Herald on CBD Rail Loop
November 29th, 2010 at 9:00 am by David FarrarThe Herald editorial:
A “business case” for a central Auckland rail loop has been endorsed from left and right of the new Auckland Council. Mayor Len Brown found it “compelling”, Christine Fletcher, co-leader of the Citizens and Ratepayers minority, said there was a consensus for it.
It is not known how many members of the council are accustomed to assessing business cases for big investments. Transport Minister Steven Joyce seems to know what to look for: figures based on guesswork for wider economic benefits (webs). This report, said Mr Joyce, has “webs on steroids”.
A smart man, Mr Joyce. And often these assessments are little more than guesswork.
It is an exciting project. The loop could be the revival of the CBD, bringing all corners of it within a 500m walk to a station. The ridges around the inner city would be more easily accessible. The line from the western suburbs could come straight into the city, rather than joining the southern line at Newmarket. Most important, many more trains could run once Britomart became a through-station.
I think it is the most sensible of the proposed rail projects for Auckland. Of course I do not live there, so my view is one of a frequent visitor.
As it stands, it seems unlikely to persuade the new Auckland Transport agency where city and national representatives need to agree on projects to be jointly financed. If the council and its representatives on the agency are confident of their project, they must first convince Aucklanders to pay the lion’s share of it.
Exactly.
History has shown that when Aucklanders really want a transport link, when they know they will use it, they are prepared to pay for it. Before Mr Brown, Mrs Fletcher and the rest try to convince Mr Joyce of the merits of this proposal, they should put it to Auckland – with an honest price on it.
Then, if ratepayers are as excited as they are by the case for an inner city rail circuit, they could have a proposition the Government would find hard to refuse.
Let’s assume ratepayers will pay 3/4. Work out how much that is, and consult Aucklanders on whether they are happy with that investment. Then you can talk to the Government about its contribution.
As it is, it sounds like business as usual – Auckland’s voice whining like a demanding child expecting a treat from the taxpayers.
There may be other options. I don’t have a problem with the Auckland Council being given the power to have its own regional petrol tax. I do have a problem with people from Oamaru, Napier and Dunedin being the major funders of an Auckland CBD rail loop.
Related posts:
- Will China fund Len’s rail loop?
- Banks on Rail
- The case for buses not rail for Auckland
- How to pay for Len’s trains
November 29th, 2010 at 9:08 am
It certainly makes more sense than a line all the way to the North Shore, or even to the airport.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 9:10 am
Wouldn’t the much cheaper solution be to bring trams back to Queen Street ? (It’s not like anyone drives up it anymore, thanks to the double phased pedestrian crossings).
Run them from Britomart to K’rd, K’rd to P’rd, P’rd back down College hill and in to Britomart.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 9:15 am
I can’t see North Shorians getting very excited about paying for a rail system for them buggers on the other side.
Isn’t it just a little bit stupid to spend gazillions transporting all those people into the city centre and back again, five days a week, when most of them could, with modern technology, work from home or at a much cheaper satelite office in the suburbs?
Let’s face it, most of the dumbarse office clods vote Labour anyway.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 9:26 am
Why don’t Auckland Ratepayers pay 51% and raise the rest through Local Authority Stock or some form of PPP. Fares would then have have to cover interest and repayments etc or provide returns if it was floated on the Stock Exchange.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 9:27 am
Auckland needs billions spent on a rail loop like a turkey needs christmas.
“I do have a problem with people from Oamaru, Napier and Dunedin being the major funders of an Auckland CBD rail loop.”
Nice to see you support the massive subsidy by the rest of New Zealand for Wellingtons trains removed too.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 9:34 am
How has this even been suggested?
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 9:35 am
What percentage of tax paid originates in Auckland? Serious question. And what is the potential additional government revenue from cutting back on transport times in Auckland and spending that time productively?
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 9:43 am
Public transport is for “other people” to use.
Cameron Brewer has the most sensible comment ont he rail loop. One that is evidence based not some airy-fairy idealistic mumbo-jumbo.
http://cameronbrewer.co.nz/2010/11/rails-cbd-growth-unrealistic/
“Only 13 percent of Aucklanders currently work in the central city. I believe that percentage is only going to fall not increase when you consider the likes of business park growth and the fact that computer technology is enabling more people to work from home and businesses to operate locally.”
Spending billions on a rail loop when there is a crappy old, rooted bridge about to fall down is lunacy….but then the left does like their train sets.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 9:43 am
So by this logic the people of Aucklands Taxes should not be used for anything else around the country?? (ChCH Earthquake fund and associated costs are not being entirely funded by cantabs you know) – How about all taxes and revenue from Auckland pays only for things that benefit Auckland directly. But then we will just be a bunch of selfish pricks right?!?
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 9:46 am
Why is there guesswork? The case for spillover economic benefits from light rail development has been tested time and again in US cities, usually promising similar “webs”. I am not aware of a single one that actually produced revitalisation. More frequently, it bankrupts the city council, who mortgage the farm on the rail project only to find, time and again, it badly over runs its budget in construction, and badly under-attracts patronage.
Any project that depends on concepts as nebulous as wider economic benefits is necessarily bullshit. If the project made sense on its own merits, they’d point to that instead.
Two other points. One, nearly all the costs of rail are fixed and they are enormous. You only find out if you’ve got a winner or, more likely, a loser (no light rail in the US makes money to my knowledge, most don’t even cover their operating costs), once the investment is made. But the ratepayers are stuck with the payments on bonds to finance the project or the next fifty years, no matter what. Unlike buses, which perform almost precisely the same task, you can’t uninvest in rail.
