This morning we received the excellent news from Lester Levy that within the next three months, for the first time in Auckland Transports history it will have created a new bus lane. The purpose of this post is a bit of a reminder as to why investing in bus lanes is so critical for us to do as a city.
This issue has been one we have focused on for some time and when there is such a huge focus on improving public transport, increasing patronage and investing in alternatives to driving everywhere – the complete lack of progress on bus lanes is utterly bizarre. The other part of the reason why we focus so much on bus lanes is that they’re just so fantastic. With the use of just a bit of green paint and a few signs, a fast, reliable, high quality and attractive public transport route can be created. In many situations this can vastly increase the capacity of the roading corridor as people take up a whole lot less room when on a bus than they do one person to a car. There are many different versions of this image around but it is a good way of highlighting the efficiency that buses provide.
Locally we can see just how much of an impact buses have on roads into the CBD from the annual screenline studies that take place. Take a look at how many more people travel along Karangahape Road, Symonds Street and Fanshawe Street by bus than do by car:
Given that all three streets mentioned above are pretty packed out for cars at peak times, if it wasn’t for the buses carrying so many people each street would need to have twice the number of lanes it currently has. This has also been seen on the Harbour Bridge where the number of people crossing at peak times has continued to rise while the number of vehicles hasn’t, in large part due to the improvements in bus infrastructure on the North Shore making buses more attractive. Before the Northern Busway only 18% of those crossing the bridge in the peak did so on a bus, now that number is up over 40%. The image below is a bit old now but highlights the trend that has been occurring and that has continued to occur.
But maximising capacity is not the only reason why we should consider putting in bus lanes. Even where less than 50% of people moving along a corridor are on the bus, there’s still a big benefit of bus lanes providing a fast, reliable congestion free travel option. We haven’t shown all streets that should have bus lanes on the congestion free network maps, but in a way we should – because as long as the bus lanes are continuous (often they aren’t), have sufficient hours of operation (which often they don’t) and are supported by traffic signal phasing tuned to maximise public transport efficiency (something that happens overseas but generally not here), bus lanes can often provide a really good level of service for low-to-medium demand routes.
Furthermore, bus lanes should help improve operational efficiency of the bus network. The longer a bus takes to get from A to B, the more buses that are needed on that route to keep frequencies at the same level. During peak hours not only are more buses often required because of increased demand, but as buses get stuck in congestion and take much longer to complete their routes, even more buses are needed on the network to limit the gaps between services. And a whole pile of buses used only at peak times means a very expensive system to run. By taking the buses out of the congestion, not only will the service attract many more people (and their fares), fewer buses will be required to maintain the desired frequencies because the buses will be travelling so much faster.
So why aren’t we seeing more bus lanes? Of course the real beauty of bus lanes is also their greatest challenge: because they don’t need to require building more road space, they do involve taking that space away from other uses. Usually either peak hour private vehicle capacity (if there’s a clearway or other parking restriction) or on-street parking. Both of these uses are notoriously difficult to reallocate to bus lanes – even when there’s an utterly compelling argument. Over the past few years – while we haven’t been building any bus lanes – there certainly have been numerous arguments over the ones we have. This has led to things like a farcical number of signs around Grafton Bridge and the winding back of the Remuera Road bus lanes to T3 lanes.
In summary, we know that often there are compelling arguments for bus lanes based on logic – whether that’s maximising the capacity of the road corridor, significantly improving the quality of public transport along a route or improving operational efficiency. Or all three. However, we also know that implementing bus lanes can be tough due to petty politics and intense local debates over things like on-street parking. This situation reminds me of quite a bit of discussion in the past couple of weeks around the Council’s upcoming review of the Council-Controlled Organisations – of which Auckland Transport is the largest. Quite a lot of the arguments in favour of CCOs is that they’re able to operate a ‘step away’ from day-to-day politicking that can hold back progress. That they’re able to make the right decisions based on the greater good, rather than be held back by the vocal few. This is something that Lester touched on in his letter this morning.
One of the most salient messages that I took from Jarrett’s work is that bold initiatives, require courage and commitment (and perseverance) to ensure the benefits are in fact delivered. I was very interested in Jarrett’s point of view that what is in the greater public interest is not going to be in everyone’s interest. I happen to agree with Jarett and it is very important for Auckland Transport now and into the future not to jump and react to every issue raised, but rather to clearly define its direction and priorities, hold true to them and then focus on excellent and rapid implementation.
