We all know that public transport in Auckland leaves a lot be be desired. The majority of existing and forecast trips happen on the bus and train network. Yet we have a bus network whose routes resemble spaghetti that has been thrown against a map and a train system being run using clapped out, 50 year old, noisy and smelly diesel trains. To top it all off we have a mix of ticketing systems that don’t work with each other making it difficult for casual users to make spontaneous trips.
The positive side however is that we are actually doing something to address it. The proposed new bus network seems to have received a lot of support from the general public, even through the submission stage and is set to roll out over the next few years. Electrification of the rail network is well under way and the first of our new electric trains are under construction and should start arriving from August onwards. Lastly while it appears to be going extremely slowly, integrated ticketing has started rolling out and integrated fares are a key part in making the new PT network work.
Assuming everything sticks to plan, within three years the PT system we have won’t resemble anything that we have today. There is probably not a city in the world that is undergoing so much transformational change to so much of its PT systems all at once. This has led Patrick to call the process we going through, “The Great Upgrade”.
But as with any major change, it invariably causes disruptions to everyday users. The rail network is a prime example where increasingly levels of disruptions, from both electrification and our outdated rolling stock are putting passengers off using services. This is perhaps the biggest challenge that Auckland Transport faces right now, not just addressing falling public transport patronage, but working out how to bring customers “along for the ride” while so much change happens.
I suspect that one of the keys areas that they will need to address is how to clearly articulate the changes. Explaining not just that change is happening but why it is happening, how it will happen and most importantly what it will mean for users.
A great example of the kind of level of detail that AT really need to be putting out comes from Melbourne with their rail development plan. The video that accompanies the plan is clear, even giving what the future routing options will be something AT won’t even talk about with the CRL and a much smaller rail network.
While the video is talking primarily about Melbourne’s rail network, something similar for Auckland, to cover all of the changes planned across all modes is desperately needed. I suspect that only by really bringing the general public “along for the ride”, showing that the changes will lead to a much better PT system, will AT manage to retain patronage through this difficult period.
Processing...
So obvious how you could tell a similar and equally compelling story about the future of Auckland’s rail system and PT network generally.
Come on Auckland Transport, you can do better!
The Melbourne plan was based on much better “bottom up” modelling of travel demand patterns than appears to be the case in Auckland. For example, it includes factors for the relative cost of driving and public transport reliability. Employment within the City of Melbourne boundary (ie inner Melbourne) has increased dramatically from 205,000 in 1989 to 458,000 in 2009 as suburban manufacturing employment declined and was replaced by knowledge industries that mainly operate in the city core . This is an increase of 12,650 new jobs per year in the city core over a 20-year period. The forecast is for this level of employment growth in the city core to continue.
I think the Melbourne plan could be sold better as “access to employment”. Competing road plans simply can’t get this number of new workers into the inner city without huge cost and disruption. The city core is where employers prefer to locate new positions, because of its access to a city-wide employment market. Manufacturing employment is declining, as is retail. The differences in office rents are not enough to relocate CBD positions into suburban centres unless there are other reasons, such as access to clients or shorter commutes for staff. If an employee requires 15 square meters of office space, this costs about $7500 pa in the CBD compared with about $4500 pa in Box Hill or $3500 pa in Dandenong. (One reason for the relatively small differences is that suburban office leases include employee parking, whereas the CBD doesn’t.)
Auckland needs to sell its plan as access to employment. Where are new jobs most likely to be located ? The inner city where employees will interact with each other and develop innovations. They won’t do this on their laptops at home – innovation works best as person-to-person interaction.
The point about Melbourne’s growth over the last twenty years is that it is the result of planning and decisions, not accident. Basically what the better parts of the Unitary Plan are about.
On that issue I see that National have found a new moron to interfere with Auckland democracy: Amy Adams [oh look she’s from the provinces- Canterbury, what a surprise], who has written pro greenfields development policies into her RMA changes along with mechanisms for controlling councils. The RMA which was designed to protect the environment is now to be used to promote sprawl…!? This administration is really working hard for our ‘stupidest government ever’ award.
So delighted with the new sprawlier Christchurch we have to suffer two of that regions MPs to force Auckland into this unlooked for pattern….. will we let them?
(oh looks she from the provinces)
Are you saying that only those born and raised in Auckland or other NZ cities are qualified to have anything to do with Auckland?
What in your opinion qualifies you as being “From” somewhere anyway?, Len Brown was born in Taumaranui,
Is Cathy Casey qualified in your eyes to be a councillor, she was born in Scotland and then lived in the Wairapara until just over 10 years ago,
I think what Patrick means is that people like Amy and GB, who don’t live in Auckland, want to tell Auckland what to do. What about leaving it to the people who live here?
So that makes the creation of the Auckland “Super City” in 2010 OK, because it was done by Rodney Hide?
