In just 39 days, on June 11, Auckland Transport will roll out the new bus network for West Auckland. From a quick look, most of the network confirmed over two years ago remains the same, although there do seem to be a few changes, mainly to do with the peak services. Like South Auckland, one major failing by Auckland Transport is that they won’t be delivering on the rail frequencies promised to support the network. As such services will be stuck at only every 20 minutes off peak and every 30 minutes on weekends.

But what is really noticeable about the formal map for the west is how appalling service is to the Northwest. From the Northwest there is just one, half hourly service and from Lincoln Rd through to Westgate it is limited to local roads – in the mornings Triangle Rd can be severely congested so that half hourly service will be slow and unreliable.

Of course, one of the key reasons for this is the lack of the Northwest Busway or even any proper bus interchanges. Prior to consultation on the new network, AT had talked building some interchange stations at Te Atatu and Lincoln Rd but after local residents opposed the Te Atatu interchange, AT went silent and nothing has really been heard about them for the last 4 years. During the consultation they released this graphic showing what they would do with frequent services with those interchanges and eventually the busway.

Getting on with the interchanges should be a top priority but the significant improvement won’t come till the busway itself has been built. It’s now considered so important, the Auckland Transport Alignment Project listed it as being required in the first decade. Here’s an earlier schematic from Auckland Transport on it.

If you’ve been out past Lincoln Rd recently it’s hard to miss the construction underway to widen the motorway between Lincoln Rd and Westgate. Yet despite the busway being a key project, it’s not being built at the same time meaning we’re going to have to go back again in just a few years and dig everything up again. Not building it at the same time as all of the motorway widening works is quickly shaping up to being one of biggest transport mistakes of all time.

The NZTA’s excuse for not building the busway is essentially “but it wasn’t on any plans” and that it “was only marked as a QTN route (only requiring some bus priority) rather than a rapid transit route requiring a dedicated busway”

Now this is true for the motorway between the city and Lincoln Rd but isn’t true for the section from Lincoln to Westgate. The 2010 Regional Land Transport Strategy (page 84 – 5.7MB) clearly shows that section as a future Rapid Transit route.

While the 2010 RLTS may possibly have been the first statutory document to include the route as rapid transit, it appeared in numerous other documents from the former Auckland Regional Council (ARC) and their subsidiary the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. Reports I’ve found at least as far back as 2008 include the above map and I suspect it dates back to earlier than that. Some of those documents can be found here.

The works underway at the moment had to have been consented at some point. Recently I came across this consent hearing report from early in 2011 and it it contains some interesting comments in relation to the idea of the Northwest busway.

First that Auckland Transport submitted requesting that the route be future proofed for rapid transit

The report contains significant discussion of the differences between a QTN and RTN networks and what they require. But ultimately the whole idea of even future proofing for a busway was ignored because AT didn’t yet have detailed designs for it. In other words it was better to rush ahead with a project (that didn’t start for another 6-7 years) than put even a small amount of effort in to do some even basic future proofing.

It was already pretty clear in 2011 that we’d need a busway here sooner than 30 years but like so much of our PT system, no one believed it.

There was also quite a bit of discussion around bus priority lanes on the full length of the westbound and eastbound off ramps at Lincoln Rd. The NZTA were arguing against providing them but it was recommended that they be required to include them. We might need to follow up to see if that ultimately became a consent condition though as they definitely don’t exist on those off ramps.

Finally, it’s not like the NZTA didn’t have at least some indication as to what would be required for a busway. After all just a few years earlier they’d completed the Northern Busway and a document from 2010 even had some very early designs of what would be required to accommodate the busway.

I feel particularity sorry for some of the local residents who are going to eventually have to put up with another round of construction for something that should be included in the current works.

Ultimately, we now think there’s a good case for eventually having the busway as a light rail line and have included it in our CFN as such.

Share this


  1. Local residents rejected the interchange. Let’s make sure they hear that everytime they complain of traffic.

    This will work out anyway as instead can now go direct to Light rail

    1. The funny thing is that now the land is not used anyway and apparently got earmarked for ‘housing’.

      1. Excellent! That is exactly what urban land next to a future RTN station should be used for.

    2. Probably residents in the immediate vicinity complained about the interchange. Local residents in the wider area would have supported or more likely been silent on it.

      1. Why consultation processes at current are flawed. One of the major things the Productivity Commission wanted changed so that Authorities have to come up with less rigid consultation methods and consider all residents including future ones when making a decision.

    3. I’ve mentioned this before, please a little understanding on this issue GA.

      The reason that neighbours opposed the bus interchange in Te Atatu is that it was totally mishandled by AT/NZTA.

      Those residents signed a MOU with NZTA agreeing to the houses being removed in return for sound walls and landscaping. They were then blindsided by the interchange. Reaction was to bad process….

      On top of that, I’m not sure it was ever the best spot (all the arsing around work on and off ramps and right hand turns across Te At road).

        1. No this is again blaming the residents for a very poor last minute plan. The AT rep at the public meeting said ” this isn’t a very elegant solution but it’s what you are going to get”. Buses would be leaving the motorway and crossing major roads to access the interchange, buses leaving the Peninsula would have to make a right hand turn off Te Atatu Rd to get into Titoki and then do another right hand turn to get back on Te Atatu Rd and the motorway on ramp. The local board and local MP all had no knowledge of this plan and basically told AT to go away and come back with something that is better – nothing been heard since.

        2. You can blame both, but in all honesty, no interchange is probably better than the Titoki Street interchange.

        3. Harriet, that’s true, some one would still have complained. But it was because the consultation was a shambles that Phil Twyford (mp) was able to stand up at a mtg and ask AT to go back to the drawing board (and now we’ve heard nothing for 4 years! ).

      1. Haha right. I distinctly remember the reason being “we don’t want smelly fumy buses passing our house at all hours of the day” or something along those lines.

        1. There may well have been people saying that Peter but do you think that was what stopped the interchange as planned. All the other reasons stated above and the input from local board and MP are surely what stopped the original plan going ahead. I want the interchange and a busway -not the giant bus stop that was essentially what was suggested.

    4. I agree that it was silly to reject it but the consultation process from Auckland Transport was complete shit to be frank.

  2. I actually know someone who owns a lot of property in Titoki Street and it made me rethink the interchange there. It’s a terrible idea. If the NZTA refuse to build a busway there then the next best solution at Te Atatu Road is to just put some good quality bus stops as close as possible to the traffic signals at the interchange and run buses through.

    1. When you look a the corridor, the northern side was always the wrong side for the interchange. It would have put the busway through the Te Atatu league club.
      The process was rushed and felt it. Shambles. Pretty much like the entire corridor.

  3. I think the issue stems from the fact the RTN was for the Upper Harbour Crostown BRT not a NW Busway looking at this.

    Does that excuse NZTA no, but a big chunk of the blame has to lie with ARC and ARTA for making it easy for them

  4. The lack of busway means that AT needs a lot more buses in order to serve the NW area. In the new network there’s going to be (roughly) 20 buses in peak hour going to the city between Te Atatu and Pt Chev. That stretch takes about 20-25 minutes to cross as is (even using the bus shoulders, mainly due to long on-ramp and off-ramp queues). It actually got significantly worse since NZTA (or perhaps AT) enabled the traffic lights at the Pt Chev off-ramp. With proper priority that distance could be crossed in 5-6 minutes. So in peak hour AT wastes between 5h and 6h of bus running time.

    1. Yes so they need more buses for two reasons,

      1. Instead of a trunk/feeder system where more frequent local buses connect to an interchange with a WEX service using high capacity vehicles DD’s like Rail/Nex so you fewer more utilized DD’s they instead have of lots of half empty infrequent single deckers costing money & clogging CBD streets.

      2. The lack of priority means you need more buses to keep the frequency meaning more bus running time.

      But to be fair mostly not AT’s fault this time, is ARC/ARTA/NZTA

      1. This was all decided before AT came into being although some of the people that had their hands in the cake back then are still around now.

    2. It looks like in the new timetable AT opted for an easy escape – now at peak trip between Te Atatu shops and Pt Chev shops takes 30-35 minutes (previously 20 minutes). So the 7.05 arrives at Albert st at 8.10 – 65 minutes (previously 50 minutes) to travel 16km, quite an achievement.

        1. Another interesting thing – AT plans for 110 to take 25min between Triangle Rd and Pt Chev shops at 7.00am – I guess they’re planning on giving the buses wings to fly between those two points 🙂

          I think after a few months we’ll see a review of the timetables (the same that happened for South Auckland)

  5. Seems like there may be a “lick of paint” solution in future years possible – paint the left-hand lanes green. Not ideal, but doable, and perhaps they could add in some sort of bollards similar to those used for cycle lanes in a hurry?

    1. i like that idea. It could be done in so many places if not for people demanding on street parking.

    2. The idea is great, but there are some constrains that make it difficult to implement:
      – Patiki/Rosebank on/off ramps – such painted lanes would have to intersect with general traffic
      – limited space on Pt Chev off-ramp – i’m not sure if it’s wide enough for 2 lanes all the way through

        1. I’d guess because it’s going to be expensive, which means it’s not going to be a ‘lick of paint’ type solution any more. NZTA even made the bridge on the causeway too narrow for a proper bus shoulder (probably as a cost cutting exercise).

  6. Off-topic but in the same vein: Why are we only NOW widening the NW from Lincoln and over Royal Heights?

  7. With the exception of rail, trying to get around on PT out west is a mockery.

    And of course the now expressway on SH16, formerly the Northwestern motorway, is living proof of that.

    But hey, lets make the same mistakes all over again with the widening north of Lincoln Rd. However NZTA are only reflecting the ideological wishes of their Ministers.

    1. Is it even an expressway? That 80kmh across the causeway will become permanent soon enough, and then the 100kmh stretch after Patiki will become 80kmh, and so on and so forth. The same speed as Ti Rakau Drive, no less, but with twice as many lanes. You’d have to think that in any other countries there’d be an inquiry as to how we spent billions of dollars to end up with less functional infra than we had if we hadn’t spent anything.

      1. Studies actually say that speeds of 70-80km/h flow better & have higher throughput than ones with 100km/h. From a traffic engineering perspective unless the motorway/expressway has below a certain VPDPH like regional highways not worth it but its not politically popular to lower it.

        1. true Lower speed but more consistant is a much beeter experience I would arge than 100 and then stopping for 5 minutes.

        2. That doesn’t seem to be a trade off that’s getting made – you still end up stationary either way, sadly. It’s just sheer volume that is doing the damage, and adds to the point of the post IMO.

        3. One of the reasons reducing speed limits on arterial roads to 40km/h in international examples has not caused major changes to average speeds due to the reality of signal/intersection delay.

          All it means is when you do have a chance to reach top speed and you hit someone the fatality rate drops from 60% to 25%.

        4. Only at peak does this theory apply but if going slower is the answer and ultimately not getting out of bed is the safest way to get through life, then why spend money on so called motorways?

          I agree with Buttwizard, the drop in max speed is because NZTA are very worried their billion dollar Waterview connection is going to jam up SH 16.

        5. My understanding is the drop in speed between GNR and CMJ is because they have to squeeze an extra lane in so they have narrowed the lanes down, which usually sees a speed limit reduction.

        6. Maybe I am stupid, but given a linear road with x number of traffic lights, in the absence of any knowledge about the interval between light phases, increasing speed would surely reduce chance of hitting a red at any one time (using my admittedly poor mathematical knowledge)

        7. I did say major changes in average speed theoretically you are correct but it only works out to be a minimal saving often in seconds which is why the trade off has been worth it for European countries doing it.

          I don’t know why the NZTA is doing it, the argument above was it would make the network less effective due to the speed reduction which technically isn’t true.

        8. The speed limit is reducing because the NZTA are expecting so much complex weaving to occur.

        9. I was not aware of that! However I’d still suggest it is as much arse covering as anything else given the monster that the Waterview Connection is going to unleash on Westbound traffic.

        10. At jdel about x traffic lights speed thing. I have an understanding that lights are designed to sync traffic so that average speed can flow through all of them. This certainly should be. So if max speed is 50 then lights prob synced for 40, as speed is limted to 40 ; with my fruzzy comprehension of stats, means they would be able to synch the lights with a greater abilty to match the average flow speed betweeen lights of say 35 which would speed up traffic as more vechicles could go through one “sync” rather than tryiñg to race more with an average of 40 with a larger quartile missing out? Is this right folks?

  8. Sailor and Harriot we like you .. Good points! Ok pokie. So flying cars then? Also can we get those amphibious cars built in Auckland with a NZTA waiver on all saftey aspects of them.. And more high rise buildings and free coffee and nightclubs and free cake.. Motobikes? Can they make everything easier?

  9. Have AT made any official comments on why the off peak rail frequencies aren’t being increased? Talk about low hanging fruit.

    1. I suspect it must be tied to the 50 % farebox recovery target. With this target it effectively means they need to get to say 52 % to allow a bit of room for introducing new services and still staying above 50 %.

    2. They wouldn’t tell me but they said they are applying to KR for the 2018 Timetable Specification (Whole timetable including all train movements including KR) for 2018.

    3. Unofficial, but there appears to be a rapidly escalating crew shortage problem. If they’re ten percent short now and need a fifteen percent boost in service numbers to accomodate the 2018 frequency requirements, that’s a quarter short of the required numbers. Wild guesses based on recent job ads imply that they could only recruit and train half this number by March. Looks like Christmas in Brisbane.

  10. Hey after all said and done. Auckland traffc and in much thanks to this blog better transport and even NZTA Auckland transit is now fixed! We can go on complaining as as city and also of course improving where resonable but the movement of us is improved so much we may not remeber catching a bus in the 90s or even driving was like. We are auctually pretty spoilt for a big city to be able to drive so easily and enjoyably around the city. A few things are changing but its not that bad.

    Connect the shore for people on bikes properly and we can basically get around if we really want with not so much fuss. Compared to many cites its OK.

    1. While this blog has indeed been a great resource and a welcome distraction, and it deserves much applause, of course all the praise must in truth go to AT for grasping the nettle (ouch!) and working hard to make the difference. I know it can’t be easy getting more brickbats than bouquets but the successes are hugely welcome.

      I’ve always said – good design results are when nobody even notices. You’ll never get thanks – but if it flows smoothly without hassles then you’re getting there.

      Bit more work to happen yet, but slowly, you’re getting there!

    2. @freedom, what cities are you comparing Auckland too?
      Sure it can be harder to get around in many of the much larger cities however so far as comparably sized cities go Auckland has pretty rubbish PT and traffic congestion as a result.
      I don’t know many cities of less than 2 million people where it takes more than 2 hours to cross from one side to the other outside of what would be a typical international rush hour (example Constellation Drive to Papakura a distance of 45km will on many days take over 2 hours after 2:30pm something that around midday would take about 40 minutes. Well over 2 hours if not 3 if you are looking around 4-5pm on many days)

      1. Salt Lake City was pretty rubbish when I was living there, I suspect there would be others in North America as well that I haven’t lived in.

        1. Salt Lake City is a dream to get around in compared to Auckland. Probably the most grid patterned city in the world.
          Every 2nd or 3rd road is a proper arterial (unlike the feeble roads we call arterial here in Auckland). Then you have all the interstates (215,15, 80) plus the likes of the Bangerter, Granger, State St etc). They also have a LR system in place that has plenty of ability to expand in future due to the grid and wide arterial system they have.
          Have spent plenty of time there and have friends that live there before you question my response.

        2. I agree it has a great grid pattern, however this certainly didn’t make it an easy place to get across at peak hour. The I-15 or I-215 did not move at any great pace, I suspect the average speeds are higher there, but this is made up for by it being a more sprawling city.

          I believe the LR network has been expanded since 2010 but it had reasonably limited coverage back then so was only really useful if you were in close proximity to it.

          I’d certainly take Auckland’s public transport over SLC’s, although both have a huge amount of room for improvement.

      2. Hey AKLdude, from my days of living in other cities with the smell and grit of the real reality I would actually say Auckland is a easier city to get around than Sydney (by car) and all the other European places and even USA I had minor experience I would consider similar to AK.

        By bus and train on Syndey they are not so far ahead we do have an natural advantage in which our city is still kindoff setup as 4 cities and so the network we have is fairly basic. Everything basicall goes to CBD and from there you can get everywhere else. We also have fairly high standards of facitlies ( toillets especially which may not be a big deal for all) The rail we have is basic but working, will like it to go a few more places

        The intergrated system here is basically working on the fundermental technology and with a few changes would make it even cheaper to use.

        Sydney trains are good in the scense they can take so many people so any even a train will just move thousands of people and it runs under thier CBD which I personally loved. I used it all the time for even shorter distances.

        Melbourne did not impress me as much as I was supposed to be impressed – but I cant say that publically.

        Los Angeles was good for people with Helicopters,

        Other cities may beat us on PT; but their driving experience – I dont know of a easier car commutable city that’s similar to ours?

        Auckland beats most Euro cites I know for driving… I won’t mention a few which I know people would get angry with me for. Really the only city I know with a comfortable Metro would be: trully can’t think of one.

        ..for PT I don’t enjoy PT in any city I have been to to be honest. Only Metro I dod not hate was NY and only for smaller trips also.

        red bus’s in London did used to work OK but now they don’t move anyway, and their whole system is past the point of repair IMHO

        1. I found a lot of Europe impossible to drive in. But then, I never needed to drive, so it worked out pretty well.

        2. Sailor – really. I believe you if you say so but I think there is a bit of a cleche with pople in EU who say you “dont need a car” some dont need a car. Not conviced their PT was that amazing also, in the mainland could you tell a place which was comfortable PT?

        3. It’s not a cliche. You really don;t need a car. Even in London over 40% of households choose to do without.

          I found Randstaad and Frankfurt good but I wasn’t there for long.

        4. @freedom, I live in London and I do not own a car. The majority of my 240 person company also does not own a car.

        5. So you mentioned Sydney, Melbourne, Los Angeles and London. Neither of these are comparable to Auckland they are 2.9x, 2.7x, 10.9x, and 8.1x larger than Auckland respectively.
          If you care to provide some examples that are similar to Auckland that would be great. You did mention European cities (any specific ones?). Most of which are a lot older than Auckland but in my experience at least seem to have less congestion than Auckland in those that are less than 2 million people. As for LA (having basically spent the best part of a year there) I can say that outside of rush hour (6-9am and 4-6pm) traffic actually flows reasonably-very well (also if there is an accident on one road there are multiple alternatives) and their metro rail+bus network is actually surprisingly good (just has a bad rep because of homeless/people with mental issues using it).
          Not sure what you mean about London buses? Buses are often faster than the tube to get around London if the tube isn’t direct where you are looking to go.Most of London is set up with bus lanes that work quite well. The only part that can get a bit blocked up is around Piccadilly/Oxford Circus and some of those other central places which is a bit like buses in downtown Auckland queued up.

        6. LA was ok for driving off peak I actually loved my few days in such, was actually magic but I was on a natural high anyway.

          It shows that theses debates are valid, on paper solutions and ones experience can differ sometimes. its all about a balance.

          My ideal commuting city:
          Bikes in CBD with shared spaces, heavy rail with easy bike access spiring out to town centres, massive diesel smoking rough sea going ferrys to obscure destinations, high speed dangerous tolled in peak time motorways, little shitty bus’s run down with graffiti on large back seat run by independent old school operators, walk tracks around local towns, dirty traffic in local roads with 4 wheel drives dropping kids to school, dangerous motorbikes cutting through traffic. Some light rail to fill in the gaps. I love it all!

        7. I used an excellent metro system in Prague every day. It was cheap and reliable. That is probably why it is the most used metro per capita in the world.

          I have to say from your statements, it seems that you consider travelling by car the default mode of transport and everything else is only used occasionally. I always found PT systems (much like driving systems) become much easier to use the more you use them. You then understand all the little quirks of that system.

          Overall I am quite perplexed by your statements about Europe as they are completely contrary to my experience of living and working in a number of European cities. It is one of the things I miss most from living there. So much more freedom to move around the city.

        8. Yeah, too long to explain. After trying both for fair long time, my driving eperience beats any PT I have used.

  11. Everyday that stretch off road gets worse and worse. In 2 years time it will be in a jam 7 days a week.

    Flag the busway build the light rail.

  12. I feel particularity sorry for some of the local residents who are going to eventually have to put up with another round of construction for something that should be included in the current works.

    New Zealand’s development processes give much power to the few at the cost of the many. That’s by design, for better and worse.

    The answer to your question is simple: because the New Zealand Transport Agency [sic] do not want to build it. The only way to change this is to change the government, and then change the internal management direction of that organisation.

  13. The ARA and ARC banged on about the Northern busway for about 20 years before anyone built it. I had assumed their work counted for nothing. But maybe I am wrong. Maybe we actually need an ARC writing reports about the Northwestern busway for 20 years before it can be built.

    1. If it’s so good, what would you do to improve it or more importantly where would you invest the transport dollars, across all modes?

      1. I would start with a little PR when people feel good they often do good. Maybe a documentary on Aucklands transit transformation over last 20 years with the poke and aim to ensure population to finally try biking when they can. Improve laws around road use drivers licensing to care for bikers and pedestrians, increase penaltys for not looking out for bikes where practical and do it alll publicly with a PR company.

        Laws; before paying for another rock I would ask NZTA to consider letting bikers have right of way at lights, access to pavements in certain conditions and a little more paint on streets to keep people aware. Change law for penaltys to agressive drivers: fines for drifting into bike lanes, unessary beeping, failings to be defensive near bikes. Trucks enforce lower speed limits for trucks with police personally subject to letting. Trucks get away with dangerous driving.

        Smart Road Usage: I would ask AT to employ a manager to get a team together to run a ” smart road use” department. They would use creative, and computational systems to get more out of our current road network maybe PT as well. They would be messured on increase throughput etc of system. They would look at systems such as: time usage of network & roads, occupancy levels of vechicles, safety versus practicality of systems, technology as a solution, car tracking, electronic tolls, electronic road user charges, real time computer modeling with feed back to operators, public car pooling, self drive cars, parking, adjustable intersections: i.e some intersections could change configuration depending on certain metrics, LEDs on the road to effectively change the lanes add more and adjust the way that traffic can flow, traffic lights hooked into a more flexible system, technology to remove car crashes quicker, real time slots for booking your trip such as a textg message when a computer things your route is best time to go. Car design: smaller cars, EV cars, parallel parking technology, heads up display for cars with driving advice, lower safety in some cases with digital tracking of vechicles which are designed for low speed local distances. Roads with feed back for over weivechicles geting noticed. Can elaborate on this more basically using a range of technology and creative solutions to get efficient use of our network. ( I would actually almost set it up as a WAN ) using a balance of all.

        4.) STOP I would relax a little in AT an everyone actually and dont forget to enjoy your kids and go the beach and get a bit drunk. We can lower our standards quite a bit, bike lanes can be rough and sloppy just heaps of bright green paint ( not stripped) and paths can be crushed shells thrown on dirt trully, you always get someone complaing no matter how high spec a path is.

        Post more latter.. 🙂

  14. note: I am typing this all on a small andriod apologize for some of the auto spelling.

    After we get more out of what we have, I would work with general council to make sure the unitary plans allows some of these sexie high rises in working centres, remove parking requirements for developments and instead get developers to pay a fee for parking they offer.

    Bikes: still think we can make so many tiny investments to getting biking paradym eventualised: 1.) Lets get a bank or big company to put community hire bikes around town centres either a registration model which is free or just a small and easy fee. Put them everywhere and let it become a cultural norm. Maybe a prise on certain bikes when you ride them to a certain location thats not know then you get a litte free coffee or something. Tie it into an app with some sort of marketing do dakcy free Kelly tartons or something… 2.) Turn High street to shared space, with bike lockers all the way down. 3.) Community showers and lockers for bike commuters get some shower and locker facilities around key locations. 4.) cover some bike lanes with clear shelter something like the entire nor western bike lane. 5.) More bike parties. 6.) Bike lanes every main road can have the side coated with a thick covering of general green paint 1.5 meters each side irrelevant of how narrow this leaves for the cars, educate a bit of common scence so cars can only drift into a tiny par where it is safe to do so giving way gto bikes and bikeds only allowed single file as default, paint these thick green paths right through intersections without having tgo do it perfectly. A few safety bumps here and there. 6.) dont permit thesde change the law if needx be so a contractor can just go almost gang ho painting cheap green bike lanes on every road. 7.) All.ow cars to park on these ad hoc with the main prohibitor for parking as socail embarrisment as a public arsehole clause. People can park on thesed lanes where they can see it will not cause harm for a bike and there is no other option available to them. They also will have. to give way to bikes on parking. Marking can be usedx where common scence is shown not to be appropriate. 8.) Bikes on buses, yip bikesz on Bus seems obvious. 9.) Traffic laws to prioritize bikes in the CBD etc.
    10.) biking apps. 11. Oh and of course bike lane accross harbour and beside all motorways.

    On bigger projects which may not be as big an impact as lots of little clever changes the CFN2 looks pretty sexie prob cant go too wrong with that but eventually we want to stop and enjoy 🙂

  15. Looking at the timetables released today I am not impressed. The Feeder Service 14W from Westgate intersects the 110 towards the city at the corner of Triangle and Waimumu Rd. Both services run every 30min. However, the 14W is scheduled to arrive at Triangle Road 5min AFTER the 110 rolls on through. Seriously? Has any thought gone into how commuters will want to use the public transport system?
    Given that the old 070 (which followed the 14W route through Massey) to the city is being discontinued this is ludicrous.
    This goes completely against the vision that was sold early on. We truly are poorly served out West.

    1. For as long as the current idiot’s work in AT, nothing will ever change. Nobody in the former WCC & ARC/ARTA cared about the needs of west aucklanders. The people in AC & AT couldn’t care less either.

    2. Yeah you are right Richard, I have checked a lot of the connections and they are like that, the connecting service at the transfer point leaves 5 minutes before, so you end up waiting around 25 during 30 min frequency or even around 55 mins during hourly frequency. Little thought put into it.

      1. Complete slap in the face really. I am now faced with a commute that was 1 hour being extended to at least 1.5hrs each direction. Alternatively I could drive into the city. But what little on-street parking was available is now all P120 or Pay and Display, and both Pay and Display and Parking buildings are being priced out of financial viability across Auckland Central. I could drive to Westgate and fight for On-Street parking, but that fills up very fast. I could drive down to the bottom of Waimumu Rd but if a few of us start doing that then Waimumu will get quite dangerous given the blind corner.

        Use public transport people say… Really? I would like to, but this new network makes it so much harder.
        And before you say use the train… In morning traffic it will take me 15min to drive to the nearest park and ride (20-25min at least by bus), and another 15-20min to walk from Britomart to work, or try find a bus which will take just as long by the time I get on a bus. So again, that is at least another 30min each direction. An hour I wont be able to spend with my family each work day.

  16. There are many services and their frequency/hours of operation that leave a lot to be desired. AT have once again favoured users of the Glen Eden 154 service in terms of operating hours. They’ve started it even earlier, now being 4:30am. That’s earlier than any of the spine/arterial services. The final 132/133/134 services that depart town should have been a bit later. The 143 Ranui service is not good enough in regards to the operating hours. The 120 service needs to start a bit earlier than the 5:15am. It also needs to run later than 11pm for the Henderson-Hobsonville section. The new 122 Huapai service is pathetic. The route doesn’t cover enough of the new subdivions. Plus, only running between 9:05am and 3:35pm! The Helensville service does not start early enough, considering the distance people have to travel. Then there’s the 112 Hobsonville/West Harbour service. This one should have started before 6am, and finished a little later than 10:35pm. The 186 service in New Lynn should have had it’s last service made later. The 195 service hours should have been better also.

    Then there is the embarrassing cock up that is Westgate. Most notably the Fred Taylor Drive/Maki Street intersection. What total moron was the brainchild behind that! Now the services all have to operate from Fernhill Drive. I personally would have had a dedicated road for buses that passed under Fred Taylor Drive to the Westgate North development. I can see Westgate North becoming a massive disappointment in regards to buses.

    All this just shows that AT don’t take PT seriously enough. Or they just don’t care. South Auckland has had a lot of infrastructure put in over that years for public transport. A lot prior to the new network. Manurewa, Otahuhu, Papakura, Mangere TC, the yet to be built Manukau Station are just some examples. But for West Auckland, we get pretty much nothing. The New Lynn Transport Centre can’t be included, as it was only ever given attention due to it’s proximity to the isthmus. They are too selfish to give West Aucklander’s an actual interchange at Henderson, let alone Westgate. Henderson’s bus stops and shelters are an absolute disgrace and belong in a third world country. I don’t think they’ve ever been washed since they were put in. The train station is also a poor excuse for a major town centre station. They can’t even give the northwest a single bus lane. The AT staff like Mark Lambert need to be given the boot.

    Plus, who’s stupid idea was it to remove the 233 service??? That is going to piss a lot of people off. Especially if they use St Lukes Mall. They better not remove the 223 service at a later date.

    1. Yeah I have noticed that, 154 has really great hours still, not sure why they have buses all over the place with start/finish times based on thin air. Although I would note leaving at 00:45 is from New Lynn Int, not the city, you still have to get the 00:00 “18” bus from the city to meet with it in time, so technically its the same but with a transfer.

      Meanwhile in other areas services end as early as like 6PMish (Laingholm), 8PMish Helensville, 9PM, 10PM, 11PM etc etc. No real consistency. Reminds me of Red Hill in Papakura, after the new network the last service went from like 1am to 9pm.

      I really feel like the planners are just making decisions on personal whims as opposed to objective decisions based on patronage, coverage and financial limitations.

      Ideally services would run at least 04:30-00:15 (00:45 from interchanges, as you need to get a connecting service first).

      00:15 because a lot of people finish at midnight, they need time to get to the bus stop, having services leave smack on midnight is such a stupid idea, it only serves people finishing at 23:30 which is a lot less common.

      Speaking of Westgate Interchange. The fernhill drive, westgate interchange is only temporary while they sort out consents and stuff for the Westgate north one over the coming months. Meanwhile some services will serve westgate north 122/125, I believe 110 will run up there too once the park and ride? is done?

      Yeah I also agree about Henderson interchange, really poor facilities, you can’t even see the PIDS because its been blocked by the canopy for years – many complaints, nothing ever done. The overbridge is covered in etchings and the area just looks run down.

      1. I noticed the Otahuhu town centre is getting some nice new bus shelters on Avenue Road. Henderson won’t get the same. Even though AT is starting some major road works on Railside Ave in preparation for the new network. With Westgate, I think once the new network comes into effect, and when all services start using the new development, the old Westgate will just be forgotten about. They could of at least built a pedestrian underpass under Fred Taylor Drive. Next to Maki Street. But they seem happy to keep the two centre’s practically severed.

  17. stupid discussion. why not build a subway with the money Bill English is flushing down the toilet?

Leave a Reply

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