Category: Planning

Looking at all things planning.
Check the Sub Categories for more specific forms of planning

THE RAIL EFFICIENCY PROGRAM #5a

·

How to get Better Resilience out of the Rail Network

 

A Rail Efficiency Program Series

 

THE ALL-ENCOMPASSING RAIL EFFICIENCY PROGRAM – PART FIVE (A)

 

Relocation or Adding of new Stations on the (Auckland) Rail Network

 

With added resilience now added into the Auckland rail network through crossovers at “major” stations and the Westfield Junction Fly-Over, attention now focuses in getting rail stations into the best strategic places as possible with the best “facilities” possible to attract and sustain high patronage numbers. Again some of the ideas about to be mentioned in these posts have been mentioned before, I am so-called “reposting” them here as I personally like the ideas and the fact they just need reposting to emphasis the point!

Currently on the Auckland Passenger Rail Network the station locations and patronage levels are somewhat scatty with some stations well placed and attracting patronage, while others do more of a disservice to network and can actually put people off using the network. Meaning some of our stations are not in the best locations and need to be moved to better suit the Auckland populace. There are currently three such locations – all on the Southern and Eastern Lines where the; removal, moving or adding of stations be considered doing in better enhancing the “catchment” and attractiveness of those currently or wanting to use our rail network. So lets take a look at the Southern and Eastern Lines starting from the south and moving towards Britomart.

No need to mention the adding of the Paerata and Drury Stations (complete with Park and Rides) as that is being currently covered in an extensive report by Auckland Transport which can be seen over at my PUKEKOHE ELECTRIFICATION CASE post. So moving along to the next section of the network that needs attention – which would be between Papakura and Manurewa Rail stations on the Southern/Eastern Line.

 

Currently between Papakura and Manurewa Stations you have Takanini and Te Mahia Stations:
Manurewa, Te Mahia, Takanini and Papakura Stations will accompanying topography
Manurewa, Te Mahia, Takanini and Papakura Stations will accompanying topography

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Click for full resolution

 

The next graphic is of impending urban development per the Auckland Plan – along with distances between stations currently:

Sth AKL stations with measurements png modes

 

 

 

 

 

Again Click for full resoultion

 

Okay some background facts on the current situation

Time to travel between stations currently:

  • Manurewa <-> Te Mahia: two minutes
  • Te Mahia <-> Takanini: three minutes
  • Takanini <-> Papakura: four Minutes

Current Facilities and nearby Amenities  at the stations currently:

  • Manurewa: Relatively new station right beside the South Mall shopping centre. The station is linked by a park and ride as well as the main bus interchange for the Manurewa area. Station has easy access by foot, bicycle, car, taxi or bus with at least two entrances to each platform. Public toilets are near by and the station is currently challenging Papakura as the third busiest station in the network after Britomart and Newmarket. Station is well-lit at night and contains the electronic Passenger Information Display system.
  • Te Mahia: An old station situated between residential on one side and basically car yards and light industry on the other. Station is linked by two narrow alley-ways at the north end with no park and ride facilities and the nearest bus stops around 300 metres away on the Great South Road. Station is poorly lit, has no electronic Passenger Information Display system, has a mix of both gravel and asphalt base for the platform, and an old concrete shelter from most likely the 1960’s. The station currently has I believe the second lowest patronage (after Westfield) and does give the feeling of being “unsafe” to both rail staff and travelling public. Catchment area due to position, lack of bus and park and ride facilities is very limited for Te Mahia Station
  • Takanini Station: Station recently had its platform extended and some new lighting to handle to new Electrics when they come on stream from next year. However it is similar to Te Mahia in respect of facilities and links despite patronage growing on that station. The station does give the impression of being “unsafe” while cars park either side along the side streets for those who drive to the station. Nearest bus stops are around 500 metres away on the Great South Road and the station has been attributed to a few accidents with train verses passenger over the last few years.
  • Papakura: Currently undergoing a large-scale revamp with the platforms being upgraded, ticket office being moved, new track infrastructure to allow train movements more easily (including a new freight train passing loop), new electronic Passenger Information Display Systems, upgraded lighting, refurbished and restored station building, and the Park and Ride facilities due for upgrades as well. Papakura Station is right next to the Papakura Town Centre and is served by easy access for walkers, cyclists, cars (two park and rides), taxis and buses (major terminus bus stop is next to the station). The station is a terminus station for most Southern and Eastern Line services and is currently the third busiest in patronage level on the Auckland Rail Network. Papakura is also a key station for train staff with a staff building and train stabling/fuelling facility located between the eastern Park and Ride and Platforms One and Two. However Papakura Station is currently constrained by lack of proper feeder buses which do have an impact on the Park and Ride being full most days of the week – limiting further passenger patronage growth. Papakura is also currently my “home station” where I catch the trains (or leave them) if I am travelling by train to some destinations

Google Maps and the Council GIS viewer currently do not show the current stations in their current form, so until I make a trip down – no pictures as of yet.

 

So we have the situation with Te Mahia and Takanini Stations of what and where they are, and what state they are in. Now as I have alluded to earlier South Auckland is due to undergo significant urban growth per the Auckland Plan over the next thirty-odd years. The second graphic above had a red line drawn in it that show the extent urban growth can take during the life of the Auckland Plan – which means we could be looking at well over 35,000 new residences and businesses in the area over the next twenty years at least. Now putting two and two together (and disregarding Auckland Transport is apparently going to upgrade Takanini within the next five years – which I think is for the platform only (so no Park and Ride)) you have a situation of large urban growth near the rail corridor and two dilapidated stations that have bugger all facilities, bugger all catchment area, and bugger all future with little scope of being able to fully upgrade the stations with facilities like Papakura and Manurewa. So what do I propose?

 

Well I propose the following

 

Proposal for Southern Auckland Rail Efficiency Upgrades

 

In short I propose the following”

  • Close Te Mahia Station (which I believe Auckland Transport are going to do)
  • Close Takanini Station
  • Build Spartan Road Station complete with full Park and Ride and Bus Interchange
  • Build Walters Road Station complete with full Park and Ride and also Bus Interchange

Why This?

  • Spartan Road and Walters Road Stations have better and large catchments for current residents and future urban growth than Te Mahia or Takanini ever could
  • Land available for the stations, park and rides, bus interchange and future upgrades
  • More uniform distance between stations from Manurewa to Papakura, thus allowing better travelling efficiency (heavy rail is most suited when stations are a reasonable distance (usually beyond 2km) between stations due to the dynamics of the rolling stock, and services it is often required to run (relatively long distance compared to light rail and buses). Basically heavy rail passenger services perform efficiently with fewer large stations with larger distances between stations compared to light rail which can handle more stations with shorter distances between them.
  • Able to start afresh in building the new stations reputations that are  safe, clean and have well-built facilities catering for large numbers of travelling passengers

 

These next round of graphics and annotations explain Spartan Road and Walters Road Stations

Overall View
Overall Proposal of Southern Auckland Station Investment
Overall Proposal of Southern Auckland Station Investment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You can see where I have placed the new stations – close to current residents and business as well as future residents and business. Remember Te Mahia and Takanini Stations will be closed.

 

Close Up of Spartan Road Station Proposal
Spartan Road Station, Park and Ride and Bus Interchange
Spartan Road Station, Park and Ride and Bus Interchange

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The size of land for the Station, Park and Ride, and Bus Interchange is just over 2 hectares in size. The brown lines show possible eastern shuttle bus connections for the station. A new proposed road linking Randwick and Spartan Road Station (via crossing the stream) is also placed. This new link would allow ease of access for residents to get to Spartan Road Station and possibly the industry in the surrounding area. Those living in the northern part of Conifer Grove (wedged between the Motorway, Walter Stevens Drive and Great South Road) have the choice of either Spartan Road or Walters Road Station.

 

Close up of Walters Road Station Proposal
Walters Road Station, Park and Ride, and Bus Interchange
Walters Road Station, Park and Ride, and Bus Interchange

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again click for full resolution

 

Walters Road is bit more unique in the fact it has technically two Park and Rides, as well as two bus interchanges – one on each side of the rail line (the sizes are 1.16ha and 0.44ha respectively). This would be owing to no road level crossing being built at the station site (we are trying to reduce level crossings) nor a road bridge being built that could be justified in the cost department. If the bus interchange and/or park and ride was only built on one side, it would me a 1.5km “detour” to get to the relevant side with the park and ride and/or interchange – a rather self-defeating exercise. Furthermore you would cause bottlenecks down Walters Road by buses and cars trying access the park and ride and/or interchange if it was built on one side only. To add further weight behind building a Western and Eastern Park and Rides + Bus interchanges is the fact that Walters Road would be a station serving a fast growing area being right next to a new commercial development and within easy reach of new residential development. The Western Park and Ride + Bus Interchange would service all residents and businesses on the Great South Road side of the rail line, while the Eastern Park and Ride + Bus Interchange would service residences and businesses between the rail line Mill Road (Red Line on first graphic). Also Papakura currently has two Park and Rides (one on the western side, one on the eastern side) which are both heavily utilised – so there is a very close by success story of building two Park and Ride facilities that would be utilised well. The Eastern Park and Ride + Bus Interchange would also be my new “home-station” where I would catch my trains from to head north.

One final note having Walters Road Station with its dual Park and Rides + Bus Interchanges; the area between Manurewa and Papakura East (Red Hill) is due to undergo significant urban growth over the next three decades. You are looking at tens of thousands of new residents as well as many new businesses and civic institutions for which Papakura Station (and Takanini for that matter as well) could no simply cope if we are looking at making mass transit accessible to our new residents. Takanini is a dunga and does not have the room for a large supporting facility (Park and Ride and Bus Interchange) to make any station upgrades viable. Walters Road Station (including Park and Ride and Bus Interchange) is bang smack in the middle of a catchment area that has existing residents and businesses as well as future urban growth. Walters Road Station would be on land that can support the required large-scale support facilities (Park and Ride and Bus Interchange) as well as being connected to two access roads that run both major arterial roads that can be or already are traffic light controlled for safety reasons. So in that sense getting Walters Road Station right is absolutely critical if it is to be a key lynch-pin station that would attract existing and new people to Auckland’s fully integrated mass transit network.

 

Cost of these works for South Auckland?

Varies significantly and I would need to consult both an engineer and a planner to find out the true construction costs as well as the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) factors and the works and operational effects on these four stations are significant.

 

Justification

The entire post is a justification on this project. The new running times would also most likely be the following (for diesels, running times for the electrics are unknown as of yet):

  • Manurewa <-> Spartan Road: three minutes
  • Spartan Road <-> Walters Road: two Minutes
  • Walters Road <-> Papakura: four minutes

As what would happen to those who use Te Mahia and Takanini? For Takanini Station users two choices are available: car, walk, cycle, shuttle bus to either Spartan Road or Walters Road Crossing. For Te Mahia Station users they would use Manurewa or Spartan Road Stations and get there by car, shuttle bus, walk or cycle. So the alternatives are readily available and would present little disruption to existing users.

 

Completion Time?

To build both Spartan Road and Walters Road Stations with their supporting facilities, the new road link bridge between Randwick and Westbrook Road (connecting to Spartan Road) and demolish both Te Mahia and Takanini would be an estimate of two years as Block of Lines (closing the network in that particular section) would be required.

 

And so while that is the Papakura – Manurewa section of station additions and removals there is one more on the Eastern Line before reaching Britomart that could be up for a move down the line. That be moving the current Meadowbank Station closer towards the Meadowbank Tunnel and renaming it Selwyn Station. But that I shall cover in the upcoming THE RAIL EFFICIENCY PROGRAM #5B post.

 

But in the meantime what do you think on basically moving two stations to better locations and adding support facilities such as Park and Rides, and Bus Interchanges. Comment below

 

*Note: To make it clear; when I refer to Park and Rides I also mean including Kiss and Ride as well as Cycle Lockers as part of the Park and Ride Facilities.

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 #4

· 1 Comment ·

How to get Better Resilience out of the Rail Network

 

A Rail Efficiency Program Series

 

THE ALL-ENCOMPASSING RAIL EFFICIENCY PROGRAM – PART TWO

 

Westfield Junction Fly-Over

 

Those who travel by train on the Southern and Eastern Lines to their destination and pass through the Westfield Junction can know the delays that happen in that section of track due to another train “crossing over.”

This picture would explain better what I mean:

Westfield Junction jpeg overview mode

 

 

 

 

 

Click for full resolution (1920×955)

As you can fathom, there is a lot of conflicting routes at Westfield junction from both passenger and freight trains – all which can cause delays to our passenger services (and they do) at just about any given time.

 

Now with passenger train frequencies to increase to initially 6 trains per hour (one every 10 minutes)(and that could easily mean one train every 5 minutes on the lines between Westfield Junction and Papakura Station as well) once the electrics are fully on-stream (2016), plus the inevitable increase of Metro-Port freight train frequencies to and from their Southdown Metro-Port base; delays and conflicting movement risks are just going to increase no matter how good the signalling is.

So as an idea (this is not an original one but builds upon those ideas from others) is to build a Westfield Junction Fly-Over to allow trains heading to Britomart via Glen Innes (Eastern Line) from the south to “fly-over” Westfield Junction and reconnect with the Eastern Line on the other side of the junction. The Fly-Over would stop the city-bound Eastern-Line trains conflicting with south-bound trains from Newmarket thus improving the efficiency of travel for those respective services (as they often get held up the most). However the Fly-Over does not assist in dealing with conflicts if a Metro-Port train decides to enter or leave Metro-Port Facility to/from the main-line.

 

Knowing that Metro-Port trains are long and are either accelerating (so departing the base) or decelerating (entering the base) they take time to complete their movements and have the high potential to foul passenger train movements (which they do on a more regular basis than they should) in the area. Now I am not one for telling the Metro-Port services to bugger off as they are a revenue spinner for Kiwi Rail as well as doing a great service in their part in keeping trucks off our highways between Auckland and Tauranga. So the next extension as part of the Westfield Fly-Over phase is to build approaches and/or passing loops in the Westfield Junction to Otahuhu area to allow more efficient Metro Port freight train and Auckland passenger train movements that will not conflict each other.

 

Now the idea for these approaches for the Metro Port services comes from the current Third Main being built between Middlemore and Otahuhu which allows freight trains to enter or leave the Westfield yard more quickly than they do now (they have a dedicated road to power up to speed or slow down from speed without conflicting other passenger trains in the area – as trains take a long time to speed up or slow down). By virtue of extension and in anticipation of a full Third Main being fully built from Otahuhu to Papakura within the next 10-years (fingers crossed) – and currently there is plans for the Third Main to go all the way to Port of Auckland; basically what is happening is that the Third Main is being extended to Westfield Junction from Otahuhu with a “Fourth-Main” also being built from near Sylvia Park on the “south bound” side, around Westfield Junction and through to Otahuhu Station connecting back up to the current Main-Lines.

 

The following graphics and pictures hopefully might explain better:

 

This picture gives a basic outline of the work proposed at the Junction:

New junction 1 png mode

 

 

 

 

 

Click for Full Resolution

 

This next picture show the extent of the works for the Westfield Junction, the “Fourth Main” and the approaches from Middlemore Station (with the Third Main in place between Otahuhu and Middlemore):

Overview of new junction png mode

 

 

 

 

 

Again click for full resolution

 

And this last one is a crude draft graphic on a simplified version of the Junction and approaches (note I have not added all the cross overs in):

Diagram of Junction Flyover

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Click for full resolution

 

Now this idea takes into account the following:

  • Westfield Station is closed (it is actually slated for close by Auckland Transport anyhow)
  • Accepting that if a Metro Port train comes out from its base at the same time a south bound Southern Line service heading to Papakura from Britomart is also in the area moving, any city bound Southern Line trains will be waiting at the north end of Otahuhu Station for the conflicting movement to clear
  • The Metro Port train uses the Third Main all the way until Middlemore before entering the existing main line (or vice versa if heading to the Metro Port base)
  • The new EMU’s can take the gradient of the Fly-Over as it would be slightly less than the CRL gradient to which the EMU’s are designed too

So while not perfect and still likely to get delays from some conflicting movements in the Otahuhu-Westfield Junction area, those are likely to be caused by a freight train rather than another passenger service wanting to go the other way. And so this is where the junction pays it dividends: allowing Eastern Line trains to cross over the Southern Line trains without conflict of movement at the Junction. The third platform at Otahuhu Station allows the Fourth Main to come from the Eastern Line near Sylvia Park, all the way to the main interchange station (Otahuhu) and then enter the existing Main Lines heading south minimising congestion between Otahuhu and the Junction if the existing Otahuhu Platform One (City Bound) is occupied by a passing Metro Port train and Otahuhu Platform Two (existing South Bound) is occupied by a city bound train.

 

Cost

Cost of such a project taking into account retrofitting of the electrification system including signals, a bridge, retrofitting existing tracks with new crossovers, building the Fourth Main, building new electrification systems for the Fly-Over and Fourth Main, new Platform at Otahuhu (which could tie in with a Park and Ride plus Bus Park Facility), and future proofing the Eastern Line to allow a direct link between Sylvia Park and Penrose would come at at I would say $110 million (so same as extending electrification to Pukekohe and building two new stations).

 

Disruption potential and Time of Completion?

Maximum potential for maximum disruption due to the electrification system now in position and the subsequent refit that would be required.

Completion would be 18 months that includes two Christmas Close Downs and as well as Block of Lines on all non special event weekends which means…

 

Likelihood of this Happening?

With our current civic leadership: NONE – not with what has happened with Electrification now…

Could of it happened? Yes when the Electrification Project started.

 

So why did I write this then if all it will do is gather metaphorical virtual dust? To illustrate what could have been with proper planning and foresight by our leaders and engineers. However we are relegated to constant bottlenecks and delays at Westfield Junction when our passenger service frequencies increase – along with the increases of freight train frequencies from the Metro Port base.

 

However I am still open to surprises – and if this part of the All Encompassing-Rail Efficiency Program gets dusted off, shoulder-tapped and built; then heck someone did have vision for Auckland!

Alternative City Planning/Building

·

What I Do in my Downtime

 

From time to time in my downtime I go an embark on some “alternative” city planning and building. That being off to play a round of Cities XL 2012 for a couple of hours busy planning, building, rebuilding and managing the city/town/village. Currently on the “planet” I have 6 cities or villages under way, each specialising on a specific task at hand. Whether that be a farming town to supply food to the other cities, or a holiday town for people to get a way and relax, or a big hulking industrial and commerce centre as a central point of interactions.

At the moment I am busy focusing on Delta City, a city that will be a large hulking industrial and manufacturing centre coupled to an extensive port to “export” and “import” all the trade of the other five cities.

Delta City is at 202,000 and growing surely but steadily as it becomes the manufacturing hub on the “region.”

 

Here are a couple of teaser shots of Delta City:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

For all the current 212 shots you can visit the Delta City Slideshow HERE!

 

Now one wonders how I get thus far with such a large city? Well this next shot does help:

Photobucket

 

These snapshots which I take an overview shot of the city then doodle lines on them happen when I am embarking on major transport and/or urban development projects. In this case I am planning for major road thoroughfares and bypasses to move the bulk of the cars, trucks and buses around as Delta City continues to sprawl outwards.

 

Now for our public transport junkies (or mass transit as said in North America) there is no mass transit currently in Delta City. However extensive tram tracks as well as the Operation Centres for buses and trams has been built. The next step is to build the bus and tram depots, then the tram/bus stops, then the actual routes themselves for the citizens to use. This of course takes a bit of time to do as your money is limited and citizens always moaning about something else along the way…

 

However this “retail” version of a city and transport simulations is a good way to pass the downtime and home in some skills gained in real life city living and planning. I might post some more up from the other cities as well over time.

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).

The Rail Efficiency Program #2

· 4 Comments ·

How to get Better Resilience out of the Rail Network

 

A Rail Efficiency Program Series

 

The All-Encompassing Rail Efficiency Program – A New Introduction

 

August last year I kicked off (then it stalled owing to circumstances until now) the Rail Efficiency Series – How to get better resilience out of our existing rail network:

THE RAIL EFFICIENCY PROGRAM

 

HOW TO GET BETTER RESILIENCE OUT OF THE RAIL NETWORK

 

A RAIL EFFICIENCY PROGRAM SERIES

 

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE REP

In this new series, I be running posts on how we can get more resilience thus punctuality and reliability in the existing Auckland Rail Network prior to the City Rail Link opening. In this post I will give a an introduction to the Rail Efficiency Program which was briefly mentioned in my submission to The Auckland Plan.

Those who travel on Auckland’s passenger rail network as I do on a regular basis know the frustration when your train is delayed or even worse cancelled due either some kind of fault, breakdown, accident, pesky freight train in the way, congestion at pinch-points (such as Puhinui, Otahuhu-Westfield, or Newmarket), and/or the effects of an earlier disruption still snowballing through the network affecting the train you are on. Now there are some things either happening or in the pipeline that will help reduce the frustrations and disruptions such as:

You can read the rest of that particular post through clicking on the respective link.

 

Now in that introduction series I had listed six technical proposals in getting more resilience out of the existing rail INFRASTRUCTURE:

This is the Five Step – Rail Efficiency Program that I will dedicate a post to each of the five steps (including graphics) before giving a final sum up and final submission ready for Auckland Transport and Council.

THE FIVE STEP – RAIL EFFICIENCY PROGRAM (TO BE COMPLETED BY 2018 (PRIORITY ONE IN MY AUCKLAND PLAN SUBMISSION))

  1. New or rebuilt cross overs at major stations (basically all stations that act as Fare Boundary stations on the rail network)
  2. Westfield Junction Flyover
  3. Relocation or adding of new stations on the rail network
  4. Cross-overs at all stations between Papakura and Swanson
  5. Third Main from Westfield to Papakura

Now there is a sixth step in my REP, that is remove level crossings on the rail network between Papakura and Swanson. However I have placed step over a 15 year program due to the resources and planning required to grade separate some of our level crossings.

 

Now the above still stands and will be “advocated” for where possible. However since then (as things do) other things come along and crop us – such as the  accompanying posts: TO BETTER (AUCKLAND’S) TRANSPORT, ELECTRICS NEARLY THERE, and a post by another blog on existing infrastructure; THE VIRTUES OF INVESTING IN TRANSPORTATION. And especially in light of remarks from Councillor Mike Lee – Chairman of the Council Transport Committee which were:

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

I thought it might be time to go ‘all-encompassing’ in the Rail Efficiency Program to build a strong proposal to submit to Council and Auckland Transport so that the flagging rail patronage is reversed and going where it should be – UP – again.

 

So here I go in giving it a shot in outlining the ‘All-Encompassing – Rail Efficiency Program (AE-REP):

 

THE TEN STEP – All-ENCOMPASSING RAIL EFFICIENCY PROGRAM (TO BE COMPLETED BY 2018 (PRIORITY ONE IN MY AUCKLAND PLAN SUBMISSION) (with additions as of 2013))

  1. New or rebuilt cross overs at major stations (basically all stations that act as Fare Boundary stations on the rail network)
  2. Westfield Junction Flyover
  3. Relocation or adding of new stations on the rail network (Adding Walters Road Station while closing Te Mahia Station being one idea) (extra feeder bus, kiss-and ride, and park-and-ride facilities would be helpful as well for major stations as a starter (plus a select few others like Walters Road Station))
  4. Cross-overs at all stations between Papakura and Swanson
  5. Third Main from Westfield to Papakura
  6. Manukau-South Rail Link
  7. Electrification to Pukekohe
  8. Grade Separation of Rail Level Crossings (although this would be a 15-year program)
  9. Introduction of (modified) full Zonal Fares 
  10. Stepping frequencies all lines to 15 minute frequencies at the absolute minimum between 6am – 9pm on all lines (between Papakura and Swanson) – 7 days a week with 30 min frequencies for Onehunga on weekends, then slipping back to 20-30 frequencies outside those hours. As for Pukekohe frequency could be stepped up to every 30 minutes initially Monday to Friday and hourly on Weekends. Now this is all Pre-CRL due to the restraints at Britomart, however once the CRL is opened you can move to the maximum the new signalling can handle which is 12-Trains Per Hour (every 5 mins).

Now that 10-step program does not include what is already happening on the existing network (or what will be happening in the case of the City Rail Link) but does build strongly upon it:

  • Electrification of the Rail Network allowing Auckland to run the faster electric trains
  • With the new electrics (EMU‘s), capacity is increased from larger and more rolling stock running more frequently
  • The City Rail Link opens up this latent capacity on the Rail Network and in-part removes the Newmarket pinch-point. The CRL turns Britomart into a through-station and through-stations have larger capacity than a dead-end station such as the current Britomart layout
  • The Third Main which seems to be now slowly under-construction from Westfield to hopefully Homai (and extended to Papakura eventually). The third main gives freight trains a dedicated track to run on in a congested piece of network keeping the freighters out of the road of passenger trains – especially in the peak times

 

I have left some more human “resource” elements out of the AE-REP as that is for a separate debate and for that debate to happen in the Auckland Council Transport Committee – not the blogs!

 

However the 10-step AE-REP does draw inspiration from the THE VIRTUES OF INVESTING IN TRANSPORTATION piece in the fact that if you don’t get the current infrastructure investment right, it becomes a rotting and collapsing foundation for any heavy-scale new capital infrastructure investment you place on top of it (try placing a house on a layer of cake and see what happens after a period of time).

 

So as I originally said in August, I will expand on the (now) 10-step AE-REP over the next few months to flesh out the ideas behind the Program.

 

The All-Encompassing – Rail Efficiency Program by Ben Ross; How to get Better Resilience out of the Rail Network

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

To Better (Auckland’s) Transport

·

Work Starts Now!

 

So while some are nursing off hang-overs from what seems to be a quiet New Years in New Zealand (while the American’s delayed the Fiscal Cliff just that little bit longer), some in between outdoor (or indoor) projects and sunning themselves in this beautiful weather are preparing for the work ahead – To Better (Auckland) Transport.

 

Now that it’s a new year and free from the earlier restrains in transport commentary, BR:AKL can continue to focus in a more steadfast manner advancement in Bettering Auckland’s Transport. That means I can bring off the ice some ideas and concepts that were previously frozen and bring them back into the light for commentary, discussion and lobbying. One such idea/concept that is being brought off to the ice and back to the forefront is my Rail Efficiency Program that I introduced in August last year:

 

THE RAIL EFFICIENCY PROGRAM

 

How to get Better Resilience out of the Rail Network

 

A Rail Efficiency Program Series

 

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE REP

 

In this new series, I be running posts on how we can get more resilience thus punctuality and reliability in the existing Auckland Rail Network prior to the City Rail Link opening. In this post I will give a an introduction to the Rail Efficiency Program which was briefly mentioned in my submission to The Auckland Plan.

 

Those who travel on Auckland’s passenger rail network as I do on a regular basis know the frustration when your train is delayed or even worse cancelled due either some kind of fault, breakdown, accident, pesky freight train in the way, congestion at pinch-points (such as Puhinui, Otahuhu-Westfield, or Newmarket), and/or the effects of an earlier disruption still snowballing through the network affecting the train you are on. Now there are some things either happening or in the pipeline that will help reduce the frustrations and disruptions such as:

 

You can read the rest of that particular post through clicking on the respective link.

 

How as it alludes to; the idea behind the REP is to invest in current infrastructure to get maximum performance and resilience out of it before diving in and investing large sums of money into brand new infrastructure (the City Rail Link being one of those new pieces of infrastructure). This article from the New York Times forwarded to me by an acquaintance highlights a view-point on the worth of investing in existing infrastructure:

 

From the New York Times:

The Virtues of Investing in Transportation

By LAURA D’ANDREA TYSON
Improving the existing transportation infrastructure can create jobs and increase productivity, studies have found. Construction began last year to replace Doyle Drive, which carries commuters between the Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco.Jim Wilson/The New York TimesImproving the existing transportation infrastructure can create jobs and increase productivity, studies have found. Construction began last year to replace Doyle Drive, which carries commuters between the Golden Gate Bridge and downtown San Francisco.
Today's Economist

Laura D’Andrea Tyson is a professor at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley, and served as chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton. She currently serves on President Obama’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness and its infrastructure subgroup.

Years of under-investing in the nation’s transportation infrastructure are apparent in congested roads, freight bottlenecks, airport delays and overcrowded or nonexistent public transit operations. Yet the heated debate in Washington about how much and how fast to slash government spending is overlooking how a significant, sustained increase in infrastructure investment would create jobs and strengthen the nation’s competitiveness.

Infrastructure spending, adjusted for inflation and accounting for the depreciation of existing assets, is at about the same level it was in 1968, when the economy was one-third smaller. Public investment on transportation and water infrastructure as a share of gross domestic product has fallen steadily since the 1960s and now stands at 2.4 percent, compared with 5 percent in Europe and more than 9 percent in China.

Experts differ on how much more is needed but agree the amount is substantial.

The American Society of Civil Engineers, for example, estimates that we need to spend an additional $110 billion a year to maintain the transportation infrastructure at current performance levels. The Congressional Budget Office reported in May that simply maintaining the current performance of the system would require the federal government to increase its annual spending on highways by about one-third, while state and local governments that account for about 55 percent of capital spending on the highway system would have to increase their annual spending by similar or larger amounts.

Financing highway projects whose economic benefits exceed their costs would necessitate more than a doubling of federal investment on highway infrastructure from its 2010 level of $43 billion. All these estimates apply only to shortfalls in economically justifiable spending on transportation and highways; they do not include other critical infrastructure areas, like water, energy and broadband.

Government spending on infrastructure raises demand, creates jobs and increases the supply and growth potential of the economy over time. The C.B.O. says infrastructure spending is one of the most effective fiscal policies for increasing output and employment and one of the most cost-effective forms of government spending in terms of the number of jobs created per dollar of budgetary cost.

Studies indicate that each $1 billion of infrastructure spending creates 11,000 (estimate of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers) to 30,000 jobs (estimate of the Department of Transportation for infrastructure spending on highways) through direct and indirect effects.

Most of these jobs are added in construction and related sectors, hard hit by the housing crisis, and most of them are relatively well paid, with wages between the 25th and the 75th percentile of the national wage distribution.

Public infrastructure enables the private sector. A modern transportation infrastructure improves private-sector productivity by reducing production and transportation costs, and facilitating trade, economies of scale and efficient production methods.

Not surprisingly, the quality of transportation infrastructure is a major factor affecting business decisions about where to locate production, and the eroding quality of infrastructure is making the United States a less attractive place to do business.

According to the 2010-11 competitiveness report of the World Economic Forum, the United States now ranks 23rd among 139 countries on the overall quality of its infrastructure — between Spain and Chile. In 1999, the United States ranked seventh.

The Obama administration’s budget request for $556 billion for the reauthorization of the surface transportation bill over the next six years is an important first step. But how the money is spent also matters. Because of political considerations, a large fraction of federal infrastructure spending currently finances projects aimed at building capacity rather than maintaining existing capacity.

Yet recent evidence indicates both that the returns on projects to expand capacity have been falling over time and that projects to maintain capacity often enjoy higher returns.

In a time of budget austerity, the allocation of scarce federal dollars for infrastructure must be guided by cost-benefit analysis — rather than by earmarks and formula-based grants, as is currently the case. That’s why the Obama administration is calling for the use of performance criteria and “race to the top” competition among state and local governments to allocate federal spending among competing projects.

That’s also why both the administration and a bipartisan group — led by Senators John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts; Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas; and Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia — have proposed the creation of a national infrastructure bank.

Such a bank would focus on transformative projects of national significance, like the creation of a high-speed rail system or the modernization of the air traffic control system. Such projects are neglected by the formula-driven processes now used to distribute federal infrastructure funds among states and regions.

The bank would also provide greater certainty about the level of federal funds for multiyear projects by removing those decisions from the politically volatile annual appropriations process and would select projects based on transparent cost-benefit analysis by independent experts.

The bank would be granted authority to create partnerships with private investors on individual projects, and these would increase the funds available and foster greater efficiency in project selection, operation and maintenance. Such partnerships — common in Europe and other parts of the world — often result in earlier completion of projects, lower costs and better maintenance of infrastructure compared with investments made solely by public entities.

Despite rapid growth in the last decade, such partnerships are still rare in the United States. Why? Because infrastructure decisions are fragmented, with states, cities and municipalities owning their own assets and applying their own political and economic criteria to potential deals with private investors. Several states do not have legislation authorizing partnerships and no guidelines exist for how decisions will be made.

One obstacle may be gone: Representative James Oberstar, Democrat of Minnesota and the previous chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, opposed these partnerships and urged state and local officials to avoid them. He lost his seat in 2010, and Representative John Mica, Republican of Florida, who now heads the committee, supports the partnership concept.

Improving infrastructure investment decisions through cost-benefit analysis and public-private partnerships is one way to realize larger returns on scarce investment dollars.

Applying congestion pricing or tolls and fees to make private users pay a larger share of the total cost of their infrastructure use is another. Drivers do not currently pay the full costs of their driving, and those substantial costs — including traffic delays, accidents and damage to roads — are borne by other drivers and society.

Congestion pricing and more reliance on tolls would relieve the economic and social costs of congestion; it would give clearer signals about the demand for different types of infrastructure, and it would reduce the required amount of infrastructure investment. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that widespread use of congestion pricing would reduce the necessary investment in highways by about $20 billion a year. But congestion pricing, despite its successes in London and elsewhere, is likely to encounter vociferous opposition, as Mayor Bloomberg learned when he proposed a reasonable plan for New York City.

Even as we slash other forms of government spending, we must invest more in our infrastructure.

 

Now the idea behind an Infrastructure (Investment) Bank is an idea in my opinion as a transport advocate a worthy idea to investigate for Auckland and wider New Zealand – especially as the CRL and North Shore (Rail) Line projects come up on the plans and “books.” But the moot point on investing in existing infrastructure is the point I am hammering home – with the Rail Efficiency Program! The REP is also one of the main reasons why (finance being the other) I advocate in delaying the City Rail Link for 3-5 years in start date, so that the existing infrastructure is up to scratch before adding a major piece of new infrastructure that could and would simply overwhelm the existing infrastructure in place.

So as my hearing for the Regional Public Transport Hearing in February (where I sit before Councillor Mike Lee, Mark Lambert, Peter Clark and Paul Locky (so fun times on a roll as it seems it is half of the Auckland Transport Board 😛 )) draws closer, I will further expand on the Rail Efficiency Program and decide whether to go into bat with it at the RPTP hearing to a certain extent.

 

Regardless however the goal in the transport “wing” of “Shining the Light for a Better Auckland” remains the same:- To Better (Auckland’s) Transport

 

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

Chicken or The Egg

·

What First with Transport

 

And

 

Do We Hold The Key to Better Transport?

 

The Herald ran a rather academic story on transport this morning and its relationship with the human body. To be honest the article is rather heavy for this time of year and looks like something err geeky from the blog next door. You can see the Herald article in the link below:

We hold the key to better transport

Some forms of getting from A to B are badly affecting the health of humans.

Incorporating the human body into transport design and planning could save millions.

 

We demand and expect our transport systems to get us where we want, when we want to be there, and as fast as possible. We are, however, human beings. And as with any other built system, we have to ask whether our fast and efficient modes of travel are necessarily always good for us.

And it goes on…

 

However when it came to solutions, yes they are under way but with Auckland‘s case it has a long way to go:

From the same article

 

…

For all the human health impacts of the modern transport system, there are obviously substantial benefits in the form of greater economic productivity, vastly increased spatial access and mobility, and even health gains, such as increased ability to get preventive and other medical care.

All technology imposes health risks of some sort. So a purely negative focus on these is unhelpful. Nonetheless, it’s useful to ask whether our transport technologies, policies and investments are good for us. If not, we need to adjust and redesign our transport accordingly.

Positive changes, many of which are currently underway, include:

  • A greater focus on redesigning congested urban spaces to encourage walking and social interaction and to lower automobile use and speeds. This could achieve many health and safety outcomes simultaneously.
  • Traffic calming – a range of techniques ranging from speed humps to pedestrian malls which create attractive active transport environments.
  • Road pricing and increasing parking fees, or eliminating parking altogether to encourage public transport use and walking.
  • The expansion of bike-share schemes, where public bicycles can be rented and dropped off from multiple locations.
  • Further safety improvements to automobile safety design for new car models.
  • Prioritising action on “black spots” on roads and highway “geometrics”, which includes improving lines of sight at intersections and around curves.

These reforms need not involve costly or radical overhaul. Road safety used to be a neglected policy; small but significant changes there have saved millions of lives. A broader incorporation of the human body into transport design and planning could save millions more.

 

Urban design and continued evolution of vehicle mechanics will go someway in addressing a more integrated system where transport and urban design are interwoven rather than treated separately as they are now. However the chicken and egg analogy comes up for the point I highlighted in bold: Road pricing and increasing parking fees, or eliminating parking altogether to encourage public transport use and walking. 

It is a case of do we slap on road pricing and increased parking fee measurements to build an adequate mass transit system that people would take as first choice rather than a forced choice (as of current), or do we build the mass transit system and get that running up first before slapping in the road pricing measures. It is actually a tough question and one who would have to provide a very good justification to the tax paying public no matter which of the two options they take.

 

But sadly Auckland seems to be in a bit of bother at the moment with is road and (in this particular case) mass transit systems. Take this article piece from the Herald (the post I have on it is sitting on ice at the moment):

Experts called in to fix rail slump

By Mathew Dearnaley

5:30 AM Friday Dec 21, 2012

Auckland Transport is resorting to professional help for a strategy on how to stop losing patronage from trains and buses. Chief operations officer Greg Edmonds has promised to provide his board with a plan early next year on how to staunch bleeding which saw a 17.2 per cent decline in train boardings last month compared with the previous November. That followed concern raised by Auckland Council transport leader Mike Lee, which was acknowledged by new board chairman Lester Levy, about a need to lift service performance. Mr Lee said patronage, which was boosted last year by the Rugby World Cup, started “flat-lining” in March and the organisation was starting to see a distinctive downward trajectory. “I don’t think this is sustainable without Auckland Transport intervening in a decisive way,” he said. “One of the measures of quality is punctuality or train performance and, while the price of our services is high, quality tends to be poor consistently.”

…

Mr Lee said the board, on which he is a council appointee, had been assured a new timetable would improve rail performance and that the rollout of the new Hop transport card on trains would combat fare evasion. But the board heard that train punctuality deteriorated last month to 84.1 per cent of services running to schedule, compared with 87.1 per cent in October, and he said rail staff were having difficulties stopping free-riding passengers. He had been told of fare evasion as some people were presenting their Hop cards to train staff to avoid paying their way. This did not apply to Britomart or Newmarket, which have become gated stations. “Busy, harassed train managers trying to collect fares are shown a Hop card and they move on,” he said. “The person may have paid $5 [in a since-expired half-price opening deal] for a card and, according to rail staff, they are using it to evade fares. “There are electronic checkers but they are slow and cumbersome and there’s not enough of them.” 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. “From the board’s point of view, this won’t go away – it’s the number one issue,” he said.

 

I think at this rate Auckland will be some way off before coming to the Chicken and Egg question on new infrastructure (which is where the point in bold above comes in) when we can’t even get the basics right on existing infrastructure.

 

Hopefully our transport planners and politicians will have some time to think over the summer holidays and have a solution, however as my iced post would stipulate; that might be asking for Mission Impossible. So in that case “WE” might be very well holding the key to better transport!