When National set up the Auckland super city they loved to say they were doing it so Auckland could speak with one voice. Well Aucklanders have spoken. They want a world class transport system, starting with the City Rail Link. But National is not listening.
Labour is. At a rally today at Beresford Square, just off Karangahape Rd and site of a future underground rail station, Phil Goff announced Labour in Government will contribute one-half of the cost of the City Rail Link ($1.2 bn). The other half will be the responsibility of Auckland Council.
The Rail Link is the centrepiece of the Auckland Council’s draft plan. It will double the capacity of the city’s rail network by making Britomart a through-station, and adding underground stations at Aotea (Wellesley & Albert), K Rd, and Newton. And as the Council’s internationally peer-reviewed study showed, it will transform the city centre.
To pay for it we will cancel Steven Joyce’s pet project, the Puhoi-Wellsford holiday highway, freeing up $1.69 billion, and quickly implement the $320m Operation Lifesaver plan to fix the highway’s crash black spots and bottlenecks.
As Phil Goff said at the rally to announce the pledge, the city rail link is the next step in building a modern Auckland public transport system. Without it, Auckland will never meet its ambition of being the world’s most liveable city. Aucklanders know we simply cannot continue building more and more motorways.
Aucklanders now have a clear choice: a vote for Labour is a vote for the City Rail Link, and a partnership between central government and the Auckland Council to deliver the world’s most liveable city. A vote for National is a vote for motorways and sprawl, and a Government doing its best to sabotage Auckland’s desire for a world class transport system.
More detail on the policy here.
I hope they build it big enough for the next hundred years and not the next 5 minutes…. The motor way improvements are a constant pain in my driving experience.
Happy Train!
It’s worth keeping some of the following facts in mind as politicians glamorise and glorify their schemes. From Too Many Public Works Built on Rosy Scenarios: Virginia Postrel
If you like the t-shirts that Phil T and Jacinda are wearing, you can buy them here: inthel00p.co.nz. Plus when you do, we’ll give $10 to the CRL-friendly political party or advocacy group of your choice. Simply name the organisation you wish the donation to go to in the ‘special delivery instructions’ field of the order form, and we’ll make the donation on your behalf.
Great News
Btw, drop the loopy logo, and emphasise the benefits to the rest of the rail network (improved frequencies).
QtR –
Politicians glamourise and glorify everything they do. It’s not restricted to major civil works.
Furthermore, criticism of ‘sunny day’ scenarios while important, does not negate the validity of certain visions, particularly those related to perceptions of public good not entirely defined by cost.
Portland (OR) for example took what was at the time a huge punt on multi-modal transport at great expense.
It’s worked for them because they had a coherent strategy and stuck to it.
Admittedly, it also helps that they went about it at the city level and against the advice of central govt. but that’s another story.
If Auckland is going to keep growing then we need rail. How we end up getting rail and at what cost is another story. I think build it for the long run so that future generations don’t have to build ad ons ad infinitum…
Unless you believe that Aucklands population is going to shrink in the next 100 years of course.
Phil, I hope you change the law to allow Auckland Transport, and other councils, to own and operate their own buses and trains, etc, like the MTA in New York. That is the crucial bit that is missing. The loop is useless without such a thing.
And Raven, why do you hate rail. Is this a part of your conversion to the Right?
City Loop. Excellent.
ALSO:- Rail to Northland has been threatened with closure even though lots of freight would then need to go by road i.e. MANY more logging trucks etc.. We need to keep that railway line and bring back the rail passenger service to Kaitaia. Reduce the number of large vehicles on our roads!
Can Labour please clarify where the rolling stock for the Rail Link would be built. I don’t want to see more NZ tax payer dollars siphoned off to China.
@ Colonial Viper, I think Clare has said that in any future rolling stock procurement decision, that Kiwirail would have to include the wider econ benefits of them being built in NZ, as opposed to China (eg. income tax, no benefits, keeping NZers working etc). I’m sure she or someone else can confirm.
Re. The city loop, I don’t live in Auckland, but it’s still a great idea for NZ’s biggest city to have such a transport option for its residents. Some tend to forget that roads and highways (and their maintenance) are paid for almost solely out of taxes. It’s an issue of priorities, central city loop to disenctivise sprawl and encourage cosmopolitan living vs holiday highway to wealthy aucklanders bachs (obv it costs less than the loop, yes).
No brainer to me.
@Scott: Yeah, bit of a shit logo, re. the loop, would be better to have it looping around the actual proposed route.
Colonial Viper
See our procurement policy
http://www.ownourfuture.co.nz/procurementpolicy
Andrew, I was thinking a little broader than that. I think the whole loopy theme should be dropped, link is much better. Congrats on the title
. Loop imply trains that run around in circles. This would mean the tunnel would only help those near the CBD, Newmarket, parnell etc. The trains are much more likely to through route (i.e. a western line train would go through the tunnel, out past britomart, and along the eastern line). The real advantage of the tunnel is to those near the outer rail stations that benefit from improved frequencies, and more destinations. The inner city is a small market of voters to target.
I hope you guys have carefully costed this out. The last thing this country and city needs is a white elephant.
QTR – please re-post this from time to time as national rolls out its current and future infrastructure proposals, and god forbid, any bid to host the Olympics. I was appalled to hear the PM re-championing the Commonwealth Games on the basis that the World Rugby Cup proved we could host the event, when his Government turned down the Commonwealth Games Big due to lack of money not our ability to host it. Forked tongues rule.
millsy – I really don’t see the point in engaging in discussion with someone who mistakes skepticism for “hate” and glibly talks of “a conversion to the Right”. Such a person is clearly not going to be honest or sincere in discussion.
Gergor W – Furthermore, criticism of ’sunny day’ scenarios while important, does not negate the validity of certain visions, particularly those related to perceptions of public good not entirely defined by cost.
You are going to have to be more explicit about these “perceptions of public good” and “visions”. Regarding something more material and tangible if Labour is thinking of the economic welfare of New Zealander’s than they should take into consideration past experiences of these projects and think of the opportunity cost of the billions spent on this rail project. Regarding Portland, although I’m not familiar with it, it is only one example the study mentioned above looked at 258 projects around the world. You are not going to make a particularly convincing argument from an anecdote.
@Scott: Link, I like it. Labour, pick this up please!!
@Tracey: I don’t see it being a white elephant, driving around auckland at peak time sucks, and will continue to suck until alternatives are available at a reasonable cost and where people can travel in relative comfort (ie. not sardines, no-one likes to travel like this, except in london etc when you’re travelling a few stops, which is fine). This (and the independence, not having to rely on scheduled times obv) is the reason cars are still the dominant transport option for most people.
Well done Labour! Policies coming out has the Party back in the game, I am glad the strength of Labour are it’s policies. Still not overly impressed with the poor Party list. Anyway happy I never stood as a Candidate ( Transport spokesperson ) for MANA, I agree Hone H is too unreliable a character to support. So much more happy to roll back with Labour. Phil is coming across like Steve Donald, the under dog coming good!
Marsman, the railway has never been as far north as Kaitaia. It was terminated at Otiria, just north of Kawakawa. Land was bought to build further, but the track was never laid.
I was appalled to hear the PM re-championing the Commonwealth Games on the basis that the World Rugby Cup proved we could host the event,
Who does he think he’s kidding! NZ has hosted the Commonwealth Games on at least two occasions in the past 30 odd years. One was in Christchurch and the other in Auckland. It’s time the voters took off their blinkers and saw the man for what he is – a narcissistic conman.
PS. Keep the momentum up Labour. You’ve done brilliantly so far. Great 15 second ads.
RtF
The railway line used to finish at Okaihau, north of Otiria. It was a branch line, but was the northernmost point of the railway.
QtR –
In reply:
You are going to have to be more explicit about these “perceptions of public good” and “visions”. Regarding something more material and tangible if Labour is thinking of the economic welfare of New Zealander’s than they should take into consideration past experiences of these projects and think of the opportunity cost of the billions spent on this rail project.
Re perceptions of public good: Clean air, carbon footprint, multi-modal independency for starters.
Re experience – Absolutely, but within a NZ context. Simply put, the opportunity cost for rail is roads.
Regarding Portland, although I’m not familiar with it, it is only one example the study mentioned above looked at 258 projects around the world. You are not going to make a particularly convincing argument from an anecdote.
Re Portland – it’s not really one project. Multiple rail networks and roads were built so it’s not a singular comparison. However, I get your point.