Second, rail is long lived, and its impossible to up tracks when, over the next 30-50 years, the city grows in ways the council could not have anticipated. So the result is some combination of a) stranding of the rail asset, as the city grows in the ‘wrong’ direction, and b) stranding of everybody else’s assets, as the council writes rules to force growth in ways that is compatible with the rail line.
Finally, and most importantly, the huge financial cost of rail is fixed regardless of use. If nobody rides the rail, you’ve still got to pay the cost of it for the next fifty years. This cost is completely insensitive to anything, including tax levies and the economy. So what happens when council budgets come under pressure? The bond holders still have to be paid, so cuts must be made else where. The US experience is that among the first services to go are… other public transport, especially buses! So the effect of rail can frequently be to reduce the level of available transport.
What amazes me is how such a bad idea can not only find supporters, but consensus.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 9:51 am
@coventry, they never should have got rid of the trams.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 9:51 am
Trams: silly idea. When you force people to change mode of transport, you lose lots of people and make the whole system less efficient. We need to pick one mode of public transport, and stick to it. For my money, I’d go with buses, but if someone thinks we can make trains work in Auckland, then stick to that. There are no trams, no good reason to introduce them.
Forcing rail to run at a profit (via PPP): won’t work. What you’d have to charge to make them profitable would stop anyone from using them. This isn’t to say that I agree with government funding them – basically it’s all Auckland ratepayers subsidising a few hippies who don’t want to have cars. I guess there’s some argument that people moving onto rail would:
– reduce traffic for those still in cars
– reduce the need to build more roads, giving offsetting cost savings
– reduce carbon emissions, so if you care about global warming, arguably that’s a public good
My problem is that I don’t think it has a material impact on traffic (usage too low), same therefore for roads, and I’m pretty sure that trains running mostly empty are less efficient than modern cars on a per head carbon emission basis – any carbon impact has a baked in assumption about patronage.
Conversely, I can also see that many cities around the world have good train systems that are well patronised, and if we wanted Auckland to have one of those, we’d have to start somewhere.
Apparently in Singapore the train system runs at a profit. They build large train stations, and build shopping malls on top of them. The train system makes money from the shopping malls. Not saying this is a great idea, but certainly it is interesting. There’s a lot of evidence that putting a train station in an area pushes up property values – if the train system can capture some of that value, it would make it profitable.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 9:56 am
Auckland has more than a quarter of the population of NZ and as the economic powerhouse of the country, generates more than that in tax revenue. But it doesn’t get a quarter of the tax spend. Wellington on the other hand, a city made up of bureaucrats and civil servants, gets more than it’s share.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 9:58 am
@Whaleoil 9:43 am
Evidence based??? Brewer’s media release is full of statements like “I believe..”, “This assumption … seems a little unrealistic”, and I “I can’t see…”.
Where’s the actual evidence?
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 10:00 am
While I disagree with the proposed rail upgrades as an Aucklander I am fed up of seeing Auckland being used as nothing more than a cash cow to fund projects elsewhere in the country. Auckland needs some serious investment and it is time that Wellington recognize this.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 10:12 am
PaulL- The rail network at the moment benefits the wealthy more then the hippies. Have a look at the suburbs in Auckland that are serviced by the Western and Eastern lines. The hippies are actually more likely to drive- living in the hills and their one acre ‘sustainable’ blocks then driving miles to get to work.
Shift workers and casual workers aren’t likely to use the train network but city office workers are. Defining this as a left-right issue misrepresents the vested interests at stake here. I’m not sure National are really doing their own voters much good by supporting a 1950s US transportation style model.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 10:16 am
DPF: “I do have a problem with people from Oamaru, Napier and Dunedin being the major funders of an Auckland CBD rail loop.”
So why not say:
“I do have a problem with people from Auckland being the major funders of a Tauranga Eastern Link.”
“I do have a problem with people from Auckland being the major funders of Marae Investigates.”
“I do have a problem with people from Auckland being the major funders of conservation projects in the Southern Alps.”
“I do have a problem with people from Auckland being the major funders of hospitals in New Plymouth.”
“I do have a problem with people from Auckland being the major funders of the NZSO.”
“I do have a problem with people from Auckland being the major funders of Christchurch motorway projects.”
Yes, because it’s a stupid argument. We all pay taxes for all sorts of things around the country – whether we like it or not (and we use our vote to acknowledge this).
You never point out how much tax Auckland pays, perpetuating the myth that people in Auckland don’t already make a significant contribution to projects in Auckland (and elsewhere in the country).
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 10:18 am
Whaleoil, the loop isn’t just about transport around the CBD, it’s about connecting the two major rail divisions in Auckland. The independently commissioned inquiry into Auckland Transport has a good summary of the options, and why they think the rail loop is the best- can’t find a link to it at the moment, but bFM’s the wire has a good discussion on the issue from Friday 26th November (will be available here- http://www.95bfm.com/default,18,bcasts.sm?cast=3852- sometime this week)- although admittedly the person they interviewed was ‘pro-public transport’.
Does someone else have a link to the report?
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 10:22 am
What Len doesn’t say is that we already have a rail loop in Auckland – it’s just not configured as one today.
Think outside the box – Britomart – Orakei – Medowbank – Glen Innes – Panmure – Sylvia Park – Southdown/Westfield – Panmure – Ellerslie – Greenlane – Remuera – Newmarket – Britomart. Trains circulating every 15 mins, one in clock wise, one in anti clockwise manner, the idea being that at the maximum wait at any station for a train (in either direction) is 15 mins.
Make Newmarket a Hub station that covers Western line in & out.
Vote:Make Penrose a Hub station that covers Onehunga line in & out.
Make Southdown Hub station that covers Southern line in & out.
November 29th, 2010 at 10:25 am
ben,
Much of what you say is right. But…
While many benefits of a rail system are intangible, hard to measure, non-financial, and uncertain until the thing is actually built, this does not mean that they are not real.
The huge upsurge in use of trains in Auckland over the past few years shows that the effect could be significant.
Yes, there are places where light rail systems have failed (though I think the proposed CBD loop qualifies as heavy rail). There are also success stories such as Singapore, as PaulL points out (I’ve been on it and it really is a great system from a user point of view).
Few rail systems make money. That is accepted and subsidies allowed because the secondary effects are real: they do relieve pressure on roads. Note too: the loop would benefit not only the people who work in the CBD, but those who shop there, those who visit for business, those who go to concerts, etc. And having a better rail system will mean more people doing so.
As I non-Aucklander I have some sympathy for the argument about people in Oamaru paying for Auckland rail. But this cuts both ways. People in Auckland pay for things elsewhere also. And sometimes those things benefit the whole nation.
The key question is whether the economics stack up. And (as with many business decisions) we may have just take a punt on it. The argument that we should do nothing to fix any transport problem does not appeal.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 10:28 am
Christine Fletcher is hardly a poster child for the right. Having her backing it makes me think it is more about spend and hope.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 10:33 am
This is absolute madness and folly. Rail became out of date the minute Gottlieb Daimler got rid of the horse on his carriage and put an internal combustion engine in its place.
If the Council wants to rejuvenate the CBD there is one easy solution. Build some car parks, or approve private sector ones. That might be slightly cheaper. Just a tad.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 10:40 am
It doesn’t matter whether we have a CBD tunnel or not. Hundreds of thousands of Aucklanders do not have any access to rail without catching multiple buses or driving their own car to a station, which is a tad defeatist. Why should a regional fuel tax be levied on those who:
Can’t access the service like other Aucklanders;
Have already paid multiple times for such a network, but seen that money go to Wellington’s trains or Christchurch’s buses;
Won’t be able to access services late at night (shift workers/doctors, etc).
So please, tell me more what a great idea this is, how rail will solve literally all of the world’s problems and why Aucklanders should pay through the nose for it (unless there’s anything in your area that needs paying for first, of course!).
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 10:45 am
Well said, that man. For every $100 spent at the pump, $32 goes to NZTA to spend as they wish. Why should that be? Surely there needs to be an economic justification for taking that amount of money from road users. (You won’t find the justification in the Roads Of National Significance, in case you are looking…)
If there is a public transport based project that offers the most benefit to road users then why not? A far better investment than the silly old Puhoi Wellsford holiday highway… how much will the toll be for that anyway?
And, crickey, Joyce shouldn’t resort to attacking journalists to defend the poor economics of the holiday highway either. It reeks of desparation.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 10:54 am
Coventry – the issue is that there are only two lines into Britomart limiting the capacity of the entire network.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 10:59 am
Josh Arbury has done a good summary of the CBD rail loop costs and benefits here:
http://transportblog.co.nz/2010/11/24/examining-the-cbd-rail-tunnel-business-case/
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 11:04 am
BlairM is on the money. Aucklanders have a love affair with the car. Rail is just so 19th century when not everyone could afford a car. And the socialists tried to keep it that way so they could control the mass movement of people by owning the railways. Then the Japs started building cars that were cheap and reliable and everyone could afford one and that gave us freedom to travel when and wherever we wanted. Now the new socialists want to control us again rather than build more roads. Roads = freedom. Rail = oppression.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 11:05 am
I know that Farrar, Slater etc are fond of deprecating rail “19th Century technology” but that is rather silly. Much of the technology we use today was invented in the 19th Century: electricity & the telephone for example. Rail technology continues to evolve e.g. the use of fuel cells being trialled. What is important is how it is applied.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 11:05 am
All the cities that I can think of that have a heavy passenger rail system seem to have quite high patronage:
– Wellington
– Sydney
– Melbourne
– Singapore
– Paris
– London
– New York
I haven’t been everywhere, I’m sure there are some places that it’s failed. But it is quite clear that there are many places that heavy rail works. The question is whether you can take a city that doesn’t already have an installed base, and build a rail network. Most of the cities I listed have had rail for years, and the costs are effectively fully amortised – they’re paying only operational costs. I’m not sure if there are examples of cities building from scratch. There are examples of rail being extended in recent years, and that has worked – arguably Auckland is sort of in between – there isn’t a real rail system, but there is some existing infrastructure.
Where rail is in place, what it leads to is densification around the stations, and businesses locating in areas that are serviced by rail. See Sydney, and how the suburbs have grown up around the rail lines, apartment blocks near most major rail stations, along with reasonably nice shopping centres. As opposed to Auckland’s spread out and car centric suburbs.
I’m not judging which is better in absolute terms. But I find cities with good public transport to be nicer places to visit and nicer places to live – that’s my opinion. Are there people who have visited those cities, and are of the opinion that Auckland’s transport solution is better?
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 11:09 am
35 years ago there was a plan to build a motorway across Meola Reef to the NW Motorway at Pt Chev which would link to the Sth Mwy and take traffic around the city.
So only the traffic going from the Shore to the CBD would use the Bridge. Emininetly sensible idea canned by the Gov of the day.
Public transport is a big hole that you pour billions of dollars down for no return. Sydney cant make it work with the population of NZ. We are a car city in Auckland. Thats what the citizens want.
Commissar Len and his fellow Communists should be serving the people NOT imposing their madcap schemes that will waste Billions of dollars.
Message to Len. I live in Browns Bay. I want to travel to the CDB 20km from home 24/7 in 30 minutes or less. That Commissar Len is your KPI for this term
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 11:10 am
Before they even think of building anything they need to sort out and automate the ticketing system.
Vote:I took the train three times on the weekend and was not asked for a ticket once on the train, the only was when I got to Britomart and they wouldn’t have a clue if I got on at Pukekohe or Newmarket.
If passenger numbers keep growing, abuse of the system is only going to grow.
November 29th, 2010 at 11:14 am
PaulL – I am not sure that there is a single city in the world where rail is not subsidised by either the local authority or by the government.
Rail is not cost effective for passengers anywhere, with possibly the exception of parts of Europe and the US Northeast. It is primarily for hauling goods over long distances.
The high cost of the rail systems is a factor in why many of the cities you mention are so expensive to live in. Adding Auckland to their number will not help its poorer citizens.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 11:35 am
Maybe Auckland could build their rail system and then sell it to the Government for three times what it cost. Government doesn’t worry about cost or profit.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 11:37 am
It seems to me that, those cities with functional rail networks built them before government spending on social welfare began to consume large parts of government revenue. I would think that if we were willing to forgo some of the luxuries we experience courtesy of the government today, we would find investing in large scale infrastructure projects much easier. Whether or not that infrastructure should be rail in this day and age is another matter, it appears to be more limited in possibilities than the long term potential usage and flexibility of roads.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 11:38 am
PaulL,
AFAIK there is no public transport system in the world that makes a viable return on investment, they all depend on subsidies of some sort.
The Singapore MRT system, where the rail transit authority owns real estate beside its stations and profits from the real estate, is very similar to how the London Underground developed, where they built subdivisions at the then outer fringes of London and ran the underground out to them (see “Metro-land” on Wikipedia) and did quite well from the property development profits. But as far as I know the underlying public transport systems still ran/run at a loss.
I’d expect if any system were to be profitable it’d be somewhere like Hong Kong or Singapore where the population densities and relatively expensive car transport probably tilt the economics in rail’s favour. But I don’t see either of those dynamics playing out in Auckland.
That said, I do think the CBD rail loop is the logical extension of the Auckland rail system, and at a cursory glance it would seem to make a real difference to the services you could run. But if the economics of the CBD loop don’t work that probably tells us that the economics of the current rail configuration are even worse, and likely to be draining Auckland ratepayers’ pockets for years to come.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 11:52 am
PaulL and lastmanstanding
Vote:In answer to densification, I really don’t think that’s what people want. I hate living in apartments when you’re living on top of each other. I like living in a house with a yard and a garage and a garden, where your neighbours are further than 200mm away and you have space to fix your own car. There are surveys in Australia showing that most people are of the same opinion.
Low density living does not work well with public transport, because you’d have to have public transport going almost everywhere for people to not have to walk too far to make it viable. It does however work really well with private transport. If low density living is what people want (and I think it is) and people want the flexibility of private transport, then maybe that’s what we should be concentrating on.
November 29th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
lastmanstanding (369) Says: Message to Len. I live in Browns Bay. I want to travel to the CDB 20km from home 24/7 in 30 minutes or less. That Commissar Len is your KPI for this term
Uh, you made a choice to live in Browns Bay. Perhaps to be near the beach. Perhaps because you’re British. Perhaps because you found a nice house at a nice price. Perhaps because the schools are nice. Perhaps because your friends live nearby. But I doubt you moved there with the expectation of travelling into the city at any time of the day in under 30 minutes. Your only hope of meeting that expectation would be for Auckland to have a public rapid transit system (whether you used it or not).
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Ben at 9.46 speaks good sense.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
@virtualmark: depends how you define profit. Yes, all public transport is subsidised. And, in a sense, so is all private transport, as the govt provides roads. My question is whether a local government makes a net save through public transport – does the cost of subsidising it exceed the cost of the roads you’d otherwise build, the new suburbs that would otherwise be required.
@gazzmaniac: I sometimes like living in apartments. If I lived in Melbourne, I’d absolutely live in an apartment – being close to the night life in the city would be fantastic. But then, I wouldn’t be riding the train, I’d be living in the city. Lots of people like living in apartments. Of course, people would love to have a quarter acre within walking distance of work – who wouldn’t. But that doesn’t exist, or isn’t affordable. People make compromises every day. People all over the world live in apartments, because it offers a tradeoff that suits their budget and lifestyle.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Last time I was on the trains in Auckland, about half the people getting off paid nothing for the ride. Quite simply as the train filled up, fares stopped being collected.
Funny how they now ask for money from the government, whey they can’t even collect what’s legally theirs.
But point 2.
Testing this one is really, really simple. Put the route on the nearest roads and give buses a clear run across the route by controlling lights. You could even restrict traffic on those streets for the trial peroid. Then, see how many people use the route. Presto! You get some numbers which might actually mean something and may actually discover that the minimal cost of such a proposal delivers the desired results better anyway.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
@scrubone 12:43 pm
As a regular Auckland train user, scrubone, I have noticed that occur occasionally – usually when there is a major event that has the trains packed so full the staff can’t get around all the passengers, or when there is a cancellation or delay of a scheduled service which results in the next train being similarly full.
The issue is likely to be resolved by:
1) Upgrading signalling, improving service reliability (and frequency on Western line) – due to be completed February 2011.
2) Integrated ticketing, with passengers having to tag on before they enter the train – due to be completed mid 2012.
3) Electrification, which will also improve service reliability and speed – due to be completed end of 2013.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Living in rural Tauranga I would only go near Auckland directly to the Airport, so as a taxpayer I can see no reason to support this Brown fantasy. I also do not support the Tauranga east road, as I will not go that way either.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
scrubone: in an ideal world (i.e. on in which I was in control
) we’d just do dedicated bus lanes on key roads. This means that we have no multinode transport issues, we can send buses anywhere people want to go, and the dedicated bus lanes means the buses are faster/more efficient than driving in your own car.
My buses would be diesel/electric, or maybe gas/electric. They’d therefore be more efficient than the ones we have today, particularly in stop/start traffic. They’re at least as good as trams/light rail – since they do the same thing (use existing roads, stop for existing traffic lights) with similar passenger capacity, and are more flexible since they have no fixed setup cost, and can go places there are no rails.
They’d be a little less efficient than heavy rail, since heavy rail doesn’t stop for traffic lights. But I could probably build dedicated bus roads, with no traffic lights, for less cost than building heavy rail. And it is certainly way more flexible than heavy rail.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
paulus – you wont be supporting the auckland rail. you will be supporting about 50% of the tax your shitty town takes.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 2:16 pm
Paulus, living in Auckland, having grown up in Gisborne, I do not support rural Tauranga, in fact it often gets in my way when I return home once or twice a year, so as a taxpayer I see no reason to support Tauranga.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 2:18 pm
I dunno what everybody is getting upset about, this will not happen within the next fifty years.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Monorail.
Sorted.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Took the boys to see the Santa Parade yesterday. Train ride from Henderson to Britomart.
Fantastic trip. Staff did a superb job in coping with the huge crowds.
Would love to know what the patronage figures were that day.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
The great debate has truly begun.
Some Auckland councillors and commentators like Rudman seem determined that Auckland Council should fail and follow the fate of Montreal, and what seems about to happen in Toronto.
Montreal de amalgamated only two years after its birth.
Toronto seems about to follow suit.
In both the tensions between central city and the surrounding suburbs proved unmanageable.
The Toronto story is here:
http://www.newgeography.com/content/001890-toronto-election-highlights-failure-amalgamation.
It does not help when a councillor describes Wellsford and Warkworth as “the boondocks”.
Also I have challenged the rail enthusiasts to provide just one example of a New World City where retro fitted rail has created the transformation claimed by the consultants.
I got this response from one of my colleagues in the US who edits TOLLROADs mag which focuses on congestion and cures that work.
You are absolutely right Mr McShane:
The American experience is conclusive: retrofitting urban rail into American cities has NOT unclogged any highway, anywhere, at any time in the last 40 years. Washington DC and San Francisco both have extensive networks of modern urban rail, and worse highway congestion than ever. MIami FL, Atlanta GA, Portland OR, Baltimore MD and Dallas TX have installed urban rail along major highway corridors. In not a single case can it be demonstrated that highway congestion has been relieved.
The reason is simple: for the vast majority of trips urban rail can never compete with the speed and convenience of road vehicles’ door-to-door service. People and their belongings have to get to a station at one end of the trip and from a station at the other end of the trip. And regardless of the top speeds the trains can attain everyone in that train has to stop and start every time a passenger has to be gotten on or off the train. So almost regardless of the taxpayer money poured into urban rail it will never attract more than a tiny percentage of people from their cars. And how could it help the service and delivery people who constitute a considerable percentage of traffic flow.
There is often a valid case for alternatives to the private car – carpooling, van, bus – and sometimes special lanes and other facilities are justified. But note: all these are highway based.
Highway congestion can and should be tackled – with proper pricing of road space according to its scarcity, and by responding to measures of high value with selective additions to capacity where prospective road use fees will pay for them.
The recent elections in the US have seen the defeat of a whole slew of elected officials advocating rail. Several governors have come to power campaigning against the folly of rail – most notably New Jersey’s Chris Christie who is something of a national hero for cancellation of the New Jersey Transit project for another rail tunnel boondoggle to New York City. If urban rail had been successful how could this have happened?
Peter Samuel
Vote:editor TOLLROADSnews
102W3rd St #1
Frederick MD 21701 US
1 301 631 1148 mob 240 446 9736
petersamuel@mac.com
http://www.tollroadsnews.com
November 29th, 2010 at 4:15 pm
Not disagreeing Owen. But I would say that someone who edits a magazine entitled “TollRoadsNews” isn’t exactly unbiased.
I’ll readily agree that many of those advocating rail are equally biased.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 4:32 pm
Hi decanker
I moved to Browns Bay in 1979 31 years ago. At that time I could travel from home to the CBD at any time in 30 minutes or less.
Therefore I believe I have every right to expect Len (put in ALL on the credit card ) Brown and his cohorts to meet my expectations. Thats what he was elected for.
The problem is the bozos who have been elected over the past 31 years have failed to plan and therefore planned to fail to meet my expectations.
They have taken plenty of money off my and my fellow travellers in petrol tax etc etc to have built the infrastructure to meet my expectations.
But alas they have pissed most of it up against the wall in madcap useless endevours.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
lastmanstanding,
Vote:the bozos you mention have planned, and planned significantly, though not to meet your expectations, but instead to encourage the auto-focused urban sprawl that now makes it impossible for you to travel from the city to Browns Bay in 30 minutes. The answer now has little to do with more roads.
November 29th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
It is a specialist research based magazine dedicated to examining all the road pricing systems in the US and elsewhere.
The US has made massive investments in HOV lanes, and HOT lanes and PPPS and so on and they generate a multitude of studies.
You could say it was biased but you could equally say a magazine devoted to improving the efficiency of Dairy farms was biased against sheep.
I know Peter Samuels and his presentations at international conferences have always been cool and analytical.
He has written an excellent summary of the Stockholm experiment and I think you will look hard to find any other sane commentary on this well managed programme which set up a trial period and then held a referendum as to whether it should continue. I think you will agree it is hardly the work of a biased fanatic or whatever.
Vote:Go to:
http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/120
November 29th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Owen McShane (1,084) Says:
Also I have challenged the rail enthusiasts to provide just one example of a New World City where retro fitted rail has created the transformation claimed by the consultants.
Hong Kong, Seoul, Singapore, Taipei. Need any more?
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
RE Stockholm road pricing: Peter Samual quotes these impressive numbers:
Trial background
The congestion toll trial ran Jan 3 to July 31 2006. Traffic as measured by volume of vehicles entering or leaving the central area cordon 0630-1830 weekdays fell by 22%. On a 24 hour basis the drop was 19% or 100k entries and exits (passes).
Congestion was also substantially reduced on approach roads, remained about the same on belt routes, and increased on expressways on the edges of the central area expressways – 5% on the the north south E5 Essingeleden motorway and 19% on the east-west underground Sodra Lanken (Southern Link).
Reduction in private cars was 30%, trucks 10%.
Queueing times on the inner city approaches were reduced by a third in the morning peak and by half in the afternoon peak.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
decanker
Retro Fitted New World Cities.
Hong Kong, Seoul, Singapore, Taipei. Need any more?
You obviously have a different definition of New World to most of us.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
PaulL your bus lanes would be much more effective if they were priced as well – called HOT lanes. (High Occupancy Toll lanes).
Vote:They can run at full capacity all day but never gridlock because as grid lock approaches the price of entry soars.
High occupancy vehicles always have free entry.
BUt you do not have the madness of the Northern buslane beside which motorists sit in gridlock for ages waiting for the occasional bus with about 15 people on board to go by leaving the road empty for 90 percent of the time.
What could be a more inefficient use of savings than that?
November 29th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
Owen McShane (1,088) Says:
November 29th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
decanker
You obviously have a different definition of New World to most of us.
Even so, I don’t follow your point. These cities setup metro systems mostly in the 70′s and beyond and are now regarded as extremely successful.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Auckland could always do what we in Tauranga have had to do. Being a safe National/NZ First enclave we until recently have never had Govt. funds to do,anything. So we improvised. We built our own harbour bridge with toll money then added to that a motorway and then another motor way. All paid for either by tolls until stupid fucking ex jaffa’s came here and whinged so the govt. canned it and now by the long suffering Tga City ratepayers. Even those that live in the county and use our roads don’t pay. So stop whinging and get of your arse’s Jaffa’s and pay your way.
We are the biggest export port in NZ, with the biggest heavy traffic and rail loads.
BY the way much of the tax paid supposedly in Auckland is from profits generated in the rest of NZ. Dairy being one example.
It would be an interesting question to ask if anyone can name any company that is domiciled in Auckland, that does all its business in Auckland that actually pays any decent amount of tax.
No I didn’t think so.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
The Greens have just issued their response to this proposal in two parts:
Part One:
“We should all just live on organic farms, man, like, be at one with animals and nature, the earth-mother, you know? Farms dont need trains, man. Think about it.”
Part Two:
Vote:“Centralised control of all economic activity would make this transport debate pointless. We in The Greens expect it would be quite easy to spread the population more evenly through the country.”
November 29th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
“Hong Kong, Seoul, Singapore, Taipei. Need any more?”
decanker, could it be those cities have a large CBD-oriented population which is not the case in Auckland.
I lived in Auckland 1981-2005 and I’ve watched the traffic strangle the arteries for the last 20 years while no-one said or did anything except in the last five.
As everyone knows Auckland is not a hub and spoke daily-commute model as Wellington is. Spoke to Hub works in Wgtn because a huge % work in the compact CBD. Only 13% of Aucklanders who work, work in the CBD. Yes that sounds like a lot, but the reason the CBD gets clogged is because everyone but everyone lives in the burbs. The only way to deal with CBD congestion is to deal with the burb’s arteries, and a CBD rail loop does nothing for that because where precisely do you park your car when you arrive anywhere at the loop?
Yes there are increasing numbers of CBD apartment dwellers, but they either walk to work or drive to the burbs to work. So what’s a CBD rail loop going to do, to address the arterial congestion, for don’t forget, 87% of Aucklanders travel from one burb to another, and that’s why all the motorways are blocked, not because everyone wants to get to the CBD, although many do, 87% don’t.
Auckland is a spider-web of daily commuters, not a hub and spoke like all those other cities you mention.
I’ve said for years, what you need to do, is to identify the commute traffic patterns. The easiest way to do that, is to put a survey in with the rates demand, and give a small incentive, say 0.2% off the rates bill for filling it in each year. That way you know who goes to what suburb from which suburb and can plan accordingly.
You also can’t say “It encourages job concentration in the CBD”
Why would established businesses in the burbs be attracted to uproot their well-established selves from the burbs and migrate to the CBD merely because it had a rail loop? Why?
Parking goes to the heart of what I’m saying. Given that Auckland is like a spider-web not a hub and spoke, just whereabouts do you organise massive ground area for lots of car parks for those who wish to use the loop? Bear in mind we’re talking about massive car-parks carved over lots and lots of the most expensive real estate in the country, (presumably?) replacing it with asphalt.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 9:01 pm
@decanker @Owen McShane
Interesting debate on New World cities (or not).
With regards to Seoul, I was there a few weeks ago talking to the Seoul Metropolitan Government. Over the last decade or so they have had two big Public Transport transformation projects.
In the late 90′s the SMG developed a significant heavy rail network. They managed to get a modal shift of ~5% to public transport. A very good result. Around 2004 they needed to add more capacity to their Public Transport network. This time they ran the numbers and went with bus. They achieved another 5% modal shift at less than 10% of the equivalent cost of rail. They did this by building bus lanes in the middle of roads so that bus stops are shared infrastructure going both ways. You have to think that if Seoul was able to find this space for bus lanes in existing roads then its possible in Auckland also. It means cars get pushed out of the way.
@reid Integrated ticketing will give you the data you are after without effecting rates.
Miki
CEO
Vote:Snapper Services
November 29th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
It is worth noting that in the car crazy city of Los Angeles in the near bankrupt state of California they are expanding their subway system with several extensions to existing lines. NYT had the story a few days ago.
One can say that building the bus system only cost 10% of what rail would have but I wonder what the costs are over the fifty or many more years rail would have serviced the community … I think rail would come out rather better. But really what is needed is an integrated bus rail system rather than either/or.
The NYT also ran a story about conflict in New York where cycle lane are causing delays to cars and drivers are upset
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Reid — if the rail goes far enough out and is not just a CBD loop but integrated with other rail then the land can be found to pave with ashpelt but really parking should be done in buildings designed for the purpose … I found both in Denver where they are extending the light rail out to the airport and also further out the other way towards if not actually to Golden.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
“Reid — if the rail goes far enough out and is not just a CBD loop but integrated with other rail”
Yeah but from the business case posted on Red Alert that’s not what this is. It’s a single loop round the Auckland CBD. No connecting lines.
It won’t work. If this is Stage One and there is a Stage Two then I suggest people should be told. But so far, it’s a CBD loop.
In its current form, it won’t work. It can’t work. Auckland doesn’t work like that. It won’t work.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
“@reid Integrated ticketing will give you the data you are after without effecting rates.”
Miki, it has the potential to, I use it everyday in Wgtn. However it captures only those who already travel on public transport, not those who potentially could. If/when Snapper find a way to capture that data, that would be excellent.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
There is a bit of present state view here. Yes, Auckland as currently configured is completely unsuitable for rail. And I’ve previously stated my preference for buses, partly for that reason. But if we’re looking 40-50 years into the future, Auckland won’t be like it is now. If we put in rail today, likely that in 40 years time, a number of business would have centralised into the CBD.
Is that a good ambition? Well, I suggest again that the cities that I most like visiting all have decent public transport. Auckland isn’t one of them. I think public transport increases the usage of the CBD, and increases vitality of the CBD.
But, if it were my money we were spending, I’d be putting in bus routes.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
“…likely that in 40 years time, a number of business would have centralised into the CBD.”
But why? Everyone who knows Auckland knows it’s made up of many well established large employers in suburbs all over the city. These all have extensive plant and equipment investment. Moving down the scale you have the medium and light industries and why on earth, would they move? Finally you have the local retail, entertainment, professional services scattered throughout the city who form the equivalent of six medium-sized NZ CBDs altogether in the one city.
Why would any of those sectors be encouraged to move, even in fifty years, by this??
“But, if it were my money we were spending, I’d be putting in bus routes.”
I’d be hunting motorists Paul. I’d be letting my neighbours tyres down at night so they wouldn’t be on the motorway with me in the morning. I’m coming to think this is the only solution. I mean, statistically, it should even out and everyone will get their turn.
I’m surprised Len didn’t mention that during the campaign.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Two BILLION dollars for a quite low density CBD that many people don’t like visiting. Two million dollars, ok. But that cost is just so mind blowingly huge for such a low return its insane.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
@reid
“The only way to deal with CBD congestion is to deal with the burb’s arteries, and a CBD rail loop does nothing for that because where precisely do you park your car when you arrive anywhere at the loop?”
Based on this statement you clearly have no idea what the purpose of the loop is. Part of the purpose is to open up more of the CBD to be within walking distance to stations. But the other major purpose is that it will more than double the capacity of the existing system. it will shorten travel times for the western line enormously. This definitely affects the burb’s, and their arteries.
“A smart man, Mr Joyce. And often these assessments are little more than guesswork”
If Joyce thinks BCR assessments are such rubbish why does he insist on quoting the dubious results of the Puhoi to Wellsford BCR assessment as effectively fact in parliament.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 11:16 pm
There is simply no need to provide further financial investment to Auckland’s bus routes, they receive enough of it already to be perfectly honest.
The frequent bus delays are caused by Auckland’s congested traffic. Unless you want these buses to fly there is no ‘realistic’ way of reducing these delays, unless you discourage regular road users.
Upon observation, it seems that almost every major international city in the world has ‘modern railway services’ as a public transport option. These services compete with road users to reduce on-road traffic congestion at all times, and to provide commuters with a host of different options on the public transport system. Rail can also be designed to carry heavier loads, thus reducing the need for trucks on our roads. It is common knowledge that trucks are the leading cause of pot holes on our roads (they are also the source of unnecessary accidents from sleep fatigue). Such road-damage is in constant need of repair (costing the state even further).
It is economic logic to assume that Auckland’s railway network has potential. Whether this potential is utilised or not is the question at stake here. Bear in mind that Auckland is New Zealand’s fastest growing region – current infrastructure will soon be outdated anyway and will eventually require expansion to fit the needs of our growing population. It all comes back to long-term strategic regional planning.
Vote:November 29th, 2010 at 11:34 pm
“Part of the purpose is to open up more of the CBD to be within walking distance to stations.”
Uh. What don’t you understand about, it’s not about opening up the CBD, it’s about getting traffic off the suburban arteries? The CBD can be as open as it likes, and it won’t make a blind bit of difference to Auckland’s traffic issues because access to the CBD is not repeat not repeat not the root cause.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 12:01 am
Public transport at night is standing on a cold platform with drunken louts intimidating everyone. And sitting in railway cabins with people being suck and noisy around you threatening everyone. I cannot imagine little old ladies ever using public transport in NZ.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 12:07 am
@tvb
Judging by the results of the super gold card scheme with free public transport for those over 65 you don’t have to imagine it, as they already do.
But then the rest of your post didnt make a lot of sense anyway did it.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 12:18 am
I am glad New Zealand’s newspaper of record is turning to cabinet ministers for expert technical opinion.
Of course Joyce has a wealth of experience in assessments of major infrastructure investment. So much so he was able to know that Puhoi to Wellsford was going to be worthwhile despite no significant work having been done on the route, except a 2008 report that said the road wouldn’t be worth building for at least another 40 years. Given the complex gelogy and serious geotechnical issues that had to be overcome to build ALPURT, we can take from this the Joyce is also an expert in geology and engineering. New Zealand is very lucky to have such a man in cabinet, and I only hope JK expidites his promotion to finance minister so Joyce can use his wide ranging talents to their full potential.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 12:26 am
@ben
“Any project that depends on concepts as nebulous as wider economic benefits is necessarily bullshit. If the project made sense on its own merits, they’d point to that instead.”
In which case you will agree that several of the roads of national significance should be dropped.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 5:06 am
I go back to Owen McShane’s comment about the viability of any RETROFITTED rail system in any 1st World city – can any poster here provide proof that any of them ever meet the usage and volume targets and thus are financially viable without massive subsidies AND reduce road traffic congestion. Many of you are commenting about cities that had an established rail infrastructure that grew with the city (eg London, Paris, Sydney) and involve cities substantially larget than Auckland.
I am a frequent visitor to Auckland and always stay on the North Shore. The bus lane situation is farcical with no discernable impact on travel times. I live in the Phoenix area population 4.2 million. AZ is a high growth sun belt state with new moveins of 200,000+ each year. The PHX metro area doubles in size every 20 years! 25 years ago a major freeway expansion project was undertaken and successfully completed and it enabled Phoenix to compensate for 20 odd years of growth and greatly relieved clogged freeways and surface streets. Since then widenings, extensions and adding HOV (High Occupance Vehicle) lanes has largely kept pace with population growth. There are a couple of areas in the metro region that are poorly served (eg Queen Creek but that is because it is outside Maricopa County in backward thinking Pinal County and the freeway extensions for an ADOT/Maricopa County JV). AZ also has peak hour only HOV lanes which allow all vehicle access outside those hours.
I work from home but regularly have business meetings (and reffing rugby games) all over the Valley so I get to see Valley traffic at various times of the day plus I fly regularly so I am able to judge freeway access to the airport (the 5th busiest in America). I had a regular monthly meeting that had me battling peak hour traffic. I live 35kms from the downtown area of Phoenix. In non peak hour it takes me about 22 minutes. In peak hour it takes me 35 mins max unless the 202 is blocked by a major accident. It is about the same distance from Auckland airport to my brother’s home on Oteha Valley Rd and it takes me 35-40mins non peak hour and 1hr 15mins in peak hour.
Another comparison. US 60 (Superstition Freeway) doubled its capacity from 3 to 6 lanes each way on a 15km stretch in the East Valley. That extension took just under 18 months to build. The North Shore bus lane and widening was about 10kms from memory and it took over 2 years. Americans know how to build multi lane highways quickly and for far less than NZ.
Driving around the Phoenix metro area rarely involves lengthy frustrating traffic delays even in peak hour. This is a high growth city but with difuse working corridors with only a small percentage of businesses based in the CBD (defined as the Central Ave/Camelback corridors). The State has spent billions on a light rail that was unneeded and has done little to relieve traffic congestion because the major remaining bottlenecks in the system were nowhere near where the light rail has gone in. Patronage is a fraction of what was predicted but the taxpayers are saddled with the cost.
It is possible to build a world class roading infrastructure that can manage growth and enable people do what they frankly prefer to do – and that is drive.
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 5:48 am
ben (1,365) Says:
“What amazes me is how such a bad idea can not only find supporters, but consensus.”
Be amazed no longer. Len Brown, Christine Fletcher …
Vote:November 30th, 2010 at 9:20 am
2 points to make
Vote:First is that roads effectively subsidise themselves through fuel tax – you build a road, people use it and pay for it with fuel tax. No need for tolls, and no need for extra subsidies not derived from fuel tax.
Second is really a question – some commenters have suggested it would be a good idea for more businesses to relocate to the Auckland CBD. Why? The traffic is already shit in the CBD, why make it worse? Wouldn’t a better result be that they locate to less crowded areas such as some of the new industrial parks on the outskirts of the city, where the traffic is far less and people can easily drive from their nearby suburbs?