Quote of the Day
May 13th, 2009 at 9:17 am by David Farrar“We wouldn’t be prepared to spend $1.5 billion to buy a by-election – it would be completely irresponsible.”
While Labour seems to regard that as a bargain.
The number of houses affected appears to be less than thought:
An alternative route for the 4.5km motorway, to be announced today, will probably require the demolition of at least 300 homes, against the 160 that would have to be cleared around tunnel portals.
So the difference may be only 140 homes.
Mr McDonald said that would make the motorway a wider issue for Aucklanders in the 2011 election campaign.
Please do make it an issue.
Related posts:
- Liberty Scott on Waterview
- Melissa’s mistake
- Govt saves taxpayers $1.7 billion
- Labour falls for the trap
May 13th, 2009 at 9:22 am
I’m guessing it’s a lot easier to accept demolishing of houses, devaluation of properties and so forth if you don’t live in the suburb itself. It becomes a bit of a bitter pill to swallow when you’re not really in a position to move, gain no real direct benefit from having that motorway and so forth, but it ends up costing you a fuckload.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Not being a jafa i’m not really familiar with the back ground to this.
How long has this area of houses been earmarked for a potential motorway expansion?
In the early 1990s i bought a house in St Albans Chch. It was cheap. No one wanted to buy on this particular street because it was well known that the street would one day become an extension of the northern expressway. I bought it and sold it knowing the potential consequences.
If it’s a recent plan ib Auckland i have some sympathy for the home owners. If not, well thats how things work isn’t it?
Ironically not long after i sold my house the motorway plan was scrapped (dumb, dumb, dumb) and the next guy ended up with a nice house on a nice street.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 9:29 am
I suspect most in the line will be compensated fully. As transit are obligated to do by law.
Lets see, in the current housing market do you want old weather boards or hard cash? Hmmm.
Next. Stupid commie fucktards.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 9:34 am
razor – when i was looking at property in 2002 a buddy told me to be careful as they are going to demolish a bunch of houses for a motorway.
its not a cheap area to buy either. dont fall for the “poor people losing their houses routine”
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 9:40 am
Scrap the entire bloody motorway. Nothing spent, no ones homes lost and if you don’t heavy traffic don’t bloody live in Auckland.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 9:42 am
DPF I agree with that the tunnel was a bad idea and Labour have used the residents as pawns. What I don’t like are the way the figures have been presented to justify this. It would be good if we could find out more about how the interest savings were calculated (in a time of falling interest rates) and why they were extrapolated into 2015 figures. I also don’t understand why the opportunity cost of having funding the project out of the LTF is ignored (what about the productivity costs for other projects delayed). The other issue is the fact that no resource consents for the new option exist. Won’t there be additional holding costs and delays whilst this process proceeds (or will it be called in by the minister.
Vote:The other issue is the loss of national wealth via the loss of properties, Housing NZ stock, sportsfields, natural habitat and parkland. Surely all these things have an intrinsic value as they all will presumably have to be replaced at public cost elsewhere.
Economists can value all these things- hopefully someone can shed more light on the pros and cons what we are doing.
May 13th, 2009 at 9:43 am
More bullshit. The difference between the full tunnel and above ground option is about $400m. What is the $1.5bn he refers to? A pattern of deliberate misinformation is emerging.
[DPF: Nonsense it is far more than $400 million.]
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 9:46 am
heh Labour supporters dont think financing costs are a cost. bless them.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 10:05 am
But at the end of the day it is the Super-City that will get the Nat arse flayed in Mt Albert.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Heh. Steven Joyce is being duplicitous – he knows it wouldn’t win National the seat anyway.
But I love the numbers. A hip replacement costs $17,000. Labour would spend $1.5b to save 140 homes. That’s 88,000 hip operations, or 630 per home. Imagine, a line of 630 hobbling pensioners outside each home. 88,000 semi-crippled old folk shaking their sticks at Labour’s tunnels.
What a lucky escape: I’m glad we didn’t elect a government that was willing to cut health and essential social services to fund grandiose road building. We’ve dodged a bullet there.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 10:20 am
DPF
I live in the area. For what its worth I have always known it was a likely motorway designation and bought the house on a ‘buyer beware’ basis.
I also recognise that regardless of the merits of motorways v public transport (and long-term I think truly global cities commonly feature a good public transport system, which Auckland clearly does not) it is pointless having a motorway ring route only 90% completed. So again I accept that the motorway extension has to be completed, either through Waterview or Rosebank (which incidentally should still be considered as a serious option).
The areas of local discontent primarily lie around the enormous extent of prior consultation that seems to have been set aside so quickly. Regardless of political allegiance, the principle of proper consultation and subsequent decision should not be so easily be set aside. Same for the fast-tracking of the resource consent process that is now likely. National voters should feel as uncomfortable about this distortion of process as Labour voters. Recognising of course that the current economic circumstances are a strong necessitating factor in this situation.
Another area of issue is the costings – I’m yet to be convinced by anyone – even you – that the governments numbers are a good apple to apple comparison with any of the previous numbers issued by Transit when they outlined the rationale for the tunnel preference. True costings for any large infrastructure project should include all costs, including social and environmental costs such as loss of green-belt, and cost of consultation, consent and purchase processes.
Its been fairly easy for National to use this issue to divide the electorate and paint Labour as fiscally irresponsible and Mt Albert residents as tree-hugging NIMBY’s. Thats politics – its a blood sport and good on ‘em.
However I genuinely don’t believe that this is necessarily a case of NIMBYism in terms of the residents. We by and large accept the motorway needs to be built, and had worked through a proper democratic consultation process to ensure that the social and environmental costs were minimised where possible. Now that process looks like it will need to start again.
In the long run I’m not convinced that there will be significant savings in cost or time from earlier proposals, or that the loss of benefits (primarily for locals but also for the wider region) will justify the change of decision. But I am hopeful.
Cheers
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 10:27 am
>>More bullshit. The difference between the full tunnel and above ground option is about $400m. What is the $1.5bn he refers to?
Only from Labour
They count the SH16 changes in National’s plan but ignore it in the tunnel plan
I am not sure if the financing costs are on the excess cost or the total cost of the tunnel plan, but either way they are real
Also you need to compare the potential three lane motorway with the two lane tunnel that cannot be widened
$1.5 billion is the minimum difference
Besides what do you mean only $400 million, that more than all other motorway sections built up until now – you have that lying around do you?
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 10:28 am
RainblowGlobalWarming:
Stupid commie fucktards? What happens to the people a street over from the proposed demolition zone? They’re not being offered hard cash in the current housing market for their properties. They’re stuck with the devaluation and will likely have no real chance to offload it now.
What would your solution be?
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Once again I refer you to the last page of this document, where all construction costs are detailed.
http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Katrina-09/Business-case-for-the-Waterview-Connection.pdf
The full tunnel option is costed at $2,005m
The cheapest option listed is $1,303
There are other options that come in between these extremes.
The cost of an interchange at Pt Chev is extra
The cost of financing can be arbitrarily applied to any of the options as you like
The actual option may not be one of these options, but it would be impossible for it to be $500m, which is what is implied in the statement.
[DPF: Even if you put financing to one side, the gap between tunnel and motorway is around $1 billion]
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 10:48 am
Actually, it looks like the governments proposal is NOT including the $500million in financing costs (along with other costs) that were costed in the “more expensive” tunnel option.
As campit is trying to get across, the Tunnel is more expensive, but not the 1.5billion that is being spun.
[DPF: That is because the non tunnel option will not need to be borrowed for. But even if it did you are talking a mere $200m I would say]
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 10:58 am
The full tunnel option is costed at $2,005m
And we all know building a tunnel always comes in on budget…..
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Yes… Just look at the new toll road tunnels, on time, and underbudget.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Whilst it is true that the National Land Transport Fund (NLTF) couldn’t have paid for all the full tunnel option, for some reason it can pay for all $1.16 billion of Joyce’s prefered option now, but not any of the $1.98 billion tunnel. Therefore, financing costs get completely lumped on the tunnel option, but not at all on Joyce’s option. That makes up to a $550 million difference. Furthermore, the NLTF has already been screwed around by Steven Joyce to fund new state highways at the cost of everything else (including local roads, roads maintenance, public transport, walking and cycling initiatives). Including the Waterview Connection in that fund will further squeeze these other areas out.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Furthermore….
There were a range of options considered by NZTA over a number of years. You can see the costings for all of them on the last page of this document: http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Katrina-09/Business-case-for-the-Waterview-Connection.pdf.
The cheapest option considered was a $1.456 billion Open Cut option. By contrast the twin tunnels were $1.89 billion when first costed. Therefore the difference was around $450 million – probably worth the extra money when you consider the social and environmental costs of an Open Cut option.
I still believe that the financing costs were added on for political reasons, as have been (to a lesser extent) the SH16 upgrade costs.
Now I don’t know how NZTA have come up with options with construction costs of between $760 million and $1.16 billion. But as you can’t get something for nothing, an option significantly cheaper than “Open Cut” is likely to be significantly worse. Otherwise, why were those options not considered earlier?
Either NZTA were idiots for 6 years when coming up with the original costing of the options, or there’s something dodgy going on here. I’m picking the latter.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
What’s so special about Mt Albert that they should get the more expensive tunnel option? Wellington got the cut price version of the bypass and we have to live with the stupid damn thing, so Mt Albert can live with what they get too.
Vote:Go National, you don’t need to win in Mt Albert and I’m sure you never even thought you would, but you’ve used this situation perfectly. That Labour would still be championing the more expensive tunnel in a recession, in order to buy an electorate that was a safe seat anyway, shows another great reason to keep them away from governing.
May 13th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
An important point mentioned by Steven Joyce but glossed over by others is that the tunnell option as costed was only TWO LANES each way. If you live in Auckland you will know that virtually all present work being done on motorways is to increase the size from 2 lanes to 3 or 4 lanes each way. If the tunnell option was undertaken at great cost a fair comparison could be made with the undersized harbour bridge (50th birthday shortly) as it was originally constructed – not so easy to do a ‘nippon clipon’ to a tunnell though!
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
If you accept that you will need more than two lanes already doesn’t that mean that SH16 through Te Atatu will need at least another two lanes? Shouldn’t we also be including those costs. Might need to keep widening the Onehunga section while you are at it.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
jarbury>Otherwise, why were those options not considered earlier?
Because the PM at the time had said that they’d only be built over her “dead body”. It’d be a foolish public servant who would propose options that would piss off Clark. Look what she and her colleagues did to the Police Commissioner and to the Communications Manager in the Ministry of the Environment. Labour had no hesitation in dragging people through the media and, essentially, ending their careers if they felt like it.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
DavidP, but then why was an Open Cut option looked at, and costed at $1.456 billion?
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
If you think labours voodoo economics is bad with the motorway budgets Just wait until someone takes a look at the Ontrack budgets and allocations. I attended a meeting recently which had representatives of a private Australian company doing work on the electrification of the Wellington train system. This chap informed me that the hardest hurdle was getting a contract but once this was achieved almost any cost could be loaded as variation to the original contract value with no problems getting the payment approved.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
to bchapman – both SH20 and SH16 have been designed for width expansion. Work is proceeding on inceasing the capacity of the Onehunga section and Mangere Bridge to Manukau/Airport. A two lane each way tunnel will reach capacity within 10 years (as per Mangere Bridge).
Vote:Re the ‘green spaces’ to be built over. These are largely areas of land purchased and set aside for motorway construction as designated years ago.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
jarbury>DavidP, but then why was an Open Cut option looked at, and costed at $1.456 billion?
Strawman to suggest they’d at least looked at alternatives. But not really cheap alternatives that might have embarrassed the PM by requiring her to justify spending an extra billion bucks or more to tunnel under a few hundred houses.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
>>but then why was an Open Cut option looked at, and costed at $1.456 billion?
Because Batman was on the Transit board and pushed for costings that would make a tunnel look financially acceptable to please the boss
Ask yourself what does National gain if the motorway comes in way above budget in alignment with your costings
Besides Labour is onto a loser here – the stuff poll has scrapping the tunnel running at 54%-46% in favour
Anyway talking of dumb socialist tunnels
Vote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8047128.stm
May 13th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
The proposed two lane each tunnel was always a fraud. The capacity of such a tunnel is about 70,000 vehicles per day.
The road is currently modelled to carry 90,000 a day and that would leap to over 100,000 a day once the tunnel was open.’
So about 30,000 vehicles a day would have to be diverted to surface streets.
Aslo the two lane tunnel was a minimal job with no access lanes for large cranes etc in the event of accidents or even someone running out of petrol. Failures and blockages would be common and blockages would last for ages. With surface roads you can just push the vehicles to one side if you have to.
The Consultation was also a fraud. The consulted only with the neighbours as if the motorway link had no impact on the actual users of the bypass and the did not tell them that so much traffic would be diverted onto surface streets.
The cost difference between the tunnelled three lanes each way and a surface lane is huge and the surface road works more effectively and reliably..
Vote:The labour government is convinced sea levels are going to rise and storm events will cause massive flooding as in New Orleans.
We have the Britomart below sea level. They were going to put this link below sea level and also the Victoria Park viaduct below sea level. Some disaster planning.
New Orleans demonstrated that the key to effective dispersal of urban populations at such times is elevated highways – tunnels are the last thing you need especially on your two major north and south routes to safety.
May 13th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Would seem easiest to let the market find a solution: let a private company build whatever and charge for using it.
Let homeowners sell at market price (i.e. grossly inflated now that somebody really wants the land – and particularly so for those who hold out the longest).
If somebody refuses to sell, that’s their right, no coercion allowed. Company must find a new route. Let those whose properties are affected by noise or whatever negotiate compensation or sue.
I reckon nobody would ever build the thing.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
And while we on about wasting money, does anyone believe that a rail connection between Auckland and Hamilton which carries only 90 people a DAY will generate benefits of millions as claimed by the consultants in today’s Herald.
Vote:They claim that these benefits will accrue through reduced congestion on the highway. 90 people a day – 45 cars a day? Reduced congestion? No one will even notice. (I have read the actual report and it is just a joke. Why does the word train turn people’s brains into mush?
May 13th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
“We wouldn’t be prepared to spend $1.5 billion to buy a by-election – it would be completely irresponsible.”
Right off ACT’s billboard.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Some slightly crass humour got injected into the Auckland govenment debate today, which never-the-less pointed out the flaw in labour’s proposed tunnel. After criticising the opposition members for being obsessed with size, Gerry Brownly noted that “while their tunnel maybe longer, ours is somewhat wider.” Innuendos aside, it does indicate the problem with the labour proposal: as others have noted, it will be difficult and thus VERY COSTLY to expand. Everyone in Auckland is acutely aware that the last instance we got told 2 lanes each way would be enough by central govt was the Harbour Bridge. This was shown to be increadibly shortsighted, and at considerable expense, the so-called nippon clipons were added, giving the bridge 4 lanes each way. The bridge is still rather strained at rushhour or whenever it rains or if there is an accident, or if there is a full moon. I do hope that whichever proposal is adopted, it provide easy expansion to 3 if not 4 lanes each way. If not, Auckland will have yet another excuse to think badly of Wellington.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Knocking down Labour voters homes, no problem to a Nat government.
Vote:Forget the cost and just see which party Mt Albert voted for.
May 13th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Just watching Campbell Live. The areas that are being knocked down are either shitsville or state houses.
Why should the tax payer have to fork out an extra billion so someone in a state house can stay put?
Also all the wankers up in arms are failing to point out even Labours tunnell had 190 houses to go.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Owen McShane,
Vote:We are lucky to have a contributor of your intelligence.
I frequently travel from Tauhei to Auckland on business. Next Tuesday I will be in a Customs Street meeting at 8.30 a.m. If there was a train I would take it. But, and this is a huge BUT, that sort of thing happens once every 18 months. So I go onto Wotif and find a cheap pub to stay at. Piss easy. They quoted a 75% occupancy rate on the train. In their wildest dreams!
Time the meetings at 9.30 a.m. and no train is needed.
May 13th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Truth be known Transit already own a large % age of the houses as they do around most designated areas.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Also alot of houses in that area would be owned by landlords.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Considering the voters of that area inflicted Helen Clark on the rest of the country it’s about time they got served.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
So traffic volumes in Auckland haven’t increased since 2004, while over the same time period public transport usage has jumped by around 30%. Remind me why we’re building more roads again?
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
This project will actually be to the benefit of those suburbs.
In ChCh a strip from the city through St Albans was designated for a new motorway for years. So most of the houses were derilict as the owners expected them to be bowled.
At least once they start building you will probably see the area transformed as people start to invest.
Vote:May 13th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
“So traffic volumes in Auckland haven’t increased since 2004,”
Which tells us that the limited expendature on roading in that time was enough only to stop the traffic situation getting worse. And that more expendature is needed to make the roading situation better. Also if you think the traffic situation in Auckland was acceptable in 2004, allow me a moment to laugh in your face.
“while over the same time period public transport usage has jumped by around 30%.”
The fractional usage of rail going from 1% to 1.3% is a 30% increase on that 1%, but not one that justifies massive spending on rail. The most useful public transport in Auckland given the low population density is the bus, and buses drive on roads, hence we need roads.
“Remind me why we’re building more roads again?”
Vote:If you actually worked in Auckland, and had to face peak hour traffic every day, you’d know. If we do as the green munters suggest and build no more major roads while the Auckland population grows to 2 million (more if we take in all the bloody refugees they want us to), we will be screwed.
May 13th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Limited expenditure???? Far out, let’s look at what has been built in Auckland over the past few years:
1) Grafton Gully upgrade
2) CMJ I upgrade
3) CMJ II upgrade
4) Greenhithe Motorway
5) Alpurt B2 Motorway
6) Mt Roskill Motorway (opens next week)
And in the pipeline:
1) SH20-SH1 Manukau Connection
2) Hobsonville Deviation
3) Manukau Harbour Crossing Project
What would you consider to not be limited roading expenditure?
The point is that one is staying steady or decreasing (private vehicle traffic flows) while one is increasing dramatically (public transport). As we plan for the future, not the past, shouldn’t we focus on what’s actually increasing? Regarding population densities, Brisbane and Perth have far lower population densities than Auckland yet both have significantly higher public transport usage. Why? Because they actually have a half-decent system.
I do live in Auckland. And the peak hour traffic is exactly why we need better public transport. It takes 6 lanes of motorway to shift the same number of people per hour as one track of railway. So you’d need a 12 lane wide motorway to shift people as efficiently as a double-tracked railway line.
Yes, a lot of Auckland’s traffic doesn’t go to the CBD and public transport isn’t necessarily that helpful for people who don’t work in the CBD or around it. However, a lot of Auckland’s worst traffic is caused by CBD bound vehicles and if they shifted to using public transport then we would see improvements to congestion.
After the Waterview Conneciton, I’m really curious to figure out what other motorways could possibly be driven through Auckland. I’m sure the Road Transport Forum has a list somewhere and is slipping it (with a big fat cheque) under Steven Joyce’s door.
Vote:May 14th, 2009 at 1:32 am
“The point is that one is staying steady or decreasing (private vehicle traffic flows) while one is increasing dramatically (public transport).”
Its not increasing dramatically at all. Its easy to say going from 1 person riding the train to 2 people is a 100% improvement, but it is utterly insignificant compared to the far larger number of people who drive to work.
“I do live in Auckland. And the peak hour traffic is exactly why we need better public transport. It takes 6 lanes of motorway to shift the same number of people per hour as one track of railway. So you’d need a 12 lane wide motorway to shift people as efficiently as a double-tracked railway line.”
You rebut your own point in the next paragraph… They aren’t all going the same place. Also having half empty trains are less efficient than full buses, and with buses you can run them without building additional rail infrastructure. You also get the advantage of being able to send them to different destinations more easily.
“However, a lot of Auckland’s worst traffic is caused by CBD bound vehicles and if they shifted to using public transport then we would see improvements to congestion.”
Vote:Not really. While the traffic may all be going into the CBD, they are all going from different locations in the suburbs. As such public transport (especially via train) is of limited utility. Actually if you want to improve usage of public transport, forget about building more trains and tracks. Just build adequate parking near transport hubs. You’d probably get a far bigger uptake that way, at least for the north shore – cbd commute.
May 14th, 2009 at 4:45 am
Why do all you train lovers abandon your beloved and clog up our roads whenever it rains?
Everyone that believes trains are where its at should be made to wait at 7 in the morning on the Johnsonville platform in a howling July southerly for a train that 1 in 3 days with no notification does not turn up on time if at all.
Vote:May 14th, 2009 at 7:09 am
Wellingtonians finally get the picture about the chronic underfunding of AKL public transport that has taken place over decades. But now its WGN its an emergency yes?
Vote: