Posts by Joshua Arbury
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
From memory there were plans to possible have an interchange somewhere near the corner of Blockhouse Bay Road and New North Road. This would enable traffic from the west to access SH20. South-facing ramps are those that would point south (ie. exit ramp for traffic heading towards Pt Chev, onramp for traffic heading towards airport). Northfacing ramps are the opposite.
The idea of a central interchange was dropped because of the depth a tunnel would be. Perhaps it will come back on the cards now, but it was going to have some significant effects on traffic around that bit of Blockhouse Bay Road. In other words, it would be too popular for its own good, like most motorways.
-
I still find it tricky to believe that a $1.1 billion option can include more tunnel than a $1.456 open cut option.
These were the options up until today:
http://www.jarbury.net/waterview-costings.jpgWhy did NZTA not investigate the currently proposed options before? There MUST be a reason, and I think that reason is that their environmental/social effects were considered to be too great.
-
I would imagine they'll just can them Sacha. As you say there's only a certain amount of money in the NZTF each year. Joyce has already pushed most of it into state highway funding, even without this extra $1.4 billion to fund.
I suppose construction might start in 2012-2013 and this one project will eat a huge chunk of the fund for the few years it takes to build it.
This image linked to below shows the NZTF spending for the next 3 years I think. Imagine trying to skew that even further towards new state highway funding.
-
NZTF uses money from petrol taxes, road-user charges and so forth - which means that debt is not incurred. So it is cheaper than borrowing.
Interesting that everyone's moved away from PPP. I guess they've finally figured out it's a rort.
-
Paul, I'm not a huge expert in Sydney's tunnels. I know that the cross-town tunnels did not nearly attract as many people as originally thought, which led to reduction in the toll.
Sydney's tunnels definitely weren't cheaper eithe, and surprise surprise the road tunnels haven't hugely improved traffic.
-
s141B of the RMA relates to the call-in powers of the Minister with regards to resource consents. But I don't think that applies to Notices of Requirement, which have to go through a local hearings phase.
-
Thanks for the vote of support Gareth. We probably have about a year beforethe re-design is done and all the technical reports thrown away and redone (as they all related to the tunnel option). Then the notice of requirement will be lodged, then we'll see what this "fast-tracking" actually means.
I don't know if a Notice of Requirement can be 'called in'. Must go check RMA.
-
I understand your anger Christopher, there has been some really dodgy costings pulled on this one to get the price down so much.
NZTA worked for years and yeard to create an "open cut" option cost of $1.456 billion, and now Steven Joyce is saying that "the other two options had varying levels of “undergrounding, either by tunnelling or using cut and cover methods" for less than $1.1 billion construction cost.
What gives?
-
How the heck can you limit it to 9 months. Let's say I want to appeal it to the Enviornment Court - are they going to say "no sorry, the 9 months are up"?
This definitely sounds like it'll be 'called in'. Which means making your submission straight to the environment court in all likeliness. Great :(
-
More news here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10571849
Of note:
The consent process would be fast tracked and limited to nine months.
We all know what fast-tracked means - taking away the right to have your voice heard.