Some great news yesterday, the mayor’s has fended off the do nothing naysayer CitRat elements of council and voted in favour of funding the land purchases and planning required to advance the City Rail Link to the next stage. As any regular reader here will know the CRL is a step-change project to turn Auckland’s neglected and underutilised rail system into an efficient regional rapid transit network. One with capacity to quickly move huge amounts of people all over the region free of traffic or parking worries, and without the need to savage or sever any more communities with new motorways or widened roads.
Predictably this announcement has been met with a further flurry of nihilistic naysaying, including this press release from the AA:
Press Release – Automobile Association
The AA has today urged caution when deciding how best to spend money on public transport in Auckland.“The AA supports additional investment in Auckland public transport. However, money is short, the economy isn’t great, and the ratepayers and motorists of Auckland are hurting financially. This means Auckland has to better prioritise its public transport expenditure,” says AA spokesperson Simon Lambourne.
“The time has come to be realistic about what Aucklanders can and cannot afford. The best plans and visions must now be tested against economic reality.”
“The AA believes buses are a very affordable public transport option, trains are not.”
“It is much more affordable to expand the bus network than it is the rail network, and a focus on buses would provide a far greater number of Auckland motorists with a realistic alternative to using their cars. The reality is that proportionate to the number of people using buses, only a very small number of motorists, in very limited geographic areas, would benefit from expanding the train network, which is a very expensive alternative to the bus.”
“Auckland cannot afford the cost of a $2.94 billion Inner City Rail Link at this time, let alone the millions of dollars that will be required each and every year to subsidise its passenger fares and operational costs.
(continues)
http://auckland.scoop.co.nz/2012/05/time-to-be-realistic-about-inner-city-rail-link-cost/
Like all good concern trolls, the AA claim to support investment in public transport… but just have serious concerns about said investment actually ever happening. Now of course I’m not at all surprised, the AA is a motorist organisation whose raison d’etre is to lobby for motorists interests and get more public money spent on motoring infrastructure. Perhaps their focus on buses is one of kindred familiarity, after all buses are about as close to an automobile as public transport can get: they run on roads, have combustion engines, steering wheels, tyres and all the rest. Maybe the Automobile Association just can’t get their head around transport that doesn’t run on the street?
I don’t think so, in reality they are just advocating a do-nothing approach to public transport in Auckland. Do nothing different, spend nothing extra, and get on with the important business of building roads for good honest motorists. This is implicit in their statement above where they talk about the fact buses run everywhere in Auckland, but the walk-up coverage of the rail system is currently quite limited. They are effectively saying that buses do the job already and the trains are an expensive diversion, because proportionally more people currently use buses.
What they are saying has a literal truth to it, but only in terms of coverage. We do have an extensive welfare bus service all over Auckland, which is great if you’ve got nothing important to do, you don’t mind waiting an hour or two for an infrequent service, and you don’t care that it takes another hour or two to get where you are going. But the simple fact there is an occasional bus to every main street in Auckland doesn’t translate into that being a realistic alternative to driving. The question is: why should we focus on coverage (“at some point during the day a bus does come close to my house”) but ignore accessibility, speed, travel time, comfort, capacity and all the other aspects of public transport (“the transport is there when I need it, and it allows me to quickly get where I need to be going regardless of when I leave or where I’m headed”).
Now before I start to get labelled and a bus and car hating train worshipper, a little caveat. I’m not really making a bus vs. train battle here, what I’m actually talking about is good public transport network design. A cornerstone of a good network is to have elements of the system deployed to do what they are good at doing, and avoiding using them where they aren’t very effective. Trying to do everything with one mode, one type of vehicle or one service pattern, is a failure.
In terms of our public transport network, buses are brilliant at providing coverage to people’s homes and neighbourhoods, they’re good for short trips to the shops or local attractions, and with bus lanes and a good roadway design buses can be excellent for providing frequent service along busy city arterials. Buses are absolutely essential and incredibly effective at these tasks. But what buses aren’t good at is moving large amounts of people along long, busy radial corridors (not without a busway to keep the free of traffic, lights and intersections at least, but even then there are issues which we shall soon see). Rambling circuitous bus routes lumbering along in heavy traffic aren’t a good way to move lots of people. On the flip side trains are terrible at providing local access in most situations, prohibitively expensive to install in city arterials… but almost perfect for long distance rapid transit where thousands of people want to travel along the same corridor at the same time.
