Is the CRL Future Proofed for The North Shore Line? Last week Auckland Transport released the long-awaited Notice of Requirement for the City Rail Link (CRL) and opened the … Continue reading A Question for the CRL
Category: Planning
Looking at all things planning.
Check the Sub Categories for more specific forms of planning
The Issue with Auckland Rail
Advancing a Good System to a First Class System
Note: It has been brought to my attention that BR:AKL focuses heavy on rail in public transport commentary. That would be true having worked in the industry (passenger metro rail). However the lines are “open” for a bus “person” to contribute to the blog, contact me at view.of.auckland@gmail.com
After watching some proverbial spankings being handed out (mainly one way) after WO’s Rail Patronage post, I sifted through the comments and plucked out a common trend that came from the comments. Now I conveyed these comments to an academic and he told me we do (which I know) have an anomaly in our public transport system that gives rise to the common trend. Now how this ties in with Good System and First Class System is a good question. The answer is it “does” because while we have a “good” basic passenger metro rail system in position, this anomaly which is caused by ideology (and nothing else) causes people to lose confidence in the rail system – thus further investment into turning a good system into a first class system.
Now with Auckland Council and Auckland Transport releasing the notification for the City Rail Link; this is where confidence building in the existing good system needs to happen if we wish to advance to a first class system.
So where is this confidence loss happening with our Good System (and also the reason why someone got a proverbial spanking that night). Well I summed up that loss with the current situation:
In short thanks to a recent ticketing change this is the situation if you want to take your family to say Santa Parade
2 Adults, 3 kids from Papakura to Britomart and back again
Cost by rail (if you did not get the inaccessible Family Pass before you travel): $53.30
Cost by car (including gas, parking and everything else) around $25 (parking sucked up most of that cost)
https://voakl.net/2012/11/23/ge…
So those here arguing on cost grounds – yep can understand your reasoning.
And for an example I have a meeting in Henderson today. So from Papakura to Henderson these are my costs:
Rail: Time to Henderson (and taking into account a transfer at Newmarket): Departs Papakura at 11:25am, arrives at Henderson (after transfer at Newmarket) at 1:07pm (I have to wait at Newmarket for the transfer is 23 mins) – so total travel time is 1:44 hours. Cost one way is $12.40 + $1 in gas as I would drive the Papakura Station park and ride.
To do this back to Papakura: Cost is the same so $12.40 + $1. As for travel time: Leaves Henderson at 3:45pm and will arrive in Papakura at 5:14pm (this includes a 9 minute wait at Newmarket while transferring trains) – so total travel time of 1:31 hours
Total cost for rail is $26.80. Travel time total: Varies each way but total time is 3:15hours
Car: Using State Highway 20 – 80km there and back. Parking: Free. Fuel at 14km/l =5.71l. 5.71/l at $1.959/l for 91 = $13 (take into account some low-speed and idling). Travel Time: 42 minutes each way. Maintenance and other car costs (WoF, Rego) $2.
Total for car is $15 (for all travel) at a travel time of 42mins one way (1:26 total)
So on crude terms it costs and takes me double to go by train to where I need get to (and out of luck I live near a station and my place of meeting is AT HQ right on Henderson station) compared to by car. So yeah I can see major issues here folks
Double time by train, around 1.75x the cost; and this I have not even included the time to drive to and from the Papakura Station Park and Ride and waiting time I might face at both Papakura and Henderson stations for the train.
And this was the trend that kept coming up and up again constantly (there were others but one step at a time) when the mention of rail patronage slippage happened. Usually it would be the other way around with a well-greased mass-transit system in time and cost however, ideology which has set the current policy leading to the current situation we have here in Auckland is currently in the way and not doing confidence building any favours right now.
Now in fairness to the rail system as a stand-alone (the infrastructure and operations currently in place (not I did not say fares or customer service) is basic but good. It has for the most part since 2003 when Britomart opened and with the current Project DART work happening carried out its basic purpose and function despite all sorts of problems. This is apparent with the back to back patronage growth month upon month, year upon year until the July 2012 peak to which afterwards we have now started seeing this prolonged slip. The current system is good because it has the three basic foundation backbones (The Southern, Eastern and Western Lines) with two spur lines (Onehunga and Manukau Lines) that allow for straight forward investment and expansion of the network into new areas of Auckland (The City Rail Link, The Airport Line, The North Shore Line, The Botany Line and The South West Line) without much difficulty (as you would get starting an entirely new system from scratch).
So we have a good system, and it can and will be a first class system. That will require investment as we know and are seeing coming through the pipeline and as I have noted which on the infrastructure side will bring our good basic system into a First Class Comprehensive System.
However “The Issue With Rail” still is apparent and is knocking confidence around with the current good system and getting investment for the First Class System.
Now that issue I mentioned above can basically be only dealt with by Central Government changing its mindset and ideological hell-bent. Once that bent is removed then confidence (through P/T being actually cheaper and relatively more easy to move around than the car) can be restored along with enabling our good system to become First Class System
For more on BR:AKL and the push for a fully integrated and comprehensive transport system that includes private and public transport – search this blog or ask me a question in the comments below.
Hearings Time Again
RPTP Hearings About to Commence
And
Yours Truly is Presenting
Last year Auckland Transport had called for submissions on its draft Regional Public Transport Plan – the RPTP can be read here.
Yours truly submitted on the RPTP and will have my hearing on the 7th February at 1400 hours – Manukau Civic Centre. The Hearings Panel includes two Auckland Transport Board members (Cr Mike Lee (Chair), and Paul Lockey); Peter Clark (General Manager, Strategy and Planning), and Mark Lambert (Manager, Public Transport Operations). So going to be an interesting hearing next month to front up to.
