Feeder Bus and Bus Network Design Thread

[kaiwhara]

Post moved.

Anyway this is a thread about the bus network guys.

[Rolls-Royce]

Hi Nick R, Matt L, jarbury - some recommended changes to some bus routes for you to consider:

Firstly, introducing a new 'Eastern link' and 'Southern link' bus service in East and South Auckland, similar to the popular and well-recognised new inner and outer link bus services. More of these 'link' type loop services should be rolled out to other parts of Auckland.

In addition bus services across Auckland need to be rerouted to provide local loop or feeder routes connecting with the nearest railway station or ferry terminal, rather than having bus routes running parallel routes to train routes. Trains and ferries should be used to provide the main services into the Auckland CBD, with local bus routes feeding into and connecting at various railway stations along the route of train routes.

All bus routes should have a minimum service frequency of hourly services between 7am to 7pm Monday to Saturday.

- Introduce a new Eastern link bus route in East Auckland.

With the new busways being developed in East Auckland and the new bus/train interchange being developed at Panmure railway station, a new Eastern link bus service should be introduced to link Panmure railway station, Panmure town centre, Pakuranga Plaza, Half Moon Bay ferry terminal, Highland Park shopping centre, Howick town centre, Meadowlands shopping centre, and Botany town centre together with one loop service running in both directions.

The route should run from Panmure railway station east along Queens Road, Church Crescent, Pakuranga Bridge, Pakuranga Road, Fortunes Road, Prince Regent Drive, Ara-Tai Road, Sunderlands Road, Bucklands Beach Road, Pakuranga Road, Ridge Road, Cook Street, Whitford Road, Millhouse Drive, Botany Road, Ti Rakau Drive, Pakuranga Road, Pakuranga Bridge, Church Crescent, Queens Road to Panmure railway station.

- Introduce a new Southern link bus route in South Auckland.

With the introduction of the new Onehunga and Manukau train services, a new Southern link bus service needs to be introduced linking Onehunga railway station/Onehunga town centre, Mangere Bridge town centre, Mangere town centre, Auckland Airport, Papatoetoe railway station/Old Papatoetoe town centre, Manukau railway station/Manukau shopping centre, Otara town centre, Otahuhu town centre, Otahuhu railway station, Mangere East, Favona and Onehunga railway station/Onehunga town centre.

This route which would connect all the main centres in South Auckland along the most common travel routes should run south from Onehunga railway station along Onehunga Mall, Neilson Street, State Highway 20, Coronation Road, McKenzie Road, Bader Drive, Mascot Avenue, Massey Road, Richard Pearse Drive, Airpark Drive, George Bolt Memorial Drive, Tom Pearce Drive, George Bolt Memorial Drive, Andrew Mckee Avenue, Lawrence Stevens Drive, Puhinui Road, Wyllie Road, Saint George Street, Carruth Road, Lambie Drive, Ronwood Avenue, Davies Avenue, Manukau Station Road, Great South Road, Reagan Road, Preston Road, Bairds Road, Great South Road, Station Road, Walmsley Road, Mangere Road, Massey Road, Buckland Road, Robertson Road, Favona Road, Mahunga Drive, State Highway 20, Onehunga Harbour Road, to Onehunga railway station on Onehunga Mall.

- Replace the current 392 bus route between Auckland CBD and Onehunga with a new Onehunga local loop service.

The 392 bus service is poorly used and the route it serves has been largely replaced by the much more popular and well used Onehunga train service between Britomart and Onehunga via Te Papapa.

A new local Onehunga bus service could connect with the Onehunga train service at Onehunga railway station and should run along the following anti-clockwise route: commencing from Onehunga railway station east along Princes Street, north along Galway Street, east along Church Street, north along Victoria Street, east along Mt Smart Road and Station Road, west along Walls Road, north along Rockfield Road, west along Oranga Avenue, north along Rawhiti Road, west along Campbell Road, south along Moana Avenue, west along Tawa Road, south along Onehunga Mall, west along Grey Street, north along Quadrant Road , west along Trafalgar Street, south along Pleasant Street, east along Beachcroft Avenue and Church Street, south along Selwyn Street, east along Princes Street to Onehunga railway station.

- Slightly reroute the 302, 304, 305, 312 and 315 bus routes between Royal Oak and Onehunga.

The 302, 304, 305, 312 and 315 bus routes should be rerouted slightly between Royal Oak and Onehunga to instead run from the Royal Oak roundabout along Mount Smart Road and along Onehunga Mall rather than along Manukau Road and Trafalgar Streets. The reason for this is to even out the number of bus services running along Manukau Road and Trafalgar Streets and to provide regular bus services along sections of Mount Smart Road and Onehunga Mall which don't currently have bus services.

Manukau Road and Trafalgar Street will still continue to be served by the 008, 010 and 011 bus routes, as well as the proposed new Onehunga local loop service route replacing the existing 392 bus route.

- Slightly reroute the 580 bus route between Manukau and Howick.

The 580 bus route between Manukau and Howick needs to be slightly adjusted to simplify and improve its route in conjunction with the proposed new Eastern link bus route.

The route of the 580 along Middlefield Drive, Baverstock Road, Kensway Drive and Stancombe Road needs to be replaced by the 500 bus route which could instead run along these roads. The 580 bus should remain on Chapel Road along its entire length and no longer run along Botany Road and Millhouse Drive, which would be served by the proposed new Eastern link bus route. The 580 would rejoin its existing route to Howick at Whitford Road.

- Reroute the 589 bus route between Botany and Beachlands/Maraetai to run insted from Manukau railway station to Beachlands/Maraetai via Ormiston Road.

The 589 bus route between Botany and Beachlands/Maraetai needs to be rerouted to run insted from the new Manukau railway station to Beachlands/Maraetai via Ormiston Road. This route would provide Beachlands and Maraetai residents with a much better public transport service and options with a connection with the train service at Manukau along with connecting bus services across South Auckland, as well as the Manukau shopping centre. The route along Ormiston Road will run through the future new Ormiston town centre, as well as the Botany South shopping centre on Te Irirangi Drive. Such a service will also provide residents in South Auckland with public transport to the popular Maraetai Beach. This route would make this bus service much more attractive and popular to more people.

The 589 bus route should run along Ormiston Road, Te Irirangi Drive, Great South Road, Ronwood Avenue, Davies Avenue, Manukau Station Road, Great South Road, Te Irirangi Drive, Ormiston Road and onwards to Whitford, Beachlands and Maraetai.

[Nick R]

Thanks for your input Rolls, I'll address each of the main points in turn:

Firstly, introducing a new 'Eastern link' and 'Southern link' bus service in East and South Auckland, similar to the popular and well-recognised new inner and outer link bus services. More of these 'link' type loop services should be rolled out to other parts of Auckland.

Yes indeedy, all the lines on the Frequent Transit Network are designed along the same lines as The Link, except for the looping part. Most have been kept as separate straight, 'L shaped' or 'C shaped' routes to avoid the operational and timekeeping issues of loops. Otherwise they are very much the same. The benefits you get from looping (anywhere to anywhere in an area) are superceeded by having a good interconnected grid of frequent routes. Nobody every wants to travel in a circle so if you can get the same connectivity without circles it is generally better.

In addition bus services across Auckland need to be rerouted to provide local loop or feeder routes connecting with the nearest railway station or ferry terminal, rather than having bus routes running parallel routes to train routes. Trains and ferries should be used to provide the main services into the Auckland CBD, with local bus routes feeding into and connecting at various railway stations along the route of train routes.

Done. All routes are designed to do three things: connect to the nearest rapid transit station (rail or busway), link local areas to local and regional centres, and work as part of a wider grid of interconnected routes. Everywhere gets a direct link to their nearest rapid transit station.

The long duplication of the rail lines has been removed, but there are still parts of routes running parallel to the rail lines to give coverage of the road in question. For example there is still a frequent bus service at any point along Great South Rd, but it won't necessarily run all the way from Papakura to Britomart.

All bus routes should have a minimum weekday service frequency of hourly services between 7am to 7pm Monday to Friday and 9am to 5pm on Saturdays.

Ha, we'll do you better than that! At this stage a large part of the network has minimum 15 min frequencies from 7am to 7pm, 7 days. Almost all the rest has 30 minute minimums. Of the few remaining few routes, most have 60 min minimums although there is the odd special case that is tuned to the needs of the area and doesn't run weekends or whatever.


Looking through the rest of your specific comments, you're not too far off the mark at all.

[john-ston]

Nobody every wants to travel in a circle so if you can get the same connectivity without circles it is generally better.

