If you want to compare to the UK, take a look at all their cities with populations > 100k.
NZ has seven, one of which is Auckland, and if you bundle up Lower Hutt into "Wellington" it decreases to six. Bundling Lower Hutt, Porirua and Upper Hutt into "Wellington" gives you 10 urban areas big enough to be classified as "cities" by Stats NZ, four of which have populations firmly below 100k.
With around 1.4 million residents a fair bit of stuff, some of it newsworthy, happens there. But New Zealand’s population is nearing 4.5 million; less than one third of New Zealand lives in Auckland.
Being "that guy", this is quite starkly inaccurate.
Population of NZ is projected to break 4.8m by the end of the month, population of Auckland is between 1.6m (first half of 2016) and 1.7m (projected for first-half 2018). Which means that Auckland is very definitely more than 1/3 the population, and that share is growing.
Which isn't to say that it's at all healthy for the media to obsess about Auckland to the exclusion of all else, but when the biggest city has a population that's about 20% greater than the combined population of the rest of the top-10 (with that combined total not far north of a million, and three of those cities being part of the Wellington region) it's really easy to justify on an accounting basis and a placement-of-resources basis. Especially when the other centre of focus is the political hub of a country with a pretty concentrated governance structure.
Two-thirds-ish of the population might be a lot to ignore in aggregate, but when they're spread from Bombay to Bluff and Wellsford to Cape Reinga that's a lot of very small fragments, none of whom care about any of the others' local concerns in the world according to Jennings.
Still, the poor(?) little fella seemed to genuinely believe that he was only advocating the kind of thing that they’ve been giving out Queens Service Medals and JP-hoods for.
His position seemed to be "If the agent's saying it's a 'motivated seller' or whatever, then it'd be just plain wrong to not make an offer that takes full advantage of the vendor's clearly-announced circumstances."
I think the thing that's really problematic for the various associated sponsors is the advocacy of tactics that are, prima facie, illegal. It might be a bit whiffy to pay attention to "motivated seller" or other descriptions in listings to find people who are likely to be a bit less interested in the final price vs getting money, but as he says they're getting leverage from what's in listings. His language is, shall we say, plain, but treading along the edges of ethical lines is hardly limited to property speculators.
Suggesting pack hunting with dud offers is a different kettle of fish. He even cited having used this, which means it can't just be explained away as a hypothetical.
I hope he’s a tipping point in the housing bubble debate.
His antics have cost the Auckland Property Investors' Association their ANZ sponsorship, which was quick. Apparently other sponsors are also evaluating their involvement.
On the diagram in the road code the advance boxes are shown in front of the pedestrian crossing. Most of the ones I have seen in Auckland the box is behind the pedestrian crossing.
I’m struggling to understand how that would work, putting the cyclists beyond the pedestrian crossing from the traffic that’s going in the same direction. Sounds like a drawing error.
Possibly the cyclist are supposed to cycle across the intersection with the pedestrian green light in the same direction? That would make a lot of sense.
Cyclists are supposed to follow the traffic signals that govern the lane in which they are riding. They’re not pedestrians. They’re also not motor vehicles, of course, but our ass of a law deems a 100W human-powered pedal-motored bicycle to be analogous to a Lamborghini that’s just come off the showroom floor.
You have to be a brave cyclist to be in the advance box with a double decker AT bus behind you whilst searching for a foot pedal on the green light.
Yup, but bicycles can have pretty amazing acceleration if the rider is halfway competent. It's a good reason to have every bus driver spend time in the saddle before getting behind the wheel, though.
How many drivers know that?
Not terribly many, I would say, given how frequently I see cars stopping well into the advance boxes.
Oh, no, I'm completely incorrect. See this photo for an example from Christchurch.
Has anyone ever seen these “special marked areas”?
I would presume that they're the green-painted spaces that start before the advance boxes and run back along the centre-line. It's not clear what they're for, but that's the only reasonable explanation I can come up with for their existence.
I think it’s accepted that new motorways must now be accompanied by new cycleways.
Which is a good thing. But NZTA really fought hard to avoid that becoming accepted practice.
with footpaths & bike lanes, is the upshot that local authorities have to fund these
There's a separate fund for cycle infrastructure, but it's still a shared cost between the local authority and central government if that fund is accessed. NZTA has been having to (reluctantly, let's be honest) build pedestrian/cyclist infrastructure alongside their new motorways out west, but those are the exceptions. For footpaths and cycle infrastructure otherwise, if the road is controlled by a local authority they're that authority's cost.