Build on the surface, with an aim to eventually underground part of the network in the future. That way, any future government would be very unwilling to remove a working service.

Was the plan to demolish a bunch of houses to build the line or something?

[–] Dave 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I'm not sure, I'm not that familiar with it so just basing it on what I'd read in the linked article. But it shows maybe 2/3rd above ground, and states it would be separate to roads for cars. I'm not sure how you could do that without buying a bunch of land (admittedly on a second reading not 20km, but over 10KM for the above ground part).

[–] Ilovethebomb 2 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Isn't the whole advantage of light rail that you can run it along surface streets?

This is reminiscent of the the harbour cycle bridge, just a ridiculous, over the top proposal that was in no way cost effective.

I think really annoys me the number of opportunities the Ardern government missed, both in Auckland and Wellington.

[–] Dave 1 points 9 months ago

I would love NZ to invest in long term infrastructure projects. These proposals seem crazy now in hindsight, but I feel it's only because to truely do something like this you probably need support across the aisle.

In hindsight, it seems obvious that they should have done what someone else suggested, lay rail over existing roads then move sections underground over time.

[–] themusicman@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

The harbour cycle bridge is justifiable if they also spent the same amount again on a network for the rest of Auckland.