NZ | Population Statistics Thread

[NZer]

You know, if Aucklanders really embrace rail, it will be a much more efficient city and that is good for all New Zealand. Would you rather Aucklanders just keep using their cars with a couple of bits and pieces of motorway being built every few years or so?
Auckland needs many, many billions of dollars invested into it, to build the rail network it should have gotten a long time ago.

The only thing that is ever likely to entice me back to New Zealand is an Auckland that doesn't require sitting in traffic every time I want to go somewhere.

[whizz_pat]

Originally Posted by KiwiGuy

How? Are we all going to die in screaming pain because that pet rail project isn't being built?

No, you'll just be affected by a greater pressure by the NZ government to provide expensive transport solutions for Auckland (ie roads), a larger deficit due to higher petrol consumption in NZ, and, ultimately, less business investment and opportunities in NZ.

[KiwiGuy]

Originally Posted by whizz_pat

No, you'll just be affected by a greater pressure by the NZ government to provide expensive transport solutions for Auckland (ie roads), a larger deficit due to higher petrol consumption in NZ, and, ultimately, less business investment and opportunities in NZ.

Doubt it.

[Svartmetall]

Originally Posted by KiwiGuy

Doubt it.

C'mon KiwiGuy, I know you can do better than that. If you don't agree with his statements, back them up with evidence rather than simply disregarding them. It has been shown that the economic and population health burden of traffic is astronomical and this is why the worlds successful cities have embraced public transport to such a degree.

[DML2]

Originally Posted by jarden

..Auckland regional council or Auckland Provence..

Neither of these exist anymore, it's just the Auckland Council

[Easty]

Originally Posted by Svartmetall

C'mon KiwiGuy, I know you can do better than that. If you don't agree with his statements, back them up with evidence rather than simply disregarding them. It has been shown that the economic and population health burden of traffic is astronomical and this is why the worlds successful cities have embraced public transport to such a degree.

KiwiGuy
Are you looking at it from a local view point. In other words, how will a rail project in Auckland 700km away - impact your life in Nelson?
One can understand your remarks then.
However, from a Jaffa point of view..if Auckland grinds to a halt. New Zealand wont be too far behind....

[otumoetaiNZ]

Except that were a small country a huge amount of the countrys goods and services are either made in auckland or pass through it. Anything that slows them down or adds cost means everyone pays for it, even in places way out like nelson.

At least national recognise that and are spending money in the cities that will have the biggest impact on our economy. Best bang for the buck and all that shit.

[whizz_pat]

Except they're spending it in all the wrong places (Puhoi-Wellsford, Waikato Expressway come to mind).

[NZer]

There hasn't really been a turnaround in priorities or attitiude.
Still building motorways, not solving the problem, creating even more of a shithole.

[KiwiGuy]

Originally Posted by Easty

KiwiGuy
Are you looking at it from a local view point. In other words, how will a rail project in Auckland 700km away - impact your life in Nelson?
One can understand your remarks then.
However, from a Jaffa point of view..if Auckland grinds to a halt. New Zealand wont be too far behind....

I am looking at from a local point of view. So yes, I would be expected to be a bit skeptical of the significance of what I would call a "commuter" rail project in the national scheme of things. If it was say, a new national rail project which linked Auckland with another city of importance like Tauranga or imrpoved services with Hamilton or whatever, than I wouldn't have a problem with it.

See, because I live in a "feeder" region in a different island, all our locally grown exports like fruit and timber go through either the local port or trucked down to Lyttleton. Auckland doesn't come into the equation for us. We don't rely on them nearly as much as other North Island regional centres. Nelson as a city and a region doesn't rely on Auckland for the vast majority of things. Most of what we need to function comes from further south from places like the hydro plants in Manapouri or places like Christchurch. Hell, Wellington, due to our proximity to the city, is far more important to us than Auckland is. It may be beneficial for Auckland and may be some parts of the North Island, I'll grant you that, but how is it beneficial for someone who doesn't live on the same island let alone in the same city?

So, unless you can tell me that a commuter train project is going to significantly affect my day-to-day business in such a way that it must be built, then I shall remain unconvinced.

[Easty]

Originally Posted by KiwiGuy

I am looking at from a local point of view. So yes, I would be expected to be a bit skeptical of the significance of what I would call a "commuter" rail project in the national scheme of things. If it was say, a new national rail project which linked Auckland with another city of importance like Tauranga or imrpoved services with Hamilton or whatever, than I wouldn't have a problem with it.

See, because I live in a "feeder" region in a different island, all our locally grown exports like fruit and timber go through either the local port or trucked down to Lyttleton. Auckland doesn't come into the equation for us. We don't rely on them nearly as much as other North Island regional centres. Nelson as a city and a region doesn't rely on Auckland for the vast majority of things. Most of what we need to function comes from further south from places like the hydro plants in Manapouri or places like Christchurch. Hell, Wellington, due to our proximity to the city, is far more important to us than Auckland is. It may be beneficial for Auckland and may be some parts of the North Island, I'll grant you that, but how is it beneficial for someone who doesn't live on the same island let alone in the same city?

So, unless you can tell me that a commuter train project is going to significantly affect my day-to-day business in such a way that it must be built, then I shall remain unconvinced.

A significant rail project in Auckland is a hard enough sell in Auckland .
Let alone the rest of the country..I grant you that

Lets look at it another way:

It ( Rail extension Britomart to Mt Eden) would be a 10 year project from go ahead to completion. If we suggest that
the eventual go ahead is in 4 years time ( 2015)
BY 2025 ( upon Completion) Another 400,000 plus people have been added to Aucklands Population. Thats a Christchurch.
If you were to suggest to me that Nelson was to add 400,000 people to
its population within that same period.
I would suggest that that would be of national significance based on our countries total population and the impact to the country those extra 400k of people will have.I would support whatever infrastructure is needed to ensure we manage and sustain that population and the impact it has in your region

[badbehaviour]

Originally Posted by Easty

A significant rail project in Auckland is a hard enough sell in Auckland .
Let alone the rest of the country..I grant you that

Lets look at it another way:

It ( Rail extension Britomart to Mt Eden) would be a 10 year project from go ahead to completion. If we suggest that
the eventual go ahead is in 4 years time ( 2015)
BY 2025 ( upon Completion) Another 400,000 plus people have been added to Aucklands Population. Thats a Christchurch.
If you were to suggest to me that Nelson was to add 400,000 people to
its population within that same period.
I would suggest that that would be of national significance based on our countries total population and the impact to the country those extra 400k of people will have.I would support whatever infrastructure is needed to ensure we manage and sustain that population and the impact it has in your region

What he said

[KiwiGuy]

Originally Posted by Easty

A significant rail project in Auckland is a hard enough sell in Auckland .
Let alone the rest of the country..I grant you that

Lets look at it another way:

It ( Rail extension Britomart to Mt Eden) would be a 10 year project from go ahead to completion. If we suggest that
the eventual go ahead is in 4 years time ( 2015)
BY 2025 ( upon Completion) Another 400,000 plus people have been added to Aucklands Population. Thats a Christchurch.
If you were to suggest to me that Nelson was to add 400,000 people to
its population within that same period.
I would suggest that that would be of national significance based on our countries total population and the impact to the country those extra 400k of people will have.I would support whatever infrastructure is needed to ensure we manage and sustain that population and the impact it has in your region

I don't believe that. Firstly, if Nelson experienced that ammount of population increase, we'd have bigger problems to worry about than transport. Secondly, you're assuming all those 400,000 people would use trains as their primary source of commuter transport, as opposed to cars or buses. Thirdly, wouldn't it be cheaper and better just to electrify the current rail network? I'm assuming fares in electric trains would be cheaper than diesel (fuel costs). Also, I'm assuming also that the total population must have increased dramatically as well, since 400,000 in 20 years for Auckland alone would mean a bigger overall population. So, we'd have to assume that the population would be around the 4-5 million mark. If Auckland is at around (roughly) 1.5 million at the moment. Add another 0.4 million and that would be around 1.9 million-2.0 million. Depending on total statistics, that is either half, or still around the current ratio it is at the moment. Also, we'd have to take demand into account as well.

I'm not trying to say that it isn't important for Auckland. But can you try to tell me the importance of it is for me?

[Shayno]

More people on trains=Less cars on road=More space on roads for TRUCKS
Which, according to our dear Minister of Transport, drive our economy and are crucial to any economic progress.

[otumoetaiNZ]

Originally Posted by KiwiGuy

I'm not trying to say that it isn't important for Auckland. But can you try to tell me the importance of it is for me?

If it takes longer to transport goods through auckland it costs the businesses in the towns that supply the goods more which means lower profits. Simple really.

Spending more in auckland will have benefits for all of the country. Spending more in nelson will benefit nelson mostly. Pretty simple decision in the end of it eh.

[Easty]

Originally Posted by KiwiGuy

I don't believe that. Firstly, if Nelson experienced that ammount of population increase, we'd have bigger problems to worry about than transport. Secondly, you're assuming all those 400,000 people would use trains as their primary source of commuter transport, as opposed to cars or buses. Thirdly, wouldn't it be cheaper and better just to electrify the current rail network? I'm assuming fares in electric trains would be cheaper than diesel (fuel costs). Also, I'm assuming also that the total population must have increased dramatically as well, since 400,000 in 20 years for Auckland alone would mean a bigger overall population. So, we'd have to assume that the population would be around the 4-5 million mark. If Auckland is at around (roughly) 1.5 million at the moment. Add another 0.4 million and that would be around 1.9 million-2.0 million. Depending on total statistics, that is either half, or still around the current ratio it is at the moment. Also, we'd have to take demand into account as well.

I'm not trying to say that it isn't important for Auckland. But can you try to tell me the importance of it is for me?

As I suggested,
It's a hard sell outside.
Let's beg to differ

[KiwiGuy]

Originally Posted by otumoetaiNZ

If it takes longer to transport goods through auckland it costs the businesses in the towns that supply the goods more which means lower profits. Simple really.

Spending more in auckland will have benefits for all of the country. Spending more in nelson will benefit nelson mostly. Pretty simple decision in the end of it eh.

But Nelson doesn't export goods via Auckland. We have our own port plus Dunedin, Timaru and Lyttleton for our needs. Same situation for the vast majority of the South Island.

Spending more in Auckland will have the same effect anywhere else. Yes it will benefit Auckland, no doubt about that. But would it benefit someone in Dunedin? Someone in Christchurch? Someone in Wellington? Someone in Greymouth? I doubt it. Those new trains in Wellington for instance. Benefitted Wellingtonians. But has there been any effects on you? No. So I think we can bury the hatchet on this one.

[Indictable]

There has. It means the Pollies are happier cause of less traffic on Aotea Quay so they pass on their happy mood to the people in parliament. Stop being such a whingy little bitch, fucks me off evertime I want to read a thread and see nothing but your little bitch and moan.

/rant

[Nicco]

lol agreed.

Auckland = 1/3 New Zealand

Every Auckland public project doesnt need approval from people from the provinces. Nor does it need an assesment of how it's going to benefit the whingebag in Te Awamutu.

Yes it will benefit Auckland, no doubt about that. But would it benefit someone in Dunedin? Someone in Christchurch? Someone in Wellington? Someone in Greymouth? I doubt it.

?
You doubt correct.
That's why there is a clear distinction between regional and national projects.

[KiwiGuy]

Originally Posted by Nicco

lol agreed.

Auckland = 1/3 New Zealand

Every Auckland public project doesnt need approval from people from the provinces. Nor does it need an assesment of how it's going to benefit the whingebag in Te Awamutu.

It was not about that. It was about some idiot saying that a particular pet project in Auckland was of national significance when clearly it wasn't. I said that if it wasn't going to benefit anyone outside Auckland it was not of national importance. Do we understand now?

?
You doubt correct.
That's why there is a clear distinction between regional and national projects.

That distinction seems a bit blurred with the egos of some forumers. But I'm not going to point any fingers.