Comments on: Government Takes Us Back to the 60s

By: jarbury

jarbury — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 11:14:40 +0000

Not sure if the funding for PT makes up 16% of the total funding pool Kevyn – however I think it’s $27 on new state highway spending for every dollar on new public transport infrastructure spending. Seems a bit lop-sided don’t you think?

By: Kevyn Miller

Kevyn Miller — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:53:27 +0000

Of course, another rebuttal to Joyce’s use of the 84% argument is that the percentage of NLTF funds earmarked for the 7 roads of national significance is just as dispproportionate with the amount of travel that actually occurs on those routes.

Is the surviving funding for PT and ATR 16%, since that’s what it should be if he’s serious about this 84% argument.

By: Christopher Thompson

Christopher Thompson — Wed, 20 May 2009 15:13:38 +0000

I suppose if we were to extend Joyce’s somewhat simplistic logic then we could say that motorways should never have been built because in 1905 something like 98 per cent of all transportation was horse powered and the money would have been better spent on improved stabling, more blacksmiths, better drinking troughs, etc. This is right wing logic ad absurdum, suggesting that Joyce and his advisers have what might be described as an immature intellectual framework when it comes to understanding the persuasive role of government policy making has in modifying popular opinion. Sadly this has been a long-term failing of the New Zealand political system, but to see a New Zealand government pursuing transport policies that fall to the ideological right of current United States policy making is so deeply disheartening.

By: jarbury

jarbury — Wed, 20 May 2009 11:44:25 +0000

I would have outcome based funding Liberty, rather than input based funding. Surely you spend based on what you want, not based on where the money is coming from.

You work out the goals you want from a transport system – which I think should be much broader than just “economic growth”. Then you work out which projects will deliver those goals the best and you spend your money on that basis.

If we only ever funded projects based on the status quo then we’d never get anywhere in life.

By: Libertyscott

Libertyscott — Wed, 20 May 2009 10:22:36 +0000

What would you do different Jarbury? Why is it “stolen” when the money was generated from state highways in the first place? Why is there a problem if the state highway projects have good BCRs? Why is it silly for a fund generated by road users be largely spent on roads, other than because the Greens think so (and given their gross distortions and malinformation about transport they are hardly credible)?

The goal appears to be economic efficiency, which is difficult to argue against, unless you think wasting resources is good.

By: Sydney

Sydney — Tue, 19 May 2009 04:54:20 +0000

Steven Joyce is a KNOB ! Congrats on the radio interview, I am sorry that I missed it mate.

Signed: http://eyeonauckland.blogspot.com/