Speaker: It's called "planning" for a reason
142 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Calling it "feeble and petulant" is charitable, Russell. It's a load of shit worthy of Fran O'Sullivan's worst pontifications on the need to finish the great right-wing experiment and put our economy out if its misery.
I think "bunch of evidence-free clowns" is probably the best summation of Granny's editorial team when it comes to the whole road vs rail issue. Mostly because they're following Joyce's lead, and he's incapable of impartial thought.
-
And it's utterly hypocritical when rail is written off as unaffordable, but a more costly holiday highway isn't. Such bullshit needs to be debunked, but it's up against a powerful spin machine.
Ideally the likes of PWC or the Economist would give it the Think Big/pork barrel stigma, but we can't just wait for them. It's only a start, but I've been brainstorming ideas to expose the real costs - and agenda - of the Holiday Highway.
-
Sacha, in reply to
feeble and petulant as that
reckon
-
I think it indicates they're still sulky about Banksie's loss of the mayoralty.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
PwC won't get involved beyond commenting on their work with the CBDRL business case. It's the nature of the Big Four. Unfortunately, the "journalists" at Granny don't appear to be interested in reporting in depth and getting the informed opinions (as opposed to Joyce's pig-ignorant ones, since he's said that the case doesn't answer questions that are clearly discussed within its pages) of consultants who reviewed the work that went into the "transformational benefits" aspects.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I've been brainstorming ideas to expose the real costs - and agenda - of the Holiday Highway.
Please do - someone has to, given the feeble opposition on offer. The raw facts and analysis are there from parties like the Campaign for Better Transport and transportblog.co.nz. Some added marketing/political oomph is called for.
Exposing the real subsidies to trucks and cars is crucial. So is publicising the broadest cost-benefit ramifications of investing so heavily in 1950s infrastructure like highways to support old dirty industries like coal mining and corporate dairying at the expense of 2050s infrastructure like affordable broadband, lifelong learning systems and peak-oil-proof public transport networks and urban forms.
The lack of ambition of these smug yesterday's men needs to be shouted from rooftops.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
PwC won't get involved beyond commenting on their work with the CBDRL business case. It's the nature of the Big Four. Unfortunately, the "journalists" at Granny don't appear to be interested in reporting in depth and getting the informed opinions
Then who? Nicky Hager? WikiLeaks? The Sierra Club?
Please do - someone has to, given the feeble opposition on offer.
As a matter of fact, I pieced a poster together in InDesign in the space of maybe 45 minutes. Still a rough draft, but once I get some 2nd opinions on it...
-
"I’ve been brainstorming ideas to expose the real costs – and agenda – of the Holiday Highway.,"
What I want to know is, who owns the land adjacent to the said Highway? They must be expecting some serious increases in land value. I have also heard it said that Stephen (Joyce) is tipped as the future National man to replace Lockwood when he retires. So are these things mere coincidences?
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
What I want to know is, who owns the land adjacent to the said Highway? They must be expecting some serious increases in land value. I have also heard it said that Stephen (Joyce) is tipped as the future National man to replace Lockwood when he retires. So are these things mere coincidences?
Mostly the land is in private hands, and a lot of it is going to have to be acquired before Puford can be built since there's no existing designation. Not all the land-owners are terribly happy about that, and the ones who're expecting to have their land devalued by being next to a highway are far from thrilled. Being next to a major through road is not good for property values, as opposed to being next to a through road's destination.
Yes, rumour does have it that our illustrious Minister for the RTF is angling for Lockwood's seat this year, though I've not seen anything that rises above the category of rumour. He may be overestimating the electoral benefits that'll accrue to him for being the driver of the Puford white elephant, but the seat is so safely National's that the opposition would have to be nearly universal before it cost him the election. Pity.
As far as coincidences goes, who knows? National's pandering to the RTF is no secret, and their general disdain for anything that's not private transport is demonstrated in the comments in the House from English and Joyce both as well as from utterances by the Dictator for Canterbury.
-
Speaking of planning...
Did anyone know about This before it happened?
Trams are expected to run on Auckland's waterfront by August in an $8 million project which saw the first modest section of tracks laid this week.
And how much tram-way do you get for $8mill ?
Sounds more like a kiddie ride than a public transport solution?
-
Sacha, in reply to
It's a foot in the door for a bigger route along the waterfront (and at least to Britomart) funded in the dying days of the ARC. Sometimes easier to get support when you have a demo project to show.
-
The latest from Clive Mathew-Wilson...
Safety expert explains how to lower the road toll
"Although wire rope barriers are already installed in some places, Matthew-Wilson says that in most cases the barriers are not installed because they would slow down traffic, especially trucks.
“Everyone agrees that separating opposing lanes of traffic prevents head-on collisions. I was gobsmacked to hear a government engineer tell me that the reason that more roads didn’t have a wire rope barrier was because it would slow the trucks down. I don’t think the trucking industry should be dictating government road safety policy.”
The Road Transport Forum, which represents the trucking industry, was a major donor to political parties at the last election, contributing nearly $100,000 to Labour, National and also to individual MPs."
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
They're very dangerous for motorcyclists (the nickname “cheese cutters” doesn’t come from nowhere), and if installed properly require over a metre on each side to allow for deflection into opposing traffic in the event that a vehicle collides with the barrier. Plus, trucks have been known to go right over the top of wire barriers.
The correct solution is concrete barriers, not a cheap-arse bunch of wires that need effectively a whole traffic lane if they’re being done properly. They’re good for wide grassed medians, such as on the motorway just north of Bombay, but definitely not appropriate for roads that have no space to spare.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Transport blogs have been talking about it for months. It’s an ARC plan, which gives you some indication of how long it’s been in gestation: they stopped doing real work five months ago.
$8m will get you 1.5km of track with overhead wires, plus lease of a couple of trams. That’s not bad going, when you consider how many billions Joyce wants to spend on less than 20 times that distance of road for holiday makers.
Plus, as Ben said, it’s a start. The Te Whero bridge, or whatever they’re calling it, is being built with sufficient pile strength to take a light-rail line across from Viaduct Harbour to the bottom of the CBD. From there it can start going to useful places, like a loop that runs up through College Hill to Ponsonby and then back to K’Rd and down Queen St. Or thereabouts.
For once I don’t really object to the “in time for the RWC” aspect of the plan. If the RWC gets it underway, all well and good. Once people start using it, then we can have a conversation about extending it. Maybe getting rid of some of the all-day parking at Mission Bay and running a tram line out there instead. -
I've got nothing against trams (heck, I'm from Melbourne), and if is a foot in the door to something bigger and actually useful, then thats cool...
but 1.5 km ? That IS a kiddie ride. I'd rather walk and keep my $2 or whatever it is they'll be charging...
I hope it gets used enough to encourage extending it later though....
-
The tram here in Christchurch is utterly useless, it has to be said.
(& in fact personally speaking, it's been pretty harmful, given that I've fallen off my bike when my front wheel has got trapped in the the tram tracks.)
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
It's not bloody supposed to be a commuter service! They've been perfectly up front that it's for tourists. Considering the amount of work involved $8m is an absolute bargain even if it goes nowhere.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.