Talk:Transport in Auckland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can't seem to be able to get that contents box to appear, listing the subheadings. What do I have to do? I'm feeling like a noob! MadMaxDog 06:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

I don't really see the point of anything in the trivia section. Of course the speed limit would be 100km/h as this is similar to speed limits internationally? Also exits from the fast-lane side of the motorway are quite common overseas so I don't really see why to make such a big deal of the old 'right-lane exit' from Nelson St. Jarbury 05:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Bear with little expat me - some of those things are a little strange to us. It's just trivia in a small section. MadMaxDog 08:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motorways... (Urban Sprawl)

Hi, good article. I just think you need to careful about attributing the 'urban sprawl' on the northern periphery of Auckland to the northern motorway (SH1). While this may be a factor, it certainly isn't the only or even the primary reason. Auckland is 'sprawling' in all directions, with the example of the eastern suburbs around Howick in recent years, which aren't served by any motorway.

Christchurch is also sprawling in all directions, and has no real interconnected motorway system like Auckland.

Motorways make it more convenient to commute longer distances, and and should be simply seen as what they are, a multilane road with a limited access function. It is the vehicles on the roads that create environmental issues, not the motorway itself. Motorways per se do not create sprawl, poor town planning does.

rodin5

I disagree, Rodin5. Human beings do not (on average) commute much longer than 1 hour per day (each way), that's been shown (haven't got a reference, or I might add it in somewhere). Therefore, if you provide good (built standard) roads with enough capacity (motorway), people suddenly have the ability to move further away from what they see as the negative sides of the city where they work. Case in point: coworker of mine just moved to Whangaparapa. He sure would not have moved to one of the little villages west of the Waitakere Ranges, even though they are closer...

"It is the vehicles on the roads"

Who need the roads to be of any use.

"Motorways per se do not create sprawl, poor town planning does."

Town planning is not the begin-all and end-all. Town planning, for various reasons, often only FOLLOWS what people want and what they have already done. Town planners may talk nice words, but in the end, the politicians, the developers, and the people decide. And most WANT to sprawl. Because it is okay if *I* have a house in nature, it is only *You* who is causing all the traffic and hacking down trees for your house ;-) MadMaxDog 08:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah Mad Max, but you miss my point. Again, you simply can't attribute urban sprawl primarily to motorways, roads, or the use of private cars.

You make the point that people 'WANT' to sprawl - and I am saying that this will happen - motorway, or not. The city of London has undergone extensive sprawl over the last 150 years, and much of that has clustered around rail lines and stations. This city was sprawling long before the first motorway was built in the UK. This is well documented, and I will provide references if required.

Your comments (rant?) about town planning need to be qualified. You have said it in a nutshell, poor town planning, (and this includes political pressure as you say) is the issue. A motorway, or some other mechanism of easier access only exacerbates this - it is not the primary cause. People do want to sprawl, and the kiwi 'quarter acre' dream is far from dead for many.

I deleted the sentence a couple of days ago that stated that Auckland has more motorways that most cities of it's size. This is simply untrue. As an example Finland, with a similar population and geographic size, has ten times the length of motorway than New Zealand does. It has strict planning regulations and a far better public tranport. It also has an average yearly road toll approximately two thirds of New Zealand's. Again, I will produce statistics if required.

Mad Max, I gain the impression from your article that you are unhappy about the level of use of vehicles in Auckland and the lack of available public transport. This is fine opinion, and I am inclined to agree with you. My main issue, and hence why I have engaged in a discussion on this, something which I don't generally do, is that I consider some of your article to be biased, with a reliance upon emotive and unverified statements. You may not like cars, or sprawl, or unfettered market capitalism per se but these are only your opinions, and I am saying that some of your arguments are somewhat simplistic and misleading. A wikipedia article is supposed to be as factual as possible. If you want to expound your opinions may I suggest that you keep to the forum side of things.

Rodin5 - I'll just go over a few points of yours here again. I hope you don't find this format aggravating, maybe its just the engineer in my, I like to tick off things and go over things point by point.

"This city was sprawling long before the first motorway was built in the UK. This is well documented, and I will provide references if required."

I welcome any such references! Also, I'll point to those parts about Auckland's growth (main Auckland article I believe) that talk about how the growth of Auckland was supported by such things as the first tramways built here. Also, whether it is motorways or 'just roads', the effect is similar.

"You make the point that people 'WANT' to sprawl - and I am saying that this will happen - motorway, or not."

It will not happen were no roads are.

"Your comments (rant?) about town planning need to be qualified."

Not really, because it WAS a bit of a rant. And not in the article.

"A motorway, or some other mechanism of easier access only exacerbates this - it is not the primary cause."

I'll agree that it is a 'chicken or the egg' question.

"I deleted the sentence a couple of days ago that stated that Auckland has more motorways that most cities of it's size. This is simply untrue."

That one was in there from before I started editing. I probably should have checked that some time earlier, but that's fine. You deleted it, I do not object to you doing so. It doesn't feel like Auckland has a really above-average level of motorways, you are perfectly right (and likely right on the facts too - like to add some refs? Not about Finland as such, but maybe comparing Auckland's level of motorway (or even better, sealed road) with other cities?).

""Mad Max, I gain the impression from your article that you are unhappy about the level of use of vehicles in Auckland and the lack of available public transport."

True. And even worse, I would profit from change, because that would mean more work for me (actually we have tons of work either way, but I'd like some of it more). So I certainly have an agenda in WHAT I write about.

Not, I hope, in how true my writing is. Which gets me to my point - if you feel these articles are slanted, please add your parts. While most of the edits here are mine, I am not (I hope) reflexively deleting stuff that I don't like. I recently did a lot of reverts - but those were mostly about people deleting referenced statements.

"and I am saying that some of your arguments are somewhat simplistic and misleading."

Now, that does hurt a bit. Go ahead, show me where my arguments are simplistic (not counting my rants here on the discussion page). Feel free to tone down what you see as bias, or add your views to balance the article. I am not promising to leave it alone, but I will certainly try to have an open mind. MadMaxDog 05:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for that Mad Max. I'll add some stuff in the next while, and get some references. I thought rather than just jump in and edit, it would be better to discuss it with you first outside the article to see where you were coming from. I'm a transport planner and would profit from any changes as well, so I'm not completely unbiased either:) I do see a place for motorways though, along with a strong public tranport system. This view is primarily for the safety benefits that a limited access roading system brings, NOT to relieve congestion - (and the Northern Motorway extensions have made the Great North Road a lot safer for cyclists commuting to work every day on it - like me :)

Yes, sprawl will not generally happen where there are no roads - but without roads... do you have a society?

That's it from me. Thanks for the responses.

Rodin5