As Peter found when covering the Ministry of Transport’s review of capital spending on roads (parts 1, 2, 3, and 4) our multibillion dollar national transport budget is being spent in some bizarre ways. Money’s being allocated to major roading projects that don’t offer many economic benefits in return.
While the high-level picture is clear, it’s not always obvious what’s going on in project selection. Why does the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) choose one project over another? What are their processes for assessing “strategic fit” and other considerations?
Some smart people have been taking a critical look at a major Wellington road project that’s been flying under the radar: the Petone-to-Grenada motorway. Like the Transmission Gully motorway, it’s being touted less for its benefit-cost ratio than for its impacts on the “resilience” of the Wellington region.
Tamara Duran, who writes on the Takapu Valley website, provides a useful summary of the project… and the issues with the project. In addition to her extensive analysis of the the impacts of the project on resilience (parts 1, 2, and 3), she’s put together a primer on the project, complete with maps for the out-of-towners:
Since the Christchurch and Tōhoku earthquakes, “resilience” has been the mantra of… pretty much anyone building anything, be it a building, a corporate structure, or a communications network. We all want to be resilient, to survive whatever has just happened and get back up and about our normal business as quickly as possible.
The New Zealand Transport Agency has picked up on how keen everyone is on resilience, and so is now including it in all of their sales material. Perhaps unsurprisingly, NZTA has defined “resilience” from a transport perspective as “more roads”. Not “more transport options”, and not even really “better roads”, just more. Got congestion problems? Build another road to get around it. Got a road falling apart? Build another road to take traffic off it.
Case in point: The Petone to Grenada link road, in Wellington. This road has been in the investigation and planning stages for a good 20 years now, the reason being Wellington’s notoriously challenging geography. To get from the CBD to the rest of the Region (and ultimately the rest of the North Island), there are essentially two routes out – SH1 up Ngauranga Gorge, and SH2 along the harbour. Both of those are through narrow corridors with few or no alternatives.
Source: Google Maps
The logical thing to do, then, as proposed in various studies since about 1991, is something like this:
Source: Google Maps
Traffic wanting to get between the SH1 corridor in the west and the SH2 corridor in the east can “cut the corner” of Ngauranga, taking pressure off those two chokepoints.
If there’s a truck flipped in Ngauranga Gorge, traffic can go up SH2 and across P2G. Likewise if there’s a crash along SH2 traffic can go up SH1 and across P2G back to Petone. All good, and everyone’s back about their business with minimal fuss.
But 7km of road is Not Enough Road. More Road = More Resilient, remember. So what NZTA is proposing is this:
Source: NZTA Presentation to Chief Executives Group, November 2014, released under OIA
We’ll turn the whole thing north-south (because clearly a north-south road is how you solve an east-west problem); then we have room to double the length. Here are some other “resilient” features:
- Motorway to motorway interchanges through chains of roundabouts!
- Motorway to motorway interchanges via two-lane local streets! (and roundabouts!)
Source: NZTA Petone to Grenada Project website
- “Bypasses” with one-way ramps that force you 12km out of your way!
Source: Petone to Grenada Scoping Report, February 2014
- Motorways next to other motorways! (More Roads = More Resilient!)
Source: NZTA Petone to Grenada Project website
- Roads on unstudied active fault lines!
Source: GNS Active Faults database
- 80 meter deep canyons through the Wellington Fault Scarp!
Source: HC8/9, Grenada-Petone Link and SH58 Upgrade Economics, Sinclair Knight Merz, April 2010, released under OIA
Source: Petone to Grenada Link Road Preliminary Geotechnical Appraisal, September 2013, released under OIA
NZTA has taken a reasonable solution to Wellington network resilience woes and “made it better”, in the process negating the very function the road was originally supposed to serve. In the meantime, genuine improvements to the earthquake and natural hazard resilience of the roading network are left to languish.
