This morning TV3’s The Nation devoted most of its programme to the issue of Transport in Auckland. It featured a segment looking at transport including comment from Patrick and an interview with Minister of Transport Simon Bridges which was discussed with their panel. I also happened to be on their twitter panel. Here are the videos and some of my thoughts.
First up the piece on transport which I thought covered off most of the issues fairly well.
I was quite pleased they talked to Christine Fletcher, I think she’s been a hero for Auckland and much of the improvements we are seeing today wouldn’t have been possible if she hadn’t pushed so hard to get Britomart built. And of course Britomart has been wildly successful. The graph below shows how many people are using the station compared to was expected in the business case
Next up was the interview with Simon Bridges.
He started out by arguing that the council has cut funding from transport. That’s actually correct if you compare things to what was expected in the previous long term plan however not particularly relevant for a discussion about what we build in the future. When it comes to that future Bridges was far less clear with his position effectively being “let’s have more talk about what the solutions are”. While I agree that some of the projects in the later decades are a bit less clear as to their priority or impact e.g. an Additional Waitemata Harbour Crossing. That doesn’t apply as much to the projects over the coming decade or so though and it would be stupid to not fund improvements now because of one or two potential projects in the plan 20 -30 years away. It’s also quite likely that if those projects don’t go ahead there will be others more important to take their place and also need funding.
Perhaps Bridges also needs to be reminded what projects it is that Aucklanders have said they want the focus to be on.
He probably also needs to read my post from yesterday about the impact of AT’s current programme.
Most importantly, if the government want to continue to talk and not act then I think it’s critical that they have this discussion in the public, not locked away behind closed doors. Right not it seems that they want to dictate what Auckland should do and will override the council on it.
Lastly was the panel discussion. I thought our friend Sudhvir did very well while Matthew Hooton was suggesting that people want sprawl and we should encourage people to commute from Hamilton.
Processing...
Quick question about the Britomart projection graph. Why does the business case projection start in 2011? Presumably they had projections for the earlier years as well.
It was produced in 2001 and only projected 10 and 20 years into the future.
Well Hooten is just flat wrong. Last census the fastest growing residential area in the whole country was the AKL CBD, a place that only offers apartments. A 48.5% rise, and has only accelerated since. This is revealed preference as opposed to simple prejudice.
People are clearly choosing proximity over long commutes. And this matters as the what the next Aucklander prefers is the point not what was preferred last century, or the personal views of commentators.
There is also the issue that there are very few terraces or apartments being built further out but this is more due to our outdated town plans than what people actually want. They’re building terraces at Millwater and they’re being snapped up as quickly as they can be built. Potential for growth of this type of housing in Auckland is tremendous, if our regs allow it. Bring on the UP!
What I found of total ignorance from Hooton was his demand for a plan and that the plan itself didn’t matter (between 215 and 230 in the video). The plan is the most important aspect of it. A plan that simply increases things here and there isn’t going to cut it. It has to be a fully developed and integrated plan that actually addresses the causes of the excessive congestion in Auckland (roads and sprawl).
….but also then disses the Council plan, which is a plan, and a good one within the resources available.
In Hamilton the fastest growing residential area are the suburbs furthest from the centre, the opposite of Auckland.
http://hamiltonurbanblog.co.nz/2015/05/hamiltons-bright-neighbourhoods/
The AA and the minister complained that the plan wouldn’t do enough to combat congestion despite spending billions. Patrick Reynolds pretended there is no solution to congestion. Why is nobody talking about market clearing pricing of transport??
I did no such ‘pretending’. My point, abbreviated by edit, is that ‘solving’ congestion is a false goal, but reducing negative impact of it on economy and lives has to be the aim. In particular building effective complementary networks that bypass road congestion. But also Motorway tolling is road pricing, we also support temporal shifts in PT fares too, time of day pricing is absolutely part in the tool box.
Congestion is only a burden if there are no alternatives; both spatially and temporally.
Great to see the topic getting a decent outing. My thanks to Patrick and Sudhvir for communicating so well.
I could not believe the Congestion Free Network, the only costed plan so far that addresses the heart of the problem, got zero mentions in the clip, interview or panel discussion. How did that happen?
It’s clear Mr Bridges wants roads to those new fringe suburbs included in the package.
He seems to think the rail network and buses are all about getting people into the CBD – and he’s echoing Joyce and Brownlee about focusing on the ‘other 85%’ of people who go across the region for work. The airport rail line does not serve any other suburbs on the way, in his world. Work journeys are all that count. He also made noises about public transport but there was no sign he grasps what that means.
The line about projects needing to be subjected to scrutiny by govt is the same one they used to delay funding the CRL. Imagine another couple of years of highly-politicised Transport Ministry reports and behind closed doors horse-trading, using refusal to allow other funding mechanisms as the trump card. Good on the Council for getting out from under that for the next 3 years at least.
Sorry, that was meant to be a main comment, not a reply. Also noticing the Post button disasppears on my older setup now. Jetpack upgrade?
The constant quoting of Journey to Work figures is so misleading. They make up only 10% of trips made:
Patrick can you link to the source of the data used for those graphs? Very telling if 90% of the Census days trips were not “work” related.
Means that these trips are the “dark matter” of the Auckland Transport Universe.
I believe it is MoT household travel survey extrapolated out across region vs Census journey to work data
Hmmm NZTA ‘facts and figures’ states that ‘Travel to work is the largest travel category and most dependent on driving.’ Seems to be a significant discrepancy here.
Someone at NZTA apparently hasn’t been reading the stats correctly. Have a look at the Household Travel Survey reports at http://www.transport.govt.nz/research/travelsurvey/reportsandfactsheets/, e.g. “Comparing Travel Modes”, Table 8. Trips to work are only 10% of total trips as Patrick stated (12% of driver trips, 6% of other mode trips); of course, most of those people also then make a trip back home so that’s 20% of the total travel dealt with. Travel Survey data says that the largest group of trips made are for “shopping/personal/business/medical” (17%), followed by “accompanying/transporting someone” (e.g. school-run parents, 12%), and “social visits” (11%). Again, many of these will have an accompanying “home” trip as well (remembering that going from A to B and then back to B counts as two “trips”).
I do despair. Why do they give portfolios to Ministers who have no idea what’s actually going on in their portfolio?
I get your point, but you did say there is no way to fix congestion other than by stopping growing a la Detroit
You did note the comment about editing?
10% of trips over a whole day?
Yes and city failure is the only way to have no traffic congestion. New York has congestion, but it is thriving as most people can completely avoid engaging in it but using other means to travel, the Subway, trains, ferries, bikes, and buses.
Where is the 10% from again? Please provide a link or more detailed workings.
Is “congestion” only about cars? I already enjoy very little congestion in Auckland because I go most places by train or bus (in bus lanes or on the busy) at peak hour. I travel all over Auckland in all directions as my job requires me to be in a different place each week. I rarely work in the CBD. Next week, I’m in Silverdale. Last week I was in Papatoetoe. All on public transport.
Patrick R that is rubbish. Actually bringing market clearing prices into transport will solve the congestion problem. We have known the answer to the tragedy of the commons for a long time now.
Sorry MW, that is ideology. But why you so angry? I agree that road pricing is a useful tool. But ‘Solve’ congestion? not by itself, making driving infinitely expensive in the absence of any alternatives will just bankrupt a place, so I suppose you agree with me after all, we can ‘solve’ congestion by simply pricing everyone off the roads.
Auckland is critically unlike London, Stockholm, or Singapore in that it lacks a mature Transit system to enable abundant access without driving. AC and AT are working hard to improve this situation. But until this is seriously upgraded [at least post CRL] a full pricing regime on the roads now would probably be premature, and anyway the government won’t even consider it it appears. In the meantime there is the road-pricing-by-proxy of parking charges. This is a lever that AT can and should use more cleverly. Higher charges, better time of day shifts, more restrictions.
If we were to price roads wouldn’t we want to do it to get the level of traffic that provides the most economic benefit. Pricing so we remove congestion is likely to be less economically efficient than having some level of congestion. Also given the lack of viable alternatives pricing people off the road is likely to mean many people cut out more discretionary trips i.e. travelling to the shops or contributing to communities. That is likely to have much wider ramifications for the economy and society.
I’m not angry, didn’t mean for it to come across that way, apologies for the unnecessary use of the word rubbish.
As JAG correctly pointed out, you only need a small change in behaviour to get very much improved traffic conditions. You might price the marginal 10-20% off the roads in the peak hour. Sure we would need to increase public transport capacity, and that would be possible via buses on the newly free flowing roads (in fact a lot of the increased capacity may come straight from having a more efficient roading network). The costs would not be infinite, there is no evidence for that. Some surveys (such as the one looking at tolls for a new harbour crossing), indicate tolls as low as $5 or $6 might be enough to create relatively free flowing conditions in the peak hour. Far from bankrupting the city, we would save money by avoiding unnecessary infrastructure spend and would have a revenue source for the spending we did want. Not to mention the massive economic benefits of a congestion free road network. If we had a will you could implement it within a few years.
The government might not be keen. They might be – it would meet the ministers criteria i.e. a plan that will work to solve the congestion problem.
Matt L, there is no doubt a sweet spot. I would expect it to be heavy but relatively free flowing conditions. However the goal defined though, it is solving the congestion “problem”, as we are reducing congestion to the point were it is no longer harmful.
I completely agree. Peak smoothing is vital. And can be pursued in many ways. Get the kids bike riding to school again could take series numbers of car trips, or legs of trips out of the equation. And we know how to do that; build the infra.
Time of day pricing on any mode we can, which currently means PT fares, and driving through parking charges and supply. I wd like to see off-peak fares at 50% of peak. Likely to be at least revenue neutral by attracting more users, AKL does have high fares by international standards and we know they are a barrier to some. Lots of available capacity for free off peak, peak bursting demanding expensive to add additional trains and buses.
Parking; private spaces need to be taxed, and HOP cards for employees not taxed….. etc
M’way tolls post CRL, New Network, new fares, and Busways… In a few years, with time of day pricing.
Yes I notice both the AA and Bridges say the plan isn’t reducing congestion despite the fact that the greater proportion having been spent is on roading. Would that suggest that there may be something not working with the existing model or is it easier just to blame the council on the current mess? (just as the government is for housing).
It seems hypocritical of the government to complain that the council is focusing too much on big iconic projects when Simon Bridges is spending 75% of the transport budget on a few massive motorway projects. Bridges also seemed pathologically incapable of articulating what the Council should be doing, except not spending money of the airport rail link. Perhaps Phil Twyford or JAG could quiz the Minister on whether he believes the Council should be building the East-West Link, the Mill Road upgrade, Penlink, the AWHC, the Northewestern Busway, extending the Northern busway, light rail, expanded park and rides. Does he think the Council is spending too much on public transport? Not enough? What does he expect to come from spending more money on arterial roads?
The government has had six long years to make up its mind about these projects, most of which have been on the drawing board for a long, long time.
Current Ministers have no plan for anything. They just plough on blindly in a rut, just ranting at Council and pulling out quick-fix transport bribes only to find out it’s too little too late.
Good to see the media is making space for people with a bit of vision to balance these wimps.
His only example of what the Council shouldn’t do is rail to the airport. This is something it isn’t doing. There is no meaningful sum of money going to this. Gov is spending 140mil on one intersection at the airport. An intersection that is currently functioning just fine.
Sadly Min only working politics and not policy. Like housing issue the government’s focus is on trying to sheet home any blame onto Council while doing nothing new or creative itself. And not engaging, shouting ‘Alignment’ from Wellington is not productive.
Yep. That’s what I’m getting from the noises that National are making. They’re opposing everything that the Auckland Council suggests because of politics and ideology and not because they have valid reasons.
National, “The Cameron Brewer” party for transport & housing policy.
Well said. National is definitely the “do nothing” party. Their only good point is that when they came into power they “did nothing” ie didn’t cancel about Labour’s projects already underway.
Not quite the Do nothing party – after all they have also have “done something” and they called them “RoNS”.
Comparative price and investor demand are also significant factors in CBD apartment increases.
Yes apartments are cheaoer so many people choose ti live in them
The Underground Rail Link MUST START NOW…NOT in a few Months, BUT NOW. Plus Start getting Trains out to Pokeno on a regular Service. Build a new Station out There. Gee the Motor Car travel into inner Auckland, Blow that….I would beat them riding my Bicycle at my normal pace. Team, start today. Come-on Uncle Len you can do it. Also the Big underground diggers working under water-view connection could be used to Start to build an underground rail network under Auckland Harbour to North Shore….Wow wee thats a game changer….Hey Team theres plenty of Projects that need the BIG TICK…..
Happily the Council, through their CCO, AT, are starting the CRL this year, and in earnest i the new year. The gov.? Nope, no funding from them, just more wider motorways.
Maybe I missed it, but what precisely is central Government’s plan? What is its vision?
I understand Bridges reckons the Council’s plan isn’t any good, but what is he and his Government proposing instead — other than vague general statements like “reduce congestion” and “improve public transport”?
No plan from Minister. Or rather the only plan is delay, because of unbending obsession with a paper surplus and ruinously expensive motorway building, means he must try to stop the Council doing anything… let alone execute a coherent plan that is likely to only grow demand for Transit investment.
Yeah he just disagrees with the plan and wants council to go back to the drawing board with no reasoning as to why, beyond his disapproval of airport rail…
Dont forget the SKY PATH CONNECTION…That WILL TRANSFORM The City…Cities around the World are changing their culture towards Electric Bicycles, Cargo Bikes, Every Day Cycling. Ripping out high-way fly overs etc…I certainly would be trying to do something if I had to drive a car in Auckland from the Southern End….I would Train-it, bus-it, bike-it. Obviously work out which is more practical over time/distance. Sydney harbour bridge to North Ryde….
My major gripe is the pricing of public transport — it’s priced relative to single-occupant private vehicle trips made during peak time; against this measure, catching the bus, train or ferry makes a lot of sense.
However, when it comes to public transport trips outside of peak when you’re likely to be traveling in a party of two or more, public transport is ridiculously expensive!
We need off-peak public transport fares yesterday. The absence of this makes its very difficult to ditch owning a car and once you’ve made the capital outlay for a car and paid for all its associated fixed costs (rego, insurance, wof etc) it makes rational sense to use the car whenever you can to spread these sunk costs out over multiple trips and ‘get your money’s worth’. In many instances this will also mean it’s better for people to use their car in peak notwithstanding the fact public transport is well priced. It’s a self-perpetuating cycle.
I’ve heard that off-peak fares are in the pipeline but to my mind these literally could not come soon enough.
Also, I’m going to throw this into the mix as well: why so little support for mopeds, scooters and motorbikes as a key tool?
These are important modes IMO which sit very well between walking/cycling and cars.
True Dave. I looked at TV3 picture of the highway in Auckland this morning…bloody disgraceful…MV’s backed up….NO cycleway attached along side this route which SHOULD be in place. Europe has these. You can use a speedy trike or the likes of the new Electric cycles, Elf etc and zip fast past all those stand still MVs….
My partner and I recently sold our small 1.3L hatchback and bought a 50cc automatic scooter. Between the scooter, walking and cycling we’ve got 95% of our trips covered and while there are some trade-offs (you get wet if it rains, you can’t carry as much stuff from the supermarket, you can’t move a TV…well not easily) the pros greatly outweigh the cons.
The biggest regular trip where we actually needed a car for was the somewhat regular evening visit to my parents’ place on the North Shore for dinner, this being a 50km road trip from our apartment in Eden Terrace. This distance is probably doable on the scooter two-up but not ideal and actually it’s impossible because you can’t do a tiny stretch of the route on a small scoot — you can’t go over the harbour bridge!
For this trip to my parents we use City-Hop’s car sharing scheme which works out only about $6 more for the two of us than the equivalent trip on the Northern Express (which would also require having to be picked up from the Albany bus station as there is no bus service for the last 7km stretch to my parents’ house). We’d use the bus option if we were able to take our bicycles on the bus but again, that’s not possible and is another prime example of a hole in our transport system — if we were able to better integrate cycling with public transport we’d extend the usable “range” of many existing public transport services a great deal.
While on this similar point of simple cost-effective solutions we could implement quickly, why aren’t motorcycles allowed to use the Northern Expressway? Apparently it’s too dangerous to share the space with the buses but this makes little sense when it’s apparently safe enough for bicycles (which are even more vulnerable and do no faster than 30kph really) to share bus lanes with massive buses! So at the moment, people commuting during peak along the motorway on motorbikes or bigger scooters have to “lane-split” between the cars that are sitting bumper to bumper with their single-occupant drivers taking up lots of space. Another option is allowing motorcycles to use the hard shoulder on the motorway during peak times which would cost nothing — something that’s currently illegal.
Ah, so many possible solutions already exist but no one’s willing to back them.
Cycles can’t use the northern busway
There is no such thing as the Northern Expressway. There is a Northern Busway, and there is a bus route called the Northern Express that is one of the buses that use the Northern Busway.
I am not just being picky. I have seen people quoting the Northern Express numbers to represent the Northern Busway numbers, but I feel this is only about 1/3 of the Northern Busway numbers at peak times.
What is your projection for the numbers of Sky path users? And how does this compare with the number of Northern Express users?
NEX users are about 2.75m a year according to: http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/our-analysis/transport-statistics/public-transport-patronage/bus-patronage/ on target to get to 3m this year sometime.
Skypath will beat that number in year 1.
SkyPath users will be limited in number allowed on it at any one time.
I think the Skypath application suggested this would limited to about 1200 or so users at any one time on the structure due to weight limits imposed by NZTA. So there is a maximum number who can cross Skypath a day.
if we assume each SkyPath user take 30 minutes to cross whether cycling or walking (a very conservative figure, given its only 1.2km of distance and not overly steep in either direction for either cycling or walking) then SkyPath can have a maximum of 2400 an hour or 38,400 a day worth of users using it – assuming 6am to 10pm operating hours (16 hours a day).
If we assume that usage all day every day for a whole year thats over 14 million users of Skypath at maximum capacity – easily exceeding the NEX.
If cyclists can cross at twice the rate of walkers – quite likely since while walkers will do say 5km/hr, cyclists will need to do 8-10 km/hr to keep control of steering etc – so can cross the 1.2km bridge in 15 minutes easily).
And if so then the daily maximum would be well over 57,000+ a day, if walking and cycling numbers are 50:50 but cyclists cross twice as fast as walkers.
But if we just say, assume peak usage during AM 2 hour and PM 2 hour peaks, from the daily max. of 38400 = 9600 a day.
At 230 working days a year (48 weeks work a year = 240 working days less 11 public holidays = ~230 days) = 1.1 million a year from “commuters” – on weekdays.
Ignoring other usage during those weekdays. But which will probably add another 500,000 or so trips over the course of the year from tourists or recreational (non-commuting) users during off peak hours (or about 2100 a day)
For the other 100 or so days a year (weekends) we can assume usage will be much much higher than weekdays,
But lets assume the entire 16 hour day for Skypath on a weekend day is say 40% of the maximum daily possible e.g. 16,000 in total, then we can add 1.6 million from weekend usage on top.
So 1.1 million from commuters plus 0.5 m from off peak users in weekdays plus 1.6m from weekend usage is about 3.3m a year.
So easily able to top NEX usage with conservative estimates and projections.
At $3 a trip that will raise some $9-10m a year towards upkeep, monitoring and security and paying back the PPP backers.
I think that Skypath, like the original AHB did when it opened, will exceed its 25 year “growth” projections within 5 years – except that, that will mean Skypath could well be paid off well within the projected timeframes.
That assume some future (or even this) Government, doesn’t as a political promise, pay out the PPP, which should slash the cost of the crossing to a low figure, or possibly even free if AC decides to fund the security and management itself from rates.
I know it’s not like-for-like, but Sydney Harbour Bridge carries 2,000 cyclists per day (each way), Yes with 55 steps, but still….
What like those 55 steps are not a major roadblock to cycle usage of the Sydney Bridge? Yeah Right.
Its simply not a valid apples to apples comparison, and yes more people walk the Sydney bridge daily than ride.
And most don’t need to walk because there is a really good train service from Milsons Pt station to the CBD that runs on the same bridge. So most walkers simply use the train.
For Auckland there is no other option to cross the bridge except in a car. Once you unlock that capability with Skypath the numbers using it to do so will totally dwarf Sydneys meagre daily usage.
Good in theory… except that Skypath’s own business case estimates 780,000 users in Year 1 and 2.1m by Year 20.
Yep, they’re conservative, but just like the original AHB conservative traffic estimates, reality will prove these to be very wrong. Build it and they will come.
If Sydney can muster 1.4m walking and cycling trips a year on their bridge in 2009 with massive sets of stairs at each end to be navigated, I’m sure Skypath with its easy grade ramps up and down will prove much more attractive to walkers and cyclists of all ilks.
Stated preferences of SkyPaths own surveys show a huge Year 1 demand from the local Auckland residents to cross Skypath at least once and also a huge stated preference that they will also take out of town visitors on it as well.
Most Aucklanders surveyed say it will become more popular than Skytower. And that costs a lot more to go up than Skypath will cost to cross – even both ways.
1% of employed Aucklanders used a bicycle as their main means of transportation to work on Census day 2013. There is no record of the distance they covered on their bike or what other transport modes (if any) they used in their journey. How transformative do you think the Skypath will be?
It’s well established internationally that without supporting safe infrastructure most people will not cycle to work or anywhere else. It also takes more than one or two routes for this as a whole network is needed. It’s also been established that up to 60% of Aucklanders would consider cycling more for trips if they felt safe doing so.
Lastly most trips where decent cycle networks exist aren’t for work, they are for other purposes like school, shopping or just going to see friends. We could build significant cycle networks that get great use but not see much movement in the journey to work figure because it’s largely irrelevant in it’s current form.
I prefer my tax to be spent where it will have the most economic benefit, rather than a field of dreams approach. Let’s focus on getting the major PT projects like CRL, busways and park & ride facilities (even including bike sheds) first. Then worry about the nice-to-haves like cycleways.
Cycleways are not nice to haves, they are just as valid a transport mode as any thing else you’ve quoted.
Active modes like Walking, Cycling are the “first port of call” for most western countries when planning how to reduce congestion.
And thats not a made up figure, just about about all of the OECD countries we like to compare ourselves with, have regular cycling numbers that are way ahead of anything we have in NZ.
And we’re not just talking Denmark or Holland here, even parts of the US with worse weather and hills than Auckland easily outperform us in cycling numbers.
The cost of cycleways is not high. for the cost of a several park and rides or 1 motorway off-ramp we can get 100 times more people off the road for the same or less $.
You make the mistake of assuming cycleways are for “recreational” users only, who will use them only in weekends. You are wrong.
Generally the most economic benefit comes from cycleway projects because they’re so relatively cheap compared to their huge savings. See http://cyclingchristchurch.co.nz/2015/02/22/show-me-the-money-the-economics-of-cycleways/ – not many roading or PT projects get those kind of benefit/cost odds…
Bobby, One would have to look at Cities around the world, crippled with pollution, overcrowding, traffic congestion…the sensible solution is thus…Man has always wanted to Travel further, faster, higher….onwards, outwards with nothing to stop him. There comes a time when Congestive Cities MUST STOP, MUST HALT.
As the Humble Motor Car has exhumed the human mind, exhumed large quantities of Land, exhumed and polluted environments…STOP, RE-Think.
Let’s Look at the Rail Trail in Paeroa. In it’s early stages focus was aimed at the Tourist to ride, eat and stay over, from all corners of New Zealand, to the rest of the World. (World Famous). Now the rail trail is used by the local folk who ride to work, school etc who live locally. (The Otago Rail Trail being obviously the Number One Attraction)…
For Auckland and its SkyPath…once it’s constructed, plus I must say All Links coming in from the North Shore are added, central city links, rail link connection, bus connections, ferries….
From the day it’s opened, YOU WILL NOT LOOK BACK…The Question to everybody will be thus: “How can ‘I’ utilize ALL Transport options at my Disposal?” That will be for every Auckland’er to decide……..
SkyPath will have an MULTIPLYING effect of numbers crossing the Bridge…Bicycling to Work for you guys will be fun, exciting and challenging to say the least…You will see EBikes taking up their market potential of increase in sales. New business will attach itself to the bicycling market. It’s a Mult-tye billion Dollar Industry awaiting to be un-capped…
Hope Fully Every Auckland’er is excited the way I feel about it.
I know CAA with Barb.C and Auckland Transport gearing up for the BIG Party…Lets begin.
So National have spent $1 billion in Auckland for the 7 years they have been in power – what have we got for that? Had they spent the lot on public transport, we probably could have had the central rail link, rail to the airport, light rail in the isthmus, BRTs, the new bus networks with interchanges, etc.
I wonder in the above picture how many vehicles are driven by One-Two Person occupants, horrendous.
Would there be enough room up the central strip for a lite rail system?
Auckland average is 1.2 occupants per car, that means as a rough rule of thumb, 4 out of 5 cars in that photo have 1 occupant. The 5th one – 2.
In fact its more like 85 out of 100 cars have 1 occupant,10 of the 100, have 2, and the 5 remaining have 3.
Making for 120 occupants over 100 cars = 1.2 average
This is backed up by the AT analysis of the T3 lane on Remuera road in the AM peak.
Of the 800 vehicles that went past during their annual survey in 2014 – only 43 of them had “3 or more occupants”. 600 cars (75% of all vehicles) had 1 occupant.
And thats in a road that encourages “Car pooling” to be able to use the T3 lane so the T3 portion is way higher than average.
Add up the cost of the Car etc….gee wizz…I like that…good maths….
And the 24 buses that went past in the same time carried the same number of people as the 600 cars with 1 occupant each. But represented only 3% of the total vehicles on the road.
What is the Ave Speed when the Colateral bonding of cars increases and tightens up.
According to the piece that preceded Bridges interview, the current motorway average speed in the AM peak is 65 km/hr. And will drop to about 40km/hr in 30 years under the basic transport plan.
On Arterial roads AT’s own productivity guidelines say that the throughput (productivity) has to be “37,800” or so “Person trips/km/hr” which is measured as: (cars x ave. occupants x average speed).
For Auckland the “ideal” figure is according to AT: “900 cars with 1.2 occupants travelling at average speed of 35 km/hr”.
For most arterials that target is pretty impossible to achieve in peak – on Remuera road in the “normal” (non-T3″ lane) in AM peak, ATs numbers show the average productivity measure is half that figure, with an average speed of the “T1/2” vehicles of 15km/hr.
Incredible Stats Greg. 15km/hr. Given the fact that new EBikes range from 30-35plus km/hr speeds. Certainly a crawling speed by any standards.
I guess the fact then is thus: building larger excessive roading networks for Auckland won’t help the short OR long term strategies for smooth operation of MV transport. > the Lanes I.e L3 L4 = < room to move and again your figures apply to the speed and combinations of mass migration to more cars vs less space. A continuing process revolving in a circular motion…a spring coiling itself until it cannot compress any longer….
“15km/hr. Given the fact that new EBikes range from 30-35plus km/hr speeds. Certainly a crawling speed by any standards.”
Yep, and I routinely pass many cars stuck in that crawling traffic as I cycle by on my e-bike at 35km/hr in the adjacent T#/bus lane.
Getting sick of Bridges claiming National have spent lots on Aucklands PT. The only project I know of is the electrification of the rail network, which was a project initiated by Labour (that I’m sure National would have axed had it not been political suicide). In 7 years have National initiated a single PT project in Auckland? Why do they get away with outright lies?
Project Dart, the double tracking of the rail network and prep for electrification was fully funded under the previous gov.
Current gov has funded electrification, although part of that is a loan to AT, with interest, paid back out of PT ops budget (one reason for this is to get spending off gov books for surplus obsession needs, another is to make rail ops appear more expensive)
Under Brownlee the gov cut the Busway extension from works to SH1 on Shore, is not adding a Busway to NW in massive work there.
