&41 9-:?@-@5;: >;A< ??A1 A:1 &41 9

Roundabout Issue 140 June 2014 1

RRoouunnddaabboouuttNNeewwsslleetttteerr ooff tthhee IIPPEENNZZ TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn GGrroouupp IIssssuuee 114400 JJuunnee 22001144

The Impact ofAdaptive Road

Lighting on Road Safety

Also in this edition: Google self-driving car

Conference review \ Undercover graduates

How Raymond saved rail in Auckland


3 Editorial4 Chair's Chat6 Letter to the editor7 Carne Clissold obituary8 Updates10 Conference review16 The impact of adaptive road lighting on road safety20 Helping drivers to manage safety at high risk rural intersections24 NZMUGS conference material26 The politcal-institutional challenges ofAuckland public transport29 Ever get lost at an airport?30 Google's self-driving car34 Undercover graduates: client vs consultant36 Branch updates38 Roundabout of the month39 Do you hate humans? Take it out on them through design40 How Raymond saved rail in Auckland42 SH20 Waterview update44 Caption competition45 RASCals update46 The woman leading Salt Lake City's transportation revolution49 Photo competition50 Transport advice for dummies51 Group contact details52 Kids explain traffic engineering

“This rules out NZ

from great city status

but having great

liveable cities is still

achievable.”p26

Roundabout is the newsletter of the IPENZTransportation Group, published quarterly. It featurestopical articles and other relevant tidbits from the trafficengineering and transport planning world, as well asdetails on the latest happenings in the NZ transportationscene.

All contributions, including articles, letters to the editor,amusing traffic related images and anecdotes arewelcome. Opinions expressed in Roundabout are notnecessarily the opinion of the IPENZ TransportationGroup or the editor, except the editorial of course.

Many thanks are due to Opus International Consultants,who sponsor the printing of Roundabout for thosemembers who prefer to receive a hard copy.

Correspondence welcome, to Daniel Newcombe:[email protected] or c/o

Auckland Transport, Private Bag 92250, Auckland 1142Roundabout is published around the 15th of March,June, September and December each year, andcontributions are due by the 10th of each publicationmonth.

A monthly Mini-Roundabout email update is circulatedon the 15th of in-between months and contributions aredue by the 12th of each month.

If somehow you have come to be reading Roundaboutbut aren't yet a member of the IPENZ TransportationGroup, you are most welcome to join. Just fill in anapplication form, available from the Group website:http: //ipenz.org.nz/ipenztg/files/TGApp.pdf

ISSN 01 1 3-9053

“Put simply, without

Raymond we almost

certainly would not

have a rail network

today”p12

“Google is the first

company to build a car

with no steering wheel,

accelerator or brake

pedal”

p10

“In other words, we

each crossed enemy

lines and went

undercover.”p22

Contents


The Wellingtonconference isnow just a fondrecent memory,but a few eventsstand out.

Being the centenaryof IPENZ, it wasgreat to see a numberof 'retrospective'presentations on thehistory of transportin NZ. We spend somuch time focusingon changes ahead,sometimes we forgetjust how far we havecome, as a professionand a country.

The changes in transport technology, land uses, social systemsand public expectations are staggering. The article on page 40about how Raymond Siddalls saved Auckland's rail system isa glimpse into just how bad the rail network was, and howclose we came to it shutting down completely.

Another memorable conference event, for me anyway, was thenumber of people who gave me feedback - both positive andnegative - on Roundabout. The purpose of this magazine,again this is a personal view, is to share the ideas, stories andopinions of the transport industry (and other interested parties)for the betterment of the profession.

This sometimes means hearing opinions or facts that you maynot agree with. But that's fine. That's the whole point. IfRoundabout was only a list of things we all agreed upon orthat were without controversy or interest, what a dullmagazine that would be.

In that respect, I was as pleased (if that is the word) with thenegative feedback. None of those complainants criticised themagazine for being dull - it was always an opinion, image orstatement which caught their ire.

To all of those people, I offered to publish their counterclaimsor opinions, or just their complaints. I see it as a sign of ahealthy profession to have this kind of dialogue. So, if youdisagree with something in Roundabout, don't just fume -write me something to publish in the next edition.

The conference itself was generally far less controversial butstill excellent (see the conference review on page 10). Thanksgo to Glenda and her team at Hardings, as well as theorganising committee, for a well-run and enjoyableconference.

Somehow they managed to arrange excellent weather for theduration of the conference, except during the conferencedinner, when we were inside anyway. The balmyevening/night at Zealandia sanctuary was a stand-out. It's hardto top seeing kiwis and tuatara wandering around, but I'm surethe 2015 Christchurch conference organisers will give it a go.

This edition contains award-winning conference material -papers, presentations, posters - as well as the usual assortmentof interesting and thought-provoking articles. Not all of it youwill agree with. And that's the point.

Editorial

Daniel Newcombe

Roundabout Editor

We spend so much time

focusing on changes ahead,

sometimes we forget just

how far we have come, as a

profession and a country.

For more on Gandhi, see

the conference review.


What makes a great city? Auckland

aims to be the most liveable city in the

world by 2040. Many of you will I

assume be familiar with the attributes

to be achieved in gaining such a lofty

status but I'm going to shoot blind

while using my tablet out of Wi-Fi

range while holidaying in Shanghai.

To me every great city has to have awater feature, either a harbour, river orlake. It has to have a vibrant streetscapewhere you can walk around enjoyingcurious shops, cafés, little parks, withouthaving to walk for ages. Majorattractions on an international scaleaffordable and accessible by differenttransport modes are a huge plus,particularly if several of different sorts.

Wellington’s (capital) sister city Beij ingranks well on this aspect but for me notso great on the others. Singapore doesokay but its vibrancy is fairly uniformand its attractions are not on the samelevel as say the Bund here in Shanghai,and it sterilized all the older moreinteresting parts.

Apparently the French concession inShanghai was a more shady lower rentarea than the more organized Britishquarter - the demolition of the Wakefieldmarket in Wellington lessened thevariety in Wellington and I wonder whatwould have happened if the originalFrederick and Haining St properties andopium dens of Chinatown had beenretained.

In terms of transportation I think a greatcity needs great public transport, mainlyan easy metro system but also easy andcheap taxi system. I've never been toAmerica but in the absence of cheaptaxis then simple multimodal multipasspublic transport card for bus, tram, ferryand train is needed instead.

This helps a city be liveable while notespecially great in the world scale. Whatalso helps are different seasons (but notin one day! ) and pleasant evenings withshops, outside dining etc. still open toenjoy after a sunset cruise. So unlessglobal warming concentrates in NZwe're not in the running on this score.

We do better on cleaner air andpavements (Paris has lots of dog shit)and we could do more to promotecycling, skateboarding around a keynatural feature such as a Harbour. Ienjoyed Hangzhou which has well usedpublic bicycle hire system, although wehired privately, as we also did inXiamen - having an electric bike optionas many Chinese use would have beenbetter still.

It seems to me that having a car-freearea also helps improve a city.Wellington’s sister city Xiamen hasGulangyu, a small traffic free islandwith only odd golf carts and old stylecarts pulled by hand. Wellingtonscrewed up the pedestrian only part ofManners Street in my mind, not seeingbeyond engineering / planning,something we all need to be mindful ofeven if our intentions are good.

Xiamen also has a 20th centuryuniversity, along with nearby templecomplex, that attracts thousands oftourists a day - you have to see it tobelieve it. Wellington city and othercouncils via Grow Wellington areworking hard on limited budget toattract more education-based and otherinvestors from sister cities et al. toWellington to help incrementalimproving the coolest little capital in theworld (Lonely Planet, Best in Travel2011 ). Cruise ships, convention centre,airport are part of the bigger morewelcoming picture, along with I hopeelectric buses.

Great cities also have security and

police officers visible everywhere andtheir own in-house parking enforcement.I think in time to come they will alsohave drone deliveries establishedreplacing courier deliveries. They haverail links to their airport(s) and highspeed train services to other cities. Sothis also rules out NZ from great citystatus but having great liveable cities isstill achievable.

Parking

I look forward to Wellington bringingparking enforcement back in-house. Ihave personal bad (unfair if not legallychallengeable) experience with thecurrent private contractors and similarlywith Wilson Parking regarding off-streetparking. I invite the CEO of WilsonParking NZ to call me to discuss theissue of signage in particular and theirauditing processes, which I think manymembers would be interested to learnabout. Watch this space. . .

Weekend peak and its importance

Recently I heard it said from a roadcontrolling authority employee that theweekend peak doesn't matter, eventhough it could be worse than theweekday peaks. A recent report byconsultants for the NZTA didn't assessthe weekend peak even though theprevious report by a differentconsultancy identified that the Saturdaypeak level of service was substandard(but said that it didn't matter! ). I raise theissue that this offhand dismissal ordiscounting of adverse weekend effectsis an example of possibly beingnegligent, and I remind all members oftheir requirement to adhere to theprinciples surrounding membership ofour Group.

TCD Manual and PPM follow-up

In a previous Chair’s chat I did a statusreview of some NZTA publications. Myfollow up on 10 June(http://tinyurl.com/kmqgq4w) reveals noprogress has since been made or evenchange to the TCD current status on theNZTA website. However this is beingbought again to the attention ofNZTA inthe meetings we are holding with them,originally planned to coincide with ourannual conference.

We did manage to hold a productivemeeting at the time with the MoT deputyCEO and hope to arrange regularlyscheduled meetings in due course withboth the MoT and the NZTA.

Chair's Chat

I wonder what would

have happened in

Wellington ifthe

opium dens of

Chinatown had been

retained?


Keep up to date with IPENZ Transportation Group happenings:www.ipenz.org.nz/ipenztgwww.twitter.com/ipenztgwww.facebook.com/ipenztg

Furthermore our SNUG sub-group isinvolved with the NZTA in the revisionof the national traffic signalsspecifications, held up in some part dueto co-funding issues I believe. Withrespect to the Marking specifications“under consideration”, if any membercan enlighten me to its status, please doso, as my previous experience withsending an enquiry [email protected] is about a 10% hitrate (does anyone do any better?).Likewise re the Planning Policy Manual(http://tinyurl.com/ldztcwl) - is the 2007Version 1 still current? (“This document

is currently being reviewed by theNZTA” – no change noted in the pastfew years even though I know thatMWH sent in various suggested changeson more than one occasion).

What’s in a name – IPENZ?

IPENZ is considering changing its nameagain, including a subtle option tochange E=Engineers to meanE=Engineering. Actually I personallylike this idea and consider that perhaps itshould be the base case, even thoughother “professionals” such as politicianssometimes “engineer” matters to best

suit their circumstances (no, I’m justjoking, lol). All are welcome to voiceyour opinion.

Also, congratulations to this year'swinners of sponsorship to the AITPMconference: Craig Mitchell (Aurecon)and Gabriela Surja (Aecom). They willbe reporting back to their local branchesand contributing an article to a futureRoundabout.

Dave Wanty

National Committee Chair

Christchurch is rebuilding. How will it look in March 2015?Find out. Be there for the 2015 IPENZ Transportation Group conference.Details coming soon!


Dear Daniel,

My December 'Roundabout' article about Women in Transport has certainly generated significant feedback, but notin the way that I naively hoped. I had a handful of emails in response, all in support of industry efforts to look intothe real issues affecting gender imbalance in transportation.

This handful was outweighed by the number of'phwoah, love the hottie on the cover' and also bythe 'it is outrageous that you published that cover'comments that I understand you received as Editor.To me both of these points affirm that as a group,we are not at a level of maturity to really makeorganisational change that might address issues ofequity and balance.

On the one hand, we have in our membershipdisappointingly vocal minority of little boys whowill always be boys. They completely missed ourintended irony with the woman-in-a-hard-hatcover. It was meant to be confronting so thatpeople would read the article.

On the other hand, people who complained aboutthe cover being demeaning also missed the pointentirely. Trying to change culture by not usingpictures of attractive women is like trying to win ahorse race by dressing the filly as a Ferrari.Underneath, it's still a horse.

I wrote the article hoping to find a large enoughsubset of members willing to do the hard worknecessary to start turning the tide in our industry.Interest is sparse and the waves are too high.

To all of those who read the article and agreed withmy sentiments, thank you, and fear not; change

takes time and I'm sure the tipping point will come. We will wait until the energy of the committed has potential tooutweigh the immaturity of the loud minority. My benefit/cost calculation on that situation says 'not yet'.

Bridget Burdett

Ed: I too was disappointed at the response. Page 38 ofthis issue has a story on a leading transport professional, who happens

to be a woman. Hopefully in a few years we will all look back in wonder at the time when it was ever necessary to discuss the

gender make-up of our profession. . . In the same way we are today bewildered by these 1895 instructions to women about

cycling:

• Don’t faint on the road.

• Don’t wear a man’s cap.

• Don’t wear loud hued leggings.

• Don’t cultivate a “bicycle face.”

• Don’t refuse assistance up a hill.

• Don’t go to church in your bicycle costume.

• Don’t wear a garden party hat with bloomers.

• Don’t contest the right ofway with cable cars.

• Don’t wear white kid gloves. Silk is the thing.

• Don’t go out after dark without a male escort.

• Don’t let your golden hair be hanging down your back.

• Don’t ignore the laws ofthe road because you are a woman.

Letter to the editor


On May 3, 2014, at Bishop Selwyn Lifecare, CarneClissold, aged 79 years passed away. An esteemedTraffic Engineer for 40 years, his colleagues havecompiled the following piece.

Carne Clissold BSc, MEngSc (NSW), FIPENZ (Retired)joined the Transport Department (forerunner to the Ministryof Transport, Land Transport Division, Land Transport SafetyAuthority, Land Transport NZ, and NZ Transport Agency) as atraffic engineering cadet in 1952. He went on to completebachelors and masters degrees in transportation science,specialising in traffic engineering.

In 1962 Carne was promoted to Traffic Engineer Hamilton,but in 1965 moved on further promotion to Head Office inWellington where he remained for his working career. In1973 he was Senior Traffic Engineer Operations and in 1975was promoted to Chief Traffic Engineer when a vacancyarose.

Despite some name changes (to Manager of Road and TrafficStandards) he continued in this substantive role until 1 992when he retired just before the establishment of the LandTransport Safety Authority.

Carne was a founding committee member and strongsupporter of the IPENZ Transportation Group and the TrafficManagement Workshop. He and his peer John Toomath werea force to be reckoned with in the traffic engineeringprofession in New Zealand for some 30 years.

During his career he managed the implementation ofmetrication and new transport legislation in 1976, whichbrought in the “left turn give way rule” that has only just beenabolished. Legend has it this generated enormous piles ofministerials which Carne (predominantly) and his staff wereobliged to draft answers to.

Under Carne's guidance and mentoring the traffic engineeringsection and its members always survived the myriad ofcorporate restructurings better than any other group in theMinistry. In fact they never lost anyone though redundancy -this was an under-recognised outcome of Carne's influenceand the respect he carried in the various organisations.

Staff who worked for Carne universally recall his calmdisposition (not getting flustered despite the many tryingcustomers he interacted with), kindness, gentle nature,thoughtful management, professional knowledge and integrity,and personal encouragement.

He was by no means a stickler for “the book” and was by thestandards of the times a very modern manager, giving staffconsiderable freedom to achieve outcomes he had specified.These were happy and settled times when the Ministry staffwere creating and upholding transport policy, and alsoperforming operational functions somewhat like consultantsdo today, thus keeping the work interesting and varied.

Other memories are of Carne’s desk piled high with files – tothe chagrin of the records staff. These piles grew ominouslyupwards but Carne knew where everything was. Staff actingwhen he was away invariably tidied his desk, and Recordsstaff would retrieve the files when he went on leave.Research however shows an untidy desk often goes hand inhand with an organised mind!

Carne’s passion for sailing, mulled wine and home brewshould not go unrecorded. He was a devoted family man andwill be greatly missed by his wife Janet, son Tim, daughtersCarolyn and Louisa, and members of the traffic engineeringprofession.

Carne is lower right in the photo below from the 1964Traffic ManagementWorkshop.

Carne Clissold – 1935-2014


Updates

Nelson is a community on the move and is considered bymany as the walking and cycling capital of NZ. Experiencehow active transport can succeed in NZ by being part of thesecond 2WALKandCYCLE Conference.

We invite you to join us at the conference and:• meet fellow professionals• be inspired by New Zealand success stories• share in the 2014 walking and cycling awards of excellence• learn from international technical experts• see the latest design technology and innovations• take part in practical field trips.

Come along and experience how the 9% modal share ofcycling and 10% modal share of walking shapes the Nelsoncommunity. This conference will also showcase the recentlyopened regional NZ Tourism Great Taste Cycle Trail.

Go to: www.2walkandcycle.org.nz

New York offers Auckland some transport advice

Researchers from the social sciences and humanities areinvited to join the mobilities studies community in AotearoaNew Zealand in exploring current and possible futuremobilities and resilience.

People from any discipline are welcome and postgraduateparticipation is encouraged. The symposium will exploreempirical research and ideas about how people, things andideas may move – or not – in the future, and how suchmobilities may impact on human, economic andenvironmental resilience.

Keynote speakers include Dr Juliet Jain and Dr BillyClayton, Centre for Transport & Society, University of theWest of England (Can digital presence reconfigureexperiences of absence? - via videolink) and Dr TaraDuncan, Department of Tourism, University of Otago(Where might ‘mobilities’ go?)

Date: 3–4 July 2014Venue: Dept of Public Health, University of Otago(Wellington)

Info: www.sustainablecities.org.nz/2014/03/mobilities/

5th New Zealand

Mobilities Symposium

Recently Auckland was visited by an world-reknownedtransport leader. Janette Sadik-Khan served as theCommissioner of the New York City Department ofTransportation from 2007-1 3 and is Chair of the StrategicAdvisory Board of the National Association of CityTransportation Officials.

Janette spoke on her transport experiences in New York City.She led many innovative projects, including the creation ofBroadway Boulevard, installation of 60 plazas, the addition ofmore than 600km of on-street bike lanes and the creation ofCiti Bike (which is North America's largest bike sharesystem), car-free Summer Streets, weekend pedestrian walksand creating more durable and attractive streets.

A typical approach was to implement street redesigns withpaint and temporary bollards, then measure changes in trafficcapacity and collisions before repaving or making otherpermanent changes. Her DOT also issued the first strategicplan in the agency's history.

Janette is also known for her work in implementing the NewYork City's 1 997 Bicycle Master Plan. She installed the city'sfirst parking-protected bike lanes on 9th Avenue. She hasreceived numerous international accolades for her contributionto public service and transportation which includes the LeeKuan Yew World City prize.

See her Auckland presentation at: http://tinyurl.com/JSKinNZ


The National Code of Practice for Utility Operators’ Access toTransport Corridors was collaboratively developed byrepresentatives of Road Controlling Authorities and UtilityService Providers and approved by the Minister forInfrastructure on 10 November 2011 .

The Code is mandated bythe Utilities Access Act2010 and managed by theNZ Utilities AdvisoryGroup (NZUAG).

By agreement, theprinciples of The Code apply to all works being carried outon, in, above or below the road reserve, thus any RoadControlling Authority's own development, renewals andmaintenance.

It has become apparent that there is a considerable lack ofknowledge of The Code and of its content in all sectors of theindustries and organisations involved in road works resultingin poor processes and practices.

To assist in overcoming this and to help get all participantsonto a level playing field, NZUAG and NZIHT havecombined to develop a course that will unravel any mysteries.

The course is presented by Fiona Knight, Executive Officer ofthe NZUAG from 2001 to2013. Fiona is a qualifiedand award winningpresenter who has lived andbreathed The Code fromconcept to completion.

The course, held over 2days, is happening in Auckland on 16 & 17 July 2014 and ishighly recommended for those involved in working on theroad. For further information regarding this course pleasecontact the Course Co-ordinator Lisa Banks on (06) 759 7065ext 705 or [email protected]

If you cannot attend the course you can access and downloadThe Code via http://tinyurl.com/utilityCOP

Need to know more on the CoP for utility

operators’ access to transport corridors?

Updates

The Christchurch Southern Motorway Stage 2 (CMS2) projectrecently received the prestigious 2014 New Zealand PlanningInstitute Best Practice Award. The annual awards recogniseexcellence within the New Zealand planning profession.

The CSM2 project team, led by GHD with partner Beca forthe NZ Transport Agency, was recognised for helping deliverstrategic consultation and participation processes for themotorway upgrade.

The consultation methods used by the team transformedpublic perception of the project and enabled a smooth journeythrough the Environmental Protection Authority’s nationalconsenting process. According to the citation, “Thiscollaborative and professional approach demonstrates howresponsive and proactive consideration of public andstakeholder feedback during consultation can deliver positiveoutcomes.”

Mary O’Callahan, GHD’s Planning Manager says, “Wheninitially introduced, CSM2 drew high levels of communityopposition. However, over a three year consultation anddesign process the project team improved public perceptionand addressed many of the issues that were initially raised.”

Planners love motorways**Well, the consultation for one of them

IPENZ are seeking assessors to participate on panelsfor the accreditation of engineering qualifications inNew Zealand.

Professional accreditation of engineering educationprogrammes is a core professional body activity, which setsand maintains the academic standard for entry to theengineering profession under the Washington, Sydney orDublin Accords.

IPENZ are seeking nominations from industry-based engineersto join accreditation panels to evaluate engineeringqualifications ranging from two year diplomas to four yearBachelor ofEngineering/Honours degrees.

There are two accreditations this year, in September andOctober, however volunteers may be able to assist with futureassessments as well.

Any Transportation Group members interested in helping,please contact Catherine Novak – Learning and DevelopmentAdvisor email: [email protected] or phone: 04 4748982

Volunteers sought for IPENZ

accreditation panels


That quote was shared by one of the Keynote Speakers at this year’s IPENZTransportation Group conference which took place in March, in Wellington.

The conference theme was ‘Transport Ingenuity: Celebrating 100 years’ to alignwith the centenary of IPENZ - or at least, 1 00 years since the ‘New ZealandSociety ofCivil Engineers’ was established in 1914.

It was a longer than usual conference, with three days of lectern presentations andparallel sessions including poster displays and ‘roundtable’ talks, as well as awelcome function at Zealandia on the Sunday evening and the lavish ConferenceDinner on the stage of the historic St James Theatre on Tuesday night.

There was something for everyone in the technical programme, with sessions asdiverse as Active Modes, Pavements, Signals, Modelling, Road Safety andRailways. In some ways the diversity of the profession is a disadvantage forconference organisers, because many delegates seem to have quite a niche interestand aren’t so interested in the bulk ofwhat is a widely varying programme.

However, everybody seemed to enjoy themselves and there was good opportunityto mingle and network. In fact, I felt after the event that it is the time spent inrelaxed conversation that seems to bear the most fruit in this small industry.

Here are some summaries of presentations some of my colleagues foundparticularly interesting, and here is the place you can download all of the availablepresentations and papers:http://conf.hardingconsultants.co.nz/ipenztg2014/presenters/

Safer Journeys and Safe Speeds: The international contextKeynote presentation by Dr Soames Job

Main point was that safe speeds is the crucial factor in the safe system, largelybecause it seems that the driving public do not understand the direct link betweenspeed and crash risk. Raising acceptance is a social and media communicationsissue. The focus now is on designing for the worst drivers, with a focus onreducing injuries rather than reducing crashes as a whole (because crashes areinevitable, but injury/death is not).

“The future is already here– it’s just not evenlydistributed”~William Gibson


The Pointy End ofTransportRoundtable presentation by Jo Draper (NZTA)NZTA Transport Planners presented their experiences of informing landownersaffected by the Petone to Grenada and Transmission Gully projects inWellington. Included some re-enactment of the worst case scenario visits,involving being picketed by 50 locals and the media, and informing a lady herhouse was going to be bulldozed for safety improvements at a nearbyintersection. As it happened, the lady’s son was killed at the intersection threeweeks ago, she was made redundant two weeks ago, and the planned worksaround her house means she could not sell, and could no longer finance hermortgage.

Tips were given, including:- Timing of consultation is key – the best time to go is when you have settledon a final option, but there hasn’t yet been enough design done to stop youfrom switching to another option.- Consult affected landownders in teams of two: one older, one younger; onemale, one female; one experienced, one graduate.- Expect the unexpected/worst case. . . there are always unfriendly dogs…- People generally react in one of three ways: detached/business like;emotional; or angry.

Mobility in a world beyond the motor ageKeynote presentation by Professor Glenn Lyons (Transport Sociologist,University ofWest England (Bristol, UK) (he who provided the quote at the topofthis story)We have two ages co-existing: the motor age we all grew up in, and the ‘digitalage’ , where access is not necessarily related to physical proximity. The digitalage is not replacing travel, but enhancing access with no change to overallamount of travel per person. We have been living through this revolution forthe last two decades.

Network Operating Frameworks (NOF) and Network Operating PlansLectern presentation by Stephen Carruthers (NZTA)This presentation was included within the Signals Tech Group session, whichwas debatably one of the more interesting overall sessions at the conference.Stephen presented on work NZTA has initiated workshopping withLocal/Regional Councils in the 3 main centres. This involves the use ofVicRoads “SmartRoads” software tool.

The parties go through the network with a fine toothed comb, identify areaswith issues, by time of day, and prioritise modes. The tool then produces anetwork “impact” style plot coloured by mode, time of day etc. This thenappears to be being translated into the NOP (‘Plans’) to deal with the issuesidentified – the tool can identify potential benefits of treatments. There areseveral interesting points to this:- In Chch, the process identifies that Riccarton Road has issue with busesduring the AM Peak- The tool is not a model, it therefore has less sophistication in relation tosystem interactions and numerical outcomes.

In summary, everyone found different things interesting and relevant, the socialfunctions were an outstanding highlight as usual, and I want to be a TransportSociologist when I grow up.Bridget Burdett


3M Award winner: Hamish Mackie, Mackie Research; Colin Brodie, Ken Holst, Fergus Tate, NZTA;

Murray Russell, Armitage Group “RURAL INTERSECTION ACTIVE WARNING SYSTEM”

3M Finalist: Doris Stroh and Andrew Stevens, AMA “USE OF ORANGE TAPE FOR TEMPORARY

DELINEATION OF ROAD WORKS SITES”

3M Finalist: Mark Lilley, Colin Brodie, Tony Spowart, Ken Holst, NZTA; Bridget Burdett, TDG

“WIDE CENTRELINE TRIAL”

3M Finalist: Robyn Gardner, ACC; Peter Kortegast and Neil Garnett, OPUS; Brian Runciman and John

Ashman, HMI; Jean-Francois Rheault, Eco-compteur; Philip Walton, Integrated Traffic Solutions

“VEHICLE ACTIVATED ELECTRONIC SIGNS”

3M Finalist: John Glen, Tauren Barriers Ltd “TAUREN BARRIERS – WORKSITE SCREENING”

NZAAAward for Best Transportation Paper: Hamish Mackie, Mackie Research; Colin Brodie, Ken

Holst, Fergus Tate, NZTA; Murray Russell, Armitage Group “HELPING DRIVERS TO MANAGE

SAFETYAT HIGH RISK RURAL INTERSECTIONS”

Roundabout Award for Best Contribution: Ian Munro, Urbanism+ “IS THE WAYWE VALUE

TRAVEL TIME FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED?”

Best Technical Note: Wayne King, Hutt City Council; Mike Brearton & Brett Abbott, Digital Telemetry

“40KPH SCHOOL ZONES REMOTE INTEGRATED SIGN CONTROL & MONITORING”

Best Young Author: Pritesh Karan, University ofAuckland; Dr Douglas Wilson and Dr Tam Larkin,

University ofAuckland “METHODS OF COMPACTION OF BASECOURSE AGGREGATE FOR

REPEATED LOAD TRIAXIAL TESTING”

Highly Commended Paper: William Frith, Opus Research; Mike Jackett, Jackett Consulting “THE

IMPACT OF ADAPTIVE ROAD LIGHTING ON ROAD SAFETY”

Highly Commended Paper: Glen Koorey, University ofCanterbury “INVESTIGATING COMMON

PATTERNS IN NEW ZEALAND CYCLING FATALITIES”

Highly Commended Young Author: Paul Young, Generation Zero “AYOUTH PERSPECTIVE ON

THE FUTURE OF URBAN TRANSPORT – GENERATION ZERO”

People's Choice - Oral Presentation - Monday: Sam Corbett, Auckland Transport “IF YOU BUILD IT,

WILL THEY COME? CYCLE FACILITIES - STATE OF THE PRACTICE”

People's Choice - Oral Presentation - Tuesday: Chris Morahan, Opus International Consultants; Luke

Reeves, NZ Transport Agency “UNDERCOVER GRADUATES: CLIENT VS CONSULTANT”

People's Choice - Oral Presentation – Wednesday: Imran Muhammad, Massey University “THE

POLITICAL-INSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES IN AUCKLAND PUBLIC TRANSPORT”

People's Choice - Poster Presentation: Urie Bezuidenhout, Da Vinci Research “ROAD SIGN

CONSPICUITYAND MEMORABILITY - WHAT WE SEE AND REMEMBER”

People's Choice - Roundtable Presentation: Jo Draper, NZ Transport Agency “THE POINTY END OF

TRANSPORT”


Conference dinner quiz:

See if you can put a name

to the past or present face.


Do you want to plan and develop projects that make areal difference to Auckland's transport landscape?

As a Senior Transport Planner/Project Engineer in the Corridor and Centre Plans team you will bring your extensiveexperience in planning and developing transport projects, seeing important ideas and initiatives come to fruition.Your sound understanding and knowledge of transport planning and systems, as well as project managementprocesses, will enable you to take a lead role in progressing vital Auckland Transport projects. You will be involved ina range of Auckland Transport projects, at various stages in their delivery lifecycle, providing strategic, planning orproject delivery advice.Your experience working within a complex environment, coupled with your excellent communication and relationshipbuilding skills, will be critical in maintaining strategic partnerships and engagement processes with Auckland Council,Central Government and other transport agencies. Your strong project management and strategic thinking skills andpositive 'can do' approach will assist in developing the transport system that is needed for Auckland's future.

