Daily review 31/10/2019

19 comments on “Daily review 31/10/2019 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Anne 1

   31 October 2019 at 6:40 pm

   This is fascinating:

   https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12281297

   So, what has changed in 800 plus years? Nothing.
   • Adam Ash 1.1

     1 November 2019 at 11:01 pm

     Whats happened in 800 years is that we have unremembered why they were there. That selective amnesia is not to our advantage.
2. A 2

   31 October 2019 at 7:11 pm

   "…so you'd rather see them starve?" Indeed.

   https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018720169/reti-at-odds-with-bridges-on-immunisation-policy
   • greywarshark 2.1

     31 October 2019 at 7:34 pm

     If Reti is sticking up for the bennies who haven't been able to get vaccinations then good on him. He has sounded quite hardline to me in the past.
3. Sacha 3

   31 October 2019 at 7:18 pm

   Surely NZTA do not need an inquiry to figure out where their light rail leaks came from: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/402228/transport-agency-orders-probe-into-rail-project-leaks

   The agency's board has appointed Michael Heron QC to investigate how the papers got out and to report back before the end of the year.
4. JanM 4

   31 October 2019 at 7:19 pm

   It really is one of the stupidous things I ever heard of. Pleased that Reti has the courage to say so. Don't suppose Bridges had the nous to consult the doctor in their midst before opening his mouth and letting the wind blow his tongue around!
   • Sacha 4.1

     31 October 2019 at 7:24 pm

     Why would they ask a doctor? The problem that party are trying to solve is only political signalling, not anything real. Policy detail is a risk, not a feature.
     • JanM 4.1.1

       31 October 2019 at 7:39 pm

       A policy obviously developed without consulting the party's mps!
       • Sacha 4.1.1.1

         31 October 2019 at 7:50 pm

         That's what they have all those comms staff for. 🙂
         • JanM 4.1.1.1.1

           31 October 2019 at 7:58 pm

           Not the best way to present a united front, I would have thought.
       • Anne 4.1.1.2

         31 October 2019 at 8:47 pm

         Most National Party ordinary members are happy to leave all that ‘policy stuff’ to the hierarchy to determine. I expect the same goes for most of their MPs.

         Have you ever taken a good look at them at QT time when they are all present? What a motley bunch of dull heads….
5. greywarshark 5

   31 October 2019 at 7:36 pm

   I like the image and message for the post. Thanks.
6. greywarshark 6

   31 October 2019 at 9:49 pm

   Central government can sit preening itself and play the fat cat, but it needs to bring money to the regions after disasters. Kaikoura is a little and sparsely settled area with big problems after the 2016 earthquake. Now some ratepayers are wanting to split off. At present Kaikoura Distrct Council is largely overseen by Canterbury, but Canterbury has a huge area and its attention wanders after it gets too many kms away from its centre. See map for South Island: https://www.lgnz.co.nz/assets/cb21cca965/South-Island-PNG.PNG

   https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/402229/outpost-ratepayers-campaign-to-jump-sinking-kaikoura-council-ship

   …Homeowners in Clarence and Kēkerengū are looking to ditch the Kaikōura District Council after a report last month warned the region's 3000 ratepayers would struggle to pay off damage from the 2016 earthquake…

   …The Marlborough District Council volunteered services to areas cut off from Kaikōura after the quake destroyed State Highway 1.

   "It was very kind. They were inspecting our buildings and giving us help, which was extremely good for the whole of the community," Mr Millton said.

   While Kaikōura had done "its best given the challenges", Environment Canterbury (ECan) had been "very off-putting and very demanding" after the earthquake, and treated the areas "like an outpost", he said.
7. Sacha 7

   31 October 2019 at 9:52 pm

   The topic of making public transit free to use came up in Open Mike today. Found a useful twitter thread about it (click to unfurl):

   https://twitter.com/HoussamElokda/status/1151309445508431873
   • Molly 7.1

     1 November 2019 at 9:54 am

     Thanks, Sacha.

     A good read with many worthwhile points. I don't ever think we will have free public transport, but that would be my preference for – as I say – citizens of Aotearoa. I honestly don't think it would ever happen, but we don't even discuss seriously higher subsidies for fares at present. That would be a move in the right direction given that we now have to deal with the impact of significant developments happening in wider areas of Auckland, and people who are moving to those areas are invariably required to use private vehicles, either because services are unreliable or uneconomic, or the cost is too prohibitive to get them where they – and their families members need to go.

     However, it would also have be associated with better PT services in larger areas of Auckland, reinforcing one of the comments that PT is often better in well-resourced higher income areas, which I think is particularly true for Auckland.

     The free-ridership conclusions given in the study regarding the offset of change from walking-cycling modes, is only applicable in certain instances. Most areas in Auckland do not have active walking/cycling systems in place that are used, and walkers and cyclists – in particular – are often competing with vehicles to get places. We have a city built without consideration of limitations on land use, and the social benefits of walking, cycling, well-designed density and community spaces. Although, we can see the benefits of these things in other cities, we cannot adopt them with a foregone positive outcome. Our city has been built around cars, our social culture has been built around having people over, and sharing homes, not meeting in pubs, parks and other public spaces.

     I couldn't access all the studies on Free Transit that were linked. But it appears they only relate to ridership and costs. I consider it also needs to be put in context with a reduction in road building, which consistently divides communities in Auckland, and a reduction in air pollution – which is also a health concern for many Auckland residents. Alongside that, the issue of climate change means that even an increase of 10% means many of those people are not getting into vehicles that are likely fossil fuel vehicles. Those unable to afford to transit to low or non-emission vehicles may choose to take public transport despite the inconvenience because it is low-cost or free. As ridership increases, the culture and attitude towards using PT will slowly change.

     When I attended an event with Matt Lowry and (if IIRC – Chris Bishop), years ago talking about free public transport. They were very dismissive, citing similar polls and studies. But those polls where not in context with the inequality of incomes that was already glaringly obvious in Auckland households. Their assessment of the low cost of a single stage, ignored the fact that many who live in more affordable suburbs have to travel much further, and often have multiple family members traveling similar distances and so that takes a larger proportion of their disposable income.

     And now we have additional benefits that can be gained by increased ridership, that is not limited purely to transit. Both environment and social engagement will improve from well-designed accessible transport that allows a mass of individuals to shift to low emission transport without financial cost.

     Who’s On Board finds that the “captivity” of carless riders is severely overstated. People who live and work near better transit ride transit more often, whether or not they own cars.

     This is a particularly relevant point. Even if cost were excluded, the necessity is for good PT services. That is not present in many communities in Auckland, and it seems less and less prioritised as opposed to improving already existing and working services in Auckland.

     I read the fine print in one AT future planning document to see how they assess the priorities needs of different proposals. It stated that the initial list was created by recording requests or proposals from the public. I have a concern that this approach is what results in funding or priorities being given inequitably.

     12/ IMO every time someone who is physically able to ride transit and financially able to afford it uses transit (and overcrowds it) for free, it's an injustice to those who depend on it, who have no option but transit.

     I reiterate my previous point that I have concerns with how these equitable access schemes are designed. They can often work badly for a significant part of the community, and can still be accessible to those that can afford it.

     And remember, one more person riding on PT still increases the transition to low transport emissions and reduces the need for road building. Those aspects have value as well.

     Also long terms benefits are gained from more individuals in our community learning to use and value PT. This will make the desire to keep funding PT appropriately stronger within voters, and less likely to respond to dog-whistle campaigning about dropping costs. (Unfortunately, that may be a result that never happens, but it could)
     • Adam Ash 7.1.1

       1 November 2019 at 10:20 pm

       Molly, you say:

       ‘And remember, one more person riding on PT still increases the transition to low transport emissions and reduces the need for road building’.

       Sadly, not quite. One less car on the road just leaves a gap which is promptly filled by a car that was waiting in its garage to use some vacant road space.

       To have an effective transport demand/supply system which leads to ‘good’ social outcomes (especially in regard to climate change matters) needs much more than an offer of free rides.
8. Adam Ash 8

   1 November 2019 at 10:08 pm

   There is no such thing as ‘Free’ Public Transport.

   Anything provided free to some by the state must entail the theft of the required expenses from other citizens.

   The question then should be, ‘Do the social benefits of increasing tax to allow free use of PT outweigh the rights of the individual to spend her or his hard earned money as they see fit?’

   My answer to that question would be No.
   • Molly 8.1

     2 November 2019 at 11:27 am

     Semantics, Adam. 'Free' in this context means free to access and use, not free to provide. As in free educatuon, free healthcare etc.

     I'm not oblivious to provisuon costs, and I am also someone who believes that an equitable and appropriate tax system should be used to gather the funds necessary to provide these.

     You ignore, in your comment any social or environmental return on investment, and . I think this silo approach often prevents good solutions. As we know, costs are also borne by us all and the environment when people use private vehicles, these externalities end up costing, just accounted for in health, emissions or social impacts.

     It is a needed discussion about priorities and wider impacts, not just fares.

     And while there msy be some who decide to now drive because their previously costed PT is free (really, ?), I thunk there are many households in Auckland that would welcome the boodt to their weekly budget. We have a lot of households in Auckland that are under financial stress. The social return on investment (which is what this would be, an investment in environment, health and community) would be immense.

     A far more effective measure towards climate change than fraudulent ETS.
     • Molly 8.1.1

       2 November 2019 at 9:31 pm

       Excuse the many spelling and grammatical errors. Combination of unfamiliar device and FFS (Fat Finger Syndrome).

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS