Yesterday Auckland Transport held their last board meeting for the year and it was an important one with some key decisions being made.
The big one, was that the board have approved for consultation their draft speed bylaw. This is the change that will see speed limits across the entire city centre drop to 30km/h and will other speed changes will occur on a number of other areas around the region too. The downside is we still have tow wait for consultation which will be in February and March with the actual changes not coming into effect till later in 2019.
The meeting also included the discussion/decision around ATs not ambitious enough plan for low emission buses. I don’t yet know the outcome of that at this point.
Closed Session Agenda
As well as the speed limit changes above, the following items were up for Approval/Decision:
- TOC Amalgamation Single Business Case
- Gills Road Link Project
- Strategic Land Acquisition, Encroachments and Designations
- Road Stoppings and Real Estate Inventory Optimisation
- Streetlight Maintenance & Renewals
- PT Opex/Funding Update
- Budget Reforecast
- Statement of Intent 2019-2022
- AT Tier One Policies
- Approval of New Retail Lease
In addition the following items were for noting, they seem more interesting.
- Public Transport Capacity
- Auckland Light Rail – City to Mangere
- North Shore Rapid Transit Network
- Redesign Options for 20 Viaduct Level 1
Given that it’s less than a month since the last board meeting, and they’re usually about six weeks apart, there’s not as much new to report from this meeting. But a few things did stand out.
Approved Funding – In the list of items the NZTA has approved funding for, two stand out:
Transitional Rail – Wiri to Quay Park Rail Corridor Improvements (Detailed Business Case) – Auckland Transport applied for funding for this project on behalf of KiwiRail, which is not yet an Approved Organisation and therefore cannot apply for funding directly. This activity has been approved for $1.81 million and 100% FAR. There will be no Auckland Transport/Auckland Council contribution to project costs,although staff will be involved in preparation of the business case.
National Ticketing Programme (Project NEXT) – This activity has been approved for $4.37 million.
NEXT is what is intended to eventually replace HOP
Hibiscus Coast Busway station – AT are finally looking at building the busway station building
Car Share Policy – the report notes this about a car share policy
Auckland Transport has been approached by various car share companies that want to start operating in Auckland, in addition to existing provider CityHop. Auckland Transport staff are working to consolidate and expand existing procedures into a more comprehensive draft ‘Car Share Policy’,which is intended to:
- Provide an enabling and ‘level playing field’ for multiple operators to be successful in Auckland
- Establish a framework of interaction between Auckland Transport and car share operators, with particular emphasis on data sharing
– Ensure a focus on customer uptake so Auckland can benefit from reduced private car use
- Set out Auckland Transport’s position around the operation of car share with specific regard to parking regulation, use and any discounts on parking charges
- Ensure that the operation of car share aligns with Auckland Transport’s vision for transport into the future.
Auckland Transport is working collaboratively with car share operators, and intends to have the policy and contractual framework finalised by the end of 2018 for decision early in 2019.
Campaigns and promotions – In a section looking at some of ATs campaigns and promotions, they include a bit about a current advertising campaign that has done the rounds on social media for sending all the wrong messages.
AT and Heart of the City have joined forces to encourage people to come into the city on weekends to shop, dine and attend entertainment. This will help support businesses during the CRL construction, the lead up to the busy Christmas period. During the weekends, AT’s city centre carparks (Downtown, Civic and Victoria St) have parking spaces readily available, and the rate is very reasonable @ $2 an hour. This ‘cheap price” is the main focus of the campaign.
Media includes bus-backs, light-boxes, radio, online/digital and social media.
Using public transport to advertise cheap parking in a place where we’re trying to reduce the amount of driving to is just bizarre. Instead, how about cheap PT fares or other measures.
Pedestrian Analytics – We’ve seen in the past trials of AT using video analytics to count pedestrians as well as number of other things. They say they’re going to roll out these pedestrian analytics to 58 sites around the city to count pedestrians and cyclists along with their direction of travel.
City Centre Movement – Travel times for most roads in the city continues to be better with the CRL works than they were before
Last month I included a number of images from the board report of all the projects and where they’re currently at. I won’t do that for this post as many have seen no change but there were a few that stood out
Lincoln Rd – This is in the design phase and has managed to go from 20% complete in November to just 10% complete in December. What is also notable are the comments, now saying:
The detailed design and property acquisitions are progressing according to programme. The design work carried out to date has confirmed that implementation of the approved road cross-section will significantly impact on private land outside of the approved designation footprint and could impact time frames and costs. A recommendation will be made to reassess the project objectives and investigate options that minimise property impacts.
