Auckland Transport’s hold a board meeting next week which means we finally get to see how public transport performed in February. February’s results are always slightly more interesting than normal as they give an indication of what kind of results we can expect from March Madness as the busy conditions usually start manifesting in late Feb – and so far, March has been noticeably un-mad. February this year had an additional dimension to keep an eye on as last year had an extra day due to being a leap year – although there were the same number of normal working days.

The good news is the results were strong, the highlights are:

  • Overall ridership for February was 7.38 million, up an impressive 8.6% on February-2016. That’s almost 600k more than in February last year and sees ridership on 12-month rolling basis, rise to 85.7 million trips.
  • The Rapid Transit Network continues to see strong growth with usage on the RTN clocking in with 2 million trips, up 11.3% compared to Feb-16. Within that:
    • Trips on the rail network increased by 10.3% to 1.6 million
    • Trips on the busway increased by 15.2% to 395 thousand
  • The big surprise from February’s results was the non busway buses which hasn’t been doing as well as other modes in recent times. In Feb though, usage on them rose an impressive 7.8% compared to Feb-16.
  • Ferries continue to glide along with nice growth, increasing 6.3% compared to Feb-16.

Most PT trips happen on work days and for those, you can see on bus and train that February was well ahead of previous years and that sets us up for a great March result. Could we see March reach 80,000 trips per day on the rail network?

If the current trends hold then we’re in for a bumper result in March, and without almost all of the cramming and missed buses of previous years.

The farebox recovery has been a measure we’re been keeping a watchful eye on a lot recently to see what impacts the various service and fare changes made in recent years are having. The results for February are notable in that for the first time, the net subsidy per passenger km for trains is lower than it is for buses.

We’ve sometimes seen subsidies measured on a per trip basis however per passenger km is more accurate as it takes into account that the average train trip of 13.26km is longer than the average bus trip of 7.54km.

One aspect that isn’t clear is what is causing farebox recovery ratios on buses to be falling. I suspect one element of it would be all the extra services that were put on both recently and prior to Christmas to help combat March Madness.

While not ridership specifically, AT added an interesting set of graphs to their Monthly Indicators pack. We’ve shown them before for specific projects, such as with AMETI. In all but one of the examples, you can see that PT can often compete with driving usually in the peaks – although we think PT needs to be more time competitive throughout the entire day. There are a couple of things that stand out though and the biggest one is how in most scenario’s the travel time via PT is at least in the range or close to it, with the exception of one – the northwest. This of course highlights once again how important it is we get a proper busway built along SH16.

Perhaps the buses along SH16 being so slow also has a small part to play in increasing popularity of the NW cycleway. For Feb, the counter at Te Atatu was up an massive 47% on Feb-16 while at Kingsland numbers were up a still impressive 18%

Lastly, Wellington also published their ridership numbers for Feb – but they’re definitely not quite as pretty as the Auckland results. For the month of Feb-17 compared to Feb-16:

  • Total trips taken were down 5.9%
  • Bus trips were down 4.7%
  • Train trips were down 7.7%
  • Ferry trips were down 20% – although this was off a very small base
Share this

97 comments

  1. Farebox recovery is within the target band, is that not ideal? Like as boardings improve they could just keep getting better farebox, or they could put on more services to keep the same farebox recovery. I’d prefer the second!

    1. That looks like exactly what they did do; as Matt says, no March big dramas, so it really looks like the additional capacity is working, so well done AT.

      Also on farebox recovery, it is clear to see the impact of simplified fares on income. There must be some regular users, especially taking longer connected trips, who have had a huge drop in what they pay to ride. Wouldn’t it be a good idea for AT to market this with some case studies? It’s a good story right? Much cheaper travel for a whole lot of Aucklanders, and especially for those further out with longer journeys. There’s an equity story there too.

      1. AT have fare equity issues with them favouring long distance trips over short distance ones.
        AT should really have the price dropped by a third for a short distance trip to encourage transit use and avoid localised congestion on the roads.

          1. Ben – they are both $1.85, which seems quite reasonable. I think the cheapest single trip in Melbourne with Myki is A$3.90. Also looks to me like Papakura to Manurewa is a similar distance to Kingsland to Ellerslie.

