Our new coalition government.

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Our new coalition government.

1 | ... | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | ... | 182

29631 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2320142 19-Sep-2019 10:01

networkn:

As I understand it, there are three main reasons people don't catch public transport in cities like Auckland:

1) Cost (Compared to driving)

2) Number of services, frequency, and reliability (related to convenience and ability to get where you need to be on time, such as work).

3) Genuine need to have a car (for work, or because you pick kids up on the way home or whatever).

I do wonder then, if the right way to handle this, is to have the Auckland Council (In this example) heavily subsidies public transport, so that 1) is simply not a factor. When I lived in Christchurch (a long time ago now), to get from Mt Pleasant, to the city, was $1.80 and if you caught the bus back within 4 hours, the return trip was free. When I moved to Auckland, the cost of public transport very nearly ended me financially (I am not actually kidding) as it was $3.40 to get from Blockhouse Bay, to the City, and then the same again to return. I believe solving 1 would help with solving 2, as there would be less cars on the road, the roads would be freer to have additional services etc.

The Council spends huge money on many road type initiatives etc, but if they diverted a relatively small % of that and used to to make it so for example, a segment was say $1 and a trip back was included within whatever timeframe (4 hours or so), then you would be spending less on road maintenance and other such things. I do not know how much that would cost, but I expect it would be doable.

I agree with all that fully. Its too expensive. A 3/4 full bus is a lot of cars off the road, for the space of 3 or 4 cars length-wise. To do that you need incentives, $ is the incentive, especially with eScooters allowing an option for more bus services to be used (scoot 4 minutes instead of walking 20 to the bustop) I have 3 near me. One is 200 m away the other two are 16 minute walks. Cheaper busfare deals and an eScooter (in my example) makes buses an easy choice

Mighty Ape

Shop now on Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

tdgeek

29631 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2320146 19-Sep-2019 10:08

GV27:

tdgeek:

The benefit with Rapid Bus is they carry more, are more efficient and its less costly and less time to commandeer roadways for these buses, then hard built rail.

Again, there is the issue with too many buses moving down one route to the extent they can't even stop to pick up passengers (Dominion Road) or at the end of the journey in the city where they snarl up entire city blocks because there's too many of them.

One Light Rail vehicle can take three times as many people as a bus can. That's why these high-traffic routes were flagged for LRT; there simply isn't capacity on the routes for the number of buses it would require. You'd end up with the same outcomes - entire lanes of traffic taken up entirely by buses so you'll end up in the same boat as LRT anyway.

There's a real case to be made for busway followed by eventual conversion to LRT when demand warrants it, but then you can end up with a situation that's unfolded in East Auckland - initial project scaled back to buses on the proviso it could be upgraded in future, but then future cost-cutting means it can no longer be upgraded - from what I've been told, anyway. Nothing would surprise me.

These buses arent regular buses, they are longer, and yes while LRT can carry more, IF you need more this morning the busway has 1, 2 3 buses. More, in a row, later its 1 as demand is less. Like LRT they have their own carriageway, they arent competing with cars. What they do offer is flexibility and lower cost. If you draw a line in the sand, and over time AKL developes in a different way, you are screwed. The hard built rail system cannot be moved easily or cheaply. You will spend (and waste) more time to get LRT, so it better be in the right place for a long long time otherwise it becomes a lemon, thats all I'm saying.

GV27

5882 posts

Uber Geek

#2320163 19-Sep-2019 10:32

tdgeek:

These buses arent regular buses, they are longer, and yes while LRT can carry more, IF you need more this morning the busway has 1, 2 3 buses. More, in a row, later its 1 as demand is less. Like LRT they have their own carriageway, they arent competing with cars. What they do offer is flexibility and lower cost. If you draw a line in the sand, and over time AKL developes in a different way, you are screwed. The hard built rail system cannot be moved easily or cheaply. You will spend (and waste) more time to get LRT, so it better be in the right place for a long long time otherwise it becomes a lemon, thats all I'm saying.

My understanding is those buses and the dedicated busway they'd run on still require heavy maintenance as they're essentially heavy vehicles and rubber on road is going to be more demanding in terms of infrastructure upkeep than steel wheels on rails. So while it seems like a good short-term solution, there's the risk that our national sport of half-arsing infrastructure could leave us with something that is actually pretty costly to maintain and requires the same separation as LRT.

