• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Barnyb

AC36 Auckland NZ

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, jaysper said:

I think you can safely assume they will stump up enough cash because they believe in spending tax payer money after all.

It's the cutting of red tape that will be more challenging but unlikely to be a roadblock in the end. Might take some pissing and moaning to get it done, but it will get done.

 

13 hours ago, Barnyb said:

Grant Robertson is on the case! (which provides no one with any comfort - but hey at least "they have aspirations")

 

12 hours ago, rh2600 said:

Gawd... he's got a lot to prove... like everything really...

Fully up to expectation, then. The socialists are on the case. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sailbydate said:

Fully up to expectation, then. The socialists are on the case. ;)

Yup! They are happy to make the sacrifices necessary and spend as much of our money as is necessary to achieve their "Vision".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Rennmaus said:

A "lead minister for the America's Cup"! This is possible only in New Zealand :D

Well.. is it?

This person is not exclusively minister of the AC - he is the person in government who has been appointed as the individual who will be responsible for AC related matters at the govt level.

As noted he is also Minister for Economic Development, the Minister For The Environment,  the Minister For Trade and Export Growth, and Associate Minister Of Finance.

From what I can tell, it's the same situation as Bermuda (Bermuda's Minister of Economic Development Dr. the Hon. Grant Gibbon was responsible for AC) and previous NZ efforts.

I think PM Bob Hawke also nominated himself up as Minister after Australia won :-)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jaysper said:

Yup! They are happy to make the sacrifices necessary and spend as much of our money as is necessary to achieve their "Vision".

Cool. Since we're all looking in the same direction, as far as AC36 goes, what could go wrong, Jays?

Don't answer that. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sailbydate said:

Cool. Since we're all looking in the same direction, as far as AC36 goes, what could go wrong, Jays?

Don't answer that. ;)

LOL! You know me too well.

I was just taking a deep breath to have a good old rant and then I read the second line.

Actually, I have no doubt that Auckland will put on a GREAT event because Labour and Auckland City have a STRONG motivation to make sure it is - otherwise their noses will be pushed away from the tax payer trough.

Its just that (like most of these big events), the costs are likely to be out of proportion with the benefits.

If its any consolation SBD, National wouldn't have been much better with their very socialist view of capitalism.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep preaching your personnel view of politics here, not sure it has much bearing, especially as you label all parties similarly with regards to the AC ^

But while seemingly being interested it's funny that you apparently haven't noticed that what the countries leading most of the significant international indices have in common is their very socialist view of capitalism :blink:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, nav said:

You keep preaching your personnel view of politics here, not sure it has much bearing, especially as you label all parties similarly with regards to the AC ^

But while seemingly being interested it's funny that you apparently haven't noticed that what the countries leading most of the significant international indices have in common is their very socialist view of capitalism :blink:

Still waiting for you to refute my comment regarding terrorism nav. LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, nav said:

You keep preaching your personnel view of politics here, not sure it has much bearing, especially as you label all parties similarly with regards to the AC ^

But while seemingly being interested it's funny that you apparently haven't noticed that what the countries leading most of the significant international indices have in common is their very socialist view of capitalism :blink:

He's just a pretentious fake "intellectual" who's bitter over his lot. The mold in mum's basement has affected his limited ability to think before he smashes away at the keyboard...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jaysper said:

Still waiting for you to refute my comment regarding terrorism nav. LOL!

I refuted it, the FBI has refuted it and unfortunately so did the non-muslim gun-nut in Texas

But if all you want to do is regurgitate right-wing drivel.......well maybe somewhere else would be better eh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, nav said:

I refuted it, the FBI has refuted it and unfortunately so did the non-muslim gun-nut in Texas

But if all you want to do is regurgitate right-wing drivel.......well maybe somewhere else would be better eh

No you didn't, I proved you wrong without a shadow of a doubt - but yawn!

The irony is that I agree wholeheartedly with the concept that pure capitalism neither exists nor is practical and that a balance between socialism and capitalism is required.

However, NZ has the balance wrong and it is about to get more so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

America's Cup: Tauranga considered as alternative to Auckland to host 2021 America's Cup

Auckland could be stripped of hosting the next America's Cup and replaced by Tauranga, as the city's planning for the event in 2021 is moving too slowly for Emirates Team New Zealand's liking.

A high-powered delegation from ETNZ - Dick Meacham, Kevin Shoebridge and Ray Davies - was hosted by Tauranga Yacht Club commodore Nick Wrinch on Wednesday with their mission to consider Tauranga as an alternative to Auckland as host city for the America's Cup Challenger series and the America's Cup finals between January and March 2021.

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11942801&ref=NZH_fb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Barnyb said:

America's Cup: Tauranga considered as alternative to Auckland to host 2021 America's Cup

Auckland could be stripped of hosting the next America's Cup and replaced by Tauranga, as the city's planning for the event in 2021 is moving too slowly for Emirates Team New Zealand's liking.

A high-powered delegation from ETNZ - Dick Meacham, Kevin Shoebridge and Ray Davies - was hosted by Tauranga Yacht Club commodore Nick Wrinch on Wednesday with their mission to consider Tauranga as an alternative to Auckland as host city for the America's Cup Challenger series and the America's Cup finals between January and March 2021.

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11942801&ref=NZH_fb

Sabre rattling just like the Italian option IMO. I'm not saying it couldn't possibly happen, just that ETNZ is using this as kick arse leverage.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tank farm will require massive remediation due to the fuel and solvent leaching over decades. I met a guy recently who was the Mobil site safety officer for years there. They used sea water as a separator when pumping from the ships to the tanks. Sea water + mild steel storage tanks = corrosion!

At various times, apparently, some form of ignition would have resulted in the entire area going up in a fireball due to the significant amount of leached fuels. 

Scary stuff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, AKL wino said:

At various times, apparently, some form of ignition would have resulted in the entire area going up in a fireball due to the significant amount of leached fuels. 

Scary stuff. 

Well, that WOULD speed up the demolition process.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AKL wino said:

The tank farm will require massive remediation due to the fuel and solvent leaching over decades. I met a guy recently who was the Mobil site safety officer for years there. They used sea water as a separator when pumping from the ships to the tanks. Sea water + mild steel storage tanks = corrosion!

At various times, apparently, some form of ignition would have resulted in the entire area going up in a fireball due to the significant amount of leached fuels. 

Scary stuff. 

Yoiks!

The Halsey Street wharf extension is the front runner, reading between the lines of recent reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it has to be done at some time...better to charge it off against the Cup, have the tax payers pay the bill, then gift it to developers in 20 years for a token payment. Kinda like Simon H and Bayswater Marina.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ~Stingray~ said:

The Halsey Street wharf extension is the front runner, reading between the lines of recent reports.

This is also what I've heard not that I'm particularly well connected.

To me it seems kinda crazy, most expensive & new-build requiring option.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AKL wino said:

The tank farm will require massive remediation due to the fuel and solvent leaching over decades. I met a guy recently who was the Mobil site safety officer for years there. They used sea water as a separator when pumping from the ships to the tanks. Sea water + mild steel storage tanks = corrosion!

At various times, apparently, some form of ignition would have resulted in the entire area going up in a fireball due to the significant amount of leached fuels. 

Scary stuff. 

The smell of the leaching contamination from the seaward approach is pretty strong even though the storage facility has not been used for quite some time and that would reflect the level of pollution that remains to be sorted.

Auckland Council has failed after a lengthy and most probably costly legal stoush with Mobil the ex head leaseholder to front up and decontaminate the site so it will in all reality fall to the ratepayer to shoulder the costs of remediation.

That is not going to be done any time soon.

The Halsley Wharf extension will be expensive.

There is a reliably ugly sweeping swell that wipes across the area and that in itself would expensive to mitigate .

Access is becoming increasingly a total nightmare when you add all the new developments that have been permitted without allowing for carparking.

However planners have seen fit install a singular ancient tram so that should ease the traffic chaos..

Why do I feel increasingly nervous about statements like "build a world class facility".

Send it to Italy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know if the area to the West of the harbour bridge has been considered.  It is within walking distance of the RNZYS and there appears to be unlimited room for reclamation without interfering with the functions of the harbour ..

