MW Marc Whinery Public Seen by 133

NZTA has a large amount of control of transport, and has made changes/decisions that didn't come with any justification. I have suggested elsewhere that the NZTA be stripped of decision making power, and be tasked with implementation only. A separate NZTI (New Zealand Transportation Institute) be created, and housed at one (or more) Universities to be a research/recommendation arm.

This would separate out the decision making from the implementation. NZTA is good at building roads and improving roads, but really poor at figuring out ways to reduce traffic through an intersection that don't include more lanes and asphalt.

Also, splitting out the budget and sharing some of the costs of research with educational institutions should reduce the total cost and increase quality.

My opinion is that the NZTA is overly risk averse because the people in charge of the decisions are the same people in charge of implementing it, and so they do what they know, even if it's the wrong thing.


Poll Created Sun 6 Jul 2014 12:52AM

UVTS Closed Sun 20 Jul 2014 12:09PM

by Marc Whinery Tue 25 Apr 2017 5:23AM

100% agreement (45% participation) that a unified fee system, removing the profit motive from the local councils, would be beneficial, using technology to simplify the process for the users, based on the Northern Gateway Toll Road model.

Form UVTS (universal vehicle toll system) pronounced ew-vits. This would link the existing Northern Gateway Toll system http://www.tollroad.govt.nz with parking, and non-moving tickets.

Parking enforcement would be done by video set up on streets with pay parking, reading rego plates, as done on the motorway. When the vehicle leaves, the correct fee is charged. Overstay in a limited spot would be charged the same.

A parked vehicle with expired rego or WOF would be tolled the same, with it added to the toll bill.

This would simplify parking. There would be one central location for such fees paid, and paying $0.50 extra to TXT parking or card fees would be eliminated, as well as the inconvenience of trying to keep coins to park in pay spots.

Also, as parking fees would be collected centrally, this would separate the enforcement from the local councils.

Currently, local councils (especially AT), manage parking to maximize revenue collection, not manage maximum utility. When they no longer make money from inappropriate parking regulations, they will be motivated to have better parking regulations to improve parking for all.

This would also greatly simplify parking for travelers and visitors, boosting the economy by $10,000,000 per year (hey, if the ministers can make up numbers for how much sending people to international book conferences increases tourism, why can't I).

This is a simple use of tech to simplify our lives.

For: for a centrally managed fee and toll collection, unifying collection and payment of fees, while still allowing local setting of parking rules, fees, and times.

against: continue ad hoc and inconsistent parking fees and regulations.

Block: The ministry of transport should be disbanded, or cars should be banned from all on-street parking.


Results Option % of points Voters
Agree 100.0% 5 CD P KK MW JC
Abstain 0.0% 0  
Disagree 0.0% 0  
Block 0.0% 0  
Undecided 0% 10 CE DU FL RS JWP RK LM MK AH KH

5 of 15 people have participated (33%)


Sun 6 Jul 2014 1:16AM

There is immense loss of productivity and exhorbitant service fees being charged enforcing parking 'rules'. Really, vehicles 'overstaying' could just pay an additional fee, not a fine that is disproproportionate to energy expended or opportunity cost


Kenneth Kopelson
Mon 7 Jul 2014 4:34AM

Seems like a reasonable proposal


Colin Davies
Mon 7 Jul 2014 9:18AM

Sounds good to me. Keep making up those numbers.


Marc Whinery Mon 7 Jul 2014 4:29AM

On the topic (but not related to the decision), AT has proposed $80,000,000,000 of new works. http://www.skytran.us/intro/ indicates they cost about $500,000 per km of track (including cars), with very low maintenance. For AT's budget, we could have 160,000 km of Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) tracks in and around Auckland.

Faster than buses.

More private than buses.

Cheaper than buses.

Better for the environment than buses.

And better than trains in every way.

So, why are we offering to fund new roads for Auckland, rather than removing the need for them?

A few billion for a second harbour crossing (neither including trains) is a silly thing for the government to pay for (and most of the cost isn't Auckland local, but paid for by the government).

And, once Auckland is built out, adding track to Hamilton is cheaper than roads, and can carry more people than roads. 150+ km/h between Hamilton and Auckland will cut a large bit of the housing problem in Auckland. A 45 minute commute from Hamilton to Auckland would see a population boom in Hamilton, and a reduction on housing pressure in Auckland. 20 minutes from Warkworth to Auckland CBD. And about an hour from Whangeri.

And the trip to Whangerai would be cheaper to build than the road improvements planned, and the reduction of traffic from the high-speed PRT would make the road improvements unneeded. We'd be able to link many of the smaller towns to the regional hubs for less than the cost of the road improvemnts. The $300 million or so pledged by National for regional roads would build a lot of PRT in the areas that would get minor road improvements. And if the paths are picked right, the use of cars would drop enough that there'd not be as much need for the roads.

It's time to move people faster, smarter. PRT is the future. Let's start the future now.


Kenneth Kopelson Mon 7 Jul 2014 4:38AM

I would be highly in favour of technology like Skytran being put in...let's do some stuff that sets examples in the world, and not just wait to follow what others do! For once, I'd like to actually use some technology here in New Zealand that is a first (or close to it) in the world...just like we did for EFTPOS!


Marc Whinery Mon 7 Jul 2014 4:45AM

The current government doesn't seem to make a move without the blessing of Australia or the USA (or maybe less public pressure from China).

The amount of waste in our government supporting things "the way they used to be done" is staggering. Transport is just one of the many places waste is rampant. I'll leave the other complaints for more on-topic locations, but there is much we can do to re-do transport in a manner that reduces the need for cars without punishing people for owning them. We need better options, not fewer.


pilotfever Fri 27 Feb 2015 2:37AM

@marcwhinery I had an idea for an electric scooter that was a zinger. It sounded like like one of those old IBM PC AT hard drives, and it was really fast. Perhaps it swapped out its battery at stations rather than recharged, and perhaps it was autonomous on the highways... Lots of potential in this area I agree. Many of these aspects are being pioneered overseas as R&D.
As I have a Commerical Pilot License (Aeroplane) I'm also looking at Transportation from an Aerospace perspective. Do you remember the flying motorbikes from the 80's era Battlestart Galactica movie when they went to Earth? People talk of roadable aircraft and flying cars, that series was waaaaay ahead of its time!