Gosh, wow, marvellous
Just seen the gushing John Campbell doing a promo for his TV3 show tonight on top of the new Newmarket viaduct. I bet $215 million - the cost of the project - that he thinks it's marvellous and that he (like the rest of the media) don't bother to assess the project for what it is - a pointless and monumental waste.
As I explained in a detailed post in January the NZTA will spend $215m ripping down something that is perfectly fine (there is no engineering reason I can find for it to be demolished), and will build something to resemble the old one except now it will have one extra lane. $215m for one extra lane.
It is such a grotesque waste it amounts to economic sabotage.If you wonder why Auckland still doesn't have rail to the North Shore and rail through the CBD this Newmarket squander is why: the government is in cahoots with the roading lobby and the motorway constructors.
I will update once I've seen Campbell Live, but I'm not expecting very much apart from a lot of gosh, wow and marvellous.
UPDATE | 7:20pm: Yip, just as I predicted. A big PR number for the NZTA. Gosh, I'm wearing a hard hat looking like more of a knob than usual. Wow, the motorway will have to be closed down. Marvellous, aren't the views great. Absolutely no questions asked whatsoever. Mindless shit.
Labels: Auckland/Tamaki
posted by Tim Selwyn @ 6:20 pm
10 comments
10 Comments:
I understood the main reason why they're replacing the viaduct is that it's not up to spec for an earthquake of greater than 6.5 on the ritcher scale.
Campbell whored whatever respect he had as a journalist out to Joe Karam after the Bain verdict with his embarrasing pathetic performance.
Newsboy summed him up rather well.
Marvellous marvellous mounds of money. sank you vurry much for spending our hard earned cash wisely. hardy ha.
Ferro concrete structures such as the Newmarket viaduct have a limited life. They get stress related cracks and degradation like any other man made thing. I think that the ramifications of the viaduct failing are significant and worth the cost of replacement.
The existing viaduct will not perform in an earthquake. Not perform means there is a risk that it could fall down.
Our understanding of seismic loading and structural design has come on a long way in 45 years. Don't forget that plate tectonics isn't a lot older than that...
So yes, a waste of money unless you value peoples lives, the reliability of the motorway network and don't want to have some post-disaster roading network available.
I agree with Lewis as I recall that the prior bridge was not up to earthquake standard thus requiring the bridge to be strengthened.
Why that is not reminded regularly to the people, I do not know.
Wouldn't the construction of such a project bring more jobs specifically in the labouring area which is dominated by Maori and Islanders who are already hard hit by the recession?
Nice to know you've got your priorities right.
Simon and the two anon NZTA apologists/comms monkeys below him - go and read my January post I have linked to, that covers those issues about the spurious earthquake bullshit. Eg. the ferro-concrete Grafton Bridge went a hundred years before it needed a substantial bit of maintenance and no hard data is presented by NZTA to justify any of it - only increased traffic volumes and heavier loads because Steven Joyce's mates in the trucking industry got him to put bigger trucks on the road. And anon 12:23pm - read the January post - it's 150 jobs only. For $215m!
The two bridges are made of the same stuff so they are comparable... LOL!
A kid would have more engineering intuition if he observed the shapes are quite different so they are not.
And your January post makes no mention of the thermal issue. Ever noticed that the seal changes colour on the bridge? There is a reason...
JP, do you know more than structural engineering than I do? LOL. I think the Grafton Bridge did have the seal elements replaced in the 1940s, but as with this Newmarket viaduct, surely the cost of some repairs will extend the lifespan/safety of it far more efficiently than blowing $215m on completely replacing all of it.
What is the lifespan of the current 1965 viaduct? They won't answer that question will they. Because it's good for another 50+ years no doubt. Read the FAQ answer to why new ones are needed (they've changed the link from the post but the image is there). It's a bad make-work scheme at 150 workers only and its a very poor investment esp. given the alternative expenditure into rail infrastructure might reduce the car traffic enough so they wouldn't need an extra lane.
Post a Comment
<< Home