Next time you’re asked, exaggerate
If you are approached on a bus or train by a person from Land Transport NZ wearing an officially approved Transit NZ frown of disapproval for smelly public transport users, and asked how much you value your (clearly worthless) time while you’re sitting on aforementioned bus or train on your way to work, please say $1000 per hour. Please, please, please exaggerate.
It turns out that LTNZ claim that the figures they use to evaluate the economic benefit of transport projects, the figures that value the time of public transport commuters at $4.70 per hour and car drivers at $10.95 per hour, these figures come from surveys.
So if they fund a new road and save 100 car commuters 15 minutes each, they value that at $273.75. But if they invest in public transport and save 100 train users 15 minutes each, then they value that at $117.50. So hey presto, it’s always harder to make the case for investment in public transport because public transport users are less valuable members of society.
I reckon using this logic I could make a case for a super rich transit lane on the motorway for really really well paid people. If you build a lane on the motorway only for people earning $10,000 per hour or more and save just ten of them 30 mins, then that’s a saving of $50,000. This is a far more economically efficient outcome than trying to save 1000 less valuable regular ($10.95hr) car drivers 15 minutes (worth a miserly $2737.50) or even 30 minutes ($5475). So as long as the really rich person’s lane was kept clear of riff raff there would be a tremendous economic gain (could probably employ police to do it for $100 an hour including overheads so we’re still ahead).
Or better still, most opinion surveys show that National Party voters have higher income (and presumably hourly rate) than Labour Party voters, so if there was a special high speed lane for National Party voters that too would be economically rational. Blue lane fast, red lane slow.
But on a more serious note, as a regular user of public transport can I just say that this makes me REALLY mad.
Whether you get low pay because you keep the world clean for a living, or whether you get high pay because you invest public funds in nuclear weapons designed to incinerate people you’ve never met, your time is just as valuable. Surely 15 minutes extra sleep in the morning, or 15 minutes more time with the kids when you get home, is worth the same for everyone whether you’re in a car or a bus or cycling or walking or ….
And let’s not even get started on greenhouse emissions.
As the t-shirt used to say, economic rationalism isn’t.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:23 pm
I’ve not been asked, but I wish they would, especially now that I am aware of this. What a CROCK. I wonder if they ever troubled themselves to actually CHECK their assumptions on a rail line? I’d wager heavily they did all the buses and munged the numbers together with the trains and thus got - garbage.
17 reserved words deleted here… morons.
-sigh-
respectfully
BJ
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Do you think they will believe you are on $2million a year?
I think they will be more likely to exclude your input.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:47 pm
I’m all for the “special high speed lane for National Party voters”. Can’t wait!
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:53 pm
I wonder if they will start painting cycle lanes green like the bus lanes.
Does that mean only NZ First supporters will be allowed to use those black coloured roads with white stripes?
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:15 pm
I suppose you might get a lot of school kids on public transport, whereas most of them would be too young to drive. That would certainly bring the average “value” down!
Do they do separate surveys for different cities, or even for different services or routes? In Wellington, a lot of well-off people use public transport
http://wellurban.blogspot.com/2006/06/loser-cruisers.html
because it’s a (relatively) good system, rather than a last resort for people who can’t afford to drive. Of course, the whole thing becomes circular: if only poor people use PT, then the “value” of PT slides, so it doesn’t get funded, so anyone who can afford it takes a car, so only the “value” of PT slides,…
March 22nd, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Well said Tomsk… and a real problem with “user pays” approaches in the public sector in many cases. respectfully
BJ
March 22nd, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Public transport also seems to be heavily used by women and less so by men - that is how it has seemed to me. As women earn significantly less $ than men on average (itself an issue of concern), that might also contribute to the results.
As Russel has noted (I think), it could be argued that these funding ratios indirectly discriminate against the poor - and in my view, also against youth and possibly against women.
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:01 pm
I’d imagine the large numbers of students using the bus system would influence things too.
Unfortunately public transport (at least in my area) is so unreliable that only people who can’t afford cars, or rabid idealists (like me) use it. I’d expect LTNZ’s numbers to probably be fairly correct.
Even putting aside the horrible issues around valuing someone by their hourly dollar income, I’d say that they’re incorrectly making the assumption that a good quality public transport system wouldn’t change the numbers radically. If public transport was fast, reliable, and less unpleasant, I’d expect many of those “high” earners would move over to it, messing up their sums.
- MugginsM
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:04 pm
I also wonder if they take into account money earned while *using* public transport. I often use my laptop on the bus to do actual work.
I’m not sure that’d be a good idea in a car.
- MugginsM
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Mugginsm
Do you really think that high earners are going to voluntarily give up private transport to use the bus or the train?
Can you give me one good reason why they would?
March 22nd, 2007 at 9:37 pm
1. because you can read/text/laptop/blackberry on PT
2. because you do your bit to ease congestion
3. because you do your bit to reduce CO2 and other climate changing/ocean chemistry changing emissions
4. because you do your bit to reduce noxious emissions that cause asthma and other conditions
5. because you can make friends with other regulars
March 22nd, 2007 at 10:38 pm
6. because you can get there quicker, on trains, trams or dedicated bus lanes, than on congested roads.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:12 am
7. because it’s less stressful than driving in rush hour.
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:48 am
8. Because when they build and finish it in 30 years time our outlook on life will be markedly different. Untill then we need roads.
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:48 am
Stuey
1. Until the lap top is stolen from you at knife point
2. Others can ease congestion if they feel the need, most will still take private transport.
3. Climate change is a con.
4. Climate change is a con.
5. Why on earth would you want to strike up a conversation with a stranger on a smelly congested bus?
I am still waiting for ONE good reason.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:50 am
BB
There isn’t one until the system is built and operational.
We still need all the road building just to keep pace with growth, so building the infastructure for a public transport system in the main centres and between the regional centres need to happen concurrently as we build new roads (thinkging of them not as just roads but as public accessways for future developments in transport technology).
I dont think the current government has the willpower to spend the surplus on new infastructure that ALL governments should have been building for about 40 years (roading, railway and public transport).
Problem is we talk about it but do very little, hence my jibe about in 30 years time our kids may have a different outlook.
I think in the future personal transport will be ecologically sustainable (electric or hydrogen powered, or horses for that matter) and we will need the roads.
Read an article way back on the manure problem (mainly number ones) from 15,000 horse cabs in New York City. The run off was destructive to all steel bridges, sanitation pipes, etc. Not to mention the new subway system tunnels which stunk to high heaven due to seepage.
March 23rd, 2007 at 10:52 am
stuey..
why do we still see you tootling around in your van….?
(what with your professed desire to embrace/befriend the great unwashed..?.)
believe me..(speaking from a curmudgeonly/recluse p.o.v)…better in theory than in fact..that one..eh..?.
btw..occaisonally i do try…
i was going into town..live one bus-stage out..normally walk in…(but didn’t want to arrive all sweaty..)..going to have a beer at a function..didn’t want to have to worry about driving…
y’know how it goes..
waited 25 minutes..
gave up in disgust..stuck hand out for passing taxi..
this at 6.30-7.00 pm..weeknight..!
auckland does not have a public transport system..
and i must say..we do look on in bemusement/amazement/faint irritation as the inhabitants of that village down south..wellington..
hyperventilate over wether they will..or will not..save six minutes on their journies across town…(!)
(we should be so lucky..!..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:26 am
> 1. Until the lap top is stolen from you at knife point
What planet are you on, bruv? I haven’t heard of many muggings on the #14 bus to Wilton or the Johnsonville line. Maybe you’d have cause for paranoia if you lived in Sao Paolo or Johannesburg, but then you’d probably need to woory about carjacking too.
> 2. Others can ease congestion if they feel the need, most will still take private transport.
Oh, how public-spirited of you. And wrong. Even in Wellington, where public transport service levels and population densities are low compared to most major cities, only 45% of trips into the CBD (in 2001) were by private car, truck or van: the rest walked, biked or took public transport. In cities like London or New York, only lunatics drive to work.
> 3. & 4. Climate change is a con.
Once again, bruv, which planet are you on?
> 5. Why on earth would you want to strike up a conversation with a stranger on a smelly congested bus?
Not everyone is as obnoxious as you, bruv. Some people are actually worth talking too.
> I am still waiting for ONE good reason.
And here are some more:
9. because you can have a couple of drinks after work without paying for dial-a-driver
10. because you can save money (on petrol, maintenance, parking, the second and third garage)
11. because you don’t have to worry about parking
12. because, if you’re lucky enough to live in a city that is both walkable and has good public transport, you don’t have to own a car at all
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:56 am
Lots of people in NYC do not WANT to own cars… and repeating that Climate Change is a con is rather less convincing now than it was last year and the year before… the evidence is clearer now that it is real than it has ever been, and I am sure we’ve gone over this at length before.
There’s more than two sides here, and that’s part of the problem. There are:
1. Scientists - “find out what is really happening”
2. Business - “make more money”
3. Government - “get more money” &”get re-elected”
4. Greens - “save the planet”
Of these we have seen exaggeration in different directions from 2 and 4, and from 3 we have seen damned little in the way of action because there is a substantial money flow from 2 to 3 and in the US the result has been editing of scientific reports to prevent actual scientific opinions from being accurately reported to the public.
The scientists however, are not exaggerating… if anything they have been conservative in their assessments and the results could be worse. I am not so limited as they and if I believe in any god it is Murphy.
respectfully
BJ
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:17 pm
A blue lane would suit me…..
Big bruv,I am a high earner, I have several cars but will often walk or if the weathers doubtful, I will take a bus.
Why? because I want to.
Also a lot of people in NYC dont own cars because a secure lock up carpark costs more than an NZ surburban house. A number of the better Apartment buildings Body Corps own a variety of cars (town cars and SAVs) which apartment owners can rent or use.
March 23rd, 2007 at 12:54 pm
BJ,
Found this an interesting article.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html
Part of the article looks at if ALL the ice melted on earth what the resultant land mass would remain. While ocean water levels would rise 67 meteres the actual land mass to dissapear is minimal. With Greenland and half of Antartica uncovered (the other half being under water) to add to the land space. While conjecture only (how the total ice caps at the North and South Poles could melt without the earth spinning out of control and killing all inhabitants is a mystery) it does throw some light on the mathematics involved.
All sides of the argument always say that their findings are not being reported and if they were, the “people” would see what was actually true.
But I’m not sure what you call “editing” of scientific reports is more likely to be a review against another set of data. And lets be fair there is so much conflicting data out there, who knows what is right and what is wrong. It is all interpretations.
What I’m suspicious about is that to “fix” the carbon problem it takes money. Because where money (taxation) is used to “fix” problems is where you find shonky business and government.
Carbon trading is the worst answer to the global warming issue. Already the 8 mature and 10 immature trees I have planted on my property count for nothing against my personal carbon footprint. Hijacked by the government.
The carbon trade will be through middle men who will take 10 - 15 or even 50 percent cut.
Now how do I get into carbon trading?
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Gerrit
“Now how do I get into carbon trading?”
I would wager that the same people who are pushing the idea of carbon trading were also the same rouges telling us the world was going to end because of Y2K.
March 23rd, 2007 at 1:39 pm
There is supposed to be an evaluation in Atlantic Monthly by Easterbrook who is a passably competent authority, on the possibilities. Nobody expects Antarctica to melt anytime soon… a couple of thousand years to do something that drastic. Expecting a spin out of control is a bit wild as well. Spin might slow a bit, but out of control?
Whatever. I am trying to get hold of a copy of Atlantic without subscribing to the damned thing.
Not too many people like the cap & trade schemes. I don’t put any stock in anything except that whatever we do has to put a price on using-up/changing atmosphere. Unfortunately most schemes necessarily put govt at the controls. I don’t really trust ‘em, but I see no viable alternatives.
respectfully
BJ
March 23rd, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Big Bruv> I would wager that the same people who are pushing the idea of carbon trading were also the same rouges telling us the world was going to end because of Y2K.
“rouges”? Are you seeing reds under the bed?
But seriously, while some of the wilder speculations about Y2K were obviously bollocks, the reason why virtually nothing happened on Jan 1 2000 is simple. People realised there was a problem, and did something about it.
I know that from personal experience, having sat for two years in the same room as people who spent all their time fixing Fortran code so that the systems wouldn’t crash after Y2K.
March 23rd, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Let’s hope for the same result on global warming.
With a whole lot of luck, in 30 years or so, people will be saying “Hey this global warming thing is all a scam. We were supposed to be under water by now”….
…. because we will have got our act together and drastically reduced greenhouse gas production by then.
That is the best possible outcome : us Cassandras will get no credit.
March 24th, 2007 at 12:10 am
LTNZ funding processes are based on flawed economics. Let’s put aside the equity issues aside and consider instead the implications of different travel time values.
It implies that travel time value is a defined on a personal level, i.e. as a reflection of an individual’s economic circumstances. Thus, when that person switches from road to PT, or vice-versa, the travel time value should switch with them.
Consider two examples:
1. New road project: 90% of attracted patrons previously drove via an alternate route, but 10% previously used PT. Therefore, the travel time value for the road project should equal 0.9*RoadTimeValue+0.1*PublicTransportTimeValue
2. New rail project: 70% were previous PT users, but 30% previously drove. Therefore, travel time value for the rail project should equal 0.3*RoadTimeValue+0.7*PublicTransportTimeValue
The end result of this little example is that the time value of the road value would decrease (due to the PT users now driving cars) and, conversely, the time value of the rail project would increase (due to road users switching to PT).
In short, LTNZ’s current economic evaluation processes are a joke and should be completely revised.
March 24th, 2007 at 1:48 am
oh BB, you said: 3. climate change is a con and 4. climate change is a con.
But, my point no. 4 wasnt about climate change, it was about pollutants that cause smog and serious respiratory problems - its estimated that something like 300 people a year die in Auckland because of car exhaust fumes.
No matter what you think of AGW, car exhaust fumes causing asthma and other respiratory illnesses is true.
And, I also said in point 3. that CO2 is causing the oceans to acidify which is likely to lead to all the coral reefs and plankton dissolving. Even if you dont believe in AGW, that in itself is a good idea to reduce your carbon emissions.
March 24th, 2007 at 2:03 am
dear phil, actually I take the bus into town to work every day, and yes I do occassionally chat to the other regulars. I have a monthly bus pass. That last time I saw you on a saturday me and the boy had taken the bus into town that day as well. We rarely drive.
In the Google earth photo of our street there are literally only two cars on our street - our van being one of them - everyone else had driven off for the day when the photo was snapped.
March 24th, 2007 at 2:11 am
Nice reasons 6-7 and 9-12 people (8 is not a reason to take PT). So, BB can you come up with an objection for all of those reasons as well? And could you possibly try harder and produce something that is not as completely lame as “until your laptop gets stolen”. Hmm I dont think I am likely to be mugged for the paperback book Im reading on the bus
Actually the “you dont have to look for a carpark” one is a killer good reason for PT. Reminds me of the conversation I often have at BBQs when I meet people for the first time.
“so where do you work?”
“bottom of downtown” I reply
more often than not, what is the immediate reply of the typical Aucklander?
“oh where do you find a park down there?”
March 24th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Jeez I ran up a considerable bill with parking tickets when I worked down that end of town. The bailiff caught up with me in the end.
I hasten to add that I was in the Labour Party at the time.
March 24th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
If there were any sort of transit system in a city like Auckland the motivation to keep no car at all would be large. No insurance bills and no parking problems. That’s what happened in NYC and it is true in several other large cities in the US. Higher density housing is possible then, and the result is eminently livable as long as park space is maintained.
The cost of garaging a car (*required if it has any value*) is comparable to the cost of an apartment itself, and the cost of insurance rivals the car payments. Parking on the street is possible, but you have to take out the radio and anything of any conceivable value, and if the car hasn’t any scratches you scratch the paint yourself (so as to reduce the temptation and if you are wise you stick the zinc primer stuff on when you do it).. nothing parked on the street is new.
Nope… if I had to move to Auckland I’d be hard put to it, cause public transit there is so totally shambolic.
respectfully
BJ
March 24th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Our car dependent transport system is costing us dearly in economic growth. Cities with well-developed PT spend less of their GDP on transport than car dependent cities such as Auckland.
For example, in many European cities the average person spends 4-5% of their income on transport. In Auckland the average person spends 15-25% on transport.
What this ultimately means is European cities have more wealth at their disposal to spend on productive economic activities. Meanwhile Auckland enjoys a stagnant and unproductive economy.
Transport is the biggest issue facing urban New Zealand and the Greens are onto a certain electoral winner if they can build their association with modern public transport investment.
March 24th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
BJ - the PT system here is not sooooo bad. Just have to pick you locations … I certainly wouldn’t rely on taking the bus to work. The trains, for all the recent bad publicity, are still more reliable, faster, and cost-effective than the buses.
The best of the lot, however, are the ferries. Although they are relatively expensive (due to the lack of subsidies - which is in itself a plus), they are very reliable and fast.
Ferries are obviously limited in their range, which suggests that they have the most to gain from the linked trips that would follow the implementation of integrated ticketing.
In the meantime I’d be looking to buy property around the new/upgraded ferry terminals on the North Shore as well as shares in Fullers …
March 24th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
# Stu Donovan Says:
>The best of the lot, however, are the ferries. Although they are relatively expensive (due to the lack of subsidies - which is in itself a plus), they are very reliable and fast.
About time, too. I always did think it strange that Auckland is even more car-dependent that Los Angeles, when it has more boats per capita than Venice.
March 24th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Trams along the waterfront, at least Mission Bay to Ponsonby, tram up the middle of Queen St, tram all along K Road to Arch Hill (linking back down Ponsonby Road), hell, tram from the waterfront via Symonds st, Eden Terrace, Dominion rd to Mt Albert…
All of this could be done quite quickly and cheaply. It would reduce the lanes of traffic on all these roads too (increasing the incentive to use the trams…)
March 24th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Yes I agree Alastair.
Dublin (similar size and density to Auckland) recently constructed two light rail lines at a cost of approx $1.5 billion dollars. These lines now carry in excess of 24 million passengers per year. For way of comparison, this is more traffic than flows across the Newmarket viaduct on the southern motorway. Plus the motorway is 6 lanes wide at this point!
The most interesting aspect of Dublin’s light rail project is that it will make an operating profit within the first few years of operation. Dublin’s experience with light rail should be mandatory bedtime reading for anyone who argues against PT on financial grounds …
March 26th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Buses are cheaper than Trams.
March 26th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
But trams can carry more people through the same corridor, last longer, and can take advantage of existing rail infrastructure as well as on-road running. And trams (or Light Rail, or whatever you want to call them) have the advantage of running on fixed lines, thus giving investors the confidence to develop housing and/or workplaces close to transit nodes: bus routes don’t drive transit-oriented development to anywhere near the same degree. Buses may be cheaper in the short term, but cost more to run in the long term, not just by reducing reliance on fuels with volatile prices, but through labour savings.
March 26th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Anyone who simply says x is cheaper than y without giving an account of the time span of the comparison and the methodology used, is wasting time here… It is vastly cheaper for us to quit doing any maintenance of any sort on everything, but any analysis of the results over more than a couple of business quarters shows that it will cost a lot MORE money.
Even businessmen know that (well some of them do).
You really have to define your terms of reference better.
respectfully
BJ
March 26th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
So will the Greens, instead of expanding much more energy on the repeal of s59 bill, instead focus on Public Transport in Auckland?
More votes in the public transport initiatives we all have outlined as being required then the s59 repeal bill.
And much more in line with Green Environmental policies.
March 27th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Hi Gerrit
Very little time is being spent on s59 - mainly Labour’s time actually.
And in any case, legislation to reduce violence is very much our arena. Take a look at our 4 principles
http://www.greens.org.nz/about/charter.htm
March 27th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Anyway back to the main debate here …
Saturday morning I had breakfast with friends in New Brighton and caught the bus back home. The well patronised bus got snarled up in traffic - traffic that consisted of single occupant cars driving to the mall for shopping.
Where is my compensation for having my journey delayed and my valuable time wasted ? LTNS and Transit don’t take that into account.
(Of course if I hadn’t been lazy and had actually biked it wouldn’t have been a problem as bikes don’t hold up traffic and can slip through any jams caused by selfish single occupant drivers. Maybe all cyclists should be given tax rebates for each journey as the infrastructure savings are enormous and the room for the car they would otherwise be using is now available for another vehicle.)
March 27th, 2007 at 11:28 am
Rebates for the cycling commuters?! This is an idea I like. respectfully BJ
Need to do something about the ones who also go through on the train though, maybe separate carriages for the smelly but fit commuters. :-b
BJ
March 27th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Tomsk, only if the trams are full all the time. Which they are not. Buses have more flexibility
March 27th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Blue said: Buses have more flexibility
Not if they are stuck behind cars and take 40m to travel 1.5km, as I experienced in Auckland last week.
Trams and trains, having a dedicated line, have less delays and are therefore more reliable and puntual. They are also quicker because the ticketing is done while thay are in motion, rather than holding up people boarding.
Unless the signalling hasn’t received any maintenance in 30 years of course, as I have recently discovered on the Auckland Western Line.
March 27th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Blue - Buses that run empty are every bit as inefficient as trams that run empty… respectfully BJ
March 27th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
toad,
Christchurch buses have electronic ticketing and most of us just swipe our “smart” Metrocards through as we board the bus. Its all “state of the art” stuff.
fastbike is right about the pesky one occupant cars however!
Two major bus routes are currently getting dedicated bus lanes built, with more planned for other routes later … The bike-lane system and dedicated cycle routes are being improved and expanded all the time.
Overall, things are improving noticeably … BUT not enough car drivers are getting the message YET !
However, on the bright side: I live on a steep hill about thirty minutes (average, depending wind direction) ride across the flat from the City Centre …
In the mornings there is a noticeably increasing number of cars parked at the bottom of the hill with empty bike racks … and (in addition to this) in the evenings there are CONVOYS of (additional) cyclists ascending the hill in lowest gear(s) having ridden home from work.
It gives one some hope for the future of Aotearoa/NZ !
Our entire family upgraded our bikes last year to faster and lighter models. We could have seriously upgraded the car for the money it cost!
(I LOVE my new, strong but light mountain bike!!)