Easy, tiger. How's my post political?

As I say the Super Fund usually knows what it's doing, but it's got a new CE and from that report actually building infrastructure is new to it, and light rail is a graveyard, and probably sunset industry (Herald report is adjacent to a report on Uber helicopters which of course might itself be a croc, but trams is literally 1800s tech.). Re the business case, I'm sure it stacks up just fine, though I'd be keen to see the risk analysis and mitigation. The Edinburgh business case would have been awesome of course, and I'm sure no-one thought George St would be a fenced-off trench indefinitely while the NSW government got sued for $1Bn.

I don't know if there's much value in using what's happening in Sydney as a pointer - everything building/infrastructure in NSW is a shit show (West Connex, Barangaroo etc have had court issues).

Any business case will be absurdly optimistic

In a thread where posters regularly accuse others of making loony statements, baseless arguments or just simple partisan shitflinging, writing an infrastructure project of this scale off without examining it closely is asking for trouble.

I'm sceptical of government projects myself but they can and do work. I'd like to give this at least the benefit of the doubt before descending upon it like so many seagulls squabbling over a chip.

It's about time we made those useless baby boomers contribute back to society....

The thing is, the Super Fund monies were never intended to be a piggy bank. The Government is meant to pay into it, and it will earn income for the Government via growth and investments that can offset the cost of superannuation.

So to justify this investment the Super Fund should be able to show that this investment will make a return. I question whether they should be in the business of running a public transport company especially considering how they have fared in the past in this country and the amount of public subsidy that might be expected. For example the Metlink commuter lines in Wellington require 48% of their funding to come from local and national government and that's considered to be the most successful example of public transport in NZ.

I agree... Public Transport can be a money pit. I still want to see a proper business case...

I have a slightly related theory about congestion and PT. Since you left Perth it's become ridiculous and you'd be aware of how poor infrastructure planning here has been... so we're facing some serious bottlenecks, not just with commuter transit but also freight movement. My solution centres on improving PT and making private vehicle use expensive through congestion tax style charging, and I can see a similar principle working in Auckland. I did read an article somewhere in the last week or so that suggested Aucklanders were using PT in increasing numbers, so the idea to me is to make that the attractive option.

Do that and the viability of your project improves. Dunno why more governments don't do it... apart from the fear of polls, of course.

It'll be fine. This is how we'll beat congestion in Auckland. Get outta the farkin way!

Furry muff. The intent of that bit was a fear that somehow political considerations or influence had played a part in a decision about what to use the fund for. Therein lies disaster, and it's something Peters has advocated previously.

An alternative possibility is that generous revenue guarantees could have been made by Auckland and / or central government. You could make an investment case bullet-proof in that way, kicking the risk down the road to future governments and taxpayers. Kiwisaver investors of my sort of age are probably advantaged by that, but it'd still be an outrage.

LoLs on Labour / Green / NZ First trumpeting a colossal PPP BTW. (That one is political ).

Yep, all joking aside, there certainly has to be a serious business case for the SF to get involved. Maybe they know something the public doesn't know yet. Congestion-charging is in the pipeline for Auckland but Phil Goff was on the radio the other week saying it'll take years to set up and when it does eventually come in, public transport has to be a feasible and reliable alternative for road users. If introduced now, the public transport system (although improving) is just not up to the job of handling all the extra customers. CRL will help this in 2023 but those other busways and light rail lines will need to come online as well before a congestion charge comes in.

I wonder when/if we will get the information that this decision was based on or will it be leaked via a left leaning media outlet to colour it rosy or a right-leaning one to colour it black.

Those poor drivers never stood a chance.

Was just hearing on the way home that Overseas Development's got an extra $700M over three years. Worth cause of course, both in terms of relief of poverty and other harm, and countering China's influence in the Pacific (insofar as that isn't pissing into the wind).

Have to wonder though whether this is really good internal politics. $700M is a lot of discretionary spend.

Public transport is fundamentally shite though. It takes you from somewhere you're not, to somewhere else you don't want to be, at a time you don't want to go, in the company of people you don't want to meet. And you're subject to someone else's control (secretly why the lefties love it). Nearly all the trains and buses I ever see are nearly empty.

It's ripe for disruption e.g. from self-drive cars, electric bikes, health / fitness driven moves to walking and cycling, more remote working, more flexible hours, Uber helicopters, naming and shaming the 'tards that drive precious little Josh 500m to school because it's cloudy, high-granularity road and congestion pricing, and all the things we haven't thought of yet. I reckon the move might go the other way - rip up metro train lines and create arterials for electric and normal bikes. I can dream anyway.

Disclaimer - used a bus to get from Cammeray to the NAB building in CBD Sydney a few weeks ago - awesome.

Is this satire?

The issue with George Street in Sydney is twofold:

1). The Useless NSW Government - ALL of their infrastructure projects go way over budget due to inability to manage vendors.

2). On the George St Section, they decided to change from Pantograph to Underground cabling. Of course, this costs at least 3 times as much as pantographs and due to the lack of due-diligence, the complexity of installation is being milked by the vendor (see point 1).

[coughs] Eh, maybe.

For sake of argument, just to help a brother out, what's wrong with it?

[coughs] Eh, maybe.

For sake of argument, just to help a brother out, what's wrong with it?[/quote]

You are aware the North Shore is always the last to get decent transport as it's a safe Liberal seat?

Good f**king grief man...

PT is fantastic when it's done right. There's no better way to move a mass of people and some of your supposed disruptors work in tandem with, not against PT. Bike to a stop and then catch the train / light rail / tram 20km to work... perfect. Best of both worlds. The trouble is getting PT into and out of the places people need to go... and in regard to Auckland and the airport, passenger movements are increasing all the time and people are already up in arms about travel times to and from the airport.

Years ago there was no rail link to Sydney airport and opposition to putting one in was strong. Now they love it because it's another Sydney success story. They lap those up. So will Auckland because from my perspective there's f-all difference between them and Sydney siders, including accents.

Perth put train lines up and down the main north south freeways despite intense opposition from the conservatives here... and both lines have been record setters across Australia in terms of passenger numbers. They continue to grow. So does the traffic.

Melbourne has been famous for it's PT for decades. A mix of trams, light and heavy rail with buses filling the cross gaps. It f**king rocks.

Put your head back up your arse

I remember seeing these being built years ago. Such a great idea.

Sydney had the chance to do it.....did they fark..

It really was good - nine minutes right into the CBD.

Yeah... I'd put money on some form of corridor development scheme being part of the reasoning behind this. I'm sure I read something about that last week, projected population growth and densities, that sort of thing. It makes sense and so does your added lines idea, perhaps even sooner.

NZ really doesn't sort of do mass transit very well, and it could. Increased density would be fine, albeit a bit of culture shock for people like your Christchurch natives say, who are used to kilometres of empty footpaths in the city centre.

yeah... I guess the drawback I see in ChCh is the sprawl, but I live in one of the most bizarrely sprawled cities on the planet.

We are very different. Why are we even comparing a city in NZ to Perth and the f**king desolate Nullaboor plain?

Seneca,

This is what is being planned under ATAP over the next 10 years.

A lot of these have been talked about since forever. Especially that Eastern busway (AMETI). That has been on the drawing board since the old Auckland and Manukau councils were around under John Banks and Barry Curtis.

Potential beyond 2028. These are official diagrams from the ATAP. That second harbour crossing has been talked about since forever as well.

Bingo.... that's the way to do it.

We should be consulting to these clowns. We'd have it wrapped up in 5 yrs, easy. Then we'd take Wellington.

A lot of this high density stuff is being talked about by the Council planners, which is where funding models like value-capture taxes are being studied. Hong kong and Singapore are two cities being looked at. Of course, the govt is interested in more houses for their kiwibuid and Twyford is very keen on transport and housing being talked about in the same sentences.

Seriously we are larger than the UK, HK and Singapore combined and we we are arguing this high density bullshit?

there's a bit of a push on in Perth over it too... the Freo council are pretty progressive and managing something of a development boom here because the City of Fremantle desperately needs higher density to draw a better rates base, but also density leads to commercial confidence and greater liveability through social funding and all the natural activity generation and stimulation that comes with it. Other councils across Perth are being encouraged to look at it as well... and the train lines provide a natural framework to hang that density modelling off.

hard out (sad to say Sen my main man I am never on the point) but still the greater Auckland council has about 6000 sq km at their disposal, why the emphasis on high density?

True up to a point Maxy. There is still room to sprawl for Auckland but two harbours means Auckland's infrastructure will be concentrated to a core metropolitan area. We also need to eat so we can't expand down south too much because the farms down there feed the city. Sprawling just increases the need for more roads and motorways which increases the need for more cars which increases congestion because they all need to come into the isthmus and clog up the place.

True true, so you suggest green belt zones? Aucks will absorb most of Northland within the nek 20 years

Edited.

Anyways I will leave it to you intelligent folk now...

Owning real estate does the Super fund no good

Why not deadduck?

Well I suppose it does if they can gain some kind of income from it
But will that be more than the cost of the initial investment?

It's an investment like any other. Rental returns tend not to match dividends but you would expect some pretty decent capital gains. Anyway, it's sound investment practice to diversify. Real estate is generally considered to provide lower returns than shares but its far less volatile. You're going to want some if there's an economic downturn.