A Draft Auckland Regional Public Transport Plan:Pre-Hearings Report has been released to which I have embedded below. My key submission points are on page 45 of the document but can also be found in this list:
Benjamin Ross (385) 14:00 – 14:10
- The missing South Manukau Rail Link that would allow direct train services from Manukau to Papakura/Pukekohe without a transfer at Puhinui needs to be built by 2016 to enable the roll out of either an All Day or as Frequent Service Network. There is “latent” demand for such a South Link that would deem the investment economically and socially viable.
- Proposals for zone based fares: 4 Zones with Britomart as the central focus point.
- Propose a maximum fare cap of $15 per day.
- Family Pass should also be made available
- Propose the AT-HOP cards have a flat 20% discount
- High Priority to have the Walters Road (Takanini) Station and Park and Ride facility built by 2018 with the continued urban development in the area.
- Close Te Mahia and Takanini Stations (relocated Takanini Station to near Spartan Road crossing and add Park and Ride)
- Look at adding a 20 minute frequency bus service between Manurewa, The Gardens/Totara Heights, Porchester Road and Papakura Town Centre.
All the points (except the last one) above I have covered to some depth since the inception of the blog. All points made are based on utilising what we have is a good foundation for the public transport system in Auckland, and “we” are wanting to make the good foundation in a solid robust system that is accessible, efficient, punctual and reliable! Not to nit-pick the negatives as that is a counter-productive to all – but to build and maintain solid progress in advancing a good system to a system that we can deem something to be “proud of”.
And so at 14:00 – 7th February – Manukau Civic Centre, I go and do my 10 minute pitch to Auckland Transport in advocating not just a “better” public transport system (as we all want that) but advocate in a good job thus far (patronage minus the blip has risen) and we can continue the rise by pushing for better!
The RPTP Pre-Hearings Report
Sydney and The Rail Fallacy MK II
The Rail Fallacy Strikes (Sydney) Back
In June last year I posted about Sydney and The Rail Fallacy – mind you it was in concern to passenger trains as I was drawing a warning in regards to the City Rail Link.
From last year:
Sydney and its Rail Fallacy
It seems Sydney has not quite learned from Auckland’s botched public transport system with multiple operators, seemingly a heterogeneous train fleet, disjointed fares and very disjointed timetables between the three p/t modes. Although Auckland is on the path in fixing the last three bits of that previous sentence, we will have some way to go yet before achieving a homogenous public transport operating system. But as I said at least we are going towards homogenous, because upon reading the Sydney transport article; they seem to be going in full reverse and heading to a heterogeneous system like we have. If you are wondering how Sydney has a rail fallacy; well it has not got a fallacy right now like other places, but heck it is heading to one and one it can avoid quite easy.
The Rail Fallacy will apply to the when the North West Rail Link (which is to be run as a PPP) is complete and opened in 2019, and most likely to the second Sydney Harbour is the New South Wales state governmentmanages to screw that up.
And for the definition of Rail Fallacy it is this:
THE CRL AND THE RAIL FALLACY
…
THE RAIL FALLACY
The Rail Fallacy was a formula given to me by a mentor on how to roughly calculate the “actual” cost and time to completion of a heavy rail or light rail project. The Fallacy was based on previous experience from projects in the USA and Scandinavia where rail projects were given a cost and time to completion by the Public Authorities. However by the end of the said project (if it was not scrapped) the final cost was higher and time to completion “delayed” compared to the original numbers given, with public confidence often not that high. Thus the Fallacy formula was derived on an average of 1.5x (one point five times) and can be applied to (usually) to any passenger rail project due to be constructed in the Western World.
Well yesterday its mentioned in the Sydney Morning Herald that Sydney and wider New South Wales suffered a rather large Rail Fallacy – although it was from a freight line rather than a passenger line.
From the SMH:
‘We wanted to make sure we got it right’: new rail line opens … three years late”
The first train line in Sydney to be paid for and built under the Rudd and Gillard governments opened on Monday, $700 million over budget and three years after it was promised to be finished.
The 36km Southern Sydney Freight Line will allow extra freight trains to run between Macarthur and Chullora in the city’s south west and will increase rail freight capacity along the entire Australian east coast.
This is an investment that’s been got right. This isn’t a loss to taxpayers. This is an investment that produces a return on that investment by getting it right.
But the project ended up being vastly more expensive to build than when it was first promised by the federal Transport Minister, Anthony Albanese, in 2009.
Getting it Right? That should of been done in the (proper) Planning Process which would of indicated rather clearly the upcoming complexity of the entire project
As for costs and time that is reflected below, but from my understanding the freight line came in at 3.5x over budget and three years (so 3x over the one year completion date) late from what was “promised” by the Federal Government.
More from the SMH:
At a press conference in Birrong to mark the start of operations on the line, Mr Albanese and the chief executive of the Australian Rail Track Corporation, which built the line, defended the blow-out.
The final cost was about $1 billion. When Mr Albanese announced the start of construction in February 2009, he put a figure of $309 million on the project and a completion date of early 2010.
“This is a pretty complex piece of work,” Mr Albanese said on Monday.
He attributed the delays and cost blow-outs to the necessity of moving utilities such as water and energy lines during construction.
Mr Albanese also said that the difficulty of operating on a live rail line – both freight trains and passenger trains on the adjoining East Hills line stayed running while the new line was being built – added to the challenge of the project.
“We wanted to make sure we got it right,” the Transport Minister said. “No corners have been cut. This has been got right.”
The Australian Rail Track Corporation is owned by the federal government. As with the NBN Co. it receives money from the federal government in the form of investments which do not come off the government’s budget bottom line.
