Transport infrastructure is just one of small group of vital core systems that the entire edifice of the city depends upon. This group; the water, wastewater, electricity, telecommunications, and transport structures of a city are critical to its wellbeing and success. These allow all the other social systems of a city; commerce, education, health, social and living processes to function at all. Such is the success of the city model that we have become able to expect these services to be operating all the time and without interruption more or less invisibly: To always be able to drink the water, to have electricity at the flick of a switch, to be able to physically access all of the city efficiently.
Cities are so dependent on these networks that they may even face existential crisis if one or more of them fail for any length of time. But of course they all require expensive physical infrastructure and ongoing organisation to maintain them. And because of the enormous economies of scale in the whole city solving these practical problems together some sort of central planning structure and mechanism for funding their construction and operation is also need. There are always debates around the need or otherwise for investment in these systems. In particular there always seem to be those who never want to invest in anything at all, or at least resist changing the current way of doing things.
“New ideas pass through three periods: 1) It can’t be done. 2) It probably can be done, but it’s not worth doing. 3) I knew it was a good idea all along!” — Sir Arthur C. Clark
For a city of its size and wealth Auckland has a relatively poor record in a number these areas recently. It seems we are in the habit of skimping on vital spending in some areas, building a bare minimum and just hoping for the best. We got badly found out with our electricity supply systems in 1998 with a major outage caused by the failure of equipment for which we had no backup or alternative route.
And until recently almost every summer we ran into water supply problems as we gambled with the weather to cooperate with the growing demands of an expanding city. But not this year, despite a record lack of rain and a record population. And there’s a good reason why as outlined in this article from Fairfax:
The Waikato pipeline has saved Auckland from a full-blown water shortage, mayor Len Brown says.
The pipeline, developed in the mid-1990s, now provides 20 per cent of the city’s water supply.
“The lakes are presently sitting at 70 per cent. That’s really only because we’re able to tap into the Waikato supply,” Mr Brown says.
“We’ve had basically drought conditions for the last six weeks.”
A $48 million upgrade completed last year increased the amount of water the pipeline is able to be supply from 75 million litres to 125 million litres .
“Aucklanders’ reliance on other supplies is being hugely tested.
“But those people in urban Auckland wouldn’t know that at all. It’s an endless beautiful summer and they’re lapping it up.”
Mr Brown describes the pipeline as a “massive investment” which the former leaders of Auckland had the foresight to commission.
A further pipeline upgrade would be possible in the future as demand increases with population growth.
Sixty per cent of Auckland’s water comes from dams in the Hunua Ranges, 17 per cent from dams in the Waitakere Ranges, 20 per cent from the pipeline and 3 per cent from a freshwater spring in Onehunga.
So Auckland is only able to still function because of this ‘“massive investment” which the former leaders of Auckland had the foresight to commission’. And it is expandable for future ‘demand increases with population growth.’
It is worth noting that the pipeline achieves this by only supplying 20% of our water needs. So it has been able to stabilise our existing water demand by meeting one fifth of the need. It has smoothed the peaks in the demand across the year.
But of course like all really successful infrastructure investments we tend to forget about it now it is working smoothly and just expect it to be there doing its job. What a great luxury. It’s only when things break down or show that they are becoming inadequate that we start to get really interested in them. In Auckland now there is really only one of these vital functions that is attracting that much interest: our transport systems. That the city comes to a total halt when there are problems on the motorway network shows that we are overly reliant on this one system, as we were when we only had local dams suppling our water.
Margritte, This is not a Pipe
It is not hard to see a metaphor here. It is very odd that some still claim that the best way to improve the quality of our transport systems in Auckland is to keep putting more eggs into one basket: To keep building more motorways. Yet as we had the wisdom to diversify our water supply it is clearly time to do the same in the transport sector. To be successful this diversification does not at all mean abandoning or downgrading our current assets, it is just a question of adding the option of a much more viable alternative to compliment them. And in the City Rail Link and associated work on the rail and bus networks we have a project that is analogous to the Waikato pipeline: it is the project to keep our current dominant asset running better.
And this is a matter of some urgency because of the time it will take construct this new high capacity ‘pipeline’ it is unwise to delay unless we are prepared to put up with increasingly frequent gridlock events. Not that any alternative to driving will ‘solve’ congestion or prevent accidents or all delays but a really high quality complimentary network will certainly provide that critical core percentage of movement that will remain untroubled by events elsewhere. And the CRL is the very core of the new bus/rail RTN backbone of that complimentary system.
But this is a new idea for Auckland [see Arthur C Clark above], and most people here have become used to the idea that you have to drive to get anywhere, so can it work, will people use it?
Well at every turn this century as we have improved the RTN network; Rail and the Northern Busway, these investments have been met with higher than projected patronage. And as the CRL and associated works will allow a frequency, capacity, and convenience that will make the entire network so much more attractive for so many people on so many occasions there is no reason to believe that this trend won’t just continue but accelerate. To contend otherwise cannot be supported by evidence. Or at least I have never seen any argument more advanced than simply the stating of an opinion as to why we shouldn’t confidently expect rapid growth in ridership after these investments.
We can also reasonably also look to the single most relevant example for a guide. Below is the Perth patronage data. Perth began a series of improvements to its rail network when its system was carrying around the same number as ours is now. The improvements are remarkably similar, electrification, an underground inner city connecting line, bus integration. Perth has a similar culture and population to Auckland, it is in fact a more spread out city, with fewer geographic constraints and a higher average income than Auckland. These facts make it an almost ideal, if conservative, model for Auckland’s plans.
Electrification with its every 10 minutes turn-up-and-go frequencies will certainly address our current capacity problems. But then once you add the more attractive and reliable trains, extension of services through the day and into weekends, coordination with the new bus network through fare integration as well as station and stop linking, it will also clearly grow demand beyond the constraints of the network. And, it is important to note, all of that at a considerably lower cost per service and per user.
So it is clear that well before the end of this decade the all-terminating-at-Britomart system is going to be groaning at the seams and a sorry waste of the potential carrying capacity of the wider network. While the coming improvements will wring more use out of what is the biggest waste of existing capacity in Auckland it will still be only lifting a fraction of the load it could be. What it could be with the CRL.
Auckland needs that new pipe!
Ceci n’est pas un Autoportrait!
Something to reflect on.
[thanks to Veronica]
Processing...
The metaphor is sound, but let me just make a few minor corrections. With the upgrade to 125 million litres per day, we’re actually getting more like 30% of our water from the Waikato at the moment. Demand meanwhile is higher than it’s ever been, breaking both the daily and monthly maximum records and then breaking them again. That all said, Waikato water does cost as much as 7 times the price per unit volume than Hunua water though. Hunua water is cleaner, and hence operational costs are significantly cheaper at the treatment plant. Hunua water is also high, which means it can flow by gravity all the way to the north shore before needing to be pumped. Waikato water meanwhile, needs to be pumped into Redoubt Road.
The Waikato plant is also scheduled to undergo a series of further upgrades, increasing its capacity to 300 million litres per day by 2031 (by which point it will supply more than half of Auckland’s water when running at full capacity).
Another comparison (not a pipe, sorry) is election mandates.
National’s justification for continuing with asset sales was that was one of their election mandates, and we as a country agreed with that when we voted them in.
One of Len Brown’s key election mandates was the City Rail Link.
If we are to respect National’s mandate, can they please respect Len Brown’s?
“One of Lens Brown’s key election mandates was the CRL”.
As was completing the Unitary and Auckland Plans, which is being done and due for release for consultation soon (end of the week?).
And yet we have Amy Adams and Nick Smith two most recent examples of Nationals Ministers threatening to meddle.
Amy Adams is not currently such an issue, Nick Smith is though – as everything he meddles in turns to shit in short order.
Witness: Treated Timber rule changes that delivered Leaky Homes, ACC levy changes – to name two obvious blunders and theres more than a few other blunders standing behind those as well.
Who needs Novopay when you’ve got Nick Smith on the case? He’s a mobile crisis on two legs
Greg N, you’ve overlooked Nick Smith’s most egregious stuff-up: the ETS. This is simply tax by stealth, and impacts most on those who can least afford it. About the only thing one can say in mitigation is that it’s slightly less draconian than the version proposed by his predecessor.
As for untreated timber, while I agree it does exacerbate the leaky home problem by rotting more quickly than treated timber, it’s not actually the root cause which is monolithic cladding attached directly to the timber. All cladding is porous to some degree so a drainage/ventilation gap is essential. The only impermeable component is the paint, which is only a few micrometres thick and subject to cracking.
Jonno,
sure you’re right, but eveyr diaster is a series of linked chains, break the chain along the way and the disaster is either avoided or reduced massively in scope.
Same with leak homes, all homes leak, but what they found when they looked is that the treated timber actually stops for quite a while the rot even when the wood gets wet – which is obvious in hindsight otherwise we would have a leaky home scandal in the 60’s when they stopped using heartwood native timbers and moved to pine for structural timber in houses.
So, yep, cladding is the issue here and lack of drainage is too, but without the lack of timber treatment the wood would not have rotted so quick.
Agreed, untreated timber was certainly part of the problem, just not the worst part. My recollection is that the suppliers were being pressured (and rightly so) to contain runoff from the treatment process. Their proposed solution was to eliminate the process which unfortunately was approved by the BIA. Another problem was non-rectangular windows with associated flashing problems. Architects were the primary source of that problem.
My house has untreated timber framing but the construction is such that it never gets wet. Where that possibility does exist, eg solid balustrades, tanalised timber and hot dip galvanised steel has been used. I took one of these apart during an alteration and it was wringing wet, but no sign of rot or rust.
Containing run-off from treatment plants may have been used to justify it in hindsight but wasn’t the main reason.
At the time Carter Holt Timber were arguing to the Government of the day that a move to Kiln Dried timber was needed.
This move which was being desired as architects wanted to have large flat wall spaces in houses and so builders had to have dead straight timber otherwise the wall bulged and wouldn’t look nice.
The only way that CH Timber said they could do this economically was to use kiln dried timber which meant the usual mucking about treating the timber wouldn’t be an option anymore…
…so they got their way, and everyone else suffers still as a result.
Pretty much like a lot of PT planning round these parts. Short term thinking leads to long term pain and consequences
Point taken, I’d forgotten about that aspect. So it was ultimately those [beep] architects again…
Q: What is the definition of the ideal house?
A: One designed by an engineer that overlooks one designed by an architect.
Only Jonno, because while you’re in the hideous thing the engineer has made it is the only place place that you can’t see it!
Funny all this effort to blame architects, they are only responsible for a few percent of all the buildings built. QSs, draftsmen, builders, traffic engineers, and other ‘practical’ types shape much more of the built environment. It’s a shame, modernisation has relegated aesthetics to an undervalued mockable role…. And now nobody admires what is built.
Hey Patrick, it was a joke! A bit like your pipe pictures in the post (which was excellent btw).
The only (small) flaw in your analogy with utility networks is that when demand increases you generally do build more of the same. The Waikato river is an alternative water source but not an alternative mode. Otoh, landlines and cellphones are different modes in that either one can exist without the other, so that works better with your theme. A backup generator might be considered a different mode to distributed electricity, but still requires a common installation to utilise the energy.
As for housing, my point was that an engineer’s house might be ugly but utilitarian, while an architect’s house is sometimes virtually unliveable (I’ve seen a few of these). These are generalisations based on experience but there are, of course, exceptions. One of my close friends is an architect who designs amazing dwellings that are both beautiful and functional. My own house is aesthetically pleasing (I believe!) but works so well that I haven’t changed a thing in 15 years apart from a small external addition that involved removing the balustrade mentioned above.
Mine was a joke too (in fact a rip off of a famous one about the unloved University of Moscow building- it has one advantage: it’s the only place in Moscow where you can’t see the University of Moscow building)
Anyway I’m sure we both agree with Ruskin: ‘never have anything in your life that you do not know to be useful or believe to be beautiful’.
Aesthetics is subjective, and I’ve seen many a vile effort by architects, and useless things by engineers, and visa versa.
Many of my favourite all time things were designed by engineers…. Especially a lot of bridges, wind turbines, planes…. I could go on. But then many of those things were designed with a lot of thought about aesthetics as well as functionality…. Of perhaps we should say the function of beauty….?
Oh, OK Patrick, that went straight over my head. The problem is that you say many outrageous things that you appear to take seriously, so who can discern the difference? [That’s a joke too, well, sort of…].
There are some great structures out there which must have been designed by architects then made to work by engineers – the new Dilworth pedestrian overbridge comes to mind, very unusual but attractive. The proximity of the lower loop to the KiwiRail electric lines is a bit of a problem though (not the clearance per se but managing the risk of a catenary or contact wire breaking and flicking up onto the steel structure). But the engineers will sort it out – the obvious solution is a spark gap rather than earthing the whole structure. Similarly the Westgate footbridge as discussed on this blog and a few others in the motorway system are easy on the eye as well as being functional (I blame NZTA/Brownlee/Joyce et al).
Yes those bridges are designed by the same architect I believe; Jeff Wells, who also did the Pukeko cow bridge above the toll road up north. He is really good and clearly has a good working relationship with his engineer partners.
I’m liking what I see from I think WaM’s Simon Dodd of the foot bridge at Parnell Baths- clean and elegant. Not so much the too narrow and fiddly effort by the same practice over the VPT exit….
When I was a kid I wanted to become a bridge designer, but took fright at the math when I was shown what the civil engineering partner of my father did all day! [slide rules!] Just as well, what loss to the arts that would have been [heh].
‘Outrageous things’? No idea what you mean?
Patrick,
Your analogy with Water supplies and PT are apt.
You should note that Auckland went through many droughts and water supplies, and has moved water sources many times as the cit(ies) and town that made up Auckland grew and grew.
Usually only after the previous sources were totally exhausted and unusable, and only then did the reality sink in to many politicians.
[For water sources: first was the Domain, then Western Springs, then additional sources as well including Onehunga spring until eventually Waitakeres and Hunua, and most recently the Waikato River].
I recall in the mid 80s talk to tap the “freshwater lens” that sits under Rangitoto on top of the saltwater being used/usable to counter the then predicted water crises, that did hit some 8 years later,
One could say that the lack of foresight over many years back then resulting in needing to do all these do-overs of the water supply in the past, and it seems we do the same with the PT – move the stations around, never think big enough or plan well enough ahead or stage it properly so that we usually do nothing for a long time, have a crisis, then panic stations, scrap the previous work and start again and/or do a half-arsed integration effort with whats there that forever impacts decisions going forward). Don’t preserve the corridor we have (and worse, don’t even put one in). Then wonder why PT is a mess.
Yes, we need another pipe both through the CBD and eventually under the harbour and we need both central and local governments to have vision and purpose about it to make it so.
At least they are making plans to do something, so its not the doing stuff thats a problem its the “when” of the doing stuff thats at issue here.
The CBD pipe was planned long ago in the 20s, and there have been more than a few examples of similar grand schemes coming to naught on the basis of central government intransigence and playing favourites in the Auckland councils and boroughs ever since.
Royal Oak Roundabout as a classic example of the issue – 5 boroughs/councils boundaries met there and none of them could ever agree on a solution to fix it, so we have this mess now.
Of course, that was supposedly fixed in the late 80’s when the Auckland City Amalgamations took place, but here we are some 24 years after that and little improvement is on offer.
Right now I don’t see that with the likes of Brownlee or Nick Smith or Amy Adams rumbling on about “special powers to force things through” that things will change this side of the 2014 election.
And we also need more meddling politicians with fingers in this pi(p)e like we need another hole in our heads.
Thanks to Greg and Adam above for fleshing out the water story more. Auckland will increasingly rely on the Waikato feed as it grows, just as it will increasingly rely on its Transit systems. It’s just a question of when we are able to build these complimentary networks.
Especially because it seems likely to me that the accelerated motorway building at Auckland’s periphery and through its suburbs will actually make this more urgent. Here’s what I mean: these flash new superhighways like the 20/16/18 nexus seem more likely to dump waves of traffic onto the central bottlenecks, especially the CMJ, Mt Wellington/Eastern interchange and the Bridge, leading to more sudden and frequent Snafus. Leading to huge frustration on the part of drivers who have been sold free flowing traffic and are being encouraged to rely on and invest in auto dependency both personally (cars etc) and collectively (multi billions on these highways).
I know that this isn’t what the minister or NZTA predict, but then to paraphrase Mandy Rice Davies (or was it Christine Keeler?) they wouldn’t, would they?
Patrick, I can understand how shifting commuters from the northwestern dormitory suburbs from the southern to the WRR will increase traffic volumes on the Mt Wellington highway but what is your logic for increased traffic in CMJ and the harbour bridge? Are you assuming that when the WRR removes traffic from CMJ the attractiveness of the Albany industrial area will decline because of the increased ease of travelling from the managerial suburbs to Mt Wellington, Wiri and airport industrial so that employment continues to grow in the old pattern that created the CMJ overload that WRR is supposed to solve. If so you are correct to criticise NZTAs failure to include land use impacts into its modelling.
Dare I say it, this is what happens when governments interfere in the free market. Bring back the good old days when property developers built there own tramways and subways to make their land accessible and rightfully deserved to take the capital gains as reward.for their initiative and risk. (If you know the connected history of tramways and the town planning movement of the early 1920s then you will be all too familiar with use of land zoning to preserve or enhance land values to the detriment of economically efficient housing, ie Merivale and Fendalton were zoned low density to prevent the encroachment of medium density housing along the tram routes.)
IMHO the planning profession, of which I am a member, did not exactly cover itself in glory during the 20th century.
Kevyn I agree that the separation of movement planning from land-use planning is a total disaster and causes a whole lot of problems, as does spending tens of billions on motorway because of ministerial whim and the fact they ‘love driving’. But what I was referring to in particular is that a result of this massive investment is likely to be 1. an increase in driving simply by encouragement [what you feed grows] even in spite of other counter indications but even if that isn’t the case that 2. the removal of major current ex urban bottlenecks will also lead to more trips in total but also an increase in shock wave events at the new bottlenecks, which will now be those further in on the older inner parts of the network.
I basically don’t see that the WRR will ‘remove’ much more traffic than in generates: Both in new driving and in increased problematic vehicle concentrations.
In other words traffic will be able to flood quicker and more suddenly to any point of constriction. Right now on the NW for instance traffic is rationed onto SH16 by the old interchanges, currently being upgraded. It is surely certain that this work, even without any net increase in vehicle numbers, will supply any concentrations of traffic in great lumps onto the rest of the network. No? Won’t the lanes behind the Pt Chev shops be immediately under pressure from the day those massive stacked flyovers at the Waterview interchange open? More widening through there then, and then what?, Western Springs will cop it? widen that, and then it will be a rush to the CMJ itself…. No? So many more billions…..
Combine this with sprawl by decree [more long distance driving] and we have a recipe for a seriously dysfunctional city because of over reliance on:
A. One mode
B. One mode still mainly squeezed through the middle of town- the singularity of the CMJ
Yes SH20 will take some pressure off SH1 for long haul but it will also deliver more to east bound on the SH16, the CMJ, the bridge, and SH1 too… Completion of the WRR, I predict, will not ease Auckland’s movement problems. It will fire waves through the network more often and more suddenly.
My point is, contrary to ministerial ‘hunch’ this massive spend will not lead to free flowing lower congestion, but in fact often the reverse. Stand by for calls for a massive additional CMJ above or below the current one as a result of a few massive great snarlups. The current work that will more efficiently deliver vehicles to gridlock will never be blamed for causing these when they come, but will be used to back calls for even more massive road-building answers to road-building caused problems.
I maintain that the best, as well as the most cost effective, way to improve the driving experience and the efficiency of the motorway network is to invest away from it.
IIRC NZTA predicts a massive 10% reduction on SH1 at opening of WRR…. credible?
“Stand by for calls for a massive additional CMJ above or below the current one as a result of a few massive great snarlups.”
That was one of the genius suggestions that the Herald published as a reader solution to the traffic issues last Thursday. It would be a toll road apparently.
Patrick, Your logic makes good sense, like upgrading the wiring in your house to 15 amp and not replacing the 10 amp circuit breakers.
I can believe that WRR will reduce AADT on SH1 by 10%, but i’ll bet peak volumes only drop briefly so the majority of users will still be complaining about congestion being as bad as ever. If the northwest-southern links were to be closed (except in emergencies) to eliminate merge effects then there would be real gains in traffic flows through CMJ. As for incident gridlock, that is the same as cascading failures of transmission grids, something that powercos try to minimise with emergency load shedding strategies such as ripple control of water heaters so NZTA needs a similar ability to shed loads whenever there’s a major motorway inciden,t for instance by ordering Wilson and Tournament to shutdown the exit gates of their carpark until traffic flows have stabilised. 🙂
NZTA were careful in their predictions to say that the improvement would be temporary, but they of course fail to take that thought to its logical conclusion and question the whole raison d’être…. But then they are being done by ministerial fiat anyway.
I guess the lights at the on ramps are their input controls, which means they have the power to tailback Auckland’s local roads; still a system fail.
As for separating 16 from 1? yeah, I bet that has appeal at the agency but it does rather go against the whole multi billion dollar many decade plan doesn’t it? They great plan to serve a whole city by private vehicle… still the dream isn’t it?
Very nice post, however the one issue I have is the Perth example. Although similar on quite a few fronts Perth has grown to be a long narrow city hugging the coast for the most part. This means that by building one long rail line you can almost put most of the city within 1km of a rail station.
Doing that is Auckland would require a swarm of rail lines.
Don’t know about that… in many places, Perth’s population is half the density of Auckland’s, so the walkable catchment for each station would include fewer people. But then the distances travelled are probably longer in Perth, so that would favour rail in that city.
It’s a reasonable comparison, overall. You’ll never get two cities exactly the same.
And Dan, again, you are wrong about Auckland. It is long and thin; you may have noticed the two big bodies of water east and west of the city?
But anyway as in Perth the rail catchment will be greatly expanded by integration with connecting buses. And the rail system will expand, first south west, then northeast, but it will, again like Perth, remain the swift grade separate core of a transit system that also includes buses, ferries, and the active modes. Plus of course park’n’rides at the edges.
Your suggestion that we would need rail lines everywhere just shows how little you understand what a network is. No, the rail core of the Transit system most explicitly does not need to mimic the spread of roads to achieve its success; that’s the whole point!
You need to calm down there Patrick. When get all rilled up like that making all sorts of wild assertions I can’t really respond from a cell phone. It’s almost something where one needs to sit down and talk it through with you using a big picture and coloured markers.
Like this picture?
http://i.imgur.com/CnwMEeM.jpg
Only a minor proportion of Perth rail users walk to the station, most catch connecting buses and park n ride. And they travel well over 1km on average.
Wwould you be so kind as to you refer me to your source of data please
Google a report by Falconer and Wooley of ARUP. I’d find the link myself except I’m writing this on a smartphone on the back of a bus in rural north India and everything takes a very long time to load!
Otherwise you can simply have a look around the Perth network on google earth, particularly the new Joondalup and Mandurah lines. A quick glance at the stations shows most of them are equipped with off street bus interchanges and many with large park n ride lots. You’ll also see that their location in the freeway corridors means that many of the stations have nothing within walking distance at all. Perth is a great example of bus-rail integration, several stations have cross platform interchange with bus platforms within the fare paid area of the train station. You don’t even have to tag off as you leave the bus.
I might add that AT is currently constructing such a bus-rail interchange at Panmure and in pre-construction of similar facilities at Manukau and Otahuhu, and planning many more. There is also already a very good interchange at New Lynn, all of which will start to function well once HOP is rolled out to buses in the middle of this year.
Glad to see your new interest in evidence dan, glad to be raising the bar. Here is a link that refers to this work by ARUPs: http://aitpm.com.au/uploads/Ryan-Falconer-Ben-Cooper-Wolley-Submission.pdf
Hey they even won an award for it.
I’m always based on evidence, it’s just that I can’t reference it on a cell phone and I know you have it even if you choose to ignore it.
But given you were giving people so much shit before about a picture can you explain page 3 of that report.
Also you still need to learn to stop trolling. You tend to write at least one insult into every post.
Nick. From what I can see with Perth, the main reason their rail patronage has grown so much is that they have forced people to take the train.
They are doing the same in Auckland by changing bus routes to no longer take people to the city but to a train station. So when they say pt trips have increased 100 to 200% its because one bus trip had turned into two bus trips and a train ride.
Dan, I’m sorry but you’ve never once offered anything beyond your own tangental opinion and a lot of excuses why you can’t provide evidence. And look, you’re at it again: ‘From what I can see with Perth, the main reason their rail patronage has grown so much is that they have forced people to take the train.’ What on earth does this mean? How are people in Perth being ‘forced’ onto trains? With cattle prods? Instead of parking their cars and riding the trains they could easily just drive up those freeways beside the trains, many do, many don’t. Clearly riding the train is an option in Perth, and one that they nearly didn’t have, did they shut down all the roads when they revived the rail network? No of course they didn’t; how does that assertion of yours have any grounding in sense or fact?
There is no double counting in the rail patronage in the chart I reproduced, because it’s only rail patronage; not a mixture of bus and rail trips and that is the reason we are discussing Perth as a model for Auckland’s future.
We get it that you disagree with our arguments here, you have some fundamental issue with our advocacy of Transit and that’s fine, in fact we are looking for intelligent and informed debate here, but pointless obtuse repetition of opinion without any actual argument or evidence is bound to provoke a smack down.
Even if it were possible for me to be a troll on a blog that I contribute to, calling out nonsense can hardly constitute trolling. I find it strange that you make unsupported negative statements then get whinny when they get responded to….
Just take a chill pill and a few deep breaths there Patrick. I get banned and my IP blocked each time I break down various PT arguments and I get suspended or fired for providing evidence so I’m in a hard spot.
Not so Dan, at those Perth bus-rail interchanges you can just as easily transfer to another bus to complete the journey, as well as park n ride to a bus. I’m sure anyone going to an intermediate destination not served by rail does exactly that, but those making longer distance journeys chose to transfer to train over bus due to the major speed advantage. Same in Auckland, the new RPTP network does move to a connective node based model for operational efficiency, however people can just as easily complete their trip by bus if they so choose. For example at Panmure all the buses coming over the bridge from Pakuranga will still head all along great south rd into town, yet I imagine most of those headed to the city will chose to swap to the train at Panmure (and some a Ellerslie) and save themselves 30-40 minutes. No forcing at all.
As for diddling the numbers with transfers, someone correct me if I’m wrong but doesn’t Perth use smartcard data to report linked journeys, rather than simple boardings?
If not its no drama for the figures above, as they only report rail trips, not total. Of people are chosing to make a faster trip by rail instead of bus what is the problem?
Oh and you keep getting banned for obnoxious behavior and repetitive opinion, not for breaking down PT arguments. If you want to break down PT arguments you’ll need some evidence or a clear progression of logic. Don’t just bark the same opinion several times and claim your some sort of oppressed martyr when people get pissed off with your unsubstantiated ranting. If you have a opinion then by all means air it, but if you want to further the discussion then you’d better have something to back it up with and lean how to play nice like a grown up.
I think you will find that most of my posts are rather clear and polite. It’s not my fault that you guys get wildly agitated by anyone who questions you.
Also my of my posts are about your misinterpretation of data. If you didn’t do that then I would likely have little to say.
You can drop the matyr angle Richard, there are several regulars on here the question the data and conclusions and have a generally contrarian viewpoint (Obi, Swan, Scott and others). They’ve never been blocked because they are capable of having a conversation without trolling. How many sites do you want to be banned from?
The last time I trolled was back in 2010, I moved on a long time ago. You will note that everytime anyone else questions you, I use you as in the anti-car church, you get wildly upset and start posting abuse. And yes, quite a few get banned. I’ve been banned about 10 times from, so not too much of a conern.
Dan, you are the biggest troll on this website. You constantly insult people and then whinge about people trolling you. ” It’s almost something where one needs to sit down and talk it through with you using a big picture and coloured markers.”
Constantly insult people? How do you arrive at that conclusion?
Also in relation to what you quoted, did you actually read the posts preceding that?
I’d say that due to the way it has grown Perth is more like Wellington in the way it is laid out whereas Auckland is much more like Sydney. However given Sydney is such an old city Brisbane would probably be a better comparison.
Sydney is vastly bigger, Brisbane is considerably less geographically constrained, but also nowhere, anywhere, has built anything so closely resembling what is proposed for Auckland like Perth did. The comparison is as about as perfect as you could hope to get…. How else can we test these ideas? All we get from the Government is their personal opinion, might as well consult the entrails of a passing duck for all the sense they make.
The case is very strong for big jumps in ridership a lá Perth.
And remember this is really the only objection to building it because the complaints about cost are really just arguments about projections of value: If the new network attracts a poor ridership then it will be poor value for money, if it performs to these expectations then it will be excellent value for money. The quantum it self is not extraordinary, it is well within the figures that are routinely spent on parts of the motorway network, a programme that is soon to be finished. This is why those ideologically opposed to it love to claim that ‘no-one will use it’ [Gerry Brownlee]. Where is the evidence for this claim?
“…might as well consult the entrails of a passing duck for all the sense they make.”
Sorry Patrick thats a very long bow to draw, you know as well as I do that doing that is in fact way **too** scientific for the current Transport Minister to fathom or utilise.
He prefers studies the patterns of the interaction of the duck foot prints on the wet clay and the acoustic patterns of the echoes of the duck quacks to form his judgements on the merits of any non-road transport proposal from his ministry or fellow cabinet members.
“And remember this is really the only objection to building it because the complaints about cost are really just arguments about projections of value”
And opportunity cost.
And thats where they take their last stand, everytime a cocnut – no matter how good the arguemnt, the facts, the science or heaven forbid, the BCR – whether that be of the CRL or any other proposal,
at the end of the day last word will be:
“Denied. We can build MOAR ROADS for that money.” End of argument. QED
.
[ – the unspoken part of that being being “MORA ROADS has worked well for us in the past – so why wouldn’t we continue the tried and true”]”.
And to echo Mandy Rice Davies as we have come to expect, “Well he [Brownlee] would say that wouldn’t he”. Yes he would.
The reason – what he have here is not a failure of our argument or methods – its a failure of the minister to do his job properly – full stop
His mantra “my way = more highways”.
And do you reconfigure the existing pipe as well?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Principal_Shared_Path_Along_Perth_Motorway_II.jpg
Patrick, just a small on sequitur, can you please provide the link to the MBIE report with the two graphs that you tweeted about?
Aha, I just found it in this unimaginatively but bluntly named report “Residential land available in Auckland.” http://www.dbh.govt.nz/UserFiles/File/Publications/Sector/pdf/residential-land-available-in-auckland-report.pdf
Check out the fantastic MS Paint drawing on page 45.
That drawing is awesome, I used to do something similar at Montesorri, in the 70s when I was 3. Imagine the conversation that took place that day in Wellington, “oh look, if we draw some squares to show the statistical units and stuff, and like, the red lines can be, like, the urban periphery, yeah yeah that looks good! Steve and Nick will love that!” This central govt doesn’t even attempt to look like they’re trying to work with Auckland Council. So many of their resources are dedicated to ripping apart and undermining any potential decisions and policies AC makes. This will not achieve better outcomes. The recent MfE discussion document Improving our RM System makes it blatantly clear from the get to that it’s about cutting out the consultative process whether it be local or national.
I’m sort of imagining Steven Joyce hunched over a desk looking intently at a map of Auckland with a box of red felt-tip pens, saying “and this is where we’ll build the ROADS!” as he draws those red lines through the Waitakere Ranges Regional Park.
Or are those red lines signalling where new RoNettes will go. See, they are thinking about the required infrastructure!
The Ara Tūhono – Waitakere Ranges Expressway road of national significance runs approximately 38km through the Waitakere ranges area west of Auckland. The project aims to build a new rural expressway from the Northwestern Motorway (SH16) at Waterview to downtown Piha. Existing and anticipated future regional growth will provide opportunities for economic and social development in the Waitakere ranges and provide a better connection to Auckland for freight, tourism and motorists.
In the long term, the expressway will connect to a 24-lane motorway tunnel under the Tasman Sea, which will connect to the East Freeway in Sydney, near Kingsford Smith Airport. The estimated cost of this project is $6.3 trillion. Construction is due to start next Wednesday.
I think “Steve D” wins comment of the week award for Ara Tūhono.
Why did we never think of this before? $6.3 trillion for a motorway to Sydney is a baaaaaargain.
It would be cheaper if we did it with trains. Approximately $2.4 trillion, not including Piha and Kings Cross International Stations.
But George ‘we love our cars’ so its important we pay three times as much to express that love. We’re a loving emotional people….
No, George, people won’t catch trains. We need to build a motorway because The People Have Spoken and They Want Cars, which is why every year they keep driving more and more.
However, if you’re worried about the cost, through using a public-private partnership or PPP we can “reduce” the cost to just $18.9 trillion.
This is why I should refresh before posting, so I can see if Patrick has beaten me to the obvious joke.
I dunno Steve, think you upped the ante with the PPP reference….
Looks like someone got their five year old to help with the drawings.
Five year old can still draw? The ones I know would have rocked it on an i phone or i pad!
We should be glad the Ministry of Innovation & ED is leading the way with new technologies like hand-drawn bitmap overlays.
Heh, that drawing sure is primitive – I wonder if someone forget to ask the graphics gurus to replace the hand-drawn sketch. Note that the legend is much more professional.
Great Post. Thanks.
Again with the analogy; we don’t make the best use of the resources we have.
Because of opposition to regulation that would ensure we have technologies that reduce water use in every home (showerheads, toilets etc.) we have to have a lot more capacity than we’d otherwise need. That isn’t free, and the expenses are felt across the board – for very little benefit.
Brilliant line from a brilliant man:
“Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over.” Mark Twain
Water is becoming a very big issue as we move through the climate change dynamic this century….