Aucklanders slam mayor's rail plans

[doloras]

I sense the forum is starting to tire of this approach.

"This was, we very greatly fear, The understatement of the year."

-- Roald Dahl

[vworp]

I sense the forum is starting to tire of this approach.

"This was, we very greatly fear, The understatement of the year."

-- Roald Dahl

Common sense prevails. Thank you.

[Riggles]

As for facing facts, I agree most people don't see the need for it but in my opinion that's because most people don't have any real understanding of the benefits of the project or the context of growth and development outcomes it sits in. I think a lot more people would support it in principle if the understood it better.

And that is what my comments started on, people talk of the benefits however they present them as if the CRL is the only way for them to be achieved. This is not the truth and talking as such is pretty much fabricating the lies.

As I mentioned in the CRL thread there are plenty of options for improving the bus system city wide providing potentially better benefits at a similar cost, I also pointed out that having a Northshore line forming a CBD line could also provide for similar benefits.

As is rather clear here however is that any line of thought dare questions the CRL is marked as trolling.

[doloras]

As is rather clear here however is that any line of thought dare questions the CRL while being a pompous ass about it is marked as trolling.

FIFY. No-one called royce a troll when he suggested alternatives. It's your style, not your content.

[Riggles]

FIFY. No-one called royce a troll when he suggested alternatives. It's your style, not your content.

Maybe that's because Royce has not made a single comment in this thread?

FYI, you shouldn't right your own posts and mark them as a quotation of what someone else said.

Back to the topic of the thread please.

[Nick R]

As for facing facts, I agree most people don't see the need for it but in my opinion that's because most people don't have any real understanding of the benefits of the project or the context of growth and development outcomes it sits in. I think a lot more people would support it in principle if the understood it better.

And that is what my comments started on, people talk of the benefits however they present them as if the CRL is the only way for them to be achieved. This is not the truth and talking as such is pretty much fabricating the lies.

You're the only one that follows that line of reasoning Riggles. All people every say is that the CRL has a huge amount of benefits, but where does anyone say that the CRL is the one and only way to achieve some of those benefits? What people say is that the CRL is the best way to achieve them. For example, your scheme would boost capacity on the existing network plus add a couple of city stations for better catchment, but it wouldn't shorten the dog leg of the western line or create a node of redevelopment in Newton, as an example. The CRL would do all those things.

Now me saying that isn't the same as saying the CRL is the only way to do those things, but it is certainly a good way to achieve those benefits simultaneously. It's not lying to say that the CRL had a big range of benefits just because there are other ways to achieve some or all of those benefits.

[Riggles]

The council could create a node for redevelopment tomorrow if it felt so inspired, they are doing it down at Wynyard quarter with and underground rail station or even the proximity of any rail (excluding the tram ride)

You're the only one that follows that line of reasoning Riggles. All people every say is that the CRL has a huge amount of benefits, but where does anyone say that the CRL is the one and only way to achieve some of those benefits? What people say is that the CRL is the best way to achieve them.

Yes they make this claim that the CRL is the best way to achieve them without any other real alternatives investigated.
Presenting other options is a rather up hill challenge as people are quick to criticise but provide no suggestions for improvement.

[Nick R]

The council could create a node for redevelopment tomorrow if it felt so inspired, they are doing it down at Wynyard quarter with and underground rail station or even the proximity of any rail (excluding the tram ride)

Yes Riggles, and no one is saying they couldn't. Again just because the CRL provides a certain benefit doesn't mean we believe it is the one and only way to provide that benefit.

And FYI we've got a huge amount of work on at the moment to get enough PT capacity into Wynyard to support the proposed land use figures, in light of them not wanting to put in much private vehicle capacity but not having a rapid transit link either.

You're the only one that follows that line of reasoning Riggles. All people every say is that the CRL has a huge amount of benefits, but where does anyone say that the CRL is the one and only way to achieve some of those benefits? What people say is that the CRL is the best way to achieve them.