Mr Albanese declined to criticise the ARTC for the more than three-fold increase in the cost of the project. According to figures provided to Senate Estimates, the ARTC spent almost $12 million in planning the line before construction even started in 2009.
“This is an investment,” he said. “This is an investment that’s been got right. This isn’t a loss to taxpayers. This is an investment that produces a return on that investment by getting it right.”
Mr Fullerton said the new train line, which will allow capacity for up to 48 freight trains a day to pass through the area and potentially to Port Botany, was the largest project the ARTC had undertaken.
“The original budget made some assumptions on how we could build a line over 36 kilometres adjacent to a metropolitan line but when we got into the project we realised that lot of the services covering off Sydney Water, a lot of the RailCorp services to do with signalling, electricity lines, all those sorts of things had to be relocated and that comes at a significant cost over 36 kilometres,” Mr Fullerton said.
The ARTC stopped work on the freight line in late 2009 and 2010. The benefit of the line is in allowing passenger trains and freight trains to run separately from each other.
This means that an existing eight-hour curfew on freight trains running during the morning and afternoon peak periods can now be lifted.
Mr Albanese defended the record of the federal Labor government in relation to transport in Sydney.
As transport minister, he has promised to build the Epping to Parramatta train line, though that pledge has been scuppered by the O’Farrell government which ranks it a lower priority. He has also agreed to fund a new freight terminal at Moorebank and another freight train line through Sydney’s northern suburbs, though both are still at the planning stage.
By the looks of it (and always seems to be the case) it that the project is a worthwhile one (this dedicated segregated freight line being an example) but the planning was just an utter disgrace and not done properly. And from the Sydney Freight Rail Line example some rather dodgy planning was done indeed. Costs underestimated (as always the case), time of completion underestimated (as always the case), scope of work underestimated (was with Sydney), complexity of the work at hand underestimated (usually the case), benefits delivered from project overestimated (although with Sydney and back here with the CRL this would be a case of benefits most likely being underestimated due to pitch of the benefits being wrong).
So a message to our resident Prude – The Mayor and Auckland Council, take heed of Sydney AND Canberra doing a ballsy and allowing a Rail Fallacy (and a large one at that with the multiple over 3.0) happen with a FREIGHT rail line (let alone passenger rail line projects like the Sydney North-Western Line proposals). Because while some call it scaremongering in what I write, I call it the utter truth from examples overseas gathered and an absolute warning on how to avoid The Rail Fallacy. And I give these warning so that mistakes from overseas are not repeated in regards to the City Rail Link mega-project. Because if the The Rail Fallacy does happen (and it has with Manukau – knocking confidence right out of Councillors and rail supporters) then support and confidence in further investment in rail (the other four lines to be built) goes right out the door.
Just of note The CRL already faces a tough pitch in giving ratepayers confidence in its multi-billion dollar project support; Whale Oils Rail Patronage post would be a testament to that (after by the looks it someone got a proverbial spanking over there) and The Rail Fallacy coming true with the CRL will do no one any favours. However if we get a Britomart situation where the project was in high doubt but is now a beacon (well all things considered too) of confidence restoration with rail investment and the CRL pulls off the same thing – then – well you figure out with further investment with rail.
So the stakes are high folks they really are…
Groan – Who Wrote This
Seen This Post Before…
Phil McDermott, a Consultant in urban, economic and community development who no wait that was someone else who served with Councillor Mike Lee on the former Auckland Regional Council – wrote a post over on his Cities Matter blog about the apparent flawed analysis on the City Rail Link. There are also two comments from various individuals that caught my attention and will also be “mentioned” as well.
From Cities Matter:
Evidence-based commentary on urban development
MONDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2012
A Flawed Case? Auckland’s City Rail Link Project
A tale of two cities
Two newspaper stories on infrastructure investment caught my eye last week. The first praised the approach undertaken by the Port of Tauranga. The Port has performed extremely well for shareholders, including 55% owners Bay of Plenty Regional Council. This is put down to rigorous analysis of the financial impacts of any capital spending:For years Tauranga has used its capital resources astutely to lift cargo volumes and improve efficiency to build economic value for its shareholders. …
The port has an outstanding record in kicking for the right goalposts when determining strategic capital development. ….
For Tauranga, a vital key has been to back innovation-driven capital investment with rigorous economic and financial analysis.Contrast this with the latest addition to the grab bag of evidence assembled by Auckland Council to justify an underground central rail link (CRL) . Admittedly, Auckland Transport is not a commercial operation. However, making the best possible use of capital is a key to the efficiency and productivity that will underlie the long-term prosperity of the city and the country. And this project will not deliver.
Fiscal irresponsibility
I have not read the latest report in depth. But I did have a quick look to see what the financial implications of implementation might be for the ratepayers of Auckland, and how risk was assessed. I couldn’t find any discussion of them. And interestingly, in their absence it would be easy to use the analysis to demonstrate why we should not be risking substantial public funds on it. Yet the Mayor was quoted as saying that this report provides a strong basis for funding negotiations with the government.The Transport Minister won’t buy into this. He quickly responded by pointing out what the latest report demonstrates. The project is not viable. There is no financial analysis suggesting that this project has a life.…
You can read the rest over at his blog.
Now that “latest report” McDermott is referring to that our utterly incompetent Minister of Transport responded to was the recently release City Centre Future Access Study (CCFAS) which can be found HERE. Now CCFAS I have mentioned briefly before while other blogs have covered it more in-depth.
My simple reply to the post written by McDermott for tonight (more in-depth coverage will come over the rest of the week), it is an exact replicant of what came out of Councillor Cameron Brewer’s Department which is widely believed (might as well been knowing the National Government Spin-Doctors) to have come straight out of Gerry Brownlee’s Office!
There is nothing new there McDermott and what you have said with the BCR’s has been refuted over at Transport Blog more than once – and will continue to be done so again and again and again until one basically “learns.”
As for the two comments posted, well that was heart sinking material to read it – but none the less expected!
” as it will never generate one cent of a financial return.”
LibertyScott; there is more to this world than the utter Neo-Liberal belief on “financial returns.” The London Underground at 150 years old last week shows the absolute long-term wider Economic returns to our sole World City (in my opinion) – London. And when I speak of Economic I speak of its full utter definition – that is: social, monetary, social and physical environmental, and the wider economic spin off’s out side of the pure revenue and expense which your blinkers can not look past from. Some goods in the world are subsidised (in fact roads are too for that matter) because there is more than absolute dollars and cents here – a fully integrated transport system is one of those goods.
“Let’s hope that serious advances in road-based transport will happen soon enough, fast enough, to get the public to re-think their brainwashing on the “inherent virtue” of rail. At the end of the day it’s about public buy-in and sadly they have thus far bought it.”
Andrew Atkin; mate your might as well bugger off to Brisbane mate where they are facing the consequences – and some very brutal ones at that of over investing in road-based transport and not developing a more balanced approach to their entire transport system which includes rail and ferries. Furthermore even our American cousins including such places as Houston and LA (oh look car central) have begun switching slowly over to more integrated transport systems which include – oh look rail. The Republicans in – look again TEXAS are going for a fully privately built and run rail line service and seeing where that ends up. If they make success out of it, it will blow away conceptions that rail is a socialist toy… As for public buy in; well they will keep buying in if real estate statistics are anything to go by. Guess where our hottest real estate is – why the fringe suburbs around the CBD which all sit on major road/bus and even rail corridors. The CRL will be an even bigger booster in those fringe areas when the latent rail capacity is not only opened up – but new areas that carry high density of travel also fall into extended rail catchment of the City Rail Link. I have not included the three new rail lines that can open up too because of the CRL giving the rail system even further reach into areas of Auckland not currently be served by rail. So sorry Andrew, don’t quite think the public will say to your way just yet looking at trends
And so this second post coming from me is the one I boot down the paddock.
Booting it for being an exact replicant of the crap that came out from Brownlee’s Office and that Brewer was silly enough to publish – with no actual alternative that presents even a better Benefit Cost Ratio than the CRL because there is none – Pure and Utter SIMPLE!
My take on all this
GROAN!
Auckland’s Electrics – Marked Improvement?
I Agree With Matt L’s Analysis on our new EMUs
Matt L from Auckland Transport Blog wrote up a post on his self-analysis on the speeds of our new incoming Electric passenger trains. I agree with his post and thus endorse and/or recommend his post over at Transport Blog. My sole comment on his post at the moment is that for the Southern and Eastern Lines at least, slicing upwards of 7-minutes of the total journey time from Britomart to Papakura will be a good attractor to rail passengers on the rolling stock and speed side. However we still have infrastructure and customer service aspects to work on with our rail system (and Auckland Transport as well) but separate posts and debates for those.
So from Transport Blog – an intro to Matt’s post on the EMU speeds:
Source: Auckland Transport Blog
Our EMU speeds
By Matt L, on January 16th, 2013This year the first of our new electric trains will arrive and one of big benefits of them will be that they have faster acceleration than the clunky diesel trains we have now but the question is just how much faster they will be. For some reason it is something that Auckland Transport have been pretty reluctant to actually talk much about which I am guessing is due to them not wanting to get peoples expectations up. We however are not AT and are free to talk and speculate all we like so with that in mind, some time ago I built a model to try and work things out. I actually blogged about it back then but at the time I had only showed the western line, with this post I thought I would look at the whole network. Before I go into the results, for those that are interested, here is an explanation as to how I have worked the times out:
First I have worked out the distance between each station and for each leg of the journey I have assigned a maximum speed that the trains can travel and I have kept most of the network at 80kph with the inner sections at 60kph. When the EMUs were announced AT said that they would be able accelerate and brake at 1m/s². Based on that I then worked out how long, both in time and distance it would take to reach the top speed and slow back down again for each section of track. For those interested it takes 22 seconds and 247 metres to reach, or slow down from 80kph based on that acceleration of 1m/s². The next step was to work out how long the train would travel at top speed. To do that I subtracted the acceleration and braking distance off the distance between stations and worked long it would take. For each station I then added in a dwell time to represent how long it would spend on the platform. To be conservative i generally used 45 second however for busier stations I used 1 minute. I then added the time spent accelerating, braking, at top speed and the dwell time together. Lastly to try and be conservative I added in a multiplier of an extra 20% to account for things like slow drivers, corners and junctions which that then gave me an overall result for each station.
Here are the results verses the current times for each line, I have left out Te Mahia and Westfield as based on the draft RPTP they are likely to close, I have however added in the Parnell station. For the Western line I have added in the time allocated for the driver to change ends at Newmarket together with the travel time. You may also notice some of the times look longer than current. That is because AT obviously round the times up or down to get to an exact minute.
…
You can read the rest including the graphics over at his post.
Just a note on station dwell times as it has been mentioned: 30 seconds is the official Station Dwell Time (the time a train is stopped at a station to exchange passengers) set by Auckland Transport for all intermediary stations (those between the origin station and final destination station) except for Western Line services at Newmarket in which the Dwell Time is 3-minutes to allow the driver to change ends. There are also Marked Stations as well (Otahuhu, Newmarket, New Lynn and Glen Innes being examples) in which a train can not depart from that station until that marked time – it shows as a BOLD time on your paper timetables for each line.
Excellent work Matt.
A Direct Message to Auckland Transport
Yes I am Talking to You
Yesterday I posted about the 2011 and 2012 rail patronage statistics coming through via a Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act request. In the same post down at the bottom a “direct” message was also written “to” Auckland Transport.
I am going to repost the message to AT here after the “irony” alarms were set off this morning in Twitter. No sooner than I had tweeted that: “Awaits to see if anyone from @AkTransportBlog has another “moment” on the buses or trains this morning #whyohwhy #basicsfirst” – a comment came up from one of their regular readers saying: “My 8:05am 839 outbound Shore bus started 13min late due to Transpower & @AklTransport closing Fanshawe bus lane. You closed the wrong lane!”
Face-palm right there. Last I checked the Transpower works on Franshawe Street continue until March when “March-Madness” occurs (that being schools, universities and all businesses are back and transport systems face a large surge). So if problems are coming up now down at Franshawe then Lord help those in February and March if it does go to custard down there.
So here it is again – my message to Auckland Transport
I am not your enemy and I don’t want to be your enemy.
Your goal is the same as my goal (I think after a head scratch) and that is: to build and maintain (and this includes in the customer service satisfaction and confidence in using our public transport) a world-class public transport system that is: easy to access, easy to use, easy to understand, and most of all it is affordable to all – for our most liveable City.
However something has gone horribly wrong your direction and we are now seeing a sustained and systemic patronage slip in our rail network – a backbone (but not the sole back bone) to keeping the citizens and visitors of this city moving. I have no interest in attacking you Auckland Transport as that is counter-productive.
But your experiences that I have had with you both good but more hostility does not (and with absolute respect) leave me with much confidence in you nor your abilities in achieving the goal – it just simply does not. What is not also helping in my confidence towards you is the feedback I hear from infrequent and frequent passengers – customers of Auckland Transport on the public transport system which I am sorry as much as I want positives, I only see overtly negative feedback on experiences.
Your goal is my goal and all I want to do – am trying to do is as a ratepayer (your master, your employer – not the other way around) is “do my bit in” making our transport system better. Whether that be through praise in what you do right, constructive criticism to overcome the weaknesses, or offer alternatives and ideas others might not have thought of in getting our transport system moving forwards – not backwards as we are seeing; this is my way in doing my part in achieving the goal so that our transport system is: easy to access, easy to use, easy to understand, and most of all it is affordable to all – for our most Liveable City.
You would have now doubt read my “FIRST STEP IN IMPROVING AUCKLAND’S PUBLIC TRANSPORT” post that sums up the current feelings towards you – Auckland Transport on the customer service and experience of the current system; and if you haven’t then I recommend strongly in reading it.
So what say you Auckland Transport – I am pitching with everything I have (skills, experience, knowledge, ideas, and pure passion and enthusiasm (my former co-workers can vouch for those two) to you – to make our transport system a better place in partnership with you. You know where to find me, you know where to contact me.
I await your reply.
-Message End-
2011-2012 Rail Patronage Stats – And a Direct Message to AT
2011-2012 Rail Patronage Stats – For Auckland
Direct Message to Auckland Transport also included
While undertaking my normal cruising through blogs and social media that I keep an eye on, someone had filed a Local Government Official Meetings and Information Act (LGOIMA) request into the 2011 and 2012 Auckland rail patronage statistics – in which the numbers have been released by Auckland Transport.
You can see the patronage information HERE on page two or in the embed below
Accordingly the disclaimer from Auckland Transport applies: “The following sets out the observations of train passenger boardings by station following a single weekday sample during the month of May. The data is representative of a “typical” weekday usage but is subject to daily/seasonal variances. Auckland Transport does not warrant the accuracy of the counts.”
Source: Auckland Transport
It is of also to note that it is mentioned by Auckland Transport that there were service disruptions (I am trying to remember them) in 2011 and 2012 which “could have” affected “normal” patronage demand on the network.
So in other words the statistics are pretty next to worthless as you need an uninterrupted day to gauge “normal” patronage demand properly.
The Request and Stats
Source: Auckland Transport
Disclaimer: [as above]
What can I get out of these stats?
- Papakura is still the third busiest station
- Increase on patronage on the Western Line but slump on the Southern and Eastern Lines (again there were disruptions on those life which WILL affect numbers)
- Onehunga is underwhelming – which means those passengers are getting on at Ellersile making the Onehunga trains appear busy in the peaks
- Manukau. The comment from my Facebook will be more apt in describing this one:
Now arguably these measurements were done in May when (looking at the Auckland Transport rolling 12-month patronage statistics) there was still growth, however since August 2012 there has been what is now a systemic and noticeable decline kicking the patronage levels back to July-August 2011 levels (so a full total back slide rendering efforts and good work gone in – useless). You can see my views on this backsliding over at my “FIRST STEP IN IMPROVING AUCKLAND’S PUBLIC TRANSPORT” post.
To which I have this message to Auckland Transport:
I am not your enemy and I don’t want to be your enemy.
Your goal is the same as my goal (I think after a head scratch) and that is: to build and maintain (and this includes in the customer service satisfaction and confidence in using our public transport) a world-class public transport system that is: easy to access, easy to use, easy to understand, and most of all it is affordable to all – for our most liveable City.
However something has gone horribly wrong your direction and we are now seeing a sustained and systemic patronage slip in our rail network – a backbone (but not the sole back bone) to keeping the citizens and visitors of this city moving. I have no interest in attacking you Auckland Transport as that is counter-productive.
But your experiences that I have had with you both good but more hostility does not (and with absolute respect) leave me with much confidence in you nor your abilities in achieving the goal – it just simply does not. What is not also helping in my confidence towards you is the feedback I hear from infrequent and frequent passengers – customers of Auckland Transport on the public transport system which I am sorry as much as I want positives, I only see overtly negative feedback on experiences.
Your goal is my goal and all I want to do – am trying to do is as a ratepayer (your master, your employer – not the other way around) is do my bit in making our transport system better. Whether that be through praise in what you do right, constructive criticism to overcome the weaknesses, or offer alternatives and ideas others might not have thought of in getting our transport system moving forwards – not backwards as we are seeing; this is my way in doing my part in achieving the goal so that our transport system is: easy to access, easy to use, easy to understand, and most of all it is affordable to all – for our most Liveable City.
You would have now doubt read my “FIRST STEP IN IMPROVING AUCKLAND’S PUBLIC TRANSPORT” post that sums up the current feelings towards you – Auckland Transport on the customer service and experience of the current system; and if you haven’t then I recommend strongly in reading it.
So what say you Auckland Transport – I am pitching with everything I have (skills, experience, knowledge, ideas, and pure passion and enthusiasm (my former co-workers can vouch for those two) to you – to make our transport system a better place in partnership with you. You know where to find me, you know where to contact me.
I await your reply.
AT COO Interviewed – On Auckland’s Transport
Chief Operating Officer Talks About Auckland’s Transport – Yet Still Misses the Basics?
On Friday; Auckland Transport posted up on its website an interview with their Number Three – Chief Operation Officer Greg Edmonds with TV9’s Asia Focus.
From Auckland Transport:
Transport in 2013: Greg Edmonds interview
Last reviewed: 11/01/2013 2:46 p.m.
Watch this interview on AsiaFocus by TV9 with Greg Edmonds, Chief Operating Officer of Auckland Transport.
Mr Edmonds answers questions about integrated ticketing (HOP), its benefits and the rollout to buses that will begin in April.
He also speaks about measures Auckland Transport is taking to continue to grow public transport patronage. These include integrated ticketing, electrification of the rail network and electric trains and the redesign of bus networks to better integrate them with the rail network.
Watch the recording of the interview on TV9.co.nz. Length: 20:25
And so I watched the interview and took some notes on the following aspects (with some help of other keen eyes and ears):
Noted from Interview with AT-CCO Greg Edmonds
1.52min
“Looking for a population of 2-2.5 million people in 10yrs”
Where are the people coming? 2030 was when Auckland was due to hit the 2-million mark so is there something statisticians not telling us?
2.39min
“Current Dual HOP card system”
Why couldn’t AT get it right in the first place? It’s not that Auckland is the first place ever to use such a system. However I have covered this since my alternative to Snapper in February Last Year)
4.55min
“Rail patronage dropping since RWC – How to fix public transport patronage:
- Integrated train/bus/ferry timetables
- $600million electrification
- 10min a train will turn up (all day every day, 7 days a week)
- 15min a bus will turn up (all day every day, 7 days a week)
- City Rail Link post 2022 (or rather 2025)”
My Reply: From observations and experiences: trains/buses running around just about/or empty all the time outside peak hrs. However will another million people in the city in 10yrs and an aging population use their free travel passes their might be a bit more usage. But doubling usage by another 70 million in 10 years is somewhat overly optimistic given the current situation. I have also touched on AT not getting the basics rights with Customer Service in the FIRST STEP IN IMPROVING AUCKLAND’S PUBLIC TRANSPORT post which basically states all the investment in infrastructure means squat if the customer service experience is least to be currently desired. More on this again later)
7.21min
“Greg Edmonds stating passenger numbers not dropping”
Someone asked me: “I wish someone would confirm whether they dropping or rising and all officials/bureaucrats stick to the same story line.” The answer to that lies in the patronage stats from Auckland Transport which is currently stating there is overall growth in public transport patronage, but declines in Northern Busway patronage and a rather disturbing 14-15% drop in rail patronage which shows no sign of currently slowing down.
8.00min
“Greg Edmonds not concerned about overall public transport use trends.”
Someone said this to me (so not my own words): “Naturally he’s not… he’s selling the fear factor of 2-2.5 million people being in Auckland and the place turning into chaos.” In saying that, however I might go an explore Edmonds comment around that remark. His role clearly dictates that he must be concerned around overall public transport trends for if they either: fall through the floor in patronage, or the Customer Service situation does not improve – then his head might be on Councillor Mike Lee’s PLATE!)
9.25min
“Real time information system not accurate…”
I cannot comment on the Passenger Real Time Information Display System (RAPID) currently due to previous employment however a reader did ask this: (Question) “Why couldn’t AT implement a system that would work right in the first place? It’s not as though Auckland has the first system in the world. How much did this mistake cost ratepayers and who has been held accountable for it?”
10.51min
“We have patronage “Targets” – by 2020 achieve 140 million based on investments being made”
Observation: It means an extra 70 million rides in seven years, that’s an increase of 10 million per year which with the current problems AT are facing with public transport – it could be a case of “barrow” and “uphill”. The slide in rail patronage which is becoming entrenched and systemic needs to be reversed. The question is: “how is Auckland Transport going to honestly reverse that slide?”
A remark from a reader: “Looking forward to reading what the honest and true figures are this time next year while hoping all AT staff are made to ride the buses for a year to see first-hand what really goes on in our public transport network”
15.18min
(This was noted by me and from feedback by readers as well): “No plans for the North Shore Rail Line despite apparently according to Greg Edmonds: NZTA starting the second harbour crossing around the 2015-2016 mark. Now last I looked NZTA were in the building of that tunnel crossing, going to include I believe a heavy rail line that can be joined to the City Rail Link on the CBD side while extending along the Northern Busway – replacing it.”
To me this is a rather flippant attitude of Greg Edmonds in regards to the North Shore Line and could be very well contradicting both the Mayor’s and NZTA’s plans for the eventual North Shore Line. Auckland Transport should be very well making plans for the Busway to be replaced by the North Shore Line (Heavy Rail) as was “planned” when the busway was built. Heavy Rail (The North Shore Line) can carry upwards of 900% more passengers at full capacity than the busway ever could at full capacity, while allowing a seamless train trip from the North Shore to either: the CBD, New Lynn, Sylvia Park, Newmarket, Manukau, Onehunga, THE AIRPORT, Papakura, Botany, or even Pukekohe. The North Shore Line would connect a relatively isolated part of Auckland back to the main isthmus and allow for growth on the Shore that would be better catered for.
I shall let readers making their own call on the Greg Edmonds interview but those were my thoughts (as well as some others who gave feedback).
For the benefit of Auckland Transport’s Chief Operating Officer – Greg Edmonds, I shall re-stick the Customer Service post here below for him to go and read – as I don’t quite think he has quite joined the dots to our dismal public transport performance (including that of the CCO as well):
FIRST STEP IN IMPROVING AUCKLAND’S PUBLIC TRANSPORT
Posted by BR:AKL_Admin01 on January 10, 2013 ·
Treat Humans as Humans
Not as numbers, not as dollar signs, not as a total pain in the ass that should be treated begrudgingly.
While I have been running commentary on things like Rail Efficiency Programs and operational models post City Rail Link to boost patronage via infrastructure and operations, another blogger raised a very fine point on something that is very well hammering our public transport patronage statistics – our customer service.
Before I highlight the said post from the other blogger, a quick reminder: Auckland Transport asked for submissions to its Regional Public Transport Program (RPTP) of which the hearings are next month (and that I am attending). One of the main focuses Auckland Transport was looking for in submissions to the RPTP was the “Customer Service Portal” – in other words the quality and level of customer service in our public transport system from front line staff right through to AT bureaucrats in Henderson.
This post is by virtue of an extension to my submission on the RPTP as well as replicating a point made at another blog.
So lets take a look at Customer Service on Auckland’s Public Transport System
This is from Auckland Transport Blog:
By Guest Post, on January 7th, 2013
This is a guest post by John P
The Ministry of Transport, bless ‘em, actually have a lot of interesting information on their website if you know where to look. One of the things they do is carry out a Household Travel Survey, which surveys 4,600 households in various parts of New Zealand each year. There’s plenty to look at, and you can check out various results at their transport survey, but for today I’ll look at a summary they put together on public transport use – taken from here.
The thing that stands out to me is a table showing the percentage of people who use public transport in NZ’s major cities. From this, 53% of Aucklanders surveyed hadn’t used PT at all in the last year. This put us on par with Christchurch and Dunedin, both of which are significantly smaller, neither of which have rail, and neither of which are particularly PT-oriented cities. We’re well behind Wellington, where only 27% of people hadn’t hopped on a train or bus at least once. Remember that (greater) Wellington is around the same size as Christchurch, and both cities are less than a third the size of Auckland.
Wow, that’s not a good start. How about people who haven’t used PT in the last month, but have in the last year? 17% of Aucklanders fell into this camp, in line with the other cities except for Wellington.
So, by this point, we can see that only 30% of Aucklanders had used public transport in the month before they were surveyed. We were in between Dunedin (26%) and Christchurch (34%), and well
behind Wellington where 46% of the people had used it at least once.The last few lines of the table below are asking people how many days in the last month they had used public transport. I won’t dwell on it except to point out that half the Aucklanders who used PT in the last month hadn’t used it very often. Only 14% used it on 5 days or more, ahead of Dunedin (11%) but behind Christchurch (16%) and Wellington (27%).
…
Wellington is leaps and bounds ahead of Auckland, but I think we all knew that. I think these results are a pretty telling scorecard, and, to put it mildly, Auckland doesn’t look too flash. The majority of Aucklanders never use public transport at all, and most of those who do don’t use it very often. Two basic questions come out of this:
- Why don’t Aucklanders use PT very often?
- How do we improve PT usage in Auckland?
Questions that are answered in a number of different posts in this blog! A redesign of the network, and rail electrification, should help boost patronage over the next few years. But the thing is, we should really be aiming to get to where Wellington is now in the short to medium term. Anything less is short-changing ourselves in my opinion.
You can read the full article over at the Transport Blog site.
However the two questions in red are the points being raised and I answered over there. My answer was:
John (P) while a great post I think (from experience) the obvious is missing to give our flagging P/T patronage especially our rail patronage good kick until the infrastructure comes on cue over the next 10-30 years.
I take note here:
- Why don’t Aucklanders use PT very often?
- How do we improve PT usage in Auckland?
Questions that are answered in a number of different posts in this blog! A redesign of the network, and rail electrification, should help boost patronage over the next few years. But the thing is, we should really be aiming to get to where Wellington is now in the short to medium term. Anything less is short-changing ourselves in my opinion.”
Those are the two questions we are all seeking to actually answer and the reason why (to my personal disagreement as well as Councillor Mike Lee not being amused either) AT are about to embark on spending our money on “professional experts” ( http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10855436 ) in finding “fixes” to our rail slump,
However again Councillor Mike Lee has hit the nail on the head right here with this comment from another article: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10857062
“Mayor Len Brown says the arrival of the trains will be “a huge step on the path towards the kind of integrated transport system an international city like Auckland needs”.
He believes the electric units – which will have greater acceleration and braking power than the existing diesel fleet – will make rail patronage “rocket” and create even more pressure for a 3.5km underground rail extension from Britomart to Mt Eden.
But council transport chairman and veteran electrification campaigner Mike Lee believes the new trains will not be enough to boost flagging patronage unless they are supported by general service improvements, notably far better punctuality and extended weekend timetables, without prohibitive fare rises.
“I would not bank on electric trains in themselves fixing chronic underlying human management problems,” he said.”
Basically cutting it short why don’t Aucklanders use P/T much and how do we improve our P/T usage in Auckland? Well the infrastructure part of the answer is being dealt with so to me it is rather irrelevant in this point in time. The actual answer came from Dr Lester Levy – Chair of AT:
Dr Levy said he agreed there was a need for “critical measures” to be adopted and Auckland Transport needed to be far more customer-led in creating a demand for its services.
And there is the answer right there and there – he said it himself: ” Auckland Transport needed to be far more customer-led in creating a demand for its services”
THAT TO ME IS (and excuse the caps) PRIORITY NUMBER ONE above else at the moment.
2013 is going to be long and interesting year getting the patronage back round again. However (and in my opinion (what ever that is worth these days)) we (by we I mean AT, Council, the p/t user, you guys here at the blog, myself, and others who give a damn about our city) can do this – slowly but surely.
Now I am going to extend the “situation” from another Transport Blog commenter emphasising the point:
George DBut council transport chairman and veteran electrification campaigner Mike Lee believes the new trains will not be enough to boost flagging patronage unless they are supported by general service improvements, notably far better punctuality and extended weekend timetables, without prohibitive fare rises.
He’s right. It doesn’t matter how fast and shiny the trains are if they’re still late and unreliable, and riding them costs more than ever. Every time fares rise, demand decreases – we’ve actually reached the point now where we’ve passed an equilibrium and ridership is decreasing towards a new equilibrium with those who are prepared to pay for a particular level of service.
Now since then a few more comments from Transport Blog have come up however I can’t specifically address those issues at the moment.
But as for my point and George D’s point, the writing for Auckland Transport is literally on the (virtual) wall. Improve customer service FIRST (and restore affordability to fares while at it) or all this multi-billion investment in our public transport system is going to be an utter waste if Auckland Transport can not get the basic human to human interaction right. People (both front line staff and passengers) just want to be treated like humans and be able to at least have a pleasant experience on our public transport network – even in times of disruptions. It can be done, it has been done and it is straight forward if the culture (and tools) are there.
There will be more said on this matter next month when I front up in front of members of the Auckland Transport Board next month for my RPTP hearing. However 5-minutes doesn’t quite seem long enough to hammer on about the “Customer Service Portal” at this current rate of dissatisfaction out there.
As I said: “There will be more said on this matter next month when I front up in front of members of the Auckland Transport Board next month for my RPTP hearing. However 5-minutes doesn’t quite seem long enough to hammer on about the “Customer Service Portal” at this current rate of dissatisfaction out there.”
Long way to go folks, long way to go.
A Letter from A Councillor
Councillor George Wood Writes to Manukau Courier
While checking my Facebook feed in the morning (as you do) I noticed a comment from former Manurewa Local Board Chair:
->-
George Wood your letter to the editor published in the local Courier is so bad. I was fuming after I read it.
That got me looking and I discovered this:
Basically Councillor George Wood spelling it out as it is with public transport issues down here in South Auckland – especially with buses (an area admittedly I am not paying much issue to but should very well be).
I agree with the entire letter from the Councillor to the point I will be throwing more resources or rather effort here at BR:AKL on our bus issues and getting them sorted.
However Newman was “fuming” because the Southern Initiative got mentioned and the bad onus around that. Yes the Southern Initiative has had its rather ugly moments in either rough-shodding over the Local Boards or budget re-routing away from Local Boards to Southern Initiative projects that are overseen by the main governing body.
The focus from the letter should be on our transport here in South Auckland, not dragging the Southern Initiative into this as that is another debate along with the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act.
Also I have seen no oppositional Councillor nor mayoral candidate state they would overthrow the Southern Initiative after the 2013 elections and put in place an alternative. I believe it is the case of we are lugged with it – let’s try and make this work best we can – as rough-shodding by Council Officers, CCOs, and the Governing Body happens right across the spectrum – not just the Southern Initiative.
My comment to Newman makes somewhat that point:
Burnt from the Budget (which burnt the entire city any how) I still see.
That aside – well something must being going on as 2012 was a mixed year for success and failures in dealing with the Governing Body from personal experience (that is the Governing Body not the CCOs).
Failures: The Auckland Plan in part but more so the Long Term Plan. The new Rubbish Policy.
Successes: Irony would have it this has been down the transport division:- Manukau South Link, Pukekohe Electrification Extension, cant comment with the RPTP yet as the hearing is still coming up, slow progress with the bus situation down south – but least its moving.
Next Challenge: Again transport, however Alcohol Policies with the new Act in position
So “bringing them to the Governing Body” has had its moments of success and failures -( for a scrappy little ratepayer ) – but that is to be expected. 2013 is going to bring?…
A case of win-some, you lose-some. But you continue to battle on in pushing or lobbying for what you want to see to make Auckland a better place – the purpose behind this blog from day one.
BEN ROSS : AUCKLAND
Shining The Light – To a Better Papakura (OUR home)
AND
To a Better Auckland – (OUR City)
Auckland 2013: YOUR CITY – YOUR CALL
Talking Southern Auckland 