The cost of choosing trains
At the same time as Wellingtonians are looking around for about for $1 billion to build the Transmission Gully motorway (including rattling the donation tin under the noses of non Wellingtonians), train fares in the region are going up by an average 10.2%. The Dominion Post reports on Porirua’s 22% train fare increase:
Rebecca Matthews and her husband catch the train to work in Wellington after dropping their toddler off at a creche.
She said the increase would make a big difference to their weekly budget. “It is disappointing when we are trying to do the right thing by catching the train - not adding to the traffic and being environmentally conscious.
“The train has been affordable and we have become reliant on it, but the increase is discouraging on top of the rising costs of bills and food and makes us question whether it is more affordable to take the car.”
Local Green candidate Michael Gilchrist has been campaigning on the affordability of trains, and indeed campaigning on trains for some time:
People should be rewarded for using public transport - reducing congestion on the motorways and reducing carbon emissions.
Meanwhile Sue Kedgley said of Transmission Gully a few weeks ago:
Not only is the Gully route an insatiable drain on public transport funds, but it will also be completed at a time when people have, out of necessity, moved beyond the private vehicle as a means of transport.
Despite the recent dip in the price of petrol, it still costs over $2 a litre. It is time for councils to recognise public transport must be the priority. Commuters are clamouring for better public transport, better cycling and walking facilities and an end to this obsession with motorways.
Good public transport gives people more freedom and choice. As petrol prices rise, cheap oil runs out and climate change looms, we can still make it easy and affordable for people to travel but it is about government and councils investing in decisions that give people choices.
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:01 am
>>moved beyond the private vehicle as a means of transport.
Won’t happen, Sue.
Suggest you decouple “the oil industry” from “cars”. Cars do not require the oil industry. In fact, it might make motoring even cheaper.
Until we invent personal flying things, we still need roads in and out of Wellington.
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:17 am
If you are stuck in traffic in your 200kg carbon fiber solar/hydrogen powered silicon tired non polluting high technology dream machine you are still stuck in traffic.
So no matter how fantastic the technology there will still need to be public transport in and out of Wellington.
peace
W
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:28 am
Maybe we should start talking about the economic benefits of public transport. Two hours in a car driving yourself to work is a pretty poor use of time if you could instead be sitting on a train, laptop out and all. Although I admit now that the capital connection has run out of seats, commuters probably aren’t getting quite so much work done sitting on the toilet or standing in the corridor. But do we see more trains/carriages being introduced? Or do the people who make these decisions prefer to pretend that it isn’t happening and wait for people to give up and go back to their cars so they don’t have to bother to do anything about it…..
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
>>there will still need to be public transport in and out of Wellington
Sure. AND we need roads.
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Yes. But we have roads. Do we need MORE roads? Do we need MORE roads MORE than we need improved public transport?
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Maybe we should talk about those who choose to take public transport paying the actual cost instead of demanding tax payer subsidies.
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Nik
All Wellingtonians will tell you that they NEED transmission gully, only a Luddite would argue against it.
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:09 pm
So we get even more cars on the roads BB, more roads, more traffic pollution, more delays, and eventually run out of places to build roads. Goodo.
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Which one of my insightful and inspiring posts are you replying to Toad?
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
big bro said:
This a classic externality. One of the main beneficiaries of public transport is drivers who drive on less congested road. But the benefits of less congestion spread far and wide. Good case for taxpayer subsidy!
big bro also said:
Those who are the first to say they need it might be the last willing to pay for it.
peace
W
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Shall we put the full cost of roads in petrol tax then, BB? Motorists are subsidised far more than those who take public transport (but I am not saying they shouldn’t be, just that the playing field should be a bit fairer)…
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Think bliss has answered for me on both counts BB.
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
>>Yes. But we have roads.
They’re not very good roads. We need better roads.
We already have public transport.
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Oh and BB - I can’t resist - you should really read Atlas Shrugged one of these days.
The libertarians’ tribute to the importance of railways… in only a thousand or so pages… you’ll love it
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
>>They’re not very good roads. We need better roads.
>>We already have public transport
It’s not very good public transport. We need better public transport.
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:33 pm
>>Those who are the first to say they need it might be the last willing to pay for it.
I’ll happily pay a toll. In fact, remove the speed limit from it, and I’ll pay even more. The road funds itself.
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:34 pm
>>It’s not very good public transport. We need better public transport.
Good. Now perhaps you’ll understand my point about needing better roads
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
BB and BP
I drive the route out of Wellington that would be replaced by Transmission Gully very, very frequently. It sucks, traffic is horrible, all of that.
The cost of putting 3 trains on per day between Wellington and Palmerston North rather than the current 1 (one!) would be miniscule compared to the cost of transmission gully. The effect? It would be pretty big. I know a hell of a lot of people who would stop driving the minute they actually had a choice.
September 2nd, 2008 at 12:41 pm
BP - I do
As I have tried to point out - I drive too… But I would like to have the option to not drive when there is no need for me to carry a car with me from a to b - which is actually a decent proportion of the time.
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
They should put on more trains.
But lets look at the need for Transmission Gully without the false dichotomy. Perhaps it IS too expensive for the benefits it provides, however my reading thus far indicates opinion is very much divided on the subject.
Stupid arguments about the “death of cars” only serve to keep people in their entrenched positions.
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:27 pm
“But do we see more trains/carriages being introduced?”
You Wellingtonians at least have the guarantee of new Matangi units by 2010/11. Up here in Auckland, it is taking forever to get an order, and the chances of us getting some electric stock to replace the ADKs and SX Set by October 2011 is shrinking by the day (especially since we are competing with QR and Transperth)
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Maybe it is a false dichotomy, BP. Except for the fact that funding for both comes from the same place…
) and a great train network (fast, not cheap, but cheaper than driving and will take you anywhere), I know unequivocally which I used more and which I miss most. I’m not saying that we need to aim quite so high - but we do need to aim somewhere…
What I can say is that having lived for some years in a country (Germany) which has both great roads (flat, straight, you can do an average speed of 160 k/hr between towns without much bother - although they put up signs telling you to slow to 130 k/hr when the surface changes microscopically
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Trains are NOT the answer.
High petrol prices are just another force towards decentralisation.
Go to: http://www.newgeography.com/content/00180-skipping-drive-fueling-telec ommuting-trend
Joel Kotkin and I have been working on the impact of broadband and telecommuting on choices and how they combine to bring home and work together again as it was before the industrial revolution.
Do a search on “Remote Office Centres” and see how entrepreneurs are already providing groups of offices within residential areas where groups can “telecommute” to remote head offices. Cities are depopulating and depopulated cities do not support rail systems.
The potential energy savings of such telecommuting - particularly in terms of vehicle miles traveled – could be enormous. Telecommuters naturally drive less, not only to work but for the numerous stops to and from work. According to the 2005/2006 National Technology Readiness Survey (NTRS), the United States could save about 1.35 billion gallons of fuel if everyone who was able to telecommute did so just 1.6 days per week. That calculation is based on a driving average of 20 miles per day, getting 21 miles per gallon.
A more recent study by Sun Microsytems, which uses telecommuting extensively, found that, by eliminating commuting half the week, an employee saves 5,400 kilowatt hours - even accounting for home office use.
That’s far better than insulating houses.
They also can save some $1,700 a year in gasoline and wear and tear.
We need highways - but broadband is the a better highway than a railway line.
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:06 pm
If you can telecommute.
Sometimes, people just need to BE places…
September 2nd, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I would be quite happy to pay the full cost of traveling by train and bus, if car drivers also had to pay the full cost of traveling by car. This must include either gaining permission from everyone affected by car noise, pollution, and risk of death and injury, or by paying them compensation for their risk and inconvenience. True buses and trains are noisy, dirty and dangerous too, but not nearly to the same extent.
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:16 pm
To complete Nik’s sentence: Maybe it is a false dichotomy, BP. Except for the fact that funding for both comes from the same place…Roads
September 2nd, 2008 at 11:20 pm
“This must include either gaining permission from everyone affected by car noise, pollution, and risk of death and injury, or by paying them compensation for their risk and inconvenience.” The elected representatives of the people granted that permission on the people’s behalf in 1898.
“True buses and trains are noisy, dirty and dangerous too, but not nearly to the same extent.” Maybe that’s only true because The People don’t use buses and trains to anything like the same extent
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:38 am
Owen if cities are depopulating - then providing new roads going to the same places that existing roads do are no more relevant than new rail lines.
