This week Auckland Transport announced they were looking to update the Regional Public Transport Plan, with one of the updates being the Ferry Development Plan. This document provides some more information into AT’s thinking around ferries.
First up, how ferries perform today. The map below shows where current ferry services run to:
In the year to the end of March 5.4 million trips were taken on ferries which is up 5% on the year before and close to a peak reached in mid-2012. That patronage makes up around 7% of all public transport trips.
Around 77% of all ferry patronage comes from just two routes – Devonport and Waiheke – however AT also say that in the morning peak around 49% of trips are coming from other services. That indicates that the Devonport and Waiheke services do well off peak – probably due to tourism. The number of passengers arriving in the city in the current morning peak is shown below:
The Development Plan is focused on how AT will develop ferries over the next 10 years and covers both infrastructure and services. The modelling for it also considers the impacts over a 30 year period.
The overall finding is that there are not any viable opportunities for new ferry routes, and that the focus should be on improving the routes we already have. That means increasing capacity and services so that they can handle the predicted demand and provide regular all day service – just like what is being done with the bus and rail networks (note: regular service is different from frequent service so might only be hourly off peak). The additional daily services AT expects to add to each route are shown below and there is a more detailed version on page 21 of the development plan.
It is expected that between now and 2026 ferry patronage will increase from 5.4 million to around 7.5 million. Much of the growth is expected from just a few of the routes and the growth in AM peak trips is shown below and is based on integrated fares and no surcharge (more on that soon)
To accommodate that growth more vessels and improvements to existing ferry terminals will be needed – such as the recently announced new terminal at Half Moon Bay. In addition to the terminals, AT want to expand the Park n Ride at a few stations. The capital costs for all of this development is around $34.2 million and almost half of it is for the redevelopment of the downtown ferry terminal. The Benefit Cost Ratios of the terminal improvements are shown below, and as you can see the result for Half Moon Bay is crazy high:
You’ll notice the table has ‘with surcharge’ and ‘no surcharge’ and as mentioned earlier the modelling is based on no surcharge. AT say they want ferries to have integrated fares but that it isn’t possible just yet.
Potential patronage has been modelled assuming integrated fares with and without a ferry surcharge. A surcharge is necessary initially to maintain the affordability of ferry services and to avoid demand for unavailable capacity. In time, as patronage and capacity increase and costs are reduced, the surcharge will be reduced and eliminated.
Included in the development plan is analysis of the current Park ‘N Ride users, which I found quite interesting. As you can see most people make fairly short trips to the ferry but there are some quite long ones, especially to Half Moon Bay. Some seem quite odd such as driving from Albany next to the busway station to Devonport or Bayswater to catch a ferry or from Remuera to Half Moon Bay (perhaps they were going to Waiheke though).
Lastly AT did look at the options for expanding ferry services including to Browns Bay, Takapuna and Te Atatu. If they were implemented, the map below (which also shows the Special Housing Areas) is how the ferry network would look; however, they all have BCRs of less than 1, and as there’s little time savings compared to road-based modes, it’s not expected they would attract enough patronage.
Overall I’d say that the outcome is right, focus on get the existing services working well.
Processing...
Manly has a high proportion of walking and cycling due to the cost of living and the existing high density development near the wharf. The number of cycles chained to the wharf is incredible for an Austrilasian city. I wonder if AT have looked at examples like this for harbours such as Davenport and Bayswater to cut back on car parks.
The BCR for Devonport is interesting. The text talks about this being due to better facilities and reliability, rather than generating new patronage. It’s unclear what this actually means. While the current enhancements going on there are quite impressive, what they do first and foremost is create a more pleasant environment, space for some new cafes etc. What is the actual benefit this generates in the BCR? Rental income?
Also, what improvements are being made to reliability? There are certainly some reliability issues with the current service, but these appear to be due to vessel reliability and Fullers’ incompetence rather than any issues with the wharf itself.
Will ferries be included in the same branding model as buses and trains i.e. “AT Metro”?
They don’t even follow the fare model, so wishful thinking about the branding, I hope so though at some point!