Source: (ex. labels) Wellington Region Road Network Earthquake Resilience Study, Opus, August 2012
I’d really recommend reading her entire series on the motorway. It seems like NZTA is pursuing a more expensive option that delivers much worse outcomes. In particular, Tamara argues that better results could be achieved through upgrades to a few problematic bits of the existing State Highway 58.
Meanwhile, University of Auckland statistician Thomas Lumley (who writes the excellent StatsChat blog) has been digging into NZTA’s options assessments on the project. He’s found that the agency has made some basic statistical errors in its weighting of evaluation criteria. The effect seems to have been that NZTA’s chosen the wrong project, for the wrong reasons:
If you have to make a decision with several options, each with different types of positive and negative effects, it’s going to be hard. Techniques for breaking down complex decisions into sets of simpler questions are very valuable, but it’s important that the way you break down the problem and recombine the answers fits with how you answer the simpler questions.
I’ve been pointed to what looks like an unfortunate example from the NZTA, in assessing options for the Petone–Grenada link road to be constructed near Wellington. The road comes in two sections: from Petone to the eastern section of Lincolnshire Farm, and from there to Grenada. According to the scoping report (PDF), these can be decided independently of each other, so there’s an ideal opportunity to simplify the decision making. NZTA describes four options P1 to P4 for the first section, and four options A to D for the second section.
I would have expected them to just make independent recommendations for the two sections, but what they actually did was more complicated. First, they looked at the P options and decided based on four criteria that P4 was best. They then looked at A+P4, B+P4, C+P4, and D+P4 for the same four criteria, and said in a footnote (p172) “Upon combining one of Option P1, P2, P3 or P4 with one Option A, B, C or D the effect more towards the negative takes precedence.”
This can only make sense if the harms or benefits weren’t independent. Sometimes that’s possible. In particular, one of the criteria was “resilience”, and you might argue that it doesn’t matter how robust the second part of the road is when the first part is under several meters of rock and mud, or filled with bumper-to-bumper traffic jams. It could make sense to take the worst value of the two sections when assessing resilience: but people who know more about Wellington-area transport than I do still seem dubious.
The same argument certainly doesn’t apply for the other criteria: archaeological, ecological, landscape/visual impact, and transport benefit/cost. If one section of the road is an environmental nightmare, that doesn’t make the environmental impact of the other section unimportant. If one section of the road is unavoidably ugly, that doesn’t excuse making the other section ugly. If one section destroys an important heritage site, it doesn’t mean the other section doesn’t have to care about preservation of the past. If one section is ridiculously expensive it doesn’t mean the costs are unimportant for the other section.
The impact of decomposing and recombining the evaluation as they did, is that any criterion where P4 was bad becomes much less important in choosing among options A to D. P4 was very bad on the landscape/visual criterion, and moderately bad on ecology.
By now you should be expecting the punch line: evaluated independently, options A and B look good because they score well on ecology and landscape/visual criteria. Evaluated in combination with P4, they look terrible, because the ecology and landscape benefits are masked by the “more negative” combining rule. That’s a problem with the combining rule, not with the road. Here’s a colour-coded version of the information in Table 23-19, p182 (from T. Duran)
Not only is the combining rule obviously missing some information, it’s not even internally consistent. If the evaluation had been done in the opposite order they might well have chosen A first, and then looked at A+P1 to A+P4. Even D was what they’d chosen first, P3+D would then look slightly better than P4+D.
It’s very tempting to look for ways of combining preferences that don’t rely on numbers, just on orderings, but in most cases they aren’t available, and attempts to do it leave you worse off than before.
This evaluation wasn’t set up to focus only on resilience — even assuming that the resilience assessment is valid, which I hear is also being questioned — it was set up to value the four criteria equally. It really looks as though a minor detail of the approach to simplifying the evaluation has had a large, accidental effect on the result.
Thomas’s words are gentle but suggest serious methodological errors in NZTA’s project selection. Taken together with Tamara’s critique of the agency’s evaluation of the resilience impacts of the Petone-to-Grenada road, it really makes you wonder what’s wrong with NZTA’s decision-making.
