Under present funding arrangements, it was never going to be possible for ARC to fund Auckland Region's share of modernising and electrifying Auckland's rail network. Even if all we talk about is the existing network. And we ignore how rail to the airport and the Britomart rail tunnel might be funded.
It is critical also, that integrated ticketing is implemented as a matter of priority - probably higher priority than electrification itself. The transport and economic benefits that acrue from rational integrated ticketing and fares would be vast even for the present network and rail, bus and ferry services.
The ARC has got itself up a bit of gum tree on this issue. There is a combination of "Little Red Hen" and "Little Engine that Could" about its behaviour. Which is unfortunate, and does not help the region go forward. In my view, effective implementation and modernisation of Auckland's rail will require the concerted effort of central, regional and local government.
As its funding power has dropped there is a growing desperation among some at the ARC, and a sort of vainglorious hope that it alone can still lift Auckland from its bed of motorways (Little Red Hen meets Little Engine that Could - aka Tweedledee in this blog). This is reflected in the desire to concentrate only on buying trains - as if shiney new trains are the be-all and end-all of a modern urban rail system.
I have been advised by Aussie rail experts that while there are similarities between Perth's rail project and Auckland's, is that Perth's rail was already largely separated from the roading network - before electrification, and that few intersections (where roads physically cross railway lines) needed to be grade separated (through viaducts, bridges, tunnels, road closures etc). This is not the case in Auckland. Locals living in Onehunga, West Auckland, and around Pukekohe will atest to the huge number of rail crossings - which would be almost permanently closed to roading traffic when electric trains run at 5 to 10 minute frequencies.
The ARC has notionally allocated about $20 million to this. Kick start funding in the hope that City and District councils would pick up this issue and deal with it. Fat chance. The New Lynn rail station project is a good example of what is in store. It's a good project. I like it. All sorts of objectives met: urban development, urban intensification, Transit Oriented Development, bus/rail interchange, economic development incentive, AND several road crossings separated from rail tracks. But at a cost of more than $100 million.
That's what it costs.... and that's the tip of the iceberg.
Trains need maintaining and garaging amd washing and cleaning. Those buildings and facilities need to be built and paid for. Modern stations need to be built which optimise local development opportunities - and encourage private development. At least. Each station is a major opportunity for urban renewal and economic transformation.
Buying a shiney set of trains - alone - does not cut it. It is no way to run an urban railroad.
The ARC needs to lift itself from its bunker on the hill, and build trusting and robust and enduring relationships with central government and city and district government, and walk the talk of building networks for tomorrow.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Electrification: ARC needs to work with Government
Under present funding arrangements, it was never going to be possible for ARC to fund Auckland Region's share of modernising and electrifying Auckland's rail network. Even if all we talk about is the existing network. And we ignore how rail to the airport and the Britomart rail tunnel might be funded.
It is critical also, that integrated ticketing is implemented as a matter of priority - probably higher priority than electrification itself. The transport and economic benefits that acrue from rational integrated ticketing and fares would be vast even for the present network and rail, bus and ferry services.
The ARC has got itself up a bit of gum tree on this issue. There is a combination of "Little Red Hen" and "Little Engine that Could" about its behaviour. Which is unfortunate, and does not help the region go forward. In my view, effective implementation and modernisation of Auckland's rail will require the concerted effort of central, regional and local government.
As its funding power has dropped there is a growing desperation among some at the ARC, and a sort of vainglorious hope that it alone can still lift Auckland from its bed of motorways (Little Red Hen meets Little Engine that Could - aka Tweedledee in this blog). This is reflected in the desire to concentrate only on buying trains - as if shiney new trains are the be-all and end-all of a modern urban rail system.
I have been advised by Aussie rail experts that while there are similarities between Perth's rail project and Auckland's, is that Perth's rail was already largely separated from the roading network - before electrification, and that few intersections (where roads physically cross railway lines) needed to be grade separated (through viaducts, bridges, tunnels, road closures etc). This is not the case in Auckland. Locals living in Onehunga, West Auckland, and around Pukekohe will atest to the huge number of rail crossings - which would be almost permanently closed to roading traffic when electric trains run at 5 to 10 minute frequencies.
The ARC has notionally allocated about $20 million to this. Kick start funding in the hope that City and District councils would pick up this issue and deal with it. Fat chance. The New Lynn rail station project is a good example of what is in store. It's a good project. I like it. All sorts of objectives met: urban development, urban intensification, Transit Oriented Development, bus/rail interchange, economic development incentive, AND several road crossings separated from rail tracks. But at a cost of more than $100 million.
That's what it costs.... and that's the tip of the iceberg.
Trains need maintaining and garaging amd washing and cleaning. Those buildings and facilities need to be built and paid for. Modern stations need to be built which optimise local development opportunities - and encourage private development. At least. Each station is a major opportunity for urban renewal and economic transformation.
Buying a shiney set of trains - alone - does not cut it. It is no way to run an urban railroad.
The ARC needs to lift itself from its bunker on the hill, and build trusting and robust and enduring relationships with central government and city and district government, and walk the talk of building networks for tomorrow.
It is critical also, that integrated ticketing is implemented as a matter of priority - probably higher priority than electrification itself. The transport and economic benefits that acrue from rational integrated ticketing and fares would be vast even for the present network and rail, bus and ferry services.
The ARC has got itself up a bit of gum tree on this issue. There is a combination of "Little Red Hen" and "Little Engine that Could" about its behaviour. Which is unfortunate, and does not help the region go forward. In my view, effective implementation and modernisation of Auckland's rail will require the concerted effort of central, regional and local government.
As its funding power has dropped there is a growing desperation among some at the ARC, and a sort of vainglorious hope that it alone can still lift Auckland from its bed of motorways (Little Red Hen meets Little Engine that Could - aka Tweedledee in this blog). This is reflected in the desire to concentrate only on buying trains - as if shiney new trains are the be-all and end-all of a modern urban rail system.
I have been advised by Aussie rail experts that while there are similarities between Perth's rail project and Auckland's, is that Perth's rail was already largely separated from the roading network - before electrification, and that few intersections (where roads physically cross railway lines) needed to be grade separated (through viaducts, bridges, tunnels, road closures etc). This is not the case in Auckland. Locals living in Onehunga, West Auckland, and around Pukekohe will atest to the huge number of rail crossings - which would be almost permanently closed to roading traffic when electric trains run at 5 to 10 minute frequencies.
The ARC has notionally allocated about $20 million to this. Kick start funding in the hope that City and District councils would pick up this issue and deal with it. Fat chance. The New Lynn rail station project is a good example of what is in store. It's a good project. I like it. All sorts of objectives met: urban development, urban intensification, Transit Oriented Development, bus/rail interchange, economic development incentive, AND several road crossings separated from rail tracks. But at a cost of more than $100 million.
That's what it costs.... and that's the tip of the iceberg.
Trains need maintaining and garaging amd washing and cleaning. Those buildings and facilities need to be built and paid for. Modern stations need to be built which optimise local development opportunities - and encourage private development. At least. Each station is a major opportunity for urban renewal and economic transformation.
Buying a shiney set of trains - alone - does not cut it. It is no way to run an urban railroad.
The ARC needs to lift itself from its bunker on the hill, and build trusting and robust and enduring relationships with central government and city and district government, and walk the talk of building networks for tomorrow.
2 comments:
-
Joel,
Keen to understand why you think integrated ticketing and fares will be so good for Auckland public transport use. Integrated ticketing just means that a single ticket (whether its a paper pass or a smartcard) can be used on different operators. Convenient, yes, but hardly so radical as to get lots of people out of their cars. Integrated fares are just one way of delivering a discount. An integrated fare means that the total fare for a bus + bus or bus + train journey might be $1.00+$1.00 = $1.75. That 25 cents is an extra cost that ARC/ARTA will have to pay unless the operators can be persuaded to donate it (yeah right!) or the single journey cash fares are increased to equalise the new subsidy (not what we want). Anyway, leaving aside who'll subsidise integrated fares, if ARC/ARTA thinks that giving a multi-leg journey passenger a 25 cent discount will drive significant patronage growth then logically even more patronage growth can come from giving single leg journey passengers (of which there are many more) the same discount. The real issue is price - which clearly does affect public transport usage. Unless ARC/ARTA deal with that issue the integrated ticketing system will be a big disappointment in driving patronage. And dealing with price might be very expensive so I hope its in the integrated ticketing project budget. If you really want to drive patronage the answer is in frequency and geographic cover - and that means more buses (more trains are harder). I reckon that the $170m that ARC/ARTA is looking to spend over the next 10 years on integrated ticketing would be much better spent first on more buses and second (if any is left) on better frequent user discounts (greater subsidies on monthly passes and greater discounts on 10 trip tickets) that aren't just dependent on a multi-leg journey. Auckland bus operators give a dismal 10% discount on 10 trip tickets yet Wellington's Snapper card gives a 25% discount and every single ride. That's what we need -
February 11, 2009 at 8:43 PM
-
Benefits of integrated ticketing.
Good question. For a start, my understanding of the cost of the integrated ticketing system approach being considered by ARTA is less than $100 million. However, the tender process is presently underway, and final decisions have yet to be made. From your question, I imagine that you are aware that calls for integrated ticketing to be established in Auckland go back a long way – more than ten years anyway.
This is a useful link to the thoughts of the Campaign for Better Transport. It has adopted a critically supportive approach. This article is a bit old (2005 I think) but useful.
http://www.bettertransport.org.nz/news/13/53.htm
Integrated ticketing has been shown overseas to increase patronage on public transport networks that involve a number of operators and several modes by making it easier for passengers to use public transport. Smartcard integrated ticketing reduces boarding times of passengers and provides highly accurate passenger-trip information.
The information provided with smartcard systems can be used for patronage monitoring and network planning. I appreciate that not all of the above = a passenger benefit. I support the type of integrated ticketing system which:
1. Is smartcard based (like the Snapper Card system you mention, like the Oyster Card system in London – which I have used). This means a card that can be “loaded” with money, and which is linked intelligently to central control systems which will allow discounts on integrated trips to be applied to the customer travel account. And so on.
2. Applies to all modes (rail, bus and ferry) and all operators (all public and private operators).
3. Which has smart software behind, allowing for integrated fares to be available. (ie for passengers who use several modes to get to work – like me with ferry and bus – at present only some bus operators share in this. I know many commuters who must carry several public transport cards – which each must be kept charged.
4. Which lends itself to swiping on/off passenger transport vehicles – rather the embarrassing state of affairs we have on trains and ferries. (By the way - major benefit of swiping on/off ferries would be that the ferry terminal buidlings can become public spaces – rather than holding pens for passengers. This benefit would be huge in terms of opening up Auckland’s waterfront more to people and to activities additional to public transport.)
I agree with you that we need to increase frequency of services, and the number of services of course. But my understanding of the benefits of smartcard based integrated ticketing systems is huge, and essential to the development of Auckland’s integrated passenger transport network.
I note here in passing that the NZTA (New Zealand Transport Authority) has adopted the following principles for smartcard ticketing systems in New Zealand:
Regional councils must specify smartcard requirements, including requirements for ensuring confidentiality in access to, and use of, commercial data.
1. Smartcard integrated ticketing operation must be independent of public transport operators.
2. Regional councils must use open procurement procedures compliant with section 25 of the Land Transport Management Act 2003 (LTMA) to select smartcard system contractors.
3. Regional councils are encouraged to seek economies of scale by sharing clearing houses and other elements of smartcard integrated ticketing systems.
4. Regional councils and their smartcard system contractors must work to ensure that systems are developed to achieve interoperability as opportunities arise.
And finally, I think this report from Scotland into integrated ticketing and fares for public transport is a good read:
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/reports/consultation-papers-and-responses/j9651-03.htm
Thank you for your question and comment. -
February 12, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Joel,
Keen to understand why you think integrated ticketing and fares will be so good for Auckland public transport use. Integrated ticketing just means that a single ticket (whether its a paper pass or a smartcard) can be used on different operators. Convenient, yes, but hardly so radical as to get lots of people out of their cars. Integrated fares are just one way of delivering a discount. An integrated fare means that the total fare for a bus + bus or bus + train journey might be $1.00+$1.00 = $1.75. That 25 cents is an extra cost that ARC/ARTA will have to pay unless the operators can be persuaded to donate it (yeah right!) or the single journey cash fares are increased to equalise the new subsidy (not what we want). Anyway, leaving aside who'll subsidise integrated fares, if ARC/ARTA thinks that giving a multi-leg journey passenger a 25 cent discount will drive significant patronage growth then logically even more patronage growth can come from giving single leg journey passengers (of which there are many more) the same discount. The real issue is price - which clearly does affect public transport usage. Unless ARC/ARTA deal with that issue the integrated ticketing system will be a big disappointment in driving patronage. And dealing with price might be very expensive so I hope its in the integrated ticketing project budget. If you really want to drive patronage the answer is in frequency and geographic cover - and that means more buses (more trains are harder). I reckon that the $170m that ARC/ARTA is looking to spend over the next 10 years on integrated ticketing would be much better spent first on more buses and second (if any is left) on better frequent user discounts (greater subsidies on monthly passes and greater discounts on 10 trip tickets) that aren't just dependent on a multi-leg journey. Auckland bus operators give a dismal 10% discount on 10 trip tickets yet Wellington's Snapper card gives a 25% discount and every single ride. That's what we need
Benefits of integrated ticketing.
Good question. For a start, my understanding of the cost of the integrated ticketing system approach being considered by ARTA is less than $100 million. However, the tender process is presently underway, and final decisions have yet to be made. From your question, I imagine that you are aware that calls for integrated ticketing to be established in Auckland go back a long way – more than ten years anyway.
This is a useful link to the thoughts of the Campaign for Better Transport. It has adopted a critically supportive approach. This article is a bit old (2005 I think) but useful.
http://www.bettertransport.org.nz/news/13/53.htm
Integrated ticketing has been shown overseas to increase patronage on public transport networks that involve a number of operators and several modes by making it easier for passengers to use public transport. Smartcard integrated ticketing reduces boarding times of passengers and provides highly accurate passenger-trip information.
The information provided with smartcard systems can be used for patronage monitoring and network planning. I appreciate that not all of the above = a passenger benefit. I support the type of integrated ticketing system which:
1. Is smartcard based (like the Snapper Card system you mention, like the Oyster Card system in London – which I have used). This means a card that can be “loaded” with money, and which is linked intelligently to central control systems which will allow discounts on integrated trips to be applied to the customer travel account. And so on.
2. Applies to all modes (rail, bus and ferry) and all operators (all public and private operators).
3. Which has smart software behind, allowing for integrated fares to be available. (ie for passengers who use several modes to get to work – like me with ferry and bus – at present only some bus operators share in this. I know many commuters who must carry several public transport cards – which each must be kept charged.
4. Which lends itself to swiping on/off passenger transport vehicles – rather the embarrassing state of affairs we have on trains and ferries. (By the way - major benefit of swiping on/off ferries would be that the ferry terminal buidlings can become public spaces – rather than holding pens for passengers. This benefit would be huge in terms of opening up Auckland’s waterfront more to people and to activities additional to public transport.)
I agree with you that we need to increase frequency of services, and the number of services of course. But my understanding of the benefits of smartcard based integrated ticketing systems is huge, and essential to the development of Auckland’s integrated passenger transport network.
I note here in passing that the NZTA (New Zealand Transport Authority) has adopted the following principles for smartcard ticketing systems in New Zealand:
Regional councils must specify smartcard requirements, including requirements for ensuring confidentiality in access to, and use of, commercial data.
1. Smartcard integrated ticketing operation must be independent of public transport operators.
2. Regional councils must use open procurement procedures compliant with section 25 of the Land Transport Management Act 2003 (LTMA) to select smartcard system contractors.
3. Regional councils are encouraged to seek economies of scale by sharing clearing houses and other elements of smartcard integrated ticketing systems.
4. Regional councils and their smartcard system contractors must work to ensure that systems are developed to achieve interoperability as opportunities arise.
And finally, I think this report from Scotland into integrated ticketing and fares for public transport is a good read:
http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/reports/consultation-papers-and-responses/j9651-03.htm
Thank you for your question and comment.
Post a Comment