In both not being able to frame an argument properly and stuck in the 1990s of planning

 

 

After copping a pretty serious debunk over in Transport Blog’s NZ Initiative’s ideology short-changes compact city debate (which the comments department is still going pretty strong to the point it is drowning out every other post in there at the moment) the New Zealand Initiative decided to leave an opinion piece in the NBR yesterday. Now I have no issues with opinion pieces but the NZI might have wanted to take lesson from Transport Blog’s earlier post against them and sharpen up their debating points in the NBR piece.

However, that did not quite happen and so we have a badly flawed piece that was wanting a reply pretty fast.

The opening lines from the New Zealand Initiative’s opinion piece on trains and Auckland:

…

Source: http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/trains-wont-save-aucklands-traffic-congestion-woes-bd-157845

You can read the rest over at the NBR site

 

I replied in the comments department which got through the moderation. It reads:

Oh very dear indeed. The exact same stuff NZI got nicely debunked for over here: http://transportblog.co.nz/2014/06/18/nz-initiatives-ideology-short-changes-compact-city-debate/

 

Right then some counter points.

First of all rail is not touted as the silver bullet for Auckland and has never been done so. It is part of a comprehensive suite of transport packages that include buses (like the new South Auckland Bus Network), active transport (cycle ways), rail itself, and the roads and motorways (like the recently announced Southern Motorway upgrade in Budget 2014). Those including Auckland Transport know that this mixed approach is what will mitigate Auckland’s traffic congestion.

Back to rail. The City Rail Link not only serves the CBD but all of Auckland and I mean all of Auckland as well. Right now we can only get frequencies across the entire rail network down to 10 minutes with some heavy congestion in Britomart. The CRL allows frequencies to hit 5 minutes in areas that need it and remove the congestion in Britomart.

So if I want to travel Papakura to Ellersile or Papakura to Henderson (so not even touching the CBD) I can just show up and a train won’t be far away and I won’t be held up by congestion further up the line.

The CRL also allows the construction of the Airport Line and the North Shore Line – two areas not served by rail and cannot be done so until the CRL is built as the existing network cannot handle that much more trains in sections.

So the airport and North Shore who did not have rail get served by rail thanks the CRL.

As a result it frees up buses to serve else where needed and combined means another car off the road thus more space for traffic that do need the roads like freight and service vehicles

As for land use patterns, the City Centre and six of our Metropolitan Centres are currently served by rail. With the CRL and future lines (including a Botany Line) that jump to the City Centre and 9 of the 10 Metropolitan Centres served by rail (and backed up by buses). That means your Tier One and Tier Two employment hubs are within reach by rapid rail. Rail that also stimulates growth, just ask Manukau and Sylvia Park. This leaves our heavy industrial complexes out but they can be easily served by buses with the rail network nearby in most cases.

In the South our large new Greenfield developments are all within reach of both the rail line and the bus network. All that is needed is two new rail stations and some more bus stops. So whether by design or accident Auckland’s Geography is slotting very well into its upcoming transport network including rail that as I said will serve Auckland well into the future.

So as you see our transport which includes rail will be serving a Auckland that is growing up and out quite well once it is all done up.  There is more I could write on this but I’ll leave it to my own blog as well as Transport Blog to do so

——

Note: If Auckland were to adopt the Super Metropolitan Centre concept then there is a slight change to the above comment. If the Manukau (and later Albany) Super Metropolitan Centres go ahead then you would have the City Centre, two Super Metropolitan Centres (Albany first served by the bus way then the North Shore Line) seven Metropolitan Centres (Westgate being the only one not being or able to be) served by rail. The City Centre is tier one, the Super Metropolitan Centres tier two and the Metropolitan Centre tier three.

 

This video recently from Auckland Transport also outlines the connections and growing connections in Auckland with public transport:

In my opinion the points put forward by the New Zealand Initiative were left wanting in the fact the holes in their debate were large enough to put a new electric train through. If you are going to critique the rail system and land use policy you might want to touch all basis. Also looking here: http://nzinitiative.org.nz/About+Us/Membership.html  I am a bit worried if the NZI were speaking on your behalf after a guest post like that. Especially with most if not all of the NZI members (and the consumers who purchase the goods or services from those respective members) sensitive to land use and transport planning here in Auckland. As my comments said above:

•  First of all rail is not touted as the silver bullet for Auckland and has never been done so. It is part of a comprehensive suite of transport packages that include buses (like the new South Auckland Bus Network), active transport (cycle ways), rail itself, and the roads and motorways (like the recently announced Southern Motorway upgrade in Budget 2014). Those including Auckland Transport know that this mixed approach is what will mitigate Auckland’s traffic congestion.
• As for land use patterns, the City Centre and six of our Metropolitan Centres are currently served by rail. With the CRL and future lines (including a Botany Line) that jump to the City Centre and 9 of the 10 Metropolitan Centres served by rail (and backed up by buses). That means your Tier One and Tier Two employment hubs are within reach by rapid rail. Rail that also stimulates growth, just ask Manukau and Sylvia Park. This leaves our heavy industrial complexes out but they can be easily served by buses with the rail network nearby in most cases.In the South our large new Greenfield developments are all within reach of both the rail line and the bus network. All that is needed is two new rail stations and some more bus stops. So whether by design or accident Auckland’s Geography is slotting very well into its upcoming transport network including rail that as I said will serve Auckland well into the future.

You look at the entire package not just one because of the possibility of an ideological bent. A bent that is not good for business for the NZI or its members one little bit!