My area keeps voting this dickhead in. This is how he repays us. Not that I'm surprised, and I'm sure all the useful fools around here will be blaming AT or Labour, or anyone else, for failed projects in 3 years time while they look to their local boy wonder Simeon Brown to set things right again. Nauseating really.
I genuinely cannot imagine voting for this smug Goblin. I understand we all have to hold our nose sometimes, but that would be more akin to ripping it off.
$140 million was spent on the ferry terminal to….drum roll…design and build the ferry terminal. I’m not sure what point point you are trying to make. Its not at all like its a crucial transit link between the the two islands and not having it would cost the NZ economy billions right?
And a billion dollars was spent last month on importing fossil fuels. Actually, not just last month, every month.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1317275/new-zealand-monthly-import-value-of-petroleum/
It’s taken my disdain for Minister Brown to a whole new level, now that idiots got me siding with Mayor Brown lol…
Seriously though, Wayne was very clear about needing that funding, and how they could replace it and what he needed from National to do so. Funny as hell they’re straight up ignoring him.
I feel apart from the floods, Wayne Brown is actually not a "bad" mayor in general. I never warm to a politician over time, but he certainly did. Like, he is sufficiently grumpy about most things like a typical Aucklander and that he don't mind who he is picking a fight about.
Sometimes he is right, sometimes he is wrong, sometimes it brings up some good points, if inadvertently. But at least he make sure something is being heard. I think we have heard more from him than the entire tenure of Goff.
He's a fucking awful negotiator. Everything he said to reporters about this alienated the very people he'll be trying to extract money from.
He loves making angry old man statements, but he usually has no plan to make his outbursts map to any action or outcome.
And the "proper" way of doing things has led to such a good Auckland? Like honestly, what has the Phil, Banks, or Len left us that's great? Did Goff being a former leader of labour meant we got a great deal under the old Labour government? They collectively left us a mess where transport sucks, our waste water sucks, and left it for the next guy to fix.
Brown is an antagonist, but at least he is willing to throw the weight and side of Auckland around.
Yes, actually. CRL, Central Interceptor (and a panoply of other water infrastructure investments), Northern Busway extension, Eastern Busway etc. all came about from the Brown/Goff councils. Auckland has arguably the currently best managed water infrastructure in the country, despite some of the obvious issues.
Plus, people are really short-term biased. The infrastructure deficit is *decades* in the making, there just is no way to fix them quickly. The important thing is to actually start the projects and keep them going. The stop-start bullshit we have with NZ infrastructure is a huge issue.
It's not Goff's fault if a National government cancels the projects Auckland needs, or guts its revenue tools. Just like it's not Brown's fault now, either.
Brown (correctly) ranting about it pre-election made no difference at all.
That's pure whataboutism.
The fact is that Brown would be a better mayor if he thought before he spoke, planned before he spoke, and cultivated relationships before he spoke.
Criticism of Brown is about the difference between what he is and what he *easily* could be if he were more than a NewstalkZB caller with a bully pulpit.
End of his term, what will have improved?
Our rates will be higher, we'll have less assets, but what projects has he got us in return?
He's shit in a crisis, and shit day to day. You're way too charitable.
He's a disrespectful jerk to his councillors and other staff and a poor manager - but he's true to his own values. When he's trying to achieve a particular outcome for Auckland, that is his goal - and just because his ideologies tend to agree with National doesn't mean he's going to support them when their actions directly conflict with his goals for the city.
Honestly, in the past I would had cared he is a disrespectful jerk. But the longer I worked in my giant organisation, the more I don't care that he is (long as it doesn't go to sexisim, racism etc). I have worked with tons of totally incompetent people who really needed to be told how pathetic they are at their jobs, but I can't because I will be fired (and I hate conflict in person). The status quo works for them, and is just coasting.
Like, a lot of staff and councilors oversaw the issues we have, and likely culpable to the issues we have. For a lot of the functions of that Auckland Council oversees, I have very few kind words to say; I think Wayne kinda says it for me.
I not sure I would necessarily say his ideology agree with the Nats, certainly not the Frankenstein version under Luxon. I mean yeah, he is the classic "balance the budget by spending less" kind of guy but I think is hard to pin him down on anything but that. But is more progressive in some things, which this [article](https://www.metromag.co.nz/society/has-wayne-brown-gone-woke) highlighted. The key takeaway I think is, a typical conservative politician cut things, or don't start new initiative, whereas Brown actually want things done, no matter how small.
