Hide on Auckland Transport

April 28th, 2013 at 6:31 am by David Farrar

writes in the HoS:

My research led me to Wellingtonian , who spent months trying to get the analysis underpinning the 2010 Rail Business Case, succeeding only after a complaint to the Ombudsman.

Once Tony got hold of the analysis he found:

1. Basic spreadsheet errors. The spreadsheet fails to calculate the running costs of the second purchase of 26 trains. That ignores $689 million on the train option.

2. Incorrect exclusion of costs from the rail option. The study excludes the necessary funding to extend the Northern Busway into the city centre. Building this access is a necessary part of the rail option.

3. Addition of a second bus tunnel without explanation, adding hundreds of millions to the bus option.

4. Unreasonable assumptions, including a prediction that under the rail option, present bus capacity into the city centre will carry another 20,000 passengers a day without any new bus lanes or busways.

And people wonder why the Government won’t just hand over billions of dollars. I’m not sure what is worse – the massive errors in the analysis, but the fact they wouldn’t release them without the Ombudsman.

The overall impression is that the analysis was slanted to conclude trains over buses, despite the fact that buses may provide a better cheaper service.

The errors and poor assumptions total $1.5 billion. The bias is systematic; each and every mistake favours rail over buses. Correcting for the errors reverses the study’s conclusions and shows the CBD bus tunnel more cost-effective than the City Rail Link.

Tony Randle’s review is damning of ’s report. And it’s damning of the rail option. ’s response? Stony silence.

I’ve blogged on Tony’s work before. I am surprised no Councillor has followed it up. He makes available his detailed spreadsheets freely.

Last December, Auckland Transport released a second report. City Centre Future Access Study also concludes that the city rail link beats the two bus options considered, but now for different reasons to the first report. And, once again, Auckland Transport published the study without the underpinning analysis.

I followed Randle’s lead and requested the spreadsheets and the relevant model output reports. Auckland Transport has refused to supply them to me.

Its latest is a lawyer’s letter explaining that Auckland Transport will provide what I want but only if I pay them $3850.

Oh, and they won’t send me the spreadsheets.

Instead, they will send a printed output. That’s useless to me. It won’t allow me to check the very calculations that Randle showed were so devastatingly wrong in their first report.

I am left to conclude that Auckland Transport doesn’t trust its own analysis. So how can I trust it? And, more especially, how can you?

Very good questions. The spreadsheets should be provided free of charge to anyone asking. They already exist. There is no cost involved in e-mailing them out. The cost of $3,850 demanded is a rort.

Tags: , , ,

43 Responses to “Hide on Auckland Transport”

  1. Redbaiter (9,123 comments) says:

    IMHO, it is obvious that Auckland Transport are a corrupt and politicised front for rail activists. These partisans need to be cleaned out and replaced by people who will examine the options objectively.

    Kudos to Mr. Tony Randall for his heroic efforts to search out truth.

    BTW, there is a lot of that fake committee stuff going about these days. Where so called objective studies are in reality carried out by people who have a vested interest in the outcome. The whole purpose of such committees seems to be to fool the public.

    A practice that has to be stopped.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. freedom101 (505 comments) says:

    Totally agree with Rodney and DPF. This story has legs.

    In Wellington the percentage of the cost of the rail system that is met by fares has fallen from 70% to 50%, and it’s impossible to obtain detailed cost information. There are bus routes where large buses trundle around with perhaps one or two people in them, but you cannot obtain informaton on route viability.

    When asking for cost/benefit calculations you are left with the impression that the cost IS the benefit.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Simon (728 comments) says:

    Thought there was no corruption in NZ. This is prima facie fraud & corruption.

    Although with trains there is a crazed political element i.e peak oil & Len Brown’s desire to build his vision of utopia, plus the legions of unemployable highly paid scum bureaucrats there must be people on the make.

    People who are watching the crazy left & the jobsworths saying we can take these fools for tens of millions.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. peterwn (3,277 comments) says:

    Lefe wingers have been comparing the business cases for Auckland rail and the Warkworth – Wellsford SH1 highway of national importance (aka ‘Holiday Highway’). These allegedly showed a better business case for Auckland rail implying SH1 project should not succeed. I suspected at the time that the Auckland rail case took ‘optimistic’ assumptions whereas the SH1 one took ‘pessimistic’ assumptions (NZTA would have tested it for a range of scenarios).

    Gut instinct would indicate a ‘bus’ solution would be more economic than a ‘rail’ solution at least for initial years, since incremental improvements to roading for buses would enable the big slug of capital needed for rail to be deferred for some years, possibly several decades.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. dog_eat_dog (782 comments) says:

    Actually the trains for the North Shore are not even in the 30 year plan, hence why Rodney won’t find any costings for them. It pays to remind people of this who suggest that the Shore will get rail access out of the CBD tunnel.

    Frankly I don’t see why we don’t just build the tunnels but run buses down them instead. It gets all the buses off Albert Street and buses can actually go to places as opposed to rail, which can’t. Good luck telling people in Howick why they should fun a rail loop from their rates or petrol.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. PaulP (150 comments) says:

    At least buses, with decent bus lanes etc are flexible. A suburb changes or gets bigger, just alter the bus route – yes, in some cases they will require more bus lanes but they are cheaper than changing a rail line and in many cases it will be changing the pickup area through the suburbs rather than the arterial access way.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. campit (467 comments) says:

    The modelling is more than just a spreadsheet, so would be difficult to provide. Complex regional and operational models are used, as explained here

    As the linked article explains though, even these sophisticated models may have their flaws:

    So in summary we have a regional transport model that was last calibrated against 2006, feeding into a PT model last calibrated in 2001 that just assumes that anyone who can’t catch a bus because it is full will instead turn to driving on already congested roads. It is these issues that I think led the MoT to conclude that the modelling was likely overestimating the demand for private vehicle trips while underestimating demand for PT trips.

    So if anything demand for PT is underestimated.

    Also, the CCFAS study was done at the request of Steven Joyce in full consultation with the MOT in Wellington.

    The City Centre Future Access Study was originally conceived by Steven Joyce when he was the minister of transport as a way to explore the alternatives to the CRL, especially those involving buses. I think he was so adamant that once his officials, under fairly strict instructions, looked at the issues that they would be able to find holes in it. Unfortunately for him and the government it appeared that this strategy backfired as the study, on which the MoT was deeply involved ended up suggesting that the CRL was the best option to solving the access issues into the city centre. Along the way those involved ended up looking at 46 options before narrowing their scope down to the three best ones for more detailed study.

    The conclusion was that substituting buses instead of the CRL wouldn’t have anywhere near the benefits and the construction of an equivalent bus way into the CBD would be prohibitively expensive.

    The City Rail Link is about turning the current Britomart station dead end into a through station. Trips from the west will be significantly faster, for instance Morningside to the centre of town will be achievable in something like 10 minutes. On top of that the whole rail network benefits because train frequencies can double.

    There is more information here for those interested: http://transportblog.co.nz/city-rail-link/

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Reid (16,522 comments) says:

    Now if this precise same thing had been atempted by the Nats in say a hypothetical extension to say, SkyCity, the media would have been onto it big time, from day one. No appeals to the ombudsman neccessary. And the media would have been giving this massive airtime until there was no choice but simply to back down with reputations shattered and a huge scandal lingering for a long time in the publics mind. And all the media would congratulate themselves on a job well done, can’t have corruption, that’s precisely why I went to journalism school.

    But so how come here, when the media also have clear and present corruption, haven’t the media done a thing instead they’ve turned the blind eye?

    Because buses are smelly black belchers whereas trains are much more fwiendly in the emissions. So this is, if it happens, does it favour the cause? If so, don’t attack it, no matter what it is. The cause is sacred.

    And you see what this is here. The media selling their professionalism and ethics down the road and allowing corruption on a very expensive public project to be white-washed, just because these people have self-righteously decided that they know better than the country. It’s not a case of giving us the news and lettings us decide, it’s a case of what news are we permitted to be given?

    That’s shocking. I hope media watch does a story on this, I’d be real interested in hearing some of the people who are guitly of this defend themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. toms (299 comments) says:

    This hasn’t been followed up because it is complete rubbish. What is with ACT and it’s fellow travellers like DPF and bizarre conspiracy theories? Tony Randle’s arguments have been thoroughly debunked on the Auckland Transport Blog, see camp it’s link at 8.06am.

    For some unfathomable reason neo liberal loons like David and the ignorant Rodney Hide (ignorant because five minutes on http://transport log.co.nz would have debunked his entire column) insist in seeing the mundane business of urban transport as primarily a matter of ideology.

    Equally bizarre is why people from Wellington like Farrar and Randle think they can set themselves up as experts on Auckland’s transport issues. They should take their sticky beaks out of other peoples business.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. campit (467 comments) says:

    Tony Randle’s bus idea is given an informed airing here:

    http://transportblog.co.nz/2011/10/30/a-cbd-bus-tunnel/

    Ultimately a bus tunnel isn’t a sensible option because it puts more traffic onto our roads, particularly those arterials to the south of the tunnel, rather than the rail tunnel which eases pressure on the roads. A rail tunnel can unlock latent capacity throughout the entire network, enabling all that existing infrastructure to be used much more efficiently – rather than something which requires us to duplicate huge chunks of our rapid transit system.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. tvb (4,432 comments) says:

    Rail is a dead duck in this country. It always has been. For all the billions we have spent on rail we could have had a dedicated trucking route on the main reading network. People who like rail have a romantic attachment to a dud service.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Rodney Hide (62 comments) says:

    Campit

    That’s why I asked for the model output reports and the spreadsheets. That’s what I have been refused.

    I will accept the model outputs as inputs to the spreadsheet. I wasn’t intending checking the modelling.

    Auckland transport has said I can have the spreadsheets and reports as printed PDFs if I pay $3,850 but that, of course, is useless to checking the calculations. They can’t be identified in a printed PDF. Besides, printing them as a PDF is more expensive than emailing the spreadsheets.

    The errors that Tony found in the Auckland CBD Rail Link Business Case (2010) were errors able to be identified from the spreadsheet calculations.

    Correcting for the errors reverses the study’s conclusions. My article in today’s Herald on Sunday points out some of the more egregious errors.

    We simply don’t know about the City Centre Future Access Study (2012) because Auckland Transport are resolutely refusing to release the spreadsheets and model output reports.

    I have often had occasion to request spreadsheets and models from the Treasury. They have without exception bent over backwards to supply them and to explain any queries. They always seem genuinely pleased that someone has taken an interest!

    The response from Auckland Transport has been the exact opposite. My friend Wally Thomas is quoted in the news story accompnaying my column as saying they have bent over backwards to help. Poor fellow.

    He has had to bend over pretending to help. They have offered me briefings. But I don’t want a briefing. I want the spreadsheets and model output reports.

    These reports were prepared with public money to justify a public project that will cost ratepayers and taxpayers billions. The decision made based on these reports will shape how Aucklanders live and work forever.

    I think we can all figure out what is going on when Auckland Transport is refusing to release the requested material.

    Aucklanders are being sold a pup.

    Rodney Hide

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    I think we can all figure out what is going on when Auckland Transport is refusing to release the requested material.

    I am really not sure I like the argument ‘we know because we don’t know’ Rodney.

    Crystal gazing is pretty tricky.

    However, have to congratulate you on your journalism – you are becoming increasingly interesting & impressive in what you write.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. campit (467 comments) says:

    Rodney, I agree that Auckland Transport should give you the spreadsheets you are after. Auckland Transport have done a piss-poor job of explaining the benefits of the CRL, but your conclusion that Auckland is being sold a pup is premature without having seen the data.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. campit (467 comments) says:

    There is quite an extensive look at what the alternatives are to the CRL here:

    http://transportblog.co.nz/city-rail-link/alternatives-to-the-crl/

    The conclusion I’ve come to is why wouldn’t you want a transport system capable of delivering tens of thousands of people across Auckland at peak times, running on electricity? That’s what other major cities have around the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Thanks to campit for putting this in context. No conspiracy here folks, but Auckland Transport should make their information available.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Rodney Hide (62 comments) says:

    Campit

    Thank you for that. I figure there’s a reason I am not being given the spreadsheets and model output reports. The only reason I can think of is that they don’t add up! But you are right. I don’t know that. And equally you don’t know whether they do. That’s the problem we have.

    But we certainly both agree that it’s wrong for them to be refusing their release. It’s certainly suggestive that they have something to hide.

    Rodney Hide

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    Tony Randle criticising ‘in his view’ the 2010 Wellington Rail Business case can’t lead to the conclusions that Rodney Hide wishes to draw on the Auckland plans which haven’t been released to him.

    ‘And people wonder why the Government won’t just hand over billions of dollars. I’m not sure what is worse – the massive errors in the analysis, but the fact they wouldn’t release them without the Ombudsman.’

    I think Rodney is making out his case in this quote, defending the Government for not spending on Auckland Transport. The ‘massive’ errors Rodney talks (in the Wellington report) about surely reason a reply from those who compiled the report, additionally we all know there are various reasons why material isn’t released under the OIC, that it has an appeal process and sometimes material is released with deletions. Something else again which doesn’t necessarily lead to conclusions of:

    ‘I am left to conclude that Auckland Transport doesn’t trust its own analysis. So how can I trust it? And, more especially, how can you?’

    I don’t necessarily ‘trust it’ anyway, just as I’m sceptical about criticism by a defender of central government in the guise of implying that the report is being ‘hidden’ and that there can only be reasons for that consistent with defending the government’s non spending on Auckland transport.

    On the same subject, mostly people can believe what they see. In the case of rail, rising passenger numbers – a public switch to park and rides already putting ‘parking’ pressure on suburban stations possibly able to be better served with bus links is ‘seen.’ Things are working, what isn’t working is Aucklanders (including myself) relying on cars – and that’s ‘no’ conspiracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Redbaiter (9,123 comments) says:

    De-centralize Auckland.

    Problem solved.

    No need to have one main centralised working/ shopping areas these days.

    Auckland central needs to become just another suburban center.

    Labour forces need to be at localised suburban centers.

    No need for everyone to travel to central Auckland anymore.

    Modern communications systems make such events completely archaic.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. NK (1,244 comments) says:

    Nice work Rodney. Keep going.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. jawnbc (87 comments) says:

    Sounds very lame. But one over-arching principle of an public transport expansion should be off-grid expansion: solutions that alleviate existing road congestion. Both light rail and most versions of busways do this in the city proper–which will exacerbate, rather than assuage, congestion.

    I’m not onboard with the rail link proposal as it is, but the idea of getting something either under or above grid to move large numbers of people across and around central Auckland is the best long term tack.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    Rodney … You know how socialists work… Get other people’s money anyway you can. Lying is central to their ideology, arguably its the only thing that lets them believe in it. Without the sort of dishonesty we see in this report socialism itself would be consigned to the dustbin of failed social engineering experiments. They persist, pretend that forcing equalisation of incomes via redistribution works…

    Of course they want to trash the busses and build a lovely sparkly new train set… Don’t all kids who live in a fantasy world of make believe want to do that.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. flipper (4,084 comments) says:

    Thanks for all that work Rodney.

    Without wishing to move off topic, it does not take a rocket scientist to observe the similarities between the Akld rail/bus study, and the fraud that has been perpetrated on the world by the DAGW/CC cult.

    As Rupert Wyndham so bluntly and accurately put it to the President of The Royal Society just three weeks ago, all studies justifying the DAGW scam (the underground rail fraud is certainly worthy of SFO attention – at worst The Auditor General  ), suffer from the Auckland Transport syndrome, namely:

    • “[AT]decline to publish empirical evidence;
    • usually with insolence, [AT] refuse to offer their raw data, their algorithms and their methodology to the scrutiny of the scientific community at large;
    • [AT]manipulate and misrepresent the data they claim to possess;
    • [AT]refuse to validate or have validated their general circulation models, even though these are known to be flawed;
    • [AT]decline to engage in any form of debate which might expose them even to questioning, let alone to constructive criticism;
    • who, in substitution thereof, [AT] prefer instead to smear and defame any who challenge their dogmatic orthodoxy, with many amongst the dissenters being scientists of immense distinction, equal at least to your own, and often experts in disciplines far more directly relevant than yours to matters in hand.”

    I rest my case (and Rodney’s)! :) :) :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Viking2 (11,491 comments) says:

    Its really quite simple.
    Public money, public funding, public ammenities.
    Everything should be open to public scrutiny.

    If the facts are correct then the right conclusions will be made. Sometimes against the run of fact but for sensible reasons.
    And then all accounts should be public as well.

    Who pays, who is paid and how much.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    A bit off topic V2, but there is massive scope for improving the amount of information that is routinely made publicly available. I’d start with everyone’s tax returns.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. JC (958 comments) says:

    Looks like a familiar lefty answer here.. put in land restrictions that cramp the centre city, demand a rail answer, don’t get it, put in more restrictions and cramp the city till it hurts, demand rail and so on.

    What you get is gridlock, social breakdown and an ungovernable city. Thats not to mention the environmental pressure you are putting on an isthmus.. the city needs to go Southeast and get onto the hills and away from the ocean.

    JC

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. PaulL (5,987 comments) says:

    @Nostalgia-NZ: I think the criticism from Tony Randle was of the prior Auckland business case – at least that’s how I read

    The errors and poor assumptions total $1.5 billion. The bias is systematic; each and every mistake favours rail over buses. Correcting for the errors reverses the study’s conclusions and shows the CBD bus tunnel more cost-effective than the City Rail Link.

    @Campit, the problem that I have with rail is that it’s a great public transport strategy once the city changes the way they live and work to align. So where you have a city that’s expanded along a rail corridor, and where businesses have set up their head office near the rail hubs, then it’s brilliant. When you have a city where workplaces are spread all over the place and housing follows no particular corridor, then rail is quite inconvenient. You’re left running large trains at part capacity, and building expensive tracks and stations that don’t go where people want to go.

    It seems to me that buses are intuitively going to be more easily added to the existing network, and more easily able to go where people want to go. Incremental improvements like bus lanes on major arteries and even bus tunnels in key areas improve the efficiency of the whole network, whereas adding rail does nothing for the existing bus network – unless we’re proposing the rail network as the backbone and then buses the rest of the way home. My problem is that in Auckland that’s likely to mean a bus – train – bus transition for every journey – bus from home to the closest station, train to the station closest to work, bus to your actual work. Each change costs 10-15 mins, so this is now a very long journey.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. slijmbal (1,236 comments) says:

    Urban Rail – the most expensive way to move the smallest number of people between 2 fixed points. Not really sure why it’s that hard to understand.

    Let’s take a little trip down memory lane. North Shore City Council spent $100m (from memory) on our new bus lanes for the motorway.

    As the plans became clear it also became clear how stupid they were.

    The park and ride stations are near the motorways and require getting through the very same traffic jam as to get on to the motorway. You might as well carry on as you’ve suffered most of the delays already. They also don’t have a lot of parking so we have the mad situation of people going really early to the park and ride to get a car park. The could just carry on through the traffic jam less motorway as well.

    Either way there aren’t really any buses and we have multiple bus companies and cannot buy a ticket valid for all bus companies

    All of the above was pointed out PRIOR to the construction of the new bus lanes.

    I have no faith at all in any major public works relating to public transport until the whole process is made properly transparent.

    Shame really as buses are the real way to do public transport in a weirdly shaped place like Auckland.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. PaulL (5,987 comments) says:

    @Campit, reading at http://transportblog.co.nz/city-rail-link/alternatives-to-the-crl/, which I think I gather from above that you may have authored.

    I’m interested that the bus tunnel option is assumed to be 2 lanes in each direction, and needing fire exits. I’m wondering why this is needed for the bus tunnel, but not needed for the rail tunnel. Surely trains can also break down, and surely there can also be fires that require trains to be stopped, and people to exit? I’m worried that we’re holding a different standard for the bus tunnel than for the train tunnel. I think there’s an argument that you’re running 500 buses per hour and probably 50 trains per hour (so a train carries 10 times as many passengers), and that breakdowns are probably a function of the number of vehicles (so any given hour is 10 times as likely to have a breakdown with buses). But I would have thought this could be addressed by, worst case, 3 lanes, and best case, by pull-off bays every 100 metres or so (assuming a breaking down bus can coast for 100m). And I would have thought a bus tunnel needs much less infrastructure than a rail tunnel – i.e. no tracks for example.

    Having said that, I think I can see the vision here. I’ve been seeing a future where every trip is bus – rail – bus. Which kinda sucks. I think you’re seeing the CRL as meaning that a much greater proportion of journeys terminate with rail – so it’s bus – rail on the way to work, and rail – bus on the way home. And, arguably, if we did park and ride, or bike and ride, it could be bike – rail, or car – rail. I take your point that much of the infrastructure is in place – so we already have most of the rail line, we just need to extend it a bit. And then in future we could add extra rail lines to it. And I do agree that most of the great cities in the world have trains and then something else (buses, light rail etc).

    None of that really changes the question as to whether the business case stacks up, but I can at least see a sensible vision.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. swan (665 comments) says:

    Campit, toms, the auckland transport blog is hardly an independent party. Sure they often have good analysis, but they are also utterly staunch advocates of the CRL. Almost every other blogpost is supporting it directly or indirectly.

    The main issue I have with the CCFAS, which relates to its treatment of rail, is it did not look at road pricing as a demand management tool. And evidently (based on docs OIAed by the transport blog), this was for political not technical reasons. So make no mistake, the CCFAS is a political document. Is it so hard to believe? The CRL was the centerpiece of Lens campaign. And that can’t possibly have been based on much analysis – he wasn’t Mayor before the election, and not much work had been done on it. It is an unfortunate fact that “reports to order” are becoming very commonplace in NZ. Look at BERLs report for Labour on NZ power as an extreme example.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Akld Commercial Lawyer (165 comments) says:

    Good start to those involved in the exploration to find a few more facts than are currently being presented by the MSM (or anyone else for that matter).

    While you are at it, please flush out the details for the great AT ticketing system that is designed to deliver the ratepayers a 21st century ticketing system – but does not appearing to be doing that.

    As a leg up for those doing the spelunking, village gossip had it some years ago that there was another study delivered in the dying days of the old Auckland Council by a well done consultancy – that concludes that the train set is thrashed (hands down) on every measure going – by buses. This may be a very unreliable view, as it is very much 3rd hand, but the rumours included (i) the study even concluded that this was the case in the straight lines south and west served by rail; (ii) the report was only a draft and wasn’t finalised. A cynical view was it was not completed when the trends became evident.

    Keep digging – my personal view is that public transport is a necessary thing but the shape of Auckland (bounded by two harbours etc) is the handicap to the current mayor’s trainset dream. And no amount of social engineering to compel people to live in ‘terrace housing’ around transport hubs is going to change people’s mind about that. Anyone arguing that is the shape of the future should be made to visit the eyesores at Mt Wellington and (spectacularly) Browns Bay and asked if they want to live like that.

    Oh yes, the park and rides do kind of work, but users need to get to the parking at the crack of dawn as they are ridiculously small. But when you hear the daily litany of traffic holdups – those travelling down the busway must smirk.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Ross12 (1,432 comments) says:

    Redbaiter @ 9.18 . You are absolutely right. Auckland or any other city does not need a CBD anymore. But I’d go further than you Redbaiter and say Auckland’s transport and housing issues will only be solved long term when business moves out of Auckland into the provincial cities.

    Toms –thanks, you have just given the rest of us a reason for central Govt. not to financially support Auckland’s transport issues in any way. If you want us all to “butt out” that’s fine by me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Rightandleft (663 comments) says:

    Trains are ridiculously expensive for very little return. I keep coming back to my experience in Washington DC. There just this kind of ‘smart growth’ was pursued and a large subway network built. People did use it, but it still operated at a loss and the roads remained massively jammed as well. In fact more than 4 out of 5 commuters continued to get to work in their car, driving alone. I don’t have a problem with the intensification plans, but I think bus is a better way to go over trains and I think our motorways need to be widened.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Colville (2,272 comments) says:

    Land supply is a large part of the answer.

    Do NOT make any more available in Auckland. Subsidise companies who want to go elsewhere. Auckland is a narrow strip of humanity with bottle necks that are vasty expensive to “fix” It is a place that is never going to be easy to move around in.

    Oh and tolls are a good way to deal with costs. Double tolls for one person in a car. Jaffas are rich, they can afford it.

    Disclaimer; I own a large tract of industrial land beside the main trunk rail somewhat South of Dorkland. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. exile (34 comments) says:

    @Redbaiter What centres within Auckland should be expanded to provide this decentralisation? New Lynn? Henderson? Ellerslie-Penrose?, Manukau City-Wiri? Onehunga-Southdown? What about new development south at Drury? or West at Kumeu?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    somewhat South of Dorkland

    And I imagine a large industrial centre will be built at Ohakune one of these days Colville. Good luck with the investment

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    long term when business moves out of Auckland into the provincial cities.

    Yep just like New York alleviated its traffic issues by large numbers of multi nationals moving to Casper Wyoming.!!!!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    De-centralising has been happening for years, particularly with industry but no so much the corporates – it seems Auckland central is where they must be and draw in and expel an enormous transient population 5 days a week. Add to that Aucklanders and their cars, kids being taken to and from school and a lot of pressure is generated by the public itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Colville (2,272 comments) says:

    I imagine a large industrial centre will be built at Ohakune

    Its been there for about 40 years, the Tiong’s own it all now I think. But na…”kune is too small for my needs, other than pig hunting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Ross12 (1,432 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay — the point Redbaiter and I was making can be illustrated with Fonterra recently announcing it will have a new HO building in the CBD. Why do they need to be there and not on the North Shore , for example or even down in Hamilton ?
    All a HO in the CBD does is cause transport head aches for most of their staff but probably satisfies the egos of a few top executives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. OTGO (557 comments) says:

    The future is roads. Always was and always will be. The roads of the future will be very different to the roads of today. You can already see the beginnings of future technology in late model Euro vehicles such as no operator parking, HUD’s, auto braking sensors etc. Have a look at this http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130405-radical-roads-drive-robot-cars
    Hell even dogs have shunned public transport in NZ and can now drive cars…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. valeriusterminus (243 comments) says:

    Scrutiny may reveal many more Reinhart-Rogoff moments.
    The few days a week that I need to commute from Eastern North Shore to the CBD are uneventful. Car to destination – or bus to destination via the busway yields no pain.
    Thankfully modern communications renders this need to commute even less important. The decentralisation of commerce to suburban business hubs – Albany, Ellerslie etc – where even major corporates choose to locate (MRP, Genesis, Yellow..) endorse this trend.
    Taking people to the jobs in the CBD is “old school” – does not need to be exceptionally catered for – declining rail, bus and motorway statistics are validation.
    Tolling and CBD congestion charges will provide impetus to the CBD decline.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. NK (1,244 comments) says:

    Why do people travel to work now at all? Technology advances mean most people could work from home for a large part of the week. Why are employers insisting leasing massive office space at huge cost? It’s ridiculous.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote