This may also have something to do with NZTA being fairly mature without having to watch its back where as Kiwirail is fighting for its survival every day it can’t afford to stop and look at the big picture let alone do anything about it.

Neither am I. The alignment may still change, and “value engineering” may still happen (often doublespeak for cost cutting, sadly).

But I am less worried (than before), and happy that they are doing some stuff for rail which I had by no means considered given.

“Also, a question. Does NZTA have buckets and buckets of money because it is very good at securing funds? Or does it have buckets and buckets of money because it is responsible for building motorways and we (as a country) like funding motorways?”

NZTA have buckets of money because National last year changed the funding bands to strongly favour motorways (the funding bands are basically the benchmarks how many % from the total transport budget goes into what). So yes, NZTA is suddenly swimming in motorway money, and their political masters want them to spend it exactly for that.

Which makes us end up in such weird situations where while we may dislike the project, we actually find a lot of the mitigation and associated works to our liking. They have so much money, the small stuff they are doing around the edges can actually end up pretty high-class.

But still the wrong way to spend ourselves into even more car dependency.

You make a valid point about cost but these things are also about political acceptability. Moving people out of houses isn’t a huge part of the cost of Waterview but it is definitely one of the parts that the govt feels most uncomfortable about as it gets the headlines…

Also, a question. Does NZTA have buckets and buckets of money because it is very good at securing funds? Or does it have buckets and buckets of money because it is responsible for building motorways and we (as a country) like funding motorways?

That was me, actually, asking a question Jarbury’s earlier articles prompted me to ask. I had a closer look at the plans later on, and discussed it some more with them – which reduced my concerns a bit, as you can see. At the end of the day, any single bridge they would have to rebuild to allow trains is probably more of a cost than five or ten houses…

When they were talking about leaving space for rail somebody in the audience asked the question “Will there be houses in the prospective rail corridor?” and the guy from NZTA got an embarassed look and refused to answer. So I’m not sure if it only is 3 houses….

Was also a bit depressing to hear people in the audience saying “What will you do with the extra traffic around the St Lukes interchange (generated by adding extra lanes higher up)?”

And NZTA’s response was “Oh yes, we are doing more research on that as we may need to make changes after the interchange to accomodate extra cars.”

After which we’ll have to make changes closer to town, and then right in Spaghetti Junction and so the merry dance goes on. Sigh!

http://www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/waterviewconnection/resources/pdf/20100305-NZTA-posters.pdf

Enough for you to do a blog post. Or seven

- they are making a big point out of the fact that they are not only protecting the rail corridor (20m width), they will in fact construct the rail alignment up to formation level, and build all their own structures (bridges, interchanges, noise walls) so that rail can be “plugged in” directly later. Also, from the aerials that I have seen, the future two-track alignment goes through about (only) three existing houses near Hendon Ave, but will otherwise be clear of any existing or future structures, all the way from the North Auckland Line to the current end of Sh20.

While I am always (from now in-grown habit) somewhat sceptical about things (especially those that sound so good), they made it seem like after SH20 Waterview, one day building the Southdown line would be a lot EASIER.

- A cycle route will form part of the mitigation works, starting from the current cycle path end at SH20, then along Alan Wood Reserve. It is still unclear where it crosses the rail – either directly over New North Road and into Soljak Place and then a new ped/cycle bridge over the rail, or (my less favourite option), along New North Road northwards, until about 500m further north past Pak n Save and then over the rail there. From the park there, a new ped/cycle bridge & path will connect to Great North Road somewhere between the Blockhouse Bay Road and Waterview Downs roads. While I like this connectivity in general, they will need to upgrade / provide the path on the east side of Great North Road, because until you get to about the level of Alverston Street, cycling on that road is scary…

- Talking of GNR, they made some noises about being “in consultation” with Auckland City about what happens afterward there, seeing that all they were responsible for was reinstating the little section of cut and cover (that “little section” was about 500m of Great North Road, with a designation wide enough that they can shift the road temporarily to either side of the cut and cover trench). Oh, and just to clarify – the main tunnel of course will not be built by cut and cover. But this section will be ground zero for a while. I am predicting a wee bit of chaos and further traffic jams. Hopefully at least afterwards, the reinstated road will provide better for cyclists.

- At the SH16-SH20 interchange, we will be getting another CMJ. Okay, maybe SH1-SH20 is a better example, but those fly-overs will be HIGH up in the air. At the current Great North Road underpass, there will be three levels of road. Oh, and the right turn to Pt Chevalier is to be removed, apparently. Those people will have to get off at St Lukes Road (my girlfriend will be incensed).

- Along SH16, the expected. More lanes, offered to the god of induced demand (of course the real reason is that they were doing it anyway, what with the causeway sinking, so what is a leettle widening?). Quite a problem, actually: Because along Rosebank, they propose interrupting the bus shoulder westbound AND will still have to narrow the cycle path badly. The guy I talked to said something about a 1.5m cycle path. That just CANNOT be.

- In better news, the crappy cycle clip-ons with their narrow widths will go. Cyclists will get their own bridges (two of them), which interestingly will be off-set by about 5-10m away from the motorway. I guess if you are separating traffic anyway, you might as well do it well, so that’s cool. The cycleway bridge over the Rosebank on-ramps will also be replaced with something that doesn’t almost require getting off your bike.

- Which reminds me that a quite a few (canthree?) stunning-looking pedestrian/cyclist bridges are planned over the SH20 section before it enters the tunnel. Why do we have to spend billions before we get some money and real effort spent on such cool things?

If you have any further questions, please ask.

Freight line…. Marsden Point maybe?