Ilovethebomb @ Ilovethebomb @lemmy.nz

Posts

66

Comments

898

Joined

2 yr. ago

Plus, I would suspect the thinking was if you can't afford the fuel tax you can take a bus.

People just forget the trades exist, don't they?

I'd love to print out a massive poster of the thief in action, something like an election hoarding in size.

Now there's a deterrent.

Tens of millions over budget would be an absolute bargain by our standards.

What an absolute plonker.

Isn't the whole advantage of light rail that you can run it along surface streets?

This is reminiscent of the the harbour cycle bridge, just a ridiculous, over the top proposal that was in no way cost effective.

I think really annoys me the number of opportunities the Ardern government missed, both in Auckland and Wellington.

Build on the surface, with an aim to eventually underground part of the network in the future. That way, any future government would be very unwilling to remove a working service.

Was the plan to demolish a bunch of houses to build the line or something?

Some of them had a valid point, we should have been going under the basin right from the start.

Also, their proposal for a second Terrace tunnel would still have left us with only two lanes for cars, which isn't enough for the traffic we have now, let alone thirty years in the future. And I know people will say everyone will take the bus or ride, but they just won't.

The amount you save is never worth it, especially when you consider the places that have these schemes are usually more expensive than their competitors anyway.

The amount of time people will spend trying to save a buck is just baffling to me.

It's a remarkably similar story to Wellington's trams, or lack thereof. Strong public support for the project, promises made, and just... Nothing happened. Endless consulting, litigation, and general beaureacry, no trams, no tunnels, no bypass around the basin, nothing.

A few hundred million spent, for a handful of cycle lanes.

In hindsight, I think they should have started building rail in the areas where the route etc was straightforward, while planning for the difficult bits was underway.

That way, it will be much harder to cancel a project that is already well underway.

Oh definitely. She's got the ability to relate to a wide variety of people, as shown by her winning an electorate, conducts herself well in the house and in interviews, and has the name recognition.

It's going to be her.

Because a lot of people think it's a bad idea?

I'm not interested in arguing whether it's a good idea or not, but is the concept of marketing alien to these people?

James Shaw has always seemed like the most sensible one in the caucus, and the one who just wants to get stuff done, rather than the more idealistic members of his party, who it often feels like would rather achieve nothing than compromise.

This seems like a good way to torpedo your career.

Then move on.

No, I don't think I will.

This is precisely why the plan is to eventually go RUCs for all.

Although a Prius is a very clean vehicle itself, and encouraging people to use more efficient vehicles in general is a good thing.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, or are unaware of Radio NZ.

The only one of those that is even tangentially related to road safety is ACC, the rest have nothing in common.

The article also doesn't discuss any evidence around road crashes, or any experience she may have gained while being the minister for ACC, just talks about how she's not in a hurry to get anywhere, so why should you be?

The whole thing is just hand wringing waffle.

Possibly via something that connects to the OBD port?

Isn't the point of an opinion piece that we hear from someone with an in depth knowledge of the topic at hand? Why should I value this person's opinion?