Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: It's called "planning" for a reason, in reply to Mark Rickerby,
You'll find that most of them aren't really advocates of public transport, at least not of a public transport network. Also, beware of letters to editors, given that they're frequently edited further and have limited words to start with. So they advocate for rail and mention nothing else, because rail's the topic directly at hand. That doesn't mean they think everything else should go.
This is against the likes of the OP, who is very definitely advocating entirely for a single land-based mode of public transport but is doing so out of complete ignorance of the limitations of the mode he's pushing.
-
Speaker: It's called "planning" for a reason, in reply to Mark.Rickerby,
Mark, the only framing of "pick one and stick with it" is coming from the government in insisting that roads are the only way forward. That's seen in the Roads of Significance to National, in the changing NZTA's funding rules so that rail capital works don't have access to the pool, and in the reprioritising of safety so that pedestrians and cyclists are less-important than motor vehicle users.
Those of us advocating for the CBD tunnel aren't saying rail is the end of the line. What's concerning us is that rail is getting a very poor deal compared to road, and even with all the money that's going into roads buses are still shit. As an example, from home in Ellerslie it's roughly 30 minutes door-to-door if I take the train to my CBD office. Six minutes walking at each end, 18 minutes on the train for the trip. By comparison, even with a bus stop a minute's walk away from the front door it's 30 minutes or more to Britomart and then a five minute walk to the office. If I jump off at the bottom of Anzac Ave it's still five minutes but I shave a couple of minutes off the bus ride. I've been late to meetings after stupidly jumping on an earlier bus ahead of waiting 10 minutes for a train that would've got me to the office in time.
Anyone who understands transport properly (and I exclude the OP) knows you need mixed modes. Rail has capacity and travel time certainty benefits that buses can never hope to equal. But buses are flexible, whereas rail is not. Unless you're very lucky, rail cannot deliver you to your door. And neither of them is terribly good at swimming. All modes have their place, but Auckland has been poorly-served in planning and funding for transport and now we're in the current mess where the modes pretty much have to operate independently because it's so painful to try and cross between them. There's a cost penalty for changing, and often a time penalty. That lack of coordination does not help change views that only one mode can reign supreme, and from what I've heard the integrated ticketing will not fix things in terms of easing the pain of mode transfers.
-
Architect you may be, but transport planner you clearly are not. Rail has it all over buses in terms of volume, and that includes three-carriage monster buses from China. As James Butler quotes, we don't have the street space to accommodate the buses that would be required to move the numbers of people that will be possible when the CBD tunnel is finally constructed. Rail wins on capacity, on space, and on reliability given that buses almost invariably have to share with cars at some point.
Even the NSBW doesn't run end-to-end into the 'burbs, necessitating sharing with non-bus vehicles at either end. Contrast with a train, which has a dedicated corridor for the entire length of its service. Bigger, faster, better, more!
-
Hard News: The next creative industry?, in reply to Rich Lock,
Don't make us break out the Thread of Doooooooom (patent pending, trademarked in 49 states plus Idaho, registered copyright)!
-
Hard News: The next creative industry?, in reply to Whoops,
Not especially, provided that we've got phat tubes. There can be downsides to juggling time-zones (I remember trying to get hold of an FBI agent in Atlanta once, and it took several days of phone tag before we connected), but there's no good reason why people can't adjust their day in NZ to start or finish with a couple of hours' overlap to the TZ of "home base"; though if home base is the UK things can get quite ugly.
Other than the tubs, though, we have the infrastructure. We have electricity, we have offices. We've even got something of a digital products hub in Albany. That's pretty much all that's required to allow the people to play the game. I'll get my coat.
-
If we can develop this into a real money-making industry, awesome. It's low-footprint, environmentally light-weight, and has a lot of room for high margins.
But, we need to invest in the tube infrastructure to get stuff off our shores. Right now, that's lacking, and sending builds by DVD airmail ain't happening. -
Hard News: The Wellington Cables, in reply to Ross Mason,
The SAS is slated to return to support internal security requirements during New Zealand's hosting of the World Rugby Cup in 2011
I ain't going anywhere near a stadium now. Eh? What ARE they expecting??
Have you missed the scale of the security presence at, like, every global-scale sporting event since at least the Atlanta Olympics in 1996?
Seriously, how is ensuring that our last line of counter-terrorist expertise is available in the event of an attack in the least bit surprising? Are you really surprised? Really? That's an incredible degree of naivete.Look at the security circus at the Commonwealth Games for the most-recent example, or hunt Google for the theatrics that have gone on for every other major sporting event in not-so-recent history. Even the Super Bowl. Given the limited tactical response options available to the Police (STG personnel number in the dozens, and they're the best it gets for the cops) it's entirely foreseeable that TPTB will want every card in the deck at their disposal.
In reality it's unlikely that the SAS will have to do anything more than be available, but Afghanistan is a hell of a long way to come if the shit hits the fan. -
Hard News: Popular Paranoiac Politics, in reply to Rich Lock,
Oh, there are definite tangible benefits. Lives saved, for one. And it will absolutely cut travel times during summer, once it's finally completed in 20-20-something.
The question isn't does it have benefits, the question is do the benefits stack up higher than the costs? Even allowing for WEBs the answer is "barely".I wish, oh how I do wish, that Darren Hughes had the same handle on this issue as does Josh Arbury. If that were so, he'd eviscerate Joyce in the House and probably slap English with the bloody corpse in the process. Might even get the message out that National aren't here to steward your money carefully, they're here to spend it on their mates. And fuck the prolles.
-
Hard News: Popular Paranoiac Politics, in reply to BenWilson,
What Sacha said about "one or t'other" being an echo of Joyce et al.
Also, Puford actually doesn't have a solid justification. The safety benefits can be achieved for a fraction the price of the four-lane highway, and much more immediately. Based on historic fatality rates on the road, another 50 people will die before Puford is finished. That's against the simpler safety works that could be started almost immediately (no need for designations or planning an entirely new route) and be finished in a couple of years.
When you even have Warkworth residents who know about traffic planning saying that the time savings on which most of the benefit is based are bullshit, one has to question the value of the entire business case. Especially when Joyce's plan to accelerate construction means higher costs and a further-reduced return.I'd really like to know what B'linglish thinks of the cost of Puford, too. I know he's distinctly cool on the CBD rail tunnel, but I've not seen anything about his view of an expensive highway with dodgy return calculations.
-
Hard News: Spinning and soldiering, in reply to 3410,
Yes, I do know. Actually thought they were higher. And my point was that if the IMF haven't wagged their finger at the US they're definitely not going to wag their finger at us.