A nice little video NZBus put together for a recent transport conference of CEO Zane Fulljames comparing getting between their Onehunga depot and the Wynyard Quarter  by car and by alternative modes.

I imagine Zane could have saved even more time if he took his bike on the train and rode from Britomart.

This does raise one question though, why don’t the PT operators do more to push the use of PT. Is it that Auckland Transport are controlling the comms? It would surely be in the interests of all the bus companies to pushing for PT use as all would benefit in a case of, “a rising tide floating all boats”.

Share this


  1. Interesting comments from Zane on twitter when I questioned NZ Buses commitment to improving PT.
    “apart from investing $150m into new low emission fleet and enviromentally friendly facilities, $10m pa into Health and Safety and training, absolute focus on improving reliability of services, actively supporting multimodal use , integrated ticketing, simplified fares , reduced fares, CRL, cycleways and shared space…., seeking to introduce Double Deckers, Hybrids probably not a lot”
    Lots of things to dispute in those claims, but interesting to hear their perspective nevertheless.

    1. Indeed, they invested in a fleet of buses that are entirely inappropriate for busy routes. The Link bus for instance is often so full people are crushed into the aisles and the aisles themselves are so narrow it’s impossible to get off come your stop. I’d hardly call these buses an investment, basically they choose the smallest and cheapest buses to replace what was and is a terribly out of date fleet.

      1. The 294 ADL’s we have introduced make up approx 25% of our entire fleet, the balance are larger capacity. Great for feeders into rail . Larger capacity vehicles in our 1200 strong fleet are purposes for high frequency , demand corridors. When the new network comes into effect this should make more sense. We are ready to go with double deckers , hybrids etc as and when required.As an aside we don’t purchase on basis of cheapest vehicle available , if that was the case I would have run with low quality imports. We consider whole of life, standardization in offering for customer, manufacturer support , emissions and proof tested kit. There are many 1000’s of the e200’s operating in cities that have far higher demand in PT use globally as part of a balanced offering.

        1. Using those tiny buses on the Outer Link and City Link is a disaster. The services just get slammed at peak times.

        2. If these buses are for feeder roles, what on earth are they doing on and of the Link routes (especially the Inner Link)?

        3. I think they’d be awesome as Link buses if they were combined with bus priority measures and bus lanes. The issue I they travel slowly so pick up lots of people.

        4. All Link routes should run entirely on bus lanes with bus oriented light phasings.

        5. For the Green and Red links, I agree (not sure about outer link).

          That is why is disagreed (though signed the petition) for bike lanes on K’Roads as there was no provision for bus lanes.

          Maybe we need a post for each link route pointing out where there are holes and how it can be fixed. There maybe some easy wins like Fanshawe Street.

        6. Zane, your comparison would be more complete if you also compared the quality of the vehicles you used. With a private car I have room for my legs, can see out of the windows, and I can always get in it.

          Unfortunately the same doesn’t apply to your new ADL buses – legroom is very cramped, particularly in the back; the windows are over-tinted and often covered with logos or adverts, making it difficult to see out; and their size means that I’ve often seen people left behind – or it’s happened to me, and the next bus (which may also be full) is 30 minutes away.

          It’s a real shame that NZ Bus has invested so much in such passenger-unfriendly buses – give me one of your older ones any time.

  2. I think the cost comparison in the video should include a share of vehicle maintenance costs, insurance, licensing costs and depreciation on the “car” side.

    I can’t think of any missing costs on the public transport side – maybe wear and tear on shoes?

    1. Disagree, for many people owning a vehicle is an necessity even if we commute using PT.

      Depreciation, licensing and insurance are still costs incurred. Maintenance costs by not running a vehicle regularly can be equalled out by over running it.
      If we include these in the costs, then people who don’t normally take PT will dismiss the information, because in their eyes they cannot afford to get rid of the car as of yet. This type of video is more for converting people to multi-model transport options. Not really targeted at people who already take PT as they already know the cost benefits involved, and maybe even discovered they can get rid of one of their cars.

  3. Thanks for the feedback, I will provide an insight into why we did what we did with fleet , current fleet profile medium and large vehicles, age of fleet profile etc early next week. Luke happy to hear from you specifically the areas of dispute and I will gladly provide you with the facts my email address is Zane.fulljames@nzbus.co.nz , lastly I would have taken the bike on the train if the bus network was able to accommodate. If any one has an innovate solution to bikes on buses I would be happy to hear from them and open up access to our fleet and engineering teams to trial the solution we think works best, meets safety first principles, fits within the regulatory framework we are bound by ie requirements for urban buses, works for commuters etc

    1. Well, you could have taken the train to Britomart and ridden the bike from there to Wynyard, but probably a bit much to ask of you to have a video that didn’t show a bus at all!

      1. Regulatory barriers regarding maximum bus axle weights are an issue; hopefully NZTA revise these upwards shortly.

      2. Fair enough ,but not all users of PT are riders of bikes and not all riders of bikes are PT users – multi modal use v singular (private car) was purpose of video 🙂

      3. Fair enough ,but not all users of PT are riders of bikes and not all riders of bikes are PT users – multi modal use v singular (private car) was purpose of video

    2. I for one don’t have an issue at all with you not taking your bike on the train Zane. Bikes are for taking to stations / from stations and not for taking on the train. Bike to bus station / rail station then bus/train from there, then bus or train for the last mile is the best way to get to many destinations in Auckland.

  4. Now that I think about this, it makes me quite upset. (I’m often moved to bored indifference, but this is different.)

    The productivity of driving is near zero. Perhaps you get a little value from RadioNZ in the morning or evening, but it is impossible to use a phone or tablet to do useful things. On a bus or train, that use is infinitely higher, and corresponding the value is far greater. I am getting more and more upset with the unwillingness of NZTA and Auckland Transport to value bus and trains as more important. Similarly, the health benefits of sitting in cars are negative. The health benefits of cycling are overwhelmingly positive*.

    I don’t accept the claims that others have made that NZTA and AT are equal parts good and bad. I judge them by their outcomes, and the former is almost entirely rotten, the latter is majorly so.**

    *Unless you are hit by a car.
    **I know they are under particular funding direction. I also know how they have dealt with people over the last decade, something that has nothing to do with their income.

    1. Considering both NZTA and AT are both required by law to follow National’s Government Policy Statement on how money should be spent which basically states 95%+ should be on motorways and roading expansion it wouldn’t really matter if everyone at both organisations used PT they still wouldn’t be allowed to spend much on it. Nevertheless, their inaction on so many fronts such as pedestrian priority leads me also to believe both organisations are fairly rotten.

    2. When I was home in Auckland at the beginning of 2012, a staff member/friend at AT told me they referred to the CRL as ‘The Mayor’s Train Set’. He’s a petrolhead, and I got the impression he/they thought Len had turned up unannounced and tried to steal their precious tarmac. Enlightening. I hope things have changed since then.

  5. Thanks Zane. I’ve always wondered why NZ bus isn’t lobbying AT for more bus lanes with longer hours – surely they radically increase profits when buses can do their route much quicker

      1. Maybe they are? Or maybe they are constrained to some extent? Either way I agree, more efforts like this excellent video would be welcomed. Great backing track 😉

  6. While driving is akin to flying yourself everywhere. Great hobby if you like doing it, but not particularly efficient.

  7. Apart from Fanshaw St can anyone name any other bus lanes that have been implemented in recent months

  8. Having followed the PT industry fairly closely over the last 6+ years, I have to say that I’m largely disappointed with BCANZ and its members, in that most PT operators don’t see themselves as having an environmental kaupapa, or indeed any real purpose beyond providing a social service to people not ‘fortunate enough’ to own a car. For those of us who are committed to PT for environmental reasons, the industry in NZ totally fails to recognize the benefits it provides, and fails to promote those benefits. For a country that trades so much on its clean, green image, we Kiwis seem profoundly ignorant of what it really takes to preserve a sustainable environment. Admittedly, part of the reason for inaction in the public sector is the constraints of Government policy hostile to environmental values, but in the private sector that’s no excuse.

Leave a Reply

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