Last week Auckland Transport began consultation on the new network for West Auckland. I and many readers were highly critical of it as it seemed to ignore much of the network design philosophy and elements AT are implementing elsewhere and enshrined in the Regional Public Transport Plan. In particular the consultation sees a move away from the idea of a high frequency all day network that may require some to transfer to a network with lots of infrequent routes but may have not direct routes. The two different network design models are shown in the image below.
In most post I speculated the network proposed was a result of not having interchanges at Te Atatu and Lincoln Rd. It appears like that is exactly the case with AT now saying:
AT is redesigning the bus network across all of Auckland. Within each area, there are opportunities to improve public transport. However, the reality is that all changes will take time to implement, especially where major new infrastructure needs to be built, or where the cost of operating services will increase substantially. Both will require more ratepayer (Auckland Council) and taxpayer (New Zealand Transport Agency) funding than is currently budgeted.
For West Auckland, AT has taken the view that it is better to make as many improvements as we can afford to make in the next 2 years, to take advantage of the benefits electric trains will bring, rather than wait until all of the desirable infrastructure is in place.
The current proposal which is out for consultation is shown on the left-hand diagram below. On the right-hand diagram is the network we want to implement as soon as we have the necessary funding and consents to build interchanges at Te Atatu and Lincoln Rd, in anticipation of the long-term proposal to build a Northwestern Busway. We hope this clearly illustrates the benefits of the more frequent and better connected network that will be possible once the required infrastructure is funded and built.
To me the network on the right is so much cleaner and easier to understand as well as being more useful due to the higher frequencies. What’s clear is both AT and the NZTA need to urgently get on with sorting out the interchanges at Lincoln Rd and Te Atatu to enable the new network to properly implemented. I suggest that anyone submitting on the West Auckland Network highlight the need for the right hand image to become a reality.
Processing...
The key decision makers in AT clearly don’t live out west, otherwise it would be a different story.
Agree. So much simplier. 4 buses an hour really is a turn up and go system. I’ll be submitting.
Consultation without asking public transport users if they would prefer a RAIL SERVICE TO KUMEU? Is that consultation?
Consultation which, shortly after closure, already has PLANNED rail services terminating at Swanson in the weekends. Is that consultation?
How about AT truly ask the public transport users what they REALLY WANT? Not give them Hobson’s Choice.
Something needs to be done so the the public can be asked, DO YOU WANT RAIL SERVICES FROM KUMEU or Waitakere?
This consulation is a farce AT.
I want monorails with built in hot tubs and free cookies. THATS WHAT I REALLY WANT.
Jon
This would the same residents that clamoured for a rail service and when a trial one was put on 7 people a day used it! A nice idea, and what people will actually use, appears quite different.
Realist, the Helensville train attracted around 20-25 people regularly (sometimes 30+) when it first started. By comparison, the first Pukekohe train attracted about the same amount, 20-30 people regularly. This demonstrated the interest was there, and people in the area were indeed supportive of the trial, at the beginning. It was also very encouraging that most of those passengers came from cars, not the pre-existing bus service.
But the Helensville trial was poorly run, unadvertised, often late, sometimes cancelled with little or no notice, and poorly timed for Henderson and New Lynn workers (11 hours between morning and evening services, when most workers work 8 hours). Unlike Pukekohe, patronage went down, because nothing was done about any of those issues. It was cancelled not for lack of interest, but for being a poor operation. The fact is, patronage at the beginning matched Pukekohe’s beginning.
AT are seeking feedback for the new network, and they include the rail changes in their public brief for that new network. So the changes to Waitakere rail are regarded by AT as being part of the new network structure, so one would think that consultation covers both the road and rail components of the new network. BUT, they are implementing the first stage of the new network in December 2014 (cancelling Saturday trains to Waitakere) despite consultation only ending on December 1st 2014. This tells me that the new network consultation in regards to rail is an absolute sham. A foregone conclusion in which any feedback or submissions on Waitakere rail will be ignored.
That’s NOT what public consultation is supposed to be about. It’s supposed to be genuine, because it’s public money being spent to implement the new network. The public should have a say, and it should be genuinely listened to by AT.
In the long term plan, they need to synchronize the transit timetable.
The last thing people want is they arrived the transit, and realized the bus to city has just left and need to wait 15 minutes.
That’s exactly right and that’s why a lot of people are unhappy with this same model which has been implemented in Christchurch.
Nick R – Don’t worry, AT will never ask you what you want. They don’t care. You take what they give. The farce of the AT West Auckland consultation process is all about what they want to plonk on the region.
AT are effectively saying “Stuff the public transport users and what they want”. In fact, we’ll give them some options, but not the blindingly obvious option, rail from Kumeu.
AT wants you to have X and you will get X.
Public transport users have no real say.
I think it is actually about what they can afford to build and operate and where they get the best value for money with ratepayers money. AT have to deliver an efficient and affordable transit network to the whole region, they unfortunately can’t do everything everyone wants regardless of the costs or impacts.
Like my hot tubs and cookies, doesn’t matter if the public really really wants it because it’s just not a good spend of a scarce budget.
Nick R, they have not made any mention of that in their so called “consultation”, so I don’t believe it.
Consultation is about asking what public transport users want, not telling PT users what they have to have.
What’s more, they sneakily cut the Waitakere rail services without full public consultation. Pathetic.
Time the planners at AT are brushed to the side and the actual, real living public transport users had their say. AT is too scared to ask them clearly as they have LEFT THE RAIL OPTIONS OUT of the “consultation”.
Public transport users are the forgotten equation in the AT consultation process, or only paid lip service.