We’d already heard about the spectacular rail patronage results of passing 13 million trips, an increase of 1 million in just 5 months. Now we’ve got the full patronage information for February and it’s looking good.
One of the aspects I noticed in the table above is the Western line appears to have dropped however AT say that is just because of the timing of events last year and so if removing special event tickets from the numbers of each year shows patronage growth for the month of 9.8%.
One impressive aspect about the rail growth is that the total patronage in February was higher than any single month last year despite being only 28 days and including a public holiday. Only one month – October 2011 which was the peak thank to the RWC – has higher and the difference is only around 2,000 trips.
The total patronage growth is shown below.
Other than the rail results it’s also pleasing to see buses growing so strongly. The Northern Express (NEX) is obviously still up strongly but other buses which carry the bulk of patronage are increasing too. For the 12 months to the end of Feb patronage was 7.6% (around 4 million trips) compared to the same time last year.
With results so strong I’m really looking forward to seeing just how big the numbers are for March. Given what I’ve been seeing and hearing about how full trains, buses and ferries are the results could be absolutely massive. Of course we’ve also been hearing a lot about buses and trains being so full that it’s putting people off using them, especially on the rail network where issues and delays have become an almost daily occurrence.
On issues, this is showing through in the train punctuality stats which have shown a decline in recent months and it can also in part be attributed to services being too full increasing dwell times. I suspect the 78% the western line managed to achieve could go much lower in March.
We also have Wellington’s patronage results for Feb which have remained flat. The monthly figures for buses and trains were down 0.2% and up 0.1% respectively. Due to growth over the last year they were both up on the 12 month figure though.
Wellington is a great city but when it comes to transport I fear it is continuing to make foolish decisions. The latest news comes in relation to cycling in the city. In December we learned that a fantastic looking cycleway to Island Bay had been approved that used parking protected lanes and even continued the cycle lanes behind bus stops.
Unfortunately that and other cycle projects are now in doubt after a group of councillors decided to strip the council’s transport committee of it’s powers and require the cycleways get signed off by the entire council. This could put at risk how much money Wellington is able to get from the government’s Urban Cycleways funding.
The controversial handling of the Island Bay Cycleway project has ended with a Wellington City Council committee being stripped of some of its powers.
All decisions about Wellington’s cycleways will be made by the entire city council from now on, rather than just its transport and urban development committee.
Some councillors say the change will delay the rollout of better cycling infrastructure across the city, while others argue it will speed things up.
The full council voted 11 to 4 in favour of the rule change yesterday.
It came about after eight councillors called for the transfer of power, angry at the transport committee’s management of the $1.7 million first stage of the Island Bay to City Cycleway.
The three-kilometre section from Shorland Park to Wakefield Park has divided community opinion after 18 months of research and nearly a year of consultation.
Construction was pencilled in to begin later this month, subject to the transport committee’s approval. But after yesterday’s rule change, the full council will now get the final say.
Before the vote even Prime Minister John Key thought the idea of trying to delay was a stupid move saying in his post-cabinent press conference on Monday
“I think we’ve got the capacity with the government resources, and working with the council, to complete some of those cycleways in a reasonable timeframe. I don’t know why the council is slow at the moment on these particular issues given the mayor is a keen advocate of cycling. The government has got resources there and I’m hoping the Council can sort it out.”
“The whole purpose of us putting in the money in terms of urban cycleways is a reflection of the amount of demand that’s there and interest that not just Wellingtonians but people around the country have for a much safer cycling environment. If you look at the Petone foreshore into the Wellington CBD for instance, what a magnificent cycleway that could be and how safe it could be, and how dangerous it can be currently.”
I guess if Wellington doesn’t want its share of cycle funding that Auckland – or other cities – would love to have it.
As many readers will know from the monthly board meeting updates we see, Auckland Transport are in the process of putting out a new tender to run all rail services in Auckland from Mid 2016 onwards. Wellington has also going through this same process and ATs reports say they’ve been working with the Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC) on some aspects. The outcome of the tender process will be fascinating as in Wellington Kiwirail (and predecessors) have always run the regions trains. In Auckland they were contracted out over a decade ago – a time when very few people caught trains – to Connex which became Veolia and now Transdev. A few years ago the contract was extended to mid-2016 so AT weren’t changing operators in the middle of the roll out of electric trains. Since that time Transdev’s performance has improved significantly which is good – although it’s still not perfect.
One of the aspects that spurred the contracting situation a decade ago was that the existing operator didn’t want to run the services anymore. The growth in train use that Auckland has seen and will continue to see over the coming years has made operating the trains a much more attractive proposition. As such a number of companies are likely to be very interested in winning the tender and the Wellington tender gives us an idea of who some of the main contenders will be. Just before Christmas the GWRC announced the short list of companies who will be sent tender documents for the running and maintaining of trains.
Greater Wellington Regional Council has finalised a short-list for the tendering of its new rail contract.
Greg Campbell, the Regional Council’s Chief Executive, says that after careful evaluation of Expressions of Interest the following companies have been short-listed. They are:
- Transdev Australasia Pty Ltd in a joint venture with South Korean-based company Hyundai Rotem. Transdev operates Auckland’s train service, Sydney’s light rail, ferries in Sydney and Brisbane, and bus services in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Darwin. Hyundai Rotem is the manufacturer of Wellington’s electric Matangi trains and has extensive experience maintaining rolling stock around the world.
- Keolis Downer in a joint venture with KiwiRail. Keolis Downer operates the Gold Coast light rail network in Queensland, Australia and Keolis operates Melbourne’s Yarra tram services. KiwiRail currently operates Wellington’s train services and maintains the region’s train fleet.
- Serco – an international service company that currently operates a range of rail services in the UK, the Middle East and Australia.
Greg Campbell says tender documents will be issued to the short-listed companies early next year. “We plan to select a preferred tenderer around the middle of next year and have a contract signed by the end of 2015. The new rail contract will take effect from 1 July 2016.”
The Regional Council is developing and procuring new performance-based, partnering contracts for all public transport services in Wellington. “The new contracts will have a much greater emphasis on providing high quality, affordable services that encourage more people to take the train, bus or harbour ferry.”
Perhaps the most interesting aspect is that two of the bidders are joint ventures, one of which includes Kiwirail which means that regardless of who wins the current situation in Wellington will definitely change. My understanding is in the Keolis/Kiwirail bid Keolis will actually run the trains on a day to day basis with Kiwirail doing the maintenance – that in itself is a big change for Kiwirail. I assume it will be the same thing on the Transdev/Hyundai Rotem bid, Transdev running the trains with Hyundai Rotem maintaining the trains.
Presumably all of these bidders are also hoping to pick up the Auckland contract too as there would be some improved economies of scale from doing so. The big difference in Auckland is the train manufacturer CAF already has a 10 year contract to maintain the trains.
Perhaps a disappointment from the list above is that all operators seem to be only about operating the service. It’s a shame there doesn’t appear to be an operator like MTR from Hong Kong who might also be interested in not just running the services but investing in developments around rail stations in a bid to improve patronage. I imagine others will also raise the question of why the operations aren’t being brought in-house by both AT and GWRC – even if operated by an independent entity – rather than the profits going overseas.
We’ll have to wait and see what happens in both cities but there’s certainly a possibility that both cities will see some major changes in the running of trains going forward and that has the potential to be quite disruptive for some time. There’s definitely some interesting times ahead.
63: Look Up Wellington!
What if Wellington recognised it isn’t the only show in town?
For too long, Wellingtonians have been smug in the knowledge that they have some kind of monopoly on good city life in NZ.
Well those days are over. It isn’t the 1990s anymore. Everyday Auckland is making progress towards becoming a more attractive and enjoyable city to live. Aucklanders can see and feel that. People that come with fresh eyes can see that too. The occasional open-eyed and open-minded Wellingtonian travelling north might have quietly clocked that too.
So it would be good for the national conversation around cities and urban issues to get past these out-moded stereotypes. Likewise it would be good if Auckland recognised where it shares urban issues in common with Wellington, Christchurch, and other urban areas in New Zealand. Auckland trying to go it alone and provincial attitudes elsewhere aren’t helping anyone.
Stuart Houghton 2014
The Architectural Centre’s Auction for the Anti- Basin Flyover Fund takes place tonight at 7:30pm St Joseph’s Church, 42 Ellice St, Mt Victoria, Wellington.
The auction is happening because NZTA are still trying to force this pointless and expensively hideous structure on little Wellington despite losing the case for it at the Board of Inquriry. More millions of our tax dollars on QCs…
Here is the catalogue of donated works.
There is a great range and something for all tastes, I have donated a print of my 1988 portrait of Ralph Hotere [selenium toned silver gelatine print], because I know which side he would be on:
Here’s a short description of my experience of meeting Ralph for the first time on the visit that I made the portrait:
In winter 1988 I had the opportunity to visit Ralph Hotere at Careys Bay near Port Chalmers for a few days and make this portrait of him. It was an extremely rich experience, he had a way of offering things in a simultaneously casual and formal way; looking back I can see now how lucky I was, although at the time I was principally concerned about whether I was ever going to get a chance to take the portrait.
I got to hang out at his house; major works by his own hand and others, including McCahon, stacked deep against the walls, and down at the pub, which back then was a seriously quotidian operation, focussed on serving the fishermen from the boats that tied up across the road. Ralph cleaned up all-comers on the pool table. The pub seemed to never close. Both buildings were freezing.
We drove around in one of his lovingly maintained old Jaguars, up to the cemetery on he hill where he said there was a headstone McCahon had painted I should see, and, where he suddenly turned to me and asked, almost accusingly; ‘got your camera?’ He clearly had decided this was where he wanted to be photographed, he then arranged himself apparently casually but in fact quite deliberately. He gave me the shot.
He also took me to a studio he kept in the stables of a Victorian estate up on Observation Point, overlooking the port. He spoke of the great sculptural qualities of the straddle cranes working below. He was at that time fighting to save the headland from the port company’s land eating expansion plans.
Thinking of an appropriate image to donate to this auction I immediately thought of Ralph: he often found himself at odds with the plans of powerful public institutions. And not because of a resistance to change or progress, but because so often those plans resulted in brutally clumsy outcomes developed through poor processes. In particular those that discount long lasting negative effects on people and place. So it is with this proposal.
From the Architectural Centre in Wellington:
The NZTA flyover and recent appeal
The NZTA have proposed building a flyover adjacent to New Zealand’s historic Basin Reserve. There are several complex aspects to the issue, but the basic chronology is:
- The Minister for the Environment established a Board of Inquiry in mid-2013 to decide if a flyover should be built by the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) adjacent to the Basin Reserve cricket ground. The flyover is part of the government’s planned country-wide Roads of National Significance.
- The Board decided that the flyover should not be built. This was the result of a 72 day long hearing. The Final Decision is at: http://www.epa.govt.nz/Resource-management/Basin_Bridge/Final_Report_and_Decision/Pages/default.aspx(and there is a brief summary of issues attached). There were a number of non-profit community groups who opposed the flyover, and we worked together collaboratively to ensure alternative views were presented at the hearing.
- NZTA have appealed to the High Court asking for the decision to be overturned. The agency has also questioned a number of matters of law including issues to do with the evalution of urban design, heritage, and alternative options to the flyover.
Wellington is not a city of flyovers, and this proposal would place a flyover within a sensitive heritage site in our city, which includes an area of small nineteenth and early twentieth-century houses which would be dwarfed by the size of the 320m long concrete flyover, and become the dominant view for people living in Ellice St. The flyover would also block the view down the Kent/Cambridge Terrace boulevard, as well as obscuring views of the historic Basin Reserve cricket ground. We believe that a concrete structure of this large size, in this position, is not appropriate for this part of the city, which includes Government House, and the National War Memorial Park.
In addition to opposing the flyover, we believe that it is important that the alternative view to that of the NZTA is properly represented at the appeal hearing.
This means that we are off to the High Court.
It is no secret that the parties opposing the flyover have limited financial resources, and that the lack of an opposing voice in these proceedings will mean that not all of the relevant arguments will be put before the High Court. We consider it to be important for this to be a properly democratic process, which means that views from both sides of the argument need to be heard. It is for all of these reasons that the Architectural Centre will be a party to the appeal, and for these reasons we are asking for your support.
If you are supportive and would like to help there are a number of things that you can do.
- Spread the word. Circulate this email to anyone who you think would be keen to help.
- We’re holding a charity auction at 5.30-7.30pm Wed 3 December at Regional Wines and Spirits (15 Ellice St, by the Basin Reserve, Wellington)and are asking architects/artists/authors/designers/film-makers/poets etc. to donate drawings/paintings/designs/sculpture/poems/manuscripts/autographed books/film/anything – so if you can donate something that would be fabulous, and if you can encourage others to donate something that would be grand too. An auction poster is attached.
If you can donate something to be auctioned, please email us at firstname.lastname@example.org and/or post it to the Architectural Centre, P.O. Box 24-178, Manners St, Wellington, or deliver it to Cranko Architects, 81 Harbour View Rd (M-F 8am-6pm), and include your name, email etc. Additional information is at: http://architecture.org.nz/2014/11/01/architects-draw-charity-auction/
- Join the Architectural Centre. Information is at: http://architecture.org.nz/memberships/. More information about us is at: http://architecture.org.nz/
- Donate any amount you can. Our bank account details for internet banking are included on the membership form at: http://architecture.org.nz/memberships/
- Come to the charity auction… it would be lovely to see you there.
We really appreciate that there are many, many worthy causes that are likely to be taking up your time, energy and money, so we completely understand if you are too stretched to support this one with your time and/or money too. But if this is the case, your moral support and circulating this email to others, will be hugely appreciated by us.
nga mihi nui
Christine McCarthy, Victoria Willocks and Duncan Harding
on behalf of the Architectural Centre
The Architectural Centre is the most venerable advocacy group for better urban form in New Zealand. Formed in Wellington in 1946 by idealistic young architects and planners [including my parents] with aims of improving our built environment. The Manifesto includes clauses such as “Architecture must facilitate better living” and “Good architecture is elegant environmentalism.” A very good history of the Centre, Vertical Living, has just been published by AUP. Here is the full manifesto:
The news recently that Auckland had surpassed Wellington for rail patronage as well as passed the 12 million trips mark was good however as we and many others have noted, on a per capita basis Wellington is still well ahead. The per capita result got me thinking about how we measure it and whether the population figure used is ideal. It’s generally measured by dividing the number of trips taken by the population of the region
- Auckland – 12 million trips with 1.53 million people = 8 trips per person
- Wellington – 11.9 million trips with 0.49 million people = 24 trips per person
As you can see based on this Wellingtonians use trains 3 times more than Aucklanders do and for Auckland to have the same per capita rate patronage with it’s current population it would need to have around 37 million trips, something not likely possible without the City Rail Link (the modelling I’ve seen suggests Auckland won’t get patronage above ~25 million trips without the CRL).
While the residents of the capital definitely use trains more, the calculation is a very broad one as it uses the regional population. Both regions have large areas with a lot of residents that don’t live anywhere near a rail line that are extremely unlikely to use a train, for example the North Shore in Auckland or much of Wellington City except the parts near the Johnsonville Line.
For Auckland you can see this in the map below from the census Journey to Work data where train use is unsurprisingly concentrated around the rail network.
So it got me thinking about what the per capita results would look like if we based it just on the population that lives near a rail line. Reader Steve D helped me out and looked at the population numbers within all meshblocks that have some point within either 1km or 2km of a rail line.
This is only a close shot of Auckland to give an idea
And here’s Wellington
Based on the looking at meshblocks 1 or 2km from a train station the results are below.
So based on this Aucklanders still use the train less than residents of Wellington but the it’s not quite as bad as it appears when just looking at the regional level data.
Perhaps once Auckland gets the new network rolled out with integrated fares we might start to see per capita rail use in Auckland approach that of Wellington.
Campbell Live have been doing some great stories on transport and urban issues in the last few years and have easily been one of the best media organisations on the subjects. This week contained quite a few transport segments including on Monday when they dedicated an entire show to trains.
First there was this segment on travelling between the CBD and Papakura by train and by car.
I’m quite sure why John Campbell drove up Queen St to get to the motorway and I was quite surprised by just how quiet the eastern line train looked compared to the Western Line trains I’m used to.
Next up was a segment on extending train services to the Waikato.
We’ve talked about extending rail to the Waikato in the past. Personally I think for it to actually work we will need much faster services, particularly through the urban area and that’s where Kiwirail need to hurry up and get the third main built between Papakura and Westfield. I’ve been told it’s not all that expensive to build but they keep debating with Auckland Transport about who should pay for it. The example for Waikato trains was the Wairarapa Connection in Wellington.
I do think we need to be careful in using the Wairarapa connection as an example as the driving alternative isn’t great being a slow and winding road over the Rimutakas. I think if a trip from Hamilton to Auckland could be achieved in around 1½ hours (instead of the 2+ hours it takes) it would be very competitive.
Lastly on Wednesday they looked at the issue of tolling the motorway and compared a trip from Takanini to Mt Eden by the motorway and local roads.
As they show the local roads are already much slower than the motorways which I suspect will limit some of the diversion from people trying to avoid tolls but again it’s interesting to note that the same trip via train from Takanini to Mt Eden via train would have taken between 50 and 60 minutes (depending on the transfer).
We keep a close eye on patronage in Auckland – which has been surging in recent months – but what’s happening with patronage in our other major cities? So in this post I’ll look at patronage in both Wellington and Christchurch.
Unlike Auckland which has seen considerable growth over the last decade, the use of the system in Wellington can only really be described as flat. There are probably a number of factors at play including that the number of people employed in the Wellington Region peaked in 2008, the same year as patronage peaked – although I don’t think this is the only reason. On the positive side some recent growth meant that the end of June saw the 12 month rolling as the highest it’s been for potentially decades.
While Wellington does have ferries they carry such a small number of people (less than 200k per year) that they hardly register, of the other two modes bus patronage has grown slightly although it it dropped slightly in 2013 the figures are starting to rise again.Monthly patronage in June was up 6.3% on the same month last year which is a good sign and one of the largest single month increases in six years.
The rail network has seen more volatility with a large drop off in the number of trips from mid 2009. Patronage then stayed fairly low until after Wellington’s new Matangi trains were introduced in early 2011. Since then it’s been a slow recovery with the exception of the RWC. However in recent months we’re starting to see some real improvement and 12 month patronage to the end of June was up 2.8% – although that’s also partly because some lines were closed for over a week in June last year due to storm damage.
Overall patronage in Wellington has been flat for some time but the good news is that things seem to be changing with patronage numbers reaching new heights. Let’s hope that growth continues.
It’s also worth noting that traffic volumes on Wellington’s state highway network have also been flat for some time.
Between 2000 and 2010 patronage in Christchurch increased by almost 80% which better than what Auckland achieved over the same period with both cities coming off low base numbers. Then in 2010 and 2011 the earthquakes struck devastating the city – with the CBD suffering some of the most extensive damage. The impact on bus patronage was dramatic and set use back use by a decade more. Positively patronage in Christchurch is now recovering although still well below the pre-quake levels. Let’s hope the growth can carry on and see us quickly surpass the pre-quake results.
If anyone has details about patronage results for other NZ cities then I’d love to see it so let me know in the comments or flick me an email with the details.