Auckland transport has posted online a couple of the presentations they have given to affected land owners, one for owners of sites where the surface property will be needed and one for owners where subsurface rights are needed. It is the second of these that is the most interesting as it contains all of the info of the first presentation and more. Before I go into the presentation itself, I must say that I am shocked with the quality of this opening image, parts of the train are see though, parts are cut off completely and to top it off the city has been flipped backwards, come on AT, you can do better than this.
The first part of the presentation contains the same information that we saw when the route was announced so I won’t cover that part. On to the new stuff. First there has been quite a bit of talk in some forums questioning why AT has selected the route it has, here’s what AT has to say.
There are quite a few factors that have been assessed and I’m pretty sure that over time as the designation process continues we will see more information about them all. For those that do have a tunnel, or even just the designation below their properties there are three layers of designation as described here:
Of course a big concern to many residents is going to be the impact of construction, both vibration when it is being built as well as possible settlement of the ground. AT say that there is not expected to be any structural damage from either of these but there may be some minor cosmetic impacts. To keep an eye on this, an array of monitoring points will be set up before construction starts to keep an eye on things. Here is an example of what will be done to monitor things.
And lastly a timeline for the CRL process which once again highlights that we have a few years left before we need to start getting worrying about the serious funding.
Edit: it appears that after I posted this, AT pulled down the presentations. They have since been replaced with new versions with the first page replaced
http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/improving-transport/city-rail-link/Documents/CRL-surface-landowner-presentation-July2012-print.pdf
http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/improving-transport/city-rail-link/Documents/CRL-subsurface-landowner-presentation-July2012-print.pdf
Processing...
No, Matt L, in terms of presentation and communication skills, it’s becoming increasingly evident that AT can’t do better than this. Forgetting past clunkers and the general design chaos of running about six different transport brands simultaneously, it seems to have gotten worse quite recently. First it was the 1980s Australian television logo and now it’s what looks like a powerpoint presentation whipped up by a couple of kids in year 10 who’ve had fun playing with Photoshop. Amateur hour, once again.
Is page 4 of the presentation incomplete?
The image is of the parallel universe that AT occupies: mirror-image geography and flying trains.
Holey flying train Batman!
The whole presentation looks quite rushed. This is evident of not spennding money on professional graphic design, but I guess it’s a case of damned if you do (Auckland Plan), damned if you don’t (AT logo, presentation quality).
But what is that flying train? I don’t… I can’t…
:\
Why is it so hard for them to get the basics right?
Communications Fail,
I mean if AT are attempting to come across as a professional organisation taking another step in open consultation with property owners, this is not it.
Its an underground rail link,like many cities in the world have, not Harry Potter……
Umm Matt your links to the two presentations have been locked out by AT and Auckland Council? Err was that meant to happen?
In any case LOL, we get a presentation on the progress of the CRL especially with the sub-surface stuff and what is the talking topic: AT’s sub-standard presentation work….
Andrew, Council got damned for The Auckland Plan as 380 pages + 60 addendum pages on glossy paper and in full colour could of easily been shrunk down by at least 1/3 pages wise and still be easy – although still lacking in solid detail (Unitary Plan prehaps) to read.
All the Auckland Plan documents got yesterday around the water-cooler at work was it getting relegated to Cat Litter jokes
This is clearly design by engineer, the seventh circle of powerpoint hell; killing us microsoftly.
Perhaps AT might have a comms budget if council wasn’t constantly attacked by childish councillors, media and others accusing every item of spending as ‘outrageous waste’…..?
Oh there you go, see the comment above.
Patrick weren’t you told about your above style of comment in another thread?
I was simply replying to Andrew’s comment on the Auckland Plan as it got discussed at work. That and giving my honest opinion as a ratepayer like you are on The Auckland Plan layout. Just because my opinion does not “follow yours” to the letter does not mean it is what ever you disregard it as…
If you are looking for me praising Council, I just did in regards to Tamaki Redevelopment
I thought the presentation was good (presentations aren’t meant to have too much detail), good logical order linking to the The Auckland Plan, relevant images, concise and answers alot of questions.
I get the flying train… It is quick and requires no PhotoShop skills.
I don’t get the mirror image city. Why would they possibly do that? Did someone think Auckland looked better if it was the other way around? And someone else said that they might as well… no one will notice?
Lol, Patrick, actually I love the image (partly). It’s dynamic. Without the flipped background, I would have bought what they’re selling 😉
And why the constant complaints about engineers? Could have been a planner, manager, CAD person, urban designer or coms person who did that slide. Sick of people dumping all their “you are doing it wrong” on the engineers, mate.
‘Cos they react so satisfyingly…. Bless.
Patrick is right, as an engineer I can confirm it – unmistakable.
Particularly the ‘potential zones of settlement’ slide – yeah those are great words for putting in front of affected landowners. 🙂
I’d say it was a planner, manager or engineer. A CAD person, urban designer or comms person should know their way around photoshop better than that!
I really respect engineers, every time I sit on a plane or cross a bridge I say a little prayer to the god of analytic straight thinkers. But there really does seem to something about having that gift that casts a little shadow over other skills. Usually including aesthetics and communications. No matter, there are others who can do that. Until graphics programmes came along, now the coms staff have been fired or downgraded and the numerate are being charged with doing the artistic. That’s my only problem, engineers should engineer and leave the graphic design to the specialists….. That’s all.
There are a few exception, a few genuinely multitalented people out there: Bunnel, Calatrava, Eiffel, etc but not many.
Patrick, my definition of the ideal home is living in a house designed by an engineer, that overlooks one designed by an architect. And yes, I’m yet another engineer, sorry. BTW I love AutoCAD but hate Photoshop, and I agree with you about leaving graphic design to those sad people who enjoy it.
Sorry… but this is full of generalisations, which can’t really be substantiated. There is no basis for assuming that this particular presentation was put together by an engineer, other than stereotyping that demeans the person doing the stereotyping more than the target. Given how important engineering will be to a successful future for AT, I’d leave the engineers alone. It would be all too easy for this blog to get ignored as obsessed with graphic design and ‘cool’ over other (equally important) considerations, which would allow its important observations about those other considerations to be dismissed. And now, quite possibly because of those remarks, I can’t access the presentations…
FWIW, you could even make an argument that given the direction the train is ‘flying’ in, the composition is improved by having the Sky Tower where it is, by flipping the city. Flipping the train would mean it had the ‘CITY RAIL LINK’ destination text flipped, which would be even worse!
None of which is to defend the image, simply to note that the medium really has become the message when we spend all this time on the opening slide, rather than on the content of the presentation. In any case, most of the content of any presentation is not in the slides, but in what was said when they were presented…
But hey… I’m an engineer by first degree, a cartographer by second, and a spatial analyst / modeller by third, so what would I know about communication?
Sigh…. you’ll note that the main thrust of my comment is that comms at AT is clearly underfunded and that sadly people are having to do work outside of their skill set. That’s all. Please, like I say, I love you guys, I really do. Anyway there’s no reason to feel so threatened; I’ll admit there’s no way you want me doing hard sums….
Completely agree – comms is clearly underfunded, and in a case like the CRL comms is a key facet that should be properly resourced.
A dogs breakfast.
Well, what do you expect from gay cats?
Come on AT hire a fucking proofreader!
Well you could always try this for spelling and grammatical sense: http://www.national.org.nz/Article.aspx?ArticleID=39000 and that is from Central Government 😛
Took me long enough to go correct it when I was doing a post on it (actually I gave up after the second paragraph…)
“in full colour could of easily been shrunk down”
Yes, it could of have…:)
To be clear, I don’t have a problem with the idea behind the image, just how it has been excuted. The rest of the presentation seemed ok to me.
Also yes it appears that the presentations are no longer publicly available online which is a shame.
Nuts, well it should be in paper form on the Council website soon enough – I hope – or could go ask someone for it.
http://cdn2.listsoplenty.com/listsoplenty-cdn/uploads/2010/10/Flying-train-prototype.jpg
Someday maybe. Someday.
Where we’re going we don’t need rails, etc.
http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/improving-transport/city-rail-link/Pages/default.aspx
Use this link and you can access the documents
The flying train is gone!
There is still the aerial photo with the overlay detail of stations and track layout to be released.
Do you have a copy Anthony? If you do is any chance you can send it to me?
More cutbacks to Auckland rail spend!
The presentations are back online but with a different cover page
http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/improving-transport/city-rail-link/Documents/CRL-surface-landowner-presentation-July2012-print.pdf
http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/improving-transport/city-rail-link/Documents/CRL-subsurface-landowner-presentation-July2012-print.pdf
Also if you are good with comms, AT are looking for someone to work on the CRL
http://careers.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/jobdetails?ajid=96048
Given it seems they can only afford to hire a junior for this CRL comms role, if would better for AT if they outsourced the entire comms and marketing functions – much better value for their money.
Because outsourcing works so well, and is so cheap?
If it is a capable, transport-savvy marketing and communications company, yes it would be a more cost effective option I believe, for AT to have their marketing and communications functions managed externally.
I think the main picture is representative of a parallel universe that we either live in or wish for, pie (or train) in the sky, a train without tracks that the govt doesn’t want to pay for. All very symbolic.
This government is dreaming of enormous motorways, that it doesn’t have the money to pay for either – at least not without selling the family silver. The CRL is more functional, and is a mere fraction of our total transport spend already planned for in the coming decades.
Its awesome presentation. Lika that. We will waiting fot flying train 😀