One of the frustrating things with the City Rail link has been that the council and Auckland Transport have done almost nothing to really get information about the project and its benefits to the public so it isn’t surprising that often misunderstood. Thankfully that finally seems to be changing with Auckland Transport this week updating their information about it and starting to present it in a more useful way. It seems they have even created a logo for it. Hmmm….?
AT have put up a number of PDFs on their website about the CRL. Including an Overview, and this Fact Sheet. This is very good to see but these do seem to me to be fairly disappointing efforts. They do get information across but neither is an ambitious attempt to sell the project. It is clear that the Fact Sheet is aimed at reaching a more general audience while the Overview is pretty much an uploaded powerpoint doc using images from engineers.
There is a lack of sophistication of visual communication in both with far too much reliance on numerical and technical ideas flatly presented that seem to expect an audience of only analytical types already interested in transit systems. While there is certainly a place for a plain description of the facts there is also a need for an active attempt to sell the concept.
I am particularly disappointed, for example, that there is no Tube style map of the whole network post CRL that shows the wider city and how it will unite the existing lines into a network and therefore that it is as just as much about Henderson and Manukau City as it is about Queen St. And how it is really about a whole new way for us to conceive of our city. And even another showing possible future expansion, especially to those areas currently outside of the reach of the rail network. Perhaps AT are so used to dealing with the doubters from the ministry that they have lost the sense that this project is really the difference between Auckland having a real alternative to road and petrol based transport and not….? And about it being a whole city and not just a collision overgrown provincial towns.
Instead we get technical graphics like the one above which is only intelligible and interesting to transit wonks and meaningless to most other people. It is clear that there is a need to communicate the transformational aspect of the CRL, how its value extends to the entire network and in fact beyond to the whole form of the city and its image of itself. There is a misunderstanding of the project that imagines it is only about the ground above the actual route of the new tunnel. While the document mentions the current capacity constraint and uses phrases like ‘critical to improve accessibility’ it fails to really communicate the change it represents.
Yes it includes statements like:
And yes this is an accurate one sentence summary of the value of the project at a practical level but I doubt this will ring true in the minds of any but those who already get it. I guess this ia part of the problem of proposing truly transformational projects. It is extremely hard to show a change that is yet to happen; the hegemony of the status quo. Yet I know enough about communications to be sure that with more effort into visualising the heart of the project than merely getting the facts straight the power of the idea can be unleashed. It really is a battle over the meaning of the idea of Auckland itself and the bigger the change the idea represents the harder you have to work to pitch it.
Hopefully this is just the start of the communications and a more dynamic layer of visual communication will be added.
Processing...
I think it is just a start and should get better with time. The powerpoint is dated Feb 2012 so hopefully it will be updated regularly with what’s happening.
Yes its about time. I reckon its not too bad. It covers thats its not just for the CBD saying travel times from New Lynn will be halved. It covers the economic benefits and quality of life. I think a video graphic would be good.
I think a whole network plan may confuse people but yes it could pacify the moaners from north of the bridge so they can see how it will all fall in to place.
If you compare this to the slick videos that NZTA released to promote motorway you can see they’re operating from the smell of an oily rag.
Exactly.
As someone who writes ppt presentations for a living on the marketing/advertising side of things which also include analysis – if I produced crap like that I’d have a foot up my arse.
The fact sheet is just too damn wordy. NOBODY who only has a passing interest or a bias against it already will read all that.
It needs to be similified into 10 sentences that an 8 year old could understand – clear and concise.
I’d simplify it the following way – a side box with the following: “Key Stats: (Length, # of New Stations, Reduction of travel time from New Lynn, Big economic benefit number)
Then I’d cut the rest down to 10 (or 5 or whatever) simple points:
1. Britomart is currently at capacity – a.k.a no more trains can be used.
2. Because Britomart is at capacity, there can be no rail to the airport, Howick, North Shore or anywhere else without it.
