Month: August 2012

A Question – And a Serious One at That

Where and What Next?


I serious questions to those Green Minded out there:


So Peak Oil, we hit it and traditional oil declines. The answer is then what? Fusion – I think I’ll see old Winston Peters being sober first before Fusion in my time. Fuel Cells – again Winston being sober?
We are now stuck. Cars, trains, ships, planes, buses, large-scale power stations all need a fuel source.

Okay with large-scale power stations we have hydro and nuclear fission (and we keep having resource consents turned down for Dams and Turbines so which way there folks, a dam or a Huntly?)

Ships and Planes, umm we going to go down Gerry Anderson’s Thunderbirdspath and have atomic powered tankers and atomic powered hypersonic aircraft (Fireflash) streaking across our sky?Cars, trucks, buses and trains – well what seriously. You go electric on the lot and by 2020 you will need a Huntly 2 through five each producing 1.385GW (current Huntly) to the energy supply up we need.So folks where to next?


I know where I am going – FORWARD

And that means another Huntly, another Clyde Dam, The Eastern Highway, The City Rail Link and synthetic fuels! Until the real low to zero carbon alternatives are ready and acceptable


Ben Ross: Shinning The Light – To a Better Auckland


Minister of Transport Has a Brain Fart

Irrational Input or Irrational Minister?


Rarely I cross-feed over with someone else. But they raised a good point and one that touches close to me as it hits five out of my eight points in my “What I Stand For – For Auckland” beliefs. The five that were touched are: #1-4, 7 and 8. This cross-over arises from the simple fact that our current Minister of Transport is irrational boarding somewhat dense when it actually comes to land transport in New Zealand.

Titled Brittle Thinking – from Auckland Transport Blog, you can see how brittle our Minister of Transport’s thinking really is.

From Transport Blog:

By Patrick Reynolds, on August 31st, 2012

This post is a follow on from Stu’s, here, on the transport minister’s extraordinary answers to questions in parliament concerning the wisdom of his extremely unbalanced transport spending programme.

You will recall that Mr Brownlee thinks that petrol price is irrelevant to decisions about transport investment. Or at least I think that’s what he means by:

“it’s clearly evident then that the pump price is an extremely irrational input into the consideration of strategic transport policy.”

And that somehow supermarket discount vouchers are the proof of this… or something? The use of the word irrational here is apt as it is increasingly becoming the right word to describe almost every utterance by Mr B on transport matters. Regardless, let’s try to look at what he seems to be saying.

Basically the idea is that the only rational transport policy is one that builds roads whatever the price of the fuel needed to be able to use those roads. He is not saying that he thinks petrol is going to get cheaper, or even stop getting more expensive, but rather that it doesn’t matter how expensive it gets- we will still always need more roads than we have now. And why, because people will always drive more and more no matter what it costs; there can never be enough roads. And as this government always repeats, our exports need more and more roads to be able to get to port on trucks. So much so that these special new roads, despite duplicating existing ones and existing rail lines are certain to greatly add to our nation’s wealth; they are of National Significance. No matter like fuel cost can apparently have any bearing on this. It is all rather faith-based after that, because the mechanism for these great outcomes are hard to identify beyond a few incremental efficiencies; like slightly lower fuel costs, exactly the work that would be undone by higher fuel price.


You can see the rest of the article by hitting the link above.

But what I am hitting at is three points Patrick made:

So in summary:

1. people do seem to be trying to bend away from dependence on the increasing costs of driving where they can, but most have little option.

2. we may not have yet reached the breaking price point but it won’t be pretty if we do, and I’m sure it is already contributing to real hardship now.

3. having identified an inelasticity wouldn’t a wise government seek to increase options rather than be so determined to reinforce this vulnerability in our nation’s infrastructure and therefore the brittleness of society’s fabric?

Or to put it in terms that the government might understand, with its strange conflation of its work with that of running a business: The RoNS are a classic management mistake: a bold investment in last century’s successful line, which is now mature and certainly needs maintaining and some improving but is no longer growing, and missing the opportunity to invest in the new growth products ‘moving forward‘.

To which I have replied:

Okay being the social liberal Tory that I am, it is time to throw a different ball curve at this at look at this from a paradoxical angle.

