it would be damn difficult to get a railway line from Britomart up to the bridge. I'm thinking that at a 1:50 grade the line would have to be rising for about 1.5km to get from 8m below ground level to 20m above ground level.
I think the plan for the tunnel option is for rail to join the CBD rail tunnel - presumably the same thing could be done from the bridge option.
I think its normally true for bridges/tunnels that the trickiest thing to plan is how they join up with the network on either side. Does anyone know if Richard Simpson's presentation covered how the roads link to spaghetti junction?
I'd think St Mary's Bay residents would be stoked to no longer have a motorway at the bottom of the cliff, and an elegant span to look at. The residents of Lighter Quay might not be so happy
Lighter Quay people definitely not happy! But don’t underestimate the St Mary's Bay residents – they’ve successfully stopped a variety of buildings around the edges of Westhaven
I haven’t seen much about this version, but earlier discussions indicated that getting a bridge at a gradient allowing rail-under-road still high enough for boats to go under would require large embankments on either side (like in Sydney). This will take lots of space, and I don’t see the costs for buying up all the land needed in those numbers, or pictures showing what it would look like.
Plus the assumed profit on land sales are pretty bold, and assume, for eg, that the current St Mary’s bay residents don’t successfully limit any development that impacts their views etc. And how many tourists will really stay an extra night because we have a beautiful bridge?
Whatever else is wrong with the tunnel option, it does provide for two routes so one is still in operation if the other is clogged (accident, maintenance etc). And the plan is for walking and cycling to be made available on the existing bridge once the tunnel is commissioned (which isn’t an adequate excuse for not making them available now!).
So more people believe in Hell than firmly believe in God. What on earth is that about?
That's like the famous definition of a lapsed catholic "I don't believe in God, but I believe Mary is his mother".
so we'll get one rates bill but it will still be split between "Auckland Council" rates and "Western Bays Local Board" rates?
Probably. Under the Royal Commission proposal there was going to be one rates bill, split between 'Auckland Council', "Local Council' (which was going to be the same across the region), and possibly 'Local targetted rate". Under the government proposal, the local boards don't seem to have a budget as such, so its probably just "Auckland Council" and some form of "additional funding for local projects".
"Herald reports that Key "said local bodies will have the power to raise rates to fund local initiatives""
All written materials say that local bodies can ask the Auckland Council to raise local rates for local initiatives - it is clear that the rate will be decided at the Council level, not by the local bodies.
sorry david, going to have to call you on this one. the free travel for senior citizens does not cost much at all. it's very simple: in off-peak hours, the buses and ferries were all doing these routes anyway, only with empty seats. now the seats will be full, but all the routes are the same.
It may not cost Fuller's much, but as far as the tax payers go, Fuller's gets a subsidy per passenger for all the supergold card "free" trips - that's why they are advertising them.