Won’t somebody please think about the RONs?

Written By: - Date published: 8:21 am, January 11th, 2018 - 210 comments
Categories: Judith Collins, national, Politics, same old national, the praiseworthy and the pitiful - Tags: ,

Judith Collins has attempted to steal the limelight in a traditionally slow political period by announcing a new campaign for the National Party.  Not against climate change or child poverty or our failing health systems or the housing crisis or …

But against the Government’s indifference to Roads of National Significance.

The roads are something of a misnomer.  They should be called Roads of National Party Significance or RONPAs.  Because their significance is purely political.

Collins wants to run a series of petitions to try and save projects that are meant to be at risk.  Even though most of them are not properly funded.  From a National Party press release on Scoop:

The National Party has today launched a series of petitions aimed at saving regional highway projects at risk because of the Government’s obsession with Auckland trams, National Party Transport Spokesperson Judith Collins says.

“Roads from Northland right through to Ashburton are being ‘reviewed’ while the Government attempts to divert billions of dollars to pet light rail projects.

“The National Government committed to a large number of important regional highway projects right around New Zealand as the next stage in the successful Roads of National Significance programme to build a modern highway network. These would greatly improve safety and travel times, better connect our regions and boost regional economic growth.

“But Transport Minister Phil Twyford now says a number of these projects are under review. That’s not good enough – our regional communities deserve them and the National Party is committed to fighting for them.

“To ensure the voice of each region is heard the National Party is launching a series of petitions so the public can show the Government how important the projects are. Each MP responsible for their road will be taking their online and physical petition to present to the Government later this year.

The affected roads include:

• The upgrade of the Redoubt-Mill Road corridor from Manukau and Flat Bush to Papakura and Drury
• The extension of the Waikato Expressway from Cambridge to the foot of the Kaimai Range, and from Cambridge to Tirau
• The continuous four lane extension of the Northern Motorway from Warkworth to Whangarei.
• An East West Link Road project between the Onehunga-Penrose industrial area and State Highways 1 and 20
• The Tauranga to Katikati Road project as a continuous four lane State Highway with wide lanes and safety measures
• The four laning of the Napier to Hastings Expressway
• The Otaki to north of Levin expressway road project
• The Christchurch Northern Motorway between Belfast and Pegasus
• The construction of the four-lane State Highway 1 link between Christchurch and Ashburton

“These are the most crucial transport linkages in their regions and the Government has wrongly thrown them into doubt. You can’t argue that you support regional New Zealand and then immediately take these key projects away.

“National Party MPs will continue to push the Government to continue these roads and I encourage the public to show their support,” Ms Collins says.

The crazy things about these RONPAs is that just about no one thinks they are a good idea.  The only people who think they are good are people who own land that can then be subdivided or corporations that build roads.  They really are a solution looking for a problem.

Road building in New Zealand has a long highly politicised history.  Under the last Government the Land Transport Management Act was used to try and depoliticise the system and install a system where economic efficiency and environmental outcomes would determine what decisions were made.  National went right against that by its RONPA system, designed essentially to give the fingers to proponents of quality sophisticated urban form, to keep the base happy and to give National Ministers really expensive ribbon cutting opportunities.

But things were getting out of control and lower and lower quality projects were being supported.  This is something I said at the time that Labour announced cancellation of the East West highway:

The first bunch of RONS were bad enough.  But the latest bunch really give the impression that National was scraping the bottom of a very deep barrel.

For instance the East West Link in Auckland had the unusual feature that per kilometre it was going to be the most expensive motorway ever.  A corruption plagued Russian highway would have been relegated into second place.

Thankfully it will be no more, replaced by cheaper more sensible tweaks to existing roads.  The Crown contribution can be diverted into really helpful projects like light rail.

Greater Auckland thought the same:

However, on one transport issue it seems the election result will lead to a lasting impact. That is the East West Link project. A re-elected National Government would have pushed on with the project as one of their next generation “roads of national significance” and by the time the 2020 election rolls around this project (unless we see the unlikely situation where its consent is declined) would have probably been under construction. In contrast, Labour have committed to significantly scaling back the project – banking around $1.2 billion of savings. Given the available alternatives to the East West Link are pretty strong and could deliver pretty much the same outcomes for far lower cost and far less environmental damage, it’s difficult to see the East West Link emerging again down the track once these cheaper and less destructive options are pursued.

Furthermore, as so eloquently explained by Infrastructure NZ’s Hamish Glenn the other week in his presentation to the project’s Board of Inquiry hearing, even in the very distant future there is relatively little demand on the East West Link project so it’s highly probable a cheaper option would be effective for a very long time.

There are some benefits in some of the projects and interestingly the Manawatu Gorge project which is vital is not on the list of projects being petitioned on.  But the proposed benefits could be achieved by much more modestly scoped projects.  For instance the Wellsford to Whangarei has an estimated benefit cost ratio in the realm of 50c, that is each dollar spent delivered 50c worth of benefit.  And strangely the NZTA analysis which concluded the expressway is not warranted within the next 30 years and cannot deliver value for money disappeared from the NZTA website just before the election.

And there is a heavy anti Auckland subtext to the reporting.  National knows that nothing annoys the provincial areas more than the thought they are losing resources to Auckland even though Auckland actually struggles to get its contributed share of the National Land Transport Fund spent in the area.

But a rational discussion on the best spend of Crown resources free of political spin is obviously more than what we can hope for.

It is going to be a long three years …

210 comments on “Won’t somebody please think about the RONs?”

  1. One Anonymous Bloke 1

    Assuming the petitions will follow the same lines as the press release, the National Party intends to have people sign false statements. In which case, I hope some of the signatories sue the shit out of them (since there’s no chance that the Police will act against this fraud).

    It important to note that the other ‘highway projects’ referred to in National’s petition do not exist. They were election campaign promises made by National in August and never costed or funded.

    “To suggest the Government isn’t going ahead with projects that don’t exist is misleading. And to suggest non-existing funding be diverted into rail is nonsensical.

    Source.

    Edit: given that Parliament is supposedly the highest court in the land, does Section 111 of the Crimes Act apply?

    Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years who, on any occasion on which he is required or permitted by law to make any statement or declaration before any officer or person authorised by law to take or receive it, or before any notary public to be certified by him as such notary, makes a statement or declaration that would amount to perjury if made on oath in a judicial proceeding.

    • given that Parliament is supposedly the highest court in the land, does Section 111 of the Crimes Act apply?

      It probably should do. Getting sick of the lying that we see from National and them getting away with it.

    • Hornet 1.2

      So the government is ‘reviewing’ projects that ‘don’t exist’? From what I can see Collins is exploiting a lack of clarity from Twyford on the whole RONS issue. It’s pure politics.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2.1

        The only person who mentions review in the article is Judith Collins, and as Twyford’s statement makes clear, she’s lying. Your amygdala will prevent you from grasping this very simple lesson.

        • Hornet 1.2.1.1

          “The only person who mentions review in the article is Judith Collins…”
          Why limit that to the article? Micky himself wrote this above (referring to the East-West link) “Thankfully it will be no more, replaced by cheaper more sensible tweaks to existing roads. The Crown contribution can be diverted into really helpful projects like light rail.” So clearly he thought there was not only a review of this project, but also a diverting of funds. It is an entirely reasonable assumption to extend this to the other projects, given statements (and non-statements) from the Government.

          Also, the spokesperson in the article said this “Auckland’s East-West link and officials are working to identify a lower-cost, better-value option…”. So, that project, at least, IS being ‘reviewed’.

          Collins is doing what she does…brilliant politics. And she’s got one over Twyford well and truly.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2.1.1.1

            Keep telling yourself that.

          • Psycho Milt 1.2.1.1.2

            Collins is doing what she does…

            …ie, trying to convince people that good governance is reprehensible and not the kind of thing that decent, right-thinking folk should want to experience. In this latest episode, Judith affects outrage that the government might shit-can some of her government’s pork-barrel roading projects that have abysmal cost-benefit ratios. To a right-winger, this “There’s a sucker born every minute” approach to politics is “brilliant” – not so to the rest of us.

            • Hornet 1.2.1.1.2.1

              The rest of us? Who are ‘the rest of us’? This is politics 101, as played by right, left and centre. In my view this is a dog whistle, but it is very good politics.

              • McFlock

                The moral vacuum strikes again 🙄

                • Hornet

                  Politics is a moral vacuum, McFlock. There are good people who enter politics, but it is a dirty game, unfortunately. Sorry to appear so cynical!

                  • McFlock

                    No, it’s not a moral vacuum.

                    And I don’t believe that you’re at all sorry to be a jerk. You weren’t merely being cynical, you were praising Collins for dirty politics – this time with outright lies rather than secretly paid bloggers.

                    And if the best you have is to praise her for making shit up, then it wasn’t even dirty politics done well.

                    • Hornet

                      Yes, politics is a moral vacuum. The evidence is all across the spectrum of people who are attracted to the profession, including, but not limited to, the people you yourself despise. I could add a few current and ex Green party MP’s to that list. And I’d hardly call my comments about Collins ‘praise’. They are an observation of reality. I’d far rather have our nation led by people with genuine moral fibre, but those people are few and far between.

                    • McFlock

                      lol “brilliant” isn’t praise.

                      As for moral vacuums, arguing about them with someone who has no concept of morality is a fool’s errand. For you “moral” is just another semantic macguffin to wank over.

                    • Hornet []

                      “arguing about them with someone who has no concept of morality is a fool’s errand. “

                      Then I’ll stop engaging with you. After all, it is you who supports censorship of free speech.

                    • Muttonbird

                      Who is being censored, Hornet? Collins lied, you support her in her lie, others criticise you for that. You are free to support a liar all you want – expect to be criticised for it.

                    • Hornet []

                      I was referring to a seperate thread, in which McFlock supported censoring opinions (from the right and left) on university and college campuses.

                    • Muttonbird

                      If it’s hate speech you’re talking about then I fully agree. Many countries have introduced laws against it. Right wingers do generally believe hate speech is free speech so I understand your confusion.

                    • Hornet

                      “If it’s hate speech you’re talking about then I fully agree. ”
                      I may be on the same page as you, providing we agree on what is ‘hate speech’. If you think it is directly inciting violence against an individual, then we can agree. If you think it is trying to ban Germaine Greer because she expresses views on Transgenderism that the SJW’s don’t agree with, then you’ll simply be joining McFlock’s banned of merry persons trying to shut down free speech..

                    • McFlock

                      “Free speech” that makes being a nazi seem normal isn’t free. Being a moral vacuum, you will never understand that.

              • This is politics 101, as played by right, left and centre.

                That’s what right-wingers tell themselves to justify the shitty things they support: “well, everyone else is doing it too.” Only, not everyone is – just the people wanting to do shitty things and the people who support them.

                • Hornet

                  “That’s what right-wingers tell themselves to justify the shitty things they support: “well, everyone else is doing it too.””
                  You’re probably right.

                  “Only, not everyone is..”
                  That is a naive view. The capacity for lies and dirt is evident across the political spectrum. That’s what can make it so entertaining.

                  • There’s the other one: “naive.” People who don’t try to justify shitty behaviour by pretending everyone does it are being “naive.” Nope, not naive – just not interested in justifying shitty behaviour.

                    • Hornet

                      I’m not ‘justifying’ it. I’m observing it as a reality.

                    • Tracey

                      Hornet

                      Reality is not defined solely by how you view the world. By all means express your opinions but many of your statements of opinion come across as though you think they are unequivocable facts. They patently are not

                    • Hornet []

                      I would suggest that you use examples.

  2. Ad 2

    Great post Mickey.
    National sure know how to shore up their regional base.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1

      Yeah, because having people perjure themselves is winning 🙄

    • Skinny 2.2

      Really? What a few public toilets with carparks in the regions and broken promises of Bridges building bridges. They need to build a bridge alright. One they can get over, nothing worse than a sore loser, and this is how they are coming across.

  3. tc 3

    How about whoever the F the appropriate minister is lay out the shell game of funding that national has played which sees rural roads and highways in the worst state anyones ever seen.

    FFS collins is presenting the govt with a golden opportunity here to slam dunk the BS about RONS and remind rural people that their roads are crap because of the reallocation into holiday highways by national.

    I know of some farmers filling holes in the roads themselves now as maintenance has been slashed to levels that sees deterioration not restoration.

    Don’t forget the impact of extra tonnage also as the physics on that is secondary school level.

    • red-blooded 3.1

      Twyford is the Minister of Transport, so presumably he and his office will have to respond.

      Great post, Mickey, The RONS were always a cynical (and not very subtle) gesture to the Nat bastions of the regions and the Road Transport Forum. Some of these roads definitely need tweaking to improve safety, but the scale of this set of commitments was never justified and as far as I know they weren’t fully budgeted for.

      I hope Twyford comes back strongly on this.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 3.1.1

        I quoted and linked to his response at 1.

      • greywarshark 3.1.2

        I listened to Shirley saying that the regional roads are bad and something should be done about them and I think he said something that made it sound s if he cared about people living near the roads. I thought he might be feeling sick.

        • Patricia 3.1.2.1

          The regional roads are a mess because there are too many huge trucks using them. I cannot believe the condition of these roads – large pot holes everywhere.

  4. Incognito 4

    Timing is everything in politics. In this period traffic is lighter in many places yet there are the usual holiday bottle necks and many people spend more time on the road, particularly roads that they normally don’t use. In other words, people have a slightly raised awareness of roading issues and are therefore somewhat sensitised to National’s ‘messaging’. You can call it pragmatic opportunism but it shows an utter lack of (long-term) vision.

  5. patricia bremner 5

    Like we need more trucks and roads!! sarc!

  6. Ed 6

    The world is on the precipice of catastrophic climate change.
    And National, the party of deniers, want to build more roads for cars and trucks.

    After Rachel Stewart’s article yesterday, their actions are Neanderthal.
    No worse their actions are genocidal.

    Vote National.
    Vote to end life on Earth quicker.

    • Stunned Mullet 6.1

      Well done Ed, a very measured commentary.

    • timeforacupoftea 6.2

      I don’t know of the Rachel Stewart you mention Ed.
      Is this her ?
      https://www.wilderness.co.nz/blog/an-interview-with-rachel-stewart

    • reason 6.3

      Nationals actions against fighting action on climate change go beyond just building bigger roads for more cars and trucks ….

      1) About 9 years ago our then new NAct government Immediately shit canned and stopped the first baby steps of energy efficiency regulation that Labor were going to implement ….

      2) Tried to start up a Lignite industry.. …. spending money on something that is so dirty and crap that it makes coal look clean

      3) Decided to invest Billions on roads … encouraging more cars and traffic …. creating more greenhouse pollution

      4) Subverted the world wide carbon trading scheme by dealing in fraudulent carbon credits.. allowed some of our biggest polluters to make millions by also doing this.

      5) Passed laws banning protests at sea … for the benefit of the oil and Gas mining industries

      6) Oversaw massive growth and intensification of Dairy farming … more methane from increased cow numbers ….. deforestation and environmental destruction from the Palm ( kernel ) industry

      7) Even Keys own special area of work and effort while in Govt …. Tax Havens ….. Help with illegal logging, deforestation and every other type of exploitation … environmental or otherwise.

      They have acted like Neanderthals while flipping the bird at the science backed concerns of ‘greenies’ ……

      If runaway man made climate change does wipe out life in the future …. then Judiths Nact partys actions when in government will have indeed played a small right wing part in the genocide/extinction of our grand-kids or great grand kids generation.

  7. fender 7

    Must mean Oravida are getting into the road building business.

  8. eco maori 8

    Wow this person thinks that she could be a New Zealand Priminster that will never happen she looks like a character from my granddaughter book frozen and If one can’t see her character and personalitys real motive well you are a blind neo liberal.
    The money spent on that expressway in Tauranga would have been better spent on the shortest link between two of our cities that are in the top six biggest cities we have the Pyes Park Road fix up the gorge Road and the oneway bridge on this main road. One could have made the improvements to this road with half the money spent on that Tauranga road.
    They could have saved time for the trucks taking export goods to the port of Tauranga cut 10 minutes off the trip.
    To me it looks like they want all the investment in Tauranga and just a drip of investment for Rotorua. Is it because Rotorua has a population that is 1/3 Maori I don’t know for sure but some thing sure stinks with the choice that national have made to invest money in.
    Christchurch Tauranga Cambridge. If national did it job properly we would be saving billions they were to busy/ ignorant lining there m8 pockets to think what’s good for all people and the country Ana to kai

  9. Ch_Ch Chiquita 9

    My hope is that these petitions will get the same treatment Action Station’s petition for a review of our mental health system received.

    And while our National Party is so determined to save an endangered species, New York City is divesting $5bn from fossil fuels – https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/10/new-york-city-plans-to-divest-5bn-from-fossil-fuels-and-sue-oil-companies

    • greywarshark 9.1

      That is confusing Ch Chiquita. We want to do both, save endangered species and improve our mental health system plus every other system that is in arrears of proper funding. Altogether they work in synergy with the mental health system, but we definitely should start off with action to aid our particularly troubled people, and work along the chain stamping out the fires as they start (just analogy) and working through a list of priorities that can be juggled as needed even making some small changes in lieu of what is really required overall.

      But set aside money to keep funding those who specialise in the natural world. They denizens of the unnatural never invited, never will understand that the world wants to invade their territory, their land, their waters, their skies. They don’t know what hit them and curl up and die eventually. And we are so mentally troubled that many of us do so as well. We are all in this together.

      And as for the USA they occasionally come up with something that soothes my mental anxiety, and I praise them for doing something apparently good, and then wonder who is set up to profit from it. Perhaps NY is going to use that $5 bn to change its city plan to suit driverless electric cars as the Ford car executive suggested on the news this morning. Ford are getting ready to start a new car revolution and want the streets prepared for it by the time they get the factories robotised to churn them out
      or something like that. I wouldn’t be surprised if it isn’t announced in a different way but that is likely to be the gist.

      I suggest we look at what we can do on our own level of small sufficiency and keep an eye on the big countries and concentrate on doing smaller, doable things that are not on a laughable 30 year timeline.

      • Chch_chiquita 9.1.1

        🙂 I think I might needed to put in brackets that the endangered species I’m talking about are roads. Sorry.

        But I agree that we must look at the entire picture as it is all connected. Our consumerism world seams to forget we will not survive without the natural world. yes, it bloody costs money to protect it, but we can’t eat money!

  10. greywarshark 10

    Judith Collins gets such a great expressive effect in that image that she would be a great witch for a Disney production. Her talent is wasted on little ole NZ.

  11. Tracey 11

    Are petitions usually citizen based and started not started by a political party? It just seems anotger example of Nats telling people what to care about

  12. infused 12

    The Otaki to north of Levin expressway road project is vital.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1

      How will NZ ever have a rockstar economy without it? Maybe the induced demand will help 🙄

    • mauī 12.2

      Transmission Gully is also vital, and the Kapiti expressway, then there’s the Terrace Tunnel and the Mt Victoria tunnel. All to get continuous 2 lanes of traffic from the coast to the Wellington airport. Then you have to pray that any traffic merging into that route is going to merge seemlessly in (yeah right ~tui).

      What sort of cost are we up to now $3+ billion for that, plus the ongoing maintenance. A good way to lose money.

      • mickysavage 12.2.1

        I will upset a few people by saying this but it never takes me more than 30 minutes to get from the Airport to Wellington Central no matter what time of the day or week. There is no crisis … Wellington does not have a congestion problem …

  13. Tanz 13

    We will get more useless trains, decades old, from China. Go Judith, and thank you for commenting on the recent storms, no one from the new govt bothered. Must all be too busy on holiday trips..

    • One Anonymous Bloke 13.1

      They’re at a funeral, you nasty spiteful moran.

      • Tanz 13.1.1

        Not when the storms hit and caused huge chaos, they weren’t. Days and days ago.
        You really get angry, don’t you.

    • mickysavage 13.2

      I take it you haven’t caught a train in Auckland in the past three years?

      • Tanz 13.2.1

        Yes, and it broke down that day. A few months back, en route to Glen Eden from New Lynn, they often do.

    • McFlock 13.3

      Nah. The current govt won’t buy the same shit trains that the last govt of incompetents bought.

      Hell, they might even buy NZ-made, shocking I know…

    • It’s the cars and roads that are useless and which we can’t afford.

      Can’t afford National and their 15th century economics and ethics either.

    • Skinny 13.5

      She is known as the ‘swamp witch’ up Northland way. All those kauri stumps like the one the digger had problems extracting because a pipe was in the way that her old man Wong Tung exported. We don’t see many trucks hauling them these days. Gone to ground/swamp.

  14. Jingyang 14

    A commenter on the Greater Auckland blog summed it all up nicely:
    From now on we should just refer to these projects as National’s More RoNs.

  15. BM 15

    Unless we turn into communist China I don’t think light rail is a financially viable option for Auckland.

    That opportunity was 30-40 years ago, trying to shove a light rail system into an expensive developed city like Auckland is financial madness.

    The solution lies in driverless car technology, it just a matter of being patient.

    • You don’t think.

      Our financial system is a Ponzi Scheme which means that it’s viable. Economics, which we don’t have because of our financial system, is about using less resources for the same effect. That means that trains and buses are economically viable while cars and trucks aren’t as they use more resources to achieve the same outcome.

      But that’s actually the problem with capitalism. It always uses more resources for the same outcome and that excessive use of resources makes it unsustainable.

      That unstainability is why capitalism, throughout recorded history, has always destroyed the civilisation that it has arisen in. As it’s now destroying the civilisation that we grew up in.

      And taking the Rest of the World with it as Climate Change advances through the actions of the capitalists who all bow to that Ponzi Scheme.

    • Skinny 15.2

      Speaking of madness it wasn’t the smartest press release ole swampy Collins hashed together and put out.

      I mean championing the East-West link the most expensive section of tarmac in the world, the benefit to cost very poor value. That is just financial recklessness

      • BM 15.2.1

        What do you know about the East-West Link Skinny?

        • mickysavage 15.2.1.1

          I know quite a bit. How about you?

        • Skinny 15.2.1.2

          Oh I came to the city of snails created a week of noise through the friendly media as a lead up to a politcal gig. Gridlock, problems with the tunnel and the nonsense that was the now defunct East-West link. So yeah I knew enough to spray & throttle Natcorp and drove away 🙂

          BTW told you the result of the election, helped the Northland boys gave me the wink.

          • BM 15.2.1.2.1

            Very true I thought you are full of kaka at the time, but you’re obviously an insider.

            Guess this is it for that shameless old fuck Peters because he well and truly screwed over his rural/elderly base.

            NZ First hasn’t got a shit show of making 5% next time, he won’t be missed though, like Mark Richardson said the guy is pus.

            • Skinny 15.2.1.2.1.1

              Were or are which is it punk? lol.
              He will need to stand again in Northland as insurance in case 5% is beyond them, so the old lizard may be around another round.

              Both Labour and National have their issues to resolve. Bridges needs to start wearing a fake mask, chill out, buy some decent dark shades and get around in a black shirt, smile and laugh and slow down his lines, just start bursting into laughter, make out everything the government does is a joke.

              There is the new year tip. Nice and easy. Funny he wants a meeting with me, may give him that advice, do everyone a favour or it is going to be years of bitchy winding, which I have had enough of already.

              • BM

                Personally, I’d prefer Collins as leader, she’ll tear Arderns face off and make a merkin out of it, that’s going to really resonate with the pissed off voting public

                Still a bit early for Simon I reckon.

                • McFlock

                  She plays well to the nat base, but nobody else. And everyone around parliament would know she’s a snake.

                  The nats need someone who understands the difference between “friend” and “lickspittle”.

                • Pat

                  lol…oh how i hope you get your wish….with Collins as Nat leader they’ll never win another election

                • Skinny

                  Your a lousy tipster pal if your backing that old nag, she should be out to pasture. Judith reminds me of a broodmare I use to bred from, spent most of her time snapping & snarling at others.

                  Modern political leaders have to have a signature smile and be good at pointing and waving, photogenic for selfies. That’s Collins out. Bring on the simpleton and the bottle blond, equally nasty as Collins but can be managed.
                  BM you need a holiday your very angry from old.

            • Tracey 15.2.1.2.1.2

              OMG you are on the Mark Richardson bandwahon now? You really are a propagandists wet dream

    • Sacha 15.3

      How do you imagine driverless cars will handle the Auckland region’s transport needs in the way integrated light rail would, BM?

      • BM 15.3.1

        They’d use existing infrastructure for a start.

        You could easily have driverless cars doing 100mph an inch apart on Auckland motorways.

        All cars would connect to a central computer which would set speed and spacing.

        • Kat 15.3.1.1

          Oh dear BM appears its slipping off again, and again…poor old forehead!

          Try cutting back on the whale oil.

        • McFlock 15.3.1.2

          Didn’t they just build a sodding great tunnel in auckland? “Existing infrastructure” my arse

        • Tracey 15.3.1.3

          Wrong BM. Driverless cars still have to follow the law of physica and the road rules. Also accoubt for unexpected stuff from the environment, malfunctions etc.

          • Muttonbird 15.3.1.3.1

            Yeah, I’m wondering what place the people who want to/have to drive their own cars have in BM’s Jestons’ paradise. Will they be forced to drive an inch away from the driverless car in front and an inch in front of the driverless car behind?

            • BM 15.3.1.3.1.1

              It will be like this

              • Muttonbird

                Not sure you answered my question there, hipster.

                • McFlock

                  Hate to say it, but they did.

                  Flock behaviour is basically how the traffic system works and will work, AI will just make the tolerances tighter.

                  Currently we have the “two second / four second rule” when following another vehicle. That’s because humans often take a solid second and a half to react.

                  Each vehicle will have its own telemetry on brake effectiveness, road quality, and distance to nearest obstacle. So yeah, a good road with high-g braking parameters means an inch apart isn’t out of the question, but each car chose it’s own following distance. Someone in fuel economy mode might have longer distances to lower the braking Gs, but even then the offset is braking charging the battery to it’s be more of a comfort choice.

                  • Muttonbird

                    That’s not what I asked. I asked how AI cars would mix with human drivers, still bound by human reactions and distractions. Or are you both dreaming of zero human drivers in the near future?

                    • McFlock

                      They’d mix like any other driver: allowing for following vehicles as part of the calculation of their own safe following distance.

                      Everyone does the same basic stuff – start, stop, park, merge, turn, pick a lane, look out for hazards. Robots will just do it better because they don’t get drunk or distracted.

                    • Muttonbird

                      All efficiency you and BM talk about in this new network will be constrained by what the human driver is capable of which is delayed reactions, mistakes, distractions, etc.

                      Can’t see an improvement unless we all turn into starlings…

                    • McFlock

                      Well, unlike BM, I don’t think autonomous vehicles will be a substitute for a decent public transport system, including busses and trains.

                      But the more autonomous vehicles there are as a proportion of the vehicle population, the tighter traffic waves will be and the more cars will fit on the roads.

                      In good conditions, the average safe following distance is about 30m at 50kph. If robots were a crappy three times better than humans, that’s 10m.

                      If 5000 human-driver vehicles are following other vehicles in the city, then that’s 150km of road that’s being used as safe distance but with nothing on them. If 3000 human drivers are accompanied by 2000 robot drivers, then the “used but not occupied” amount of road is down to 130km. Flip the ratio to 3000 robots and 2000 humans, you’re down to 90km. An additional 60km of open space for people to merge or turn into.

        • timeforacupoftea 15.3.1.4

          Haaaaaa BM
          I would hope Microsoft had nothing to do with your Invision.

    • mickysavage 15.4

      Unless we turn into communist China I don’t think light rail is a financially viable option for Auckland.

      Have you been to Tokyo or Hong Kong or Shanghai or Beijing or for that purpose London or New York or Manchester?

      Electric rail of different varieties is very good at getting people out of their cars and into public transport and also very good at reducing green house gasses.

      And have you caught a train in Auckland recently? I catch them all the time and they are great. When the city rail link goes through I can confidently say that I will never drive into town again, although even now I catch a train 90% of the time.

      • Hornet 15.4.1

        Micky it is simply not valid to compare those cities to Auckland if discussing financial viability. Their population densities are vastly different to Auckland, and at least some of the cities you name have embraced (at least partial) private ownership of their transport systems (notably both Hong Kong and Tokyo). I use the Auckland train system occasionally, and enjoy it. Like you, I would almost always choose train into the city over driving. I support ingoing investment in public transport, for the reasons you cite, but I have yet to see any analysis that shows the train network would actually pay its own way. In fact the current position is financially dire – “Each Auckland train rider paid an average fare of $2.58 per ride but “someone else” paid another $4.53 per ride. Each ride actually cost $7.11, a 64% subsidy.” https://www.interest.co.nz/news/90460/investing-requires-return-some-point-david-chaston-cant-see-how-aucklands-massive-public

        • Psycho Milt 15.4.1.1

          I have yet to see any analysis that shows the train network would actually pay its own way.

          Why would public infrastructure have to make a profit? You’re commenting on a post in which Judith Collins is demanding the government throw shitloads of cash at building roads – shouldn’t you be wailing that roads never “pay their own way?”

          • Hornet 15.4.1.1.1

            “Why would public infrastructure have to make a profit?”
            I didn’t say it had to. I was commenting on Micky’s response about whether or not rail could be ‘financially viable’.

            “You’re commenting on a post in which Judith Collins is demanding the government throw shitloads of cash at building roads – shouldn’t you be wailing that roads never “pay their own way?””
            No, because I was replying specifically to Mickey’s comment at https://thestandard.org.nz/wont-somebody-please-think-about-the-rons/#comment-1435072.

            In my view the solution to Auckland’s transport congestion has to be holistic. It should involve ongoing investment in both private and public transport options. However the application of financial criteria at least mitigates against decisions being made on purely ideological grounds, which is problem that inflicts both sides of the debate.

            • Psycho Milt 15.4.1.1.1.1

              You seem to be using “financially viable” as a synonym for “at least breaks even,” hence my comment. Rail infrastructure that costs a huge amount of taxpayers’ money for its development and maintenance is as “financially viable” as road infrastructure that costs a huge amount of taxpayers’ money for its development and maintenance. The decisions that have treated only one of them as public infrastructure have, as you say, been made purely on ideological grouns.

              • Hornet

                Hi PM…your first sentence is correct, but I wasn’t making a judgement on whether rail had to pay it’s way or not, I was commenting on Mickey’s response to a comment that it couldn’t. And I agree with you about the respective costs of rail v roading investment, both are expensive, and both impose a burden on future tax/rate payers. Which is why I believe we should be considering the wider use of tolling to pay for new roading, and the model used in Hong Kong of the public/private ownership of rail.

                • Tracey

                  It is ok to compare us to hong kong but not singapoire?

                  • Hornet

                    In my view comparing Auckland’s train system to mass transit systems in any of the cities Mickey mentioned is futile, given the differing economics.

        • KJT 15.4.1.2

          Every car trip in Auckland costs many times that in public subsidy. Who pays for the urban roads. Hint. Not the trucks.
          Every person on a train is another car off the road. And 10’s of dollars saved, off the next round of building expensive parking lots for fuming car commuters.

          • Hornet 15.4.1.2.1

            Trucks carry goods that we all use. If rail was more effective, then rail would be the greater method of choice.

            “Every person on a train is another car off the road.”
            That is just simply false, unless you have evidence that every car on the road only carries one passenger.

            “And 10’s of dollars saved, off the next round of building expensive parking lots for fuming car commuters.”
            Every train passenger is currently massively subsidised.

            • Draco T Bastard 15.4.1.2.1.1

              Trucks carry goods that we all use.

              Yes, correct.

              If rail was more effective, then rail would be the greater method of choice.

              Rail is more effective but things have been skewed in favour of trucks over the decades. The main one is the major subsidies that trucks get from all the other drivers. If the trucks actually paid for the damage that they did their road user charges would make them financially unviable.

              Of course, climate change has now shown that we can’t afford cars either.

              That is just simply false, unless you have evidence that every car on the road only carries one passenger.

              Most of the time they are:

              The driver was the sole vehicle occupant in two-thirds (68%) of trip legs in cars, vans and utes.

              Going to work is far worse:

              90% of people travelling to work in cars are single
              occupants.

              Every train passenger is currently massively subsidised.

              [Citation Needed]

              • Hornet

                “Rail is more effective but things have been skewed in favour of trucks over the decades. The main one is the major subsidies that trucks get from all the other drivers. If the trucks actually paid for the damage that they did their road user charges would make them financially unviable.”

                You overstate that case. Trucks incur RUC’s. Heavy RUC’s raise 26% of the total NLTF revenue, yet they only represent 4% of NZ’s vehicle fleet (http://transport.govt.nz/land/roadusercharges/where-does-the-money-go/).

                I believe we need a combination of both road and rail for commuter and goods transport, but there is good quality research work that contradicts the view that rail is best.
                (hpps://iea.org.uk/blog/rail-versus-road;
                Quote: “Government expenditure on rail divided by passenger-km or tonne-km provides unit costs that are five to six times as large as those for the strategic road network.”)

                “Most of the time they are:”
                Your link went back to TS home page? And most of the time isn’t all of the time.

                “Citation Needed”
                I posted above:
                “Each Auckland train rider paid an average fare of $2.58 per ride but “someone else” paid another $4.53 per ride. Each ride actually cost $7.11, a 64% subsidy.” https://www.interest.co.nz/news/90460/investing-requires-return-some-point-david-chaston-cant-see-how-aucklands-massive-public

                • Your link went back to TS home page?

                  gah, sorry: Resource 1 – Facts and figures

                  You overstate that case. Trucks incur RUC’s. Heavy RUC’s raise 26% of the total NLTF revenue, yet they only represent 4% of NZ’s vehicle fleet

                  Damage to the road goes up by the Generalized Fourth Power Law:

                  The Generalized Fourth Power Law is the most commonly agreed method to approximate the relative impact of vehicles on roads: the damage caused to the structure or foundations of a road is related the axle weight of the vehicle by a power of four.

                  This means that a six-axle, 44-tonne truck is over 138,000 times more damaging than a typical, small, 1 tonne car (such as a Ford Fiesta) with two axles.

                  Now, do you really think those 44 tonne trucks are paying 138,000 times more to use the roads than a car is?

                  And National increased the weight to 50 tonnes on selected routes. Those trucks would have to be paying a hell of a lot more.

                  Trucks are massively subsidised by the car drivers.

                  • KJT

                    And by ratepayers for urban roads.
                    Right wingers seem incapable of seeing a ledger has two sides.
                    Imagine if trucks were charged their true costs , plus a profit, for their road use, like ships and trains pay for ports/rails.

                    • If that happened trucks would be off the road so fast it wouldn’t be funny. It is only through the massive subsidies that they get that makes them seem viable but it’s all illusion.

                    • Hornet

                      The ledger tell us that rail is subsidised more heavily than road.

                      (hpps://iea.org.uk/blog/rail-versus-road;
                      Quote: “Government expenditure on rail divided by passenger-km or tonne-km provides unit costs that are five to six times as large as those for the strategic road network.”)

                      And…
                      “Each Auckland train rider paid an average fare of $2.58 per ride but “someone else” paid another $4.53 per ride. Each ride actually cost $7.11, a 64% subsidy.” https://www.interest.co.nz/news/90460/investing-requires-return-some-point-david-chaston-cant-see-how-aucklands-massive-public

                    • Hornet

                      “It is only through the massive subsidies that they get that makes them seem viable but it’s all illusion.”

                      Draco that is simply false, and I have responded with evidence that it is false. https://thestandard.org.nz/wont-somebody-please-think-about-the-rons/#comment-1435374.

                      The facts are very clear. Investment in roading, and road transport generally, should take precedence over rail in almost every single case.

                    • Draco that is simply false, and I have responded with evidence that it is false.

                      No you haven’t. You responded with what vehicles are charged which is significantly different from the damage that they cause. the trucks aren’t paying anywhere near enough in regards to the damage that they cause while cars are actually paying far too much.

                    • Hornet

                      “No you haven’t. You responded with what vehicles are charged which is significantly different from the damage that they cause.”
                      No I did much more than that, but in case you missed it:

                      (hpps://iea.org.uk/blog/rail-versus-road;
                      Quote: “Government expenditure on rail divided by passenger-km or tonne-km provides unit costs that are five to six times as large as those for the strategic road network.”)

                      and…
                      “Each Auckland train rider paid an average fare of $2.58 per ride but “someone else” paid another $4.53 per ride. Each ride actually cost $7.11, a 64% subsidy.” https://www.interest.co.nz/news/90460/investing-requires-return-some-point-david-chaston-cant-see-how-aucklands-massive-public

                      You actually haven’t responded to that.

                      the trucks aren’t paying anywhere near enough in regards to the damage that they cause while cars are actually paying far too much.”
                      You’ve repeated that, but provided no supporting evidence. Whereas I have shown that ““Heavy RUC’s raise 26% of the total NLTF revenue, yet they only represent 4% of NZ’s vehicle fleet”.

                      Your continued insistence on ideology over the facts simply proves my initial comment.

                    • lprent []

                      Oh FFS – I really dislike reading lazy illiterate morons who make false equivalence statements.

                      But for the moment lets just assume for the basis of argument that you (Hornet) aren’t the thick wanker that you appear to be and simply haven’t bothered to think it through….

                      What you need to look at it is the fourth power rule applied to the engineering of roads. Here is a good summary
                      http://www.cyclelicio.us/2014/fourth-power-rule-road-tax/ but if you simply google “Fourth Power Rule” you will find everything from roading standards to physics papers on it.

                      Back in the 1950s and 1960s, highway engineers researched damage done to road beds and road surfaces for the purposes of allocating who should pay how much into the various road maintenance funds. The American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO; they added Transportation to their organization name during the 1973 OPEC oil embargo) collated this research and published their findings as a “Special Report” for a highway engineering conference in 1962.

                      What these researchers found is that damage to the roadbed is proportional to the 4th power of the axle load of the vehicle, and they called this “the Generalized Fourth Power Law.” This means that if you double the weight on an axle, your vehicle does sixteen times the damage to the road. The result is those signs you see on the backs of truck trailers that say “This truck paid $4,182 in highway taxes last year.”

                      So your ‘evidence’ is just stupid false equivalence bullshit

                      Whereas I have shown that ““Heavy RUC’s raise 26% of the total NLTF revenue, yet they only represent 4% of NZ’s vehicle fleet”.

                      It doesn’t matter what the number of vehicles of a given class on the road are. The costs of the road and its maintenance are related to the axle load of the vehicle. That means if a heavy multiaxle vehicle drives over a road, any road, it will cause massively more damage than the same weight of of cars passing over it. That is what the 4th power (I am having to assume that you know what a power is?) means. To cause a similar level of damage as a heavy 8 axle double wheeler truck with a normal load, that same weight of cars would have to pass over the road probably hundreds of times.

                      So that 4% of vehicles is being massively being undercharged. They should be paying something in the order of 80-90% of the revenue of the NLTF. Go and do some basic math rather then jerking off about things you don’t understand.

                      If you look at how road user charges in NZ are calculated you’ll find that they use 4th power rules and then make an abortion of the principle by under charging heavier axles for political reasons. The trucking lobby prefer that other motorists pay for trucking damage.

                    • Hornet

                      “Oh FFS – I really dislike reading lazy illiterate morons who make false equivalence statements.”
                      You are attempting to hide an ideological bias and lazy analysis under ad-hominem. You also clearly do not understand what a false equivalence is.

                      “The costs of the road and its maintenance are related to the axle load of the vehicle. ”
                      Yes, that is precisely what I have been saying. But using a 44 tonne truck as an example – which you and Draco have both done – without evidence that that is the dominant transport category on NZ roads, and extrapolating damage from that, is simply misleading.

                      “That means if a heavy multiaxle vehicle drives over a road, any road, it will cause massively more damage than the same weight of of cars passing over it. ”
                      You are repeating the ideological mantra without providing ANY data showing the breakdown of heavy vehicle’s on NZ roads.

                      “What you need to look at it is the fourth power rule applied to the engineering of roads. ”
                      I have. But until you apply the rule to the precise breakdown of heavy vehicles on NZ roads and then review the proportion of cost that heavy vehicles pay towards the total cost of roading upkeep, you have nothing more than a theory.

                      “It doesn’t matter what the number of vehicles of a given class on the road are. The costs of the road and its maintenance are related to the axle load of the vehicle. ”
                      Can you really not connect the dots? The total axle load is dependent on the number of heavy vehicles on the road. Heavy vehicles contribute a hugely disproportionate amount of funding. Maybe it isn’t enough. But you need to provide data to prove that. You haven’t.

                      I have argued from the beginning that ideology dominates this debate over intelligent analysis. Your post just confirms you suffer from precisely that affliction.

                    • Hornet

                      LPrent, Draco

                      http://www.transport.govt.nz/land/roadusercharges/costallocationmodelreviewqandas
                      This is a summary of a review of the cost allocation model under the NLTP. The original analysis was conducted by GHD Meyrick and ARRB, and peer reviewed (with concerns) by the UK Transport Research Laboratory.

                      I quote:

                      “The current charges were set in October 2010. On average, they are about 20 per-cent below the levels that the cost allocation model indicated were justified at that time. The extent of under-recovery varies between vehicle types, but in general heavier vehicles currently pay a slightly higher proportion of their allocated costs than lighter vehicles.”

                      “Overall, the changes to the model result in redistribution of about 2 per-cent of costs from heavy vehicles to light vehicles.”

                      “The NZ Transport Agency is undertaking research on road wear impacts of different axle loadings on pavements used in local road construction. This work is expected to be completed in 2013/14. The findings will be relevant to whether the model continues to distribute costs between vehicles of different weights on the basis of the “fourth power rule”.”

                      So, using the Fourth Power Rule, there was a 20% under-recovery, and the costs are fairly distributed between road users. So by your own benchmark, there is no massive subsidy.

                    • Yes, that is precisely what I have been saying. But using a 44 tonne truck as an example – which you and Draco have both done – without evidence that that is the dominant transport category on NZ roads, and extrapolating damage from that, is simply misleading.

                      I used it as an example showing that they’re not charged anywhere near enough for the damage that they do. We know this because of the 4th power rule and the figures that you linked to which showed that cars were charged 99c while the type43 was charged only 319 rather than the 130 thousand that they need to be charged. Other vehicles of different masses and axles will charged differently of course.

                      But it still comes about that those 4% of traffic, the trucks, need to be providing ~90% of the road funding else they’re getting a subsidy. It’s really simple. If a truck does several thousand times more damage than a car then it needs to pay several thousand times the amount to use the roads and that’s just not happening.

                      And the chances are that the type 43 is the dominant truck type. It certainly will be for long haul trucks.

                      I have. But until you apply the rule to the precise breakdown of heavy vehicles on NZ roads and then review the proportion of cost that heavy vehicles pay towards the total cost of roading upkeep, you have nothing more than a theory.

                      We don’t need the precise break down. We don’t even need to know that trucks make up 4% of the nations vehicle fleet. We already know how much more damage that a truck of whatever mass does to the road and that the truck therefore needs to be charged that extra else they’re being subsidised.

                      They are not being charged that extra thus they are being subsidised.

                      The total axle load is dependent on the number of heavy vehicles on the road.

                      Are you really that stupid?

                      We’re not talking the total axle load of all heavy vehicles on the road because it’s a meaningless figure. We’re talking about single vehicles and how the damage done relates between them because that’s the only way it can be discussed.

                      I have argued from the beginning that ideology dominates this debate over intelligent analysis.

                      And you’re the one being completely ideological as you ignore all the evidence that proves your ideology wrong.

                  • Hornet

                    “Damage to the road goes up by the Generalized Fourth Power Law:”
                    Firstly, applying that to NZ roads is misleading, because there are weight limits for trucks on NZ roads, for the precise of reducing road damage. A 44,000 Kg truck can only operate with a 16m axle, and that is at the extreme end of truck sizes (see http://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/factsheets/13/docs/13-vehicle-dimensions-and-mass.pdf).

                    Of course trucks cause more road damage, but as previously cited “Heavy RUC’s raise 26% of the total NLTF revenue, yet they only represent 4% of NZ’s vehicle fleet”.

                    And, I reiterate, rail is subsidised at a considerably higher rate than roads.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Stuck record reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates, reiterates.

                      Not convincing a soul, but hey, when ad nauseam is all you’ve got…

                    • Of course trucks cause more road damage, but as previously cited “Heavy RUC’s raise 26% of the total NLTF revenue, yet they only represent 4% of NZ’s vehicle fleet”.

                      But they should be raising about 90% of the total NLTF revenue.

                      This is what you fail to understand.

                      It’s not the proportion of the fleet that they make up that is significant but the damage that they do. A 44 tonne truck (type 43) does 138,000 times the damage that a car does. The car is charged 99c for road damage. Multiply that by 138,000 and the type 43 should be charged $136,620. Instead it’s charged $319.49 – a subsidy of $136,300.51.

                      That’s a massive subsidy.

                    • …as previously cited “Heavy RUC’s raise 26% of the total NLTF revenue, yet they only represent 4% of NZ’s vehicle fleet”.

                      Lies, damned lies and statistics. The relevant figure isn’t proportion of NZ’s vehicle fleet, it’s proportion of damage done to the roads.

                      DTB: snap

                    • Hornet

                      “That’s a massive subsidy.”

                      Which is based entirely on your assumptions, and even then you haven’t provided any evidence across the total fleet. The simple fact is that “Government expenditure on rail divided by passenger-km or tonne-km provides unit costs that are five to six times as large as those for the strategic road network.” You are arguing from ideology, not facts.

                    • Hornet

                      “The relevant figure isn’t proportion of NZ’s vehicle fleet, it’s proportion of damage done to the roads.”

                      Which is? Meanwhile “Government expenditure on rail divided by passenger-km or tonne-km provides unit costs that are five to six times as large as those for the strategic road network.”

                    • Hornet

                      “But they should be raising about 90% of the total NLTF revenue.”
                      That is a complete guess on your part. You have presented no facts at all to support that.

                      “A 44 tonne truck (type 43) does 138,000 times the damage that a car does. ”
                      How many 44 tonne trucks are there on the road in NZ?

                      How do you think you can wave away the massive subsidy offered to rail when compared to road?

                    • Which is?

                      Gee, I wonder why a National government and its Road Transport Association buddies wouldn’t be trumpeting that figure from the rooftops? Feel free to figure it out, though, if you want to make this a matter of user pays – start with the fourth-power rule described by lprent above and go from there.

                    • Hornet

                      “Gee, I wonder why a National government and its Road Transport Association buddies wouldn’t be trumpeting that figure from the rooftops? Feel free to figure it out, though, if you want to make this a matter of user pays – start with the fourth-power rule described by lprent above and go from there.”

                      You posted:
                      “The relevant figure isn’t proportion of NZ’s vehicle fleet, it’s proportion of damage done to the roads.”

                      And I asked you to provide what that number is. What your response indicates is that you simply don’t know.

                      Meanwhile, you wave away the massive subsidisation of rail.

                    • US research put the proportion at 10,000, ie one heavy truck does as much damage to the roads as 10,000 cars. So, road user charges for one big rig should be the same as the amount of tax collected for roads from 10,000 cars.

                      The AA estimates average petrol use for a compact car is 1055 litres pa. At $0.59 per litre excise tax going to the transport fund, that’s around $620 pa for a car. If the entire amount went on road maintenance, for a heavy truck to be meeting its share of the cost, it should be paying 10,000 times $620 in road user charges, or $6,200,000. Either that or the car owner should be paying a lot less.

                      Obviously the amount collected doesn’t entirely go on road maintenance (fortunately for the road transport industry). But the government should sure as shit be finding out what the actual number is and making the pricks pay it.

                    • Hornet

                      “But the government should sure as shit be finding out what the actual number is and making the pricks pay it.”

                      They are, and they are.https://thestandard.org.nz/wont-somebody-please-think-about-the-rons/#comment-1436041

                    • They are, and they are.

                      I meant the current government, not the best buds of the Road Transport Association who made up the previous government.

                    • Hornet

                      “I meant the current government, not the best buds of the Road Transport Association who made up the previous government.”

                      That just proves your avoiding addressing the cost allocation model. The original review was conducted by Australian consultants GHD Meyrick and the ARRB Group, and peer reviewed by UK Transport Research Laboratory. So they were all in co-hoots with ‘big transport’ aye?

              • greywarshark

                Hornet replies – But what can it mean?

                “That means if a heavy multiaxle vehicle drives over a road, any road, it will cause massively more damage than the same weight of of cars passing over it. ”

                You are repeating the ideological mantra without providing ANY data showing the breakdown of heavy vehicle’s on NZ roads.

                The statement refers to damage to a road, of comparatively, one heavy vehicle driving over it being much more than the same weight of cars over it.

                The reply refers to data showing details of heavy vehicles on NZ roads.

                The reply has nothing to do with the statement yet Hornet is ardently advancing that thoughtful comments that aren’t accompanies by some sort of data cannot be understood by him.

                For goodness sakes make your points in pictograms for him, maybe that is what is needed when talking to the transport industry and their fanboys 💡 ❗

                • Hornet seems to be purposefully misrepresenting how damage is measured so as to maintain the delusional idea that trucks aren’t subsidised.

                  He’s wrong, we all know he’s wrong but he will never admit it. It’s the mark of a true ideologist.

                • Hornet

                  Greywarshark

                  “The statement refers to damage to a road, of comparatively, one heavy vehicle driving over it being much more than the same weight of cars over it.
                  The reply refers to data showing details of heavy vehicles on NZ roads.”
                  Because the overall picture cannot be ascertained by simply looking at a single example, one that is not that common on NZ roads. That’s relatively straight forward.

                  “The reply has nothing to do with the statement”
                  Yes it did.

                  And the issue of the fourth power rule is addressed in the review I linked to here :
                  https://thestandard.org.nz/wont-somebody-please-think-about-the-rons/#comment-1436041.

                  That completely destroys the argument you, and others, are trying to run.

                  • RedBaronCv

                    In our mythical country zee there are on the roads 100 vehicles:

                    96 of the vehicles are cars that cause damage of “$x” each.
                    4 of the vehicles are Trucks and these cause 138000$x damage each.

                    Total damage to the roads is $A:

                    $A =96vehicles*$x+4 vehicles*138000*$x
                    $A = 96*$x+552000*$x
                    $A= 552096*$x

                    so
                    cost of 1 car: $x =$A/552096
                    cost of all 96 cars $X*96 = $A*.00017388

                    cost of 1 truck = $A/552096*138000= $A*0.24999
                    cost of 4 trucks = $A*0.99988

                    so looks like trucks cause 99.9% of the $ damage but please feel free to check.

                    maybe there is a case for national standards after all – post school

                    • Hornet

                      Hi Red
                      Good try. Except where do you get your cost per vehicle? And the proportion of vehicles? And where have you factored in who pays the cost, and in what proportion?

                      And then there’s this:

                      http://www.transport.govt.nz/land/roadusercharges/costallocationmodelreviewqandas
                      “The current charges were set in October 2010. On average, they are about 20 per-cent below the levels that the cost allocation model indicated were justified at that time. The extent of under-recovery varies between vehicle types, but in general heavier vehicles currently pay a slightly higher proportion of their allocated costs than lighter vehicles.”

                    • RedBaronCV

                      It’s better than good – the vehicle portion comes from those transport links above -4% of the fleet for trucks. It’s working backwards to suggest the portion trucks should pay – and I seriously doubt that it is 99%.

                      And the above calculation distributes the maintenance cost as a % of who causes them.
                      Even if we drop the 4th power rule – at 26% trucks are paying for damage at a rate of 6 times car damage – really? That all?

                      And even those transport site figures may be fudged.
                      What is really relevant is not that trucks are 4% of the fleet by number, but the total road miles traveled by trucks versus other road users distributed between urban and open roads.

                      And the transport site says they are explicitly ignoring the 4th power rule. Why even mention that unless it is an internationally valid bench mark that they choosing to ignore?

                      After all they are not telling us they ignore “the earth is flat scenario”

                      So maybe transport.govt.nz needs to sharpen up its calcs a bit

  16. AmaKiwi 16

    I am delighted to see National has such pathetic leadership.

  17. Graeme 17

    Interesting to see the oddity saw Collins’s missive for what it was

    https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/transport-concerns-unfounded-minister

    “More National Party MPs joined Ms Collins’ campaign today, strengthening what could be an early tilt at the party leadership if leader Bill English decides to stand down.”

  18. JustMe 18

    Is this a feeble attempt by Judith Collins to remind NZers there is a National Party still in existence?
    I mean look at the word “National” in the RONS acronym. It’s of ‘Nationals'(meaning the now in the past National government)importance because it(the National Party)probably want to be remembered not as the past government that let so many NZers down over a period of 9 years but the fact there was a ‘national’ government.
    The previous National government embarked on a series of vanity projects so it would look good especially to the copious numbers of immigrants it allowed into NZ and especially wealthy immigrants who donated heavily to the NZ National Party.
    The track record that the previous National government achieved, and yes they even rejected and resorted to childish blame games, was inter-nationally(throughout the Western developed world that is)is there was a national increase in poverty and homelessness over the past 9 years that would shame ALL NZers rich and poor. There were ‘national-ly’ failures by the National government of the past where obvious preference was given to those with money eg wealthy Asians whilst the pm of the time i.e John Key disparaged and denigrated poor, low income and protesting NZers.
    The past National government achieved so much that is not a good look for a political party i.e arrogance, cunning, deceit, corruption. You name it and there is probably more indication of pure greed for money, ego and selfishness within the NZ National Party MPs and its supporters that makes one wonder why such a political party should still exist???!!!!!
    For many people the desire to help others voluntarily gives them the sense of satisfaction and fulfillment that merits them as more deserving of knighthoods etc. But for the NZ National Party they have this misguided sense of needing to take from others to fulfill their greed for more for themselves personally. Be assured we have never seen Paula Bennett, Bill English, Judith Collins, Gerry Brownlee, Nick Smith, Steven Joyce – goodness the list of the has-beens that are part and parcel of the NZ National Party MPs is endless – sleeping in the streets albeit for one night to know what the homeless have to live with every day of the year and especially through out the cold winter months. Ego and arrogance is alive and well and lives on in the NZ National Party and its self-serving MPs.

  19. Ad 19

    Sometimes politics isn’t fair.

    The full Waikato expressway will be completed by 2020, as will significant stages within it.

    Transmission Gully will be completed within this term.

    Puhoi to Wellsford SH1 will be completed within this term.

    All of those are major ribbon-cutting and publicity events that Labour didn’t start, but will take the credit for.

    The first stage of City Rail Link, the widening of SH1 in south Auckland, the extension of electric trains to Pukekohe, the extension of SH16 to the north-west.

    All of those were started under National and will be opened by Labour.

    Labour will also be opening the start of construction of the Auckland International second runway.

    Labour will also be opening the Sky City National Convention Centre, the completion of all civil and public works in Christchurch, the Commercial bay Precinct, and of course APEC and the America’s Cup.

    All of those were started off by National, and the Labour led government will take all the credit.

    Politics just isn’t fair sometimes. But then, that’s the nature of who wins elections. Which was Labour’s coalition.

    • Skinny 19.1

      I thought this coalition government would get 6 years. Not so sure could be just a one trick pony, even against the woeful has beens.

    • BM 19.2

      Good one Ad, National will get the credit for all those projects, labour will get trashed because they’re going to take the knife to all of Nationals proposed roading projects.

      There are a few things that will cement this government as a one-termer, this is one of them.

  20. Pat 20

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/100475631/mps-petition-to-upgrade-dangerous-christchurch-to-ashburton-highway

    This in yesterdays Press….New Nat MP for Rangitata appears to have abandoned his ability to think to demonstrate his ability to play the game (on team Collins?)…..interesting that the comments which were overwhelmingly negative are no longer displayed.

  21. … ” Collins wants to run a series of petitions to try and save projects that are meant to be at risk. Even though most of them are not properly funded ” …

    DILLIGAF.

    National had their turn and screwed the place.
    As a consequence , – DILLIGAF , mate.

    KEVIN BLOODY WILSON D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F. – YouTube

  22. Marcus Morris 22

    The reaction that I heard from Phil Twyford to Collin’s proposal was that it was nothing but a stunt and I couldn’t agree more. That National should resort to this kind of cheap politicking after its attitude to the petition on the Sale of National Assets and the subsequent referendum is cynicism at its worst.

    I listened to Collins justifying her position and in the news bite she made the claim that national roading developments were funded entirely from fuel and road user taxes and that the payers of these taxes deserved better. I think that this is utter nonsense but perhaps someone better qualified than me could comment on this.

    I think that her claim was a blatant lie, and, if so, she should be called to account.

    For too long the National Party has been in the pocket of the Road Users Association and a look at recent Association Chairmen will indicate the obvious link.

  23. Anon 23

    The Christchurch northern motorway has already been delayed by what, at least 15 years? I’m not sure about that particular leg of it, but in essence it’s absolutely nessicary – in peak traffic main north road and qeii drive are basically car parks, and the new route has to be long enough that people use it otherwise it won’t take the pressure off.

    Of course National cut public transport in ChCh when, about 6 years ago, they set a higher threshold for farebox recovery – in spite of the city being in the early stages of earthquake rebuild. Not cutting public transport might have helped ease congestion too (though I’ve yet to see what, if anything, Labour is going to do about it).

    • One Anonymous Bloke 23.1

      basically car parks

      It’s called “induced demand”, and has been recognised since about 1930. It might pay you to educate yourself on your chosen subject. It would certainly be less tiresome for me.

      • Anon 23.1.1

        Your obtuse and arrogant point is noted, and I’ll counter with roading hasn’t increased in this area for well over 15 years, meanwhile populations in townships outside of the city have exploded. Result, excess commuter demand for limited roading.

        I mean, I suppose the increased supply of humans has induced demand for human infrastructure.

        • Draco T Bastard 23.1.1.1

          roading hasn’t increased in this area for well over 15 years, meanwhile populations in townships outside of the city have exploded. Result, excess commuter demand for limited roading.

          It probably has but even if it hadn’t it still wouldn’t mean that the answer would be more roads.

        • ropata 23.1.1.2

          Cantabrians think a 15 minute commute is too much and a traffic jam is 10 cars waiting at the lights.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 23.1.1.3

          Yes – since 1930 people have been arguing, like you, that doing the same thing will produce a different result. It never does, no matter how deeply you believe your reckons.

          • Anon 23.1.1.3.1

            Well until you can get battery hen cage housing for people in the city, and rolling sardine cans for transport that /don’t/ take forever and smell like cat urine and feet, then meeting latent demand for roading capacity so that people actually can go about their business seems reasonable /even if/ it doesn’t ultimately solve congestion.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 23.1.1.3.1.1

              Doesn’t matter how many times you rephrase it, it’s still doing the same thing expecting a different result.

              Your dismal vision of housing and public transport are duly noted, but will not be implemented. Thanks for your input.

            • greywarshark 23.1.1.3.1.2

              Anon didn’t get much sympathy from anyone. I think Christchurch deserves some after the earthquake broken open so many roads, and the eastern side of the city sidestepped a good number of paces over towards the west changing transport patterns. Just keeping the city going has been an achievement. They have put effort into providing a new bus terminus and there are numerous routes. But possibly planning has not been to a high standard – bit Gerry-built perhaps.

            • Draco T Bastard 23.1.1.3.1.3

              Well until you can get battery hen cage housing for people in the city

              You mean like all the apartments going up? You know, the ones that produce better socialisation than the separate and separating housing of yesteryear?

              and rolling sardine cans for transport that /don’t/ take forever and smell like cat urine and feet

              All the buses and trains I’ve been on have usually had plenty of space and smelled fine. Perhaps you should stop living in your navel?

              then meeting latent demand for roading capacity

              That’s the thing. It’s physically impossible to provide the necessary roading capacity for individual personal vehicles. That’s what all the congestion is about.

              The only way to address it is through public mass transport.

    • Pat 23.2

      only problem is National are not calling for a solution to congestion on the northern arterials of Christchurch….they are proposing 4 laning of the Christchurch to Ashburton section of SH1…..part of which (Christchurch to Rolleston) is already under construction (and has been for years) and the rest of which is totally unnecessary and counterproductive….it is a stunt.

  24. R.P. Mcmurphy 24

    roads of national significance are roads that are significant to national. If you are agin them then you are a lefty and a pinko commie and against anything that is good and right. collins does not give two stuffs about roads unless they affect her personally. what she cares about is crafting an attack on the new Labour Coalition government by creating a nonsense to berate them with.
    She is a fake and that is not just mere name calling because if you look at the photo heading you can see she is using a non recyclable coffee cup. she is just another gross user.

  25. RedBaronCV 25

    Well the total result of RONS in the Lower North Island is the wildly overpriced Kapiti expressway & the equally overpriced Transmission gully.

    Other than that there has been new road of about 2 k’s of passing lane south of New Plymouth and about 2 k’s north of Dannevirke where a gully was filled & straightened & a bit of a passing lane at Oringi. And that’s about it!

    There are still stretches of well used state highway like the 60-70 k’s between Masterton & Woodville with no passing lanes at all or narrow poor formation – the road south of Hastings to Waipawa.

    And most of the maintenance budget is going on desperately trying to keep the Ashurst Saddle going and the Rimutaka’s open – it has been down to one lane for months after a huge slip on the steep Featherston side.

    Everywhere else, there is undone maintenance, from the huge volume of trucking with a lot of the cost of it is falling on rural ratepayers. Towns like Stratford & Dannevirke are getting at least a truck movement a minute down their main street for around 12 hours a day.

    Yes rural communities should be highly annoyed – but with the National government for the trucking volume & the huge repair costs that they are footing the bill for.

  26. JOHN IRVING 26

    But also ask the Nats for details on how they would propose to prioritise the list

  27. My thing : ignore it. They will get some signatures on email petitions. More email addresses to mine for support. A little bit of publicity. All designed to put the government on the defensive, rather than genuine conviction. These petitions will end up in front of a select committee later in the year. Don’t expect anything to change, just understand this is opposition politics and what the mighty Judith Collins is now reduced to.

    • Sacha 27.1

      Agree. As govt, I’d front-foot an ongoing publicity campaign about the value of investments in the public transport, rail, shipping, cycling and other modes neglected during the previous govt’s roadsfest. Sell the benefits and ignore the tired whining of Collins and her dinosaur chums.

    • ropata 27.2

      I still find the “mighty” Judith Collins quite frightening. To think that she’s one of the Nats’ leading MPs says a lot about the quality of that party

      • WILD KATIPO 27.2.1

        Ha ! – Collins frightening ? – only if you were scared of clowns as a child , mate.

        Shes just an obnoxious , out of date , corrupted opportunist who cant even act as a team player. I hope she becomes Nationals leader- cant think of a better way to dismantle any remaining unity in that disgusting party than having her at the head.

  28. eco maori 29

    To the troll Mark Richardson is pus he has to get Mulls from the Rock morning rumble to prop up his profile . Mark is lucky Mulls is a lefty and has a heart an he will try and help and old________out .If the roles where reversed Mark would just grin show his stupid teeth and Laugh his neoliberal laugh and leave Mulls in the dust Ka pai Mulls don”t waste your time on him M8.

    Ana to kai

  29. Tanz 30

    Having had a job in Mt Wellington, I would not have survived getting there via train from West Auckland. Auckland is too big and spread out not to have good roads, and these days, you have to travel miles for jobs. Gone are the days when good jobs could be found in the city or surrounds; these days companies seem to have outsourced themselves to suburbs, ie Manukau, Takapuna, Northcote. Getting to some of these places by trains/buses is a nightmare/non-event, if one wants some time to themselves, in a city this size. Unless you enjoy two hours or more to get to work. Yes, I have caught trains to work when the work is close; but this cannot always be the case. Without a car, and with far-flung jobs, etc, Auckland would be a nightmare. Roads are just a modern part of life, or should we go back to horses and carts?

    • McFlock 30.1

      Are you insane – you caught trains to work when it was close?

      worker circulation is like blood circulation. Melbourne has it right – Trains as the main arteries, then transfer to trams, then buses as capillaries. All on the same ticket.

  30. Tanz 31

    Try juggling children, school, work and trains! Not a good mix. Love my car, love our roads, Auckland is far too big not to have decent roads and highways, just ask any working Mum or Dad, with children, and Melbourne has a far better train system than we do. No trains to the North Shore either, no trains very far East, and to drive to work is actually cheaper than to train.

  31. David Mac 32

    In the early days towns that prospered and became cities largely did so because of their ease of access for sailing ships. Auckland with the Waitemata, Manakau, Kaipara harbours and the Firth of Thames was an ideal choice.

    It’s not so good in modern times, picturesque but most of Auckland is under water, bodies separated by the skinny bits of land we build on, bumpy extinct volcanoes.

    It’s a lousy contour and lay-out for traditional rail. The big hurdle with self drive vehicles is: Most other vehicles can’t talk back, it would be easy if all the vehicles on the road were satellite bluetoothing with each other.

    Automated electric public transport can be operated on a sole purpose roadway now. Dedicated automated bus lanes. Swipe and ride. The roof of a bus is a great location for solar energy capture.

    A major gripe with public transport seems to be ‘I haven’t got the time it takes’. The system I describe has the potential to shorten commute times. If it were to happen, I think usage would soar. Take the car or get there in half the time?

    Trains are cool, like the Cutty Sark is cool.

    National highways, the RONS big spends, same story from where I sit. Billions of investment to accommodate the fast changing technology Karl Benz kick-started in the 1880’s. I think we should be talking to self drive vehicle pioneers about the potential for us to build dedicated lanes and lead the world. Electric vehicles recharging from the road beneath them or drawing direct feed electricity would overcome range issues. Smart meter in the vehicle, Contact Energy could automate billing.

    Bigger wider highways are gasping dinosaurs, the past. Lets look to the future and set global trends.

    • It’s a lousy contour and lay-out for traditional rail.

      That’s actually wrong. Rail with a star network design would work fine.

      A major gripe with public transport seems to be ‘I haven’t got the time it takes’.

      Had one commenter on a stuff article about lazily sitting in public transport. I told him he should stop being lazy and work like everyone else when on PT and to stop wasting time driving around Auckland when a courier would be more efficient.

      It’s amazing how many people don’t realise that driving yourself is wasting time that could be better used. It’s why our government has chauffeur driven vehicles.

      • David Mac 32.1.1

        Yes, the concentration driving requires could be much better spent. I hope I live long enough to be able to text for a Nga Puhi themed rolling waka with board racks on top and work on my Te Reo with a beautiful wahine tutor hologram as we tour to the beach.

Leave a Comment

Show Tags

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

No feed items found.