3. Show the difference between Britomart 2001 and Britomart 2011 and the complete transformational effect that it has had.
4. The benefit that it will have for motorists
5. – 10. More “Without this we’re f**ked” and “this will make Auckland moar awesomez!” statements.
I think the power point missed a major opportunity by not including a “post-CRL” network graphic to match the “pre-CRL” one. If you’re trying to convince the proverbial Joe Public that this project is a good idea, there are two selling points for the project: more frequent trains and shorter journey times. My advertising posters would be something like… “New Lynn to Britomart. Every 10 minutes.” or “Manukau to Britomart. Every 15 minutes.” Take a page out of the advertising for the Link services. You could do the same thing with journey times. The CRL means faster journeys, more often – thats the critical message, and everything else is almost a distraction.(If the esteemed former admin is still reading this blog, he’s free to use that slogan in his pitches).
Yeah, thats pretty average. Hopefully its only a start and will be built on as things progress.
I remember the Council produced this case studies video showcasing the benefits of the CRL to future Mr & Mrs Citizen. Part of the Auckland Plan I think. Thought that was pretty well done and engaging with lots of sexy visuals & station renders and ‘this is how great it could be’ commentary.
Thats the sort of stuff that needs to be shown I recon. More about how will it change the lives of Aucklanders for the better.
I see what the designer was trying to do but the logo looks like a helmet sorry. Hope it’s only a placeholder..
The content is also very suspect.
For example, page 21 claims the Current rail capacity is just under 20,000 while the CBD RL Business Case stated current observed rail patronage was 4,918 ! It gets even more fictional when it claims the CBD RL will increase from about 48,000 in 2014 to about 87,000 in 2035 (an increase of 29,000). The CBL RL Business Case patronage figures has the no CBD RL “Do Minimum” at 7,300 with the CBD RL increasing rail patronage to 18,000 by 2026 and 24,900 in 2041 (much smaller increases of only 10,700 and 17,600 respectively). In other words, the “Additional Capacity Delivered” figures seem to have doubled since the CBD RL Business Case ?
They may mean rail seating capacity vs actual people commuting by train but, if so, these figures are really misleading to a public who would not understand the difference.
Of course I also think the CBD RL is a waste of money …
Without going back and checking the document at the moment I think you are comparing peak patronage with total patronage. Rail today is carrying about 40k+ trips on normal week days or about 30k per day if you average out total patronage over 365 days.
I’m still amazed how many guys on a comments box are so much better qualified marketers than the professionals. I wonder why you guys aren’t running your own firms…
That will be considered snarky, but really, it’s just a symptom of something I’ve said for a long time. Auckland transport commenters and bloggers are the biggest “accentuate the negative” crowd I’ve ever experienced. The whole goal seems to be to spread a thick blanket of gloom over the public debate – nothing worthwhile will ever happen, and if it happens, it won’t be worthwhile. It all seems about nitpicking and shaking our heads at the incompetence of others.
It’s a good way to work out frustration, but perhaps it’s isn’t the best way to, dare we say it, market the PT in Auckland debate.
You trolling again Doloars?
I thought The Trickster was someone who worked on Marketing and Advertising or did we just miss that Doloras?
Leaving Doloras aside – well AT seemed to have started although making a hash of it?
Lets see how the rest of the year goes with the PR spin on the CRL but at the moment underwhelming?
Without going into the many deficiencies of this ‘marketing’ effort, all I can say is…
Admin,now is your time to shine! Please please please sort this out from inside the tent!!!
Admin works for council rather than Auckland Transport so I would guess doesn’t have the authority to start fiddling with such work.
Can someone from this blog please be contracted to market the CRL? The knowledge on here and how to communicate it is far superior. The graphics you’ve shown are too high-level and unspecific. For instance “network expected to reach maximum capacity after electrification’ needs to have ‘electrification’ replaced with the actual year, showing how urgent this is. Its assumed that everyone knows when electrification will occur, I guess it wasn’t proofread..
I’ve been following this blog for a while and I reckon between the regulars here we have the skills to create a very good and simple document outlining the benefits for the public. We could pass it on to AT or publish it on this blog. Anyone volunteer to start the ball rolling?
I always thought this post explained the project quite well (giving myself away as a long-time lurker!)
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2011/06/06/city-rail-link-questions-answers/
Some good visualisations would also be handy, perhaps a staged approach to achieving some of the 50 year rail network visions that have also been posted in the past.
With the demise of akt, unfortunately Dolores has bought her useless and pointless devils advocate comments here instead.
Take the jobs to the people – not the people to the jobs.
The CBD concept is such “old” thinking – it predates remote working and decentralised business hubs.
The “large employers” have mostly downsized and decamped.
The people of the Greater Auckland region who would be compelled to fund the CBD RL would likely rarely want to travel there – it is barren and ghastly.
CBD RL proponents – do not burden my family with your delusions and immaturity.
Clearly someone who hasn’t been anywhere near the CBD in a long time. Many large businesses are actually doing the opposite and centralising operations in one place due to the agglomeration benefits of having people working closely together. Also I was in town on the weekend and there were thousands walking along the streets that are hardly barren and ghastly.
Too problems with your view:
1. Wrong; the CBD is growing, yours in fact is an old fashioned 1960s view of the world
and
2. the CRL is being built in the CBD but it serves the entire network. It joins up the broken ends of the current lines so that all parts of the system can work to its potential from Swanson to Papakura and many places in between. It even helps free up the extensive road network by taking cars of that system.
Name these employers – you will find (such like) Air NZ still maintains a North Shore hub and have right-sized the CBD site with an over comittal of empolyees to desks – this trend will persist.
I have the option of working in the City or from home, so yes I do venture there when needed.
Your view of a bustling entertainment centre is delusional – youth, tourists and the leftovers from the night before, mostly what I see. (which are you? – else) The suburban cafe and restaurant infrastructure is much more apealling – and sand between your toes too.
Hub and spoke is old – right-sized mesh apropos.
Recent new CBD buildings full of new employees:Deloitte, Telecom, Vodafone, NZI, The ASB is building a new head office, the two universities have between them 1.7 square kilometres of floor space in the CBD and are expanding. New hotels and apartments are on the boards right now.
You don’t like the city?, that’s just fine but don’t generalise your personal feelings and pretend that that constitutes evidence. Anyway you set up a false conflict: The whole city is growing, suburbs and the centre, great. Two things matter; accessibility to all parts and better accessibility to areas of high demand. That demand is focused on the CBD and is growing. Fact.
There is a high level of commuting to and from the suburbs and the CBD but you say we shouldn’t service that because you don’t like or approve of the city? Nuts. Yes there are other centres, great, let’s hope they grow well too, and to do that they will also need good connections with other parts of the city. So I repeat the CRL services many outlying parts of the wider city and helps to clear the roads of traffic so that the road network works better for cars, trucks and buses.
Please stay away from the city if it upsets you so much.
Patrick – the question is this;
Why would suburban ratepayers want to go to the CBD ?
(clue – take the jobs to the people)
Well all I can say is that many do. But also that you don’t have to, in fact please don’t. But also that the CRL is about joining up a separated connection so that all parts of its system can work well. The numbers of people traveling to the CBD enables the frequency that supports the services at the periphery and other centres, Like Manukau, Like Newmarket [too city-like for you?] like Panmure, like Onehunga. And in the future like Takapuna and Albany, and Botany…. parts of a whole; not either or.
Your idea of ‘taking the jobs’: What does this mean? That we should outlaw Deloittes from having a head office in the CBD? Force them to put two people in every little suburb in the city, or just in yours? Well why stop there, shouldn’t we make them move some staff to Invercargil? This is a nonsense, obviously these firms see serious commercial advantages to all being together in the CBD, why would they pay higher office costs otherwise? City centres exist worldwide for good reason; because they are more successful than more dispersed systems. Remember no one in NZ is told where they must live or work, are you really suggesting we somehow force people to go where you want, that we ‘take the jobs to the people’?
You don’t have to come to the city, but you shouldn’t try to stop others doing so.
Reality check 2020 !
Patrick Reynolds – tell me what you think about the relevance of CBD Boilerhouse vs right-sized WFH suburbia in the current context.
The later works – the former is evidently old-school.
These 2012 thoughts are now very nuanced.
There’s more people travelling into the CBD by train now than there were in 2012 when this post was written, even with the effects of Covid.
jezza – “travel” has nothing to do with economic progression.
Tell me why “people” “travel” to the CBD ?
That’s two propositions.
I have worked in both the CBD and the suburbs and much prefer the CBD. Lots more to do both during and after work e.g. if a group of friends want to go out for lunch or dinner there are hundreds of places we could go to, with a huge variety options to choose from, from a hole in the wall up to a 5 star restaurant and all which is only possible due to the number of people working in the area. In the suburbs I was limited to one or two crappy cafes because that was all that could be supported by the small working population.
I’m a suburban ratepayer and I have no problem with us improving the CBD and access to it.
@Safir Please don’t use Air NZ as an example of “decentralization”. As an employee of that company I can tell you it has nothing to do with that all. Having a separate call centre on the North shore has everything to do with making sure that if the call centre at the main office goes down, the North Shore site will still operate and vice versa, as has happened a couple of times (power failures in CBD etc). It is vital to the company that if something happens to one, customers still have the ability to contact the company.
Also, Air NZ has different departments in other offices in the CBD, not just at the main office that most people, unless working for the company themselves, would be completely unaware of. Maybe the new building is not as big as the old Air NZ house, but that building was never fully occupied on all floors by the company anyway so don’t base your judgement on building size.
And as Patrick said, there are many large corporates who have relocated or who are relocating to the CBD. One, the staff at Air NZ are watching with interest is the building of ASB’s new HQ in the Wynyard Quarter. Oh, and apparently because the CBD is a wasteland no one goes there or resides in, Countdown and New World have just recently opened new central city supermarkets.
Oh, and do you think the company would be so stupid as to not have looked at working from home? Of course they have. At the moment the IT costs outweigh the benefits. That’s why the company still has people seated at desks in the office.
Hiya Simon C
Respectfully –
Are you still an “employee” ?
Whadya reckon about AirNZ commitment to 185 Fanshawe ?
Whadya reckon about AirNZ need for employees vs automation ?
Whadya reckon about WFH ?
Telecom / Gen-i / Chorus – downsizing
Vodafone – downsizing
NZI / IAG / State – downsizing (in fact all insurance sector)
ASB – downsizing (in fact the whole banking sector)
POA – downsizing
ADHB (and derivatives) – downsizing
ACC (and derivatives) – downsizing
MOJ – downsizing – (in fact the whole Government sector)
The Big Legals – a shadow of what they were
Vege markets – gone
Fish markets – undersize
Bus depot and maint – gone
Department stores – gone
Whitcoulls – just another $2 shop
Deloitte – well not really labour intensive.
POA – lets see
UOA – the pressure is down
AUT – buoyant
SkyCity – buoyant (yep we really need this and all those people travelling thousand of KM to attend conferences)
What used to be offices are now apartments – or soon to be (think BNZ)
What I’m talking about is jobs – a value proposition for people to be transported to the CBD.
Residents already live there and don’t need to be transported in.
The supermarkets likely employ these people.
The Market Econonics repoprt of 2003 stated 69800 CBD jobs
The BCR(26) quotes 2006 figures of 63000 city employees (-6k in three years) yet somehow ascribe 1.9% growth till 2044 reaching 144000.
Wishful rather than realistic thinking – and all of this cognitively dissonant optimisim results in a 0.4 ROI.
Go play with someone elses money.
You forgot to mention more residential dwellers in the CBD than at any point in its history. And growing.
Yep, very relevant KLK – and these people who are residing in the offices of those who have had their jobs displaced cannot validly comprise part of financial equation that should compel suburban rateayers to fund the CBD RL folly.
They already live there – but yes they may like to take the train “out” often to get a little sand between their toes and grass stains on their heels.
Well if they take the train out, they’ll presumably take the train in again too. They are not commuters in your financial equation? How convenient.
Presumably only suburbanites living 24/7 in their little village count as valid ratepayers too…..
Look forward to your critique of $Bn dollar road projects with even worse ROIs.
The banking sector definitely isn’t downsizing in Auckland, quite the opposite. All of the major banks have shifted most or all of their head office functions in Auckland in recent years, previously most were based in Wellington.
Well Matt
The banks that I am familiar with have certainly been centralising “functions” in Auckland – not jobs. And many of those functions are strategically located outside of the CBD.
Shame that the value of labour to a function is now so diminished – technology and all that.
The Queen St tumbleweeds agglomerate in the pedestrian barricades.
Shame that when the CBD “reconstruction” is completed the Hivis reconstructors will no longer be commuters and consumers. The CBD will be desolate with nothing to catch the tumbleweeds and little to sustain commerce.
They’ve already played with your money mate, if you haven’t noticed there are tunnels going up Albert Street. Give it up, nobody cares.
Greenlane – upsizing (many national HO)
Albany Basin – upsizing
SOHO – exponential upsizing
“Work is something you do – not somewhere you go”
Great! And….? There is increase in all sorts of places including the CBD; it’s called growth and isn’t it good? The case for the CRL does not require nowhere else to grow- what on earth gives you that idea?
What a lot of nonsense. So what if people are traveling in or out, working or living in the CBD all these increased movements are all valid. And there are continual year on year increasing numbers traveling in and out of the CBD. Just because you have decided that you will only count one type of traveller and that you have decided to see change as decline it doesn’t alter the FACT of increase in the CBD and increased movement within the whole city and through the CBD. Change in building use is a sign of dynamism. Funny, it’s hard to win with the haters: some love to claim that not enough people live in the CBD to support a real transit system; you’re now claiming that too many do.
You still clearly can’t grasp the role of the centre of a system being essential to the whole of the system. In the same way that the motorways in Auckland couldn’t function without the Central Motorway Junction, so the rail network cannot function without the CRL. Sorry that this fact is beyond your capabilities, in same way that you clearly have no understanding of how cities function, how each part is dependent on the others and you imagine that your little corner is somehow complete in itself.
Like I said, it’s great you love the ‘burbs, good for you, not everyone does. And not everyone who loves to live there hates coming to the city as much as you either. But neither area will flourish without the other, but I guess your prejudice blinds you to that understanding. It also seems to prevent you from seeing how a real functioning rapid rail system serves the whole city and not just the one part you are obsessed with despising.
Fine Patrick
But as your likes are looking for a 0.6 subsidy for your fantasy you need to accept that your likes case just wasn’t compelling enough for Central Gov’t –
I should have said “go and play with your own money”
As we have seen with the Chch CBD, life still goes on if it all dissolves into a CBD “Lake Sir Bob” – a lesson to be learned about the value and benefits of a distributed mesh infrastructure for services.
Fine if you want your CRL – just let the users pay for it – not me.
Can we start charging you to exit your driveway because your local road was partly paid for by and is maintained by my rates.
Also the governments review of the business case is so full of holes it is a laughing stock that doesn’t stand up to two minutes of scrutiny.
Matt
Have you got the data to sustain scrutiny of the BCR 144000 jobs claim?
As Patrick notes below, employment growth in the CBD has been higher (percentage wise) than the region as a whole in recent years. If you look at many overseas cities (Melbourne’s a classic example) there has been a huge increase in CBD employment in the past decade. Technology actually isn’t doing away with the need for face-to-face contact. Agglomeration benefits still exist. The whole technology thing has probably been overplayed.
Yes Ok when you pay for all your roads- I guess you think you already do but you don’t, we all do through rates and taxes, it’s called society and it means that sometimes some of our collective money goes to things we don’t imagine we get direct benefit from. If you don’t like the messiness of such a system you could always move to a place with a more direct user pays, survival of the fittest type system, like Somalia.
Anyway all of your numbers are inaccurate. Council has CBD employment at 80 000 in 2008 growing at 2.8% p/a compared with just 1.9% for the rest of the isthmus. Trying to find a more recent number.
And the MoT’s BCR for the CRL is a total fabrication, and about as reliable as the fuzzy numbers they make up for their uneconomic RoNS… whatever Joyce told them to work back from basically.
It’s been a pleasure.
Collective funding of resources for the collective good is cool by me – being Socialistish and such.
You just gotta show that the collective benefit is the best for the spend.
Fail..
Safir some graphs for you:
First changes in employment in the CBD since 2000 by area
Changes in population since 2006 and projections going forward
And projection for both CBD employment and Population
Having a Brylcream moment..
So the graphs show that residency and employment in the CBD have increased and are likely to increase.
Like what I said – “take the jobs to the people”
So why do the people who live in the CBD need a train to get to their jobs in the CBD?
Because having jobs concentrated creates huge economic benefits. Do a bit of research on agglomeration theory.
The vast majority of jobs in the CBD are occupied by people NOT living in the CBD. Residential growth in the CBD has little to do with the CRL, except when those people want to travel outside of the CBD.
As for “take the jobs to the people”, are you campaigning for turning Auckland City into a whole lot of decentralised towns that we used to call suburbs, in which travel from one to the other would be uncommon? The whole purpose of a City is to provide a place with more to do and more culture than a small town, and “take[ing] the jobs to the people” would also remove all of the agglomeration benefits we get from having the CBD as an ecconomic hothouse. People also don’t want to be limited to jobs that are only a few km’s away.
So I suggest that if you wan’t a society where people live close to everything they do, and using cars as the only mode of transport is appropriate, that you move to somewhere like Plamerston North or New Plymouth, as these smaller ‘mini-cities’ are what you are describing.
No need to live in the Regionals – the current Greater Auckland Urban(sub) business hubs and SOHO opportunities present a multitude of satisfactory economic and employment opportunites. The tyrany of place no longer needs to be mitigated by grandiose transport infrastructure endeavours. Agglomeration theory so precedes the realities of now – and the UFB future.
No need for 4billion on the Western Ring Road then? And every suburbanite will work exactly where they live and never move anywhere else for any purpose…. You may be a sad anti-social shut-in but the rest of us live in a city for more reasons than staring at a computer screen.
I very much enjoy my coffee and goss with my customers, peers and colleagues – see you at Ben Gusto Wednesday ?
Patrick won’t see you there because as the North Shore is now a separate city the harbour bridge and the upper harbour bridge (former “grandiose transport infrastructure endeavours”) were never built. Patrick can only meet with people in his OWN city, the Auckland Central City.
May I ask Safir, what is an example of a city that works like yours, where people miraculously only take jobs in the sub-urban centre nearest to them, or move the whole family when the case is otherwise? Does this city perform well internationally? The benefits of a physical office in an area dense with workers are still very true, and however much sense all office workers working from home or a small urban centres makes in theory, experience here and internationally has shown that for less than rational reasons, a large CBD is MORE PRODUCTIVE. It is much harder to experience fine culture and dining or hang out with a friend when you are effectively limited by the contains of your urban sub-centre. No speed boost to the internet is going to change this any time soon, if at all.
What you are describing are many small cities situated right next to each other, but with the connection between them being a couple of fibre optic cables.
Yes we can all work from home but there are proven benefits to working as a team in one location e.g. I can turn around and talk to my colleagues to work on an issue much quicker and easier than I can type it out or do so over a video link. The realities of now is that there are huge benefits from working close to other people and similar businesses which is why the CBD is expected to keep growing.
O Hamish
“are you campaigning for turning Auckland City into a whole lot of decentralised towns that we used to call suburbs”
No ! – we used to call them Cities – (think Waitakere, North Shore,..) and they were of a scale that exceeded the Regionals you quote – by heaps.
Those names were purely for administrative purposes, Auckland has always been one city, and it’s size gives it an economic advantage that has led to many large corporates moving from Wellington (which is a similar size to Wiatakere or North Shore ‘City’ alone) to Auckland. The new super city structure is designed to represent this fact. Downscaling to multiple smaller cities would be a big step backwards in Auckland’s economic performance, and would be met with far less growth than is expected.
So why, I ask, are you campaigning for NZ as a whole to have a weaker centre and therefore perform worse internationally, giving us all less wealth and a lower standard of living in the long run. All for the cost of a few rail lines (plus roads and bus-ways etc.)
Oh Hamish
“Auckland has always been one city” – yes Auckland City has always been one City
“led to many large corporates moving from Wellington ” – so what zero sum advantgae does this give to New Zealand?
“big step backwards in Auckland’s economic performance, and would be met with far less growth ” – than is expected !
“why, I ask, are you campaigning for NZ as a whole to have a weaker centre and therefore perform worse internationally” ?
– New Zealand economic performance is and will in the medium term be dependent on the productivity and international competivenes of the rural, agricultural and commodity sectors – Not whether CBD service providers/employees can have 15 minutes extra coffee time before putting the headset on in the morning.
Those “service industries” that persist in the CBD will be well served in efficiency by the uptake of technology, hot-desking and downsizing – have you noticed a trend?
Sorry – was that a derisive allusion of Regional life that you asserted earlier ?
Look, I probably came out a bit harshly Safir, although your argument makes sense in theory, I just do not see it happening here, nor overseas. The sense of it is also completely economical, people enjoy working in one very large CBD where a massive mix of culture is available, and your friends are always close by for a catch up at lunch time. In addition, many small businesses will only be able to justify the fixed costs of using one building, in only one of the new de-centralised urban centres, so transport infrastructure will have to be provided for people travelling between centres to access these.
I just don’t see it happening, nor do I want it to. I think we should focus on being efficient through a dense CBD, even at the cost of massive transport infrastructure and a few minutes each day as I think the social benefits outweigh the negative.
I don’t know what Safir really hates about the CRL but his arguments against it are very poor, particularly because they rely on his being predictions of people suddenly not wanting to move around a city coming true. Is this credible? Has a new piece of technology ever had this kind of effect before? Let’s see; if this is the most likely outcome of improved broadband wouldn’t it have happened with the introduction of the telephone? Or the telegraph, or even a reliable mail service? Let alone the fax, or even the internet itself…. it doesn’t stack up. Safir read The Triumph of the City to better understand what drives the growth of cities and their most successful forms….
I would suspect it would have something to do with the number of students living in the city who wouldn’t count as employed…hence the need to somehow bring all these suburbanites into the city each day.
A large proportion of the CBD residents are students who aren’t working in the CBD. There is also a lot of travel demand from students from the suburbs which isn’t included in here either.
Matt – CBD academic study centres will iminently become irrelevant.
I still haven’t figured out how Safir is allowed to drive on subsidised roads to have a coffee and a “goss” face to face with his customers, peers and colleagues, but the rest of us aren’t allowed to take a subsidised train to see ours, instead having to rely on “technology”.
And as for hot-desking, failed miserably in my industry….we are all back to our desks and offices now. And like our overseas colleagues, our Auckland office moved to a better CBD premises and near a PT hub. Seems they at least learnt from overseas experience.