The AT board meet today and as I do every month, I’ve gone through the papers to pull out anything I’ve found new or interesting.
First up the closed session which normally contains the most interesting papers and for which we only see the agenda. In the items for Approval/Decision we have
- AIFS Contract – I assume this will be the contract to develop integrated fares.
- Draft SOI – This is AT’s Statement of Intent which is basically what they say they will achieve for the next year and it needs to be signed off by the council. It will be interesting to see just what targets are set for areas like Public Transport as last year they lowered them but have now significantly exceeded most of them.
- AMETI NoR – I guess this means we’ll soon see the Notice of Requirement for the Panmure to Pakuranga busway.
- Rail Operators Contract Commercial Framework
- Light Rail – timing implications
- Advertising Media Services Agreement
In the regular business report we have
Walking and Cycling
- The hearing for the Notice of Requirement for the Waterview shared path has taken place and AT have provided additional information to the commissioners hearing it. Presumably they should have approval fairly soon.
- They expect to award the contract for the construction of first stage of the Glen Innes to Tamaki Dr cycleway between Merton Rd and St John Rd in June.
- The contract to construct the Nelson St cycleway is expected to be announced by the end of this month with construction starting in July.
- At Carlton Gore Rd they say the majority of works will be completed by late June with lighting being finished in July.
Devonport Marine Square – The improvements should be finished by June and they say AT and Council are currently planning opening events tentatively scheduled for 5 and 7 June.
Otahuhu Bus-Train Interchange – AT say the detailed design is nearly finished however they say the delay in confirming funding (was reliant on the council providing more in the Long Term Plan) has pushed out completion to May/June next year and that will impact on the roll out of the new network in the South.
Electric Trains – At the time of writing the report there were 51 in Auckland with 46 having provisional acceptance and 36 in operational service. They say the final three vehicles are due to be shipped from Spain in Mid-June. Additional weekday services from Papakura will begin 8 June. They are still targeting the end of July for full introduction of EMUs which is a few months earlier than earlier plans. They are also looking at adding onboard digital information and advertising screens to add to the EMUs.
Newmarket Crossing (Sarawia St) – AT say they are progressing the project and will be seeking approval to lodge a notice of requirement in early July.
Parnell Station – Works are continuing on the station platforms as can regular train users along this section may have noticed. AT say it is likely the old Newmarket Station Building will be brought to Parnell and refurbished by the end of this year.
Bus – Negotiations have been completed with Ritchies to buy 18 double decker buses to use on the Northern Express. NZ Bus will also buy 23 double deckers to use on the 881 and Mt Eden Rd services subject to formal signoff and NZTA agreement. They say the single deck buses freed up will be used to respond to capacity limitations elsewhere on the network.
Parking – AT say they’ve started a communication programme to a variety of stakeholders to outline the details of the new Parking Strategy that they were seeking feedback on last year. They also say occupancy at off-street parking facilities is over target occupancy levels so they are reviewing pricing and they expect to implement any changes in July.
Lastly a separate paper covers off Auckland Transport’s presentation to the Council’s Finance and Performance Committee. Much of it isn’t going to be new to regular readers however there are a couple of slides that address the issue of where money is being spent. They include a series to bust some of the common myths that have come up over transport spending and one in particular addresses the question of whether the plans are too City Centric. I think it’s good that AT are actively trying to ensure the right information is out there and suggest they probably need to do it to the wider public too.
Processing...
The key issue with the City Centre Myth is that the CRL is a region wide project, not a local one. It is a whole of network fix, not a branch line to a particular area. Anyway every journey has two points, and while it will make working, playing, and living in the centre city more efficient it will also make the same true for the rest of the city. Living near any of the lines, including by transfer, will be enhanced by this project, so while the city centre suffers almost all of the disruption of the build, the whole city benefits.
In fact because it will improve the efficiency of our only city of scale it will benefit the whole country. Our economy desperately needs Auckland to build competitive services based business to help balance our dependence on the vagaries of the soft commodities sector.
Yes, how can they with a straight face list AMETI as a regional project but the CRL as cbd only?
“Bus – Negotiations have been completed with Ritchies to buy 18 double decker buses to use on the Northern Express. NZ Bus will also buy 23 double deckers to use on the 881 and Mt Eden Rd services subject to formal signoff and NZTA agreement. They say the single deck buses freed up will be used to respond to capacity limitations elsewhere on the network.”
About bloody time, the 881 and Northern Express have been at crush capacity for almost three years.
the contract should be re-negotiated so that any branded NEX buses so released should be used for additional short workings on the busway, Constellation to Britomart in the AM peak and Akoranga to Albany in the PM, in fact that should happen right away as it would enable the core buses to work much more effectively
Went by train from Britomart to Panmure yesterday – a most pleasant quiet and smooth journey – so glad they didn’t put a motorway through there. I am a regular and satisfied NEX bus user but the train was just so much better.
So will the Government please stop playing politics and get on with backing and financing the City Rail Link…………..NOW
I agree the council should stop playing politics and finance the City Rail Link….NOW.
Well it is actually, it is fully funding the 1st stage.
Do you prefer to pay for transport capital works from rates rather than from fuel taxes?
Yes.
Property values benefit from increased transport infrastructure, as the locations become more popular rental returns/capital gains are accrued by the owners. Rates do an excellent job of targeting these socially derived profits.
Fuel taxes target people under serviced by public transport, regressively burdening the poorest members of society. Poor people who cannot afford the rents in places with excellent public transport options predominantly use motorised transport.
Yet fuel taxes and RUCs are a good way to capture the decongestion benefits for road users of Transit systems; especially Transit systems on their own right of way. Remember Transit users do pay fares so they contribute directly too. 50% from property taxes, 50% from road users seems fair to me.
Not that we see any need to raise fuel taxes to fund the necessary Transit capex but rather re-direct funds from low value high cost future urban highway plans, especially the crazy and destructive additional road Harbour crossing. That $6 billion will pretty much fund the entire thing; including a Rapid Transit solution for the Shore.
Additionally I see value in Land tax [as opposed to property tax], and in particular a Carbon Tax, and I do like the Green’s idea of linking that 100% to income tax reductions, making it impact neutral.
The decongestion effect within the positive influence of public transport is reflected in the property values of the area. The higher levels of public transport increase property values and those places cost more to rent. Areas poorly served by public transport are lower value and cost less to rent. Poor people are served poorly by public transport, because they cannot afford the rents of the good areas. Rates are a better way to capture decongestion benefits, because they do not snare people who have to drive long distances to work.
Well none of that is true. NZTA says that every peak time trip on the AKL rail network is worth $17.42, a curiously precise figure I know, TO ROAD USERS, on top of the value to the user themselves. So this is distinct from land value uplift. And Transit attracts users from all socio economic groups.
Odd logic on your part.
Do you want to wait 5 more years (at least), blame the government and rail against National for being unhelpful? Do you think that will work?
We have to do this for ourselves and do it now. Because things can change. If a right wing council gets elected, this project is as dead as a dodo.
Disclosure – I rent, live in Auckland, travel extensively on public transport/cycle on weekends and have a company car.
I don’t get this comment. It’s the govt putting the brakes on PT works, not council.
The council could act unilaterally by raising rates, but instead it has chosen to ask the government for funding and requested permission from the government to levy regional fuel taxes. The government has predictably deferred and declined these requests.
I think rates should fund the capital costs (and do not like Len Brown), so choose to blame the council. Warren has another opinion.
Perhaps you are not a direct rate payer, but you will be indirectly where you live and work. Sounds like you feel the pain of fuel tax more directly, but either way we all pay. There is in general a crisis in local government funding as central gov is pushing more cost and responsibility onto local authorities. Look at CHCH.
You don’t like len brown, good for you, but it is entirely irrelevant to policy discussions. The government must love him now though as he has taken the political hit by raising rates to pay for stuff so they don’t need to [by the way $15 of the levy goes straight to central gov as gst!], and helps keeping the biggest part of the NZ economy working, AKL. Brilliant, keep the pressure on Councils so they sell their assets and raise their taxes, so govt can go into the next election with a tax cut…. shitty governance but clever politics.
Unaha thinks that all transport expenditure in cities/towns should be paid entirely out of rates, but doesn’t realise that every single place in New Zealand gets 50% of local transport funded from the NLTF.
Unaha…………….And not liking Len Brown is a very poor reason for undermining the key and pivotal link in Auckland’s metro railway system. After all the Government have accepted that fact, but unrealistically want to defer the start until 2020. All of which is unbelievable, in view of their massive planned expenditure, on other low value roading projects. They choose to ignore the clearly evident trends which really bugs me.
SB – I’m quite aware of that, but they can also say no and have done so. Do try to keep up.
Warren G – undermining it?
I am saying, stuff the government we should build it NOW. The only thing standing in the way of this key piece of Auckland’s transport infrastructure is the Mayor and the Council. Why is it that after convincing ourselves this is the right thing to do, should we be prepared to surrender this moment?
Auckland should stop blaming the government and build it ourselves. And if that means removing the useless, blame shifting, parsimonious council of today and replacing it with someone with a little more vision, let’s do that.
Well I agree with the urgency and I think it would pay off in the long run, but how the financing and funding is structured does matter, there are other calls on the ratepayers money. However, given that it turns out owning the Port company gives the Council no control I don’t see why we should bother to hold that asset so there are ways other than rates that could be explored while we wait for a government that understands cities.
The Left in Auckland is very likely to lose control of the council in 2016. Because Len Brown couldn’t keep his hands off and because the Left didn’t ditch the little twerp when they should and because rates have gone up. At the moment all Auckland has committed to is a very first stage buy effort.
If the Right takes control of this council they will be cutting rates and there is this big project sitting on the books ready to be easily axed. They’ll maybe funnel funds available to a second harbour crossing, for which they’ll probably get 80% + funding from the government. This rail loop will be dead for another decade.
2016 is the deadline, if we do not get funding in place and commitments made by then the chances of this rail loop occurring are very low. So you’re a bright guy, have think about – just come up with something workable in less than 6 months.
That analysis requires the right to win control of the Council, and I think that is unlikely. It won’t be Brown but it won’t be Banks [or whoever] either.
In train displays for better wayfinding would be helpful, however, I hope there’s not a repeat of NZBus whereby last year they started playing ads on the Inner Link screens that also had associated sound that was then piped through the whole bus. That added to the full-wrap advertising making you feel like you are in a cave, and in the rain blocks all view outside, made for a horrible bus experience. No way to continue to build patronage. I haven’t heard the audible advertising for a while so I hope it was a short-lived but cancelled trial. I also hope but have yet to see confirmation that full-wrap advertising will be banned in the PTOM contracts?
Are these the same buses whose drivers turn off the audio narration of stops they are meant to be providing?
Thought it was 57 traind
It will be.
I doubt that 57 will turn out to be the final number, but it’s a good start.
At what point will additional capacity be required and what will the lead time be for getting that capacity into paying service?
Will the next tranche be 3 car or 6 car units?
They’re all 3 car units, a 6 car unit is just 2 three car units coupled together. They can be attached and detached as needed.
All of our current trains are 3 car sets, which can be used as 2x 3 car sets for 6 cars.
The question is if you were gong to order more trains would you order the same (3 car) or different (6 car).
Well 3 and 6 car sets are the same thing; 2 x 3 car sets = a 6 car set. Some have talked here about buying more trailer cars to make 4 car sets an option, seems more useful to me to get enough units to be able to run a full 6 car peak [except Onehunga], as the way to maximise capacity before the CRL is operating and frequency can also be increased. Not sure exactly how many that would mean [including a number in maintenance etc].
Most of the broad strokes of the numbers are understandable given that for every existing feature or new development a certain amount of money needs to go into asset management and maintenance. However the detail of the graphic has been lost and it probably would be a better question as to why there is such a large quantity of cost directed at these two pursuits and if there were better maintenance management tools and practices around. Is asset management and maintenance largely directed at the Central City, (Again it would have helped the graphical argument if this lump sum was broken down to the purpose of the graphic. However most the assets are well distributed). It is not a very sexy topic, no new shiny ribbons are cut, no names stamped on the side but maintenance does account for a very large proportion of the budget and generally is given the least amount of public and media scrutiny. Until there are deaths, or significant failures. This is the status quo for many engineering and infrastructure areas that without checks, regulations, investigations, and development in processes the costs, (including human social costs) can continue to increase at a high rate. By investing in transport we also need to invest more future proof transport and taking time to plan that development thoroughly should not be side stepped. This includes a lot of infrastructure that people consider will never have running costs once built but generally have a high running cost like bridges/rails/roads etc as the pathways can quickly degrade and require checks. If new services are run across them they will also need to be repaired again. Really the only asset that did not require maintenance would be the AT office plant (it may have been plastic) and the site logos.