After a marathon three flights (New York to LA, LA to Sydney and Sydney to Auckland), we finally made it back to the country this afternoon. I’m obviously pretty exhausted still, and it’ll be a while until I can complete both a full rundown of my thoughts on the holiday – and in particular what lessons I think would be useful for Auckland to learn from the public transport systems of the various cities I visited – as well as a bit of a catch up on what’s happened, and is still happening in the world of transport in Auckland.
For now, here’s a photo of a Washington DC Metro train:
The DC Metro is, for some reason, very photogenic.
Processing...
Welcome home Josh, looking forward to your thoughts 🙂
Hope you had a great trip..!
You took a photo in the DC subway system??? Remeber, you can run, but you can’t hide from the Feds. After all, only bad guys would want to take photos 🙂
There are no laws against taking photos in the Washington subway system:
“Washington, D.C. WMATA
WMATA’s Media Relations Office writes Permits are not required. Tourists come in and take photos all the time. Snapshots are fine with us. No tripods. No exceptions. It relates to insurance issues. If someone trips on your tripod, we don’t want them to sue us, so no tripods. The other thing: stay away from the platform edge for your own safety. We don’t want anyone falling in and getting hurt–or worse. A document describing the policy is located here (pdf).. The exact wording: Still photography that does not require a tripod, special lighting, film crews, models, impair the normal ingress/egress, or operation of Authority services, and can be accomplished by a hand-held camera by one person is not regulated. (Subpart D, Section 100.8.2, Allowable Activities – Filming and Photography.)”
http://www.nycsubway.org/faq/photopermits.html
Nice shot!
Welcome back Josh, hope you enjoyed yourself. Are you back to work today or do you have a few more days off?
Here’s a read for you. The politics around the possibilty of Very High Speed Trains on Australia’s east coast over on the [excellent] Oil Drum site:
http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/6992#more
The linked article talks about 3-4 hour journeys between Sydney and both Melbourne and Brisbane. That doesn’t sound very attractive when compared to a 1 hour flight and means that business travelers will continue to fly. The price-sensitive backpacker population will continue to take the Greyhound. They’re recognised that this is only viable if it “Provides accessible fast, reliable, ecologically sustainable transport for the 75% of Australia’s population that live on or near the east coast”, but haven’t recognised that a service that stops often enough to include 75% of Australia’s population in its catchment will no longer be high speed.
I don’t see it happening. The distances between major centers in Australia pretty much rule it out.
Obi, think about the difference between catching a flight and catching the train. For CBD to CBD travel, which most business travel is, add perhaps an hour of travel to the airport at both ends. Then add an hour or two of waiting for check-in and we’re already at the same time of the train trip – without even considering actual flying time!
Having done many many flights recently, add in the utter annoyance and inconvenience of airports to the list, plus the discomfort of flying compared to catching the train – which usually has more leg-space, continuous WiFi and so forth.
I hate airports too. But I suspect most Sydney to Melbourne passengers will be traveling for business, which means 30 minute check in, self check in, and only hand baggage. I’d probably want to leave 30 minutes spare before a rail trip of that length as well, just to make sure I didn’t miss it. In Sydney, Airport is only a handful of stops further down the line from Central Station, so the extra travel time isn’t great. Especially if you’re coming in from North Sydney or the burbs. I’ve never had much of a delay getting out to Tullamarine… possibly because I get an early flight. But then Southern Cross isn’t exactly central either. The train will eliminate some overhead, but I don’t think it will be enough to offset the extra travel time.
737/A320 size aircraft hold about 100 passengers and so flights between Sydney, Melbs, and Brisbane are frequent. A bit like between Auckland and Wellington. Will high speed trains be similarly small and frequent? I have trouble imagining a single carriage high speed train… it wouldn’t feel proportionate and it’d also be bloody expensive.
Actually 737/A320 size aircraft hold about 133 to 170 passengers.
Not to mention the fact that Qantas mostly fly 767-300s (269 seats) on the route at peak to handle the demand.
Very true, they have the population size required in Sydney and Melbourne but the distance and the terrain will make such a line unfeasible for the time being…
I think the line is perfectly feasible, the terrain is not an issue as the route runs along the flat land at the base of the alps. Distance wise it is pretty good, for example the route length of 850km from Sydney to Melbourne is in the sweet spot for competing with airlines. The newest HSR lines in China average 296km/h, including stops. At this speed Sydney to Melbourne would take a mere 2h50m.
And yeah Obi, you’d be lucky as hell to get from the Melbourne CBD to the airport in an hour, let alone through the check in and into the air.
The issue about frequent stopping doesn’t really apply. For a start the provision model is similar to airports, so the train would not stop at every two bit town along the way but the larger cities and towns would act as hubs. From what I remember reading the report on this they assumed that each HSR station would have a catchemnt up to 200km in diameter in rural areas. Furthermore Australia is a highly urbanised nation. Of the 75% of the Australian population that live on the east coast, three-quarters of them live in one of six main centres (Brisbane, Gold Coast, Newcastle, Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne).
One of the key things in support of this line is the fact that Sydney airport is congested and they are talking about building a second airport for four to six billion dollars, plus several billion on transport links to it. However almost two thirds of all Sydney air traffic goes to Melbourne, Canberra or Brisbane. Build the line and the need for a second Sydney airport dissappears.
Just to update, I found a source citing the full cost of all aspects of a second Sydney airport as $15 billion in total. Thats almost the cost of the HSR line right there!
High speed rail thrives in places like northern Europe. Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, London, and the Ruhr are all only a few hundred kilometers apart and there must be upwards of 50 million people living in the immediate area of those cities. By contrast, Sydney to Melbourne is about the same distance as London to Berlin with almost nothing in between that is worth stopping at. ‘Cept Canberra which is sort of off to one side, easy to get to from Sydney, but hard to include on a Sydney to Melbourne through route.
The British are still debating whether a high speed route from London to Birmingham, Manchester/Liverpool, and Glasgow/Edinburgh is viable. That must be half the Sydney to Melbourne distance and has a catchment of about 40 million people.
TGV Sud-Est (Paris to marseille) is about the same as Melbourne or Brisbane to Sydney, and the new gunzhou to Wuhan line is 200km further (about 1000km in total) Both of these are very successful HSR lines.
The proposed line does include main stops at golburn, canberra and albury/wodonga (not sure why you think Canberra is hard?).
The fact that the Uk is lagging so far behind the rest of europe is no reason for Australia to lag too, although in the case of the Uk it probably has a lot to do with the fact they already have 200+ kmh conventional rail between their main centres.
Overall there is the population to support such a line, because at either end there are cities each with more people living in them than all of New Zealand, plus another million or so across the middle. The fact that Sydney to Melbourne is the third busiest air route in the world indicates there is sufficient demand.
Nick… Paris to Marseille has Lyon as an intermediate destination which is a city of 1.7 million people. Even then, it took 20 years from the opening of their first HS line to make it as far as Marseille. It wasn’t a priority, which suggests it was only marginally viable. Also the French build grand projects for matters of national prestige. And the Chinese? There are over a billion of them and they’re developing rapidly. I’m not convinced that either are a good model for the Aussies.
Canberra is hard because of the hilly areas to the SW of the city that are designated as national park. That’s why main roads enter Canberra from the north and south but not from the direction of Melbourne. You say that Albury Wodonga is on the postulated line, which means a route heading south from Canberra is out of the question. Either the Canberra to Melbourne section has to cut its way through a vast area of rugged uninhabited nature reserve, or has to start off from Canberra by heading north in the opposite direction that it wants to go. The later option seems more likely, so you’ve sacrificed high speed for a diversion to Canberra which pretty much loops back on itself.
The other thing to consider are Melbourne and Sydney themselves. They’re both vast, as anyone who has sat for an hour on a train to get from Sydney Central to Penrith knows. You can’t run 300km/hr trains through suburbs. So you either need to slow them right down and lengthen the trip, or tunnel them like the Germans do. You’re not going to get a couple of dual 50km tunnels cheaply.
Ok, I’ll just add a couple more things but we should probably end this post hijack. Firstly what I’m talking about is a proposal that was seriously studied in the early 00’s and is back on the agenda again following the election. The route isn’t my idea, it’s what the scoping study came up with.
So the line itself would be about 850km long (give or take a few), which is about 120km longer than the most direct route between Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne. This is on account of various terrain issues including the Australian Alps. Also due to the fact that Canberra would be a bit of a detour away from the most direct route between Sydney and the pass around the top of the ranges (about 40km extra route, or seven minutes at top speed). There is currently a discussion of whether the main line should follow this diversion or whether Canberra should be on a branch, personally I think it should be on the main route. As you say the line from Sydney would enter Canberra from the northeast and head out to Melbourne to the north.
The 3:15 time estimate mentioned in the last report did account for slowing to 80km/h within Melbourne and Sydney. However currently in Melbourne they are building a brand new regional rail line from Southern Cross Station to Albion corridor (near Sunshine station) where coincidentally the HSR line would begin its own alignment via the airport. This new line is so Vline trains don’t get held up by suburbans and can enter the city at 160km/h. So it seems very likely any HSR would use the new regional rail line for the first 14km out of the CBD and it could do so at the 160km/h that line will be signalled for. So at the Melbourne end it would take about seven minutes to clear the city and get onto the dedicated high speed line. There is also the potential here to run a shuttle from Southern Cross to the airport in under ten minutes, which would be a real boon for people headed elsewhere too.
I’m not familiar with what is proposed at Sydney, but I’ve heard suggestions of either sharing the new express tracks on the East Hills line with suburban expresses (allowing a stop at Kingsford Smith) or constructing a new high speed line between the M7 corridor, Paramatta and Central (which would be partly paid for by running super-express shuttles between Paramatta and Central).
On a final note, the Sydney – Melbourne air corridor alone carries an average of 26,000 one way trips per weekday. Even a third of that patronage would allow for full size trains every 10 minutes at peak and half hourly all the rest of the day.
Obi – concur; in the Australian case, a highspeed line Canberra-Sydney would work, as long as you could get decent train ‘paths’ within Sydney itself.
Second, if an airport is congested, the solution is to encourage the airlines to use larger aircraft and make better use of the slots.
Welcome back Joshua. You’re just in time to see Mr “can’t do, backwards flipping, do nothing is best, finish motorways and no rail” Banks voted out!
Getting the champagne ready!
@ rtc
I was only joking 🙂
I wonder how high the pile of work will be at the NZHPT 🙂
I like the barrel vaulted ceiling. I really hope the designers of the Auckland CBT tunnel consider a vaulted or arched ceiling on the underground stations. They did very well to create a sense of space and light at Britomart, it would be a shame if the rest of the stations ended up like cramped tubes.
Maybe if the Edge wins the convention centre contract they can stick one of the entrances in the convention centre.
NZ Herald seem to be throwing their hat into the ring with the Edge.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/local-government/news/article.cfm?c_id=250&objectid=10676261
Crossing fingers for the Edge proposal. It just makes so much sense.
Banks is lying again. Follow this link http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/airtrain-booms-amid-gridlock/story-e6freqmx-1225769314148?from=public_rss
to news that the Brisbane Airtrain reported its third consecutive profit last year of AUD7.4m. This year’s number is due soon and is expected to continue that growth. So either Banks is a poorly advised clumsy dolt who doesn’t check his facts and expects none of his staff to or he is an abject spinner of total fabrications. Either way is this the man you want running anything more important than a shouting match?
Clearly this also means that he is unable [or unwilling] to grasp the more complicated economic benefits to road users from the resultant reduction in congestion that rail provides or even the vast environmental improvements offered by the proposed electric service, nor the productivity gains through increased connectivity and agglomeration. These are all off any balance sheet but involve real money and real improvements to people’s lives.
I’d prefer to think he is a spinner of total fabrications, rather than being such a abject idiot or so mislead by his staff to actually believe some of the things he says. He’s recently on the record of spinning the old lie that Auckland is the second most spread city in the world etc. Absolute nonsense.
Go the Edge proposal, it just makes so much sense. Fix up the beautiful and acoustically perfect St James Theatre for opera and the like, get a big convention centre right in the middle of the city, use the poor acousitics of the Aotea Centre for a simple auditorium rather than an opera house, put something in the big carpark hole in the ground, and generally continue to fix up that whole precinct of town to support the square upgrade.
Win win win.
Maybe with the money they save not having to build a huge auditorium they can buy the Mercury Theatre… Ahhh dreams are free. I think the Edge also has the advantage of being close to the existing Sky City and Crown Plaza convention centres which could potentially take over flow for really big events. That whole area could become the entertainment and cultural capital of New Zealand with the Civic, St James, Aotea Centre, Town Hall, Q Theatre, Classic Comedy Club, Basement and the Art Gallery within a 200 metre radius! Although they really need to get some better bars and restaurants up there. I often find myself going to the cinemas or theatre and having to walk down to High St to find something to eat and man cannot live on Tanuki’s alone as much as I would love to.
There is always Kura of course! 🙂
They should put more cafes and restaurants into the square itself.
Yeah, although I always get to the door of Kura and then memories of the scotch fillet at Tanuki’s assault me and drag me down stairs :-). I think a line along of restaurants along the line of the old Greys Avenue would be great, you could have a nice little lane between the town hall and the shops to sit in and on the other side the open square. With a nice view of the Sky Tower. The lane you could then carry all the way past Q Theatre and up to Myer’s Park.
There is (was?) a proposal aligned with the Q Theatre to enclose the current carparking area as a square (new building facing Mayoral Drive, but open to Greys Ave) and fill that with restaurants etc.
That would be a good start. I guess one then you could do as a cheaper solution would be to set up a little food market along one side and provide some tables and chairs.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/brian-rudman-on-auckland/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502866&objectid=10676310
The comments section on this makes for some “interesting” reading. When will Aucklanders realise that the soul of the city is not in sewage pipes and motorways but in excellant public spaces.