NZ | Public Transport Projects + Development

[metroman]

San Francisco is an example of a city which has really embraced Transit Orientated Developments, that's what they call them in Queensland. Some places are even ripping up parts of highways because they are not being used.

[KIWIKAAS]

They set up a bus depot at the old interchange where a double-deck freeway connected with the Bay Bridge (using the old on and off ramps). After the 89 earthquake they dismantled a number of unsightly 1950s double deck freeways, the most notable of which ran along the waterfront at the CBD.
Further there is BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) that has been operating for over 30 years now and ofcourse there are a few cable car and tram routes in and around the CBD.

[sensible]

Originally Posted by KIWIKAAS

They run a tilt train between Stockholm (1,942,233) and Gothenburg (890,956) over a distance of 470km.
Thats a little different to Auckland (1,300,000) and Wellington (379,000) over a distance of 650km.
The topography is also far more severe between AKL and WLG than between Gothenburg and Stockholm. Even a tilt line would require huge works and tunneling to make it work. Without a mega investment I think a 200kph line is out of the question. With alot of work on the line you might reduce the travel time from 12 to 7 or 8 hours but still totally no contest with flying. A TGV could do the trip in 2½ hours but that would mean an entirely new route at a cost probably in the vicinity of $8-10 billion (conservative estimate considering all the tunnels and viaducts)

Auckland to Tauranga via Hamilton could eventually be a good route for a tilt should Tauranga break the 250,000 at some stage.

In the mean time I think upgrading the existing highways and building more expressway / motorway grade routes (ië: Auckland - Hamilton - Tauranga or Wellington - Palmerston North) is the best course for now.

Developing urban rail is another story and I think this should be further developed in Auckland and Wellington. Christchurch is more of a lightrail type of city in my opinion.

What MA said about France is true. Despite all the hoopla about the TGV system the fact is that it's losing money and new routes have been largely put back in teh drawer for now.
For the meantime atleast the aircraft and car are king. Certainly in NZ and most other countries.

simply righting off rail because, at best it could only be reduced to 7 to 8 hours between auckland and wellington, is insane. if a train. with cheap fares and good travel options, would do auckland to wellington in 7 hours it would certainly be a contest... saying it isnt one is just silly and its views like that which mean we have had no investment in long distance passenger rail since the 1970's. For a start rail could certainly compete against buses and cars which you neglected to mention. For another, the difficult topography will cause problems for any dreamt of highway as well... and you know what? im all in support of a world class sh1! i think an improved highway would be magnificent. But that doesnt mean i aint open to first class rail connections as well! Its annoying when people arent open, and close their brain up to ideas rather than brainstorming and assessing all options properly.

also comparing auckland to wellington (rail wise) with sweden is a little off... queensland would be better, especially the Brisbane - Rockhampton route.

[KIWIKAAS]

The Sweden comparison came from Svartmetall.
I have had a really good look at this and I am still failing to see how a large investment in this route will pay off. The main trunk line dosen't pass a single main centre (or city of any size for that matter) between Hamilton and Palmerston North. This makes it very much an A to B (Auckland to Wellington and surrounds) route which in turn puts it straight into direct competition with airlines.
The investment required to cut the journey time to 7 or 8 hours would be huge (the topography being far more severe than between Brisbane and Rockhampton) requiring alot of tunneling, new viaducts and realignments meaning without a massive subsidy that tickets will not be cheap and will most likely be far more expensive than air travel.
Maybe I am totally wrong but I just don't see anyone jumping to make the mega investment required. Certainly as long as NZ has frequent and affordible flights and that these are done free of subsidies.
The upgrade of SH1 becomes more attractive as the vast majority of traffic is travelling short to medium distance. Relatively few vehicles on SH1 are doing the full trip from Auckland to Wellington. As well as running the length of the N.Island it connects a large number of towns and cities along it's route. Basically the point I'm trying to make is that an upgrade of SH1 serves multipule travel patterns. Local, regional and long distance. The use thereof is garanteed. The use of a tilt train or the likes on the Auckland - Wellington route isn't.

[jarbury]

Apparently more people die in Auckland each year prematurely from effects caused by car exhaust fumes than die through car crashes throughout the whole country.

That's an interesting statistic isn't it?

[Svartmetall]

Originally Posted by metroman

San Francisco is an example of a city which has really embraced Transit Orientated Developments, that's what they call them in Queensland. Some places are even ripping up parts of highways because they are not being used.

San Fran only has a very small comparitively low capacity network when taken as a whole city metropol rather than just San Fran central.

BART is small and goes to very few locations. Caltrain is an American styled commuter rail which barely runs throughout the day. Muni metro offers a very good service IN SANFRAN CITY! Once you get outside of San Fran CBD, you'll see the usual motorways galore. Look next door to Oakland which is technically still part of San Francisco - loads of motorways and a huge crime rate, lovely. My friends got back from there recently and said that it was fairly easy to get around, but it wasn't that wonderful.

Traffic jams across San Francisco metropol are just as serious as across the rest of the United States.

Originally Posted by jarbury

Apparently more people die in Auckland each year prematurely from effects caused by car exhaust fumes than die through car crashes throughout the whole country.

That's an interesting statistic isn't it?

That exactly right, and that is why we should reduce congestion and bring in more efficient and smaller engined cars.

[Milan Luka]

Im with you on this one sensible

"i think an improved highway would be magnificent. But that doesnt mean i aint open to first class rail connections as well! Its annoying when people arent open, and close their brain up to ideas rather than brainstorming and assessing all options properly."

Topography as you say in some parts of the country might be tough when building my dream SH1 HOWEVER... the Austrians have delt with it, Japanese deal with it ok, the Swiss do also. And have you travelled on the Otira Viaduct near Arthurs Pass. Worthy of a million design engineering awards!

[KIWIKAAS]

"i think an improved highway would be magnificent. But that doesnt mean i aint open to first class rail connections as well! Its annoying when people arent open, and close their brain up to ideas rather than brainstorming and assessing all options properly."

Agreed but I seem to be the only one actually assessing the options though.

Others just say ''I dream of'', ''I want a'' etc but don''t actually look at whats involved or at whats practical

[jarbury]

I think a 4 lane highway from Auckland - Hamilton and Auckland - Tauranga is not only practical, but as far as I know it's just about already happening. We have the Waikato Expressway which will create a 4 lane highway from Auckland to Cambridge, and then there's also the SH29 upgrade which will result in a very high standard link between Hamilton and Tauranga.

As a long-term project it would be good to see the Northern Motorway extended up to Warkworth, but the terrain in this area is pretty nasty so I imagine that would be a hugely expensive project. As far as I know there are also projects to widen SH1 north of Wellington.

[sensible]

Originally Posted by KIWIKAAS

Agreed but I seem to be the only one actually assessing the options though.

Others just say ''I dream of'', ''I want a'' etc but don''t actually look at whats involved or at whats practical

well for a start... you havnt proved anything youve said is actually practicle... nor have you come up with any solid reasons why rail wouldnt be. That is the only contention i have, that you seem to be listing anything that makes rail unnatractive... even if what you list makes no sense (for example claiming that all viaducts and tunnels will have to be rebuilt... which just simply isnt true). Your not assesing options at all.

and as for myself im not even writing off an improved auck-well highway... infact i think that section of SH1 is a joke and a better highway should be developed. I actually agree with you on many points you have raised re. roading.

[KIWIKAAS]

Originally Posted by sensible

well for a start... you havnt proved anything youve said is actually practicle... nor have you come up with any solid reasons why rail wouldnt be. That is the only contention i have, that you seem to be listing anything that makes rail unnatractive... even if what you list makes no sense (for example claiming that all viaducts and tunnels will have to be rebuilt... which just simply isnt true). Your not assesing options at all.

I never said that all viaducts and tunnels will have to be rebuilt.
For a TGV line yes but thats not even a remote option.
I also went to the trouble of addressing your posts

It's not proof but it's an assesment

have had a really good look at this and I am still failing to see how a large investment in this route will pay off. The main trunk line dosen't pass a single main centre (or city of any size for that matter) between Hamilton and Palmerston North. This makes it very much an A to B (Auckland to Wellington and surrounds) route which in turn puts it straight into direct competition with airlines.
The investment required to cut the journey time to 7 or 8 hours would be huge (the topography being far more severe than between Brisbane and Rockhampton) requiring alot of tunneling, new viaducts and realignments meaning without a massive subsidy that tickets will not be cheap and will most likely be far more expensive than air travel.
Maybe I am totally wrong but I just don't see anyone jumping to make the mega investment required. Certainly as long as NZ has frequent and affordible flights and that these are done free of subsidies.

A TGV could do the trip in 2½ hours but that would mean an entirely new route at a cost probably in the vicinity of $8-10 billion (conservative estimate considering all the tunnels and viaducts)

The upgrade of SH1 becomes more attractive as the vast majority of traffic is travelling short to medium distance. Relatively few vehicles on SH1 are doing the full trip from Auckland to Wellington. As well as running the length of the N.Island it connects a large number of towns and cities along it's route. Basically the point I'm trying to make is that an upgrade of SH1 serves multipule travel patterns. Local, regional and long distance.

Originally Posted by sensible

But that doesnt mean i aint open to first class rail connections as well! Its annoying when people arent open, and close their brain up to ideas rather than brainstorming and assessing all options properly.

What do you think the above posts are?

[jarbury]

It'll be interesting to see how things stack up in 15 years time if (when) petrol is 5 times its current price and there's some sort of carbon tax. I imagine rail would be a lot more attractive!

[KaneD]

Originally Posted by jarbury

It'll be interesting to see how things stack up in 15 years time if (when) petrol is 5 times its current price and there's some sort of carbon tax. I imagine rail would be a lot more attractive!

The problem with rail is that even for a 7 hour rail trip - it is still far too long when a drive to Akl airport for an hour, check in lead time of say another hour, a half hour delay, fly for an hour, get bags for 15 mis, drive/taxi to destination in WLG of say half hour.

People catch PT for 3 key reasons:

1) Convenience,
2) Price
3) Speed

Rail from AKL-WLG is certainly not going to be cheaper than flying

Rail from ALK-WLG is certainly going to be slower

Rail from AKL-WLG is unlikely to be more convenient... though the only slight exception to that is that rail terminals are usually in city centres, airports are usually on outskirts of cities, so the transport mode shifting does make for a drag of a trip.

In London, if you live lose to central london, it is actually QUICKER (home to hotel) to go to Waterloo (now St Pancras) station, get on a Eurostar train service to Paris Gare-du-Nord station, and taxi/metro to central paris hotel than it is to tube to heathrow, wait, wait, wait, get on plane, fly to Charles de Gaule airport, and rail back into paris.

For AKL-WLG, that convenience factor is also unlikely.

And the eurostar is still losing money hand over fist.

So, for NZ, its plane and automobile i'm afraid... at least until petrol hits $10/litre

[metroman]

Bart and Muni sound like something off the Simpsons. But feasibility studies on successful networks like these and others is a great step in moving in the right direction. I believe Auckland is a few years away from experiencing Brisbane like growth. Best to prepare for the future.

[sensible]

Originally Posted by KIWIKAAS

I never said that all viaducts and tunnels will have to be rebuilt.
For a TGV line yes but thats not even a remote option.
I also went to the trouble of addressing your posts

It's not proof but it's an assesment





What do you think the above posts are?

mate settle down... look at your posts... yes you assess... with your OWN KNOWLEDGE... but that doesnt mean you can draw a conclusion. i respect your views but im not going to shut them down totally... i can disagree (which i do) but im not gonna state im the be all and end all and that my opinion is correct etc... im not saying thats what you are doing but you are shooting other people down and are not assessing THEIR options that they have bought to the party.

seriously i dont have time to do a 15 min slideshow presentation on here for you (which is what you seem to demand), i have too much of a life for that. its just some friendly discussion. take a breath. i dont hate you. i dont want to make me look smart and you dumb and id appreciate it if you would do the same... its just decent politeness.

I largely agree with you on a number of your points... just dont think your justifications stack up for throwing our eggs in one basket. Your basis for not supporting an improved NIMT rests on a bunch of "facts" you list... many of which are either wrong or over exaggerated. for example "The investment required to cut the journey time to 7 or 8 hours would be huge (the topography being far more severe than between Brisbane and Rockhampton) requiring alot of tunneling, new viaducts and realignments meaning without a massive subsidy that tickets will not be cheap and will most likely be far more expensive than air travel.". How do you know this? Im no expert but i know that for a 7 or 8 hour journey to be achieved on the NIMT you wouldnt have to do too much realigning, certainly no new viaducts and the only replacing of tunnels would be needed anyway for freight, which leads to another point. Any improvements to the NIMT would benefit freight as well and which would suck up a large amount of the cost (which wouldnt be near as much as you make out). Im not saying you are wrong, just "brainstorming".

[sensible]

Originally Posted by KaneD

The problem with rail is that even for a 7 hour rail trip - it is still far too long when a drive to Akl airport for an hour, check in lead time of say another hour, a half hour delay, fly for an hour, get bags for 15 mis, drive/taxi to destination in WLG of say half hour.

People catch PT for 3 key reasons:

1) Convenience,
2) Price
3) Speed

Rail from AKL-WLG is certainly not going to be cheaper than flying

Rail from ALK-WLG is certainly going to be slower

Rail from AKL-WLG is unlikely to be more convenient... though the only slight exception to that is that rail terminals are usually in city centres, airports are usually on outskirts of cities, so the transport mode shifting does make for a drag of a trip.

In London, if you live lose to central london, it is actually QUICKER (home to hotel) to go to Waterloo (now St Pancras) station, get on a Eurostar train service to Paris Gare-du-Nord station, and taxi/metro to central paris hotel than it is to tube to heathrow, wait, wait, wait, get on plane, fly to Charles de Gaule airport, and rail back into paris.

For AKL-WLG, that convenience factor is also unlikely.

And the eurostar is still losing money hand over fist.

So, for NZ, its plane and automobile i'm afraid... at least until petrol hits $10/litre

good points but... why would rail not be cheaper than flying?

[jarbury]

Originally Posted by KaneD

The problem with rail is that even for a 7 hour rail trip - it is still far too long when a drive to Akl airport for an hour, check in lead time of say another hour, a half hour delay, fly for an hour, get bags for 15 mis, drive/taxi to destination in WLG of say half hour.

People catch PT for 3 key reasons:

1) Convenience,
2) Price
3) Speed

Rail from AKL-WLG is certainly not going to be cheaper than flying

Rail from ALK-WLG is certainly going to be slower

Rail from AKL-WLG is unlikely to be more convenient... though the only slight exception to that is that rail terminals are usually in city centres, airports are usually on outskirts of cities, so the transport mode shifting does make for a drag of a trip.

In London, if you live lose to central london, it is actually QUICKER (home to hotel) to go to Waterloo (now St Pancras) station, get on a Eurostar train service to Paris Gare-du-Nord station, and taxi/metro to central paris hotel than it is to tube to heathrow, wait, wait, wait, get on plane, fly to Charles de Gaule airport, and rail back into paris.

For AKL-WLG, that convenience factor is also unlikely.

And the eurostar is still losing money hand over fist.