There's also the question of 'how is a triple-articulated bus going to go around corners in the CBD' and you're right back at square one again :(

tdgeek

29631 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2320192 19-Sep-2019 11:15

GV27:

tdgeek:

These buses arent regular buses, they are longer, and yes while LRT can carry more, IF you need more this morning the busway has 1, 2 3 buses. More, in a row, later its 1 as demand is less. Like LRT they have their own carriageway, they arent competing with cars. What they do offer is flexibility and lower cost. If you draw a line in the sand, and over time AKL developes in a different way, you are screwed. The hard built rail system cannot be moved easily or cheaply. You will spend (and waste) more time to get LRT, so it better be in the right place for a long long time otherwise it becomes a lemon, thats all I'm saying.

My understanding is those buses and the dedicated busway they'd run on still require heavy maintenance as they're essentially heavy vehicles and rubber on road is going to be more demanding in terms of infrastructure upkeep than steel wheels on rails. So while it seems like a good short-term solution, there's the risk that our national sport of half-arsing infrastructure could leave us with something that is actually pretty costly to maintain and requires the same separation as LRT.

There's also the question of 'how is a triple-articulated bus going to go around corners in the CBD' and you're right back at square one again :(

They don't. They continue on to a terminus, then return

I think we have answered the question. Its VERY complex. It all depends on AC and NZTA defining Auckland for the next 50 years, in terms of where it will and where it wont expand. Where there will be residential only and where there will be light to medium industry. And sticking to it. Take LA for example. Its a mish mash of houses commercial light industry all mashed up as you drive through it. AC and NZTA need to define AKL accurately. Then they can build transport where they know the demand will be and it will remain, not varying a huge degree, you then have a long term useful transport infrastructure.

networkn

Networkn
32236 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2320238 19-Sep-2019 11:32

tdgeek:

I agree with all that fully. Its too expensive. A 3/4 full bus is a lot of cars off the road, for the space of 3 or 4 cars length-wise. To do that you need incentives, $ is the incentive, especially with eScooters allowing an option for more bus services to be used (scoot 4 minutes instead of walking 20 to the bustop) I have 3 near me. One is 200 m away the other two are 16 minute walks. Cheaper busfare deals and an eScooter (in my example) makes buses an easy choice

The problem is that buses aren't scalable. In a population of 1.5m they are already heaving at the seams and as pointed out by GV27 3 buses = 1 LRT. Add to this that LRT is typically more comfortable, and things like Wifi are more easily provided on these, and you take away some of the things that stop people from catching public transport. Road maintenance costs of having heavy buses full of people is pretty high too. There is lightyears difference to catching public transport in Singapore for example, to doing the same thing in Auckland. Even if it were an option for me to bus to work (which it isn't) I'd be extremely reluctant due to the unpleasant shared nature of the current transport options. The same wasn't true in the times I have spent in Japan (though to be fair at peak times you were always intimately introduced to your fellow passengers), and Singapore. Some of that is due to the speed at which said transport is occurring. 5 minutes of being crammed into a tram/train etc sure beats 30 minutes in less cramped conditions.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18602 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2320243 19-Sep-2019 11:39

I am genuinely pleased that you appreciate the value of good public transport. How do we get that here?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

29631 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2320246 19-Sep-2019 11:41

networkn:

tdgeek:

I agree with all that fully. Its too expensive. A 3/4 full bus is a lot of cars off the road, for the space of 3 or 4 cars length-wise. To do that you need incentives, $ is the incentive, especially with eScooters allowing an option for more bus services to be used (scoot 4 minutes instead of walking 20 to the bustop) I have 3 near me. One is 200 m away the other two are 16 minute walks. Cheaper busfare deals and an eScooter (in my example) makes buses an easy choice

The problem is that buses aren't scalable. In a population of 1.5m they are already heaving at the seams and as pointed out by GV27 3 buses = 1 LRT. Add to this that LRT is typically more comfortable, and things like Wifi are more easily provided on these, and you take away some of the things that stop people from catching public transport. Road maintenance costs of having heavy buses full of people is pretty high too. There is lightyears difference to catching public transport in Singapore for example, to doing the same thing in Auckland. Even if it were an option for me to bus to work (which it isn't) I'd be extremely reluctant due to the unpleasant shared nature of the current transport options. The same wasn't true in the times I have spent in Japan (though to be fair at peak times you were always intimately introduced to your fellow passengers), and Singapore. Some of that is due to the speed at which said transport is occurring. 5 minutes of being crammed into a tram/train etc sure beats 30 minutes in less cramped conditions.

Ok fair enough, valid points.