APPLY ONLINE TODAY! CLOSES JUNE 1 8TH

Go to: https://careers.aucklandtransport.govt.nz Reference #26294

Vacancy: Senior Transport Planner/Project Engineer -2 Year Fixed Term - Auckland Transport


The courses below are available for ful l-time or part-time students studying for the fol lowing postgraduatetransportation qualifications at Canterbury:• Certificate of Proficiency (COP) ~ for individual one-off courses (great for CPD!)• Postgraduate Certificate in Engineering (PGCertEng) ~ typical ly four courses• Master of Engineering Studies (MEngSt) ~ typical ly eight courses• Master of Engineering in Transportation (MET) ~ up to six courses plus research project/thesis

All courses run in “block mode” to enable part-time and distance students to easily take part.

Candidates with a Bachelor of Engineering OR other relevant degrees (e.g. planning, geography, psychology, maths) OR nondegree with suitable work experience will be considered for entry.2014 domestic fees are $950 incl. GST, + Student Services levy (up to $362/semester, rebates available).Block course dates would be announced in due course. All prospective students must Apply To Enrol in courses no later than oneweek prior to the course starting (preferably earlier) – otherwise late fees may apply.

Other relevant courses at Canterbury (e.g. Construction Management block courses) may also be suitablefor credit. Papers can also be cross-credited between Auckland and Canterbury university programmes.

Special Topics and small research projects may also be available to some students – contact theDepartment.

Likely courses to be offered in 2015 (still to be confirmed; check with our website for more details. ):• ENTR611 : Planning and Managing for Transport• ENTR604: Road Asset Management• ENTR61 3: Highway Geometric Design

For more detai ls contact:Professor Alan Nicholson , Director of Transportation EngineeringPhone: (03) 364-2233Email : [email protected] visit the website: www.met.canterbury.ac.nz

ENTR401 : Fundamentals ofTransport Engineering(Self-study course; a tutorial day oncampus may be arranged)

A self-study programme in: Transportation planning; Road link theory and design;Intersection analysis and design; Traffic studies; Accident reduction; Sustainabletransport planning and design; Pavement design; Road asset management.{bridging course for non-transportation students}

DESCRIPTION (more detailed Flyers available on website)COURSE

ENTR603:Advanced Pavement Design(Block dates: 21-23 Jul, 15-17 Sep)

Stresses, strains and deflections in flexible and rigid pavements; Pavementmaterials characterization; Mechanistic and mechanistic-empirical designmethods; Pavement performance and evaluation.

ENTR61 5:Transport Network Modeling(Block dates: 4-6 Aug, 29 Sep-1 Oct)

Transport economics; Travel demand and supply management; Congestionpricing; Transport policy objectives and instruments; Traffic managementmodell ing.

ENTR61 2: Transport Policy &Demand Management(Block dates: 28-30 Jul, 22-24 Sep)

Principles of transport modell ing; Road network modell ing (SATURN);Macro-simulation and micro-simulation (Paramics); Traffic intersectionmodell ing (SIDRA); Transport network analysis and rel iabi l ity.

Transportation EngineeringPostgraduate Courses- 2nd Semester 201 4

Dept of Civil & Natural Resources EngineeringUniversity of Canterbury

supported by:

• ENTR61 6: Advanced Trp’t Planning & Modell ing• ENTR61 7: Traffic Engineering & Design• ENTR61 8: Transport & Freight Logistics


This article, by Bill Frith (OpusResearch) and Mike Jackett (JackettConsulting) is a summary of the paperwhich won a Highly Commended awardat the 2014 IPENZ TransportationGroup conference.

Road lighting for safetyRoad lighting is primarily a safetymeasure. As stated by Austroads in2004, “Road authorities are primarilyconcerned with road lighting for itscrash reducing potential, with anyimproved road utilisation or level ofservice being a secondary benefit.”

This is in accord with the Safe SystemApproach to road safety now adoptedthroughout Australia and New Zealand.The ultimate goal of the safe systemapproach is a road system free of seriousinjury and death

How effective a safety measure is roadlighting?The literature generally associatesimproved road lighting with crashreduction (~30% reduction). In reportsof before and after studies the prior andpost levels of lighting are seldom stated.Under a Safe System Approach it isimportant to optimise the safety benefitsof lighting in the context of our overallrepertoire of road safety measures.

We now to know how safety in urbanNew Zealand varies with the level oflighting. Jackett and Frith (2013)described the dose responserelationships between the level of roadlighting and road safety for urban NewZealand lighting installations. Thisrelationship is described in Figure 1 .

This indicates that in general anydecrease in lighting levels can beexpected to decrease safety and viceversa.

What is adaptive lighting?Adaptive lighting installations are thosewhere lighting levels may be varied overtime using computer-based control

The Impact ofAdaptive RoadLighting on Road Safety

Figure 1: The relationship between the light reflected off the road surface andreported crashes

An LED lighting installation in Auckland

CCoovveerr ssttoorryy


systems. Adaptive lighting has beenavailable for some time but the adventof LED technology has allowed it to beused with very little energy loss.

Adaptive LED lighting has manyadvantages• LED luminaires use less power thanlegacy technologies• The light is usually better directed,resulting in less light pollution• Their light output can be easilyreduced or increased using computercontrolled technology• Hardware prices are dropping and areexpected to continue to do so

The advent of LED road lighting hasmade adaptive lighting much moreaccessible. Normal lighting is designedto a chosen subcategory of lightingaccording to national or local codes ofpractice and stays unchanged during theperiod of darkness.

Adaptive lighting is appropriate:• where there is a need to vary the levelof lighting at different times; forexample off-peak, during better weatheror worse weather, times when there aremore or fewer crashes,• when there are more vulnerable roadusers around or when there is moreambient light.

An example is the adaptive lighting usedaround Eden Park at the rugby worldcup. With adaptive lighting a higher orlower level of lighting can be selectedfrom the range of subcategoriesavailable in National Standardsdepending on the circumstances

With the arrival of adaptive LEDlighting we now have in our grasp theability to vary lighting levels virtually atwill. This ability, as with all newtechnology will become moreaffordable.

To move towards a safe system, we needto know the safety impact of the changeswe are considering, whether theyinvolve dimming or brightening road

lighting. Lighting decisions need to bemade alongside with other safetymeasures so that overall system safetycontinues to increase, but with best useof the road safety dollar. This means thatsafety should be considered in all roadlighting decisions including thoserelated to adaptive lighting.

How adaptive LED lighting is used atpresentDecision making on how to use adaptivelighting varies internationally• Decisions tend to be based on trafficvolumes and perceived energy savings• Decisions tend to be arbitrary, basedon little hard evidence, and safety isoften not explicitly or implicitly takeninto account.• None of the approaches foundinternationally have provision for thedirect inclusion of crash information inthe choice of lighting level• Most only allow dimming rather thandimming and brightening

New Zealand is fortunate that our roadlighting standard allows for safetyimplicitly and also has flexibility tomove to a higher as well as lower level

of lighting as appropriate.

Lighting levels used in New ZealandLighting for road safety purposes isclassified into four sub categories V1 ,V2, V3 and V4. Its use on roads is oftenguided by traffic volume and task relatedfactors such as the presence ofvulnerable users.• V1 corresponds to an averageluminance of 1 .5 cd/m2,• V2 to an average luminance of 1 .0cd/m2,• V3 to an average luminance of 0.75cd/m2• V4 to an average luminance of 0.5cd/m2

Traffic volume criteria andsafetyCrash rates per hour vary during thenight. Notwithstanding lower trafficvolumes, they still exceed weeklymedian levels in the small hours ofSaturday and Sunday mornings. This isrelated to the presence of high riskdrivers who may be fatigued and/ orintoxicated.

Figure 2 illustrates the variation of riskover the days of the week and times ofday on a selection of major urban roadswithin the former North Shore City.

It would appear sensible to use this riskinformation when setting adaptivelighting levels. If a lighting installationcan be varied to deliver more light at theperiods with high crash numbers andless light at the periods with low crashnumbers, then safety can be maximisedfor a given total nightly lumen output.This concept was piloted in a case studyof targeting lighting to risk usinghistorical crash and flow data from theNorth Shore ofAuckland.

Targeting lighting to riskNow that we know how lighting levelimpacts on crash risk we can use thisknowledge to estimate: potential savings

Night-time drink driving enforcement

Figure 2: Number ofcrashes per hour normalised such that the median cell is setto 1 . 0


from utilising a higher and lowerlighting level; and, comparative savingsif targeting lighting levels by crash riskcompared to traffic volume. We testedfour scenarios:

• A single V3 level of lighting providedthroughout the night. This representsthe norm for much State Highwaylighting in NZ.• A V3 level provided for 50% of thenight dimmed to V4 for the remainderof the night with switching based ontraffic volume alone• A V3 level provided for 50% of thenight dimmed to V4 for the remainderof the night with switching based onhistoric crash records• A single V2 level of lighting providedthroughout the night.

Results (compared to no lighting)• A V3 level all night provided crashsavings of 27.6%• A mix of V2 and V4 lighting based ontraffic volumes provided crash savings

of 30.6%(11% moresavingsthan V3)• A mix ofV2 and V4lightingbased oncrash riskprovidedcrashsavings of31 .4%(14% moresavingsthan V3)• A V2level allnight

provided crash savings of 34.9% (26%more savings than V3)

In a real situation, the decision onlighting levels would involveconsideration of the overall mix of roadsafety measures. This is only a roughillustration- extra safety achieved bytargeting to risk will differ with thesituation.

Discussion• Traffic volume works as a reasonablesurrogate for crash frequency, but failsin some specific high risk times at theweekend and approaching the weekend.

• A case study found that withoutincreasing energy output an increase incrash savings of some 14 % over V3lighting could be achieved with asimple two step adaptive lightingscheme (one level above, one levelbelow normal) targeting light levelsaccording to traffic crash data.• A smaller figure (11%) is applicable if

light levels are targeted according totraffic volume data.• By increasing levels to V2 a 26%increase in savings could be achieved• The ready availability of detailedtraffic volume data at most road lightingsites could provide a useful first step inselecting periods for high and low levellighting.• This could then be supplemented byinformation on high risk times, usinginformation similar to that in the crashfrequency matrices used in the casestudy

Conclusions• Adaptive road lighting, within a safesystem context, can fine tune ourlighting conditions so that safety andenvironment benefits can besimultaneously realised at more optimalcost.• As a simple guide urban arterialnetwork lighting should be retained athigher levels during the dark periodsfrom dusk Friday evening through tosunrise Sunday morning.• As more sophisticated adaptivetechnology becomes available, weatherrelated changes in lighting could beincorporated, giving greater light tothose times when weather is bad.• Guidelines to aid decisions on raising/lowering the level of lighting usingadaptive LED technology would behelpful to practitioners

Reference: Jackett, M. and Frith, W.(2013). Quantifying the impact of roadlighting on road safety — A NewZealand Study. IATSS Research, 36,139–145.Acknowledgement: NZTA provided thefunding for this work

Figure 3: A comparison ofcrash savings and energy use for the four scenarios tested


In New Zealand, the Rural IntersectionActivated Warning Signs (RIAWS)development began with a scopingstudy (Mackie 2010) to understandvarious intersection ITS based safetysystems that have been developedoverseas and the potential for the trial ofsuch a system in New Zealand.

The most compelling of the overseasexamples was a system that was trialledby the Swedish Road Administration(SRA) between 2003 and 2007. Variablespeed limit (VSL) field trials wereimplemented at 19 locations in differentparts of the country.

Many of the installations were atintersections where the variable speedlimit was triggered by the presence of aside road vehicle that may have the

potential for a collision. At locationswhere a permanent 90 km/h speed limitexisted, a variable 70 km/h speed limitwas installed. At these sites, vehiclespeeds reduced by 14 km/h on average,accepted gap time increased by 1 - 2seconds and the system was perceivedvery positively by the motoring public(Lind 2009).

RIAWS has the potential to reduceserious casualties at rural intersectionsby:• Slowing motorists on major roadintersection approaches and thusreducing crash likelihood (effectivelyincreasing available stopping distance)and severity (less energy on impact)• Increasing driver state awareness andtherefore preparing motorists for apossible event (effectively reducing

reaction time)• Improving motorist gap judgement(accepting longer gaps) on minor roadintersection approaches

Given the potential for RIAWS toimprove safety at rural intersections, atrial was planned and carried out. Thepurpose of this trial was to demonstratethe development of a RIAWS system inNew Zealand and evaluate itseffectiveness.

After considerable development anddiscussion, the sign formats for RIAWSwere agreed (Figure 1 ). The speed limitoption has been evaluated to date withthe “Slow Down” format currentlybeing trialled in Northland.

Analysis determined that a variablespeed limit of 60 km/h would be a ‘SafeSystem’ solution for the RIAWS.However, further discussion among theproject team and wider reference groupresolved that a 70 km/h variable speedlimit may have overall bettercompliance by motorists. Based on this,a 70 km/h variable speed limit waschosen for RIAWS by the projectreference group and project team.

Two initial pilot sites (Figure 2) wereidentified and confirmed:• Himitangi (Manawatu) –SH1 /Highway 56/Himitangi Beach Rd• Yaldhurst (Canterbury) –SH73/Buchanans Rd

Figure 1: Signs developed for use as part ofthe RIAWS trial

AAtt tthhee 22001144 IIPPEENNZZ TTrraannssppoorrttaattiioonn GGrroouupp CCoonnffeerreennccee,, DDrr HHaammiisshh MMaacckkiiee ooff MMaacckkiiee

RReesseeaarrcchh aanndd CCoonnssuullttiinngg wwaass aawwaarrddeedd tthhee 33MM ''TTrraaffffiicc EEnnggiinneeeerr ooff tthhee YYeeaarr'' pprriizzee ffoorr

iinnnnoovvaattiioonn,, aass wweellll aass tthhee NNZZ AAAA AAwwaarrdd ffoorr BBeesstt TTeecchhnniiccaall PPaappeerr,, ffoorr hhiiss wwoorrkk

''HHeellppiinngg DDrriivveerrss ttoo MMaannaaggee SSaaffeettyy aatt HHiigghh RRiisskk RRuurraall IInntteerrsseeccttiioonnss''.. AA ssuummmmaarryy ooff tthhee

ppaappeerr ((ccoo--aauutthhoorreedd bbyy,, ppiiccttuurreedd lleefftt ttoo rriigghhtt,, DDrr FFeerrgguuss TTaattee,, KKeenn HHoollsstt aanndd CCoolliinn

BBrrooddiiee -- aahheemm,, GGaannddhhii -- aallll ooff NNZZTTAA)) iiss pprreesseenntteedd hheerree..


The RIAWS consists of the followingelements (Figure 3):• Side-road radar sensors (highdefinition radar) to detect approachingside road traffic approximately 150mfrom the intersection and activate signs• Side-road limit line sensors (cut loops)to detect waiting traffic and trigger theend of sign activation following a delay• Right turn bay sensors 50-66m fromlimit line, to activate signs, plus limitline sensors to detect queuing traffic andterminate sign activation following adelay• Variable speed limit signsapproximately 150m from intersection• A central control system box tomanage the system and accommodatedata collection equipment

Evaluation MethodsThis study evaluated the followingoutcomes:1 .RIAWS development and operationalperformance2. Major road traffic speed through theintersection3. Public perception and understandingof the system

Further work is underway to understandthe motorist gap selection patternsfollowing RIAWS installation. Tounderstand the operational performance

of RIAWS, the project team attended a‘ launch’ of each system and observed itoperating.

Further, a regional engineer carried out astructured audit of variouscharacteristics of the system shortlyafterwards. The data collection systemprovided data from which an analysis ofsign activation time could be carried out.

Speed was measured for each directionon the major road, both at the sign(using radar) and at the intersection(using inductive loops). A target of 14days of data collection prior to, andfollowing RIAWS commissioning, wasset. In reality, eight days of data werecollected before and after RIAWScommissioning at Himitangi and a tendays at Yaldhurst.

A public perceptions survey was carriedout for Himitangi only, by capturingnumber plate information for vehiclespassing through the intersection usingautomatic number plate recognition(ANPR) and then accessing vehicleowner address details through the motorvehicle registry (following NZTAapproval).

A paper survey was then mailed tovehicle owners, with an option of

completing the survey online. Thesurvey asked motorists a range ofquestions related to the meaning,conspicuity and legibility of the signsand any perceived hazards andsuggested changes associated with thesystem.

Evaluation OutcomesThe proportion of time the variablespeed limit signs spent on and off wasmeasured and analysed, to check powerdemand and ensure that the system wasnot being overused or underused. Anexample of the sign activation patternsis shown in Figure 5, for Yaldhurst.

At both Himitangi and Yaldhurst thesign was active for over 50% of the timefor large parts of daylight hours,transitioning to minimal activation atnight. The project team has concludedthat this activation pattern is acceptableas it reflects the periods of demand anddoes not unduly slow through vehicleswhen there is no collision risk.

The RIAWS has been effective inreducing traffic speed through theintersections. When the signs areactivated by potentially conflictingtraffic, mean and modal speeds aretypically very close to the speed limit of70 km/h (Figure 4).

Figure 2: The general layout ofthe Himitangi and Yaldhurst trial intersections

Figure 3: The RIAWS in operation at Himitangi with no conflict risk (left) and a potential conflict risk (right) with a side roadvehicle present (circled)


Statistically it is clear that the RIAWSsystem has positively reduced trafficspeed at the intersections. For example,a t-test comparing the mean speed at theYaldhurst intersection before and afterRIAWS installation (with the signactivated in the post condition) returnsthe following results:Degrees of freedom = 16393t statistic = 64.9p = < 0.001 (very close to zero)

Further, effects sizes (Cohen’s dstatistic) for the intersectioncomparisons with the sign on weretypically between 0.72 and 1 .0 (Table2), reinforcing a strong real effect inreduced mean speed. However,statistical significance is less relevanthere because it is very obvious that thesystem has positively affected meanspeed.

More importantly is whether RIAWShas had sufficient effect to improve roadsafety at high risk intersections. Prior toRIAWS, modal intersection speedsranged between 81 -96 km/h across theHimitangi and Yaldhurst sites.Following RIAWS, when the sign wasactive, modal intersection speeds rangedbetween 68-72 km/h.

Public PerceptionIn total 307 survey responses werecollected (297 posted paper surveys and10 online) representing a 31% responserate. Overall, based on the driverfeedback, the RIAWS has beenpositively received.

There have been a minority of negativecomments regarding the systemhowever it is important to distinguishbetween drivers’ opinions of the systemas opposed to their actual behaviour,which generally appears to be positiveto date. Nevertheless, some ofthefeedback can be used to furtherimprove the RIAWS at future sites.

The majority of respondents correctlyunderstood the key message from the

RIAWS at Himitangi, although aminority did not understand theregulatory nature of the signs or whythey were being instructed to slow downby the signs. More conspicuous signageindicating the up-coming intersection,and possibly the potential for conflict,could be considered.

DiscussionFrom the data it is clear that generally,motorists slow down slightly at ruralintersections when the potential for acollision exists, although this wasclearer at Yaldhurst than at Himitangi.However, it appears that most motoristsdo not adjust their speed sufficiently tomitigate the effects of a potentialcollision situation, no doubt trading offsafety with convenience, or perhapsbeing unaware of the consequences ofan intersection collision at 80-100 km/h.

The relatively high level of compliancewith RIAWS suggests that the system ishighly credible to most motorists andthe variable speed limit of 70 km/hsimply represents an extension ofreasonable precautionary behaviour atrural intersections.

It could be said that RIAWS helpsmotorists by extending their existingprecautionary behaviour, in line withcurrent evidence of the survivability ofcrash situations at various speeds.Applying the analysis that was carriedout earlier (Mackie, 2011 ), it could beinterpreted that the RIAWS is likely tosignificantly reduce the crash forcesinvolved in collisions at the intersectionand potentially reduce the likelihood ofcollisions.

Applying the RIAWS speed outcomes tothe risk of KSI curve for side impacts(adapted from Richards and Cuerden2009), it is clear that in theory theRIAWS system should have substantialeffects on intersection safety (Figure 8).But only the crash behaviour of theintersections over time (minimum fiveyears) will determine if this eventuates

in reality.

ConclusionA RIAWS has been developed andevaluated in New Zealand. The findingsto date suggest that the RIAWSperforms well and has the potential tosignificantly reduce fatal and seriouscasualties at rural high risk intersectionsby extending drivers’ naturalintersection risk management strategies.Longer-term evaluation of the pilot sitesand further trial sites will help toconfirm the efficacy of RIAWS in NewZealand.

REFERENCESAARTS, L., and VAN SCHAGEN, I. (2006).

Driving speed and the risk of road crashes; a

review. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38 (2),

p215–224.

ARCHER, J., FOTHERINGHAM, N.,

SYMMONS, M. & CORBEN, B. (2008). The

Impact of lowered speed limits in

urban/metropolitan areas. Monash University

Accident Research Centre Rpt No.276, Australia.

CHARLTON, S. (2003). Restricting intersection

visibility to reduce approach speeds. Accident

Analysis and Prevention, 35 (5), p 817-23.

CHARLTON, S. and BAAS, P. (2006).

Assessment of hazard warning signs used on New

Zealand roads. Wellington: Land Transport NZ

Research Report 288.

FILDES, B. N. & LEE, S. J. (1 993). The speed

review: Road environment, behaviour, speed

limits, enforcement and crashes. Report CR127.

Federal Office of Road Safety. Canberra,

Australia.

GARBER, N.J., GADIRAJU, R., 1 989. Factors

affecting speed variance and its influence on

accidents. 1 989-01 -01 1213. Transportation

Research Record, Washington D.C., USA

LIND, G. (2009). Estimation of safety benefits of

VSL at intersections and on weather-controlled

links. 27th International Baltic Road Conference,

p10, Riga, Latvia.

MACKIE, H.W. (2010). Rural Intersection

Warning Systems: Review of information and

recommendations Stage 1 Report. A report

prepared for NZ Transport Agency by TERNZ

Ltd.

MACKIE, H.W. (2011 ). The effects of speed on

rural intersection crashes. A report prepared for the

NZ Transport Agency by TERNZ Ltd.

NILSSON, G. (2004). Traffic safety dimensions

and the Power Model to describe the effect of

speed on safety. Bulletin 221 . Lund Institute of

Technology, Lund, Sweden.

OECD/ECMT, (2006). Speed management. Paris.

OECD Publishing.

RICHARDS, D. and CUERDEN, R. (2009). The

relationship between speed and car driver injury

severity, Department for Transport, UK.

TATE, F. (2003). Jaws: The Safety Impacts, PhD

Thesis, Leeds: University of Leeds Institute for

Transport studies.

WRAMBORG, P. (2005). A New Approach to a

Safe and Sustainable Road Structure and Street

Design for Urban Areas. Paper presented at Road

Safety on Four Continents Conference, Warsaw

Poland.

YAMANAKA, H. and MITANI, T. (2005).

Vehicle behavioural safety assessment for

unsignalised small intersections to evaluate

collision avoidance system. Journal of the Eastern

Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 6,

p2667–2675.

Figure 4: Example ofspeed profile changes at Himitangi in the northbound directionbefore and after RIAWS Installation


Transportation EngineeringPostgraduate Courses 201 4

Other relevant courses at Auckland or Canterbury or elsewhere may also be suitable for credit.For course detai ls, please contact the 201 4 Course Coordinator: Civi l 660 + Civi l 758 + Civi l 766 + Civi l 767 (DrSeosamh Costel lo), Civi l 661 + Civi l 765 (Dr Theuns Henning), Civi l 759 + Civi l 764 + Civi l 768 + Civi l 769 (Dr DougWilson), Civi l 770 (Mr Bevan Clement), Civi l 760 + Civi l 761 + Civi l 762 (Dr Prakash Ranjitkar), Civi l 763 + Civi l 772(Prof. Avi Ceder), Civi l 771 + Civi l 773 (Assoc. Prof. Roger Dunn).

For Admission / Enrolment inquiries contact: Assoc. Prof. Roger Dunn , Director of Transportation EngineeringPhone: (09) 373-7599 x8771 4 or (09) 923 771 4 DDI Email : [email protected]

Further details, including the course outlines, can be found at:http://www.cee.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/home/about/ourprogrammesandcourseshttp://www.engineering.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/home/about/our-staff

CIVIL661 - Highway &Pavement Engineering(28, 29, 30 July + Civi l 759)#

CIVIL761 – Planning &Design of TransportFacilities(1 1 , 1 2, 1 3 August and 22, 23, 24September)

CIVIL763 – TransportationNetwork Analysis(7, 8, 9 and 28, 29, 30 August)

A range of selected topics in highway engineering and pavement materials whichwil l provide a basis for extension into further studies. (Diploma course which is apre-requisite for several other 700 series courses).# 1 x 3-days + integrated with Civil 758, a BEHons course every Thurs AM.

A range of topics on planning and design of transport facil ities includingfundamentals of traffic flow, modell ing and simulation of transport facil ities,macroscopic traffic models and traffic signal safety and operations.

Introduction to logistics and scheduling; Definitions of graph and network theory;Max-Flow problems; Minimal spanning trees and shortest path; Minimal-costnetworks; Location problems.

Semester 2 (Jul-Oct ’14)

CIVIL765 – InfrastructureAsset Management(1 8, 1 9, 20 August & 29 Sept, 1 , 3 Oct)

CIVIL 771 – Planning &Managing Transport(31 July & 1 August, 28 & 29 August, 9& 1 0 October)

Civil 772 – Public Transport– Planning & Operation(22, 23, 24 July 21 , 22, 23 Aug)

Integration of planning and infrastructure asset management, resourcemanagement, institutional issues and legal requirements. The process ofundertaking asset management plans and specific asset managementtechniques across all infrastructural assets.

Integrated planning of transport and land use, Outl ine of transport planningmodell ing, LTMA and the GPS, District Plans and RMA, Travel, trips and parking.Integrated transport assessments with multi-modal transport, Travel demandmanagement, ‘Smart roads’, Intel l igent transport systems.

PT Data Collection; Frequency and Headway Determination; AlternativeTimetables; Vehicle and Crew Scheduling; Short-turn Design; PT NetworkDesign; Reliabi l ity; Design of Shuttle and Feeder l ines; Bus priority and BRT

Department of Civi l & Environmental Engineering University of Auckland

For Master of Engineering Studies (MEngSt) and Graduate Diploma (GradDipEng),

with / without Transportation special isation, or for one-off Certificate of Proficiency (COP).


Muhammad Imran, Senior Lecturerin Resource and EnvironmentalPlanning at Massey Universityoutlines some of the complexitiesfor transport in Auckland. Thisarticle is a summary of the paperwhich won a People's Choiceaward for Best Presentation at the2014 IPENZ Transportation Groupconference.

Local government in New Zealandsets land-use regulations andplans public transport, but

transport funding remains under the control of centralgovernment. Conflict arises between the two due to differingpriorities.

The current (National-led) government has a major focus onRoads of National Significance (RoNS), three being inAuckland. Auckland Council/Transport is focused onimproving public transport, including the Central Rail Link(CRL). Funding for CRL is a source of tension betweencentral and local government. Analysis of transport policiesand strategies affecting Auckland between 2000 and 2013reveals central and local government perspectives and the(in)consistencies between them.

Central Government Transport Policies (2000-13)

The first New Zealand Transport Strategy 2002, a Labour-ledgovernment (1999-2008) initiative, advocated sustainability, anew funding system for public transport to improve access andmobility, and purchase of the Auckland regional rail network.With the 2008 update setting specific targets to be achieved by2040, a public transport focus including upgrade of themetropolitan rail network and the Northern Buswayinvestment was expected to alleviate Auckland’s congestionproblems.

The Land Transport Management Act 2003 (LTMA) asamended in 2008 allowed Auckland to impose a regional fueltax of up to 10 cents per litre to fund capital projects. Theamendment was repealed two years later by the National-ledgovernment.

The first Government Policy Statement (GPS) on LandTransport Funding 2008, released by the Labour-ledgovernment, aimed to increase public and active transport. The2009 GPS amendment reflects the National-led government’seconomic productivity and growth priorities, with ‘ investmentin the SH network … a key to the efficient movement offreight and people’ . Government describes RoNS as ‘essentialroutes that require significant development to reducecongestion, improve safety and support economic growth’ ,with investment in SH infrastructure at 33-34 percent of thetotal fund. The 2012 GPS ‘reinforces this focus … as theprimary objective for land transport expenditure’ .

The National Land Transport Programme (NLTP) 2009-12specifies funding distribution. Besides funding for threeRoNS, Auckland received a large proportion of the 30 percentincrease in nationwide funding for public transport services(compared to 2006-9). The majority of public transportinvestment was in rail capital and supporting operationalfunding.

“PMJohn Key showedsupport for the CRL butwithout fundingcommitments.”

The political-institutional challenges

ofAuckland public transport


Auckland Local GovernmentTransport Policies (2000-13)

Auckland Regional Council prepared theRegional Land Transport Strategy(RLTS) in 2005, stating that low densitydevelopment, makes private vehicle use‘ inevitable … [as] cars give mostAucklanders a wide choice of living andwork locations’ . In contrast, the RailDevelopment Plan 2006 sees rail as‘extremely efficient at moving people …[the] essential back bone of the RapidTransit Network’ . Private vehicles areseen as contributing to Auckland’s$1billion/year congestion problem withARTA wanting 30 million trips perannum to be made by rail by 2030.

The Auckland Transport Plan 2007 and2009, expecting to utilise the regionalfuel tax, identified projects requiringalmost $17 billion over a ten yearperiod, not including the full costs of theWaterview connection, CRL, rail to theairport, or an additional WaitemataHarbour Crossing. Ongoing fundinggaps continue to exist; projects ofregional importance are often delayedbecause Auckland cannot fund its 50percent portion.

Auckland Regional Land TransportStrategy 2010-2040 (RLTS) has a 30year timeframe stressing ‘ investing inpublic transport improvements and onimprovements to local roads’ , includingintegrated ticketing and fares;electrifying the rail network and

increasing frequencies by 2015; andconstructing the CRL by 2021 . Withsimilar key objectives to the RLTS, the30 year Auckland Plan 2012 aims toincrease public transport from 70milliontrips in 2012 to 140million trips by2022, subject to additional funding. Newfunding mechanisms are required to helpfinance the approximately $10-1 5billionfunding shortfall for transport, mostprominent in the first decade, withinsufficient funds to implement priorityprojects such as the CRL.

Political Differences and Similarities

The 2002 NZTS showed concern forAuckland’s auto-dependence.Acknowledging previousunderinvestment in public transport, by2008, investment had risen to 31 percentof spend on SHs. The election of aNational-led government in late 2008saw investment drop to 17 percent of SHinvestment, accompanied by heavyinvestment in RoNS. The only focus onpublic transport was to partly combat

congestion in major cities. In June 2013,Prime Minister, John Key, first showedsupport for the Auckland CRL, butwithout funding commitments.