But they do want to travel in differing arcs in the said circle.

Now, here is the very important question - does the plan include making it possible to transfer from one service to another without getting wet? The last thing the average punter wants is to make a transfer and get drenched in the process.

[royce]

If the old bridge across the harbour from Mangere bridge to Onehunga is to be replaced could it become a bus bridge as well as a cycling, walking, fishing and scooter bridge. It would save the buses a lot of shagging about waiting for traffic lights to get on and off the motorway. If you think about it the road route from Onehunga to Mangere bridge is circular crap. The whole route could be done with the buses only having to go through one set of lights rather than the circular stop start that has developed. Buses pedestrians bikes and fishing deserve a better outcome.

[Nick R]

Nobody every wants to travel in a circle so if you can get the same connectivity without circles it is generally better.

But they do want to travel in differing arcs in the said circle.

Precisely, people want to make the various trips available on the circle but not actually travel right around on a loop. So what you need isn't a loop per say, it's good connectivity between the range of points. If you can provide for those trips without the circle then you're usually moving people in a more direct path (People don't really want to travel in arcs either, they'd rather go in a straight line if they can).

Now, here is the very important question - does the plan include making it possible to transfer from one service to another without getting wet? The last thing the average punter wants is to make a transfer and get drenched in the process.

The simple answer is yes. It is a service plan, not an infrastructure one. The infrastructure development plan will come from the service plan. Finally we are doing things the right way, designing infrastructure to facilitate services, not building infrastructure first then trying to fit service to it afterwards. Having said that the service plan is already informing the infrastructure design of various new projects and interchanges.

If the old bridge across the harbour from Mangere bridge to Onehunga is to be replaced could it become a bus bridge as well as a cycling, walking, fishing and scooter bridge. It would save the buses a lot of shagging about waiting for traffic lights to get on and off the motorway. If you think about it the road route from Onehunga to Mangere bridge is circular crap. The whole route could be done with the buses only having to go through one set of lights rather than the circular stop start that has developed. Buses pedestrians bikes and fishing deserve a better outcome.

I really doubt it. The motorway bridge has a dedicated bus lane in each direction so they are unlikely to duplicate that even if it does make a straighter route.

[john-ston]

Precisely, people want to make the various trips available on the circle but not actually travel right around on a loop. So what you need isn't a loop per say, it's good connectivity between the range of points. If you can provide for those trips without the circle then you're usually moving people in a more direct path (People don't really want to travel in arcs either, they'd rather go in a straight line if they can).

Nick, the provision of a loop is the greatest form of connectivity as it allows a user to remain on the service (that is the absolute best option, the best connectivity is inferior to direct services, all else being equal). In terms of the arcs point, from a practical viewpoint, a loop would generally be adopted by people heading say a quarter way around the loop.

Just because some of the transport academics dislike loops doesn't mean that they are correct.

The simple answer is yes. It is a service plan, not an infrastructure one. The infrastructure development plan will come from the service plan. Finally we are doing things the right way, designing infrastructure to facilitate services, not building infrastructure first then trying to fit service to it afterwards. Having said that the service plan is already informing the infrastructure design of various new projects and interchanges.

Well, I hope that we end up with that - because if we don't, then the revamp is essentially for nought (if one thing discourages people from using public transport, it is the risk of getting drenched on a rainy day).

[Nick R]

Precisely, people want to make the various trips available on the circle but not actually travel right around on a loop. So what you need isn't a loop per say, it's good connectivity between the range of points. If you can provide for those trips without the circle then you're usually moving people in a more direct path (People don't really want to travel in arcs either, they'd rather go in a straight line if they can).

Nick, the provision of a loop is the greatest form of connectivity as it allows a user to remain on the service (that is the absolute best option, the best connectivity is inferior to direct services, all else being equal). In terms of the arcs point, from a practical viewpoint, a loop would generally be adopted by people heading say a quarter way around the loop.

A loop isn't a direct service, it's a service that by definition doesn't take you directly to your destination.

I disagree a loop is the greatest form of connectivity. Maybe if you don't value your time, don't have anywhere important to go and don't care about how long it takes to get there it might be. Personally I think the greatest form of connectivity is getting to where you want to be a quickly as possible.

All else is not equal. In the real world we have to deal with resource allocation, funding, timekeeping, traffic congestion, shift breaks, driver demands, varied asymetrical demand, route legibility and passengers. My main issue with Rolls-Royce's earlier ideas for huge long loops around South Auckland was the fact that removes the ability to fit service to suit demand. You either end up running the whole length at the highest service required of any one section of the route, or you have to start doing things like cutting routes short or running them long or other things that end up turfing people off buses when they don't expect it.

And sorry, but if you think it is an efficient use of resources or peoples time to design transit lines that are at best useful for a quarter of their route length then well, I'm glad you're not on our design team! We designed our routes to give useful origin and destination pairs along as close to 100% of their length as possible.

Just because some of the transport academics dislike loops doesn't mean that they are correct.

I disliked loops well before I studied transport and read the theories of academics, that was from using one on a daily basis.

Well, I hope that we end up with that - because if we don't, then the revamp is essentially for nought (if one thing discourages people from using public transport, it is the risk of getting drenched on a rainy day).

[/quote]

Much of the connective network is about allowing for connections between main lines. We don't have that at the moment. Quite frankly in 99% of the new network you could use it just as you use the network today, taking a main bus toward the city or a local centre. If you really don't want to take advantage of the connectivity you won't have to, everyone still has a one seat ride to somewhere useful, usually the CBD.

[Matt L]

Seriously Jodi transferrng isn't an issue providing frequencies are high. Using systems overseas we haven't thought twice about it to get to our destination. I have also noticed that both us and many other passengers would happily transfer even it it was only one extra stop away (and in some cases that stop may have only been a few hundred metres away)

On the issue of arcs the Vienna metro seems to have a good system through the centre of town. The lines U2 & U4 come in and arc around the centre while U1 & U3 cross through it

[john-ston]

FYI, you screwed up the quotes.

A loop isn't a direct service, it's a service that by definition doesn't take you directly to your destination.

Ah, but in the case of a city such as Auckland, the street structure is such that a loop can take you directly to your destination. For instance, someone heading from Point Chevalier to Parnell can take the Outer Link (loop service) and it is direct, if not very nearly direct. Likewise, someone heading from Point Chevalier to St. Lukes (or even Mount Eden Village) is served by a fairly direct run (the most direct run from Point Chevalier to Mount Eden Village does involve a tiki-tour through back roads.

I disagree a loop is the greatest form of connectivity. Maybe if you don't value your time, don't have anywhere important to go and don't care about how long it takes to get there it might be. Personally I think the greatest form of connectivity is getting to where you want to be a quickly as possible.

If you are going from Point Chevalier to Parnell, then the Outer Link takes you where you want to go in probably the quickest amount of time (it might be quicker going via the motorway). Likewise Westmere to Victoria Park, and so on.

All else is not equal. In the real world we have to deal with resource allocation, funding, timekeeping, traffic congestion, shift breaks, driver demands, varied asymetrical demand, route legibility and passengers. My main issue with Rolls-Royce's earlier ideas for huge long loops around South Auckland was the fact that removes the ability to fit service to suit demand. You either end up running the whole length at the highest service required of any one section of the route, or you have to start doing things like cutting routes short or running them long or other things that end up turfing people off buses when they don't expect it.

I agree that loop bus routes should be limited to areas where the demand is fairly uniform. That is why the Inner Link has worked so well. If the Outer Link had, say, replaced the 005, 767 and 007 instead of the 005, 006 and the gap in between, then we might have had some more fairly uniform levels of demand.

I also referred to all else being equal because obviously a continuous trip where you have to wait an hour for the bus is less useful than one with a break in the middle where you need to wait for less time.

And sorry, but if you think it is an efficient use of resources or peoples time to design transit lines that are at best useful for a quarter of their route length then well, I'm glad you're not on our design team! We designed our routes to give useful origin and destination pairs along as close to 100% of their length as possible.

A quarter of their route length for a given individual. The entire route is useful, just not for a given individual (so, using the Outer Link as an example, someone heading from Point Chevalier to Herne Bay; someone heading from Westmere to Victoria Park; someone heading from Ponsonby to the University, and so on).

I suppose consider the spider web public transport design. You have your loops, and they are intersected by straight line routes.

I disliked loops well before I studied transport and read the theories of academics, that was from using one on a daily basis.

Yes, but then that was the Melbourne Loop which could be operated better (whilst retaining the loop).