          2. But in Melbourne they also have free travel within the city centre which captures allot of the shorter trips

        1. yes and there remains boundary issues. a trip i occasionally do, mt eden to morningside after walking from town to mt eden, costs $3.15 just like (oddly) henderson to newmarket. a short stretch trip would be good (common in german cities).

          newmarket seems a glitch – it’s dearer to go from west to grafton than to newmarket.

          1. Yes I think they didn’t get the overlap zones quite right, All of Newmarket, Grafton, Mt Eden and Parnell should be overlap stations.

            ALso they count the beginning and end zones, not the ones you pass through. So it costs more to go from New Lynn to Britomart, than it does to catch the same train to Britomart, hop onto a second eastern line train and get off at Orakei. Those trips should clearly cost the same, not have the shorter single vehicle one more expensive!

          2. Except that for that journey there is no way to know how many zones you have gone through; you could have gone new Lynn, Newmarket, Otahuhu, Orakei; all one zone.

  2. Those speed charts clearly show how poorly served the South East and the North West are for transport choice (frankly outrageous NZTA built no busway with all the work in the NW recently). AMETI is slowly coming as far as nearly to the Pak Town Centre, but even bus lanes on Park Highway would significantly improve those times for both bus/train and bus (though why anyone stays on the bus, I can’t fathom). I guess the reasoning is that until the next AMETI stage connects to Panmure more buses on lanes on Pak Highway have nowhere to go after the Town Centre.

    Next I suppose is train capacity at Panmure. The chart clearly shows the incentive to transfer there, and once the bus part of the journey is improved so significantly then AT can expect serious growth in bus/train connections from the far east. Going to need permanent 6-car sets, and best frequencies out on to the shoulders and into the off peak too…

    1. At a recent open day about the latest extensions to the NW at Royal Rd the NZTA person was talking about how they will have bus lanes the length of the NW. They just don’t get how much time is lost with the bus having to squeeze back into the traffic lane at every on and off ramp. At Te Atatu west bound off ramp, cars are queued in the bus lane every night. So from Patiki the bus has crawl all the way to Te Atatu. Why don’t they do something about this.

      1. NZTA were supposed to have done. Did these changes to the lane layout at Te Atatu happen? Was supposed to have been done Monday night.

        http://www.nzta.govt.nz/media-releases/changes-to-exit-lanes-on-sh16-te-atatu-off-ramp/

        edit: Of course motorists have to use the bus lane and get to the end to realise they’ve f****d up and merge one lane right, so it may take a few days for it to clear up, *if* it works as NZTA intend.

        edit 2: Oh and the layout means peninsula-bound buses can’t use the bus lane at all. *facepalm*

    2. Someone at AT in their infinite wisdom has decided the new 5:14pm Britomart to Manukau train should be a three car set right in the middle of the peak! The old 5:12pm train was six cars. It has been leaving people behind on the platform at Britomart on a number of occasions.

      1. Is the 3 car consistent for the 5:14 day in day out or on the odd occasions.

        If constant then someone in Transdev has ballsed up the RSAP (Rolling Stock Allocation Plan) in bringing in the 3 car rather than a 6 car set for the main peak service out?

        1. All six weekdays (it didn’t run one day last week due to a track fault) since the new timetable was rolled out. It’s baffling as there are six car trains leaving or about to leave on the other main lines at the same time, meanwhile we squeeze onto our three car train and rush down to the station to make sure it’s not already full!

    1. Or any of the old crew who spent years fighting investment in rail on these terms, and still try to roll that tired old trope out: Hide, Wood, Quax, plenty of the government too… Their case was always based on fighting to keep rail in an appalling state, then turn around and point to it to say ‘revealed preference!’ no one wants to use it, and look at how expensive and inefficient it is. These people have long been wrong, and now need to admit it and move aside.

  3. Good to see that AT has finally listened and put on extra capacity leading up to and including March Madness. Just goes to show if you build it they will come. Not only is it larger buses but also extra buses meaning improved frequency.

    The travel time graphics are interesting particularly the NEX. It just goes to show you the difference between North and Southbound. The main reason why Northbound is slower is that it has to exit and cross the motorway twice (Akoranga and Constellation) versus Southbound just exits the motorway at Constellation straight through to the station and from Akoranga it has it’s own onramp onto the motorway with a buslane there (and buslane bypass of Onewa Road although Northbound does have shoulder buslanes there). With the coming extensions of the NEX through to Albany that should help to even out that part of the trip (bringing it below car travel time during peak – and the peak is likely to be longer by then too).

    For non RT buses I’m guessing perhaps the numbers are increasing again due to extra trips being taken under the new integrated fares (people will take that extra connecting bus where perhaps previously they might have walked – which is a positive and a negative of course).

  4. I’m still baffled how AT and NZTA have all these data supporting the benefits and high appetite for rapid transport from the people, but they still dont act on it. They still prefer to build more to make car journey fast which are always proven time and time again to make congestion much worse.

    1. The car lobby in Auckland is very strong.
      I think very few well to do people ride PT. There are many bus and train stations which are not very user friendly, eg Otahuhu that older people will not want to use because of the long walks required.

  5. Out West the never ending glacial road works on Edmonton and Te Atatu Rds are certainly killing commuting in the Henderson area.

  6. “The results for February are notable in that for the first time, the net subsidy per passenger km for trains is lower than it is for buses”

    I think its important to note that this comparison is somewhat arbitrary (ie not policy relevant) as more capital costs are included in bus costs than train (eg vehicle costs).

    1. Vehicle costs for trains are included as Auckland has to pay back the loan used to purchase the new trains and that is included in the operational costs.

        1. Which costs are not included, that are in buses? Maintenance, fuel, and purchase are included what else is there that isn’t included?

          1. Ok for the trains perhaps I have this wrong in part. The train purchase included a $90m grant which represents 15% of the costs. Of the remaining 85%, a little over half of the loan repayments are being subsidised by NZTA however I am going to assume Matt is saying the NZTA subsidy dollars are included as operational costs? The media releases on this implied a direct payment from NZTA to the crown. However, if these dollars are included then the proportion of costs borne as operational are lower than otherwise but by no means zero. Obviously (even neglecting the 15%) the costs are significantly understated as a loan rather than as an equivalent cost of capital as they are for buses. In addition depreciation costs for buses will be included implicitly as opex. Does the book depreciation of the trains get booked in the farebox recovery calculation?

            The other costs I was thinking of were RUCs for buses which fund operational maintenance and capital costs for the roadway. The track access charges are only to cover maintenance and dont cover capital costs on the track.

          2. Ok to try to answer my own questions I found this in an NZTA FRR document “The revised policy excludes long-run capital charges for asset
            replacement, such as rail rolling stock”. So based on that I would expect that neither depreciation nor loan repayments would be included in FRR calcs.

          3. Yes stops and stations are treated consistently. Bus operators pay RUCs that odtensibly cover the cost (including capital cost) of road use. Really just pointing out that the whole FRR is not just an arbitrary measure itself, it treats rail and buses differently so a direct comparison is meaningless (a bus FRR is a different thing from a rail FRR).

          4. Come on Matthew to say that bus RUCs cover all public utility that benefit buses and then quibble that fractions of rail costs can’t be traced exactly back to a fee is to betray your pro-bus bias even a little more clumsily than usual!

          5. I was never saying that bus stops and stations are included that is consistent for both. Vehicle costs are completely excluded for one and not the other, that is a significant difference. I am just pointing out a fact that you cant compare them as it is apples and oranges.

            It has nothing to do with mode bias, it is just an outcome of the operating models and arbitrary calculation methods. If AT contracted rail services from an operator who owned their own trains, and AT owned their own buses and ferries and just contracted an operator to drive them, the situation would be reversed.

          6. “The other costs I was thinking of were RUCs for buses which fund operational maintenance and capital costs for the roadway. The track access charges are only to cover maintenance and don’t cover capital costs on the track.”

            RUCs cover capital improvements? In which country?

          7. Really? Are my council (Hamilton City and Waikato Region) committing fraud when they claim my rates are being spent on capital for road improvements?

            I’d like to claim back the third of my rates they claimed they spent on that if they are lying.

          8. Yes between 50% and 100% of capital costs. My point is this is not applied to rail. My unstated premise is that rail capital costs attributable to metro rail are very significant, even if only 50-100% is applied. The same arguably applies to dedicated bus infra like the northern busway so it isnt strictly split along mode lines.

            My point is its an apples and oranges comparison, lets not try to compare one mode with another based on these arbitrary calculations.

          9. Agreed, the figure is more useful for comparing 2011-2017 than rail to buses.

            By the way, Kiwirail does also fund some improvements out of track access fees from my knowledge. Mostly minor stuff like curve realignments, signal relocation, etc.

  7. The speed chart should also include time spent on last leg (walking from home to nearest bus stop) as well as average time waiting for bus, and tranfer.

    1. Well then you also need to change the car ones to include time filling with petrol at the gas station, and time walking from the car park to your destination, and/or time circling around looking for a closer street park.

      1. The answer to that is very simple. I leave on my bike at the same time my wife drives to the station. I beat her nine times out of ten by about two minutes. We both catch trains. Bike train bike works on the Puke shuttle cos there is so much space BUT the numbers are steadily growing. There are a couple of people using folding bikes at Papakura to go into town

  8. Simplified Fares must make the Farebox Recovery much more complicated to determine – wonder if the bus drop off is due to the ‘free’ legs as calculated by HOP; or how they are doing that farebox split?

      1. Revenue isn’t divvied up between operators anymore. They are paid to operate the service and AT keeps all fares. Far simpler.

        1. I thought the PTOM ended up with some level of revenue sharing still as part of it. I thought what you are describing was the initial proposal but was changed by the current government.

  9. I note none of the travel times measured are for non-CBD trips. For example, from Ellerslie to Avondale (or vice-versa) is about 40 minutes in peak traffic, vs 1.5 hours on public transport – to cover a distance of only 17km.

      1. It would be jezza, but then you have to get the bus from Avondale station to the industrial end of Rosebank Road. For some reason, public transport and industrial areas do not mix.

          1. Bike-train-bike is a fallacy. You can ride your bike from home to the station, but on the other end you have to walk.

            Yes, I know it’s technically possible to put a bicycle on a train, but what happens if you try that during rush hour? And what happens if 50 people try that?

          2. It’s quite an instructive post to read.

            There are a lot of conditions that have to be met before multi-modal commuting becomes a viable transport option. This involves the availability of bicycles for daily use, parking possibilities both at home and at the stations, good and safe infrastructure and so on.

            In the Netherlands taking your own bicycle in the train is discouraged. Some things are simply not scalable.

            We will eventually get there, but this is far into the future in Auckland. This is advanced level stuff, we’re still figuring out the basics.

          3. @roeland Unfortunately Auckland Transport and Auckland Council have not cottoned onto this approach yet. Even bike parking at stations is generally poor and a lack of cycle networks to busway/train stations.

    1. Gillian is right; crosstown is poorly served. The policy has for decades been that you will always drive for these. This needs to change, and does to some degree with the New Network.

      Also it is rational to start with fixing the high demand routes first, meet and build that market first then fill in the gaps as resources allow. The clearly evident success of the beginning of that process should lead to an acceleration of an entire region wide Rapid Transit Network including high quality direct crosstown services.

      That is certainly a key feature of our updated CFN about to be released; Standby!

      1. Patrick, you are right it is rational to start with the low hanging fruit – get the people who are going to the CBD out of their cars and at least the cross-town commute gets easier. It’s nice to dream that one day the network might extend to the industrial zones though…

  10. Been doing a fair bit of cycling over February/March and couple observations

    1) Ferries are getting crowded – Fullers seem to not run the Kea in the weekend Devonport-City run, so the smaller ferries are get full up and taking longer to load/unload. Have seen people turned away – so having to wait another 30 minutes plus for the next one.

    2) The North Western cycleway is noticeably busy. On a fine Sunday afternoon, starting to really load up with recreational cyclists zooming along. I describe it to non-cyclists as a motorway for cyclists. Just needs the last few little bits hooked up and signposted. Noticeably heading out west.. it just stops, and I had to use GPS to figure out I needed to head along to Triangle road to get back around to upper harbour drive through some cycle unfriendly roads.

    3) The Quay st cycleway does not work as well being bi-directional. Had a few near misses, as traffic driving out of the wharf area pull out into the cycleway and drivers look down the road to their right, so don’t see bikes coming from the ‘wrong’ side of the road. If the traffic numbers keep up, you think a cycle way on the city/south side of Quay street would make more sense to me.

    1. 2. North western definitely needs more and better connectivity. Including a bridge over the motorway at Motions Rd. But also lots more cheaper local connection.

      3. Quay St is great, works really well, except: The wharf vehicle entrance is very dodgy, and must be ridden with extreme care and defensiveness. Be ready to take evasive action, and expect inobservant and impatient driving at all times and from all directions, including turns that drivers are not supposed to be taking. At the very least warning signs for drivers signs need to be more prominent and the right turn from Quay needs to be a Stop sign, or even be signalised to co-ordnate with the ped cycle and the bike stop be taken east at the start of the crossing….?

      1. Or, just stop all vehicles, i.e. cars, taxis and especially buses, crossing over Quay St onto the Wharfs. Find another place for them. Queens Wharf etc is no place for cars. Bikes should be able to sail straight past. All trucks etc should access the Wharf solely from Solent St, and they should build a cycle underpass at that point. Heaps of room to do that there.

        1. Queens Wharf is now totally set up for cars. They can circulate around the wharf so what was a great place for the public has ended up just another road.

          1. Nothing that a row of bollards can’t fix. The taxis coming and going and circulating around and the buses etc – its a bloody nightmare and a disgrace. Urban Designers need to tell the Traffic planners to f off…

      2. AT haven’t noticed that they have their “no right turn” sign at Queens Wharf on an island *in front of a still marked right turning lane*. With mixed messages like that, no wonder the driver behaviour never improves.

    2. For Quay st you just need to look at all the tyre marks left by the near misses on the cycleway. one day something bad will happen and AT will put a stop sign. On the cycleway.

    3. I think for ferries to reach their true potential Fullers needs to go and AT need to set minimum vessel standards as they have done with buses. Their continual purchases of second hand launches in a “that will do” attitude are holding back commuting speeds. With the exception of the Kea all have to bugger about turning around and weaving about to maneuver simply because they have propulsion at one end only and can only be controlled and be designed to go ahead bow forward. Any advantage they have once underway with speed is lost at wharves. And for reasons best known to AT the ferries stop at Northcote point both inward to Birkenhead and outbound. The two wharves are literally only hundreds of metres apart but those launches struggle to dock at both.

      Sure if great for shareholders but bad for passengers. And Waiheke is simply being held back by Fullers altogether!

      1. The new ferry just introduced for Devonport is a joke as well. Yes, it’s big, and it has a middle door supposedly for fast loading / unloading like the Kea. But the door is narrower than the Kea, and requires a separate ramp that needs to be pulled into place that is narrower still, so while two people can theoretically step off side by side, they would have to be very close friends indeed. So in fact it’s just like any of the other unsuitable fast catamaran type things they keep using on Devonport. One narrow one-at-a-time entrance / exit.

        The Kea is hopelessly unreliable, getting worse and worse by the week. I’d estimate it is out of service around 25% of the time I try to use it. Fullers then compound this with their complete incompetence in handling disruption and delay. It’s a complete shambles.

        1. Interested to hear how the new ferry was going, so thanks for that. On my way to Waiheke last night and saw the Kea and the borrowed one cross paths in the harbour – the Kea (for all its apparent reliability faults) looked much more appropriate to the task – calmly crossing the harbour with minimal wake etc compared to the borrowed one which was churning up the water with a massive wake, yet only going a few knots which made it look at bit out of place. The Waiheke ferries do have different sea conditions to cope with compared to the Devonport or inner harbour ones so perhaps the cats are justified, but the docking procedures etc are pretty tiresome when you just need to get off and get to work or wherever you are going. Not sure what can be done about that though.

          As for the disruptions and delays of Fullers..well, that’s a whole other topic!

        2. Nick – send a copy of your letter to Fullers. They need to know! (if they haven’t already figured it out already…).

      2. Ferries don’t need to be double ended Waspman. I’m not sure why you think they are a lot slower (probably just perception as they turn around). Thing is all ferries are only doing less than 5 knots as they pull in and out of the wharf area so not much time is lost at all and the much faster speeds for the rest of the journey more than make up for it. The Kea needs to go – it’s old, slow, unreliable and not particularly pleasant to be on. Should be replaced with a pair of faster boats to improve frequency and allow for more capacity.

        1. Not convinced by that – turning around and docking can take a few mins. On the waiheke ferries, especially during the busy summer months, this can compound on itself and make the services run late. Think of it like dwell times for trains, a few seconds here, a few mins there, but over the course of a whole journey it adds up. Maybe its different on the Devonport ferries but surely a seamless walk on walk off journey with minimal delay would enhance the service?

          1. Yes, double-enders are definitely better for dwell times. The Kea is a bit of a brick though and doesn’t have a great top speed – 16 knots IIRC, however there are plenty of double-enders around the world, such as the Many ferry that effectively have a bow at each end. Sydney ferries clearly think it is worthwhile for that run, which is quite a long one, meaning turn around times are a smaller proportion of the journey.

          2. Yep double enders are ideal for the Devonport run. Given it takes about 8 minutes to do the actual crossing and it takes several minutes to board passengers, allowing it to turn around within 15 mins each way is critical.

            Jezza, speed limit in the harbour is 12kts so faster doesn’t achieve anything.

            I’d like to see the kea replaced by two 99-seater double enders of about half the mass that can be staffed by two people each.That way you could get fifteen minute headways all day for about the same operating cost as the kea every 30 mins.

          3. @Nick R, agree about the 2x smaller ferries. If double ended can match the total trip time of a single endedthen so be it.
            The 12kt limit doesn’t apply to ferries flashing an orange light. Then again Devonport isn’t that far away by the time most ferries got up to over 12kts it would almost be time to slow down again. That’s where smaller boats are good as they can get up to speed faster and don’t take as long to board.

            Thinking outside the box, Vancouver is considering building a cable car from the city to the North Shore in place of ferries. Apparently over time it would save money, has a greater capacity, has fewer emissions and is likely to be popular with tourists. I wonder if something like that would work in Auckland?

        2. The AC transport plan is for a 10min frequency Devonport ferry. Fast loading will be of the essence. What is needed is two double enders with at least 4m wide end ramps that dock into pontoons with no more than 100m to the buses. Boats to be able to carry small electric vehicles up to the size of those now used by the posties. Move the city terminal to the East side of Queen’s wharf to avoid the congestion in the present basin.

          1. Pretty sure that you’d need three ferries, even if double-enders, to maintain a schedule at 10-min headway.

  11. I don’t know when they’re rolling in the New Network out east, but surely the proof is right here that ALL CBD-Howick direct buses must be replaced by transfers at Panmure (or Ellerslie for those who need to get to Newmarket/Grafton).

    1. They definitely need at least one frequent network route between Ellerslie and Panmure. Not sure where the buses would turn and wait at Ellerslie though if it were the terminus without becoming a real nuisance.

        1. Yes interesting they switched around the proposed one seat ride to Britomart roles of howick and botany originating buses after the consultation. Think it’s better this way as Botany is more of a hub than howick.

    1. Maybe AT should be convinced to do a guest post on progress, as I’m sure they have a great story to tell about how this is progressing.

    2. Let’s hope that this means that there has been a behind-the-scenes understanding reached with NZTA and central government regarding funding. I look forward to travelling on the Albany-Airport line some day in the not too far distant future. Sorry, I meant the Orewa-Airport line.

      1. Just by mentioning it doesn’t mean customers are ATs focus, their focus is to have the buses and trains running on time.

        Take a look at the AT attitude toward transfers at Papakura to Pukekohe during the PM peak, “There are no advertised transfers at Papakura, the Pukekohe trains are to leave on time”. The printed timetables certainly imply transfers but Trandev at the direction of AT are only to worry about trains departing on time and as the new bus timetable introduced last year has no bus option to Pukekohe those heading for Puke just have to lump it.

  12. Two charts missing:

    Western line – Henderson to CBD by rail vs car vs bus
    Southern line – Pakakura to CBD by rail vs car vs bus

  13. I was looking at the Auckland Council report and I was surprised to see that that the Pukekohe line has increased by 33%. I have not looked historical reports to see what the growth on that line was like. However I remember a year ago patronage was falling.
    I know puke line has a small base but it only serves one stop. So this growth I feel is impressive.

    Does anyone know why in recent times there has been such growth? Is it improved services? Intergrated fees? Result of some other changes? Or is it a push factor (southern motorway congestion)? Or is it population growth ?

    Does the growth in the puke line mean we should add more stops (I.e. Drury) or make some other changes to increase the growth further?

    1. There are plans for 2 more stops between Papakura and Pukekohe. Hopefully with electrification as well.
      I suspect the growth is a combination of growth in population along with increases in congestion on the Southern Motorway meaning that the train is faster than car.

Leave a Reply