Reports to the Auckland Transport board next week gives the outcome of the West Auckland and Pukekohe/Waiuku new network consultations that occurred last year.
West Auckland
In total AT say they had 1242 submissions on the network with an equal number (41% each) supporting and opposing the changes with the rest neutral. Given the changes that have been made as a result of the feedback AT expect the number of people who opposed the change will reduce.
Before going into the feedback it must be remembered that the network was essentially compromised by the delaying of bus interchanges at Lincoln Rd and Te Atatu Rd. That meant that instead of being able to implement the new network as originally envisioned an interim network was needed which retained a higher number of low frequency services as shown below.
Some of the notable demographics of submitters include
- 60% of submitters are women which is not too dissimilar to the break down we saw in the Census data.
- 58% of submitters are over 40 years old. Young people who tend to be the majority of PT users are very under represented with just 18% of submissions coming from those less than 30.
- Perhaps aligned with the age numbers, 59% of submitters work while only 13% of submitters are students.
- Of all submitters only 115 said they don’t currently use PT.
In total AT say they have made changes to 11 of the 24 routes originally proposed and that will mean it does cost more to run the network. These extra costs would not likely have been needed if the two interchanges were in place which once again highlights that having the right PT infrastructure can help save on operational costs. The 11 changes are below
And the map below shows what the official network will look like.
And for the rural services these are the maps. AT said “Extending rail services past Swanson was outside the scope of this consultation and is not currently being investigated”
The report also mentions there was a lot of support for the development of the Northwest busway with 65% of people supporting or strongly supporting it and only 12% who opposed or strongly opposed it.
Pukekohe/Waiuku
There seems to have been much stronger support for the changes in Pukekohe and Waiuku. All up there were 939 submissions of which 643 discussed the Pukekohe changes and 542 discussed the Waiuku changes. Of those there was respectively a 90% and 95% level of support.
There has been one change made to the Pukekohe network and of the three options originally presented, option 1 has been chosen and a modified version of option 3 will also be run.
I understand we should see the next area for consultation in a few months.
Processing...
Good to see GVR getting some public transport options!
So – given that the lack of interchanges at the motorway is a problem everyone recognises, the question becomes what are AT doing to fix this quickly? Does anyone know?
Is there even the space at the Te Atatu interchange or the ability to put one in that doesn’t involve huge detours and waits at lights and for cars gridlocked on their way onto the motorway? Pretty sure the whole motorway corridor and then some has been built on, so AT probably need to purchase houses and land now. It’s a complete farce that this wasn’t an integral part of the motorway works, you can’t help by shake your head and wonder what’s wrong with NZ when in 2015 this is still happening and will continue to happen for the foreseeable future.
I wonder what the times will be for the Pukekohe loop. When I take the train in – which I increasingly often have to do – I have to take the 5:41AM train. I either drag my uncomplaining wife (not the other one, you know :-)) out of bed to get me there by 5:35, or walk – and it’s a 25-minute walk from my house. When they take away out Pukekohe buses to Papakura, it would be nice if there were a loop bus in Pukekohe that went early. Last I heard they were talking about making the earliest loop bus start at 6AM.
In reality it might not matter if the loop bus’s route weren’t better than my current alternatives – but it would be useful to know. That train is pretty well used – not, obviously, so much as the later ones – but my carriage (the one I always get into :-)) usually has may 15-20 people in it. Don’t know about the others.
jj
very good point – it will be important to develop a pulse timetable to ensure the buses arrive/depart with trains.
Your wife could buy you a bicycle so she can stay in bed longer. 25 mins walking is probably 7-8 by bike.
Very good point John, did you put that in your submission? Every bus on that loop should meet the train, and vice versa, including the very first and last of every day day.
Yes – I said that I was glad to see that the Pukekohe loop buses would start and end at the train station – which they used not to do – and that I had heard rumours (from drivers) that the new schedule would have them start at 6AM. I said that this was good, but that there was an earlier train (at that time, 5:38AM) – it would be important to meet that train as well.
What I did not think to do, but which someone above has said, is that the timetable of the loop buses should be such as to coordinate with the trains.
Outside of the commute periods, morning and afternoon, the trains leave Pukekohe at 41 minutes after the hour. It seems to me the loop buses should be scheduled to arrive at the train station a few minutes before the scheduled arrival of trains, to pick up disentraining passengers, and to leave at 41 minutes after the hour – or something like that 🙂
I didn’t think to put that into my submission; maybe someone in AT will think of it!
jj
John, maybe this isn’t an option for you physically but have you considered cycling? A 25min walk means a distance of around 2-3kms.
That is less than 10mins cycling and not a bad way to start the day. I know because I do the same to the ferry every day.
Yes, have thought about it, but not likely. It is true it would save some time, but whatever the cost of a bicycle is, I doubt I would consider it worth it to save a quarter of an hour a day – not to mention the fact that I am 72 and the last time I road a bicycle in earnest was probably when I was about 10. Yes, I know it’s not a skill you forget; I’m just doubtful I would want to re-acquire it.
jj
$150 to save 15 minutes each way each day? bargain.
One man’s bargain is another man’s ‘not worth it to me.’ Value is always subjective.
Faster growing cycling demographic in the Netherlands is over 65 – you are never too old John! 🙂
It may be. Leaves me with the fact that I would rather walk than ride – even if it takes longer 🙂
jj
Well this is further negative outcomes of the government’s ‘motorway only’ transport infrastructure investment policy. The failure to sensibly build bus stations on the Northwestern let alone an actual busway not only robs the city and nation of the efficiency of a Rapid Transit option there but also ends up costing all rate and taxpayers in unnecessarily higher PT subsidies every year… I wouldn’t trust these guys to run a corner dairy. They don’t know how to invest with capex to reduce opex. Their investment policy is decided by ideology not analysis.
+1
For goodness sake. An utter failure foisted on us by the NZTA and Auckland Transport.
This, despite the overwhelming evidence made available from just the other side of the harbour. How stupid and incompetent can these old men be?
(Please don’t tell me it is young women making these decisions, or I really will lose my faith in humanity.)
How much parking does that corner dairy have? 😛
‘I wouldn’t trust these guys to run a corner dairy’
Well there’s something we can both agree on.
But hey, all’s not lost. At least Franklin rd ‘ill look nice right?
Once they get the cycleways in and get rid of some parking it should. Can’t wait.
Well the plan on Franklin is to retain parking and add cyclelanes on carriageway [downhill] and berm [uphill], yet still the residents are going batty and reaching for lawyers! Completely insane and disproportionate response. How they imagine their lives will be ruined by the presents of some green paint on the road on one side and being liberated from trying to make grass grow in the shade on the other, lord only knows…? Or is it the thought of people on bikes being on their street that frightens them so? Really? cos we are already. It’s totally baffling, even usually sane and insightful people like Hamish Keith seem to loose all reason and start raving at the prospect of some cycling amenity near them… then start making claims about total rights to decide what happens there resting entirely with residents… have they not noticed all that vehicular traffic the vast majority of which is just passing through? All streets belong to all of us and are used by all people whether walking, riding, or driving, and whether resident or not.
Fully cray Tea Party style Bikelash from moneyed urban liberals…. Bonkers.
I’d love to get into a conversation and agree about local rights and then start talking about my rights as to what happens on Queen Street and Custom Streets (I’m on the corner, so twice as important).
I’m sure that will be different though, somehow.
Have the retailers who fought vehemently against a bike stand outside their premise and then saw sales increase been bought into the discussion on cycling amenity?
I think the Waiuku/Pukekohe changes look really good, and they should help to take some pressure off the Park and Rides at Pukekohe and Papakura rail stations.
At some point it would be good to have a bus service between Clarks Beach and Papakura. While this would duplicate the Waiuku-Papakura services in the Kingseat – Papakura segment, the additional frequency may be warranted as Hingaia East develops further. Also, my parents live at Clarks Beach and I currently can’t visit them by PT unless I cycle from Papakura :(. Love you Mum!
In terms of West Auckland, well, what can one say except that this is what results when you don’t have PT interchanges in strategic locations. I realise Auckland’s playing catch-up in this respect, and that there are severe funding constraints, but it does have all the appearance of a false economy.
Just a bit concerned about how regularly these buses will be running to Drury. I mean, in the morning, you get a lot of Rosehill pupils using it (the 475) on account of the fact there are no school buses for Drury-proper (as opposed to the outlying areas pushing out to Runciman and Drury Hills) and I would assume there are probably quite a few others that also hop on it. ON the other hand, maybe not because there’s the currently insane situation of no buses between 6:30pm and 9:45pm! This is obviously completely inconvenient for anyone wanting to catch such a bus from the station who has left the likes of Britomart after 5:30pm and wants to get home at a reasonable hour.
Very good that the Glenbrook Vintage Railway is going to get some public transport!
Far south is nice for the most part, pitty kingseat is peak only still though, would of prefered an all-day mix between those 2 routes but I guess that would of cost too much.
In the west the W23 going to new lynn rather than just glen eden is a great plus however it has lost its directness which is a bit of a pitty, I will be using this bus if 10pm train curfew continues in 2016… which hopefully it doesnt…
Nice to see the te atatu peninsula express come back too.
W78/W79 variation still a bit disapointing, it means beyond huapai the same poor 2 hour frequency is to be expected, but at least there are now sunday services etc.
I am guessing east or north consultations are to be heald next as central really depends on the outcome of the others. Little curious about new north road buses though, guessing they might be apart of the central consultation. Also whats happening with green bay and titarangi, I know those were consulted on and the changes already made… but they dont seem to be up to “new network” standards.
You are right Peter the W78/9 is disappointing, but there’s always a chance the devil may be in the unreleased detail. A key issue with W78 is peak frequency and capacity. This route has had three AM peak citybound buses for a couple of decades, and it doesn’t seem this will change. The additional Westgate-CBD peak service, may serve as a late peak connection from a Helensville-Westgate run, but considering the growth in the area, the failure to provide additional capacity is a major. If that in fact is what is proposed.
North West is not utilising the only true Congestion Free route – rail shuttle from Huapai – Kumeu to Swanson. Even though it has not be noted on transportblog, the Public Transport Users Association had over 120 concerned pt users at our meeting in Kumeu on Monday night.
Our “Western Connector” proposal, which can be operated at approximately half the cost the “unnamed” report proposed, makes complete sense for passengers in Kumeu, Huapai, further west in Waimauku and Helensville and retains Waitakere station on our network. Our proposal also does not require the $9 million capex which the report suggested was necessary for station upgrades, signalling and track work. We also discovered the report used flawed times to show buses were only “3 minutes” slower to Henderson than trains, when in fact it is 15 minutes slower. Other times were all incorrect to all other key Western destinations in an attempt to make buses look viable.
What concerns the PTUA is that because of that report, with obvious failings, AT have spent around $2 million of ratepayers money building a huge new park and ride at Swanson to encourage more car trips. We have highlighted this to the AC Infrastructure Committee last Wednesday.
The report also is extremely out of date, as when it was penned in 2012 SHA’s were not on the radar in Huapai. Since then, and as we highlighted, 2,500 dwellings will be constructed right on the door step of the unused Huapai rail station. That will be around 5,000 more residents next to an unused railway station built in 2009. Additionally 2,500 other dwellings are either underconstruction or have been constructed only 1km from Huapai, a block back from the main highway (many of you will not notice this massive subdivision being constructed if you do not detour of the highway).
Just to put it out there, as mentioned in the 2012 report. The authors made it clear timings and costings were provided by Auckland Transport, so at least on the flawed timing front we cannot blame the authors.
PTUA has a petition online http://www.ptua.org.nz and our surveying of passengers at Swanson, Waitakere stations and those in Kumeu is on going.
Busses cannot compete with commuter rail, in timing, cost and capacity. Take Pukekohe for example, which prior to a rail service had a very low number of bus users. Regular rail services were introduced and PAX numbers on that section have grown over 1300% since 2002.
You are right that buses cannot compete with rail on cost!
Is it true that in the same period that patronage was growing gangbusters at pukekohe, the patronage at waitakere was flatlining?
Technically, no, it’s not true. The number of Waitakere residents using trains has grown, BUT because of intentional poor service (in particular, cancelling trains with no notice most days of the week), many have had to use Swanson instead, reluctantly.
no Geoff, patronage at Waitakere has been flat for approximately a decade. Unlike Pukekohe, hence why electrifying the line to the latter would seem to be a priority.
Here’s the link if you are interested in just how poorly Waitakere has performed: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2014/05/02/rail-station-boarding-stats/
Would you like us to do a post about your proposal/meeting?
A guest post on this would be great. Pretty interesting stuff!
A guest post from who on what?
The PTUA will put a post together on the Western Connector, the 2012 report and its clear flaws, our surveying which our team has been carried out at Swanson, Waitakere stations and of Huapai,Kumeu residents, current and want to be public transport users.
As the only group to proactively engage with Waitakere and Swanson users in all these years, the reasons for passengers quiting Waitakere station all comes down to one thing, a clear and obvious plan, by stealth, to make trains unreliable.
To a lay person just looking at numbers on a spread sheet you will think Waitakere station should be axed. I’ve read the posts here countless times saying to that effect. So the PTUA went beyond those numbers flunted on this blog which were supplied by AT to find the real facts.
If any of you came to our very successful public meeting on Monday night at Kumeu, or attended the Akl Council Infra Committee meeting this week you would have heard the truth and heard passengers telling the audience of their terrible experiences with Waitakere trains.
This week coming we have our first AT meeting to solve some of the unsolved PT users issues which have had raised to our attention. We won’t blog a lot, but we are getting in and actively doing what we are here to do, represent pr users and improving the moving.
It means will be critical of AT, transport operators, Nzta, Govt where pt users have been let down. But passengers have been left in last place in line it would seem by AT.
AT has also done a lot of great work too, but if you don’t get caught out when issues arise then improvements in quality of service slow down. The PTUA is the “back stop” pt users never had until now.
The Huapai trains farce is our launch campaign, and the facts we presented this week highlights how wrong the MRC report and AT are. How out of touch with reality AT is with what can quickly be provided, cheaply, but still faster than any bus now or on the new West network to all points West, including Newmarket except for Britomart(though some days trains are still faster than buses to Britomart).
I remember when the bureaucrats said Onehunga rail would ‘never’ happen, or put it into the “30 year plan”. Public action, petitions, public meetings and the like changes everything. In the case of Huapai rail we are talking a pitance of around $1.5 p.a.Opex and nothing like the capex of $20 million + electrification costs for the Onehunga line.
Edited: This blog is not here for you to promote yourselves. Please find your own place for that.
Can you guys not read. I’m not offering a guest post, I was offering to write about it myself looking at the actual facts, not the made up stuff that has been said so far.
Good work Matt! I enjoy this blog for its independent non-political viewpoint.
I noticed that the West and Waiuku routes are both prefixed with W, as an integrated network I don’t see this as very clever.
I’m expecting that there won’t be much confusion, but in the cases it does, I’m sure it will be very frustrating. The cases I can think of are those who don’t use PT in Auckland much, or those that don’t live in the region, Emergency Response dispatchers for example.
Should the P designation be extended to cover Waikuku?
I think just have N/S/W/E/C (with links the same CTY/INN/OUT) and cover all incl pukekohe and hibiscus coast with those too. Only issue that remains is the N prefix also being used for niterider. Perhaps they can just use NN1, SN1, WN1, WN2 etc aka SN1 would be “South Niterider Route1”
I think drop the letter prefixes altogether and just run with route numbers. Much simpler. 1-2 digits for frequent services and 3 digits for secondary or tertiary. Maybe a s and p prefix for school and peak services. Done and dusted.
It is noted on the diagram that route numbering indicated is for planning purposes only. I assume operational numbering is still to be announced.
So I’m not going to call this a sham but I think Page 14 of the West Auckland shows a gaping problem with the process. The fact that the Rodney Local Board for instance didn’t have a submission into the process is disgusting considering in the draft LBP they spent a good few pages focusing on transport… (ironically, now missing from the final LBP except for advocacy for cycling initiatives). I suspect there is another missing Local Board too, but can’t remember the boundaries.
Also the lack of submissions from R/R & Business Associations out far west is also of concern, and I doubt they don’t know the process because they seem to be able to find the way to contact the Local Board okay.
Also curious: NZ Bus submits, but Ritchies which is a major player out West and spent (who knows) on a new Swanson depot don’t submit – are they keeping noses out happy with what was proposed, or are they planning something else?
Nigel, you are aware of the sheer scale of the area the local board is expected to cover right? 47% of the regions area.
With interest groups from Te Hana to South Head to Kumeu to Warkworth and all places in between. They have absolutely no chance.
Tony, given that 4/9 seats are for the Kumeu/Helensville/etc ‘ward’ of the Local Board, and that in their Local Board Plan drafts had proposing advocacy for public transport (pretty sure I didn’t see anything about that was going to be removed in final), and the Local Board plans labeled Kumeu/Huapai + Helensville as towns to focus on (as well as Warkworth & Wellsford), and a submission from the RLB wouldn’t have been that tedious considering the scope of changes in the area. I think I’m perfectly right to say that it’s disgusting and call out a Local Board for not submitting. They are after all, apart from the Councillor (which I would agree with ‘over stretched’ in her case), the main body of people that are meant to represent and input to the council local views.
Submissions out West have been a waste of time. People are tired of submitting to processes that are a forgone conclusion. For those in rural we now have no PT, no berms mowed, no sewerage, and no community facilities. Remind me again why we pay rates?
Heartening to see so much support for nw busway. Interesting to see how much additional opex is required simply due to absence of interchanges.
It would be good to hear exactly how the Rodney Local Board is delivering on its stated goal of “advocacy for public transport”. The board’s main submission to the LTP was for $10 million a year, for 10 years, to seal rural roads. Also mentioned a Park n Ride in Kumeu. (There was one but AT took the sign down). Before There’s a need for a Park n Ride in Kumeu, there needs to be more peak buses in which the park n riders would travel.
“Extending rail services past Swanson was outside the scope of this consultation and is not currently being investigated”
And yet removal of Waitakere trains was clearly stated as being a component of the New Network, on New Network public feedback documents, which is why a number of submissions were about it. So if not this consultation, then what? When will the public be consulted? Answer: The decision to remove Waitakere trains and drop Huapai trains from planning was made in the absence of any public consultation.
All history now though, and at the Monday night public meeting about getting trains to Huapai, the Auckland Transport representative made three important points:
1) He likes the idea of the proposal.
2) He agreed the consultancy report that dropped rail needs to be replaced by a new review, as it did not take into account the SHA’s.
3) He encouraged people to make submissions on the matter whereever possible.
A submission to Auckland Council on Wednesday about Huapai rail was also well received.
Geoff, there is no “consultancy report that dropped rail”. Consultants don’t make decisions and certainly don’t have the power to drop anything. Consultants conduct analysis and provide advice to those that do make decisions, but it’s not their call to make.
Apart from that your point 2 is very good. It’s a key point: things change, situations change, context changes… and plans change as a result.
You can’t always rely on a three year old evaluation if things change, just like you can’t expect the ideas in a 9 year old strategy paper to all be relevant a decade later.
Fair point, yes it was ultimately AT’s decision.
Buses may well be quicker at peak times (only) than rail from the West, but train from Huapai would be much quicker than bus to the key western employment, commercial and educational points (Henderson, New Lynn, Newmarket in particular). It’s no wonder Waitakere patronage is not growing – when there are delays on the Western Line they cancel services at Henderson or Swanson to make up time, ditching passengers, and then report high performance on trip reliability and punctuality. Given the delays in even the NW bus interchanges, the limits to even bush shoulder lanes, and the mirage that is a dedicated busway (much as we all might like it), rail, using existing infrastructure is a prudent option
Pity ARTA, ARC and WCC didn’t ask for a NW busway. They expected everyone to bus to Henderson. NZTA are building what they were asked for.
What about some employment and economic development out West. That could save some travelling.
There is a lot planned, 10,000 new jobs around Westgate apparently:
http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/EN/planspoliciesprojects/CouncilProjects/northwesttransformation/Pages/home.aspx
Joseph, looking at the Unitary Plan we see the main area of intensification taking place in western suburbs, and when you look at images like this – http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/newlynn-artist-impression-lrge.gif – of what places like New Lynn could become, a new dynamic of Auckland starts to appear. It’s all about the west, and I predict 50 years from now Auckland’s business and employment centres, with nodes of large scale office and apartment buildings, will exist in a chain from the CBD to Henderson. The Western Connector will link them all with the fast growing Northwest, in a manner that a SH16 busway just cannot do. They are two very different catchments, each serving a quite different purpose.
50years?!. I’m not worried about New Lynn (you only have to go to the New World to see the expensive products and rich white people on their journey to Titriangi and the coast) nor Hobsonville Point (replete with amenities and promised mixed house and jobs) what I’m worried is the growing swathe of poverty in between those two spots that has had bugger all planning , money or consideration. And the increasing gap between rich and poor enabled by the Council’s spending. I’d like to see a finer grain with each community having it’s needs considered (walkable, jobs, transport, tidy townships, mixed typology). There’s new international film work for the West but it seems that will be leaving Henderson (who have invested long term in that industry) and going NW, as the Council “have an obligation to provide jobs for the new development”. My question is what obligation to the old developments?
When the new redeveloped Westgate comes online, I think you will see a refocusing of attention of people from kemeu, huapai and waimauku to westgate away from Henderson. so any new transport initiatives needs to take account of this change.
P.S Matt L, we’d be happy to do a blog 🙂
No no I mean I will write about it if you want me to. Just let me know.
Matt, were you at the meeting? I think a guest post by Christine would be great!
Dissapointed to see the 070 service still getting axed,
For me that doubles the distance (700m to 1400m) from a direct city bus route.
Currently my commuting is split between cycling, bus and driving, will be driving instead of bus instead as a result of these changes 🙁
1.4km is a very short ride to get a direct Transit seat.