AT’s “stuff the actual users, get what you’re given” attitude in consultation needs to be roped in.
Damn sneaks. Not providing cookies and hot tubs without full public consultation. Pathetic. They should have asked the actual users if they want free cookies and hot tubs.
Time those foolish planners working to get the best outcomes out of their budget were brushed aside. Actually real living PT users like me should pick how we spend the budget, and I WANT MONORAILS WITH HOT TUBS AND FREE COOKIES!
Nick, rather than hot tubs and cookies, how about a simple bus service? Even one a day?
The two main areas of population beyond the Kumeu/Waimauku zone, are Muriwai (pop 2400) and Helensville (pop 2700). Those are two very similar sized populations, so why does the new network propose buses to Helensville, but not to Muriwai? I suspect it’s because “that’s how it’s always been”. Nobody designing the new network even thought of Muriwai, I’ll bet.
If trains ran to Huapai, you could run the bus Helensville-Huapai-Muriwai-Huapai-Helensville, connecting with trains at Kumeu. Helensville will still get its 2 hour frequency, but Muriwai will as well. This means the same number of buses will serve all 5100 residents, not just the 2700 at Helensville. That plus the massive growth planned for the Waimauku/Kumeu/Riverhead area will easily get 300 bums on train seats per day (by comparison, Pukekohe is to get TWO diesel shuttles for 500 passengers per day).
You are probably right Geoff, Muriwai doesn’t gain a new bus service in the New Network because it doesn’t have one now. Remember the New Network doesn’t add any cost or increase resources, it’s the same as current but redistributed. So they could take a bus and driver from somewhere else and use it to serve Muriwai instead. Where would you cut the service from?
Your scheme is far off the mark however, your bus doing the same only happens if you pay for a new rail shuttle with a 40km round trip. My question is if you did find some new subsidy, why not run eight or ten new buses for the money of running one train? The cheapest way to run a bus to Muriwai is to run a bus to Muriwai, not a bus from Muriwai to Huapai, then a diesel shuttle train from Huapai to Swanson, then an electric train from Swanson to wherever.
Not sure you are achieving anything by this tirade Jon. Consultation is a conversation that takes many facts and discussions into account. It also moved forward to solutions and action, rather than dithering around fussing over procedural correctness.
Asking “what do you want” in an open ended manner when the responses are going to be unrealistic or undeliverable is not consultation but misleading engagement.
Conversations on urban investment require a focus on common good, efficiency and viability, and -always- involve compromise. Not everyone can get what they want. Not every aspiration can or should be funded.
The factors around closing the Waitakere line have been rehearsed on ATB plenty already. While I for one believe in providing PT to future urban areas in advance of development in order to positively shape urban form, in this case i think your attachment to rail modality and procedural correctness is not going to help big picture outcomes.
I suggest the conversation has moved on, and most people are fine with that. Sorry if that’s harsh; I’m just getting very bored of the aggressive, inflexible tone you are taking here.
Uh doesn’t the Ritchies Transport Holdings 060 Helensville service service Muriwai, pretty sure it does last time I used it?
TimR. No tirade, just asking why was the rail option obviously left out? Did AT bother to ask the public transport users if they want it? Would others give up cars to use it to places in West Auckland? No is the answer.
I am not going to defend AT. I have never worked for AT. I have never been a consultant to AT. I am asking an objective question, why is the rail option, which was on the ARTA rail development plan suddenly dropped?
I know planners do their job. But on this occasion the poor public transport users, or potential users, have been served up 4 bus orientated options and the rail option simply vaporised. Simply not good enough AT and I will not back this floored, so called “consultation”, when it is clearly a sham to suit a couple of bus orientated planners who never actually got out of their offices and asked the living, breathing, public transport users “Would you like a faster train from Kumeu to Henderson, Glen Eden, New Lynn, Avondale of other places”?
TimR – rather than think you know better than all the people in Waitakere or Kumeu or West of that, why not ask them the question? You are coming across like one of the planners who dares never to actually ask the customers what they really want.
Speaking to real users has its benefits.
As my last comment was written from a seat on the 5.52 westbound I hope I can at least avoid accusations of being out of touch…..
That’s certainly not a claim to represent “everyone” out west. But let’s deal in facts:
– the Waitakere service was pretty poorly use in terms of actual head counts, despite a few good years for people to get used to it. Kinda reflects the lack of urban context around that part of the line. If you live in a field or the bush you’re highly inclined towards car use.
– bus is PT, and can be good quality as a service. Even though I live near the train line I regularly choose the bus over the train. If you foresee a day when the corridor beyond Swanson is dense enough to benefit from the additional cost of rail over bus then keep banging the drum…but I’m not convinced that’s what you’re really after.
So which suburb misses on on services to enable trains to Waitakere? The reality is there’s only a limited budget for PT services and while there needs to be services for people, the focus needs to be on spending that budget that will deliver the best overall outcome. That will certainly be on providing better frequencies to more developed areas within the main urban area.
“The reality is there’s only a limited budget for PT services”
That’s what the naysayers said when it proposed to buy the DMU’s. That’s what they said everytime each stage of the Auckland rail network upgrade was proposed. Thank goodness people with vision prevailed over those naysayers.
Those with vision are still here, proposing the next logical step in Auckland’s rail upgrade – making use of the already-owned diesel sets that the public paid $200 million to buy. The naysayers want rail ringfenced to Swanson and Pukekohe, and flick off the $200 million worth of trains we only bought in recent times to scrap yards or Africa.
