This is a Guest Post by reader Luke Christensen

There has been much concern regarding stalling rail patronage recently. This was a substantial topic of discussion at both the Auckland Council Transport Committee meeting and the CCO Strategy Review Committee last Wednesday. At the latter Auckland Transport was criticised by the Mayor and the councillors for its attempt to lower patronage targets for 2013/2014 to 10.6 million, from 11.4 million. In the end the council won the battle and the 11.4 million target was retained. There is also of course the longer term issue of the government pushing for 20 million trips a year for the CRL to start construction earlier than 2020.

pt-targets

At the meeting a range of initiatives the Auckland Council transport team presented a range of ways to improve patronage, and issues that might arise.

  • Improved Interpeak and Weekend Patronage

The report mentions that weekend frequencies on the Western Line can be improved to half hourly. However there are also some other easy wins, such as increasing Manukau services to half hourly during off-peak periods, and increasing off-peak Western Line frequencies to 15 minutes. Currently there are only half hourly frequencies between about 10am and 2pm.

  • Parnell Station

Parnell station has been delayed until 2015 as it is not suitable for diesel operation.

  • Manukau Institute of Technology

MIT campus above the Manukau station will open early 2014. However interestingly enough better than hourly frequency will not commence until the end of 2014 which seems very strange. There should be spare diesels during day, and is much better to get people used to using rail from day one.

  • New bus network

The new bus network will not be implemented in South Auckland until early 2015, so will not provide a boost until then. This is due to need for retendering, and building new interchanges at Otahuhu and Manukau stations.

  • Park and Ride

Swanson and Glen Eden Park and Rides will be expanded soon. However this blog has often noted than P&R is not a great long term strategy to improve ridership, and is a very expensive way of doing so.

  • Fare Strategy Initiatives

The report highlights the excellent Greater Wellington Regional Council fare proposals. This report recommended family passes and off-peak fares to help boost patronage.

 Overall the report highlights it will be difficult to achieve major boosts in the next year. The major areas I think that should be pushed are in increasing off-peak frequencies using the diesel fleet and fare initiatives.

Auckland Transport seem to be taking a highly conservative approach to rolling out any new products on the AT HOP card. This is causing trouble as some people are losing very helpful discounts, such as the Northern Pass. Another example is the Discovery Day Pass will be scrapped in a couple of months. This cost $16 for unlimited travel on bus, train and some ferries. It should be very easy to add a $16 day cap to the AT HOP card, but this is not being done for some reason in the short term. Discounted weekend travel should also be very easy to roll out. A blanket fare reduction on weekends could be a interesting idea, parking is often cheaper on weekends so need an extra incentive to get people on public transport. Some things such as accompanied children travelling free can be done totally outside the AT HOP system, although it is best to ensure these are done as part of the HOP card, so the extra patronage can be counted!

Of course we should keep in mind it is just the short term picture that is concerning. Some election candidates are being very mischievous with there use of the ‘patronage is dropping’ phrase. In 1991 Perth had about the same patronage we do now (10 million). After electrification there was a huge jump, and they are now at 60 million, and there is no reason we can’t follow suit with Electrification, the City Rail Link and of course the Congestion Free Network.

perth-patronage

Edit: The comments in this post have gone way off track. Skypath or other topics have nothing to do with the patronage targets that Auckland Transport have to achieve. If this discussion continues it is likely to lead to argument and frustration for everyone involved. Phil and Richard – we are sick of you hijacking threads arguing minute points as for one it puts many people off reading what others have to say – Matt

Share this

170 comments

  1. I was thinking about this yesterday and it occured to me that previously a lot of my trips would have been counted twice. I often had to change trains to get to where I was going (e.g. Avondale Glen Innes) which was counted as two journeys pre-HOP but only one now. I wonder if AT should look into how many of their HOP trips involve connections and see whether, after adjusting the current figures to put them on the same basis as pre-hop figures, the current figures are comparable to pre-HOP or not.

    I agree re adding a $16 cap to replace the Discovery Day Pass. This is going to hit me particually badly so I’m not looking forward to that being phased out. I hope AT reconsiders this soon. It shouldn’t be too hard to implement, surely?

    2. It is pretty easy for AT to tell if a transfer has occurred so they split out trips like yours into two trips to match how things used to be.

      1. Oh cool I wasn’t aware that they had made that adjustment already — or is that just an assumption on your parts Nick/Matt? Would be interested to know where I can find info on the methology AT uses.

  2. Obvious question, but what is the value to the city in more off-peak operations.

    The very reason they aren’t done normally is that they just lose money and by making it cheaper they just lose even more money.

    For the city one benefit is less congestion however as we get told numerous times the road network is congestion free.

    The other thing it does is let people who live way out in the suburbs travel to other suburbs without having to check the bus timetable. These people who were previously turned off by checking the bus timetable but insist in living in the suburbs could then potentially sell their car but putting all their travel costs into the city rather than paying their fare share.

    So yes we could increase total patronage by increasing the usage when rail it not the best option for travel, but is that really the best value for money and is it actually targeting the trips we want.

    1. But the buses and trains are already in operation so the main costs – labour and opex – are already incurred. To add more people costs virtually nothing (buses use hardly any more fuel loaded compared to empty) so adding off-peak, paying customers is good for the whole network. They are paying their way and helping the network.

        1. No they’re not but, under the new network that is due to be operational in 3 years (for no more opex than current), this scenario is entirely feasible. It would even work for the off-peak buses that are driving around right now.

    2. If the rail infrastructure is all there and paid for, it makes sense to maximise its usage. Off peak services do not lose money unless the marginal costs of running the service exceed the revenue gained. And even if this happens, a good off-peak service actually facilitates the peak service by affording a greater degree of flexibility over return-journey options, etc. This is often hard to quantify or predict, but an all-too-common side-effect of limiting off-peak services is that the whole operation loses patronage as a result. Once a service ceases to be perceived as “comprehensive” and is seen as peak-only, a downward spiral can start.

      As it happens, New Zealand’s commuter services are much “peakier” than those in many other countries’. The difference between peak and off-peak frequencies is far less marked in other places because a solid base of off-peak patronage has been built up. The benefits of this are 1) better transport choice, 2) a reduction in absolute car-use(it is not just peak-time car use that is detrimental to the planet), 3) more overall emphasis placed on “walkability” and pedestrian-ambience, which all leads to 4) a less-traffic-dominated environment, 5) better options for visitors and tourists, not all of whom want to be forced into self-drive or expensive taxi options. And without fail, other things being equal, rail produces better outcomes that bus-based transport.

      Maximising PT usage at all times of day ultimately results in a significantly different (and pleasanter) urban form than pegging PT use to the minimum that can be got away with, and mis-focussing resources on options which encourage greater use of cars.

      SF Lauren I am not sure who you are or what your agend is, but it seems to me that any transport spending that does not directly support your own personal preference causes you to be discontented and critical, even if such (non-highway) spending would be of indirect benefit to you through abstraction of a proportion of traffic. PT-advocates have long had to put up with only getting the scraps. However even in New Zealand it seems that times are at last changing, so you may have to lower your expectation that whole transport “cake” will always be available for roading and car-use-encouraging schemes.

      1. Dave, just like driving a taxi the cost of operating a bus or a train is all dependant on the time the vehicle is in operation. Each train and section of tracking has a hours of life limit, not a passenger’s of life limit so running twice as many services costs twice as much, and if you only get 50% more customers who are already getting subsidies you just loose more money.

        Now there are benefits like extra choice, however things like walking and pedestrain ambiance have nothing to do with cars vs PT. Sure having a cafe next to an 8 lane road isn’t nice, but then neither is one next to a rail line with trains every 2 to 5 mins. In regards to the health of the plant. I’d say 2 cars, or 3 motorbikes would do less damage than a bus or an entire train carrying the same number of people.

        In regards to my preference you are right, I only like what I like but I do however like all forms of transport so I have no real bias to any mode.

        What I look for is the best bang for our buck of any mode, and so the proposal to run trains every 5 mins between 5am and 11pm 7 days a week with an average train occupancy of 5 seems of little use. Yes that is 5, 20 or even 100 cars off the road but on average there are tens of thousands of cars driving around and removing those 100 cars makes pretty much no benefit but will cost a fortune daily in operation.

        1. The increases in frequency are already planned and will be even more frequent once the electric trains come online. The point is to get more people on each train.

          A single zone off peak fare is the best option IMHO. Or a low daily cap off peak.

        2. No SF Lauren. The costs of a transport operation have only a small relationship to the hours of vehicle-usage. This is because of the huge capital cost in establishing the infrastructure (be it railway or highway), which is a sunk cost whether any vehicles use it or not. Once a railway is there for peak-usage, it is foolish not to maximise its usage for off-peak unless off-peak patronage would be so low that even avoidable costs could not be covered. This is rarely the case once an off-peak service gains popularity and gathers momentum. And as I said, sometimes it is even necessary to run, say a loss-making late-evening service as a “loss-leader” for facilitating peak usage, at least in the short to medium-term. Sure, if patronage never picks up then it would have to be reconsidered, but NZ’s track record on innovating and promoting such services is historically not the best.

          As for the choice between locating our hypothetical cafe either near a busy railway or an 8-lane highway – most people would be quite happy sipping their coffee somewhere above the underground CRL with trains every 2-5 mins, but less so beside even an ordinary two lane city street, if that street is choked with traffic because of overly car-dependence-encouraging policies.

        3. Awesome comparison Dave, comparing underground rail with surface roads. A real apples with used socks comparison there.

          Anyway my main question is just about the comparison of the benefits vs the costs as I have no idea as to what these are. Given you said before that ‘this is rarely the case’ when talking about off peak trips making a lose I take it you have some reasoning behind this statement.

          The only thing I can go on is a newspaper article that said kiwirail was needing to close the southern line 2 hours earlier for the rest of the year and that an entire 350 people would be effected. Even if you double that volume that’s 700 people, 30 people per train or about 100 cars off the road at any one time.

        4. Read the book “Human Transit” there’s a big section about the fallacy that peak services are the most valuable for a PT operation. In fact they are the most expensive to operate and off-peak actually is significantly cheaper for a whole host of reasons.

        5. Yes I would imagine a PT system that can only provide for off-peak services would be very cheap, but then it would be no use for the peak period and so you will need either massive roads or another peak time PT system.

        6. SF: yes, but we’re already doing the expensive part, by running a system that’s heavily focussed on the peak. Extending it to higher frequencies all day is pretty cheap, comparatively, since the capital (buses, trains, rail tracks) is already there. It’s often cheaper labour-wise too: for a good discussion about why, I also recommend reading Jarrett Walker’s “Human Transit” that BBC mentioned.

        7. You misunderstood me SFLauren, as SteveD mentions the expensive part is providing all those buses to service a very short period of the day, the additional cost of utilising them for the rest of the day is comparatively small. That’s what I’m getting at. It’s a lot more expensive to hire people to only work 2 hours a day in the morning and afternoon, and then have them drive all those buses off to a depot to sit unused. It’s a well studied area and one that Jarrett Walker goes into great depth to discuss, clarify and dispel the myth that a peak only service is the cheapest and most effective service to run. Read his book if you really want a good answer to your question, else I’ll just assume you’re trolling.

        9. Wellington studied the benefits of going to 20 minute off peak frequency a while ago and came up with benefits > costs but nothing happened. Perhaps SF Lauren could google that study.

        10. Well it’s starting to sound like a bit of work has been done so ill try and give that book a read.

          I did a quick google search on the topic and didn’t get any meaningful results.

        11. If we have $400,000,000 worth of buses in Auckland it makes sense to actually use them all the time.

        12. “the proposal to run trains every 5 mins between 5am and 11pm 7 days a week with an average train occupancy of 5 seems of little use. Yes that is 5, 20 or even 100 cars off the road but on average there are tens of thousands of cars driving around and removing those 100 cars makes pretty much no benefit but will cost a fortune daily in operation.”

          You are right, it is of little use **today** in reducing congestion if you have 100 cars off the road using trains.

          But over time, as people see and know that the PT system has a train every 5 minutes then you will help stave off future induced demand as people will learn that to go into town (or across town, to the airport – wherever, whenever), e.g. in the evening, the train is the better option and it will be there when you want to go to town from your local station and will take you home again in short order when you’re at the nearest CBD station.

          Thats how London works with its tube system – everyone knows that you can get a tube train in and out of/around London any time from 5am to 12am and its that turn up and go level of patronage that drives cars off the roads over the long term.

          We’re not there yet by any stretch of the imagination, and no one is saying 5 minute frequencies 5am to 11pm is doable anytime soon.

          And yes it costs money to do that, but whats the alternative invest even more $B into spending more on road dependency?
          Personally I’d rather pay that money now and in the medium term to have a good train system there whenever I need it than a gold plated road system that is jammed up whenever I need to use it.

        13. Agree with your logic 100% Greg. Is it heading towards the medium term solution providing other mode choices, that we know will work. Yes! We’ve tried the other model ignoring some actually well thought recommendations. Been there done that got the t-shirt or is it the motorway?

        14. Actually Greg the tube in London works because everyone knows taking the car anywhere takes for ever and you have nowhere to park it either at home or at your destination.

          So if you have no other option than to walk to and from the train station that is the option people take.

        15. “the tube in London works because everyone knows taking the car anywhere takes for ever and you have nowhere to park it either at home or at your destination”

          Go back 100 hundred years to London, change “car” for “horse” or “carriage” and the statement is true.

          The tube in London works, because its more convenient than taking a car/horse/carriage whatever – which is something you have pointed out a few times that at the moment taking the car in Auckland here is “too easy” so its the default (and only) choice for most people currently.
          – in London its the tube as the default choice.

          And to some degree the Tube is a vitcim of its on success (just as the roading policy here is).
          And neither fact should surprise anyone – as Patrick says, what you feed grows.

          The difference is we as a country or a city cant take 150 years to get where London is today with regards car alternatives.
          Off peak trains is how you drive that uptake – the private companies that started the Underground train system in London worked that out over 140 odd years ago, so why don’t we take a leaf from their book?

        16. If i could avoid having a car in Auckland i would. I catch the bus to work so peak time is no problem. it’s at the wknd the car gets used, or when I’m going somewhere in the evening and realise that the buses and trains won’t be running when i want to go home. if i could rely on frequent off peak PT then i would probably get rid of my car. I never needed a car when living in the UK or visiting cities around the world. I can’t wait for Auckland to be similar.

        17. Liz, have you ever thought about living in one of the many parts of Auckland where you don’t need a car? It seems a little strange to not want a car but then live in a place where by implication does not have very good public transport or walking access.

        19. Try any of the central parts of what used to be called Auckland city sailor boy. I’ve been finding it rather easy for the past 8 years.

        20. depends on the rents, and where family/friends are. In Parnell living without car in weeks is fine. However if visiting friends in evening/weekend often need to get ride with someone. Also when I go out exploring Auckland try generally to do that during the week, as I know I won’t have to wait 59 minutes (or worse) for the next bus or train to come. Tried to bus to Mt Wellington on a Saturday evening once. Took me half an hour to figure out which bus to catch, and was totally different bus, and random time depending on when I wanted to go. Ended up going via Panmure taking 45 minutes, other options would have been via GI, or doing loops around Ellerslie.
          However I knew with the New Network in 2016 I could of got train to Sylvia Park or Otahuhu, and would have been frequent bus waiting for me.
          Extending the frequent service quite late in the evenings (especially Friday and Saturday) would be great for people getting around town then.
          Note even the last Dominion Road bus on a random weekday (midnight) often has 20 – 30 people on it leaving town. Shows what a highly frequent all day service can do.

        21. So what your telling me Luke you don’t want to pay for a good transport systemfor yourself but rather you want others to pay for it.

          Well beleive it or not, but that’s how we got where we are today.

          Also an obvious note that people seemed to have missed. The PT system is not there to be your own private limo taking you to some remote beach or your friends life style block. It’s a means of transport for the masses. If it’s just you making the trip take a taxi or drive and stop expecting other people to pay your way.

        22. I live near Kingsland. Pretty central, and I decided to live there for that reason. However it’s still hard to get around on PT off peak. I hardly think that wanting to be able to easily take public transport to the shore or Mt Wellington (actually part of the old Auckland City, so supposedly easy to get to by your criteria) is that strange. In comparison, I’ve lived in 3 cities in the UK and never needed a car.

        23. It should be super easy to pop in and out of the city from kingsland.

          I’m pretty sure that when you were in the UK and you decided to go for a trip off to some of their more autodependant sprawling suburbs or business parks you would of had similar issues. The big difference between the UK and New Zealand is that most of there cuties developed back when travel was slow and hard hence they are very dense with pubs on every corner.

        24. Umm I was talking about my friends house in Mt Wellington. Everyone else is talking about urban areas of Auckland, this beach and lifestyle block thing is a ridiculous strawman. Can get to fringe easily with rail and busway anyway. Its random trips across urban areas that are a pain in the neck.
          With a well connected system that it easy. As for a bus-train-bus-trip, that sounds fine to me. Would be great to know I could make these trips if I wanted to without spending ages looking at inconsistent timetables.

        25. The beach example is an obvious exaggeration however its not too far off the point. If you look at the number of people who travel from your house to your friends house on a daily basis it’s pretty much nobody. Even if you factor in the area to the other area unless one of you is in the CBD the volumes between the two would likely be low. With the new bus network however we will have frequent buses passing through both of those areas and so with a simple transfer your sorted.

          In saying Auckland is built on corridors pretty much any non-grid city is built on corridors. The whole point is that if your catchment is long and thin then you can easily service it with one line. The Northshore here is like that with the busway and the same with the very far south. All the central parts of Auckland however are almost as wide as they are long and hence why the western train line takes a meandering path whilst still missing large sections. Other parts like east Auckland are stuck 10km away from the rail line. And so the whole point is that simply thinking that by running electric trains rather than diesel and then boosting the frequency that these folk living 5km to 10km from the train station are going to give up their bus, car, bike, ferry or running shoes and start flocking to the train station producing a growth like that of Perth.

  3. There is a strong empirical link between off peak patronage and cost recovery. Dr Chris Hale has done some work on that.

    By making it cheaper, if enough extra people use the services it can, in theory, be revenue positive. But are you saying that zero value should be assigned to an off peak passenger? Have you been to Sydney which has a strong peak focus? Out of peak traffic is just awful.

    Off peak services make it somewhat easier to live car free and that sounds like a pretty good benefit to me.

  4. Note off peak services will be going to at least 15 minute frequencies by end of 2015. So why not do it a few years earlier?

  5. Can we stop with the silly comparisons to other cities?

    – Perth, with a population of around 1 million, is a dynamic and wealthy city built on the profits from the almost boundless mineral resources of the State of Western Australia – the Texas of downunder.

    – Auckland with a population of around 1 million is a South Pacific back water city with a debt of around $ 6 Billion and without boundless resources it can not afford a complex MTR – the New Orleans of downunder.

    1. Who’s asking for an MTR system in Auckland. CRL like projects have been built all over the world to connect heavy rail systems that have outer CBD one way terminus stations.

    2. But what does that have to do with people using PT more? I understand that might affect the building of PT infrastructure but I fail to see the correlation with people using PT more. What we are doing now is what was done in the 1990s in Perth.

      Surely in a richer city, people will be able to afford cars. In a “back water” (your civic pride shining through) like Auckland, shouldnt more people want to use PT because they are less wealthy?

      Or are you making another point? It is so hard to tell.

    3. Phil, in the 1990s Perth had a much lower income than it does now, and at the time NZ and Australian incomes were significantly closer. If we were going to be pedantic, we’d also suggest that their rising incomes would make private vehicle use even more attractive, and reduce public transport use – all else being equal. Perth’s population in the mid-90s was a spot under where we are now. There’s plenty to compare.

      (It even passes the English Language White Person Test, which states that in order for NZ to take lessons from a place it must be both English speaking and primarily populated by white people.)

    4. Yet Auckland can afford to plunge billions of dollars into roading projects with low cost-benefit ratios and which inflict substantial social damage upon the city? Sounds reasonable.

    5. The big thing Perth has going for it with rail is that the majority of the development and the people live along a long thin line next to the cost, any map will show you this.

      Auckland however is a series of very large blobs going through various choke points. This is what has most likely boosted motorways as they only need to go through the choke points and then the local road can do the rest.

      For Auckland to do the same we would need to be like Melbourne with a swam of branch lines and some massive 8 track sections once they all come together.

      What would be a nice test for Perth would be to measure the growth in rail usage with the growth along the cost. I’d suspect they would have a clear correlation.

      1. “For Auckland to do the same we would need to be like Melbourne with a swam of branch lines and some massive 8 track sections once they all come together”

        But is anyone asking for a network to service ALL of the “blobs”? Not that I can see.

        1. Sometimes I wonder just what it is that people do want.

          As we can see we are often compared to cities that are vastly different from that of Auckland but the PT results they get are presented as realistic targets for use.

          So if people don’t want a network to serve all the blobs as well as Perth can service it’s coast it is unrealistic to expect we can get the same results without doing some other drastic measure such as Vancouver were you have to drive through a set of traffic signals every 200m.

        2. Perth is a similarly sized city in a similar part of the world which, like Auckland, had low PT patronage (still does, in the scheme of things) until recently. That is why people make comparisons to Perth. Every city and (potential) network is unique, but you seem to think that every point of difference between Auckland and elsewhere else represents a disadvantage to Auckland, without that necessarily being the case.

          As far as blobs are concerned: if a few motorways can adequately service the major “blobs” with local roads branching out from there, then surely the same is achievable with rail (to and from the main blobs) and feeder buses/light rail/ferries.

        3. So what your telling me James is that you think the average person should walk 5km to and from the train station at each end of their journey?

          Well good luck with your election campaign as I know 400m is a big enough disincentive for some people.

        4. No that is not what I am telling you. No part of my comment implied that people should have to walk 5 km to or from the train.

          That really is one from left field, SF Lauren…

        5. Yes sorry about that, walking wasn’t one of the modes you mentioned.

          So what you are proposing for the average trip is that someone should take the bus, light rail or ferry to the rail interchange in there blob.

          Take the train to the next blob.

          Then take another bus, light rail or ferry to their destination.

          A 3 mode journey sounds like quite an adventure for an off peak journey and I can certainly see why most people choose to drive.

        6. A great deal of trips, and especially those made with PT, have the major urban centres (CBD, Newmarket, New Lynn, and so on..) at one or both ends, in which case the use of a feeder service is only required at one (or potentially neither) end. Of course there will be instances where this may become cumbersome or impractical, but it is realistic for a great number of common trips in Auckland – it works in a lot of other places and there is no reason it can’t work here.

        7. Yes I agree with you there James. PT is very effective and efficient at taking large numbers of people to a common destination such as workers or shoppers heading to the CBD.

          The thing is however is that we get told time and time again that this is not good enough and people want to take PT from one backwater to another backwater with minimal effort and delay.

          In a place like Perth this is easy as every backwater is along the main rail line so you can easily take a direct trip. In Auckland you need to take 2 to 3 vehicles to make that trip as the city is made of blobs, not narrow fingers like Perth or Wellington.

        8. But Auckland IS a narrow city, Lauren. Neither Perth nor Wellington are any better suited to rail than Auckland – and a city doesn’t need to be narrow in the first place to have a functional PT system. You also make it sound as if Perth literally just sprawls along the coast without any inland component which clearly isn’t true as they have multiple lines running on a broadly east-west axis.

        9. James, SF Lauren never lets a few facts get in the way of a good strawman argument.

          Already in this thread he’s invented posters’ desire for an off-peak only rail service, a 5km walk between stations, and the demand for backwater-to-backwater gold plated PT. His is a constant trend of launching into opposition to a claim that was never made in the first place. Oh, and that his (unsubstantiated) facts trump all.

          Thanks for the tip on the Perth network. I did a 2min search on Google and other than the reach of Auckland’s western line, the remainder of the existing network (and proposed north shore and airport lines) all fit a corridor identical to Perths. Seems an ideal comparison on both coverage and what can happen if you ignore the naysayers and invest.

        10. James. Based on google earth the developed area of Perth is 100km in length and generally 5km wide although it does flare out to 20km in width around the bay. So for Perth you could run one single line north south and you have most of the city within 2km.

          If you look at Auckland however, it’s 45km in length and about 25km wide. Generally it is about 8km in width for most of its area and so you in order to get the same sort of coverage as Perth you would need about 4 lines which would ultimately be indirect for most trips and would require multiple transfers.

          KLK. I suggest you actually read what yourself and others write. The entire topic is about off-peak rail, the suggestion was made that people travel long distances to and from stations and it’s on a pretty much daily basis people are complaining that they have to look at a timetable in order to travel from their suburban house to some other suburban location. So my discussion is on the very claims people make on a regular basis.

        11. Oh, you will also see I said people want PT that requires minimal effort and is if minimal delay. You made up that gold plated statement all on your own.

          One can only conclude with your gold plated comment that you want a PT system that requires more effort and adds delay to a more than minimal level. An average level like 15mins maybe.

        12. Your pedantic assessment of the differences between Perth and Auckland – the main corridor width of 5km and 8km respectively – would only be (slightly) relevant if we were asking for a rail system to be built from scratch. We are not. Its already there. Proposed lines go north (shore) and south (airport) but nonetheless remain in that corridor.

          We don’t want the same coverage as Perth nor are we asking for it, because we don’t need it, because we already have it – so why are you banging on about it? Strawman. We are quite happy (to a large degree) with the rail coverage in the corridor, hence no more lines proposed heading east or west out of that main corridor – busways instead. What we want is enhancement of that existing service to meet demand. Thats all. Try sticking to the argument at hand, for once.

          “Yes I would imagine a PT system that can only provide for off-peak services would be very cheap, but then it would be no use for the peak period and so you will need either massive roads or another peak time PT system.”. Pointless statement unless someone promoted a new peak only service. Which of course they didn’t.

        13. KLK. The length and width is very relevant when you are looking at patronage and mode share. The topic of this post and the daily topic of this site.

          So looking at the two widths, in one case everyone is within 2.5km of the rail line and in the other they are within 4km. Given the walkup catchment is some 800m in one case you have about 40% of the population and the other you have 20%. Yes you can get feeder buses however that is less desirable and hence less patronage.

          When you then look at the actual journey in Perth taking the train pretty much sends you straight there regardless of where you are going. For Auckland, anywhere other than on your short line you need to take a round about detour trip and make a transfer, hence why driving is more desirable in comparison to trains here than what the case is in Perth.

        14. “One can only conclude with your gold plated comment that you want a PT system that requires more effort and adds delay to a more than minimal level” You inferred gold-plated, not I. Do you ever tire of strawman arguments or flat-out false conclusions?

          James had the audacity to suggest increasing off-peak services to compliment the bus network, using exmaples of inner city travel – Mt Wellington, parnell, GI, Sylia Park, Otahuhu. Shock, horror.

          Your response? he wantst o use PT as his “private limo” for, and I quote, “taking you to some remote beach or your friends life style block”

          Pathetic.

          Nice work.

        15. In regards to the off-peak network, try reading the post.

          It was said it’s very cheap to operate an off-peak system and that a peak time system was significantly more expensive.

        16. Also KLK. The discussion was never about increasing the effectiveness of the existing system to satisfy demand. The post is all about increasing demand.

          Try reading the post as it’s still up the top there.

        17. “Based on google earth the developed area of Perth is 100km in length and generally 5km wide”

          Now you are just flat our lying, SF Lauren. There is no point discussing this with you as you are clearly more interested in deluding yourself into believing that it is too hard for Auckland to develop a network than you are in looking at the facts objectively.

        18. Try looking at a map James, you will see my statement was correct. Especially if you read the entire statement where I said it flares out to be about 20km wide around the bay.

        19. I had a good look at the map, Lauren. The area in which most of Perth’s residents live is actually anything but long and narrow, as shown by this map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MASB.gif – the main built up area is about 45 km N-S and 30 km E-W

          The parts of Perth which stay with a few km of the coast are relatively insignificant within the overall urban area (which, as I have stated in a previous post, are served by rail lines which have an E-W component).

        20. I stand corrected, I was not made aware that we were ignoring half the city in this comparison.

          Are we able to get a graph of rail usage that doesn’t include users from that half of the city so that we can compare apples with apples

        21. Mandurah and Rockingham have a combined population of 200,000 out of Perth’s total of 1.9 million. So, 10% of the population.

        22. You hit the nail on the head there James. Based on last year’s rail figures although that section of Perth only provides for 10% of the population it contributes to 32% of total rail usage.

          The northern line then accounts for another 26% meaning nearly 60% of Perths rail usage comes from those long thin coastal parts even though they only contribute to a small portion of the population.

        23. What’s most impressive James is that if you look at the graph at the top which shows the two big jumps in growth, both of them are on the long thin parts which I’ve been told by you guys are irrelevant and only make up a small portion of the population.

          It would seem that if it were not for these two lines Perths rail use would be down at some 20 miller trips a year with their 1.9 million population. Right up there with Auckland percentage wise which is not too surprising.

        24. Significant portions of both of those lines run through the main urban area where there are a number of stops and where the built up area extends a lot further than a couple of km (as you would have us believe) from the coast/rail lines. Even if the stations in the thin coastal towns are well utilised (and I am not saying that they aren’t) it has nothing to do with the fact that the towns are relatively long and narrow – I think you are confusing correlation with causation and I really don’t understand the logic behind your argument or even where you are trying to go with this.

        25. By significant you mean less than 20%?ll thathat’s just strange.

          The whole point is pretty darn oobvious and I fail to see how you can get confused. It you simply think of how you would like to catch a train, would you rather have a short walk to the train station and then take a train straight to your destination or would you rather have a long walk, transfer into a second train or a bus and then have another long walk.

          On long narrow sections of land like Perth it’s very easy to do the former just like in Wellington. However in Auckland you pretty much have to do the later with feeder buses to take place of the long walk.

          Also nice trolling claiming I said the place was only 2km wide. You can still see above I clearly said it was generally 5km wide.

          And please don’t to jumping topics and start talking about commuting to the Auckland CBD.

        26. No that isn’t what I mean. Again with the strawman.

          5 km (a semi-arbitrary number you came up with) = 2.5 (roughly “a couple”) of km either side of a line running down the middle. Trolling, huh? Pot, Kettle…you know how it goes from there.

          Imagine that Joondalup was on the same latitude but 20 km inland, such that the line kinked east rather than out to the coast. And lets say that Rockingham and Mandurah weren’t so sprawly and so far down the coast, but were compact towns, one after the other, much closer to the Perth CBD, just beyond the rest of the urban area, served by the same number of stations as the are now. Do you really think that patronage would decline because the urban area is no longer as long and thin but more compact?

          Adelaide is just as long and narrow as Perth and has very long lines to the North and South. So why are their levels of patronage only in the range of Auckland’s? Surely, even with a low-quality service like we have here, they should be eclipsing us due to being blessed with a long thin urban area?

        27. Actually James, the 5km comes from google earth and using their ruler tool and looking at the entire built up area. I didn’t design or build Perth so don’t go blaming me for making it the way it is.

          If you look at Adelaide however it’s about 50km long and about 15km wide.

          So ratio wise it’s about 3:1 whereas Perth is about 10:1 and Auckland 2:1.
          Thus one would expected Adelaide be about as attractive as aucAuckland to take rail in. And guess what, shock horror it is.

          So that’s just more evidence for my case, cheers.

        28. LOL.OK, I’m done here. I am never going to agree with you on this and I have wasted enough time already.

    6. Maybe should check figure before making accusation about debt levels. Western Australia’s debt in $21 Billion AUD, and is forecast to go to $28 Billion in 3 years.
      http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/big-projects-mean-big-debt-for-wa/story-fni0xqi4-1226693662271
      Population of WA only 1/3 more than Auckland but 3 times the debt.
      Note in Aus state govts fund much of the infrastructure that Auckland COuncil does so is reasonable comparison.

  6. Contrary to popular opinion, Perth is not a good city to compare Auckland with for growing rail patronage, as their rail projects are far beyond the scope of anything Auckland is doing. The Mandurrah line is 70km long – that’s Britomart to Wellsford. The Joondalup line was 26km long, and its extension (currently underway) will take it to 40km. These big projects are what have driven patronage the most, and Auckland has no such projects on the agenda. Our core upgrade (double tracking, electrification and CRL) are similar to the Perth core upgrade of the 80’s/90’s, but beyond that, the similarity ends.

    1. That tells me Perth is more spread out than we are – which means, if our spending priorities on transport for the past 30 years matched theirs, we’d be ahead of them now as we’re less spread out and our density is higher.

      1. Well note I mentioned after the Congestion Free Network is completed which is 17 years away.
        Once we have CRL, Roskill, Airport Rail and Shore Rail all integrated with each other and the bus network I can’t see why we shouldn’t aim for 60 million in 20 years for Rail Patronage.

  7. There is still no mandate to reprioritise the existing road network, flogging a laboured current scenario. 1000 buses going somewhere circulating faster with cheaper fares (and even cheaper off-peak) is do-able with maintenance budgets-give them the focus just tell them “make buses go fast”. Trips cheaper and faster/more regular. Isn’t this the main ingredients to get into the system full-stop? and the toppings are stations and a new fleet. Are we taking this seriously at the top to give this mode a fighting chance? or expecting absolute miracles?

    1. I think policy is holding up this thing big time!!!!. Sure I understand consultation etc changing routes.Can the bus network have priority and a one lane conversion maximised? Yes or no even with current routes and the optimised key areas first that fit in with future routes? And get the ball rolling Feeders up,patronage to rail up. Isn’t this urgent? Fares we need to nail something quick,easy and global now. Why not try $70 students, $90 off-peak only and $140 per month if 50% is too much of a discount off-peak? Divide by 3 week pass, 14 day pass. Someone else mentioned something similar, still think zones overcomplicate when this is patronage numbers really. We need something else to market apart from the simulator and the first electric train on the way directed at patronage and improving the here and now.

      1. While on zones. My personal view is that we are all paying towards the network. Be it out in the sticks or in the core. Its not really on distance when everything is joined at the hip. You don’t want to do the costings proratered with actual cost at the core as actually the population further out should be paying less if done on that basis with the CRL etc. The fact is that it is all integral (everything needs to work together as efficiently as possible and to far reaches so the catchment/market gets bigger and bigger) and we all want to move around the grid at will and get the freedom. This is the main attraction of cars…freedom we need to compete with that and make it easy and flexible. A pass that suits peak demand and reasonable but ultimately paying towards a better network is the goal.

  8. June 2011 population of Auckland is shown as 1.377 million (Provisional for Auckland region 2012 is1.507 million). Apparently an updated figure is due to be released soon.

    However, as Phil Moore requests, can we stop the silly comparisons with other cities’ populations. What is significant is the population, population-density and population-catchment in particular transport-corridors, not in the urban area as a whole. For instance, the Auckland – New Lynn – Henderson – Swanson corridor may be just as busy as an equivalent rail-route in Sydney, even if the rest of the city is not comparable. All too often, perverse “population” arguments are used by anti-rail, pro-motorway types to bolster their particular cause. Let’s get beyond that.

    1. Good point – we will be able to increase patronage along the rail corridor and that is what counts.

      I also think building (relatively) cheap separate cycle infrastructure to train/busway stations will explode the catchment area by allowing people to safely and pleasantly travel 2-3kms to the station. Getting rid of our stupid cycle helmet laws for adults would also help.

  9. Apparently its OK to compare us to Sydney (5m pax) when you want more roading projects like they have….

    And please, we are over the strawman arguments. No-one is asking for a complete Metro. Its one link to double the capacity on a network we have already invested in. If it was a road system that was facing the same sort of constraints you’d be yelling for the upgrade. Oh, that’s right – you are. And its hypocritical.

  10. How about letting the community/developers build the proposed Glenora station at NO COST TO AUCKLAND!!! Very easy way to help boost patronage… What a shame these sorts of commonsense solutions are always overlooked

  11. Off peak travel definitely needs to be heavily discounted. I propose that for the purpose of simplicity, adults travel on concession fares during the off peak hours. Rather than introducing separate family pass products, I would also propose that when children travel with adults, the first child pays and then subsequent children are free. The latter is the system that CityRail use in Sydney.

    1. Yeh that is the simplest way Louis. However it may mean patronage figures will drop as children are no longer counted by the HOP system.
      One way to solve this could be that I think the new trains have door passenger counters.
      Although maybe would still need to tag on, however child HOP cars are not charged on weekends.
      This would encourage further HOP uptake too if discounts inly applied to those with AT HOP cards.

      1. How would that work in stations with barriers? Maybe AT Hop cards could be linked so the children still tag on and off but when travelling with a linked adult off peak they aren’t charged?

        1. Yeh good point, with HOP cards would need to just have children blanketly free.
          If we did the accompanied child ticket, then would need to be paper tickets and checked at the gates of gated stations.
          However don’t want to encourage paper tickets.

  12. To my mind boosting patronage is about two things – frequency and attractive fare structures. Until the electric trains are fully operational there is little scope for increased peak time frequency of trains. There is scope for increased interpeak and off-peak frequency as Luke has mentioned in his post. Growing patronage at these times is the way to get more people on the trains in the interim. We need to get more people on the buses outside peak times as well. How to do this? Attractive fares are the answer. AT HOP will cover all the North Shore bus services in just over three weeks time and by the end of the year will cover all of Auckland’s services. AT have introduced monthly passes which benefit peak travellers. Attractive fares outside this time are imperative to increase patronage on poorly used bus and train services. The monthly pass zones could be used to establish daily caps both peak (before 9am first journeys) and after 9am off-peak for train and bus journeys or any combination of both modes. Here are some suggestions based on the fact that the month with the least working days is February with 19 if Waitangi Day is a week day and ensuring an advantage to those with monthly passes. Divide the monthly pass cost by 15 for peak caps and by 20 for off-peak caps on weekdays. Peak Caps would be; 1 zone $9.33, 2 zones 12.66, 3 zones $16.66. Off-peak (after 9am) caps would be: 1 zone $7.00, 2 zones $9.50, 3 zones $12.50. Note that the three zone peak cap is approximately the same as the discovery pass being phased out now. And so to weekends. Follow Melbourne’s example where you can take as many train, bus or tram rides as you like for the sum of A$3.50 for the whole day. How about unlimited rides on the weekend for $6.00 across all zones, giving a slight discount on the one zone off peak fare cap during the week. Introduce these measures now and you will see a marked increase in patronage as there is a huge increase in flexibility (transfers between modes etc) with a clear maximum fare for the day. Do it now AT!

    1. Those sound like reasonable ideas.
      I think a free return trip with a 2-4 hour period would do wonders for off-peak patronage too. Halves fares for off-peak journey’s very simply.
      Christchurch does exactly that.

  13. An interesting policy that is in operation in parts of the United Kingdom from memory is all members of the emergency services are able to ride public transport for free. This has the added benefit of if there are any incidents on the network (heart-attack, assault etc.) there normally an off-duty (or even on-duty) policeman/paramedic not far away. Perhaps Auckland Transport could implement such a policy? Would be negligible in cost and the benefits of increased safety, security and response time to incidents would no doubt outweigh however much it might be?

    1. In Nottingham all doctors, nurses, medical students, etc travel for £1 – at least on the services going near the hospital and medical school. It was widely advertised on the buses. Didn’t have a chance to check other routes.

  14. I had wondered about this for Nurses/ambulance drivers and fire-fighters as they are generally top on the most trusted individuals and generally known as low paid. This means there would be a lot of public support

  15. To put it very simply, is better to have 100 people on a train paying $5 each or 200 people on the same train paying $2.50 each? The revenue and costs are still the same, but you’ve got more people using the service. That’s the thing with off peak services, even if they reduce the fares but have more people using that service, it doesn’t cost them anything in the long run as there is plenty of spare seats on these services. I think peak prices should remain similar though as these are full services.

    1. (The above example is a very hypothetical statement. I in no way tried to figure out average revenue or passengers numbers of an off peak service)

  16. Have to laugh about the “please don’t compare us with Perth!” comments.

    Back when key decisions were made, Perth very much was a backwater. Iron ore prices were low, exploration was dead, and people over here said who would want to live in Perth, all they have is mining.

    The Mandurah line was supposed to be paid for by selling the gas company, and for about half its eventual price, and taken twice as long to build the full length. When Labor got in, they went ‘all in’ and decided to add the underground section, build it quicker and borrow the money to do so. The line was a raging success, and nobody remebers that is was borrowed money.

    Auckland is supposed to be the commercial hub of NZ, with much MORE going for it than mining, and should be in a better position to justify such investment than Perth was, given Perth functions something more like Tauranga growth wise but is positioned like Invercargill is with respect to the rest of the population.

    Auckland for us is a smaller version of Sydney, which has languished since the GFC, and is still right now building two new rail links, the 1.2 billion south west line with only two stations, and now the fully automated nine billion dollar north west rail link over thirty kilometres.

    Even with these two underway, Sydneysiders point to dozens of new lines that need to be built just to keep up, a new cross harbour tunnel, new corridor to Parramatta, fixing the north and south coastal routes, connecting the south east using heavy rail rather than the approved light rail, and on it goes. This is Sydney, no shining example of government leadership, and languishing in local recession.

    Auckland has no excuse.

    1. Yes and Perth is as close as it is possible to get as a model for Auckland’s transport situation. No cities are identical but none are as close in this case either: Similar population, similar distribution [long and thin], similar density [in fact Perth is more dispersed] similar culture [new world, anglophone].

      And what did they do? Electrified an existing semi-morbund rail system, connected it with an underground CBD link, then extended the network. Where did they start; annual patronage of 10 million. And what did they do with the old clunking worn out trains; sold them to Auckland of course. You couldn’t find a closer fit for what we propose to do in Auckland.

      But of course the tarmac lickers hate the idea of Perth as an example of what could happen in Auckland because it is so apt and clear and shows that their white-anting and nitpicking is baseless.

      1. Exactly Patrick. In fact it was the same set of railcars that saved both cities. It was always a shame for us that not even one set remained behind, and given that Queensland also got rid of its diesel railcars, there wasn’t a single modern cape gauge railcar in the whole country available for the sorts of Pukekohe type runs that are still needed here, like south of Fremantle or east of Midland. But Auckland got its money worth, added Britomart and is now set to really fire with the wire. As you guys already know fom Wellington’s experience.

        Mandurah really did track the experience of Auckland’s North Shore and weekender belt. If you wanted to ‘clip on’ something of real value, it wouldn’t be road lanes but rail. My only concern with the CRL was that there is no magical way to make it instead a North Shore line, which is probably a second project. Most of the objectives of improving Britomart constraints could also be achieved with a line direct to Takapuna/the north, redirecting say the western line away from Britomart. But I accept Aucklanders have a better feel for what is possible than I ever will.

      2. Patrick, have you actually ever seen a geographically correct map of Auckland?
        If you had you will see that Auckland is not long and thin in any way shape or form.
        I suggest a quick view on google maps of the two cities will confirm just how vastly different the layout of the two cities is.

        1. Auckland is very much based around corridors, forced to because of the geography with limited crossings around harbors and the ranges.
          It is certainly no Hamilton, Christchurch or Houston where it can expand it any directions.
          We are just spoiled by Wellington which is one of the most amazing corridor cites around, but that doesnt mean Auckland is not a corridor city.

  17. And for better comparison, Brisbane, probably only twice the size of Auckland, has the two lines under construction right now. Like Auckland, the right wing govt is trying to stall the big one, the cross city rail tunnel. And everyone knows more lines than this are required and have been planned.

  18. Well apparently Auckland is sucking the life out of NZ and we shouldn’t spend any more money on Auckland problems.

  19. I like the comment on rail spending in Sydney. Similar annuncements in the US (of all places), UK, China, Malaysia…..the list goes on.

    Most of those are well ahead of Auckland and still kicking on. The fact we are even debating whether spending on rail in Auckland is necessary shows what a backwater we aim to be.

  20. Some would suggest increasing demand for the existing system might come about from of increasing effectiveness and quality of that existing system.

    They’d also suggest that false claims of people wanting trains to beaches and lifestyle blocks, to be treated as a personal limo, that we want branch lines and a bizarre reference to a off-peak only rail service are disingenous and irrelevant to the debate.

  21. Lets look at a big rail spend in Auckland. A north shore line. Apart from the cost of a tunnel to get the train across the Waitemata where is the train supposed to go?

    You could lay tracks on top of the existing bus corridor but to what benefit? What would a train do running along the busway that a bus isn’t providing? In fact the buses provide more flexibility as they are not track limited and you can add more buses at peak times or divert them off peak to other routes.
    You could electrify the trains and reduce the carbon footprint but for much less money you could convert buses to be carbon neutral so gain on that argument.

    Apart from the existing bus corridor where else are you going to run a northern line because digging that tunnel is going to cost a lot of money for a train that only stops 5 places. I know you guys like to get out the coloured pencils so lets imagine a northern line worthy of its name. You would want a spur that serves Northcote, Birkenhead, and beachaven (lets call that the Green line) and another spur that runs from Devonport in the south and up to at least Browns Bay (we will call that the Blue Line) Maybe we will make these loops rather than spurs because after the Britomart we now know that end stations don’t work. So the green line can now link to the central line (the red line that is going up the bus corridor) via glenfield at a new interchange in Wairau Rd industrial park. Back to the Blue line, (now the Blue Loop), this will join the central line at Albany.
    What a success. The people of Northcote, Birkenhead, etc can travel to work in Wairau Rd and the CBD without even a change and Albany is just one line change away. The Blue line loop would share the central line corridor from Albany to Wairau so that the CBD and the rest of the shore is never more than one change away.
    Phil for Mayor of Auckland….champion of the South Pacific Railway corporation… saviour of public transport!

    OK, now for the fine print. Apart from the Billion dollar crossing of the Waitemata there is the small problem of securing the land required for the route. I did consider running the track on top of existing roads. Frack the motorists on Onewa or Lake Roads..pfft…why should they be allowed to sit in their polluting cars and say no to progress. I will have done away with elections so no need for the saviour of public transport (SPT) to worry about political back lash. Unfortunately some pesky rail engineer has explained that trains do not like steep accents and so running up Onewa Road is out of the question. So more tunnelling is required.

    There is a bit of public land that could be appropriated. The Green line could run through Onepoto Domain, up through Kauri Glen and Northcote college (the kids wont mind, its their future we are protecting), and then push on through the war memorial park (are any RSA members still alive to say no?) and who cares about Birkdale, beachaven and glenfield…pfft, they are almost Westies. The name ‘Greenline’ could come to represent the parklands that used to be.

    I can see a bit more of a problem on the Blue line. Those people (my kind of people) have loads of money to pay for lawyers and injunctions. Appropriating their land wouldn’t be easy. So lets just give the foreshore to the Maori (that will bag Winstone Peters support) and then let them in on the good news that the new rail line is going to run right along the beach front. I know we like to big up Sydneys rail network so think of this like carhill Expressway. If those great Sydneysiders don’t mind a transport barrier between themselves and the sea, why should it worry the people of Takapuna, Milford, and the bays? Auckland is after all, Sydney for beginners. The name ‘Blueline’ could come to represent the sea views that used to be.

    Now some people, the Nimbys and Naysayers may point out that it would be a lot cheaper and less socially and ecologically destructive just to improve the bus routes, follow the AT plan if you like…but when questioned on TV I can point out that all I did was copy and paste a London tube map onto a google earth of Auckland….Sweet!

    1. Phil, you have raised some constraints and some alternatives. Yes carbon neutral bus technology is out there now and something we need to phase in asap once the patronage jumps. I think the congested free network use of a similar London underground tube layout was genius in it’s simplicity and in a form everyone can understand. From my uptake and looking at phasing timing etc I think these guys intend to maximise the bus network in the North Shore until it gets to a point where with likely demand needs to take it to the next level but only as we need it and as far. We can phase in a road network can’t see why not a public transport network using the best of what we have. If it means later on building a main line under the busway and keeping it live (or isolated workarounds) think it can be done. I personally don’t think we need the road tunnel if we give PT a shot in the arm, get the correct % of the mode share, and think for the city the right thing to do. In terms of your loops, II think we need to do high frequency bus loops then interconnecting with lower frequency ones further out that pick up the less passengers across the whole network in a smart and efficient manner and very important with right of way so buses are not idling but getting you there.

    2. “I know you guys like to get out the coloured pencils so lets imagine a northern line worthy of its name…”

      A candidate for the most blatant strawman argument of all time.

    3. Juts look at the CFN maps. What you are proposing is agold plated excessive plan and nooen except you is proposing it. Strawman argument.

      You still seem to think the aim is to force everyone to use PT. The aim is to encourage a sizable MINORITY (I repeat MINORITY) to start using PT more often. The drop in traffic whhe school holidays are on is estimated at 5% and everyone comments how muich more free the traffic is.

      In my opinion a 60% car/30% PT/10% cycling/walking modal share for Auckland is the goal. That looks pretty modest and would out us in the same category as Cologne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_share). In fact even 70%/20%/10% would be a major accomplishment.

    1. They have been informed of such issues various times before Phil. Their proposal is to introduce a new type of train system that is incompatible with the rest of the network so that grades aren’t an issue.

      For the grade on the bridge they don’t really care about the safe operation of the path or that large portions of the population will have difficulty walking or cycling up it as they are more interested in obtaining something for their own personal pleasure.

      1. Incompatibility doesn’t matter in the slightest in this case. Even in Vanouver there is a skytrain line that is different to the rest. No problem.

        You guys seem incapable of making up your minds as to whether the skypath will be a roaring success or a dismal failure. On one hand, Phil is concerned that there will be thousands of sociopaths riding his neighbourhood (skypath seems a long way from London?) but on the other there is this concern that it will be too steep, no one will use it and it will turn out to be a financial failure. Pick one, please.

        5. Before Skypath goes ahead they have the big stumbling blocks of paying off the Westhaven marina $800k a year and negotiating planning consent that will be aggressively fought against by local residents.

        6. The Westhaven Marina Users do not own the road alongside the marina therefore they can not request any fee for using the road. I think you will find that Waterfront Auckland, a Council owned business, owns that road and that the road is maintained with ratepayer funds.

        7. “Fought against” is not the same as “stopped”. I am sure your concerns will be listened to and addressed as much as possible but everyone, the mayor, AT – even NZTA and the Government, are for this. A small group of NIMBYs will not block it.

          That is democracy. Rule of the majority as you have so often pointed out Phil.

        8. I’d suggest that the increased pedestrain and cyclist activity would actually go some way to approve the less desirable northern abutment area and further enhance the southern one thats been slowly improving.

          There is no doubt people will use the bridge however it’s the predictions I have concerns over. There are plenty of really nice bush walks and scenic views in and around Auckland however most of the ones you can’t drive up are very underutilized due to the effort required to walk or cycle up them.

    2. I’ll just add that I support the sky path as there are still plenty of people who will find it a breeze to peddle up.

      2. It would be a Cat 4 Climb rating according to the UCI…. more difficult than you think for people not used to cycling.

        Id be more worried about the cyclists traveling downhill. We have already established on another thread that cyclists do not obey traffic controls (lights) so what would stop them going as fast as they want on the downhill section? Its a PPP, its not like they can be fined or lose their licence. Not a good mix with kids and grannys that have decided to try and walk up for the views.

        3. So based on one response you make the broadest possible statement about cyclists? Empirical. Did you get to the bit where another cyclist mentioned how much it pissed him off that a few cyclists running red lights really pissed him off or does that not fit with the ‘facts’ you want to portray?

        4. Yes the down grade is a serious safety issue.

          An interesting note I was given from some upcoming research but in Victoria more cyclists are admitted to hospital from crashes on shared paths than from crashes on roads. I’m not too sure what the reasoning is however I suspect steep grades on high speeds play a part.

        7. I’m going to drive to Phil’s house and piss on his lawn so he can start campaigning against ‘nuisance’ motorists too! 😉

        9. I’m guessing Nick’s becoming as annoyed at the silly arguments against skypath etc as the rest of us. Pretty much all from the same person. You can only keep a smile on your face for so long.

        10. No, just poking fun at the inanity of Phil’s ongoing comments. You might not be aware but he had earlier declared that if the sky path were built all the cyclists would end up urinating in his street.

      3. As I understand the Sky Path hangs down from the bridge and flattens out the gradient. If you look at the graphics for it, it doesnt show a slope at all. There may be some slope leading up to the Sky Path but not on the cycle path.

        1. The drawings show Skypath as being hung from the box girder. That has a gradient equal to the road deck. The ramps at the northern end will have an even steeper gradient because they can not take a direct route to the footpath without crossing private property.

        1. Im suggesting that you cant take a rail line over the bridge and that any investment in a northern rail line to replace a job buses can do better is a monumental waste of money.

        2. And noone is suggesting trains over the bridge or that we immediately replace the Northern Busway with a SkyTrain type metro system. If you actually look at the CFN plans, there is no intention to replace the busesway with trains until 2030 and even then only to Albany. A driverless SkyTrain system has a much higher capacity than the busway and would go through the harbour tunnel. There would be a spur line to Takapuna to stimulate growth there.

          Please try and actually address what is being proposed and not invent your own scenarios to argue against. The CFN is what is being proposed and you can easily see the maps on the link above.

        4. Agreed Bryce. Not just that but would add a bigger scar / loss of more scenic or commercial/residential areas/ more fast vehicles in town…heading towards the nightmare not the dream. Auckland Motorways-done over a big tick. Lets do some smart/useful planning/architecture/engineering/spending for a better future. Once the PT network is where it should be (probably operating with a chance for less than we think over most of the current road network with a paint tickle up) , trucks and cars will have more than enough room. The only problem is that we as an overall city/nation and governance/asset building profession too havn’t recognised that sooner and have seen the status quo. Useful smart/sustainable long term mode links for everybody with choices is the focus.

        5. Especially as the current plan appears to divert most traffic onto Cook St / Sale St, an area that has improved significantly since the VPT makeover. What a huge backward step that would be. Heck, I would immediately divert the Cook St off-ramp on to Union St (which is an arterial that has a motorway on one side anyway so may as well use it) and cut Cook St back to 2 lanes, sit back and watch the whole area redevelop.

  23. Well that’s not true, the trains in Vancouver, Kuala Lumpur, Paris and scores of other places run on grades steeper than 1:20.

    as for that Australian cycling group’s guidelines, well parts of the northwest cycle way are steeper than that so it obviously isn’t a constraint.

  24. Just for comparison purposes, the Darjeling Himalayan Railway is LESS STEEP than a proposed rail line over the AHB http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_steepest_gradients_on_adhesion_railways

    How about all the other issues with a northern train line? Like the pointless and expensive exercise of replacing perfectly good buses with a train that wont make more than 5 stops or the horrendous and prohibitive costs of building a northshore rail network? Which tube line did you like the most. The Blue or Green line 😀

    As for the Australian cycle guidelines….are you just dismissing this because it doesn’t suit your purposes?

    1. Can you actually address the CFN and not some imaginary gold plated PT plan that you made up. None of what you are arguing against has been suggested.

    2. Did you even read the link you posted, you may want to consider the following point for the introduction: “Tramways/Light rail often have higher gradients than heavier railways. This is because all wheels are usually connected to engine power in order to give better acceleration. Metros and pure commuter railways often also allow higher gradients, over 4%, for the same reason.”Talking about the adhesion of freight railways is a complete strawman.

      Notwithstanding the fact that a grade of 1:20 is perfectly possible for urban passenger rail and happens in countless cities across the globe, who is actually talking about rail over the Auckland harbour bridge? Is Phil arguing with himself here?

      1. And yes I am dismissing the Australian guidelines, because if we treated those guidelines as a rule book (hint: look up the work guideline) we would not have any of our existing cycleways in Auckland, we would have to ban cycling from just about every major street, and we would not be able to build any more cycleways either.

        We do the same thing with our motorways, if we used the australian guidelines and hard and fast rules we wouldn’t have been able to build the Victoria Park Tunnel, as one example.

    3. Look even if the grades of the main structure that the skypath is attached to is fixed and steeper than desirable. Can’t grades within the attached structure be designed flatter/ or even with steeper parts with hold-on assistance /3m long stepped escalator or something to assist climb or slow descent. Maybe some design details to work through sooner rather than latter but not a show stopper in my view. I havn’t seen any plans so can’t comment more than that.

        1. Is that call based on your in-depth knowledge and many years of building and designing building and transportation infrastructure as well investigating various injury incidents and their causes?

          What is it that you actually do again Bryce?

        3. Go out to Woodhill Forest and you’ll see people of all abilities and ages, on bikes, riding up steep, sandy inclines. The skypath looks to be a doddle.

        4. Ok. So given you think woodhill is both safe and the people that ride there are a fair representation of the general population you clearly know next to nothing on the topic.

        5. In what way? Are the people who you think will use skypath somehow special or different in some way? You’re an engineer. Do you cycle to get around Auckland?

        6. If you go to woodhill like I do most weekends you will note that the people who go there are generally quite physically active, young, don’t suffer from mobility disorders and get hurt quite often with an ambulance or rescue helicopter being a common sight.

          Your basis that because you cycle round Auckland makes you an educated designer is like me thinking I can run an accounting firm because I do my own tax returns.

        7. Sorry Lauren, you are late to the complaints party. NZTA has already agreed that SkyPath is a suitable design.

          But of course you can now continue to argue that NZTA has no idea about design either. Just go for it.

        8. Starnius, I’m afraid you are somewhat misinformed I’m regards to SZTA’s acceptance of the design.

          All they have said is that the existing bridge has can accommodate it. The have not done a geometric review or conducted a safety audit to establish it as being safe for use.

          Also I first raised this issue to the powers that be some 5 years ago however as Nick mentioned before, they are under the belief that guidelines are there to be ignored and thus nothing has been done to address the inherent safety issues in their design.

          Its not too different from the designs and builders of the CCTV building really. They simply don’t care if someone gets killed or heaps of people get hurt. As long as they get what they want and someone else pays for most of it they are happy.

        9. Did you also campaign against the ‘inherent safety issues’ of Symonds St when they designed the Central Connector cycle provision? Same grades as the Skypath, I’m not sure about the level of deaths and maimings but I can only assume all those cyclists are killing themselves on the hill with horrific regularit.

        10. SF, I’m not saying I’m an engineer but apart from technical aspects, I have an idea of what works and what doesn’t from experience (at 43 I’ve had bit of time driving, walking, cycling), observing the behaviour of pedestrians, cyclists, motorists and also from watching videos and reading books (mostly written by design or engineering experts). Yes, there are standards, and they are important, however, standards like trying to dictate what is a suitable grade for people bikes or walking don’t necessarily take into account terrain, alternative routes (skypath or ???), or even perhaps the person (or people) who wrote the standard have under-estimated the average persons willingness to overcome obstacles at times.

          See you in the forest.

      2. This is the best place to look at for info and shows the final appearance of the SkyPath:
        http://www.skypath.org.nz/the-skypath/construction/

        If you scroll down this page until the structural drawing, it shows a flat gradient for the SeaPath to the Skypath:
        http://www.skypath.org.nz/the-seapath/

        I can check with the guys putting the project together but I am 99% sure that the SkyPath will not be at the same gradient as the bridge – for exactly the reason that this would be too steep.

  25. Some great articles here on the agglomeration benefits of public transport/transit – I think one of the least understood and invoked reasons for increasing our PT mode share – probably because it is a little too sophisticated for the average punter who gets all their info from the 6pm news. The concept of “solving” congestion is much sexier and easy to sell:

    http://www.planetizen.com/node/64650

    http://m.theatlanticcities.com/jobs-and-economy/2013/08/public-transit-worth-way-more-city-you-think/6532/

  26. This post has gone way off track. If it continues I will lock it as the discussion is just going to result in bickering about the responses that Phil and SF give.

Comments are closed.