You might have seen this video, which we received as part of a recent OIA request. It showcases the original light rail plans developed by Auckland Transport between 2014-2017.
What it shows, in glorious detail, is the entire isthmus-spanning, shovel-ready plan for surface light rail. It outlines all of the benefits. It outlines why we have to build it. It visualises the entire route and line.
All in one snappy three-minute video.
The production values are great, and they don’t come cheap. I imagine this clip cost some public money.
Yet, who saw it? Which stakeholders? Which officials? Which politicians? Which consultants? And who – if anyone – from the general public?
More to the point, why has it taken an OIA request – over half a decade later – for the public to finally see this?
Why, the whole time, has this been sitting in some bottomless pit, never to see the light of day?
Is this burying of public information – not just vital and publicly paid for, but interesting and thought-provoking – really what we want?
Shrouded in secrecy
There’s been a lot of debate recently around the high cost of infrastructure in New Zealand, much of it focused on party politics, the consequent lack of a consistent pipeline, and more – but one thing missing from the discussion is the stark fact that infrastructure projects in New Zealand are shrouded in secrecy.
That isn’t just my opinion, or Greater Auckland’s view: it’s confirmed by some very timely research on transparency around publicly-funded infrastructure projects in New Zealand.
This research paper from 2023, commissioned by the New Zealand Infrastructure Commission/Te Waihanga, scored a number of anonymised projects and found many of them wanting in transparency. As CEO Ross Copland says:
“New Zealand does not currently have public accountability standards for proactive disclosure for large, public infrastructure projects, so we’re seeing inconsistent performance in how New Zealanders are being kept informed. The research showed that around half of all the Business Case and assurance case documents in these big, public projects were not accessible, and that reviews were not accessible for completed projects.”
That’s a damning line, that “[we do] not have public accountability standards for proactive disclosure for large, public infrastructure projects.”
Because everything is hidden, project costs are also hidden, old numbers are used in public, what is being designed is opaque to the people who will use it, details are redacted, and in general, the public has no idea what is happening for years and years while key decisions and huge investments are made on our behalf.
There are occasional proactive document dumps – as we’ve covered here recently, documents released by the Ministry of Transport show how the current government ignored widespread concern about the GPS. But notice how all the up-to-date costs for major capital projects are redacted? Why?
So what are the estimates now? We deserve to know – and, especially given the significant inflation over the last seven years, we are entitled to ask what is actually contributing to the project costs of these projects?
When important things are covered up, we cannot see if something is going wrong, or even just veering away from original intentions, promises, and public needs.
When things are hidden from view, they can morph, grow and escalate in all sorts of ways.
When things are hidden, there’s no way for us to know who’s in charge, what’s happening, and why the cost and scope of a project is growing. Whether it be light rail, a crossing, or a motorway, it doesn’t matter.
The point is: if we do not know what is going on, how can we, the public, ever trust the process – or, figure out what might need to change?
And, closer to home, we can look to CRL as an example. Matt’s post from 2021 shows how these things can and should be done (even if not perfectly):
To compare what’s been happening recently, let’s look at a quick history of Auckland’s current biggest project, the CRL.
City Rail Link
The CRL – or something similar to it – has been talked about on and off for the last hundred or so years, but serious discussion of the current incarnation began in the mid-2000s after Britomart was built, starting with a feasibility study in 2004.
The project had appeared in various planning documents, but things kicked off more seriously around 2009 with the first discussions of what ultimately became the Commercial Bay development. The original proposal was to build a big underground carpark on the site, which would have prevented the ability to build the CRL in the future.
The then-new National Government weren’t supportive of the CRL project and frequently ridiculed it; however, at least they let it be investigated. In 2009, the ARC’s transport agency ARTA announced a joint study with KiwiRail into the CRL including investigating routes and station locations. What is most relevant for this post is what happened next.
In early 2010, the first phase of that study was released. This initial phase came up with a long list of options for routes and station locations and then narrowed that down to a shortlist. It also included a high-level look at the benefits of the project.
With the exception of the Newton Station, which was dropped to enable the Mt Eden junction to be grade-separated, this (as outlined in 2010) is what is now being built.
