Labour’s Auckland light rail announcement

Written By: mickysavage - Date published: 8:38 am, October 31st, 2016 - 87 comments
Categories: Andrew Little, infrastructure, labour, national, national/act government, same old national - Tags: michael wood, mt roskill by election

andrew-little-michael-wood

Labour has stolen a march on the Government by announcing its intention to accelerate the implementation of light rail in the Auckland Istmus.

The proposal is big and bold. The Government has already signed up to light rail in the area through the ATAP process. Labour is proposing to bring it forward and to have the Crown contribute half of the cost.

The project will address traffic congestion that is reaching chronic levels. The Government is particularly vulnerable on this issue and I am sure the policy will strike a chord with locals.

National has responded by Steven Joyce labelling the proposal as pork barrel politics. This is is asinine and hypocritical at the same time which is quite a feat.

Joyce’s comments bring back memories of National’s promises for the Northland By election last year. The ten bridge promise was as big a boondoggle as I have ever witnessed with projects that would not otherwise have got off the ground being suddenly put at the top of the list.

Northland morepork

John Key has also jumped in and called the policy “panicky” which is strange really because that is the word I would use to describe National’s response.

National’s problem is that like the City Rail Link it will look like it is on the wrong side of the issue and of history and its eventual response will be far too late. A responsible Government plans for the future rather than responds when crises occur.

Key does not accept that Transport in Auckland is getting worse. He is spending far too much time in Wellington if that is the case.

He is suggesting that rapid busses may be the solution. He should check out the relative performance of the modes as light rail can transport three times as many people as busses. And light rail is emission free and sustainable and improves the local area. National’s anti PT bias is showing.

Some of the media treatment of the issue is weird. The Herald at the time of writing this post has the headline in its lead post “National slates Labour’s $680 million rail pledge” and the actual article on the policy third on the list. Strange that the criticism should get priority placement.

Phil Goff has raised funding as an issue. Auckland Council is strapped for funding and certainly the funding of Auckland’s share needs to be investigated. A regional fuel tax could work. Shame the Government is so diametrically opposed to one being reinstated.

The incident suggests that National is out of ideas. Attacking a party for telling voters what it will do if it gains power is weird as is having no policy in response.

I suspect Curia has been urgently engaged to poll on the issue. And someone deep in the Beehive is working on a National lite plan to try and accelerate the project just in case.

87 comments on “Labour’s Auckland light rail announcement ”

Comments are now closed

Draco T Bastard 1

31 October 2016 at 8:53 am

National’s anti PT bias is showing.

IMO, it’s not just an anti-PT bias it’s about maintaining profitability for those businesses that are dependent upon unsustainable practices. Or perhaps what I should be saying is that their anti-PT bias comes from trying to maintain the profitability of unsustainable practices.

You don’t get anywhere near the same levels of profit from PT, especially trains, as you do from cars. Especially when it’s done in the most efficient form – full government ownership run at cost from taxes and free to use.
Lanthanide 2

31 October 2016 at 9:15 am

Didn’t National promise that those bridges would get built, regardless of whether they won the by-election or not? Because it wasn’t a by-election bribe?

So does anyone know how those bridges are coming along?
- left_forward 2.1
  
  31 October 2016 at 9:28 am
  
  Yes, I can report that there is no ‘coming along’ involved – they are still the same old neglected single lane bridges.
  - Lanthanide 2.1.1
    
    31 October 2016 at 9:39 am
    
    Sure, we shouldn’t expect them all to be replaced overnight (or even within 18 months). But surely the planning for them has progressed and hasn’t been put on hold or cancelled all together? National are following through on their promises?
    
    How about the MSM ask National about this, since they’re saying Labour are indulging in pork barrel politics. Where’s the follow up for their own promises about those bridges, that they said they’d build regardless of the outcome of the by-election (that they lost)?
    - dukeofurl 2.1.1.1
      
      31 October 2016 at 12:15 pm
      
      really ?
      ‘Former Northland MP Mike Sabin had called for upgrades to the one way bridges in Kaeo and Matakohe but to little avail.
      The projects were not included in National’s transport election policy to fast-track some regional roading projects …”
      The promise was for 10 bridges over 6 years
      
      So where are the plans for this to happen, as normally its decided 5 years in advance and money is allocated to various type of projects this way. So whats being shelved to put ‘one or two bridges’ in the budget ?
BM 3

31 October 2016 at 9:21 am

I’d expect the Waterview connection to make quite a bit of difference to the traffic issues in Auckland.
Bob 4

31 October 2016 at 9:28 am

“The proposal is big and bold”
Really? Labour have stated “Labour is keen to begin work on the light rail line as soon as possible and will work with Auckland Council to make funding this project a priority within ten years”
This is obviously an election pledge as they can’t do much in opposition, so this must be within 10 years of the election. The election is likely to occur October or November next year and the light rail project was slated to begin in 2028. So Labour’s “big and bold” promise is to bring the project forward by ~3 months?

I can’t wait for their other “big and bold” announcements leading into the election.

Also Mickeysavage, your comment “Joyce’s comments bring back memories of National’s promises for the Northland By election last year” sounds to me a lot like a ‘National did it too’ type of comment…
- Lanthanide 4.1
  
  31 October 2016 at 9:41 am
  
  That’s a pretty good rebuttal, I expect National will be twigging on to this within a couple of days. Unfortunate that this wasn’t their first response, though, instead they just acted like light rail – which they themselves are in favour of – won’t achieve anything.
- Enough is Enough 4.2
  
  31 October 2016 at 10:20 am
  
  Yes the “big and bold” description is certainly hyperbole.
  
  It is one of those announcements that a government will never have to deliver on. Anything further down the road then one electoral term isn’t really a promise of any sort as the Nats will likely be back in charge by then cutting as they always do.
  
  It has to happen within the first 1-2 terms.
- mickysavage 4.3
  
  31 October 2016 at 12:30 pm
  
  Strange logic Bob. So opposition parties should not pledge to do anything because they are not in power?
  
  And my comment about what Joyce said was to show that he is a hypocrite.
  - Bob 4.3.1
    
    31 October 2016 at 2:13 pm
    
    “So opposition parties should not pledge to do anything because they are not in power?”
    Not at all, they can pledge whatever they like, but if this is only a pledge based on the by-election and not part of their general election pledges that would seem like pork-barrel politics to me. If it is part of their general election pledge, then they are pledging within 10 years of the general election, in which case my comment stands. So which do you understand it is?
    - Draco T Bastard 4.3.1.1
      
      31 October 2016 at 3:38 pm
      
      You’re making the assumption that this has anything to do with the by-election.
      - Bob 4.3.1.1.1
        
        31 October 2016 at 3:54 pm
        
        If it has nothing to do with the by-election then how does your 2 year statement below stack up?
        Even by your own dates Labour are only committing to bring forward by the project by as little as 3 months if this isn’t a by-election promise.
        So again, how is this in any way “big and bold”?
        
        Draco T Bastard 4.3.1.1.1.1
        
        31 October 2016 at 6:19 pm
        
        If it has nothing to do with the by-election then how does your 2 year statement below stack up?
        
        The same way it did before.
        
        Even by your own dates Labour are only committing to bring forward by the project by as little as 3 months if this isn’t a by-election promise.
        
        Actually, they’re promising to get it funded within the next ten years. That’s at least two years before National will get around to it.
- Draco T Bastard 4.4
  
  31 October 2016 at 1:17 pm
  
  So Labour’s “big and bold” promise is to bring the project forward by ~3 months?
  
  Nope, better than two years:
  
  Auckland Council had included the light rail line as part of its 2016-2026 10 year plan. The Government’s Auckland Transport Alignment Plan has pushed it back to after 2028 despite acknowledging that passenger demand requires it within the coming decade. Labour is keen to begin work on the light rail line as soon as possible and will work with Auckland Council to make funding this project a priority within ten years.
  
  Perhaps you should read things before criticising them.
  - Bob 4.4.1
    
    31 October 2016 at 2:39 pm
    
    How does that change anything from what I have said Draco?
    As have have highlighted above “The Government’s Auckland Transport Alignment Plan has pushed it back to after 2028”, which I said was the current date the project, and “Labour is keen to begin work on the light rail line as soon as possible and will work with Auckland Council to make funding this project a priority within ten years”, I assume this is within 10 years of the general election (the by-election gives them no access to the budget to follow through with their pledge), in which case you have just highlighted that everything I said is correct…unless you believe Labour are making pledges based on a by-election? In which case perhaps Steven Joyce in correct in his assertion.
    - Draco T Bastard 4.4.1.1
      
      31 October 2016 at 3:34 pm
      
      How does that change anything from what I have said Draco?
      