Saying Ministers cannot have portfolio powers in regions they don’t live in is just silly,
The process to a super city started before RH got his mucky paws on it. The process included consultation with Auckland residents.
It’s a political descriptor, I don’t care where she’s born; but she is an MP from the provinces; she represents the people of Selwyn. Essentially this government’s vision is provincial, it is determined to force the urban form and movement technologies appropriate for dispersed populations and economies onto our one city of scale. One of the handful of places [like Wellington and increasingly Hamilton and Tauranga, hey even Dunedin too] in this country that requires city shaped thinking and policies in order to succeed. I agree the Auckland based ministers are no better, but the anti-democratic drive to increased centralisation of power does seem to be now focussed on bringing the ‘war-time’ powers practised on Christchurch to Wellington [flyover] and Auckland [UP, CRL, and the rest]. It is no accident that we have the two quake ministers crashing about the Local gov, and resource management areas.
Sorry if you find the word provincial offensive but as descriptor of the current government it is both accurate in a technical sense and metaphorically.
It would be great if the moderators on this site could accept there are differing opinions on topics and not personalise discussions or dole out bans.
Patrick no-one wants to read your shitty running down of others, try keep it above the level of a guttersnipe if you can. Thanks
Ok John, fair cop, but haven’t you let your argument for politeness and delicacy down just a little with ‘shitty’ and ‘guttersnipe’.
Also do feel free to present an argument around the content of my comment as well as the style, if you have one.
Actually Patrick, I for one enjoy your outrageous comments (remember that discussion?). They clearly demonstrate your worldview, which you’re absolutely entitled to, but John Galt does have a point about ad hominen remarks. As with Godwins, they tend to detract from the argument (and there’s enough of that on other popular blogs). And I still like your hat.
Yes, agreed, quite right. Bit frustrated today listening to the proposed RMA changes. The minister is not a moron. But rest is all factual.
The point has been made on this blog many times, that the key to an effective Auckland metro rail is the completion of the CRL but right now we don’t have construction funding organised or a critical path programme for the construction itself.
In my view, for the successful promotion of the envisaged services to potential users,’timing’ is everything. It would be a mistake to keep users dangling,with delivery too distant in the future.
Auckland’s PT aspirations are great and there is benefit in conveying these to citizens but the main thing is to badger the decision makers (read National government) to wake up re the stupidity of wasting so much on the RonS with their appalling or non-existent benefit /cost ratios and to support Auckland proceeding with the obvious credible option for New Zealand’s only ever likely international city – an efficient rail metro system.
Greater emphasis is needed to show the benefits to users in terms of journey times and amenity improvements but also to get property developers “on board” as they are often the ones who benefit directly from public transport improvements. There are many examples of when public transport links can lead to greater development, for example this recent one in the UK shows how transport improvements can be a catalyst
http://www.constructionenquirer.com/2013/04/03/interserve-to-build-200m-edinburgh-haymarket-scheme/
The problem with this video is it doesn’t really explain the impacts on current services – when will lines have to be closed, what are the impacts of daily service in the interim?
Like some of the earlier comments have suggested, if AT can make a similar video that’s maybe a little shorter and explains everything; the HOP rollout, CRL plans, new trains, new integrated bus network and also the impacts on daily travel that would be brilliant. Also throw something in there that provides a compelling reason for this to be done – as Malcolm M and others have said. Sell this plan as the only way to get the numbers of people we need to into the city. Sell it has access to jobs and recreation. On a fundamental level, sell it as freedom to move around the city.
It’s clever little things like these that can make a big different in times like these.
Melbourne construction contractors are pretty good at building major infrastructure with minimal impact on weekday day services. Several lines were closed over Easter for Regional Rail Link works (a new pair of tracks to take regional services into the CBD). There was a brief period in January last year when weekday services were disrupted for this project.
The best performance was for the Middleborough Road grade separation, where a double track railway was trenched, 2 road bridges built and a new station with only a 27 day shut-down in January 2007.
http://www.johnholland.com.au/Documents.asp?ID=13979&ProjectID=104&ProjCont=Details
Personally I find that video pretty damn dreary and boring, who really is going to sit through 6 minutes of monotone and cheesy graphics? It’s slightly better than AT’s attempt but don’t use this as some sort of ideal we should aim for.
Melbourne does it so well don’t they? AT- call me about that video won’t ya?
Interesting that Melbourne’s growth plan is “sprawl” (first minute of video) no?
Victoria has a Planning Minister who is determined to reduce the price of housing, so the next generation are able to purchase their own property. Great if you’re a first home buyer, but not if you’ve just bought and the value of your property is destined to fall. There have been new outer areas approved for development, and also redevelopment of inner areas. Last year the media reported gluts of both outer suburban property and inner city apartments.
http://propertyupdate.com.au/a-worrying-glut-of-properties-in-melbournes-outer-suburbs/
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/city-apartment-frenzy-20121230-2c1hm.html
These gluts are because of approvals under the previous government. His own approvals will only continue the slide in house values. However if prices are depressed now, it will take longer before more fringe land and inner city apartments are developed.
So be careful for what you wish for in New Zealand. One man’s drink is another man’s poison. And it’s poison to a lot more voters than it’s drink.
Oh come off it Malcolm. Prices have hardly been sliding, in inflation adjusted terms yes they haven’t gone up much in recent years, but Melbourne is in the Top10 globally as far as expensive property prices. There is no reason for Melbourne to be so expensive, have you seen how much abundant land there is?
Why is the role of the planning minister to ensure you have guaranteed unearned capital gains (i.e. rent seeking)? Perhaps you have loaded up on too much debt?
Affordable property may even attract new businesses and citizens, fancy that!
Seems to be a big focus on high density in Melbourne for the Chinese market, similar to what is kicking off in Sydney soon. http://www.smh.com.au/business/property/sydney-skyline-to-get-240-metre-apartment-block-20130311-2fvdt.html
Melbourne started their planning years ago and are expected to over take Sydney in the population stakes shortly – shows how good public transport can change a city.
Gee Melbourne has a lot of branch lines to get sorted out!
Maybe AT was going to do something like this but then they saw how upset you guys got about NZTA spending money on doing such things.
I’m referring to the Christchurch southern motorway post from a month or two ago here.
If i had 20hrs spare, I would love to turn out a promo video for the CRT. Surely Auckland Transport has someone on the staff that can work After Effects?
Guys you need to see this. The West (Perth’s only newspaper) has done a secession editorial, based on not getting the suburban rail money. Maybe Auckland needs to declare independence from NZ.
Will gridlock drive us to a secession poll?
West Australian, Perth 08 Apr 2013
Editorials – page 16
Just when Colin Barnett thinks it is safe to pursue an election promise to provide more public railways in Perth, he strikes a barrier in the shape of Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott. And the casualties are the people of Perth.
How can anyone have confidence that the traffic problems that now gridlock the city can be solved if the hand that is meant to pay for much of the solution is now a tight fist?
This frustrating state of affairs dominates WA transport policy. The Premier has a clear mandate to supply two major election commitments the $1.8 billion MAX light rail system from Mirrabooka to the city and Nedlands to Victoria Park, and a $1.9 billion heavy rail spur line to Perth Airport by 2018.
Both projects require support from Federal coffers — $900 million in the case of MAX and $1.5 billion in the case of the airport spur.
But Mr Abbott clearly has other ideas, given his response to a query about funding an inner-city rail tunnel in Melbourne.
He told a press conference last week that the Commonwealth funds roads, not urban rail.
Mr Abbott said: “I think it is important that we stick to our knitting, and the Commonwealth’s knitting when it comes to funding infrastructure is roads.”
His pithy response raises several issues and bypasses even more.
The WA case for rail funding is not made in a vacuum. The mining boom fortuitously has placed the State in a position where its contributions to national wealth far outweigh the value of benefits returned, particularly in the case of GST revenue. Not only will WA’s share of GST be cut by an estimated $549 million in the 2013-14 fiscal year, but for the first time the amount we will receive will dip below 50 in the dollar.
Yet census results of 2011 indicate WA is the fastest growing State in Australia. And the need for infrastructure to satisfy the increasing demands of more people and the transport requirements of the burgeoning resources industry is pronounced. But when the State Government moves to exercise a strong mandate to provide the rail services that are so clearly needed, it is stymied at the first opportunity.
The cynical view may be that increased rail services were simply an electioneering promise that could not be met. But the need for quick action to ease Perth’s traffic congestion is undeniable and was recognised by Labor leader Mark McGowan in the election campaign, with his grander Metronet proposal.
Mr Abbott’s preference for roads flies in the face of the assessment of both State parties. And Federal treasury spokesman Joe Hockey has offered the gratuitous advice that toll roads could solve Perth’s traffic woes.
Both appear blissfully unaware that study after study and the success of the Perth-Mandurah railway indicate people want and will use rail.
If the Federal Opposition believes toll roads are the future of Perth, it should note that, in a referendum 80 years ago today, 68 per cent of West Australians voted for secession.
And they had fewer traffic problems.
Not only is Melbourne getting a 108 storey building, but Parramatta, Sydney’s second CBD, getting a 90 storey http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/aspire-tower-the-high-life-rises-in-parramatta/story-e6freuy9-1226612018490 building.
Chinese demand is fueling lots of new work, density. Matthew Guy is suggesting a new underground railway from Fitzroy to Fisherman’s Bend though many years away past the next underground we are in line for.