Speaker: Economics of the Waterview Tunnel
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 10 Newer→ Last
To be honest, unless National "calls in" this project (can a Notice of Requirement be called in... geez I should know the answer to that question) it will be a very difficult consent for them to get.
NZTA got knocked back on the Manukau Harbor Crossing Project quite significantly just because their proposed interchange was too visually intrusive. I guess the worry is that a surface option combined with gutting the RMA will take away the ability of many people to oppose this.
I wonder what compensation Auckland City Council will want for all this loss of open space?
What compensation? They are getting rid of that thing( the little Auckland City Council) Restructuring going on, you know, never mind that they don't know how much that will cost. The plebs can pay with their rates. Simple.
But again Joshua... WHY??? Is it simple arrogance? Is it another manifestion of neo-liberal nihilism?
Sacha & Sam, what I'm guessing was that the "Open Cut" option (with four lanes and with no central interchange) had a little bit more environmental amelioration than I had perhaps previously thought. I am assuming it placed the motorway largely in some sort of trench.
Basically, comapring the $2.8 billion figure with the $1-1.4 billion figure we get the following:
Contruction costs: $710 million to $1.11 billion (so no trench, no tunnel, nothing)
SH16 upgrade costs: same for both
Financing costs: $550 million for tunnel, nothing for surface option
Goodness knows when the National Land Transport Program might actually have this amount of money in it though!
Predictable angle on Kiwiblog: Govt saves taxpayers $1.7 billion
Tom, I think they realised that all the options previously presented were too expensive, and I would agree there. Geez you could have almost doubled Auckland's rail system for the same price as the "open cut" option plus SH16 upgrades plus financing. That says there's something wrong with your proposal, as did its incredibly low cost-benefit ratio.
However, what the government has missed is the REASON why all the previous options had such a high cost. There is no designation, there is no set aside land, the interchange at Waterview is very complex (say goodbye to any hopes of that interchange having a light ecological footprint at these new costs), the two areas of open space are off-set from each other (meaning that you have to either cut through Avondale heights or make the motorway go north of Pak N Save) and there's really no room between Great North Road and Oakley Creek for something at surface level.
Creek? What economic benefit does that have to anyone?
Why? Here's why:
He said Waterview Connection surface road options are being considered by the Transport Agency and all would be wide enough to provide for easy widening to three lanes in each direction.
Financing costs: $550 million for tunnel, nothing for surface option
What the jeebus? Where can I gets me some of this free money?
About consultation - DPF quotes media Q&A:
“The NZ Transport Agency’s Board is meeting today to consider the three alternative options and will announce its preference tomorrow, once it has had the opportunity to make first contact with those directly affected.
“A thorough consultation process on the form of the selected option will then commence before a final decision is made.”
Three options within the $1.4 billion cost cap. Ha!
1) Extremely crap option
2) Very crap option
3) Crap option
You've got to admire the sheer chutzpah of David Farrar. At the same time as he demands Kieth Ng apologise to him for calling him on his close links to the National party, he runs "Govt saves taxpayers $1.7 billion" Bahahahahahaha!
You get what you vote for, Auckland.
DPf's stance is perfectly consistent. As one of his commenters notes, the Herald headline "Government slashes Waterview fund" is also biased from their viewpoint.
It seems to me then Joshua the whole idea of completing this extension has to be called into question. The only explaination I can come up with for Joyce's decision is he is totally in thrall of the roading lobby. He can't cancel the project outright - if he did the shrieks from the roading lobby would reverberate forever - and he can't justify the cost the only option that isn't an act of vandalism.
Sorry I never quite finished off my comparison of costs between the previous tunnel option and this option:
Tunnel: $2 billion
This option: $710m-$1.1b
Tunnel: $290 million
This option $290 million
Tunnel: $550 million
This option: $0
I always knew that putting financing on it was a political ploy.
Joshua, is there an online copy of a map showing where the surface option will go and what streets may be affected?
It's an extremely minor issue given what is reportedly to come, but I wonder what will be left of the cycleway connection to SH16 once this goes through. At very least I suspect the rather nice (and expensive) cycle/pedestrian bridge is going to be permanently retired.
Stuff story expanded: Billion dollar Auckland tunnel canned. Subheading: "500 properties in the road".
This may be the place to do it as well - Jarbury thanks for your factual investigation and willingness to spread it across multiple blogs. It's certainly been of interest to me
<quote>So yet again, National walks away from an extensive consultative process and merrily shits on Aucklanders.
Exactly. These guys are a bunch of wreckers. The arrogance of this decision is simply breathtaking. Not listening to experts is once thing, but openly deriding the wishes of an entire community is a whole new level of hubris.
As a result, I predict high levels of direct action if/when development starts.
Gareth, not that I know of. Transit/NZTA expunged all above ground information they had as soon as they decided upon the full tunnel option.
There's a lot of info on that though: http://www.transit.govt.nz/projects/waterviewconnection/info_and_documents/
From that story:
"Mr Joyce said that the tunnel would have been funded by borrowing but the surface option, being cheaper, could be funded through the Government's National Land Transport Fund."
Nice try. And where does the funding for the National Land Transport Fund come from?
I love the way when Nact don't want something it all comes from "borrowing" (bad) but when they do want it, miraculously, it is solely funded by tax income, etc. It's all the same pot of money folks.
Long time lurker finally out. As a Waterview resident I felt the need to contribute as noone seems to have mentioned recently the 'other' option that was around where the motorway went through Heron Park went parallel to Rosebank road and I presume and came out somewhere near the Patiki Rd interchange... Josh?
This may be the place to do it as well - Jarbury thanks for your factual investigation and willingness to spread it across multiple blogs. It's certainly been of interest to me.
Seconded. I only discovered Josh's blog today and have been happily browsing through it.
Post your response…
You may also create an account or retrieve your password.