Comments for David Shearer - Labour MP for Mt Albert

Comment on Waterview design competition by rtc

rtc — Wed, 05 May 2010 17:25:25 +0000

@Boris – free turn or slip lanes while beneficial for cars make walking and cycling a horror. If anything these lanes need to be removed to encourage walking and cycling and thereby reducing the need for using a car. If through routes are to be provided from Gt North Rd to Carrington they shoul almost certainly only be provided for pedestrians and cyclists and at a push for buses. Providing further roads for cars will only induce further demand.

Comment on Waterview design competition by Jerome

Jerome — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 03:08:39 +0000

I am appalled that the NZTA are proposing to build a large industrial style ‘Ventilation Building’ including a 25 metre high exhaust vent between Oakley Avenue and Herdman Street on the Waterview side of Great North Road, backing onto Waterview Primary School. (You can view the proposal at http://www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/waterviewconnection/resources/pdf/20100306-urban-design.pdf pages 15,16 and 17.)

The location of this proposed building will further separate Waterview from the surrounding suburbs and it will result in further loss of houses. What will this do to the look and feel of our neighbourhood and what will it do to the air quality? What will this mean for Waterview Primary School?

Why can’t the proposed building be located away from residences (i.e. on the opposite side of Great North road, BP side) away from houses and the Waterview Primary School. Why can’t it be buried underground as it is at the other end of the SH20 tunnel (Mt Albert end)?

Something has to be done to stop the building of this large ventilation building amongst our houses and school.

Comment on Waterview design competition by Boris

Boris — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 02:43:45 +0000

Also Carrington Rd needs to be widened

Comment on Waterview design competition by Boris

Boris — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 02:42:59 +0000

Current roads in the area:
There are large blocks of land with very few “through roads” for cars to get around these
eg the Unitec site ,

Therefore cars are forced to use the few available roads. eg Gt North Rd, New north Rd,Carrington Rd Blockhouse bay Rd, St Lukes rd going towards Gt North Rd

Other alternate routes, are often “indirect” or have speed bumps and discourage their usage

Also – to free up traffic at intersections:
They are busy intersections which need “free turn” lanes at all 4 corners of the intersection – not just at 1 or 2 corners
Regards

Comment on Holiday Highway more important than Auckland Public Transport by annie lamb

annie lamb — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 04:55:53 +0000

Thought your article was spot on. Absolutely total waste of money. There is no evidence to justify the belief held by government that roads like this will drive economic growth.

Comment on CRI Taskforce = Better Science? by Dave C

Dave C — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:27:38 +0000

Despite the obvious potential for self interest, I’d like to make some contribution. The funding system as it is engenders a “best national (or international) team” approach by supporting the team/s that go closest to achieving this ideal. By way of evidence is the 35% (on average) of FRST revenue received by CRIs, that goes straight back out the door as subcontracts. The reality is that Universities and other research providers cannot put together the large trans-disciplinary teams required to address many of the major challenges confronting NZ because they either do not have the appropriate incentives in place to encourage team play as opposed to individual performance, or the scale within teams to contain the skills necessary. In either case, Universities or other non-CRI research providers conain pieces of the solution rather than an alternative solution per se.

The taskforce report implictly acknowledges this fact and goes a long way to articulating checks and balances that will reinforce CRIs as the princpal focus for solutions to critical, science-based challenges, and the key role that Universities and other non-CRI providers will play in addressing these. The current funding arrangements perpetuate the ongoing conest and division between these potential collaborators.