An item for the Auckland Transport board meeting the other day covered off the feedback to the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) that was submitted on alongside the councils Long Term Plan. I intend to cover more deeply the report in the coming days but for this post wanted to highlight just one specific part of it right at the end – and an aspect we’ve long been critical of. How AT communicates its plans to the general public.
Having read through thousands of submissions and attended dozens of Have Your Say events, it is apparent to the team that many of the people making submissions and/or attending Have Your Say Events are significantly misinformed about transport or have good information but still have a particular perspective and have expressed their particular view. This level of misinformation has clouded many of the comments people have made in person and in written submissions. The following are examples of some of the things people believe:
- Public transport is not subsidised at all
- Central Government contributes nothing towards transport in Auckland
- Fare evasion is widespread on the train network
- The train network is dangerous to personal safety
- It’s cheaper to travel by car than public transport
- That AT has no idea what the community needs are around public transport
- AT is a huge bloated bureaucracy that does nothing
- AT should be able to do much more with only rate of inflation rises in funding
- AT funding focused primarily on roads, cars and fixing road congestion
- Newmarket could be major transport hub and would mean City Rail Link is not needed
It is clear that, in many cases, submitters have not accessed readily available information in preparing submissions. Nevertheless AT, AC, the Transport Agency and KiwiRail have a responsibility to provide informed debate. This includes the effective use of intermediaries and specialist groups like the AA. The Transport Blog and Generation Zero, for example, appear to be able to generate, very quickly, a huge amount of debate using their websites.
Recommendation
- That AT and the Transport Agency consider how they can improve the communication of their services
I think there will always be a (sizeable) element of the population that isn’t aware of what’s happening with transport and who will never have any interest in finding out. Having said that I also think AT and other transport agencies could do a much better job at explaining the plans, priorities and projects.
Public Transport and the CRL in particular is the best example of this failing. We still see frequent comments from the wider public with such clangers as that the CRL is just about the CBD, that the CBD isn’t big enough, that rail is old technology, that that buses can do the same job but for cheaper, that focus should be on a different part of the region – i.e. rail to the shore – and many others.
It seems to me that one of the key issues is that in many cases AT and other agencies simply don’t want to talk about what’s happening. They see releasing information as a risk, that they
- might be accused of advocating a political agenda (i.e. for the CRL)
- may raise public expectations about projects that haven’t been studied in depth that may not happen as initially intended or at all
- will face public/media/political criticism if projects well in the future don’t happen exactly when they said they would
Yet by holding back on that information or not making it readably accessible they likely get more of the issues they describe above.
To me it will take AT being much bolder than they have been to date if they want to better inform the public. It will mean releasing more or at least bringing to the surface more information and better showing what their plans are. As an example by using something like the Congestion Free Network it provides a high level vision of how PT should develop in the city. Then when it comes to implementation AT could talk much more about how that project enables the overall vision and show the before and after impact on the transport network.
I look forward to seeing what new ideas AT come up with for communicating better to the public and if they want some then I’ve got a few ideas that could implement.
Processing...
Sorry but for the fare evasion one, it is widespread, maybe not for people travelling to or from gated stations (most common) but for many going between suburbs especially youth, I see it frequently.
I even have a colleage at work that brags about never paying when commuting to work between henderson and mount eden.
AT initially communicated this with inspectors kicking off evaders in front of us every few stations and their “fare evasion, its ugly” signage.
Their biggest problem with trying to reduce the incidence of fare evasion is that AT are limited in their responses- basically kick people off the train and try and fine them.
The government needs to provide a mechanism through legislation for the ability to fine people (and it should be a reasonable amount- maybe $100), but it doesn’t seem to be a priority.
The Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Act 2015, passed in March 2015 ,gives AT the ability to issue infringment notices for “a failure to pay a public transport service fare:”.,
in a similar way to what it does with cars in bus lanes, under the transport Act 1998
This allows an infringement notice to served
(b) by delivering it, or a copy of it, personally to the person who appears to have committed the infringement offence; or
All they need now is the regulations to specifiy an infringment and its approriate fine, ( which can be done by the ministry without recourse to parliament)
The wheels of power turn slowly but they do turn
Thanks for the update, that is good to hear.
How does an AT representative demand identifying particulars (name, address date of birth) of that person who is fare evading? Cleary ID would need to be sighted, what say they have none, what say they give false details? This legislation appears all bark and no bite, its unenforceable in any practical sense. And I agree with Peter N, the evasion issue is far worse than official statistics claim but to admit that would concede the honesty system is a failure and they were better off with on board ticket sales. AT card and cash sales works fine on the buses but its hopeless for the trains..
With Maori wardens providing security at stations it would make sense to have them also check tickets when boarding?
And on buses in various ways.
Fare evasion not only causes revenue loss, but delays trains when an inspector tries to kick the youths off the train. I doubt fines would improve things much as these kids would not pay the fine.
In London it’s cash on the spot or you can be detained. A similar system could work here.
Perhaps it could work here but it does require that train staff cultivate a more intimidating, hard-case attitude and behaviour if they are to make any impression on recalcitrant, fare-dodging youths. Especially if said youths are in groups and have had a few drinks.
I like the more easy going style of our train staff compared with what I have observed in Australia or the UK, for example, and it would be a pity if it had to change
You’d need a transit police force to detain people. I wouldn’t expect train operating staff to do that.
If AT aren’t going to do enough about it, maybe fare-paying customers should take it on themselves to put more pressure on those who they can clearly see are evading. Even to the extent of barring them physically from boarding. Might do a bit to facilitate “cultural change”.
Of course the obvious answer is just gates at every station – costly due to legacy issues but necessary in the long run.
I think most people can be forgiven for thinking AT is a bloated bureaucracy that doesn’t do anything. Well other than pay consultants and contractors to do stuff.
Agreed – apart from parking wardens that is lol. They seem to do a lot.
“It’s cheaper to travel by car than public transport”
Depends. Some sources proudly proclaim they have calculated a cost per km for driving a car. And then they talk how you have to include eg. registration.
Registration is a fixed cost, $280.55 per year. You can get a cost per km if you divide this cost per year by the km you drive per year. So since the average car drives 14000km per year, registration costs $0.02 per km.
Wrong. You’re not paying an extra dollar for registration if you drive an extra 50km.
And the statements like “For the smallest petrol cars, depreciation started at about 23c a kilometre.”, which for our 14000km per year equals $3220. There’s plenty of people on the roads who paid less than that for their car. But they probably pay more for maintenance.
Also keep in mind that often some double-digit percentage of your land and building area is devoted to parking. So maybe we should add that percentage of the rent/mortgage to the cost of owning a car. But not to the cost of driving an extra km.
So it’s complicated. If someone just gives you a $/km figure, it’s almost certainly wrong.
I always thought that if you’re alone then it’s cheaper to take PT, but for a couple or a family it’s cheaper to drive.
Some of those figures are a little off – the average car does 12,000 km in a year, as per page 9 of
http://www.transport.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Research/Documents/New-Zealand-Vehicle-fleet-stats-final-2013.pdf. But yes, you’re right that the per-km costs of driving can be overstated, and the fixed costs vs the variable costs are quite different. This is why we’re excited about the potential for car ownership to reduce somewhat; it eliminates the fixed costs too, and people can save quite a lot of money.
I took a look at this issue a while back: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2014/11/13/can-public-transport-save-households-money/
Basically, PT _can_ save people a fair amount of money, but only if:
* They would otherwise have to pay for parking
* They are willing/able to downsize on car ownership – i.e. go from a two-car household to a one-car household.
I encountered several challenges when trying to calculate a per-annum cost for vehicle ownership. First, the most widely cited source, the AA’s annual running cost report, only provides data for new cars. Second, vehicles clearly don’t depreciate in a linear fashion. So yeah, the estimate of $3000+ in annual depreciation expenses is probably way too high for most people.
If only AT had some sort of way to communicate information to people, hmmm.
I did a google search for Auckland Transport blog, and the top result was http://www.transportblog.co.nz
Tell them they need to hire you, Matt!
Where the Newmarket idea could have come from is really puzzling. Do they think bigger stations equal more capacity? AT needs to focus on communicating the idea of network completion and the corresponding boost in capacity for all lines as a result.
Off topic but why is the Takapuna Metro centre missing from that diagram?
Because it is a transit map with nodes represented, and AT do not plan to do any high quality transit projects to Takapuna?
But they plan to make Takapuna a high density metro centre?
without connecting it to the RTN?
Ludicrous isn’t it. Note that Botany also isn’t on there.
Speaking of communication. When I first starting reading this blog, I was overwhelmed by acronyms (had to often and still do, Google the many used here)! I would suggest a special page with common key of public transport acronyms, would make this site more accessible to the casual reader. eg PT, AT, CRL, EMU etc etc.
Good call Grant… we should see if we can do that. Also, I’ve seen some websites where abbreviations are automatically shown in a different colour and when you hover the mouse pointer over it it shows what it stands for. Maybe we can set that up.
Sounds good, yes especially the hover idea is good 🙂
I propose a No Acronym Policy, to be referred to hereafter as NAP.
Does it matter if people don’t understand transport issues? Does it matter if people don’t like the Council or it’s evil siblings like AT? I hope they don’t go spending a fortune or informing us of how ‘great’ they really are.
It matters if they then go ahead and express opinions based on incorrect or no information.
It matters if they lobby politicians to make decisions on transport based on those incorrect opinions.
I dont think the politicians get top make any decisions anymore. Some appointed board does that. Just like the port, the politicians dont carry any weight. That is the whole problem with single purpose agencies, no one can control them. In my view the worse their rep is the better so that eventually their function can be put under Council control again. And as for the waterfront and ATeed I think it would be better if they were told they were not required any more.
“Does it matter if people don’t understand transport issues? Does it matter if people don’t like the Council or it’s(sic) evil siblings like AT? I hope they don’t go spending a fortune or informing us of(sic) how ‘great’ they really are.”
Agreed we don’t want a great P.R. machine but yes, it is important that the public (who pay for A.T.) are kept informed.
Democracy must be built through open societies that share information. When there is information, there is enlightenment. When there is debate, there are solutions. When there is no sharing of power, no rule of law, no accountability, there is abuse, corruption, subjugation and indignation.
Atifete Jahjaga
They dont want us to be informed. They want us to like them and leave them alone. I say it is actually better if people hate them. At least that way they know people are watching.
A fundamental principle in effective communication is, “Show, Don’t Tell”.
If Auckland Transport finds that the public appears misinformed, it may be wise not to jump to the conclusion that beating us over the head with more broadcast messaging is the answer.
A better alternative could be to acknowledge that subtle design cues, user experience, and everyday interactions are also messaging channels for the organisation and its values.
For example, if the public is under the impression that “AT funding focused primarily on roads, cars and fixing road congestion”, then it may be that running tangibly frequent and reliable public transit services will shift that opinion. Likewise, if meaningful, human-scale grids of bike-enabled streets were rolled out with local approval. On the other side of the ledger, projects like Mill Rd and the Reeves Rd flyover may need to be decsively cut. Simple things like this speak the loudest.
Of course, in order to have your work speak for itself, you need to actually do the work. No PR bridge over a communication gap can help if you don’t.
Half the things in the “some things people believe” list are true!
Fare evasion is widespread on the network. PT, especially trains are dangerous at night. For some people travelling by car is cheaper than PT (or the only option). AT does have no idea what community needs are regarding PT and is a bloated bureaucracy.
It just shows how out of touch AT is as an organisation.
Part of the problem is the inability of AT to prioritise projects. How can the public be expected to be up with the play on all the projects AT has on the go or in the pipeline? A list on here a wek or so of city centre projects on the go spanned 3 columns.
Tosh. Facts / data to back that up please.
FYI, just got off the last train and felt entirely safe all the way. Experience suggests you’re out of touch with reality.
Connecting vision and implementation. There’s a radical idea for Auckland.
Seriously, this problem needs attention and good on Matt for continuing to draw attention to it. Whether it is AT or AC, public bodies seem to be dangerously out of touch with how to engage meaningfully. Lots of the comments above are interesting, but this issue is not about details. AT needs to get a decent strategy and method in place for engagement if it’s not to be ridiculed and denigrated for the foreseeable future. Good to see this is literally making the agenda finally.
Speaking of AT
“Automobile Association spokesman Barney Irvine said the council needed a plan to deliver improvements and congestion relief and then look at how to fund it, not the other way round.” (Herald)
The AA speaks sense.