In 20-30 years, there are going to be a low fewer cars on the road than there are now (one way or another).... so these grand roading infrastructure projects really don't make sense
this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2023
26 points (100.0% liked)
Aotearoa / New Zealand
1811 readers
9 users here now
Kia ora and welcome to !newzealand, a place to share and discuss anything about Aotearoa in general
- For politics , please use !politics@lemmy.nz
- Shitposts, circlejerks, memes, and non-NZ topics belong in !offtopic@lemmy.nz
- If you need help using Lemmy.nz, go to !support@lemmy.nz
- NZ regional and special interest communities
Rules:
FAQ ~ NZ Community List ~ Join Matrix chatroom
Banner image by Bernard Spragg
Got an idea for next month's banner?
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm not sure about that, with EVs and self driving cars, I can see an increasing demand for personal cars, or autonomous taxis.
Why don't we bring in experts from countries that are great at building and designing efficient transport infrastructure? We should never prioritise cars.
Also, we should penalise politicians who don't deliver their promises.
Also, we should penalise politicians who don't deliver their promises.
This would include most of the Labour caucus, as well as the Auckland and Wellington councils.
You day that like it's a bad thing??
I'm only joking, actually. In our kind of government, getting traction isn't guaranteed with MMP.
I kinda respect the "snooze you lose" approach to infrastructure by National, actually. It incentivises moving fast and getting shit done before the other guys get in.
James Shaw with the level headed take:
The Green Party has called the plan bonkers.
Co-leader James Shaw said the government seemed to have a tendency to choose the most expensive and over-engineered plans possible.
"I don't think that six lanes of traffic are going to solve Auckland's congestion problem. Frankly, during a climate crisis it's a bit bonkers to be building more roads and inducing more traffic and more car dependency."
Shaw said at the very least, the light rail tunnel should be built first to reduce congestion, and indicate what roading demand there is.
If its actually on budget and actually works its a great investment.... like all long term investments it should have happened 20 years ago.
I just want to see something actually get built, rather than endless rounds of consultation.
The light rail tunnel to Albany seems mad to me, I thought the northern busway was designed to accommodate light rail so I can't understand why one would build tunnels to Albany instead of putting light rail along the current busway corridor.
I don't understand why we need light rail there anyway. We have buses and a busway?
Light Rail moves more people quicker, and does not get stuck in traffic.
Neither do buses if they have their own lane.
Buses don't have their own lane on the Harbour Bridge.
Does the Harbour bridge actually back up on a regular basis though?
Take out the road crossings, and take out the Light Rail tunnel from North Shore to Albany (instead convert the Northern Buswsy to Light Rail). With an improved PT corridor, you should expect to see less demand for the additional road crossing, and we should be thinking about more climate friendly options.
And the Light Rail plan from CBD to Mangere should be on the surface along Dominion Road. I don't get the obsession with tunnels. They are expensive and more difficult to access.
Much more resilient though, how often do you hear of a tunnel being closed due to high winds?
How often do you hear about a bridge flooding?
https://duckduckgo.com/?va=t&t=hk&q=subway+flooding&iar=news&ia=news
Not very often, to be honest.
Do any of these plans allow for the harbor bridge being taken out of commission altogether? It's a pretty old structure at this point, and will likely need to be demolished entirely, or perhaps have the clip-ons removed, at some point.