BTW, there is plenty of stuff available re Portland via Google Scholar but this is a link to a report I utilised as a source recently for an Operations Management paper if you are interested.
Andrew, re-read my post. I said nothing about being in denial about Auckland’s traffic problems I asked for careful and realistic costing of the project. No surprises policy.
Afterall Labour was at the helm when the revenue from the RWC was over inflated to get or support.
Trucker, you are absolutely right. In old age I am getting forgetful of our own local history…the rail did go to Okaihau and for a period even further to Rangiahua. The last section is now used as part of SH1.
“Aucklanders have spoken. They want a world class transport system, starting with the City Rail Link. But National is not listening.”
Let me make this very clear. I am an Aucklander and a daily rail passenger, and like most people I speak to …
WE DO NOT WANT THIS CITY LINK!!
Yes we need improvements to public transport, but not a loop in the city centre! 95% of us never go near the city centre.
What we need is carpool lanes on the motorways and bus routes that pull people in from the outskirting suburbs into the arterial route rail lines. We currently have half a dozen bus routes that run parallel with rail loop all the way from Papakura into the city, madness!
As well as these, the Southern, Eastern and Western lines should never have been built to merge into one single line prior to entering Britomart. What idiot thought this would not create a bottleneck??
Once again, politicians telling us what we want, rather than asking us. Oh and asking a handful of people down Queen street is not a fair representation of “Auckland” opinion.
Hi Rich!
I agree with ” Bob aka Jem”. I too am one of these Aucklanders who have never been asked what I think of Brown’s baby project. Also all the people I know in Auckland have never been asked either. It’s always the same. They say they know what people want without asking. It is about time this stopped, after all they are supposed to be working for the ratepayers not the other way around.
Re perceptions of public good: Clean air, carbon footprint, multi-modal independency for starters.
The carbon footprint is going to be dependent on how many cars it takes off the road. Which comes back to past experience with underutilized rail and projected passenger numbers being woefully less than reality. Clean air is of course only one of many things that people may value so it has to be weighted against all the other factors like the cost to them in terms of rates and tax dollars.
Re experience – Absolutely, but within a NZ context. Simply put, the opportunity cost for rail is roads.
No. The opportunity cost is of the however many billions this rail project will cost relative to what it could otherwise have been spent on which is not necessarily transport. Efficient transport is of course not the only thing people value. The money may otherwise be spent on healthcare or research or any number of things.
@bob aka Jem, and Beepee of Mt Wgtn – Two reasons for saying that Aucklanders have spoken. Len Brown fought the last mayoral campaign on an explicit public transport platform with the City Rail Link at the top of his list of priorities. He won by a handsome margin. That is a pretty good electoral mandate for the Rail Link.
When asked to choose support for either the Puhoi-Wellsford Highway or the City Rail Link, 63.3 per cent of Aucklanders backed the Rail Link, compared with the highway, which was backed by 24.8 per cent. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10738341
And bob aka Jem – It is not fundamentally about shifting people around the City Centre (although of course it will do that). The main value is that it will allow for up to 60 trains per hour through the CBD stations, compared to the
maximum of 21 trains per hour that can currently access just the Britomart station and be able to transport three times the number of passengers than can currently be moved. It will deliver a massive increase in the capacity of the regional rail network.
EVERY person is not consulted, and cannot be. I can say that more of my friend sand family are using public transport today than were ten years ago (Aucklanders I mean). So, I might just as easily claim that there is an increased demand for trains and buses?? The schools are our biggest traffic blight. ANYTIME the schools are on holiday my trip at peak hour from Balmoral to the City is cut down to only 10 minutes.
@ Tracey, apologies if i misinterpreted your post. I agree that any proposal must be fully researched and costed.
Completely agree re. school time, whatever happened to kids walking/biking to school?
Also, is there any reason for most schools being 9am-3pm?
Surely it would be beneficial for the majority (parents, students, and the general public)for there to be more flexible school times? Just by eg. half an hour/45mins/1 hour. Eg. big schools that are located near each other could be staggered to start/end at different times.
Just a thought.
If the MOE can rearrange a school year for the RWC it means they are capable of such flexibility.
We could look at having 730am starts (for those who like the start early (play sports etc etc) and then 1230 or 1pm starts
QtR –
Carbon footprint will be reduced by substitution, I agree. But there are many methods to encourage such substitution; as an extreme example, a $100/day tariff on private moter vehicles entering the city would see almost immediate full utilisation of rail.
Futhermore, your position is a little pedantic re Opportunity Cost.
A hospital can’t get you to work or transport goods from city to city so assuming complete fungibility/ratio of cost to benefit is irrelevant.
Otherwise it would be perfectly valid to say the opportunity cost of taxes spent on new roads is less money for the individual to buy fish & chips, which is equally nonsensical.
A hospital can’t get you to work or transport goods from city to city so assuming complete fungibility/ratio of cost to benefit is irrelevant.
No. I’m not being pedantic nor is it irrelevant that is simply what the concept entails. The opportunity cost of the billions to be spent on this rail project is relative to whatever else that money may otherwise be spent on which not just other transportation options.
Otherwise it would be perfectly valid to say the opportunity cost of taxes spent on new roads is less money for the individual to buy fish & chips, which is equally nonsensical.
It is valid to say that and not at all nonsensical.
QtR –
So in practice, you would expect that for every single piece of expenditure, the state needs to balance it against every conceivable opportunity cost, public or private?
Things would take a while to get done, not to mention the asymptotic increase in economists and policy theorists required by the state to function.
Furthermore, can’t a lot of that effort be shortcircuited by seeking a mandate from the electorate by establishing policy positions?
Then at least we would be be left with the problem of personal rational ignorance rather than complete governmental paralysis.
Hi Phil. I am glad you are our local Labour MP (not that there is much opposition in Te Atatu. Tau? Give me strength.)
I hope to meet you on the street one day and have a chat. Thanks for the good things you are doing for Auckland and thanks for listening to the Auckland public and taking the time to drop into sites such as transportblog.
@Gregor W.
Thanks for the link to the report. There is a lot of really usefull information in there.
Mr Twyford, how can a local poll in a City give a mandate for national-level expenditure? Surely this only gives the Council a mandate? How about some statistics on what the rest of the country feel should be done, or are the results inconvenient? Or are we hearing that Labour is now just about Auckland over the needs of everybody else? Please explain. Is this about promises previously made to (and by) Mr Brown?
So in practice, you would expect that for every single piece of expenditure, the state needs to balance it against every conceivable opportunity cost, public or private?
No Gregor. Are you being intentionally obtuse? I was merely pointing out to you that the opportunity cost is of the billions to be spent not simply a choice between different transportation projects.
James its money set aside for transport projects…. a railway line is a …cough.. transport project.
Auckland region has about 30% of the NZ population, and probably a bit more of the transport revenue raised by this.
Provincial regions have been subsidised by the big cities for too long. The south island gets subsidised by the North Island for transport.
For a couple of years Auckland central will just get its full share ( instead of it going on an expensive road – which is ironically in the the Auckland region anyway).
This is crazy Labour party spending other peoples money again.
1.2 billion dollars is left for the Auckland taxpayer to front up with – has any one confirmed the Auckland ratepayer is happy with that sort of cost….
“– which is ironically in the the Auckland region anyway).”
It is in fact within the Auckland “super city” isn’t it? Funny that!
@James – what GWW said. Len Brown’s electoral mandate should suffice for the 50% contribution from Auckland Council. Vote Labour and give us an electoral mandate for central government’s contribution.
No Gregor. Are you being intentionally obtuse? I was merely pointing out to you that the opportunity cost is of the billions to be spent not simply a choice between different transportation projects.
QtR –
No, I’m not being obtuse. I’m merely extending your logic.
You can’t have it both ways.
Funding for transport options are decided on either opportunity cost intra-candidate (road or rail or hovercraft or whatever – or potentially a mixture) or it’s opportunity cost vis-a-vis every other potential investment.
Take your pick.
Mr Twyford. OK, I get it now. When you said you had a mandate, what you meant was, you might have one later? Fair enough. I am interested that you fully agree with GWW with the assertion that Auckland has subsidised the rest of the country for long enough, and it is payback time. I wasn’t aware that it was policy to cut the South Island adrift with respect to transport. It would be a shame if it became a tit-for-tat with respect to say, energy. I haven’t heard this from you, or Labour, in any of your previous releases. But then, maybe I have not read them all. This site gets more and more interesting by the day.