Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
aerokiwi wrote:NZ6 wrote:DavidByrne wrote:Actually
1. There isn't any doubt any more as to which way to go. The decision to go light rail was taken around two years ago more or less, and the current government has said it will commit funding to light rail without even mentioning the heavy rail alternative. Because it no longer is an alternative. The ongoing sniping about the issue is generated by those who fundamentally disagree with the decision, but it's a waste of breath because there is no doubt whatsoever how this will play out. Time for people to accept that their favoured option hasn't been adopted, and to look for the positives that will arrive when the light rail reaches the airport.
2. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Why would a future QF decision to go for (say) the 777-8 result in a re-examination of an NZ decision to go for (say) the A359? In MEL's case, they did their homework and came to a decision based on the local circumstances. In AKL's case, the homework was also done, but with a different outcome for different local circumstances.
I liken this discussion to the discussion about NZ and its "multiple botch-ups". Behind the decision on light rail there is a wealth of analysis based on multiple and often independent factors that most of us are completely ignorant of, and which indicate that overall (for the network, not just the airport) light rail is the way to go. It's easy for the armchair critics to pronounce that the decision is "wrong", based on a simplistic back-of the envelope analysis - or even based on personal instincts and prejudices. But thankfully, decisions on transport infrastructure are based on more rigorous analysis than this.
[Edit] Excepting, of course, the previous government's decisions on RONS, which were solely politically driven and didn't need analysis.
Yeah I'll give you that regarding point 1. Still, until soil is turned and tracks laid I don't have any confidence that this will happen.
Regarding point 2, I'm not saying we must follow MEL's direction, I'm just saying we must understand the circumstances around how they came this conclusion and consider if any of that applies to our situation, there are some similarities (largely end of line airport, 24km from CBD etc etc) but there are also many vast differences so it's not a clone of MEL.
Looking at it another way, given the extensive use of trams in MEL and to $10B cost for build heavy rail, why has this option been taken. Imagine, for example its due to the slower journey time and boarding time etc of trams therefore MEL is able to move 4x as many passengers via heavy rail and trams reaching capacity at x point. I'm not saying this fact it's hypothetical however if true is this an issue for AKL?
My understanding was that government had only agreed to fund "Stage 1" - the Dominion Road component, leaving "Stage 2" (the airport) to a later date. If so, then a classic government manoeuvre to kick the can, while satisfyng the inner-city types who have some gilded view of trams.
I completely agree with Councillor Lee on this one. I live with trams every day here in Melbourne. Great for short hops - atrocious for longer ones. They're inflexible (unlike buses), very very expensive to introduce and maintain, slow, have far lower seating capacity than you'd think and require full grade separation from road traffic to be even remotely effective (in which case, just re-do the Northern Busway in the south).
There's even a tram here that gets within cooee of the Airport (the 59 - its destination is 'Airport West'), but no one has talked about extending that since forever because the severe limitations are recognised, not least of which being the intermingling of commuters and airport passengers in very very space-confined vehicles.
For once I hope Auckland invests in the longer term and goes for heavy rail for Auckland Airport, using elevated tracks if necessary to reduce cost (tunneling is insanely expensive).
mariner wrote:I've read the Herald - why do they still call them Dreamliners?
mariner
aerokiwi wrote:My understanding was that government had only agreed to fund "Stage 1" - the Dominion Road component, leaving "Stage 2" (the airport) to a later date. If so, then a classic government manoeuvre to kick the can, while satisfyng the inner-city types who have some gilded view of trams.
aerokiwi wrote:I completely agree with Councillor Lee on this one. I live with trams every day here in Melbourne. Great for short hops - atrocious for longer ones. They're inflexible (unlike buses), very very expensive to introduce and maintain, slow, have far lower seating capacity than you'd think and require full grade separation from road traffic to be even remotely effective (in which case, just re-do the Northern Busway in the south).
aerokiwi wrote:There's even a tram here that gets within cooee of the Airport (the 59 - its destination is 'Airport West'), but no one has talked about extending that since forever because the severe limitations are recognised, not least of which being the intermingling of commuters and airport passengers in very very space-confined vehicles.
For once I hope Auckland invests in the longer term and goes for heavy rail for Auckland Airport, using elevated tracks if necessary to reduce cost (tunneling is insanely expensive).
aerorobnz wrote:zkojq wrote:What's the point of the 4-hour check-in restriction?
Because all passengers are being questioned by security staff in a secured part of check-in. They are only there for the 4 hours ahead.
zkojq wrote:Zkpilot wrote:With NZ getting A321's and able to match aircraft capacity to flights quite easily VA is going to find it very tough on the Tasman especially with QF stepping up it's game also.zkncj wrote:Does anyone know how much of Air Berlin's fleet is remaining to find an new home? Could NZ pickup a couple of short-term leases on A320s from AB previous fleet.
There always the option that HiFly will be back next Christmas.....
I certainly get the impression that the airline intends to keep five or so International A320s (say ZK-OJA through OJE) for longer than intended inorder to open up additional frequencies/destinations and make up for the VA capacity.
planemanofnz wrote:VA will fire back against NZ's decision to dump it, by boosting capacity to New Zealand, including:
- SYD - WLG (5x weekly)
- MEL - ZQN (4x weekly)
However, there will be capacity reductions on MEL - CHC and BNE - WLG, which is disappointing.
VA's launch of SYD - WLG comes after SQ's launch of MEL - WLG - will NZ feel the heat at WLG?
See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=12033594.
Cheers,
C.
planemanofnz wrote:VA will fire back against NZ's decision to dump it, by boosting capacity to New Zealand, including:
- SYD - WLG (5x weekly)
- MEL - ZQN (4x weekly)
However, there will be capacity reductions on MEL - CHC and BNE - WLG, which is disappointing.
VA's launch of SYD - WLG comes after SQ's launch of MEL - WLG - will NZ feel the heat at WLG?
See: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=12033594.
Cheers,
C.
777ER wrote:Be good to see more business class competition for Qantas for WLG. BNE is still pretty much 2x daily with NZ announcing 5x weekly WLG-BNE, unless some days have both carriers operating.
NPL8800 wrote:I try not to get too involved with the HR/LR to airport debate as it tends to end up going round in circles very quickly and can digress away from aviation so i'll try and be brief, but I having spent a fair bit of time on google maps as well as reading numerous for and against arguments and accompanying documents on the topic, and looking at the area the HR would likely follow from Puhinui I really don't understand why it is deemed to be such an "easy" option.
I feel like people may be getting blinded by the middle green space and neglecting the fact that the other two thirds of the route are in highly dense, fully developed areas. At the Puhinui end a complex flyover/trench would be needed to traverse the SW motorway as well as costly land acquisition and the potential to have to bulldoze extensive amounts of high quality industrial land in the process to fit in a rail corridor to the airport.
At the airport end a bridge across the river is the least of the concerns. There is no easy place for an elevated or trenched rail corridor to go as it is a solid line of likely long term tenants including Gate Gourmet, LSG, Air NZ maintenance, freight forwarders and many others, and that is assuming the route went via Laurence Stevens Dr. Going via Tom Pearce Dr isn't any cleaner whether above or below.
I am not saying these issues are not insurmountable and yes no doubt some will say this is an overly simplistic observation, but it provides an alternative to the narrative that has been often pumped out with little explanation. I would suggest it may not be wise to be calling the Puhunui route easy or straightforward because quite frankly it looks anything but.
bevan7 wrote:aerorobnz wrote:zkojq wrote:What's the point of the 4-hour check-in restriction?
Because all passengers are being questioned by security staff in a secured part of check-in. They are only there for the 4 hours ahead.
What airport will this be at? What happens to connecting passengers if they transfer airside?
planemanofnz wrote:So neat to see Sounds Air's high-quality marketing now on YouTube - see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAg1VrW80ks.
Deepinsider wrote:
Separately, ZK-NZE teased recently by appearing near the Int Terminal (with engines attached!) Since then it got
removed from planned domestic/Perth flights. Hmmm....
Deepinsider wrote:bevan7 wrote:aerorobnz wrote:
Because all passengers are being questioned by security staff in a secured part of check-in. They are only there for the 4 hours ahead.
What airport will this be at? What happens to connecting passengers if they transfer airside?
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:The one thing that hasn't been pointed out in this episode of heavy rail vs light rail is that the costs are not just extending the line to the airport.
To get a reasonable frequency you will need to double track the whole line. Which is currently single track. And you will then need to triple or quadruple track the North Island Main Trunk through to Britomart. And, most importantly, you will have to find space in Britomart which is currently full. Even with the opening of the CRL, Britomart will still be platform constrained as the extra capacity the CRL provides will be eaten up instantly by largely existing suburban use increases.
Personally I agree with the viewpoint of the Greater Auckland group. Heavy rail would be ideal, light rail is acceptable. But dammit, just build one of them already. Either is hugely better than the current state of things.
ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:The one thing that hasn't been pointed out in this episode of heavy rail vs light rail is that the costs are not just extending the line to the airport.
To get a reasonable frequency you will need to double track the whole line. Which is currently single track. And you will then need to triple or quadruple track the North Island Main Trunk through to Britomart. And, most importantly, you will have to find space in Britomart which is currently full. Even with the opening of the CRL, Britomart will still be platform constrained as the extra capacity the CRL provides will be eaten up instantly by largely existing suburban use increases.
Personally I agree with the viewpoint of the Greater Auckland group. Heavy rail would be ideal, light rail is acceptable. But dammit, just build one of them already. Either is hugely better than the current state of things.
NPL8800 wrote:I try not to get too involved with the HR/LR to airport debate as it tends to end up going round in circles very quickly and can digress away from aviation so i'll try and be brief, but I having spent a fair bit of time on google maps as well as reading numerous for and against arguments and accompanying documents on the topic, and looking at the area the HR would likely follow from Puhinui I really don't understand why it is deemed to be such an "easy" option.
I feel like people may be getting blinded by the middle green space and neglecting the fact that the other two thirds of the route are in highly dense, fully developed areas. At the Puhinui end a complex flyover/trench would be needed to traverse the SW motorway as well as costly land acquisition and the potential to have to bulldoze extensive amounts of high quality industrial land in the process to fit in a rail corridor to the airport.
At the airport end a bridge across the river is the least of the concerns. There is no easy place for an elevated or trenched rail corridor to go as it is a solid line of likely long term tenants including Gate Gourmet, LSG, Air NZ maintenance, freight forwarders and many others, and that is assuming the route went via Laurence Stevens Dr. Going via Tom Pearce Dr isn't any cleaner whether above or below.
I am not saying these issues are not insurmountable and yes no doubt some will say this is an overly simplistic observation, but it provides an alternative to the narrative that has been often pumped out with little explanation. I would suggest it may not be wise to be calling the Puhunui route easy or straightforward because quite frankly it looks anything but.
Kiwirob wrote:ZaphodHarkonnen wrote:The one thing that hasn't been pointed out in this episode of heavy rail vs light rail is that the costs are not just extending the line to the airport.
To get a reasonable frequency you will need to double track the whole line. Which is currently single track. And you will then need to triple or quadruple track the North Island Main Trunk through to Britomart. And, most importantly, you will have to find space in Britomart which is currently full. Even with the opening of the CRL, Britomart will still be platform constrained as the extra capacity the CRL provides will be eaten up instantly by largely existing suburban use increases.
Personally I agree with the viewpoint of the Greater Auckland group. Heavy rail would be ideal, light rail is acceptable. But dammit, just build one of them already. Either is hugely better than the current state of things.
There are already plans in place to increase the main trunk capacity in Auckland. The whole purpose of the CRL is to double the capacity of Britimart. I don't see the point in spending large on CRL, new trains and all the rest unless we are going to expand the heavy rail network. If AT also build the Mt Roskill Spur off the WQestern Line that will go a long way to relieving congestion along Sandringham Dominion Roads, it's also cheap, less than $100m.
If the Govt finally builds the Avondale Southdown line that would then enable rail transport from the West to link to Onehunga and on to the airport.
This govt is going to go belly up by the end of this year anyway, the next govt will have plenty of opportunity to reverse the decision and build the future, not for the present.
Besides the longer it takes to do anything the better the business cased is for heavy rail. At the moment they're taking 2025 as the kick off for the Dominion Rd light rail system, continuing on to the airport will be sometime in the 2030's, by the time the capacity required will be that much higher making the decision to change to heavy rail via Onehunga a better proposition.
Kashmon wrote:Kiwirob wrote:There are already plans in place to increase the main trunk capacity in Auckland. The whole purpose of the CRL is to double the capacity of Britimart. I don't see the point in spending large on CRL, new trains and all the rest unless we are going to expand the heavy rail network. If AT also build the Mt Roskill Spur off the WQestern Line that will go a long way to relieving congestion along Sandringham Dominion Roads, it's also cheap, less than $100m.
If the Govt finally builds the Avondale Southdown line that would then enable rail transport from the West to link to Onehunga and on to the airport.
why do most Kiwi's not understand this!
explained so well....
DavidByrne wrote:Kashmon wrote:Kiwirob wrote:There are already plans in place to increase the main trunk capacity in Auckland. The whole purpose of the CRL is to double the capacity of Britimart. I don't see the point in spending large on CRL, new trains and all the rest unless we are going to expand the heavy rail network. If AT also build the Mt Roskill Spur off the WQestern Line that will go a long way to relieving congestion along Sandringham Dominion Roads, it's also cheap, less than $100m.
If the Govt finally builds the Avondale Southdown line that would then enable rail transport from the West to link to Onehunga and on to the airport.
why do most Kiwi's not understand this!
explained so well....
Getting a little off-topic with the Airport rail connection now, but I seriously suggest that posters might read the consultants' report at https://at.govt.nz/media/1927342/draft- ... s-case.pdf, and there'd be a much better appreciation of the sort of factors that have to be considered in any connection along any alignment. Factors like catchment, network implications, terminal capacity and operating patterns and efficiencies are all critical - just as they are with airlines. It's not just a matter of joining two dots on the map.
NZ6 wrote:
1: VA Shareholding:
Hindsight is such a powerful tool, let's not forget you have this and the NZ Exco team & Board did not. NZ wanted to reenter the Australian aviation market and to support many of their long term growth aspirations. South America, deepening routes into USA etc. It also also allowed them to coordinated their Tasman operations strengthening this market and making NZ more attractive to the AU corporate base by offering lounge, loyalty and other benefits when in an alliance.
VA also had a strategy to moving from a LCC brand into a more full service brand.
At this time the shareholding looked like a sound decision as VA were coming off a long continued period to strong performance, also not forgetting a QF alliance was rejected several years earlier and no one wanted a repeat of Ansett.
Throughout the duration of the alliance NZ has preformed exceptionally well financially, they've changed their entire international fleet and/or in-flight product. 767, 744's gone A320's replaced and 777's refurbed etc.
VA on the other hand hasn't lived up to expectation and Luxon has been putting heat on VA performance however with no immediate benefit or turn around in sight NZ has considered a new approach going forward.
Criticize NZ all you like, however I question anyone who believes they knew better at the time of where VA would be positioned in the market now vs where they were at the time.
bevan7 wrote:aerorobnz wrote:zkojq wrote:What's the point of the 4-hour check-in restriction?
Because all passengers are being questioned by security staff in a secured part of check-in. They are only there for the 4 hours ahead.
What airport will this be at? What happens to connecting passengers if they transfer airside?
DavidByrne wrote:Kashmon wrote:Kiwirob wrote:There are already plans in place to increase the main trunk capacity in Auckland. The whole purpose of the CRL is to double the capacity of Britimart. I don't see the point in spending large on CRL, new trains and all the rest unless we are going to expand the heavy rail network. If AT also build the Mt Roskill Spur off the WQestern Line that will go a long way to relieving congestion along Sandringham Dominion Roads, it's also cheap, less than $100m.
If the Govt finally builds the Avondale Southdown line that would then enable rail transport from the West to link to Onehunga and on to the airport.
why do most Kiwi's not understand this!
explained so well....
Getting a little off-topic with the Airport rail connection now, but I seriously suggest that posters might read the consultants' report at https://at.govt.nz/media/1927342/draft- ... s-case.pdf, and there'd be a much better appreciation of the sort of factors that have to be considered in any connection along any alignment. Factors like catchment, network implications, terminal capacity and operating patterns and efficiencies are all critical - just as they are with airlines. It's not just a matter of joining two dots on the map.
Kiwirob wrote:It’s written on the side of a lot of 787’s.
Kiwirob wrote:I see some flaws in the report and it's mainly due to catchment, there's no reason why there couldn't be a HR station between Mangere Town Centre and the Airport Business District, at Ascot like the LR proposal has, this reduces the HR catchment area. If/when the Avondal Southdown line is built that adds significantly more catchment area from West Auckland, which is one of the main locations earmarked for intensification in Auckland. This line would add signficiant capacity to the HR network without having to go through Britomart and the CRL. It would also reduce the need to choke one of Auckland busiest roads with a LR line down the middle of it.
Kashmon wrote:AT might not realize this but other cities have had far more complications and built heavy rail where needed...
this is the same AT that hires staff to open their train doors, when the rest of the world has automatic door opening....
hard to take them seriously when doing things the most INEFFICIENT WAY possible is their goal.
DavidByrne wrote:
I do find it amusing that on a quick read by an A-netter the "flaws" in the Airport Rail report are so obvious. I don't know why anyone ever hires consultants! Just sayin . . .
planemanofnz wrote:getluv wrote:planemanofnz wrote:
There's still a point, albeit not as much of a point - but more AA to AKL may hurt NZ, which would in-directly benefit the QF Group.
UA expanding flights to Australia does more hurt to NZ than a AA daily 788 service between AKL-LAX ever could.
So? More - maybe, but it's not a zero-sum equation - AA at AKL without a doubt also has some negative effect on NZ's North American operations, even if only to LAX.
Is it in QF's interests for AA to continue to fly to AKL, even at the expense of QF losing some New Zealand - North America traffic on its own metal via SYD? Definitely.
NZ6 wrote:getluv wrote:NZ6 wrote:
Really, even though both carriers have done it before standalone? Even though they're both One World Carriers so already in an alliance or sorts?
Sure - alliances are the way forward but given NZ has a monopoly on such "lucrative" route I'm surprised and disappointed neither carrier has done more.
I don't think its that 'lucrative' if NZ is the cheapest option for Australian based pax.
Both of them being in oneworld without having a JV would mean they're nothing more than just good friends. Legally they have to compete against each other.zkncj wrote:It’s really an YES/NO answer, even though the JV only covers NZ/US flights, the two would of been fully aware of each other’s plan, and it helps the two them claim more market share of the Pacific.
It would actually be against Australian and USA competition laws if NZ knew about UA's plans and no other airline did for SYD-IAH. That's anti-competitive behaviour.
From the original post, a comment was made about profits and questioning if they were sustainable now NZ had lost the monopoly. From this you take it that the poster is implying the routes are 'lucrative'. NZ is cleaver in how they attract price sensitive customers ex Australia to support their NZ-US operations, they do this by pricing themselves in the market for non direct AU-US without lowing their NZ-US booking classes.
QF could do the exact same thing, QF have a added advantage of creating a circle trip on their own mental for people wanting to visit all 3 countries for either business or leisure, no other carrier can do this. It's also support by AA internally. For example
SYD-LAX
LAX-AKL
AKL-SYD
You could also do
NYC-LAX
LAX-AKL
AKL-MEL
ADL-SYD
SYD-DFW
With the final leg back to NYC on AA.
NZ, AA, UA, DL can't compete as aggressively like QF can, don't forget JQ domestic also offers domestic NZ options.
One World and your usual agreements mean AA and QF can code-share AKL-LAX and sell on each others metal. You can buy AKL-LAX now operated by AA on the QF website.
DavidByrne wrote:Kashmon wrote:AT might not realize this but other cities have had far more complications and built heavy rail where needed...
this is the same AT that hires staff to open their train doors, when the rest of the world has automatic door opening....
hard to take them seriously when doing things the most INEFFICIENT WAY possible is their goal.
I guess the point at issue is who decides that HR is "needed" - and who would fund the expensive and extremely low B/C Airport HR option? Not a lot of enthusiasm for spending money anywhere.
And I guess you're also not up to speed with the fact that there has been industrial disruption over AT's plans to have driver-only trains. If that's your best shot against AT, then I think they're doing pretty well.
Lots of preconceived ideas and not a lot of critical thinking in this debate . . .
getluv wrote:planemanofnz wrote:getluv wrote:
.
You will find that when QF/AA first lodged their application for a JV that was a selling point, to create triangle itineraries between the 3 countries. However, QF and AA do not have a JV in place, unless QF wants a small commission there's no incentive for QF to direct pax via AKL on AA flights until QF have filled every seat on their own aircraft.
I would say the AU-NZ-USA route was way more lucrative when it was just QF, UA and NZ competing. NZ's only selling point to AU based passengers is price. Therefore NZ is not cleverer, it has to charge less than virtually everyone else because it is a one stop option. While I commend NZ for creating brand awareness in Australia, I ultimately believe it was a futile exercise they are only attracting price sensitive customers to the Americas.
PA515 wrote:This would be the first trip to IAH by a Code 1 789.
Zkpilot wrote:getluv wrote:planemanofnz wrote:
You will find that when QF/AA first lodged their application for a JV that was a selling point, to create triangle itineraries between the 3 countries. However, QF and AA do not have a JV in place, unless QF wants a small commission there's no incentive for QF to direct pax via AKL on AA flights until QF have filled every seat on their own aircraft.
I would say the AU-NZ-USA route was way more lucrative when it was just QF, UA and NZ competing. NZ's only selling point to AU based passengers is price. Therefore NZ is not cleverer, it has to charge less than virtually everyone else because it is a one stop option. While I commend NZ for creating brand awareness in Australia, I ultimately believe it was a futile exercise they are only attracting price sensitive customers to the Americas.
Except that NZ has diversified and now offers more destinations in North America than QF on a permanent basis (YVR,LAX,SFO,IAH,ORD,HNL - QF barely does YVR, doesn't do ORD and substitute DFW for IAH).
From most places in Australia besides SYD, NZ actually offers a better connection option than QF/DL/UA/AC does since it is an international to international transfer (that is very easy). It also helps to break up the journey slightly (2 hours extra in a plane can make a big difference). You are correct that it is mostly the more price-conscious traveller that is booking NZ but not entirely and NZ has better service than all of those airlines bar QF where they are on a par with each other generally.
Zkpilot wrote:Probably because consultants (especially when it comes to government/council work) have a habit of skewing results to suit whoever has tapped them on the shoulder and/or flip flopping to allow them to keep on consulting....planning to plan etc.
Zkpilot wrote:getluv wrote:planemanofnz wrote:
You will find that when QF/AA first lodged their application for a JV that was a selling point, to create triangle itineraries between the 3 countries. However, QF and AA do not have a JV in place, unless QF wants a small commission there's no incentive for QF to direct pax via AKL on AA flights until QF have filled every seat on their own aircraft.
I would say the AU-NZ-USA route was way more lucrative when it was just QF, UA and NZ competing. NZ's only selling point to AU based passengers is price. Therefore NZ is not cleverer, it has to charge less than virtually everyone else because it is a one stop option. While I commend NZ for creating brand awareness in Australia, I ultimately believe it was a futile exercise they are only attracting price sensitive customers to the Americas.
Except that NZ has diversified and now offers more destinations in North America than QF on a permanent basis (YVR,LAX,SFO,IAH,ORD,HNL - QF barely does YVR, doesn't do ORD and substitute DFW for IAH).
From most places in Australia besides SYD, NZ actually offers a better connection option than QF/DL/UA/AC does since it is an international to international transfer (that is very easy). It also helps to break up the journey slightly (2 hours extra in a plane can make a big difference). You are correct that it is mostly the more price-conscious traveller that is booking NZ but not entirely and NZ has better service than all of those airlines bar QF where they are on a par with each other generally.
aerohottie wrote:IMHO Air NZ's announced trans-tasman flight changes aren't nearly enough additional capacity, and I think NZ have much more to come.
Under the JV both NZ and VA stated or implied that VA contributed 30% of the capacity, but only 20% of the revenue. Air NZ's additional capacity amounts to about a 15% increase in seat numbers... shouldn't this be more like a 20-30% increase in an attempt to put capacity pressure on VA and QF?
PA515 wrote:PA515 wrote:This would be the first trip to IAH by a Code 1 789.
Apparently not. ZK-NZF did a 23 Dec 2017 AKL-IAH as NZ1390.
PA515
DavidByrne wrote:Kashmon wrote:AT might not realize this but other cities have had far more complications and built heavy rail where needed...
this is the same AT that hires staff to open their train doors, when the rest of the world has automatic door opening....
hard to take them seriously when doing things the most INEFFICIENT WAY possible is their goal.
I guess the point at issue is who decides that HR is "needed" - and who would fund the expensive and extremely low B/C Airport HR option? Not a lot of enthusiasm for spending money anywhere.
And I guess you're also not up to speed with the fact that there has been industrial disruption over AT's plans to have driver-only trains. If that's your best shot against AT, then I think they're doing pretty well.
Lots of preconceived ideas and not a lot of critical thinking in this debate . . .
DavidByrne wrote:Kiwirob wrote:I see some flaws in the report and it's mainly due to catchment, there's no reason why there couldn't be a HR station between Mangere Town Centre and the Airport Business District, at Ascot like the LR proposal has, this reduces the HR catchment area. If/when the Avondal Southdown line is built that adds significantly more catchment area from West Auckland, which is one of the main locations earmarked for intensification in Auckland. This line would add signficiant capacity to the HR network without having to go through Britomart and the CRL. It would also reduce the need to choke one of Auckland busiest roads with a LR line down the middle of it.
Sure, there could be a HR station at Ascot, but if people are worried about the speed penalty that LR has compared with HR, then the best way to reverse that is to increase the number of HR stations. The addition of an Ascot station probably brings the HR journey time up to pretty much equal to the LR option, negating most of the argument people have advanced in favour of HR. Not that, in reality, the gain of about 2 minutes in a 40-minute journey is going to be the critical factor in determining patronage.
Increasing the catchment area by building the Avondale-Southdown link would definitely work - but that's way, way off the current agenda. But it's never going to be a replacement for Dominion Road LR, which was under consideration well before the idea of extending the line to the Airport was mooted. "Choking" Dominion Road with a LR down the middle: I think there's a misunderstanding here. The aim of LR is to move more people (not cars) more quickly within a given corridor. The expectation is that if you get people out of their cars there is less car demand and the remaining traffic flows more freely. Classic example: the Northern Busway has confounded the sceptic and now carries around 50% of the people across the harbour bridge at peak times in a fraction of the road space that the other 50% use. And guess what? Vehicular traffic on the harbour bridge has declined slowly/stabilised to the point where a second (third, actually) harbour crossing is no longer being seriously considered within the next couple of decades.
I do find it amusing that on a quick read by an A-netter the "flaws" in the Airport Rail report are so obvious. I don't know why anyone ever hires consultants! Just sayin . . .
DavidByrne wrote:Zkpilot wrote:Probably because consultants (especially when it comes to government/council work) have a habit of skewing results to suit whoever has tapped them on the shoulder and/or flip flopping to allow them to keep on consulting....planning to plan etc.
That's a really cheap shot at the consultants - there's no proof or even suggestion that they have deliberately skewed the outcome. Unworthy.
Kiwirob wrote:DavidByrne wrote:Zkpilot wrote:Probably because consultants (especially when it comes to government/council work) have a habit of skewing results to suit whoever has tapped them on the shoulder and/or flip flopping to allow them to keep on consulting....planning to plan etc.
That's a really cheap shot at the consultants - there's no proof or even suggestion that they have deliberately skewed the outcome. Unworthy.
Consultants killed Auckland's trolley bus network in favour of increased spending on motorways, look at the result!! In the 60's and 70's motorway construction was seen as the answer to Auckland transport problems, all because of consultants making some pretty appaling errors, just like trams terminating at AKL, it's going to be a huge waste of rate and taxpayer money. Finish the heavy rail network then fill in the gaps with trams or rapid busways.
Kashmon wrote:HR is inefficient?
really?