Labour falls for the trap
May 12th, 2009 at 3:36 pm by David FarrarYes, oh yes. Darren Hughes has fallen into Steven Joyce’s trap. Look at this wonderful press release:
“The people of Mt Albert are very clear. They want a deep tunnel. Labour supports that view,” Darren Hughes said.
And Labour will force all taxpayers to for up an exra $1,000 or so to keep a few hundred voters happy.
Labour will spend $3 billion on a tunnel, so long as they retain the Mt Albert seat. Darren shoudl be the Senator for Alaska!
“It is disappointing that from what Transport Minister Steven Joyce has said today, it is clear the Government is not prepared to fund the option of a deep tunnel that the people of Auckland overwhelmingly support.
Bzzt. Not the people of Auckland. The people of Mt Albert may support the $3 billion tunnel, but I know which option Auckland motorists and taxpayers will support.
“Instead it will go with a compromise that provides second-best solutions for the people of Mt Albert and the future needs of Auckland.
Actually the reoad will be more future proofed, as it can easily be expanded to six lanes – unlike the tunnel.
“Melissa Lee’s candidacy has now been thoroughly undermined by Prime Minister John Key who is effectively dismissing her views as irrelevant,” Darren Hughes said.
“Mr Key knows the people of Mt Albert are overwhelmingly opposed to the surface option, and that Melissa Lee is completely out of step with local opinion.
And here Darren falls for it again. His only focus is the by-election. Yes it is quite possible this will make it easier for Labour to retain the seat. But they will now be painted as the worst sort of pork barrel politicians who even in a global recession are prepared to fritter away between $1 billion and $1.7 billion on buying a few hundred votes.
Labour are so focused on the by-election they have forgotten the real game is about the 2011 election.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Or maybe looking to set up another Transmission Gully. Lots of talk and consultants but buggar all action. He had a few years as MP for Otaki to practice that one.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
And he forgets that it affects very few people, most of whom will be labour voters already, so for National unlikely to have a big adverse impact
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Agree he’s fallen for the trap. Even people like me that hate the political “game” can see that he’s screwed up that story, like Labour seem to be doing regularly these days.
Vote:Especially given that you could have made a case against the cheap and nasty option that appealed to all Aucklanders and NZers even.
May 12th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Tunnel deep, debt mountain high; Darren Hughes sings the blues.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Darren should breathe through his nose for his first three years in opposition.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Warning, warning, figures have been doctored.
They include $550m worth of financing costs and no allowance for the benefits of the tunnel or the diminution of the value of houses that are near to but not on the route. All other roading projects that I am aware of include the construction costs only so that a proper comparison can be made.
The other issue that has not been addressed is what is going to happen to the proposed tolling of the route.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Oh by the way DPF, was Curia doing internal polling for Mt Albert? If so, just HOW far behind was Melissa Lee for Joyce to be given the go ahead to do this?
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Considering the population of Auckland is set to top 2 million in a few decades, Steven Joyce’s decision is even more sensible.
Vote:By then it may be necessary to widen the road to dual four lanes.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
lock,stock and pork barrel
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
memo to Darren( never had a real job in his life)Hughes
From one of your Employers
Subject; Mt Albert
Dear Darren
FOXTROT OSCAR
regards
gd
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
ZB has just run a wonderful clip of Russel Norman complaining that National only picks on poor areas for its motorways and it’s not going through Kings College it’s going through Waterview Primary! Sorry Russel but Kings is in Otahuhu – not one of Auckland’s rich areas. If you knew a thing or two about Auckland you might know that.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
I quite fancy having the road outside my home put in to a tunnel so that I can wander across the street without waiting for a hole in the traffic. And so the value of my apartment increases in value. Who do I contact to get this placed on Labour’s manifesto?
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
” Why cant gingas play Who Wants To Be A Millionaire ” ?
They cant ” phone a friend “
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Labour screwed up when they decided to support a tunnel in 2006. National have also screwed up because this is now going to get very ugly. There are a lot of young professional families in Waterview who are going to be mightily motivated by their suburb being completely segregated from the rest of Auckland. On top of that their kids are losing their sports fields and their properties are not going to be worth a lot.
Vote:If I were Steven Joyce I wouLd be keeping the bulldozers away until after the next election.
May 12th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
The tunnel is a dishonest piece of electioneering. The cost difference is so massive no-one believes even a future Labour Government will build it. If this has been Labour’s policy since 2006 why didn’t they start the tunnel project before the last election. They didn’t – why because they were never going to build a tunnel.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
>>who are going to be mightily motivated by their suburb being completely segregated from the rest of Auckland.
Oh you mean like how the West Side Posse in Epsom are segregated from the East Side Crew in Remuera
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Darren Hughes can say whatever he wants as he knows for sure several things:
1. He will never be called on to implement this policy
2.The motorway will be built long before he ever warms his sorry ass on a Government Bench
3. Labour are destined to be just one of the parties in opposition for a long long time
4. No-one takes the slightest bit of notice of him
5. He is a total prat waiting for a comedy line to fall on him from a great height
6. Helen is no longer there to hold his hand
All is good with the world.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Earth to Darren Hughes. The saving from electing to run the Auckland ring motorway above ground, rather than going through tunnels, is more than enough to pay for Transmission Gully.
Given a choice, I’m sure the good voters of Otaki would rather an above-ground motorway in Mt Albert and have Transmission Gully giving them a multi-lane highway all the way to Wellington.
Maybe this sort of poor judgment is why those good voters of Otaki decided that Darren Hughes wasn’t getting their vote in the last election.
But then, Darren just had to stick up for his adopted mum, Helen Clark.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Labour’s digging a hole!
Although perhaps someone should point out that once you’re in one, stop digging.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
The tunnel project was a brilliant demonstration of how motorists are now regarded as second class citizens in their own land. Riding buses grants virtue while trains grant sainthood.
Vote:Over one hundred thousand people a day would have been forced to drive into a tunnel below ground and below sea level during which time they would enjoy no view and many would suffer the Diana effect or other forms of claustrophobia. All of them would prefer to be driving along a well landscaped motorway at grade and enjoy the views from the elevated sections around the interchanges.
But they were to be forced to endure the tunnel (and its costs) because of a the preferences of a couple of hundred families who have a typical stay of only four or five years. We are considering the same for the Viaduct to the bridge. And yet the views from that viaduct are wonderful. Why do the views of a few nearby apartment dwellers count for so much and the views of hundreds of thousands of motorists count for so little?
And who pays for the motorway? The nearby residents or the hundreds of thousands of motorists. Shouldn’t those who pay the piper through their gas taxes have some right to call the tune?
You might like to read my submission to Transit NZ as it was then at: http://www.rmastudies.org.nz/index.php/issues/50-transport/137-waterview-connection-project-tunnel-proposal
May 12th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
David, you and Boscawen keep crapping on about the $3bn tunnel, but the cost is actually $2bn. Where are you getting your figures from? I get mine from the last page business case here:
http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Katrina-09/Business-case-for-the-Waterview-Connection.pdf
And Boscawen reports that the whole thing can be done for $500m. Where does he get that from? Open cut options identified in the report still cost $1.5bn. These options will cause maximum disruption for a number of years, especially if it involves the cut and cover of Great North Rd.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
This post doesn’t make sense – I don’t get how Hughes has “fallen into a trap” – I thought it was always Labour’s policy to go with the tunnel option?
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Bulldozing neighbourhoods for motorways is mana from heaven for green parties. Expect lots of photo ops of kids staring accross roadways.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
No tunnel for Labour’s route, no destruction of Mt Albert residents’ homes and parks for National’s route. Why don’t you guys look at whether we really need the thing at all.
And Joyce is proposing to fund this through the NLTF!
As LucyJH says over on the comments thread at frogblog:
Joyce is playing a silly and dangerous smoke and mirrors game here re the funding of this. Whatever goes to Waterview means the rest of the country misses out.
The Green option is to put the whole thing on hold, complete the CBD rail loop and the Avondale-Onehunga-Airport-Manukau rail link that’s been on the drawing board for over 60 years but never built, and see what that does to traffic volumes in Mt Albert before embarking on any new motorway options. Electric trains can run every two minutes if required – almost unlimited capacity – all that is needed is adequate bus feeder and park-and-ride facilities to get people quickly to the train station.
By contrast, without investing in public transport, whatever option is chosen for the Waterview SH20 link will likely be at maximum capacity in peak hour by the time it is built.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Easy Toad
All the Government needs to do is allow NZTA to borrow money. Currently it cannot let the NLTF go under $0. It has an income in excess of $2b per annum. If it could borrow then it would be able to borrow $2b at an interest cost of $100m per annum given current interest rates.
Then it could build lots and lots of roads.
The problem will be that the interest charge would have to come out of all other expenditure. Maintenance is always exempt. But PT could take a huge bettering.
I suspect that this Government would not be displeased if this was the result.
I don’t disagree with your priorities. Completing the rail loop makes more sense to me.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Let the bulldozers begin.
Frog, the prdferred option for most people is for the greens to frog off and build a road. Buses will be allowed on here. As usual Labour were spending too much money anyway.
We also save $1B as well, maybe we can build Transmission Gulley as well with this saving.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Lawrence – another thing that Russel Norman does not realise – Kings College relocated to Middlemore in the 1920′s from the former Remuera site (now ‘Little Kings’). At that time it was a ‘greenfields’ site – and wait for it – next to the railway line so it was accessible by public transport.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Very clever strategy by National. They will turn the $1 bil saving on Helen’s tunnel into a $20 bil election bribe by promising 20 different communities in NZ that they will get the benefit of the $1 bil saving.
Yes folks, that’s what happens when you get competent business people into politics. It’s called leverage.
Oh shit! I just wet myself larrrrfffffing.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
mickysavage said: I don’t disagree with your priorities. Completing the rail loop makes more sense to me.
Thanks micky, glad you agree – now all you have to do is persuade Goff (and Shearer) of that! Not sure how much influence you have in the Labour Party, but if you can achieve that, Green-Labour relations could become much more amicable very quickly.
But for the moment, as far as transport is concerned, Labour’s and National’s “roads first – public transport be damned” positions are not too far from each other. It’s that sort of position that Russel Norman is talking about when he refers to Labour and National as “Father Coke and Mother Pepsi”.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Mickey 550 million of financing costs?
you mean Labour support borrowing to pay for infrastructure?
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
skyblue said: Let the bulldozers begin.
Hang on, I thought you righties were into property rights! Seems it is only the Greens here who don’t want to see people’s homes compulsorily acquired to build a motorway we likely don’t need anyway if we invested in public transport.
The Greens, defenders of property rights against National’s statist intervention! Well, I never… But come on, admit it is true.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Labour and the Greens can talk this up any way they like but here is the reality.
People want the motorway system completed.
Vote:They don’t want to pay over the top for a gold plated option for the simple reason, we can’t afford it.
It needs to be future proof with the ability to add more lanes.
The economic benefits of a completed system will be huge, especially for West Auckland.
In 20 years noone will remember or even care what it was like now.
Helen Clark is gone, gone and more gone.
What she left behind is a Labour Party that wouldn’t know if it was coming or going.
May 12th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
I meant to add, reality for about 65% of the population. Which by my maths is a majority.
Vote:30% Labour supporters ansd 5% Greens should realise that they are, and will be for a long time, the minority.
Their view is now only of passing interest.
May 12th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
I am so angry with Labour. They don’t give a crap about taxpayer money. It is a bottomless pit. Underground motorway systems are just one aspect of labours arrogance.
I just heard, labour spent or had planned to spend 1 million dollars on a programme teaching children to pat dogs. Those bastards who do they think they are wasting money like this?
Labour wanted a programme for every conceivable injury a child could possibly occur.
How about, teaching children to climb trees properly?
Or , a 2 million dollar campaign about the dangers of bubble blowing machines?
How about a 10 million dollar campaign targetting the under 5′s to stop hitting their siblings.
Thank goodness labour have gone. They were planning to bankrupt the country. Maybe they were trying to crash the economy to bring down the price of space parts ha ha (see ben elton).
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
bwakile 6.02pm
“In 20 years noone will remember or even care what it was like now.”
In 20 years they will be going thru exactly the same issue debating whether to add a tunnel to cope with the volumes which for the previous 18 years had caused traffic chaos and huge productivity losses
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
If the National Governmenent of the day in 20 years decides to build a tunnel and the people want it and can afford to pay for it , then fine.
I am picking that with 20 years of National led government, NZ will be one of the sought after places to live in the world and we will be able to afford whatever we want.
Of course letting Labour and the Greens anywhere govt benches will shag that scenerio.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
bwakile said: People want the motorway system completed.
You highlight the precise problem bwakile, because there is never any completion to a motorway system. Motorways have very limited capacity, and all forecasts are that the proposed SH20 one will be at capacity by the time it is built.
If you really want speedy commutes, rather than crawling at 10-15km an hour, public transport is the only way to go.
The difference is that motorways (where most traffic can legally travel at 100 km/h) discharge onto roads where the speed limit is usually 50km/h and there are traffic lights at or not far from where the vehicles discharge from the motorway. So with high traffic volumes, everyone get slowed down.
By contrast, trains discharge passengers on foot (preferably to a local feeder bus service, or at least to a park-and-ride). No delays with disembacation on trains. Huge delays from motorways.
Oh, and let’s not forget the greenhouse emmissions cost either. Like it or not, we’re in Kyoto and someone has to pay for it.
The frequency of running electric trains on a double tracked line is almost unlimited. Nowhere in Auckland yet has a need for one every two minutes, but it is possible if or when we do.
bwakile, good policy should be evidence-based, rather than “what people want”. The Greens trust/hope people will change their opinion if the evidence proves it wrong. The other parties (usually) go for the opportunist position based on public opinion on controversial issues, rather than the postion the evidence should lead them to.
One exception was section 59 – on that one, thanks to the negotiating skills of Sue Bradford – both John Key and Helen Clark were eventually persuaded to support a Green Bill on the basis of the evidence, rather than their usual response to public opinion manipulated by various vested interest who prefer, because of their own prejudices, to ignore the evidence.
John Key’s support for the section 59 amendment was the one thing that imo made me believe him fit to be Prime Minsiter (not that I don’t disagree with many of his positions as Prime Minister) because he took a principled, rather than opportunist, stand.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
DPF
your post on point
Labour who?
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Toad
Who he?
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
Toad ,we have 90% of a motorway system, finish the last link in an affordable manner. I have no doubt that in the future when we have 2 million people here that transport will still be an issue.
The trick will be to have 2mil people in a highly productive, low tax environment where there is real wealth to pay for whatever the future holds. A major, completed transport artery will still be that in 20 years.
You treat people like idiots because what they want doesn’t match what you think they should have. Don’t waste your valuable time on me.
And don’t bother quoting Sue Bradford to me, I wouldn’t piss in her ear if her brain was on fire.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
As far as I am concerned the tunnel was only because of HC.
If HC was not MP there would be no tunnel
Therefore all noise re tunnel spurious
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
As tax payer, least cost is best
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Didn’t Helen Clark say that the “above ground” option would be over her dead body?? – Well here is hoping!
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Is Adam chanelling Confucius?
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Well I’m f-ing delighted, and I can probably speak for my fellow Onehunga residents when I say that, we’ve been told we can’t even have the motorway widened to the west rather than chopping a chunk off our park at the lagoon, what the fuck makes Mt Albert so special? I’m pleased to hear that Joycey says “nothing”. Other than that, I’m with Monty.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
If it turns out that Mt Albert voters show their preference for trains rather than a motorway by voting Green, then we should respect their wishes. However there must be consequences for voting Green. I think it’d be reasonable to put special green coloured number plates on the vehicles of Mt Albert residents. Then if they ever drove on a motorway anywhere else in Auckland or the rest of the country, they’d be fined and have their cars crushed.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
bwakile said: Toad ,we have 90% of a motorway system…
No, we don’t bwakile. You don’t have any idea about transport planning and what might be required in the next 10-30-50-100 years. Because we have no idea about birth rates, immigration, possible invasion threats, pandemic diseased etc.
You see, Greens think ahead while you think behind. Try to be prepared for anything, not just the sad egocentric world you seem to prefer to live in.
But if all you think about re the world is “I want it, and I want it now” then piss off, because there is no point in trying to communicate and build brides.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Only the Greens could contemplate building brides. Next thing you know they’ll be regulating grooms and designating the degree of permitted sexual activity during the consummation of nuptials.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Considering I’m a civil engineer don’t tell me what I know and don’t know Toad.
Vote:Of course the motorway will never be the final solution but finishing off the final bit of an alternative north south link at reasonable cost makes economic sense today.
And while my taxes help pay for it I will be happy with that solution in the short term.
Once we have gotten Labours mismanagement of the economyout of the way then I will be very happy to look at alternatives.
You are the one who wants it all now
May 12th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Toad I think you are pissing in the wind
Vote:these people are incapable of thinking in terms other then me me me and now now now
May 12th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Okay Adolf, caught me.
Sorry about the typo. Should have been “bridges”.
And the Greens would never want to regulate sexual activity, regardless of the “consummation of nuptials” issue. Don’t even go there!
I’m not sure what some of the fundy Christian parties’ positions are on this, but I think the major partiess (Nats, Labs, Greens) position is that anyone should be able to ;awfully fuck anyone they want, as long as it is with non-coerced consent and both parties are aged over 16.
Hey, that’s good news – something else that the three major parties in Parliament can agree on.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
But the Greens do want to limit the number of children parents can have.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
bwakile said: Considering I’m a civil engineer don’t tell me what I know and don’t know Toad.
Ah, a civil engineer! My suggestion is that you stick to your expertise in civil engineering (ie, how to build things) rather than environment and urban planning (presumably not your expertise).
You would probably do well if you focused on how to build what has already been decided to build, rather than whether to build it at all.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
You are sounding a bit stressed there Toad, what’s the matter?, are things not going your way any more…..
This “democracy” thing is quite fun don’t you think?, the people being listened to and a government that does not think money grows on tree’s, it is bloody refreshing really.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
wow toad is angry!
toad – the problem with public transport is i cant have Pantera cranked as i drive around.. on my own schedule. who the hell wants to mingle with other other people when trying to get somewhere? not i!
as for the property rights thing – we are talking the government paying market value for your house, to the benefit of the country. not some fucked up greenie telling you you cant build a new garage because it will kill off the snails on your lawn!
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
bruv, the Greens are proposing the cheapest option – ie don’t build the motorway at all.
As far as democracy is concerned (oh, and property rights too), what about the rights of those whose homes will be bulldozed to make way for Joyce’s plans, or those who live so close that they can’t get a decent night’s sleep so sell up at a loss becasue of the development that has been imposed on them because a 4-lane (projected to be 6) runs past their house.
What about their democratic rights and property rights?
But electric trains, the Green option, they are very quiet. And the rail corridor is already designated, so no-one gets forced from their home to build that.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
The maths is pretty straight forward. If we save one billion dollars by bulldozing 250 extra houses then the opportunity cost would be 4 million per home. So much better to pay the people out $500k each and pocket the difference.
Of course Goff and Shearer could never understand simple maths when it’s other people’s money.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
toad – the noise angle? really?
my parents live 1km from the new motorway that connects the north western to the shore.. they cant hear shit.
they have friends that live right next to the motorway.. noise is a non issue.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
And we have about 20% of a public transport system…
For how much longer do we have to keep sacrificing peoples homes, parks and land to support people driving themselves to work and back each day. Single occupant cars are the cause of congestion, so why do we even attempt to accomodate them by widening roads? In Auckland, the number of registered cars doubles about every 20 years. Do we keep doubling the capacity of our motorways and local roads to keep pace? Forever?
At what point do we say enough? At what point do we start investing in transport corridors capable of carrying tens of thousands of people an hour, instead of 1,800 vehicles per hour per lane?
The anticipated 15 minute travel savings that the Waterview extension is supposed to provide will evaporate after just a few years. Then what? Keep adding more lanes?
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
dime said: …we are talking the government paying market value for your house…
What if I don’t want to sell (actually, I live in Glen Eden, not Mt Albert, so it is hypothetical for me). But, anyway, I find it strange and hypocritical to see you people who have staunchly defended property rights for so long on this blog suddenly turn around and say it’s okay for the Government to take people’s properties from under them by compulsory acquisition under the Public Works Act, whatever they may get paid for them.
There is more to real property for many than the dollar value under Government valuation (which is unreal anyway, having discovered recently that my property has a GV of $40K more than anyone has offered when it went on the market) – there is the value of it to many people as a home where they have brought up their children, made a nice garden, planted vegetables that sustain them for much of the year, etc.
Hmm – so much for the “property rights” so often espoused by many here!
Oh, and dime, I just added “noise” in to complete the equation. Not really an issue for me either, living rather close to a major road and a rail line myself.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
No, the maths is bullshit.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Dime>my parents live 1km from the new motorway that connects the north western to the shore.. they cant hear shit.
I used to live close to the UK A5 (motorway standard dual carriageway) road and the West Coast Main Line. Couldn’t hear the road, but the railway noise was unmissable. Steel on steel is naturally extremely noisy, and the inability of trains to climb any but the smallest grade meant that the track had to be carried up on quite a high embankment so that the noise was broadcast all over the neighbourhood.
Train enthusiasts usually don’t consider the environmental costs of railways, especially in terms of noise. Or the way they cut through cities, restricting access from one side of the rails to the other. You can pretty much cross any road, apart from a motorway, anywhere you like. Whereas rail generally provides crossing opportunities, both for vehicles and pedestrians, at relatively rare intervals.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
The right of the Crown to purchase private property for public works was established by Magna Carta.
Vote:The crown actually owns all property but allows an ongoing lease in fee simple.
We all know that.
And everyone has known there would be a motorway through this part of Auckland since 1965.
However, the owners should be paid a premium over valuation because this is not a transaction between a willing seller and a willing buyer.
Roads last for thousands of years – Romans built them and we still use them.
People who typically occupy a dwelling for say five or six years have little right to prevent a public good which lasts for thousands of years and in this case will immediately provide a vastly improved service for over 100,000 people a DAY.
Don’t their benefits count?
May 12th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Glen Eden? so your GV is 41K?
(i grew up in GE.. went to prospect!) i suspect most people would be happy with GV in this market. “hey, we need to buy your house, market value is 300k.. but GV is 350k so we will give you that” sweet!
where would we be without the Public Works Act?
You see the difference between the government telling people what they can do with their land.. what they can build etc.. fucking with them over small things…
compared to the city needs a freakin motorway, we are BUYING your house.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Hey Toad
You are a westie!
Well done!
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Um, Glen Eden East Dime.
On the “right” side of the suburb, for those who think it matters (I don’t)! Big thing for me was being near a rail station, so I don’t have to drive to work. I could never drive there as quickly as I can get there by train, and the commute costs me $43 a week.
Looks good from where I’m sitting. That wouldn’t even pay for the petrol if I drove.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
I’m just looking forward to the TV footage of the bulldozers flattening the children’s playground.
Hey boys (and girls) the honey moon is over! Did you see One news tonight? First three items savaged National.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Ummmmm…. iPod?
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Personally – I agree with the Greens. The biggest problem with Auckland is that there is just too many Aucklanders and this makes the roads congested.
So, as my modest proposal, how about instead of building new roads we provide an incentive for people to live somewhere else? We could use the money to buy up houses and simply knock them down turning the resulting areas into green spaces. $1.5b would go a long way in West Auckland and as a sweetner the Government could offer 10% more than the GV on the basis that they go somewhere else.
Toad mentioned that it costs him $43 a week on a train to commute. I bet it takes an hour each way as well. If somebody paid him to move elsewhere where he could be closer to work he could bike, save $43 per week and have an extra hour a day to spend with family or earn extra money. That seems like a sustainable solution rather than simply encouraging people to commute long distances.
Cheers, Chris W.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
dime said: You see the difference between the government telling people what they can do with their land..
Yep, I’m with you on some of this. No-one should have a valid right to object to someone establishing a brothel or a childcare centre next door because of “the noise”.
I lived right behind Western Springs Stadium for several years and I thought the neighbours who were objecting to the speedway were all absolute wankers. I’m no nimby.
But where there is a real and legitimate potential orf infringement of people’s rights to enjoyment of their property rights, I think the law should intervene to protect those rights. That is why I think the Nats’ RMA reforms are going way too far – they empower the State, rather than the individual.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Chris W
The problem with being a Greenie is that you smoke way too much weed. $1.5B wouldn’t even buy half of Hobsonville, and that suburb is tiny. Also 70% of Westies commute, to the North Shore, the City and a large proportion to South Auckland.
Greenies might think a 4km vasectomy in the Western Ring Route is a good idea. The rest of us don’t smoke pot.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
chrisw>That seems like a sustainable solution rather than simply encouraging people to commute long distances.
People are quite free to leave Auckland now, if they want to. It isn’t a prison. People chose to live there because they think a big city is more fun than a small one. Or because the opportunities are better than elsewhere. Bulldozing houses and shifting people to Waipukurau or Blenheim just means that they’ll likely be un- or under-employed and have nowhere to party on a Friday night.
Cities are one one of the signs of civilisation. For millenia, most people lived in villages and worked the land. Life was brutal and short, and most economic activity consisted of growing food. Now, farmers can do that efficiently and the rest of us can write software, work in hospitals, make films, build universities, sit in cafes, and do all the other things that add value to life. And just about all those activities need big cities to happen, because you can’t run a world class university or a film industry from a village. A society of low-carbon organic peasant farmers might be the ideal for Greens and the Khmer Rouge. But most of us want to live modern lives, rather than medieval ones.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
chrisw76 said: Toad mentioned that it costs him $43 a week on a train to commute. I bet it takes an hour each way as well.
Actually, it takes 25m each way Chris, far quicker than I could drive it in at rush hour.
You might have sucked Pat (above) into thinking you are a real Green, but Greens themselves will know you’re just playing agent provocateur here.
If you want to have a go at the Greens, start by referring to our actual policy, rather than something you have made up.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
The simple message to all the Labour voters out there regarding the Waterview decision is “YOU LOSE!”.
Considering Labour voters are losers anyway that’s not exactly much of a change in position so no need to get all bitter and twisted about it.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Toad pronounces from the mountaintop:
You don’t have any idea about transport planning and what might be required in the next 10-30-50-100 years.
I suppose the “you” in that sentence meant everybody but yourself, since you and your crystal ball are certain that the primary future of passenger transport lies with electric trains – and buses.
Because we have no idea about birth rates, immigration, possible invasion threats, pandemic diseased etc.
The funny thing is that those are possible problems best addressed by flexibility – the feature most notably lacking in trains. Just an aside I think you’ll find that epidemiologists don’t recommend stuffing hundreds of people together on trains as the best way of dealing with a raging pandemic disease – although I am told that one aim of Green central planning is to reduce the impact on poor Gaia.
Perhaps it would be more helpful to see what will be possible by changing the vehicles that run on the roads. I’m not just talking about the whole hybrid/electric/fuel-cell arguments. What’s going to happen in the near future will be driverless cars. The IT power has been there for years and it has seen small-scale demonstrations. Many cars already come with built-in GPS maps and front/back “radar”. Sooner or later you won’t so much drive a car as hop into it, tell it where to take you and settle down to read your Kindle. Moreover, that sort of car technology will allow higher densities. You won’t really give a damn about traffic jams or passing people and if there is a delay it won’t be regarded any differently than current bus and train breakdowns – except that you’ll be able to detour around it.
But all this won’t be possible unless there are roads to run them on. There are good reasons why many roads in Europe still run on Roman routes despite the 2000 year technology change: people want to be able to go from a point A to a point B of their own choosing – and by design that is not what you get with public transport of any form, the perfect central planners friend as everything gets to pivot around the stations: shops, offices, living places – and the energy sources too. It all fits like a jigsaw – fabulous.
I find this whole Green enthrallment with the 19th century technology of steel wheels on steel rails to be both conservative and reactionary rather than forward looking. More cloth-cap nostrums dressed up in new language.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Toad – apologies if you thought I was having a go at the Greens. You will be pleased to know that I am not a Green voter, I just happened to agree with not building a road that will achieve very little when the real problem is the city itself and the geography into which it has squeezed itself. Perhaps the tide of people pouring into it can not be stemmed, but it would seem to me that continuing to encourage population growth in such a constricted area is not logical.
Davidp – if people think it more fun to live in a place where there is congestion and they don’t expect others to sort it out for them or make sacrifices on their behalf, then that is fine. Each to their own. Personally I would rather live in a place where I had of all the examples cited, but didn’t have to spend all of my time planning my day around congestion issues.
Here is a fun experiment that I conducted a while ago: try taking a taxi from Queen St to the Airport at 5:00am and 5:00pm and measure the time it takes for both trips. The difference between those two times is the price you pay for the fun of doing business in Auckland.
Cheers, Chris W.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Tom, we have plenty of roads already in Auckland, its just that they are full of four seater cars with just one person in them. Driverless cars? Give me a break. Where’s my jetpack?
In the meantime, oil about to go through $60. But oil won’t go above $100 now will it? Nahhh…..
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Hmm. So Labour and National both agree that the motorway needs to be completed, and DPF posts on how National are going to do it cheaper. So we spend time arguing with the 5% of the population who want trains instead.
Problem is, nobody else in Auckland wants trains. Trains work in a city that is optimised for trains – one where high density housing exists around train stations, and one where trains run point-to-point from where you live to where you work. You only get a city like that if you build the trains first, and then the city grows around it. Auckland isn’t like that – people live spread all over the landscape, and go to work in places that are spread all over the landscape. Worse, lots of them make an active choice to live somewhere that is far away from their workplace for a variety of personal reasons. Some studies (don’t ask me to quote them – I can’t) suggest that when you improve transport people don’t spend more time with their families – they actually just move further away from work so they can have a bigger house, better views, be closer to their friends or whatever.
To me, we have a really big decision to make. We either:
1. Build the trains, accepting that it will take 20-30 years for Auckland to gradually reorganise around those trains – to become more like Sydney or London. We make a loss on the trains and have “poor” public transport for that period
2. We choose a 21st century solution instead of a 19th century solution – one that suits the way we live and work today in Auckland. That means a better roading system, or may mean a modern and efficient bus fleet that can share roads (dedicated bus lane) with cars, but doesn’t require a change of mode of transport at the other end. It does require a pretty sophisticated point to point route.
I’m sure that trains work well for frog. My job starts at different times of the day, and finishes when my work is done – often into the night. When I go to work it isn’t clear how long I’ll be there. I’m pretty sure that the Auckland train system wouldn’t work for me – trains are quite infrequent late at night. So, when I have a 9-5 job, sure, public transport will be fine. And I rode the train in Sydney, which was great. But they have a very different geographic makeup than Auckland does.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Sydney’s not that different to Auckland (except for its scale) – it has almost identical population densities for example. Brisbane and Perth have far LOWER population densities than Auckland yet still have vastly superior rail systems that carry many many times what Auckland’s system does. The only reason Auckand doesn’t have more people using public transport is because the system has been ignored for 60 years while all transport funding went into roads.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
One of my favourite Parliamentary questions was from Richard Prebble to the then minister of transport.
“Given that the local MP has said that it will happen over her dead body, what progress has he made on the Waterview Motorway extension?”
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Just how were the Labour Party going to finance the tunnel anyway. The road option can be financed out of existing revenue. Was the Labour Party going to put a TOLL on the tunnel or were they going to put up Regional TAXES to pay for the tunnel. Or they were never going to build the tunnel which is more likely given the options they had to finance the beast. This is going to be fun as the Labour Party is exposed as the hopeless spend thrift organisation it is. One day they might GET it but I hope it is a long way off.
Vote:May 12th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Good question tvb. Hence the reason why I don’t support a surface option or a tunnel.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 12:05 am
We bulldoze a few parks and houses and then we build a big fuck off six lane highway and lets say that peak oil and climate change is a crock of shit. Auckland grows and prospers people arrive buy cars, roads get congested, so we bulldoze a few parks and houses and and another six lanes. when is enough ? The M25 around London was meant to solve all the same sort of problems that you think this motorway will solve It has ended up being a fucking carpark for most of the day and the same will happen in AKL and one day in thirty years someone will say fuck me Toad was right we should have built a decent public transport system
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 12:06 am
chrisw>personally I would rather live in a place where I had of all the examples cited, but didn’t have to spend all of my time planning my day around congestion issues.
So can you name a large city, anywhere, that meets your ideals? Almost all that I’ve lived in have congested roads, regardless of the state of public transport. Just about all that have public transport have congested public transport. Only about a quarter of trips in London use the Tube, IIRC, but the system is packed to the point of unpleasantness most of the day.
The only large city where I’ve never encountered congestion is Milton Keynes in the UK. It is built on a grid of about 10×10 dual carriageways. It is naturally self healing since there are always about a dozen ways to get to your destination. Obviously most people drive most places most of the time. And why wouldn’t you?
But at the end of the day, you have to decide what you value the most. If you think your life would be better in congestion-free Taihape or Westport, then move there. But the vast majority of New Zealanders think that a bit of congestion is worth putting up with in order to gain all the benefits that cities have to offer. The 5% of people who support the Greens don’t agree, but that number is less than the percentage who believe that UFOs contain tiny aliens, or who think that Elvis is still alive. So there isn’t much point in paying attention to them.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 12:07 am
“Hence the reason why I don’t support a surface option or a tunnel.”
We’re many years away from removing the need for people to move, the population is growing, and teleportation has not been invented yet.
Whether the cars are powered by internal combustion, cow farts, batteries, the Flintstone’s feet, or cold fusion; they will still need a route.
What was your supported option? iPods and valium for Auckland commuters? North Korea styled travel bans?
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 12:10 am
Tuija>The M25 around London was meant to solve all the same sort of problems that you think this motorway will solve
The M25 was one of four planned ring roads around London. The other three were canceled. So it isn’t surprising that it is a carpark most of the day. Things would be a lot better if the planned configuration hadn’t been canceled. And it would be a hell of a lot worse if the M25 had never been built. For a start, you couldn’t expect to run a modern economy in the UK if the only feasible way to get across the South east was in a train. That might have been suitable in 1930, but you can’t expect to freeze a society and an economy in the past.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 2:53 am
It would be cheaper to give all homeowners in the way of the motorway $1 million each that Labour’s goldplated piece of pork.
Some facts:
1. Every other segment of the Western Ring Route has been built or is being built as a trenched surface motorway, the total cost of all sections is already half that of the surface level Waterview connection. The Waterview Connection is not going through a hill, or through a densely packed central business district.
2. The benefit/cost ratio of the Waterview Connection is close to 1 if it is a tunnel, it goes up substantially being a surface motorway. In other words, it is better value.
3. The Waterview Connection can be fully funded from road users if built as a surface motorway, so it isn’t subsidised. Labour wanted to subsidise a motorway, hardly environmentally friendly. Money is NOT being diverted from other activities to fund the Waterview Connection as part was always to be funded from the National Land Transport Fund.
4. The road wont be tolled, a study previously done rules it out, you can’t toll this short a section of motorway.
5. It was always going to need to make provision for 6 lanes at some point, Labour’s plan effectively froze capacity at 4 lanes. Auckland has far too often underbuilt motorways (Harbour Bridge, NorthWestern Motorway, Mangere Bridge).
6. Public transport is not an option for orbital traffic in new world cities. It only works for trips from suburbs to central business districts. The Waterview Connection is about traffic between west and south Auckland, and bypasses the spaghetti junction bottleneck for such traffic, it also allows express bus services to be developed along the corridor. The Greens are dead wrong on this, and are just anti building more roads (as usual). What is freight going to do?
Oh and Davidp is dead right about London. London has a badly underbuilt road network, with radials that are mostly at grade highways, and with one and a third orbitals when four were forecast to be needed. Roads are the lifeblood of modern cities, even Sydney which focused on public transport for decades and managing existing corridors had to finally relent and let the private sector build a huge network of tolled motorway in the past 15 years, which have contributed enormously to growth and relieving congestion through built up areas.
Auckland COULD have had a fast bus network built on some of the rail corridors that would be a far cheaper, more flexible alternative to the rail boondoggle now underway. 12% of Aucklanders work in the CBD, 4% of Aucklanders work in the CBD and live within reasonable distance of a railway station, and at best maybe a third of them will choose rail. So after the rail enthusiasts have blown a fortune on this train set, how do they propose the other 96% of Aucklanders get to work?
Oh and what’s that expensive train set doing for 20 hours a day? two thirds of the trains sit doing absolutely nothing except for 2 hours a day, carrying people largely in one direction.
So good on the Nats, not raiding general taxation to bribe an electorate it doesn’t need.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 7:54 am
woohoo, the greens are going to lay in front of the bulldozers. Hopefully that awful sue bradford and keith locke are the first to be squashed/or arrested.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 8:11 am
The locals were protesting on the footpath over-bridge at the open day for the new motorway extension in Owairaka in the weekend – Pro Tunnel banners etc, kids in tow which always appalls me with protests. When I yelled out who is going to pay for the tunnell a bearded git with a placard said the ratepayer and the taxpayer. Told him “he was dreaming” a la the Castle. The sense of entitlement these people have never changes.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 8:17 am
Q/Why didn’t liarbore, with the PM as the local MP get the motorway tunnel fast tracked prior to the last election? That works programme dragged on for years and years and years.
A/ Because liabore had no (zero) intention of building a multi billion dollar tunnel. LIARBORE LIED AGAIN.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 8:21 am
The cost & logistics of building a tunnnel under a stream/river bed would make it not-doable: after the election of course.
Helen Clark and her team were the biggest liars in the area.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 8:25 am
Does anybody know how many of these houses are state owned?
IMHO those in state houses have no right to moan about losing the house that I provide for them, they can bugger off and live somewhere else.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 8:27 am
The plans for the motorway have been around since 60s. So its caveat emptor for people buying into that area. Hellun was playing games and should have done the right thing by NZ while she has a surplus to play with, and built it with a cycle lane to keep the green knuckle draggers happy. I lived in one of the areas that is going to end up close to the new motorways so once I figured out Transits plans were firming up I sold up and moved somewhere else, took a hit on the price & put it down to experience, instead of staying & asking the taxpayer to foot it and build a tunnel.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Most of them BB. I used to run around there (avoiding the tinnie houses and staffies). Thats why they are Staties cause its always been a designated highway extension route.
And Oakley creek is a polluted infestated “bottlefish” waterway, hardly a greenies wet dream. scuse pun.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 8:34 am
Of course I fully understand how the taxpayer should feel sorry for Sharon Salt and her brood of bludging property destroying assaulting looser children. Supported by Helen Clark and the Bates Dynasty. Having watched them roam the neighbourhood f*cked off their heads pissing all over the roads and footpaths stealing and vandalising I understand how much labour cared about Mt Albert. FUCK ALL.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 8:44 am
funny how the substandard losers have been very quiet ever since labour hq clocked how much lying and cheating they were doing.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 8:52 am
The navy wants to play too gd.
Hey Darren ..-. —
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 9:23 am
The comparisons here should be more about LA than London, Auckland already has more cars per head than LA, would you like to live like they do?
Vote:Auckland has a higher population density than any of the major Australian cities so it is perfect for mass transit- despite the fact that we have to lowest PT use of any city anywhere.
In Germany they are building whole carless suburbs, London has to congestion price its cars, the US government is funding mass transit systems in major cities.
The problems of climate change and oil depletion are not going to go away. We cannot afford to fund the Saudi Royal families private jet with our debt or the Iranian nuclear program. It will be too expensive for everyone to sit in traffic jams all day when oil is $5 a litre.
We do not live in 1960 anymore.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Indeed. Which is why I’m looking forward to the day when petrol is $5 per litre and I have those big, empty roads to myself and My Blown Big Block.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
bchapman
Vote:YOu are right that Auckland is a medium density city if you measure the density in the metropolitan area and compare it to other metropolitan areas. The ARC and most of the planners cook the books by measuring Auckland’s density by calculating the density over the whole of the Auckland region which is mostly open space. The region is a statistical outlier. In other countries all that Rodney and Franklin land is within a County.
However, for the same reason you are wrong to say we have a low public transport use compared to other cities. This is a fiction created by the same false statistic. Half of Auckland region has no roads let alone buses.
If you analyse our public transport use in the metropolitan it is very high and our taxi fleet is remarkably efficient carrying about twenty million rides a year.
May 13th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
I see Dad4justice has a new nickname.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Dude, I had a drink with him in Christchurch. He’s a nice guy. All of everyone on blogs should meet up for a drink.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
I’m sure he is in person Ryan, most people are when they get out of the hysteria of blogland.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Except for me, of course. I’m lovely online, and then absolutely horrible in person, as you know.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Appears there is another twist in the tail – there will be some tunnel after all – and still the stated $1.5 b cheaper than the deep tunnel option. will be interesting to see Goff’s reaction to this!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2408517/Waterview-More-tunnel-after-all
Vote:May 14th, 2009 at 3:47 am
Yes, 60% of the route is to be in tunnels, one cut and cover (under the Great North Road), another bored (through the only hill). In other words, it wont be anything like the disaster the Greens or Labour are predicting.
Labour built the following urban highways without tunnels:
- Greenhithe Deviation
- Upper Harbour Bridge duplication
- Grafton Gully upgrade
- Central Motorway Junction upgrade
- Mt Roskill extension
- Manukau Harbour Crossing
- Hobsonville Deviation
- Manukau extension to SH20
- Waiouru Peninsula interchange, crossing and link road
- Tauranga Harbourlink
- Hamilton Avalon Drive bypass
- Hawke’s Bay Expressway northern extension
- Wellington Inner City Bypass
- Dowse Drive Upgrade Wellington
and planned to build:
- Newmarket Viaduct replacement
- Christchurch Southern Motorway Extension
- Christchurch Northern Arterial.
all without tunnels. Only Victoria Park was going in a tunnel, near Ponsonby, Judith Tizard’s former electorate.
In other words, Waterview was going in a greenplated tunnel because of the PM. It is now partly being tunnelled due to commonsense.
Time to move on. Labour has demonstrated it is interested in tunnelling motorways when it suits it. The Greens don’t want a road at all, and the Nats have chosen a pragmatic option.
Presumably in the next few weeks the value of the Mt Roskill motorway extension, which the Greens opposed and even Labour was sceptical about at first, should become obvious to those living along Mt Albert Road.
Vote:May 14th, 2009 at 4:23 am
I think we all accept that National has taken the rational option after Labour has been playing New Zealander’s for suckers for the last nine years.
Vote: