I live in a parallel transport universe. A universe where zombies make uninformed statements about Auckland’s transport issues, which are subsequently published by well-meaning but clueless mainstream media. The zombies’ strategy is to hypnotise people with absurdity and then proceed to eat a few parts of their brains, after which their haplessly brainless victims stumble out into the world spouting transport nonsense.
Yesterday threw up two delicious brain-eating examples.
The first came courtesy of this rather interesting hour-long series of interview on RadioLive. First off the mark was Patrick (cue Irish accent), who took 10 minutes to deconstruct a few of the myths about Auckland’s transport problems in somewhat humorous fashion.
Hot on Patrick’s dainty little high heels was an almost comical, but unfortunately serious, interview with Simon Lambourne, who apparently is the transport spokesperson from the AA (OMG he gets paid?). In response to a question about whether hovercrafts were the solution to Auckland’s transport problems, Simon replied by saying:
“Yeah well I think this person’s actually onto something. If you look at public transport in Auckland, and we desperately need to look at investing more in public transport than we already do, there’s a lot of attention on buses and trains, but hardly anything on actual ferries. Now if you look at somewhere like Sydney, where they really unleash the potential of their harbour through a great ferry network …”
Let’s follow Simon’s advice and “look” at Sydney’s public transport system. A quick internet search reveals the following (approximate) annual public transport patronage statistics by mode:
- Ferry ~13 million p.a.
- Bus ~200 million p.a.
- Rail ~250 million p.a.
Has Sydney really “unleashed the potential of their harbour through a great ferry network”? Perhaps – if you consider a ferry network that carries approximately 2% of total annual public transport patronage as being “unleashed” (NB: Ferries currently carry about 5% of Auckland’s PT patronage). But this has not been achieved without monumental investment in bus and rail, the very same type of investment that Lambourne is lamenting.
That “boom” you just heard was Simon Lambourne blowing up his own credibility. Seriously though, someone needs to tell Simon that it does not matter how reasonable you try and sound when you’re talking about public transport; if you’re working from blatantly incorrect information then you will always be, well, conspicuously wrong.
Now don’t get me wrong, I quite like ferries. In terms of overall deliciousness they rank just below chocolate ice-cream and puppies. Mmm … delicious.
But as previously discussed in this post, the potential of ferries in Auckland has largely already been tapped; there simply aren’t many craggy peninsulas like Devonport left. In other places where they have been considered, such as Te Atatu, the general conclusion (for good reason) is that ferries will struggle to compete with cars and buses in terms of speed and accessibility and therefor would be an expensive way to grow PT patronage.
And even putting these physical realities to one side does not alter the fact that the maximum potential share of total travel demands that could possibly be met by ferries is really, really small in the scheme of a large city like Auckland. So please don’t let Simon (or Cameron Brewer or Phil Twyford) eat your brain: Ferries are not going to solve Auckland’s transport problems (as the evidence from Sydney demonstrates).
Yesterday was the transport zombie gift that kept on giving. Another example came by way of this op-ed entitled “Strategic car parks part of gridlock solution“. The op-ed itself is not too bad, at least compared to Simon’s effort. The author (Neil Binnie) starts off by making the following claim (emphasis added):
Traffic congestion in Auckland is chronic and deteriorating fast. The comments that follow relate to the North Shore and the Northern Busway but the principles may be applied across the city. One issue that has had little promotion is park and ride.
Little promotion? Well, my 2 seconds of internet searching threw up this AT website, which identifies P&R sites across Auckland. These can be summarised as follows:
- Northern Busway – 1,100 car-parks
- Southern line – ~1,000 car-parks
- Western line – 300 car-parks
- And various ferry P&R sites.
We’ve also discussed P&R at length in this earlier post. One such ferry P&R is at Devonport, which is illustrated below. Here we see some of the most valuable land in New Zealand being occupied solely for P&R. How is this not a scandal? And how can an article on P&R not even mention the value of land?
Let’s look at the example of the Northern Busway in more detail. Here we have 1,100 P&R car-parks. Now if we assume that all these car-parks are occupied by cars that carry 1.2 people each, then these P&R spaces might be expected to generate approximately 1,100 x 1.2 x 2 = 2,750 boardings per day (2.5 boardings per car-park).
At last count the Northern Busway was carrying something like 2.25 million people per year, which is an average of 187,500 people per month or 6,160 per day (it’s likely to be much higher on weekdays). So on the average weekday P&R is able to contribute, at most, 45% (2,750/6,160) of the patronage on the Northern Express. Don’t forget, however, that the NEX is only about one-third of the bus services using the busway. When we consider all the other services using the busway, and their likely patronage, then P&R would seem to generate ~20% of total bus patronage in the corridor.
