|
|
By Nick R, on February 2nd, 2012 There’s been a bit of talk in the papers recently about Port of Auckland’s long term plan to reclaim more land in the harbour, in order to handle an expected four-fold increase in container traffic “in the long term”. I don’t really want to get into the debate over the pros and cons of expanding the port and filling in the harbour, but yesterday Patrick pointed out an interesting piece in the Herald about using rail and inland ports instead which warrants a further look:
Mainfreight boss Don Braid says better rail and use of an inland port should restrict the need to reclaim more of the Waitemata Harbour.
Mr Braid, the Herald Business Leader of the Year for 2011, is unconvinced by the case from the board and management of Ports of Auckland on the need to fill in more of the harbour.
Ports of Auckland wants Auckland councillors to “lock in place” a coastal zone allowing it to expand its waterfront operations from 77ha to 95ha by 2055. It has forecast container traffic will increase from about 900,000 to 3.6 million in the long term.
Mr Braid said he was frustrated at how reliant the port was on moving containers by truck and the lack of rail.
“If you are running an efficient port with an efficient transport network feeding it in and out, then you have a very good chance of being able to use the inland port to help with the overflow and restrict the additional land the port might well need.”
That’s quite a good point to consider. We do have a large freight yard at the seaport, a series of inland ports and other rail yards in south Auckland and a mainline railway linking them. If rail utilisation is as poor as Mr Braid says then why not use it to manage peak capacity at the port? Naturally using industrial land in the Auckland suburbs has to be cheaper than making more land by filling in the downtown waterfront.
Now of course the boss of Mainfreight is going to have a vested interest in such activity, they are the owners of one of the rail-equipped inland ports, but what he is talking about seems to make much sense. The article carries on with some interesting figures on container growth:
The number of containers passing through the port will increase from 900,000 last year to 3.5 million over the long-term, says Ports of Auckland.
Ports infrastructure general manager Ben Chrystall acknowledges there will be more trucks on the road, but a number of factors will limit the impact.
The company plans to increase the number of containers being moved by rail from 11 per cent to 30 per cent and says the percentage of containers reshipped by sea will grow from 25 per cent to 40 per cent. That will result in the percentage of containers being moved by truck halving from 64 per cent to 30 per cent.
A goal to triple the proportion of containers trans-shipped by rail and almost double the percentage going by sea is promising. However while the proportion being trans-shipped by truck may halve to only 30%, this is over the course of a projected four-fold increase in overall container movements. If you run the numbers (going from 64% of 0.9 million containers now to 30% of 3.5 million containers in the long term), they’re actually projecting double the number of containers leaving the port by truck. The port suggests that this impact wont be as bad as it sounds, due to a strategy of using “more efficient” trucks capable of carrying two containers at a time and by operating more trucks in off peak hours. I’m not sure if having a greater number of larger trucks using our roads and motorways across all hours of the day is exactly a low impact proposal.
To finish off the article the Herald takes a strange turn with a perplexing comment from Joel Cayford:
Former Auckland Regional councillor and planner Dr Joel Cayford has calculated that moving 900,000 containers by rail – through residential Orakei, Panmure and Glen Innes – would require 30 trains a day, each a kilometre long, running for three and a half hours, 300 days a year.
I’m really not sure what Dr Cayford’s angle is here, it appears he’s concerned about the effect that having lots of big freight trains on the main trunk line might have on the eastern suburbs. However I do have to question his calculations as they seem to be a little bit of scaremongering, or inaccurate at the least.
If we calculate through his suggestion of carrying 900,000 containers on 30 trains a day over 300 days, with each train being 1,000m long, we can see he has actually allowed 10m of train length for each twenty foot (6.1m) container. By my reckoning about 40% of his freight trains would be carrying thin air. Another point is the fact that 1km long trains wouldn’t be possible, the port freight yard is only about 600m long so that will be the functional limit to how long these trains could be.
I’m also not sure why he has suggested 300 days a year, or about 5.5 days per week. Surely such an operation would have to run 7 days a week like the port itself?
One further thing puzzles me, the “running for three and a half hours” bit. I think the suggestion is that those 30 port trains would all run in the same 3 ½ hour window each day, or in other words one kilometre long freight train every 7 minutes. It’s pretty ludicrous to assume that the port could process a huge train every seven minutes, or that the eastern line could handle the traffic. Am I missing something here?
Anyway, it seems I’m not the only one who is confused:
Ports chief executive Tony Gibson has disputed the calculation, saying the trains would be 500m long, running every 30 minutes for 16 hours a day.
That makes a lot more sense. If you follow these numbers through then shipping 900,000 containers on thirty-two 500m long trains a day, seven days a week means Mr Gibson has allowed 6.5m of train for each 6.1m long container. Plus a 500m long train could be loaded at the port, and one assumes they could manage to send one out every half hour (there are several sidings to hold trains that length). Furthermore two freight trains an hour could often fit in comfortably with the passenger services on the eastern line, however there would probably be issues during peak hour or at pinch points on the network south of Westfield. But with the proposed third track on the eastern and southern lines it would be a breeze.
As an aside, it always puzzles me why they are planning for only a third track for freight and not a fourth. Rail lines always work best in pairs, and a one extra track would provide far less than half the capacity of two extra tracks. It would be the freight equivalent of the western line before duplication. By all means start with just the third track and add the fourth when it is needed, but four tracks on the main trunk corridor leading to the port and Britomart should be the end goal and they should plan for it before any works are undertaken on amplification.
So what is the moral of the story here? Beats me. But it does seem that railing containers out of the port in bulk should be looked into as an alternative to major reclamation.
By Patrick Reynolds, on February 1st, 2012 Two interesting articles in the Herald this morning. Both a refreshing change from the largely silly and scaremongering level of the debate about Auckland’s future in that publication and other parts of the mainstream media recently.
The first is about the future of the Port including its impact on the city. Great to see a private logistics company stating the obvious about the port:
Mainfreight boss Don Braid says better rail and use of an inland port should restrict the need to reclaim more of the Waitemata Harbour.
Mr Braid, the Herald Business Leader of the Year for 2011, is unconvinced by the case from the board and management of Ports of Auckland on the need to fill in more of the harbour.
And
Mr Braid said he was frustrated at how reliant the port was on moving containers by truck and the lack of rail.
“If you are running an efficient port with an efficient transport network feeding it in and out, then you have a very good chance of being able to use the inland port to help with the overflow and restrict the additional land the port might well need.”