GV27

5882 posts

Uber Geek

#2320267 19-Sep-2019 12:08

tdgeek:

I think we have answered the question. Its VERY complex. It all depends on AC and NZTA defining Auckland for the next 50 years, in terms of where it will and where it wont expand. Where there will be residential only and where there will be light to medium industry. And sticking to it. Take LA for example. Its a mish mash of houses commercial light industry all mashed up as you drive through it. AC and NZTA need to define AKL accurately. Then they can build transport where they know the demand will be and it will remain, not varying a huge degree, you then have a long term useful transport infrastructure.

The problem is we had that; the Unitary Plan process does that. From there the Auckland Transport Alignment Plan was drafted to serve the city, and in the second version of that, Light Rail was designated as a 'Decade One Priority'. Now the Government is not upholding its end of the deal. That process takes years, and meanwhile the Government is happy to promise billions of dollars to places like Wellington and fund their projects at a higher rate than Auckland, despite Auckland taking on massively higher population growth.

As usual, Auckland's biggest problem is Wellington.

networkn

Networkn
32236 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2320268 19-Sep-2019 12:08

Rikkitic:

I am genuinely pleased that you appreciate the value of good public transport. How do we get that here?

It's hard, for the reason that in NZ, any one person can hold up a 4 Billion dollar roading or infrastructure project with a protest that requires a process to be followed till it's conclusion (And to be fair there isn't really a limit on how stupid these claims are so they can't be dismissed out of hand). The way to get it moving is to prevent people from holding projects to ransom.

Quite a few years ago, whilst in a Taxi in Singapore from the airport, the driver shared with me how the Government decided they wanted an MRT station in the apartment he was living in (I think he said owned). The residents were given a settlement amount for their property (which can't be disputed) and given 5 months to vacate. On the day works were to be completed the building was blown to the ground. There is no option to protest or try and stay, you are removed by force. The MRT was built, the apartment complex rebuilt on time and on budget, and I am a little hazy, but from what I recall I think he said the entire thing was 10 months to the day. There no protesting on religious or cultural grounds. It's what the country needs, so it's what the country gets. We need more of that here.

You can let everyone have their say, or you can be efficient, not both.

For the record, I have personal experience with an extended family member holding up a huge road in Christchurch, managing to extort 5 x the original offered amount and considerably more than the property he was on was worth, just because he decided he wanted x amount. In the end they folded and gave him the amount. There are some rules to prevent that now, but they aren't really that strong. In my view, the Governing body should have transferred the original offer x 1.5 into his account and dragged his ass right out of his property after 3 months. If he resisted, give him 30 days in the slammer.

The difficulty with even doing this here, is that we are geographically massive compared to the cities overseas that have public transport the likes of which we all envy, so it wouldn't work here practically. We can't do the same thing, and we also don't have the population density for taxes to be an option to generate the required revenue. We need to understand we can't replicate that. The CRL in Auckland is a reasonable step forward, but it's taken a lifetime to get moving, these need to be expedited. One thing that has really annoyed me related to road works in my area and in the CRL areas, is there isn't sufficient assistance to the businesses that are impacted (I am not suggesting this impacts me). Near me alone, 3 of the food places have folded as people can't easily get access to the area and they went under within a few weeks.

I would happily part with 20-30% increase in rates over 10 years if it meant having world class (for Auckland) public transport, built quickly, but a lot of families couldn't cope with that level of financial impact.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18602 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#2320272 19-Sep-2019 12:17

Thanks for that reply. It clarifies some things. While this is not really related, I have never been able to understand how the Japanese were able to rebuild so quickly and so well after the massive destruction they suffered, but we still can't seem to get Christchurch right. Is this some kind of cultural thing, as in we simply can't get it together?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

tdgeek

29631 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2320276 19-Sep-2019 12:23

GV27:

tdgeek:

I think we have answered the question. Its VERY complex. It all depends on AC and NZTA defining Auckland for the next 50 years, in terms of where it will and where it wont expand. Where there will be residential only and where there will be light to medium industry. And sticking to it. Take LA for example. Its a mish mash of houses commercial light industry all mashed up as you drive through it. AC and NZTA need to define AKL accurately. Then they can build transport where they know the demand will be and it will remain, not varying a huge degree, you then have a long term useful transport infrastructure.

The problem is we had that; the Unitary Plan process does that. From there the Auckland Transport Alignment Plan was drafted to serve the city, and in the second version of that, Light Rail was designated as a 'Decade One Priority'. Now the Government is not upholding its end of the deal. That process takes years, and meanwhile the Government is happy to promise billions of dollars to places like Wellington and fund their projects at a higher rate than Auckland, despite Auckland taking on massively higher population growth.

As usual, Auckland's biggest problem is Wellington.

This Govt will be out next election. Was this plan all on track till the Coalition took power? It seems to me that transport in AKL is a long time issue. Its a pity that some think Why Auckland, when its obvious its a key centre for NZ. In your other thread you say that National doesn't want LR, so what then?

networkn

Networkn
32236 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2320279 19-Sep-2019 12:28

In my view it's because there aren't people able to slow the process down. The Japanese are a little like the Germans in terms of the precision and speed of their planning and execution. They as a group seem pretty unified on how they want to move forward. The Governments are a lot less "soft" for want of a better word.

Having said that, when were you last in Christchurch? I used to live there and felt one of the saddest things was the the loss of historical beauty that Central CHCH had that was wiped out with the quakes. Having said that, I have been back 5 times since the quake. The first time I was close to tears for a lot of the time I spent there. The destruction was immense and what was lost seemed irrecoverable. Subsequent visits were mostly pretty horrible, as things didn't seem to be happening, but last last 2 visits and especially my last, Christchurch looks amazing again. It's a long way from finished, but it's modernized in a good way, and some of what has risen from the ashes is truly spectacular. I was SUPER impressed and it made me want to move back. In a lot of ways it's better than it was before.

Japan is a country that is well experienced in how to deal with major disasters, earthquakes aren't new, and a lot of the areas affected by the Tsunami was farm and less densely populated areas that didn't need the same level of planning that rebuilding a CBD needs to have. Add to this that every tom dick and harry wants his or her say, and things take time.

In my view, (though you'd be better to take the opinions of people who live there over mine in this I believe) Christchurch is coming along very nicely. We were, as a country, totally unprepared for a disaster of this magnitude, and whilst here were no shortage of horror stories, overall it's been OK considering all that happened.

tdgeek

29631 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2320280 19-Sep-2019 12:29

Rikkitic:

Thanks for that reply. It clarifies some things. While this is not really related, I have never been able to understand how the Japanese were able to rebuild so quickly and so well after the massive destruction they suffered, but we still can't seem to get Christchurch right. Is this some kind of cultural thing, as in we simply can't get it together?

I was going to reply to @N's post, but its our culture. While we are the number 8 wire culture, we can fix anything, we are also delicate. Take OSH, yes we do need protections and standards in place but that is very much over the top. We do need buildings and planning standards but they are way over the top. The gap between common sense and efficiency, and the rules we have in place is ridiculous. Bureaucracy is the weed of economics. It smothers everything in time and cost.

networkn

Networkn
32236 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2320287 19-Sep-2019 12:50

tdgeek:

This Govt will be out next election.

They SHOULD be out next election, but I doubt it's that automatic. We disagree how bad this Government has been, but given how *I* think they have performed, I would have expected the polls should have been showing them in a really poor light even before this latest trainwreck, but the polls didn't reflect that. The cynic in me thinks a well timed wedding could be played along the line somewhere too once the dust settles. Either way, if JA seeks a second term as PM, she is in for a tough time during the debates. National need to find someone who can take her to task without being seen to "bully" her.

GV27

5882 posts

Uber Geek

#2320298 19-Sep-2019 12:52

tdgeek:

Rikkitic:

Thanks for that reply. It clarifies some things. While this is not really related, I have never been able to understand how the Japanese were able to rebuild so quickly and so well after the massive destruction they suffered, but we still can't seem to get Christchurch right. Is this some kind of cultural thing, as in we simply can't get it together?

I was going to reply to @N's post, but its our culture. While we are the number 8 wire culture, we can fix anything, we are also delicate. Take OSH, yes we do need protections and standards in place but that is very much over the top. We do need buildings and planning standards but they are way over the top. The gap between common sense and efficiency, and the rules we have in place is ridiculous. Bureaucracy is the weed of economics. It smothers everything in time and cost.

We also have low expectations - the oft-quoted metric is the Japanese rail network's idea of efficiency is something like 95% of trains arriving within seconds of their scheduled time, but Auckland measures the same thing in five minute windows. As long as it's 4:59 or under, it's OK.

It's also why projects like the NW widening take years (been going on the entire time I've lived out West) and the Waterview Connection itself was months later than the planned opening. We just accept it.

1 | ... | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | ... | 182