Puhoi-Wellsford SH1 Upgrade

[Nick R]

I include losing nice views in negative impacts.

I don't - I deem it to be a NIMBY argument.

Ok, so we can build a new prison in front of the museum, and an elevated railway all along the waterfront? Damn rich NIMBYs moaning about their views....

The point is that Hobsons Bay and Tamaki Drive are significant areas that are appreciated by all Aucklanders, it's not just the people who live in the immediate area that would have a problem with running an expressway through it.

[Chris Randal.]

Ok, so we can build a new prison in front of the museum, and an elevated railway all along the waterfront? Damn rich NIMBYs moaning about their views....

The point is that Hobsons Bay and Tamaki Drive are significant areas that are appreciated by all Aucklanders, it's not just the people who live in the immediate area that would have a problem with running an expressway through it.

I would have no problem with bulldozing the museum for rail or housing!

[john-ston]

Ok, so we can build a new prison in front of the museum, and an elevated railway all along the waterfront? Damn rich NIMBYs moaning about their views....

Yes; in fact, I mentioned at the drinks the other night that it would have probably been better for the New Lynn Trench to have been elevated in order to facilitate grade easement on the Avondale Bank.

The point is that Hobsons Bay and Tamaki Drive are significant areas that are appreciated by all Aucklanders, it's not just the people who live in the immediate area that would have a problem with running an expressway through it.

I don't think that Hobsons Bay is as special as you make it out to be; for a hundred years, it had a sewer pipe in the middle of it, and no-one is complaining about the railway through the middle (and let us not forget that electrification will ensure poles and wires to ruin the view there).

[Nick R]

I don't think that Hobsons Bay is as special as you make it out to be; for a hundred years, it had a sewer pipe in the middle of it, and no-one is complaining about the railway through the middle (and let us not forget that electrification will ensure poles and wires to ruin the view there).

Umm, they just spent $120 million to put that sewer pipe underground so it wouldn't spoil the bay any longer! If people didn't care they could have upgraded the old pipe for about a third the cost.

Plenty of people do complain about the railway across it, this was a discussion point during the ETC debate. And yes I think some people are in for a nasty shock as part of electrification. Personally I think that stretch requires special treatment with the poles and wires, not that it is going to get it.

[john-ston]

Umm, they just spent $120 million to put that sewer pipe underground so it wouldn't spoil the bay any longer! If people didn't care they could have upgraded the old pipe for about a third the cost.

Well in that case, there was a degree of idiocy - there was nothing wrong with the old sewer pipe aside from its occasional spillage of sewerage.

Plenty of people do complain about the railway across it, this was a discussion point during the ETC debate. And yes I think some people are in for a nasty shock as part of electrification. Personally I think that stretch requires special treatment with the poles and wires, not that it is going to get it.

Personally, that stretch should be treated the same as any other - there is absolutely nothing wrong with progress and people must accept that progress has a price.

[Nick R]

You know some people might consider removing ugly leaking sewer pipes and minimising the visual bulk of railway lines to be 'progress'.

[Chris Randal.]

You know some people might consider removing ugly leaking sewer pipes and minimising the visual bulk of railway lines to be 'progress'.

Surely you jest!

[Matt L]

Umm, they just spent $120 million to put that sewer pipe underground so it wouldn't spoil the bay any longer! If people didn't care they could have upgraded the old pipe for about a third the cost.

Well in that case, there was a degree of idiocy - there was nothing wrong with the old sewer pipe aside from its occasional spillage of sewerage.

There was also a capacity issue.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=10433240

Watercare decided on a tunnel after public feedback on three alternatives: encasing the old sewer in a new concrete jacket, replacing it with a shallow buried sewer, or a tunnel.
Encasement was the cheapest option in a 2002 estimate of $26.5 million versus $47 million for a tunnel.
But Watercare says the scale and the scope of the project has changed.
In late 2005, as a result of Auckland City Council, Metrowater and Watercare joint planning, the decision was taken to increase the diameter of the tunnel and make other changes.
This added a further $15 million and added to the cost were demolition of the old main and the price escalations that have hit most big Auckland works projects.
Watercare chief executive Mark Ford said awarding the contract was a significant milestone.
Replacing the sewer main with a larger capacity tunnel for carrying and storing wastewater would meet projected growth in the area.

[john-ston]

There was also a capacity issue.

That is a fair point, although what was the cost of building on the surface compared with the underground tunnel?

You know some people might consider removing ugly leaking sewer pipes and minimising the visual bulk of railway lines to be 'progress'.

And of course those people don't appreciate the cost of doing stuff like that - of course this comment is rich coming from someone who always brings up the cost factor when I mention about the need to future proof certain pieces of infrastructure.

[Nick R]

And of course those people don't appreciate the cost of doing stuff like that - of course this comment is rich coming from someone who always brings up the cost factor when I mention about the need to future proof certain pieces of infrastructure.

I bring up the cost factor with your future proofing because your proposals are ludicrously disproportionate.

From the linked article, the cost of tunneling the link was an extra $20.5 million dollars above rebuilding the surface pipe, of which the benefits of improved views and better access for rowing and boating apply immediately. $20 million is spare change when it comes to core infrstructure.
The fact that the decided to go with the tunnel option meant that they could future proof the sewer with a larger diameter tunnel. Something they couldn't do by encasing the existing pipe. At the cost of $15 million this is probably money very wisely spent.

Your proposals, such as a four track CBD loop, are in terms of an extra billion or two and are for things that won't realise any benefits for at least two or three decades down the track.

Encasement was the cheapest option in a 2002 estimate of $26.5 million versus $47 million for a tunnel.