Very hard to see this as anything other than good sense and good business. Land in South Auckland has got to be way cheaper than trying to make the stuff out in the harbour. And there clearly is more capacity on the rail line, although the future amplification of the Eastern Line must be protected, especially as passenger demand on the AK network is showing no sign of halting its dramatic climb.
Also he makes the second obvious point that a level of proper government led strategic control needs to be exercised over this whole industry, to co-ordinate our investments in this vital area. Let’s hope ideological prejudice doesn’t prevent this equally sensible idea from being exercised:
He also wanted to see a national port strategy to stop spreading limited capital over 13 ports “fighting for a little piece of the action” and an end to Auckland councils “raping and pillaging” port dividends instead of reinvesting in greater efficiency.
I’m still struggling with the mixed messages out of the Port company, which I have to say looks increasingly poorly run. I mean which is it?: Either the port is being run out of business by evil unions and the under-bidding of Tauranga or it’s booming like a Chinese subway and they demand to be able to pave the entire harbour….? Such a missed opportunity that proposed merger with Tauranga in 2006, then there would at least have been co-ordination for surely the upper North Island is effectively one market for the movement of goods at this scale.
Interesting though that council ownership doesn’t seem to help much, in fact may muddy the council’s thinking and actions. Torn between wanting that return on investment, and doing right by the city and citizens….?
The second is more problematic. On the one hand Michael Barnett of the business owners union appears to be completely on the money, especially if you only read the headline:
I fully agree, 2030 is a ridiculous wait for the urgent need to balance Auckland’s distorted transport infrastructure pattern. To still only really have road based transport as the one widespread network in our biggest and growing city would be a disaster in 10 years let alone 18. Len Brown is showing every sign of being worn down by relentless opposition to his sensible vision for Auckland. Especially the bullying obstruction from the government, who of course jealously hold all of our taxes, the money required for intergenerational investment. His Anniversary Day speech was timid, he’s exhibiting a bit of Stockholm Syndrome I’m afraid, getting very defensive. So isn’t this good?:
Mayor Brown’s estimate that we have until 2030 to get an integrated transport solution in place to avoid unacceptable day-long congestion has to be seriously questioned. There are major bottleneck sections in the motorway network – for example at Mt Wellington and Constellation Drive.
Well no. Because Barnett’s idea of an integrated transport solution is simply more and more motorways. He goes on to say:
NZTA commissioned research in 2007 for the east-west corridor indicated that if a strategic solution is not in place by 2020, the whole route will be gridlocked most working days. Yet there are no firm plans or funding to get the project under way.
And finally the killer; the line that has been used again and again by the the road building lobby for years in Auckland: completion.
The point: The economic and social benefits of the major roading investments Auckland has made over the past 15 years will not be realised until these gaps and weak links in the network are tidied.
Really Mr B, will there ever come a time when you and your members will agree that we’re done here, that to build anymore motorways would only trap every individual and business deeper into auto-dependency, congestion, and uncompetitive transport costs: Time to build that long planned complementary rapid transit network to free up the existing and lavish motorway system? Because it is clear to any detached observer of Auckland’s motorways that the last missing link, the last gap in the network, is now consented and about to be built: the Waterview connection. Especially when you add all the millions of dollars of extra work also funded and occurring on SH1, and SH 16. No, to create an integrated transport network we need to urgently invest in everything else, and not spend anything much more on motorways. We have pretty much built nothing but motorways for 60 years in Auckland, many of them twice, and very little else. So to get to an integrated system we have to play catch-up with the other modes. It is absurd to believe that we could afford to spend to the degree that Barnett is urging.
And remember the investments that have been recently made in the RTN network, the Northern Busway and the rail system, are paying of handsomely: the busway is delaying the need for further huge spends across the harbour and rail use keeps booming: at an outrageous 384% since before Briotmart was opened. Again saving us from trying to expensively accommodate ever more cars onto our narrow isthmuth. Reading though and it is clear that Barnett is being more than a little sly, is he urging the government to get behind Brown’s programme?, to free up our transport capital to support the council’s wishes? Oh no. His real agenda is to say sweet words about the necessary public transport plans of the council but then to launch into a vast list of road projects that he knows have a far greater chance of being funded under this current government, simply because they are roads, not because of their relative value. Could it be that that Mr Barnett’s Forum and the lobby group NZ for Council Infrastructure Development that he quotes are really more interested in us funding everything on their lists for the sake of their members’ balance sheets than objectively having the city’s and the nation’s best interests at heart?
So yes it is time to fill in the missing gaps in this growing city’s infrastructure, but those gaps are not road shaped. For example, if we need more connection across the Waitemata Harbour it must be by the modes not currently supported by the infrastructure. We need to be able to walk and cycle. But most importantly this missing link in the RTN network does need filling and happily this means saving billions of dollars compared to building yet more car lanes across the water. See this analysis and do the math Mr Barnett: next Harbour Crossing. Because surely your members can build other things than just motorways?
By Matt L, on January 31st, 2012 After months of silence, Len Brown has started talking about the City Rail Link again. In an opinion piece in the Herald yesterday he talks about the need for the region to get on with building the transport infrastructure it needs like the CRL and associated with that the funding mechanisms to pay for it all.
The second major issue – transport and how to pay for it – is something we will need to work on for the next two decades.
Our transport infrastructure is already under stress. We must begin work on some key projects such as the additional harbour crossing, access to the airport, transport links to South-east Auckland, upgrading arterial roads and busways, investing in walking and cycling, and upgrading our ferry service.
The level of investment needed to cope with Auckland’s growth is considerable.
One thing I am pleased about is that he has started to articulate some of the benefits of the CRL and why it is needed, there are of course other benefits that he doesn’t mention, things like faster journey times but at least it is a start. The council and Len much more actively selling the project is something I have been suggesting needs to happen for some time.
Unblocking Auckland’s transport system is one of the keys to unlocking New Zealand’s economic potential. We need a much more efficient system for businesses to operate effectively.
As a trading nation, transport is our lifeblood. We cannot afford to have our products and workers sitting on blocked roads. A more efficient transport system is crucial if we are to reduce our carbon footprint, and improve the environment.
Our transport system must be integrated. Yes, we need new roads, but we know from past experience that new roads clog up almost as quickly as the bitumen sets. Unless we are investing in alternatives now – in a single transport system, involving trains, buses and ferries with an integrated ticketing system – perish the thought of driving across town in 2030.
The City Rail Link is crucial to this. It will essentially “complete” Auckland’s rail network, and effectively double the capacity of the rail network across Auckland. By turning Britomart Terminal into the through station it was designed to be, it will allow more trains to move around the entire network more frequently.
Combined with our new, clean and fast electric train fleet arriving next year, it will mean more trains stopping at your local station or transport interchange, with less time in between services.
Considerable analysis has been done on this link. There is significant public support for it. We know we need to get on and build it but what we do not yet know is how we will pay for it. The cost is significant, and we will need to look at a variety of sources.
So far, the Government has declined to contribute to the project, leaving the council to consider other sources of funding for this and other projects. Rates, obviously, are the principal source of funds for local government and will form part of the solution, but they are a blunt option and we need to always be mindful of issues of affordability. We must investigate new funding avenues. I want to consider a range of solutions.
He then goes on to talk about some potential funding options and has this nice little line for the likes of the AA who complain about road taxes being used to fund PT projects.
Yes, as the AA tells us, road users already pay for the costs of new roads, but they also stand to benefit considerably from reduced congestion with any shift towards public transport.
Of course while the funding issue is far from sorted, one thing the government did agree to last year was the council seeking a designation for the project. AT’s Chief Executive report to the board in December had this to say about what was happening.
Preparatory work to support the lodgement of the NoR to protect the CRL route continued in November. This included communications and stakeholder engagement planning to support this process, and a detailed review of the NoR material previously prepared for KRG/ARTA. The Terms of Reference for a CBD Access Study to respond to the Minister’s request was finalised by the Project Team and is now ready to be released to tender. An engineering delegation from CNTIC (China) visited Auckland and Christchurch in November. AT met with CNTIC and discussed the CRL tunnel construction.
Its good to see things are continuing, even if it isn’t as fast as we would like but even so I suspect that over the course of the year we will get a lot more information about both the designation and the funding options.
By Nick R, on January 27th, 2012 I’ve recently been involved in casual discussions with Shoreite friends over the merits of a new harbour crossing, hearing many words in favour of motorways and railways and the like. I thought I’d use this post to outline the issues and opportunities of a new crossing to the North Shore as I see them, and outline one possible alternative for rail that might be just what the doctor ordered. Admin has touched on something very similar in the past however it could be worthwhile to take another look.
Requiem for a motorway tunnel
At first glance the NZTA proposals for a new harbour crossing are quite encouraging… that is if we assume the people of Auckland would not settle for a hideous motorway bridge destroying their new waterfront precinct and demand a tunnel instead.
A harbour tunnel certainly has it’s appeal: it would take all that state highway traffic out of St Mary’s Bay and Victoria Park and send it underground on a long invisible bypass of the city centre. We could separate peaky city commuter traffic from traffic going nowhere near downtown. It would allow us to wind back the harbour bridge to something more like a local arterial, probably with walking and cycling lanes too. We could pull down the much despised Victoria Park viaduct and remove half the lanes from St Mary’s Bay, perhaps even renovating it to act something like a western version of Tamaki Drive.
Those would be some great outcomes, but on closer inspection there are several huge issues with the harbour tunnel plan:
 The approach motorway to Sydney's harbour bridge and tunnel. Do we want this in Freemans Bay and Northcote?
- First and foremost, it would cost around five billion dollars. That is an absolutely huge cost, how can we fund that? What else would we forgo if we did fund it, or rather what better use could we find for several billion bucks? How many intersection improvements, bus lanes and cycleways would that fund? On five billion dollars the cost of capital alone comes in at $750,000 a day!
- Secondly, do we actually ‘need’ a second motorway crossing in that same corridor? Do we need six more lanes of motorway when traffic on the existing bridge has been trending in reverse for the last half decade? After all, it only goes from the area around Onewa Rd to the Central Motorway Junction. Beyond that, do we actually ‘want’ a brand new route with plenty of capacity feeding into Spaghetti junction, something that might simply encourage more people to drive more often and create even more traffic and car dependence.
- Thirdly, this five billion dollar proposal is for a motorway tunnel only, there is no public transport component. Certainly if a motorway tunnel was built this would allow a pair of lanes on the bridge to be marked for the busway, but if you think about it that wouldn’t be much improvement over the way the busway works already. Same route, same vehicles and capacity, same constraints through downtown, just a little less impact from congestion on the bridge.
- Finally, would there actually be much improvement to the capacity of the transport system? A six lane tunnel would provide three lanes each way, so in the peak it could move an extra 6,000 vehicles per hour. At our occupancy levels equates to less than 8,000 people per hour. That’s less capacity than the busway, at about twelve times the price!
If we look at it again we really need to go back to the drawing board. Five billion dollars to tidy up the waterfront and duplicate a few kilometres of motorway to move only 8,000 people an hour, I don’t think so. The BCR on a motorway tunnel must be abysmally small given such a huge cost and minimal benefits.
If not a motorway, then what? Are trains an affordable option either?
What we need is something more affordable, something that will reduce traffic rather than generate more, something that has wider reaching benefits and will actually reduce travel times in the long run. Given that we already have an eight lane motorway across our harbour (plus second motorway bridge across the upper harbour), surely the next crossing should be a high quality rapid transit link. One that is cheap, compact and relatively simple to build, but can shuttle tens of thousands of people to where they need to be each day completely independent of traffic congestion.
What we really need is a crossing that can move several times as many people for half the cost. This should be possible with rapid transit: a two lane public transport tunnel would be far cheaper to build than a six lane motorway tunnel (not to mention all the associated interchanges and linkages), yet two lanes of rapid transit could carry at least twice as many people per hour than six lanes of motorway.
If we want a good cost-benefit return then it has to be public transport, the question is which form gives us the most benefit for an affordable cost.
We can probably discount a busway tunnel from the start. A bus tunnel would be relatively expensive due to the demands of ventilation and fire safety (although still miles cheaper than a motorway tunnel), yet the capacity, speed and level of service offered by a busway extension isn’t game changing. The same can be said for ‘light rail’ tramway. A electrified tram tunnel would be cheaper to build than a bus one and the capacity and service level would be better, but it’s probably still not going to give enough bang for buck. To be honest when dealing with public transport in Auckland we’re going to need a huge bang from a small buck to get one over the motorway lobby.
If we want a quantum leap in capacity, speed and service then it seems our harbour crossing needs to be based around a proper ‘heavy’ railway. However the issue once again returns to one of cost. The logical route for a North Shore rail line is to convert and extend the busway, however the grades and curves of the busway aren’t suitable for heavy rail design characteristics. So much of the busway would need to be completely rebuilt if it were to carry suburban trains, possibly with long sections in expensive tunnels. NZTA suggests the entire busway would need to be widened by three metres. The alternative of not using the busway corridor would probably mean building a new line entirely in tunnel. So constructing the train tunnel under the harbour would be relatively cheap (around $1.5 billion according to NZTA estimates), but once we add in the city side connections and North Shore extensions we can start ticking off the billions.
Admin has proposed one solution to this conundrum, suggesting that we could build the harbour rail tunnel and a heavy rail extension to Akoranga and Takapuna while leaving the busway as is. The idea is that bus passengers would continue to use the busway proper but transfer to a fast train at Akoranga for the remainder of the trip into the city, presumably until such time as we can afford to rebuild the busway as a rail line. This idea certainly has it’s merits but I doubt it could ever really work politically or garner much public support. In terms of a radio sound-bite, it is a plan to spend two billion dollars to add one new station at Takapuna. I can hear the words ‘boondoggle trainset’ already.
Driverless light-metro, ticking all the boxes at an affordable price?
What we really need is a rapid transit rail system that can run though a harbour tunnel, but also be cheaply retrofitted to the busway without any major reconstruction. It needs to provide top notch capacity and service with low operating costs, and ideally we should be able to build a whole North Shore network for less than the cost of a motorway crossing if we are really going to win over the public.
Readers of my previous post will know where I am going with this: Driverless light metro could be just the right combination for the North Shore. It’s cheap to build, cheap to run, yet fast, frequent and high quality. I’ve gone into the merits of this form of railway in a previous post, but I’ll quickly recap on what we’re talking about:
- It’s driverless: Computerised operation removes the need for human drivers. This means the trains can run reliably at very fast headways without worrying about drivers missing signals. More importantly the lack of staff massively reduces marginal operating costs, and therefore allows high frequency service to be maintained all day and all night, seven days a week. I cannot stress enough this benefit, in Vancouver for example their Skytrain actually turns a small operational profit despite running every couple of minutes twenty hours a day.
- It’s ‘light’: These systems are specifically designed for urban rapid transit only, so the tracks aren’t limited to what heavy rail can handle. The system used in Vancouver and Kuala Lumpur can handle curves as tight as 35m radius and hills as steep as 1 in 10, or in other words tracks about four times as tight or steep as our regular railways. The vehicles themselves are relatively compact and use third rail power supply rather than overhead line, so tunnels and underpasses can be quite a bit smaller. This all makes it ‘light’ on infrastructure and ‘light’ on cost, but not light on performance. This is a huge plus in the North Shore context, tracks could be laid straight onto the busway without modification and new branches and extensions could be built easily in and around the existing urban fabric.
- It’s metro: Again these systems are custom designed just to move people, providing high frequencies, high speed and comfortable capacious trains without delays or interference from freight or anything else. With a train arriving every few minutes at every station on the line it would provide as good a service as the metros of London, Paris or New York.
In summary, a light metro system on the North Shore could be as cheap to construct as a tramway, cheaper to operate each day than buses, yet provide greater capacity and service than even a full blown suburban railway. For well less than the cost of a motorway tunnel under the harbour we could have a whole metro network for the North Shore. Indeed it could also be the perfect mode for other areas of Auckland that have no rapid transit and similar constraints to building it, in particular the northwestern corridor, the upper harbour and southeast through Howick, Botany and Flatbush.
What would a North Shore light-metro cost?
As a benchmark for costs I will use the recent Canada line light-metro that was recently built in Vancouver (which despite the name is actually two lines, a main one and a branch to the airport). The total cost of this project was $2.054 billion in 2009 Canadian dollars, which equates to about NZ$2.95 billion today. This line is actually totally independent of the rest of the Vancouver Skytrain system as it was built using Korean technology that is slightly different to the rest of the network. As such it is a good representation of a complete ‘turnkey’ network like Auckland would have to build.
This three billion dollar sum bought a total of 18.4km of double-track line (comprising 9,080m in tunnel, 7,349m on elevated viaduct, 1,386m at grade and a bridge 614m long), one major junction, 16 stations (8 underground, 6 elevated, two at grade), a operations and maintenance facility, and twenty two-car automatic trains to run on it.
So this represents a cost of NZ$160 million per kilometre for all the track, trains, stations, tunnels, bridges and viaducts needed to build and run the line. As you can see most of the Canada Line was built in tunnel or elevated, so it really represents the top end of what we would pay in Auckland given that we already have most of the corridor available at-grade. Using this rough guide we can get a ball park figure of what light metro might cost on the North Shore.
Lets start with the harbour tunnel itself, a 3.2km link from Wynyard wharf to the vicinity of Onewa Rd interchange. NZTA have estimated this would cost about $1.5 billion to construct to heavy rail standards. For the purposes of this exercise I’m going to drop this back to $1 billion to account for the fact that light-metro can handle steeper grades, tighter curves and would have a much smaller cross section so would require substantially smaller diameter tunnel tubes.
 Proposed light metro lines on the North Shore (black). Stars indicate station locations and purple lines are major bus corridors. Next up is the brand new parts of the line. For the city side connection we’ll assume a 1.4km cut and cover tunnel from the corner of Wellesley and Albert St to the start of our harbour tunnel at Wynyard wharf. This includes two stations, one at Aotea and one at Wynyard. As an aside, the site we dig out for the Wynyard station would be the perfect spot to launch the machine that bores the harbour tunnel. From the northern portal of the harbour tunnel we have a line from Onewa up to Akoranga, then from Akoranga let’s continue across Barry’s Point and the adjacent inlet to terminate our branch at an underground station under Huron St in Takapuna. So that’s an extra 3.4km of track (mostly just widening the existing motorway causeway, but with some viaduct and underground) and two new stations at Onewa and Takapuna. Altogether our brand new track requires 4.8km of track with four new stations, applying the Canadian costing gives us a rough figure of $768 million for this section. Once again I will point out this is the average cost of Vancouver’s mostly tunnelled and elevated line, so probably well above the maximum we could expect running it along the motorway in Auckland.
After this we need to look at the busway. From Akoranga to Constellation is bang on 6km long, with four existing stations that would need some level of modification. To account for the fact that most of our infrastructure already exists I’m going to (somewhat arbitrarily) halve the cost of this section. $80 million per km should be sufficient to install track, power delivery and control systems and modify the station platforms. So my guestimate is that it would cost $480 million to refit the busway proper as a light metro line.
Next would have to be an extension of the line to Albany. For this I’m going to assume a 4km route through Albany to the existing park-n-ride station, mostly elevated with short sections at grade and perhaps a tunnelled section in Albany itself. I’m also assuming two new stations: one at Rosedale Rd, the other central to the Mega Centre/University/Mall. Furthermore we will probably locate our stabling facility in the industrial area somewhere near the new Rosedale station. Once more applying our costing figure gives us a price of $640 million for this extension.