P&R is not even close to being the most important mode of access.
That’s not all, however. One of the often-overlooked issues with P&R is the degree to which it diverts existing PT passengers. When the Northern Busway, first opened, for example, surveys showed that approximately half of the people using the P&R had previously been catching a local bus from their street. Why is this relevant? Well, it indicates that approximately half of the people using P&R were not new to the PT system. That in turn means that half of the P&R provided on the Northern Busway did not contribute to a net increase in PT patronage.
None of this is mentioned in the article, which prefers to argue that “Passenger numbers on the Northern Expressway [sic] have plateaued because parking options are exhausted.” The article also ignores that just over a year ago Auckland Transport spent $5.5 million to expand the Albany P&R by 550 spaces. Expanding park and ride in many locations is enormously expensive, because land is expensive. So the question Auckland Transport must try to answer is: Where is it cost-effective to do so? Places like Constellation and Albany generally are not cost effective. Silverdale maybe.
Despite all of these omissions the article then finishes with the following comment:
We are told to use shuttle busses rather than parking at a bus station or dropping family off. In practice the buses are so infrequent that it is not an option. For example, there is a bus every half hour from Albany bus station to Torbay shops. .
A bus every half an hour? That to me sounds like an argument for increasing the frequency of bus connections to busway stations, which indeed is what the draft RPTP has proposed to do. Again, these proposals, their potential costs (the proposed network is broadly cost neutral), and their subsequent effects on PT patronage (and the demand for P&R) does not even warrant a mention in the article.
Some of you may think that likening these people to “brain-eating zombies” is a little harsh on my part. Perhaps.
On the other hand, the people responsible for these pearls of wisdom, namely Simon Lambourne and Neil Binnie, have had the temerity to approach mainstream media offering their personal opinions on potential solutions to Auckland’s transport issues; opinions which can be shown to be demonstrably incorrect, or at least highly uninformed, with just 2 seconds of internet research. That, I’d suggest, is deserving of a lampooning.
It’s nothing personal, but I think it’s important to point out that these zombies don’t know what they’re talking about. Simon definitely should know better – after all he’s paid to know stuff about transport.
Of course ferries and P&R should be part of Auckland’s integrated transport system, but they’re relatively small parts – with the potential to contribute, at a guess, a maximum of 10-15% of total public transport patronage. The bulk of Auckland’s patronage will still occur the way it always has – walk-up passengers to bus and rail services It is these people that we need to focus on – they’re the bulk of our passengers and will be for the foreseeable future.
Indeed, the solutions to Auckland’s public transport issues are quite simple. We just need to 1) build the CRL so we can run higher train frequencies across the whole network; 2) establish a more legible, connected, high-frequency bus network ; and 3) implement a simple and “fair” integrated fare system. These three initiatives will provide quite a lot of “pull”. There’s also a need for a few policy reforms, such as the removal of minimum parking requirements, although these initiatives can bubble quietly along in the background providing a gradual “push” for people to drive less and use alternatives more.
I’m convinced that if we focus on implementing these initiatives, and ignore the noisy zombies with all their absurd ideas about how Auckland would somehow be saved if the city was awash with ferries or P&R or whatever, then we will get quite far, quite fast. We just need to stay the course and get the basics right. I realise that’s not a particularly glamorous message, but I think it’s the right one.
Processing...
“puppies. Mmm … delicious.”
Hopefully I’ve quoted you out of context.
Rachel’s dog is certainly getting a lot of screen time!
Kura’s a superstar!
Harsh! From my experience Simon Lambourne is quite enlightened on transport issues.
never met him, but anyone who thinks ferries are the solution to Auckland’s transport issues suffers an instantaneous credibility downgrade. And anyone who points to Sydney as an example of how Auckland is focusing too much on bus/rail has got their facts seriously wrong.
As that’s all I’ve got to judge him on he gets an D grade and the comment “must try harder”.
Thanks for again demonstrating the importance of having a fact-based discussion, not an opinion-based one!
“That’s not all, however. One of the often-overlooked issues with P&R is the degree to which it diverts existing PT passengers. When the Northern Busway, first opened, for example, surveys showed that approximately half of the people using the P&R had previously been catching a local bus from their street. Why is this relevant? Well, it indicates that approximately half of the people using P&R were not new to the PT system. That in turn means that half of the P&R provided on the Northern Busway did not contribute to a net increase in PT patronage.”
the point you miss Stu, is that the 50% who switched from local buses to park & ride are now making carjourneys that were not in the system before, talk about perverse outcomes which were a clear result of ARTA’s under-planning, under-funding and under-preparedness for the implementation of the busway
That point’s discussed in the earlier P&R post I link to.
Just noticed the link got dropped somewhere, here it is: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/01/14/park-and-ride-boon-or-boondoggle/
Spot on Mr Donovan although I do think you are a bit kind on the powers that be behind the MSM. Actually it’s good to see that Simon Lambourne can change his views. Last time he ventured forth into commenting about Auckland transport woes about a year or so ago he declared that the CRL was an unnecessary extravaganza and the whole transport thing could be resolved with buses alone; now it’s ferries. Mr Lambourne assured me last time that his stance was not ideological but went strangely quiet when I pointed out that his solution was exactly what Aucklanders had been promised, ooh, 57 odd years ago, when the trams were ripped out and look where that had led us. I think we have to give him time and the AA has to give him a shed load more money before he, once again, changes his terribly influential mind. Hopefully, he might take the time to read the postings on this blog before he opens his mouth again, but somehow, I doubt this will happen.
Yes perhaps. But I do think the MSM is usually well-meaning, aside from the Herald’s recent efforts to de-rail the Unitary Plan (I was highly critical of them last week for this reason).
In terms of Simon, I’m not aware of his history and don’t really have an axe to grind. All I’ll say is that he needs to get his facts straight before he goes on air and spouts off, lest he want to look like a fool.
“I pointed out that his solution was exactly what Aucklanders had been promised, ooh, 57 odd years ago, when the trams were ripped out and look where that had led us”
Transport policy over the past 57 years has led to Auckland growing from a population of around 300k people to a city of around 1.5million people. The transport system can always be improved, but it has been an enormous success. My mum has talked about visiting Auckland when she was a girl in the 1940s, and how it took “forever” to drive through the southern suburbs. Now it has six or seven times the population but her trip from the Bombay Hills in to the center takes a fraction of the time.
By contrast, Wellington’s population over the same period has remained fairly stable. I don’t agree, but Patrick R has described Wellington as a “charming little fishing village” and John Key has pointed out that Wellington is struggling. Wellington’s transport system has always included a large rail component and their motorways are mostly poor.
Yes, the motorways may have been great in delivering services to 500k to 1m people. However, because, despite repeated reports and recommendations, Auckland has never managed to have anything other than the motorways, they have now reached the capacity of the roads to deliver traffic to them.
We now need to invest in an alternative system because that is what big cities do if they want to keep a decent urban form and take advantage of the benefits of agglomeration. We are also lucky enough to have a functioning rail network that really only needs a fraction of the money we have invested in the motorways in order to function really well.
We are lucky to have the motorways and noone is suggesting they wont have a vital role to play in the future but they cant deliver the transport needs of 2.5m people in 30 years time.
I agree. Except for the bit about agglomeration benefits, which I think have been overstated and lead to some zany outcomes if you assume they are real. I was addressing a comment that suggested Auckland’s past transport policies had failed, rather than enabled NZ’s most successful city.
I think agglomeration economies have been vastly understated because they 1) are often measured using wages while ignoring land values and 2) they focus on production and tend to miss agglomeration economies in consumption.
But, agglomeration economics would suggest we’d be mad not to:
– Consolidate all Auckland hospitals in to one super-efficient giant Auckland medical complex.
– Move ASB and Kiwibank headquarters to Melbourne where there is a large banking sector.
– Relocate Massey and the remote Auckland University campuses to the CBD adjacent to Auckland University’s main campus.
– Consolidate secondary schools across the city in to a few super-schools. That caused a negative reaction in Christchurch a few months ago, but I didn’t hear any parents talking about the agglomeration benefits of the move.
– Move TVNZ back to Wellington so they’d be near all the Weta people and the large Wellington film industry. Assuming Weta didn’t move to Los Angeles to enjoy the agglomeration benefits of being in Hollywood.
But people like services that are near to them, a lot of people don’t want to move to find work, and a lot of the claimed agglomeration benefits aren’t real.
One of the reasons for that is that many of the claimed agglomeration benefits mistake cause and effect. Family lawyers earn less than corporate lawyers. Corporate lawyers are based in the CBD so they are near to corporations. The family lawyer won’t earn more from relocating to the CBD, because they won’t magically become a corporate lawyer. They’d just be further away from their customers, and their rent would increase. That pattern holds true for most occupational groups. There are few benefits for them from being based in the CBD, even though average CBD salaries are higher than non-CBD salaries, because they’re not going to change job.
Nope, that’s a misrepresentation of agglomeration economies. All that agglomeration economies suggest is a given increase in density causes a certain increase in productivity/utility.
Whether or not that leads to increased density depends on a range of other factors, most importantly the relative value of wages and land rents. Both of these economic indicators will shift upwards in response to agglomeration economies to the point where the marginal firm/consumer is no better off locating in a dense location than elsewhere. Wages and rents effectively impose a “zero profit/utility” constraint (once risk is considered) on the firms/people who are making location decisions, at least in equilibrium.
You can think of wages and land rents as the economic suspension that dampens out the effects of agglomeration economies. This does not mean that AE don’t exist, just that their effects on the marginal firm/consumer is neutralised, or captured, by land lords and employees (plus the government in the case of higher marginal taxes on labour). Of the three winners, landlords will eventually respond to agglomeration economies by increasing the density of development, people will just take the higher wages and spread themselves about to maximise their while-being, while the government will tend to just do nothing (in fact the tax wedge they capture actually shifts us towards less agglomeration than what we would ideally in a situation of no-income taxes).
There is some evidence to suggest that agglomeration economies are strengthening over time, which in turn might mean that we are no longer in equilibrium (if we ever were?!?) but are instead gradually shifting towards a more agglomerated urban form.
P.s. and no one ever said that agglomeration economies were constant (which would lead to the hyper-agglomerated state you seem to use as a counter-example). They do tend to exhibit diminishing marginal returns. But studies also suggest that NZ seems to still enjoy positive agglomeration economies – as such we are not at the point where we are sufficiently dense that there are only marginal benefits from increased density. They are also not constant across industries, depending on transport costs and relative economies of scale etc.
It’s a complex mix, so don’t diss it until you understand it ;).
P.P.s. And any reputable economic estimate of agglomeration economies controls for the firm heterogeneity that you mention, i.e. family lawyers versus corporate lawyers. Like this one:
http://210.48.109.218/resources/research/reports/376/docs/376.pdf
To pick up on one of your points, why do you think fanmily lawyers are paid more than corporate lawyers? I am a corporate/commercial lawyer and I am paid less than a lot of family lawyers. There are lots of high earning family lawyers and a lot of them are based in the CBD – beacuse of the agglomeration benefits of being close to high earning clients, the courts and other lawyers.
Very bad example.
@ obi (You’re not “Snow flake” by another name are you? The two of you seem to sing a duet). Transport policy over the past 57 years has NOT led Auckland to grow from 300K people to 1.5 million. This has happened in spite of transport policy. Transport policy has left as its legacy, a city renowned for its traffic problems. Traffic-wise, Auckland is a standing joke. A tribute to a policy-makers stuck in a 1960’s time-warp. Most other Western cities have managed to avoid the treacle-traffic syndrome by NOT relying almost solely on roads and single-occupant cars to shoulder the transport-burden. This has NOT worked in Auckland. Otherwise Auckland would not have gained its pathetic reputation for traffic woes.
John Key thinks Wellington is “Struggling” because it is resisting the National government’s prescription for controversial and unneeded motorways. It is considered to have a “dysfunctional council”, simply because not all councillors agree on National’s roading prescription. In fact Wellington City Council is truly reflecting the electorate which put it there and is a shining example of democracy-in-action . Many people voted for a Green-leaning mayor precisely to oppose National’s insane roading plans and instead to go for extended rail. So the council is doing exactly what it should, and John Key doesn’t like it. Well Boo hoo! The same is true in Auckland where the mayor favours the much-needed CRL over un-needed holiday-highways and has likewise run up against National’s transport-naivity. I also suspect Christchurch will soon live to regret National’s 1960’s prescription for its transport re-development.
Take any similar-sized city to AKD, WGTN or CHC in, say Switzerland, Germany or Austria and you will see a thriving rail-based public transport system supplemented by a fully-integrated bus network. You will see many people and few vehicles in the heart of the city, and nowhere will you find the sort of nightmarish traffic-domination, so prevalent in transport-illiterate Auckland. And you will see the benefits of agglomeration fully in action. Obi, if you have ever been to these countries you must have gone with your eyes closed.
“Most other Western cities have managed to avoid the treacle-traffic syndrome by NOT relying almost solely on roads and single-occupant cars to shoulder the transport-burden.”
You’ve not heard of America then.
Average daily commute times are similar in the US and Europe. The US has a slight edge, but its only a few minutes. I suspect that Auckland commute times won’t be much different from either, because Auckland’s congestion isn’t particularly bad on an international scale.
“In fact Wellington City Council is truly reflecting the electorate which put it there and is a shining example of democracy-in-action .”
Agreed. WCC democratically voted to support the Basin Reserve flyover a couple of months ago. I think that is the only central-government sponsored roading project proposed in Wellington city.
“The same is true in Auckland where the mayor favours the much-needed CRL over un-needed holiday-highways”
I don’t believe that Len Brown has come out against P2W. I’d like to see a quote if he has. In the past he has supported motorway developments in Manukau and was at the opening for the Manukau motorway interchange. Brown realises that he has to work with the Minister and taking a position that he is bound to lose just pisses the Minister off. He is also a politician who realises that P2W is generally popular with at least some of the electorate, and he doesn’t want to lose votes in Rodney and on the Shore.
“You’re not “Snow flake” by another name are you?”
Sigh… Newby?
Actually if you look at the US most cities have been pushing ahead with transit expansion plans for quite some time now. The damaging funding programmes whereby freeways were funded 100% and PT only partially, as is the case in NZ, were thankfully dropped many years ago but are to blame for the destruction of many a US city.
Very well said, that man!
Wellington’s motorways may be ‘poor’, but perhaps this is mostly a feature of its geography? I read recently that “Wellington has more motorways per capita than any other city in the world – even more than LA.” ( http://wellingtontransport.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/wellington-motorway-capital-of-the-world/ )
“Wellington has more motorways per capita than any other city in the world – even more than LA.”
Not true. For example Dunedin has a greater length of motorway per capita than Wellington does. If anywhere in NZ had more than LA it’d be Auckland…
In my experience, the ferries in Sydney work well because of their integration with the rest of the PT system over there (namely, their trains). While Sydney badly needs newer ferries (and electronic ticketing such as HOP), I found it incredibly easy to walk to the train station, catch a train (air conditioned, two-story train!) to circular quay, then walk a short distance to the ferry, which goes straight to Taronga Zoo.
In terms of Auckland though, ferries really seem to shine when catching them from places such as Half Moon bay or beachlands.
(as a side thought, maybe a ferry could solve the karaka-weymouth situation? A ferry running from Wattle Downs – Weymouth – Karaka – Airport – Onehunga? Combined with regular bus services near these wharves could really hope the nightmare of catching PT from that far south)
That would take about 65-70 minutes just to reach Onehunga wharf. Bus to the train at Papakura would be miles faster.
Well a quick look at Sydney Ferries latest annual report is quite enlightening: http://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/b2b/publications/annual_reports/sydney-ferries-annual-report-2012.pdf
For a start just under 6m of their 13m trips are on the Manly run. The other seven routes serving 36 wharves are up to sweet FA to be blunt. Like Auckland, Sydney has one really good run where ferries make a lot of sense and move a lot of people, and a bunch of middling to poor routes tacked on.
For example, the Manly run operates 13,000 service hours a year and achieves 443 passengers per service hour. The newest run, the paramatta river, operates 26,000 service hours a year and gets merely 68 passengers per service hour. In other words their worst run has service deliver costs around seven times more per passenger.
The point for Auckland is, all the good ferry runs are already operational. Any new one will be the middling or poor.
You would think Simon would have had a look at that before holding Sydney up as an example of what Auckland should aspire to in terms of public transport …
I gave up my subscription to the AA years ago. I found their magazine no longer of any interest and was full of member price -off deals for things I didn’t want any way. I didn’t require their map service any more as better maps were available from the local stationers. And if you bought a new car you got at least three years break-down support from the manufacturer.*
In post motor pioneering days the AA is in my view an entirely irrelevant organisation trying to justify its existence.
PS * I do concede that depending on the area you break down in the service may be provided by the AA under contract to the manufacturer but that is another matter.
I wonder too how much of their income is from the car insurance wing of the business and therefore how much the interests of this influence their advocacy? Anyone know?
Don’t know about the income but AA Insurance is just SunCorp branded as AA in New Zealand I think. Similar to the AA Lube stations, I don’t think they’re owned by the AA, just some sort of licensing or frachise arrangement I think.
The AA magazine is I believe by far and away the highest circulation and readership magazine in the country.
@ Warren S, VTNZ also has a roadside breakdown assistance and doesn’t seem to stick its fingers into public transport commentary.
Most people who get transport wrong are not, I think, doing so not because of an ideological position, the current government aside, but because it is a very complex and often counter intuitive issue, and because almost everyone is tempted to feel that they are sufficiently qualified to make big conclusions. And this probably is because it’s something we all use, but that leads to the far too common tendency to generalise from our own situation. A pit-fall we rigorously work to avoid in our work here.
But it is pretty hard to grasp why someone paid to understand how cities and transport intersect, doesn’t. As well as being disappointing that our one newspaper won’t publish more factual op-eds over fluffy unsupported ideas from randoms. But still I guess it gives us a chance to, yet again, edit the Herald.
“I’m convinced that if we focus on implementing these initiatives, and ignore the noisy zombies with all their absurd ideas about how Auckland would somehow be saved if the city was awash with ferries or P&R or whatever”
It’s very insulting to call people who hold differing views to yours “zombies” and it can also create a view that the site is full of “PT huggers” with an unrealistic view of Auckland.
Congratulations for destroying the credibility of this blog.
Chris, well informed opinions deserve respect. opinions based on nothing but fantasy and good intentions deserve ridicule and should be called on it.
If you want to be heard in this forum, you must back up your opinions with.verifiable facts and evidence.
The credibility of this blog is very well upheld in this regard.
Don’t be silly Chris, it is not about calling people with different views but referring to how often people with a full understanding of how the transport system actually works can cause harm by spreading misinformation and infecting others with that misinformation. The push for lots more ferries and park n ride are two classic examples of this. It sounds good when someone says it but the evidence doesn’t back up the assertions made.
Chris- “zombies” was used in the post in a similar manner as this sentence (but in a PT context):
– “a zombie idea is a proposition that has been thoroughly refuted by analysis and evidence, and should be dead — but won’t stay dead because it serves a political purpose, appeals to prejudices, or both.”
(www.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/opinion/krugman-rubio-and-the-zombies.html)
– “… Theories, factual claims, and policy proposals that seemed dead and buried in the wake of the crisis are now clawing their way through the soft earth, ready to wreak havoc once again.”
(www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/10/15/five_zombie_economic_ideas_that_refuse_to_die)
I agree, this blog certainly is in-credible!
ahh punny!
Regardless, I don’t think you’re gonna win many (new) fans by referring to them by zombies or another negative though quite meaningless (in the context) word .
Chris and Frank, I’m not really out to “win fans” and I don’t think this blog is aiming for “credibility” per se. Just enjoyment and a shared sense of knowledge . I feel that my use of the word “zombie” was so patently ridiculous that it barely requires justification. I have a relatively thick-skin so if someone called me a zombie I’d just laugh.
The key message for these guys is that they should spend 2 seconds checking their facts before spouting off in the media. I think that’s a sufficiently important (and fair) call in these circumstances, because both of them held views that are patently uninformed, and I don’t think that is something that one should “go easy on”.
But thanks for your feedback.
To be fair to Simon, the Hovercraft issue came to be in the discussion as the host Wallace Chapman said he a got a Text from some listener about that being the magic solution to Auckland Transport issues.
Wallace was quite snippy about it (rightly so) before the ad-break..
But when the AA guy came on (after the interminable ad break) he asked him about what he thought about it as an idea.
And thats when the AA guy fell into the trap and said he thought it might be a solution..
So maybe the AA guy was caught napping big time on this, but the idea was neither of the two people in the interview. Instead it was some dumb ass listener out in the sticks.
Basically I think the listener thought/was suggesting that hovercrafts would let people take their cars! over the water easily without a bridge being needed.
I think that’s being too kind to Simon.
My interpretation of his comment was that he used the hovercraft question simply as an opportunity to segue the debate into a thinly veiled criticism of Auckland Council and Auckland Transport’s plans for public transport in Auckland, specifically the planned improvements to buses and rail.
The hovercraft question was just an opportunity for him to spread doubt and, as it turned out, misinformation about the relative merits of investing in different modes.
Actually calling him a Zombie is a lot more polite than calling him what he really is.
If bloggers here need to resort to humour or sarcasim to counter some ill informed media hogs then that harms their credibility not a bit. Which is worse – Sarcasm or outright lying? These media hogs have due to their positions preferential access to the mainstream media. Mainstream media is either dominated by Anti Transit ideologs or are just too timid and respectful to call a spade a spade.
So Chris if you think the Zombie headline demeans the creditability of this blog, what then do you consider the proven and testifiable lying of this National Party led government? Prey tell.
Winning hearts and minds is best served by the plain hard facts. Personalising the debate on both sides doesnt resolve anything. I am guilty of having opinions on PT but have been enlightened by this blog. Getting nasty will only entrench views and worse will become an exercise in who has the cleverest insults . This blog is doing a great job and I am impressed by the depth of research and effort made by a few regular bloggers. I certainly have done a 360 on some issues and have high regard for the level of debate. Please do not spoil it by slagging off , no matter how much fun it is .
I think what needs to be recognised is that this “blog” represents the view of a group of people with varying personalities. In my case, I prefer to poke fun at the absurdity of life – and that includes myself. Sometimes personalising the debate is essential: After all Simon Lambourne is a spokesperson for AA, and he is “spoking” misinformation, so needs to pull his head in. We all need to, from time to time.
But I do apologise if this post came across as nasty or insulting. It was intended as a bit of a kick up the ass to some of those that still chose to speak before doing a keyword internet search.
On the subject of mainstream media, the following recent article in the Herald is one of the most clear-headed ruminations on Auckland’s transport situation that I’ve seen in that paper in a long time:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10881860
More of that, please!
Yeah he talked to some good people for that article 😉
I find it quite odd that this wasn’t mentioned on the blog…
Come on readers of this blog, let’s give some support to one of the best articles on transport the Herald has ever published! Let’s see some more comments in support (and negating a lot of the ‘I take my car everywhere and therefore it’s the best way to travel’ comments already there!).
Frank – It was in the Heralds canvas mag a few weeks ago but only just appeared online yesterday.
Parking should be paid for uniformly across the region, even park and ride. On Waiheke we pay through the nose to park near the ferry terminal (to pay off John Banks’s failed Matiatia property development scheme) but Northern Busway P+R is free. Why? http://fullerswatch.blogspot.co.nz/2005/11/north-shore-busway-includes-free.html
That’s ridiculous, the cost of parking should be relative to the cost of providing and servicing parking in each specific location, adjusted to manage demand. Certainly the Northern Busway lots should be priced appropriately.
Free parking at Orakei Station is the craziest.
The existence of the parking at Orakei Station at any price is pretty crazy. The whole tip of that peninsula would be a great spot for a decent carfree transit-oriented development, with connecting buses on the main road.
Exactamente!
Wasn’t there a really good development proposed?
I don’t see the need for uniform pricing across the regions, however free oversubscribed park and ride seems like inefficient use of the resource.
What I would like to see is the parking priced at whatever price ensures peak occupancy of 85% – 95% (to ensure users can be comfortable they will get a car park, and that parks are available for those who need them). I don’t mind if the price is 50c or $15 a day. Future car-park expansions then only will be carried out if they are expected to turn a profit for the council (or private operator if say wilsons wants to provide additional park and ride.)
the situation between Waiheke and the Busway park and rides seems inequitable.
Or esattamente perhaps – you could fit a Cinque Terre village on Orakei Point. Or (I’m not going to try my hand at Welsh) two Portmeirions. The world’s your oyster. The whole spot is about four minutes walk across, but big enough to feel like a whole cohesive place. The actual development that’s planned there is OK, though, and miles better than a carpark and a few sheds: http://www.orakeipoint.co.nz/
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/1_vernazza_2012.jpg
Orakei Point?
i think that Redwood group plan is long gone, or on permanent hold… I’m sure the NIMBYS over there objected to everything- including loosing ‘their’ free parking…..
Speaking of shuttle buses, can anyone tell me why on earth Sunnynook in the only station on the Northern Busway not to have no connecting services, nor a park and ride? And the bus which once went past my house direct to Newmarket is now down the busway instead. I love the busway but some of it still makes no sense.
Sunnynook misses out for two reasons: Wider urban form (which means there are no major west-east anchors for such a service) and street network (which make it difficult to run a direct and useful route). But I agree, it is worth considering how to make it work because it is a shame and a gap in the network.
Feeder buses. Has anyone got any good references to analysis of feeder buses. They are often raised as solutions but I would like to know more of how they have worked/not worked. Currently I feel the buses which run from the suburbs and then continue on the Northern busway to the CBD work better than a feeder /connection/NEX combination. This would be different if the NEX was lowly used but know that the northern busway is busy ( particularly at peak times) I think feed and continue is better than feed and change. Open to more thoughts though
555 goes past, I agree it needs more but there seem to be a lot more passengers there this year….
@ obi (You’re not “Snow flake” by another name are you? The two of you seem to sing a duet). Transport policy over the past 57 years has NOT led Auckland to grow from 300K people to 1.5 million. This has happened in spite of transport policy. Transport policy has left as its legacy, a city renowned for its traffic problems. Traffic-wise, Auckland is a standing joke. A tribute to a policy-makers stuck in a 1960′s time-warp. Most other Western cities have managed to avoid the treacle-traffic syndrome by NOT relying almost solely on roads and single-occupant cars to shoulder the transport-burden. This has NOT worked in Auckland. Otherwise Auckland would not have gained its pathetic reputation for traffic woes.
John Key thinks Wellington is “Struggling” because it is resisting the National government’s prescription for controversial and unneeded motorways. It is considered to have a “dysfunctional council”, simply because not all councillors agree on National’s roading prescription. In fact Wellington City Council is truly reflecting the electorate which put it there and is a shining example of democracy-in-action . Many people voted for a Green-leaning mayor precisely to oppose National’s insane roading plans and instead to go for extended rail. So the council is doing exactly what it should, and John Key doesn’t like it. Well Boo hoo! The same is true in Auckland where the mayor favours the much-needed CRL over un-needed holiday-highways and has likewise run up against National’s transport-naivity. I also suspect Christchurch will soon live to regret National’s 1960′s prescription for its transport re-development.
Take any similar-sized city to AKD, WGTN or CHC in, say Switzerland, Germany or Austria and you will see a thriving rail-based public transport system supplemented by a fully-integrated bus network. You will see many people and few vehicles in the heart of the city, and nowhere will you find the sort of nightmarish traffic-domination, so prevalent in transport-illiterate Auckland. And you will see the benefits of agglomeration fully in action. Obi, if you have ever been to these countries you must have gone with your eyes closed.
Brilliant.
* not to have any connecting services
Oh dear Obi/Snowflake/Newby. You’re in denial. It seems that in your world, Auckland has no traffic problems and everything is sweet. Must just be a bunch of jealous JAFA-bashers who have talked the whole problem up.
I honestly don’t know how the average Auckland-sized city in America compares congestion-wise. But I do know that a growing number of medium-sized US cities are installing light rail systems, having found purely road-based systems inadequate. I have also heard it said (Warning: Hearsay Alert: not substantiated!) that per head of population, Auckland has more metrage of motorway than most American cities and yet it still holds the mantle of congestion-capital. Why might this be Obi?
Wellington’s support for the Basin Flyover is far from unanimous. The council knows this and hopefully can delay it long enough for a change-of-government to remove the ridiculous pressure to build it. The same applies to the airport motorway, duplicate Mt Vic and Terrace Tunnels, and further afield, Transmission Gully and even the Kapiti Expressway. These are all parts of the government sponsored RoNS, and all seriously questionable as to their business-cases at a time of declining traffic volumes.
Yes, in Auckland mayor Len Brown needs to work with the current Minister but hopefully not beyond the next election.
. . . I wish this message-board would position reply-postings where you can see what they refer to, instead of right at the end.
I find it best to right click on reply and then open in new tab/window – that seems to reply and doesnt just put it as a new post.
Hit the reply button beside the date and time Dave.
Could someone show what journey times are from from Half moon bay/Devonport/Birkenhead to places in/near the CBD.
Then what they would be with the CRL.
Please remember in this calculation connection time – as this will be lowered with a more frequent service.
I think one of the best way to enhance ferry use may be the CRL – as it will enable travel from the ferry building to a number of places quicker than 9km/hour (current bus speeds in the CBD).
I agree – my main PT option is the ferry from Bayswater and I often think how great it will be even after electrification to walk across to Britomart and get on a train to Eden Park/Sylvia Park/Penrose (for the Warriors). I know it is possible now but without a walk up frequency it just becomes an exercise in frustration.
Post-CRL it would be a whole new world. If the proposed intensification in New Lynn and other areas happens it may even be worth going out to those areas and spending some money.
@Torbayite, probably at least 10 minutes for Newmarket, and 30 for mt eden west…..
Ferries can work very well, most of the Sydney ferries are very useful. The new ferry from Hobsonville is awesome, a 30 min relaxed ride from a busy suburb, no motorway chaos, what’s wrong with that?
Hovercraft can work well in shallow water areas, the tech is well tested, but only suited to certain locations. Even more interesting would be the WIG planes, these would operate very well in the shallow harbour areas
Don’t right of new tech before it’s perfected. I recall many ‘experts’ said planes would never fly
Its not that ferries aren’t useful but that that their role in the overall transport system is very limited to only working well in a few very specific locations.