Has a total of ZERO for major PT capital works in latest GPS. It actually has eliminated that line from the chart, instead new category: PT operations and infra, only there’s no infra. It is contributing to works initiated by AT like Stations at Onehunga, Manukau, and Te Atatu, all of which depend on the transport levy.
Bridges is bluffing, there’s no plan and no money from his gov.
Cycling however they are supporting which is great, but only a drop in total transport budget.
The chart below shows how the government’s contribution to PT capex is shrinking away over time, down from 3% of total to 1%. If the minister really wants all those improvements he talks about he will have to find some money from somewhere. I suspect he can’t so is trying to blaming the Council somehow and demanding delay and discussions instead:
This chart is a damning exposition of the current Government’s cynical and failed transport policies. 38% >> 42% on state highways.. 3% >> 1 % on PT infrastructure
National’s policies are half-baked, tired and outdated. They are totally inappropriate for the present or future needs of Auckland.. or New Zealand as a whole.
In fact they are ultimately disastrous.. $ 10s of billions being wasted on white elephants in front of our eyes.. capital that could have been directed to more productive investments, and as a result of which we will drain ever more of our hard currency on oil imports, cranking up our CO2 emissions in the process.
These policies are of course the outward and visible expression of a corrupt cabal that cares only about its cronies: land bankers, developers, the road lobby…
And they are so self-entitled and up themselves they see everything as “us v Len Brown” because they can’t get over losing Auckland, twice.
And do they really have anyone that can win it next time? Especially if Phil Goff runs!
Don’t forget that they are so up themselves that they think they know more than the somewhat independent organisations responsible for transport – NZTA and AT.
somewhat – pppphhht!!!!! AT independent????
AT is independent of AC by law, Auckland ratepayers fund AT (via AC), but beyond that AC has little control.
Just like AC can’t control the Ports, they have even less control with AT as Government elects the majority of the directors to AT’s board, again, by law.
Go check your facts Bobby sometime eh?
Maybe Simon expects AT to put a good proportion of their budget towards the future of transport – self driving cars! Why waste all that money on stuff that works now when we can just hope and prey technology will solve our problems? And with self driving cars you can pretend to be a forward thinking politician!
Well it really is odd that he is criticising the Council for only spending on big projects and underfunding smaller ones, when that is a clear description of his government’s policy as outlined in the funding allocation above. All on new RoNS, and nothing on cheaper game changing projects, especially urban ones.
The Council’s accelerated programme that the targetted rate will buy is all little but essential things like cycleways, buslanes, and interchange stations.
Not a very convincing performance by the new Minister.
cycleways are not PT infrastructure
They are transport infra; what’s your point?
Patrick
Regarding “Under Brownlee the gov cut the Busway extension from works to SH1 on Shore, is not adding a Busway to NW in massive work there.” have you got a link to the evidence behind these. like to be able to state is as quite interested in Northern Busway and NW busway. (As I travelled from Torbay to Henderson and to CBD for work for periods).
Also, I’m going to throw this into the mix as well: why so little support for mopeds, scooters and motorbikes as a key tool?
These are important modes IMO which sit very well between walking/cycling and cars.
Don’t forget people the Government has no money. It’s all provided by tax payers. Including the not insubstantial subsidies for public transport funded in a large part by the very motorists that are vilified in this forum.
You mean the motorists who also contribute to this forum?
Yes, because to suggest that mode bias (cars) for the last 60yrs which caused the congestion might not be the way out, must means you hate cars.
An argument as silly as it is boring…..
What are you trying to say?
He’s trying to say that your argument is straw-manning and fallacious. Motorists are NOT vilified on this forum. You made that up.
Show me a pro-car comment.
Bobby@ 7:17:
I love my car. Seriously. Open road, no traffic, love it. Driving for summer holiday, awesome. Beach trip to Piha with the family, sweet.
Am I stupid enough to Drive a car into the CBD from out west for commuting? No thanks, I’m faster and more satisfied on a bike.
I invite you to sit next to Gt North Road @ Avondale on Tuesday at 7:30am and you’ll see exactly why as I ride straight past loads of nearly stationary cars, for about 2-3kms of continuous queue these days. And that’s without cycle lanes, but most people aren’t happy riding in that environment. It’s a no brainer why cycle investment makes economic sense.
Oh Bobby, you have no idea of the backgrounds of the people who contribute to this blog. I’m an ex-mechanic. I’ve competed in motorspirt a long time ago. A average 20,000km’s per annum in my near new X-Trail. We’re about to buy an Alfa Romeo. I love cars. But they have some very serious limitations in the city. I ride my bike to get groceries or a hair cut or to the local bar for a drink. I mostly use PT to access the CBD. We’re not the sandal wearing, mung bean eaters you think we are.
Motorists aren’t vilified in this forum and most of us own and use cars too. As for the Government, they have heaps of money as transport taxes are hypothecated so there’s around $3b per year to play with. The issue is with how it’s spent.
Tax payers provide the money. Employed individuals and investors. The Government merely allocates their money. ‘Government’ money not some magical pot of gold in the sky. Funding for transport is at the expense of other social needs eg education, heath etc. All needs need to be balanced.
Not quite,
Fuel taxes are ring fenced to be spent on Transport areas like roads. Can’t spend it on hospitals or schools. Unlike the Booze or Taboacco taxes which go into the general “revenue” accounts of the government to be allocated as they see fit.
Now, Government may decide to put more money into Transport than the fuel taxes raise, thats a political decision, and is a top up to all the fuel taxes we pay each year.
Has’t always been this way, but has been so since before this Government came to power.
The problem is that all the transport projects that get funded from that revenue are big ones and ones that show very poor return for the money spent and they completely exhaust the funds available. Leaving no money over for road maintenance.
The problem of reduced maintenance is now so bad that the existing roads can’t be maintained from the fuel taxes alone, so either Government lets the existing roads rot while they build a few more KM of motorways, or they move spending from non-transport areas to top up the Transport funding.
If they didn’t waste the money on bad transport projects they’d not have to do that so much (or even at all).
Bobby road user charges go into a hypothecated transport fund. No relationship to the other areas of government expenditure that you mention.
Bobby, I think that you would find that most cyclists and PT users are more multi-modal users than are drivers
they won’t make a significant contribution to improving the overall transportation requirements of all Aucklanders
The Auckland Plan calls for “Integration of landuse and transport funding”. I see little evidence of this. The NZTA mantra of their “needing to be a problem” e.g. congestion, before money is spent is the antithesis of good planning and integration.
It means we don’t plan for and future proof corridors, we don’t lead with transport infrastructure e.g. new rail lines and stations timed WITH development.
Whether the people on this blog like it or not there will be SOME greenfield development over the next 20 years and we need to ensure that development is high quality and as sustainable as possible.
You dont do that by focussing all the money on existing problems, thereby creating yet MORE problems of the future in current development areas.
Vision would also be pumping OPEX into buses so that we have high frequency over a greater area.
Why is it ok to borrow money for CAPEX but not OPEX?
Yep, that just confirms it. Listening to Bridges, the thinking is ‘if they want public transport, stick them on buses and they can travel on the roads’. They have no interest in providing rail transport for Auckland. It shows me how parochial they are. I’ll add to your road congestion before I travel everywhere by bus, Mr Bridges.
We really need a change of government to sort out our issues: housing, transport. They’re inept. If the rest of the country don’t think they’re affected by their decision-making, look at the interest rates you are paying. They’d be higher if we didn’t have a soft economy (budget deficit).
@Greg N, I suggest you check the facts on the AT website….. https://at.govt.nz/about-us/our-role-organisation/board-of-directors/
I already have, for your benefit, from that link:
“Five directors are appointed by the *government* to the board of Auckland Transport and will serve a term of one to three years with none serving longer than three years.
A further two directors are appointed by the Auckland Council to serve on the board during their council term.
A representative from the New Zealand Transport Authority serves as an advisor to the board.”
The only 2 directors appointed by AC are Mike Lee and Christine Fletcher. The rest are appointed by the Gov’t or is from NZTA.
So in my book 6 non AC directors outweighs 2 from AC by 3 to 1.
AT doesn’t answer to AC, by law. Its a Council Controlled Organisation in name only. This is by legal statute of this Government when they set up the Supercity.
AT do rely on AC for funding though, right? AC can hold them to ransom?
Maybe AT should be an elected body completely separate from AC, and we should get two sets of rates bills (one from AC, one from AT)
Yes AT do get most of their funding from AC, but not all of it, some comes to them directly from the Gov’t via NZTA [after all NZTA subsidise local road repairs and maintenance to the tune of 50% – AT does/pays for all the work and gets 50% of the cost funded from NZTA in return for the agreed work]. And Agreed work is the key thing here, if NZTA/Bridges/MoT doesn’t “agree” to it, then the AC (and AT) are on their own.
And if NZTA really wants something it can dangle a big fat juicy subsidy bigger than 50% (like 100%) in front of the traffic planners, which like Pavlov’s proverbial bell, simply makes the dogs drool with anticipated pleasure.
So Bridges could if he wanted to run rings around AC by directly funding AT with all the funds needed to build his pet projects. So his veiled threats yesterday is not without substance.
Of course, National not wanting to disenfranchise the 30%+ of their voting base that keeps them in power by doing so is probably what holds him (and Nick Smith) back from doing so right now.
And is why the CRL “Full Monty” can’t go ahead right now.
@Bryce P to paraphrase David Lange, I can smell the lycra from here…. Good luck with the Alfa, lovely cars, but…..
You obviously think all cyclists wear lycra. Got news for you – most cyclists don’t.
Those that do obviously fit your stereotype of what a “cyclist” is.
And just because someone cycles or catches PT doesn’t make them a car hating,sandal wearing, left wing, Green Party supporter as you seem to think is the case.
[To quote Seinfield, “Not thats there’s anything wrong with that”]
you might have heard of metaphors? And a sense of humour? btw I have no issue with real PT.
And what is “real” PT in your definition? A double decker bus? A underground or a long distance commuter train? Or simply PT you don’t pay for with your rates or taxes?
Cycling isn’t PT, its an active mode, as is walking, oh and walking isn’t PT either.
slur followed up with accusation of humourlessness, classic troll move. I’m not interested in vilifying motorists, but you’re fair game
Interesting position you claim: “I don’t mind PT, just don’t spend money on the cheapest, highest-returning investment.” Sounds awfully like you just want to block an initiative which is transformative in a very positive way. Sure begs questions about your motives…
Ha ha ha. Me and lycra? Closest you get is a pair of MTB shorts with lycra underneath – for obvious reasons. My usual attire is t-shirt, shorts and jandals as anyone who has met me can attest to.
I have no interest in riding a bike for 100km or anything silly like that.
As for the Alfa, I’ve done the research. Drove it today. Nice car. Bought it. 🙂
Bobby you may as well not bother with your bike hate as funding cycling is the one transport infra area that the Council, AT, NZTA, and the government all agree on and are now funding. Over the next 3 years the core of a decent network will be built in Auckland, it is underway already. And because it is relatively cheap and quick to build we will not have to wait long to see the difference. But thank you for your concern.
The conflict is over over funding PT capex. It seems based on the Ministers performance yesterday that he is poorly informed about Auckland. I think our friends at the Ministry need to lift their game, get some people out of Wellington and into AC and AT and have a proper look at the plans and double check the assumptions in the modelling etc.
Just once I wish Bridges had have been asked ‘so what are your policy plans for Auckland?’or ‘what are the smaller projects the government wants?’ Because the answer would have been more roads and more sprawl. It will create a nightmare for Auckland 20-30 years on. National don’t want to spend money on rail infrastructure . The thought process is mean in that ‘if they want public transport just stick them on buses’.
I noticed Mr Hooten bristling at the idea of apartments with the usual ‘people don’t want to live in apartments’. Most people don’t but the greatest supply increase is for apartments at the moment and in particular, in the CBD area. I think some of these guys would rather close their eyes and pretend that Britomart doesn’t exist.
He was but he gave no direct answer. He just wanted to talk for another year to get the government’s preferred mix of projects because he didn’t like the auckland plan.
Probably because next year is election year for Auckland council & Mayor and they want to have some ammunition up their sleeve for “their guys” to be able to leverage in the upcoming campaign?
Personally I think that AC should seriously consider ways of making the AECT come to the party here – and thats even though I am in the AECT dividend area so any reduction of dividends affects me.
The AECT board elections are later this year and if the right mix of members were on the board they would be more willing to assist than the current lot.
Not saying AECT should sell the Vector shareholding, just allow use of the dividend stream for long term big infrastructure projects like perhaps CRL so that the Government isn’t such a stick in the mud.
Rather unfair for the people receiving an AECT dividend to give it up for the good of Auckland when other areas of Auckland were given one off shares. From memory it was a decent amount these people received in the early nineties.
Vector now owns the lines across all of Auckland after it brought United Networks a number of years ago. That means that West Auckland and North Shore residents are contributing a considerable amount of Vector’s profits which are the source of the AECT divident.
That was over 23 years ago, Auckland (and Vector) is totally different now.
I think all AECT area have received quite a lot of money in the last 23 years, more than what anyone else got in fact who got a share hand out at the time (at about $320 a year times 20 years thats over 6400, and even more if adjusted to “todays” money).
As Matt points out, as Vector owns a lot more gas and electricity lines in Auckland (a near monopoly in fact), then all Aucklanders are “paying in” and only a few are getting anything back.
Anyway I’m not saying no dividends ever, I’m just saying suspend dividends for 10 years or so, help pay for the big infra, once we get a central Government that listens we’ll get that back.
Remember AECT’s main reason for being is actually to pay for the undergrounding of electric lines in the old AEPB area, at the rate it is happening, it will be 1000 years before its complete.
I think we have more pressing problems than underground electric power lines right now that could use a hand up.
I currently own 4 cars but commute to work by bicycle, rain or shine, and don’t wear lycra. Naturally I’ll be supportive of quality cycle infrastructure (flat, straight, smooth, direct, wide, segregated, i.e. something like the cycleways beside the motorways, and not the Dominion Rd parallel cycle routes).
Sudhvir did very well.
The minister for transport needs to back up his criticism of the councils plan with a detailed alternative. An answer to Britomart reaching capacity, the existing crowding on trains and what will happen between now and 2020 would be appreciated. And why the attack on rail to the airport? Currently it takes at least an hour by bus to get form Mangere bridge to Wynyard Quarter. Airport rail is a norm overseas. Given airport parking prices and taxi fares, it would be very popular with Aucklanders and tourists. A bus is not good enough. It gets stuck in the same traffic as cars and is not reliable enough.
If the AECT dividends are to be used, how about also grabbing those form Spark, Air NZ, NZ Steel, etc.?
Spark (and others) are private companies. AECT is not a private company and the dividends are paid to the person living at properties within the trust area. This isn’t based on who was there at the time or who owns the property. I believe the legalisation states the trust and the dividends will be handed over the council after a certain period of time so the proposal suggested is just to change the timing of that handover.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1412/S00701/emas-kim-campbell-misleading-aucklanders.htm
Matt
“The trust was established by parliament to be an entirely private-sector organisation.”
Bridges doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about. Basically his position is this: “We won’t agree to anything unless you build more roads and less rail”. Now, whether he likes it or not, the Council is democratically elected and the majority of the council voted for this plan and they also voted on the funding options. Auckland has spoken. Even the right-wing councillors agree with things like the CRL (even if they don’t want to fund it).
Also, I am so sick and tired of him trotting out the line that this government is spending “billions” on Auckland transport every year. Most of those projects (the central motorway junction, vic park tunnel, electrication, waterview) were approved by the previous Labour government.
I agree with the comment above that there are some projects 30 years out that may need more analysis and “testing assumptions” as Bridges puts it. However, there are projects in the immediate 10 year period that need funding NOW. Let’s get on with it.
That’s right. I think many on this blog attach far too much weight to what Bridges says. Like his predecessors Brownlie and Joyce, Bridges’ understanding of the main transport-issues can be summed up in two points :
1) New Zealanders love their cars therefore they need moar roads.
2) Rail is irrelevant and loses money therefore do nothing to encourage it.
This deep insight lies behind all the minister’s utterances and decisions.
As for what the democratically elected council wants, why should the government care about this? After all, they have a mandate to govern as they see fit, based on the “landslide majority” of electors who voted for them. Or so the myth still gets peddled. . . .
One of the few projects that Simon Bridges identified as a luxury that the council shouldn’t invest in was rail to the airport? Is that even allocated funding in the 2015-2015 period beyond investigation work? My cursory glance at the documents seemed to show it didn’t get funding til the 2025-2035 period, but I wouldn’t mind confirmation of that. I *think* the government’s policy is “more roads, less rail” but the only rail projects getting immediate funding appear to be the City Rail Link (and associated works like removing level crossings). Which the government has (probably reluctantly) agreed should go ahead (eventually).