So, for NZ, its plane and automobile i'm afraid... at least until petrol hits $10/litre

I've chosen to travel on the Eurostar for that very reason when I go from London-Paris in a few months time. I definitely see your point that rail has a long way to go to be competitive with plane and cars. In fact, I can't really ever see rail on the Auckland-Wellington service stacking up against flying.

However, I think the situation could be very different for Auckland-Hamilton and Auckland-Tauranga trips.

For example: Wises maps has the Auckland-Tauranga route as 204 km with a driving time of 2 hr 21 min. If the rail line could be upgraded to something which could handle 150 kph trains then this would become much quicker than driving. Whilst I have flown to Tauranga for business, for many people this would be too expensive. For Hamilton the situation is even more obvious, and commuter trains have even been trialed in the past.

I'm not sure what upgrades would be necessary to allow this speed of train, but surely in the long-run it will become viable. I can see places like Pokeno, Te Kauwhata and (god forbid) Huntly becoming commuter suburbs in the future, which would ease growth pressure on Auckland. Throw in a higher speed train and it could take less than an hour to get into downtown Auckland. It might be necessary to quadruple the tracks from Britomart to Papakura though...

[KIWIKAAS]

Originally Posted by sensible

mate settle down... look at your posts... yes you assess... with your OWN KNOWLEDGE... but that doesnt mean you can draw a conclusion. i respect your views but im not going to shut them down totally... i can disagree (which i do) but im not gonna state im the be all and end all and that my opinion is correct etc... im not saying thats what you are doing but you are shooting other people down and are not assessing THEIR options that they have bought to the party.

seriously i dont have time to do a 15 min slideshow presentation on here for you (which is what you seem to demand), i have too much of a life for that. its just some friendly discussion. take a breath. i dont hate you. i dont want to make me look smart and you dumb and id appreciate it if you would do the same... its just decent politeness.

I largely agree with you on a number of your points... just dont think your justifications stack up for throwing our eggs in one basket. Your basis for not supporting an improved NIMT rests on a bunch of "facts" you list... many of which are either wrong or over exaggerated. for example "The investment required to cut the journey time to 7 or 8 hours would be huge (the topography being far more severe than between Brisbane and Rockhampton) requiring alot of tunneling, new viaducts and realignments meaning without a massive subsidy that tickets will not be cheap and will most likely be far more expensive than air travel.". How do you know this? Im no expert but i know that for a 7 or 8 hour journey to be achieved on the NIMT you wouldnt have to do too much realigning, certainly no new viaducts and the only replacing of tunnels would be needed anyway for freight, which leads to another point. Any improvements to the NIMT would benefit freight as well and which would suck up a large amount of the cost (which wouldnt be near as much as you make out). Im not saying you are wrong, just "brainstorming".

ok

[Brizzy-Mike]

As pointed out, the road trip characteristics for the SH1 are lots of short-haul trips, so would be the same for the train, how many people would actually do the whole thing from Ak-Wgtn? Air travel wins easily fot the Ak-Wgtn trip at the moment whereas road and rail can do all the hops in between. A four lane SH1 disenfranchises all the land uses along it, become impossible to do right hand turns off, and right hand turns on to the road, but this is ignored as being to the benefit of all other users, so the same process happens all the way along it until no one on the route and enter or leave it. That is the usual problem of roading engineers with a fixation on speed and perpetual motion, rather than origin, transit and destination. Train trip characteristics need to be for 'regular and reliable' along the winding rail route, rather than flat tack along expensive straight rail route through unstable clay hill country.

[KIWIKAAS]

Originally Posted by Brizzy-Mike

A four lane SH1 disenfranchises all the land uses along it, become impossible to do right hand turns off, and right hand turns on to the road, but this is ignored as being to the benefit of all other users, so the same process happens all the way along it until no one on the route and enter or leave it.

Eh?
I really have no idea where you plucked that from
Look at your own 4-lane highways in Australia if in doubt. Plenty of right hand turns.