Whoever wrote the editorial ("Back off on the buses") in Monday's Herald is almost certainly not a user of Auckland region public transport. If they do use it, they must be among the lucky few who enjoy the door-to-door services randomly possible from any single provider, but most definitely not two.The long walks - in any weather - from your starting point to the bus stop, then between carriers, and then again to your final destination can easily amount to 2 kms all up and that's only ONE way. The lack of integrated ticketing. The lack of integration between trains and buses because the latter see themselves as competing with rail. The lack of any weekend services or off-peak services across huge parts of the city, make it even worse.
This is not what any sane person describes as a good service. It isn't even an adequate service for huge parts of the Auckland region. Cities like Toronto and Vancouver (Van is comparable to Auckland in size) have excellent public transport and they do not operate a disparate set of fragmented, privately-owned systems.
Can anyone provide me with an example of a region-wide, integrated publc transport system in a large city that can be described as excellent? To be fair, it must also lack any real central authority or effective oversight. The only excellent systems I have ever used have ALL been operated by a single public provider. I've used public transport in a lot of cities and Auckland has a long way to go before it can be described as excellent.
It seems the the Herald obtusely clings to market theory now LONG proven to be nonsense in public transport reality. Markets definitely work well for some things, but it is increasingly obvious that infrastructure of almost any sort isn't one of them.
ARTA (Auckland Regional Transport Authority) was set up by the "Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004". It's about to be given the powers an equivalent organisation SHOULD have had right from when the public transport system was privatised (which shouldn't have happened anyway) by the National Party and it's local proxies.
Public transport is like the circulatory system in a human body. You need a heart to drive the "blood" around and an integrated set of paths to and from, servicing all areas. You can't leave every organ to fend for itself and the blood to decide which organ it will use.....if there happens to be one nearby. It's absolute raving nonsense to think it would work well and it hasn't.
That the Herald STILL can't see how poor and dysfunctional this system is says a a great deal about their (in)ability to perceive things as they are. Bearing that perceptual impairment in mind, the Herald's views on a whole range of topcs cannot be credible where the market theory they hold to conflicts with the reality of dismal failure in actual practice.
Its looks like if there is a big advertiser with a vested interest to defend, the Herald will defend it.
Not clever in the long run. Especially for a monopoly. Distrust will one day see them lose that monopoly.
A fully integrated system, with one ticket covers all is the ideal system. Large cities are able to offer much higher levels of regular service, and Melbourne is another prime example. My family has always relied on public transport when overseas, although hiring rentals cars for weekend jaunts. They have not owned cars when living and working in Auckland. The savings are immense.
ReplyDeleteNew Zealand's problem is that even Auckland is a small city by world standards, and one of the most spread out with low density housing. Our climate, natural attractions and outdoors opportunities make it attractive to own personal transport. This also makes it attractive to live a long way away from where we work.
Our public transport gets "token" local authority support (in a patronising way as against investmentwise). Apart from being unable to agree across a number of councils, they are comfortable with taxpayer support regardless of merit. The busway lanes on the north shore are a ludicrous waste of resource. Those lanes would need to convey full busloads of passengers every minute to carry the same number of people as a single carriageway for cars. Even at peak times, I have seldom seen any buses using the bus only carriageway since it opened. The park-and-ride stations are scarcely large enough to cater from any meaningful use of the service.
No parking at all on arterial routes, and recessed bus stops would greatly assist free flow traffic. Buses spend too much time stopped while the driver issues tickets. Automated ticket recognition would speed up the process with cost savings to the providers from more efficient services.
Attacking the Herald and National does not enhance your argument however.
anon: I've seen excellent public transport system and I know what makes them excellent. The lack of central control over the region's public transport is the real problem. Vancouver is about the same size as Auckland and has a much better public transport system.
ReplyDeleteThe Herald - and National - deserve criticism for blindly clinging to the myth that the market will provide.
It clearly hasn't, doesn't and won't.
My "case" is based, in part, on the very blindness to the reality of what makes excellent public transport excellent.
Faith in markets no substitute for the hard work of nailing down essential details like ticketing, integrating carriers and transport modes and providing sufficient frequency of service everywhere to make it a viable way to move around.
Markets don't deliver these things. No where have they done so...and they won't do it in Auckland, either.
People who think it will are misguided and deserve criticism for ignoring verifiable reality.
Copenhagen: http://www.copenhagenet.dk/CPH-Transport.htm
ReplyDeleteAnon: Copenhagen isn't a good example. Costs have been going up and ridership down since privatisation. Ticket prices have risen steadily and are now considered to be expensive.
ReplyDelete"On the other hand, the city of Copenhagen, presented to us by the proponents of privatisation as an example to be followed, is doing badly. Greater Copenhagen is of a somewhat similar order of size as Greater Dublin (Copenhagen is more than three times the area and has almost twice the population).
The state transport company (HT) was privatised between 1992 and 1997 through the introduction of competitive tendering. The Greater Copenhagen Authority (HUR) now manages the network and contracts out services to private operators.
When tendering was introduced the cost of operating the buses dropped. But costs have risen again in real terms every year since 1997, passenger numbers have fallen, and HUR is powerless to stop the three transnational companies, which now control practically all of the market, from pushing up costs to a level higher than they were before privatisation.11"
http://www.tssa.ie/ppti/section3.htm
...and Wikipedia tell the same story....
"Ticket prices are high and have increased substantially in recent years leading to a decrease in passenger numbers. In fact, the percentage of trips made on public transportation in Copenhagen is quite low by northern European standards."