      2 years is more than three months and it may even be more than that if a Labour led government gets the funding through before the ten years is up.
      
      So it’s not the implied measly 3 months that you stated.
      - Bob 4.4.1.1.1
        
        31 October 2016 at 3:50 pm
        
        So you are saying that Labour are pledging this money as part of the by-election then? This is the only way it can be even close to the 2 years you state (it is actually closer to 1 year as 2016 is almost finished).
        If they are, how are they going to uphold their by-election promise if they don’t win the 2017 general election?
        
        Draco T Bastard 4.4.1.1.1.1
        
        31 October 2016 at 6:24 pm
        
        So you are saying that Labour are pledging this money as part of the by-election then?
        
        No, I’m not saying that at all.
        
        Auckland plan to have it done by 2026.
        Labour are looking to get the funding in that time frame.
        
        National have said that they may get it done by 2028.
        
        2028 – 2026 = 2
        
        If they are, how are they going to uphold their by-election promise if they don’t win the 2017 general election?
        
        It’s not a by-election promise. It’s got nothing to do with the by-election.
        
        Why do you keep spreading the lie that it’s got anything to do with the be-election?
Sacha 5

31 October 2016 at 9:35 am

As muttonbird has noted on the earlier thread, Farrar has already been digging up talking points: https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/10/a_28b_blow_out_in_transport_projects_in_australia.html
- Muttonbird 5.1
  
  31 October 2016 at 10:41 am
  
  Interesting. Yesterday the BCR for light rail was 0.05, and today it’s between 0.5 and 1.1.
  
  If the BCR for light rail can leap by a factor of between 10 and 22 in just one day who knows what is possible?
  - The Real Matthew 5.1.1
    
    31 October 2016 at 10:54 am
    
    Two different light rail projects.
    
    0.05 relates to a Wellington light rail project
    
    0.5-1.1 relates to this Auckland light rail project
    - Muttonbird 5.1.1.1
      
      31 October 2016 at 10:57 am
      
      So he’s using data from a completely different project in order to attack planning for Auckland’s future infrastructure?
      
      Typical.
      
      I’d better leave it there – the links I put up suddenly appear to be broken.
      - Sacha 5.1.1.1.1
        
        31 October 2016 at 11:11 am
        
        Your links both have a ‘ character on the end.
        
        Muttonbird 5.1.1.1.1.1
        
        31 October 2016 at 11:14 am
        
        Ok, thanks.
Sacha 6

31 October 2016 at 9:37 am

Joyce’s ridiculous RONS programme has to be the biggest pork-barrelling I’ve ever witnessed. Absolute cheek for him to be using the term about anybody else.
- Bearded Git 6.1
  
  31 October 2016 at 11:02 am
  
  @ Sacha
  
  Exactly. The billions and billions the Nats propose to spent on non-sustainable roading is good, whereas light-rail in Auckland that takes cars off the road and helps with traffic problems is bad? Joyce is a dinosaur.
  
  Incidentally Labour should fund the light-rail through a congestion charge. This has been shown to work in London, Singapore etc and would have the double whammy effect of also reducing traffic and increasing PT usage.
  - Draco T Bastard 6.1.1
    
    31 October 2016 at 11:31 am
    
    Incidentally Labour should fund the light-rail through a congestion charge.
    
    And make PT free.
    - KJT 6.1.1.1
      
      31 October 2016 at 11:34 am
      
      Tax central city carparking for businesses.
Sacha 7

31 October 2016 at 9:39 am

“So Labour’s “big and bold” promise is to bring the project forward by ~3 months?”

ATAP is only sequenced decade by decade. Goff has talked about pulling council’s share into their 2018 3-year plan.

All the planning work takes years so starting it earlier still means mid 2020s before we have light rail in place, then another wait if they choose to use that as the airport option.

This was meant to be a reply to #3. strange
Keith 8

31 October 2016 at 10:06 am

Joyce is as predictable as night following day. So insincere, so wooden, so reactionary he didn’t know what to say so his utterance became reminiscent of a belch.

But Nationals candidates response was even more embarrassing in it’s ineptness. National will look into improving bus shelters and getting rid of T3 lanes. Wow, that is stupid.

Yep National is bereft of ideas and don’t give a shit about congestion.
- Draco T Bastard 8.1
  
  31 October 2016 at 10:36 am
  
  Yep National is bereft of ideas and don’t give a shit about congestion.
  
  Of course they do :
  
  High congestion = higher profits for the oil companies as they sell more fuel.
The Real Matthew 9

31 October 2016 at 10:55 am

Why are Labour so scared of losing this electorate that they resort to a billion dollar pledge?

This should be a safe Labour electorate so why the need to spend the big dollars in an attempt to secure it? What is Labour’s internal polling telling them?
- Stuart Munro 9.1
  
  31 October 2016 at 11:06 am
  
  Of course the only way the Gnats can understand the move is as a bribe – bribery is the Keystone of their political universe.
  
  The simple fact is, after 8 years of ‘rockstar economy’, NZ should be well placed to invest in overdue infrastructure. The Gnats haven’t of course, because they have no substance except smoke and mirrors. Conmen have few constructive skills.
  
  Labour proposes to actually govern – Key would continue to let everything fall apart.
  - Scott 9.1.1
    
    31 October 2016 at 12:10 pm
    
    So why this particular project? Why now?
    
    It is plainly pork-barrel. Don’t try to deny the obvious, it is unbecoming.
    
    But so what. All that reinforces is that they are as self-motivated as each-other.
    - Stuart Munro 9.1.1.1
      
      31 October 2016 at 12:16 pm
      
      Why not now?
      
      Does everything in the world have to wait on the 8-bit processor that is Key’s brain?
      
      But since you want to talk pork, let’s have forensic audits of Mediaworks and The Lord of The Pies.
      
      Light rail is in the public interest – enriching Joyce and Brownlee certainly isn’t.
      
      The public interest isn’t pork – it’s what we pay government for.
      - Scott 9.1.1.1.1
        
        31 October 2016 at 12:27 pm
        
        Why not now? Presumably is was down on the list of projects because the transport people thought there were other project that would yield a better outcome and therefore should be done first. If Labour think that was wrong, they have yet to explain why.
        
        I’m not saying any party is better than they others on this stuff (except the minor parties, they are the worst because they don’t even have to worry about fulfilling their promises if they win).
        
        The moral high ground on this stuff isn’t sufficiently high to come with a view.
        
        Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.1.1.1
        
        31 October 2016 at 12:39 pm
        
        Presumably is was down on the list of projects because the transport people thought there were other project that would yield a better outcome and therefore should be done first.
        
        And you even used the word ‘Presumably’ to show that you didn’t know squat and then used that complete ignorance to imply that Labour had got it wrong.
        
        I’m not saying any party is better than they others on this stuff (except the minor parties, they are the worst because they don’t even have to worry about fulfilling their promises if they win).
        
        And that’s an outright lie.
        
        The minor parties DO have to keep their promises if they’re part of the governing coalition and the Greens even managed to keep some of theirs without even being in government through their MoU that they had with National.
        
        And you’re implying that Labour are bad.
        
        The moral high ground on this stuff isn’t sufficiently high to come with a view.
        
        I’m pretty sure that you wouldn’t know what a moral or a principle was if you tripped over one.
        
        Scott …
        
        31 October 2016 at 12:54 pm
        
        Well I’m sure we’ll hear from Labour why this particular project is now more urgent than the others – not.
        
        Do you actually think that if Lab / Grn / NZF win they will all fulfill all their promises? Even when some of those promises are mutually exclusive? Take house prices in Auckland. Labour say stagnate them or drop them slightly, Greens say impose restrictions to force them down by 40%, NZF just was to cut out immigrants / foreigners. Which will happen?
        
        Smaller parties (and I’d include the Green in that, just, but not so much Labour, yet) have a get out of jail free card. They can promise whatever they, and never have their feet held to the fire.
        
        Draco T Bastard …
        
        31 October 2016 at 1:02 pm
        
        Well I’m sure we’ll hear from Labour why this particular project is now more urgent than the others – not.
        
        If you weren’t such an ignoramus you’d know why. Hell, Labour even actually tell you in the first sentence.
        
        Do you actually think that if Lab / Grn / NZF win they will all fulfill all their promises?
        
        I’m pretty sure that they’ll come to some agreement that addresses them even if not fully implementing them.
        
        Smaller parties (and I’d include the Green in that, just, but not so much Labour, yet) have a get out of jail free card. They can promise whatever they, and never have their feet held to the fire.
        
        And that is another lie.
        
        If a party doesn’t address it’s reason for being then it’s members are going to leave.
        
        Scott …
        
        31 October 2016 at 1:15 pm
        
        “I’m pretty sure that they’ll come to some agreement that addresses them even if not fully implementing them”.
        
        I guess that is “none of the above”? I think you’re right.
        
        I think MMP works better with two main parties, and one reason is that those parties get held to their promises – in any negotiations they can rightly claim some sort of a mandate for them. That is why I’d like Labour to be doing significantly better.
        
        Draco T Bastard …
        
        31 October 2016 at 1:25 pm
        
        I guess that is “none of the above”?
        
        Nope. That would be you trying squeeze what I said into your own limited mindset.
        
        I think MMP works better with two main parties
        
        It doesn’t. It actually works better with more, smaller parties as then the diverse range of opinion in the populace can be addressed.
        
        in any negotiations they can rightly claim some sort of a mandate for them.
        
        So can all the other parties.
        
        Stuart Munro 9.1.1.1.1.2
        
        31 October 2016 at 12:46 pm
        
        If Brownlee can magically invent $20 billion for the armed forces the opposition can certainly promise to move a long delayed public transport project forward.
        
        It is perfectly proper for Labour to offer this policy for public consideration – the Gnat whining merely shows they’ve been lazy and ineffectual as usual and resent Labour eating their lunch. When you don’t do your job you should expect to lose it – Key is no exception.
        
        Scott …
        
        31 October 2016 at 12:58 pm
        
        That analogy would be the valid if Labour were saying “Well give AT another 1.4 billion to spend on projects as they see best”. But that is not what is happening.
        
        I agree, the National whinging about pork barrel is just that, whinging by hypocrites as they at times have done similar stuff. But they are right about one thing, pork barrel it plainly is.
        
        Draco T Bastard …
        
        31 October 2016 at 1:07 pm
        
        But they are right about one thing, pork barrel it plainly is.
        
        No it’s not. It’s what needs to be done. In fact, a hell of a lot more needs to be done and this is just a very small part of that.
        
        Scott …
        
        31 October 2016 at 1:18 pm
        
        Then why not just give AT / NZTA 1.4 billion, or 2, or 4 and let them decide on how to spend it?
        
        Draco T Bastard …
        
        31 October 2016 at 1:27 pm
        
        https://thestandard.org.nz/labours-auckland-light-rail-announcement/#comment-1252404
        
        Sacha …
        
        31 October 2016 at 1:15 pm
        
        “Well give AT another 1.4 billion to spend on projects as they see best”. But that is not what is happening.
        
        Actually both Council and AT wanted to do this project in the first decade. Govt agencies insisted it come it later after their pet projects like the $1.8b trucking highway along the Onehunga foreshore.
        
        All that you’re seeing is an alternative government agreeing with the new Mayor about the priority and committing to negotiate how to pay for this. Baby steps.
        
        Stuart Munro …
        
        31 October 2016 at 1:26 pm
        
        You seem to misunderstand what a pork barrel is – typically in the US, an act that includes funding for numerous unrelated things. They are execrated because the urgency of the core bill is lent to the pork projects. Light rail is a core policy for Auckland, it makes sense irrespective of byelections.
        
        Pork barrelling is more like the 1080 contract to a Gnat supporting company irregardless of the death toll on native wildlife. It misdirects the funding of the already desperately underfunded DOC and undermines their core function. P house inspections were pork too – a Gnat company profiting at public expense.
        
