Angus you are just exchanging one choke-point [Britomart] for another [Newmarket]. The CRL is critically needed to shift the system limit from 20 trains per hour to upwards of 48 tph. The CRL takes load off Newmarket as well as Britomart by enabling all western line trains to go direct through the CBD [still by far the biggest destination, and thence to the eastern and southern lines.
In the end , despite all the accusations of conspiracy and skulduggery, Randle's only contribution to the debate is to say that if we build a really poor bus tunnel it will cost less than an order-of-magnitude better rail tunnel. Nothing more. This is probably true but of little value.
He fails to grasp that the CRL is at the heart of an integrated bus-train-ferry Transit plan; it is a case of buses where they are best and trains where they are better. There is no mode bias except in his own mind.
He fails to mention the greatly increased operating costs of diesel buses [in tunnels!] with their vastly higher worker to passenger costs. One train and operator to 750 [or 1000 at crush loads] passengers, operating on our own home-grown clean [and c. 80% renewable] electricity. As well as extreme dis-benefits to the city of those 1000+ extra buses on AK's our streets, especially to other road users like drivers. He just fails understand the scale of the issue in Auckland.
The CCFAS study was conducted by NZTA, MoT, Treasury as well as AT. It just isn't credible that there is some coordinated conspiracy in all these institutions to advocate a poor project because of its mode. Oh and the earlier report was conducted and launched before AT came into existence, which Hide as the minister responsible surely must know, so his inuendo against AT is clearly just political scuttlebutt. Randle's curious obsession with trying to get rail lines pulled up where ever he looks is no foundation on which to build any kind of argument and it does Hide no credit to try to build on it now.
Roughan will always be last to anything good this century; he is cheerfully still living in the middle of the last one somehow. It's an extraordinary achievement, and one carried out with no apparent self awareness. He holds on to retrograde views on everything then sort of seamlessly upgrades to a newer version, not new, but a little more current, without so much as a blink. And all of this is laid bare in his confident and chatty little pronouncements on all and every subject in the dear old Herald. He is consistently conventional and quaintly old fashioned; our little old aunty on the Shore.
Lately he has begun to notice public transport and so has given it a good hard looking at through the windscreen of his car. It doesn't seem to be going away, nevermind he has been kind enough to straighten us all out on the matter. He even found the rial network, a hitherto unknown resource, well some level crossings anyway. These need sorting out, cars get held up by them. Oh where would we be without Aunty John.
Well Queen St is no urban centre but rather a lid on a creek turned into a traffic sewer. It has improved considerably through the simple addition of humans- I can remember its lowest points around the early 90s- and the great and increasing volumes of people, lead by the survival then the expansion of inner city universities, is what will improve the commercial environment.
If it needs much improving that is; hard not to see Cr Brewer here little doing more than sneering in the search for anything to pick away at Brown with as he leads up to trying to ride that wave of entitled resentment know as the C+R ticket all way to the Mayoralty.
But Queen St is no great place physically, and short of daylighting the stream [yes!] What needs to be done?
The whole city, and not just the CBD desperately needs the City Rail Link; as it will bring even more people and more viable retail and entertainment business without the deadening impact of of adding more land hungry cars. While connecting many of the more distant bits much more effectively to the centre and each other. Remember two train tracks equals 10 motorway lanes, and requires no vast and wasteful parking resource and clogs no local roads [like Queen St!]. Prosperity at a bargain then. Here:
But as it seems we will have to wait for a government that bases policy on facts and evidence and not just whim, prejudice, and cronyism to get this done what else can we do with this street. Well, a lot, like this:
..... or Jones as deputy?? Seems a more powerful Maori presence than Mahuta to me...? Though I'm no student of the politics of this.... Would signal a foregrounding of Maori issues that would then have to be successfully acted upon....
Seems clear to me that the best answer is Shearer with Cuniliffe as Finance spokesman. Only downside is if the latter can't man up [a lá English] and spends the next three years snipping at Shearer as he learns on the job....? That aside it's win/win. Fresh face, new story and 'authenticity' with attack dog numbers dude as his 'wing man' [pace Mr Key].
The reverse doesn't work, Cuniliffe's power in that portfolio would be neutered by the leadership role and Shearer is more Foreign Affairs or similar....
Choose a deputy to unite the country, Robertson? Or, of course, a woman or South Islander [any?O'Connor, cough!]. Ardern has turned either post down, which is fair enough at 31. Don't want to go back to old Labour ministers so other options? Parker is impressive, but would that make the team too Auckland...? And again he'll have a key [oooops] role to play on the front bench, as will Ardern.
For further analysis of the economic case for the CRL go to the ever brilliant transportblog site: http://transportblog.co.nz/2011/11/08/re-analysing-the-city-rail-links-benefits/
Nat for Roughan's earlier form on rail in AK, go here: http://publicaddress.net/speaker/john-roughan-is-scared/
Nat the Herald is run by regressive Nat Party naturals like John Roughan which means the whole publication has a very clear subtext. I sent them a carefully tailored piece on the AK plans, ideal length etc. Result? not only is it not run but it just spurs Roughan to write his nonsense shilling for the opposite view. Here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/local-government/news/article.cfm?c_id=250&objectid=10762330
No courage to run an opposing view as well of course, bullying coward, so i realise by submitting pieces I'm just giving the smug idiots ideas for their own tired views! So no, the Herald is more than a waste of time for any real engagement.
Nat, have you seen the Herald? No Chance, I've tried.
Angus, I just don't just want something in particular, I want a rational, balanced, and transformative transport investment programme with our money.
Do you mean because the Link is in one place the people around it should pay for it directly? Well every single road is only ever in one place too, so AK should pay for Southland's roads AND AK's roads and rail too? 2 billion+ is spent a year BY US on transport infrastructure all I'm suggesting is the completely reasonable thought that some of it goes on this, but also that a more balanced process is used that isn't based on crazy MOT and NZTA models designed to favour the current ministers whims and prejudices. And friends.