Article is free with registration (use a throwaway email account)
It is reversing a ban on oil and gas drilling, and is proposing a “fast-track” for big projects, including mines, that bypasses environmental checks. It has cut climate programs and jobs, scrapped electric vehicle subsidies, abandoned plans for one of the world’s largest marine sanctuaries and set aside a world-leading cow “burp” tax as it questions the science on methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
Except the austerity measures started when Labour was in. Admittedly not to that level, but they were aware of the issues that national took and run with.
Fully agree the landlord one is bullshit, but I find it interesting you don’t consider roads critical infrastructure, especially considering we are still diffused throughout the country and don’t have the density for lots of mass transit.
Finally, everything you have said is a symptom, not the underlying cause - you’ve told me Nat is cutting costs on key areas (yes), but you asked why it happened in the first place. Its the country wide symptoms I mentioned, and these can’t be fixed in 3 years no matter who is in.
I didn’t say I don’t consider roads as critical infrastucture, I specifically said “mega roads”, i.e new multi lane motorways that are a waste of money because they will encourage more driving, more sprawl and make traffic even worse in the long run (and I imagine local roads will deteriorate as they did the last time this happened).
Three waters, the ferries, state housing, public transport are all better options right now that are woefully underfunded and in fact actively sabotaged by this govt.
The “we don’t have the density” argument is often pulled out against funding public transport and it’s unfounded. We’re one of the most urbanised countries in the world. We could absolutely build more PT if we chose to, we’ve had far more extensive networks in the past than what we currently do.
Overall, saying what’s happening is a symptom is just an attempt to claim what’s happening right now is inevitable imo. Different choices can be made that would be far less damaging, they’d be positive even and actually address the underlying problems you highlight instead of this “better things aren’t possible” fatalism.
Unfortunately the time to deal with the alternative here was 30 years ago. We aren’t a 15 min city (none if them are) and changing this will take decades.
Agreed, moving on.
Sydney has 6 million people compared to Auckland 1.2., Melbourne 5 with similar land area. If you look at % then yes, look at people per sqkm we are no where close.
Yes, better choices can be made, they will improve the country in the long run, but people struggling now get to vote. Balanced books get votes on confidence, ease of lifestyle and business as usual get votes, getting kicked out if my car and more regulations lose elections.
Yeah like I said, “better things aren’t possible” fatalism.
So you don’t need as many buses to achieve the same coverage. Public transport infrastructure costs are not fixed for a certain land area, they are also proportional to potential ridership.
Backwards- if you want to cover areas your network needs to be the size to cover it. Its much more comparatively expensive when you have 3 people riding each route rather than 18.
You’re correct on main lines, however you can also run larger busses.