Somewhat hidden as an addendum to the Unitary Plan is information about where and how Auckland will sprawl over the next 30 years to accommodate the 160,000 dwellings (larger than Wellington or Christchurch) planned for outside the current urban limits. There are three main greenfield areas where the bulk of this growth will be located – the south, the northwest and the north.
In the south, there are a number of different options being looked at for where growth could occur – an expansion of options presented late last year. Here’s the most recent range of options being looked at: 
Perhaps the most interesting addition to this map from its previous version is what I’ve highlighted in red – a connection between Karaka and Weymouth. This is the first time we’ve seen this connection in any of the Council’s plans – it doesn’t come up in the transport network map in the Auckland Plan or the Integrated Transport Programme.
The main reason for the inclusion of the possible future project in the maps seems to be a few paragraphs in the engagement report about the earlier options, which highlight feedback from Auckland Transport and NZTA:
Preliminary feedback from Auckland Transport (AT) and the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) highlights some key concerns about the impact of growth on the function of the transport network (particularly State Highway 1) in the southern area. AT and NZTA recognise the need for significant areas of greenfield development and recognise that a significant amount of transport investment will be required to support this growth. Locating and sequencing growth in a way that promotes employment self‐sufficiency, makes best use of existing infrastructure where spare capacity exists, encourages the use public transport, discourages long distance car journeys and avoids attracting local trips onto strategic transport routes (i.e. SH1) is encouraged by AT and NZTA. AT and NZTA are particularly interested in mechanisms to control the release of land for development so that it can be linked with the provision of transport infrastructure.
Preliminary transport modelling by AT and NZTA of the residential and employment growth proposed shows substantial congestion on SH1, SH22, Hingaia Road and at Drury, even with Mill Road and rail network upgrades and greater public transport trip share and local employment rates. This would cause significant trip suppression from congestion and impact on the inter‐regional connection and freight corridor functions. In order to retain the functionality of State Highway 1, a major new north-south corridor (most likely a Karaka to Weymouth bridge connection) will be needed to accommodate the levels of growth proposed for the south. While areas east of SH1, close to Pukekohe and close to existing infrastructure of the rail network are preferred to more distant areas, it is likely that the need for additional transport connections will remain the same no matter where the RUB is located.
In a way this result is unsurprising. Planning for so much growth to the south of Drury, when the natural landform of the harbour inlets creates a number of bottlenecks is always going to result in huge pressure on the existing routes across those bottlenecks and increase demand for additional links. As the feedback summary above notes, the main issue seems to be having most growth to the west of State Highway 1 whereas the additional planned Mill Road corridor is to the east of the motorway. And while it is advantageous and utterly essential to have the railway running right through the middle of the growth area, the sheer scale of growth seems like it overwhelms the transport network – creating pressure for this new connection.
Of course, such a link would hardly be cheap. Let’s take a look at just the bridge crossing itself – which seems most likely to follow roughly the alignment shown below:
That is one pretty long bridge we’re talking about here – even if a small amount of the southern end could be constructed as a causeway. If you push the bridge to the next landing point to the southeast (to keep a straighter road) then it’s about 1.2 km in length – longer than the Auckland Harbour Bridge!
In addition to this, the road would need to be linked back to the existing road network at both ends in a sensible way. The earlier map suggested on the southern side this would be around the corner of SH22 and Glenbrook Road – resulting in over 9 km of new road/expressway/motorway needing to be built through to the southern abutment:
At the northern end it seems likely the existing roads would need to be widened – both Weymouth Road and Roscommon Road. For Weymouth Road in particular, which is currently a pretty quiet road serving a pretty quiet local community, the impact of the widening and the vast increase in traffic flows would be huge. Looking at the aerials it seems like widening would be required in the area shown below at the very least:
Fortunately along the western side of Weymouth Road there seems quite a large setback, so the widening would be possible without having to acquire a huge number of properties (looks like this connection has been planned for a very long time!) Even so you’re probably looking at a lot of cost and certainly a lot of impact on the local community as it seems likely this would be a very busy road. An earlier study, with lower growth projections, showed that the bridge would be used by a very large number of vehicles per day.
The issue of this bridge highlights the conundrums which occur when you plan for so much growth through urban sprawl. Don’t build this bridge and State Highway 1 is likely to become increasingly clogged up, unable to perform its important inter-regional connection role. Roads like State Highway 22 – which really needs to change its function to more of an urban arterial over time – would be so incredibly busy the road engineers will end up wanting it to be six or eight lanes wide. The transport network as a whole would also not be very resilient – extremely vulnerable at pinch points around Drury and Takanini.
But build the bridge and for a start you have the simply massive cost (my rough guess is that the whole thing including southern and northern approaches would probably be close to a billion dollars, as in 2006 it was costed at $650 million. You then have the potential environmental impact on what seems to be a fairly sensitive environment – from reading through other specialist input on the growth options in the area – which may curtail attempts to put any of the bridge onto a causeway to save costs. Then you have the community impact on Weymouth as their quiet little peninsula will end up having a hugely widened and massively busy expressway right through the middle of it. And then there’s the question of where all this traffic actually goes. Straight onto State Highway 20 to clog that motorway up? Back across to State Highway 1 to clog it up again? Inevitably with road building it seems like we find ourselves “shifting the problem” rather than solving it.
I struggle to see the benefits of the Karaka-Weymouth connection outweighing its costs – the financial, environmental and social costs. But if the level of growth in the south is dependent upon having this connection built does that mean the growth numbers need to be revisited if the ‘powers to be’ decide they really don’t want to see this project happen? That seems like the big elephant in the room question that needs to be answered.
Processing...
This is a perfect example of the cost of sprawl, as you say probably $1b and a whole lot of upset locals in Weymouth just to allow for massive amounts of sprawl.
To be fair there is a cost of intensification. You could argue that the $2-3 bill from the CRL is a direct subsidy to apartment buildings along the rail corridor.
The CRL is needed to actually optimise the existing network and is highly needed regardless of whether any further apartments are built or not – which of course they will be, but I don’t see how denser living which is already happening in places like New Lynn isn’t a pretty good solution to this whole housing crisis. A walk around the CBD also highlights how much is sitting around as empty lots and if this was actually developed you’d create in a matter of years thousands of new dwellings. If the Western edge was developed you’d get 10s of thousands of new dwellings. There’s no much land on the city fringe being used for low density industrial and used car lots it becomes slightly ridiculous to see how much sprawl is proposed. At the end of the day why isn’t the government looking at why so few new apartments are being built, and look at perhaps allowing KiwiBank to lend on these apartments without a 25% deposit, c.f. 100% on most new sprawl units.
Frank I know AT and AC have been very poor at communicating this but the CRL is about enabling far flung places like south of Manurewa being able to be really well served by fast frequent electric trains so that we don’t need to build expensive place ruining disasters like this bridge and all its additional connections.
I get wanting to live in a quieter coastal place… but not if ceases to have that character by having bloody great arterials through it in every direction.
Get on with the CRL, electrify to Pukekohe, build some decent park and rides at the new semi-rural stations as well as real town centres and crank up a bus feeder network as the population grows. And both Weymouth and new areas down there will be lovely and well connected places to live.
The CRL is primarily needed so that they can get more people working in the CBD, so yes you are correct that it is a cost generated from intensification.
That’s not true and you know it. Back in your old habit of trolling eh?
Lol, seems I got banned for spreading the truth about the CRL. Another triumph for open debate and freedom of speech.
No, you got banned for trolling. For the 9th time.
can you define trolling? it appears that you and the other moderators don’t like other peoples comments.
Trolling: making controversial arguments that are known to be incorrect in order to provoke an argument. It’s pretty easy to pick a troll, especially if they have form.
Thanks Matt for pointing out that I wasn’t trolling. Shame some people can’t handle two sided debate.
No, you’re definitely trolling. You’re making claims about the CRL being entirely about getting people into the CBD that are simply untrue, unsupported by any evidence, and which you know to be untrue because it’s been explained in as near to words of one syllable as possible. You’re a troll by definition.
Actually Matt, if you bothered to read what gets posted you will see that I said primarily, not entirely as you claim.
If you also read what was posted and it wasn’t deleted you will also see that what I said is both true and backed by evidence.
Just because I don’t get a hard-on when the CRL is mentioned and that I question the lies that are made about it does not make me a troll.
Refusing to read what people post and then making fictional claims about what was said would be classed as trolling however.
Whenever I see a blog that censors comment, it generally means that they aren’t confident with their views so they basically try to shut out the other side. If he’s presenting another view & you don’t like it than just move on. Lastly what fun is there in having a echo-chamber where everyone thinks alike. A divergence of views is good. I hope the blog realises it.
Yes a divergence of views is good, as long as everybody can behave themselves.
As long as everybody can behave themselves…… How condescending. Do you not think that there might be some frustration with a number of your readers and contributors that the behaviour of hte moderators and CFBT isn’t conducive to a debate forum?
There aren’t any moderators here, only the six regular contributors who have administrator access. We’d rather not have to moderate at all and haven’t needed to until quite recently. And yes, we are all included in the term ‘everybody’. I must say we are all getting quite pissed off with certain commentators ourselves.
Nick, although you may say there are no moderators there are still people who delete posts because they are unable to explain the questions asked about their claims.
I can understand that you guys do get pissed of when I ask questions and point out your inconsistency and self contradictions however this is more a reflection on yourselves.
If you are unable to handle intelligent debate and the questioning of your claims you should not try to sell yourselves as informed transport advocates but rather public trolls trying to stir up trouble.
As myself, fiddlestix and others have pointed out many times before it is the admin here that create trolling posts and then abuse anyone who doesn’t agree. I would say Matt L is the only level headed poster on here but I enjoy reading all of your posts.
I only ask that when you star you conversation will trolling comments that you don’t abuse anyone that doesn’t agree.
For yourself, I notice you promote about1varvarious solutions to one issue, and then if someone comments on one of those ten you pretend you never said that and refer to the of the other 9. Thisake makes it very hard to compare anything with what you want and appears to make you rather angry. I suggest to come up with one solution and stick to it.
Wrong, it is not only, not even primarily about the CBD, that is the simple mistake of assuming that benefits are only about the immediate area around the work. There speaks a roading engineer, sigh. You really do understand that it is about accessing the capacity on the entire existing network: There must be some inkling of understanding about networks in there?
Yes I know full well about networks. On roads we don’t force every single vehicle in the city to drive into the most congested part of the city and park there for a few minutes. Sigh, but it seems with trains there are rules that every train must park in britomart and we can never deviate from that rule.
Dan then what is the point of the CMJ? The motorways all converge on the city centre and allow connections to other areas of the region. The CRL is no different and is not just about getting to the city centre but allows for connections through it. The new bus network, that interchanges with the rail network allows for cross town trips just like local arterials do for the roading network.
Matt L – you maye just have hit upon the best way of explaining the regional benefit of the CRL there is. Just compare it to the CMJ… brilliant.
All you’re saying is that a rail system is not a road system; hurrah! What a genius. No it isn’t, they have explicit differences; both with advantages and disadvantages.
If you, like the gov and the MoT see the flexibility of the car as the greatest and most important thing ever and something that eclipses all the downsides of a driving only system then there’s no real point bothering with a discussion is there? as you start with your conclusion: Only the car will do.
It also leads to your next conclusion; cities are bad; because they can not work well with everyone getting around in a car. Yours is essentially a provincial, countryside focused, anti-city position. And fine, you’re welcome to it, but leave it where it works best; small scaled places with dispersed populations. It won’t help Auckland thrive.
And the fact, Patrick, that the engineers designing these roads think like this is why we are not seeing any real advances in Auckland’s transport network. That, combined with AT’s and the govts attitude makes me somewhat skeptical about seeing any real change in my lifetime. We need a Boris Johnson or M. Bloomberg. Without strong leadership this formatt will not change.
Its not like Newmarket. Newmarket is just one part of the overall picture. Further the western line trains block up that junction and prevent more trains running through. Yes you could send all western line trains south but that would force the majority of travellers to transfer and is akin to how the CMJ used to be where people going between West and North had come off, traverse CBD streets and then get back on the motorway again.
Lol. I love how you deleted my posts to try and hide how bigoted you are. Anyone would think you were from North Korea.
I guess what it does show is that you saw the lies of your propaganda being exposed and felt threatened some truth could get out.
How does Dan not get that the rail link allows us to run 3 times more trains, how many times does it have to be explained?
Actually sailor boy Dan explained why you don’t need the CRL to run 3 times as many trains on the existing network.
The moderators deleted those posts however as they didn’t want the truth getting out.
Yeah, I saw those, but they were wrong. You would need much more rolling stock and have timetablig issues, you would need to build large terminal stations elsewhere and would still be stuck with shitty service on the busiest parts of the network.
I am sorry that you hate PT so much, maybe you could actually try and learn about its effects?
Richard, why are you referring to yourself in the third person? Having two user names and making out like you’re more than one person is pretty dishonest. So much for the truth eh!
Sorry but you have not spread any light on how it’s wrong. We are already getting a whole bunch of new trains without the CRL. We are permitted to fix timetable issues without the CRL and as to why we would be needing large terminal stations I don’t know.
In regards to shorty service on the busiest part of the network, what makes you call a train every few minutes as shitty?
Also I don’t know why you think I hate PT. I design PT things every day and always look for ways to improve it. I’m just not blinded by a love for trains or a hatred of roads.
Nick, I need multiple users names as certain members ban me for spreading the truth and taking an honest look at things.
Of course they call it trolling as they don’t like different views and it’s easier to ban some than to address the issue.
Ok, so to do your plan one would need to massively expand Newmarket station, say 10tph west and south, and 6 from onehunga. We would then need all passengers to transfer at New market to a train which runs 10 tph to britomart, and back, plus 6 running the eastern line to Manukau, then we are at or slightly over britomart capactiy. Newmarket can probably handle 30 through movements, it cannot handle 36 terminations per hour. so we need to upgade New Market, we need to build a seperate stop for each line all double tracked. To do that we need huge land acquisition in an area with enormous land costs. We then still have the problem of having no trains in the busiest bit of town, so even with frequency increases- the transfer time cost, it will still take an age to get into town from out west, and the time will increase from the south and the airport.
Due to the stationary times at the end of routes we also need more rollling stock to ply the shorter routes then to get the same level of service on a west south and onehunga east line.
We need more stabling at Wiri, and A new stable out west.
We are probably looking at $1billion in capital costs to do this, if we are going to spend that amount and no more then we would be better to do britomart to aotea and not do the rest.
Richard you have to get this into your head. You behaviour is trolling. It’s not the content, it’s the way you deliver it. No one is persecuting you for your views or ‘the truth’, you are being banned for being a troll regardless of your views. There are plenty of others that don’t agree with the posters here, they don’t get banned because they don’t troll with their comments. Try real hard to engage with people like a grown up, and they will address you with dignity.
Keep up the trolling and we can keep banning you, and simply delete all your comments. I’m happy to do that myself if need be. We’ve kept a very reasoned and informed debate on this site, from all sorts of viewpoints and angles, and we’d rather it not descend into the sorts of mindless vitriolic blathering you see on whaleoil or railpage. How many warnings do you want?
Nick. Yes my post where I agreed with someone and said that the CRL was primarily about getting people into the city certainly was trolling aye. That was just such an abusive post it really deserved an automatic ban.
If you guys actually cared about trolling you would stop doing it yourselves on a every post basis. Pretty mmuch any post Patrick, Bryce sailor boy and even yourself at times is just straight trolling.
All I ever do is pose a simple question to which you troll back and get offended at the response you requested.
Sailor boy, you are just putting a whole heap of needless constraints on yourself half of you you seem to ignore when promoting the CRL.
You will also note that this busiest part of the network you keep going on about is the CBD and as you can probably see now is why we need the CRL.
Woo hoo. Accused of trolling. I’ve never achieved that status before :-D.
What’s with the engineer hate all the time..
Replying to Nick above, while censoring comments sound’s good in practice, 99% of the time it turns into a way to shut out opposing views & blogs just ends up being an echo chamber.
Question Is your blog anti-car, apart from one post I haven’t seen the blog mention or campaign for any good roading projects..
@Snow Flake, you may notice that I have actually made an effort to explain why I consider you to be wrong instead of just telling you that you are wrong, maybe you could try the same.
I have tried to get close to the CRL frequencies on all routes in that model in the most efficient way possible. The frequencies are the main benefit, however after completing that there are other losses and minimal benefits, I actually think that a BCR for such a project would be negative (assuming effect costs are negative benefits). By extending to Aotea you get 1/3 of the project done, you don’t get the prequency increase, but you get the CBD access (secondary benefit) with no losses, just reduced gains. That project would have a low, but positive BCR, and would allow us to either finish the CRL later, or connect to the North shore which would allow greater frequencies at a later date.
If you are going to just say that I am wrong please don’t waste my time.
SB the benefits come from the through-routing, half a tunnel is no use as it is still a two track terminus, with inefficient in-out running and much lower frequencies. The tunnel provides the big transformational move by enabling us to run Metro-style lines at high frequencies. And when putting a line under the highest concentration of people in the country [AK CBD] you’d have to have rocks in your head to not put stations in too to access that demand. That is especially the case at Aotea, less so at K, and Newton is more a development enabler and network maximiser.
6 tph on three lines at the edges makes for 18 tph each way through the four CRL stations [incl. Britomart]. Trains every 3.5 minutes! 12 at Newmarket [5 mins], 6 each at Parnell and Grafton. Depending on how you run it you all get 12 tph on the inner west, inner eastern, and the spine of the southern. Now that’s a rapid Transit, all free of the traffic. The signals [will it be Moving Block? Anyone know?] are supposed to be up for this with the new trains running on auto through the CRL.
Add more road space and privilege for the Northern Busway routes city-side and we got ourselevs a real Rapid Transit Network; an actual off-road network to complement the existing road one
All or nothing: gotta take that tunnel all the way.
Sorry SB but the admin here make it rather hard for me to post anything of great length.
But as I said before, surely you see now after working it through that the primary constraint on our system is feeding the inner CBD. If we weren’t sending most of our passengers there running trains at 5min intervals would be rather simple once we got our new trains.
@Patrick, you may want to read the comments above, I am advocating the CRL.
@Snow Flake, that is a weak excuse and you know it.
Also, we couldn’t run at 5 min intervals on the network without a billion dollar upgrade as I clearly explained to you.
SB. Of the issues you raised and of which you say we need to spend 1 billion to fix, you will note that the CRL foes nothing to address these.
So really what you are saying is, once we have spent the 2-3 billion on the CRL we need to spend another billion in order to run higher frequency trains on the rest of the network.
Have you even read my posts?
Like at all?
We won’t, because my $1b includes stock, as does the CRL cost.
Also, most of the cost is in Newmarket for the high frequency non-CRL option, so that is eradicated.
CRL gives the frequencies easy, and means no turn arounds at all at Newmarket, and fewer turn arounds on longer routes at terminal stations.
And no stable is needed out west as the whole network acts as 1 so trains get get ti Wiri along several routes from the West.
So there are no problems that I have stated above that are not solved by the CRL, and no extra costs to get equivalent frequencies?
So why do you oppose the CRL again?
I have read your posts and that’s why right at the start you were making a bunch of needles issues so you could spend money to fix them.
What I ask you however is, where did I ever say that I oppose they CRL? From my recollection I have not said anything remotely like that in all my life however I has said countless times that I do support it. Even in this very thread I have said I support it. So as to how you came to the conclusion that I don’t support it is beyond me.
@SnowFlake. You don’t have to say something for others to know that it is true and again, instead of just telling me that I am wrong, would you like to explain why? That is how adults talk about things that they disagree on.
Also @FrankE, this blog isn’t anti car it promotes good transport, there are several posts in support of waterview, and an entire section dedicated to operation lifesaver.Also there havebeen posts recently regarding new roads, and one in support of the Dominion Road upgrade. The reason that there seems to be less if that we have built all of he sensible roading projects, we haven’t built any of the bus/rail/ferry ones.
Oh I see, so your the one who decided I opposed the CRL. Well given your the one who made that call you should be able to tell us why that is the case.
In regards to making the existing network run at 5min intervals, and assuming sending trains to the CBD is not a constraint. Rather than spending $1 billion changing Newmarket you could just leave it the way things are and then just run western trains straight onto the south. You could easily accommodate Onehunga trains by having some easter trains take over the fare south sections.
Basically if the CBD was not an issue the existing network and ains would be all we nee
However given the CBD is So isa constraint we need the CRL to handle athe number of people and trains we want to send there. Then there is the fact that it increases the catchment in the CBD by about 3 fold it makes the project even more worthwhile.e
Actually no, Newmarket junction could not accommodate what you are proposing, assuming you still want to maintain a regular service between Newmarket and Britomart.
Nick, what part if sending trains to the CBD not being a constraint do you not understand?
Keep in mind it is you guys who say sending trains and people to the CBD is the least important aspect of the projectn I’m the one who saying it is the most important.
I have quite a hard time understanding most of your comments actually, perhaps you could try a little harder to avoid the typos, spelling errors, punctuation problems and poor grammar. For example, this is almost unintelligible: “Basically if the CBD was not an issue the existing network and ains would be all we nee”. As for your strawman of assuming sending trains to the CBD is not a constraint, why bother? It is, and I don’t think anyone has argued to the contrary at any point.
Also you might want to read a quick guide to fundamental logic. Two example you might want to consider.
1) To say the CRL allows frequencies to increase across the network is not the same as saying it is the only way to increase frequencies across the network.
2) To say that sending people to the CBD is the least important aspect of the project is not the same as saying it is an unimportant aspect.
i think you are being quite pedantic an petty Nick R. berating people is becoming quite common here.
it is obvious that the phrase waws supposed to read “….the existing network and TRains would be all we neeD…”
Come on, you write terribly in every post made under all your pseudonyms. It really is difficult to read that sort of thing every time. Everyone else manages to write coherently, it’s the least you can do if you are going to complain that people don’t understand your comments!
its funny that you think all of these various pseudonyms are the one person. i think its a bit off for you to get stuck into people just because of a few typos as a means to berate their post.
Yes sorry about that, my little phone has trouble writting on these pages ones they get over a certain size. But such is the life of using a floating IP.
Anyway Nick, as I said right at the start, the main reason for the CRL is so that we can send more people and trains into the CBD.
You may contend to say that no this is not the reason, and that the main reason is that it will “unlock” the system and let us run higher frequencies across the network. As I have stated various times before an even you you agreeing once upon a time, if it were not for the primary constraint of sending trains to the CBD we could already run the network at the proposed frequencies. All we would need to do is reconfigure the way the lines run and reduce the number of connections between Newmarket and Britomart, all of which could be done without spending a cent more than what we currently have locked in.
Now in regards to you two logic statements.
A) nobody says “CRL allows frequencies to increase across the network”, they say it is required to do so.
B) people may not say sending people to the CBD is the least important aspect of the project, but they consider people saying that it is the main reason as trolling. So based on that logic, sending people to the CBD is so unimportant that anyone who suggests it is is deliberately not telling the truth and trying to provoke people. Now this is based on the words of one of this places admin, Mr Anderson and endorsed by yourself and Patrick, and I find it strange that he and yourselves takes such a negative outlook on the CRL.
I find it rather funny that he thinks we are the same person as well fiddlestixbob, we don’t even really talk all that similar and you tend to contribute to the some of the threads I hardly read.
It is very true however, the admin in general tend to berate anyone who doesn’t agree 100% with what ever claims they make. And of course when one of them does get abusive their mates come along and start rubbing them on the shoulders and joining in.
It’s strange how they try to pretend they are so factual yet very seldom demonstrate the ability to stay with the fact but rather intentionally misconstrued things every chance they get.
Snowflake, Dan, Dan Again, Dans Back, Riggles etc are all the same person, Richard Lauren a design engineer who works for Aurecon here in Auckland. He spends a lot of time complaining about how everyone else berates him and how the admins are conspiring to troll his comments, yet he keeps coming back to post again. I guess that makes him our greatest fan, in a way we should be honoured that he goes to such great lengths to post on the blog!
Sounds like I have a bit of a fan, I never knew you had such a personal interest in me Nick. I guess that explains who I got those flowers from.
probably the same reason a lot of people do, in that this is a popular blog with a high readership. The problem is that some of the information and viewpoints that are peddled on here are sometimes inaccurate, misleading and passed off as highly professional and reasoned, which a lot of people who aren’t in the industry fall for. Everyone says that the blog is welcoming of differing views but in reality it is only as long as it conforms with the viewpoints of a few of the moderators and CFBT. Sorry, i meant contributors with administrator rights.
you cant expect to run a public access web site, speak as if you are the only authority and then hammer people who have different view points without a few people taking you to task.
I guess the reason why I come here is that I actually have a job where I can make a difference about transport in the city, rather than just write stories about my ideas and then abuse anyone who questions me. And so its good to find out what people are thinking so I can try and make sure things happen right in the various projects I work on and plan.
Potentially folk here are upset because they have taken such a personal interest in me yet I have not reciprocated the same level or personal interest in them, I just don’t really have the time for stalking however.
@Snow Flake, you have claimed that we can get 5 minute frequencies on the entire existing network, unfortunately you seem to have forgotten that Britomart to Newmarket is actually a part of the network, so it also needs 5 minute frequencies.
Also, the reason that people here hate you so much is because they have taken a lot of time and effort to try and get their point across using a logical structure and quality writing. You come along and say that they are wrong, you give no counter argument whatsoever, you simply tell people that they are wrong. You have told me several times that I am wrong about the frequencies, yet instead of simply designing and explaining a system to me which would take 2 minutes to write down (you must surely have designed it to be so sre that I am wrong), you have waited for me to design my best attempt at that system, then when I come up with it you have simply said that it is wrong, no explanation, or a very poor explanation at best.
Your attitude breaches the basic norms of social and communicative etiquette, and your actions reek of a sociological egotism.
Possibly the only aspect worse is that you are so hypocritical, after trampling all over social courtesy, you then have the gall to complain when others get sick of your actions and refuse to maintain their normally impeccable civility. Just because you are commenting on a new thread does not mean that you are going to be given another two weeks to rile people before they snap. Just because they have called you entirely accurate names and criticised you personally for your actions does not make their arguments ad hominem nor does it mean that they are breaching social etiquette, as social etiquette is deemed irrelevant once adequately broken by one party.
If I were to try and create the perfect troll, someone who can make everyone hate them, and who seems to revel in it then it would be you.
I sincerely hope that you are more courteous in your professional environment as I am dreading becoming an engineer if you are the norm.
SB, I think if you actually look at the evidence on this blog you will not find a single instance where I have said that the author of a main topic was globaly wrong. If you take this particular post as an example, the only post I made directed at the aurthor was the one where I questioned the cost. In this case I usec historic evidence and came in at half of the aurthors gut feel for which they gave no responce.
If we look at what got people all excited, I simply agreed with some the intensification comes with large costs as well with the CRL being one such example. I made the comment rather calmly and clearly however it sparked you guys off onto a venomus rage.
A troll is not someone who makes simple and honest comments that are to the point, they are people who make up claims or arguments and purposely miscontrude what others say to either elevate a responce or just to abuse another person. This is something I never do but is all to common from the admin.
SB, regarding train frequencies. You will note that I never said the entire network would run at high frequencies but that by not having britomart as a contraint the rest of the network easily could.
So to start off we join the southern line with the western line to form one long line operating at 5min intervals. To accomodate Onehunga we simply make a split at westfield. So half of the western trains turn into southern and have the southern turn into eastern trains. So now we half most the network at 5min intervals with Onehunga running at 10mins. This leaves newmarket to handle 24 through movements an hour, just like any other staion.
Britomart would get 12 trains an hour from the east and south leaving 8 trains an hour to shuttle between Britomart and Newmarket.
And there you have it, you have higher frequencies over the network without soending a dime.
No its not as good as the CRL but then its free, rather than $2 to 3 billion and provides for what some claim to be the main benefit.
What you are proposing would not be free as it is not possible given the existing infrastructure. Newmarket junction and station cannot support 24+16 movements an hour in its current configuration under lineside signalling. If you want five minute headways on the main line then the Newmarket-Britomart shuttle would max out at around 4tph.
Otherwise it would require substantial changes to track work at Newmarket junction, the addition of ETS level II signalling control in junction bounds (which effectively means the whole inner part of the network and the full fleet would need to be upgraded) and an additional terminus track and platform (somewhere) at Newmarket station. That would be much cheaper than the CRL of course, but by no means free.
Now, before you go on any more about stalking, do recall that you yourself chose to publish a schematic of your design of Te Atatu bus interchange on this blog, complete with your full name and company logo, and then proceeded to claim full responsibility for it. Personally I never do anything quite so reckless with my clients intellectual property but I guess your career is your own concern.
And before you say any more about “actually having a job where you can make a difference about transport in the city” and “just writing stories about ideas”, perhaps you should take a quick look at the authors of the report and technical note that identified the need for a bus interchange in Te Atatu in the first place. I think you’ll find the names very familiar.
Actually Nick. The existing station is already able to handle 12 trains each way rather easily and it’s no different to any other outer staion on the network, unless of course these need mass upgrades as well.
You will also notice that newmarket staion already has a 3rd platform and set of tracks sitting there ready to go and I see no reason why you would need to spend large sums of money to handle one train every 8mins. The old station used to do thats.
As for my apparent post on Te Atatu, this may come as news to you but I am nit Matt L. Also of note it was AT that uploaded those images to their website and not me.
Oh, and good on you for getting a job, I suggest you don’t make so many posts abusing your employer and clients. Its not a good look.
My apologies, Matt posted it and you just just made sure everyone knew it was your work.
On Newmarket, it’s not a set of tracks, it’s one track in a half kilometre long signal block from the crossovers to the platform head, one that would have to operate bidirectionally. 7.5 minutes to clear the previous block, enter the single track block and travel 500m, come to a stop, open for passengers, park the vehicle, driver end change, unpark the vehicle, close for passengers, travel the single track block 500m, clear the crossovers and enter the next block.
Like I said you’ll max out at about 4tph on that with current signalling. If you want to utilise a second track path through the junction to access a second platform to get 8tph you won’t be able to run 12ptpd each way on the main line. If you want to do both you’ll need to modify the junction.
The old station never ran 16 movements an hour over a single track and platform. I’m not saying its impossible, just that it can’t be done ‘for free’.
Nick, all I said about Te Atatu was “glad to see you guys like my little design, cheers”
I was hardly celebrating how cool I was or doing any of the other actions you accuse me of doing. Clearly you must dream of me at night where we go on all sorts of adventures.
Anyway, if for example we need to spend $10 million changind some track and signals thats less than 0.1% of the cost of the CRL and compartatively free.
I really don’t see you you need to be so annal about such things. Anyone would think the CRL was your first born child they way you so zealously defend it from nothing.
Nick, I really think you should look at your tone. You seem quite interested in making a lot of personal attacks. I think if you lay off the petty & snide comments, everything will calm down a little.
That is much better Snow Flake, now I know what you are going on about.
It isn’t quite free as you need to buy rolling stock for it and would probably need to do something for the britomart platform but yes, probably talking less than 1/4 B$.
Also, I never stated that you simply said that a whole post was wrong, but you have never or very rarely said why you feel that person is wrong on a particular aspect without some very strong encouragement.
Plus, of course, it ignores the fact that if we DON’T build the CRL, we have massive other costs for EITHER enabling sprawl OR getting into the CBD by other means. So to call the CRL an intensification cost is rather rich.
You could potentially make the case that building the CRL is MORE expensive than building for sprawl, and thus the difference would be an intensification cost – at least that would be consistent and a logical argument, if hard to convince people of. A quick look at the 60 billion dollars planned for the TRANSPORT costs in the coming decade alone (much of it to enable what we would call sprawl) seems to put paid to that argument that the CRL has such a difference cost, though.
Not really Frank. No matter where Auckland grows you’ll end up needing the CRL whereas you only need this project if there’s such a huge amount of growth to the south of Drury.
Are you meaning that this is an example if how cost effective to is? Certainly if you where to try and put 160k new dwellings, 500k more people, you would be needing to spend about 10 times that amount.
Do you really think this is the only piece of transport infrastructure required to serve this areas Riggles?
He also ignores all the transport costs NORTH of the link discussed in this post. The traffic doesn’t just disappear at the northern end of Roscommon…
And all it will achieve is to destroy the sleepy coastal/rural quality of Weymouth and any future suburb in Karaka. Surely this has just suddenly popped up because of some well connected land banking developer wanting the public to subsidise a huge lift in the value of his subdivision plans in Karaka. A bridge here will lead to Weymouth and Roscommon Rd both becoming expensive and nasty arterials that one day could rival the joy that is the Pakuranga Highway. Kids will no longer be able to ride their bikes to school. Gradually over time though, it won’t be sudden, but as the new subdivision grows it’ll get worse and worse. We’ve done this before, isn’t it time we learnt to not repeating these basic mistakes?
I couldn’t have put it better Patrick. Shouldn’t the negative impacts to Weymouth residents be part of the BCR’s for the project? We should not be building more arterials through residential areas.
Must say I disagree with that statement somewhat. We can’t categorically rule out arterial roads in residential areas (especially since the resi areas CREATE that traffic). However, we can’t a) ignore the costs and impacts of such new development as proposed (which is what the post is about) and b) we need to make sure that where we do build / increase the traffic flows on arterials, we need to do it better than the Pakuranga Roads of the past. Instead, we should be building roads with cycle paths and bus lanes / bus ways (not transit lanes, thank you) that prioritise other modes.
Weymouth wouldn’t need this arterial, though. It is not, as best I’m aware, beset by serious congestion because existing roads are insufficient to existing demand. The only reason this upgrade would be required is because of sprawl to which Weymouth does not contribute a single brick or person. It’s a cul de sac suburb, for crying out loud.
Weymouth’s not a cul-de-sac. It’s right on the way to Karaka! It’s the height of hypocrisy to enjoy the advantages of sprawling out and living on the edge of the city, then complain when the next bugger goes even farther than you.
Steve I see your argument but shouldn’t this be about doing things better than in the past? Why destroy what’s good about Weymouth just so it can reproduced further out when both places could be good. I don’t see why Karaka can’t be developed (if we must) with connections to the existing two spine routes: SH1 and the rail line. It surely will be both more cost effective and produce fewer negative externalities. This is a long thin area, why won’t trunk and branch work for both modes?
Well first of all, Weymouth is genuinely “on the way” – it’s on a straight line between Pukekohe, Paerata and Karaka on one side, and South Auckland and everything beyond it on the other side. Joining either SH1 or the rail line is a bit of a detour, and a huge detour from Karaka.
I also disagree that trunk and branch works well for either PT or roads. Especially PT – http://www.humantransit.org/2011/02/basics-branching-or-how-transit-is-like-a-river.html. If it were a PT link, rather than a road, it would actually be a pretty good thing for Weymouth, since Weymouth would have better service than it would justify on its own.
We definitely can and should do outward growth better than the past, and that’s good luck for both Weymouth and the new areas farther out if we do. But it’s not at all fair to suggest that Weymouth should be spared any pain that there might be on the grounds that it contributed “not … a single brick or person”, as Matt Clouds said. Places like Weymouth contributed greatly to the sprawl that ended up destroying much that was good about areas closer in. Onehunga, Waterview and St. Mary’s Bay were all “cul-de-sacs” once. Not that it started there – having a whole bunch of trams running past your house was pretty noisy too. People 100 years ago complained that the trams destroyed their peace and quiet, but where would Auckland have been without them?
I’m sorry, but you can’t enjoy the benefits of living in a city but claim that you are “special” and don’t need to take any of the burden. All we can do is minimise what burden there needs to be, and share it fairly.
Can’t agree with you at all:
1. Weymouth is not on the way to Karaka unless some idiots build this bridge, it is currently a nice quiet peninsula a bit like Te Atatu, but not as long
2. I am not proposing branching the rail line but running feeders and even park’n’rides as I said further up. So your attempt to appeal to Jarret is irrelevant. The rail line actually deflects towards Karaka conveniently, it just needs a station or two and more services [+electrification]. Why incentivise driving or even busing through Weymouth to get the same train [at say Manurewa] you could have got further south?
3. Road is a mode that works perfectly as trunk and branch. Point to point; isn’t that it’s miracle property? We’ve got SH1, if people must drive it would be better if they’re on that than mixing it with the kids trying to get to Weymouth School.
But most of all 4. I completely reject this nutty ‘this place is bad so we’ve ruin everywhere’ argument. What a load of cobblers. The more places we manage not to ruin, even a little, the better.
Hey and talking of not ruining places, how about we stop abusing poor Manukau harbour; let’s leave this one for the birds?
Weymouth is well over 30 years old. It wasn’t new when I was growing up in Manurewa in the 1980s, and it’s certainly not new now. It’s hardly new sprawl objecting to newer sprawl.
Patrick:
1. Nowhere is on the way to anywhere unless you build infrastructure that lets you go from one to the other. If you do, then it is. So what?
2. Maybe you’re not getting on that train because you’re going to Manukau, which the train doesn’t serve from the south, or the business area around the airport. Both are likely to be big employment areas for people living in the new sprawly bits. They’d also be much closer via a bridge, than going through Papakura.
3. Which is why I’d rather we don’t build any more arterial roads or motorways anywhere, and instead build some decent PT infrastructure. Steel rails for preference, but I’m not picky.
4. Since when do I want to ruin anywhere? I’m saying that if, if, whatever we decide to do ends up putting some piece of transport infrastructure somewhere, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t be Weymouth as opposed to any other place. If that’s bad for Weymouth, it would have been bad for wherever we put it. If it’s good for Weymouth, that’s great.
Seriously, did you buy a house on Weymouth Rd or something? You endorse Matt’s proposal to build railway lines and busways through a bunch of suburbs here – http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/11/29/300-queen-st-the-perfect-future-transit-station/ – and I agree. Why is Weymouth different?
TLDR version: The question is Cars vs. Not-Cars. Cars are horrible wherever you put them. Thus, we should choose Not-Cars. Weymouth vs. Non-Weymouth is irrelevant.
Matt:
From the architecture, I’d guess most of the south end was built in the 50s/60s, and the north maybe 60s/70s, with a fair bit of infill from later on. But everywhere was the edge of the city at some point, and it needed to be served by infrastructure further in.
Wild horses wouldn’t get me to Weymouth!; but i can imagine people wanting quiet, coasty places, un-ruined by nasty and unnecessary arterials, and see value in Auckland offering them. Hell, if for no other reason than all cities are better if they offer variety. Difference is good.
Anyway it seems we agree on everything important anyway in this case… i am being a little snappy today aren’t i, time for a drink methinks.
My team of crack navigators assures me that the sun is indeed over the yardarm. Speaking of which, why am I still at work?
It’s also creating a huge amount of sprawl nowhere near a railway line so the suburbs of Karaka and Weymouth very much will become the next Botany Downs. Ironically once again, the council can simply ask NZTA to designate this as a state highway and their cheque book would be open to fund the whole thing. Ask instead that a railway line is built and it would be slammed shut.
There is an organised meeting at the Weymouth Primary School tonight at 7pm in regards to this bridge proposal for Weymouth residents. I will well imagine the meeting to become very heated. It will also be interesting if environmental groups become involved as well. There are protected bird species on the coast of Wattle Downs and seasonal orca visits in the harbour in Weymouth and Karaka as well as seals during the breeding season.
I live in Weymouth, and would love to go to the meeting but I wont be able to.
I’ve been living in Weymouth for nealy 10 years and they have been talking about this bridge the whole time, and it seems, from years in the past. Supposedly it was planned and then dropped a long long time ago.
I foresee some HUGE problems. Weymouth rd in the morning is diabolical as it is. There is only one way out – to a huge single lane roundabout. At 8am, the line of traffic waiting to enter the roundabout is already 8-10-15 cars…. plus the line of traffic up rosscommon rd onto UR17 is usually nose to tail – the council in their huge wisdom have stacked sets of traffic lights all the way down UR17 now, and its reduced traffic to a crawl. Along Weymouth road is a primary school and a number of preschools, which adds to the traffic congestion, not to mention a gazillion kids and parents walking to schoolas well – there are kids EVERYWHERE – and a lot of them tend to be on their own.
If it gets used, it will turn quiet neighborhood into a nightmare, not to mention the environmental impacts – there is a sailing club, who will not be able to sail under the bridge. It is (as far as my research tells me) a breeding ground for sharks. I imagine the people who live in the expensive houses at the end of weymouth rd, on a dead end rd at the moment wont be too happy about having a bridge and an urban route appearing out side their front doors.
Commuting wise, people coming from Karaka etc, are better off getting onto the motorway at Papakura and using the motorway interchanges. It will be slower for them to come through this way, because of the traffic. The whole idea is redundant (although.. I would love to be able to cycle across it and head out to waiuku and back – that would be a lot better than takanini – papakura – drury .. but selfishness aside… )
Having already commented in brief on that proposed transit link last week, I was speaking to some Local Board members from Papakura and Manurewa yesterday while I was at a Unitary Plan (Clunker) feedback session and they were not particularly amused that this link (despite being in the plans like Mill Road for thirty years) has suddenly popped up out of no where. I am going around series of Manurewa, Papakura and Franklin Local Board Community Meetings (you can tell one is from Southern Auckland?) which are discussing this link (seems no one wants it – but rather than cursed Takanini Interchange be upgraded to something more useful) to see what the mood is like. Most likely pretty hostile. At the AT Board meeting last week I know Councillor Fletcher was not particular amused on this link popping up suddenly and was giving the AT Executive a dressing down for that (amongst other things).
While getting Takanini Interchange fixed will go some way at relieving a pressure point, the most obvious way to avoid the link getting build is telling Council loud and clear what RUB option is needed down south.
From a post I wrote last week in which option I am backing
I have also noted as potential transport link from Whangapouri to Weymouth via a new bridge over the inlet as well as talk of a new waste water treatment plant. With me preferring the corridor option thus Karaka West and North not being developed – but actually wanting to be flipped over to lifestyle blocks or even better a regional reserve I can not see the need for a transit link through that area connecting to Weymouth. That link would create a rat-run from State Highway 20 at the Cavendish Drive Interchange, down Roscommon and Weymouth Roads (Route 17), over the new bridge, down the new transit link and through to State Highway 22 just north of Paerata rather than containing it to State Highways 1 and 22. That kind of rat running would lower the amenity of the new Greenfield developments and do nothing to solve congestion issues. As for the waste water treatment plant, well with Karaka North and West no longer under development you can away plop the new plant there out of the urban road but near the potential outfall site.
Submission wise I am going to follow through and “recommend” to Auckland Council that the Corridor Option for the RUB being the preferred southern Greenfield development options, providing there is:
A green belt maintained between Pukekohe and Paerata
New waste water treatment plant is built
That transit link over the Inlet is not built
What was labelled Karaka North and West either be allowed to be converted to Lifestyle blocks or even better a regional reserve seeming wading birds live in those areas
And that Auckland Transport will build the Drury and Paerata Mass Transit Interchanges (rail and bus station, and park and ride)
Use the money to electrify the rail to Pokeno, heck, Glenbrook even. Use what we have rather than building more roads!
More rail work is already on the plans to serve those new residential areas, BUT putting hundreds of thousands of people is always going to also massively increase car traffic there. You can’t win that battle by using PT. You can make it less painful for the city’s transport network by spending a lot on good PT, but you an’t win it. Short of $5-10 petrol prices (which would make this a deserted ghetto) lost of people living here will drive. Will have to, in fact, even with rail lines and bus ways.
What I meant was to use the existing corridors rather than spending huge money to create new ones.
I’m not suggesting to build no roads at all but to destroy existing residential neighbourhoods in the interest of developing at Karaka doesn’t look like a good idea.
You’re right Starnius. Which highlights the idiocy of the government pushing for more sprawl as it’s their transport agency (NZTA) which is probably going to need to foot a giant bill to pay for it.
If the road oriented friends of land banking speculators are allowed their pipe dreams, how about a rail bridge? Speed up the trip to Hamilton, as well as offering transit oriented development around Weymouth, Karaka, Whangapouri and into Pukehoke 🙂
Linking into the eastern access to the Airport Line and perhaps east to a Manukau-Flat Bush-Botany-Glen Innes line.
Hmmm…. interesting idea. I wonder how feasible getting heavy rail between the southern tip of the Weymouth peninsula and the eastern access bit of the Airport Line is though.
Just use LRT. Utilise the Manukau link (convert it) and then run the line at grade to Botany. Lighter load requirements, narrower corridor, tighter radius and it removes the inefficiency of running main line services to Manukau.
Actually, Bryce, from a MONEY perspective, it is arguably cheaper to build new bridges and arterials like the proposed one than to use existign corridors. Law of diminishing returns. Its actually likely to be much easier and cheaper to construct a new bridge and arterial road (even if it ends up costing 1 billion) to provide for several tens of thousands of extra cars than to do the same thing in the existing, maxed-out corridors.
From a transport-perspective that concentrates on cars, this link makes enormous sense, even economically. However, the issue is that in Auckland, these proposals often include a double case of myopia: First you ignore other transport modes than cars, then you ignore that you need not necessarily settle in those greenfields in the first place. Ergo: a new road is “required”.
Argh, that was to go onto Bryce’s comments regarding using existing corridors. The comments form always does this to me…
Tram / Train then you can running it along existing transport corridors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram-train
Great idea.. makes a false dichotomy of light rail and heavy rail. The airport doesn’t need heavy rail. Would work well for future North Shore link too.
Its a fact..Auckland is on a isthmus. Not the best place for a developing city, but we have to to with it, and live in it. Manukau harbour to the south and west. Waitemata harbour to the north. The Gulf to the east.
Peninsulars, and land areas where the distances across the harbour are the shortest, become links, paths, and roads, and maybe rail links, for the movement of people and freight. The Weymouth peninsular is one such area, that will become a transport link to Karaka, and Pukekohe in the south. Its inevitable. It may not happen for another 20 or 30 years, but it will happen. The city planners need to accept that it will eventually happen, and need to plan now to protect the corridor so that when its constructed disruption is minimised.
What’s wrong with a city on an isthmus? I think it’s a beautiful place for a city. And it might even stay that way if we don’t insist on paving it all. And no I don’t agree that this bridge ever has to be built. Places can remain places, not everywhere has to be on the way to somewhere else, especially peninsulas.
Auckland is a beautiful city, and the fact that its on a isthmus enhances that beauty, there is no question about that.
My statement is in reference to the development, and expansion of a growing city.
The fact that Auckland is on an isthmus..
1) Restricts the areas and directions in which the city can be developed.
2) Prevents SH1, which connects Northland with the rest of the North Island, from being diverted around the city.
Karaka and Pukekohe already have transport links. Granted, from the point, the trip could be fairly long and that’s why I think the development is to be centred in the wrong place. Far better to keep a designation along Hingaia Road, keep development off the road – ie. parallel roads for houses, and use it as a ring road for Karaka South development. Not through the development but around it. The only reason this bridge is being suggested in this location is because developers will get better returns on shoreside property. Not a good enough reason to sever an existing community.
That bridge has been proposed for a good 50 years. e.g. the 1965 De Leuw Cather Report “An extension of a route to the southwest of Wiri to serve the Waiuku area”. http://www.bettertransport.org.nz/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1562
It’s certainly not the first time it’s appeared on plans. I knew about it as a teenager living in the Pukekohe area in the 1980’s. I think I might have a road map from that time showing it as a “future connection”.
The whole area of development should hug the rail line. That will make this line unnecessary.
Simple problem, simple solution.
This proposed link is not new.
The link between Weymouth and Karaka existed in the past. I believe the post still exists on the Karaka side to which a rope was attached which ran across the creek to Weymouth to another post, now long gone. The rope was used to pull a ferry back and forth, in the days when the Great South Road hadn’t been properly constructed….
Thanks for the article Patrick. I’m a resident who lives right next to where the bridge would commence so I take a personal interest in it for that reason. I’ve also taken 3 Court cases against motorways as a measure to protect various environmental features and I host the http://www.greenercities.co.nz website (a little neglected recently). I’d like some of the commenters to note that, should the bridge and highway proposal proceed, there will be serious adverse effects for; (a) the health of residents living within 500 meters either side of the highway through air pollution; (b) the natural character and ecology of the Pahurehure River (yes river, not inlet); and (c) the socio-eoconomic well-being of the community (essentially it will be ripped in half). I note that DEBS mentioned protected bird species, seasonal Orca and seal visits and the involvement of environmental groups. I can assure her that environmentalists are paying close attention to the protection of this wildlife and other elements of natural character. Cheers, Dene Andre
Hi Dene. Thanks for your local views on the issues.
I would just like to question these serious health issues you suggest for anyone within 500m of the road. Is there actually any documented evidence for this like do people in your area live significantly longer than people in other parts of New Zealand, do you really have significantly less health issues?
Also if something was going to happen there, in terms of the environment would you rather a bridge or for the coastline to be replaced with houses. Currently both are proposed however I would see the bridge being less environmentaly damaging.
Lastly, what is going to happen to the community if the bridge got build? How would this damage the social fabric or economic well being of the local community? Or is it more the new developments that would cause the issue?
About 45,000 Aucklanders suffer significant ill health affects from air pollution each year, of which about 700 die per year. Most Aucklanders will suffer to a lesser degree, but pretty much everyone does suffer from it. It’s the primary reason I choose to live on the outer edge of suburbia, and to the west, as the prevailing breeze over Auckland is generally west-to-east, so I’m mostly breathing clean air off the Tasman.
Few people seem to realise just how many New Zealanders are killed by road vehicles each year. The official road toll is just a drop in the bucket to the true figure.
I recall reading some figures like that before Geoff however I find them very hard to believe.
In all my life I have never heard of a single person suffering an ill affect brought on by air pollution. However I know of various people who have died or been injured by all sorts of other much less common means.
Can I ask however, what sort of car do you drive yourself and what type of fuel do you use?
Hi snow flake – you don’t know a SINGLE person suffering Asthma, even though 1 out of 4 Kiwis kids suffers from some level of it? (from Auckland Council’s own air pollution report card).
I’d also suggest having a look at this article: Auckland has twice the air pollution as Sydney. At least we manage to overtake them in some things:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10754865
Its true – people don’t normally just one day die “of air pollution”. Its a hidden killer – taking years of one’s life, making heart disease worse etc… ist not “sexy” and spectacular like road crashes (though heck, we don’t do enough about those either). But its a very present and pressing health issue.
Actually Max I do, I also know that Asthma is not really caused by air pollution but rather exacerbated by it, hence why I said underlying medical conditions.
I have read up on various articles, I even say Auckland council claim that 700 people a year die from air pollution.
The thing is that these numbers are so hard to believe, I suspect quite a few of these deaths or from the elderly who have countless issues of which one may be attributed to the current air pollution levels.
“not really caused by air pollution but rather exacerbated by it”
I don’t see how that makes it any better.
“I suspect quite a few of these deaths or from the elderly who have countless issues”
Of COURSE they are primarily among the elderly. That is what “reduced life expectancy” and “premature death” means for a health factor like pollution. I’d rather prefer myself and my parents to live long and healthy lives as far into old age as possible, rather than go “Oh well, choking in the smog is part of growing old in Auckland – I mean I already have all these other health issues, what is one more…”
My point max, is that d old person my have renal cancancer, I mild respiratory condition and then dies from old age. However based on how these statistics work it will be said that they died from air pollution which will be blamed on cars.
If you are really concerned about air pollution, I trust you don’t use 91 octane fuel, drive a motorbike, use a petrol mower or use had for cooking or heating. I trust you also control your own diet as to avoid emitting large volumes of air pollutants yourself?
I t
Sorry but my phone went to town changing things there. I trust you can guess the meaning for most of it, the hard one however was that I tried to say gas cooking and heating.
The area in question is already houses down to the coastline and a major road as proposed would totaly destroy the suburb that is Weymouth.
John, I was obviously talking about the other side of the river where there are currently two houses on the coast. The environment on the northern side has already been destroyed.
In terms of destroying the superb of Weymouth. Would you call having the main street turning into the likes of ponsonby or Parnell destroyed? There is no reason why such a change in Wymouth occurring through the creation of this new route. I agree that itwld change the area sigsignificantly however.
In my opinion it would end up more like Te Atatu Rd than Ponsonby Rd. While kind of the same, the reality is very different.
Te Atatu road is actually pretty good when your into Te Atatu. If you talk to anyone who lives there I think you will find it rather hard to find someone who thinks Te Atatu road as destroyed the local community and that the place would be much better if it were removed.
In any event, the current road would be like Te Atatu road as there is no throughtffic and hence less comcommercial activity.
I should have been clearer and said Te Atatu Sth Rd which is very much a through traffic arterial and the locals do have a problem with the planned upgrades. As for Te Atatu North Rd, and as a resident, I can say there is a problem north of the Z’ station with it being 4 lanes, and a high average speed. The facilities to cross to the park are rubbish and attempts to convince AT engineers of the has fallen on deaf ears. 85th percentile along past Gloria Ave is over 60 km/h.
You can’t really call it a through arterial as there is no through traffic, it is a local arterial serving local traffic only.
If the people who go racing along there they are all locals.
Can I ask what the planned upgrades are that the locals don’t like are. I know they plan to slow the road down and put more crossings in so it would seem strange to complain about that.
You can’t really call it a through arterial as there is no through traffic, it is a local arterial serving local traffic only.
If the people who go racing along there they are all locals.
Can I ask what the planned upgrades are that the locals don’t like are. I know they plan to slow the road down and put more crossings in so it would seem strange to complain about that.
Mmmm – do you live on a small pennisula? Do you live in a village setting? Would you like your village cut in half? Would you like having two ways in and out when at the moment there is only one way in making it feel safer – helping lessen burgularies etc. Would you like after 14 years of living in a small sleepy village having to use lights to have to get onto the main road to leave your sleepy pennisula? What benefit is the bridge for the residents of Weymouth “ZERO”. We have a running bus system that gets us to rail – Southmall or Homai. We have main routes to SH20 or Southern Motorway. Would it change and impact our environment – our walking groups on the beach – yes. The residents have another meeting organised for the 18th April. And yes the residents are talking – we laugh if the Karaka building developers want it so much – remember the bridge will be an opening for the burglars and mischief makers from this side to come and visit the rich pickings of your side!
Here here
Snowflake, Te Atatu Rd (south) – 37k vpd. Most of whom come from suburbs past Te Atatu South. You should pop out here some time and take a look. Its not a pedestrian friendly road.
……and the upgrades, while showing some consideration for pedestrians and cyclists, are primarily aimed at moving 50k vpd by 2026.
Ahh your talking south of the motorway, now I get you.
So what’s your point? Are you proposing they make the main st of Weymouth like that? I would have thought there are better examples to follow.
I’m not saying that at all but I cannot see, considering how Weymouth is currently developed, how you would build a road to take significant traffic volumes without creating another road of this style. It starts with a 2 lane road and bridge but this quickly leads to needing 4 lanes. Ta da, an arterial.
If plans exist to slow Te Atatu Rd and add more crossings (peninsula side) I, for one, would love to see them. AT have not mentioned them during discussions as late as December.
There is no reason why having more traffic through there needs to be a bad thing. More traffic means more money and people meaning you get more shops and business.
Strangely, by having more traffic going through there the people who live there won’t need to drive as often.
Cars do not spend money. Turning this road into a short cut for people further out will not enrich the locals. More cars through a dormitory suburb like this will be most definitely a bad thing for those living there.
“Strangely, by having more traffic going through there the people who live there won’t need to drive as often.”
This sentence make no sense, how does the presence of a busier road make people drive less? Will the locals now hitch a lift with the people speeding through their hitherto sleepy neighbourhood instead?
No need to resort to trolling Mr Anderson, as you well know the people inside the cars spend money, and like you also know rather well, retail services tend to be attracted to busy arterial transport routes.
I don’t see what you are trying to gain by playing ignorant.
Now snowflake/Riggles/Dan/Dan again you seem to be suffering under the misapprehension that you are an administrator here. You are not.
Mr A made the perfectly clear and logical point that cars traveling through a suburb does not necessarily lead to any increase in retail sales. And also pointed out the meaninglessness of your statements. You cannot simply insult everyone with a different view to you, especially when yours are so clearly unsupportable.
I think it is time you considered starting your own blog where you can decide who is a troll and who is not with total freedom.
Patrick, one does not need to be an admin to be able to tell if someone is trolling. Although on this site it seems to be a requirement that if you are an admin that you are required to troll.
Mr Anderson came out with the random claim that cars don’t spend money. Given we all know this and nobody ever said they do I don’t see what he was trying to prove by making such a comment.
He also then went onto say that my claim about there being more shops in an area can reduce the need to drive apparently made no sense. Based on your last post you also think this makes no sense.
Of course the argument about people spending money comes up but what we working, able bodied adults tend to forget is that there is a sizeable chink of the general population that either lack education and life skills or have reduced ability to move around. Therefore, when we design roads to move lots of traffic, these people are largely forgotten about. I watched a group of people just yesterday trying to cross Te Atatu Rd at the Gloria Ave roundabout, using the ‘crossing’. One mother with a push chair literally waited for a gap in the traffic and ran to the center median. The necessity for her to have to do this is unacceptable. Of course the engineers argument from Auckland Transport was that the level of pedestrian use along this road is insufficient to justify further crossing enhancements or even a road diet (the road goes from 2 lanes each way to a single lane further up the road with just a single turn off along the way. If all those cars can fit into a single lane further up the road then why not at the roundabout? No answer from AT). Heck, even I struggle to get across that road without feeling like I’m rolling dice.
Boy, snow flake sure does have a funny defintion of trolling.
If trolling is ‘making sound arguments about well known or straightforward issues in areas of your own interest with occasional humour’ then I am glad to be a troll.
Sailor Boy, can you point out the “sound argument” that Mr Andareon made? From what I can see he came up with the claim that cars don’t spend money, and implied that I had made a claim for I obviously didn’t.
He also claimed that busy roads don’t tend to get more retail activity which is obviously false.
From what I can see there are only two reasons why he would make such moronic claims, A) he was trolling or B) he is actually a moron.
I’m rather certain it was option A) in this case.
Just to show how hypocritical you guys are.
Iun one of che cases where you guys were talking about the benefits if the CRL where you had said that wutwith the new stations the would be more shops and retail with things like new world metro.
Had I responded saying that your claim made no sense as trains don’t spend money and that the people in the city would still need to drive to the shops I would have been called a troll and banned on the spot.
If one of use guys make such a trolling comment however you think it’s a perfectly sound argument.
You pretty much couldn’t be more biased or bigotry if you tried.
You seem to be assuming that more traffic will lead to a growth in retailing, am I correct? I doubt it in this case. An expressway through to a Weymouth bridge probably isn’t going to create any more retailing along it, at least not any more than the retailing along the southern motorway or Te Irirangi Dr. It would be very much a through route, not a main street shopping area.
Nick, my assumption is that; if a new arterial road was to be put through Weymouth it would likely be similar to pretty much every other arterial road in the world in that it would be high desirable for commercial activity.
Now I don’t know why you would propose to put an expressway or something similar to the southern motorway through Weymouth, that’s you’re concept so I will leave you to it.
If however all we do is put in a “transport link”, which I suggest a Park Way would be rather nice, there would be ample opportunity for retails centres such as cafes to form along the route.
Currently Weymouth is a very auto-dependent area with little in the way of shops or similar within a walkable distance. If the new transport route were created, not only would there be a much higher retail demand but the area would also demand much greater levels of PT.
They are just poorly thought out strawman arguments that say creating this link will do nothing but pump cars through the area. It will make a range of changes to the area most of which would be good but with a few obvious negatives. It’s up to transport advocates to make sure these things are done well, rather than just crying in the corner or sticking your heads in the sand letting it be nothing more than a route for cars.
There is a mini-mall about 2km’s max from the end of the Weymouth peninsula. close enough I guess, and there could be the occasional local dairy there but I can’t see one on GE. What Weymouth Rd does have, and I’m pleased and surprised, is off-road cycle paths down the length of the road. A bridge and the associated 4 laning of the road would pretty much necessitate the removal of those not to mention a large increase in vehicular traffic. I cannot see any good coming out of that.
Yes quite right, the nearest shop is some 2km away, given the average person doesn’t like to walk much further than 200m, 400m at a push that means most people end up driving just to get a coffee.
Now as to why you campaign for the removal of the cycle lanes I do not know, you can explain that one.
For me, if I were to put 4 lanes through there I would make sure there are cycle lanes on either side of the road along with wide footpaths and wide median and plenty of places to cross. I would also designate the route as a “park way” so that no heavy vehicles would be able to use it.
I would also probably look at making the road 2-lanes each way with clearways rather than making it 4-lanes right from the get go.
Richard, can you name some high traffic arterials built in Auckland after WWII that have had retail centres such as cafes develop along the route? I honestly can’t think of one.
OK Nick, well lets pop onto the Auckland GIS website and see what parts of Auckland didn’t exist prior to WWII and then lets see how thing have gone.
Now looking at the maps one very large area is Glen Innes
Now according to you there wont be any shops located on the main roads and they will all be down little side street, unless of course you were saying there would be no shops at all.
Oh this is very interesting, it seems actually that every single retail spot is located on the main road or just off to the side of the main road. Certainly Apirana Ave has shops for almost its entire length.
Now I think I should challenge you, can you find some large arterial roads around Auckland that have no retail next to them. Now obviously we have some access controlled roads, so although retail places may want to get access to them they are not allowed to.
Apirana Ave has almost nothing on it. Almost all the shops in GI are off Line Rd or the side lanes that run between the two. A bit of light industry, certainly not cafes and the like as was suggested above.
Here is a list of modern arterial roads with negligible retailing on them:
Te Irirangi Drive
Ti Rakau Drive
Pakuranga Highway
Hobsonville Rd
Upper Harbour Highway
Albany Expressway
Oteha Valley Rd
Puhinui Rd
George Bolt Memorial Drive
These are all high capacity arterials designed for movement and through traffic, not retailing main streets. Yes some of them can be used to drive to malls or strip mall shopping centres, but almost none of them have any retailing fronting them. My point is that bridge access built through Weymouth would almost certainly look like one of the above.
Did the construction of the upper harbour bridge in the 70s create retailing growth and local shopping opportunities for Hobsonville, Whenuapai, West Harbour or Greenhithe? Not at all, it just carried a heap of traffic through without stopping. Forty years later and there is still barely a shop between Westgate and Albany.
Oh you truly are a star there Nick.
I specifically mentioned “access controlled” roads, as in roads that have the amount of access onto them controlled and so are unable to have much development directly onto them, and so what do you do. You give me a list of 9 access controlled roads?
Now I don’t know if you are trolling on purpose or just don’t understand what an access controlled road is, but you have failed completely.
Why, well not only are those roads unable to get much side access development, but most of them actually have some rather massive retail developments coming off them.
In regards to your claims about GI, did I not specifically mention that most of the shops would be on the side roads coming off the main road? Also Line Road that you bring up is another major road, its the main connection to the suburbs to the north.
That was precisely my point, yes they are access controlled to small or large degree as is just about every major arterial built since WWII, Like I said “my point is that bridge access built through Weymouth would almost certainly look like one of the above.”
So your point was to pick out a bunch of roads which I had already pointed out wouldn’t have much development on them? And yet you think you achieved this my picking some of the more developed access controlled roads that do have development on them?
Truth be said, Auckland is covered in arterial roads that have been built during all sorts of different decades, some of them have full access control like the motorways and others have less such as control like Whangaparaoa Road which has all sorts of development along it.
Actually Snow Flake, in this case I agree with you that if you don;t do access controlled over this area you probably would get retail along it.
Also Nick Albany Expressway isn’t an arterial road, its an expressway.
@Snow Flake, do you want a road built through here or not?
Do you want Karaka developed or not?
And why.
You may redeem yourself in my eyes here haha.
I myself have no vested interest in the area however from looking at a map it appears to be a very auto-dependant area with little potential for growth even though it is in a prime location.
Think that extending a connection through would be a good idea and I think making it sort of similar to Mahia Road just next door would be fine.
Given the environment to the north has already been destroyed I would not develope the south cost and concentrate the development near the rail line.
I fail to see why you would get 100k vpd going along that route given most people living to the south would either take the train or the southern motorway and I see they claimed enormous costs, financial, environmental and spacial as just scaremongering. In reality such a project could well be a benefit to all of theze and probably woukd be.
I see, that makes sense.
Don’t develop Karaka, but put the road through. I had also thought the same, the road only ever seemed to benefit Karaka (on the Southern side, everywhere else the motorway was better.
Would also make for quite a handy bus route from Puke to Manurewa.
SB there is a rail line that goes from Puke to Manurewa; way cheaper to upgrade that [electrify, new stations, frequent service] and give it decent service than build this unnecessary bridge. If planning new rail focussed communities as suggested above why would an multi-hundred million dollar road be constructive? It’s nuts. Leave Weymouth quiet, it isn’t required even if we must develop Karaka, and we shouldn’t when there are better placed green fields locations along the rail line.
This plan is just a continuation of the failed sprawl subsidising policies of the last century and it is now urgent that we stop doing things this badly.
Road spending gets none of the scrutiny that other modes do; scrutiny is wise, but it should not be mode specific, all projects should get properly analysed for their intended and unintended likely outcomes.
I’m not talking about developing Karaka though so basically your entire comment is strawman.
You are now getting as touchy and opaque as Snowflake. I have no idea want you support but I repeat this bridge must not happen.
Well Patrick when you try and jump into a conversation between two people over multiple threads it is polite to read very carefully before making assertions.
I was stating that the bridge as snow flake proposes would not be so bad as the the bridge as it will probably happen.
I don’t think that it should happen at all unless we designate a huge chunk to the south as a regional park that can never be touched, but that kind of netgates the whole point of the bridge.
Snow flake and I are discussing hypotheticals here not absolutes, ie if it were to happen what is the best way.
But that’s the very point; any bridge here at all is a disaster. It means no money for other important projects. It violates yet another corner of the poor Manukau Harbour, it subsidies the worst sort of badly planned and impoverishing expansion of Auckland, it represents last century’s terrible thinking that is all about subsidising land speculators with connections over thoughtfully planning the city and it looking after the environment for everyone.
So shrugging and giving in to the idea ‘that it will happen anyway’ is exactly the kind of thinking that I wish to oppose.
Would you support a tram line down the centre of Weymouth rd
T@ snowflake: Your questions seem to reflect a general lack of knowledge in this area. All of the issues I’ve raised are well discussed on the net and if you’re serious about answers I suggest a little light reading on your part. However, to respond to your first question, the effects of air pollution from highways are well documented worldwide. Pollutants of particular concern are fine particulate matter (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), nitrogen dioxide NO2), and mobile source air toxics (MSATs). I don’t wish to engage in a detailed discussion on this forum as that would be boring and unfair to other readers. For more detailed info please visit: http://www.epa.gov/air/ where you find specifics on the harm these pollutants cause.
That is true that I don’t know much about the area, hence why I asked for your local opinion. If you don’t want to share however thats ok.
I certainly am interested in knowing more about the effects of air pollution however. Generally the levels of these toxins are so low they present no notable risk, but then then long term exposure could present a risk particularly to people with underlying issues.
Not so. Recent article in The Lancet suggested evidence is mounting for a straight dose-response relationship for pm 2.5s. That is, there is no safe level.
The question is however, would it be worse to spending 10mins next to the stove cooking your dinner on a gas range hood than it would be to live next to a road that has 20,000 vpd going down it?
No it would not LPG gas doesn’t give off pm2.5 or SOx, or NOx, pretty much only CO2
You’re sounding very NZTA-ish, Snow Flake. The last NZTA employee I spoke to said that of course the main source of air pollution is open fires, which might be true for a city as a whole, but most likely isn’t true along the transport corridors, and either way misses the point.
I’m more just interested to know more about it, its like people who dont like microwaves yet carry round a cell phone and have wireless internet at home.
^You mean morons.
@ Peter H on the tram: I don’t support it but neither do I oppose it. I simply don’t see what benefit such a tram would bring to the area as opposed to the reasonable standard of bus service we already have. (yes I use it occasionally)
This may have already been brought up, but where does the traffic go after Weymouth, Roscommon Road is already congested in rush hour and this would just add to the chaos of the morning and evening commute.
Also I have a vested interest, being a resident of Weymouth Road, I would hate to see the area destroyed by turning it into a main Highway.
Unfortunately the planners of today have no regard whatsoever for the people that reside in these areas.
I have no idea what they’re planning, but I’m sure a traffic engineer would look at how wide Roscommon Road is, including the median, and think about how many extra lanes he could put in.
Only car lanes as well, no bus.
I’m sure there would be several buses in the watercolour artist’s impression.
Pt wash the shit out of this proposal haha.
Hello Dene
Weymouth looks like a nice place to live, Would you let your neighbors subdivide his property into 150m sq lot and build town houses. so more people can live in this nice part of Auckland.
Heh… overlooking the somewhat tongue in cheek tone, I note that a large number of sections in Weymouth have already been sub-divided so that “more people can live in this nice part of Auckland”. The real question becomes, will it be so nice if substantially more people live here or will the increase in numbers destroy the liveable qualities such people are seeking? And what effect will an increase in the number of buildings and people generally have on the natural and special character of the environment? The answer to both questions is they will destroy it therefore nullifying the stated objective of making Auckland more liveable.
Why would that be necessary? Peter, intensification can happen at the town centres as outlined in the UP, there is no need for most of existing suburbia to be radically different as AK grows.
The people of Weymouth have options, They could let more people live in Weymouth. (like along the coast and along Weymouth road) and make maximum use of existing infrastructure or suggest another nice bit of coast for people like them to live, let say at Karaka and have new infrastructure including transport infrastructure.
This is where there are also options. You could build a car / bus road bridge from Karaka to Weymouth road or build a Tram / walking / cycling bridge to transport the same number of people along Weymouth road.
Can I ask who you expect to use this tram line? Surly anyone wanting to head north via PT would rather use the significantly faster rail line? The only people I could see that would want to use it would be anyone in Karaka West. But then I think that area would be better suited as a nature reserve then a bunch if houses.
I find myself agreeing for once haha.
Joe Hendren
April 3, 2013 at 9:16 am · Reply
If the road oriented friends of land banking speculators are allowed their pipe dreams, how about a rail bridge? Speed up the trip to Hamilton, as well as offering transit oriented development around Weymouth, Karaka, Whangapouri and into Pukehoke
Mr Anderson
April 3, 2013 at 9:19 am · Reply
Linking into the eastern access to the Airport Line and perhaps east to a Manukau-Flat Bush-Botany-Glen Innes line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram-train
test
Hello Patrick
Just like the CBD, people like to live near the water, just like the CBD land area is limited.
Why not Intensification in places where people what to live.
No issue for me, just accommodating those who want a more dispersed typology. Not everywhere should be like the CBD, that’s the ‘Urbs’ to which this kind of area is ‘Sub’.
Hello Patrick
Good post Patrick: This is not about Weymouth, more about letting more people live in nice places.
Cities are organic. The CBD may be an expanding Kauri forest,
Places like Weymouth can be like a manuka forest which if left to grow can reach a height of 15m and be pretty easy to move around in.
They can even be like a Pohutukawa forest if left to grow can reach a height of 25m, which looks nice along the coast and main roads, may be not so nice in from the coast and main road. Note: what we do not what is blue areas out of sight and away from the coast and main roads.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Poverty_map_old_nichol_1889.jpg
Looking at Weymouth from goggle maps, sorry never been there. I am thinking it was originally built to a dwelling density between 10 to 15 per hectare. Now that a large number of sections have been sub-divided it could now be between 15 to 20 dwellings per hectare, and it is still a nice place to live, if dwelling density increased to between 20 to 25 dwellings per hectare (at the same speed as it changed from full sections to sub-divided ones) along the coast and Weymouth road would it become a less nicer place to live,and still feel like a ‘Sub’.
A 4 lane Weymouth Rd (road widened from 12m to 20m), Clendon Roundabout widened to 2 lanes, Roscommon Rd widened to 4 lanes along its full length. These things will impact greatly on the whole of West Manurewa not just Weymouth. I see the trouble school kids, kids on bikes,mums with pushchairs, and the guy in his wheelchair who lives across from Clendon Shopping Centre, and the old man with his walking frame, have at present, trying to cross a 2 lane, 60k speed Roscommon Rd. Life’s pretty tough already out this way in West Manurewa.
Clearly this true. And needn’t ever happen.
WEYMOUTH-KARAKA BRIDGE FOLLOW UP MEETING
The Manurewa Local Board Chair, Angela Dalton, would like to invite you to a follow up meeting as promised at the Auckland Unitary Plan meeting held in Weymouth on 3 April.
The aim of the follow up meeting is to provide more information to help Weymouth residents prepare feedback on the transport proposals detailed in the draft Auckland Unitary Plan.
Venue: Weymouth Primary School, 23 Evans Road, Weymouth, Auckland.
Date: Thursday 18 April 2013
Time: 6pm – 8.30pm
Just thought I would put my two cents in for the cost of this project.
Given we are talking about some 10km of new road, most likely being 2-lane two way road with wide shoulders and a median you could cost the rural part at about $140 million.
For the crossing, if you treat it like the Tauranga Harbor Link, although a lot simpler the bridge would be about $200 million.
For the upgrade of the existing road. These sort of works cost about $20 million per km so at 4km that’s $80 million.
So all up the cost of the project is likely to be in the range of little over half a billion, so strangely not far off the $650 million estimate.
If you were going to spend $1 billion on it you would need to be doing something pretty flash like putting in a tunnel or something for part of it.
I see 6.4 km of road on the Northern side to get to the motorway.
Maybe though they are actually planning to put in some cycle lanes and footpaths and good bus stops?
Maybe….
Very good off-road cycle paths already exist down Weymouth Rd. In fact, I have yet to see any better around Auckland. They are not shared paths either and they are well out from property frontages. Any width increase in the road would only reduce the cycle facilities.
Actually you only need to upgrade about 2km of the existing road, and maybe that roundabout.
Given the existing road already has bus stops and cycle lanes it is likely they will be retained and I see no reason to remive them. I know Nick R suggest the road needs to be an access controlled motorway but as far as I know he is the onky one with that plan. I myself have suggested that it woukd be better suited as a Park Way twice before.
What do you mean by “Park Way”? I’ve only heard that term in the states, where it’s an older word for freeway.
A Park Way is a road that prohibits the use of heavy vechilces and so can be used as a secondary route of access. They often actually go through routes that are much like parks and you could use the roads through one tree hill domain as an examples, although low capacity examples.
I would say it would be real nice if they converted the peninsula around Shark Island to a nature reserve and then had a road going through connecting to Weymouth.
A parkway like this?
http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?um=1&hl=en&biw=1680&bih=935&tbm=isch&tbnid=EaaqGYotMCkAuM:&imgrefurl=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Streetcar_Tracks_St_Charles_and_Terpsichore.jpg&docid=pUBQ_mdKXK_PWM&imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Streetcar_Tracks_St_Charles_and_Terpsichore.jpg&w=3456&h=2304&ei=YKBkUerrHs3figLdoIHgBA&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:40,s:0,i:206&iact=rc&dur=375&page=2&tbnh=178&tbnw=271&start=25&ndsp=32&tx=143&ty=114
Although that looks sort of nice I don’t know if there are any limitations on trucks for it.
There is a wiki post on them, also known was scenic roads however the ones they show are rather large.
I think they can be a good way of increasing connectivity without inducing too much demand.
The stated purpose of the RUB is to facilitate Auckland becoming the most liveable city in the world. In 2011, it was rated 10th. Qualities that got Auckland into 10th place will be destroyed and/or degraded should the proposal to build the bridge and 4-lane Weymouth be adopted, thereby making a nonsense of the stated objective.
Two such qualities that will seriously degrade or be destroyed are; (1) the special character of Weymouth; and (2) the natural biodiversity for which the affected area of the Pahurehure River is habitat.
Simply put, you cannot improve the liveability of Auckland by destroying/degrading the liveability of its communities and ecosystems.
Yes Dene this is the nub of it. No amount of post justifying can get around the fact that this is exactly the sort of place ruining car use promoting anti-liveability project that we must not build if we are to create a great city. Enormous cost; financial, environmental, spatial. Benefit; some slight convenience for one possible future sprawl burb.
Re the proposal for the Southern RUB bridge and Sewage Plant at Karaka to
Manurewa
Manukau Harbour Protection Society
John McCaffery Researcher contact
We just don’t think the Southern RUB Report on Nov Dec Consultaions provides an
adequate explanation of how a Bridge from Karaka West came to be a real serious
development option from the RUB consultations never having passed through a full
Manurewa / Weymouth or wider Auckland Consultation?
Here it seems are the facts as we interpret them – is there another interpretation we
have missed?
The development of Karaka West block was not on any of the original RUB options
that Council or any of its agencies seriously discussed approved until suggested(
sold) by land owners in Karaka who either want to develop and or sell their rural
land for a greater return. They commissioned a planning implications and a transport
report in an attempt to sell it to the planners at Ak City involved. It worked . They
have bought/ purchased their way into the Unitary Planning process and got it in as a
serious option that is now being put to communities as an option on which we all
need to comment. And what is worse that we the taxpayers and rate payers will be
expected to fund for them ! Madness all round. The option needs to come off the
plans and maps for consultation NOW . It could be reinserted if Council considers it
appropriate, after this first formal consultation planning round.
From a few questions at the consultation meetings- a Karaka West development
option appeared together with statements on all of the three Southern RUB options
and maps saying that which ever option was chosen a Karaka to Weymouth Bridge
and probably a Karaka Sewage plant with a Manukau Harbour discharge as well
would be needed ?
The planners then added this security of link planning argument about needing two
ways into and out of Auckland and drew up maps accordingly showing the Karaka –
Paerata link.
These proposals by the Karaka land owners group own costings add up as follows –
Total cost well over a billion dollars ! This is a Billion dollars that could go instead
into a rapid rail and main state Highway motorway upgrade or the Mills Rd option
1) Some $550.000 = Bridge $200 million/ the road to link with Paerata = $250 million
plus / Pukekohe – The upgrade to a motorway link to State highway 20 Airport
Manurewa Roscommon motorway /expressway = $200 million plus.
2) A Karaka Watercare Sewage plant and associated octopus links costs at at least
$ 350 million or massive octopus links to Mangere to overload that plant at about the
same cost. (We are already facing a huge problem with Auckland wanting a cheap
solution to to dump its unseparated combined stormwater and sewage from old Ak
drains back into the Mangere Plant to double its output- Instead of separating Storm
2
water from Sewage as promised and taking only the sewage to Mangere ,
discharging the stormwater into the Waitemata as long planned).
3) Crossing the Hingaia Estuary is also problematic and new bridges would soon be
demanded
4) Significant other as yet uncosted development costs that a formal Council /
Watercare and other agencies exploration would have uncovered.
Surely keeping development along the existing transport links rail and motorways
will accommodate the housing and development needed, keep costs down, contain
developments to existing or nearby industrial and housing developments and if we
had the brains drive the case for a fast efficient rapid rail link to Manukau CBD and
Auckland CBD- Why not not have several CBDs and regional centres and open
another major one at Pukekohe for the South. A billion dollars plus for the Karaka
madness as Chris Fletcher says would go a long way to assist with this . Perhaps if
we had a few thousand dollars to pay for Transport Plans, favourable Planing
Reports and fancy drawings and get this option well set out and costed -we too
could buy our way into the Unitary planning processes and options ?
The Meeting at Manurewa / Weymouth to hear further from the Council and hear
from Manurew residents and other Aucklanders about this option is set down for-
Thursday 18th April 6.00 pm Weymouth School Hall 23 Evans Rd Weymouth We
hope you can be there as the Southern RUB debate has huge, expensive and long
lasting implications for All Aucklanders- see you there… The option needs to come off
the plans and maps for consultation NOW . It could be reinserted if Council considers
it appropriate, after this first formal consultation planning round.
More:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/manukau-courier/8580878/A-bridge-too-far
I don’t know the area that well but If a bridge were to go ahead in the future it could instead go from Hingaia across to Karaka North, or from Karaka West across to the western part of Wattle Downs and then to Mahia Rd. Less impact on the Weymouth and it could improve access to Wattle Downs which currently only has one way in.
I just don’t see it happening – I doesn’t link properly with the SW motorway and also there is the massive clendon round a bout to think about. It would turn into another spaghetti junction.
The large verges left in Weymouth were for rail – of which they weren’t going to put a bridge across!
improve the trains a bit more ..
Im for it
Not many comments on this blog but I see this bridge is required more and more every year. Travelling on a the feeder roads in the morning towards the southern motorway is at a crawling pace and yet the motorway can be smooth going, the feeder roads are clogged.
In simple terms the country needs the work, the infrastructure is required now and my vote is for a govt willing to take this forward.
I know that this article is over 5 years old now. But I read it anyway.
I can’t help but feel that with:
1) the geographic isolation
2) proximity to the airport & already impoverished areas
3) distance from the motorway
That any development at Karaka resulting from this hypothetical bridge will just become a slum.
How about put this one in the long-term basket?
A man once said that the Weymouth Bridge would never be built while he was alive..
So now let’s just build it.
40 years ago it was deemed essential. Even Weymouth Rd was built to accommodate it back then.