        The Northland Bridges were pork because the Gnats only offered them to sweeten ‘Hoss’ as a candidate. If the Gnats had behaved honestly they would either have built them, or not promised them. Lying comes so naturally to Gnats they just couldn’t help themselves.
- Sacha 9.2
  
  31 October 2016 at 11:08 am
  
  “What is Labour’s internal polling telling them?”
  
  That transport is a big issue for residents. Oh look, an already-agreed project that solves the problem sustainably and happens to connect to that electorate, and maybe beyond to the airport depending which option is chosen.
  
  Just wait until Labour promise to build some state houses nearby, like Nick Smith did last week.
  - Bearded Git 9.2.1
    
    31 October 2016 at 11:38 am
    
    Labour must win votes in Auckland next year….Little is smart enough to know this….the light-rail announcement will be the first of many Akl-centred policies.
Bearded Git 10

31 October 2016 at 10:57 am

“… light rail can transport three times as many people as buses. And light rail is emission free and sustainable and improves the local area. National’s anti PT bias is showing”

Light rail is also much more pleasant and relaxing to travel on than buses. It is also a kind of “feel” thing-the light-rail that takes you from the railway station into central Seville makes you think you are visiting a city that knows what it is about.
- KJT 10.1
  
  31 October 2016 at 11:57 am
  
  Will be a nice change from the interminable bus/taxi ride through crammed side streets that is most visitors first experience of Auckland.
- mickysavage 10.2
  
  31 October 2016 at 12:32 pm
  
  Yep or Melbourne or Tokyo or London or …
Scott 11

31 October 2016 at 12:00 pm

Sure National are all hypocrites for complaining that it is pork barrel. But so what, the rest are too.

They all complained about National’s pork barrel in Northland, and label the idea of tax cuts the same for 2017, but Labour are happy to do this and touted interest fee student loans during a general election campaign. The opposition parties go ape about the electorate rigging in Epsom, but then are doing the same for Mt Roskill and did the same in Northland to help Kelvin Davis.

I don’t know why we’d expect any of them to behave in our best interests instead of their own.
- Sacha 11.1
  
  31 October 2016 at 12:14 pm
  
  The Greens would not have won Northland or Mt Roskill if they stood a candidate. That’s the difference between those and the Epsom deal.
  - Scott 11.1.1
    
    31 October 2016 at 12:17 pm
    
    On that basis the Greens should not stand a candidate anywhere, anytime. Just seek the party vote at general elections. (It has a lot going for it strategically)
    
    Why only Northland and Mr Roskill? Because they thought it may matter.
    
    BTW, my reference to Northland was really about NZ First endorsing Davis at the general election rather than the Greens doing anything there.
    - Sacha 11.1.1.1
      
      31 October 2016 at 12:53 pm
      
      The Greens have always said they stand local candidates to get attention that helps increase their party vote.
      - Scott 11.1.1.1.1
        
        31 October 2016 at 1:05 pm
        
        So they are standing a local candidate for ulterior purposes? They are not serious about trying to win electorate votes? They may even campaign accordingly? Shame on them, shame.
        
        I know what you’re saying, and their approach makes perfect sense. Fine. Just don’t pretend they are holier than the next self-interested strategist.
  - dukeofurl 11.1.2
    
    31 October 2016 at 12:17 pm
    
    In Epsom national ran a candidate but he hid away from campaigning, very little signs out and mostly for party vote.
    
    Greens would just be doing what national now does for maori seats, no candidate at all.
    - Scott 11.1.2.1
      
      31 October 2016 at 12:30 pm
      
      Indeed, none of them can claim the moral high-ground.
      
      I think the biggest complaint the opposition have about Epsom is that it works. Diddums. If they had clean hands I might buy their faux moral outrage.
      - Sacha 11.1.2.1.1
        
        31 October 2016 at 12:51 pm
        
        Nice try at false moral equivalence but it won’t wash. World of difference between Epsom and Ohariu shenannigans and what’s happening in Mt Roskill.
        
        Scott 11.1.2.1.1.1
        
        31 October 2016 at 1:01 pm
        
        I think they are all full of it, and get a bit annoyed when any of them pretend otherwise.
- Stuart Munro 11.2
  
  31 October 2016 at 12:28 pm
  
  Wah wah Labour did it too.
  
  The Gnats have been a lazy, corrupt and ineffectual government.
  
  Here an opposition party is stating a point of policy difference.
  
  Argue the policy if you can – if not you can do the other thing.
  - Scott 11.2.1
    
    31 October 2016 at 12:33 pm
    
    That is what I’m saying!
    
    Pork barrel politics say National, wah wah indeed, they all do it. They are all as bad as each-other. None of them should stand on their moral high-ground: it is prone to inundation.
fisiani 12

31 October 2016 at 12:26 pm

Who is listening to what Angry Andy has to say anyway? Everyone knows he will never be in government.
- Stuart Munro 12.1
  
  31 October 2016 at 12:30 pm
  
  You’re clearly listening – and you’re afraid 🙂
- ropata 12.2
  
  1 November 2016 at 8:59 am
  
  Democracy has a weird way of throwing up wild and unexpected results every once in a while. Like left-wing governments.
  
  Call it a life insurance policy for the elites — it’s less bloody than revolution
Greg 13

31 October 2016 at 12:26 pm

My roskill needs light rail
Psych nurse 14

31 October 2016 at 12:48 pm

Now, looking at the shape of a train, if Labour promised pink engines, that would have Joyce gagging.
joe90 15

31 October 2016 at 2:15 pm

How a city with around half Auckland’s population, managed to build a light rail system that works…..

.

How the $7.6 billion FasTracks project saved Denver from a dreaded fate locals call “Houstonization” is the story of regional cooperation that required the buy-in of businesspeople, elected officials, civil servants and environmentalists across a region the size of Delaware. Their ability to work collectively—and the public’s willingness to approve major taxpayer investments—has created a transit system that is already altering Denver’s perception of itself, turning an auto-centric city into a higher-density, tightly-integrated urban center that aims to outcompete the bigger, older coastal cities on the global stage.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/what-works-denver-rail-system-growth-213905?paginate=false

.

‘….for some of the people.

.

But don’t call Denver a transit-rich city — not yet. Beyond the shiny trains that ferry suburban commuters to downtown and Tech Center jobs, and sports fans to games, the core city itself still struggles with transit gaps.

Largely rooted in a bus network that is spread too thin, those shortcomings make travel between some of Denver’s most urban neighborhoods, job centers, recreation spots and nightlife districts cumbersome or downright unmanageable. Closer to the city limits, especially in east Denver neighborhoods that are miles from new and upcoming rail lines, transit access flickers.

(shitty effing autoplay inside)

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/07/31/rtd-rail-system-denver-gaps/
- dukeofurl 15.1
  
  31 October 2016 at 5:20 pm
  
  No No No.
  Denver isnt a city with half of Aucklands population, its urban area is 2.8 mill
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver_metropolitan_area
  
  US cities are often like the old Auckland city just a fraction of the total urban area
  - joe90 15.1.1
    
    31 October 2016 at 11:54 pm
    
    Yes, you’ve got he nit, counties too.
Visubversa 16

31 October 2016 at 3:19 pm

Auckland’s population increased by an estimated 44,400 people last year, an annual increase of 2.8%. Symonds St has nearly 80 bus movements per hour in peak times. Double decker buses are being provided as fast as they can be got on-stream but the buses are full at Symonds St all term time. There is no arguement that light rail is not needed, the question is timing, and as someone who uses those bus routes regularly, it cannot come soon enough.
Skinny 17

31 October 2016 at 4:37 pm

Joycie was hamming it up with the pork barrel accusation, it backfired in my opinion, I note Hooton has the same view. Not too many people would take him serious given his failed campaign in the Northland by election.
Quite extraordinary he got caught out again in Northland earlier this year. One would think he may have learnt a lesson dished up by Peters, Winston must have been pinching himself that he got another opportunity to rub salt into the wounded pig;

“Steven Joyce might not realise that after the ’10 bridges’ nonsense in the Northland by-election, the region needs more than empty promises this time around. He needs to deliver some long overdue respect to the people of Whangarei and listen to the clear public support for growing rail.”

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=11626427

John Key was another who may regret the “Rail Blowout” snake oil line this morning. The so called road improvements of significance in Northland
Hills is behind schedule and blown out by 30% so I hear. No doubt Peters will be monitoring that so he can mock and slap Key during parliament probably tomorrow.

The pork barrel literally keeps on giving 🙂
- Sacha 17.1
  
  31 October 2016 at 4:42 pm
  
  What is Hills?
  - Skinny 17.1.1
    
    31 October 2016 at 5:01 pm
    
    Well according to this news item scribed in July the project is due to be complete November. Umm looks a long long way from being finished when I drove over it yesterday, and November is tomorrow. Ha maybe 2017. Apart from Peters, can Labour please wake up and score a soft hit…hello campaign leader Phil you copy over?
    
    http://m.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=11650056
    - Sacha 17.1.1.1
      
      31 October 2016 at 5:45 pm
      
      Ah, Brynderwyns might have been a better contraction (though harder to type). 🙂
Sacha 18

31 October 2016 at 6:17 pm

Hayden Donnell note’s the govt’s backtracking on trams: http://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/31-10-2016/oh-no-is-national-reverting-to-its-terrible-old-ways-on-public-transport-funding/

Article contains a useful 2015 link filling in some background: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11394366
- Muttonbird 18.1
  
  31 October 2016 at 6:32 pm
  
  Interesting. Do you think the Slater/Farrar/9th Floor tag team have lost their touch? Most things Key has touched lately have turned to shit and I wonder if his roading ideology will cause them more long-term damage.
  
  It’s clear people want trains, reliable trains. Buses have their place as inter-connecters, for single use trips, and emergencies but they are not the robust, permanent backbone of public transport which Auckland requires.
  - Sacha 18.1.1
    
    31 October 2016 at 8:02 pm
    
    Older people vote. For boomers especially, driving meant freedom. They don’t listen enough to what their grandchildren want in our collective transport future.
    - Muttonbird 18.1.1.1
      
      31 October 2016 at 8:41 pm
      
      This is a malaise of the colonies, right? Limited infrastructure from the outset, large spaces, and no way of getting anywhere except by car.
      
      What a horrible hangover to have in New Zealand today.
Richard Rawshark 19

31 October 2016 at 9:17 pm

I find it childish to moan about election promises, all parties have to offer something for the voters.. THATS FUCKING ELECTIONEERING..god damn it.

Poirk Barrell is just name calling and they all do that too..

haven’t we got more important stuff to focus on than stupid national accusing us of pork barrel politics.

I say offer Mt Roskill, free rates for 6 months if they vote labour and damn the torpedo’s “To War!!!”
Lloyd 20

1 November 2016 at 12:32 am

What about the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions? It may be that the pork barrel is not building electric powered transport as quickly as we can, and damn the short term financials. Any CO2 reduction must eventually be an economic saving now the gnats have committed us to financial costs from increasing CO2 emissions.
Sacha 21

1 November 2016 at 7:14 am

Herald editorial continues the stupid. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11739397

Sorry to disappoint the selfish but self-drive cars will never compete with trams and trains for moving large numbers of people quickly. Trams also beat buses on this route partly because they do *not* create ‘snarl-ups’ in the CBD.
Sacha 22

1 November 2016 at 8:39 am

TransportBlog offers a great illustrated summary of trams to Mt Roskill: http://transportblog.co.nz/2016/11/01/light-rail-by-election-stouch/
Draco T Bastard 23

1 November 2016 at 9:38 am

Another one to add to John Key’s Long List of Lies:

His minister for regional development Steven Joyce called Little’s plan “pork barrel politics taken to a whole new level”.

What’s wrong with that?

Quite a lot. To start with, Key does not really believe the “best people” to decide Auckland transport policy are Auckland agencies. He believes the government is. If he thought Auckland should decide, he’d go ahead and legislate for that to happen.

Second, the government was not an uninvolved bystander in the decision on light rail he cited. The government drove the decision. Key was referring to the Auckland Transport Alignment Accord (ATAP), an agreement between the government and the council, announced just last month and involving AT, NZTA and others, over long-term transport planning in Auckland.

One of ATAP’s key decisions was to delay approval of and funding for light rail until after 2028. Key is right about that. But the government led the ATAP process. Finance Minister Bill English and Transport Minister Simon Bridges had the senior role in negotiations and it’s clear from my sources that it was they who insisted, against the wishes of council, that light rail not be advanced in the next 10 years.

When will the MSM report on the continued lying of this corrupt government?