Much to the chagrin of the government, both main candidates to be the first mayor of all of Auckland (aka the SuperCity) supported the project. Newly elected mayor Len Brown released the business case just over a month after winning the mayoralty. The government weren’t happy and delayed the project for years, kicking off a bunch of dodgy reviews and other studies to try and avoid it. Although, ironically, some of those studies ended up making the case for CRL stronger, and one even resulted in the emergence of light rail – the City Centre Future Access Study highlighted that even with the CRL there would still be bus congestion issues in the city.
The key point to all of this is that key information like route options and initial costings were made public well before any decision was made on whether to fund the project. That allowed for the public to start gaining and understanding of the project, and people living along the proposed route could start to understand what might happen. It also meant [news and advocacy] sites like this could discuss the issues, to help imagine a better future for Auckland and build greater social licence for the project.
We’re now nearly seven years on since light rail was first announced. If we’re to beat the 12 years it took for the CRL to go from that initial feasibility study to construction, then the government needs to shift away from secrecy, and start having proper conversations about what the options and trade-offs are.
Something needs to change or the shift to secrecy will keep damaging transport outcomes.
What projects would be under way right now, and/or being built for significantly less cost, if the public could actually see what was happening?
The secrecy needs to go
It simply doesn’t make any sense to keep the infrastructure process as hidden as it has been.
It’s appalling that the mountain of publicly funded work produced for the Auckland Transport-led light rail proposal up to 2018 was not publicly available until now.
It makes zero sense that millions of dollars can be preemptively spent on work toward a whole new harbour crossing, without anyone outside the room having any idea what is actually being built, or dreamed up.
If these four-lane highways are all going to be wrapped up in long term Public-Private Partnerships that lock the next generation into contracts they haven’t signed, shouldn’t we, the public, know the terms – and the cost – of those deals?
Why shouldn’t we see analysis of these options? What if all the evidence points towards two-lanes, or 2+1 upgrades to existing roads?
It’s shocking that we don’t see anything, that it’s all kept secret – under the pretext of “commercial sensitivity”, or so as to not affect “negotiations”, or in order to “maintain free and frank advice.”
Who benefits from this? And is it even true?
Look at France, where open-participation practices are incorporated into major projects, which reveal a lot of detail about ongoing work – and they have some of the cheapest infrastructure costs. Or look at this history of one of the light rail lines in Edmonton, Canada, which shows maps of potential property acquisition were publicly visible from after the preliminary designs back in the 2010’s.
Lastly – as with the video this post began with – why does it require concerted effort by ordinary people, through dogged research and Official Information Act requests, to unearth even the most anodyne or even crowd-pleasing information about these major projects? Especially when they’ve since been cancelled – why not show your workings, so we can see why you’ve downed tools?
How can we deal with our infrastructure deficit without even knowing what is going on?
Go back even further. When the original railway station was built, the plan was to tunnel under through to the top of Hobson / Albert street around and down in a loop to where the post office/ railway station was… too much money was spent on the ornate railway station and so the “loop” was never done. Mayor Robbie tried, multiple stuff ups. So sad
We can bet that the industry shares information like this amongst themselves.
It may make a few elected representatives feel important to secretly know, but otherwise there is a big knowledge asymmetry between the public and construction firms.
I can’t see how this is in anyone’s benefit to hide this away either. The community were subjected to handwavium during consultation but prevented from seeing the flaws and impacts of the road widening (a ‘time limited’ T2 lane added to the existing 2 x two lane stroad) and the imposition of a footbridge (in reality 160m long hill) to increase pedestrian safety (ease traffic flow for cars).
If the report supports the project then the safety implications should be public.
If the report highlights problems for the project then the safety implications should be public.
There are not even commercial reasons to withhold this information and require a FOI request. It should have been released as part of the ‘consultation’ with the community.
Meanwhile, needed and necessary safety improvements (safer level crossings, right turn arrows etc…) for the entire Brougham Street corridor have been put on hold in a cynical manner in order to keep the ‘this is a safety improvement program’ argument available for future road widening projects.
In the IT world, being open with proposals (such as the classic Request for Comment (RFC) process, has proven to be more effective. You need to openly engage with passionate users of the product; in this case people using the transport options.
As an analyst, I have found the best way to elicit useful information to guide development decisions, is to iterate from a ‘quick and dirty’ low-fidelity proposal, then as you build more detail to the MVP, you test the design against stakeholder feedback.
Sounds like this happened with CRL; and that project is now drawing (slowly) to completion.
The worst thing is to go into the silo/bunker, spend millions to develop a solution in secret and then spring the surprise on the public. Who immediately reject it due to massive flaws that would have been pointed out early if it was a more open process. See the $685m ‘cycle bridge’ announcement for example.
I get professionals would rather not have to deal with NIMBYs and people against all progress, or just members of the public who don’t understand what the drivers of the project are. But they are going to have a say anyway, and years of work that goes under the hood, is much easier to cancel.
Interest to see on social media, that when people were complaining about AT removing lanes, a lot of people jumped in to defend AT and talked about walking/PT and safety with less cars in the CBD. You need to arm people with the information they can use to deal with the ‘more roads’ crowd.
Being open with proposals make sense to me. We, the public, are buying the product; we should figure out our budget, what we need and our nice-to-haves before we expect others to bid on it. With road works, that proposal process might be a good time to try “quick and dirty” versions of our ideas. Like painting some temporary lines to see how a proposed road change would look and work, then finalising the plan, then building the permanent product.
NZTA took over the initial consulting and design work that Skypath had done over years, consulted on it, gold plated it, binned it because reasons and then puked up the $600m active modes bridge concept, like some stinking hairball into our laps.
What a wonderful way to ensure they would never have to consider such a thing in future.
There is something missing from this article, and that’s: what is the proffered justification for the secrecy? Why do they *say* it’s necessary? Or do they just not say anything and impose secrecy for no stated reason at all?
The theory is that authorities can only get best value for public money by treating bids as commercially confidential. This assumption then flows back into the business cases and other supporting documents. Presto, culture of secrecy.
Given how designs and costs always evolve during projects, a more open approach is being used anyway these days with cost-sharing ‘alliancing’ between funders and constructors. Just not with the public.
In the last section I did touch on this, but perhaps I could of mentioned it earlier. As I wrote often the reason things are secret to ensure ‘confidentiality’, to protect commercial positions of govt/councils for negotiations, or under OIA’s to ‘protect free and frank advice’.
There’s the added point on privacy of individuals, ie staff, addresses, phone numbers.
The grounds used under the OIA to withhold the information is 9(2)(i)… which is not actually a section of the OIA.
It is probably 9(2)(b)(i) to protect information where the making available of the information would disclose a trade secret
or 9(2)(g)(i) to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the free and frank expression of opinions by or between or to Ministers of the Crown or members of an organisation or officers and employees of any public service agency or organisation in the course of their duty; or
I am wrong, there is a 9(2)(i) to enable a Minister of the Crown or any public service agency or organisation holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities
I see it more as “secrecy is needed so as to make sure [political pet project] advances far enough before the public knows what it costs – and ideally never knows”.
And also, in our short-termist politics, even while knowing that you can fund only half the projects that you [as a party] are promising seems to make sense to politicians – just continue to claim the project is real, until it’s cancelled. Oh, and then blame the costs of a cycleway somewhere for why you can’t afford it!
Indeed Miffy, but also aids sabotage, as certainly happened with Light Rail. Secrecy serves those with agendas and some level of power. It is inherently anti-democratic.
High levels of secrecy also coincides with higher cost regions, anglophone countries tend to have the most concealed processes and the highest costs in horizontal infrastructure construction.
Countries like Italy that had to develop processes to combat corruption in the sector did so through very high levels of transparency. Including the commercial tender process, which is often open book, with agreed materials charges etc.
If they had started on light rail around 2017 as per the video, we’d almost be completed now. Think about that. What a missed opportunity for Auckland.
Maybe. In Toronto the Eglinton Crosstown LRT was supposed to be completed in 2019. Then 2021. Then 2023. It’s still not open and the provincial government isn’t giving anyone even an estimated opening date.
A RNZ programme a few years ago discussed some basic qualifications required for a person to become a politician. People come from all backgrounds and experience is important. But politicians should be able to read annual reports and understand what happened in the past year, the financial statements and the plans for the next year. At a recent selection meeting the candidates sidetracked my question and one senior politician said “he dosen’t read annual reports and leaves that to others who understand those things”. Have we read the Auckland Council annual report that was published last week?
I am certain that like Australia, plus two decades, we will finally have something that they have, an Independent Commission to investigate Corruption.
As we are perceived as a very honest country, it can clearly be seen as hearsay, because we simply don’t disclose anything to the public. Anywhere else we would be screaming CORRUPTION.
This article makes an excellent point about our democracy, if we, the people, are in charge of our destiny, why can we not know what those who are creating our destiny are doing with our sweat?
As they have found in Australia, you can only find corruption if you look for it, and perhaps it is time for Aotearoa to catch up with the real world?
*Declaration of conflict of interest: my young kids and I agree that trains are the coolest part of our public transport system; and by extension a Light Rail component would be even coolerer!
Watching that video is just heartbreaking, show’s what we could have had with competent leadership over the last 7 years. Instead we’re doomed to this current shit show.
I had to laugh at Winston Peter’s claim to his party faithful over the weekend that “we will not be bought”. NZ 1st is a party that’s all about pork barrel politics. Just read its last manifesto and watch its MP’s behaviour relative to their funders. A properly functioning corruption commission would have a field day with them.
Yes what a joke the river of filth party have become .Time for a name change as they dont put NZ first .Just yesterday he back flipped saying he cant see why foreigners cant invest in houses here . Not while he is Maori bashing the Asian invasion he raved about at the end of last centry is well under way .
“Not while he is Maori bashing the Asian invasion he raved about at the end of last centry is well under way”
To be fair, he has done a 180 and now wants us to be like Singapore. Although he has only mentioned taxation incentives for foreign investment. I’m still waiting on the announcement for mass HDB-like apartments (with funky architecture) over new MRT stations and NZ$100k for the right to drive, and paying an extortionate amount for a Toyota to make that NZ$100k right worthwhile….
I disagree with the comment in the video saying Queen St LRT would decongest Symonds St buses. LRT up Symonds St, through the centre of the university, would be more effective, rather than having to walk up and down the hill to Queen St. It also feels odd that the LRT from Wynyard doesn’t cross directly to Britomart over an opening bridge. This was the reason we got the current broken “temporary” pedestrian bridge. The animation shows the LRT avoiding the Upper Queen St / Ian McKinnon Drive intersection, which is interesting, and missing from the written report. The 2017 Labour government has much to answer for and certainly their interference resulted in the secrecy around work completed by council/AT. With the fast tracking of Avondale-Southdown, and Newmarket-Pukekohe quad tracking, I’d suspect future LRT development would be broken up into shorter separate routes. Maybe Mangere, connecting Puhinui through the airport to Mangere and CBD-Dom Rd, crossing and connecting to Avondale-Southdown.
The 25 route doesn’t go up queen street, they take an immediate left into wakefield and onto symonds immediately after starting the route.
But yes there are a couple of peak only 252/253 runs which take the direct route up queen street and onto iam mckinnon.
There is a perfectly good busway linking Puhinui and the airport already and it will eventually go up to Botany and onto Panmure.
In fact, if the mayor can’t get his Avondale-Southdown rail line off the ground, we should put a busway down that too and onto the airport, through to the east.
“It also feels odd that the LRT from Wynyard doesn’t cross directly to Britomart over an opening bridge.” Was doing some thinking into this the other week. I can see why they chose Fanshawe St, given it would be a lot more simple, less risk & cost. Of course it may take away motorway lanes which could be seen as a disadvantage. You could elevate it across the water maybe to clear some lower height water craft, restricting the higher ones. Perhaps straight along Madden & Customs St W. Leave the the other bridge as pedestrian/active mode.
The lovely 129 page document isn’t the half of it. I worked extensively on the reference design – there are over 800 engineering drawings and about 10,000 design documents of one type or another. The team was large and the amount of design that went into this was massive. You could have tendered out a D&C from the reference design – still could too. Pity that Phil Twyford got wooed by the Canadian Pension Fund or we’d have it running by now.
Thanks for signing up for news from Greater Auckland! Keep an eye on your inbox for regular updates.
Processing...
STAY IN TOUCH
We love being able to keep you in the loop - it means we know theres a community of like-minded people who are keen on making Auckland better on bikes. Sign up for updates about what's happening, and how you can be part of it.
We are only permitted to see the numbers from 2017 – that’s seven years ago, for those of you keeping track – and many of those old numbers were what National relied on in last year’s election campaign. But clearly, updated numbers exist, or they wouldn’t be redacted in this document.
Processing...
Sounds a bit like the Emperor’s new clothes.
Go back even further. When the original railway station was built, the plan was to tunnel under through to the top of Hobson / Albert street around and down in a loop to where the post office/ railway station was… too much money was spent on the ornate railway station and so the “loop” was never done. Mayor Robbie tried, multiple stuff ups. So sad
And that’s when we famously found out how cheap NZ Labour were – all it took was just six power point slides to derail them.
We can bet that the industry shares information like this amongst themselves.
It may make a few elected representatives feel important to secretly know, but otherwise there is a big knowledge asymmetry between the public and construction firms.
Who benefits from that?
There has been about 34% inflation since 2017 for civil construction. But that assumes the initial cost estimate is right, which they often are not.
34% = 1057 / 787.1
https://www.stats.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Business-price-indexes/Business-price-indexes-June-2024-quarter/Download-data/business-price-indexes-june-2024-quarter.zip
In Christchurch the NZUP Brougham Street project (since cancelled by National) required a FOI request to get access to the Detailed Design Safe System Audit – https://www.facebook.com/groups/1589486864595115/posts/2486773488199777/
I can’t see how this is in anyone’s benefit to hide this away either. The community were subjected to handwavium during consultation but prevented from seeing the flaws and impacts of the road widening (a ‘time limited’ T2 lane added to the existing 2 x two lane stroad) and the imposition of a footbridge (in reality 160m long hill) to increase pedestrian safety (ease traffic flow for cars).
If the report supports the project then the safety implications should be public.
If the report highlights problems for the project then the safety implications should be public.
There are not even commercial reasons to withhold this information and require a FOI request. It should have been released as part of the ‘consultation’ with the community.
Meanwhile, needed and necessary safety improvements (safer level crossings, right turn arrows etc…) for the entire Brougham Street corridor have been put on hold in a cynical manner in order to keep the ‘this is a safety improvement program’ argument available for future road widening projects.
In the IT world, being open with proposals (such as the classic Request for Comment (RFC) process, has proven to be more effective. You need to openly engage with passionate users of the product; in this case people using the transport options.
As an analyst, I have found the best way to elicit useful information to guide development decisions, is to iterate from a ‘quick and dirty’ low-fidelity proposal, then as you build more detail to the MVP, you test the design against stakeholder feedback.
Sounds like this happened with CRL; and that project is now drawing (slowly) to completion.
The worst thing is to go into the silo/bunker, spend millions to develop a solution in secret and then spring the surprise on the public. Who immediately reject it due to massive flaws that would have been pointed out early if it was a more open process. See the $685m ‘cycle bridge’ announcement for example.
I get professionals would rather not have to deal with NIMBYs and people against all progress, or just members of the public who don’t understand what the drivers of the project are. But they are going to have a say anyway, and years of work that goes under the hood, is much easier to cancel.
Interest to see on social media, that when people were complaining about AT removing lanes, a lot of people jumped in to defend AT and talked about walking/PT and safety with less cars in the CBD. You need to arm people with the information they can use to deal with the ‘more roads’ crowd.
Being open with proposals make sense to me. We, the public, are buying the product; we should figure out our budget, what we need and our nice-to-haves before we expect others to bid on it.
With road works, that proposal process might be a good time to try “quick and dirty” versions of our ideas. Like painting some temporary lines to see how a proposed road change would look and work, then finalising the plan, then building the permanent product.
An open process can still be manipulated.
NZTA took over the initial consulting and design work that Skypath had done over years, consulted on it, gold plated it, binned it because reasons and then puked up the $600m active modes bridge concept, like some stinking hairball into our laps.
What a wonderful way to ensure they would never have to consider such a thing in future.
There is something missing from this article, and that’s: what is the proffered justification for the secrecy? Why do they *say* it’s necessary? Or do they just not say anything and impose secrecy for no stated reason at all?
The theory is that authorities can only get best value for public money by treating bids as commercially confidential. This assumption then flows back into the business cases and other supporting documents. Presto, culture of secrecy.
Given how designs and costs always evolve during projects, a more open approach is being used anyway these days with cost-sharing ‘alliancing’ between funders and constructors. Just not with the public.
In the last section I did touch on this, but perhaps I could of mentioned it earlier. As I wrote often the reason things are secret to ensure ‘confidentiality’, to protect commercial positions of govt/councils for negotiations, or under OIA’s to ‘protect free and frank advice’.
There’s the added point on privacy of individuals, ie staff, addresses, phone numbers.
The grounds used under the OIA to withhold the information is 9(2)(i)… which is not actually a section of the OIA.
It is probably 9(2)(b)(i) to protect information where the making available of the information would disclose a trade secret
or 9(2)(g)(i) to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through
the free and frank expression of opinions by or between or to Ministers of the Crown or members of an organisation or officers and employees of any public service agency or organisation in the course of their duty; or
but who would know
I am wrong, there is a 9(2)(i) to enable a Minister of the Crown or any public service agency or organisation holding the information to carry out, without prejudice or disadvantage, commercial activities
Really important post. Great work, Connor.
Secrecy is needed to hide the incompetence.
I see it more as “secrecy is needed so as to make sure [political pet project] advances far enough before the public knows what it costs – and ideally never knows”.
And also, in our short-termist politics, even while knowing that you can fund only half the projects that you [as a party] are promising seems to make sense to politicians – just continue to claim the project is real, until it’s cancelled. Oh, and then blame the costs of a cycleway somewhere for why you can’t afford it!
Indeed Miffy, but also aids sabotage, as certainly happened with Light Rail. Secrecy serves those with agendas and some level of power. It is inherently anti-democratic.
High levels of secrecy also coincides with higher cost regions, anglophone countries tend to have the most concealed processes and the highest costs in horizontal infrastructure construction.
Countries like Italy that had to develop processes to combat corruption in the sector did so through very high levels of transparency. Including the commercial tender process, which is often open book, with agreed materials charges etc.
If they had started on light rail around 2017 as per the video, we’d almost be completed now. Think about that. What a missed opportunity for Auckland.
Wasn’t it scheduled for completion in 2021, given that AT had already done the design phase?
Adding on the airport leg was fatal.
Criminal incompetence from the previous Labour government in not actually building
Yes. Transport officials somehow bamboozled Twyford, Wood, and their cabinet colleagues. Weak governance.
People would probably be arguing were to build the next stage with everyone hoping their suburb would be next…
Such a shame 🙁
If they had built it as per the video the trams wouldn’t have gone anywhere. Not until someone came along and built some wires.
Refer to Page10 of the Design Manual for info on power options.
Maybe. In Toronto the Eglinton Crosstown LRT was supposed to be completed in 2019. Then 2021. Then 2023. It’s still not open and the provincial government isn’t giving anyone even an estimated opening date.
All it took was six power point slides to derail the project, showing us just how inexpensive it was to buy Labour.
A RNZ programme a few years ago discussed some basic qualifications required for a person to become a politician. People come from all backgrounds and experience is important. But politicians should be able to read annual reports and understand what happened in the past year, the financial statements and the plans for the next year. At a recent selection meeting the candidates sidetracked my question and one senior politician said “he dosen’t read annual reports and leaves that to others who understand those things”.
Have we read the Auckland Council annual report that was published last week?
I am certain that like Australia, plus two decades, we will finally have something that they have, an Independent Commission to investigate Corruption.
As we are perceived as a very honest country, it can clearly be seen as hearsay, because we simply don’t disclose anything to the public. Anywhere else we would be screaming CORRUPTION.
This article makes an excellent point about our democracy, if we, the people, are in charge of our destiny, why can we not know what those who are creating our destiny are doing with our sweat?
As they have found in Australia, you can only find corruption if you look for it, and perhaps it is time for Aotearoa to catch up with the real world?
*Declaration of conflict of interest: my young kids and I agree that trains are the coolest part of our public transport system; and by extension a Light Rail component would be even coolerer!
bah humbug
Watching that video is just heartbreaking, show’s what we could have had with competent leadership over the last 7 years. Instead we’re doomed to this current shit show.
The secrecy protects those who benefit from the matey relationship that has developed between civil service mandarins and private consulting firms.
We’ve known for years that our OIA and Privacy Act public disclosure frameworks are being openly abused.
Its good of this publication to draw further light on this (and what a contrast to the credulous state of NZ’s news media generally).
I had to laugh at Winston Peter’s claim to his party faithful over the weekend that “we will not be bought”. NZ 1st is a party that’s all about pork barrel politics. Just read its last manifesto and watch its MP’s behaviour relative to their funders. A properly functioning corruption commission would have a field day with them.
And then move the commission on to look at how the C&R mob have run Entrust.
Yes what a joke the river of filth party have become .Time for a name change as they dont put NZ first .Just yesterday he back flipped saying he cant see why foreigners cant invest in houses here .
Not while he is Maori bashing the Asian invasion he raved about at the end of last centry is well under way .
“Not while he is Maori bashing the Asian invasion he raved about at the end of last centry is well under way”
To be fair, he has done a 180 and now wants us to be like Singapore. Although he has only mentioned taxation incentives for foreign investment. I’m still waiting on the announcement for mass HDB-like apartments (with funky architecture) over new MRT stations and NZ$100k for the right to drive, and paying an extortionate amount for a Toyota to make that NZ$100k right worthwhile….
In the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: “official secrets are not to protect secrets, they’re to protect officials!”
I’d have gone for “If people don’t know what you’re doing, they don’t know what you’re doing wrong.”
Nice video. Wow, we could be riding this now if things hadn’t gone on a tangent.
yes that would be a very nice experience
There was no secrecy with this video – I can remember watching it
at the time. I think I saw it on TV news, too.
I disagree with the comment in the video saying Queen St LRT would decongest Symonds St buses. LRT up Symonds St, through the centre of the university, would be more effective, rather than having to walk up and down the hill to Queen St.
It also feels odd that the LRT from Wynyard doesn’t cross directly to Britomart over an opening bridge. This was the reason we got the current broken “temporary” pedestrian bridge.
The animation shows the LRT avoiding the Upper Queen St / Ian McKinnon Drive intersection, which is interesting, and missing from the written report.
The 2017 Labour government has much to answer for and certainly their interference resulted in the secrecy around work completed by council/AT.
With the fast tracking of Avondale-Southdown, and Newmarket-Pukekohe quad tracking, I’d suspect future LRT development would be broken up into shorter separate routes. Maybe Mangere, connecting Puhinui through the airport to Mangere and CBD-Dom Rd, crossing and connecting to Avondale-Southdown.
I suspect most of us would take this particular version over ludicrous one that Labour ended up arriving at though.
There are more destinations in the city centre than university, Anthony.
Given Dominion Rd buses currently travel down Symonds St it should be reasonably obvious how light rail could decongest buses on Symonds St.
They also go back up Queen St & some all the way up the way this light rail would go.
The 25 route doesn’t go up queen street, they take an immediate left into wakefield and onto symonds immediately after starting the route.
But yes there are a couple of peak only 252/253 runs which take the direct route up queen street and onto iam mckinnon.
There is a perfectly good busway linking Puhinui and the airport already and it will eventually go up to Botany and onto Panmure.
In fact, if the mayor can’t get his Avondale-Southdown rail line off the ground, we should put a busway down that too and onto the airport, through to the east.
“It also feels odd that the LRT from Wynyard doesn’t cross directly to Britomart over an opening bridge.”
Was doing some thinking into this the other week. I can see why they chose Fanshawe St, given it would be a lot more simple, less risk & cost. Of course it may take away motorway lanes which could be seen as a disadvantage.
You could elevate it across the water maybe to clear some lower height water craft, restricting the higher ones. Perhaps straight along Madden & Customs St W. Leave the the other bridge as pedestrian/active mode.
Can anyone explain why we dont have lightrail? Did waka kotahi f it up and beat around the bush?
Think there are blogs and video on his, Google it.
The lovely 129 page document isn’t the half of it. I worked extensively on the reference design – there are over 800 engineering drawings and about 10,000 design documents of one type or another. The team was large and the amount of design that went into this was massive. You could have tendered out a D&C from the reference design – still could too. Pity that Phil Twyford got wooed by the Canadian Pension Fund or we’d have it running by now.
Where does one find the full design doc for Light Rail? (or what do we request to obtain that)