World's Newest Underground Rail Station

Someone wrote:

> Where is this station in relation to Auckland's main station? Is it
> between there and Newmarket?

No it is right in the city. The "main" railway station (opened in
1928) is a kilometre from the city. The new line runs underground
(cut and cover construction) almost to Queen Street, where the station
was until 1928.

The most bizarre thing about this whole bizarre business is that
Auckland has got some ancient Brisbane carriages from the Zig Zag
railway in NSW for the train service... to supplement the 30-year-old
ex-Perth railcars that already operate this joke of a railway system.

Hardly anyone uses Auckland trains except for schoolkids going to and
from two schools that are near to the lines, which mostly run from
nowhere to nowehere through rundown industrial areas far from homes.


david (now) in wellington

Alex Wardrop wrote:

> I think the Stagecoach quote is exceptionally misleading.
>
> Wellington certainly make a higher per-capita use of its trains than
> Auckland because its trains currently carry roughly 10 million
> passengers annually for a regional population of roughly 0.3 million
> compared to Auckland's trains which currently carry 2.5 million for a
> regional population of roughly 1.2 million.
>
> However, Adelaide's trains carry a bit under 10 million passengers,
> Perth's trains carry 31 million passengers and Brisbane's carry 45
> million passengers for similar metropolitan populations to Auckland's.
>
> If you step up a notch, Melbourne's trains carry roughly 120 million
> passengers for a metropolitan (ie excluding interurban areas)
> population of 3.5 million and Sydney's trains carry over 250 million
> metropolitan passengers for a metropolitan population of roughly 4.0
> million. Note that Sydney carries a substantial number of interurban
> passengers, say, a bit under 30 million. Melbourne less so.
>
> For further details look at the Australasian Railway Association's
> latest fact book.
>
> As to CBD mode splits, I can't be absolutely definite by I think
> Melbourne probably has a 60% mode split to public transport and Sydney
> 75%, as compared to Wellington's 28% and Auckland's 18%.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alex Wardrop

Using your figures its possible to calculate the approximate number of
train journeys made each year by each member of the population:

Sydney - 250m/4m = 62 journeys per year
Melbourne - 120m/3.5m = 35 journeys per year
Wellington - 10m/0.3m = 33 journeys per year
Perth - 31m/1m = 31 journeys per year
Adelaide - 10m / 1m = 10 journeys per year
Auckland - 2.5m / 1.2m = 2 journeys per year


Makes Auckland look a bit sick - only one fifth the patronage of Adelaide!

Chris Brownbill <chrisbrownbill@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:<3F0952EA.9090407@optusnet.com.au>...
> Alex Wardrop wrote:
>
> > I think the Stagecoach quote is exceptionally misleading.
> >
> > <big snip>
> >
> > As to CBD mode splits, I can't be absolutely definite by I think
> > Melbourne probably has a 60% mode split to public transport and Sydney
> > 75%, as compared to Wellington's 28% and Auckland's 18%.
>
> Using your figures its possible to calculate the approximate number of
> train journeys made each year by each member of the population:

Adding in Brisbane, which was left out:

Electric systems:
> Sydney - 250m/4m = 62 journeys per year
+ Brisbane - 45m/1.2m = 37 journeys per year
> Melbourne - 120m/3.5m = 35 journeys per year
> Wellington - 10m/0.3m = 33 journeys per year
> Perth - 31m/1m = 31 journeys per year

Systems using DMUs:
> Adelaide - 10m / 1m = 10 journeys per year
> Auckland - 2.5m / 1.2m = 2 journeys per year

I think this shows that electrified systems have a clear advantage in
attracting riders. Both Brisbane and Perth had patronage similar to
Adelaide (but never as bad as Auckland) before the wires went up. It
also makes the current rhetoric in Adelaide about comparisons with
Brisbane and Perth being invalid look a bit silly.

One thing - if you include the trams in Melbourne's figures, I suspect
its overall rate of usage would be similar to Sydney.

cheers,
Colin

snip

> > Using your figures its possible to calculate the approximate number of
> > train journeys made each year by each member of the population:
>
> Adding in Brisbane, which was left out:
>
> Electric systems:
> > Sydney - 250m/4m = 62 journeys per year
> + Brisbane - 45m/1.2m = 37 journeys per year
> > Melbourne - 120m/3.5m = 35 journeys per year
> > Wellington - 10m/0.3m = 33 journeys per year
> > Perth - 31m/1m = 31 journeys per year
>
> Systems using DMUs:
> > Adelaide - 10m / 1m = 10 journeys per year
> > Auckland - 2.5m / 1.2m = 2 journeys per year
>
> I think this shows that electrified systems have a clear advantage in
> attracting riders. Both Brisbane and Perth had patronage similar to
> Adelaide (but never as bad as Auckland) before the wires went up. It
> also makes the current rhetoric in Adelaide about comparisons with
> Brisbane and Perth being invalid look a bit silly.
>
> One thing - if you include the trams in Melbourne's figures, I suspect
> its overall rate of usage would be similar to Sydney.
>
> cheers,
> Colin


The Adelaide rhetoric is indeed silly, except that Adelaide is a dying
city, with a flavour coming through from Canberra, that in
environmental terms, growth in Adelaide is to be discouraged. Perth
has a even more precarious water situation, but of course a much
stronger economy, and pragmatic enough to consider desalination if the
price is low enough.

I also recall a report from some road consultants in Perth in the
1980s, when the Fremantle line was temporarily shut, saying the
midland and armadale lines should be ripped up and replaced with
buses, that trains were dead and comparisons with Brisbane were
inappropriate. So glad to see them wrong.

RC

Colin Weaver wrote:

>
> Electric systems:
>
>>Sydney - 250m/4m = 62 journeys per year
>
> + Brisbane - 45m/1.2m = 37 journeys per year
>
>>Melbourne - 120m/3.5m = 35 journeys per year
>>Wellington - 10m/0.3m = 33 journeys per year
>>Perth - 31m/1m = 31 journeys per year
>
>
> Systems using DMUs:
>
>>Adelaide - 10m / 1m = 10 journeys per year
>>Auckland - 2.5m / 1.2m = 2 journeys per year
>
>
> One thing - if you include the trams in Melbourne's figures, I suspect
> its overall rate of usage would be similar to Sydney.
>
> cheers,
> Colin

Taking Colin's challenge to cover all rail-based metro travel modes:

Tram/monorail network patronages (1998/99 ARA figures)

Yarra Trams 50m
Swanston Trams 68m
Glenelg Tram 1.5m
Metro LR 3m
Metro Monorail 4m

=> Total metro rail&tram patronages by city

Sydney 257m / 4m = 64 journeys per year
Melbourne 238m / 3.5m = 68 journeys per year
Brisbane 45m / 1.2m = 37 journeys per year
Wellington 10m / 0.3m = 33 journeys per year
Perth 31m / 1m = 31 journeys per year
Adelaide 11.5m / 1m = 11.5 journeys per year
Auckland 2.5m / 1.2m = 2 journeys per year

This comparison is fraught with varying definitions of population. Eg
ARA figures have different populations than above ie Sydney 4m
(including South Coast, Central Coast, Southern Higlands and Blue Mts),
Melbourne 3.3m, Brisbane 1.6m, Perth 1.3m. These are all defensible
depending on your understanding of where the city ends.