Posts by Joshua Arbury
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
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/
-
Sorry I never quite finished off my comparison of costs between the previous tunnel option and this option:
Construction:
Tunnel: $2 billion
This option: $710m-$1.1bSH16 upgrades:
Tunnel: $290 million
This option $290 millionFinancing:
Tunnel: $550 million
This option: $0I always knew that putting financing on it was a political ploy.
-
Three options within the $1.4 billion cost cap. Ha!
1) Extremely crap option
2) Very crap option
3) Crap option -
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
Have been rendered speechless....
LOL, here's my response: http://transportblog.co.nz/2009/05/12/goodbye-tunnel-and-oakley-creek-waterfall/
The $1.456 billion open cut option I suspect would have placed the motorway in some sort of trench, so that the noise & visual effects of it were lessened. That was the cheapest and nastiest option that NZTA were previously considering, but obviously Joyce wanted them to go cheaper and nastier so we have something cheaper and nastier.
Goodbye Oakley Creek waterfall, goodbye Alan Wood Reserve, Phyllis Street Reserve and so forth.....
I wonder what compensation Auckland City Council will want for all this loss of open space?
-
And personally, I'm still waiting for a personal apology from English and Cullen because (sorry for the broken record-ness) anyone who tells be you can cut government income AND increase government spending BUT don't really have to borrow (kinda) is a copper bottomed lying shit.
Sounds like United Future economic policy to me. Slashing taxes, increasing spending, but not having to borrow.
-
Ummm, would that be an underground rail link or a surface rail link? If the former, might it not combine with a car tunnel? If the latter, might that not require the eradication of people's houses?
The Avondale-Onehunga section of the railway line has been designated since the 1940s. The Onehunga-Airport section would run next to SH20 and SH20A so therefore wouldn't require the demolition of any/many houses. The airport-Manukau section is basically across farmland.
So it would be overground.
-
And what a lot of fiddling! How did the original $2 billion price tag become almost $3 billion within the last six months? Having done cost-benefit analysis for major projects myself, I know that costings of this kind are always hairy.
$290 million was added for SH16 upgrades, $550 million for financing and I think the ACTUAL increase in cost for the project was around $100 million.
As FletcherB says, any option will need to include the $290 million SH16 upgrade, and even a $1.5 billion open cut option (the cheapest option presented by NZTA) will probably have around $450 million in financing costs. That's why, all up, the cheapest option available is still $2.2 billion. The same price as a railway link from Avondale to Manukau City via Onehunga and the Airport.