Labour’s tunnel
June 6th, 2008 at 10:56 am by David FarrarMaurice Williamson is pointing at political infleunce in the decision to approve the $1.89 billion Waterview tunnels in Auckland. He claims it is not possibly to do with current funding, and the Government is not denying this:
“I don’t think the Government could ever fund a $1.9 billion road from just straight land transport funding,” Mr Williamson said. “That would mean the rest of the country would get nothing for nearly three years, so you have go to find an alternative source of funding.”
Finance Minister Michael Cullen has acknowledged it would be difficult to pay for the project from fuel taxes alone, and the Government is waiting for a report from a steering group on the feasibility of establishing a PPP to dig and operate the tunnels.
So why would Transit approved a project it can’t afford to fund,
But Mr Williamson claimed Transit’s decision-making had been “terribly politicised” by the presence of Labour president Mike Williams on its board and by a statement by Prime Minister Helen Clark in 2005 in support of tunnels through Waterview, which is in her Mt Albert electorate.
“You’ve got the Prime Minister and the president of the Labour Party both actively involved in getting a design of a road which in my view is politicising it to a shocking extent,” he said.
Okay, well that explains it.
A submission to Transit by the Road Transport Forum, representing freight carriers, claimed that at least $500 million could be saved by staying above ground.
“An analysis of the extra costs of the tunnel option suggests Transit NZ is prepared to spend an extra $1.6 million per house to tunnel under the houses rather than face potential planning delays.”
Hey what is $500 million between friends. Remember there is no waste in Government spending!
Tags: Maurice Williamson, Transit
June 6th, 2008 at 11:18 am
I hope National scrap it and go for a 3 lane motorway at grade
Vote:They would have enough left over money to complete the Waikato expressway for example
About 80kms of expressway instead of 4km
June 6th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Go Maurice!
How about scrapping it and building a rail link from New Lynn to the Onehunga branch line and then on to Auckland Airport?
That would get unnecessary passenger and freight vehicles off the roads, and then there would be no need for the stupid bloody Waterview tunnels or the roads proposed to run through them.
Vote:June 6th, 2008 at 11:31 am
No tunnel is needed, put the road through the labour party back benchers house… Clark or whatever her name is.
Vote:June 6th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Toad you are dreaming.
Are you really suggesting we should have a motorway bypass connection north and south and then suddenly have a few miles of surface streets rather than complete the last link?
Transit has never actually supplied costs and benefit analysis of an at-grade or elevated highway. They have only analysed a cut and cover approach with tunnels. So why did they ignore the obvious?
Here are the questions which must be answered:
Question One
• Why does Transit New Zealand favour the proposed Driven Tunnel Option through Mt Albert, even though it comprehensively fails to address the amenity, mobility and efficiency requirements of the general motoring public, who will actually pay for the project, and who will make most use of it?
Question Two
• Why has Transit New Zealand not even considered the option of an at-grade motorway through Mt Albert, similar to that now being built through Mt Roskill, which would cost only a fraction of the Driven Tunnel Option?
Question Three
• Why does Transit New Zealand favour a Driven Tunnel Option which cannot readily adapt to future growth in demand by adding lanes, by adding future connections, and which closes off the option of a second harbour bridge joining Pt Chevalier to the North Shore?
Question Four
• Why, for such a critical link in the road network, does Transit New Zealand favour a Driven Tunnel Option which is highly vulnerable to future natural disasters,(such as earthquake, volcanos and tsunami) and is also prone to frequent closure because of accidents or breakdowns, which are likely to cause injury and death?
Question Five
• Why has Transit abandoned the at-grade solution, which was their preferred option up until 2000?”
If you want more details of the Centre’s submissions send me an email at omcshane@wk.planet.gen.nz
Vote:June 6th, 2008 at 11:37 am
And by the way – the difference is more like $1.5 billion.
Vote:June 6th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Just remember that all of these prices quoted are merely “opening bids”. Anyone here want to put their neck on the line to guarantee any of these projects will not end up costing double the initial price? I’d rather invest in towing icebergs to Australia.
Vote:June 6th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
F***K Maurice Who! This low life National Party MP who has done Zilch for Auckland Transport system along with the rest of National.
Vote:One day we might find out the National Party policy, but i won’t hold my breath.
The man’s a W***ker.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
You all saw what happened when John Banks’ road was going to go through Meadowbank.
The reason they are contemplating tunnelling under these heavily-built-up areas is because it is simply not possible in the current legislative climate to contemplate buying every single property along the route that they would need to demolish to build a surface road.
Or have it your way, and it’s all because (1) the PM doesn’t wan’t her house getting bowled for the new road, and
Vote:(2) The liarbore government gets their collective rocks off by spending as much of your money as possible.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
No please hold your breath.
We’ll call you in time for the election results.
Honest.
Vote:June 6th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
RRM – if you are right how come this has been done in Phil Goff’s electorate to provide the at grade motorway which then has to feed into the tunnels, which at their present size are immediately overloaded.
We made this same mistake with the Auckland Harbour Bridge but at least it was not a tunnel but a bridge so the clip-ons came to the rescue.
John Dalley – Having abused Williamson I wonder what is wrong with his argument. He is part of quite a large club who cannot believe this foolishness.
Of course National only has to cancel this folly to have another billion or two to distribute as tax cuts.
RRM much of the route goes on old railway land (I know I designated it back in the sixties) but in the seventies the ARA lifted these designations because the oil shock meant there would be no more cars and they set about filling the area with trees and houses to make sure a motorway was never built. Most of the route is still park. In reality the motorway would need to be slightly elevated to allow the cross routes and railway lines to go through (just like all the new highways in Houston) but these elevated highways are a real boon when disasters strike. Who wants to be in a tunnel when an earthquake, or a volcano or a tsunami or hurricane strikes?
Vote:I suppose the board feared the wrath of God.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
GO OWEN.
By the way, what’s a billion or so dollars between friends, when it comes to TRANSMISSION GULLY, EH, HULUN and Phil, EH, EH, are you receiving me?
Vote:June 6th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
So those parks are now probably just as untouchable as people’s houses are – more because of the inevitable objections to Resource consent than anything else. Hence a tunnel, I assume. But at least they are proposing SOMETHING – if you listen to the Car lobby in Auckland the recurring theme is “they haven’t done anything to upgrade the roads since the year X…”
Vote:June 6th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
It is time some mainstream leader like John Key had the balls to stand up and say that HUMANS are the number one thing that counts, the devaluation of humanity that is “Green” politics is akin to the devaluation of humanity under Naziism and other movements. I suspect that the time is ripe for the public to see that the Emperor has no clothes, we should just GET THE EFF ON WITH IT and BUILD the effing Hydro Dams and all the other stuff WE NEED, and too effing bad for the snails…….Same goes for roads and housing. We should just get on and USE LAND FOR HOUSING, too, as needed, then today’s young folk might actually get to own their own home in their lifetime……….
Vote:June 6th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
PhilBest, if you think humans can exist independently of our environment, you are dumber than even I thought.
What do you do when you run out of rivers to dam? Oh, burn oil and gas in thermal power stations. But hell, it’s running out too, as the price is now showing. I know, mine more coal, and burn it to fire power stations. But what about when it runs out? I know, import uranium and go nuclear. Damn, uranium will run out too. What next? Hmmm.
Why not just go straight to the renewables we’re going to have to turn to anyway eventually after everything else has run out? We live on a finite planet, and we need to come to terms with the fact that if we keep on using stuff that isn’t replaceable, it will eventually run out.
Vote:June 6th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
A bit of background on this:
There is an active and well organised Green Belt movement in the Mt Albert Area who have staunchly opposed the extension on environmental grounds as it goes through nature reserve (Oakley Creek). The usual Green hand wringers and Nimbys of course.
H1 has stated publicly no motorway was going through her electorate on her watch. There are growing areas of urban decay in her electorate that could do with some of the largesse being thrown at gold plating this solution.
Despite green claims, the threatened area is not really used recreationally – I know as a local who runs and cycles in the area. The exception is Phyllys St (Metro Soccer grounds). But we know the Greens are economic with the truth when it suits them.
Transit has been stuffing around on the consultation for this for years and locals just want a decision, compensation and closure on this.
This is not Mechanics Bay, there are not RMA lawyers residing on every street and it will go ahead one way or another.
The completion of the Mt Roskill stage up to the owairaka area will stuff up traffic on Richardson, Maoiro, Sandringham, Dominion Road, and other roads. The road should only be opened once the final connection to Waterview is completed, of course this won’t happen with the piecemeal approach / incremental funding.
The land itself up until the Oakley creek area is fine for a conventional above ground motorway, its been on the books for years. There will be issues with the final link to Waterview.
I am picking the Nats will ditch this latest folly & go above ground for as far as possible, at least as far as New North Road.
Vote:June 6th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
RRM – John Banks couldn’t offer $1.6 million PER HOUSE.
Vote:June 6th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Yes
Transmission Gulley first please.
)
Vote:Us poor folks in Wellington have waited a long time, and as everyone knows, Wellington is the better city to live in! (If it wasn’t there wouuldn’t be all these people lining up get voted into cheap housing here!
June 6th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
“toad”, please explain how flooding a couple more valleys to build a hydro dam is going to make ONE skerrick of NEGATIVE difference to the human race, because it sure as heck will make a massive POSITIVE difference. Please explain how using 3% of our land for housing instead of 2%, will make one skerrick of negative difference for the human race.
You Greens have gone too far. You are doing WAY more harm than any good you are alleging to do. I stand by what I say, you are devaluing the human race, full stop, irrespective of any meaningful cost/benefit issues, and the more extreme members of the movement are actually quite candid about this, as Mr Farrar points out on another thread. It is time you joined the Nazis on the trash heap of history before you do equivalent damage to them………..if the death toll from the ban of DDT doesn’t already qualify you.
Vote:June 6th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
The best thing I have ever read on the subject of the usage of Earth’s resources, is “Environmentalism Refuted”, By George Reisman. Here is a link. WARNING: serious intelligence and rationalism required.
http://mises.org/story/661
Vote:June 6th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Here is some EXCERPTS from “Environmentalism Refuted” by George Reisman. Now before Kimble and some of the other good guys slay me for this, this REALLY IS just a fraction, the whole thing is VERY LONG – patience required as well as intelligence and rationalism – and it is “ESSENTIAL READING” on the topic of “conserving the environment”. Kimble and the other good guys, it is YOU that should not go unarmed by THIS ARGUMENT:
“………The only difference I can see between the green movement of the environmentalists and the old red movement of the Communists and socialists is the superficial one of the specific reasons for which they want to violate individual liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Reds claimed that the individual could not be left free because the result would be such things as “exploitation,” “monopoly,” and depressions. The Greens claim that the individual cannot be left free because the result will be such things as destruction of the ozone layer, acid rain, and global warming. Both claim that centralized government control over economic activity is essential. The Reds wanted it for the alleged sake of achieving human prosperity. The Greens want it for the alleged sake of avoiding environmental damage . . . [And in the end,] [b]oth the Reds and the Greens want someone to suffer and die; the one, the capitalists and the rich, for the alleged sake of the wage earners and the poor; the other, a major portion of all mankind, for the alleged sake of the lower animals and inanimate nature
If the world’s intellectuals had been open to the possibility that they had been wrong about the nature of capitalism and socialism—profoundly, devastatingly wrong—and taken the trouble to read and understand the works of von Mises in order to learn how and why they had been wrong, socialism would have died once and for all with the Soviet Union, and the whole world would now be moving toward laissez-faire capitalism and unprecedented economic progress and prosperity. Instead, the intellectuals have chosen to foist the doctrine of environmentalism on the world, as a last-ditch effort to destroy capitalism and save socialism………..”
“………..It implies that the resources provided by nature, such as iron, aluminum, coal, petroleum and so on, are by no means automatically goods. Their goods-character must be created by man, by discovering knowledge of their respective properties that enable them to satisfy human needs and then by establishing command over them sufficient to direct them to the satisfaction of human needs.
For example, iron, which has been present in the earth since the formation of the planet and throughout the entire presence of man on earth, did not become a good until well after the Stone Age had ended. Petroleum, which has been present in the ground for millions of years, did not become a good until the middle of the nineteenth century, when uses for it were discovered. Aluminum, radium, and uranium also became goods only within the last century or century and a half.
An example concerning goods-character being created only after the establishment of command sufficient to direct the resource provided by nature to the satisfaction of a human need would be the case of petroleum deposits lying deeper than existing drilling equipment could go. As drilling equipment improved, command was established over deposits lying at greater and greater depths. Those deposits, to the extent that they were known, then became goods, which they had not been before. Similarly, for some years after the creation of the goods-character of petroleum, those petroleum deposits containing a significant sulfur content were unuseable for the production of petroleum products and were therefore not goods. Their goods-character was created only when Rockefeller and Standard Oil developed the process of cracking petroleum molecules, which then made sulfurous deposits useable……….”
“……….not only does man create the goods- character of natural resources—by obtaining knowledge of their useful properties and then creating their useability and accessibility by virtue of establishing the necessary command over them—but he also has the ability to go on indefinitely increasing the supply of natural resources possessing goods-character. He enlarges the supply of useable, accessible natural resources—that is, natural resources possessing goods-character—as he expands his knowledge of and physical power over nature.
The prevailing view, that dominates the thinking of the environmentalists and the conservationists, that there is a scarce, precious stock of natural resources that man’s productive activity serves merely to deplete is wrong. Seen in its full context, man’s productive activity serves to enlarge the supply of useable, accessible natural resources by converting a larger, though still tiny, fraction of nature into natural resources possessing goods-character. The essential question concerning natural resources is what fraction of the virtual infinity that is nature does man possess sufficient knowledge concerning and sufficient physical command over to be able to direct it to the satisfaction of his needs. This fraction will always be very small indeed and will always be capable of vastly greater further enlargement.
As I stated a moment ago, the supply of useable, accessible natural resources expands as man expands his knowledge of and physical power over the world and universe. Up to now, although considerably expanded in comparison with what it was in previous centuries, man’s physical power over the world has been essentially confined to the roughly thirty percent of the earth’s surface that is not covered by sea water, and there it has been further confined to depths that are still measured in feet, not miles. Man is literally still just scratching the surface of the earth, and the far lesser part of its surface at that. And nowhere is he dealing with nature nearly as effectively or efficiently as he someday might.
In addition to the examples previously given with respect to iron, petroleum, aluminum, radium, and uranium, consider the implications for the supply of useable, accessible natural resources of man becoming able to mine at greater depths with less effort, to move greater masses of earth with less effort, to break down compounds previously beyond his power, or to do so with less effort, to gain access to regions of the earth previously inaccessible or to improve his access to regions already accessible. All of these increase the supply of useable, accessible natural resources. They do so, of course, by virtue of creating what Menger describes as command over things sufficient to direct them to the satisfaction of human needs. All of them bestow the character of goods on what had before been mere things………”
“………Nature presents the earth as an immense solidly packed ball of chemical elements. It has also provided comparably incredible amounts of energy in connection with this mass of chemical elements. If, over and against this massive contribution from nature stands motivated human intelligence—the kind of motivated human intelligence that a free, capitalist society so greatly encourages, with its prospect of earning a substantial personal fortune as the result of almost every significant advance, there can be little doubt as to the outcome: Man will succeed in progressively enlarging the fraction of nature’s contribution that constitutes goods; that is, he will succeed in progressively enlarging the supply of useable, accessible natural resources.
The likelihood of his success is greatly reinforced by two closely related facts: the progressive nature of human knowledge and the progressive nature of capital accumulation in a capitalist society, which, of course, is also a rational as well as a free society. In such a society, the stock of scientific and technological knowledge grows from generation to generation, as each new generation begins with all of the accumulated knowledge acquired by previous generations and then makes its own, fresh contribution to knowledge. This fresh contribution enlarges the stock of knowledge transmitted to the next generation, which in turn then makes its own fresh contribution to knowledge, and so on, with no fixed limit to the accumulation of knowledge short of the attainment of omniscience.
Similarly, in such a society the stock of capital goods grows from generation to generation. The larger stock of capital goods accumulated in any generation on the foundation of a sufficiently low degree of time preference and thus correspondingly high degree of saving and provision for the future, together with a continuing high productivity of capital goods based on the foundation of advancing scientific and technological knowledge, serves to produce not only a larger and better supply of consumers’ goods but also a comparably enlarged and better supply of capital goods. That larger and better supply of capital goods, continuing on the same foundation of low time preference and advancing scientific and technological knowledge, then serves to further enlarge and improve the supply not only of consumers’ goods but also of capital goods. The result is continuing capital accumulation, on the basis of which, from generation to generation, man is able to confront nature in possession of growing powers of physical command over it.
On the basis of both of progressively growing knowledge of nature and progressively growing physical power over nature, man progressively enlarges the fraction of nature that constitutes goods, i.e., the supply of useable, accessible natural resources………”
“………..If anyone should ask how the environmentalists could miss the fact that precisely production and economic activity constitute the means whereby man improves his environment, the answer is that the environmentalists do not share Menger’s (or Western Civilization’s) starting point of value, namely, the value of human life and well-being. In their view, the starting point of value is the alleged “intrinsic value” of nature—that is, the alleged value of nature in and of itself, totally apart from any connection to human life and well-being. Such alleged intrinsic value is destroyed every time man changes anything whatever in the preexisting state of nature.
When the environmentalists speak of “harm to the environment” in connection with such things as clearing jungles, blasting rock formations, or the loss of this or that plant or animal species of no known or foreseeable value to man, what they actually mean in the last analysis is the loss of the alleged intrinsic values constituted by such things, and not any actual loss whatever to man. On the contrary, they are eager to sacrifice human life and well-being for the preservation of such alleged intrinsic values. To them, the “environment” is not the surroundings of man, deriving its value from its relationship to man, but nature in and of itself, deriving its value from itself—i.e., allegedly possessing “intrinsic” value.
Of course, the environmentalists also frequently pose as supporters of human life and well-being, and at such times they direct their fire at various comparatively minor negative byproducts of production and economic activity, such as local degradation of the quality of air or water, while totally neglecting the enormous positives, which, of course, are of overwhelmingly greater significance……….”
“…….Here we are. We enjoy an incredibly marvelous industrial civilization, whose nature is indicated by the fact that because of it vast numbers of human beings can travel at breathtaking speeds for hundreds of miles at a stretch in their own personal automobiles, listening to symphony orchestras as they go—indeed, can fly over whole continents in a matter of hours in jet planes, while watching movies and drinking martinis; can walk into darkened rooms and flood them with light by the flick of a switch; can open a refrigerator door and enjoy delicious, healthful food brought from all over the world; can do all this and so much more. This is what we have. This, and much, much more, is what people everywhere could have if they were intelligent enough to establish economic freedom and capitalism.
But all this counts for virtually nothing as far as the environmentalists are concerned. They are ready to throw it all away because, they allege, it causes global warming and ozone depletion, i.e., bad weather. And the best way, they say, for us to avoid such bad weather, and thus to control nature more to our advantage, is to abandon modern, industrial civilization and capitalism.
The appropriate answer to the environmentalists is that we will not sacrifice a hair of industrial civilization, and that if global warming and ozone depletion really are among its consequences, we will accept them and deal with them—by such reasonable means as employing more and better air conditioners and sun block, not by giving up our air conditioners, refrigerators, and automobiles……..”
“…….. Even if global warming turned out to be a fact, the free citizens of an industrial civilization would have no great difficulty in coping with it—that is, of course, if their ability to use energy and to produce is not crippled by the environmental movement and by government controls otherwise inspired. The seeming difficulties of coping with global warming, or any other large-scale change, arise only when the problem is viewed from the perspective of government central planners.
It would be too great a problem for government bureaucrats to handle . . . . But it would certainly not be too great a problem for tens and hundreds of millions of free, thinking individuals living under capitalism to solve. It would be solved by means of each individual being free to decide how best to cope with the particular aspects of global warming that affected him.
Individuals would decide, on the basis of profit-and-loss calculations, what changes they needed to make in their businesses and in their personal lives, in order best to adjust to the situation. They would decide where it was now relatively more desirable to own land, locate farms and businesses, and live and work, and where it was relatively less desirable, and what new comparative advantages each location had for the production of which goods. Factories, stores, and houses all need replacement sooner or later. In the face of a change in the relative desirability of different locations, the pattern of replacement would be different. Perhaps some replacements would have to be made sooner than otherwise. To be sure, some land values would fall and others would rise. Whatever happened individuals would respond in a way that minimized their losses and maximized their possible gains. The essential thing they would require is the freedom to serve their self-interests by buying land and moving their businesses to the areas rendered relatively more attractive, and the freedom to seek employment and buy or rent housing in those areas.
Given this freedom, the totality of the problem would be overcome. This is because, under capitalism, the actions of the individuals, and the thinking and planning behind those actions, are coordinated and harmonized by the price system (as many former central planners of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have come to learn). As a result, the problem would be solved in exactly the same way that tens and hundreds of millions of free individuals have solved much greater problems, such as redesigning the economic system to deal with the replacement of the horse by the automobile, the settlement of the American West, and the release of the far greater part of the labor of the economic system from agriculture to industry (pp. 88-89).
A rational response to the possibility of large-scale environmental change is to establish the economic freedom of individuals to deal with it, if and when it comes. Capitalism and the free market are the essential means of doing this, not paralyzing government controls and “environmentalism”………..”
Vote:June 6th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Too long.
Vote:June 6th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Shit Philbest it would take me three weeks to type all that up and four weeks to read it but I shall try. A stupid question, isn’t Auckland full of volcanos, surly drilling holes through them is not good form.
Vote:June 6th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
PhilBest: We are just a creature, sharing the resources of our planet with other creatures.
Play it your way, or George Reisman’s, and we will become extinct while the cockroaches (and I mean the real ones – not New South Welshmen) inherit the Earth !
Vote:June 6th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Exactly Toad. For years I’ve been saying DDT kills mosquitoes. Will no-one think of the mosquitoes??
Vote:June 6th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
As a resident of Waterview since 1988 I can tell you for a fact that no one here want’s this tunnel project to happen. All politics aside, Dear Leader and her bunch of socialist cronies couldn’t give a rats left nut about us residents even though most here are loyal if very misguided Liabour supporters. Now we find out that Comrade Harvey wants to absorb us into Waitakere City after we, as part of Auckland City, have just voted out the socialist City-Vision ticket. A lot of people may not realize that Waterview is part of the Mt Albert ward which has you know who as it’s MP.
Vote:June 6th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
jforce, so what do waterview residents want?
Vote:June 6th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Look, the real reason this is an issue is because Labour took a reasonably good road funding system and corrupted it with political direction, vague environmental imperatives and Ministers interfered with what Transit was prioritising.
The old system was fairly straightforward. Transit assessed demand and needs, proposed projects. There was some local input into priorities, but fairly minimal and then it bid to Transfund for money to pay for them. Transfund ranked projects by efficiency (cost/benefit ratio) so the best projects went first. By and large, that worked well to make good use of scarce funds. Maintenance came first, followed by lots of small projects that would quickly relieve congestion or fix safety. Large projects would be scaled to demand, with scope for expansion, and without excessive goldplating like tunnels and the like.
Now Ministers call up board members of Transit and (what is now) Land Transport NZ and suggest priorities, and benefit/cost ratios are hidden, because decisions are made with multiple criteria. A lot more money is in the system thanks to fuel tax increases and dedicating all of the fuel tax to land transport, but it means more can be wasted and Transit is no longer under discipline to pursue the most efficient options – it has engineers’ disease which is design the biggest, grandest most sexiest projects and say “that’s what you need”.
and now Labour is bringing Transit into Land Transport NZ so that the funder and the organisation seeking funding are the same, so far less transparency in decision making, and local authorities will be seeking funds for their roads from a body that is funding itself to run the state highways!
The truth is none of us here know what’s best for roads, but if detailed analysis is done priorities can be set and the best projects built at the right time. However, unfortunately for politicians (and fortunately for taxpayers and road users), that doesn’t mean a big tunnel to finish SH20, it doesn’t mean Transmission Gully, and it doesn’t mean a tunnel under Victoria Park either.
Vote:June 7th, 2008 at 2:30 am
A tunnel was never going to be put in but liarbore were never going to let the news of no tunnel get out before the 2008 election. Not in Huluns back yard. H1 and H2 have form meddling with crown agency activities in Mt Albert electorate.
The Oakley reserve needs a load of storm water and creek drainage built in to divert a massive amount of rain run off that gets coursed through there to the harbour. I’m no engineer but a tunnel and a small river dont seem to be good bedfellows.
A road will go in. A Bridge was always going to be too expensive.
2nd bridge at Westmere via Western Springs in 10 years.
Vote:June 7th, 2008 at 6:56 am
heh heh. He said ‘tunnel’…
sorry.
Vote:June 7th, 2008 at 10:56 am
toad (167) +0 Says:
June 6th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
“PhilBest: We are just a creature, sharing the resources of our planet with other creatures.
Play it your way, or George Reisman’s, and we will become extinct while the cockroaches (and I mean the real ones – not New South Welshmen) inherit the Earth !”
I will not for a moment entertain any suggestion that “we” are “just another” “creature”. I rest my case; you environmentalists are creating an ideological framework for the devaluation of humanity, and we all know what “right and wrong” has to say about PAST ideological movements that did just that.
If you adopt policies that have a drastic negative effect on HUMAN LIFE anywhere on the Earth NOW on a large scale “just in case” the status quo “might” result in some guessed-at drastic negative effect in the time of future generations, YOU are guilty NOW of the consequences of those policies. Where the future is concerned, we have sufficient advantage from the lessons of the PAST to be able to believe that future generations will enjoy the benefit of yet further advances in technology and prosperity. There have ALWAYS been people like Malthus and Ehrlich, and they have ALWAYS been WRONG. If we pick THEIR spiritual descendants as our guiding lights TODAY, WE are GUILTY, we are WRONG, on RATIONAL grounds alone, for all the HARM done BY the policies we adopt.
Persons of Faith say they trust God. It is interesting indeed that a purely rational mind like Mr Reisman’s arrives at what amounts to the same conclusion. That is, we should “do no harm”, NOW.
Vote:June 7th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Headline – Labour continues to dig itself a hole in Auckland.
Vote: