June’s results are always some of the more interesting of the year as the month marks the end of the financial year and so the 12-monthly results are the ones AT get their performance marked against – although as I raised in the post about the May numbers, some of their targets are too low to begin with.
First a few things worth noting about June:
- There was one less weekday this year compared to 2018
- Like the rest of this year so far, rainfall was low with June recording just 55% of the normal amount. This benefits cycling numbers but also PT numbers as people are more prepared to start waiting for a bus/train if it’s not raining.
AT the start of last month we celebrated reaching the milestone of 100 million boardings in a 12-month period, a result that occurred much earlier in the year than I had expected. On June-23 we had a day of free PT which was a fantastic success, but it did mean we don’t have proper ridership numbers for that day and so perhaps ironically, it appears to have had the effect of lowering the official ridership numbers. Regardless, usage was strong for the rest of the month resulting in a 10.4% growth in boardings compared to June-18. On a 12-monthly basis that growth.by a still impressive 9.1%.
In total there were 8.3 million PT boardings in June but when combined with the the previous 11 months meant we finished the financial year with 100.75 million boardings, up from 92.36 million. By comparison, the target in the year just finished year was 96.3 million. Within the actual result we have:
- Buses, excluding those on the Busway – 65.88 million boardings (+8.5%)
- Rapid Transit – 28.57 million boardings (+11.2%). Within that
- Northern busway – 7.17 million (+31.4%) – although how it was counted changed with the roll-out of the new netowrk.
- Rail – 21.4 million (+5.8%)
- Ferries – 6.3 million (+3.2%)
During the month the trains were the only ones to see a drop in boardings. Some of that will be due to usage not being counted on the free PT day but I wonder if some of it is related to all the track and signalling issues that has been happening recently. Those issues have seen June record the lowest punctuality result since all the lines were electrifed in mid-2015 with just 90.3% of trains arriving at their destination within five minutes. As expected the southern was the worst with just 83.3% on time while the western and eastern were both only in the early 90’s too.
City Centre Access
Unfortunately AT were only able to provide me the numbers up till the end of May but they still tell an interesting story, traffic is indeed disappearing. While the number of people entering the city during the AM peak was broadly similar to May last year, there was a noticeable change in the modal breakdown. In particular the number of people entering by car fell by over 2,000 to about 36.5k or about 46%. The fall in number of people accessing the city by car even more stark when you look back further, for example as little as four years ago that number was over 42k. This trend can quite easily be seen if looking at the figures on 12-month rolling basis.
There is clearly mode-shift occurring and we’d expect to see this trend continue as projects like the Downtown works and CRL continue and hopefully soon changes like Access for Everyone.
Despite it being mid-winter, we’re still seeing some very good cycling numbers with usage in the month up 18% on the June-18 – obviously helped along by the relatively dry weather we’ve had. On a 12-Month rolling basis numbers are up over 11%.
For their official results, AT use a measure of only using 26 of the 44 sites (the exact ones are at the bottom of this page). Using just those sites, here are how the numbers have changed over the last few years. As you can see, in just under 3 years the annual count of cycling has increased by over 500k per year.
Once again the NW cycleway at Kingsland stands out which will in part due to the Ian McKinnon cycleway opened in December. One thing you can see from below is that June-August is typically the quietest time of the year for bikes but this year the results are almost the same as the results in summer just over a year ago.
With the Karangahape Rd project finally under construction and up to four more major cycleways due to start by the end of the year, we’re going to continue to see good numbers coming through.
Overall, it’s great to see the good PT and cycling numbers continue to keep coming.
Surely they can have a reasonable estimate of the numbers using PT on the free days? Even if they low ball it or just use the figure from an average day.
Going forward perhaps they should make it free with a hop card only so they can actually get these numbers as well as getting more uptake of hop cards.
well you could make paper tickets free for the day also, by setting the price to $0.00 across all AIFS devices.
Getting a HOP card is a barrier, especially for spur of the moment trips. This would discourage some first timers especially from trying it out. In saying that, they could do both from time to time to achieve both HOP uptake and resistant new users (the former may more likely use it the next week for their commute or whatever).
These numbers could be cross referenced with C02 emissions by mode.
“There is clearly mode-shift occurring ”
A bold statement – from the evidence it is difficult to say that it is changing other than in the city, unfortunately.
Mode shift for trips to the city centre is definitely happening. Outside the city centre it’s a lot less clear. Presumably rising PT boardings per capita correlates with mode shift, unless people are taking more trips overall.
Also complicated because AT have a rolling programme of traffic counts throughout the city, but very little walking data.
Yeah, and what’s mode share good for anyway?
Lower VKT is what we need, for both economic and enviro reasons.
1) Wouldn’t mode shift imply lower VKT? (Or is this your point?)
2) Do you mean private vehicle VKT?
3) Is this a disagreement among the members of GA?
Hopefully my answer to Malcolm M answers all three of your questions! 🙂
1) no. Mode shift to PT induces more vehicle travel. Just like a road capacity expansion.
2) yes, private vehicle travel.
3) I don’t know; I’m not a member of GA?
I was thinking the same John. It would be interesting to see data split by geographical area to see where mode shift is occurring, and where more investment (and attention to fares) is needed.
Yes. I think it’d be more than interesting, actually. I think it’s a crucial part of the narrative. It’ll show what’s working in terms of increasing access and reducing vkt.
I accept that vkt is more important, but measurement by any means is better than nothing. More importantly goals are vital.
I have copied from the Auckland Climate Action Framework (I abbreviate to BAU 2 2022)
“What we need to do
Our actions to deliver this key move include:
Encourage large-scale uptake of zero and low emissions vehicles
Rapidly increase the frequency, affordability and availability of public transport
Rapidly increase safe, high-quality cycling and walking infrastructure
Assess road pricing schemes to reduce car travel and vehicle emissions
Make freight systems more efficient to reduce emissions.”
Where are the goals here, or do we just stumble along as we have with increasing emissions?
Great results across the board really.
Have a hunch RTN will keep bubbling along at 3-5% p.a. growth until CRL opens. Meanwhile we’ll need growth on the frequent bus network to pick up the slack. And for that we need more bus priority … real bus priority.
And if we want to spread the non-car demand love outside of the city centre, then we’ll need to set the price of public parking at market rates or higher in areas outside the city centre.
Non-car modes won’t compete unless we charge a fair (at least market) price for driving.
“And if we want to spread the non-car demand love outside of the city centre, then we’ll need to set the price of public parking at market rates or higher in areas outside the city centre.
Non-car modes won’t compete unless we charge a fair (at least market) price for driving.”
It makes good sense, Stu.
And not just outside the city centre because AT is the lowest priced option in the city. They need to try harder, or in the case of the Victoria St car park, just try.
Let’s say, as I note you suggesting we charge high prices to park, remove parking and generally make driving to say Takapuna unattractive. Plainly this is what you are proposing. For the retail businesses that make a living there are you saying a village mentality will replace cars and the locals, the very locals that is will flock to it to shop given parking will be difficult? Do you really think everyone is just going to e scoot into Takapuna, or bike or walk? And will the likes of Shore City who own there own parking be the only businesses that still attract the not so local customers and hence will survive? Because i know the Takapuna’s of this world only open their doors if people come from a wider catchment than the surrounding few streets.
If this is your plans for local shopping areas then I think some reality should be declared here. You will probably in all likelihood end it for most retail in such places if you think pricing vehicles out of local areas is the answer!
Auckland’s CBD may survive but purely based on its condensed population and that it is a centre of commerce. The rest I hold little hope for.
I think John’s got a pretty good hold on what providing plenty of free and cheap parking in Takapuna has NOT done for the retailers, Waspman.
“Do you really think everyone is just going to e scoot into Takapuna, or bike or walk?”
I’ve not noticed John being particularly hot on active modes. He’s a PT man, if I’m right. And Takapuna’s public transport can be fantastic if the cars get out of the way.
Not the way they are routed. With a few exceptions they tiki tour around the North Shore and are not an attractive alternative. The new 942 iteration for example is now split into the 941, neither route really mirrors the other but both take in many suburbs and detours before actually getting to their stated destination and the frequency is crap. And on top of that the bus stations are not particularly close.
But fair enough if that’s his stake in the ground but at least retailers and those whose livelihoods rely should be aware.
You could be right. When I go to Takapuna it’s the lack of pedestrian amenity that strikes me. I’m not clued up on the routes.
You are just wrong about the buses to Takapuna. The 82 goes down one side -Esmonde Road- at good day time frequency; and down the other side -Anzac St – goes the 814, 801 and 942, again at good frequency. Takapuna is well connected to the spine – the busway.
You are being totally mischievous about my lack of sympathy for business. I managed businesses for 15 years and I advocated for employers industrial interests for another 10 years. I have a business degree.
Heidi, you do me a disservice with active modes. One thing that is apparent living next to the town centre is how few people walk. It is strange even when people might have more time, such as a Sunday, that this is still the case. What the figures show for Fort St and other shared streets is that if you can remove vehicles then this can increase retail spend considerably. Why not in Takapuna?
Because we live near the town centre we walk through it three or four times a week. It is generally lifeless after dark. It needs revitalising. It needs people. I obviously have a different vision about how to get them there (closely aligned with the Panuku vision) than you Waspman, but I am determined to get them there. I am passionate about Takapuna as a vibrant town centre because it is my backyard.
Sorry, John. I’m glad to be corrected.
I noticed the opposite around Birkenhead, whenever I’m going along Mokoia Road there are always people walking to and from the town centre.
Coincidence or not, the part of Mokoia Road in Birkenhead is low speed, and has multiple raised zebra crossings.
In Takapuna, the most striking feature currently IMO is this awkward crossing of a large parking lot between the beach and the town centre. Also why is Hurstmere Road between Lake Road and Anzac Street still open for cars?
The problem with betting on parking is you’ll never beat the malls. So, say I’m going to drive to Takapuna. Why would I bother trying to get to the local shops if I can much more easily park in the mall?
I suspect that you don’t understand parking in Takapuna. Near the town centre there are about 2200 parks. AT surveyed those in 2016 and 2018. They found in 2016 that half of these parks were occupied by commuter parkers – nothing to do with shopping. A consultant who looked at the situation (the flow Report) said, we think you (AT) should eliminate a large portion of that commuter parking by price increases so that plenty of space exits for shoppers to park. I agree with that consultant; modest parking charges for shoppers and not so for commuter parking. Despite the consultants recommendations commuter parking remained at 50% in 2018.
Takapuna also needs to be accessible by other means. I am a strong advocate of the Skypath and Seapath which at one stage was predicted to bring up to 8000 cyclists per day. Largely Northcote Pt doesn’t want them, so Takapuna, with its great amenities seems a logical destination. This will be a huge boost to summer business.
And to make the buses better. The 82 only runs at 30 minute frequency in the evening. But at no extra cost it could run Milford to Akoranga and return every 10 minutes to connect with the NEX1 and NEX2. Suddenly the bars and restaurants of Milford and Takapuna are connected with a huge population base in the city and anyone coming from the north. The bus service to Devonport is poor and again this presents opportunities for Takapuna and Milford if frequency is improved.
The next part of the puzzle is intensification. The town centre is in real trouble. A couple of weeks ago I counted 11 empty shops, about the norm for a number of years. The current model with truckloads of car parks is not working. The city centre is a model for changing that. When I worked in Queen St in the 80s that was dying and it was revived by better PT and intensification. That process has started in Takapuna with the Alba, Sargeson, Lake apartments etc.
I understand businesses. I ran business units with turnover of up to $20 million. They need customers – they don’t need people driving past. I have been lucky enough to see some of the premier shopping areas around the world: the Duomo in Milan; 1.8km of Vienna’s main St that is closed to traffic; Parque Auroco Mall in Chile where many of its shoppers disgorge from buses at minute intervals. Shopping success is not inexorably linked to a car.
Lastly, but not least bus travel needs to be cheaper to improve financial outcomes for users. I have long advocated the monthly/ yearly pass of Vienna and Prague that makes well connected places like Takapuna very accessible. These priceing models have created huge number of PT trips.
Most of all I see a vision inspired by Europe and outlined in the C40 city recommendations of much more use of PT if we are to meet emissions targets. I have three kids and so a future is important. If you are in any doubts about the emissions mess that Auckland is in read the Auckland Climate Framework report and tell me that it gives you any confidence that things will change quickly enough with what they have proposed. Read the negligible improvement that the feebate scheme caused in France and tell me whether that inspires confidence.
For me it seems entirely logical that if we have increased vehicle carbon emissions by about 80% then we will have to decrease them by at least 45% and the consensus is that doesn’t just mean evs.
So no, my plan is not to ban the car; or to price them out of existence. I think that I have a coordinated plan to adapt to the demands of climate change and to enable people to use carbon friendly methods to shop, access the services of Takapuna, visit the gyms, eat at restaurants; and dine at bars. The sort of travel I am proposing is what happens in mature suburban centres in many parts of the world.
So if voting for John Wood and are elected can I expect a push from you on “market pricing or higher” for parking in Takapuna, Albany, Highbury, Milford, Devonport, etc?
The Devonport Takapuna Board does not encompass Highbury and Albany, but I would hope that Auckland Council acts to reduce emissions throughout Auckland and measures to discourage driving such as higher parking prices, as provided in their Parking Strategy (remember that this policy has been publically consulted on), should be on the agenda. Climate emissions will only be tackled effectively if we act collectively.
I am not going to enter into a discussion about market rates because who knows what they are. I think parking prices and particularly commuter pricing should be more expensive to discourage driving and to encourage use of other modes. Is that likely to be popular – no. Do we need to reduce emissions – yes. Could we adopt the Miffy approach and just do nothing? We could, but the reality is most likely such an approach would end when dramatic and costly change is required. Such a time might be characterised by decisions being taken out of our hands and solutions imposed on us. Some of us can remember when carless days were imposed on us. I am advocating a measured approach where we decide to change; consult on required changes; set targets to achieve and review these as necessary. AT has already decided on a path to go down with respect to parking and I do advocate pursuing this.
Reading between the lines of this dollar each way answer is what I deciphered;
AT need to hike parking prices to discourage cars BUT as an alternative we are given the current poverty pack bus based public transport system that is ironically expensive to use but takes 4 times longer to get anywhere off peak minimum, (and time is everything), not including the utter inconvenience that is its standard bottom line.
I’m sorry but the carrot and stick approach based on 90% stick and 10% degrading carrot is not going to achieve your desired goals. I want to see local politicians realise that PT in Auckland is a very hit and miss take it or leave it affair that remains unattractive to most. I do not see acknowledgement of that here. AT need to be pushed hard to change that mindset. I mean look at the Northern busway, the Crown Jewel of buses in Auckland, it’s set up as a park and ride or drop off point reliant on cars, given its stations disconnected locations. The connecting bus services that there are no near match the convenience of the NEX.
PT MUST be lifted from the wholly substandard model AT get away with, and then by all means advocate less cars. Until then all you are offering is the same old same old.
I find it as frustrating as you, Waspman, that lack of leadership means a more comprehensive approach to transforming the public transport networks and the city isn’t happening.
What one LB member can do is limited to encouraging public and Council discussion about the major changes required, and working on the pragmatic incremental, individual steps towards those changes.
I’ve never met John Wood, but it seems to me from his comments that he has experienced Council and AT not following their own strategies and plans. He’s seen what I’ve seen: decisions being made that stem from backlash-fearing, change-resistant car dependent thinking. If, as it seems, he’s willing to stick his neck out to require accountability, and is driven by an holistic understanding of the urban challenges: bringing access by transforming our public transport and reducing car dependency, then I would think he’s a world apart from some of the other change-resistant candidates.
Perhaps, again, you’re criticising the wrong people?
Technically, much transformation in public transport will happen by reallocation. Road space, public land, funding. We don’t have enough of any of these elements to provide an entire fantastic PT network alongside the driving network before people should be strongly encouraged to switch mode. That’s unrealistic, and you must have read this many times on Greater Auckland. Arguing for it is actually yet another way to resist change.
If you think you can bring a transformational public transport network to Auckland before starting to reallocate these elements, instead of doing these things concurrently, why don’t you send in a blog to outline your plan? If it stands up to scrutiny, then you should be standing for LB yourself.
Heidi, I have not met the man myself and it’s not criticising him per se. And I know as a LB member he has virtually no influence but what I do want to see is a thorough understanding of what limits this city’s move from the car to alternatives. I want to at least see LB members make AT and the Governing Body’s life very uncomfortable publically if they are holding this city back as they are at this time, not sitting there getting their catered lunches and having their tummies scratched every now and then from above. Currently, I would struggle to name 3 pan Auckland such is their acquiescence!
But he is trying to garner votes using this blogsite by agreeing and making all the right noises with the comment trends here. I simply wanted to see how deep this vote seeker thinks. As of yet, I am unconvinced he offers anything but the status quo given his lack of understanding about our major alternative to cars, namely PT which I can see he clearly thinks is quite adequate. And his non-committal answers were purely a politicians response.
Why do you interpret a “market price” for parking as being high? I’d suggest it’s simply normal.
“BUS PRIORITY” needs to be in law now!
Let’s have a sign that lights up on the back of each bus when they indicate right that says “BUS PRIORITY” so that ll traffic gives way.
Let’s stop all debate and remove on street parking from all bus routes . Let’s DO IT.
Ted, I like the bus priority sign.
Congestion was previously estimated at $1.5 to $2 billion a year. Mainly due to lost time for all. Any reduction will save our economy $100’s millions per year.
Evidence suggests induced demand for road travel (more people driving in response to mode shift) will soak up any spare capacity. Basically, I don’t think public transport reduces congestion at an aggregate level.
Jim didn’t mention public transport. I personally think we can aim for lower congestion. It’s just that to achieve it, we almost have to do the opposite of conventional “congestion-easing” techniques.
But I’m wondering what people define as congestion. If you reduce 3 lanes down to 1 lane, and due to traffic evaporation and modeshift the experience to a driver is similar (similar travel time, similar waiting times etc) … is that reduced congestion?
To me, it is, as less people are sitting in congestion. But maybe to some people, congestion is measured in terms of the experience of a driver, so they say congestion is the same.
Anyone know how it’s defined? (And is it how it should be defined?)
Yes a good question. I think to the everyday Jo Blogs it is the “experience of a driver” they are talking about.
A quick scan read of Wikipedia seems to raise most of the issues of defining & measuring it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_congestion
Sure does show how the bias towards just creating more lanes etc happens based on some models, for example, fluid dynamics.
Interesting the section on NZ, which is probably a bit out of date:
“New Zealand has followed strongly car-oriented transport policies since after World War II (especially in Auckland, where one third of the country’s population lives, is New Zealand’s most traffic congested city, and has been labelled worse than New York for traffic congestion with commuters sitting in traffic congestion for 95 hours per year), and currently has one of the highest car-ownership rates per capita in the world, after the United States. Traffic congestion in New Zealand is increasing with drivers on New Zealand’s motorways reported to be struggling to exceed 20 kph on an average commute, sometimes crawling along at 8 kph for more than half an hour.”
Stu, where is the evidence for this? I have just spent 2 weeks in Japan and never saw any traffic congestion. Even in densely built up areas there was very little motor vehicle traffic, but there was pedestrian congestion and some very crowded trains. Increased mode share to trains did not lead to induced traffic occupying the vacated road space. Do the studies upon which this assertion is based ignore data from Japan? There are 9 Japanese cities with metro systems, and many more with regional rail, so there should be at least 9 Japanese points to include in a statistical comparison.
Some aspects of the Japanese experience
– no free parking
– no street parking
– parking fines of 25,000 Yen (NZD 343) for parking on someone else’s land
– expressways charge 25 Yen/km (NZD 0.34/km)
– wide sidewalks share by cyclists
Malcolm, this is a favourite topic of mine. I’ll explain what I understand – maybe it’ll make sense to you too.
First, it’s good you’ve mentioned pedestrian congestion and crowded trains. The best measure of congestion is probably delay per capita, including all modes. But if I can hone in on just vehicle congestion for now…
In the Zero Carbon post on Monday, I provided a chart of levers that influence vkt. Here it is again: https://i1.wp.com/www.greaterauckland.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/vkt-levers.png?w=732&ssl=1
Traffic congestion, and economic activity are two that I didn’t list, but at some stage I’ll blog about all of them. I didn’t list them because I was only listing levers that a city should attempt to use. Congestion and economic activity affect vkt, but aren’t useful – most people would agree that increasing congestion or decreasing economic activity in order to reduce vkt isn’t sound policy. It’s still important to understand them though, especially as they are tend to be both input and output to some of the other processes happening.
Where there’s a smallish modeshift from driving, there is of course a small reduction in vkt that eases congestion. The eased congestion then acts to increase vkt again, and in turn this increases congestion again. This is what Stu’s talking about.
The situation in Japan is where so many different levers for reducing vkt have been used that it creates a more robust vkt reduction, and leaves the roads less congested. The levers you’ve listed, including pricing, fines, limited parking, but also others, such as density, and a connected, fast public transport network, all act so strongly together that eased congestion has little effect on increasing vkt again.
This is why places which have mature public transport and active mode networks plus good pricing policies, are also good places for driving.
Plenty of cities achieve reasonably good PT networks but don’t establish active mode networks well, and/or don’t price parking or driving well, so the congestion remains and Stu’s statement still holds.
In Auckland, we have a number of different levers tugging in different directions, which is why our vkt is hovering. Here, congestion is a very strong lever. Ease it, vkt rises again.
If we could get Council and AT to coordinate their practices so that all the levers I listed in the chart are working together, vkt will drop. The aim is to have it drop so robustly that congestion will ease as well.
The problems arise when people attempt to directly ease congestion, eg through increasing road capacity. That’s a temporary fix that leads to increased vkt, and ultimately, returns congestion to where it was, albeit with lower active mode share as a result.
Exactly Heidi. And more specifically mode shift caused by pricing instruments (e.g. parking controls) will permanently reduce VKT. Unlike mere investment in PT, which will induce more demand.
Basically, investing in alternatives to achieve mode shift won’t reduce VKT. To achieve the latter, we need price instruments or capacity reductions. Former is preferred as you monetise the negative externality and can reinvest the revenue.
And the latter is good as it reclaims space for people. 🙂 Both are needed.
Duranton and Turner “Fundamental law of traffic congestion”. You can access abstract on Google Scholar. Basically PT mode shift holding road capacity constant won’t reduce VKT or (by extension) congestion. Rather it simply induces more vehicle travel.
And it’s not the only study. You can also look at Noland 2001 and Baum-Snow 2007 and 2011.
Full paper is avaialble here with no logins or anything required. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.101.6.2616
If the buses are not stuck in traffic then there will be markedly fewer people delayed therefore the costs would be greatly diminished.
if the buses are better able to keep moving then their patronage would rise.
Yes, you’re right, Ted. Also, with the buses in bus lanes and with bus priority, they able to complete their journeys faster. So the same investment in driver hours and buses translates as better frequency of services.
The Hobsonville ferry has been remarkably empty recently. One factor will be lack of indoor capacity (109 indoor seats), and that cabin isn’t even heated or air-conditioned. Fullers need to invest in modern all-weather mid-sized ferries, not just the giant Waiheke machines.
Unfortunately, the words “Fullers” and “invest” are not really seen together very often. They run their ferry “service” on the smell of an oily rag.
The only real investment is in the tour boats that are sometimes used as ferries.
It needs to be nationalised and run as a proper ferry service.
Agreed. Fullers operations are an outpost of yesteryears PT and not conducive to what I think AT are aiming for.
Speaking of public transport improvements, what on earth is happening with the Mount Eden Village upgrade? According to the AT website this should have been completed by now, yet nothing has happened at all.
Starting next week, completed mid-August.
I lived in Stokes Road for a couple of years and these changes seem a step in the right direction. This is a very important transit corridor.
Despite restricting parking for most the world didn’t seem to collapse on them. “Feedback showed good support for the proposal, with 63.2% of respondents either ‘Very Happy’ or ‘Happy’ with the overall proposal.”
Wow, the increasing bike usage even during winter months is just stunning.
My wife and I are biking across Europe at the moment, and it feels like a we’re getting a glimpse at Auckland’s future. And it’s brilliant. The biggest obvious difference is the attitude of road users towards each other. 2 months on the road so far, never been honked, but of course we’re mostly on separated cycle paths…
To the major contributors on this blog (Matt, Heidi, Patrick, etc etc etc), thanks so much, and you ARE making a difference. We’re going to stay car-free when we return to Auckland, in part because of the encouragement and useful info provided by this blog. I have no doubt we’ll be healthier, happier and freer for it. Cheers.
Thanks, John. Lovely to hear.
And if you want to write up your experiences as a blog post when you come back, we’d love to see it. 🙂
For me not just the cycle ways, but the inter city trains and buses, trams, subways, local trains, trolley buses and where that doesn’t work buses.
Contrary to Stu’s theory this decongests the roads, although to be fair on the autostrada that may also be the tolls. All of the above options provided a relaxed way to move around.
Just as a postscript: our current exchange student talked of her family seeing her off from Milan – she lives in Rome. The family did the journey by train – 573km in 3 hours. Why wouldn’t you? Bring on the tilt trains from Auckland to the Golden Triangle.
“Contrary to Stu’s theory” – it isn’t Stu’s theory it is the result of a lot of academic work. It can seem counterintuitive but increasing PT and active modes share of travel alone won’t reduce congestion.
See all his references above. I am sure if you have evidence to the contrary, Stu would love to see it. This is his job to understand this stuff, plus write his PhD on it.
While I’m obviously happy to see these improvements, its seems as though AT are starting to rest on their laurels. There has been depressingly little progress on bus or bike lanes for over a year now. I understand delays on GI to Tamaki Drive given the complexity of the job, but why on earth are simple, cheap road reallocation projects like Cook Street so delayed?