Replying to Patrick’s four valid points:

1. people do seem to be trying to bend away from dependence on the increasing costs of driving where they can, but most have little option.

That is correct. As a Social Liberal and a true Tory I practice Individual Freedom, Individual Choice and Individual Responsibility. But with transport how on hell’s name can we practice Freedom, Choice and Responsibility when there is no freedom or choice in Auckland’s transport market. You often are coerced into your transport choice through lack of actual choice due to Government’s failure (along with Council too) to lay down a viable 50:50 split between roads and smart transport (including rail freight). I am lucky where I live; 2 mins to Papakura Station to take a train to town, and 10 minutes by car to Manukau for the shopping or movies. I have freedom and choice there as I can easily flip my options and drive to Britomart and catch a train (well two) or a bus to Manukau. But for most Aucklander’s they are often stuck with the car even though they would love to use other options. So I think we can all see the problem there. In my opinion (and don’t need to agree) you should be given the access to road or smart transport and be allowed to exercise your Freedom, Choice and Responsibility which includes consequences to your actions (negative and positive)…

2. we may not have yet reached the breaking price point but it won’t be pretty if we do, and I’m sure it is already contributing to real hardship now.

In short it is at breaking point – I see it down here in Papakura. However 91-gas sits anywhere between $2.099/litre to $2.22/litre depending which end of the Great South Road you are between Mahia Road – South Manurewa and South end of Papakura near the Papakura Interchange. Again point one applies here but does point three which I shall cover now.

3. having identified an inelasticity wouldn’t a wise government seek to increase options rather than be so determined to reinforce this vulnerability in our nation’s infrastructure and therefore the brittleness of society’s fabric?

If the Government has an ounce of a bloody brain between its ears and a transport minister that knew what the hell they were doing, they would suck the lemon on both sides of this coin and implement the following transition program:
From my submission to The Auckland Plan

This is how I see the progression through the energy sources (in this case transport) from traditional to new over the next 100 years.

Traditional (Oil based)
Hybrids (as a complement not as a replacement)
Electrics (as a complement not as a replacement)
Synthetic Fuels (coal based as New Zealand and Queensland have enough coal for at least 100 years)
Hydrogen fuel cells (as a total replacement for of traditional and synthetic fuel sources)

Synthetic fuel being:

Using the process here:

Now I do not need people to agree with me, but respect my opinion on this as I personally see the path New Zealand (providing we get a true progressive Government – this means future Minister of Transport in Waiting Julie-Ann Genter might very well bite the lemon in this transition path) going down as we head towards to 50:50 split in road:smart transport funding and a true low-carbon economy. I say this as we need to ease New Zealand through – not go shock and awe unless we want the economy to fail rather spectacularly fast and hard (remember people hate sudden change quickly).

This is my opinion on how to turn Brittle Thinking into something more solid.

Now unless we get Nuclear Fusion next year, and every car, truck, freight train and bus running on water/fuel cells I would love to see how we transition over without impinging on ones freedom’s, choices and responsibilities as citizens of NZ



My point? Irony is my point. That since 2007 I have been jumping up and down for someone in Government to transition us through to fuel cells using synthetic fuels so we do not suffer from petrol price spike shocks. That since 2010 I began advocating for a 50:50 split in transport funding between roads and what is now termed smart transport (rail, public and active) as well as the current 60:40 Brown:Greenfield urban development regime. And that since 2003 I roughly followed the above in a crude simulation called Sim City 4 (the mega city of 4 million called Solaria).

So you see I am constant here in what I believe and what needs to be done to take NZ forward. We just do not yet have the leadership or the politicians to take us forward…


I suppose the question I ask is:



Government Sets Billions for Transport Funding

National Land Transport Programme 2012-2015 Set


The Government has set the National Land Transport Program for the 2012-2015 period.

From The New Zealand Herald:

$12.3b transport funding plan announced

By Adam Bennett

Spending on roads and public transport by central and local government over the next three years will increase by almost 13 per cent with much of the additional cash coming from fuel tax and road user charge hikes, Transport Minister Gerry Brownlee says.

Mr Brownlee and NZ Transport Agency chief executive Geoff Dangerfield this afternoon announced $12.3 billion in funding under the 2012-2015 National Land Transport Programme, a 12.8 per cent increase on the 2009-2012 programme.

Mr Dangerfield said the programme had a particular focus on growing Canterbury and supporting the recovery of Christchurch after the earthquakes.

The programme also prioritises continued work on the Government’s “roads of national significance” and work in Auckland “where there are significant opportunities for improved transport to support the city’s contribution to New Zealand’s economic growth”.

However Mr Brownlee said the Canterbury earthquakes, reduced growth forecasts and the tighter fiscal environment had put pressure on the National Land Transport Fund which contributes most of the funding – $9.38 billion in the new programme.

That meant targeted expenditure signalled in the Government Policy Statement on land transport funding for the coming years would exceed forecast revenue by around $220 million over the 2012 – 15 period.

To meet that shortfall, a package of initiatives had been developed, “to give the NZTA the funding certainty it needs to continue to deliver transport infrastructure and services, including State Highway improvements and the Roads of National Significance programme”, Mr Brownlee said.

The initiatives were:
– Increases in petrol excise duty and road user charges from 2013/14 in order to lift revenue to match expenditure;
– A short-term, one-off $100 million borrowing facility for the NZTA to manage cash-flow variations; and,
– Setting the annual contribution to the Canterbury roading recovery from the National Land Transport Fund at $50 million a year with costs over this amount met from outside the Fund.

Mr Brownlee said New Zealanders were driving more kilometres than ever, but consumption of fuel to travel that distance was declining due to a more fuel efficient vehicle fleet and that was affecting the revenue going into the fund.

By helping match revenue to expenditure, future increases in fuel excise duty and road user charges would “keep momentum on a range of projects”.

The increases would be “in the realms of the rate of inflation”.

He said the short-term borrowing facility for the NZTA was “a one-off means for addressing an immediate funding gap and will help to spread costs out over a number of years”.

The amount being borrowed would not breach the agency’s current debt cap.

Additional borrowing by the agency which will be permitted under new legislation would not be required under the 2012 -2015 plan.

Final details and decisions of the funding package, including decisions on fuel excise and road user charges increases, would be announced before the end of the year.

The $12.3 billion National Land Transport Programme 2012-2015 includes:

• State Highways: $5.14b up 7 per cent on 2009-2012
• Local Roads: $4.06b up 14 per cent
Public Transport: $1.74b up 21 per cent
• Emergency Works including Christchurch Recovery: $690 million


So taking out the Christchurch Emergency Works of $690m we get a figure of $11.61b in which 14% approx is spent on public transport over three years across the cities that have public transport services. Somewhat a way off the from 50:50 Road:Smart Transport split that I and Generation Zero advocate for.

More on this later



More on Auckland’s New Integrated Ticketing

A Short Question/Answer List for Integrated Ticketing (Starting on Rail)


This pamphlet is being handed out around the Auckland Rail Network. It is the short version to the pamphlet I uploaded the other night.


For your benefit and information these are the two OFFICIAL pamphlets currently doing the rounds on rail getting ready for AT HOP







All questions should be referred to Auckland Transport.



Who Knew Hosting the V8s in Pukekohe would be so…





The Saga Just Continues to Roll On

The Hampton Downs Revelation 


In my What Do I Stand For and Believe In – For a Better Auckland page I had made this specific point:

#4 Open Governance: I believe in open governance where the public can sit in, listen and where possible discuss “matters-of-state” as much as possible with their representatives. None of this hiding behind closed doors (except for commercially sensitive material that does come up from time to time), and fessing up when you know you have stuffed up. You might find the public are more sympathetic you one acknowledges and apologies for a legitimate mistake


Well the V8 saga has failed that point rather miserably which you see by checking out my “THE V8S DISASTER – A VOAKL MINI SERIES” and Councillor Endorses Rubber-stamping post here at VOAKL. However the saga just continues roll on after Councillor George Wood dug up this little gem last night.

It seems there was a bit of chatter last night this morning around Hampton Downs acquiring Resource Consent to hold 50,000 spectators at their Raceway during major events.

From Councillor Cameron Brewer’s Facebook feed (which was in public mode)

  • Councillor George Wood has done well to spot this press release tonight announcing that Hampton Downs now has a resource consent for 50,000 spectators.
    However last month when ATEED was pushing for the V8s to return to Pukekohe it argued:
    “Hampton Downs is not the preferred venue on the basis of the regulatory environment under which a change would be required to the current resource consent condition with limits the venue to 20,000 people per day” (Strategy & Finance Committee report, “Investment Proposal from V8 Supercars Australia,” p11, 5 July 2012).
    This is quite outrageous. Another letter to the Auditor General, Cr Cathy Casey?

