Welcome. If you're new to this site, start here
Friday, December 22, 2006
A Final Word
A local paper, the Norwester, recently published a letter from me about the busway. I'll quote from that letter here, to summarise my view on the busway decision.
Firstly, some comments on what is perhaps the pivotal event in this whole debate:
Finally, I wrote these concluding remarks on the busway issue:
Firstly, some comments on what is perhaps the pivotal event in this whole debate:
In parliament on September 14: Mr Dunne quoted a cost of $115m for the busway and $5m for rail. In response the Minister of Finance said Labour would not support the busway. Dr Cullen went on say, "If we did receive a proposal with that sort of cost, I doubt very much that we would want to give it very serious consideration at all" – implying that his decision was based on Mr Dunne's costs.Even the Council’s new "base case" rail option costs 12 times the figure Mr Dunne gave in parliament! (Base case = $60 million over next 25 years).
But Mr Dunne’s rail cost was false. It included widening the tunnels but not buying any trains!
Regrettably, when Kerry Prendergast and Ian Buchanan asked for written confirmation of Dr Cullen’s view, he restated it without giving any evidence that he had first sought out unbiased costings.As I've noted previously, most of his reply (pdf) consists of an attachment written by ONTRACK.
Finally, I wrote these concluding remarks on the busway issue:
I support the busway because it offers more benefits to more people than rail. I’ll never convince the skeptics, but I would have liked to convince the general public in the Northern Suburbs. Local residents stood to gain a lot from the busway. Unfortunately, rhetoric has drowned out the facts (and I’ll accept my share of the blame for that) so let me conclude by quoting the November 10 report from the Regional Council’s Passenger Transport subcommittee:
"In addition to the [main technical] report, WCC commissioned a report from Derek Kemp, an urban design specialist, [on] public transport choice, public transport use, public transport operational efficiency and urban densities, land use planning, urban design and urban form. It found that the busway scenario was clearly superior in terms of the 'qualitative' benefits considered in the report."
In other words, a lot of good would have come from the busway. It's a shame local residents never heard the details, since they never received comprehensive unbiased information [e.g. a detailed mailout from the council to every house in the area]
posted by John Rusk at 11:33 am
About Me
Previous Posts
- Double Disapointment
- Bus Only?
- Tracks, Lies and Audiotape
- Johnsonville Busway Meeting
- 12 Reasons to Say "Yes" to the Busway
- Today's Paper
- Environmental Aspects
- Off-Peak Operation
- Michael Cullen's View
- About Me
Subscribe
- Site Feed
- No RSS sorry, just Atom format
2 Comments:
Pro-rail supporters will have celebrated (or is that sighed in relief) at the halting of the North Wellington Public Transport Study (NWPTS) and subsequent decision by the GWRC to proceed with the purchasing of new EMUs including 14 new EMUs for the Johnsonville Passenger Rail Line. While Rail is Saved by a "Base Case" option recommended to the GWRC in the NWPTS Stage 3 Technical Evaluation Report
(753 KB PDF)), it is important to reflect on the reasons why this decision was made.
Firstly, lets all realise this decision is not based on completing the proper analysis and consultation process that was the North Wellington Public Transport Study. Up to this point the preeminent role of bus public transport in North Wellington has come through at every stage of the study:
* In the NWPTS - Stage 1, "Issues" Phase, the public rated Bus Public Transport Reliability as the biggest single issue for North Wellington.
* In the NWPTS - Stage 2 Consultation, more people signed their support for the Busway than all the other scenarios combined. It was also the overwhelming preference for the future population growth areas of Churton Park, Newlands and Grenada Village.
The study then entered Stage 3 which was to select the preferred option from the 4 scenarios through independent modeling using the Wellington Strategic Transport Model. Up to that point (to the surprise of many) the study was confirming many of the points made in this Blog and was "on track" to choose the guided busway as the preferred option. Looking back, it should have been no surprise that the rail supporters like Wellurban , The Greens and even ONTRACK would not want Stage 3 to be completed as previous stages (and public feedback) were not leading to retaining the rail line.
Defeat for the North Wellington bus commuter come in the form of a cynical political move when Peter Dunne (avid rail supporter, local MP and leader of the key government support party United Future) and the Government (ONTRACK) intervened to stop the study "in it’s tracks". After the government (LTNZ) requiring the study to take place (and after spending $400,000 of ratepayer money), at the prompting of Peter Dunne, the Dr Cullen (based on ONTRACK advice) then halted the study by flagging it would not permit the closure of the Johnsonville Rail Line . . . a key requirement of the leading Busway Scenario. This is another case of "behind-the-scenes" raw parliamentary power defeating a proper public democratic process.
This action also shows even rail supporters had no faith that the supposed benefits they asserted for Johnsonville Rail would show through to be enough to counter it’s high cost and limited catchment. This is also an(other) example of this government’s willingness to disregard the principle of democracy and the need to support proper process to ensure they get the outcome the politicians want.
SIDEBAR: Peter Dunne’s intervention to derail the NWPTS is in stark contrast with a speech he gave about leadership that included the following:
So, what are the values that I believe effective leaders ought to be promoting in today's environment?
The first has to be that of integrity - a recognition that all interactions have to be characterised by openness, a clear acceptance of accountability, and a commitment to always work towards agreement, rather than confrontation and division.
If leaders cannot demonstrate those characteristics in their own behavior, what chance is there of influencing others of the need to act in a similar way?
The second principle our leaders should embrace is that of an absolute commitment to liberty and justice.
That means upholding the law of the land at all times and acting in a way consistent with it.
All I can say is it is profoundly sad to see Peter Dunne’s bold words soiled by his own cynical actions in halting this study . . . what a hypocrite !
END SIDEBAR
In short, the study was not halted because rail was shown it would provide North Wellington with the best public transport service through an open, and rational process, but only because rail had political support at the highest level. Peter Dunne is likely to get away with this because bus commuters act like third class citizens . . . they should only expect to be treated as such. This was not a transport decision, it was a cynical political decision that supported the interests of an entrenched minority over the wider interests of the majority of North Wellington.
To follow up on my previous comment, I think it is also worth noting a few of things about the North Wellington Public Transport Study’s (NWPTS) Stage 3 Technical Evaluation Report
(753 KB PDF)) that contains the recommendation to proceed with the "Base Case" of the current rail service.
Firstly, even the Base Case recommended by the Stage 3 Report shows that buses will still carry most public transport commuters and even predicts that passenger rail usage will remain static while bus usage continues to grow. The Report’s modeling results in Table 5-1 shows proportion of rail commuters in the Base Case continue falling from 35% to only 28% (i.e. by 2016 less than 2 in 7 public transport commuters will train to work !)
Even worse, this public transport study has recommended the option that will deliver least public transport. The Report’s modeling results in Table 5-1 show the Base Case AM Peak only carrying 3,610 commuters: 2,586 by bus and 1,024 by train (rail is less than now !) with PT % share barely shifting. Every other Scenario does better with the Bus-on-Street (i.e. no rail, no busway) predicted to carry 3,841 every morning (despite it’s supposed unpopularity).
In fact all the modeling results in the Stage 3 Report have been skewed by the assumption in the model that all $4 Billion of roading projects in the draft RLTS will be completed by 2016. Of course, if this occurs, then congestion from North Wellington will have fallen dramatically (Hooray !). The Busway Scenario only makes sense if, as was predicted in the Stage 2 Report, the congestion in Ngauranga gets worse into the future.
But does anyone really believe this huge roading expansion program (that includes 8 laning the Urban Motorway; Grenada to Petone Bypass, Terrace Tunnel upgraded and the extra lane from Hutt to Ngauranga implemented) will be funded and completed in the next 10 years ?
The record of the road builders is not that good which will mean the future for 5 out of 7 North Wellington commuters will be the same as where they are today . . . stuck on a bus in Nauranga Gorge congestion.
You do have to laugh at the irony of that the assumed expansion of the road capacity is the main reason why the rail Base Case comes ahead of the busway . . . something I am not sure rail supporters will have realised (or would support :) . The Base Case description even notes the value the current bus service will give residents to ensure those who are not well serviced by rail can still get to where they need to go !
One final observation is to note how the Stage 3 Report compares the Base Case to the Enhanced Rail Scenario:
The difference between the base case and the enhanced rail scenario is that the base case provides a less frequent train timetable (same as the existing), no improvement to bus services (the same as existing) and does not allow for any significant improvements to the stations.
It is remarkable then that just adding one train per hour, some bus improvements and some station upgrades turns the Base Case cost of $128M into ER1 cost of $182M ?! Even though it carries more commuters than the Base Case, the report gives the enhanced rail (ER1) Scenario a relative Benefit to Cost Ratio of only a 0.17. Does this sound right to you ?
This is probably all over bar the shouting. I only hope that a last few shouts are made to ensure the public (especially the residents of Churton Park, Newlands and Grenada Village) get to understand why they will keep getting a third class public transport service while their ratepayer dollars are to be spent on putting Khandallah and Ngaio rail passengers into first class (at $80,000/person it must be first class) carriages.
<< Home