Over the last month and a half, Auckland Transport have been busy consulting in South Auckland on the new bus network that is one of the key ingredients needed to revolutionise public transport in Auckland. However thankfully consultation can’t go on forever and so it closes at 4pm on Friday. That means that if you haven’t already and you want to then it is important that you get your submission in. You can find all of the details you need for it here. If you haven’t already seen it make sure you watch this video about the changes

One of the most important aspects of the new network is that it takes the existing resources we have that are tied up on inefficient services and puts them to better use in a much more legible way. If the proposal goes through, we go from having a bus network that looks like spaghetti thrown on a map to one that is actually readable without needing a three year degree in some arcane science. An example of what we have now and what we may go to if the consultation is accepted as is, is below. It’s important to point out that not all lines are created equal. Just because a route and line exist, it doesn’t mean that there is any real service there and there might be only one bus a day trundling along.

Southern Area Current
From this
Southern Area Proposed
To this?

One of the key developments that have occurred is the introduction of what is known as the Frequent Network. The frequent network is a series of routes that will run at a minimum of every 15 minutes, from 7am to 7pm, 7 days a week.  That is quite a bit better than almost all routes have today, or even what they would have by 2016 if we continued under the current structure as is shown below.

New Bus network vs BAU

The one major issue that some people have is that the new network may mean they will need to transfer between services. While that can be annoying, by embracing transfers along with integrated fares it opens up a lot more of the city to high quality public transport. While some people may be annoyed to be inconvenienced by this or perhaps even put off using public transport altogether, on the other side of the coin it provides potential for a lot of others. My understanding is that overseas cities that have gone through this change tend to see a dip in patronage when first implemented as those that are the most annoyed by the changes give up using the services however that can quickly turn around and within a few years patronage is much higher than it ever was under the old system.

A concern I noticed popping up in the comments of our previous posts was the issue of rail capacity. In particular people were concerned that there wouldn’t be enough capacity on the rail network which would undermine the efforts to use buses as feeders to the rail network to a much larger degree. This stems from the issue that people look at how full our trains are at peak times now and can’t see how any more people will fit on. The thing is though that our new electric trains will have much much larger capacity than what we are currently used to so should easily be able to handle the changes.

Network Capacity 1

One other slightly contentious point has been the proposed closures of Te Mahia and Westfield. My personal feeling is that they should close both stations due to their stubbornly low patronage and no real opportunities to see dramatic changes. For Te Mahia it is often mentioned that the development due to happen on the Manukau Golf Course in the next few years however what is often not mentioned is that even the closest houses in that development are about 500m away from the station (via current access arrangements) and that the course is long and thin so likely more than half of the dwellings would be more than 1km away. At that distance not a long of people are going to walk to the station compared to driving or catching a feeder bus to Manurewa. In Westfield’s case patronage is largely a result of the rail staff that work at the site, with trains being maintained at Wiri the staff won’t need to be visiting Westfield and so what patronage it does have will drop further.

In addition to above, Auckland Transport have quietly released this video to answer a few questions about the network.

Lastly the consultation gets a brief mention in the Auckland Transport business report that goes to the board today.

Public consultation commenced on 19 June for the first phase of the bus new service network redesign in South Auckland and will close on 2 August 2013. At 9 July 552 submissions had been received with initial indicative assessment being that 57.6% support or strongly support the proposal, 17.4% oppose or strongly oppose and the rest are neutral or don’t know (25.1%).

Considering the way that submissions tend to flood in near the end of a consultation period, it suggests that AT will get a fairly strong response. Extremely positively it appears that the majority of people who have already submitted have been supportive of the network however it is still important that if you have your say (if you haven’t already).

Share this

87 comments

  1. Walk, drive or take a feeder to Manurewa from Te Mahia? Drive to the FULL park and ride? or take the (apparently) REDUCED peak bus service?
    Which doesn’t even take into account that the configuration of the Manurewa interchange is likely to require the use of smaller buses in order to be able to make use of Station Road.

    If you’ve got better information, I’d like to see it.

    The implication we had in the local paper was that Great South Road will experience an increase in bus services.

    However, between 7am and 8 am week days there are
    2 471 buses
    2 473 buses
    2 477X buses
    2 568
    1 454
    1 475

    Even excluding the 2 express buses, that is still 6 buses an hour
    1 every 10 minutes.

    However:
    http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/improving-transport/new-network/Pages/details-of-proposed-changes.aspx#southAKLchanges

    “At least every 15 minutes between 7am and 7pm, seven days a week.

    Peak frequency will typically be every 10 -15 minutes.”

    Which means that the proposed new services will at best equal the current level of service.

    In fact, based on the proposed services
    http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/improving-transport/new-network/Documents/Route%2033A%20and%20B_Otahuhu%20to%20Papakura%20and%20Weymouth.pdf

    South of Manurewa only the 33A will run.

    That is listed as a “connector service”, for which it is stated:
    “Peak frequency will typically be every 20 minutes.”
    Or half of the current frequency

    1. In terms of walk-up catchment, looking at a map the stretch of Gt South Rd between Papakura and Manurewa only really serves Conifer Grove so that amount of service seems about right. Wattle Downs, Weymouth etc are also serviced by the 33B, 363 and 364, and east of the tracks (where there is more catchment) you have the 365 up Porchester Rd.

      But if you’re still not happy with that, get your submission in.

    2. Having no knowledge of the area I also thought this was an issue. I would have though it sensible to continue the 33 south at full frequency all the way to Papakura, and have a seperate service to Weymouth.

    3. You one of those battling a false front on keeping Te Mahia open are you? As I noted in my own submission that station is both inaccessible and unsafe thus best closed. That submission can be seen replicated (sorry ATB but it saves me doing a massive copy paste job) here http://voakl.net/2013/07/21/closing-te-mahia-station/ including diagrams of the feeder buses that will replace Te Mahia and feed you into Manurewa Station to continue your journey north by train.

      If demand is sufficient for NZ Bus then they will throw more buses down the 33A path south of Manurewa given the growth incoming for that area over the next thirty years.

      Also keeping Te Mahia denies the Glenora Road Station being built which would attract numbers similar to the Glen Innes Station as Addison continues to develop as well as the Takanini Centre. As Glenora also can take a bus interchange and Park n Ride to serve the rural areas east and even Conifer Grove area, the patronage for Glenora will outstrip Te Mahia hands down. So on a pure numbers game – sorry Glenora take priority over Te Mahia – especially when the Great South Road and Mahia road areas that fall in the Te Mahia catchment are served by the 33A and 338 (for the east we have the 365 that will step up as demand continues to grow)

      1. Semi. What I’m upset about are

        1. Touting an “improved service” where the information available does not seem to agree. I’d LOVE counter evidence
        2. People with disabilities are being sidelined and further disadvantaged
        3. People who ALREADY made the kind of PT lifestyle choices we claim to be wanting people to make are having their choice cut out from under them,

        As notes. There is, and will become available free space around Te Mahia to provision a park and ride and improve access. Manurewa’s Park and Ride is already full

        Your linked post references the 33A/B, but as far as I could tell, only ONE of those services actually passed Te Mahia. So you need to halve your frequency, or point me to a correction.

        1. 6 buses per hour is not a bus every 10 minutes. I often do Browns Bay to my house. There a 6 buses an hour that do a trip close enough to home, 3 of them come within 7 minutes of each other, the next comes 40 minutes later. The network is completely illegible, and there is no0 way to reliably connect if I want to go anywhere not on a direct route.

          All of these issues will be fixed by the new network. I will be guaranteed a bus every 15 minutes on tat route. It will be far more legible as only 3-4 services will stop in Browns bay, as opposed to at least a dozen at the moment. And I can connect to Takapuna, or the university, or Pulkekohe with great ease.

  2. There’s also an interesting issue of stats ………from the open day being told that only 2 submissions were made to support our bus service where as I knew of 10 people at that point who had made submissions – 3 of them very early in the piece (where as the open day was later on)………..would have been good if, when making submissions online AT had sent a confirmation of receipt of submission email or page …….as the discrepancy in numbers between us concerns me…….unless it is down to interpretation and only those submissions made in the strongest language were interpreted as supporting it …………………..and I tried to look at the positives as well as negatives when I made mine – perhaps a mistake !
    Other interesting things learnt from open day ……..you guys say trains from Papakura every 10 mins ……….the AT info says will get up to every 15 mins in time, the open day people say peak services every 15 mins …………..that’s less than the current frequency which is 6/hr peak so I hope your info is better than the open day AT peoples.
    More gems of wisdom – on train capacity ……..no idea of predicted increase capacity or predicted usage increase was what we were told………….again your numbers seem more informed but not from the horses mouth …………But they did say trains full to capacity are good news for them (not ideal for me sadly with no other options but at least I know in advance)
    On if there will every be a train connection from Manukau South ……………..no there is no room for it (Now I know they had retained space in future proofing but it seems its true the inland port has eaten that or it got sold off to them or something ?)
    On the Eastern line trains – will or won’t they stop/start at Manukau in the future and if so why was that info not given and been opened up for consultation ……….well they say its not finalised ………they have decided and they don’t know …….I wish we had brought along the AT map you guys showed with it on in clear markings …………

