Transport spokesman Mr Williamson said yesterday that commuters could face bills of up to $50 a week for tolls of $3 to $5 a trip on new motorways or similar "roads of national importance".
quote:
Bill English has described his National colleague Maurice Williamson's $50 toll cost estimate for new-road users as "exuberant", saying there was "no way" a National government would impose such costs.
1) big deal, in italy you pay 60Euros to drive from Rome to Milan... but you dont drive that to and from work. Im sure there are *some* drives that may cost more than $5 each way but my guess is those instances would be long/special trips not commuting trips. And you would still have a choice.
2) Unless you want H1 and H2 like behaviour from the leaders of the national party then you are always going to get *some* areas where party members say something outside their actual sphere of influence.
There's plenty of things to criticise national on, why would you choose something so lame? It seems you have swallowed the flipflop line from labour eh...
well there is how they plan to pay for these toll roads as well - PPPs
why something so lame - well I for one am not happy with a potential govt spending up large on infrastructure that is likely to be redundant due to rising costs of oil
- yes I realise labour has spent up large on roads too, and I'm not happy bout that either
as for the flip flop - they announce to the media one thing and then within a day that 'policy' changes - key is made out to be some sort of great leader, yet his MPs are constantly saying different things (yes I am aware this is a trad nat party trait)
National need to be consistant especially after the near disaster of the 'hidden agenda' campaign
this is turning out to be the most frustrating election EVER
Agreed - not big on the flip-flop line but christ, this is the third or fourth time that a spokesman has said something only to have English or Key either correct them or say it wasn't true.
It's getting ridiculous - either they have a shadow cabinet that don't know policy, poorly thought-through policy, or a leadership team that changes the story to suit. Either way, very disappointing...
1) 2) Unless you want H1 and H2 like behaviour from the leaders of the national party then you are always going to get *some* areas where party members say something outside their actual sphere of influence.
Err except for the fact that Williamson is a former transport minister AND the current transport spokesperson for the party so likely to become minister again in a National-led government..
But its still pointless as what he said was *some* roads may cost $5, it was then extrapolated out to someone driving that road to and from work each day. Which is highly unlikely.
It's much like Nikki Kaye (Akl Central candidate) issuing a press release saying she will champion integrated ticketing in Auckland, without realising that under the current legislative framework ARTA is at the mercy of the operators, esp those on commercially registered services and that her party opposes legislation that would give them the required control over services to be able to introduce it sooner.
Say what you like about the control that Helen Clark and her inner circle exert over the Labour Party, but at least you know where they stand.
The thing is tho that by now we surely were expecting to see the policy releases that have been held back so long as part of a careful strategy, but in fact what we're continuing to see are at best improvisations and 'public soundings' , at worst incoherence and outright gaffes.
Of course if Labour would actually lay out a defined policy platform (including the "we're keeping all these bits" stuff) then comparison would be easier...
As I've said elsewhere, what amazed me most about that statement was Williamsons horror at the "distortion" that having the Harbour Bridge free and any new crossing tolled - enough that he would toll them BOTH. i.e. you wouldn't have a choice - want to get across the Harbour? Pay a toll.
If so then the discussions (which transit/labour also sounded out) we along the lines of using that money to support public transport, which i agree with.
It wasn't $5/trip though.
To me this is distinct from toll(user pays) NEW roads as whole or part funding. I don't see much in the way of scope for PPP's in this regard for anything other than speciality roads (which I cant think of an instance).
Fact is that we need to do something; there's lots of options and all should be investigated and applied where it would work.
While national could be a lot better i dont see unified solidarity as a requisite for good governance.
There's unified solidarity, and then there's the spokesman on given topics knowing the basic party policy!
And re the congestion charge thing - no, it was him saying "I'd toll the new crossing with a PPP" and then deciding you'd need to toll the existing one as well to remove the "distortion" of having a free alternative.
Can National categorically promise that it will not sign a deal whereby the government has to pay out any part of the road building costs in the event that the project goes bankrupt?
And:
National's transport spokesman Maurice Williamson has stated publicly that National will repeal the 'Greens amendment' that requires that whenever a toll road is built, the public must always have an alternative route available for free.
Can National categorically promise that it will not sign a deal whereby existing roads are closed down or restricted in order to force motorists to use a nearby toll road
And:
Faced with high fuel bills, many motorists are now looking to take public transport to work.