Inconsistency and conflict between localcouncils contributed to both theformation of ARTA in 2004 tocoordinate regional transport planning,and the 2010 formation of AucklandCouncil/Transport. The mayoral electionin 2010 elected Len Brown, a strongadvocate for public transport in general,and the CRL in particular. Brown’s re-election in 2013 shows public supportfor his commitment to public transportand the CRL.

Planning Differences and Similarities

Normally in New Zealand localgovernment is responsible for localroads, public transport, cycling andwalking, and central government isresponsible for funding SHs. AucklandTransport has some overlappingresponsibilities with NZTA as shown in

“Roading projects generatecommonalities between centraland local government, anddifferences relate to publictransport projects.”

Figure 1: City Rail Link aligment


Table 1 , and over the last decade, apartnership approach has beenprogressed for SHs and regional arterialroads. Central and local governmenthave a significant focus on Auckland’seconomic capability, with the regionreceiving a large proportion of nationalfunding for rail track extension andelectrification, RoNS and SHs.

Note: The Ministry for the Environmentis interested in the pollution andenvironmental aspects of transport inAuckland, whilst the Ministry of Energyis focused on the energy aspects oftransport. The focus of this project is onurban transport and therefore airportauthorities and ports are not relevant tothis research.

Central government sees publictransport as partially reducing

congestion to enhance economicactivity. Local government concurs, alsoseeing the community, environmental,health and accessibility benefits ofefficient public transport.

Funding Differences and Similarities

The activity classes in the GPS set the

fiscal limits for public transportimprovements funded by the NLTF.Funding for land transport is splitbetween central and local government.The NZTA, a crown entity, funds the SHnetwork and controls the NLTF, whichin 2011 /12 allocated 53 percent oftransport funding to SHs. This fund,subject to caps, is accessible to localgovernment for regional projects, butonly with at least 50 percent match-funding. Responsibility for the rail

network in Auckland is shared betweenKiwiRail and Auckland Transport. Bycontrolling allocation and funding ofwork through the NLTF, centralgovernment effectively decides whichregional projects proceed, and thedirection of national and regionaltransport policies.

Conclusion

Generally, roading projects generatecommonalities between central and localgovernment, and differences relate topublic transport and related projects. It isrecommended that central governmentshould give Auckland greater financialindependence to enable implementationof the regions preferred strategictransport vision. A permanent AucklandTransport Forum is needed where localstakeholders and residents can discussthe future direction of transport inAuckland. This would highlight theneeds of Aucklanders’ and supportAuckland Council/Transport in theirnegotiations with central government.

Muhammad ImranSenior Lecturer in Resource andEnvironmental Planning, MasseyUniversityEmail: i.muhammad@massey. ac. nz

Note: Full paper (co-authored withTeryll Lepper and Jane Pearce) isavailable at the IPENZ TransportationGroup Conference 2014 website:http://conf. hardingconsultants. co. nz/ipenztg2014/presenters/

Table 1: Auckland transport responsibilities: Number ofticks shows the intensity ofresponsibilities (Adapted from the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, 2009)


This contraption at Guangzhou airport in China not only carries your carry on

luggage but also:

· Tells you the gate number of your flight (on your boarding pass only get the

Wing A- international B = domestic)

· Tells you how long to when you need to get to the gate

· Tells you where you are (you are here) and where the gate is

· Tells you the weather in your destination city for the next few days

· Enables you to charge a device using USB (only 5W and quite slow but

better than nothing – in China for free wifi you typically also need a local

mobile number)

I thought it was quite brilliant and came in handy since there was a huge

difference at this airport in finding the gate number for my domestic transfer

when going to China versus international transfer when leaving – this made it

EASY. However it didn’t stop our plane from developing a mechanical

problem and approx 4 hour delay.. .

Dave Wanty

Ever got lost in an airport? Here's help

MRCagney is a leading independent transport andplanning consultancy, with a reputation forexcellence in complex projects. The Companyoperates across the Asia-Pacific region from itsoffices in Austral ia, New Zealand, Singapore, andChina. MRCagney prides itself on our abil ity todeliver transport and urban planning solutionswhich support the communities in which weoperate.

From our inception, MRCagney has been involvedextensively in urban mobil ity projects. The serviceswe offer range from strategic management andbusiness consulting through to technical transport,planning, urban design, and engineering activities.

MRCagney’s Auckland office is currently looking toengage a public transport planner with 3 or moreyears’ experience. While primari ly based inAuckland, the successful applicant wil l beexpected to work international ly from time-to-time,as required by individual cl ients and projects.

Applicants should have knowledge of transportplanning in general, as well as a passion for publictransport planning in particular. Demonstrableexpertise in the fol lowing fields is required:• Public transport infrastructure and networkplanning;• Operational planning, including timetabling andscheduling; and• Fare policy, ticketing data, and real-time vehiclemanagement systems.

Applicants are expected to have strong qualitativeand quantitative skil ls, and be able tocommunicate effectively in English (written andverbally). Applicants who are not New Zealand orAustral ian residents are also encouraged to apply.

The fol lowing attributes wil l also be favourablyviewed:• Abil ity to commence work within the next 2months;• Previous experience in consulting and/or projectmanagement;• Knowledge of GIS, scheduling, and graphicdesign software; and• Programming skil ls, especial ly Python.

We offer competitive salaries commensurate withskil ls and experience. MRCagney’s Auckland officeis conveniently located in the city centre close topublic transport; we foster a flexible, diverse, andinnovative workplace environment.

Prospective applicants should email a one-pagecover letter, two-page curriculum vitae, and – ifpossible – some examples of their work [email protected] before June 30, 201 4.

Vacancy: Public Transport Planner


After offering a glimpse at theIPENZ Transportation Groupconference in March, Googleunveiled a brand new self-drivingcar prototype last month; the firstcompany to build a car with no asteering wheel, accelerator or brakepedal.

The car's arrival marks the next stagein Google’s self-driving car project,which was born from the DarpaGrand Challenges for roboticvehicles in the early 2000s.

Google kickstarted its own self-driving car project in 2008, and ithas been rumbling on ever since,first with modified Toyota Prius andthen with customised Lexus SUVs,which took the car’s existingsensors, such as the cruise-controlcameras, and added a spinning laserscanner on the top.

What is it?It is the first truly driverless electriccar prototype built by Google to testthe next stage of its five-year-oldself-driving car project. It looks likea cross between a Smart car and aNissan Micra, with two seats androom enough for a small amount of

luggage. It is the first real physicalincarnation of Google’s vision ofwhat a self-driving car of the nearfuture could be.

Where is it?It operates in and around California,primarily around the Mountain Viewarea where Google has itsheadquarters.

What does it do?It ferries two people from one placeto another without any userinteraction. The car is summoned bya smartphone for pick up at theuser’s location with the destinationset. There is no steering wheel ormanual control, simply a start buttonand a big red emergency stop button.In front of the passengers there is asmall screen showing the weather,the current speed and a smallcountdown animation to launch.

Once the journey is done, the smallscreen displays a message to remindyou to take your personal belongings– reinforcing that this is not aimingto be a substitute for your personalcar at the moment, but more as areplacement for the taxi without thehuman driver.

What’s it like?Very few people outside of Googlehave been allowed to ride in the newcar. Most of the people depicted inGoogle’s promotional videos for thenew car described the experience as“smooth” and “nothing that feels theleast bit threatening”.

Kara Swisher and Liz Gannes fromtechnology site Recode were one ofthe few independent test riders, whodescribed the car as having “ample”room despite being small, likely dueto the lack of the normal controlstaking up space in the cabin, and"that this felt a lot like a theme parkride".

Who built it?Google has designed the car fromscratch, starting with the sensors anda frame to interconnect them, thenadding a cabin that does not blockany of the sensors or create blindspots and eventually the body shell.The manufacturing of the 100 or soprototype cars will be done by a firmin the Detroit area, but Googledeclined to comment on which.

How does it work?Powered by an electric motor with

GGooooggllee'' ss sseellff--ddrriivviinngg ccaarr:: HHooww ddooeess iittwwoorrkk aanndd wwhheenn ccaann wwee ddrriivvee oonnee??

Google's self-driving car prototype has no steering wheel, brake or accelerator pedals.So how safe is it, and what is it like on the road?

An early self-driving prototype


around a 160km range, the car uses acombination of sensors and softwareto locate itself in the real worldcombined with highly accuratedigital maps. A GPS is used, just likethe satellite navigation systems inmost cars, to get a rough location ofthe car, at which point radar, lasersand cameras take over to monitor theworld around the car, 360-degrees.

The software can recognise objects,people, cars, road marking, signs andtraffic lights, obeying the rules of theroad and allowing for multipleunpredictable hazards, includingcyclists. It can even detect roadworks and safely navigate aroundthem. The new prototype has moresensors fitted to it that can seefurther (up to 200m in all directions)and in greater detail than the onesavailable on the previous repurposedLexus and Toyota vehicles.

How safe is it?The new car is the next evolution ofGoogle’s self-driving car. While thenew frame is untested, thecompany’s previous versions haveclocked up over 1 ,000,000km oftesting on public roads, mainlyaround California, including over1 ,500km of driving in the mostcomplex situations and cities likeSan Francisco’s hills and busystreets.

The car itself is limited to 40km/h,which restricts it to certain roads, but

also minimises the kinetic energy itcould carry into a crash if one shouldhappen. The front of the car is alsomade to be as kind to pedestrians aspossible with a foam bumper and aflexible windscreen that is designedto absorb energy from an impactwith a person’s body.

Seat belts are also provided – asafety requirement for vehicles onthe road – while the car hasredundant systems, a “fault-tolerantarchitecture” as Google calls it, forboth steering and braking, should theprimary systems fails; plus thatemergency stop button thatpassengers can hit at any time.

Google has also taken the data andbehaviours it learned from itsprevious vehicles to create a

defensive, considerate driving stylethat is meant to protect both thepassengers and other road users. Forinstance, the car will wait a secondafter the traffic lights turn greenbefore it moves off, although thiscould incur the anger of driversstuck behind it.

Google also says that making it drivein a natural and predictable way hasbeen one of the key goals, so that itbehaves in a familiar way on theroad for other drivers.

Why now?Google says it has gone as far as itcan with the current customisedvehicles and that a new platform isneeded to take the project andtechnology to the next step andcloser to a product people can

GGooooggllee'' ss sseellff--ddrriivviinngg ccaarr:: HHooww ddooeess iittwwoorrkk aanndd wwhheenn ccaann wwee ddrriivvee oonnee??

An early self-driving prototype

The quirky self-driving car

The car uses a combination ofGPS, radar, lasers and cameras


actually use. For instance, theprevious generation Lexus vehiclehad blind spots right up against thecar where the sensors couldn’t see,something that needs to beeliminated in any vehicle open to thepublic.

The cars will first be used to test thesoftware driving the car and push itscapabilities.Google says atsome point, whenit deems itssoftware safe, itwill start puttingreal people intothe cars beyondGoogleengineers. It willuse the cars in asimilar manner tothe company’sGoogle Glassexplorerprogramme,analysing howpeople use themand what worksand what doesn’t.

Why so damn cute?The car’s cute looks and friendly“face” were created intentionally tobe “very Googley” according to itsdesigners, to put both other roadusers and passengers at ease with thenew technology. The shell is alsodesigned to give the sensors the bestview of the surroundings.

Why does it still look like a car onthe inside?The new car has two traditional carseats, primarily because in thisiteration passengers have to bestrapped in like they would in anyother car to meet safety regulations,which means using standard seat

belts. It also provides a morefamiliar passenger experience, whichat this stage is likely important to aidadoption.

Is this something I’m going to beable to buy?Google’s vision for this kind of self-driving car isn’t an exactreplacement for the one parked

outside your home. They aredesigned to be more like sharedvehicles, possibly within a family ormore likely as a replacement fortaxis. These cars are still very muchin the early prototype stage still, andGoogle is still trying to figure outhow to make a product out of thetechnology, how much it is likely tocost and when it will be available.

Apparently it will not have adsaccording to Google, althoughwhether it’ ll eventually have a smallscreen like some taxis now that playsvideo adverts, who knows. That willlikely be up to the operator ratherthan Google.

Who will build it for me?Google is proving the technology,but it is unlikely to make the cars forsale once that technology is readyfor the mass market. It has said inthe past that it is actively seeking carmanufacturing partners, whichmeans we could see a Toyota, Fordor Fiat-made Google car in thefuture, but that is all very much stillup in the air.

When can I get one?Google says the cars should be road-ready by early next year, but thattesting would take more than twoyears. At that point the technologywill be ready for the next stage,which is likely to be greater pilottesting. Current expectations arethat these self-driving cars are atleast five years away from beingmature enough to create a real, non-prototype product, but it may be farlonger until you can buy or hire onefor personal use.

What about legislation?One of the biggest hold-ups to the

progression of thetechnology onto theopen road ofBritain, the US,Australia and therest of the worldwill be legislation.A law was passedin California over ayear ago that madethe testing andoperation of self-driving vehicles onroads possible, aslong as they hadmanual overridecontrols. TheDepartment ofMotor Vehicles inCalifornia isexpected to issueregulations on the

operation of self-driving cars soon,after which self-driving cars maybecome a bit more common place.

However, there is still much to workout, primarily revolving around whata passenger in a self-driving car andcan’t do – will they have to be ableto take control at any moment, forinstance – as well as questionsaround what happens when anaccident happens, who is at fault andwho paysGuardian News & Media

The cameras 'read' road signs

The car features just twobuttons: Go and Stop


Why not get your Google self-driving car to take you

along the spectacular Seven Mile Bridge in Florida?


This article, by Chris Morahan (Opus)and Luke Reeves (NZTA) is a summaryof the paper which won a People'sChoice award at the 2014 IPENZTransportation Group conference.

Graduates today face big challenges.The transportation industry is morecompetitive than ever, more fragmentedand specialised than it used to be.Developing into competent, well-rounded, broadly-experiencedprofessionals is not an easy task fortoday’s young engineers.

For decades the transport sector in NewZealand was dominated by the Ministryof Works. Many of our readers wouldhave begun their careers here, and willunderstand how large this organisationwas and how broad were its manydifferent functions.

Speaking to several of our silver-hairedcolleagues, the general consensus wasthat the Ministry of Works was a greatplace for young people beginning theircareers. Graduates were rotated arounddifferent departments, gaining a broadrange of experience all within the oneorganisation.

However, since the Ministry’sprivatisation in the 80’s, smaller morespecialised organisations have made itharder for graduates to obtain a broadunderstanding of the sector. One methodgaining more traction, and which webelieve is essential for a healthy futurefor the transport sector in New Zealand,is graduate secondments betweenorganisations.

In 2013, Luke (a Transport Agencygraduate) swapped places for 12 monthswith Chris (an Opus graduate). In otherwords, we each crossed enemy lines andwent undercover.

The secondment was enormouslybeneficial to us both, as well as to ourrespective organisations. We had oureyes opened to a whole new type oforganisation, built key relationshipswith people we still work with now andlikely will into the future, experienceddifferent work environments anddifferent management styles, filled holesin our competencies for CPEng withoutneeding to change employers, and learnta whole new set of technical skills.

We both also feel that we grew in our“soft” skills, gaining confidence,developing professionally and maturingethically through the secondment.

The Transport Agency are very much intune with the benefits they gain fromgraduate secondments, with 8 of their 24graduates currently on secondment (as

Undercover Graduates:Client vs Consultant


of November 2013). Benefits includetheir graduates gaining designexperience and field work necessary togain CPEng, and an understanding ofhow consultants and contractorsoperate.

In contrast, consultants and contractorsseem less aware of the benefits to themof graduate secondments. Many of theseorganisations rely heavily on theTransport Agency for work, and havinga secondee within the Agency is aninvaluable way to increase theirvisibility and build relationships with akey client. It gives the secondee andtheir home organisation a deeperunderstanding of the client’srequirements, and how to meet thosebetter in their future work.

Another benefit is the increasedretention of graduates. Many graduatesare looking to get as broad a range ofexperience as they can in the early yearsof their careers and, if they cannot findthis within one organisation, will switchjobs in order to get it. The view of bothof the secondees is that they are morelikely to stay with their homeorganisations, now that they have beengiven the opportunity to temporarily goand work in a different environment.

Graduate secondments are currentlyunderutilised. As part of this research apoll was conducted through the IPENZweekly newsletter (Engineering Direct,Issue 515). This poll asked “Do youthink your organisation gains, or would

gain, value from sending graduates onsecondments to other organisations?” Ofthe 84 members who responded, 97% ofthought their organisations wouldbenefit from sending graduates onsecondments, yet only 44% ofrespondents’ organisations (of thoseapplicable) actually did send theirgraduates on secondments.

There are a perceived risks withgraduate secondments which put somemanagers off. Resourcing can be trickywith one-way secondments, although atwo-way swap eliminates this problem.

There is a period of low productivitywhen the secondee arrives at their neworganisation, while they are learningnew skills, new projects, newprocedures and new people. This occurswith any new employee and isunavoidable, but the impact of it isreduced in a longer secondment. Forthis reason graduate secondmentsshorter than 12 months are notrecommended. The duration of asecondment is a key component in itssuccess, and to get full value a durationof 12-1 8 months is recommended.

Occasionally secondees have beenknown to enjoy their host organisationso much that following the secondmentthey leave their home organisation andpermanently join their host organisation.The chances of this can be reduced byhaving a clearly defined duration andend date, ensuring secondees know thatthey still have a job when they return,

making sure that the new skills they’velearnt on secondment will be utilisedwhen they return, and activelymaintaining regular contact with thesecondee.

It has been suggested that graduatesecondments involving clients cancreate a perception of an unfair market,where the client is becoming too closewith certain consultants or contractors.The Transport Agency have tried toreduce this by spreading secondmentsaround a wide range of organisations,completing secondments in recent yearsaround the country with Opus, Aurecon,MWH, Beca, Fulton Hogan, InRoads,Downer, Higgins, and various alliances.

Managers considering secondments fortheir graduates should not let the risksput them off graduate secondments.They can all be managed to acceptablelevels, and the benefits are orders ofmagnitude greater than the challenges.

Graduate secondments are a vitalcomponent to a successful future fortransport in New Zealand. If moreorganisations looked to secondments tofill the gaps in their graduatedevelopment programmes, we couldlook forward to a future of betterrelationships between clients,consultants and contractors, and atransportation sector made up of morebroadly experienced, well-roundedengineers.


Branch updatesAuckland/Northland Branch

Auckland Parking Discussion

On Tuesday evening (10 June) StuartKnarston, (Plans and Policies Leader)and Scott Ebbett (Parking DesignManager) presented an overview ofAuckland’s new draft ParkingDiscussion Document. This draftdocument represents the first time theregion’s planning and management ofparking has been brought into a singlecoherent strategy. The presentation waswell received with lots of thought-provoking questions throughout fromthe floor.

The draft document is worth checkingout and represents a positive wayforward towards a future-thinkingregional parking regime. Comments andfeedback on the document are welcomed– being available on the AucklandTransport website at:http://tinyurl.com/pd5k47z

Up-Coming Events

Shared Spaces – Pieter de Haan

We are just putting the finishing toucheson the next presentation, likely to beheld on 16 July. The topic will cover aninternational review and approach to theprovision of shared spaces in majorcities throughout the world. Pieter isCoordinator for the Knowledge CentreShared Space at NHL-Hogeschool,University of Applied Sciences(www.nhl.nl/sharedspace).

Mid-Winter Centennial Event

We are also putting the finishing toucheson a mid-winter event looking tocelebrate the centennial year for IPENZ.Keep an eye out for details to becirculated shortly.

Annual Debate

The date of the debate has beenconfirmed as the 5 August 2014 at theAuckland University Conference centre.The topic is “The car is so last century.”A flyer will be circulated closer to thetime.

Submissions

The Branch will be putting together aresponse to the Parking DiscussionDocument. Please forward anysuggestions to me([email protected]) by 25June 2014 if you would like your viewconsidered as part of the Branchresponse.

A reminder again that we welcomefeedback from members on any issuesthey feel the branch committee couldimprove on, respond to, or simply ideasfor future presentations.

Waikato/Bay of Plenty Branch

It has been a relatively productive firsthalf to the year, with a number ofinteresting technical events, visits andsocial activities throughout the region.Although we have had a mixed level ofsuccess with attendance, which issometimes disappointing for the peoplewho put a lot of effort into organisingthese things. Perhaps we are not doingenough to get the interest from ourmembership - any feedback on eventsand their location and timing would beappreciated. On the plus side, we haveforged closer links to associatedorganisations like CILT and NZPI, so weare looking forward to more sharedevents and activities.

We are working to develop a system ofmatching up junior members withappropriate senior mentors and anyonewanting to offer their experience as amentor, or wanting to find a mentorshould, in the first instance, contactShaun Lyon-Cachet who is coordinatingthis initiative.

Another local initiative we are lookingat is a study award or research grant toassist a local student or member to carryout research for a transportation topicthat is particularly relevant to the region.We are working on terms of referencefor this and any interest or enquiriesshould be directed to the committee viaLiam Ryan or me.

We are working to develop a fullprogramme of activities and eventsthrough the remainder of this centenaryyear including:

Come along to a lunchtime presentationin Hamilton or Tauranga. BridgetBurdett will present a summary of herpsychology PhD research proposal,which is about mind wandering duringdriving. Wednesday 18th June atHamilton City Council reception lounge;Thursday 26th June at Beca Tauranga.Both events run from 12pm - 1pm withrefreshments provided. RSVP [email protected](Hamilton) [email protected](Tauranga)

July 17th – Pieter de Haan, apsychologist and former representativeof the Dutch Government will bepresenting on Shared Space from 530 inHamilton, venue to be announced

August – we are planning a pub quiz inHamilton and also in Tauranga

September – we are trying to organise acentenary dinner, possibly at the classiccar museum in Hamilton with keynotespeakers on a transport theme, this is inthe early planning stages and furtherdetails will be supplied as thingsdevelop, the dinner will probably costsomething like $20 with transportprovided between the Tauranga andHamilton to make sure BOP membersare not disadvantaged

September – we are hoping to organise apresentation on Hamilton SouthernLinks once the hearings are concluded

We are also looking at round-tablediscussions and possibly a postercompetition but these are not fullydeveloped yet. If anyone has any goodideas or wants to get involved pleasecontact the committee.

Central Branch

Central Branch Chairman change:

Current Central Branch Chairman,Roger Burra, is standing down from therole after 4 years including leading thegroup through the recent TransportationGroup Conference. The Committeewould like to thank Roger for his hardwork, passion and professionalismduring his tenure.

Departing Central branch chair Roger Burra,in his usual casual attire


Under his leadership the group hashosted more events around the Centralregion and had an increase in the numberand variety of topics in Wellington.Roger is going to continue to beinvolved in the IPENZ TransportationGroup working as the NationalAdministrator overseeing the transitionto this activity being undertaken as apaid role.

Stephen Carruthers will be taking overas Central Branch Chairman. Stephen isan active member of the committee, andhas been the branch treasurer for the last4 years. Stephen has lots of drive andenergy to stimulate the group. Feel freeto contact him if you have any new ideasor issues [email protected]

Upcoming Lunchtime Sessions:

• Progressing Toward Bus Rapid

Transit in Wellington, Luke Troy,GWRC – 24 June 2014 – NZTARegional Office on Ballance StreetThe presentation will outline what BRTmight mean in the Wellington contextand the challenges that will have to beovercome to deliver it. It will also coverthe next steps in the project beyond thedecision of the Regional TransportCommittee and who is doing what. Theintegration of BRT with decisions on thefuture Wellington bus network will alsobe discussed.

• Transport in Fiji, Mike Rudge, MWH– 1 July 2014 – MWH, Level 1 3, 80 TheTerraceMWH has been consulting on interestingtransport projects in Fij i. Come along tothis talk to find out more!

• NZTA Advertising, Rachel Prince andPaul Graham – Scheduled for August2014 – Location TBAThis presentation will go over howNZTA communicates its messages to thepublic through advertisements.

• Basin Reserve RoNS Board of

Inquiry - Treatment of TransportImprovement Alternatives andAssessment Methodology, KensingtonSwan – Scheduled for September 2014 –Location TBA

• ICC Cricket World Cup 2015 –Scheduled for October 2014 – LocationTBAThis will be a presentation about thechallenges from a logistical and

transport perspective in pulling thetournament together and what is neededto make the event a success.

Social Events:

• Quiz Night – Scheduled for an eveningin August 2014Watch this space!

Canterbury/West Coast Branch

Over the last few months the BranchCommittee met on the 19 February, 1 6April, and 9 May 2014. The Committeefocus over the last quarter was to startorganisation for the 2015 Conferencebeing back in Christchurch.

The last 3 months has been slow withLocal Branch events fitting around theNational Conference in mid-March. Iwas lucky enough to attend inWellington and complements to theWellington Branch in establishing a highstandard for us to follow in our planningand execution of the 2015 event.

March was a special month with theIPENZ Forum in Christchurch on 20-22March 2014, the IPENZ Fellows andAchievers Dinner on Saturday 22 March,and the celebration of 100 years ofIPENZ. The latter was anotherspectacular black tie event showcasingthe Engineering profession andrecognising outstanding contributionsfrom IPENZ members. We alsoexperienced the IPENZ PickeringLecture on the 25 March in Christchurchas well Exploring the Unknown, ToMars and Beyond – Dr Charles Elarchi.I hope Members took the time to attend.

We held a Local Speakers (from theIPENZ Transportation Conference 2014)Event on Wednesday 16 April – thanksto MWH for hosting us. As always wehad a good Branch turn-out and we willcontinue with this approach that we haveused in the past.

We wanted to give Local BranchMembers the opportunity to hear fromtheir local peers and their quality work:- Undercover Graduates: Client vsConsultant - Chris Morahan, OpusInternational Consultants and LukeReeves, NZ Transport Agency; (Winnersof the ‘People’s Choice’ award on theTuesday) gave a first-hand discussion onhow secondments work in giving a betterunderstanding of how the “other side”really operates.- New Emissions Analysis Techniques -

Bevan Wilmshurst, TDG; (Local andglobal air quality issues and environmenteffects are a critical concern. What aresome of the concerns for TransportPlanners? Are traditional analysistechniques still relevant? What are thekey differences with modern approachesand techniques used overseas?)- Capacity over Community? - JeanetteWard, Abley Transportation Consultants;(examines the way in which projects toimprove traffic capacity for road usersalso need to consider the communitieswho live along these roads. NorthcoteRoad is used as a local case study).- Trips Database Bureau Update -Stuart Woods, NZ Transport Agency;(this presentation explain swhat the TripsDatabase Bureau (TDB) is, some recentsurvey findings and demonstrate the newTRICS7 release).

The Branch Committee continues toliaise with the local IPENZ Branchduring this 100th Celebration Year tomaximise the joint opportunities toincrease the public profile (in a positivesense) of Engineers and engineeringachievements.

Coming up we have planned some jointevents with CILT in June/ July on theFreight Masterplan Study and also on thenew Bus Exchange. We are happy tosupport our kindred group and hopethese events are well attended.

Also we are planning some LocalSpeakers (from the Velo-City GlobalAdelaide 2014 Conference) overprobably two evenings in June/July.Again we hope to give Local Membersaccess to their peer’s quality work andencourage other Members to step-up andpromote their own efforts more widely.

As noted previously Canterbury andWest Coast TG Branch are hosting the2015 IPENZ TG Conference, inChristchurch. To ensure this will beanother terrific event we have conveneda group of about 8 willing andcommitted Members. ThisSubcommittee has had two meetingsnow and things are moving along withsome big decisions made early andKerstin Rupp nominated as theChairperson.

This is a challenge (as it is every year)but one that the Branch here is lookingforward to great outcome from. Anyideas in this respect please send through

Branch updates


the normal Branch contacts and we can let Kerstin know. Abig thanks to all Members who have “grasped the nettle” toget involved.

Of course ideas from Members for future Committeeactivities and events are always welcome, to the Chair JamesPark ([email protected]) or Administrator Jared White([email protected]).

Southern Branch

The Southern Branch held their April meeting at PortChalmers once attendees had seen the penultimate CruiseShip for this season released and head down the Harbourdestined for Milford Sound. Back in the warm Peter Brown,Commercial Manager for Port Otago Limited, explained theimportance of the Cruise Ship market to the Port. He alsospoke of the key export commodities and how the transport tothe Port, storage and handling are all managed. The PortCompany has continuing plans for upgrading its operationsand equipment and will be dredging a deeper channel toaccept the increasing size of container ships.

The May meeting was again held in Invercargill andorganised by Eddie Cook. Eddie explained the DualPedestrian Clearance System trial for Invercargill City.Indications are that the approach could generate substantialbenefits in reduced delays for vehicles at traffic signals.

The next meeting is planned for Queenstown in July anddetails will be advised soon. A preliminary schedule ofmeetings through the rest of the year and into 2015, promisesto deliver a varied and interesting programme. Some of themeetings will be jointly hosted with the Otago Branch ofIPENZ.

Isabelle Gensburger has recently provided the latest meetingreports, complete with downloads, for the IPENZ TG website.You can view them all, including more detail of the April andMay meetings, at:http://www.ipenz.org.nz/ipenztg/events/Branch-Southern.htm

Roundabout of the month

This roundabout in York, UK has a working windmill in the middle. The Holgate Windmill, which is stationed on

a roundabout at the centre of a 1960s residential estate just outside York, dates as far back as 1770.

Seen a better one? Email daniel. newcombe@aucklandtransport. govt. nz

Southern branch members on their Port Chalmers visit


From As Easy as Riding a Bike blog:For attendees staying in Leeds for theCycle City Expo, one hotel was quiteconvenient – only 600m from LeedsTown Hall where the Expo was beingheld (image above).

Despite this proximity to the centre, thelayout of the hotel, and the surroundingroads, is quite extraordinary if trying toget to it on foot.

The hotel entrance doesn’t face onto thestreet; it can only be accessed from thecar park at the rear.

This meant that some people cycledstraight past it while trying to find it.

If attempting to walk to this hotel fromthe north, the direct route – of just 100mor so – becomes an extraordinarymeander, thanks to a combination ofbizarre building design and enormousroads with limited crossing points, thatforce a hugely indirect path.

An even more preposterous examplecan be found in Crawley in WestSussex, right in the centre of the town.

Central Sussex College (image below)is adjacent to the main shopping centre,separated from it only by College Rd. Itcan be seen, only a matter of tens ofmetres away, from the shopping centre.But just try to walk there.

Six (yes SIX) separate crossings,followed by an infuriating diversion allthe way around the building to enter itfrom the car park.

Have you seen worse in NZ? Send yourexamples to:daniel. newcombe@aucklandtransport. govt. nz

Do you hate humans?

Take it out on them through design


Monday April 28th 2014 was ahistoric day for transport inAuckland as for the first time thecity had electric trains carryingfare paying passengers.

Electrifying the rail network issomething that has been talked about for90 years, mostly in conjunction with aversion of the City Rail Link. WhileBritomart was undoubtedly a turningpoint for rail in Auckland it wouldn’thave been possible without some keyevents and a whole pile of luck thatoccurred just over a decade earlier,without which it is unlikely we wouldhave a rail system today. One man wasat the centre of it all and this is the storyof how he saved rail in Auckland.

The story starts in the late 1980′s wherethe Auckland rail network is in seriousdecline. The trains were being run underthe name of City Line which was part ofNZ Rail Ltd and also ran a number ofbus services.Unlike Wellington which had just fairlynew electric trains, the trains running onthe Auckland network were decrepit andconsisted of former long distancecarriages that had been converted forsuburban use. They were originally builtin 1936 and had steel frames but thebodies were made from wood. Theywere also hard to access, requiringcustomers to climb up into the trainsfrom what were basically oversizedkerbs that masqueraded as stationplatforms.

At the time Auckland had also seennumerous grand plans for new publictransport networks but none ever sawthe political support needed to actuallyimplement them.

At the time the latest idea was convertthe western line to light rail using a tramtrain from Henderson then send it via atunnel under K Rd before running downthe surface of Queen St. The problemwas the idea couldn’t get politicalsupport. The City Council didn’t wanttrams on Queen St and the regionalcouncil saw it as competition to the

Yellow Bus Company which theyowned 90% of. That left Auckland withits near derelict trains and not muchhope for the future.

With a new fleet of trains seeminglysecured it wasn’t the end of theproblems though. Perth is flat and thesteepest track has a grade of 1 :200 whileAuckland is far from flat with trainsneeding to be able to handle grades of1 :36. This meant many needed theirengines and transmissions overhauled tobe able to handle the Aucklandconditions.

How Raymond saved rail in Auckland

One of the ADLs as they looked before being refurbished in the mid 2000′s


They also wanted to refurbish the trainsby re-upholstering the seats andreplacing the floor coverings. Lastlythey had to raise the platform heightsaround the network so that people couldactually get on to the trains. To makethings even more difficult in Aucklandthe rail unions were striking trying toreopen the workshops and re-employsome of the staff who had been laid offby the earlier rail restructuring.

To fund the overhaul, refurbishment andraise the platform heights it wasdetermined that the only way they couldmake it viable would be if the railcontract was extended to 10 years. Dueto the confirmed availability of rollingstock this was considered a good deal.As such the regional council ended upvoting unanimously to support theproposal with one person abstaining -the abstention was from a light railadvocate.

In another stroke of luck all of thishappened just before the rail networkwas privatised, something that couldhave put the whole idea in jeopardy.

At around the time the DMUs (DieselMultiple Units – the ones that don’thave a locomotive) were introducedpatronage on the rail network reachedits lowest point ever of just over 1million trips per year.

Within a couple of years after theirintroduction, the DMUs wereresponsible for a reverse in the in thepatronage decline that had beenwitnessed over the previous decades. Itthen continued to grow and reachedabout 2.5 million trips before Britomartwas opened. It was also that growth thathelped give the political courage neededto get Britomart built.

It’s now the early 90′s and enterRaymond Siddalls. With a year to gobefore the regional council took over thecontracting of services he was in charge

running the suburban fleet. His bosseshad also tasked him with shutting theAuckland network down. With an agingfleet, falling patronage and littlepolitical support (both locally ornationally) no one thought it could bemade to work. After looking at theoperations, Raymond was surprised tofind that with with a restructure he wasbe able to cut down the costs andactually have the company start makinga profit on the gross contracts it held.

The critical time came in 1991 when adecision needed to be made on how tomove forward. New legislationcontrolling how public transportservices would operate was coming intoeffect and basically changed everything.No longer could PT be treated as asocial service and the focus was onmaking PT stand up commercially.

The legislation also didn’t allow for anydistinction between rail and bus serviceswhich meant bus companies couldtender for rail routes. Note: thislegislation is still in effect today and hashad a significant negative effect on theplanning and provision of PT for overtwo decades. The new PTOMlegislation should address most (but notall) of the issues it caused.

With the network actually making aprofit the operation was kept going andthe operating company tendered for the120 services a day that they werealready running (today there aresomething like 365 services per day).One problem though was each servicehad to take on the full cost of runningthe network. They subsequently wereable to re-tender for the services as acombined timetable which allowed thecosts to be shared across all services.

The councils started to get on board andthe company was awarded the contractin the South for three years while in thewest it was for four years. They werethen able to successfully argue that with

a 4 year contract on the entire networkthere was a chance to look at newrolling stock which would boost and thecouncils agreed to this. The contract wasdue to start in June 1992.

Around this time it just so happened thatone staff member was about to go toPerth to attend a wedding. Perth was justabout to finish electrifying their railnetwork and so the staff member wasasked to drop in to find out what theywere planning to do with their unneededDMUs.

It turns out there were no plans for themand so subsequently Raymond flew overto inspect and value the trains. He madea call that there were no other buyersinterested in them and so put in an offerfor them at scrap value. All up he wasaiming for 20 trains and his hunch aboutno other buyers being interested paidoff, managing to secure 19 of them.

Raymond also happened to table theidea of Britomart all the way back in1990 and he was instrumental inensuring that a corridor was left to thesite of Britomart as the initial plan hadbeen to sell off the old rail yard landentirely.

Put simply, without the actions thatRaymond took we almost certainlywould not have a rail network today thatis about to served by modern electrictrains. He has been a hero to PT inAuckland that I think the city should beeternally thankful for. Thanks Raymond.

Note: Thanks to Raymond for agreeingto share his memories with us. Alsothanks to Auckland Transport (whereRaymond currently works) for allowingus to talk to him.

From the transportblog. co. nz


SSHH2200 WWaatteerrvviieeww uuppddaattee::PPrreeppaarriinngg ffoorr AAlliiccee’’ss ttuurrnnaarroouunndd

As Alice the tunnel boring machine creeps further on herjourney, preparations are well underway for herbreakthrough at Waterview in late 2014. Turning the3000 tonne, 88m long machine around in the limitedspace of the Northern Approach Trench will be no easyfeat, so considerable planning is required.

NZTA's team ticked off a major milestone recently in thelead up to the big turnaround, when they installed a largesteel drum form (like a giant steel wheel, see below)against the northern headwall of the tunnel portal. The14.5m high, 30T drum form is just one of a variety oftemporary structures that are needed to help turn Alicearound.

The main purpose of the drum form is to get Alice intothe right position to begin boring the second tunnel backtowards Owairaka. The drum form was purposedesigned and built on site to be an exact fit for Alice, andwas lifted into place using two large cranes. With thedrum form safely in place, the next step is constructing a1 .6m deep concrete wall around the steel drum.

If you want to find out a bit more information on theproject, visit:www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/waterviewconnectionor www.facebook.com/AliceTBM for regular updatesand some great vidoes.


ELECTRIC RAIL- BUILDING AUCKLAND’S FUTURE

REGISTRATIONS OPEN! 3-4 OCTOBER 201 4,RENDEZVOUS HOTEL, AUCKLAND

Your Continuing Professional Development and Networking opportunity for 201 4

Register for the Electric Rail – Building Auckland’s Future. All early bird registrants go into the draw for amystery weekend for two. Prize drawn at the conference dinner.

RTSA, IRSE or IPENZ Members - Early Bird before 1 July 21 04 - $750Non Members - Early Bird - $8502 October - ATP Seminar - Members - $2302 October - ATP Seminar - NON - Members - $345* Includes New Zealand's GST of 1 5%

The Railway Technical Society of Australasia (RTSA), Institution of Railway Signal Engineers (IRSE) andIPENZ bring to you the Electric Rail – Building Auckland’s Future conference at the Rendezvous Hotel inAuckland on Friday 3 and Saturday 4 October 201 4, which wil l celebrate and examine the engineeringachievements that have helped revital ise Auckland’s rai l system the over the past decade.

Preceding this conference on the 2 October 201 4 wil l be the ATP Seminar Principles of Automatic TrainProtection Operation.

Who will benefit from this conference?Professionals working or associated with the rail , engineering and transportation sectors, including railengineers and operations personnel, transportation engineers, consultants, contractors and suppliers.

The seminar wil l benefit Signal and Telecommunications engineers who wish to gain an understandingof ATP systems, their major elements as well as their advantages and disadvantages. I t is alsoappropriate for engineering managers who may need to make decisions on the implementation of thesesystems in the future. The seminar wil l also be of interest to rai l operators and rol l ing stock providerslooking to understand ATP and the associated operational implications.

This conference is recognised for IPENZ CPD Hours and EA CPD Hours. Business development andnetworking opportunities wil l be available throughout the conference.

www.aucklandrailconference201 4.org.nz


Reducing pollution from cars has been cheaper andeasier than UN experts thought, a draft report says.

The UN's climate panel has admitted it underestimated thehuge gains in weight and fuel efficiency achieved by carmanufacturers. But the panel says all the improvements willbe swamped by the future growth in global traffic.

That is unless governments improve public transport, taxmotorists and plan cities for walking and cycling. The reportwarns that transport will become the biggest source of CO2

emissions unless politicians act firmly.

It points out that the majority of homes in urban centres areyet to be built, but raises doubts about the capacity ofgovernments in developing countries to plan cities that willavoid car dependency and pollution.

The authors say in a background document: "Withoutaggressive and sustained policies (to cut CO2 from cars andtrucks), transport emissions could increase at a faster rate thanemissions from any other sector and reach around 12 [billiontonnes of carbon dioxide or equivalent greenhouse gases peryear] by 2050.

"Transport demand per capita in developing and emergingeconomies is far lower than in [Organisation for EconomicCo-operation and Development] countries, but will increase ata much faster rate in the next decades, due to rising incomesand development of infrastructure."

Transport currently produces 23% of global energy-relatedCO2 emissions. Its growth has historically been linked to theamount of wealth in the economy, but the report says this linkwill have to be severed if the world is to avoid dangerousclimate change (the catchphrase is "decoupling").

The report displays signs of optimism, noting that the growthin the use of light vans has slowed strongly in rich nations. Itsays: "If pricing and other stringent policy options areimplemented in all regions, substantial decoupling of transportGHG emissions from GDP growth seems possible."

The report lists a host of measures to be used to combatincreased emissions. Some will be controversial, others will beinvisible. They include: behavioural change leading to avoidedjourneys, internet shopping, a shift to public transport, bettertechnology, low-carbon fuels, investments in relatedinfrastructure and changes in cities to promote walking andcycling.

The UK's leading expert on transport and the environment,Prof Julia King from Aston University: "The automotiveindustry has brought energy efficiency technologies intovehicles faster than most people predicted and at lower cost.

"The result in the UK of technology acceleration, combinedwith fuel price increases and the impact of the recession, isthat new car emissions fell to 1 30g/km - two years ahead ofthe EU deadline of 2015.

The drop shows that regulation can work - the EU new carCO2 regulatory target and the US efficiency target seem to bedriving the acceleration."

BBC News

Caption competition

Colin Brodie impressed many with his Gandhi costume at the recent conference, as shown in this photo.Who knows what he is saying? A suggestion has been made.

If you think you know better, send your suggestion to [email protected]

Reducing car pollution easier than experts thought

Sure, Gandhiwas a humble, frugalman, but he sti l l l ikeda beer, right guys?

Guys?


The new IPENZ TG Research Advisory Sub-committee(RASCals) has met by teleconference a couple of times sincethe 2014 Group conference. The group has eight currentmembers. Anyone else in the TG can become a ‘Friend’ of thegroup by email request to the Convener, Bridget Burdett.

Current action items for RASCals include:• Recruit some ‘Organisational Friends’. Current inviteesinclude the University of Auckland Transportation ResearchCentre, AA Research Foundation, University of WaikatoTraffic and Road Safety Research Group (TARS), MoT,Police, CILT (fund research), RCA forum, ACC, HealthResearch Council, ARRB, Australian College of Road Safety,Austroads, AITPM

• Develop a list of transport research priorities for NewZealand in the short, medium and long-term, including aprocedure to review and update this list such that it reflects thediverse range of practice areas and interests of Group membersas a whole.

• Establish a communications plan for sharing of actions andprogress with Friends, the IPENZ Transportation GroupNational Committee, and with the wider IPENZ TransportationGroup. We’re currently thinking of having a Dropbox folderthat Members and Friends can access our meeting notes andother documents

• We’re thinking of starting a ‘Research Snippets’ column inRoundabout, including for example how to do a literaturereview, how to write a survey, how to get a journal articlesubmitted… ideas or requests welcome.

• Identification of key overseas stakeholders to be includedas Organisational Friends of the Sub-committee.

• Identify current and potential future funders oftransportation research, e.g. NZTA, MoT, AARF, CILT, RCAForum, operational research (plus others through others egthrough MBIE, EECA)

• Identify priorities and a timeline for sponsorship of researchwithin the Group, using Group funds as assigned by theNational Committee.

• Define Conference Technical Liaison role to work withConference organising committee with support as required forpeer-review of conference technical papers, with awarding ofconference prizes, and with planning conference structureinsofar as research activity is supported and promoted.

• Develop mechanisms to promote the best-quality transportresearch from New Zealand within the Group, amongstakeholders, and among the wider transportation industry.

RASCals welcomes input at any time from any Groupmembers. If you’d like to discuss anything, please contact anyof the Group members. Remember, you can look up contactdetails for any IPENZ TG member in the ‘Members’ Only’section of the IPENZ website (even if you are not a member ofIPENZ).

Bridget Burdett , Alan Nicholson, Caron Greenough, BillFrith, Glen Koorey, Shane Turner , Pippa Mitchell, JoChang

RASCals

update

Christchurch is rebuilding. How will it look in March 2015?Find out. Be there for the 2015 IPENZ Transportation Group conference.Details coming soon!


Robin Hutcheson is part of a newclass of female Dept ofTransportation (DOT) headsstressing alternatives to cars.

Here are a few things to know aboutRobin Hutcheson. She's a Connecticutnative who came to Utah in 1994 for theskiing, and except for a few years inEurope, has lived here ever since. Since2011 , she's been head of thetransportation planning division of SaltLake City, the state's capital and biggestmetropolis, often commuting by bike, atother times running one way and takingpublic transit on the return trip. Also, asyou have noted by now, she is a woman.

That last part shouldn't be a big deal.And most of the time, it isn't. Every nowand then, though, as the 43-year-oldHutcheson has climbed the ranks of herchosen profession, she gets a reminder:being a woman in a leadership positionin American transportation is not thenorm.

Sometimes Hutcheson finds that she'sthe only female sitting at a table full ofmen who hold power over some aspectof urban transportation or another.Sometimes, she says, people look a littlesurprised when she speaks up and asks a

hard question, which she does as amatter of course. And then, she recalls,there was the time she was giving animportant presentation at a town insuburban Utah.

Back then, she was a consultant with aprivate firm, putting forward a plan forthe community's future transportationneeds. When she got up in front of theroom to speak, an older man, one of thepeople who was going to be making adecision, took one look at her and said,

"Well aren't you just as cute as abutton! "

Hutcheson says her blood began to boil."It was a fight or flight moment," sherecalls. But she neither fought nor fled.She just did her job. "I did not let thetemper flare," she says, smiling at thememory. "And my plan got passed."

Pretty much every job in thetransportation profession, frommechanics to road engineers, from truckdrivers to airline pilots, has traditionallybeen dominated by men. That reality iswhat's driven the work of the nonprofitgroup WTS, founded as Women’sTransportation Seminar in 1977. TheWTS has as its mission "advancingwomen in transportation," and presidentand CEO Marcia Ferranto explains thatit's not just for the benefit ofwomen.

"There's a real crisis going on globallyin transportation workforcedevelopment," she says. "We need toattract more people to transportation."And women are a big, largely untappedpool of talent. They may also comeequipped with some inherentadvantages. Ferranto cites researchshowing that companies headed bywomen are more successful than those

The Woman Leading Salt Lake City's

Transportation Revolution

"Pretty much

every job in the

transportation

profession has

traditionally

been dominated

by men"


headed by men, perhaps in part becauseof the way they tend to manage andtheir ability to see things from otherpeople's point of view.

In the transportation field, specifically,women are more likely to see the worldthrough a lens that is not exclusivelyfocused on peak commuting hours andmaximum throughput on roads. Theycan relate to the concerns of a womanwho must get to and from a night shift,and who dreads the long wait at the darkbus stop. Many of them have, or havehad, primary responsibility in their ownfamilies for transporting children onmultiple trips daily. As a result, they areperhaps more sensitive to how hard it isfor people with different needs,schedules, and challenges to get frompoint A to point B — which is, after all,the whole point of transportationsystems.

The question for WTS members is howto get women into leadership positionswhere they can make a difference,whether in the corporate world or ingovernment. In a nation where STEMeducation lags in general, and wheregirls are chronically underrepresented inparticular, helping women get to the topis a process that plays out on severalfronts, says Ferranto. "You can't talkabout attracting without retaining," shesays. "You can't talk about retainingwithout advancement." To that end, theorganization runs several mentorshipand scholarship programs for girls andwomen, at the local, national, andinternational levels. It involves men aswell: about 20 percent of themembership is male. "We're veryinclusive of men," she says. "Who betterto advance things than the men inpower?"

Women in transportation leadershippositions remain hard to find. Only ahandful head state departments oftransportation, and top executives atmajor private transportation firms arealso in short supply. (There are someexceptions, such as Jacqueline Hinman,CEO of the Denver-based engineeringfirm CH2M Hill.) At the city level,several women have taken charge ofDOTs and led them in exciting newdirections — breaking the traditionalmold of traffic engineers eager to buildroads.

Examples include Leah Treat, who wasappointed to lead the Portland Bureau ofTransportation in 2013 and describesherself in her Twitter bio as a "goodgovernment gal with a passion forchange in the trans industry." AndRebekah Scheinfeld, who just took thereins of Chicago's DOT, arriving with astrong record in developing transit, aswell as a background in housing andparks. And Polly Trottenberg, who camein as New York City's DOTcommissioner in January (the thirdconsecutive woman to hold that post)

from a job as undersecretary of the U.S.DOT, where she had a reputation assomeone who supported transit fundingand forward-thinking street design.

She follows Janette Sadik-Khan(pictured below), a former executive atengineering firm Parsons Brinckerhoffwho became one of the best-known (andmost controversial) figures in theBloomberg Administration bypromoting pedestrianized streets, publicplazas, and a major expansion of bikeinfrastructure, including the nation'slargest bike-share program.

And then there's Salt Lake's Hutcheson,founder of the Utah WTS chapter andnewly minted executive-board memberof the National Association of CityTransportation Officials.

On the Monday morning when she picksme up, Hutcheson is keeping a close eyeon her phone. Just two days earlier, thecity had launched a new low-cost transitcard called the Hive Pass for Salt Lakeresidents. The pass costs only $US360 ayear (or $US30 a month in installments)and gives holders unlimited access tobuses, light rail within the city, andcommuter trains. It's a pilot programdesigned to take into account the type oftrips made by the 190,000 residents ofSalt Lake, which are often shorter andmore numerous than those of the 1 .2million who live in the larger, suburbanmetropolitan area.

The lines at City Hall and the two otherlocations where the pass first went onsale were long. Wait times stretched intohours as city employees painstakinglyverified proof of residency, snappedphotos of the pass applicant, and issuedthe cards. Hutcheson is concerned thatthis second sale day will bring a repeatof those long waits, and warns me thatshe might have to take off to deal withany glitches that arise.

She never does. Sales go smoothly: afterless than three weeks, the city had soldnearly 800 passes toward a six-monthgoal of 6,000. Instead, we spend the daytouring the city and checking out the

transportation innovations that Salt Lakehas been racking up over the pastseveral years. At one stop, Hutchesonasks the head of the local refugeeresettlement agency pointed questionsabout how to better serve members ofSalt Lake’s large refugee community,many of whom arrive not knowing howto drive or are unable to afford a car. Atanother, she discusses figures that showhow women take more varied types oftrips than men.

"As a woman, it's possible that one ofthe things I bring is that I makerelationships easily," says Hutcheson,after we've left the office of yet anothercolleague she's been working with foryears. "And I keep relationships. Theseare my people."

Salt Lake City might not seem at firstglance like the most obvious candidatefor the kind of transportation overhaulthat Hutcheson and many others in theregion have been attempting. It doeshave a regular grid design centering onthe Temple of the Church of Latter-DaySaints, which was dedicated in 1893, butthe streets are uncommonly wide — 132feet, a measurement Brigham Youngallegedly described as enough room toturn a wagon team without "resorting toprofanity."

Today the streets provide a fast-movingconduit for lots of cars, but are dauntingto cross on foot. City blocks areunusually long, making for a sometimestedious pedestrian experience that isn'thelped on Sundays, when manybusinesses in this heavily Mormon cityshut down. Steep hills lead up out of thecentral business district into theresidential and university neighborhoodsin the foothills of the spectacularWasatch Range, whose often snow-capped peaks define the city's easternedge. Surface parking lots are commondowntown.

This is a car culture, no mistaking it.One resident told me that seeing driversrun lights is an almost everydayoccurrence in his neighborhood. Duringmy brief trip, I saw many pedestrianswho seemed reluctant to cross againstthe light downtown, even when therewere no cars in sight and the walk signalseemed like it was stuck on red for anunbearably long time. But in the past 1 5years, the state and city have madeenormous investments in publictransportation and streets that betteraccommodate people on bike and onfoot, with strong support from businessinterests and also the locally powerfulLDS church.

"The good thing about Salt Lake City isthat there is a general movement tomake these kind of changes," saysMayor Ralph Becker. "We vieweverything we do as a partnership." SaltLake is also a politically progressivecity in one of the most conservative


states in the nation. (In the 2012election, the Salt Lake Tribune raisedeyebrows by endorsing Barack Obamaover Mormon native son Mitt Romney.)

Becker is a rangy man who, like manyin Salt Lake, takes full advantage of themagnificent landscape surrounding thecity. When I met him, he said his kneewas bothering him a bit after five hoursof skiing the day before. People in Utahput a high value on their remarkablenatural setting — which also fuels thepowerful tourist sector of the economy— and that environmental mindset hasbeen one of the driving forces behindthe movement to reduce vehicle-milestraveled here.

For several years now, Salt Lake City'sair quality has earned it the saddistinction of being one of the ten worstcities in the nation for short-termparticulate pollution, and both residentsand visitors have been dismayed at thevisible smog that hangs over the cityduring bad cold-weather inversions.

"As the air-quality issue has risen in thepublic eye, people are accepting that weneed to do more than just say we'regoing to do better," says Becker. "It’sabout people being able to move aroundin their city without having to use theircar. How do we get from where we aretoday to having a city where peopleeasily get around, can drive if they wish,but that isn't their only or necessarilytheir best option?"

Since a commuter rail line connectingSalt Lake to Provo opened in December2012, public transit ridership in Utah hassoared 103 percent. TRAX, the sleeklight rail system that runs within the city,has been steadily expanding since 1999,when the first line opened, and has met

or exceeded ridership projectionsthroughout its short history. The currentplan calls for two more lines to open by2015, and so far it's ahead of scheduleand under budget. TRAX ridership wasup 6.8 percent last year.

Meanwhile, Hutcheson and her teamhave been working hard to make SaltLake a more welcoming city for peopleon bicycles and on foot. Last December,a streetcar line with a walking andbiking trail alongside it opened in therapidly developing Sugarhouseneighborhood.

Salt Lake has been granted a budget forbike and pedestrian capitalimprovements that will be about $3.5

million for 2014-2105, up from justunder $US500,000 in 2009. They've gota seasonal bike-share up and running,they've been striping new bike lanes allover town, and they've piloted someprotected lane designs as well — aproject that will be expanded thissummer. Hutcheson knows thatinternational research has shownprotected lanes encourage more womento ride. She wants to see that happen, ascurrently only around 20 percent of thecity's cyclists are women.

As Hutcheson shows me around town, Isee evidence of the investments intransit and pedestrian and bikeinfrastructure everywhere. DrivingNorth Temple Street on the way to theoffices of the Wasatch Front RegionalCouncil, Hutcheson proudly points outthe changes in what was once an eight-lane roadway dominated by speedingtraffic. Now the TRAX Green Line runsdown the middle of the street, headedout to the airport. Ample bike lanes areon both sides of the street, and thesidewalks are wide and well maintained.

Cars are just part of the mix. It's the kindof transformation she expects will becoming to more streets in the nearfuture.

At the WFRC offices we met several ofthe people who have been working foryears on land use and transportationplans to guide more sensitivedevelopment of the area along theWasatch Front, now home to well over amillion residents and growing all thetime. These are the folks whomHutcheson called "my people" earlier —a cohort of relatively young, energetic,forward-thinking planners, developers,engineers, and advocates who haveknown each other and worked togetheron various projects for years. They are

committed to seeing SaltLake City become anational model forgrowth. A city thatpreserves the naturalenvironment on itsoutskirts. A city wherepeople can enjoy lifewith minimaldependence on a car.

Hutcheson is at the heartof many of the initiativesthat are aiming towardthat goal. "She's beensuch a breath of freshair," says Jon Larsen,who works ontransportation issues forthe group. "The industryhas been dominated byengineers who just lookat numbers and don't stepback to look at the biggerquestions." Hutcheson,he says, is always eagerto do just that.

Mayor Becker, too, saysthat Hutcheson has been central to thecity's new approach to its transportationchallenges. "Robin is our star," he says."Salt Lake City is a progressive city, butit takes the right people from top tobottom and the right commitment andthe right approach. And fortunatelyRobin embodies all those things."

She waves him off when he says it,insisting as she does several times overthe course of the day that she herself isnot interesting, and that the focus shouldremain squarely on the city. She alsodownplays the idea that there's anythingparticularly remarkable about being awoman in charge of a city division thatis shaping the future of a regional hub.When she took the job, she says, shesimply buckled down to the task athand, and ignored anyone who might belooking at her funny.

"I try not to get a chip on my shoulder,"she says. "I just acted as if it were a non-issue. I just went to work."

Sarah Goodyear, The Atlantic

Photo Competition


Taken or seen photos you want to share? Send them to:[email protected]

and win the adoration and begrudging respect of your peers.

Photo Competition

The picture on the right was taken recently atMt Maunganui and shows a fairly light-handed approach to dealing with thetemporary closure of the footpath.

The picture below, by comparison, was alsotaken recently, this time in central Auckland,showing a more comprehensive approach.

Taken photos of better or worse examples?Send them to:daniel. newcombe@aucklandtransport. govt. nz

The good and the

bad of pedestrian

management around

construction


Dear Transport Guy

I have been seeing more and more in the mediaabout self-driving cars and I just can't believe thattechnology will ever be safe enough to take humanjudgement out of driving a car. I can't believe weare supporting this tosh. There is even an article inthis very edition!Wayne, Waipukurau

Dear Whine

I'm afraid you misread the article. It was actuallyabout an 'elf-driving car'. I'm sure you are familiarwith what elves get up to around Christmas, but forthe rest of the year they are underemployed. Manyhave now become taxi drivers to supplement theirmeagre income from Santa Claus Inc. All thosenews items and articles you have seen - the reasonyou don't need to drive is that a small elf is doing itfor you.

Google is taking the credit of course, but the truth iself-power is behind many of today's smartphoneapps. Need your GPS co-ordinates worked out?There's an elf with a compass doing that. Need toupdate Facebook? There's an elf alerting all yourfriends to your activity. It's a bit creepy, but noworse than having Google do it.~Transport Guy

A tongue-in-cheek column on transport

matters by The Transport Guy. The

contents do not represent the views of the

IPENZ Transportation Group, or anyone

else for that matter. Follow the advice at

your own risk.

Do you have a dumb question for Transport Guy? Email it to:

[email protected] and he'll do his best to answer.. .

Dear Transport GuyGreat conference in Wellington! I had a blast.So many interesting papers and presentations. Iwasn't sure about the fire alarm on the firstmorning. That seemed to be pre-arranged.Stu, Paunui

Dear StupidIt was pre-arranged. It is now traditional foreach Transportation Group conference to haveat least one fire alarm. We usually choose atime when the weather is nice and theattendance is high. It's like a team-buildingexercise. We all trundle back into theconference venue with a sense of comradery.The Christchurch folk tend to shake theirheads at our endurance at 'surviving the falsealarm'. Who knows what they will put usthrough next year?~Transport Guy


Transportation Group National CommitteeNational Chairperson, Submissions Coordinator, Membership

Coordinator

David Wanty [email protected] Chairperson, Treasurer: Pravin [email protected] Past Chair: Mark Apeldoorn [email protected] Branch Chair: Matthew [email protected]/Bay of Plenty Branch Chair: Alan [email protected] Branch Chair, Administrator: Stephen [email protected]/West Coast Branch Chair, Technical Subgroup

Coordinator/Liaison: James Park [email protected] Branch Chair: Phil Dowsett [email protected] Administrator: Liam Ryan [email protected] Committee Minutes Taker: Michelle [email protected]

Group Contact

Details

Roundabout Editorial TeamEditor: Daniel [email protected] past editor and dogsbody: BridgetBurdett [email protected]

Branch Administrators

Auckland: Stephanie [email protected]/Bay of Plenty: Liam [email protected]@nzta.govt.nz

Central: Josephine [email protected]

Canterbury/West Coast: Jared White [email protected]: Lisa Clifford [email protected]


YYoouu ccaann'' tt ttaallkk oonn tthhee pphhoonnee

aanndd ddrriivvee aatt tthhee ssaammee ttiimmee..

TThhaatt'' ss ssoommeetthhiinngg yyoouu ccaann'' tt ddoo..

LLiikkee wwaallkkiinngg uupp aa wwaallll..

Kids explain traffic engineering

&41 9-:?@-@5;: >;A< ??A1 A:1 &41 9

Documents

Transcript of &41 9-:?@-@5;: >;A< ??A1 A:1 &41 9