[john-ston]

Seriously Jodi transferrng isn't an issue providing frequencies are high. Using systems overseas we haven't thought twice about it to get to our destination. I have also noticed that both us and many other passengers would happily transfer even it it was only one extra stop away (and in some cases that stop may have only been a few hundred metres away)

Matt, I have linked to a study before which shows that a transfer on the London Underground is the equivalent of an extra five minutes on the trip (i.e. the trip needs to be five minutes quicker than an alternative journey without a transfer). What one rather conveniently forgets is that in most of those European cities, you don't have the alternatives, so people tolerate the transfer.

EDIT: Another query about the new bus network - are we actually going to get proper timetables that indicate how long it will take to get between various destinations, or are the timetables going to be like the Link ones where you need to do a lot of guess work? Even with five minute frequencies, I would still be keen on knowing what time I need to be at the bus stop by so I can get to a particular destination at a particular time.

[Nick R]

Ah, but in the case of a city such as Auckland, the street structure is such that a loop can take you directly to your destination. For instance, someone heading from Point Chevalier to Parnell can take the Outer Link (loop service) and it is direct, if not very nearly direct.

You don't need a loop for that, that's a straight route.

Likewise, someone heading from Point Chevalier to St. Lukes (or even Mount Eden Village) is served by a fairly direct run (the most direct run from Point Chevalier to Mount Eden Village does involve a tiki-tour through back roads.

Or that...

If you are going from Point Chevalier to Parnell, then the Outer Link takes you where you want to go in probably the quickest amount of time

Or that...

Likewise Westmere to Victoria Park, and so on.

Or that.

You've just described trips on four straight routes on the new network. I'm really not seeing where the circular route would become more advantageous than the direct route?

A quarter of their route length for a given individual. The entire route is useful, just not for a given individual (so, using the Outer Link as an example, someone heading from Point Chevalier to Herne Bay; someone heading from Westmere to Victoria Park; someone heading from Ponsonby to the University, and so on).

So for any given passenger 1/4 of the route is useful and 3/4 isn't. So for all the passengers put together you have 1/4 of the route useful and 3/4 not. Or in other words you're meeting at best 1/4 of the demand for a given amount of service delivery. That's an inefficient route, one that would either be very costly to operate or very poorly patronised (which is basically the same equation).

Why not have a route that for any given individual 100% of the stops was a direct and useful trip? Where you could meet 100% of the actual demand for trips between any two points on the line. That is an efficient and useful route. It's pretty basic, people don't want to travel in circles, so a line that goes in a circle isn't going to be very useful.

[Nick R]

EDIT: Another query about the new bus network - are we actually going to get proper timetables that indicate how long it will take to get between various destinations, or are the timetables going to be like the Link ones where you need to do a lot of guess work? Even with five minute frequencies, I would still be keen on knowing what time I need to be at the bus stop by so I can get to a particular destination at a particular time.

Not on the frequent network, except late at night when the routes may not run to their frequent network minimums. What they will have is the service span and the frequency at each part of the span, e.g. one service every 5 minutes from 8am to 11am, every 10 minutes from 11am to 3pm, etc. This will be paired with a simple chart of travel times between main points.

So you will be able to tell the maximum you could expect to wait at the stop to get a bus, then how long it should take to get to your stop.

There isn't really such thing as a timetable when you get down to the five minute or better frequencies.

[john-ston]

You don't need a loop for that, that's a straight route.

Or that...

Or that...

Or that.

You've just described trips on four straight routes on the new network. I'm really not seeing where the circular route would become more advantageous than the direct route?

The circular route is advantageous because you have a theoretically infinite number of trips on straight routes being serviced by one route, as opposed to having four routes with a forced transfer (and one which is frankly unnecessary) in the middle for those whose origins and destinations are not necessary in the same arc.

So for any given passenger 1/4 of the route is useful and 3/4 isn't. So for all the passengers put together you have 1/4 of the route useful and 3/4 not. Or in other words you're meeting at best 1/4 of the demand for a given amount of service delivery. That's an inefficient route, one that would either be very costly to operate or very poorly patronised (which is basically the same equation).

Nope, you have mixed up differing concepts. Remember, your four straight routes, whilst theoretically being 100% useful, are as equally useful as my loop route which is theoretically 25% useful. You see, my loop route would have high seat utilisation as people board at differing places and get off at differing places, so it is as equally useful, if not more so than your four straight routes.

