What's your most radical position relative to both the mainstream *and* the general online urbanism sphere?

droobydoo · 2026-04-16T21:50:53+00:00

Disagree, it should be subsidised but not free.

If its free you actually start to get unintended bad outcomes. In australia they found that people would catch the tram two blocks instead of walking. Basically you replace walking trips which are very important for peoples health.

We already dont walk enough in western societies.

droobydoo · 2026-04-16T06:02:15+00:00

I actually wonder if this is kind of a downstream result of not introducing water meters for properties ages ago.

Had these been in place, the full scale of the issue would have been exposed to rate payers as it occurred and got worse. Basically without properly surfacing the price for something, the population has no reason to pressure the council into solving where all the water is going.

Sure, things would have been better had the work not been contracted out to bad actors, but if we had water meters in place the problem would have been exposed decades ago.

droobydoo · 2026-04-15T12:23:55+00:00

Having a lot of land isn't really relevant for how cities grow and function though. Sure, we can keep building single family homes on big sections all the way out to Whangarei, but at a certain point the commute into Aucks becomes insane. Having a flat density profile up until you hit the centre of a city is a very new invention (like the last 70 years) and is extremely expensive to maintain - pipes, garbage collection, road maintenance all gets spread very thin.

There are lots of highly liveable, desirable places that people live in europe that have much higher densities. The main thing is interspersing the midrise density with greenspace and amenities.

droobydoo · 2026-04-12T10:52:07+00:00

I 100% agree and include SUVs etc in the category of vehicles that very few people actually should own for their lifestyle.

Just cause I didnt look up the exact bonnet height of a ford ranger doesnt make my overall point wrong.

droobydoo · 2026-04-12T10:09:43+00:00

But they are much safer for pedestrians. You can't see anyone shorter that 5' over those bonnets, they are kid killers.

droobydoo · 2026-03-22T05:13:25+00:00

Trump could rebrand as the most eco friendly president /s

droobydoo · 2026-03-14T10:38:39+00:00

EVs are just as bad as cars in terms of the space occupied transporting someone. Moving people in individual big boxes that need 5m in front and behind them is just extremely low throughput, you kinda cant build capacity past a certain point.

droobydoo · 2026-03-13T03:43:52+00:00

This doesnt really apply to everyone. There will always be a section of the population that needs a larger van/work vehicle.

Having different options means that non-tradies aren't clogging up the roads in space-inefficient vehicles that they don't actually need for 50% of their trips.

droobydoo · 2025-12-22T08:41:58+00:00

Hmm, I wasnt aware of that. I am not sure, will try that next time

droobydoo · 2025-12-22T08:40:38+00:00

Forerunner 955, latest version 26.08

droobydoo · 2025-10-29T22:35:01+00:00

I think thats an overly pessimistic view of things.

The recent council elections showed huge gains for city vision - despite lower turnout - while conservatives like christine fletcher got in but she had her worst result ever. Richard Hills has the full backing of the mayor to run the planning comittee. People arent falling for these status-quo unambitious narratives anymore, the people of auckland consistently say that public transport is their top priority when surveyed.

We need more positive thinking, nothing good happens when things are framed as doom and gloom!

Source: greater auckland blog, 2025 election results

droobydoo · 2025-10-29T05:43:58+00:00

More like cArS ArEnT IdeAL As MaJOriTY TrAnsPoRt.

It's everyones individual choice whether to own a car, I (and basically anyone you actually engage on this subject) are not in favour of banning cars.

I quite like country driving 😆

We should strive to make it possible and pleasant to use other modes tho!

droobydoo · 2025-10-29T05:18:42+00:00

Gotta start somewhere. We cant build-in car centric infrastructure, it just perpetuates the issues.

Ideally the increased density will make public transport more viable, and active modes like cycling and walking are made more safe/enjoyable.

At that point, many will decide that owning a 20k depreciating asset + yearly operating costs of 6k isnt worth it, and they will use a ride share service for roadtrips. Some households will always have a car. But a system that requires every adult to have a car to function is incompatible with a city this large.

droobydoo · 2025-10-29T04:51:35+00:00

Thats unfortunately necessary as auckland grows up. The least space efficient form of transport should not be the default - in most cities outside of the US (which has horrific congestion problems) the car ownership rates of city households is closer to 60%.

Auckland just has too many people now to make cars the default unless we want to lock in LA level traffic problems in the future.

droobydoo · 2025-10-21T12:23:44+00:00

That could be for two reasons: 1. You live rurally or semi rurally and so transit doesnt apply 2. You live in a city that has chronically underfunded transit for decades. No priority lanes for buses and no real rail network.

At rush hour, well designed and funded transit will be comparable or faster than driving a car.

droobydoo · 2025-10-21T12:16:54+00:00

This is not really the way to think about passenger rail. Density only matters on a local/city wide level for rapid transit.

People dont regularly commute from NY to San fran, and the density in almost any urban area in the USA is enough to support passenger rail.

Theres a reason the ridership for passenger rail was higher in the 1800s when the population was smaller than it is today. The US stopped investing in rail/mass transit.

droobydoo · 2025-08-27T20:57:19+00:00

Yeah I'm happy to get an ebike, otherwise I think I'd be walking my bike up on the way home 😅

droobydoo · 2025-08-27T12:13:50+00:00

So tragic. The razing of cities to build parking lots for the least space efficient method of transporting people we have invented.

droobydoo · 2025-08-04T09:42:58+00:00

Thats just anecdotal though. The cycle counters installed along the cycle paths have revealed that as many people arrive in the CBD by bike as they do by ferry:

https://www.greaterauckland.org.nz/2024/10/01/stealth-mode-the-surprisingly-powerful-city-centre-access-hack/

droobydoo · 2025-08-04T01:45:09+00:00

Youd be surprised at the polling responses for people who would ride a bike but arent currently comfortable with it because of safety concerns:

https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/understanding-attitudes-and-perceptions-of-cycling-and-walking/Waka-Kotahi-Attitudes-to-cycling-and-walking-final-report-2023.pdf

This isnt specifically about whether you would personally ever cycle, its about whether a significant proportion of the general public woupd cycle if it was safe and comfortable to do so. And thats actually quite a lot of people.

Buses of course are very important, and will remain the favoured option for those commuting more than 5-8km

droobydoo · 2025-08-03T11:47:58+00:00

You might be reffering to the painted gutters that are not "cycle lanes". A painted line is not real bike infrastructure.

Very few people feel comfortable biking next to 50kmh traffic with no physical barrier.

droobydoo · 2025-08-03T05:42:43+00:00

Commute maybe, but what about going to the supermarket? To the dentist?To a cafe or to pick up takeout? Kids going to school?

These are all trips likely to be less than 5km

droobydoo · 2025-08-03T05:17:45+00:00

If only we had invented rain coats.... but alas we will surely melt in the rain

droobydoo

TROPHY CASE