 

2017 11 11 Alternative Site for the AC.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good suggestion but there's quite an area of rock in that area and it gets the westerlies and north westerlies? Still that's not much of a problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Terry Hollis said:

Just build a breakwater the same as Westhaven Marina.

Good suggestion. Reclaim, with the breakwater reaching out to Watchman Island. Might need some serious dredging is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sailbydate said:

Good suggestion. Reclaim, with the breakwater reaching out to Watchman Island. Might need some serious dredging is all.

The question is could they even break through the red tape in time, let alone do the actual work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sailbydate said:

Good suggestion. Reclaim, with the breakwater reaching out to Watchman Island. Might need some serious dredging is all.

700 m long breakwater...hahaha..serious dreaming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jaysper said:

The question is could they even break through the red tape in time, let alone do the actual work?

That's why they write new legislation for the AC and have a minister for the AC .. to cut through the red tape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Terry Hollis said:

That's why they write new legislation for the AC and have a minister for the AC .. to cut through the red tape.

Agreed that they will try to introduce emergency legislation but would the greens support it given their proclivities? 

And good fucking luck trying to get National to provide bipartisan support. They have already demonstrated that they are prepared to go full tea party on Labours arse and so far it seems to be having the desired effect.

I think that National would be quite happy to let the AC turn to complete shit if it meant that Labour got flushed down the crapper at the next election. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, barfy said:

700 m long breakwater...hahaha..serious dreaming

Might as well go monster. After all, the Cup will be with us for quite a while this time.

And it's not like that part of the harbour is used for anything, except for a couple of swing moorings and flushing Ponsonby's shit when it pours with rain and the storm water system is overwhelmed again. ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jaysper said:

Agreed that they will try to introduce emergency legislation but would the greens support it given their proclivities? 

And good fucking luck trying to get National to provide bipartisan support. They have already demonstrated that they are prepared to go full tea party on Labours arse and so far it seems to be having the desired effect.

I think that National would be quite happy to let the AC turn to complete shit if it meant that Labour got flushed down the crapper at the next election. 

I think you will find that every proposal will have someone who objects to it but it seems to me that the West of the harbour area does not have any other use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going as far as Watchman is being way too greedy, also impractical because of the channel there. They could put a breakwater say, 100 metres out, maybe less, curving round the point; there would be plenty of room along that piece of coast for a fleet of AC boats. Tide runs hard there though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are talking 10 prospective challengers you are going to need a large piece of real estate.

Potential proposals go before council today.

Plenty of locals are going to be extremely be pissed off if it involves stealing more of the Waitemata harbour.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about sailing the next Cup in fremotely controlled foiling model sized monos and just show the event only on very big screens to make them appear full sized.

That will fix it.

Each syndicate would only require a few suit cases of gear with no cranes or buildings and hard stand areas.

STOP STEALING THE WAITEMATA HARBOUR.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at the graphic in the Herald you will see that the extension for Halsey Street doesn't extend past the line of the existing wharves - in fact it is well inside it.

No-one sails there. No-one even anchors there unless they have broken down because there is such a large amount of water movement cause by ferry and boat wakes.

It is dead water.

If the proposal was to push beyond the wharf line - then there would be a point about not reclaiming more harbour - but not here - it has already gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, robberzdog said:

If you look at the graphic in the Herald you will see that the extension for Halsey Street doesn't extend past the line of the existing wharves - in fact it is well inside it.

No-one sails there. No-one even anchors there unless they have broken down because there is such a large amount of water movement cause by ferry and boat wakes.

It is dead water.

If the proposal was to push beyond the wharf line - then there would be a point about not reclaiming more harbour - but not here - it has already gone.

I'm pretty much in agreement with this philosophy, I'm very much in favour of protecting the harbour, but changes to wharves that don't push out past the current longest wharves don't really bother me that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Priscilla said:

If you are talking 10 prospective challengers you are going to need a large piece of real estate.

 

If you're talking 10 prospective challengers you're blowing smoke up someone's arse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Terry Hollis said:

I think you will find that every proposal will have someone who objects to it but it seems to me that the West of the harbour area does not have any other use.

Agreed and as far as I'm concerned they need to get the hell on with it. Whilst I am sure Labour will likewise be wanting to get this thing over the line, because otherwise electoral oblivion awaits. I'm not so sure that the Greens are in the same boat, because they have shown over and over again that their "purity" is more important than achieving their actual stated outcomes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, jaysper said:

Agreed and as far as I'm concerned they need to get the hell on with it. Whilst I am sure Labour will likewise be wanting to get this thing over the line, because otherwise electoral oblivion awaits. I'm not so sure that the Greens are in the same boat, because they have shown over and over again that their "purity" is more important than achieving their actual stated outcomes.

The Greens have a new leadership now and being part of the government might help them to think more rationally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Set the question of mitigation of the Tank Farm disaster aside for a minute.

The inboard end of the Tank Farm is a prime spot for bases if mitigation can be achieved. 

It would involve the rejuvenation of an existing harbour feature and would not involve robbing other areas.  It would be a great pity, for example, if the open water between Princes Wharf and the Tank Farm were jammed up with a Wynyard Wharf extension. Besides, vehicle traffic access to Wynyard Wharf.

As  I've suggested previously, de-list the road down the east side of the Tank Farm, take over the space and use it plus the Oiler Wharf as part of the necessary space for bases. There is no firm plan for this area at present.  Apartments have been suggested.  Move the apartments further out and create the Peter Blake Memorial Marine Park.  Include a permanent base for Team New Zealand plus a new America's Cup Museum administered by and  as anadjunct to the existing marine museum  Move the KZ1. the Big Boat, there and perhaps also The Cloud. When not used for Cup activities this open space would be prime for food and wine festivals, perhaps the boat show.. All of this would still only take up a portion of the Tank Farm area.  Perhaps a third or less if the road and existing wharf were used.

Which brings us to mitigation. I claim no expertise but surely a big dragline bucket and barges could dredge out spoil and load to barges. Then replace with clean fill, also from barges. No road traffic congestion needed. Council has to grasp the nettle sooner or later. Why not now.

I applaud the Mayor's call for a legacy project. But that doesn't mean the entire Tank Farm reclamation project has  to be completed in time for the next AC.  Dedicate the space. Build out the portion needed for 2021. Continue with the work in preparation for the next defence after we win this time.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SCARECROW said:

If you're talking 10 prospective challengers you're blowing smoke up someone's arse.

Maybe 9 then - without an Aussie Challenge:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, robberzdog said:

If you look at the graphic in the Herald you will see that the extension for Halsey Street doesn't extend past the line of the existing wharves - in fact it is well inside it.

No-one sails there. No-one even anchors there unless they have broken down because there is such a large amount of water movement cause by ferry and boat wakes.

It is dead water.

This is true.

My opposition to Halsey st is mainly that its one of the most expensive options with the biggest amount of new construction, therefore most high-risk.

 

Especially at a time when PoA is basically volunteering Captain Cook wharf which Auckland Council has been trying to pry away from PoA for many years.

It seems mad not to take that offer & run with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Barnyb said:

I like this one  - but they all look like will really add some more spice to the waterfront in Akld

 

http://ourauckland.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/articles/news/2017/11/five-base-options-proposed-for-america-s-cup/

20171113_ac36-base-options_halsey-wharf-extension.jpg

There's no way LRBAR could get out of there without bouncing off the pontoons. ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there goes another $squillion buckaroos on a billionaires pissing match that is shouldered by the local reatepayer.

On their behalf thanks for the opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Priscilla said:

Well there goes another $squillion buckaroos on a billionaires pissing match that is shouldered by the local reatepayer.

On their behalf thanks for the opportunity.

59fb6db893250_Transfertosomeone.jpg.2ee8060d3d6ea673d42bbd340f1d53d2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone considered making MEXICO pay for it all ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Priscilla said:

Well there goes another $squillion buckaroos on a billionaires pissing match that is shouldered by the local reatepayer.

On their behalf thanks for the opportunity.

$140-$190M is a big ask of taxpayers for sure. Does RNZYS not have any backers with a role in paying for this? GGYC (through Larry) guaranteed through their Protocol all possible cost overruns over the last two AC cycles. That responsibility was all done down/due to the Club in the end. The team itself also received no funding at all from any level of govt/taxpayers.

Speaking of which: What is the new equivalent of the ‘ACEA’ organization (from AC34 and AC35) or ‘ACM’ organization (from AC32 and AC33) this time? 

edit: Anyway, here’s hoping that the relevant beneficiaries pay for the grandest option, that Halsey Wharf one. It looks very very nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DA-WOODY said:

Has anyone considered making MEXICO pay for it all ???

Exerpt from upcoming Goff speech

Quote

I will build a great AC Basin -- and nobody builds AC Basins better than me, believe me --and I'll build it very inexpensively. I will build a great, great AC Basin on our Waitemata harbour, and I will make Australia pay for that wall. Mark my words

9q84u8S.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DA-WOODY said:

Has anyone considered making MEXICO pay for it all ???

I'm going to build a (sea) wall and make Mexico pay for it.

You know, I'm sure Trump has a plan and all. But I can honestly say that I've never heard a single Mexican say "it's all good, we've got this".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ~Stingray~ said:

$140-$190M is a big ask of taxpayers for sure. Does RNZYS not have any backers with a role in paying for this? GGYC (through Larry) guaranteed through their Protocol all possible cost overruns over the last two AC cycles. That responsibility was all done down/due to the Club in the end. The team itself also received no funding at all from any level of govt/taxpayers.

Speaking of which: What is the new equivalent of the ‘ACEA’ organization (from AC34 and AC35) or ‘ACM’ organization (from AC32 and AC33) this time? 

edit: Anyway, here’s hoping that the relevant beneficiaries pay for the grandest option, that Halsey Wharf one. It looks very very nice.

The issue I have is that this will be just one of many items on the shopping list if certain idiots get their way. $190 million is already a shit pot of dosh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The present Auckland mayor Phil Goff in a previous political life as Defence Minister squandered 1 billion kiwi roubles on 105 Canadian light armoured vehicles that are as much use as tits on a bull.

Goff is luckily for the ratepayer constrained from gaining access to excessive funding for legacy projects as Auckland City has reached its maximum allowable debt level .

The private sector historically "sits this one out "when it comes to funding local infrastructure developments but later on down the track emerges to make a killing when the TLA steps away once the Cup has flown. 

The RNZYS will not contribute a dime.

ETNZ will not contribute a dime.

So it ultimately falls to central and local government to shoulder the build costs once again.

The question that urgently needs to answered is how many syndicates are actually going to rock up to Auckland.

If there is a total of say less than 5 including the defender then the required infrastructure amounts to way less than if there are 8 plus teams.

A large amount of public funding has been recently spent to develop the Wynyard Quarter with a strong design emphasis being placed on it being a pedestrian precinct.

Construct a substantial  AC Cup base on the end of Halsey Wharf as is being presently mooted and pedestrians will be whistling dixie for access.

Historically syndicate bases are no go zones for the public to access. Spies and the protection of design development etc etc....

Bermuda seemed to offer better public access but given the shift to a new boat design competing syndicates are going to demand privacy. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Auckland City seems to be able to justify spending $1billion on a light rail link from Auckland Central to the Airport. The trip will take 45 minutes - about 15 minutes longer than in a car. Compared to this sort of nonsense spending $200million on an America's Cup facility that will give a four or five fold return on investment in four years seems like the investment of the century. Or looking at it another way - chip in $200million for an America's Cup base and the return will pay a big chunk of the light rail project to the airport, and if ETNZ successfully defend it will pay for the light rail service almost twice over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, robberzdog said:

Auckland City seems to be able to justify spending $1billion on a light rail link from Auckland Central to the Airport. The trip will take 45 minutes - about 15 minutes longer than in a car. Compared to this sort of nonsense spending $200million on an America's Cup facility that will give a four or five fold return on investment in four years seems like the investment of the century. Or looking at it another way - chip in $200million for an America's Cup base and the return will pay a big chunk of the light rail project to the airport, and if ETNZ successfully defend it will pay for the light rail service almost twice over.

For socialists, a boat race does not have the same ideological imperative as public transport, notwithstanding how much tax-payer subsidisation will be required to "make it pay".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sailbydate said:

For socialists, a boat race does not have the same ideological imperative as public transport, notwithstanding how much tax-payer subsidisation will be required to "make it pay".

Let’s test it’s financial bonanza wonderment as a IPO.

How much are any of you fan boys gonna invest.

SFA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah , how do you define a socialist.

During the GFC and it’s predessor the predominant Republican response was a bailout was socialist thinking.

Who reaped the most from that irony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Priscilla said:

Hah , how do you define a socialist.

During the GFC and it’s predessor the predominant Republican response was a bailout was socialist thinking.

Who reaped the most from that irony.

Agreed, it was an absolute disgrace. However, Obama and his cohorts were more than happy to play along.

The GFC was a misery heaped upon the US public (and the rest of us) by an incompetent, greedy, unethical Wunch of Bankers whose behaviour was the epitome of moral hazard.

Sadly, both sides of the US political spectrum were happy to reinforce their belief that if they fucked it all up, that the Government would bail them out.

Then, they wrote legislation that allowed the banks to more effectively foreclose on the same people whose future was mortgaged to bail the pricks out.

Sadly, this sort of pernicious behaviour is not limited to those parties who call themselves leftists.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Sailbydate said:

For socialists, a boat race does not have the same ideological imperative as public transport, notwithstanding how much tax-payer subsidisation will be required to "make it pay".

Whats socialism go to do with it?

Auckland is the only major city I have ever visited where anyone thinks rail to the airport is a bad idea! 

Mind you all the others already have rail to the airport, mostly built decades ago because it was such an obvious thing to do, several of them have even upgraded it several times since.

That said I also can't understand why anyone would be adverse to investing a bit of money in the AC given the obvious returns it's going to bring!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Boybland said:

Whats socialism go to do with it?

Auckland is the only major city I have ever visited where anyone thinks rail to the airport is a bad idea! 

Mind you all the others already have rail to the airport, mostly built decades ago because it was such an obvious thing to do, several of them have even upgraded it several times since.

That said I also can't understand why anyone would be adverse to investing a bit of money in the AC given the obvious returns it's going to bring!

Airport rail is money far better spent for all kinds of reasons but the Halsey Wharf extension has potentially long-lasting benefits too, if used nicely for the public, well past the AC36 event horizon. 

If it instead got bought out by developers who cash in after that public outlay, well then that’s who should be funding most of it in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's how this cycle will go:

Win AC35. [done]

Name Auckland as AC36 venue [done]

Auckland Council ineptitude [in progress]

Central Government intervention [pending]

Public outcry over cost for a "rich man's sport" [just starting] 

Media beat ups/sensational headlines over costs [just started]

ETNZ has to publically defend themselves for not contributing $ to venue construction [pending]

New facilities built, somehow, despite best efforts of Auckland Council, media, and public protest. [2019/2020]

Media starts covering AC36 [2021]

Mass NZ support for ETNZ despite previous massive outcry against costs, venue etc. [2021]

ETNZ defend AC36 [2021]

Crowds enjoy fantastic new facilities, cost never mentioned again [pending]

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, ~Stingray~ said:

Airport rail is money far better spent for all kinds of reasons but the Halsey Wharf extension has potentially long-lasting benefits too, if used nicely for the public, well past the AC36 event horizon. 

If it instead got bought out by developers who cash in after that public outlay, well then that’s who should be funding most of it in the first place.

Auckland is decentralised and the proposed light rail link would only work for a %age of visitors and residents, while causing major traffic disruption. 

There is existing rail to Onehunga (my preferred location for AC36 challenger bases) and Manukau. Creating a loop via the airport via these points would be mire sensible than what's proposed. 

But I'd prefer a new downtown/waterfront development...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Nutta said:

Here's how this cycle will go:

Win AC35. [done]

Name Auckland as AC36 venue [done]

Auckland Council ineptitude [in progress]

Central Government intervention [pending]

Public outcry over cost for a "rich man's sport" [just starting] 

Media beat ups/sensational headlines over costs [just started]

ETNZ has to publically defend themselves for not contributing $ to venue construction [pending]

New facilities built, somehow, despite best efforts of Auckland Council, media, and public protest. [2019/2020]

Media starts covering AC36 [2021]

Mass NZ support for ETNZ despite previous massive outcry against costs, venue etc. [2021]

ETNZ defend AC36 [2021]

Crowds enjoy fantastic new facilities, cost never mentioned again [pending]

Very good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Nutta said:

Auckland is decentralised and the proposed light rail link would only work for a %age of visitors and residents, while causing major traffic disruption. 

There is existing rail to Onehunga (my preferred location for AC36 challenger bases) and Manukau. Creating a loop via the airport via these points would be mire sensible than what's proposed. 

But I'd prefer a new downtown/waterfront development...

I agree the light rail is not the best option, extending from Onehunga makes more sense, to me, but it's more expensive and just look at the whinging even the cheaper option is generating.

I do however think whatever rail you put there will be used by a large number of people, being able to get from the CBD to the Airport and back by rail of any sort is garaunteed to move a fair number of cars off the road.  I certainly know I would use it when flying, as I imagine would a large number of others who live next to rail stations in Auckland.

It's kind of like the AC, everyone is complaining about the cost now, once it's in place and working and the benefits are obvious no one will mention it again, like the waterview tunnel, like the electrification of the rail network, like the rail loop will be, presumably they had the same arguments about the Harbour Bridge to!  I just think New Zealanders are pretty naive as to the actual cost of proper infrastructure and they freak out when they see large numbers without really comprehending the number of people that will benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Boybland said:

I agree the light rail is not the best option, extending from Onehunga makes more sense, to me, but it's more expensive and just look at the whinging even the cheaper option is generating.

I do however think whatever rail you put there will be used by a large number of people, being able to get from the CBD to the Airport and back by rail of any sort is garaunteed to move a fair number of cars off the road.  I certainly know I would use it when flying, as I imagine would a large number of others who live next to rail stations in Auckland.

It's kind of like the AC, everyone is complaining about the cost now, once it's in place and working and the benefits are obvious no one will mention it again, like the waterview tunnel, like the electrification of the rail network, like the rail loop will be, presumably they had the same arguments about the Harbour Bridge to!  I just think New Zealanders are pretty naive as to the actual cost of proper infrastructure and they freak out when they see large numbers without really comprehending the number of people that will benefit.

OK. So here's the deal. AFAIK, there are two places in the world where public transport by train work profitably without huge ongoing subsidy by taxpayers. Both are in Japan - Osaka and Yokyo I believe. I've taken trains into Tokyo Central and the stories about guys on the platforms wearing white gloves, who push people onto the trains so they don't get squashed by the autoclosing doors are factual. I've seen it. I don't want to see it in NZL.

How the fuck would Auckland support this sort of public transport system with less that 2 million inhabitants and 1.5 million annual visitors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Boybland said:

I certainly know I would use it when flying, as I imagine would a large number of others who live next to rail stations in Auckland.

Yeah, within reason. It's currently a 30-40min trip from most parts of Auckland to the airport. It'll be much longer via rail, with bags etc. So for the foreseeable future I'd still drive.

But...

The time will come when rail is necessary. The access corridors need to be at least provided for and secured now.

We don't do thinking ahead and planning well here. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Nutta said:

We don't do thinking ahead and planning well here. 

That I can agree on. The AHB was opened in 1959. I remember walking over it on opening day. How long did it survive before the Clip-ons arrived? 10 short years. It wasn't exactly future-proofed was it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sailbydate said:

OK. So here's the deal. AFAIK, there are two places in the world where public transport by train work profitably without huge ongoing subsidy by taxpayers. Both are in Japan - Osaka and Yokyo I believe. I've taken trains into Tokyo Central and the stories about guys on the platforms wearing white gloves, who push people onto the trains so they don't get squashed by the autoclosing doors are factual. I've seen it. I don't want to see it in NZL.

How the fuck would Auckland support this sort of public transport system with less that 2 million inhabitants and 1.5 million annual visitors?

Do you think roads are free? I didn't notice any toll gates on the 1.4 billion dollar Waterview Tunnel last time I whipped through it, I don't remember ever being charged for any maintenance when they swept the road outside my house or resealed the one around the corner.

Road trasport is a subsidised activity as well, anything that takes money from taxes or rates is.

I travel in Tokyo and Japan in general all the time and the rail system there beats travelling by car every single time! I would take their philosophy on transport over ours every time!

Where do you think the majority of those 1.5 million annual visitors enter Auckland?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sailbydate said:

That I can agree on. The AHB was opened in 1959. I remember walking over it on opening day. How long did it survive before the Clip-ons arrived? 10 short years. It wasn't exactly future-proofed was it?

Here's the thing it was supposed to be, the original proposal included provisions for allowing walking and rail traffic, but people complained about the cost at the time...

Sound familiar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Boybland said:

Do you think roads are free? I didn't notice any toll gates on the 1.4 billion dollar Waterview Tunnel last time I whipped through it, I don't remember ever being charged for any maintenance when they swept the road outside my house or resealed the one around the corner.

Road trasport is a subsidised activity as well, anything that takes money from taxes or rates is.

I travel in Tokyo and Japan in general all the time and the rail system there beats travelling by car every single time! I would take their philosophy on transport over ours every time!

Where do you think the majority of those 1.5 million annual visitors enter Auckland?

Every time I travel by road, to and from Auckland, I pay a road toll of $4.60. I'm well aware of how roads get built and maintained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Boybland said:

Here's the thing it was supposed to be, the original proposal included provisions for allowing walking and rail traffic, but people complained about the cost at the time...

Sound familiar?

It certainly does sound familiar. At the time I was 9. I remember the grown-up being very excited about a new harbour crossing. I don't recall any bitching about the cost, although with only 350,000 inhabitants, Auckland's must have been scared shitless about the financial investment they were committing to. Not much has changed I suspect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Sailbydate said:

That I can agree on. The AHB was opened in 1959. I remember walking over it on opening day. How long did it survive before the Clip-ons arrived? 10 short years. It wasn't exactly future-proofed was it?

The bridge is at the end of its design life, so I'm sure we will be ok because of the second crossing that has been built ... um... is planned ... um ... has solid options on the table ... um ... ah, fuck... she'll be right!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Nutta said:

The bridge is at the end of its design life, so I'm sure we will be ok because of the second crossing that has been built ... um... is planned ... um ... has solid options on the table ... um ... ah, fuck... she'll be right!

Aren't there supposed to be carbon fibre clip-on cycle and walkways about to be bolted on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boybland said:

Do you think roads are free? I didn't notice any toll gates on the 1.4 billion dollar Waterview Tunnel last time I whipped through it, I don't remember ever being charged for any maintenance when they swept the road outside my house or resealed the one around the corner.

Road trasport is a subsidised activity as well, anything that takes money from taxes or rates is.

I travel in Tokyo and Japan in general all the time and the rail system there beats travelling by car every single time! I would take their philosophy on transport over ours every time!

Where do you think the majority of those 1.5 million annual visitors enter Auckland?

The problem is that trains are legacy thinking for most applications.

With the advent of driverless vehicles, buses will become 10 seater vehicles that will have a different route for every single journey, picking up and delivering a group of strangers point to point at a price point that will be impossible to beat using any other method.

Because the cost will be lower, the number of people needing to take their own vehicle to work will reduce significantly making the entire transport network work much more efficiently.

Dunno about Auckland, but in Welly the reduction in traffic come School holidays makes the commute MUCH faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sailbydate said:

Every time I travel by road, to and from Auckland, I pay a road toll of $4.60. I'm well aware of how roads get built and maintained.

There's a lesson for you there SBD. Don't fucking travel to Auckland! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jaysper said:

There's a lesson for you there SBD. Don't fucking travel to Auckland! 

If you do, there's a mandatory gift you must take away again - your very own Goff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Nutta said:

If you do, there's a mandatory gift you must take away again - your very own Goff!

Hey I was just having a joke Nutta. What you're suggesting is just plain nasty ;)

But hey, he's better than Brown though right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Nutta said:

Sigh.

Not such a high bar to clear huh?

If it's any consolation our mayor is a total fucking numpty. 

Cancels guy fawkes fireworks (which are part of the tradition) for fireworks for a Maori celebration that has no tradition of fireworks. Idiot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe we should all just move to Italy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jaysper said:

There's a lesson for you there SBD. Don't fucking travel to Auckland! 

Family. Grand children. Nightmare traffic.

Can't quite decide which is the most aggravating. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely your compulsory Goff gift whining and spending all your cash on the trip home...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites