At the Infrastructure Committee two weeks ago not only was there an update on AT’s light rail plans but also on the status of the New Network and Integrated Fares including some maps of what is proposed.
New Network
On the New Network there is the rough timeline of when we’ll see the next steps in the process.
2013, 2014 – consultations completed
- South Auckland, Green Bay/Titirangi, Hibiscus Coast, Pukekohe/Waiuku, West Auckland
2015 – Consultation dates
- North Shore Consultation – June to July 2015
- East and Isthmus – Combined Consultation – September to November 2015
- Waiheke Consultation – to be decided
2015 – Implementation of Hibiscus Coast
2016 – Implementation of South, Pukekohe/Waiuku, West
2017 – Implementation of North, East and Central
There are also some low quality images of what is proposed for the North Shore and Isthmus/East consultations.
North Shore
Other than the busway it suggests there are four services which will meet the frequent definition of a bus at least every 15 minutes, 7am to 7pm, 7 days a week as well as a number of other services running at lower frequencies. For me personally I quite like that the services that serve Takapuna appear to be greatly simplified which should make it much easier for non-regular users to work out which bus to catch. Currently Takapuna is served by a handful of buses that pass through Takapuna on their way to other locations such as the East Coast Bays (and they tend to be well patronised throughout the day).
The presence of the busway also makes it much easier to develop a connected network on the eastern side of the North Shore which sees most services feed in to the busway stations. The same can’t be said for the western side which looks much like it does today with almost all routes feeding to the CBD. This makes it difficult for someone on the western side of the North Shore to reach the eastern beaches or north to Albany. Given Birkenhead Transport’s previous aversion to changes it seems like AT are still caving in to this patch protection effort. It is something that we will need to submit on when it consultation opens because it really weakens the new network in this part of the city. Of course this wouldn’t be so bad had the original busway plans of a having a station around Onewa Rd had happened but that was dropped after strong opposition from the Northcote Residents Association. Such a station would have allowed people using the buses that feed into Onewa Rd to the frequent Northern Express or Takapuna buses.
There’s also a slide suggesting that AT are thinking about how the buses that access the city centre will be dealt with. The two options are shown below with my preference being the second one which would be simpler while still enabling easy and frequent transfers to services covering Ponsonby Rd and Karangahape Rd from the proposed Victoria Park station.
Central Auckland
This is where the new network will be at is strongest with the highest number of frequent routes including a number of frequent cross town routes. There also appears to have some changes to a few of the cross town routes compared to the current network schematic shown on AT’s website. As an example the frequent route along St Lukes Rd/Balmoral Rd/Greenlane West now carrying on to Orakei Rd and Kepa Rd and Glen Innes instead of terminating at Ellerslie. It seems like a good change. It also highlights how good Mt Albert is for Transit, it’s served by the western line, New North Rd buses, the remnants of the outer link and two cross town frequent lines – an ideal place for some intensification.
Of course I’m sure AT will also need to show at the time how light rail would fit in this mix, particularly as it seems like the tracks will remain north of SH20 so there will need to be an explanation of what happens south of that.
East Auckland
I think it’s worth remembering the southern part of the network looks a bit bare due to that part having been consulted on as part of the South Auckland Network e.g. there’s a frequent route linking Botany, Otara, Papatoetoe and Mangere. I also thought there would be a stronger connection between Botany and Manukau along Ti Iriangi Dr considering it’s meant to be a future Rapid Transit route – although again worth noting there’s also a non-frequent service connecting the two via Harris Rd/Springs Rd/Preston Rd.
Integrated Fares
Moving on to Integrated Fares it’s noted that in October the AT board approved the business case for Integrated Fares which will see us move to a Zonal based fare system. All up there are 14 different zones although only seven in the main urban area (eight if you include the Hibiscus Coast). However the second slide on fares suggests there will only be 5 zone fares which suggests there will be a maximum cap (not many would likely go over that anyway i.e. how many people are travelling from the Silverdale to south of Manukau on PT on a regular basis.
While I do think the map is an improvement on what we’ve seen before I still think there will be some major issues around the zonal boundaries, even where they overlap as the overlap seems to be fairly small. As an example someone going from Fruitvale to Avondale on the train pays the same price as someone from New Lynn all the way to the city centre. This is something that using distance based fares would have addressed.
The big winners in all of this will be those that make cross town trips like those in the green arrows below or across the isthmus e.g. from Mt Albert to Sylvia Park. Obviously a key feature is that there is no penalty for transferring however I wonder if there are any trips where the fastest option involved more than 3 legs.
For the next steps in rolling out integrated fares we should hear more detail next month. I like that they are talking about family and ferry passes although on the latter I suspect they’re still unlikely to include ferry trips in the monthly/daily passes also eligible for buses and trains. This is likely in part due to the key ferry routes of Devonport and Waiheke being enshrined in legislation as outside of AT’s control.
To implement this and some of the other changes like Light Rail at also note that they need to update the Regional Public Transport Plan (RPTP) which was formally adopted in September 2013 and that should also happen this year. This likely won’t be a full new RPTP but just a refresh of the current one.
Processing...
Anything about off peak discounts?
I noticed the 7am-7pm 15 min frequency mentioned on the rail lines but will the 30 min frequencies outside of these times run later into the night than 10.30pm (Mon-Thurs), many evening workers need to get home between 10.30pm and 12am but are forced to use buses which are much slower and not to mention many of which are due to cease with the new bus network and require connection from rail. Also as frequencies are the same 7-days a week; will this mean that the timetables will be the same times in the weekend as weekdays (do-able since the frequency is the same on weekends), if so that would be great, no having to check the completely different timetable in the weekends.
Hope we can see some higher quality images of those consultations soon, a bit hard to make some of it out. 😛
There’s some promising ideas going into this by the look of this. I especially like the introduction of equitable fares, so that people who are equidistant from the CBD pay nearly equivalent fares – the current system has been painfully and expensively unfair for Shore-based public transport users. Ferry, family and off-peak passes are also long overdue and very welcome.
Wonder why the slippage on introduction though? I thought the previous date of end of 2015 was leisurely enough!
The zones seem very CBD centric – designed and optimised for those who travel to the CBD. Is that short sighted or myopic?
The number of services to or through the City Centre is neither shortsighted nor myopic [same thing btw], as that’s where by far the most demand is. I know some out there love to believe Auckland doesn’t have a strong centre, or perhaps one at all, but that is frankly bollocks. Not only is it by far the biggest destination and source of all PT modes of travel its importance as a both the centre of employment and a centre of residence is growing strongly. Without this strong centre it would be all but impossible to maintain the level of service at the other ends of these journeys. On the whole the middle and the edges get as good a level of service as the centre demands. However these changes do see the introduction or expansion of more cross town routes which are good, but even these operate to some degree within the pull of the centre as they provide feeder services to Rapid Transit Network, which serves the strong Central market.
Don’t believe the suburbanists’ hype: Auckland is no centre-less collection of villages.
Additionally the fare changes lower intra suburb travel and penalise Centre City trips [see comment below]… looks more like AT are incentivising people to stay away form the city.
The simple truth is that most people don’t go to the city centre but this zone system assumes they do just because the buses do. WTF? Looking at the map you could travel from Hobsonville to Titirangi as one zone. But just getting from Greenhithe to Glenfield two zones. Who was the halfwit who did that? As you know I won’t be using the bus any time soon but my kids might. Guess I will just have to buy them cars.
Just not true; the Centre is the biggest destination/ departure point. Many services busting at the seams, leaving passengers behind. Perhaps try to do more than just generalise your own prejudices.
I dont follow your logic. I said most people dont go there. How does the CBD being the biggest of many prove I am wrong? I will accept I am wrong if you have numbers showing more than 50% do but I am pretty sure you dont have that because they dont.
Actually it’s more like the opposite. Those traveling to the city centre will pay about the same as they do now but this traveling across town week generally pay much less.
Is the purpose of the City Zone to discourage people who live in that zone from catching public transport?
It seems residents of every other zone can travel at least 10km for the one zone price, but as a City Zone resident I have to pay two zones to travel to most places. Will the City Zone fare be less because the size of the zone is so much smaller?
Won’t having the City Zone encourage people to drive to the City Zone boundary, then park and ride (kind of like what people do with The Link at the moment).
I’d prefer either the City Zone be merged into the Isthmus zone, or the cost of the City Zone be roughly 1/3 the cost of other zones as it appears to be roughly 1/3 the size of the next larger zone.
See my answer above, the Centre does get lavish service as that’s where the demand is, those using it need to pay for that. But also because of the higher density of amenity and habitation as many things and people can be reached in a smaller area in the heart of the city than further out; so it’s not really less equal. Zone systems do need thresholds to work and they will be tighter around high demand point.
The biggest cost (in terms of congestion) occurs in the city, so those travelling to or from the city need to pay more (hence the small zone).
In London, zone 1 (city centre) is by far the most expensive zone – if you don’t need to travel to or through the city you pay significantly less.
in Auckland you can’t get around the city centre. All trains and most buses go to the centre. All buses from the North Shore go to the centre.
So how come we don’t charge people driving cars (the things that actually cause the congestion) more to drive to the CBD? Instead we charge people travelling by PT, along with cycling the one thing that doesn’t create congestion, more to travel there.
I am not saying the PT fares are wrong. BUt once again we are charging the wrong people – the ones making the decisions that will solve the problem.
I hope they are going to include bikeparking in this new Victoria Park Transfer Point / Station. The pavement can get quite clogged up with parked bikes in summer.
On the East Auckland bus routes I thought they might of had a bus from Botany to Manukau City Centre via Te Irirangi Drive to the Airport and back again every 15 minutes. Might put that in a submission and see where it goes after some luck with the South Auckland consultation earlier on.
As for the Zonal Fares, heh it seems rather familiar with this: https://voakl.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/rptp-zones-proposal-with-fares.png although I see instead of a East Auckland Zone they divided the South Auckland Zone into two. That would make Papakura to say Papatoetoe more expensive than Howick to the Airport…..
Ah well the boundaries as you said might alter.
Thing is South Auckland benefited from being first. I suspect they’re running out of spare resource to put on the extra services people want.
I suspect that as well Matt. No biggie on the Te Irirangi service just yet as what AT have put there now is pretty good.
Still I might submit for that Te Irirangi service but not now, rather instead say 2018 or 2020.
Ben there will always be threshold effects in a zone system, the really extraordinary thing about Auckland is how well suited the natural geography is to breaking it into these logical parts that largely avoid the more egregious disparities like your example; rather well spaced and placed water barriers.
Granted Patrick.
On second look I do quite like what Auckland Transport have proposed even for the South with the split border at Manukau.
Credit due where credit is due and Auckland Transport have done very well in my opinion with the zones.
Now then just get that Family Pass back for all modes and we are all sweet 😀
…..and peak and off-peak price spilt.
Okay okay sure.
You can have that and me my Family Pass after three years in keeping the Rail version of it live
The integrated fare system is far better than distance based fares, and it is far better than what we have now.
The big question will be pricing. If the fares are large, say $3 per zone, then this will discourage commuters, worsen non-commuting of public transport and make it harder to create a sustainable system and a sustainable and liveable city. If they are reasonable, say $2 per zone, then this might be a success.
The transition zones are far too small and infrequent. Other cities such as Melbourne have large and well understood transition zones which make local trips across borders reasonable. That these are almost non-existent is quite unfortunate. The areas surrounding New Lynn, Pamnure, Whenuapai, and Otahuhu should all have been included.
It is also disappointing that something that has been in place for decades in many other places is taking until 2017 to be implemented here (2017 in theory – I wonder if it won’t be 2018 or 2019 before it actually rolls out), but I’m glad it’s happening.
Mid 2016 launch for integrated fares. New networks implemented in 2016/2017.
We have nine months left in the year, what is stopping AT from having everything working from the beginning of 2016?
Democracy is one thing holding it up. AT haven’t even started the consultation on most of the new network. How can it be implemented for start of 2016 when we don’t yet know what to implement?
According to the report, the consultations for new networks will be completed this year, and there are a number that were already completed in 2013/2014. What exactly does the transfer to a new network involve? I don’t imagine the changes in infrastructure are that great that we need to wait until 2016/2017.
“It also highlights how good Mt Albert is for Transit, it’s served by the western line, New North Rd buses, the remnants of the outer link and two cross town frequent lines – an ideal place for some intensification.”
Not unless there’s some major change to the current zoning rules. Flanked by the typically ugly rear of the shops, the architecturally pompous railway station looks like an egregious(tks Patrick) waste of money.
No-one is going to invest in that town centre until there is a viable local consumer base.
Well the station is to connect to the profoundly poorly used little carpark and thence the shops, all of which require bulldozing and replacing with the proper town centre typology of street level retail with as many levels of apartments and offices as the plans allow [ie not enough], and hey presto, a vibrant and economically sustainable centre. And one extremely well served by Transit. Will ignore your strange ideas about not spending on stations: There’s nothing lavish there, that’s as about as functional as you can get.
I noticed “short trips” are to see a price increase? But what about those who use transit to get a very short distance like between 1 or 2 stops, like when the weather is bad or the person is less mobile, the price is already crazy $1.70 to go around the corner? Surely they can introduce a lower fare for very short trips, like $0.50 when the journey is both less than 5 mins AND less than 3 stops or something along those lines…
That’s where the magic of attractively priced monthly passes come into play. If the monthly pass is about the same price as your regular commuting fares, then additional short trips are essentially “free”. (I see a lot of people using the bus to get from the bottom of College Hill to the top, so those passengers don’t seem to be deterred).
Well yeah that’s great, but that doesn’t work for everyone though, as monthly passes are not relevant to everyone.
The magic comes in when you get automatic capped rates (daily/weekly/monthly) then you use the services as normal but at some defined trigger point you’ll know you will no longer pay for those additional trips for that day/week/month).
So you get automatic “monthly” or whatever passes – by just using the system – and no need to pre-purchase a pass.
But to get those capabilities you need the integrated fares and required zones in place first.
Anything else after that is an adjustment to the existing system.
Off-peak and capped rates! To do this would be huge. And awesome.
The problem with capped rates is people like me who don’t use PT to get to work end up paying more for an off peak journey than capped users do for a peak journey. Off peak journeys should be cheaper than peak regardless of whether you use the system to get to work and back.
I personally think they should get rid of all caps and make off peak much cheaper (maybe half price). Why give anyone a free trip? If they do have to have caps, why not weekly instead of monthly? Or even daily?
I mentioned capped daily rates as well as off peak. Capped daily rates for more than just commuters. Families, weekends etc.
They should introduce ‘2 section fares’, like they have in Adelaide and Perth (and probably elsewhere). In Perth, two-sections is defined as 3.2 kilometres (so 2 miles), which would work well for someone who doesn’t need to pay a huge fare juust to go a few stops down the road.
Will there be daily caps and free trips after how many paid trips in a week like what they have in Sydney for card users. This will encourage people to use hop cards and maybe travel further
Got to be careful with trip based limits or it can lead to gaming the system as it does in Sydney
– I’ve read recently how folks in Sydney will now spend their lunch hours on a Monday/Tuesday taking as many short/cheap trips from their office to any place by PT (bus or train) and back – simply to rack up the “10 trips” a week for as little cash spent as possible. Then they can commute all around Sydney for the rest of the week for free once they hit that 10 trip limit.
Some can rack up 10 trips on Monday lunchtime. Meaning they get 4.5 days of travel for free.
Not what the 10 paid trips a week limit the designers intended I’m sure, and is basically ripping off the system.
I’d say our cap system would be more towards the Melbourne rather than Sydney’s.
The sydney system uses both daily caps and trip caps.
$15 day and four trips per week. There is a 1 hour transfer window, so it might be difficult to get 8 trips in before lunch time monday, although I’m sure someone has figured out how.
With the addition of $2.50 travel on Sundays for those with cards (Opal).
Well the exact same system exists in Christchurch and is much better than the HOP system in Auckland. I have never heard of people taking trips like that in Chch and even if they do, so what?
The point is to encourage people to use PT. If it does that then great.
We should make it so long trips are cheaper than short trips. That will encourage more people to take long-winded indirect routes for their trips, achieving the goal of more PT kilometres travelled.
To a point.
And NOT if doing that (a) crowds out legitimate PT users at that time because everyone is trying to rort the system on a Monday luncthime
and (b) if that means these people travel free the rest of the week then that reduces the farebox recovery on those longer journeys effectively giving them free PT for 6 days out of 7.
And in that case why not just make the PT free all the time if thats what it encourages?
Sydney’s situation is a side-effect of a badly designed system I’m sure but it can (and does) happen if you don’t plan accordingly.
Pure dollar value is a better method. Say $15 per day cap.
Disagree. That would mean someone commuting from Papakura to Britomart would hit the cap just by making a single return trip. But someone who travels around their local area would have to make eight trips in one day before they hit a cap, like they would probably never get a benefit despite being huge users. Not fair.
The cap for a person who stays within one zone should be different to those who use multi-zone.
ie. if your longest journey is 1 zone, then it is 3x the 1 zone fare.
if your longest journey is 2 zone, then it is 3x the 2 zone fare.
if your longest journey is 5 zone, then it is 3x the 5 zone fare.
You might need to tweek the multiple given the 1 zone person is more likely to make more trips and hit the cap (so may a 4x cap) where as a 5 zone person is unlikely to (maybe a 2x cap to allow them to do a few smaller trips during the day for free in they commute to and from work by PT?)
Is there any way to get a clearer view of the routes proposed?
I think they should have given an indicative range for the new fares. Hard to consult when you dont know what you are arguing about. They could have made it clear they weren’t the final ones and were only done to encourage feedback.
‘AT will also need to show at the time how light rail would fit in this mix, particularly as it seems like the tracks will remain north of SH20 so there will need to be an explanation of what happens south of that.’
Matt after some reflection I still think the better solution to the ‘deeper void’ [south of SH20] is the Mt Roskill rail spur as in our CFN, with buses delivering catchment from south of SH20 and LTR feeding to and from the north. Option for bus feeder users to ride either Rail for a faster journey to and through the city, or LRT for more intermediate destinations on Dom, Sandringham, and Mt Eden roads.
This is essentially a question of how to best use the rail designation along SH20, flicking the tail of the Dom Rd LRT to Owairaka is certainly an option, and perhaps this could happen until and unless this just means overfull LR vehicle unable to serve the densities along the routes?
Wants a serious analysis.
Will the prices be reasonable compared to taking your car?
Will the system take commuters where they want to go?
The two options for the CBD routes (for north shore buses) are interesting. Why serves the customer the best.
Provided the frequencies aren’t diferent, option 1 would be best for most, at it will be quicker to get to P & K Road. Those going all the way to Newmarket will probably be best served by option 2 as it would be quicker(?). It will however put a lot more buses into Symond Street (which is already heavily used) and given free transfers, you could easily still take this route with option 1 by transferring at britomart (with a short walk) or university (by crossing the road).
Therefore I favour option 1 as it gives the most options, on the proviso the frequencies on all routes are the same as if option 2 was chosen.
The overkill option would be for the NEX1 to go all the way upto uni (making a loop) and or the NEX2 to continue onto Newmarket as well. Definitely overkill at this stage and probably not needed in the future due to easy transfers and the extra congestion it would cause.
Actually, looking at it again, I assume the dotted line in option 2 will only be peak hours.
surely you can’t have the frequency of option 2, with the coverage of option 1, without significant increase in resources. This is the point of the new network, to trade off point to point coverage to gain greater frequency for the same resources.
True. But the NEX3 route could be a peak only service, running at half frequency (every 10m rather than 5m for the NEX1 and NEX2) which will reduce the amount of buses needing to go through the CBD (reducing the congestion that is expected to occur).
It would also create a good east/est route (though duplicating the Link) for those traveling north on the isthmus routes.
Speaking of duplicating the Inner Link… why not replace the Inner Link? Run Option 1, but extend NEX1 along the Inner Link route up Parnell Road to Newmarket. Then NEX1 and NEX3 form the two main halves of the Inner Link route, and Jervois Road/Ponsonby Road buses serve College Hill, and you don’t need the Inner Link any more.
OK, where is the resource come from? Can we find on website
The key issue with options 1 and 2 is that they do not show how either will link in with the rest of the transport network. Where are the integration points with other bus network, the projected CRL and as mentioned the proposed tram system? Nice to see that it connects to Auckland City Hospital, but what about a connection to GreenLane Clinical Centre, which remains Auckland’s other Hospital.
The Integrated transport -investing in Auckland’s Future slides on the CRL page of AT shows a draft future network. This has some significant routing changes and at least one new route which require some major engineering work, though I suspect a designer does not understand the route as marked. see page 35. It also show an element of duplication which inner west and CRL.
As for the integrated fare system it would be better to remove the cash option and adopt the Paywave system which would save people having to carry an additional card
Paywave on debit cards in NZ is very rare as you have to pay extra for it and not all banks offer it. So you’re forcing people to use credit cards, and not everyone wants to do that or even has one. It works for tranport in london, because your standard EFTPOS type card there is also a VISA or Mastercard/Maestro debit card and so has paywave.
Also, you still need an oyster card for monthly passes, though for weekly and daily passes these aren’t always needed as fare caps do apply as usual when using a bank card.
Haha what? Contactless payment is offered on all major banks visa/mastercard debit cards by default (ANZ, ASB, BNZ, Westpac) only exception being very outdated cards which are mostly expired now and of cause; some of the smaller banks which not many people use. If you talking about a standard debit card, known to most kiwis as an “eftpos card”, then yes none of them have Paywave nor do they have EMV chips. They are easily duplicated (as magstripe only) and not usable online, I don’t know many people that use those except less informed folk who don’t really care or know any better.
Yes im talking about eftpos type card. the ones that most people in nz, your friends excluded, use. In the Uk the standard issue bank card is a visa or maestro chip and pin that has paywave. Most people in Nz do not have such a card, thus negating its use for transport systems.