    Oh, and the topper for the open day “Well we have trouble finding out too, there are 1100 of us”, that just fills you with confidence.
    Really perhaps you guys could have been there (a) you seem to have more info (b) you could meet those affected firsthand

    So its onwards and upwards to a bright new transport future in 2015 ………in the meantime onto a much sadder task for me for the rest of today 🙁

    1. By the way the 10 minute train frequency comes from the Regional Public Transport Plan (2012) which states the southern line will have 10 minute frequency. It doesn’t define the ‘Southern Line’ nor does it give a time-frame.

      Matt’s capacity diagrams are estimates based on the same plan and assuming the peakiest peak hour will completely use 6 car trains (which seems a bit optimistic to me).

      1. Read the fist link in my post.
        To quote AT

        “Train services

        There will be trains at least every 15 minutes between 7am and 7pm, seven days a week, from Puhinui, Papatoetoe, Middlemore and Otahuhu to Britomart. At a later date there will be trains to and from Manukau and Papakura at least every 15 minutes between 7am and 7pm, seven days a week. There will be trains to and from Onehunga every 30 minutes.”

        There is NO guarantee of a 10 minute service in there EVER.

        1. Roger that is because the marketing department are generalising all frequent services (which includes rail) and they are also notorious at trying to undersell things. We have been having a running battle with them about just how frequent trains through the CRL would be and they are only now starting to up their game on it. The RPTP which was adopted by the board lists services and frequencies expected and the extract from that is below

        2. Except that’s October 2012, and the “details of proposed changes” page is presumably more recent than that (it’s not in the wayback machine yet).

          In theory I should be taking the more recent statement over the older one.

    2. This consultation is for the RPTP which gives the 10 minute frequencies. The argument was that those concerned about the capacity should note that the capacity is 4500/ hour from Papakura, so if the trains are full with less even AT may decide to up the size of the trains.

    3. Nuts. I wished you left a space between paragraphs for easier reading 😛

      Quotation time

      “On if there will every be a train connection from Manukau South ……………..no there is no room for it (Now I know they had retained space in future proofing but it seems its true the inland port has eaten that or it got sold off to them or something ?)”

      The Manukau South Link – right I’ll go through this again. I have spoken to both now Auckland Transport AND Port of Auckland on the Manukau South Link and the Wiri Inland Port that does hinder the South Link currently – thanks to a Kiwi Rail balls up.

      From Auckland Transport I asked the question on the Manukau South Link as an update to the Business Case study ordered by the Auckland Council Transport Committee earlier this year. November is the conservative estimate date that the study is projected to be reported back to the Committee for consideration. It was noted that the POAL Wiri Facility makes things complex but the project could still continue none the less. With a bit of resolve if the case study does give the green light for the South Link, construction should be able to start Easter 2014 if not June 2014. Completion should take one standard weekend block of lines at full speed. This is of course subject to the age old question of $$$.The study will also give projections on patronage and frequencies for the South Link which should be very favourable towards the project.

      As for POAL’s Wiri site. They are aware the north end blocks the South Link path. As a result of this amongst other things I did moot in the possibility of shifting Wiri down the road and utilise a mothballed siding sitting there. POAL are going to have a look and give it consideration. I’ll know what the Port thinks of the idea when I do.

      So in regards with the Manukau South Link after making enquiries, I do feel confident the project should go ahead and be ready by 2015 at the absolute 🙂

      1. I think that the obvious running pattern to adopt here is to have ALL Eastern line trains go into, Manukau on their way to Papkura, and eventually Pukekohe.

        1. the infrastructure is the cheap bit. The Manukau South Link really doesnt fit with the new network philosophy of running highly frequent services with interchanges to give coverage, rather than infrequent direct services.
          There will be no rolling stock to run the Manukau South Link anyway.

  3. I agree they should look at closing some under used stations but perhaps should wait to see the effect the new electric trains have on the network. I personally use the Westfield station so wouldn’t like to see it go but if its usage doesn’t improve then I guess it makes sense to shut it down. Perhaps a new station in the heart of Westfield business park could be considered?

  4. Roger W – you miss the point. The current routes on Great South Road currently serve various different destinations, and so frequencies to any one destination is at best every 30mins….usually less. Nor do these services connect to other high frequency services, which would allow passangers to access other destinations. So if I currently stand on Great South Road I will have to wait at least 30mins (usually longer) to access nearly all destinations serviced from that bus stop.

    Under the New Network I would not have to wait more than 15mins to get a service that all goes to the same place(s). If I transfer at one of the high frequency interchanges I can access other destinations in no time, instead of trying to conenct to another low frequency service, or waiting up to an our for a direct service under the current network. cheers

    1. I didn’t miss the point.

      The question was getting from Te Mahia to Manurewa train station by bus.
      The implication the local paper put on it was that the bus service was improving to go with it.

      Comparing the current peak journey planner from Te Mahia to Manurewa by bus gives 6 buses + 2 express between 7 and 8 am

      What I can find in the new plan is a peak of one bus per 20 minutes

      SHOW ME: Where is there evidence of buses passing Te Mahia on great south road at a frequency of better than 1/20 minutes.
      I’ll be glad to see it.
      I’ll settle for a link to something on the AT website, maybe with an explanation if you think I’m slow. 🙂

  5. I dont have a strong opinion on the closing of the stations, but if the developers were to put in place good separated cycle paths, a distance of 1km to the Te Mahia station wouldnt be a big deal. Along with good cycle parking facilities at the station it may well encourage people to cycle and train.

    As NZ developers seem to be obsessed with cul de sacs, I am sure this development will be infested with them. However, for cycling that presents an opportunity as cycle paths can be put at the end of each cul de sac connecting to the next cul de sac, forming a nice quiet cycle boulevard to the station.

    Of course, this will probably be a bit too 21st century and out there for an NZ developer who just want cookie cutter houses with MOAR ROADS. But I can dream.

    1. The observation I have of the cul de sac-heavy developments of late is that they are ghastly for any non-motorised transport because they are totally lacking in the inter-block alleyways that are so common in older areas. When I was growing up in Manurewa, the area was rife with alleyways, even between through roads, and on my evening constitutional through Ellerslie/Oranga on Monday I traversed no fewer than six inter-block paths (including one rather odd park) within the space of a 5.3km circuit that included quite a bit of re-covered ground as I made my way home.
      I can only conclude that modern developers are unwilling to sacrifice the slightest bit of profit potential by creating such pedestrian corridors, and suspect that it will require Council intervention in the form of connectivity minimums to make it happen. Unless, of course, the alleyways are there and just don’t show up on Google Maps – unlike the alleyways of my youth, which are all present and correct.

      1. Unfortunately Matt, I suspect you are right. Asking a developer to designate a 3m wide path for cycling and walking when they could fill that with parking, would be a stretch.

        I was just inspired by some stuff I have been reading about the Netherlands where they have used the cul de sac as a way of creating cycle friendly streets with interconnecting cycle paths.

        Of course, as we are about 50 years behind the Dutch on this, I wont be holding my breath.

        1. Yes, what Bryce said. Less than 3m has no scalability if the path starts to become well used.

          You will have conflict between walkers and cyclists as well as congestion problems with cyclists going both ways (cycle congestion – an ambition for Auckland!).

        1. That’s why they have to be planned with regard to built forms. Connecting accessways (@Bryce P – mini parks) work, if the buildings and landscaping on either side face the path, instead of creating alleyways that are not overlooked and treated as gauntlets.

  6. I personally wouldn’t call a 15 min frequency on a bus route acceptable as a turn-up-and-go service. 10mins is the limit for me. I used to catch the three kings bus to uni (after driving from mangere bridge), and that is what it should be on the high frequency routes if possible.

    1. Reality is that most of the HF routes will coalesce services down to sub-10 minute frequencies for the peak, and sub-15 minute frequencies during the day. There’s the lower-frequency routes that aren’t shown on the map but which will still travel these corridors, too.

      Toss in that the aim will be to get people onto a train or at least a corridor with bus lanes and even if the frequency isn’t quite high enough for true turn-up-and-go it’ll still get people to their destination a lot more rapidly and reliably than at present.

  7. Out of interest, have AT studied or published the New North Rd New Network Changes and their impact?

    Mt Albert residents now have less buses per hour as well as the St Lukes detour slowing trips. Finer details like bus stop positions and facilities have not been addressed at all. Bus lane improvements are of course non-existent despite the same holdups at the same intersections every day.

    There are obviously a bunch of proactive planners behind the new network and I do agree with the overall vision, but where the hell are AT’s bus passenger champions; the team who should be riding the routes and relentlessly gunning for improvement?

    1. I’m inclined to agree with this observation. I don’t think it’s clear that the new routes are an improvement for Mt Albert residents. HOWEVER, if I am anything to go by, then the changes have been successful, because I now take the train much more often, and I think that is half the point: if you are on the rail network (as many/most in Mt Albert are) then you shouldn’t be relying on the buses, you should be taking the train.

      Saying that I think you are right that they haven’t really fine tuned it, and the information provision has been awful throughout. Many people are still confused about how the ‘expresses’ work – they skip St Lukes, but also Kingsland, which surprises more than a few in the mornings on the way in to town, and in the evening those buses that terminate at St Lukes are extraordinarily annoying.

      1. David, I may be wrong but I thought AT originally proposed to pull the express services entirely, but that some services were subsequently retained in response to customer feedback? And I suspect AT proposed to pull express services to avoid the very issues you note – express services with unique stopping patterns reduce legibility of the wider network and annoy (at least) as many customers as they make happy.

        Rock and hard place springs to mind!

        1. You are probably right Stu – the expresses aren’t a problem for me, but I do notice a few fellow passengers annoyed by them most times I wind up on one. The pattern is confusing. As far as I can tell it is no stops from top of Symonds St to St Lukes Rd, but I couldn’t swear to that. The designation on the front of the buses is less obvious than it used to be. The old express routes were 211X or whatever, where now it is in the name, and so people don’t always register it.

          Much more annoying is the ones that terminate at St Lukes. That is clearly indicated, but it is surprisingly easy to not notice it and just jump on. Again for me, it is OK, just 5 minutes extra walk, but it would be a pain if you thought you’d caught a bus for New Lynn or somewhere, only to get thrown off at St Lukes. I expect if you are in that demographic you are paying more attention to the destination than I am though!

          My main comment was supposed to be that for anyone near the rail line the main effect of the bus changes has been to make the rail a clearly preferred option – and I’m pretty sure that was the intention!

      2. I am on the rail network. Where I am it is 10 minutes walk to Avondale station and 5 minutes walk to either New North Road or Blockhouse Bay road bus routes. I have been catching the NN road buses but recently went back to using the train. This morning however I caught an Urban Express bus from BHB road since that’s now integrated with the HOP card. The train takes 29 minutes from Avondale to Britomart. I timed the bus and it was 22 minutes stop to stop (to Albert street). Door to door, including walking time, the trip this morning was 35 minutes to work. If I train and walk from Britomart (to the viaduct where I work) it’s more like 55 minutes best time. Usually I would take much longer since I tend to use the quieter back door to Britomart then walk the scenic way.

        So for me the bus is actually much better as long as you’re travelling early enough to avoid the traffic (I leave home at 6:15am).

        When I caught the NN road buses I always found the express ones didn’t make a hell of a lot of difference time wise. They just didn’t get so full.

        Simon

  8. I live in Manurewa and agree completely with closing Mahia station. It is hidden from the road, lacking in facilities and patronage is stagnant. No-one moving into the golf course housing would choose to walk from there.

    The one issue I have is the closing of the walkway from Great South Rd to Ferguson St. If this closed it will be a long walk to catch the bus in Great South Rd.

    Manurewa Park & Ride does full up, but neighbouring streets do not. There is ample parking available. Even the carpark in Station Rd, where the old station was, has spaces.

  9. Te Mahia Station
    Having attended many local meetings on Te Mahia Station I can shed some light on this. The station is unsafe because it has not been upgraded. The feedback we have had from residents from a very large catchment is that if the station was upgraded and made safe then more residents will use it.

    One example is that it was assumed that the catchment is very small as the motorway forms a barrier to the Randwick park residents. However there is an old walkway under the motorway which leds directly to the Trainstation. A safety upgrade to the walkway would add more passengers to Te Mahia.

    The Park and Ride at Manurewa is full and there are serious physical issues with turning this into a transportation hub. Te Mahia currently relieves some of the pressures on Manurewa and may provide an alternative once it is upgraded.

    With regards to the Manukau Golf Course development. I am aware of residents who walk 2km from Wattle Downs to Te Mahia. I would expect that a 0.5 -1km walk to an upgraded safe Te Mahia would be preferable to the diabolical Takanini interchange or having to put on large numbers of buses to transport people to Manurewa station.

    1. That said, the walk to the GSR buses would be 0-500m. Also, I don’t see why Manurewa interchange would be an issue. You could buy a small chunk of Southmall, or even just use the current interchange with a small upgrade.

      1. Because the eyesore that is southmall is across the railway track. And the actual problem appears to be with integrating the interchange into Station Road. Something about turn radius, etc. But I’m quoting hearsay, so take it with a grain of salt unless you can find a source.

        1. Then maybe the council could buy and redevelop Southmall as an actual town centre with built in interchange?

        2. Oh I wish.

          Unfortunately, nothing happens to Southmall even in the next 30 years under the council plan.

          Because it was “the first mall in New Zealand” or something similar, it has protected heritage status.

          Never mind that it’s ugly inside and out, that it leaks, or that the floors look like they belong in a cow shed.

          I wish they would at least redo the car parks into something sane.

  10. Express Buses
    A lot of concern on the removal of the Peak CBD Express Buses. While I can understand the rationale, I suspect that the reality of removal may cause issues for many users.

    While the new electric trains will be longer, there is no real increase in the numbers. This means there will only be a limited number of the 6 carriage long units which I supect will be quickly filled up with new passegers wanting to use the new trains.

    The Peak CBD Express Buses must be retained at least until it is proven that there is seated capacity on the new electric trains from the distant stations. I do not consider standing on the train for 45-50 minutes from Manurewa to the CBD as an acceptable solution.

    1. If the new trains are so popular that they are full then justification to build the CRL earlier rather than later becomes so much easier as that is the way we can ramp up frequencies.

      1. And if that is still not enough, for a bit of extra outlay, we can get the ETCS upgraded to allow shorter headways.

        1. And still no one is talking about:

          1. How long would it take to do an ETCS upgrade
          2. How much would it cost
          3. How long would it take to procure extra capacity (carriages + EMUs)
          4. How much will it cost
          5. What is the opportunity cost associated with forcing multiple transport modal changes on passengers (what proportion are likely to switch to cars permanently)

          Which is a long winded way of saying. If you screw up your projections, how long will it take you to fix it, and how many people do you PO while doing so.

        2. How long to fix it? You’re speaking like everything is rickety boo right now. I fail to see how any of the proposed network changes can make things worse for anyone other than a few people. And even for them, there are sure to be solutions. Accessible shuttles to transport nodes? Sure better to aim the network at the masses and find other solutions for others?

        3. @Bryce Probably it will be better. But like I’ve said elsewhere. If no one raises issues, they don’t get fixed. And I don’t SEE anyone talking about contingency. And not knowing the contingency worries me, especially when the typical response is “trust us” or “everything will be great”. Or in classic style “Trust me, I know what I’m doing”. 🙂

          New trains. New train schedules. New bus schedules. New journey planner. New ticketing system. New fee structure. New capacity requirements. Each and every one of those projects is large and complicated enough to cause problems. Potentially significant problems. Doing the whole D@MN lot at pretty much the same time is begging for trouble.

          And “how long to fix it” was not referring to “right now” in any way, it was referring to:

          If you screw up your changes, say by underestimating uptake by 20%.
          How long will it take you to be able to remedy that by getting more carriages in?
          As I’ve said before elsewhere. New carriages could take 1-2 YEARS to get. What do you do in the mean time?

          People here just say “great problem to have” when you say “what if the demand is higher”
          Well maybe in theory.
          But it bites big time if you have to live in the resulting mess.

        4. So Roger, I will ask again – what are your solutions for Auckland’s transport problems? How much will those solutions cost? Will they help ease congestion or at least hold it as is when 1m more people want to travel?

          Easy to criticise the efforts of others.

        5. That’s not a criticism. (well, the capacity/planning stuff isn’t)
          I am certain that in 5 years time, enormous number of people will benefit from this.

          My issue is:

          “I’d like to have enough information to be able to verify to my satisfaction that you have planned for stuff to go wrong.” Because it will. Take a look in the comments for this post about integrated fares. Then apply it across the (6?) different projects they are running.

          When I get told “It’s this way” and “It will all work” my immediately suppositions are the person telling me is lying, ignorant, overly optimistic, doesn’t understand me, or is looking past implementation issues.

          Lying should be very rare. Ignorant shouldn’t apply here, or if I’m talking to someone from AT about their work. But the other three are likely to be high probabilities.

          If I stop to think carefully, then I add “I don’t understand them” which is definitely possible.

          Where I do have criticisms of this particular process, they are generally
          1. Marketing hype / inconsistency
          2. Where people who have followed the “PT plan” in the past are now getting reamed for it.

          #1 I find generally anger inducing in any environment
          #2 I understand from an economic viewpoint, but my visceral response to it is that it is hypocritical, disloyal and infuriating.

    2. Toa, appreciate your concerns but in return I’d suggest you consider the following two issues:

      1. Do you think successful PT networks overseas guarantee seats to passengers even at peak times? In my opinion, the ability to “guarantee” passengers seats at peak times is more a sign of failure than it is an indicator of success. It is definitely not something that I would use to decide whether to retain particular services; and

      2. Are you aware that several bus routes in Auckland have passengers being left behind at stops during peak times because the buses are completely full? Mt Eden and New North Rds being prime examples. Hence, I would suggest that any bus route in Auckland that is not full (beyond seated capacity) at peak times is possibly consuming resources that would be better used elsewhere on the network.

      1. I would rather drive my car into the CBD than stand 45-50 minutes on the train. Therefore it would not be unreasonable to expect other commuters who are forced off Express buses to do likewise.

        1. Toa, your hypothesis is noted. But at the same time you have not addressed the specific questions that I posed.

          Here’s another one for you (and others) to consider: What if the *overall* patronage effect of the proposed changes was positive? More specifically, what if reassigning resources from express services to a more frequent all-day network resulted in a net increase in patronage and a net reduction in commuting by private vehicle? Even allowing for the fact that a small number of disaffected customers stopped using PT because of the changes?

          Would the changes still be worthwhile then?

        2. @Stu

          In theory yes. But I could use that argument to potentially strip all the funding from say the North Shore and divert it to South Auckland. Or vice versa.

          Plans are wonderful.

          Implementation details are a PITA.

          What Toa and Ezekiel are arguing is that closing Te Mahia has a significant net negative effect on a substantial number of people.
          And that there is a potential positive effect from retaining it.

        3. 120 people per day is not a significant number of people. Especially when everyone riding past that station wastes 2 minutes there.

    3. @Toa, if the trains are full at Manurewa, running 6 train sets we will have out 20,000,000 a year and get the CRL. Surely we trial this and then run express buses after the trains fill up?

      1. Seriously? You are proposing to try and induce a DOUBLE modal transport shift? It’s risky enough trying to do a single PT to PT shift.

        Incremental variance in service is a far less risky option, and far less likely to suffer a systemic failure.

        1. No. I am proposing bus to rail.

          Then, if after a period of months the trains reach capacity we can start to run express buses again.

      2. And running 6 x 6 carriage sets per hour from south Auckland MIGHT make the 20 mill, or it might not. If we get that, it’s still potentially only a 16-20% capacity increase (at peak) where we need 100% increase in uptake. And at present we have no information on how full the trains actually get. (as opposed to how many people they carry on a run)

        1. So Roger what is your solution to Auckland’s transport problems.

          You seem to be all negative and no positive solutions.

          Interested to hear your plan and its costings.

        2. I can’t. Because I don’t have the figures to work with.

          And from what I can tell, some of the figures I would think are required are not available to AT either.

          Which worries me.

          Wholesale systems revision also worries me because that typically leads to substantially higher error rates.

          I am primarily focussed on Manurewa/Te Mahia because it is where I am, and what I know.
          And I am “negatively focussed” because ignoring problems mean they are not addressed.

          What I want to know is that someone in a position to make decisions actually knows what they are doing, and that they have contingency available.

          I get PO’d when I hear “hype” being pushed when it doesn’t agree with the numbers I CAN find.
          I get PO’d when I think people at a disadvantage are being sidelined.
          I get PO’d when I think that people who are already “acting responsibly” are being punished for their decisions in order to “help the majority”

        3. Well the network was desingned in part by Jarrett Walker, a world leading expert in this field with experience in comparable overseas cities. (Canberra and Toronto are the 2 I can recall).

          Who is being punished? I struggle to think of anyone in Auckland who will have a longer commute on PT under the new system.

        4. 6×6 car sets can carry 4500 people, if the demand is higher we can go to metro seating overninght and probably go over 6000, so a wee bit more than 20%.

        5. @Sailor boy
          Who’s been punished?

          How about the guy who bought his house next to Te Mahia so he could make good use of PT in the style everyone here says they are promoting. Who will not be able to buy a different house because of his income.

          Who will now need to take a buses and a train (or walk and a train) for the same outcome if Te Mahia closes.

          That would be an EXCELLENT example of someone being punished for having made the right decision 10 or 15 years ago.

          It might well make sense on the numbers, but it feels pretty D**N hypocritical and back stabbing when you’re on the receiving end of it.

          6000/hour would be about 160% of current peak capacity. That would actually mean exceeding that 40% they’re talking about. Good to know.

  11. The video suggests that there will be an integrated zonal based ticketing system to support cost-free transfers. But all the maps i’ve seen suggest this will only apply if you fork out a couple hundred for a monthly pass.

    See http://www.athop.co.nz/fares/bus-fares/Pages/default.aspx vs http://www.athop.co.nz/fares/monthly-passes/Pages/default.aspx

    Is there a timetable for introducing the zonal system for prepay users, or are they only targeting the new network at regular weekday commuters to whom a pay monthly package will appeal.

      1. That’s just it… fare structures should change BEFORE the new network. If the network requires/expects transfers and that causes big increases in costs for people, then even if they get there quicker they won’t stick with PT. Zonal / free transfer pricing has to come in before major overhauls to the network. I assume (hope!) that is the plan.

        1. There will be, according to rumour, a 50c credit when one transfers, which helps offset the penalty associated with the lack of fare integration. If that is true, it will certainly ease the pain until AT pulls collective finger and delivers something that, as you say, should have been fully resolved before we started enforcing mode transfer. The reorganisation must happen, and I understand the urgency, but a complete reorganisation and integration of fares should have been happening right behind the completion of the HOP rollout.

        2. 50c credit? A one stage trip for me from mangere bridge to otahuhu under the proposed network now involves a transfer. I pay two stages and get 50c credit and the trip takes longer. Better to drive for that trip than take the bus.

        3. 50 cent credit? A one stage trip for me from mangere bridge to otahuhu under the proposed network now involves a transfer. I pay two stages and get 50 cent credit and the trip takes longer. Better to drive for that trip than take the bus.

        4. Peter, the 50c discount is part of the interim fare system which should be well and truly gone and replaced by fully integrated (except for ferries, grr!) zonal fares by the end of 2014, hopefully earlier. Definitely will be gone before the new network kicks off.

        5. Andrew, your faith in AT is touching. I’m distinctly dubious that they’ll have their act together and got proper integrated fares up and running before the new network is rolled out. They’ve displayed very, very little competence on the matter thus far.

        6. @Matt, I agre that integrated fares will be late, but the new network will be later again, the last video in this article shows that they are already expecting a 3 month delay.

          Also PeterF, I think you will find that your trip will be faster under the new system (including wait time), and only cost 94c more than currently if the integrated fares aren’t in by that stage.

  12. @Patrick & Matt. Nice show on the news tonight. Well presented. Shame nothing was said about the southern line that I saw.

    1. Have a read of this post http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2013/07/04/electric-trains-will-significantly-boost-capacity/

      I combined the capacity of trains arriving at Britomart at the busiest hour of the peak based on the current rolling stock allocation plans. Capacity was determined by the number of seats multiplied by 1.4 which is the figure AT use to determine if a service is overcrowded so admittedly you could get more people on those trains but then that would also apply to the EMUs

      1. Hmm.

        I was using the ADL capacity figures, with 6 trains per hour, and 4-5 carriages.
        Giving 2,700 to 2,900. So how did I end up at 3,600?
        Ah, the ADL listing on Wikipedia says 68+62 per carriage, so 260 per unit against the 190 you’ve got there.
        Depending on the time slot at Manurewa I get 5 or 6 trains per hour on Maxx

        So, as long as we get at least 2 6 car trains an hour at peak, we’d be no worse off, and potentially up to 80% better off.

        That makes me feel more comfortable about it.

        But how does AT determine overcrowding when we got told that they couldn’t determine occupancy because they can’t tell when people leave the train?

        1. The ADL’s are two carriages per unit, not four hence the 136 seats. Obviously two units joined together to form a four car unit will be double.

          Crowding is determined by counts taken at set spots along each line by on-board staff and that is aggregated to determine crowding

        2. Yeah, Wikipedia says 68+62 per carriage, or 136 + 124 per pair, so an extra 70 per pair above your figures.

          So they can do the occupancy figures, just not on an easy/regular basis.

          Geez, wish someone had said that earlier. OK, that means that my estimation of their modelling certainty goes up considerably.
          Not enough to make me comfortable until I see their error estimates and contingency, but definitely better.

        3. Hang on.

          By that formula, the capacity for a NEW 6 car train is only 644. 230 * 2 * 1.4

          Which gives a new peak capacity of ~3,800 not 4,500 at 6 trains per hour.

          Which is still only a 20-25% capacity increase after all.

        4. Roger the new trains are designed to carry more people. For example they push the limit of the loading gauge so are a little wider than our current trains. The have open access between the carriages on a three car train rather than the closed doors like exist now. The centre car – which has a low floor section – has longitudinal seating which gives more capacity, while we have this in some existing trains, there should be more of it in total in the EMUs.

        5. Possibly so. But the 1.4 x seated loading capacity gives 644 rather than the 756 that has being quoted.

          Either your figures should use 322/644 when talking about the new trains as 3 or 6 carriage units.
          Or, I should be using 130 when talking about 1 ADL carriage.

          Either way, that still comes out at < 25% increase in capacity from Papkura

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *