Hard News: Postcard from Christchurch
66 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Not sure about the exact figure.
I'm guessing this report has done the rounds of this blog: http://www.bettertransport.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/electrification-report.pdf
Not sure what the shortfall is, but $100 million is a pretty good guess in terms of what we need extra to do electrification properly and not the half-arse job that seems likely.
-
this $100 million
Isn't it also approximately the amount that would allow the electric trains to be purchased right away
Hard to tell. The actual cost doesn't seem to be anywhere. What we do know is that Wellington's getting 96 new electric railcars, the cost will be $235m, and the taxpayer's footing 90% of the bill. They'll also be getting them in a couple of years.
Where the fuck is Auckland's share?!?!?!
-
Oh, the report Joshua links to say $263m for 75 units, but that's also the absolute minimum number and more would be advised.
-
It also says, further down, "140 Electric Multiple Units ($410 million)". From those two numbers, we can estimate between $2.93m and $3.51m per EMU.
-
Giving traffic a fully-functioning alternative route between south and west can only really be seen as a good thing. Other than that, however, there seems to be very little consideration to transport plans that don't involve laying more concrete and asphalt.
I agree, Waterview makes more sense than the Northland motorway madness.
Speaking of alternatives, that Waterview $1400m could instead build the Southdown to Avondale rail route (reserved for that purpose for decades), connecting the Western line across Onehunga into the main Southern line and out to the airport and Manukau city, with stations at strategic points. And without having to throw another $860m into widening the northwestern motorway.
Again, others like Joshua have the detail, and the maps including full future networks. You sure won't find them in the newspapers whose owners wouldn't want to upset their advertisers and mates at the Club, the golf course and the bach reached by a road of National significance.
Unlike rail lines, we might have to rip up the flash new tarmac in a few decades anyway when oil is too expensive to use for either private petrol or bitumen for repairs. Might be just enough to grease the electric trains.
These large projects are 100 year investment decisions, so they demand good thinking and respect for evidence. By contrast, Joyce is probably counting on us all using nuclear hovercraft in a couple of decades. Or burros, depending on our station. He certainly won't be holding the baby, so what's the problem?
-
I don't agree that we should plan as though cars/trucks will be going away. They won't. Be it electricity or biofuels, something will replace petroleum fuels - if only for trucks, and in that case it's in our interests to ensure that they've got the quickest available routes between manufacturing and export locations. That future needs to be considered, because if it's not we'll just be having the motorways argument in another 40 years' time. Better to get it out of the way now, but plan for greatly-increased utilisation of public transport at the same time. They aren't either/or propositions.
-
They aren't either/or propositions.
Agreed. Integrating public transport and roading projects makes sense - like busways, rail or cycling with any motorways.
However, look at the constrained budgets, and the difference one plonker in office can make to where they are spent. The balance needs to be pushed a long way towards public transport to make a difference fast enough - or all we will have is roads. How many lanes do you reckon those electric/biofuel trucks will need anyway?
-
There is also the issue of integrating with land-use planning to take into account. Over the last decade Auckland has specifically focused on an urban growth strategy to intensify the city - particular along and around the rail corridor. The CBD rail tunnel & electrification work with these plans - extension of the motorway network work against them (as they encourage people to live further away).
Furthermore, car-dependency and simply building more roads and motorways ultimately destroys cities. Some time have a look at Kansas City's downtown on google earth, certainly a scary sight. Although to be honest our CBD is just as ring-fenced with motorways - cutting it off form the surrounding area.
Ultimately, there's an inherent conflict between the quality of a place and shifting people through the place. To create the best cities we need to balance that conflict and manage it carefully. However, over the past few decades, and into the future if Joyce gets his way, we will continue to destroy 'the place' in order to get people around. Public transport is far better at addressing this conflict, as high-quality spaces can be created yet a lot of people can still pass through them via public transport (light-rail being a classic example).
Considering that Joyce always justifies his motorway building projects by stating that they will contribute to increasing wealth and economic growth, it's kind of ironic that road-building lowers property values while public transport projects increase them.
-
Considering that Joyce always justifies his motorway building projects by stating that they will contribute to increasing wealth and economic growth, it's kind of ironic that road-building lowers property values while public transport projects increase them.
Yes, but it's only poor people whose property values are affected by motorway construction. They never build them through wealthy areas, and it's only the rich who matter. The proles can just STFU and find some other slum in which to dwell.
The wealth and economic growth to which Joyce refers is the wealth of his RCF-and-associated-industries buddies, and the economic growth is that of their companies. -
Those are good points Matthew, although I don't think Joyce is alone in that matter. Call me cynical, but I really only think the previous Labour government (and this National govt) only found the extra dough for tunnelling under Victoria Park because it's close to the rich suburbs of St Mary's Bay, Ponsonby etc.
By contrast, with the Highbrook interchange near East Tamaki we saw the "Wymondley" area get totally gutted, with some of their school and a whole pile of houses being taken. Same process at Waterview - let's tunnel underneath the richer Avondale heights but take houses from around poorer Hendon Ave.
And lastly, let's not forget the Eastern Motorway debacle. I think that if that had affected the views of Mt Roskill or Otahuhu, rather than Remuera and Orakei, it probably would have been built.
-
Leaving aside the whole "It's the rich wot gets the benefits, it's the poor wot gets the..." ideology, can I point out here that land taken for road does need to be paid for, and at market value too. A route that achieves much the same outcome as the alternative but which costs four times less in land purchases is likely to carry weight, non? That's certainly how I run my budget.
I'm not blind to the effects on communities, but I don't think that the outcomes are primarily predicated on those in Remmers having influence over a current administration.
-
Mrs Skin, yeah that is somewhat of an issue - although in the case of the Eastern Motorway and the Victoria Park Tunnel it wasn't land directly being taken - but rather effects on their views that were most debated.
Anyway, I think it's a side issue too. The bigger issue is Joyce spending a huge amount of money on roading projects without proper economic justification while public transport has to scrimp around for every dollar it can find.
-
In fact the land may still have to be bought for the tunnel. I don't know what the situation on that route is, but traditionally one owned land "...up to heaven and down to hell" although this has been heavily modified over the years to the point where it's not exactly true any longer (think flight paths etc).
But yes, a side issue most definitely.
-
land taken for road does need to be paid for, and at market value too.
Mrs Skin, good point and there are usually practical reasons for most decisions (which is why some of the more absurd recent ones stand out).
Both the Eastern and Waterview motorways involve land set aside long ago when it was cheaper. Compare the responses to the destruction of much used community parks near Hendon Ave with the pony grazing precincts of Hobson Bay. I don't see the residents of Mt Roskill having the social capital and resources to form local political movements like their Remuera equivalents did to defeat the Hobson folly.
-
Sacha, the Waterview motorway doesn't actually involve any land set aside for motorway purposes. The Allan Wood Reserve section largely goes through a railway corridor - talk about the ultimate metaphor for Joyce's entire transport policy, using a railway designation for a motorway.
-
I know, totally rude and as you say unfortunately symbolic. Was explaining that to someone yesterday.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.