In October last year, Auckland Transport released the draft version of the new Regional Public Transport Plan and it was nothing short of revolutionary. For the first time in who knows how many decades, the decision was made to finally tackle one of the biggest issues with the public transport system, our mess of a bus network. Our current bus network is a bit like someone took a handful of cooked spaghetti and threw it at a map. Many routes were slow and circuitous, making the unattractive. Even worse is many duplicated and competed against each other, or the rail lines, a sure fire way to waste money. To address this Auckland Transport conducted a ground up review of the network which sought to address the issues listed earlier. As a result of this they found they were able to vastly improve services across the entire region using exactly the same budget. Central to this new network are bus routes that run at a high all day frequency (at least one bus every 15 minutes, most of the day, 7 days a week) and the use of transfers to get around. The maps below what routes we would have as high frequency routes by 2016 if we stuck to the path we are on vs. what was proposed in the RPTP.
Combined with this new bus network, the plan also deals with the introduction of our fantastic new electric trains, as well the roll out of integrated ticketing and fares. We are undergoing a substantial amount of change all of which is set to occur over the next three years. It’s fairly astonishing to think just how different things will by 2016 and I’m not aware of a single city in the entire world embarking on so much fundamental change to PT system over such a short period. Of course change always represents the unknown and so the consultation phases will naturally bring out people with concerns.
Auckland Transport have now released the results of the consultation and just like the scale of change being proposed, they are fairly astonishing. Often consultation phases only really bring out people really opposed to a proposal however perhaps the results are an indictment of just how bad things are at the moment and how much appetite there is for change. AT received over 700 submissions with around 100 of those choosing to appear before the hearings panel. Interestingly almost half of the personal submissions were pro-forma submissions from residents in Tuakau seeking both the extension of train services to their town and bus services to Port Waikato. Here is a breakdown of who submitted.
Out of all of the submissions, 70% supported or strongly supported the new bus network which is extremely impressive.
Support for moving to a simpler fare structure was also extremely high, once again at up around the 70% mark.
Crucially though, while most people supported a better fare structure, it appears that many weren’t exactly thrilled with the zonal system being proposed. This is an issue we raised a few times here and here. As such this has brought perhaps the biggest change to document with the hearings panel recommending that the proposal be removed completely from the plan. Instead AT are now going to do a full review of their options, something I don’t think is a bad idea at all.
The AT board endorsed the changes at their March board meeting and I believe that the plan will formally be adopted after changes to the Land Transport Management Act go through parliament later this year. With the acceptance of the new bus network this means that they can now start working on the roll out and detailed consultation needed for that. It is perhaps at this stage where they will really draw out the people unhappy with change so I hope they are really on their game. The first area to see change will be the south later this year.
Lastly, congratulations to everyone at AT who worked on the RPTP. It’s fantastic that you bold enough to propose these changes and they will make for a much better PT network in the coming years.
Processing...
Fantastic, eh! And good summary Matt. Huge amount of work and doubt very tricky at detail. But this will mean that more people in more parts of Auckland and at more times will be able to move around well without always having to drive. Greater freedom of choice.
Implementation can’t come soon enough. Hopefully accommodated with proper bus priority infrastructure in the CBD most especially.
Good to see they’re having a rethink about the zones. It favoured the North Shore but penalised the West and South / South East.
I do hope they stick with zones in principle, and just make a few necessary tweaks to the zone boundaries.
I think the general conclusion is that the principle is good but they need to do a full evaluation on options for the size and location of the zones, and to work out in more detail aspects of the fares and structure.
Personally I think they have the idea right, they just need to apply it in a way that is more fair and more supportive of patronage goals.
Definitely agree. The zones system is a good idea, but the actual zones certainly needed to be adjusted to be more equitable.
I 100% agree that zones are the only way to go, just the initial proposal and how they pan out was a bit simplified and very much favoured a part of Auckland over much of the rest.
Great work by the Tuakau residents. Hopefully this will drag AT into talking with Waikato Regional Council for a rail extension and policy. Waikato District Council Mayor Alan Sanson said at the last election he would get a station built in Tuakau.
So far his talk has been cheap.
While they’re at it, they should extend it a little bit further down to Pokeno. The expansion there, both in subdivisions and with the new milk formula factory, means it is really set to grow. Pukekohe is the nearest large town, and a rail service to there on weekends (as well as weekday services to Auckland) could be really good for both towns.
I’ve heard Waikato Regional Council’s transport planners are keen for such an extension, and I think the Upper North Island Strategic Alliance is seen as the platform to get these issues sorted out in.
Well the Waikato councils have been very quiet on this whole issue. I think the idea is great and it supports the need to continue with electrification to Te Rapa. These towns also need to be taken into consideration for the Auckland Plan and the Waikato is going to (not may) be an important consideration for housing people who work in Auckland (just don’t call them Aucklanders :-)). If they are not already doing so these Local Boards and Waikato Council are going to have to develop a plan to zone appropriate mixed housing / light commercial / residential around these stations, together with quality park ‘n’ ride facilities (no, an unlit gravel carpark doesn’t cut it) in order to increase the patronage required to justify the expense involved. Oh, and a change in government as I cannot see National stumping up to electrify the rest of the line and KR won’t do it. As it’s part of the NIMT, it really is a government issue.
I don’t have too much sympathy for the people of Tuakau. They really didnt want to be in the super city, but when the reality bites they want to get all the benefits of it. Tuakau really needs to become part of Auckland Council, then this extension can easily be funded. Waikao District and Regional Council won’t be able to do it without a big rates increase for those affected.
No, the government, in cooperation with KiwiRail, Auckland Transport and the Waikato Regional Council, needs to get involved for the good of New Zealand (well, the upper North Island area anyway). Yes, the people of Tuakau wanted to stay away from the Super City and I can sympathise with them but at the end of the day this kind of joint service would be good for Auckland and the Waikato.
It would be great if Auckland Transport did some more public work on the proposed fare zones and charging structure. For instance are the proposed zones essentially the same as the current stages – conceptually concentric rings from the CBD – e.g. (C(B (A) B)C) ? Will B passes only cover travel within the B zone and not into A? Or would a B zone pass include travel into zone A? Will there be monthly zone passes at all?
AT need to be working on this and getting the ideas out there.
My hope is that all zones are treated equally in terms of price, so a 1 zone pass gets you travel within just the CBD zone, or just the upper North Shore zone, or just the Pukekohe zone etc. A two zone pass is good for any two adjacent zones. So not inherently concentric, but still works concentrically.
The trick would be to size the zones appropriately to introduce the effects we want to see. For example the south Auckland zone might be very large to allow a range of travel on a one zone ticket, while the CBD zone would be quite compact so that most city commuters need a two or three zone ticket.
It seems to me that the resolution lies in having more zones. Not 30, but maybe 15 all over Auckland? So if you are doing a long trip, that’s 5 or 6 zones. But I am probably missing some of the downsides of smaller zones? Any?
Smaller zones means you lose the freedom to travel very far within one zone. With fairly large zones, people can have access to everywhere in their local area on the same ticket.
I see one of the great benefits of the zone system is that you buy an ‘all you can eat’ block of access to a zone (or set of zones), you might buy it for one trip then find it is useful for another, or you use it to do a series of little trips for errands about the same general area, much they way people use their cars. That means bums on seats, effectively people buy in for the trip they need to take, then find they have free access within the zone for other trips as long as the original fare is valid. Small zones lose that to an extent and end up just being like a stage system. If the zone is small, say two km around, you’ll basically just have one local centre or shops in each zone. Kinda defeats the purpose of having a zone.
I think there should be about five zones concentrically, split between the north and west, and south and east side of the city.
do us a map Nick!
“Smaller zones means you lose the freedom to travel very far within one zone”
Oh, I understand that – its just that with more zones, the price jump to the next zone is also reduced – and I wasn’t suggesting 2km zones! I guess there’s a happy medium, just people will never agree to one that is perfect for everyone 😉
Sort of wondering if our zones should be based around travel to Metropolitan centres. If you look at where those metro centres are located, they are generally fairly evenly distributed around the region so could be logical points. As an example you could have it that there is a zone around Henderson that extends from Swanson in the west, Te Atatu in the north and as far south east as Glen Eden. Next to that a catchment focused on New Lynn starting in Glen Eden (overlapping the previous one) that extends as far as Mt Albert. The idea being that it is always only one stage to get to your nearest Metropolitan centre with a bit of overlapping too, particularly around smaller town centres.
Patrick, if you check the attachments to submissions at http://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/improving-transport/plans-proposals/IntegratedTravel/Documents/rptp-attachments-to-submissions.pdf, and look for Attachement 6 on Page 31, you will find the map we submitted.
Well yeah that was really my main point, have to find the happy medium between zones that are not so large they have huge fare jumps at the border, but not so small they stop being useful as a zone and end up as as defacto stages.
Matt, yes they should focus around Metropolitan Centres, preferably putting the overlapping zone boundaries where metro or town centres are.
That MR Cagney zone map is perfect. It just needs a ‘daily fare cap’ to top it off. Of note is this from the NZ Bus submission:
“Premium on cash fares 27. NZ Bus supports endeavours to increase the usage of smartcards, especially once the integrated ticketing project is implemented. Accordingly we would prefer to see a more aggressive approach taken to increasing the premium paid by cash users. We note that in London the differential between cash and Oyster fares is around 70% (GBP 2.3 cash, 1.35 Oyster) and in Wellington the differential is already at least 20%. The current 10% premium is insignificant and unlikely to drive behavioural change. NZ Bus would like to see a 20% differential introduced immediately on implementation of AIFS and a plan to increase this differential over time.”
Agree fully.
The report makes a long but interesting read.
Points I found interesting:
=> Like the fact my name is mentioned about one of my points, as I am new to this submission process this was just cool.
=> Like references to the Unity Plan – very important.
=> New action to policy 6.3 “promote and facilitate business and school travel plans”
=> It shows how the expensive new capital projects need to be prioritised, ASAP in my opinion and get the airport rail link right near the top ahead of the expensive roading projects.
=> The 7am to 7pm time span for rapid and frequent services is still too low, what about going out for an evening? You want lots of people using PT at 11.30am for example, and not having to wait in the dark – it’s a bit of a chicken or egg situation really.
=> The use of an integrated transport assessment for new developments.
=> Installation of bike racks at interchanges and stations now gets a mention.
“The 7am to 7pm time span for rapid and frequent services is still too low, what about going out for an evening?”
The response notes that 7am to 7pm seven days is the minimum, any routes that demand frequent service llater in the evening can have it right away. For example they might run frequent service till midnight on friday nights, but not the rest of the week. Obviously less frequent service is still planned at other times. It also notes that is just an interim step until the real goal of 6am to 9pm seven days a week is possible.
Probably useful to point out that the whole network and schedule is based on the same amount of resources we have today, so it’s more or less cost neutral. Over time efficiencies will creep in, patronage and fare revenue will increase and they will be able to reinvest the gains in more service.
Earlier thoughts on zones, (with maps!)
http://greaterakl.wpengine.com/2012/10/15/fairer-fare-zones/
How the zones are appreciated will come down, more than anything else, to pricing.
This may be a FAQ that I have been too busy/lazy/feckless to find the answer for:
I notice that some (but not all) routes pass through the CBD? What principle is AT applying with this plan?
A feature I have appreciated of transport networks I have experienced overseas is that every route is a through route, which means you can get practically anywhere on the network with only one change (and there’s a chance you can get all the way across town without changing at all).
The current situation in Auckland mainly suits people who either live in the CBD, or work there. Anyone who wants to cross town usually has to hike from one edge of the CBD to the other to board a connecting service.
The difference between through-route vs CBD-terminal networks is transformative – with a through-route network, it becomes possible to incorporate public transport into daily travel habits beyond just the weekday commute.
The old plan [on the left, above, the current situation] is too CBD centric and serves the wider city poorly, the new plan [on the right] is, in part, focussed on fixing that, extending higher quality services out and across the whole city. The CBD will still attract the busiest routes but by the time this is all in place cross town travel will be hugely improved. Is that not clear in the maps above?
Been from the North Shore and Working at Auckland Hospital I have been interested in going straight to the other side of the CBD rather than having to change buses. As Jarrett Walker talks about in human transit having buses doing special tasks can be difficult as the benefit of conecitivity is lost.
I think one of the key aspect of the new plan, ( paritularly for people travelling into the CBD via the harbour bridge) will be how it covers peak and shoulder peak services.
Another will be the availability of bus lanes/ways at the time. Currently Albany to Constellation is scheduled as a to 7 minutes trip for buses but takes 10 minute drive at 0630 due to congestion before Greveille road.