Friday, January 17, 2014

On Auckland Public Transport Priorities

In contemplating what needs to be done to improve Auckland's public transport, and in identifying where the highest priorities are for investment, it is necessary for Councillors and those "in charge" to consider many matters, and to be open to a change in thinking when circumstances change.

And they have.

One of the biggest changes to Auckland public transport planning has been Auckland Transport's decision to redesign Auckland's bus network. The implications of this are well illustrated and reported in the transport blog here and commented upon more recently here. When I was involved in PT planning at North Shore City Council and ARC I was made aware of the challenges to reorganisation presented by the particular PPP arrangements and contracts in place with private bus operators. This was so thorny that it all seemed intractable. As transport blog writers put it with AT's fast frequent bus network plan: "we have the opportunity for an absolutely revolutionary improvement to that often neglected, yet still utterly dominant, part of our public transport system – the buses...."

At risk of poking a somewhat sacred cow, I am now going to challenge the holy gospel of the central rail link project....

But first of all some holy writ to question:

  • Auckland's rail network is like Perth's, which can now carry 20,000 passengers/hour
  • The top priority for Auckland public transport is to build the central rail link

When he was Mayor of North Shore City Council, George Wood criticised me "because I wanted to destroy the Northern Busway project". I didn't want to destroy it, but I was critical of the route proposed (within the State Highway designation, instead of through Barry's Point edge of Takapuna, through Milford etc), and the location of large stations (especially Akoranga which is in the middle of nowhere). Maybe sometime in future the city will come to the busway, but for now, the busway is not a shaper of urban development (except perhaps at Sunnynook). That digression is here because I have a little history of taking on sacred cows.

When I was on ARC I was a regular questioner of the rail rationale. This was because, being numerate and being well-travelled and being analytical, I didn't readily adopt the beliefs of those around me who had strong beliefs - bordering on religious - in rail for Auckland.

Before I go on, let me say this this: I do accept that Auckland has rail corridors that carry freight and passengers, and that it is rational to use those pre-existing corridors and designations for public transport. But within reason.

Because there is this:

  • Auckland's rail network is like Perth's (same gauge) but there the similarity ends. The principle difference between Perth and Auckland is that Perth's rail network was built grade-separated from the road network. This means there are very few at grade intersections (between road and rail) requiring level crossings. In contrast, the large number of level crossings in Auckland's rail network presents a significant obstacle to delivering fast frequent services. And removing these comes at huge cost - see, for example - the cost of removing level crossings in New Lynn.
  • I believe that Perth's commuter rail network does not also carry freight services.
  • Auckland PT planners talk up the service level that can be expected in future on Auckland's electrified rail network. Sometimes - though rarely - service levels of 5 minute frequencies in future are mentioned. Given 6 car sets, with each car carrying 100 passengers, that means each train carries 600, which at 12 per hour is equivalent to a maximum carrying capacity of 7,200/hour - much less than Perth

Figures for the CBD Rail Link project vary between $2 billion and $3 billion. As councillors at ARC we were told that rail was very expensive compared with buses. But we pressed on. I pressed on as Chair of the Regional Land Transport Ctte. But I have never had satisfactory answers to my questions about rail carrying capacity, and network upgrade costs - especially the cost of grade separation of the rail network from the roading network in order for frequencies to get anywhere near the levels delivered in Perth.

And now, as of 2013, the bus network has been rationalised and replanned. It is to be a fast frequent network. While I agree that the CBD rail link designation should be obtained, so that the project can be built in future, I believe that Auckland Council needs to prioritise improvements to the roading network used for the fast frequent bus network - so that buses have priorities - especially at peak times. This is the most pressing and justifiable need for PT investment now.

Councillors would do well to ask Auckland Transport what PT service benefits could be expected, and gained, from the investment of $1 billion in Auckland's bus network - now that it has been rationalised - instead of/ahead of building the CBD rail link.

I can see that investment being used to plan and implement bus priority measures through the reallocation of road use on the network. I can see that perhaps Auckland Transport might purchase a a fleet of buses and establish a PPP to allow a new publicly owned operator onto one of the routes, to allow some comparative cost benchmarking with privately contracted operators, or it might go 50/50 in the capex of new buses with some operators in order to improve the quality and comfort of the service, and it can improve the quality of onstreet furniture (bus stops and shelters) to send the message out that this is about quality and customer service.

And a final thought. Thinking about liveability. If there is a genuine interest in delivering liveability throughout the region (not just those able to use the North Shore busway, or those benefitting from the rail corridors in the West and the South), then spare a thought for those in the South West and elsewhere with very poor levels of PT service.

Significant investment in the fast frequent bus network and services would benefit ratepayers and residents across the region. It would be egalitarian. Big ticket rail network upgrade and extension projects need to go on the back burner - not their planning - in the interests of debt management, borrowing for necessities, and not getting sucked into projects that might feel good bordering on religion, but fail to affordably provide the greatest benefit for the greatest number.

No comments:

Friday, January 17, 2014

On Auckland Public Transport Priorities

In contemplating what needs to be done to improve Auckland's public transport, and in identifying where the highest priorities are for investment, it is necessary for Councillors and those "in charge" to consider many matters, and to be open to a change in thinking when circumstances change.

And they have.

One of the biggest changes to Auckland public transport planning has been Auckland Transport's decision to redesign Auckland's bus network. The implications of this are well illustrated and reported in the transport blog here and commented upon more recently here. When I was involved in PT planning at North Shore City Council and ARC I was made aware of the challenges to reorganisation presented by the particular PPP arrangements and contracts in place with private bus operators. This was so thorny that it all seemed intractable. As transport blog writers put it with AT's fast frequent bus network plan: "we have the opportunity for an absolutely revolutionary improvement to that often neglected, yet still utterly dominant, part of our public transport system – the buses...."

At risk of poking a somewhat sacred cow, I am now going to challenge the holy gospel of the central rail link project....

But first of all some holy writ to question:

  • Auckland's rail network is like Perth's, which can now carry 20,000 passengers/hour
  • The top priority for Auckland public transport is to build the central rail link

When he was Mayor of North Shore City Council, George Wood criticised me "because I wanted to destroy the Northern Busway project". I didn't want to destroy it, but I was critical of the route proposed (within the State Highway designation, instead of through Barry's Point edge of Takapuna, through Milford etc), and the location of large stations (especially Akoranga which is in the middle of nowhere). Maybe sometime in future the city will come to the busway, but for now, the busway is not a shaper of urban development (except perhaps at Sunnynook). That digression is here because I have a little history of taking on sacred cows.

When I was on ARC I was a regular questioner of the rail rationale. This was because, being numerate and being well-travelled and being analytical, I didn't readily adopt the beliefs of those around me who had strong beliefs - bordering on religious - in rail for Auckland.

Before I go on, let me say this this: I do accept that Auckland has rail corridors that carry freight and passengers, and that it is rational to use those pre-existing corridors and designations for public transport. But within reason.

Because there is this:

  • Auckland's rail network is like Perth's (same gauge) but there the similarity ends. The principle difference between Perth and Auckland is that Perth's rail network was built grade-separated from the road network. This means there are very few at grade intersections (between road and rail) requiring level crossings. In contrast, the large number of level crossings in Auckland's rail network presents a significant obstacle to delivering fast frequent services. And removing these comes at huge cost - see, for example - the cost of removing level crossings in New Lynn.
  • I believe that Perth's commuter rail network does not also carry freight services.
  • Auckland PT planners talk up the service level that can be expected in future on Auckland's electrified rail network. Sometimes - though rarely - service levels of 5 minute frequencies in future are mentioned. Given 6 car sets, with each car carrying 100 passengers, that means each train carries 600, which at 12 per hour is equivalent to a maximum carrying capacity of 7,200/hour - much less than Perth

Figures for the CBD Rail Link project vary between $2 billion and $3 billion. As councillors at ARC we were told that rail was very expensive compared with buses. But we pressed on. I pressed on as Chair of the Regional Land Transport Ctte. But I have never had satisfactory answers to my questions about rail carrying capacity, and network upgrade costs - especially the cost of grade separation of the rail network from the roading network in order for frequencies to get anywhere near the levels delivered in Perth.

And now, as of 2013, the bus network has been rationalised and replanned. It is to be a fast frequent network. While I agree that the CBD rail link designation should be obtained, so that the project can be built in future, I believe that Auckland Council needs to prioritise improvements to the roading network used for the fast frequent bus network - so that buses have priorities - especially at peak times. This is the most pressing and justifiable need for PT investment now.

Councillors would do well to ask Auckland Transport what PT service benefits could be expected, and gained, from the investment of $1 billion in Auckland's bus network - now that it has been rationalised - instead of/ahead of building the CBD rail link.

I can see that investment being used to plan and implement bus priority measures through the reallocation of road use on the network. I can see that perhaps Auckland Transport might purchase a a fleet of buses and establish a PPP to allow a new publicly owned operator onto one of the routes, to allow some comparative cost benchmarking with privately contracted operators, or it might go 50/50 in the capex of new buses with some operators in order to improve the quality and comfort of the service, and it can improve the quality of onstreet furniture (bus stops and shelters) to send the message out that this is about quality and customer service.

And a final thought. Thinking about liveability. If there is a genuine interest in delivering liveability throughout the region (not just those able to use the North Shore busway, or those benefitting from the rail corridors in the West and the South), then spare a thought for those in the South West and elsewhere with very poor levels of PT service.

Significant investment in the fast frequent bus network and services would benefit ratepayers and residents across the region. It would be egalitarian. Big ticket rail network upgrade and extension projects need to go on the back burner - not their planning - in the interests of debt management, borrowing for necessities, and not getting sucked into projects that might feel good bordering on religion, but fail to affordably provide the greatest benefit for the greatest number.

No comments: