona Meyer, shows little interest in limited government.  Joseph Mooney - National

Taieri (new electorate, nominally Labour): Clare Curran is stepping down and this new seat which includes rural areas is ripe for the taking. Ingrid Leary is the Labour candidate, and she goes on a bit about rail, which is silliness really. Liam Kernaghan is the National candidate who lists abolishing the RMA as a target, but he was a political advisor to Amy Adams. I can't get enthused about him.  The ACT candidate is from the shooters side of the party, which isn't enough for me and the New Conservative candidate also says little about freedom.  You might vote for Liam Kernaghan because it will annoy the Labour Party, but take your pick

Takanini (new electorate, marginal): Dr Neru Leavasa is the Labour candidate for this new electorate, and seems moderate.  Rima Nakhle is the National candidate, and she seems moderate.  Mike McCormick of ACT is vocal about the size of the state, so vote for him. Mike McCormick - ACT

Tamaki (safe National): National MP Simon O'Connor is standing again, and he is mixed on a range of issues, being socially conservative on some and liberal on others. ACT's Carmel Claridge is a better bet here, Carmel Claridge - ACT

Taranaki-King Country (safe National): National's Barbara Kuriger is standing again here and will be a shoo in again, so Brent Miles from ACT would better earn your vote as he is interested in freedom of speech.  Brent Miles - ACT

Taupo (safe National): Louise Upston is standing again for National and she is a mix as well and has little chance of being unseated. Some social conservatism on gay marriage and alcohol, but she was a benign Minister for Women. David Freeman of ACT is campaigning on liberty, so give him your vote. David Freeman - ACT

Tauranga (fairly safe National): Simon Bridges ought to be ok here, but do you really want to endorse him? NZ First and Labour have no real chance here, so give Cameron Luxton from ACT your vote, given he believes in defending freedom.  Cameron Luxton - ACT

Te Atatu (marginal Labour): Phil Twyford? No. National's Alfred Ngaro has most recently been controversial in his campaigning, but I'm generally not keen on his views.  ACTs Simon Court is likely to be in on the list.  The TEA Party's Frank Amoah might be interesting, but I have seen nothing about his views on anything.  I'd give Ngaro a tick just to try to oust Twyford, but honestly ? Take your pick

Tukituki (marginal National): National's Lawrence Yule is facing a battle with Labour's Anna Lorck for the second time (though this is Lorck's third time). Yule was Mayor of Hasting and head of Local Government NZ, none of which is really consistent with less government.  Lorck is a PR consultant, so there is reason to try to block her third attempt because this is no better than Yule.  If it weren't a close race, I'd damn both their houses and back another, but you should decide if you prefer Yule over Lorck, I'd probably pick Yule but Take your pick

Upper Harbour (fairly safe National): With Paula Bennett standing down, this seat is more competitive than usual. National is offering Jake Bezzant, who is a bit of an entrepreneur, so is a safe choice.  He supports reforming the RMA.  The others aren't much more inspiring, I'm not sure Karen Chhour of ACT is going to be keen on less government and it's hard to find much about Winson Tan of the TEA Party. Take your pick

Waikato (safe National): Tim Van de Molan is the National MP, and to his credit states that he believes in individual freedom of choice.  James McDowall is the ACT candidate, and at number 6 on the list is may get elected anyway. He's led ACT's firearms policy.  Even Caleb Ansell, from the New Conservatives, states a firm belief in individual rights. Given this, you actually have a reasonable choice between them.  Take your pick

Waimakariri (safe National): Matt Doocey is the sitting National MP and he gets credit for quoting Adam Smith in his maiden speech, and talking about how his wife's experience of living in Communist Hungary.  That's not a bad start, so you could do worse.  ACT's James Davies is young and seems to believe in lower taxes and abolishing the RMA.  More notable is New Conservative Leader Leighton Baker, but his focus appears to be referenda and empowering local government over central government.  Matt Doocey seems just fine, but give James Davies your vote in this safe seat.  James Davies - ACT

Wairarapa (marginal National): Mike Butterick is trying to keep this seat for National, with Alastair Scott standing down. There is little to suggest his views on the role of the state.  Labour list MP Kieran McAnulty is trying to win it, he was a bookmaker and a council worker before, and is socially liberal (noted for wanting NZ to become a republic).  As a close race, benefit of the doubt might lie with Butterick, but he's going to have to do more to get my endorsement, so I'm saying Roger Greenslade of ACT is a better choice.  Roger Greenslade - ACT

Waitaki (safe National): Jacqui Dean is the sitting National MP, and is likely to keep it, but who can endorse her? She's obsessed with banning substances, so much that she once called for water to be banned because she didn't know what dihydrogen monoxide is.  I don't want someone that easily tricked having power, so what about the Labour candidate? Liam Wairepo is preferable to Jacqui Dean, even though he is a bit of an activist, he hasn't proven himself to be a fool.  If you can't cope with him, vote Sean Beamish for ACT.  Seam Beamish - ACT 

Wellington Central (fairly safe Labour): You'll want to oust Grant Robertson, so should Nicola Willis of National be given a chance? She's alright, and is currently a list MP. Brooke van Velden is a better choice, albeit she is number 2 on the ACT list.  On balance, given the Greens like to think they might have a chance here (one day), I'd give Willis the vote, just to keep this seat a bit more mobile, given it has been a National and an ACT seat in the past, and because the chance of a National MP would really upset many many people.  Nicola Willis - National

West-Coast Tasman (marginal Labour): Damien O'Connor is one of the conservative Labour MPs, opposing voluntary euthanasia and gay marriage,  as well as abortion decriminalisation.  Sure I disagree on two of those things, but it is good to see Labour isn't quite the closed club to those with different opinions.  National's Maureen Pugh famously described as "fucking useless", is not worth your vote given her opposition to pharmaceutical drugs (these have saved my life).  ACT's William Gardner isn't inspiring, neither is the New Conservative candidate, so I'd support Damien O'Connor just to give the Nats the message to not select Pugh again.  Damien O'Connor - Labour

Whanganui (marginal National):  National MP Harete Hipango is socially conservative and gave quite a maiden speech, although there was precious little there about minimal state.  ACT has no candidate, and the New Conservative thinks the ETS goes to the UN.  Labour's Steph Lewis seems fairly mild, so there is no real reason to fear her much.  Frankly, I'd not bother. None of the above

Whangaparaoa (new electorate, National): Rodney MP Mark Mitchell (National) is standing here and was a cop, so he talks about safety rather than limited government.  Paul Grace from ACT isn't stellar, but he's better than Mitchell.  Fiona Mackenzie of the New Conservatives doesn't mention limited government.  Lorayne Ferguson of Labour is not worth your vote, given her history in the UK Labour Party.  Paul Grace - ACT

Whangarei (safe National): Shane Reti of National is a reasonable fellow and much better than Labour's Emily Henderson (who seems just painfully leftwing).  The other David Seymour is an ACT candidate with Motor Neuron Disease who supports the End of Life Choice Bill. Take your pick

Wigram (safe Labour): You don't want Megan Woods do you? ex. the Alliance/Jim Anderton's Progressive "Coalition". National is putting forward Hamish Campbell, who is a scientist. Miles McConway is the ACT candidate and he is a solicitor who talks a little about freedom.  Take your pick between Campbell and McConway.

Hauraki-Waikato (safe Labour): Princess Mahuta is solid here and doesn't face a serious challenge, so your only choice is actually Richard Hill from the New Conservatives, as his profile refreshingly focuses on excessive government spending and debt.  Richard Hill - New Conservatives

Ikaroa-Rawhiti (marginal Labour): Meka Whaitiri is the Labour MP, her biggest challenger is the Maori Party's Heather Te-Au Skipworth. Personally, I'd vote Whaitiri to keep the Maori Party out.  Meka Whaitiri - Labour

Tamaki Makaurau (marginal Labour): Peeni Henare is facing a serious challenge from John Tamihere, in his latest attempt to gain political power. Henare is not a bad MP, having said the causes of poverty are many and varied, with no single fix. Tamihere on the other hand, is an attention seeker who dreams up new policies to gain attention depending on what he is standing for.  Now with the Maori Party, he's hitched up with ethno-nationalism, and wanting to create a series of Maori client businesses that government would be legally obliged to contract with, when undertaking work, which is a recipe for tokenism and rent-seeking, given experiences in the US.  Tamihere should be stopped, so vote for Henare (and ignore Marama Davidson). Peeni Henare - Labour

Te Tai Hauauru (marginal Labour): Adrian Rurawhe is the Labour MP and he is challenged by Maori Party co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer.  She shares Tamihere's simplistic vision, of guaranteed contracts for Maori businesses, simply "raising incomes" and attacking fossil fuel industries.  Vote Rurawhe to stop the Maori Party.  Adrian Rurawhe - Labour

Te Tai Tokerau (fairly safe Labour): Kelvin Davis ought to be fairly safe here, and compared to other candidates, he's ok. In his maiden speech he said " Blaming the system implies we are too weak as a people to help ourselves—that we are victims. Bad stuff has happened, but we must cease to be victims. Māori need to sort ourselves out. Education is the passport, but we need to put ourselves on the flight to the future".  Ka pai! If you need to vote for another, vote for Maki Herbert of the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, but I'd stick with Davis.  Kelvin Davis - Labour

Te Tai Tonga (fairly safe Labour): Rino Tirikatene will be safe here, as it is the family electorate in essence. However, don't be too complacent as the Maori Party's Takuta Ferris is the main opponent.  Anituhia McDonald is the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party candidate, so it is hard to beat someone who supports freedom on one issue (and I'm not keen on multi-generational electorates). Anituhia McDonald - Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party

Waiariki (marginal Labour): TV's Tamati Coffey took this for Labour last time, and is being challengd by Rawiri Waititi.  We're better off, just, by having Coffey holding onto his seat rather than opening for the Maori Party to get in through this seat.  Tamati Coffey - Labour

So there you have it, if I had my way, the electorate seats would add up as follows:

National 33 (and I think I'm being VERY generous here)

ACT 25

Labour 8

New Conservatives 2

Not a Party 2 

ALCP 1

Now that's a sound balance of power!

Requiem for the Wellington trolley bus

Trolley buses are almost iconic for Wellington.   

Wellington was the city that first had them in New Zealand (1924-1932 on one route, followed by the current system since 1950) and will be the last today.  I grew up with them, with my Mum sometimes taking me into town and back on them, and as a child I was fascinated by these vehicles that got energy from wires, were quiet and emitted no fumes.  I lived on a street on which they operated and regularly became "detached" from the wires as drivers went too quickly around the corner, with the old British made rigid overhead wires unable to cope with more than a snail like cornering.  

Trolley buses are nostalgic, the presence of the wires (visual pollution to some) indicates the permanency of the route (a bus will come eventually), and the mere fact they use pure electric technology means they are user friendly.  I've many fond memories of riding on trolley buses, sitting on Mum's lap while watching a Big Ben's Pies disc ad rolling back and forth above the corridor entrance of the bus.  The ride through the Hataitai trolley bus tunnel, pitch black, one lane, the only real chance the trolley buses got to ride at a decent speed, and then the memory of the obnoxious driver who shouted at me for not taking a seat at the back of the bus (he stopped and walked to the back of the bus to do this).  The prick.

However, that nostalgia is tempered by cost (10% more to operate under current oil prices, without including the cost of capital replacement), and the tendency of trolley buses to be slower than other vehicles on curves (Wellington motorists widely see them as the snails of the roads).  

Trolley buses were in all major New Zealand at one point, and New Plymouth. 

Four other cities in New Zealand had them. Christchurch from 1931 to 1956 was the first to go permanently, as the system needed renewal and there was little interest in expanding the network on this low density city. 

Christchurch trolley bus

New Plymouth was the smallest city with a system, running from 1950 till 1967 as one tram route was replaced with trolley buses, but again the costs of running one route in a small city weren't economy.  

ex. New Plymouth trolley bus restored on special trip on the Wellington system

Auckland started with Farmers setting up its own service, for free for customers, operating a loop from 1938 till 1967, joined from 1949 by the City Council replacing tram lines with trolley bus routes.  However, Auckland's system was plagued by a lack of capital renewal, as it relied almost entirely on the electrical system introduced in the 1900s with the electrical tram network.  So from the 1970s, trolley bus routes were closed until 1980 when the last route was closed.  Yet in parallel a decision had been made to replace the inner city network, including services to Parnell, Newmarket, Ponsonby and Herne Bay, with a brand new trolley bus system.  

Farmers Free trolley bus Auckland, owned by Farmers 1930s

Auckland Regional Authority (which had taken over the system some years before) ordered brand new overhead wires and buses, but in 1982 cancelled the lot and was stuck with a mini-system.   Wellington City Council bought the 20 buses at a discount price to replace some of its older trolley buses, and the new overhead wires were used to replace well worn wires in central Wellington.   Another success for the Auckland Regional Authority in politicised decision making on transport.

Never used in the city they were built for.  Auckland ordered Ansaldo Volvo B11M trolleybus
bought at a bargain price from ARA by Wellington City Transport late 1980s

Dunedin held out for two more years, it introduced trolley buses in 1950 also to replace trams, primarily because its hilly topography was better suited to the superior acceleration of trolley buses, than the diesel bus technology of the time.  However, Dunedin paralleled Auckland, with routes shifting to diesel operation as parts of the network needed repairs and the whole system was to be closed in 1980, deferred by the sudden oil crisis, which persuaded the Council to keep the trolley buses until 1982, before finally closing the system.

Dunedin trolley bus in 1978

Wellington was a bit different.  The 1924-1932 "trackless tram" line was a trial from Thornton to Kaiwharawhara on what is now known as the Hutt Road, it would have been extended further towards Ngaio, but the Railways Department objected to the competition so it wasn't permitted.  The modern system started in 1949 and was designed to replace the tram network.  As in Dunedin, trolley buses were much more suited to the hilly topography of Wellington compared to the underpowered, noisy and slow diesel buses of the time.   However, as with other cities, Wellington faced challenges as to the economics of trolley buses when there was a need for replacement buses (as the first generation of 1950s buses were at the end of their economic lives).  However, the oil crisis saw a decision made to buy new buses and 68 new Volvo B-58 trolley buses were ordered (with NZ made bodies), and not long afterwards the 20 Ansaldo Auckland buses became available, enabling the 1960s era BUT buses to be replaced as well.  With new overhead wires in the central city network, and new buses, the trolleybus system got a new lease of life.    Albeit that there were extensive teething problems, as drivers objected to the design of the bus windscreens, and there were constant breakdowns and complaints about noise and interference with AM car radios.

1950s era British United Traction (BUT) Wellington trolleybuses

The Volvo B-58 Wellington trolleybus, with NZ made bodywork

On top of that, the trolley bus network was expanded.  The Mornington route was extended to Kingston, the Newtown Park/Zoo route was electrified, but when the Northland route was extended it was done with diesels (and the electrified segment removed) and a few years later the original Wadestown to Roseneath trolley bus route was also removed, as Wadestown services routinely continued to Wilton.  Weekend and evening services which had been revived were discontinued, mainly to provide time for wire maintenance, although the central city overhead wire system doubled as infrastructure to carry an overhead suspended fibre optic telecommunications network.

By 2001 the issue of replacement came up again, but it was decided in 2004 to replace the Volvo B-58s, but the bodies were replaced as the electrics were still in good order.   Wellington Regional Council agreed to a ten year contract with Stagecoach to retain the trolley buses with a subsidy, because they cost more to operate with the cost of maintaining the overhead wires.  

Wellington's last type of trolley bus- Designline/Volvo at Lyall Bay terminus 2009

Now they are being scrapped, following advice from consultants (none of which have actually worked on operating trolley bus systems in other countries curiously).  Even though the buses themselves have many years of operating life left and almost 40% of the overhead wires had been replaced by 2014.  The electrical supply system is dated though and needs replacement and would cost over $50m to replace.

Yes, I would like them to have been retained, replaced and upgraded (and no doubt it would cost a fraction of the ludicrous plans for light rail in Auckland).  I would like there to be just one line kept for nostalgic purposes, but my claim for nostalgia doesn't mean taxpayers should have to pay for it.   Could something else have been done to save them?  Could experts with working knowledge of modern systems in other countries known of ways to operate and renew a system more economically than those who advised Wellington Regional Council?  Maybe, but the fundamentals around the electrical supply system wouldn't change.  It just isn't worth it to spend that much money on replacing those systems, for nostalgia, noise or to reduce pollution in a city which has good air quality primarily due to the weather! 

What IS disappointing, is that the system is being dismantled before the replacement vehicles are ready.  

So farewell Wellington trolley buses.  Maybe the enthusiasm to preserve them will reignite the nascent museum in Foxton (which lost momentum with the death of its founder and enthusiast Ian Little).   However, while economics may drive transport policy for Wellington, it's clear it has been completely abandoned by the government for its newfound fetish for trams - in Auckland.

So think this.  Why does it make sense to lay down track, install new overhead wire, for a system which is effectively a guided electric bus system, in Auckland?

Road pricing in Auckland

A simple guide:

1.  The proposal now on the cards is not "road tolls", tolls are when individual roads are subject to an additional fee on top of existing motoring taxes.  

2. The Auckland Mayor's "motorway tolls" proposal has been comprehensively rejected, as it has been before for sound reasons.  Quite simply, the motorways are not Auckland Council's to charge and just charging them diverts traffic onto the local road network which has traditionally been neglected in Auckland.

3. The proposal put forward by the government is to replace fuel tax with what is essentially an updated version of road user charges (which already is provided now by three private companies collected RUC), that varies by vehicle type, location and time of day.  It should be absolutely clear, as are vaguely similar proposals in Oregon and California, that fuel tax must go if roads are to be charged directly. 

4. The Auckland Transport Alignment Project (ATAP) has made it abundantly clear that the current "build lots of rail based public transport" trend beloved of new-urbanist planning enthusiasts (and the Green Party) will have next to no impact on traffic congestion. It's hardly surprising, because the reason traffic congestion exists is because the provision of roads and the pricing of roads is not done under market conditions, but is subject to a political/administrative process that results in demand exceeding supply.  Nowhere in the new world (NZ/Australia/US/Canada) have any cities noticeably eased traffic congestion by building new bespoke passenger rail networks.  Which is why, when questioned, the enthusiasts for highly subsidised (by taxes from road users) urban rail don't talk about addressing the problems of urban transport, but sell how "wonderful" it is for people to have a choice that they pay a fraction of the cost for.

5. There is no need for road pricing to be accompanied by highly subsidised alternatives.  Full market based road pricing has four major effects:

-  Prices go up at peak times, encouraging users to make different choices, such as drive at a different time, use a different (less congested) route if available, use another mode (increasing revenue for that mode), or not take a trip at all (consolidating trips);

- Prices go down at off peak times, encouraging greater use and facilitating more trips at those times;

- Congestion is greatly reduced, providing capacity for more public transport on existing roads at peaks, and making such public transport commercially viable.

- Higher revenues at peak times on busy roads sends a signal to invest in more road capacity when revenue from additional users will pay for the cost of the new capital investment

The primary economic argument for subsidising peak time public transport in cities has always been that roads in cities at peak times are underpriced (and historically the technology did not exist to adequately address this).  Once roads are priced efficiently, the case for subsidising urban public transport is weak indeed.  Notice that intercity bus and airline services are not subsidised, neither are road freight services (in or between cities).  Why should urban public transport be special when roads are subject to market forces?

6.  Market based road pricing inevitably should mean the management of roads is taken away from politicians and bureaucracies and towards a more commercial model.  State highways could be shifted into a state-owned-enterprise that could be privatised by giving away shares to all registered vehicle owners.  Local authority roads could be transferred into similar enterprises, but with shares held by local property owners (as ratepayers currently pay for half of all local road costs).

The price of roads should then be set by these organisations.  They would be owned by those with the greatest interest in their networks being run efficiently and meeting their needs.  

7. The ATAP road pricing proposal can only work nationwide.  It isn't just for Auckland, it's a change in how roads are priced everywhere.

Auckland Council wont like this, because it knows that the only way to address congestion is through road pricing, but it doesn't want to lose control of its large rail vanity projects (now including trams - which are buses on dedicated rights of way for 3-5x the price to taxpayers).  It wants control of the revenue to spend on its politically/central planner driven projects, but it shouldn't get it.

Bearing in mind the government wont do what I say, this is what it could do:

- Move all of the state highways into a new SOE, empower that SOE to charge users but only if it gives them an equivalent refund in fuel tax or RUC

- Tell Auckland Council that if it shifts its roads into a new Council Controlled Organisation, it can be fully funded from fuel tax and RUC (and any road pricing that replaces them), but on condition it gives all Auckland ratepayers an equivalent permanent cut in rates and that it has no political direction at all on its activities.


More background on Auckland road pricing debate in recent years:
Auckland motorway tolls re-emerge as revenue raising option
Auckland transport funding report promotes urban road pricing and tolls
Auckland congestion charging, not happening yet

Farewell Air NZ 737s - the noisy revolutionaries

On the 6th of September, NZ557 from Christchurch to Auckland marked the end of Boeing 737 service for Air New Zealand.  This was barely mentioned by the press, but there is history behind Air NZ (and its predecessor NAC) flying Boeing 737s, because they truly revolutionised travel within the country in the 1960s and in just over 10 years or so they had seen off the end of the Wellington-Lyttelton overnight ferry, the Christchurch-Dunedin-Invercargill overnight train and one of the two Auckland-Wellington overnight train services - despite best efforts by politicians to prop the latter three up with subsidies.

Before aviation enthusiasts jump on me, yes, I know the Boeing 737-300s that have been flying the last decade and a half are not the ones that started flying in 1968.  These were the 3rd generation of the type NAC first flew on the "main trunk" Auckland-Wellington-Christchurch Dunedin", and yes there is now a 4th generation (which are the types flown by the likes of Qantas and Virgin Australia to NZ today), but the basic design retain a lot of commonality.  Besides, I like an excuse for a bit of history, and this one contains a political element that demonstrates, once again, how "democratic control" of a business can so easily sow the seeds of failure.

NAC was wholly owned by the Government and had virtually a statutory monopoly on domestic air services.  Other airlines did provide services, but they had to prove to the bureaucracy that there was demand for the service (heaven forbid a business start up service risking it might not have customers!) and prove it would not interfere with the services provided by existing operators.  So NAC had a legal veto over competition.  Nevertheless, it almost always operated profitably overall, although the reality was that the "main trunk" was gouging passengers and making high profits, whereas services to provincial airports like Kaitaia, Gisborne, Oamaru and Westport were unprofitable, but considered politically important (unlike today, with Air NZ which is profit focused across the network).   Still, NAC, as government businesses were at the time, was run by aviation professionals and as the jet age started in the 1950s, by the early 1960s it was becoming clear that the next revolution in air travel would be pure jet travel.  It gained Government permission to go to tender for jet aircraft to fly domestic services in 1965.

The three main manufacturers at the time, Boeing, Douglas and British Aircraft Corporation all were shortlisted.  Boeing with its, as yet unflown, 737. Douglas with the DC-9, and BAC with its BAC 1-11.  NAC's criteria for the aircraft to choose included speed of turnaround, fuel efficiency and ability to manoeuvre safely and reliably at Wellington Airport (which had a runway even shorter than it has today).  Herein comes the "democratic control" element.  The then Holyoake National Government wasn't impressed by the conclusion of NAC's analysis, that the Boeing 737 was the best aircraft for the job.  It was more interested in international trade diplomacy and winning the support of the British Government in securing favourable trade access when it would eventually enter the EEC.  It insisted that NAC "look again" at its business case, delaying approval for its capital investment in the 737.

NAC did, and once again made it clear that the 737 was the right plane for the job, and so it proved to be.  Over 8,600 Boeing 737s have been built (and are still being built), of the four generations of the original design (and a fifth generation is being developed).  The BAC 1-11? 244 and production ended in 1982, although Romania's Ceausescu regime was licensed by the Callaghan government to produce 22 it struggled to complete 9 by the time the vile regime was overthrown in 1989.  It was not the last attempt by a New Zealand Government to intervene commercially in the decisions of its airlines, but fortunately the airline won and so NAC was one the earliest operators of the Boeing 737 (Lufthansa was the first), the plane that (after some slow years) would be Boeing's biggest selling variant ever.

So what was the result? It cut travel time on the routes it serviced by nearly half, and it was 50% faster than the Vickers Viscounts it was replacing, so one Boeing 737 could fly around twice as many services a day with 50% more passengers, saving them a considerable amount of time, but also enabling airfares to be more affordable, particular for growing business traffic between the main centres.   As a result, the competing modes were increasingly hit hard.

Air NZ creates market opportunity

There has been rather little wailing and gnashing of teeth from some quarters about predominantly state-owned Air New Zealand making an entirely commercial decision to restructure its regional domestic operations.

There has been some focus on it dropping flights altogether to Kaitaia, Whakatane and Westport, but it is also dropping some other services like from Wellington to Taupo (Rotorua isn't that far).  On the other hand it is significantly increasing capacity on other routes as it flies larger ATR72 aircraft into centres like Napier and New Plymouth, then enabling its 50 seat Q300s to fly into smaller airports like Wanganui, Blenheim, Timaru and Hokitika.  More seats mean cheaper fares.  For most of the regional locations this is good news.

The current services are losing money because people aren't prepared to pay the fares necessary to keep services going, at NZ$1 million a month, or NZ$26 per trip.  People aren't prepared to pay that much more, and there is a longer term issue is that the planes that Air New Zealand uses, Beechcraft 1900D (through its subsidiary Eagle Airways) need replacement.  Air New Zealand, to its credit, has been using them intensively, but there simply isn't a 19 seater turboprop airliner available that could replace them economically.

So airports that can handle the much bigger 50 seat Bombardier Q-300, get them, and the airline gets some more of the ATR72s to service larger centres.

What of the airports that are losing services?  It's a market opportunity.  One of the few acts of liberalisation of the Muldoon Government (which curiously, the then Labour Opposition opposed, with one Richard Prebble leading the debate opposing it), was to deregulate domestic air services, removing Air New Zealand's statutory monopoly on domestic services (although it took a lifting of the foreign ownership limit from 15% to 50% and later abolished altogether to see Ansett NZ challenge Air NZ on the main trunk route).   For decades it was thought "normal" for the state to guarantee air services by its own airline providing them, and woe betide any upstart with lower costs competing with the heavily unionised state carrier.  

Not any more.

Already Sunair and SoundAir have been talking about new services as a result, which is exactly how it should be.  Opportunities to shift a dozen or so people by air between small airports give rise to innovation and entrepreneurship.  With a relatively highly valued NZ$ it is also easier to bring in high capital goods like airliners.  We shall see what happens (and of course, it does beg the question as to why the state continues to own the rest of Air NZ).

Contrast that to how Auckland urban transport is treated by politicians and planners.  One of the main tasks in recent years has been to seek to snuff out entrepreneurship and innovation by bus operators running commercially viable services, preferring to dish out ratepayer and fuel/RUC taxpayer subsidies to routes the planners deem best (without even mentioning the billion dollar railway that loses money).

Odd then, if the free market is seen fit to deal with how regional towns and cities get air services (noting in quite a few countries, including Australia and the US, rent-seeking rural lobbies have gained subsidies for uneconomic air services to be operated by state approved monopolies), why not for how people get around cities?  Is it because it wouldn't deliver the planners' answer of passenger rail in lower density cities with dispersed commuter patterns, but rather a more dynamic network of buses and for roads to cost a bit more in the peak, but a lot less off peak?

NZ election 2014 post-mortem

Every election that comes about inevitably has some hacks saying it is “interesting”, “historic” etc, which of course they always are.  Elections always change governments in some way, even if not the ruling party. Psephologists (an area that I am often tempted to drop into) are keen to dissect some greater meaning from a vast range of individual decisions made at the ballot box or to not go to the ballot box, and political parties are even more keen to use that data to inform their future utterings of rhetoric, promises and contortions of fact.

The 2014 New Zealand General Election is, though, a bit more than all that.  For it needs to be seen in the context not only of 20 years of MMP politics, and an vigorous level of campaigning by opposition parties, that saw many pundits thinking the election would be close, either due to wishful thinking on their part, or because governments seeking a third term usually only scrape through (see 2005, 1996, 1981). 

In the height of economic recession, a majority of voters chose to change the electoral system, thanks to sustained campaigning by a coalition on the left, poorly focused counter-campaigning by those on the right (remember Janet Shirtcliffe?) and the feeling by a significant number of voters that they had had enough of radical reforms they neither understood nor felt were helping them.  Bear in mind in that same election in 1993, National won by one seat, with 33% of the vote.  First Past the Post meant that opposition votes were split between Labour, the Alliance and NZ First.

Today, opposition votes are also split between Labour, the Greens (which have succeeded the Alliance as the far-left faction in Parliament) and NZ First, but National has won an election in its own right, with the system many on the left thought would deliver them sustained so-called “progressive” majorities of Labour supported by a leftwing partner, and perhaps a centrist party maintaining a balance.  Not now.  Despite a campaign whereby the left DID campaign on a lot of policy, and dishing up a fair bit of dirt, a majority of New Zealand voters weren’t swayed.   National getting its best ever result since 1951 and Labour its worst since 1922 speaks volumes not of the split on the left (which has not grown, as the Greens are sustaining fairly consistent levels of support), but on a series of factors that should result in some introspection, particularly from the left...

2014 New Zealand voting guide for lovers of liberty

1. Is there a positive candidate to endorse?

2. Is there a likely winner worthy of tactically voting to eject because he or she is so odious??

3. Is there a tolerable "least worst" candidate?

So I list by electorate, the status of the electorate and who I am endorsing, then if you care, an explanation why.  Just search for the name unless you want to have a very long read...  and of course I am happy to see contrary views expressed.  I am updating this as I am on a series of flights in the next couple of days, and it is dependent on the gap between flights, wifi access and access to laptop power...

2014 New Zealand voting guide for lovers of liberty complete

1. Is there a positive candidate to endorse?

2. Is there a likely winner worthy of tactically voting to eject because he or she is so odious??

3. Is there a tolerable "least worst" candidate?

So I list by electorate, the status of the electorate and who I am endorsing, then if you care, an explanation why.  Just search for the name unless you want to have a very long read...  and of course I am happy to see contrary views expressed.  I am updating this as I am on a series of flights in the next couple of days, and it is dependent on the gap between flights, wifi access and access to laptop power...

Comparing parties' transport policies (in progress)

Given the blogosphere in NZ in terms of transport policy debate is dominated by one (well-meaning) blog that is almost entirely focused on one dimension of transport (how people move about in cities, specifically one city), and with one philosophical perspective (central planning, state funded, as opposed to market driven, user funded), I thought I'd do a quick review of parties' transport policies for this election.

My test for them all is:

1. Understanding of the transport sector:  Most politicians don't know who owns what, who is responsible for what and what exists and doesn't exist.  Those that do deserve some credit.

2. Support for competition, innovation and entrepreneurship:  New entry both of operators and vehicle types, and new modes of transport should generally be encouraged.  This includes those who wish to do what the government fails to do.

3. User pays:  Taxpayers generally shouldn't be subsidising users of transport services or infrastructure, but it does allow cross-subsidisation of marginal users of networks that are inefficient to charge for (e.g. footpaths).  Infrastructure costs should generally be recovered by users of those networks, not by other network users.

4. Economic rationalism:  Where the state does intervene, the net economic benefits should exceed costs, demonstrably.  This includes spending and reducing compliance costs for unnecessary regulations.

5. Wider impacts:  Make this safety, environmental and social impacts, and say I'm being soft.  What this basically means is, will the policy help or hinder reductions in accidents, noxious pollution, and improve people's ability to access what they want (bearing in mind the impacts on others who may have to bear the costs of the measures).

I'll give each a score out of 5, giving a total possible score of 25.  Bear in mind I am looking at land, air and sea transport.  Any party that says nothing about any mode is presumed to agree with the status quo, which is generous I believe.  I am guided only by the parties' expressed policies online, unless there is a statement by a leader or leading spokesperson that gives cause to vary this.

following the order of registration by the Electoral Commission:

National: 5, 3, 3, 2, 3 = 16 out of 25.  It's about big roads, some of which aren't good value for money, some of which are.  There's a lot for public transport, not enough for the fundamentalists, and spending on Kiwirail is likely to be the best last chance it gets to show it is worth anything.

NZ First: 2, 2, 2, 1, 1 = 8 out of 25.  Suddenly an obsession about public transport, especially reviving long distance passenger trains. Remember the Northerner, the Southerner? They'd be back. Get rid of road user charges, replace them with fuel tax, then replace fuel tax with tolls like road user charges.  Usually silliness you'd expect from a cult that gets one member to write policy.

ACT: 3, 4, 4, 4, 3 = 18 out of 25.  It's all about roads, and having them run like businesses, with user pays for public transport and allowing the private sector to build competing roads as well.  It's light in terms of content, with nothing on other modes, but given air and sea largely look after themselves, that's not a bad thing.  It's a start, and it would mean some of the Nats' pet road projects would come under closer scrutiny.

Labour: 1, 2, 1, 1, 2 = 7 out of 25. "The current government has been obsessed with a handful of hugely expensive projects that it selected for political reasons" then Labour selects the ones it agrees with, for political reasons, including the big Auckland underground rail loop, building a new line to Marsden Point and reopening the Napier-Gisborne railway, so it can carry the 12 truckloads a week it once carried.   Lots of spending, lots of utter drivel, and it supports the so-called "congestion free network" promoted by leftwing/greenie/central planner ginger group "Generation Zero" (which will do next to nothing for congestion on the network people are prepared to pay for).  It's Green Party policy-lite and just as intellectually robust, with silliness on motorhomes and trucks not being allowed in fast lanes on motorways to give NZ First something to admire.

Democrats for Social Credit: 2, 1, 1, 1, 1 = 6 out of 25.  Central planning obsessives with weird statements like "Air New Zealand as an important means of transporting perishable goods to overseas markets".  The mental contortions required to give credibility to the funny money men adds to it (but then funny money is more common than we think).

Greens: 3,1,0,1,2 = 7 out of 25.  So much money wasted on road projects with poor economic returns, stop them and build railways with even worse ones.  Well that's not what they say, but it is the truth. The Green mantra is that walking, biking and riding rail based transport puts you into the promised land, but driving is a curse.  Those who drive are "auto-dependent" and are "forced" to use your car, and you're just aching to walk to a tram stop to wait to ride a tram with lots of other people to go to the place you want to go.  If only everyone could get about this way it would be smart. Except its not. It's a tired, old-fashioned obsession with building your way out of problems, except this is with railways and busways, not roads.  What's got to be most stupid is that unlike green parties in other countries, the Greens have ignored congestion charging as a way of reducing traffic congestion and pollution.  Politics over evidence.  

ALCP: no policy

Maori: no policy

Internet Mana: 2, 0, 0, 0, 1 = 3.  Well you didn't exactly expect much did you?  Rhetoric on nationalising parts of the transport sector that are already government owned, but the big deal is free public transport. Everywhere.  It's an old-fashioned tired old leftwing proposal that claims it would free up the roads, but what it would do is shift a lot of air by rail and bus.   It wont ease congestion, it will cost a fortune (uncosted), and don't expect any innovation or competition, but a large union dominated set of monopolies.

Conservative: no policy

MORE TO COME

United Future:

Focus NZ:

Civilian:

Independent Coalition:

More detail..

Commuter rail for Christchurch? Cheaper buying them each a Porsche

I'm being a little tongue in cheek here, but the proposal from the Labour Party to spend $100 million to give Christchurch a commuter rail service is so utterly ludicrous that it deserves ridicule.

Anytime a politician says he will "invest" your money, you know that you'd never see it again, and that's exactly what would happen to the $100 million David Cunliffe wants to waste on giving Christchurch a transport service that it neither needs nor is willing to pay for.  In the USA it would be called a boondoggle, a political driven project that has little basis on market demand or economic benefit.

The policy is described here, and then here and here, showing how much effort has gone into something that isn't even important.

I nearly wrote a lengthy post pulling it apart bit by bit, but it's much easier to list what's wrong in a few bullet points.

- Christchurch last had the remnant of a local rail service in 1976 when a once daily, yes once daily, service between Rangiora and Christchurch was scrapped because of lack of patronage.  The last regular service (as in all day service like in Wellington) was between Lyttelton and Christchurch, which ended when the road tunnel was opened in 1972 (the rail service only had an advantage over driving over the Port Hills).  Before that, other services were discontinued during the 1960s as bus services proved more cost effective and car ownership rose.  Christchurch's population grew by over 50% in the period between the end of these services and the earthquake, indicating it was hardly constrained by a lack of passenger rail services.

-  It wont unclog Christchurch's roads.  The Press report says Labour intends the system to accommodate 10% of commuters from the north to central Christchurch.  Phil Twyford says there are 5000 - yes 5000 commuters making this trip (10,000 trips), so it is $100 million for 500 commuters.  That comes to $200,000 per commuter, before any operating subsidies are considered.  In other words, the price of a Porsche 911 for each commuter.  Taking about 400 cars off of Christchurch's roads every morning isn't going to "unclog" them,  it hardly makes a difference, even if it did happen.

- However, what it might do is encourage more people to live further away from the surrounding suburbs closer to the city, because it subsidises living well outside Christchurch.  That's hardly conducive to reducing congestion, nor environmentally sustainable.  It would be far more preferable to focus on finishing renewing the local road network including marking out cycle lanes, than to incentivise living well out of the city.

- A commuter rail service to central Christchurch can't even go there, as the station is 4km from Cathedral Square, in Addington.

- The $100 million is to double track the line to Rangiora, and rebuild some railways stations, but not a new central station (which can't be anymore "central" than the old one on Moorhouse Avenue), nor new trains, although the ex. Auckland ones could be relocated, if a depot could be built, and sidings to put them on were rebuilt as well.

- The rail service would replace commercially viable and some subsidised bus services, but politicians don't find buses sexy.

- The service would lose money, a 1000 trip a day railway service is a joke.  Proper commuter trains in major cities carry that number on one train.  

- If there really is demand for more public transport from the northern suburbs, it could come from commercial bus services.  Clearways could be used for bus lanes and the hard shoulder of the existing and future extended Northern Motorway could be used for peak bus lanes too, if needed.  Trains only make sense if buses are incapable of handling the volumes of demand, and that clearly isn't the case.

- Christchurch was the first major city in NZ to scrap trams, because the grid pattern street network and low density of the city meant there were few major transport corridors to support high density public transport systems, like trams (and commuter rail).  It was also the first of the big four cities to scrap commuter rail altogether (even Dunedin had commuter rail services until 1982 to Mosgiel).   In short, the geography of Christchurch is as poorly suited to commuter rail as it is well suited to cycling.

So when David Cunliffe says "The long delayed recovery of Christchurch hinges on a modern commuter system for the city"  you have to wonder what he's been smoking.

  

Really David? Really?? Not entrepreneurs investing in businesses creating jobs, and so attracting people who want to live there?  

No, David Cunliffe wants a toy, something he can point to and say "I did that", with money taken from motorists (as he wants to divert money collected from motoring taxes from roads to this pet project).  He has no real interest in reviving Christchurch by letting business do business, but to spend up on shiny projects that polish his ego - at your expense.

UPDATE: and the Green Party idea of creating a new bureaucracy called Canterbury Transport is equally ludicrous, because there isn't a governance problem.  Christchurch City Council is responsible for all roads except the State Highways, in the city (and no central government would rightfully surrender national corridors to local politics). It isn't broken up into multiple districts or cities like Auckland was.  Environment Canterbury, like all regional councils, is responsible for contracting subsidised public transport across the region, and planning urban public transport services.  Again, there is no division here.  It's far from clear what such an entity would do that is different from this.

Unless,. of course, you hark back to the "good old days" of council owned bus companies having monopolies and getting endless ratepayer subsidies. A model that saw the near continuous decline in urban bus patronage across NZ for 30 years.  You see at the moment bus services in Christchurch are operated mostly by two companies, one owned by Christchurch City Council, another by a private firm.  They typically compete for contracts for subsidised services, helping keep costs down and providing a check on performance.  The Greens are awfully fond of state owned monopolies, because you can trust politicians and public servants to be incentivised to look after customers and taxpayers' money far better than the private sector competing for both, can't you?