Let’s hope that doesn’t mean they’re cutting back things like the bike lanes and that they’re moving towards a better design, such as:
AT included this graphic to show the path they’ve taken on the new network which now only has Waiheke left to complete.
Christmas/New Year PT – we’ve covered this from board reports a few times before but it doesn’t hurt to include a reminder. For the rail network, these are the works planned:
- Rail and sleeper replacement between Pukekohe and Papakura.
- Sleeper replacement at Papakura (including the stabling yard).
- Takanini Motorway widening project.
Southern & Onehunga Lines (Penrose to Newmarket).
- Formation upgrade and sleeper replacement.
- Newmarket Branch (Newmarket to Britomart).
- CRL – Strand Crossover, bridge inspections and any necessary remedial work.
- Track work, formation repairs, mud-spot removal, bridge repairs, and preparation work for Cycleway.
Great news that AT resisted the AA’s attempt to prevent the approval of the speed limits bylaw. The AA is using the results of their opt-in survey of a membership base that is unrepresentative of the population to argue against it. But note, while their lobbying has been going on, and while the issue hits the media, they won’t release those survey results.
Terrible news that Goff is still refusing to endorse the plan. Not sure how this marries with his own instructions to AT to improve the public impression of unity amongst the council umbrella organisations. I think going with the mouthy petrolheads instead of research or the AT officials’ advice here, Goff, might come back to bite you on the bottom.
I think we need to note that Auckland Transport have made the right move here. Whereas Goff and the AA are both trying to keep us in the life-endangering status quo. Thanks, AT Board, for standing up to them.
I think Goff is doing his usual say some things that will keep the opponents of lower speed limits happy, while at the same time quietly letting his CCO’s do the dirty work of actually implementing these policies.
He’s certainly a politician.
It undermines the strategy and he needs to stop.
Unfortunately Goff can’t stop being the visionless, people-pleasing follower he has always been. I’m sure he’s a very decent person, just not suited for a position that requires better leadership.
Yes but he is elected and he needs to appeal to as many people as possible. Considering that most Aucklanders do a lot of driving there would be a very real risk of a right wing anti progress mayor being elected if Goff took too much of a stance on this. Simple politics.
Yes, but I see no indication that Goff understands what the majority of people want. Has he looked at the tiny (single figure) percentage that NZTA’s research shows are the ones who don’t understand the link between speed and DSI? Has he looked at the experience of overseas cities where the supporters came out in droves once the lower speeds programme was underway?
It looks to me like he sees what the car industry-supported mainstream media is saying and somehow thinks that’s what his voting base is. It’s not, and if he was to be part of the consistent message that research supports safer speeds, he would be part of the solution.
Instead he says he won’t lend support because it needs to be evidence-based, yet it IS evidence-based. First time around he got away with it by saying he didn’t really mean it needed to be evidence-based street-by-street but as a general concept. AT say it is evidence-based. So he has nothing to base his lack of support on.
He’s risking being made a complete fool of here.
There are many others that understand the link between speed and DSI but think it is the pedestrians fault, these are also the people who bother to vote in local government elections.
Goff didn’t get where he has in politics by sticking to principles and making tough decisions.
Car Share Policy – Great. Uptake of car share has been much slower in Auckland because of a lack of policies that could assist it. Sydney’s policy environment, for example, has been far more favourable.
“Levelling the playing field” isn’t addressing the existing problems that car share has. It’s more a capitalist ideology. Not a bad concept in itself, but there are some industries where it’s possibly not right to have multiple operators. Car share is one of them. Individuals only want to join one scheme, but density of share cars in the vicinity is crucial to it being viable. Splitting those between different operators is a stupid idea.
Will we be able to consult on the policy? There are so many policies that could rapidly bring car share into Auckland’s suburbs and remove the need for car ownership for many people. This would reduce both numbers of cars on the road and the overall transport costs.
We live in the city centre and own a car, it’s barely used, but needed enough (it’s still Auckland) and we can ‘afford’ it.
Would love to have Car2go or similar in play, would ditch the car in a heartbeat and rent out or pocket $100k for the car park…. It’s a huge cost we would be avoiding.
Yes, many others in your situation.
Would you need / are you allowed to put a storage box there for off-season gear / suitcases / donated trikes / rocking horses your (future) kids aren’t big enough for?
Is there a local need for a car share space in your vicinity, and would the building management allow you to offer it for such?
Cityhop is really good and they have a variety of cars, from small hatchbacks to SUVs all over the city. I use them for work meetings and have found them great.
The limitation is finding a park – the Car2Go system in Vancouver allows you to park anywhere that it is legal to park. It would make a good use of the myriad of parking lots through the city.
CityHop I cant drive to X and leave the car there while I’m doing Y, then grab another one to get home – I need to keep it the whole time because there is nowhere to park it (unless it has massively grown in the last year or two)
Yes you are right that is a limitation. I can’t for example drive the car to the airport and leave it there (as far as I know). It always has to be returned to the same spot.
I imagine that would be more expensive though as there would be a fee to relocate the cars and juggle the around.
There are pros and cons of each option. While the current system doesn’t have the flexibility of say a lime scooter it does offer more certainty. If I book a car the night before I know it will be there and I can park it at my destination (say I want to go to the beach), without risk that it wont be there when I want to leave.
But if you could pay for your car share using a HOP card doesn’t that solve those multiple operator issues? [Yeah I know there are other issues like being able to identify the driver, cover for damage etc but the point remains its a single payment method].
But I don’t think encouraging more cars [parked or otherwise] in the CBD is a good idea at all.
Because they end up parked everywhere to provide the “density” required for the people who want to use them.
There is no one right answer and lots of trade offs.
But one thing I do know, AT doesn’t know what it wants to achieve here, and has no strategic goals or vision, that are relevant to frame their responses, So its all just knee jerk policy responses to ad-hoc requests.
55,000 car spaces in the city centre – this needs to be radically reduced and doing so will push up demand for car share. In turn, these moves will reduce traffic and shift mode share.
My focus is on bringing car share to the suburbs where it would have a huge effect on transport affordability.
Using a HOP card for car share or in some other way being able to join one scheme to have access to them all makes sense. So that’s something to submit about. If there’s going to be consultation.
The “density” you talk about is already there in the form of parking for private cars. Car sharing can potentially replace these spaces with a smaller amount of parking spaces for shared cars.
International data on car-share are consistently powerful. Every carshare car typically replaces ~12 private vehicles. That makes car-share an immensely important part of improving cities everywhere. Scale of network is key, but it is certainly something the private sector can deliver with public support.
Important that AT facilitates rollout of effective car-share services as it supports agreed strategy across the board, and should have very little or positive impact on budgets. Especially through provision of dedicated parking spaces, on or off street.
Which have been taking about 9 months for AT to provide in locations where demand is high. Unless AT want them for some reason. Then it takes a couple of weeks.
I’m a tad more optimistic about multiple carshare operators than Heidi. Economies of scale will naturally keep the number of entrants down, as it does in many markets. On the other hand, having some diversity in providers seems likely to support competition and innovation. You have to admit that people’s taste for cars varies, which is why I think multiple providers might work ok.
In the cbd it’d be fine. In the suburbs, some sort of planning will be needed to help it to work initially.
Fair call. Suburbs need help generally in relation to sustainable transport …
This city has seen bike share ,scooter share and they are now wanting car share WHY ? . There are car rentals companies out there which any one can use without bring more future reinforcing bars into the country .And after looking at the bike share program will this car share go the same way with them being dumped anywhere and everywhere and then become a nusiance to every one .
So if you need a vehicle just rent one as they may be more reliable than one that you are sharing and if it is rented and packs a sad they will replace it faster than these car share mobs
There’s been car share in Auckland for at least 10 years and it hasn’t caused any problems, not sure what you are worrying about. I have used them a number of times for work and they are very handy.
The difference between them and regular car rentals as they are located throughout the CBD so you don’t have to go to a car hire office, and they are card activated so you just book and go.
There is no way people would go through the regular hire process just to get a car for a couple of hours.
It’s a different service, David. When car share finally comes to Pt Chevalier, I’ll be able to walk or cycle to a car in just a few minutes, then use it for a few hours, and return it. All that takes in terms of infrastructure for Pt Chevalier, is a car space.
I only use a car once every few months. Renting a car would involve going to a car rental place, which – because of the size of operation, number of cars and staff involved etc – cannot be in every suburb. I’d have to take the bus, and then pay the much higher one day rental charge even though I’d only be needing it for 2 or 3 hours.
Car share allows people to stop owning a car. Research has shown this means they use public transport much more, walk more, and even lose weight. It means they don’t then put a strain on the city’s parking and roading for all those trips they make by public transport and active modes.
As Patrick notes, every carshare car typically replaces ~12 private vehicles.
“Hedi” Years ago the local Shell Service Station use to have vans and small pickups for hire and if I remember there use to be a car rental place in Pt Chev
And “Jezza” ther are rental agencies in Beach Rd in the city and if you can’t find one have a look in the yellow pages [old fashion way and which could still be in your letter box] or just google car rentals and the area you are in .
I’m well aware of the hire places on Beach Rd. But why would I use them, it is quicker for me to use a Cityhop car share car, as I can just book online, walk up to the car and drive off. It’s a shorter walk than Beach Rd and I don’t have to queue behind tourists and wait for the staff to sort the paperwork.
That might sound trivial, but for a 2 – 3 hour hire it is the difference between hiring the car or just not bothering. In my case that means blowing $140 of my employers money on taxis instead.
Given you don’t even appear to be aware that car share already exists in Auckland it’s hard to argue that it has a detrimental impact.
At least with a rental you know there is a full tank of petrol and it’s been cleaned without the smell of the last person that’s used it , and having to travel to Beach Rd just get a Green link bus . Sme of these rental car companies will also bring it to you place of employment if you a frequent user and have an account and if you Boss is paying for it why worry unless he is going to dock it out off you pay . And I do know about these car share schemes but as I don’t have a smart phone I would not be able tom find 1 when I need 1 .
You don’t need a smartphone to use Cityhop, when they started hardly anyone had one.
I never had an issue with them being dirty, and unlike a rental car which you have to refuel everytime you hire, I probably needed to refuel 1 in every 10 trips.
My employer at that stage was the government, so everyone was paying if I used a taxi instead.
You can of course use a rental car if you wanted, but I’d struggle to see why one would be better than what Cityhop provide.
Oh well, as usual snafu, Kiwirail are not an approved organisation so don’t exist afa nzta can see. So now Auckland ratepayers have to pay for Kiwirail to apply for nzta funding. Maybe that’s why no 3rd main, nzta tarmac road good pay $millions, rail road bad no $
Just realised that this is the same reason why we have application to nzta funding for Regional Rail made by various Waikato councils.
When in reality the Ham-AKL RR is completely operated by Kiwirail.
What a shambles when KR should have directly worked with nzta for this funding. All the councils had to do was sort out some stations shelters, P&Rs etc.
Can’t do without complicated bureaucracy, can we?
“Can’t do without complicated bureaucracy, can we?”
Many thousands of people in NZ are employed in the complicated bureaucracy industry. It provides them with feelings of power, importance and a good income in a way that simple bureaucracy could not.
As stated in the article, KiwiRail is not currently an approved organisation to receive NZTA funding, so until this is changed by the government, then any funding application for rail projects has to come through the relevant regional council
So although this govt stated they supported and would finance regional rail that was just not true. Instead they do nothing and ignore Kiwirail financing for RR. Leaving the only method of financing RR is for local councils to commit to partial financing then have to go through an unnecessarily complex process to apply to nzta to make up the rest.
If the govt has not given KR ‘approved’ status and has made nzta the financing authority then it sure appears that govt has no desire to seriously finance any projects involving KR. The recent announcement to pay for EF refurb now looks like just a face saving exercise since greens made pre election promises.
Sort of explains why no 3rd 4th main.
Why can govt not directly finance KR? Would that be too simple
The government plan to change this legislation this term, but not all legislation can be changed at once. I’ve been involved in the government legislation machine before and it is a slow moving beast, especially in the first year of a new government when everyone wants their pet legislation changed at once.
I agree it is clunky at the moment, but at least workarounds are being used to get things going. A couple of years ago NZTA would not have even been interested in this.
“Bogle” Check out the NZTA’s website this Friday [14/12/18] and find out if they have approved funding for the Hamilton – Auckland link hopefully they will say YES
Will do. But why hopefully? This govt promised support so can nzta really reject RR funding? Unless they come up with silly reasons to just delay. Such as wrong format applications, paperwork not perfect, require more analysis, need to investigate something, etc.
Agree, it’s pretty much a done deal, the NZTA has already referred the business case back a couple of months ago to amend some small issues, so this will be a rubber stamping exercise.
I found these 2 Articles online while trying to find out if the NZTA board had past the motion to accept the Waikato’s proposal for the rail link and there is an item in both 1 verbal and 1 written on the RNZ website
“The Greater Auckland transport blog supports a commuter train from Hamilton, but warns it could fail because the plan is being rushed.
Greater Auckland’s Matt Lowrie said a number of rail construction projects are happening in Auckland and it would be better to hold off until they are completed and there’s more to offer commuters.”
And the verbal posting on the Stuff Website
So Matt L why is it being rushed ? as it’s going to take a while do get the carriages up and running for the long distance service with Hutt workshops being overworked through their ongoing maintenance work .
And there is a comment from this so called Taxpayers group moaning about the money being used to start this service but the way they carry on it sounds like they live on trust accounts and never pay any taxes themselves
If I understand Matts position correctly, he thinks that running to the end of the Auckland suburban newtork at Papakura is a big risk, at the start up train should wait a year or two and run to a more useful terminus at Puhinui or Otahuhu.
The idea being that Papakura is almost an hour away from central Auckland and Newmarket, and requires a double transfer to get to main destinations in south Aucklnad like the airport area and Manukau.
Puhinui makes sense to me: with the first bit of double tracking you can get there without conflicts with the busiest section of line, it is a fair bit closer to town, it has both the southern and eastern lines for plenty of coverage and frequency, and it allow single transfer to Manukau, and soon also to the airport.
So nothing from nzta concerning the Hamilton Auckland rail funding. Is this a case of no news is good news or just nzta proving their communications skills are sh*t
All I have found so far is minutes for their meetings is early November so it must take ages for someone to type them up and then notify the stake holders . I agree with your last 5 words of the sentence
But I will keep on looking tomorrow and pray there is something there fingers crossed
The trail of the Hamilton to Auckland passenger service has given the green light from NZTA for a 5 year trail starting March 2020
this is the items found :-
Apparently National’s Goldsmith thinks the 30 km/hr speed zone in the city centre is “anti-car Zealotry” and the safety argument “is hard to understand, given cars have never been safer than they are now.”
Goldsmith, it’s not cars that are dying. It’s people. Including in the city centre. And one major contribution to that is that 87% of our roads have speed limits that are unsafe.
Your stance is making it harder for AT to protect people from dying and being seriously hurt. Are you really happy to be in that position?
I think he was referring to the safety of car occupants not those outside that continue to get squashed because it’s their fault for not getting out of the way
Goldsmith = anti-pedestrian zealot
By that argument, if cars are getting safer, shouldn’t they increase the speed limit? 100 km/hr sound appropriate for Auckland city Goldsmith?
I think National are becoming unellectable. Do they not see that their voting base are dying off? I heard on the radio they are alarmed that dying people might be able to smoke weed – whatever next…
Here is how this works:
– car occupants are safer due to stronger cars.
– pedestrians will die, but that is not important because “worthy” people will be in cars anyway.
I don’t know how many people share that view, evidently Goldsmith thinks plenty of people do. I suspect he is right.
Yes but he needs 50% or more people to share that view – unfortunately last election “just” 44.45% of people did.
“I think National are becoming unellectable”.
This outburst and the promise that they would reverse any capital gains tax that the current government were to introduce has ruled them out for me.
Capital gains taxes are complicated to administer, don’t raise much money and are pro-cyclical. Wealth taxes are a better alternative
CGT doesn’t seem to have helped the UK or Australia. I agree a wealth tax is much more effective. A capital gains tax would be good in relation to share sales and other financial instruments though.
This item was on newshub this evening with a few idiots moaning about the 30kmph limit an they showed a motorway shot and the cars were slower than what people can walk and those interveiw didn’t like the idea
Cheap (or free) PT fares or for weekends and public holidays would be no brainier.
+1, along with the long-awaited integrated fares and getting rid of the zones that penalise public transport users for living outside of the wealthier inner city. Some basic principles around equity seem to have been forgotten in these board meetings.
When you say getting rid of zones, do you mean flat fares across the whole city or bringing in a different distance based charging system?
Penalize? The system favors those that live in the outer suburbs and penalizes the inner ones.
I can’t see what is wrong with incentivising people to door their shopping off-peak by lowering car park prices at the weekend.
You could incentivise people to shop by providing free weekend bus travel instead. It would have the additional effect of reducing yet one more point of owning a car… If people are able to give up a car, the benefits to society become huge.
The modeshift it would create would be in line with AT and AC policy, whereas providing cheap parking in town, with the driving it induces, is directly contradicting a number of AT and AC policies.
“roll out these pedestrian [video] analytics to 58 sites around the city to count pedestrians and cyclists”
I suspect that the loop detectors to detect cyclists don’t work with a lot of bikes. Mine is mostly carbon and aluminium and so are many others. Are loops how bikes are counted on bikeways? If so we are not counting a lot of bikes. And they’re not detected at lights either.
Inductive loops detect materials that can conduct electricity, including aluminium rims. Carbon fibre is a bit dodgy in that it may or may not be conductive. Nothing to do with magnets or weight.
The main problem is sensitivity and loop placement. The cyclist cant find the right place to sit.
30 km/hr for the full length of Fanshawe St, really AT? A 6 to 8 lane major arterial exit entry into the CBD with no housing, schools, old folks homes or virtually any retail and they come up with 30?? FFS!
Its unjustifiable blanket speed restrictions like that, that give the likes of Paul Goldsmith credibility!
What specifically is the problem with that?
Perhaps you’d see the housing if you were driving at 30.
And maybe he’d notice the danger the split signalised crossings leave children in.
And just maybe he doesnt see danger lurking everywhere in every thing should he dare leave the confines of his computer and maybe he doesnt find the world a terrifying place.
I walk, run and use Fanshawe frequently, 50 km/hr is perfectly safe.
The bottom line is with this logic motor vehicles and horse and carts at any speed present an unnecessary risk which I suspect is the real motivator.
AT’ need to be realistic but at this point they appear to be losing the plot.
Great that an able bodied adult man walking/running alone considers the environment safe. If only the environment could enable all pedestrians to feel so safe. Perhaps my enabling people accompanying children, or disabled people, or elderly people to cross without need to dodge moving traffic.
Also, being perfectly safe would mean never causing injury. I assume you mean ‘safe enough’? If the road is safe enough at that speed limit, why did someone die there last year after being hit by a vehicle obeying the speed limit?
He has another point of view, get that. How dare he.
No road is safe Sailor Boy from anything with motor vehicles at any speed by that logic.
Why not all of Auckland at 30 or less if this logic is correct?
And this kind of carte blanche realisation by AT that they can curtail speed limits anywhere for no good reason will give ample fuel for the likes of Paul Goldsmith and others to quite likely undermine the council come next local body elections with the nanny state in full swing. Is that what you are after?
Waspman, Fanshawe needs lower speeds.
The split pedestrian crossings take families from Wynyard Quarter to Victoria Park. On multiple occasions I’ve seen family groups crossing, with the kids skipping ahead with the first green man, but the parents suddenly noticing that if the kids don’t realise they have to stop at the middle, they will be killed by the fast moving traffic. In family groups on an outing, the switch from “relaxed surveillance” mode to “high security, hold hand at all times” mode is abrupt and brutal at Fanshawe St.
Lower speeds would mean the edge between pedestrian refuge and traffic lane would be one where drivers can anticipate children’s movements and have peripheral vision ability.
The very poor design and traffic phasing at Fanshawe St that prioritises traffic flow over pedestrian flow – 3.5 minutes to cross the road if you actually wait for the second green man – and the only adults who do are the ones on cell phones – indicates that this road has been designed as part of the motorway infrastructure, not part of the urban people space. That has to change. Children are learning from the adults to ignore the phasing, which is not ideal, VZ or vaguely safe. Lower speeds are necessary if only to cope with this hopeless and ignorant traffic engineering, all set up for the car.
Once the phasing is changed in the area to better serve active people instead of cars, there’ll be no point to travelling at 50 – you’ll just be speeding up in order to slow down at the next set of traffic lights.
Waspman – you are just falling into the trap of assuming the primary purpose of roads should be to move cars, not people. I know it has been drilled into us for 60 years but we don’t have to accept it.
Not sure what the fuss is about. Average speeds on fanshawe are probably 30 at peak anyway.Some people seem to miss the point about people surviving crashes.
And I hope they can sort out the nationwide/regional use of the HOP before the intercity rail starts up and have say the Gold being able to be used also . As this could help with the dwell times on these trains as I read somewhere these could be upwards of around 8 minutes per stop and people in Auckland moan about a 60sec dwell time
How on earth are they going to take 8 mins per stop!? The Wairarapa and Palmerston North trains don’t dwell for anything like this length of time, they don’t have hop but just check the tickets on board like most intercity trains around the world.
They won’t ever get hop. They’ve decided on a new national system which eventually, maybe, might work across systems.
Not sure where you got eight minute dwells from, that seems implausible.
Does the Board have any plans to actually get more people on PT. They are well past their best before date – decades, not days.
I certainly rolled my eyes at the advertising of cheap parking on the back of buses! Ridiculous.
Meanwhile AT has just announced that the Downtown Carpark will have its daily rate go up to $40. Which is still less than some others nearby. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/personal-finance/news/article.cfm?c_id=12&objectid=12175354