It’s a shame this blog has joined those naysayers. Had their thinking prevailed 20 years ago, Auckland’s rail upgrades would have been stopped in their tracks and we wouldn’t have any passenger trains in Auckland today, let alone electric ones.
Sorry that is quite wrong Geoff. The DMUs saved money on opex. The EMUs and electrification are cheaper than renewing the DMUs.
It’s not $200m worth of trains because they paid that much for them in the 1990s. It’s $0 worth of trains, or in reality negative millions if you keep using them because they are a liability that need renewal and heavy maintenance. Are you aware of the concept of depreciation, or in simple terms how things wear out and break down?
You have noticed that we are replacing those trains right?
No Nick, the $200m of ‘new’ trains is from the 2000’s and 2010’s – the last payment for them having been made in 2013. It’s a huge investment in rolling stock we all made, and it was always the plan to make use of the fleet to expand the network, post-electrification. That is, until AT decided to ringfence the rail network at Swanson and Pukekohe. It’s clear they want no outer urban rail service for Auckland, like most other rail-served cities around the world, including Wellington, have.
Even this blog has called for outer urban trains south of Pukekohe, so perhaps its time for another article to be run, critical of AT’s decision to get rid of the trains it already owns that can enable those very services to be put in place?
The anti-rail brigade will be most happy to see all those refurbished SA cars go to the scrap yard or exported to Africa for a fraction of what we paid for them. Bit of a coup really, they couldn’t stop the core rail network upgrade, but preventing expansion of the network further afield looks set to be a success.
A shame you side with them Nick. You didn’t use to.
Geoff, try making an argument where you don’t talk about “anti-rail” brigades and taking sides (especially not to a group of the hardest working public transport advocates in Auckland!). That’s little more than empty emotive ranting, it’s hardly convincing o anything.
You’re contradicting yourself. You say AT are somehow against ‘outer urban rail’ in the same breath as pointing out they run trains to Pukekohe. You then refer, I think, to my recent post on the economics of Waikato rail services and call me part of an anti rail brigade?
There aren’t any brigades Geoff, most people don’t love or hate vehicles. It is a planners job to make rational decisions about services, benefits and expenditure. Some stack up, some don’t.
Let me tell you something about consultation. It’s a process of dialogue, both listening to the communities wants and preferences, and informing them of constraints and trade offs. It requires considering everyone’s views together and working through what is best overall. Will the listen to you in consultation, of course. Will they immediately do what you want by ignoring their budgets and their responsibilities to the whole community and the ratepayers, no.
Look up the word consult in a dictionary.
No anti-rail brigade Nick? Where have you been?! There are many vested interests, lobbies, politicians and media correspondents that have been very anti-rail and continue to be. Of course there’s an anti-rail brigade, it’s just plain bizzare to claim otherwise.
“You then refer, I think, to my recent post on the economics of Waikato rail services and call me part of an anti rail brigade?”
I said you are siding with them (on this matter), because you have just written that you have no objection to AT getting rid of the very fleet that enables the services you say you want. So, we have previously seen how you’ve gone from pro-northwest rail to anti-northwest rail, and now we’ve seen how you essentially support the scrapping of the diesel fleet, despite previously saying you want outer-urban diesel services. It seems to me you are indeed shifting your train of thought to one that is in line with AT’s policy makers, which is clearly that Auckland’s rail network is to be ringfenced to Swanson and Pukekohe.
“Let me tell you something about consultation. It’s a process of dialogue, both listening to the communities wants and preferences”
How do you reconcile this with AT’s intention to scrap Waitakere Saturday trains as part of the new network structure, before consultation of that new network structure has been completed, let alone considered? I put to you that AT have pre-determined the rail component of the new network, and will disregard any submissions anyone makes on the matter.
They are not worth $200 million now. How much will it cost to overhaul them to keep them in service? As you say they have depreciated in value. What is their book value as of now?
Geoff we currently do more to push for better PT than arguably anyone else in the city. Other than moan about services used buy a hundred people a day or about a daily pass used by about a similar number what else do you do to push for better PT?
Outer urban trains will carry a lot more than 100 people a day Matt.
Surely you can see that selling off the $200m of rolling stock we’ve only just finished paying for is confirmation that outer urban rail is unwanted by AT? Why do you attack me personally for pointing that out, especially when this very blog has called for outer urban trains in which retention of that rolling stock is essential?
You come on here and attack anyone who doesn’t agree with you as being in league with anti PT groups then claim you’re being attacked when challenged. Should we keep some of the SA sets for possible future expansion, maybe, should we keep all of them, definitely not, most of them are rubbish despite only being refurbished in the last decade.
Also lets be very clear, we see some potential for services south of Puke in the future but nothing north of Swanson anytime within the next few decades after which the SA sets will be useless anyway.
Why do you never answer questions when they are put to you. Which suburbs should have bus services cut so that Waitakere or Kumeu can have rail services for bugger all patronage
We aren’t selling the trains, not yet anyway, no decision has been made.
“Which suburbs should have bus services cut so that Waitakere or Kumeu can have rail services for bugger all patronage”
Ah I see, you regard advocacy as being about fitting in with AT funding policy. I.e., siding with AT, rather than remaining independent. That isn’t how advocacy is supposed to be. It discredits it to do so, so I won’t fall into that trap. Sorry to disappoint.
One could also reframe your question as “how many extensive bus services could have otherwise been provided, if we didn’t run trains?”. It’s a red herring line of questioning, and one you can only pose if you are advocating for AT themselves rather than their users.
It’s not siding with AT so much as siding with reality. OK, so if not with available funding, how do you fund it then? An extra rates increase? A special levy on Kumeu residents? Increased GST? Please do tell us how you would do it instead.
As for how many extra buses we could run if we didn’t have any trains, the answer is even less than we do now. We would have to spend far more carrying those train passengers by bus than by train, trains are very cost effective on busy trunk corridors. It would take eight or nine buses to replace a single short train, so we could afford to move less people overall.
However you need to understand that trains are far more expensive to run than buses, and if you don’t have the demands for eight or nine bus loads of people traveling down the same corridor at the same time, then your train is a giant money pit wasting resources better spent other ways.
You’d be lucky to get 50 people on each train, it would still be 7/8ths empty. Why do those people deserve to be subsidized at eight times the rate of everyone else.
You need to talk in terms of economic reality, otherwise you’re just another frothy train spotter.
So, put together your business plan and get back to us. I’ve got no doubt if you can make it stack up better than the other alternatives they will run the service.
(Nick wrote:) “OK, so if not with available funding, how do you fund it then?”
You may have noticed a long list of PT projects that are unfunded. You may have also noticed this blog on many occassions writing about how to fund them.
“You’d be lucky to get 50 people on each train, it would still be 7/8ths empty. Why do those people deserve to be subsidized at eight times the rate of everyone else.”
You just described Pukekohe trains. Pulled your support for them too? You also described Auckland suburban rail prior to the upgrades. Your argument is identical in every way to those advocates at the time who called for the complete scrapping of Auckland’s suburban rail network. But people with vision prevailed, took those low numbers, and proved the likes of yourself to be completely wrong.
“You need to talk in terms of economic reality, otherwise you’re just another frothy train spotter”
Pretty much word for word what the anti-rail brigade say.
Matt L… You guys protecting AT miss the point amazingly. Ask the users what sort of rail service THEY want as an option.
Surprised you guys protect AT over its extremely poor “consultation” practises.
I want trains every 2 minutes, perhaps I should submit on that. We can all demand whatever we want but that doesn’t mean it’s practical or will/can be done. You should also note I have been quite critical of them over the new network in the west due to the interchanges as per the previous post on the topic. In my view the best way to convince the powers that be to give more funding to PT is invest it wisely to get the best result (generally patronage).
Lastly how typical of you to attack us for not agreeing with you that there should be rail everywhere regardless of the cost, a great way to keep PT investment seen as a waste of money.
A few of you here overstate the success of the Helensville rail service trial – and understate the patronage. “A few good years to get used to it” was actually 18 months of incredibly unreliable and poor service. It really concerns current and potential public transport users in this high growth area to the West (wider Kumeu) that our transport options are actually being reduced in this network redesign, because rail to Huapai which was on Public Transport Plans up until very recently is now kicked for touch – along with a retraction of services from Waitakere. We must be the only communities in Auckland that actually face a deterioration in transport choice and modal options while PT improves elsewhere. We’ve got almost 3000 new homes coming in SHAs, another 1000 homes currently being built in the townships of Huapai and Riverhead, significant peripheral development, we’re now included in the “RUB”, and of course increasing transport volumes. We’ve even got rail stations and surplus rolling stock. There seems to be some sort of modal bias or blindness against rail to Huapai despite the logic behind it. And it’s not because of ‘budget cuts’. It’s because of politics. And personally I’m not holding my breath for the promised nirvana of a busway or Lincoln Rd interchange. Just look at the Govt’s response to the transport funding options.
…why make existing infrastructure defunct in the hope of millions being spent on alternatives in the future? Is that good resource use?
Are you holding your breath for the promised nirvana of a railway?
The railway already exists, and could be used to provide reliable service for a few million. The busway will cost tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions. The railway could be in use within months. The busway is many years away, probably decades away.
The railway could be in use in months… If we allocated tens of millions to fix the track and stations, build staff facilities, refurbish the trains and heavily subsidise every hour of operation of every day.
What is the cost per passenger trip, $200 each?
I don’t see why we’d need to refurbish tracks and stations given that they’re already there – in fact Waitakere has had significant work on the station and car park, Huapai has a new station, barely used. Doesn’t existing recent investment count for something? Catching the train from Waitakere out of interest on the odd occasion will never give you a fair or accurate idea of actual use. Some bus services are indeed an inferior option (as a user of both) because of the lack of comfort, and crazy long route
Christine, you noted above that the trial service was incredibly unreliable, yet question why they would need to invest in the rolling stock and infrastructure?
What exists is a dilapidated single track freight line. To run a regular and reliable passenger service requires extra investment. For example, you would need to operate two trains to give a basic hourly service that can keep to timetable. You also need a third train as a spare to cover maintenance rotations and backup for breakdowns. That’s three trains to refurbish right there.
You need some way to pass those trains on the single track, particular at either end where you would routinely either need to bring one train into the station before the previous one has departed, because of the need for layover to give robustness to delays, or the need to clear the main line so that freight trains can pass. So that means two rebuilt stations with extra tracks and platform spaces at the termini. And because you have staff with the same labour rights as the rest of us, you need to install toilets and staff facilities.
Like Matt says just because there is an old track out there and some clapped out trains doesn’t mean you can immediately run a passenger service. You could get one or two runs a day like the old trial with that, but you can’t run a regular, reliable and useful service.
Personally I think we are ten or twenty years away from enough demand to consider the investment required, despite all the talk of SHAs the actual change won’t be much in the next few years. A major part of. Problem is that a rail route would be very indirect and slow to get where most people from Kumeu-Huapai are actually going. The census data tells us that of the residents that leave the area for work, only a few percent are going to destinations in west Auckland. The vast majority are going to the North Shore or the City Centre and fringe. The old freight line does nothing for the former, and would be far slower than either driving or the bus for the latter.