Progressing bus lanes is a great way for Auckland Transport to prove its worth.
It’s all very well building bus lanes but AT really has to ensure they’re effectively policed and that the penalties for infringement are sufficiently swingeing otherwise they just become default Audi lanes. Two notorious examples being Victoria Street West (opposite Victoria Park) and Park Road between Carlton Gore Road and Khyber Pass: more Audis and Rangerovers at peak than buses.
How much would it help to aim at T3 lanes instead of bus lanes? On the grounds that they may be more politically acceptable…
The Orakei Local Board argued to have the Remuera Road bus lanes converted to T2, and in the end it was agreed to have T3. The OLB are still arguing for T2 of course, but leaving that aside.. peak time buses are hardly ever held up by T3 cars (of which there are relatively few); on the other hand the fact that bus lanes aren’t continuous can add 10 minutes even to a short journey. Ask the kids going by school bus to Remuera Intermediate: most of their journey time is spent in stuck in (car) traffic around Greenlane East, because the bus lane stopped at Upload Road. Duh!
It’s hard not to concluded that continuous T2 would be better than discontinuous T3 or bus lanes.
Could be a point to trade on to convince more lanes to go in more quickly?
I think that transit lanes are a good way to introduce bus priority in many places but they won’t work everywhere. We haven’t seen much of that happen from AT either so any progress would be welcome.
Enforcement is an issue when it comes to T3 (and T2) lanes – working out which vehicles should and should not be in a lane is much easier with a bus lane (or, as I learnt exist in the UK, “NO-CAR” lanes).
Said enforcement issues have resulted in bad press for AT lately where they ticketed apparently valid T3 users. That they downgraded them to “warnings” (which imply the recipients are still guilty) has not helped.
Bus lane or don’t bother – T2/T3 is way much harder to enforce – a Bus lane is very obvious when its a bus or not (the only possible argument is whether it has the required number of seats and/or is registered as a bus or not to be a “bus” and thus able to use the lane. But its easy to tell from the Registration plate – don’t need to look inside the bus windows to count occupants.
Which means that automated ticketing systems can be put in place on peak areas to enforce the bus lanes – a 24 by 7 bus lane should be enforced by cameras 24 x 7.
Canberra made a modern version of that Muenster photo showing buses vs cyclists and cars:
http://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-HCD38-znTV8/UFfDcFMQROI/AAAAAAAA3p8/MQFeLYNBbw0/s600/Canberra%2520Transport%2520Photo_x3_1600px_logo.jpeg
Well designed bus lanes work really well. They can be done wrong though. North Shore put in one that created such a long queue of cars that the cars blocked access to the start of the bus lane for buses! Buses had less delay without the bus lane in that case.
I think your first sentence is wrong, the original quote is:
“Once the planning regulatory processes have been resolved it is possible that we could have a solution in place within three months.” with the first part being quite conditional on the 3 month part kicking off. It could still take a year (or 3)
A less ambiguous version showed up on AT: http://at.govt.nz/about-us/news-events/relief-for-north-shore-bus-commuters/
‘Dr Levy says, “There are some planning regulatory processes to consider as well as public consultation, however we expect we can have these in place within three months.”’
I’ll let myself be happy about this now 🙂
The picture of the cars lined up is a bit misleading. If that many people were travelling by car they would take up heaps more space as cars need a gap between them when moving and the gap is longer than the car itself unless they are waiting. Likewise the bikes would need more space unless you are finishing a stage in the Tour de France. The other assumption is everyone is going to a place on the same line. If you did a map of where those people could get to in 20 minutes the bikes and cars can go any direction but the bus passengers can’t. But I guess it makes a point.
Well, in lots of cities, there are many single destinations that are popular enough to fill an entire bus. But in any case, the bus passengers can go in any direction as well, if they’re in a network of frequent bus routes.
Another thing that’s not shown is the space the vehicles will use up at the destination. The cars do appallingly by that measure, the bikes do OK, the bus is brilliant. Not only does it not need to park, but it can turn around and pick up a new lot of passengers.
