Cullen’s inadequate responses on roading
As reported this morning, Jeanette and Keith asked a series of questions in the House yesterday, attempting to pin Finance Minister Michael Cullen down on exactly how he justifies the massive increase in roading funding in last week’s budget. His answers were decidedly unsatisfactory, for example:
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader-Green) to the Minister of Finance: Is he confident that the additional $1.5 billion being allocated to new roading projects will be justified by growth in traffic volumes, given Transit’s figures showing a significant decrease in traffic on three Auckland motorways and the 5 percent increase in bus patronage reported by Stagecoach?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): There are already serious safety and congestion problems-not just in Auckland-that need to be fixed. Further traffic growth will merely add to that need, and a 5 percent increase in bus patronage in Auckland certainly would not prevent growth in road usage elsewhere.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has the Minister seen the survey commissioned by the Auckland Regional Council last year, in which 87 percent agreed or strongly agreed that better public transport would make it easier to get around Auckland, while only 46 percent agreed the same in relation to more roads; and how does he explain the projected drop in the percentage of funding to be spent on public transport-from 18 percent now to 10 percent in 2014-even before the huge increase in road funding he has just announced?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I can confirm that this Government has increased spending on public transport eight-and-a-half-fold since we became the Government. The fact that people say that public transport will improve their ability to get around Auckland does not mean to say they will actually use that public transport in the numbers that will lead to our having no need for roads. In any case, as I have frequently said, buses also need roads, service vehicles need roads, and goods traffic needs roads. It is not simply a matter of moving passengers around Auckland, in terms of Auckland’s needs.
The Government may have increased public transport spending in dollar terms, but in terms of proportion, this Budget signals a significant drop, from 18 percent of transport funding to just 10 percent over the next eight years. Cullen’s claim that demand from buses, service vehicles and goods traffic can justify increased spending on roads also does not stack up. As Jeanette pointed out in her press release yesterday afternoon:
… the reason there is peak time traffic congestion in the major centres is because commuters are taking one car each to work as public transport services are not good enough. If each of those centres had a fast, efficient, frequent, safe public transport network, many more commuters would leave their cars at home and the roads would be adequate for everyone else.
Later, Dr Cullen resorted to the ‘crazy hippy’ Green stereotype to attempt to discredit Jeanette, by saying “In a modern economy, people do not all sit at home, self-sufficient-weaving their own baskets and making their own bread,” but even this particularly lame joke couldn’t divert attention from the gaping holes in his answers to her questions.
May 24th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
This is news? Anyone who has listened to more than a couple of question times will know that low content, evasive, and insulting answers are standard from Dr Cullen and several other Labour ministers. This practise is supported by the useless speaker Wilson who mindless chants that they have “addressed the question”. If you wanted accountability then perhaps you should have supported someone else for speaker?
May 24th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
With demand for decent public transport continuing to rise, the timing of this spending cut is curious.
Is the Peter Dunne tail wagging the government dog, or are Labour just trying to make themselves unpopular?
May 24th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
naw, Labour are trying to make themselves popular by spending up on roads. Expect them to take on even more National Party policies in the next two years.
May 24th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
Of course increased demand for public transport means more revenue from fares so that operators can invest in more services and capacity. Fares for diesel powered modes must also increase to keep up with fuel price increases, which increases the economic viability of services that are full, or electric trains and trolley buses, as well as avoiding people shifting from walking/cycling to bus (which is a major risk with increased public transport).
However it IS legitimate for you to complain about money for roads exceeding revenue collected from fuel tax/road user charges/motor vehicle registration. That is a subsidy and there are roads now being pursued with benefit/cost ratios of less than 1 - although that was something that the Greens supported in the Land Transport Management Bill because you opposed criteria for funding roads taking into account economic efficiency (because so many public transport projects aren’t efficient).
May 25th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Easy answer - don’t support them then.
They know you are a lapdog who needs to be thrown a bone once in a while.
May 25th, 2006 at 10:25 pm
“so many public transport projects aren’t efficient”
Is this calculated under the famous Min. of Economic Development that said oil prices would be $25 a barrel from 2005, declining to $20 thereafter?
Modern, frequent, reliable public transport is essential for any city that wants a high quality of life for its citizens. Electric rail is the best option where corridors already exist, due to the speed of services and negligible cost of the energy to run it.
When oil prices get to $100 a barrel, assuming the trends of the last 5 years continue apace, public transport will be even more essential due to the unaffordability of commuting. Hopefully then the government will treat it seriously.
I sincerely hope the government doesn’t build too many white elephant motorways in the next few years.
May 26th, 2006 at 4:28 am
No, it is calculated by Land Transport NZ which is responsible for $1.8 billion of spending, it evaluates this dynamically. You see the problem is that as oil prices increase, and car traffic declines, the congestion relieving benefits of subsidising a mode that is by definition getting more competitive, decline too.
“Modern, frequent, reliable public transport is essential for any city that wants a high quality of life for its citizens.” You can say the same about electricity, telecommunications and food, but nobody asks others to pay for it.
“Electric rail is the best option where corridors already exist, due to the speed of services and negligible cost of the energy to run it.” As long as you have enough people wanting to go along that route. Trains are a very expensive capital investment and unless carrying around 3x the capacity of a bus on average, it isn’t worth the capital investment. Buses already have corridors too and they can be made fast too at a fraction of the cost.
If oil prices reach $100 a barrel, you could abolish public transport subsidies with little effort, as the increased patronage would pay for the cost of running and investing in it. Of course by then, hybrid cars will be even more commonplace, and other alternative fueled vehicles - motorways wont be empty. After all, you can’t move freight locally by rail, and rail freight isn’t even close to efficient for non-bulk goods for trips of less than 150km.
May 26th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
> If oil prices reach $100 a barrel, you could abolish public
> transport subsidies with little effort, as the increased
> patronage would pay for the cost of running and investing
> in it.
There’s something of a time lag in this scenario. When oil gets pricey people seeking alternatives to the car will find that the buses/trains are already full (if they’re available at all, having withered away somewhat last century). The market will respond, but what happens to those who can’t afford to drive in the meantime?
As an aside, if and when petrol hits $2 or $3 a litre and the roads become less congested, I suspect a more popular use for the $1.5 billion “new road” fund would be a reduction in income tax.
May 26th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
“You can say the same about electricity, telecommunications and food, but nobody asks others to pay for it.”
Actually, we do: as a society, we accept that providing basic assistance to the needy benefits everyone in terms of improvements in crime, poverty, health and overall societal cohesion. The same argument goes for a decent public transport system- the societal benefit of not having everyone dependent on cars goes a long way in terms of pollution, health problems like stress and obesity, and the billion dollar losses due to congestion and car dependence.
My preference for rail is due to the huge capacity at peak times, and that buses rarely have their own lanes and therefore just get stuck in traffic like everyone else- it is impossible or expensive to build bus lanes in most places.
Where there is already a rail corridor it makes sense to use it to the fullest extent. As I have noted, the cost of buses is a low-ish fixed cost (unless you have to build expensive new bus lanes) but a high variable cost due to fuel. As the cost of fuel rises, buses will get increasingly expensive, whereas electrified trains are not affected by oil prices. And the lifespan of trains is much longer than buses.
A congestion charge for Auckland, with the money spent on public transport, would be a sensible way of both reducing congestion through encouraging use and also funding alternatives to cars. I have heard of 5-car households in Auckland. Is this really a sustainable concept or a wise allocation of resources?
May 26th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
Actually public transport can add to obesity, as it often replaces walking/cycling trips if it is too cheap for short trips - the Christchurch free shuttle bus on average replaces one car trip, all the other trips would have walked or gone on other buses - hardly sustainable transport.
“I have heard of 5-car households in Auckland. Is this really a sustainable concept or a wise allocation of resources? ”
I don’t know, why don’t you ask them instead of assuming? How many people are in the household, where do they work or study? Don’t assume that people make choices that are bad because you can’t see why they did it - some people are car enthusiasts, they may not drive any more than most others.
There are plenty of ways to provide bus priority lanes - motorway shoulders, clearways dedicated to buses and traffic light activation transponders. A lot has been done in Auckland already and more can be done. I agree on a congestion charge, the question is how to design it - but it should not be used to pay for public transport. A congestion charge makes public transport more viable anyway because it prices car commuting higher, and buses get free flowing roads. Pricing roads correctly is far more important that what the money is spent on though.
May 27th, 2006 at 9:24 am
A few articles from the Sydney Morning Herald of relevance to this discussion:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/if-they-only-knew–cars-true-cost-s o-much-more/2006/05/26/1148524888415.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/oildriven-revolutionaries/2006/05/ 26/1148524888475.html
I do like the idea of car-sharing schemes. Anyone know of any in Wellington?
May 27th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Hmmm, that first link seems to have gotten mangled in the posting. Between “knew” and “cars” there should be two “-” (minus) rather than “–” (em dash).
May 27th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
LS Actually private cars can add to obesity, as they often replace walking/cycling trips as it is too cheap for short trips - in Christchurch cheap cars on average replace one bus trip, all the other trips would have walked or gone on other buses… Makes about as much sense as your statement
My own experience would suggest the Central City shuttle is ridden by tourists, local shoppers who have bussed in and/or parked their cars and students - in that order.
There are plenty of ways to provide bus priority lanes - motorway shoulders ..
Ever bothered to figure out why the shoulders are there ? Next !
I agree on a congestion charge, the question is how to design it - but it should not be used to pay for public transport. A congestion charge makes public transport more viable anyway because it prices car commuting higher, and buses get free flowing roads.
The main beneficiary of a congestion charge is obviously the private driver. With current and forecast car/PT levels they stand to gain much more from less traffic.
Indeed Engwicht and others have made a coherent economic argument that PT should be free at the point of use - paid for by car drivers as the main beneficiary of the resulting drop in road congestion.
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:52 am
Sorry fastbike, I am quoting a survey I heard of that was done about the Christchurch central city shuttle - a bit more rigorous than your experience I would guess.
Congestion charges actually benefit all traffic that remains on the road, cars, road freight (which can’t go by rail except for long distances on limited routes) and buses. They ought to benefit, as they are paying for a scarce resource. The free buses reduce congestion argument is discredited two ways, first the evidence is that it has a marginal effect, it tends to double trips made by non-car users, and reduce the incentives to walk or cycle. I’ve noticed kids using free buses in London to go two stops, fabulous use of other people’s money.
June 2nd, 2006 at 9:33 am
What survey - commissioned and paid for by whom, performed by whom, where are the results? Without sources you’re just spouting hot air.
And having lived and worked in London for almost a decade - there is NO comparison with Christchurch. Right wingers only have a one size solution to any problem. Green solutions are localised - and adapt to deal with local problems.
June 2nd, 2006 at 4:26 pm
why is it a problem if people use free buses to only go two stops (when they could have walked that distance)?
Presumably the bus was stopping anyway so it doesn’t slow down the route for other passengers, in fact, free buses would have a huge time saving because there would not be the need to take the fares, people could just get on and off.
Secondly, they were only on the bus for 2 stops so they didn’t fill up the bus preventing other passengers from using it.
Thirdly, I doubt very much if anyone except the most incapacitated would wait at a bus stop for a bus to come along in order to go two stops. Presumably these hypothetical kids you talk of just happended to be at the right place at the right time.
Finally, free buses would not be a waste of taxpayers or ratepayers money. They would probably negate the need for congestion charging, allowing people who want to drive to have more open roads, so there is a benefit for the whole community not just those who ride the buses.
If we want to encourage walking and cycling, we shouldn’t go about it by making driving or talking the bus more difficult or more expensive, we should go about it by making walking and cycling more pleasant, by having landscaped off-road walk/cycleways, and pedestrian only high streets.