The new bus network for South Auckland will significantly improve public transport options for many people in the area. A key feature of the network is about making it easier to transfer between services and one of the main places that will happen is in Manukau – one of Auckland’s most important regional centres. All up 15 different routes will stop at or pass through Manukau making it one of the busiest locations for buses outside the City Centre. Added to those numbers will also be inter-regional buses. To handle those buses Auckland Transport have long talked about building a bus interchange opposite the train station and now they’ve finally released details about it.

The proposed Manukau Bus Station is a key part of the roll out of a new public transport network across south Auckland. It will provide Aucklanders with a new network of buses and trains that will get them to their destination faster and more efficiently.

The Manukau train station sees an average of 1037 daily week day passenger trips and is currently the 13th busiest station in Auckland.

What’s missing is a bus station to create a bus and train transport hub for the south.

Auckland Transport (AT) has now developed concept design plans for the proposed new high quality bus station, aimed at making it easy to transfer between trains and buses, as well as between bus services. It will be designed to have sufficient capacity for long distance coach services. The facility will also feature a large enclosed waiting area similar to an airport lounge.

AT seeks feedback on the concept design to help make an informed decision to provide a high quality bus station and customer experience.

Located right next to Manukau train station, the Manukau civic offices car park on Putney Way (between Davies Avenue and Osterley Way) will be transformed to a 23-bay bus station. The train and bus stations will be linked by a covered walkway.

The AT project, in partnership with the NZ Transport Agency, is expected to cost approximately $26 million.

They say the interchange will have the following features:

  • 23-bay bus station (21 saw-tooth bays and 2 parallel bays) right next to the existing Manukau train station.
  • The new station will be built on the site of the Civic Building car park, on Putney Way (between Davies Avenue and Osterley Way).
  • Bike parking racks, taxi parking and drop-and-ride area.
  • Waiting lounge.
  • Real time passenger information.
  • 24-hour security, help points and CCTV.
  • Universally accessible.
  • Supporting the increased volume and movement of buses to and from Manukau and the wider network.
  • Designed for use by regional coach services, eg those currently using Leyton Way at Westfield.

And here’s what it is proposed to look like. The MIT campus and Manukau Train station are in the background.

Concept Design - Manukau Bus Interchange - 1

The building is said to have the following design features.

  • A high-quality building with an architectural look and feel incorporating local and cultural history.
  • Saw-tooth layout, similar to the Hamilton Transport Centre and Hamburg Central Bus Station in Germany, to provide higher operational efficiency.
  • Roof planes running in north-south direction, designed to provide maximum amount of natural light.
  • Promoting intuitive orientation and way-finding.
  • Designed to enhance the sense of space.
  • Stormwater runoff from the bus bays and bus manoeuvring area will be treated through rain-gardens located within the station area, prior to discharge to the wetlands in Hayman Park.
  • Bus station access will be via Putney Way to provide easy access to the train station.
Concept Design - Manukau Bus Interchange - 2
Looking at the bus interchange from next to the Train Station

For all the impressive talk from Auckland Transport I have some serious concerns about what they’re proposing.

We absolutely need good facilities for passengers but this design seems like complete overkill. It seems like they’re trying to build both a bus interchange and bus layover into one design. Yes some of those facilities may be needed for long haul buses but for the most part they are likely to be a fairly minor part of the interchange. If the new network is successful then over time many of the urban bus routes should become increasingly frequent meaning buses will need to be turning around quickly and therefore will keep wait times short. For many the structure will be something they just pass through quickly on their journey rather than a place to linger.

Concept Design - Manukau Bus Interchange - 3

The interchange is predicted to be hugely expensive at $26 million – which is a huge chunk of our PT budgets. Perhaps some of that cost is simply due to big the structure is with the building appearing to be about 150m long. Given the council wants Manukau City Centre to become a dense urban area – and therefore one with fairly significant land costs – it is absurd to so big and land hungry.

It probably would be cheaper and better for passengers to have had a smaller interchange that buses pass through and have layover facilities somewhere else close by in one of the industrial areas. In such a scenario buses terminating buses would drop off their passengers then drive out to the layover facility just a minute or two around the corner. Of course the reverse would happen for buses starting out. The image below is an example of what I am thinking of.

Christchurch bus interchange early concept

One of the advantages of such an idea is it would open up more space on the site for commercial or residential development which seems to be one of the key goals for the area.

Manukau - Future Development 2
Looking at the proposal from the NorthWest

Even as proposed there seem to have been some odd decisions made.

The sawtooth design seems all about squeezing as many buses in as possible. The down side to this is it will make for more complex manoeuvring of buses entering and exiting the interchange. In addition there are two bus bays outside of the sawtooth design on the southern side of the interchange. They seem very isolated from the rest of the interchange and it’s facilities.

Another option that may have been overlooked is to have facilities on the streets. The images show they plan to temporarily have buses stop directly outside the MIT campus so I wonder why they didn’t consider making those more permanent and also having some on Putney Way

Concept Design - Layout

There are probably lots of other issues too but another one you may noticed from the images and text is the talk of bike parking. it is of course essential to have that although the plan seems to have it quite isolated outside. With such a massive development it seems a lot more effort should have gone in here to integrate bikes better – like has been done in Christchurch. Perhaps even worse that than is there appears to be no way for less confident cyclists to get to the station, especially from the east. The plans for Putney Way include a wide footpath which is appropriate in a centre but no cycle facilities – not to worry of course because on street parking has been retained.

Concept Design - Manukau Bus Interchange - Putney Way

Who knows, perhaps my thoughts are off on this but either way you can have your own say. Consultation is open till 20 November and there are three information days.

  • Tuesday, 10 November 2015 – 12 to 2 pm – Centre Court, Westfield – Manukau
  • Thursday, 12 November 2015 – 5 to 8 pm – Centre Court, Westfield – Manukau
  • Saturday, 14 November 2015 – 10 am to 1 pm – Ground level, Manukau Institute of Technology, entrance to Manukau Station
Share this


    1. I can’t quite get my head around where the bike parking is in the Manukau plan. The top drawing seems to indicate the trapezoid shape on the right, but then the lower drawing says that’s a “convenience kiosk”. So is it just some racks outside the building? I don’t see much physical space for them.

      Mind you, the real disappointment in Auckland is the fact that you still can’t take your bike with you ON the buses (unlike ~ten other cities around NZ)…

      1. Sorry Glen but I’m completely opposed to the idea of accepting bicycles on Auckland’s buses. To do so would simply slow services down too much during loading/unloading, such that the bus services would end up costing more and carrying fewer people, i.e. it would be self-defeating.

        And I don’t think comparisons with other places in NZ is relevant – mainly because these places are not true urban public transport systems of the size and scale that we have, or will have, in Auckland. I don’t know of many large urban public transport systems which allow bicycles on buses. I think that’s the more relevant comparison to consider …

        1. When a lot of the time you’ve got at least a couple of other people in front of you getting on or off the bus, you’re not holding up the service dealing with your bike while they do their thing first. Again, like reversing buses, it’s a non-issue in the bigger scheme of things – it’s like saying don’t allow prams and wheelchairs because they take too much time to load/unload. Given the hillier terrain and wetter climate of Auckland compared with Christchurch, I’d also say there are more reasons to have it in the former than the latter. I’d also note that I’m struggling to think of many places in North America that don’t have bikes on buses; that includes the likes of New York, Seattle, Houston, Vancouver, San Francisco.

    2. How do you define “working well”?

      From my observations the design of Christchurch’s bus station will add circa 5 minutes to every bus service which uses it. Multiply that out and you are adding buttloads of operating costs, plus increasing travel-time for everyone who is on the bus travelling through this location.

      Maybe we have different definitions of “well” ;).

      1. I can only assume you mean the surrounding street layout, as the bus interchange itself adds little extra time. The only real headache is for buses departing to the west, who have to do a loop around Manchester St. I guess alternatively they could go out Lichfield instead…

        1. Yeah that is my issue about the timing of the buses, I take the 28 Papanui bus and Manchester Street right now is a mess with many detours and cones in place, therefore it is a detour to the next block or when slowly moving along the cones. It’s frustrating when I’m late for Course.

  1. I agree that this design is overkill. Particularly the saw-tooth design. Saw-tooth designs are for long distance/intercity type services with longer stops. They are inefficient and dangerous for urban bus services. I agree that pass through platforms would be the go. Even if they plan to integrate long distance services into this they should be kept separate to the side of urban services. Otherwise the rest of the scheme looks good, just don’t know how practical it is…that is a lot of cash.

    1. Yeah i agree. Not only is saw tooth desogn usually for long distance services, but it usually faces other way. This design seems expensive and poorly-suited to the needs of the bus network in this location.

      1. I prefer the kerb side parking for regional buses. Like in Hamilton’s and Auckland’s central stop for the Naked Bus / Mana Bus which is alongside the foot path, making it easier, more open and a more pleasant place to hang out waiting for Bus plus easier for checking tickets and load/unload bags with/for bus driver.
        In Hamilton the Intercity buses uses the saw-tooth parking. The bus door way is a crowded and difficult place to negotiate, when checking in with bus driver and loading bags.
        So for me it is great to see Naked bus stop along side kerb.

  2. I agree get ride of the saw-tooth design, they take up a huge amount of land and are inefficient. Utilise the surrounding streets, in particular Putney way. An anti-clockwise through-way design as proposed by Ben would be far better and half the size.

    Also, why do we need to include a kiss and ride and on street parking on Putney way, could easily move it to the recently upgraded Davies Ave, which is very nice for pedestrians as well. This in turn should save some bucks as well.

    AT should also focus more effort in creating a better cycle network on streets leading to the interchange, e.g Manukau station road, Lambie drive and Ronwood Ave, especially if they’re talking about cycle facilities.

  3. That definitely precludes the use of articulated buses.

    And we’ll get buses backing out (and turning) into the area between the parking lot plus some bus bays, and the station. What could possibly go wrong?

    I’ve seen sawtooth designs before in towns, but with a passthrough design.

    1. yes it precludes all sorts of things.

      But the main problem, IMO, is the operational inefficiencies introduced by this sort of design. We’re talking about adding ~5 minutes to every bus trip which needs to travel through this location, simply from circulation and reversing etc.

      And adding 5 minutes to every passenger journey that is travelling through this location.


      1. “And adding 5 minutes to every passenger journey that is travelling through this location” – I suspect that 5 mins is a bit of an exaggeration, and only 2 out of the 15 urban routes using the station will travel through. All the others terminate here, so there will be some layover time anyway.

  4. Wow. This is much bigger than even the Christchurch Terminal which has 16 bays and serves the whole city! Oo

    The bus drivers will have difficulty with the sawtooth design too I feel.

  5. Is the roof over the bus bays high enough to accommodate double deckers?

    Also, it would have been good to have cycling facilities at the other end of the interchange, so that they are convenient for train users too.

  6. It does seem a bit peculiar that there are complaints about spending to much on public transport – normally the discussion is in the other direction.
    Being so large does cover future growth, which I would have thought is a good thing – and a centralized station with all the platforms in one place is much easier than having the buses on nearby streets which is damn confusing for a non regular bus user like myself. A centralized building will have display boards telling me where to go – much easier.

    1. I like the bus interchange at the Wellington Rail station, less than 5 platforms (2-3 ?) and bus parking in relatively small space, next to a university building and a rail station, with the people under cover and out of the buses way.

      When I look at the money being spent, I’m sure there are other things that this amount of money could be spent on, while still achieving the desired result.

      1. Wellington’s bus station has 5 stops, and people and buses aren’t completely out of each other’s way – to get to stop B you have to cross between buses waiting at stop A, and a badly parked bus will block the crossing.

    2. I though I was the only one who though that big is good. Manukau is set to the a major hub not just regionally but also nationally (buses from Hamilton, Wellington etc.) since it is faster to transfer by train during rush hour. Better to have something big now, than having something small that it gets swamped after few years (Britomart anyone) and needing to be extended only to find out it is impossible since the area had been developed and would need a lot more millions to fix.

    3. The funny thing is that the Chch Bus Interchange cost $53 million and here is everyone moaning about $26m… Must admit I’m not quite sure how they spent the $53m (although there’s a lot of very nice features), but $26m doesn’t seem out of the ballpark for a state-of-the art public transport facility.

  7. I though this bus interchange allowed for development above it? It’s a waste of opportunity to not build up on top of the station. Aucklander really need to consider building upwards rather than outwards. We need skyscrapers to solve housing and space issues. If there are just going to build a ground level building over a large prime land in Manukau Centre… please scrap it.

    1. I OIA’ed Auckland Transport on building above the bus station at Manukau and their reply I picked up here:

      We can take two things from the answers:
      No residential apartments over the Interchange site (or even on Lot 59 itself where the Interchange will sit)
      Auckland Transport still either dithering or not having an idea what is going on with the full dynamics of the Manukau Interchange if it has not decided on inter-city operations

      1. It really be stupid of Auckland Council and Transport to miss the opportunity to build something on top of the interchange. Just look at the Manukau Station. It looks amazing and is functioning very well. The size of the train station is just a fraction of what the land size of the bus interchange will be. So just image having residential and/or office space above the interchange would be hot property and would drive growth to Manukau Centre. Manukau needs to start competing with the likes of the CBD and Newmarket to attract small business.

    1. It works because it was well designed and pedestrians can’t get into the area where the buses arrive and depart/reverse into until there is a bus there.

      Without that basic protection mechanism here too it will fail, miserably, people *will* get run over as they take shortcuts to get their bus – and then what, an expensive redesign is needed.

      Also note, Christchurch has only 1/3rd of the bus bays initially, operational, and they had lots of trouble with the reversing setup, even though all the buses have reversing cameras.

      Yes its sorted out now, but thats nearly a year on from the opening.

      A Bus sawtooth design on this scale won’t work as designed given the free and unfettered access to the “bus side” of the platform area by all and sundry.

      1. It’s been open for less than six months, and works fine (with all 16 bays open now). At most, the reversing adds ten seconds to your journey – when you’re talking about a 30-minute journey perhaps that’s negligible. It has the advantage of being more compact, especially if you want to have all your passenger movements from the same area. I agree though that a key safety aspect is preventing pedestrians in the area, and it certainly isn’t clear from the Manukau plan that it will be the same.

        1. This statement might not be correct “new pedestrian crossing across bus exist ALIGNED WITH PEDESTRIAN DESIRE LINE” as if the desire line is not directly for car park or the Naked-bus stop across to where the buses are waiting.

        2. Glen, I can’t believe that the Christcurch design adds only 10s to the journey when you consider that the buses have to 1) turn into the station (possibly waiting for signals, 2) circulate one way to access platforms, 3) stop, 4) reverse, 5) turn to exit station, again possibly waiting for signals. The total dwell-time for on-street stop in this location would have to be at least 1 minute quicker – and I’d expect this is conservative.

        3. The minute you go back to on-street you have opened up the possibility of pedestrians scampering across the road in between buses trying to catch theirs or heading off elsewhere – might be OK at a suburban bus stop, but with the numbers of buses and pedestrians at a major interchange that risk factor goes up a lot. Plus you will struggle to fit the same number of stops in the same footprint with a parallel-to-kerb arrangement (OK, I accept that shorter dwell times may allow you to reduce the number of bays). I suspect also that it would be a lot harder for central bus control to manage the operation of buses coming in/out; would have to do it more by cameras rather than the line-of-sight system they have in Chch.

          Hey, it’s a trade-off no matter what you do, between footprint size, operational efficiency, safety, user legibility, etc.

        4. The sawtooth design with automatic doors at CHC Station may actually speed loading. Passengers know which door their bus will use and queue in front of it prior to arrival, ready to board immediately.

          With a linear design you can’t preallocate a spot unless you have a very long platform – you can’t parallel park a bus. As a consequence the bus has to wait while the passengers find and then walk to the bus.

  8. The idea of a bus interchange with the train station is all fine and dandy but what has not been achieved is any way for people to ‘get’ to the train or bus interchange – ie do they have to walk for kilometers? There is NO public transport all along redoubt and mill road and scant service in Murphy’s road and hollyford road – everyone else has to drive to the station if they are to get there or not use any train or bus service.
    And where are these people supposed to park – in a paid parking building some streets away?
    How is that to promote the use of bus or train PT?

      1. Dear Patrick
        because as I mentioned, between Papakura and Hollyford road there is NO bus, no way of getting anywhere other than either walking (many many kilometers) or driving… much as we might want to use a bus or train, no option is given.
        And the council has already given approval to build thousands more houses on brownfields in Alfriston along this route, only adding to the already totally congested roads because, again, no PT and a motorway that is blocked from Drury/Karaka upwards.

        1. Thanks for that, but NO new bus network is planned along the route I am talking about nor in any of the new housing areas that will be built before we can even start talking about it! That is my point.

        2. The 366, 356, and 371 all cover this general area. Perhaps you could acrually state the area you are talking about more precisely than just Alfriston?

        3. So you could drive the <2km to any other bus stop and catch it from there, alternatively you could use the many public carparks available at Manukau, Manurewa or Takanini.. Many rural roads have no bus service.

        4. Hi, If users of the bus interchange/trains in Manukau have to drive there and park somewhere (in Manukau, Takanini etc) does that not totally defeat the introduction of the improved bus interchange etc? Saying that many rural areas do not have bus services is all fine, but thousands of houses are being added to this area (redoubt road upwards from Hollyford road all the way to Papakura including Ranfurly Road and all of Mill Road etc) and not one single extra bus service is planned.
          This just adds to the existing problem of people using cars to get to work or shop etc, as they do not have any choice in the matter. Instead of rural the area is rapidly becoming more highly populated than many other parts of Auckland city as most do not have the high density housing that is being built here.

          All the new housing developments will be lived in by families or more than one, all facing the same issues – no infastructure whatsoever other than a road to congest with cars.

        5. a) As I have previously stated, no one anywhere has to drive to the train station in order to use it.
          b) Even if they did have that wouldn’t defeat the purpose. The purpose is to make it easier to transfer therefore encouraging more people to transfer, not to make everyone transfer for every trip at any time.
          c) As I have stated twice alread 3 bus services are planned for this area, but none use Mill Road in that section. Given that the land not well served by these routes is zoned future urban it should not be under current development and I have not seen any proposed developments in the area with weaker coverage. Could you provide evidence?

          I agree that if there is housing going in that area then it makes sense to run a route Papakura to Manukau via Mill Rd, but I don’t see the housing happening to justify it.

        6. Sorry for the late response, I have been away.
          The new SHA that are listed on the council map are on there, they include 3 areas in this area (Manurewa x 2 and Takanini) – what they do not show is additional land purchased in Flat Bush beyond the planned areas (some 61 ha at least) and land being bought up for development (high density) on the corner of Mill Road and Ranfurly Road and all the way down Mill road. These are not specified SHA they are private developments and sales from famers etc who want to get away from the over the top roading plans that AT has.

      1. Those are routes from the new network. But still, the current network has a couple of buses. I sometimes catch the 466 which goes through the Gardens and Totara & Manukau heights area…it goes down Redoubt right into Manukau. So YES, there are services that take you to Manukau. With the interchange and new network it should function far more efficiently with services taking you right to the train station, which it currently does not do.

        1. Yes they are new, we are talking about the transfer station which will only ever operate with the new routes.

  9. hmmmm Could be too large, but then again good for future growth. Agreed should have better& bigger cycle access to it.

    1. Yes. That would be much more sensible, efficient & simple. I would also suggest they could also look at Amersfoort NL Station for simple and efficient.

      1. yeah, there’s lot of good *urban* bus stations in Europe. Many that would seem on the surface to be better suited to the Manukau context than Hamburg. Amersfoot in the Netherlands ist goed, as is Almere and Sloterdijk.

  10. The design take a huge amount of land footprint and not occupying its air space.

    The design should allow better use of land by building more levels for commercial and social activities.
    For example it could build some retail, restaurants, library, community hall, apartments on top of it.

  11. Has anyone else noticed that from a passenger perspective the parks are all angled the wrong way? One would have to exit a bus and then walk around the front of it to get into the interchange, and the other way when boarding a bus.

    I would suggest that if remaining with a sawtooth design, it should be around the other way, with the entrance/exit swapped. This would also allow future upgrades to a similar arrangement to the Christchurch terminal where the passengers step directly from the bus into the terminal.

  12. Has anyone considered the possibility that the train line will eventually be extended and will be cut and cover? From what I can see the bus exchange is on top of that path so a low rise bus exchange will at least be more easily demolished then replaced than a multi-storey building. Has my memory failed me regarding what is where. I have only been to Manakau station once while on holiday from Sydney Aus.

    1. The problem I see is that you wouldn’t be able to fit more than about a dozen bus stops (plus the inter-city ones), and that’s also at the expense of the taxi and kiss’n’ride parking. At least you’ve kept the principle of having access all from the same building.

        1. which will incur delays accessing and exiting the station, as will any passengers who are on the buses at this point. Hmmm.

        2. Apologies, on second inspection it appears to be 6/26 through buses each hour. Should still never be more than ten buses sat waiting.

  13. So we are going to surround the the train station with a giant car park?

    I would think it more sensible to have the busses pass through a central interchange by the train station, but they just stop to drop off pick up and terminate at the other end of the route out in the suburbs at the end of their shift.

    That way the centre of the city doesn’t need this giant bus park, and when buses do need to terminate their run and wait 15mins till the next run is scheduled they can just park on the street out in the burbs. That’s how things seemed to operate in London.

  14. There’s a distinct operational problem if you try to implement a “compact” layout like the one shown in – what happens if you have to quickly change buses? (because I presume that quite a number of users will be transferring between services here)

    Assuming that you’re not allowed in the bus operational areas, then potentially you might have to walk to the stairs, go up, over & down the overpass, and then walk to your next bus – if you’re less mobile that trip might be slow or involve a couple of elevators. Contrast with getting off bus 1 and just wandering along to your next bus a few platforms away (even 20 platforms away is still only a minute’s walk). I think that is a key reason why Chch went from these early concept layouts to the final layout you see there now.

  15. I can’t find any mention of bus priorities on the neighbouring roads. Presumably the extra distance (and time) from the motorway is one reason the inter-city operators are not committing to the interchange. If there are going to be more buses in the area they need to avoid the traffic jams and traffic-light delays. A train to Britomart takes 46 minutes. Driving can take as little as 20 minutes. If the railway to Manukau is going achieve its full potential, it needs some express trains to the CBD.

        1. Well I wasn’t driving the bus. But they changed drivers at Manukau and this driver took us through all sorts of narrow residential streets (bit like a Hong Kong bus route), I don’t know exact time, but we were moving all the time and not stuck in traffic.

        2. If we are talking morning rush then I will bet my balls that you didn’t get to Britomart in under 45

  16. Similar but not as efficient as the Hamilton Transport Centre. Which has the saw-tooth on outside of curve reducing the reversing distance.
    Does anyone know which Hamburg Central Bus Station they are referring to.

    1. They’re talking about Bus-port ZOB Hamburg – can see some images on their homepage

      I would note that this is a bus station for inter city and inter regional buses operating out of Hamburg, it’s not the bus station for local buses. As such it’s a stupid comparison to Manukau as it serves buses that terminate or start their journey there and spend a reasonable length of time. I’ve never come across a sawtooth design for any bus station in Germany that was for local buses as will be the case in Manukau. But have seen sawtooths all over the world for inter city.

      Someone in AT is either completely incompetent and didn’t even research what they are comparing or AT is being completely disingenuous.


  17. Wouldn’t a design like the one at New Lynn work well for this location? That location also has a large number of routes distributed across 5 bus platforms. The old Otahuhu bus station is another that comes to mind—it may be ugly but it functions pretty well.

    1. Indeed, this one seem to have been designed by people who no idea how it will be used. Adds a huge amount of unnecessary time turning down side roads to get into the station, driving and parking slowly in, reversing slowly out, driving out and crawling back out to the main road.

    2. yep, both designs would seem more appropriate, especially New Lynn. Main problem with Otahuhu was its age and a lack of maintenance.

  18. Bidders for planning and design for this project were told no changes to the in-house developed concept design would be considered by AT. It’s almost certainly much too big – 23 spaces can accommodate more than 450 bus movements per hour and the bus service level forecasts I saw were about a tenth of that.

    The angle of the sawtooth is problematic. As others have pointed out it would be better the other way around. The great strength of the new Christchurch bus station is the bus doors connect directly with the lounge. This lets them separate pedestrians from the bus roadways via the locking doors to make the reversing safer. In the Manukau design there will be little to prevent people from taking short cuts via the bus roadways and driveways because they will be boarding and alighting outside, with more potential for conflicts.

    As others have also pointed out, the temporary bus stop locations offer a much better bus-rail transfer for customers. On-street stops here could provide a good quality solution with adequate bus capacity and the interchange site could be developed for a more sympathetic commercial or residential use to create a bit of a town centre around the station instead of a sea of cars.

    1. yes, on-street would be good for through services and their passengers. On-street would be closer to train station and university for passengers who do disembark here.

      Leaving through services on-street might save millions of $$$ in operating costs over the lifetime of the facility. And this figure will only grow as the number of services increase (which we hope it will!).

      1. “Leaving through services on-street might save millions of $$$” – there will be just 2 through routes, so it probably wouldn’t save a fraction of that.

  19. “Bidders for planning and design for this project” – or “whose prepared to put in the least time, effort and thought”

    There is nothing more expensive than choosing lowest bids for planning and design. Looks like they’ve spent around $12:50 so far. On bigger projects every dollar saved on design and documentation can cost $10 on wasted floorspace, inefficient planning and variations for documentation cock ups. So by saving $50-$100k they’ve already increased construction cost by $500K to $1M. The most ruthless (& successful) developers never use the cheapest designers.

  20. Will the buses in the saw tooth be discharging from the rear doors?
    The Southern bus platforms are open air? for Naked Bus that is really Naked!
    Car parking in the South is going to provide even more pedestrians to slow down the bus exit and entry, how can that be avoided?
    Why do the Intercity and Naked Buses need to be to the south not in the saw tooth?
    The saw tooth faces south and is very exposed will it be well weathered?
    Putney Lane is a pedestrian barrier for sheltered access to the Westfield mall, how will that be dealt with?
    The covered crossing to the Uni and Train station across Davies Ave needs to start form the building access and be designed to block out that South Westerly cold wind.
    Does the Pedestrian crossing need to be nudged south to the southern car park as it is going to impede buses turning into the area with 2 crossings. When one crossing on the throat of the entry way would do and the northern crossing moved south to combine them both into one.
    Will there be sheltered walking to the Mall?

    1. They really seem to have got the saw tooth the wrong way round. In NZ, as far as I know, all our buses load from the front left. This design precludes that.

      But it makes no sense that they could have made such a basic mistake. Yet I can’t think of any other reason for the way it is shown.

  21. The buses seem to be better designed for quicker emptying if both doors are available for exit. That would probably mean that parallel parking is better. I notice in the US bus – train deliveries in Utah they seem to have indented kerbs in a wave fashion that enable the buses to move in and out freely with the lock accommodation designed so that the space between buses is minimized.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *