Category: Hot Discussion

An issue causing hot discussion either here in the blog or in the wider community

Sydney and The Rail Fallacy MK II

·

The Rail Fallacy Strikes (Sydney) Back

 

In June last year I posted about Sydney and The Rail Fallacy – mind you it was in concern to passenger trains as I was drawing a warning in regards to the City Rail Link.

From last year:

Sydney and its Rail Fallacy

It seems Sydney has not quite learned from Auckland’s botched public transport system with multiple operators, seemingly a heterogeneous train fleet, disjointed fares and very disjointed timetables between the three p/t modes. Although Auckland is on the path in fixing the last three bits of that previous sentence, we will have some way to go yet before achieving a homogenous public transport operating system. But as I said at least we are going towards homogenous, because upon reading the Sydney transport article; they seem to be going in full reverse and heading to a heterogeneous system like we have. If you are wondering how Sydney has a rail fallacy; well it has not got a fallacy right now like other places, but heck it is heading to one and one it can avoid quite easy.

The Rail Fallacy will apply to the when the North West Rail Link (which is to be run as a PPP) is complete and opened in 2019, and most likely to the second Sydney Harbour is the New South Wales state governmentmanages to screw that up.

 

And for the definition of Rail Fallacy it is this:

THE CRL AND THE RAIL FALLACY

…

THE RAIL FALLACY

The Rail Fallacy was a formula given to  me by a mentor on how to roughly calculate the “actual” cost and time to completion of a heavy rail or light rail project. The Fallacy was based on previous experience from projects in the USA and Scandinavia where rail projects were given a cost and time to completion by the Public Authorities. However  by the end of the said project (if it was not scrapped) the final cost was higher and time to completion “delayed” compared to the original numbers given, with public confidence often not that high. Thus the Fallacy formula was derived on an average of 1.5x (one point five times) and can be applied to (usually) to any passenger rail project due to be constructed in the Western World.

 

Well yesterday its mentioned in the Sydney Morning Herald that Sydney and wider New South Wales suffered a rather large Rail Fallacy – although it was from a freight line rather than a passenger line.

From the SMH:

‘We wanted to make sure we got it right’: new rail line opens … three years late”

 

The first train line in Sydney to be paid for and built under the Rudd and Gillard governments opened on Monday, $700 million over budget and three years after it was promised to be finished.

The 36km Southern Sydney Freight Line will allow extra freight trains to run between Macarthur and Chullora in the city’s south west and will increase rail freight capacity along the entire Australian east coast.

This is an investment that’s been got right. This isn’t a loss to taxpayers. This is an investment that produces a return on that investment by getting it right.

But the project ended up being vastly more expensive to build than when it was first promised by the federal Transport Minister, Anthony Albanese, in 2009.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/we-wanted-to-make-sure-we-got-it-right-new-rail-line-opens–three-years-late-20130121-2d279.html#ixzz2IjrDydNo

 

Getting it Right? That should of been done in the (proper) Planning Process which would of indicated rather clearly the upcoming complexity of the entire project

As for costs and time that is reflected below, but from my understanding the freight line came in at 3.5x over budget and three years (so 3x over the one year completion date) late from what was “promised” by the Federal Government.

 

More from the SMH:

At a press conference in Birrong to mark the start of operations on the line, Mr Albanese and the chief executive of the Australian Rail Track Corporation, which built the line, defended the blow-out.

 

The final cost was about $1 billion. When Mr Albanese announced the start of construction in February 2009, he put a figure of $309 million on the project and a completion date of early 2010.

“This is a pretty complex piece of work,” Mr Albanese said on Monday.

He attributed the delays and cost blow-outs to the necessity of moving utilities such as water and energy lines during construction.

Mr Albanese also said that the difficulty of operating on a live rail line – both freight trains and passenger trains on the adjoining East Hills line stayed running while the new line was being built – added to the challenge of the project.

“We wanted to make sure we got it right,” the Transport Minister said. “No corners have been cut. This has been got right.”

The Australian Rail Track Corporation is owned by the federal government. As with the NBN Co. it receives money from the federal government in the form of investments which do not come off the government’s budget bottom line.

Mr Albanese declined to criticise the ARTC for the more than three-fold increase in the cost of the project. According to figures provided to Senate Estimates, the ARTC spent almost $12 million in planning the line before construction even started in 2009.

“This is an investment,” he said. “This is an investment that’s been got right. This isn’t a loss to taxpayers. This is an investment that produces a return on that investment by getting it right.”

Mr Fullerton said the new train line, which will allow capacity for up to 48 freight trains a day to pass through the area and potentially to Port Botany, was the largest project the ARTC had undertaken.

“The original budget made some assumptions on how we could build a line over 36 kilometres adjacent to a metropolitan line but when we got into the project we realised that lot of the services covering off Sydney Water, a lot of the RailCorp services to do with signalling, electricity lines, all those sorts of things had to be relocated and that comes at a significant cost over 36 kilometres,” Mr Fullerton said.

The ARTC stopped work on the freight line in late 2009 and 2010. The benefit of the line is in allowing passenger trains and freight trains to run separately from each other.

This means that an existing eight-hour curfew on freight trains running during the morning and afternoon peak periods can now be lifted.

Mr Albanese defended the record of the federal Labor government in relation to transport in Sydney.

As transport minister, he has promised to build the Epping to Parramatta train line, though that pledge has been scuppered by the O’Farrell government which ranks it a lower priority. He has also agreed to fund a new freight terminal at Moorebank and another freight train line through Sydney’s northern suburbs, though both are still at the planning stage.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/we-wanted-to-make-sure-we-got-it-right-new-rail-line-opens–three-years-late-20130121-2d279.html#ixzz2Ijs0hJ9l

 

By the looks of it (and always seems to be the case) it that the project is a worthwhile one (this dedicated segregated freight line being an example) but the planning was just an utter disgrace and not done properly. And from the Sydney Freight Rail Line example some rather dodgy planning was done indeed. Costs underestimated (as always the case), time of completion underestimated (as always the case), scope of work underestimated (was with Sydney), complexity of the work at hand underestimated (usually the case), benefits delivered from project overestimated (although with Sydney and back here with the CRL this would be a case of benefits most likely being underestimated due to pitch of the benefits being wrong).

 

So a message to our resident Prude – The Mayor and Auckland Council, take heed of Sydney AND Canberra doing a ballsy and allowing a Rail Fallacy (and a large one at that with the multiple over 3.0) happen with a FREIGHT rail line (let alone passenger rail line projects like the Sydney North-Western Line proposals). Because while some call it scaremongering in what I write, I call it the utter truth from examples overseas gathered and an absolute warning on how to avoid The Rail Fallacy. And I give these warning so that mistakes from overseas  are not repeated in regards to the City Rail Link mega-project. Because if the The Rail Fallacy does happen (and it has with Manukau – knocking confidence right out of Councillors and rail supporters) then support and confidence in further investment in rail (the other four lines to be built) goes right out the door.

Just of note The CRL already faces a tough pitch in giving ratepayers confidence in its multi-billion dollar project support; Whale Oils Rail Patronage post would be a testament to that (after by the looks it someone got a proverbial spanking over there) and The Rail Fallacy coming true with the CRL will do no one any favours. However if we get a Britomart situation where the project was in high doubt but is now a beacon (well all things considered too) of confidence restoration with rail investment and the CRL pulls off the same thing – then – well you figure out with further investment with rail.

 

So the stakes are high folks they really are…

 

Honesty and Integrity

·

Such is a Demand of OUR Civic Leaders

 

This particular issue has been simmering away for a while but has just recently come to (over)boiling point as the particular issue comes to ahead tomorrow evening.

The particular issue? Howick Local Board Chair Michael Williams trying to force his Deputy Chair Adele White to “stand down” or be “forced” to be “stood down.” The reason for this? The real reason is currently unknown despite what is coming through the Main Stream Media, Facebook and Whale Oil.

Now one might be asking: Why is BR:AKL bringing this up now rather one of his Rail Efficiency Posts, or Rates and Len Brown posts.  Well the REP, Rates and Len Brown posts will be still coming, however I am bringing up the Williams issue two-fold; first is that I have been watching this issue from the word get-go, second the issue falls into the branch of “What Do I Stand For and Believe In – For a Better Auckland.”

 

To bring readers into the loop I point to these two articles/posts; one from The Herald, the other from Whale Oil.

From The Herald on Sunday (HoS):

Power play foiled by arrest

By Joanne Carroll

5:30 AM Sunday Jan 20, 2013

A local politician from a leafy, well-to-do village has been charged with drink-driving and refusing to accompany a police officer. Michael Williams, a chartered accountant and the Howick Local Board chairman, faces a defended hearing at the Manukau District Court on March 1.

Williams was charged after the roadside incident in May but has kept the matter from his board members amid his bid to replace deputy chairwoman Adele White, who is also a senior police constable. Williams is charged with being more than twice the legal limit with a reading of 169ml of alcohol per litre of blood, and refusing to accompany a police officer in Auckland on May 10.

The stoush between Williams and his deputy has drawn the National MP for the area, Jami-Lee Ross, into posting an online petition backing White. Ross’ wife, Lucy Schwaner, is also a board member.

Ross and Williams ran together in the Citizens and Ratepayers Team for the 2010 local election.

Ross yesterday told the Herald on Sunday the charges against Williams gave “some new context to his attempt to oust a well-known and respected senior constable”.

…

You can read the rest over at HoS

 

Two pieces from Whale Oil:

CAESAR MICHAEL WILLIAMS FACING COURT FOR DRUNK DRIVING

by Whaleoil on January 20, 2013

Oh dear me look at what Michael Williams has been hiding from councillors as he makes his powerplay to dump Adele White from the Deputy Chair role at the Howick Local Board.

And

WILL HE STAY ON? THE PROBLEM WITH MICHAEL WILLIAMS

by Whaleoil on January 20, 2013

There are a number of issues that stem from the Herald revelations into Michael Williams’ problems.

 

WO goes on and lists the four sticky problems Williams is basically now looking at.

 

While I am trundling along to the Howick Local Board meeting this evening to watch the “proceedings” I must say I am not particularly amused by Williams actions which brings the Howick Local Board into disrepute in the eyes of not only their constituents but also the eyes of the wider city.

Furthermore Williams’s actions not only not doing Communities and Residents (C&R) any favours right now as they get ready to contest the 2013 Local Government Elections, but his actions can (if they have not done so already) paralyse the Local Board in dedicating every single last utter resource they very well need in making sure The Unitary Plan (released soon) does not adversely affect them (which I have an idea it might).

However as far as I can see at the moment; The Williams Affair has not spread its poison to the Main Council level (yet) and is not hampering the four C&R Councillors in their duties on the Main Governing Body and respective Committees.

 

What The Williams Affair does show is that Michael Williams is in contempt in two main areas that I hold civic leaders to that allows him to execute his duties as Chair of the Howick Local Board. They are:

1) Open Governance: I believe in open governance where the public can sit in, listen and where possible discuss “matters-of-state” as much as possible with their representatives. None of this hiding behind closed doors (except for commercially sensitive material that does come up from time to time), and fessing up when you know you have stuffed up. You might find the public are more sympathetic you one acknowledges and apologies for a legitimate mistake

And

2) Listen and Engage: God gave us two ears and one mouth. In my line of work you actively listen with both ears THEN engage in dialogue with your one mouth. Not the other way around as that is usually monologue and the fastest way to get your ears clipped. Same applies to civic institutions:  you actively listen with both ears THEN engage in dialogue with your one mouth unless you like getting your ears clipped… Oh and remember some days all the person wants you to do is JUST LISTEN to their little piece – as all we want some days is just to get it off our chests.

 

By virtue of extension Williams failed this aspect of Open Governance: “fessing up when you know you have stuffed up. You might find the public are more sympathetic you one acknowledges and apologies for a legitimate mistake.”

Drink driving is a scourge New Zealand and must always be actively discouraged. Resisting arrest is just plain dumb and shows no sympathy from me. If you are arrested, you might as well go quietly and “sort it” at the station rather than making a total ass of yourself plus making things more difficult than it should be. What might have been a slap across the wrist if you cooperated with the police (knowing you stuffed up) now turns into basically what Mr Williams is now facing – more damage than required… As a Civic Leader (Chair of the Local Board) I expect Mr Williams to have been straight up with his Board members and his constituents when “done” for being off his trolley while driving and to show an added amount of respect to the position of Chair, stand aside on Gardening Leave until sorted. While the Drink Driving Charge would have annoyed people to no certain ends, being open, straight up/honest, and taking responsibility would have made the effects much less than Williams obstinate approach which has riled the community up (also having two people on the Local Board working for the police provides a catalyst to the situation as well). So what is Williams playing at here? Caesar complex as one of his yes-men said or as I call it “Small-Man-Syndrome.”

 

As for the ‘Listen and Engage’ part; from what I can see with this entire Deputy Chair situation, Mr Williams is incapable beyond any doubt of fulfilling the ‘Listen and Engage’ part as mentioned above. Now while ‘Listen and Engage’ was implied to the politicians, bureaucrats and the ratepayer; again by virtue of extension (must look for a new term in the thesaurus) this is also implied between a Chair and Deputy Chair on a Board as well as THE ENTIRE BOARD when debating amongst themselves. However upon reading this (and I am going to take it from Whale Oil as it had a better analogy):

From Whale Oil:

One of his little band of helpers who were seeking to knife Adele White, Steve Udys also has an interesting turn of phrase:

“What I would say is he has been a little bit silly but that has nothing to do with Adele not being the right person for the job. He may have a Caesar complex but we have to live with that,”

Caesar? More like Mussolini. I wonder if Udys will now act like Brutus and knife him on the way to the meeting. Steve Udys thinks that this issue has nothing to do with Adele White, he is wrong. His contention is that Adele White is too busy to fulfil the role of Deputy Chair. Each of those board members seeking to unseat Adele White should now ask themselves how a person with a full-time senior role in a company, who is facing charges on drunk driving and failing to accompany a police officer (arrested, in other words) can possibly remain on the board, let alone chair the meeting. This isn’t a couple of beers over the limit either, this is twice the legal limit. It isn’t like Michael Williams hasn’t had problems with the bottle before.

A drunk driving, arrest resisting, board member with a Caesar complex isn’t someone we really want representing us is it?

ROLE MODELS:

Adele White teaches kids how to be safe on the road.

Michael Williams teaches kids how to be a drunk driver on the road.

 

Caesar, Mussolini, and/or Small-Man-Syndrome – whatever you want to call it – it is applying here in spades and that is unfortunate. Furthermore from what I have gathered from various electronic sources on the entire Williams situation, it has been implied that he is nothing but a bully who surrounds himself by “yes-men” in order to get HIS agenda through – not the communities agenda. Deputy Chair Adele White is being seen as the (might be lone however I doubt that) voice of outside-the-square thinking and logic in Howick community affairs. Knowing Williams suffers from S.M.S this outside-the-square thinking and logic dares to have a voice and would fly against everything Williams “stands for.” However there might be more beyond this but I can’t be certain in this entire mess come saga. Talk about a Caesar complex alright.

 

In my take and opinion on all things we need more people like Adele White and their outside-the-box thinking, logic and voice – who get the job done in benefit on their communities; and less people like Michael Williams who are nothing but absolute bullies and counter productive to real and true progression of their communities (due to often advancing things to their own personal gain). Does Michael Williams hold the Honesty and Integrity required to be a Civic Leader? The answer is NO.

 

Time to go Mr Williams, before your poison spreads and damages the rest of C&R in Auckland as well as detracting the main four C&R Councillors from doing their jobs.

The Howick Local Board needs its absolute resources and dedication with a clear conscious and voice that can handle robust debate and outside-the-square thinking as the Unitary Plan comes rocking to all of our doors. You Mr Williams cloud that conscious and voice and could do very well irreparable damage to Howick due to your “short-comings” that can not be fixed and lack of proper judgement and responsibility in your mistakes (drunk driving and resisting arrest).

Your Caucus Leader, Councillor Chris Fletcher spells out the such high risk in the game that is called The Unitary Plan:

“Been pondering over summer why Auckland Council is hell bent on accommodating an extra million people. Auckland’s relatively small (internationally speaking) population gives us a natural competitive advantage. Leaves me wondering about the drivers of the Unitary Plan.”

 

And I’ll further add to the weight of Councillor Fletcher’s concern:

“The current Stats NZ population clock has us I believe just shy of 1.5m people. Current conservative and “normal” projections have Auckland at 2 million by 2032-ish while high end has 2 million by 2024-ish. I believe it is a case of when and not if (this is the 5th attempt to get this section edited) we get to 2 million – so I suppose Council is being prudent in its planning via The Unitary Plan for it.

However what needs to be watched is Council “forcing” growth (to suit an (usually failed) agenda rather than allowing growth to happen at a more natural and organic rate (leave what be) and planning around that.

 

How the heck can Howick trust you now Mr Williams when (to me and as I expect my Civic Leaders to have regardless of “jurisdiction” crap) when this entire mess shows you clearly have no honesty and integrity in you to execute the responsibilities of Local Board Chair when your community is staring down the barrel of the Unitary Plan to which Councillor Fletcher, and myself have just vividly pointed out.

 

If you Mr Williams acted with that honesty and integrity as so demanded from us to you, forgiveness would have been easier to ascertain and moving forward much easier than what is here now regardless of which way the courts would have swung (although resisting arrest deserves one massive ass-kicking by every person living in your community).

 

But now we have this 6pm meeting tonight – in Howick to which I am going to trundle along and watch. Lets see if you Mr Williams will using this final shot to act honestly and with integrity and stand down as Chair of the Howick Local Board until your date with the Courts are over…

 

[insert Tui Ad and pigs fly remark here]

Brewer and Transparency

·

Some Are – Some Are Not

 

Transparent…

 

One thing people like is transparency, especially if it is either their money or lives (livelihoods) being affected by the said corporation or civic institution. In my “What Do I Stand For and Believe In – For a Better Auckland” post I make mention of: “Open Governance: I believe in open governance where the public can sit in, listen and where possible discuss “matters-of-state” as much as possible with their representatives. None of this hiding behind closed doors (except for commercially sensitive material that does come up from time to time), and fessing up when you know you have stuffed up. You might find the public are more sympathetic you one acknowledges and apologies for a legitimate mistake”

By virtue of extension; Open Governance also applies to being transparent to the ratepayer as well – especially in regards to “costs” that come out of the ratepayers pocket.

 

Yet we have a case of a Council Controlled Organisations (CCO) (Watercare (Auckland Transport figures seems to be out but not released currently)) being transparent with the ratepayer and Councillors , but the Main Council Body not being transparent with the ratepayer and councillors (this especially from the Council Planning Department…).

 

From the NZ Herald:

Watercare opens up on legal costs

By Bernard Orsman BernardOrsman

5:30 AM Thursday Jan 17, 2013

CCO’s willingness to offer data lesson in transparency for council, says councillor.

Watercare Services is teaching its big brother Auckland Council a lesson in accountability and transparency by releasing details of how much it is spending with city law firms.

Auckland Council is refusing to release details of millions of dollars of spending with city law firms, saying it may prejudice future negotiations.

The only information the council’s general counsel, Wendy Brandon, is prepared to release is that the council uses a number of law firms and the five highest paid over the past two years were Brookfields, Buddle Findlay, Kensington Swan, Meredith Connell and Simpson Grierson – in alphabetical order.

Ms Brandon’s insistence to limit the details of legal costs from ratepayers is not shared by Watercare’s corporate affairs manager, David Hawkins, who has given a breakdown of 33 law firms used by the council body in the past two years and how much each was paid from total spending of $6.26 million.

The figures ranged from $522 to Rob Webber and Associates to $2,686,705 to Russell McVeagh.

The approaches are outlined in information collected by councillor Cameron Brewer into legal costs by the council and seven council-controlled organisations (CCOs).

The figures show that legal costs for Watercare and Auckland Transport increased by 34 per cent and 127 per cent respectively between 2011 and 2012, which both CCOs put down to costs for big construction projects.

Council acting chief executive and chief finance officer Andrew McKenzie said that overall the Auckland Council group had cut its legal costs by about $3.6 million, or just over 9 per cent.

Mr Brewer said Watercare’s 34 per cent rise in outside legal costs did not make good reading, but at least they did not hide behind the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. “Watercare didn’t see the need to protect themselves or the legal firms they use, so I can’t see why the rest of the council can’t show the same transparency.”

…

You can read the rest over at the Herald.

 

So Watercare have stumped up but the Main Council will not (while waiting on AT).

 

Councillor Brewer had this further to say:

From NewsTalk ZB

Councillor calls for transparency over legal costs

By: Aroha Tahau | Latest Auckland News | Friday January 18 2013 10:17

One Auckland City councillor is appalled the council won’t publicly release details on how much its paying different legal firms.The council’s total legal bill this year was 21 million dollars, but when councillor Cameron Brewer asked about a break down of where the funds were going, the council refused.

Councillor for Orakei, Cameron Brewer says Mayor Len Brown promised transparency and now he needs to publicly say what money is going to different legal firms.

“Ratepayers deserve to know where in fact council is spending its legal budget. At this stage we know that they’re spending over $21 million per annum but they refuse to tell us what legal companies are indeed benefiting.

“I’m calling for the council to come clean, to be transparent, something that the mayor campaigned on and actually come out with how much we’re paying what legal firms around Auckland.”

 

And from Facebook:

The council has refused to release me information about how much they are paying each of the city’s big law firms. Today I call on them to show the same transparency Watercare has shown. Going to the Ombudsman may be my only option. The council group spends over $21m a year on legal bills. Should the public know where this is going?
Watercare opens up on legal costs – National – NZ Herald News
Watercare Services is teaching its big brother Auckland Council a lesson in accountability and transparency by releasing details of how much it is spending with city law firms.
  • Alice-Margaret Midgley Absolutely agree Cameron.
  • Ben Ross Okay – what are the officers hiding now?
  • Stephen Maire How can Brown refuse??? Still another valid reason to cease paying rates imo.
    • Ben Ross By law and definition he can not refuse. Watercare I take my hat off to, yeah their Legal Bills might of been ugly per se but least they released them immediately so that I cant get double angry on the actual bills AS WELL AS stalling. Sure I might be peeved with Watercare over their legal bills, but that peeved will last around 2 seconds and all is well.

      As for the Main Council, well stalling now keeps the anger sustained much longer and will have me peering through the eventual reports with an electron microscope.

      The old saying goes: You get pulled over by a cop, you hand over your licence and answer his questions true-fully with no added lip and you walk away with a fine. Give him lip and hello he is going to do the full works including Rego, WoF, tyres, springs, rust, position of plates, lights and even maybe the horn. Not only is that time consuming for you but your risk of the dreaded pink sticker became that much higher – al because you gave lip

      Council is now in the same situation… which means – idiots
  • Gary Holmes So…. the council is more than happy to release details on the private lives of elected members via the annual declaration of interest (which i still refuse to complete) but won’t tell us how they are spending ratepayers money. The old Auckland City practice of officers thinking they control the place continues I see……..
    Mark Donnelly That’s incredible arrogance! Can’t see how they can justify not giving you the information. Can’t be private commercial, as anyone who contracts with Council knows it can become public knowledge – look at Tender information.
    Was this done at CEO level?
    btw – do senior managers maintai a “gift” register? ie corporate hosting etc etc
    • Ben Ross Umm with respect I think the idea might not be to bring attention to one’s self especially with the Annual Declaration of Interest List – the idea is not give someone an idea to go having a look through there especially with elections so close .

      However for the rest of the argument yes I agree with you there Gary 

      Hey now that Main Council is stalling while Watercare is playing ball – shall we now look at the rest of the CCOs?
    • Aaron Bhatnagar Actually, I found Auckland City officers pretty responsive to our directives to open up matters. Things under the Hubbard term was pretty bad, but the Banks Term part 2 was widely acknowledged as good for transparency and openness. A lot of stuff that was done in confidential committee work was put back into open. Stuff that was confidential was done for discussion, and then when the result was achieved, the results could be released into the open. Stopped the political leaking by both sides too.

      I do struggle to understand why the sum of council legal bills can’t be published. I can understand why the negotiations over billing levels wouldn’t be published, but that is a different thing.
    • Gary Holmes Good point Ben however its worth considering why do they council need to know who your partner or spouse works for, who you bank with, what groups you are a member of, what companies you have shares in and the list goes on. As Local Board Members, who have no decision making ability on contracts etc, it is not required, especially when the Council imposed that code of conduct on Local Boards without consultation. I have fought this one for the past two years and will continue to do so! Time for that coffee Ben
    • Ben Ross Time for that Coffee indeed – I shall reply to that in a moment (needing coffee at home right now – going to be a very long day here)
  • Stephen Maire Brown is the picture of arrogance unfortunately. He thinks its leadership style. But he is deluded and possibly mentally unfit for his position. Heart attack survivors often suffer such mental malady.
  • Gary Holmes i don’t necessarily think this is the mayor’s decision, more likely to be the CEO and his senior management.
  • Stephen Maire The buck stops with Brown. He must have full knowledge of this. If he does not, then we have a serious problem that needs immediate attention and action on behalf of the ratepayer.
  • Robyn Forryan Keep pushing Cameron you are already having an impact and the public have the right to know this information.
  • Stephen Maire And we shall also remember and be exceedingly grateful for your efforts on our collective behalf Mr. Brewer.
  • Jules Clark What’s required is some CPR … “Cease Paying Rates”!
  • David Cooper Keep pushing Cameron you will out of a job soon..
  • Wayne Davis You can bet the TOP guys are getting a GOOD shot at any fees,same as Council consultants. The Waitakere City Council had Kennsington Swann, hate to think what Auckland Council use!!

 

Open Governance which includes being transparent with costs and actions by your civic institutions.

 

My point was made above in regards to one aspect of being transparent – especially if some flak or anger might come your way:

“By law and definition he can not refuse. Watercare I take my hat off to, yeah their Legal Bills might have been ugly per se but least they released them immediately so that I can’t get double angry on the actual bills AS WELL AS stalling. Sure I might be peeved with Watercare over their legal bills, but that peeved will last around 2 seconds and all is well.

As for the Main Council, well stalling now keeps the anger sustained much longer and will have me peering through the eventual reports with an electron microscope.

The old saying goes: You get pulled over by a cop, you hand over your licence and answer his questions true-fully with no added lip and you walk away with a fine. Give him lip and hello he is going to do the full works including Rego, WoF, tyres, springs, rust, position of plates, lights and even maybe the horn. Not only is that time-consuming for you but your risk of the dreaded pink sticker became that much higher – al because you gave lip

Council is now in the same situation… which means – idiots”
This would stem from this part in the “What Do I Stand For and Believe In – For a Better Auckland:” None of this hiding behind closed doors (except for commercially sensitive material that does come up from time to time), and fessing up when you know you have stuffed up. You might find the public are more sympathetic you one acknowledges and apologies for a legitimate mistake.”

While Watercare have not stuffed up per se (still got questions on a big jump with the legal bills for last year however) at least they have made deliberate attempts to annoy Councillors or ratepayers – thank you Watercare.

 

As for the Council Main Body – we hiding something that we ought to know about? It is our money you know…

 

Groan – Who Wrote This

· 1 Comment ·

Seen This Post Before…

 

, a Consultant in urban, economic and community development who no wait that was someone else who served with Councillor Mike Lee on the former Auckland Regional Council – wrote a post over on his Cities Matter blog about the apparent flawed analysis on the City Rail Link. There are also two comments from various individuals that caught my attention and will also be “mentioned” as well.

From Cities Matter:

 

 

 

 

MONDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2012

A Flawed Case? Auckland’s City Rail Link Project

 

A tale of two cities
Two newspaper stories on infrastructure investment caught my eye last week. The first praised the approach undertaken by the Port of Tauranga. The Port has performed extremely well for shareholders, including 55% owners Bay of Plenty Regional Council.  This is put down to rigorous analysis of the financial impacts of any capital spending:

For years Tauranga has used its capital resources astutely to lift cargo volumes and improve efficiency to build economic value for its shareholders. …
The port has an outstanding record in kicking for the right goalposts when determining strategic capital development. ….
For Tauranga, a vital key has been to back innovation-driven capital investment with rigorous economic and financial analysis.

Contrast this with the latest addition to the grab bag of evidence assembled by Auckland Council to justify an underground central rail link (CRL) . Admittedly, Auckland Transport is not a commercial operation.  However, making the best possible use of capital is a key to the efficiency and productivity that will underlie the long-term prosperity of the city and the country.  And this project will not deliver.

Fiscal irresponsibility
I have not read the latest report in depth. But I did have a quick look to see what the financial implications of implementation might be for the ratepayers of Auckland, and how risk was assessed.  I couldn’t find any discussion of them.  And interestingly, in their absence it would be easy to use the analysis to demonstrate why we should not be risking substantial public funds on it. Yet the Mayor was quoted as saying that this report provides a strong basis for funding negotiations with the government.

The Transport Minister won’t buy into this.  He quickly responded by pointing out what the latest report demonstrates.  The project is not viable.  There is no financial analysis suggesting that this project has a life.

…

 

You can read the rest over at his blog.

 

Now that “latest report” McDermott is referring to that our utterly incompetent Minister of Transport responded to was the recently release City Centre Future Access Study (CCFAS) which can be found HERE. Now CCFAS I have mentioned briefly before while other blogs have covered it more in-depth.

 

My simple reply to the post written by McDermott for tonight (more in-depth coverage will come over the rest of the week), it is an exact replicant of what came out of Councillor Cameron Brewer’s Department which is widely believed (might as well been knowing the National Government Spin-Doctors) to have come straight out of Gerry Brownlee’s Office!

There is nothing new there McDermott and what you have said with the BCR’s has been refuted over at Transport Blog more than once – and will continue to be done so again and again and again until one basically “learns.”

 

As for the two comments posted, well that was heart sinking material to read it – but none the less expected!

 

” as it will never generate one cent of a financial return.”

LibertyScott; there is more to this world than the utter Neo-Liberal belief on “financial returns.” The London Underground at 150 years old last week shows the absolute long-term wider Economic returns to our sole World City (in my opinion) – London. And when I speak of Economic I speak of its full utter definition – that is: social, monetary, social and physical environmental, and the wider economic spin off’s out side of the pure revenue and expense which your blinkers can not look past from. Some goods in the world are subsidised (in fact roads are too for that matter) because there is more than absolute dollars and cents here – a fully integrated transport system is one of those goods.

 

“Let’s hope that serious advances in road-based transport will happen soon enough, fast enough, to get the public to re-think their brainwashing on the “inherent virtue” of rail. At the end of the day it’s about public buy-in and sadly they have thus far bought it.”

Andrew Atkin; mate your might as well bugger off to Brisbane mate where they are facing the consequences – and some very brutal ones at that of over investing in road-based transport and not developing a more balanced approach to their entire transport system which includes rail and ferries. Furthermore even our American cousins including such places as Houston and LA (oh look car central) have begun switching slowly over to more integrated transport systems which include – oh look rail. The Republicans in – look again TEXAS are going for a fully privately built and run rail line service and seeing where that ends up. If they make success out of it, it will blow away conceptions that rail is a socialist toy… As for public buy in; well they will keep buying in if real estate statistics are anything to go by. Guess where our hottest real estate is – why the fringe suburbs around the CBD which all sit on major road/bus and even rail corridors. The CRL will be an even bigger booster in those fringe areas when the latent rail capacity is not only opened up – but new areas that carry high density of travel also fall into extended rail catchment of the City Rail Link. I have not included the three new rail lines that can open up too because of the CRL giving the rail system even further reach into areas of Auckland not currently be served by rail. So sorry Andrew, don’t quite think the public will say to your way just yet looking at trends

 

And so this second post coming from me is the one I boot down the paddock.

 

Booting it for being an exact replicant of the crap that came out from Brownlee’s Office and that Brewer was silly enough to publish – with no actual alternative that presents even a better Benefit Cost Ratio than the CRL because there is none – Pure and Utter SIMPLE!

 

My take on all this

GROAN!

AT COO Interviewed – On Auckland’s Transport

·

Chief Operating Officer Talks About Auckland’s Transport – Yet Still Misses the Basics?

 

On Friday; Auckland Transport posted up on its website an interview with their Number Three – Chief Operation Officer Greg Edmonds with TV9’s Asia Focus.

From Auckland Transport:

Transport in 2013: Greg Edmonds interview

Last reviewed: 11/01/2013 2:46 p.m.

​Watch this interview on AsiaFocus by TV9 with Greg Edmonds, Chief Operating Officer of Auckland Transport.

Mr Edmonds answers questions about integrated ticketing (HOP), its benefits and the rollout to buses that will begin in April.

He also speaks about measures Auckland Transport is taking to continue to grow public transport patronage. These include integrated ticketing, electrification of the rail network and electric trains and the redesign of bus networks to better integrate them with the rail network.

Watch the recording of the interview on TV9.co.nz. Length: 20:25

 

And so I watched the interview and took some notes on the following aspects (with some help of other keen eyes and ears):

Noted from Interview with AT-CCO Greg Edmonds

 

1.52min
“Looking for a population of 2-2.5 million people in 10yrs”

Where are the people coming? 2030 was when Auckland was due to hit the 2-million mark so is there something statisticians not telling us?

2.39min
“Current Dual HOP card system”

Why couldn’t AT get it right in the first place? It’s not that Auckland is the first place ever to use such a system. However I have covered this since my alternative to Snapper in February Last Year)

4.55min
“Rail patronage dropping since RWC – How to fix public transport patronage:

  1. Integrated train/bus/ferry timetables
  2. $600million electrification
  3. 10min a train will turn up (all day every day, 7 days a week)
  4. 15min a bus will turn up (all day every day, 7 days a week)
  5. City Rail Link post 2022 (or rather 2025)”

My Reply: From observations and experiences: trains/buses running around just about/or empty all the time outside peak hrs. However will another million people in the city in 10yrs and an aging population use their free travel passes their might be a bit more usage. But doubling usage by another 70 million in 10 years is somewhat overly optimistic given the current situation. I have also touched on AT not getting the basics rights with Customer Service in the FIRST STEP IN IMPROVING AUCKLAND’S PUBLIC TRANSPORT post which basically states all the investment in infrastructure means squat if the customer service experience is least to be currently desired. More on this again later)

7.21min
“Greg Edmonds stating passenger numbers not dropping”

Someone asked me: “I wish someone would confirm whether they dropping or rising and all officials/bureaucrats stick to the same story line.” The answer to that lies in the patronage stats from Auckland Transport which is currently stating there is overall growth in public transport patronage, but declines in Northern Busway patronage and a rather disturbing 14-15% drop in rail patronage which shows no sign of currently slowing down.

8.00min
“Greg Edmonds not concerned about overall public transport use trends.”

Someone said this to me (so not my own words): “Naturally he’s not… he’s selling the fear factor of 2-2.5 million people being in Auckland and the place turning into chaos.” In saying that, however I might go an explore Edmonds comment around that remark. His role clearly dictates that he must be concerned around overall public transport trends for if they either:  fall through the floor in patronage, or the Customer Service situation does not improve – then his head might be on Councillor Mike Lee’s PLATE!)

9.25min
“Real time information system not accurate…”

I cannot comment on the Passenger Real Time Information Display System (RAPID) currently due to previous employment however a reader did ask this: (Question) “Why couldn’t AT implement a system that would work right in the first place? It’s not as though Auckland has the first system in the world. How much did this mistake cost ratepayers and who has been held accountable for it?”

10.51min
“We have patronage “Targets” – by 2020 achieve 140 million based on investments being made”

Observation: It means an extra 70 million rides in seven years, that’s an increase of 10 million per year which with the current problems AT are facing with public transport – it could be a case of “barrow” and “uphill”.  The slide in rail patronage which is becoming entrenched and systemic needs to be reversed. The question is: “how is Auckland Transport going to honestly reverse that slide?”

A remark from a reader: “Looking forward to reading what the honest and true figures are this time next year while hoping all AT staff are made to ride the buses for a year to see first-hand what really goes on in our public transport network”

 

15.18min
(This was noted by me and from feedback by readers as well): “No plans for the North Shore Rail Line despite apparently according to Greg Edmonds: NZTA starting the second harbour crossing around the 2015-2016 mark. Now last I looked NZTA were in the building of that tunnel crossing, going to include I believe a heavy rail line that can be joined to the City Rail Link on the CBD side while extending along the Northern Busway – replacing it.”

To me this is a rather flippant attitude of Greg Edmonds in regards to the North Shore Line and could be very well contradicting both the Mayor’s and NZTA’s plans for the eventual North Shore Line. Auckland Transport should be very well making plans for the Busway to be replaced by the North Shore Line (Heavy Rail) as was “planned” when the busway was built. Heavy Rail (The North Shore Line) can carry upwards of 900% more passengers at full capacity than the busway ever could at full capacity, while allowing a seamless train trip from the North Shore to either: the CBD, New Lynn, Sylvia Park, Newmarket, Manukau, Onehunga, THE AIRPORT, Papakura, Botany, or even Pukekohe. The North Shore Line would connect a relatively isolated part of Auckland back to the main isthmus and allow for growth on the Shore that would be better catered for.
I shall let readers making their own call on the Greg Edmonds interview but those were my thoughts (as well as some others who gave feedback).

 

For the benefit of Auckland Transport’s Chief Operating Officer – Greg Edmonds, I shall re-stick the Customer Service post here below for him to go and read – as I don’t quite think he has quite joined the dots to our dismal public transport performance (including that of the CCO as well):

FIRST STEP IN IMPROVING AUCKLAND’S PUBLIC TRANSPORT

 

Posted by BR:AKL_Admin01 on January 10, 2013 · 

 

Treat Humans as Humans

 

Not as numbers, not as dollar signs, not as a total pain in the ass that should be treated begrudgingly.

 

While I have been running commentary on things like Rail Efficiency Programs and operational models post City Rail Link to boost patronage via infrastructure and operations, another blogger raised a very fine point on something that is very well hammering our public transport patronage statistics – our customer service.

 

Before I highlight the said post from the other blogger, a quick reminder: Auckland Transport asked for submissions to its Regional Public Transport Program (RPTP) of which the hearings are next month (and that I am attending). One of the main focuses Auckland Transport was looking for in submissions to the RPTP was the “Customer Service Portal” – in other words the quality and level of customer service in our public transport system from front line staff right through to AT bureaucrats in Henderson.

This post is by virtue of an extension to my submission on the RPTP as well as replicating a point made at another blog.

 

So lets take a look at Customer Service on Auckland’s Public Transport System

This is from Auckland Transport Blog:

 

By Guest Post, on January 7th, 2013

This is a guest post by John P

The Ministry of Transport, bless ‘em, actually have a lot of interesting information on their website if you know where to look. One of the things they do is carry out a Household Travel Survey, which surveys 4,600 households in various parts of New Zealand each year. There’s plenty to look at, and you can check out various results at their transport survey, but for today I’ll look at a summary they put together on public transport use – taken from here.

The thing that stands out to me is a table showing the percentage of people who use public transport in NZ’s major cities. From this, 53% of Aucklanders surveyed hadn’t used PT at all in the last year. This put us on par with Christchurch and Dunedin, both of which are significantly smaller, neither of which have rail, and neither of which are particularly PT-oriented cities. We’re well behind Wellington, where only 27% of people hadn’t hopped on a train or bus at least once. Remember that (greater) Wellington is around the same size as Christchurch, and both cities are less than a third the size of Auckland.

Wow, that’s not a good start. How about people who haven’t used PT in the last month, but have in the last year? 17% of Aucklanders fell into this camp, in line with the other cities except for Wellington.

So, by this point, we can see that only 30% of Aucklanders had used public transport in the month before they were surveyed. We were in between Dunedin (26%) and Christchurch (34%), and well
behind Wellington where 46% of the people had used it at least once.

The last few lines of the table below are asking people how many days in the last month they had used public transport. I won’t dwell on it except to point out that half the Aucklanders who used PT in the last month hadn’t used it very often. Only 14% used it on 5 days or more, ahead of Dunedin (11%) but behind Christchurch (16%) and Wellington (27%).

…

Wellington is leaps and bounds ahead of Auckland, but I think we all knew that. I think these results are a pretty telling scorecard, and, to put it mildly, Auckland doesn’t look too flash. The majority of Aucklanders never use public transport at all, and most of those who do don’t use it very often. Two basic questions come out of this:

  1. Why don’t Aucklanders use PT very often?
  2. How do we improve PT usage in Auckland?

Questions that are answered in a number of different posts in this blog! A redesign of the network, and rail electrification, should help boost patronage over the next few years. But the thing is, we should really be aiming to get to where Wellington is now in the short to medium term. Anything less is short-changing ourselves in my opinion.

 

You can read the full article over at the Transport Blog site.

However the two questions in red are the points being raised and I answered over there. My answer was:

John (P) while a great post I think (from experience) the obvious is missing to give our flagging P/T patronage especially our rail patronage good kick until the infrastructure comes on cue over the next 10-30 years.

I take note here:

  1. Why don’t Aucklanders use PT very often?
  2. How do we improve PT usage in Auckland?

Questions that are answered in a number of different posts in this blog! A redesign of the network, and rail electrification, should help boost patronage over the next few years. But the thing is, we should really be aiming to get to where Wellington is now in the short to medium term. Anything less is short-changing ourselves in my opinion.”

Those are the two questions we are all seeking to actually answer and the reason why (to my personal disagreement as well as Councillor Mike Lee not being amused either) AT are about to embark on spending our money on “professional experts” ( http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10855436 ) in finding “fixes” to our rail slump,

 

However again Councillor Mike Lee has hit the nail on the head right here with this comment from another article: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10857062

“Mayor Len Brown says the arrival of the trains will be “a huge step on the path towards the kind of integrated transport system an international city like Auckland needs”.

He believes the electric units – which will have greater acceleration and braking power than the existing diesel fleet – will make rail patronage “rocket” and create even more pressure for a 3.5km underground rail extension from Britomart to Mt Eden.

But council transport chairman and veteran electrification campaigner Mike Lee believes the new trains will not be enough to boost flagging patronage unless they are supported by general service improvements, notably far better punctuality and extended weekend timetables, without prohibitive fare rises.

“I would not bank on electric trains in themselves fixing chronic underlying human management problems,” he said.”

 

Basically cutting it short why don’t Aucklanders use P/T much and how do we improve our P/T usage in Auckland? Well the infrastructure part of the answer is being dealt with so to me it is rather irrelevant in this point in time. The actual answer came from Dr Lester Levy – Chair of AT:

Dr Levy said he agreed there was a need for “critical measures” to be adopted and Auckland Transport needed to be far more customer-led in creating a demand for its services.

And there is the answer right there and there – he said it himself: ” Auckland Transport needed to be far more customer-led in creating a demand for its services”

THAT TO ME IS (and excuse the caps) PRIORITY NUMBER ONE above else at the moment.

2013 is going to be long and interesting year getting the patronage back round again. However (and in my opinion (what ever that is worth these days)) we (by we I mean AT, Council, the p/t user, you guys here at the blog, myself, and others who give a damn about our city) can do this – slowly but surely. :D

 

Now I am going to extend the “situation” from another Transport Blog commenter emphasising the point:

George D

But council transport chairman and veteran electrification campaigner Mike Lee believes the new trains will not be enough to boost flagging patronage unless they are supported by general service improvements, notably far better punctuality and extended weekend timetables, without prohibitive fare rises.

He’s right. It doesn’t matter how fast and shiny the trains are if they’re still late and unreliable, and riding them costs more than ever. Every time fares rise, demand decreases – we’ve actually reached the point now where we’ve passed an equilibrium and ridership is decreasing towards a new equilibrium with those who are prepared to pay for a particular level of service.

 

Now since then a few more comments from Transport Blog have come up however I can’t specifically address those issues at the moment.

But as for my point and George D’s point, the writing for Auckland Transport is literally on the (virtual) wall. Improve customer service FIRST (and restore affordability to fares while at it) or all this multi-billion investment in our public transport system is going to be an utter waste if Auckland Transport can not get the basic human to human interaction right. People (both front line staff and passengers) just want to be treated like humans and be able to at least have a pleasant experience on our public transport network – even in times of disruptions. It can be done, it has been done and it is straight forward if the culture (and tools) are there.

 

There will be more said on this matter next month when I front up in front of members of the Auckland Transport Board next month for my RPTP hearing. However 5-minutes doesn’t quite seem long enough to hammer on about the “Customer Service Portal” at this current rate of dissatisfaction out there.

 

As I said: “There will be more said on this matter next month when I front up in front of members of the Auckland Transport Board next month for my RPTP hearing. However 5-minutes doesn’t quite seem long enough to hammer on about the “Customer Service Portal” at this current rate of dissatisfaction out there.”

 

Long way to go folks, long way to go.

 

A Letter from A Councillor

·

Councillor George Wood Writes to Manukau Courier

 

While checking my Facebook feed in the morning (as you do) I noticed a comment from former Manurewa Local Board Chair:

 

That got me looking and I discovered this:

 

Basically Councillor George Wood spelling it out as it is with public transport issues down here in South Auckland – especially with buses (an area admittedly I am not paying much issue to but should very well be).

I agree with the entire letter from the Councillor to the point I will be throwing more resources or rather effort here at BR:AKL on our bus issues and getting them sorted.

 

However Newman was “fuming” because the Southern Initiative got mentioned and the bad onus around that. Yes the Southern Initiative has had its rather ugly moments in either rough-shodding over the Local Boards or budget re-routing away from Local Boards to Southern Initiative projects that are overseen by the main governing body.

The focus from the letter should be on our transport here in South Auckland, not dragging the Southern Initiative into this as that is another debate along with the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act.

Also I have seen no oppositional Councillor nor mayoral candidate state they would overthrow the Southern Initiative after the 2013 elections and put in place an alternative. I believe it is the case of we are lugged with it – let’s try and make this work best we can – as rough-shodding by Council Officers, CCOs, and the Governing Body happens right across the spectrum – not just the Southern Initiative.

My comment to Newman makes somewhat that point:

Ben Ross

Burnt from the Budget (which burnt the entire city any how) I still see.

That aside – well something must being going on as 2012 was a mixed year for success and failures in dealing with the Governing Body from personal experience (that is the Governing Body not the CCOs).

Failures: The Auckland Plan in part but more so the Long Term Plan. The new Rubbish Policy.

Successes: Irony would have it this has been down the transport division:- Manukau South Link, Pukekohe Electrification Extension, cant comment with the RPTP yet as the hearing is still coming up, slow progress with the bus situation down south – but least its moving.

Next Challenge: Again transport, however Alcohol Policies with the new Act in position

So “bringing them to the Governing Body” has had its moments of success and failures -( for a scrappy little ratepayer  ) – but that is to be expected. 2013 is going to bring?…

 

A case of win-some, you lose-some. But you continue to battle on in pushing or lobbying for what you want to see to make Auckland a better place – the purpose behind this blog from day one.

 

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND

Shining The Light – To a Better Papakura (OUR home)
AND
To a Better Auckland – (OUR City)

Auckland 2013: YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL

 

 

 

First Step in Improving Auckland’s Public Transport

·

Treat Humans as Humans

 

Not as numbers, not as dollar signs, not as a total pain in the ass that should be treated begrudgingly.

 

While I have been running commentary on things like Rail Efficiency Programs and operational models post City Rail Link to boost patronage via infrastructure and operations, another blogger raised a very fine point on something that is very well hammering our public transport patronage statistics – our customer service.

 

Before I highlight the said post from the other blogger, a quick reminder: Auckland Transport asked for submissions to its Regional Public Transport Program (RPTP) of which the hearings are next month (and that I am attending). One of the main focuses Auckland Transport was looking for in submissions to the RPTP was the “Customer Service Portal” – in other words the quality and level of customer service in our public transport system from front line staff right through to AT bureaucrats in Henderson.

This post is by virtue of an extension to my submission on the RPTP as well as replicating a point made at another blog.

 

So lets take a look at Customer Service on Auckland’s Public Transport System

This is from Auckland Transport Blog:

 

By Guest Post, on January 7th, 2013

This is a guest post by John P

The Ministry of Transport, bless ‘em, actually have a lot of interesting information on their website if you know where to look. One of the things they do is carry out a Household Travel Survey, which surveys 4,600 households in various parts of New Zealand each year. There’s plenty to look at, and you can check out various results at their transport survey, but for today I’ll look at a summary they put together on public transport use – taken from here.

The thing that stands out to me is a table showing the percentage of people who use public transport in NZ’s major cities. From this, 53% of Aucklanders surveyed hadn’t used PT at all in the last year. This put us on par with Christchurch and Dunedin, both of which are significantly smaller, neither of which have rail, and neither of which are particularly PT-oriented cities. We’re well behind Wellington, where only 27% of people hadn’t hopped on a train or bus at least once. Remember that (greater) Wellington is around the same size as Christchurch, and both cities are less than a third the size of Auckland.

Wow, that’s not a good start. How about people who haven’t used PT in the last month, but have in the last year? 17% of Aucklanders fell into this camp, in line with the other cities except for Wellington.

So, by this point, we can see that only 30% of Aucklanders had used public transport in the month before they were surveyed. We were in between Dunedin (26%) and Christchurch (34%), and well
behind Wellington where 46% of the people had used it at least once.

The last few lines of the table below are asking people how many days in the last month they had used public transport. I won’t dwell on it except to point out that half the Aucklanders who used PT in the last month hadn’t used it very often. Only 14% used it on 5 days or more, ahead of Dunedin (11%) but behind Christchurch (16%) and Wellington (27%).

…

Wellington is leaps and bounds ahead of Auckland, but I think we all knew that. I think these results are a pretty telling scorecard, and, to put it mildly, Auckland doesn’t look too flash. The majority of Aucklanders never use public transport at all, and most of those who do don’t use it very often. Two basic questions come out of this:

  1. Why don’t Aucklanders use PT very often?
  2. How do we improve PT usage in Auckland?

Questions that are answered in a number of different posts in this blog! A redesign of the network, and rail electrification, should help boost patronage over the next few years. But the thing is, we should really be aiming to get to where Wellington is now in the short to medium term. Anything less is short-changing ourselves in my opinion.

 

You can read the full article over at the Transport Blog site.

However the two questions in red are the points being raised and I answered over there. My answer was:

John (P) while a great post I think (from experience) the obvious is missing to give our flagging P/T patronage especially our rail patronage good kick until the infrastructure comes on cue over the next 10-30 years.

I take note here:

  1. Why don’t Aucklanders use PT very often?
  2. How do we improve PT usage in Auckland?

Questions that are answered in a number of different posts in this blog! A redesign of the network, and rail electrification, should help boost patronage over the next few years. But the thing is, we should really be aiming to get to where Wellington is now in the short to medium term. Anything less is short-changing ourselves in my opinion.”

Those are the two questions we are all seeking to actually answer and the reason why (to my personal disagreement as well as Councillor Mike Lee not being amused either) AT are about to embark on spending our money on “professional experts” ( http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10855436 ) in finding “fixes” to our rail slump,

 

However again Councillor Mike Lee has hit the nail on the head right here with this comment from another article: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10857062

“Mayor Len Brown says the arrival of the trains will be “a huge step on the path towards the kind of integrated transport system an international city like Auckland needs”.

He believes the electric units – which will have greater acceleration and braking power than the existing diesel fleet – will make rail patronage “rocket” and create even more pressure for a 3.5km underground rail extension from Britomart to Mt Eden.

But council transport chairman and veteran electrification campaigner Mike Lee believes the new trains will not be enough to boost flagging patronage unless they are supported by general service improvements, notably far better punctuality and extended weekend timetables, without prohibitive fare rises.

“I would not bank on electric trains in themselves fixing chronic underlying human management problems,” he said.”

 

Basically cutting it short why don’t Aucklanders use P/T much and how do we improve our P/T usage in Auckland? Well the infrastructure part of the answer is being dealt with so to me it is rather irrelevant in this point in time. The actual answer came from Dr Lester Levy – Chair of AT:

Dr Levy said he agreed there was a need for “critical measures” to be adopted and Auckland Transport needed to be far more customer-led in creating a demand for its services.

And there is the answer right there and there – he said it himself: ” Auckland Transport needed to be far more customer-led in creating a demand for its services”

THAT TO ME IS (and excuse the caps) PRIORITY NUMBER ONE above else at the moment.

2013 is going to be long and interesting year getting the patronage back round again. However (and in my opinion (what ever that is worth these days)) we (by we I mean AT, Council, the p/t user, you guys here at the blog, myself, and others who give a damn about our city) can do this – slowly but surely. :D

 

Now I am going to extend the “situation” from another Transport Blog commenter emphasising the point:

George D

But council transport chairman and veteran electrification campaigner Mike Lee believes the new trains will not be enough to boost flagging patronage unless they are supported by general service improvements, notably far better punctuality and extended weekend timetables, without prohibitive fare rises.

He’s right. It doesn’t matter how fast and shiny the trains are if they’re still late and unreliable, and riding them costs more than ever. Every time fares rise, demand decreases – we’ve actually reached the point now where we’ve passed an equilibrium and ridership is decreasing towards a new equilibrium with those who are prepared to pay for a particular level of service.

 

Now since then a few more comments from Transport Blog have come up however I can’t specifically address those issues at the moment.

But as for my point and George D’s point, the writing for Auckland Transport is literally on the (virtual) wall. Improve customer service FIRST (and restore affordability to fares while at it) or all this multi-billion investment in our public transport system is going to be an utter waste if Auckland Transport can not get the basic human to human interaction right. People (both front line staff and passengers) just want to be treated like humans and be able to at least have a pleasant experience on our public transport network – even in times of disruptions. It can be done, it has been done and it is straight forward if the culture (and tools) are there.

 

There will be more said on this matter next month when I front up in front of members of the Auckland Transport Board next month for my RPTP hearing. However 5-minutes doesn’t quite seem long enough to hammer on about the “Customer Service Portal” at this current rate of dissatisfaction out there.

 

 

THE RAIL EFFICIENCY PROGRAM #3

· 1 Comment ·

How to get Better Resilience out of the Rail Network

 

A Rail Efficiency Program Series

 

THE ALL-ENCOMPASSING RAIL EFFICIENCY PROGRAM – PART ONE

 

New or rebuilt cross overs at major stations

 

So how can we get better resilience out of the Auckland (Metro) Rail Network? For starters we give our passenger trains extra flexibility in being more able to “run-around” a problem section on the rail network. Those who travel on Auckland’s rail network (whether frequently or infrequently) would have somewhere along the line being stuck on a train due to another one breaking down somewhere or just plain getting in the road usually to being late. Unlike buses however who have somewhat more flexibility to go or run-around the a road situation (breakdown or accident), trains are confined to the double piece of parallel steel they run on (as well as rail operating procedures dictating setting a train backwards or other non-normal movement) and can not per-se run-around a broken down train that easy.

Why? Because our rail network does not have enough of what is called “cross-overs” spread throughout the network to enable trains to run-around a section of track that has an issue on it in a relatively easy manner. A cross-over being a set of “points” that allow a train to change from one set of parallel running tracks to another (and possibly back again) while still going in the same direction. The current North Island Main Trunk Line, North Auckland Line, and the Manukau Line all have “double track/mains” and crossovers spread across them rather sparsely. Currently the main cross-overs are at the following places (starting from the south ): Papakura, Wiri-Puhinui, Otahuhu, Westfield, Tamaki, Auckland-Britomart-Parnell-Newmarket section, Penrose-Southdown, Onehunga (actually a single line with a passing loop), Grafton, Morningside, Avondale, New Lynn, Henderson and Swanson. Now in saying that, not all cross-overs are “dual” cross-overs which means one’s crossing over options are limited – especially if long distances are in effect or the fact the cross-overs are not even commissioned (New Lynn) yet. The diagram below might shed some light on things a bit better:

 

Cross Over Diagram

Cross Over Diagram

Click to enlarge (1745 x 1016 resolution)

 

As I said earlier, not all our cross-overs currently are dual cross-overs which basically means the Auckland Rail Network is compounded by long distances before a train can “cross-over” and “run-around” something like a disable train (passenger or freight – it doesn’t matter as both are a pain). Now from experience, those long distances between cross-overs and even longer distances between dual-crossovers (No# 8-13) mean when a train is disabled on the main line here come long delays and cancellations owing to the lack of resilience in our rail network for trains to run around the disabled train.

With frequencies looking to step up to 6-trains per hour (so once every ten minutes) and the signalling system able to go right up to 12-trains per hour (every five minutes) both pre and post-City Rail Link, if the current existing infrastructure stays as is (including the limited third main being built which is for freight trains anyhow) then the problems on the rail network are going to really compound if something happens like a disabled train blocking a section of track. And if my Post-CRL Operational Proposal was ever decided to be used by Auckland Transport which had train frequencies stepping up to 18-trains per hour (every 3:20 minutes) in some sections without the extra resilience built-in – well you can think of delays and cancellations if a disabled train blocked a section of track.

So what first in investing in our current existing rail infrastructure to get extra resilience out of it pre-City Rail Link. Well that would be: New or rebuilt cross overs at major stations (basically all stations that act as Fare Boundary stations on the rail network)

 

So that basically means building new or rebuilding existing and subsequently using dual cross-overs (#10 and #11 for the purpose of this exercise) at all fare-boundary stations. The rail map below shows where the first run of dual cross overs will be:

auckland_rail_network_map fare boundary cross overs

Click for full resolution.

 

As you can see there is a bit of work to do in part one (crossovers at major stations) in either building or rebuilding cross-overs to #8-#13 specification to allow more resilience in the train network for when something goes wrong. You can also see (and if comparing to Google Maps) that the distances between the Cross-Overs once even built is still some distance in some parts of the network. Manurewa to Papakura is 9-minutes both ways and it is about the same if not slightly longer for New Lynn to Henderson, while Glen Innes to Westfield is 11-minutes regardless of the Tamaki Loop between Panmure and Glen Innes. However getting these cross-overs in at the major stations plus any rebuilds (Blue X’s) will offer much more resilience than currently available.

 

Cost

Now to build a new set or rebuild an existing set of cross-overs for Part One of the All-Encompassing Rail Efficiency Program (AE-REP), re-wire the overhead wires, and change the signalling (which includes changing what train drivers call a Signal and Interlocking Diagram that they have with them (now if I got that diagram’s name wrong let me know sooner rather than later and I shall correct it)) would most likely require a budget of $2-3m per crossover package (now I will go ask someone in the know to get a definitive figure and post back here ASAP). So at $3m times (not including Swanson, Britomart, the Tamaki Loop, Grafton or Papakura) 19 equals a conservative cost of around $57 million which for rail is a significant investment (but chump change for a road or motorway).

 

Justification for $57m?

The extra resilience allowing better reliability and punctuality of existing and future services when we eventually step up to 6-TPH (10 minute frequencies) – especially when a train disablement (passenger or freight) happens out on the Auckland rail network.

 

What Next?

For starters asking someone in the know on the cost of building crossovers as mentioned in this so I can run some numbers. Once the number have been ran a few times then I will draw up a “rolling” proposal (so a proposal that will have various versions as the AE-REP is worked on and written) and begin the advocacy process to the Auckland Council Transport Committee and by virtue of extension – Auckland Transport and Kiwi Rail.

However despite the advocacy nothing is a given until the cheque is physically signed (even then that is a certainty with Kiwi Rail and Newmarket junction being an example) – but advocate we must if we wish to continue to push for a Better Auckland Transport (System).

Electrics Nearly There

·

Light at End of Tunnel for Auckland Rail?

 

The Herald ran an article this morning on the Auckland Rail Electrification Project coming into its final stretches:

From the NZH:

$1.1b electric rail upgrade on track

By Mathew Dearnaley

5:30 AM Thursday Jan 3, 2013

Last big summer shut-down puts finishing touches to network, and new trains are on target for April next year.

Auckland’s $1.14 billion rail electrification project is chugging into the home straight, ready for the arrival in September of the first of 57 zippier and quieter trains.

KiwiRail is using its last big summer shutdown of the region’s rail network to rearrange tracks at Britomart and two other locations before spinning the final segments of an electrical web which by August will cover about 85km of lines from central Auckland to Papakura in the south and Swanson in the northwest.

It is enlarging the “throat” between Britomart’s approach tunnel and the underground station’s five platforms for extra train crossover points to be installed in a four-week shutdown of the eastern and Newmarket lines, and has been laying new bypass tracks at Otahuhu and Papakura during a two-week region-wide closure to minimise conflicts between freight and increased passenger services on an electrified network.

The state-owned company has also been taking advantage of the shutdown since Christmas, during which buses have replaced trains, to string electric lines on masts already erected between Papakura and Otahuhu on the southern line.

You can read the rest of the article over at the Herald site.

 

However while the EMU’s are nearly here it is these two particular comments I want to focus on that caught my attention:

From the same article:

Mayor Len Brown says the arrival of the trains will be “a huge step on the path towards the kind of integrated transport system an international city like Auckland needs”.

He believes the electric units – which will have greater acceleration and braking power than the existing diesel fleet – will make rail patronage “rocket” and create even more pressure for a 3.5km underground rail extension from Britomart to Mt Eden.

 

Followed by this from Councillor Mike Lee:

But council transport chairman and veteran electrification campaigner Mike Lee believes the new trains will not be enough to boost flagging patronage unless they are supported by general service improvements, notably far better punctuality and extended weekend timetables, without prohibitive fare rises.

“I would not bank on electric trains in themselves fixing chronic underlying human management problems,” he said.

Although he was preparing to pop champagne corks last year in expectation of overtaking Wellington’s annual rail patronage of 11.3 million passenger trips, he is bitterly disappointed by a fall from a record 10.98 million trips in Auckland for the 12 months to April – a figure boosted by the 2011 Rugby World Cup – to little over 10 million by November.

 

That would be correct from the Councillor; looking at the 2012 rail patronage statistics from August you can see a levelling off of rail patronage growth before a noticeable drop start occurring in the last quarter  of 2012 – to the point one could say it is ‘back sliding.’ I can go into a thesis on the back-sliding of the rail patronage but that would be extremely counter-productive to the situation and rather not needed! However again, Councillor Lee has the point with rail patronage – especially the parts in bold.

 

And I agree with Councillor Mike Lee’s assessment on the EMU’s not being the magic bullet for our rail ills before us. Sure they might go a small distance for the rail system but not the patronage rocket as the mayor might expect.

There is still a lot more work to be done on the existing rail infrastructure (commentary being covered in the Rail Efficiency Program series) and on the operation side (timetables, service runs, integration with bus services, fares, etc.). These improvements need to be done before the CRL if we plan to reinstall any confidence back into the Auckland public with our rail network , otherwise the CRL will suffer the same confidence crisis as the existing infrastructure does now.

 

My previous post: TO BETTER (AUCKLAND’S) TRANSPORT had a brief recap on the Rail Efficiency Program and an embed from America on the value of investing in “current” infrastructure before going head first into new infrastructure. I recommend strongly reading the “The Virtues of Investing in Transportation” By LAURA D’ANDREA TYSON as it is a very good example on what we should be doing first before embarking on Mayoral Flights of Fancy… (the idea is not to make The Rail Fallacy come true)

 

While I have my Regional Public Transport Plan hearing in front of Auckland Transport next month, I might get a bit proactive now and restart lobbying the Rail Efficiency Program before the elections kick in in September/October.

Seems I will have my work cut out this year – that is for sure.

So light at the end of the tunnel? Yes but not quite a close as the mayor might think  – just yet

 

BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND

Shining The Light – To a Better Papakura (OUR home)
AND
To a Better Auckland – (OUR City)

Auckland 2013: YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL

2013 – #3

·

Who will Be the Next Mayor or Councillor

 

Another blog  ran a post on who will be mayor and who will be our councillors that make up the next Auckland Council after we post our ballots next year for the Local Government Elections.

 

I was searching through my posts from this year and found past commentary on my take of the Local Government Elections next year and found that; “yep – we are still heading down that path.”

 

So for a recap on 2013, I shall link my 2013 articles here as an easy reference for your holiday thinking:

  1. 2013

  2. 2013 – PART TWO

  3. 2013 – YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL! # INTRO #

  4. 2013 – YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL! #1

  5. 2013 – YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL! #2

  6. 2013 – YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL! #3

  7. 2013 – YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL! #4

 

Quite comprehensive isn’t it? And the coverage of 2013 – Your City – Your Call will start in earnest next month especially as I ramp up my campaign for Papakura Local Board next year.

 

And oh, Communities and Residents (C&R) must be have a strategy session over the break if they want to achieve that 6-seat swing in Council to regain control…

 

Fun times ahead for all – indeed 😮