All the good will and emotive language in the world can’t erase change that, or the cost.
Just because tracks and stations exist doesn’t mean they’re in suitable condition for passenger operations
We’ve already got a railway line and rolling stock, that’s the difference
Hi Christine – to be clear, my reference was to the Waitakere service, which clearly was in existence for a few years….. On the Helensville trial, what was the actual patronage?
There was encouraging initial support for the rail service, but after repeated trains running early, late, or not at all, patronage of course declined. There were a few of us that stuck with it through thick and thin, but patronage was a real victim of a poorly run service, not one that was unwanted.
Yes it was a victim of delays etc. but the people to blame for that are the politicians who pushed it to go ahead while the western line was in the middle of being completely rebuilt.
It’s a pity we can’t string an SHA along a railway to Muriwai and points in between.
The CRL – “bringing the beach , within reach”.
Long Bay, Millwater and pretty much 99% of the “planned” car-centric developments in this town must make more sense, I guess.
Rail to Waitakere is just a complete waste of money, to serve barely 100 people a day. I have been to Waitakere several times on the train (more for curiosity than anything) and each time literally 2 or 3 people are alighting/boarding each service. I get there may be more at peak hours (I never went peak), but even then it wouldn’t be more than a handful on each service. I’m pro-rail, pro-PT but there comes a point when sometimes things are just not economic enough to maintain, and maintaining a service for the sake of maintaining a service is rediculous. There are probably several other stations on the network that don’t do much better patronage-wise, however they’re not terminus stations that require a costly extension.
Besides,I don’t see why bus is seen as an inferior option?
Not Waitakere aucklanderinaus, Kumeu – the diesel shuttle plan was always for Kumeu. ARTA modelling in 2010 estimated the shuttle would attract up to 300 from Kumeu (so 400 including Waitakere). By comparison, Pukekohe generates only 500 with multiple diesel trains running with even higher costs (twice the distance).
AT have framed the issue as being about Waitakere, as it’s easier to justify canning the shuttle plan if you can quote 100 instead of 400.
In what year Geoff? Most model outputs are ten, twenty or thirty years ahead. What were the equivalent Pukekohe figures at the same time?
Simple fact is Pukekohe has four times the population than Kumeu-Huapai, and the train is faster and more direct than either driving or busing to the major destinations in Auckand. It is not the same for Kumeu, because the motorway is far more direct across the causeway while the old freight line runs sideways over to Swanson before running further out of the way via Henderson and new Lynn. So you are starting from a pool of customers a quarter the size, and only giving them a useful service to a location where a few percent actually want to go. There is no comparison.
“Simple fact is Pukekohe has four times the population than Kumeu-Huapai”
Irrelevant, as Kumeu-Huapai has more commuters travelling to Auckland than Pukekohe. There’s far more traffic streaming through Kumeu each morning than there is leaving Pukekohe. Most Pukekohe residents work and study in Pukekohe.
Kumeu is going to be the next Botany. It saddens me that PT advocates actually want to replicate the “Botany Solution” in this day and age, after all the lamenting over that out-dated thinking. How many times have we seen that car park photo of Botany on this blog? But hey, let’s develop Kumeu in the same way, and ignore the railway right in the middle of town. One can only assume Nick, that if a railway had existed at Botany when development began there, you would want it disused in 2014.
After all, there’s no shortage of 4 and 6 lane arterials in Botany to run all those buses on.
Yes, if Botany had a rail line that went the wrong way over to Whitford before curling round to Papakura I would have exactly the same response: huge cost, tiny patronage potential, far better ways to deliver PT to Botany.
Not sure where you are getting your claimed figures from, but the census data shows more people leave Pukekohe each day for work than leave all of the Rodney board area.
The railway line doesn’t go the wrong way, it is faster than by road to Henderson and New Lynn, and similar to road to the city, especially post-CRL.
Perhaps you would rather the Western Line be cut back to Avondale. After all, the indirectness of it from Swanson to the CBD, is west of there. Nobody in their right mind would take such an indirect route from Henderson to the CBD, looping around through New Lynn, and then heading to Newmarket.
Get ’em on the motorway eh Nick? Much faster, much more direct!
Even if you got every single last commuter in the entire Rodney area (from the Waitakere Hills to the Kaipara) who said they travelled to Henderson or New Lynn in the last census to take the train, you’d barely fill one train across the whole day.
Henderson to CBD via the motorway is also indirect, unlike Kumeu there is no highway running directly into town, so not sure what your point is there. Likewise the motorway from Avondale is indirect too.
I do wonder sometimes if they should cut rail service to Henderson however, it is well placed for a collector interchange.
“Even if you got every single last commuter in the entire Rodney area (from the Waitakere Hills to the Kaipara) who said they travelled to Henderson or New Lynn in the last census to take the train, you’d barely fill one train across the whole day”
You mean like how the 500 Pukekohe passengers each day will just about fit into one train across the whole day (two at most)?
Yet you (presumably) want to throw another $120m at Pukekohe (not including trains or signalling).
You see, it’s not about current numbers Nick, it’s about having a vision for how people travel in the future, ensuring TOD from day 1.
No I was talking about the potential market. If we do the same for Pukekohe and imagined we could get every commuter headed to destinations up the southern line, it’s enough to fill thirteen trains. So yes, some thirteen times the user base to grow from.
If we want to talk about actual observed patronage, the figure I have for the number of daily users from Huapai and Kumeu together was 9. That’s barely enough to fill a station wagon.
