My Account
Allergic response
In reply to Deanna Yarndley, who wrote the letter headed ‘Beware NIMBY uprising’ (MM Nov 6). Next time you want to burn your garden rubbish, please spare a thought for those who have asthma, heart problems, breathing difficulties or allergies. I suffer from allergies. The pollen season was bad enough, but then the fire season arrived. Along with the fire season came severe shortness of breath, lungs full of mucus and continuous coughing.
We went for a walk at Martins Bay last week to help clear my lungs. We had only gone a short distance before we walked into smoke from an outdoor fire that was drifting over the beach. I had to retreat to the car breathless and coughing. I may appear to be a climate change green NIMBY but there is a reason that some of us do not like outdoor fires. Apart from the foul smell, they are a health hazard for many people and, of course, I must not forget that the fires do contribute to global warming, and we are supposed to be clean green New Zealand.
Margaret Skilton, Puhoi.
PS I forgot to tell you how pleased I am that you are using a printing ink and paper that I can actually read. The xxx is so stinky I cough if I am within three feet of it. My husband throws it in the recycling bin before I come into contact with it. However, I can read Mahurangi Matters, so thank you. I do appreciate being able to read the local news.
Ban fireworks
I would like to register my strong objection to our careless control of fireworks. This archaic practise terrifies wildlife, sets off fires and invariably badly burns at least one child each year. The current rise in temperatures and our need to protect the environment means that we cannot risk allowing them to be a plaything any longer. Mindless explosions went on until midnight in our neighbourhood this week. Surely, the deafening noise is a violation of human rights. My hand is up to ban all fireworks.
Ngaire Gee, Warkworth
Wrong on rail
Your correspondents Crispin Caldicott and Elizabeth Foster show they have a common misunderstanding about the true cost of rail vs road (MM October 23). Rail is hugely subsidised, suburban rail by around 50-60 per cent of its total cost. Even a Neanderthal might ask himself, “Why is this subsidy necessary if rail is so much cheaper and fuel efficient?” The truth of the matter is that rail is a 300-year-old technology and is well past its use-by date. Proponents always ignore the cost of empty return trips – trips when the train returns to base to do another run empty. They also ignore the fleet of buses and drivers that are called on a standby basis for when things go wrong. Also, they forget to factor in all the local pick-up and drop-off costs associated with a single line operation. Add in the terrible timetables, which the public does not accept in this day of quick response, it just doesn’t stack up. Regarding road transport: where did they get their data for asserting that trucks are vastly subsidised? Not by any measure that I have ever seen. Trucks pay a huge proportion of the annual cost of road maintenance and development, which, along with cars, pay for public transport and cycleways. Hardly subsidised! Show me a public transport system anywhere that doesn’t soak up a huge ratepayer subsidy. Have they thought about what the transformational suburban rail project will cost in our rates? It’s huge. The pollies let more people in – about 60,000 a year and they are still coming. The rego numbers on new cars are rolling in at over 1000 per week. We need roads if they let the population grow like it has. There is no other option. Rail is certainly not an option. All I can say to them is they have never run a business or had to rely on rail. Apart from the occasional instance where trains are a logical means of transport, don’t put it up on a pedestal and think overall it’s better. It’s a joke and has been a joke for years now. Tear the lines up and run trucks down the land that’s freed up. How’s that for an idea? Britain investigated that 20 years ago, and they calculated savings of £16 billion per annum.
Trevor Burgess, Snells Beach
Terrible trucks
Sorry Maurie, but you are wrong and biased (MM Nov 6). I have no connections with any transport agency, but during the time I spent on the Rodney District Council I had adequate opportunity to study the statistics with the support of roading engineers. Basic research on truck road damage comes from an Idaho study, which is used in today’s research allowing for differences in road surfaces and climate. The rule of thumb is that one fully loaded axle on a big truck is equal to the pavement damage of 10,000 passenger cars. Remember this figure is per axle. Maurie refers to Road User Charges (RUC). My small diesel car costs $74 per 1000 kms for RUCs. Is he saying that trucks pay the 10,000 pavement damage equivalent? That is $74,000 per axle per 1000kms. I don’t think so!
Elizabeth Foster, Whangateau (abridged)
Correspondence on rail v road is now closed – Ed
