Greens Release Transport Plans

 

A Greens government would fund at least 60%, or $1.4 billion of the major missing piece of Auckland infrastructure, a CBD Rail Link.

It would also put forward another $250 million towards the cost of additional trains to run on the enhanced network and introduce legislation to allow Auckland Council to raise revenue through land value uplift tax, parking reform and charges, and eventually a congestion charge.

Greens’ transport spokesman Gareth Hughes made this announcement today at the start of the Smarter Transport conference in Wellington which is also attended by Labour.

Declaring that the Greens are not anti-roads (“We love to drive”), the MP said that the party was pro-transport choice, not wanting to stop all road investment – “just stop pouring billions into white-elephant motorways that will make congestion worse.”

At a time when New Zealand is borrowing 50 billion annually it is fiscally irresponsible to pour more than $19 billion into uneconomic and unnecessary motorways and state highways.

“We don’t have to sell state assets to cover our costs; we just need to re-direct some of our transport funding. I ask where the balance is when for every $1 the Government spends on bus, rail, walking or cycling from the National Land Transport Fund they’re planning to spend almost $6 on building or maintaining roads.”

Mr Hughes declared that motorways such as Transmission Gully and Puhoi to Wellsford wouldn’t make the grade of a sensible economic analysis. The funds should be redirected towards local road and safety improvements but the vast bulk of the saved funds need to go elsewhere.

Greens MP David Clendon campaigning for provincial rail

In Wellington and Christchurch, the Green Party would fund at least 60% or $300 million for each of these other transformative transport projects, Light rail to link up our cities.

“We are champions for rail in parliament, and love it because it’s efficient, better at relieving congestion, safe, environmentally friendly, and lastly economically beneficial.”

The Green Party would also make $75m extra a year for walking and cycling 2012-2016 and $100 million extra from 2017-2022 “to turn our towns and cities into liveable, safe, great places where people can easily walk and cycle. That is enough money to complete thousands of kilometres of high quality bicycle lanes.”

“We would like to do this primarily though increasing the Financial Assistance Rate for these projects to 100%, meaning they are paid 100% by central government. `This will empower local communities to make their own plans and decisions and raise their own money/provide their own solutions.It would also allow the Model Communities programme, which has been so successful in Hawkes Bay and Taranaki, to be rolled out across New Zealand.”

Tags:

 
 
 

43 Comments

 
  1. BD says:

    The Greens Transport policy is more common sense if anything. No government should be spending obscene amounts of money on stupid motorway projects like Puhoi to Wellsford, motorway upgrade south of Cambridge and Transmission Gully.

    I even think parts of the Waikato expressway don’t make sense like the Hamilton bypass. They are already building the Te-rapa bypass that could potentially become the main route for heavy vehicles to avoid the city so there is no need to be spending heaps of money on that part of the Waikato expressway this should serve the needs of the people of the city for sometime now. The motorway is being planned for encouraging growth for growth sake as usual by encouraging more people to drive there cars around Hamilton rather than managing the growth that they have and improving the limited public transport options that Hamilton has to offer. They should reinstate commuter rail and invest in light rail around Hamilton rather than encouraging the city to sprawl out even further than it is which is basically what the expressway is doing. Even the Huntly bypass doesn’t make sense to me, as it is too expensive and built over a fragile landscape of outstandign natural beauty.

  2. BD says:

    The Greens Transport policy is more common sense if anything. No government should be spending obscene amounts of money on stupid motorway projects like Puhoi to Wellsford, motorway upgrade south of Cambridge and Transmission Gully.

    I even think parts of the Waikato expressway don’t make sense like the Hamilton bypass. They are already building the Te-rapa bypass that could potentially become the main route for heavy vehicles to avoid the city so there is no need to be spending heaps of money on that part of the Waikato expressway this should serve the needs of the people of the city for sometime now. The motorway is being planned for encouraging growth for growth sake as usual by encouraging more people to drive their cars around Hamilton rather than managing the growth that they have and improving the limited public transport options that Hamilton has to offer. They should reinstate commuter rail and invest in light rail around Hamilton rather than encouraging the city to sprawl out even further than it is which is basically what the expressway is doing. Even the Huntly bypass doesn’t make sense to me, as it is too expensive and built over a fragile landscape of outstanding natural beauty.

  3. Chris says:

    Great idea, but I’d never vote for them even if they paid me too.

  4. Brent C says:

    I would have thought the Greens would have been more keen on funding a higher percentage of these projects. I do understand however that rail has a massive benefit to development patterns in Cities, therefore development contributions should also pay some of the cost.

  5. San Luca says:

    They have my vote now

  6. Matt says:

    Just for the record, there was no coordination between Gareth Hughes and myself in using the term “White Elephant” about National’s crazy and demented road spending priorities. “White Elephant” is very much the zeitgeist when Joycey-Baby is at the wheel.

    http://wellingtoncycleways.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/nationals-white-elephant/

    And when I read the Greens are”“to turn our towns and cities into liveable, safe, great places where people can easily walk and cycle.” it’s fantastic. They get it. Now why are Labour and National too dumb to see that policy should be about making our lives and the places we live better places? Imagine if politicians actually cared about place-making and the happiness of us citizens, rather than ego-trips to the gates of motorway hell.

  7. Patrick R says:

    err? Chris, why not? Need more motorways?

  8. Matt says:

    Brent, 60% is pretty generous, especially when contrasted with Joyce’s carefully-studied “nothing now, but maybe, possibly, something in the future. Maybe. If the wind is blowing in the right direction and it’s the third full moon of the month.”
    Plus, as you say, there are significant benefits to the city that require some funding from the city for the sake of equity. It’s not fair to take the entire cost from the national purse when the benefits are to the quality of the city as well as to the national economy.

  9. Matt says:

    Patrick, some people are just pathologically anti-Green, no matter how much sense most Green policy makes.
    Often it’s the marijuana issue that seals the deal for them, which is unfortunate since a refusal to even consider debating an issue is something we attribute to the current Minister of Trucks.

  10. Antz says:

    I think some people need to realise that just because they want to legalize marijuana doesn’t mean that they will.

    They have my vote too…

  11. Matt L says:

    I think people sometimes forget that people vote for parties based on more than one issue so while we may their transport policy may be better than other parties it doesn’t meant we all think that their other policies are. Persoanlly I can’t stand many of their social policies which is what puts me off voting for them

  12. Matt L says:

    I think people sometimes forget that people vote for parties based on more than one issue so while we may their transport policy may be better than other parties it doesn’t meant we all think that their other policies are. Personally I can’t stand many of their social policies which is what puts me off voting for them

  13. William Stewart says:

    I’m voting for the greens.I don’t like their social policy, I don’t like their wage increase platform and I don’t like their race relations policies, but any votes they do get will most likely give them a platform to push for better public transport funding. I’m less concerned their wilder policies will get anywhere, while their PT policies are the ones that are most likely to get through.

  14. Chris says:

    @Patrick R - Every party claims they will do big things, and I hope you don’t base your vote purely on which is most attractive. I agree with Matt L, I cant stand their social policies.
    Although better rail would be beneficial, NZ as a country will be f**ked. Sometime the rail loop will happen,but I can wait till the day.

  15. Chris says:

    @Antz. You said “I think some people need to realise that just because they want to legalize marijuana doesn’t mean that they will. They have my vote too…”

    Just because they want to have a rail loop, doesn’t mean they will make it.
    But if they are true to their word, I assume they might fund the 60% from all those addicted to marijuana?

  16. Antz says:

    Aiya…This country’s negative culture is getting me down now.

    I need to hop off the computer, take a holiday to Europe where there is no bickering on transport policies, no freaking mention of the RWC, no more bloody earthquakes and….more smiles i guess…:(

  17. Andu says:

    ”Aiya…This country’s negative culture is getting me down now.

    I need to hop off the computer, take a holiday to Europe where there is no bickering on transport policies, no freaking mention of the RWC, no more bloody earthquakes and….more smiles i guess…”

    Good luck finding it in Europe mate, prepare to be disillusioned!

  18. Matt says:

    I find it funny that people who’re so keen on better public transport consider the Greens’ social policies to be so unacceptable.

  19. tbird says:

    @Matt.
    Well anyone with any forethought can see that the Greens have awful social policies.

    But they’re even worse at economics. I’m not sure how they expect to pay for anything. But if Greens managed to become government, here is what to expect:

    They’ll increase the minimum wage so that employers can’t afford to pay people, while at the same time drastically increasing tax on the rich (which for them is basically anyone with a job). They’ll ensure that on the benefit you can pay for your Sky subscription, your weekly supply of Woodstocks and your daily tinnie, with enough left over to pay your HP for the flatscreen TV and new Ford Falcon.

    Cigarettes will be banned, and cannabis will be legal. Lung cancers and heart disease will increase because the smoke in your joint is not filtered. Car crashes will also increase because people think it is their right to drive stoned.

    Research on DNA will be halted, farms closed down (too cruel to the animals), and good lightbulbs forbidden. Any trade with China and the US will be abandoned for “ethical” reasons. We’ll start accepting any “refugee” from anywhere, and will pay for his/her airfare over here. We’ll disestablish our army, and the spy domes by Blenheim will be demolished.

    We’ll forgo any right to our land to the Maori, and be forced to pay them koha every week. Violent criminals will be released into the community after an intensive counselling session. The more-equal-than-others leaders of the Green Party will become the Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s of the country, swanning around in private jets. Nike, McDonalds, KFC will be illegal, and gender-specific clothes abandoned. Every morning we will assemble in a shared courtyard for our daily karakia and yoga session.

    But at least you’ll get your rail loop. (Until everyone with a brain has fled overseas and no-one has the skills to build it.) And of course there’ll be nowhere to go, except to another subsistence farm.

    Now, this might be your idea of utopia, but it ain’t mine.

    @Antz
    New Zealand probably is one of the best countries in the world. I think we have inherited a bit of whinginess from our colonial ancestors. BTW have you ever met anyone from Europe?!

  20. Matt L says:

    Matt - To me providing public transport should be about using our transport corridors more efficiently rather than it being a social requirement. It can enable more people to move around the city at the same time which can help boost our economy. I would actually argue that part of the problem is that for the last 60 or so years PT has turned away from being about maximising our transport corridors and has focused on being a social service.

    If the debate and and focus of providing good quality PT can reorient back to being about more effective use of resources (and I’m not even talking about fuel) then we will probably get a much better system.

  21. Matt says:

    tbird, without doing a point-by-point rebuttal, have you actually read any Greens’ policy documents for yourself? Or have you just relied on hysterical media beat-up based on sound-bites from National and Act?
    I suspect the latter, given that you mention a "ban" on lightbulbs. That was never Green policy. Ever. But buggered if you'd know it from what was reported in the media.

    I'm not a Green member, or an ardent supporter, but their policies make a hell of a lot more sense, if one cares to investigate the evidence behind them, than the policies of Act and National.

  22. Matt says:

    @ the other Matt

    Yeah good suggestion:
    http://www.greens.org.nz/policy2

    I thought I knew what their policies were (like the drug policy which I thought I didn’t agree with), but I went and had a read, and it is hard to fault most of them, including social, drug and economic policy when you actually go and read them. In fact I challenge anyone to go read them and not actually be pleased with them.

    I once read the National Party’s Blue Green policy and thought it was Machivellian double-speak and it boiled down to “we love money and we hate you”. Like when it said clean air was the most important thing, and then Nick Smith goes and weakens the already piss poor air quality standards laws saying they won’t even come in until 2099 or something as far out to make us all lose hope.

    I’m from Australia, and a bit of a refugee from Howard’s Liberal government. I can remember one election the Adelaide Advertiser (properly called the Adelaide Fertiliser), a Murdoch-owned rag had an online quiz. It asked lots of policy questions on lots of issues and then asked which party you were going to vote for. 15% of people said Green, but the computer worked out that for 60% of people the actual policies they preferred meant that the Greens were aligned most to what policies they say the supported. I bet you anything the figures would be like that on an online poll in New Zealand if held today. I bet National’s policies would be near universally loathed, and National would have the preffered PM and government. The difference between what people actually believe and what they vote for is what propaganda and spin is for. National and the crap mainstream media here are doing their job well if they are trying to get people to vote against what they actually believe.

    Vote National, vote against your own interests. But it is amazing that is what most people will do. Thickos.

  23. Matt says:

    Handlebars Matt, the Greens make a lot of sense, if one cares to look into their policies with an open mind. They’re pretty much the only party in NZ politics that takes a consistent evidence-based approach to policy.

    One can disagree with their suggestions as counter one’s personal ideology, but disagreement on the grounds that they’re based on nothing more than dreams of unicorns and rainbows (which is pretty much tbird’s opposition) cannot be substantiated.

  24. Carl says:

    I like their ideas, but I’d like to know where this money is actually going to come from?

    if a road or networks has started to be built (which the have) they need to be finished or its money wasted.

    the price of everything has gone up due to no reason why so ever.

    rather than funding more, what the need to do is bring people in so things are semi private, have kiwis invest in their own country.

    keep people employed, keep people busy, keep people out of trouble.

    but again this all require money. if the present government doesn’t have any, why is the next one going to be any different?

  25. Matt says:

    Carl, the money will come from taxation. The current government doesn’t have any money because they a) cut taxes and heaped the lion’s share of the cuts on people who have the least need for more money in their pocket, and b) slashed government spending right at a point where laying people off almost certainly consigned them to the unemployment lines, with the consequence of reducing money flows within the economy and increasing the demands on the welfare purse. These were entirely predictable outcomes of National’s policies and, indeed, the predicted outcomes have come to pass.

    The Greens make no bones about increasing taxes, no bones whatsoever. They’re absolutely up-front about increasing taxes (and NZ has the second-lowest tax burden in the OECD, so please don’t retort that we’re over-taxed already. We’re abso-bloody-loutely not!), including a CGT and also bringing our emissions-heavy primary industries into the carbon tax regime many years sooner than is National’s plan.

    Labour reckon that they can get us back to surplus in the same time as National despite increasing borrowing in the near term, and achieve that through tax increases. The Greens are of the same school.

    Also, Greens’ policies are largely about lower costs in the future. Cut child poverty, improve the outcomes of childhood, and your downstream costs of dealing with poor health and interactions with the criminal justice system decrease. It takes a decade or more to show up, but the savings are very real. Of course, short-sighted voters in this country don’t care about anything further out than the next election, so they’ll keep on voting in National because they don’t have to pay more taxes for something that won’t show results for many years.

  26. Jon C says:

    National pollster and blogger David Farrar raises an interesting suggestion today that National could offer the Greens a new public transport portfolio with a budget
    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/08/key_reaffirms_he_will_share_power.html

  27. Matt says:

    Jon, nice idea, but I just cannot see National making the budget meaningful. It would require taking money from the RODS, and both Joyce and English will fight tooth and nail to avoid money being spent on anything transport-related in Auckland that’s not more roads.

  28. Patrick R says:

    Ouch, that was a mistake, just followed that link Jon, best not to read the comments on Kiwiblog, not a lot of love out there…. lot of angry rightwing Kiwis… very depressing.

    But Farrar raises an interesting point, as the election result could be a lot less clear cut than everyone is expecting… But I’m with Matt, could they really reach a deal over PT with the Greens? And rivers and other key issues. I guess it depends on how important power is…?

  29. Matt says:

    Patrick, yeah, avoid reading comments on KiwiBlergh unless one is rabidly right-wing and/or severely masochistic. I didn’t venture any further than the post itself, and even that made me feel somewhat sullied.

    I don’t think National is capable of making the meaningful concessions that the Greens would require to get them into power. And I’m fairly confident that, no matter what the polls say now, National won’t be in a position to govern alone after the election. People are waking up to just how vile a second term of National will be, finally, though how that’ll translate into the ballot’s outcome is anyone’s guess.

  30. Patrick R says:

    I know this is nuts but I’ve just made two bold calls on Public Address: The ABs not to win the cup, and there to be no clear result at the election.

    Now I’m just saying that when everyone is sure things are all over and easy to call my radar starts going off. Of the two I think the second is the more likely… Key thinks so too that’s why he is sweet-talking potential partners…. And I’m even more interested now that Farrar is chucking that idea around. He is the National Party’s pollster, and they are feverish pollers; he must be seeing something they aren’t saying. Like the Greens likely to poll very well? But I still think Green/Blue is a chimera, a fantasy; be like swallowing rats, but I get a feeling that Norman could go there….?

  31. Matt says:

    Yeah, I saw that call. And I don’t disagree with you, especially if the former happens and the latter holds to anecdote.

    The Greens have said National would have to make some very big changes to policy before another relationship would be considered in the vein of the current one.

  32. Matt L says:

    Personally I think a National government with the greens working more closely would be a good thing but I think the Greens would have to decide what matters to them the most: are they a party that is mainly focused on improving the environment or are they one whose main focus is on social policy. I could see them coming to an agreement on the former but little on the later.

  33. Patrick R says:

    But Matt that separation is a fantasy; National governs for corporations and they want unrestricted access to both labour and natural resources. Take water for example, the Greens want to price irrigation and although this is seemingly consistent with the ideology of the right it isn’t consistent with the practice. National’s policy is to subsidise the transfer of irrigation rights to big diary. National, mostly, isn’t strict ideologically, but it is consistent in facilitating the socialisation of businesses costs and the privatisation of the profit. It could be the end of the Greens, a la the LibDems in England, to get into bed with National: It could kill the brand.

    But still they may be faced with that choice; ie Nats the biggest party but without enough to rule alone because of the collapse of their nasty little helpers. And not enough either for a Lab/Green gov…. Just sayin’.

    But can you really imagine Joyce sharing transport policy decisions with Hughes?

  34. Matt L says:

    Patrick - I don’t think it guarantees the brand would be damaged as it all depends on how any theoretical deal is structured. If the Greens were still allowed to speak out against the government on some issues then it might not be so bad for them.

    Another thing to think about, the government knows there is popular support for the CRL but they are probably worried that funding it will piss off their financial backers, particularly the RTF and the farmers who hate Auckland. A deal with the Greens would allow them to agree to the tunnel and get the popular support that comes with it while not pissing off those real anti rail groups

  35. marten says:

    Some people here have asked: Where is the money going to come from?

    DOH. From the same sources National is pouring the money into motorways.

    Look at THIS diagram over at Auckland Transport Blog

    http://transportblog.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/funding-graph.jpg

    The highest line is “new and improved state highways”, and it DWARFS everthing else. It could easily be halved, and all that money be spent much more wisely. Remember, that big line doesn’t even include maintenance - all that is NEW roads.

    The biggest lie ever told in NZ transport politics is that we have no money for PT and walking and cycling!

  36. Matt says:

    Matt L, the Greens would be bound by Cabinet Collective Responsibility on matters that related to any portfolio they held. So if it was determined that the budget of such portfolio was to be slashed, for example, they would be barred from making public statements about it that were counter to the official line until they relinquished the portfolio.
    After the fiasco of Peters and Labour, no future government will try and re-live the pretence that ministers from minor parties can disagree with the official line on matters that affect their portfolios if such disagreement is under the auspices of the minor party.

  37. Pickle says:

    I went to the conference and Labour were also very supportive of public transport and the CIty Rail Link.

    As for the Greens social policies, what a lot of terribly informed rubbish being spread by a few people. Too silly to even a warrant a reply.

  38. Patrick R says:

    Hmmmm? @MattL your point suggests the Nats are looking for an excuse to fund the CRL. I thnk not. They hate it, don’t believe in it, or worse fear that it will work and lead to pressure to build more commie rail lines. This is a marriage that would be much harder to make work than it might seem.

    But I can see the problem for conservative people who see the need for a change in how we use the environment. Conservation and conservative do have the same root: but neoliberal doesn’t.

  39. Matt L says:

    Matt - As I said, it would all depend on how the agreement was set up, personally I can’t see the greens being given a portfolio as such but more just policy concessions for certain votes etc.

    Pickle - Just because you may like the social polices of the greens and/or labour, it doesn’t mean everyone does.

    Patrick - I think there are some in the party that absolutely hate the CRL, some will be in the middle and there will be a few that support it privately. The point is though that I think they are smart enough to see that there is big public support for it to be built and there is nothing a politician likes more than doing something the majority want. If they can do that without pissing off those financial backers it would be a good result for them. I also think that much of there opposition is less to do with the project itself but more to do with them being pissed off at Len

  40. Patrick R says:

    MattL you do paint the Nats in a cynical light. I disagree with them but I’m not so sure they aren’t sincerely against PT in general and the CRL in particular. But perhaps you are right, perhaps they’ll fund anything to stay in power… I don’t know?

  41. LucyJH says:

    Just to be clear, even if the Greens followed through with all the funding policies outlined above they would SAVE $3.5 billion - that is they would spend $3.5 billion less than what National is proposing to do over the same period. Why? Because they would cut the state highway budget significantly (by about $8 billion) and this would free up funds for everything else.

    You might say “Oh but if people drive less then won’t we get less fuel tax?” and the answer is “Yes” but, of course, as more poeple use PT then the services will become more efficient and require lower subsidies. Also, if councils were able to use “betterment” or “lkand value” taxes to capture the increase in value of land around new PT projects this would probably help solve a lot of funding issues. This is how lots of cities overseas pay for their PT systems.

  42. Patrick R says:

    Yes and driving less should be the goal [the reverse seems to be the case now in WGTN] and of course will lead to us not needing to import quite so much impoverishing oil. Win-win-win

  43. Pickle says:

    Public transport = communism in the views of the New Zealand National party.

 

Leave a Comment

 




XHTML: You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>