If the ferry from Hosbonville Point to city takes only ~ 30mins and they are building lots of houses there, then surely anybody who works in the city would be mad to consider any other form of transport? Is this route growing rapidly?
300 people per day by 2026 doesn’t sound like many. and 35 people today is less than a bus full!
And some of those are from beachhaven (an area already fully covered by PT) so the numbers are even worse.
What is the cost of subsidising the ferry and it’s infrastructure. How does it compare to rail and roads? We’ve had an awful lot of flack from the antirail-loop brigade as the rail lines won’t service them. So it would be good to look at the costs related to the ferry also.
Ferries have the least subsidisation of any mode is my understanding, on average.
On average yes but there are anomalies in that that make it more difficult to say. Overall farebox recovery is ~80% but that’s primarily due to the commercial services of Waiheke and Devonport. Take those away and recovery is awful, something like around 20%. Also the question is more what’s the marginal cost going to be to move to higher frequencies i.e. to move to make it a regular all day service rather than just a twice day commuter service the OPEX costs will be huge and farebox recovery very low
*Current farebox recovery for contracted ferry services is actually very close to 50%. Averaging 47% over the last six months, and over 50% for March 2015.
Probably forget Takapuna as it would be faster to ferry to Devonport then bus up, or bus over the bridge, or eventually train.
Browns Bay on the other hand should be considered as there is a lot of congestion between Browns Bay and the rest of the North Shore (including accessing the Busway). Browns Bay wouldn’t need a standalone service. What should be done is have the Gulf Harbour service have a stop in Browns Bay. That way it connects commuters from Gulf Harbour with the North Shore, it boosts numbers on this service, provides a service to Browns Bay/Torbay residents and is a bit of a win/win.
It would not really slow the service to Gulf Harbour down (maybe adds about 10 mins max to the journey), however it would allow extra services so if someone isn’t having to wait so long then the time wasted is neutral. Browns Bay is rapidly becoming more dense due to the ability to build up to 5 level apartments (there are currently 2 blocks under development and another has just been completed).
A couple of years ago I would have agreed with you. But I’ve since changed my mind about ferry service to BB.
Given how shallow the bay is, it would require either a very long pier, extensive dredging, or both to enable a ferry of any worthwhile size to dock.
I don’t know if you’ve looked at the BB reef, but it is quite extensive and would limit the possible approaches that a ferry could take – especially at low tide.
Finally, Devonport’s waters edge is a dogs breakfast, and though I’m sure we could do better than that, it’s not what I would want in at BB. Personally, I’d prefer rail out to Silverdale and a good bus service from Rosedale or Albany stations down to the beach.
Ferries are really cool and could certainly stand improvement in the harbour and gulf, but personally I don’t think a BB ferry is a goer. There are other options to improve PT in the area.
Does anyone know what the times would be for a ferry to run from Takapuna to Downtown or from Browns Bay to Downtown? These would be good hard numbers to add to the discussion.
Has anyone considered how the ferries would work where you can walk onto the sand (such as have on Abel Tasman track) at Takapuna and or Browns Bay? These would mean a ferry could run, and even easily shift its start and end point, without the need for a pier.
It’s a similar distance as Hobsonville Point which is about 25 minutes. A bus from Takapuna is 15-20 and would be even faster if the current Sturdee St-Quay St-Albert St section was addressed (will be changed for CRL works)
I caught the Hobsonville Point ferry this morning and interestingly enough was asked to complete a public transport survey form (was being run by Opus by the looks). There is definitely some latent demand for this service however cost is holding it back – $8 each way on Hop Card and I get a connector bus so add another $1.80 on top of that. If the bus was packaged into the ferry price (simplified fares anyone?), there would be better uptake. I still also don’t understand the price discrepancy between Beach Haven and Hobsonville Point (same distance essentially yet Beach Haven is less).
Hobsonville Ferry only works for someone doing full time business hours work Mon-Fri or studying a 6-8 hour course in the city. Doesn’t suite anyone who does part time work, or afterhours work, or 10-12 hour shifts and then its just that… no going out for drinks in town, no shopping unless you plan to make it an all day thing… etc. Maybe if it had a decent level of service like Davenport/Waiheke and was price more competitive or priced similarly to the bus then it would have a higher level of patronage. But of cause for them to expand it, it would require more patronage and that might cost if it isnt used much off-peak etc… if only PT was as subsidized as car travel…
NW and SH18 Busways will resolve that.
Does SH18 need a busway anytime soon? Maybe in 5 or so years. I’ve never seen it congested between Westgate and Greenhite when I use to commute to Albany every day at peak from Te Atatu. SH16 on the other hand… congested all the way back to Westgate at times.
It’s actually got one, almost. Less about a offline busway, more about local stations for a rapid service between Constellation Drive and Westgate
Why do we need a NW busway when Ferry can delivery the ultimate congestion free trip in 30mins. A half hour beautiful ferry ride to work every morning sounds like bliss rather than a cramped bus. I guess the question is, how cheap can you run a ferry for or do they just use too much fuel? Would it still cost $8 if more people used it? Does Elon Musk make ferries yet?
Agree it needs a decent level of service to be popular. Should be easy to deliver increased frequencies; doesn’t need money spent on more expensive infrastructure to try it, just hire some more boats for 6 months to try hourly frequency. Low hanging fruit.
Last run at 9pm should be an absolute worst case, preference is 11pm or even 12am but thats probably asking too much, anything less than 6am-9pm and your catering to basically two types of people, daytime students or business hours full time workers getting to work/study and back. Frequencies don’t bother me so much as long as they are at least an every hour, the capacity should drive that up if required.
But the hobsonville ferry, like many ferry services in auckland, seems to be treated like nothing more than an express service to the city during congestion, even tho its probably twice as fast as the bus off-peak.
Look at the Devonport ferry, now thats what I call a proper ferry! Every 30 mins most of the day and every hour late at night, Mon-Thurs goes to 11.30pm, Fri-Sat to 1.15am, Sun to 10.30pm. Its quite short distance so I guess that makes it more affordable than other routes but that is a PT service I could actually use vs the Hobsonville ferry.
Because a NW busway would move far more than a ferry could and do it for far faster and cheaper and with a high frequency. It also moves people from not just Te Atatu but probably from Kumeu all the way through (unless you’re planning on forcing a transfer for all passengers). Next don’t forget not everyone is going to town so the busway allows for connections to other places. As for operating costs, ferries are very expensive to run.
If you go to the Half Moon Bay ferry terminal during the day, the car park is at absolute capacity. If they want to increase patronage, something really needs to be done. Thank goodness it’s walking distance for me.
Really neeeds cycle lanes down to the terminal and on surrounding roads so that the parking can be used 20 times more efficiently.
Better bus access for a start, and better walking and cycling links. It’s too expensive to continue to dedicate ever more land to parking. Would be interesting to know how much they could raise by selling/developing the land into apartments and spending the money on better cycling and bus links to the area.
I’m delighted to see some focus on the ferries because they are the forgotten source of transport in Auckland.
We don’t make enough use of our harbour in transporting people.
The best aspect of it is the absence of large capital cost. No tunnelling, no road building, no rail lines to be implemented. Just wharves (many of which already exist) and a boat.
…and enormous operating costs.
“That indicates that the Devonport and Waiheke services do well off peak – probably due to tourism” Is there any evidence to support this statement? Does anyone have any figures showing what the makeup of off peak patronage?
My guess is AT will have it but can’t say so in a public document for commercial reasons.
Assuming that Fullers have to supply the info considering that both routes are unsubsidised and AT don’t have direct access to the passenger figures courtesy of an exemption provided by government legislation.
My recollection is that the way AT checks that the patronage is as Fullers reports, for wharf tax purposes, is to do a count of their own from time to time.
The Fullers exemption is a terrible limitation on the prospect of a more extensive, efficient, and cost effective ferry programme in Auckland. Instead of the surplus generated by the two high volume routes being used to expand the reach and quality of the whole network, it is shaved off and stuck in their back pocket.
Every single good Transit network in the world has high volume routes and services cross-subsidising lesser routes. These routes not only provide important coverage but also support the main routes by bringing more users to the whole network. Which is why cutting loss making individual routes and services usually starts a decline in the whole network rather than strengthens its financial base.
Currently we have the same situation with buses, companies able to cherry pick the profitable routes and services and get subsidies for the rest. An insane system not designed for the user, or the ratepayer, but entirely from the private operators’ perspective. PTOM will redress this imbalance somewhat, but not for ferries until there is a law change, which requires having a government that accepts how networks function and how they are not simply a sum of individual business units.
“which requires having a government that accepts how networks function and how they are not simply a sum of individual business units.”
…and also that public transport networks are not a collection of profit centres either.
No plans to date for the Manukau I note. AT should consider services to and from Onehunga to the new subdivisions on the southern sides of the Manukau.
The Wellington motorway and rail blockages this week, meant that vessels began transporting passengers from downtown to the Petone.
Using waterways is an inexpensive option for backup transport linkages.
Services on the Manukau are covered in the plan
Table 2, Additional services lists 20 return services to Waiheke. This is for Fullers only and therefore completely out of date. Explore has been running 16 services per weekday. Explore integration with the Hop network would be brilliant for Waiheke so we can toss Fullers overboard.
The Ferry Development plan was written and confirmed after Explore started operating to Waiheke.
As for HOP, I understand Explore do want HOP integration but due to the way the system was developed it requires substantial change to implement it hence why it hasn’t happened yet. However when it does happen it will be based on prices set by Explore as the route is fully commercial so I wouldn’t expect AT to see any reductions.
I agree with Hans Versluys and add:
1: Waiheke bus/ferry integration needs urgent looking into. Nearly half the daytime ferry services have no bus service. Fullers, subsidised by AT, run the bus service for their own benefit. The subsidy should be for a Waiheke bus service, not a Fullers Bus service. Explore ferries have no access to bus services or Gold card subsidies and are contracted out of each due to shortsighted planning. Lack of an integrated overview contributes to the unworkable congestion at Matiatia. This is not helped by the ludicrous silo style separation of planning that allows a marina at Matiatia to be contemplated as a valid option.
2: Explore ferries need access to covered downtown wharf facilities urgently. There are many hours of empty wharves at pier 1 and pier 2 that could be utilised for this.
3: Downtown wharf access for private vehicle access to all wharves used by ferry services needs to be made more user friendly. Simple convenient transfer of elderly, disabled, young families or travelers with luggage is nearly impossible under the current arrangements. The whole downtown / Britomart area needs re-examining as a sensibly integrated transport hub, not as a series of vaguely inter-related services.
I think Waiheke buses are being consulted on at the same time as the changes for the Isthmus
As for the Downtown ferry terminal, there are plans to change it considerably as part of the plans the council have for the area. Below is one of the options
It’s interesting that Bayswater will end up with more weekday services than Northcote Birkenhead despite half the predicted peak patronage. I guess it has more off peak demand?
AT really need to look at other cities where ferry transportation and integration really works well. For example sydney. Circular Quay is a transport facility that is well thought out and effective, especially when it comes to the integration of Ferry, bus and rail. I personally won’t drive for various reasons but the unreliability, cost and lack of real integration between networks is really pushing me towards driving.
Another point,
Multiple berth wharves are kind of ineffective when it comes to high density patronage and vessel movements, this could possibly be solved updating and covering current finger wharves to be more vessel and user friendly.
I am aware pier 4 is a make shift pier from an old fuel tank when pacific ferries where still operating their lady class vessels.
A Long bay and Browns bay route could also work well with the right vessels.
In the end buerocratics won’t achieve better systems.
In the end private enterprise won’t achieve any systems at all; simply one or two routes.
There are plans to change the Downtown ferry terminal quite substantially as mentioned in a comment above.
I had a friend who lived in Sydney – in the old Colgate factory at Balmain. Caught the ferry every day, because his apartment, and many others, were in the former factory directly above the waters edge. The former factory obviously relied directly on barging bulk goods and finished products direct to sea, rather than double handling via road. What works for soap powder also works for people. Balmain is probably about as far away from downtown Sydney as Hobsonville point is from Downtown Auckland – but I suspect that at Hobsonville, people are going to drive from their new apartment down to the ferry station? The real success for Ferry is when people actually live at or above the station. Even Devonport, which I used for years, relies for many on that last minute dash through traffic to get to the station. We could easily redevelop Devonport to get another few hundred dwellings right down by the waters edge.
The downtown ferry terminal plan shown looks even worse from a passenger road access point of view. The only apparent vehicular access shown is even further away than the present situation. There is stated a requirement for greater vehicle access to all of the other wharves in the isthmus but little,or negative, attention given to downtown. For a large number of ferry travelers the boat is their road access.
You can’t drive onto ferries here, so why should there be any access for vehicles? If it’s your road access then I’d expect you’d be driving to one of the car ferries in Wynyard or out East. Ultimately, the majority of passengers are walk up, from the neighbouring Britomart or from apartments/offices in the city. This is what needs to be catered for, there’s simply not the space or desire to continue to dedicate large swathes of the city to space-hungry and inefficient modes of transport. One carpark could provide parking for a couple of dozen bikes or a single car, you do the math.
I am mainly referring to Waiheke Island passenger pickup and dropoff for passenger ferries.
These passengers typically have bags, children,dogs etc. or can be elderly. To travel by vehicular ferry is expensive, slow and much less frequent.
To infer that anyone who uses vehicular access for this purpose should use ‘Wynyard or out East’ demonstrates a lack of understanding of the issue. A lot of cost and space is given to free park and ride facilities to isthmus wharves but little attention is given to downtown ferry wharves for pickup and dropoff.
I disagree. While the needs of people with large bags and children are important, increasing vehicle access is not the way to meet their needs. Instead provide good pedestrian linkages so that pickup drop off can occur away from the terminal itself. Only in NZ do we allow the needs of a few drivers to compromise our public spaces to the detriment of the majority. No vehicle access in this location thank you very much!
From your comment I take it you also disapprove of parking at non downtown wharves as well. As for those not capable of walking far? No sympathy there I seems.
I note that those at Waiheke end cannot be driven up to the ferry ramp to board their ferry – they have walk down the wharf, for some distance at Waiheke to get on a ferry.
If they cannot manage that, then they obviously need a wheelchair or other assistance methods to use the ferry.
Its not Auckland Councils job to provide a convenient park at each end of the journey for those so mobility impaired they cannot walk a few hundred metres at each end of the journey.
Last I checked the ferry terminal was quite well provisioned for disabled access (as much as any wharf can be).
The problem with providing any parking on the Queens Wharf is that it gets abused by all and sundry including many taxi drivers who think the right to ply their trade overrides everyone elses rights including mobility impaired users.
And of course, that ignores the frequent airporter buses zooming up and down the wharf area too using it as a glorified bus park.
Appropriately located parking is fine. Vehicle access right up to the wharves themselves is not.
I have plenty of sympathy for many things. Vehicle access to the downtown ferry terminal is, however, not one of them.
From my own experience catching the Waiheke ferry only a small proportion have more than a few bags and the reality is they have to carry them onto and off the ferry as it is – if you have more bags than you can carry onto a ferry then drive the car across with the car ferry. The majority of people walk on and off with just a day bag at most, and last I saw dogs generally have 4 legs and enjoy walking.
The reality is space is at a premium downtown, and compromising what little we have so a small number of people can park next to the Waiheke ferry (which I’ll point out isn’t the case now and hasn’t been so for many many years) isn’t a desirable outcome. If you can manage to get on and off the ferry, you can manage to walk across the road from Britomart or from any of the thousands of parking spots there are in the close vicinity. I also see plenty of children and older people happily using the ferry as is. I’m not even sure I understand what you’re arguing about…just because ferries out in the outskirts of the city have parking doesn’t mean the same is feasible or desirable right in the centre of town.
Regardless, who are these people anyway who you say are transporting vast quantities of goods back and forth from the central city but expect to be able to unload directly onto the ferry and also refuse to pay for parking?
‘These people’ are Waiheke Island residents and ratepayers. They are notable in that they are the highest percentage users of public transport in the country ie. virtually 100% of Island residents use the ferries. Far more concessions exist for lesser percentage of user groups.
I am not arguing for long term bulk parking only a convenient dropoff and pickup point close to the ferry wharves.
That’s not true, at least not for work trips in the census. Only 7% of waiheke workers use the ferry to get to work, half as many who walked or cycled. Waihekeans mostly stay on the island and drive to work, 72% do that. So sure they may all use the ferry periodically, but not necessarily very frequently.
People who live in the inner suburbs use public transport at four or five times the rate as waiheke residents.
That doesn’t sound right. 800 peak patronage in the morning is over 10% of the Waiheke permanent population, it would at least double that for the working population I would guess.
Census only asks about travel to paid work, not travel for other purposes, and travel to work makes up less than 10% or so of the AM or PM peak according to other Government travel to work surveys conducted outside the Census.
So a good part of the 800 peak/morning ferry users may be travelling but are not travelling for paid work purposes [education being one obvious, but not the only reason].
Secondly, the Census also only asks about “main method” of travel when multiple methods are used.
So some census respondents on Waiheke may consider the drive or cycle to the wharf their “main method” of transport, rather than the ferry trip itself so hence the low number of “ferry users” as recorded in the Census as you suggest,
But as Nick says, no matter how you slice it, the data shows that workers using the Waiheke Ferry are not (a) all or even (b) the majority of, Waiheke ratepayers as was claimed.
And whenever I’ve used the ferries during weekdays post peak, the ferries are mostly full of retirement age folks from both Auckland and Waiheke using their Goldcards to get around for free.
They are also not public transport in the sense that they are subsidised – Waiheke ferries are 100% private operations, outside AT’s control/reach – by special pleading of Fullers to the Government to allow this.
Waiheke islanders therefore do not use Public Transport to get to or from Waiheke, but whenever they leave their island paradise, they do use Auckland resources like ferry wharves at each end, roads, streets, buses and trains and so are fully and fairly charged rates for the privilege of doing so, as we all are.
So enough of the special pleading that Waiheke islanders are somehow ripped off – you may be getting ripped off, but thats by Fullers and the like, not by Auckland Council.
People who choose to live on Waiheke also choose to pay a ferry fare. It’s a bloody island.
And from a policy perspective subsidising ferries from Waiheke will *not* alleviate congestion. Most people who are discouraged from using the ferry will simply reduce the frequency of their trips, or in the long run relocate to somewhere more accessible. Most won’t turn around and choose to drive.
Now alleviating congestion is not the primary goal of PT investment. It is however is a nice spin-off that Waiheke ferries do not deliver – which is why it’s understandably a low priority for AT.
I am not sure why there is so much hating on people who live on Waiheke Island here, and snarky comments don’t help. We are all trying to get better public transport and a high percentage of islanders use the buses and trains once they get to town. Public transport is defined as buses, trains, and other forms of transport that are available to the public, charge set fares, and run on fixed routes. Who owns that system is irrelevant. Every ticket to Waiheke bought has a Wharf tax component in it and surely we are entitled to advocate for decent wharves etc? I’ve never thought the Waiheke Ferry should be subsidised but the service levels and prices should be monitored by council/AT and a level playing field provided for any competition.
As for the choose to live on Waiheke comment! I don’t see anyone complaining about people who choose to live in Papakura and how rates have to subsidise their train/bus journeys and motorway trips, so I don’t really see how that is a valid point.
+10 Damian Couldn’t have put it better
Are any more up-to-date patronage numbers for the Gulf Harbour ferry available? It was reported earlier in the Rodney Times that patronage has more than doubled since the new timetable was introduced. That would already put it well ahead of the 2026 estimate based on this table.
http://fairwaybay.co.nz/friday-night-ferry-trialled/
Just Over 98,000 – Jul14 – Apr15
Do you think there will be (in the near future) discussion about a ferry service from Kawakawa or thereabouts to the CBD?