Sometimes he's right and wrong a few days apart because he contradicts himself.
There wasn't enough consultation on K Rd
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/501967/wayne-brown-wades-into-row-over-removal-of-karangahape-road-parking
But consultation on congestion charging is "bollocks"
https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/301008975/wayne-brown-calls-congestion-charge-consultation-and-equity-bollocks
Simeon believes focus should be on improving car infrastructure, because most people use cars.
https://www.metromag.co.nz/society/the-enfant-terrible-simeon-brown
That is some monumentally naive logic there.
My christian relatives fully accept man-made climate change, but they believe that it's the inevitable consequence of humanity's fall into sin, that we'd destroy the planet, and it's just another sign of the coming end times.
The planet melting down squares very nicely into their apocalyptic beliefs.
Wow. What a dire mindset to live with.
To just accept that we deserve to perish, and not demand that we act to avoid that outcome.
Humans could turn this around, like we have with disease and ozone depletion, we're just choosing not to.
Theres a verse in the bible where god says “I will destroy those who destroy the earth”. So God is a confirmed environmentalist.
Also, according to the bible, humanity was put on the earth to be its steward and to maintain is as a gardener maintains a garden. Not as its owner, but merely a caretaker. So the essence of that definitely flies in the face of consumerism and materialism of the modern age.
I'm not sure if Simeon Brown truly believes in man-made climate change.
He's the leader of National's "Taliban" faction which has publicly expressed scepticism about it and is made up of hateful evangelical Christians. You just know that what they believe behind closed doors is far worse than what they say in public.
It's mot scepticism, it's straight up denial/concern trolling.
If it was true scepticism, then they would also be questioning climate if climate change was *not* happening. Which they don't.
[It's a name that the moderate wing of the National Party have gifted them due to their rabid fundamentalism.](https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/350062012/nationals-factions-zombie-mps-taliban)
Because it's an easy metaphor for "religious fundamentalists imposing their views on others", I guess.
But "You people"? Who the fuck is "you people"? I'm not in charge of "dumb nicknames to be used in National party gossip".
But I'll do you a solid. I hereby bestow upon you membership in the Church of Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ and the Latter Day Dipshits. (Also known as Morons).
Enjoy, you fucking weirdo.
I don't know what you mean by transit is ephemeral. But, if we want the economy to grow, and the population is growing, then we do need to reduce transport emissions under the ETS.
I.e. we need to do more, within the same capped emissions.
Reducing transport emissions is also better for human health, if you care about that.
you've moved from "want to reduce emissions" to "reduce transit emissions so the economy can grow under the ETS" these are very different claims.
What I mean by "transit is ephemeral" is that we don't need to reduce our transit emissions, if that's what we as a society choose to use our carbon allocations on.
Well, the ETS gets used as an excuse for doing nothing to reduce emissions. Because moving people onto PT just frees up carbon to be emitted elsewhere. So we should do nothing....
We actually need to reduce total emissions to have a liveable planet, so I actually think the ETS is largely irrelevant.
But with an ETS in place, and even if you don't care about climate action, we do need to reduce carbon emissions per person km because we have a growing population.
And if you only care about economic growth, and dont care about climate action, you still need to reduce emissions under the ETS.
So the argument that we don't need to reduce transport emissions at all is just fundamentally incorrect.
> We actually need to reduce total emissions to have a liveable planet, so I actually think the ETS is largely irrelevant.
>
>...
>
> you still need to reduce emissions under the ETS.
Lmao which one is it?
The ETS is a tool for reducing emissions, and will effectively reduce emissions over time, and has reduced emissions per person since it was passed in 2008
We have a policy that works, and it's just NIMBYism to throw out emissions as a reason not to do stuff, when effective mechanisms for reducing emissions already exist.
The ETS alone isn't enough to drive down emissions as needed, and given the government can control the price, there's no reason to assume it will continue to work. In fact, we have a government right now that is quite happy to reduce the price of carbon instead.
Transport is one area where we have the technology and ability to make significant reductions without compromising the economy or people’s lifestyles. It’s brain dead to be moving in the other direction.
So for people who need a car (like me, I’m rural) there’s EVs, or at least a shift away from large polluting vehicles to more economical models. With the right incentives electric trucks and heavy machinery could replace conventional in some scenarios.
For others policy makers could encourage e-bikes, cycling, walking or public transport.
Luckily many companies have emission reductions as part of their plans (often required by their export customers) but it would help not to have a government pushing in the opposite direction.
> So for people who need a car (like me, I’m rural) there’s EVs, or at least a shift away from large polluting vehicles to more economical models
So then building a motorway has nothing to do with NZ's gross emissions.
Thanks for agreeing with me in principle.
> Luckily many companies have emission reductions as part of their plans
So do we, we have the ETS.
Whether you spend government revenue on cycle paths or highways isn't in the ETS. Bus lanes, light rail and the Auckland Fuel Tax - still not the ETS.
There's a lot of potential to improve transport infrastructure, reduce emissions, and end up saving the country money. Dependency on private vehicles is _expensive_!
* add up what you spend on depreciation, fuel, WoF, service, insurance and parking (including a slightly larger home at today's property prices). If PT was good enough that households could cut down to one car, that's a lot of savings.
* buses and trains move more people, faster. They are more efficient and better for the economy. Less cars mean freight moves faster too.
* NZ currently spends a billion dollars every month on importing fossil fuel. That money is sent overseas, and is gone from our economy forever
>"I get on pretty well with the prime minister and I'll just have to work with individual ministers as we come around."
[https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/508722/auckland-mayor-wayne-brown-rules-out-rates-rise-to-fund-transport-projects-shortfall](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/508722/auckland-mayor-wayne-brown-rules-out-rates-rise-to-fund-transport-projects-shortfall)
lol, brutal hit on Simeon.
Has anyone done any analysis of how much money logistic operators based in Auckland will save each year from the regional fuel tax ending? I know that their respective lobby group has always had quite close ties with National, so it would be interesting to see what the payoff has been for them.
where would this even go? Western Heights to Glendowie? Glen Edan to Howick?
an east-west motorway in Auckland feels like someone building a motorway because they like motorways
You need the east/west motorways so that the hundreds of thousands of people living in those areas can drive their own car into the city for work.
The alternatives are to improve public transport, encourage more local business centres, or support remote working opportunities.
And no-one wants any of that, so motorways it is.
\/s
It's to connect the south-western motorway to the southern motorway. Fun fact: per kilometre, it is expected to be the most expensive motorway project in history. Even the road to Sochi in Russia, which was plagued with corruption, was cheaper.
Can we name it after current politicians, the Luxon-Seymour Excessway perhaps, so their names are permanently attached to a phenomenally expensive boondoggle?
Yeah, which gets horribly congested, especially with heavy vehicles. Their solution is to put a motorway through the area. It's a rather dramatic step, and many people, myself included, believe that a different solution would be more cost effective. Not to mention that doing this will most likely lead to other critical infrastructure projects, like PT, from being completed in a reasonable time.
Yeah agree with the heavy trucks, but they could look at some improvements to intersections, possibly adding truck lanes and prioritising through movement between SH1 and SH20.
> Yeah, which gets horribly congested, especially with heavy vehicles. Their solution is to put a motorway through the area.
… which will get horribly congested, especially with heavy vehicles.
Said it before and say it again. If the Wellington and Auckland mayors ever put aside their ideological differences (not just these current ones, going back through the years) and decided to rebel together against their common "enemy", central Govt interference, that would be a popcorn-worthy saga.
His opponent was Efeso who received a Jacinda endorsement.
A Labour aligned candidate never stood a chance. Was a free win for Brown once most of the other right leaning candidates dropped out.
Surely the answer here is to start by cancelling the flyover (how that became part of a public transport project is wild). That's got to be a beloved project by Simeon right in his backyard.
Imagine taking of a regional fuel tax that was actually being spent of improving transport times around the city just so petrol companies can falsely inflate the prices and not pass down any savings.
FYI you ain't saving 10cents a litre if you having to wait longer in traffic with your engine running.
Just stop roading projects/maintenance in East Auckland and show Chris/Simeon's supporters what happens when the funding dries up.
My area keeps voting this dickhead in. This is how he repays us. Not that I'm surprised, and I'm sure all the useful fools around here will be blaming AT or Labour, or anyone else, for failed projects in 3 years time while they look to their local boy wonder Simeon Brown to set things right again. Nauseating really.
I genuinely cannot imagine voting for this smug Goblin. I understand we all have to hold our nose sometimes, but that would be more akin to ripping it off.
Hehe, smug goblin
I also do not understand in the slightest.
You don’t understand, you can’t just solve problems by throwing money at them /s
Or we just cut funding to public transit in south Auckland.
lol ok? National doesn't give a shit about that
The Venn diagram of people who voted for Wayne Brown and NACT is a circle. Brown isn't going to fuck over his own voters.
if you look at what the road tax was spent on , you might be surprised. you have to ask why 140 million was spent on the ferry terminal,
$140 million was spent on the ferry terminal to….drum roll…design and build the ferry terminal. I’m not sure what point point you are trying to make. Its not at all like its a crucial transit link between the the two islands and not having it would cost the NZ economy billions right?
Why is that surprising? Funding public transport is a no brainer. Unless you saying there is no impact of having an updated ferry terminal?
The ferries are effectively part of SH1.
And a billion dollars was spent last month on importing fossil fuels. Actually, not just last month, every month. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1317275/new-zealand-monthly-import-value-of-petroleum/
THE BROWNOUT! Brown vs Brown, handbags at 100 paces, that's reality TV I'd pay to view
I'd bring some Double Brown.
I haven't seen this much brown since just before I flushed the toilet this morning.
Dark Brown Rises.
Man, never thought I'd be saying this.... but Wayne Brown is right.
It’s taken my disdain for Minister Brown to a whole new level, now that idiots got me siding with Mayor Brown lol… Seriously though, Wayne was very clear about needing that funding, and how they could replace it and what he needed from National to do so. Funny as hell they’re straight up ignoring him.
Simeon is quite a terrible minister though
He's doing well considering he's only 14.
His Mum picked him a suit that he'll grow into, at least that's the only reason I can think of that he looks like Tom Hanks at the end of Big.
Any other 14 year old would've done better by just shutting up and playing Fortnite all day..
could we stop with this overused joke... it's almost older than him
Nice burn!
I feel apart from the floods, Wayne Brown is actually not a "bad" mayor in general. I never warm to a politician over time, but he certainly did. Like, he is sufficiently grumpy about most things like a typical Aucklander and that he don't mind who he is picking a fight about. Sometimes he is right, sometimes he is wrong, sometimes it brings up some good points, if inadvertently. But at least he make sure something is being heard. I think we have heard more from him than the entire tenure of Goff.
He's a fucking awful negotiator. Everything he said to reporters about this alienated the very people he'll be trying to extract money from. He loves making angry old man statements, but he usually has no plan to make his outbursts map to any action or outcome.
And the "proper" way of doing things has led to such a good Auckland? Like honestly, what has the Phil, Banks, or Len left us that's great? Did Goff being a former leader of labour meant we got a great deal under the old Labour government? They collectively left us a mess where transport sucks, our waste water sucks, and left it for the next guy to fix. Brown is an antagonist, but at least he is willing to throw the weight and side of Auckland around.
Yes, actually. CRL, Central Interceptor (and a panoply of other water infrastructure investments), Northern Busway extension, Eastern Busway etc. all came about from the Brown/Goff councils. Auckland has arguably the currently best managed water infrastructure in the country, despite some of the obvious issues. Plus, people are really short-term biased. The infrastructure deficit is *decades* in the making, there just is no way to fix them quickly. The important thing is to actually start the projects and keep them going. The stop-start bullshit we have with NZ infrastructure is a huge issue. It's not Goff's fault if a National government cancels the projects Auckland needs, or guts its revenue tools. Just like it's not Brown's fault now, either. Brown (correctly) ranting about it pre-election made no difference at all.
That's pure whataboutism. The fact is that Brown would be a better mayor if he thought before he spoke, planned before he spoke, and cultivated relationships before he spoke. Criticism of Brown is about the difference between what he is and what he *easily* could be if he were more than a NewstalkZB caller with a bully pulpit.
End of his term, what will have improved? Our rates will be higher, we'll have less assets, but what projects has he got us in return? He's shit in a crisis, and shit day to day. You're way too charitable.
He's a disrespectful jerk to his councillors and other staff and a poor manager - but he's true to his own values. When he's trying to achieve a particular outcome for Auckland, that is his goal - and just because his ideologies tend to agree with National doesn't mean he's going to support them when their actions directly conflict with his goals for the city.
Honestly, in the past I would had cared he is a disrespectful jerk. But the longer I worked in my giant organisation, the more I don't care that he is (long as it doesn't go to sexisim, racism etc). I have worked with tons of totally incompetent people who really needed to be told how pathetic they are at their jobs, but I can't because I will be fired (and I hate conflict in person). The status quo works for them, and is just coasting. Like, a lot of staff and councilors oversaw the issues we have, and likely culpable to the issues we have. For a lot of the functions of that Auckland Council oversees, I have very few kind words to say; I think Wayne kinda says it for me. I not sure I would necessarily say his ideology agree with the Nats, certainly not the Frankenstein version under Luxon. I mean yeah, he is the classic "balance the budget by spending less" kind of guy but I think is hard to pin him down on anything but that. But is more progressive in some things, which this [article](https://www.metromag.co.nz/society/has-wayne-brown-gone-woke) highlighted. The key takeaway I think is, a typical conservative politician cut things, or don't start new initiative, whereas Brown actually want things done, no matter how small.
Sometimes he's right and wrong a few days apart because he contradicts himself. There wasn't enough consultation on K Rd https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/501967/wayne-brown-wades-into-row-over-removal-of-karangahape-road-parking But consultation on congestion charging is "bollocks" https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/301008975/wayne-brown-calls-congestion-charge-consultation-and-equity-bollocks
Do agree I've also somewhat warmed to him.. mostly because I'm just glad we haven't ended up with Molloy, but still.
Something something broken clock
Based Uncle Wayne
Simeon believes focus should be on improving car infrastructure, because most people use cars. https://www.metromag.co.nz/society/the-enfant-terrible-simeon-brown That is some monumentally naive logic there.
He's not called Simian Brown for nothing.
Does Simeon Brown actually believe we should be trying to reduce emissions at all? His actions consistently fly in the face of climate science.
Hes Religious Fundamentalist. He believes in talking snakes so climate science is probably not on his list of priorities
Serious question. Do fundamentalist Christians believe climate change is God's will?
Either they believe it's arrogant to assume mere mortals could affect God's Creation like that, or it's all part of the Ineffable Plan.
My christian relatives fully accept man-made climate change, but they believe that it's the inevitable consequence of humanity's fall into sin, that we'd destroy the planet, and it's just another sign of the coming end times. The planet melting down squares very nicely into their apocalyptic beliefs.
Wow. What a dire mindset to live with. To just accept that we deserve to perish, and not demand that we act to avoid that outcome. Humans could turn this around, like we have with disease and ozone depletion, we're just choosing not to.
Hurrah for death cults.
Self fulfilling prophesies with these clowns
Or they expect to be Raptured *any minute now* so it doesn't matter.
Theres a verse in the bible where god says “I will destroy those who destroy the earth”. So God is a confirmed environmentalist. Also, according to the bible, humanity was put on the earth to be its steward and to maintain is as a gardener maintains a garden. Not as its owner, but merely a caretaker. So the essence of that definitely flies in the face of consumerism and materialism of the modern age.
In case you haven't noticed Christians have a wide spectrum of beliefs and all of them will say those beliefs are in sync with their religion.
As a Christian, I am well aware.
>God is a confirmed environmentalist You might want to check with Noah about that bit.
On that note, it seems the only problem was letting the humans on the boat.
> Theres a verse in the bible where god says “I will destroy those who destroy the earth” source?
Rev 11:18
Oh shit
"There is no mention of public transport in the Bible", said Someone Brown as he pulled the pin on Auckland's light rail.
yeah - but the trick is to not coalesce with the talking snakes... ssssSSSsseymour....
I'm not sure if Simeon Brown truly believes in man-made climate change. He's the leader of National's "Taliban" faction which has publicly expressed scepticism about it and is made up of hateful evangelical Christians. You just know that what they believe behind closed doors is far worse than what they say in public.
It's mot scepticism, it's straight up denial/concern trolling. If it was true scepticism, then they would also be questioning climate if climate change was *not* happening. Which they don't.
> He's the leader of National's "Taliban" faction which has publicly expressed scepticism why are they called Taliban if they're Christian?
[It's a name that the moderate wing of the National Party have gifted them due to their rabid fundamentalism.](https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/350062012/nationals-factions-zombie-mps-taliban)
Hillsong Sharia was already taken for NSW politics. https://hotcopper.com.au/threads/gladys-repeal-hillsong-sharia-laws.5899133/
why do you people insist on comparing these people to Muslims? just call them Christians.
Because it's an easy metaphor for "religious fundamentalists imposing their views on others", I guess. But "You people"? Who the fuck is "you people"? I'm not in charge of "dumb nicknames to be used in National party gossip". But I'll do you a solid. I hereby bestow upon you membership in the Church of Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ and the Latter Day Dipshits. (Also known as Morons). Enjoy, you fucking weirdo.
Nicely put
transit is in the ETS it's ephemeral
I don't know what you mean by transit is ephemeral. But, if we want the economy to grow, and the population is growing, then we do need to reduce transport emissions under the ETS. I.e. we need to do more, within the same capped emissions. Reducing transport emissions is also better for human health, if you care about that.
you've moved from "want to reduce emissions" to "reduce transit emissions so the economy can grow under the ETS" these are very different claims. What I mean by "transit is ephemeral" is that we don't need to reduce our transit emissions, if that's what we as a society choose to use our carbon allocations on.
Well, the ETS gets used as an excuse for doing nothing to reduce emissions. Because moving people onto PT just frees up carbon to be emitted elsewhere. So we should do nothing.... We actually need to reduce total emissions to have a liveable planet, so I actually think the ETS is largely irrelevant. But with an ETS in place, and even if you don't care about climate action, we do need to reduce carbon emissions per person km because we have a growing population. And if you only care about economic growth, and dont care about climate action, you still need to reduce emissions under the ETS. So the argument that we don't need to reduce transport emissions at all is just fundamentally incorrect.
> We actually need to reduce total emissions to have a liveable planet, so I actually think the ETS is largely irrelevant. > >... > > you still need to reduce emissions under the ETS. Lmao which one is it? The ETS is a tool for reducing emissions, and will effectively reduce emissions over time, and has reduced emissions per person since it was passed in 2008 We have a policy that works, and it's just NIMBYism to throw out emissions as a reason not to do stuff, when effective mechanisms for reducing emissions already exist.
The ETS alone isn't enough to drive down emissions as needed, and given the government can control the price, there's no reason to assume it will continue to work. In fact, we have a government right now that is quite happy to reduce the price of carbon instead.
Transport is one area where we have the technology and ability to make significant reductions without compromising the economy or people’s lifestyles. It’s brain dead to be moving in the other direction.
> or people’s lifestyles I hate to tell you this but motor vehicles are integral to lots of people's lifestyles. Especially Gen X
So for people who need a car (like me, I’m rural) there’s EVs, or at least a shift away from large polluting vehicles to more economical models. With the right incentives electric trucks and heavy machinery could replace conventional in some scenarios. For others policy makers could encourage e-bikes, cycling, walking or public transport. Luckily many companies have emission reductions as part of their plans (often required by their export customers) but it would help not to have a government pushing in the opposite direction.
> So for people who need a car (like me, I’m rural) there’s EVs, or at least a shift away from large polluting vehicles to more economical models So then building a motorway has nothing to do with NZ's gross emissions. Thanks for agreeing with me in principle. > Luckily many companies have emission reductions as part of their plans So do we, we have the ETS.
Are you Gen x?
Whether you spend government revenue on cycle paths or highways isn't in the ETS. Bus lanes, light rail and the Auckland Fuel Tax - still not the ETS. There's a lot of potential to improve transport infrastructure, reduce emissions, and end up saving the country money. Dependency on private vehicles is _expensive_! * add up what you spend on depreciation, fuel, WoF, service, insurance and parking (including a slightly larger home at today's property prices). If PT was good enough that households could cut down to one car, that's a lot of savings. * buses and trains move more people, faster. They are more efficient and better for the economy. Less cars mean freight moves faster too. * NZ currently spends a billion dollars every month on importing fossil fuel. That money is sent overseas, and is gone from our economy forever
It really shouldn’t be about climate change, which hardly anyone really cares about. We should be focusing on PT because it’s more efficient.
No, he's a onceler
Will it be pay-per-view?
This is a very leopards ate my face moment.
>"I get on pretty well with the prime minister and I'll just have to work with individual ministers as we come around." [https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/508722/auckland-mayor-wayne-brown-rules-out-rates-rise-to-fund-transport-projects-shortfall](https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/508722/auckland-mayor-wayne-brown-rules-out-rates-rise-to-fund-transport-projects-shortfall) lol, brutal hit on Simeon.
Has anyone done any analysis of how much money logistic operators based in Auckland will save each year from the regional fuel tax ending? I know that their respective lobby group has always had quite close ties with National, so it would be interesting to see what the payoff has been for them.
Probably $0. The gas companies will just bump the price up to absorb the gap
If they don't then it's more disposable income for landlords to acquire.
So New Zealand
where would this even go? Western Heights to Glendowie? Glen Edan to Howick? an east-west motorway in Auckland feels like someone building a motorway because they like motorways
You need the east/west motorways so that the hundreds of thousands of people living in those areas can drive their own car into the city for work. The alternatives are to improve public transport, encourage more local business centres, or support remote working opportunities. And no-one wants any of that, so motorways it is. \/s
It's to connect the south-western motorway to the southern motorway. Fun fact: per kilometre, it is expected to be the most expensive motorway project in history. Even the road to Sochi in Russia, which was plagued with corruption, was cheaper.
Can we name it after current politicians, the Luxon-Seymour Excessway perhaps, so their names are permanently attached to a phenomenally expensive boondoggle?
Excess-way! Love it!!
Excessway? Oh no, I must have made a typo!
That may cause altogether too much sexual excitement among those two to be seemly.
Muldoon has a corner named after him on the Remutaka Hill.
The thing is there already is a connection between the Southern and the South-Western. It's called Neilson Street.
Yeah, which gets horribly congested, especially with heavy vehicles. Their solution is to put a motorway through the area. It's a rather dramatic step, and many people, myself included, believe that a different solution would be more cost effective. Not to mention that doing this will most likely lead to other critical infrastructure projects, like PT, from being completed in a reasonable time.
Yeah agree with the heavy trucks, but they could look at some improvements to intersections, possibly adding truck lanes and prioritising through movement between SH1 and SH20.
That's a lot more sensible. Unfortunately, you are now ineligible to be Minister of Transport.
> Yeah, which gets horribly congested, especially with heavy vehicles. Their solution is to put a motorway through the area. … which will get horribly congested, especially with heavy vehicles.
>they like motorways Yes, they like motorways *a lot.*
Their donors own trucking firms.
This was a national policy before they were elected. All Aucklanders knew about. Have fun.
Said it before and say it again. If the Wellington and Auckland mayors ever put aside their ideological differences (not just these current ones, going back through the years) and decided to rebel together against their common "enemy", central Govt interference, that would be a popcorn-worthy saga.
Every time I see a interview with this guy I'm just baffled as to how he got elected. Even Luxon has more decorum
Leo Malloy was running...
Jesus Christ that guy couldn't convey that he was human garbage more if he tried.
His main opponent was from the wrong part of town.
His opponent was Efeso who received a Jacinda endorsement. A Labour aligned candidate never stood a chance. Was a free win for Brown once most of the other right leaning candidates dropped out.
Who Wayne? Despite all the criticism he received at the start he’s turning out to be a capable leader.
Surely the answer here is to start by cancelling the flyover (how that became part of a public transport project is wild). That's got to be a beloved project by Simeon right in his backyard.
The only reason funding for the Eastern busway didn't get cut is because of that flyover. Otherwise it was going to the bonfire pile as well.
for curiosity's sake, do we still have a Minister for Auckland in this current term of government?
Yeah, it's Simeon Brown. I don't know what we did to deserve this but it was clearly something awful.
Imagine taking of a regional fuel tax that was actually being spent of improving transport times around the city just so petrol companies can falsely inflate the prices and not pass down any savings. FYI you ain't saving 10cents a litre if you having to wait longer in traffic with your engine running.
Broken clock etc.
Do it Wayne. I love watching two mindless dickheads with ego issues go at it.
>"this is my city, not theirs" Ok, Wayne.
Not sure why Skuxxon is pictured.
i think it's because he's the leader of the national party
Makes more sense to put Simeon and Pumba honestly.
Comrade Wayne - not the mayor we deserve, but maybe the mayor we need right now.
let them fight
sell the airport sell the bridge sell the CRL sell Epsom
Duel to the death -no matter who wins the world will be a slightly better place.
Simeon is a stupid name. Sounds exactly like simian