Existing road links being sufficient until the broadband telecomuting age fully arrives is only possible, if public transport is sustained and bus and car pooling lanes assist in managing volume in the meantime.
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:19 am
“Maybe that’s only true because The People don’t use buses and trains to anything like the same extent”
Kevin, I was looking at an old Yearbook from the 1950s, and it noted that there had only been a handful of deaths due to tram accidents, and until the 1960s, the Yearbook’s emphasised that the death rate on the railways was skewed due to the Ongarue Accident in the 1920s, and then Tangiwai in 1953.
In Brisbane, there have only been a handful of train fatalities since they started electrification in 1979; the main incidents being the Trinder Park crash in 1985, and a collision at Petrie back in 2001. Even in Sydney, they only have a crash with fatalities every few years, and even if you include the horrific Granville crash of 1977, the fatality levels on Sydney’s rails are not that high either, considering that they have a couple of hundred million trips every year.
Let us face it, railways, buses and trams are relatively safe. Indeed many forms of public transport (and I am including planes here), are safer that vehicles
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:35 am
Here’s a simple idea, make train commuters pay the full costs of their train services and have Transmission Gully built entirely from tolls - now we know the latter wont work as the users wont pay for it, but the former might.
Wellington has a high sunk cost in the current rail network, new rolling stock has been ordered, so it should be used, but the fares charged should reflect the full operating costs, and no new road capacity should be built unless the users are charged to pay for it. Similarly if only the roads were charged based on a combination of recovering fixed and marginal costs then congestion could be significantly relieved, and rail might be viable (until renewals) with full fare cost recovery.
Then you would be incentivising telecommuting and the like, as transport users would pay the full costs of transport - something the Greens have never been keen to apply - to rail or public transport.
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:54 am
The 1992 through 2001 National US Transit Data Base included data on collision-related fatalities for all transit systems. Urban driving results
in 6.8 fatalities per billion passenger miles and transit buses cause about 4.3 per billion miles. This data comes from a paper that calculates the number of lives saved or lost by rail transit assuming that, without rail transit, half of rail riders would take the bus and half would drive. To account
for population differences among regions, the paper uses an index of lives saved or lost per ten million people.
Safety Results: Rails are more deadly than the alternatives
in 15 out of 23 rail regions. Statistically, rail systems in
Atlanta and Washington, DC, saved nearly 70 lives. But
rail systems in Chicago and New York each cost twice
that many lives, and Los Angeles rail cost more than 70
lives. The bottom line is that rail transit unnecessarily
kills about 45 people per year.
Special notes: Though light-rail lines tend to be dangerous, those in Buffalo, Cleveland, Dallas, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis seem to be safely designed.
Interpretation: Because heavy rail is separated from autos and pedestrians, it tends to be safer than most forms of travel, though not buses or urban interstate highways. Atlanta and Washington score well because they rely exclusively or mainly on heavy rail.
Commuter rail and light rail can be quite dangerous because they
so often intersect streets and pedestrian ways.
Studies which show low fatality rates for light rail include only deaths on the train and ignore deaths of drivers and pedestrians.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:14 am
“Here’s a simple idea, make train commuters pay the full costs of their train services and have Transmission Gully built entirely from tolls - now we know the latter wont work as the users wont pay for it, but the former might.”
Nice idea Liberty Scott, but you have a few problems. Let me start off at the beginning and work my way through in a logical manner:
Almost all peak hour services break even or even make a profit, so they would be safe initially. Your problem is with the off-peak services, particularly at night where you don’t have many passengers. So, you would argue, fine, get rid of the off-peak services that are making a loss and consolidate - the survivors should be able to grab those passengers and start breaking even.
The problem is that the public notice it is a loss of convienience. Where you once had half-hour frequencies, you now have hourly frequencies and you start losing passengers who are unwilling to wait an hour for the next train. Your off-peak passenger numbers carry on falling, and there starts to be a dent on peak passengers who may, for whatever reason, utilise off-peak services.
So, you would say, cut it even further. Alright, now you are getting rid of all the evening services, and the weekend services, and your passenger numbers continue to fall like a stone. That is exactly what happened in Auckland; in an attempt to arrest the decline in revenue, Sunday services went in the 1950s, Saturday services, and most off-peak services in 1968, and by the early 1980s, Auckland only had peak hour services, with an hourly off-peak schedule on the Southern Line, and about three off-peak trains on the Western Line (Eastern Line had no off-peak trains). Naturally, we had low passenger numbers as well.
Of course, when Saturday services, and hourly off-peak frequencies were restored to all lines (baring Saturday services on the Eastern Line) in 1994, people viewed it favourably and started using services again. My point is that you are going to need some cross-subsidisation/subsidisation of rail services to stop it from bleeding patrons - and bear in mind, if you let Wellington sink to where Auckland was in the 1980s, you need to find a way to ship a million passengers a month, and while buses might work for some, most would just rely on their cars.
Of course, you have a solution to that as well, toll the stuffing out of them. Problem is that people do not have a viable alternative, and will just carry on congesting the roadway. Of course, you would hike the toll, and most businesses and people would simply leave the city, and thanks to your lunacy, you have just destroyed Wellington.
September 3rd, 2008 at 11:47 am
Ba-da-boom. Thanks, john-ston
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:43 pm
and thanks to your lunacy, you have just revitalised Nelson, Wanganui, Timaru, Oamaru, Napier, Palmerston North, New Plymouth, Greymouth, Invercargill, Hamilton, Whangarei, Blenheim and Masterton, to name but a few of the beneficiaries of destroying Wellington by the simple expedient on removing it’s century old land transport subsidies.
September 3rd, 2008 at 12:52 pm
What makes you think that the per person subsidies in Wellington are higher than in smaller centres, Kevyn?
September 3rd, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Why is no-one admitting the elephant in the room here - affordability of travel is the flip-side of employers requiring centralisation of workers, and housing being unaffordable near where the work is.
Sort out affordable housing, so people can live closer to their work environments, or get the office blocks to de-centralise.
Or else I predict mass insurrection amongst workers who can’t meet employers demands for attendance, with the current salary rates.
[haaa! *deeep sigh* socialist rant for the week done!
]
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:38 pm
“and thanks to your lunacy, you have just revitalised Nelson, Wanganui, Timaru, Oamaru, Napier, Palmerston North, New Plymouth, Greymouth, Invercargill, Hamilton, Whangarei, Blenheim and Masterton, to name but a few of the beneficiaries of destroying Wellington by the simple expedient on removing it’s century old land transport subsidies.”
Kevyn, I would correct that comment and make it read like this
and thanks to your lunacy, you have just seen business flee to Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane and Adelaide, cities that all have subsidised public transport systems.
You would not have business head back to small towns; small towns do not have the level of skills that a modern business requires in easy grasp, the larger the business, the worse the situation is. Of course, the other thing that you forget is that by destroying the big cities, you are discouraging international business from having branches in New Zealand, and now you would have to deal through their Sydney branch instead.
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:16 pm
We NEED to drive cars in NZ. That is the one point that everybody seems to start from when grumping about subsidisation of public transport. I agree - for a range of personal reasons, I NEED to own a car. Having said that, I am in a position to take public transport to work, sometimes, and I probably manage 3-4 carless days per week (less when weather is as atrocious as it has been in the last month).
Why? Because I don’t particularly enjoy driving a car along a route that I have driven along hundreds of times previously, I don’t enjoy traffic, and I get a little more exercise and fresh air if I leave the car at home. The one reason which does not apply is cost - public transport costs me about 20-30% more than the cost of petrol, and since I (like most NZers) NEED to have a car, petrol is the only relevant cost for comparison (I get free parking at work).
So, if we can agree that one of the main purposes of public transport is to take some of the strain off roads in our most heavily populated centres, so that when we NEED to jump in our cars we can get from A to B without sitting in traffic for hours, and needless to say, so that we don’t have to keep building roads over what is otherwise a rather pretty country, then we should be able to agree that the cost of public transport should be set at a maximum of the cost of petrol to run a small car over the same distance. This is the argument from the point of view of a motorist.
What is absolutely ridiculous is that my ability to take public transport qualifies as a luxury. I can afford to pay a 20% premium on my travel costs - but for goodness sake, who can actually argue that this makes any sense?
September 3rd, 2008 at 7:36 pm
What makes me think that the per person subsidies in Wellington are higher than in smaller centres, nik?
This does:
http://www.petroltax.org.nz/XLS/Rev-Exp-08.xls
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Sorry Kevyn, but I don’t quite see what makes you think that. I see figures for expenditure of roading revenue, which seem to say that in Auckland and Wellington the total expenditure is larger than 100% of revenue. One could put that down to public transport - speculatively - but I don’t see the numbers there…
September 3rd, 2008 at 8:51 pm
john-ston. I will stand by my original argument.
Firstly, most corporate head offices fled from Wellington to Auckland during the era of deregulation. They didn’t do that because Auckland was better able to provide the skills that corporate head offices need. They did that initially because that’s where all the corporate raiders lived and subsequently because it became more important for CEOs to socialise (or network) with corporate raiders rather than with cabinet ministers.
Secondly, when head offices move all the support industries they use also move: PR, advertising, auditors, Porsche importers, etc.
Thirdly, and most importantly, with modern transport and communications systems aglomeration economics are no longer compelling.
On one point you are absolutely correct. Corporates locate their head offices in cities where they get the biggest taxpayer subsidies. Take away those subsidies and the cost of the CEO being seen with the “right people” would be prohibitive. Smaller centres would then be able to compete on a level playing field instead of, as happens today, subsidising transport in big cities as well as subsidising road maintenance in surrounding rural areas.
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:25 pm
nik, There is a worksheet labelled Population which has each region’s population in 2000 as a percentage of the NZ pop. in column W. The % of PT funding allocated to each region from the LTF is given in each region’s worksheet in column Y.
A quick summary:
Auckland has 32% of the population and has received more than 45% of the PT funding each year since 1991.
Wellington has 11% of the population and has mostly received more than 35% of the PT funding each year since 1991.
Canterbury has 13% of the population and has received between 8% and 10% of the PT funding each year since 1991.
The rest of the country have 44% of the population and have received between 5% and 10% of the PT funding each year since 1991.
The ratio of PT percent to population percent works out to be: Auckland 1.5:1, Wellington 3:1, Canterbury 0.65:1, rest of country 0.2:1. The ratios of spending on maintenance or construction of roads to traffic volumes don’t show such big regional differences, except for the maintenance difference between West Coast and Canterbury.
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:44 pm
“On one point you are absolutely correct. Corporates locate their head offices in cities where they get the biggest taxpayer subsidies. Take away those subsidies and the cost of the CEO being seen with the “right peopleâ€? would be prohibitive. Smaller centres would then be able to compete on a level playing field instead of, as happens today, subsidising transport in big cities as well as subsidising road maintenance in surrounding rural areas.”
Kevyn, corporates would not move to smaller centres; Hamilton doesn’t have the auditing specialists that Telecom would require, for instance, and I don’t think that the BNZ would base themselves in Masterton. What would happen is that the costs of doing business in New Zealand would become prohibitive and the corporates would move to the likes of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. We are already having problems in New Zealand because of a lack of corporates; Mark Weldon has compared Auckland to Adelaide in terms of its provincial feel; I spoke to someone who is considering moving to Australia because her husband works in a field that has little demand in New Zealand.
“Thirdly, and most importantly, with modern transport and communications systems aglomeration economics are no longer compelling.”
Actually, what you would be finding is that you would be getting more aglomeration as you don’t need an office in every little town any more. If Auckland and Wellington aren’t allowed to compete, then most of the offices would just pack up and run their New Zealand operation from an office in Sydney. Of course, that would be unfortunate for New Zealand, especially since it means that our very skilled people would no longer be able to get jobs in New Zealand because the corporates are all gone.
“Secondly, when head offices move all the support industries they use also move: PR, advertising, auditors, Porsche importers, etc.”
To a certain extent; however, which auditor would move to Hamilton just to service one company? That would be economic suicide. Same with PR, advertising, et cetera.
Finally, there is a logical reason why Auckland and Wellington have more PT spending than regional New Zealand - it makes absolutely no sense to run a substantial bus service in small towns; it is a necessity in the larger centres in New Zealand though.
September 4th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Kevyn, thanks for taking the trouble - I didn’t see the connection to population. (Trying to look at a spreadsheet on a tiny screen is a little painful…) I am not 100% convinced that it is a valid conclusion to say that the cities are oversubsidised, if you consider that a large part of the petrol tax take comes from businesses - which do tend to be based in those places. And businesses rely on a functioning transport system (both roads and PT) as much, or more, than the ‘rest’ of us….