Like I mentioned the other day, the new network consultation formally started today. If you haven’t seen the video yet make sure you watch it.
Along with the overall map for the area (below), every single route and major interchange has its own map to make it easier to understand what is proposed. Handily from the PDF you can click on the route numbers or interchange symbols to get to these more detailed maps.
The AT website has a heap of information about the changes down to guides for individual parts of suburbs. As well as at the open days and through brochures there is also an online feedback form that you can fill in.
I popped along to the open day to see the network consultation launched (sorry photos are from my phone)
There were a number of people there to watch however many were either AT staff or involved with one of the affected local boards. Hopefully locals will get along to the various open days to find out what is happening.
Some of the information at the open days isn’t online -I have asked them for this – and provide some other useful information. The map below shows the population density of the area overlaid with the existing frequent network (map 1) as well as the proposed frequent network (map two) along with schools and hospitals.
It’s a bit hard to read but the key facts states the population, percentage of hospitals and high schools/tertiary institutions that within 500m of existing and new frequent networks. Population goes from 42,725 people (12%) to 110,979 (30%), hospitals go from 1 (33%) to 3 (100%) while high schools/tertiary institutions go from 13 (14%) to 34 (37%).
It’s good to have this consultation under-way and judging by the comments on here the other day, I’m sure there will be no shortage of people providing feedback.
Processing...
Amazing the level of improvement that’s possible when we no longer waste resources on incredibly long journeys that duplicate the rail network and redirect them to routes that more than four people a day will end up using.
But Trev, you’re ruining John Thayer Jensen’s life!!!
Really good video AT, well done! Bring it on!
Trev, you are exactly right.
But my question is why is it taking so long to fix? Yes consultation is necessary, but why couldn’t all areas have been done concurrently. Someone is no doubt going to say that manpower is limited. My response is that multiple roading options are considered simultaneously so that doesn’t wash. It simply speaks of a poor allocation of resources. I believe that this is a reflection that public transport remains the poor cousin. This is simply not good enough for projects that will produce so many benefits at no greater cost.
Certainly there’s a lack of funding and there’s nothing that can be done about that except make sure anyone you know who wants PT to improve realises that voting National will not help.
take-ite I think it’s pretty quick when you consider all the parts that all need to come together:
1. There are physical changes some of which are not at all minor such as whole new interchange stations like the Otahuhu one illustrated on the previous post, these have to budgeted, designed, programmed, tendered, built, commissioned.
2. New routes mean new stops have to be sorted down to minor details. Especially where bus to bus interchange is expected, currently bus stops can be separated by long distances and need to be moved closer.
3. HOP needs to be rolled out to all the buses, the bus companies need to be consulted and agree, they may need new staff, or more training or new buses. All the back of house programming for this has to happen.
4. After integrated ticketing there needs to be integrated fares with the new zone system. This requires another whole lot of programming, and consulting and education for users.
5. The physical work of electrification needs completion. And we have still to wait for the new trains to arrive and for them to be commissioned, drivers to be trained, the new depot got up to speed it all to be running boringly normally, day in; day out. They will start to arrive later this year, but won’t begin to enter service till next, and it will at least take all of 2014 to slowly replace the diesels with the new trains, route by route. Running both technologies together for quite a long time as it’s not acceptable to stop the network completely.
6. And the public have to be listened to, negotiated with, changes decided on, made.
And all this with certain local politicians looking to score points from any unhappy citizen, slip up, or missed deadline, with extremely tight budgets and the pressure to not only keep all current users [some of whom are notoriously suspicious of any change] and constantly attract new ones. This programme will at times be used as political fodder by various camps with local elections this year and national ones next. In as much as it is seen to be succeeding it will probably have all sorts claiming to be behind it, if not it’ll be everyone else’s fault; with probably both kinds of claims happening at once.
If it’s all humming perfectly by 2016 it will have taken a heroic effort by a lot of people in my view. looks like a ballsy schedule to me.
As well as the items noted above by Patrick, I would suggest the following reasons for a staged delivery:
1. The old chesnut of contracting – which is all changing under PTOM; and
2. Driver training – changing the network in stages means driver training can occur incrementally.
A staged implementation also reduces teething problems on the first few day. Less people to experience problems and its easier for AT & bus companies to manage Some politicians and the media would jump up and down very loudly if the whole PT system was in chaos.
The consultation process information is well done. I like explanation of changes suburb by suburb.
I wondered if an animated video could be done of the current and the new routes,
Someone has made one for the entire networkt
or http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10700893
I a;so think this could be used as a base for a video for the CRL. Possibly with adding animation to represent groups of 100 people to represent people getting on/off.
Actually I don’t think funding is the key issue. Even just what they are doing in the south is massively bigger than anything they have ever done before. And requires a massive about of work and coordination. After the consultation phase they have to come up with the final network, plan and organise any infrastructure that is needed, create timetables for every route and then go out to a competitive tender for them all, then work with the winner on implementation. Each stage will require key personal with some very specific knowledge that aren’t easily replicated by just throwing bucket loads if cash at the problem. More funding would definitely help resolve some issues latter in the piece but even if available I don’t think AT would be doing a larger area than they already are.
under the proposed system I would have to take a bus to the train to the city instead of just the bus. plus I’d have to walk a lot further at the city end. no thanks, just not worth the hassle. I totally understand the logic behind the change but it isn’t practical for many people. unless PT is practically free, ill just take the car.
What is your origin and destination (be approximate if you like), I guarantee that you have overestimated the difficulty.
Bus-train interface is the norm in Wellington, and I was shocked when I first moved here by the wasteful duplication of train services by bus services. I remember an old Herald article that argued that this was a good thing because “competition”. Ari, I assume that you can afford petrol and parking at the city end, which would be a “hassle” for most people.
PT costs too much but $20 a day in parking is fine.
Except there are plenty of $9-11 per day options and many workplaces provide carparks anyway. Throw in $5-10 in gas and a$0.5 for “maintenance/wear and tear, alongside the fact you probably have a car anyway, and the time saving alone makes driving a no-brainer. Sad but true.
10 bucks gas return, and 10 bucks parking. 50c for wear and tear is a bit low even if you assume that you already own a car. $10 return PT fare.
Given that my trip on PT and cycling is quicker than driving I am doing pretty well.
AA estimates running costs at around 70cm a kilometre, so unless you live around 800m from work your estimate of 50c is significantly less than what it costs you. Massively underestimating what a car axtually costs to run is probably the number one mistake people make
Oh ive done the cost benefit analysis many times. Assuming 20 commuting days a month, car costs $570 a month for parking, petrol and on going maintenance costs.
Bus monthly pass costs $215 a month. So the bus saves money directly From door to door, Bus trip takes ~1hr, by car it is ~25min as there is leased parking at work. I don’t mind the longer walk from the bus as I need the exercise. The problem is that I lose 20hrs a month sitting on a bus that I can’t effectively utilise. If I value my time at $20/hr, that is $400 so from that point of view, bus and car are about the same in overall “cost/value”. The new structure pushes the balance in favour of a car significantly.
Based on the new structure, id have to take the 31b to Papatoetoe Station, then train to either grafton or britomart. Both stops which are much, much further away from my current stop on Symonds St so I would have to have the hassle of transfer and a longer walk which is more time. Overall I just don’t think I can handle the added hassles.
You probably live near Botany If that is your situation.
The new network will allow you to catch a frequent bus from Botany all the way to Symonds Street. Or ride AMETI to Panmure, train to Britomart and then service every 5 minutes to Symonds Street.
That won’t take an hour. My guess including all of the waiting would be 45-50.
Also, there is no way that you can do ‘door to desk’ Botany to Symonds Street in 25 minutes at rush hour.
Hey BBC, I fully support the changes to cope with long term needs. As you say, other people will take my place. I just probably won’t go back to PT until I change jobs or till the aotea station opens.
Sailor Boy, I don’t know what the commute will be like in 2016 or beyond. I only base my calculations on times I know. maybe the new network will be quicker, but ill only believe it when I try it out myself. Who says I travel at rush hour? 🙂
Ah k, sorry, forgot about that haha. I still challenge the notion that you can do that trip door to desk at any time of day in 25 minutes.
Also, seeing as you were talking about the new structure being worse as you would need to transfer due to the rationalisation of services I get to talk about using the better services that will be made available?
You may no longer catch the bus but I am quite sure plenty of others will take your place. PT is underperforming in Auckland at present and these are steps that have to be made even if it means a few current users are turned off.
The main issue is the discontinuation of CBD bus services from the south and funnelling of passengers onto trains at peak time. The trains are pretty full at peak time so not too sure how this is expected to work?
The new network won’t start until the new, higher-capacity electric trains are running.
Toa. Because The New Network is timed to coincide with the introduction of the new electric trains, which have have higher capacity per train [750 people on 6 car sets, which will certainly run at the peaks] and they will be running at a higher frequency- every 10 minutes from Papakura every 10 minutes from Manukau, and half hourly from Onehunga, IIRC.
Currently there is 6 trains per hour to Papakura for a couple of hours for a couple of hours at the peaks, so additional riders are served by the bigger trains at these times, but the higher frequencies extended beyond these hours will also supply capacity, as will the greater numbers of trains departing from Manukau.
But once these are all full too we will have to wait fro the CRL to be built to relieve the capacity constraint caused by this bottleneck.
My understanding is that the electric trains are now delayed so more likely the end of 2014. Also a number (not all) of the peak trains have six carriages already.
Will really need a lot more information from AT on how many people will be affected by the discontinuation of buses into the cbd. The current peak capacity of the rail network, the new expected capacity of the electric rail network and the timing of it all.
I agree with your second point about AT needing to include that information in the consultation, which seems they are failing so far.
However the new 6 car EMU’s are much bigger than the existing 6 carriage trains. Also they will be 10 minutes faster from Papakura so the time difference will extend out much further, so express patronage will fall away even more. I’m sure most people catch current expresses because the bus does not feed the train properly however this will change.
The new network isn’t going to start operating until 2015.
The proposed new network is a good idea. However its successful implementation requires the successful implementation of the electric trains, integrated ticketing and integrated fares. The proposed new network relies on a efficient train network as there will no redundancy of buses travelling to and from city to south Auckland. The current train network has suffered a number of network problems so most than likely there will be problems with the introduction of the new electric train network. If there is an major unexpected shutdown of the train system which has already happened once before, people will loose confidence in public transport and will use their cars. If the integrated fares system is not introduced before the introduction of the new network, people will use their cars instead of public transport due to the cost of multiple fares ( train $3.06 plus bus $3.06)
Yes some good points there. With that in mind there needs to be real surveys (not public consultation) of current bus cbd commuters.
– what they think of the discontinuation of bus services
– would the use a bus to the train station to another bus
– whether they are prepared to stand the entire distance on the train
Toa it shouldn’t only be about the current users. This re-vitalisation of the whole system is about growing the effectiveness, appeal, and use of it to a much wider number of people. We have seen above that current users know a great deal about what they do now but struggle to grasp how things could be different at all accurately. And I think that is to be expected.
Change is difficult, there will be timing issues, but it is clear that there will be a net gain in service quality and quantity by the end of the process. And it will be a springboard to further improvements. You worry about overcrowding; that is a problem that is the best argument for further investment and further service improvement. It is in the end, a good problem, it means it’s working, especially if it returns again soon after building more capacity. And especially when the opposition to investing properly in Transit try to claim that they only hold that position because no one wants to use it!
Thanks Patrick. I understand the bigger pictiure but need more information to support it. We should really know how much new capacity will be available post electrification as you do not build any type of infrastructure if you do not know the end result.
If the exsiting bus passengers are not repectfully managed now then they will create a big negative impression when their services are cut, regardless of any improvements.
I think the “buzz” 🙂 around electrification will generate new customers. But not if there is no significant new peak capacity, the implementation has major problems, or bus passengers are really unhappy about the changes.
What I am really interested in is the actual transport modal shift from cars to the new bus network and train network. The changes are focused on moving bus users to trains so conceivably no benefit if the new capcacity is taken by bus users. But if there is more capacity than bus users then there should be a net benefit of vehicles to public transport. In my mind that is the measure of success for public transport.
PT isn’t just about the CBD despite what Gerry tells you.
As the new network is train network centered, the city rail link project should be completed as part of the proposed new network
Well, YES, but tell that to Gerry Brownlee.
That is the plan. 2016 is the first stage of the new network, 2022 or post CRL is the second stage.
In fact, aren’t we always being told how flexible buses are? Here’s the proof – we can completely redesign the network twice in under a decade.
Stage 2 isn’t quite a complete redesign but yes, using buses and trains to their strengths is pretty rad.
Graeme, and of course; this is a step in the direction, inexorably.
And it is important to not abandon the good because it isn’t the perfect.
Roll on the day when Route 30 will be replaced by a train!
Amen.
I agree for the segment north of the airport to Onehunga – but the segment east to Manukau is probably better developed as a busway, which can then continue via Te Irirangi to Botany.
If it is done as a busway it needs to be built in Such a way that upgrading to rail only needs gravel and rails laid, and wires strung up. This route WILL be rail in my lifetime, lets build it that way.
I think the only railway that could be built along here would be an elevated railway, like skytrain style.
A nice wide median corridor but too many at grade intersections. Guess busway could be build with iterations, with busway intersections getting a bus over bridge one at a time.
Airport to Puhinui could easily be at grade, Puhinui to Manukau already exists, but may need more tracks, I agree that Botany to Manukau will have to be cut and covered or elevated.
I disagree Sailor Boy, the demands on that section are very low and it is very expensive to build as rail or a grade separated busway.
Really all it needs is bus priority on Puhinui Rd and around Manukau to get really fast speed from there to the airport.
You have clearly misunderstood me.
Yes the demands ARE low, but in 30-50 years will they still be low?
Bearing in mind that we are probably looking at 100.000more people living south of Drury, plus all of the infill at Flat Bush, The development of Botany and Manukau as large centres, and the continued development of industrial land at the airport.
I believe that the new network is a good idea and my post did not mean that it should be abandoned. It requires careful coordination of integrated ticketing, integrated fares, and electric trains. The new network will hopefully solve the problem of the current network which is no implementation of integration fare zones. The cross town buses should be included in the network as they provide a backup in case the rain network fails. The long time that integrated ticketing has taken has made many people switch from public transport to their cars. We do not want this to happen with the proposed new network.
I agree – and so does AT, as indicated in the video posted above.
unfortunately AT aren’t trumpeting increase in train frequencies as much as they should/could be.
All that is says in their website is 15 minutes trains from Papatoetoe/Otahuhu, with 30mins from Manukau, Papakura and Onehunga.
So the only rail service improvement is 30 minutes trains off-peak from Manukau and Onehunga.
This is really underselling things. The need to be pushing the RPTP which says 10 minutes on all lines 7am-7pm. Maybe they can’t promise it at a particular date, but surely will happen within a year or so of the new network coming into force once electric trains are in full service.
This timidity from some in AT is very frustrating, and undermines those charged with selling the New Network. Just looks like arse-covering to me: If we don’t promise much we can’t fail. There are already 10 min frequencies at the peaks from Papakura. And given there are supposed to be 10 mins from BOTH MC and Papakura it should me there will in fact be 12 trains per hour, or 5 min frequencies at Otahuhu and Papatoetoe…. each way.
Come on AT.
I think they like to give themselves wiggle room, and I can’t blame them.
As we know planning is a very fluid process, yet many people (evidenced on the comments in this blog) seem to believe that once something is said or written once by someone at AT or council, it is carved into stone atop Mt Sinai by the hand of god himself and any apostasy is inconceivable.
So the *draft* RPTP says ten minutes all day, but maybe they might only have the budget for fifteen minutes all day for the first two years. Who knows?