Comments on: Decisions on RLTS submissions

By: Max

Max — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:26:57 +0000

I did present on Friday. Very cycle- and walking friendly bunch at the hearing. Shame they are all going out for the Supercity but hopefully a few of the core ones supporting PT and active modes will make it onto the Auckland Council.

Oh, and it was pleasant to see that Councilor Baguley seems quite supportive of the city tunnel, from the gist of his questions and comments. He was not much interested in active modes, but then, others had already covered those points.

We had a long discussion (the question period was probably 15 minutes!) about the merits and drawbacks of the “silo” approach of BCR calculations – with me for the IPENZ Transportation Group proposing that a more integrated approach would be preferable.

By: admin

admin — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 21:11:50 +0000

Your submission was excellent Max. Raised some good points.

I haven’t been able to present in person unfortunately. Too damn busy at work.

By: Jeremy Harris

Jeremy Harris — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 05:25:13 +0000

The Botany line is so obvious it really irks me that not a single local or central government politician sees the sense of it… I guess DS would be supportive but he is a man-god…

By: Scott M

Scott M — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 03:59:07 +0000

Well kudos to you both for showing up to present your submissions. At least they have to consider your points then (that can’t be guaranteed when its a written submission only).

By: Max Robitzsch

Max Robitzsch — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:01:36 +0000

“That’s true Scott. You’ll only ever get concessions that don’t really mean much. Fortunately it’s still a pretty good strategy anyway.”

Uhm, it’s consultation. It’s not “change your mind according to whatever people say to you” – especially when that includes people like David Willmott. Especially when the comments you will get will disagree quite a bit.

Consultation is also a valuable tool for policy makers and politicians to gauge the mood of the stakeholders for any policy and future policies.

“As I have said in other places it is a shame we don’t have someone running this who has a strong vision and the drive to see it completed as these local bureaucrats are completely lazy and just put big changes in the to hard basket for someone else to deal with in the future”

Now you are asking for someone who ignores the public and just plows on regardless, with his vision? And actually, I think for a New Zealand policy document, this is relatively radical pro-PT! Especially seeing Auckland’s funding constraints for PT (thanks National!).

“Is that Centre for Urban and Transport Studies (CUTS!)another Owen McShane reincarnation? Sounds like just another right-wing think tank, they all try and have independent names like that.”

Well, David Willmott is a very real person and transport engineer, though even in the transport profession he is considered a bit… let us say “fringe”… in his views. His submission is perfectly in line with the articles he publishes in industry magazines etc…

When are you giving your oral submission, Jarbs? I’m up in two hours…

By: admin

admin — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 10:45:53 +0000

Bingo Luke! I thought exactly the same thing, googled them and there he was….. I do wish their name was “the Centre for Urban and [something beginning with N] Transport studies. That’d be a laugh.

And to your second point, I made this point in my submission (somewhere….) Extending the busway proper to Albany ASAP is critical, but beyond there I can’t see being a priority project for decades. Or at least not until the motorway between Silverdale and Albany become congested, or until there are 20 buses per hour or so making that trip either way.

I think the idea is predicated on significant growth in Rodney District, which kind of is happening (Silverdale North subdivision for example).

By: Luke

Luke — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 10:22:39 +0000

Is that Centre for Urban and Transport Studies (CUTS!)another Owen McShane reincarnation? Sounds like just another right-wing think tank, they all try and have independent names like that. However I find most of those people aren’t really into market models for roading either, probably because they know it won’t work, and no new roads would ever be built again. They all seem to hate trains for being subsidised though.
On a different matter why is the busway extension to Albany have to be included as part of the Redvale extension. Only a tiny handful of buses go past Albany. Is the only point of this so NZTA can increase the cost so it won’t be viable?

By: admin

admin — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:00:56 +0000

I think the timeframes for the RLTS (it legally has to be operative by April 2010) makes it difficult for the ARC to make massive changes at this stage. The members of the Regional Transport Committee might be a little bit more visionary than the official who responded to each submission point so there might be hope yet that we’ll end up with a few more submission points being accepted.

On the other hand, it’s a relief that the RLTS hasn’t been watered down too much despite the submissions of NZTA, Rodney District Council, nutjobs like the Centre for Urban and Transport Studies and so forth.

By: Matt L

Matt L — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 06:58:50 +0000

As I have said in other places it is a shame we don’t have someone running this who has a strong vision and the drive to see it completed as these local bureaucrats are completely lazy and just put big changes in the to hard basket for someone else to deal with in the future.

By: admin

admin — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 06:53:07 +0000

That’s true Scott. You’ll only ever get concessions that don’t really mean much. Fortunately it’s still a pretty good strategy anyway.