Sure it is possible to overcome these limitations with enough time and money. We could build an underground train system to cover every street corner like they do in Paris, but the cost would be phenomenal in a city like ours. Likewise we could build busways stretching right across the region so our buses could run as rapid transit, but where exactly do we build all these busways, and at what cost? Some underground rail could be an effective and similarly there are a couple of corridors in Auckland that are crying out for a busway, but is either the one the final answer to everything? Hells no!
The real trick is to use each mode where they are effective and where the appropriate level of infrastructure is affordable. In Auckland’s case we already have three main rail corridors stretching to the city limits west and south, rail corridors that can support huge passenger flows and provide trips faster than anything on the road at peak times. But due to the restrictions at the core of the network they are limited to about a quarter of their actual capacity in the suburbs. Fixing the core allows us to utilise all this capacity that we have just sitting there going to waste.
But what good is unleashing all this capacity if, like the AA points out, very few Aucklanders live within walking distance of a train station? Well that is where our beloved buses come in. By integrating local buses and regional rapid transit into one system, everyone can take a short bus trip to their nearest rapid transit station to connect to a much faster and more direct service to their final destination. So people can use a bus to access their local shops, visit their GP or pop down the road for a cuppa with auntie Mavis, indeed the benefit of local bus services is the coverage and accessibility they provide. But rather than expecting people to use that same local bus to slowly and awkwardly complete a 20km trip to the other side of town, they just use it to get to the nearest train or busway station and go from there. Its bus and rail living in harmony to create a transit network that has both excellent coverage and excellent speed, reliability and capacity.
So with that little network design primer mind let’s just take a step back and analyse the AA’s claims closely. We’ve already dismissed the coverage issue as a red herring, in a proper integrated network we don’t expect one mode of transport to cover off every single house in the region. So that leaves the cost argument. There are two things at the core of what the AA are claiming with their suggestion that more buses can be an effective alternative to the rail based rapid transit network the City Rail Link will create: that a bus alternative would be cheaper to build in the first instance, and also cheaper to operate over time. It’s very tempting to just say ‘buses are cheap so use lots of them’, but is this actually the case in reality?
Let’s ask the first question then, will it be cheaper to build a bus rapid transit system instead of turning the rail network into one with the City Rail Link?
The answer to this can only be no, for one very good reason. As discussed above the CRL sorts out the core of the rail network, but outside of the CBD all our rail rapid transit already exists. The beauty of the CRL is it unleashes all the wasted capacity on the 70km of double tracked rail lines that stretch out to Swanson, Papakura, Glenn Innes, Manukau and Onehunga. With an equivalent bus alternative we’d not only need to construct some sort of bus tunnel to get all that capacity through the CBD, but we’d also need to build some 70km of new busways stretching west, east and south to get those buses quickly and reliably out to the suburbs. There is no way that a City Bus Link plus 70km of new busways would be cheaper than the City Rail Link alone.
Again this isn’t a bus vs. train battle. As an example, with the CRL we can use the AMETI busway from Botany to Panmure Station to link the wider Howick area into the rapid transit system. Without the CRL we wouldn’t have the capacity to transfer everyone to trains at Panmure, so we would need to somehow extend this AMETI busway right across the isthmus to the central city to provide the same level of rapid transit service. How much would a busway through Remuera cost us? How likely would it be to ever build such a thing? How much more of an obstructive contrarian douchebag would Cameron Brewer become?
Quite simply, it would cost more to build a bus alternative to the City Rail Link, because we’d be building a whole BRT system from scratch instead of just using the rail infrastructure we already have more efficiently.
Now let’s turn to the second question. Would a bus rapid transit system be cheaper to operate than a rail one?
We’ll start by putting some bounds for the comparison. Our new EMU trains will hold about 750 people each when run as full six carriage sets (actually it will be more than this at peak time crush loadings, but we’ll be conservative and give people some breathing room). As we know they will run on overhead electricity, and are designed for driver only operation. What this means is a single train can carry 750 people with only one driver. This is an extremely important point, staffing costs are the single largest marginal cost of transit operations and our new trains can carry 750 people for every one staff member.
What then, of the bus? Well buses are varied in size and capacity but let’s say a bus can comfortably hold 50 people when full. This is well more than our smaller dual axle buses can handle, but less than the new double deckers will. As an average, that’s pretty generous. With a little basic math we can already see something interesting, to move one trainload of people will require fifteen buses. In the bus alternative we need fifteen buses with fifteen drivers to do the work of one train. In other words the staffing costs per passenger are roughly fifteen times higher by bus than train. Obviously that will have a massive influence on marginal operating costs, so already it looks like buses are actually much more expensive to operate on busy trunk routes than trains.
Let’s look at the train costs in a little more detail then. The CRL business case suggests that our new electric trains will each do 80,000km per year and will cost ~$385,000 in operating and maintenance expenditure. That works out at about $4.8 per service-km in marginal operation costs. A single run on the southern line takes just under an hour to cover 31km, figuring that through means the new trains will run at an operating cost of around $149 dollars an hour.
Back to our buses, how much will they cost to run? Well the rule of thumb is about $25 an hour in service, as you can imagine the lion’s share of this is the driver’s wages. So a bus is far cheaper to run than a train… but wait, we’re talking apples and oranges here. Remember that it takes fifteen buses to do the work of one train, so actually we need to multiply that $25 by fifteen to get the equivalent cost per passenger. Our cost of operating buses instead of a train is really $375 per hour, mostly due to the huge amount of extra drivers than need to be paid.
So despite what the AA would have you believe, it is actually 2.5 times more expensive to move a person by bus than train. Of course this is only relevant in a busy corridor with high patronage demands where you can fill up a whole train on each run, but that is precisely what we are talking about. Add in the fact that we already have plenty of unused rail capacity -but no equivalent unused busways- and you really have to ask how anyone could think that a bus alternative to the CRL could be either cheaper to build or cheaper to operate.
If the AA is really serious about fiscal prudence and giving Aucklanders a cheap and effective rapid transit alternative to the car they should drop their do-nothing attitude to public transport and back the City Rail LInk. Arguing that buses can do the same job is arguing in favour of higher capital expenditure in the first place and millions more in operating costs in the long run.
Processing...
So we can expect to see Simon Lambourne actively lobbying for every main road in Auckland- including Remuera Rd- to be converted to full time bus only lanes…. yeah that’ll go down really well with his membership.
If the AA really cared about the quality of the driving experience for their members they would be hugely enthusiastic about the prospect of tens of thousands of reluctant drivers being able to get off Ak’s roads and onto the rail corridor. Or is it that they are terrified about there finally being an alternative to driving in their biggest insurance market….? No, they probably just don’t get it.
Central govt doesn’t get that buses can’t do the same job as trains either. They perform two different roles entirely. Rail is the high speed (well, should be), high capacity backbone of the PT network. If buses are to fill this role then a backbone busway network would have to be established, costing billions.
Spike Milligan response to the AA: “I thought I told you to stay in the car!”
And the AA responds: “Here in my car, I feel safest of all.”
I think the ‘just use buses’ argument comes from people who can’t see PT ever being more than it is now. They don’t understand the impact good quality PT can have on a city but they also have a short term view rather than getting the best long term solution and that isn’t exclusive to operating costs, as an example:
With the CRL we would easily be able to have one train every 5 minutes or 12 trains per hour, at 750 people per train that is about 9000 people heading towards the city in each direction. To do the same thing with buses would require about 180 buses or one every 20 seconds. Each train consists of two EMUs which cost about $7m each. That is a total cost of about $170m for the vehicles, buses by comparison are about $400k each so for 180 buses it would cost about $72m. Now when you consider it that way buses win however a train will last for about 40 years with a bit of a refurbishment mid life. Buses don’t last as long and so need replacing sooner, over the same time the buses would need replacing at least twice so that changes the costs dramatically. That means over the course of 40 years you have costs of about $170m for trains with perhaps another $20m for a refurb so $190m all up. For buses you are looking at about $220m so over a longer period they actually cost more to buy.
Unfortunately far to many people would only look at the initial headline cost. Another thing that isn’t taken into account is the impact of having streets filled with buses.
With the costings, you have to calculate on the basis of net present value for a fair comparison. Basically, what the CRL business case furore says is that calculations are a very difficult thing to get right, and there are often ideological assumptions that go into them. For instance, the CRL included a ‘step change’ to economic activity.
The costing for trains in the article neglects to note that the cost per km is basically the same whether the train travels at 8am or 8pm, while the patronage is likely to be very different at those times. The question as to whether the CRL costs should be counted against the network is interesting too — for a proper comparison a bus tunnel concept of some form should be going in there.
I haven’t neglected to note that Pierre, it is simple logic that the cost per km of a train or a bus is the same at any time of day and obvious that demand patterns are not flat.
I suppose what you are getting at is the fact that the comparison of one full train vs. fifteen full buses is only valid at peak times, which I suppose is a fair point. But there is scalability in both rail and bus capacities, for example we might see a three-carriage set operating only four times an hour in the late evening to carry maybe a thousand trips.
Sure at the lowest point in your demand profile it may be cheaper to run buses instead of trains to meet a small amount of patronage, but in the case of our primary rapid transit corridors your peak and all day demand is going to be well in excess of the point where trains are cheaper than buses to operate across the whole day. If you have to pick one or the other then rail is going to be cheapest on these trunk routes, not least because of the ability to cater for massive peak demands with relatively few vehicles and drivers.
umm, the per-km cost of a train will change very little between fully-laden at 08:00 and nearly empty at 23:00, but a fully-laden bus churning its way through rush-hour traffic will use dramatically more fuel than the same bus, nearly empty, barrelling along at 23:00. The additional electricity required to drive the fully-laden train carries a low marginal cost and the additional consumption is not significant, but the same is not true of a bus, and it’s especially not true as the IMF are merrily forecasting a doubling in real oil prices over the next decade.
Vehicle Testing NZ’s Roadside Assistance is looking good right now : http://www.vtnz.co.nz/roadsideassistance
Not factored is what the increasing price of petrol will do to bus economics. Of course, electricity prices may increase also, but it’s unlikely the slope will be what is projected for oil derivatives.
Thanks Ash, I’ve signed up with them just now, and will be posting our AA membership cards back to the AA, or maybe directly to Simon Lambourne, once I’ve gathered them up and had a chance to write a grumpy letter to accompany them.
I hate to rain on your parade because I can see all the positives of the CRL but there is another cost other than drivers for either the busses or trains that has been overlooked. It is the cost of station staff and I am sure that it is substantial. That said it has been pointed out before that in reality there is only a finite number of busses that can reach the centre of the city. Even with a dedicated tunnel to take them off the city streets you would need a huge underground terminal with huge tunnel, construction and ventilation costs so busses are still not the answer.
I don’t get it Peter, why does the existence/cost of station staff depend upon whether the vehicle runs of rails or tyres? Almost all of our train stations are unstaffed, like most of our bus stations… although a couple of the busiest train and busway stations are staffed at certain times of day.
Station staffing is basically a constant in this comparison, it’s relevant to the passenger volume and station location, not the mode of vehicle. If we have some really busy rapid transit stations that demand staffing that will be the case whether it is a train station or a bus station.
I’m not sure if the bus alternative would need a big terminus, if we are assuming a couple of new busways to feed into a city bus link then most buses could probably run through and only turn around in the suburbs, much like the rail would operate.
Oil, oil, oil, imported expensive oil: Versus NZ generated (80% renewably and rising) electricity.
Buses sharing roads with general traffic: Versus rail on its own Right-of-Way.
Or buses on equally expensive new grade separate ROW. And therefore there is no cheaper option except not providing any alternative to more roads, oh wait, that’s no cheaper either. $3bil+ for Waterview/SH16.
It just isnt an either/or: As Nick shows above we need both buses and rail to compliment the existing private vehicle system and to keep it functional as AK grows. It’s that simple, the CRL is the most cost effective way to improve region wide accessibility in Auckland.
I too live in Sydney Peter so I know where you’re coming from re station staff. The reality is tho very few Auckland rail stations are staffed to the extent of sydneys, if at all. When I first came here I was shocked that even stations that aren’t that busy are staffed throughout the day altho The current nsw govt is trying to change this. I’m not saying either is good or bad. Station staff costs in Auckland are very minimal I would say.
I’ve noticed that difference as well. I can’t decide whether stations should be simple un-manned platforms, or whether they should be manned offering services such as ticket sales, security, revenue protection, toilets, etc. The manned model has attractions in terms of quality of service, and I think checking tickets via barriers at station entry and exit has its merits in stopping freeloaders.
London has a mix of manned and un-manned. As far as I know, all the Tube stations are manned. But all (or most?) of the DLR stations were simple platform-only arrangements last time I checked.
Having moved to Sydney from Auckland, I can see where you’re coming from Peter but in Auckland, station staff costs are very negligeable as unlike Sydney, most Auckland railway stations are unstaffed and even the ones that are are usually less staffed than in Sydney. I was quite shocked when I first moved here to notice that even relatively small stations are staffed most of the time. Now the NSW government is trying to cut a lot of them to reduce costs.
Re the above part saying there’ll be no train guards when the new EMUs arrive, has that been confirmed? I’d be very surprised if that’s the case. I hope it is correct.
According to Brian Rudman this morning the AA is not really representing its members that well:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/transport/news/article.cfm?c_id=97&objectid=10808343
I’m sure I am not the only member of the AA who has joined solely so that should my car break down I have some one to call. So they can’t really claim to be speaking for all their members on such matters, especially when a survey of those members seems to have a different view from the one expressed.
There doesn’t seem to be, for example, a climb down on AA’s support for a harbour (road) tunnel or Penlink given ‘money is short, the economy isn’t great, and the ratepayers and motorists of Auckland are hurting financially’
Absolutely, Conan. I joined under protest after we left an interior light on all night, and used a friend’s membership to get a jump start. In the UK, I was in the Environmental Transport Association (http://www.eta.co.uk/) who offered roadside assistance but didn’t insist on lobbying as if everyone who owns a car can’t see the insanity of basing our transport planning on the the idea that we identify as ‘motorists’. I own a car because I have to; no part of my identity is invested in being a ‘motorist’ (whatever that word even means). The AA certainly don’t speak for this member. I’m off to find their contact details and tell them as much now…
Before I do that – is there a more environmentally aware outfit that do roadside assistance in New Zealand? Or even just one that isn’t so stridently and centrally a part of the roads lobby?
State do road side assistance, no idea if they are more enviro, but apparently cheaper and not funding stupid regressive lobbying.
VTNZ seem like they might be a bit lower key too…
They are a insurance company and so would no doubt be happiest if you didn’t drive anywhere, rather left the car at home safely locked in the garage…
Until we get trains on the North Shore I couldnt care less about some toy train set under Central Auckland.
PT on the North Shore is sadly neglected, especially when you have a Mayor who leans towards Sth Auckland and probably hates the North Shore anyway.
The CRL is an essential step towards rail for the North Shore. Also the Shore has been getting a lot of investment in PT in the Busway, which is being extended and more free parking at stations added at AT’s expense. Doesn’t the Super City mean it is time to stop thinking in little local silos like this.? There is no evidence that the mayor ‘hates’ any area…every mayor has to come from somewhere. Anyway the sooner the CRL is built the stronger the case for a rail crossing to the Shore is so it would be better that you directed your frustration to the Shore Councillor George Wood who is busy opposing this necessary step towards a modern functioning network for the whole city.
PT on the North Shore is sadly neglected? Hmmm, I could have sworn I see reguarly a major piece of PT infrastructure over there. I must have been mistaken.
Seriously though, I would love to see a cross harbour tunnel with light rail a’la Vancouver on the shore but the CRL needs to come first. From what I have read the busway, at peak, is almost at capacity so rail is going to be needed sooner rather than later.
“From what I have read the busway, at peak, is almost at capacity so rail is going to be needed sooner rather than later”. Where on earth did you get that piece of info from
The North Shore has the only dedicated bus way in the country, and you also have the closest thing in Auckland to affordable integrated fares and ticketing. “Sadly neglected” my hairy, white backside.
If you want neglected public transport, look at the South-East, part of the city Len Brown used to head. Flat Bush, for example, or Otara, or even Botany. Those are parts of the city that’re neglected, and in the case of Flat Bush there’s nothing planned to make the situation any better. At least the North Shore is being investigated for significant rationalisation of bus services to better-feed the NBW.
Could we have a post detailing the (indirect) benefits the CRL has on the North Shore (and other areas)? Or more importantly the impacts on the North Shore if the CRL is not implemented?
I remember posts on areas that are directly impacted by the CRL, but not on areas that are not. This information would be useful to refer to when these comments are raised, as it is important to see how the CRL is an important peice of the entire PT network, not just the train network.
i.e. Why rail to the North Shore is easier to implement post-CRL; how an increase in West/South Auckland bus traffic due to no/delayed CRL would effect North Shore services (and traffic in general) travelling into the CBD in the future etc. Also how it would indirectly effect outlying suburbs in other areas as well, in regards to how the frequency of feeder services would depend on the capacity constraints of the rail network it would be feeding in to.
To start with, no (read: zero) new lines can be added to the network without the CRL The dead-end at Britomart means before a train can go in, a train needs to come out. Obviously this can happen only so many times in an hour. And they’ve just about hit that limit. A new lines adds new trains….
So put simply, if you ever want heavy rail from the shore across the harbour, you have to build the CRL first. Same applies to a line out to the airport to service SW Auckland. Ditto for any line planned for SE.
Did everyone elsewhere in Auckland complain bitterly about not getting a Busway when the Shore did? And there are no ferries in Grey Lynn, how come Devonport has one and we don’t, it should be stopped!
Please just search North Shore on this site there is heaps of stuff. But two main points:
1. The existing rail network’s current capacity needs unlocking before further lines are added, either to the airport or across the Harbour. The CRL is a clever and cost effective way to get access to the full 70km length that we have but can’t use fully. Then as that booms [and it will] the case for a rail Harbour crossing becomes stronger, which is cheaper than any new road crossing and better. And will help free up the existing road asset even for those who never imagine using a train themselves. But before that [2020s if we get on with it]:
2. Shore buses need somewhere to go cityside, both so more can be added and they and the Shore bound cars can flow, the CRL will mean that we are not also clogging up the city with vast amounts of extra buses and cars from the rest of the wider city region.
Also all Aucklanders do often use the whole city, at least sometimes, or at least indirectly and the CRL is the key to a more vibrant and economically thriving wider city, Shore businesses will profit from that too. More:
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/tag/north-shore-line/
I don’t think anyone (outside the government sadly) will take much notice of this divel. Good on them for trying though.
In addition to the points raised by Patrick Reynolds and Antz, I’m under the impression that without the CRL, rail to the North Shore is impossible due to capacity constraints at Britomart. Likewise for the proposed Airport line.
I don’t think any of the concepts for a North Shore line described here have included a stop at Britomart. Most of them pass west-east in the vicinity of Aotea. So I don’t think the CRL is a pre-req for North Shore rail, except that without CRL you wouldn’t be able to have transfers at an Aotea station.
I think the CRL is a prerequisite or north shore rail. Not be because of any engineering or network constraints, but simply because it would be politically impossible otherwise. Without the CRL to ‘prove’ investment in rail really works we won’t see any new lines.
Well concieviably a NS line could predate the CRL, but why would you? Busway still working; Britomart not. Lowest hanging fruit first, unlocking potential on existing rail ROW the priority, as well as, as you observe, building the network for the NS line to connect with.
Some schemes do link to Britomart, but not the better ones IMHO.
“So I don’t think the CRL is a pre-req for North Shore rail, except that without CRL you wouldn’t be able to have transfers at an Aotea station.”
A line coming from or going to the NS has to – surely – have a stop in the CBD at some point. If its not Britomart, where else is there? Well, nowhere unless you build some new stations. Which is what the CRL does (Aotea).
So, I guess technically the CRL isn’t required for NS rail, but logically/feasibly it won’t work without it.
Yes and Nick’s point is vital too; the CRL is the key to showing how game changing rail can be. Without it it will be impossible to sell rail across the harbour to those with no experience of it…..
I’ve asked this before without getting an answer… Once you’ve bought the TBMs then what is the cost of operating them and digging tunnels? Presumably they’re mostly automated and don’t require a large crew. Concrete tunnel liners. Disposal of spoil. Electricity. Replacement cutters as they get worn down or break. None of those sound expensive to me. So once you’ve dug the CRL tunnels, why not reposition the TBMs and have them dig a cross tunnel for the North Shore. You might not tunnel under the harbour (which I assume is a more complicated gig than tunneling on dry land) for another twenty years, build the stations, or connect the tunnels to anything at either end, but they’d be there ready for use in the future. You’d keep a skilled tunneling team together with continuity of employment, and there wouldn’t be any need to scrap or sell the TBMs.
I think TBMs are becoming increasingly specialised these days for particular jobs – i.e. they’re specifically constructed for individual geological circumstances. That might make them difficult to use for different jobs.
That said, if you can reuse the CRL TBM for a cross-harbour tunnel then that’d be awesome. I did think that there was discussion around having both rail and road in the same cross-harbour tunnel, which obviously would need a much greater diameter TBM than the CRL one.
The original plans for the CRL had a north shore line joining at Britomart. The problem with that was the junction between the the two would pretty much be right under the Westfield site and that would take up quite a bit of space so would limit what could be built on top. It would also have other disadvantages such as having to be a flat junction which would decrease the possible frequencies of the CRL and you still wouldn’t have rail reaching other parts of the city.
But that’s not all Matt, Britomart still will only have two tracks at the eastern portal so that would still be a limit on capacity if we try to run everything through there including a NS line. That’s what’s so elegant and efficient about the ‘Cross’ model.
They’re doing away with guards when the new EMUs arrive? Wow, that’s bold by Auckland standards, especially now they need around 4 people to do that same job. I think it would be achievable when they arrive as the driver will have lots of camera visibility.
The only reason they need on-board staff at present is to collect fares. By the time the EMUs arrive, HOP will have been rolled out across the rail network so checking fares will be something that’s done at random, or at fare gates at core stations (initially Britomart and Newmarket, I believe, but possibly also New Lynn?) that will block passengers from exiting if they haven’t tagged in earlier. To conduct random on-board checks just needs a remote reader and effective patrolling of the entire network could be handled by only two or three people after an initial period of strict checking. After all, if you can’t exit Britomart without having tagged on, and you can’t get onto the platform at Britomart without tagging on, that’s a fair whack of passengers checked automatically. Spot checking elsewhere can thus be handled south and west of Newmarket, and east of Otahuhu.
My understanding is that the thinking has changed slightly now and they are looking to keep one other onboard staff member in a customer service type role.
I could see security benefits to that for evening/night services, but don’t see the point for midday services, or peak-hour services when half the time the staff can’t even move about the trains freely anyway.
In Sydney, we still use train guards even tho they have no ticket collect/inspection or customer service role. Their prime role is to open and close doors and keep the train to timetable. There are rumours they are going to start making them redundant, especially as the newest trains have cameras on every door so the driver can do both roles. On the older trains, there probably is still a need for them. When I was last in Auckland, they used all 4 ticket collectors to go out on the platform and do hand signals so the train could go, I think it was 4 of them for a 4 car train. Here, it’s 1 for an 8 car train.
Our new trains will be newer than Sydney’s new trains, so I hope they’ll have the necessary cameras. The original intent was certainly that the trains would run with only the driver, so there’s clearly no design requirement to have on-board staff.
As a resident of the North Shore I would love to see rapid metro, but as I read the current April patronage for the bus lane the economics of it simply don’t seem to stack up.
I would be horrified if we ended up with heavy rail where we had a service every 15 minutes at best. That would surely be a retrograde step.
I think that by the time we get rail to the shore frequencies of at least every 5 minutes will be required anyway. The preferred pattern that we have discussed on here is a cross where the eastern and western lines are joined up by the CRL while the southern takes a diversion at Parnell then heads under the uni then under either Wellesley or Victoria St before making its way down to Wynyard and over to the shore, something like this http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/04/22/developing-the-rail-and-busway-network/
Rail over the harbour is probably 20yrs away (given the CRL will take 7yrs), so with natural patronage growth from increasing numbers on the shore as well as extension of the busway, you’d think that 5min frequencies will be required by then.
Depressing isn’t it. 20yrs……
If the best that could be offered was every 15 minutes, whoever did the network design ought to be taken out the back and put out of our misery. Provided the line doesn’t have to terminate in the core, services of no worse than 10-minute frequency should be perfectly possible. That’s the service frequency on the Western Line at peak, complete with having to reverse trains at each end and compete with the Britomart bottleneck. Services that continued on under the CBD to the west, east or south should be able to do even as often a five-minute frequencies if there’s sufficient rolling stock available.
The western line still only has 15 minute frequencies as AT keep going back on their promises to improve it despite the massive growth that has occured in patronage. In fact with the exception of some shoulder and off peak services, the number of trains at the peak time hasn’t changed in at least 4 years, possibly longer (I think it was when double tracking to Henderson was completed which was 2007)
I honestly don’t see the 15min peak frequencies as ‘that bad’, however what I find is terrible are the weekend and out of peak service frequencies. That is where I believe they should concentrate for now. I’m not saying to not aim for 10min peak frequencies, but I believe you would get more growth on concentrating on the weekend and off peak frequencies. As an example, my line in Sydney the Northern Line (and a few other ones except the busiest ones) has 15min peak frequencies, and 30mins at all other times (ie nights and weekends), I think this would be a desireable outcome for the western line too. Once that is achieved, they can concentrate on the peak. From what I understand, the western line has hourly weekend frequencies, 30mins interpeak, and then hourly at nights. Pretty poor.
I would agree Sean, there is only so much more that can be squeezed out of the peak (thats about four hours a day) with super frequent service. Meanwhile the other sixteen to twenty hours a day are ripe for patronage gains, but that won’t happen with an hourly service. It will come with time, as we shift from the old city commuter focus to a more all-day everywhere focus.
Can’t say I feel in the least bit sorry for Western Line passengers, TBH. AT should put some effort into improving things for those of us on the Southern Line who don’t even get guaranteed 15 minute frequencies during peak (and can have waits of over 40 minutes in the evening shoulder!).
However, if anything has to get better, off-peak is it. I’m fortunate to live along the H&E spine so I’ll be getting the benefit of their timetable re-jig, but rail is still arse for off-peak.
Maybe this is what the AA was thinking of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVeZ1iaUOGY
I think the AA might be reading this.
21/03/2012
New Zealand Bus Industry Costs
and Challenges
Andy Lightowler
Bus v Rail Costs
$30 of labour will take you:
─ 15km on an urban bus
─ 1km on a local train
Got a link to that, Andrew? A 15 to 1 spread in favour of buses huh…. so who was this piece of clever math devised for do we think?
Ah. Here it is: http://hardingconsultants.co.nz/ipenz2012/downloads/1150_Lightowler__Andy.pdf
No evidence for that claim, no idea what they’re counting.Clearly wont be comparing the EMUs with buses as expressly didn’t compare Wellington’s electric trolley buses with in comparison with with AK buses. Some interesting that issues raised in doc.especially around bus priority and competition in AK market.
Anyone from BECA want to explain Andy’s math to us here…?
I assume that statement is based upon existing rail staffing costs in Auckland, which are horrendously high due to the driver plus 2-4+ clippies per train we have at the moment. But again, if we consider that in terms of the passengers carried then it’s about break even. $30 gets you 15 times as far on a bus, but only carries 1/15 of the passengers.
Once we factor in driver only operation on both buses and trains I should get down to the figures I’ve calculated above, where a full large train is about 2.5 times cheaper to operate than the equivalent capacity on full buses.
Some interesting stuff there, for example:
” Each bus needs to earn > $50 per hour to cover operating costs “.
“Labour – 60-70% of total (operating costs) ─ Depending on pay & conditions”
What does that tell us about vehicles that required one driver per 30-60 passengers?
Nick R asked, “What does that tell us about vehicles that required one driver per 30-60 passengers?”
I am not sure what it tells you, but it says to me that there are many bus trips that just don’t make any sense because they travel routes that are never likely to attract many people. Unfortunately one of the consequences of that is that those who do travel on well patronised routes are penalised because their fare is subsidising others. I have no problem with that to some extent, but the balance does not seem right currently.
I like your proposal for North Shore light metro because on so many levels it seems to make sense. First there is the central spine with a very good frequency. That is tremendous appealing to those who live in close proximity to the stations. (Unfortunately that is not many people and in terms of the city plan it won’t be many because high rise is prohibited apart from in Albany).
I like the feeder bus services to the stations as this makes so much more sense than park and ride for a number of reasons.
Most significantly, I like the cost savings compared to heavy rail. I really struggle to see how a need for uniformity is necessary when you balance that against the huge labour saving that will be achieved and the lower capital cost. For those that see labour saving as a bad thing, other jobs will be necessary. There will be a need for security on trains; and manned stations that sell tickets and perhaps other things will enhance the service.
I can’t however agree with your thoughts of a spur into Takapuna. For me this replicates the problems of some of the current bus services from the city where they travel to less popular locations. They are less popular and hence the frequecy is diminished. As a previous poster has suggested maybe a different public feeder system such as the Doppelmayr one could be utilised and presumambly this would come at even lower cost than a light metro spur.
Hopefully the government will at some stage recognise that it much more efficient to build intensively than extensively. People do want to live in inner city appartments. When I lived in Wellington it was noticeable the number of baby boomers who did live in the city, simply because of the huge amenities on offer. It would be interesting to see the demographic of appartment dwellers in Auckland.
Maybe we just don’t have political leaders who can see a different future? A John F Kennedy used to say, ” I see things as they might be and ask, why not?”
Indeed the operating cost savings (i.e. no drivers) of light metro vs heavy rail has the potential to be hugely beneficial for Auckland, due to the decoupling of service frequency and operating costs. With that sort of setup we could afford to run a smaller train every five minutes or quicker all day long, seven days a week. Without staff, running a single carriage train every five minutes costs the same as a six carriage train every half hour. Same operating costs, same capacity but six times the frequency!
I don’t agree with you on the Takapuna spur for that same reason. With driverless operation taking 60-70% of the marginal cost out of running each service they don’t need to be highly patronised to warrant high frequency. You might need only a half dozen fare paying passengers on board for an extra service to break even, Takapuna can furnish that.
Also my intention was that the Takapuna spur wouldn’t be so much of a little branch line, but rather the end anchor of a much larger route that goes through to Howick or the Northwestern.