Happy New Year and welcome to 2015, the year we get hoverboards.
In this post I’m going to look at what we can expect from 2015, some of these have been highlighted in the recent days.
PT
I expect it’s going to be another big year for PT in Auckland as the current growth that we’ve been seeing carries on.
Again I think the rail network is going to lead the way with massive growth as people respond to the improved quality the new electric trains offer and the better, more frequent timetables that should accompany them. By the end of the year we could be looking at patronage of about 14 – 14.5 million trips. That will put us well on the way towards the governments CRL target of 20 million trips before 2020. One thing we will definitely need to keep an eye on is the impact on patronage from Pukekohe from the implementation of a Papaukra to Pukekohe shuttle once the Southern line goes electric.
The City Rail Link will continue to be a talking point, especially as we draw closer to the start of construction of the enabling works. I hope that in 2015, Auckland Transport finally start to tell the story of the CRL properly – something they are now saying they will do.
We should also hear about the plans for the old rolling stock – which I’m picking will be sold off to somwhere in Southern Africa – and hear more about the tender to operate the trains from mid-2016 onwards. Wellington is currently going through the same process which is something I’ll post about soon.
Like the rail network the Northern Express has been growing strongly and again I think this will continue, especially once services are extended to Silverdale which will hopefully happen this year. I also think we’ll start to hear more about how the busway itself performs as a large number of trips on it aren’t on the NEX but on services such as the 881 that use the busway for part of their journey. Hopefully we might finally see some more Double Deckers too.
The rest of the bus network should continue to see growth too and we’re likely to have a few more big New Network consultations in 2015, in saying that we aren’t likely to have much in the way of implementation as even the South Auckland network has been pushed back to 2016 which in part is about waiting for Integrated Fares. One thing that will help the bus network is the roll out of more bus lanes which AT have promised to do.
As mentioned the other day, we will certainly hear more about integrated fares this year although they are unlikely to be implemented before the end of the year. From what I hear, a lot of work had been going on to get the structure right with AT working towards an additional aim of having as few people as possible disadvantaged by any changes. The flip side to that is that most people should get some benefit out of the change which should only help to make PT more attractive to use.
Walking and Cycling
Like PT, 2015 has the potential to be a great year for walking and cycling. In January the fantastic looking Westhaven Promenade should finally open vastly improving pedestrian and cycle access around Westhaven. We should see the start of a cycleway on Nelson St and making use of the old motorway off ramp and construction should also the start of the Glen Innes to Tamaki Dr shared path. One thing that isn’t clear is if we’ll start to see some JSK style quick and cheap implementations or if AT will have the courage to start removing parking and/or narrow oversized central road medians to enable cycle infrastructure to be put in.
Of course we will be paying close attention to see what happens with Skypath. I suspect it will get approval but also that some of the local residents will challenge that approval in the environment court.
Roads
2015 will continue to be a year of massive construction on our road network, especially around SH16. Works will also start on the grade separation of Kirkbride Rd. I suspect later in the year we’ll hear more about plans to widen SH1 south of Manukau and hear more about the NZTA’s plans for the SH1/SH18 interchange. On top of this we’re bound to find out more about Puhoi to Warkworth. In Wellington we’ll definitely be keeping an eye on the NZTAs appeal to the Basin Reserve flyover decision. We will also find out more about AT’s plans for AMETI and the East-West Link, Lincoln Rd, Mill Rd and maybe even Penlink.
One aspect that will be fascinating to see is if the current drop in fuel prices is sustained and what, if any impact it has on travel trends.
Overall across all areas it’s going to be a big year and I think it’ll be a good one. I’m already aware of a few positive surprises that are in store for but that I can’t comment on yet.
Processing...
Great forecast.
I still can’t for the life of me figure out why it is taking them soooo long to come up with an integrated fares structure. They were talking about it when I last lived in Auckland in 2011, and it’s not even going to be implemented till 2016?!
The focus has been on integrated ticketing and as I understand it even as recently as last year there were a number of fairly senior staff questioning if integrated fares were even needed.
Do these senior staffers even use their own PT? Goodness sakes.
Dear me. Have these people ever left the country?
Positive surprises or just catching up with the things this blog generally advocates?
I sometime struggle with the glacial progression of AT when it comes to anything apart from roading projects.
A bit of both actually.
2015 looks like good sustainable measures, with some unsustainable car mode counter measures with the counter measures obviously having more budget. AT have full control over the arterials which is a filter before you even get to the motorway and directly feed to the rail stations. Change the filter mix ( via roadmarking) so sustainable modes ( bus,cycle) are not disadvantaged, but actually promoted against car mode. With better networks a bigger mode shift out of a car. For relative free flow a 1 in 3 shift would do it in most places except some overstressed arterials. Network enhancement -speed ,safety and maximising current road width, Fare Enhancement-50% drop like elsewhere, Plant Enhancement-Electric Trains fantastic, but a lick of paint on the old diesel buses, ok a start, but hopefully you can at least control the routes and frequency and look at a focussed rapid team that can go anywhere and cover rail and boost speed on core network. A full arterial remark and fare enhancement could happen in two months if it was a focussed effort, but it seems bus pushing their barrow, cycle theirs , and car mode all guns blazing not giving an inch, yet held up in traffic not going anywhere. So not really sure how this will pan out but potential could be astronomical if the mayor insisted on a focussed effort with a fare drop and a full arterial remark with some good brains and no limits.
My wish for the new year is for AT to put their car parking fees up again. It was apparent from the abysmal return on AT’s car parking buildings that the pricing structure was wrong. The 30 odd % increase will help. I would be very surprised if AT lost any patronage to other operators as they all very quickly appeared to raise theirs by a similar percentage. This suggests that AT’s prices were the brake on the market. They need to be set at a level that produces an adequate return. (Can there be any rationale argument that we have to subsidise retailer parking? We do need to ensure that mall car parking is rated appropriately.)
It is my guess that the significant lift n passenger numbers on NEX from about November was driven by the large parking charge rises. That effect is likely to flow through for a significant period.
Good point. Parking a key factor for car mode. My personal view is that property rates go on all business carparks- $10k each city, $5k each suburbs per annum. That equates to full congestion free network budget per annum , no increase household rates, and car mode in a way is paying for blocking the other networks which it has done. Also addresses issue of carparks wasting key space against other development options.
Yes Stephen, I too have thought that a car park levy is a very simple way to collect revenue, and it is equitable. If you want to drive into the city, or metropolitan centre and park, then it is reasonable that you should have to pay for this privilege to ease any congestion issues that your actions cause.
I would also apply this tax to car parking building spaces.
Another alternative is to base rates purely on Land value. Remove the inhibitions to spending on capital development completely. That will also drive row house building etc and help drive better land use patterns. Even better, get government to collect it rather than councils (as per Denmark).
Hmm, while I would trust the government of Denmark to fairly reallocate all such taxes back to the areas that need it/it came from.
I do not trust this (or any likely, future) government to do so equitably or wisely.
Witness the decades of misuse of the petrol taxes by governments of all stripes as one relevant example – that partly got us into the current mess of balkanised regions and councils jostling with other for “their” share of the handouts.
Recall what many of the main NZ airports used to be like before they were allowed to spend the money they raised (from landing fees) on improving facilities, for the actual users of the airport, rather than just feathering the coffers of the Government of the day?
Same with EQC – the current problems with Christchurch rebuild can be slated directly back to the requirement of EQCs predecessor (Earthquake and War Damages) to hold its levy funds 100% in low interest Government bonds, rather than being mostly invested overseas, as prudence would dictate (and that is what the EQC had asked to be allowed to do many many times), that in turn allowed frequent “raiding” of the EQC levy funds by Muldoon in the 70s and 80s to balance his budgets by including them as Government funds – when they clearly were not – they were fund paid by and held on behalf of all those who had insurance policies.
Which meant in turn that the EQC levy changes (including EQC cap of $100K on any payouts per event) brought in the 90s were seen as the “only alternative” and that directly lead to the state of things in Christchurch.
Now while Key and co (or Little, Norman and co) might be a little more constrained by Treasury rules than Muldoon was in his days, events, as has been shown with 9/11 can and do make for strange bedfellows – after all we are only 1 more such terrorist attack away from having all sorts of norms thrown out the window. And who knows what purposes the central government will decide want to divert these local taxes to.
So all up, I think the car park tax idea is a good one, just not a central Government collected one – and the last time that was raised not so long ago, it got roundly booed off the stage by all sides.
One big problem though is how do you impose such a tax without calling it rates – after all, rates are (now) supposed to reflect the true cost of the services provided/used and not doing so would be ground to refuse to pay or appeal. And at the sorts of $’s at stake, large car park owners could and would take AC to court to get exempted from such rate hikes.
And you can’t charge s levy for using the roads, since NZTA pays something for the upkeep of most of them, the Government would be able to put a stop to that idea as it says it will with the tolling of on ramps idea.
You could argue that car parks don’t need running water or sewerage for example (all though the people that use them, and public health laws, expect some toilet facilities I’m sure).
But not every car park needs it own toilet and washing facilities so a even $500 rate per car park would be seen as excessive by the owners and the courts I’m sure..
So what you are in actual fact attempting to do is penalise the car park owners (providers) for encouraging car based transport. In itself thats not a problem – its only when it used by all-day commuters who also drive in the AM or PM peaks that, that becomes a problem.
So a more direct form of levy is needed – I know – lets have a congestion charge levied on all car parks. After all they cause congestion right by making those who use them drive?
This leads to a second problem:
The only issue then is collecting it – the nice thing with rates is that the rates debt lives with the property – sell/transfer the property and the rates debt stays with the site/property, not the old owner as a levy or other charges would do.
So that would provide a logical way to avoid the levy – simply onsell/transfer the car park site to a new holding company, every year or so, the old (unpaid) levy debt stays behind in a shell company with no assets, which is then liquidated, leaving no one but AC out of pocket. Business as usual for the rest.
I don’t have an answer, but in the meantime, hiking all-day parking fees is a must to actively discourage commuting.
Others have pointed at the the price of all day parking needs to be higher than the current “daily” PT pass price, as then it becomes easier to buy the pass than bugger about with driving and parking.
And the good news is that AT controls both things so can easily rebalance the ledger as they see fit.
It would seem that our fare for bus/rail is about 200% , Calgary $10 all day pass or $110 per month for adult, then reduced fares kids and students. Even if there was a $10 additional fee for each all day carpark or $3650 per annum put on property rates would help swing things and probably pay for 50% PT improvement ie rapid network, new fleet etc. This would still be cheaper car parking than most cities.
I think a property rates carpark congestion charge will be dead easy to implement, 1 person counts tells rates clerk add to inv done. What is fair and reasonable is the debatable thing. The congestion free network spend to 2030 is $10b which is justifiable, shouldn’t we just work backwards from that and apply to all business / commercial carparks in Auckland. This makes council also the key funder of this network which you won’t get crazy overpasses etc stuck on as a trade off doing good in reverse and undoing the congestion removal in the first place.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11380019
Why with Downer?
And while we are talking about extra levies or taxes what about the new convention centre- you know, the one where the government should pay for the overrun, but won’t. What about a bed tax, just as happens in many other places in the world? After all it will many of these accommodation providers who will profit from the thousands who will use the new convention facility.
My bet is that the government won’t like this, because they can. My view is that if you impose such a cost on us then it should be our call on how best we should deal with it. Recent history says however that logic won’t form any part of what happens.
Any such bed taxes should applied only during conferences, otherwise you are penalising normal hotel users who are most definitely not using the conference venue.
But more to the point, the whole point of the “pokies deal” was to eliminate the requirement for public funds (in any form) to build or operate it – something the government never made totally clear to all parties that it actually wanted – except, it seems in private discussions with SkyCity.
I suspect that Skycity’s recent upping the ante to the likes of “pay more or we walk” is that now they have got the Adelaide deal sown up, they will (a) have their hands full in Australia so probably don’t want two such venues nominally competing with each other (and the large conference business is a world wide thing – organisers on conferences for people coming from the US don’t think Adelaide is much further than Auckland and its also closer to Asia in Adelaide than Auckland) and (b) Skycity want to try and get the same sort of deal out of the NZ Government as they got out of the South Australian Government.
Basically I think the deal should be cancelled completely, and reopened to all bidders.
The extra pokie machines and casino license extension which this deal gives in exchange for the convention centre are null and void unless the convention centre deal is signed by the Government.and SkyCity, so the Government can easily walk away without major costs, other than 50% of the money spent so far on design which is shared 50/50 with SkyCity..
Furthermore, the land that TVNZ was made to hand over the SkyCity – supposedly for the convention centre, but now for a hotel – partly the reason for the increased costs), should be handed back to TVNZ at the price they were paid and TVNZ can then do with it what they like.
Skycity’s casino license – due to lapse in about 9 years – can be renewed in the 2020’s by the government of the day with whatever term it sees fit, e.g. following full consultation with the public on whether its a good idea.
One thing is certain, the skill in “picking winners” shown by Joyce so far in his Governmental career is pretty much minimal. After all he is the architect of the money wasting RoNS, and is also one that stuck us with the decision ot buy outright NeverPay – a bad deal if ever there was one. And come to think of it, was’n’t it his meddling in the EMU procurement project that cost us a year or more delay (although we have got the better deal with CAF EMUs in the longer term – but most of that is down to AC/AT than the Government).
If we had the 1000 buses under full control.
Full arterial remark maximizing bus and allowance protected cycle, remove car parking, flush medians.
Have 600 on frequent and feeder routes.
400 rapid links like 2030 plan frequency down to 5 min.
Reduce fares to Calgary $10 daily or $110 monthly.
Carpark property rates $10 daily on top of existing all business parks, malls, hotels, car parking, even pay and displays.
That is congestion fully gone with an income stream for the congestion free network rapid transit. Mode swing to PT, cycle wow who knows but 1 in 3 for motorway piss easy with no widening. With then still fares and a property carpark levy to balance things.
Actually the painted configuration of the arterials is a third method to change mode share. So why do we need motorway projects, can someone explain that to me? Step 1 advise all adjacent properties on all arterial roads about loss of parking and flush medians.
Step 2 – get the full bus fleet at your disposal even on day works.
Step 3 – Len and David publically advise congestion will be fully removed in 3 months. Fares on bus/rail exactly like Calgary. $10 daily additional rates fee on all business/ commercial Centre carparks-hotels,malls, and all paid carparks.
Step 4- All arterials looked at on this blog.Maximising bus and protected cycle networks.
Step 5- All arterials remarked, signals modified to prioritise bus and cycle.
Step 6-Reduce fares, implement rates charge on carparks.
Step 7- Launch, monitor can modify all 3 controls as need be.Fares, Carpark Charge and Arterial layout.
All networks live. Obviously carry on with missing interchanges. All priorities after this will be on rapid transit, especially now 30% plus now using it. Cycle will probably grow to 10% fast then no reason why not a possible rise up to 36% like Copenhagen when physical seperation added.
What would Auckland be like with at least 40% able to use other modes on the grid within 6 months. Motorway free flow all times and probably a lot surplus to requirements. Cycling a great option and when physical separation added a real safe option. Potential for mode growth on its own up to 36% Copenhagen. Kids can bike to school, also less need for taking car. Bus running fast and regular intervals, cost less than carparking alone and network wider and heaps faster. Safety improvements massive for all modes. Roads have minimal fumes and no delays beyond one cycle of lights. Most of roading spend can go on walking and cycling. PT now with revenue stream from car parking. For what a main road repaint, signal works, cheaper fares and a carpark charge and fully utilising the buses so them and cycle go first. And then with rapid focus mode share even higher. Maybe I’m crazy but seems a better path to take for how much roadmarking crews 4 weeks,signal works probably just road maint budget next 2 to 3 months.
I think the problem we face is that at the rate we are going, we will never be fully ready, meanwhile what is the opportunity cost. From experience the sooner you dive in there the better and you just make adjustments on the fly. With bus lanes around the missing interchanges, layover room is increased. Bus Stops anywhere, that is just a sign on post. None of these things concern me. The 2 things that do is Len and David ready to do this and change the whole transport focus. Next is can they do some interim.measure with the full 1000 buses because we need each one.
I think proportioning 600 buses on a frequent/feeder network and 400 on a 2030 CFN plan getting frequency down to 5 min will be interesting. A full arterial cycle network marked up for room for physical protection also with priority signal that also would be one to watch. Then std budget just needs to put in concrete planters. So what is that 4 star PT with a 4 star cycle. With cycle demand you could probably have 2 buses just dedicated for bikes or walkers across the harbour bridge while waiting for skypath. Even for cars free flow . Then boost for rail. This is like a 6 mode win and no losers, just all networks up and firing making sensible use of existing main road corridors.
The current transport focus is actually on starving viable networks that have potential to overtake car mode overnight. Is this whole transport industry fake and propped up by pretty much all available road width and spending on car mode? Look at impact of new trains , more reliable timetables and still getting minimal assistance by bus. We can turn this all around fast. Congestion free is more than probable right now it is 100% doable by opening up bus and cycle and getting as many people to the real dominant mode rail as much as we can. Or bus the next step down and maximising that with a rapid core and regular bus feeders. Then you have cycle that has real potential up to 36% on it’s own. The problem is these guys know it but want to protect their Industries and fuel tax. Would what I’m recommending above make them all look like complete and utter useless idiots, yes it would. Do we need extra funding no we don’t, do we want a liveable city , yes we do. Congestion free then to maximize carry on with the congestion free network to get PT up to 5 star.
Shouldn’t we at least try opening up bus and cycle fully in one go on the main roads via what I’m suggesting. Put all projects on hold and see what happens to the mode changes. Bent up demand will show itself fast. What is the worst that can happen, actually taking away the network bias? and giving 2 extra viable choices?
Put all projects on hold except CRL and Skypath until the bus network and cycle network is up at full potential or at least 4 stars as mentioned above. Any other project is a complete waste of money and all assumptions are wrong when free flow is acheived. Len you don’t need anymore car capacity, you need 1 in 3 cars choosing to take alternative modes.
I think what I’m suggesting will get us congestion free , before anyone thinks possible ( due to an instant mode share rebalance and the full bus fleet effective and cycle network up) then this increase in patronage will focus firmly on your congestion free network which I really think is exceptionally smart and clear. In fact I firmly think 40% of the buses go on your 2030 network and at least a bus lane with signal priority for starters, then keep the capex on making this full class A to your programme but you do need to start somewhere and get this critical core up asap. It is the CRL of the bus network and will have a massive impact just with a bus lane , signal priority resourced up to make full use. It will add more spine and get bus up almost a full star just on it’s own, coupled that this unscheduled fleet is just adaptable and can go off grid if need be to help rail or whatever demand is.
.
No I think all business/ commercial carparks will do (that is hotels, malls, public carparks everything incl the extra 1000 in the sky convention Centre. It is all about getting a mode swing of about 1 in 3 from a car for now. We need that bus network up and firing at the same time and reduce fares so not just a stick but a real viable PT network and an incentive.