    Hampton Down Resource Consent – August 28

    Scribd is the world’s largest social reading and publishing site.


You can read the granting of the resource consent in this embed below:


So it seems I am going to be continuing this “shit-stinking” on ATEED’s dodgy decision-making process for the V8s for a while to come yet. Seeming ATEED and some Councillors can not follow: “Open Governance: I believe in open governance where the public can sit in, listen and where possible discuss “matters-of-state” as much as possible with their representatives. None of this hiding behind closed doors (except for commercially sensitive material that does come up from time to time), and fessing up when you know you have stuffed up. You might find the public are more sympathetic you one acknowledges and apologies for a legitimate mistake”

And remember, the V8s themselves do not bother me, it was how ATEED and certain rubber-stamping Councillors (Goudie) gave the Auckland ratepayer the spiky-fish educed bum’s rash through dodgy decision-making processes that does bother me. There was no open governance, it was all closed governance behind closed doors in secret so that the Auckland ratepayer and Councillors could not fully weigh up both options – that being Pukekohe or Hampton Downs.


VOAKL shall continue to shine the light in ATEED’s dark murky corner until it is able to carry out Point Four (#4) properly.


2013 – YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL! #4




It Starts NOW


(Well as far as I am concerned it does)




From the 2013 Local Election page here at VOAKL:

View of Auckland will be exclusively shining the light at the upcoming Election and subsequent campaign as incumbent councillors, Local Board members, the mayor, plus candidates wanting the fore-mentioned positions of Office go out and “work the floor” for our vote (the one’s that can be bothered to do so).


Continuing the self-reflection (or shining the light back my way) I am going to dissect my eight beliefs set out in the WHAT I STAND FOR – FOR AUCKLAND page and how they influence my decision-making on which candidates I will be choosing for: Local Board, Ward Councillor and Mayor in next years 2013 Local Government Elections.

In this post I am going to look at Number Three from my WHAT I STAND FOR – FOR AUCKLAND section as this is often a major talking point by Auckland citizens (apart from our weather) as we all use transport to get from A to B to Z and back to A again.


My “transport rationale” to be used here in this post is based on my submission to the now active Auckland Plan and was formed in part in reply to my thoughts on urban development in Auckland through to 2040. Please note carefully that what was written in my submission last year and what I stand for now could be: either the same, slightly different, or in some cases VASTLY different depending on my experiences, conversations and listening to opinion makers. This is to be expected especially for a liberal like myself who believes in change and will change their beliefs (in this case for a Better Auckland) or rather adapt to the ever-changing environment just like animals and trees adapt to Earth’s ever-changing environments. What I am getting at is, if you have a case or opinion that can sway or influence me – then please try as I will actively listen. But don’t take it harshly if in the end I do not end up agreeing with you. And hey, I am trying to influence opinion to so it goes both ways 😀 .

So lets shine the light onto what I stand for with transport.

#3 – Transport: An Integrated Approach to Transport: None of this “all for one but not the other approach” we get from both roading and Green lobbyists. Road and Mass Transit both have their places here in Auckland – albeit more balanced like the Generation Zero 50:50 campaign. This integrated approach also applies to many other things out there – I call it The Best of Both Worlds.


This stems from my submission to Auckland Council and my urban design work for Tamaki when I was a post-graduate planning student at the University of Auckland.


In short I believe in: Individual Freedom, Individual Choice and Individual Responsibility for where you live, where you work and how you move yourself around Auckland. However that mantra will not work when our planners can not get the basics in at least transport right.

From my Tamaki Redevelopment Project Assignment

However the point that needs to be put across is the disconnectivity of Tamaki to the rest of Auckland!

In reference to the map “Tamaki Reconnected – the Prelude;” it can be seen that there is no easy way for the people of Tamaki to get to their two primary job bases, no easy way for people to get to Tamaki to work (rail is limited in its connection) and no easy way for Eastern Suburbs commuters to get to the city base via Tamaki and vice versa. The lemon and purple dots show the main (but not all) routes for Tamaki (and in part the Eastern Suburbs) to get their job bases by road, with the black line showing the rail routes and the red ellipses showing major congestion choke points that add to commuting time as well as other negative effects.

To complicate matters for those in Tamaki wishing to travel to Onehunga, upon looking at there is no direct rail service to Onehunga from Glen Innes (you need to transfer at Otahuhu and Penrose to catch a train to Onehunga). To complicate things even more, there is no direct bus service from Glen Innes to Onehunga (need to transfer either at Sylvia Park, Penrose or Otahuhu) and vice versa. All these connectivity issues stem from the previously dominate planning thought of a radial transit network spanning out from the Central Business District, in neglect of “cross-town” services (such as Glen Innes to Onehunga). In fact current planning thought is still dominated by the ‘radial-mode’ which unless it and ‘cross-town’ services are addressed, “fringe” suburbs (suburbs not close to enough major transit corridors(compare Papatoetoe to Glen Innes)) such as Glen Innes are still going to be disconnected from the rest of wider Auckland.

Further more, when setting out a community plan such as one for Tamaki; trying to have localised job bases is all very well to cut down cross city commuting but until Auckland leaves its love affair with cars alone then the following quote applies: “People commute all over Auckland for employment – that is a fact. So even with (new) job bases set up in Tamaki, without transit connections in and out of the Tamaki job base, the community are going to be back to square one as rest of Auckland will just continue to by pass Tamaki and not bring in the much-needed wealth.”

So with the above in mind, connectivity will always be at the forefront of the Tamaki Community Development Plan. The ‘Tamaki Reconnected-The Prelude’ and the ‘Tamaki Reconnected-Overview’ maps highlight the current situation and the proposed plan on addressing Tamaki’s connectivity issue amongst other things.


You can see my Tamaki assignment by hitting the links in the Reference section at the bottom of my post.

The situation at Tamaki would influence my heavily in going for a 50:50 split in transport funding to help better move Auckland than current. Now 50:50 I mean 50% on roads, 50% as Generation Zero call it – Smart Transport Options (or as I call it Mass Transit – which is actually misleading).


Excuse the chopping and changing between Scribd articles but you can see both articles in full by hitting their respective links in the Reference Section at the bottom of this post.

From the Transport Overview section of The Auckland Plan submission

Now when I wrote my submission to The Auckland and Long Term Plans, my work at Tamaki was at the forefront on how it would influence in what would be my 50:50 transport funding/building split for Auckland. This is the Transport Rationale as well as some major proposed projects that were in my submissions:

Before I go on with my alternative objectives for Auckland’s Transport, some truths need to be realised first. These truths not only come from evidence sourced academically, but from one’s experience and reality of living and working in Auckland and interacting with fellow Auckland citizens in the same regard. In my opinion, it is ones experience and (perception of) reality of living and working in Auckland that would form the best foundation for planning Auckland’s transport needs. In simple terms every single Auckland citizen and business would be a transport planner, each uses a mode of transport (if not multi-modal) and can give what they think needs to be done to make their (and often others) transit trips easier and more efficient as they are the ones (rather than relying on planners solely in their Ivory Towers) that would be using the transit system. My submission for Auckland Transport is more based on my experiences and perceptions of reality of the Auckland Transport system rather than using overseas models (as one former Prime Minister said: (“Neither Keynes or Marx, nor indeed [Milton] Friedman, was a New Zealander and the one economic truth that every Minister of Finance should accept is that you cannot take a blueprint from some other economy, slap it on this country, and expect it to work”- Sir Robert Muldoon) – the same applies to planning and transport principles)

My Transport Rationale

Maps 11.1 and 11.3 in Chapter Eleven of The Draft Auckland Plan illustrate the Auckland Transit Network and projects through to 2040. In this submission I am tweaking around Council’s vision into something I believe more viable (economically, environmentally and socially) for the city. My rational acknowledges the fact that I do not agree entirely with the compact city ideal of The Draft Auckland Plan. Rather than this 75:25 split between brownfield/intensification and greenfield split which I see as driving affordability out of households and businesses reach, I advocate (which is also constant with my Land Allocation/Development/Utilisation section of my submission) more of a 50:50 split between the two LADU fields. This 50:50 split would achieve the following: choice of housing and business locations, affordability and economic progress – so as a result transport would be moulded around the 50:50 split.

Apart from a few major things/changes, again I agree mostly with The Draft Auckland Plan’s vision for Auckland Transport system. Therefore the transport section of this submission deals with those major things/changes and my priority system of what should be done over the next thirty years in Auckland. Again for brevity, this submission focuses on the Central Business District and south (but including areas near the Eastern Rail Line).

Those Major Transit Links

As mentioned in the Outline, this submission will focus on what are considered major transit links needed in Auckland to improve the efficiency of the regional transit network. These links are however not limited to:

  • Eastern Highway and AMETI
  • Inner City Rail Link
  • Westfield Rail Diamond Realignment
  • South-to-Manukau Rail Link completion
  • Rail Station re-deployments/additions (where required)
  • Bus route reallocation and priorities
  • Future Proof the following lines:

○   Airport Line (from Onehunga-to airport-to main line at Wiri)

○   Botany Line

○   South West Line

○   North Shore Line

These links again would be constant in providing an efficient transit network for a city and LADU allocation around the 50:50 Intensification/Greenfield development split. These major transit links would also assist in the Plan’s main goal around affordability (and economic progress). However again for the sake of brevity and limited resources, this document will only be focusing physical infrastructure development, adding bus or ‘T3’ lanes on existing infrastructure will not be mentioned unless necessary.

You can see a slight bent towards the “Smart Transport” options however at $1.6b-$4b (depending if the Local, Sub Regional, or Regional options were chosen) The Eastern Highway sits right up there with The City Rail Link for  substantial mega projects that would benefit ALL of Auckland and the wider NZ Economy.

This transport rational came from my NOW belief of the 60:40 (not 50::50 as per my submissions) Brownfield:Greenfield urban development belief, as well as catering better for cross-city or local commuting rather than just the current CBD-Radial commuting planners “plan” for. Now all that stems from my take on what lies ahead for Auckland through to 2099.


And that is:

The Existing and Historic Conditions of Auckland

Section B (Auckland Now) of The Draft Auckland Plan outlines the existing and historic conditions of Auckland. For the most part this submission agrees with what is outlined in this section – with one exception: Part B (of Section B) – Climate Change and Energy Security.

Again for the most part Auckland (and New Zealand) is vulnerable to energy supply shocks as the city and nation relies highly on imported fuels. However a mix of traditional (fossil fuel) and new (renewable) energy supplies (rather than a skew towards new) need to be implemented to help Auckland make Auckland more resilient to future energy shocks.

Whether one likes it or not traditional energy sources will be with us (Auckland and beyond) until at least the end of this century and the Land Use and Transport ideas mentioned in this submission acknowledge that fact. Measures can be taken to improve the quality of the social and physical environment while traditional energy supplies are still being used. Measures such better fuel quality, better vehicle maintenance and making newer vehicle fleets (that are more fuel-efficient and kinder to the environment) more affordable will go along way in reducing Auckland’s carbon foot print without shocking the economy if more drastic measures were introduced. Sound urban and transport design principles also go some distance in reducing the increasing need for energy and the enlarging carbon foot print. Making sure every residential house is warm and dry will assist in energy consumption being reduced from constant heating and cooling through fires, gas and heat pumps/air conditioning. Sound urban and transport design would allow efficient movement of people and goods – for an efficient transport network reduces energy consumption lost through otherwise inefficient transport movements. Sound Urban design would look at houses and commercial buildings utilising passive means of cooling and heating – again to reduce energy consumption needed for more active modes.

Through natural progression, Auckland will move away from traditional energy sources as new energy sources become more economically viable. I would be against trying to “force” the city away from traditional energy use unless one wants affordability to be thrown out the window, consumers and producers will switch over on their own accord if the alternative is better than the original – its all about freedom of choice.

This is how I see the progression through the energy sources (in this case transport) from traditional to new over the next 100 years.

  •             Traditional (Oil based)
  •             Hybrids (as a complement not as a replacement)
  •             Electrics (as a complement not as a replacement)
  •             Synthetic Fuels (coal based as New Zealand and Queensland have enough coal for at least 100 years)
  •             Hydrogen fuel cells (as a total replacement for of traditional and synthetic fuel sources)

Mitigation techniques can be done to improve our energy security and the ever-changing climate – but it must not send the city backwards as the already unaffordable becomes even more unaffordable.


This is where the crux (after reading all the above to which I thank you for your perseverance getting this far) of how I shape my opinions, advocacy and beliefs around urban development and TRANSPORT through until the end of the century.

Without overt interference from The State, I strongly believe that this is the path we will head down for transport (which subsequently can influence urban development trends) until the end of this century. The public will naturally transition through to non-fossil fuel types sources of power (whether through all the above or just some of the above steps) for transport providing The State stays the heck out of our way – although if does need to intervene then do so through encouragement not hindrance.


In conclusion and in short, my transport rationale based what I believe will happen over the next 78-odd years as well as Individual Freedom, Choice, Responsibility and Natural Progression. I am reluctant to alarm or force people over to something else overtly or rapidly as you will find a huge amount of push back from the average citizen.

In saying that though and in a loose line with Generation Zero, shifting our transport to 50:50 between roads and smart transport is a good start in the progression over to an eventual low-carbon and maybe finally non carbon economy. Thus I look for candidates and representatives who take a more balanced approach to transport rather than Dick Quax’s pro-one side and nothing else and a particular blogger I know who advocates for the other-side and nothing else.


As the 2013 Local Government Elections come closer I will continue to go through the other seven ‘What I stand for” points and use them as I shine the light on: Local Board, Council, and/or Mayoral candidates as well as myself. I will also endeavour to compile my extensive “What I Stand For” posts like this one into a nice simple executive style post/form.


In the mean time, if you made it this far – thanks for reading.



Submission to The Auckland Plan

Submission to The Long Term Plan

Tamaki Transformation Project Assignment (University)



50:50 – Is it SMART TRANSPORT?


Is splitting the land transport fund 50:50 between roads and other forms of transport (rail, public transport, cycling and walking) a good idea?

I think so as I have mentioned for a more moderate and balanced approach to our transport infrastructure funding. My submission to The Auckland Plan acknowledges the role of both road and other transport thus calling for the more balanced approach. You can see my submission and the parts where I call for a more balanced transport funding approach in the embed at the bottom of this post.


But what I want to mention is something I came across in one of my Twitter feeds. They are called Generation Zero and this is from their introduction page:


Climate change is the challenge of our generation, and responding to it is a matter of inter-generational justice.

While every other generation has inherited a world with a promise for greater prosperity and a brighter future – our generation is facing a potential inheritance of ecological, environmental and economic debt.
Yet we have the opportunity to rewrite, reinvent, and redesign our vision of New Zealand.

Our generation has the passion, perseverance and skills to guide the transformation into a zero carbon Aotearoa. But we cannot do this all on our own.

We need New Zealanders of all generations to join us in finding and enacting the solutions that will solve the climate crisis, and create a thriving, safe zero carbon Aotearoa.

We are Generation Zero.

Check out their site and even sign the petition against our Governments pounding of the gold plated asphalt – known as the Roads of National (Party) Significance 


I for one signed their petition after checking their 50:50 page out, you can take a preview of the page below

50:50 from Generation Zero

To create a zero carbon Aotearoa, we need to develop zero carbon infrastructure. Transport is New Zealand’s largest source of CO2 emissions (40%), and yet over the next decade – our Central Government plans to spend $14 billion on new highways, but only $0.5 billion on smart transport solutions.

Our 5050 campaign is calling for smart investment into our future. We’re calling for a move towards a 50-50 split between roads/highways, and smart transport solutions such as rail, buses and active transport like cycling and walking.

We’re calling for a smart transport system – one that is designed to integrate roads, rail, buses, cycling and walking to provide a more efficient and sustainable transport network that would:

  • Drastically reduce our carbon emissions
  • Provide greater personal choice and reduce congestion
  • Less dependence on increasingly expensive foreign oil
  • A healthier nation
  • The development of smart zero carbon infrastructure


Just a note; I am not going to agree with these guys all the time but I am giving a VOAKL shout out to them as I believe their cause is a worthy cause.


So here is a SHOUT OUT to Generation Zero


VOAKL will be watching these guys with close and keen interest.


Because VOAKL believes 50:50 is SMART TRANSPORT