I see Banksie has come up with the idea of offering bonds to help pay for the tunnel. It might be good to pay for this ourselves without the government sticking a hook into it.
Though all bonds really are is a big pile of debt that ratepayers have to pay back at some point. However, that’s not to say it is necessarily a bad idea.
Personally I think NZTA should pay for a big chunk of the CBD Loop, but if bonds can get it built I won’t be complaining.
Yeah, I’m a little hesitant about bonds as well given that like you said it is debt. But if the amount of additional rate money that is generated or saved by the project is enough to service the debt then I say go for it.
Its really sad when you read things like this, there were people that could see the problems that would occur with the path we were going down and solutions to solve them but they either weren’t listened to or were discredited. I just wish some of the people that made some of these decisions in the past we alive today to see the mess they have created.
I have sometimes wondered how involved the car/oil companies were in these decisions, I have heard of cases from America were it has been proved that the car industry effectively bribed local officials to rip up tram tracks so they could make money by selling buses. Interestingly they used the same arguments that anti rail campaigners use today, that buses are cheaper and more flexible etc.
I think that his final point is a good way of selling rail to the Auckland public, i.e. if we demand rail and let the government know we will only vote for those that built it, it will cost the ratepayer nothing…
“Mr Wright proposes an electric railway from Stanley Point north paralleling the coast as far as Whangaparoa…This route should be protected now, thus saving conpensation costs in the future, he says.” If only this had been done we wouldn’t have the current issues of having the only available route being next to the motorway, congestion on Lake road and the spur or loop which would be needed for rail to Takapuna.
I wonder how hard it would be to work out how much has actually been spent on building the motorway network so far, adjusted for today’s dollars, and to add that in to how much is proposed on futher motorways. The rail option would probably start to look very affordable in comparison. At the end of the day a rail line and stations takes up maybe a quarter of the land needed for a motorway and interchages, and doesn’t require major changes to feeder roads. That has to translate to major cost savings.
Which is no problem, Jeremy. I don’t even have a big problem with making the roads run smoother for trucks on short and middle distances around Auckland. Trucks are efficient – and that is why rail can have so many benefits to non-rail users too. But since it is off-line from the roads, they don’t seem to get it. A bit like retailers who don’t understand that more footpaths and less car parks can be good for you.
Any one notice this in today’s Herald?… directly after articles expressing derisive surprise that people took trains to see the rugby [imagine that: An ordinary Aucklander on a train, what ever will happen next!] China are funding and building Argentina’s rail, both TGV type and Buenos Aires’ Metro: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10658805 Sound good to me; if Joyce won’t do it, let’s get some competent people in.
That China story is sounding pretty amazing. Lots of kickbacks involved, I guess reading between the lines (not in the illegal sense – but much of that $10 billion seems to be going back to China for imported technology, so they are really financing their own rail industries, and presumably getting an ownership stake (if not outright posession) of Argentinia’s railways).
That said, if China was to buy and upgrade OUR railways like that, I wouldn’t balk, despite recent fears of foreign capital investment here. Not like they are going to asset-strip something they built!
If only we had taken the advice. By the way, what happened at the time? We had the ART commission running right? How come it took about 10 years for the project to get approval from the govt (mid 70s)? Well… before it got shot down by Muldoon’s government of course.
Josh, I hope you`ve emailed this to Steven Joyce to show him just how the close to the mark this gentleman`s words have become and how things in forty years will likely turn out with his road building policy. I`d love to see the NZ Herald (maybe via Rudman as he is the kind to show how prophetic earlier warnings become reality) reprint this article to show all Aucklanders what such a wrong direction this city went in the 1960s to 1990s. An article like this might spur debate about how we want the future of Auckland to be. Eg A leson from the past to learn for the future type of headline.
Thanks for signing up for news from Greater Auckland! Keep an eye on your inbox for regular updates.
Processing...
STAY IN TOUCH
We love being able to keep you in the loop - it means we know theres a community of like-minded people who are keen on making Auckland better on bikes. Sign up for updates about what's happening, and how you can be part of it.
Processing...
I see Banksie has come up with the idea of offering bonds to help pay for the tunnel. It might be good to pay for this ourselves without the government sticking a hook into it.
Though all bonds really are is a big pile of debt that ratepayers have to pay back at some point. However, that’s not to say it is necessarily a bad idea.
Personally I think NZTA should pay for a big chunk of the CBD Loop, but if bonds can get it built I won’t be complaining.
Yeah, I’m a little hesitant about bonds as well given that like you said it is debt. But if the amount of additional rate money that is generated or saved by the project is enough to service the debt then I say go for it.
Nice find (by whomever found it)!
So prescient then; so sad now.
Its really sad when you read things like this, there were people that could see the problems that would occur with the path we were going down and solutions to solve them but they either weren’t listened to or were discredited. I just wish some of the people that made some of these decisions in the past we alive today to see the mess they have created.
I have sometimes wondered how involved the car/oil companies were in these decisions, I have heard of cases from America were it has been proved that the car industry effectively bribed local officials to rip up tram tracks so they could make money by selling buses. Interestingly they used the same arguments that anti rail campaigners use today, that buses are cheaper and more flexible etc.
I think that his final point is a good way of selling rail to the Auckland public, i.e. if we demand rail and let the government know we will only vote for those that built it, it will cost the ratepayer nothing…
“Mr Wright proposes an electric railway from Stanley Point north paralleling the coast as far as Whangaparoa…This route should be protected now, thus saving conpensation costs in the future, he says.”
If only this had been done we wouldn’t have the current issues of having the only available route being next to the motorway, congestion on Lake road and the spur or loop which would be needed for rail to Takapuna.
I wonder how hard it would be to work out how much has actually been spent on building the motorway network so far, adjusted for today’s dollars, and to add that in to how much is proposed on futher motorways. The rail option would probably start to look very affordable in comparison. At the end of the day a rail line and stations takes up maybe a quarter of the land needed for a motorway and interchages, and doesn’t require major changes to feeder roads. That has to translate to major cost savings.
BR Class 85’s in the pictures!
Unfortunatly Nick, those cost savings equate to profits for the motoring industry
Which is no problem, Jeremy. I don’t even have a big problem with making the roads run smoother for trucks on short and middle distances around Auckland. Trucks are efficient – and that is why rail can have so many benefits to non-rail users too. But since it is off-line from the roads, they don’t seem to get it. A bit like retailers who don’t understand that more footpaths and less car parks can be good for you.
Any one notice this in today’s Herald?… directly after articles expressing derisive surprise that people took trains to see the rugby [imagine that: An ordinary Aucklander on a train, what ever will happen next!] China are funding and building Argentina’s rail, both TGV type and Buenos Aires’ Metro:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10658805
Sound good to me; if Joyce won’t do it, let’s get some competent people in.
That China story is sounding pretty amazing. Lots of kickbacks involved, I guess reading between the lines (not in the illegal sense – but much of that $10 billion seems to be going back to China for imported technology, so they are really financing their own rail industries, and presumably getting an ownership stake (if not outright posession) of Argentinia’s railways).
That said, if China was to buy and upgrade OUR railways like that, I wouldn’t balk, despite recent fears of foreign capital investment here. Not like they are going to asset-strip something they built!
If only we had taken the advice. By the way, what happened at the time? We had the ART commission running right? How come it took about 10 years for the project to get approval from the govt (mid 70s)? Well… before it got shot down by Muldoon’s government of course.
Josh, I hope you`ve emailed this to Steven Joyce to show him just how the close to the mark this gentleman`s words have become and how things in forty years will likely turn out with his road building policy. I`d love to see the NZ Herald (maybe via Rudman as he is the kind to show how prophetic earlier warnings become reality) reprint this article to show all Aucklanders what such a wrong direction this city went in the 1960s to 1990s. An article like this might spur debate about how we want the future of Auckland to be. Eg A leson from the past to learn for the future type of headline.
“The common fallacy is that railways are expected to pay, but when did the private car show a profit?”
Yes.