tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post7633337974927889705..comments2024-01-14T06:16:50.475+13:00Comments on Cities Matter: Rethink the Link - Does Auckland really need to pour money into a hole in the ground?Phil McDermotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06869744647213369964noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-50450968022625462422012-01-03T14:48:01.343+13:002012-01-03T14:48:01.343+13:00Patrick: Congestion charging:
I would say the bes...Patrick: Congestion charging:<br /><br />I would say the best system (and there are different ways of doing this) would be to RF chip all cars, give everyone an account, and put an RF reader for where ever you want an electronic gate. Send the information on usage across the wireless internet (not expensive - it's just texts). The system can 'gate' any on-off point for peanuts. And yes time codes should be employed so people can see real costs at any given time from the internet. Administration can be almost totally automated.<br />You can also use the same system for parking charging. <br /><br />There is no fundamental reason why road pricing needs to be expensive. <br /><br />Note: I personally prefer only tolling enough to control demand, to ensure the roads are not under-utilized in the off-peaks. Poor people should love it because it means faster and cheaper buses, and cheaper shopping from reduced freight costs. And also a stronger economy which supports better wages.Andrew D Atkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-85866279824616356592012-01-03T13:46:39.713+13:002012-01-03T13:46:39.713+13:00Oooops, apologies, number above for Perth is '...Oooops, apologies, number above for Perth is 'only' 60 million and from the 1990s, it was Vancouver that went from 10 million in the late 80s to 120 million in 2010Patrick Rnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-26190241325661373262012-01-03T13:37:11.193+13:002012-01-03T13:37:11.193+13:00While i wait for summer to arrive it might also be...While i wait for summer to arrive it might also be good to ask how your congestion charging might work in AK? I'm all for it- in theory. In practice the two poster children for it worldwide are London and Singapore. Both cities with two vital things that Auckland lacks; efficient, mature, fast and reliable transit networks; and strong primary centres. Until we actually have a functioning alternative to driving I can't see road pricing working in Auckland. Perhaps by strongly link the income from the former to construction of the latter you might get buy-in, but also strong opposition from the road lobby....?<br /><br />So how would it work? By say pricing motorway use all you will achieve is flooding the local road network with avoiders, which incidentally will further clog up your bus/shuttle based transit system as well as make for an underused resource in NZTA's hands and over stressed local roads belonging to ratepayers. Or do you imagine some GPS time based system to price time periods to achieve load spreading, is that it?.... every car to be hooked up to a satellite. I don't know enough about the costs here but I am wary of road pricing methods including tolling as they always seem to absorb almost all their revenue in the mechanisms of capture and admin, and are therefore hard to argue for against the efficiencies of petrol tax. And it would be great to have the revenue to invest in a transit system but it's all a bit chicken and egg.... we do need that transit alternative first before we price people off the only viable, if expensive, system currently functioning... <br /><br />And remember all forms of road pricing are regressive, ie they hit the poorer disproportionately, the very people already suffering from unaffordable transport costs especially by being forced out to underconnected distant suburbs. Transport poverty cannot be separated from housing unaffordability.Patrick Rnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-41673700483630761122012-01-03T13:09:11.006+13:002012-01-03T13:09:11.006+13:00It is your opinion that integrated ticketing will ...It is your opinion that integrated ticketing will help 'just a little'. Let's look at Perth then, from the late 1980s they electrified and extended the rail network, built a connecting underground link in the higher density inner city, created a zone system with integrated ticketing and built suburban and ex-urban stations as integrated bus transfers. Result? patronage up from the 10 million rides p/a [where AK is now at] to over 120 million. Allowing a great walkable city centre, fast and frequent connections between other centres, and great suburban and semi-rural but viable lifestyles for those that prefer them. If we are to follow this same route [and we are starting to and trying to] and do it well, there is every reason to expect that Auckland can have these improvements too. And it is all founded on transferring, something actively discouraged by both the fare system and the physical and routing systems currently in Auckland.<br /><br />http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-19/overcrowded-trains-in-perth/3578556<br /><br />Of course this still requires buses, and even shuttles, and they could be hybrid, or fuel cell, or whatever, but these are only part of the answer as is the rail backbone. Again it is the ROW and the completeness of the network that matters.Patrick Rnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-56013899363946684752012-01-03T10:00:26.090+13:002012-01-03T10:00:26.090+13:00Patrick:
Perspective. Even if it cost $50,000 of...Patrick: <br /><br />Perspective. Even if it cost $50,000 of 'techno' for each automated shuttle-bus (and this was just an example), it would pay for itself in maybe less than 6 months. A shuttle bus can achieve much greater productivity per-seat than a train because it's quick (or can be if we employ proper demand management on roads), and you don't send the entire fleet out to the end of the trip like you have to with all the train cars - only 1 or 2 shuttles go to the trip end, the rest can stay nearer the center more closely matching real demand. So you get faster average turn-around per seat, and therefore more productivity and efficiency. As catchment is much greater you can achieve higher patronage per shuttle-bus, so it's a lot more efficient on that level too.<br /><br />They're not available yet (though the components can be bought off the shelf today), but if you're thinking in decades long time-lines for investment, then you have to think realistically in terms of where technology is moving and what it mean. And that goes for the Chinese too. <br /><br />It's not about tech fix, it's about saving money and improving service. Automation can and will radically modify the optimum form for public transport in that it can dissolve into a structure of many small vehicles, rather than a few big ones. And this provides for a vastly better service match for a city like Auckland in particular. Auckland transport demand is overwhelmingly not line-haul, it's everywhere to everywhere.Andrew D Atkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-75579931526651283602012-01-03T02:11:34.011+13:002012-01-03T02:11:34.011+13:00All good, but your bias is showing again. The tech...All good, but your bias is showing again. The technologies you mention will be no cheaper, in fact certainly more expensive, than the proven and already extensively in place, dazzling technology of electric rail. If we had no rail corridor, and in fact no preexisting city, and were starting from scratch, and if these things were ready to buy off the shelf, they may well be a good choice. Meanwhile down on planet earth... Now the Chinese are neither technophobes, nor fools, nor much bothered by nostalgia yet they are choosing again and again to build electric rail in their cities large and small, many cities of around 1 million people. Have a read below. Oh, and Paris is now full of driverless trains, so you could still get your new tech fix.<br /><br />http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/usa/weekly/2011-12/30/content_14354880.htmPatrick Rnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-14648782916173722912012-01-02T18:53:44.463+13:002012-01-02T18:53:44.463+13:00Patrick: Integrated ticketing will help with trans...Patrick: Integrated ticketing will help with transfer inconvenience - but just a little. I've already essentially responded to your points in the last post, so I will just recommend you check out Google's progress with its driverless cars. This is where technology is going - and very quickly.<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp9KBrH8H04<br /><br />Imagine an automated bus reduced to a few shuttle-bus instead (no driver so that's fine), operating as a series-type hybrid on congestion-charged roads. And possibly using direct electrification via induction on the main roads. This will be vastly more efficient than rail or buses today, and with hugely greater demand catchment. <br /><br />We have better options.Andrew D Atkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-81507065698555791352012-01-01T21:50:27.742+13:002012-01-01T21:50:27.742+13:00Ah Andrew, like the post above so many assumption,...Ah Andrew, like the post above so many assumption, 1. Rail does not need park and ride to expand its catchment; it needs integrated ticketing [to remove the transfer penalty] and coordination with feeder buses. Both coming. And happy news; this means the number half empty fume belching buses trundling inefficiently and slowly all the way to the city can be greatly reduced, and out of the way of other road users. 2. Rail does have a lower Opex than a bus fleet, especially electric rail, [also coming] the two big operating costs are humans and diesel. One driver; 360 passengers, electricity way cheaper than diesel. Not to mention all the externalities; noise, fumes, carbon taxes, future oil shocks.... I do not underestimate technology, and I know a good one when I see one. And if you're interested in powering transport electrically it is very inefficient to be dragging heavy batteries around compared to using an external supply.<br /><br />You think Auckland is uniquely polycentric? Really?, no, it's just that the rail network needs joining up and liberating from its termination at Britomart.Patrick Rnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-53252299867075087122012-01-01T10:19:36.801+13:002012-01-01T10:19:36.801+13:00Patrick: I'm a huge advocate for congestion ch...Patrick: I'm a huge advocate for congestion charging for demand management, to clean up road-based transport. I predicted Auckland council won't be though because they want roads sick to help "justify" rail (they've basically got train-sets tattooed across their chests, so they can't and won't see reason now).<br /><br />Rail is not more efficient than buses. And buses can operate in express mode, without too much stop-and-go, and on roads protected from severe congestion (if we wish). For rail to have significant catchment it must allow for park-and-ride and be supported by buses. The truth is rail, on the whole, is grossly unworkable compared to buses in a polycentric city like Auckland.<br /><br />Please don't underestimate technology. Soon enough we will have platooning cars and buses - it's simple stuff, and it's being developed now. There's your capacity issue gone.Andrew D Atkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-44832610712496930102011-12-31T14:40:12.666+13:002011-12-31T14:40:12.666+13:00Andrew you make the classic mistake of focusing on...Andrew you make the classic mistake of focusing on the technology instead of the Right Of Way. What makes for effective PT at the city wide level is the degree of grade separation of the vehicle not whether it has rubber tyres or steel tyres. This is why the Northern Busway is counted as part of the RTN network along with rail [still regrettable that the busway losses its ROW on the bridge, but this can be fixed]. <br /><br />And in order for PT to work in Auckland what is need is effective extension of the RTN network, that is real grade separate ROW for transit. In some parts this will be best achieved with busways eg AMETI, the Northwestern motorway, and in other areas completing the impressively growing rail network is best, The CRL, the Airport line, and even the SE and the Shore [regardless of Phil's assumptions]. Fact: Real ROW is no cheaper to build for buses than trains but much more expensive to run.<br /><br />Yes electric drive is vital too, but will not improve anything if that bus is just as stuck in traffic with every other vehicle.Patrick Rnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-41259869908997643692011-12-30T13:28:16.073+13:002011-12-30T13:28:16.073+13:00Dan: A hybrid bus can be tailored as you want it. ...Dan: A hybrid bus can be tailored as you want it. You can have a quiet, small diesel generator running near constantly with the batteries providing peak-power needs for acceleration, greatly reducing noise (I think buses like this already exist?). You wont need too much battery capacity for an installation like this.<br /><br />Gridlock: Use congestion-charging for demand control and get some pricing rationality into transport. Then buses, car-pooling, telecommuting, shuttle-buses etc can naturally pick up the difference.Andrew D Atkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-91487332087958597182011-12-29T11:14:20.381+13:002011-12-29T11:14:20.381+13:00Tram travel didn't decline because the economi...Tram travel didn't decline because the economics deteriorated as the city grew. Tram travel declined because the tracks got ripped up to make way for more cars.<br /><br />The leaders of the day made a visionary gamble on the private motorcar, and it worked for a while. <br /><br />Unfortunately they didn't foresee the incredible grow of car ownership and numbers of single occupancy vehicles causing peak hour gridlock that can only be alleviated by never ending motorway construction destroying the integrity of many neighborhoods. <br /><br />I am pretty confident sinking 10s of billions of money we don't have on never ending motorway construction, locking us into the automobile as the only travel option, at a time of ever more expensive petrol and flat traffic volumes, is not wise spending.<br /><br />For sure the car will exist as the primary transport for a long long time, but in our major cities we need to invest wisely for the future, in ways that give us the most bang for the buck, not invest in past trends.dan carternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-2320037088856142182011-12-29T09:19:59.826+13:002011-12-29T09:19:59.826+13:00Back to the future, Dan? Light rail (trams) funct...Back to the future, Dan? Light rail (trams) functioned particularly well on Auckland's radial road system through to the 1950s, delivering commuters to the residential interstices (we called them suburbs back then, not sprawl). But as settlement intensified around the the Great South Road and began to extend north after the Harbour Bridge was built, it became more efficient to use motorways and private vehicles and buses for medium-haul transit and the economics of tram (and train) travel declined. <br />But relativities change, and it may become more efficient to reinstitute light rail some time in the future. <br />Who knows? I don't, but I am pretty confident that sinking money we don't have to lock us into a heavy rail, line haul system of limited flexibility, limited reach, and finite capacity will constrain future options.Phil McDermotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06869744647213369964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-65827155389289164622011-12-29T08:22:54.186+13:002011-12-29T08:22:54.186+13:00How much is it going to cost for the batteries sto...How much is it going to cost for the batteries store enough power to get the busses into and back out of the city? <br /><br />Most hybrid systems just recover braking energy to assist the petrol engine and thus reduce fuel consumption a few percent. They can only run on pure electric for a few minutes. The batteries to support pure electric drive for an extended period will put the cost through the roof, as well as the weight giving worse fuel consumption/emmissions when running on diesel.<br /><br />You're better off putting in overhead wires and running trolley busses like they do in Wellington. But then you may as well put rails underneath the overhead wires and get the lower running costs of rail.dan carternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-11020581368458771962011-12-26T18:50:19.434+13:002011-12-26T18:50:19.434+13:00Just some thoughts:
I think some of the appeal th...Just some thoughts:<br /><br />I think some of the appeal that people have for rail systems going into the CBD is that you (supposedly) get lots of people in the CBD but not their traffic. I can understand the appeal of this, but of course you can get the same effect from buses, and obviously to a far greater degree due to their hugely greater demand-catchment potential compared to rail.<br /><br />But you hate those diesel engines screaming away at every stop? Ask for series-electric hybrid buses and make the rule that they must operate in electric-only operation mode within the CBD. It also makes tunneling for bus ways (if you must) cheaper because electric operation only allows you to reduce tunnel ventilation requirements.<br /><br />But you want the buses to be carbon neutral? Well rather than building an electric rail line why not employ induction power for buses (and other)? And why not just make it a congestion charged road -rather than a bus way as such- so its surplus capacity doesn't have to go to waste?<br /><br />http://www.haloipt.com/#n_home-introAndrew D Atkinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04492591375757227409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-78894830861806320732011-12-23T14:32:48.882+13:002011-12-23T14:32:48.882+13:00Thanks, Patrick for your response. You have made ...Thanks, Patrick for your response. You have made a number of presumptions about my knowledge of networks and how they operate which I guess call for a response. <br />Despite your reference to how dense networks facilitate cross-regional travel the proposed investment in rail will not create one by any stretch of the imagination, even if it is an improvement on what we have now. This is a simple matter of geography. <br />The for the CRL rests on pumping up demand through creating TODs on a new inner rail loop (K Road, Newton, Aotea) and at short haul localities (New Lynn, Panmure), and on substantial growth in CBD employment and housing. If these things don’t happen at the scale assumed in the “Business Case” then the case for the CRL falls over. The high risk this investment represents needs a much stronger justification than offered so far.<br />Why do you consider the suburbs "privileged" when you acknowledge the interdependence of the different parts of the city. Without prosperous suburbs we will not have a prosperous CBD. Hence my concern for how suburbs might best be served. Ideally, the council would move to quickly release additional employment land close to where people live. This would do a lot to cut down cross-regional travel. <br />The success of rail depends on preserving and promoting an outmoded and increasingly costly land use pattern. It also depends on extensive park and ride facilities – so we will be parking more cars in and around the stations – something that creates its own problems, especially around TODs. And we will need buses serving stations to achieve the sort of integration needed to push up rail demand (this assumes no consumer resistance). <br />Investment in buses as demand dictates makes economic sense given the network is in place. The trade off between capital costs and operating costs is an inter-generational issue. It enables offloading some risk to the private sector. It leaves us well placed to respond changes in circumstance – supply innovation and changing demand. <br />Sure, we can introduce bus lanes, or simply bus priority systems on the network. We can (and do already) penetrate the residential market utilising the radial network on the Isthmus. We can use the arterial network (mainly motorways) beyond the Isthmus. Bus feeder stations can operate between suburban centres at a scale that limits local disruption and accesses far more households and serves more destinations than rail system.<br />But this is not a bus versus rail issue. It’s about understanding region-wide demand for public transport. It means thinking constructively and openly about how transport demand and technology might evolve and about alternative land uses, alternative economic outcomes, and changing behaviour. It means devising public transport that enables us to respond to need without creating a fiscal millstone. And it’s also about the responsibilities of democratic governance and decision making: public transport should address the diverse needs of the transport disadvantaged and not just the army of white collar workers who dwell mainly on the Isthmus or the lower North Shore.Phil McDermotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06869744647213369964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-31775448564401806262011-12-23T09:15:47.021+13:002011-12-23T09:15:47.021+13:00The post above also rest on another common but wea...The post above also rest on another common but weak assumption. A simple, but unexamined, opposition between buses and rail is declared, suggesting that by really not spending anything much at all Auckland can be just as connected by adding a couple more buses to our existing road network. Strangely this argument is commonly heard from drivers, or those who think that the auto-dependency of AK is just fine except when they are stuck in congestion. I have never understood why drivers don't want to personally thank every train user in Auckland, and pray for improvement of the network so more reluctant drivers are off the road and out of their way. If the AA for example really cared for the quality of the driving experience in AK they would be cheering for the CRL and every other upgrade. Even NZTA prices the saving TO MOTORISTS of every individual peak rail passenger in AK at $17.42. Yet the idea of more buses, or wobbly nanas, or undergrads in clapped out and breaking down wreaks on the roads will be good for them is hard to accept. <br /><br />To provide the capacity that the CRL can with any sort road travel, including buses, will completely freeze Auckland's streets. So perhaps the writer is thinking of building a whole lot of new grade separate busways then, like the Northern Busway? These could provide capacity and speed approaching that of the CRL, but at no lower Capex, considerably higher Opex, and where, exactly would you build these things, and then where do you plan to park the buses?<br />The city itself is already oversaturated with buses, degrading the quality of street life and, ultimately its economic viability.<br /><br />But then it looks like this kind of over simplistic opposition to the CRL is really based on a devaluing of the whole idea of the city as an urban place at all, a privileging of the suburbs as the ideal. Well be careful, if you want a city with no heart, only the extremities, it won’t be a viable one. You don’t have to like the city centre [So hard to park! Malls are so comfortingly familiar] but the success of the autodependent fringes requires a successful centre And in fact it is vital for the whole nation because, as Havard economist Ed Glaseser observed: ‘There is a near-perfect correlation between urbanisation and prosperity among nations.’ <br /><br />And the CRL is the perfect way to both liberate the heart of AK from traffic saturation [including buses] and to efficiently unlock a region wide network already largely there to compliment the road [and fossil fuel] one we already have. We can’t afford not to build it.Patrick Rnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-29550920880707337872011-12-23T09:15:06.950+13:002011-12-23T09:15:06.950+13:00This is a very poor analysis based on a common but...This is a very poor analysis based on a common but very basic misunderstanding of networks. The entire argument rests on the assumption that the sole purpose and benefit of the CRL is to the CBD. Whereas in fact its primary function is to unlock the value in the whole rail RTN by liberating it from its current single focus on Britomart. Britomart operates as a terminus, like an inter-city station, the CRL will turn it into a Metro style station, an intra-city station. Into 'a' destination not the destination. The CRL will make using rail, by then fast, frequent, and clean electric rail, the quickest way to travel from say, Henderson to Glen Innes, or New Lynn to Manukau. The CRL is about the entire network and about unlocking the capacity in this ROW that has for so long been underutilised. <br /><br />Of course trips to and from the CBD will still be the backbone of the network as they provide the volumes of riders that enable a frequency of service that makes the network increasingly attractive, but the key to a real network is that it doesn't proscribe particular journeys but rather offers sufficient coverage to suit many users. The current rail network doesn't, and nor is it yet well integrated with the bus network. Changing these two things will transform Auckland by complimenting the already mature private vehicle infrastructure, and in fact enable it to function much better.<br /><br />So in fact the CRL will perform the very task that the post above starts by assuming it won't.Patrick Rnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-55406057431925369982011-12-16T23:15:31.465+13:002011-12-16T23:15:31.465+13:00I also agree with the points you raised and that t...I also agree with the points you raised and that the CBD Rail Link is probably not going to make much difference and is not likely to be a good use of $2 Billion.<br /><br />I would also draw your attention to <a href="http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/tag/tony_randle_auckland_council" rel="nofollow"> my own analysis </a> of the CBD Rail Link Business Case. This shows that, based on the their own costing figures, if Auckland needs rapid transit through the CBD, a bus tunnel and Bus Rapid Transit would actually cost less and deliver better performance than the propsoed rail tunnel.Tony Randlehttp://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/tag/tony_randle_auckland_councilnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7011655232093163642.post-34139733463942881162011-12-16T19:39:02.100+13:002011-12-16T19:39:02.100+13:00"....55,000-70,000 additional jobs proposed f..."....55,000-70,000 additional jobs proposed for the CBD...."<br /><br />Not to mention the additional "housing" (apartments etc) that Len Brown and Co wish for.<br /><br />The whole problem with this sort of "planning", is that when the shift of urban gravity is towards the fringes, the price of land tends to be getting diluted in a downwards direction. but try and reverse that, and what happens? It doesn't matter whether the demand is "natural" or coerced, there will be a far stronger effect on price increases (capital gains for central property owners) than there ever will be in terms of increases in numbers of people. <br /><br />Either Len Brown and Co are economically illiterate (likely) or they are in bed with the property owners who stand to gain from this. <br /><br />patrick Troy wrote the following in his 1996 book, "The Perils of Urban Consolidation", which book SHOULD have been the last word in this debate:<br /><br />"....At its heart the effect of the policy of consolidation is to defend and further entrench central city interests. It fails to recognise the multi-centred functioning of the existing cities. The policy relies on the alleged benefits of a highly centralised fixed rail public transport system without acknowledging to whom the benefits accrue at whose cost......"<br /><br />- PhilAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com