tis the season

So it's been a while since I posted. Don Brash called it quits (good), John Key got the top at National (good for national) and Eden Park got the go-ahead, maybe... if something better comes along, maybe not... (so long at it's not bloody Albany).

And I left the sunny slopes of Mt Eden, for the sea views (glimpses... if you stand on a chair) and trendy takeaways of Parnell (not that anywhere can really compare to Boonchu).

And now it's Christmas time once again, which means a likely sign off for the year. Have a good time all, and merry Christmas.

short sighted

I am a little disappointed in the ARC for dismissing the waterfront stadium as an option. Eden Park is far from the best option as far as I'm concerned, and not worth the $385 million required to get it built. I also don't see a problem in investing a truckload of money the country's largest port - free to the ARC - in making it more space and cost efficient.

I do see a problem in the ARC saying we won't take your money for the Waterfront Stadium, or for investing in the Ports of Auckland, but we sure as hell won't pay for Eden Park either.

the ARC believes that any alternative to the Waterfront Stadium would be a national stadium and should be funded for both capital and operating costs, without reliance on Auckland Regional Council ratepayers.

I agree with the Herald editorial this morning, the 'City council vote should prevail'.

driving with blinkers

In today's Herald, Brian Rudman likens Steve Maharey - and the government - to George W Bush:

Auckland is fast becoming Wellington's Iraq. If we're not stoning Sports Minister Trevor Mallard for his waterfront stadium plan, we're up in arms about Government plans to make us pay tolls to finance highways that the rest of the country gets for free.

Ouch. For one, I'm not not resorting to violence over the waterfront option, and the government isn't yet making anyone pay tolls.

He goes on to claim that:

It's hard, though, to go past the fact that Auckland has long been cheated of its share of transport cash.The proportion has improved in recent years, but in the 2005 financial year, the Auckland region scored only 29 per cent of Land Transport New Zealand funding, although 34 per cent of New Zealanders live in the region.
Why should we have to pay more?

Which isn't really true. Auckland's transport spent was woeful in the 1990's, but so was everyone else's. But we haven't been cheated of dosh from the public kitty. Brian's statistical claims have several problems.

Firstly, Land Transport New Zealand are the people who do the road safety commercials, run our licensing and other peripheral matters. They have nothing to do with road funding.

Secondly, the statistics that Brian is referring to are these ones [PDF], which refer to total road funding, including Transit (the people who build and maintain roads) and Land Transport NZ.

They reveal that:

- Auckland has the highest spend per km of road ($1410 per km, versus 2nd place Wellington at $521 per km)
- Auckland has the 4th highest spend per capita, with the Waikato, Southland and Northland ahead.
- When excluding costs not allocated to any region, Auckland gets 33.6% of the funding versus 32% of population and a contribution of 31.6% to GDP.
- Including costs not allocated to any region(inc. paper pushing in Wellington, TV ads etc), Auckland has a 29% share of transport funding. The 2005 figures indicate that Auckalnd had a $245m spend on highways, and another $941m spend on highways that hadn't been allocated to any region. I suspect that a significant amount of that money went to Auckland and more still into work on SH1 in and out of Auckland.