My post the other day highlighting the spectacular patronage growth we’re seeing once again raised questions about the government’s target to start construction of the main part of the CRL before 2020. The target that has been set is: rail patronage is on track to hit 20 million trips a year well before 2020. The question is how we’re tracking towards that target.
Before I go into that it’s also worth remembering that the Ministry of Transport are producing roughly six monthly monitoring reports on how we’re tracking towards the target. The last one was in August which means one is probably due fairly shortly (although it could be a while before we see it). In the last report they said.
Auckland Transport’s Public Transport Monthly Patronage Report for June 2014 shows rail patronage of 11.4 million trips for the year to June 2014, compared to 10 million trips for the
previous year. This is an increase of 1.4 million trips or 13.9 percent.Assessment
Growth of 1.4 million trips for the year to June 2014 is the highest annual growth in Auckland rail patronage achieved to date. If growth continues at 1.4 million trips per year, annual patronage would hit 20 million trips around 2019/20. We expect patronage growth to continue at a similar rate as for the year to June 2014 until around 2017/18, as the full electric train fleet comes into service and the new bus network is rolled out. After 2017/18, we expect the rate of patronage growth to slow and at this stage do not anticipate it is likely that the threshold of 20 million trips well before 2020 will be met.
Since June we’ve seen patronage on the rail network increase massively going from 11.4 million trips to 12.8 million trips in January. In the last 12 months rail patronage has risen by an astonishing 20% or 2.1 million trips per year. That means not only is our patronage numbers increasing but the growth rate has been accelerating. While I do expect the growth rate to calm down a little bit in coming months – as January was boosted significantly by events like shorter shutdowns – it feels that by June we’re still in for an overall growth figure around the 2 million trip mark. Of course that’s still quite a bit ahead of the MoTs result. Here’s how we’re tracking.
What we can see is that the strong growth is now really nudging the Blue line (Actual) above the Yellow one (the governments target) meaning if the trend continues we’ll
The current strong growth isn’t all that surprising. There are a number of reasons for it but one of the primary ones is that we’re in the middle of rolling out new electric trains and running them at improved peak and off peak frequencies. That roll out will continue through the first half of this year with the busy Southern Line followed by the Western line by July.
It’s also expected that the other major improvements that AT is currently working on, integrated fares (early next year) and the new bus network (now pushed back to Mid 2016) will deliver significant growth that should help deliver another strong wave of rail patronage.
To consider when we might hid the 20 million target – or at least be on track for it – the graph below looks at three scenario’s.
- Patronage will grow by 2.5 million trips to for the year to June, by 2 million trips in June 2016 & 2017, by 1.5 million trips in June 2018 and then 1 million trips a year after that.
- Patronage will keep growing by year on year percentage will fall by 2.5% each year. Under this scenario then by this time next year we’ll still be seeing around 17.5% YoY growth.
- The MoTs view which is highlighted at the start of the post
At least for a couple of years the high growth figures we’re seeing are likely to continue. We’ll obviously have to wait to see just what happens but I’m almost certain the patronage target is one we’ll achieve. If there is one thing that makes me nervous about the future it is that we might not have the capacity in the system at least at peak times. The new electric trains are said to add around 40% capacity but with the growth we’re seeing that won’t last long and scenes of packed trains week return again soon.
I’m picking we’ll have a decision on when the CRL starts by the next national election at the latest and possibly sooner depending on who stands for mayor next year.
Processing...
Great to see! Hopefully we can get a start on main construction in 2017 so that it is completed before 2020. Of course is the Govt wasn’t so pig-headed it would be great if they could see the massive growth levels and tie a start in with the council’s open-trench section start next year so that it is all completed by the end of 2018.
We could build rail patronage by extending existing services to Tuakau or Pokeno and providing a rail shuttle out west from Huapai to Swanson. While many of the Westen rail shuttle passengers may not travel all the way to Britomart and only use the services for Western line destinations, this all increases the number of passengers jumping on rail and helping achieve the Govt’s “magical” 20 million trips.
Which services should we cut to fund trains to Huapai and Tuakai/Pokeno and how much patronage will they deliver. We only have a limited amount of money so it’s important it’s spend too deliver the best overall result. Even if more money was made available I’m willing to bet there would be other services it could be invested in what will deliver greater patronage. Also don’t forget Tuakau and Pokeno are technically in the Waikato so don’t even contribute to Auckland rates (yes we need better national policy but that’s not AC or ATs decision).
Good ideas to get more on the network but we would be better to spend money extending Electrification to Huapai than muck around with a shuttle. The travel time is already long enough without waiting for a shuttle connection.
Jon, we could do all sorts of things to increase rail patronage, but there is a limited budget to do so and priorities have to be identified. The PTUA has chosen to focus on Huapai and Tuakau, but these are very small towns and any investment there would be a very expensive way of growing patronage. I would suggest that there are much better places to spend that money.
As an additional exercise, you could calculate how much additional patronage we would get if there’s a town of 5,000 people, and (very generously) 5% of them catch the train to work each day, giving two trips a day for 250 working days a year.
Then you could make some cost estimates for putting the infrastructure in place to do this, and the ongoing running costs.
Then you could compare those costs per trip to the equivalent for, say, improving frequencies on the western line, and see which comes off better. Perhaps you could also consider the positive externalities of each project in terms of which is going to take more pressure off congested roads.
If your organisation is trying to represent public transport users, then surely you have to give at least some consideration to issues of cost efficiency?
But don’t lose sight of the fact that the current financial parsimony for PT infrastructure is due entirely to the present government and is not an immutable fact-of life. Let’s avoid getting into a mindset where we habitually rule out worthwhile but lower-return PT opportunities, because ‘there will always be a better spend somewhere else”. Just imagine if the govt applied this to their RONs!
If anything, we should be agitating for funding for every marginal PT project we can think of, if only to demonstrate the absurd disparity compared to road-project funding. The true “transport funding pie” is not a meagre portion which must be rationed out among hungry mouths, but a huge storehouse which has been hijacked for political ends. We are all hoping this will change, so we need to be ready and mentally-prepared for the largesse when it comes our way.
Jon Reeves I support your vision. Keep pushing it!
Huapai may be a very small town, but it has a motorway to its doorstep, which much larger towns and cities in NZ don’t have. It may be a very small town, but it has commuter traffic backed up for 3km every morning (right beside the disused railway station that locals want to use but can’t). Kumeu has just had a large supermarket built in town, and Huapai township is set to triple in size. The traffic volumes are significant now, and in another five years will be intollerable, and no doubt the government will come to the rescue with a motorway extension and Huapai bypass.
Now, that is the current situation – but development is now underway on significant growth of the region by adding thousands more homes. 20 years from now it will resemble Botany, and no doubt be covered in four and six lane arterials, just like Botany.
IMO, those who reject using the existing mass transit infrastructure already in place in Kumeu, are essentially promoting the 1950’s-1990’s ideology of developing Auckland around roads. If we want people to use PT, there needs to be effective and attractive PT in place at the outset of development, not the 1950’s-1990’s mantra of retrofitting it afterward, at much greater cost, and when it won’t actually be as effective because the region it serves developed around roading instead.
There will be a public meeting on Kumeu rail next month, in Kumeu. Should be interesting regardless of ones point of view on the subject.
+1
There may not be any money for it just now, and there are no doubt more urgent demands for PT’s artificially-rationed funds, but we sure as hell should keep the idea alive and agitating. The time to start planning for it is NOW, not retrospectively after all the development has occurred.
Oh Geoff this is deliciously ironic.
Yes, indeed Huapai does have a motorway to it’s door. It’s called SH16, and it provides a very direction connection to the city centre. So direct, in fact, that the existing rail alignment can never compete with buses.
In light of this. it seems logical to conclude *the best way to get rail to Huapai is along SH16*. Possibly as light metro, rather than heavy rail.
So rather than flogging a indirect, unelectrified alignment that forces most passengers to transfer, I’d suggest be better off spending the money on a new rail alignment on SH16 that services more people more directly than the current alignment, which beyond Swanson is a dog.
The best way to get useful rail to Huapai is along SH16.
It currently competes well with buses of the current and new networks, as direct buses only run during peak which on average take around the time of the train to britomart to swanson to huapai (80 mins). Off-peak buses via transfer at westgate take way longer.
And Stu, if you beleive 80 mins travel to britomart is a dog the I assume you feel the same about pukekohe which takes a simular amount of time and also involves spending a bit of time in a shuttle (in future)
Pukekohe is 42km from Britomart, Huapai is 20km. Why would you think 80 minutes is good for Huapai?
Because it beats current and proposed PT options for huapai until NW busway which is years away. Average commute peak is 83 min via direct bus, slightly longer than rail and is often late which will add to that. Average off-peak commute 060+080 bus can be upto 2 hours. Even with new network the W78/W79 will perform simularly. Not to mention rail is more comfortable and reliable, 20 or so mins on a DMU then a nice shiney EMU all the way from swanson to town.
You realise that NZTA is building bus lanes on SH16 right now right? That with the new regular all day service with expresses at peak times will do very well.
“It’s called SH16, and it provides a very direction connection to the city centre. So direct, in fact, that the existing rail alignment can never compete with buses”
(reply to Stu)
Firstly, it’s not about who can get to the CBD fastest (although rail and bus are similar anyway, so it’s a moot point). It’s about providing a service between Kumeu and the various metropolitan centres of Henderson, New Lynn, Newmarket and the CBD. Rail is the most direct, the fastest, most convenient, and most attractive option for this. It also does not negate the need for better bus priority between Westgate and the CBD, serving that catchment as well. Different projects for different people, and both are needed.
Secondly, the railway already exists and a service can be put in place very quickly, at low cost. It’s a relatively minor project in the grand scheme of things, and it has its supporters within AT as well. Kumeu rail was on the agenda for the good part of a decade after all (decades if we count Robbie’s rapid rail scheme which involved electric trains to Kumeu from the mid 1970’s). For a very long time rail was proposed by successive people who recognised that development will occur here on a large scale. It’s both sad and ironic that after all that time, rail was dumped right at the time that that development is just getting underway. It’s as if Auckland is stuck in some tragic feedback loop “must replicate Botany, must replicate Botany, must replicate Botany, must replicate Botany……”
Thirdly, the people who pay and use PT want it. That’s the important bit that certain planners keep forgetting or ignoring. Without them, you don’t have a job. I wonder, have you ever engaged with the users in that area and asked them why PT use in the northwest is so low? Hint: Long bus trips are not desirable. Rail is. In fact people are telling us that they will use rail and not buses, even if it’s slightly slower for a journey to the CBD. I wonder if certain planners have/will factor that in?
Fourthly, as I have pointed out numerous times, the Kumeu area is about to grow into the next Botany. You mention irony Stu – well I think it’s ironic that pro-PT planners want Kumeu to develop like Botany did, as a car-orientated development instead of utilising the existing railway and making an effort to ensure transit-orientated development occurs. It leaves me wondering if AT really want TOD, when they ignore infrastructure already in place that can deliver this, especially when the people who live there say they will use it if they could. Remember, the tranport that is provided from the outset of development is the one that will determine which of those two developments actually unfolds. You cannot (at least not easily) create a transit-orientated development by retrofitting a rail service or busway after development has already taken place. Look at Botany today – despite having good bus services retrofitted, it’s still all about cars, and probably always will be.
There’s a public meeting about Kumeu Rail next month Stu, being hosted by the Kumeu Business Association, and with various speakers including PTUA and AT and a representative of the SHA’s. It could perhaps be a good opportunity for you to actually meet with the people for whom services are supposed to be provided for?
“The people who pay and use PT…”
Very good point Geoff. It’s no good simply asking people what they want, you have to ask them what they want, at what cost and what level. You have to provide people with the right information to make an informed choice.
For example, have you asked the people of Huapai of they want a train shuttle to Swanson that costs $25 each way? Because that’s about what it would cost to provide. What do those people want when they ar aware of the full reality of the situation?
Or are we expecting that the Ratepayer picks up the tab? Fine, lets ask the people who pay and use again again. Let’s ask the ratepayers if they think the people of two small villages deserve to to have a new PT route subsidised at ten times the average for Auckland? Let’s ask them how much they are willing to put their rates up?
Or if we’re not going to ask for more rates money for subsidies, we have to ask which existing routes get cut to fund it instead? Indeed let’s ask those who pay and use PT, who are the ten existing users who get their subsidy cut so we can subsidise one trip from Huapai to Swanson instead?
Here is a good question to ask at the meeting, and I am perfectly serious here. What would people prefer to have serving their neighbourhood:
1) a shuttle train to Swanson that runs once an hour at peak, and once every two hours across the day and on evenings and weekends, and has the last run at about 8pm.
2) a bus direct to and from the city via Westgate, that runs every fifteen minutes at peak and half hourly all day, seven days a week, and includes hourly services through to about 11pm.
Those two options would cost about the same to run, and are about the level of expenditure that would be fair relative to the rest of the city. That is the question to ask, and it is a fair one because it proposes the actual trade off they have to consider. Indeed the people may elect to have a rudimentary train shuttle if indeed they plan to time their journeys to the same time every day and are most concerned with the type of vehicle they ride in and whether it is on road or not. Or they might be more concerned about having a service that takes them more directly to where they are going, with a frequency and span of service that allows them to travel more liberally without having to times to a given departure.
So the basic problem is Waitakere Tunnel which is too restricted to electrify it. But for that hurdle, EMU’s could run on to Waitakere and then Huapai, Kumeu (Helenville, . .etc).
Well how difficult is it, really, to fix the tunnel?
For decades, Wellington’s Johnsonville line was prevented from having modern trains due to its 7 restrictive tunnels. Several times the service was threatened with closure or conversion to busway, because there appeared to be no economic way out of the tunnel-conundrum and the old trains were getting more and more ancient.
Then along came Michael Cullen with some money to fund the WARP project (Wgtn’s equivalent of DART), and in the space of a single Christmas-shutdown, all 7 tunnels were enlarged and the line was made ready for the new Matangi’s. All those years of hand-wringing, nay-saying, insisting it was ‘not justified’ as the money would be better spent somewhere else. . . .
And then after a few weeks’ work . . . .Done! Sorted!
Waitakere Tunnel will have to be electrified sooner or later. All it needs is a bit of NZTA small-change diverted from some wasteful road-scheme, and it’s fixed, just like Johnsonville.
But PT advocates like those here have to be seen to be wanting it, not doing their best to torpedo it, bus-replace it, de-justify it. Just like they tried to with J’ville.
Nick R wrote:
“For example, have you asked the people of Huapai of they want a train shuttle to Swanson that costs $25 each way? Because that’s about what it would cost to provide”
Sounds cheap. 25 passengers, $1 each….
Of course the actual cost would be half that of the actual cost that applies to Papakura-Pukekohe, which is twice the distance. If Pukekohe is deemed affordable, Huapai certainly is. In fact with its mere 600 boardings a day, not one, not two, but three diesel shuttles are planned for Papakura-Pukekohe. 200 passengers across the entire day per train. Huapai can match, if not better that.
“Let’s ask the ratepayers if they think the people of two small villages”
A small village served by a motorway and with traffic congestion backed up for three kilometres every morning and with thousands of new homes to be built. Your “village” description demonstrates an almost complete lack of understanding of the location. The “Botany solution” of developing around roading only has had its day – time to start developing Auckland with transit-orientated development.
“…a shuttle train to Swanson that runs once an hour at peak, and once every two hours across the day and on evenings and weekends, and has the last run at about 8pm”
Sounds good, and yes residents are indeed asking for that. 15 services a day is an excellent frequency, that far exceeds the successful delivery of Pukekohe services which started with 4 trains a day, then 7, then 12.
“….a bus direct to and from the city via Westgate, that runs every fifteen minutes at peak and half hourly all day, seven days a week, and includes hourly services through to about 11pm”
Sounds good too, although isn’t relevant to the rail service proposal which is about linking the growth area of Kumeu with the metropolitan centres of Henderson, Glen Eden, New Lynn, Newmarket and the CBD. Two completely different catchments and purposes.
Hope to see you at the meeting in Kumeu on March 23rd Nick. You could perhaps ask Riverhead and Muriwai residents what they think of the proposed New Network they are paying for.
Geoff, that’s $25 per passenger each way, just to get to Swanson. The question is why does a person choosing to live in Kumeu deserve to have ten times more public transport expenditure than one person living in the suburbs? Because an old set of train tracks happens to be nearby?
Yes there is traffic on SH16 in the morning, there is traffic on every main road in Auckland in the morning. That doesn’t automatically make running a shuttle on an old freight line a good idea. The rail line would have to actually work for passengers to make a difference. That’s the key think you chose to ignore, or at least you chose to believe just because it is a train it will automatically be useful and well used despite the fact it is a bad alignment. But you can’t have transit oriented development without transit, transit that actually works.
I’m not sure where you are getting your data from, but Huapai to Swanson is 16km while Pukekohe to Papakura is 20km. It is nowhere near twice the distance, and once factoring fleet and staff requirements and cycle times they would cost more or less the same. However the market is about a quarter the size to start with, and the route is far less direct and much slower. You’ll be lucky to get 1/8th the users. Huapai isn’t Pukekohe, and no amount of hope will change the simple geometry of the situation.
15 services a day? Try 8. And that is with a subsidy per person several times the average for Auckland.
Perhaps you can ask Riverhead and Muriwai what they would think about paying even more for a less useful service, which is what you are proposing. But actually I don’t care what they think about transport elsewhere, because they don’t pay for their own transport let alone anyone else’s. They are heavily subsidised by the suburban and urban dwellers of Auckland. Their rates don’t even come close to meeting the maintenance bill on their roads, let’s alone somehow ‘pay for the New Network’.
57 EMUs in total and what the number of those used to make up those 6 car EMUs won’t be enough at this rate of growth.
We will need either CRL built sooner (maybe as a tunnel only initially, with station fitout second) or we have to buy more EMUs to handle the hoardes using rail.
Nice problem to have, but one we can avoid.
Meanwhile National is throwing some more money down on State Highway fiddling, while Auckland commuters burn with frustration. (https://t.co/Uf0QeyRski)
This is another Reeves Road “Flyunder” but just as useless and expensive to build as a “Flyover”.
Thankfully we have the option to buy more units from CAF.
What is the option and when do they expire? Options are useful but need to be exercised and that may not be as easy as it first seems.
The other option I’ve thought of would be to add cars to the existing units. This would add capacity, although the cost may not be much of a saving. The main issue is that there would need to be additional traction cars for the unit to operate in the CRL section once built. The main constraint is still the junction at Britomart, but if the running pattern doesn’t require entering Britomart, it may provide relief.
I’m not a fan of the use of Diesel units as the main advantage of the EMU is the acceleration speed. Continuing service of the DMU would reduce the entire network speed and would potential allow doubters to claim some sort victory.
I do agree that it’s a wonderful problem to have, but the solutions need to be thought through, not rushed.
It certainly looks like we should exercise the option soon. The first time Matt posted the capacity diagram (months ago) it looked like a good increase. Now I read it as showing that any 3-car service is a downgrade from even the shortest regular Western line train (4 cars).
I wonder how many left-hand turn lanes AT need to sacrifice to buy more trains…?
Joining up some dots…
How come a handful of residents at Newmarket can hold up delivery of s road closure that will enable thousands of people a day to enjoy 10 minute train frequencies, while it takes a concerted public campaign to remove just one unbuilt road lane from the blueprints of an intersection upgrade when it will preserve amenity for one of our largest public parks and barely impact on traffic flows …?
AT needs some serious recalibration in key departments….
Council has already factored this into their strategy. Because of Government intransigence it is simply too late to include their contribution into the current LTP round so Council has shifted their target to the next LTP which will start in July 2018. By 2017 when the first drafts of that LTP are being produced we should have healthy patronage numbers to feed into an updated business case to negotiate with government. This is also as you note an election year. It is also the year after construction of the cut-and-cover section of CRL when many people will be asking why work on the tunnel has not started. The Government will want to avoid copping the blame so hopefully will commit in 2017 to half-funding CRL, with money becoming available in the 2nd half of 2018. The tunnel boring machine should be ordered as soon as government commits (say in late 2017) so that actual work can commence promptly in the 2nd half of 2018. Latest thinking is that the TBM may take nearer three years than four so a 2021 opening is just possible if all goes well.
Great Graeme but what do we do when Rail patronage hits 20m before the LTP comes out?
While I applaud Matt’s graph there is one prediction he is ignoring – that patronage goes up at 20% YOY for the next 3 years straight. Coinciding with new network and integrated fares, and the existing roads getting a lot worse trafficwise than they are now, dirving even more people on to crowded trains.
If it does we bust 20m in early 2017.
Then what? Hope the Government comes to the party?
Even if they did ahead of the LTP being finalised in 2018 then its still 3 more years of headaches for rail commuters.
Really need some triggers in this LTP to ensure that if patronage hits say 18m before the end of 2016 (the midpoint of the current LTP), then other options are looked e.g. AECT break up to fund the councils part of CRL early.
Forgive my tendency to doubt, but I would be very surprised if the government makes good on its pledge by prioritising the CRL even if the growth-target is reached early. Remember, the reason for setting this very arbitrary figure was to give a show-of-support for the CRL without actually having to do anything for years. Meanwhile the government shows its true colours with its total lack of hesitation in prioritising its cherished road schemes. Is this cosy collusion with the roads lobby suddenly going to be disrupted to squeeze the CRL in? I very much doubt it.
I doubt the patronage target was ever intended as a binding and carefully considered threshhold. More like a random round-figure plucked out of the air that was thought to be unachieveable, thereby handily serving its purpose as a stalling tactic. And if by any horrible chance this government is still in office come 2020, I would seriously expect another delaying tactic to be employed.
They are simply not interested in the CRL. Just like the Napier-Gisborne Line.
The government will be struggling for votes in 2017 and CRL is an easy win. If they promise and get re-elected, it will be cheap votes. If the they promise and loose, it will not be their problem
I hope you’re right that they will be struggling for votes in 2017. That is what I hoped would happen in 2014 but alas it didn’t.
And even if it does happen in 2017, it would be preferable if the CRL could proceed with government enthusiasm rather than half-hearted National Party reluctance.
2017 is too late to affect the current timeline of a 2020 start. There’s only about 18 months left now before 2020 becomes the earliest possible start date, when you take into account lead times for projects of this scale.
The aim is to get the project “Shovel Ready” by getting all/most of the detailed design done before a decision is made so that when it is AT can go straight out to contractors with the tender. They’ve been focusing on the enabling works section but once that’s underway they will then focus on the rest of the project. If the go ahead is given in 2017 it won’t take 3 years before they start, a year tops.
TBM delivery is generally three years between tender and starting work. They usually have to design and build them. I think Waterview was four years between tender and starting work, but that was a larger machine.
Wasn’t the other half of the target a CBD employment growth figure that would be impossible to meet given office space constraints? (And never mind that the CRL is not just about the CBD.) I agree they’re not setting these targets in good faith, they just want to seem reasonable while they stall.
I expect when growth levels off because the trains are chocker and we can’t run any more without the CRL, they’ll point to that and say ‘See? Rail isn’t growing, that proves we were right.’
The employment target was never achievable due to the lack of office space which is at or near all time lows and not enough coming on stream. Lots of things affect PT demand and the number of jobs is only one of them. If the trains are constantly packed – like I think they will be – it would be a brave government to ignore that.
I agree, the jobs target is silly and reveals a misunderstanding of what drives PT demand and what the CRL actually delivers for the network. They’re keeping it in their pocket so they can say no even if (when) the 20m trips target is met. I hope you and others are right that the pressure from rail growth will make things look different to them in 2017, but this government hasn’t been much for evidence-based transport policy. Still, you guys are changing the conversation, and at some point they’ll have to listen.
Can we talk about NOT retiring all the diesel or diesel hauled cars in the interim. I think creativity could deliver you some better capacity options:
-opening the old station as a terminus but making Newmarket a more solid city station with bus connections etc, which with it and Parnell means you could fit some more passengers onto the system without being limited by Britomart. These could be the fabled loco hauled direct from Pukekohe and beyond, and could be marketed similarly to Wairarapa trains. Two of these trains in peak could really take some load off the Papakura electrics that will still run
-if there is some support for the south to west service via Newmarket only, let’s get it running now, with diesel cars if need be.
-build the triangular connection to Manukau which could also be diesel operated to the south, so that additional patronage not bound for central Auckland can be harnessed
I’ve long thought that the pukekohe shuttle should run to manukau….
Still trying to convince Auckland Transport to build the Manukau South Link to allow direct Manukau to Papakura/Pukekohe services at every 20mins.
Not having muck luck and Mayor not interested any more after saying he do his best when Manukau Station opened
At peak transferring at Puhinui isn’t a problem but off-peak it can be really annoying, so perhaps just off-peak only? I noticed the “train running plan” shows Papakura-Manakau as “peak only” which is a bit pointless IMHO.
How many extra EMUs would they need to make all peak hour services 6 car (with the exception of the Onehunga line) with 10min frequencies on all the main lines? That would help immensely with capacity. As off-peak services increase in numbers, then gradually you would keep them 6 car all day (like they do in Melbourne for example).
When the Western line gets EMU’s at peak I think they would HAVE to be 6-car, as 5-car/6-car SA’s are crowded I wouldn’t want to imagine all of those people in just a 3-car EMU, wouldn’t be a good look, and 15 mins instead of 10 mins between services doesn’t help…
On that note, AT said “Early 2015” that the Western line will be fully EMU running on weekends. Doubt that’s happening anytime soon with the whole driver delays. The Southern line isn’t running EMU’s on weekends yet either from what I can tell?
On the issue of the 57 EMU’s not having the capacity to handle growth, I agree. It should be noted that the operation plan will likely have something like 52 in service, not all 57.
It also needs to be kept in mind that about half of the services will be single EMU sets (3 car), not double sets (6 car), as there are not enough to make all services doubles.
The question is, will AT keep the SA’s in reserve in order to avoid a patronage meltdown, or will they be quick to sell them, and take the risk? IMO they should be keeping at least ten SA sets until the next round of EMU’s are purchased.
I hope they can buy 6 cars emu instead of coupling 3 cars all the time?
International standard practice is to use 2x 3 (or 4) car EMU as it provides flexibility and allows 1x set to be taken off for maintenance etc easily.
That said a lot of new purely subway type units are effectively 1 big long snake like train of about 6-9 normal units length. This allows approx 10% extra capacity for the same length in the space at the ends of where the carriages would be. Auckland could potentially order a bunch of 6 car EMU but for standardisation reasons will probably continue to join 2x 3 car sets together.
One of the key reasons for having a 3 car EMU was the the two end cars have the motors in them and they need more power to get up the grade of the CRL. A permanent six car EMU would need the two middle cars to have those motors and therefore wouldn’t be able to be low floor like the current middle carriage. Something worth considering though.
Rather than order “6 car EMUs” I’d prefer if maybe AT ordered a bunch of additional Trailer cars (the middle, low floor car), which are unpowered.
But adding a 2nd trailer car to 3 car EMUs would make them 4 car EMUs, yes it would change the performance profile, but would add 33% capacity to an existing 3 car EMU for about 25% of the cost of a new 3 car EMU. And as these already have more than enough power pre-CRL that wouldn’t unduly slow them down that much.
It would not require CAF to do a special design with power cars with “open at both ends design” which the current design has driver at one end and the other end open to hook to the trailer car.
While I know we can’t make 9 car EMUs or even hook 2 4 car EMUs together to make an 8 car, we could hook a 3 car and 4 car EMU set together to make a 7 car EMU, which would be able to another 16% more people over a 6 car unit.
Again purely as a stop gap. And down the line we can order the “A” and P (pantograph) powered EMU cars seperately and reconfigure the trailer car back into a 3 car EMU when CRL is built.
Provides the only way I see to increase capacity of the 57 EMUs, for the least $, if we ordered 23 T cars, at say $4m each (I recall 3 car EMUs cost around $15m each, and the T car is the cheapest of the 3), thats $100m or so (assuming costs ot integrate to existing 3 car sets already here).
But that would provide the same “raw” capacity increase as 8 3 car EMUs woukd get us – except that would be spread over 23 EMUs so much better operationally.
Seems a lot more workable than retaining SA/SD sets. They could really only mix it with EMUs if they ran a limited stop service; with only 4 axles out of 36 they are severely accelleration-limited.
Costs of keeping SA/SD sets going will be expensive, in both repairs and loco haulage and the need to have drivers trained in them. Not a problem now but may be in the future.
Currently big issue with rollout of EMUs is drivers trained on them, but once all drivers trained on EMUs, opposite problem arises, the need to keep some that are diesel certified.
We do need to standardise the fleet on EMUs so SA/SD sets are not long term options.
Interesting Greg, but it seems if we need more capacity it is probably better to simply order enough units to run six car sets more often, retaining 3 car sets for later at night and other times when the increased coverage and frequency is valuable but demand will never be like peak hours… We’ll need them post CRL anyhow. Good prob to have. I’m sure CAF will be keen to help…
Yes Patrick agreed,
My idea is a staging idea for getting a capacity boost quickly (pre-CRL) when we need to get a lot longer trains as quick as possible. with maybe ordering these later this year.
See if we needed ore 6 car EMUs we would need to order a bunch more 3 car units to top up the EMUs we have,
CAF could deliver at maybe 4 a month based on peak production/delivery rates, but more like 2 a month. Given recent delivery times.
So if we needed say 23 more EMUs (to get to 80 EMUs in total), it would take 6-12 months to deliver all of them – from when CAF started making them.
And who know how quickly CAF can ramp up production on the existing EMU design, would depend on orders from other customers.
Meanwhile the PT demand keeps going up and up [especially on the Western line].
So my idea would be to order all those extra “3 car” EMUs, but ask CAF to make and deliver the T cars first, on the basis that the T cars need less work to build as they don’t have traction motors.
CAF could deliver 23 T cars [assuming they can make 12-16 T cars a month] in 2-3 months if they could make 8-12 “cars” a month, with a 1 month shipping delay means all 23 delivered in 3-4 months of construction starting.
We receive those T cars then hitch up those up to 23 existing 3 car EMUs, making 23 4 car sets. All within 3-4 months of order production start. And no more drivers needed.
So that gives a boost of 23/3 = 6 “3 car EMUs”, but spread over 23 existing EMUs (so don’t need 6 more drivers to run them), meaning we can if needed make 23 7 car EMUs.
[or keep a mix of 4 car EMUs, some 7 car EMUs].
Later on once the P and A cars arrive we can then bring them into production, to match the availability of drivers to operate them [or hook them up to a 3 car EMU to make 6 car units].
So with some ingenuity we can get a boost quickly without bringing back SA/SD sets.
It sounds like we need to extend all platforms, including Onehunga, to accommodate six car trains and make EVERY train six cars if the rate growth continues to surge. And would it be possible to have express 9 car carriages stopping at limited stations? Or are the lines just too busy now?
The Onehunga Station needs plans for an early straightening and upgrading plus route establishment to the Manukau Harbour foreshore sorted now. Furthermore double track harbour crossing and route designation to Mangere Bridge and beyond should be done now.
I am personally annoyed that no rail extension detail appears on any East-west road proposals that I have seen, but it is only common sense that this is clearly sorted before any East – West road works are commenced.
Does the right hand know what the left hand is doing?
Remember AT seem to be pushing for Light Rail to the Airport now and one of the reasons is it means they might be able to avoid a costly new bridge as they would be able to use the existing motorway bridge.
Motorway bridge, or the new low level bridge? The low level bridge would be more direct, and lead straight into Mangere bridge township.
Has an extension of the onehuga line to mangere bridge been costed? I doubt the existing line would require double tracking for such a short extension.
We will hit 14 million this year. And if 20% is maintain for just two more years there’s your 20m in 2017! On one hand there are plenty of factors making this growth likely; completed EMU roll out, higher freqs, fare integration, New Network, population growth, and, perhaps counterintuitively, driving increase (roads are getting more clogged). On the other, can the network handle it? Will it cope, peak loads will be high, and while there will be capacity at off peak, weekends, and nights, will that demand grow fast too?, and will AT have the budget and drivers etc to extend running hours and freqs that would support it?
Will be going through MoT’s threshold report with fine tooth comb. It is clear from the last one that MoT Alk see it as their job to hose down the likelihood growth continuing. Certain staff there have been pouring cold water on the CRL for years… Will they still try to paint a glum patronage future with current figures?
On that last point I expect to see them claim that lower petrol prices will get people to drive more and not use PT. My expectation is that driving will be up, but ironically instead of that being negative for PT it will likely encourage uptake as congestion increases. Akl is a city now, it conforms to urban logic, which includes spatial as well as cost drivers of movement choice. But also it is no longer a zero sum game; it will be an ‘all of the above’ scenario as services improve and population and economy tick along.
PT use has been suppressed in AKL by appalling services and parking & m’way oversupply. These factors are changing fast and permanently. Growth will not slow for a long time or until capacity hits hard limits, eg no CRL…
Well I’ve noted the last few weeks as I cycle along Remuera Road to/from work that the traffic is way,way worse than it was last year at the same time of the year and day (usually I cycle to work and arrive between 7:20am and 8am).
And what I am noticing (via the exhaust fumes smell) a lot more “old bangers” on the road – stinking up the place with their oily fumes.
Which suggests that maybe a few of those old bangers that used to be too expensive to run have made a comeback (briefly) since petrol is now so cheap, it is letting people drive than take the bus.
And the general level of congestion suggests its not just old bangers making a comeback on roads.
But of course, now the traffic jams are now horrendous, and co workers who live on the North Shore are complaining since schools came back how much worse traffic is, and we still have 6 more weeks until Easter and the end of “March Madness”.
So it will get worse before it gets better with traffic.
But those who are stuck in traffic, who also see the bus (and cyclists like me) sweeping them past in the bus lanes while they sit there fuming will make them eventually stop driving and pile on to PT too.
So I don’t see any longer term problems with patronage. And to be honest the worse the traffic is for folks while the LTP consultation is open the better for long term it will be. As more people will get the message and agree that “this can’t continue like this”.
Is this where we are heading? http://youtu.be/pRBLnth4oSg
I think we better order some more trains like now!!!! CRL works cannot stop, they need to tender that whole beast out the rest of the way No1 Transport Priority is No1 Transport Priority is it not. Maybe another job for Jolisa of the Jungle, swing in give these guys a hand. Our ancestors planted the seed for this rail link at about the same time as the Pohutakawas maybe 10 years earlier?Again heritage grounds and primary transport goals, rapid transit.
Not only are some people diving off the car boat and swimming 180 degrees towards rapid transit, and active modes, it seems now one of the main Captains / AT Board is turning the ship also with a full right. Future 180 degree scenario and rail already growing steadily at 20% without the new bus neywork. Are National and NZTA going to turn wheel or follow car at flat line last 10 years and hit the iceburg and sink both of them? Meanwhile Rail going like Brendon and Southee combined. Which worm to follow, the one above the required run rate or the stagnant one that people are jumping off and hasn’t worked with all our money last 60 years and now starting to look like corruption?
David B
No, in short
This is what you are talking about.
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-36.848563,174.543197,3a,75y,135.33h,79.33t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sEp6zUkBUkCrUGkm7hOx9lQ!2e0
Like electrifying to some random point north of Levin. Middle of nowhere. Nothing inevitable about it. Urban development will bypass Waitakere as there are places further by rail, but closer by road, that can be built first.
There is a line item in the LTP for 15 additional 3-car sets of EMUs and the necessary stabling. Says they are tied to CRL and/or Pukekohe electrification but it may well be that they so some of them are required earlier…. Better get that additional funding in place, eh?