Auckland Transport will devote their next board meeting on 29 June entirely to their draft statement of intent (SOI). The SOI will be a pretty key document as it effectively determines what their goals will be for the next 3 years (they have had a temporary one to cover November to July). At a high level AT define the SOI as:
The SOI forms the basis for the accountability of the directors of Auckland Transport to Auckland Council, and sets out the objectives, nature and scope of activities undertaken, and performance targets by which Auckland Transport will be measured.
Auckland Transport have boiled down their work to 5 key goals.
1. Deliver a properly connected arterial road network that is integrated with the State highway network and moves people and goods efficiently and safely
2. Deliver an integrated and connected public transport network of rapid, quality and local connector services that is attractive to customers
3. Reduce car dependency and improve community health by providing infrastructure and services for walking, cycling and ride sharing
4. Deliver an effective and efficient transport system that enables Aucklanders to make smarter transport choices
5. Ensure Auckland Transport is customer focused, and delivers value for mone
I think these a fairly straight forward goals and it is nice to see them actually spell out that they want to reduce car dependency.
Being only a three year document there is no way that AT can complete everything identified in the RLTS seeing as it is a 30 year document however they have identified a program of action and have listed the major transport initiatves, all are things we have heard bits about before so there isn’t really any surprises. First up roading
Major Road Construction projects
a) Auckland-Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative (AMETI) project
b) New roading connections and improvements associated with the New Lynn rail trenching and transport interchange.
c) Roading projects in new development areas, especially Flat Bush, East Tamaki, Long Bay and Pukekohe.
d) Local road improvements associated with major NZ Transport Agency projects, including SH20 Waterview and SH16 upgrades
e) Completion of roading projects to ensure the success of Rugby World Cup 2011 (RWC), for example the Sandringham Road realignment
The most pleasing thing here is that there is no mention of Penlink 🙂
Next up the major projects that AT will be looking at, these won’t necessarily be constructed but we should learn a lot more about them and hopefully have some of them nearing the construction phase.
Major schemes proposed for study, Investigation or design
a) Investigation and route protection for the CBD rail tunnel
b) Investigation and route protection for a rail Rapid Transit link to the Airport
c) Investigation of rail to the North Shore
d) Dominion Road upgrade, including bus priorities
e) Removal of rail level crossings
f) Albany Highway Corridor upgrade
g) CBD Waterfront access
h) Development of a new rail station at Parnell
The Rail projects are pretty straight forward as they form part of the Mayors vision. We have known about Dominion Rd for a while and AT have had to go back to the drawing board a bit with this one following the way the old Auckland City Council handled it last year. I am pleased to see the removal of rail level crossings on the list as I feel it is something that could have quite a bit of benefit to both the rail network and the roading network, level crossings have also been identified as an additional piece of work needed for the City Rail Link so getting these done helps reduce the costs for that project, even if it is only by a small amount.
When it comes to the major PT projects I feel things are a bit light, we have:
Major public transport projects
a) Integrated fares and ticketing for use on all public transport services across the region
b) Extension of the real time public information system
c) Completion of the Manukau rail station and bus interchange
d) Further implemention of the New Lynn TOD (Transport oriented development), including transport centre and interchange
Of these, Integrated ticketing is under way and should be completed next year, providing AT stick to their schedule. Integated fares are meant to come after that and I imagine the most difficult thing will be getting bus operator agreement, I would hope that would be completed by mid 2013 at the latest. Expanding the real time information system is good but only if they can fix up the many reported issues with it however even so it hardly seems like a major PT project. Manukau should be mainly completely by early next year which is when the trains start running and New Lynn is mostly complete already (although there is still some road works going on including another shared space).
There will obviously be other work they will do and rail electrification is something they have identified that they will be closely involved in (although the project is led by Kiwirail) but as I said, overall the PT side of things seems quite light. Why is there nothing to review our spaghetti like network of bus routes, where is the implementation of more bus lanes and ferry services, where are the walking and cycling projects? While some of these are covered by the section on the mayoral priorities it is a shame they have not been made more prominent.
The last section of the SOI that I want to address is the Performance measures for the next 3 years, these have been broken down based on the 5 key goals outlined earlier and are all pretty straight forward although for many of them a baseline result is yet to be determined, especially for the car travel times. In relation to PT targets the thing that really annoyed me from the current temporary SOI has been carried over, this is mainly using out of date baselines and likely fairly weak targets. Here is a small snippet:
May was the last patronage report we saw and at that time total boardings were at 64.8m for the previous 12 months while rail was at 9.7m (the figures in the document appear to be from around November/December last year). By starting off from a low base it makes it much easier for them to achieve their target, also in the temporary version, the targets were met before the document was even signed off which I feel shows just how poor they were (they only had to achieve a 4% increase in patronage while we have been at around 8%). I would like to see the most recent figures in there as well as both some realistic targets and some stretch targets.
Also in the meeting is the Auckland Councils feedback on the SOI as well as AT’s proposed response to that feedback. Much of the feedback is fairly minor, tweaking wording here or there or pointing out plans that AT should give effect to etc. There are however some much more specific requests that have been made, I haven’t had time to fully go through all of the suggestions yet but it does concern me that either the council, (probably influenced by some of the local boards) are looking to specifically at some things.
Two examples are: (taken from different parts of the document)
- Development of a new rail station at Parnell and investigate restoring the station at Tamaki.
- Give emphasis to a review of public transport, particularly in the Southern sector covered by the Mangere-Otahuhu, Otara-Papatoeote and Manurewa local board area
To me these are to specific to one area when they should be looked at across the region. In the case of rail stations, AT should have a region wide plan for station locations and we shouldn’t be looking to add stations on an adhoc basis, especially in the case of Tamaki where the two stations either side are only 1.4 km apart. For the southern sector PT review, again why only review PT in one area, the council should be focusing on getting AT to review PT routes across the entire region.
Lastly AT, when are you going to get May’s PT report online?
Processing...
My understanding is that Tamaki station is meant to be the heart of a big new transit-oriented development forming part of the “Tamaki Edge” regeneration project. As long as it replaces a station (most obviously Westfield) rather than being another station on the network then I’m fine with Tamaki reopening in such circumstances.
Regarding improving public transport generally in the south, let’s hope that can be the beginning of a major overhaul in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of bus services around Auckland. We could provide a much better service with probably fewer resources if we were only more clever about how we designed our bus networks.
That is kind of my point, in the SOI we shouldn’t just be saying add a station here or there or looking only one very defined area but should be reviewing things region wide
Why is Pukekohe labelled as a new development area? Productive soils shouldn’t be built over
Goal 5.5 states “Public transport subsidy per passenger kilometre”, existing perfomance is $0.33 and while the goal is “Decrease %”. Interesting.
Why no mention of improving disability access in all services, venues and streetscapes – even more urgent given our ageing population over the next two decades?
Plenty of station work crying out for funding:
Mt Albert especially, huge potential if not done half-pie, ideally the track should be be lowered before electrification , and all the way back to Woodward Ave, I guess that won’t happen. Integration with the bus stops, and new mixed use commercial/apartments and public space above and fronting NN Rd
Sorting out Meadowbank looks like an important project to me. Not quite as obvious how to achieve the best outcome there as say Mt Albert …. moving it up the hill and linking it with buses on St Johns Rd, which is not straightforward, but the opportunity for a great walking and cycling route down the valley all the way to Tamaki Drive as part of any work on this route is exciting. But the priority must be to connect with the dormitory around this area… Lower priority I guess and not simple.
Is Tamaki the one between Panmure and G.I.? Close, but there is space for a real interchange station and a nearby population….