Where next? Well the obvious route would be a branch from the vicinity of Constellation station along the SH18 corridor. For the moment we’ll stop at Greenhithe Rd, but eventually this branch could reach right across the upper harbour to Henderson and the Western Line. So here we’re looking at 4.5km of line, mostly elevated, with three new stations at Unsworth/Albany Industrial estate, Albany Highway and Greenhithe respectively. Using our reference figure this comes in at $720 million. A touch pricey for those few stations but I guess the real value would come with the subsequent extension over to west Auckland.
Right, to wrap that all up we are looking at a system of a three metro lines on the North Shore running through a harbour tunnel from the CBD to Takapuna, Albany and Greenhithe respectively. This is a total of 22.5km of double track metro rail (comprised of a 3.2km harbour tunnel, 13.3km of new route and 6km of refitted busway), with five upgraded interchange stations and ten brand new ones. That’s quite a system really, it should work fantastically with a combination of decent bus feeders, the odd park-n-ride and a little intensification around stations.
But the bottom line, how much would this cost? Well to add up these simple estimates we arrive at a maximum figure of $3.6 billion to cover everything, track, stations, tunnels, trains the lot. I realise this is a very basic analysis, but using these figures that’s only 70% of what is proposed for just a motorway tunnel from the lower North Shore to Spaghetti junction. So instead of a motorway tunnel we might be able to build this whole metro system and still have $1.4 billion left in the budget to upgrade the harbour bridge or extend our metro elsewhere! Of course three-point-six-billion is still a huge amount of money, so we could obviously start with the basics first. If we exclude the Takapuna and Greenhithe branches we get a figure of roughly $2.7 billion for the metro line from central Auckland to Albany, and just over two billion if we stopped at Constellation.
So how would it operate, what would it be like to use?
The figures for Bombardier’s ART light-metro trains show that under normal conditions they operate at a top speed of 80km/h and accelerate and brake at a rate of 1.0ms-1 (the can actually brake much quicker in an emergency, and if they are running behind they can boost speed to 90km/h in catch up mode). If we plug these figures and the spacing of the stations along our proposed lines into a little model we can work out what sort of travel times we could expect.
The main line from Albany to Aotea in the central city would take just 21 minutes from end to end. That’s a full 12 minutes faster than the current timetable of the Northern Express bus to Britomart, which doesn’t even take into account the effects of major traffic congestion in the city. It would be about the same time as driving off-peak, and much faster than driving during rush hour.
 What a North Shore light metro network map might look like. The line from Greenhithe to Aotea would take only 23 minutes all up. Right now the best option is the 956 bus using Upper Harbour Drive and the busway, that takes 49 minutes. So we’ve saved an amazing 26 minutes on this route, and again this is much faster than driving if there is any sort of congestion.
The last line between Takapuna and Aotea would take only 11 minutes from end to end. This is a massive improvement over existing bus links like the 839 and 875 that actually take 30 to 35 minutes to make the short trip! Slashing travel times between Takapuna and the CBD like this would have one very good outcome: it would allow the two centres to effectively operate as a single business district. Getting from Queen St to Takapuna by light metro would take you no longer than walking up to the university or catching the bus up to K Rd.
Fast travel times are all well and good, but not if you have to wait for ages to get a train in the first place. So what are the frequencies we could expect? Well if we again assume an equivalent number of trains as used in the costings we got from Vancouver’s Canada line we arrive at a figure of 24 two-carriage sets included in the price of our network.
Based on the travel times for the three lines above we can work out that a single set can make 1.4 return trips an hour to Albany, 1.3 per hour to Greenhithe and 2.7 to Takapuna. So our 24 sets are enough to provide a train every six minutes on each line, plus have a couple of sets in reserve for operations and maintenance.
A train every six minutes on those three lines is itself is a fantastic level of service, however it gets better. Because the lines overlap there would actually be a train every three minutes between Constellation and the city, and a train every two minutes through Akoranga, Onewa and Wynyard stations! That sort of frequency makes transfers a complete breeze. With computer control maintaining regular spacing you would never wait more than three minutes to transfer between any of the three lines. And if we recall the driverless operation allows us to affordably run the system at these headways all the time, these are the same frequencies and quick transfers you’d get at any time on any day of the week. Transferring to get from Albany to Takapuna would be just as painless at 2am on a Sunday morning as it would be on a weekday at peak hour.
But what about capacity? Could a light-metro system really move more people than a huge motorway?
In a nutshell, hell yes. A motorway lane hits the wall at approximately 2,000 vehicles per hour, so our motorway tunnel would have the capacity to carry only 6,000 vehicles per hour in the peak direction. At the usual levels of vehicle occupancy that’s a maximum of just 8,000 people per hour each way through the motorway tunnel.
So what of the metro? As we worked out above our light-metro system could easily operate under the harbour at one train every two minutes each way. With a comfortable capacity of 342 passengers per two-carriage train that works out to be 10,260 people per hour each way (and quite a bit more if we are happy to crush load people in like sardines).
So just using little two-carriage train sets we can carry more people than the motorway crossing, but as patronage increases we could very simply couple more pairs of carriages together to make longer trains. With four-carriage sets the peak hourly capacity would go up to 20,520 people, and with six-carriage sets we could move 30,720 people per hour. That’s almost four times as many people as the proposed motorway tunnel.
In other words a cheap twin track light-metro tunnel could move as many people as a motorway tunnel twenty-three lanes wide!
But there’s an even bigger gulf to consider. With a motorway crossing all those 6,000 vehicles per hour have to use the same old motorways and streets either side of the tunnel. All that extra traffic will still need to funnel down either the northern motorway, Esmonde Rd and Onewa Rds at one end, and through the to the southern and north-western motorways at the other. On the other hand our light-metro system includes the cost of new tracks right up to Albany, Takapuna and Greenhithe, so we could move tens of thousands more people per hour right across the Shore and the harbour without a single extra car on the motorway. In reality we’d probably see less considerably less cars on the motorway if it were so easy to get around without driving, plus all the buses would be redeployed to feed the local stations so there would be far fewer of them in congestion on the motorway (and some arterial routes) too.
In conclusion: huge benefits at more affordable price
So there we have it, a broad indication that a truly world class metro rail system could indeed be possible right across the North Shore for the sorts of costs that have been proposed for a harbour crossing.
NZTA really should look at realistic alternatives to a hugely expensive motorway tunnel under the harbour, given that a motorway that would only further entrench Auckland into a spiral of traffic congestion and parking issues. If we do want to spend billions of dollars on transport under the harbour then why not spend it on a light-metro system that will have far greater benefits and a lower cost?
By Patrick Reynolds, on January 26th, 2012 As there’s been a lot of discussion about population density here I figure this post from good ol’ Cap’nTransit is on the money. Yes this is my view too, you think more density is needed? Well build the transit and the density will follow [all else being equal], foolish to try to wait for some ideal density then meet that demand with infrastructure. Transit supply is causative. Or as the Cap’n says: ‘The population density to support my ass’
Here are two interesting posts on Twitter and Transit. One beautiful the other more for the quants. Both instructive.
The second is via Atlantic Cities where there is also this argument for High Speed Rail in the Union’s most populous State, California. Newt of the GOP has been banging on about the US heading back to the moon in some kind of pissing contest with China, but frankly if they can’t even get a train to run from SF to LA and any decent speed I think he’ed better dodge that race. *Note for Geoff: These arguments here for HSR are intended as a metaphor for local arguments for urban transit, not as a literal argument for HSR in NZ. Same things apply, land use transformations, economic return not a financial one etc, but at a vastly different scale.
More from the States on gas prices [as they call them] and what to do, and for once this doesn’t involve bombing somewhere else or other wise frackin’ it all up.
Closer to home; no round up from me will be complete without at least a passing note on resource supply issues. As we head to the exciting singularity of peak damn near everything it’s good to see some people have their heads up. Here’s an introductory note from across the ditch, what I especially like about this is that it states a view that I also have, namely that it could just be that a world with less freely available oil may well be a lot better in a number of ways; once we’ve made the adjustment. Like London after the peasoup smog and mountains of horse-shit. I’m also guessing less isolation, more localiasation, more human interaction, less alienation. Perhaps more meaningful lives. Perhaps.
There’s also this guy, Denis Tegg, I know nothing about him but he has been manfully plugging away on this issue in NZ for a while and here he is bringing an important shelved report to the surface. I say manfully because there is a really creepy silence on this issue and Climate Change in the mainstream media and in government in NZ. It’s like if we don’t mention these problems they’ll just go away.
Look away Actoids! Here’s a well reasoned piece on the attractions and limitations of neoliberalism. It’s short too. Relevant how? Transit like our cities need long term planning, by elected bodies. The market is a great tool, but a lousy master, and an even worse god. As I think we’ve just seen.
Those interested in the strange ways that change can happen will like this. Why the US Marine Corp may well lead the US into a solar future.
Back to transit, and more personally; I have new wheels, yay! and loving it, but won’t be going to these extremes to protect them. No.
By Matt L, on January 24th, 2012 There are some pretty significant works happening this weekend on a number of transport projects around the region so if you are around the region it would be good to try and not get caught up in them.
First up we have the NZTA closing the motorway’s northbound lanes between Market Rd and Gillies Ave to enable them to move move the lanes onto the newly replaced Newmaket Viaduct. The lanes will be closed between 5pm on Saturday and and should reopen on the new viaduct on the morning of Monday 30th. As part of this the large blue crane will be shifted to the current northbound lanes to start taking down that viaduct.
Here’s the full press release:
The motorway’s northbound lanes will be closed between the Market Road off-ramp and the Gillies Ave on-ramps from 5pm Saturday, 28 January, for final preparations to allow drivers on to the new northbound viaduct from Anniversary Monday morning, 30 January.
“Travel delays will be inevitable, they will be considerable and they will be widespread” says the NZTA’s acting State Highways manager for Auckland and Northland, Steve Mutton.
“We’re talking about trying to re-direct up to 65,000 vehicles on the Sunday alone,” he adds. “Even with detours, the impact of the closure will be felt well beyond the Southern Motorway. If people absolutely must travel we’re urging that they allow a lot more time for their journey. “
“We accept that this may cause frustration – particularly on a long weekend – but our best advice is to stay away from the motorway during Auckland Anniversary weekend,” Mr Mutton says.
The closure is necessary so that the NZTA can switch the motorway’s northbound lanes across to the new viaduct. At the same time, the blue lifting gantry used for the viaduct’s construction has to be moved on to the existing northbound viaduct to help with its demolition.
Mr Mutton says construction of the new viaduct is ahead of schedule and the NZTA and its NGA Newmarket alliance partners (NZTA, Leighton Contractors, Fulton Hogan, Beca, VSL, URS, Tonkin @ Taylor and Boffa Miskell) want to deliver the benefits from the project to drivers as quickly as possible.
“To have reached the stage where we’re now ready to switch northbound traffic across to the new structure, significantly ahead of schedule is a remarkable achievement,” Mr Mutton says. “We’ve had fantastic support from drivers while we’ve replaced the old viaduct and we’re now asking people to help us again to keep the city moving through this closure.
“We’re taking advantage of a long three- day weekend so that we can deliver this important project to Aucklanders. We appreciate the support and patience of all drivers and we’ll be working hard to finish as quickly as possible.”
Detours will be in place during Anniversary weekend and detour routes to key destinations are available online, at www.nzta.govt.nz/aklsummerseason and www.facebook.com/switchmyroute.
Mr Mutton repeats, however, that alternative routes will not be able to cope if regular weekend traffic flows occur.
“Even with a managed closure and detours in place, congestion will be extensive.”
The Automobile Association is supporting the NZTA in urging people to avoid unnecessary trips. If they do have to travel says AA spokesman Simon Lambourne, they should plan their journeys and drive with patience and care.
“Congestion will be significant with the closure of the northbound lanes,” Mr Lambourne says, “but the short term pain will be well worth it given the long term benefits of the new viaduct.”
The new southern viaduct at Newmarket opened in September, 2010, after a similar motorway closure.
Like the old viaduct built in 1965, its replacement is almost 700 metres long but it has wider lanes, is seismically stronger, and will produce less traffic noise.
“The viaduct stands at the heart of one of the most critical transport links for Auckland and New Zealand – one that carries on average more than 160,000 vehicles daily,” says Mr Mutton.
The opening of the viaduct’s northbound lanes on Auckland Anniversary Monday marks the latest in a series of large NZTA projects to improve travel through the central motorway junction (CMJ). The viaduct is located at the southern end of the CMJ. At its northern end, the Victoria Park tunnel opened last November, and new southbound lanes through St Marys Bay and across the Victoria Park flyover opened earlier this month.
“These are huge projects designed to help Auckland’s economy and its communities,” Mr Mutton says. “With the support of drivers during Auckland Anniversary Weekend we will be able to deliver the next very significant improvement to their motorway to make travel more reliable, quicker, and safer.”
The NZTA is running an extensive communications campaign using traditional and social media, and a large sign on the lifting gantry on the Newmarket Viaduct to make people aware of the closure and its impact on travel.
The southbound lanes on the Southern Motorway are not affected by the Auckland Anniversary Weekend closure.
Note to editors: In the event of adverse weather the weekend of January 28-30, these works could be delayed until Waitangi weekend.
For more information on the Newmarket Viaduct Replacement Project visit,www.nzta.govt.nz/newmarketconnection
Readers may remember that the same thing happened to the southbound lanes back in September 2010, similar warnings were given but overall things seemed to work smoothly. That was also helped in part by ARTA eventually listening to public calls and put on free trains during the shutdown however that won’t really be very effective this time as ……
Parts rail network will also be shut in many places for electrification upgrade works.
Buses will replace trains on the following lines:
EASTERN LINE: Papakura to Britomart via Glen Innes
SOUTHERN LINE: Papakura to Otahuhu
Please Note: On Monday 30 January additional services will operate for Auckland Anniversay Day festivities.
The most interesting thing about all of this is that the Western line and parts of the Southern line will actually remain open and with the exception of the Labour Day weekend which fell during the RWC, this is the first long weekend in recent memory that we have had even some trains running, in a way it is a little taste for the future once we get our shiny new trains (its not to last though as the entire network will be shutdown the following weekend).
You can see all changes to PT over the weekend here.
Edit: AT have now put on more trains for this weekend on the lines that will be open.
Additional trains will operate on the Western, Onehunga and Southern lines (north of Otahuhu). They will run about every half hour between approximately 10am and 6pm. At other times the normal weekend timetable will be in place.
There will also be extra buses on to cater for the various events that will be happening
By Matt L, on January 19th, 2012 So your going to the last ever Big Day Out and you want to get there, here’s how http://www.maxx.co.nz/info/events/big-day-out.aspx AT has this to say about it:
Music fans going to the Big Day Out at Mt Smart on Friday are advised to plan their travel and check out transport options to the stadium.
Auckland Transport is putting on extra train services to Penrose Station while the event organiser has joined with commercial bus operators to provide special event bus services.
All track lines will be open on Friday to run trains from Waitakere, Britomart, Onehunga and Papakura to Penrose Station for the festival.
People travelling to Remuera, Ellerslie and Greenlane stations from Newmarket on Friday should take extra care as some services will not stop at these stations, instead some special train services will run direct to Penrose for the festival.
It should be noted there is no free travel on public transport included in Big Day Out tickets. Timetable and further information can be found at www.maxx.co.nz or by phoning 09 366-6400.
Auckland Transport Public Transport Operations Manager Mark Lambert says using public transport for events is very popular so people should be patient.
“Trains will be busy with regular passengers and festival goers particularly in the late morning, so we encourage everyone to be patient and check the timetable.
“After the event large numbers will want to get on public transport so again people should expect some time waiting. Train passengers should consider pre-purchasing their return ticket as people with tickets will get priority queuing at Penrose station.
“Passengers are reminded that alcohol and drugs are not permitted for consumption on any of these services. For the safety of our commuters any persons who are drunk or worse for wear will be refused travel,” says Mr Lambert.
Bus from Auckland City Centre:
Special event buses organised by the event organiser and NZ Bus will depart from Real Groovy (450 Queen St) between 9.30am – 2.30pm, dropping passengers on O’Rorke Road beside the stadium. Return buses will depart from O’Rorke Rd, departing when full between 9.30pm – 1.30am returning to the St James Theatre, Wellesley St.
Bus to Auckland City Centre following the event
NiteRider buses run via Lower Albert St, Civic/St James, top of Queen St and K’Rd between 1am – 3.40am. Tickets, $4.50 (zone A), and $6.50 (beyond zone A).
Northern Express buses will depart Britomart, stop 7045 approximately every 15 minutes to midnight and then every 30 minutes to 3am running to Albany Station via all Northern Busway Stations.
Bus from New Lynn
Additional 008 buses operated by Urban Express will depart from New Lynn Transport Centre, stopping at all stops en route to Mt Smart Stadium. Buses depart at 10.15am, 10.45am, 11.15am, 11.45am, 12.15pm, 12.45pm, 1.15pm, 1.45pm.
Return services will depart from stop 8169 (343 Church St) running to New Lynn Transport Centre from 10.30pm. Normal fares apply.
Train
Additional trains will operate to Penrose Station, a short walk to the stadium. It is best to pre-purchase your special event ticket from the Britomart, Newmarket, New Lynn and Papakura ticket offices as people with tickets will get priority queuing at Penrose station.
Extra services for events are nothing new but I am really pleased to see that AT will be running trains from out west directly to Penrose, they will run mostly half hourly between Henderson to Newmarket then directly on to Penrose and there will still be normal trains in between those times. Oddly for the return journey people will have to transfer at Newmarket so hopefully services will wait should there be any delays to make it easy for people. Auckland Transport are expecting that there will be an additional 20,000 trips on the network on top of the 15500 daily trips that normally happen this week in January and this was one of the key drivers for closing the network between Britomart and Newmarket a week before Christmas so the Parnell works could be completed in time.
There will also be road closures around Mt Smart Stadium
Beasley Avenue will be closed from 6am Friday 20 January to 1am Saturday 21 January.
Maurice Road and O’Rorke Road will be closed from 8pm Friday 20 January to 1am Saturday 21 January.
By Matt L, on January 18th, 2012 The rail network fully reopens tomorrow following the longest shutdown that I am aware of (yes I am aware that trains have been operating on some sections for a few weeks now). The bit that needed the most time was between Britomart and Newmarket where the tracks needed to be lowered quite a bit to enable a flatter section to be built for the new Parnell station. The works have actually been brought forward by a few years due to the fact they would have become much more expensive if we had waited till after electrification had been completed. Thanks to Geoff in the CBT forum, here are some photos of the works as of Sunday 15/01.
 Looking down from the top of the Parnell Tunnel  The site of the new station (the tracks weren't finished at the time)  The new underpass  And from the other side As you can see there is quite a bit of work that has gone on to lower the tracks through the area and now that the work is finished the station can start to be built. That work is meant to happen over the course of the year with the station itself is not likely to open till the end of the year or early next year, here’s a reminder of what is proposed to eventually be at the site. I would also hope that something is done with the blank walls of the underpass to help keep the graffiti away.
By Matt L, on January 18th, 2012 This post is a little bit of a rant but it is also but is also to highlight how we often don’t seem to be able to get even the most simple things right.
The story starts years ago with what could best be described as growing pains, project DART was in full swing with the western line was busy being duplicated. Unfortunately when you have construction going on around a working rail line things sometimes go wrong and that is especially the case when the system you are working on is 80+ years old and has had little maintenance. It seemed that a gust of wind or leaf falling in the wrong place at the wrong time would be all that was needed knock out the signalling or points which it did far to frequently. In fact it was so bad that for years we would average more than one fault a day, here is a response to a parliamentary written question a few years ago about the number of failures in Auckland that show just how bad it was.
Question: How does the number of points or signal failures on the Auckland rail system over the past year compare to previous years?
Answer Text: KiwiRail has advised the following:
Signal failures:
Apr 07 – Jan 08 (10 months) 144
Feb 08 – Jan 09 (12 months) 214
Feb 09 – Jan 10 (12 months) 172
Point failures:
Apr 07 – Jan 08 (10 months) 288
Feb 08 – Jan 09 (12 months) 267
Feb 09 – Jan 10 (12 months) 234
For at least 3 years in a row there was more than 400 network related fault per year, and this doesn’t even count the number of train breakdowns. Faults will more often that not result in trains being delayed which leads to angry passengers. ARTA eventually got the message that people were getting fed up with not knowing about what was happening and set up a text message service to alert people if trains were delayed. The problem with that service is that you would just get a blast of messages, often not related to the trains you would want to catch and which frequently far to late to be useful
In late 2010/early 2011 ARTA advised that the service was to be upgraded to make it more useful for people. Here is what they advertise on MAXX to this day about it.
With MAXX Train Updates you can register to receive text messages if your train isdisrupted, cancelled or delayed by more than 10 minutes.
Messages are personalised to the specific information you want, meaning you’ll hear only about train services relevant to you. Simply select the journeys you regularly make and select the time period for which you would like to receive information.
For example, if you normally travel from Ellerslie Station to Britomart between 7am and 8am weekdays, select these details. You will receive text messages about services in this time band, for this location.
MAXX Train Updates to your mobile phone are free.
This new service replaces the current train delay text message service. If you currently receive these messages, you will need to re-register for the new service. The former service will no longer operate after 31 January 2011.
As it says, you could register to get the messages and select filters that you wanted which sounded great, they even made it easy to do via a web interface. The service started off alright and definitely seemed to be an improvement, except for the fact that text messages would come from and Australian number (I assumed it was just the company they used) however not long afterwards things went downhill. For starters the phone number the text message came from changed to a NZ number but oddly the messages started coming from one of a few different numbers. Next some messages would come personalised with your name and the details would be based on the station you selected e.g.
Matt, the 6:56 am Britomart train from Sturges Rd has been cancelled from Swanson to Henderson due to an Operational issue
While others would be generic and only based on the station the service started from
The 06:53 am Western train from Swanson to Britomart has been cancelled from Swanson to Henderson due to a earlier Signal fault
I actually received both of these messages 6 minutes apart from different phone numbers but both are about the same train service ( I don’t know about you but I find the language in the first one confusing). These messages actually arrived before the service was due but often they are late and even more frequently they don’t show up at all. In fact they so frequently don’t show up when trains are late or cancelled I question the value of even having the service.
Unfortunately the problem though is it gets worse than this, a lot of the time that I actually get messages it is actually outside of the timeframe that I have set, like on weekends and to take the cake I even occasionally get messages about lines I haven’t even subscribed to ( just last week I had a message about mechanical faults on the Onehunga line).
Despite only being 1 year old, the service has actually been getting steadily worse and less reliable so my question for AT is, why do we keep having these problems and what will it take to get the service working as it is advertised? Are they now waiting on the mystical Unicorn that is to real time information as a solution to this? Why do these things have to be so hard in Auckland?
BTW I would love to know the number of failures that we have had in the last two years if anyone knows, at the very least it should have reduced following the completion of double tracking and now with the new signalling system that is being rolled out and covers much of the network.
By admin, on January 14th, 2012 The November 2011 PT patronage statistics report has been (finally) released by Auckland Transport. This is the first post-Rugby World Cup report so should give us a bit more of a ‘realistic’ look at patronage across the network than the September and October reports. Here’s the summary: Perhaps the most unusual feature of the summary above is that general PT patronage growth (7.9%) was higher than rail patronage growth (2.1%) during November. Typically we see the opposite. Let’s delve a bit deeper into the numbers to see what happened: Big increases on the Onehunga Line, on the ferries and (most of all, numbers wise) on general buses. In fact, out of the total monthly increase compared to November 2010 of 441,624, 82% of the increase was on “Quality Transit and Local Bus”. This is quite different to what has generally been the case over the past five or so years, when most of the increase has been on the rapid transit network.
Here are the long-term trends: Looking at the graph above, it is interesting to see that although November’s overall patronage was down by around 400,000 on October (no surprise as it’s a shorter month and the RWC ended), bus patronage for November was actually higher than for October. A useful explanation is given for the perhaps lower than expected rail increase on 2010 figures: it seems this was largely due to different timing of special events:
 And the graph below really highlights what a massive difference the RWC made to rail patronage in September and October. I wonder at what point we will see a ‘normal’ month top October’s rail patronage. March this year or next year is my guess. But as I mentioned earlier, the real story for November was the bus patronage. Let’s take a closer look at those numbers: With close to 80% of our PT trips taken by bus, fluctuations in bus patronage will have the biggest effect on whether overall patronage is going up or down, and at what rate. So it’s very heartening to see a series of months in late 2011 that have put together really strong numbers for growing bus patronage. Looking in more detail at where this increase is happening, it’s also heartening to see the previously under-performing isthmus area starting to show some strong levels of increase: The most recent three months of data (September-November) show really strong growth on the isthmus – corresponding nicely with the timing of when the City Link, Inner Link and Outer Link were introduced. I’d suggest that is no coincidence, and these number indicate that the significant bus change made have been a success. Let’s hope that gives Auckland Transport the confidence to continue with the necessary radical overhaul of our bus system.
Overall, the patronage numbers were fairly solid – with better than expected numbers from the bus network and slightly below (but with good reason) numbers from rail. With the extended shutdown of the rail network over the past few weeks, it seems likely that patronage data for December and January will be rather skewed, and it’s likely to not be until February that we start to see some more typical numbers come through.
|
Recent Comments