While I support bus/HOV lanes, I’d really like to see AT do more to provide local feeder services to connect with the spine of the public transport system – the rail/ferries/airporter/NEX that’s at the core of the CFN.
Orakei train station as an example – lots of trains passing though giving easy and quick access to all parts of the city, but local bus routes are set up to compete. If the focus were on feeding passengers to the cross town network then perhaps we wouldn’t need so many bus lanes.
The success of park n ride’s at train and busway stations surely supports the case for better feeder services.
I heard that the Orakei Local Board is supporting the idea of frequent short-run feeder buses, e.g. Stonefields to GI train station. I’ve no idea how to funding works, but it sounds like a reasonable idea.. may be worth contacting your LB.
Are you familiar with the New Network Jeff? AT is rolling out an entirely revised network designed to do exactly that.
https://www.aucklandtransport.govt.nz/improving-transport/new-network/Pages/default.aspx
Hopefully post electrification and once integrated ticketing gets sorted then feeder services will become a reality.
“Person trips over the Harbour Bridge into the CBD”
Wow that must have been a very tall person!!!! 🙂
What a misleading picture that is. I count 15 rows of cars x 4 cars wide – each car can carry 4 passengers so that is 240 people. Must be a very clever bus that carries that many passengers 🙁
What a misleading comment that is, when we all know that average car occupancy never rises over 1.3-1.5. Even T3 lanes do little to change the overall occupancy levels.
So feel virtuous Phil – you can “correct” us all, and the image, by cutting off a small number of cars off the top of the leftmost image to account for the 1.3 factor instead of 1. And most people wouldn’t even notice the difference, because it would still be one bus, vs a ****load of cars…
So maybe there are 3 buses instead of 1. Point still stands!
In Auckland the average occupancy of a car at peak times is 1.2. For a bus it is 31.
So yes, to be accurate to our situation it should be two regular buses (although there are certainly buses that can carry 240 people).
Counted 35 cars on the motorway (both directions). Using average vehicle occupancy that is about 50 people. Meanwhile a 3 car EMU can carry 500 if required.
So could be 10 times as many people in EMU as in the cars.
Yes that is crush-load, but will sure come in useful at special events like Rugby Games and Concerts.
The picture of the street deserves some harsh criticism as it really is little more than a propaganda shot. When you think a little deeper you see that the space used up by standing vehicles has little to do with how anyone chooses to travel and only a bit to do with how planners address travel demand. Yes I know buses are good and I know what they can do but I also know what they have difficulty doing so the picture can’t be aimed at me. Joe Public isn’t going to choose a bus based on how many people you can fit inside one. In fact I would have thought it might put people off. If you have ever had to stand jammed in at the end of a hot day then the picture of the cars looks appealing as a travel option. So what is the point? Presumably to sit on the divider of someone’s open plan area at a Council so show the other staff how committed they are to the cause. If the point is buses have higher capacity than cars in a traffic stream well I would have thought that self evident. All I get out of the picture is to ask the question “Haven’t these people heard of street trees?”
No, the point of the picture is to demonstrate the sheer scale of the efficiency of buses to the public to garner suppor for better PT.
Perhaps they could do a similar poster without the vehicles but showing 50 people all crushed together and then 50 people all with some space around them for the bikes and cars and a caption noting how close you will have to be to 49 strangers if you ride the bus.
Sit on a seat next to another human sitting on a seat? Oh the horror! It’s like going to the movies, or a park, or seeing a show at the theatre, or any number of terrifying situations for the agoraphobe.
If only it were that good. Try sitting on a seat designed for someone with a hunch back with 1cm of foam, squeezed in by others with people jamming up the aisle squashed against each other in a metal box where some numpty let the bus company cover the windows with stickers you cant see out of, while a maniac drives round corners at high speed and is rude to you because you dont have exactly the money he expects. And for that privilege you get to wait in the rain. I am very pleased other people use the bus but personally I only use them when I plan on getting drunk or I am already drunk.
“Try sitting on…” I think you’ll find Nick already is a regular bus user. Seats not nearly as bad as you describe, and buses I use are often not nearly as crush-loaded as you have described. You’ve described the worst case scenario – crush loads and bad driver and all-over advertising (yeah I concede that sucks) and you’ve paid cash (heard of HOP?).
That’s like describing driving as typically being gridlocked because of multiple serious/fatal crashes along your route (rare but it does happen and has happened along Auckland’s motorways).
If we’re talking worst-case scenarios, personally, I’d take the crush-loaded bus rather than have people be regularly maimed and killed along my commute route.
“(heard of HOP?)” Yeah I am pretty sure that’s that thing I have been shelling out rates for more than ten or so years for them to set up ( does anyone understand why it cost so much or took so long or required three differnt names?). And now that they have the intention seems to be to require everyone to change buses at least once to justify it and to enable them to claim a better frequency of buses without actually adding any more. The idea being to run absolutely full buses on more parts of the network than just the bits close to town.
So you “shell[ed] out rates for more than ten or so years” but didn’t even use the card in the end? That’s just silly.
And I take it by not responding at all to any of my main points, you accept them all. Cool.
I thought Hop was your main point. I cant respond to how Nick travels, how overcrowded your bus is or what choice you would make. I accept not all buses are that bad just as I accept some trains are not absolute shit like the Thameslink I used to have to squeeze into at Wimbledon Station or the Northern line tube I used from Belsize Park. The problem is that transport agencies always have an incentive to reduce costs through not running enough units and because they get a significant income from funding agencies and advertisers etc and they have a monopoly on the service they know there is not much the passenger can do about it. they treat there passengers as raw material or a business input rather than as customers. I choose the car.
How could HOP have been my main point when I mentioned it once only, and then only in brackets? I can only conclude that you didn’t read my post very well.
My main point was you were using a worst-case scenario for bus travel and made like sound like that scenario was the norm. I compared it to a bad-case driving scenario and pointed that what happens on roads to people in cars is often and regularly far worse than what happens to PT users. Now you’re bringing up (anecdotal) worst-case scenarios in overseas trains that I’ve rarely used (I’ve travelled peak London tube just once, while on holiday) so I’m not sure how you expect me to respond.I thought we were talking about efficiency of road-space and, as a follow-on, experiences using different forms of road transport?
Terribly sorry Andrew. I forgot you had been elected to define the scope of the debate. My point is that PT degenerates to the worst case (just as roads tend to congestion) as a result of the operators incentive to cut costs. So yes I accept that PT is not always like that, hell sometimes they even run an empty bus the whole way so if you average it I guess you might conclude PT is great.
mfwic, there have been numerous discussions over the stickering of the windows and it’s something that annoys pretty much everyone here. I’m sure AT are aware.
I would rather sit on a crowded NEX bus than sit in my car stuck in traffic. And I love cars. On the other hand, I happened to get the double decker recently and that was a nice experience.
As for HOP, it hasn’t been 10 years, Snapper was pretty much forced on ARTA / AT and the roll out has been much quicker that many comparable schemes. Also, NZTA have paid for a good chunk of the total bill.
My only real complaint is with modern buses. Why are the seats so low, windows so high? The roof height could be much lower and the windows not go as high (reducing heat) and lower the windows in the body a bit more so people can see out.
Hi Bryce I totally agree with you on the windows. If you cant see it makes the whole trip feel like an ordeal and if I am honest for a moment (an give up the bait the PT people thing briefly) the poor view out is part of the reason I dont use buses. I have often got off a bus and felt ill from the motion, lack of view and lack of fresh air. I almost always choose the car now. On integrated ticketing the ARC made an allocation of 9.3 million in the 2003 land transport programme for the 03/04 year so the whole thing took longer than 10 years as there were studies before that.
I know it was discussed earlier but from memory it only got serious in 2008. Do you have a link to the ARC doc? Not doubting you but I just dont recall rhat.
But yes, I’d love for the old passenger bus to have a major revamp in basic design.
Bryce the spreadsheet I was looking at formed part of a financial model that wasnt part of the public document but its headings related to stated goals, sorry I cant find a copy of the 2003 RLTS as it probably died with the ARC website. But I do have a hardcopy of the 1998 draft RLTS on my shelf which lists in policy 28 “Establish an integrated ticketing system” (second bullet point.) So from 1998 to 2014 that 15 years!
It also serves to highlight how much terminal capacity is required for the different modes. All those single occupancy car trips need a space for people to park in at the end of the trip. From that perspective I’d say the image underestimates the amount of space required for cars (you need to factor manouvering space) and overstates the space required for buses who can drop off passengers and carry on through.