But Watercare says the scale and the scope of the project has changed.

In late 2005, as a result of Auckland City Council, Metrowater and Watercare joint planning, the decision was taken to increase the diameter of the tunnel and make other changes.

This added a further $15 million and added to the cost were demolition of the old main and the price escalations that have hit most big Auckland works projects.

[john-ston]

I bring up the cost factor with your future proofing because your proposals are ludicrously disproportionate.

No they aren't - we have seen people happily discussing a suggestion that would cost $5 or more billion. Future proofing something so we don't end up with a capacity problem ever again is not ludicrously disproportionate.

The fact that the decided to go with the tunnel option meant that they could future proof the sewer with a larger diameter tunnel.

As I said, what would have been the cost of building a surface tunnel to the same specifications?

Your proposals, such as a four track CBD loop, are in terms of an extra billion or two and are for things that won't realise any benefits for at least two or three decades down the track.

It would take less than two decades for the Loop to hit capacity assuming that the other lines are built; I would be willing to suggest ten to fifteen years.

[Kalelovil]

I bring up the cost factor with your future proofing because your proposals are ludicrously disproportionate.

No they aren't - we have seen people happily discussing a suggestion that would cost $5 or more billion. Future proofing something so we don't end up with a capacity problem ever again is not ludicrously disproportionate.

$5 billion+ over the next 40 years is alot easier to justify than an extra billion over the next few years, especially when we have a particularly anti public transport government at the moment.

[john-ston]

$5 billion+ over the next 40 years is alot easier to justify than an extra billion over the next few years, especially when we have a particularly anti public transport government at the moment.

I'll answer this point and then I would direct all future discussion on this point to the most suitable thread - it would still be $5 billion in one hit; with pretty much any tunnel, you cannot stage it all that easily, you pretty much have to do it in one go (there would be very obvious exceptions I would agree).

[Chris Randal.]

.

[Nick R]

Future proofing something so we don't end up with a capacity problem ever again is not ludicrously disproportionate.

Ha ha! building all the capacity the city could ever conceivably need until the end of time is very ludicrously disproportionate, it is economic suicide.

In the case of this sewer we are talking about an extra $20 million that creates the benefit right away. In your dream proposal we are talking about an extra billion at least that will not be of any immediate use. Surely you can see the difference between $20 million and $1,000 million?

One billion dollars spent on infrastructure not being used has a opportunity cost of $60 million a year, i.e. to borrow that money would cost about $60 million a year in interest charges, or if the city had that money in the bank they would lose about $60 million a year in income from interest. If we get zero benefit from infrastructure we don't need then that is $60 million a year (compounding) that is pissed down the drain.

If according to your estimate this 'future proofing' is not used for fifteen years, then by building it fifteen years in advance the compound opportunity cost is equal to $1.4 billion dollars on top of the original opportunity cost of $1 billion.

So to 'future proof' to such a ludicrous and useless degree turns a $1 billion dollar project into a $3.4 billion dollar project, just to get an extra $1 billion worth of benefit that only starts to be used at least fifteen years in the future. Can use see how building an extra tunnel that will sit empty destroys $1.4 billion dollars of wealth?

As I said, what would have been the cost of building a surface tunnel to the same specifications?

I've already quoted the cost twice now JJ. The cheapest option was encasement at $26.5 million, versus $47 million for a tunnel.

[Riggles]

$5 billion+ over the next 40 years is alot easier to justify than an extra billion over the next few years, especially when we have a particularly anti public transport government at the moment.

Who is the anti public transport government that we have? and who was the pro one we had before.
Certainly you can't be talking of Labour as they only directed a few hundred million towards PT over their 9 year standing with no clear plan on how to fund anything else. National has put in the range of $1.5billion into Auckland alone over their 3 year period.

In terms of the sewer.
I think they were doing a number of things here.
First they were separating the system so that storm water didn't go in the same pipes as the septic sewer which contributed to waste water being discharged into the harbour during storms.
Second the existing pipe was deteriorating due to old age.
Third the old pipe was visually destroying the environment.

As we have seen with roads and high voltage transmission lines, once you get to high value areas the per meter rate is increased by several magnitudes to mitigate the environmental disruption.

[Nick R]

Certainly you can't be talking of Labour as they only directed a few hundred million towards PT over their 9 year standing with no clear plan on how to fund anything else. National has put in the range of $1.5billion into Auckland alone over their 3 year period.

Thats not quite true, National have continued to fund $1.5 billion of previously planned public transport spending but they haven't 'put in' anything in the sense of adding any (plus they cancelled a whole lot of others stuff as well). Although I suppose we should count our graces that they didn't remove absoulutely all the planned public transport spending for their RoNS.

[jarbury]

Yes please list one urban public transport project thought up and announced by National.

[Riggles]

Thats not quite true, National have continued to fund $1.5 billion of previously planned public transport spending but they haven't 'put in' anything in the sense of adding any (plus they cancelled a whole lot of others stuff as well). Although I suppose we should count our graces that they didn't remove absoulutely all the planned public transport spending for their RoNS.

Pretty much even project has been on the pipe line for some time however National were the ones who actually put some money into it.
If you really want to know why it was that came up with the idea you would have to go back into the 1800's as this is when most of the railways were thought out, even the CBD loop has been around since 1910 or so.

It's not the coming up with crazy ideas that matters, its actually going through with them that counts.

[Daniel]

Daniel, there were thousands opposed to the Eastern Motorway

Yeah well the eastern motorway would be in people's backyards. Or at least as close as a motorway could get.

The Puhoi-Wellsford highway wouldn't be close to very many peoples backyards if anyone's.