The NZTA has just released to me a document they had initially withheld from an earlier OIA request, it shows what the agency consider to be the high and medium impacts for each region around the country. What I found interesting looking at it was not only how intertwined that the many of the issues are but how the current spending and priorities are so far removed from the issues. Take Wellington for example, there is only one issue that has been identified as having a high impact, PT, yet the only major project that the NZTA are working on in the region is to build Transmission Gully – a project with a projected benefit cost ratio of well less than 1. Its a similar story in Christchurch where some of the high impact issues are residential growth, PT and congestion yet the focus is on building some motorways.
All up I get the feeling that the NZTA do actually understand what many of the problems are but that they are being hamstrung in actually resolving them due to the governments dogged determination to build the Roads of National Significance. I would love to see what things they would actually focus on if they weren’t dictated to by the government policy statement.
So the relationship between the NZTA and the Government is dysfunctional?
And it’s because of the recalcitrance of the current government in relation to the actual and future transport needs of Aotearoa?
That’s what I’ve thought for the last few years, can anyone tell me why I’d be wrong?
It suggests to me that there are a lot of good people doing good things in NZTA. But politics is stifling their ability to be sensible
That said, they could still do better in many areas like reviewing the cost-benefit analysis process as well as being more open around the process of project prioritisation.
Richard Prebble has called John Key the most talented politician he has seen in NZ. I am inclined to agree because he presides over a government that pursues policies that are entirely ideological in origin and intent, completely without any basis in fact, yet remains extremely popular. This is what Prebble admires; Key’s ability to get us to swallow dead rats and thank him for it. Sad.
Patrick, We’re not all dead rat swallowers. For instance I thought the effort that went into this blog post was pretty amazing and it summed up Key and his government so damned well (and it didn’t even get to transport issues):
http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/07/05/national-what-else-can-possibly-go-wrong/
Does the full report detail how NZTA came up with these particular issues being high and medium impact in the different areas?
Would be interesting to read the whole thing actually.
This was the only thing they sent me about it. I would have to go back though the rest of the stack of documents that I have to see if there is anything else that relates to it.
Wellington lists route security, which is the justification for transmission gully.
Taranaki and Manawatu Wanganui also list route security. I struggle to think how that area could be cut of in a natural disaster as there are plenty of roads in all directions. What are they planning?
By this standard, I’m surprised they haven’t said the same of northland, given the Welsford confluence.
Hard to imagine residential growth in Christchurch given the numbers of people leaving since the earthquake. How old is this document? I also struggle to see how Cantabury can list congestion in red, it’s nothing compared with Auckland.
Freight appears all over, but only in red where rail best competes.
The document is from a February board paper. The residential growth in Christchurch may be attributed to growth in new areas.
I appears that they forgot the Hawks Bay on their map. I assume this means that it’s the perfect district.