Yes they make this claim that the CRL is the best way to achieve them without any other real alternatives investigated.
Presenting other options is a rather up hill challenge as people are quick to criticise but provide no suggestions for improvement.[/quote]

The problem as I see it is that someone will take the capacity benefit and propose something else that boosts the capacity, or they'll take the access benefit and propose something else that boosts access, they'll take the ponetial to free up city streets for pedestrainisation and talk about other ways to pedestrainise, or they'll take the redevelopment potential and talk about other ways to develop... but I've yet to see a reasonable alternative that can provide all the benefits of the CRL at the same time (for similar or less amounts of money that is).

You're right though, I've yet to hear any real alternatives to the CRL when you consider it as a whole. That might be for want of trying, or it might just be that the CRL is the best way to get all those benefits from the one project.

[Riggles]

The problem as I see it is that someone will take the capacity benefit and propose something else that boosts the capacity, or they'll take the access benefit and propose something else that boosts access, they'll take the ponetial to free up city streets for pedestrainisation and talk about other ways to pedestrainise, or they'll take the redevelopment potential and talk about other ways to develop...

That's most likely due to people just wanting to mention their idea and not submit a 300 page report detailing all the other aspects that they assumed people would take for granted as being part of their suggestion. This after all is just a forum and people aren't making funding applications to parliament.

[Nick R]

Well ok but if people only post a small part of their idea they can't get too upset when people start saying why it's not a very good alternative. It's not hard to write out a couple of paragraphs explaining the whole scheme, including any assumptions that might be made on other aspects.

[Riggles]

Well ok but if people only post a small part of their idea they can't get too upset when people start saying why it's not a very good alternative. It's not hard to write out a couple of paragraphs explaining the whole scheme, including any assumptions that might be made on other aspects.

Its' no different to saying, "why don't we start the CRL next to Britomart?"
And then because every detail was not explained people would go;

How is that going to stop the bottle neck if it starts stops at Britomart?
The CRL is better as it provides 3 new stations.
The CRL is better as it provides includes making developments.
The CRL is better as it provides high train frequencies.
The CRL is better as it provides feeder buses to the stations.

And one of the old favourites which we don't see any more.

The CRL is better as it faster, quieter and more reliable because it comes with new electric trains.

[Nick R]

Well it wouldn't be in that case you've given, because saying "why don't we start the CRL next to Britomart" means you're still talking about the CRL, only starting it next to Britomart rather than in it. In that case the assumptions are stated right there and you're just outlining the one point of difference.

If for example you said "instead of the CRL lets build a bus tunnel", the assumption that "and we'll also build a couple of busways out east, west and south and convert a few extra streets to bus priority" isn't implicit in that, and you should probably mention how and where such additional infrastructure would be built if you expect people to take it seriously.

[Riggles]

If for example you said "instead of the CRL lets build a bus tunnel", the assumption that "and we'll also build a couple of busways out east, west and south and convert a few extra streets to bus priority" isn't implicit in that, and you should probably mention how and where such additional infrastructure would be built if you expect people to take it seriously.

I believe when I came up with my two options for improving the bus system I did point out all those other routes and upgrades, I even put some prices to them.

[Nick R]

And I believe I questioned whether you'd paid enough attention to them or put enough money on it. The really key thing about the CRL (or equivalent rail upgrade) is that you only need to do the bit at the core and you can utilise a huge amount of untapped existing capacity on the three main lines heading east, west and south. The gains from the CRL would translate to about six or eight more trains an hour on the suburban lines, which is a boost of about 5,000 people an hour at any given point on the track. That's the equivalent of adding about a hundred buses an hour on three new corridors, which in effect means an bus equivalent would need to include three new busways of the calibre of the Northern Busway in addition to the tunnel or whatever priority measures through the central area would be needed to add 300 buses an hour through the inner parts of Auckland.

Thats why I see the value in a rail based solution, mostly because from Newmarket and Tamaki Dr outward you've got all the infrastructure already in place and waiting to be used.

[Riggles]

The idea of my two bus options was to demonstrate that with half an hour I could come up with a better idea than the one and only alternative that was compared against the CRL, being that $4 Billion busway tunnel past the city.

As for the benefits of the CRL, I've mentioned this numerous times before but nearly all of them can be achieved without the CRL. The fact is that the CRL has been assumed to be the way to go for so long that everything has been set as if it were a given, various other projects and city planning have all been set in place based on the CRL being there one day and we continue to operate our trains and force development into the inner CBD to make it as though we have no choice but to build the project.

FYI, my last bus design had two busways each taking 125 buses in each direction that provided for the 50k patronage expected if there was no CRL. Well within operational parameters. And that was assuming the all of the CBD bus users of Auckland used those two busways.

[Nick R]

As for the benefits of the CRL, I've mentioned this numerous times before but nearly all of them can be achieved without the CRL.

Yes of course, but is there a realistic way of achieving them all with one project or package of works, for the same budget of two billion or so? I'm not so sure, give than one of the benefits is a reduction in the number of vehicles at street level in the CBD, and another is not reducing existing road or bus capacity?

[Riggles]

Yes of course, but is there a realistic way of achieving them all with one project or package of works, for the same budget of two billion or so? I'm not so sure, give than one of the benefits is a reduction in the number of vehicles at street level in the CBD, and another is not reducing existing road or bus capacity?

I'm rather certain there are plenty of options, the most simple of which was one of my Harbour Crossing come CBD tunnel alignments.

Regarding the "not reducing existing road or bus capacity", I remember seeing the plans for the redevelopment of the road space around the stations and the plans showed narrow traffic lanes that trucks would be unable to turn in along with narrow cycle lanes jammed up next to them. Some places were even reduced from 4 lanes to 2 not to mention all sorts of other works going on in the CBD making shared spaces and removing general traffic / parking.

I don't see there being a need for this to be done all under one project or package of works. Its the end result that is most important, not the label you can give the work you are proposing.

[Nick R]

By not reducing existing capacity I was meaning on the main arterials leading into and around town (which the most basic bus alternative would do through masses of bus lanes, as would some sort of light rail option), not on the local streets around the city stations which I understand are going to be mostly pedestrian priority anyway. Even without the CRL the current CBD plans are to move vehicle priority to a couple of key arterials and make just about everything else shared space or bus priority.

I'd be interested to see if they plan to do a pedestrain focus at the Newton site, or if they'll leave it as a major vehicular arterial.

[Riggles]

By not reducing existing capacity I was meaning on the main arterials leading into and around town (which the most basic bus alternative would do through masses of bus lanes, as would some sort of light rail option),

My Bus Option 2 got by with just two busways, no harm to fuss.

not on the local streets around the city stations which I understand are going to be mostly pedestrian priority anyway.

I thought that 3 of the 3 new stations were already sitting on rather important roads.

[Nick R]

Yeah but the sort of bus volumes you're talking about couldn't be carried on two street busways (they max out at around 100 pdph each), you'd need two full grade separated busways entering into and passing through the city. I can't see that being significantly cheaper than a rail tunnel myself, the one they've just done in Brisbane was three quarters of a billion for one.

At Aotea, Albert St isn't particularly important for vehicle priority (it is paralleled by Hobson and Nelson) and will probably end up a bus priority route. On the cross streets the city centre masterplan has earmarked Victoria st as a linear park from Victoria Park to Albert park (with only one lane of shared space local access each way), while Wellesley st is shaping up to be a busway with potentially not through traffic at all.

At K Rd the station entrance is planned for Beresford Square which is already pretty much pedestrian. As for K Rd and the top of Pitt I personally think they could cut back vehicle priority hugely and focus on using Hopetoun Bridge, Newton Rd, Upper Queen, Symonds St and Mayoral Drive to direct through traffic around the K Rd precinct. Between the closure if Grafton Bridge )and the selection of no right turns and the like) there aren't any traffic routes along K Rd that aren't better services by other roads. It's just a quagmire of awkward intersections that in my opinion doesn't really need to exist.