The Uncertain Future

A number of international stories have caught my attention recently. I’ve been thinking about how they relate to NZ and Auckland in particular. The more I’ve reflected on them the more I’ve become convinced that the future is very uncertain technologically (more than anytime previously) and of critical importance will be our need for a flexible, efficient, transport system.

First this article in the Telegraph in the UK about the new High Speed Rail line between London and Birmingham:

The project has provoked anger from people all along the route. Since it was announced by the Labour Government in March nearly 60 action groups have been set up to oppose the plans.

 The protesters are a well-informed, articulate, middle class lobby determined to fight the project.

 “Middle England is on the march and we mean business,” said Steve Rodrick, chief officer of the Chilterns conservation board which is responsible for a designated area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) that would be ripped apart by the rail link.

 The project is causing tension within the coalition Government which backs the scheme.

 The “preferred” route runs through Conservative heartlands, and local MPs, including ministers and whips are opposed to the project but under pressure to toe the party line. The speaker of the House, John Bercow, also opposes the plans.

 One senior Tory MP told The Sunday Telegraph: “This is a huge, expensive vanity project that makes no sense at all.”

 Residents along the route admit that, initially, their concern was aroused by “Nimbyism” – the threats to their homes, businesses and stunning views.

 But they say that, after looking at the project in detail, they have found that the economic and environmental cases for the new route simply do not stack up.

 The project goes out for consultation early next year and, if approved, a bill will be presented to Parliament in 2013.

 Construction is expected to start in 2015 at the earliest but the London-Birmingham leg would not be completed before 2025. Two more branches, to Manchester and Leeds, would follow at a total cost of over £30bn.

 Supporters said that HS2, as the scheme is called, would bring thousands of construction jobs and economic benefits to the regions.

 But opponents said the non-stopping high-speed trains would benefit London rather than the provinces. Geoffrey Robinson, the Labour MP for Coventry South, said Coventry would become a “backwater”.

Next was an article, again from the Telegraph, about China’s High Speed Rail lines:

It was the fastest speed recorded by an unmodified conventional commercial train. Other types of trains in other countries have travelled faster.

State television footage showed the sleek white train whipping past green farm fields in eastern China. The 824-mile-long line is set to open next year, 12 months ahead of schedule. It will cut journey times between Beijing and Shanghai from the current 10 hours to under five hours. The line is expected to carry 80 million passengers a year.

The project costs £21 billion and is part of a government effort to link many of China’s cities by high-speed rail and reduce overcrowding on heavily used lines.

China already has the world’s longest high-speed rail network, and it plans to cover 8,125 miles by 2012 and 10,000 miles by 2020.

The drive to develop high-speed rail technology rivals China’s space programme in terms of national pride and importance. Railway officials say they want to reach speeds of over 500kph (312mph).A specially modified French TGV train reached 357.2mph during a 2007 test, while a Japanese magnetically levitated train sped to 361mph in 2003.

I found these two articles interesting because it is the difference in starting points that causes one project to make sense and the other not to and they mirror the situation in Auckland. What do I mean?

Well in China they are upgrading what was a largely diesel, early 20th century network into the world’s most extensive modern network, in the world’s most populous nation. It makes sense to halve the time between China’s two biggest cities, however London dominates England and it does not make sense to spend 17,000,000,000 pounds to reduce the travel time between Birmingham and London by 35 minutes. In short England’s train system is already modern and it’s relatively quick, what the line needs is easements, and more trains of a more modern standard. How does this relate to Auckland?

Our roads. Given our population our roads are the equivalent of England’s rails. We have spent most of our transport money on roads for the last 60 years, the are already of a modern, first world standard, but when we look at rail we are starting with a early 20th century, diesel network, there is bang for the upgrading buck. This is the reason HSR2 in England doesn’t make sense as proposed and why Puhoi to Wellsford as proposed doesn’t make sense, they are starting development of developed networks, I believe this is why Puhoi has such a poor BCR when compared to the CBD rail link. As quality improves it becomes a case of spending ever larger amounts of money to chase diminishing returns. Operation Lifesaver is the appropriate measure in Auckland.

I occasionally read the NY Times. It is generally a very “left” newspaper. In fact its nickname is “Pravda” due an article published many years ago somewhat sympathetic to Communism, which is why the following article published by them was quite shocking to me, it is literally anathema to the paper’s principle message:

Just as it seemed that the world was running on fumes, giant oil fields were discovered off the coasts of Brazil and Africa, and Canadian oil sands projects expanded so fast, they now provide North America with more oil than Saudi Arabia. In addition, the United States has increased domestic oil production for the first time in a generation. Meanwhile, another wave of natural gas drilling has taken off in shale rock fields across the United States, and more shale gas drilling is just beginning in Europe and Asia. Add to that an increase in liquefied natural gas export terminals around the world that connected gas, which once had to be flared off, to the world market, and gas prices have plummeted.

Energy experts now predict decades of residential and commercial power at reasonable prices. Simply put, the world of energy has once again been turned upside down.

The whole article is very interesting and if you have time please read it here. Usually I’d think it was a pro-oil story from a pro-oil publication but to me this article being in the NY Times is of the same magnitude as The Guardian coming out to say they got Climate Change wrong. Reading the article you’ll notice that they talk about Natural Gas (NG) a lot, barrel of oil equavilent (BOE) isn’t same as oil, and shale oil. So if there is more accessible energy than we thought to ease an oil peak it seems we will still need; energy efficient transport, transport that runs on NG and investment in infrastructure where we can receive flexibility, make big gains without huge expenditure and get value for money.

To me that means in the short term we need to be pursuing the network effect for the buses (integrated with the rail system), integrated ticketing, a basic region wide cycling system and the CBD rail loop. It’s about using what we have better and making big gains for little expenditure.

I think we need to have a discussion about how far ahead we plan in future in a world that increasingly is changing faster technologically and we need to have a discussion if our very socialised transport system can adapt as fast as we need, I think GPS road pricing and the elimination minimum parking requirements are the first steps we should look at in this department.

Thoughts?

Share this