Interesting looking at the station boarding data that the ones on the southern line isolated by the motorway had poor growth, yet it is clear from Perth that this type of location can work really well if they are set up with convenient bus transfer infrastructure. This will be vital on the Mangere Line, but can it be retrofitted on the southern?, not easily as the land has been sold or taken by the motorway. And it’s not a socio-economic thing, it’s about station convenience, we can see this because Orakei and Meadowbank both grew tenfold, while not just Remuera and Elleslie grew much less but also Ellerslie and Penrose. So those southern line stations are cut off from much walkup they really need careful bus integration. Probably less likely to pay off the closer the station is to the CBD, but with the new ticketing the physical barriers to transferring also need to be looked at.
There is no point at all to lowering the tracks at Mt Albert unless you cash just sitting with nothing to use it for(which we don’t). The station is already lower than the existing road so would be pretty easy to build a platform over the top of it.
Just looking at the levels as they are it looks to me that the optimal solution involves taking the hump out of the line through Mt Albert west to past Woodward road [facilitating an overbridge], yes it would cost more but the lifetime of the improvement is very long. It means that the level and the size of the plaza can be better and the quality and amenity of the retail/residential development can be better and while not cramping the station below. You can see that it’s only high enough at the city end by the fact that there’s an underpass at the Benfield Ave end, it’s right at ground level there. And allow space for a future third line.
Imagine, a development with no car parks.
Anyone know if the student designs for Mt Albert are still live anywhere? I think the winner had Benfield Ave over joining NN Rd? Definitely needs lowering to do that. Then it is on an embankment to Woodward, still that is quite a distance, I’ll concede. Let’s not do it half-arsed though please.
Here they are: http://www.urbandesignforum.org.nz/WhatsHot/MtAlbertStudentCompetition/tabid/271/Default.aspx
Having another look I’m not so keen on the winning design, why break the structure of the corner, and keep the 70’s ex-post office? The station should be out of the weather and properly integrated, think the scale is not ideal too… still lots to work with…
I think it is a bit disturbing they don’t seem to have planning and designating the CBD rail loop on their list of public transport projects. Also, improving the roading network shouldn’t be their number one goal (order does matter as it shows where an organization’s top priorities are). Finally, it would be nice to see an acknowledgement in there or some kind of statement saying that they want to make Auckland’s roads and streets nicer, safer places. So, for example:
“. Reduce car dependency, improve the liveability of our streets and improve community health and safety by providing infrastructure and services for walking, cycling and ride sharing.”
Lucy, it does say investigation and route protection for the City Rail Link (please, can we avoid calling it a loop).
And conversely – here is a major development with not a mention of public transport access. Presumably a large chunk of Highbrook will be taken up with carparking, and the southern motorway a greater concentration of traffic congestion as workers and customers commute to and from. New motorway access was developed at the time of its construction some years ago.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10733423
these places are fine for building factories and warehouses. However pure office buildings should not be allowed in industrial areas like this.
The issue comes with many businesses that have buildings with both warehouses and office space, because distribution is a major component of what they do. OfficeMax is mentioned as an example of this type of company.
I think the solution could be to ensure buildings like this are built along frontage roads, with warehouses and buildings with low employment density are built along rear cul-de-sacs.
In general should have strict restrictions on new developments like this. Can have much stricter rules with greenfields sites, compared with existing areas.
There are a few bus services that run through his area, but hey are only 30min frequency at best. Really need the network effect to have good services to an area, an need integrated ticketing, suburban hubs and much better frequency for this to work properly.
oh yes, I must have missed since it’s number 1 on the list ….
In response to your other remark – NO!!! Loop, loop, LOOP! 🙂
Jarbury,
The PT Network team are currently coming up with a 3 year service review plan. Watch this space (or more correctly maybe watch the AT website :))
That’s good to hear. Let’s hope it’s wide reaching in scope.
Matt et al…..just to be clear. The draft SOI won’t be the only thing on the agenda next Wed. The full agenda will be posted early next week. But it will contain monthly business reports as well as a number of other project-specific items.
Thats good to hear, thanks Wally
Very disappointed that it doesn’t seem to mention the Regional Cycle Network. What good are nice words if you then don’t progress the required actions?