Why not have a route that for any given individual 100% of the stops was a direct and useful trip? Where you could meet 100% of the actual demand for trips between any two points on the line. That is an efficient and useful route. It's pretty basic, people don't want to travel in circles, so a line that goes in a circle isn't going to be very useful.

Nick, I again refer to your basic spider web model. Assuming four radial routes that interchange in the middle, I would have a single loop route, whilst you would have eight straight line routes. How is having eight straight line routes in that situation more useful than having a single loop route? The fact is that it isn't, so while people do not want to travel in circles, they would use a radial route where a radial route serves their needs and the loop route where the loop routes serves their needs.

Just in case it gets missed, I shall also quote this bit.

EDIT: Another query about the new bus network - are we actually going to get proper timetables that indicate how long it will take to get between various destinations, or are the timetables going to be like the Link ones where you need to do a lot of guess work? Even with five minute frequencies, I would still be keen on knowing what time I need to be at the bus stop by so I can get to a particular destination at a particular time.

[john-ston]

Not on the frequent network, except late at night when the routes may not run to their frequent network minimums. What they will have is the service span and the frequency at each part of the span, e.g. one service every 5 minutes from 8am to 11am, every 10 minutes from 11am to 3pm, etc. This will be paired with a simple chart of travel times between main points.

Surely, you could at least provide a chart of times past the hour.

So you will be able to tell the maximum you could expect to wait at the stop to get a bus, then how long it should take to get to your stop.

Again, chart of times past the hour would help much more than having to do arithmetic. I find it odd that people such as yourself complain that people are complete idiots when it comes to routing patterns, and then expect them to do a large amount arithmetic just to figure out when to leave home.

There isn't really such thing as a timetable when you get down to the five minute or better frequencies.

Nick, if I want to get to a destination by 8:30am and spend the least amount of time commuting, then a timetable is still useful

[Nick R]

Nope, you have mixed up differing concepts. Remember, your four straight routes, whilst theoretically being 100% useful, are as equally useful as my loop route which is theoretically 25% useful. You see, my loop route would have high seat utilisation as people board at differing places and get off at differing places, so it is as equally useful, if not more so than your four straight routes.

Sorry JJ but you're not making a valid comparison. You are comparing one long route to four routes 1/4 the length. What you need to do is compare one loop line to a straight line the same length. Say a loop of twenty stops spaced every 500m in comparison to a line with twenty stops spaced every 500m.

You still have the same number of stops, same number of possible origin and destination pairs and you still have people boarding and getting off at differing places. The difference is that with a straight route every other stop is always in a straight line from any given stop, i.e. the most direct route possible. On a loop line from any given stops about a quarter of the other stops are on a reasonably straight path, a quarter quite indirect, another quarter very indirect and the remaining quarter extremely circuitous.

So no, on my line with twenty stops 100% of pairs are a useful direct route. On your ring with twenty stops only 25% of pairs are a useful direct route. With an equivalent distribution of demands across the stops in either case, you would expect you loop to attract about a quarter to half the patronage of a straight route.

Surely, you could at least provide a chart of times past the hour.

You want a a chart that says: "Buses arrive here at 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50 and 55 minutes past the hour"? I think that's a touch unneccesary.

Even at the lesser frequencies, to produce such a chart limits the ability to modify the schedule to suit demand. Say you have a "bus at least every ten minutes" run. That's the minimum you have to provide, but you can also boost that to meet demand and have one every three minutes during say, the first week of uni semester. With the near useless chart you'd need to either go out and replace them all the time, or lose the ability to match service to demand on the fly.

There isn't really such thing as a timetable when you get down to the five minute or better frequencies.

Nick, if I want to get to a destination by 8:30am and spend the least amount of time commuting, then a timetable is still useful

A timetable on five minute or better frequencies would be useless. Any service is going to vary from the timetable by a minute or two, and minute or two on a five minute headway is 20% to 40% slip in the timetable. Go to four minute headways and your timetable would be wrong more often than not. Are you really that pedantic (and confident in bus timekeeping) to try and plan a trip around a five minute headway?

Nick, I again refer to your basic spider web model. Assuming four radial routes that interchange in the middle, I would have a single loop route, whilst you would have eight straight line routes. How is having eight straight line routes in that situation more useful than having a single loop route? The fact is that it isn't, so while people do not want to travel in circles, they would use a radial route where a radial route serves their needs and the loop route where the loop routes serves their needs.

I don't quite know what you mean by my basic spider web model, or where in Auckland we have a ring of demand in isolation that requires either a loop line or some (eight was it?) straight line routes.
There is no where where a loop route serves peoples needs because people never want to take a bus in a loop. The might take a short part of a loop line where it approximates a straight path between where they area and where they want to go. But if there is a straight line instead, they can simply take that. Where is the greater benefit of a loop? If I'm standing at a bus stop, what single benefit can come from the fact that the bus I'm about to catch comes right round in a big circle back to where I am already standing? Do you actually believe there are people that like to ride buses around in circles without a destination?

So you will be able to tell the maximum you could expect to wait at the stop to get a bus, then how long it should take to get to your stop.

Again, chart of times past the hour would help much more than having to do arithmetic. I find it odd that people such as yourself complain that people are complete idiots when it comes to routing patterns, and then expect them to do a large amount arithmetic just to figure out when to leave home.

What large amount of arithmetic is involved in something like "the bus comes every five minutes, and takes ten minutes to get there"?

[Rolls-Royce]

Well, I hope that we end up with that - because if we don't, then the revamp is essentially for nought (if one thing discourages people from using public transport, it is the risk of getting drenched on a rainy day).

This is a very true point. Anyone who regularly uses public transport on a daily basis will know how the number of people using either the bus, train or ferry on a wet rainy day dips quite noticeably and how roads become much more congested on wet days. This is largely due to 1) there not being enough shelter at either bus stops, railway stations or ferry terminals - many of the upgraded railway stations don't have enough shelter and seating, and some bus stops don't even have a shelter!, 2) parents of school children taking their kids to school in the car when they would normally otherwise be walking, cycling, or catching a bus to school.

The advantage of the two loops I propose - the Eastern and Southern, is with one bus, you can stay on that same bus and get to most of the main destinations along the most common routes in that area, without having to change buses or make multiple trips. This is a big appeal with the current link services and it is easy for the average person to understand, particularly those who are not regular uses of public transport. Keeping it simple makes it much more appealing and likely to be used - one of the reasons train services are so much more popular than bus services when there is a choice between the two.

In reality, even though these two services are described as loops, they are relatively direct for bus services, linking most of the main hubs and destinations in these areas. As JJ points out, most people will only use part of the route for the journey, not literally go right round the loop for most journeys. Naturally you would expect the loop to have services running regularly in both directions to make it practical.

Don't dismiss or write off the idea just because you see the word loop and think circles, in reality it is not with these two proposed Eastern and Southern links. It Is the way these suburbs have developed and the way destinations and main hubs happen to be laid out in these areas, which would make such a loop service practical. Seriously look into them.

[Rolls-Royce]

One other area which needs better public transport is the Takanini area. However as most of the development - both residential and commercial, is mostly spread along the railway line, a new additional railway station needs to be built midway between Takanini and Papakura stations at Walters Road to serve the Addison, Tironui, Southgate and Longford Park areas, rather than introducing any new bus routes through this area.

[Matt L]

Rolls-Royce apart from other issues Nick and Jodi have been debating, loops are terrible for timekeeping. Because there is no start or end point it makes it really easy for services to bunch up and throw frequencies out. The outer link suffers from this quite a bit and the only way to try and combat it is to put timing stops in which holds up passengers already on the bus. This also happens with rail systems and is why London broke the circle on the circle line to improve its performance.

[kaiwhara]

Jodi, I am opposed to circular routes if for no other reason than that they are inherently appalling at keeping to any sort of timetable, whether a Frequency based one like the link or an actual posted timetable. This is why the Outer Link does so much annoying and unproductive sitting around, this is why London's Circle Line is now a backwards 6 on its side - because it routinely lost time at Edgeware Road and Aldgate - and in doing so managed to throughly screw the Metropolitan and District Lines up (my minder driver was a District Line driver, he can attest to this), it is the reason our Inner Link bunches so badly (I think writing a timetable saying two buses every 25v minutes would be far more accurate than telling us a bus every 15 minutes) and will only ever be useful for short trips, based on its very nature of being a damn circle - not known for its straight lines!