B WRIGHT
Wanganui
After the photo ops . . .
Winter is on our doorstep and we are now less than a month from the second anniversary of the dreadful June 2015 flood.
Yet to the increasing frustration of our mayor, Whanganui residents and other travellers on SH4, the effects of that 2015 disaster still impede journeys and compromise safety. Severe traffic constriction continues on Anzac Pde near the City Bridge, where the threat of further undermining is all too apparent.
Delays and danger continue at the slips and fallouts on the Parapara, where heavy rain makes driving all types of vehicles treacherous, even after the countless millions of taxpayers' dollars spent over decades to make the route safer.
From time to time we are treated to the same old spin and excuses from the NZTA boss for our district. To summarise: "It's a really really hard engineering design job". Meanwhile, each big fresh exacerbates the damage by the City Bridge, and Mayor Hamish McDouall said recently he'd been trying to get some straight answers and, better still, action for more than a year.
He was right to despair that the eventual loss of Anzac Pde/SH4 at the bridge would be catastrophic, especially as heavy traffic is banned from the Dublin St Bridge.
Who can forget the parade of government officials and ministers, led by the then PM, who flew in following the June 2015 floods for photo-ops while they sprinkled love and promises of quick fixes like fairy dust on our traumatised district?
We saw a repeat of that photo-op love fest last November after the Kaikoura quakes. Then Transport Minister Simon Bridges and outgoing government MP Borrows got plenty of political mileage out of opening the riverside walkway/cycleway extension this year.
As Samuel Johnson famously said on September 19, 1777, "When a man knows he is to be hanged ... it concentrates his mind wonderfully". The 240th anniversary of the hanging to which he referred is due just four days before our general election, so can we hope that some of the "great minds" in Wellington remember our SH4 debacle and find some focus before it is overshadowed by the next flood or earthquake campaign stop and funding lolly scramble?
(Abridged)
CAROL WEBB
Whanganui
Ferry report
Congratulations to Messrs Walbran and Zangouropoulos on their fairly comprehensive, though still preliminary, report on the feasibility of the Whanganui-Motueka ferry proposal -- at last!
They have looked at the concept from several angles (although environmental issues, especially the godwits, have yet to be considered in depth) and arrived at roughly a $1 billion benefit over 40 years (although I think they've over-discounted road user benefits by $100 million).
They've allocated at this point only a nominal $24m -- by their own admission "a massive underestimation" -- to Wellington Port being out of action, and nothing by way of multipliers (e.g. a visitor may overnight, spending on accommodation and food). So, the total could indeed be way higher.
Seventy-one per cent ($713m) of the benefit they estimate will come through reducing travel and vehicle operating costs, but that's assuming vehicle operators will give away part of their savings to pay the higher Whanganui premium proposed (+20 per cent). Twelve per cent ($124m) will come from reduced accidents using NZTA's model in travelling SH4, 6, 60, 69 etc. Road user benefits could be another 12 per cent. Then there's the "massive" [ly] underestimated benefit of having an alternative should a major earthquake occur around Wellington.
A ferry service would also take pressure off the Roads of National Significance and help reverse regional decline.
Given that much of the benefit would be to the entire country, why do the authors limit their request for Government funding to just the completion of The Detailed Business Case, and particularly when capital cost could be a heady $100m? And should the operation at least pay something out of revenues by way of berthage fees to help defray other Whanganui port maintenance?
Also, given the concept as a whole could be a winner but the godwits a sticking point, should Nelson not be reconsidered? Lastly, it'd be nice if the actual financial model was made available.
But so far I like what I see. Please keep the info coming.
(Abridged)
MARTIN VISSER
Whanganui
Misrepresented
Potonga Neilson (letters, May 10) seriously misrepresents my previous letter when he says "A clue to the colonial mindset is right there at the end of Mr Robinson's latest letter. He reckons King Potatau should have bequeathed his people to the care of the governor."
Those were not my words but the words of Te Wherowhero (Potatau) in 1857. He said it.
Neilson continues with "the Maori people have never needed or wanted any help or care from anyone."
There are many examples of calls for help. In 1835 northern chiefs wrote with an entreaty to the King of England "that he will continue to be the parent of their infant State".
In 1837 Wiremu Hau made the request to Marsden, "Sir -- Will you give us a law?" In 1848 Tamati Ngapora asked of Governor Grey, "Reflect, O father, upon my words, that a law may be made for the native chiefs".
One criticism of British colonialism, which I report in my recent book, The Kingite Rebellion, was the failure to adequately respond to those requests. Better late than never, but when the call from Waikato to provide governance and assistance was answered, Maniapoto warriors forced the Government agent, John Gorst, out, in one of many acts of armed rebellion that finally led to a response from the Government of New Zealand.
JOHN ROBINSON
Waikanae
Ruling ludicrous
Russ Hay may be interested to know that 90.9 per cent (or 5458 words) of Judge Jones' 6004-word section on intelligent design as science was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU's proposed "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" submitted to him nearly a month before his ruling.
Judge Jones even copied several clearly erroneous factual claims made by the ACLU. To allow a judge to determine matters of science is ludicrous, especially one who copies errors from a plaintiff's brief (http://creation.com/science-creation-and-evolutionism-refutation-of-nas).
As for Prof S Carroll, he falls back on the typical evolutionary fallacies (using evolution to prove evolution; "junk" DNA; all change is evolution; gene duplication increases information, etc.).
Microbes-to-man evolution cannot be proven at all. Variation within kinds is all around us.
MANDY DONNE-LEE
Aramoho
