Manukau Branch Thread

[john-ston]

Which problem would you rather have? Too many people using trains or not enough? Currently we have the latter.

I would beg to differ; while many trains don't have enough passengers, some peak services have too much.

Full services, while annoying and infuriating in the moment, are likely to make a good case to justify more funding in the longer run (think CRL).

Andrew, you know, and I know that full trains did not make a good case to justify more funding in the longer run back in the 1990s - even though peak trains were running at crush load for the best part of eight years. The best way to justify more funding is an increase in off-peak patronage - through increasing off-peak patronage, you reduce the level of subsidy required and make people realise that perhaps public transport isn't so much of a drain on the budget as people thought it was.

A Manukau station has been considered ever since Manukau was created.

That's news to me - I never quite realised that a Manukau Station has been considered ever since 1876!

The political decision was when the old MCC voted to not contribute extra funds to the project to build a Davies Ave bridge to allow the tracks to pass under to a station in the old MCC offices carpark. Whether that was a sober piece of budgeting or a move by Quax and his buddies to avoid spending anything on public transport if they can help it I don't know, but it certainly was political.

Surely Len Brown could have said something then - but he didn't and I am surprised that no-one points it out. When I point out that it was under the first Banks council that the current CBD Loop plans came out, everyone makes all manner of excuses.

The current rules do not allow trains reversing direction at Puhinui without filling in a dreaded SWA1! So no, you can't run Papakura to Manukau via Puhinui...

Out of curiousity, what is dreaded about an SWA1?

Apparently Veolia's timetable planners were prevented from drawing up a new timetable with good network connections by AT, who instructed them to not make any changes to existing services, and just splice the Manukau trains into the available gaps. Thus, we have situations such as empty Manukau-Britomart trains running right behind overloaded Papakura-Britomart trains, and a 56 minute transfer wait at Otahuhu if you want to go to Newmarket.

Although the opposite of that is if you wanted to get from Papakura to, say, Sylvia Park, you would end up with a lengthy transfer wait. Until the Manukau Line opened, there was no direct public transport connection between Manukau and the likes of Sylvia Park, whilst there has been a direct public transport connection between Manukau and Newmarket since at least the 1970s.

Some new blood, even some un-degreed members of this board, would have been a major advance on some of the entrenched attitudes that have persisted at official level since time immemorial!

Is that a snipe at me?

One day I'm going set out what I would do if I ruled the world (owned the NZ railway system, that is)

Ah, is a what would I do if I became dictator thread in the offing?

[Andrew]

Andrew, you know, and I know that full trains did not make a good case to justify more funding in the longer run back in the 1990s - even though peak trains were running at crush load for the best part of eight years. The best way to justify more funding is an increase in off-peak patronage - through increasing off-peak patronage, you reduce the level of subsidy required and make people realise that perhaps public transport isn't so much of a drain on the budget as people thought it was.

If memory serves, full services on the Western line somehow resulted in funding to lengthen west line platforms from two cars to four in the 1990s to allow four-car DMUs to run sometime around 1998. So patronage growth started slowly and from a very low base, but that was the first Auckland rail expansion in my lifetime that I know of resulting from it. I'd say that was the tiny, humble origin of the demand snowball which continues to grow today.

While Britomart was built to encourage patronage growth rather then being a result of it, that growth led to service demand, which in turn necessitated the west line double tracking (which due to demand expanded to include segments that weren't originally going to happen - New Lynn, Grafton), platform extensions and weekend trains (ie offpeak) out east, the SAs, further platform lengthening, then electrification funding which is underway now. Each has led to the demand putting pressure on funders to (sometimes/often reluctantly) proceed with the next step.

Demand has led us to having Britomart at near-capacity well before even the most optimistic forecasts. I'm not so sure electrification would be happening now, nor would I have expected support for the CRL would be so strong, if it weren't for that demand.

[john-ston]

If memory serves, full services on the Western line somehow resulted in funding to lengthen west line platforms from two cars to four in the 1990s to allow four-car DMUs to run sometime around 1998. So patronage growth started slowly and from a very low base, but that was the first Auckland rail expansion in my lifetime that I know of resulting from it. I'd say that was the tiny, humble origin of the demand snowball which continues to grow today.

If I am not mistaken, services on all lines remained pretty packed from there until the introduction of the SA sets in 2004.

While Britomart was built to encourage patronage growth rather then being a result of it, that growth led to service demand, which in turn necessitated the west line double tracking (which due to demand expanded to include segments that weren't originally going to happen - New Lynn, Grafton), platform extensions and weekend trains (ie offpeak) out east, the SAs, further platform lengthening, then electrification funding which is underway now. Each has led to the demand putting pressure on funders to (sometimes/often reluctantly) proceed with the next step.

Yes, but that has been due to demand increases of a reasonable level - it hasn't been due to insane levels of crush loading. Insane levels of crush loading simply discourage people from using the system and make it harder to get them back.

[Andrew]

If people leave due to crush loading, then doesn't that make demand return to "a reasonable level"? ie some leave because of crush loading, reducing said crush loading. It happens every year, crushloads in February and March, then some are put off by it all and crowding goes down.

Even if those specific people don't come back, others will take their place when capacity is added.

Although I think the best way to encourage growth is to improve services in late January in time for February and March Madness. That way more people stay. (The extra time from Jan to Feb is for services to settle in from operational changes).

[john-ston]

If people leave due to crush loading, then doesn't that make demand return to "a reasonable level"? ie some leave because of crush loading, reducing said crush loading. It happens every year, crushloads in February and March, then some are put off by it all and crowding goes down.

Yes, but every person who is discouraged from using public transport is another person who sits behind the wheel of their car, contributing to congestion statistics.

Even if those specific people don't come back, others will take their place when capacity is added.

That depends - every bad story results in a number of people who will not take public transport because so and so had a bad experience. It is like with any other service - one bad story results in the loss of several potential customers.

Although I think the best way to encourage growth is to improve services in late January in time for February and March Madness. That way more people stay. (The extra time from Jan to Feb is for services to settle in from operational changes).

If you are looking at adding services, sure; if you are looking at making more permanent changes, I would suggest June/July would probably be a good time - things have quietened down and you still have a short term boost in August to test things out.

[Andrew]

I'd suggest that if there's a flow of people having bad PT experiences due to overcrowding changing to driving, and if that leads to congestion, there would then also be a flow of people having bad experiences of traffic congestion changing to PT (where PT has route protection or priority).

[john-ston]

I'd suggest that if there's a flow of people having bad PT experiences due to overcrowding changing to driving, and if that leads to congestion, there would then also be a flow of people having bad experiences of traffic congestion changing to PT (where PT has route protection or priority).

Net result still the same - we want more people to use public transport and to stay loyal to it; we do not want a situation where people are discouraged from using it.

[jarbury]

Are you arguing for peak pricing john-ston to encourage more off peak travel?

[john-ston]

Are you arguing for peak pricing john-ston to encourage more off peak travel?

Not at this point in time - service provision needs to be improved throughout the day to a comprehensive area. If it is possible to be within 500 metres of a bus stop providing a service with a minimum frequency of 15 minutes or better, then that should encourage a massive uptake in off-peak patronage.

It is certainly doable with elements of the current network, and at least on the isthmus wouldn't take so much work.

[Chris Randal.]

Is that a snipe at me?

Not this time.

[jarbury]

Not at this point in time - service provision needs to be improved throughout the day to a comprehensive area. If it is possible to be within 500 metres of a bus stop providing a service with a minimum frequency of 15 minutes or better, then that should encourage a massive uptake in off-peak patronage.

It is certainly doable with elements of the current network, and at least on the isthmus wouldn't take so much work.

You have seen this right? http://transportblog.co.nz/2012/04/05/t ... s-network/

[john-ston]

Yes I have, and I believe that it doesn't provide a comprehensive enough service (although I'll grant that is only based on looking at the isthmus routes, I have not looked much at the other parts of Auckland yet). Also, I believe that it proposes too much change for the sake of it - you could just as easily get the same effect (at least on the isthmus, as I said before, I haven't looked at the other parts of Auckland yet) by doing some minor tweaks to current routes and trimming off all the excess route variations.

[Nick R]

You are saying that this isn't comprehensive enough?

And what not comprehensive enough, yet also too much change and could be better achieved with minor tweaking. So which is it??

[jarbury]

The key element of that new network is that it runs the same vehicle km as the current network. If john-ston wants to double the vehicle km then he'd better get on the line to Gerry Brownlee to ask for another $100m a year or so in subsidies.

[john-ston]

The key element of that new network is that it runs the same vehicle km as the current network. If john-ston wants to double the vehicle km then he'd better get on the line to Gerry Brownlee to ask for another $100m a year or so in subsidies.

Ah, but what you fail to factor in is that improvements to services results in increased patronage (thus resulting in improved farebox revenue), and thus reduces the need for subsidies. You could easily get away with running double the vehicle kilometres as the current network if your fare revenue grew at a similar rate - and if you had frequency improvements, then you could get that growth in fare revenue. I wouldn't know the exact details, but I bet that the 881 run still needs the same level of subsidy now that it did five years ago when there were only four services Auckland bound in the am peak and four services North Shore bound in the pm peak.

The problem is that to date, the improvements to frequency have been few and far between. I bet you that many of the services in Auckland still run to similar timetables they did back in the late 1990s. Where there have been improvements to frequency, you have seen patronage climb through the roof.

You are saying that this isn't comprehensive enough?

The 15 minute headway or greater network isn't comprehensive enough - particularly outside the isthmus (at least in terms of West Auckland). In terms of the isthmus routes, you could scrap the blue routes, and add about an extra six to nine red routes and then it would be sufficiently comprehensive.

And what not comprehensive enough, yet also too much change and could be better achieved with minor tweaking. So which is it??

The proposed high frequency network is not comprehensive enough; there is too much change for the sake of change (with the isthmus, for instance, you could a comprehensive network by cutting out virtually all the route variations and hiking frequencies where necessary).

[geoff_184]

The key element of that new network is that it runs the same vehicle km as the current network.

I personally like the plan. However, does the overall route kilometres take into account the necessary extra days of operation? E.g., Swanson currently has no trains or buses on Sundays, but I assume the new plan will have them there seven days a week?

Speaking of which Josh, what happened to all the rail improvements AT said in December would be implemented in March? I.e., additional Onehunga trains, 6tph to Henderson, Sunday trains to Swanson etc? I did ask Ms Hunter, but she didn't reply, so I'm guessing it's "sensitive"? Is it lack of staff, lack of trains, or lack of money?

[jarbury]

Obviously I can only discuss what's in the public domain, but if you look at the map Nick posted it shows the railway lines as being part of the frequent network.

One would assume that means that the railway services would meet the necessary standard to be part of that network: i.e. running at least every 15 minutes, all day, every day - across the whole rail network (except Onehunga & Pukekohe).

I'm not really sure about the timetable issue. Probably a question to put formally to Auckland Transport.

[Nick R]

The key element of that new network is that it runs the same vehicle km as the current network.

I personally like the plan. However, does the overall route kilometres take into account the necessary extra days of operation? E.g., Swanson currently has no trains or buses on Sundays, but I assume the new plan will have them there seven days a week?

Without wanting to reveal too much, the same vehicle-km comment applies to the bus network. Trains and ferries are separate in those terms due to their unique contractual arrangements.

So in the case of Swanson, the half hourly minimum all day service level for buses comes out of that existing pot of bus-km, including adding all the Sunday services. That's the real beauty of this network model, cutting out the worst inefficiencies of the existing system (and there are some almighty wastes of bus-km!) provides a heap of service to feed back into the network of frequent all-day routes. The rail on the other hand isn't included in that budget, but we are talking implementation over the next four or five years so by then half hourly service all day all week from Swanson to Papakura will hopefully be a reality regardless.

The key element of that new network is that it runs the same vehicle km as the current network. If john-ston wants to double the vehicle km then he'd better get on the line to Gerry Brownlee to ask for another $100m a year or so in subsidies.

Ah, but what you fail to factor in is that improvements to services results in increased patronage (thus resulting in improved farebox revenue), and thus reduces the need for subsidies. You could easily get away with running double the vehicle kilometres as the current network if your fare revenue grew at a similar rate

If you doubled the vehicle km and got double the fare revenue you'd still need double the subsidy. If you double the vehicle-km and wanted to keep the subsidy the same you'd need to quadruple the farebox take.

Anyway we don't need to double the vehicle-km, Auckland already runs a ridiculously high number of service-km for the patronage it receives, in comparison to peer cities in North America we are pissing km's down the drain. We just need to run those km properly.

This network will result in huge patronage gains and therefore huge farebox increases... without a single extra bus bought or man-hour of labour paid for. It will really just mean vastly superior service for the people at no extra cost to the ratepayer... in fact we'll see far less subsidy per trip.

Ok so maybe in the future we will see demand for a much more intensive network and we can justify spending more subsidy, but that would be stage 2. Stage 1 has to be getting the existing network to be remotely efficient. No point taking an inefficient dog of a network and throwing even more money at it to get a larger inefficient dog of a network.

You are saying that this isn't comprehensive enough?

The 15 minute headway or greater network isn't comprehensive enough - particularly outside the isthmus (at least in terms of West Auckland). In terms of the isthmus routes, you could scrap the blue routes, and add about an extra six to nine red routes and then it would be sufficiently comprehensive.

Erm, have you had a look at a map of the existing network that has 15 min or better frequencies all-day every-day? Probably not because those maps haven't been made public, but I'll give you an idea. Hold your hand out in front of you and spread your finger out wide. Now imagine that each of your five fingers is a bus route on the isthmus. Thats what the current 'red line' frequent network looks like. Just remember again, this is simply a reorganisation of the existing network resources into an efficient arrangement.

[john-ston]

If you doubled the vehicle km and got double the fare revenue you'd still need double the subsidy. If you double the vehicle-km and wanted to keep the subsidy the same you'd need to quadruple the farebox take.

That assumes that by doubling the number of vehicle kilometres, you get double the cost.

Anyway we don't need to double the vehicle-km, Auckland already runs a ridiculously high number of service-km for the patronage it receives, in comparison to peer cities in North America we are pissing km's down the drain. We just need to run those km properly.

The reason why is because we have millions of variations - the last time I counted, we had 380 unique bus routes. Cut the variations down and hike the frequencies, and you can get a proper network with high frequencies without going on an excessive changing spree.

This network will result in huge patronage gains and therefore huge farebox increases... without a single extra bus bought or man-hour of labour paid for. It will really just mean vastly superior service for the people at no extra cost to the ratepayer... in fact we'll see far less subsidy per trip.

And meanwhile, there will still be a large number of people that will not be near a high frequency bus service.

Ok so maybe in the future we will see demand for a much more intensive network and we can justify spending more subsidy, but that would be stage 2. Stage 1 has to be getting the existing network to be remotely efficient. No point taking an inefficient dog of a network and throwing even more money at it to get a larger inefficient dog of a network.

As I said above, and as I have said for at least the last two years, the main problem with the network is the excessive number of variations. Cut down on the number of variations, and you get your more efficient network without needing to go on an excessive changing spree.

Erm, have you had a look at a map of the existing network that has 15 min or better frequencies all-day every-day? Probably not because those maps haven't been made public, but I'll give you an idea. Hold your hand out in front of you and spread your finger out wide. Now imagine that each of your five fingers is a bus route on the isthmus. Thats what the current 'red line' frequent network looks like. Just remember again, this is simply a reorganisation of the existing network resources into an efficient arrangement.

Nick, that map, if I am not mistaken, was in some report a few months back. My comment is that the 15 minute or better map doesn't factor in those services which are "almost there" and could be 15 minute or better runs with a quick tweak. In that category I include runs that have 15 minute or better headways during weekdays and it is only poor weekend service that lets it down (the 500/501 service as far as Botany would be an example of this). I also include in that category runs that have 20 minute headways. With a minor tweak, those runs would be in your 15 minute or better map.

I'm not really sure about the timetable issue. Probably a question to put formally to Auckland Transport.

I had heard from somewhere (someone might have even made a post on this Board about it) that the timetable issue was due to a lack of staff, but I wouldn't be 100% sure about it.

[john-ston]

The current rules do not allow trains reversing direction at Puhinui without filling in a dreaded SWA1! So no, you can't run Papakura to Manukau via Puhinui...

Out of curiousity, what is dreaded about an SWA1?

Kaiwhara, I don't think I ever got an answer to this question.