Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
997 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 358

Subscriber

  Reply # 1848622 18-Aug-2017 15:55
Send private message

nakedmolerat:
sbiddle:

 

I think a train service does make sense - but to think there is enough demand to need 15 min services to Hamilton is almost laughable.

 

 

 

 

 



i disagree. Regular commute between Hamilton and Auckland means lots of people can live in Hamilton and work in Auckland.

Thus would be similar to Kapiti and Wellington CBD

 

 

 

Double the distance though... [edit] close to the same as Palmerston Nth to Wellington...


3135 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1167


  Reply # 1848638 18-Aug-2017 16:25
Send private message

Realistically Auckland isn't big enough from an employment perspective to justify that level of rail service.  Auckland has <200,000 people in employment. (MBIE stats).





Mike

 
 
 
 


1809 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 221

Trusted

  Reply # 1848645 18-Aug-2017 16:43
One person supports this post
Send private message

MikeAqua:

Realistically Auckland isn't big enough from an employment perspective to justify that level of rail service.  Auckland has <200,000 people in employment. (MBIE stats).


More like 800,000

http://m.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/Households/inside-auckland/labour-market.aspx

893 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 98

Subscriber

  Reply # 1848646 18-Aug-2017 16:48
2 people support this post
Send private message

Rikkitic:

 

That is a very interesting link and it does give food for thought but I feel it still doesn't tell the whole story. As frankv points out, there are drawbacks to taking the plane, especially here in little ole New Zealand, and no stops along the way. People who only see things in dollar terms overlook a lot of other values, as the article also suggests. It is not only about cost. Subsidising rail is also subsidising mobility for the elderly and public transport for a whole range of purposes. Rail in Europe is also heavily subsidised. Here car transport is subsidised through taxes for highway construction. People may think they are paying for that with fuel levies and road user charges, but it is still subsidised. From that article I think Queenslanders certainly are not getting value for money and something probably needs to be done to reduce costs, but that does not mean the service should be eliminated altogether.

 

 

Back in the day when railcars were still around in NZ, I made a trip from New Plymouth to Taumaranui on the now closed rail line that runs adjacent to SH 43 (The Forgotten World Highway). It was an interesting observation about how the locals made use of that service in what was (still is) a pretty remote part of the country. We stopped in all sorts of places, legal stops and home made platforms, offloaded crates of bread, milk and other goods. Took people into Taumaranui to conduct business and took them back on the return trip. It was obvious that it was actually something of a lifeline in a very sparsely populated area and was actually a much more convenient service than attempting to drive that route.


997 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 358

Subscriber

  Reply # 1848656 18-Aug-2017 17:04
Send private message

MikeAqua:

 

Realistically Auckland isn't big enough from an employment perspective to justify that level of rail service.  Auckland has <200,000 people in employment. (MBIE stats).

 

 

Sounds like Auckland City which is not what we need to discuss. You should add in Waitakere, North Shore and Manukau cities - I expect there'd be about a million employed.

 

Auckland City is pretty small and already covered by the AT Train network and buses.

 

 


1569 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 480

Subscriber

  Reply # 1848683 18-Aug-2017 18:33
4 people support this post
Send private message

nickb800:
MikeAqua:

 

Realistically Auckland isn't big enough from an employment perspective to justify that level of rail service.  Auckland has <200,000 people in employment. (MBIE stats).

 


More like 800,000

http://m.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/Households/inside-auckland/labour-market.aspx

 

 

 

Of course that was when Auckland was 1.2 million. Now it is greater than 1.4 million. With a similar percentage of the population in work that is greater than 900,000 people in work.

 

I find some of the comments in this thread really interesting. There were very similar comments around the investment in electrification and modernization of the current rail network, and then similar comments around the CRL. Now with record train use there is criticism about why it took so long.

 

Auckland will only get bigger, as urbanisation intensifies. The people have to live somewhere and satellite cities are a viable option with the correct infrastructure. Rapid mass transit is required - building more roads will not keep up as they do not scale like mass transit. We should be investing for the next 50 years, not the next 5. This is what got us into this mess in the first place.


9 posts

Wannabe Geek
+1 received by user: 3


  Reply # 1848731 18-Aug-2017 20:09
3 people support this post
Send private message

Auckland mayor Sir Dove-Myer Robinson was advocating a rapid rail system for Auckland over 50 years ago. Too bad no one took him seriously at the time, Auckland transport would not be in state it is in now had we looked ahead back then.

We must look forward and increase our population to make such a plan viable. Without a population increase nothing will happen.


2220 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 569


  Reply # 1848739 18-Aug-2017 21:18
Send private message

How about using the nearby, but totally underdeveloped Awhitu peninsular by creating a rail tunnel service to Big Bay. THAT should easily be done for far less cost and open up a far more useable area for development with a really short (sub 20 min?) commute to either/both Auckland and Manukau cities...?

Didn’t the drilling machine just come ‘spare’ too?

1972 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 629

Subscriber

  Reply # 1848763 18-Aug-2017 23:19
3 people support this post
Send private message

larknz: Slightly off topic, but if more high density housing was built in the inner suburbs of Auckland the need for inter-city trains would diminish.

 

 

 

If the Auckland Council actually developed sensible land use policies, Long distance public transport wouldn't be needed as much. The biggest stuffup in Auckland planning has being the building of dormitory suburbs. Instead of building a sensible mix of residential / commercial / industrial land. So more people can work close to home. And putting an end to silly land uses like building residential next to motorways.

 

Also they need to extend the rural / urban boundary. Especially in the north and west of Auckland. There is lots of rural land in the Albany / Greenhithe / Cuthill / Whenupai / areas west of Don Buck rd. And at the same time allow alot more high density housing in existing areas. The current rules simply cause urban sprawl via Lifestyle blocks - the worst kind of urban sprawl.

 

But the current town planners have an unrealistic utopian dream. They think it is still the 1960s NZ. In that you would have a few local shops. And travel to the Auckland CBD for work and major shopping. Except the shopping part has turned into the USA version - Shopping malls and "Supa Centa" type big box retailing springing up everywhere. And lots of small retail shops appearing in virtually all commercial and industrial areas. Evidently none of these town planners seem to have realised that you can buy things on the internet, instead of having to physically visit a shop.

 

Yet the more people in Auckland, The more commercial and industrial land is needed. But the current line of thinking is to zone massive commercial and industrial "parks". And then the town planners wonder why they cause so much traffic congestion.






2090 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1000


  Reply # 1848809 19-Aug-2017 10:07
2 people support this post
Send private message

Handle9:

 

Auckland will only get bigger, as urbanisation intensifies. The people have to live somewhere and satellite cities are a viable option with the correct infrastructure. Rapid mass transit is required - building more roads will not keep up as they do not scale like mass transit. We should be investing for the next 50 years, not the next 5. This is what got us into this mess in the first place.

 

 

I don't see it as inevitable. I do see some circular thinking, where people move to Auckland for a job, and employers move to Auckland for the labour. In fact, I really don't see the benefits of living in Auckland as outweighing the costs now. Which is of course why I don't live in Auckland.

 

Why would you live in Auckland if you could live in (say) Tauranga and have the same amenities available to you?

 

 


1569 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 480

Subscriber

  Reply # 1848814 19-Aug-2017 10:29
One person supports this post
Send private message

frankv:

 

Handle9:

 

Auckland will only get bigger, as urbanisation intensifies. The people have to live somewhere and satellite cities are a viable option with the correct infrastructure. Rapid mass transit is required - building more roads will not keep up as they do not scale like mass transit. We should be investing for the next 50 years, not the next 5. This is what got us into this mess in the first place.

 

 

I don't see it as inevitable. I do see some circular thinking, where people move to Auckland for a job, and employers move to Auckland for the labour. In fact, I really don't see the benefits of living in Auckland as outweighing the costs now. Which is of course why I don't live in Auckland.

 

Why would you live in Auckland if you could live in (say) Tauranga and have the same amenities available to you?

 

 

 

 

I understand your sentiments but the evidence everywhere in the world suggests otherwise. The biggest cities continue to get bigger and bigger. As urbanisation continues due to the lack of opportunity in rural communities bigger cities will continue to grow. This has been the way of the world since the industrial revolution and I haven't seen any compelling arguments that it's going to change.

 

 

 

Statistics NZ seems to agree with me.

 

http://m.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/projections-overview/subnat-pop-proj.aspx

 

 


2578 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 372


  Reply # 1848828 19-Aug-2017 11:43
2 people support this post
Send private message

I believe what has driven urbanisation to a very large extent has been the improvement in transportation.

 

If you go back a hundred and fifty years or so travelling between various places was slow and in many cases difficult. Horse and cart over mostly dirt or gravel tracks and roads. That meant each community needed to be more or less self sufficient. There was a need for the local doctor, pharmacy, post office, bank, general store, and all the other services we need on a daily basis. Naturally as is the case now the bigger centres had bigger better and a wider range of services, but they were too far away time wise to be readily accessible at the drop of a hat.  Travel to these centres was an important journey.

 

With the gradual improvement of the roading network and the introduction of motor vehicles the smaller centres became "closer" to the bigger ones and the bigger, better wider range of services were more easily accessed. Also if you looked at much of rural New Zealand where dairy farming took place there was a proliferation of small dairy factories, which were a major employer. With the introduction of milk tankers many small dairy factories closed and so many local jobs disappeared.

 

So began the urbanisation process in New Zealand. The small rural settlements began to wither and the larger regional towns grew as did the main cities. With further improvements to the roads and better cars and bigger trucks the regional towns got "closer" to the cities placing the populations of the smaller towns "closer" to bigger, better and a wider range of services. The urbanisation process kept rolling along and these towns started to wither while the cities continued to grow.

 

I'm of the opinion that the transportation improvements are going to be the victim of their own success, with travel times into and around places like Auckland driving industry and people back to regional centres.

 

I think regular rail transport between the likes of Hamilton, Rotorua, Tauranga and Auckland is a great idea, but it needs to be practical and viable. Also I don't think increasing our population just to make such a rail system viable is a good idea.

 

As for the theory of build it and they will come, that road has been paved with many disasters. Starting the a refurbed Silver Fern service between Hamilton and Auckland is probably a good place to start. If that can be made to work then we look at the next step.





Sony Xperia X Running Sailfish
Jolla C
Nokia N1
Dell Inspiron 14z i5


3284 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 953


  Reply # 1848901 19-Aug-2017 18:03
One person supports this post
Send private message

One question I have, is why it costs so much to tunnel in NZ. We'll need a new one for a decent train service.

Iceland built a 5.7km tunnel under a fjord in 1998 for around 100 million NZD. This cost $25 million NZD per km (in 2010 dollars).

Simon Bridges stated in 2010 that a tunnel (approx 8km) will cost billions . For arguments sake, lets say 3 billion dollars.

This puts the cost of tunneling in New Zealand, at $375 million NZD per Km.

 

So, it costs 25 times more to build a tunnel in New Zealand than in Iceland. Why is this? I understand differences in geology but 25 times the cost?

Winston Peters recently stated ...

"New Zealand’s longest tunnel runs 8.9 kilometres through the Kaimai Ranges and was opened in 1978. At the time, the old Ministry of Works was castigated for the cost - $57.11m, or $363m in today’s money. Fast forward to 2012 and NZTA had costed a 5.38 kilometre tunnel through the Manawatu Gorge at $1.8bn – about one-third less distance but almost five times the cost.

....

The real issue is why are we just accepting any cost by tender? When our past history, before this economic experiment, shows costs to have been so much less at a time when our wages, comparatively, were so much more."


Tunneling technology gets better , not worse. Why are we using new technology if the old is more productive?


2578 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 372


  Reply # 1849006 19-Aug-2017 22:44
One person supports this post
Send private message

surfisup1000:

 

One question I have, is why it costs so much to tunnel in NZ. We'll need a new one for a decent train service.

Iceland built a 5.7km tunnel under a fjord in 1998 for around 100 million NZD. This cost $25 million NZD per km (in 2010 dollars).

Simon Bridges stated in 2010 that a tunnel (approx 8km) will cost billions . For arguments sake, lets say 3 billion dollars.

This puts the cost of tunneling in New Zealand, at $375 million NZD per Km.

 

So, it costs 25 times more to build a tunnel in New Zealand than in Iceland. Why is this? I understand differences in geology but 25 times the cost?

Winston Peters recently stated ...

"New Zealand’s longest tunnel runs 8.9 kilometres through the Kaimai Ranges and was opened in 1978. At the time, the old Ministry of Works was castigated for the cost - $57.11m, or $363m in today’s money. Fast forward to 2012 and NZTA had costed a 5.38 kilometre tunnel through the Manawatu Gorge at $1.8bn – about one-third less distance but almost five times the cost.

....

The real issue is why are we just accepting any cost by tender? When our past history, before this economic experiment, shows costs to have been so much less at a time when our wages, comparatively, were so much more."


Tunneling technology gets better , not worse. Why are we using new technology if the old is more productive?

 

 

I'll give you one reason why the cost is much greater today, though it won't be the only one. HSWA. The requirements of this and it's predecessors have imposed significant cost. For example just the other day I saw a job on a footpath that would have involved 2 or 3 workers which had a team of about 10 Traffic Management people plus their vehicles pluus hundreds of safety cones. The cost of a job like that must be at least treble of what it used to be.





Sony Xperia X Running Sailfish
Jolla C
Nokia N1
Dell Inspiron 14z i5


gzt

9149 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1290


  Reply # 1849024 19-Aug-2017 23:45
Send private message

Four workers died during construction of the Kaimai's tunnel.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Phone prices rising as users move upmarket
Posted 24-Nov-2017 17:16


Talking net neutrality on RNZ Nine-to-Noon
Posted 24-Nov-2017 12:11


Air New Zealand experiments with blockchain technology
Posted 23-Nov-2017 15:39


Symantec selects Amazon Web Services to deliver cloud security
Posted 23-Nov-2017 10:40


New Zealand Ministry of Education chooses Unisys for cloud-based education resourcing management system
Posted 22-Nov-2017 22:00


Business analytics software powers profits for NZ wine producers
Posted 22-Nov-2017 21:52


Pyrios strikes up alliance with Microsoft integrator UC Logiq
Posted 22-Nov-2017 21:51


The New Zealand IT services ecosystem - it's all digital down here
Posted 22-Nov-2017 21:49


Volvo to supply tens of thousands of autonomous drive compatible cars to Uber
Posted 22-Nov-2017 21:46


From small to medium and beyond: Navigating the ERP battlefield
Posted 21-Nov-2017 21:12


Business owners: ERP software selection starts (and finishes) with you
Posted 21-Nov-2017 21:11


Why I'm not an early adopter
Posted 21-Nov-2017 10:39


Netatmo launches smart home products in New Zealand
Posted 20-Nov-2017 20:06


Huawei Mate 10: Punchy, long battery life, artificial intelligence
Posted 20-Nov-2017 16:30


Propel launch Disney Star Wars Laser Battle Drones
Posted 19-Nov-2017 21:26



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.