Why do you say 9, when the start of the trial had 20-30 each morning, with actual numbers varying anywhere from 10 to 50? I’m guessing you are doing what AT did, and choosing one of the worst days from the later days of the trial, after most users had abandoned it after being burned by poor service once too often?
ARTA modelling shows 100-300 passengers per day from Huapai, depending on which service option is chosen. For a single diesel shuttle, 300 would be better patronage than Pukekohe’s 500 being catered for by the proposed dual-shuttle.
Just reporting the patronage survey figures, I haven’t picked or chosen anything. The table says 1+8 for the two stations. I see however that you are also quoting the same average figures, and not the thousand or so out of Pukekohe on the busiest days?
Jon, it is clear you are passionate about this (it is a shame you didn’t stand in Helensville rather than Hunua at the last election, where you could have made an issue of it). May I make a few suggestions:
– Make a submission stating that rail would be a better option for these areas. Go and engage the people in Waitakere/Kumeu/Huapai/Waimauku to do the same. If there is a big demand for it and that is reflected by a large number of submissions on it, it will be difficult for it to be ignored even if rail isn’t specifically part of the consultation.
– If I was someone receiving the submissions, I’m likely to be much more moved by well made points which explain what the submitter is getting at, than by a rant which tells me why I’m an idiot for not having considered something in the discussion document. For the sake of those of us who might also be interested to see the idea happen and don’t want it written off from the outset as something coming from a group of angry activists who won’t listen to reason, please try and be constructive in your submission if you make one.
– If at some stage in the future it does get done, please don’t harangue the local MP about the government’s lack of support for other projects at the opening – surely we want the politicians to leave with a positive view of public transport, rather than a hostile one, and we want them to be associating public transport with regular people rather than angry activists.
AT will get submissions on northwest rail for sure, but will they listen? All the evidence indicates they will ignore rail submissions made through the new network consultation round.
The one thing that gets me is there’s no improvement to the 1 bus per hour on the right, surely it should be 4 buses per hour and then 2 buses per hour on the smaller ones, especially the Rosebank-Henderson one. Also why doesn’t the western consultation cover new north road buses such as 220-223 (224 is the only one changing).
Why would there be? Remember it’s exactly the same resources, same buses and drivers from one to the other. They’re no saying they’ll pay to run more buses because they’ve put an interchange, just that they can run the ones they have much better if people can connect between them.
New North Rd is probably covered when they do the central consultation.
My take on some of the background to this..
* For the next ‘x’ years any rail service from Swanson-Waimauku/Huapai is going to be diesel,
* The ADL’s could possibly cover these for a portion of that (I haven’t been on one in ages when up north so don’t know how bad they are, but as a former J’ville line user know that you can keep sets running way longer than the ‘economic life’ suggests),
* Experience from the 1 service per day per direction trial shows that doing this is setting it up to fail,
* If you get enough users, your choices eventually become modernise properly or cut it and patronage normally rules out option 2,
* There is enough growth planned for this area that PT option are going to be needed,
* Pukekohe services show a possible way to grow the service to the point where electrification is an option
So for now I would see a 1/2 hourly peak service to Swanson as potential way to go, ideally these would go to Britomart, but this is unlikely in the short term given AT’s desire to only run EMU’s in the electric area. Funding will be the biggest issue and this is where it could all fall down, but getting a service up and running, more than 1 a day has to be the way to go. The advantage of using ADL’s is that it could be run as a 2 car set rather than 4-6 car SA, as well as forcing the decision to modernise further if patronage is sufficient to ensure viability – somewhat sneaky, but the limited lifespan of the ADL’s could be used to the services advantage here). As more is developed out that way, look to extend it, increase the double track section and then start talking about electrifying. Incremental growth rather than going straight to the end solution, which would be EMU’s running to Britomart will be the best way to succeed.
Getting the $$ to get a viable service though is the hard thing, especially in light of the funding gap – though the list of these includes some low value options that could be discarded. Till the $$ are available to be given for a service that would be useful (i.e. more than the Helensville trial) though, this is probably one that will have to wait. it might be that this is the sort of project that the full roll out of the New Network, EMU’s and integrated fares shows to be possible as these three will all increase patronage, hopefully to the point where expansion is looked upon favourably.
Henderson Valley and Waiatarua residents lose there bus service entirely under the proposed changes. How is this an improved service?
Geoff, you are fighting against a brick wall with Nick R and Matt L cemented in their corners, which councidently is the same as AT’s since they sneakily droped Kumeu off the previous ARTA rail development plan in 2013.
I think the pt users should be asked, do you want a faster rail alternative to Henderson, New Lynn, Glen Eden, Avondale, than the propsed 4 bus options.
Sure, ask that, but only also if you ask how they want to pay for it, or what else the would cut to run it.
I think modal bias on both sides. Plus a fundamental argument between economic “dries”, and populists, both of whom have worthwhile points of view to bring to the table. There are good case studies overseas that could be used to back either argument.
The current New Zealand political climate favours roads and buses, and that cannot be ignored if we want to follow a path of least resistance to better PT as a whole.
I must say however that I am surprised that there hasn’t been the same passion to extend the Northern Busway as there has been for the North-west Busway. The area from Albany through to Orewa is starting to fill fast. Looking at the roading networks, I can see some major congestion issues for buses getting to and from the main motorway in future without at least some designations in place for bus lanes or busway corridors, ditto the motorway itself. In terms of timing, I believe that within 20 years, this whole area is going to be built out, and potentially really messy to try to retrofit decent PT. So guys, what are your thoughts?
I have friends who live in Huapai. They would far prefer the direct express busway route along the motorway, for their daily commute. To them the train via swanson, henderson etc. seems too round about. They said with Westgate coming online they would have even less reason to go to Henderson. In fact they currently shop on the shore in preference to Henderson.
Wayne, I live in Huapai too, and that may well be the views of some, but not all. Matt L, the problem with the Helensville rail service wasn’t that the Western Line was being rebuilt – it was that the service itself was run so badly. There’s no excuse for trains leaving the station before their scheduled time. There was definitely a fault in running only one service each way at either end of the day though. let’s revert to the long planned hourly or two hourly service. That will do us.
When things go wrong with trains or the infrastructure a lot of times it seems to be a case of inconveniencing a few people to reduce the inconvenience for a few hundred or thousand others. Not ideal for those affected but the fault lies with what was going wrong (primarily issues related to the rebuild).
Also one train a day is rubbish l but again it’s a case of working within the funding set by the politicians to get the best outcome. Running more trains would almost certainly have meant reduced frequency or capacity elsewhere on the network. Again do you put resources into making rail an option for a handful or two of people of making it an option for a few hundred or a few thousand extra people.
Someone create a plan for a dense Huapai/Kumeu town centre with 50-60k residents and you can probably have a busway and the rail line. As it sits right now, planning has to be done for the greater need. With the potential of a NW FTN, not to mention the Westgate-Albany route, buses from Kumeu/Huapai is the best option to be pursuing in my opinion.
Hi Christine. Good to see you on here.
I think the Huapai station should be a mini hub for the further west bus services to pull into allowing for transfer to rail for those passengers not wanting to go to Britomart. At least rail is faster than any of the proposed new bus services from Kumeu to Henderson, Glen Eden, New Lynn etc…
I seriously believe that the planners and AT consultants need to be put to the side and the actually pt users out there asked the question something like “Do you want option 5 – faster transport to Henderson etc.. using a rail service”? It is just so obvious that Nick R and just a couple of others on here are playing the AT line, possibly because he has a vested interested in serving Auckland Transport. But we must not allow him to hijack the process which should involve the public transport users, and not the lip service which this farce of a consultation is.
AT – Why did you quietly and sneakily drop OPTION 5 – Rail shuttles from Kumeu?
I have no vested interests other than wanting my rates and taxes to be spent well. Can you please advise how AT can pay for it without cutting services to other parts of the region.
Note the planners are working within the budget they have been set, they don’t control the level of funding.
My only vested interest is my professional integrity. This cuts both ways you know. I have to laugh at your comment, the hardest part of my job is constantly having to defend evidence based research and impartial analysis against the preconceived ‘party lines’ of various transit agencies around Australasia.
As much as I love Auckland, and as much as I love trains, it would be both unprofessional and counterproductive for me to say they are always the best option even when they are not, just because I personally want to have more of them in my home town.
Indeed Nick, but note you are referring to yourself – “I this”, “I that”. The point trying to be made is that AT and its contractors should be listening to the people, rather than themselves. How can the new network consultation be legitimate when it excludes the rail changes, i.e., they are being pushed through without any chance of the public having a say?
AT’s job is to listen to what the users and potential users have to say, then draw up the plans and budgets around that consultation outcome.
You don’t accept the government’s PT budget, so why accept AT’s? Lobbyists should be chasing what the public say they will use, and if there’s a funding shortfall, lobby for those unfunded projects anyway, because keeping the pressure up is the only way they’ll get done.
The CRL is currently unfunded. Does that mean, oh well, no CRL, let’s just plan the new network without it? NO!
Geoff might pay to come back to what we are actually talking about here. This is the New Network, an operational plan to be implemented over the next 18 months. It’s a cost-neutral thing, it uses only the existing network resources and nothing more. It does indeed ignore the CRL and all major infrastructure, and yes the network has been specifically designed without it… because those are neither operations nor likely to be built by the end of next year. As you can see above it can’t even assume a couple of interchange stations in the short term.
If you are upset about the strategic direction and the long term plans (aren’t we all?) then that is quite unrelated to the present issue.
Are you so sure that AT should only do what they hear from the people? Because 80% of them say we should get rid of all public transport funding entirely and build more motorways and more parking. I completely disagree with you that it is ATs role to just do what the people want, especially not without any discussion of the costs, implications or trade offs.
Sure ask people if they want a train for Kumeu to Swanson, but at the same time ask them if they want an extra $250 added to their rates each year as a result, or if they are happy to have all buses past Westgate cut from the network instead, or however you plan to make it happen. Ask them that, do we keep the express buses to town and have an hourly all-day bus to Westgate, or do we have a two-hourly train to Swanson instead of both? It’s not rocket science, but it’s not a land of free money and unlimited choice either. If they come back and say “we want it all and we don’t want to pay extra or give up anything” then that’s simply an untenable position.
I think we are all feeling the frustration of an uneven playing field here in comparison to certain roads which appear to have a high-pressure hose of unlimited money poured on them. No questions asked either before the contracts get signed, or after………..
Compared to many (most/all) other western countries, New Zealand is a really tough environment for rail in general, and also PT as a whole.
I’m still shocked that the last Minister of Transport canned the Northern Busway extention. Those that have managed to survive professionally in the New Zealand PT scene are generally doing a good job in a tough environment.
To me this looks like exactly the same thing we are arguing with Ecan over a hubs and spokes model, where the hubs are really close together. That seems to be the model you are campaigning for. Now I would just make it clear that hubs should not be closer than 10 km. Splitting a 5 km route into half into two segments of 2.5 km each is really inconvenient for a lot of people because of having to spend time waiting for the next bus they can transfer to. I look at your map and you are saying people should transfer at Te Atatu to a different bus for the last kilometre of their journey to henderson (or first kilometre if going the other way). Never mind if they might have to wait 15 minutes or half an hour for the bus they are transferring to. After all public transport users don’t have any others so we don’t have to make it convenient for them.
Oh but it “looks nice” LOL.
Why would they have to wait half an hour if the bus operates 15 minute frequencies or better all day. Average wait will be less than 7.5 minutes. Also, for the trip that you talk about it would be very rare to be transferring at Te Atatu to get to Henderson.
You might be reading the map wrong Patrick. The only route you’d have to transfer from get to Henderson is the one on the motorway, and all the suburbs along that motorway have another direct bus to Henderson anyway.
In any case, waiting for an hour for a direc service is hardly convenient. I’d much rather connet between 15 minute seevices.
There needs to be some clarification of facts regarding the proposal to operate a diesel rail shuttle between Swanson and Huapai, as some of the opponents of this proposal are basing most of the reasoning and arguments on incorrect facts. Some inside information from someone in the know is really needed in this debate and this is as follows:
The objective of the New Network is to provide a better network and service using the same resources. In terms of resources, there is already a railway line in place between Swanson and Huapai, complete with stations at Waitakere and Huapai which in their current form, are ready to use right now to operate an hourly diesel shuttle using just one ADL diesel multiple unit.
The 10 existing ADL units are being kept for the Papakura-Pukekohe rail service. With a National government winning the general election this year, there is little likelihood of funding for electrification to Pukekohe being forthcoming in the immediate future, meaning there will be a fleet of ADL units kept with all their associated servicing and maintenance. All 10 would not be needed to operate the current proposed service frequency for Pukekohe services, meaning 2 could be very easily made available to operate a Huapai rail service.
The ADL units are currently being evaluated by AT for the extent of upgrade they will require, i.e. either a ‘tart up’ similar to what they had in 2002/3 or a full rebuild including engines. A decision is to be made in December.
An hourly rail shuttle service could be provided between Swanson and Huapai using just two ADL units as they are now un-refurbished (one to operate the service and one kept spare in the Henderson depot) – meaning no new additional costs.
The track, signalling and stations between Swanson and Huapai are fit for purpose as they are now to operate an hourly service. No changes would need to be made, no new additional money would need to be spent.
Operationally, one ADL diesel train is all that is needed to run a regular hourly service between Swanson and Huapai. The rail journey from Swanson to Huapai takes 20 minutes each way, which leaves ten minutes dwell time or catch up time for any delays at each end of the journey to operate a regular hourly service from each end.
Any freight trains can be timed to cross the passenger service using the crossing loop at Waitakere station.
If patronage levels exceed the capacity of one ADL diesel unit, two units could be coupled up together to provide double the capacity and still be able to operate the service in the same manner with no other changes to infrastructure or expenditure needed.
No new staff facilities need to be built. Train crews could swap between the electric services and diesel shuttle services at Swanson, meaning the crews operating the Huapai service would be constantly rotating and would have their breaks in Britomart or Henderson depot. The staff facilities at Waitakere station are also available should a staff member need to go to the toilet. If found to be needed, a Portaloo and small portacom could be provided at Huapai station. Similar facilities are provided at other depots around the network and are much cheaper than building new permanent facilities.
Many more people would use the train service in this part of West Auckland if it were to be extended from Waitakere to Kumeu/Huapai where it is on the main road through this area (State Highway 16) and would be much more viable, accessible and user friendly with a regular reliable hourly service (which will be possible operating with an ADL unit between Swanson and Huapai).
The proposed W64 bus service between Waitakere station and Swanson station will be very poorly used, if at all. People will not drive their cars to Waitakere station to wait for a bus, to take them more slowly than the train over to Swanson where they will have to hop off and then wait for an electric train. Operating the proposed bus service to Waitakere in this manner will be a waste of money, which would be better spent on a diesel rail shuttle to Huapai, which local people want and will actually use. I know a few people in this area and all have said the same thing – they will use a train service to Huapai, but not the bus which runs on the same roads that they can drive their own car on.
The proposed W78 bus service between Huapai and Westgate should be scrapped and the money currently being allocated to fund this should be put towards operating an hourly diesel rail shuttle between Huapai and Swanson. The W79 bus service between Helensville and Westgate would provide an adequate bus service for those wishing to travel from Huapai to Westgate, and it could be timed to connect with train services at Huapai.
The previous Helensville rail service trial was not a success because it was only one service in the morning and one in the evening, meaning it was not user friendly in terms of service choice and if you missed the train or the train was cancelled, there were no more services. The timings of this service and the lack of services, meant it was not a success. ARTA did not promote the service or make changes or provide additional services to help increase its appeal.
The Pukekohe service started off with similar humble beginnings but more services were put on and they were more reliable and well advertised, and patronage has now grown to the extent where AT are proposing to remove bus services between Papakura and Pukekohe in favour of more rail services.
A regular hourly service to Huapai operated as described above would be cheaper to run with a single ADL unit than a SA train that was used for the previous Helensville service, and would be successful and could easily be built on and developed, if implemented in the manner described above.
Well written Insider, thanks!
This would be fantastic.
It is seriously needed between these two fast moving locations.
Please introduce the run because I lived at one and currently the other location of which I rely on public transport minus AT issues like staff & health. Lastly, inter-change hubs to connect with, example, Henderson or Westgate for bus or train.
Consideration is needed please.
The run would be awesome