Can National categorically promise that it will not sign a deal whereby public transport is effectively excluded or restricted from competing with a toll road?
Some of these questions, of course, would be just as tricky for Labour to answer -- which makes them all the more important to ask.
I think getting people used to toll roads is a priority. Yes fuel prices are an issue but once things settle down it should be considered, even if for a start it costs a lot to collect.
Im not sure that in all situations a viable alternative could be found for a free road. I can think of some roads through very hilly terrain that if upgraded and tolled would save the average user much more than a toll worths fuel from not having to speed up/slow down through corners and hills.
As a side - i see smooth roads where trucks can maintain efficient speeds on main trunk routes as more important with the increase in fuel costs. As fuel rises it will allow more easily for hybrid and electric transport to compete as the level of power required is less.
It would also cut travel times for public and goods transport.
I think getting people used to toll roads is a priority.
Yep I agree with you (well maybe not priority, but is a good idea).
Smart revenue recycling (whereby tolls directly fund a broader public transport initiative) would be fine by me so long as a freely available alternative exists - the Orewa-Puhoi extension is going to be the first good example of this but I'm not sure where the revenue raised will be applied (general roading fund I suspect unfortunately). I'm pretty much all about directed revenue recycling for most things though
I do, however, have pretty serious misgivings about the success of PPPs in this area - so many horror stories from overseas.
It depends why there is a PPP in the first place...
PPPs are ok where there is an area the govt, by itself, isnt interested in. Ie some entrepreneurship in providing a service that otherwise wouldnt happen. There are many potential problems with this that need to be resolved/contracted at inception. I personally dont see much point in potential profit/no risk deals except for the next type of contract.
For expertise deals where a govt doesnt have the expertise to run the business ie busses or rail networks (perhaps) i can see a use for it. An example would be a small local body who doesnt want to maintain infrastructure to deal with a bus fleet and doesnt have the expertise. In this case i have no problem with a large company gaining contracts to group smaller needs into a larger. This example doesnt apply to auckland atm however.
Lastly there is a PPP argument for a public body to maintain an arms length relationship from the service provider. Where a public body has ownership of something ratepayers etc seem to demand almost zero failure/ 100% service for as close to nothing as possible. By having it at arms length you can provide a 'good enough' service at a competitive rate that *hopefully* produces gains that outweigh the costs and profit.
I dont believe public transport is a good example of potential benefits from PPP but maybe there are areas it might work.
The communist politicians who run the world's most populous nation must look with some bemusement at how New Zealand's "private enterprise" party has twisted itself into knots over road tolls.
China uses public private partnerships (PPPs) to rapidly expand its highway network, and on most new major carriageways motorists are paying tolls to private companies.
It's built up so much expertise in financing and constructing big projects to time that China's free trade deal negotiators suggested that New Zealand should invite Chinese companies to tender for similar projects here, with the added incentive of cheap finance to boot.
But when National's shadow infrastructure minister Maurice Williamson raises the sensible suggestion that Kiwis might be happy to pay a $3 to $5 toll to use major new highways or tunnels, instead of sticking to the alternative slow route, all hell breaks loose.
yeh I noticed that attempted evasion JH. Funny too that earlier he had hassled the journalists about not asking Helen the right questions.
Being such a wealthy person tho i wonder whether getting donations to the National Party is particularly important to him so that seemed a silly followup question.
interesting character this Ashcroft with much business success but a number of alleged improprieties along the way http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ashcroft
Hes a big donator to both English and Australian political parties (conservative obviously) and collects Victoria Crosses.
He offered separate rewards for the recovery, and information leading to the prosecution of the culprits, in regard to the VC's stolen from Waiouru not so long ago.
great comedy moment... ruined by the level of journalism from the TV3 guy - wasn't even gossip column worthy
John Key should have kicked that fuckwit from TV3 in the balls... if he had I might even reconsider my thoughts on him
Agreed - leading news story? What the fuck?
Sure, he hedged a bit strongly on the question but jeebus I'm sick of bullshit gotcha journalism.
Hang your head in shame Duncan Garner.
I agree it wasn't very newsworthy (and certainly not sufficiently so to be TV3's leading news item), however it did provide another fascinating insight into Key's character and how he reacts when taken off guard.
![[quote]](http://static.biggie.co.nz/img/dis/message_quote.png "Quote message"){kind=small}
