Comments on: Goodbye Tunnel…. and Oakley Creek waterfall

By: jarbury

jarbury — Tue, 12 May 2009 02:19:26 +0000

I have costed that Nicholas.

Assuming that the government goes with the $1.4 billion option that’s still $1.4 billion less than the tunnel option. It’s also still $800 million less than the open cut option. Sure, $550 million is removed by not including finance costs, but that’s still a lot less to be spent on construction, which means a cheaper and nastier option.

You just can’t get more for less. It will be the enviornment and the community that pays for this “saving”.

By: Nicholas O'Kane

Nicholas O'Kane — Tue, 12 May 2009 02:06:12 +0000

I don’t live in Auckland, and have never visited the waterview area, so don’t know too much about this project. Where exactly is the Oakley creek waterfall, and how spectacular is it?

Also, have you seen this post http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2009/05/strapped-chicken.html indicating part of the reduced cost is the $550 million gone from covering the debt, so the news might not be as bad as you think.

By: jarbury

jarbury — Tue, 12 May 2009 01:01:54 +0000

The tunnel started just west of Richardson Road in the previous proposal, so missed Alan Wood. The surface option will definitely go through it.

Regarding commencement, NZTA need to start designing the thing and preparing a completely new set of planning documents. I suspect they might be ready to lodge the Notice of Requirement for it in about a year.

By: Gareth

Gareth — Tue, 12 May 2009 00:53:40 +0000

One question – where the tunnels were going to go under Anderson Park and miss the Alan Wood reserve, is the surface option actually designed to head up that reserve? Along the possible rail corridor?

By: Tom Semmens

Tom Semmens — Tue, 12 May 2009 00:51:01 +0000

Could NZTA simply say that the money available makes the project unaffordable at this time? Or are they obliged to commence work?