Earlier this year we learned about Auckland Transport’s staff shuttle between its offices in the CBD opposite Britomart and Henderson where the building is part of the train station. The shuttle was put on because AT didn’t believe the PT services were good enough for their staff to use. In my view the shuttle was idiotic and it highlighted AT as being out of touch, after all if the organisation that runs our PT system isn’t prepared to use its own services then why should others.
I actually happened to see it just a few weeks ago (empty) and thought it was a past the time it should have been gone. The shuttle was said to be on a 6 month trial however it turns out it’s use was extended a month due to a cancellation clause in the contract. In addition the trial has failed badly, Radio New Zealand reports:
The trial has been a flop, costing more than expected at $140,000, often travelling empty and failing to make the hoped-for savings.
The council-owned Auckland Transport launched the shuttle in May, when it was criticised by public transport advocates who said if services were too slow, they should be improved for everyone.
Auckland Transport hoped to save more than $300,000 a year in staff travel costs between its head office in Henderson, west Auckland, and its downtown office, opposite the Britomart Transport centre.
Savings were to come from cutting the agency vehicle fleet by 20 cars, and removing most of the $95,000 a year reimbursed to staff who drove in their own cars between the offices, claiming $32 per round trip.
However, the two 11-seater minibuses often ran empty, with patronage rising at the end of the six month trial to only 2.5 passengers per trip.
Only three of the hoped-for 20 fleet cars have been cut, and big savings have been made on paying staff to use their own cars, simply by banning the practice between Henderson and the CBD.
So hardly any staff used it, only three cars have been cut and the major savings come from a change that could have been made without the shuttle trial. David Warburton’s response to the failure highlights they still have some way to go in coming up with solutions to the size of the vehicle fleet.
“It has been money well-spent”, said Dr Warburton. “We have established some changes in the operation, and that has to be allocated across the future efficiency of driving the business, and going forward.”
But the agency admits it has more work to do to try to reduce its vehicle fleet, tighten spending on reimbursing private car use and look at other options such as video conference.
Dr Warburton said the direct bus and rail services which operate from the door of both offices did not suit much staff travel, taking 40-45 minutes and not suiting meetings which start at the top of an hour.
He said it was not easy to schedule meetings to better suit public transport travelling times because many involve other parties, although the agency would try that with internal meetings.
On the last point in particular there is nothing to say a meeting has to be on the top of an hour, starting a meeting at other times is perfectly possible. There is however another solution which is completely within AT’s power and would allow them to keep meetings to the top of an hour, they could always change the timetables to make them more suitable for those going to meetings. They could further improve the usefulness by increasing the frequency of the western line from the half hourly off peak timetable that currently exists to at least services every 15 minutes.
Perhaps AT could even prepare a pack for its employees which includes a HOP card loaded with a concession for free travel and a copy of the relevant timetables (both physically and electronically).
And here’s the audio that goes with the story.
or listen here.
Processing...
Never trust a chef that won’t eat his own food.
Hey, he used the phrase “going forward”. What more can you ask from a chief executive?
Ah! And In context he said ” that has to be allocated across the future efficiency of driving the business, and going forward.” So he also said “across the future efficiency of driving the business…”
This is management-speak for…. what exactly? The sentence is gibberish, but council-approved gibberish. If this is the way they talk (and it is), this is also the way they think. Is it any wonder that bureaucrats and citizens don’t communicate well?
Steve,
It’s management speak for “if I use lots of convoluted, meaningless jargon I’ll sound like David Hisco and get a big pay rise.” It actually makes them sound like David Brent!
These people seem incapable of using plain language.
Anyway all I can say is, we need to cascade the relevant information down the strategic staircase after getting all our ducks in a row because the helicopter view tells us we shouldn’t let the grass grow too long on this one.
yup.
Isn’t it 55mins to Waitakere by train? That needs to come down with the CRL and newer faster EMUs.
They never actually admit they expect the public to use a service that they don’t believe is good enough for themselves.
The ultimate proof that Auckland’s public transport still isn’t good enough! Why are they not scrabbling to make the necessary changes in the wake of such a catastrophic public failure.
It’s embarrassingly obvious.
“Never trust a chef that won’t eat his own food.”
What is AT’s main dish? Car a la carte. They eat plenty of their own food.
My commute time isn’t part of my hours that I am being paid to work.
AT staff commute time to get to meetings are being paid by my rates. The lower the commute time by whatever economic means (car,boat, helicopter) the better.
They tried something different. It didn’t work. Great. They don’t need to try that again. Now they can go back to what they were doing before. Taking a car. Using PT in Auckland for most meetings is totally impractical when you consider the costs of time wasted. Anyone who says otherwise is living in a dream world. Skype,voip, video meetings are fine in some cases, but in many cases they aren’t.
Ari, using PT in Auckland for meetings would be far preferable to being in car, if we had an effective rail service. Given that commutes for meetings are happening during work hours, work can actually be done while on the train, which can’t happen while driving a car – *maximising* efficiency.
Think about commuters in NYC, London – they’re not getting from meetings in cars (aside from taxis). We’re not living in a dream world. We’re just trying to catch up to the rest of the world.
From a business perspective PT (at least the train) can be a better option than driving to meetings.. the CBD from Penrose works well. Even Newmarket can be better than driving. Note better not (always) quicker.. i.e. you can usefully work on the train (maybe less on the bus, or the stupid AT shuttle).
More broadly, another barrier to using PT for business purposes is that many company cars are fully funded, so there is a perverse (tax free) incentive for 1000s of Aucklanders to waste their own time doing nothing more useful with their company time than driving from A to B, and at the same time clogging up the motorways. And adversely affecting economic growth by importing more oil in the process, as we read earlier today. Minimising working time spent* driving to business appointments should be a KPI for all employees.
*Wasted, literally.. time spent moving people and things around is by definition waste: non-value added activity.
Yes the old “they can work on the train” chestnut. If that was really true for all people then we could increase efficiency by running slower trains!
Why? Do you work in your car? If I can work even half the time I am in the train, then I can have twice as long a car trip and still come out the same work time. Not a reason to make train trips any longer than necessary, but certainly a valid factor. I always read stuff on the train. Modern office work is probably 70-80% reading. So yes, you can work on the train.
I regularly attend a presentation at Ellerslie Racecourse via Greenlane station from the CBD by train. It works really well and much faster than it would be by car. It starts at 4.30pm and I usually leave about 6pm.
I am always amazed as well at how many people are on the train both ways.
So Ari, why don’t they fix public transport. They are chefs not eating their own food – but are expecting everyone else – their ratepayers, people who want to have their own meetings – to bear a cost they are not prepared to bear themselves.
PT will never improve if people like you are allowed to contribute to public debate on the need for it.
This was a bizarre comment as well
“My commute time isn’t part of my hours that I am being paid to work.”
So you are saying you don’t value your own time? You go and work (for some reason) but don’t then take into account your own costs. If I was your boss, I would take that as tacit approval to reduce your hourly pay. If you want to keep your same weekly amount, I would make you work longer. You just told me that was an acceptable thing to do.
I’d rather Council did its JOB, than worry about what the rates are covering for AT’s internal transport needs. They are a tiny fraction of your yearly expenditure, unlike your commute which if it is anything like the Henderson example, would be a much larger fraction of your time and money.
People like me? lol. You mean most of the population?
Like I said, they are eating their own food. A city for car drivers. PT users are an after thought, the optional side dish.
Bizarre comment?? I dont know where you got your example from, but I certainly didn’t say it, so don’t infer it.
How long my commute between work and home is my problem and done at my cost. This applies to almost all working people. It is not a cost to my company and I can’t charge them for it. Me going to meetings during the day DOES get charged to my company.
Likewise, AT staff being paid the big bucks will charge for their time going to meetings. Just like any contractor or serviceperson would. You are saying that it is ok for someone to be paid $100/hr from my rates to sit in a bus and take twice as long to get anywhere? That makes little financial sense.
Yes I hear the argument about working on a train or PT, but that only works for some people and therefore cannot be applied to all people. On a flipside I get plenty of thinking and planning done while driving my comfortable car while listening to my own music turned up loud. I’m sure many drivers would also agree with me.
You can get plenty of thinking and planning done on a train as you can stare out the window without the distractions of driving. You can put on noise cancelling headphones if you want to listen to music at the same time.
And if we had better more efficient rail/bus services then it wouldn’t take twice as long to get anywhere – in fact it would be superior to getting stuck in traffic – and your precious rates would be being spent wisely. With negative attitudes like yours a better PT system for Auckland isn’t going to happen nearly as quickly as it could. Please stop trying to obstruct progress!
(And for the record, you did say the comment that Riccardo quoted you as saying – it’s third line down in your 12.55pm comment)
If you knew the type of chavs you have to share with on the western line you wouldnt be making such a stupid statement as people being able to do work. Between all the crap music blaring out of their phones, shouting at one another down the carriage and giggling about absolutely nothing- you can hardly hear yourself think!
That’s a real shame. But maybe when we have more commuters travelling on the trains, and more of a ‘culture’ of taking public transport, noisy chavs will be more of a minority. It’s pretty uncommon to hear any noise on trains in the UK – underground or overground. The inspectors simply won’t put up with it, nor will the travellers.
I also mentioned noise cancelling headphones. They’re good.
Let’s take a step back here: why is AT’s office staff split between the CBD and Henderson at all? There’s nothing else in Henderson keeping them there. Centralising the office staff in the CBD would instantly solve this problem, since people would already be in the same building for internal meetings, and be within a few minutes walk of most of the other organisations that they might be meeting with.
That’s a large part of the point of having a CBD in the first place. Then you don’t have to spend hours every day travelling between most of your meetings, whether you get there by bus or train or car or donkey.
+1
Fair comment Steve. I don’t know the specifics, but ……
“Why are national government department staff split between all parts of the country at all? There’s nothing else in Wellington keeping them there. Centralising the staff in Auckland would instantly solve this problem, since people would already be in the same building for internal meetings, and be within a few minutes walk of most of the other organisations that they might be meeting with…..”
I suspect the organisation is to big to house in one building in a cost effective manner and that there are regional teams that work better closer to the areas they look after.
I did government contract work while I lived in Wellington, and you can clearly see the difference there. For the most part, the government is centralised in Wellington’s CBD, which makes your day a lot more productive. No driving out to random suburban office parks.
For any organisation, it’s going to be a choice about where you locate: there’s lots of possible things you might want to be handy to. But Henderson isn’t handy to much that AT’s office staff need to be close to, so there’s not a lot of benefit to locating there over the CBD. For the government, different units just need to be close to what they do most often day-to-day.
It’s also different about deciding where to locate within a city, as opposed to choosing which city. You can get to anywhere in Auckland from anywhere else in the same day easily enough – it’s just a question of how much time you waste doing so. Whereas if you’re in the wrong city entirely you can’t really do your job at all.
As for moving the capital to Auckland… the only real reason against it is that it would cost a fortune to effectively move half of Wellington here. But the government probably would be a bit more efficient if Auckland had just stayed as the capital.
The Council had a modern empty building, so why lease expensive office space in CBD? The office is right next to the train station so should be a great example of Auckland’s new PT network.
What would the increase in Rent be if they did that?
council staff are still in places that were separate councils before the amalgamation. they have the buildings, why not use them? by moving everyone into town they’re trading lower rent space for higher rent space. and there are considerable inefficiencies in serving an area as big as AC from one location.
All AT’s traffic engineers live in Howick [of course] so Henderson is the perfect location for them to work in order to allow them to experience the full glory of the world they have created, at length- twice a day.
Why not centralise the staff at Henderson? I understand that office is in the station, so all the staff can readily commute! Those from the south would be really pushing for the CRL link and the increased train frequency then and the cross town bus systems would then get a lot of thought as to how they can best serve the commute. The decision makers get paid plenty so the added costs for their commute would be negligible and their parking would be even less costly. That might even help them to understand that they should only count passengers that terminate in the city but all those who need to use PT to travel across and around the suburbs.
> Why not centralise the staff at Henderson?
It’s possible staff would have to travel even more. All of AT would be in Henderson, but the rest of the council, NZTA, and all sorts of other organisations that AT staff meet with would all still be in the CBD.
> That might even help them to understand that they should only count passengers that terminate in the city but all those who need to use PT to travel across and around the suburbs.
I don’t think giving loads of AT staff a deliberately shitty commute to incentivise them is going to be fair or effective. For the most part, everyone knows what needs to be done, it’s a question of money and political will and organisation. Those things are decisions made by top management, the Council governing body, central government, and voters.
There’s a lot we can and should do to improve cross-suburb travel, but there’s never going to be one single location which is as convenient for everyone as the central city.
The best way to make a journey is to not have to make it. The best way to speed up a journey you do have to make is to make it shorter.
“He said it was not easy to schedule meetings to better suit public transport travelling times because many involve other parties, although the agency would try that with internal meetings.”
Utter tosh. As if other organisations can’t accomodate meeting times other than on the hour. What a puny response.
Really this is the funniest: It’s completely impossible to start a meeting at 10 past the hour! Utter madness; the entire fabric of the universe will dissolve, the British Empire may even end….
When the region’s Councils were merged, business units were scattered around the existing portfolio of buildings and transport got Henderson. Staff who used to work for the previous councils scattered across the region now commute there instead.
As leases come up, I’m sure we will see some shifts. The main nonsense was separating transport from closely-related urban planning and economic development teams and agencies.
Anyone know how far $280,000/pa would go in terms of putting on extra trains on the western line instead of the AT bus?
Or putting on extra public buses?
Wondered that as well – can someone here do the calculation?
Unfortunately $280k doesn’t buy you much rail service.
If we assume a marginal cost of $25 per train-kilometre (I’m guessing based on my experience with Australasian systems), and 250 operating days per p.a., then you’re left with approximately 40 additional train-kilometres per day. That’d probably buy you one additional in-bound and out-bound service between Henderson-City each day.
Buses are cheaper, however, at approximately $5 per kilometre, so you could get an additional 6 bus services per day between Henderson and City centre for the same money.
Somebody might want to check those calculations – they’re very back of envelope.
Chief executive David Warburton said after reimbursed private car trips were banned, many still preferred to drive at their own expense, rather than use the shuttle or public transport.
If they want to use their cars for convience let them,it’s their choice.
An anecdote, that may or may not be relevant to the discussion… London Transport, in the heyday of the organisation, built a giant headquarters building at 55 Broadway over / near the St James’s Park station. Lovely art deco building, if I remember correctly. Office staff, designers, engineers, train drivers, etc – everyone. All staff could get there, promptly, via the tube. No cars were used, even by the chief exec. Everything worked rather splendidly, with people talking to each other, and the system ran like a well-oiled machine, which is precisely what you want from an underground train line. Then in the 80s and 90s, London Underground split up into privatized companies, who all left 55 Broadway, and the whole shebang fell apart. Now, of course, they have moved most of the staff to a tower in Canary Wharf, long before there was a tube line there, so that staff couldn’t use public transport (although there is a fine tube line there now). And finally, they have now sold off the original 55 Broadway building.
Hence I want them nowhere near any other means of revenue raising, e.g. tolls, with this kind of stupidity. Its bad enough ratepayers are going to be mugged for their imaginary house valuation figures from our booming property market bubble!.
The sub $200k spent on the Henderson-CBD staff shuttle service, could have funded, in this current financial year, construction of platform shelter extensions at Onehunga Station or paid for the production of at least two service promo follow-ups to the ‘What is AMETI?’ Connecting Aucklanders video.
Either of these initiatives would have provided a much better return on investment for AT.
If they can’t manage a small issue such as this what hope for the big stuff? This seems like an organisation with a lack of intellectual grunt amongst other things.
It has been noted that the shuttle was for employees only not contractors. This would have limited user numbers. The other thing was that the shuttle was for AT staff only and not available for use by other Auckland Council staff needing to get to/from Henderson. This was rectified in the later days of the service but obviously too late. Whoever agreed to the exclusive nature of the service should be demoted. No doubt this will not happen and they will probably get a bonus instead.
The mongrel idiot who sined off this stupid idea should be made to pay for it. Why should the ratepayers be lumbered with this waste
http://www.gocomics.com/wizardofid/2014/10/21
Thats just the way the system works